• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Libby Found Guilty On 4 of 5 Counts

Status
Not open for further replies.

2 Timothy2:1-4

New Member
Originally Posted by Baptist in Richmond
I simply pointed out that many of his talking points show up here on the board, many times verbatim. The most bizarre aspect of that fact is the almost belligerent responses to noting this. The simple fact is that these talking points continually keep showing up, in some cases from the same people who deny listening to him.


As do the liberal democrat talking points spread throughout the internet and Air America Radio. Included in these liberal talking points is the very assertion you are making now. You seem to be walking pretty lock step yourself.
 

Baptist in Richmond

Active Member
2 Timothy2:1-4 said:
As do the liberal democrat talking points spread throughout the internet and Air America Radio. Included in these liberal talking points is the very assertion you are making now. You seem to be walking pretty lock step yourself.

Ah, that may be true, but the simple fact of the matter is that the talking points on Rush's show almost always end up here, despite the continual denial of some that they do not listen to him. That may be a talking point, but it has been true for quite some time.

I do indeed have AirAmerica through my XM radio. Unfortunately for me, I cannot get reception in my office, so I listen to Rush, as long as I can stomach. But I have willingly admitted to listening to AirAmerica (not as much lately now that Al Franken is off the air).

If I am "walking pretty lock step," then by all means show me specifics where I am reproducing these talking points. As far as the assertion that the talking points from Rush are here on the board, well, it's true.

Again: unlike most people in this discussion, I willingly admit that I listen to the EIB Network every weekday. By the way, it is worth noting that Rush himself has made references to the "liberal talking points," as has Sean Hannity (listen to him once in a while - he is not live, but is on the air in Richmond after our local Bush Acolyte's show) Once again, something that Rush says has found its way to the discussion.

Regards,
BiR
 

Baptist in Richmond

Active Member
Bro. Curtis said:
And you & Bin laden both wanted Kerry to win. Should I look into that ?

Yes, although I heard that more from Sean Hannity than from Rush.

As for UBL wanting Kerry to win, that is silly. With Bush, he has the enemy he needs to recruit more people for his cause. I guess he counted on most of the right wing pundits in the media not being able to grasp that, and endorsed Kerry to galvanize support for the POTUS in his bid for reelection......

Just last week, I spent one day with a 102 degree fever, wednesday it got down to 101, pretty sick, but I made a good enough revovery to climb up Lolo Pass,yesterday & ski down. then a soak in the Lolo hot springs, I'm really starting to recover well,but over the three days i was sick, I lost 15 pounds !!!! That is extremely unhealthy for me, I've weighed 205 for the last 10 years.

:eek:
Wow - BTW, are you in that card game up at Lolo?
[note: to those of you who don't understand this - it's a reference to the book (and the movie) A River Runs Through It.]

Hope you get feeling well, soon.

The same to you - I am not as sick as you are.

FWIW, you are in my thoughts and prayers,
BiR
 

carpro

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Bro. James Reed said:
Well, I sure wouldn't. I quit listening to that guy when I stopped carpooling with a Rush-fanatic friend to college about 5 years ago. I never did like his show, and I don't know how you can stomach it.

I count Rush as being 1 step up from Ann Coulter, mmm, on second thought, maybe 2 steps. Of course, on a scale to 100, with Coulter being at -10, Rush is not very high up.


BiR is obsessed by Rush and thinks everyone else is , too.:laugh:
 

Bro. Curtis

<img src =/curtis.gif>
Site Supporter
BiR, it is silly to try and belittle our points by saying "Rush said that!!!!!"

I really, really think you should stop.

But hey, if you listen to Rush everyday, did you laugh as hard as I did when you heard Al Sharpton say....

"Obama, you're mama's so fat, when she put on her black dress, she look just like outer space...

"Obama, you're mama's so fat, she walk around with pesos in one pocket, and euros in the other.....

"Obama, you're mama's so fat, when she ran away, they needed all four sides of the milk carton....

I LOVE listening to Rush, so do you, apparently.
 

NiteShift

New Member
Baptist in Richmond said:
Interesting that, despite my attempts to remain congenial in my replies to you, you would suggest that maybe you should question my patriotism.

You brought up the subject of my patriotism. I quote, "Wow: that almost sounds like your patriotism is subordinate to you political affiliation."

Quite naturally that made me wonder about your own. Course, if you didn't serve your country, maybe you should consider not questioning others on that subject. Sounds reasonable to me.
 

2 Timothy2:1-4

New Member
Bro. Curtis said:
BiR, it is silly to try and belittle our points by saying "Rush said that!!!!!"

I really, really think you should stop.

But hey, if you listen to Rush everyday, did you laugh as hard as I did when you heard Al Sharpton say....

"Obama, you're mama's so fat, when she put on her black dress, she look just like outer space...

"Obama, you're mama's so fat, she walk around with pesos in one pocket, and euros in the other.....

"Obama, you're mama's so fat, when she ran away, they needed all four sides of the milk carton....

I LOVE listening to Rush, so do you, apparently.


That was just to funny. :laugh:
 

2 Timothy2:1-4

New Member
Baptist in Richmond said:
Ah, that may be true, but the simple fact of the matter is that the talking points on Rush's show almost always end up here, despite the continual denial of some that they do not listen to him. That may be a talking point, but it has been true for quite some time.

I do indeed have AirAmerica through my XM radio. Unfortunately for me, I cannot get reception in my office, so I listen to Rush, as long as I can stomach. But I have willingly admitted to listening to AirAmerica (not as much lately now that Al Franken is off the air).

If I am "walking pretty lock step," then by all means show me specifics where I am reproducing these talking points. As far as the assertion that the talking points from Rush are here on the board, well, it's true.

Again: unlike most people in this discussion, I willingly admit that I listen to the EIB Network every weekday. By the way, it is worth noting that Rush himself has made references to the "liberal talking points," as has Sean Hannity (listen to him once in a while - he is not live, but is on the air in Richmond after our local Bush Acolyte's show) Once again, something that Rush says has found its way to the discussion.

Regards,
BiR


I cannot show the lock step junk that comes from Air America. the reason is that the printed language on that site is so vile it would break the TOsrules of this site. The hate filled lefties speak with no regard for human decency. It is a vile site.
 

Baptist in Richmond

Active Member
NiteShift said:
You brought up the subject of my patriotism. I quote, "Wow: that almost sounds like your patriotism is subordinate to you political affiliation."

Nope, and you are clearly reading what you want to read.
Here is my entire statement you that you have referenced:

Baptist in Richmond said:
It's nothing to you that the despicable Mr. Novak took down a CIA front company? Wow: that almost sounds like your patriotism is subordinate to you political affiliation. The CIA are the good guys, and it's "nothing" to you when a company used as a cover was blown on national television? I am absolutely stunned that you are so polarized that it means "nothing" to you.

There are TWO questions there that I asked you. Please note that I specifically wrote that it "almost sounds like," didn't I?

The CIA has admitted that this was indeed a front company. Well, it isn't anymore, and anyone who was using that front company has been compromised. Moreover, anyone working with these agents have been compromised. Does that not bother you? [note that this is another question.]

Quite naturally that made me wonder about your own. Course, if you didn't serve your country, maybe you should consider not questioning others on that subject. Sounds reasonable to me.

Yes, I love my country, and my politics are subordinate to my patriotism, as exhibited by my total disgust for this despicable man who would not only reveal a CIA agent/operative in his newspaper column, but would go on a national network and reveal her front company as well, thus compromising anyone who was working with the front company. Again, as she was working on COUNTERPROLIFERATION, I wonder if her work involved either Iraq, Iran or North Korea......

Regards anyway,
BiR
 

Baptist in Richmond

Active Member
Bro. Curtis said:
BiR, it is silly to try and belittle our points by saying "Rush said that!!!!!"

I really, really think you should stop.

The simple fact of the matter is that many of his talking points show up in these discussions. If you do listen to him, then you know it's true. How is it silly to point out the truth, especially when many of the points he makes show up here almost verbatim?

But hey, if you listen to Rush everyday, did you laugh as hard as I did when you heard Al Sharpton say....

"Obama, you're mama's so fat, when she put on her black dress, she look just like outer space...

"Obama, you're mama's so fat, she walk around with pesos in one pocket, and euros in the other.....

"Obama, you're mama's so fat, when she ran away, they needed all four sides of the milk carton....

Those aren't funny....

I LOVE listening to Rush, so do you, apparently.

I listen to him, but I would hardly say that I LOVE it.
I find it interesting that he can hardly get through his show without discussing two topics:
1. sex
2. former President Bill Clinton (even when the former President has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of discussion)

Quite frequently, these topics are discussed in the first hour of the program, but not always.

Regards, hope you are feeling better,
BiR (talk to you in a few days - I am headed to Delaware on business for the rest of the week, and I am taking my ATB with me - it's getting darker later so I can ride. Southern Delaware is so beautiful...)
 

2 Timothy2:1-4

New Member
Baptist in Richmond said:
The simple fact of the matter is that many of his talking points show up in these discussions. If you do listen to him, then you know it's true. How is it silly to point out the truth, especially when many of the points he makes show up here almost verbatim?



So you say with no evidence. The difference being that it would not be against the rules of posting to link to Rushes site. And of course the assertion that repubs only repeat what ruch says is a continuation of the psuedo-intellectual babel that comes from the left and Air Ameirca.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bro. Curtis

<img src =/curtis.gif>
Site Supporter
Baptist in Richmond said:
The simple fact of the matter is that many of his talking points show up in these discussions. If you do listen to him, then you know it's true. How is it silly to point out the truth, especially when many of the points he makes show up here almost verbatim?

I think you point them out in order to avoid addressing the point.

Those aren't funny....

They are hilarious.

I listen to him, but I would hardly say that I LOVE it.
I find it interesting that he can hardly get through his show without discussing two topics:
1. sex

Kind of an all-encompassing subject, eh ? especially with the nonesense that's going on in Washington.

2. former President Bill Clinton (even when the former President has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of discussion)

He left this country a mess. The fact that people still support him is important in the future of this country.

Quite frequently, these topics are discussed in the first hour of the program, but not always.

Regards, hope you are feeling better,
BiR (talk to you in a few days - I am headed to Delaware on business for the rest of the week, and I am taking my ATB with me - it's getting darker later so I can ride. Southern Delaware is so beautiful...)

I'm feelin' great.
 

Baptist in Richmond

Active Member
2 Timothy2:1-4 said:
So you say with no evidence. The difference being that it would not be against the rules of posting to link to Rushes site.

Actually, the evidence is there, every single day I listen. As for his website, it is a subscription service, and if I did post a link you would have to enter your login information.

And of course the assertion that repubs only repeat what ruch says is a continuation of the psuedo-intellectual babel that comes from the left and Air Ameirca.

Yep, which of course is yet another point that Rush makes. Thanks for providing us with yet another one of his talking points (except that you added AirAmerica). You forgot to mention that the left thinks that they are smarter than conservatives.

This is starting to get humorous......

Regards - hope you and yours are doing well too,
BiR (who hasn't left for Delaware just yet)
 

Baptist in Richmond

Active Member
Bro. Curtis said:
I think you point them out in order to avoid addressing the point.

Where have I not addressed the point?

They are hilarious.

No, actually they are not - old and recycled.

Kind of an all-encompassing subject, eh ? especially with the nonesense that's going on in Washington.

And yet, he manages to bring up the topic of sex practically every day, doesn't he? You don't find that just a bit disconcerting?

He left this country a mess. The fact that people still support him is important in the future of this country.

Um, no: actually, the mess that the current POTUS has created is much more substantial, and seemingly is getting worse.

I'm feelin' great.

That is good to hear. Again, you have been in my thoughts and prayers.

God's Blessings to you and yours,
BiR (who thought he was leaving for Delaware tonight)
 

2 Timothy2:1-4

New Member
Baptist in Richmond said:
Actually, the evidence is there, every single day I listen. As for his website, it is a subscription service, and if I did post a link you would have to enter your login information.



Yep, which of course is yet another point that Rush makes. Thanks for providing us with yet another one of his talking points (except that you added AirAmerica). You forgot to mention that the left thinks that they are smarter than conservatives.

This is starting to get humorous......

Regards - hope you and yours are doing well too,
BiR (who hasn't left for Delaware just yet)

I have to hand it to ya BR. there are no false pretenses about you. Most libs at least try to sound intelligent. You dont seem to worried about that. You just let it fly no matter how rediculous it sounds.
 

Bro. Curtis

<img src =/curtis.gif>
Site Supporter
Baptist in Richmond said:
Actually, the evidence is there, every single day I listen. As for his website, it is a subscription service, and if I did post a link you would have to enter your login information.


You're a Rush subscriber ?
 

Baptist in Richmond

Active Member
2 Timothy2:1-4 said:
I have to hand it to ya BR. there are no false pretenses about you. Most libs at least try to sound intelligent. You dont seem to worried about that. You just let it fly no matter how rediculous it sounds.

Now that was good: when all else fails, just resort to contumely.

Regards,
BiR
 

Baptist in Richmond

Active Member
Bro. Curtis said:
You're a Rush subscriber ?

Me?
No, I wouldn't subscribe to his service. I did, however, have someone try to send me a link to an article on his website, and that is what happened when I clicked on the hyperlink.
 

Baptist in Richmond

Active Member
My apologies, during correspondence with 777, I noticed that he made a reference to questions posed by you, but I missed this post. For some reason, I thought you were directing your comments to Terry.

Pastor Larry said:
How do you know she was covert under the statute?

http://mediamatters.org/items/200507150007

Evidence indicates that Plame did in fact engage in CIA business abroad between 1998 and 2003, even if she was not stationed abroad. For example, the Post suggested on October 8, 2003, that Plame remained undercover "in recent years" as an "energy consultant," while actually serving as a weapons proliferation analyst for the CIA, and was known by friends and neighbors as someone who "traveled frequently overseas":
For the past several years, she has served as an operations officer working as a weapons proliferation analyst. She told neighbors, friends and even some of her CIA colleagues that she was an "energy consultant." She lived behind a facade even after she returned from abroad. It included a Boston front company named Brewster-Jennings & Associates, which she listed as her employer on a 1999 form in Federal Election Commission records for her $1,000 contribution to Al Gore's presidential primary campaign.

Administration officials confirmed that Brewster-Jennings was a front. The disclosure of its existence, which came about because it was listed in the FEC records, magnifies the potential damage related to the leak of Valerie Wilson's identity: It may give anyone who dealt with the firm clues to her CIA work. In addition, anyone who ever had contact with the company, and any foreign person who ever met with Valerie Plame, innocently or not, might now be suspected of working with the agency.

Friends and neighbors knew Valerie Wilson as a consultant who traveled frequently overseas.

CNN national security correspondent David Ensor reported on the September 29, 2003, edition of Wolf Blitzer Reports:
ENSOR: "All I can say is my sources tell me that this is a CIA operative. This is a person who did run agents. This is a person who was out there in the world collecting information."

Again, Toensing, who may be political, but who knows the statute said she wasn't.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200507120005

http://mediamatters.org/items/200501140005

The CIA did not take affirmative steps to hide her identity.
In fact, I was reading today that Novak found out who she was in Who's Who as the husband of Joe Wilson.

If a person is covert under the statute, the CIA has to take affirmative steps to hide the identity, including telling people. The CIA did not do that, which means the CIA either broke the law and hung people out to dry, the "leakers" knew and did it anyway, or Plame wasn't really covert under the statute.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40012-2003Oct3?language=printer

From the article:
After the name of the company was broadcast yesterday, administration officials confirmed that it was a CIA front. They said the obscure and possibly defunct firm was listed as Plame's employer on her W-2 tax forms in 1999 when she was working undercover for the CIA.

Also in this article:
The inadvertent disclosure of the name of a business affiliated with the CIA underscores the potential damage to the agency and its operatives caused by the leak of Plame's identity. Intelligence officials have said that once Plame's job as an undercover operative was revealed, other agency secrets could be unraveled and her sources might be compromised or endangered.
A former diplomat who spoke on condition of anonymity said yesterday that every foreign intelligence service would run Plame's name through its databases within hours of its publication to determine if she had visited their country and to reconstruct her activities.
"That's why the agency is so sensitive about just publishing her name," the former diplomat said.

By the way, isn't it interesting that the despicable Mr. Novak was never called to testify? Or, if he was, why didn't we hear anything about it?

I am inclined, based on what I know, to think the latter. The WH, as I see it, didn't really need to discredit Wilson's testimony.

If they didn't, then why were they clearly talking about him with the media? After all, if they "didn't really need to discredit Wilson's testimony," why did they spend so much time talking about him?

The Senate Intelligence Committee and the Blair report from England disagreed with Wilson and apparently cites Wilson's report in support of their position, and in contradiction to Wilson's positiion.

This would be a great time to produce all the WMD that were posing an "immediate threat."

Lastly, why is Novak despicable for releasing classified information but the NYT is not?

Apples and oranges. One article was an attempt to discredit someone in the guise of a newspaper article. The other was an attempt to point out that laws were being broken. Did the NYT article mention any names? I cannot remember, and seemed to have lost my link to the article in question, and would appreciate it if you could provide it for us (genuine request).

That tells me there is a political thing going on here. Quite frankly, I think neither Novak nor the Times should have released classified information. I think people's lives are in danger when that happens. It's not good when the right does it, and it is not good when the left does it.

Agreed, but I cannot remember anyone being "outed" by the NYT.

Regards, I am headed out of town on business, and don't think that there is any internet connectivity in my hotel. I will respond to you as soon as I can.
BiR
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top