From: Bruce on
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:38:59 -0400, "David Ruether"
<d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote:
>
>A case in point is the rise
>of Sarah Palin... We are in a time when a near idiot can rise to
>within reach of the presidency


Please, in the interests of accuracy, less of the "near"?

From: Neil Harrington on

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:201004131334506853-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2010-04-13 12:39:03 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> said:
>
>>
>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>> news:2010041220465454666-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>> On 2010-04-12 20:31:08 -0700, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)earthlink.net>
>>> said:
>>>
>>>> On 13 Apr 2010 02:52:40 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam(a)holyrood.ed.ac.uk>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> news:UdydnardqMi3DVzWnZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Forget Beck, Hannity and O'Reilly and watch daytime Fox News, which
>>>>>>> really
>>>>>>> is much more news than commentary -- and what commentary there is is
>>>>>>> much
>>>>>>> better.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> It is, by far, the most watched news on the planet. And for a good
>>>>>> reason.
>>>>>> It is the most logical, and the least biased.
>>>>>
>>>>> The most popular news source is the most logical and the least biased?
>>>>> Because most people there are well above average in intelligence,
>>>>> education, and political maturity? I've heard of that extraordinary
>>>>> planet, but I've forgotten its name.
>>>>
>>>> In one of the groups there was a link to an article in "The Onion". A
>>>> statement that Fox is the most logical and the least biased news
>>>> source is something that "The Onion" would offer as satire...sardonic
>>>> satire.
>>>
>>> The Onion has targeted Fox & Fox News quite a few times, here is a
>>> sample;
>>>
>>> http://www.theonion.com/articles/fox-news-channel-adds-laugh-track,3774/
>>> http://www.theonion.com/articles/fox-news-racism-intentional,8432/
>>> http://www.theonion.com/articles/fox-voluntarily-removes-reality-from-programming,3608/
>
> They
>>>
>> do have some funny stuff. They've hit CNN too of course, MSNBC, NBC --
>> I suppose they nail everybody.
>>
>> http://www.theonion.com/articles/lou-dobbs-hosts-moneyline-from-window-ledge,77/
> http://www.theonion.com/articles/cnn-should-be-named-the-crappy-news-notwork,10772/
> http://www.theonion.com/articles/matthews-olbermann-ousted-as-msnbc-anchors,15542/
> http://www.theonion.com/articles/insecure-brian-williams-only-one-who-doesnt-trust,1966/
>
> Now
>>
> there is true unbiased reportage! ;-)

Yes. Maybe not "reportage" in any ordinary sense, but unbiased, yes. :-)


From: David Ruether on

"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:vqvas5l35d66u79df2k18ugnosilh5pdsv(a)4ax.com...
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 01:12:37 -0400, "stephe_k(a)yahoo.com"
> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote:

>>I have zero interest in owning a hand gun, personally I don't like them
>>but at the same time I think you have every right to own one if YOU
>>want. What you don't seem to grasp is you feel it's OK to limit the
>>freedoms of other people if you don't feel the same way they do but at
>>the same time don't want anyone telling you what you can and can't do.

> Doesn't that define Republicanism?

Almost - but it leaves out the word "hypocrite", an important part
of the definition (but I guess "stephe k" gave a good illustration
instead...;-).
--DR


From: David Ruether on

"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0tvas5p1kubk1omjorb7tiginnhi3p0bjk(a)4ax.com...
> On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 14:38:59 -0400, "David Ruether"
> <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote:

>>A case in point is the rise
>>of Sarah Palin... We are in a time when a near idiot can rise to
>>within reach of the presidency

> Please, in the interests of accuracy, less of the "near"?

8^), 8^), 8^)!
--DR


From: Bruce on
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 10:59:17 -0400, "David Ruether"
<d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:vqvas5l35d66u79df2k18ugnosilh5pdsv(a)4ax.com...
>> On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 01:12:37 -0400, "stephe_k(a)yahoo.com"
>> <stephe_k(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>>I have zero interest in owning a hand gun, personally I don't like them
>>>but at the same time I think you have every right to own one if YOU
>>>want. What you don't seem to grasp is you feel it's OK to limit the
>>>freedoms of other people if you don't feel the same way they do but at
>>>the same time don't want anyone telling you what you can and can't do.
>
>> Doesn't that define Republicanism?
>
>Almost - but it leaves out the word "hypocrite", an important part
>of the definition (but I guess "stephe k" gave a good illustration
>instead...;-).


I don't think "Republican" or "Republicanism" needs the addition of
either "hypocrite" or "hypocrisy". They are implicit. ;-)

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
Prev: a portrait - Ellen DeGeneres
Next: iPad practical jokes