Joey Balls Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Oh, shut the !@#$ up. I'm drawing a comparison between one media induced circus and another. Libby and Clinton were both accused of lying about not doing anything illegal and vilified for it. Libby was convicted, Clinton was impeached. Both are bull sh--, the product of ridiculous political witch hunts gone way to far. And don't give me any sh-- about the Plame leak. I can find more damaging secret information that was leaked TODAY that no one cares about and no one will be convicted for leaking. The only reason Plame is an issue is because it's politically expedient, and I have NO respect for political expedience, no matter who it's aimed at. Now you're just being moronic. There is no comparison whatsoever. Compare the amount of tv/radio newspaper time given to the Clinton skull session as opposed to the woeful lack of attention given to the Libby/Rove/Cheney smear job and you aren't even in the same area code. Try to think things through before you sound byte again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Now you're just being moronic. There is no comparison whatsoever. Compare the amount of tv/radio newspaper time given to the Clinton skull session as opposed to the woeful lack of attention given to the Libby/Rove/Cheney smear job and you aren't even in the same area code. Try to think things through before you sound byte again. Yeah, there's no comparison between a politically motivated witch hunt and a politically motivated witch hunt. The only difference is that in one conservatives attacked your liberal, and in the other your liberals attacked a conservative. So basically, you're calling me a moron for not playing partisan politics, when not six posts ago you called it an admirable trait. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Yeah, there's no comparison between a politically motivated witch hunt and a politically motivated witch hunt. The only difference is that in one conservatives attacked your liberal, and in the other your liberals attacked a conservative. So basically, you're calling me a moron for not playing partisan politics, when not six posts ago you called it an admirable trait. 1) Clinton = liberal? Really? What's Bush then? 2) You've got to be kidding if you think that the amount of play the BJ got (and still gets) is approached even the slightest bit by the amount of press the Libby story has gotten. The good argument against that is that it's the President so it obviously will get more play. But !@#$, I still hear Leno cracking stupid jokes about Clinton's sex life and we're almost ready to elect another president eight years after the fact. That and sex sells more readily as a scandal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Balls Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Yeah, there's no comparison between a politically motivated witch hunt and a politically motivated witch hunt. The only difference is that in one conservatives attacked your liberal, and in the other your liberals attacked a conservative. So basically, you're calling me a moron for not playing partisan politics, when not six posts ago you called it an admirable trait. I'm saying you're acting moronic for making a completely invalid comparison that anybody with a sense of history of the last ten years can see through. Everyone here please take note how DC Tom has changed his terminology from "MEDIA induced circus" to "politically motivated witch hunt". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Yeah, there's no comparison between a politically motivated witch hunt and a politically motivated witch hunt. The only difference is that in one conservatives attacked your liberal, and in the other your liberals attacked a conservative. So basically, you're calling me a moron for not playing partisan politics, when not six posts ago you called it an admirable trait. Never mind that if press had continued the wide coverage of the Libby case, they would undermine the future role of the (drumroll, please) the press. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 1) Clinton = liberal? Really? What's Bush then? Yeah, I know...Clinton's not a true liberal any more than Bush is a true conservative. But in the definitions which currently hold in American politics, Clinton's a "liberal" and Bush is a "conservative". 2) You've got to be kidding if you think that the amount of play the BJ got (and still gets) is approached even the slightest bit by the amount of press the Libby story has gotten. The good argument against that is that it's the President so it obviously will get more play. But !@#$, I still hear Leno cracking stupid jokes about Clinton's sex life and we're almost ready to elect another president eight years after the fact. That and sex sells more readily as a scandal. And neither should have gotten anything NEAR the press they got. Though if you want me to say it: fine, the Clinton "scandal" was more absurd. Really, it was. Ken Starr should be sealed in a barrel and dropped into the middle of the Atlantic. How the hell does an investigation into real estate deals turn into impeachment proceedings for a blow job? Doesn't mean that the media's constant gushing over themselves in trying to prove who told them to out Plame was any less absurd, however. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RuntheDamnBall Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Yeah, I know...Clinton's not a true liberal any more than Bush is a true conservative. But in the definitions which currently hold in American politics, Clinton's a "liberal" and Bush is a "conservative". And neither should have gotten anything NEAR the press they got. Though if you want me to say it: fine, the Clinton "scandal" was more absurd. Really, it was. Ken Starr should be sealed in a barrel and dropped into the middle of the Atlantic. How the hell does an investigation into real estate deals turn into impeachment proceedings for a blow job? *claps* Doesn't mean that the media's constant gushing over themselves in trying to prove who told them to out Plame was any less absurd, however. Of course not. No one looks good in this whole thing, least of all the people reporting on it. Personally I just wish they'd stuff Bob Novak in a cell with a guy named Bubba; it would probably do society more good that convicting Libby. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 I'm saying you're acting moronic for making a completely invalid comparison that anybody with a sense of history of the last ten years can see through. Everyone here please take note how DC Tom has changed his terminology from "MEDIA induced circus" to "politically motivated witch hunt". Everyone here please take not how I changed my terminology from "product of diriculous political witch hunts" Oh, shut the !@#$ up. I'm drawing a comparison between one media induced circus and another. Libby and Clinton were both accused of lying about not doing anything illegal and vilified for it. Libby was convicted, Clinton was impeached. Both are bull sh--, the product of ridiculous political witch hunts gone way to far. And don't give me any sh-- about the Plame leak. I can find more damaging secret information that was leaked TODAY that no one cares about and no one will be convicted for leaking. The only reason Plame is an issue is because it's politically expedient, and I have NO respect for political expedience, no matter who it's aimed at. to "politically motivated witch hunt". Yeah, there's no comparison between a politically motivated witch hunt and a politically motivated witch hunt. The only difference is that in one conservatives attacked your liberal, and in the other your liberals attacked a conservative. So basically, you're calling me a moron for not playing partisan politics, when not six posts ago you called it an admirable trait. I can't believe I just wasted two minutes of my life defending myself against your inability to read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 *claps* Of course not. No one looks good in this whole thing, least of all the people reporting on it. Personally I just wish they'd stuff Bob Novak in a cell with a guy named Bubba; it would probably do society more good that convicting Libby. Anyone catch The Daily Show last night? They had a nice video tribute to Novak entiled Douchebag #1. Pretty hilarious Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 I can't believe I just wasted two minutes of my life defending myself against your inability to read. You've wasted four months on HA, for the same thing. I admire your tenacity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Everyone here please take not how I changed my terminology from "product of diriculous political witch hunts" I can't believe I just wasted two minutes of my life defending myself against your inability to read. Well, in fairness, you called it a ridiculous political witch hunt, and not a diriculous political witch hunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 *claps* No applause necessary. Anyone with half a brain should be able to see that Starr wildly exceeded his mandate. Clinton lied under oath to a question that never should have been asked as it had precisely jack sh-- to do with Whitewater. Instead, we got brain-dead conservatives whipped into a frenzy over catching Clinton doing something "wrong", yet utterly trivial...while his Afghanistan policy (among others) went completely to sh-- and led directly to 9/11, which no one ever noticed because they were too busy celebrating a !@#$ing blow job!!!! Much like the Plame case has got everyone so distracted at catching the Bush Administration wrong at anything, no matter how utterly trivial, that no one seems very bothered by the $700 BILLION defense budget or the ten TRILLION dollar budget deficit. You want to effect change in America? The single best thing you can do is stop paying attention to coverage of trivia like Valerie Plame's covert status, and convince the media to cover stuff that's actually important. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 You've wasted four months on HA, for the same thing. I admire your tenacity. To be honest, I wasn't defending myself against HA. I was encouraging him to expound. HA's ignorance tickles me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 You want to effect change in America? The single best thing you can do is stop paying attention to coverage of trivia like Valerie Plame's covert status, and convince the media to cover stuff that's actually important. True. True. BTW, can you believe that the hot white girl who can't sing is still among the contestants on American Idol? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 True. True. BTW, can you believe that the hot white girl who can't sing is still among the contestants on American Idol? I don't know, I haven't been paying attention. I'm too busy watching the coverage about Anna Nicole Smith still being dead... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Balls Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Everyone here please take not how I changed my terminology from "product of diriculous political witch hunts" to "politically motivated witch hunt". I can't believe I just wasted two minutes of my life defending myself against your inability to read. Yeah it's sort of like expending three posts on someone with a complete inability to make rational comparisons over recent political scandals. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 ten TRILLION dollar budget deficit. You mean national debt, yes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 You mean national debt, yes? Same thing. The national debt is the budget deficit totalled over the past 50+ years. In this case, things that are different ARE in fact the same, because they're not different... So...uh, yeah, that's what I meant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 Yeah it's sort of like expending three posts on someone with a complete inability to make rational comparisons over recent political scandals. Actually, I wasted something like six. But your point is taken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
X. Benedict Posted March 8, 2007 Share Posted March 8, 2007 You mean national debt, yes? Details, details. Why are all the hot teachers having sex with students? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts