Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
If you’re feeling queasy, look away now. The New York Times scales new heights of sycophancy in its report of the White House state dinner last night, which by their account was the most charming, imaginative, glittering – yet tasteful! – social event since Jackie Kennedy was Queen of Camelot. Indeed, it may even have surpassed Jackie’s standards, since Barack and Michelle added a deeply appropriate and thoughtful element of multiculturalism to the glamorous proceedings. And the decorative magnolia branches, I’m relieved to report, were “sustainably harvested”.
The story was a little flowery, but sycophants? It was a report. It described the event. I'm at a loss as to what the author sees in that story to call it "new heights of sycophancy." The author probably should have a sick-bag at the ready, as he was obviously drunk when he wrote it.
The story was a little flowery, but sycophants? It was a report. It described the event. I'm at a loss as to what the author sees in that story to call it "new heights of sycophancy." The author probably should have a sick-bag at the ready, as he was obviously drunk when he wrote it.
To say it was a little flowery is like saying a Rolls Royce is a little fancy. This level of writing goes beyond describing a fancy dinner party and into the relm of being a full blown lap dog for the president complete with brown stains on the nose and lips.
To say it was a little flowery is like saying a Rolls Royce is a little fancy. This level of writing goes beyond describing a fancy dinner party and into the relm of being a full blown lap dog for the president complete with brown stains on the nose and lips.
That's your opinion. Perhaps your opinion is biased. The Times report is garden variety. It reported facts. Please explain to me how reporting facts is seen as "new heights of sycophancy?"
Just point out what you're seeing, 'cause I ain't seeing it.
Last edited by nvxplorer; 11-27-2009 at 05:33 AM..
If you’re feeling queasy, look away now. The New York Times scales new heights of sycophancy in its report of the White House state dinner last night, which by their account was the most charming, imaginative, glittering – yet tasteful! – social event since Jackie Kennedy was Queen of Camelot. Indeed, it may even have surpassed Jackie’s standards, since Barack and Michelle added a deeply appropriate and thoughtful element of multiculturalism to the glamorous proceedings. And the decorative magnolia branches, I’m relieved to report, were “sustainably harvested”.
I doubt you would see any thing else from the NY times which is still loss in Camelot fraud of the JFK era.But we hoiw know what they didn;t report then;don't we about even the idea marriage he had.He tuend out to be the poster child for cheating husbands.
Another thread for the CD Joke Wall. Social events at the White House, and particularly state dinners, are routinely reported in such detail by the media and have been since long before anyone can remember.
Quality control over at the faux-outrage manufacturing plant really should have flagged this story...it's a little too ridiculous even by their own very low standards...
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,389,283 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by texdav
I doubt you would see any thing else from the NY times which is still loss in Camelot fraud of the JFK era.But we hoiw know what they didn;t report then;don't we about even the idea marriage he had.He tuend out to be the poster child for cheating husbands.
Uh, look again. The mention of Camelot appears to be the mention of the Brit blogger, not the NY Times.
Why not save yourself some time and effort, instead of searching out blather by Brit bloggers why not just a simple post saying everything Obama does is wrong?
Mrs. Obama made a splash by showcasing deep, rich colors — apple green for the tablecloths and varying shades of plum, purple and fuchsia in the hydrangea, roses and sweet peas in the centerpieces.
With so many people suffering right now, I think it sucks that the media glamorizes this crap. I realize that it has been done for decades, but it is time for it to stop.
With so many people suffering right now, I think it sucks that the media glamorizes this crap. I realize that it has been done for decades, but it is time for it to stop.
Describing a color scheme is not glamorizing.
There's also that little fact of life that there will always be people suffering. Should we all live like paupers because people are always suffering? I've never understood such a line of reasoning.
Why? Is Newsweek going to put a picture of Hillary Clinton in a sexy outfit to counter the Palin photo?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
