Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » General Comments » GOP House leadership should resign (Page 4)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   
Author Topic: GOP House leadership should resign
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Here's an interesting development:
quote:

A posting on ABCNEWS.COM of an unredacted instant message sessions between Rep. Mark Foley and a former congressional page has exposed the identity of the now 21 year-old accuser.

The website PASSIONATE AMERICA detailed the startling exposure late Wednesday.

ABCNEWS said in a statement: "We go to great lengths to prevent the names of alleged sex crime victims from being revealed. On Friday there was a very brief technical glitch on our site which was overridden immediately."

But the PASSIONATE AMERICA webmaster tells the OKLAHOMAN that "he stumbled onto the former page's AOL screen name when looking at transcripts of the instant messages on ABC's Web site Saturday. He said he typed a slightly-different Web address into his browser and found a version of the transcript with the screen name. He claims the AOL name of the young man was still on ABCNEWS.COM before he posted his story on Wednesday.

The AOL name of the young man was kept unredacted and housed on ABCNEWS.COM servers for 5 days! The information could be publicly accessed.

On Tuesday ABC news released a high-impact instant message exchange between Foley and, as ABC explained, a young man "under the age of 18."

ABC headlined the story: "New Foley Instant Messages; Had Internet Sex While Awaiting House Vote"

But upon reviewing the records, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned, the young man was in fact over the age of 18 at the time of the exchange.

A network source explains, messages with the young man and disgraced former Congressman Foley took place before and after the 18th birthday.

So the name leaked out and it appears that at least some, if not all, of the emails/IM's in question occurred after the guy turned 18. If Drudge has this right and they all occurred after he turned 18, some people are going to look downright silly at best and the backlash could start.
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
You will all remember the Salon scandal sheet of a couple of years ago or so:

http://dir.salon.com/story/news/feature/2005/01/18/scandal/index.html

Until recent times, Republican scandals have tended to be financial.

Oz:

That was an excellent abstract. If only legal briefs were required to have them ...!

G2:

A great many of the scandal-mongers are still living in the days when any homosexual accusation meant ruination with or without a trial. That's why Barney Frank survived, but this bloke did not.

That's the issue that Kenmeer brought up: being disgusted with the disgusted -- the old ladies who prefer sex to be kept in the dark because they like it dirty. Being the old ladies of propriety, the Republicans figured that they were more-or-less safe from sexual scandals. Bush II & Co. have been playing to that voting bloc all along.

How does it go? People living in glass houses? Well, they made their beds; let them eff in them.

I broke ranks with the Libertarians to vote for Reagan despite Nancy. I really thought he could 'bring down the wall', and I can only say that I was surprised nonetheless when he managed to do it. But the Republicans in those days feigned indifference to personal preferences -- which Republicans today no longer bother to feign. The Republicans are far more concerned today with what people do in their bedrooms than how clean they keep their house.

Right now I'm so mad at them that I hope they lose both houses. They have really blown their hegemony and deserve a well-earned hour in the out house.

Under the Republicans' own house rules, the leadership should resign. They're the ones who set the standards -- and they're the ones being hoisted by their own petardsm and ha-ha: it's Maggie's bloomers.

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"BTW, he didn't boink her."

You technicali, you [Wink]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Of course this thing will steamroll. And of course drudge will be a major driver. Tradition.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Richard Dey
Member
Member # 1727

 - posted      Profile for Richard Dey   Email Richard Dey   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
PS: And besides, we have to get out of the Mideast. I have no faith in the Democrats to get us out, but the Republicans are obviously committed to staying in.

Oz: Has anybody ever analyzed Drudge? What's his kill rate?

Posts: 7866 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Drudge? What's his kill rate?'

Don't know. But this kind of thing is a point of professional pride for him. I imagine him wearing a T-shirt that says:

"I was there when Monica blew him down."

Drudge taps into something nearly universal: we like to watch.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"I have no faith in the Democrats to get us out, but the Republicans are obviously committed to staying in."

The ship of state turns slowly, and stops even more slowly. Massive inertia is hard to alter. That's why rushing into things via national war fever generally comes to a bad end. Just ask the Nazis.

If the Dems can at least turn things every which way at nce, that will stop us faster than any concerted plan of action?

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Not that I see us getting our of the Mideast. But if we can at least drawdown and regroup, we might be better poised to WWIII when it occurs.

Don't want to arrive at the party late, ill-dressed, and without ample liquor...

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
G2
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
This is developing quickly now, former congressional page Jordan Edmund (one of the pages in the case and apparently the initial source of the emails/IM's) hired a lawyer. A number of people were wondering why he could possibly need one. Perhaps this is why:
quote:
According to two people close to former congressional page Jordan Edmund, the now famous lurid AOL Instant Message exchanges that led to the resignation of Mark Foley were part of an online prank that by mistake got into the hands of enemy political operatives, the DRUDGE REPORT can reveal.

According to one Oklahoma source who knows the former page very well, Edmund, a conservative Republican, goaded an unwitting Foley to type embarrassing comments that were then shared with a small group of young Hill politicos. The prank went awry when the saved IM sessions got into the hands of political operatives favorable to Democrats.

The primary source, an ally of Edmund, adamantly proclaims that the former page is not a homosexual. The prank scenario was confirmed by a second associate of Edmund. Both are fearful that their political careers will be affected if they are publicly brought into the matter.

The prank scenario only applies to the Edmund IM sessions and does not necessarily apply to any other exchanges between the former congressman and others.

The news come on the heels that Edmund has hired former Timothy McVeigh attorney, Stephen Jones.

Could this whole thing have been a setup from beginning to end? An investigation of this could get fascinating ...
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Uh-huh... goaded him to type "get a ruler and measure it for me"? Goaded him to set up a meeting to share a hotel room? Please. You people really have no boundaries, do ya? Plus, we know that there were several pages. Plus this gem:

"Both are fearful that their political careers will be affected if they are publicly brought into the matter."

Uh-huh. How about "both are fearful their political careers will be affected if they don't help spin this away pronto"?

Plus, isn't ABC saying they got the im's and emails from pages themselves?

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So according to Drudge, the messages were fake, something he was goaded into writing as a prank?

Poor Foley. He must have forgotten about that when he resigned his office. Looks like he really does have a drinking problem! [Roll Eyes]

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
"But now, the same Democrats who are incensed that Bush's National Security Agency was listening in on al-Qaida phone calls are incensed that Republicans were not reading a gay congressman's instant messages.

Let's run this past the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals: The suspect sent an inappropriately friendly e-mail to a teenager -- oh also, we think he's gay. Can we spy on his instant messages? On a scale of 1 to 10, what are the odds that any court in the nation would have said: YOU BET! Put a tail on that guy -- and a credit check, too!

When Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee found unprotected e-mails from the Democrats about their plan to oppose Miguel Estrada's judicial nomination because he was Hispanic, Democrats erupted in rage that their e-mails were being read. The Republican staffer responsible was forced to resign.

But Democrats are on their high horses because Republicans in the House did not immediately wiretap Foley's phones when they found out he was engaging in e-mail chitchat with a former page about what the kid wanted for his birthday.

The Democrats say the Republicans should have done all the things Democrats won't let us do to al Qaeda -- solely because Foley was rumored to be gay. Maybe we could get Democrats to support the NSA wiretapping program if we tell them the terrorists are gay."

- Ann Coulter

LMAO

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Are you trying to make everyone stop taking you seriously?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Everytime Ann speaks or writes, you half-expect to see Rod Serling standing on the sidelines saying, "For your consideration..." [Smile]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
Are you trying to make everyone stop taking you seriously?

When did everyone start taking myself seriously? [Confused] [LOL]

I've been highly amused at this whole Foley "scandal" and I think Ann's got a perfectly legitimate point - the same folks that want a government investigation into Foley's PRIVATE emails and IM's are the same ones that don't want the Governments investigations into suspected Al Qaeda operatives private communications.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
" and I think Ann's got a perfectly legitimate point "

What she has is a big straw-man. If you think straw-men are valid logical points, then yeah... she has a point. Otherwise she doesn't.

As a general rule of thumb, if you think someone like Ann Coulter has a point, you need to step back, and examine your own biases.

"When did everyone start taking myself seriously? "

Well, there WAS a point a ways back when I noticed that you were trying to debate actual arguments actual people were making, rather then just being a political hack. It looks like you've gone back to being a tool of the GOP, rather then reasoned discourse, though.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Nah, we don't take you seriously... at least, not very. We know you can be fairly logical when you choose, but when you compare the subpoena of Foley's emails with a nationwide digital wire-sive ('tap' is far too precise a concept for what Bush has been doing) -- and cite Ann C in the process...
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'll take advice on reasoned discourse from someone who actually has a track record of reasoned discourse, thank you very much.

As a general rule of thumb, when you reject any particular argument based solely on the name of the person making it (like Ann), you need to step back and examine your own biases. Most every person on either side of the aisle makes a valid point about any given topic at one time or another. Hell, I've even been known to admit it when I think YOU make a valid point.

Finally, I've come to the realization that "actual debate" basically gets nowhere. Most times most people enter into a debate here and than leave it with their own ideas and opinions intact. So I am now taking the kenmeer approach...which is to mainly I post and read to entertain myself. I'm under no illusions or some kind of misguided notion that participating in "reasoned debates" does me or anyone else any real good.

Afterall, none of us are ever going to have the affect on real world policy like Peter Wiggens did in OSC novels. lol

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
think Ann's got a perfectly legitimate point - the same folks that want a government investigation into Foley's PRIVATE emails and IM's are the same ones that don't want the Governments investigations into suspected Al Qaeda operatives private communications.
Do you know this for a fact (e.g. can you name names) or does it simply fit your perception of Washington at the moment?

Because you can't take Ann's word on anything...

Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"As a general rule of thumb, when you reject any particular argument based solely on the name of the person making it (like Ann), you need to step back and examine your own biases."

If you can find me a valid argument Ann Coulter has ever made, then we can talk.

However, as I said, THIS particular argument you post is a straw man. Granted, its dressed up nicely.

There's a world of difference between asking for a legal investigation, and saying that illegal investigations are illegal. Ann totally ignores that distinction, thus making her point non-existent.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"If you can find me a valid argument Ann Coulter has ever made, then we can talk."

Oh please. We both know that what you define as valid is very different as to what I define as valid.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Wayward Son
Member
Member # 210

 - posted      Profile for Wayward Son   Email Wayward Son   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
We both know that what you define as valid is very different as to what I define as valid.
So perhaps you should find sources that both of you consider valid, rather than one which one of you finds questionable. [Smile]
Posts: 8681 | Registered: Dec 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
RickyB
Member
Member # 1464

 - posted      Profile for RickyB   Email RickyB   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Um, Daruma - do you believe employers can investigate whether or not someone did something wrong when im'ing 17 year olds about sex on the employers' dime?

Enough already. And the most ludicrous part of it all is, next you'll deny being a pro-GOP, anti-Dem partisan. Really, have some sense of self-critique, both of yourself and your chosen side.

You don't have kids yet (correct me if I'm wrong), but tell me again what you'd do if a 54 year old man, who works where your 17 year old brother works, was trying to pressure your brother into sexually gratifying him? Measure his dick for him? meet him for dinner "and..."?

You'd want to kick the guy's ass. Now, imagine it's your emplyee doing this. Now imagine management at the company (also your employees) knew that the first employee was up to this and let it continue.

Still think the matter is overblown? Surrrrrre you do.

Posts: 19145 | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Oh please. We both know that what you define as valid is very different as to what I define as valid."

I judge an arguments validity by facts and logic...

you contend that we define valid arguments differently, so what criteria do you use?

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ricky, I agree with you 100%.

What I think is overblown is the entire seemingly coordinated assault by the Democrats and their sycophants in the mainstream media to try and indict the entire GOP with this scandal weeks before the mid-term elections. The motives are so transparent it's hilarious.

For one thing, there's no evidence whatsoever that there was actually any physical sex occuring here....so what actual laws were broken then?

Morally, it's disgusting, and if I were this Page's father, you're damn right I'd want to kick his ass...but it's the whole partisan political that I find overblown and quite hysterical.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"For one thing, there's no evidence whatsoever that there was actually any physical sex occuring here....so what actual laws were broken then?"

Corruption of a minor, and sexual harrassment laws, at the very least.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/84730,CST-NWS-pageqanda05.article

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/10/02/washington/02legal.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

"but it's the whole partisan political that I find overblown and quite hysterical."

Did you find the Clinton stuff overblown and quite hysterical?

[ October 05, 2006, 07:53 PM: Message edited by: Everard ]

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Everard:
"Oh please. We both know that what you define as valid is very different as to what I define as valid."

I judge an arguments validity by facts and logic...

you contend that we define valid arguments differently, so what criteria do you use?

I'll use an example to illustrate my point:

A quote from Ann Coulter that I think is perfectly valid, and I'm quite sure you do not:

quote:
And most recently, ignoring the pleas of the administration, 9/11 commissioners and even certifiable liberal Rep. Jack Murtha, the Times revealed another top secret program that had allowed the Treasury Department to track terrorists' financial transactions.

We're in a battle for our survival and we don't even know who the enemy is. As liberals are constantly reminding us, Islam is a "Religion of Peace." One very promising method of distinguishing the "Religion of Peace" Muslims from the "Slit Their Throats" Muslims is by following the al-Qaida money trail.

But now we've lost that ability — thanks to The New York Times.

You've posted at length about your support for the New York Times for such actions, so no doubt you find her point invalid.

I, on the other hand, think she's exactly right in pointing out that the NYT needlessly and treasonously exposed a program vital to tracking terrorists around the world. I think her point here is perfectly logical and valid.

I'm quite sure you do not.

So again, we're back to the fact that you and I will never really agree on what is valid or not on a whole host of issues and topics.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Did you find the Clinton stuff overblown and quite hysterical?
As far as Monica goes? Absolutely.
Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"But now we've lost that ability — thanks to The New York Times."

Where are her facts to support this contention? Does she offer any? No. She's got speculation that is politically motivated... if it weren't politically motivated, she would have pointed out that the program had been "outted" way before teh NYT did anything with it.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Liberal
Member
Member # 2888

 - posted      Profile for Liberal   Email Liberal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Apparently for a period of four hours today, the Fox News ticker read that Foley was a Democrat from Florida, even though they got his party afilliation correct every day until now............
Posts: 228 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks for proving my point.

I'm not going to bother and go research the readings I did concerning this matter. I just know that the NYT has on several occasions "outted" top secret programs (like publishing photos of CIA Operative planes with tailfin ID numbers in plain view) that were part of the anti-terror operations, and that in every instance, you and your like-minded liberals alwasy found a reason, justification or excuse as to why it was good that they were doing it.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Of course Liberal. Everybody knows that Fox is a GOP propaganda machine, just as CNN is a DNC propaganda machine. Isn't that to be expected?
Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Everard
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks for proving mine. Facts don't matter to Ann... just the political spin she can put on it. And you find it a valid argument if it agrees with your bash-the-liberals stance, regardless of the facts.

A valid argument about the NYT/financial tracking incident, from the "its bad" viewpoint would demonstrate WHY its bad. Ann's argument ASSUMES its bad, and slanders the NYT without showing that it is bad... and despite the fact the program had already been outted, in part by the president.

IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Liberal
Member
Member # 2888

 - posted      Profile for Liberal   Email Liberal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Daruma28:
Of course Liberal. Everybody knows that Fox is a GOP propaganda machine, just as CNN is a DNC propaganda machine. Isn't that to be expected?

Somehow I can't see CNN claiming Clinton was a republican during his impeachment trial...


I watch CNN a lot and it seems to me they get automatically assigned as the "liberal" counterpoint station to Fox only because Fox is so polarized. CNN spends a lot of time going over the Conservative viewpoint and even hashing out Bush talking points. But then, I guess I'm one of those silly people that doesn't believe in the myth of the "liberal media."

[ October 05, 2006, 08:16 PM: Message edited by: Liberal ]

Posts: 228 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Apparently for a period of four hours today, the Fox News ticker read that Foley was a Democrat from Florida, even though they got his party afilliation correct every day until now............
You didn't hear that he changed his party membership today? He announced that he feels he wouldn't have been rejected by his fellow party members if he had been caught doing this as a democrat. [Big Grin]
Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
LoverOfJoy
Member
Member # 157

 - posted      Profile for LoverOfJoy   Email LoverOfJoy   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
and despite the fact the program had already been outted, in part by the president.
How can something be partly outed? Or did the president announce something at the same exact time as someone else? Or do you consider it a partial outing of the president makes a revealing comment slightly after it's been outed but not if the NYT makes a revealing comment slightly after it's been outed?

I just want to get the facts straight.

Posts: 3639 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Liberal
Member
Member # 2888

 - posted      Profile for Liberal   Email Liberal   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Sort of like how Duke Cunningham switched to Republican because then they wouldn't reject him for bribery, oh wait, he WAS a republican... [Roll Eyes]
Posts: 228 | Registered: May 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
So what's not factual for stating that a front page expose detailing how terrrorist affiliated transactions were being monitored and traced renders such a program non longer useful? It's pretty much common sense.

Like I said, I think her criticism is perfectly valid and you don't. No surprise their.

Here Ev...lets try another one - a "Fact filled" valid point:

quote:
The original "leaker" of Plame's name to columnist Bob Novak — not a crime — was not in the White House at all. It was Richard Armitage, a State Department official and opponent of the Iraq war.

The information that Wilson's wife worked at the CIA had nothing to do with harming Wilson. It did not come from the White House. It did not even come from someone who supported the war in Iraq.

The rest of the world found out Armitage was Novak's source last week, something Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald knew from the first week of his investigation. So what was Fitzgerald investigating?

Valid?

lol

[ October 05, 2006, 08:31 PM: Message edited by: Daruma28 ]

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Daruma28
Member
Member # 1388

 - posted      Profile for Daruma28   Email Daruma28   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"But then, I guess I'm one of those silly people that doesn't believe in the myth of the "liberal media."

Well you did decide to use "Liberal" as your moniker, so of course you are one of those silly people... [Wink]

To clarify - I'm not CNN ever purposely misidentified a Democrat as a Republican. I'm only saying that the folks at FOX are obviously pro GOP, while the folks at CNN are obviously pro DNC...and CNN has their own means and methods of promoting that.

Anyhow, putting that on the side for the moment, I do have to say that I've seen PLENTY of news crawls on ALL of the channels (cable national news and local TV national) get all kinds of mistakes, mispellings and grammatical errors. It may or may not have been a genuine mistake on the poor sap who is typing in the text for the news crawl.

Because it was FOX, I wouldn't be surprised if it were done purpose - but I wouldn't assume that was the case either.

Posts: 7543 | Registered: Nov 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"So I am now taking the kenmeer approach..."

*ahem* That's The Kenmeer Approach. [Wink]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 5 pages: 1  2  3  4  5   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1