<p>This scandal will go down in american history as the biggest of all time - the biggest lib media snow job of all time</p>
<p>TIME MAGAZINE cover story says it all</p>
<p>Z:</p>
<p>Maybe you’re the itch the guy just can’t scratch…he’s got a jones and he just can’t get off it without some more-o-that Zoozermom stuff!</p>
<p>Then again, maybe you used one of those little winky faces and he took the wink for more than you intended to give…it can happen–I’ve seen it before with TheDad and driver…it seems innocent enough at first and then, vavavoom! the guy thinks he’s Johnny Depp.</p>
<p>Fwiw 
is not flirtatious, not wink-wink nudge-nudge, but rather sarcastic like “got cha! dip-shate”.</p>
<p>What’s “curiouser and curiouser”? The story was being pushed by political enemies? That’s true for almost every scandal – certainly true for the Clinton scandals, which were marketed tirelessly by Republicans for months and even years before the mainstream media reported them. That’s the dark underbelly of the modern press: a lot of “investigative reporting” consists of trying to confirm a story that has been prepackaged by someone with an agenda. That a story is brought to light by someone with an axe to grind doesn’t make the story less true, if it is true.</p>
<p>What this story pretty definitely proves is that “the Democrats” did not orchestrate its timing at all – it could easily have appeared 10 months ago. Also, the most explosive parts of the story – the pornographic text messages and the extent of the senior House leadership’s knowledge – were not known to the initial sources, either, but came out simply because the press began to report the story.</p>
<p>so I guess the "sources’ should have done what the House leadership did, cover it all up…got it…that is the way to handle things, when the powers that be know what is going on and choose to ignore it, everyone else should as well…</p>
<p>that evil press for doing its job, reporting!!! and regardless of the source, what has been reported is true, imagine that…the truth getting out from under the thumb of the republican house leaders…how ghastly</p>
<p>“I’m just sort of tired of your game-playing, frankly. You don’t play fair, which is kind of a waste of time.”</p>
<p>I guess it’s not just me. The bullying and harassing behavior is just a way of dealing.</p>
<p>not to worry – the leak, the exposes – it’ll all be blamed on Clinton anyway</p>
<p>Fountainsiren, you are an absolute joy and I look so forward to hearing great things of you in years to come. I have a conservative daughter who is interested in journalism and I have mentioned you to her as the hope of a non-liberal in an Ivy.</p>
<p>zoosermom, what do you mean by conservative and liberal…just wondering</p>
<p>ps-I rarely use the conservative label, nor the liberal one-except in referring to myself to give hint at my leanings, so wondering why others feel the need to use labels…I will say Democrat, Republican, right-wing, leftie, but liberal and conservative, wondering when people use those words what they are referring to, politics, economics, social issues, clothing, do they conserve water, are they liberal with compliments</p>
<p>This is a serious question, I truely wonder what people mean when they label places as liberal or conservative</p>
<p>what does conservative mean when referring to one’s child or oneself</p>
<p>I know lots of “conservatives” who march for peace, and lots of “liberals” who send their kids to private school</p>
<p>CGM, the Republicans invested a lot of effort into demonizing “liberals” by distorting the philosophy and goals of the left over the past 20 years. It’s paid off in a big way: even people who actually support the ideals of liberalism will generally not identify themselves as “liberals” today if asked. No corresponding effort was made by the Democrats to cast “conservatives” as mindless, greedy, bigoted ■■■■■■, nor would I encourage it. Fundingfather would argue that AirAmerica is an effort at tit-for-tat payback, but if it is, it’s not getting a lot of traction. Either the left isn’t as good at mudslinging or their hearts just aren’t in it.</p>
<p>I’m sure Speaker Pelosi will be able to get to the bottom of it. (But which one will she take on first? Let me see: there is Abramoff, and the resignation of Karl Rove’s assistant; there is the Foley thing and whether Denny Hastert is gay and covered things up accordingly; then there is the Republican appeasement of South Korea; then there is the 61% of Iraqis - Shiites, Sunnis, and Kurds - who may be killing each other, but approve of killing Americans; then there is the dining room in the Green Zone with hundreds of Muslims eating there that serves pork three meals a day; oh, then there is Her Royal Mendaciousness (I don’t think she’ll even show up to testify, so we’ll get the former Secretary of State in her place), then…</p>
<p>Can’t get it all done in two years, but I’m sure she’ll start…</p>
<p>As I read Zooserman’s linked article, democratic operatives knew about the Foley emails for months and were unsuccessfully shopping them to the media. ABC’s Brian Ross apparently sat on them for a month before going public. It’s interesting that they saw the emails as a PR matter and failed to recognize the predatory grooming aspects.</p>
<p>CGM, I consider myself a conservative and would personally define myself that way. I generally refer to liberals as liberals if they define themselves that way, but certain institutions are clearly liberal.</p>
<p>CGM, I consider myself a conservative but I support gay marriage wholeheartedly, accept the necessity of abortion, and am a defender of First Amendment rights. I am not a religious person at all, so I don’t particularly find common cause with the religious right. I consider myself a conservative because I support a strong military, low taxes, free markets, and the right of citizens to live with very little governmental interference. I also consider myself a conservative because I view people as individuals, not members of groups, and I believe that the vast majority of Americans are smart, competent, creative and capable. I also belive in American exceptionalism.</p>
<p>DRJ4, I’m not sure where you get that from the WaPo story:
</p>
<p>It looks to me like there were at least two people shopping the e-mails, one Democrat and one Republican, and the motivation of the Democrat, at least, had to do with protecting the pages, not PR. My tinfoil hat conspiracy theory of last week is looking better and better.</p>
<p>Even Air America usually describes itself as “progressive.”</p>
<p>Kluge,</p>
<p>I’m not sure what your objection is. If it’s because I said “democratic operative-s” instead of the singular “operative”, I will gladly agree to the correction. However, as an outside-the-Beltway person, I would be surprised to learn that operatives of either party acted alone on something like this.</p>
<p>Furthermore, my point was that apparently the media contacts did not perceive the emails as being actionable either.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, that way lies the road to perdition. With a side journey to hubris along the way.</p>
<p>I would agree with the majority of Zoozermom’s opinion with perhaps a subtle distinction or two here or there, but I would be loathe to describe my conservatism in political terms in any case; but rather as the result of philosophical/religious inclinations coupled with a romantic interest in people as they are and as they, in moments of transcendence, imagine themselves to be.</p>
<p>One distinction I make between what I would call a conservative and a liberal has to do with the fact that I do not believe we need to look askance at our past to embrace a vision of the present. It seems to me that too often liberals act as if all that preceded them was a dark-age arranged and enforced at the end of a pitchfork; that throughout the accumulative experiences of humanity the majority of wisdom passed down through the generations and ages offers little that we should find worth conserving; that we modern liberated types invented ourselves from whole-cloth–each and everyone an ontological virgin marching to the beat of a different synth-track…rather than the sad truth that we are, by and large, a stampeding herd of individualists that can’t keep a beat so we just keep a-step with the loudest guy to our left.</p>
<p>That’s one thing. </p>
<p>Another is my faith in and patience with humanity as exemplified in the American people. I believe that at any given time our society is about as right as it can be–given its social pressures and economic needs–even while in part wrong, according to our utopian visions and fantasies (usually one in the same, given even a modicum of thought); that a rational reaction to what seems wrong is preferable to hysterical agitation; that if there is such a thing as an absolute right it must be transcendent and not malleable to human fashion; that there is such a thing as a human right but, alas, it would require all of us to accept some first principals on faith–which we cannot do–so we instead rely on the collective wisdom of humanity as such rather than on ideologues and intellectuals in particular; that though the collective wisdom can be wrong it cannot be absolutely wrong–just off–but any particular ideologue/intellectual can be completely and absolutely wrong and most often is, given air-time or a noose or a guillotine.</p>
<p>That freedom is operatively better than equality. That freedom bares a burden related to dignity that longs for equality. That I do not gain human capital commensurate to my victimization but to my virtue, which is alchemically concocted in that ancient time-tested recipe of freedom-dignity-equality, in that order, over ice.</p>
<p>[edit: Opps…sorry, meant to say being conservative means being a bigot who hates science and tends to kick sand in people’s faces…my bad.]</p>
<p>.</p>
<p>“Opps…sorry, meant to say being conservative means being a bigot who hates science and tends to kick sand in people’s faces…my bad.”</p>
<p>You’re excused, but I’m sure you’ll let it happen again. ;)</p>