:eek:
Andy: Since you’re interested in facts, read on.
And, while we’re at it (although you for some odd reason didn’t mention it)
But that works “only if there is an open mind on the receiving end”, eh what?
Oh yeah, your “enemies list” stuff - even to the extent that it’s true, the worst one can call it is fighting fire with fire.
Oh, good Lord, ** ElvisL1ves,** your quoting FAIR. Quoting FAIR is not getting facts – it’s getting the way-left spin from a group that has never hesitated to lie. Quoting FAIR is equivalent to saying no one ever need take you seriously anymore.
The only thing you can be sure about in FAIR reports is that the quotations are taking out of context and that only the aspects that supports FAIR’s side was quoted. That is why I quoted sources that would give both sides of the story. It’s called credibility. I, too, could quote Judicial Watch or some other right-wing source on this controversy, and such quotes would also have to be taken with huge grains of salt.
The bottom line is that the GAO reported up to $20,000 in damage.
And the dollar cost does not include “pranks” such as mid-directing call forwarding, leaving obscene messages on answering machines, putting comments on the backs of blank pages left in copy machines, etc.
I should know better than to present facts before someone who quotes FAIR. The FAIR crowd isn’t going to let reality change its view.
You say “even if it’s true” – even after White House officials say it’s true.
:rolleyes:
It’s amazing how so many former civil libertarians will roll over and acceded to using government records against private citizens when it’s their politician who is doing it.
And one thing I would like to add about the FAIR page quoted by ElvisL1ves. It says:
This is how FAIR operates. It admits that even the Democrats acknowledged that keyboards were vandalized. It then faults the GOP for including them in reports of vandalism!
That’s FAIR for you. Find a credible source, please.
The weirdest part of this quote is “Those stories were long ago confirmed by Democrats and were never described as “vandalism” or “looting” in the media-- including on Fox.”
So if FAIR can’t find a previous news report calling this vandalism, then it’s not vandalism?
It’s called “par for the course”, Andy. Other news reports at the time that may have escaped your notice, since they weren’t on Fox, commented on similar pranks pulled in January 1993 by, well, you-know-who.
It does no good to your credibility to simply denounce sources that say things that disagree with your worldview, amigo. Nicely indignant spluttering in your defense of the “fair and balanced” network, though. An “open-minded” person, though, might have noted that the report you don’t like was from the GSA, not FAIR.
It’s called “reality”. Embrace it. Live it. The ignorance you fight may be your own.
I would loan Satisfying Andy Licious my copy of The Hunting of the President, but I’m sure he/she would just denounce it as “way-left spin” without reading the damn thing. :rolleyes:
Does anybody else feel that Satisfying Andy Licious ultimately succeeded in his tu quoque? Let’s get back on topic.
Wait! I want to tu quoque too!
If we are blessed with fifteen more months of transparent scummery on the part of the people in charge right now, we just might be able to see how the Bush staff conducts itself during its own departure.
Given the long and well documented history of Republican dirty tricks, my prediction is that the “W” in the future W-gate won’t stand for a keyboard key; it will stand for “wiretap.”
hmmm, I meant to have a paren, or at least a comma in there. i.e:[ul]Originally posted (before the thread was hijacked) by Diogenes the Cynic
or
Originally posted, before the thread was hijacked, by Diogenes the Cynic[/ul]
Punctuation is our friend.
Hmm. No one is interested in Drudge’s hypocrisy?
Fox News wasn’t on the air in 1993. But thanks for making even more of an ass of yourself.
Then cite a source that someone besides far-left whackos would trust. Honestly, posting a citation from FAIR is a formal declaration that you don’t have to be taken seriously.
I, myself, have cited the Washington Post and CNN. Both are seen in some circles as being Clinton-friendly. At any rate, I can’t say either reflect my worldview. I cite them because they, at least, are considered mainstream and not the province of foil-hat wearing extremists.
The report was from the GAO, not GSA. But thanks for making an ass out of you and your source.
Hokay, rjung, are you really going to sit there and claim that a book with the subtitle of “The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill & Hillary Clinton” actually doesn’t have a spin?
In general, anything that detracts from the freedom of the voters, safeguarding the freedom of a certain subset of those voters, is A Bad Thing.
Would human rights be harmed if the President were foreign-born or under 35? Would anyone be disenfranchised? Would basic republican ideals be at risk? I can’t see how. These rules exist not to safeguard the inalienable rights of any minority, but to prevent the rabble from voting for a candidate that certain bygone political elites did not deem fit to be President.
In a more egalitarian age, these rules are simply unnecessary limitations on the sovereign power of the electorate. The electorate should support attempts to change the rules.
Somehow* I posted in the wrong thread. Terribly sorry, mods.
*Possibly due to my sheer idiocy
Not if the President-destroying campaign exists.
I had to look up ‘tu quoque’ so I could run with you smart folk. I reckon it means ‘you did it too’ or ‘two wrongs make a right’ Fine.
It would be ‘touchingly naive’ to assume the Executive Branch didn’t have staffers digging up dirt on political foes. I brought up the infamous FauxNews Burnin & Lootin’ of the White House by departing Clintonites to show how low the NeoCon’s set the bar at the start. SAL, I asked before, “did Ari ever disabuse you of that notion?”
Let’s talk about WH staffers committing treason, shall we?
By Timothy M. Phelps and Knut Royce
Washington Bureau
July 21, 2003, 9:48 PM EDT
Washington – The identity of an undercover CIA officer whose husband started the Iraq uranium intelligence controversy has been publicly revealed by a conservative Washington columnist citing “two senior administration officials.”
Intelligence officials confirmed to Newsday Monday that Valerie Plame, wife of retired Ambassador Joseph Wilson, works at the agency on weapons of mass destruction issues in an undercover capacity – at least she was undercover until last week when she was named by columnist Robert Novak.
Wilson, while refusing to confirm his wife’s employment, said the release to the press of her relationship to him and even her maiden name was an attempt to intimidate others like him from talking about Bush administration intelligence failures.
"It’s a shot across the bow to these people, that if you talk we’ll take your family and drag them through the mud as well," he said in an interview.
------ end -----
emphasis mine
Hmm. Revealing an intelligence agent (Wilson’s wife). And during wartime. That’s quite a lot more than suggesting ABC’s reporter is a faggot canuck! Is that Treason?
(Wilson is supposed to be on “Today Show” later this morning)
That said, SAL, I must say I like the cut of your jib. The “Don’t stop thinking about tomorrow” quip was LOL priceless. 
Now go and eat the dishes, candyman :b
I thought of Nixon’s “Enemies List” immediately. I understand why some of you who value personal integrity have a hard time conceiving of the office of any Presidency being so vicious. But when you have watched it unfold once, it is easier to believe when it happens again.
I took a look again at Nixon’s list. Included were many respected reporters, newspapers and broadcasters. (There were lots of other enemies too, including celebrities. Three that always make me shake my head are Paul Newman, Bill Cosby and Leonard Berstein.)
Here are some of the comments and memos from that list. They show how deliberate they were in seeking to destroy those who disagreed with them:
#8 on the list: Morton Halperin, leading executive at Common Cause: **A scandal would be most helpful here. **(A consultant for Common Cause in February-March 1971)[On staff of Brookings Institution]
For more details: http://www.artsci.wustl.edu/~polisci/calvert/PolSci3103/watergate/enemy.htm
The above information was disclosed during the televised Watergate hearings.
BTW, the Buchanan referred to was Pat Buchanan.
I am not saying that Bush has an enemies list – just that it does happen and it wouldn’t surprise me. Look how he treated a member of his own party who ran against him – John McCain.
If any of you have sources indicating a similar level of maliciousness and abuse of power, I would be interested in reading them. But Nixon set the standard pretty high.
**Satisfying Andy Licious **, perhaps you’d like to open a thread about the evils of the Clinton Administration? It might be a good idea, as they have nothing whatsoever to do with the issue we have been discussing.
I say again, what the Clinton administration did does not excuse what this administration is doing. Just as bringing up what Bush did will not excuse what the next Democrat elected to the Presidency will do.
But they were in 2001, when they were breathlessly reporting the historically-unique depravity of Clinton even after he was gone. “Fair and balanced”? You didn’t get the point at all. Read again, more slowly and without moving your lips if you can.
Can you point out any fact, any at all, that they’ve gotten wrong? Anything relevant they’re overlooking? No? Then reassess your position. Denouncing anything you don’t like as “whacko” does not help you convince anyone but yourself, ya know.
So you want a friggin’ medal for that?
Nope, you didn’t even read the link before denouncing both it and someone with the temerity to present it to you. Although the GAO was involved, the report was from the GSA, as stated.
- Dean Wormer
Wait a second… gay Canadian?
Aren’t all Canadians gay?