The W
Views: 100790142
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
24.11.14 0111
The W - Current Events & Politics - Extract From 'Dude, Where's My Country' - 7 Questions For Bush
This thread has 17 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Thread rated: 4.22
Pages: 1
(1737 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (8 total)
A-MOL
Frankfurter








Since: 26.6.02
From: York, England

Since last post: 3905 days
Last activity: 3847 days
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.35
The Guardian had an extract from his new book today. While I know he annoys a lot of people, it has to be said that it is a good thing that there are people like him to open up debates. Enjoy.



    I have seven questions for you, Mr Bush. I ask them on behalf of the 3,000 who died that September day, and I ask them on behalf of the American people. We seek no revenge against you. We want only to know what happened, and what can be done to bring the murderers to justice, so we can prevent any future attacks on our citizens.

    1. Is it true that the Bin Ladens have had business relations with you and your family off and on for the past 25 years?

    Most Americans might be surprised to learn that you and your father have known the Bin Ladens for a long time. What, exactly, is the extent of this relationship, Mr Bush? Are you close personal friends, or simply on-again, off-again business associates? Salem bin Laden - Osama's brother - first started coming to Texas in 1973 and later bought some land, built himself a house, and created Bin Laden Aviation at the San Antonio airfield.

    The Bin Ladens are one of the wealthiest families in Saudi Arabia. Their huge construction firm virtually built the country, from the roads and power plants to the skyscrapers and government buildings. They built some of the airstrips America used in your dad's Gulf war. Billionaires many times over, they soon began investing in other ventures around the world, including the US. They have extensive business dealings with Citigroup, General Electric, Merrill Lynch, Goldman Sachs, and the Fremont Group.

    According to the New Yorker, the bin Laden family also owns a part of Microsoft and the airline and defence giant Boeing. They have donated $2m to your alma mater, Harvard University, and tens of thousands to the Middle East Policy Council, a think-tank headed by a former US ambassador to Saudi Arabia, Charles Freeman. In addition to the property they own in Texas, they also have real estate in Florida and Massachusetts. In short, they have their hands deep in our pants.

    Unfortunately, as you know, Mr Bush, Salem bin Laden died in a plane crash in Texas in 1988. Salem's brothers - there are around 50 of them, including Osama - continued to run the family companies and investments.

    After leaving office, your father became a highly paid consultant for a company known as the Carlyle Group - one of the nation's largest defence contractors. One of the investors in the Carlyle Group - to the tune of at least $2m - was none other than the Bin Laden family. Until 1994, you headed a company called CaterAir, which was owned by the Carlyle Group.

    After September 11, the Washington Post and the Wall Street Journal both ran stories pointing out this connection. Your first response, Mr Bush, was to ignore it. Then your army of pundits went into spin control. They said, we can't paint these Bin Ladens with the same brush we use for Osama. They have disowned Osama! They have nothing to do with him! These are the good Bin Ladens.

    And then the video footage came out. It showed a number of these "good" Bin Ladens - including Osama's mother, a sister and two brothers - with Osama at his son's wedding just six and a half months before September 11. It was no secret to the CIA that Osama bin Laden had access to his family fortune (his share is estimated to be at least $30m), and the Bin Ladens, as well as other Saudis, kept Osama and his group, al-Qaida, well funded.

    You've gotten a free ride from the media, though they know everything I have just written to be the truth. They seem unwilling or afraid to ask you a simple question, Mr Bush: WHAT IS GOING ON HERE?

    In case you don't understand just how bizarre the media's silence is regarding the Bush-Bin Laden connections, let me draw an analogy to how the press or Congress might have handled something like this if the same shoe had been on the Clinton foot. If, after the terrorist attack on the Federal Building in Oklahoma City, it had been revealed that President Bill Clinton and his family had financial dealings with Timothy McVeigh's family, what do you think your Republican party and the media would have done with that one?

    Do you think at least a couple of questions might have been asked, such as, "What is that all about?" Be honest, you know the answer. They would have asked more than a couple of questions. They would have skinned Clinton alive and thrown what was left of his carcass in Guantanamo Bay.

    2. What is the 'special relationship' between the Bushes and the Saudi royal family?

    Mr Bush, the Bin Ladens are not the only Saudis with whom you and your family have a close personal relationship. The entire royal family seems to be indebted to you - or is it the other way round?

    The number one supplier of oil to the US is the nation of Saudi Arabia, possessor of the largest known reserves of oil in the world. When Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait in 1990, it was really the Saudis next door who felt threatened, and it was your father, George Bush I, who came to their rescue. The Saudis have never forgotten this. Haifa, wife of Prince Bandar, the Saudi ambassador to the US, says that your mother and father "are like my mother and father. I know if ever I needed anything I could go to them".

    A major chunk of the American economy is built on Saudi money. They have a trillion dollars invested in our stock market and another trillion dollars in our banks. If they chose suddenly to remove that money, our corporations and financial institutions would be sent into a tailspin, causing an economic crisis the likes of which has never been seen. Couple that with the fact that the 1.5m barrels of oil we need daily from the Saudis could also vanish on a mere royal whim, and we begin to see how not only you, but all of us, are dependent on the House of Saud. George, is this good for our national security, our homeland security? Who is it good for? You? Pops?

    After meeting with the Saudi crown prince in April 2002, you happily told us that the two of you had "established a strong personal bond" and that you "spent a lot of time alone". Were you trying to reassure us? Or just flaunt your friendship with a group of rulers who rival the Taliban in their suppression of human rights? Why the double standard?

    3. Who attacked the US on September 11 - a guy on dialysis from a cave in Afghanistan, or your friend, Saudi Arabia?

    I'm sorry, Mr Bush, but something doesn't make sense.

    You got us all repeating by rote that it was Osama bin Laden who was responsible for the attack on the United States on September 11. Even I was doing it. But then I started hearing strange stories about Osama's kidneys. Suddenly, I don't know who or what to trust. How could a guy sitting in a cave in Afghanistan, hooked up to dialysis, have directed and overseen the actions of 19 terrorists for two years in the US then plotted so perfectly the hijacking of four planes and then guaranteed that three of them would end up precisely on their targets? How did he organise, communicate, control and supervise this kind of massive attack? With two cans and a string?

    The headlines blared it the first day and they blare it the same way now two years later: "Terrorists Attack United States." Terrorists. I have wondered about this word for some time, so, George, let me ask you a question: if 15 of the 19 hijackers had been North Korean, rather than Saudi, and they had killed 3,000 people, do you think the headline the next day might have read, "NORTH KOREA ATTACKS UNITED STATES"? Of course it would. Or if it had been 15 Iranians or 15 Libyans or 15 Cubans, I think the conventional wisdom would have been, "IRAN [or LIBYA or CUBA] ATTACKS AMERICA!" Yet, when it comes to September 11, have you ever seen the headline, have you ever heard a newscaster, has one of your appointees ever uttered these words: "Saudi Arabia attacked the United States"?

    Of course you haven't. And so the question must - must - be asked: why not? Why, when Congress released its own investigation into September 11, did you, Mr Bush, censor out 28 pages that deal with the Saudis' role in the attack?

    I would like to throw out a possibility here: what if September 11 was not a "terrorist" attack but, rather, a military attack against the United States? George, apparently you were a pilot once - how hard is it to hit a five-storey building at more than 500 miles an hour? The Pentagon is only five stories high. At 500 miles an hour, had the pilots been off by just a hair, they'd have been in the river. You do not get this skilled at learning how to fly jumbo jets by being taught on a video game machine at some dipshit flight training school in Arizona. You learn to do this in the air force. Someone's air force.

    The Saudi air force?

    What if these weren't wacko terrorists, but military pilots who signed on to a suicide mission? What if they were doing this at the behest of either the Saudi government or certain disgruntled members of the Saudi royal family? The House of Saud, according to Robert Baer's book Sleeping With the Devil, is full of them. So, did certain factions within the Saudi royal family execute the attack on September 11? Were these pilots trained by the Saudis? Why are you so busy protecting the Saudis when you should be protecting us?

    4. Why did you allow a private Saudi jet to fly around the US in the days after September 11 and pick up members of the Bin Laden family and fly them out of the country without a proper investigation by the FBI?

    Private jets, under the supervision of the Saudi government - and with your approval - were allowed to fly around the skies of America, when travelling by air was forbidden, and pick up 24 members of the Bin Laden family and take them first to a "secret assembly point in Texas". They then flew to Washington DC, and then on to Boston. Finally, on September 18, they were all flown to Paris, out of the reach of any US officials. They never went through any serious interrogation. This is mind-boggling. Might it have been possible that at least one of the 24 Bin Ladens would have possibly known something?

    While thousands were stranded and could not fly, if you could prove you were a close relative of the biggest mass murderer in US history, you got a free trip to gay Paree!

    Why, Mr Bush, was this allowed to happen?

    5. Why are you protecting the Second Amendment rights of potential terrorists?

    Mr Bush, in the days after September 11, the FBI began running a check to see if any of the 186 "suspects" the feds had rounded up in the first five days after the attack had purchased any guns in the months leading up to September 11 (two of them had). When your attorney general, John Ashcroft, heard about this, he immediately shut down the search. He told the FBI that the background check files could not be used for such a search and these files were only to be used at the time of a purchase of a gun.

    Mr Bush, you can't be serious! Is your administration really so gun nutty and so deep in the pocket of the National Rifle Association? I truly love how you have rounded up hundreds of people, grabbing them off the streets without notice, throwing them in prison cells, unable to contact lawyers or family, and then, for the most part, shipped them out of the country on mere immigration charges.

    You can waive their Fourth Amendment protection from unlawful search and seizure, their Sixth Amendment rights to an open trial by a jury of their peers and the right to counsel, and their First Amendment rights to speak, assemble, dissent and practise their religion. You believe you have the right to just trash all these rights, but when it comes to the Second Amendment right to own an AK-47 - oh no! That right they can have - and you will defend their right to have it.

    Who, Mr Bush, is really aiding the terrorists here?

    6. Were you aware that, while you were governor of Texas, the Taliban travelled to Texas to meet with your oil and gas company friends?

    According to the BBC, the Taliban came to Texas while you were governor to meet with Unocal, the huge oil and energy giant, to discuss Unocal's desire to build a natural-gas pipeline running from Turkmenistan through Taliban-controlled Afghanistan and into Pakistan.

    Mr Bush, what was this all about?

    "Houston, we have a problem," apparently never crossed your mind, even though the Taliban were perhaps the most repressive fundamentalist regime on the planet. What role exactly did you play in the Unocal meetings with the Taliban?

    According to various reports, representatives of your administration met with the Taliban or conveyed messages to them during the summer of 2001. What were those messages, Mr Bush? Were you discussing their offer to hand over Bin Laden? Were you threatening them with use of force? Were you talking to them about a pipeline?

    7. What exactly was that look on your face in the Florida classroom on the morning of September 11 when your chief of staff told you, 'America is under attack'?

    On the morning of September 11, you took a jog on a golf course and then headed to Booker elementary school in Florida to read to little children. You arrived at the school after the first plane had hit the north tower in New York City. You entered the classroom around 9am and the second plane hit the south tower at 9.03am. Just a few minutes later, as you were sitting in front of the class of kids, your chief of staff, Andrew Card, entered the room and whispered in your ear. Card was apparently telling you about the second plane and about us being "under attack".

    And it was at that very moment that your face went into a distant glaze, not quite a blank look, but one that seemed partially paralysed. No emotion was shown. And then ... you just sat there. You sat there for another seven minutes or so doing nothing.

    George, what were you thinking? What did that look on your face mean?

    Were you thinking you should have taken reports the CIA had given you the month before more seriously? You had been told al-Qaida was planning attacks in the United States and that planes would possibly be used.

    Or were you just scared shitless?

    Or maybe you were just thinking, "I did not want this job in the first place! This was supposed to be Jeb's job; he was the chosen one! Why me? Why me, daddy?"

    Or ... maybe, just maybe, you were sitting there in that classroom chair thinking about your Saudi friends - both the royals and the Bin Ladens. People you knew all too well that might have been up to no good. Would questions be asked? Would suspicions arise? Would the Democrats have the guts to dig into your family's past with these people (no, don't worry, never a chance of that!)? Would the truth ever come out?






...full of energy. Multi-orgasmic, if you will, in a cosmic sort of way."
Promote this thread!
Scott Summets
Sujuk








Since: 27.6.02

Since last post: 3937 days
Last activity: 3906 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.54
Doh.... AMOL proved me wrong, I was thinking the guy switched Yale with Harvard.

(edited by Scott Summets on 6.10.03 0910)


"I wear it for the thousands who have died, believen' that the Lord was on their side. I wear it for another hundred thousand who have died, believen' that we all were on their side." RIP Johnny Cash



A-MOL
Frankfurter








Since: 26.6.02
From: York, England

Since last post: 3905 days
Last activity: 3847 days
#3 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.35
    Originally posted by Scott Summets
    I got to three paragraphs down, read Bush's alma mater was Harvard to this guy and then realized that if your dumb enough to get such a simple fact wrong, who cares what you have to say.


MBA from Harvard, no? And if getting simple facts wrong stops you from listening to the guy, you won't be listening to the President, correct?

(edited by A-MOL on 6.10.03 1409)


...full of energy. Multi-orgasmic, if you will, in a cosmic sort of way."
Michrome
Head cheese








Since: 2.1.03

Since last post: 3864 days
Last activity: 2930 days
#4 Posted on | Instant Rating: 0.00
It would take forever to shred all of this, so I'll just let spinsanity do it when the book comes out. They sure did a bangup job on "Bowling For Lies."



Yep, I forgot the password to my original name.
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1301 days
Last activity: 1098 days
#5 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
And somebody took the time to write Seven Question for Michael Moore:

Seven Questions for Michael Moore… Michael Moore has recently asked seven inane questions, addressed to President Bush, under the arrogant presumption that he is doing so "on behalf of" the victims of the World Trade Center attack. If he is even aware of what his words mean, this fat pig can only mean that he regards himself as the moral or political spokesman of the victims; a disgraceful and disrespectful act of corpse-robbing since none of those people gave him permission to speak for them.

Well Michael, I myself have a few questions for you, seven in fact. I ask them, with similar egomaniacal immodesty, on behalf of everyone who is not a complete fucking idiot.


1. Why have you refused to issue corrections for books like Stupid White Men that have been savaged in the press for the unusually high rate of errors and misrepresentations they contain?

You know the savaging I'm talking about. Liberals alone account for an astonishing number of the critical beatings you've received, as you can find here and here and here. And since they're your natural allies, that's not good.

Unfortunately, it's not just your books that appear to have been written in a haze of euphoria after doubling up on your meds. People keep finding numerous errors of fact in your documentaries and television programs too, some of which you've quietly corrected in re-issue without accepting responsibility for the original distortion. Yet a film, even moreso than a book, must be painstakingly edited and undergo review by many people over a lengthy post-production schedule. Only you could have had the veto power to keep a lie in. How is it that your falsehoods survived this vetting process?

Hey, maybe this is one of the reasons Mother Jones fired you for incompetence.


2. Why do you keep circulating urban myths long after they've been shot down?

This ties in with number one; you seem to have a long-standing habit of telling a slighly better version of the truth, one unencumbered by nuance or complexity. While you can claim that your research is sloppy or that you've corrected the printed record by backpedaling on a talk show, there's no excuse for your retailing fictions after you've already been corrected. And you do it a lot.

Frequently these myths don't even make sense. For example, you've darkly hinted that relatives of Osama bin Laden were allowed to leave the United States following the World Trade Center destruction due to the existence of some nefarious conspiracy involving George W. Bush. (You mistakenly assert that bin Laden's relatives left during the ban on plane travel without the cooperation of the FBI.)

Of course if such a conspiracy really existed one wonders why these relatives were still in the United States the day of the attack. I mean presumably the whole point of a conspiracy is so the conspirators can plan ahead. You can't possibly mean to indicate that relatives of bin Laden are guilty of terrorism by virtue of blood relation. If your absurd anecdote has any meaning it must be that a cover-up was underway even as the dust of the World Trade Center was still settling.

3. How did you manage to make an entire movie about gun violence without exploring the violent crime in lower class minority neighborhoods?

This is especially curious because you waste little time getting to your point that gun violence is a product of white fear of minorities. Presumably then the violent crime that afflicts minorities is caused by paranoid whites who buy up K-Mart's rifle stockpile and drive through the ghetto shooting darkies. Or something.

No, wait, that can't be it because most of the violence there is intra-ethnic and closely related to a maladaptive ganster ethos and turf wars. Hey maybe you can devote some time to that in your next book or movie, that is if your moaning about disadvantaged minorities is for more than just show.

4. What was it like getting booed while giving your Oscar acceptance speech?

You looked like one of the victims of your own documentaries, rambling idiotically about "fictition" and then hustling your ass backstage to intimidate reporters who might actually have noticed both your inarticulate flailing and the crowd's hostility. In fact you later claimed that the audience was booing your enemies. Hey, nice try.

5. Why aren't you allowing advance review copies of your latest book to go out before you start on your promotional speaking tour?

A wag might suggest that after past experiences you're trying to avoid getting asked about any of the embarrassing factual innovations that pepper your writing.

If so, I have to warn you it's a foolhardly gambit which could magnify the book's negative critical reception. Hollywood does this kind of thing with movies it knows are stinkers: bottle them up and hope for a good opening weekend before the reviews hit the papers. Critics have been known to treat such movies with especial unkindness.


6. How does someone who complains relentlessly about corporations and wealthy executives who prefer profits over people justify his exorbitant lifestyle including a $1.3 million home on the Upper West Side?

You do claim to give money to "charity and political causes", but you know, given your veracity on other matters I'd like to see receipts and tax returns. At any rate, what about all those guys you are supposed to be in solidarity with? Surely the many little people who've helped you build up your career could use some extra cash.

Why do I ask? Because if you're bringing in millions of dollars while paying your crew and other lackeys whatever the market will bear, that would be just a tad hypocritical. Maybe it's some alpha male thing, where you need to show them all who's boss by the size of your paycheck. Yet when I hear liberals whine about executive salaries they invariably declaim on the evils of corporate suits making 100 times more than the janitor. I think they're daft but I'm wondering what you think.

This is more than just idle spit-balling. Writers on "TV Nation" claim you tried to prevent them from joining the Writer's Guild. They also claim they relied on the Guild to keep you from screwing them out of royalties and other payments. What an odd thing to do for someone who champions unions.


7. Why is it unfair to draw conclusions about you based on your fat, slovenly appearance?

Some people reasonably associate sloppiness and obesity with poor impulse control, an emotional, reactive temperament, egocentric personal habits, and a lifelong inability to make intelligent choices. Comments?


(edited by Grimis on 7.10.03 0810)


2003 WORLD SERIES(like I said it would be all along)



Please Believe It!
ThreepMe
Morcilla








Since: 15.2.02
From: Dallas

Since last post: 3733 days
Last activity: 3392 days
#6 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.02
    Originally posted by Grimis
    And somebody took the time to write Seven Question for Michael Moore:

    Seven Questions for Michael Moore… Michael Moore has recently asked seven inane questions, addressed to President Bush, under the arrogant presumption that he is doing so "on behalf of" the victims of the World Trade Center attack. If he is even aware of what his words mean, this fat pig can only mean that he regards himself as the moral or political spokesman of the victims; a disgraceful and disrespectful act of corpse-robbing since none of those people gave him permission to speak for them.

    Well Michael, I myself have a few questions for you, seven in fact. I ask them, with similar egomaniacal immodesty, on behalf of everyone who is not a complete fucking idiot.


    1. Why have you refused to issue corrections for books like Stupid White Men that have been savaged in the press for the unusually high rate of errors and misrepresentations they contain?

    You know the savaging I'm talking about. Liberals alone account for an astonishing number of the critical beatings you've received, as you can find here and here and here. And since they're your natural allies, that's not good.

    Unfortunately, it's not just your books that appear to have been written in a haze of euphoria after doubling up on your meds. People keep finding numerous errors of fact in your documentaries and television programs too, some of which you've quietly corrected in re-issue without accepting responsibility for the original distortion. Yet a film, even moreso than a book, must be painstakingly edited and undergo review by many people over a lengthy post-production schedule. Only you could have had the veto power to keep a lie in. How is it that your falsehoods survived this vetting process?

    Hey, maybe this is one of the reasons Mother Jones fired you for incompetence.


    2. Why do you keep circulating urban myths long after they've been shot down?

    This ties in with number one; you seem to have a long-standing habit of telling a slighly better version of the truth, one unencumbered by nuance or complexity. While you can claim that your research is sloppy or that you've corrected the printed record by backpedaling on a talk show, there's no excuse for your retailing fictions after you've already been corrected. And you do it a lot.

    Frequently these myths don't even make sense. For example, you've darkly hinted that relatives of Osama bin Laden were allowed to leave the United States following the World Trade Center destruction due to the existence of some nefarious conspiracy involving George W. Bush. (You mistakenly assert that bin Laden's relatives left during the ban on plane travel without the cooperation of the FBI.)

    Of course if such a conspiracy really existed one wonders why these relatives were still in the United States the day of the attack. I mean presumably the whole point of a conspiracy is so the conspirators can plan ahead. You can't possibly mean to indicate that relatives of bin Laden are guilty of terrorism by virtue of blood relation. If your absurd anecdote has any meaning it must be that a cover-up was underway even as the dust of the World Trade Center was still settling.

    3. How did you manage to make an entire movie about gun violence without exploring the violent crime in lower class minority neighborhoods?

    This is especially curious because you waste little time getting to your point that gun violence is a product of white fear of minorities. Presumably then the violent crime that afflicts minorities is caused by paranoid whites who buy up K-Mart's rifle stockpile and drive through the ghetto shooting darkies. Or something.

    No, wait, that can't be it because most of the violence there is intra-ethnic and closely related to a maladaptive ganster ethos and turf wars. Hey maybe you can devote some time to that in your next book or movie, that is if your moaning about disadvantaged minorities is for more than just show.

    4. What was it like getting booed while giving your Oscar acceptance speech?

    You looked like one of the victims of your own documentaries, rambling idiotically about "fictition" and then hustling your ass backstage to intimidate reporters who might actually have noticed both your inarticulate flailing and the crowd's hostility. In fact you later claimed that the audience was booing your enemies. Hey, nice try.

    5. Why aren't you allowing advance review copies of your latest book to go out before you start on your promotional speaking tour?

    A wag might suggest that after past experiences you're trying to avoid getting asked about any of the embarrassing factual innovations that pepper your writing.

    If so, I have to warn you it's a foolhardly gambit which could magnify the book's negative critical reception. Hollywood does this kind of thing with movies it knows are stinkers: bottle them up and hope for a good opening weekend before the reviews hit the papers. Critics have been known to treat such movies with especial unkindness.


    6. How does someone who complains relentlessly about corporations and wealthy executives who prefer profits over people justify his exorbitant lifestyle including a $1.3 million home on the Upper West Side?

    You do claim to give money to "charity and political causes", but you know, given your veracity on other matters I'd like to see receipts and tax returns. At any rate, what about all those guys you are supposed to be in solidarity with? Surely the many little people who've helped you build up your career could use some extra cash.

    Why do I ask? Because if you're bringing in millions of dollars while paying your crew and other lackeys whatever the market will bear, that would be just a tad hypocritical. Maybe it's some alpha male thing, where you need to show them all who's boss by the size of your paycheck. Yet when I hear liberals whine about executive salaries they invariably declaim on the evils of corporate suits making 100 times more than the janitor. I think they're daft but I'm wondering what you think.

    This is more than just idle spit-balling. Writers on "TV Nation" claim you tried to prevent them from joining the Writer's Guild. They also claim they relied on the Guild to keep you from screwing them out of royalties and other payments. What an odd thing to do for someone who champions unions.


    7. Why is it unfair to draw conclusions about you based on your fat, slovenly appearance?

    Some people reasonably associate sloppiness and obesity with poor impulse control, an emotional, reactive temperament, egocentric personal habits, and a lifelong inability to make intelligent choices. Comments?


    (edited by Grimis on 7.10.03 0810)


Wow. So, it's come down to name calling? Come on Grimis, you can find something better than this.

After the first reference to appearance (ie fat), I thought, "Am I in 3rd grade again?"

And please, find a rebuttle that stays away from speculation and objective view points.

This rebuttle sounds just like something Moore would write. At least at the end of his books, he sites where he got his information. This article becomes exactly what is so artfully makes fun of.

Not that I'm trying to defend Moore. I think he can be just as full of it as any person who has a political agenda. All I'm saying is, if you're going to rebuttle, don't stoop to the same level (or in this case, lower) than the person you are trying to make look bad.



I would like to congatulate Al Snow on his contact with La-Z-Boy. Because we all know Al doesn't sell chairs. - Mick Foley




Make sure to check out ThreepMe's Website of Fun
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 1301 days
Last activity: 1098 days
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
    Originally posted by ThreepMe
    Wow. So, it's come down to name calling? Come on Grimis, you can find something better than this.

I didn't write it. I'm merely passing it on. But wasn't it Moore who started the name calling? Just saying...

    Originally posted by ThreepMe
    And please, find a rebuttle that stays away from speculation and objective view points

doesn't that mean that Moore's piece should have been disqualified in the first place?



2003 WORLD SERIES(like I said it would be all along)



Please Believe It!
ThreepMe
Morcilla








Since: 15.2.02
From: Dallas

Since last post: 3733 days
Last activity: 3392 days
#8 Posted on | Instant Rating: 2.02
    Originally posted by Grimis
      Originally posted by ThreepMe
      Wow. So, it's come down to name calling? Come on Grimis, you can find something better than this.

    I didn't write it. I'm merely passing it on. But wasn't it Moore who started the name calling? Just saying...

      Originally posted by ThreepMe
      And please, find a rebuttle that stays away from speculation and objective view points

    doesn't that mean that Moore's piece should have been disqualified in the first place?


Actually, I didn't see any Name Calling in Moore's article. I don't think he went so far as to say things like "fat" "you are stupid" or "doodie-head." He insinuated a lot, but no direct name calling.

And yes, Moore's piece should be disqualified (unless it can be proven, and the same goes for the article you passed on). But, "All I'm saying is, if you're going to rebuttle, don't stoop to the same level (or in this case, lower) than the person you are trying to make look bad."

Basically, while it is ok to fight fire with fire, it's not ok to fight shit with shit.





I would like to congatulate Al Snow on his contact with La-Z-Boy. Because we all know Al doesn't sell chairs. - Mick Foley




Make sure to check out ThreepMe's Website of Fun
Thread rated: 4.22
Pages: 1
Thread ahead: Graham: In our Out?
Next thread: Report: Watching Fox News makes you stupid
Previous thread: Dubya Wrote A Poem
(1737 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Actually surprising that the male/female breakdown are both within the margin of error. The key to the election will be the Native American vote. If that comes out huge, Daschle retains.
The W - Current Events & Politics - Extract From 'Dude, Where's My Country' - 7 Questions For BushRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.115 seconds.