NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/09/12/D8K3E7CO0.html

Attorneys for a man accused of fraud say he was charged at the behest of presidential adviser Karl Rove in retaliation for a flood of spam e-mails sent to a campaign Web site. A federal prosecutor says the claim is "absurd."

Assistant U.S. Attorney David M. Siegal urged U.S. District Judge Laura Taylor Swain on Monday to reject arguments that Rove caused the criminal investigation that led to charges against Robert McAllister.

Siegal said lawyers for McAllister made the "patently absurd argument that the U.S. attorney's office in the Southern District is a shill for Karl Rove and has arrested and indicted their client in some sort of vindictive retaliation."

McAllister's lawyer Gerald L. Shargel said Monday he plans to try to call Rove as a witness, if the court allows it.

Yeah, Karl Rove is behind everything, everywhere. He's out to get everyone. Better call him as a witness, so the world can see what Karl Rove does with his spare time.

Nah, Rove wouldn't waste his time with this guy. Rove only screws over people who matter.

Nah, Rove wouldn't waste his time with this guy. Rove only screws over people who matter.Oh shite... Rove has made you and others believe that now..?

Well Rove is amoral sooooo nah. The guy is just one vote so Rove wouldn't bother......

Why not? The Republicans get to fall back on "It's Clinton's fault!" so why shouldn't the Democrats get to blame Karl?

Why not? The Republicans get to fall back on "It's Clinton's fault!" so why shouldn't the Democrats get to blame Karl?

Clinton has committed many transgressions, many of which can be proved were related to his inadequacy (some despite him lying about them under oath). Rove has not committed a single mistake, nor has he lied to the American people. "It's Clinton's fault" has basis in fact, while "it's Rove's fault" solely has basis in envy.

Begoner21;11673111']Clinton has committed many transgressions, many of which can be proved were related to his inadequacy (some despite him lying about them under oath). Rove has not committed a single mistake, nor has he lied to the American people. "It's Clinton's fault" has basis in fact, while "it's Rove's fault" solely has basis in envy.


Hmmmm The Clinton defense. *Looks at Calendar* Oh yea we are getting close to elections.

Begoner21;11673111']Clinton has committed many transgressions, many of which can be proved were related to his inadequacy (some despite him lying about them under oath). Rove has not committed a single mistake, nor has he lied to the American people. "It's Clinton's fault" has basis in fact, while "it's Rove's fault" solely has basis in envy.

I'll grant you that Rove has not committed a single mistake (though I'm sure you meant something else) and that there is a little bit of envy (I wish the Democrats had someone as single-minded and amoral as Rove, or that they would at least have learned to steal an election by now).

Rove is the most amoral, and rotten of the Bush Horde.
The kind of man who would publicly defame one of his own party, in order to win the election for his employer.

The man has done so many dirty deeds, and put such a spin on anything, that im betting even he doesnt know the truth anymore.

This guy makes me absolutely sick, and I wonder if theres anmy depths that he wont go.
It wouldnt surprise me if this allegation has some merit to it.

Its the kind of thing Rove does.

Rove is...

Damn, I could have sworn that you were talking about Hillary Clinton.

Begoner21;11673368']Damn, I could have sworn that you were talking about Hillary Clinton.

You really are a walking stereotype.

Conservative Christian, possibly a Fundie, who hates anything Clinton, and cant let go the idea that even though he was a sexually motivated swine, he was a far better president than the one currently in office.

Youre really a bit of a joke.

You really are a walking stereotype.

Conservative Christian, possibly a Fundie, who hates anything Clinton, and cant let go the idea that even though he was a sexually motivated swine, he was a far better president than the one currently in office.

Youre really a bit of a joke.

Easy, lad. Step slowly away from the troll ...

Conservative Christian, possibly a Fundie

Damn, you got that one wrong right of the bat. I guess you won't be moving on to the $200 dollar question -- embarrassing. Actually, I'm atheist, but I'm glad to see that you judge people according to your preconceived streotypes.

he was a far better president than the one currently in office.

He almost demolished the economy through his short-sighted policies and took no action against international terrorism. The current president has had to fight against Clinton's ill-advised policies which spurned growth and the global terrorist menace which Clinton did not tackle.

Easy, lad. Step slowly away from the troll ...

Heh.

No worries.

It would take far more than this guys best efforts to bring me to outright flaming.

I just thuught maybe he'd like to know how very stereotypical he is.
Most people seem to enjoy being somewhat different.

Begoner21;11673455']


He almost demolished the economy through his short-sighted policies and took no action against international terrorism. The current president has had to fight against Clinton's ill-advised policies which spurned growth and the global terrorist menace which Clinton did not tackle.


Ooooh....0/3 on that one.

So I see your one of the "Blame all of Bush's failures on the past administration" camp.

That ship has sailed friend, and you really ought to just admit that your faith in Bush was misplaced from the very start.

It would take far more than this guys best efforts to bring me to outright flaming.

I did not attempt to degrade you to outright flaming -- I prefer civilized, intelligent discourse. As I was saying, Rove is not only a genius, but he is also morally scrupulous. Rove's admiration for Bush and a desire to see him win prompted him to sell his company and aid Bush on the campaign road. He employed various brilliant strategems which resulted in a Bush victory in 2000 and 2004 (yes, he did win those elections, you damn conspiracy theorists). Rove sacrificed much of his prior life for the chance to promote Bush in the eyes of the American public -- for that, he should be lauded. If it were not for his foresight and wit, Bush may have not been elected.

Begoner21;11673489']I did not attempt to degrade you to outright flaming -- I prefer civilized, intelligent discourse. As I was saying, Rove is not only a genius, but he is also morally scrupulous. Rove's admiration for Bush and a desire to see him win prompted him to sell his company and aid Bush on the campaign road. He employed various brilliant strategems which resulted in a Bush victory in 2000 and 2004 (yes, he did win those elections, you damn conspiracy theorists). Rove sacrificed much of his prior life for the chance to promote Bush in the eyes of the American public -- for that, he should be lauded. If it were not for his foresight and wit, Bush may have not been elected.

Well the American public couldn't possibly be more politically polarized then it is now so I guess we can give him credit for that.

Begoner21;11673489']I did not attempt to degrade you to outright flaming --

No, No....didnt say you did, I meant that you couldnt if you tried.



I prefer civilized, intelligent discourse. As I was saying, Rove is not only a genius, but he is also morally scrupulous. Rove's admiration for Bush and a desire to see him win prompted him to sell his company and aid Bush on the campaign road. He employed various brilliant strategems which resulted in a Bush victory in 2000 and 2004 (yes, he did win those elections, you damn conspiracy theorists). Rove sacrificed much of his prior life for the chance to promote Bush in the eyes of the American public -- for that, he should be lauded. If it were not for his foresight and wit, Bush may have not been elected.

Morally scrupulous??

Do you know what a Push-poll is?

Itsa little trick invented by Rove.
Heres how you do it, and this one was used in the (pre) 2000 campaign for the Republican Bid.
This one was used in S Carolina, and Georgia, against his own Party member, John McCain.

"Hello, (sir/ma'am), Im calling from the Republican campaign HQ, and I was wondering if I could ask you a couple of quick questions.

Person on other end: "Sure".

Poller:"If you knew, for a fact, that John McCain had fathered an Illlegitimate black child, would you be more, or less likely to vote for him?"

Thats it.

Thats all you have to do.

It plants the idea that John McCain is an adulterer, and a "****** lover" (remember this was done in the deep south, racial hatred still exists) and the father of a illegitimate daughter.

NONE of the above is true, and it doesnt have to be, it sets the seed of doubt in the mind of the person called.

Thats absolutely insidious.
The man spent years in the Hanoi Hilton, has never cheated on his wife, and ADOPTED a poor little girl from another country.

Yet, this is what Rove was willing to do to win his boss the election.

Fucking evil.

Do you know what a Push-poll is...fucking evil.

There is no proof that the incident was somehow linked with Rove. In fact, Rove denied the allegations of having any association with that particular poll. It is pure speculation.

F****** evil.

While I disagree with you, I thought this was kinda funny, because it sounds like Karl Rove is very intimate with evil. That's not what you meant, but it contributes interesting imagery to your point, though in a perverse way.

Begoner21;11673542']There is no proof that the incident was somehow linked with Rove. In fact, Rove denied the allegations of having any association with that particular poll. It is pure speculation.

Oh, okay, he said he didn't do it, so that's okay. Sorry to have bothered you.

Begoner21;11673542']There is no proof that the incident was somehow linked with Rove. In fact, Rove denied the allegations of having any association with that particular poll. It is pure speculation.

Thats crap.

Who else would bother to set up and execute such a tactic?

One of McCains people??

Rove seems to have to deny responsobility for quite a lot, dontcha think?

Oh, okay, he said he didn't do it, so that's okay. Sorry to have bothered you.

Not only did he deny any involvement, but there is no proof whatsoever linking him to those telephone calls. This is pure speculative bullshit, the type which is frequently flung by liberals. Seriously, it's so sad it's laughable. Most liberals won't even look at an unbiased, fair and just, FOX News article, yet they are willing to unquestioningly gobble up almost any sort of liberal propaganda from almost any source. The "flip-flop/hypocrite" taunts do have actual basis in fact.

Rove seems to have to deny responsobility for quite a lot, dontcha think?

Only because liberals claim he is responsible for quite a lot, without giving even a shred of evidence to support their assertions. They should be sued for slander (or libel, I can't remember which one is which).

Begoner21;11673569'] Most liberals won't even look at an unbiased, fair and just, FOX News article, .


Oh?

When did they do the first one?

Begoner21;11673569']Not only did he deny any involvement, but there is no proof whatsoever linking him to those telephone calls. This is pure speculative bullshit, the type which is frequently flung by liberals. Seriously, it's so sad it's laughable. Most liberals won't even look at an unbiased, fair and just, FOX News article, yet they are willing to unquestioningly gobble up almost any sort of liberal propaganda from almost any source. The "flip-flop/hypocrite" taunts do have actual basis in fact.

Right, because any news service that doesn't have lavish, inexhaustable praise for the Bush administration stopping just short of fellatio, is liberal propaganda.

Begoner21;11673572']Only because liberals claim he is responsible for quite a lot, without giving even a shred of evidence to support their assertions. They should be sued for slander (or libel, I can't remember which one is which).

Ahh, so now its the Liberals who are unjustly accusing the fair, and decent Mr Rove of heinious political deeds, is it?

The same Liberals who objected to Iraq, and were proven correct the whole time?

Or is it that when the shady underbelly of the failed administration you love is exsposed, you instantly look to place the blame on a target group?

Or maybe, theres far more to Rove than you are willing to admit, and you simply wont listen to anyone who gives you a peice of the truth?

Begoner21;11673569'] flung by liberals. Seriously, it's so sad it's laughable. Most liberals won't even look at an unbiased, fair and just, FOX News article, yet they are willing to unquestioningly gobble up almost any sort of liberal propaganda from almost any source. The "flip-flop/hypocrite" taunts do have actual basis in fact.

NOW whos stereotyping.

Right, because any news service that doesn't have lavish, inexhaustable praise for the Bush administration stopping just short of fellatio, is liberal propaganda.

I challenge you to find one -- just one -- FOX News article, written in the past month -- which "lavishly and inexhaustibly" praised Bush. You will not be able to because FOX News is fair and unbiased. It does not simply re-iterate what the administration says. The following quote is taken from a FOX News article today (out of context, that is, for the fun of it):

The president should be ashamed of using a national day of mourning to commandeer the airwaves to give a speech that was designed not to unite the country and commemorate the fallen but to seek support for a war in Iraq that he has admitted had nothing to do with 9/11.

Oh, and look at this article regarding Iran and Iraq:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213420,00.html

Right, because any news service that doesn't have lavish, inexhaustable praise for the Bush administration stopping just short of fellatio, is liberal propaganda.

Well, remember, reality does have a well-known liberal bias.

Ahh, so now its the Liberals who are unjustly accusing the fair, and decent Mr Rove of heinious political deeds, is it?

I don't see any conservatives leveling unfounded accusations against Mr. Rove, but I agree with you that he is fair and decent. Liberals are exploiting their constituents' tendency to believe anything they are spoon-fed, even if there is no factual evidence to substantiate it.

Or is it that when the shady underbelly of the failed administration you love is exsposed, you instantly look to place the blame on a target group?

It is not a failed administration. It is one of the greatest administrations, ranking right up there with Teddy Roosevelt, George Washington, and Ronald Reagan. No "shady underbelly" of the administration was exposed -- if anything, the "shady underbelly" of the propaganda-spewing opposition was revealed.

Or maybe, theres far more to Rove than you are willing to admit, and you simply wont listen to anyone who gives you a peice of the truth?

Truth? You are basing you "truth" on pure speculation -- wild guesswork! I can equally easily say that God exists and that anyone who doesn't listen is simply refusing to hear a "piece of the truth."

Begoner21;11673718']I challenge you to find one -- just one -- FOX News article, written in the past month -- which "lavishly and inexhaustibly" praised Bush. You will not be able to because FOX News is fair and unbiased. It does not simply re-iterate what the administration says. The following quote is taken from a FOX News article today (out of context, that is, for the fun of it):


Nice try at BSing, that quote was from a Democrat senator, not from fox news
heres the article
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213439,00.html


The president should be ashamed of using a national day of mourning to commandeer the airwaves to give a speech that was designed not to unite the country and commemorate the fallen but to seek support for a war in Iraq that he has admitted had nothing to do with 9/11," Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, D-Mass.,

Nice try at BSing, that quote was from a Democrat senator, not from fox news
heres the article

Yeah, that's why I said that it was taken out of context -- obviously, such a quote is heavily liberally biased. However, I continue to challenge you to find a conservatively-biased FOX News article written within the past month.

Begoner21;11673807']Yeah, that's why I said that it was taken out of context -- obviously, such a quote is heavily liberally biased. However, I continue to challenge you to find a conservatively-biased FOX News article written within the past month.


And why did you say taken out of context? Why didnt you say it was from senator kennedy, arguably the most left leaning senator in congress? because your bullshitting, trying to lead me into believing a fox news reporter had lambasted the president. Pure. Uncut. Bullshit.

Let's take a look at the NSA warrantless eavesdropping program, because after it was revealed last December — and let's put it up on the screen — "The Bush administration's secret program to spy on the American people reminds Americans of the abuse of power during the dark days of President Nixon and Vice President Agnew."

Do you really compare protecting the American people to Watergate?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213220,00.html

Translation: if you criticize the Bush Admin's policies your exposing the american people to terrorists.

No bias there:rolleyes:

I've seen that all along, after all Shrub isn't smart enough to be responsible for all of it . . .

Begoner21;11673455']He almost demolished the economy through his short-sighted policies and took no action against international terrorism. The current president has had to fight against Clinton's ill-advised policies which spurned growth and the global terrorist menace which Clinton did not tackle.

WHICH president spent our budget SURPLUS again?

WHICH president spent our budget SURPLUS again?

He's completely out of touch with reality, 9/11 was clinton's fault, Fox News is totally unbias, bush is a uniter not a divider, war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, etc. etc.

He's completely out of touch with reality, 9/11 was clinton's fault, Fox News is totally unbias, bush is a uniter not a divider, war is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength, etc. etc.

Peanut butter is jelly?

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213220,00.html

Translation: if you criticize the Bush Admin's policies your exposing the american people to terrorists.

No bias there:rolleyes:

Of course there is no bias. It's a statement that someone else -- not the writer of the article -- made. In fact, that entire article is just a partial transcript of another show. You cannot say that any news article which quotes a biased politician is biased -- only the reporter who writes the news article may be accused of injecting his own personal beliefs into a story. This is not the case in the above article.

Begoner21;11673924']Of course there is no bias. It's a statement that someone else -- not the writer of the article -- made. In fact, that entire article is just a partial transcript of another show. You cannot say that any news article which quotes a biased politician is biased -- only the reporter who writes the news article may be accused of injecting his own personal beliefs into a story. This is not the case in the above article.

This argument would be entirely valid if it was a transcript of a CNN show but its not, its a transcript of fox news show. try again

WHICH president spent our budget SURPLUS again?

The budget surplus was an anomaly that should be no means be credited to Clinton.

Begoner21;11673947']The budget surplus was an anomaly that should be no means be credited to Clinton.

Just like the lack of attacks since September 11th 2001 is an anomaly that should by no means be credited to Bush?

This argument would be entirely valid if it was a transcript of a CNN show but its not, its a transcript of fox news show. try again

I seem to recall saying FOX News article not FOX News show. Perhaps FOX News is biased -- but if so, the bias was only there to counter and offset the obvious bias of Howard Dean. And Wallance had an extremely valid point -- the wiretaps were an attempt to protect the American people, while Watergate obviously was not (unless protecting them from themselves counts).

Begoner21;11673947']The budget surplus was an anomaly that should be no means be credited to Clinton.

ah i see, when good things happen for democrats...its luck, when bad things happen for the republicans....its because the democrats messed it up for them last term...

Begoner21;11673960']I seem to recall saying FOX News article not FOX News show. Perhaps FOX News is biased -- but if so, the bias was only there to counter and offset the obvious bias of Howard Dean. And Wallance had an extremely valid point -- the wiretaps were an attempt to protect the American people, while Watergate obviously was not (unless protecting them from themselves counts).

omfg, title of article:

Transcript: DNC Chair Howard Dean on 'FOX News Sunday'

I have no clue how you could mistake that for the BBC or CNN...


http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213220,00.html

Begoner21;11673489']If it were not for his foresight and wit, Bush may have not been elected.

So I guess we have him to "thank" for giving us Bush? :mad:

ah i see, when good things happen for democrats...its luck

It's not luck. I can owe somebody $10 dollars and to pay that money, I can borrow $100 dollars from somebody else and claim I have a budget surplus of $90 dollars. Then I just dump the problem in somebody else's lap, turn tail, and run. Let's see them deal with a debt that's 9 times larger!

http://markarose.com/archives/2006/08/todays_lebanon_2.html

And two more dubious sites:

http://www.thelandofthefree.net/conservativepoliticalopinion/surplusfallacy.html
http://www.movermike.com/posts/1094676830.shtml

I have no clue how you could mistake that for the BBC or CNN...

What part of TV show versus news article don't you understand? Maybe, just maybe, FOX News Channel is biased, but FOX News (www.foxnews.com) is not.

Begoner21;11674000']What part of TV show versus news article don't you understand? Maybe, just maybe, FOX News Channel is biased, but FOX News (www.foxnews.com) is not.

Their both part of the same news corporation, Administrated by the same people, reporting the same stories. The only difference is that one happens to be on the internet instead of the TV, or do you happen to think that foxnews.com is completely seperate from Fox News.

...or do you happen to think that foxnews.com is completely seperate from Fox News.

It's not separate -- they are both obviously owned by the same corporation. However, there are differences between them. Do you happen to think that Minute Maid is the same thing as Coca-Cola? According to your logic, they are, since they are owned by the same company. I do not think either is biased, but the print source cannot be construed in any way as biased, while it is understandable how the TV show may be thought of as biased.

Begoner21;11674023']It's not separate -- they are both obviously owned by the same corporation. However, there are differences between them. Do you happen to think that Minute Maid is the same thing as Coca-Cola? According to your logic, they are, since they are owned by the same company. I do not think either is biased, but the print source cannot be construed in any way as biased, while it is understandable how the TV show may be thought of as biased.

No coke is not the same as lemonade, however diet coke in many ways is the same as coke. The bolded parts of my post were meant to drive home a fact, Foxnews.com is the online extension of Foxnews on TV. Same Stories, Same people, Same bias

Same bias

I asked you to cite an article proving your hypothesis. You have failed to do so. If you wish to make your point valid, at least substantiate it with some facts. Otherwise, I'll simply consider it useless, bogus liberal propaganda.

No coke is not the same as lemonade, however diet coke in many ways is the same as coke. The bolded parts of my post were meant to drive home a fact, Foxnews.com is the online extension of Foxnews on TV. Same Stories, Same people, Same bias

No, not same same.

O'Reilly and other editorial commentators are not reporting the news - and whatever they spew isn't read hourly as news.

They have plenty of news stories that are as factual as any you'll see on CNN (in some cases, equally irrelevant stories, like the ones about Jon Benet Ramsey).

Begoner21;11674078']I asked you to cite an article proving your hypothesis. You have failed to do so. If you wish to make your point valid, at least substantiate it with some facts. Otherwise, I'll simply consider it useless, bogus liberal propaganda.

To think that a bias news network's website is bias is called logic, not propaganda

X=Y therefore 2X=2Y

X=foxnews
Y=foxnews.com
the coefficient of 2=bias...

To think that a bias news network's website is bias is called logic, not propaganda

X=Y therefore 2X=2Y

X=foxnews
Y=foxnews.com
the coefficient of 2=bias...

What perfect logic -- since bias is equivalent to bias, then double bias equals double bias! Ergo, FOX News = foxnews.com. We have a genius in our midst!

Begoner21;11674101']What perfect logic -- since bias is equivalent to bias, then double bias equals double bias! Ergo, FOX News = foxnews.com. We have a genius in our midst!

Go ahead with the Ad Hominum argument, its all the rage.

Go ahead with the Ad Hominum argument, its all the rage.

Sorry for the personal attack, but seriously, calling that "logic" is laughable. It is extremely irritating to me that everyone considers FOX News biased, yet when I ask them to give me an example of such a bias, they can offer no facts.

Bias is a matter of opinion.

However Fox News does dishonest things

O'Reilly got caught spouting off how Americans killed SS soldiers at Malmandy twice.

Fox News changed their web site and removed references without a correction notice.

http://www.crooksandliars.com/stories/2006/06/01/olbermannOnOreillyAndWesleyClarkTranscript.html

Begoner21;11674156']Sorry for the personal attack, but seriously, calling that "logic" is laughable. It is extremely irritating to me that everyone considers FOX News biased, yet when I ask them to give me an example of such a bias, they can offer no facts.

I'll admit that their are bits and pieces between the pundits that are unbiased, But seriously, referring to the O'reilly Factor as the no spin zone is laughable. You will rarely ever find mainstream news sources openly being bias, they show their bias in very very subtle ways. Just like no racists parade around burning crosses in public anymore, they simply refer to themselves as "cultural preservationists", breaking through the fog is difficult if not impossible.

You really are a walking stereotype.

Conservative Christian, possibly a Fundie, who hates anything Clinton, and cant let go the idea that even though he was a sexually motivated swine, he was a far better president than the one currently in office.

Youre really a bit of a joke.

....


...

It plants the idea that John McCain is an adulterer, and a "****** lover" (remember this was done in the deep south, racial hatred still exists) and the father of a illegitimate daughter.
....


NOW whos stereotyping.



Just looking through this, this made me laugh so hard. *fades into shadows*

Begoner21;11673739']It is not a failed administration. It is one of the greatest administrations, ranking right up there with Teddy Roosevelt, George Washington, and Ronald Reagan.

Bush has:

1. Drastically curtailed our civil liberties
2. Made us a world pariah
3. Made us much less safe
4. Fucked up our economy almost beyond repair
5. Done a great job of helping Al Qaeda's ranks swell
6. Entangled us in two no-win wars, killing thousands of Americans and God only knows how many Afghanis and Iraqis
7. Critically de-stabilized the Middle East

Yes, what a laudable legacy.

Why not? The Republicans get to fall back on "It's Clinton's fault!" so why shouldn't the Democrats get to blame Karl?

Because they are better than that!

No wait, that isnt it at all. You are right after all.

Bush is a

Useless

Moronic

President