"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"basskisser" atl_man2@a href="http://www.serverlogic3.com/lm/rtl3.asp?si=1&k=yahoo%20com" onmouseover="window.status='yahoo.com'; return true;" onmouseout="window.status=''; return true;"yahoo.com/a wrote in message
(11-04) 10:50 PST LONDON (AP) --

The re-election of President Bush dominated British newspapers
Thursday, and many cast impartiality aside in reporting the result.

the liberal Daily Mirror ..... "U.S. election disaster."

The Independent... "Four more years"

The left-leaning Guardian.... Bush's
victory "catapaulted liberal Britain into collective depression."

These three rags, iirc, also would rush into print the latest available
photo of Princess Diana topless aboard a yacht. Truly classy outfits.

In your eyes, that automatically makes their statements untrue?


Across Europe, many newspapers expressed dismay at the prospect of
another term for Bush, a president often regarded as inflexible and
unilateralist.

Just "...often..."?


....a sea-change in U.S. politics, a
victory for neo-conservatives and the religious right.

...."America's moral majority
sweeps Bush back into the White House,"

I guess they got the talking points memo from the DNC.

Keep up all the excuses and rationalizations. Anything to avoid facing
reality.

"basskisser" wrote in message

These three rags, iirc, also would rush into print the latest available
photo of Princess Diana topless aboard a yacht. Truly classy outfits.

In your eyes, that automatically makes their statements untrue?

Not at all. It simply means that any statement printed therein must be
independently corroborated prior to a grant of credibility. They are
publishing whores, not journalists with standards [a term some may consider
oxymoronic].