PDA

View Full Version : Rove to be indicted within 2 weeks...


Pages : [1] 2 3

jAZ
05-09-2006, 09:44 AM
(video)
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Countdown-Rove-indictment-soon-Shuster.wmv

http://www.rawstory.com/news/2006/MSNBC_reporter_I_am_convinced_that_0508.html

Rush transcript from Countdown with Keith Olbermann / MSNBC.

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann: There are stories -- possibly apocryphal -- from the medieval courts of chancery in England, of lawsuits that took so long to resolve that they were passed down from generation to generation like property or some really good axes. Our fourth story on the Countdown: if Karl Rove hasn't thought of that analogy yet, somebody else probably has mentioned it to him. Or they still have time to get around to it. Though maybe not a lot of time. An end, of one kind or another, may be in sight.

The Washington Post reports Plame-gate special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald is reviewing just one aspect of Mr. Rove's five appearance before the grand jury. Namely, whether Mr. Rove testified falsely in February 2004 when he failed to disclose that he told Time magazine's Matt Cooper about Valerie Plame's position at the CIA. That particular testimony came only seven months after Mr. Rove talked with Mr. Cooper. But Rove has said he forgot. And that the discovery of an e-mail about that conversation jogged his memory. Rove reportedly expects to know as early as this month whether Mr. Fitzgerald will indict him. We've heard something like that before. To check this one out, let's call in MSNBC's David Shuster. Thanks for your time, David.

MSNBC's David Shuster: Good to be with you, Keith.

Olbermann: What are you gathering on these two main points. Is the decision by Mr. Fitzgerald coming soon, would it be an indictment?

Shuster: Well, Karl Rove's legal team has told me that they expect that a decision will come sometime in the next two weeks. And I am convinced that Karl Rove will, in fact, be indicted. And there are a couple of reasons why. First of all, you don't put somebody in front of a grand jury at the end of an investigation or for the fifth time, as Karl Rove testified a couple, a week and a half ago, unless you feel that's your only chance of avoiding indictment. So in other words, the burden starts with Karl Rove to stop the charges. Secondly, it's now been 13 days since Rove testified. After testifying for three and a half hours, prosecutors refused to give him any indication that he was clear. He has not gotten any indication since then. And the lawyers that I've spoken with outside of this case say that if Rove had gotten himself out of the jam, he would have heard something by now. And then the third issue is something we've talked about before. And that is, in the Scooter Libby indictment, Karl Rove was identified as 'Official A.' It's the term that prosecutors use when they try to get around restrictions on naming somebody in an indictment. We've looked through the records of Patrick Fitzgerald from when he was prosecuting cases in New York and from when he's been US attorney in Chicago. And in every single investigation, whenever Fitzgerald has identified somebody as Official A, that person eventually gets indicted themselves, in every single investigation. Will Karl Rove defy history in this particular case? I suppose anything is possible when you are dealing with a White House official. But the lawyers that I've been speaking with who know this stuff say, don't bet on Karl Rove getting out of this.

DEVELOPING.......

Baby Lee
05-09-2006, 09:48 AM
How, oh how? With only the thread title, and the thread author to guide me.
How did I know the contents would be speculative rather than information from someone with an actual say in the matter?
Am I developing magical powers?

patteeu
05-09-2006, 10:19 AM
For treason?

Chief Henry
05-09-2006, 10:23 AM
Jiz strikes again..... :rolleyes:

banyon
05-09-2006, 10:29 AM
It does seem likely if he has already assembled his "legal team".

memyselfI
05-09-2006, 10:34 AM
For treason?

No....

not yet. :p ;)

jAZ
05-09-2006, 10:55 AM
For treason?
Watch the video...

jAZ
05-09-2006, 10:57 AM
With only the thread title ... to guide me.
How did I know the contents would be speculative
Do you really think that any DA would annouce anything 2 weeks in advance? Come on man, you have at least a little common sense, right?

I guess when all you have left to bitch about is the nature of my thread title, it's a good thing.

patteeu
05-09-2006, 11:09 AM
Watch the video...

I don't watch much internet video unless I happen to be somewhere where I have broadband because it's too painfully slow on dialup. I'm downloading an iPod updater from Apple right now and after almost 1.5 hours I'm still only 76% done. Unfortunately, this means I miss most of your crooks and liars stuff. Did Josh Marshall post a synopsis that you could cut-n-paste, by any chance? :p

Baby Lee
05-09-2006, 11:14 AM
I guess when all you have left to bitch about is the nature of my thread title, it's a good thing.
The title of the thread overstating the portent of the same navel gazing that happens every hour of every day on 24/7 news is the only thing worth the effort of response on this thread.

jAZ
05-09-2006, 12:09 PM
The title of the thread overstating the portent of the same navel gazing that happens every hour of every day on 24/7 news is the only thing worth the effort of response on this thread.
Your use of the word "portent" is the only thing worth the effort of response on this post.

Taco John
05-09-2006, 12:10 PM
For treason?



Not likely. It's not treasonous to be stupid.

More likely, Rove will get nailed on the same thing Clinton got nailed on... Lying.

Taco John
05-09-2006, 12:14 PM
What is it called when you're completely innocent of any wrongdoing, but feel that you need to lie about it anyway?

Cochise
05-09-2006, 12:32 PM
How, oh how? With only the thread title, and the thread author to guide me.
How did I know the contents would be speculative rather than information from someone with an actual say in the matter?
Am I developing magical powers?

hahahaha... I have him on ig, but I knew it was something like you describe and that it was from crooksandliars. If you have some kind of psychic powers then I do too.

patteeu
05-09-2006, 12:48 PM
What is it called when you're completely innocent of any wrongdoing, but feel that you need to lie about it anyway?

You're lying if you don't remember that. :p

go bowe
05-09-2006, 01:19 PM
What is it called when you're completely innocent of any wrongdoing, but feel that you need to lie about it anyway?dirty politics?

Adept Havelock
05-09-2006, 08:59 PM
dirty politics?

Isn't that phrase redundant? :hmmm:

Ugly Duck
05-09-2006, 09:02 PM
All RIGHT!! Wilson gets his frog-march!

Cochise
05-22-2006, 06:28 AM
Oopsie

Radar Chief
05-22-2006, 08:51 AM
Oopsie

:LOL:

Chief Henry
05-22-2006, 08:54 AM
Oopsie


Ya but, they sure got that Gay reporter story right. ROFL

jAZ
05-22-2006, 09:06 AM
Oopsie
Ooosie what? Oh, this is your window to delcare victory and try to tell everyone to go home?

Hell, aren't you jumping the gun a little, even on that front? It's day 13 and if calendars are the same today as they were yesterday, 2 weeks = 14 days.

I think your pre-mature victory dance technically shouldn't start until tomorrow. I'm sure there will be a great deal of satisfaction knowing it took 4 weeks instead of 3 weeks.

All of this aside, it's been reported by one (questionable) source that Rove is *all ready* been indicted, and that's it's not been made public because he's chosen to start cooperating with Fitzpatrick. I'm just saying it's worth watching this to see if that report was true.

http://talkleft.com/new_archives/014903.html

jAZ
05-22-2006, 09:07 AM
Oopsie
Oopsie (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=141019)?

jAZ
05-22-2006, 09:15 AM
it's been reported by one (questionable) source that Rove is *all ready* been indicted
Here's more on the "questionable" portion of this...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html/

Cochise
05-22-2006, 09:27 AM
Ya but, they sure got that Gay reporter story right. ROFL

Oh yeah, the HUGE gay hooker story that was going to turn washington on its ear! Phear the ghey hookers!

patteeu
05-22-2006, 09:32 AM
I found this part of Howard Kurtz' comment on the subject in today's edition of the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html/) pretty interesting:

...

The claim that President Bush's top political strategist had been indicted in the CIA leak investigation was written by a journalist who has battled drug addiction and mental illness and been convicted of grand larceny.

...

[Jason] Leopold acknowledges in a new book, "News Junkie," that he is a past liar, convicted felon and former alcoholic and cocaine addict.

...

Salon retracted a 2002 piece by Leopold involving then-Army Secretary Thomas White. Salon apologized, saying it had been unable to confirm the authenticity of an e-mail that Leopold attributed to White. Leopold

...

Now I don't think any of this disqualifies the guy from being a reporter, but this miss isn't doing his reputation-rehabilitation effort any good.

patteeu
05-22-2006, 09:40 AM
Oh yeah, the HUGE gay hooker story that was going to turn washington on its ear! Phear the ghey hookers!

Wasn't Karl Rove one of the administration officials said to be involved in the gay orgies that Jeff Gannon was facilitating at the White House? I bet that's what Fitzgerald is on to now.

jAZ
05-22-2006, 09:44 AM
I found this part of Howard Kurtz' comment on the subject in today's edition of the Washington Post (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html/) pretty interesting:
Do you mean this article?
Here's more on the "questionable" portion of this...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/linkset/2005/04/11/LI2005041100587.html/

jAZ
05-22-2006, 09:44 AM
Oh yeah, the HUGE gay hooker story that was going to turn washington on its ear! Phear the ghey hookers!
ROFL
Oopsie (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=141019)?

patteeu
05-22-2006, 09:48 AM
Do you mean this article?

Yes, I mean the article that casts the guy you and yours relied on for this story in a bad light. Salon thought so much of him they gave him the Jason Blair treatment.

*edit* In fairness, you did acknowledge that Leopold's scoop was unconfirmed by any other source. Kudos to you for that. */edit*

penchief
05-22-2006, 08:38 PM
For the sake of this country's future, we can only hope that the tactics promoted by Karl Rove, George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Don Rumsfeld are taken into context and refuted for the garbage that it is.

I, personally, can only pray that Rove and his ilk are indicted for their crimes against our democracy.

patteeu
05-22-2006, 09:50 PM
For the sake of this country's future, we can only hope that the tactics promoted by Karl Rove, George Bush, Dick Cheney, and Don Rumsfeld are taken into context and refuted for the garbage that it is.

I, personally, can only pray that Rove and his ilk are indicted for their crimes against our democracy.

What crimes?

penchief
05-22-2006, 10:02 PM
What crimes?

Maybe not crimes literally (even though that is still yet to be seen and could very likely be the end result of their conduct) but crimes against our freedom which includes their betrayal of everything this country stands for.

1. Open and transparent government.

2. Honest campaigns.

3. Honest elections.

4. Civil liberties.

5. Democracy.

6. The rights of the accused.

7. The truth.

8. Human progress.

9. Religious independence.

10. Economic fairness.

And believe it or not, Pragmatism. Our founding fathers were very pragmatic thanks to people like Franklin and Washington, either of whom deserved to be called the Father of our Country.

patteeu
05-22-2006, 10:17 PM
Maybe not crimes literally (even though that is still yet to be seen and could very likely be the end result of their conduct) but crimes against our freedom which includes their betrayal of everything this country stands for.

1. Open and transparent government.

2. Honest campaigns.

3. Honest elections.

4. Civil liberties.

5. Democracy.

6. The rights of the accused.

7. The truth.

8. Human progress.

9. Religious independence.

10. Economic fairness.


ROFL Oh, I get it. I thought you were serious.

penchief
05-22-2006, 10:19 PM
ROFL Oh, I get it. I thought you were serious.

Think about it....please.

Cochise
05-22-2006, 11:22 PM
For the sake of this country's future, we can only hope that the tactics... are taken into context and refuted... I... can only pray that Rove and his ilk are indicted for their crimes against our democracy.

(dramatic chords)

er..


Maybe not crimes literally...


ROFL

banyon
05-23-2006, 09:24 AM
What crimes?

I think you've seen my

list (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3150106&postcount=10)

patteeu
05-23-2006, 10:06 AM
I think you've seen my

list (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=3150106&postcount=10)

The Republicans need to make a campaign ad out of that list. ;)

Cochise
05-23-2006, 10:20 AM
jAZ Bauer only has 13 hours remaining to get the secret documents from to DU into the hands of the attorney general so he can move forward with the indictments... (tick.. tock... tick... tock... tick... tock...)

Chief Henry
05-23-2006, 02:33 PM
jAZ Bauer only has 13 hours remaining to get the secret documents from to DU into the hands of the attorney general so he can move forward with the indictments... (tick.. tock... tick... tock... tick... tock...)



How much time is left for this to happen ? :p

go bowe
05-23-2006, 02:36 PM
has it been 2 weeks yet?

patteeu
05-23-2006, 04:00 PM
I'd imagine that if this isn't reported on the Nightly News tonight then we will probably be able catch it on Nightline.

penchief
05-24-2006, 08:08 PM
I'd imagine that if this isn't reported on the Nightly News tonight then we will probably be able catch it on Nightline.

Are you counting on it not happening? What's your gut tell you? Do you think he'll be indicted or do you think he'll get off?

unlurking
05-24-2006, 08:17 PM
Are you counting on it not happening? What's your gut tell you? Do you think he'll be indicted or do you think he'll get off?
Who cares?

It's not like he'll ever be convicted of anything. Whether he's guilty of anything or not (and I have serious suspicions that this whole administration is guilty of some pretty fugged up shit), nothing will ever happen to him.

patteeu
05-24-2006, 09:31 PM
Are you counting on it not happening? What's your gut tell you? Do you think he'll be indicted or do you think he'll get off?

I doubt that it will happen, but who knows. I just know that there's no reason to put any faith in these predictions from the fringe media.

Jesus
05-25-2006, 08:07 AM
has it been 2 weeks yet?

Yes.

jAZ
05-25-2006, 08:29 AM
...from the fringe media.
ROFL

Since when did NBC become "fringe"?

Taco John
05-25-2006, 03:55 PM
I understand that if Rove is indicted, it can be construed as nothing but a huge win for Republicans, since he'd only be getting indicted for the meaningless charge of perjury... Anyone else heard something like this?

patteeu
05-25-2006, 04:02 PM
ROFL

Since when did NBC become "fringe"?

Since they hired Keith Olberman. ;)

jAZ
05-25-2006, 04:16 PM
Since they hired Keith Olberman. ;)
So did the White House became "fringe" when they hired Tony Snow?

What about Fox News becoming "fringe" ever since they hired Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Brit Hume, Neil Cavuto, Sheppard Smith, John Gibson?

Or CNN for hiring Glenn Beck?

MSNBC for hiring Chris Matthews, Rita Cosby, Joe Scaroborough, Tucker Carlson?

PBS for hiring the entire Wall Street Journal Editorial board?

Bootlegged
05-25-2006, 04:56 PM
So did the White House became "fringe" when they hired Tony Snow?

What about Fox News becoming "fringe" ever since they hired Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Brit Hume, Neil Cavuto, Sheppard Smith, John Gibson?

Or CNN for hiring Glenn Beck?

MSNBC for hiring Chris Matthews, Rita Cosby, Joe Scaroborough, Tucker Carlson?

PBS for hiring the entire Wall Street Journal Editorial board?

Chris Matthews ROFL

Any more BREAKING NEWS jiZ?

jAZ
05-25-2006, 05:27 PM
Any more BREAKING NEWS jiZ?
Aside from the late breaking news that Lattimer continues to steal bandwidth from AustinChief with his complete lack of meaningful contributions to any discussion?

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000748.php
http://news.nationaljournal.com/articles/0525nj1.htm

Waas: Rove Was Novak's Source; Two Men May Have Planned Cover-Up
By Justin Rood - May 25, 2006, 1:09 PM
National Journal's Murray Waas reports that Karl Rove was in fact columnist Robert Novak's source for learning Valerie Plame's identity, and that the two men, upon learning of a federal investigation, spoke and may have created a false cover story to hide the truth.


In other words, there's mounting evidence that Novak and Rove not only lied to the FBI and grand jury, but they conspired to obstruct justice. Waas explains, with greater finesse:

On September 29, 2003, three days after it became known that the CIA had asked the Justice Department to investigate who leaked the name of covert CIA officer Valerie Plame, columnist Robert Novak telephoned White House senior adviser Karl Rove to assure Rove that he would protect him from being harmed by the investigation, according to people with firsthand knowledge of the federal grand jury testimony of both men. . . .

Rove and Novak, investigators suspect, might have devised a cover story to protect Rove because the grand jury testimony of both men appears to support Rove's contentions about how he learned about Plame.

Before the conversation, Waas notes, Novak's story was that White House officials had given him Plame's name and encouraged him to write about it. After news of the investigation was broken on Sept. 26, Novak's story flipped. "Nobody in the Bush administration called me to leak this," he said on Sept. 29.

Both men told investigators and the grand jury that in July 2003, Novak called Rove and asked him about an "unsubstantiated rumor" about Plame's identity, and Rove said he had heard the same thing.

According to Waas, the investigators are having a hard time swallowing the story. After all, why would a guy with 46 years' experience out a CIA operative based on himself and Rove hearing an "unsubstantiated rumor?"

penchief
05-25-2006, 05:37 PM
So did the White House became "fringe" when they hired Tony Snow?

What about Fox News becoming "fringe" ever since they hired Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Brit Hume, Neil Cavuto, Sheppard Smith, John Gibson?

Or CNN for hiring Glenn Beck?

MSNBC for hiring Chris Matthews, Rita Cosby, Joe Scaroborough, Tucker Carlson?

PBS for hiring the entire Wall Street Journal Editorial board?

I loved Faux News' coverage of the Enron verdict today. They spent five minutes suggesting that because of the anti-corporate and anti-management climate in this country that there was no way Lay and Skilling would get a fair trial. I wanted to puke. Then they went right back to covering American Idol.

"Nothing to see here, let's move along."

penchief
05-25-2006, 06:50 PM
Chris Matthews ROFL

Any more BREAKING NEWS jiZ?

You should probably try watching Chris Matthews a little. He pisses me off as much as he gets it right.

If you tuned in to MSNBC right now you'd catch Matthews heaping praise on your precious President Bush for admitting mistakes that he should have admitted three years ago and never should have made to begin with.

jAZ
05-25-2006, 11:31 PM
If you tuned in to MSNBC right now you'd catch Matthews heaping praise on your precious President Bush for admitting mistakes that he should have admitted three years ago and never should have made to begin with.
http://movies.crooksandliars.com/Chris-Noron-Bush-Blair.wmv

Radar Chief
05-26-2006, 07:27 AM
I loved Faux News' coverage of the Enron verdict today. They spent five minutes suggesting that because of the anti-corporate and anti-management climate in this country that there was no way Lay and Skilling would get a fair trial. I wanted to puke. Then they went right back to covering American Idol.

"Nothing to see here, let's move along."

:LOL: That sounds ‘bout right.
Important issues, man, important issues. ;)

Radar Chief
05-26-2006, 07:29 AM
I understand that if Rove is indicted, it can be construed as nothing but a huge win for Republicans, since he'd only be getting indicted for the meaningless charge of perjury... Anyone else heard something like this?

Yea, it’s the exact same thing you whinny libs said ‘bout Clinton. :p


ROFL j/k Teej, since I know that “lib” label pizzes you off. ;)

Chief Henry
05-26-2006, 08:46 AM
So, Rove hasn't been indicted ? I cold have sworn
the mass's of people on here said he was !

patteeu
05-26-2006, 09:40 AM
So did the White House became "fringe" when they hired Tony Snow?

What about Fox News becoming "fringe" ever since they hired Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity, Brit Hume, Neil Cavuto, Sheppard Smith, John Gibson?

Or CNN for hiring Glenn Beck?

MSNBC for hiring Chris Matthews, Rita Cosby, Joe Scaroborough, Tucker Carlson?

PBS for hiring the entire Wall Street Journal Editorial board?

Nope. None of those guys can hold a candle to Olbermann when it comes to fringe-i-ness.

patteeu
05-26-2006, 09:41 AM
So, Rove hasn't been indicted ? I cold have sworn
the mass's of people on here said he was !

I'm sure it's only 48 hours away.

jAZ
05-26-2006, 09:50 AM
Nope. None of those guys can hold a candle to Oberman when it comes to fringe-i-ness.
Seek help (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance).

Brock
05-26-2006, 11:44 AM
As early as Tuesday, I'm sure.

Velvet_Jones
05-26-2006, 12:29 PM
jIZ forgot to tell you that his calendar is in dog weeks and he forgot to convert it. It will happen within 14 weeks unless Rove can get Cheney to get Bush’s FBI to raid Fitzgerald’s office and confiscate all the evidence without getting a search warrant from the dastardly conservative Supreme Court.

Cochise
05-26-2006, 01:16 PM
jIZ forgot to tell you that his calendar is in dog weeks and he forgot to convert it. It will happen within 14 weeks unless Rove can get Cheney to get Bush’s FBI to raid Fitzgerald’s office and confiscate all the evidence without getting a search warrant from the dastardly conservative Supreme Court.

ROFL

Cochise
06-13-2006, 05:21 AM
Oop- well, you know.


Rove won't be charged in C.I.A. leak case
By David Johnston The New York Times

Published: June 13, 2006
WASHINGTON The prosecutor in the C.I.A. leak case on Monday advised Karl Rove, the senior White House adviser, that he would not be charged with any wrongdoing, effectively ending the nearly three-year criminal investigation that had at times focused intensely on Rove.

The decision by the prosecutor, Patrick Fitzgerald, announced in a letter to Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, lifted a pall that had hung over Rove who testified on five occasions to a federal grand jury about his involvement in the disclosure of an intelligence officer's identity.

In a statement, Luskin said, "On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove."

StcChief
06-13-2006, 05:31 AM
As Nelson would say.....

Baby Lee
06-13-2006, 05:40 AM
How, oh how? With only the thread title, and the thread author to guide me.
How did I know the contents would be speculative rather than information from someone with an actual say in the matter?
Am I developing magical powers?
This is jAZraldo Rivera from Al CaRove's vault saying good night.

memyselfI
06-13-2006, 05:49 AM
His being let off the hook doesn't surprise me...

I'm wondering what he gave to the SC in regards to Libby or Cheney. :hmmm:

Bootlegged
06-13-2006, 05:51 AM
His being let off the hook doesn't surprise me...

I'm wondering what he gave to the SC in regards to Libby or Cheney. :hmmm:

and the spin coming from you/jiz/paco isn't surprising. Should be highly entertaining, but not a surprise.


Here is some asparagus pee pee for your Cheerios!

Bootlegged
06-13-2006, 05:52 AM
This is jAZraldo Rivera from Al CaRove's vault saying good night.


ROFL


In other news, Gay Hooker reportergate to break within 2 weeks. www.jizreport.com

Cochise
06-13-2006, 06:33 AM
This is jAZraldo Rivera from Al CaRove's vault saying good night.

pwnt

Chief Henry
06-13-2006, 07:19 AM
Carl gets Jiz AGAIN.

Donger
06-13-2006, 07:29 AM
.

Donger
06-13-2006, 07:33 AM
Ooosie what? Oh, this is your window to delcare victory and try to tell everyone to go home?

Hell, aren't you jumping the gun a little, even on that front? It's day 13 and if calendars are the same today as they were yesterday, 2 weeks = 14 days.

I think your pre-mature victory dance technically shouldn't start until tomorrow.

Are we still jumping the gun on our victory dance, jAZ?

I'd hate to be on the wrong side of this, mind you.

Please let us know when you can.

Thanks!

Cochise
06-13-2006, 07:37 AM
Are we still jumping the gun on our victory dance, jAZ?

I'd hate to be on the wrong side of this, mind you.

Please let us know when you can.

Thanks!

ROFL

This is the first time I have been glad someone quoted him ;)

Bootlegged
06-13-2006, 07:42 AM
****SPOILER****




DNC/Moonbats: Rove has flipped and is testifying against Cheney

Cochise
06-13-2006, 07:46 AM
ROVE INDICTMENT PUSHERS ON NET SLOW TO RESPOND

For months it was screams and dreams from left-wing news sites on the internet: Karl Rove is on the verge of being indicted in the CIA leak case!

[This drama also played out last century with endless web warnings of Hillary Clinton indictments.]

Yet when word finally came down this morning that, in fact, Rove was on the verge of being cleared in the case, the fledgling sites somehow lost their way and suddenly struggled to keep up.

Some sites like truthout.org and MSNBC's Keith Olbermann opted for complete omission!

6:37 AM ET -- First Reported by Byron York at NATIONAL REVIEW.COM
6:40 AM -- News breaks on NYTIMES.COM
7:39 AM HUFFINGTON POST.COM [in small mouse type from automated AP feed: 'Rove won't be charged in CIA leak case']
8:21 AM -- RAWSTORY.COM still no splash headline

[At 9:21 AM -- RAW STORY splashes 'DRUDGE FALSIFIES REPORT ON RAW STORY... ROVE OFF HOOK IN CIA LEAK CASE: ATTORNEY']

More than two hours into the news cycle, truthout.org, a site which famously splashed the headline last month, 'Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators,' a headline which ignited a firestorm in the underground, still featured no announcement of Rove NOT being charged.

Truthout.org was still standing by its story.

MSNBC's Keith Olbermann's page also carried no word on Rove being cleared, despite months of assuring his audience [ON MORE THAN 26 DIFFERENT PROGRAMS, ACCORDING TO NEXIS] how the Bush adviser faced indictment.

Developing...


Olbermann's credibility is in the asthenosphere these days :LOL:

patteeu
06-13-2006, 07:54 AM
Does this mean there's not going to be an execution?

Chief Henry
06-13-2006, 07:59 AM
Olbermann's credibility is in the asthenosphere these days :LOL:



Who's Keith Olberman ? Is he still on Espn?

Baby Lee
06-13-2006, 08:00 AM
Who's Keith Olberman ? Is he still on Espn?
FFRRRRDDDD!!!!

Cochise
06-13-2006, 08:05 AM
Does this mean there's not going to be an execution?

No hanging?

No frog march?

Not even a perp walk?

:deevee:

banyon
06-13-2006, 08:26 AM
I'll admit I made a bad prediction on this one.

All the signs, especially Rove's assembly of his "legal team" and his subsequent withdrawal from his deputy Chief of Staff post pointed to indictment. Oh well. Guess we'll just have to see what comes out in the Libby trial.

Chief Henry
06-13-2006, 08:27 AM
FFRRRRDDDD!!!!
ROFL

Cochise
06-13-2006, 09:46 AM
<embed src="http://www.naturesongs.com/cricket1.wav" autostart="false" loop="false">

Chief Henry
06-13-2006, 10:01 AM
<embed src="http://www.naturesongs.com/cricket1.wav" autostart="false" loop="false">


The left wing Bloggers and the DNC are still working on there talking points. This caught them totally by surprise for sure.

Brock
06-13-2006, 10:05 AM
http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/customavatars/avatar112_2.gif

Ha-haaa!

banyon
06-13-2006, 10:09 AM
<embed src="http://www.naturesongs.com/cricket1.wav" autostart="false" loop="false">

Funny. :)

Are you addressing the media at large, or the "commie liberal pinkos" of the Planet? I gave my reply.

Cochise
06-13-2006, 10:12 AM
Funny. :)

Are you addressing the media at large, or the "commie liberal pinkos" of the Planet? I gave my reply.

Today the planet does not seem to have any liberals besides you.

Sully
06-13-2006, 10:35 AM
Today the planet does not seem to have any liberals besides you.

I'm here. I just rarely respond to anything.

Radar Chief
06-13-2006, 10:42 AM
Today the planet does not seem to have any liberals besides you.

Does this mark the Great LWNJ Migration? ROFL

Brock
06-13-2006, 11:02 AM
.

Bootlegged
06-13-2006, 11:22 AM
.


That unbiased media again....

Cochise
06-13-2006, 12:12 PM
Does this mark the Great LWNJ Migration? ROFL

I would imagine that in a few months it will be claimed that no one avoided the thread, just like none of them supposedly avoided the place after election day 2004.

Bootlegged
06-13-2006, 12:40 PM
:Poke:

Oh, that's right. Jiz and Taco had couples therapy today. That's where they are.

Chief Henry
06-13-2006, 12:51 PM
You mean Carl Rove won't be in the orange jump suite after all.....awwwww

jAZ
06-13-2006, 02:18 PM
Man, you guys are rather pathetic... rarely willing to show your head in the DC, but when Rove's attorney tells the world that his client isn't going to be charged, everyone runs in the streets shtting themselves ready to delcare victory.

Some advice, follow my lead with this thread and post what's reported, and save the (still) premature victory lap for someone else. More often than not, you are going to look stupid.

As for the report from Rove's camp...

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000890.php

Luskin: No Further Comment on Rove
By Justin Rood - June 13, 2006, 11:29 AM

Responding to news that Karl Rove's lawyers say they've been notified the Bush adviser won't get charged in the Plame leak investigation, Reader AB asks, "is it reasonable for them to publish the letter from Fitzgerald to prove that their statement says is, in fact, true[?]"

We thought it was a good question -- noting, however, that news reports conflict on whether Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, received a letter from Fitzgerald. Luskin himself stated he was "formally advised," but does not state how.

I called Luskin at his office and told him I was interested to know precisely how Fitzgerald had notified him of his decision. "I'm really not going to add anything to what's in the statement," Luskin told me.

Why not? I asked. "The reason is, that's what we've decided to do." (There's a $500-an-hour answer for you.)

Luskin's office sent me a copy of his earlier statement. It reads -- in its entirety -- as follows:

Washington, DC-Robert Luskin, Attorney for Karl Rove today released the following statement:

"On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove.

"In deference to the pending case, we will not make any further public statements about the subject matter of the investigation. We believe that the Special Counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove's conduct."


So what's the deal? Is Luskin bluffing? If he got a letter, why won't he say so, and release it?

We don't know. It's extremely unlikely Luskin would fake something like this -- it would demand a wrathful retaliation from the prosecutor, something no defense lawyer in his right mind would do. Perhaps Fitzgerald sent a letter that, while letting Rove off the hook, catalogs a number of sins Luskin would rather not publicize. Perhaps Rove got the assurance as part of a cooperation deal. Who knows.

All we can say for sure is that for the moment, Rove's apparently in the clear. And Luskin's not talking.

Update: An earlier version of this post said that no news outlets had reported that Fitzgerald notified Luskin in writing; in fact, the New York Times reported Luskin received a letter from Fitzgerald, while others reported it was in a phone call.

jAZ
06-13-2006, 02:21 PM
Does this mark the Great LWNJ Migration? ROFL
I can't speak for anyone else, but I had Jury Duty this morning.

Bootlegged
06-13-2006, 02:26 PM
Man, you guys are rather pathetic... rarely willing to show your head in the DC, but when Rove's attorney tells the world that his client isn't going to be charged, everyone runs in the streets shtting themselves ready to delcare victory.

Some advice, follow my lead with this thread and post what's reported, and save the (still) premature victory lap for someone else. More often than not, you are going to look stupid.

As for the report from Rove's camp...

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000890.php

Luskin: No Further Comment on Rove
By Justin Rood - June 13, 2006, 11:29 AM

Responding to news that Karl Rove's lawyers say they've been notified the Bush adviser won't get charged in the Plame leak investigation, Reader AB asks, "is it reasonable for them to publish the letter from Fitzgerald to prove that their statement says is, in fact, true[?]"

We thought it was a good question -- noting, however, that news reports conflict on whether Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, received a letter from Fitzgerald. Luskin himself stated he was "formally advised," but does not state how.

I called Luskin at his office and told him I was interested to know precisely how Fitzgerald had notified him of his decision. "I'm really not going to add anything to what's in the statement," Luskin told me.

Why not? I asked. "The reason is, that's what we've decided to do." (There's a $500-an-hour answer for you.)

Luskin's office sent me a copy of his earlier statement. It reads -- in its entirety -- as follows:

Washington, DC-Robert Luskin, Attorney for Karl Rove today released the following statement:

"On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove.

"In deference to the pending case, we will not make any further public statements about the subject matter of the investigation. We believe that the Special Counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove's conduct."


So what's the deal? Is Luskin bluffing? If he got a letter, why won't he say so, and release it?

We don't know. It's extremely unlikely Luskin would fake something like this -- it would demand a wrathful retaliation from the prosecutor, something no defense lawyer in his right mind would do. Perhaps Fitzgerald sent a letter that, while letting Rove off the hook, catalogs a number of sins Luskin would rather not publicize. Perhaps Rove got the assurance as part of a cooperation deal. Who knows.

All we can say for sure is that for the moment, Rove's apparently in the clear. And Luskin's not talking.

Update: An earlier version of this post said that no news outlets had reported that Fitzgerald notified Luskin in writing; in fact, the New York Times reported Luskin received a letter from Fitzgerald, while others reported it was in a phone call.


spent the a.m. looking for the slightest glimmer of hope - nice pull. ROFL

Radar Chief
06-13-2006, 02:31 PM
Man, you guys are rather pathetic... rarely willing to show your head in the DC, but when Rove's attorney tells the world that his client isn't going to be charged, everyone runs in the streets shtting themselves ready to delcare victory.

Some advice, follow my lead with this thread and post what's reported, and save the (still) premature victory lap for someone else. More often than not, you are going to look stupid.

As for the report from Rove's camp...

http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/000890.php

Luskin: No Further Comment on Rove
By Justin Rood - June 13, 2006, 11:29 AM

Responding to news that Karl Rove's lawyers say they've been notified the Bush adviser won't get charged in the Plame leak investigation, Reader AB asks, "is it reasonable for them to publish the letter from Fitzgerald to prove that their statement says is, in fact, true[?]"

We thought it was a good question -- noting, however, that news reports conflict on whether Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, received a letter from Fitzgerald. Luskin himself stated he was "formally advised," but does not state how.

I called Luskin at his office and told him I was interested to know precisely how Fitzgerald had notified him of his decision. "I'm really not going to add anything to what's in the statement," Luskin told me.

Why not? I asked. "The reason is, that's what we've decided to do." (There's a $500-an-hour answer for you.)

Luskin's office sent me a copy of his earlier statement. It reads -- in its entirety -- as follows:

Washington, DC-Robert Luskin, Attorney for Karl Rove today released the following statement:

"On June 12, 2006, Special Counsel Patrick Fitzgerald formally advised us that he does not anticipate seeking charges against Karl Rove.

"In deference to the pending case, we will not make any further public statements about the subject matter of the investigation. We believe that the Special Counsel's decision should put an end to the baseless speculation about Mr. Rove's conduct."


So what's the deal? Is Luskin bluffing? If he got a letter, why won't he say so, and release it?

We don't know. It's extremely unlikely Luskin would fake something like this -- it would demand a wrathful retaliation from the prosecutor, something no defense lawyer in his right mind would do. Perhaps Fitzgerald sent a letter that, while letting Rove off the hook, catalogs a number of sins Luskin would rather not publicize. Perhaps Rove got the assurance as part of a cooperation deal. Who knows.

All we can say for sure is that for the moment, Rove's apparently in the clear. And Luskin's not talking.

Update: An earlier version of this post said that no news outlets had reported that Fitzgerald notified Luskin in writing; in fact, the New York Times reported Luskin received a letter from Fitzgerald, while others reported it was in a phone call.

ROFL Reads like a whole bunch of speculation based on …..nothing.
You overreached, jAZ. Admit it, it happens. ;)

Radar Chief
06-13-2006, 02:32 PM
I can't speak for anyone else, but I had Jury Duty this morning.

At least you’re will’n to embrace the title. ;)

Donger
06-13-2006, 02:38 PM
More often than not, you are going to look stupid.


Case in point, the remainder of this post.

Cochise
06-13-2006, 02:41 PM
ROFL

Nice out.

Bootlegged
06-13-2006, 02:44 PM
so Jiz had jury duty, memygunt now posts in the non-political board, Taco has a long dentist appt and the rest are in meetings. Got it.

Donger
06-13-2006, 02:46 PM
ROFL

Nice out.

Well, it's better than, "Libby's dog ate the indictment!"

Chief Henry
06-13-2006, 02:48 PM
Who's calling who STUPID ? tisk tisk... The dummycrat underground leftwingtards have got nothing and I mean NOTHING.

jAZ
06-13-2006, 02:49 PM
spent the a.m. looking for the slightest glimmer of hope - nice pull. ROFL
Spent 30 seconds looking into the matter.

Bootlegged
06-13-2006, 03:04 PM
Spent 30 seconds looking into the matter.


Which means you must frequent that website, which makes this even more entertaining.

jAZ
06-13-2006, 03:35 PM
Which means you must frequent that website, which makes this even more entertaining.
Absolutely... if you hadn't crawed into your cave of political shame, you'd know all about TPM. But alas, you've decided to jump back on the Republican Bandwagon, you rascal you.

Cochise
06-13-2006, 03:46 PM
haha. Ok, enough fun for one day.

Someone call me when the execution is scheduled to begin. I wouldn't want to miss that.

banyon
06-13-2006, 03:57 PM
Sully and I both posted, but no one wanted to reply to us, I guess. Guess that would've spoiled the fun of the RWers who have returned to DC today to try to shove jAZ and crew's noses in it or whatever.

Donger
06-13-2006, 04:06 PM
Sully and I both posted, but no one wanted to reply to us, I guess. Guess that would've spoiled the fun of the RWers who have returned to DC today to try to shove jAZ and crew's noses in it or whatever.

That's because you are capable of using the words:

I
was
wrong

in the same sentence.

jAZ, on the other hand, is not.

mlyonsd
06-13-2006, 06:02 PM
Hate can always blind one's judgement.

Bootlegged
06-13-2006, 06:40 PM
Hate can always blind one's judgement.


As in __________ hates ___________??

Adept Havelock
06-13-2006, 07:09 PM
As in __________ hates ___________??As in Left Wingers/Right Wingers hate Bush/Clinton.

Bootlegged
06-13-2006, 07:13 PM
As in Left Wingers/Right Wingers hate Bush/Clinton.


Do you care to expand on how this relates to this thread?

Adept Havelock
06-13-2006, 07:15 PM
Do you care to expand on how this relates to this thread?

I think it pretty much speaks for itself, for this thread, and DC in general. :shrug:

jAZ
06-13-2006, 08:51 PM
That's because you are capable of using the words:

I
was
wrong

in the same sentence.

jAZ, on the other hand, is not.
Explain to me what I would have been wrong about on this thread again? Did I link to the wrong article? Did I misquote David Schuster? Did the video link not work?

Donger
06-13-2006, 08:54 PM
Explain to me what I would have been wrong about on this thread again? Did I link to the wrong article? Did I misquote David Schuster? Did the video link not work?

The time frame of the thread title, not to mention the title itself, would be a good starting point for your redemption.

Donger
06-13-2006, 08:56 PM
The time frame of the thread title, not to mention the title itself, would be a good starting point for your redemption.

Rove to be indicted within 2 weeks...

Was that prediction right or wrong, jAZ?

jAZ
06-13-2006, 09:00 PM
Was that prediction right or wrong, jAZ?
Am I now wholly responsible not only for properly citing quotes from other people, but also for the actually "predictions" now too?

Wow, that's a rather frightening standard you'd like to put in place.

Whatever the case, you are wrong. I did not make any prediction as you well know. Are you going to admit you are wrong?

Doubt it.

Donger
06-13-2006, 09:05 PM
Am I now wholly responsible not only for properly citing quotes from other people, but also for the actually "predictions" now too?

Wow, that's a rather frightening standard you'd like to put in place.

Whatever the case, you are wrong. I did not make any prediction as you well know. Are you going to admit you are wrong?

Doubt it.

Did you not write the title of the thread?

jAZ
06-13-2006, 09:06 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/06/13/politics/main1710129_page2.shtml

Fitzgerald was investigating whether Rove lied or obstructed justice in failing to initially disclose the conversation. The presidential aide blamed a faulty memory and sought to testify before the grand jury after finding the e-mail to correct his testimony.

"I've never seen, frankly, someone involved in an investigation of this kind given so many chances to continually correct and amend prior testimony. There are many prosecutors who would have indicted Rove on his first statement," George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley told CBS Radio station WBZ. "He was given a great deal of deference and quite frankly, assistance, by the prosecutor."

I think it's funny that the RWNJ's on this thread are jerking themselves off over Rove possibly not being indicted and hoping that all the world will forget that Rove lied to the Grand Jury and was given 4 additional chances to come clean. Some how that doesn't strike me as something I'd brag about.

But let there be no doubt that if Rove is in fact not going to be indicted for anything, didn't strike a deal for anything and walks away without any damange, then that situation would be a HUGE victory for BushCo... no doubt.

jAZ
06-13-2006, 09:09 PM
Did you not write the title of the thread?
Yes, but it's not my "prediction" as you well know. Admit you are wrong for suggesting 1) I made a prediction and 2) I was wrong about said prediction.

Both assertions are false on your part. You are wrong. Go ahead, admit it.

Donger
06-13-2006, 09:12 PM
Yes, but it's not my "prediction" as you well know. Admit you are wrong for suggesting 1) I made a prediction and 2) I was wrong about said prediction.

Both assertions are false on your part. You are wrong. Go ahead, admit it.

If you'd put a question mark on there, I'd say that you were demonstrating your deference. Since you did not, I'd say you were making a prediction.

You'll disagree, of course, because you're infallible.

ROFL

Donger
06-13-2006, 09:13 PM
I think it's funny that the RWNJ's on this thread are jerking themselves off over Rove possibly not being indicted and hoping that all the world will forget that Rove lied to the Grand Jury and was given 4 additional chances to come clean. Some how that doesn't strike me as something I'd brag about.

But let there be no doubt that if Rove is in fact not going to be indicted for anything, didn't strike a deal for anything and walks away without any damange, then that situation would be a HUGE victory for BushCo... no doubt.

Uh oh. I think I smell the next conspiracy theory.

"FITZGERALD IN BED WITH RWNJs!"

What the hell do you mean he wasn't indicted!? I, and my many brethren, really, REALLY wanted him to be though!

Logical
06-13-2006, 09:17 PM
For my first post ever in this thread I will ask, what is so fascinating about this ancient thread?

jAZ
06-13-2006, 09:17 PM
If you'd put a question mark on there, I'd say that you were demonstrating your deference. Since you did not, I'd say you were making a prediction.

You'll disagree, of course, because you're infallible.

ROFL
You have no shame what-so-ever.

Schuster's prediction... which I quoted directly in the body of the post... was not a question. It was a flat out prediction. To paraphrase that as a question would be a flat out lie on my part.

I was 100% accurate in my summary of the body of the post and Schuster's prediction.

Admit you are wrong.

jAZ
06-13-2006, 09:20 PM
Uh oh. I think I smell the next conspiracy theory.

"FITZGERALD IN BED WITH RWNJs!"
Do you know how stupid it makes you look to

1) claim that *I* predicted anything on this thread
2) claim that I was *wrong* with that phantom prediction
3) then falsify a quote of mine within 5 minutes

Do you have any common sense?

Donger
06-13-2006, 09:20 PM
You have no shame what-so-ever.

Schuster's prediction... which I quoted directly in the body of the post... was not a question. It was a flat out prediction. To paraphrase that as a question would be a flat out lie on my part.

I was 100% accurate in my summary of the body of the post and Schuster's prediction.

Admit you are wrong.

And if you'd disgreed with that prediction, you would have shown your skepticism by adding a question mark on said prediction. Since you did not, the rational can only presume that you agreed with said prediction.

It's okay, jAZ. We're all wrong from time to time. It really is okay.

See what I mean, banyon?

jAZ
06-13-2006, 09:21 PM
We're all wrong from time to time.
You couldn't waste any time proving that by your own example, huh?

Donger
06-13-2006, 09:21 PM
Do you know how stupid it makes you look to

1) claim that *I* predicted anything on this thread
2) claim that I was *wrong* with that phantom prediction
3) then falsify a quote of mine within 5 minutes

Do you have any common sense?

ROFL

Keep going, jAZ. You are truly on a prodigious roll!

Donger
06-13-2006, 09:24 PM
You could waste any time proving that by your own example, huh?

Sure. I've been wrong many times before.

I was wrong when I believed that you were "intellectually honest," for example.

You're nothing but a partisan hack, blinded by hatred. I pity you, because I was the same way about Clinton. One day you'll see the error of your ways. You've got the brain power.

jAZ
06-13-2006, 09:26 PM
Sure. I've been wrong many times before.

I was wrong when I believed that you were "intellectually honest," for example.

You're nothing but a partisan hack, blinded by hatred. I pity you, because I was the same way about Clinton. One day you'll see the error of your ways. You've got the brain power.
Admit you are wrong here. You have no facts to back you up. All the facts back me up. You are wrong. I'm right. We both know it, only you can't admit it.

Donger
06-13-2006, 09:28 PM
Admit you are wrong here. You have no facts to back you up. All the facts back me up. You are wrong. I'm right. We both know it, only you can't admit it.

Keep going, jAZ! You're only proving my point about you with each and every keysroke.

Logical
06-13-2006, 09:45 PM
For my first post ever in this thread I will ask, what is so fascinating about this ancient thread?So is anyone going to attempt to answer this question?

Donger
06-13-2006, 09:49 PM
So is anyone going to attempt to answer this question?


jAZ had an erection, and he wanted to share it. Unfortunately, Big Bad Mama Jama didn't bring the indictment to fruition. And, everyone teased poor jAZ that his prediction proved wholly inaccurate. jAZ didn't like that and began striking out with with flaccid strength.

That's about it.

Logical
06-13-2006, 09:58 PM
That's about it.Wow seems both sides are being pretty petty if that is why this thread has 120+ responses.

Donger
06-13-2006, 10:00 PM
Wow seems both sides are being pretty petty if that is why this thread has 120+ responses.

If 'being pretty petty' is the equivalent of saying that jAZ doesn't have the balls to admit when he's wrong, you'd be correct.

patteeu
06-13-2006, 10:14 PM
Am I now wholly responsible not only for properly citing quotes from other people, but also for the actually "predictions" now too?

Wow, that's a rather frightening standard you'd like to put in place.

Whatever the case, you are wrong. I did not make any prediction as you well know. Are you going to admit you are wrong?

Doubt it.

recxjAZ, Are you arguing that we should give you the recxjake treatment for posting garbage from discredited sources (Raw Story, MSNBC, Olberman, TPMuck, Josh Marshall, etc.) instead of critcizing you for making the assertions yourself?

patteeu
06-13-2006, 10:19 PM
Wow seems both sides are being pretty petty if that is why this thread has 120+ responses.

The thread could have been 96 posts long if jAZ had taken banyon's admirable approach when he got back from jury duty today. In fact, it could have been much shorter if he'd acknowledged that he was disappointed by the reality that his sources were wrong when hope for fulfillment of the original prediction had expired. ROFL

go bowe
06-13-2006, 10:20 PM
recxjAZ, Are you arguing that we should give you the recxjake treatment for posting garbage from discredited sources (Raw Story, MSNBC, Olberman, TPMuck, Josh Marshall, etc.) instead of critcizing you for making the assertions yourself?you guys are picking on jaz...

of course, it's quite entertaining...

Cochise
06-13-2006, 10:20 PM
I wonder often why places like those don't get the same scoffery that some deal out to a Newsmax or WND story.

go bowe
06-13-2006, 10:22 PM
The thread could have been 96 posts long if jAZ had taken banyon's admirable approach when he got back from jury duty today. In fact, it could have been much shorter if he'd acknowledged that he was disappointed by the reality that his sources were wrong when hope for fulfillment of the original prediction had expired. ROFLbut that would take all the fun out of it...

go bowe
06-13-2006, 10:25 PM
I wonder often why places like those don't get the same scoffery that some deal out to a Newsmax or WND story.even though their reporters aren't always right about predictions that report, msnbc is a reputable news organization...

light years away from newsmax...

the rest, not so much...

Logical
06-13-2006, 10:27 PM
If 'being pretty petty' is the equivalent of saying that jAZ doesn't have the balls to admit when he's wrong, you'd be correct.Oh good lord, jAZ quoted an article that is all that I see in the thread header.

Donger
06-13-2006, 10:29 PM
Oh good lord, jAZ quoted an article that is all that I see in the thread header.

Oh?

The thread title is "Rove to be indicted within 2 weeks..."

What article said that?

Logical
06-13-2006, 10:30 PM
The thread could have been 96 posts long if jAZ had taken banyon's admirable approach when he got back from jury duty today. In fact, it could have been much shorter if he'd acknowledged that he was disappointed by the reality that his sources were wrong when hope for fulfillment of the original prediction had expired. ROFL

I don't plan to go back and search for a post when he got back, so I will take your word on it.

jAZ
06-13-2006, 10:31 PM
recxjAZ, Are you arguing that we should give you the recxjake treatment for posting garbage from discredited sources (Raw Story, MSNBC, Olberman, TPMuck, Josh Marshall, etc.) instead of critcizing you for making the assertions yourself?
It would make a ****-load-more sense than the stupid that Donger is peddling as he avoids admitting he is wrong.

Donger
06-13-2006, 10:32 PM
It would make a ****-load-more sense than the stupid that Donger is peddling as he avoids admitting he is wrong.

ROFL ROFL

I'm absolutely loving this, jAZ.

Logical
06-13-2006, 10:32 PM
Oh?

The thread title is "Rove to be indicted within 2 weeks..."

What article said that?
It basically says that right here from the article in the thread header:
Shuster: Well, Karl Rove's legal team has told me that they expect that a decision will come sometime in the next two weeks. And I am convinced that Karl Rove will, in fact, be indicted. And there are a couple of reasons why.

Logical
06-13-2006, 10:35 PM
recxjAZ, Are you arguing that we should give you the recxjake treatment for posting garbage from discredited sources (Raw Story, MSNBC, Olberman, TPMuck, Josh Marshall, etc.) instead of critcizing you for making the assertions yourself?Since when is MSNBC discredited? I could see some of the others.

Donger
06-13-2006, 10:36 PM
It basically says that right here from the article in the thread header:

Okay, and he/they were wrong, correct?

I've no problem with someone posting a thread. But, if you're going to do so, with such a provocative title, perhaps it would be wise to put a question mark on there to denote your opinion.

That's all.

stevieray
06-13-2006, 10:39 PM
Okay, and he/they were wrong, correct?

I've no problem with someone posting a thread. But, if you're going to do so, with such a provocative title, perhaps it would be wise to put a question mark on there to denote your opinion.

That's all.

I read it the same way. To be indicted does sound pretty concrete, more than will be does, or it at least indicates belief of the author's opinion.

will be or not will be, that is the question... :)

jAZ
06-13-2006, 10:39 PM
The thread could have been 96 posts long if jAZ had taken banyon's admirable approach when he got back from jury duty today. In fact, it could have been much shorter if he'd acknowledged that he was disappointed by the reality that his sources were wrong when hope for fulfillment of the original prediction had expired. ROFL
I'm happy to do so when someone other than Rove's Camp reports that Rove won't be indicted. These are the same people who were claiming that Rove wasn't even being investigated.

Donger
06-13-2006, 10:41 PM
I'm happy to do so when someone other than Rove's Camp reports that Rove won't be indicted. These are the same people who were claiming that Rove wasn't even being investigated.

ROFL

There's your thread, jAZ! Grab it! GRAB IT!!!

ROFL

jAZ
06-13-2006, 10:45 PM
Okay, and he/they were wrong, correct?

I've no problem with someone posting a thread. But, if you're going to do so, with such a provocative title, perhaps it would be wise to put a question mark on there to denote your opinion.

That's all.
That would be bogus. If anything would improve the thread title it would be "MSNBC's Schuster: Rove to be indicted within 2 weeks". That the thread title could have been *slightly* more explicit doesn't make your assertions any less stupid or any less wrong. I've never seen anyone exhibit a more desperate attempt at finding something to hang their hat on than you on this thread.

Using your behavior on this thread, I'd be completely justified in calling Rove a criminal because I *think* he knowingly lied to the Grand Jury "before he" (told the truth).

Logical
06-13-2006, 10:45 PM
Okay, and he/they were wrong, correct?

I've no problem with someone posting a thread. But, if you're going to do so, with such a provocative title, perhaps it would be wise to put a question mark on there to denote your opinion.

That's all.I probably would have.

Donger
06-13-2006, 10:51 PM
That would be bogus. If anything would improve the thread title it would be "MSNBC's Schuster: Rove to be indicted within 2 weeks". That the thread title could have been *slightly* more explicit doesn't make your assertions any less stupid or any less wrong. I've never seen anyone exhibit a more desperate attempt at finding someone to hang their hat on than you on this thread.

Using your behavior on this thread, I'd be completely justified in calling Rove a criminal because I *think* he knowingly lied to the Grand Jury "before he" (told the truth).

Thanks though, jAZ. This thread, and your responses are comedic gold.

You, your 'sources' or whatever you want to call them now that they've/you've been proven by the tick of the clock to be erroneous are hilarious.

Thanks for the giggle.

jAZ
06-13-2006, 10:56 PM
You, your 'sources' or whatever you want to call them now that they've/you've been proven by the tick of the clock to be erroneous are hilarious.
You are about 2 inches away from admitting you were wrong.

Do it.

Just go that one extra step... you'll thank me for it later.

Donger
06-13-2006, 10:59 PM
You are about 2 inches away from admitting you were wrong.

Do it.

Just go that one extra step... you'll thank me for it later.

Heh. I must admit, you're fun to kick around. But even after a while, even the noise that retarded kids make when you kick them in the nuts too many times becomes annoying.

And, you're not retarded as far as I can tell.

jAZ
06-13-2006, 11:02 PM
Heh. I must admit, you're fun to kick around. But even after a while, even the noise that retarded kids make when you kick them in the nuts too many times becomes annoying.

And, you're not retarded as far as I can tell.
Now you are 4 inches, but still less than a single step away from regaining a microscopic bit of credibility you had. Take the step Donger... then thank me later.

Donger
06-13-2006, 11:06 PM
Now you are 4 inches, but still less than a single step away from regaining a microscopic bit of credibility you had. Take the step Donger... then thank me later.

Oh, I can do better than that.

Your own words, from this very thread:

Do you really think that any DA would annouce anything 2 weeks in advance? Come on man, you have at least a little common sense, right?

I guess when all you have left to bitch about is the nature of my thread title, it's a good thing.

What do you say now, jAZ?

stevieray
06-13-2006, 11:11 PM
Oh, I can do better than that.

Your own words, from this very thread:



What do you say now, jAZ?

my money is on deflecting his credibilty issue back on to you.

jAZ
06-13-2006, 11:18 PM
Oh, I can do better than that.

Your own words, from this very thread:



What do you say now, jAZ?
I made the same point then that I do now.

The difference is that BabyLee wasn't stupid enough to pretend that *I* predicted anything. He also didn't pretend to catch me refusing to admit I was wrong, all the while refusing to admit he was wrong.

BabyLee is a pretty smart guy.

Donger
06-13-2006, 11:28 PM
I made the same point then that I do now.

The difference is that BabyLee wasn't stupid enough to pretend that *I* predicted anything. He also didn't pretend to catch me refusing to admit I was wrong, all the while refusing to admit he was wrong.

BabyLee is a pretty smart guy.

You stated that in response to BL's post that you were being speculative.


With only the thread title ... to guide me. How did I know the contents would be speculative.

Do you really think that any DA would annouce anything 2 weeks in advance? Come on man, you have at least a little common sense, right?

Are you suggesting NOW that when you wrote that you were not stating that your opinion was that an indictment was forthcoming?

jAZ
06-14-2006, 12:11 AM
You stated that ... you were being speculative.
That's a complete fuggin lie. I wasn't stating anything like that, but I was refering to Schuster's prediction and pointing out that 2 braincells would know it wasn't fact.
Are you suggesting NOW that when you wrote that you were not stating that your opinion was that an indictment was forthcoming?
Are you really this stupid Donger? I assume it's intellectual dishonesty and emotional desperation, and not stupidity.

It really doesn't take a mensa to understand that

1) It's Schuster's fugging prediction, not mine!
2) I'm in no fuggin position to have any meaningful independent, personal opinion/prediction on this matter
3) I provided a video, a transcript and links to sources showing that it was David Schuster quote/statement/prediction.
4) Like every fuggin newspaper, pundit, blogger, CP poster, news program, etc... I summarized the lede of the story (MSNBC reports indictments in 2 weeks) in the headline (thread title).
5) I readily admit that if I had included "MSNBC: " at the front of the thread title, you'd look even more stupid than you do now
6) BabyLee wanted to try to make it an issue about an overly sensational headline...
7) I pointed out to him that it would be downright naive for someone to interpret that thread title to be anything other than someone's prediction (in this case Schuster's as evidenced by the links, transcripts and video posted) rather than fact... because what sort of indictment is publicly confirmed 2 weeks in advance of the actual indictment
Are you suggesting NOW that when you wrote that you were not stating that your opinion was that an indictment was forthcoming?
So to answer your question precisely... that's correct. I was very obviously NOT stating MY OPINION, but offering Schuster's. Only a drooling partisan lump would assume anything else given the massive factual evidence available in the very first post.

patteeu
06-14-2006, 06:50 AM
Since when is MSNBC discredited? I could see some of the others.

Since Keith Olbermann started working for them and since David Shuster told us about Roves imminent indictment.

I agree that MSNBC is not as disreputable as the others on my list though. I'm just having fun here.

Donger
06-14-2006, 08:13 AM
Are you really this stupid Donger? I assume it's intellectual dishonesty and emotional desperation, and not stupidity.

ROFL

You missed one other possibility, jAZ: That all of this was to show our newer members the limits to which you will go to in order to avoid the words,

I
was
wrong

I gave you a rather blatant hint earlier on as to my motivation. I'm surprised you didn't pick up on it.

Velvet_Jones
06-14-2006, 08:37 AM
ROFL

You missed one other possibility, jAZ: That all of this was to show our newer members the limits to which you will go to in order to avoid the words,

I
was
wrong

I gave you a rather blatant hint earlier on as to my motivation. I'm surprised you didn't pick up on it.
Careful Donger. Your'e about 4 inches away from being called a liar.

Baby Lee
06-14-2006, 08:51 AM
6) BabyLee wanted to try to make it an issue about an overly sensational headline...
7) I pointed out to him that it would be downright naive for someone to interpret that thread title to be anything other than someone's prediction (in this case Schuster's as evidenced by the links, transcripts and video posted) rather than fact... because what sort of indictment is publicly confirmed 2 weeks in advance of the actual indictment
jAZ: "My topic headers are so bat-shit crazy, only an idiot would take them at face value."

Cochise
06-14-2006, 09:27 AM
Yep, still funny.




ROFL

jAZ
06-14-2006, 09:34 AM
jAZ: "My topic headers are so bat-shit crazy, only an idiot would take them at face value."
At least you have a lucid criticism.

Donger
06-14-2006, 11:26 AM
I doubt that it will happen, but who knows. I just know that there's no reason to put any faith in these predictions from the fringe media.

Yes, you do. Unfortunately, jAZ does not, or at least did not.

Perhaps he'll be a little more cautious from now on, if his partisan hatred can be throttled.

jAZ
06-14-2006, 11:38 AM
Perhaps he'll be a little more cautious from now on
You are a complete tool at this point. The only people throwing caution to the wind on this thread were all the people posting Simpson's pics and cheering/gloating about Rove getting off based upon a statement by his own attorney.

As opposed to me, simply quoting a news report and not once "cheerleading" that report.
I
was
wrong
Let's hear it Donger.

Donger
06-14-2006, 11:43 AM
You are a complete tool at this point. The only people throwing caution to the wind on this thread were all the people posting Simpson's pics and cheering/gloating about Rove getting off based upon a statement by his own attorney.

As opposed to me, simply quoting a news report and not once "cheerleading" that report.

Let's hear it Donger.

Heh. This from the guy that still won't admit he was wrong about the forged Bush AWOL letters.

Cochise
06-14-2006, 11:54 AM
Heh. This from the guy that still won't admit he was wrong about the forged Bush AWOL letters.

"Allegedly wrong" ROFL

Donger
06-14-2006, 11:57 AM
"Allegedly wrong" ROFL

Oh yeah. I forgot about that qualifier.

You've got to give it to old jAZ, though. He's still holding out hope that this news is false, based upon Rove's lawyer making up sh*t. Certainly desperately hanging on by a thread to predictions that he didn't make, and doesn't agree with, eh?

Bootlegged
06-14-2006, 11:59 AM
You are a complete tool at this point. The only people throwing caution to the wind on this thread were all the people posting Simpson's pics and cheering/gloating about Rove getting off based upon a statement by his own attorney.
As opposed to me, simply quoting a news report and not once "cheerleading" that report.

Let's hear it Donger.


Keep up hope, man. Maybe you'll win Ohio someday too.......

go bowe
06-14-2006, 12:12 PM
i thought it had been reported that rove's lawyer got a formal letter advising him that he was (no longer) a target of the investigation (which = no indictment)...

shuster's prediction (and that of other reporters) turned out to be wrong...

as for jaz, he's just being jaz...

it looks like a beesnest attacking a bear around here...

(no, i'm not suggesting that jaz is a bear)

jAZ
06-14-2006, 12:29 PM
Oh yeah. I forgot about that qualifier.

You've got to give it to old jAZ, though. He's still holding out hope that this news is false, based upon Rove's lawyer making up sh*t. Certainly desperately hanging on by a thread to predictions that he didn't make, and doesn't agree with, eh?
I'm not "holding out hope"... I'm letting the facts guide me. Anyone asserting at this point that Fitzgerald has decided not to charge Rove is letting their hopes guide them.

The facts are

1) Luskin says Fitz sent him a letter saying won't indict Rove
2) Luskin refused to produce this letter
3) Luskin said previously that Rove wasn't under investigation

I see no benefit from Luskin lying, but the facts leave room for uncertainy. And everyone acting with certainty (the RWNJ's on this and the other thread) are putting their hopes before the facts.

Donger
06-14-2006, 12:37 PM
I'm not "holding out hope"... I'm letting the facts guide me. Anyone asserting at this point that Fitzgerald has decided not to charge Rove is letting their hopes guide them.

The facts are

1) Luskin says Fitz sent him a letter saying won't indict Rove
2) Luskin refused to produce this letter
3) Luskin said previously that Rove wasn't under investigation

I see no benefit from lying, but the facts leave room for uncertainy. And everyone acting with certainty (the RWNJ's on this and the other thread) are putting their hopes before the facts.

Do you hope that Rove is indicted?

jAZ
06-14-2006, 12:39 PM
Do you hope that Rove is indicted?
Only if Fitz can prove he's guilty.

go bowe
06-14-2006, 12:46 PM
jaz, i'm sure i heard that one of the major papers had reported that rove's lawyers did in fact recieve formal written notification that he is not a target of the investigation...

i'm quite the letter is genuine and quite real...

jAZ
06-14-2006, 01:14 PM
jaz, i'm sure i heard that one of the major papers had reported that rove's lawyers did in fact recieve formal written notification that he is not a target of the investigation...

i'm quite the letter is genuine and quite real...
I think a lot of people are sure, just like yourself. I'm not suggesting it's not as you (and others) believe. As I said, I see no benefit from Luskin lying.

But the facts are the facts, and they leave room for uncertainty. Until Fitz comes out publicly and confirms things, or until Luskin produces the letter itself, then the facts leave for an uncertain conclusion.

As I did at the time that I posted this thread... I remain cautious about such uncertain reports (whether unnamed from Rove's camp via Shuster, unnamed via Fitz's camp via TruthOut/Leopold or named but unconfirmed via Rove's camp).

Donger
06-14-2006, 01:25 PM
As I did at the time that I posted this thread... I remain cautious about such uncertain reports (whether unnamed from Rove's camp via Shuster, unnamed via Fitz's camp via TruthOut/Leopold or named but unconfirmed via Rove's camp).

Well, that's good. I'm glad to see that you learned a lesson over the Bush AWOL documents.

:thumb:

jAZ
06-14-2006, 01:33 PM
Well, that's good. I'm glad to see that you learned a lesson over the Bush AWOL documents.

:thumb:
I'd have to go back to see the threads in question, but I'm sure my tone was identical at the time. The facts of that sitation are far less clear than these with Rove. As I've said in the past, those documents remain to this day nothing more than "allegedly fake". They are also "allegedly real". The facts of both situations leave room for uncertainty, though the Rove thing can be cleared up much more easily than the AWOL thing.

Donger
06-14-2006, 01:34 PM
I'd have to go back to see the threads in question, but I'm sure my tone was identical at the time. The facts of that sitation are far less clear than these with Rove. As I've said in the past, those documents remain to this day nothing more than "allegedly fake". They are also "allegedly real". The facts of both situations leave room for uncertainty, though the Rove thing can be cleared up much more easily than the AWOL thing.

If you're sure that your tone was identical in that thread, why would you have to go back?

jAZ
06-14-2006, 01:51 PM
If you're sure that your tone was identical in that thread, why would you have to go back?
Because I could be wrong. It's been almost 2 years.

Donger
06-14-2006, 01:52 PM
Because I could be wrong. It's been almost 2 years.

Then you're not sure.

go bowe
06-14-2006, 01:58 PM
i'm sure you guys are having fun...

well, maybe donger more than jaz...

jAZ
06-14-2006, 02:02 PM
Then you're not sure.
I'm not "certain" ("Established beyond doubt or question; indisputable" (http://www.answers.com/certain)). I'm "sure" ("Confident, as of something awaited or expected" (http://www.answers.com/sure&r=67)).

Donger
06-14-2006, 02:06 PM
I'm not "certain" ("Established beyond doubt or question; indisputable" (http://www.answers.com/certain)). I'm "sure" ("Confident, as of something awaited or expected" (http://www.answers.com/sure&r=67)).

sure (shʊr, shűr) pronunciation
adj., sur·er, sur·est.

1. Impossible to doubt or dispute; certain.

Donger
06-14-2006, 02:10 PM
Main Entry: 1sure
Pronunciation: 'shur, esp Southern 'shOr
Function: adjective
Inflected Form(s): sur·er; sur·est
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French sur, from Latin securus secure
1 obsolete : safe from danger or harm
2 : firmly established : STEADFAST <a sure hold>
3 : RELIABLE, TRUSTWORTHY
4 : marked by or given to feelings of confident certainty <I'm sure I'm right>
5 : admitting of no doubt : INDISPUTABLE <spoke from sure knowledge>
6 a : bound to happen : INEVITABLE <sure disaster> b : BOUND, DESTINED <is sure to win>
7 : careful to remember, attend to, or find out something <be sure to lock the door>

go bowe
06-14-2006, 02:29 PM
sure (shʊr, shűr) pronunciation
adj., sur·er, sur·est.

1. Impossible to doubt or dispute; certain.i'm gonna be sorry i did this, but i didn't see impossible or certainty in definition #4, which is the way that i understood jaz (not that it's ever easy to understand jaz): 4 : marked by or given to feelings of confident certainty
given to feelings, feelings of confident certainty...

now, nobody in their right mind would apply the labels steadfast, reliable and trustworthy to jaz, wound they?

so, in order of most common usage (i think that's what those numbers and order mean, but i could be wrong about that), the next most likely choice is feelings of confident certainty...

which describes jaz to a tee, in my book...

edit: "wound they" is simply a freudian slip or something...

Donger
06-14-2006, 02:34 PM
i'm gonna be sorry i did this, but i didn't see impossible or certainty in definition #4, which is the way that i understood jaz (not that it's ever easy to understand jaz): given to feelings, feelings of confident certainty...

now, nobody in their right mind would apply the labels steadfast, reliable and trustworthy to jaz, wound they?

so, in order of most common usage (i think that's what those numbers and order mean, but i could be wrong about that), the next most likely choice is feelings of confident certainty...

which describes jaz to a tee, in my book...

ROFL

But, jAZ just stated that he's not 'certain.'

go bowe
06-14-2006, 02:45 PM
ROFL

But, jAZ just stated that he's not 'certain.'see, i said i was gonna be sorry...

how can anybody account for jaz's mo-bile positions? :shrug:

Cochise
06-14-2006, 02:51 PM
Who knew that this would descend into what the meaning of 'is' is...

Donger
06-14-2006, 02:53 PM
Who knew that this would descend into what the meaning of 'is' is...

Not me! I'm sure of that. But, I'll have to check my memory just to make sure. I mean, certain.

go bowe
06-14-2006, 03:00 PM
Who knew that this would descend into what the meaning of 'is' is...ok now, that's just mean... :p :p :p

go bowe
06-14-2006, 03:02 PM
Not me! I'm sure of that. But, I'll have to check my memory just to make sure. I mean, certain.in that usage, sure is reasonably understood to mean certain...

see, i said i was gonna be sorry...

jAZ
06-14-2006, 03:05 PM
What I don't get with this who new line of talk is that...

1) I clarified which of the varied possible meanings of "sure" I meant
2) I clarified the distinction between that defintion and "certain"

... and yet Donger wishes to pretend that there is some confusion remaining. It makes not sense. I've been crystal clear as to the meaning of my post.

Donger can ascribe some other meaning to those same words if he wishes, but no matter how much he wishes, he can't ascribe that meaning to me.

I've been very clear.

go bowe
06-14-2006, 03:10 PM
What I don't get with this who new line of talk is that

1) I clarified which of the varied possible meanings of "sure" I meant by by most.
2) I clarified the distinction between that defintion and "certain"

... and yet Donger wishes to pretend that there is some confusion remaining. It makes not sense. I've been crystal clear as to the meaning of my post.

Donger can ascribe some other meaning to those same words if he wishes, but no matter how much he wishes, he can't ascribe that meaning to me.

I've been very clear.dude, have you not yet figured out that donger is most likely just ****ing with you for amusement?

you've made the distinction very clear and i agree with what you are saying, even if nobody else does...

so there...

Donger
06-14-2006, 03:11 PM
It makes not sense.

Stop channeling Yoda.

Logical
06-14-2006, 03:14 PM
Oh my gosh, I am not sure I have ever seen two people get this carried away over a nit.

For God's sake jAZ add a ? to your title and let this die.ROFL

Donger
06-14-2006, 04:17 PM
dude, have you not yet figured out that donger is most likely just ****ing with you for amusement?

I'm sure that I'd never do such a thing.

Cochise
06-14-2006, 04:19 PM
I'm sure that I'd never do such a thing.

I'm sure that's hilarious.

jAZ
06-14-2006, 04:28 PM
I'm sure that I'd never do such a thing.
You've already started down the Lattimer path... do you really want to trek down the Kotter path too? Not good company man.

Donger
06-14-2006, 04:32 PM
You've already started down the Lattimer path... do you really want to trek down the Kotter path too? Not good company man.

You seem to labor under the impression that I put value in how you view me. I assure you, I do not.

jAZ
06-14-2006, 04:35 PM
You seem to labor under the impression that I put value in how you view me. I assure you, I do not.
Well people don't view Kotter very highly around here (either side really) because he constantly runs his mouth like this and then, when he's made to look the part of the fool, pulls the "I'm just f'ing with you... I can't believe you are so serious".

And be sure, I'm not the only person seeing your little display.

Donger
06-14-2006, 04:39 PM
Well people don't view Kotter very highly around here (either side really) because he constantly runs his mouth like this and then when made to look the part of the fool pulls the "I'm just f'ing with you... I can't believe you are so serious".

And be sure, I'm not the only person seeing your little display.

I was f*cking with you from the beginning. You're just too dense to have realized it, apparently. I don't doubt that others saw what I was doing. The amusing part is that you didn't.

jAZ
06-14-2006, 05:16 PM
I was f*cking with you from the beginning. You're just too dense to have realized it, apparently. I don't doubt that others saw what I was doing. The amusing part is that you didn't.
Yep... welcome to Kotter land. Home of the backwards justifications for stupid behavior. It's a hallmark of a respected poster around here. I swear.

Donger
06-14-2006, 05:19 PM
Yep... welcome to Kotter land. Home of the backwards justifications for stupid behavior. It's a hallmark of a respected poster around here. I swear.

Like I said, I don't exactly hold your opinion of me in very high regard, jAZ.

jAZ
06-14-2006, 05:24 PM
Like I said, I don't exactly hold your opinion of me in very high regard, jAZ.
Says the guy who just fessed up to pulling Kotter and simultaneously working hard to lie his way into embarssing me.

The facts of this thread don't favor your credibiltiy... regardless of your regard for my opinion of you.

Bootlegged
06-14-2006, 05:31 PM
You've already started down the Lattimer path... do you really want to trek down the Kotter path too? Not good company man.

Wow, I'm honored.

Donger
06-14-2006, 05:41 PM
Says the guy who just fessed up to pulling Kotter and simultaneously working hard to lie his way into embarssing me.

The facts of this thread don't favor your credibiltiy... regardless of your regard for my opinion of you.

I suppose it's apropos at this point to again mention that if you weren't so dense, you would have realized last night what I was trying to point out. Heck, I even tried to give you hints as to my motive.

jAZ
06-14-2006, 05:59 PM
I suppose it's apropos at this point to again mention that if you weren't so dense, you would have realized last night what I was trying to point out. Heck, I even tried to give you hints as to my motive.
It's nice to not have to admit you were wrong... just pretend you were keeeeding...

"I meant to do that!"
http://www.seeing-stars.com/Museums/HHM/PeeWeeBike(small).jpg

Donger
06-14-2006, 06:11 PM
It's nice to not have to admit you were wrong... just pretend you were keeeeding...

"I meant to do that!"
http://www.seeing-stars.com/Museums/HHM/PeeWeeBike(small).jpg

Since you made up the thread title yourself (didn't directly qoute anyone, as far as I can tell), and didn't bother to add a question mark in order to denote your opinion that you didn't necessarily agree with the prediction, yes, I did and do think you were wrong.

Now that it's quite clear that the prediction has been shown to be inaccurate, you've fallen back into CYA mode. Like I said, that's fine. I wouldn't expect anything less, as that is your MO, since you harbor this weird "I'm never wrong" deal and lack the balls to state a prediction.

I wasn't kidding about my thinking you were, and are, wrong. Trying to use humor to show our newer members that you're infallible? Yes, absolutely. Guilty.

go bowe
06-14-2006, 07:20 PM
what newer members come over here?

how the hell do they find the place?

Donger
06-14-2006, 07:39 PM
what newer members come over here?

how the hell do they find the place?

They're 'net savvy, you old fart!

Off the top of my head, I'd say banyon and Hamas Jenkins. Perhaps there are others.

go bowe
06-14-2006, 07:43 PM
you better be careful youngster...

i'll sick skip on your impertinent ass...

and then make you listen to meme and jaz bashing the president 24/7 and middle eastern music...

yeah, that's the ticket, that God-awful middle eastern music...

alanm
06-14-2006, 07:45 PM
So... How'd that inditment thing turn out? ROFL ROFL

go bowe
06-14-2006, 08:26 PM
just two more weeks...

Mr. Kotter
06-14-2006, 09:40 PM
Yep... welcome to Kotter land. Home of the backwards justifications for stupid behavior. It's a hallmark of a respected poster around here. I swear.You know, I appreciated the nice rep message the other day....but it's funny how an embarrassing prediction that is yet another example of your blind partisan bullshit around here, continues to blind you...

Sometimes it's hard to distinguish you from the educated and halfway rational person you can be at times (despite the fact you are a partisan shill)...from the bumbling, incoherent, wretched and stupid mofo that you appear to be at other times. :shake:

Get a grip, and get a friggin' life....before the hatred consumes you.

go bowe
06-14-2006, 10:06 PM
You know, I appreciated the nice rep message the other day....but it's funny how an embarrassing prediction that is yet another example of your blind partisan bullshit around here, continues to blind you...

Sometimes it's hard to distinguish you from the educated and halfway rational person you can be at times (despite the fact you are a partisan shill)...from the bumbling, incoherent, wretched and stupid mofo that you appear to be at other times. :shake:

Get a grip, and get a friggin' life....before the hatred consumes you.i don't know...

kotter land has kind of a nice ring to it and it did convey the thought rather well... :p :p :p

Donger
06-14-2006, 10:13 PM
you better be careful youngster...

i'll sick skip on your impertinent ass...

and then make you listen to meme and jaz bashing the president 24/7 and middle eastern music...

yeah, that's the ticket, that God-awful middle eastern music...

ROFL

Mr. Kotter
06-14-2006, 10:14 PM
i don't know...

kotter land has kind of a nice ring to it and it did convey the thought rather well... :p :p :p

It would be one helluva of fun amusement park, that's for sure. :D

As for the backwards justification for stupid behavior, it would take one really stupid mutha fukker to not see my posting as 60-70% as the TIC-intentional provocation to stir-the-pot that.....well, over 2/3rds of my posting is (outside of actual FB posts anyway.)

How many times have I stated--at least enough so the regs like jAZ will surely know.....if you want a serious response or post from me (outside of FB), ask for one.....if I post a serious response or comment, I'll say explicitly "I'm serious."

Apparently, that's too difficult for some to understand.....:rolleyes:

Guess maybe I should make it my sig, just to cover my ass for the retards... ;)

Donger
06-14-2006, 10:20 PM
As for the backwards justification for stupid behavior, it would take one really stupid mutha fukker to not see my posting as 60-70% as the TIC-intentional provocation to stir-the-pot that.....well, over 2/3rds of my posting is (outside of actual FB posts anyway.)

Heh. No offense intended Mr. Kotter, but I just realized that it is you that jAZ was referring to in his posts.

No, I'm not surprised that he doesn't 'get' many of your posts. The boy seems to have had a real world, just-giving-you-sh*t bypass at birth. And, he takes himself a tad too seriously. It's a shame, because he's got a solid head on his shoulders.

go bowe
06-14-2006, 10:25 PM
hey, be careful how you talk to us retards...

but seriously, you do say a lot of stuff that is palpably hogwash and then back off when confronted with contrary facts...

sometimes you back off by sliding from one meaning to another, redefining your statements as you go...

other times, you back off by claiming that you're kidding...

but we know, deep in our hearts, we know...

that you are totally serious and you absoultely mean every stupid thing you say...

so there...

Mr. Kotter
06-14-2006, 10:27 PM
Heh. No offense intended Mr. Kotter, but I just realized that it is you that jAZ was referring to in his posts.

No, I'm not surprised that he doesn't 'get' many of your posts. The boy seems to have had a real world, just-giving-you-sh*t bypass at birth. And, he takes himself a tad too seriously. It's a shame, because he's got a solid head on his shoulders.

I'll bet the dude was the friggin' President of his University's GD Nerd fraternity.....he had to be GD Lewis.

Gilbert or Booger were way too cool to have been him....;)

go bowe
06-14-2006, 10:28 PM
ok, for the literature-deprived, who's lewis, gilbert and booger?

Mr. Kotter
06-14-2006, 10:29 PM
...

that you are totally serious and you absoultely mean every stupid thing you say...

so there...

You got me, John....I admit it. I might as well come clean, man....so....

I gotta say, my loins burn like the sun for some meaningful and masculine man-love from you, John.

I'm just sayin'.....

Mr. Kotter
06-14-2006, 10:30 PM
ok, for the literature-deprived, who's lewis, gilbert and booger?

Literature? Heh....

CLASSIC movie if you have never had the honor. Rent it:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088000/

Donger
06-14-2006, 10:34 PM
hey, be careful how you talk to us retards...

but seriously, you do say a lot of stuff that is palpably hogwash and then back off when confronted with contrary facts...

sometimes you back off by sliding from one meaning to another, redefining your statements as you go...

other times, you back off by claiming that you're kidding...

but we know, deep in our hearts, we know...

that you are totally serious and you absoultely mean every stupid thing you say...

so there...

Are you talking to me?

Mr. Kotter
06-14-2006, 10:40 PM
Are you talking to me?

No. John and I have shared Pale Ale together. He's talking to me.

John understands me. Justin just thinks he does. Heh.

Sorry for you, John. ;)

jAZ
06-14-2006, 10:46 PM
You know, I appreciated the nice rep message the other day....but it's funny how an embarrassing prediction that is yet another example of your blind partisan bullshit around here, continues to blind you...

Sometimes it's hard to distinguish you from the educated and halfway rational person you can be at times (despite the fact you are a partisan shill)...from the bumbling, incoherent, wretched and stupid mofo that you appear to be at other times. :shake:

Get a grip, and get a friggin' life....before the hatred consumes you.
So I will assume that this is TIC.

Mr. Kotter
06-14-2006, 10:47 PM
So I will assume that this is TIC.

As TIC as your BS about me in this thread, Lewis. :)

jAZ
06-14-2006, 10:49 PM
Are you talking to me?
Probably not, but who would know given your behavior on this thread.

jAZ
06-14-2006, 10:50 PM
As TIC as your BS about me in this thread, Lewis. :)
Check your PM's.

go bowe
06-14-2006, 10:52 PM
Are you talking to me?no, kotter...

Guess maybe I should make it my sig, just to cover my ass for the retards...

go bowe
06-14-2006, 10:53 PM
You got me, John....I admit it. I might as well come clean, man....so....

I gotta say, my loins burn like the sun for some meaningful and masculine man-love from you, John.

I'm just sayin'.....shhhh...

anton, keep quiet...

you're not supposed to come out in public like that...

heh heh, i said come out to the king of outing... hee hee...

go bowe
06-14-2006, 10:55 PM
No. John and I have shared Pale Ale together. He's talking to me.

John understands me. Justin just thinks he does. Heh.

Sorry for you, John. ;)didn't i drink the whole 6 pack?

but we "shared" it if you say so... :p :p :p

jAZ
06-14-2006, 10:56 PM
ok, for the literature-deprived, who's lewis, gilbert and booger?
Different generation, but I just assumed everyone had heard of Revenge of the Nerds. Kotter's right. Classic movie and well worth the rental.

Joe Seahawk
06-14-2006, 10:59 PM
Heh.. One more time for old times sake.. ;)

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/aug1873-pdf-animate.gif

jAZ
06-14-2006, 11:04 PM
As TIC as your BS about me in this thread, Lewis. :)
Ok, I'm just setting myself up for years of grief with this post, but here goes...

1) Actually I'm Gilbert. I'm pretty much a dead ringer for Anthony Edwards. Which was pretty decent when Top Gun was out, but isn't so flattering during the ER years. I have people ask me if I'm "Dr. Mark Green" all the time. My trip to Japan a few years back was pretty surreal for that reason alone.

2) I wasn't in a Fraternity in college, but I was President of the science club in high school... Also I graduated with an Engineering degree.

And

3) Revenge of the Nerds was filmed at the UofA. And and my department (and most all my classes) were in the building used as Gilbert and Lewis' dorm room at the start the movie.

stevieray
06-14-2006, 11:11 PM
Ok, I'm just setting myself up for years of grief with this post, but here goes...

1) Actually I'm Gilbert. I'm pretty much a dead ringer for Anthony Edwards. Which was pretty decent when Top Gun was out, but isn't so flattering during the ER years. I have people ask me if I'm "Dr. Mark Green" all the time. My trip to Japan a few years back was pretty surreal for that reason alone.

I wasn't in a Fraternity in college, but I was President of the science club in high school... Also I graduated with an Engineering degree.

And lastly, Revenge of the Nerds was filmed at the UofA. And and my department (and most all my classes) were in the building used as Gilbert and Lewis' dorm room at the start the movie.


Gilbert admiited he was wrong about being ashamed of being a nerd.

you can do it, jaz. you'll thank me later.

jAZ
06-14-2006, 11:12 PM
Gilbert admiited he was wrong about being ashamed of being a nerd.

you can do it, jaz. you'll thank me later.
I'm a geek... not a nerd. And pretty proud of it.

Joe Seahawk
06-14-2006, 11:32 PM
I'd have to go back to see the threads in question, but I'm sure my tone was identical at the time. The facts of that sitation are far less clear than these with Rove. As I've said in the past, those documents remain to this day nothing more than "allegedly fake". They are also "allegedly real". The facts of both situations leave room for uncertainty, though the Rove thing can be cleared up much more easily than the AWOL thing.


http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/aug1873-pdf-animate.gif


Can you at least admit they are most likely fake? given that a supposed 1973 typewriter perfectly matches a word document in default type..

I'm sorry to bring this up as I know it is difficult for you to try to defend, but this is relevant because you seem to be incapable of admitting you were wrong..

Are you so partisan that you can't see the blatant logic that the docs were forged?

jAZ
06-14-2006, 11:41 PM
I'm sorry to bring this up as I know it is difficult for you to try to defend, but this is relevant because you seem to be incapable of admitting you were wrong..

Are you so partisan that you can't see the blatant logic that the docs were forged?
I won't admit I'm wrong if I'm not wrong. And in both cases I'm not wrong. Those documents are to this very day questionable, but nothing more.

At the time I was very careful to speak factually... just like I was with this thread a month ago, and again today.

You at the time... Donger today... and you again today... want to inject your feelings on top of the facts and declare that because I refuse to agree to your feelings... that somehow makes me "wrong".

It doesn't. And I refuse to pretend other wise.
Can you at least admit they are most likely fake? given that a supposed 1973 typewriter perfectly matches a word document in default type..
No... I will (as I have for 2 years now) acknowledge that it's possible that they are fake. That's a fact. It is possible. To say it's likely is your (and others) opinion. It's not something that I am wrong about. And it's not something that's more or less than likely in my opinion.

Joe Seahawk
06-14-2006, 11:51 PM
I won't admit I'm wrong if I'm not wrong. And in both cases I'm not wrong. Those documents are to this very day questionable, but nothing more.

At the time I was very careful to speak factually... just like I was with this thread a month ago, and again today.

You at the time... Donger today... and you again today... want to inject your feelings on top of the facts and declare that because I refuse to agree to your feelings... that somehow makes me "wrong".

It doesn't. And I refuse to pretend other wise.

No... I will (as I have for 2 years now) acknowledge that it's possible that they are fake. That's a fact. It is possible. To say it's likely is your (and others) opinion. It's not something that I am wrong about. And it's not something that's more or less than likely in my opinion.


Have you ever been on a jury?

It seems it would be impossible for the prosecution to get a verdict if you were...

I'd be bummed to be a prosecutor and have you on my jury..

I'm not asking you to agree with me that they were 100% fake for sure (which I believe after looking at all the evidence)

I'm just asking which way you would lean if you had to make a decision..

jAZ
06-15-2006, 12:00 AM
Have you ever been on a jury?

It seems it would be impossible for the prosecution to get a verdict if you were...

I'd be bummed to be a prosecutor and have you on my jury..

I'm not asking you to agree with me that they were 100% fake for sure (which I believe after looking at all the evidence)

I'm just asking which way you would lean if you had to make a decision..
I'd say it's right around 50/50. Another way to say it is that I'm not convinced they are fake.