The Rose Garden and White House happenings: Listening to voters’ concerns

Everybody out west should just fire their guns in the air at the same time.  That should take care of it. 


PVW said:

Smedley said:

yes, but who deflated Biden's approval rating?Ih, I see you've shifted with the winds. Previously, you would have been asking why Biden's deflated approval ratings caused the weather to change.

Glad to see the question is no longer put as "why did Biden's approval ratings shift the weather."

I didn't say all that you said I said. 


We don't have time for a Chinese spy balloon over Montana right now, we still have that Russian spy balloon in Florida to deal with. 


I can’t top this actual chyron. 


DaveSchmidt said:

mtierney said:

As it is presently 2/3/23, 9:45am, forgive my forgetfulness — it is not my style, but Covid was most likely responsible— and to think I was only 89 at the time!

Forgetfulness: Forgiven. Earlier misplaced certainty: Forgiven. Missed opportunity to do your own search of the MOL archives: Forgiven. Disputable self-evaluation of style: Forgiven. Appeal to age-based sympathy: Forgiven.

All are forgiven.


David S.,  I have tried to search the site since  I posted that Times article Sunday — I specifically posted it to Jamie’s thread about MOL because I saw it as a tragic set of circumstances and a  scary property scenario for homeowners in town. 

I realized later that MOL’s message board  was his focus. I haven’t figured the search process out yet. Is there a how-to available?


mtierney said:

I realized later that MOL’s message board  was his focus. I haven’t figured the search process out yet. Is there a how-to available?

Go to the main discussion page. Look for Search. (Where it is depends on your device. Below is how it appears on my iPhone.) Click Search. Fill in the blanks, and then hit the Search button.


DaveSchmidt said:

mtierney said:

I realized later that MOL’s message board  was his focus. I haven’t figured the search process out yet. Is there a how-to available?

Go to the main discussion page. Look for Search. (Where it is depends on your device. Below is how it appears on my iPhone.) Click Search. Fill in the blanks, and then hit the Search button.

That was nice of you to share, but my reading of mtierney's posts suggests that she always finds what she's looking for, regardless of what's actually there.


ridski said:

Dave.

Royal, not noble, innit.


DaveSchmidt said:

Royal, not noble, innit.

With the enormous amount of BBC I watch, I should catch your drift— but I feel buggered, or gobsmacked. What are you and Ridski nattering on about.?



Smedley said:

nohero said:

Meanwhile, we're bracing for the hot air from the usual gasbags about the "Chinese Spy Balloon".

Just curious, who are the "usual gasbags", what do you expect them to say, and how will that differ from your own opinion on the matter? 

I hope the last day has helped you "catch my drift" about the balloon and "usual gasbags" in the news.


mtierney said:

What are you and Ridski nattering on about.?

The thanks I get for a search how-to. Some generations have a lot to learn about manners.


DaveSchmidt said:

The thanks I get for a search how-to. Some generations have a lot to learn about manners.

I can get  manners instructions here? Who would have sussed  that out?

BTW, David, I suspect you might have newspaper experience, so may I ask: Do you know how often the NYY Times runs the same story one week apart? Today’s Metropolitan Section has the home fire story today. There is a photo, I do not remember seeing before, of the Maplewood woman receiving a prestigious award from Seton Hall’s Judeo-Christian School of Theology in MAY 2022 six months prior to the DEC fire!


mtierney said:

BTW, David, I suspect you might have newspaper experience, so may I ask: Do you know how often the NYY Times runs the same story one week apart? Today’s Metropolitan Section has the home fire story today.

It’s common for articles that are destined for a Sunday print section to be published online earlier in the week. The Maplewood article, which was delivered to my driveway with other preprinted Sunday sections yesterday, is dated Feb. 1 online. That’s three days apart.


DaveSchmidt said:

ridski said:

Dave.

Royal, not noble, innit.

Wa gwaan, Dave! Queenie's well safe, Charlie a wasteman bruv. Like Oasis, he Liam, you Noel - one in the sun get rayed on, but togevver, bruv? Union.


mtierney said:

What are you and Ridski nattering on about.?

ridski said:

Wa gwaan, Dave! Queenie's well safe, Charlie a wasteman bruv. Like Oasis, he Liam, you Noel - one in the sun get rayed on, but togevver, bruv? Union.

I hope that answers your question, mtierney.


nohero said:

Smedley said:

nohero said:

Meanwhile, we're bracing for the hot air from the usual gasbags about the "Chinese Spy Balloon".

Just curious, who are the "usual gasbags", what do you expect them to say, and how will that differ from your own opinion on the matter? 

I hope the last day has helped you "catch my drift" about the balloon and "usual gasbags" in the news.

I guess somewhat, but also would be nice to see you actually post your own perspective/opinion about something, rather than just mocking what others have to say. 


ridski said:

DaveSchmidt said:

ridski said:

Dave.

Royal, not noble, innit.

Wa gwaan, Dave! Queenie's well safe, Charlie a wasteman bruv. Like Oasis, he Liam, you Noel - one in the sun get rayed on, but togevver, bruv? Union.

A better, more direct and less convoluted version of Ridski's response:

"eallyray, ownay ouyay askway emay” aidsay aliceway, eryvay uchmay onfusedcay, “Iway on’tday inkthay—”

“enthay ouyay ouldn’tshay alktay,” aidsay ethay atterhay.


Smedley said:

I guess somewhat, but also would be nice to see you actually post your own perspective/opinion about something, rather than just mocking what others have to say. 

I, personally, thought it was pretty fun.  The world of gas and balloons was thoroughly explored while, at the same time, an opinion about alarmist chicken littles was also shared, for those who had eyes with which to read.


RealityForAll said:

ridski said:

DaveSchmidt said:

ridski said:

Dave.

Royal, not noble, innit.

Wa gwaan, Dave! Queenie's well safe, Charlie a wasteman bruv. Like Oasis, he Liam, you Noel - one in the sun get rayed on, but togevver, bruv? Union.

A better, more direct and less convoluted version of Ridski's response:

"eallyray, ownay ouyay askway emay” aidsay aliceway, eryvay uchmay onfusedcay, “Iway on’tday inkthay—”

“enthay ouyay ouldn’tshay alktay,” aidsay ethay atterhay.

To be fair, I don't know what the kids from my council estate are saying these days, either. It's like a code. I need a cryptonographer to decipher it.


GoSlugs said:

Smedley said:

I guess somewhat, but also would be nice to see you actually post your own perspective/opinion about something, rather than just mocking what others have to say. 

I, personally, thought it was pretty fun.  The world of gas and balloons was thoroughly explored while, at the same time, an opinion about alarmist chicken littles was also shared, for those who had eyes with which to read.

i agree the riffing on gas and balloons was at least mildly amusing, and even better, I failed to pick up on it at first. But as far as an "opinion", all I saw was the usual looky here, right-wingers-are-idiots yuk-yukking, which to me is pretty boring, and without any counterargument, empty.


Smedley said:

all I saw was the usual looky here, right-wingers-are-idiots yuk-yukking, which to me is pretty boring, and without any counterargument, empty.

I am trying to imagine what possible counter argument there could be. If they weren't idiots, they wouldn't be right wingers. It's axiomatic.

I am sorry, I am tired of pretending that somewhere, somehow, there might be a conservative who isn't a bad person and/or isn't an idiot.  No one is that well hidden.


I mean, I get that the above is probably overstated but you don't do what the conservatives have done to the US and then insist that your dignity must be respected.  The days when we could pretend that politics was a conversation between two well intentioned groups of people who happened to have differing beliefs are long, long past.


Conservatives are selfish.

Being selfish is bad.

That's why conservatives are wrong in almost all of their beliefs.

Time to repost:

https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/agre/conservatism.html


GoSlugs said:

Smedley said:

all I saw was the usual looky here, right-wingers-are-idiots yuk-yukking, which to me is pretty boring, and without any counterargument, empty.

I am trying to imagine what possible counter argument there could be. If they weren't idiots, they wouldn't be right wingers. It's axiomatic.

I am sorry, I am tired of pretending that somewhere, somehow, there might be a conservative who isn't a bad person and/or isn't an idiot.  No one is that well hidden.

Are you familiar with China's cultural revolution of the 1960s?


In order to add a comment – you must Join this community – Click here to do so.