[LiberalBassTurds]

You are welcome.

Reference his article, there's no insight necessary for such a thin and transparent attempt to be clever. For "tongue in cheek humor" to be interesting and thought provoking it has to be subtle. This is a ham-handed attempt that doesn't work. When an author's point of view is apparent from the start the document ends up as this one does -- mental masturbation and fodder for those predisposed to support that position from the beginning. In this case the point is proven by the lack of interest in this thread by FReepers other than those that continually support each other's point of view.

Regards.

[Mercuria]

Reference his article, there's no insight necessary for such a thin and transparent attempt to be clever.

So it's the non-subtlety of the approach that you're taking issue with.

Okay.

But he made his point.

Maybe he intended to be transparent because the reasons some of the readers have for supporting the current Administration for actions said readers would never tolerate from the barely-departed Administration of Clinton are equally, if not even more, transparent?

Whatever the reason for his style...do you agree with the message he was trying to present? If not, why not?

[Rowdee]

You classify this as tongue in cheek against the current WH occupant? Whatsa matta wid yu....doncha no General Hospial ain't a reflecshun of the reel wurld! Git yerself cot up on currint events!