NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/63426

Faced with the biggest crisis of his political life, President Bush has hit the bottle again, The National Enquirer can reveal.

Bush, who said he quit drinking the morning after his 40th birthday, has started boozing amid the Katrina catastrophe.

Family sources have told how the 59-year-old president was caught by First Lady Laura downing a shot of booze at their family ranch in Crawford, Texas, when he learned of the hurricane disaster.

His worried wife yelled at him: "Stop, George."

Following the shocking incident, disclosed here for the first time, Laura privately warned her husband against "falling off the wagon" and vowed to travel with him more often so that she can keep an eye on Dubya, the sources add.

"When the levees broke in New Orleans, it apparently made him reach for a shot," said one insider. "He poured himself a Texas-sized shot of straight whiskey and tossed it back. The First Lady was shocked and shouted: "Stop George!"

"Laura gave him an ultimatum before, 'It's Jim Beam or me.' She doesn't want to replay that nightmare — especially now when it's such tough going for her husband."

Bush is under the worst pressure of his two terms in office and his popularity is near an all-time low. The handling of the Katrina crisis and troop losses in Iraq have fueled public discontent and pushed Bush back to drink.

A Washington source said: "The sad fact is that he has been sneaking drinks for weeks now. Laura may have only just caught him — but the word is his drinking has been going on for a while in the capital. He's been in a pressure cooker for months.

"The war in Iraq, the loss of American lives, has deeply affected him. He takes every soldier's life personally. It has left him emotionally drained.

The result is he's taking drinks here and there, likely in private, to cope. "And now with the worst domestic crisis in his administration over Katrina, you pray his drinking doesn't go out of control."

Another source said: "I'm only surprised to hear that he hadn't taken a shot sooner. Before Katrina, he was at his wit's end. I've known him for years. He's been a good ol' Texas boy forever. George had a drinking problem for years that most professionals would say needed therapy. He doesn't believe in it [therapy], he never got it. He drank his way through his youth, through college and well into his thirties. Everyone's drinking around him."

Another source said: "A family member told me they fear George is 'falling apart.' The First Lady has been assigned the job of gatekeeper." Bush's history of drinking dates back to his youth. Speaking of his time as a young man in the National Guard, he has said: "One thing I remember, and I'm most proud of, is my drinking and partying. Those were the days my friends. Those were the good old days!"

Age 26 in 1972, he reportedly rounded off a night's boozing with his 16-year-old brother Marvin by challenging his father to a fight.

On November 1, 2000, on the eve of his first presidential election, Bush acknowledged that in 1976 he was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol near his parents' home in Maine. Age 30 at the time, Bush pleaded guilty and paid a $150 fine. His driving privileges were temporarily suspended in Maine.

"I'm not proud of that," he said. "I made some mistakes. I occasionally drank too much, and I did that night. I learned my lesson." In another interview around that time, he said: "Well, I don't think I had an addiction. You know it's hard for me to say. I've had friends who were, you know, very addicted... and they required hitting bottom (to start) going to AA. I don't think that was my case."

During his 2000 presidential campaign, there were also persistent questions about past cocaine use. Eventually Bush denied using cocaine after 1992, then quickly extended the cocaine-free period back to 1974, when he was 28.

Dr. Justin Frank, a Washington D.C. psychiatrist and author of Bush On The Couch: Inside The Mind Of The President, told The National Enquirer: "I do think that Bush is drinking again. Alcoholics who are not in any program, like the President, have a hard time when stress gets to be great.

"I think it's a concern that Bush disappears during times of stress. He spends so much time on his ranch. It's very frightening."

Published on: 09/21/2005

Is this real? It's just like Michael Moore wrote...

Time to get rid of the guy. Seriously.

I'd actually like Bush more if he were a drunk.

I'd actually like Bush more if he were a drunk.
Remember Yeltsin?

http://www.nationalenquirer.com/celebrity/63426



Yeah, the National Enquirer is really credible :rolleyes:

It wouldn't surprise me if Bush really WAS drunk, but I'm going to hold off on judgement until corroboration (sp?) can be found.

Walkin' on sunshine, whoa.

Remember Yeltsin?

He wasn't my President. ;)

My President at the time was a pot smoking lech ... and I loved him.

Remember Yeltsin?

Chap that only launched one armed invasion during his presidency, yeah? Slipping behind GWB in the rankings there, irrespective of booze content.

too tired to read the article, but "Katrina and the Waves"? sounds like a great 50's band imo :cool:

too tired to read the article, but "Katrina and the Waves"? sounds like a great 50's band imo :cool:

Not to mention a sucky 80's band that went on to win the Eurovision Song Contest for the UK.

Not to mention a sucky 80's band that went on to win the Eurovision Song Contest for the UK.
what? really? no way! lol :p

guess the thread title isn't as random as i thought then :D

Not to mention a sucky 80's band that went on to win the Eurovision Song Contest for the UK.

Generally sucky, yes, but the fact that they had one fantastic song is pretty much undeniable by anybody with an ear for classic pop music.

what? really? no way! lol

Kids today, I ask you. They don't know they're born.

what? really? no way! lol :p

guess the thread title isn't as random as i thought then :D

Katrina and the Waves. (http://images.google.se/images?q=katrina%20and%20the%20waves&hl=en&hs=YnZ&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=N&tab=wi) Their biggest hit was "Walkin' on sunshine." They won the ESC in 1997 (I think) with "Love shine a light."

What does the thread subject have to do with its title? I thought this was about the band.

Generally sucky, yes, but the fact that they had one fantastic song is pretty much undeniable by anybody with an ear for classic pop music.

I hate that song.

Katrina and the Waves. (http://images.google.se/images?q=katrina%20and%20the%20waves&hl=en&hs=YnZ&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=N&tab=wi) Their biggest hit was "Walkin' on sunshine." They won the ESC in 1997 (I think) with "Love shine a light."
i know walkin on sunshine... go me! (i know almost nothing about pop music - i'm useless at pub quzzes...)

I hate that song.

Quite possibly, but it isn't really a matter of personal likes or dislikes - much as I despeise and abhor I Should Be So Lucky by Kylie Minogue or Ra-Ra-Rasputin by Boney M, I would be a fool to claim that they aren't classic pieces of pop music.

Yeah, the National Enquirer is really credible :rolleyes:

It wouldn't surprise me if Bush really WAS drunk, but I'm going to hold off on judgement until corroboration (sp?) can be found.

Well, it's easily as credible as Newsmax or the Free Republic.

Quite possibly, but it isn't really a matter of personal likes or dislikes - much as I despeise and abhor I Should Be So Lucky by Kylie Minogue or Ra-Ra-Rasputin by Boney M, I would be a fool to claim that they aren't classic pieces of pop music.

Kylie is a different matter altogether, since she is a goddess.

Kylie is a different matter altogether, since she is a goddess.

You aren't gay, by any chance, are you?

You aren't gay, by any chance, are you?

:)

:)

I'll take that as a 'no' then. Any real Scandinavian homosexual would exist solely on a diet of early Turbonegro.

I'll take that as a 'no' then. Any real Scandinavian homosexual would exist solely on a diet of early Turbonegro.

Shut your mouth! It is possible to like them both, you know. Even though I was much more into Indochine...

Jeez, don't the writers at the Enquirer know anything?

Daddy Bush was into martinis.
Baby Bush is into the nose-candy.

:)

Good for him, maybe he will realize that the people who got him to go through with what he has let happen, not only let him down, but more importantly let regular people down. Drink up president Bush and go walk the line of white crosses and stones that you made happen. I know hes not a bad person, just an ignorant fool that believed the lies of a group of greed mongering liars.
We have all been there before at least once, when it all crashes down and you have that moment of clarity. god or whatever powers that be, grant him the wisdom to guide those of us that dont have a choice towards the right decisions that help instead of hurt

Katrina and the Waves. (http://images.google.se/images?q=katrina%20and%20the%20waves&hl=en&hs=YnZ&lr=&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&sa=N&tab=wi) Their biggest hit was "Walkin' on sunshine." They won the ESC in 1997 (I think) with "Love shine a light."

Keep an eye out for them in the "Congratulations" concert (50 years of Eurovision) in October. If anyone actually cares that is.

While I don't like Bush anymore than the next liberal, I have to say that one realy shouldn't trust anything from a rag like the Enquirer.

Wait a minute someone is posting the national enquirer and stating it is fact? What have you guys been smoking to believe this? :rolleyes:

Wait a minute someone is posting the national enquirer and stating it is fact? What have you guys been smoking to believe this? :rolleyes:

They were right about Rosie O'Donel though, and Brad Pitt's marriage to Jen.

Nor do they have any political bias. If anything, they tend to be slightly right-wing/crazy believe that angels are real.

I trust them more that the New York Times.

Of course, I will wait until it is in the real Times before I believe it.

They were right about Rosie O'Donel though, and Brad Pitt's marriage to Jen.

Nor do they have any political bias. If anything, they tend to be slightly right-wing/crazy believe that angels are real.

I trust them more that the New York Times.

Of course, I will wait until it is in the real Times before I believe it.

The National Enquirer is not credible. First off it is mainly tabloids. They are not slightly right-wing. They are not left wing either. They are just tabloids that will publish about any ridiculous thing. If by chance they are right it is by luck.... not by actual journalism.

They were right about Rosie O'Donel though, and Brad Pitt's marriage to Jen.

Nor do they have any political bias. If anything, they tend to be slightly right-wing/crazy believe that angels are real.

I trust them more that the New York Times.

Of course, I will wait until it is in the real Times before I believe it.
They also report on "bat boy" (not the baseball kind), alien abductions, and the latest alien/human genetic cross-breeding. Not exactly your most reputable journal.

They also report on "bat boy" (not the baseball kind), alien abductions, and the latest alien/human genetic cross-breeding. Not exactly your most reputable journal.

That's not the Enquirer. That's the News of the World. The Enquirer is all about celebrities and angels. :rolleyes:

The National Enquirer is not credible. First off it is mainly tabloids. They are not slightly right-wing. They are not left wing either. They are just tabloids that will publish about any ridiculous thing. If by chance they are right it is by luck.... not by actual journalism.

Have you ever read it?

And just because it is in the Enquirer it can't be true, is that what you are saying?

Are you telling me that, in fact, Rosie O'Donnell is straight, and Brad and Jen, never split up?

The point is, it could be true.

That's not the Enquirer. That's the News of the World. The Enquirer is all about celebrities and angels. :rolleyes:

They are still tabloids, and they still publish crap that's intended to be satire and humor. Not of the actual reality.

Have you ever read it?

And just because it is in the Enquirer it can't be true, is that what you are saying?

Are you telling me that, in fact, Rosie O'Donnell is straight, and Brad and Jen, never split up?

The point is, it could be true.

That's not my point. They may be right about some things but that is by rumor or chance. They don't actually do any real journalism.

And the stuff about Bush is crap. It isn't true one bit.

And the stuff about Bush is crap. It isn't true one bit.

No, you're wrong. It's true.

No, you're wrong. It's true.

Wow, that's a classic response. Prove it.

Wow, that's a classic response. Prove it.

Was I too subtle for you?

That's not my point. They may be right about some things but that is by rumor or chance. They don't actually do any real journalism.

And the stuff about Bush is crap. It isn't true one bit.

How do you know it's not true? This could be the worlds best researched story for all we know. I have only your word for the assertation that it is "just" a tabloid. After all, the national enquirer pegged the Charles and Camila thing years before any of the "real" newspapers, so they obviously do get some things right. Why not this one? They are obviously more accurate than the new york times, cbs, or elenor clift for example.

How do you know it's not true? This could be the worlds best researched story for all we know. I have only your word for the assertation that it is "just" a tabloid. After all, the national enquirer pegged the Charles and Camila thing years before any of the "real" newspapers, so they obviously do get some things right. Why not this one? They are obviously more accurate than the new york times, cbs, or elenor clift for example.

They are tabloids. It isn't real journalism. It is that simple. You are the one full of assertions. Please start posting more credible papers. I even give the Washington Times more credibility then the National Enquirer. They obviously do get some things right? OH so that makes it totally true all the time? You better start backing yourself up with other sources about this one, that back it up.

Well, it's easily as credible as Newsmax or the Free Republic.

Eeewwwww...

Not that I am running to G.B.'s defence but DUDE consider the source! The same rag that has shown us pic's of seven "siamese" twins all joined at the shoulder! Or has given us exclusive pics and inside info on the 200+ alien autopsies? They even state that the "facts" inside our paper are for entertaiment value ONLY and do not necessarily have and truth to them. To dumb it down for the slack jawed yokles -- "we are full of shi# and don't believe a word we say"!
:mp5:

They are tabloids. It isn't real journalism. It is that simple. You are the one full of assertions. Please start posting more credible papers. I even give the Washington Times more credibility then the National Enquirer. They obviously do get some things right? OH so that makes it totally true all the time? You better start backing yourself up with other sources about this one, that back it up.

Okay.

Slate article about the enquirer (http://slate.msn.com/id/2102303/)

another thing about the Enquirer (http://www.answers.com/topic/the-national-enquirer)

There is plenty of the same. But I suppose these are unbelievable because they are on the interwebs.

Oh for the love of God. Are you guys actually seriously considering an article from the National Enquirer to be anything but utter and contemptible swill for dull normals? Next thing you guys will debate is whether or not the appearance of Bat Boy last year means that the expenditures to finance Star Wars in the eighties by the Reagan administration was causing genetic mutations in low income Kentuckians living in close proximity to caves that housed significant bat colonies. Proof positive that the gene pool could use a little chlorine.

Check please....... :headbang:

Okay.

Slate article about the enquirer (http://slate.msn.com/id/2102303/)

another thing about the Enquirer (http://www.answers.com/topic/the-national-enquirer)

There is plenty of the same. But I suppose these are unbelievable because they are on the interwebs.

Great an Op/Ed, and a blog. That's soooo much better.

Are you an editor at the national enquirer? I'm just curious.

Whether or not the Enquirer is a reasonable newspaper should seriously be of no consequence.

Much worse is the fact that this could have happened for real, Bush is a former alcoholic and he's under enormous amounts of pressure right now.
He wouldn't be the first addict to go back to drinking, and I shudder to think what a man of this character, with this worldview may do if he was making decisions under the influence.

Whether or not the Enquirer is a reasonable newspaper should seriously be of no consequence.

Much worse is the fact that this could have happened for real, Bush is a former alcoholic and he's under enormous amounts of pressure right now.
He wouldn't be the first addict to go back to drinking, and I shudder to think what a man of this character, with this worldview may do if he was making decisions under the influence.

My dad used to smoke a lot when under pressure (back in the late 70s). He gave up. One can give up and completely kick the habit. The president has always been under pressure.. esp ever since september 11th. He has been attacked non-stop. So please, give me a damn break.

I can't really believe some of you are believeing the national enquirer.. glaring incompetence I guess in your own arguments.

My dad used to smoke a lot when under pressure (back in the late 70s). He gave up. One can give up and completely kick the habit.
Two things:

1) My Grandfather was a drinker and gave up. He later lost his job and started drinking again, beating my grandmother and my mother and then finally dying of liver failure.
While it is possible that one gives up forever, not everyone can.

2) Bush may have been under pressure for all this time, but perhaps now he actually does feel a certain pinch from his conscience. 9/11 was bad, yes, but he could immediatly procede fighting the ones responsible. Same in Iraq.
But this Katrina Business is something that he may very well hold himself responsible for, and that may be a completely different kind of pressure.

Two things:

1) My Grandfather was a drinker and gave up. He later lost his job and started drinking again, beating my grandmother and my mother and then finally dying of liver failure.
While it is possible that one gives up forever, not everyone can.

My dad was a chain smoker in the 1970s. He gave up completely and has been under a lot of stress these past few years because of his job. He never has vacation as he is practically on call. He never smokes anymore, with the exception of a cuban cigar he smokes like once a month.


2) Bush may have been under pressure for all this time, but perhaps now he actually does feel a certain pinch from his conscience. 9/11 was bad, yes, but he could immediatly procede fighting the ones responsible. Same in Iraq.
But this Katrina Business is something that he may very well hold himself responsible for, and that may be a completely different kind of pressure.

Since you rely on the national enquirer for your argument, I can say: hogwash. Bush has been under more pressure then you can imagine.. during the 2004 election and so on. With Iraq. with Afghanistan. So really... I don't think you have an argument because the basis of this thread is reliant on a ridiculous source.

This fucking katrina business is involving several of my relatives. So careful how you talk about it as this is highly personal. He has kept his relative cool under pressure especially now. I see this in his speeches, and appearances.

Great an Op/Ed, and a blog. That's soooo much better.

Are you an editor at the national enquirer? I'm just curious.

Actually it's a wiki thing, and a slate article. But as I expected you dissmissed both of them out of hand.

I suppose everything Slate writes is also rubbish now?

I suppose everything Slate writes is also rubbish now?

It is an OPINION based piece.

It is an OPINION based piece.

You didn't read it did you?

You didn't read it did you?

I can accept the author of the OPINION BASED PIECE can have their own opinion, but that won't impact my opinion. So please stop justifying tabloids. It isn't real journalism.

I can accept the author of the OPINION BASED PIECE can have their own opinion, but that won't impact my opinion. So please stop justifying tabloids. It isn't real journalism.

And this is an "opinion"?

Striving for the kind of journalistic accuracy that repels libel suits, the tabloid paid many of its sources and scrupulously reported and fact-checked its pieces about Cher, Liz and Dick, Jackie O., Liza, Henry Kissinger, Burt and Loni, and the original Charlie's Angels.

By the time of the 1994 Nicole Brown Simpson-Ron Goldman murders, the Enquirer truth machine had become so good that reporter David Margolick was toasting it in the New York Times for scooping the competition—and applauding it for spiking many of the false stories that appeared in mainstream media.

Now either the above referenced things actually happened, or they are lies. You cannot just brush it off with claims of "it's opinion". Because it plainly isn't.

Apparently, the Enquirer does check facts, and it does employ proper journalistic methods, albeit that its style is not that of a broadsheet. So there is no reason to suppose this story is more or less accurate simply because it appeared in the Enquirer and not the New York Times.

You may wish to brush it off; but all you have offered so far is cries of "tabliod" followed by "it's all opinion".

(And it's not an opinion piece, you'd know that if you read it).

Apparently, the Enquirer does check facts, and it does employ proper journalistic methods, albeit that its style is not that of a broadsheet. So there is no reason to suppose this story is more or less accurate simply because it appeared in the Enquirer and not the New York Times.

You may wish to brush it off; but all you have offered so far is cries of "tabliod" followed by "it's all opinion".

(And it's not an opinion piece, you'd know that if you read it).

http://www.theonion.com

You want to continue to be ridiculous in your statements? The enquirer is bullshit and always has been. You need to stop accepting it as fact because it is convenient for your own opinion. The New York Timese is far more credible and accurate then the Enquirer, and I don't even like it.

you have offered nothing. Just a ridiculous op/ed piece and your own opinion which isn't substantiated.

Since you rely on the national enquirer for your argument, I can say: hogwash.
No you can't. I didn't quote the Enquirer, nor did I take any of my points from it.
Just assume this article here didn't exist. Do you not think that perhaps (if you assume that Bush has this fairly black&white view of the world) it was easy to shrug off any emotional trouble with 9/11 by focussing on the enemies, while this Katrina Business (sorry to hear about your relatives) is different.
This time it cannot be refuted that the Government should and could have done better, and as a result his approval ratings have reached ridiculous levels for a US President. I would think that while he has been under a lot of pressure for some time, this time it's different and may affect him differently.

Just assume this article here didn't exist. Do you not think that perhaps (if you assume that Bush has this fairly black&white view of the world) it was easy to shrug off any emotional trouble with 9/11 by focussing on the enemies, while this Katrina Business (sorry to hear about your relatives) is different.

Actually I think you have a fairly black and white view of the world, and you certainly don't focus on the options. And stop calling it "Katrina business". This isn't business. This is a tragic occurrance which is the fault of mother nature.

In this circumstances, Bush is focusing on the issue at hand and getting help to the people.

This time it cannot be refuted that the Government should and could have done better, and as a result his approval ratings have reached ridiculous levels for a US President. I would think that while he has been under a lot of pressure for some time, this time it's different and may affect him differently.

Typical of a partisan. The state government most certainly should of done better. But I feel the federal government responded in an adequate manner. Yes adequate is not good enough for me, but it didn't do terribly. This time it is different? how so? Because you say so? :rolleyes: He's focusing on helping the people.. and to say he is going back to drinking.. well is fucking ridiculous.

Now either the above referenced things actually happened, or they are lies. You cannot just brush it off with claims of "it's opinion". Because it plainly isn't.

Apparently, the Enquirer does check facts, and it does employ proper journalistic methods, albeit that its style is not that of a broadsheet. So there is no reason to suppose this story is more or less accurate simply because it appeared in the Enquirer and not the New York Times.

You may wish to brush it off; but all you have offered so far is cries of "tabliod" followed by "it's all opinion".

(And it's not an opinion piece, you'd know that if you read it).


God, he's actually serious. :eek:

I'm sure that there is some, even if very little truth behind this article. My guess - it is embellished more than Bach's fugues.

http://www.theonion.com

You want to continue to be ridiculous in your statements? The enquirer is bullshit and always has been. You need to stop accepting it as fact because it is convenient for your own opinion. The New York Timese is far more credible and accurate then the Enquirer, and I don't even like it.

you have offered nothing. Just a ridiculous op/ed piece and your own opinion which isn't substantiated.


By the time of the 1994 Nicole Brown Simpson-Ron Goldman murders, the Enquirer truth machine had become so good that reporter David Margolick was toasting it in the New York Times for scooping the competition—and applauding it for spiking many of the false stories that appeared in mainstream media.

So that never happened? And the dude was just lying when he talked about how they tightened their standards? All lies! Complete and utter lies! Everyone it lying. And all the people who have looked at the Wiki article are going along with the lies.

(At least the NE has never been taken by a serial liar like the NYT.)

I suppose when the Enquirer reported Jesse Jackson's "love-child", they just made that up too, and happened to be lucky? That was more lies at the time as well, they were just damn lucky that the lies turned out to be truth.

You haven't given a single source that cites the enquirer - after the Carol Burnett kissenger lawsuit - as just making its stories up. The fact is, that they do actually go out and investigate their stories. It might be supermarket rubbish, but they don't just make it up out of whole cloth. What with lawsuits and all. (You know, when you just start to publish false stories about people).

So that never happened? And the dude was just lying when he talked about how they tightened their standards? All lies! Complete and utter lies! Everyone it lying. And all the people who have looked at the Wiki article are going along with the lies.

(At least the NE has never been taken by a serial liar like the NYT.)

I suppose when the Enquirer reported Jesse Jackson's "love-child", they just made that up too, and happened to be lucky? That was more lies at the time as well, they were just damn lucky that the lies turned out to be truth.

You haven't given a single source that cites the enquirer - after the Carol Burnett kissenger lawsuit - as just making its stories up. The fact is, that they do actually go out and investigate their stories. It might be supermarket rubbish, but they don't just make it up out of whole cloth. What with lawsuits and all. (You know, when you just start to publish false stories about people).

Still nothing here about the Bush article.. nothing to see people.. move along.. this guy is actually serious. I don't want the same stuff he's smoking. Damn, it must be more potent then anything Keith Richards ever has had.

This time it is different? how so? Because you say so?
Would you stop being so aggressive all the time? Please?

9/11: A foreign enemy attacked the US. While many people died (and Bush did the Stalin and disappeared for a day or two...), it is relatively easy to deflect the pressure by taking action. Immediatly he held speeches about "evildoers" and the whole Afghanistan thing started.

This time it is not as easy to seem like you take action. This time he can't blame anyone for it, nor can he quickly appease public opinion. Many (whether you do or not is irrelevant) blame him to some extent, and it is pretty much impossible for him to prevent that.
And then there still is the remote possibility he may actually feel bad about this, that he may actually blame himself (whether that is rational or not, psychologists say it happens sometimes). Maybe he feels more powerless this time than during 9/11 or even during the various election campaigns, when one could say he had his own fate in his hands.

But writing this is pointless, as you won't actually respond to any of these possibilities. I'm not saying "Yes, he's drinking". All I said is that it may be possible, which is not a thought I particularly enjoy.

Still nothing here about the Bush article.. nothing to see people.. move along.. this guy is actually serious. I don't want the same stuff he's smoking. Damn, it must be more potent then anything Keith Richards ever has had.

If you feel you can just dismiss the article with a laconic wave of the hand and the epithet "tabloid", why are you discussing it?

I just think that you should accept that it could in fact have been researched properly; and may well be true.

Would you stop being so aggressive all the time? Please?

I, unlike you, care about the people who got hit by the hurricane, and I'm under a huge amount of stress. My own family got hit, as I have said.. I'm under a lot of pressure and am very upset.


This time it is not as easy to seem like you take action. This time he can't blame anyone for it, nor can he quickly appease public opinion. Many (whether you do or not is irrelevant) blame him to some extent, and it is pretty much impossible for him to prevent that.

He doesn't have to blame anyone for it, praytell. All he has to do is act and that is what he is doing. People have blamed presidents for various things. And Bush has been under the fire for a lot of things, including Iraq. That does not mean he will turn to drinking. That allegation is ridiculous and borderlines on libel.

Maybe he feels more powerless this time than during 9/11 or even during the various election campaigns, when one could say he had his own fate in his hands.

Nope. He feels very much in control and in fact he has the upper hand because he's the one in charge. I'm the one who feels powerless. He is the commander in chief and can deploy troops accordingly.

But writing this is pointless, as you won't actually respond to any of these possibilities. I'm not saying "Yes, he's drinking". All I said is that it may be possible, which is not a thought I particularly enjoy.

i'm saying it is impossible. and you should be scolded heavily for it. You need a major smack down (not physically, I'm saying argument wise).

I just think that you should accept that it could in fact have been researched properly; and may well be true.

On the other hand, pass what you are smoking. I might need some.

Got any other ridiculous statements to make?

On the other hand, pass what you are smoking. I might need some.

Got any other ridiculous statements to make?

You are incapable of admitting that they have been right about political scandals in the past, and therefore may be right about this. Had they never been right, then I would be being ridiculous, however that is not the case.

Can you not just admit, that there is the barest possiblity that the article could in fact, be based in truth? And if not, are you going to apologize to the good people at the Enquirer, in the event that this is corrborated later by other media outlets?

i'm saying it is impossible.
Well I would like to see how you can possibly prove that it is impossible that this man may start drinking again. Even if there was no pressure, even if he was the most popular thing on the planet, even if he wouldn't have had to watch this catastrophe happen, even if he wouldn't have people blaming him for it...even then he might be drinking.
No?

Well I would like to see how you can possibly prove that it is impossible that this man may start drinking again. Even if there was no pressure, even if he was the most popular thing on the planet, even if he wouldn't have had to watch this catastrophe happen, even if he wouldn't have people blaming him for it...even then he might be drinking.
No?

You're full of it. And so are you, Dougal. You gave this article credibility. Well you are lying to yourselves. I have confidence in Bush to handle this well. And no I don't agree with you leonstein.. "mr big partisan must hate bush at all costs". Give the man some credit.

Can you not just admit, that there is the barest possiblity that the article could in fact, be based in truth? And if not, are you going to apologize to the good people at the Enquirer, in the event that this is corrborated later by other media outlets?

Nope. The national enquirer is not credible, and I won't apologize to the moronic people there. And this story will 100% get discredited.

Nope. The national enquirer is not credible, and I won't apologize to the moronic people there. And this story will 100% get discredited.

That's what Jesse Jackson said too. At first.

That's what Jesse Jackson said too. At first.

You can't be serious.. have you really been serious in the past few pages? I can't believe it...

I can't believe it...
Get used to it...sometimes the world isn't as you would like it to be.

You can't be serious.. have you really been serious in the past few pages? I can't believe it...

The fact remains they were 100% right about Jesse Jackson. (And bill clinton for that matter).

Get used to it...sometimes the world isn't as you would like it to be.

You shouldnt take stuff out of context like that. Quote me in my entireity. I can't believe you people buy into falsehoods so easily.

"The fact remains they were 100% right about Jesse Jackson. (And bill clinton for that matter)."

want a cracker? You are starting to sound like a parrot.

You shouldnt take stuff out of context like that. Quote me in my entireity. I can't believe you people buy into falsehoods so easily.

"The fact remains they were 100% right about Jesse Jackson. (And bill clinton for that matter)."

want a cracker? You are starting to sound like a parrot.

I am not buying into falsehoods. I have analysed the situation critically, and put it down as "could be true."

You're the one who is dogmatic.

You see there is absolutely no way we can independantly verify the truth of the article at present. Therefore, in order to make a critical judgment, you have to look at the past accuracy to the publication containing it. You have blithely implied that everything in the Enquirer is untrue and concluded therefore that this also must be untrue, even when faced with evidence to the contrary about the Enquirer's past reporting record.

I, however, have examined it, and noticed that sometimes the Enquirer does publish things that are true, and therefore it would be wrong to assume that this article, must be untrue Especially as the Enquirer - more often than not it would seem - has gots this type of thing right in the past. Therefore, I have cautiously concluded that this might in fact be a possibility. As I said earlier, I will await more evidence before I make a final judgment, but I am not going to dismiss it out of hand, simply because the Enquirer is sold a supermarket checkouts. Especially when the Enquirer has, in fact, proven to be right about these things in the past.

Sometimes the Sun, in England, gets things right too.

I am not buying into falsehoods. I have analysed the situation critically, and put it down as "could be true."

You're the one who is dogmatic.

You see there is absolutely no way we can independantly verify the truth of the article at present. Therefore, in order to make a critical judgment, you have to look at the past accuracy to the publication containing it. You have blithely implied that everything in the Enquirer is untrue and concluded therefore that this also must be untrue, even when faced with evidence to the contrary about the Enquirer's past reporting record.

I, however, have examined it, and noticed that sometimes the Enquirer does publish things that are true, and therefore it would be wrong to assume that this article, must be untrue Especially as the Enquirer - more often than not it would seem - has gots this type of thing right in the past. Therefore, I have cautiously concluded that this might in fact be a possibility. As I said earlier, I will await more evidence before I make a final judgment, but I am not going to dismiss it out of hand, simply because the Enquirer is sold a supermarket checkouts. Especially when the Enquirer has, in fact, proven to be right about these things in the past.

Sometimes the Sun, in England, gets things right too.

Yeah I really want what you are smoking. You are the one who is very dogmatic. Not me. I'm still waiting for evidence that back up the story on Bush. You haven't provided any.

Yeah I really want what you are smoking. You are the one who is very dogmatic. Not me. I'm still waiting for evidence that back up the story on Bush. You haven't provided any.

As I said, it is impossible to verify one way or the other at the moment. But the only way you can dismiss it out of hand is by concluding that everything that has ever been in the Enquirer is false. Which it isn't. So you can't.

The story may untrue, which is the most anyone can possibly say. Of course, it is easier to accuse me - a person totally unknown to you - of heavy drug use, than actually imagine that someone who - by his own admission - used to be a heavy drinker, decided to have a drink.

After all, has Bush denied it? No. So, do try and keep an open mind.

The story may untrue, which is the most anyone can possibly say. Of course, it is easier to accuse me - a person totally unknown to you - of heavy drug use, than actually imagine that someone who - by his own admission - used to be a heavy drinker, decided to have a drink.

After all, has Bush denied it? No. So, do try and keep an open mind.

As I said, you're impossible to talk to. And I direct you to:

www.theonion.com

Don't take satire so easily.

you're a troll, and I wasted plenty of my time on this thread.

Reading over the article, I have to admit I'd actually feel better about Bush if he had reached for a Texas-sized shot of whiskey as all of this was going on. I think that's what I'd have done.

Sounds like a Band name.
Katrina and the Waves.

Sounds like a Band name.
Katrina and the Waves.


It was.

Moving on.


Well, Im fairly educated as to the ways of alchohol abuse, and thusly, alchoholics themselves.
Fact is, that most alchoholics fall of the wagon, at one time or another.
In this case, its entirely possible that Bush has indeed, becuase of stress brought on by Katrina, and that fiasco of a war he started, that he is hitting the sauce again.

However, the source in this case, is the National Enquirer.
The only rag on the planet with less credibity, would be the "Weekly World News".

Those are the guys who brought us "Bat Boy", and various sasquatch sightings. (No relation).

As I said, you're impossible to talk to. And I direct you to:

www.theonion.com

Don't take satire so easily.

you're a troll, and I wasted plenty of my time on this thread.

Good god Mesa, do you just call everyone who disagrees with you a liar and irrational. In my life, I have rarely encountered someone so closed-minded.

[anticipated response] "I don't have time for your lies. You are irrational and impossible to talk to."

I am not buying into falsehoods. I have analysed the situation critically, and put it down as "could be true."

You're the one who is dogmatic.

You see there is absolutely no way we can independantly verify the truth of the article at present. Therefore, in order to make a critical judgment, you have to look at the past accuracy to the publication containing it. You have blithely implied that everything in the Enquirer is untrue and concluded therefore that this also must be untrue, even when faced with evidence to the contrary about the Enquirer's past reporting record.

I, however, have examined it, and noticed that sometimes the Enquirer does publish things that are true, and therefore it would be wrong to assume that this article, must be untrue Especially as the Enquirer - more often than not it would seem - has gots this type of thing right in the past. Therefore, I have cautiously concluded that this might in fact be a possibility. As I said earlier, I will await more evidence before I make a final judgment, but I am not going to dismiss it out of hand, simply because the Enquirer is sold a supermarket checkouts. Especially when the Enquirer has, in fact, proven to be right about these things in the past.

Sometimes the Sun, in England, gets things right too.


Yeah I really want what you are smoking. You are the one who is very dogmatic. Not me. I'm still waiting for evidence that back up the story on Bush. You haven't provided any.
He hasn't said it was true. In fact, he's pointed out that newspapers such as the National Enquirer tend to be wrong most of the time, or gross misrepresentations of the facts. He's also said that in the past, the National Enquirer has been right on some issues. He's trying to keep an open mind and not rule out that the story might be true simply because it came in the National Enquirer.
Ruling out that Bush could be drinking again because one vehemently supports him could be considered dogmatic, though.

Good god Mesa, do you just call everyone who disagrees with you a liar and irrational. In my life, I have rarely encountered someone so closed-minded.

[anticipated response] "I don't have time for your lies. You are irrational and impossible to talk to."


It aint just me, I swear it!

This guy is frickin crazy!

Yeah, the National Enquirer is really credible :rolleyes:

It wouldn't surprise me if Bush really WAS drunk, but I'm going to hold off on judgement until corroboration (sp?) can be found.

Don't you know the National Enquirer only publishes facts? :rolleyes:

God, it's hilarious to watch Mesatecala self-destruct. All you have to do is give him a little rope and in a few short posts he swinging in the wind. This thread is a microcosm of the "Mesa Experience".

Stage One: Give opinion as fact.

Stage Two: Directly, or by implication, call everyone who disagrees with said opinion an idiot.

Stage Three: Throw hissy fit when someone points out his hypocrisy or muddy thinking.

Stage Four: Respond to all arguments with insults.

Stage Five: Start calling people Trolls or Flamers, even though he is the one who has been hurling the insults.

Stage Six: Leave in a huff when he realizes he's been an idiot (again!).

Stage Seven: If possible, find something remotely actionable he can take to moderation. If nothing there, send angry telegram.

Don't you know the National Enquirer only publishes facts? :rolleyes:

http://www.djindexes.com/mdsidx/index.cfm?event=showHome

Fact: The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell by more than a hundred points yesterday.

Tabloid Journalism: OMG! T3h Great Depression is here!!!111!! Black Wednesday pwnz0rz t3h market!!!1!!

The National Enquirer has low credibility to me because it exaggerates facts. Granted, it won't always go as far as my example, but how often are you in the line at the cash register and you see doomsday predictions plastered all over the tabloids? Sensationalism destroys credibility.

Now, that said, if this story does turn out to be true, I would not be surprised, but that has more to do with my low estimation of Bush's character than it does the credibility of the National Enquirer. But that's another thread... :rolleyes:

i'm saying it is impossible.

Why is it impossible for GWB to be drinking alcohol? Any evidence for this belief?

God, it's hilarious to watch Mesatecala self-destruct. All you have to do is give him a little rope and in a few short posts he swinging in the wind. This thread is a microcosm of the "Mesa Experience".

Stage One: Give opinion as fact.

Stage Two: Directly, or by implication, call everyone who disagrees with said opinion an idiot.

Stage Three: Throw hissy fit when someone points out his hypocrisy or muddy thinking.

Stage Four: Respond to all arguments with insults.

Stage Five: Start calling people Trolls or Flamers, even though he is the one who has been hurling the insults.

Stage Six: Leave in a huff when he realizes he's been an idiot (again!).

Stage Seven: If possible, find something remotely actionable he can take to moderation. If nothing there, send angry telegram.

Amen brotha!

I just wish the mods would just delete his ass already.
The forums would be a better place, I assure you.

God, it's hilarious to watch Mesatecala self-destruct. All you have to do is give him a little rope and in a few short posts he swinging in the wind. This thread is a microcosm of the "Mesa Experience".

Stage One: Give opinion as fact.

Stage Two: Directly, or by implication, call everyone who disagrees with said opinion an idiot.

Stage Three: Throw hissy fit when someone points out his hypocrisy or muddy thinking.

Stage Four: Respond to all arguments with insults.

Stage Five: Start calling people Trolls or Flamers, even though he is the one who has been hurling the insults.

Stage Six: Leave in a huff when he realizes he's been an idiot (again!).

Stage Seven: If possible, find something remotely actionable he can take to moderation. If nothing there, send angry telegram.

You would notice you went down those stages yourself. And yes you are offensive, a very offensive poster. You are at stage 6,000. Keep offending people with the same old stuff. You are just like a moonie from Washington Times. I'm never an idiot. Never have, and never will be. I look at your signature.. thanks for the back-up...

Hurling insults? really? Who is the one hurling insults? Maybe if you would look at where you got your source from.. this mess wouldn't of started. Maybe it hasn't occurred to you, you suffer from a credibility gap..

My thinking is clear. It is not muddy nor am I a hypocrite. So please, understand this: I have a much better understanding and grasp at the issues then you.

Maybe if you would look in the mirror, you would notice you did the same thing. And yes you are offensive, a very offensive poster. You are at stage 6,000. Keep offending people with the same old stuff. You are just like a moonie. I'm never a fucking idiot. Never have, and never will be.

Hurling insults? really? Who is the one hurling insults? Maybe if you would look at where you got your source from.. this mess wouldn't of started. Maybe it hasn't occurred to you, you suffer from a credibility gap..

Priceless. You are self-immolating.

Believing the National Enquirer is no different then believing in the Weekly World News. They are both fictional, the only difference is that the National Enquirer bases its fiction on reality. Do people really believe it? I mean I know a few nut jobs believe everything, but do a large numbe of people believe it? Maybe I'll start a poll sometime. Actually I probably won't, I'm too lazy.

Priceless. You are self-immolating.

Check my edited post. I reworded it some for you. Didn't want to be too harsh. You are thhe one who is priceless around here..

Quoting the national enquirer and claiming it has weight in gold:

PRICELESS

Check my edited post. I reworded it some for you. Didn't want to be too harsh. You are thhe one who is priceless around here..

Quoting the national enquirer and claiming it has weight in gold:

PRICELESS

No need to reword. Nothing you say could possibly offend me. Your words are weightless and serve only to amuse. :p

No need to reword. Nothing you say could possibly offend me. Your words are weightless and serve only to amuse. :p

Says the man who quoted national enquirer. :rolleyes: Seriously.. stop describing yourself in such negative ways.

Hurling insults? really? Who is the one hurling insults?Let's see:
Still nothing here about the Bush article.. nothing to see people.. move along.. this guy is actually serious. I don't want the same stuff he's smoking. Damn, it must be more potent then anything Keith Richards ever has had.
You need a major smack down (not physically, I'm saying argument wise).
On the other hand, pass what you are smoking. I might need some.

Got any other ridiculous statements to make?
And no I don't agree with you leonstein.. "mr big partisan must hate bush at all costs".
...and I won't apologize to the moronic people there.
want a cracker? You are starting to sound like a parrot.

Let's see:

Nope. Don't see any. Seriously, grow some skin if you think those are insults. People say far worse on here.

and yet again, Mes ruins another thread, with this tired crap.

and yet again, Mes ruins another thread, with this tired crap.

Nope.

Says the man who quoted national enquirer. :rolleyes: Seriously.. stop describing yourself in such negative ways.

:D I know you are, but what am I?

You are the poster-boy for the ad hominem attack. The funny part is, you just can't see it. Even when your nose is rubbed in it. God, your funny. :)

You are the poster-boy for the ad hominem attack. The funny part is, you just can't see it. Even when your nose is rubbed in it. God, your funny. :)

No actually you are. Your posts are classic attacks. Rubbish.

Whew. You could cut the sexual tension in this thread with a knife.

Whew. You could cut the sexual tension in this thread with a knife.


Or the idiocy....its pretty thick.

You would notice you went down those stages yourself. And yes you are offensive, a very offensive poster. You are at stage 6,000. Keep offending people with the same old stuff. You are just like a moonie from Washington Times. I'm never an idiot. Never have, and never will be. I look at your signature.. thanks for the back-up...

Have you not noticed a trend in Gartref's posts? That they're usually somewhat satirical, and often entirely nonserious?
I'd go and check the health of your sense of humour if I were you; seven pages down and you've not realised there was a joke yet ;)

Incidentally, you really are rather self-important. It is unbecoming, you know.

Nope. Don't see any. Seriously, grow some skin if you think those are insults. People say far worse on here.People saying worse is not a sufficient defense. Just because some things are more offensive than implying someone is using drugs, calling someone names like "parrot", "mr big partisan must hate bush at all costs", or "moron", or referring to people's arguements as "ridiculous" doesn't mean that these aren't insults. They're just not as strong. Me growing a thicker skin will only influence whether I am hurt by insults, not whether something is an insult or not.

Have you not noticed a trend in Gartref's posts? That they're usually somewhat satirical, and often entirely nonserious?
I'd go and check the health of your sense of humour if I were you; seven pages down and you've not realised there was a joke yet ;)

Incidentally, you really are rather self-important. It is unbecoming, you know.


No, he probably didnt.
Most of the time he just skips to the last page, finds a semi-controversial statement to start an arguement over, and follows the steps outlined by Gartef.
He probably had no idea this was satire, and now will never admit it.

God, it's hilarious to watch Mesatecala self-destruct. All you have to do is give him a little rope and in a few short posts he swinging in the wind. This thread is a microcosm of the "Mesa Experience".

Stage One: Give opinion as fact.

Stage Two: Directly, or by implication, call everyone who disagrees with said opinion an idiot.

Stage Three: Throw hissy fit when someone points out his hypocrisy or muddy thinking.

Stage Four: Respond to all arguments with insults.

Stage Five: Start calling people Trolls or Flamers, even though he is the one who has been hurling the insults.

Stage Six: Leave in a huff when he realizes he's been an idiot (again!).

Stage Seven: If possible, find something remotely actionable he can take to moderation. If nothing there, send angry telegram.

Oh, dear. It's uncanny how closely resembling that is!

People saying worse is not a sufficient defense. Just because some things are more offensive than implying someone is using drugs, calling someone names like "parrot", "mr big partisan must hate bush at all costs", or "moron", or referring to people's arguements as "ridiculous" doesn't mean that these aren't insults. They're just not as strong. Me growing a thicker skin will only influence whether I am hurt by insults, not whether something is an insult or not.

I'm not really concerned with the seriousness of Mesa's insults - only their inherent hypocrisy. It's the hypocrisy that gets me off. I love it. Mesa never disappoints. He's a laugh riot. Don't get mad at him, folks. Enjoy him.

People saying worse is not a sufficient defense. Just because some things are more offensive than implying someone is using drugs, calling someone names like "parrot", "mr big partisan must hate bush at all costs", or "moron", or referring to people's arguements as "ridiculous" doesn't mean that these aren't insults. They're just not as strong. Me growing a thicker skin will only influence whether I am hurt by insults, not whether something is an insult or not.

Uh huh, keep saying that.

I'm not really concerned with the seriousness of Mesa's insults - only their inherent hypocrisy. It's the hypocrisy that gets me off. I love it. Mesa never disappoints. He's a laugh riot. Don't get mad at him, folks. Enjoy him.

You are the laughing riot. You aren't even taken seriously. You are also the one who is the true hypocrite here.

You are the laughing riot. You aren't even taken seriously. You are also the one who is the true hypocrite here.


and you...are the only one who agrees with you.

While, on the other side of the fence, in a place we call 'reality', there are several people who see you for what you are.

I suspect self-loathing.

and you...are the only one who agrees with you.

While, on the other side of the fence, in a place we call 'reality', there are several people who see you for what you are.

I suspect self-loathing.

Look at Gartref real closely. Look at his signature. Look at who he claims is telling the truth. Look at the articles he posts. Then get back to me.

Self-loathing? Grow up.

You are the laughing riot. You aren't even taken seriously. You are also the one who is the true hypocrite here.

You're so hurtful. I've been under a lot of stress lately cause I found out I have some distant relatives that may or may not have been affected by Katrina and the stress has caused my Dad to start smoking again. Please quit trying to hurt my feelings, kay? :(

You're so hurtful. I've been under a lot of stress lately cause I found out I have some distant relatives that may or may not have been affected by Katrina and the stress has caused my Dad to start smoking again. Please quit trying to hurt my feelings, kay? :(

How could you say something like that to mock me? My relatives (aunt and uncle) are not distant relatives. And my dad didn't start smoking again. I mean what the fuck is wrong with you? I understand you attacking me, but how dare you?

Uh huh, keep saying that.Sucks when that's all you can say to counter me, huh? :D

Look at Gartref real closely. Look at his signature. Look at who he claims is telling the truth. Look at the articles he posts. Then get back to me.

Self-loathing? Grow up.


Are you telling me, that you completely missed the tongue-in-cheek tone of the original post?

Or that same very tone in MOST of Gartef's posts?

And yes, self loathing.

I say that becuase is seems you hunt for opportunities like this to cuase havok, because it pleases you.
Probably, becuase when you get to verbally belittle someone over the internet, it makes you feel better about yourself.
Sad, really.

How could you say something like that to mock me? My relatives (aunt and uncle) are not distant relatives. And my dad didn't start smoking again. I mean what the fuck is wrong with you? I understand you attacking me, but how dare you?Dammit! That statement is so priceless and I don't have the means of recording it! :headbang:

Are you telling me, that you completely missed the tongue-in-cheek tone of the original post?

Or that same very tone in MOST of Gartef's posts?

And yes, self loathing.

I say that becuase is seems you hunt for opportunities like this to cuase havok, because it pleases you.
Probably, becuase when you get to verbally belittle someone over the internet, it makes you feel better about yourself.
Sad, really.

Oh nothing. And I don't feel better about anything.. I don't even care. I'm here typing on a paper. Gartref and yourself are sad, really.

Dammit! That statement is so priceless and I don't have the means of recording it! :headbang:

what is fucking priceless about attacking my relatives? Don't ever attack my family. If you want to attack me then do it. But that is something you just don't do.

Oh nothing. And I don't feel better about anything.. I don't even care. I'm here typing on a paper. Gartref and yourself are sad, really.


You dont care?

Is that why you post, over and over, in this very thread, trying to argue with several people about how much of rotten behaviour you can display?

That doesnt sound like someone who doesnt care to me.

Look at Gartref real closely. Look at his signature. Look at who he claims is telling the truth. Look at the articles he posts. Then get back to me.
Yes! Exactly! You have it, right there, in your hand - and you still don't get it!

Have you ever watched Little Britain? You remind me of one of the characters.

*yawn*

*yawn*


Careful.....now your spamming.

Thats clearly against the rules.

Careful.....now your spamming.

Thats clearly against the rules.

But.. haven't you been doing that as of late?

But.. haven't you been doing that as of late?He means sentences that consist of one or two words that aren't relevant to the topic. ;)

But.. haven't you been doing that as of late?


Please..show me where.

Unless of course, you mean this very thread, in wich case, you'd be equally as guilty of the same thing.

Goddamn, this thread is entertaining! :)

Seriously, I hope it's still going late tonight, it'll give me something to smile about before work. :p

How could you say something like that to mock me? My relatives (aunt and uncle) are not distant relatives. And my dad didn't start smoking again. I mean what the fuck is wrong with you? I understand you attacking me, but how dare you?

You didn't even know you had relatives in the affected area until after Katrina hit - you posted that. You didn't even know where they lived. After discovering you had family in the area, you've worked that angle into every Katrina post possible.

I have a lot of aunts and uncles. I know where they all live. If something bad should happen to any of them, I know I won't use their misfortune as grist for my drama queen mill.

It's beautiful how absolutely everything has to be all about you. I suspect that's the cause of your atrocious behavior. It keeps the attention firmly fixed on you. You should be thanking me for the publicity. ;)

You didn't even know you had relatives in the affected area until after Katrina hit - you posted that. You didn't even know where they lived. After discovering you had family in the area, you've worked that angle into every Katrina post possible.

I mentioned it a few times. Don't ever make suggestions I used them for political purposes.

I have a lot of aunts and uncles. I know where they all live. If something bad should happen to any of them, I know I won't use their misfortune as grist for my drama queen mill.

I have quite a big family. No one happened to tell me they moved to New Orleans two months ago. I did not use them, I merely mentioned them in a thread.

It's beautiful how absolutely everything has to be all about you. I suspect that's the cause of your atrocious behavior. It keeps the attention firmly fixed on you. You should be thanking me for the publicity. ;)

It is beautiful how you are always wrong. You are the one with atrocious behavior. And honestly, shut up!

Why dont you call him a doody-head next?

Seems to be the right track on the devolutionary scale your arguements are regressing.

Why dont you call him a doody-head next?

Seems to be the right track on the devolutionary scale your arguements are regressing.

He better not. My uncle Marvin was 1/8 doody-head.

Why dont you call him a doody-head next?

Seems to be the right track on the devolutionary scale your arguements are regressing.

You are going on my ignore list, again.

You are going on my ignore list, again.


Why do you keep taking people off your ignore list? Just think... If everybody was on the list, no one would disagree with you.

Why do you keep taking people off your ignore list? Just think... If everybody was on the list, no one would disagree with you.

i took people off because I like to give second chances.

I have a lot of aunts and uncles. I know where they all live. If something bad should happen to any of them, I know I won't use their misfortune as grist for my drama queen mill.

Lolzorz!

I'd actually like Bush more if he were a drunk.
I'd like him more if he were a drunk coke head. At least then he'd be locked in his room with a half gallon of vodka and an 8-ball instead of trying to run the government.

You are going on my ignore list, again.

Ok, here is a plan.

Make yourself a puppet, put everyone on this forum on this ignore list, the post with Mesa, then switch to the puppet. You could have hours of peaceful conversation, and you would never have to know just how much we are laughing at you.

Anyone remember how the Enquirer broke the story on Limbaugh's illegal drug use?

That one turned out to be true also.


I'm just saying...