it hasnt been said enough.

what do you guys feel about clinton's impeachement now? or do you not see the irony.

3/9/2007 10:58:08 PM

Quote :

"what do you guys feel about clinton's impeachement now? or do you not see the irony."

I feel the same, and no, I don't see "the irony."

3/9/2007 11:27:21 PM

the "overreaching investigation" isnt at all amusing to you?

3/9/2007 11:39:29 PM

^Like with Waco and Janet Reno?

3/10/2007 11:17:28 PM

no

3/10/2007 11:48:42 PM

NEWSFLASH: HE WAS GUILTY OF PERJURY AND OBSTRUCTION, NOT LEAKING INFORMATION.

Ok, everyon'es forgetting that, and it's now off my chest.

This is just another case proving that it doesn't matter whether you're innocent or not - if you're charged, you're screwed.

3/11/2007 3:34:28 AM

Quote :

"All the invited guests on NPR today (The Diane Rehm Show) said that they would be very surprised if Libby does any time at all."

That's sad. Considering that Martha Stewart did her spell in "Camp Cupcake," it seems the latest victim of the unofficial second-hand-crimes unit ought to suffer.

Hell, at this rate, we may as well start a new government agency: the Department of Justice Justice. Its job will be to review all trials to see who can be charged with perjury or obstruction, regardless of the underlying issues.

Clearly, our oversight needs more oversight. And who will oversee the overseers? Well, that remains to be seen.

As for me, I prefer to think of the Fifth Amendment as a shining beacon. It is now clear that any form of testimony is liability, and therefore no public official should ever speak on his own behalf again. Corporate executives, high-ranking politicians, and such -- shut your mouths. If you don't speak, you can't lie. And if you can't lie, you can't be put through Hell or Camp Cupcake or both.

Let's all sit back and enjoy the chilling effect. I suspect a new era of icy-cold opacity is upon us.

3/11/2007 7:01:54 PM

An interesting point.

3/11/2007 8:35:41 PM

i thought lying was lying?

3/11/2007 8:39:45 PM

well, if you ain't talkin, you ain't lyin.

you can't argue with that logic.

3/11/2007 8:41:26 PM

Yeah, and Sandy "Burglar" ain't lyin'--because he ain't talkin'! He hasn't taken the lie detector test that was supposedly part of his plea bargain.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=NkdVC9gz_Iw

3/12/2007 12:21:42 AM

my god, the conservatives will never understand that the reason pointing out that there are liberal criminals as well doesn't make any difference is that liberals LOVE criminals!

[Edited on March 12, 2007 at 12:27 AM. Reason : .]

3/12/2007 12:26:22 AM

^ You still don't get it. Most of us are simply pointing out the difference in the level of media coverage between the two cases.

I don't care what anybody says, what Berger was convicted of was worse than Libby. And where was the outrage over the Berger case?

[Edited on March 12, 2007 at 12:32 AM. Reason : .]

3/12/2007 12:31:35 AM

where was the outrage? you are still pissed about it, no one else forgot about it.

and, a crime is a crime. they impeached a president for lying about sex, and you are pissed because a jury convicted a guy for lying about events that are nothing short of treason?

3/12/2007 12:34:32 AM

um, hooksaw, I answered you. liberals love criminals. look at clinton and that dude he had murdered, and ted kennedy, drunk murderer!

3/12/2007 12:35:49 AM

^ Um. . .okay. Your wording is more than a bit confusing, though.

Quote :

"my god, the conservatives will never understand that the reason pointing out that there are liberal criminals as well doesn't make any difference is that liberals LOVE criminals!"

3/12/2007 12:55:15 AM

look at clinton and that dude he had murdered

3/12/2007 9:33:54 PM

^ You brought that shit up--not me. I provided legit links--try addressing those.

3/12/2007 10:39:36 PM

Hooksaw, I'll address your links:

First of all, all you're doing is trying to divert attention from the fact that Libby was involved in compromising the identity of a covert CIA agent. whether she was currently active in the field is irrelevant. She was, up until the moment her name was leaked, a COVERT AGENT. Foreign intelligence will piece this previously unknown info into their web of agent networks and contacts, and will be able to fit more unknown pieces of puzzles together.

Top intelligence experts have testified that this very likely this has led to the exposure of other field agents or double-agents that Plame has worked with. American agents or friendly foreign agents and/or their families may very well have been put in mortal danger.

(for the record, i think Cheney should be facing the charges. Cheney threw him under the bus. But no worries, Libby will get pardoned by or before Jan 2009.)

Your rant about Sandy Berger is a red herring. there was nothing similar about the two events.

Berger took several copies of an "after-action" report regarding a supposed 1999 terrorist plot to disrupt millenium celebrations in New York. the plot never materialized, and there was never any real danger to anyone from that non-event.

He destroyed the duplicate copies of the report, while retaining the original. The National Archives retrieved everything (except the destroyed duplicates) from him after they realized what was missing.

SO NOTHING WAS LOST

and Berger himself had highest levels of clearance, and was legitimately researching the material in the first place as a service to the 9/11 commission.

SO NO SECRETS WERE COMPROMISED

associates of the commission testified that Berger's work involved tediously poring over mountains of papers all day long, and separating them to determine what was relevant and what was not. the after-report was especially lengthy, so Berger took it home with him to have more time to read it. (Yes, that's wrong. But not nefarious)

when Berger realized he had identical copies, he cut the *copies* up into bits with scissors. Which is a standard method to destroy top secret paperwork. (Yes, he didn't have authority to do that. And yes, he tried to lie about it at first. Wrong, but again, not nefarious).

So big fucking deal about Sandy Berger.

And by the way, he was charged in 2004. and pled guilty to reduced charges in 2005.

So tell me again, troll, how this is "Clinton's Fault" ?






[Edited on March 12, 2007 at 11:55 PM. Reason : ]

3/12/2007 11:45:35 PM

^ *Yawn*

3/12/2007 11:50:38 PM

just as I suspected.

3/13/2007 12:46:38 AM

^ What, you finally discovered that you're a boring loudmouth who convulsively spews his idiocy on an Internet forum often to the point of suspension? Good for you!

3/13/2007 9:15:32 AM

joe_schmoe defeats hooksaw yet again

3/13/2007 9:20:06 AM

^ You've lost your mind. I routinely own his ass.

3/13/2007 9:24:51 AM

Quote :

"hooksaw All American 2507 Posts user info edit post block user ^ *Yawn*"

When you replied this, you lost.

3/13/2007 9:27:43 AM

^When you woke up this morning, you lost

3/13/2007 9:28:17 AM

^^ What's the deal with the "block user" shit? I don't have block user--and if I did, I wouldn't use it.

What's the matter, State409c-shithead, can't handle it? I mean, it's almost time for you to get yourself suspended--again--isn't it?

V Answer the question, you bald-headed freak--and clearly, joe_schmuck is a bottom boy.



[Edited on March 13, 2007 at 10:01 AM. Reason : .]

3/13/2007 9:49:23 AM

I'm not sure what your point is? Were you agreeing that joe has made you his bitch over and over again lately?

What would your old lady think about you getting dominated over and over again by a bunch of kids on a message board?

3/13/2007 9:51:00 AM

I have a bald head

3/13/2007 9:51:17 AM

Quote :

"hooksaw: What, you finally discovered that you're a boring loudmouth blahblahblah"

at least im not a 40 year old lurch who types creepy things to 20 year old girls on a college message board in an attempt to look hip and sexy.

Quote :

"hooksaw, in response to crackmonkey : ^ I'll rise in firm support of your vagina. I'll bet it's like chocolate butter [no creepy]. PS: Sorry somebody posted that insult. "

/message_topic.aspx?topic=463246

you freak





[Edited on March 13, 2007 at 11:20 AM. Reason : ]

3/13/2007 11:15:00 AM

^ Yeah, YOU are a mid-thirties dumbass desperately seeking relevance. NEWSFLASH: Nobody gives a shit! And--if you don't have anything to hide--why not list your correct age in your user info as I do? YOU are the one who's being creepy by trying to hide things about yourself--Rob.

Concerning my alleged attempt to "look hip and sexy," I wouldn't even know how to begin that process. I am who I am--like it or piss off. I was just trying to be funny with crackmonkey--if she thought I was being "creepy," I didn't hear it from her. And guess what, asshole, plenty of those "20 year old girls" (sic) PM-ed me.

Would you like for me to post the apology that YOU PM-ed me after one of your previous e-rages? Grab the reigns, dude--and step off.

3/13/2007 10:55:18 PM

Quote :

"Do you think the other thousand people on this site want to read some personal shit between you and your buddy? - NO. Use mail instead."

site_postguide.aspx

3/13/2007 10:56:28 PM

^ Sounds good--just as soon as he stops trolling me, which is against the rules, too.

THIS JUST IN

Quote :

"From : crackmonkey To : hooksaw Received : Tuesday March 13, 2007 at 11:07 PM Subject : Re: Question no... I didn't think you were being creepy. I've learned not to take anyone on ttw seriously. I'm indifferent to most of the stuff on here. I view it as entertainment... joe_schmoe should lighten up...."

Quote :

"From : crackmonkey To : hooksaw Received : Tuesday March 13, 2007 at 11:11 PM Subject : Re: Question thanks... you can post my response if you want to...idc"

NOW SHUT THE FUCK UP, TROLLING BITCH!



hooksaw: FTW

joe_schmuck IS A ZERO







[Edited on March 13, 2007 at 11:18 PM. Reason : .]

3/13/2007 11:06:07 PM

hooksaw, how old are you, exactly??? jesus

3/13/2007 11:54:09 PM

^ Read my user info. You're above it all, right?

[Edited on March 14, 2007 at 12:01 AM. Reason : .]

3/13/2007 11:58:41 PM

no i just think you're kind of creepy

you're not the_tuck are you??

3/14/2007 12:04:45 AM

^ Who gives a shit what you think. MY user info is correct and I have one username.

Quote :

"Stay On-Topic - Try to stick with the topic. If you have something important to say that doesn't relate to the topic, then start a new topic. If you have something useless to say, keep it to yourself."

site_postguide.aspx



[Edited on March 14, 2007 at 12:24 AM. Reason : .]

3/14/2007 12:21:59 AM

oh, this is funny on so many levels. i cant look away from this. it's like driving by a car wreck on the freeway.

Quote :

"hooksaw: Would you like for me to post the apology that YOU PM-ed me after one of your previous e-rages? "

i couldn't remember what you were talking about, so had to look back in my PM's 9 months to find it.

and yeah, go on and post it all you want, it's fucking hilarious because it underscores my point here, that you're just a pathetically lecherous old creep.

in short, i had apologized for a post where I suggested that your supposed "24-year-old fiancee" must be emotionally damaged if she's with a creepy 40-year-old troll like yourself. (/message_topic.aspx?topic=419824&page=2#9025958)

i only apologized because i wanted to give you the benefit of the doubt, that you might be a decent guy. i've since realized my error.

so while you're shoving that previous apology up your ass, why don't you tell us some more about your "beautiful, hot, and super-smart" fiancee who, by your own admission, works to support your ass through grad school.

Tell us how she feels about you spending your free time posting to your online e-girlfriends about you "stand firm" for their "chocolate buttter pussy"

and yea, im sure you get plenty of PMs. that makes you a real winner, right. run along, and go nudge some more sophomore gals so you can add to your PM collection, you goony lurch.

3/14/2007 1:23:44 AM

joe_schmoe and hooksaw were arguing about the issue sorta.

Then joe_schmoe owns hooksaw. And hooksaw responds with a yawn and:

Quote :

"hooksaw: ^ What, you finally discovered that you're a boring loudmouth who convulsively spews his idiocy on an Internet forum often to the point of suspension? Good for you!"

And now they are arguing about who is a creepier loser.

WORST THREAD IN THE HISTORY OF THE SOAP BOX

3/14/2007 1:35:18 AM

i laffed out loud.

youre right.

thanks.

3/14/2007 2:02:26 AM

^^ Fuck you.

^ Fuck you thrice.

Neither of you has ever pwnt me. You obviously need to read the posts again.

joe_schmuck: That shit you did was creepy (insert more keyboard diarrhea).

crackmonkey: No it wasn't--joe_schmoe should lighten up.

Piss off--I'm done with you stupid fuckheads.

[Edited on March 14, 2007 at 12:38 PM. Reason : .]

3/14/2007 12:36:50 PM

http://www.charlotte.com/news/ap_news/story/147848.html

6/5/2007 12:25:17 PM

So what will come first, 30 months or a pardon?

6/5/2007 1:58:50 PM

asspounding

6/5/2007 2:11:28 PM

they ought to just put him up against the firing squad

6/5/2007 3:04:08 PM

Who ACTUALLY did the leaking?

Wasn't it Richard Armitage?

How come he isn't being indicted?

Scooter is just the fall guy for the admin. The Bush admin leaked Valerie's identity in revenge for her husband's insistence that the Niger report was wrong, and the Bush admin is getting off scot free.

This is the democracy, freedom, and human rights that Bush wants to spread?

6/5/2007 3:06:32 PM

Should have rolled on Cheney.

6/5/2007 3:06:48 PM

Quote :

"The Bush admin leaked Valerie's identity in revenge for her husband's insistence that the Niger report was wrong"

link?

6/5/2007 3:27:36 PM

I heard on NPR this morning, before I heard anything about the verdict, that he was going to try to seek no jail time while doing an appeal (something almost no one gets to do), and then they’d try to stretch out the appeal until Bush finishes his term so he could pardon with the least fall out & without any jail time ever being served.

6/5/2007 3:35:03 PM

has Bush pardoned anyone since he's been in office? I can't recall, just wondering

6/5/2007 3:54:57 PM