FireChan Posted February 9, 2017 Posted February 9, 2017 "Give 'em Hell Harry" wasn't pussyfooting around, even in 1950. Can you imagine what social media would have to say about his rant if it were a thing back then? "The President just threatened to maim a self-identifying POC for reporting the truth: My Thoughts and Why I Haven't Been Able To Eat Solid Food Since Election Night."
Tiberius Posted February 9, 2017 Author Posted February 9, 2017 Hey, remember when Obama strong-armed GM's creditors into forgiving their debt? Good thing he set THAT precedent for Trump to follow... That's silly. Apples and moon rocks. You are trying too hard to hang Obama for the sins of this clown in chief we have now
George Posted February 9, 2017 Posted February 9, 2017 Her megaphone got bigger today. There is a chance Democrats wise up, keep her as VP to use a by-then subdued and more moderately spoken Booker as HNIC What EXACTLY, does the acronym HNIC stand for?
Benjamin Franklin Posted February 9, 2017 Posted February 9, 2017 New Presidential Outrage Expressed in Personal Attack on Washington Reporter! Oh, the humanity! THE WHITE HOUSE WASHINGTON Mr. Hume: I've just read your lousy review of (my daughter's) concert. I've come to the conclusion that you are an "eight ulcer man on four ulcer pay." It seems to me that you are a frustrated old man who wishes he could have been successful. When you write such poppy-rooster as was in the back section of the paper you work for it shows conclusively that you're off the beam and at least four of your ulcers are at work. Some day I hope to meet you. When that happens you'll need a new nose, a lot of beefsteak for black eyes, and perhaps a supporter below! Pegler, a gutter snipe, is a gentleman alongside you. I hope you'll accept that statement as a worse insult than a reflection on your ancestry. POTUS Did he publish that for all the world to see?
FireChan Posted February 9, 2017 Posted February 9, 2017 Did he publish that for all the world to see? The guys he sent it to could have.
Tiberius Posted February 9, 2017 Author Posted February 9, 2017 Marshalls and T.J. Maxx have become two of the most popular discount retailers in the country by offering shoppers an ever-changing selection of bargains. But will their latest merchandising move make an enemy out of the president of the United States? The chains may soon find out, after parent company TJX Cos. of Framingham told employees to downgrade the visibility of Ivanka Trump’s clothing and accessories in stores where they previously had their own displays. TJX spokeswoman Erika Towers on Wednesday confirmed that products from the first daughter’s company were being moved onto general merchandise racks. Ivanka Trump in-store signs were to be thrown away https://www.bostonglobe.com/business/2017/02/08/maxx-marshalls-stop-promoting-ivanka-trump-products-stores-but-still-sell-products/rkOPTsN2IAOkCPIh5QyYfI/story.html
Benjamin Franklin Posted February 9, 2017 Posted February 9, 2017 "Give 'em Hell Harry" wasn't pussyfooting around, even in 1950. Can you imagine what social media would have to say about his rant if it were a thing back then? Harry often wrote passionate letters that he didn't send. He had a habit of writing out his emotion, putting the letter in a drawer, then returning to it the next day to see if he should send it. So...his single letter to an individual is not exactly like Trump on Twitter or Trump in front of any audience. The guys he sent it to could have. And that would have been on them. Truman wrote a man a letter from a man. That meant something that the windbag bully Trump couldn't begin to understand. The guys he sent it to could have. And that would have been on them. Truman wrote a man a letter from a man. That meant something that the windbag bully Trump couldn't begin to understand.
Nanker Posted February 9, 2017 Posted February 9, 2017 (edited) Did he publish that for all the world to see? The contents were not kept private for very long. Hume sold it in 1951 for $3,500. Truman got a lot of flack for it. It really is filled with vitriol. It was a different time Ben. You don't think if Twitter were around then that FDR and Truman would have used it? It bottles the mind to think otherwise. ;-) Edited February 9, 2017 by Nanker
FireChan Posted February 9, 2017 Posted February 9, 2017 And that would have been on them. Truman wrote a man a letter from a man. That meant something that the windbag bully Trump couldn't begin to understand. So If Trump sent Nordstrom a Direct Message on Twitter, and Nordstrom published it calling him a bully, you'd say "that's on Nordstrom." C'mon BF.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted February 9, 2017 Posted February 9, 2017 What EXACTLY, does the acronym HNIC stand for? Looks like someone's #raysis feelies went up on that one!
Benjamin Franklin Posted February 9, 2017 Posted February 9, 2017 (edited) The contents were not kept private for very long. Hume sold it in 1951 for $3,500. Truman got a lot of flack for it. It really is filled with vitriol. It was a different time Ben. You don't think if Twitter were around then that FDR and Truman would have used it? It bottles the mind to think otherwise. ;-) Used? Yes of course. Anyone would use it to push their agenda. Used the way Trump uses it? To spew unfiltered ill thought out brain farts? No. So If Trump sent Nordstrom a Direct Message on Twitter, and Nordstrom published it calling him a bully, you'd say "that's on Nordstrom." C'mon BF. When someone sends something private, it's up to the receiver whether to publish it. Trump publicly attacked in the only way a kitty like him can do it. Internet muscles backed with Potus cred. He wanted the bully pulpit to hurt Nordstrom. He didn't privately threaten Tom Nordstrom with a punch in the nose. That would have been a more manly (albeit also retarded) thing to do but we couldn't expect that from Trump. Sorry. I've used up my caring quotient on this particular bit of presidential sophomorish behavior. Edited February 9, 2017 by Benjamin Franklin
FireChan Posted February 9, 2017 Posted February 9, 2017 When someone sends you something private, it's up to the receiver whether to publish it. Trump publicly attacked in the only way a kitty like him can do it. Internet muscles backed with Potus cred. He wanted the bully pulpit to hurt Nordstrom. He didn't privately threaten Tom Nordstrom with a punch in the nose. That would have been a more manly (albeit also retarded) thing to do but we couldn't expect that from Trump. Sorry. I've used up my caring quotient on this particular bit of presidential sophomorish behavior. I actually laughed out loud at that sentence.
DC Tom Posted February 9, 2017 Posted February 9, 2017 That's silly. Apples and moon rocks. You are trying too hard to hang Obama for the sins of this clown in chief we have now No, I'm demonstrating your hypocrisy. Though I'm not doing so nearly as well as your reply did. You really consider the tweetarrhea of an hypersensitive Oompa-Loompa as somehow more severe an abuse of power than threatening senior bondholders with "destruction" if they didn't subordinate their legal claims to junior creditors? Of course you do, because...Democrats.
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 9, 2017 Posted February 9, 2017 Nordstrom should just buckle to the will of Trump and bring the line back. Their stock took a dive. They should ask for forgiveness. They should then say they were wrong & sorry for not willing to pay to play. Other retailers should take notice. Want to play, gotta pay! Problem solved. Give in. What else does Trump went by making this public.
DC Tom Posted February 9, 2017 Posted February 9, 2017 Nordstrom should just buckle to the will of Trump and bring the line back. Their stock took a dive. They should ask for forgiveness. They should then say they were wrong & sorry for not willing to pay to play. Other retailers should take notice. Want to play, gotta pay! Problem solved. Give in. What else does Trump went by making this public. Actually, their stock's up $3/share since Trump's tweet. And I have a new investment strategy...
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 9, 2017 Posted February 9, 2017 EDIT: Stocks up, nevermind. http://www.seattletimes.com/business/retail/trump-attacks-nordstrom-in-tweet-over-ivanka/ Actually, their stock's up $3/share since Trump's tweet. And I have a new investment strategy... I just made edit. Yep. So true about the strategy! Did you see that dip the stock took before rebounding.
DC Tom Posted February 9, 2017 Posted February 9, 2017 EDIT: Stocks up, nevermind. http://www.seattletimes.com/business/retail/trump-attacks-nordstrom-in-tweet-over-ivanka/ I just made edit. Yep. So true about the strategy! Did you see that dip the stock took before rebounding. The only down-side of that strategy is that it requires me to read Trump's twitterrhia.
ExiledInIllinois Posted February 9, 2017 Posted February 9, 2017 If some of you Thurston Howell III's on this board play it right, you may stand to make bank being a wizard of The Tweet: "Neiman Marcus and Belk also reportedly are dropping the Ivanka Trump line from their stores. T.J. Maxx and Marshalls are reportedly distancing themselves from the brand, with employees at the stores getting instructions to throw away the brands signs and mix Ivanka Trump merchandise with other brands, according to The New York Times. Trump critics are pressuring Macys to drop the line as well."
Tiberius Posted February 9, 2017 Author Posted February 9, 2017 No, I'm demonstrating your hypocrisy. Though I'm not doing so nearly as well as your reply did. You really consider the tweetarrhea of an hypersensitive Oompa-Loompa as somehow more severe an abuse of power than threatening senior bondholders with "destruction" if they didn't subordinate their legal claims to junior creditors? Of course you do, because...Democrats. Did not GM already declare bankruptcy on its creditors? Wasn't their an economic emergency they were dealing with? Or did Obama's daughters own GM and the prez was mad because the creditors were getting rid of her. Obfuscation again
Gary M Posted February 9, 2017 Posted February 9, 2017 Did not GM already declare bankruptcy on its creditors? Wasn't their an economic emergency they were dealing with? Or did Obama's daughters own GM and the prez was mad because the creditors were getting rid of her. Obfuscation again Let me know when the taxpayers bail her out.
Recommended Posts