From: tony cooper on
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.





--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Savageduck on
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/

--


Regards,

Savageduck

From: Neil Harrington on

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2010041111083079149-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2010-04-11 10:36:04 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> said:
>
>>
>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>> news:2010041109270377633-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>> On 2010-04-11 02:02:28 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> said:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:2010041018473517709-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>>>> On 2010-04-10 18:06:15 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> said:
>>>>> < Le Snip>

[ . . . ]
>>>>
>>>> And the BIG plus for Bush, that makes up for most if not all of his
>>>> minuses,
>>>> is his two Supreme Court nominations. This gives us four justices who
>>>> can
>>>> be
>>>> relied on to rule according to the Constitution as it is written, not
>>>> as
>>>> they'd prefer it was written. I shudder to think of what Gore or Kerry
>>>> would
>>>> have given us in SCOTUS.
>>>
>>> That is just another "what if" fueled by FUD. There is no reason to
>>> believe Gore or Kerry would have been able to seat some, hanging off the
>>> left edge of the bench type.
>>>
>>> Personally I can think of none worse than Thomas.
>>
>> Why, what's wrong with Thomas? There are five on the Court right now that
>> I
>> think are "worse than Thomas." I like Thomas.
>
> He is one of those, in my opinion, who should not have been nominated, let
> alone confirmed. I have yet to read any meaningful opinions from him. He
> is no Marshall,

I'm mighty glad of that!

> and he is certainly not on an equal footing with Scalia, Aliotto, or
> Roberts, in terms of independant conservative judicial thinking.
> Just a long term bench warmer.
>
> Hey! That is my opinion, just as you liking him is yours.

Well, you obviously have no respect for him, but while on the Court he has
written a large number of opinions, concurrences and dissents. I wouldn't
call any Supreme Court justice "just a long term bench warmer"; that seems
pretty silly to me.

I was given a book on Thomas at Christmas, but unfortunately haven't gotten
to it yet. So many books, so little time, it seems. Of course if I spent
less time on the NGs I'd have more time for books.

>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> I also sincerely believe the Republican party today, is not the party
>>>>> of
>>>>> Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Goldwater, or even Nixon.
>>>>
>>>> But surely you don't think the Democratic party today is the party of
>>>> Scoop
>>>> Jackson, Harry S Truman or JFK?
>>>
>>> Agreed.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> With the Republican right bias towards corporate interests, it never
>>>>> fails
>>>>> to amaze me that working, or even unemployed stiffs continue to vote
>>>>> against their own best interests.
>>>>
>>>> Now you disappoint me.
>>>
>>> Well I can't give you everything.
>>
>> No, but at least we are discussing it civilly, which is a large
>> improvement
>> on many of the analogous exchanges here. :-)
>
> I know. If we aren't careful we will be accused of being totally OT, and
> be kill filed by the others expecting more venom.

Heh.

>
>>
>>>
>>>> That old "corporate interests" canard is as phony as
>>>> the day is long. Corporations have poured far more money into
>>>> Democratic
>>>> coffers than Republican, and so has Wall Street. And yes, they know
>>>> what
>>>> they're buying and they can count on getting it. This is just as true
>>>> with
>>>> the Obama administration as it ever was. Obama in PUBLIC harshly
>>>> criticizes
>>>> the big greedy insurance companies, while behind closed doors he's
>>>> making
>>>> deals with them enabling them to make more money than they ever did.
>>>> Other
>>>> examples of the same sort of public condemnation of corporations while
>>>> wheeling and dealing with them abound.
>>>
>>> I didn't say the Dems were any better. In some cases they are worse, in
>>> others they are part of the same bunch, tag teaming the blind public.
>>> The issue is the Dems camoflage many of their moves, and there is always
>>> the hope the working stiff wouldn't get screwed this time. Whereas with
>>> the Republicans there is no doubt, they get screwed and get kicked out
>>> of
>>> bed when it is done.
>>>>
>>>>> In that respect I might consider my self opposed to the current
>>>>> Republican
>>>>> Party and this silly "Tea Party" fringe, who seem to interpret history
>>>>> very loosely.
>>>>
>>>> How so? The Tea Party movement now has quite a following, and they are
>>>> making a lot of politicians nervous, including some soft Republicans. I
>>>> think that is to the good. Whether you agree with their ideas or not,
>>>> they
>>>> are sincere, and more devoted to their country than to their own
>>>> interests,
>>>> which is more than you can say for the average congresscritter.
>>>
>>> Just as any mob makes politicians nervous.
>>
>> Oh, come on, they're not a "mob."
>
> Of course they are a mob. Their roots lie in that quintessential mob back
> in Boston.

This Tea Party is only named symbolically -- they haven't thrown anybody's
property in the harbor or done anything else remotely equivalent to that, or
injured anyone. They are not a mob. They "peaceably assemble," in perfect
accordance with the Constitution. I should think that as a former police
officer you'd have a clearer idea of what a real mob is.


From: Neil Harrington on

"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/


From: Bill Graham on

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2010041200321791745->

Maybe, but for now other than the increase of smoking restrictions in
> places of business, Government buildings, public spaces, etc. your story
> seems to be one you have adopted to pair with your bitterness regarding
> laws and regulations you do not like.
> BTW, Just how long have you been retired from Stanford now? Why on Earth
> would you still be concerned about the workings of Palo Alto?

This says it all. It is the best example I have ever seen to illustrate the
limits of the liberal imagination, If it doesn't concern me directly, then
"to hell with the needs of others." Let them lose their rights.....This
works very well until you are the one whose rights are being lost......And
by the time that happens, it will be far too late for you (or anyone else)
to do anything about it.

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
Prev: a portrait - Ellen DeGeneres
Next: iPad practical jokes