quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Then what does Novak imply by "weird" behavior in this sense

who f**king knows? but if he did, no doubt he would be more specific.

hell, Craig being gay and in the closet is probably weird by Novak's standard. Novak is a boozing old bar-fighter. if there were a picture of the words 'hetero booze hound' in the dictionary, he'd be there.

he could be paying lip service to Republicans that want Craig out of Congress seeing as how Craig doesn't want to go anywhere.

this, like the Plame garbage, is just you wanting something embarassing on Republicans that just isn't there.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo who f**king knows? but if he did, no doubt he would be more specific. hell, Craig being gay and in the closet is probably weird by Novak's standard. Novak is a boozing old bar-fighter. if there were a picture of the words 'hetero booze hound' in the dictionary, he'd be there.

Irrelevant. You're going beyond the realm of absurd with this. The reason you give does not fit the context to which Novak was discussing by any stretch. Novak was SPECIFICALLY discussing behavior outside of merely being a homosexual as he outlines here (again, since you continually seem to miss it):

quote:

And it was not just a homosexual relationship. It was this weird conduct.

So being a homosexual is nothing in the context to what Novak is referring to. Rather, it's the additional "weird" behavior in the context to what Craig had just recently been busted for is exactly what Novak is discussing.

There's not one fucking person that could possibly read that differently. Again what logical conclusion could one one come to with Novak's statements other than Craig's SAME lewd behavior exhibited at present with past behaviors?

quote:

he could be paying lip service to Republicans that want Craig out of Congress seeing as how Craig doesn't want to go anywhere.

If you come to that conclusion, that would imply that Novak is stretching the truth or slandering Craig with false statements.

Funny, I thought you implied earlier that Novak wouldn't do such things?

quote:

this, like the Plame garbage, is just you wanting something embarassing on Republicans that just isn't there.

The only embarrassment that's clearly on display is your attempts to parse the words of Novak and defend your contradictory closet-gay and illegally lewd Senator.

Finally, stop playing games, Q. You want to bring up the Plame argument, then show some integrity and continue that debate EXACTLY where you disappeared in all those previous threads elsewhere. Continuing to bring up that issue in this thread when you clearly bowed out of those arguments in the past gives you little credit here.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...

quote:

Originally posted by MisterOpus1 Irrelevant. You're going beyond the realm of absurd with this. The reason you give does not fit the context to which Novak was discussing by any stretch. Novak was SPECIFICALLY discussing behavior outside of merely being a homosexual as he outlines here (again, since you continually seem to miss it): So being a homosexual is nothing in the context to what Novak is referring to. Rather, it's the additional "weird" behavior in the context to what Craig had just recently been busted for is exactly what Novak is discussing. There's not one fucking person that could possibly read that differently. Again what logical conclusion could one one come to with Novak's statements other than Craig's SAME lewd behavior exhibited at present with past behaviors?

i think i've made it clear where i stand on this.

weird isn't anything. at the same time weird could mean anything. however what Novak knows is not specific to anything other than the description of gay behaviour that is, by his standard, weird.

but we'll see how far the rabbit hole goes if anywhere.

quote:

If you come to that conclusion, that would imply that Novak is stretching the truth or slandering Craig with false statements. Funny, I thought you implied earlier that Novak wouldn't do such things?

what i mean is he could be being fed stuff by the party that is essentially what they've seen to be in the past as clues to his sexual orientation. doesn't mean they've known him to be doing anything illeagal. (why in the f**k would anybody in the party tell Novak that? seriously). it just means they're not going to protect his identity anymore because he has broken the law and he refuses to play by the code.

quote:

The only embarrassment that's clearly on display is your attempts to parse the words of Novak and defend your contradictory closet-gay and illegally lewd Senator.

right. no one is allowed objectivity when defending Rebublicans. got it. typical Democrat attitude.

quote:

Finally, stop playing games, Q. You want to bring up the Plame argument, then show some integrity and continue that debate EXACTLY where you disappeared in all those previous threads elsewhere. Continuing to bring up that issue in this thread when you clearly bowed out of those arguments in the past gives you little credit here.

i don't have to defend my point of view Opus. Fitzgerald did it for me.

the whole outcome of the Plame debacle speaks for itself.

Maybe because he's allowed to be gay if he wants?

Double standards are bullshit. He got caught doing something stupid and illegal, that's his problem... but being gay is not a crime.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo i think i've made it clear where i stand on this.

Yes, your blissful ignorance is quite clear.

quote:

weird isn't anything. at the same time weird could mean anything. however what Novak knows is not specific to anything other than the description of gay behaviour that is, by his standard, weird.

Please read the statement again by Novak:

quote:

and it was not just a homosexual relationship. It was this weird conduct.

What part of that is so difficult for you to understand? It's NOT JUST A HOMOSEXUAL RELATIONSHIP, Q, i.e. it's not the "gay behavior" that's "weird", rather, it's some other "weird conduct" being displayed. And in the context of what Novak and EVERYONE BUT YOU is talking about with Craig here, it's painfully clear what "weird conduct" Novak is referring to here.

quote:

what i mean is he could be being fed stuff by the party that is essentially what they've seen to be in the past as clues to his sexual orientation. doesn't mean they've known him to be doing anything illeagal. (why in the f**k would anybody in the party tell Novak that? seriously). it just means they're not going to protect his identity anymore because he has broken the law and he refuses to play by the code.

I'm sorry, but I can only play hypotheticals for so long. We can speculate to live long day about the motives of Novak and the GOP party, but in the end that evidence is not in to make any worthwhile conclusions just yet.

So until we see any possible motives come out for why Novak might have helped the GOP boot Craig out the door by this interview, I think it would be more worthwhile to hold comments until then.

quote:

right. no one is allowed objectivity when defending Rebublicans. got it. typical Democrat attitude.

Typical Republican attitude to deliberately confuse objectivity with blissful ignorance. The former requires you to examine the statements made in full context and rule out all possible implications Novak was making in that full context. Given the full context of what Novak and everyone was referring to here, there is no other conclusion to be made other than weird is implying the SAME behavior that Craig has exhibited and got arrested for recently. That, of course is not the homosexual behavior, as Novak stated again:

quote:

and it was not just a homosexual relationship. It was this weird conduct.

The latter, your blissful ignorance, is to play dumb and pretend no other implication could ever possibly be made and outright ignore the context to which it was being made.

It's quite clear which one you are demonstrating at this point.

quote:

i don't have to defend my point of view Opus. Fitzgerald did it for me. the whole outcome of the Plame debacle speaks for itself.

Well yes, of course, Novak didn't get charged. However I think his actions speak well for himself (as well as the CIA twit who confirmed Plame's status to Novak):

quote:

Harlow, the former CIA spokesman, said in an interview yesterday that he testified last year before a grand jury about conversations he had with Novak at least three days before the column was published. He said he warned Novak, in the strongest terms he was permitted to use without revealing classified information, that Wilson's wife had not authorized the mission and that if he did write about it, her name should not be revealed. Harlow said that after Novak's call, he checked Plame's status and confirmed that she was an undercover operative. He said he called Novak back to repeat that the story Novak had related to him was wrong and that Plame's name should not be used. But he did not tell Novak directly that she was undercover because that was classified. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dy...2602069_pf.html

When told by a CIA man NOT to use her name and he used it anyway in efforts to go after her husband who exposed Bush and Cheney's bullshit story on Saddam's nuke capabilities, perhaps the word "traitor" is too strong for Novak.

Ignorant schmuck?
Shithead GOP Tool?
Dumbfuck?

I'm sure there's some other good terms out there that fit him well too. In any case, neither he nor the players in our Administration did our country a worthy service by partaking in the outing of a cover CIA operative who's job was to protect our country from WMD proliferation in Iraq and Iran.

___________________
Whence September dusk grows crisper still,
with leaves all crimson conquered,
I yearn to shout,
and dance about,
and stick pickles in my honker...