OT: Obama photo causes huge stir

Bill Sornson

Eric Vey wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> What percentage of Americans saw or heard about this photo? 1%? Maybe
>> 2%? Huge stir...right! LOL
>>
>>
>
> You could say the same thing if (when) it appears in the NYT. Who
> reads anymore?

If it gets a whole lot of attention, that can be construed a "huge stir".
(More accurately, "lots of attention".)

You were the OP in this thread, and what you titled it is total horseshit.
Just thought you might want to be more careful and truthful in the future.

My bad.

HTH!

Bill Sornson

Eric Vey wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Eric Vey wrote:
>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>> What percentage of Americans saw or heard about this photo? 1%?
>>>> Maybe 2%? Huge stir...right! LOL
>>>>
>>>>
>>> You could say the same thing if (when) it appears in the NYT. Who
>>> reads anymore?
>>
>> If it gets a whole lot of attention, that can be construed a "huge
>> stir". (More accurately, "lots of attention".)
>>
>> You were the OP in this thread, and what you titled it is total
>> horseshit. Just thought you might want to be more careful and
>> truthful in the future. My bad.
>>
>> HTH!
>>
>>
>
> I guess I need numbers from you:
> 1. How many newspaper articles does it take to qualify as a "stir" as
> opposed as a "huge stir"?
> 2. How about "fuss"?
> 3. "Controversy"?
>
> 4. Do Blogs count? How about "Obscure Ones?"
> 5. Should I submit a list of the blogs in advance so that you can
> decide which ones are "obscure"?
>
> 6. Do magazines count?
> 7. Even Pinko ones, like New Republic and Newsweek?
> 8. Please list which ones you approve of.
>
>
> I just want to make sure that I title correctly in the future.

Again, when hardly anyone knows about a photo and even less have actually
seen it, it's patently ridiculous to claim that "Obama photo causes huge
stir".

HTH!

Ron Ruff

On Jun 12, 7:10*am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
> "Ron Ruff" <rruffrr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> > This is the point you keep missing... they don't own ANYTHING except a
> > debt on something that is worth far less than they paid for it.
>
> Tell me Ron, do you want to tell people who are buying a house and are still
> ahead of the game that they were being screwed by buying a house for a
> smaller down payment and longer payments?

Yes they are. It is the smaller down payment and longer payment (and
low interest rates and loose lending) that has caused the price of RE
to skyrocket... so in the end their payments are the same as they
would have been before... only now they get to pay for a longer time.
The price of RE can't go up if people can't somehow get a loan to buy
it. Making it easier for people to get loans just throws gas on the
fire of high prices... and creates a financial crisis as well. Is
someone "ahead of the game" just because they can manage to make the
payments on a property that is over-inflated in price?

> So let me see - you live in a place where you don't have to be rich in order
> to own property and a home and you're telling ME that people who want to own
> homes here shouldn't? Or, wait, that the hoops that they have to jump
> through in order to own homes are too high?

I moved away from a place where you needed to be rich to own property.
A property that you could rent for $2k a month would have cost $4k a
month in payments to buy... looked like a specualtive bubble to me.

Eric Vey

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Eric Vey wrote:
>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>> Eric Vey wrote:
>>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>>> What percentage of Americans saw or heard about this photo? 1%?
>>>>> Maybe 2%? Huge stir...right! LOL
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> You could say the same thing if (when) it appears in the NYT. Who
>>>> reads anymore?
>>> If it gets a whole lot of attention, that can be construed a "huge
>>> stir". (More accurately, "lots of attention".)
>>>
>>> You were the OP in this thread, and what you titled it is total
>>> horseshit. Just thought you might want to be more careful and
>>> truthful in the future. My bad.
>>>
>>> HTH!
>>>
>>>
>> I guess I need numbers from you:
>> 1. How many newspaper articles does it take to qualify as a "stir" as
>> opposed as a "huge stir"?
>> 2. How about "fuss"?
>> 3. "Controversy"?
>>
>> 4. Do Blogs count? How about "Obscure Ones?"
>> 5. Should I submit a list of the blogs in advance so that you can
>> decide which ones are "obscure"?
>>
>> 6. Do magazines count?
>> 7. Even Pinko ones, like New Republic and Newsweek?
>> 8. Please list which ones you approve of.
>>
>>
>> I just want to make sure that I title correctly in the future.
>
> Again, when hardly anyone knows about a photo and even less have actually
> seen it, it's patently ridiculous to claim that "Obama photo causes huge
> stir".
>
> HTH!
>
>

There are over 1,500 daily newspapers in the AP system.
Google News counts 115 newspapers (not blogs) carrying the original
story and or photo. If your local newspaper didn't carry it, I'm sorry.
Mine did. You can look at a list of the 115 here:
http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&t...98851&scoring=d

NY Daily News and Fox News Network made snippy comments (why, I don't know)

Echo Chamber Right Wing bloggers also make their own snippy comments.
So far, I think we are up to 40-50 of them.
You complain that these bloggers are "obscure", but you ought to know
that the less obscure ones generally echo the White House and RNC
"talking points" and since the RNC has been mum, so are they.

LA Times blogger notices chatter. You complain that LA Times Blog is
also "obscure."
Not to be outdone, NY Daily News publishes an article about the bloggers
commenting about what THEY started.
Keith Olbermann awards Worst Person Honorable Mention to the Fox News
commenter for his snippy comment.

So please tell me when I can use the word "huge."

Bill Sornson

Eric Vey wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Eric Vey wrote:
>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>> Eric Vey wrote:
>>>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>>>> What percentage of Americans saw or heard about this photo? 1%?
>>>>>> Maybe 2%? Huge stir...right! LOL
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>> You could say the same thing if (when) it appears in the NYT. Who
>>>>> reads anymore?
>>>> If it gets a whole lot of attention, that can be construed a "huge
>>>> stir". (More accurately, "lots of attention".)
>>>>
>>>> You were the OP in this thread, and what you titled it is total
>>>> horseshit. Just thought you might want to be more careful and
>>>> truthful in the future. My bad.
>>>>
>>>> HTH!
>>>>
>>>>
>>> I guess I need numbers from you:
>>> 1. How many newspaper articles does it take to qualify as a "stir"
>>> as opposed as a "huge stir"?
>>> 2. How about "fuss"?
>>> 3. "Controversy"?
>>>
>>> 4. Do Blogs count? How about "Obscure Ones?"
>>> 5. Should I submit a list of the blogs in advance so that you can
>>> decide which ones are "obscure"?
>>>
>>> 6. Do magazines count?
>>> 7. Even Pinko ones, like New Republic and Newsweek?
>>> 8. Please list which ones you approve of.
>>>
>>>
>>> I just want to make sure that I title correctly in the future.
>>
>> Again, when hardly anyone knows about a photo and even less have
>> actually seen it, it's patently ridiculous to claim that "Obama
>> photo causes huge stir".
>>
>> HTH!
>>
>>
>
> There are over 1,500 daily newspapers in the AP system.
> Google News counts 115 newspapers (not blogs) carrying the original
> story and or photo. If your local newspaper didn't carry it, I'm
> sorry. Mine did. You can look at a list of the 115 here:
> http://news.google.com/news?hl=en&t...98851&scoring=d
>
> NY Daily News and Fox News Network made snippy comments (why, I don't
> know)
> Echo Chamber Right Wing bloggers also make their own snippy comments.
> So far, I think we are up to 40-50 of them.
> You complain that these bloggers are "obscure", but you ought to know
> that the less obscure ones generally echo the White House and RNC
> "talking points" and since the RNC has been mum, so are they.
>
> LA Times blogger notices chatter. You complain that LA Times Blog is
> also "obscure."
> Not to be outdone, NY Daily News publishes an article about the
> bloggers commenting about what THEY started.
> Keith Olbermann awards Worst Person Honorable Mention to the Fox News
> commenter for his snippy comment.
>
> So please tell me when I can use the word "huge."

I'll type slowly. Papers and news services run photos all the time. Even
ones that people actually LOOK at don't necessarily cause any reaction
("stir", if you will).

It's clear you had some sort of political point or agenda, or else you'd
have simply posted a link to the pic. (Hey, look, cycling content! Or,
hey. Obama rides a bike!)

Bill "where's the stir?" S.

Eric Vey

Bill Sornson wroteHey, look, cycling content! Or,
> hey. Obama rides a bike!)

I did make a post like that.
On the 9th. The title of that one was OT: Obama engages in "risky" behavior

I will repost it here just for you:

>You can clearly see a car in this photo! That car is too close for at
>least one of the trolls here.

>http://www.boston.com/news/nation/a...e_bicycle_ride/

You must have missed that one and picked up the follow-up post I made
(this one).

My political agenda is that I think that roads should be for all manner
of vehicles, not just cars and trucks, the way you do.

I don't like to see that agenda scorned by the bloggers and I don't like
to see unfair criticism of candidates. For example, swiftboating Kerry,
but ignoring McCain's military transgressions. Where are all those
swiftboat guys that claimed that they "just wanted the truth to come
out" now? Oops, wrong party has the problem candidate.

Jay Beattie

On Jun 12, 8:02*am, Frank Krygowski <frkry...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jun 12, 9:10 am, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote:
>
> > "Ron Ruff" <rruffrr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:e1518f8a-da68-4e2a-a147-7b33b3790edb@8g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > This is the point you keep missing... they don't own ANYTHING except a
> > > debt on something that is worth far less than they paid for it.
>
> > Tell me Ron, do you want to tell people who are buying a house and are still
> > ahead of the game that they were being screwed by buying a house for a
> > smaller down payment and longer payments?
>
> Tom, don't whitewash the speculative lending scams.
>
> http://www.newsweek.com/id/138503

I feel sorry for the borrowers who got scammed -- who were given
adjustible rate or interest only loans and did not know it (hard to
believe with all the TIL disclosures, but I know of people who
actually did not understand the terms of their loans because the
brokers were in such a hurry to make the loan). I don't feel sorry
for the borrowers who knew they were not credit worthy, understood the
terms of the loan and got the loan so they could jump in to the heated
real estate market -- all sins being forgiven when the value of their
property doubled (because all property was destined to double in
price). Those folks gambled and lost, and I don't think they can
complain because someone did not save them from themselves. -- Jay
Beattie.

Tom Kunich

"Eric Vey" <junker@ericvey.com> wrote in message
news:g2rc83$r1v$1@news.datemas.de...
>
> Too lazy to click on the link?

Let me put it this way - I'm not paying a whole lot of attention to anything
you have to write any longer. You made it more than clear that there's
something not quite right about you.

Mike Jacoubowsky

| Be sure and use idiot sources to describe Wallace. No matter what his
| personal feelings might have been, and
| BTW those were never really clear, his actions demonstrated not that he
| wanted and end to desegregation but rather and end to it "overnight" which
| caused huge problems in the USA which we are just now getting over nearly
50
| years later.

Desegregation and the oh-so-evil legislation of thought (as in, you can pass
laws that I have to follow but you can't change the way I think, so they'll
do no good)... what do those have to do with a cycling newsgroup?

But since you brought them up, and made one of the most-outrageous claims
I've heard in years, let me say that desegregation couldn't possibly happen
soon enough. Yes, it was painful. Yes, we had race riots at my
formerly-pure-white high school. Yes, I knew people who said things that
boggled the mind about people whose skin was a different color. Absolutely
shocking things. Every day between when desegregation could have happened
and when it did was, in my mind, criminal.

People would say that you can integrate the schools and pass laws but you
couldn't change the way they think, and that their thinking wasn't going to
change. Well, maybe not. But a funny thing happened. When you made those
changes (integrated the schools and passed the anti-hate laws etc), suddenly
a large number of people were no longer exposed to a daily barrage of
nastiness masquerading as something normal and OK to embrace. So maybe the
parents maintained their beliefs, but the kids began to change. And I think
the kids who were most-directly exposed to the battles desegregation brought
probably came out much better for it. They understood the dynamics of racism
and saw its raw, awful power. Today, racism exists, but to those not
directly in its path, it's more of a concept that they don't really
understand. They know it's wrong, but they really don't understand why or
what the big deal is.

"I draw the line in the dust and toss the gauntlet before the feet of
tyranny, and I say segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation
forever." Who said that Tom? Did some liberal do-gooder make it up in 1963
and attribute it to George Wallace in an attempt to smear him?

Later, in 1982, he said this- "I did stand, with a majority of the white
people, for the separation of the schools. But that was wrong, and that will
never come back again."

There is no evidence that I can find that shows the early version of George
Wallace believed in integration, but not at a fed-mandated timetable.

As for George Wallace being a Democrat- "I am an Alabama Democrat, not a
national Democrat. I'm not kin to those folks. The difference between a
national Democrat and an Alabama Democrat is like the difference between a
Communist and a non-Communist."

Regardless of whether George Wallace honestly believed that segregation was
in the best interest for both whites & blacks, and honestly held no ill will
towards blacks, he was an intelligent man who could see that his words were
being used to legitimize racism.

--Mike-- Chain Reaction Bicycles
www.ChainReactionBicycles.com




"Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo. com> wrote in message
news:rNWdnRyGmtoatMzVnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d@earthlink.com...
| "Eric Vey" <junker@ericvey.com> wrote in message
| news:g2r808$lfc$1@news.datemas.de...
| >
| > Then who voted for Wallace? He did pretty well. Ten million people voted
| > for him. Do you think they were the same people that voted for McGovern
in
| > '72?
|
| Psst - Wallace was a Democrat. When he couldn't be nominated for his party
| he ran under the American Independent Party banner.
|
| Be sure and use idiot sources to describe Wallace. No matter what his
| personal feelings might have been, and
| BTW those were never really clear, his actions demonstrated not that he
| wanted and end to desegregation but rather and end to it "overnight" which
| caused huge problems in the USA which we are just now getting over nearly
50
| years later.
|
| Oh, that's right - you think that we're still in the deepest realms of
| slavery days.
|

John Forrest Tomlinson

On Thu, 12 Jun 2008 23:51:43 -0700, "Mike Jacoubowsky"
<mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

>People would say that you can integrate the schools and pass laws but you
>couldn't change the way they think, and that their thinking wasn't going to
>change. Well, maybe not. But a funny thing happened. When you made those
>changes (integrated the schools and passed the anti-hate laws etc), suddenly
>a large number of people were no longer exposed to a daily barrage of
>nastiness masquerading as something normal and OK to embrace. So maybe the
>parents maintained their beliefs, but the kids began to change.

Well said.

Tom Kunich

"Mike Jacoubowsky" <mikej1@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:4Oo4k.13745$co7.10121@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
>
> Desegregation and the oh-so-evil legislation of thought (as in, you can
> pass
> laws that I have to follow but you can't change the way I think, so
> they'll
> do no good)... what do those have to do with a cycling newsgroup?

Think about the similarities of helmet laws?

But all kidding aside, you and I grew up in California and there was never
the same problem that people in, say, Mississippi saw up close and personal.
And yet when I was in the service the southern blacks and southern whites
got along a WHOLE lot better than their northern counterparts did.

Dan O

On Jun 12, 9:04 am, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:

>
> Again, when hardly anyone knows about a photo and even less have actually
> seen it, it's patently ridiculous to claim that "Obama photo causes huge
> stir".
>
> HTH!

I'd say you've certainly made a pretty huge stir of it here.

Bill Sornson

Dan O wrote:
> On Jun 12, 9:04 am, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>
>>
>> Again, when hardly anyone knows about a photo and even less have
>> actually seen it, it's patently ridiculous to claim that "Obama
>> photo causes huge stir".
>>
>> HTH!
>
> I'd say you've certainly made a pretty huge stir of it here.

A huge stir about a non huge stir?!? Maybe Usenet will implode or
something...

still just me

On Fri, 13 Jun 2008 06:56:31 -0700, "Tom Kunich" <cyclintom@yahoo.
com> wrote:

>
>Think about the similarities of helmet laws?
>
>But all kidding aside, you and I grew up in California and there was never
>the same problem that people in, say, Mississippi saw up close and personal.
>And yet when I was in the service the southern blacks and southern whites
>got along a WHOLE lot better than their northern counterparts did.

'cause them there Southren Negras knewed their place!