In article . com,
says...
On Jul 12, 8:50?am, wrote:


But there is no proof of "lies and hubris", no convictions, only
anecdotal web blogs encouraged and paid for by groups like the Soros
organization, DNC, One World, ACLU, NAMBLA, and various other fringe
activist groups. But like your lies about O, no real proof, just
daydreams and made up stories...


I think we agree on something, justafreakin. It can be disastrous to
accept unproven spin as a basis for opinion, and even more disastrous
to use it as a basis for defining policy. We probably shouldn't listen
to anybody with a partisan agenda or financial interest in one version
of the truth vs. another. Any suggestions concerning where we should
turn for completely unbiased reporting devoid of partisan influence
and editorializing? I'd be at a loss to identify a single one, on any
side of the spectrum or in any medium. Looks to me like you and jps
have each chosen a different subset from the universe of biased
sources.

Holy **** Chuck, awfully magnanimous of you.

I listen, read, watch from all perspectives. I know our schtick and
theirs.

justafreakin is plugged into the narrow right wing presented by Bill O
and I suspect Rush.

On Jul 12, 12:29 pm, jps wrote:
In article . com,
says...





On Jul 12, 8:50?am, wrote:

But there is no proof of "lies and hubris", no convictions, only
anecdotal web blogs encouraged and paid for by groups like the Soros
organization, DNC, One World, ACLU, NAMBLA, and various other fringe
activist groups. But like your lies about O, no real proof, just
daydreams and made up stories...

I think we agree on something, justafreakin. It can be disastrous to
accept unproven spin as a basis for opinion, and even more disastrous
to use it as a basis for defining policy. We probably shouldn't listen
to anybody with a partisan agenda or financial interest in one version
of the truth vs. another. Any suggestions concerning where we should
turn for completely unbiased reporting devoid of partisan influence
and editorializing? I'd be at a loss to identify a single one, on any
side of the spectrum or in any medium. Looks to me like you and jps
have each chosen a different subset from the universe of biased
sources.

Holy **** Chuck, awfully magnanimous of you.

I listen, read, watch from all perspectives. I know our schtick and
theirs.

Thats a lie, we proved that yesterday. It's kind of like the movie..
"sure, we play all kinds of music here, country AND western"
Face it, you don't watch anything that will burst your little bubble.

justafreakin is plugged into the narrow right wing presented by Bill O
and I suspect Rush.-

There you go again, making it up as you go along. I don't do talk
radio, but keep saying it, maybe another fool will beleive it.

- Show quoted text -

In article om,
says...
On Jul 12, 12:29 pm, jps wrote:
In article . com,
says...





On Jul 12, 8:50?am, wrote:

But there is no proof of "lies and hubris", no convictions, only
anecdotal web blogs encouraged and paid for by groups like the Soros
organization, DNC, One World, ACLU, NAMBLA, and various other fringe
activist groups. But like your lies about O, no real proof, just
daydreams and made up stories...

I think we agree on something, justafreakin. It can be disastrous to
accept unproven spin as a basis for opinion, and even more disastrous
to use it as a basis for defining policy. We probably shouldn't listen
to anybody with a partisan agenda or financial interest in one version
of the truth vs. another. Any suggestions concerning where we should
turn for completely unbiased reporting devoid of partisan influence
and editorializing? I'd be at a loss to identify a single one, on any
side of the spectrum or in any medium. Looks to me like you and jps
have each chosen a different subset from the universe of biased
sources.

Holy **** Chuck, awfully magnanimous of you.

I listen, read, watch from all perspectives. I know our schtick and
theirs.

Thats a lie, we proved that yesterday.

You didn't refute a single article I posted yesterday, you vapid little
tool.

Meanwhile, I was watching Brit Hume, Morton Kondracke, Mara Liasson and
some guest right wing tool talk about what a waste of time it was to be
conducting hearings on the federal prosecutor scandal and how John
Conyers and Democrats risked looking like the Republicans did while
investigating and impeaching Clinton.

Again, Hume pushing the Republican talking points. Have you ever
noticed how synchronized they are with Tony Snow's language and all that
comes out of the White House press room?

You're making accusations without proof while I'm posting real
refutations of Bill O that you're simply not in a position to argue.

You're a right wing tool, among those responsible for supporting an
administration that's doing real harm to our country while idiots like
you try to wrap themselves in the flag.

jps

On Jul 12, 9:29?am, jps wrote:
In article . com,
says...





On Jul 12, 8:50?am, wrote:

But there is no proof of "lies and hubris", no convictions, only
anecdotal web blogs encouraged and paid for by groups like the Soros
organization, DNC, One World, ACLU, NAMBLA, and various other fringe
activist groups. But like your lies about O, no real proof, just
daydreams and made up stories...

I think we agree on something, justafreakin. It can be disastrous to
accept unproven spin as a basis for opinion, and even more disastrous
to use it as a basis for defining policy. We probably shouldn't listen
to anybody with a partisan agenda or financial interest in one version
of the truth vs. another. Any suggestions concerning where we should
turn for completely unbiased reporting devoid of partisan influence
and editorializing? I'd be at a loss to identify a single one, on any
side of the spectrum or in any medium. Looks to me like you and jps
have each chosen a different subset from the universe of biased
sources.

Holy **** Chuck, awfully magnanimous of you.

I listen, read, watch from all perspectives. I know our schtick and
theirs.

But that's the key.........it's all schtick. Everybody has an axe to
grind, everybody has an agenda. The largest offenders are usually
those who crow the loudest about being "objective" or "fair and
balanced".

As an amateur student of history I believe that few things are ever
proven to be right or wrong. We can look at past events and observe
(for example), "Eisenhower pledged support for South Viet Nam, Kennedy
deployed military specialists and advisors, Johnson expanded the
American role, and Nixon/Kissinger finally extracted us." Which of the
four presidents involved was right or wrong? None, really...they were
just people with difficult choices to make. Through the lens of
history we can see what choices were made and what the results proved
to be, but even though all four made different decisions it's entrely
plausible that none of the four was deliberately trying to screw up
the country at the time.

It's similar with political ideology. Even though the strident voices
on either side are quick to proclaim that the other side is entirely
wrong, always wrong, and that people on the opposite side are putting
personal
preference or profit above the good of the country as a whole that is
seldom actually the case. Dealing in stereotypes and absolutes is a
poor substitute for critical thinking, regardless which side is being
portrayed by or engaging in the stereotyping.


justafreakin is plugged into the narrow right wing presented by Bill O
and I suspect Rush.-

And what if he is? He's over 21 years of age and free to choose. If he
finds that his personal view of the universe is well defined by Bill
O, Rush L, or somebody else that's his choice to make. If he is
uncertain about his own views but still feels inclined to accept and
endorse the skillfully presented philosophies of various broadcasters,
that's also his choice to make.

People don't have to be adversaries simply because they have opposite
philosophies or opinions. In fact, there's more to learn by listening
carefully to opposing points of view (you don't have to accept or
endorse any of those points) than by engaging in the politics of
personal attack. I have very little respect for anybody who can't
discuss an issue without making a series of personal attacks on folks
who disagree with their perspective.....a valid argument will stand on
it's own without name calling, etc. Demagogues love to include
personal attack and insult with their extremist messages (from any
side of the spectrum) because such remarks create an "emotional"
atmosphere
around the question at hand. As a guy who has made a few bucks in life
in the sales business, I can attest that it is easier and far more
effective to close a deal with a strong emotional hook than foster a
decision based on logic alone. In fact, a good emotional appeal will
get a lot of folks to go along with an idea that they would ultimately
reject
if it had to withstand a strenuous logical examination.

"Chuck Gould" wrote in message
ups.com...
On Jul 12, 9:29?am, jps wrote:
In article . com,
says...





On Jul 12, 8:50?am, wrote:

But there is no proof of "lies and hubris", no convictions, only
anecdotal web blogs encouraged and paid for by groups like the Soros
organization, DNC, One World, ACLU, NAMBLA, and various other fringe
activist groups. But like your lies about O, no real proof, just
daydreams and made up stories...

I think we agree on something, justafreakin. It can be disastrous to
accept unproven spin as a basis for opinion, and even more disastrous
to use it as a basis for defining policy. We probably shouldn't listen
to anybody with a partisan agenda or financial interest in one version
of the truth vs. another. Any suggestions concerning where we should
turn for completely unbiased reporting devoid of partisan influence
and editorializing? I'd be at a loss to identify a single one, on any
side of the spectrum or in any medium. Looks to me like you and jps
have each chosen a different subset from the universe of biased
sources.

Holy **** Chuck, awfully magnanimous of you.

I listen, read, watch from all perspectives. I know our schtick and
theirs.

But that's the key.........it's all schtick.

Bingo. No one here will change anyone else's opinion on politics,
especially since most folks come here for discussions on *boating*.

The folks hell bent on bringing politics into this boating NG do so knowing
that they cannot survive in a political discussion in an actual political NG
(which there are plenty of).

Ignore the political trolls............and they will go away.

On Thu, 12 Jul 2007 16:02:55 -0700, Chuck Gould
wrote:



But that's the key.........it's all schtick. Everybody has an axe to
grind, everybody has an agenda. The largest offenders are usually
those who crow the loudest about being "objective" or "fair and
balanced".


Nah... that's just your way of taking a shot at the right.

They all have an agenda. You do too, when you use a phrase like "fair
and balanced" when taking a shot at the media, and trying to disguise
it as a balanced viewpoint. It's anything but.