Bush Supporters' Aftermath Thread IV

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

revel wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

revel wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Well we do consider the source as we consider all you wonderful Bush supporters who provide your pithy and insightful comments no matter how rude, wrong, or irresponsible they might be. Either the most flaming liberals are the most judgmental, hateful, and irresponsible people on earth as a group, or they are the most stupid in the way they attempt to sell their ideology by trashing anybody with a different point of view on any issue.

Pot meet kettle

Really? Would you like to cite illustrations of conservatives coming onto liberal threads for the purpose of saying hateful, antagonistic, and/or stupid things? Peruse the Democrat Gloat thread for instance, not that you guys seem to be able to keep that going, and see how many instances of trolling, spamming, and/or hateful attack posts you can find from the conservatives there, at least on a scale anywhere near approximating the trolls, spammers, and anti-Bush, anti-conservative hate posts that are regularly posted on this thread.

Take your time. I'll wait.

Again I have no problem with those who come onto this thread for the purpose of engaging in constructive differences in points of view. Such are welcomed and encouraged and don't receive any grief whatsoever from those of us who asked for one thread in which we could discuss conservative issues without nasty harrassment from the trolls.

This whole posts is completely not connected to comments which led to my commenting, "pot meet kettle." For proof there is need to go further than this post.

You didn't say anything about this sacred thread which we heathens have come onto in your post which is quoted at the top of this post and which I responded with "pot meet kettle." You said how rude, wrong and irresponsible our posts are. I consider yours and some of your fellow conservative just as rude, wrong, and irresponsible.

There is no need to go dragging post even if I could do it right, posters that have been here for awhile probably already know what each of is talking about and have their own views of it.

Well apart from the fact that you are reading more into my post than what I wrote and a lot of what you are saying in this post makes no sense at all, I'll take this as a sort of twisted admission that you can't find any cases of Conservative trolling, spamming, and hate posts in liberal threads. This thread, even the Version IV portion of it, contains quite a few examples making my point however.

That's the whole point; there are no 'liberal' or 'conservative' threads here on A2K. You don't get special privileges to post in certain places just because you are of a certain political bent.

If you're looking to post and talk to Conservatives or Bush Supporters only, you're in the wrong place completely. I would suggest a different website.

Cycloptichorn

Jespah didn't repeat it when he unexplainably locked Version III and started this thread. But if you had read the thread starter of the other three versions and/or read the pleadings and opinions of Conservatives in this thread, you would khow that the PURPOSE of this thread is for people who don't despise George W. Bush to be able discuss conservative issues without harrassment from hateful trolls. We are happy to discuss the pros and cons of those issues and that's why reasonable, intelligent liberals are also welcome here.

Comprende?

I have seen many, many reasonable and intelligent liberals post here and be yelled at for doing so, because the Republicans don't like what was posted - regardless of the reason or intelligence involved in the post.

Cyclop

Quote:

I have seen many, many reasonable and intelligent liberals post here and be yelled at for doing so, because the Republicans don't like what was posted - regardless of the reason or intelligence involved in the post.

Perhaps you could point out a reasonable and intelligent liberal post that got a member yelled at here. But please don't try to pass off trolling, spamming, hatemongering, and personal attacks as reasonable and intelligent.

Foxfyre wrote:

Cyclop

Quote:

I have seen many, many reasonable and intelligent liberals post here and be yelled at for doing so, because the Republicans don't like what was posted - regardless of the reason or intelligence involved in the post.

Perhaps you could point out a reasonable and intelligent liberal post that got a member yelled at here. But please don't try to pass off trolling, spamming, hatemongering, and personal attacks as reasonable and intelligent.

All a matter of opinion; every single criticism of your arguments is a personal attack, remember.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Cyclop

Quote:

I have seen many, many reasonable and intelligent liberals post here and be yelled at for doing so, because the Republicans don't like what was posted - regardless of the reason or intelligence involved in the post.

Perhaps you could point out a reasonable and intelligent liberal post that got a member yelled at here. But please don't try to pass off trolling, spamming, hatemongering, and personal attacks as reasonable and intelligent.

All a matter of opinion; every single criticism of your arguments is a personal attack, remember.

Cycloptichorn

Nope. Ad hominem is directed at the member instead of the argument sort of like your statement here. I have NEVER EVER complained at a honest criticism of my arguments and thoroughly enjoy debating a topic. There are so few liberals who are capable of doing that without throwing in ad hominems though its tough to find people who can actually debate.

Quote:

Comprende?

A perfect example of a question that you never, ever need to ask me.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:

Comprende?

A perfect example of a question that you never, ever need to ask me.

Cycloptichorn

Probably because you never will. Foxfyre should have realized that.

Foxy, can you cite something showing Fitzgerald saying that Plame was not covert? I really doubt it.

Regarding Iraq, even former administration officials have said that Bush put out phony, cherrypicked, or incomplete intelligence to support its intention to invade.

George, it is downright silly to say that our unprovoked invasion of Iraq is the equivalent of Israel defending itself from forces in Lebanon and Palestine.

Foxfyre wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

Cyclop

Quote:

I have seen many, many reasonable and intelligent liberals post here and be yelled at for doing so, because the Republicans don't like what was posted - regardless of the reason or intelligence involved in the post.

Perhaps you could point out a reasonable and intelligent liberal post that got a member yelled at here. But please don't try to pass off trolling, spamming, hatemongering, and personal attacks as reasonable and intelligent.

All a matter of opinion; every single criticism of your arguments is a personal attack, remember.

Cycloptichorn

Nope. Ad hominem is directed at the member instead of the argument sort of like your statement here. I have NEVER EVER complained at a honest criticism of my arguments and thoroughly enjoy debating a topic. There are so few liberals who are capable of doing that without throwing in ad hominems though its tough to find people who can actually debate.

I'm sorry, but I find this laughable. There have been many instances in which you have claimed exactly this - that a criticism of your arguments equals a personal attack.

For example, see your Freedom of Academic thought thread, in which you claimed over and over again that attacks upon your argument were in fact personal attacks.

Cycloptichorn

Advocate wrote:

Foxy, can you cite something showing Fitzgerald saying that Plame was not covert? I really doubt it.

Regarding Iraq, even former administration officials have said that Bush put out phony, cherrypicked, or incomplete intelligence to support its intention to invade.

George, it is downright silly to say that our unprovoked invasion of Iraq is the equivalent of Israel defending itself from forces in Lebanon and Palestine.

Advocate, neither he nor the Grand Jury found that any law had been broken in the outing or alleged outing of Valerie Plame. No indictments of any kind were forthcoming and he stated there would be none forthcoming on that issue. Libby was not indicted for outing Valerie Plame. He was indicated on five counts of perjury or misstatement of facts, not for going after or outing Valerie Plame or for going after Joe Wilson. The matter is now with the jury and I am fairly certain Libby will be acquitted of all charges.

The evidence is clear that Plame had not been covert for seven years prior to her 'outing'. She and her husband were pictured together on his website for heaven's sake--with her name right there. She was listed as his wife in his Who's Who in America entry. Fitzgerald had known for years before the indictment that it was Armitage and not Libby who 'outed her'.

The Leftwing drive by media did their damndest to convict Bush, Rove, Cheney, et al, and all wound up with egg on their face.

If you are really serious with your question, here are some good sources with some good background:

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/ByronYork/051106.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200507180801.asp

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/16/AR2007021601705.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair (not ever my first choice for proof of anything but usually has some good keywords for further research.)
___________________________________________

Now your turn: Where is your evidence that prior administration officials have said Bush knowingly put out phony, cherry picked, or incomplete evidence prior to the invasion of Iraq?

No indictments of any kind were forthcoming and he stated there would be none forthcoming on that issue.

The evidence is clear that Plame had not been covert for seven years prior to her 'outing'. She and her husband were pictured together on his website for heaven's sake--with her name right there. She was listed as his wife in his Who's Who in America entry.

Foxfyre wrote:

Advocate wrote:

Foxy, can you cite something showing Fitzgerald saying that Plame was not covert? I really doubt it.

Regarding Iraq, even former administration officials have said that Bush put out phony, cherrypicked, or incomplete intelligence to support its intention to invade.

George, it is downright silly to say that our unprovoked invasion of Iraq is the equivalent of Israel defending itself from forces in Lebanon and Palestine.

Advocate, neither he nor the Grand Jury found that any law had been broken in the outing or alleged outing of Valerie Plame. No indictments of any kind were forthcoming and he stated there would be none forthcoming on that issue. Libby was not indicted for outing Valerie Plame. He was indicated on five counts of perjury or misstatement of facts, not for going after or outing Valerie Plame or for going after Joe Wilson. The matter is now with the jury and I am fairly certain Libby will be acquitted of all charges.

The evidence is clear that Plame had not been covert for seven years prior to her 'outing'. She and her husband were pictured together on his website for heaven's sake--with her name right there. She was listed as his wife in his Who's Who in America entry. Fitzgerald had known for years before the indictment that it was Armitage and not Libby who 'outed her'.

The Leftwing drive by media did their damndest to convict Bush, Rove, Cheney, et al, and all wound up with egg on their face.

If you are really serious with your question, here are some good sources with some good background:

http://www.hillnews.com/thehill/export/TheHill/Comment/ByronYork/051106.html

http://www.nationalreview.com/mccarthy/mccarthy200507180801.asp

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/02/16/AR2007021601705.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plame_affair (not ever my first choice for proof of anything but usually has some good keywords for further research.)
___________________________________________

Now your turn: Where is your evidence that prior administration officials have said Bush knowingly put out phony, cherry picked, or incomplete evidence prior to the invasion of Iraq?

This

Quote:

No indictments of any kind were forthcoming and he stated there would be none forthcoming on that issue.

Is contra-factual. Fitz never stated that there would be no forthcoming indictments on this issue. I challenge you to post where he did.

And this

Quote:

The evidence is clear that Plame had not been covert for seven years prior to her 'outing'. She and her husband were pictured together on his website for heaven's sake--with her name right there. She was listed as his wife in his Who's Who in America entry.

Is also ridiculous. You are conflating two ideas in an attempt to protect your boy Libby. It is plainly obvious that the secret wasn't that Plame existed, it wasn't that she was Wislon's wife, it was that she worked for the CIA. Which wasn't listed in Who's who, wasn't on Wilson's website, wasn't written anywhere. Ridiculous attempt to confuse the issue on your part - or perhaps it was yourself who was confused?

Just look in the links I posted for Advocate. I'm pretty sure you'll find more than one reference to that.

No indictments of any kind were forthcoming and he stated there would be none forthcoming on that issue.

Well I saw it on the website with my own eyes. I'm not sure about the Who's Who entry but it is widely reported that her name appeared and appears in his bio there.

At any rate the links I posted for Advocate pretty much put that issue to rest.

Or perhaps you have credible links of your own--articles that have not subsequently shown to be in significant factual error--to dispute the facts in the links I posted?

Dear Ms. Howell:

Instead of turning to someone who actually knows the truth you prefer to bury your head in the sand of ingnorance. It is not just my word. You can ask a host of retired CIA officers who can verify that Valerie Plame was covert until her identity was compromised in the Robert Novak article. The willful ignorance of the Post is a disgrace to journalism. The number of people who can vouch for Valerie's identity is significant. Ask Tyler Drumheller, Chief of the European Division of the CIA Directorate of Operations. Ask Robert Grenier. Ask me. Ask Jim Marcinkowski.

Ask Mike Grimaldi. Ask Brent Cavan. Ask Gary Berntsen. Ask Mike Gorbel. instead of talking to CIA officers who know firsthand, you rely on Victoria Toensing, who has ZERO experience as a CIA officer. Hell, ask John McLaughlin. Ask Bill Harlow (oops, I forgot, he already told your reporters she was undercover and asked them not to report it.)

Your ignorance and cowardice on this is breathtaking.

Larry Johnson