lein wrote: > On Nov 6, 8:43 am, "Torrey M. Spears" <nwophoe...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Nov 6, 10:03 am, Ike <I...@SHAEF.net> wrote:
>>> Has he even issued a statement about yesterday's massacre? >> You probably missed the statement regarding the tragedy because he was >> busy giving "shout outs" and apologizing to Native Americans....
As others with command of the facts have pointed out to you, he did make a statement about horrific violence, and I also caught a glimpse of him someplace else saying it's bad enough with troops are lost in combat, but this is just terrible.
Of course there's no pleasing your 'winger hypocrites, if he had been all over the story like you're suggesting he should be, you'd all be accusing him of hogging the spotlight from the victims of this crime and making it all about him.
> As others with command of the facts have pointed out to you, he did > make a statement about horrific violence, and I also caught a glimpse > of him someplace else saying it's bad enough with troops are lost in > combat, but this is just terrible.
> Of course there's no pleasing your 'winger hypocrites, if he had been > all over the story like you're suggesting he should be, you'd all be > accusing him of hogging the spotlight from the victims of this crime > and making it all about him.
Your spin was no better than any I've read from the 'winger side.
> > As others with command of the facts have pointed out to you, he did > > make a statement about horrific violence, and I also caught a glimpse > > of him someplace else saying it's bad enough with troops are lost in > > combat, but this is just terrible.
> > Of course there's no pleasing your 'winger hypocrites, if he had been > > all over the story like you're suggesting he should be, you'd all be > > accusing him of hogging the spotlight from the victims of this crime > > and making it all about him.
> Your spin was no better than any I've read from the 'winger side.
It ain't spin if it's true. And even though you won't admit it, you know it is.
> On Nov 6, 10:51 am, Cyclone Ranger <damonhy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 10:32 am, "J.C. Watts Enslin" <jens...@charter.net> wrote:
> > > On Nov 6, 9:30 am, Cyclone Ranger <damonhy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 6, 9:03 am, Ike <I...@SHAEF.net> wrote:
> > > > > Has he even issued a statement about yesterday's massacre?
> > > > Any further discussion of GWB listening to the kids' school program in > > > > FL on 09/11 ends now.
> > > Why? How are the two even remotely related?
> > > Jon
> > See Torrey's response.
> What about it? Because he thanked the people before he spoke about > what happened at Fort Hood? Because he used the phrase "shout out?"
> Seriously, can you people be more petty?
His actual remarks about Fort Hood were good, it just seems that should preempt the planned shout-outs and conference high-fives. The Fort Hood comments are required, people want to hear them. Wading through the 'Hey Joe-Bobs' and 'Atta boy Jimmy' on a somber occasion is a bit out of place.
Knowing you are partisan towards Obama, think about the Challenger disaster, when those astronauts and teacher were killed. You think it would have been kosher if Reagan started his address "Hey, I see 'W' is in the audience, How about them Texas Rangers!", then go on to address the challenger deaths.
> On Nov 6, 11:19 am, "J.C. Watts Enslin" <jens...@charter.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 10:51 am, Cyclone Ranger <damonhy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 6, 10:32 am, "J.C. Watts Enslin" <jens...@charter.net> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 6, 9:30 am, Cyclone Ranger <damonhy...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Nov 6, 9:03 am, Ike <I...@SHAEF.net> wrote:
> > > > > > Has he even issued a statement about yesterday's massacre?
> > > > > Any further discussion of GWB listening to the kids' school program in > > > > > FL on 09/11 ends now.
> > > > Why? How are the two even remotely related?
> > > > Jon
> > > See Torrey's response.
> > What about it? Because he thanked the people before he spoke about > > what happened at Fort Hood? Because he used the phrase "shout out?"
> > Seriously, can you people be more petty?
> His actual remarks about Fort Hood were good, it just seems that > should preempt the planned shout-outs and conference high-fives. The > Fort Hood comments are required, people want to hear them. Wading > through the 'Hey Joe-Bobs' and 'Atta boy Jimmy' on a somber occasion > is a bit out of place.
> Knowing you are partisan towards Obama, think about the Challenger > disaster, when those astronauts and teacher were killed. You think > it would have been kosher if Reagan started his address "Hey, I see > 'W' is in the audience, How about them Texas Rangers!", then go on to > address the challenger deaths.
I wouldn't really care...honestly I wouldn't. I didn't care that W. finished up reading to kindergartners on 9/11.
I just think such criticism is ridiculously stupid...and indicative of an overly sensitive society.
> > > As others with command of the facts have pointed out to you, he did > > > make a statement about horrific violence, and I also caught a glimpse > > > of him someplace else saying it's bad enough with troops are lost in > > > combat, but this is just terrible.
> > > Of course there's no pleasing your 'winger hypocrites, if he had been > > > all over the story like you're suggesting he should be, you'd all be > > > accusing him of hogging the spotlight from the victims of this crime > > > and making it all about him.
> > Your spin was no better than any I've read from the 'winger side.
> It ain't spin if it's true. And even though you won't admit it, you > know it is.
But I would expect you to at least admit, that when you take the press conference in its entirety, it seemed quite awkward.
> Randolph M. Jones wrote: > > Ike wrote: > >> Has he even issued a statement about yesterday's massacre?
> >> Are the flags at half-staff?
> > Where do you do your headline-scanning?
> USA- Top > USA- World > BBC > CNN > Fox
> still nothing.
Interesting, that NPR had big coverage of it right away and continuing yesterday. Maybe those stations are too liberal for ya and you should convert to NPR.
On Nov 6, 3:26 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote:
> J.C. Watts Enslin wrote, On 11/6/09 1:54 PM:
> > I just think such criticism is ridiculously stupid...and indicative of > > an overly sensitive society.
> Society doesn't give a rat's ass about this, though.
Actually since the NRA is the biggest special interest lobby group in the USA they'll surely find a way to use this to their advantage and focus on that.
On Nov 6, 5:00 pm, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Nov 6, 3:26 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote:
> > J.C. Watts Enslin wrote, On 11/6/09 1:54 PM:
> > > I just think such criticism is ridiculously stupid...and indicative of > > > an overly sensitive society. > > Society doesn't give a rat's ass about this, though. > Actually since the NRA is the biggest special interest lobby group in > the USA they'll surely find a way to use this to their advantage and > focus on that.
Wouldn't that be the trial lawyers? Honestly, I don't know, but if not the lawyers I would have to believe it is AARP.
> > > > I just think such criticism is ridiculously stupid...and indicative of > > > > an overly sensitive society. > > > Society doesn't give a rat's ass about this, though. > > Actually since the NRA is the biggest special interest lobby group in > > the USA they'll surely find a way to use this to their advantage and > > focus on that.
> Wouldn't that be the trial lawyers? Honestly, I don't know, but if > not the lawyers I would have to believe it is AARP.
Sorry, you are probably correct, the NRA is probably #2. BTW, I still haven't joined the AARP even though somehow they found me and keep bugging me.
<jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: >On Nov 6, 6:09=A0pm, Tom Enright <freddy_ha...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Nov 6, 5:00=A0pm, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> > On Nov 6, 3:26=A0pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote:
>> > > > I just think such criticism is ridiculously stupid...and indicative= > of >> > > > an overly sensitive society. >> > > Society doesn't give a rat's ass about this, though. >> > Actually since the NRA is the biggest special interest lobby group in >> > the USA they'll surely find a way to use this to their advantage and >> > focus on that.
>> Wouldn't that be the trial lawyers? =A0Honestly, I don't know, but if >> not the lawyers I would have to believe it is AARP.
>Sorry, you are probably correct, the NRA is probably #2. BTW, I >still haven't joined the AARP even though somehow they found me and >keep bugging me.
The company I worked for paid for our membership in AARP for years. Once they quit I let my membership lapse.
I think they focus solely on what would benefit us older people without regard to how it might harm the country. I don't agree with them.
> >> > > > I just think such criticism is ridiculously stupid...and indicative= > > of > >> > > > an overly sensitive society. > >> > > Society doesn't give a rat's ass about this, though. > >> > Actually since the NRA is the biggest special interest lobby group in > >> > the USA they'll surely find a way to use this to their advantage and > >> > focus on that.
> >> Wouldn't that be the trial lawyers? =A0Honestly, I don't know, but if > >> not the lawyers I would have to believe it is AARP.
> >Sorry, you are probably correct, the NRA is probably #2. BTW, I > >still haven't joined the AARP even though somehow they found me and > >keep bugging me.
> The company I worked for paid for our membership in AARP for years. > Once they quit I let my membership lapse.
> I think they focus solely on what would benefit us older people > without regard to how it might harm the country. I don't agree with > them.
one of the big criticisms of the AARP is their ties to insurance products which is the major part of their income.
> On Nov 6, 5:00 pm, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> On Nov 6, 3:26 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote:
>> > J.C. Watts Enslin wrote, On 11/6/09 1:54 PM:
>> > > I just think such criticism is ridiculously stupid...and >> > > indicative o > f >> > > an overly sensitive society.
>> > Society doesn't give a rat's ass about this, though.
>> Actually since the NRA is the biggest special interest lobby group in >> the USA they'll surely find a way to use this to their advantage and >> focus on that.
> Wouldn't that be the trial lawyers? Honestly, I don't know, but if > not the lawyers I would have to believe it is AARP.
Neither actually - although AARP is pretty far up there. For 1998-2009, in terms of spending:
1) US Chamber of Commerce - $527 million 2) AMA - $212 million 3) GE - $191 million 4) AARP - $170 million 5) American Hospital Assn. - $169 million 6) Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America - $162 million 7) AT&T Inc- $151 million 8) Northrop Grumman - $144 million 9) National Assn of Realtors - $133 million 10) Exxon Mobil - $132 million
Neither trial lawyers nor the NRA make the top 20.
Trial Lawyers (American Association for Justice) for 1998-2009: ~$21 million
>>> On Nov 6, 5:00 pm, Jaybyrd <jaybyrdb...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> On Nov 6, 3:26 pm, Chris Bellomy <ten.wohsdoog@sirhc> wrote:
>>>>> J.C. Watts Enslin wrote, On 11/6/09 1:54 PM:
>>>>>> I just think such criticism is ridiculously stupid...and >>>>>> indicative o >>> f >>>>>> an overly sensitive society.
>>>>> Society doesn't give a rat's ass about this, though.
>>>> Actually since the NRA is the biggest special interest lobby group >>>> in the USA they'll surely find a way to use this to their >>>> advantage and focus on that.
>>> Wouldn't that be the trial lawyers? Honestly, I don't know, but if >>> not the lawyers I would have to believe it is AARP.
>> Neither actually - although AARP is pretty far up there. For >> 1998-2009, in terms of spending:
>> 1) US Chamber of Commerce - $527 million >> 2) AMA - $212 million >> 3) GE - $191 million >> 4) AARP - $170 million >> 5) American Hospital Assn. - $169 million >> 6) Pharmaceutical Rsrch & Mfrs of America - $162 million >> 7) AT&T Inc- $151 million >> 8) Northrop Grumman - $144 million
Well there's were my damn pay raise went.
-- ------MoParMaN------ ---Scud Coordinates 32.61204 North 96.92989 West--- --Remove Clothes to Reply!--
A Chicken Crossing The Road, Is Poultry in Motion!
|
