| Topic: |
Politics > Politics-USA |
| User: |
"Ken [NY" |
| Date: |
26 Aug 2003 08:38:29 AM |
| Object: |
Walter Cronkite - 'Most of us reporters are liberal...' |
"I believe that most of us reporters are liberal, but not because we
consciously have chosen that particular color in the political
spectrum. More likely it is because most of us served our
journalistic apprenticeships as reporters covering the seamier sides
of our cities---the crimes, the tenement fires, the homeless and the
hungry, the underclothed and undereducated.
We reached our intellectual adulthood with daily close-ups of
inequality in a nation that was founded on the commitment to equality
for all."
--Walter Conkrite, Friday, August 22, 2003
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95493,00.html
Ken (NY)
Chairman,
Department Of Redundancy Department
____________________________________
email:
http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm
"Eventually, socialists run out of other people's money."
--Baroness Margaret Thatcher
"This time I think the Americans are serious.
Bush is not like Clinton. I think this is
the end."
--Uday Hussein's final words,
reported in The Washington Times
Q: What the hardest thing about rollerblading?
A: Telling your parents you’re gay.
.
|
|
| User: "L Smithson" |
|
| Title: Re: Walter Cronkite - 'Most of us reporters are liberal...' |
28 Aug 2003 09:02:29 AM |
|
|
"Ken [NY)" <email@Below.Text> wrote in message news:<l7omkv84ajru6t5d3m3oeaqubgkqeeoplb@4ax.com>...
"I believe that most of us reporters are liberal,
Yes, that is why most of them joined the chorus of liars pushing
USA-mediadumbed-down-Americans to support an unjustified attack on
Iraq costing the USA billions and many innocent lives.
Many in the *NEOCON* plague that puppetted child Bush into the
lies-based *pre-911-planned* attack on Iraq were also superliberal
when it suited them. But now that same plague is working on getting
Americans to fight other *PROXY WARS* in order to exterminate
indigenous Semites angry at lopsided Mideast foreign policies that our
unscrupulous politicians were *CONNED* into supporting due to
un-American lobbies like *AIPAC*, with its strings-attached generous
pockets.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jenn" |
|
| Title: Re: Walter Cronkite - 'Most of us reporters are liberal...' |
26 Aug 2003 10:07:16 AM |
|
|
In article <l7omkv84ajru6t5d3m3oeaqubgkqeeoplb@4ax.com>,
"Ken [NY)" <email@Below.Text> wrote:
"I believe that most of us reporters are liberal, but not because we
consciously have chosen that particular color in the political
spectrum. More likely it is because most of us served our
journalistic apprenticeships as reporters covering the seamier sides
of our cities---the crimes, the tenement fires, the homeless and the
hungry, the underclothed and undereducated.
We reached our intellectual adulthood with daily close-ups of
inequality in a nation that was founded on the commitment to equality
for all."
--Walter Conkrite, Friday, August 22, 2003
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95493,00.html
walter Cronkite's experience is literally decades old -- he is talking
about the 60s -- he is no expert on the media in 2003
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barbara Walker" |
|
| Title: Re: Walter Cronkite - 'Most of us reporters are liberal...' |
26 Aug 2003 10:32:03 AM |
|
|
"Jenn" <jenn@hmplc.com> wrote in message
news:jenn-9EEEF6.10071626082003@news.vanderbilt.edu...
In article <l7omkv84ajru6t5d3m3oeaqubgkqeeoplb@4ax.com>,
"Ken [NY)" <email@Below.Text> wrote:
"I believe that most of us reporters are liberal, but not because we
consciously have chosen that particular color in the political
spectrum. More likely it is because most of us served our
journalistic apprenticeships as reporters covering the seamier sides
of our cities---the crimes, the tenement fires, the homeless and the
hungry, the underclothed and undereducated.
We reached our intellectual adulthood with daily close-ups of
inequality in a nation that was founded on the commitment to equality
for all."
--Walter Conkrite, Friday, August 22, 2003
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95493,00.html
walter Cronkite's experience is literally decades old -- he is talking
about the 60s -- he is no expert on the media in 2003
So when did the liberals in the media go away, Jenn? Details and dates,
please.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K" |
|
| Title: Re: Walter Cronkite - 'Most of us reporters are liberal...' |
26 Aug 2003 10:47:00 AM |
|
|
"Barbara Walker" <barbara.walker4@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:T3L2b.266937$Ho3.35303@sccrnsc03...
So when did the liberals in the media go away, Jenn? Details and dates,
please.
You are right. Almost the entire US media are owned, operated, managed and
controlled by Jewish liberals. (See below.)
In the US:
http://www.abbc.com/islam/english/toread/whorules.htm
In the UK:
http://www.abbc.com/islam/english/jewishp/gbmedia/gbmedia.htm
In Canada:
http://theoccidentalquarterly.com/vol3no2/km-understanding.html
"Klein's activism highlights the importance of access to the major media
enjoyed by Jewish activists and organizations-a phenomenon that is
traceable ultimately to Jewish intelligence.
Jews have a very large presence in the media as owners, writers, producers,
and editors-far larger than any other identifiable group.75 In the
contemporary world, this presence is especially important with respect to
perceptions of Israel.
Media coverage of Israel in the U.S. is dominated by a pro-Israel bias,
whereas in most of the world the predominant view is that the Palestinians
are a dispossessed people under siege.76
A critical source of support for Israel is the army of professional pundits
"who can be counted upon to support Israel reflexively and without
qualification."77
Perhaps the most egregious example of pro-Israel bias resulting from Jewish
media control is the Asper family, owners of CanWest, a company that
controls over 33% of the English-language newspapers in Canada.
CanWest inaugurated an editorial policy in which all editorials had to be
approved by the main office.
As the Canadian Journalists for Free Expression notes, "the Asper family
staunchly supports Israel in its conflicts with Palestinians, and coverage
of the Middle East appears to be a particularly sensitive area."78
CanWest has exercised control over the content of articles related to
Israelby editing and spiking articles with pro-Palestinian or anti-Israeli
views. Journalists who have failed to adopt CanWest positions have been
reprimanded or dismissed."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barbara Walker" |
|
| Title: Re: Walter Cronkite - 'Most of us reporters are liberal...' |
26 Aug 2003 01:06:53 PM |
|
|
"Mark K" <self@server.net> wrote in message
news:UhL2b.266356$YN5.182290@sccrnsc01...
"Barbara Walker" <barbara.walker4@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:T3L2b.266937$Ho3.35303@sccrnsc03...
So when did the liberals in the media go away, Jenn? Details and
dates,
please.
You are right.
Well, you're correct about that, but all I did above was ask a question.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Barbara Walker" |
|
| Title: Re: Walter Cronkite - 'Most of us reporters are liberal...' |
26 Aug 2003 02:21:41 PM |
|
|
"Zack" <rambler@canoemail.com> wrote in message
news:VsM2b.958$La2.85371963@mantis.golden.net...
Things really don't change all that much from decade to decade. What's
that old saying that goes something like this,
"Learn from history or you will find yourself repeating it"?
People like Cronkite have seen more than most of us could ever see in 50
life times. I remember when he was considered the most respected name in
journalism and now his experience is worth nothing, right?
Not at all. It's useful to know that his experience has shown him that most
reporters are liberals. Knowing that comes in handing when pointing out to
confused Democrats that the news media is quite biased Leftwards.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K" |
|
| Title: Re: Walter Cronkite - 'Most of us reporters are liberal...' |
26 Aug 2003 02:31:52 PM |
|
|
"Barbara Walker" <barbara.walker4@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:9rO2b.269664$uu5.61227@sccrnsc04...
Not at all. It's useful to know that his experience has shown him that
most
reporters are liberals. Knowing that comes in handing when pointing out
to
confused Democrats that the news media is quite biased Leftwards.
The mainly Jewish-owned, operated and managed US media are still liberal on
domestic social issues, as Jews pride themselves on their social conscience.
However, the Jewish-controlled US media have gone neo-conservative on
foreign affairs - as that works for the good of the security of Israel -
never mind the cost to the US.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Zack" |
|
| Title: Re: Walter Cronkite - 'Most of us reporters are liberal...' |
26 Aug 2003 01:20:11 PM |
|
|
VRWC:
Would I be right in asuming that you believe there are really only 2 types
of societies in the world the USA and the old Soviet Union? Does that
mean all the other countries/societies that have survived and prospered for
centuries are totally irrelevent?
Zack
"VRWC Destruction Machine" <VRWC@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bj7nkv492hp0arci6qs0evm5uktep6ahut@4ax.com...
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 11:50:39 -0400, "Zack" <rambler@canoemail.com>
wrote:
Things really don't change all that much from decade to decade. What's
that old saying that goes something like this,
"Learn from history or you will find yourself repeating it"?
People like Cronkite have seen more than most of us could ever see in 50
life times. I remember when he was considered the most respected name in
journalism and now his experience is worth nothing, right?
Right. Given all the years of biased reporting. He should walk off
into the sunset with Helen Thomas. Castro had many years experience of
being a Communist Dictator. I'd say his experience is worth nothing.
If Bush hasd experienced Vietnam he might not have felt so certain about
sending American soldiers into Iraq. He would have learned the hard way
that not eveyone in the world wants the American way of life.
Not everyone in the world wants the USSR way of life.
-
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away
from those who are willing to work and give to those
who would not."
Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "VRWC Destruction Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Walter Cronkite - 'Most of us reporters are liberal...' |
26 Aug 2003 06:58:05 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 14:20:11 -0400, "Zack" <rambler@canoemail.com>
wrote:
VRWC:
Would I be right in asuming that you believe there are really only 2 types
of societies in the world the USA and the old Soviet Union? Does that
mean all the other countries/societies that have survived and prospered for
centuries are totally irrelevent?
You would be assuming wrong. Your also assuming that countries that
have been around for centuries have had only one form of government
throughout their existence. The US has only been around less than
three centuries and our government has went through several changes.
You are also assuming that the United States wants to make Iraq a
mirror image of the United States. We want Iraq to enjoy a system of
government that is comparable to the EU, US or any other country that
promotes human rights. Do you prefer that we return to the old ways? I
guess you have this tremendous insight to the Iraqui mind that wants
to bring back a government which produced mass graves for the
populace, childrens' prisons, disappearing citizens and torture
chambers.
Are you one those Fedayeen Liberals who thought Saddam was an
all-around nice guy?
-
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away
from those who are willing to work and give to those
who would not."
Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zack" |
|
| Title: Re: Walter Cronkite - 'Most of us reporters are liberal...' |
26 Aug 2003 08:45:59 PM |
|
|
Saddam was a ***** and always was, so why did your government leave him
the means to slaughter his domestic enemies after the first gulf war? Why
when they knew what he was doing didn't they go in after him?
Why didn't they go into Saudi Arabia after 9/11? Oil that why, they needed
a steady supply of Saudi oil. If the USA manages to take control in Iraq
do you think they will then go into the Saudi Kingdom and route out all the
terrorist?
If the USAa had gone after the Saudi terrorist after 9/11 there would be far
fewer SUV on American highway today but the world would be a safer place.
It all comes down to oil
Zack
"VRWC Destruction Machine" <VRWC@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:udpnkv0qomafd30f101afjms949299t3nl@4ax.com...
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 14:20:11 -0400, "Zack" <rambler@canoemail.com>
wrote:
VRWC:
Would I be right in asuming that you believe there are really only 2
types
of societies in the world the USA and the old Soviet Union? Does that
mean all the other countries/societies that have survived and prospered
for
centuries are totally irrelevent?
You would be assuming wrong. Your also assuming that countries that
have been around for centuries have had only one form of government
throughout their existence. The US has only been around less than
three centuries and our government has went through several changes.
You are also assuming that the United States wants to make Iraq a
mirror image of the United States. We want Iraq to enjoy a system of
government that is comparable to the EU, US or any other country that
promotes human rights. Do you prefer that we return to the old ways? I
guess you have this tremendous insight to the Iraqui mind that wants
to bring back a government which produced mass graves for the
populace, childrens' prisons, disappearing citizens and torture
chambers.
Are you one those Fedayeen Liberals who thought Saddam was an
all-around nice guy?
-
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away
from those who are willing to work and give to those
who would not."
Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barbara Walker" |
|
| Title: Re: Walter Cronkite - 'Most of us reporters are liberal...' |
26 Aug 2003 09:49:01 PM |
|
|
"Zack" <rambler@canoemail.com> wrote in message
news:7bV2b.998$vz3.89420896@mantis.golden.net...
It all comes down to oil
Zack
Liberal Democrats OPPOSE America taking steps to reduce her dependence upon
foreign, Muslim oil.
Why?
Because the Democrat Party is in bed with the "environmentalist" wackos.
.
|
|
|
| User: "James Hall" |
|
| Title: babs walker On The Environment. |
28 Aug 2003 09:10:41 AM |
|
|
"Barbara Walker" <barbara.walker4@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:x_U2b.206781$It4.97559@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
"Zack" <rambler@canoemail.com> wrote in message
news:7bV2b.998$vz3.89420896@mantis.golden.net...
It all comes down to oil
Zack
Liberal Democrats OPPOSE America taking steps to reduce her dependence
upon
foreign, Muslim oil.
Why?
Because the Democrat Party is in bed with the "environmentalist" wackos.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "VRWC Destruction Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Walter Cronkite - 'Most of us reporters are liberal...' |
27 Aug 2003 10:12:40 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 21:45:59 -0400, "Zack" <rambler@canoemail.com>
wrote:
Saddam was a ***** and always was, so why did your government leave him
the means to slaughter his domestic enemies after the first gulf war? Why
when they knew what he was doing didn't they go in after him?
George H.W. Bush made the mistake of listening to the UN. Once Kuwait
was freed, the UN considered the job to be done.
The leftist would have whined big time if we marched into Baghdad to
complete the job.
Why didn't they go into Saudi Arabia after 9/11? Oil that why, they needed
a steady supply of Saudi oil. If the USA manages to take control in Iraq
do you think they will then go into the Saudi Kingdom and route out all the
terrorist?
Osama bin Laden was headquartered in Afghanistan. The planning and
execution of 9-11 was directly linked to bin Laden. The Taliban was
providing bin Laden his center of operations. The Taliban refused to
give up bin Laden. It makes perfect sense to go into Afghanistan to
try to get bin Laden. It would be ridiculous to look for bin Laden
elsewhere. I'm glad to provide you with a brief education.
If the USAa had gone after the Saudi terrorist after 9/11 there would be far
fewer SUV on American highway today but the world would be a safer place.
SUVs is the root of terrorism. How long did it take you to come to
that conclusion? Did you conclude that Aussies died in the Bali
bombing because they used too many SUVs?
It all comes down to oil
That's leftist all-around argument. They don't have anything else.
-
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away
from those who are willing to work and give to those
who would not."
Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Obwon" |
|
| Title: Re: Walter Cronkite - 'Most of us reporters are liberal...' |
28 Aug 2003 11:06:59 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 08:12:40 -0700, VRWC Destruction Machine
<VRWC@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 21:45:59 -0400, "Zack" <rambler@canoemail.com>
wrote:
Saddam was a ***** and always was, so why did your government leave him
the means to slaughter his domestic enemies after the first gulf war? Why
when they knew what he was doing didn't they go in after him?
George H.W. Bush made the mistake of listening to the UN. Once Kuwait
was freed, the UN considered the job to be done.
The leftist would have whined big time if we marched into Baghdad to
complete the job.
Malarkey!!! The Saudi's, Bush claimed were against it and
would pull their permission to use bases, the U.N. was against
it, and Bush knew better than to attempt it without international
support. Back then international relations meant something,
unlike today where Bush is trying to get the U.N. to come into
Iraq, now that he needs them for cover as a target to be blamed
for his stupidity and failure.
Why didn't they go into Saudi Arabia after 9/11? Oil that why, they needed
a steady supply of Saudi oil. If the USA manages to take control in Iraq
do you think they will then go into the Saudi Kingdom and route out all the
terrorist?
Osama bin Laden was headquartered in Afghanistan. The planning and
execution of 9-11 was directly linked to bin Laden. The Taliban was
providing bin Laden his center of operations. The Taliban refused to
give up bin Laden. It makes perfect sense to go into Afghanistan to
try to get bin Laden. It would be ridiculous to look for bin Laden
elsewhere. I'm glad to provide you with a brief education.
Right, it would have been foolish for them to "follow the
money", or didn't you know that Bin Laden was getting money from
the Saudi's? Oh well, he also got money from George W. Bush in
April of 01 (or was it 02???), I'll bet that $ 23 Million dollars
Bush gave to the most holy Taliban Fathers in "Humanitarian" aid,
certainly went a looonng way towards furthering their good works,
wouldn't you say?
I mean, since the money was humanitarian aid, its for dead
certain this money went to provide sandwiches, soup and textbooks
for the poor starving masses of Afghaf, huh? I mean, how could
they do anything else with the money? It would be impossible for
them to divert that money to other causes because that would
require them to tell lies, something they would find it
impossible to do, right?
Keep it up, you're making a very good case for George and
Bu$hCo., don't they all find it impossible to tell lies? I mean
what with their moral training and all, they'd probably move
heaven and earth before they ever told anyone a lie. (Hmmm, is
that an earthquake I feel?)
If the USAa had gone after the Saudi terrorist after 9/11 there would be far
fewer SUV on American highway today but the world would be a safer place.
SUVs is the root of terrorism. How long did it take you to come to
that conclusion? Did you conclude that Aussies died in the Bali
bombing because they used too many SUVs?
It all comes down to oil
That's leftist all-around argument. They don't have anything else.
What, pray tell, is the rightist "all-around argument"?
Oh yeah, "Clinton did it!" How could I have forgotten?
Obwon
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can
make you commit atrocities."
- Voltaire
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zack" |
|
| Title: Re: Walter Cronkite - 'Most of us reporters are liberal...' |
28 Aug 2003 11:33:45 AM |
|
|
Obwon:
Lot of cutting and pasting going on in your post that makes it look like I
said a lot of things I didn't.
Smarten up or your own credibility will suffer
Zack
"Obwon" <ob110ob@att.net> wrote in message
news:7jqrkv4jj5nenmkiql7363jpouu5l48tuq@4ax.com...
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 08:12:40 -0700, VRWC Destruction Machine
<VRWC@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 21:45:59 -0400, "Zack" <rambler@canoemail.com>
wrote:
Saddam was a ***** and always was, so why did your government leave
him
the means to slaughter his domestic enemies after the first gulf war?
Why
when they knew what he was doing didn't they go in after him?
George H.W. Bush made the mistake of listening to the UN. Once Kuwait
was freed, the UN considered the job to be done.
The leftist would have whined big time if we marched into Baghdad to
complete the job.
Malarkey!!! The Saudi's, Bush claimed were against it and
would pull their permission to use bases, the U.N. was against
it, and Bush knew better than to attempt it without international
support. Back then international relations meant something,
unlike today where Bush is trying to get the U.N. to come into
Iraq, now that he needs them for cover as a target to be blamed
for his stupidity and failure.
Why didn't they go into Saudi Arabia after 9/11? Oil that why, they
needed
a steady supply of Saudi oil. If the USA manages to take control in
Iraq
do you think they will then go into the Saudi Kingdom and route out all
the
terrorist?
Osama bin Laden was headquartered in Afghanistan. The planning and
execution of 9-11 was directly linked to bin Laden. The Taliban was
providing bin Laden his center of operations. The Taliban refused to
give up bin Laden. It makes perfect sense to go into Afghanistan to
try to get bin Laden. It would be ridiculous to look for bin Laden
elsewhere. I'm glad to provide you with a brief education.
Right, it would have been foolish for them to "follow the
money", or didn't you know that Bin Laden was getting money from
the Saudi's? Oh well, he also got money from George W. Bush in
April of 01 (or was it 02???), I'll bet that $ 23 Million dollars
Bush gave to the most holy Taliban Fathers in "Humanitarian" aid,
certainly went a looonng way towards furthering their good works,
wouldn't you say?
I mean, since the money was humanitarian aid, its for dead
certain this money went to provide sandwiches, soup and textbooks
for the poor starving masses of Afghaf, huh? I mean, how could
they do anything else with the money? It would be impossible for
them to divert that money to other causes because that would
require them to tell lies, something they would find it
impossible to do, right?
Keep it up, you're making a very good case for George and
Bu$hCo., don't they all find it impossible to tell lies? I mean
what with their moral training and all, they'd probably move
heaven and earth before they ever told anyone a lie. (Hmmm, is
that an earthquake I feel?)
If the USAa had gone after the Saudi terrorist after 9/11 there would be
far
fewer SUV on American highway today but the world would be a safer
place.
SUVs is the root of terrorism. How long did it take you to come to
that conclusion? Did you conclude that Aussies died in the Bali
bombing because they used too many SUVs?
It all comes down to oil
That's leftist all-around argument. They don't have anything else.
What, pray tell, is the rightist "all-around argument"?
Oh yeah, "Clinton did it!" How could I have forgotten?
Obwon
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can
make you commit atrocities."
- Voltaire
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
.
|
|
|
| User: "Obwon" |
|
| Title: Re: Walter Cronkite - 'Most of us reporters are liberal...' |
29 Aug 2003 09:56:44 AM |
|
|
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:33:45 -0400, "Zack"
<rambler@canoemail.com> wrote:
Obwon:
Lot of cutting and pasting going on in your post that makes it look like I
said a lot of things I didn't.
Smarten up or your own credibility will suffer
Zack
Really? Where?
Obwon
"Obwon" <ob110ob@att.net> wrote in message
news:7jqrkv4jj5nenmkiql7363jpouu5l48tuq@4ax.com...
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 08:12:40 -0700, VRWC Destruction Machine
<VRWC@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 21:45:59 -0400, "Zack" <rambler@canoemail.com>
wrote:
Saddam was a ***** and always was, so why did your government leave
him
the means to slaughter his domestic enemies after the first gulf war?
Why
when they knew what he was doing didn't they go in after him?
George H.W. Bush made the mistake of listening to the UN. Once Kuwait
was freed, the UN considered the job to be done.
The leftist would have whined big time if we marched into Baghdad to
complete the job.
Malarkey!!! The Saudi's, Bush claimed were against it and
would pull their permission to use bases, the U.N. was against
it, and Bush knew better than to attempt it without international
support. Back then international relations meant something,
unlike today where Bush is trying to get the U.N. to come into
Iraq, now that he needs them for cover as a target to be blamed
for his stupidity and failure.
Why didn't they go into Saudi Arabia after 9/11? Oil that why, they
needed
a steady supply of Saudi oil. If the USA manages to take control in
Iraq
do you think they will then go into the Saudi Kingdom and route out all
the
terrorist?
Osama bin Laden was headquartered in Afghanistan. The planning and
execution of 9-11 was directly linked to bin Laden. The Taliban was
providing bin Laden his center of operations. The Taliban refused to
give up bin Laden. It makes perfect sense to go into Afghanistan to
try to get bin Laden. It would be ridiculous to look for bin Laden
elsewhere. I'm glad to provide you with a brief education.
Right, it would have been foolish for them to "follow the
money", or didn't you know that Bin Laden was getting money from
the Saudi's? Oh well, he also got money from George W. Bush in
April of 01 (or was it 02???), I'll bet that $ 23 Million dollars
Bush gave to the most holy Taliban Fathers in "Humanitarian" aid,
certainly went a looonng way towards furthering their good works,
wouldn't you say?
I mean, since the money was humanitarian aid, its for dead
certain this money went to provide sandwiches, soup and textbooks
for the poor starving masses of Afghaf, huh? I mean, how could
they do anything else with the money? It would be impossible for
them to divert that money to other causes because that would
require them to tell lies, something they would find it
impossible to do, right?
Keep it up, you're making a very good case for George and
Bu$hCo., don't they all find it impossible to tell lies? I mean
what with their moral training and all, they'd probably move
heaven and earth before they ever told anyone a lie. (Hmmm, is
that an earthquake I feel?)
If the USAa had gone after the Saudi terrorist after 9/11 there would be
far
fewer SUV on American highway today but the world would be a safer
place.
SUVs is the root of terrorism. How long did it take you to come to
that conclusion? Did you conclude that Aussies died in the Bali
bombing because they used too many SUVs?
It all comes down to oil
That's leftist all-around argument. They don't have anything else.
What, pray tell, is the rightist "all-around argument"?
Oh yeah, "Clinton did it!" How could I have forgotten?
Obwon
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can
make you commit atrocities."
- Voltaire
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can
make you commit atrocities."
- Voltaire
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zack" |
|
| Title: Re: Walter Cronkite - 'Most of us reporters are liberal...' |
29 Aug 2003 05:36:04 PM |
|
|
Read my posts and look how you have cut and pasted stuff into my staements
that don't fit with my original comments. I have seen this done before and
it really screws up the perpetrators reputation on the newsgroup, you don't
want that do you.
Mistakes happen, please be careful the next time.
Zack
"Obwon" <ob110ob@att.net> wrote in message
news:dobukv8u7pah3cvqcqdm54ksgsh4d7s5to@4ax.com...
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:33:45 -0400, "Zack"
<rambler@canoemail.com> wrote:
Obwon:
Lot of cutting and pasting going on in your post that makes it look like
I
said a lot of things I didn't.
Smarten up or your own credibility will suffer
Zack
Really? Where?
Obwon
"Obwon" <ob110ob@att.net> wrote in message
news:7jqrkv4jj5nenmkiql7363jpouu5l48tuq@4ax.com...
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 08:12:40 -0700, VRWC Destruction Machine
<VRWC@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 21:45:59 -0400, "Zack" <rambler@canoemail.com>
wrote:
Saddam was a ***** and always was, so why did your government
leave
him
the means to slaughter his domestic enemies after the first gulf war?
Why
when they knew what he was doing didn't they go in after him?
George H.W. Bush made the mistake of listening to the UN. Once Kuwait
was freed, the UN considered the job to be done.
The leftist would have whined big time if we marched into Baghdad to
complete the job.
Malarkey!!! The Saudi's, Bush claimed were against it and
would pull their permission to use bases, the U.N. was against
it, and Bush knew better than to attempt it without international
support. Back then international relations meant something,
unlike today where Bush is trying to get the U.N. to come into
Iraq, now that he needs them for cover as a target to be blamed
for his stupidity and failure.
Why didn't they go into Saudi Arabia after 9/11? Oil that why, they
needed
a steady supply of Saudi oil. If the USA manages to take control
in
Iraq
do you think they will then go into the Saudi Kingdom and route out
all
the
terrorist?
Osama bin Laden was headquartered in Afghanistan. The planning and
execution of 9-11 was directly linked to bin Laden. The Taliban was
providing bin Laden his center of operations. The Taliban refused to
give up bin Laden. It makes perfect sense to go into Afghanistan to
try to get bin Laden. It would be ridiculous to look for bin Laden
elsewhere. I'm glad to provide you with a brief education.
Right, it would have been foolish for them to "follow the
money", or didn't you know that Bin Laden was getting money from
the Saudi's? Oh well, he also got money from George W. Bush in
April of 01 (or was it 02???), I'll bet that $ 23 Million dollars
Bush gave to the most holy Taliban Fathers in "Humanitarian" aid,
certainly went a looonng way towards furthering their good works,
wouldn't you say?
I mean, since the money was humanitarian aid, its for dead
certain this money went to provide sandwiches, soup and textbooks
for the poor starving masses of Afghaf, huh? I mean, how could
they do anything else with the money? It would be impossible for
them to divert that money to other causes because that would
require them to tell lies, something they would find it
impossible to do, right?
Keep it up, you're making a very good case for George and
Bu$hCo., don't they all find it impossible to tell lies? I mean
what with their moral training and all, they'd probably move
heaven and earth before they ever told anyone a lie. (Hmmm, is
that an earthquake I feel?)
If the USAa had gone after the Saudi terrorist after 9/11 there would
be
far
fewer SUV on American highway today but the world would be a safer
place.
SUVs is the root of terrorism. How long did it take you to come to
that conclusion? Did you conclude that Aussies died in the Bali
bombing because they used too many SUVs?
It all comes down to oil
That's leftist all-around argument. They don't have anything else.
What, pray tell, is the rightist "all-around argument"?
Oh yeah, "Clinton did it!" How could I have forgotten?
Obwon
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can
make you commit atrocities."
- Voltaire
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can
make you commit atrocities."
- Voltaire
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
.
|
|
|
| User: "MiKe" |
|
| Title: Re: Walter Cronkite - 'Most of us reporters are liberal...' |
01 Sep 2003 07:32:38 PM |
|
|
"Ken [NY)" wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 18:36:04 -0400, "Zack" <rambler@canoemail.com>
ranted:
Read my posts and look how you have cut and pasted stuff into my staements
that don't fit with my original comments. I have seen this done before and
it really screws up the perpetrators reputation on the newsgroup, you don't
want that do you.
Obwon has no credibility to be damaged.
This coming from a cop who was forced to drive a desk for years and years.
--
"We should not march into Baghdad. To occupy Iraq would
instantly shatter our coalition, turning the whole Arab
world against us and make a broken tyrant into a latter-
day Arab hero. Assigning young soldiers to a fruitless
hunt for a securely entrenched dictator and condemning
them to fight in what would be an unwinable urban guerilla
war, it could only plunge that part of the world into ever
greater instability."
-George H. W. Bush in his 1998 book "A World Transformed",
http://minime.de/bush/
http://www.911pi.com/
http://www.warprofiteers.com/
http://www.bringthemhomenow.org/
http://www.mindprod.com/bush911.html
http://www.rise4news.net/Saddam-CIA.html
http://www.hermes-press.com/brainwash1.htm
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Obwon" |
|
| Title: Re: Walter Cronkite - 'Most of us reporters are liberal...' |
04 Sep 2003 09:58:00 AM |
|
|
I haven't seen you here before but just for your information,
everyone here knows that I don't cut and paste in to posts! That
has never been my style, okay? Whatever you're trying to do,
just forget it or you'll find yourself being killfiled all over
the place.
Obwon
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 18:36:04 -0400, "Zack"
<rambler@canoemail.com> wrote:
Read my posts and look how you have cut and pasted stuff into my staements
that don't fit with my original comments. I have seen this done before and
it really screws up the perpetrators reputation on the newsgroup, you don't
want that do you.
Mistakes happen, please be careful the next time.
Zack
"Obwon" <ob110ob@att.net> wrote in message
news:dobukv8u7pah3cvqcqdm54ksgsh4d7s5to@4ax.com...
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:33:45 -0400, "Zack"
<rambler@canoemail.com> wrote:
Obwon:
Lot of cutting and pasting going on in your post that makes it look like
I
said a lot of things I didn't.
Smarten up or your own credibility will suffer
Zack
Really? Where?
Obwon
"Obwon" <ob110ob@att.net> wrote in message
news:7jqrkv4jj5nenmkiql7363jpouu5l48tuq@4ax.com...
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 08:12:40 -0700, VRWC Destruction Machine
<VRWC@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 21:45:59 -0400, "Zack" <rambler@canoemail.com>
wrote:
Saddam was a ***** and always was, so why did your government
leave
him
the means to slaughter his domestic enemies after the first gulf war?
Why
when they knew what he was doing didn't they go in after him?
George H.W. Bush made the mistake of listening to the UN. Once Kuwait
was freed, the UN considered the job to be done.
The leftist would have whined big time if we marched into Baghdad to
complete the job.
Malarkey!!! The Saudi's, Bush claimed were against it and
would pull their permission to use bases, the U.N. was against
it, and Bush knew better than to attempt it without international
support. Back then international relations meant something,
unlike today where Bush is trying to get the U.N. to come into
Iraq, now that he needs them for cover as a target to be blamed
for his stupidity and failure.
Why didn't they go into Saudi Arabia after 9/11? Oil that why, they
needed
a steady supply of Saudi oil. If the USA manages to take control
in
Iraq
do you think they will then go into the Saudi Kingdom and route out
all
the
terrorist?
Osama bin Laden was headquartered in Afghanistan. The planning and
execution of 9-11 was directly linked to bin Laden. The Taliban was
providing bin Laden his center of operations. The Taliban refused to
give up bin Laden. It makes perfect sense to go into Afghanistan to
try to get bin Laden. It would be ridiculous to look for bin Laden
elsewhere. I'm glad to provide you with a brief education.
Right, it would have been foolish for them to "follow the
money", or didn't you know that Bin Laden was getting money from
the Saudi's? Oh well, he also got money from George W. Bush in
April of 01 (or was it 02???), I'll bet that $ 23 Million dollars
Bush gave to the most holy Taliban Fathers in "Humanitarian" aid,
certainly went a looonng way towards furthering their good works,
wouldn't you say?
I mean, since the money was humanitarian aid, its for dead
certain this money went to provide sandwiches, soup and textbooks
for the poor starving masses of Afghaf, huh? I mean, how could
they do anything else with the money? It would be impossible for
them to divert that money to other causes because that would
require them to tell lies, something they would find it
impossible to do, right?
Keep it up, you're making a very good case for George and
Bu$hCo., don't they all find it impossible to tell lies? I mean
what with their moral training and all, they'd probably move
heaven and earth before they ever told anyone a lie. (Hmmm, is
that an earthquake I feel?)
If the USAa had gone after the Saudi terrorist after 9/11 there would
be
far
fewer SUV on American highway today but the world would be a safer
place.
SUVs is the root of terrorism. How long did it take you to come to
that conclusion? Did you conclude that Aussies died in the Bali
bombing because they used too many SUVs?
It all comes down to oil
That's leftist all-around argument. They don't have anything else.
What, pray tell, is the rightist "all-around argument"?
Oh yeah, "Clinton did it!" How could I have forgotten?
Obwon
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can
make you commit atrocities."
- Voltaire
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can
make you commit atrocities."
- Voltaire
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can
make you commit atrocities."
- Voltaire
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
.
|
|
|
| User: "Zack" |
|
| Title: Re: Walter Cronkite - 'Most of us reporters are liberal...' |
04 Sep 2003 12:10:51 PM |
|
|
Obwon:
If your saying you didn't cut and paste my post then who the hell did?
Follow the thread and tell me who you think did it?
If you have such a good reputation why haven't more people come to your
defence?
Zack
"Obwon" <ob110ob@att.net> wrote in message
news:gg6elvk1c2odcadko2c5ateck8g01maijf@4ax.com...
I haven't seen you here before but just for your information,
everyone here knows that I don't cut and paste in to posts! That
has never been my style, okay? Whatever you're trying to do,
just forget it or you'll find yourself being killfiled all over
the place.
Obwon
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 18:36:04 -0400, "Zack"
<rambler@canoemail.com> wrote:
Read my posts and look how you have cut and pasted stuff into my
staements
that don't fit with my original comments. I have seen this done before
and
it really screws up the perpetrators reputation on the newsgroup, you
don't
want that do you.
Mistakes happen, please be careful the next time.
Zack
"Obwon" <ob110ob@att.net> wrote in message
news:dobukv8u7pah3cvqcqdm54ksgsh4d7s5to@4ax.com...
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 12:33:45 -0400, "Zack"
<rambler@canoemail.com> wrote:
Obwon:
Lot of cutting and pasting going on in your post that makes it look
like
I
said a lot of things I didn't.
Smarten up or your own credibility will suffer
Zack
Really? Where?
Obwon
"Obwon" <ob110ob@att.net> wrote in message
news:7jqrkv4jj5nenmkiql7363jpouu5l48tuq@4ax.com...
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 08:12:40 -0700, VRWC Destruction Machine
<VRWC@hotmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 21:45:59 -0400, "Zack" <rambler@canoemail.com>
wrote:
Saddam was a ***** and always was, so why did your government
leave
him
the means to slaughter his domestic enemies after the first gulf
war?
Why
when they knew what he was doing didn't they go in after him?
George H.W. Bush made the mistake of listening to the UN. Once
Kuwait
was freed, the UN considered the job to be done.
The leftist would have whined big time if we marched into Baghdad
to
complete the job.
Malarkey!!! The Saudi's, Bush claimed were against it and
would pull their permission to use bases, the U.N. was against
it, and Bush knew better than to attempt it without international
support. Back then international relations meant something,
unlike today where Bush is trying to get the U.N. to come into
Iraq, now that he needs them for cover as a target to be blamed
for his stupidity and failure.
Why didn't they go into Saudi Arabia after 9/11? Oil that why,
they
needed
a steady supply of Saudi oil. If the USA manages to take
control
in
Iraq
do you think they will then go into the Saudi Kingdom and route
out
all
the
terrorist?
Osama bin Laden was headquartered in Afghanistan. The planning and
execution of 9-11 was directly linked to bin Laden. The Taliban was
providing bin Laden his center of operations. The Taliban refused
to
give up bin Laden. It makes perfect sense to go into Afghanistan to
try to get bin Laden. It would be ridiculous to look for bin Laden
elsewhere. I'm glad to provide you with a brief education.
Right, it would have been foolish for them to "follow the
money", or didn't you know that Bin Laden was getting money from
the Saudi's? Oh well, he also got money from George W. Bush in
April of 01 (or was it 02???), I'll bet that $ 23 Million dollars
Bush gave to the most holy Taliban Fathers in "Humanitarian" aid,
certainly went a looonng way towards furthering their good works,
wouldn't you say?
I mean, since the money was humanitarian aid, its for dead
certain this money went to provide sandwiches, soup and textbooks
for the poor starving masses of Afghaf, huh? I mean, how could
they do anything else with the money? It would be impossible for
them to divert that money to other causes because that would
require them to tell lies, something they would find it
impossible to do, right?
Keep it up, you're making a very good case for George and
Bu$hCo., don't they all find it impossible to tell lies? I mean
what with their moral training and all, they'd probably move
heaven and earth before they ever told anyone a lie. (Hmmm, is
that an earthquake I feel?)
If the USAa had gone after the Saudi terrorist after 9/11 there
would
be
far
fewer SUV on American highway today but the world would be a safer
place.
SUVs is the root of terrorism. How long did it take you to come to
that conclusion? Did you conclude that Aussies died in the Bali
bombing because they used too many SUVs?
It all comes down to oil
That's leftist all-around argument. They don't have anything else.
What, pray tell, is the rightist "all-around argument"?
Oh yeah, "Clinton did it!" How could I have forgotten?
Obwon
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can
make you commit atrocities."
- Voltaire
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can
make you commit atrocities."
- Voltaire
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can
make you commit atrocities."
- Voltaire
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Obwon" |
|
| Title: Re: Walter Cronkite - 'Most of us reporters are liberal...' |
04 Sep 2003 10:01:25 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 31 Aug 2003 12:31:55 GMT, "Ken [NY)" <email@Below.Text>
wrote:
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 18:36:04 -0400, "Zack" <rambler@canoemail.com>
ranted:
Read my posts and look how you have cut and pasted stuff into my staements
that don't fit with my original comments. I have seen this done before and
it really screws up the perpetrators reputation on the newsgroup, you don't
want that do you.
Obwon has no credibility to be damaged.
Ken (NY)
Chairman,
Department Of Redundancy Department
Says the very guy who post threadbare lies, man oh man, your
postings are becoming increasingly useless even as disprovables!
You are one of the most dismissable people on the net that I know
of, and everyone who has any credibility at all both knows and
says that repeatedly.
Good luk
Obwon
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
"Those who can make you believe absurdities can
make you commit atrocities."
- Voltaire
O[]ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ[]O
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Zack" |
|
| Title: Re: Walter Cronkite - 'Most of us reporters are liberal...' |
27 Aug 2003 11:17:28 AM |
|
|
The reason America has so much trouble around the world is because people
like you think and preach that it's the American way or the highway.
Everyone who doesn't capitulate is a leftist, am I right? Everyone who has
the unmitigated gaul to say they don't want to become American must be a
leftist, right? No other country in the world has true democracy, right?
All thru history there have ben leaders who thought they could control the
world, they always fail.
Learn a little more about history the world then teach your children to
accept world diversity.
Nobody not even the all knowing George W. Bush has all the answers.
Zack
"VRWC Destruction Machine" <VRWC@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5oepkvot0eqeljj76uhk7ai6vr1m2ah8ip@4ax.com...
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 21:45:59 -0400, "Zack" <rambler@canoemail.com>
wrote:
Saddam was a ***** and always was, so why did your government leave
him
the means to slaughter his domestic enemies after the first gulf war?
Why
when they knew what he was doing didn't they go in after him?
George H.W. Bush made the mistake of listening to the UN. Once Kuwait
was freed, the UN considered the job to be done.
The leftist would have whined big time if we marched into Baghdad to
complete the job.
Why didn't they go into Saudi Arabia after 9/11? Oil that why, they
needed
a steady supply of Saudi oil. If the USA manages to take control in
Iraq
do you think they will then go into the Saudi Kingdom and route out all
the
terrorist?
Osama bin Laden was headquartered in Afghanistan. The planning and
execution of 9-11 was directly linked to bin Laden. The Taliban was
providing bin Laden his center of operations. The Taliban refused to
give up bin Laden. It makes perfect sense to go into Afghanistan to
try to get bin Laden. It would be ridiculous to look for bin Laden
elsewhere. I'm glad to provide you with a brief education.
If the USAa had gone after the Saudi terrorist after 9/11 there would be
far
fewer SUV on American highway today but the world would be a safer place.
SUVs is the root of terrorism. How long did it take you to come to
that conclusion? Did you conclude that Aussies died in the Bali
bombing because they used too many SUVs?
It all comes down to oil
That's leftist all-around argument. They don't have anything else.
-
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away
from those who are willing to work and give to those
who would not."
Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
| User: "VRWC Destruction Machine" |
|
| Title: Re: Walter Cronkite - 'Most of us reporters are liberal...' |
27 Aug 2003 07:56:43 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 12:17:28 -0400, "Zack" <rambler@canoemail.com>
wrote:
The reason America has so much trouble around the world is because people
like you think and preach that it's the American way or the highway.
Everyone who doesn't capitulate is a leftist, am I right? Everyone who has
the unmitigated gaul to say they don't want to become American must be a
leftist, right? No other country in the world has true democracy, right?
Let's not go further than the first issue you presented.
You asked:
"why did your government leave him the means to slaughter his domestic
enemies after the first gulf war"
I said, George H.W. Bush made the mistake of LISTENING to the UN to
pull out of Iraq once Kuwait was free from Saddam's forces.
Throughout this conflict, leftists have whined that the United States
acted without UN approval.
Now that we are trying to correct the damage Saddam done to his
country, you're whining that we LISTENED TO THE UN.
You can't have it both ways. Why are now whining about the US
complying with UN back then?
All thru history there have ben leaders who thought they could control the
world, they always fail.
Learn a little more about history the world then teach your children to
accept world diversity.
Nobody not even the all knowing George W. Bush has all the answers.
Zack
"VRWC Destruction Machine" <VRWC@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5oepkvot0eqeljj76uhk7ai6vr1m2ah8ip@4ax.com...
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 21:45:59 -0400, "Zack" <rambler@canoemail.com>
wrote:
Saddam was a ***** and always was, so why did your government leave
him
the means to slaughter his domestic enemies after the first gulf war?
Why
when they knew what he was doing didn't they go in after him?
George H.W. Bush made the mistake of listening to the UN. Once Kuwait
was freed, the UN considered the job to be done.
The leftist would have whined big time if we marched into Baghdad to
complete the job.
Why didn't they go into Saudi Arabia after 9/11? Oil that why, they
needed
a steady supply of Saudi oil. If the USA manages to take control in
Iraq
do you think they will then go into the Saudi Kingdom and route out all
the
terrorist?
Osama bin Laden was headquartered in Afghanistan. The planning and
execution of 9-11 was directly linked to bin Laden. The Taliban was
providing bin Laden his center of operations. The Taliban refused to
give up bin Laden. It makes perfect sense to go into Afghanistan to
try to get bin Laden. It would be ridiculous to look for bin Laden
elsewhere. I'm glad to provide you with a brief education.
If the USAa had gone after the Saudi terrorist after 9/11 there would be
far
fewer SUV on American highway today but the world would be a safer place.
SUVs is the root of terrorism. How long did it take you to come to
that conclusion? Did you conclude that Aussies died in the Bali
bombing because they used too many SUVs?
It all comes down to oil
That's leftist all-around argument. They don't have anything else.
-
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away
from those who are willing to work and give to those
who would not."
Thomas Jefferson
-
"The democracy will cease to exist when you take away
from those who are willing to work and give to those
who would not."
Thomas Jefferson
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Tim Cowell" |
|
| Title: Re: Walter Cronkite - 'Most of us reporters are liberal...' |
26 Aug 2003 09:48:08 AM |
|
|
Tough ***** ain't it? Unfortunate that conservatives are too stupid to get
jobs in journalism.
"Ken [NY)" <email@Below.Text> wrote in message
news:l7omkv84ajru6t5d3m3oeaqubgkqeeoplb@4ax.com...
"I believe that most of us reporters are liberal, but not because we
consciously have chosen that particular color in the political
spectrum. More likely it is because most of us served our
journalistic apprenticeships as reporters covering the seamier sides
of our cities---the crimes, the tenement fires, the homeless and the
hungry, the underclothed and undereducated.
We reached our intellectual adulthood with daily close-ups of
inequality in a nation that was founded on the commitment to equality
for all."
--Walter Conkrite, Friday, August 22, 2003
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,95493,00.html
Ken (NY)
Chairman,
Department Of Redundancy Department
____________________________________
email:
http://www.geocities.com/bluesguy68/email.htm
"Eventually, socialists run out of other people's money."
--Baroness Margaret Thatcher
"This time I think the Americans are serious.
Bush is not like Clinton. I think this is
the end."
--Uday Hussein's final words,
reported in The Washington Times
Q: What the hardest thing about rollerblading?
A: Telling your parents you're gay.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K" |
|
| Title: Re: Walter Cronkite - 'Most of us reporters are liberal...' |
26 Aug 2003 10:49:57 AM |
|
|
"Barbara Walker" <barbara.walker4@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:CDK2b.267928$uu5.61266@sccrnsc04...
Kinda similar to how liberals are so stupid that they are getting fewer
and
fewer jobs in the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, eh Tim?
After 9/11, conservatives have the power of the reptilian brain (in humans)
behind them.
(Reptilian brain: http://www.crystalinks.com/reptilianbrain.html)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barbara Walker" |
|
| Title: Re: Walter Cronkite - 'Most of us reporters are liberal...' |
26 Aug 2003 01:06:53 PM |
|
|
"Mark K" <self@server.net> wrote in message
news:FkL2b.267054$Ho3.33519@sccrnsc03...
"Barbara Walker" <barbara.walker4@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:CDK2b.267928$uu5.61266@sccrnsc04...
Kinda similar to how liberals are so stupid that they are getting fewer
and
fewer jobs in the House, the Senate, and the Presidency, eh Tim?
After 9/11, conservatives have the power of the reptilian brain (in
humans)
behind them.
Also after 9/11: the Republicans won both the House and the Senate in 2002
Apparently "reptilian brains" trump Democrat Party brains........
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K" |
|
| Title: Re: Walter Cronkite - 'Most of us reporters are liberal...' |
26 Aug 2003 01:28:13 PM |
|
|
"Barbara Walker" <barbara.walker4@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1lN2b.269264$uu5.61374@sccrnsc04...
Also after 9/11: the Republicans won both the House and the Senate in
2002
Apparently "reptilian brains" trump Democrat Party brains........
"Reptilian brains" always trump the thinking brain, because the reptilian
brain tends to get all fired up instinctively when it experiences danger.
(Reptilian brain: http://www.crystalinks.com/reptilianbrain.html)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Barbara Walker" |
|
| Title: Re: Walter Cronkite - 'Most of us reporters are liberal...' |
26 Aug 2003 02:13:12 PM |
|
|
"Mark K" <self@server.net> wrote in message
news:1FN2b.204054$It4.96072@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
"Barbara Walker" <barbara.walker4@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1lN2b.269264$uu5.61374@sccrnsc04...
Also after 9/11: the Republicans won both the House and the Senate in
2002
Apparently "reptilian brains" trump Democrat Party brains........
"Reptilian brains" always trump the thinking brain, because the reptilian
brain tends to get all fired up instinctively when it experiences danger.
IOW, the "Reptilian brain" is higher on the evolutionary chain, because it
is more successful in dealing with danger and threats to its survival.
This does indeed explain the ongoing Democrat Party Death Spiral! Good
post, Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "James Hall" |
|
| Title: Al Franken Syas "Read babs walker For Biology Info." |
26 Aug 2003 07:41:36 PM |
|
|
"Barbara Walker" <barbara.walker4@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:cjO2b.266969$o%2.121813@sccrnsc02...
"Mark K" <self@server.net> wrote in message
news:1FN2b.204054$It4.96072@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
"Barbara Walker" <barbara.walker4@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1lN2b.269264$uu5.61374@sccrnsc04...
Also after 9/11: the Republicans won both the House and the Senate
in
2002
Apparently "reptilian brains" trump Democrat Party brains........
"Reptilian brains" always trump the thinking brain, because the
reptilian
brain tends to get all fired up instinctively when it experiences
danger.
IOW, the "Reptilian brain" is higher on the evolutionary chain, because it
is more successful in dealing with danger and threats to its survival.
This does indeed explain the ongoing Democrat Party Death Spiral! Good
post, Mark.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Seethis Pass" |
|
| Title: Re: Al Franken Syas "Read babs walker For Biology Info." |
27 Aug 2003 07:40:02 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 20:41:36 -0400, "James Hall" <jhall@cuic.ca>
wrote:
"Barbara Walker" <barbara.walker4@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:cjO2b.266969$o%2.121813@sccrnsc02...
"Mark K" <self@server.net> wrote in message
news:1FN2b.204054$It4.96072@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
"Barbara Walker" <barbara.walker4@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:1lN2b.269264$uu5.61374@sccrnsc04...
Also after 9/11: the Republicans won both the House and the Senate
in
2002
Apparently "reptilian brains" trump Democrat Party brains........
"Reptilian brains" always trump the thinking brain, because the
reptilian
brain tends to get all fired up instinctively when it experiences
danger.
IOW, the "Reptilian brain" is higher on the evolutionary chain, because it
is more successful in dealing with danger and threats to its survival.
This does indeed explain the ongoing Democrat Party Death Spiral! Good
post, Mark.
Ahem!
Looking to get some of that good aligator tail from Barbra ?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
