The "Only For Non-Tinfoil Types" Thread

I don't know what baffles me more. Scam artists posing as journalists or the ensuing childlike lionization of them.

There are a whole slew of great thinkers/writers who hang out here. It aggravates me at times that their words and thoughts, which are often incisive and brilliant, are tainted by association with those who are more concerned with being self aggrandizing, self promoting "blog stars" than they are with actually laying out a coherent strategy to go about winning our country back.

And whenever sentiments like this OP are expressed, or skepticism is vocalized about absurd conspiracy theories, the tinfoil masses converge with anger and vitriol. The prevailing sentiment being "ok, so it was all lies, but he's OUR liar! How dare you be pissed off at the liar!" or even worse, those who continue to come up with ever far reaching tall tales to try to continue justifying the unjustifiable.

While I don't think the average American voter is concerned with what happens at DU and liberal blogs, many inside-the-beltway types and journalists are, and the "moonbat" stereotype, fostered by tinfoil blathering, sometimes works to the detriment of the many rational and thoughtful posters here and to the detriment of Democrats everywhere.

If you still believe in advocacy posing as journalism, then you are going to scream and stamp your feet and see this thread as flame bait. Frankly, I don't care.

This is a thread of appreciation for all those of you that post here and keep your wits about you, keep a cynical but level head on your shoulders, see reality as it truly is, fight this monstrous administration daily, and do not see Patrick Fitzgerald handing out subpoenas in the dark, in the shadows, running furtively from tree to tree like a ghostly, transparent wraith.

Your words do not go unnoticed and you are not alone.

You wanna indictment? I got the best indictments. I got yer indictment right here....

:rofl:

You almost had me. There I was thinking yall are perfect - as white as the driven snow, even.

That since you were so perfect, you could cast stones against, as it were, glass houses.

Nice try, you almost has me thinking its cool to make a big deal over an honest, or otherwise, mistake. Its not. Reason got the upper hand, there.

Tell ya what.... Get Over IT. People tell me that about the stolen elections, and that matter is a wee bit more important. Right?

Just get over IT.

Isn't that "pure" as driven snow? Just sayin'.

... they demanded a pound of flesh from ANYONE who DARED to criticize or question the story and their HEROES.

<< People tell me that about the stolen elections, and that matter is a wee bit more important. Right? >>

Such trivial matters like "stolen elections" were lagging FAR BEHIND the priorities of defending Pitt/Leopold just one month ago. But now the P/L/TO defenders are singing a different tune. Hmmm. What changed? -- Oh wait, yeah... that's right... now I remember... ROVE WASN'T INDICTED!!

Now that it's ONE MONTH LATER and we can clearly see that Rove isn't indicted, the same folks are telling us to shut up and "GET OVER IT"?

That's absolutely astounding!

I smell double-standard. Is that the aroma of hypocrisy?

What do you smell? It sure does stink.

I did nothing but read those chapters. Never did introduce my feelings into the fray, because I felt it was worhless then, and even more worthless now. Oh, I might have told one or two of the more nasty combatants that they needed to grow up, or at least I should have, but otherwise, my hands are clean.

So, to have you say I am this, or that, or I did that, is a total mistake, for which you should probably turn yourself in and give yourself thirty lashes.

Anything less would be the true hypocricy.

Let me know how it all works out, K?

... but what you're now doing is echoing the Bots' cries of "get over it". Your words are right there for all to read... I'm making no mistake about that.

That halo you're trying to disguise yourself with isn't the right size, it's also bit warped, and definitely needs a little more polishing.

<< but otherwise, my hands are clean. >>

The dirt under your nails tells me otherwise.

You don't like being called wrong? You flamed me, I threw water on your flames... flames meant to punish someone you consider to have made a mistake. Then caught with your mistake down around your ankles you wave your arms wildly trying to fan your dying flame.

Hypocrisy. And sickening.

... you echo the cries of the Bots to "get over it". That speaks for itself.

By including me, unfairly, in your opposition.

I can tell by your words you are hurt. I did not hurt you, I am trying to help you. You need to let it go. It is not important. Stolen elections are important. This matter is nothing, and your anger over this nothing is wasted. Get over it.

<< You personally attacked me >>

You'll have an exceedingly difficult time in convincing a moderator that there was a "personal attack" of any sort. Your sensibilities may have been offended, but there was NO "personal attack" as you claim.

<< By including me, unfairly, in your opposition. >>

I've done no such thing. But I do find it peculiar that only for the sake of argument do you disavow membership with that claque, yet the reality is, and it's clear to see, that you join in with their rallying cries.


<< I can tell by your words you are hurt. I did not hurt you, I am trying to help you. >>

Oh spare me the sanctimonious tripe. :eyes:


<< You need to let it go. >>

Some folks need to accept reality and let go of the Rove-indictment fantasy.


<< It is not important. >>

So you say, but words are cheap... and your own behavior indicates otherwise. Which are we to believe: what you say or what you do? :shrug:


<< Stolen elections are important. This matter is nothing, and your anger over this nothing is wasted. Get over it. >>

Yes... we all see how "unimportant" it is to you. :rofl: You say one thing but your insistence on having the last word indicates the opposite.

Go figure. :crazy:

What is not important is the acrimony towards a journalist(s). Thats what you should get over.

If, for one second you are thinking I say "get over rove", then you are absolutely wrong. That would be ridiculous.

Which brings us back around to the penance you should pay for attempting to make two wrongs into a right. This is what yall need to get over: Making a federal case out of a reporter's mistake.

... as deep as the one you're now in... the best course of action is to stop digging.

<< Cute. good tactics... "last word". No, not cute - cheap >>

How odd. For someone who is so concerned about propriety and "personal attacks" I must admit a bit of consternation regarding why you would accuse me of being "cheap". :eyes:

<< What is not important is the acrimony towards a journalist(s). Thats what you should get over. >>

It's clear to me that many people here have exceedingly LOW standards when it comes to what qualifies someone as being a "journalist."

Now... whether it's intentional or not, another thing that's clear is that many people here are missing the point. It's not whether a "journalist" was right or wrong, but how that writer responds--and whether or not he accepts responsibility--for being wrong.

It also has to do with whether the defenders and groupies own up to their own mistakes for all that they did (up to and including accusing the reality-based critics of "rooting for rove" and "being traitors".)

Instead, what we get is the empty "get over it" mantra that others started and that you (apparently) feel obligated to join in and repeat. In this context, when someone says "get over it", what really they mean is "I refuse to accept reality", and "I refuse to hold anyone accountable".

This is the unvarnished truth. You know this, and I know this. These red herrings of how there are "more important issues" are irrelevant. The strawmen arguments of how everyone is "upset about a mistake" are a diversion.

I think I should let you know that your very careful splitting-of-hairs and the great pains you take in avoiding facts (and attempting to redefine the subject) only serve to convince me that you are fully aware of your weak position.

<< If, for one second you are thinking I say "get over rove", then you are absolutely wrong. That would be ridiculous. >>

Honestly, I have no idea what put that idea in your head. I'll have to attribute it to a vivid imagination, or speed-reading too quickly, or utter desperation in trying to find some way to win an unwinnable argument.

Fact is that no reasonable person would construe my words as meaning--or even suggesting--such a thing. :shrug: It appears to me that in the absence of any substantive arguments, you're just pulling irrelevant accusations out of your ass. :boring:

Next thing you know you'll be telling me that you're trying to help me. Oh wait, never mind... that's right... you already did that. :eyes:

<< Which brings us back around to the penance you should pay for attempting to make two wrongs into a right. This is what yall need to get over: Making a federal case out of a reporter's mistake. >>

You're wrong again. Continually repeating the old message, and finding new ways of delivering the same erroneous message, will not make it right.

Attempts from the sycophants and toadies to blame the critics and doubters are misguided. Their attempts to marginalize and silence those who desire accountability from the "journalist" (and other assorted personality-cult supporters) will fail.

It does not take a genius to figure out that sheer willpower and defiance will not change the truth of the matter. No matter how much they wish it were true, the story was wrong and Rove was not indicted.

That the story was wrong then, it's wrong now, and the cast of characters involved in creating and defending the story still refuse (or skillfully avoid) taking personal responsibility. (And yet, their howling defenders screech away and sling poop as though this will change the facts. Unfortunately for them, it won't.)

So... unless you have anything of marginal interest to add to this conversation, I'll leave you now and permit you to enjoy the view inside that hole you've dug. Feel free to waste as much of your OWN time as you like, but I'm not very inclined to let you waste any more of mine.

~Allen :hi:

PS: You may now have the Last Word over something that "does not matter" to you. Here's is your chance to shine, Poster... so make it a good one. :eyes:




edit: corrected typo, grammar clarity

They go "Hey. I made a mistake. Sorry."

Of course, we are bogged down smack in the middle of the age of Bush, here- but one would think that this place, at least, would be a spot where certain folks wouldn't want to emulate the guy's style.

It's very simple; You make a mistake, you fuck up, you admit it. You say "Shit. I fucked up. Whoops."

(Lashing out, blindly and continually, at the people who called you on the mistake doesn't really help the situation, either)

THEN you can move on.

:toast:

So, YOU won't call me a freeper, a Rovian, a Republican or a GOP operative for calling TO and Leopold full of horseshit?

Reaaalllly??

one of the few with enough wisdom to see through the BS.

Why bother?

You know - the member of the illustrious TRUTHOUT?

Maybe I'll ask him why next time I see it happen.

Yes.Perhaps.Yes.

I'm glad we are getting along so well :D

:thumbsup:

:evilgrin:

I haven't posted here much lately but I read some of those threads. I also appreciate those who posited some rational questions and were subsequently attacked and smeared.

Nice post :thumbsup:

Great. But that's what people do.

I don't see that Jason had to be a "liar" to have this happen. Or even an "irresponsible journalist." Stuff happens, with Rove around, sneaky stuff happens.

Surely not everything in truthout is a "lie" just because of this, either. It is certainly not "rational and thoughtful" to make that conclusion.

No one is tainted by association. Association is a logical fallacy. If someone else does it they're wrong.

We are all linked whether we care to acknowledge it or not...

They do not post arrogant messages defending their story, giving lame excuses as to why it has not panned out like they said it would.

They do not attack everyone who disagrees with them (including Skinner) or call them freepers or "fuckshits of low mental weight".

Not only should WillPitt and Jason Leopold apologize, all of the sheeple who mindlessly attacked others and posted dumb threads lionizing hack journalists like they were Cesar Chavez or somebody should apologize.

of congress for 2 years.

they get multiple sources and verify.

I call bullshit on anyone who wants to wrap this up in a nice tidy package and say "Rove was innocent" and Leopold lies.

I prefer to wait until all the facts are in, not fall for every piece of drivel from Rove's lackeys.

If Rove in indicted 47 years from now for stealing candy from a baby, that does not make Leopold's story right.

No one, I repeat, NO ONE has said "Rove was innocent" as you claim. We all know his hands are dirty. However, no indictment has been issued and Fitz said that he doesn't anticipate that one WILL be issued against the scumbag. That makes Leopold's story wrong. No matter how much you or I would like him to be indicted, the story was wrong.

How on Earth does coming to terms with that reality make one a "Rove lackey"?

as the indictment itself.

He is a journalist who says he has sources, while posters calling him a liar have nothing whatsoever to go on.

Rove is a sneak and a liar and we all know that. That's one thing that is generally agreed up here.

He fooled a journalist? Perfectly possible.

Why was JL the ONLY REPORTER IN THE WORLD with this giant story? I can guarantee there are at least a few reporters remaining on Capitol Hill with a little black book of contacts and a telephone - why hasn't any other reporter been able to shake-out any portion of the 'Rove indictment'? Because it never happened.

JL fabricated the whole story. His later 'updates' were just more manure for the heap, a delaying tactic, through which he hoped that somehow his story would be validated, ex post facto, by an actual indictment. And the clincher was his report filed yesterday, which was rather quickly exposed as complete bullshit in a thread here last night. JL had 1 month to come clean, but instead he continued peddling his sham.

had. Called the bewilderment phase. Victims of sociopaths know it well.

Why were no other reporters tricked, also? Why was it only JL that was duped? A rightwing conspiracy to destroy some insignificant online reporter?

In 4 weeks time, NO other reporters managed to 'crack' the bombshell story that JL claimed to have scooped. Why? Because the story didn't exist. It was simply a case of JL wanting to become a big fish, the next Matt Drudge with the next Monica Lewinski story, so he went way out on a limb and made a guess that the long-rumored Rove indictment would be handed-down at the next mtg of the GJ, and he was gonna become known as the guy that scooped the world. But he guessed wrong - the indictment didn't come down that day.

And worse yet, after he got caught with his pants down on the original story, he continued to spin the yarn, revising his story, e.g. when he initially reported the indictment would be handed-down in 24 hours, he really meant 3 business days, and similar nonsense still later.

The truth of the matter is that JL wasn't duped. In fact, he was the 'duper' - the Super Duper.

nuts in power..perpetually and without end... causes people like Leopold who are very affected.. to have to learn how to recalibrate how they think, what assumptions they make, and how discerning and judicious they have to be in a situation like that.

You would say that this GOP WH has stirred some emotions eh? Tribalism. Differences sharper.

The MSM made the same mistakes. But they have a whole structure around them that likely stepped in back a year and set some new ground rules. A smaller organization.. partisan.. was more vulnerable..later on.

When you know it's wrong, that's a lie.

You weren't even there. I would say it is considerably less rational.

And this thread is for rational people, right?

Fact 1) There was no Rove indictment. JL was clearly wrong to report an indictment that never existed.

Fact 2) JL was the only reporter to make this blatant error. No other reporters were similarly 'misled' on this story. In this respect, JL did not even meet the 'minimum competency requirement' of reporters in the Washington press corps - and the bar is set pretty low

Fact 3) JL's follow-up reporting only served to further call into question the merits of his original story and the integrity of his reporting in general. There are many examples of this, but for brevity, I'll focus on his June 12 'Sealed vs. Sealed' story in TO. Within the first half-day of its publication, the story was demonstrated to be riddled with holes by a several talented sleuths here on DU. 'Sealed vs. Sealed' was shown to be a motion before the court to quash a subpeona in the US vs. Libby case, NOT any kind of criminal indictment. Perhaps even more ludicrous, JL couldn't even correctly report the filing date of the document in question. (see post #189 and vicinity in DU thread http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=364x1406622#1410407)

So the facts are JL got it wrong from the start and JL continues to get it wrong to this day. He's either: (a) really, really bad at assembling and fact checking the data that give rise to his story lines, or (b) willfully misrepresents and/or fabricates information to support the story lines that he wants to write. Either way, his credibility as a reporter is shot.

and by reality, I am the reality reported by the liberal media.

So what do you want to talk about first?

How great it is that Bush visited Iraq?

How great it is that we are winning in Iraq and everything is super?

How wonderful it is that those horrible homosexual deviants can't marry?

How bad it is that Clinton let Osama go so he could plan 9/11?

How great Bush is because he "got real mad" after 9/11?

How right the Republcians must be, because they obviously won the elections in 2004 through fair, honest politics, in spite of massive fraud by the Dems?




That reality?

To me, THAT is what sounds insane

I'm not so sure that's what he was getting at - sounds like more of the black versus white thinking that is crippling this place lately...

k&r :kick:

I suppose I could take issue in that I'm neither mad at JL nor a tin foil hat person. I am a city kid and I am suspicious of any story that is not confirmed by at least two sources - especially if one is a internet reporter (take Drudge for instance). I guess I have my own internal journalistic standards. I have a feeling that some folks were dancing in the faces of their RW friends saying "nah! nah! nah! nah! nah! - Rove got indicted!". I mentioned it to people as an unconfirmed rumor, and they knew what that meant. I also didn't dare mention it to a Republican - I know better than that.

I feel there is some resentment toward some of us for not being angry at JL & TO, but I did not invest enough into this story for it to bother me that much - granted a part of me still secretly wants there to be something to it. :D

C'est la vie...

You really must hate TO, I'm baffled as to why. :eyes:

and all he gets is that he is "self aggrandizing." Yeah, I think the only one self aggrandizing is Leopold. I thought this was supposed to be a non-tinfoil thread too?

Ooooookay.

you wouldn't be unfairly, provocatively and gloatingly calling him a liar, since there is not a shred of evidence right now strong enough to declare such an inappropriate, swiftboat mentality, unjustified, character assassinating smear. If you truly had your wits about you, you wouldn't need to use such personal and hyped up rhetoric to make your point. Since you did, I question your sincerity in this not being "flamebait".

But one thing I do agree with you on, is that frankly, I don't care either.

than that Rove was indicted, or that "Sealed V Sealed" had anything to do with the Plame case, or that TO actually checked their sources properly.

For example, liars change their story, people who are telling the truth don't. When questions were raised about the article, a truthful author would have simply said "I reported what my sources told me", not started trying to find excuses as to why the "truth" hasn't come out yet.

When the "truth" hadn't come out for a considerable time, a truthful author would have confronted his sources and gotten their explanation and then written a story about that. You don't find it strange that Leopold has never written another word about the sources and what they say happened? I do.

In fact Leopold has gone from "3 sources" close enough to the investigation to know an indictment had been handed out, to NO SOURCES and speculating about "Sealed V Sealed" - What happened to his very good sources? Why does he seem to know NOTHING about what is going on NOW? Are his sources refusing to speak with him? Why doesn't he tell us?

All I see is evidence of lying. Everything else is just speculation trying to avoid the obvious.

I mean, accusing someone of being: witless, unfair, provocative, gloating, inappropriate, swiftboating, unjustified, character assassinating, smearing, witless (again), insincere and using personal and hyped up rhetoric -- while embodying the self-same characteristics -- that must be satire, right?

Calling someone out as being a flat out liar is pretty harsh, especially in the absence of any factual evidence whatsoever to justify it. Saying Leopold's sources were inaccurate or faulty is one thing. Smearing him personally as a liar is altogether different.

:shrug:

of smearing Mr. Leopold as a flat out liar for his story. Whether I have or haven't been has zero bearing on whether it is inappropriate to accuse Mr. Leopold of such, so I'm not sure what your point is. :shrug:

<< Please Point Me To Where I've Flat Out Called Someone A Liar Please. >>

I can think of no rational explanation why you would say such a thing UNLESS you felt that someone had accused you of doing that.

Since I was unable to determine when (or IF) such a thing occurred, I asked my question: "Has Someone *Actually* Said Such A Thing About You?"

<< Never. >>

I see. That's just what I suspected all along.


<<But I Hardly See How That Is Relevant In The Issue >>

I was wondering the same thing. If it's not relevant, then why did you bring it up in the first place? :shrug:


OTHER MATTERS: Did Leopold say that he would reveal his sources if his story turned out to be false? Now that we know the story was false (how much MORE proof do we need?) he still has not revealed any source/s. So, I must ask... was he LYING about that? It sure looks that way.

Like when you stick your nose into a reply that was for someone else, it is generally useful to at least read the original post that was being replied to. Context. Makes the world of difference ya know?

(And if I need to spell it out for you, the person I replied to claimed I was using the same tactics the OP was using in reference to my desription of the OP's attacks on Jason. My original description of the OP attack was due to unjustifiably calling Jason a flat out liar. Since I was accused of using similar tactics, I asked appropriately where I have ever so directly smeared somebody by calling them something as harsh as a flat out liar when there was no real evidence pointing towards that. Sorry that went over your head)

... I *did* read it in context. Before posting my comment, I re-read the previous posts to see if I could make sense of what you said and to see if maybe I was missing something.

<< Like when you stick your nose into a reply that was for someone else, >>

Oh Myrna Please! :eyes: Your posts do not exist in a vacuum. They are out there for everyone to read and for anyone to respond to.

If you don't like that concept, then you should work in your coping skills, or limit your communications to Private Messages, or avoid public discussion forums altogether. (BTW: For you to criticize others of what you do yourself is the height of hypocrisy.)

<< Context. Makes the world of difference ya know? >>

Oh wow... really? :eyes: Yes... let's examine that context.

<< Since I was accused of using similar tactics, I asked appropriately where I have ever so directly smeared somebody by calling them something as harsh as a flat out liar when there was no real evidence pointing towards that. >>

Your question was a strawman, because nobody had made such an accusation. It was all your imagination. An imagined injustice that you could easily knock over and pretend to be victorious.

What really happened is that the previous poster (WrinkleInTime) provided a laundry list of the things that you had accused someone of being/doing. Next he pointed out that the writer (in this case, you) embodied the self-same characteristics -- and therefore he postulated that your writing/rant must be satire.

Specifically, WrinkleInTime mentioned THESE EXACT WORDS: "witless, unfair, provocative, gloating, inappropriate, swiftboating, unjustified, character assassinating, smearing, witless (again), insincere and using personal and hyped up rhetoric" ... but *nowhere* in that list did he accuse you of calling someone a liar. NOWHERE!

But you act as if he did. Yet he did not. You were "defending" yourself against something that never happened. Something that you imagined. Something that was complete fiction.

<< Sorry that went over your head >>

No. I think the only thing you're sorry about is that I spotted your, ahem... "error" (shall we say?) Are you still having trouble in your efforts to "see the relevancy" of it now? :rofl:

Careful reading... "makes the world of difference ya know"? :eyes:

Always the way too long posts that just chop up a previous reply and then spin them into oblivion. If you can't understand the amazingly simple context of my reply and why it was written then I don't know how to help ya. :rofl:

Do you not realize that anyone with common sense can see through your chop jobs and spin? For example, this gem:


quote
"<< Like when you stick your nose into a reply that was for someone else, >>

Oh Myrna Please! :eyes: Your posts do not exist in a vacuum. They are out there for everyone to read and for anyone to respond to. If you don't like that concept, then you should avoid public discussion forums or limit your communications to Private Messages. (For you to criticize others of what you do yourself is the height of hypocrisy.)"
end quote


I mean, how stupid you think people are man? You think they have just as much trouble reading context and would just glance over the fact that the REAL quote of mine was "Like when you stick your nose into a reply that was for someone else, it is generally useful to at least read the original post that was being replied to."

Notice that context? I didn't say you shouldn't stick your nose in. As a matter of fact, I didn't say I didn't expect you to or that I didn't like the concept. So your whole little rant of that quote was completely misguided and unrelateable to the reality of the quote. I see how you so conveniently left off the end of the quote, because you couldn't have voiced your attempt at self-righteousness if you had included it. That is called selective quoting and deceitful spin, much like we abhor from the other side of the aisle. But DU'ers are not fools. They can read the full quote and see the obvious sentiment of it, which is quite simply if you're going to butt in, at least not be ignorant of the context when doing so. I'd say that's a reasonable enough request.

So anyway, time for you to chop chop chop away at this post and quote quote quote it while spin spin spinnning it while using warped logic and empty sarcasm to make a point that doesn't exist. :rofl:

Bye now! :hi:

Surprise, surprise! :rofl: Who would have imagined that? :shrug:

It was indeed a strawman that you created so that you could easily do battle with the imagined accusation... you could knock over your strawman... and declare "victory".

As someone once said: "I mean, how stupid you think people are, man?" :rofl:

I entered this thread by questioning your accusation... and asking if someone has actually said such a thing about you. With very little effort, I exposed the source of your faux-outrage for what it was.

It was a work of fiction that never happened. Any reasonable person can easily see that, in fact, NOBODY made such an accusation about you. Nobody said anything even coming CLOSE to what you claim.

So the false story created by you has been exposed. At the very least you're not even TRYING to deny creating your imaginary foe. I suppose doing so wouldn't help much anyway, so why waste your effort, eh?

I suppose when someone finds themselves being exposed (as you are now) the easiest course of actions is to try and divert attention by criticizing their opposition's writing style and by making other ad-hominem attacks on the messenger. Or... by trying to change the subject and create a false issue regarding "context".

You were caught with your pants around your ankles... and there's really not much you can do to change that.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

:shrug:

You were caught with your pants around your ankles... and there's really not much you can do to change that.

This irrational nonsense has gone on too long already.

:rofl:

:hi:

.

"Roulette Journalism".

I can't decide which I like better! At first blush, Roulette Journalism caught my eye, but now, Bermuda Triangulation is really starting to grow on me... I'll take 'em both, thank you.

sort of like opening a window and letting a cool spring breeze wash out a room full of stinky farts

so necessary

Sensible, refreshing, cool, and stimulating FRESH AIR! It's really quite nice... a wonderful change! Very nice... thank you!

:thumbsup:

When something like this happens around here, the hype lasts for about 3 days, it gets ugly, but then all is forgotten.

hooray for short attention spans!

It was so important, I had to say it twice. :eyes:

Best summation of DU's current situation.

Looks like you got 9 recommendations so far.

Which is only 3 "business" recommendations, but no matter....:evilgrin:

:thumbsup:



:toast:



:yourock:

for those who trust authority, for those who think there's no such thing as Election Fraud Conspiracy.

take a chill pill.

:smoke:

Great post! :thumbsup:

It's nice that you all have your own special place to go and hang out.

I am absolutely appalled at the behavior here. From my vantage point for the last month, all I saw was vicious attacks on anyone who dared to call your vicious attacks 'vicious attacks'. And when people legitimately got pissed at the kind of insults we see in the OP, all of a sudden they became Pitt-bots. I saw one instance of you all being attacked - Pitt's post - and then you people did your damnedest to prove him right.

If any of you can't see how the OP is ridiculously insulting, I wouldn't worry about being called Rovian, on the payroll, a fuckwit, a cretin: I'm not sure you're even human.

Cue vicious attacks.

IT SUCKS!!!!!!!

it is a cheap ploy, an ad hominem attack.

either answer the questions posed or say, "i don't know" or say nothing.

Sid

What do you need a freaking Ladmo bag? A pat on the ass? A high five?
Here ya go......

:toast: :bounce: :woohoo: Feel better?

You know what's worse than being a "CT nut"? It's people like you praising diversity and in the same breath you whine about diversity. You demonize it with your name calling and your "appreciation threads"
Give me a break. :nopity:

I never took "sides". I believe that Rove was more than likely indicted and weaseled out of it because of who we are talking about here-Rove-one of the biggest liars and manipulators on the face of the earth! I'm sure there are lots of people around here who are choosing to back Truthout for that very same reason.


Signed,
Me
Proud tinfoil hat wearer! :tinfoilhat:

p.s. IMO, this thread IS flame bait. You are no smarter or more a critical thinker than anyone else around here.

FYI:
http://www.answers.com/critical%20thought

...the amateurs look as reliable as the pros. Unfortunately, they are.

multinational corporate advocates posing as journalists?

How many stories did all of our "impartial journalists" get 100% wrong in the lead up to the Iraq War? In the wake of 9/11? In fervent praise of BushCo's "economic recovery"? In their non-stop hyping of immigration "reform" as the "big issue " of 2006? In their breathless reports of the murderous chaos that "descended on" the victims of Katrina and BushCo in New Orleans? In any of hundreds of other reports of portraying whatever Rove wanted them to write as God's honest truth?

So some our "our allies" reported some inaccurate information. OK. Who cares? Frankly, I've never understood this obsession with praying to a Republican lawyer to deliver us from BushCo. I've never expected a Merry Fitzmas, but then, I don't believe in Fitzianity.

Great post, sums up my feelings

snip
Frankly, I've never understood this obsession with praying to a Republican lawyer to deliver us from BushCo. I've never expected a Merry Fitzmas, but then, I don't believe in Fitzianity.

:ROFL:

:kick:

Blame a government that operates in secret, operates secret prisons, lies a nation into attacking other countries, takes away the constitutional gaurantees and protections of the American people, a dishonest and paid for press, and all the obvious gaps of fact in the papers, on the TV, and government "press" conferences. Therein lies the catalysts for any conspiracy theories, right or wrong.