Buy alprazolam….

Buy ativan….

Hello Thanks heaps for this indeed!… if anyone else has anything, it would be much appreciated. Great website Super Piano Links http://www.en.Grand-Pianos.org Enjoy!…

Everybody Wang Chung tonight!

On October 15th, 2009 at 8:04 pm, Dave Turson said: #824749

I asked a question and you refuse to answer. So be it.

On October 15th, 2009 at 1:08 am, zyzzyg said:
Maybe you can explain why Glenn Beck has an expectation to be called, when others (pundits, talking heads, columnists, bloggers, editorialists) may have the same expectation? Are you suggesting that because he has a media contract, his request should be honored by the White House? Again, how many people are out there that have media contracts, and should the White House call them all?

The White House hasn’t set up a blog to attack other news organizations—so your question is a non-starter. Did you read through the links that MM posted about the White House blogging attack on “Fox News”? If the answer is yes, move along, because I will not answer further silly questions. I’ll provide one last thought on the issue through this link, which I found at WaPo.

On October 15th, 2009 at 6:08 pm, Salt said: #824593

OK. We agree that the White House is whinning, and we disagree that Fox is whinning.

Also, meant to say I have respect for you.

On October 15th, 2009 at 5:43 pm, zyzzyg said:

It seems cowardly to me to avoid your political opponents (as Dunn has described Fox). He saturated the air with his media tour and very deliberately avoided a network likely to ask him challenging questions on his proposals.

Sure, I don’t know exactly if he is afraid, but that’s the perception. Even The Nation is calling this administration out for whining. I believe they knew they had to be very cautious about Obama’s message given the level of response that has caused even a Democratic congress to pause. If Pres. Obama’s proposals are as solid and defensible as they pretend, why not speak with those that have a differing view. If Fox had mishandled the interview, they would have come off looking bad. As it stands, the administration looks foolish.

I disagreed with the attempt to try and lump Fox into the same category as “whining”. It seems like the White House picked this fight. It’s not whining, in my opinion, to wonder or speculate as to why they did. We’ll just have to agree to disagree on this.

On October 15th, 2009 at 2:00 pm, rightwingrocker said: #824357

If he had gone to all of the networks, I think it could be argued that he WAS speaking to us. Instead, he chose only to speak to like-minded people, which will get him nowhere, since they all already agree with him.

What good is that, even if what he was selling were legal or good?

I addressed this in Post #823820.

Are you going to address my specific answers to your specific questions from the previous posts between you and me?

On October 15th, 2009 at 1:14 pm, Salt said: #824313

Which stood to reason that you believed any editorializing or speculation as to why Obama was avoiding Fox, regardless of style, was childish (which is part of the definition of whining).

No. Not ‘any’ editorializing or speculation is whinning. And, not every example of editorializing and speculation is whinning. The specific example of what both Fox and the White House are doing in this instance is whinning.

I addressed this when you asked, and I answered that editorializing and speculation can be many things.

Personally, I believe that style is a critical factor in the assessment of whining.

OK.

Assessing style and substance with regard to what is said, is certainly fair. In this particular case the substance is the fact that Pres Obama did not appear on Fox. And, the style is the whinning. And, the whinning is the editorializing and speculation as to why he did not appear, which by the way are not facts.

Nope. Just trying to lay a finger on your definition of “whining”.

C’mon Salt, ask a direct question and you will get a direct answer from me.

Anita Dunn has answered that question, so at this point it is moot and no longer speculative.

Exactly. Then why has it been suggested that he is afraid, or a coward?

“Pres. Obama effectively looks like a coward. (How we’re supposed to believe he’ll stand up to tyrants in the world when he cannot even face a dissenting cable channel is a mystery.)” Post #823816

If the question as to why he did not appear on Fox was addressed, then why continue to speculate, guess and assign motive?

I think I may have said this to you before, and that is, I have respect you.