"DSK" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
Given that publications of the once-respected ABA have become shills for
a
left-wing cheering section, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised to see the
doctors following.

Don't you ever get tired of accusing everybody who doesn't think Bush &
Cheney are utterly perfect is a far left-wing whacko?

The AARP, doctors, who's next?

I don't think Bush and Cheney are utterly perfect.

O' my God--I'm a liberal !!!

Max

shhhh...

--
"j" ganz @@
www.sailnow.com

"Maxprop" wrote in message
link.net...

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Dave wrote:
Given that publications of the once-respected ABA have become shills for
a
left-wing cheering section, I suppose I shouldn't be surprised to see
the
doctors following.

Don't you ever get tired of accusing everybody who doesn't think Bush &
Cheney are utterly perfect is a far left-wing whacko?

The AARP, doctors, who's next?

I don't think Bush and Cheney are utterly perfect.

O' my God--I'm a liberal !!!

Max

Don't you ever get tired of accusing everybody who doesn't think Bush &
Cheney are utterly perfect is a far left-wing whacko?



Maxprop wrote:
I don't think Bush and Cheney are utterly perfect.

O' my God--I'm a liberal !!!

Yeah, but you're not a cool rural Southern
in-the-closet-gun-owning liberal like me.

DSK

It's McManara all over again, only this time with the liberals. They are
using any and all deaths as propaganda against Bush.

Apply the same method against Hitler in WWII. It took tens of millions of
lives across the globe to stop the genocidal slaughter of only 6 million in
the death camps. In the end, more people lived under totalitarian regimes
than in the beginning. The only conclusion then is that WWII was an immoral
and unjustifiable war. FDR is a war criminal.

It's the old tired tactic of liberals using numbers and disregarding the
causation and results of those numbers to support their "morality". A very
hollow argument.

Dave wrote:
Note that the common thread that unites the ABA, the AMA and the AARP is
that these supposed membership "associations" are in practice run by
professional association managers, who use the dues they collect to further
their own agendas.


Just like unions.

Actually the AMA is run by doctors and the AARP is run by
retired people. Do they have an agenda? Probably so,
everybody else seems to....


BTW, did you know that there is also an Association of Associations? I find
that one really funny.

Love it... I'm going to petition them to give me an
individual membership!!

DSK

Actually the AMA is run by doctors and the AARP is run by
retired people.


Dave wrote:
And the tooth fairy comes to replace a kid's tooth under the pillow with
money.


So, having MD after the name just means the guy likes the
sound of it, right?


A number of years ago, I represented an association manager. She ran I don't
know how many associations, most of them created by her, made good money at
it, and had a great kitty, funded by dues, to push what she wanted in a
whole variety of newsletters of the various associations. It was an
enlightening experience.

And it doesn't apply across the board to every single
association.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
.. .
Actually the AMA is run by doctors and the AARP is run by retired people.


Dave wrote:
And the tooth fairy comes to replace a kid's tooth under the pillow with
money.


So, having MD after the name just means the guy likes the sound of it,
right?


A number of years ago, I represented an association manager. She ran I
don't
know how many associations, most of them created by her, made good money
at
it, and had a great kitty, funded by dues, to push what she wanted in a
whole variety of newsletters of the various associations. It was an
enlightening experience.

And it doesn't apply across the board to every single association.

DSK


Doug you should see what those companies that collect for charities pull in.
85% of the solicited gifts to the charity is not uncommon.

Gilligan wrote:
Doug you should see what those companies that collect for charities pull in.
85% of the solicited gifts to the charity is not uncommon.


Yes, I know. Sometimes more.

But that certainly does not mean that all charities are
cynical, crooked shills. It just means that if you want your
money to go towards a good cause, you have to be interested
enough to find out which charities are actually *doing*
something.

Many charities spend large sums on lobbying. Is Congress a
poverty case now? I don't give money to those charities,
either (the Sierra Club for example.

DSK

And it doesn't apply across the board to every single
association.


Dave wrote:
Doug, I get the ABA Journal, as well as its separate business lawyer's
glossy magazine.

So?

... I also get the AARP rags.

Are you 55 or older?

Both the President and the CEO of AARP are. Which is what I
said. In fact, they are both grandparents. In other words,
they are members of the group they represent. Your problem
with that is.... what, exactly?



.... True, I don't get a journal from
the AMA, as I'm not an MD.

I'm not either. It's a standard on public library shelves.
Meanwhile, the president of the AMA (as well as all but two
or three of their board and council members) are practicing
(or formerly practicing) physicians.



.... But it doesn't take a genius to make the
connections.

The obvious connection here is that you are used to seeing a
Commie under every bed & bedpan, and now you just can't
shake the habit.


Wake up to the real world.

Excuse me, but you are the one hurling accusations based on
total fantasy.

There are a lot of very good charity organizations,
professional interest groups & associations, civic groups.
There are also a few bad apples, as in every bunch.

*That* is the real world, Dave.

DSK

Dave wrote:
And I suppose you also believe they're in the business of providing services
to their members.


Of course. If they didn't, they wouldn't stay in business long.


People don't seem to realize that today's dominant business model is the
media model, and that model applies in spades to associations.

It only applies if you have a twisted pseudo-MacLuhanesque
view of the world.

If you look at it one way, *all* businesses are serving the
function of advertising. Then again, the advertising
business provides a service that people pay for. Which
viewpoint is correct?

People don't seem to realize that today's dominant business
model is to be a conduit for PAC money. This model applies
in spades to the advertising business and can in many cases
be applied to the non-profit business.

Meanwhile, the fact remains that many charities & public
interest groups *are* in fact run by people with the goal of
serving a particular function that gov't & private business
does not. Your cynical point that *some* are darkly twisted
money-grubbers is true but your claim that *all* are is
patently ridiculous.

I'd say "Welcome to the real world, Dave" but I'm not sure
you're here yet.

DSK