Libby Found Guilty On 4 of 5 Counts

Ah, that may be true, but the simple fact of the matter is that the talking points on Rush's show almost always end up here, despite the continual denial of some that they do not listen to him. That may be a talking point, but it has been true for quite some time.

I do indeed have AirAmerica through my XM radio. Unfortunately for me, I cannot get reception in my office, so I listen to Rush, as long as I can stomach. But I have willingly admitted to listening to AirAmerica (not as much lately now that Al Franken is off the air).

If I am "walking pretty lock step," then by all means show me specifics where I am reproducing these talking points. As far as the assertion that the talking points from Rush are here on the board, well, it's true.

Again: unlike most people in this discussion, I willingly admit that I listen to the EIB Network every weekday. By the way, it is worth noting that Rush himself has made references to the "liberal talking points," as has Sean Hannity (listen to him once in a while - he is not live, but is on the air in Richmond after our local Bush Acolyte's show) Once again, something that Rush says has found its way to the discussion.

Regards,
BiR

 

Yes, although I heard that more from Sean Hannity than from Rush.

As for UBL wanting Kerry to win, that is silly. With Bush, he has the enemy he needs to recruit more people for his cause. I guess he counted on most of the right wing pundits in the media not being able to grasp that, and endorsed Kerry to galvanize support for the POTUS in his bid for reelection......

Wow - BTW, are you in that card game up at Lolo?
[note: to those of you who don't understand this - it's a reference to the book (and the movie) A River Runs Through It.]

The same to you - I am not as sick as you are.

FWIW, you are in my thoughts and prayers,
BiR

 

BiR is obsessed by Rush and thinks everyone else is , too.:laugh:

 

BiR, it is silly to try and belittle our points by saying "Rush said that!!!!!"

I really, really think you should stop.

But hey, if you listen to Rush everyday, did you laugh as hard as I did when you heard Al Sharpton say....

"Obama, you're mama's so fat, when she put on her black dress, she look just like outer space...

"Obama, you're mama's so fat, she walk around with pesos in one pocket, and euros in the other.....

"Obama, you're mama's so fat, when she ran away, they needed all four sides of the milk carton....

I LOVE listening to Rush, so do you, apparently.

 

You brought up the subject of my patriotism. I quote, "Wow: that almost sounds like your patriotism is subordinate to you political affiliation."

Quite naturally that made me wonder about your own. Course, if you didn't serve your country, maybe you should consider not questioning others on that subject. Sounds reasonable to me.

 

Nope, and you are clearly reading what you want to read.
Here is my entire statement you that you have referenced:

There are TWO questions there that I asked you. Please note that I specifically wrote that it "almost sounds like," didn't I?

The CIA has admitted that this was indeed a front company. Well, it isn't anymore, and anyone who was using that front company has been compromised. Moreover, anyone working with these agents have been compromised. Does that not bother you? [note that this is another question.]

Yes, I love my country, and my politics are subordinate to my patriotism, as exhibited by my total disgust for this despicable man who would not only reveal a CIA agent/operative in his newspaper column, but would go on a national network and reveal her front company as well, thus compromising anyone who was working with the front company. Again, as she was working on COUNTERPROLIFERATION, I wonder if her work involved either Iraq, Iran or North Korea......

Regards anyway,
BiR

 

The simple fact of the matter is that many of his talking points show up in these discussions. If you do listen to him, then you know it's true. How is it silly to point out the truth, especially when many of the points he makes show up here almost verbatim?

Those aren't funny....

I listen to him, but I would hardly say that I LOVE it.
I find it interesting that he can hardly get through his show without discussing two topics:
1. sex
2. former President Bill Clinton (even when the former President has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of discussion)

Quite frequently, these topics are discussed in the first hour of the program, but not always.

Regards, hope you are feeling better,
BiR (talk to you in a few days - I am headed to Delaware on business for the rest of the week, and I am taking my ATB with me - it's getting darker later so I can ride. Southern Delaware is so beautiful...)

 

I think you point them out in order to avoid addressing the point.

They are hilarious.

Kind of an all-encompassing subject, eh ? especially with the nonesense that's going on in Washington.

He left this country a mess. The fact that people still support him is important in the future of this country.

I'm feelin' great.

 

Actually, the evidence is there, every single day I listen. As for his website, it is a subscription service, and if I did post a link you would have to enter your login information.

Yep, which of course is yet another point that Rush makes. Thanks for providing us with yet another one of his talking points (except that you added AirAmerica). You forgot to mention that the left thinks that they are smarter than conservatives.

This is starting to get humorous......

Regards - hope you and yours are doing well too,
BiR (who hasn't left for Delaware just yet)

 

Where have I not addressed the point?

No, actually they are not - old and recycled.

And yet, he manages to bring up the topic of sex practically every day, doesn't he? You don't find that just a bit disconcerting?

Um, no: actually, the mess that the current POTUS has created is much more substantial, and seemingly is getting worse.

That is good to hear. Again, you have been in my thoughts and prayers.

God's Blessings to you and yours,
BiR (who thought he was leaving for Delaware tonight)

 

You're a Rush subscriber ?

 

Now that was good: when all else fails, just resort to contumely.

Regards,
BiR

 

Me?
No, I wouldn't subscribe to his service. I did, however, have someone try to send me a link to an article on his website, and that is what happened when I clicked on the hyperlink.

 

My apologies, during correspondence with 777, I noticed that he made a reference to questions posed by you, but I missed this post. For some reason, I thought you were directing your comments to Terry.

http://mediamatters.org/items/200507150007

http://mediamatters.org/items/200507120005

http://mediamatters.org/items/200501140005

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A40012-2003Oct3?language=printer

By the way, isn't it interesting that the despicable Mr. Novak was never called to testify? Or, if he was, why didn't we hear anything about it?

If they didn't, then why were they clearly talking about him with the media? After all, if they "didn't really need to discredit Wilson's testimony," why did they spend so much time talking about him?

This would be a great time to produce all the WMD that were posing an "immediate threat."

Apples and oranges. One article was an attempt to discredit someone in the guise of a newspaper article. The other was an attempt to point out that laws were being broken. Did the NYT article mention any names? I cannot remember, and seemed to have lost my link to the article in question, and would appreciate it if you could provide it for us (genuine request).

Agreed, but I cannot remember anyone being "outed" by the NYT.

Regards, I am headed out of town on business, and don't think that there is any internet connectivity in my hotel. I will respond to you as soon as I can.
BiR