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..

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

Oh boy! A quote war! :-)

Scotty launched the first salvo with:

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 courageously fired back with:

"Patriotism means to stand by the country. It does not mean to stand by the
president or any other public official, save exactly to the degree in which he
himself stands by the country. It is patriotic to support him insofar as he
efficiently serves the country. It is unpatriotic not to oppose him to the
exact extent that by inefficiency or otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by
the country."

Theodore Roosevelt

******

Now, Scotty, if you are willing to state "I think Bill Clinton is a wiser man
than Teddy Roosevelt"- I guess your quote wins. :-)


Here's the article where I found the quote:



--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
Party loyalty is un-American

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
------

© 2000 WorldNetDaily.com

Our first president, George Washington, warned us about the dangers of putting
any political party above the general interests of the country. It would do
well for Americans today to relearn this basic lesson. Our loyalty must first
and foremost be to the fundamental principles upon which our nation was built,
not to the finite interests of political partisanship.

It is a fatal mistake to assume that any political party is the harbinger of
patriotism. Theodore Roosevelt said, "Patriotism means to stand by the country.
It does not mean to stand by the president or any other public official, save
exactly to the degree in which he himself stands by the country. It is
patriotic to support him insofar as he efficiently serves the country. It is
unpatriotic not to oppose him to the exact extent that by inefficiency or
otherwise he fails in his duty to stand by the country."

My loyalty to a party or politician must be measured by his loyalty to the
fundamental principles on which America was founded. When I remain loyal to a
politician or party after they demonstrate an unwillingness to be faithful to
those immutable principles I am guilty of disloyalty to my country.

Sadly, too many people today are willing to turn their backs on truth for the
sake of remaining loyal to the party. Democrats who railed for justice when
Richard Nixon was president looked the other way or even defended crimes
committed by Bill Clinton. Republicans who railed against Bill Clinton refuse
to examine the character, conduct and positions of G. W. Bush.............
(remainder snipped)

(Article written by Dr. Chuck Baldwin)

"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. ;-)

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.

Never said it was a majority. Merely a huge, (rather than insignificant)
percentage. Read for content, please.

"Gould 0738" wrote in message
...
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.

Never said it was a majority. Merely a huge, (rather than insignificant)
percentage. Read for content, please.

Please learn definition of the word huge. I posted it for you to save time:

huge
(click to hear the word) (hyj)
adj. hug·er, hug·est

1. Of exceedingly great size, extent, or quantity. See Synonyms at
enormous.

2. Of exceedingly great scope or natu the huge influence of the Hellenic
world.

Sorry Chuckie, but a *huge* percentage of Americans *support*, not doubt,
GWB.

Brush up on your grammar skills, please.