OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...
 

wrote in message
...
Will those things lacking matter in some dramatic
fashion? Impossible to say as it can only be commented upon after the
fact.


overall, I see a very human leadership, warts and all, that seems to be
doing an extremely competent, workmanlike job of plowing through a host of
problems(most brought on by gross incompetence of others, dating back
years).
Like I said, something is happening here, and it goes far beyond the
Administration, to the renewed focus of a larger part of the electorate on
the common good. A changed notion, if you will, of the role of the public in
government, and role of government in the functioning of society. Probably,
this is merely a pendulum-swing type of reaction to the Conservative swing
of the past several decades. But, focusing on minor issues with the
President's administration, while overlooking the ability to put some
competent folks into key roles, and value intelligent input, seems to be an
odd choice.Given the potential of Obama to tap into, for good purposes, that
new spirit and focus of the electorate, IMO, you could ponder more important
matters, without losing much sleep over the competence of the Obama team. As
they say, though, YMMV.
Tom

OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...
 

On Apr 10, 2:20*pm, "Tom Littleton" wrote:
"DaveS" wrote in message

...
On Apr 9, 9:11 pm, wrote:
Ah ha!!!!.....much snipped
The people have a memory. They remember all too well how the Boo****s
wanted to steal their Social Security accounts. They remember who in
the Bush Whitehouse betrayed US CIA agents to cover up Presidential
lies, They know who signed the blank checks to the banks. They know
about the stolen money that should have been used to help our soldiers
get Bin Ladin.

Hell, I'm a longtime Democrat, and I don't believe much of the above(or the
snipped part). The US public has the long-term memory, collectively, of a
hamster. I will gladly wait to be proven wrong, but doubt I'll see that......
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Tom

Ah yes, the hamster keenardo again. While America slept the Boo****s
ate most of the hamsters, and it was Boo****s that sold the rest into
bondage. You want proof? You want proof? We don need no stinkin proof.
We got de motion.

Yet none, not one hamster bowed before King or Queen, Emporer or Duke
of Earl. As I walk thru this Kingdom no one can stop the Duke of Earl.
No one.

Dave
Duke
Duka
Duke
Duka Duke
Duka Earl

OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...
 

"DaveS" wrote in message
...
Ah yes, the hamster keenardo again. While America slept the Boo****s
ate most of the hamsters, and it was Boo****s that sold the rest into
bondage. You want proof? You want proof? We don need no stinkin proof.
We got de motion.

Yet none, not one hamster bowed before King or Queen, Emporer or Duke
of Earl. As I walk thru this Kingdom no one can stop the Duke of Earl.
No one.

Dave
Duke
Duka
Duke
Duka Duke
Duka Earl




they have medications for this sort of stuff. Really.
gTom

OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...
 

On Fri, 10 Apr 2009 21:29:01 GMT, "Tom Littleton" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
Will those things lacking matter in some dramatic
fashion? Impossible to say as it can only be commented upon after the
fact.


overall, I see a very human leadership, warts and all, that seems to be
doing an extremely competent, workmanlike job of plowing through a host of
problems(most brought on by gross incompetence of others, dating back
years).
Like I said, something is happening here, and it goes far beyond the
Administration, to the renewed focus of a larger part of the electorate on
the common good. A changed notion, if you will, of the role of the public in
government, and role of government in the functioning of society. Probably,
this is merely a pendulum-swing type of reaction to the Conservative swing
of the past several decades. But, focusing on minor issues with the
President's administration, while overlooking the ability to put some
competent folks into key roles, and value intelligent input, seems to be an
odd choice.Given the potential of Obama to tap into, for good purposes, that
new spirit and focus of the electorate, IMO, you could ponder more important
matters, without losing much sleep over the competence of the Obama team. As
they say, though, YMMV.
Tom


Here's how I see it - I think most agreed that Obama could not possibly live up
to the ridiculous, unrealistic "hype" during the election cycle and immediately
afterward. So the fact that he didn't means little. Likewise, a fair portion
of the nonsense, ala "Beancounter" and his not being a US citizen, his being
some secret Muslim "terrorist," etc., was and is preposterous and ridiculous.

He did and does have fantastic potential, both personally and to tap into "the
public potential." But when he does things like nominate and champion Hillary
Clinton, Tim Geithner, and worse, Daschle, he demonstrates a lack of both common
sense and political savvy, not to mention "smarts." And then, he does plain ol'
amateurish **** like bowing to Abdullah, _with footage of it_, and then,
allowing/having his people make up **** about shaking hands with Shorty, or
having Jarrett hire Kumar as PL to Asian-Americans and the Arts and having his
people defend it by citing Kalpen's "International Security" college work, which
consisted of a coupla-few online classes, and now, as Ken posted, this dog
stuff. And then, the "surrogates" defend all of this amateur-hour shtick by,
yet again, going to the "OH, YEAH?! Well, BUSH BUSH BUSH CHENEY CHENEY
CHENEY!!!!" defense. Of course, none of the small stuff matters _as isolated
incidents_, but when viewed as a total, it's not promising. Look, if was and
ran as some "plain ol' guy" with good ideas, it would mitigate this stuff, but
he didn't - he ran as the super-sharp man with the plan.

Combine all this with the more serious "violations of trust" in all but ignoring
key campaign _promises_ (and thus placing them in the realm of typical "business
as usual" campaign "promises") such as "no lobbyists," "out of Iraq in 09,"
etc., etc. (which themselves were amateurish campaign promises that even his
one-time Dem rivals called as such), and I believe the criticism is warranted.
Can he pull up and out of it? Sure, and I hope he does. But he better pull
back on the stick pretty quickly or he's gonna hit a pretty big hill...

HTH,
R

OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...
 

On Apr 11, 6:50*am, wrote:

Rick, after 8+ years of your political ****, ass kissing each and
every move of Bush/Cheney and the Greed Interregnum, ignoring the
substance of every move of these clowns against the Constitutional
foundations of the country, putting the most ridiculous
interpretations on the most despicable venal moves and defending
slavishly each and every theft of taxpayer money and trust. . . why in
heaven's name do you think you have any credibility whatsoever in
pretending that yours is an objective or useful assessment of Obama?

The thing most people get, which apparently you do not yet
understand, is that the people, the voters have decided that the
choices you advocated were incompetent crooks and the voters decided
to give the "Ds" a chance to clean up the mess that your team created,
and the mess that you are unwilling to take any responsibility for.
The least you could do is to re-examine your thinking and consider
where you went wrong. Do that for a bit, and maybe you would have some
credibility in this off topic area. Until that happens your stuff
reads "stubborn loser/learning unlikely."

Dave
..
..

OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...
 

DaveS wrote:
Rick, after 8+ years of your political ****, ass kissing each and
every move of Bush/Cheney and the Greed Interregnum, ignoring the
substance of every move of these clowns against the Constitutional
foundations of the country, putting the most ridiculous
interpretations on the most despicable venal moves and defending
slavishly each and every theft of taxpayer money and trust. . . why in
heaven's name do you think you have any credibility whatsoever in
pretending that yours is an objective or useful assessment of Obama?

The thing most people get, which apparently you do not yet
understand, is that the people, the voters have decided that the
choices you advocated were incompetent crooks and the voters decided
to give the "Ds" a chance to clean up the mess that your team created,
and the mess that you are unwilling to take any responsibility for.
The least you could do is to re-examine your thinking and consider
where you went wrong. Do that for a bit, and maybe you would have some
credibility in this off topic area. Until that happens your stuff
reads "stubborn loser/learning unlikely."

Well and rightly said but our friend Rick Bean Dean lost all
credibility a long time. It was Rick who assured us that Obama
and his team were naifs, babes in the woods, inexperienced,
amateur neophytes who had no chance in hell against the Clinton,
heir apparent juggernaut. Obama trounced them and won the
Democratic nomination going away.

It was Rick who told us in no uncertain terms that Obama and his
team were rank amateurs who hadn't the sense or experience to
take on the best of the best of the GOP. Obama won in an electoral
landslide.

Now it's Rick Bean Dean spouting the same old bull****, (he's
really big on bull**** ;-), about how Obama and his team have no
smarts, experience, common sense or savvy. Yeah, your label fits
perfectly, "stubborn loser/learning unlikely". As for credibility,
well maybe if you borrow the tinfoil hood when the antenna works. ;-)

--
Ken Fortenberry

OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...
 

On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 18:03:23 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

DaveS wrote:
Rick, after 8+ years of your political ****, ass kissing each and
every move of Bush/Cheney and the Greed Interregnum, ignoring the
substance of every move of these clowns against the Constitutional
foundations of the country, putting the most ridiculous
interpretations on the most despicable venal moves and defending
slavishly each and every theft of taxpayer money and trust. . . why in
heaven's name do you think you have any credibility whatsoever in
pretending that yours is an objective or useful assessment of Obama?

The thing most people get, which apparently you do not yet
understand, is that the people, the voters have decided that the
choices you advocated were incompetent crooks and the voters decided
to give the "Ds" a chance to clean up the mess that your team created,
and the mess that you are unwilling to take any responsibility for.
The least you could do is to re-examine your thinking and consider
where you went wrong. Do that for a bit, and maybe you would have some
credibility in this off topic area. Until that happens your stuff
reads "stubborn loser/learning unlikely."

Well and rightly said

Actually, incorrectly said. I defended Bush and/or Cheney on a limited few
things, particularly the Katrina response and "weapons of mass destruction" in
Iraq, both about which I had direct, personal knowledge (not to mention, since
Saddam had undeniably _used_ such weapons, it's pretty hard to say they didn't
exist). Further, I did say, and still feel, that Bush was a better choice than
either Gore or Kerry (but I never said, nor have I ever felt, that he was the
best possible choice).

but our friend Rick Bean Dean lost all
credibility a long time. It was Rick who assured us that Obama
and his team were naifs, babes in the woods, inexperienced,
amateur neophytes who had no chance in hell against the Clinton,
heir apparent juggernaut. Obama trounced them and won the
Democratic nomination going away.

Er, nope.

It was Rick who told us in no uncertain terms that Obama and his
team were rank amateurs who hadn't the sense or experience to
take on the best of the best of the GOP. Obama won in an electoral
landslide.

Er, nope. That was his now-Veep and his now-Secretary of State and her husband
that saying stuff like that...

And "an electoral landslide"...hmmm....aren't you among those who claim Gore
really won...? IAC, an "electoral landslide" is meaningless in practical terms
- every eligible voter in the US could vote, and a very small fraction of the
popular votes could create "an electoral landslide," or, a relative few could
vote in certain areas and the winner of an "electoral landslide" could lose the
popular vote by 30-plus%.

IIRC, I called the popular vote within a point or two - it was, what 53-46, and
again, IIRC, I predicted 51 to 49, plus or minus a point or two, with minority
voters being a wild card. And no, I didn't pick McCain as the certain winner.

Now it's Rick Bean Dean spouting the same old bull****, (he's
really big on bull**** ;-), about how Obama and his team have no
smarts, experience, common sense or savvy. Yeah, your label fits
perfectly, "stubborn loser/learning unlikely". As for credibility,
well maybe if you borrow the tinfoil hood when the antenna works. ;-)

HTH,
R

OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...
 

OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...
 

On Apr 11, 6:05*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 11 Apr 2009 18:03:23 -0500, Ken Fortenberry





wrote:
DaveS wrote:
Rick, after 8+ years of your political ****, ass kissing each and
every move of Bush/Cheney and the Greed Interregnum, ignoring the
substance of every move of these clowns against the Constitutional
foundations of the country, putting the most ridiculous
interpretations on the most despicable venal moves and defending
slavishly each and every theft of taxpayer money and trust. . . why in
heaven's name do you think you have any credibility whatsoever in
pretending that yours is an objective or useful assessment of Obama?

The thing most people get, which apparently you do not yet
understand, *is that the people, the voters have decided that the
choices you advocated were incompetent crooks and the voters decided
to give the "Ds" a chance to clean up the mess that your team created,
and the mess that you are unwilling to take any responsibility for.
The least you could do is to re-examine your thinking and consider
where you went wrong. Do that for a bit, and maybe you would have some
credibility in this off topic area. Until that happens your stuff
reads "stubborn loser/learning unlikely."

Well and rightly said

Actually, incorrectly said. *I defended Bush and/or Cheney on a limited few
things, particularly the Katrina response and "weapons of mass destruction" in
Iraq, both about which I had direct, personal knowledge (not to mention, since
Saddam had undeniably _used_ such weapons, it's pretty hard to say they didn't
exist). *Further, I did say, and still feel, that Bush was a better choice than
either Gore or Kerry (but I never said, nor have I ever felt, that he was the
best possible choice).

but our friend Rick Bean Dean lost all
credibility a long time. It was Rick who assured us that Obama
and his team were naifs, babes in the woods, inexperienced,
amateur neophytes who had no chance in hell against the Clinton,
heir apparent juggernaut. Obama trounced them and won the
Democratic nomination going away.

Er, nope.



It was Rick who told us in no uncertain terms that Obama and his
team were rank amateurs who hadn't the sense or experience to
take on the best of the best of the GOP. Obama won in an electoral
landslide.

Er, nope. *That was his now-Veep and his now-Secretary of State and her husband
that saying stuff like that...

And "an electoral landslide"...hmmm....aren't you among those who claim Gore
really won...? *IAC, an "electoral landslide" is meaningless in practical terms
- every eligible voter in the US could vote, and a very small fraction of the
popular votes could create "an electoral landslide," or, a relative few could
vote in certain areas and the winner of an "electoral landslide" could lose the
popular vote by 30-plus%. *

IIRC, I called the popular vote within a point or two - it was, what 53-46, and
again, IIRC, I predicted 51 to 49, plus or minus a point or two, with minority
voters being a wild card. *And no, I didn't pick McCain as the certain winner.

Now it's Rick Bean Dean spouting the same old bull****, (he's
really big on bull**** ;-), about how Obama and his team have no
smarts, experience, common sense or savvy. Yeah, your label fits
perfectly, "stubborn loser/learning unlikely". As for credibility,
well maybe if you borrow the tinfoil hood when the antenna works. ;-)

HTH,
R- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

From one pain in the ass to another:
Oh Jebus man, just stop. You dig it deeper and deeper.
It comes across like the life long horse player who falls in love with
the name of a nag. The nag loses and loses, can't seem to get started,
dumps jockeys all the time. But still the old horse player bets, tells
his friends to bet, bets again and again, gives the same excuses over
and over and over. If only the World would conform things would be all
right.

Here is how things work:
You say how things are, whats going to happen.
People listen. They think, "OK, interesting opinion. Maybe he's right.
Things turn out differently.
People say, "Hummmm, well maybe next time."
And. . .
You say how things are, whats going to happen.
People listen. They think, "OK, interesting opinion. Maybe this time
he's right.
Things turn out differently.
People say, "Hummmm, well maybe there is a pattern here."
And . . .
You insist how things are, whats going to happen.
People listen. They think, "He doesn't seem to understand what's going
on."
Things turn out differently.
People say, "Hummmm, he did it again."
And
You keep insisting how things are, whats going to happen.
People listen. They think, "Not again".
Things turn out differently.
People say, "Jebus man, Stick to what you know."

Multiply by 6-8 years and 500-600 repetitions . . . .

I respect what you know about lots of stuff, and opinions are . . .
opinions, but pleeeeze do not expect to have any cred whatsoever on
your unchanged and unreconstructed opinions on where the country ought
to be politically, or how we got here, or why Obama is a piece of
****. It just does not wash.

Dave

OK, so this time, I'm smirking a bit...
 

DaveS wrote of rdean:

snip
I respect what you know about lots of stuff, and opinions are . . .
opinions, but pleeeeze do not expect to have any cred whatsoever on
your unchanged and unreconstructed opinions on where the country ought
to be politically, or how we got here, or why Obama is a piece of
****. It just does not wash.

Yeah, and it smells bad too. ;-) Rick's ridiculous notions about
Obama remind me of a classic line from Casablanca, (well, truth
is *all* the lines from Casablanca are classics).

Major rdean Strasser: You give him credit for too much cleverness.
My impression was that he's just another blundering American.

Captain Ken Renault: We musn't underestimate "American blundering".
I was with them when they "blundered" into Berlin in 1918.

Rick has it in his head that Obama is some sort of amateur politician
who blunders along from mistake to mistake. Nothing could be further
from the truth. Obama is a skilled, savvy, professional politician
surrounded by a cast of smart, pragmatic, highly experienced political
veterans.

--
Ken Fortenberry