Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
 

Did you by any chance see "Meet The Press" this morning?

Can Fred and his musical apoplexy be far behind,
R

Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
 

Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
 

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 08:14:58 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Did you by any chance see "Meet The Press" this morning?

Can Fred and his musical apoplexy be far behind,

I'm surprised someone who is so indifferent towards national
politics would waste his time watching a TV program devoted
exclusively to national politics.

I'm surprised that someone who claims to be able to read...can't...

I've never said I'm indifferent to politics, "national" or otherwise.
What I've said is that it'll make very little difference to me who wins
the election to POTUS. As it stands, I'd rather it be McCain, but if it
had been, say, Richardson or Biden vs. Huckebee, I'd have leaned toward
the Dems.

That's rather odd, don't you think ?

That you apparently can't read? Naw, it seems quite common on ROFF...

IAC, while I suspect that your response means "yeah, I saw it...them
mean old reporters were just playin' politics as usual....," did you see
"Meet The Press?"

TC,
R

Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
 

Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
 

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:21:46 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
...
IAC, while I suspect that your response means "yeah, I saw it...them
mean old reporters were just playin' politics as usual....," did you see
"Meet The Press?"

Nope, that's one I don't watch. We watch "Sunday Morning" on CBS
from 8:00 to 9:30 then Bob Schieffer til 10:00, ABC/Stephenopolous
from 10:00 to 11:00 then the last hour of CNN/Wolf Blitzer.

David Brooks had a puerile piece in the Times last week trumpeting
Obama's "downfall". I imagine he's spouting the same drivel on TV.

I didn't see the piece, but there was a mention of something that must
have been that.

IAC, the others, including your beloved NPR, apparently spouted the same
puerile drivel...if by puerile drivel you mean pointing out that Obama
ain't all that special after all - he is a snot-nosed kid with
more-than-average charm who has his good points and his bad, and that at
the end of the day, he's just another good, but rookie, politician. IOW,
he's as full of **** as any, and if he doesn't flame out, he'll
eventually be able to sling it as well as any...

OTOH, if by "puerile drivel" you mean a fawning admiration of Obama as a
"can do no wrong" bright shining light who, if elected POTUS, will make
everything perfect 14 seconds after taking office, and with whom many
are ****-scared of coming off as "racist" with or about, naw, none of
that drivel...

If you are interested in opinions that aren't "Rah-Rah-bama," you might
look around for a transcript - I'm gonna look up the Brooks' piece.

TC,
R

Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
 

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 09:21:46 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
...
IAC, while I suspect that your response means "yeah, I saw it...them
mean old reporters were just playin' politics as usual....," did you see
"Meet The Press?"

Nope, that's one I don't watch. We watch "Sunday Morning" on CBS
from 8:00 to 9:30 then Bob Schieffer til 10:00, ABC/Stephenopolous
from 10:00 to 11:00 then the last hour of CNN/Wolf Blitzer.

David Brooks had a puerile piece in the Times last week trumpeting
Obama's "downfall". I imagine he's spouting the same drivel on TV.

Found it and read it. What, in your opinion, makes it "puerile" and/or
"drivel," other than it a) disagrees with your opinions, and/or b)
paints Saint Barack as a mere mortal...?

R

Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
 

Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
 

On Mon, 21 Apr 2008 10:10:11 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
David Brooks had a puerile piece in the Times last week trumpeting
Obama's "downfall". I imagine he's spouting the same drivel on TV.

Found it and read it. What, in your opinion, makes it "puerile" and/or
"drivel," other than it a) disagrees with your opinions, and/or b)
paints Saint Barack as a mere mortal...?

It was a shallow, facile, snide column filled with half-truths
and unfair criticisms. Obama can't "connect" because he bowled
a 37 ? Fer chrissakes, how stupid is that ?

It's not the bowling a 37 - it's trying to appear as something someone
as supposedly smart as him ought know he isn't, be it a bowler or
anything else. His hubris told him that he could do it (or look at
least competent) and reality told him it ain't simply chunking a ball
down thataway and getting a strike every time. It's Obama's political
career thus far.

It was just your plain old, vanilla liberal bashing and standard
anti-intellectual diatribe from a Bill Kristol wannabe who has
neither the intelligence or gravitas to be Bill Kristol.

I think Brooks, like yourself, has seen the handwriting on the
wall and knows full well Obama will both be the nominee and
stomp that doddering old warmonger McCain six ways from Sunday.
That sound you hear is the fat lady practicing her aria.

Ah, well, with those, um "facts," it's clear Brooks is completely
off-base...BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

HTH,
R

Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
 

Um, Ken...DANGER, FRED ROBINSON, DANGER!!!
 

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
...
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
It was a shallow, facile, snide column filled with half-truths
and unfair criticisms. Obama can't "connect" because he bowled
a 37 ? Fer chrissakes, how stupid is that ?

It's not the bowling a 37 - it's trying to appear as something someone
as supposedly smart as him ought know he isn't, be it a bowler or
anything else. His hubris told him that he could do it (or look at
least competent) and reality told him it ain't simply chunking a ball
down thataway and getting a strike every time. It's Obama's political
career thus far.

What a silly bunch of piffle you spew. The only reason you see
uppity hubris is because that's what you want to see. I see a
gracious sense of humor and a self-effacing, healthy ability to
have a good natured laugh at his own expense.

You might want to swap out the Mississippi lenses on your glasses
for something a little more mainstream.

I predict that whoever wins the upcoming nominations and subsequent
elections it ain't going to make pundits out of either of you vapid
chumps......nor of anyone else who chooses to weigh in on this hoary
perennial twitfest.

Wolfgang
i mean, just imagine someone having something interesting or new to add to
the oldest continuing babel of blather in the history of humanity.