Cheney named in CIA probe?

[OCybrManO]

Report: Cheney named in CIA leak probe

NEW YORK (AP) — Documents in the CIA leak investigation indicate the chief of staff to Vice President Dick Cheney first heard of the covert CIA officer from Cheney himself, The New York Times reported in Tuesday editions.

The White House on Tuesday sidestepped questions about whether Vice President Dick Cheney passed on to his top aide the identity of a CIA officer central to a federal grand jury probe.

Notes in the hands of a federal prosecutor suggest that Cheney's chief of staff, I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, first heard of the CIA officer from Cheney himself, The New York Times reported in Tuesday's editions.

A federal prosecutor is investigating whether the officer's identity was improperly disclosed.

The Times said notes of a previously undisclosed June 12, 2003, conversation between Libby and Cheney appear to differ from Libby's grand jury testimony that he first heard of Valerie Plame from journalists.

"This is a question relating to an ongoing investigation and we're not having any further comment on the investigation while it's ongoing," White House press secretary Scott McClellan said.

Pressed about Cheney's knowledge about the CIA officer, McClellan said: "I think you're prejudging things and speculating and we're not going to prejudge or speculate about things."

McClellan said Cheney — who participated in a morning video conference on the Florida hurricane from Wyoming, where he is speaking at a University of Wyoming dinner tonight — is doing a "great job" as vice president.

The New York Times identified its sources in the story as lawyers involved in the case.

Libby has emerged at the center of Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald's criminal investigation in recent weeks because of the Cheney aide's conversations about Plame with Times reporter Judith Miller.

Miller said Libby spoke to her about Plame and her husband, Bush administration critic Joseph Wilson, on three occasions — although not necessarily by name and without indicating he knew she was undercover.

Libby's notes show that Cheney knew Plame worked at the CIA more than a month before her identity was publicly exposed by columnist Robert Novak.

At the time of the Cheney-Libby conversation, Wilson had been referred to — but not by name — in the Times and on the morning of June 12, 2003 on the front page of The Washington Post.

The Times reported that Libby's notes indicate Cheney got his information about Wilson from then-CIA Director George Tenet, but said there was no indication he knew her name.

The notes also contain no suggestion that Cheney or Libby knew at the time of their conversation of Plame's undercover status or that her identity was classified, the paper said.

Disclosing the identify of a covert CIA agent can be a crime, but only if the person who discloses it knows the agent is classified as working undercover.

The Times quoted lawyers involved in the case as saying they had no indication Fitzgerald was considering charging Cheney with a crime.

But the paper said any efforts by Libby to steer investigators away from his conversation with Cheney might be viewed by a prosecutor as attempt to impede the inquiry, which could be a crime.

According to a former intelligence official close to Tenet, the former CIA chief has not been in touch with Fitzgerald's staff for more than 15 months and was not asked to testify before the grand jury even though he was interviewed by Fitzgerald and his staff.

The official told the Times that Tenet declined to comment on the investigation.

Libby's lawyer, Joseph Tate, did not return phone calls and e-mail to his office.

Fitzgerald is expected to decide this week whether to seek criminal indictments in the case. Lawyers involved in the case have said Libby and Karl Rove, President Bush's senior adviser, both face the possibility of indictment. McClellan said both Rove and Libby were at work on Tuesday.

Fitzgerald questioned Cheney under oath more than a year ago, but it is not known what the vice president told the prosecutor.

Cheney has said little in public about what he knew. In September 2003, he told NBC he did not know Wilson or who sent him on a trip to Niger in 2002 to check into intelligence — some of it later deemed unreliable — that Iraq may have been seeking to buy uranium there.

"I don't know who sent Joe Wilson. He never submitted a report that I ever saw when he came back," Cheney said at the time. "... I don't know Mr. Wilson. I probably shouldn't judge him. I have no idea who hired him."

The Cheney-Libby conversation occurred the same day that The Washington Post published a front-page story about the CIA sending a retired diplomat to Africa, where he was unable to corroborate intelligence that Iraq was trying to acquire uranium yellowcake from Niger. The diplomat was Wilson.

A year after Wilson's trip, President Bush cited British intelligence in his State of the Union address as suggesting that Iraq was pursuing uranium in Africa.

Oh... there's a nice picture of him, too.

 

[Raziaar]

Cheney sucks bigtime. Does he EVER take a picture that has a smile in it?

 

[No Limit]

Cheney sucks bigtime. Does he EVER take a picture that has a smile in it?

But if you think that Cheney is involved in this do you think Bush might have something to do with it?

 

[OCybrManO]

Cheney sucks bigtime. Does he EVER take a picture that has a smile in it?

I believe that, if Cheney smiled, it would create a pandimensional singularity that would subsequently suck all all of the surrounding pure evil energy (in both this dimension and any adjacent ones) into a focused point until the pure energy congeals into a highly caustic gelatinous substance that manifests in his stomach and (to a lesser extent) small intestine, then when his body can no longer support the massive amount of energy required to maintain the smile he would proceed to explode and scatter the dangerous material across the entire planet... destroying all life as we know it.

So, you should be thankful that he never tries to smile.

 

[Raziaar]

But if you think that Cheney is involved in this do you think Bush might have something to do with it?

Annnd... here we go again.

 

[Lemonking]

politicians are corrupt, no matter where you look.



no I am not apologize for Bush or Cheney.

 

[clarky003]

Yes, but it's rare that top ranking official's are caught at it.

and would we expect you to.. ?

Its been on bbc news I think. I hope justice is done and cheney and his buddies get what they deserve, as alot of people suspected you appear to have corporate criminal's running your country.

 

[No Limit]

Annnd... here we go again.

Great dodge :thumbs:

 

[Raziaar]

Great dodge :thumbs:

It's not a dodge. I'm tiring of your bullshit trying to call me out on something like my opinion matters, okay? Go ****ing bug somebody else, you political nutjob.

 

[No Limit]

It's not a dodge. I'm tiring of your bullshit trying to call me out on something like my opinion matters, okay? Go ****ing bug somebody else, you political nutjob.

Another mature reply from our friend Raziaar. Why do you post here again?

 

[Raziaar]

Another mature reply from our friend Raziaar. Why do you post here again?

Because i'm talking about Cheney... and you keep asking me the same damn questions you've been asking me in every other thread, which is completely seperate from Cheney on this particular matter.

I've told you TIME AND TIME again, that I think bush isnt the best president by a longshot, and he is also not the worst ever... but you can't seem to get that through your head, and you keep asking the same question over and over again just to fuel your innate hatred for the man and you can't seem to move on past this point unless I sit here and say "I think bush is the stupidest president ever, and I made the mistake of voting for him"

 

[No Limit]

Because i'm talking about Cheney... and you keep asking me the same damn questions you've been asking me in every other thread, which is completely seperate from Cheney on this particular matter.

No, the question I asked you was directly related to cheney. Everyone, and I do mean everyone, that is important in the white house is now connected to this leak in one shape or form; I asked you if you think there is any chance that would mean Bush is involved.

I've told you TIME AND TIME again, that I think bush isnt the best president by a longshot, and he is also not the worst ever... but you can't seem to get that through your head, and you keep asking the same question over and over again just to fuel your innate hatred for the man and you can't seem to move on past this point unless I sit here and say "I think bush is the stupidest president ever, and I made the mistake of voting for him"

No, what you told me is a bunch of bullshit to avoid stating the obvious, that Bush is a terrible president. I do have an "innate hatred" for the man and I've provided my reasons over and over for why that is. I am trying to make you admit those reasons, something you will not do. You are no different than the right wingers on PW when you can not come face to face with the fact that you voted wrong. You can throw your personal insults around all you want, the point is I told you before Nov 2004 that you should not vote for this guy, you didn't listen. Now we are back in the same position, I am telling you your vote was dumb, you basically admitted that; yet, you get upset when I tell you how to vote next time around. I will continue to hammer this in your head wether you like it or not because I know people like you. You will listen to anything the right wing tries to sell you then you turn around and claim you have an open mind on the issue, the other guy just hates your position for no valid reason and it is that guy that is wrong. The fact I can't get you to admit that Bush is probably related to this CIA leak case proves my point.

 

[Raziaar]

No, the question I asked you was directly related to cheney. Everyone, and I do mean everyone, that is important in the white house is now connected to this leak in one shape or form; I asked you if you think there is any chance that would mean Bush is involved.

What the **** does it matter if I think bush was involved or not? I don't jump to conclusions and I wait until solid, concrete facts come into play, and until then I don't have an opinion on the matter. Got it? Good.

No, what you told me is a bunch of bullshit to avoid stating the obvious, that Bush is a terrible president.

Thats a load of shit. I don't think bush is a terrible president. He's certainly not fantastic by any means, and has blundered a few times, but he's not the worst president ever in the history of the united states like you make him out to be.

I do have an "innate hatred" for the man and I've provided my reasons over and over for why that is. I am trying to make you admit those reasons, something you will not do.

Why do I need to do this? You can't seem to comprehend the fact that I don't SHARE your reasons, and so trying to get me to admit to such is a stupid act on your part.

You are no different than the right wingers on PW when you can not come face to face with the fact that you voted wrong.

There's one thing I've learned about you No Limit... you love to throw labels around, and group people up in categories that they themselves don't feel they belong. I've seen it time and time again on these forums as the people with many of the same ideological views as you come down on you and call you out on your obvious bullshit time and time again. You have a problem accepting that people have different views from you, and as a reactionary measure you call people things like neo-cons, etc... and in this case you're saying i'm just like 'right wingers on PW'... when I don't focus on anything that PW does.

You can throw your personal insults around all you want, the point is I told you before Nov 2004 that you should not vote for this guy, you didn't listen. Now we are back in the same position, I am telling you your vote was dumb, you basically admitted that; yet, you get upset when I tell you how to vote next time around. I will continue to hammer this in your head wether you like it or not because I know people like you. You will listen to anything the right wing tries to sell you then you turn around and claim you have an open mind on the issue, the other guy just hates your position for no valid reason and it is that guy that is wrong. The fact I can't get you to admit that Bush is probably related to this CIA leak case proves my point.

Of course I didn't listen to you... because I felt that bush was the better canidate in that election, and I *STICK* by my vote, because I feel that Kerry would have done an equally shitty job, and even worse. But we can't know that, can we? You and I cannot go back in time and see what the future would be if Kerry were in office, no matter how much you like to say that Kerry would have done a better job than bush. My vote wasn't wrong... it was my vote, and I voted for who I wanted to, and I stand by that vote. I have never admitted to my vote being dumb, so quit putting words in my mouth like the idiot you are. And yes, i'm insulting you because you have a bad habit of trying to read peoples minds for themselves and it pisses me off.

And you keep going on and on telling me how I am, and how I feel. Fact of the matter is, no matter WHAT the **** you say, I don't listen to anything *ANY* group tells me, and automatically take it as fact. So shut the **** up.

See... the difference between you and me, is I can actually respect the fact that people can make decisions for themselves, unlike you who just can't accept that and go on and on about bullshit 'facts' about a person that you have no clue about. If you went and looked back on that political compass thread, you would probably see that I am an extremely liberal minded person, probably rivalling you or coming very close to it, but nooo... that doesn't stop you from automatically believing people accept all the propoganda and ideologies from a political party just because thats who they happened to vote for this year.

For you, Republican = Lying scum shit per your own words, no matter what the case, no matter how good and decent a person they are.

Where as for me, Democrat = Respectable human being who just happens to differ on a few key things from me, but whom I could easily vote for a leader of this party if I believe them to be a better canidate than the other.

Case in point, you're a joke, and I take great comfort knowing that plenty of people even from your own side think the same. Your life revolves around black and white, and you can't see the shades of grey in things. Don't tell me what I think, and how I feel, because it only makes you look like an oppressive idiot trying to force my opinion.

I will always have more respect for CptStern than you, he whom I differ immensely on a great deal of things, but he doesn't go into all the lame stratagem that you do.

 

[No Limit]

What the **** does it matter if I think bush was involved or not? I don't jump to conclusions and I wait until solid, concrete facts come into play, and until then I don't have an opinion on the matter. Got it? Good.

I asked you for an opinion but because you are so brainwashed by the right wing ideology you can not give me your opinion.

Thats a load of shit. I don't think bush is a terrible president. He's certainly not fantastic by any means, and has blundered a few times, but he's not the worst president ever in the history of the united states like you make him out to be.

You don't think he is a terrible president yet you can't defend him when I point out why he is a terrible president. See the problem?

Why do I need to do this? You can't seem to comprehend the fact that I don't SHARE your reasons, and so trying to get me to admit to such is a stupid act on your part.

Again, this is your problem. You say you do not share my reasons yet you can not refute my reasons. That means your reasons are based on lies, you are just too closed minded to change your reasoning.

There's one thing I've learned about you No Limit... you love to throw labels around, and group people up in categories that they themselves don't feel they belong. I've seen it time and time again on these forums as the people with many of the same ideological views as you come down on you and call you out on your obvious bullshit time and time again. You have a problem accepting that people have different views from you, and as a reactionary measure you call people things like neo-cons, etc... and in this case you're saying i'm just like 'right wingers on PW'... when I don't focus on anything that PW does.

You simply don't want to see who I am from my posts because you do not like me. I can't count the number of times I've admitted I was wrong and there are many people on here I truly respect despite them not sharing my political ideology. On the other hand I have a problem with people like you because no matter how ofter I throw facts in your face that dispute your reasoning you will not admit you are wrong. I ask you for an opinion you respond with a personal attack, I post about a subject you respond with a personal attack, when I finally cut through all the personal attacks you dodge my simple questions to you. Yes, I apply labels to people like you because people like you are all the same. You simply can not ever admit you are wrong.

Of course I didn't listen to you... because I felt that bush was the better canidate in that election, and I *STICK* by my vote, because I feel that Kerry would have done an equally shitty job, and even worse. But we can't know that, can we? You and I cannot go back in time and see what the future would be if Kerry were in office, no matter how much you like to say that Kerry would have done a better job than bush. My vote wasn't wrong... it was my vote, and I voted for who I wanted to, and I stand by that vote. I have never admitted to my vote being dumb, so quit putting words in my mouth like the idiot you are. And yes, i'm insulting you because you have a bad habit of trying to read peoples minds for themselves and it pisses me off.

I got you to admit Bush lied, I got you to admit he is ruining this economy, and I got you to admit he is incompetent to be a leader because of the people he appoints to high level positions and you are going to sit here and tell me you don't regret your vote? For ****sake, are you insane?

And you keep going on and on telling me how I am, and how I feel. Fact of the matter is, no matter WHAT the **** you say, I don't listen to anything *ANY* group tells me, and automatically take it as fact. So shut the **** up.

Yes, you do. Then you turn around and claim you are open minded and you don't listen to anything anyone tells you. You do listen, you just listen to the wrong groups.

See... the difference between you and me, is I can actually respect the fact that people can make decisions for themselves, unlike you who just can't accept that and go on and on about bullshit 'facts' about a person that you have no clue about. If you went and looked back on that political compass thread, you would probably see that I am an extremely liberal minded person, probably rivalling you or coming very close to it, but nooo... that doesn't stop you from automatically believing people accept all the propoganda and ideologies from a political party just because thats who they happened to vote for this year.

Again, you are delusional. You believe that you are open minded, I challange you on that.

For you, Republican = Lying scum shit per your own words, no matter what the case, no matter how good and decent a person they are.

I proved my point in that post, did I not? Would you like me to give you more examples of Republicans being scum shit? The difference between you and me is that I don't claim to be independent but I have enough respect to admit when I am wrong.

Where as for me, Democrat = Respectable human being who just happens to differ on a few key things from me, but whom I could easily vote for a leader of this party if I believe them to be a better canidate than the other.

Yes, you can pretend to be independent all you want. The bottom line is that you might not think badly of Democrats but you will not align yourself with their ideology even if you know their ideology is right. Please, do join me in some more real discussion so I can prove my point to you; if I didn't know any better I would say you are dodging my posts. Here are a few that will get you started:

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=94309

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=94307

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=94134

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=92234

Even if you did respond in my threads notice how you totally dodged my points by throwing a personal attack at me or just completely ignoring every point I made. So please, try again. You don't regret your vote so it is your job to defend it.

Case in point, you're a joke, and I take great comfort knowing that plenty of people even from your own side think the same.

Such as?

I will always have more respect for CptStern than you, he whom I differ immensely on a great deal of things, but he doesn't go into all the lame stratagem that you do.

Just for the record, I don't need your respect.

 

[OCybrManO]

What have I done?!

 

[Raziaar]

You simply can not ever admit you are wrong.


I got you to admit Bush lied, I got you to admit he is ruining this economy, and I got you to admit he is incompetent to be a leader because of the people he appoints to high level positions and you are going to sit here and tell me you don't regret your vote? For ****sake, are you insane?

I can admit i'm wrong anytime that I am wrong... I happen to be wrong alot of the times on different things, but this isn't something I feel I am wrong in, so there's nothing to admit.

Tell me please, no... SHOW me where you got me to admit those things. Because it never happened. Do a search on the forums, find the posts, quote them here, and link to the posts. You can't do it, because it never happened.

Just for the record, I don't need your respect.

You need the respect of your peers to be taken seriously... and fine if it doesnt come from me, but it doesn't come from too many other people on these boards, either.

That's all i'm going to talk with you on this matter... all you love to do is incite flame ridden posts, and i'm just not going to walk down that path... because I *ADMIT* I often take the bait. I post that I think Cheney sucks big time, and you have to single me out trying to draw me out into a flame fest, or a long debate that will inevitably go nowhere because the topic you are going on about is seperate from the thread. This thread doesn't have anything to do with whether or not bush is imcompetent, it has to do with Cheney. Bush isn't necessarily privy to every little thing that goes on in his administration... which you seem to believe. You give the guy alot of credit... as a know it all of what's happening everywhere and having a personal hand in everything bad that happens no matter what it is.

If you would like to carry on about how awful a person Cheney is... I would GLADLY go into that discussion in this thread with you, because I think Cheney is a pretty nasty guy. But no more of this unrelated bullshit. If you wanna talk about that other stuff... make a new thread about it... you seem to be pretty good at that, in fact... all you're good at.

 

[No Limit]

Tell me please, no... SHOW me where you got me to admit those things. Because it never happened. Do a search on the forums, find the posts, quote them here, and link to the posts. You can't do it, because it never happened.

When you ignore my points in posts I figured you agree. But off the top of my head you don't remember the exchange we had about Bush lying? Don't make me search for half an hour looking for a link.

Please go to the posts I pointed out in my post and respond to one of my points, since you don't regret your vote you should have no trouble defending it.

I post that I think Cheney sucks big time, and you have to single me out trying to draw me out into a flame fest, or a long debate that will inevitably go nowhere because the topic you are going on about is seperate from the thread.

I try to respect you with every new post no matter what happened in the past. But you do not want any of that. I ask you for your opinion on a matter related to the original topic and you respond with an insult. It was not my intention for flamebait nor was it my intention to go in to a pointless discussion, you simply said to yourself "hey, there is that dick again who just wants to flame me" without giving me a try. It has gotten to the point where I can't take you seriously anymore, I don't even know why I still try.

 

[No Limit]

Yes, you can pretend to be independent all you want. The bottom line is that you might not think badly of Democrats but you will not align yourself with their ideology even if you know their ideology is right. Please, do join me in some more real discussion so I can prove my point to you; if I didn't know any better I would say you are dodging my posts. Here are a few that will get you started:

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=94309

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=94307

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=94134

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=92234

Even if you did respond in my threads notice how you totally dodged my points by throwing a personal attack at me or just completely ignoring every point I made. So please, try again. You don't regret your vote so it is your job to defend it.

Please address this, I edited my post so you might have missed it. You say you don't agree with my posts above, tell me why in those posts.

If you wanna talk about that other stuff... make a new thread about it... you seem to be pretty good at that, in fact... all you're good at.

Do you have the mental capability to get through a post without resorting to an insult?

 

[Raziaar]

I try to respect you with every new post no matter what happened in the past. But you do not want any of that. I ask you for your opinion on a matter related to the original topic and you respond with an insult. It was not my intention for flamebait nor was it my intention to go in to a pointless discussion, you simply said to yourself "hey, there is that dick again who just wants to flame me" without giving me a try. It has gotten to the point where I can't take you seriously anymore, I don't even know why I still try.

Look...

Annnd... here we go again.

QUITE the insult in my initial response to you. It clearly shows my unabashed hatred for you and everything you stand for.

Either that, or it was just a statement hoping you'd get the point that I didn't want to go through it all again.

I can't decide, you pick which one it means.

 

[No Limit]

Look...



QUITE the insult in my initial response to you. It clearly shows my unabashed hatred for you and everything you stand for.

Either that, or it was just a statement hoping you'd get the point that I didn't want to go through it all again.

I can't decide, you pick which one it means.

How about this one:

It's not a dodge. I'm tiring of your bullshit trying to call me out on something like my opinion matters, okay? Go ****ing bug somebody else, you political nutjob.

I try to be as respectful to you as I can.

But that is not what I am getting at. Do you understand my point? You say you do not regret voting for Bush yet you have avoided every post I have made about Bush. So let me ask you this since you will not participate in my other discussions.

Do you think the tax cuts for the wealthy are a good idea at a time like this?

Do you think it is right for Republicans to cut programs for poor by 50 billion while giving the top 275 corporations almost 2 trillion?

Do you think Bush ****ed up when he appointed Brown to head fema?

Do you think there is a chance (just a chance) that Bush might be involved in the leak scandal and do you think it was right for Bush to back off his pledge to fire anyone involved in the leak?

The fact you will not address these proves my point, you are closed minded and you will not look at the world another way no matter how damaging your position is. I was like you once too; believeing I was open minded when all I did was listen to people like O'Reilly and Hannity.

 

[Raziaar]

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=94309

I hate big corporations... You're clueless to how I feel about them. I am one of the most liberal guys you can get when it comes to big money... I don't like it. Moot point, here.

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=94307

I've already said in the past, UNTOUCHED by your commentary mind you, that I clearly did not like some of the people that bush has appointed. The director of FEMA... clearly a bad choice, but none of this is influenced by you. I already held these views once I became privy to the information. Moot point, again.

http://www.halflife2.net/forums/showthread.php?t=94134

Why don't you look through that thread again, okay? You can CLEARLY see that I am in agreement with you there. But no... you can't see that, because you refuse to acknowledge the fact that i'm not a blind follower. Its one of your weaknesses... And you call ME brainwashed. As you can see, this is another moot point, because obviously you can't find anything to fault me in yet pertaining to where I disagree with you in these threads.

In that last link provided, you can clearly see that I posted twice... once was a tongue in cheek joke, and the other was another joke directed at Tron in a friendly manner. If you look VERY closely, you can also see that I plainly, seriously, say that I can agree that both parties suck. We need serious reform in the government in this country, on all sides. This is something i've believed ever since I began learning about politics. *THIS* is the reason I have no qualms about choosing a differeing political party, unlike you who just clings no matter what to one side, even if the other canidate is an obviously better choice... simply because they're republican. THe general consensus in that thread mirrors my views... but you can't see that.

HOW BOUT THAT. Another moot point, because I can see faults in all sides, and never deny that fact.


Those links answered enough for you? Let me lay all my cards down on the table... when it comes to electing bush, I supported it. He was the better canidate. When it comes to going to iraq, I supported it, but was dissapointed at how it progressed... I still supported saddam being removed from power, and the country stabilized. When it comes to civil rights issues, I am, for the most part... very liberal minded on most things. When it comes to economic and enviromental issues, I am VERY liberal minded. I am the little guy, I support the little guy. There's absolutely *NO* way you can find any means to argue against me when it comes to those issues, unless you clearly wish to argue against your own ideologies.

Because... I am a very liberal minded guy. Politics doesn't only involve itself around wars, and conspiracies. Why don't you see that? How come I don't see you arguing about the economic and enviromental concerns of this nation? Thats where the true politics lie... not in abortion, not in foreign matters... but the more mundane, every day stuff that grips and shakes our country.

You only focus on very small portions of politics, and categorize people based ONLY on how they feel regarding those matters. Bad choice of action.





EDIT: Okay, just read your reply above mine. Lets delve into it, to show you just how WRONG you are when you try to assume everything about a person.

Do you think the tax cuts for the wealthy are a good idea at a time like this?

I most certainly do not. Simply put.

Do you think it is right for Republicans to cut programs for poor by 50 billion while giving the top 275 corporations almost 2 trillion?

I most certainly do not. Simply put.

Do you think Bush ****ed up when he appointed Brown to head fema?

If you'd look back... you'd CLEARLY see that I have already said I felt this way. Its not an admission, its a fact of how I feel.

Do you think there is a chance (just a chance) that Bush might be involved in the leak scandal and do you think it was right for Bush to back off his pledge to fire anyone involved in the leak?

There's always a chance for anything, but I have no means to believe this right now, unless I just want to go on suspicion alone. That's generally not a good thing. I do think its wrong of bush to not go through with firing the person. Hardly something to make him worthy of the title worst president of all time, but it still is a wrong thing. I don't support protecting the guy.

The fact you will not address these proves my point, you are closed minded and you will not look at the world another way no matter how damaging your position is. I was like you once too; believeing I was open minded when all I did was listen to people like O'Reilly and Hannity.

The fact that you will not open your eyes to see my points, proves you are close minded in the fact that you can't see anything other than what you want to see. I don't listen to O'reilly, I don't listen to Hannity... I form my OWN, independent views on things.

But you can't see this.



And please... PLEASE don't go down the path of "Well if you disagree with him on all these things, why do you still think he's a mediocre president?"

If we tossed out of office every president I had many severe disagreements with... we'd never have a president. No single one can cater to everyones needs or feelings.

 

[Raziaar]

I hope you didn't shy away from the subject No Limit, and in fact just left to go home or something... I await your response regarding my last post.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

Your life revolves around black and white, and you can't see the shades of grey in things.

There is no space left for greys anymore in the worlds deteriorating situation. People that stay in the grey are slaves to the ones who dominate them. Like Hitler and the german people. The germans preferred to stay in the gray and allow the lunatic to throw thier country into yet another war, instead of being black and fighting against 'White' Hitlers Nazi Germany. They counldnt face the fact that the person who was representing them, was misrepresenting them, and so they suffered greatly for it.

My point is, you can't vote for Bush, and then claim your grey so don't call me a republican ass licker. You are responsible for the person who represents you, (i.e. Bush, the person who you voted for) and you are responsible to uphold his actions if you stick by your vote.

So you have three paths you can take.

1) admit you made a mistake for voting for the person who is misrepresenting you.

2) make an attempt to defend the person who you believe is representing you correctly

or,

3) Run away under the guise of 'just because i voted for Bush doesn't mean it makes me a brainless republican' instead of accepting, in the face of overwhelming evidence (that No Limit has shown you) that the person who you voted for is not representing you.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Ban this thread!

 

[Raziaar]

There is no space left for greys anymore in the worlds deteriorating situation. People that stay in the grey are slaves to the ones who dominate them. Like Hitler and the german people. The germans preferred to stay in the gray and allow the lunatic to throw thier country into yet another war, instead of being black and fighting against 'White' Hitlers Nazi Germany. They counldnt face the fact that the person who was representing them, was misrepresenting them, and so they suffered greatly for it.

My point is, you can't vote for Bush, and then claim your grey so don't call me a republican ass licker. You are responsible for the person who represents you, (i.e. Bush, the person who you voted for) and you are responsible to uphold his actions if you stick by your vote.

So you have three paths you can take.

1) admit you made a mistake for voting for the person who is misrepresenting you.

2) make an attempt to defend the person who you believe is representing you correctly

or,

3) Run away under the guise of 'just because i voted for Bush doesn't mean it makes me a brainless republican' instead of accepting, in the face of overwhelming evidence (that No Limit has shown you) that the person who you voted for is not representing you.

Sorry but... your arguments are even more poorly constructed than No Limit's on this matter.

No one leader on the face of this earth can ever cater completely to a group's ideologies. They can differ wildly on many things, and yet still overall be the better leader in your opinion.

The only option in those situations is not to vote, and thats a stupid thing to do. Fact of the matter is, Kerry had some things I liked about him, and some things I knew I owuldn't like about him. Same for bush. I don't have to defend the things I don't like that bush does. Everybody is bound to make mistakes, and they happen all the time...

Here's a line for you Frenzy... just because you vote for somebody doesn't mean you stand for everything they stand for. That simply cannot happen in this two party system. So don't feed me your bullshit about having to defend a guy for things I dont like about him, BECAUSE there are some things I do. He represents me on some issues, and he doesn't on others. I'm sorry you can't see that.

Your post speaks of becoming a puppet, and an extremist... which you may be, but I am not. I have my own views on every different little category. Bush happened to score more on the good ones than Kerry did. And like I said, NOT voting is an irresponsible decision... its either Kerry, or Bush, or the libertarian party. And I was leaning heavily that way too, but in the end I didn't make that decision.

I'm still waiting for No Limit's responses for my response a couple posts up.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

I don't listen to O'reilly, I don't listen to Hannity... I form my OWN, independent views on things.

But you can't see this.

And please... PLEASE don't go down the path of "Well if you disagree with him on all these things, why do you still think he's a mediocre president?"

If we tossed out of office every president I had many severe disagreements with... we'd never have a president. No single one can cater to everyones needs or feelings.

That is ridiculous. You can't form your own independent view of things unless you lived in a goddamn cave for your whole life. You live in a world were you are battered by views from the TV, from your friends and family, from internet forums, etc. Your views are influenced whether you like them or not.

And considering you almost tossed Bill Clinton out of office for copping a head job from Lewinski (which actually never happened and was a republican backed media scandal...look it up), I wouldnt think it wouldnt be unreasonable to toss george bush out of office, who didnt do anything to prevent the immienent september 11 attacks (which he knew full well that it was about to happen), who invaded afganistan for drugs, invaded iraq for oil (by lieing extensively about what he's real intention for being there was), threw the disadvantaged out on the streets by tearing away 50 billion from social security, gave ridiculous tax benefits to corporations resulting in 175 trillion that did not get taxed, threw out nuclear treaties out the window, threw out anti-pollution and environmental treaties out the window and the list goes on.

 

[Raziaar]

And considering you almost tossed Bill Clinton out of office for copping a head job from Lewinski (which actually never happened and was a republican backed media scandal...look it up), I wouldnt think it wouldnt be unreasonable to toss george bush out of office, who didnt do anything to prevent the immienent september 11 attacks (which he knew full well that it was about to happen), who invaded afganistan for drugs, invaded iraq for oil (by lieing extensively about what he's real intention for being there was), threw the disadvantaged out on the streets by tearing away 50 billion from social security, gave ridiculous tax benefits to corporations resulting in 175 trillion that did not get taxed, threw out nuclear treaties out the window, threw out anti-pollution and environmental treaties out the window and the list goes on.

Dude, can you even hear yourself talking? WHAT THE **** are you talking about? I almost copped bill clinton out of office? Who is 'you'? My family voted for Clinton, and if I was of the voting age, I would have too. And I would still support that decision today. So take your bullshit out of this thread, you don't know what you're talking about.

And on a side note... that sounds like a crackpot conspiracy theory if you ask me saying it never happened. I've never heard a single thing claiming that fact... show me the undeniable proof, and not just someones imigination.

Obviously you haven't been reading this thread at all... Go back and re-read it. You sound like an extremist, and I am obviously not. I don't 100% back anything anybody does... and i'd be a fool if I did. Obviously you're of the same, deluded mentality of No Limit... either all or nothing. Black or white, all the way.

You're a one sided dice.





EDIT:

That is ridiculous. You can't form your own independent view of things unless you lived in a goddamn cave for your whole life. You live in a world were you are battered by views from the TV, from your friends and family, from internet forums, etc. Your views are influenced whether you like them or not.

So what are you saying? That you don't have your own independent views? That your own views are decided for you by another person or group of people? sounds like it to me.

I don't know about you... but *I* have the intelligence and the ability to absorb information from many sources, whether biased or unbiased, and try to weed out all of the bullshit, and patch them all together and ponder on it, and see what sinks into my mind the most.

Apparently YOU just read a newspaper, from whatever source and thats your view for the day, no matter how hard you tried to resist. Thats basically what you're saying... and I feel sorry for you.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

Sorry but... your arguments are even more poorly constructed than No Limit's on this matter.

Yeh, Im not as good as no limit in constructing arguements.

No one leader on the face of this earth can ever cater completely to a group's ideologies. They can differ wildly on many things, and yet still overall be the better leader in your opinion.

The only option in those situations is not to vote, and thats a stupid thing to do. Fact of the matter is, Kerry had some things I liked about him, and some things I knew I owuldn't like about him. Same for bush. I don't have to defend the things I don't like that bush does. Everybody is bound to make mistakes, and they happen all the time...

Yes you do need to defend the person who you have chosen to represent you. Because you made the decision, that the person who is to represent you, has a more positive effect on the society then a negative one. Hence, the negative aspects that you believe he has on soceity are the sacrifice that must be made for the positive ones he has on soceity. When the negatives outweigh the positives, you know you have made a wrong decision, and that the person you selected to represent you is misrepresenting you.

Here's a line for you Frenzy... just because you vote for somebody doesn't mean you stand for everything they stand for. That simply cannot happen in this two party system. So don't feed me your bullshit about having to defend a guy for things I dont like about him, BECAUSE there are some things I do. He represents me on some issues, and he doesn't on others. I'm sorry you can't see that.

Just goes to show you how democratic america really is with its two party system. I agree with you that not voting is irresponsible, however, voting for the two major parties, is also irrespoinsible, as you are merely jumping on a bandwagon. If you truly had your individual views, you would select the party that you thought represented you the best, regardless of how many others will be voting for that party.

Your post speaks of becoming a puppet, and an extremist... which you may be, but I am not. I have my own views on every different little category. Bush happened to score more on the good ones than Kerry did. And like I said, NOT voting is an irresponsible decision... its either Kerry, or Bush, or the libertarian party. And I was leaning heavily that way too, but in the end I didn't make that decision.

You are a puppet. Everyone is. Think about it. People go to jobs, that pays them some wage slave, and they end up contributing to the society they are in. Whether you like it or not, you are a puppet of the society that you live in, and if your society is a bad war creating society, then you need to accept that you are apart of that soceity, and partly responsible for its actions.

 

[dream431ca]

What I kind of feel about this whole matter, is that no matter who you vote for...it's not a mistake. Besides if you don't like Bush, that's fine. I can see some people take these matters so far and get so upset when no one agrees with them..but hey, that's politics. I don't really like to bash any kind of leader. Some might do bad jobs and some might just be plain horrible, but it's what it is and you have to roll with it until the end.

People can argue, go to rally's, get signatures from a community or just flat out bash someone...the reality is...those hardly change anything (unless a huge majority comes out to support the same thing...and I mean really huge). You wanna make a difference about your government, your country or just your community...that's great, but bashing it or continuting to call everyone not on your side shit heads or some other obsene name just doesn't work.

Politics is hardly about true hard facts, and I say true hard facts for a reason. These days the media is a good and bad source of facts. The worst sources of information is those websites where everyone is either republican or liberal, those places just continue to bash the other side with no meaning behind it..you can provide all the so called facts you want from those sites....the sad truth is, most of those facts are biased...well all of them really.

Trying to change a person's mind about something as complex as this is not recommended. It leads to people arguing over things that the topic isn't about (which the moderaters obviously don't like) and it just creates more clutter on the forums.

 

[Raziaar]

Yeh, Im not as good as no limit in constructing arguements.



Yes you do need to defend the person who you have chosen to represent you. Because you made the decision, that the person who is to represent you, has a more positive effect on the society then a negative one. Hence, the negative aspects that you believe he has on soceity are the sacrifice that must be made for the positive ones he has on soceity. When the negatives outweigh the positives, you know you have made a wrong decision, and that the person you selected to represent you is misrepresenting you.



Just goes to show you how democratic america really is with its two party system. I agree with you that not voting is irresponsible, however, voting for the two major parties, is also irrespoinsible, as you are merely jumping on a bandwagon. If you truly had your individual views, you would select the party that you thought represented you the best, regardless of how many others will be voting for that party.




You are a puppet. Everyone is. Think about it. People go to jobs, that pays them some wage slave, and they end up contributing to the society they are in. Whether you like it or not, you are a puppet of the society that you live in, and if your society is a bad war creating society, then you need to accept that you are apart of that soceity, and partly responsible for its actions.

Let me just say... you have some pretty sad views on what a puppet is. You sound like one of those nihilistic people that has some sort of grudge against humanity. You may feel like a puppet in your every day life, but I certainly don't. Fact of the matter is, I, and most people... are not puppets. We go to work, yes... but that is hardly a puppet's existence. I get paid a decent amount. Not enough to break me past the middle class barrier, but still... I can easily become more qualified to get a better job if I wanted to(well, maybe not easily).

There's no way you can convince me that you have to be all or nothing when you vote for a leader. All leaders blunder, all leaders do stupid things. No person in history has been able to avoid this. We're all inherently flawed.

Sorry... but just because I voted for bush, and support some of the things he does, doesn't mean I have to also support the negative things he does as well. Thats just not how it works. Maybe in your twisted world...


Just because I voted for Clinton, just because I thought he did alot of good things, doesn't mean I also must support and defend the bad things he did... an example of which being next to no action for the rwandan genocide, and the facts that he was pretty infamous for getting us into some conflicts to avoid the negative attention on him, no matter how superficial that attention might have been.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

Dude, can you even hear yourself talking? WHAT THE **** are you talking about? I almost copped bill clinton out of office? Who is 'you'? My family voted for Clinton, and if I was of the voting age, I would have too. And I would still support that decision today. So take your bullshit out of this thread, you don't know what you're talking about.

By you I mean the american people. If the american people think a head job is worse then the things Bush has done, then I believe there is something wrong with the way american people think.

And on a side note... that sounds like a crackpot conspiracy theory if you ask me saying it never happened. I've never heard a single thing claiming that fact... show me the undeniable proof, and not just someones imigination.

I saw a documentary that was very convincing. It's sounds so crackpot because of how hyped up by the media it was and how convinced you were by that hype. Otherwise, the prospect of a republican backed smear campaign against Clinton (that cost millions of dollars and lasted for over 5 years) wouldnt sound so crackpot to you.

So what are you saying? That you don't have your own independent views? That your own views are decided for you by another person or group of people? sounds like it to me.

They are in part decided by others just as in part others views are decided by me. The world works in flux. Hence the things you give importance to has the most influence on your views. If this means you give importance to mainstream media then this means that your views are shaped, in a large part by this entity.

I don't know about you... but *I* have the intelligence and the ability to absorb information from many sources, whether biased or unbiased, and try to weed out all of the bullshit, and patch them all together and ponder on it, and see what sinks into my mind the most.

Apparently YOU just read a newspaper, from whatever source and thats your view for the day, no matter how hard you tried to resist. Thats basically what you're saying... and I feel sorry for you.

this is infact exactly what I DO not do. I dont sit infront of a barrage of propagated media and sit there and try to decide what true or not and whether or not what I am being bombamrded with by the media is even relevant.

why? becuase I accept, that my ability to absorb information from heavily biased media sources and filter them out is very limited. Unlike you have been able to. And I study media in university. The mainstream media is DESIGNED to propagate the masses. What makes you think you are so intelligent to be able to see through it and absorb the reality of things?

Instead I rely on discussion with close friends and documetaries, independent of mainstream media for my sources.

 

[Raziaar]

why? becuase I accept, that my ability to absorb information from heavily biased media sources and filter them out is very limited. Unlike you have been able to. And I study media in university. The mainstream media is DESIGNED to propagate the masses. What makes you think you are so intelligent to be able to see through it and absorb the reality of things?

Instead I rely on discussion with close friends and documetaries, independent of mainstream media for my sources.

I didn't say I can see the reality of things... the truth of things. I said I can make my own views. Every single human being, has the ability to have their own opinions, their own thoughts, whether influenced or not.

If that wasn't the case, the world wouldnt be as diverse today as it is, with so many varying views. Tey had to originate from somewhere. They come from the human mind. Yes, these can be manipulated, but that doesnt mean it is for everybody.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

Let me just say... you have some pretty sad views on what a puppet is. You sound like one of those nihilistic people that has some sort of grudge against humanity. You may feel like a puppet in your every day life, but I certainly don't. Fact of the matter is, I, and most people... are not puppets. We go to work, yes... but that is hardly a puppet's existence. I get paid a decent amount. Not enough to break me past the middle class barrier, but still... I can easily become more qualified to get a better job if I wanted to(well, maybe not easily).

no, you are a slave to wages. You need them to survive, and if not to survive, you need them to satisfy your personal whims, whether that may be a porn mag or a porsche. This is consumerisim. Propagate the people to buy products that they mostly dont need in order to make them work for you.

Sorry... but just because I voted for bush, and support some of the things he does, doesn't mean I have to also support the negative things he does as well. Thats just not how it works. Maybe in your twisted world...

I clearly stated that he represents you in you decision to vote for you due to your belief that the good things about him outweigh the bad. If this is not the case then he does not represent you.

Just because I voted for Clinton, just because I thought he did alot of good things, doesn't mean I also must support and defend the bad things he did...

No you dont need to support and defend the bad things he did, but you have to realise that he represents you in doing those things and justify his mistakes by making the point that the good things he has done outweighs the bad things. hence the reason for you to uphold him as your representitive.

 

[Pi Mu Rho]

I don't think you know what "propagate" means.

 

[Lemonking]

to reproduce itsself,
increase in number or amount

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

I didn't say I can see the reality of things... the truth of things. I said I can make my own views. Every single human being, has the ability to have their own opinions, their own thoughts, whether influenced or not.

If that wasn't the case, the world wouldnt be as diverse today as it is, with so many varying views. Tey had to originate from somewhere. They come from the human mind. Yes, these can be manipulated, but that doesnt mean it is for everybody.

Your views are fantasies if they are not reminiscent of the truth. Hence, they are not valid to anyone but yourself and should be kept to yourself.

every human does have the ablity to from their own opinions, however, their ability to make their own opinion in relation to its versimilitude varies from individual to individual.

The reality of things is important in order to know what is happening and from that knowledge, what should be done about what is happening can be drawn.

 

[>>FrEnZy<<]

oh sorry, by propagate i mean propaganda thats fed to the people.

excuse my limited knowledge of my large vocabulary.

 

[Lemonking]

"Your views are fantasies if they are not reminiscent of the truth"


can you smell the irony?

 

[Raziaar]

Your views are fantasies if they are not reminiscent of the truth. Hence, they are not valid to anyone but yourself and should be kept to yourself.

Noone can really ever know the full truth of anything unless they themselves are personally involved, and even then, there are likely things that they don't even know.

Are you telling me you have foresight into the true nature of things? Or do you somehow ultimately believe that your news sources are 100% factual?

 

[No Limit]

I hate big corporations... You're clueless to how I feel about them. I am one of the most liberal guys you can get when it comes to big money... I don't like it. Moot point, here.

I've already said in the past, UNTOUCHED by your commentary mind you, that I clearly did not like some of the people that bush has appointed. The director of FEMA... clearly a bad choice, but none of this is influenced by you. I already held these views once I became privy to the information. Moot point, again.

Why don't you look through that thread again, okay? You can CLEARLY see that I am in agreement with you there. But no... you can't see that, because you refuse to acknowledge the fact that i'm not a blind follower. Its one of your weaknesses... And you call ME brainwashed. As you can see, this is another moot point, because obviously you can't find anything to fault me in yet pertaining to where I disagree with you in these threads.

I most certainly do not. Simply put.

I most certainly do not. Simply put.

If you'd look back... you'd CLEARLY see that I have already said I felt this way. Its not an admission, its a fact of how I feel.

The fact that you will not open your eyes to see my points, proves you are close minded in the fact that you can't see anything other than what you want to see. I don't listen to O'reilly, I don't listen to Hannity... I form my OWN, independent views on things.

Okay, thank you for addressing my questions. This gets me to my next point and why I simply don't understand you. For some reason you have it implanted in your head that Bush is a good president and you support him. Let me explain to you why this doesn't make any sense.

You don't support the Bush tax cut, great. The Bush tax cut is one the main factors in bringing our economy down right now. This means you admit Bush is terrible on economy. The first thing Kerry wanted to do was remove this tax cut and bring economy back on the right track. You voted Bush. :|

You do not support the fact that Bush continually appoints his political contributors to high level positions. He has done this over and over again, this is not the first time he appointed an idiot to an important position and it will not be the last. We do not have evidance Kerry wouldn't have done the same but when someone crashes your car in to a ditch you don't ask them to get it out for you which is exactly what you did when you voted Bush.

You do not support Bush cutting programs for the poor. This administration has cut these each year since it has been in office and is taking even more extreme steps to make the cuts larger. Kerry promised he would fund these programs and add to them with things like universal health care. You voted Bush. :|

You supported the invasion (so did I but dont anymore) but you realize Bush totally ****ed up the effort after the fact. You also knew Bush got everything wrong in the lead up to war, they were saying there was no doubt Saddam had WMDs, he lied about uranium in africa after knowing it was false, he said the mission would take only days or weeks, he underestimated the amount of troops we needed, he said we would be greeted as liberators, and then he declared mission accomplished when nothing was accomplished. And you voted for Bush :|

So let me ask you this, which policies of Bush do you actually support? Are you starting to understand why I am having such a problem with your blind support for Bush?