SG Broadband Community

Izzo wrote:How can you say any book fails on many levels without actually reading it?

good question.. I guess I'll just retract that comment and say it "Could fail" on so many levels... hows that? Prob "Could fail" on the reasons I gave... I project it will fail and hope it will fail.... might it fail ya think?

Roody wrote:No you didn't answer my question. You stated one thing (greed) as why you didn't believe it. Yet your reply was there was many reasons why it has issues. You made the claim man so tell us what the many reasons are?

the claim was altered... "could fail" I've already givin the reasons why... greed, lies, etc..

Izzo wrote:How can you say any book fails on many levels without actually reading it?

Probably the same way you can judge a movie without seeing it.

Roody wrote:Probably the same way you can judge a movie without seeing it.

now thats a good answer!

Roody wrote:Probably the same way you can judge a movie without seeing it.

LoL! So, you're trying to compare me saying I'd rather not see the film ..keep in mind I never said it failed on many levels nor did I dispute any of the information inside the film to Sava's comments about the McLellan book?




You funny.

Sava700 wrote:good question.. I guess I'll just retract that comment and say it "Could fail" on so many levels... hows that? Prob "Could fail" on the reasons I gave... I project it will fail and hope it will fail.... might it fail ya think?




the claim was altered... "could fail" I've already givin the reasons why... greed, lies, etc..

The only thing I see failing in this thread are you and Roody. How about this....instead of just frothing at the mouth take time and think about what you're going to post and then post it? I've made this recommendation before but it appears you're willing to sacrifice your credibility for the sake of a speedy reply.

Izzo wrote:LoL! So, you're trying to compare me saying I'd rather not see the film ..keep in mind I never said it failed on many levels nor did I dispute any of the information inside the film to Sava's comments about the McLellan book?




You funny.

Hey you got caught in an inconsistency. Sava has already pointed out he has read up on info that is out there right now just like you read reviews on that movie. For some reason you saying you would rather not see that movie is a valid point in your mind, but Sava saying he would rather not read the book isn't? The two are comparable, but I don't expect you to concede the point.

Anyway, the point was made even if you are the only one who doesn't think so.

Izzo wrote:The only thing I see failing in this thread are you and Roody. How about this....instead of just frothing at the mouth take time and think about what you're going to post and then post it? I've made this recommendation before but it appears you're willing to sacrifice your credibility for the sake of a speedy reply.

LOL Umm I agreed with YOU early in this thread.. but when I'm assuming nobody else here has read the book then I believe I've got the same reasons to post anything about it as anyone else does. Did you read it? Or are you just going to get a pizza and read reviews again?

Sava700 wrote:LOL Umm I agreed with YOU early in this thread.. but when I'm assuming nobody else here has read the book then I believe I've got the same reasons to post anything about it as anyone else does. Did you read it? Or are you just going to get a pizza and read reviews again?

I don't intend to read it but I also won't attempt to dispute the contents of it without reading it. I don't pretend to gain knowledge through osmosis. Pizza yesterday, though.

Roody wrote:Hey you got caught in an inconsistency. Sava has already pointed out he has read up on info that is out there right now just like you read reviews on that movie. For some reason you saying you would rather not see that movie is a valid point in your mind, but Sava saying he would rather not read the book isn't? The two are comparable, but I don't expect you to concede the point.

Anyway, the point was made even if you are the only one who doesn't think so.

Not at all. If you can't see the clear and obvious differences you have more issues than I thought. The two are not comparable. I don't expect you to understand that, though.

Izzo wrote:I don't intend to read it but I also won't attempt to dispute the contents of it without reading it. I don't pretend to gain knowledge through osmosis. Pizza yesterday, though.

Why not dispute the contents? Everything in it has happened already and already public knowledge anyway. He just took it in his own text as we already know many parts, but its clear with several ex-admin members that he's full of it.

Sava700 wrote:Why not dispute the contents? Everything in it has happened already and already public knowledge anyway. He just took it in his own text as we already know many parts, but its clear with several ex-admin members that he's full of it.

Because they're McLellan's own words....his own spin on the subjects not an opinion piece from a reviewer from a movie. We agreed that the primary motive for him was money...nothing above and beyond that.

Izzo wrote:Not at all. If you can't see the clear and obvious differences you have more issues than I thought. The two are not comparable. I don't expect you to understand that, though.

I'm not going to continue to go into this with you. There is times I think Sava digs a whole for himself, but I have also seen him admit to making a mistake like he did earlier in this thread when he admitting to a wrong use of words. You however were caught in an inconsistency and failed to acknowledge it as such. Instead you attempt to throw out the idea that I somehow can't see the difference. I imagine Hell will freeze over before you ever admit to making a mistake. Anyway, I said what I wanted to say about those two situations.

Izzo wrote:How can you say any book fails on many levels without actually reading it?

Cuz Hannity said so?

Roody wrote:I'm not going to continue to go into this with you. There is times I think Sava digs a whole for himself, but I have also seen him admit to making a mistake like he did earlier in this thread when he admitting to a wrong use of words. You however were caught in an inconsistency and failed to acknowledge it as such. Instead you attempt to throw out the idea that I somehow can't see the difference. I imagine Hell will freeze over before you ever admit to making a mistake. Anyway, I said what I wanted to say about those two situations.

It just isn't no matter how you look at it ...It would only be comparable only if I said the acting was terrible or the said the movie would suck. I simply said I wasn't going to see the movie whereas Sava challenged the contents of the book. I'm sorry I'll admit when I'm wrong when I am...this not admitting being wrong thing is reserved for you mods only. Sorry.

downhill wrote:Cuz Hannity said so?

Thank you.

Sava700 wrote:Why not dispute the contents? Everything in it has happened already and already public knowledge anyway. He just took it in his own text as we already know many parts, but its clear with several ex-admin members that he's full of it.

Of course the apologiest are going to step up to the plate. After all, most of them are implicated in Bush's failed admin. They also have the same enablers who you watch on TV and read in the media on their side. You're so VERY right. It's about money!!!

And one very important person standing up for McClellan.

In response to his scathing memoir detailing the "propaganda"-filled run up to war and seedy political machinations behind the CIA leak case, Scott McClellan has received withering criticism from his former colleagues. A money grubbing, attention seeking, devoid-of-principles hack has been the description of choice; "this is not the Scotty we knew," the most popular quote.

One former Bush aide, however, is sticking up for McClellan, arguing that the former Bush press secretary is "getting savaged for saying what everyone knows to be true."

Mike Turk served as the Campaign director for President Bush's 2004 reelection campaign. As such, his tenure corresponded with that of McClellan's. No longer connected to the administration, Turk is now one of the few (if any) voices with connections to that crowd who are saying, quite simply, that the book "What Happened" is steeped in little more than truth.

Read more -here-


Get used to it, Sava. This is just the beginning.

Check put the front pageof Larry Flynt's site.

(no porn, sorry about that you horndogs)

downhill wrote: In response to his scathing memoir detailing the "propaganda"-filled run up to war and seedy political machinations behind the CIA leak case, Scott McClellan has received withering criticism from his former colleagues. A money grubbing, attention seeking, devoid-of-principles hack has been the description of choice; "this is not the Scotty we knew," the most popular quote.

One former Bush aide, however, is sticking up for McClellan, arguing that the former Bush press secretary is "getting savaged for saying what everyone knows to be true."

So you have several saying he's money grubbing, seeking attention etc etc.. as with this book he's a different person...yet you have "one" former aide whom prob is working on his own book that is with him? Ok... the majority must be wrong here and that guy must be right.

Please.... again if this was important information I don't care what kinda thoughts you had to drum up..it should have been told then and not now to earn cash off it.

But I don't expect nothing less from Bush haters such as yourself. He may not be the best President we ever had but under the circumstances with whats happened in the last 8 years its hard to say if anyone could have done any better. No, I don't want to argue that either cause you don't like it when I argue..so lets just leave it at that.

I think your daughter could have done better. I'm not alone with them thoughts. Around 70 percent of Americans would agree with that as well as most of the world who follow American politics.

Tell me, sava. When George writes his book and he will, is he going to be a money grubbing bastard? LOL


Your arguement is really pretty lame. The main reason anyone writes a book is for money.

Now......which of the main points in that book, are lies? Get crackin'.

downhill wrote:I think your daughter could have done better. I'm not alone with them thoughts. Around 70 percent of Americans would agree with that as well as most of the world who follow American politics.

Tell me, sava. When George writes his book and he will, is he going to be a money grubbing bastard? LOL


Your arguement is really pretty lame. The main reason anyone writes a book is for money.

Now......which of the main points in that book, are lies? Get crackin'.

If he writes a book I'm sure it will be filled with stuff we already know just as this book is, cept the timing is all wrong. If he writes a book he won't be a money grubbing bastard since he's got money already..he will pretty much just be telling the truth about how it is or how it was..not like this book.

My argument pretty lame? I don't see no difference between my posts and yours here, but I guess I'm not allowed to tell it like i see it.

As for pointing out parts of the book that are lies.. I told you I didn't read it nor do I tend to, not going to help feed his money grubbing... I'm pointing out highlights that are being turned up by his old co-workers those that clearly disagree with the book and his changed tune.

Oh and I have a son..not a daughter..so if you wish to stab at me with something like that which I consider rather lame on your part then get it right!

Oh.......sava is getting hot under the collar again......


Sava...my bad. Your son then. I truely belive that he could have.

You don't have to read the whole book. How about them main bullets I put up. Which one of the major ones are lies? Hell find a right wing forum and copy paste the best parts. Be sure to claim them as your own thoughts.

Your decade is running out of time here.

I mean wow.. could he even be any more late on these topics or any more of a fame hog?

Former White House Press Secretary Scott McClellan said Friday that he would be willing to comply with a possible congressional subpoena to discuss the administration's handling of prewar intelligence, telling CNN's Wolf Blitzer he'd be "glad to share my views" if asked to testify.

Here is a great example of who McClellan is and what this book means ...

"There are miserable creatures like you in every administration who don't have the guts to speak up or quit if there are disagreements with the boss or colleagues," Dole wrote in the personal e-mail. "No, your type soaks up the benefits of power, revels in the limelight for years, then quits, and spurred on by greed, cashes in with a scathing critique."

I loved this.. even better:

My comments are sincere and honest and absolutely the truth from my perspective."

Sava700 wrote:I mean wow.. could he even be any more late on these topics or any more of a fame hog?



Here is a great example of who McClellan is and what this book means ...



I loved this.. even better:

Good grief dude. I doubt it will happen but hey, you'd ignore an subpoena from congress? Right.


The second one. More damage control. Feed the masses a constant barrage of what a terrible man, McCellan is and sooner or later, they'll believe it.

Case in point, there are STILL millions of Americans who think Al Queda had ties to Iraq, that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction and that Cheney was sober when he shot his buddy in the face. Thank the lord for Fox news, sez Cheney. lol

Sava McClellan wasn't exactly poor. You seem to suggest the President wouldn't be money grubbing because he has money. Well so does McClellan.

downhill wrote:
The second one. More damage control. Feed the masses a constant barrage of what a terrible man, McCellan is and sooner or later, they'll believe it.

Its always about "damage control" lol wow..

ohh well I can't change your mind and you can't change mine.

Sava700 wrote:Its always about "damage control" lol wow..

ohh well I can't change your mind and you can't change mine.

Of course that's what it's all about when an admin has things to hide or to endorse and it's unpopular. This one is the most secretive in history. That gives the impression that there is lots to hide........and there very will could be.