Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  > The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter      Home login  
Joined: 3/21/2004
Msg: 76
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matterPage 4 of 14    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
They don't NEED to ask; they just TOOK it apparently!!!

(social security n

That's what the Americans are saying anyways.
Joined: 3/8/2004
Msg: 77
view profile
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/18/2005 2:33:28 PM
Don't like 99.9% of all christians believe in providence? That god has put them in a situation, not that they are wandering aimlessly throughout their life? If you believe in God, then isn't it reasonable to assume that God DID pick Bush to be Prez, or he wouldn't be there in the first place?

I have faith in God's ability to pick someone to get his message across a lot more clearly, not to mention eloquently. Based on the 10,000 Bushism's so far in this Administration, that doesn't seem to be the case. All his previous choices ( at least the ones that made it to the point of being quoted), did a far better job of that.

It's not the fact of believing in God, and his power I am going after. Many President's have had faith in God, and his plan. It's just being his personal choice that I find troubling.

As to defending McCarthy - wow ! I guess we really are in trouble. Even the extreme Right used to be ashamed to be associated with that sleazeball. I guess they will be building a statue soon on Capitol Hill, I can't wait.
Joined: 7/18/2005
Msg: 78
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/18/2005 3:24:52 PM
This was started as the exculpatory facts and I think legal wizard has done a decent job of explaining those. Somehow it has degraded into another useless indictment of president Bush. President Bush has stated that if any law were broken, that person would be dealt with.

Even with evidence supported by legalwizard, Rove would be exculpated to the point that no grand jury - even a politically driven grand jury could find cause to indict. Once indicted, little or no chance of conviction for what reason? Maybe he's not guilty? Many of you would make damn fine jurors for your ability to decide guilt without hearing evidence. Anyone foolish enough to find evidence in the INTERNET of all places shouldn't be so stupid. Good grief! Even if you haven't read NY times vs Sullivan. (supreme court – 1964) Or you know that Justice Brennan may regret the phrasing at this point but he only held publications to”Absent Malice" requirements.

This is the only part of legalwizards arguments that break down. On page 3 where you claim:

Others have gone so far as to publicly ridicule me in a POF Forum posting as a 'fraud' which is not only untrue and damaging, is also even more defamatory and libelous.

I say that you are drawing a legal conclusion and posting other legal terms. Libel requires malice as well and I don't think there is any here. Just someone tying to win an argument on weak facts.

The real facts are that president Bush was legally elected Twice! The majority of Americans supported him when he initiated his efforts at this global war on terror. Congress supported him and so did the people. All this Monday morning quarterbacking because of the outcome is a luxury no leader has. To conclude the president or that Carl Rove is guilty without indictment or trial by the same people who scream about how other don’t follow the guidelines of the constitution is a pretty extreme double standard.

Did you have the same arguments when president Clinton lied directly to all of our faces and did face impeachment? Or are you feeling your Internet oats because the American people have voted the dems out of power? And while I’m venting, may I just say “GO Howie go!”
Joined: 7/18/2005
Msg: 79
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/18/2005 4:47:48 PM
And you got all this from the Internet no doubt. Lets’ see what felonious assumptions we can make. Blame it on his broken home. Objection - Relevance your honor? Objection - hearsay! Objection - assumes facts not in evidence! Objection - calls for legal conclusion! Hey look I can watch TV and say stuff too!

Why don't we execute without trial and judge without knowing the facts. He's well known by whom? The libs? And George Bush is a puppet - right? Incredible that when you have no power to push your agenda, you insist the other side is too stupid to understand the facts that it's all a big conspiracy.

Maybe you're assumptions and mud is just not being accepted anymore. try something else. Or better yet, keep up the mudslinging. Do a great favor for me and nominate Hillary. GO HOWIE GO!
Joined: 7/18/2005
Msg: 81
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/18/2005 6:14:32 PM
Republican's weren't whining about Clinton. They were pointing out that Clinton lied through his teeth. This isn't hearsay. I don't know if you have a television but I do and he lied to me! This isn't about What kind of "job" he was doing or getting. Its was about lying on national television to everyone and coming back later to say it's none or their business.

It was "inappropriate" was exactly what he said. You can't even describe what he was doing here without getting your post deleted and he referred to it as "inappropriate" ? now there's a euphemism for you. He was impeached for goodness sake. It that mudslinging too or was it for lying?

Keep whining about Rove and please nominate Hillary and Billary! I look forward to another 4 years.
Joined: 7/18/2005
Msg: 83
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/18/2005 6:47:43 PM
Apparently you don't consider lying under oath a crime. To other people like me, it's perjurious and therefore felonious.

I couldn't believe my ears either as that man sat there and told me - well yes I lied but it's not anyone's business anyway!

I don't care what kind of legal conclusion you make about anyone else without hearing ANY facts. But don't tell me about the constitution when you hold trial by public liberal media and internet chat for damn near everyone. I'm giving my own testimony about what I witnessed. You could be torn to shreds on cross as you have witnessed NOTHING!
Joined: 7/18/2005
Msg: 86
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/18/2005 7:48:41 PM
The eminent domain decision is outrageous and not the will of any republican I know. It is an extremely flawed decision in my opinion. The Bush - Gore proceedings were as public as any Supreme court case. Why don't you get out Rowe V wade again. Whatever the outcome, half the country is against it. Apparently you didn't like the outcome. Welcome to the court system. You act like you've never been in court. Don't blame this on Republicans or Ken Starr.

If you elect Hillary in '08, maybe she'll pick a nominee you like. Meanwhile, I guess the court's fate is not in your hands. ( you still have the 9th circuit ) don't even start on club Gitmo with me.

The thread is on exculpatory facts of the Rove case. If you have evidence of culpability, state them. Don't give me useless vague exhibits. Your argument is vapid at best. I don't care about Clintons sex life. I care that a president would lie to the faces of the american people. Most people would. Obviously many were able to forgive him. Some just referred to it as

It was so blatant a politicization of someone's private life.

I call it a felony. You just don't like that he got caught. Neither did he. Who woulda thought the ho would keep semen on her dress? Surprised ole Bubba with that one didn't she?
Joined: 5/2/2005
Msg: 87
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/18/2005 8:35:58 PM
Well, its time to correct the POF record once more, so that impressionable ones reading a posting wont take to heart something that just isnt so. The below posting is the one that is inaccurate on its face and should not be relied upon"

"Clinton's "Monica" scandal had nothing to do with Whitewater, which was the investigation taking place about which Clinton had to answer questions about Monica."

The Deposition that Clinton elected to perjure himself on was in regards to discovery in the civil suit filed by Paula Jones, a former State of Arkansas employee who alleged that she was propositioned by Governor Bill Clinton in a Little Rock Hotel, where according to the Paula Jones allegations, Bill Clinton dropped his trousers and exposed his male member while eloquting suggestive remarks in support of his acts of soliciting sexual favors from a state employee.

The Deposition that the Paula Jones attorneys wanted Bill Clinton to provide under oath was for the purpose of exploring whether Bill Clinton had a prior history of engaging in a pattern of requests for sexual favors from females in the workplace. That is why Monica's presidential blow jobs were germane to the underlying litigation, inasmuch as she was a White House Intern, that satisfied the manager/female underling relationship for a prima facia case of obtaining sexual favors from underlings which is the basis for all sexual harassment litigation.

Ken Starr's interest in the Depo centered on whether Bill Clinton lied under oath during his deposition, which is a federal offense. Bill Starr didn't instigate the Paula Jones litigation and did not direct her private attorneys in the prosecution of that civil suit.

As always, FACTS GOVERN LAW so the facts above referenced should sanitize the cloudy POF record that muddied the waters from the prior posting that ignored the relevant facts and circumstances and falsley attributed the Monica blow job Depo to having been instigated by Ken Starr in what the liberals see as an unfair federal "Witch Hunt" and what the conservatives see as an investigation into the Clinton's obviously "oily and slimey" public reputations.

Ken Starr got a host of criminal convictions as the Whitewater Special Prosecutor so his professional efforts made a material contribution to the administration of justice which efforts would have been impossible to do because such an investigation or attempts to obtain convictions of so many Friends of Bill would never have occurred if the inquiry were under the direction of Clinton's tamed "lap dog" Attorney General, Janet Reno.
Joined: 12/31/2004
Msg: 88
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/18/2005 10:01:20 PM
So, as long as a case ends up being thrown out, it's ok to lie under oath?
Joined: 2/19/2005
Msg: 89
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/18/2005 10:04:30 PM

just kidding.
Joined: 5/2/2005
Msg: 90
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/18/2005 10:11:58 PM
Anne Coulter is an honorable person. The fact that she is conservative does not negate her life's work nor does it refute her findings and conclusions of truth.
Joined: 2/19/2005
Msg: 91
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/18/2005 10:26:14 PM
You ever see her on crossfire? WHAT a riot! I think there's a pill for that.
Joined: 5/2/2005
Msg: 92
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/19/2005 6:52:40 AM
OK, fair enough, here is the TRUE answer about your question:

"Where were u throughout 1992-2000? What liberal media is telling you falsities? Open your eyes and surely you'll see the REAL source of lies."

A classic example of the lies and propaganda broadcast by the liberal mainstream news media was the Geraldo piece about the "stray bomb" incident in Afghanistan where he was filmed standing in front of bandaged children as he iterated the story of how an American stray bomb had caused havoc in the lives of the wounded children.

It wasnt until later that Geraldo was "outed" for being 300 miles away from the bona fide "stray bomb" location and that the kids in bandages were not bomb casualties but street urchins rounded up from another village to be videographed with bandages placed over nonexistant "wounds." This is not an honest tactic and is not fair and balanced reporting; it is filiming a lie and making antiwar propaganda, using prop "casualties" for the sole purpose of bringing the ugly side of a just war into the living room of the American TV audience. No credible person believes that the American armed forces intentionally targets dnd bombs innocent children but it is acknowledged that occasionally there is unintended consequences involving collateral damages in times of war. What Geraldo did was to introduce to American TV the axiom DO NOT BELIEVE WHAT YOU SEE because the liberal news media will stoop to staging falsehoods in order to provide a platform for their biased and unfair reporting techniques.

How about the American Newsman in Viet Nam who went with a Viet Cong detachment on one of their patrols and was told to be quiet, as they set up an ambush for American soldiers. The reporter dutifully gave no sound as an advance warning to the Americans who were butchered when walking into the trap. This reporter explifies the consideration that news personnel inbedded with American military units are little more than disloyal at best and perhaps even articulate leftist acting as broadcast media spies for the enemy, at worst.

During World War II, the battlefield correspondents did not attempt to interview the German soldiers in deferential broadcasts or try to "go behind the lines" with enemy soldiers on patrol. Such behavior was unthinkable for an American war correspondent to ever attempt. If a news radio or television network wants to broadcast the war as seen through the eyes of the enemy, then let the reporter who is "making nice" with the enemy be a neutral Swiss or some other nationality other than being a Citizen of the United States.

Another example was the directive given by ABC News President for American TV Reporters and Anchors to refrain from wearing an AMERICAN FLAG lapel pin, because the ABC News President did not want any of his employees to appear to favor the American side of any war story. The disgust and revoltion felt by loyal Americans for the personnel of people who make their living by broadcasting on US government owned frequencies when they openly announce that they have no intention of "favoring" America makes the average person "on the street" wonder why the US Government doesnt yank their network broadcasting license by reason of sedition?

I personally now favor a federal law authorizing the issuance of individual FCC licenses to broadcast personalities which would require that only US Citizens be licensed to intone news reports over US government-owned airwaves so that at least, Americans would not have to suffer the indignity of foreign broadcast journalists who owe no loyalty to America having their anti-American propaganda beamed into American living rooms in an ongoing attempt to shape public opinion and to politically destablize a duly elected American regime by destroying the confidence of the voters for their public officials. If a network wants to interview Taliban leaders or insurgent fighters, let them put film on the air that shows a British, French, or other foreign Reporter damn American policy or give a respectful interview to the military enemies of the United States because anyone owing personal loyalty to the USA as a matter of law should never attempt to "remain neutral" when American soldiers are fighting and dying in a Congressionally authorized use of force.

Another improvement I would like to see is the abolition of the talking heads round table of analysts where 3 or 4 liberals and 1 or 2 mock "conservative" news Analysts who let themselves be overwhelmed by the liberal spokesmen bombard our homes with anti-American rhetoric. I would much rather have official political representatives of the National Democratic Committee and also official political representatives of the National Republican Committee on the payroll of the broadcast networks with the avocation of participation on the broadcast debates of current events with the News Media Anchor representing the broadcast network being the neutral Moderator that has no stated affinity for either position, much like what we see during the broadcast Presidential debates.

I want the folks at home watching TV to see the subtitled labels appearing under each of the "talking heads" identifying the speaker as either a Democrat or Republican News Analyst as the designated envoy of his or her political party's National Committee to that broadcasting Network.

When we have the political loyalties of the news Analysts disclosed, we would enjoy access to hardball political analysis offered by Analysts whose political loyalties were openly announced and publicly identified, rather than suffering the dissemination of political propaganda disguised as slanted and biased news uttered from the lips of a reporter whose personal political loyalties are not openly announced and publicly identified. It is reforms such as this that is needed to clean up the problem of leftist intellectuals constantly attempting to cram their philosophies down the throats of the American TV or Radio broadcast general population.

The airwaves still belong to the people and a broadcast license does not grant "title" to those frequencies. Networks are the guests of the American people using our own nationally owned resources to broadcast information, not propaganda, into our living rooms.

For this reason alone, I have conferred with various US Senators and Congressmen about amending the FCC laws requiring individual broadcast personality licenses and also that network news lincenses should be issued by virtue of law exclusively to nonprofit organizations that while sponsored by taxable for-profit Network corporations, are as a News broadcasting unit, be required by law to be organized and operated exclusively under Sec. 501 (c) (3) of the Internal Revenue Code, as a TAX-EXEMPT organization broadcasing educational public broadcasts into American homes and automobiles. As a public charity, Uncle Sam and the States would not tax the News divisions of the networks under this proposal. In return, the broadcast news networks would become subject to existing federal laws PROHIBITING INFLUENCING LEGISLATION OR THE DISSEMINATION OF PROPAGANDA MAKING STATEMENTS IN SUPPORT OF, OR IN OPPOSITION TO, ANY CANDIDATE FOR PUBLIC OFFICE.

An Inspector General's office with oversight responsibilities for the broadcast news industry should have Directors that are politically opposed to each other, much like local election boards are organized with a Democrat Director and a Republican Director, who are charged by law to administer the fairness doctrines and federal law requirements. Due process hearings for persons who are alleged to have violated the broadcast rules would be held to suspend or revoke individual or personal broadcast licenses, or when a pattern of misconduct is seen, to suspend or revoke the broadcasting license of the entire network.

I have no tolerance for biased and unfair reporting and the stunts Geraldo pulled such as bandaging kids as actors to portray "stray bomb" casualties in a public news broadcast would result in charges of broadcasting lies, a cause for personal license suspension or revocation.

As a news consumer, I demand fair and unbiased reporting from the TV and Radio News Networks and an end to the propaganda mills attempting to influence elections and legislation. Accordingly, I am willing to forgive the taxes of broadcast networks in order to obtain fairness and balanced reporting.

I simply want the CBS (or any other network) News Anchor to turn to the official Envoys from the several political parties National Committees who are on that news network's payroll and ask, "How do you see this issue" as Americans see the subtitled political loyalties of the speaker publicly disclosed. We would see the Democratic spin and also the Republican spin, and then make up our minds on the merits of the issues having been given the opportunity to hear the articulate representatives of politically opposed speakers lay out the choices. Then we simply make up our own minds, without the news media network's corporate spin being placed on events making the news.

Another problem is events that do not make the news, because news broadcast networks have no intention of making an issue public if it embarrasses their corporate political loyalties.

Then there is non-news that is broadcast, such as each and every tick of the polling meter when the Presidents popularity takes a downturn, without a corresponding story being broadcast every time puplic opinion embraces the President and his popularity goes back up. This technique is bombarding bad news only, in an attempt to fix public opinion in an unfavorable light to the President and is a biased and unfair method of reporting news.

And I want most certainly want the political opposition to enjoy equal time to rebut the assertions made by the News Analyst from the other party.

The Network News people are there to provide an educational news program, not to persuade the people at home to adhere to any particular political agenda.

And thats the way I see the existing liberally biased news media and what reforms are necessary in order to clean up the "rat's nest" of how we presently use our publicly owned broadcast frequencies for political propaganda, false reporting, the suppression of politically favorable news, and the crafting of public opinion that follows these unfair broadcasting techniques.

And before some wild-eyed liberal starts ranting that I have no personal experience or training in broadcasting and therefore my findings and conclusions are unfounded, let me add that my personal experience includes a stint as the Floor Manager of a TV News program.

Joined: 12/31/2004
Msg: 93
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/19/2005 10:27:55 AM

i would say the same about her participation in the Paula Jones case. It was a case with no merit, paid for by the Republican party. It was absolutely a political witchunt which sought to hamstring the American president for personal indiscretions.

When you compare a man lying about his personal life in a case that was thrown out of court by the judge to those that would use a man's personal indiscretions to take down a successful president who presided over an excellent economy, I would say it makes the Republican party look infinitely worse than the President.

Especially when you consider that those who sat in judgement of the President like Henry Hyde (who admitted to having an affair and breaking up his mistress' marriage), Newt Gingrich (who was known to read his bible while waiting for his latest mistress to get off work), and Mary Bono who was shacking up with her boyfriend as soon as her husband got in the ground.

Again, you seem to be having trouble remembering this: Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, not for having an affair. Do you think it's ok to lie under oath? Is that what you're tying to convince people? If your mother/daughter/girlfriend was being sexually harassed, and sought justice in a court of law, would you support what Clinton did? I really don't think so. Try to remember why he was impeached, not bjs, but perjury.
Joined: 5/2/2005
Msg: 95
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/19/2005 11:26:29 AM
And the scurilous remarks posted against all Republicans by saritamiami have WHAT that is germane to the excupatory facts of the Karl Rove/CIA Agent matter?

This thread has disintegrated from an intellectual exercise that was to remain on topic to being a virulent "I hate Republicans" bashing of George W. Bush and all of his associates in a general all out attack of "guilt by association" and a diatribe of the partisans of the candidate that lost the presidential elections of 2000 and 2004 in a spleen venting harrangue that lacks focus and reason.

Which means that I have won the intellectual argument on the merits of the facts and the law.
Joined: 12/31/2004
Msg: 96
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/19/2005 11:43:51 AM
Why are you so anti-American?
Joined: 3/21/2004
Msg: 97
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/19/2005 5:12:34 PM
Ya know?

Carl Rove probably did the USA a favor you know. He blew the cover of a network in South America? Probably bst to have those countries feeliong

(especially given the more socialist of movements momentum down there now?) SO many countries were asking for the States to butt out and let the referendums and elections go untouched by them. mr. ROVE may.... have just....helped out.


It's Project Orange my friend. ( play)

Every faction's got it's moderates...or to speak.

Maybe the Bush Strategists chose their Administration well. Or maybe Carl Rove is just a genius man...who PURPOSELY screwed up....again. ;)

The man just may be brilliant. (international;s not a puney skill)

Was it South American operations too? (I must read thsi all again)

Because if SO; he MAY have saved her life!

Liem really, hje IS touted as the Bushco MASTERMIND...and MOST Masterminds I know are ALL ABOUT seolf BEST not to ALSO make SA mad at you with all that's happening!! (THOSE babies can FLY!!) (and their technology's getting HUGE!!) I KNOW..I STUDIED much of it!! (and sold into it too)

And if it WASNT South America...this whole post just blows goats.

Forget it...I'm a geek..and a nerd. (I thought there was a SA link)
Joined: 7/18/2005
Msg: 98
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/19/2005 5:24:41 PM
eriks^^ What an insightful analysis of the Rove case! Tell him he doesn't understand being unamerican. Tell him to play with army men. No wonder so many americans don't even bother to discuss it with you. Just keep voting your candidates down. Just keep electing right wingers. Now they control the congress the senate the white house and the courts.

I know they aren't as "informed" as you are about all the conspiracy and the evils of conservatism. Just keep pressing the same lame argument. Get air america to declare everything awful and just getting worse. It's worked so far hasn't it? NO? Why not?
Joined: 3/21/2004
Msg: 99
The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter
Posted: 7/19/2005 5:29:43 PM

PLease don't laugh at me.

Show ALL Forums  > Current Events  > The exculpatory facts of the Carl Rove/CIA Agent matter