not logged in
| One of the Reasons Why | |
Posted by:  |
pidunk 12:36 am UTC 04/26/07 |
| In reply to: | Illusionists' Illusions And The Masks Some Can Wear - pidunk 12:11 am UTC 04/26/07 |
Here is one of the reasons why: See the image that I have uploaded with this post: I hope it can be read alright. There is much about the impeachment of a President. An impeachment for breach of the public trust can be made on the basis of incompetency, favoritism, and lack of suitable judgement. Proving the extent to which Miers was a poor choice for this nomination, and adding to it all the other endemic problems of his judgement, we can make a very nice recipe of impeachment. Pudding, your "Presidunce" avatar: I know you are a New Zealander, but if you were an American and this was your President, would you want him to be impeached? > > > Is it real, is it fake? Is it parody, is it serious? Is it > serious and made to look like parody? Is it Miers or a > Miers psuedonym, and how does one go about knowing which > is which? If we say, it is a parody, not any doubt, and it > actually is not, well, do we lose by being wrong? If we > say it is a real blog and it is a parody, do we lose by > being wrong? In either case, what is at stake? Is it > important to know? Is it important to question? Why? > > What elements are universal in parody? What elements are > universal in reality? Can you see the difference? Do you > care to know the difference? Does something important ride > on the difference? Where do you start to look? Do you take > everything at face value? So-and-so says it is a parody, > so it must be a parody? Do you have to be told what to > think? > > Do you have to be told what to think? > > > > > > > > > > It has absolutely nothing to do with Jim Steinman, not > > > unless Harriet Miers is Jims GILF (Granny I'd Like to > > > F**k) which I doubt. > > > > > > I believe it's an attempt to either prove or disprove > > > information on a blog or webpage as being actual fact or > > > fiction, with the Harriet Miers blog being an example. > > > Susan believes it's true, but there's no actual evidence > > > to suggest that Harriet Miers actually wrote the blog > > > except her name is at the top. > > > > > > Pud > > > > > > > > > Okay, I've read the various posts above and don't feel > > like replying one post to one post, so please excuse my > > consolidating this here. If you re-read my posts > > concerning this, it is clear that I am suspension of > > belief as to the origin of this, and state that strong > > indications do lend it self to being genuine whilst it may > > be revealed in due time to be a prank. > > > > The question of what this has to do with Jim Steinman is > > irrelevant I think, because I did not start the topic, > > Ryan did, with a song or some mp3 continuing his "Time For > > Reflection" theme, that has as much relevence to Jim > > Steinman as perhaps this may seem to. And, the > > proliferation of posts NJC, such as the recent string of > > missives concerning the Virginia Tech Shootings should by > > now make everyone quite accustomed to having diversions on > > a less than rare basis on the board. The topic, named > > "Susan" is something I feel is what it is because I did > > not start it, but I am not straying from content as it is > > a topic of some significance at the time that it was > > posted. So, GTKarber, thank you for your one bit of input > > to me, I shall place on my little mental memo the proper > > asterisk as to your generally predisposed attitude, and > > move on. If you would like to show me what is parody, you > > can show me because I asked you to, and if you would like > > to shut up, you can also do that because you probably > > don't want to show me what is parody or do anything but > > make me look really dumb and naive. What's in your self > > esteem? > > > > Justin, I'm sorry I had the impression you had a something > > on blogspot but forgive me I probably got it mixed up with > > Ryan's. I apologize to you both for confusing either one > > of you at all! :-) > > > > Am I trying to prove something? Now come on, are you guys > > really going to let me prove something if I wanted to? I > > know alot better than that!!! How can I prove that this > > lady's blog is real, without being in an authoritative > > position and ring up Google and say hey chaps who is it > > who owns this page, would you tell me? And they would say, > > "would you like to have the subpeona written on blue paper > > or on green paper? We have a special on today." So, > > barring that official sort of validation, the kinds of > > viewing I do are those that are as limited as any, but the > > fact that this woman could be the key to impeaching Bush, > > anyone interested in foraging through the forest of data, > > is welcome to take a twig and pitch in. > > > > > > | |
 | |
| reply | | |
| Previous: | Illusionists' Illusions And The Masks Some Can Wear - pidunk 12:11 am UTC 04/26/07 |
| Next: | re: One of the Reasons Why - pidunk 12:58 am UTC 04/26/07 |
| Thread: |
|