It begins...

[jubaji]

OMG, are you accusing jubaji of owning a pit bull? That's the funniest thing I've read all day!!!

He's clearly not paying attention....

[jubaji]

Hey does anybody know what happened to Karl Rove?? Did he go to court or what? It seems like it just went away? How did what he did just go away?

That's all the way back on page 1, post #2

[jubaji]

See?

Now Jubaji, you are just being silly!

Where was I being silly?

[kingoftheforest]

It doesn't say if he still had to appear as a witness or not. I was just wondering, can't seem to find that info.

[treelizard]

Anyway, Treelizard, of COURSE he has pitbulls, AND Rottwielers, AND guns, AND more guns, etc...

Now you are just making things up!

http://www.defend.net/deluxeforums/showthread.php?t=20505&

Plus what's wrong with being heavily armed, anyway?

[jubaji]

Now you are just making things up!

That's all he's capable of!

[treelizard]

If you read the thread, you will see about 500,000 messages by jubaji arguing against the ownership of pitbulls.

[stabbychick]

.............................

[GonzoStyles]

Do you believe that your opinions and personal bias supercede the law?

So Jubaji which one of the 6 or 7 points of the incident that I made for you are biased opinions? Your failure to adress any of them and respond with yet ANOTHER attempt at insulting me with your patronizing attitude leaves me the impression that you are far more interested in personal attacks and making generalizations about forum members than making a serious discussion of this post subject. For what reason I cant imagine except that you are unable to defend your position on this subject other to hide in the fact that for the rich and powerful the law takes on a mysterious flexible, paradoxical, and ommisive quality that we down here in the real world are not privy to.

I dont think that you are naive to any governments ability to sheild higher ups from the law, the higher the position the bigger the sheild. Nixon resigned before he was impeached does that make him not guilty of authorizing illegal actions on the behalf of his party? Or was his actions & the crimes of his minions subject to "Interpretation" as well in your eyes Jubaji?

[jubaji]

So Jubaji which one of the 6 or 7 points of the incident that I made for you are biased opinions?

How many times do I have to say the same thing?




You read post #45, right?

[GonzoStyles]

Sure I read it, and it confirms what I believe about your obsession for personal attacks as opposed to an actual discussion of the topic, You havent been interested in discussing the subject at all on this thread, other than to insinuate that I have no buisness second guessing lawyers, and that no one has been found guilty so this is all "partisan spin"

You attempted to do something similar on the pitbull post, by suggesting that anyone who owned one had an ego problem or a fetish for dangerous animals.
But at least you actually participated in that post to some degree. While on this thread you have simply expressed an interest in proving something (partisanship) that is truly open to individual interpretation.

Your right Jubaji I am no lawyer, but I am a thinking American citizen and I have an opinion, and that is why I come to forums to discuss topics and learn from people, hopefully even help other people learn. Sure I have slung a little mud here and there, but I dont visit a topic specifically to insult someones opinion and then attempt to hijack the same thread into a series of personal attacks, I belive that to be counter productive to the whole Idea of a forum, and what you did here on this post is the reason I dont post on many forums, because they degenerate into this kind of personal attack.

I asked you twice for your opinion on various elements of this subject, and you shrugged them off, trying to discredit me and in general taking a patronizing tone every time I attempted to steer this thread back on course.
WITH OUT A SINGLE ATTEMPT BY YOU TO DISCUSS THE TOPIC FACTUALLY

But yet you devote post after post to personal attacks?
Doesnt this suggest something to you ? That you seem to be hell bent on discrediting an individual, rather than making an attempt to discuss the original topic of this thread? What a smart move Jubaji!! it appears you have missed your true calling, I am sure your methodology would be approved by those in power that have committed this act of treason, as it mirrors their own tactics.

Title 50, United States Code, Section 421 [the Intelligence Identities Protection Act] Is to protect the men and women who risk their lives attempting to gather intel for national security.



But somehow an agent who is using an alias, working overseas for a CIA front company, for some reason her protection under this act is subject to "Interpretation"???

isnt your unwillingness to discuss the facts and incidents that I listed
"partisanship" to a degree Jubaji? how ironic! or should I say hypocritical?

[jubaji]

You attempted to do something similar on the pitbull post, by...

By valuing the facts over your emotions? I should hope so! In that thread I provided you with loads of facts and carefully conducted studies over long periods of time proving my point, and you just posted cute black and white pictures and told me stories about your Uncle Earl or whoever

Here again, the facts are what they are and the fundamental fact is that no one has been found guilty of having broken the law. No one has even been charged with having done so. I didn't make that up, I didn't create that situation. I'm sorry you don't like it, but it is what it is. I've said several times that in the event someone is charged, tried, and found guilty of having broken the law, I'll support their full punishment no matter who they are. I don't see what is so hard for you to accept here. Unless you or I have the power to change reality, I don't see what you want to argue about so badly.

[jubaji]

isnt your unwillingness to discuss the facts and incidents that I listed
"partisanship" to a degree Jubaji??

No, its simply being realistic.

how ironic! or should I say hypocritical?

Why would it be hypocritical? Did I ever claim I wasn't partisan?

[jubaji]

My original point was that if Clinton was president, and some of his staff had "outed" a CIA agent or leaked info that caused it to happen, that most (not all) but most right wingers would be howling, and I seriously doubt any of them would say to "wait until someone is found guilty".

Ok, thanks for your partisan speculation. Your imagination has been duly noted.

[jubaji]

Fair enough, but the question you should ask yourself is: How will you feel about the people responsible if they had been found guilty.

Why should I ask myself that? If it comes to pass, I'll feel the way I feel. If it doesn't come to pass, I won't have wasted any time on empty speculation.