MSNBC's Dylan Ratigan talks revolt

[Slartibartfast]

Kind of my point. We shouldn't. But PB was all over Bush for doing it. I'm just curious if he showed the same distaste when he found out about all those other Democrats who used ghostwriters.

They all do it, it's almost a requirement in the publishing industry now. Time is money, and that's the fastest way to get a book out.

That and hiring a ghost write is a good way to ensure a quality end product.

 

[pbrauer]

And where does Ryan Grim say that?

Duh.

Many of Bush's literary misdemeanors exemplify pedestrian sloth, but others are higher crimes against the craft of memoir. In one prime instance, Bush relates a poignant meeting between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and a Tajik warlord on Karzai's Inauguration Day. It's the kind of scene that offers a glimpse of a hopeful future for the beleaguered nation. Witnessing such an exchange could color a president's outlook, could explain perhaps Bush's more optimistic outlook and give insight into his future decisions. Except Bush didn't witness it. Because, as he himself writes later in the book, he wasn't at Karzai's inauguration.
​

 

[RightinNYC]

Duh.

Many of Bush's literary misdemeanors exemplify pedestrian sloth, but others are higher crimes against the craft of memoir. In one prime instance, Bush relates a poignant meeting between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and a Tajik warlord on Karzai's Inauguration Day. It's the kind of scene that offers a glimpse of a hopeful future for the beleaguered nation. Witnessing such an exchange could color a president's outlook, could explain perhaps Bush's more optimistic outlook and give insight into his future decisions. Except Bush didn't witness it. Because, as he himself writes later in the book, he wasn't at Karzai's inauguration.
​

I can relate a funny story about the time my grandfather got kicked out of a club at age 16.

Does that mean that I'm claiming that I was there?

 

[Whovian]

PB... still waiting for all that liberal outrage at the Clintons and every other Dem who used a ghostwriter... come on... have at 'em!

Ghost written books are not being discussed here. I see nothing wrong with writers who in close collaberation write books for other people. Professional writers know how organize and get thoughts from them.

So then, your contention is that Bush did not collaborate on his ghostwritten book, because he's too lazy (your words, not mine). But every other Democrat (like the ones I mentioned) that had a ghostwriter worked in close collaboration?

I'm curious to see your evidence of this.

 

[Whovian]

Duh.

Many of Bush's literary misdemeanors exemplify pedestrian sloth, but others are higher crimes against the craft of memoir. In one prime instance, Bush relates a poignant meeting between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and a Tajik warlord on Karzai's Inauguration Day. It's the kind of scene that offers a glimpse of a hopeful future for the beleaguered nation. Witnessing such an exchange could color a president's outlook, could explain perhaps Bush's more optimistic outlook and give insight into his future decisions. Except Bush didn't witness it. Because, as he himself writes later in the book, he wasn't at Karzai's inauguration.
​

ON the inauguration day...not AT the inaguration.

FI you did not read the actual section of the book personally, and are relying on a second party to tell you what it said, then whining about what it said, kind of makes you look lazy and foolish for not taking the effort to read it your self.

 

[pbrauer]

ON the inauguration day...not AT the inaguration.

:2rofll:
..

 

[Whovian]

:2rofll:
..

Again, I am curious... did you READ the book, or are you relying on someone else for all your information about it?


http://www.hometalkentertainment.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3013163

"When Karzai arrived in Kabul for his inauguration on December 22 - 102 days after 9/11 - several Northern Alliance leaders and their bodyguards greeted him at an airport. As Karzai walked across the tarmac alone, a stunned Tajik warlord asked where all his men were. Karzai, responded, 'Why, General, you are my men. All of you who are Afghans are my men.'"

seems like this story took place at an airport, not at the inauguration... and I don't see Bush saying he was there... do you? Even the link ripping Bush doesn't say Bush was saying he was there on this.

More FAIL for you.

 

[pbrauer]

Many of Bush's literary misdemeanors exemplify pedestrian sloth, but others are higher crimes against the craft of memoir. In one prime instance, Bush relates a poignant meeting between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and a Tajik warlord on Karzai's Inauguration Day. It's the kind of scene that offers a glimpse of a hopeful future for the beleaguered nation. Witnessing such an exchange could color a president's outlook, could explain perhaps Bush's more optimistic outlook and give insight into his future decisions. Except Bush didn't witness it. Because, as he himself writes later in the book, he wasn't at Karzai's inauguration.

 

[Lord Tammerlain]

Many of Bush's literary misdemeanors exemplify pedestrian sloth, but others are higher crimes against the craft of memoir. In one prime instance, Bush relates a poignant meeting between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and a Tajik warlord on Karzai's Inauguration Day. It's the kind of scene that offers a glimpse of a hopeful future for the beleaguered nation. Witnessing such an exchange could color a president's outlook, could explain perhaps Bush's more optimistic outlook and give insight into his future decisions. Except Bush didn't witness it. Because, as he himself writes later in the book, he wasn't at Karzai's inauguration.

He taped it and watched it later at a when he finished reading the comics

 

[RightinNYC]

Many of Bush's literary misdemeanors exemplify pedestrian sloth, but others are higher crimes against the craft of memoir. In one prime instance, Bush relates a poignant meeting between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and a Tajik warlord on Karzai's Inauguration Day. It's the kind of scene that offers a glimpse of a hopeful future for the beleaguered nation. Witnessing such an exchange could color a president's outlook, could explain perhaps Bush's more optimistic outlook and give insight into his future decisions. Except Bush didn't witness it. Because, as he himself writes later in the book, he wasn't at Karzai's inauguration.

So rather than read and understand what everyone is telling you, you're just going to repeat yourself. Okay.

He taped it and watched it later at a when he finished reading the comics

lololololol get it bush is dumb lolololol

Real cutting edge humor there. I'm sure you've got a side-splitting bit about Dan Quayle not being able to spell that you're just DYING to drop on us.

 

[Whovian]

Many of Bush's literary misdemeanors exemplify pedestrian sloth, but others are higher crimes against the craft of memoir. In one prime instance, Bush relates a poignant meeting between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and a Tajik warlord on Karzai's Inauguration Day. It's the kind of scene that offers a glimpse of a hopeful future for the beleaguered nation. Witnessing such an exchange could color a president's outlook, could explain perhaps Bush's more optimistic outlook and give insight into his future decisions. Except Bush didn't witness it. Because, as he himself writes later in the book, he wasn't at Karzai's inauguration.

Dance, Baryshnikov... dance.

To relate a story about something, one must have been physically present at said event? That rule of yours is gonna piss off a lot of writers, media people, etc.

I've already posted the excerpt itself. PLEASE.. show me where Bush SAID or IMPLIED he was at the meeting, which was at an airport, not the inauguration. The ONLY person who says or implies Bush 'witnessed' said meeting, is your HuffPo hack.

I'm still astounded by your apparent insistence that simply 'hearing' about Bush's book instead of actually reading it for yourself, makes you an expert on it.

 

[pbrauer]

Dance, Baryshnikov... dance.

:monkey :2dance:

To relate a story about something, one must have been physically present at said event? That rule of yours is gonna piss off a lot of writers, media people, etc.

Exactly!!! That's what Ryan Grim said Bush did, he read the book. Do you know what 'poignant meeting' means?

I've already posted the excerpt itself. PLEASE.. show me where Bush SAID or IMPLIED he was at the meeting, which was at an airport, not the inauguration. The ONLY person who says or implies Bush 'witnessed' said meeting, is your HuffPo hack.

What you posted was a portion of the Huffpo article posted elsewhere on the net. :lamo

I'm still astounded by your apparent insistence that simply 'hearing' about Bush's book instead of actually reading it for yourself, makes you an expert on it.

I never said I was an expert on his supposed memoir. When you finish reading it, you can report back here.

 

[RightinNYC]

Exactly!!! That's what Ryan Grim said Bush did, he read the book. Do you know what 'poignant meeting' means?

You apparently don't, as you think "poignant" implies that one must have been present.

 

[pbrauer]

You apparently don't, as you think "poignant" implies that one must have been present.

Many of Bush's literary misdemeanors exemplify pedestrian sloth, but others are higher crimes against the craft of memoir. In one prime instance, Bush relates a poignant meeting between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and a Tajik warlord on Karzai's Inauguration Day. It's the kind of scene that offers a glimpse of a hopeful future for the beleaguered nation. Witnessing such an exchange could color a president's outlook, could explain perhaps Bush's more optimistic outlook and give insight into his future decisions. Except Bush didn't witness it. Because he wasn't at Karzai's inauguration.

His absence doesn't stop Bush from relating this anecdote: "When Karzai arrived in Kabul for his inauguration on December 22 - 102 days after 9/11 - several Northern Alliance leaders and their bodyguards greeted him at an airport. As Karzai walked across the tarmac alone, a stunned Tajik warlord asked where all his men were. Karzai, responded, 'Why, General, you are my men. All of you who are Afghans are my men.'"​

 

[Whovian]

:monkey :2dance:

Exactly!!! That's what Ryan Grim said Bush did, he read the book. Do you know what 'poignant meeting' means?


What you posted was a portion of the Huffpo article posted elsewhere on the net. :lamo


I never said I was an expert on his supposed memoir. When you finish reading it, you can report back here.

yes, I do know what it means... apparently, you do not... Profoundly moving. Nothign in the online dictionaries about a requirement of being present at said moment for it to be considered poignant.

You must have missed the link I used. It was a different article entirely, and listed the entire paragraph in question.

I intend to read it, so I can do the proper thnig and comment on it's accuracy and so on AFTER I actually read it, instead of relying on some asshat on HufPo to tell me what to think like you do.

 

[Whovian]

Many of Bush's literary misdemeanors exemplify pedestrian sloth, but others are higher crimes against the craft of memoir. In one prime instance, Bush relates a poignant meeting between Afghan President Hamid Karzai and a Tajik warlord on Karzai's Inauguration Day. It's the kind of scene that offers a glimpse of a hopeful future for the beleaguered nation. Witnessing such an exchange could color a president's outlook, could explain perhaps Bush's more optimistic outlook and give insight into his future decisions. Except Bush didn't witness it. Because he wasn't at Karzai's inauguration.

His absence doesn't stop Bush from relating this anecdote: "When Karzai arrived in Kabul for his inauguration on December 22 - 102 days after 9/11 - several Northern Alliance leaders and their bodyguards greeted him at an airport. As Karzai walked across the tarmac alone, a stunned Tajik warlord asked where all his men were. Karzai, responded, 'Why, General, you are my men. All of you who are Afghans are my men.'"​

We are STILL waiting for you to show us, in the text of the Bush book, where he claims to have witnessed said meeting. So far, the asshat on HufPo giving you your opinion is the ONLY one implying Bush claimed he was at the meeting. Besides you, of course.

Continually pasting the HufPo piece as proof is childish.

Either show us the text in the book (which we've already established you've not even read) or admit your massive FAIL and slink away quietly.

 

[Fiddytree]

I wouldn't expect a well-thought response from him. So far, he fell away from the original thread and decided to promote it elsewhere.

 

[pbrauer]

We are STILL waiting for you to show us, in the text of the Bush book, where he claims to have witnessed said meeting. So far, the asshat on HufPo giving you your opinion is the ONLY one implying Bush claimed he was at the meeting. Besides you, of course.

Continually pasting the HufPo piece as proof is childish.

Either show us the text in the book (which we've already established you've not even read) or admit your massive FAIL and slink away quietly.

What is it with you Whovian, can't you read?

His absence doesn't stop Bush from relating this anecdote: "When Karzai arrived in Kabul for his inauguration on December 22 - 102 days after 9/11 - several Northern Alliance leaders and their bodyguards greeted him at an airport. As Karzai walked across the tarmac alone, a stunned Tajik warlord asked where all his men were. Karzai, responded, 'Why, General, you are my men. All of you who are Afghans are my men.'"

Don't those direct quotes from Bush's supposed memoir say he was there? I think it does. One of his advisers was apparently there and took notes, but Bush wasn't.:roll:

I will not slink away. :2wave::lol:

 

[Fiddytree]

Not to me, they don't. Again, must memoirs exclusively be written from the first person? An important man such as this requires his perspective to be delivered through the mouths and works of others. They add reliability towards his claims, or at least, that is what the purpose of using the encounters is supposed to do.

You're just reaching beyond what you can criticize the book for. You found a link that decided to pounce on the memoir for superficial reasons that are likely wholly out of context and demonstrate the author's lack of expertise, and instead of recoiling from your embarrassment of the previous thread, you still deliver us more silly remarks in the hopes of proving to us you are ultimately correct.

 

[Barbbtx]

Pbraur said--Yes I did, based upon Ryan Grim writing at Huffington Post who actually read Bush's book. Ryan Gim writes:

That sounds like you were there when he read it.

 

[RightinNYC]

Don't those direct quotes from Bush's supposed memoir say he was there? I think it does.

Then I think it's pretty clear that you don't understand what those words mean.

 

[Whovian]

What is it with you Whovian, can't you read?

Don't those direct quotes from Bush's supposed memoir say he was there? I think it does. One of his advisers was apparently there and took notes, but Bush wasn't.:roll:

I will not slink away. :2wave::lol:

Apparently, my reading comprehension skills surpass yours.

What EXACTLY here...

His absence doesn't stop Bush from relating this anecdote: "When Karzai arrived in Kabul for his inauguration on December 22 - 102 days after 9/11 - several Northern Alliance leaders and their bodyguards greeted him at an airport. As Karzai walked across the tarmac alone, a stunned Tajik warlord asked where all his men were. Karzai, responded, 'Why, General, you are my men. All of you who are Afghans are my men.'"

... shows Bush saying he was present at this meeting? Be specific now... the EXACT words that tell you Bush is claiming he was there.

I don't see the words 'I saw' or 'I watched as' or anything even remotely similar that would indicate Bush is claiming he was present.

You, via the guy who actually bothered to read the book, are reading between the lines, and seeing something that is not there. Kind of like the conservatives who blasted Obama for not wearing a flag pin on his lapel a few times. They were doing exactly what you're doing here... reading into it something that simply is not there.

You may now continue your slinking away from reality.

 

[pbrauer]

Apparently, my reading comprehension skills surpass yours.

What EXACTLY here...

... shows Bush saying he was present at this meeting? Be specific now... the EXACT words that tell you Bush is claiming he was there.

I don't see the words 'I saw' or 'I watched as' or anything even remotely similar that would indicate Bush is claiming he was present.

A fifth grader would use those phases, Ryan Grim said he related an anecdote as if he was actually there. Read the book and prove him wrong if he is.

You, via the guy who actually bothered to read the book, are reading between the lines, and seeing something that is not there. Kind of like the conservatives who blasted Obama for not wearing a flag pin on his lapel a few times. They were doing exactly what you're doing here... reading into it something that simply is not there.

You are entertaining me. :lamo

You may now continue your slinking away from reality.

:kissass

 

[RightinNYC]

A fifth grader would use those phases, Ryan Grim said he related an anecdote as if he was actually there. Read the book and prove him wrong if he is.

"Some partisan asshole claimed something without any proof. I'm going to believe it unless you can prove otherwise (and probably even after that) because that's just how I roll."

 

[pbrauer]

"Some partisan asshole claimed something without any proof. I'm going to believe it unless you can prove otherwise (and probably even after that) because that's just how I roll."

Read the Book.