A Fishing forum. FishingBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » FishingBanter forum » rec.outdoors.fishing newsgroups » Fly Fishing
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Um...huh? (Duck, Fred, it's politicopunctuation...)



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old April 15th, 2010, 06:32 PM posted to rec.outdoors.fishing.fly
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,901
Default Um...huh? (Duck, Fred, it's politicopunctuation...)

Doesn't _anybody_ on _either_ side actually _read_ the crap they puke forth unto
the 'net...?

OK, so a lot of the limpdick beckerheads are in a tizzy:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...rpower-like/4/

because they claim Obama said:

"It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these
conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military
superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into
them," Obama said. "And that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both
blood and treasure."

Er, OK...so what's the big deal, you might ask? The left-wingnuts are defending
it by saying that the "like it or not" bit goes not with being
"...a...superpower," but with the getting pulled into conflicts and the costs of
being so pulled. OK, fair enough, seems correct, and the quote above, as cited
by the right-wingers themselves, would support that defense of Obama. OTOH, all
of the left-wingnuts I've seen have used this version:

"It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these
conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military
superpower. And when conflicts break out, one way or another, we get pulled into
them."

which would tend to support the beckerhead criticism of the remarks.

So, what did he actually say? The WH release uses the right-wingnut version and
the actual speech itself tends to support the WH release pretty clearly.

So what started the whole silly flap? Apparently, it started when a beckerhead
and an Obamaniac got into it on some cable news show and the only part addressed
or mentioned was, "Whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military
superpower." (sic), with the BH calling such a remark "un-American" (which it
would have tended to be had it been remotely accurate) and the OM basically
defending it by saying that many in the US don't want the US to be "a dominate
military superpower" (likely true enough, but there is no indication that Obama
wants to be included in or in any way supports that "many" and IAC, is
immaterial in this context) and neither of them OR the "news" staff checked out
the whole thing. And apparently, none of the above-mentioned has bothered to
check it out since OR even read their own "analysis" of it all.

Sheesh,
R

  #2  
Old April 15th, 2010, 10:59 PM posted to rec.outdoors.fishing.fly
Giles
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,257
Default Um...huh? (Duck, Fred, it's politicopunctuation...)

On Apr 15, 12:32*pm, wrote:
Doesn't _anybody_ on _either_ side actually _read_ the crap they puke forth unto
the 'net...?

OK, so a lot of the limpdick beckerheads are in a tizzy:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...a-superpower-l...

because they claim Obama said:

"It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these
conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military
superpower, and when conflicts break out, one way or another we get pulled into
them," Obama said. "And that ends up costing us significantly in terms of both
blood and treasure."

Er, OK...so what's the big deal, you might ask? *The left-wingnuts are defending
it by saying that the "like it or not" bit goes not with being
"...a...superpower," but with the getting pulled into conflicts and the costs of
being so pulled. *OK, fair enough, seems correct, and the quote above, as cited
by the right-wingers themselves, would support that defense of Obama. *OTOH, all
of the left-wingnuts I've seen have used this version:

"It is a vital national security interest of the United States to reduce these
conflicts because whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military
superpower. And when conflicts break out, one way or another, we get pulled into
them."

which would tend to support the beckerhead criticism of the remarks.

So, what did he actually say? *The WH release uses the right-wingnut version and
the actual speech itself tends to support the WH release pretty clearly. *

So what started the whole silly flap? *Apparently, it started when a beckerhead
and an Obamaniac got into it on some cable news show and the only part addressed
or mentioned was, "Whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military
superpower." (sic), with the BH calling such a remark "un-American" (which it
would have tended to be had it been remotely accurate) and the OM basically
defending it by saying that many in the US don't want the US to be "a dominate
military superpower" (likely true enough, but there is no indication that Obama
wants to be included in or in any way supports that "many" and IAC, is
immaterial in this context) and neither of them OR the "news" staff checked out
the whole thing. *And apparently, none of the above-mentioned has bothered to
check it out since OR even read their own "analysis" of it all.

Sheesh,
R


Imbecile.

g.
  #3  
Old April 17th, 2010, 09:05 PM posted to rec.outdoors.fishing.fly
Fred
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 593
Default Um...huh? (Duck, Fred, it's politicopunctuation...)

I will not read this.... I will not read this....
I will NOT read this

Fred
  #4  
Old April 19th, 2010, 01:47 AM posted to rec.outdoors.fishing.fly
Giles
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,257
Default Um...huh? (Duck, Fred, it's politicopunctuation...)

On Apr 17, 3:05*pm, "Fred" wrote:
I will not read this.... I will not read this....
I will NOT read this

Fred


Maybe not. But you will respond, nevertheless.

Idiot.

g.
  #5  
Old April 19th, 2010, 05:30 AM posted to rec.outdoors.fishing.fly
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,901
Default Um...huh? (Duck, Fred, it's politicopunctuation...)

On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 20:05:52 GMT, "Fred" wrote:

I will not read this.... I will not read this....
I will NOT read this

Fred


Aw, dude, it probably wouldn't have made yer head explode...well, much,
anyways...

TC,
R
  #6  
Old April 20th, 2010, 02:05 AM posted to rec.outdoors.fishing.fly
Giles
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,257
Default Um...huh? (Duck, Fred, it's politicopunctuation...)

On Apr 18, 11:30*pm, wrote:
On Sat, 17 Apr 2010 20:05:52 GMT, "Fred" wrote:
I will not read this.... I will not read this....
I will NOT read this


Fred


Aw, dude, it probably wouldn't have made yer head explode...well, much,
anyways...

TC,
R


Idiot.

g.
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
For 'tripper, et al...(DON'T LOOK, FRED!!) [email protected] Fly Fishing 4 August 20th, 2008 06:55 PM
Is that you, Fred? Dave LaCourse Fly Fishing 0 July 24th, 2008 10:11 PM
Hey, Fred Dave LaCourse Fly Fishing 0 June 26th, 2008 10:39 PM
Fred J Taylor Alec Powell UK Coarse Fishing 3 May 19th, 2008 07:09 AM
For My Pal Fred Dave LaCourse Fly Fishing 3 February 17th, 2008 08:25 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:33 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 FishingBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.