Really, he drives ? What types of vehicles ?..
I think he drives a Geo Metro.
You know, I had my scathing supply just at the ready, about what an idiot you must be not to see the damn thing when it’s highlighted front and center of the webpage, and then I decided that maybe I better check again, just to be sure.
Sure enough you are correct. They moved it, and put up some 9/11 stuff so that what I was referring to wasn’t obvious (it still wasn’t too hard to find, mind you, but it’s not like I can expect initiative)
So, here’s the link to the special section on GWB
http://www.runnersworld.com/footnotes/gwbush/home.html
I apologize for not posting correctly the first time, and appreciate it you pointing it out.
Let’s see, what else?
You want a teaser, too?
Jeezum Pete, you’re getting a little demanding, aren’t you?
Alright, here we go:
(Xenophon: here’s a quarter, some appropriate background music please)
SEE!!! George Bush RUN LIKE THE WIND!!!
You’ll be on the edge of your seat waiting for the answers to each of the masterful insightful and candid 20 questions!
BIG EXCLUSIVE PHOTOS!
Get the inside scoop on who’s who in poltics and running in Washington
Critique the Presidential Form!
Be tempted to buy the mag to get more of the exclusive interview, and the dirt on the run with the Prez, which describes his values, philosophy, and the personal opinions those closest to him (the secret service) share!
Examine the President’s road racing pictures!
and don’t miss now your opportunity to enlarge your penis and Win Free SEX!!
Just click now:
Is that a good enough teaser?
Ok what else?
Oh yeah, he’s not my hero. He’s just not the total scumbag you seem to think. My opinion is that he’s a flawed but decent guy, and if we could can the hyperbole maybe we might actually get some useful insights.
Just because you think he’s an asshole, and I’m defending him doesn’t mean you have to project onto me the stance that he’s my hero, kapisch?
It’s unkind and disingenuous to do so.
Oh please! This is the kind of shit I’m talking about.
There. I think I’ve addressed all your issues. Are you satisfied?
Now, please address one of mine:
What is this crap about Runner’s World being a magazine about putting one foot in front of the other?
Is that what you think running is, or were you just acting the simplistic ignorant jerk for purposes of hyperbole?
Would you like to take that back, or are you prepared to back that up? If you’re prepared to back that up, I’ll expect you to come and run a marathon with me in Harrisburg this November.
After you’ve finished it, if you still think it’s about putting one foot in front of the other, I’ll value you’re opinion.
Rmmm, mmmm mmmm…
ahem
::at top of lungs::
*WAR!!
(Good God, Y’all!)
Whudizzit goood for?
-Absolootlee NUTHIN!
sayitagin
Hoooaahh*
- anything???*
:o
…anything that’s not likely to produce scars.
(After that, the price goes up.)
You know, elucidator, when I picked up my newspaper this morning, not only were the pictures different, but the headlines concerned something totally different from what it was the day before!
Given this conclusive proof of a conspiracy of the news media to cover up the real facts, would you say that the space aliens really landed in New York, or are beaming mind control rays from the safety of their space pods?
Inquiring minds want to know!
Regards,
Shodan
Well, Elvis. I complied with your requests.
Are you going to reply, or are you going to let your carefully crafted persona stand, warts and all?
Gee, Shodan, in your headlong rush to be snide, you seem to have stumbled on a point! Now if you can just get a clue…
I don’t entirely know how these things work. I had thought that a link went to a specific story. If a different story were “posted” it would have a different link.
Now, the facts of the story weren’t changed, but the impact and thrust were. And the original story had a picture of Our Leader and Tony “The Poodle” Blair standing together and Our Leader brandishing the photo in question as if to say “Here it is!”
An hour or so later, when I went to the same site (as given above) it, it was changed. Is this the common practice? I don’t know. Is it entirely innocent? I think that unlikely, but of course its possible. A mere coincidence that favors the Bushistas. Could be. Do I believe that? Not for a second.
Yes, it happens frequently. It’s easy to understand why it’s done when a story is about unfolding events. Sometimes though it seems that a compulsion to edit, or desire to spin, takes over at the expense of honest reportage.
Geez, Scylla, you’ve made a good argument for appointing the Olympic marathon champion the Dictator of the Universe.
I trust you were simply making a lame joke, and failed to realize its lameness as soon as the rest of us.
Elucidator, I’m glad you called yourself a hysterical lefty, it will save me the extra typing.
Quite frankly, this is baseless rumor mongering. The worst thing that can be drawn from the news stories (I won’t even comment on those drool engines at MWO) is that the UN and the US have drawn different conclusions about the same photo, which only makes up one piece of the information provided to Blair by Bush. That’s it, that’s all, nothing else.
The inference that Bush did it intentionally is just that – and the fallacies lying on that road are starting to pile up.
The vast bulk of your argument (and I use the term loosely) seems to be based on the presumption that the present administration is bad, apparently just for the fun of it. The tone of this reminds me suspiciously of the Clinton-haters of the Lewinsky years. Nothing, no force, no revelation would ever allow them to think that the White House had ever done anything that was short of reprehensible. I happen to think you’re both about half right.
Viewed through that lens, how do you ever expect to have a freaking point?
Like most, I am deeply troubled by the notion of the US acting unilaterally, and the ties between war and politics are painfully and historically self evident – but you’re not even on that plane.
This is vicious over-simplification, straw-men attacks and about 1.3 billion non-sequiturs thrown in. There is no substance here, just bluster and suspicion.
The worst part is, I don’t even disagree that Bush is a weasel playing this war for political gain. However, I’m not so narrow-minded as to think that the entire affair is that simple.
Be a conspiracy monger if you want, but at least try and do it well.
“…the facts of the story weren’t changed, but the impact and thrust were…”. This was your point about the dramatic and sinister change in the news sight you were visiting?
Rhetorical nonsense.
A ten year old yarn about how GB I had fabricated evidence during the Gulf War to muscle the Saudis?
Does NOT follow.
I appreciate your passion, but…no, I guess that’s it.
Well, lets take this one thing at a time. Did you, by any chance, see the original that set this thing off? 'Cause there it was, he was brandishing that photo like the proverbial smoking gun. An hour later, poof! gone. Makes me a bit suspicious.
Now, someone later comes in an says that’s pretty common. And since the story has been changed, all I got left is my word that I saw what I saw, and it said what it said. The new! improved!article clearly states, in the careful tones of media harlots, that Our Leader offered in evidence two pieces that were flat out not true.
When I first read the article, that was the lead paragraph, that is to say, the point of the thing. By the time I came back, it was way down buried. But the fact remains, he offered as evidence things that just weren’t so.
Now if this was just a matter of minor politics, the vote of the highway and railroad committee, well, hell, no biggie. But its about war, and it just dont get any more serious than that.
In matters like that, I demand the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. You don’t?
And why even bring up the question as to whether he did it “intentionally”? We are to be led to war by a man who don’t even know if he’s lying or not?
As far as spin control goes, your characterization of Poppy Bush’s lie (thats LIE L…I…E…, lie) as a yarn is rather charming. Shucks, just spinning a tall tale. No harm done.
But its true, that was a while ago, and we have bigger fish to fry.
As to being all bluster and shit, well, did you see the original?
As to the suggestion that this parallels the Clinton-Lewinsky years, as if to suggest that me and Mr. Starr are somehow opposite quarks… Well, have it your way, I suppose, you seem to be mostly singing from the right page, who cares about trivia.
But a blow job aint a war, where I come from. If it is where you come from, I reckon you better move.
elucidator, You took mine one at a time, and I’ll do the same.
I did see the original – this is proof of what? I agree that the mainstream media are parasitic sycophants. What proof of Dubya’s deception?
As for the photo, again, the furthest we can go is that there was a disagreement over its interpretation. The assumption that the photo is wrong is without basis to the best of my knowledge. Also (and again) this was hardly the entire package presented to Blair.
And yes, I do demand the truth – that’s why I question your methods at reaching it. This is particularly important in the case of a war – no need to rush in for the wrong reasons and no need to see killer Republicans behind every bush.
By the way, nice strawman attack with the report about Bush I falsifying info. I don’t seem to recall calling it insignificant or that it caused no harm. What I said was that it was not relevant to the matter at hand. We are concerned with the sins of the son, not of the father. So stop pissing up my leg.
Another nice straw man goes (tied to a quick non sequitur) to your comment that your anti-quark relationship with Ken Starr from which you then inferred that I am a conservative (not true) and that lovely tripe about war not being like a blowjob.
Shit man, I am glad you cleared that up…
So your continued penchant for bad argumentation notwithstanding, I still see you standing on the same pile of inference, innuendo and absolutely no frikkin’ proof.
So let’s kill this once and for all…
”In his meeting with Blair, Bush cited a satellite photograph and a report by the U.N. atomic energy agency as evidence of Iraq’s impending rearmament. However, in response to a report by NBC News, a senior administration official acknowledged Saturday night that the U.N. report drew no such conclusion, and a spokesman for the U.N. agency said the photograph had been misinterpreted.”
Egad! The US intelligence apparatus does not agree with their UN counterparts! While I certainly agree that this is cause for widespread panic (I hope I can finish typing while hiding underneath my bed ), I think it is more sensible to infer that the two institutions may have different practices, and in good faith did not conclude to the same thing. At worst, the employees of the hawkish Bush may have been looking a little harder for the ‘smoking gun’. Or just maybe, the US interpretation of it is accurate… If you want to go any further than that, I think some PROOF might be in order.
Either way, there’s not much gas in the tank.