It’s also been closed as of this writing. Not that I think rjung did himself any favors by opening it in the first place, but as I mentioned before, why not let the moderators do what they are assigned to do?
Then again, some posters appear to be enjoying the witch-hunt a tad much…which, considering the ulterior motive of this thread, says something about them right there.
Miller: apologies, my mistake – I’ve used warnings in the past.
However, I also think American MSM is playing politics by sheltering its audience from the graphic reality of Bush’s illegal invasion . Images such as those are rather common place in any number of non-US networks and newspapers.
Ever wonder why?
It also looked like attempted humor to me, but I thought the timing was off, the humor was strained, and the probability of cross-posted sniping was too high at this time.
[ GD Moderator ]
And it was completely nonsensical. Who said threads about Bush shouldn’t be started?
Especially since it was less than one hour between the time he first posted in this thread and the time he openned the GD thread. Which is exactly the type of juvenile tactic that many of the folks in this thread are complaining about.
Why yes, as a matter of fact. Let’s discuss the issue here, in this very thread! I simply can’t think of a more appropriate place to do so–can you?
American MSM?
You mean, American Men who have Sex with Men?
Because that’s what that acronym usually stands for.
For the record, we are mostly not fond of Bush, and we don’t keep it secret.
MSM = mainstream media. Never seen it used the way you suggest.
Must be my sheltered lifestyle.
I wish people would actually write out words. It would make things much easier around here.
Especially since “MSM” is not an abbreviation for “mainstream media” in any kind of common use.
D’oh! How could I forget you, duffer? The board is not bereft of rightwing partisan threadshitters while we still have you :).
Daniel
You’ve got dozens of posts not about Bush bashing. Great. You’ve also got a 13,000 post count. :rolleyes:
“I can’t be an alcoholic, Doc. I haven’t had a drink all morning!”
(my underscore)
Funny, for I think that folks like Bricker, duffer and Shodan would disagree with you on this one. Sadly, going by your last electoral results, I’d have to disagree with you as well.
However, my attempted point in that post wasn’t about Bush himself, but rather the way your infamous “liberal media” has taken on the role of a wet-nurse in so far as what you can and can’t see coming out of Iraq.
oooooooooh, burn!
do you give lessons in witty reparte?
Interesting. I imagine the smiley was intended to convey that he didn’t really mean what he posted, and he did state specifically that he was posting in order to annoy another poster, who he mentioned by name.
Deliberately posing stuff in order to stir up trouble - we should come up with a name for that!
Regards,
Shodan
Can we not even have a thread discussing political hijacks without it getting politically hijacked?
Your wish is not my command. And it is a rather common Net term.
The great thing about pronouns is their ambiguity. I believe you’ll find that they–being Men who have Sex with Men–comprise a group that does not include Bricker, Duffer, or Shodan. Though I could be mistaken.
Daniel
Hmmm…what do you think? 'pool or Milan in the CL Final? 
Bricker, duffer and Shodan are gay? Man, the homosexual mafia is everywhere!
Failed attempt at humor or a a hieroglyphic ?