Well, "idiot" right back atcha.
It's already begun. It's underway.

Why don't you ask your buddy "alias" about it. Maybe he can tell you about your recent court loss...

(And didn't the Republicans lose a vice-presidential high-ranking staff member to "Plamegate"? )

Not directly, no. Study the case. You'll find that you're WRONG about that one too!

Spin it baby. Keep humping and jumping through hoops, little doggie!

You get REALLY pathetic when you start telling me to "study" something instead of LAYING OUT AN ARGUMENT for why I am supposedly wrong...

REALLY pathetic.

Maybe I should adopt that as my new debating tactic!

Hey Jefferson? Alias?
Go "study" the issue and figure out that you're wrong. That'll prove to everybody that I'm right!

What was just revealed about the PlameGate case this past week?


Did you miss that one on MTV? Or did you just ignore it, because you don't like it?

It's funny how you often accuse me of things that YOU YOURSELF ARE GUILTY OF. Like in another thread where you accused me of "deflecting" the issue.

Take this thread for example. We were talking about Bush's illegal wire-tapping efforts and the like.

But you can't show any reason why it's not illegal. You can't counter the fact that it IS illegal.

So what do you do here?
You deflect the issue away from Bush's wire-tapping issues, and try to change the subject into "Plame-gate".

The POINT is that, despite all your cock-sure BS and hot air, there are NO LEGAL ACTIONS - just as there were no legal actions in the PlameGate affair. In fact, it turns out that you, and your fellow liberal patsies, were WRONG about PlameGate, and in time you'll shown to be WRONG about the wire-tapping thing too.

Boo stinking Hoo. Cry me a river. You're unbelievably pathetic.

You keep saying that.
And you keep revealing your ignorance on the subject.

washingtonpost.com
A federal judge in Detroit ruled yesterday that the National Security Agency's warrantless surveillance program is unconstitutional, delivering the first decision that the Bush administration's effort to monitor communications without court oversight runs afoul of the Bill of Rights and federal law.

Sounds like a lot more than "NO LEGAL ACTIONS" to me...

And for every 1 of your little "citings" I can cite 10 that have a judge or lawyer saying that there was absolutely NOTHING illegal done.

Once again, cry me a river.

This isn't a "citing".
This is a RULING.

And if you can show me ANY "citing" which explains, explicitly, WHERE in the constitution it says Bush can wire-tap innocent American civilians without a warrant, then I welcome you to do so.

Without it, your "citings" are useless.


Why should I cry?
The judge ruled in a way I agree with.

This "cry me a river" crap. Is that your typical sign-off when you basically give nothing of merit, like you did just here?

The NY Times is not a credible source any more. They have lied too many times.