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

Joel Connelly was interviewed by O"Rielly.

O'Reilly? The right-wing asshole's asshole.
The FDA ought to run a warning crawl under his TV show...

"Watching this will rot whatever little remains of your brain..."



What is it like living in that strange world of yours where *everyone* who
disagrees with you politically is an asshole? I have yet to find another
person as closed minded and bigoted as you Harry. Your world must be
awfully lonely.

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 19:30:50 -0500, John H wrote:

On Fri, 09 Jan 2004 22:04:40 GMT, Joe Parsons
wrote:

On 9 Jan 2004 13:00:59 -0800, (Backyard Renegade)
wrote:

So why are left coast libs so hateful and out
of touch, easy, cause they are being lied to by the same self serving
folks who have been running the media for the last 50 years.

What makes you believe that those who live in any particular area of the country
receive information only from regional sources?

Joe Parsons

Without being pro or con re Backyard's statement, I am wondering why
you asked the question you did. Saying, "...the same self serving
folks who have been running the media for the last 50 years" doesn't
imply information is received only from local sources.

I think it does. From the subject of his post, he is talking about "left (west)
libs," not the "libs" he so scorns from other areas of the country.

Joe Parsons

Harry Krause wrote in message ...
GAZ wrote:

Joel Connelly was interviewed by O"Rielly.

O'Reilly? The right-wing asshole's asshole.
The FDA ought to run a warning crawl under his TV show...

"Watching this will rot whatever little remains of your brain..."

The fact is, the guy as good as admitted to dishonest reporting but of
course none of you has anything to say about that. I guess to you,
lies are kinda' like air to the rest of us..

Harry Krause wrote in message ...
GAZ wrote:

Joel Connelly was interviewed by O"Rielly.

O'Reilly? The right-wing asshole's asshole.
The FDA ought to run a warning crawl under his TV show...

"Watching this will rot whatever little remains of your brain..."

You know harry, for someone who thinks they are so smart, you are
awfully narrow minded. How can you even pretend to have a fair opinion
when you refuse to even consider the opposition on any subject. Seems
to me you must have led one of those sheltered kind of limosine lives
where there was never any oppostion or accountability for ones actions
and words to think the way you do. Sometimes in conversation folks say
they hope folks like you actually have to work for a living one day or
stand up for themselves, I usually hope they don't. I hate to see
anyone suffer, no matter how wreched they are.

"GAZ" wrote in message ...
Joel Connelly was interviewed by O"Rielly.

Yes, that's the guy. Another Harry clone, not an honest bone in his
fat little body. I find folks like him that would lie to the public
about it's leader, lies that would intentionally turn a public against
that leader, just to suit a personal agenda, to be among the most
discusting vermin on earth. Just call Harry, Leonard...


"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
OOOps... Sorry I was not taking notes, but now that I think of it I do
beleive they said Oregon. I will look for the interview again. You can
question my education, but to suggest that Fox would put in a "ringer"
is just more change the subject bs...


I didn't question your education.

It wouldn't be the first time that somebody
staged an interview. An interview in which the host just magically
decimated
his adversary.

You said "Seattle."
I don't know if the article ran or not, but as soon as I pointed out that
I
couldn't find it in the archives of our major daily papers- your memory
improved and the reporter is now from "Oregon."

I know you guys on the East Coast think everything west of the Mississippi
river is compressed to a couple of hundred square miles, but it's still a
fair
jog from Seattle to
"Believe They Said", Oregon. :-)

I can accept that you saw an interview on Fox. The rest of the details are
comparatively hazy. Guess we'll have to go
ahead and allow "some left coasters" to be
moderates, (since most probably are), until proven otherwise.

The fact is, the guy as good as admitted to dishonest reporting but of
course none of you has anything to say about that. I guess to you,
lies are kinda' like air to the rest of us..

Tracking this thing down-

It appears that the O'Reilly's debate victory
was more apparent to Scotty than to O' Reilly.

O'Reilly's website says, "Kudos to Joel Connelly for coming on the show to
defend his column, which he claimed was "satircal" in nature."

Wouldn't O'Reilly have been shouting from the rooftops if he got some evil,
scheming,
mind poisoning, liberal to admit "dishonest reporting"?

http://www.billoreilly.com/pg/jsp/community/tvshow.jsp

Plenty of room for a variety of opinions in the world. If Scotty thinks JC was
trounced by O'Reilly, he's free to keep score anyway he chooses.

(Gould 0738) wrote in message ...
The fact is, the guy as good as admitted to dishonest reporting but of
course none of you has anything to say about that. I guess to you,
lies are kinda' like air to the rest of us..

Tracking this thing down-

It appears that the O'Reilly's debate victory
was more apparent to Scotty than to O' Reilly.

O'Reilly's website says, "Kudos to Joel Connelly for coming on the show to
defend his column, which he claimed was "satircal" in nature.

"Satircal in nature", yeah right. The dishonest part was that he
neglected to tell the folks he was reporting to that it was "satircal"
and any of them would get a very negative opinion, based on half
truths and dishonest framing of the article. One thing remains
constant here, the man was deliberately dishonest and the fact that
Bill congratulated him for having the umph to come on the show is in
no way an endorsement or agreement with what the man said... but of
course, the way you framed it above, it would seem so... Are you guys
all reading out of the same play book?





Wouldn't O'Reilly have been shouting from the rooftops if he got some evil,
scheming,
mind poisoning, liberal to admit "dishonest reporting"?

http://www.billoreilly.com/pg/jsp/community/tvshow.jsp

Plenty of room for a variety of opinions in the world. If Scotty thinks JC was
trounced by O'Reilly, he's free to keep score anyway he chooses.

"Satircal in nature", yeah right. The dishonest part was that he
neglected to tell the folks he was reporting to that it was "satircal"
and any of them would get a very negative opinion, based on half
truths and dishonest framing of the article.

Can't comment on the article, as I haven't been able to find a copy on line.
(If you know where I can find a copy it would be interesting to see).

A satirist doesn't start with a disclaimer:
"The following work is a satire."
The article may or may not be good satire.
If it *is* good satire, there are people who might not read it carefully or who
strive to represent the article in a certain light who
will not recognize it. Good satire sneaks up on you......you begin reading it
and then you finally realize that the author is just putting you on. Once
you're clued in, the remainder of the article becomes particularly funny.

. Are you guys
all reading out of the same play book?

No. The world is not comprised of a series of absolute stereotypes. (I know
that isn't what you're sold by much of the right wing media, "libs this, all
libs that, etc"),
Everybody who disagrees with you, including the huge percentage of the country
who have serious doubts about your beloved Bush, isn't guilty of treason and
sedition.

(Gould 0738) wrote in message ...
"Satircal in nature", yeah right. The dishonest part was that he
neglected to tell the folks he was reporting to that it was "satircal"
and any of them would get a very negative opinion, based on half
truths and dishonest framing of the article.

Can't comment on the article, as I haven't been able to find a copy on line.
(If you know where I can find a copy it would be interesting to see).

A satirist doesn't start with a disclaimer:
"The following work is a satire."
The article may or may not be good satire.
If it *is* good satire, there are people who might not read it carefully or who
strive to represent the article in a certain light who
will not recognize it. Good satire sneaks up on you......you begin reading it
and then you finally realize that the author is just putting you on. Once
you're clued in, the remainder of the article becomes particularly funny.

. Are you guys
all reading out of the same play book?

No. The world is not comprised of a series of absolute stereotypes. (I know
that isn't what you're sold by much of the right wing media, "libs this, all
libs that, etc"),
Everybody who disagrees with you, including the huge percentage of the country
who have serious doubts about your beloved Bush, isn't guilty of treason and
sedition.

"There is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending that you
can love your country but despise your government."
Bill Clinton
Speaking at Michigan State University

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
"Satircal in nature", yeah right. The dishonest part was that he
neglected to tell the folks he was reporting to that it was "satircal"
and any of them would get a very negative opinion, based on half
truths and dishonest framing of the article.

Can't comment on the article, as I haven't been able to find a copy on
line.
(If you know where I can find a copy it would be interesting to see).

A satirist doesn't start with a disclaimer:
"The following work is a satire."
The article may or may not be good satire.
If it *is* good satire, there are people who might not read it carefully
or who
strive to represent the article in a certain light who
will not recognize it. Good satire sneaks up on you......you begin reading
it
and then you finally realize that the author is just putting you on. Once
you're clued in, the remainder of the article becomes particularly funny.

. Are you guys
all reading out of the same play book?

No. The world is not comprised of a series of absolute stereotypes. (I
know
that isn't what you're sold by much of the right wing media, "libs this,
all
libs that, etc"),
Everybody who disagrees with you, including the huge percentage of the
country
who have serious doubts about your beloved Bush, isn't guilty of treason
and
sedition.


A huge percentage have serious doubt about Bush? How about far less than a
majority. According to the latest polls, anywhere from 54% to 64% of
Americans approve of the way GWB is doing his job.

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

Sorry Chuck...the "huge percentage" is actually in favor of GWB. ;-)