sdy
<font color=teal>What part of BAH! don't you under
- Joined
- May 7, 2006
- Messages
- 409
Above quoted from the article about George.
I guess it's all just more whining from the "have nots"![]()
The article about Bush was, I believe, an Op-Ed piece. So the tone was, indeed, fervent. Agreed.
However, I took the point to be what was stated at the front of my previous post. Which is, to put it bluntly, as President, his actions in this arena indicate a paradoxical, arguably unethical, and potentially inexcusable, self-interest. His, assumedly, substantial (and personal) financial investment would signal that he actually believes, at least to some extent, that there is a pending environmental crisis needing to be addressed. However, his substantive actions in office, or lack thereof, bespeak anything but.
And to be clear. I posted this article in its entirety because portions of it were clearly being used to buttress a particular partisan stance. When viewed in complete, this piece portrays a very specific message. Whether or not you agree with that message, I thought those engaging in this discussion would prefer to be fully informed of the facts, rather than operating at the mercy of carefully selected, and out of context, mediabytes.