On Jul 12, 8:50?am, wrote:


But there is no proof of "lies and hubris", no convictions, only
anecdotal web blogs encouraged and paid for by groups like the Soros
organization, DNC, One World, ACLU, NAMBLA, and various other fringe
activist groups. But like your lies about O, no real proof, just
daydreams and made up stories...


I think we agree on something, justafreakin. It can be disastrous to
accept unproven spin as a basis for opinion, and even more disastrous
to use it as a basis for defining policy. We probably shouldn't listen
to anybody with a partisan agenda or financial interest in one version
of the truth vs. another. Any suggestions concerning where we should
turn for completely unbiased reporting devoid of partisan influence
and editorializing? I'd be at a loss to identify a single one, on any
side of the spectrum or in any medium. Looks to me like you and jps
have each chosen a different subset from the universe of biased
sources.
Darned if I know which is less biased, or even which bias is more or
less destructive than the other. I know which bias serves my personal
agenda more specifically, but it would sure screw up the NG for me to
interrupt threads and try to divert the discussion to politics.