Obama: Do as I say, not as I smear
Really. How many more selective civility police lectures can we take from this vulgarity-clogged White House?
Via ABC News:
Three days after he decried the lack of civility in American politics, President Obama is quoted in a new book about his presidency referring to the Tea Party movement using a derogatory term with sexual connotations.
In Jonathan Alter’s “The Promise: President Obama, Year One,” President Obama is quoted in an interview saying that the unanimous vote of House Republicans vote against the stimulus bills “set the tenor for the whole year … That helped to create the tea-baggers and empowered that whole wing of the Republican Party to where it now controls the agenda for the Republicans.”
Tea Party activists loath the term “tea baggers,” which has emerged in liberal media outlets and elsewhere as a method of mocking the activists and their concerns.
On Saturday, the president delivered a commencement address at the University of Michigan where he said one way “to keep our democracy healthy is to maintain a basic level of civility in our public debate … But we can’t expect to solve our problems if all we do is tear each other down.”
See what others have said
Note from Michelle: This section is for comments from michellemalkin.com's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that I agree with or endorse any particular comment just because I let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with my terms of use may lose his or her posting privilege.
Comments
You must be logged in to post a comment.
 |
More CPAC speeches in 20 words
February 11, 2012 06:53 PM by Michelle Malkin
52 CommentsUS State Department Expands Travel Warning for Mexico
February 11, 2012 03:29 PM by Doug Powers
34 Comments
‘To Stop the Multiplication of the Unfit’
February 10, 2012 09:06 AM by Michelle Malkin
169 CommentsNancy Pelosi Explains Why Obama Flip-Flopped on Super PACs
February 9, 2012 10:08 PM by Doug Powers
50 Comments
L.A. Board of Supervisors Impose $1,000 Fine for Having Fun on the Beach
February 9, 2012 04:42 PM by Doug Powers
77 Comments
CPAC vs. the Occupiers: Keep calm and carry silly string
February 9, 2012 10:15 AM by Michelle Malkin
109 Comments
Report: Solyndra Sold Assets Cheap to Entity with Close Ties to Investors
February 9, 2012 10:08 AM by Doug Powers
49 CommentsSteny Hoyer: The Fact is You Don’t Need a Budget
February 8, 2012 03:27 PM by Doug Powers
74 Comments
Categories: Barack Obama,Politics,Tea Party
Patterico
» NYT hails the safety net: Poor hardest hitAmSpecBlog
» Weekend Political Wrap-UpJustOneMinute
» I Guess I'm Still Stuck On StupidGateway Pundit
» White House Says They Won’t Budge on HHS Birth Control Mandate: “Our Position Is Clear” (Video)Gateway Pundit
» Sarah Palin on HBO Palin Movie: I’ve Created More Impersonators Than Obama’s Created Jobs (Video)
Spacey you magnificent tart!
Everyone knows that Kays carries the very best jizelry. There’s one at every mall.
I think ZigZag realized he was in trouble because he was trying to defend the indefensible, so he pulled a Brave Sir Robin.
AlohaGuy – You’re Brilliant! Lets!
The problem is most conservatives were unaware of the sexual conotation of the teabag reference. The left is always going to use ridicule instead of reason but we don’t have to acknowledge their taunts. Stay the course and ignore them. (although I believe ZZ may be right about waving the teabags around.) Why not call yourselves Constitutionalists. That document has served us well and will continue to do so if we force our reps to abide by and preserve it.
ZigZag is up in his room eating tony’s pizza rolls in front of the TV.
VALLEYGREASER #84. Ding, ding…best post of this thread. You sound like me. Thanks.
Flyoverman #94-
Sorry this isn’t a knife fight-its a gun fight of ideas that I pray doesn’t resort to the Second Amendment for a solution.
GSP
“Dissent is Patriotic-hrc”
IMing RSS.
“Did u c how we totally pwned those teabaggers? LOL”
LOL Rogue
Bwaaahhaaa!!!
Sorry I forgot to add-Don’t feed the troll (zizzypop)
GSP
Thank you for your candor and silliness. Boring day.
Again, I find removing certain superfluous verbage from zzyzleygig’s posts tends to improve the brevity and accuracy of his actual thought process – or lack thereof.
Ohhhhhh, I see. That’s why the left does it. Awesome. Thanks for the insight dumbass!
So. The President of the United States is calling people teabaggers. Well, Mr. President you’re a…….no, I’d better keep it to myself.
You see, Obama, I just schooled you in civil discourse. Perhaps you should be more respectful of the office that you hold.
People say that you are a smart man, but I no longer believe it.
“Hello, my name is John.”
“Hi, John.”
“I’m a Teabagger, and I haven’t teabagged in 64 days now……….”
eeewwwwwww
“I’m a Bagger, he’s a Bagger, she’s a Bagger, we’re a Bagger….
Wouldn’t you like to be a Bagger, too?”
You outing me?
NOooooooooooo. The other John, the ugly one.
Excuse me if’n I don’t engage in scrotal facials with y’all. Not on an empty stomach.
Iced tea or hot tea?
People who use “teabagger” have been suckered by MSNBC into believing it’s a legitimate term. So I gleefully return the perjorative with “Peacock Sucker”
Hey Obama, perhaps you could explain why you refer to a large group of Americans, you know…. the people you serve….. as a group of people who like someone else balls dangled in their mouths?
Hmmmmmm???
This is your president folks. He’s just too classy for words.
and no Zippy… it does NOT have two meanings.
And I’m not a Homophobe!
I’m Heterocentric.
At least all this reminded me to add teabags to my shopping list. I’m almost out.
From a commentor at HillBuzz:
Me, too.
Why ObaMao thinks it’s funny to use the term “Tea-Bagger” to describe his opponents….because he likes it.
Wow, that explains a lot.
Obama Executive Orders
Read it and weep.
Does anybody know who is on Obamas’ Council of Governors?
I’m trying to find the list.
Here are the 10 guvs and a little more info
The 10 governors (and one of them is not even a State governor) selected by Obama are:
*Governor James Douglas (R-Vermont) *Co-chair
*Governor Chris Gregoire (D-Washington) *Co-chair
Governor Brad Henry (D-Oklahoma)
Governor Jay Nixon (D-Missouri)
Governor Martin O’Malley (D-Maryland)
Governor Janice Brewer (R-Arizona)
Governor Bob McDonnell (R-Virginia)
Governor Michael Rounds (R-South Dakota)
Governor Beverly Perdue (D-North Carolina)
Governor Luis G. Fortuno (R-Puerto Rico)
As I have already written, the creation of a CG should be of serious concern to all liberty-loving Americans.
That more of us are not as concerned as we should be can be traced to the mistaken belief that the American people have nothing to fear from an overreaching federal government. This is pure folly! As I have said many times, we have far more to fear from Washington, D.C., than from Iran, Iraq, North Korea, or any other potential terrorist state. It is Washington, D.C.—and Washington, D.C., alone—that has the power, opportunity, and propensity to squash our freedom and sell us into tyranny.
As Kurt Nimmo reports:
“In other words, with the stroke of a pen, Obama significantly increased the ongoing effort to federalize the states and take control of the National Guard in violation of the now more or less moribund Posse Comitatus Act. Posse Comitatus was effectively annulled by the 2006 John Warner National Defense Authorization Act. The act provides the president with power to declare martial law under revisions to the Insurrection Act and take charge of United States National Guard troops without state governor authorization. Parts of the act were repealed in 2008.”
Nothing. Those are two words that each have two meanings. It is called an analogy.
Yep, and the other is a person who is a tea partier.
Teabagger is slang for a tea partier.
Nothing. Those are two words that each have two meanings. It is called an analogy.
Yep, and the other is a person who is a tea partier.
Teabagger is slang for a tea partier.
zigzag – why do you show up when everyone else is gone to answer those questions posed to you earlier in the day. This is typical for you. Show up when everyone else is gone.
Ummmm, but you already have. You engaged me by responding to my post. And, yet again when you addressed a comment I made to another poster. Are you flattering me?
Take a deep breath and use the ‘preview’ button before submitting your comment. Then think long and hard before hitting the ‘submit comment’ key.
You are embarrassing yourself.
gotcha! You didn’t think anyone would be here did you You thought the thread was dead…hahahahahahaha!
Like I’ve said before, if nothing else, yyou’re predictable
Aready have, see post #133. I am not afraid of answering questions.
Ummmm, are you still engaging me. You like flattering me, don’t you. You may not know why people engage me, yet you continue to do so. Look in a mirror and ask yourself. Oops! I forgot, you don’t answer questions.
[Note: Of course, I am referencing your post #86.]
ooospie Zigzag – I didn’t “take a deep breath and preview my comment…”
you’re…there! That’s better
Ok, that was just stupid. Try again.
I don’t know who Mr/Miss Sanchez is, or whether they are dirty or not, but your use of ‘pearl necklace’ suggests that you agree that words and terms can and do have more than one meaning.
Thank you for your support, unintentional, or not.
Ziggy – please come back and answer when people are actually ON the thread so that they can respond. Otherwise, people will believe you to be just a chicken sh@$
I am impressed. You actually engaged in discussions with ‘. . . the crowd that Obama, Van Jones, Cass Sunstein, Bill Ayers, Valarie Jarrett, Eric Holder, George Soros, etc. belong to.’
And, it is this crowd that wants to crush, silence and subjugate you. How did you ever get away?
um ZigZag – I think Fly’s gone too
ZigZag just for the record – you do this constantly. When the heat is too hot for you after you’ve caused it, you disappear and then later, when the thread is all but dead – you come back and answer those “too hot to touch” questions posed to you earlier..
I don’t know. When did tea party members to refer to themselves as teabaggers?
I don’t know. When did gays refer to themselves as faggots?
I avoid assigning motive to anyone, and choose to accept statements literally. I am not defending anyone and am hardly a hypocrite. You are welcome to read between the lines and look for sinister meanings and dog whistles.
I don’t get stressed when others refer to Pres Obama as Obeyme, Obamao, Obamamessiah, etc. True, I do not like it but I accept it as part of the political discourse.
Your acceptance of one and not the other makes you a hypocrite. My position is entirely consistent. Ridicule is ridicule, accept it or don’t, but do not complain about one and not the other. Don’t be a hypocrite.
Again, I don’t care for ridicule, but I am not complaining because it is a part of the reality.
Are you still trying to engage me? Are you still wanting to flatter me?
In the words of Sally Field, ‘You like me. You really really like me.’
LOL
Actually, I went to Home Depot and Bass Pro Shops. Brought some wood and a new chopsaw for a project, and some more arrows and points for target practice. Thank you for asking. Answering questions is easy.
and ZigZag said this not 15 minutes earlier:
mmkkkay!
Avoid speculating and just ask a question, you are embarrassing yourself. See post #148 to see where I went.
Though I never said anything about waving teabags, I believe you get my point. Ridicule is ridicule, and both sides use it. Words can, and do, have more than one meaning.
Good grief. I can imagine that there is some psycho that would think ‘drill baby drill’ has something to do with an activity beyond seeking oil.
Good grief, you asked in post #100 at 4:03pm where did I go and five minutes later you are speculating with an inane assertion. Have some patience and I will respond. If not immediately, then whenever I can. Yep, your comment demonstrates that you want to engage me.
Really ZigZag, you aren’t fooling anyone..Some patients? By all means, you’ll respond – some 5 hours later when everyone else is gone. But it’s your story, you tell it any way you want. You.Are.Counterfeit!
Your lack of intellectual dishonesty never fails to amaze.
Just try cutting and pasting what was actually said and comment on it.
Since you are calling me names and the left does does it, that must mean you are of the left.
According to spaceycakes’ assertion it makes spaceycakes a liberal by the definition provided by spacetcakes.
Please ZigZag – Do take a deep breath and “preview” your comment before hitting the submit button.
I did not know there were rules and a time frame when I had to respond.
We all have lives and do other things. I am not obligated to stay online. Are you?
The bottomline is that I return and address questions, something that you have repeatedly failed to do.
[Note: I am stopping my responses to any posts referencing me until tomorrow. I shall return. Have a good night all.]
Gee this was fun ZigZag.
Given the usage by members of different races, and heavy uses by many blacks, does the “n-word” qualify as an analogy, slang or ridicule?
Given that the Tea Party members do not refer to themselves as “teabaggers”, and the usage is confined to those that both know what it means, and likely practice what they preach, does it really have two meanings, or just one that is misused in this case?
Should a purportedly objective and allegedly professional media types be using the term “teabagger” when they know the Tea Party people do not use it, consider it rude and defamatory, are aware that it truly does not apply and, knowing the actual meaning (as good little liberals), be using it on public airwaves?
FWIW,
I thought it was mildly humorous when, at the beginning of the movement, some people naively referred to themselves as teabaggers and it was picked up by people with an axe to grind to mock them.
But okay…that ship has sailed. Now it is just petty and cringeworthy when done on purpose.
Now there’s a nice little lie of omission on the part of ABC. Anything to try to save the Left some embarrassment and make the Tea Party people look irrational instead.
Yeah, must’ve been a real scream to see how those uncultured rubes hadn’t kept up with the latest homoerotic fashions.
Regarding the “Obama” Council of Governors:
The kicker – was this under Bush or Obama? Wouldn’t fiscal year 2008 be planned in 2007??
Anyone???
I’m BAAAAAAAACK!
Indeed I have. I had one who was a friend. I have served on a university faculty/student committee with them. I have had them scream obscenities at me holding a pig’s head on a pike. They have physically threatened me. They were inspired by people like Bill Ayers.
I have also worked with them and seen their friends across the Inner-German border. I have made it a point to understand them better than they understand me.
“If you know yourself and you know your enemy, in a hundred battles you will be victorious.”
Most words in the English language have multiple meanings. That does not mean that every word must have multiple meanings, and a few don’t.
In most cases, the multiple meanings are related/similar to each other. It’s also common to select a specific word because of both meanings are meant to apply. In fact, that’s why homosexuals chose to apply the word “gay” to themselves.
In short, you’re right. You “proved” nothing by referring to “gay”, except that the double-meaning is intentional.
Who decided that was a “valid” definition? Those who hold or are sympathetic to Tea Party ideals?
No.
This term was applied by enemies of the Tea Parties. As far as I know, the first use of this term as applied to the Tea Parties was by Keith Olbermann. As Chap pointed out, Some Tea Partiers may have naively accepted this term at first, until it was discovered that it was an existing term with a vulgar meaning, at which point it was resoundingly rejected by everyone sympathetic to the Tea Party movement.
Your so-called “second meaning” is invalid because of the original meaning and it’s purpose in being applied as a double-meaning vulgar insult intended to … how did you put it?:
Right, intended to end serious discussion of the issues without due consideration.
If defining “teabagger” as “a person who is a tea partier” is legitimate despite it only being assigned by their enemies, then you must accept “libtard” as legitimate even though it was assigned by your enemies. If “libtard” is not valid for that reason, then you must also reject your “second meaning” for “teabagger.”
Yes, I was speculating. So what?
It was awfully conveeenient that you disappeared right at that point. I’ve seen that tactic used by lefists many, many times over. Though it’s not often that they come back to expose their reasoning as you have.
The point of Michelle’s post is that the President lectures us that this is an inappropriate tactic, even though he uses that very tactic himself, even in the same speech.
The word with the meaning which best fits this situation is: Hypocrite
Congratulations, it seems you may actually agree with Michelle.
And in so doing diminishes the Office of the President to the level of Joe Sixpack. To him his office is nothing more than a tool to be used.
He does not care how he will damage it for those who follow him in the White House. He’s like a bad renter who trashes the house he lives in, becasue he feels he is entitled to live that way.
So here’s what I get from zyzyg’s posts.
1. It’s okay to use offensive terms to mock other people as long as it’s not a term deemed offensive by the PC crowd.
2. An indefensible position can successfully be defended by repeating the same incorrect point over and over.
3. Tony’s pizza rolls and World of Warcraft take zyzzyg about 4 1/2 hours to finish.
Hey, I agree with zyzzyg. Here, watch, I’ll show you all how it’s done.
From now on, I will refer to zyzzyg as “buttlicker”. So you can all do the same thing, confident that “buttlicker” is just another term for “zyzzyg”. It has nothing at all to do with the action of licking a butt: it’s just another term for our friend zyzzyg.
Thanks for taking the counterpoint, Buttlicker. I support you 100%.
Absoluetely, he/she will leave for about 5 hours and then come back to “answer questions.” Swoop n poop. I am so done with these self-righteous hypocrites who wouldn’t know personal honesty if it smacked them in the face.
Bill Clinton was the inventor of and the master of the use of the “politics of personal destruction.” But every night on the news he was on there condemning its use by the opposition when HE was the one directing and guiding it. Obama is the same way about civility. He’s an uncivil mocker of Americans who oppose his views. In my six decades I’ve never seen a president do this. Hypocrite does not go far enough to describe Obama and his minions.
The scary thing that is revealed by the comments made by lefties is their total indifference of lying, cheating, stealing etc. I saw this attitude taking shape during the Clinton years. If you can make huge amounts of money, at any cost, you were considered a success. Didn’t matter if you were a piece of crap personally. Completely void of any moral compass. They behave in such a base fashion while they spin and excuse and insult others. Lying, cheating, stealing – no big deal. The fact that on another thread someone was able to spin based on whether someone technically lied or not, or did they just deceieve stupid people and if they did who’s fault was that or yadda, yadda, yadda – tells you how far we’ve fallen.
deceive – sorry
(emph. mine)
Thanks for the insight dumbass!
Ok; that last point nearly made me wet my knickers…LOL
Nearly? I now have a goal in life.
Ho–OOH!
There are just to many comments attempting to take me to task to respond to them individually.
There are no rules that require me to sustain and respond immediately.
Yes, Pres Obama says one thing about ridicule and does it himself. (Read my original post.)
Yes, MM and people on this blog use ridicule themselves, but complain about it when it is directed at them. In both cases there is hypocrisy.
Yes, I understand and accept ridicule as part of what happens, and I do not condone it and avoid it.
Wow ZigZag, alias, swoop n poop. Tell me, what payoff do you get posting now? Did you think you could get the last word? You are predictable, pathetic and have zero credibility.
Far fewer than you’ve already responded to. If you could respond to many, many comments, why are just a handful now “to [sic] many”? That strikes me as an excuse to hide the real reason you’re not responding.
Nothing but courtesy and a desire to be taken seriously.
Only after addressing the argument first and showing it to be ridiculous and thus worthy of ridicule. And MM very rarely engages in ridicule, unless, of course, you think that showing the opposition’s claims and arguments to actually be ridiculous through the use of evidence and logic is “ridicule.”
oh and PS – I think the point here is you have no credibility so it’s not big on everyone’s list that you “respond to everyone individually.” You’ve been outed. After awhile, you can’t even hide behind an anonymous blog.
I am not looking for a pay off. Are you?
Nope. Not trying to get the last word. Are you?
Am I predictable? Prove it. What will I do, or say next?
Pathetic? Prove it, don’t make unsubstantiated assertions. Then again that is an easy question to answer. That is simply your opinion.
Zero credibility? You have yet to address or answer anything I have said, with any substance of your own. You have yet to prove anything I have said to be incorrect. Any chance of your having credibility ended when you said I should go to France instead of addressing the issue being discussed.
My credibility is demonstrated by my answering your specific questions. Where is your credibility? Will you answer the specific questions from this post?
Thank you for noting that I have responded to many comments. Yes, I do make an effort to respond to comments to my posts. If you are unwilling to accept my ‘real’ reason for not responding to every single comment at this time, so be it.
What is more fascinating is that no one has referenced my original comment. Cut and paste that, then comment on what I had to say.
Courtesy? LOL. Where is the courtesy in responding to what I have actualy said? Where is the courtesy to answering the questions I have asked?
Obviously I am taken seriously because so many posters what to take me to task.
Nope. I have always said take anyone to task but do it with substance and facts. Will you, or will you not, accept that both sides use ridicule?
And yes, MM uses ridicule. Does ‘Obamamessiah’ ring a bell? Calling someone other than their name is ridicule.
Evidence and logic are good, that is substance. Taking Pres Obama to task for wanting to ban fishing is ridiculous, when in fact the individual States have more rule and regulations governing fishing.
Taking Pres Obama to task for saying less vitriol and still using it is absolutely hypocrisy. Please read my original comment, and comment on it. Cut and paste it, then tell me what you agree with, and what you disagree with.
Courtesy? Show me how this works and demonstrate it by addressing a few of my questions.
Well, one poster, EWTHeckman has expressed concern about my not responding to each individual post, so your unsubstantiated assertion is patently false. You should really stop doing this, making unsubstantiated assertions when they are provably wrong.
And, exactly how have I been outed? That I respond to comments individually as noted by EWTHeckman, or that I have responded to groups of posters at once?
Are you hiding behind an anonymous blog? Are you hiding in France? Have you volunteered your homepage to be accessed by the posters here?
I don’t even know why I am asking you questions when I have absolute certainty that you will not answer any questions, and yes, that is based on your past history.
You lack credibility.
I have addressed and answered your questions and unsubstantiated assertions, cutting and pasting your entire post.
Will you answer questions? Where is your credibility?
You seem to be not answering the primary point:
Do you admit that the term “teabaggers” was applied to tea party participants as an insult?
Yes, she uses that. Yes it’s ridicule.
Now, do you remember what she exposed as ridiculous that this word refers to?
Oooookkkaaaayyyy……… Here’s your first comment (Post #33):
And now my post #85:
Then you responded with your “second meaning”, and I answered that in post #166, and used the second part of your first post in my response.
So I responded to what you actually said (which you claimed no one did). I’m not sure from your phrasing if you mean it’s discourteous to respond to what you actually said, or if you mean it’s discourteous that no one responded to what you actually said, which I’ve just shown is not true. So this last statement is ridiculous, so that means I should be free to ridicule it, after all that’s what the ridiculous deserves. Right?
Wrong. That is not what I wrote. And you’re complaining about responses not addressing what you actually said?
ROTFL!!!
Time to refresh your memory:
I was talking about timeliness here, not responding to every post.
As for your excuse:
I was pointing out that your claim of “too many to respond to” was patently false because you had already responded to significantly more comments than had been made since your last block of responses. Nowhere did I claim that you had to respond to every single comment. (Though, if you expect to win an argument, you need to address the most important ones.)
I’m just saying your “‘real’ reason” sounds like a load of horse hockey. Here’s why:
Up though post #157, you posted 23 comments. That was 134 comments by others that you could have responded to.
You made this excuse in post #181. That’s 23 comments by others since your previous set of responses.
Of course, you didn’t need to respond to them all, but even if you did, that would have been only 23 responses, exactly the same number of comments you had already posted. So how is 23 too many, when 23 wasn’t too many before?
Or put another more reasonable way (since not every comment by others needs a response by you), you had 134 comments which you could respond to (or not) before, but now you only had 23 which you could respond to (or not). But now 23 is too many to respond to, but 134 was not?
Which is greater? 23? Or 134?
On May 6th, 2010 at 10:48 pm, EWTHeckman said: #190
You have gone through a great deal of time and effort in an attempt to deconstruct everything subsequent to my original post. Good on you.
My original post -
‘Teabagger’ has two meanings, just like the word ‘gay’ has two meanings.
You addressed this I responded providing the best explanation I could.
Yep, Pres Obama should take his own advice. Many should take his advice.
You did not address this. Do you agree or disagree?
Name calling and ridicule only serves to solicit emotions and not to advance the discussion.
Did you address this? Do you agree or disagree?
You are a better person than I Gunga Din, because I am not going too deep to deconstuct our exchanges on this thread. However, I say again that my initial post has not been fully addressed.
So, both sides use ridicule. What is so difficult about admiting that? You know it and admit it. I know it and admit. Why take me to task for saying so? Not you, but why say I should go to France for saying so?
A tangent and a differnt question, but no I do not recall. The issue is ridicule. And we agree that both sides use it. The reason why and motives are immaterial.
The thread is about using less than helpful language and Pres Obama’s hypocrisy for saying one thing and doing another, not his motives for doing so. Again, he should take his own advice, as I said in my original post. And, yes something of which no one to this point has either agreed, or disagreed with.
So . . . it is true that one poster, EWTHeckman has expressed concern about my not responding to each individual post?
EWTHeckman,
I have more respect for you than many other posters. You make an effort and I am sure our paths will cross again. When they do my hope is that you are as thorough with my original post as you have been with subsequent posts and the posts I have directed at others.
I remain open to an honest exchange of ideas, and will always do my best to respond to everyone who addresses me. I subscribe to very few rules other than what is required by MM’s terms of use. Meaning, that I reserve the privilege of responding when I can and not when some other poster says I should. I avoid name calling and vitriol. I often adress style and consistentcy. I ask questions to broaden my understanding of the issue and to challenge the position of others.
I post my initial comments to what MM has to offer, and it is extremely rare for me to make comments or to take another poster to task for what they have said, unless they first take me to task. Say something to me and I will respond. Say nothing to me, and I have got nothing to say to you (global).
One last thing, I do my best to keep responses distinct and sometimes find it difficult in addressing one poster when yet another poster intrudes upon our exchange. That is when a second poster addresses the questions I ask the first poster. Often times this conflates and confuses the dialogue and often the meaning of what is being said.
Again, I have great respect for you and the time and effort you expend.
Only the best,
Zyzzg
Nope. Not gettin’ it.
BO stinks, he’s a drunk. remember his yearly physical exam he released? His doctors told him to “moderate his alcohol intake.” Since they relied on his report of the amount he drinks, figure that he’s gulping down 6-8 beers or mixed drinks a day minimum along with a pack a day of mentholated cigarettes. That’s why he’s so nasty, feeling sorry for himself, and why he appears out of it frequently – he’s been drinking a lot. Typical alcoholic behaviors. Of course even if I knew nothing about him other than age, gender, and race, I could predict a 40% chance that he’s alcoholic. Since we know from his doctors he’s drinking too much, the probability he’s alcoholic is likely 80-90%, and with his behavior it keeps getting closer to 100%. He is unable to stop smoking which again shows problems with addiction.