8
   

Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

 
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Aug, 2007 01:35 pm
okie wrote:
Your Democrats in Congress have the power to end it. Just cut off funding. Whats the holdup?


There's no guarantee that this would actually end the war in a reasonable time frame;

You're describing the absolute ugliest way possible to end the war, which nobody really wants to have to resort to;

Republicans would use it for every bit of political advantage they possibly could. For the last several years, fear and emotional rhetoric have been the tactic used by the GOP: fear of Terrorists, fear of Gays, fear of the unknown. It is effective when people are scared, and that's why there were successes with it early on. No reason to throw a bunch of ammo to your enemies.

cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Aug, 2007 01:37 pm
okie wrote:
Your Democrats in Congress have the power to end it. Just cut off funding. Whats the holdup?


There is a new invention. It is called a veto (which the Reps in congress will uphold).
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Aug, 2007 02:39 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
[
Republicans would use it for every bit of political advantage they possibly could. For the last several years, fear and emotional rhetoric have been the tactic used by the GOP: fear of Terrorists, fear of Gays, fear of the unknown. It is effective when people are scared, and that's why there were successes with it early on. No reason to throw a bunch of ammo to your enemies.

cycloptichorn

I fear terrorism, you don't? That doesn't mean I walk around in fear every day, I don't, in fact I don't give it a second thought, but as a national threat, it is real. You don't think its real?

Who fears gays? I don't know of any conservative that does. I don't necessarily approve of the gay agenda, but that is not fear.

Fear of the unknown, I think everyone has a latent fear of what may lie in the future that is unknown, but not to the state of paralysis. I don't believe in living in fear, but by the same token I do not advocate not fearing possible pitfalls. I do fear driving off the road, so I am careful to drive safely in the lane. Healthy fears are healthy. I have no clue what your problem is.

Conversely, I do not fear my phone being tapped, as that seems to be paranoia at its finest. I don't hear Republicans sitting around fretting about that, contrary to Democrats wringing their hands over this, which is 99% politics and 1% fear, but they would like the civilians to be 100% fear concerning this.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Aug, 2007 03:09 pm
okie wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
[
Republicans would use it for every bit of political advantage they possibly could. For the last several years, fear and emotional rhetoric have been the tactic used by the GOP: fear of Terrorists, fear of Gays, fear of the unknown. It is effective when people are scared, and that's why there were successes with it early on. No reason to throw a bunch of ammo to your enemies.

cycloptichorn

I fear terrorism, you don't? That doesn't mean I walk around in fear every day, I don't, in fact I don't give it a second thought, but as a national threat, it is real. You don't think its real?


No, I do not fear terrorism. I don't fear dying by terrorism. I don't fear the US being threatened by terrorism. It is not a significant threat to our country in any way. Only by acting as if it is, do you allow terrorists to have power.

Quote:
Who fears gays? I don't know of any conservative that does. I don't necessarily approve of the gay agenda, but that is not fear.


Sure it is. It's the only reason that Republicans could possibly be against granting them equal rights - fear of what they will do with those rights.

Quote:
Fear of the unknown, I think everyone has a latent fear of what may lie in the future that is unknown, but not to the state of paralysis. I don't believe in living in fear, but by the same token I do not advocate not fearing possible pitfalls. I do fear driving off the road, so I am careful to drive safely in the lane. Healthy fears are healthy. I have no clue what your problem is.


Why make it personal with the last sentence? I really wonder. I don't fear the unknown at all.

Quote:
Conversely, I do not fear my phone being tapped, as that seems to be paranoia at its finest. I don't hear Republicans sitting around fretting about that, contrary to Democrats wringing their hands over this, which is 99% politics and 1% fear, but they would like the civilians to be 100% fear concerning this.


You should be afraid of it, as it is an erosion of your civil liberties.

Let's say that Hillary gets elected president, and instructs the NSA to listen in on the calls of everyday Americans (which they are already doing right now) and pay specific attention to anyone who speaks badly about her. Let us say that they overhear you saying something about your finances that you would prefer the gov't didn't know. Let's say that information finds its' way to the IRS (which is happening right now). You don't fear anyone using such information against you?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Aug, 2007 04:10 pm
Roxxxanne wrote:
I am putting you back on "ignore" since you can't even respect fellow members.


No ... please ... don't ....
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Wed 8 Aug, 2007 05:41 pm
Shouldn't we get back to the Wilsons? Has anyone heard how long it would take to get a decision on their appeal in the civil case?
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Thu 9 Aug, 2007 10:33 am
Ticomaya wrote:
Advocate wrote:
Okie, I apologize for saying that you are a loser. I don't apologize to Taco, who, when I first joined a2k, went after me personally and unfairly.


News to me. Why don't you direct me to any post where you think I went after you personally and unfairly? I pointed out your hyperbole on more than one occasion. Is that why your panties are in a bunch?


<crickets>
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2007 03:06 pm
Well, here is Hannity documenting what happened. This video confirms everything some of us have been saying since this fiasco began. As proven by documents, both Wilson and Plame are caught lying about their roles in this, about the facts in the case, and their intents. Also, Wilson apparently leaked classified information to Walter Pincus. Wilson should be made to testify under oath, as should Valerie Plame. We have no need for politics to be carried on in the CIA, in the name of doing intelligence. These people need to answer for it. Scooter Libby should be apologized to by not only the Wilsons, but Mr. Fitzgerald.

Most of this is nothing new. It has been obvious from the very beginning. It is the Wilsons that should have been under investigation.

And as I have suggested before, if Wilson was leaking classified information, how did he obtain it, probably from wife, Valerie Plame, which is also a crime, is it not?

http://www.foxnews.com/video2/player06.html?081307/081307_ha_wilson&Hannitys_America&New%20Insight&acc&Politics&-1&News&353&&&new
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2007 03:12 pm
Ticomaya wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Advocate wrote:
Okie, I apologize for saying that you are a loser. I don't apologize to Taco, who, when I first joined a2k, went after me personally and unfairly.


News to me. Why don't you direct me to any post where you think I went after you personally and unfairly? I pointed out your hyperbole on more than one occasion. Is that why your panties are in a bunch?


<crickets>


Oh, did I hurt your feelings? If you want to continue looking like a fool, be my guest.
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2007 03:16 pm
Okie, pleeeze!!! You are suggesting that we look to Hannity and Fox for the facts on Plamegate. Pleeeeeze!!!
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2007 04:08 pm
I am not only suggesting it, I am recommending it. Instead of attacking the messenger, maybe you might try debating the evidence that he presented.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2007 05:19 pm
Cyclo,
Are Hillary and Obama "gay enough"?
They have been asked about being "black enough" and about being "man enough" but are either of them "gay enough"?

After all,gays are a part of their voters and the dem candidates just pandered to them at a rally recently.

If they are all "pro-gay" when will any of the dem candidates name an openly gay running mate?
When will the dems allow an openly gay person to run for President?
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2007 05:35 pm
MM, when the right gay comes along, he or she would be supported. Barney Frank is strongly supported when he runs for congress.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2007 05:37 pm
Advocate wrote:
MM, when the right gay comes along, he or she would be supported. Barney Frank is strongly supported when he runs for congress.


But he has NEVER been named as a Presidential candidate or named as a VP running mate.

Why not if the dems are so pro-gay?
0 Replies
 
Advocate
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2007 05:46 pm
He is not the right gay. Isn't that obvious?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2007 07:20 pm
mysteryman wrote:
Advocate wrote:
MM, when the right gay comes along, he or she would be supported. Barney Frank is strongly supported when he runs for congress.


But he has NEVER been named as a Presidential candidate or named as a VP running mate.

Why not if the dems are so pro-gay?


MM, I think you might have the wrong thread for that subject? By the way, check out Hannity's video concerning the Wilsons, that I posted today.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2007 11:10 pm
Advocate wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Advocate wrote:
Okie, I apologize for saying that you are a loser. I don't apologize to Taco, who, when I first joined a2k, went after me personally and unfairly.


News to me. Why don't you direct me to any post where you think I went after you personally and unfairly? I pointed out your hyperbole on more than one occasion. Is that why your panties are in a bunch?


<crickets>


Oh, did I hurt your feelings? If you want to continue looking like a fool, be my guest.


Why won't you respond to my question, Advocate?

A few months ago you told a bald-faced lie, claiming I had "recently" said I wasn't a lawyer, but was really in middle-management.
    [quote="2 months ago, Advocate"]Tico recently said that he wasn't a lawyer. He said that he was in middle management. Is that a flip-flop?[/quote]
LINK

You completely fabricated that little story. Now you claim I "went after you personally and unfairly" when you first joined this site. I'm suggesting you take the opportunity now to try and bolster your dwindling credibility, and you refuse.

That says a whole lot more about you than it does me.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2007 11:13 pm
Your like Arnold, a flip-floper. We don't buy your republican jive for a minute.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Mon 13 Aug, 2007 11:25 pm
Amigo wrote:
Your like Arnold, a flip-floper. We don't buy your republican jive for a minute.


What'cha been smokin tonight, Amigo? You seem to be flying pretty high.



Never mind ... none of my business.
0 Replies
 
Amigo
 
  1  
Reply Tue 14 Aug, 2007 12:00 am
Just adding my share to the non-sense. Whenever the truth is a threat just create some chaos.

You know the routine.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 07/16/2025 at 11:28:31