• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Former CIA officer John Kiriakou is sentenced to 30 months in prison for leaks

j-mac said:
I think you need to show where anyone said that. K? Thanks.
Click to expand...

How often do you leave the individual argument and go "liberals?" I think that says it.
 
Boo Radley said:
How often do you leave the individual argument and go "liberals?" I think that says it.
Click to expand...

From the Dittohead not! definition of political terms:

Liberal (lib-rule) n.

1. anyone who disagrees with my point of view. see also "conservative," or "neo con"
2. delusional person whose ideas will bring about the end of democracy as we know it.
3. anyone who is an enemy of the USA

Note: definitions 1-3 are really the same thing.
 
Henry David said:
Politics and corrupt politicians.
Click to expand...

More he didn't break any law. There was no intent, and he answered honestly. J and few others often miss the point on this. Libby and those he likely worked for could still be guilty even if Armitage wasn't.
 
Boo Radley said:
More he didn't break any law. There was no intent, and he answered honestly. J and few others often miss the point on this. Libby and those he likely worked for could still be guilty even if Armitage wasn't.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's the way I remember it too.

The guilty party (ies) were Dubya & Dick, IMO. They exposed Plame just to punish her husband for his truthful statements.
 
Boo Radley said:
More he didn't break any law. There was no intent, and he answered honestly. J and few others often miss the point on this. Libby and those he likely worked for could still be guilty even if Armitage wasn't.
Click to expand...

Hmmm....Let's see, Plame was "outed", an investigation was started by a spec prosecutor Fitz to find out "who outed Plame", he found out that it was Richard Armitage, Colin Powell's CoS, early on, and instead of charging him, or bringing the case to conclusion, he kept the SP going until he ultimately got Libby on a process charge. The whole time it was Armitage who broke the law, if any was broken, and the only prosecution to happen out of this was someone who never outed anyone....All because we all know now how Colin Powell rolled politically, and his CoS was right there with him...You people that want so bad to "perp walk" Bush, or Cheney, or anyone connected with them is really pathetic. You had the person who gave Plame's name to Novak, and because he was one of you, you trumped up other charges.....What a joke.
 
j-mac said:
Hmmm....Let's see, Plame was "outed", an investigation was started by a spec prosecutor Fitz to find out "who outed Plame", he found out that it was Richard Armitage, Colin Powell's CoS, early on, and instead of charging him, or bringing the case to conclusion, he kept the SP going until he ultimately got Libby on a process charge. The whole time it was Armitage who broke the law, if any was broken, and the only prosecution to happen out of this was someone who never outed anyone....All because we all know now how Colin Powell rolled politically, and his CoS was right there with him...You people that want so bad to "perp walk" Bush, or Cheney, or anyone connected with them is really pathetic. You had the person who gave Plame's name to Novak, and because he was one of you, you trumped up other charges.....What a joke.
Click to expand...

You assume that only one thing is going on at a time. You are mistake if you anything Armitage did or didn't do clears either Libby or his bosses.
 
Further, he assumes that the US Justice Department actually seeks and reveals the truth. Not a safe or valid assumption.
 
Boo Radley said:
You assume that only one thing is going on at a time. You are mistake if you anything Armitage did or didn't do clears either Libby or his bosses.
Click to expand...


That's ridiculous. The scope of the investigation was to find out "who outed Valerie Plame". That was known within the first month of the investigation to be Richard Armitage, CoS to Colin Powell. During that investigation Powell resigned his post as SoS, and Armitage became a darling of the liberal left by frequently appearing on Olberpukes show to run down the Bush Administration on the WoT....And further the frothing hatred for the Bush administration by those on the liberal left, wanting to see openly not only the President, but anyone in that administration "frog marched" across the WH lawn was everywhere. The emotional lies, untruths, and rumor spread about that administration by news outlets like MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and the rest were disgusting, and were designed to undermine the administrations prosecution of the WoT.

Fitzgerald, if he was doing his job correctly, should have named Armitage when he found out, and closed the investigation at that point. Any other crap that you, or anyone else wanted investigated should have been able to stand on its own merit. As a consequence, we, the taxpayer spent millions chasing rumor, and innuendo, all to slap the VP CoS with a process charge that was totally unrelated to the named reason for the investigation, because he couldn't remember the exact words he told Fitz 15 months earlier....What a joke.

You libs are really funny. You will spare no expense when going after an administration you dislike, and no lie is out of bounds when doing such. But, put "your guy" in the seat, and its "hands off" when it comes to everything up to and including, trashing the constitution, weakening our defense, death of ambassadors, embassies attacked, etc. Weak dudes, very weak.
 
j-mac said:
That's ridiculous. The scope of the investigation was to find out "who outed Valerie Plame". That was known within the first month of the investigation to be Richard Armitage, CoS to Colin Powell. During that investigation Powell resigned his post as SoS, and Armitage became a darling of the liberal left by frequently appearing on Olberpukes show to run down the Bush Administration on the WoT....And further the frothing hatred for the Bush administration by those on the liberal left, wanting to see openly not only the President, but anyone in that administration "frog marched" across the WH lawn was everywhere. The emotional lies, untruths, and rumor spread about that administration by news outlets like MSNBC, CBS, ABC, and the rest were disgusting, and were designed to undermine the administrations prosecution of the WoT.

Fitzgerald, if he was doing his job correctly, should have named Armitage when he found out, and closed the investigation at that point. Any other crap that you, or anyone else wanted investigated should have been able to stand on its own merit. As a consequence, we, the taxpayer spent millions chasing rumor, and innuendo, all to slap the VP CoS with a process charge that was totally unrelated to the named reason for the investigation, because he couldn't remember the exact words he told Fitz 15 months earlier....What a joke.

You libs are really funny. You will spare no expense when going after an administration you dislike, and no lie is out of bounds when doing such. But, put "your guy" in the seat, and its "hands off" when it comes to everything up to and including, trashing the constitution, weakening our defense, death of ambassadors, embassies attacked, etc. Weak dudes, very weak.
Click to expand...


You seem to think that liberals didn't like the liberal Bush administration. Why is that? Don't liberals just love to have another liberal in the White House?
 
Dittohead not! said:
You seem to think that liberals didn't like the liberal Bush administration. Why is that? Don't liberals just love to have another liberal in the White House?
Click to expand...


Three letters.....G.O.P.....The scope of the supposed "crime" is less the reality of both sides, rather the ends of "getting the other guy" is the whole game. Nevermind that both administrations were "progressive".....
 
j-mac said:
Three letters.....G.O.P.....The scope of the supposed "crime" is less the reality of both sides, rather the ends of "getting the other guy" is the whole game. Nevermind that both administrations were "progressive".....
Click to expand...

I see, so by "liberal" you really meant "Democrat."

Well, you do have a point. The Democrat partisans can be counted on to oppose whatever the Republicans do.

Wouldn't be awful if the Republicans also were to oppose whatever they Democrats did? Why, they could spend all four years of a Democratic administration that really is little different from the previous Republican administration with the single goal of making it a one term presidency. Why, nothing much would get done with that sort of partisanship, would it?

Partisanship at that level could hamstring Congress and render it basically dysfunctional. Why, the approval ratings could be in the single digits with a scenario like that.
 
j-mac said:
Hmmm....Got any examples of that, or are you just blowing **** out of your ass again?
Click to expand...

Hmmmm... very very mature. Really maybe you should just leave this forum if you can't be halway decent to other members.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I see, so by "liberal" you really meant "Democrat."
Click to expand...

In a manner of speaking, yes. Just as liberal/progressives use the titles "extremist", or "neocon" to mean conservative.

Well, you do have a point. The Democrat partisans can be counted on to oppose whatever the Republicans do.
Click to expand...

The problem is not "partisanship" per se, but rather "progressivism".

Wouldn't be awful if the Republicans also were to oppose whatever they Democrats did? Why, they could spend all four years of a Democratic administration that really is little different from the previous Republican administration with the single goal of making it a one term presidency. Why, nothing much would get done with that sort of partisanship, would it?

Partisanship at that level could hamstring Congress and render it basically dysfunctional. Why, the approval ratings could be in the single digits with a scenario like that.
Click to expand...


Oh, too funny, I see what you are attempting here....Look, would you agree that the founders purposely set up this sort of system as a check on singular political tyranny?
 
j-mac said:
In a manner of speaking, yes. Just as liberal/progressives use the titles "extremist", or "neocon" to mean conservative.



The problem is not "partisanship" per se, but rather "progressivism".




Oh, too funny, I see what you are attempting here....Look, would you agree that the founders purposely set up this sort of system as a check on singular political tyranny?
Click to expand...

The founders set up a balance of powers so that no one person could get enough power to become a dictator. They also set up a federal government of limited power, which worked well until we began to ignore the Tenth Amendment.

But our first president warned us about the dangers of political parties, and he was right. The balance of powers was never supposed to have been doing the best thing for the country taking second seat to doing what is best for the party.

How is it that cheerleaders can only see the foolishness of the other party, but never their own?
 
Dittohead not! said:
The founders set up a balance of powers so that no one person could get enough power to become a dictator.
Click to expand...

Yeah, and with more and more, Presidents using things like EO's to 'go around' congressional constraint, and hopefully set precedent in court for their unconstitutional agendas, how's that workin' out?

They also set up a federal government of limited power, which worked well until we began to ignore the Tenth Amendment.
Click to expand...

I would agree, but only add that since Wilson, the executive has constantly probed for a way to not only go around the 10th amendment, but to ignore the founding principles all together.

But our first president warned us about the dangers of political parties, and he was right. The balance of powers was never supposed to have been doing the best thing for the country taking second seat to doing what is best for the party.
Click to expand...

Very few people in this country today of the intestinal fortitude of a Geo. Washington. Our government is corrupted.

How is it that cheerleaders can only see the foolishness of the other party, but never their own?
Click to expand...

Oh please. Let's not construct that horse so high that a ladder is needed to sit on top of it....Power is the corrupting influence to much of what is wrong today.

It is my view that the states should hold much more power than the Federal Government, and likewise the local municipalities more than the states....etc. We live in a backward view of what this country was founded on today.
 
j-mac said:
I'm sorry....Who are you, again?
Click to expand...

Way to sound like an arrogant prick again. Does it matter who I am? Why don't you try scrolling up and re-reading "CIVILITY A MUST" under the Debate Politics logo.
 
j-mac said:
Yeah, and with more and more, Presidents using things like EO's to 'go around' congressional constraint, and hopefully set precedent in court for their unconstitutional agendas, how's that workin' out?
Click to expand...

It's working out as planned, more and more power for the executive branch. For the people of this country, it's not working out so well. Those EOs have increased dramatically for the past couple of administrations, haven't they?

j-mac said:
I would agree, but only add that since Wilson, the executive has constantly probed for a way to not only go around the 10th amendment, but to ignore the founding principles all together.
Click to expand...

Agreed, and the voters continue to allow it to happen.



j-mac said:
Very few people in this country today of the intestinal fortitude of a Geo. Washington. Our government is corrupted.
Click to expand...

yes, power corrupts.

j-mac said:
Oh please. Let's not construct that horse so high that a ladder is needed to sit on top of it....Power is the corrupting influence to much of what is wrong today.
Click to expand...

yes, it is. Both parties are corrupted by power. The goal of both parties is to get as much of it as possible. The cheerleaders of both parties can only see the corruption of the other party. Neither one has the moral high ground in any way.

j-mac said:
It is my view that the states should hold much more power than the Federal Government, and likewise the local municipalities more than the states....etc. We live in a backward view of what this country was founded on today.
Click to expand...

Yes, we do.

and most of the power should lie with the individual, not the government.
 
Zariak said:
Way to sound like an arrogant prick again.
Click to expand...

Sound is something you'd have to be talking face to face to determine, so I think you are reading too much into what is typed...

Does it matter who I am? Why don't you try scrolling up and re-reading "CIVILITY A MUST" under the Debate Politics logo.
Click to expand...

:lamo You start out by calling me an "arrogant prick" then try and quote the "civility a must" sub banner to DP? Irony is not lost on you friend...But you're right, it doesn't matter who you are.....:lamo
 
Dittohead not! said:
It's working out as planned, more and more power for the executive branch. For the people of this country, it's not working out so well. Those EOs have increased dramatically for the past couple of administrations, haven't they?



Agreed, and the voters continue to allow it to happen.





yes, power corrupts.



yes, it is. Both parties are corrupted by power. The goal of both parties is to get as much of it as possible. The cheerleaders of both parties can only see the corruption of the other party. Neither one has the moral high ground in any way.



Yes, we do.

and most of the power should lie with the individual, not the government.
Click to expand...


Much that we agree on here Ditto....Though to be fair we have always had many underlying agreement...Recently, I am seeing much more that separates me from strict party alliance, however, until we have either shown the flaw in today's party system, and how it can be corrected, then pragmatism must still take the lead in my voting.

I consider myself a conservative. That doesn't mean a republican, or a Libertarian, but rather a conservative.
 
j-mac said:
Sound is something you'd have to be talking face to face to determine, so I think you are reading too much into what is typed...



:lamo You start out by calling me an "arrogant prick" then try and quote the "civility a must" sub banner to DP? Irony is not lost on you friend...But you're right, it doesn't matter who you are.....:lamo
Click to expand...

I am Zariak, a member of this forum, calling you out for being disrespectful. Seriously, who says "I'm sorry... who are you again?" unless they are an elitist.
 
Zariak said:
I am Zariak, a member of this forum...
Click to expand...

Ok, so?

calling you out for being disrespectful.
Click to expand...

Respect is earned.

Seriously, who says "I'm sorry... who are you again?" unless they are an elitist.
Click to expand...

:roll: Whatever....Or maybe it is someone who is offended that some "arrogant prick" to use your words, is coming in here, baiting the discussion with personal attack, and un warranted, un asked for, and un appreciated commentary on irrelevant aspects of personal dislike of the poster rather than staying on topic, commenting on the thread...Now, anything relevant to the topic you'd like to discuss?, because I couldn't care less what your personal likes or dislikes of me are.
 
j-mac said:
Much that we agree on here Ditto....Though to be fair we have always had many underlying agreement...Recently, I am seeing much more that separates me from strict party alliance, however, until we have either shown the flaw in today's party system, and how it can be corrected, then pragmatism must still take the lead in my voting.

I consider myself a conservative. That doesn't mean a republican, or a Libertarian, but rather a conservative.
Click to expand...

I'm registered Republican, but considering changing that to Libertarian. Actually, no party really fits my philosophy very well, but the Libertarian idea of individual rights and responsibilities trumping the power of government is something I'll support.

but, I think we'd be better off without political parties. That's quite a minority opinion, of course, as it seems like more and more are willing to pick one party or the other and cheer them on, regardless of who the candidates are or what the issues are.
 
Dittohead not! said:
I'm registered Republican, but considering changing that to Libertarian. Actually, no party really fits my philosophy very well, but the Libertarian idea of individual rights and responsibilities trumping the power of government is something I'll support.

but, I think we'd be better off without political parties. That's quite a minority opinion, of course, as it seems like more and more are willing to pick one party or the other and cheer them on, regardless of who the candidates are or what the issues are.
Click to expand...

Party affiliations rule the roost so to speak. I don't see any time in the near future that they will not dominate the stage, considering the money, and "machine" it takes to get elected.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom