TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › And now for the REALLY important news
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

And now for the REALLY important news - Page 2

post #31 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post
Instead of , I keep myself amused by deciding which of these is the most appropriate:
Oo! Oo! Put spots on the tall thin kitty and you have my Coco yelling at me to play with her!

(I don't think this is off topic. Do you? )
post #32 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by mschauer View Post
Oo! Oo! Put spots on the tall thin kitty and you have my Coco yelling at me to play with her!

(I don't think this is off topic. Do you? )
Don't you think the yawning cats could be used for either Jessica Simpson weight gain stories or yet another (couple of) Obama-bashing posts/threads?
post #33 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post
Don't you think the yawning cats could be used for either Jessica Simpson weight gain stories or yet another (couple of) Obama-bashing posts/threads?
Yes. I think yawning kitties are very versitile.
post #34 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by jcat View Post
Don't you think the yawning cats could be used for either Jessica Simpson weight gain stories or yet another (couple of) Obama-bashing posts/threads?
I do indeed think yawns would be the most appropriate response to a large number of recent threads/posts that have attempted to make much ado over nothing.

BTW - This thread started out well enough. It just quickly took a turn to the silly, as has happened all too frequently lately.
post #35 of 52
Wow, so what actually happened is they put the whole JS story over Obama's image from the family! That seems very disrespectful to completely cut him out...

And if anyone watched it, he says "yeah it was hurtful", then you can see him peering at the cover and saying "apparently she's in a weight battle", then saying "oh well" as in "oh well, I got cut out".

This is such a non-story. But you Conservatives read and believe what you want, without looking at the facts, as per usual.
post #36 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarahp View Post
Wow, so what actually happened is they put the whole JS story over Obama's image from the family! That seems very disrespectful to completely cut him out...

And if anyone watched it, he says "yeah it was hurtful", then you can see him peering at the cover and saying "apparently she's in a weight battle", then saying "oh well" as in "oh well, I got cut out".

This is such a non-story. But you Conservatives read and believe what you want, without looking at the facts, as per usual.
Erm, no???? I never saw anything saying he was on the cover???

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/20...t-jessica.html has a pic of the cover, looks like the article is about Michelle as a mom. Doesn't appear to me at all that he's on the side of the magazine where her picture is.

Either way, the editors of the magazine made the decision to put a story about her as well as some other story on the right hand quarter of the front cover. Nothing gives him the right to make a snarky remark. If you don't see it as that, that's fine. I saw it as a cheap shot.
post #37 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
Nothing gives him the right to make a snarky remark. If you don't see it as that, that's fine. I saw it as a cheap shot.
Did you actually look at the video? He was misquoted and did not laugh.
post #38 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
Erm, no???? I never saw anything saying he was on the cover???

http://gatewaypundit.blogspot.com/20...t-jessica.html has a pic of the cover, looks like the article is about Michelle as a mom. Doesn't appear to me at all that he's on the side of the magazine where her picture is.

Either way, the editors of the magazine made the decision to put a story about her as well as some other story on the right hand quarter of the front cover. Nothing gives him the right to make a snarky remark. If you don't see it as that, that's fine. I saw it as a cheap shot.
That's what I mean - you haven't bothered to look at the actual video of it, so until you do, you cannot judge him. How can you see it as a cheap shot when you haven't seen the interview? Because you only read the bits that suit your opinion, you don't bother checking out the whole story.

On the inside on the magazine (as shown in that clip that as posted) is the original photo - and Obama IS in it. He's on the right side of the photo, right where on the front cover the JS story is - they put that story right over him.
post #39 of 52
And that link you posted - did you read it?

the first thing it says after the picture:

LAUER: And here’s a great picture — (This is where he shows Obama the photo of the whole family on the inside pages)

OBAMA: Oh, it’s beautiful.

LAUER: — of — of you and — and Michelle and — and your daughters. Now, the — the reason I bring this up I think is funny. It’s a great picture.

OBAMA: Yeah.

LAUER: But I wanna show you the cover. Look what they did. They — they took you off the cover. (This is where he shows Obama the front cover which is the same pic, but with Obama cut out)

OBAMA: Yeah.

LAUER: They took you out of it.
post #40 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by sarahp View Post
And that link you posted - did you read it?

the first thing it says after the picture:

LAUER: And here’s a great picture — (This is where he shows Obama the photo of the whole family on the inside pages)

OBAMA: Oh, it’s beautiful.

LAUER: — of — of you and — and Michelle and — and your daughters. Now, the — the reason I bring this up I think is funny. It’s a great picture.

OBAMA: Yeah.

LAUER: But I wanna show you the cover. Look what they did. They — they took you off the cover. (This is where he shows Obama the front cover which is the same pic, but with Obama cut out)

OBAMA: Yeah.

LAUER: They took you out of it.
Hey, I didn't start the thread.

I still say snarky comment. IMO. I don't need to see the video again and again, I watched it on tv already. Snarky.
post #41 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
Hey, I didn't start the thread.

I still say snarky comment. IMO. I don't need to see the video again and again, I watched it on tv already. Snarky.
What did he say that was "snarky?"
post #42 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockcat View Post
What did he say that was "snarky?"
I think it is all subjective - if you like Obama it was not snarky, if you don't like Obama anything he does/says/looks like/acts like is going to be wrong no matter what so it's really a moot point. It's all in the interpretation.
post #43 of 52
This really is not that big a deal, more of a tasteless remark of Barack's I guess.

But, posters saying all the threads posted lately are silly, well I don't think the seriousness of this economy or Barack's poor choices to important positions in his administration is "silly".

I have looked on it more as, many of the Obama supporters here are not to thrilled about the Spending Bill either.

I aslo am not the OP of the thread.
post #44 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
I think it is all subjective - if you like Obama it was not snarky, if you don't like Obama anything he does/says/looks like/acts like is going to be wrong no matter what so it's really a moot point. It's all in the interpretation.
The reason I asked is Obama was misquoted in the transcript posted by NBC. He never said she was "losing" a weight battle. I am wondering if neetanddave still thinks that what he said.
post #45 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockcat View Post
The reason I asked is Obama was misquoted in the transcript posted by NBC. He never said she was "losing" a weight battle. I am wondering if neetanddave still thinks that what he said.
I repeat - it's all a matter of personal interpretation and whether you like Obama or not. Anything he says or does can and will probably be distorted and taken out of context to prove or disprove whatever point is trying to be made. This is IMO after all and each and every one of us will have our own opinion. That opinion is just that - an opinion. It is not necessarily fact nor is it always based on fact. Often it is based on our own personal history, background, environment, teachings we received from our own elders and a myriad of other factors that make each of us unique. We can each read the same document and interpret it many ways.

I've been married to hubby for 31 years and even now we can both hear the same conversation and interpret it almost entirely reversed to what the other person heard. He's sure he heard it correctly and that I didn't so I just smile and nod. It's important for him to be "right" whereas I'm pretty OK with letting him have that little thrill of victory.
post #46 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by ckblv View Post
This really is not that big a deal, more of a tasteless remark of Barack's I guess.

But, posters saying all the threads posted lately are silly, well I don't think the seriousness of this economy or Barack's poor choices to important positions in his administration is "silly".

I have looked on it more as, many of the Obama supporters here are not to thrilled about the Spending Bill either.

I thought the same thing, Cindy. These threads are not excuses for "Obama-bashing" but rather an outlet for people who are truly concerned and worried that the country is being put on the wrong track by the new administration. Unfortunately, some folks will always see any criticism of Obama, no matter how legitimate, as bashing.

And yeah, I don't see much more than lukewarm support from Obama supporters for the Spending bill either.

I also agree that the subject matter of this thread is in the category of "much ado about nothing".
post #47 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
I repeat - it's all a matter of personal interpretation and whether you like Obama or not. Anything he says or does can and will probably be distorted and taken out of context to prove or disprove whatever point is trying to be made. This is IMO after all and each and every one of us will have our own opinion. That opinion is just that - an opinion. It is not necessarily fact nor is it always based on fact. Often it is based on our own personal history, background, environment, teachings we received from our own elders and a myriad of other factors that make each of us unique. We can each read the same document and interpret it many ways.

I've been married to hubby for 31 years and even now we can both hear the same conversation and interpret it almost entirely reversed to what the other person heard. He's sure he heard it correctly and that I didn't so I just smile and nod. It's important for him to be "right" whereas I'm pretty OK with letting him have that little thrill of victory.
I heard you the first 2 times. I do know what you mean and I agree with you. I know that people will interpret things the way they want.

I still want to know if Neet realizes that the quote he first responded to is incorrect.
post #48 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rockcat View Post
I heard you the first 2 times. I do know what you mean and I agree with you. I know that people will interpret things the way they want.

I still want to know if Neet realizes that the quote he first responded to is incorrect.
I believe Neet is female. And her response was probably just her opinion and not necessarily fact so may not be "incorrect" in that context.
post #49 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
I believe Neet is female. And her response was probably just her opinion and not necessarily fact so may not be "incorrect" in that context.
Thank you, you are correct.

IMO it's no different than him dragging Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity into his speeches. They're private citizens. As is Jessica Simpson.

It's like your boss making a comment to another employee about you. Out of line for someone in a supervisory role.
post #50 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by neetanddave View Post
Thank you, you are correct.

IMO it's no different than him dragging Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity into his speeches. They're private citizens. As is Jessica Simpson.

It's like your boss making a comment to another employee about you. Out of line for someone in a supervisory role.
But not everyone sees this in the same way you do so it would not be an out of line comment for some of us.
post #51 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
I believe Neet is female.
Oops! Sorry, Neet!
post #52 of 52
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yosemite View Post
And her response was probably just her opinion and not necessarily fact so may not be "incorrect" in that context.
Although I have a different opinion, I did not say her opinion was incorrect. The quote was incorrect.

If you are trying to say that her opinion won't change even though Obama was misquoted, I agree.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: IMO: In My Opinion
TheCatSite.com › Forums › General Forums › IMO: In My Opinion › And now for the REALLY important news