Hey I have a mailing list with over 15,000 subscribers. If I wanted to really expose this, I could have just sent it on to them. However, I thought it worthy of discussion. I suspected it to be Snopes-worthy (I almost looked myself) but I didn't really care. The piece whether fact or fiction has ideas that can be discussed. Too many people would rather focus on dissing the messenger. What kind of pathology is that, Sam? I prefer to take the personalities out of it and just talk about it.
I don't think people starting "dissing" you until after we snoped it you still defended the piece. If your reply after the snope had been "oh, I didn't know it was on snopes, sure makes you think though doesn't it", the reaction would not have been so inflammatory. I posted a story last week about the pharmacist that got fired. I had mixed feelings about it so I didn't post my opinion on it. If someone came back and said that snopes said it was questionable, I would have apologized for passing on spam and left it alone. But that's just me. BTW, something tells me that you knew better otherwise it might have gone to those 15,000 lucky people who get your stuff.
Giddyup, as much as you which to shift the focus away from your own gullibility, (which, ironically enough, you are hamfistedly trying to do by claiming that we are unfairly focusing on your own gullibility) for the FOURTEENTH TIME in this thread which you keep needlessly prolonging: a point by point refutation of each and every substantive point has been posted Now, I have invited you to present evidence that the Bush administration apprehended the WTC bombers, the Riyadh and Khobar Towers bombers, and the Cole Bombers, and that Clinton has not, as the e-mail implies. you have failed to do so You have replied to every single post and have not addressed the substance once; you invented some ridiculous argument halfway through in a an attempt to salvage your own credibility about how the point was that Clinton and Bush both are against terrorism, which is a r****dedly stupid point, as pretty much everybody is against terrorism. Then you devolved into some silly semantic argument about what "covered it" means and whether it was past or present tense; while sort of conceding that the item was factually worthless but really not because that's not what you intended it to be for discussion purposes and in any event, just posting, posting, and posting to keep this sucker alive. Who lacks substance now? I have focused wholly on the facts, which are garbage, I have focused on the circumstances surrounding the origins of this urban legend, which also tend to show that it is garbage. It's over, just give it up already. I know you won't, because you can never ever ever not have the last word, but seriously, get over it. It's embarrassing.
Sam: Damned if I do... damned if I don't. My, you are a control freak. I admitted a number of posts ago that Bush had not arrested, tried and convicted the WTC parking garage bombers. There is no point-by-point refutation. There are a couple of legitimate corrections. Is it true or not true that 9 of 26 suspects are under arrest or incarcerated? Is that not a task that needs finishing? Who is going to "cover" it? The email simply says that Bush "covered it (a promise)." It's a colloquialism. Friends may say "I've got your back covered." That doesn't mean they have draped an Afghan over their friends shoulders in that immediate moment. It is figurative. It means something akin to "I'll take care of you." You have had almost no focus on facts. How many times would someone have to tell you that the "legendary" status of this email is irrelevant before you got the message?
Wow, giddy. This is worse than the twenty pages you spent trying to explain how "wetback" wasn't necessarily a racist term. Even Jorge has the shame to disappear a couple paged after being squashed. You don't even seem aware it's happened.
I spent about 1 post defending that comment and many others proclaiming that Ted Nugent's musical friends know him better than SamFisher does. You have to be ashamed to disappear with shame. Squashed I am not, but up to his tricks I am. Sorry for talking like Gollum.
Originally posted by Mulder I don't think people starting "dissing" you until after we snoped it you still defended the piece. <b>I don't care about Snopes. The piece still exists and has merit or not. Can't you discuss that? It being at Snopes does not completely discredit every line of it.</b> If your reply after the snope had been "oh, I didn't know it was on snopes, sure makes you think though doesn't it", the reaction would not have been so inflammatory. <b>Sorry but I preferred not to prejudice the reading of it. I said nothing. I thought that was fairer.</b> I posted a story last week about the pharmacist that got fired. I had mixed feelings about it so I didn't post my opinion on it. If someone came back and said that snopes said it was questionable, I would have apologized for passing on spam and left it alone. But that's just me. BTW, something tells me that you knew better otherwise it might have gone to those 15,000 lucky people who get your stuff. <b>Every detail of the letter I posted was not inaccurate. Some was. That's why I posted it... and why I didn't propogate it through email. Here it gets a few hundred views. I could have emailed it for a few thousand. Which would have been wiser for someone seeking to promote a scam? Now, again, which did I do?</b>
LMAO! I knew he'd come back! It's like seeing a bad horror movie. "But, but, I thought he was set on fire and fell off that cliff into a wood-chipping machine! But-but-but, NO, he's ALIVE!"
Alrighty, then at the end of this post I will post some of the most assinine crap ever captured by snopes about Bush. By your logic I can just post it as food for thought. I don't have to verify if it is true or not. Some of it is bound to be true, we do have a president named Bush so that's enough for now... I wouldn't want to taint the discussion with stuff like facts or the truth. You're right you claimed that you did not forward the email to everyone in your massive address book. Since there is no proof that you did not do this and you have sent out emails before (if not why would you have 15,000 email addresses?) I am going to assume that you did, that is until you prove somehow that you didn't. What the hell, it worked for Bush and company in Iraq, right? Here we go. 1. When Stevie Wonder sat down at the keyboard center stage, President Bush in the front row got very excited. He smiled and started waving at Wonder, who understandably did not respond. After a moment Bush realized his mistake and slowly dropped the errant hand back to his lap. I know I shouldn't have," a witness told us yesterday, "but I started laughing." 2. Texas governor and Republican presidential candidate, George W. Bush recently sent waves through the Black community following a discovery that a Dallas house he sold in 1995 carries a racial covenant, which restricts the sale of the house to white people only. Bush and his wife, Laura, bought the house in 1988. How is this legal? It isn't. The Fair Housing Act prevents the enforcement of racial covenants. However, many houses still carry them as a remnant of the Jim Crow era when it was common practice to exclude Blacks from buying houses and living in white neighborhoods. The Bush campaign responded with a online statement saying that the racial covenant was void and that Bush was unaware of it when he sold the house. Yeah right! It's extremely irresponsible for a public figure to accidentally overlook such a stipulation. Did Bush really know but just didn't care to do anything about it? The real estate agent who prepared the papers for the sale said that she notified Bush of the racial covenant but that he signed the papers anyway. Perhaps equally shocking as the racial covenant is the fact that the media has swept this story under the rug. Have you heard about it in any of the newspapers you read or on any of the news programs you watch? Do you give Bush the benefit of the doubt? Was he unaware of the racial covenant during the time he and his family lived in the house, or did he know and decide that it wasn't worth having? Should HUD initiate a law that requires all homeowners to wipe racial covenants from their deeds? * Did the media deliberately fail to cover this story? * Do you think it would have been handled differently if a similar story was revealed about a Black candidate? 3. President Bush Has Lowest IQ of all Presidents of past 50 Years If late night TV comedy is an indicator, then there has never been as widespread a perception that a president is not intellectually qualified for the position he holds as there is with President GW Bush. In a report published Monday, the Lovenstein Institute of Scranton, Pennsylvania detailed its findings of a four month study of the intelligence quotient of President George W. Bush. Since 1973, the Lovenstein Institute has published it's research to the education community on each new president, which includes the famous "IQ" report among others. According to statements in the report, there have been twelve presidents over the past 50 years, from F. D. Roosevelt to G. W. Bush who were all rated based on scholarly achievements, writings that they alone produced without aid of staff, their ability to speak with clarity, and several other psychological factors which were then scored in the Swanson/Crain system of intelligence ranking. The study determined the following IQs of each president as accurate to within five percentage points: 147 .. Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) 132 .. Harry Truman (D) 122 .. Dwight D. Eisenhower (R) 174 .. John F. Kennedy (D) 126 .. Lyndon B. Johnson (D) 155 .. Richard M. Nixon (R) 121 .. Gerald Ford (R) 175 .. James E. Carter (D) 105 .. Ronald Reagan (R) 098 .. George HW Bush (R) 182 .. William J. Clinton (D) 091 .. George W. Bush (R) or, in IQ order: 182 .. William J. Clinton (D) 175 .. James E. Carter (D) 174 .. John F. Kennedy (D) 155 .. Richard M. Nixon (R) 147 .. Franklin D. Roosevelt (D) 132 .. Harry Truman (D) 126 .. Lyndon B. Johnson (D) 122 .. Dwight D. Eisenhower (R) 121 .. Gerald Ford (R) 105 .. Ronald Reagan (R) 098 .. George HW Bush (R) 091 .. George W. Bush (R) 4. It was Condoleezza Rice, national security advisor, who helped her boss out of the embarassing situation. During a conversation between the two presidents, George W. Bush, 55, (USA) and Fernando Henrique Cardoso, 71, (Brazil), Bush bewildered his colleague with the question "Do you have blacks, too?" Rice, 47, noticing how astonished the Brazilian was, saved the day by telling Bush "Mr. President, Brazil probably has more blacks than the USA. Some say it's the Country with the most blacks outside Africa." Later, the Brazilian president Cardoso said: regarding Latin America, Bush was still in his "learning phase". 5. Pop history repeated itself as farce yesterday when Eminem, the enfant terrible of rap, dangled a plastic baby over the edge of his hotel balcony in Glasgow, to the delight of the small crowd of fans who had waited all day to see him. His gesture parodied the actions of Michael Jackson, who last year provoked international outrage by holding a real baby — purportedly his own — over a hotel balcony in Germany in front of horrified crowds below. The rapper's latest stunt adds to a catalogue of incidents that have secured his status as one of the most controversial figures in pop music today, leading George W Bush to label him "the most dangerous threat to American children since polio".
See, here's the problem: I didn't post assinine crap about anybody. I posted an email which had some truth and some error in it for discussion. It really didn't say very much at all. The absurdity is that you think you've done the equal thing in the opposite direction. How silly.
Well, assisinine crap is in the ass of the... um, crapper? Anyway, giddy, please admit that you see the overall humor in this thread. I'm not saying you've been treated fairly on the whole, but we were just never going to have a serious discussion with that biased, inflamatory starting material. It's like trying to fire proof something with kerosene-soaked rags.
With a bit more discipline, mein kinder, you can have a serious discussion about anything, anywhere... Of course I see the humor. I see the purty pikchers. As I've said a couple of times already, I regreat pasting the whole thing here. I did it for expediency. I wanted to discuss the particular part of it about the Democratic criticism of Bush's War on Terror in light of Bush "covering" Clinton's promises. I defended Clinton on this. The timeline and complexity pretty much put most of the work in the lap of Clinton's successor (be it Gore or Bush).
