The Real Reason Bush went to War
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
jim-- wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JohnH wrote:



As to the rest of your story, I take it as just that - another Harry
Story.

You must be under the delusion I give a crap. You're just another
mindless, mustered-out military malcontent.



The old Krause MO...insult the other person when losing the argument.


Argument? I don't engage in arguments with idiots. What's the point?
Just because you and the rest of the right-wing crap around here post
effluent doesn't mean I'm going to jump into it.




I rest my case.

The Real Reason Bush went to War
 

jim-- wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
jim-- wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JohnH wrote:



As to the rest of your story, I take it as just that - another Harry
Story.

You must be under the delusion I give a crap. You're just another
mindless, mustered-out military malcontent.



The old Krause MO...insult the other person when losing the argument.


Argument? I don't engage in arguments with idiots. What's the point?
Just because you and the rest of the right-wing crap around here post
effluent doesn't mean I'm going to jump into it.




I rest my case.



You've rested your case a million times, crap-for-brains. The fact is,
you don't have a case...or anything on which to rest it. Go argue witha
squirrel. Wait...too high up on the evolutionary scale for you...go
argue with a rotifer.

--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me -
you can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept.
17, 2002

The Real Reason Bush went to War
 

"NOYB" wrote in message
...

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

Since elections aren't until next year, our troops will be there for
at
least that long. When all of the info comes out in September and
October
about the Iranian connection with al Qaeda, and about the Iranians
impending
acquisition of nukes, even you'll be calling for a US-led invasion.

Not with anyone named Bush in the White House. I don't trust the lying
buttwipe, his thug of a vice president, his fundie attorney general or
any of the other crapmeisters who make up the Bush misadministration.


Fine. fBut if Kerry is President, would you support a US-led invasion of
Iran if: a) further evidence comes forth about Iran's complicity in the
1998
Khobar Towers bombing and/or the 9/11 attack, or b) Iran remains
determined
to seek nukes despite UN condemnation.



We are building entirely new nuclear weapons, widening our arsenal in
violation of previous treaties. Why should we expect other countries to
behave?

The Real Reason Bush went to War
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JohnH wrote:

On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 21:09:25 -0400, "NOYB" wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
1) you've quoted the extreme-leftist paper, The Guardian, so I'm
suspect
of
any factual and accurate reports from them.

Hah! *You* were quoting the Guardian a short while ago. Isn't this
a
nice double standard, it's credible for you but not for him?



There's a difference. If a liberal wants to prove something to a
conservative, he needs to use a conservative news source to back his
claim
(ie-Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, etc).


Some of us aren't so binary. I don't have any problem with serious,
reliable conservative sources of news. That does not include Fox or
the
Moonie Times. The WSJ is fine for business reporting and interesting
features, but it is extraordinarily right wing on political news.

I'd be interested to know what you consider to be "serious, reliable
*conservative* sources of news". Please don't include any op-ed pieces
from the NY Times, Washington Post, or LA Times, either. Any story that
Dan
Rather or Tom Brokaw has a hand in is also out of bounds.

What are your "serious, reliable *CONSERVATIVE* sources of news"?



You've got me holding my breath waiting for this answer!

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

Me, too. As I said, the WSJ, a conservative paper, is a good source of
some sorts of news, but certainly not news that touches on politics or
policy. The problem with Fox, the WSJ, the Moonie Times, NewsMax, and
these other obviously right-wing outlets is that virtually EVERY article
they publish on politics or policy is colored by their political slant.
While the NY Times and Washington Post are moderate to liberal in their
editorials, their news stories for the most part are straight news...the
reporters report what they see and what they find. You may not like
that, but it is a news slant, not an editorial slant.

Hey, the one newspaper I worked for, the Kansas City Star, was a
moderate to conservative newspaper when I worked there, but its politics
was limited to its editorial pages. No one EVER said to me, "give that
piece a more conservative slant," or "don't cover that guy...he's a
liberal." And when I worked as the Assistant World News Editor, no one
ever said to me, "Your headlines and copy editing is too liberal..."

The political control of the Moonie church at the Washington Times was
documented in great and finite detail in the 1980s. Nothing has changed
there. The slant at Fox is too obvious to be ignored, and NewsMax
*advertises* its position on its opening pages.


So what are your "serious, reliable *CONSERVATIVE* sources of news?

The NY Times and Washington Post editorial boards decide which stories make
front page news, and which get buried in a 5 sentence paragraph on the
bottom of A16. And just like news outlets which are conservative, those
papers sometimes rewrite, or reword, or rephrase headlines to create certain
ideas in the reader's minds. By changing one word in a headline, the entire
headline can take on a whole new meaing. Finally, most of the NY Times and
Washginton Post contributors are registered Democrats. So I hope that
you're not trying to claim that these are your "serious, reliable
*conservative* sources of news".

If the WSJ is acceptable to you, then I'll lift stories from there from now
on. I will also use left-leaning news outlets like the NY Times, Washington
Post, and LA Times. All AP and Reuters stories are fair game too. This
way, you can't bash the source every time that you don't have an intelligent
rebuttal.

The Real Reason Bush went to War
 

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JohnH wrote:

On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 21:09:25 -0400, "NOYB" wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
1) you've quoted the extreme-leftist paper, The Guardian, so I'm
suspect
of
any factual and accurate reports from them.

Hah! *You* were quoting the Guardian a short while ago. Isn't this
a
nice double standard, it's credible for you but not for him?



There's a difference. If a liberal wants to prove something to a
conservative, he needs to use a conservative news source to back his
claim
(ie-Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, etc).


Some of us aren't so binary. I don't have any problem with serious,
reliable conservative sources of news. That does not include Fox or
the
Moonie Times. The WSJ is fine for business reporting and interesting
features, but it is extraordinarily right wing on political news.

I'd be interested to know what you consider to be "serious, reliable
*conservative* sources of news". Please don't include any op-ed pieces
from the NY Times, Washington Post, or LA Times, either. Any story that
Dan
Rather or Tom Brokaw has a hand in is also out of bounds.

What are your "serious, reliable *CONSERVATIVE* sources of news"?



You've got me holding my breath waiting for this answer!

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

Me, too. As I said, the WSJ, a conservative paper, is a good source of
some sorts of news, but certainly not news that touches on politics or
policy. The problem with Fox, the WSJ, the Moonie Times, NewsMax, and
these other obviously right-wing outlets is that virtually EVERY article
they publish on politics or policy is colored by their political slant.
While the NY Times and Washington Post are moderate to liberal in their
editorials, their news stories for the most part are straight news...the
reporters report what they see and what they find. You may not like
that, but it is a news slant, not an editorial slant.

Hey, the one newspaper I worked for, the Kansas City Star, was a
moderate to conservative newspaper when I worked there, but its politics
was limited to its editorial pages. No one EVER said to me, "give that
piece a more conservative slant," or "don't cover that guy...he's a
liberal." And when I worked as the Assistant World News Editor, no one
ever said to me, "Your headlines and copy editing is too liberal..."

The political control of the Moonie church at the Washington Times was
documented in great and finite detail in the 1980s. Nothing has changed
there. The slant at Fox is too obvious to be ignored, and NewsMax
*advertises* its position on its opening pages.


So what are your "serious, reliable *CONSERVATIVE* sources of news?

The NY Times and Washington Post editorial boards decide which stories make
front page news, and which get buried in a 5 sentence paragraph on the
bottom of A16.


No, that is not a major newspaper works. The editorial boards control
the opinion and op-ed pages. The news execs control the news pages. I
used to sit on the news meetings when I worked at a paper. The process
and procedure has not changed.


And just like news outlets which are conservative, those
papers sometimes rewrite, or reword, or rephrase headlines to create certain
ideas in the reader's minds.

Nope.

If the WSJ is acceptable to you, then I'll lift stories from there from now
on.

I only read business related articles from the WSJ and its light
features. I don't bother much with its policy news reporting...




--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me -
you can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept.
17, 2002

The Real Reason Bush went to War
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JohnH wrote:

On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 21:09:25 -0400, "NOYB" wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
1) you've quoted the extreme-leftist paper, The Guardian, so
I'm
suspect
of
any factual and accurate reports from them.

Hah! *You* were quoting the Guardian a short while ago. Isn't
this
a
nice double standard, it's credible for you but not for him?



There's a difference. If a liberal wants to prove something to a
conservative, he needs to use a conservative news source to back
his
claim
(ie-Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, etc).


Some of us aren't so binary. I don't have any problem with serious,
reliable conservative sources of news. That does not include Fox or
the
Moonie Times. The WSJ is fine for business reporting and
interesting
features, but it is extraordinarily right wing on political news.

I'd be interested to know what you consider to be "serious, reliable
*conservative* sources of news". Please don't include any op-ed
pieces
from the NY Times, Washington Post, or LA Times, either. Any story
that
Dan
Rather or Tom Brokaw has a hand in is also out of bounds.

What are your "serious, reliable *CONSERVATIVE* sources of news"?



You've got me holding my breath waiting for this answer!

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

Me, too. As I said, the WSJ, a conservative paper, is a good source of
some sorts of news, but certainly not news that touches on politics or
policy. The problem with Fox, the WSJ, the Moonie Times, NewsMax, and
these other obviously right-wing outlets is that virtually EVERY
article
they publish on politics or policy is colored by their political slant.
While the NY Times and Washington Post are moderate to liberal in their
editorials, their news stories for the most part are straight
news...the
reporters report what they see and what they find. You may not like
that, but it is a news slant, not an editorial slant.

Hey, the one newspaper I worked for, the Kansas City Star, was a
moderate to conservative newspaper when I worked there, but its
politics
was limited to its editorial pages. No one EVER said to me, "give that
piece a more conservative slant," or "don't cover that guy...he's a
liberal." And when I worked as the Assistant World News Editor, no one
ever said to me, "Your headlines and copy editing is too liberal..."

The political control of the Moonie church at the Washington Times was
documented in great and finite detail in the 1980s. Nothing has changed
there. The slant at Fox is too obvious to be ignored, and NewsMax
*advertises* its position on its opening pages.


So what are your "serious, reliable *CONSERVATIVE* sources of news?

The NY Times and Washington Post editorial boards decide which stories
make
front page news, and which get buried in a 5 sentence paragraph on the
bottom of A16.


No, that is not a major newspaper works. The editorial boards control
the opinion and op-ed pages. The news execs control the news pages. I
used to sit on the news meetings when I worked at a paper. The process
and procedure has not changed.


And just like news outlets which are conservative, those
papers sometimes rewrite, or reword, or rephrase headlines to create
certain
ideas in the reader's minds.

Nope.

If the WSJ is acceptable to you, then I'll lift stories from there from
now
on.

I only read business related articles from the WSJ and its light
features. I don't bother much with its policy news reporting...


So as I thought, you don't read any "serious, reliable and *conservative*
sources of news"...particularly if it's "policy news reporting".

The Real Reason Bush went to War
 

NOYB wrote:


I only read business related articles from the WSJ and its light
features. I don't bother much with its policy news reporting...


So as I thought, you don't read any "serious, reliable and *conservative*
sources of news"...particularly if it's "policy news reporting".


Because the WSJ colors its coverage with conservathink.


--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me -
you can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept.
17, 2002

The Real Reason Bush went to War
 

Harry,
You jump into it the right wing posts more than all the right wing put
together. All they have to do is dangle a little bait and you jump right on
it.

I guess if you are so dissatisfied with your life that you are forced into
fabricating stories about your fictious boats and your wife's fictious
degrees, being able to be the number one person posting in rec.boats is a
major achievement.


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
jim-- wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JohnH wrote:



As to the rest of your story, I take it as just that - another Harry
Story.

You must be under the delusion I give a crap. You're just another
mindless, mustered-out military malcontent.



The old Krause MO...insult the other person when losing the argument.


Argument? I don't engage in arguments with idiots. What's the point?
Just because you and the rest of the right-wing crap around here post
effluent doesn't mean I'm going to jump into it.



--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me -
you can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept.
17, 2002

The Real Reason Bush went to War
 

"John Smith" wrote in message news:xFdQc.205502$a24.147308@attbi_s03...
Harry,
You jump into it the right wing posts more than all the right wing put
together.

Have any data to back that claim up, or is it just more of your wild assumptions?