8
   

Fitzgerald Investigation of Leak of Identity of CIA Agent

 
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2008 03:20 pm
No sidestepping, please.
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2008 03:25 pm
snood wrote:
you guys just like airing it in public, or your pm's don't work, or...?


How dare you! Are you insinuating I am post-menopausal?
0 Replies
 
Roxxxanne
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2008 03:27 pm
Roxxxanne wrote:
Ticomaya wrote:
Roxxxanne wrote:
LOL I really struck a nerve. You guys are sooooo predictable.


You struck my optic nerve.


Yeah. I bet I did. All my gay men friends love my boobs so you are an anomaly. LOL


Next time, don't edit out the point of my post, freak!

And BTW the best thing to do when you have dug yourself a hole is to stop digging. Smile Smile Smile Smile

BTW I think Valerie Wilson is a 10, here is a 9.1 for comparison purposes:

http://meetme.hotornot.com/r/?emid=NEBQALH

http://p1.hotornot.com/pics/H8/KM/H8/NY/B8OQE8RRPCBS.JPG

Yeah I know. Go figure! Must be the puppies.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2008 05:40 pm
Roxxxanne wrote:
Next time, don't edit out ... my ... freak!

I didn't edit out your freak ... it was right there for everyone to see.

You are the last person at this forum who ought to be calling anyone else a "freak." Why don't you start your own freak show thread where you can post pics of you and all of your friends? This thread is NOT about you, nor is it a forum for you to announce how "hot" you think you are.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2008 05:48 pm
Ticomaya, I realize the elections are not on this thread, but since the subject has temporarily gone awry anyway, I am curious, do you have a preference of candidate in the primaries? I respect your opinions and so am curious.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2008 06:14 pm
okie wrote:
Ticomaya, I realize the elections are not on this thread, but since the subject has temporarily gone awry anyway, I am curious, do you have a preference of candidate in the primaries? I respect your opinions and so am curious.


Right now I'm leaning toward McCain or Huckabee.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2008 07:18 pm
Thanks. I am still undecided for sure, but have been leaning toward Romney. None are perfect, but no matter who wins the Republican primary, they are all a huge improvement over any Democrat.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2008 07:19 pm
That's just your partisan nature showing, Okie, and not an opinion grounded in any sort of independent and logical analysis.

Here - one of your own who has wised up about the weak field your side is putting forward this term.

http://www.redstate.com/blogs/thomas/2007/dec/31/and_the_horses_you_all_rode_in_on_one_at_a_time_then_rotate

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2008 07:27 pm
Comparatively speaking, the Dems are all total losers, in my opinion, not a one has much credibility, if any, but Obama is by far the most respectable of the lot, he just does not have the experience or maturity yet in my opinion, and he is a liberal. I will backtrack, Obama is not a total loser and he has some credibility, but he is totally inexperienced and may not have the leadership ability to be president, plus he is a liberal, so I would not vote for him. The other two main candidates are total frauds in my opinion.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2008 07:33 pm
okie wrote:
Comparatively speaking, the Dems are all total losers, in my opinion, not a one has much credibility, if any, but Obama is by far the most respectable of the lot, he just does not have the experience or maturity yet in my opinion, and he is a liberal. I will backtrack, Obama is not a total loser and he has some credibility, but he is totally inexperienced and may not have the leadership ability to be president, plus he is a liberal, so I would not vote for him. The other two main candidates are total frauds in my opinion.


Mmm hmm.

I'm not big on Hillary or Edwards, but I'll vote for either of them over any Republican but maybe McCain.

Considering those who were supported, advanced, lauded, defended, and labeled 'credible' by Republicans over the last 7 years, I'm afraid I must say that: you might want to reconsider whether or not your gauge of credibility really means what you seem to believe it does. And objective view suggests that extremely poor decisions were made by your party in pushing Bush twice. It's difficult to see why those who were so completely wrong, defended their wrong choices, and only grudgingly and late in the game admitted that they had been fools, now feel that their voices and opinions still bear the same validity as they did before.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
JTT
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2008 07:34 pm
OK wrote:
Bush is a total loser and he has no credibility, and he is totally inexperienced, still, and definitely does not have the leadership ability to be president, plus he is a fraudulent conservative, and yet I voted for him. He is a total fraud in my opinion.


This is what you meant but you don't have the honesty to say it.
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 1 Jan, 2008 11:35 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
okie wrote:
Comparatively speaking, the Dems are all total losers, in my opinion, not a one has much credibility, if any, but Obama is by far the most respectable of the lot, he just does not have the experience or maturity yet in my opinion, and he is a liberal. I will backtrack, Obama is not a total loser and he has some credibility, but he is totally inexperienced and may not have the leadership ability to be president, plus he is a liberal, so I would not vote for him. The other two main candidates are total frauds in my opinion.


Mmm hmm.

I'm not big on Hillary or Edwards, but I'll vote for either of them over any Republican but maybe McCain.

Considering those who were supported, advanced, lauded, defended, and labeled 'credible' by Republicans over the last 7 years, I'm afraid I must say that: you might want to reconsider whether or not your gauge of credibility really means what you seem to believe it does. And objective view suggests that extremely poor decisions were made by your party in pushing Bush twice. It's difficult to see why those who were so completely wrong, defended their wrong choices, and only grudgingly and late in the game admitted that they had been fools, now feel that their voices and opinions still bear the same validity as they did before.

Cycloptichorn

Bush was not my top choice until he was the party's nominee, so I have supported him and I have defended what I think he has done right. He believes in America, he recognized terrorism as a threat, something I doubt the Democrats on, we've had no attacks here since 9/11, he stimulated the economy with taxcuts, he nominated two pretty good Supreme Court justices, and he has brought a semblance of respect back to the Whitehouse, and respect of us by our enemies, something we sorely lacked under the previous administration. The Patriot Act was passed, which was sorely needed, and we got the agencies back working together instead of hiding information from each other in regard to tracking terrorists. He has restored respect and readiness in the military. Many other good things as well.

Some of the negatives, far more spending than needed, useless increases in Eduation at the Federal level, the worthless prescription drug legislation, a very poor illegal immigration policy and a few other things.

Most of the stuff the Bush haters bring up don't amount to a hill of beans and are nothing more than concocted and blown out of proportion issues completely without any historical context, such as the torture, wiretapping, etc.

Given the choice between Bush and Gore or Kerry, I couldn't pull the lever fast enough again for Bush.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 11:54 am
Okie, jeez.

Quote:

Bush was not my top choice until he was the party's nominee, so I have supported him and I have defended what I think he has done right.


I don't understand what this sentence means.

Quote:
He believes in America,


That's no accomplishment to be proud of; it doesn't take a lot of work to believe in things which are provably real.

Quote:
he recognized terrorism as a threat, something I doubt the Democrats on


Not for any good reason, though. Democrats have long recognized terrorism as a threat and still do today.

Quote:
we've had no attacks here since 9/11


He didn't protect the country on 9/11. He didn't do a damn thing until it was too late, even with information. You can't give him credit for the time since then without recognizing that this was a major failure on the part of his admin.

Quote:
he stimulated the economy with taxcuts


Bull ****. There's no evidence whatsoever that this is true.

Quote:
he nominated two pretty good Supreme Court justices


Pfff, anyone can nominate someone, and did you forget Harriet Miers?

Quote:
and he has brought a semblance of respect back to the Whitehouse,


This is absolutely the most ridiculous thing that I've ever seen you write. I'm not exaggerating. How can you say this with a straight face? The WH is a joke. Internationally Bush's respect is somewhere close to zero. The USA has never had such low levels of respect abroad. Bush's approval ratings are lower then Clinton's ever were. His administration has been mired in countless scandals, corruption cases, and just plain errors. What evidence do you use to come to your position?

Quote:
and respect of us by our enemies, something we sorely lacked under the previous administration.


He's created far more enemies to 'respect' us. Big accomplishment there.

Quote:
The Patriot Act was passed, which was sorely needed, and we got the agencies back working together instead of hiding information from each other in regard to tracking terrorists.


One of the few things I agree with, though the Patriot act could have been written in ten pages if that was what it was for. Instead, it was mostly for grabbing as much power as possible for the WH; written before 9/11, passed in the fervor afterwards, it is a terrible piece of legislation that you should be ashamed to support.

Quote:
He has restored respect and readiness in the military. Many other good things as well.


Yeah, the military is doing great these days, not close to being broken at all. Guess those generals in the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs who keep going on about that exact problem don't know what the hell they are talking about. And our military sure has improved in quality; we now have the highest percentage of soldiers who didn't graduate from high school since ww2, the most gang members since ww2, in fact, I think that you will find that any metric used to measure individual quality has sank like a stone over the last several years. All while encouraging a gigantic invasion of our military by Evangelical and Dominionist Christians, who actively persecute those who aren't their flavor of religion.

---

You really ought to preview your posts. Bush has been a complete and total failure as a president. All this 'history will decide' bullshit is ridiculous. I don't need to wait 20 years to realize that he has made mistake after mistake, time after time. Anything he got right, he fell ass-backwards into, just like every other part of his life. And the fact that you still can't see this merely confirms my earlier point: your judgment of 'credibility' is useless, Okie.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 09:19 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
he recognized terrorism as a threat, something I doubt the Democrats on


Not for any good reason, though. Democrats have long recognized terrorism as a threat and still do today.


Recognizing it and doing anything about it are two entirely different things.

Quote:
Quote:
we've had no attacks here since 9/11


He didn't protect the country on 9/11. He didn't do a damn thing until it was too late, even with information. You can't give him credit for the time since then without recognizing that this was a major failure on the part of his admin.


The "major failure" had only been out of office for 8 months or so at the time of the attack.

Quote:
You really ought to preview your posts. Bush has been a complete and total failure as a president.


See, you lose what credibility you have when you make such statements. You are so blinded by your hatred of Bush that you've lost touch with reality.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 09:28 pm
How many times must I tell you the same thing, Tico?

I don't hate Bush at all. Not in the slightest. I don't know why you choose to use the word 'hate' when there are many other verbs which are more descriptive.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 10:34 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Okie, jeez.

Quote:

Bush was not my top choice until he was the party's nominee, so I have supported him and I have defended what I think he has done right.


I don't understand what this sentence means.

Simple to understand. Bush was not a perfect fit for my conservative political views, but he was the Republican nominee, which is far better than any Democrat, so I supported him.

Quote:
Quote:
He believes in America,


That's no accomplishment to be proud of; it doesn't take a lot of work to believe in things which are provably real.

It seems simple but I don't believe many Democrats appreciate America for what it is, but instead they criticize it and want to change it drastically from what it is.

Quote:
Quote:
he recognized terrorism as a threat, something I doubt the Democrats on


Not for any good reason, though. Democrats have long recognized terrorism as a threat and still do today.

Democrats treat it as a small problem and a criminal problem, not an act of war. Clinton did virtually nothing and he should bear much of the blame for why terrorists were emboldened by our casual attitude toward them.

Quote:
Quote:
we've had no attacks here since 9/11


He didn't protect the country on 9/11. He didn't do a damn thing until it was too late, even with information. You can't give him credit for the time since then without recognizing that this was a major failure on the part of his admin.

He was barely in office, and had not had enough time to reform the problems that hindered our detection of terrorist activity. Clinton did less than nothing. See the last paragraph.

Quote:
Quote:
he stimulated the economy with taxcuts


Bull ****. There's no evidence whatsoever that this is true.

We've been through this argument numerous times. He inherited the beginning of a recession, and then 9/11, so considering those two factors, he turned it around with something, and I think the taxcuts helped.

Quote:
Quote:
he nominated two pretty good Supreme Court justices


Pfff, anyone can nominate someone, and did you forget Harriet Miers?

I didn't forget Harriet Myers, which was a very bad choice, but when conservatives cried foul, he was smart enough and humble enough to recognize the mistake and he then turned in a good choice.

Quote:
Quote:
and he has brought a semblance of respect back to the Whitehouse,


This is absolutely the most ridiculous thing that I've ever seen you write. I'm not exaggerating. How can you say this with a straight face? The WH is a joke. Internationally Bush's respect is somewhere close to zero. The USA has never had such low levels of respect abroad. Bush's approval ratings are lower then Clinton's ever were. His administration has been mired in countless scandals, corruption cases, and just plain errors. What evidence do you use to come to your position?

You believe the liberal bilge, is your problem. Bush is respected, and the enemies respect him because he does more than talk. He did not stick his finger in the wind to see which way the wind is blowing. We no longer need to tolerate a scumbag in the Whitehouse playing around with interns, we can instead know there is at least an adult there. Bush is not perfect and probably not a saint, but at least he is an adult and he can be respected even if you don't agree with him.

Quote:
Quote:
and respect of us by our enemies, something we sorely lacked under the previous administration.


He's created far more enemies to 'respect' us. Big accomplishment there.

You don't defeat enemies by appeasing them, though unfortunately most liberals fail to ever learn this bitter lesson from history.

Quote:
Quote:
The Patriot Act was passed, which was sorely needed, and we got the agencies back working together instead of hiding information from each other in regard to tracking terrorists.


One of the few things I agree with, though the Patriot act could have been written in ten pages if that was what it was for. Instead, it was mostly for grabbing as much power as possible for the WH; written before 9/11, passed in the fervor afterwards, it is a terrible piece of legislation that you should be ashamed to support.

Glad to know you agree on this, no bill is perfect, but it has served us well. And don't listen to lawyers so ignorant as to believe we should get a judge to approve every last phone conversation seconds before it occurs.
Quote:
Quote:
He has restored respect and readiness in the military. Many other good things as well.


Yeah, the military is doing great these days, not close to being broken at all. Guess those generals in the Pentagon and the Joint Chiefs who keep going on about that exact problem don't know what the hell they are talking about. And our military sure has improved in quality; we now have the highest percentage of soldiers who didn't graduate from high school since ww2, the most gang members since ww2, in fact, I think that you will find that any metric used to measure individual quality has sank like a stone over the last several years. All while encouraging a gigantic invasion of our military by Evangelical and Dominionist Christians, who actively persecute those who aren't their flavor of religion.

---

You really ought to preview your posts. Bush has been a complete and total failure as a president. All this 'history will decide' bullshit is ridiculous. I don't need to wait 20 years to realize that he has made mistake after mistake, time after time. Anything he got right, he fell ass-backwards into, just like every other part of his life. And the fact that you still can't see this merely confirms my earlier point: your judgment of 'credibility' is useless, Okie.

Cycloptichorn
[/quote]
You are entitled to your opinion, but he has been infinitely better than Clinton in so many different ways, it is not even close. You are the victim or a willing accomplice to listening to all the liberal propaganda that was created to get Bush from the time he took office. Sorry, but not all of us swallow all of that bilge.
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 10:39 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
How many times must I tell you the same thing, Tico?

I don't hate Bush at all. Not in the slightest. I don't know why you choose to use the word 'hate' when there are many other verbs which are more descriptive.

Cycloptichorn


You may have to keep reminding me.




"Despise"?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 10:59 pm
Okie, I honestly think you have blinded yourself to reality.

A blowjob is not as important as screwing up affairs of state in several major ways, Okie. Not by a long shot.

I'm not a Clinton fan like a lot of the Liberals here. I voted for Bush in 2000. I don't think he is a bad man, or an evil man; I just think he has made some poor choices, especially in the realm of who he has chosen for his advisers. And, he wasn't a very good governor of Texas. And, not such a good manager of the businesses he ran. I have no idea why you or anyone continue to back him.

Because he seems like a nice and honest guy, who knows what he wants and doesn't bend in the wind? I'm sure he is, why not. Everyone who meets him says he comes off that way. But that doesn't make him a successful leader at all. You are getting the two confused.

The whole 'liberal media/liberal propaganda' thing is a little tired, thanks.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 11:05 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
... I voted for Bush in 2000. ... And, he wasn't a very good governor of Texas. And, not such a good manager of the businesses he ran. ...


Why, again, did you vote for him?
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 2 Jan, 2008 11:10 pm
You voted for Bush in 2000, well, thats a shock, and I am being honest. Its nice you admit the man is decent. Look, its trendy to criticize Bush right now, he is the butt of jokes, and he is a lame duck and people want to move on, but I will stick up for him, he is a decent man, something that can't be said for Bill, who is truly a pshycotic type of personality, not a guy that should run any country, and I wouldn't buy a used car from him to be honest. He needs to go back to Arkansas, get a real job, and take his wife with him.

I think Bush did alot of good, while making a few mistakes, but we are better off with him than we would have been with the alternatives given us. He deserves credit for doing his level best for the country. It is now time to move on with fresh leadership, which we won't find anything good in the Democratic Party, I am pretty sure of that.
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
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 09/29/2024 at 12:11:34