On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:00:10 -0500, John H wrote:


Bush Bashing was the forte of the Washington Post. That's why their
subscriptions have plummeted.

Well, it's difficult to right anything truthful about the most
incompetent President in recent history, without looking like you are
"bashing".


http://tinyurl.com/9nu9st

Their net income hasn't looked too good for the past few years.

Seeing that you have been asleep the past decade, I'll inform you, it
isn't "Bush bashing" that is causing problems with most newspapers. It's
the internet.

wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:00:10 -0500, John H wrote:


Bush Bashing was the forte of the Washington Post. That's why their
subscriptions have plummeted.

Well, it's difficult to right anything truthful about the most
incompetent President in recent history, without looking like you are
"bashing".


http://tinyurl.com/9nu9st

Their net income hasn't looked too good for the past few years.

Seeing that you have been asleep the past decade, I'll inform you, it
isn't "Bush bashing" that is causing problems with most newspapers. It's
the internet.


It's always a bit of a grin, as it were, to read the political spins of
those right-wingers who have swallowed so much of the party pablum that
they have a ready but simple-minded and usually wrong rationalization
for everything in life, such as "If the Post hadn't bashed Bush so much,
the paper would be doing better financially."

Certainly the internet has hit the newspaper business hard, as have the
24-7 cable news channels and the increasing reluctance of much of the
population to, well, read. Reading a good newspaper requires a bit of
time and concentration, and it is much easier to absorb a few sound
bites from cable news.

Some of the really loony righties on the gun boards are overjoyed at the
slide of newspapers, because they believe they'll do better with the
general populace by confining "news" to blogs that are easier to control.

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:22:08 -0500, Boater wrote:

wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:00:10 -0500, John H wrote:


Bush Bashing was the forte of the Washington Post. That's why their
subscriptions have plummeted.

Well, it's difficult to right anything truthful about the most
incompetent President in recent history, without looking like you are
"bashing".


http://tinyurl.com/9nu9st

Their net income hasn't looked too good for the past few years.

Seeing that you have been asleep the past decade, I'll inform you, it
isn't "Bush bashing" that is causing problems with most newspapers. It's
the internet.


It's always a bit of a grin, as it were, to read the political spins of
those right-wingers who have swallowed so much of the party pablum that
they have a ready but simple-minded and usually wrong rationalization
for everything in life, such as "If the Post hadn't bashed Bush so much,
the paper would be doing better financially."

Certainly the internet has hit the newspaper business hard, as have the
24-7 cable news channels and the increasing reluctance of much of the
population to, well, read. Reading a good newspaper requires a bit of
time and concentration, and it is much easier to absorb a few sound
bites from cable news.

Some of the really loony righties on the gun boards are overjoyed at the
slide of newspapers, because they believe they'll do better with the
general populace by confining "news" to blogs that are easier to control.



Have you ever noticed that many liberals must resort to personal insults in
any discussion.

Bye.
--
** Good Day! **

John H

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 08:01:40 -0600, wrote:

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:00:10 -0500, John H wrote:


Bush Bashing was the forte of the Washington Post. That's why their
subscriptions have plummeted.

Well, it's difficult to right anything truthful about the most
incompetent President in recent history, without looking like you are
"bashing".


http://tinyurl.com/9nu9st

Their net income hasn't looked too good for the past few years.

Seeing that you have been asleep the past decade, I'll inform you, it
isn't "Bush bashing" that is causing problems with most newspapers. It's
the internet.

Have you ever noticed that many liberals must resort to personal insults in
any discussion.

Bye.
--
** Good Day! **

John H

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:28:53 -0500, John H wrote:


Have you ever noticed that many liberals must resort to personal insults
in any discussion.

Bye.

http://www.amishrakefight.org/gfy/

That's a personal insult.

wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:00:10 -0500, John H wrote:


Bush Bashing was the forte of the Washington Post. That's why their
subscriptions have plummeted.

Well, it's difficult to right anything truthful about the most
incompetent President in recent history, without looking like you are
"bashing".

History will show that GWB was a much better President than his
predecessor and his father and many others in the preceeding 100 years.

http://tinyurl.com/9nu9st

Their net income hasn't looked too good for the past few years.

Seeing that you have been asleep the past decade, I'll inform you, it
isn't "Bush bashing" that is causing problems with most newspapers. It's
the internet.

Why are newspapers having problems with the Internet? Could it be that
the newspapers have been feeding their subscribers pages and pages of
biased crap for far too long?

BAR wrote:
wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:00:10 -0500, John H wrote:


Bush Bashing was the forte of the Washington Post. That's why their
subscriptions have plummeted.

Well, it's difficult to right anything truthful about the most
incompetent President in recent history, without looking like you are
"bashing".

History will show that GWB was a much better President than his
predecessor and his father and many others in the preceeding 100 years.


***Hahaha. Right. And Sarah Palin will be the savior of the GOP. And the
check is in the mail.***





http://tinyurl.com/9nu9st

Their net income hasn't looked too good for the past few years.

Seeing that you have been asleep the past decade, I'll inform you, it
isn't "Bush bashing" that is causing problems with most newspapers.
It's the internet.

Why are newspapers having problems with the Internet? Could it be that
the newspapers have been feeding their subscribers pages and pages of
biased crap for far too long?

Ahhh...another believer in right-wing bullschitt.



http://fc17.deviantart.com/fs10/i/20...MakinSushi.gif

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:27:21 -0500, BAR wrote:


History will show that GWB was a much better President than his
predecessor and his father and many others in the preceeding 100 years.

We'll have to wait and see, but I seriously doubt it. Look at the world
situation in 2001, then, look at it now. Iran was a problem. It still
is. Israel/Palestine? No real change. North Korea, still the same.
Now Iraq? It's still unstable and dangerous. I will admit it has the
potential to be a stabilizing influence in an unstable area, but it also
still runs the chance of getting out of control. It's way too early for
any predictions.

The perception of America by the rest of the world? Sorry, Bush has had
a negative effect.

The economy? If Obama saves us from a depression, Bush won't go down as
a "Hoover". If Obama fails, Bush and Hoover are synonymous.

At best, Bush will be remembered by history as a mediocre President, more
likely, he will be remembered as one of the worst.


Why are newspapers having problems with the Internet? Could it be that
the newspapers have been feeding their subscribers pages and pages of
biased crap for far too long?

BS, newspapers, and media in general, are too large to pinhole. There
are quality, non-biased papers to be found in almost every market. The
reason newspapers are having a difficult time, very few people have the
time to sit down and read a newspaper, especially when you can get all
your "news" on a cell phone.

Oh, and the Internet isn't biased? Geeze, who knew?

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 08:57:41 -0600, wrote:

On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:27:21 -0500, BAR wrote:


History will show that GWB was a much better President than his
predecessor and his father and many others in the preceeding 100 years.

We'll have to wait and see, but I seriously doubt it. Look at the world
situation in 2001, then, look at it now. Iran was a problem. It still
is. Israel/Palestine? No real change. North Korea, still the same.
Now Iraq? It's still unstable and dangerous. I will admit it has the
potential to be a stabilizing influence in an unstable area, but it also
still runs the chance of getting out of control. It's way too early for
any predictions.

The perception of America by the rest of the world? Sorry, Bush has had
a negative effect.

The economy? If Obama saves us from a depression, Bush won't go down as
a "Hoover". If Obama fails, Bush and Hoover are synonymous.

At best, Bush will be remembered by history as a mediocre President, more
likely, he will be remembered as one of the worst.


Why are newspapers having problems with the Internet? Could it be that
the newspapers have been feeding their subscribers pages and pages of
biased crap for far too long?

BS, newspapers, and media in general, are too large to pinhole. There
are quality, non-biased papers to be found in almost every market. The
reason newspapers are having a difficult time, very few people have the
time to sit down and read a newspaper, especially when you can get all
your "news" on a cell phone.

Oh, and the Internet isn't biased? Geeze, who knew?

Bush will be remembered as the President who brought democracy to Iraq and
Afghanistan, dealing severe blows to al-Qaeda worldwide while defeating it
in Iraq, bringing this country back from the results of 9/11, and
preventing another attack during his term.

Chew on it. I've got to go play golf.
--
** Good Day! **

John H

wrote:
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 09:27:21 -0500, BAR wrote:


History will show that GWB was a much better President than his
predecessor and his father and many others in the preceeding 100 years.

We'll have to wait and see, but I seriously doubt it. Look at the world
situation in 2001, then, look at it now. Iran was a problem. It still
is. Israel/Palestine? No real change. North Korea, still the same.
Now Iraq? It's still unstable and dangerous. I will admit it has the
potential to be a stabilizing influence in an unstable area, but it also
still runs the chance of getting out of control. It's way too early for
any predictions.

The world has been an unstable and dangerous place since man took his
first steps. The survival instinct is strong. Family, tribe, city,
state, in that order, are where the allegiance's lie. You aren't going
to change that and that is the root of most all conflicts.

The perception of America by the rest of the world? Sorry, Bush has had
a negative effect.

The rest of the world should be in awe of us economically and militarily.

If the US is such a crappy place why do people want to emigrate to the US.

The economy? If Obama saves us from a depression, Bush won't go down as
a "Hoover". If Obama fails, Bush and Hoover are synonymous.

Obama will not save us from a depression he we pull us into a
depression. History will show that once congress went to the democrats

At best, Bush will be remembered by history as a mediocre President, more
likely, he will be remembered as one of the worst.

It will take 20 to 40 years to find out.

Why are newspapers having problems with the Internet? Could it be that
the newspapers have been feeding their subscribers pages and pages of
biased crap for far too long?

BS, newspapers, and media in general, are too large to pinhole. There
are quality, non-biased papers to be found in almost every market. The
reason newspapers are having a difficult time, very few people have the
time to sit down and read a newspaper, especially when you can get all
your "news" on a cell phone.

True I don't read my local newspaper, The Washington Post because it is
an admitted left-wing, socialist, liberal rag. I want unbiased news
reporting not some reporters view of the world.

Oh, and the Internet isn't biased? Geeze, who knew?

I didn't say the Internet wasn't biased. The internet allows you to
compare and contrast the same news story from many sources very quickly,
you get to determine who is pushing an agenda very quickly.