Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Truthout.org!!!!! You must be a professional comedian.Originally posted by: Stoneburner
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/071705X.shtml
These people have as much credibility as a 5 year old. This is the site that said Rove had been indicted. And then refused to back down from that story even when Rove had been cleared by Fitz.
May 13 Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators
May 19 The Rove Indictment Story as of Right NowDuring the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 business hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning.
I don't think they ever admitted that their story was total BS.The time has now come, however, to issue a partial apology to our readership for this story. While we paid very careful attention to the sourcing on this story, we erred in getting too far out in front of the news-cycle. In moving as quickly as we did, we caused more confusion than clarity. And that was a disservice to our readership and we regret it.
It?s like Dan Rather ?yea the documents were fake, but they said what he would have said so the story is true.?
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
GENX87, Armitage was A leaker, and THE leaker who spoked to novak the first time. The second one was Rove. LIbby and Rove were leaking to various journalists. If you read the indictment the picture you get is that Cheney was the one running this campaign against Joe Wilson.
Mr. Armitage did not return calls for comment. But the lawyer and other associates of Mr. Armitage have said he has confirmed that he was the initial and primary source for the columnist, Robert D. Novak, whose column of July 14, 2003, identified Valerie Wilson as a Central Intelligence Agency officer.
The identification of Mr. Armitage as the original leaker to Mr. Novak ends what has been a tantalizing mystery.
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Truthout.org!!!!! You must be a professional comedian.Originally posted by: Stoneburner
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/071705X.shtml
These people have as much credibility as a 5 year old. This is the site that said Rove had been indicted. And then refused to back down from that story even when Rove had been cleared by Fitz.
May 13 Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators
May 19 The Rove Indictment Story as of Right NowDuring the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 business hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning.
I don't think they ever admitted that their story was total BS.The time has now come, however, to issue a partial apology to our readership for this story. While we paid very careful attention to the sourcing on this story, we erred in getting too far out in front of the news-cycle. In moving as quickly as we did, we caused more confusion than clarity. And that was a disservice to our readership and we regret it.
It?s like Dan Rather ?yea the documents were fake, but they said what he would have said so the story is true.?
Frederick J. Ryan Jr., former Assistant to U.S. President Ronald Reagan[2], and currently chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Foundation, is president and CEO of The Politico.[3]
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
GENX87, Armitage was A leaker, and THE leaker who spoked to novak the first time. The second one was Rove. LIbby and Rove were leaking to various journalists. If you read the indictment the picture you get is that Cheney was the one running this campaign against Joe Wilson.
Give me a break, we have been over this a million times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08...er=rssuserland&emc=rss
Mr. Armitage did not return calls for comment. But the lawyer and other associates of Mr. Armitage have said he has confirmed that he was the initial and primary source for the columnist, Robert D. Novak, whose column of July 14, 2003, identified Valerie Wilson as a Central Intelligence Agency officer.
The identification of Mr. Armitage as the original leaker to Mr. Novak ends what has been a tantalizing mystery.
This is such a non-story it really paints you douchebags on the left in a worse light than you are typically painted.
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Truthout.org!!!!! You must be a professional comedian.Originally posted by: Stoneburner
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/071705X.shtml
These people have as much credibility as a 5 year old. This is the site that said Rove had been indicted. And then refused to back down from that story even when Rove had been cleared by Fitz.
May 13 Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators
May 19 The Rove Indictment Story as of Right NowDuring the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 business hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning.
I don't think they ever admitted that their story was total BS.The time has now come, however, to issue a partial apology to our readership for this story. While we paid very careful attention to the sourcing on this story, we erred in getting too far out in front of the news-cycle. In moving as quickly as we did, we caused more confusion than clarity. And that was a disservice to our readership and we regret it.
It?s like Dan Rather ?yea the documents were fake, but they said what he would have said so the story is true.?
Of course, citing Politico.com isn't much better considering the roots of those editors; Wiki:
Frederick J. Ryan Jr., former Assistant to U.S. President Ronald Reagan[2], and currently chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Foundation, is president and CEO of The Politico.[3]
umm what the hell are you talking about?Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Of course, citing Politico.com isn't much better considering the roots of those editors; Wiki:Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Truthout.org!!!!! You must be a professional comedian.Originally posted by: Stoneburner
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/071705X.shtml
These people have as much credibility as a 5 year old. This is the site that said Rove had been indicted. And then refused to back down from that story even when Rove had been cleared by Fitz.
May 13 Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators
May 19 The Rove Indictment Story as of Right NowDuring the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 business hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning.
I don't think they ever admitted that their story was total BS.The time has now come, however, to issue a partial apology to our readership for this story. While we paid very careful attention to the sourcing on this story, we erred in getting too far out in front of the news-cycle. In moving as quickly as we did, we caused more confusion than clarity. And that was a disservice to our readership and we regret it.
It?s like Dan Rather ?yea the documents were fake, but they said what he would have said so the story is true.?
Frederick J. Ryan Jr., former Assistant to U.S. President Ronald Reagan[2], and currently chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Foundation, is president and CEO of The Politico.[3]
And you?re so steeped in leftist BS that you didn?t even realize that Truthout is one of the worse sources on the net.Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Truthout.org!!!!! You must be a professional comedian.Originally posted by: Stoneburner
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/071705X.shtml
These people have as much credibility as a 5 year old. This is the site that said Rove had been indicted. And then refused to back down from that story even when Rove had been cleared by Fitz.
May 13 Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators
May 19 The Rove Indictment Story as of Right NowDuring the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 business hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning.
I don't think they ever admitted that their story was total BS.The time has now come, however, to issue a partial apology to our readership for this story. While we paid very careful attention to the sourcing on this story, we erred in getting too far out in front of the news-cycle. In moving as quickly as we did, we caused more confusion than clarity. And that was a disservice to our readership and we regret it.
It?s like Dan Rather ?yea the documents were fake, but they said what he would have said so the story is true.?
Of course, citing Politico.com isn't much better considering the roots of those editors; Wiki:
Frederick J. Ryan Jr., former Assistant to U.S. President Ronald Reagan[2], and currently chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Foundation, is president and CEO of The Politico.[3]
The problem is, that was something Mathew Cooper wrote for time. I just used whatever link Google came up with first. So profjohn and genx87 just revealed they are dumber than previously thought humanly possible.
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Originally posted by: Genx87
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
GENX87, Armitage was A leaker, and THE leaker who spoked to novak the first time. The second one was Rove. LIbby and Rove were leaking to various journalists. If you read the indictment the picture you get is that Cheney was the one running this campaign against Joe Wilson.
Give me a break, we have been over this a million times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08...er=rssuserland&emc=rss
Mr. Armitage did not return calls for comment. But the lawyer and other associates of Mr. Armitage have said he has confirmed that he was the initial and primary source for the columnist, Robert D. Novak, whose column of July 14, 2003, identified Valerie Wilson as a Central Intelligence Agency officer.
The identification of Mr. Armitage as the original leaker to Mr. Novak ends what has been a tantalizing mystery.
This is such a non-story it really paints you douchebags on the left in a worse light than you are typically painted.
No, a douchebag is somebody who says "
Yeah, anybody who uses truthout.org has zero credibility.
lmao '
A douchebag is also somebody who keeps running around in circles. Did you know Novak spoke with Rove? Did you know Libby spoke to Judith Miller? Did you know Libby lied about this entire mess? Did you know Rove was near an indictment himself? Did you know Libby was convicted? Did you know Libby found the need to lie to cover up a "non story" ?
Of course not, you don't actually bother reading anything, you just come to a conclusion based on what political identity your friends and family threw on you all those years ago when you weren't a complete douchebag.
Yeah, anybody who uses truthout.org has zero credibility.
lmao '
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I suggest that in the future when looking to quote someone or something you look for a neutral or at least reliable web site.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
http://www.antimedia.us/posts/1089562369.shtmlOriginally posted by: Tab
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Great. So that means Joe Wilson is a lying scumbag and a traitor even though he was not convicted of such a crime or even brought to trial. Someone merely has to deem it so and, poof, it's automatically true.Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: Tab
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Not enough evidence to convict != innocent of alleged crime. Just because you are able to get away with something doesn't mean you still didn't do it.
Maybe that is your biggest problem, you don't understand simple logic/concepts. Which kinda baffles me because you seem to love GW and it doesn't get much simpler than that.
Excuse me? I think it's you who doesn't under stand the simple logic of innocent until proven guilty.
This thread is going nowhere.
So, if you commit a murder but are not prosecuted for it....that means that you didn't commit murder?
I guess expecting people to understand that innocent is not just a legal term but a term that relates to whether a person performed a certain act is too much for me to do.
in·no·cent (in'?-s?nt) pronunciation
adj.
1. Uncorrupted by evil, malice, or wrongdoing; sinless: an innocent child.
Cool how that works. Saves the trouble of dealing with all that messy judicial stuff.
He lied about what exactly? Link?
Incredibly, the former ambassador's wife's involvement was even deeper than has been reported. Section (U) reads:
On February 19,2002, CPD hosted a meeting with the former ambassador, intelligence analysts from both the CIA and INR, and several individuals from DO's Africa and CPD divisions. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the merits of the former ambassador traveling to Niger. An INR anaylst's notes indicate that the meeting was 'apparently convened by [the former ambassador's] wife who had the idea to dispatch [him] to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue.' The former ambassador's wife told Commmittee staff that she only attended the meeting to introduce her husband and left after about three minutes.
At least we now know that Wilson clearly lied about his wife's involvement. In his book, pompously (and ironically) titled "The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity: A Diplomat's Memoir", he states, "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter" and "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." My goodness. What we have here is an outright contradiction of his previous assertions, in writing, by the ambassador himself. Here's what Wilson told Time in 2003 when asked of his wife's involvement - "That is bulls__t. That is absolutely not the case." I suppose he felt the truth would never come out, but now that it has, he has resorted to a Clintonian parsing of words, saying of her memo suggesting him for the trip, "I don't see it as a recommendation to send me." Really Joseph? Well normal people certainly will. And they will now see you as an opportunistic liar.
Craig234 may not comprehend the above because, afaik, the crayon font is not available in this forum.
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
I suggest that in the future when looking to quote someone or something you look for a neutral or at least reliable web site.
Next it'll be DailyKookS, C&L, Bluffington, or DU.
When it comes to reliable, objective sources - the lefties got it down.
Originally posted by: Tab
So, then Wilson's wife sent him on a mission that was a wild goose chase?
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
umm what the hell are you talking about?Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
Of course, citing Politico.com isn't much better considering the roots of those editors; Wiki:Originally posted by: ProfJohn
Truthout.org!!!!! You must be a professional comedian.Originally posted by: Stoneburner
http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/071705X.shtml
These people have as much credibility as a 5 year old. This is the site that said Rove had been indicted. And then refused to back down from that story even when Rove had been cleared by Fitz.
May 13 Karl Rove Indicted on Charges of Perjury, Lying to Investigators
May 19 The Rove Indictment Story as of Right NowDuring the course of that meeting, Fitzgerald served attorneys for former Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove with an indictment charging the embattled White House official with perjury and lying to investigators related to his role in the CIA leak case, and instructed one of the attorneys to tell Rove that he has 24 business hours to get his affairs in order, high level sources with direct knowledge of the meeting said Saturday morning.
I don't think they ever admitted that their story was total BS.The time has now come, however, to issue a partial apology to our readership for this story. While we paid very careful attention to the sourcing on this story, we erred in getting too far out in front of the news-cycle. In moving as quickly as we did, we caused more confusion than clarity. And that was a disservice to our readership and we regret it.
It?s like Dan Rather ?yea the documents were fake, but they said what he would have said so the story is true.?
Frederick J. Ryan Jr., former Assistant to U.S. President Ronald Reagan[2], and currently chairman of the Board of Trustees of the Ronald Reagan Presidential Library Foundation, is president and CEO of The Politico.[3]
Where did I cite Politico.com? I don't think I have even been to that website.
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Tab
So, then Wilson's wife sent him on a mission that was a wild goose chase?
Yep. And she lied about it too.
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Tab
So, then Wilson's wife sent him on a mission that was a wild goose chase?
Yep. And she lied about it too.
ahhhh now I see. I got there via Drudge. Most of my threads are based on stories fund on Drudge.Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
You haven't visited a web site you cited by name 2 weeks ago?
And have quoted in other threads?
And used as a source for your very own thread?
Your memory is as bad as Libby's.
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
ahhhh now I see. I got there via Drudge. Most of my threads are based on stories fund on Drudge.Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
You haven't visited a web site you cited by name 2 weeks ago?
And have quoted in other threads?
And used as a source for your very own thread?
Your memory is as bad as Libby's.
I do not go to that web site on my own and would have never been there had it not been for the Drudge link.
Even with that I don't think you can compare the Politico to Truthout.org.
Truthout is a far left web site.
The Politico is a political journalism organization run by former Washington Post reporters.
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
ahhhh now I see. I got there via Drudge. Most of my threads are based on stories fund on Drudge.Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
You haven't visited a web site you cited by name 2 weeks ago?
And have quoted in other threads?
And used as a source for your very own thread?
Your memory is as bad as Libby's.
I do not go to that web site on my own and would have never been there had it not been for the Drudge link.
Even with that I don't think you can compare the Politico to Truthout.org.
Truthout is a far left web site.
The Politico is a political journalism organization run by former Washington Post reporters.
I got to truthout from GOOGLE. That Truthout article was actually a TIME ARTICLE.
Problem is, you directly reference politico in one of those threads.
ANother problem is, you still utterly fukked up by claiming truthout was the SOURCE. See, the true source for your crap was POLITICO. The true source for the cooper article was COOPER. So just how confused and/or hypocritical are you?
Wilson lied about his wife's involvement.Originally posted by: Tab
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
http://www.antimedia.us/posts/1089562369.shtmlOriginally posted by: Tab
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Great. So that means Joe Wilson is a lying scumbag and a traitor even though he was not convicted of such a crime or even brought to trial. Someone merely has to deem it so and, poof, it's automatically true.Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: Tab
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Not enough evidence to convict != innocent of alleged crime. Just because you are able to get away with something doesn't mean you still didn't do it.
Maybe that is your biggest problem, you don't understand simple logic/concepts. Which kinda baffles me because you seem to love GW and it doesn't get much simpler than that.
Excuse me? I think it's you who doesn't under stand the simple logic of innocent until proven guilty.
This thread is going nowhere.
So, if you commit a murder but are not prosecuted for it....that means that you didn't commit murder?
I guess expecting people to understand that innocent is not just a legal term but a term that relates to whether a person performed a certain act is too much for me to do.
in·no·cent (in'?-s?nt) pronunciation
adj.
1. Uncorrupted by evil, malice, or wrongdoing; sinless: an innocent child.
Cool how that works. Saves the trouble of dealing with all that messy judicial stuff.
He lied about what exactly? Link?
Incredibly, the former ambassador's wife's involvement was even deeper than has been reported. Section (U) reads:
On February 19,2002, CPD hosted a meeting with the former ambassador, intelligence analysts from both the CIA and INR, and several individuals from DO's Africa and CPD divisions. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the merits of the former ambassador traveling to Niger. An INR anaylst's notes indicate that the meeting was 'apparently convened by [the former ambassador's] wife who had the idea to dispatch [him] to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue.' The former ambassador's wife told Commmittee staff that she only attended the meeting to introduce her husband and left after about three minutes.
At least we now know that Wilson clearly lied about his wife's involvement. In his book, pompously (and ironically) titled "The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity: A Diplomat's Memoir", he states, "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter" and "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." My goodness. What we have here is an outright contradiction of his previous assertions, in writing, by the ambassador himself. Here's what Wilson told Time in 2003 when asked of his wife's involvement - "That is bulls__t. That is absolutely not the case." I suppose he felt the truth would never come out, but now that it has, he has resorted to a Clintonian parsing of words, saying of her memo suggesting him for the trip, "I don't see it as a recommendation to send me." Really Joseph? Well normal people certainly will. And they will now see you as an opportunistic liar.
Craig234 may not comprehend the above because, afaik, the crayon font is not available in this forum.
So, then Wilson's wife sent him on a mission that was a wild goose chase?
I don't understand how Wilson is a traitor by any means. Care to explain?
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Wilson lied about his wife's involvement.Originally posted by: Tab
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
http://www.antimedia.us/posts/1089562369.shtmlOriginally posted by: Tab
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Great. So that means Joe Wilson is a lying scumbag and a traitor even though he was not convicted of such a crime or even brought to trial. Someone merely has to deem it so and, poof, it's automatically true.Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Originally posted by: Tab
Originally posted by: RightIsWrong
Not enough evidence to convict != innocent of alleged crime. Just because you are able to get away with something doesn't mean you still didn't do it.
Maybe that is your biggest problem, you don't understand simple logic/concepts. Which kinda baffles me because you seem to love GW and it doesn't get much simpler than that.
Excuse me? I think it's you who doesn't under stand the simple logic of innocent until proven guilty.
This thread is going nowhere.
So, if you commit a murder but are not prosecuted for it....that means that you didn't commit murder?
I guess expecting people to understand that innocent is not just a legal term but a term that relates to whether a person performed a certain act is too much for me to do.
in·no·cent (in'?-s?nt) pronunciation
adj.
1. Uncorrupted by evil, malice, or wrongdoing; sinless: an innocent child.
Cool how that works. Saves the trouble of dealing with all that messy judicial stuff.
He lied about what exactly? Link?
Incredibly, the former ambassador's wife's involvement was even deeper than has been reported. Section (U) reads:
On February 19,2002, CPD hosted a meeting with the former ambassador, intelligence analysts from both the CIA and INR, and several individuals from DO's Africa and CPD divisions. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the merits of the former ambassador traveling to Niger. An INR anaylst's notes indicate that the meeting was 'apparently convened by [the former ambassador's] wife who had the idea to dispatch [him] to use his contacts to sort out the Iraq-Niger uranium issue.' The former ambassador's wife told Commmittee staff that she only attended the meeting to introduce her husband and left after about three minutes.
At least we now know that Wilson clearly lied about his wife's involvement. In his book, pompously (and ironically) titled "The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity: A Diplomat's Memoir", he states, "Valerie had nothing to do with the matter" and "She definitely had not proposed that I make the trip." My goodness. What we have here is an outright contradiction of his previous assertions, in writing, by the ambassador himself. Here's what Wilson told Time in 2003 when asked of his wife's involvement - "That is bulls__t. That is absolutely not the case." I suppose he felt the truth would never come out, but now that it has, he has resorted to a Clintonian parsing of words, saying of her memo suggesting him for the trip, "I don't see it as a recommendation to send me." Really Joseph? Well normal people certainly will. And they will now see you as an opportunistic liar.
Craig234 may not comprehend the above because, afaik, the crayon font is not available in this forum.
So, then Wilson's wife sent him on a mission that was a wild goose chase?
I don't understand how Wilson is a traitor by any means. Care to explain?
His traitorous actions came later, including being the first person to divulge that Valerie Plame was covert. Nobody even knew that fact until Wilson spilled the beans to David Corn two days after the Novak article.
Originally posted by: JD50
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
ahhhh now I see. I got there via Drudge. Most of my threads are based on stories fund on Drudge.Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
You haven't visited a web site you cited by name 2 weeks ago?
And have quoted in other threads?
And used as a source for your very own thread?
Your memory is as bad as Libby's.
I do not go to that web site on my own and would have never been there had it not been for the Drudge link.
Even with that I don't think you can compare the Politico to Truthout.org.
Truthout is a far left web site.
The Politico is a political journalism organization run by former Washington Post reporters.
I got to truthout from GOOGLE. That Truthout article was actually a TIME ARTICLE.
Problem is, you directly reference politico in one of those threads.
ANother problem is, you still utterly fukked up by claiming truthout was the SOURCE. See, the true source for your crap was POLITICO. The true source for the cooper article was COOPER. So just how confused and/or hypocritical are you?
Listen, no one gives a shit where you got truthout from, just like no one gives a shit where ProfJohn got Politico from. In case you haven't noticed, anytime someone posts a link from either a far left or a far right website, radio show, newspaper, etc.. they get called on it, and no one pays attention to their point. This is probably why most of the liberals here discount everything that PJ posts and stalk him from thread to thread with constant personal attacks. And he doesn't even get that much from right wing sources, he just continually posts Republican talking points, or conservative view points.
Now, if you want to be the PJ of the left (meaning that no one on the other side is going to listen to a thing that you say), then keep on posting stuff from left wing sources and just stick to your Democratic talking points, you'll find good company with Techs, Senseamp, Craig, etc... Or, just don't post crap from far left sources and lay off the talking points.
Originally posted by: ProfJohn
ahhhh now I see. I got there via Drudge. Most of my threads are based on stories fund on Drudge.Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
You haven't visited a web site you cited by name 2 weeks ago?
And have quoted in other threads?
And used as a source for your very own thread?
Your memory is as bad as Libby's.
I do not go to that web site on my own and would have never been there had it not been for the Drudge link.
Even with that I don't think you can compare the Politico to Truthout.org.
Truthout is a far left web site.
The Politico is a political journalism organization run by former Washington Post reporters.