Heard on TV: Unfortunate phrasing and a new (?) term
Maria C.
1. Unfortunate phrasing regarding a body found on top of a train: "The
pieces are just coming together on this story."
2. Regarding another story "There's been a lot of pushback." From
context, I'd say "pushback" was used to indicate negative reaction. Have
you heard this usage before? It was new to me.
--
Maria C.
tony cooper
wrote:
See:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/14/magazine/14wwln_safire.t.html?ref=magazine
for a discussion on this word.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Evan Kirshenbaum
> 2. Regarding another story "There's been a lot of pushback." From
> context, I'd say "pushback" was used to indicate negative
> reaction. Have you heard this usage before? It was new to me.
The OED only cites it to 1979:
1979 R. BOLTON People Skills x. 160 We have a special phrase that
we use to describe an assertion and the predictable defensive
response to it. We call it the 'push-push back
phenomenon'... In response to that push there is an almost
inevitable 'push back'.
They define it as
orig. and chiefly U.S. Resistance, disagreement; adverse reaction,
negative feedback.
I can't vouch for it being any older, but I've probably known it
nearly that long if not longer.
--
Evan Kirshenbaum +------------------------------------
HP Laboratories |I believe there are more instances
1501 Page Mill Road, 1U, MS 1141 |of the abridgment of the freedom of
Palo Alto, CA 94304 |the people by gradual and silent
|encroachments of those in power
kirsh...@hpl.hp.com |than by violent and sudden
(650)857-7572 |usurpations.
| James Madison
http://www.kirshenbaum.net/
Raymond O'Hara
"Maria C." <non...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:VwLek.17672$Ri.1...@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com...
> Heard today on Fox News:
>
> 1. Unfortunate phrasing regarding a body found on top of a train: "The
> pieces are just coming together on this story."
It's Faux News the "pun" was probabaly intentional, good taste in not one of
their failings
R H Draney
>
>"Maria C." <non...@sbcglobal.net> writes:
>
>> 2. Regarding another story "There's been a lot of pushback." From
>> context, I'd say "pushback" was used to indicate negative
>> reaction. Have you heard this usage before? It was new to me.
>
>The OED only cites it to 1979:
>
> 1979 R. BOLTON People Skills x. 160 We have a special phrase that
> we use to describe an assertion and the predictable defensive
> response to it. We call it the 'push-push back
> phenomenon'... In response to that push there is an almost
> inevitable 'push back'.
>
>They define it as
>
> orig. and chiefly U.S. Resistance, disagreement; adverse reaction,
> negative feedback.
>
>I can't vouch for it being any older, but I've probably known it
>nearly that long if not longer.
Ever wrestle with a cat?...I used to press the palm of my hand against Yang's
forehead, with one of his ears between my thumb and forefinger and the other
between ring finger and pinky...cats are very tactile creatures, and will push
back against such an attack with far greater force than Newton's merely "equal
and opposite reaction"....
As long as they realize it's a game, it's great fun and exercise for the cat,
but if they mistake it for a serious assault, prepare to have your forearm
heavily slashed....r
--
What good is being an executive if you never get to execute anyone?
Maria C.
> Maria C. wrote:
>> Heard today on Fox News:
>>
>> 1. Unfortunate phrasing regarding a body found on top of a train:
>> "The pieces are just coming together on this story."
>
> It's Faux News
It's "Fox." And the 'x' is pronounced. "Faux" is not funny to me when I
hear it (and I've heard it a time or two, which is more than enough),
though it's lamely amusing when in print -- the first time. This wasn't
the first time.
> ...the "pun" was probabaly intentional, good taste in not
> one of their failings.
I heard it; did you? As far as I can tell, it wasn't a pun at all, and
wasn't intentional. Get a grip, Ray.
Also, I would have put an "and" in front of "good taste...". Without it,
what we have in your post is a run-on sentence*. (Never mind the typo of
"in" for "is"; I've made many that were worse.)
*In American English, of course.
--
Maria C.
Glenn Knickerbocker
> The OED only cites it to 1979:
That sounds about right to me. I started hearing it at IBM 5-10 years
later.
ŹR
mm
wrote:
>Heard today on Fox News:
It's been common in the last two weeks. It was probably used among
politicians before that, but the so-called news reporters and
commentators have gotten infatuated with it.
The obvious meaning of the word is not just negative reaction, but
affirmative efforts to counter something. Giving interviews where one
says something else, running ads where one contradicts it or gives an
alternative, spreading lies**.
**Spreading lies is only affirmative in that someone did more than
react at the time. Other than that, they're negative, and you're going
to hear a lot of lies in the next five months, especially against
Obama.
If you are inclined to email me
for some reason, remove NOPSAM :-)
mm
wrote:
>Raymond O'Hara wrote:
>> Maria C. wrote:
>
>>> Heard today on Fox News:
>>>
>>> 1. Unfortunate phrasing regarding a body found on top of a train:
>>> "The pieces are just coming together on this story."
>>
>> It's Faux News
>
>It's "Fox." And the 'x' is pronounced. "Faux" is not funny to me when I
>hear it (and I've heard it a time or two, which is more than enough),
>though it's lamely amusing when in print -- the first time. This wasn't
>the first time.
Well, I've heard a lot of bad things about Fox news. I get two Fox tv
stations but they only have local news I think, plus their Sunday
morning show on which some of the staff was biased some, but they had
Juan Williams to even it out. So I was neutral on them.
Then at the end of last October, I was somehwere with cable, and on
the Fox News channel, they were discussing waterboarding, big in the
news at that time.
They said they were going to test and see what it was like.
So they had one of their staff be waterboarded. He said it wasn't
that bad.
But this is how they did it. AFAICT, he wasn't blindfolded, his hands
and legs weren't tied. The room was fully lit. He hadn't been slapped
around first. The room had quite a few of his co-workers, his
friends, in it. They put him on the board, put the towel or some
cloth over his face or part of it, and poured water over his face.
It didn't last on tv more than a minute or two, but maybe it lasted
longer than what they showed. Afterwards, he said it wasn't so bad.
It seemed like a skit from Saturday Night Live. It was pitiful.
IIRC our own army in 1898 thought waterboarding was improper and
unpermissiable, but because they like the Republican administration,
they attempted to whitewash it.
I see they didn't get their reputation as unfair and distorted for
nothing.
Maria C.
1898? That's possible, of course, but I want to know if you made a typo
on the date.
Note:
In 1898, there was a Republican President. (McKinley)
In 1988, there was a Republican President (Reagan)
In 1989, there was a Republican President. (Bush the Elder)
In 1998, there was a Democratic President. (Clinton)
> ....thought waterboarding was improper and
> unpermissiable, but because they like the Republican administration,
> they attempted to whitewash it.
"They" being who? (Whichever date it was, what is/was the story on why
they {the Congress? The White House? The DoD?} discussed waterboarding?
>
> I see they didn't get their reputation as unfair and distorted for
> nothing.
Au contraire, if your experience is typical. If I understood you right,
you watched one thing* that you thought was a distortion, and the matter
was settled for you -- even though you say that the whole waterboarding
thing may not have been shown.
*Note that you mentioned being neutral about the Sunday Morning show on
Fox.
By the way, you mentioned Juan Williams. It might upset you now to learn
that he is not in favor of Obama becoming President. Is he, therefore,
biased?
Final note: The election won't be until November. I hope we (the
American voters) will all make a point to learn as much as possible
about the contenders between now and then. That will surely involve
watching more than one channel (I do that, despite my defense of
FoxNews) and reading more than one newspaper/newsmagazine.
--
Maria C.
Maria C.
>
> **Spreading lies is only affirmative in that someone did more than
> react at the time. Other than that, they're negative, and you're going
> to hear a lot of lies in the next five months, especially against
> Obama.
It is regrettable but most likely true that there will be lies in the
campaign. Why should this campaign differ from past ones? But note, mm,
that it cuts both ways. Lies will be told about each of the candidates,
not just about Obama and not "especially" about Obama. Lies will be
spread about McCain, as well.
--
Maria C.
Garrett Wollman
Maria C. <non...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Final note: The election won't be until November. I hope we (the
>American voters) will all make a point to learn as much as possible
>about the contenders between now and then.
I suspect there are many people whose minds are already firmly made up
(some of them, indeed, were made up almost eight years ago). ObAUE:
pollsters talk about "the undecideds" or even (mass noun) "the
undecided" frequently, but I don't think I've ever heard anyone talk
about "the decideds" or "the decided". So I suppose "undecided [n.]"
would fit in that category of words for which there is no direct
antonym in common use, despite having a seemingly negative form
(compare inert/*ert).
-GAWollman
--
Garrett A. Wollman | The real tragedy of human existence is not that we are
wol...@csail.mit.edu| nasty by nature, but that a cruel structural asymmetry
Opinions not those | grants to rare events of meanness such power to shape
of MIT or CSAIL. | our history. - S.J. Gould, Ten Thousand Acts of Kindness
Garrett Wollman
Maria C. <non...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>Lies will be told about each of the candidates, not just about Obama
>and not "especially" about Obama. Lies will be spread about McCain,
>as well.
You think? McCain seems to be the sort of person who is difficult to
defame. (But in a beneficial way -- people don't tend to believe
negative stories about him even when they're true, so it's hard to
imagine intentionally defamatory statements about him having any
traction. I don't think that will help him get elected, FWIW, but
it's not for nothing that he has spent the last twelve years
cultivating among the press a reputation as a "maverick" but "straight
shooting" "moderate" Republican.[1])
-GAWollman
[1] "Straight shooting" is the only one of those epithets that is
actually justified by the record. Andy Tanenbaum did a nice summary
on his site, early in the primary season, of the various political
advocacy groups' ratings of each of the candidates, and by that
standard McCain is squarely in the middle of the Republican party --
i.e., quite conservative -- and well to the right of many of his
Republican Senate colleagues.[2]
[2] ObAUE: I initially wrote "Senate Republican colleagues" but that
sounded wrong. Yet for other values of X, "Senate Republican X"
sounds correct (e.g., X = "Whips"). I wonder why this should be.
Maria C.
> In article <bwbfk.18061$N87....@nlpi068.nbdc.sbc.com>,
> Maria C. <non...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>> Final note: The election won't be until November. I hope we (the
>> American voters) will all make a point to learn as much as possible
>> about the contenders between now and then.
>
> I suspect there are many people whose minds are already firmly made up
> (some of them, indeed, were made up almost eight years ago).
Right now, I suppose I'd vote for McCain, but anything can happen. And,
come to think of it, McCain and Obama have not been formally, officially
nominated. It's almost certain they will be, of course, but again --
anything can happen. (For one thing, they may win or lose some backers
solely because of their choice of VP.)
ObAUE:
> pollsters talk about "the undecideds" or even (mass noun) "the
> undecided" frequently, but I don't think I've ever heard anyone talk
> about "the decideds" or "the decided". So I suppose "undecided [n.]"
> would fit in that category of words for which there is no direct
> antonym in common use, despite having a seemingly negative form
> (compare inert/*ert).
Hmm. I never thought about that. Interesting. I'll have to listen
carefully to see what terms are used a lot for the "not undecided."
Maria C.
Remember: Friends come and go, but enemies accumulate. [Unknown]
Richard Maurer
I suspect there are many people whose minds
are already firmly made up (some of them, indeed,
were made up almost eight years ago).
Indeed, The middle-of-the road is narrow, and mainly
made up of people who will consider the other candidate,
even if they know they probably won't vote for such.
I just heard John McCain on the radio and he sounds
just like George Bush. The politics too, I suppose,
but I mean the voice. I wonder if he sounded like that
8 years ago, or if he just wanted to sound presidential.
He has got it down, including the wheedling,
almost whining aspect.
-- ---------------------------------------------
Richard Maurer To reply, remove half
Sunnyvale, California of a homonym of a synonym for also.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
mm
wrote:
>mm wrote, in part:
Maybe, but don't imagine that the amount will be the same. It's not
true that all people are as honest as all other people, or that all
groups are as honest as all other groups. The same people who
spread lies about McCain in 2000, and more, will be spreading lies
about Obama this year. They've already started. What lies have you
heard about McCain? Do they compare to the ones already being
circulated about Obama.
mm
wrote:
>mm wrote:
No typo. It was during the Spanish-American war. Although I may be
off by 3 years.
>Note:
>In 1898, there was a Republican President. (McKinley)
>In 1988, there was a Republican President (Reagan)
>In 1989, there was a Republican President. (Bush the Elder)
>In 1998, there was a Democratic President. (Clinton)
Other than the year I meant, your first line, these years you have
chosen have nothing to do with what I said. And the Republican Party
of 1898 had little in common with this years, especially on the issues
that are most prominent.
And what difference could any of this make? I'm talking about a
pro-torture President in the White House now and a network that
supports him, now.
>> ....thought waterboarding was improper and
>> unpermissiable, but because they like the Republican administration,
>> they attempted to whitewash it.
>
>"They" being who?
Fox News, the ones who ran that "test" of waterboarding that looked
like a satire, but wasn't.
>(Whichever date it was, what is/was the story on why
>they {the Congress? The White House? The DoD?} discussed waterboarding?
>>
>> I see they didn't get their reputation as unfair and distorted for
>> nothing.
>
>Au contraire, if your experience is typical. If I understood you right,
>you watched one thing* that you thought was a distortion, and the matter
>was settled for you -- even though you say that the whole waterboarding
>thing may not have been shown.
It may have all been shown, and what was shown were more than enough.
A) Say you know of a man that many people say has hit his wife. But
you didn't see it. Then one day, you see him calm and collected one
minute, then hitting her with his fists until she bleeds, with a can
of food, whipping her, pushing her down, kicking her in the belly and
in the face. Do you need more than that one incident to conclude the
people who said he hit his wife are accurat?
The waterboarding farce I saw was equivalent in level of bias to the
level of violence in my example.
>*Note that you mentioned being neutral about the Sunday Morning show on
>Fox.
>
>By the way, you mentioned Juan Williams. It might upset you now to learn
>that he is not in favor of Obama becoming President. Is he, therefore,
>biased?
No. I don't see any parallel at all.
>
>Final note: The election won't be until November. I hope we (the
>American voters) will all make a point to learn as much as possible
>about the contenders between now and then. That will surely involve
>watching more than one channel (I do that, despite my defense of
>FoxNews) and reading more than one newspaper/newsmagazine.
Almost all the TV news is bad. For one example, many of their
reporters, news readers and commentators say things like "President
Bush believes" or "Barack Obama feels" and use lots of other such
verbs about lots of people, when all the reporters know is what people
do and what they say. They have no idea how they think or feel.
They're not mind readers, and when they say that someone believes
something, based on what that person says, they're endorsing his
truthfulness.
That's equivalent to a lie because they don't know when he's being
truthful and when he's not.
This a problem not merely with using these verbs, but if they really
understood the role of the news, and how to report (whether as part of
the news business or in any part of one's life) they wouldn't be able
to bet the words out of their mouths, So-and-so believes.
Maria C.
[...]
I give up. There's no way we can talk about this. I believe your mind is
made up and you apparently don't see anything wrong with your decision.
I do. (And I wouldn't be surprised if you were to say the same thing to
me.
--
Maria C.
mm
wrote:
>mm wrote:
>> Then at the end of last October, I was somehwere with cable, and on
>> the Fox News channel, they were discussing waterboarding, big in the
>> news at that time.
>>
>> They said they were going to test and see what it was like.
>>
>> So they had one of their staff be waterboarded. He said it wasn't
>> that bad.
>>
>> But this is how they did it. AFAICT, he wasn't blindfolded, his hands
>> and legs weren't tied. The room was fully lit. He hadn't been slapped
>> around first. The room had quite a few of his co-workers, his
>> friends, in it. They put him on the board, put the towel or some
>> cloth over his face or part of it, and poured water over his face.
>>
>> It didn't last on tv more than a minute or two, but maybe it lasted
>> longer than what they showed. Afterwards, he said it wasn't so bad.
>> It seemed like a skit from Saturday Night Live. It was pitiful.
>>
>> IIRC our own army in 1898
>
>1898? That's possible, of course, but I want to know if you made a typo
>on the date.
I posted without finishing my reply. Sorry.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=15886834
Waterboarding reached the U.S. via a circuitous route. The Spanish
exported the practice to the Philippines, which they colonized for
centuries. It was then adapted by U.S. forces there at the start of
the 20th century and, eventually, adopted by some police forces in the
U.S.
During the Spanish-American War, a U.S. soldier, Major Edwin Glenn,
was suspended from command for one month and fined $50 for using "the
water cure." In his review, the Army judge advocate said the charges
constituted "resort to torture with a view to extort a confession." He
recommended disapproval because "the United States cannot afford to
sanction the addition of torture."
Yet President Theodore Roosevelt defended the practice. "The enlisted
men began to use the old Filipino method: the water cure," he wrote in
a 1902 letter. "Nobody was seriously damaged."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/11/02/AR2007110201170_pf.html
. As far back as the U.S. occupation of the Philippines after the 1898
Spanish-American War, U.S. soldiers were court-martialed for using the
"water cure" to question Filipino guerrillas.
http://209.85.215.104/search?q=cache:iQxP3TLgvzgJ:en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterboarding+waterboarding+'spanish+american+war'&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=9&gl=us&lr=lang_en%7Clang_iw%7Clang_es&client=firefox-a
After the Spanish American War of 1898 in the Philippines, the US Army
used waterboarding which was called the “water cure” or “Chinese water
torture.” at the time. Major Edwin Glenn was court martialed and
sentenced to 10 years hard labor for waterboarding a suspected
insurgent.[42] President Theodore Roosevelt ordered the court-martial
of the American General on the island of Samar for allowing his troops
to waterboard. When the court-martial found only that he had acted
with excessive zeal, Roosevelt disregarded the verdict and had the
General dismissed from the Army.[43][44]
It's interesting how this one seems to be at odds with the first one
wrt Pres. Roosevelt.
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Investigation/story?id=1356870
Water boarding was designated as illegal by U.S. generals in Vietnam
40 years ago. A photograph that appeared in The Washington Post of a
U.S. soldier involved in water boarding a North Vietnamese prisoner in
1968 led to that soldier's severe punishment.
"The soldier who participated in water torture in January 1968 was
court-martialed within one month after the photos appeared in The
Washington Post, and he was drummed out of the Army," recounted Darius
Rejali, a political science professor at Reed College.
Earlier in 1901, the United States had taken a similar stand against
water boarding during the Spanish-American War when an Army major was
sentenced to 10 years of hard labor for water boarding an insurgent in
the Philippines.
"Even when you're fighting against belligerents who don't respect the
laws of war, we are obliged to hold the laws of war," said Rejali.
"And water torture is torture."
Maria C.
> Maria C. wrote:
>> mm wrote, in part:
>>>
>>> **Spreading lies is only affirmative in that someone did more than
>>> react at the time. Other than that, they're negative, and you're
>>> going to hear a lot of lies in the next five months, especially
>>> against Obama.
>>
>> It is regrettable but most likely true that there will be lies in the
>> campaign. Why should this campaign differ from past ones? But note,
>> mm, that it cuts both ways. Lies will be told about each of the
>> candidates, not just about Obama and not "especially" about Obama.
>> Lies will be spread about McCain, as well.
>
> Maybe, but don't imagine that the amount will be the same.
Perhaps the amount will be greater. You just never know.
> .......It's not
> true that all people are as honest as all other people, or that all
> groups are as honest as all other groups.
Did I say that?
> ......The same people who
> spread lies about McCain in 2000, and more, will be spreading lies
> about Obama this year. They've already started. What lies have you
> heard about McCain? Do they compare to the ones already being
> circulated about Obama.
I'm surprised you ask what lies are being spread about McCain -- surely
you've heard a few things. Or do you believe everything said is true?
One thing I've heard recently is that the torture he underwent in
Vietman was not as bad as he says it was. Do you think that's true?
But the season is just beginning. I really do believe that lies (and
innuendos and "suggestions") about the opposition are a given in just
about any election -- and factions of both parties are the culprits. I'm
not fond of those factions no matter which party they're from. I also
don't see the practice ending any time soon.
Maria C.
Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for. [Will
Rogers]
I3
Even more unfortunate: Zimbabwe inflation now at 2.2-million percent!
Amethyst Deceiver
says...
> mm wrote:
[snip]
> > "Even when you're fighting against belligerents who don't respect the
> > laws of war, we are obliged to hold the laws of war," said Rejali.
> > "And water torture is torture."
> >
>
> Even more unfortunate: Zimbabwe inflation now at 2.2-million percent!
>
89 lines, only one of which was new text. Please remember to trim when
quoting, thanks.
--
Linz
Wet Yorks via Cambridge, York, London and Watford
My accent may vary
JimboCat
"Funston's example has bred many imitators, and many ghastly additions
to our history: the torturing of Filipinos by the awful "water-cure,"
for instance, to make them confess--what? Truth? Or lies? How can one
know which it is they are telling? For under unendurable pain a man
confesses anything that is required of him, true or false, and his
evidence is worthless. Yet upon such evidence American officers have
actually--but you know about those atrocities which the War Office has
been hiding a year or two..." -- Mark Twain, 1902
So I think it was not a typo on the date...
Jim Deutch (JimboCat)
--
"Terrorism is a tactic, not an enemy." -- James Kuyper
mm
wrote:
>mm wrote:
>> Maria C. wrote:
>>> mm wrote, in part:
>>>>
>>>> **Spreading lies is only affirmative in that someone did more than
>>>> react at the time. Other than that, they're negative, and you're
>>>> going to hear a lot of lies in the next five months, especially
>>>> against Obama.
>>>
>>> It is regrettable but most likely true that there will be lies in the
>>> campaign. Why should this campaign differ from past ones? But note,
>>> mm, that it cuts both ways. Lies will be told about each of the
>>> candidates, not just about Obama and not "especially" about Obama.
>>> Lies will be spread about McCain, as well.
>>
>> Maybe, but don't imagine that the amount will be the same.
>
>Perhaps the amount will be greater. You just never know.
>
>> .......It's not
>> true that all people are as honest as all other people, or that all
>> groups are as honest as all other groups.
>
>Did I say that?
No. But in area related to what you said, it seems to be the
underlying assumption. That if Republicans and their supporter lied X
amount then the Democrats and their supporters must have also lied X
amount.
>> ......The same people who
>> spread lies about McCain in 2000, and more, will be spreading lies
>> about Obama this year. They've already started. What lies have you
>> heard about McCain? Do they compare to the ones already being
>> circulated about Obama.
>
>I'm surprised you ask what lies are being spread about McCain -- surely
>you've heard a few things.
I don't think so. Only about his position on issues and while even
some of those statements descibing his positions might be lies, none
would make him look disgraceful or unAmerican, which are the kind of
lies being told about Obama, and which were told about McCain 8 years
ago.
While I don't at all** consider McCain or Bush's proposals for illegal
immigrants to be amnesty, I don't consider calling them amnesty to be
a lie. Well, maybe -- a suitable topic for an English usage
discussion -- but not a lie of the sort I meant before.
>Or do you believe everything said is true?
>One thing I've heard recently is that the torture he underwent in
>Vietman was not as bad as he says it was. Do you think that's true?
I hadn't heard that until just now, here.
I don't even know how bad he said it was.
I know he holds one arm bent all the time, and I thought maybe he
couldn't use it at all, but later I saw him use it. And I recently
heard that he can't lift his arms above his shoulders.
>But the season is just beginning. I really do believe that lies (and
>innuendos and "suggestions") about the opposition are a given in just
>about any election -- and factions of both parties are the culprits. I'm
>not fond of those factions no matter which party they're from. I also
>don't see the practice ending any time soon.
Look at the fact that Air America isn't as popular as the many
conservative talk shows. I have heard a couple conservative talk
shows that are ok and interesting. One was at 8 in the morning, maybe
on WCBM, and was titled the A & B show, but I don't remember their
names. And the other might have been conservaative, was about 4 in
the morning ET, and was A & the Judge. I haven't heard much of
either of these because I'm rarely listeing to the radio at that hour,
or I listen to something else. But they were ok.
All of the rest of the Con. shows I've heard were full of name
calling, name mutilation (as if that proved something), making points
with tone of voice which would be false if made with words, phony
arguments, and various other tricks.
OTOH, on Air America there was Randi Rhodes, who was somewhat like
that (I haven't noticed that any others were), but from a Dem. pov,
and I stopped listening to her. And most other Dems dont' listen to
her either.
I have a Con friend who used to send me and several other of his
friends emails. One of them had about 16 short stories, and I was able
to check out 7 of them sufficiently to find that those 7 were lies.
In some cases, the liar had reversed the names, blaming the non-con
for what the con had done. I can't find it now, but one was about
Oliver North and iirc the fence around his house. I was working on
checking out the other 9, but got distracted.
I think we Dems lap up neither the insults nor the lies as easily as
the Cons do.
>Maria C.
>Be thankful we're not getting all the government we're paying for. [Will
>Rogers]
I'm opposed to too much power to the goverment too. Recently I was
the only one at the Baltimore City council hearing speaking to oppose
their bill to ban trans-fat at restaurants.
But each issue has to be looked at separately.