Pearly Gates is...Quick ReferenceRecent postsLinksRichard's other blog:Hall Of Fame:
The "Real" Media:
Halosphere:
Minor League Affiliates:
Other Baseball Blogs:
Other Random Crap (in a good way):
Soccer:Archive
Blog*Spot ArchivesContactRichard Ceccarelli Josh Mandir |
Thursday, July 14, 2005BallsyYou know, if I were Joe Wilson I would be lying low right now, for fear that some enterprising reporter would call me on all the bullshit I'd been spreading to the press over the past year and a half. Though I suppose the Today show was a pretty safe bet. Comments:So pointing out that Wilson repeatedly lied about the nature and results of his trip to Niger is “sliming”? Whatever Puddy. Puddy, carrying on a debate with you is utterly pointless. Consider yourself banned. This should give you more time to actually follow the news, rather than blindly commenting on it. Puddy, Richard is just getting more ornery with age. Take no offense, and look for a light at the end of the tunnel in '08. Puddy - Richard is just doing what all republicans do when they can't win an argument - or even make a valid point - they take their ball and go home. Typical. Puddy, there is one major flaw with your statements. At the time Valerie Plame was not a covert CIA operative (as many in the media assert but those troublesome facts keep getting in the way) but rather a paper shuffler at the CIA. Oops. And since you are obviously a Liberal Democrat this comes directly from your bible, The NY Times... WASHINGTON, July 14 - Karl Rove, the White House senior adviser, spoke with the columnist Robert D. Novak as he was preparing an article in July 2003 that identified a C.I.A. officer who was undercover, someone who has been officially briefed on the matter said. Mr. Rove has told investigators that he learned from the columnist the name of the C.I.A. officer, who was referred to by her maiden name, Valerie Plame, and the circumstances in which her husband, former Ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, traveled to Africa to investigate possible uranium sales to Iraq, the person said. After hearing Mr. Novak's account, the person who has been briefed on the matter said, Mr. Rove told the columnist: "I heard that, too." Again, as I stated above, why let simple facts get in the way of a good story? I'm a member of the intellectually superior liberal media I'll twist this into a story showing how slimy and ignorant those Republicans really are. According to your bible, all Rove essentially said to Robert Novak was, "Oh, you know about it." That's a leak? Ugh. Better find more solid platform to try and kick the Bush administration in the groin. A few points: 1. It seems that Plame wasn't a covert operative (See Above). 2. Rove and his Lawyer claim that Rove never leaked her name, which is a necessary condition for the crime. 3. Rove testified FULLY already. If he was the primary leak and had done something illegal, why isn't the grand jury hunting for him? 4. Judith Miller is still in jail. Someone else is at the heart of this, and neither Judith nor the NYT is talking. I think Richard's point, and excuse me if I'm wrong, was that it's mighty brave of Wilson after having lied about what his job was, who sent him, and what he found there to put himself in the media spotlight. If I had lied to the american people 3 times, I might try to keep my head low. (And these are REAL lies, not "lies" as redefined by the DNC) Make no mistake, this is ALL about Wilson's politics. This isn't some caring husband of a covert operative concerned about the circumstances surrounding his wife's outing. This is a bush-bashing, partisan hack, trying to sell books. As for Rove, who cares? There's no love lost between Rove and rightwing moderates. I like him because he irritates democrats, but I won't miss him when he's gone. Trying to defend him on technicalities is using the clinton defense. Of course, the clinton scandal didn't affect any real change in public perception and I presume this scandal won't either. Dear Douchebags, Two comments on a previous thread showed that Puddy's point about Wilson was false. He continued to make the same false statement - that's called trolling. Rather than refute it a third time, I will simply ban him. Mark- Respect begets respect. Accusing me of deleting opposing viewpoints is patently untrue, as anyone who’s been around for long can attest (I’ve only banned two non-spammers in the 18 months this blog has been active). I take offense to the implication made by “Swim” and Jim. Well, you said you were "banning him", so I don't know what you are taking offense to... I just think that is a silly reaction to a post on a blog. Argue with him, state your opinion, agree to disagree, get pissed off and flame him, etc. Those are reasonable reactions when compared with "banning" him from a blog. In my opinion, limiting dissention is never the right reaction to a difference of opinion. Unfortunately, the current administration and the folks doing their bidding think that is the exact way to react - shut the people up. Simply disgusting. So you're saying I should waste my time in a pointless flame war with a guy who clearly has no clue what he's talking about, cannot be reasoned with, and does nothing but repeat the same talking point over and over again? No thanks. I've got better things to do with my time. I didn't ban anybody because they dissagreed with me. I banned Puddy because he's a troll - plain and simple. I'm not going to allow anybody to turn my blog into their own personal soapbox for unhinged ranting. That’s my freedom of expression, Jim. And by the way, the whole “Bush’s crushing of dissent” talking point went out of style sometime after Rathergate. I mean really, all self-respecting liberals gave that one up a loooong time ago. So you're saying I should waste my time in a pointless flame war with a guy who clearly has no clue what he's talking about. No, that was one of the options - anything but "banning" him would be preferred. But, the least American thing to do would be to silence him - so you are doing what the Bushies would want. Congrats! I'm not going to allow anybody to turn my blog into their own personal soapbox for unhinged ranting. Again, it is always easier to dismiss someone than deal with what they have to say. And by the way, the whole “Bush’s crushing of dissent” talking point went out of style sometime after Rathergate Yeah, Bush doesn't try to silince people in and out of his administration that have differing viewpoints - keep telling yourself that one if it makes you sleep better at night. Also, you realize that "gate" from "Watergate" was a name of a hotel, right? It isn't a suffix to add on to scandals - you know that, don't you? This is our blog. If someone wants to just be a troll, we don't want them here. We have had to deal with this guy saying the same things over and over despite our comments disputing his purported facts (which were not actually facts). If the Bush administration is crushing dissent so well, then why are so many people still allowed to publicly disagree with him? Why are you even allowed to say that he is "shutting the people up"...I mean, that would be prime speech to shut up. Beyond the fact taht we are not actually shutting people up...EVERYONE still has the ability to create their own blog for free and say whatever they want. We are just trying to limit the amount of stupid crap we have to deal with. "Yeah, Bush doesn't try to silince people in and out of his administration that have differing viewpoints - keep telling yourself that one if it makes you sleep better at night." I'm sorry if I sound like a broken record here (this is probably the #1 reason Puddy is no longer allowed to post here), but I am going to have to insist on some examples. Who "dissent" has been "crushed" by the Bush administration, Jim? Who's been arrested off the street and was never heard from again? Who was "taken careof"? "Also, you realize that "gate" from "Watergate" was a name of a hotel, right? It isn't a suffix to add on to scandals - you know that, don't you?" You have been alive for at least some of the past 30 years (and those were just a choice few), haven't you Jimmy? Or have you been living under a rock? It's a living language. Get used to it. Sorry bout that - I thought for sure you were Puddy. But the policy is no anonymous comments (unfortunately there's no way to turn the anonymous commenting off without forcing everyone to register for blogger, which I don't want to do). Just leave a name (or nickname) and I won't confuse you with anyone else. I still have your message saved, so if you just give me a name I can repost it verbatim. No worries there. Having used Blogger in the past (thankfully in the past) I know it's a pain. I'll post with my first name, Nathan. I love the "She wasn't a covert operative when the leak came out" tack. No, seriously, did the passage of time just not enter into the right's thinking here? Past: She was a covert operative before. She probably associated with other covert operatives at that time (some of whom might still be undercover). Blowing her cover puts them in jeopardy. Future: Who says she was going to work in Virginia the rest of her life? "Well she's not in the field now, go ahead and leak this." Present: If the real issue is what Wilson said/did, why did his wife even enter into the picture? Is it accepted now that the proper response to a political attack is to leak family details, national security be damned? Y'know, I don't know just where on the relativistic-absolutist moral axis most CIA types lie, but for an entity as opaque as the Bush Administration to first make the CIA their scapegoat for their own mistakes in Iraq, and now leak info on Agency operatives to settle political scores is either really really ballsy or just really really foolish. Place your bets where you will. Who's been arrested off the street and was never heard from again? Who was "taken careof"? Dissent takes many shapes, and the crushing of dissent doesn't have to result in an arrest to be problematic. After 9/11 anyone who thought that the war was a bad idea - or was disappointed in the failure of diplomacy (Daschle) was called un-American or un-Patriotic. This took many shapes. The "dissenters" would be rebuked in the media for "criticizing the president while troops are in harms way" etc. This isn't an arrest, but I am sure you have the ability to see how, once extrapolated and reported in the press, how this would silence people with opposing viewpoints. The Prez would have Karen Hughes, or some othe senator/lackey go on the Sunday morning shows and talk about needing to support our troops and give the president the benefit of the doubt because the country doesn't need to present a divided front - because that is what the enemy wants. If that doesn't play to the fear of the general public and likely slow some elected officials from dissenting, I don't know what would. Similarly, the creation of the independent 9/11 commission was fought hard because the Bushies didn't want to turn over documents and/or testify in front of a bi-partisan panel. That was both secretive and a way of trying to quite their critics. Richard Clarke was called out and bashed in the media for being a crazyman when he mentioned that the Bushies could have done more to prevent the attack. The former Treasury Secretary, Paul O'Neill, was attacked by the bush media machine after his firing. He talked about how Bush had planned to invade Iraq even before 9/11. I will even go this far.... The prisoners at Gitmo and all people arrested under this spectre of terror that are not allowed to talk with a lawyer or speak to their family. These people have rights like you and I and the fact that they are not allowed to seek counsel and have their day in court is a way of silencing them. Hope that is enough examples for you - there are more, but I have 4 month old triplets and this is about the limit of my computer time these days. No offense intended Richard, but again, banning folks for differing viewpoints is childish and a suppression of free-speech. Look dipshit - for the last time, I didn't ban anybody because of "differing viewpoints". I banned Puddy because he was a troll. You know what that means, Jim? It means he came here almost daily, repeated the same false allegations over and over (even after they had been shown to be false by other commenters), refused to listen to anybody else's point-of-view, hijacked threads, refused to respond to honest debate and generally made a pest of himself. You know, sort of what you're doing now. Nice. This is my last post in this thread, but just an FYI, you asked me for examples on Bush and his hushing up of dissenters. All I did was give them to you. Sorry you didn't enjoy reading them and had no response to any of them. That would have been civil discourse - unfortunately you resorted to name calling instead of discussing the points I raised. I have generally enjoyed your blog this last year - too bad your skin is so thin as to not be able to handle discussion about your core views. Generally, people who explode when confronted with information contrary to their view are not too sure how to defend their points. I think that is the case here. Jim - You keep alleging I'm banning people for no other reason than they disagree with me. You are a liar sir. A liar. You have disrespected me. And you continue to do by ignoring my responses. Calling you a dipshit is as civil as I feel I need to be in the face of constant false allegations from a man such as yourself. And I feel that this is appropriate given the circumstances as well: GO. FUCK. YOURSELF. (BTW: You want a response to your spurious allegations against the Bush administration? Here you go: Why is it that when the Administration alleges incompetence on the part of a critic, it is considered "smearing", "bashing" and "crushing of dissent", yet when a critic accuses the Administration of the same it is "speaking truth to power"? The Admistration is allowed to defend itself aginst critics and a hostile media, is it not? Oh, wait. Free speech is reserved for only those on the left. My bad. And your criticism of Gitmo is utterly and irredeemably asinine. Men caught on the battlefields of Afghanistan and Iraq attempting to kill US Soldiers and murder civilians aren’t “dissenters” or political prisoners – they’re terrorists and enemy combatants.) |
