OT--More NY Times bias
 

So I guess since President Bush has never been convicted of any of the
things you accuse him of doing, you must be a real ignorant dipstick.

Harry, you are making this way to easy. You are beginning to sound more and
more like Basskisser.


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

"Doug Kanter" wrote in message
...
"NOYB" wrote in message
nk.net...


This time, the so-called "Newspaper of Record" buried what was
arguably
the
biggest story on Tuesday.


Hmm. It's right there on the front page of its web site.

And in typical NY Times fashion, they write suppositions as fact:

"...Berger inadvertently removed..."

Inadvertently? According to whom? Berger? Eyewitnesses say that he
"inadvertently" stuffed them down his pants and socks.




This is still the united states, dipstick, and berger hasn't been
convicted of anything. Ergo, the assumption is he is innocent.
Did you not take a basic civics class - ever?

OT--More NY Times bias
 

"jim--" wrote in message news:4Zqdna0T-
Krause cannot attack the message, only the messenger...his typical MO.

That is why Krause ignore posts where he does not know something personal
about the person.

OT--More NY Times bias
 

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 08:52:36 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:


Unless, of course, it applies to your supposition that Bush "lied"...

Dave




Lied? Lies.

Bush has lied about his time in the National Guard, and lied about his
criminal history. He lied about his relationship with Ken Lay, he lied
about who would benefit from his tax cuts, and he lied about stem cells.
He lied about his visit to Bob Jones University, he lied about why he
wouldn't meet with Log Cabin Republicans, and he lied about reading the
EPA report on global warming. He lied about blaming the Clinton
administration for the second intifada, he lies constantly about how he
pays no attention to polls, he lied about how he loves New York, and he
lied about moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. He lied about
finding WMD in Iraq, he lied about making his decision to go to war, he
lied about the CIA's dismissal of the yellowcake rumors, and he lied
about the IAEA's assessment of Iraq's nuclear program. He lied about
funding the fight against AIDS in Africa, he lied about when the
recession started, and he lied about seeing the first plane hit the WTC.
He lied about supporting the Patient Protection Act, and he lied about
his deficit spending.


To quote someone:

"This is still the united states, dipstick, and BUSH hasn't been
convicted of anything. Ergo, the assumption is he is innocent."

Sound familiar? Or do you always apply a double standard?

Dave

OT--More NY Times bias
 

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 08:28:36 -0400, DSK wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
But we all know there's no liberal bias in the news. It's all a right
wing fantasy........

Hey Dave... if the news media is so liberally biased, why did so many
other newspapers put it in the headlines? Why did it makes such a big
splash in TV news?

Because once the cat was let out of the bag, they had no choice but to
acknowledge it, lest their silence draw suspicion as to their agenda
and motives. If you listen real carefully to the subtle differences in
adjectives used to report this incident, you can almost see the wheels
of spin working depending on which news source you watch or read.

Dave

OT--More NY Times bias
 

Dave Hall wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 08:52:36 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:


Unless, of course, it applies to your supposition that Bush "lied"...

Dave




Lied? Lies.

Bush has lied about his time in the National Guard, and lied about his
criminal history. He lied about his relationship with Ken Lay, he lied
about who would benefit from his tax cuts, and he lied about stem cells.
He lied about his visit to Bob Jones University, he lied about why he
wouldn't meet with Log Cabin Republicans, and he lied about reading the
EPA report on global warming. He lied about blaming the Clinton
administration for the second intifada, he lies constantly about how he
pays no attention to polls, he lied about how he loves New York, and he
lied about moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. He lied about
finding WMD in Iraq, he lied about making his decision to go to war, he
lied about the CIA's dismissal of the yellowcake rumors, and he lied
about the IAEA's assessment of Iraq's nuclear program. He lied about
funding the fight against AIDS in Africa, he lied about when the
recession started, and he lied about seeing the first plane hit the WTC.
He lied about supporting the Patient Protection Act, and he lied about
his deficit spending.


To quote someone:

"This is still the united states, dipstick, and BUSH hasn't been
convicted of anything. Ergo, the assumption is he is innocent."

Sound familiar? Or do you always apply a double standard?

Dave




Not at all. There are dozens of examples of Bush's lies, in which he
said one thing and then did another, or deliberately obfuscated his
actual position. The man lies about everything.

--
A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush;
A vote for Bush is a vote for Apocalypse.

OT--More NY Times bias
 

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
...


"This is still the united states, dipstick, and BUSH hasn't been
convicted of anything. Ergo, the assumption is he is innocent."

Sound familiar? Or do you always apply a double standard?

Dave




Based on THAT logic, the Iraqis we killed should be brought back to life,
since they died for nothing.

OT--More NY Times bias
 

Hey Dave... if the news media is so liberally biased, why did so many
other newspapers put it in the headlines? Why did it makes such a big
splash in TV news?


Dave Hall wrote:
Because once the cat was let out of the bag, they had no choice but to
acknowledge it, lest their silence draw suspicion as to their agenda
and motives. If you listen real carefully to the subtle differences in
adjectives used to report this incident, you can almost see the wheels
of spin working depending on which news source you watch or read.

Oh, I get it... they're being incredibly devious by reporting the news,
including stuff that goes totally against their supposed agenda...

Dave, do you really believe this tripe yourself, or are you just hoping
that some of your fellow dittoheads are dumb & paranoid enough swallow it?

DSK

OT--More NY Times bias
 

"DSK" wrote in message
...
Hey Dave... if the news media is so liberally biased, why did so many
other newspapers put it in the headlines? Why did it makes such a big
splash in TV news?


Dave Hall wrote:
Because once the cat was let out of the bag, they had no choice but to
acknowledge it, lest their silence draw suspicion as to their agenda
and motives. If you listen real carefully to the subtle differences in
adjectives used to report this incident, you can almost see the wheels
of spin working depending on which news source you watch or read.

Oh, I get it... they're being incredibly devious by reporting the news,
including stuff that goes totally against their supposed agenda...

Dave, do you really believe this tripe yourself, or are you just hoping
that some of your fellow dittoheads are dumb & paranoid enough swallow it?

DSK


His minister told him. We shouldn't insult the guy until we've had a chance
to roll him around the newsgroup a bit. I wonder if Dave can get him to stop
by.

OT--More NY Times bias
 

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 15:22:46 -0400, DSK wrote:

Hey Dave... if the news media is so liberally biased, why did so many
other newspapers put it in the headlines? Why did it makes such a big
splash in TV news?


Dave Hall wrote:
Because once the cat was let out of the bag, they had no choice but to
acknowledge it, lest their silence draw suspicion as to their agenda
and motives. If you listen real carefully to the subtle differences in
adjectives used to report this incident, you can almost see the wheels
of spin working depending on which news source you watch or read.

Oh, I get it... they're being incredibly devious by reporting the news,
including stuff that goes totally against their supposed agenda...

It's not what they report, it's how they report it. Surely even you
can see the difference in spin that is placed on the same news item
depending on which side the story is on?

Maybe because I studied the art of propaganda when I was in school,
that I'm more sensitive to these tricks. But to me it's blatantly
obvious.


Dave, do you really believe this tripe yourself, or are you just hoping
that some of your fellow dittoheads are dumb & paranoid enough swallow it?

Or that maybe that you're to blind and partisan to consider it?

Dave

OT--More NY Times bias
 

On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 12:48:42 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:
On Wed, 21 Jul 2004 08:52:36 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Dave Hall wrote:


Unless, of course, it applies to your supposition that Bush "lied"...

Dave




Lied? Lies.

Bush has lied about his time in the National Guard, and lied about his
criminal history. He lied about his relationship with Ken Lay, he lied
about who would benefit from his tax cuts, and he lied about stem cells.
He lied about his visit to Bob Jones University, he lied about why he
wouldn't meet with Log Cabin Republicans, and he lied about reading the
EPA report on global warming. He lied about blaming the Clinton
administration for the second intifada, he lies constantly about how he
pays no attention to polls, he lied about how he loves New York, and he
lied about moving the US embassy in Israel to Jerusalem. He lied about
finding WMD in Iraq, he lied about making his decision to go to war, he
lied about the CIA's dismissal of the yellowcake rumors, and he lied
about the IAEA's assessment of Iraq's nuclear program. He lied about
funding the fight against AIDS in Africa, he lied about when the
recession started, and he lied about seeing the first plane hit the WTC.
He lied about supporting the Patient Protection Act, and he lied about
his deficit spending.


To quote someone:

"This is still the united states, dipstick, and BUSH hasn't been
convicted of anything. Ergo, the assumption is he is innocent."

Sound familiar? Or do you always apply a double standard?

Dave




Not at all. There are dozens of examples of Bush's lies, in which he
said one thing and then did another, or deliberately obfuscated his
actual position. The man lies about everything.

Such as?

Dave