comment #1

ArchiveGuy says ...

Uh, yeah. That's why he said it. Given that they've been prohibited from interacting with the press until now, it's telling that this came out front and center.

Your point being...?

comment #2

lesterg says ...

It's going to be interesting to see what happens next. Fitzgerald claims that the case is (unofficially) over, but that could just public posturing to strengthen his position in negotiations with Libby.

comment #3

Joshua Mooney says ...

Jeff: Why mock the jury spokesman? He's apparently a first-rate guy who, according to "E&P," is "a journalist who has written for The Washington Post and other newspapers, and is author of the 2004 book, 'Spying: The Secret History of History.'"

My take is that the jury did its duty dutifully. They dealt with the case at hand. Not their fault that larger issues, and bigger fish, weren't brought in for them to try and fry. That's how the legal system works. Please recall that Watergate stemmed from a "third-rate burglary" and went on from there. If you're worried that the true truth won't come out, well, so am I. But this is, at least, a promising start.

comment #4

joncro says ...

In Jeff's defence, I assume he is being ironic/sarcastic here..... I don't think anyone belived that Scooter did this all by himself, and made sure that the Vice Pres knew nothing about it.

comment #5

Josh Massey says ...

Of course, Sandy Berger gets a fine and 100 hours of community service. But hey, he's a Democrat - stuffing those top-secret documents into his pants and cutting them up must have been for a noble cause.

comment #6

christian says ...

and bushco get a free pass for starting an illegal war; repeatedly lying to americans; disgracing the troops with sub-standard treatment; smearing anybody who dared suggest iraq might not have wmd's; tripling the defecit; and using the constitution for ass-wipe.

and all the poor republicans got was the impeachment of bill clinton.

comment #7

lesterg says ...

5 posts in and we're already into the standard "but Clinton...!" defense.

Josh, I don't think most reasonable people would defend Berger. Frankly, he should have gone down harder than Libby.

Still, the question you should be asking is why the Bush Administration didn't press the DOJ to nail him. That's the real mystery.

comment #8

Josh Massey says ...

Simple: Republicans are pussies when it comes to that sort of thing because they know the media isn't on their side.

And if you really don't believe that, compare the coverage of Libby vs. Berger.

comment #9

ratskiwatski says ...

Josh - Sandy Berger was a semi-competent who deserved worse than he got. And I checked out your blog - yeah, Steve Bartkowski was dope.

Now that the olive branch is out there - I'll just snatch it away (because I'm like that)... I'm sure you think you were pithy, but that comment was really just glib in that special way that only true apologists can be. Berger was investigated up the wazoo by a Federal prosecutor who found that there was no destruction or attempted destruction of original documents - everything is still in the National Archives. No coverup, no attempt to shine on the 9/11 Commission, nothing of the sort. My personal animus toward Berger is irrelevant; I'll defer to the findings of a judge and prosecutor (the latter, btw, was nominated by the Current Occupant for a federal judgeship - must be a... a LIBERAL... or maybe an Illuminatus on the grassy knoll - hi mgmax!) And on this one, maybe you and yours should defer, too. A jury has not only found Libby obstructed justice, but the evidence that did him in (just Google the pdf's, for crying out loud) shows that his boss had to run a smear campaign with possibly deadly consequences to CIA operatives because he can't brook dissent. The whole runup to the war was built and sold on the sheerest horseshit (Curveball! The Italians! Atta at the Prague Comfort Inn Suites!). The lies and disrespect to the public were and are bad enough - at least the system, though it's taken its shots (witness the other big news from the Hill today) is still at working well enough to serve up some facts and truth, if not justice - Scooter, pardon in pocket, will be freer than free to write bad samurai kiddie porn deep into his dotage. Sing along, you Josh, ya big Bulldog - "This is ourrrrr Countryyyy..."

comment #10

ratskiwatski says ...

oh, and lesterg, the Administration had a better way to deal with that Berger's prosecutor. His next gig was putting away Jack Abramoff - Bush gave him a judgeship in the middle of the work. A lot more elegant way to slow things down than just brazenly firing 7 prosecutors many of whom are - no, you don't say? - investigating corruption... they're losing their bully boy touch, and not a second too soon...

comment #11

christian says ...

"republicans are pussies when it comes to that sort of thing because they know the media isn't on their side."

except when it comes to ramrodding an illegal war up the nation's ass.

if you want, i'll show you my collection of 2002-2003 mainstream network media suck-ups to bush, cheney and rumsfeld as they used the corporate "liberal" media to sell their war to america.

or have you forgotten the press corps laughing as rumsfeld promised them he would be not telling them anything?

yes, you have.

comment #12

ratskiwatski says ...

Wow, christian, that's a hell of a project you got going there... I'm surprised your Tivo hasn't done a Scanner by now...

comment #13

Titus Pullo says ...

ratskiwatski, you're arguing w/ a wall when dealing w/ the wingnuts on this board. You see conservatives are mad as hell that Wilson 'lied' supposedly in his op-ed, but of course getting a straight answer as to what it is he supposedly 'lied' about in this op-ed is near impossible(I've been trying a week now). They are mad that Wilson 'lied' in his refutation of Bush/Cheney's assertion that Iraq tried to get yellowcake in Niger, an assertion that was FALSE. But conservatives aren't angry at that. They are mad at Wilson that he challenged the Administrations reasoning for a war THAT IS THE BIGGEST FOREIGN POLICY BLUNDER IN AMERICAN HISTORY, but conservatives aren't mad about that. They're mad that Wilson 'lied' in an op-ed. They're not angry at any of that because in the fantasy world they live in, one in which they are brave warriors fighting for the American way, probably next to their bestest buddies Chuck Norris, Jack Bauer and John Wayne, we are winning the war in Iraq. Its the damn liberal media(heh heh, ya liberal media) that won't report the truth of our glorious victory in Iraq. Also, if you believe we are winning in Iraq there's really no reason why you should enlist yourself. Some delusion are very convenient aren't they?

comment #14

SpinDozer says ...

I have heard that the 'Scooter is a Fall Guy' was a central part of the defense and the fact that the jury bought it but still convicted on all but one count says that the case was strong against him. You would think that if the defense was serious about the Fall Guy theory they would've struck a deal or pointed more definitively as in 'convict this other sob, he's guiltier than I!' ;)

Rumour is 1-3 years. I would recommend Feb of 2009, see if Bush/Cheney cave or tell Libby to tough it out...plus we have the appeal(s).

lesterg, don't hold your breath, I think it's over. Max sentence is something like 25 years, but but I think if he gives Libby anything more than 4 the judge will set himself up for overule & will trigger a final day in office pardon or commutation.

comment #15

ratskiwatski says ...

oh, yeah, titus, I know the drill - Wilson was just a hack on a junket just doing the minimum busywork and throwing down a sloppy contrarian report, only taking breaks to get rubdowns from a Seventy Virgin Parade... boy the perks you get from Consorting With The Terrorists... its just fun to filibuster people don't read enough of the facts, who genuinely have the idee-fixe that the Current Occupant is an alpha male asskicker, a guy who can get it done, and fuck the Constitution, use it to wipe sparerib juice off your face a la Homer Simpson. (Bet mgmax thinks the Stonecutters are in on the Cheney/Libby attack, too.) It's unbecoming to get all adhominem on folks, but I'm weak that way.

comment #16

Titus Pullo says ...

ratskiwatski, went out for drinks w/ the neighbor, a conservative, 2 nites ago, got into an arguement/conversation about the federal deficit. He claimed the reason we have a deficit is because of all the foreign aid we dole out. I of course protested the idiocy of that statement, he would have none of it. WHen I offered to show him the federal deficit online, pie charts and all which show that foreign aid accounts for less than 1% of the federal budget(most of it going to Israel) he brushed it off. I offer that as a pretty representative example of conservative steadfast and willful refusal to acknowledge actual facts. Watching conservatives(not all, but most) stamp their feet when anything challenges the national mythology, is a lot of fun, if I am to be honest. Thats why Mgmax, Josh Massey and NYCBusyCoward et. al., are so entertaining...they're my dancing monkeys!

comment #17

SpinDozer says ...

"Watching conservatives(not all, but most) stamp their feet when anything challenges the national mythology, is a lot of fun"

they said that in Weimar too.

I know what you mean, but all other things being equal, it still makes me feel Dyn-O-Myte to remember how much debt the Sauds hold on us everytime I hear some mental reject talk about Islamofascists...it'd be funny except for whats happening to the country.

comment #18

jeffmcm says ...

Sandy Berger: Borrowed papers he shouldn't have in order to write a book.

Libby: Lied about his role in compromising a CIA agent's status who just happened to be working on one of the biggest threats to national security (Iran's nuclear status).

Give me a break.

comment #19

le corbeau says ...

Jeffmcm: puts the kindliest possible spin on one side, and the harshest on the other.

Ratskiwatski, Titus Pullo, Spindozer, etc.: Priceless.

comment #20

jeffmcm says ...

Mgmax, I was inaccurate: Sandy Berger took documents that he shouldn't have taken in order to get his story straight for the 9/11 commission. A stupid thing to do, but it is not on the same level as Deliberately Outing A Sensitive CIA Agent To Discredit Her Husband Because He Is Pointing Out Your Case For War Is Fradulent.

You can try all the smoke and mirrors you want but it won't help.

comment #21

SpinDozer says ...

'Jeffmcm: puts the kindliest possible spin on one side, and the harshest on the other.'

and, one might reasonably add, the spin most closely resembling actual events on planet earth and not the jibber jabber of a failed political party catering to the planet's biggest whiners.

You say that Titus, Ratski, & my posts are priceless evidently this is WingNut irony. The kindest thing one can say about your post is that it is difficult to ascertain their true value.

comment #22

Josh Massey says ...

"Sandy Berger: Borrowed papers he shouldn't have in order to write a book."

Are you kidding? He stuffed classified papers in his pants - multiple times, admitted to cutting others up with scissors, lied about it, then admitted to lying about it.

ARE YOU KIDDING?

comment #23

mitch says ...

Josh, Mgmax: This is a liberal/democrat leaning board, no doubt. Very few conservatives here, so most of the pushback against the current administration is expected (I am in no way labeling either of you as conservative or liberal). Still, I applaud those who are honest enough to admit that Berger certainly should have received a more substantial punishment. Whatever backdoor deal allowed him to not be pursued more diligently is a matter that only few people likely know.

As for Libby, he's getting what he deserves.

comment #24

frankbooth says ...

Titus,

Eels are hard to skewer. They're lithe and fast and covered in a fine layer of spear-deflecting slime.

I admire your fortitude, even as I doubt your eventual success.

comment #25

le corbeau says ...

"Josh, Mgmax: This is a liberal/democrat leaning board, no doubt."

Funny, I thought it was a movie board.

"not on the same level as Deliberately Outing A Sensitive CIA Agent"

You're right. When does Richard Armitage's trial start?

Not for the first time, I am amazed to find the left-libs on the side of the unelected, unaccountable CIA in a bureaucratic turf war aganst the visible, accountable part of government. I remember when they were the bad guys in everything. Now they're saints. Let's just face the reality: Wilson was an old hack timeserver, his wife sent him to get the preordained answer the CIA wanted, he lied about that when he got it, the administration fought back without, apparently, violating the actual laws involved (since no relevant charges were ever filed), but a prosecutor proved you can get a DC jury to convict a Republican on ginned-up procedural charges. Let's see that movie.

Yesterday's Washington Post:

"Former ambassador Joseph C. Wilson IV, dispatched by the CIA in February 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq sought to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program with uranium from Africa, was specifically recommended for the mission by his wife, a CIA employee, contrary to what he has said publicly...

"Wilson's assertions -- both about what he found in Niger and what the Bush administration did with the information -- were undermined yesterday in a bipartisan Senate intelligence committee report.

"The panel found that Wilson's report, rather than debunking intelligence about purported uranium sales to Iraq, as he has said, bolstered the case for most intelligence analysts. And contrary to Wilson's assertions and even the government's previous statements, the CIA did not tell the White House it had qualms about the reliability of the Africa intelligence that made its way into 16 fateful words in President Bush's January 2003 State of the Union address...

"The report may bolster the rationale that administration officials provided the information not to intentionally expose an undercover CIA employee, but to call into question Wilson's bona fides as an investigator into trafficking of weapons of mass destruction. To charge anyone with a crime, prosecutors need evidence that exposure of a covert officer was intentional."

Which, needless to say, they never found. so they made a perjury case out of their investigation.

comment #26

Larry says ...

The statements from the jury seem to indicate a political agenda which suggests they didn't do a good job. Their job was to decide if Libby lied during an investigation, not worry about selling the rights to the movie once the bigger story comes out.

comment #27

mitch says ...

Mgmax: This USED to be a movie board, but Jeff seems to believe that he is a beacon of honesty and insight, holding perfect court over all which is politically moral and good. And, apparently, so do most of his readers.

Hence, the ever rising march towards irrelevancy.

comment #28

christian says ...

but let the blowback begin:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070307/pl_nm/bush_vermont_impeach_dc

comment #29

christian says ...

my favorite meme is the right wing calling this part of the "CIA war against Bush" as personified by Bush giving Presidential Medal of Freedom to former CIA director George Tenent.

what wilson wrote in his ny times editorial:

the bush admin is "exaggerating the Iraqi threat in order to justify war."

and all you righties -- was he wrong?

and as far as him being a lazy hack, again, don't let the truth hit you on the ass on your way out:

From 1988 to 1991, he was the Deputy Chief of Mission at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, Iraq. He was praised by George H. W. Bush after sheltering more than one hundred Americans at the embassy, despite Saddam Hussein's threats to execute anyone who refused to hand over foreigners. As a result, in 1990, he also became the last American diplomat to meet with Saddam Hussein. When Hussein sent a note to Wilson (along with other embassy heads in Iraq) threatening to execute anyone sheltering foreigners in Iraq, Wilson publicly repudiated the dictator by appearing at a press conference wearing a homemade noose around his neck and saying "If the choice is to allow American citizens to be taken hostage or to be executed, I will bring my own fucking rope," a flair for public appearance that has become a trademark of Wilson.

comment #30

ratskiwatski says ...

christian - Jeez, i get back from working all night to see what was up on this thread, saw the mgmax thoughts and was, alllllright, lemme have some coffee so I can roll this boulder up the hill again, and what do I see but you doing half my Joe Wilson work for me, you hotheaded little champion... think I'll go have another cup...

And larry - don't worry so much. It's Wells, man! Like the weather in San Francisco, if you don't like it, just wait a few minutes, it'll change... some fresh outrage is just around the bend. At least championing "Zodiac" wasn't one of them.

comment #31

christian says ...

since marvel is killing off captain america, we all have to take up the slack now...

comment #32

Craig Kennedy says ...

Forget about perjury and obstruction of justice, if allowing yourself to be called "Scooter" beyond the age of 7 isn't a punishable offense, it ought to be.

comment #33

rocco says ...

Tito, I'm not picking on you, but you've got your head screwed on backwards...most righties AND lefties argue emotionally and emotively, not emperically...your repeated use of "wingnut" is a perfect example...you have a lot of contempt for conservatives despite arguing in the same manner...the only difference being ideologies. The fact that you speak of "federal deficit" (what is that, exactly, the federal budget deficit?) as if it is inherently bad speaks volumes...

...but the insistence by Dems to block Social Security privatization is one of the best (worst??) shining examples of irrational behavior in the face of facts and data...fuck, even Roosevelt-never envisioned such a rigid, european-style social and senior welfare system...but I digress...

...my point is, this bickering is really all very silly...this squabbling and chest-pounding is entertaining for sure, but really, what do you hope to accomplish by calling people names, or holding yourself above conservatives? Isn't it funny that most of the conservatives I know express the same frustrations about you "libtards". Great way to engage thoughtful debate, I must say...you might have different tastes, but all your shit comes out the same color...and THAT's a fact.

comment #34

SpinDozer says ...

Delbomber:

Not sure who Tito is? Perhaps you are allowing your emtions to run away with you by conflating Titus with Communist Dictator Tito?

Wingnut is a term refering to the extremes of the political continuum. It can apply to the Left, but for propaganda purposes, the right prefers to use Leftist and or Liberal (even when they are talking about moderates!). When used to describe Right Wing extremists it gathers together several groups, such Free Market Primacy afficianados (AKA Libertarians) such as yourself, the so-called Cultural Conservatives, & other species in various stages of degeneracy.

"but the insistence by Dems to block Social Security privatization is one of the best (worst??) shining examples of irrational behavior in the face of facts and data"

So when Bush & his Republican Dominated House & Senate spent their Political Capital on the Privitization Scheme and didn't pass any legislation, this was the minority partys' fault?
One could make some rather pointed observations about your ability to rationalize, but for the moment, maybe you would like to revise you statement to include the American People in your list of villains sabotaging the privitization of Social Security? I believe something like 31% supported the proposed Final Solution for Social Security after 6 months of Political capital expenditure.

To compare the tactics of the extreme Right with those of individuals such as myself who call out the name of the Beast on occassion is only one example of your inept thought.

Have a lovely Day

comment #35

rocco says ...

uuuh, ok dozer, not sure where that came from...you told me!!

I wasn't attacking anyone for highlighting radical or senseless stances, I was merely pointing out it comes from both sides, and it's entirely laughable that liberals feign intellectual superiority...

...as for social security, the american public is not qualified to sound off on a such a topic...sure, it might be our "right," but my god, ask people the difference between something as simple as a ROTH and traditional IRA and 75% of people suddenly glaze over and do a Ross Perot impersonation...surely you jest when you suggest otherwise? For most of the public, anything beyond a savings or checking account is a complete mystery.

Politicians, on the other hand, are in the position to affect such things, whether they understand them fully or not...and one can not deny the status-quo, typical evil-Republicans-trying-to-help-the-rich, panic-inciting, anti-revamping rhetoric put out by the left...whether the initiative was ever enacted by Republicans is irrelevant...

[insert kiss-off one-liner here]

comment #36

Josh Massey says ...

So Spin, answer me this: Is there anybody on the right wing that isn't an "extremist?"

comment #37

SpinDozer says ...

"I wasn't attacking anyone for highlighting radical or senseless stances"

You were referring to yourself, no? Radical & Senseless is what you do.

The abusive language from the left is mostly so the righties will understand/comprehend, emotion being that which informs their politics. When in Rome sprachen de lingua franka, dude.

"whether the initiative was ever enacted by Republicans is irrelevant."

"but the insistence by Dems to block Social Security privatization"

So even tho the Dems didn't block an act that the Republicans didn't try to pass, they still get the blame. I'm thinking thats a little Harsh.

"the american public is not qualified to sound off on a such a topic"
I quite agree, let the 31% of really smart peepul like you decide.

"Is there anybody on the right wing that isn't an "extremist?""

Obviously, "extremist" refers to that end of the spectrum where extreme policy and statements are made...I know plenty of racists that are otherwise 'normal' and tho their racism is abhorrent, I wouldn't say they are extremist, Fox News, the Christian Coalition, Focus on The Family, Human Events, all propogate extremist rhetoric. Libertarians use moderate tho open-ended concepts to advance extremist policy. Therefore, DelBomber, yourself, Polands Gut, Mgmax, Mr.Sobchak, Larry have all expressed extremist rhetoric or supported extremist positions. Most Extremists like to point to someone worse than they are... racist point to the KKK, skinhead,etc. and say they are 'extreme' and the person that thinks other races are genetically predisposed to some unappealing trait or other are moderate. That is why you guys post, not egotism, tho that is there, it is to redefine 'normality'.

comment #38

Josh Massey says ...

On a website where I'm read a bunch of inane shit, that may be the most - well, extreme.

comment #39

rocco says ...

wow, chalk up another guy on the boards incapable of having a civil and intellectual conversation...so much hostility, and I didn't even say anything inflammatory...point to one extremist viewpoint dozer, ONE here, that you can attribute to me...JUST ONE...I've done nothing in these threads but call for cool heads and to point to the delusions that both sides harbor in regards to each other...I talked rationally about FDR's original vision for social security and all you can come up with is a snide remark about my capacity to debate it? Ugh, I like liberals and conservatives equally, but there's a condition: they must be able to respectfully discuss issues without degrading to ad hominem attacks...you are clearly not someone I have further interest in engaging, and I regret having spent the last three minutes even constructing this response.

comment #40

SpinDozer says ...

'I talked rationally about FDR's original vision for social security and all you can come up with is a snide remark about my capacity to debate it?'

'but the insistence by Dems to block Social Security privatization is one of the best (worst??) shining examples of irrational behavior in the face of facts and data'

I know this is like rocket science, (but then you are an award winning scientist, right?) but your statement accussing democrats of blocking privitization just misses being rational. See the Democrats didn't block SS "reform", unless you wish to offer up some evidence to the contrary, which you did not do & I do not believe possible to do as the GOP failed to bring up the bill for the extremely legitimate reason that they percieved that caressing the 3rd rail would probably not be in their best long-term political interest. The declaration that the "irrational" Democrats 'blocked' SS privitization is what is known as 'untrue'; the fact that you declare something that is untrue to be a shining example of irrationality, would tend to make one think that you are, at best, irrational, or at worst, highly partisan even to the point of right wing extremism. Your statement could just be a grossly stupid error, but the fact that you are engaged in debate upon the point and having evidence contradicting your position presented you choose not to respond to the evidence but to the challenge of whether your original arguement was rational by claiming that the citizens of the US are not smart enough to understand the matter pretty much stakes out your turf on the extreme Right edge. You want additional examples...Barak Obama is a 'house negro', anyone who calls GW opponents "GW deniers" are extreme...these all come straight from the extreme right's talking points, FrontPage, Little Green Footballs, etc. Have you ever read a book opposing your own position? Your rhetoric doesn't reflect it...Fascists are made/not born. Their own hand in the process is hubris and laziness. You may 'like liberals and conservatives equally' (not at all?) but the stuff you write in the blog isn't equal and it isn't conservative, and you have damn sure never respectfully discussed 'issues without degrading to ad hominem attacks'. There is absolutely nothing to suggest you respect any position other than your own.

comment #41

SpinDozer says ...

'On a website where I'm read a bunch of inane shit, that may be the most - well, extreme.'

Don't ever read you own posts dude.

Don't read about Plato's Cave either. You will definately not like that.

comment #42

rocco says ...

Re: social security, you supplied my answer on your own...Dem's campaigned against privatization while Republicans failed to pursue...hell, even if they stepped back and decided it needs more tinkering, they still are proponents of the most viable ss model...that might make them weak blowhards, sure, but not opponents...that you can't understand the distinction is not my burden...

I never called Obama a house negro (good memory, btw), I openly wondered if someone who is in the fight for his life against prejudice should act in such a stereotypical, apologetic, meek way...Giuliani, similarly, by virtue of his name ending in a vowel, will inevitably be questioned about organized crime ties...and if he answered questions "fuggedaboudit," would it not be kosher to wonder why he was openly inviting parallels to mafiosos?? Don't be so sensitive or manipulative...

...and yes, herd mentality in trampling and stifling any opposition to mainstream thinking is extreme...calling GW opponents "deniers" IS extreme and incendiary, as it suggests a denial of FACT, but a near-certainty does not a fact make...I think I was pretty objective in my discussion about our response to global warming, that you keep trying to spin my viewpoints as extreme is just characterless.

Most amusing is that you continue to attempt to extract some personal defense of my qualifications to discuss social security...what an endless circle jerk this will become...ho hum...

comment #43

SpinDozer says ...

that you can't understand the distinction is not my burden...

Nice try, "Democrats Blocked" not *tried* to block

'I never called Obama a house negro'

A Lie. Tho You did try to weasil around by saying 'no offence' then dropping that dookie. Only sensitivety involved is common sense and decency, you have neither.

'calling GW opponents "deniers" IS extreme and incendiary'

Sounds like *you* might have an over-sensitivity problem. Certain segments of the public oppose GW or man's contribution, however, they seem to be unable to articulate either a reasonable objection or even a plausible alternative explanation, hence the are rightfully considered deniers.

'keep trying to spin my viewpoints as extreme'

It's hard work when I spin by giving you back direct quotes...

'continue to attempt to extract some personal defense of my qualifications to discuss social security'

Don't give a fuck about your supposed qualifications to discuss SS, thought you were an award winning scientist, you an economist too? Win big fancy awards for that as well?

If you care to read, I question the bogus charge you made ...Democrats *blocking* a shining example of irrational behavior...then I repeated your obfuscation of an easy to understand arguement back to you as evidence of less than good faith argumentation. I could do the same with your last response but remedial lessons are extra and you have exhausted all the complimentary lessons due.

'what an endless circle jerk this will become'

As far as your non-troll pass-times, I will let you decide when you are satisfied.

comment #44

rocco says ...

ZZZZZZzzzzzzz....

comment #45

rocco says ...

I was intrigued by one thing you said...alluding to me being a troll...so I searched your comments...you do realize this is primarily a movie-related website, no?? All you do is stir up emotive political mularky and attack "the right"...you can't deny...so who's the troll? I come here and talk about movies, music, and other pop-minutia, and occasionally I'll engage in a political debate...you? you're name couldn't be anymore appropriate...all you do is plow forward spinning and bullshitting, rarely, if ever, adding anything constructive about movies...always on the prowl, always on the attack...so I ask you, who fits the definition of troll? Why come here of all places to engage in such discussions? Clearly, you are Michael Jordan playing in a schoolyard, one would think a mind like yours would thirst for more of a challenge.

comment #46

rocco says ...

and before you pounce my petty friend..."your name" not "you're name"...

comment #47

christian says ...

okay, okay, break it up. 300 is about to open...

comment #48

SpinDozer says ...

"you do realize this is primarily a movie-related website, no?? All you do is stir up emotive political mularky and attack "the right"...you can't deny..."

If you were Clemenza, I could probably drum up a little respect. As it happens, you are not. You do have one thing right, this is "primarily a movie-related website". And I do come to the blog mainly to read about movies. Occassionally, the blogger brings up a subject which some consider to be related to political matters. Occassionally, the blogger brings up a subject matter which is overtly political. Its his blog, he expresses his POV. The expression of this opinion has a guaranteed stimulus-response effect on a certain demographic and they feel compelled to post. This demographic's posts are not thought-provoking intelligent rebuttals or even positioned as polite or considerate disagreements, they are the regurgitated Shit of 10,000 rightwing talking points stated unequivocally as FACT that bombard sane people 24-7 from all manner of media. Those of us that come to the site as lurkers to read about movies occassionally feel compelled to tell the idiots off. You are permitted to post the lunatic fringe mantras and I am allowed to bitch about it as long as I see fit. I do not (maybe one exception) 'stir up emotive political mularky', instead, I leave that to the Wingnut Assholes who generally foist their stupidity within two nanoseconds of Jeff's Blog entry. Quit sucking your thumb and bring some game or shut up.

comment #49

rocco says ...

"most righties AND lefties argue emotionally and emotively, not emperically..."

"...my point is, this bickering is really all very silly..."

"...you might have different tastes, but all your shit comes out the same color...and THAT's a fact."

Yeah, sounds like right-wing regurgitation to me...you sad, sorry little man...you spun it into a right-left debate, of course, so congrats...

...let me guess...mommy got knocked up by a radical in the sixties, left daddy for a republican sugardaddy who touched you...ah yes, it all makes sense...

...the only thing you've succeeded in is dragging me down to the mud with you.

And again, a kiss off...very original...very mature...love it...love it...

To quote 'Vincent Gambini'..."I'm done wit dis guy"...