[Cyrano]

What's going on with the turkeys who have been sitting in the Oval Office in the new millennium? Did they lose their guts after they took the oath of office? It looks to me like both Curious George and the Obamination aren't willing to go face to face with the people without knowing in advance what the questions are going to be, so they can have their speechwriters cobble up answers; they can't shoot from the lip without a TelePrompTer; and/or they are scared of seeing what the People really think, so they make it a policy that only allow prescreened audiences are allowed to see the Grand Poo-Bah.

Get a clue, clowns! You work for the People. The People are NOT your subjects. If they don't like you they are free to say so, and like as not you really need to hear it!

While I have no use for Slick Willy Clinton, I'll give the bastard this: he was not afraid to tackle a crowd at a Q&A, either of reporters or ordinary citizens, without notes, a prompter or cue cards while he was President. And after 1996, he KNEW lots of people didn't like him or the Democrats all that much. It seems that the Empty Suit from Illinois is afraid of meeting the ordinary citizens face to face without anything to help him. That speaks poorly of someone who thinks he and his programs are so popular with the People, doesn't it?

[troy2000]

Quote:       Originally Posted by elkaholic

how can an eye witness to an event be called false claims- they dont care what happened in the past - It happened to them and it happen now - obumma isn't doing anything but opening eyes as to the fact he's all show - what happened here was wrong and he was responsable for it . Gary

[quote=elkaholic;975368]

Quote:       Originally Posted by troy2000

One of the current problems is that people are attacking the Obama administration, and trying to undermine its credibility, with bogus claims that it's controlling public events and public opinion in a way that's never been done before.QUOTE] do you think Kathy made this stuff up just to bad mouth the president - it happened to them in their small town in rural america and what really happened was never made known till this post - we dont care if other presidents did chit- Did we see the real story in the press - nope just what the administration wanted the american people to see -

Where to start. Let's see: how about the fact that the claim I called false is the claim that the Obama administration is controlling public events and public opinion in a way that's never been done before. That's nonsense. Presidents and their staffs have been manipulating public appearances for generations.

I didn't say a word about Kathy, or anything she wrote. But since you insist on bringing her up, why should I take her word as sacrosanct? I have no idea at all who she is, or whether she's really the one who wrote that little piece.

Why should I consider a chain email signed Kathy to be God's Gospel Truth, when sites like snopes.com that actually do research are suspect and not to be believed? Is it just because she's saying things you want to believe?

[elkaholic]

trying to figure this one out myself - if your comments weren't in fact related and pointed toward kathy and her comments and what was said in the post - why are you commenting at all

[Fokker]

Quote:       Originally Posted by elkaholic

trying to figure this one out myself - if your comments weren't in fact related and pointed toward kathy and her comments and what was said in the post - why are you commenting at all

They relate to the topic at hand? Comments don't need to always specifically be directed at exactly what was posted in the opening and only that. There wouldn't be much to discuss otherwise.

What he's trying point out(at least what I'm getting from it) is that everyone tries to treat the current administration's media manipulation as a new practice or more sinister than the previous administration's. Many White House administrations have done this time and time again and some how it's always treated as something new. I can't remember ever seeing a Presidential conference or appearance that didn't come off as scripted. While I'm not old, I have been around for 3 Republican and 2 Democratic Presidents.

[troy2000]

Quote:       Originally Posted by elkaholic

trying to figure this one out myself - if your comments weren't in fact related and pointed toward kathy and her comments and what was said in the post - why are you commenting at all

Boy. You're going to run this one straight into the ground, aren't you?

People have been using Kathy's narrative as an excuse to rave about what manipulative, dishonest scumbags the Obama team are, and how they're doing things no other administration has ever done to control media events. My comments were directed toward those posts. If you don't see the connection, maybe you should go back to the beginning and read the whole thread. If you still don't understand what I'm contributing to the discussion, don't bother to tell me.

[elkaholic]

well i can let it go - just seems every post that hints a distaste for obumma- your right there to chime in defending him and his administration. thats ok but not all ofus feel the same way

[JimBob]

Quote:       Originally Posted by elkaholic

well i can let it go - just seems every post that hints a distaste for obumma- your right there to chime in defending him and his administration. thats ok but not all ofus feel the same way

LOL I'll admit I'm biased.The party he represents has been trying to disarm the citizens of this state(Illinois)since before anybody ever heard of him,tax everyone to death and steal every dime to send to Daleyville and a lot of his"team"are those same party hacks from Cook County we are familiar with.To be absolutely fair the Illinois Republican party just ain't much better.

[Mooseman684]

[quote=troy2000;975407]

Quote:       Originally Posted by troy2000

Where to start. Let's see: how about the fact that the claim I called false is the claim that the Obama administration is controlling public events and public opinion in a way that's never been done before. That's nonsense. Presidents and their staffs have been manipulating public appearances for generations. I didn't say a word about Kathy, or anything she wrote. But since you insist on bringing her up, why should I take her word as sacrosanct? I have no idea at all who she is, or whether she's really the one who wrote that little piece. Why should I consider a chain email signed Kathy to be God's Gospel Truth, when sites like snopes.com that actually do research are suspect and not to be believed? Is it just because she's saying things you want to believe?

I seem to Recall the statement By Your Choice for President as "We are Going To have OPENESS and TRANSPARENCY in Government , Not Like the Last Administration " Also "Accountability" was thrown around in those Campaign speeches...Yet you are Admitting that it is Business as usual by this administration by your own comments.
FYI , Kathy is afraid to publish her Last Name for fear of reprisal after what she witnessed at that town Meeting...I can't Blame her for that.

Rich

[troy2000]

[quote=Mooseman684;975780]

Quote:       Originally Posted by troy2000

I seem to Recall the statement By Your Choice for President as "We are Going To have OPENESS and TRANSPARENCY in Government , Not Like the Last Administration " Also "Accountability" was thrown around in those Campaign speeches...Yet you are Admitting that it is Business as usual by this administration by your own comments. FYI , Kathy is afraid to publish her Last Name for fear of reprisal after what she witnessed at that town Meeting...I can't Blame her for that. Rich

I don't care what the lady's last name is, Rich. But you gave no context in which to judge your post. Is she a personal friend who wrote that letter to you, and said it was OK to share it? Or is it just another chain email, that mysteriously appeared and started spreading?

Here's what snopes.com has to say about it. You're welcome to prove them wrong, if you can:

1. There are multiple versions of this letter going around. Some versions are signed Kathy, and refer to her husband as Bill. Others are signed Sue, and the husband is Joe.

2. Some versions claim the letter is from a friend who lives in Montana; others say she's the wife of a cousin.

3. No one in any news account of the event mentions any lobsters, and not a single person has come forward to say they saw or ate any. The only mention snopes can find of lobsters is in this letter. Where did "thousands of dollars" worth of lobsters go, and why is Kathy the only one who knows about them?

4. The protesters were not ignored by the press, although (obviously) their main focus was on the event itself, the questions being asked of Obama and the way he answered them.

5. According to the attendance figures and news accounts snopes researched, about 850 of the 1300 attendees had tickets that were handed out publicly on a first-come, first-serve basis, and about 450 tickets were reserved for elected officials, community leaders, local supporters, etc. So the audience wasn't nearly as stacked as Kathy (or Sue) claims.

In other words, it sounds to me like just another anonymous chain email, being circulated as gospel truth by people with a political axe to grind.