President Bush's speech to the Nation

Italgato wrote:

I am glad that you listed the rules for me, McClintock.

After I read some of the posts, I did not think that there was any rules at all.

"WAS" any rules??????

0 Replies

Mr. Apisa:

Thank you for the correction of my grammatical error.

Italgato

0 Replies

Craven old buddy you're right about this much, it damn sure doesn't matter to me. I'm just pointing it out and expressing my opinion.

This is your site, I'm just a visitor.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

McGentrix, the TOS does cover all members. Thing is, since you don't see the communication you seem to think it doesn't exist. In this case you would be wrong.

By the standard you imply above you have broken the TOS many many times. If you have something to report please report it to the Moderator account. Other than that you'd do well to abide by the TOS yourself.

Bi-polar,

It does not matter if Italgo is this massagato you name. Nowhere in the TOS does it stipulate that it is against the rules to be massagatos and if people would be objective about that they'd understand why.

I admit I have run outside of the boundaries of the TOS in the past, but as you say, I can only go by what I see. I see that certain members get scolded publicly, while others don't. I see a lack of consistancy which I know is not true as you have always been fair, but again, I can only go by what I see. I don't see where my last post even approached breaking the TOS to earn the stern warning that you just gave me, publicly. I do see certain other members exhibiting what seems to be a free run of insults and insinuations without reprimand.

0 Replies

Bi-Polar,

If it were your site would you make rules that certain people aren't allowed on the site because of the name they choose or because of what people say the person did to them on other sites?

0 Replies

Craven I just said it was your site and I didn't care...I meant it....you don't have to defend yourself or your TOS for this fine site to me.....All I said was this guy reminds me of Massagato and I don't like him....I'm sure he doesn't like me either.....no harm no foul......

0 Replies

McGentrix,

The Moderator actions come from teh Moderator account.

If I or any f the other Moderators, when using personal accounts, says something it is just that. Saying something.

Official Moderator communication comes from the official Moderator account. All other communication is on the same level as anyone else's.

If you would like to "scold" people for breaking the TOS feel free to do so. In fact, I believe you just did.

Should I complain that you didn't scold every single member who has ever been guilty of an infraction?

0 Replies

Cool, bp. Thing is, he doesn't hold a special place in my heart either but that can't be a factor in anything 'official'.

0 Replies

Cool. Wasn't aware of that tidbit and will take it under advisement. This communication is one of the things that makes this a very good site.

0 Replies

Yeah, the Moderators have my vote of confidence in a very difficult job. I'm not gonna try to second-guess them, because I don't want their job.

0 Replies

Yup, it's important to remember that Moderator communication is done through PMs and anything publically posted by the moderator account "on thread" is general and not user-specific (because of the fact that if it were ever user specific we'd receive accusations of being unfair unless the 300 some thousand posts on this site were scoured and each infraction pointed out publically). Moderator communication is also almost always the result of the decision of a quorum of Moderators, not one's individual opinion.

0 Replies

Why don't we wise up?
Why don't we wise up. What I'm reading on this thread and some others, is an attempt by a hobby subversive poster to turn all conversation to himself and to create argumentative friction rather than to foster understanding.

When it becomes clear that this is the goal of the poster, why don't we wise up and ignore the poster. That is the greatest put down. Such posters can't stand to be ignored.

---BumbleBeeBoogie

0 Replies

hobitbob wrote:

Implied Iraq was involved in 11th September...AGAIN!!!

Actually, he didnt. Very clever. Well, he insinuated a link between the two by the sequence of his words, of course, but without saying anything he could be pinned down on.

Jus' compare.

About the war in Afghanistan he talks of how it "destroyed the training camps of terror, and removed the regime that harbored al-Qaida". No mincing of words there.

Next comes Saddam's Iraq, "where the former regime sponsored terror, possessed and used weapons of mass destruction". "Sponsored terror" - doesnt say which or whose terror. Considering the financial rewards Iraq was paying out to the families of Palestinian suicide bombers, thats clearly true - if you take it literally. "Where the regime used WMD" - well, he didnt say when or against whom ... and yeh, Iraq did, against Iran, against the Kurds ...

<sighs> Tricky, tricky, tricky .... meanwhile, nothing in the flow of sentences, of course, to change the minds of those 2/3rds of Americans who still believe Saddam was behind 9/11 ...

0 Replies

Nimh -- Good close reading there!

It appalled me yesterday to hear several American "people in the street," who were interviewed about Bush's speech, say "I'm for him because he always tells the truth."

Today McCain seems to have joined Dems in condemning the White House for bad planning, overspending. Is this a hint another conservative candidacy? Or is he simply being a good Senator?

0 Replies

A "good senator" is an oxymoron in anybody's dictionary.

0 Replies

How can one equate lying about a sexual peccadillo and lying to invade another country? For the record I couldn't care less if a president banged every female intern in the white house and lied about it. But I do care about one who would lie to start a war. There is a vast difference.

0 Replies

Italgato wrote:

A review of the poll taken by Time/Cnn on Sept. 3rd and 4th reveals the following:

52% of the American People approve of the job President Bush is doing.
The article referenced did not, however, reveal how many did not approve of his job performance.
The article referenced did not, however, reveal how many gave no opinion as an answer.

Lemme help you out, 'gato:

Quote:

Time/CNN Poll conducted by Harris Interactive. Sept. 3-4, 2003. N=1,003 adults nationwide. MoE ± 3.1.

"In general, do you approve or disapprove of the way President Bush is handling his job as president?"

Approve 52 % (-3%, compared to mid-July)
Disapprove 42% (+2%)
Not Sure 6% (+1%)

Thats from pollingreport.com again.

Italgato wrote:

Furthermore, the Time/CNN Poll showed that an overwhelming 72% of the people polled "thought the US had done a good job in Iraq since the fighting ended" and 63% believed going to was with Iraq was the right decision.
Given those last two figures, I will accept the Time/CNN poll as accurate.

Good. Then you will also trust these results, from the same poll:

Quote:

"In your opinion, has the military campaign against Iraq been successful, unsuccessful, or somewhere in-between?"

Successful 32% (-7%)
In-between 53% (+7%)
Unsuccessful 13%
Not Sure 2%

"In your view, is the war against Iraq worth the toll it has taken in American lives and other kinds of costs, or isn't the war worth these costs?"

Worth It 49%
Not Worth It 43%
Not Sure 8%

0 Replies

Whitehouse.org's take on the speech: Very Happy

Freedom, Sept. 11th, repeat after me...

0 Replies

I pledge allegiance to the republic of Iraq, because they have all our money. One nation under Allah, for Liberty, and Justice for All!

0 Replies

The squeeky wheel gets the oil.

Squeak, squeek, turn another tale.

0 Replies

President Bush's speech to the Nation

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know