Former Austinite

Here’s something to consider, as a dumb outsider who merely “thinks”. Is there double jeopardy in USA?

Wouldn’t it be “funny” if all the bad eggs were given a get out of jail free card with points against their names. Guess it would empirically suggest “justice” to the dumb plebs. Someone will do time, I’m sure. Where’s the janitor?

I respect the intellectually impaired, Goldwater.

Twin clowns.

Q1. How come no one has investigated the CIA for THAT??????

A: The CIA didn’t leak anything that was classified.

Q2. What undercover agent puts her political contributions in her REAL NAME?

Every undercover agent who files a federal tax return and, in exercising their protected right to freedom of speech, makes a tax deductible contribution to a political party.

After all, they have a reasonable expectation that the top secret, highly classified information that they’re a NOC working on some of the most sensitive and vulnerable national security projects going won’t be leaked to the press in a coordinated campaign to slime to slime their spouse for political ends.

I bet that’s too many words for you to take in at once. Try writing them out one by one, get help from a grownup if you need it. You can always ask for another crayon if they break on you.

That is what is so disheartening some days…the utter lack of ability to perform this very simple conscious act.

I understand we naked apes are loathe to change, much less admit we have been incorrect. The ego is a nasty thing. But our THINKING minds should over ride the very illogical “arguments” we hear.

I don’t pretend to know it all; never have (well, ok, I suppose in my youth, hubris and pride surely did over ride at times!)

I know trolls would never respond to my post; the plain simple truth is the last part of their agenda. It is exactly when we hear- what?- from them:
**crickets**crickets**

I do however appreciate your acknowleding that you “get it.” Your posts are wonderful in their heartfelt passion and telling dissection of truth. )

It occurs to me that these trolls always like to argue the ‘semantics’ of whatever they are talking about, or trying to. They want to press some tiny, fine little point, to the extent of unreasonability. Yet the obvious, facts are always considered untrue, unless ‘proved’, over and over again. A never ending process with most of these morons, although I still hold hope for a few more to open there eyes.

Right in the same vein, trolls always love to press the ‘letter of the law’ and the ‘rule of law’, for which I have great respect. However, the intent, and compassion that are so necessary to have equal justice, is somehow missing.

Listen to their words. Slight changes they make in what they are saying, to change its meaning, like talking something out of context. They are always telling us what we should ‘believe’, even when our experience, knowledge and intellect tells us it is not true. I have been known to change my mind of various issues over the years. When new FACTS or RESEARCH come into play, everyone should re-examine any previous conclusions. Trolls lack that ability, and therefore, are an inferior species. They will someday become extinct.

For all any of us knows, one can drive to Langley every day for years and be undercover. One can go on vacation and be “on the clock” for the government. The very obviously “Receptionist” in the lobby can still have an undercover status. Secret.

The tradecraft of spying is supposed to be “covert”- it could be happening right under your very nose! that’s the point. You ought not to see a “drop” occur as you sip a latte at the cafe.

Arguing “prove it!” is not the point…sure, insist you don’t want to believe it. That’s your right. But, in no way does disbelief make it a falsehood.

Just answer the fucking questions. If you can’t then shut the fuck up.

It only tells you SHIT because you don’t even have that for brains.

But this is choice, TG (you don’t mind if I call you that, Trolly?):

“—You prove to me she wasn’t undercover…”

There, there, TG. That’s what *you* want to do, and can’t. Your incoherence is a delight to behold.

It’s so kind of Larry to pull in the occasional half-witted troll to bait.

* poke *

Still there, TG?

You know, if you don’t come a-ranting and a-hollering and A-YELLING LIKE A CRAZY HOMELESS PERSON!!!!!! you’ll get a different reception. If you came back all smoothed out – shaved, washed and without your shopping cart – maybe we can have a civilised discussion.

Ya dig?

How much does the average CIA officer make?

Let me guess: 50K – 75K

You don’t get much for 75K.

That tells me SHIT, asswhipe, because NO ONE has SEEN the fucking document. We just know that the CIA leaked it MSM to cover their pathetic, incompetant asses. And by the way – how come no one has investigated the CIA for THAT??????

WILSON IS A JOKE! Even the left-wing Washington Post know that.

—You prove to me she wasn’t undercover…

What undercover agent drives herself to CIA every fucking day of the week. If that is how the CIA protects their undercover agents then we really are in fucking trouble.

What undercover agent puts her political contributions in her REAL NAME?

ARE YOU PEOPLE DENSE????

The CIA referred the matter to the prosecutor for investigation. That would tell you something – if you only had a brain.

PROVE TO ME THAT CIA WAS EVEN REMOTELY INTERESTED IN KEEPING PLAME’S STATUS UNDERCOVER… I DARE YOU!!!!!!!

FACT:
The CIA sent a non-CIA employee, Joseph C. Wilson 4th, on a mission to Niger to determine whether Saddam Hussein had tried to purchase “uranium yellow cake,” an ingredient for making a non-conventional weapon.

FACT:
Wilson had not served in Niger for over two decades, and, unlike his supposedly undercover wife, was not an expert in nuclear weapons.

FACT:
Wilson was not required to sign a confidentiality agreement about his mission.

FACT:
Wilson was not prevented by the CIA from writing his Op-Ed for The New York Times, an article that not only criticized the Administration, but also detailed his mission and findings.

FACT;
When columnist Novak contacted the CIA to verify that Plame worked for the Agency, he says that the Agency not only verified her employment but also failed to give him a serious request not to publish her name.

FACT:
The CIA’s usual procedure when it is concerned that publishing a fact would endanger a covert agent is to have a high ranking official, usually the Director, contact the journalist and ask that information not be published.

FACT:
The CIA did not prohibit Plame from making political contributions under the name “Wilson, Valerie E.,” facts that are publicly available at the FEC.