Ahh, right wing blogger continues to live in fantasy world, accuses anybody who is left of him of being a traitor who aids our enemies. In the real world, in which we actually live, few have done more to further the cause of islamic extremists as GWB. Just ask them:
Oh? And what evidence do you have to support this conclusion? The musings of right wing keyboard warriors? Regardless of that particular tangent, do you honestly contest the assertion that Bush's policies, and particularly his Iraq policy, have greatly stoked the fire of Islamic extremists and hurt US standing abroad? You do realize that the dream of Bin Laden is to provoke ongoing, massive confrontation with the so-called imperialists, etc. in the West and the US in particular. You also do realize that by invading Iraq for reasons that have proven to be tenuous (and knowingly made despite this) we have played right into this sick goal of theirs? Note, this conclusion is supported by many, many individuals; including most Middle East scholars, the C-T establishment, many former CIA and NSC hands, too many retired generals, foreign leaders, arab and otherwise, etc. And the results are born out in public opinion poll after public opinion poll. It's almost too tedious for me to marshal all the opinion that supports this point Meanwhile, in the other corner, we have standard assortment of right wing bloggers and talk show hosts. Yeah, reverse psychology....I guess a degree from the Sean Hannity school of Arabic Studies would lead one to such a conclusion.
Is that not allowed? Are we only allowed to post things from the mainstream media, like Houston's Leading Source of Misinformation?
Yes, they were so kind to us before GW went bonkers that they killed 3000 of our citizens on 9/11. But, of course, we wouldn't want to make them really angry, would we?
I'm glad that abandonded warehouse complex is getting used for something - particularly Target. Close-in shopping center planned New use for industrial site just west of downtown By NANCY SARNOFF Copyright 2004 Houston Chronicle Retailers have saturated many of Houston's neighborhoods with stores, but developers are still finding opportunities in underserved areas. A major shopping center is being planned for a long-overlooked industrial site just west of downtown. Property Commerce, a local retail developer, will build the pro-ject on land that was once home to a tool manufacturer. Situated at the junction of Interstate 10 and Taylor, the center will feature Target as its first big tenant. The discount shopping giant also will be the first so-called big-box retailer to move into the area in years. Industry watchers say the move indicates a significant demographic change. "We're developing a more mature inner city, and the retailers are recognizing the demographics," said Lawrence Plotsky of the Plotsky group, a retail brokerage firm. Jay Williams, president of Property Commerce, is still acquiring land, which could ultimately amount to 30 acres, for the pro-ject. He would not discuss details because the company hasn't finished mapping out plans for the site. Developers from the company recently met with area residents and District H City Councilman Adrian Garcia to notify them of the project. They were greeted with open arms. "Almost everyone sees it as an improvement," said Marcia Perry, president of the First Ward Civic Council. Indeed, the surrounding neighborhoods, including the Heights, the near north side, the Sixth Ward, downtown and the First Ward, have seen their residential population increase, while retail development has been minimal. That's primarily because of the complexity of amassing large tracts of close-in land, developers said. Most of the retail development in the area has been small strip centers. According to the developer, Target is the only retailer signed up for the new center. But that will likely change. If Property Commerce can secure all of the 30 acres, the final product could rival other Houston shopping centers like Meyerland Plaza. "This will be a godsend in terms of making it less necessary to drive out to Memorial City, the Galleria or Greens-point," Perry said. "We have good feelings about it." While the new development will help clean up a shabby part of town, it will also improve its identity. Just across Interstate 10 from the historic Heights neighborhood, the area has been largely industrial in nature. And although more than 100,000 cars drive past the intersection each day, the area's identity is vague at best. A large part of the future Target site was formerly home to Bowen Tool Co. The property changed hands more than a year ago when the Verandah Cos. purchased it to build an apartment community. The company cleared the site, but the apartments never got off the ground. Verandah is selling the land to Property Commerce, which is purchasing adjacent parcels to expand the project's size. Residents are hoping the new Target leads retailers to consider opening more stores in the underserved and long-overlooked area. Indeed, if developers and retailers continue to recognize density trends — recent statistics show that more people want to live in the inner city than ever before — Houston could see more of these kinds of redevelopment deals in semi-virgin territory like the new Target location. Also, Northwest Mall could get a huge shot in the arm if rumors prove true. Wal-Mart is said to be looking at taking over the abandoned J.C. Penney department store at the mall, at the corner of North Post Oak and Hempstead Highway. __________________ Why are we now posting whole (or nearly whole) articles from the Chronicle in clear violation of copyright standards?
Angry? They're already angry. What we wouldn't want to do is to make them more popular. But we did. And that's why they love him. George W. Bush and the Neocons and Osama speak in the same absolutist language of good and evil.....just with different versions of each. (my favorite was when W slipped up and called it a crusade...nothing like responding to arab extremists who accuse you of being an imperialist crusader by telling them that you're on a crusade.) That's why they love him so much. You can't buy publicity like Abu Ghraib.
Well, I have no clue what the "moral equivalency" part means, I would guess that it is somehow related to "moral relativsm" that I don't really understand and only hear about in right wing epithets. Before I exeunt this thread, I'll just observe that you posted a lousy right wing blog half-jokingly, unamusingly implying that anybody who opposes Bush, essentially, is a traitor. This implication is made on the basis of pure self serving speculation. While this is inherently asinine idea, I responded by posting objective evidence which shows it to be quite the opposite. You dismiss it, again, by means of pure self serving speculation in the form of crude amateur psychology. And then you resort to labeling me an enemy sympathizer. I guess your lack of any substance whatsoever and your rather quick resort to low level insults (even if it makes you look stupid by effectively proving my point) shows me that you didn't start this thread for any legitimate purpose. I've got into enough silly shouting matches with people who are just here to troll so I will bid you adieu. Good luck defending the world from evil; you keyboard commandos are doing the Lord's work.
Jeff, I admit I am wrong. The blogosphere is full of nothing but kooks. It's best to only quote paragons of mainstream journalistic virtue like Janet Cooke, Jayson Blair, Jack(?) Kelley, Eason Jordan, Rick Casey, and that immortal blast from the past - Walter Duranty.
That is actually not what I said, but you lack of comprehension is not surprising. It is possible that one can be opposed to the war without being a traitor. But even then, those people are useful to AQ. Yes, that is a tour de force of objective evidence. Most Middle East "scholars" hate Israel and the US, so their opinion is not worth a whole lot to me. Most of them are loony [Edward] Saidists who loved what happened on 9/11.
There's no mention of Bush in there, Sam. I don't see him trying to imply that anyone is a traitor for not voting for Bush, he is poking fun at the far Left's tendency to romanticize terrorists. If that doesn't describe you, and I don't think it does, then you really have no reason to be offended.
Thank you oh enlightened one, for wasting 5 minutes of my day reading this horrible thread. Nice one.
No where did Edward Said he loved what happened 9/11. There was an article which came out trying to criticize Edward Said's credibility. The article has since been debunked and was posted on this very bbs. If your form of debate is to equate criticism with hatred(i.e. One finds reason to criticize Israel's apartheid like treatment of the Palestinians - Then that person must hate Israel.) then there is no point in talking about issues. It's also doesn't address any of the points made in a particular criticism. I may hate breast cancer, but it doesn't mean that anything I post about breast cancer is automatically false or unreliable. I could post statistics about deaths from breast cancer, and regardless of my prejudice against breast cancer the facts would still be correct.
gwayneco: I guess I just thought it would be easier if you posted something like... "I read this post on a blog today and thought it was interesting. Thoughts?" Just a random posting is a little confusing for the average poster. I don't personally care where people post from. I'm just talking about clarifying why it was posted and what it is that made you think it would be interesting for the rest of the class. Carry on.
This thread quoted from a Leftwing Blog and nothing was said about using a Blog as a source. <a HREF="http://bbs.clutchcity.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=76546">Bush's Secret Money Move</a> <hr color=red> This thread quoted from <i>The Daily Kos</i> which seems to be a step above a Blog and later the same poster quoted from a Leftwing Blog and nothing was said about using a Blog as a source. <a HREF="http://bbs.clutchcity.net/showthread.php?s=&threadid=75009">What Does CREEP Need These Guys For?</a> <hr color=red> Why are the Forum <i>rules</i> more strict for Conservatives than they are for Liberals? <a HREF="
