OT - but, worth reading and thinking about

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/op...n.html?_r=1&em

On 30-Sep-2009, jeff wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/op...n.html?_r=1&em

Thanks fior posting OT.

....Someone who reads one of the papers that I do - on the web

Fred

On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:22:08 -0400, jeff wrote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/op...n.html?_r=1&em

Yeah, it's a real shame - past US leaders have always been treated with such,
um, fawning and forelock-tugging by the opposition...why, hell, when you hear
Forty talk about Reagan, you're got to pay VERY close attention to tell whether
he was a fan or not...and then there's Nixon - Lordy, Lordy, if you didn't know
better, you'd think his approval rating among the lefties (and the general
population...who know who he is...) was 110%...and then there's Maude...er, I
mean Jackson - why, shoot, no one was ever vocal in their criticism of him,
everything's sunshine and roses, but somebody changes their mind about having
their house painted and the next thing you know - POW!!...or rather, not, as the
case may be...

The current round of shtick is being fueled just as much by (some) supporters as
(some) opponents, and the idea that Obama is in more danger because of his
opponents than any other POTUS was due to their opponents (or any other person
who takes a very visible public position) is ridiculous. Look no further than
Kennedy...neither general "public perception" nor any general anti-Kennedy
sentiment led to his murder, and the idea that someone otherwise not disposed to
do suddenly decides to murder anyone purely because of some mass-media shtick is
equally ridiculous. The whole thing is as silly as suggesting that listening to
Beatles' records backwards turns otherwise mild-mannered nebbishs into raving
psychopaths.

HTH,
R

On Sep 30, 10:21*pm, wrote:
On Wed, 30 Sep 2009 19:22:08 -0400, jeff wrote:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/30/op...n.html?_r=1&em

Yeah, it's a real shame - past US leaders have always been treated with such,
um, fawning and forelock-tugging by the opposition...why, hell, when you hear
Forty talk about Reagan, you're got to pay VERY close attention to tell whether
he was a fan or not...and then there's Nixon - Lordy, Lordy, if you didn't know
better, you'd think his approval rating among the lefties (and the general
population...who know who he is...) was 110%...and then there's Maude...er, I
mean Jackson - why, shoot, no one was ever vocal in their criticism of him,
everything's sunshine and roses, but somebody changes their mind about having
their house painted and the next thing you know - POW!!...or rather, not, as the
case may be...

The current round of shtick is being fueled just as much by (some) supporters as
(some) opponents, and the idea that Obama is in more danger because of his
opponents than any other POTUS was due to their opponents (or any other person
who takes a very visible public position) is ridiculous. *Look no further than
Kennedy...neither general "public perception" nor any general anti-Kennedy
sentiment led to his murder, and the idea that someone otherwise not disposed to
do suddenly decides to murder anyone purely because of some mass-media shtick is
equally ridiculous. *The whole thing is as silly as suggesting that listening to
Beatles' records backwards turns otherwise mild-mannered nebbishs into raving
psychopaths.

HTH,
R

Imbecile.

g.