<p><a href=“http://youtube.com/watch?v=1UjKsoxEyKI[/url]”>http://youtube.com/watch?v=1UjKsoxEyKI</a></p>
<p>I love it! It esplly drives me crazy whenever W says “nuculer”. That would be an improvement.</p>
<p>that is awesome</p>
<p>LOL. Number one was pretty good too.</p>
<p>Obviously Obama had writers draft these responses. Does that mean he acted contrary to the writer’s strike thereby becoming a scab? Since we don’t know the terms of any deal between the writers and late night TV, is Obama at risk?</p>
<p>razorsharp, Obama was on David Letterman. The Letterman show has a deal with the writers. The writers are working on the Letterman show. They are not striking. They are working. </p>
<p>No problem.</p>
<p>Better find something else.
I’m sure you will.</p>
<p>Didn’t you enjoy the segment?</p>
<p>Yes, it was funny. But we don’t know the terms of that deal with the writer’s and I wonder if the rest of the writer’s gild faithful will agree with that deal once its terms come out. The idea that a union works out a deal with one business so some of its workers can work, but does not work out a deal with other businesses and, thus, those workers don’t work, may leave a bitter taste in the mouthes of the non-working writers.</p>
<p>You wish…</p>
<p><em>pinches self in disbelief that razorsharp is actually arguing in such an upfront and unsubstantiated way on behalf of the poor, victimized unions</em></p>
<p><em>wakes up</em></p>
<p>…ah well. razorsharp, next time you might want to try being a little less obvious with the ■■■■■■■■. :)</p>
<p>
No, its a fact. Unions rise and fall based on whether their members are split. The power of resentment among members cannot be underestimated. Letterman has been able to split the union workers whether you wish to acknowledge that or not. The question is what are the terms of the deal with Letterman and how does it benefit the non-working writers.</p>
<p>lol</p>
<p>I am glad you are so concerned.</p>
<p>I guess you are not concerned about unions.</p>