-- Modified on 3/25/2004 9:25:48 AM
-- Modified on 3/25/2004 9:28:26 AM
-- Modified on 3/25/2004 9:33:06 AM
Very impressive way to make it looks like someone actually agrees with your screeds. Of course, I'm really impressed that you agree with yourself.
I just checked back on the post after not being able to reach the link and thought I would repost it so others would too!
If I had found it first, I would have posted it myself.
In fact, this is the third time that I'm aware of where you got caught posting under the wrong handle in a thread. That's OK, nobody ever said you were smart.
-- Modified on 3/25/2004 12:20:59 PM
I thought TER had a policy that you could be placed on moderated status if you posted with more than one alias on a thread.....or does the board moderator have some leeway depending on the thread?
Perhaps it wouldn't be as critical in a political thread like this one (and BTW I am not saying bibrite is Check My Meds...I don't know), but I'm sure TER would absolutely want honesty with provider business ads.
For example, if I posted I was coming to your town for a tour, it wouldn't be fair if I made up three male aliases who all said I was the greatest and not to miss me. 
the new moderator on the NY board mentioned specifically
that this practice is not allowed on his watch. This
makes me tend to believe that this rule is up to the moderator.
fr
GND and other regional moderators have said on more than one occassion that the use of more than one alias in one thread is "frowned upon" (to put it mildly) especially since it's very often for fraudulent and/or duplicitous purposes (eg. by shills to drum-up business and/or politicos seeding their own agendas)
according to GND, its use for humorous purposes is, on the other hand, "smiled upon" (to put in gently) at least if done in good taste i suppose
overtime, some users whose aliases are more generally known to most other members have used it a bit more freely (eg. singleton = Bill Maher, Cynicalman 2.0, the cast of Simpsons, etc)
I personally have NEVER posted under an alias since I've been on this forum. And, other than the ladies, who might have legitimate commercial reasons for doing so, it's generally because people don't have the guts to be linked to their own views.
Uh, People-
Sometimes its because we don't know how or can't be bothered to learn...
Singleton explained it correctly. It is the policy across all the boards.
I am leaving this one up because everyone can see who is who--the user exposed his alias--so readers are not misled.
And, you're right--it is for the type of situation that you describe at the end of your post that the rule exists.
Bribri-
Found the problem- you read the register! Move to better fishwraps and your attitude and wisdom will improve!
Seriously- looked over your reviews- dude no wonder we go at each other all the time! It's like we are brothers- similar tastes, similar experiences- just spun differently.
Its' just that to you I am the evil twin. In my world you are the evil twin! Can we get on a soap opera? Or perhaps a reality show?
So happy hobbying- and may your political wishes not come true. But the fire that drives you to respond? it's all good.
Now I wait to see if this is oil on troubled waters- or an oil slick!
Actually I don't read the Register, I hate the liberal slant!
I usually read the WSJ, newsmax.com & cnsnews.com.
Like I told Sherlock (sdstud) after checking the link that didn't work, I checked back and reposted it so others would as well.
I do have a kindred brother of sorts in CheckMyMeds though.
Richard Clarke at least has the guts to testify under oath as to the same claims he made in his book. Meanwhile Condoleeza Rice is dodging the commission so she can slime Clarke for the PRO-BUSH spin that he put out a couple of years ago under HER orders.
And big deal, so he wrote a book. We as a nation owe him a debt of thanks for writing that book. Lots of LITERATE people write books. That's how we know that George W. Bush won't ever be writing one. Oh, and when Dumbya has his Presidential Papers put in a Presidential Library, I expect that most of them will be stick figures done in crayon.
-- Modified on 3/25/2004 10:06:34 AM
Glad you could have some fun. After all, I sure am, watching the rats on the Bush Barge scramble. Cheney says Clarke wasn't in the loop. Rice is smarter - she realized that telling people that your guy in charge of terrorism isn't in the loop reinforces his accusation that they didn't take terrorism seriously. Nobody in the Bush administration will admit to having read the book, yet they're all accusing him of inconsistencies.
Simple premise: if Clarke is lying, Ashcroft needs to indict him - NOW. Bring charges. Ship him to Gitmo. He has the power under the Homeland Security Act (Sieg Heil!). If he doesn't do that, it is tacit admission that everything he alleges in his book is true.
Bush dropped 6 points in the polls against Kerry. I understand Karl Rove is locked in a padded cell in the White House basement ripping the heads off chickens.
With your incessant fear of the Patriot Act I can see how you might knee jerk to this conclusion. Although, none of the horrors you fear have happened! Yet, another thing that has not happened since the PA is another attack on America, home or abroad.
With all the history of Clarke praising the Bush Administration and the President personally, you have to wonder was he lying then or is he lying now? Add to that his self interest in book sales and I am going with now!
Kerry may or may not be up in the current polls, HOWEVER, that would be tied in with the FACT that he hasn't been heard from this week! Every time he opens his mouth he just makes an ass out of himself.
We now know that the leaders who are supporting him are the leaders of North Korea, New socialist in Spain and Muslim wacko from Indonesia (France is undeclared, but I'll give that to Kerry too)! Pretty good company considering Kerry's socialist leaning.
Keeping him in the closet is probably pretty good politicking for the dems. I mean how many times can you change your position on something? Seems that Kerry's answer to that is AS MANY TIMES AT IT TAKES TO GET ELECTED!
Now that Sen. Zell Miller (D-GA) has Kicked Off Democrats for Bush, we will see how strong the leftist wacko, neosocialist hold is on the Democratic party. And if Kerry can bamboozle the electorate into thinking otherwise.
If Bush wins in Nov, I'll buy you a date with MA. If Kerry wins, you buy me one.
Deal?
Put yer money where yer mouth is.
-- Modified on 3/25/2004 3:32:54 PM
I wouldn't be sitting here right now!
How about a box of ROMEO Y JULIETA ANIVERSARIO "TORO's"? Quite nice, but yet still in my budget on the off chance that I would lose!
You, a conservative Republican, can't afford MA? I mean, I'm one of those liberal scum, right? I thought you guys had all the money.
Or maybe even you can see that King George hasn't got a snowball's chance in hell of being re-elected now that his administration's sins are being uncovered?
Tell you what - $500 for the provider of the winner's choice.
Or don't you have the confidence in your candidate your hubris implies? Don't worry - you have until November to save up.
A) I don't think he could afford a date like that even for himself, and
B) He doesn't seem to have the personal integrity or cojones to make good on a serious wager of that magnitude.
Now cappin' on Economic strata is open season?
This hobby needs all the participants, from the $$ guys to the $$$$$ guys to the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ guys.
While some may find it odd that I would stand up for bribri, I reserve the right to agitate for less rancor and more discussion.
(of course part of me says- bribri- if you are not a millionaire- why be pro-bush?- but he's entitled to his opinion however misguided)
Because a guy's budget for the hobby is not at your level is no reason to diss him- especially when there are plenty of other good reasons.
BTW- Personally, I think going over the $$$ level is a bit silly- I mean how much better can the sex be? But then I get fun hot sex with my SO as a regular diet and I have to recognise that many here don't have that outlet. But I do understand that a vision quest for a PSE or a particular courtesan might open a wallet or two...
Yes, I agree, that his August '02 comments were inconsistent with his book. But that is understandible: In August '02, his JOB was to put a positive spin on what the Bush Administration was doing. Admittedly, ANYTHING POSITIVE about what Bush had done to that point against Terrorism was a shading of the truth so as to not put Bush in a bad light. His JOB at the time, was to shill for Bush. Obviously, he became so disgusted at doing this that he decided to quit and say what he REALLY thought in his book, and in his testimony under oath.
Where, BTW, was Condoleeza Rice's public testimony under oath on the SAME subject? Nowhere, because she didn't want to be put in a position of HAVING TO LIE UNDER OATH to protect her boss. That's why Rice blew off this committee, because there is no law against lying on a talk show, but there IS a law against lying under oath to this committee.
Excellent analysis!
Was he forced to say such nice things to the President in his resignation letter too? Knowing that he planned to be a backbiter all along?
But I do understand both of you wanting so badly to accept his "current" testimony! You're partisan and so am I.
Personally I like what Clintonista Andrew Cuomo has to say about President Bush:
"Democrats "fumbled the seminal moment of our lives - the terrorist attacks of 9/11."
Democrats "have failed to approach the problem with the urgency or comprehensiveness that it demands."
Bush "exemplified leadership at a time when America was desperate for a leader."
"He deserves credit, as do congressional Republicans, for recognizing the challenge of 9/11 and rising to it.
"Meanwhile, on the Democratic side, there was chaos. We handled 9/11 like it was a debate over a highway bill instead of a matter of people's lives,..."
Or Mayor Ed Koch:
"The Democrat now leading in the race, former governor Howard Dean, is a disgrace. His willingness to publicly entertain the slander that President Bush had advance warning of the September 11 attacks and his statement that America is no safer as a result of the capture of Saddam Hussein should have been sufficient to end his candidacy. But the radicals who dominate the primaries love the red meat that is thrown to them, even when it comes from a mad cow.
In contrast, President Bush has confronted the terrorist threat head on. Immediately following the September 11 terrorist attacks, the president presented the core principle of what has become known as the Bush Doctrine, an articulation of American foreign policy that rivals in importance the Monroe Doctrine, which barred foreign imperialism from the Western Hemisphere, and the Truman Doctrine, which sought to contain communism around the world. The Bush Doctrine, simply stated by the president, is: "We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbor them."
President Bush has lived up to that credo. Under his leadership, Afghanistan was liberated from Al Qaeda's patron, the Taliban. The president also has demonstrated, through the liberation of Iraq from the tyranny of Saddam Hussein, that he is willing to wage a preemptive war when he believes the national interests of the United States are endangered."
And guess what, neither has a book on the rack!
He went after Saddam, who WASN'T harboring anyone in Al Qaida, based upon a trumped up rationale, to assuage goal that his administration had from the day they entered office.
The Pre-emptive War policy in Iraq has NO BASIS in the Bush Doctrine you cite. It is the this fact that has cost us our international prestige. Now, if he had enunciated a doctrine that said, "we'll be the world's police whenever we feel like it, as long as my benefactors have financial interests involved" then he could be said to be following that doctrine in Iraq. The problem with Pre-emptive war is when you invent a threat that doesn't exist, as a bogus rationale for overthrowing another nation, nobody trusts you anymore, and that is what has happened to the U.S.
As for Clarke's resignation note, yes, everybody knows that it is common courtesy to include flowery but meaningless compliments in them. Nobody with any sense would actually assume that such a note was anything more than a courtesy fluff piece.
Oh and BTW, in case you hadn't noticed, Howard Dean never won a single primary except for the Vermont race as a favorite son. The reason for this is that voters on the Democratic side could distinguish between over the top rhetoric and a reasoned aproach from someone able to determine a rational position, hence, they voted for Kerry, not Dean. Nobody with any sense argues that Bush wouldn't have tried to prevent 9/11 if he knew it was coming. The problem was, his entire administration was so busy figuring out how to overthrow Saddam and give themselves tax cuts that they didn't pay any attention, and the true IMMINENCE of the danger of Al Qaida was never effectively communicated to Bush (perhaps his staff tried, but were unable to dumb it down enough for Dumbya to fully comprehend it), but the evidence is that Wolfowitz and Rumsfeld controlled the agenda such that the message was never even communicated to Bush, lest he might miss their urgent entreaties on the need for overthrowing Iraq.
Quoting people you have vilified in the past - those who you despised during the Clinton administration, but simply because they made a statement that supports your position you trot them out as if you respect them.
My point, if you can absorb it, is that Clarke defused that criticism handily, and in a way the Bushies can't handle - by telling the truth in a straightforward manner. Their heads must have exploded.
As usual, you didn't answer the key point in the post you attacked. You are indeed a true Republican.
So how about it - either Clarke is lying, in which case he must be charged, or he is telling the truth, in which case the Govt. dares do nothing.
Which is it?
Hey guys, give it a rest, huh? There are 7 months to go before the election, and if you guys keep it up at this pace, you'll all have coronaries before the vote. I realize that this is a General Discussion board, and that includes politics, but all you guys seem to have your minds FIRMLY made up, and no amount of discussion is going to change that. So whether you love Bush or hate him (there doesn't seem to be a middle ground, at least on this board), even you guys have to admit that these discussions are getting rather BORING! Besides, no matter if Bush wins or loses, partisan politics will continue unabated, we'll still all argue about taxes, outsourcing, and all matters economic, the French will still be despised by many Americans, U.S. troops (unfortunately) will still be in the Middle East, and, worst of all, terrorism will still be a fact of life. So, instead of continually arguing with one another, let's all try to BAND TOGETHER and try to find ways to thwart terrorism. Ben Franklin, where are you? We need your wit and intelligence!
As surely they are unable to hang separately, being the same person.
I would also mention that I am in fact a moderate centrist, but just like the Bush Administration does with all of it's opponents, I have been pigeonholed by Check my Bribites as a liberal, which is simply untrue. The fact is, Bush is a right wing Religious fundamentalist extremist reactionary, who hasn't any qualms about lying about it. I resent him claiming to be a compassionate conservative, when he is neither. A true Conservative believes in keeping the government out of people's lives wherever possible, and fiscal responsibility, which are among the furthest possible things from Bush's agenda. For any HOPE of a government that represents the center, we would need to repudiate beyond any doubt, the type of partisanship that Bush lives by. This is why I would have loved to see a Kerry / McCain ticket, although I am not naive enough to think it might happen.
And while I admire the innovative deep thinking of Ben Franklin, Check my Bribites would consider him a radical liberal (who, BTW, was a great admirer of French Culture, and kept a French Lady as his mistress, as well).
-- Modified on 3/25/2004 11:51:04 AM
It is a "general" discussion board and by definition I guess the political threads are ok. It would be nice if sdstud, bribite,Puck and Sully plus one or two more conservatives, to balance things, would meet for drinks. They might end up liking each other, which is something that often happens when people sit down and stare each other in the eyes. A lot of people probaly do not know that Edward Kennedy and Oren Hatch are very good friends eventhough their politics are at opposite ends of the political spectrum.
-- Modified on 3/25/2004 3:57:19 PM
And personally, I'd be very pleased to rid the world of him. And I expect that he feels exactly the same way about me.
You see, Kennedy and Hatch respect each other. I have no respect for Bribite, and he has none for me. So the underlying basis for a friendship could not exist.
Don't tell anyone, but I have a way to hack the private provider boards.
All of you would be supprised how the women (provideers that post on these boards) are talking about him and saying how hot he is. I don't personally understand it myself. He looks like a regular guy to me, but, if this is what attracts the babes, I'm going to go for it. The only people that see him as bad seem to be TS Providers.
For example, Bribite
Geez- I know Bribri has said some crap things in the past, but did you need to go there?
And here I was hoping for a new kinder gentler board intercourse...
Perhaps I simply should have said a male who hasn't got balls. Certainly he doesn't have the balls to post some of his most vicious swill under his own ID half the time.
-- Modified on 3/25/2004 12:46:08 PM