White House Lies About Keyboards

[Guest]

DID ARI LIE?

Would a spokesman for the "new regime (albeit "illegitimate") of civility" lie? Good Lord, that would be unthinkable, wouldn't it?

Yeah, right, sure. And ducks don't quack.

Well, you be the judge:

The New York Times is reporting that "Mr. Fleischer said the new administration had to buy 100 new computer keyboards, at a cost of $2,000, to replace equipment damaged when employees of the Clinton administration removed the "W" keys, apparently in an effort to express displeasure with George W. Bush. "

http://www.nytimes.com/2001/06/04/politics/04VAND.html

Maybe Ari just isn't taking enough Ginko for short-term memory loss, because OfficeMax says it donated those keyboards to the White House back in January.


OfficeMax to Donate 500 Computer Keyboard 'W' Keys and 100 Full Keyboards to White House to Keep the Wheels of Government Moving

http://www.officemax.com/press/keyboard.html

CLEVELAND, Jan. 24 /PRNewswire/ -- OfficeMax, Inc., the Country's largest office products superstore chain as measured in number of retail outlets, today announced that it is donating 500 new ``W'' keyboard keys and 100 keyboards to the Bush Administration to keep the wheels of government moving.

It was reported earlier that the ``W'' key on many White House keyboards were possibly removed by unknown perpetrators.

Michael Feuer, OfficeMax's chairman and chief executive officer, said, ``This bi-partisan move is a reflection of Corporate America's sense of urgency and desire to 'Ask not what your country can do for you, but instead, what can we do for our country?'''

The keyboards, manufactured by Logitech, feature a full assortment of the complete alphabet of 26 letters, including the ``W.'' The Company said providing the extra supply of ``W'' keys is added protection in the event there are any similar reoccurring problems in other agencies of the government."

http://www.buzzflash.com/BuzzScripts/Buzz.dll/SUB

 

[Aussie Worm]

Only in America.....

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

The "anti-Todd" strikes again!

 

[lavender]

 

[Weevil]

Vic's posts came from the NY Times and and office max official report.

Oh, and we all know how the Ny Times isn't a typical house organ of the leftist, socialist, jewish(oops) media who want nothing more than to rape our women and give us back to socialist england.

 

[lavender]

 

[Weevil]

The NY Times has actually been criticized lately because it is starting to be a bit too conservative.

If you want to talk about liberal newspapers in New York try the Village Voice.

Last time I checked the NYT was a helluva lot more credible than the bullshit sites Todd quotes.

Additionally, an earlier thread by Vic quoted The Austin American Statesman, a Texas paper. Who can say that one of the best papers in Texas is extremely leftist? Granted it is more to the left than the Dallas Morning News, but it's not The New Republic.

Lav, you're just a slave to the dirty rotten jew(whoops again) media who want to enslave our beautiful Christian nation to their commie beliefs and want to ban 7 year old girls from saying "I love Jesus"

Shits and giggles.

 

[Andra_Jenny]

You act as if government inefficiency is something new. The "w's" were probably donated, but in the government, once the paperwork was started for new keyboards,


You're getting new fucking keyboards,

no matter what the price. I am surprised thwy paid so little.

They should auction the W's off for charity.

 

[Oliver Clozoff]

The NY Times has actually been criticized lately because it is starting to be a bit too conservative.

Criticized by whom? Fidel Castro?

Seriously, though, you'll have a hard time convincing me or any other reasonable person the Times doesn't lean to the left.

You're totally right about Todd, Lavender. His rantings make me cringe because it's so obvious that he has no real understanding of any of the issues he cuts and pastes "articles" about (which are clearly just pieces of conservative propaganda). What irks me about doing this kind of thing is that it gives non-conservatives an idea that this kind of thinking is representative of all of political conservatism and that the people who approach issues with a conservative philosophy are mindless ranters.

Vic obviously buys into a lot of the fallacies about conservatism. (read his post on the "why are people Republicans?" thread for first-rate stereotypical characterization of political conservatism as a tool for the selfish preservation of the status quo by the wealthy and reactionaries). The idea that you have to go "tit for tat" with Todd seems silly to me. Isn't he absolutely transparent?

So to come back and post anti-Repub propaganda in response to him just seems funny and unnecessary to me.

But to each his own.

 

[Andra_Jenny]

Isn't Todd more of a Boortzie?