stupid, evil, and corrupt

POSTED BY: rue
UPDATED: Wednesday, March 25, 2026 22:34
VIEWED: 5904
PAGE 9 of 13

I'm really not sure who it is you're responding to, because despite the fact I received the notification and you've quoted me in your post you’re sure as hell not responding to me.

All I said is words is cheap. DT says ridiculous things like "dogs are more intelligent than people" and when you ask him to back it up with something outside his own words he either ignores you or throws a tantrum. Kind of destroys his credibility.

I said if you want to be taken seriously you have to bring something that goes beyond your word for it, some reason why you think X. Now you always say "I'm prepared to bring evidence" then you erm, don't. It's not just me saying or noticing that. So rather than telling us you're going to back up your claims why don't you just do it, and then when as you say sigy fails to back up his claims your burden of evidence is sure to sweep him away, no?

---

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I'm going to butt in to this amazingly confusing conversation.

Auraptor,

I could be mistaken, but it's my understanding that SignyM is a chick.

Yes, there is something to the Plame case. It's very simple, unlike this thread.

Plame was the head of a WMD CIA research division, which is, as you suggested some time ago, a desk job. By exposing her identity, they forced her sources to become dried up, or killed, and effectively put her out of work, which was undoubtedly the goal. The purpose of this was to hinder the CIA's independent WMD research division, to prevent a vision of intelligence contrary to the fantasy concocted by the executive from reaching the light of day before critical decisions were made.

And sure, it was not a revenge case. There are a ton of arguments bouncing around that aren't strongly anchored in reality because everyone is kind of stabbing around in the dark, which is pretty much where we all are in this current political environment.

I recognize, btw, that a democratic coup is a serious possibility, and that there's a reason to fear it from a partisan point of view. That said, this Administration is clearly way over the line, whereever the line was. I would have been terribly happy if someone had taken my idea of a republican impeachment of Bush, and in a completely GOP controlled congress, we could have gotten a sane republican replacement for Bush, and that person could have run for re-election in 2008.

Now, sadly, it's probably going to be too late for that plan. Congress, not surprisingly, sat on its hands until opportunity went away again, and in a couple months we will probably get a democratic majority, if the media is to be believed. This means we're in for two years of stymieying (sp?) which, admittedly, there are worse things than, esp. when the agenda is this bad.

But, then our problem comes. I think that the republican controlled exectuve and congressional leadership, by which I mean Frist and DeLay have screwed things up so badly that 2008 is fairly hopeless. What's going to make matters worse is that Lou Dobbs or someone very much like him, will run as an independent, and my worst fear will be realized: ie. President Hillary Rodham Clinton.

With a democratically controlled congress, Hillary will go ape on a radical big govt. agenda, and a Clinton style serial war, and the Media will spend so much time kissing her hand that the people won't notice that they're taxes are going up, spending is going up, govt. is grow, but america is losing its sovereignty, and we're slaughtering more civilians with the "protect american lives at the cost of everybody else's millions" way of conducting foreign policy.

The hard reality is that in spite of the media's fantasy of surprise results and upset elections, no one ever won an election at the last minute. Elections were won years ahead of time. The one we should be working on is 2012. If the MSM loves Hillary the way they loved her husband, and they will, and we don't have a decent alternative media, the people will never know about the million people she's killed in Iran and South America, (and North Korea?) If they don't know, then they will resoundingly re-elect her, and by 2016, the USSA will be a reality.

Since I think that Bush is essentially Clinton, and I think there's a sound policy and personel tie in there, I see this as a big long agenda to transform what used to be the USA into the next soviet union, or worse, a socialist/corporatist one world govt.

On a side note, there's not really any point in getting too worked up about losing this current govt. to the democrats, because we essentially have a democrat now. Bush's backers, the neocons, *are* the old social democrats, and they've yacked in the background for many years, and I mistook them for random conservative hawks, but now that I've seen the whole thing in action, I see that they are pretty much unchanged, they basically are democrats. The only thing that save Bush from being a total unmitigated disaster (If anything does) is that he has to make

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

I was replying to both you and Sig, for you 2 made the same lame charge that I don't back up my claims. I do. Where it seems I fail in your eyes is that instead of relying on link upon link, I have the ability to speak my mind on a topic. I don't treat this as a Debate 101 class. I'm more than aware of the importance of citing references and the like, but so often in the past I've gotten into a pointless contest of 'whose link is more valid ' because folks on the other side don't like the conclusions from this or that link...it ends up , kinda like this, folks talking in circles. I don't have time for that.

Citing references and backing up claims is nice. It's important, but one should also not live for the 'link' as the sole ability to respond when discussing a topic.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

The burden of proof lies upon those making the claims. I have been willing to back up my cliams, you've just not been interested in what I say.

---

Auraptor- you have not been willing to back up your claims either by reasoning or by evidence (lack of links) I named about eight threads in which you posted extensively with no links, and did not back up ANY of your claims:
Kerry was planning to assasinate the President
there is no evidence that Bush had ordered widespread surveillance
it's not required by law to get warrants for snooping on people
the economy is booming...

and the rest of those propaganda points that you scarf up from right-wing radio and then insist on mindlessly parrotting on this website. You should know by now that the rest of us are just a little more intelligent than that, and your pattern is crystal clear.

BTW- As loony as PN is, he's a FAR better contributor than you. He looks things up, he references his sources, about 75% of what he says is true, verifiable, and off the radar of most folks.

And, I'm going to add something about the importance of citing your sources: Since none of us are doing "original research" everything we think we know about a topic is something that we have been told by someone else. It is extremely helpful to be able to look at a person's sources: How close are they to the "original research"? Do they have expertize in the topic of their opinion? As you might have gathered from my other posts, I'm not overly impressed wtih "authoritative" opinion. But who do you think I'm going to take more seriously about (for example) Saddam's WMD? Hannity? Or the people who were there: Blix, Kay, and Duelfer Unless someone can provide a cogent argument to support your opinion which contradicts the opinion of people who were mired right in the research, I will not take your opinion very seriously.

And YOU are neither authorititive nor cogent. YOU make hit-and-run statements that not backed up either by evidence or logic. You're just a shit stain on Limbaugh's extra-wide whities. A person with the mind of a parrot who can't even reason their way around their own talking-points. No wonder you feel so akin to Bush.

Quote:

---

Sig says I'm willing to trade my freedoms for security. That is a false statement. He offers my own words, and then the wrong conclusion that because I say Bush is right in something, that means I'm giving up my freedoms. Not one of my freedoms have been given up

---

I'm going to respond to this in detail. As far as I can tell from your posts, criminals, suspects, peace activists, people who might be peace activists, and for all I know environmentalists, people who disagree with the President in any way, people who MIGHT disagree with the President in any way.... have no right to Fourth Ammendment rights, or due process. But YOU'RE a fine upstanding citizen and therefore you have not given up YOUR rights in any way. Just like the white Nazi felt safe under Hitler, right?

So tell me, in detail- how do you think that Bush has NOT violated the Fourth Ammendment and Fourteenth Ammendments.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

dream, we're gonna disagree on this, no question about it.

Quote:

---

By exposing her identity, they forced her sources to become dried up, or killed, and effectively put her out of work, which was undoubtedly the goal. The purpose of this was to hinder the CIA's independent WMD research division, to prevent a vision of intelligence contrary to the fantasy concocted by the executive from reaching the light of day before critical decisions were made.

---

First, you don't know her identity was exposed with any intent. Armitage sure didn't give any indication of that. You problbly should ask Joe Wilson what was on HIS mind when he outted his wife. Second, you don't know what became of her sources. It's pure specualation based on the idea that she was still in the same positon she had been years before. She wasn't. Also, it was the CIA's director George Tenent ( appointed by Clinton) who said that WMD in Iraq was "..a slam dunk ". Why would the administration then turn around and try to sabotage the CIA which essentially had given the green light to invade Iraq? Your internal conclusions don't bear out in the real world.

It's easy to play Monday morning QB and say this or that SHOULD have been knonwn. Hell yeah, in a perfect world, we'd have video of OBL meeting w/ the 9/11 terrorist and Saddam gassing his own citizens..oh, wait. Never mind. But the point is, there were a lot of screw ups , all by career folks who had their asses on the line, and no one ready to step up to the plate. Except Tenent. He later gives some squishy ' they wanted me to gloss over the intel ' excuse, as if he's somehow not culpable for not doing his job. Amazing. If the President can't trust the CIA Director to give him a straight, honest answer, then who will ?

And btw, none of that does away w/ the fact that Saddam ignored 17 UN Resolutions and defied every attempt until the end to come clean on his WMD. Fault the U.N. for aiding Saddam all the while trying to vilify him, but THAT's another story.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Anger management, look into it.

---

At least I can keep this disagreement here.

I can only wonder what the content of your deleted posts was .

Quote:

---

"dogs are more intelligent than people"

Is not what I said.

---

I know, but what you said, without any attempt to back it up is just as far out there.

Quote:

---

I said , according to the intelligence trends, about 150,000 years ago, when humans and dogs began their association with one another, dogs were more intelligent than people, by about 10 eq points or so, which is the margin by which a middle of the road downes syndrome case is smarter than a chimpanzee. It's and interesting thought. It may explain why we feed dogs. Of course, since then, dogs have been getting steadily dumber, and humans, up until about 40,000 years ago, were getting smarter.

---

What it doesn't explain is why people are the only animal to domesticate another, except dogs which actually domesticated people in your theory, but then this went upside down because dogs got less intelligent through some unknown mechanism. I'll ask for proof, data, anything outside of your own say so again, let’s see if you ignore that request again.

Also "I don't have time to back up what I say" doesn't impress me, if you don't have time to back up what you say; I don't have time to listen.

---

More insane ramblings by the people who brought you beeeer milkshakes!
No one can see their reflection in running water. It is only in still water that we can see.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

You problbly should ask Joe Wilson what was on HIS mind when he outted his wife

---

When? Where? This is yet another one of those unsubstantiated hit-and-run talking points. Like Kerry was planning to assasinate the President. As YOU YOURSELF JUST SAID

Quote:

---

The burden of proof lies upon those making the claims.

---

Look Auraptor- either straighten up or we'll ignore you off the board.

---------------------------------
Reality sucks. Especially when it contradicts our cherished ideas.

NOTIFY: Y  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SignyM:

Look Auraptor- either straighten up or we'll ignore you off the board.

---

Oh dear lord, NOT THAT! Anything but THAT! *laughs* Too funny.

But you do post a valid question, where did Joe Wilson out his own wife ?

Well, there's this...

Quote:

---

WND Exclusive THE PLAME GAME
Analyst says Wilson
'outed' wife in 2002
Disclosed in casual conversations
a year before Novak column
Posted: November 5, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern

By Art Moore
© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

A retired Army general says the man at the center of the CIA leak controversy, Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson, revealed his wife Valerie Plame's employment with the agency in a casual conversation more than a year before she allegedly was "outed" by the White House through a columnist.

Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely told WorldNetDaily that Wilson mentioned Plame's status as a CIA employee over the course of at least three, possibly five, conversations in 2002 in the Fox News Channel's "green room" in Washington, D.C., as they waited to appear on air as analysts. http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47242

---

And then there's this...

Quote:

---

So if Novak did not reveal that Valerie Plame was a secret agent, who did? The evidence strongly suggests it was none other than Joe Wilson himself. Let me walk you through the steps that lead to this conclusion.

The first reference to Plame being a secret agent appears in The Nation, in an article by David Corn published July 16, 2003, just two days after Novak’s column appeared. It carried this lead: “Did Bush officials blow the cover of a U.S. intelligence officer working covertly in a field of vital importance to national security — and break the law — in order to strike at a Bush administration critic and intimidate others?”

Since Novak did not report that Plame was “working covertly” how did Corn know that’s what she had been doing?

Corn does not tell his readers and he has responded to a query from me only by pointing out that he was asking a question, not making a “statement of fact.” But in the article, he asserts that Novak “outed” Plame “as an undercover CIA officer.” Again, Novak did not do that. Rather, it is Corn who is, apparently for the first time, “outing” Plame’s “undercover” status.

Corn follows that assertion with a quote from Wilson saying, “I will not answer questions about my wife.” Any reporter worth his salt would immediately wonder: Did Wilson indeed answer Corn’s questions about his wife — after Corn agreed not to quote his answers but to use them only on background? Read the rest of Corn’s piece and it’s difficult to believe anything else. Corn names no other sources for the information he provides — and he provides much more information than Novak revealed.

Corn also claims that Wilson “will not confirm nor deny that his wife …works for the CIA.” Corn adds: “But let’s assume she does. That would seem to mean that the Bush administration has screwed one of its own top-secret operatives in order to punish Wilson …”

On what basis could Corn “assume” that Plame was not only working covertly but was actually a “top-secret” operative? And where did Corn get the idea that Plame had been “outed” in order to punish Wilson? That is not suggested by anything in the Novak column which, as I noted, is sympathetic to Wilson and Plame.

The likely answer: The allegation that someone in the administration leaked to Novak as a way to punish Wilson was made by Wilson — to Corn. But Corn, rather than quote Wilson, puts the idea forward as his own.

Keep in mind that from early on there were two possible but contradictory scenarios:

1) Members of the Bush administration intentionally exposed a covert CIA agent as a way to take revenge against her husband who had written a critical op-ed.

2) Members of the Bush administration were attempting to set the record straight by telling reporters that it was not Vice President Cheney who sent Wilson on the Africa assignment as Wilson claimed; rather Wilson’

NOTIFY: N  | REPLY  | REPLY WITH QUOTE  | PERMALINK  | TOP  | HOME