Fred Thompson's Wife Urges Run For White House!

Bottom line Phil...
Translation - This is what I command you to believe since it's what I believe and unbelievers will be sacrificed for the betterment of 'the public good'.

Confidential sources are entitled to nothing if the information they provide perpetuates illegality, injustice, or deception contrary to the public good.
Well, since nobody was tried for anything beyond perjury, which was an after the fact issue, I don't see how that applies. Armitage, the confidential source, wasn't prosecuted for perpetuating an illegality, injustice, or deception contrary to the public good, was he?

As for the public "not knowing anything", what do you call the current state of affairs?
The current state of affairs of WHAT? I can't answer an incomplete question.

The public is fed whatever the MSM wants them to know and believe.
If you eat from the trough then you deserve slop. If you free graze...well, you get the picture, I hope.

Bottom line Phil... Translation - This is what I command you to believe since it's what I believe and unbelievers will be sacrificed for the betterment of 'the public good'.

For gawdsakes Phil, that isn't a 'translation', that's you squirming in denial.

Confidential sources are entitled to nothing if the information they provide perpetuates illegality, injustice, or deception contrary to the public good.
Well, since nobody was tried for anything beyond perjury, which was an after the fact issue, I don't see how that applies. Armitage, the confidential source, wasn't prosecuted for perpetuating an illegality, injustice, or deception contrary to the public good, was he?

It applies because the party responsible (Armitage) skated while an innocent man (Libby) was prosecuted. You're still not getting this are you?

As for the public "not knowing anything", what do you call the current state of affairs?
The current state of affairs of WHAT? I can't answer an incomplete question.

There was nothing 'incomplete', re-read what you said in #76:

"Protecting your confidential source's identity is always the most important thing in the world of journalism. The public wouldn't know anything if journalists did what you suggest because nobody would feel safe telling them anything."

It didn't even occur to you Phil, that "the most important thing in the world of journalism" is NOT 'protecting your confidential sources', but TELLING THE TRUTH. And the 'incomplete question' that wasn't incomplete at all was a response to your statement in #76 that "the public wouldn't know anything" to which I said "what do you call the current state of affairs?", i.e., the public doesn't know anything NOW except what the MSM, and the practitioner's of your 'protect the source' mentality (at the expense of the truth), choose to reveal TO the public.

Hello neurons? Are we getting through?

The public is fed whatever the MSM wants them to know and believe.
If you eat from the trough then you deserve slop. If you free graze...well, you get the picture, I hope.

Not everyone has the sense to 'free graze', does that mean they should be abandoned to your 'slop in the trough'? Do the purveyors of that slop get a pass in your world?

Holy smokes, I haven't had this kind of challenge since I tried teaching the family dog to 'paint by numbers'.

And I'm encountering the same lack of success.

...that's you squirming in denial.
What is it exactly that I'm supposed to be denying? That Armitage is guilty of something, that Libby was unjustly tried or that Novak is a bad person for not breaking his confidential agreement and instructions from Fitzy not to say anything until after the case was closed and spill the beans?
It applies because the party responsible (Armitage) skated while an innocent man (Libby) was prosecuted.
Of what is Armitage guilty?

It didn't even occur to you Phil, that "the most important thing in the world of journalism" is NOT 'protecting your confidential sources', but TELLING THE TRUTH.
Despite the hue and cry of the day, journalists have been slanting stories for centuries based upon where and for whom they were employed by. "The truth" is subjective in journalism. You should know that and to expect it is idiotic.
Truth from journalism isn't a Constitutional right.

Hello neurons? Are we getting through?
Oh, I understand what you're implying and trying to impress upon me. I'm, however, not eating the slop you're tossing.
...the public doesn't know anything NOW except what the MSM, and the practitioner's of your 'protect the source' mentality (at the expense of the truth), choose to reveal TO the public.
And here all this time I've been thinking that the public was supposed to inform themselves, even to the extent of wading through the MSM's hipdeep BS. The public, if they choose to look for such things, knows lots of things about Plamegate. They know Armitage was the original leaker, that there was nothing there to charge him with, Libby was accused and convicted of perjury and the general concensus is that Fitzy went on a witch hunt in an attempt to get Rove. Maybe YOUR neurons are the ones not firing.

Not everyone has the sense to 'free graze', does that mean they should be abandoned to your 'slop in the trough'?
If you step in dog feces do you go to the owner of said dog and demand they scrape it off or do you get a stick and clean it off yourself and promise yourself to be more observant in the future as to where you place your feet?
Do the purveyors of that slop get a pass in your world?
I simply watch where I put my feet and don't step in dog shit.

Ok Phil, we'll make this as painless as possible.

a.) You don't get it. You'r like one of those toys that keep bouncing off the wall and no matter the new direction you still keep bouncing off the wall.

b.) You have a compulsive need to have the last word, so by all means, respond to this and just say 'Word', and you can declare victory in this thread, buy a round o' drinks for the boys, and we'll be done here, ok?

Have a nice (deluded) life.

My one word PRIVATE response to you was intended to allow you to keep your pride intact on the PUBLIC thread.
Your arrogance is amazing. My pride has nothing to do with what we were discussing. You were blowing hyperbole bubbles and I merely busted them.
It seems to me that you might look up the word projection...
b : the attribution of one's own ideas, feelings, or attitudes to other people or to objects; especially : the externalization of blame, guilt, or responsibility as a defense against anxiety

You exhibit signs of doing just that.

Please cite a source for what you claim. I'd like to read more about it.Here's a pretty good explanation of it from today;'s Washington Post:

Election law requires that TV stations give all candidates equal time. Experts said Thompson -- like the last movie-star candidate, Ronald Reagan -- would probably vanish from the airwaves except in news programming. That would probably mean that he would leave "Law & Order" and that networks would not air his reruns during the campaign. In the 1970s and 1980s, stations dropped "Bedtime for Bonzo" and other Reagan movies during his campaigns for governor of California and for president.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.