posted on August 22, 2001 09:19:28 AM new
Yes, if you mean that the missouri supposed live speech proves that he's working and not loafing you would seem to have missed this part:
Bush spoke of his attachment to the ranch in a 25-minute interview Monday
evening in a 38th-floor suite at the Hyatt Regency hotel in Kansas City, Mo.
He dismissed his sumptuous quarters at the hotel as "just a place to sleep" and
seemed eager to return to his 1,583-acre refuge in Crawford, Texas.
The president described his vacation as restful. A typical day at the ranch
begins with a solitary stroll before sunup with his Scottish terrier, Barney, and
ends with him heading to bed, book in hand, by 9:30 p.m. He said he and his
wife, Laura, have had guests every night of their vacation, which ends Aug.
30.
posted on August 22, 2001 09:20:16 AM new
krs, yes I did... and he is... and please don't use my name here, I really don't like to be known by name, thanks Ken
while I'm here meaning I cannot spend a whole lot of time here, does that make sense to you?
posted on August 22, 2001 09:26:21 AM new
wait I missed that, you said 'supposed' live speech.... you mean that was not the Harry Truman H.S. he was in yesterday, it was staged at his TX ranch?
posted on August 22, 2001 10:07:21 AM new
No, but what you saw was probably taped, and he seemed very uncomfortable being there.
"and please don't use my name here, I really don't like to be known by name, thanks Ken"
You ask that even while addressing it to my name?
The article does not specify who the guests are. There's another article which describes that the "people from washington and who work for him' stay in a doulbe wide trailer, of all things. Without comment as to the implications of that fact, why do you think that those kind of people are the type which would be his guests at dinner?
posted on August 22, 2001 10:29:41 AM newYou ask that even while addressing it to my name?
Yeah because you used my name, not only here, in this thread,but other times also on AW. I don't address you by name, when I do address you.
Anyway
"people from washington and who work for him' stay in a doulbe wide trailer, of all things. Without comment as to the implications of that fact, why do you think that those kind of people are the type which would be his guests at dinner?
Uh, maybe because they are discussing work, like the work in D.C., like what they are going to be doing now, and when Congress reconvenes? ya think?
I saw where he had a double wide trailer in the article url you posted, however I didn't see where his guests used it.... and if they did, do you know what this double wide is like, are you saying there is something wrong with double wide trailers?
I've seen some really nice ones.
posted on August 22, 2001 10:47:53 AM new"I often wonder, if all this did not happen (Florida) and things went smoothly and we had a President elected on Nov 8 (like we usually have by that time, and not all that went on until Dec) if you would accept Bush as your President? I doubt it."
NearTheSea, I have clearly stated my position on this more than once in the last month in this forum. I will not repeat it again. That bit of slander has been leved at me before on AW and you are welcome to believe any sort of slander about me that keeps you from comprehending what I write.
"You always claim that you blame the Republican voters for this. Why is this?"
That's a non-sequiter. I can't answer that unless I know what you are referring to. Be specific.
" If someone before the election was trying to tell me how evil I would be if I voted for the Republican, it would sure upset me,"
Oh, yes -- Liberals have felt that way a long time now with the self-righteous Republicans slamming them in that way, so I can understand how that would feel, although I am not a Liberal. However, I have yet to ever say on AW or any other place for that matter, that Repubcan voters are evil or have done evil by voting for Bush.
"...of which myself and the people here understood every word he did say."
True. When Bush has the chance to rehearse his speech for many days, possibly weeks in advance, he can deliver what he reads off of the teleprompter two-feet away from his face just fine. It's those other times when he gives both this nation and the entire would the chance to make a laughingstock out of him again.
posted on August 22, 2001 11:26:59 AM new"Borillar The term your looking for is libel the word slander is the spoken (oral) words."
Libel is usually used in context with traditional print media and now with television. Internet forums are not concidered that type of media, but instead, as supposed to people talking to each other, but not in real time. Therefore, SLANDER is the correct term.
"Am I being sued here? this is getting down below ridiculus"
Seeing as how you failed to answer any questions or comments I just politely responded to, I have to second that sentiment. Unfortunately, that sentiment is being derived by your evasiveness.
posted on August 22, 2001 11:52:37 AM new
I am not being evasive, and as you have pointed out in other threads, I'm not going to go looking them up for you
(did I slander/libel/bs you there? LOL!)
And I originated this thread, and I will not have it locked, so there!
posted on August 22, 2001 11:56:14 AM new
krs that was the same article
but here is what I think your getting at
There are two guesthouses and a double-wide mobile home on the property, and they are almost always full of friends and staff. This week's guests include Rice, counselor Karen Hughes, deputy chief of staff Josh Bolten, press secretary Ari Fleischer and "I think maybe one other person." A military aide, a staff doctor and nurse, a White House chef and a communications technician are always there.
posted on August 22, 2001 12:01:29 PM new"You always claim that you blame the Republican voters for this. Why is this?"
"That's a non-sequiter. I can't answer that unless I know what you are referring to. Be specific."
" I am not being evasive, and as you have pointed out in other threads, I'm not going to go looking them up for you."
You directed this accusation at me and demanded an answer from me in an open, public forum. I asked you to clarify your accusation, as it was too vague to be replied to. Your refusal to make yourself clear shows that you are only interested in smearing people with no substance or proof to what you say. Therefore, you have nothing of importance to say and can be ignored, no matter how badly you want to be heard. Is that really how you want it?
posted on August 22, 2001 12:22:56 PM new" yeah Borillar I want to be heard"
Fine. Then let me make this distinction for you so that we can then go about your usual banter on here. NearTheSea, it is one thing to make claims about scientists and the weather, politicians and legislation, laws and dirty panties or whatever the topic may and then refuse for one reason or another to provide some sort of verifiable proof to back up what you say if your claims or points seem too incredible to be believed by the general population.
It is absolutely a different animal altogether to post in an open, public forum a direct or indirect accusation of any member of that forum and then refuse to show just cause when asked to. To refuse to provide substance to a claim about the weather can be dismissed as simply 'Hot Air' (no pun intended), an accusation leveled at a member of the forum is serious and carries direct and indirect consequences with it and you had better be prepared to provide direct proof of any allegations that you make. This includes both innuendo and slanderous remarks about any member of that forum.
That is why some posters on here are laughable and the serious posters from either side of the aisle dismiss them as simply being jerks not worthy of talking to. I realize that these people will not confront me with their slander, because there is no basis for it and they would expose themselves as being nothing more than stupid jackasses if they tried. You will never get the respect for what you have to say, NearTheSea, if you hang around those kind of people and pick up their bad habits.
Now that that is cleared up, let's all move on to more mature subject matter, shall we?
"I often wonder, if all this did not happen (Florida) and things went smoothly and we had a President elected on Nov 8 (like we usually have by that time, and not all that went on until Dec) if you would accept Bush as your President? I doubt it."
That NearTheSea should bring up this same allegation again in an attempt to make me answer the question again reeks of foul play. That the question had been answered on at least one other occasion where NearTheSea was participating in that discussion at some point only shows the maliciousness of her statement, because the truth of my viewpoint on that accusation has already been established for her in advance. To bring up such an accusation again after those facts have been established is a matter of slander.
posted on August 22, 2001 12:48:48 PM new
It's been raining here, NearTheSea and the air is warm. Although humid, I prefer it to the hot blasts of air that we usually bear the brunt of South of you from the California deserts. If I want sunshine, if I want it dry, if I want it warm -- I'll move to Arizona or New Mexico.
You know, the most irritating thing about living here in Oregon are the people who move here and complain about the weather. Climatically-speaking, we are in a Northern Rain Forest climate on the West side of the Cascades so I've heard and what should one expect by living up here, but rainey, cloudy, and being cold and wet most of the time? Instead, we get people who move up here from dry climates and bithch, #*!@, #*!@ about the weather constantly. I tell'm that if they do not want to adjust to the rality of living here, go back to the baking hot weather where they came from.
posted on August 22, 2001 12:52:01 PM new
Borillar, I think the comment you cited would have gone unnoticed if you hadn't brought so much attention to it with accusations of slander. My reaction was the same as toke's.
posted on August 22, 2001 01:11:15 PM new
Toke, it was a matter of intent.
At any rate, if everyone is going to have to become lawyers in order to post on here, having a law degree in the subject, there will be few posts!
My comments and explantions to NearTheSea are more related to debate and strategy than to actual case law. NearTheSea is, to me, the best Republican on here, because no matter how bad it gets, she is always here and keeps her chin up. I think that she is willing to fight the total onsluaght in the trenches is in order to learn the art of debate and to understand the minds of those who dislike the political postions that she stands for. That this is learning experience for her, I think, is good and I always like to help people along as best I can. I am always happy to have her try something new to trip me up, because she wants to learn how. I made it a point to show her what can happen to her in a debate if one levels an accusation at someone in order to attempt to manipulate them into repeating themselves, and then being unprepared to have her game called.
Slander is my interpreation of motives as well as established facts and slander is hard to back up. By turning the redundant accusation around and making the accusation of slander when I knew that she was only bluffing, taught her what can happen when using that method of attack on an opponent.
posted on August 22, 2001 01:20:27 PM newThat is why some posters on here are laughable and the serious posters from either side of the aisle dismiss them as simply being jerks not worthy of talking to. I realize that these people will not confront me with their slander, because there is no basis for it and they would expose themselves as being nothing more than stupid jackasses if they tried.
"A closed mouth gathers no foot". That big toe of yours must be causing the reflex gagging.
posted on August 22, 2001 01:25:36 PM new
Oh, good hepburn, let's just make this thread devolve into bashing members back and forth with nasty comments until the moderator screams at us for being such children ...
