RI Bills Fan

Okay, so now you've got thousands of words to choose from, so please point out the ones that say anything other than these stories exist and the fact that someone was charged with a crime under the Official Secrets Act is the only thing that gives them any credibility. So, that quote wasn't a backhanded defense of FOX News? Okay, what was it then?

Yep, Good thing I've got a union job that pays me way more than I'm worth.

But calling it something other than a Christmas Tree does?

Chevy Silverado Pickup Truck complete with an "Easy Rider Rifle Rack"

Obviously taking what a source prints as gospel is the more dangerous of the two. And if you've read more than the title of this thread you also realize that I never presented anything printed in these stories a gospel, with the exception of the independantly corroborated fact that the leaker has been charged with a crime under the Official Secrets Act. In fact the only poster who seems to be throwing things out as facts without knowing what the heck he's talking about is that damm monkey. But of course you feel free to compare my commenting about the fact that these stories exist with your staunch defense of the fair and impartial nature of FOX News if it makes you feel good.

Got It! Big Bizness GOOD! Union BAD! Talking Points GOOD! Independant Thought BAD! CEO's w/Billion Dollar Salaries GOOD! Working Class People Making a Living Wage BAD! colin on ignore GOOD! 'Nuff Said!

Oh God, Like I needed that visual...

Bills 21 Panthers 3

1. We play much, much better at home and I imagine there are a few players seething about last weeks game and ready to take it out on today's opponent. 2. I expected the Bills to struggle this year while JPL learned the pro game. So I haven't completely given up on this team yet. 3. Carolina is nowhere near as good as some on this board are making them out to be. 4. I have to work today so I won't be able to watch the game, which means the Bills probably play their best game of the year.

That may be the best definition of AD's politics, or lack thereof (in his not so humble opinion) yet presented on this board. I would however question the twice part. It should be at least thrice.

Nope, those days are over, I'm strictly REMF now. That's why I'm willing pay higher taxes and support guys like you.

figures...

Just can't resist throwing in the talking points, can you? Yep, there prolly were some doozies about floozies in the conversations between Tony and Bill but because nobody has leaked them Yet (I'm sure Unka Karl has people searching the vaults) any and all speculation is moot at this point. And y'know what, I think my current employer is better than my previous employer too... But I'm kinda disapointed that protecting the american public is only second on your list of priorities, I figgered you for a Captain America, I may die BUT the liberals I give my life to protect will remember me with honor, type. oh BTW, Stalin was worse... far worse... BUT CONTAINED!

Wow, I think every anti-union talking point ever promulgated by the Republican Party and/or Wal-Mart has been hit at least twice in this thread. For Myself, I've worked for two non-union companies and one union company since retiring from the Navy. When I first retired I was staunchly anti-union. Now that I've lived through it (on both sides Hourly and Management) I hope I never have to work in a non-union environment again. But that's just me...

It's all just a ruse while he learns the immortal phrase, "Do you want fries with that?".

I don't drink beer but I've run a few tables in my time. If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck, it's usually a duck, despite any and all claims to be a swan. P.S. If the conversation is being recorded in any way shape or form it isn't private and off the record, so that "Joke" becomes, by default, stupid and irresponsible. You know that but your defend the party at all costs reflex will never let you admit it. Publicly and on the record, that is. But over a few cold drinks while shooting pool you might change your mind.

Yep, and As Usual you've changed your argument in mid-stream once again. Just three posts ago you were saying, and I quote: "1. Missing the point of the possibility of the briefing materials getting into the wrong hands, irregardless of who actually reads them at whatever level. The point of the process is to remove the minutia, and give the policy people some clearer information." Which Implies something quite different than what you are currently trying to pass off as your position. Oh and let not forget this classic, from a few post before that: "Could it be possible, if there is ANYTHING to this at all, that somebody leaked the info package/briefing slides that could have included "Blow the SOB Up" as a designed throw away option (to give perspective)? And, once a left wing sensationalist tabloid gets their hands on it, embellishment takes over? Perhaps the concern within the British government is not trying to "cover up" nefarious intentions of the governments in question, but the fact that a sensitive and classified decision briefing was compromised? This also periferally relates to "Sharing Information with Congress"." You can argue all of the exculpatory suppositions you want, (or all of the ones that show up on your daily briefing sheet) but you really do expose yourself when you try to argue the validity of two different suppositions at the same time. OBTW It could very well have been a "tongue in cheek" comment. But it's still a really stupid comment. Now are you going to try telling me I'm wrong about that also?

Yep, as usual, you've changed the perameters of the discussion to highlight something you inserted after the fact so that you can twist it in the wind and use it to obfuscate the original point. The newspaper articles reference a discussion between Bush and Blair. They don't mention any of the other horsehocky you've thrown up as a smokescreen. NO DECISION BRIEFS, NO POWERPOINT PRESENTATIONS, NO GRAPHICAL REPRESENTATIONS, NO STAFF MEETINGS, NO ANY OF THAT BUEROCRATIC COVERUP GARBAGE. What was leaked (apparently) were the staff notes of a conversation between Bush and Blair. Period. End of story. (Edited to add a quote from the origainal UK Mirror story, "...the five-page transcript of the two leaders' conversation..." which is the only description I know of, of what exactly was leaked) And the prosecution of the leaker under the Official Secrets Act is (in my mind) the only thing that gives this story any real credibility. That and the fact that some talking points on how to defend Bush in this case have apparently been distributed.

Blah, blah, blah, Yeah BiB, I've sat through plenty of "Brainstorming Sessions" too. A pile of crap gets thrown at the wall one handful at a time until 4 or 5 handfulls stick. Yep, you're right about that. But I'll bet large amounts of currancy that Bush and Blair don't consider those sessions worthwhile uses of their time. They discuss the results of those sessions. I doubt that throwaway ideas are included in the recomendations passed up to the "Decision Makers." But as I stated earlier, the only "Facts" that I know to be true are the facts that these stories are out there... But, You guys go ahead and keep setting up those strawmen so you can knock them down. As Usual!

And which facts would those be? As far as I know, the only facts presented in this thread are a follows: 1. A UK Newpaper is reporting that Bush proposed bombing Al Jaazeera and Tony Blair talked him out of the idea. (No Dispute posible, the story was published) 2. Another story in a different publication says that the Official Secrets Act might be used to prosecute the leakers of the document that supposedly details who said what when. (Again no dispute possible, the story was published) 3. A third story, in a third publication goes further and says that the leakers have been charged under the Offical Secrets Act. (Again nothing to dispute, the story was published) 4. I never said any of the things reported in those storie were true or false. I simply pointed out that the stories existed and waited for the responses. As usual you guys didn't let me down.

Tactic No 1, when the message cannot be challenged, destroy the messenger. You guys may not like who delivered the message but the basic facts are not in dispute.

Yep! But I'm also right. So that makes me a Rightous Prick! (who can't spell fer shiiiitttee)

So now we've gone from "Congress had the same intel and agreed with us", to "Congress had the intel they were cleared to have, but it was enough, and they agreed with us," to "Congres had something, except they were too stupid to understand what it was, but they agreed with us anyway." Did I miss anything?

Interesting...

It just keeps getting better and better... More...