Re: [SLUG-POL] It's Quiet in here

From: Jim (jlange1@tampabay.rr.com)
Date: Fri Feb 15 2002 - 21:23:27 EST


On Friday 15 February 2002 03:11 am, you wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 14, 2002 at 10:16:46PM -0800, Isaiah Weiner wrote:
> > Okay, so tell us what you think about his open letter to Bush. ;)
> >
> > http://www.michaelmoore.com/2002_0129.html
>
> Wow! What a lot of drivel!
>
> First thing, his snide, sniping tone tells me that he most likely plays
> fast and loose with facts. I don't much listen to folks who write like
> this, because they never fail to throw out a million "facts" that may or
> may not be true. You could make a career out of trying to track down
> what they purport to be true. And most often, I find that either their
> "facts" are incorrect, or the spin they've put on them makes them seem
> like something entirely more sinister than what they are.
>
> Part of this point is that Bush is "in bed" with Enron and other people
> connected with Enron. But selecting people for your administration from
> people you like and work with is a time-honored tradition practiced by
> Republicans and Democrats alike. I couldn't care less. Whether they can
> do the job is the real issue. And if they've actually been in business,
> then I suspect they're ten times better than a bunch of lawyers and
> people who've spent most of their adult lives at the government trough.
> I've dealt with a few lawyers close up (no one on this list, and not as
> a client). They're hell to deal with. They'd rather argue than eat. I
> wouldn't have them administer a pizza parlor.
>
> Also, remember that not everyone connected with Enron were crooks. Just
> because someone worked for or had something to do with Enron does not
> mean they deserve to be pilloried. Some Enron/Andersen folks were evil,
> some were hapless dupes and some were completely out of the loop. It's
> like saying someone who visited Europe is a socialist.
>
> And if even half of these allegations were true, do you imagine for a
> second that they wouldn't be splattered all over the front pages of
> every newspaper in the country, starting with the New York Times?
> Absolutely they would. The liberal press hates Bush. In fact, I haven't
> seen this much hatred since Ronald Reagan. I take it as an index of how
> decent the guy is, when the press can't stand him.
>
> And having skimmed this letter, you can pretty much grok the tone of his
> book. Why would you want to read something like that? If someone's going
> to make accusations, let them make them in a calm, reasoned manner. Not
> this catty, nyah nyah nyah attitude. Ugh.
>
> And FWIW, much as I dislike Clinton, I wouldn't read this kind of drivel
> about him either. I think Clinton was a criminal of the highest order. I
> think there are serious crimes he committed that we'll never know about.
> But I don't really care to read innuendo and baseless sarcasm masked as
> "facts" about him.
>
> Paul

Kind of a liberal version of Rush Limbaugh.
Jim



This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.3 : Fri Aug 01 2014 - 20:06:43 EDT