My rant on a freakin' nitwit...

KansaKilla · Post by **KansaKilla** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 7:32 pm

I admit that I am a news junkie. I consider myself a political centrist but I surf all the major news sites whether they are "conservative," "liberal," or apolitical. Some sites are obviously better than others, but why, oh why, in the bloody blue blazes did Drudge have to "out" Prince Harry? Freakin' nitwit. The thought makes me sick. I am deeply embarrassed that someone in the American media did this. Was it really worth a few more page hits to put his life and the lives of his comrades-in-arms even more in harm's way, especially since he is serving in an allied military and helping to further the goals of NATO and the coalition? Now every jihadist in the region is going to be gunning for him or for the people that are around him, if for nothing else than to stir up more attention. At least the British media had the common decency to keep quiet about where he was even though they knew about it. Makes me respect their media a heck of a lot more. I realize it was just one guy who did this, but wtf? Is it a symptom of a self-serving media feeding the 24-hour news cycle? I am really proud that he had the balls to stand up and serve his country. Doesn't matter if you think the whole thing is right or wrong, somebody has to serve and he could have had a coushy job behind the lines, but he stood tall and put himself out there in the lines with his countrymen.

God bless all the soldiers serving: British, US, Canadian, et al. They're tops in my book. The libation tonight will be in honor of him and all those like him.

Aard · Post by **Aard** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 10:40 pm

Just saw this run on the news, the word is that an Australian website has had this story running since January. Also New Idea (a women's glossy/gossip mag) has run this story (presumably at a similar time to the Drudge Report).

Edit: Scratch the Aussie website just the mag apparantly

Plissken · Post by **Plissken** » Thu Feb 28, 2008 11:10 pm

I wouldn't blame Drudge too much for the media leak. I've read that others were about to break the story as well. Drudge is a headline magnet, which is why news junkies go there. Anyway, hats off to Harry, and hopefully this is all a decoy and Harry is going somewhere else.

Bluefront · Post by **Bluefront** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 2:53 am

Drudge is the person who exposed Clinton as a fraud, liar, and a sexual pervert, if you remember......before anybody else did. So he does serve a useful purpose.

fri2219 · Post by **fri2219** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 4:32 am

[quote="Bluefront"]Drudge is the person who exposed Clinton as a fraud, liar, and a sexual pervert, if you remember......before anybody else did. So he does serve a useful purpose. [/quote]

Yeah, thank god, too. Instead of dealing with Osama bin Laden, Clinton wound up dealing with Impeachment.

With the consequential results of 9/11, lets all have a round of smilies!

Bluefront · Post by **Bluefront** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 4:56 am

OMG....blaming 9-11 on Clinton rather than Bush? Or maybe blaming 9-11 on Drudge?

Cerb · Post by **Cerb** » Fri Feb 29, 2008 6:29 am

Bluefront wrote:Drudge is the person who exposed Clinton as a fraud, liar, and a sexual pervert, if you remember......before anybody else did. So he does serve a useful purpose.

...which is about as important as steroid use (tin foil beanie, I know, but that just has to be a decoy to keep from putting proper attention on real estate and credit). Not a great example of usefulness.

aristide1 · Post by **aristide1** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 6:15 am

No news service calls Bush a liar because it would confuse people, as if today was different than yesterday or the day before, but they are all the same.

A news story would be Bush telling the truth, that would be sensational.

Clinton didn't serve in the military, that makes him bad news. Cheney didn't either, that's OK in the republican play book.

Treason is more serious than a sex scandal, except in the republican play book.

Innocent dead people only count when the argument favors republicans.

Delusions of adequacy in ones arguments continue here at SPRC for some.

aristide1 · Post by **aristide1** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 6:17 am

Cerb wrote:
Bluefront wrote:Drudge is the person who exposed Clinton as a fraud, liar, and a sexual pervert, if you remember......before anybody else did. So he does serve a useful purpose.
...which is about as important as steroid use (tin foil beanie, I know, but that just has to be a decoy to keep from putting proper attention on real estate and credit). Not a great example of usefulness.

Name one one useful example he's ever made.

pipperoni · Post by **pipperoni** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 6:52 am

I think the Drudge Report is on the level of pure evil self interest, just as any good corporation should be. I had never really heard of Drudge until this Harry in Afganistan story, but now I have and if I were so curious, I would go visit Drudge to see what they are about and pass my own judgement. Either way, Drudge wins.

If you're business is media, it pays to be bad.

derekva · Post by **derekva** » Thu Mar 06, 2008 11:21 am

Bluefront wrote:Drudge is the person who exposed Clinton as a fraud, liar, and a sexual pervert, if you remember......before anybody else did. So he does serve a useful purpose.

C'mon. If getting a hummer is a sexual pervert, then the perverts outnumber the 'straights'. And being asked about whether or not he was getting some on the side wasn't an appropriate subject for the Starr Commission given that it's purpose for existing was to investigate Whitewater (which was fruitless due to a lack of evidence). I'm assuming the 'fraud and liar' comments relate to him denying any sexual relations with Lewinsky.

-D

Cerb · Post by **Cerb** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 10:19 am

aristide1 wrote:
Cerb wrote:
Bluefront wrote:Drudge is the person who exposed Clinton as a fraud, liar, and a sexual pervert, if you remember......before anybody else did. So he does serve a useful purpose.
...which is about as important as steroid use (tin foil beanie, I know, but that just has to be a decoy to keep from putting proper attention on real estate and credit). Not a great example of usefulness.
Name one one useful example he's ever made.

Why? My purpose was to say that the Clinton example is not good, and move further off from the topic than BF had taken it with his post, as a point that he was attempting to divert attention elsewhere by posting that; not to say I know of better examples.

aristide1 · Post by **aristide1** » Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:21 pm

derekva wrote:
Bluefront wrote:Drudge is the person who exposed Clinton as a fraud, liar, and a sexual pervert, if you remember......before anybody else did. So he does serve a useful purpose.
C'mon. If getting a hummer is a sexual pervert, then the perverts outnumber the 'straights'. And being asked about whether or not he was getting some on the side wasn't an appropriate subject for the Starr Commission given that it's purpose for existing was to investigate Whitewater (which was fruitless due to a lack of evidence). I'm assuming the 'fraud and liar' comments relate to him denying any sexual relations with Lewinsky.

-D

The republican mindset is to believe that Bill Clinton allowed teenagers not only to claim oral sex was not sex, but also he invented it. Teenagers prior to Bill Clinton were all honest and ethical virgins. Bill Clinton gave Eve the apple and paradise was lost.

I suppose any republican than had never heard of oral sex may believe this...........

But hey, you have Newt Gingrich throwing stones while in the midst of his own extra-marital affair. Got hyprocrisy? Duh!