How can anything useful be added to the ad hominem nonsense of referring to what someone has said as "odd."

you don't remember "BeerGate"?

isn't that just a "But Trump...."

Oh no, that is so evil sounds like something the evil NEA would suggest.
And the tactic used by Trump, classic rhetoric is better in your mind.
“I was going to say ‘dummy’ Bush; I won’t say it. I won’t say it,”
“I refuse to call Megyn Kelly a bimbo, because that would not be politically correct,”
“Unlike others, I never attacked dopey Jon Stewart for his phony last name. Would never do that!”
“I promised I would not say that she [Carly Fiornia] ran Hewlett-Packard into the ground, that she laid off tens of thousands of people and she got viciously fired. I said I will not say it, so I will not say it.”
"I'm the least________" you can fill it in

Absolutely, but there are so many more opportunities there that it is always easy to cite one, like sleeping with porn stars, but i wouldn't do that, it wouldn't be nice.

Repeating your accusation in different forms does not advance a discussion.

But Trump.......
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I have no problem comparing one president with another. I do think it's a joke trying to compare what someone did once or twice with what President Trump does numerous times on a daily basis as if there's some equivalency there.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Answer the question then
Is the use of classic rhetoric by Trump better?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Sure thing Mr Butthurt.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Good one
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

You originally posed it as a statement, not a question, in response to my saying that: "This 'But . . . meme' is getting tiresome. Especially when most of those who cite it do it themselves [as you've done in this thread]. It's not a valid argument but an Alinsky type tactic of ridicule meant to distract and destroy." To which you replied:

"Oh no, that is so evil sounds like something the evil NEA would suggest. And the tactic used by Trump, classic rhetoric is better in your mind."

In the first place, I didn't say your tactic was evil. I said it was ridicule, not a valid argument, and was meant to distract and destroy (that is, saying something like "But Hillary" is supposed to make a comparison to her a ridiculous thing to do, and absolves the "But . . " meme user from having to address or discuss the comparison. Perhaps you consider that an evil tactic. Perhaps you're right. I leave that up to you.

Secondly, if you're asking me if I consider what you refer to as Trump's use of "classical rhetoric" better than your repeating various versions of Trump-as-idiot, or better than your use of the "But . . ." meme, I don't place any value on any of those things. They are all equally little bits of isolated, out of context, useless information meant to cast aspersion.

And I don't equate Trump quotes to classical rhetoric. Did you mean to use the sarcastic "classy" rather than "classical" to describe his rhetoric? That would also be an Alinsky-like tactic of ridicule meant to convince or "win" an argument--much easier than torturing minds with logic and deductive reasoning.

great point by you...Scooter got in much more trouble over FAR, FAR less...

Lying to the FBI to cover up a crime isn't far far less.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Clinton who? Seems like the issue today has everything to do with POTUS and the pass he's being given by his own party.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

what crime?

I don't remember, something about outing a covert CIA agent...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

oh... right.... Jane Bond....what a joke....

again....what crime?

See previous remark.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

right...the crime you don't remember:hihi:

Lying to protect your superior is OK in your book then.
Pretty clear message sent there.

did I write that ? I don't think I did or even implied .....

when it comes to "national security"...which is what you responded to...what hillary did is far worse than what scooter did....

Is this why you are butthurt?
And you have not provided a pass for your own party in the past when they have been accused of wrong doings? Hypocrite much Jeff?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I think it is quite comical that the man with great concerns about various people leaking and lying, pardoned someone who was convicted for leaking and lying about it.

Enjoy your laugh Pete,good for the soul.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

was he convicted for leaking?

Are we talking about that Manning Dude(ette)?

What do you expect from somone who invites 2 Russian envoys into the oval office w/no other Americans present and betrayed the intelligence community by leaking the content of a classified and Israeli intelligence operation.

did they get to sleep in the Lincoln Bedroom too?

With the embedded agent?

He was convicted of one count of obstruction of justice, two counts of perjury, and one count of making false statements.
Why don't you just ask Valerie Plame what she thinks?

Of course maybe Trump likes Scooter because he wrote a book.
The title was The Apprentice, maybe he thought it was about him.

Sometimes overzealous prosecutors, who haven't been able to convict their real target, and need SOME conviction to justify the time and money spent, cook the books a little bit to frame somebody, anybody, else they can get (sort of what seems to be going on in the Mueller inestigation):

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...ter_libby.html

you said he was convicted for leaking....

"pardoned someone who was convicted for leaking"

good thing you aren't under oath :)

So why did it become something that needed to be done now?
Do you think Trump finally got down that far in his reading pile, discovered this book and then decided to pardon Scooter.
Or maybe Stephen Miller suggested............
Someday books will be written and we will find out something, probably contradictory depending on which ones you read.

Thanks for citing a very neutral source. I'd note his conviction was considered an open and shut case.

You mean a "neutral" source such as The Washington Post? Like this one: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...=.aded0574b100

Would you care to dispute the article rather than throw a demeaning label at it?

It seems, per the article, that his conviction was prematurely or fraudulently opened and shut. Like a lot of fraudulent convictions are.

I don't know of any major sources that are "neutral." So, unlike you, I evaluate what a source actually says, rather than bitching about the source's lack of neutrality.

However, I can see how it would be far more convenient to kill the messenger than to read the message. The only thing that might suffer from that is something that is as minor as the truth.

QUOTE=Pete F.;1141443]So why did it become something that needed to be done now?

Because Obama or Bush didn't. Do you think it should have been done sooner . . . later . . . or never? What is the point of your question?

Do you think Trump finally got down that far in his reading pile, discovered this book and then decided to pardon Scooter.
Or maybe Stephen Miller suggested............

Right . . . right . . . President's should not ever listen to advice. Wait . . . haven't all of them often depended on advice about what would be right, good, important, or good optics, to do?

Right . . . right . . . Trump is different. He is odd.

Someday books will be written and we will find out something, probably contradictory depending on which ones you read.[/QUOTE]

And some books are right and some are wrong--that is, in a world in which right and wrong, objective reality, exist.

In the vague Post Modern world, only opinion and power matter. You often seem, to me, to be anchored in the indefinite, the innuendo, the suggestion, the isolated incident colored by opinions meant to give power to narratives and parties that suits some world view that makes you comfortable.

That's why it is so fruitless to ask you what your point is. Some actual, substantial "point" would destroy the creative beauty of your narrative.

My rear is fine but thanks for thinking about it. I don't really adhere to a party so I'm not sure who I'm giving a pass to but I do think a lot of issues need to be put into perspective.

Thanks for the laugh
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I did, she said to tell you that she and her husband subsequently filed a civil lawsuit against Libby, #^&#^&#^&#^& Cheney, Karl Rove, and other unnamed senior White House officials, they later added Richard Armitage for their role in the public disclosure of Valerie Wilson's classified CIA status. Judge John D. Bates dismissed the Wilsons' lawsuit on jurisdictional grounds. The Wilsons appealed Bates's district-court decision the next day. Agreeing with the Bush administration, the Obama Justice Department argued that the Wilsons had no legitimate grounds to sue.

some interesting tidbits...

Christopher Hitchens asserted that Richard Armitage was the primary source of the Valerie Plame leak and that Fitzgerald knew this at the beginning of his investigation. This was supported a month later by Armitage himself, who stated that Fitzgerald had instructed him not to go public with this information.

Alan Dershowitz cited the "questionable investigation(s)" of Scooter Libby as evidence of the problems brought to the criminal justice process by "politically appointed and partisan attorney(s) general".

Investor's Business Daily questioned Fitzgerald's truthfulness in an editorial, stating "From top to bottom, this has been one of the most disgraceful abuses of prosecutorial power in this country's history...The Plame case proves [Fitzgerald] can bend the truth with the proficiency of the slickest of pols.

Peter Berkowitz argued that statements by Judith Miller, in her recently published memoir, raised anew contentions that her testimony was inaccurate and that Fitzgerald's conduct as prosecutor was inappropriate.


maybe someday books will be written.....please tell me how, with regard to national security, what "Scooter, be careful" did or didn't do, is
that worse than what Hillary did in her handling of classified material?