Offering constructive criticism to the social cripples in our midst since early 2005.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Penske_Account
Sebby,

I draw a distinction.

In 1986 Bork, while conversative, was one of the most qualified jurists of his generation and a judge who by any objective standard should have been approved by near unanimity. The Demos dumbed the process down beyond belief (FWIW, at that time, I stated, that if a demo nominated Tribe then, unfortunately, the Senate should approve, because by any objective standard he is qualified.)

Today, based on his current writings (i.e. over the last decade or so), I agree, he's appalling. But that still doesn't change the fact that he was emminently qualified and should have been approved, but for a smear campaign, by the likes of degenerates such as Byrd, Kennedy and Biden.

You just made my argument for me. Whether Bork was barely palatable in 1986, it was clear his leanings indicated a man who would devolve into a something too idealistic, shrill and unstable for such a position. Bork is certainly principled, pathologically so; about that there is unanimous agreement. His rigid ideology and warped principles did not suddenly emerge post 1986. Clearly, there was something about the man in 1986 that made him so repugnant, and easily defeated despite his wealth of technical legal ability. I'd say Byrd, Kennedy and Biden did an incredible job of predicting the future ramblings of a dangerous ideologue and keeping him off the bench. That they acted partly out of political motives doesn't invalidate the excellent result. We've had a nice stasis on the Court for a long time. Bork was a fucking lunatic who would have upset the apple cart.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub

And don't take my word for it, go read the NYT, the WaPo, or any other link that Slave and I have posted over the last few weeks.

Please point me to that.

Don't recall seeing WaPo say that it was common knowledge that Plame was not covert at the time of the article, and frankly, the last few weeks on this board have consisted of a gread deal of screaming about the interpretations of the firstsecondorthirdButlerreportormaybetheSenatereport that my eyes have glazed over. A search of this thread for "covert" reveals hundreds of hits, and only some of those are from Penske socks.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Which means that Fitzgerald has been pissing in the wind for the last couple of years, has jailed a reporter for no good reason, and convinced multiple layers of appeals court judges to agree with him on doing so.

You've been telling me for years that Ken Starr wasted years and money chasing down the Clintons to no avail. Why is this so suprising to you?

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
This board is like watching a great cross examination. Occasionally, you get a dead screwed, guilty as hell witness who also happens to have great powers of rationality, self delusion and incredible facility with language (thats being generous). He'll twist in circles, contradict himself and deny the obvious. You never get the admission or the smoking gun, but what you do get is a series of absurd replies, and when you stack them together and present them one at a time in closing, like magic, or a good laxative, a huge pile of shit emerges.

If you read through the last two weeks of this board, you'll see a fat steaming pile served high as turds can be stacked, of GOP excuses, ducking and weaving a series of damning facts... as highas their favorite target, Bubba, could ever stack shit.

I am not going to google shit or offer a boatload of deabte points. There is no point in arguing with those who don't see the wrongness of what Rove did. Best to just sit back, needle the fuckers and watch them twist. They're caught, pants down, dick in the hooker, flashbulbs going off in every direction.

Sucks guys, doesn't it? Now you know how 1997 felt. Spend your breath all day... all your vehement horseshit excuses are translating to "d'oh."

Put. Money. Mouth. Is.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Please point me to that.

Don't recall seeing WaPo say that it was common knowledge that Plame was not covert at the time of the article, and frankly, the last few weeks on this board have consisted of a gread deal of screaming about the interpretations of the firstsecondorthirdButlerreportormaybetheSenatereport that my eyes have glazed over. A search of this thread for "covert" reveals hundreds of hits, and only some of those are from Penske socks.

I would, but I'm too retarded to use the search function on this board. I believe Slave posted the NYT article in the last week or so.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by Spanky
http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/meast/....ap/index.html

Do you think that some of these opposition leaders may be for democracy? Funny that there is a discussion of an election in a country where everyone wants democracy "as much as they want a hole in the head". I guess the whole exercise if fruitless because "they don't get it, and don't want to get it".

After your lead-in, I figured that the CNN article would have some sort of devastating riposte to that e-mail I posted -- you know, protesters marching for democracy in the streets, etc. -- but no. You are totally missing the point.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by sgtclub
Put. Money. Mouth. Is.

In October. Until then, you're here to amuse me. Keep up the excuses.

Oh, may bad... You wanna bet there will be an indictment? OK. How about a bottle of Bookers?

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You just made my argument for me. Whether Bork was barely palatable in 1986, it was clear his leanings indicated a man who would devolve into a degenerate. Bork is certainly principled, pathologically so; about that there is unanimous agreement. His rigid ideology and warped principles did not suddenly emerge post 1986. Clearly, there was something about the man in 1986 that made him so repugnant, and easily defeated despite his wealth of technical legal ability. I'd say Byrd, Kennedy and Biden did an incredible job of predicting the future ramblings of a dangerous ideologue and keeping him off the bench. That they acted partly out of political motives doesn't invalidate the excellent result. We've had a nice stasis on the Court for a long time. Bork was a fucking lunatic who would have upset the apple cart.

He was defeated because of a campaign of lies, distortions and smears. That was wrong, from either side of the aisle, and did our body politic damage that we still have not recovered from as it has spawned the Politics of Persona Destruction that the Clintons and their successor minions in the Demo party continue to employ. It is sad that these people substitute ad hominen attack and lies for substance and even sadder that 55M buy the kool-aid. Thankfully, at least 59M see it for the snake oil that it is and stand with the CinC and the adults now in charge our nation's ship's rudder!

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
In October. Until then, you're here to amuse me. Keep up the excuses.

Oh, may bad... You wanna bet there will be an indictment? OK. How about a bottle of Bookers?

So that's how you spell "I'm a pussy."

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by SlaveNoMore
Actually, this all started [again] when the Dems started calling for Rove's head, over a non-leak.

It all started when Cooper's documents made it clear the White House had been lying when they said Rove wasn't involved.

Exactly. Ignore the reasons why Plame came up in the first place (nepotism).

I find it hard to believe that you think someone would be angling to take an unpaid trip to Niger. My cousin was in the Peace Corps there, and let me tell you that there are very few more godforsaken places in the world.

And the suggestions -- Rove's suggestion to Cooper -- that Plame made the decision to send Wilson is wrong. The CIA says so. So stop suggesting otherwise.

If that's all he did (call attention to scaremongering), I wouldn't have much of a problem. Recall that he was calling for Rove to frogmarched out of DC in cuffs a long, long time ago.

I repeat: So what?

I'm not ducking anything. It's a simple answer.

In June and July on 2003, before his NYT signed op-ed and during the time he was talking to Kristof, Wilson was going around to anyone and everyone in DC that would listen that (i) contrary to his original report, there were no Niger-Iraq meetings and (ii) that documents were forged, even though he hadn't seen them.

Why would a Gore supporter and husband of a CIA worker (who- even before his trip deemed the Niger connection as "crazy" ) make such statements? The only justifiable answer is "partisan hack"

Cite, please.

[Gattigap]

Originally posted by sgtclub
You've been telling me for years that Ken Starr wasted years and money chasing down the Clintons to no avail. Why is this so suprising to you?

Because here Fitzgerald had to convince appeals court judges that the likelihood of a crime having been committed was strong enough that the testimony of these reporters was required, and if they didn't cooperate, then they should sit in a jail cell.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by sgtclub
So that's how you spell "I'm a pussy."

I don't know what you drink. I'm just picking something I thought you enjoyed. Say Johnny Walker Green. I've been itching to try that stuff...

[Penske_Account]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
In October. Until then, you're here to amuse me. Keep up the excuses.

?

Sebby has visited his hateful invective upon me, despite my many years of fandom and the countless thousands of positive supportive posts my socks have shown him, and yet, he has ducked at least two bets with me. He is a clever chap, and certainly bets with his head (nowithstanding his posts from a more nethery region).

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally posted by sgtclub
It's not just Rove or the GOP. The DEMs have at least an equal part in this.

I won't deny that there are Democrats who like to play this game, but it's Rove particular gameplan to drive the polarization. There's a reason things are worse in the last few years, and it has to do with the party in power. Oh, and being in power makes you just a little more responsible than the opposition.

[sgtclub]

Originally posted by Gattigap
Because here Fitzgerald had to convince appeals court judges that the likelihood of a crime having been committed was strong enough that the testimony of these reporters was required, and if they didn't cooperate, then they should sit in a jail cell.

Umm, Susan McDougal ring a bell.