Re: I was misled

Mark Hickey said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Since most of the media is managed by corporations, with corporate
funding, it disseminates what is in their interest. Some
corporations are more liberal and others more conservative.
However, in truth large corporations tend to sympathize more with
the republican party. The media in the US is hardly liberal and
it is definitely not left wing. Of course there are some left
wingy news media but they have very limited distribution.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So I take it you heard the interview on public radio how the
republicans have turned lobbying around to where the party lobbies
major corporations to hire preferred republican managers, promising
legislation that would enhance their business and thereby seeding
corporations with their philosophy of government. In spite of the
wording in the interview, it sounded like prostitution to me.
Certainly not part of what democracy in the USA was intended to be.

Quoted message said:

Did those lobbyists fly in in black helicopters or use mind-control
rays? ;-) Perhaps you could point to some credible sources for
those wild-sounding accusations... or perhaps not...

You can get the whole thing on NPR's web site but you probably
consider that consorting with the enemy.

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

Mark Hickey said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Since most of the media is managed by corporations, with corporate
funding, it disseminates what is in their interest. Some
corporations are more liberal and others more conservative.
However, in truth large corporations tend to sympathize more with
the republican party. The media in the US is hardly liberal and
it is definitely not left wing. Of course there are some left
wingy news media but they have very limited distribution.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So I take it you heard the interview on public radio how the
republicans have turned lobbying around to where the party lobbies
major corporations to hire preferred republican managers, promising
legislation that would enhance their business and thereby seeding
corporations with their philosophy of government. In spite of the
wording in the interview, it sounded like prostitution to me.
Certainly not part of what democracy in the USA was intended to be.

Quoted message said:

Did those lobbyists fly in in black helicopters or use mind-control
rays? ;-) Perhaps you could point to some credible sources for
those wild-sounding accusations... or perhaps not...

You can get the whole thing on NPR's web site but you probably
consider that consorting with the enemy.

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

Mark Hickey said:

(andres muro) said:

Mark:

When you say liberal media outlets, who do you refer to?

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Since most of the media is managed by corporations, with corporate
funding, it disseminates what is in their interest. Some corporations
are more liberal and others more conservative. However, in truth large
corporations tend to sympatize more with the republican party. The
media in the US is hardly liberal and it is definitely not left wing.
Of course there are some left wingy news media but they have very
limited distribution.

The same corporation puts Howard Stern and Sean Hannity on the air. I
think you can safely say that there is little direct correlation
between ownership of the media, and the management of the news
organizations.

If the mainstream media doesn't seem liberal to you, you're probably
either MORE liberal (not that there's anything wrong with that...) ;-)
or they've done their job well. The uproar over the Fox network was
telling - they are pretty much centrist

Oh please, they're quite reactionary and they refuse to run retractions
after they accidentally (purposely?) broadcast lies because they know
their followers believe everything they air.

Greg
--
Destroy your safe and happy lives
Before it is too late
The battles we fought were long and hard
Just not to be consumed by rock'n'roll

Quoted message said:

Mark Hickey said:

Quoted message said:

> Since most of the media is managed by corporations, with corporate
> funding, it disseminates what is in their interest. Some
> corporations are more liberal and others more conservative.
> However, in truth large corporations tend to sympathize more with
> the republican party. The media in the US is hardly liberal and
> it is definitely not left wing. Of course there are some left
> wingy news media but they have very limited distribution.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So I take it you heard the interview on public radio how the
republicans have turned lobbying around to where the party lobbies
major corporations to hire preferred republican managers, promising
legislation that would enhance their business and thereby seeding
corporations with their philosophy of government. In spite of the
wording in the interview, it sounded like prostitution to me.
Certainly not part of what democracy in the USA was intended to be.

Quoted message said:

Did those lobbyists fly in in black helicopters or use mind-control
rays? ;-) Perhaps you could point to some credible sources for
those wild-sounding accusations... or perhaps not...

You can get the whole thing on NPR's web site but you probably
consider that consorting with the enemy.

C'mon, you can do better than that - I'm not going to peruse NPR's
entire website looking for this... how 'bout finding a source that
doesn't lean so left - something neutral like Reuters?

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

G.T. said:

Mark Hickey wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If the mainstream media doesn't seem liberal to you, you're probably
either MORE liberal (not that there's anything wrong with that...) ;-)
or they've done their job well. The uproar over the Fox network was
telling - they are pretty much centrist

Oh please, they're quite reactionary and they refuse to run retractions
after they accidentally (purposely?) broadcast lies because they know
their followers believe everything they air.

Hmmmm, funny... I've seen them set the record straight many times.

You've obviously never watched Fox - otherwise you'd know that
"everything they air" includes a lot of information from both sides of
every issue... kind of hard to "believe that"...

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

I don't know who Sean Hannity is, but Howard Stern is entertainment
for shock value. He does not espouse any progressive values that the
left wing embrace, nor does the media. I consider myself a leftie
(which is probably a bad word in America today), and I tell you what I
stand for. There are 50 million adults with no health insurance in
this country. I want health care reform so that everyone can have
health insurance. Over 1/4 of all children live in poverty while the
top 5% control 90% of the wealth of this country. I want some of the
wealth to go to the poor. One way of doing this is with a progressive
tax cut. There are millions of adults who lack literacy skills and
there is virtually no monies for adult education. Housing for the poor
is deplorable. Etc, etc. People in third world countries are dying of
malnutrition and diseases on a daily basis and there is no systematic
investment in helping these people.

There is no media exploring these issues. A left wing media would be
doing so. They would say: lets stop the war and invest in education
and health. They would say lets increase taxes to pay for better
housing, schools and hospitals. They would tell us exactly how much
the war is costing us on a daily basis and they would compare that
with how much we spend in education, social security, health care, job
creating, welfare, etc. They would also tell us that the US has more
prisons, lower educational achievement, worse health care, more
poverty and more infant mortality than any of the other industrialized
nations and even Cuba. This is even thought the US is wealthier than
most of these countries put together.

I am not saying that we need to stop promoting support for the war and
arguing all the stuff that is being argued about the war, ie:
terrorism, al qaeida, protecting the US, defending our borders, etc.
In a true democracy these points should be explored. However,
everything else that I am talking about should be explored too and
people should decide which side to take.

I don't know who Hannity is, but I have never heard H. Stern talking
about this. He basically makes poor jokes about women.

I have heard the argument that some people exagerate this and that
what I am saying is not true. I can take people on tours of parts of
the US where people live in overwhelming poverty. This include little
babies, chldren, mothers dying from diseases. I can show you
communities where there are people willing to work, not enough jobs
and no support services for them and their children.

Again, the media does not talk about this, nor about how to improve
conditions for these people. We spent millions on a war economy to
"create democracy" in other countries while people are living in
extreme poverty in our own back yards. What I am telling you is not
yellow journalism , nor a figment of my imagination, but the main
stream media does not report this. They only cover the war, and Paris
Hilton.

Andres

PS: I think that Paris Hilton is cute

Mark Hickey <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

(andres muro) said:

Mark:

When you say liberal media outlets, who do you refer to?

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Since most of the media is managed by corporations, with corporate
funding, it disseminates what is in their interest. Some corporations
are more liberal and others more conservative. However, in truth large
corporations tend to sympatize more with the republican party. The
media in the US is hardly liberal and it is definitely not left wing.
Of course there are some left wingy news media but they have very
limited distribution.

The same corporation puts Howard Stern and Sean Hannity on the air. I
think you can safely say that there is little direct correlation
between ownership of the media, and the management of the news
organizations.

If the mainstream media doesn't seem liberal to you, you're probably
either MORE liberal (not that there's anything wrong with that...) ;-)
or they've done their job well. The uproar over the Fox network was
telling - they are pretty much centrist (with some op-ed shows leaning
right, though most have both sides well covered), still they "sounded"
so radically right to most folks who'd had nothing but a CNN, ABC, CNS
and NBC to compare it to...

... the fact that Fox is growing rapidly while the rest are shrinking
says that a lot of people are figuring it out. And it's not just
conservatives who are watching, either. Mainly those who really DO
want both sides of the story.

FWIW...

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

I haven't heard the NPR interview, but I have read "Manufacturing
Consent" by Chomsky and Herman. Of course, reading this book will
label me a communist who reads yellow press stuff. Ironically I
occasionally visit Yellowtimes.org. Actually, I hardly listen to any
news or read the newspapers anymore, except when looking for the
movies. My wife spends hours watching the news and arguing with the
anchors. All I do is I listen to her. Actually, I manage a large
literacy program and try to get health and educational services for my
students, and read a lot of social and political theory. This gives me
a unique perspective.

Andres

[email hidden] wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Andres Muro said:

Since most of the media is managed by corporations, with corporate
funding, it disseminates what is in their interest. Some
corporations are more liberal and others more conservative.
However, in truth large corporations tend to sympathize more with
the republican party. The media in the US is hardly liberal and it
is definitely not left wing. Of course there are some left wingy
news media but they have very limited distribution.

So I take it you heard the interview on public radio how the
republicans have turned lobbying around to where the party lobbies
major corporations to hire preferred republican managers, promising
legislation that would enhance their business and thereby seeding
corporations with their philosophy of government. In spite of the
wording in the interview, it sounded like prostitution to me.
Certainly not part of what democracy in the USA was intended to be.

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

Mark Hickey said:

Quoted message said:

When you say liberal media outlets, to whom are you refering?

<snip>

Quoted message said:

Since most of the media is managed by corporations, with corporate
funding, it disseminates what is in their interest. Some corporations
are more liberal and others more conservative. However, in truth large
corporations tend to sympathize more with the republican party. The
media in the US is hardly liberal and it is definitely not left wing.
Of course there are some left wingy news media but they have very
limited distribution.

Quoted message said:

The same corporation puts Howard Stern and Sean Hannity on the air. I
think you can safely say that there is little direct correlation
between ownership of the media, and the management of the news
organizations.

If you want to know what independent papers write, ones that are not
owned by large corporations you get a different tone entirely as in
this one:

======================================================================
CHENEY MAY BE LOSING IT

WASHINGTON - One thing you've got to say for [censored] Cheney: No one will
ever again dismiss the vice presidency as a pitcher of warm
spit. Mr. Major League Potty Mouth has shown that, with obsequiousness
to the president and obtuseness to the facts, a vice president can run
the world. Right into the ground.

- It's not just Democrats who are questioning whether Vice is losing
it. Now, even some in the White House are saying it's bizarre that he
chose a class photo-op on the Senate floor to suggest that Sen.
Patrick Leahy do something that you won't even find described in Bill
Clinton's "My Life."

While Democratic lawmakers delayed final passage of a defense spending
bill so they could mingle with Michael Moore, the once sweat-free
Bushies were acting jangly.

Blame the press

First Vice chewed out the New York Times for accurately reporting that
the 9/11 commission said there was no collaborative relationship
between Saddam and al-Qaida. Then Paul Wolfowitz called the reporters
risking their lives in Iraq craven rumormongers. Then came Cheney's
F-word. (Not Fox, the other one.)

Finally, President Bush got agitated when an Irish TV interviewer said
most of the Irish found the world more dangerous now than before the
Iraq invasion. "First of all, most of Europe supported the decision in
Iraq," Bush declared. (It's all in how you define "Europe."😉

Even as Tom Daschle proposed bipartisan family retreats to heal the
harsh mood, even as the Senate passed the "Defense of Decency Act,"
Cheney profanely laced into Leahy for criticizing Halliburton's
getting no-bid contracts.

"I felt better afterwards," he told Neil Cavuto during a no-bid
interview with Fox News. Hey, if it feels good, [censored], do it.

He said he had no regrets about his "little floor debate in the United
States Senate." He didn't want to go along with Leahy's attitude that
"everything's peaches and cream" 'jawing about Halliburton war
profiteering. Peaches and cream have never been on the Bush-Cheney
menu, only brimstone and gall.

By playing on the insecurities of an inexperienced leader, Cheney has
managed to change W. from a sunny, open, bipartisan,
uniter-not-a-divider, non-nation-builder into a crabby, secretive,
partisan, divider-not-a-uniter, inept imperialist. Vice is bounding
around the country, talking to his usual circumscribed audiences of
conservatives, right-wing think tanks and Pox News anchors. No need
to burrow in the bunker when you've turned America into one. As they
used to say about the Soviet Union, the defensive Bush imperialists
have to keep expanding because they're encircled. Cheney's gloomy,
scary, contentious world view has fueled a more gloomy, scary,
contentious world.

After disastrously dividing the world into the strong (Bush hawks) and
the weak (everyone else). Vice turned his coarseness into another
macho, tough-guy moment against a Democrat considered a pill by many
Republicans. "I think a lot of my colleagues felt that what I had
said badly needed to be said, that it was long overdue," he preened.

More Indecency

The conservatives defending Cheney are largely the same crowd that
went off the deep end because of a glimpse of breast on the Super
Bowl, demanding everything from fines to new regulations to protect
red states from blue language.

Cheney's foul outburst was not as bad as his foul reasoning. On Fox,
he again belabored his obsession with "links" between Iraq and
al-Qaida. Exhibiting WASP chutzpah, this time he used the Times to
bolster his faux case.

But the Thorn Shanker story he cited said only that in the mid-1990s,
Iraq agreed to rebroadcast anti-Saudi propaganda and that a request
from Osama "to begin joint operations against foreign forces in Saudi
Arabia went unanswered."

Rebroadcast anti-Saudi propaganda? As a threat to U.S. security,
that's right up there with Iraqi "weapons of mass destruction-related
program activities."

Cheney assured Fox's anxious viewers that he would stay on the ticket
and in the White House until January '09. (No four letter words, dear
Democrats.) Vice said of W., "he knows I'm there to serve him."

Bush must have missed that classic "Twilight Zone" episode where the
aliens arrive with a book entitled, "To Serve Man." It turns out to be
a cookbook.

Maureen Dowd's e-mail address is
[email hidden].
======================================================================

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

Mark Hickey said:

G.T. said:

Mark Hickey wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If the mainstream media doesn't seem liberal to you, you're probably
either MORE liberal (not that there's anything wrong with that...) ;-)
or they've done their job well. The uproar over the Fox network was
telling - they are pretty much centrist

Oh please, they're quite reactionary and they refuse to run retractions
after they accidentally (purposely?) broadcast lies because they know
their followers believe everything they air.

Hmmmm, funny... I've seen them set the record straight many times.

You've obviously never watched Fox - otherwise you'd know that
"everything they air" includes a lot of information from both sides of
every issue... kind of hard to "believe that"...

I watch the east coast feed ALL day long because my office mates are Fox
freaks.

Greg

--
Destroy your safe and happy lives
Before it is too late
The battles we fought were long and hard
Just not to be consumed by rock'n'roll

Quoted message said:

If you want to know what independent papers write, ones that are not
owned by large corporations you get a different tone entirely as in
this one:

======================================================================
CHENEY MAY BE LOSING IT

{snip article}

Jobst, if someone repeated blasted your book as fraudulent or plagiarized or
likewise corrupt, and then tried to slap you on the back while laughing to
pose for a picture, I bet you'd tell him or her to go [censored] themself, too.

Bill "everyone knows Leahy's a lizard" S.

Bill Sorni said:

Quoted message said:

If you want to know what independent papers write, ones that are not
owned by large corporations you get a different tone entirely as in
this one:

======================================================================
CHENEY MAY BE LOSING IT

Quoted message said:

{snip article}

Quoted message said:

Jobst, if someone repeated blasted your book as fraudulent or
plagiarized or likewise corrupt, and then tried to slap you on the
back while laughing to pose for a picture, I bet you'd tell him or
her to go [censored] themself, too.

Regardless, gentlemen do no "LOSE IT" in such a circumstance and
degrade themselves by exposing their thin skin and rude underpinnings.
As you have seen, I don't stoop to that level and it is not part of
my vocabulary to respond in kind.

Your phrasing runs close to suggesting you may also be losing it.

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

Bill Sorni said:

Quoted message said:

If you want to know what independent papers write, ones that are not
owned by large corporations you get a different tone entirely as in
this one:

======================================================================
CHENEY MAY BE LOSING IT

Quoted message said:

{snip article}

Quoted message said:

Jobst, if someone repeated blasted your book as fraudulent or
plagiarized or likewise corrupt, and then tried to slap you on the
back while laughing to pose for a picture, I bet you'd tell him or
her to go [censored] themself, too.

Regardless, gentlemen do no "LOSE IT" in such a circumstance and
degrade themselves by exposing their thin skin and rude underpinnings.
As you have seen, I don't stoop to that level and it is not part of
my vocabulary to respond in kind.

Your phrasing runs close to suggesting you may also be losing it.

Jobst Brandt
[email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Bill Sorni said:

Quoted message said:

If you want to know what independent papers write, ones that are not
owned by large corporations you get a different tone entirely as in
this one:

======================================================================
CHENEY MAY BE LOSING IT

Quoted message said:

{snip article}

Quoted message said:

Jobst, if someone repeated blasted your book as fraudulent or
plagiarized or likewise corrupt, and then tried to slap you on the
back while laughing to pose for a picture, I bet you'd tell him or
her to go [censored] themself, too.

Regardless, gentlemen do no "LOSE IT" in such a circumstance and
degrade themselves by exposing their thin skin and rude underpinnings.
As you have seen, I don't stoop to that level and it is not part of
my vocabulary to respond in kind.

Your phrasing runs close to suggesting you may also be losing it.

With all your double-posts lately, one could say the same of you 🙂

(What's up with that, anyway?!?)

"Losing it" connotes much more/worse to me than a few well-chosen words
(have you seen those Japanese elected officials brawling in session
lately?), but to each his or her own, I guess.

Bill "now Al Gore...*HE*'s losing it lately" S.

"Mark Hickey" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

G.T. said:

Mark Hickey wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If the mainstream media doesn't seem liberal to you, you're

probably

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

either MORE liberal (not that there's anything wrong with

that...) ;-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

or they've done their job well. The uproar over the Fox

network was

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

telling - they are pretty much centrist

Oh please, they're quite reactionary and they refuse to run

retractions

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

after they accidentally (purposely?) broadcast lies because

they know

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

their followers believe everything they air.

Hmmmm, funny... I've seen them set the record straight many

times.

Quoted message said:

You've obviously never watched Fox - otherwise you'd know that
"everything they air" includes a lot of information from both

sides of

Quoted message said:

every issue... kind of hard to "believe that"...

Hey, even Homer Simpson makes fun of the skewed reporting on FOX.
I thought it was a given. But then PBS goes over the top on some
liberal issues, too. The problem with all news these days is
that nothing gets published or aired unless it is titillating.
And the truth often is not titillating. -- Jay Beattie.

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bill Sorni said:

Quoted message said:

If you want to know what independent papers write, ones that

are not

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

owned by large corporations you get a different tone

entirely as in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

this one:

=================================================================
=====

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

CHENEY MAY BE LOSING IT

Quoted message said:

{snip article}

Quoted message said:

Jobst, if someone repeated blasted your book as fraudulent or
plagiarized or likewise corrupt, and then tried to slap you

on the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

back while laughing to pose for a picture, I bet you'd tell

him or

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

her to go [censored] themself, too.

Regardless, gentlemen do no "LOSE IT" in such a circumstance

and

Quoted message said:

degrade themselves by exposing their thin skin and rude

underpinnings.

Quoted message said:

As you have seen, I don't stoop to that level and it is not

part of

Quoted message said:

my vocabulary to respond in kind.

Your phrasing runs close to suggesting you may also be losing

it.

Regrettably, decorum is a thing of the past. The great
communicator was constantly taking it in the shorts from the
liberal press, both as Governor of California and as president --
but he never got potty mouthed, at least not that I can remember.
I didn't vote for the guy, and I disagreed with most of his
policies, but he could make a point with just a few clean words
and that evil Howdy Doody smile. GWB, on the other hand, is just
a nasty frat boy who apparently was raised without an ounce of
couth, much like his daughters, Thing One and Thing Two. And I
guess [censored] Cheney is simply trying to continue the long history
in America of sketchy vice presidents. Why do you think they
call them "vice" presidents? At least he can spell potato. --
Jay Beattie.

Jay Beattie said:

<[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Bill Sorni said:

> If you want to know what independent papers write, ones that

are not

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> owned by large corporations you get a different tone

entirely as in

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> this one:
>
>

=================================================================
=====

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> CHENEY MAY BE LOSING IT

Quoted message said:

{snip article}

Quoted message said:

Jobst, if someone repeated blasted your book as fraudulent or
plagiarized or likewise corrupt, and then tried to slap you

on the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

back while laughing to pose for a picture, I bet you'd tell

him or

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

her to go [censored] themself, too.

Regardless, gentlemen do no "LOSE IT" in such a circumstance

and

Quoted message said:

degrade themselves by exposing their thin skin and rude

underpinnings.

Quoted message said:

As you have seen, I don't stoop to that level and it is not

part of

Quoted message said:

my vocabulary to respond in kind.

Your phrasing runs close to suggesting you may also be losing

it.

Regrettably, decorum is a thing of the past. The great
communicator was constantly taking it in the shorts from the
liberal press, both as Governor of California and as president --
but he never got potty mouthed, at least not that I can remember.
I didn't vote for the guy, and I disagreed with most of his
policies, but he could make a point with just a few clean words
and that evil Howdy Doody smile. GWB, on the other hand, is just
a nasty frat boy who apparently was raised without an ounce of
couth, much like his daughters, Thing One and Thing Two. And I
guess [censored] Cheney is simply trying to continue the long history
in America of sketchy vice presidents. Why do you think they
call them "vice" presidents? At least he can spell potato. --
Jay Beattie.

Dear Jay,

Couth consists of calling a politician's daughters names?

Carl Fogel

Mark Hickey said:

C'mon, you can do better than that - I'm not going to peruse NPR's
entire website looking for this... how 'bout finding a source that
doesn't lean so left - something neutral like Reuters?

Ah, it's all in the eye of the beholder. I think NPR tends to lean to
the right, most dramatically since Gingrich attempted to dispose of
them a few years ago.

Mark Hickey said:

Tim McNamara said:

Mark Hickey <[email hidden]> writes:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

If you REALLY don't think the media has a liberal bias, you're
obviously pretty well aligned with it.

The media has a serious conservative bias, IMHO. I've said this
many times, perhaps you hand't noticed. Of course, if you REALLY
don't think that the media has a conservative bias, you're obviously
pretty well aligned with it.

One of us is obviously absolutely wrong. You think the NY Times
"leans right". I don't think I need to say anything else to make my
point.

Mark, you're showing yourself to be an inflexible concrete thinker
with statements like this. "Lean" is in the eye of the beholder- you
think they lean left, I think they lean right. But both of us have
non-mainstream views- you're as much a conservative whacko as I am a
liberal whacko. And- true to liberalism here- I don't think either of
us is absolutely wrong on this issue. I suspect the NYT is pretty
neutral and it only *looks* left from your position and right from
mine.

Quoted message said:

It didn't matter at all who certified the election. The methodology
was in place, cast in concrete (since the election had already been
held), and she simply followed process. Did her job, IOW.

Would you say the same if Al Gore's Florida campaign chairman was the
person responsible for certifying the election and did every thing in
his power to make sure Bush votes weren't counted? I seriously doubt
it.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

But she didn't because it just tickled her so much to be able to
personally hand the presidency to Shrub, no doubt counting on an
upgrade in her political career as a reward. The conflict of
interest was staggering and yet- like in all other areas of his
campaign- George W. Bush was given a free ride by the "liberal"
media.

Heh heh heh... that's the "liberal media" that called Florida for
Gore an HOUR before the polls closed in the predominantly Republican
panhandle? Uh huh...

Like they do in every state, calling many of them for Bush. Geez,
Mark, you can do better analysis than this!

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

His entire campaign was given a free ride without critical
examination- while Clinton was castigated in 1992 for his stupid
comments about marijuana, Bush's history as a dangerous drug abuser
and alcoholic with flagrant disregard for the safety of those around
him was largely ignored, as well as his religious megalomania.

No one's ever going to accuse you of being rational on this
issue... you're WAY left of center, yet consider someone's possible
recreational drug use in their youth grounds to be kept out of
public office. Well, unless the candidate is a Democrat (or were
you equally upset over the allegations of Clinton's drug use?).

Actually I really can't equate Bill Clinton choking on a joint in
college with GWB's being arrested for driving while drunk, doing
cocaine, etc. until he was, what, about 40? I was [censored] about
Clinton's ridiculous, stupid denials however. For a smart man he
certainly could be a maroon.

Quoted message said:

If you want to know what independent papers write, ones that are not
owned by large corporations you get a different tone entirely as in
this one:

(snip Dowd Op-Ed piece)

Jobst,

Objective reporting is not the same as an opinion expressed in an OP-ED
piece. The problem is that muddle-headed neo-marxists like yourself confuse
the two. Just because you agree with Ms Dowd's opinion does not imply it
contains any degree of independence or truth. Frankly, she's just one more
left of center columnist who's worked is published around the nation and
swallowe as "news" by people who only read what they want to see. That you
point her out as an "independent" voice suggets you have no grasp of the
political world beyond the left's approved dogma.

Tom

tcmedara said:

Jobst,

Objective reporting is not the same as an opinion expressed in an OP-ED
piece. The problem is that muddle-headed neo-marxists like yourself confuse
the two....

If Jobst Brandt can justifiably be called a neo-Marxist for what he has
posted, then "tcmedara" can justifiably be called a neo-fascist.

--
Tom Sherman – Quad City Area