A British Open Double Bogey
in [Golf]
|
Prev: Ping Alan Baker
Next: Where is the old boy today?
From: BAR on 31 Jul 2010 14:06 In article <8bj63tFlh0U1(a)mid.individual.net>, dene(a)remove.ipns.com says... > > "Carbon" <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message > news:4c542eaa$0$4990$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com... > > > > > Greg, I know how you feel about Reagan and I concede that he was a > > convincing issuer of platitudes and was very popular throughout his > > Presidency. This was partly because the scandals, such as the > > Iran-Contra affair, never seemed to stick to him. Now, why was that? > > IMHO, it was because when he went to the Hill and said "I don't know," > > and "I don't recall," all those hundreds of times, they believed him. > > I have a better answer. America didn't care. In of itself, ripping off the > Iranians to support the Contras wasn't that bad of an idea. In terms of an > outstanding presidency, it was a bump in the road. It was a smart business decision. But, I wouldn't expect Carbon to understand what Iran-Contra was really about.
From: Don Kirkman on 31 Jul 2010 16:41 On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 13:39:17 -0400, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: >You are a fool if you think that the Sec of Ag went off on his own and >fired a black woman for speaking at an NAACP event without consulting >the White House and the DOJ first. Vislack didn't appoint Sherrod and he >sure as hell wasn't going to fire her without getting permission. It wasn't even about *speaking* at an NAACP event--it was about accepting Breitbart's cherry-picked snippet as believable evidence that Sherrod was racist. Almost nobody did due diligence on the episode, but Breitbart didn't even intend to. -- Don Kirkman donsno2(a)charter.net
From: William Clark on 31 Jul 2010 17:35 In article <MPG.26be2ae6ad67a7fd98a164(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <wclark2-5C18F7.12513931072010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... > > > > In article <4c536b4e$0$4970$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > > > > > On Fri, 30 Jul 2010 15:37:55 -0500, MNMikeW wrote: > > > > "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message > > > > news:alangbaker-C06CE9.13143130072010(a)news.shawcable.com... > > > >> In article <8bgpttFmcfU1(a)mid.individual.net>, "MNMikeW" > > > >> <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > > > >>> "Alan Baker" <alangbaker(a)telus.net> wrote in message > > > >>> news:alangbaker-EDCC5B.13025030072010(a)news.shawcable.com... > > > >>> > > > >>>> The full video is 43 minutes long. > > > >>>> > > > >>>> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E9NcCa_KjXk> > > > >>>> > > > >>>> Don't you think a real journalist would have reviewed that before > > > >>>> putting up cherry-picked sections of it and passing judgement? > > > >>> > > > >>> What makes you think he didn't have the whole video? > > > >> > > > >> If he did, that makes his actions even worse, because it has been > > > >> pretty much universally agreed that anyone who has seen the whole > > > >> video could never have made the claims of racism that Breitbart made. > > > >> > > > >> You're really digging yourself a hole here, Mike, and for what? > > > >> > > > > I not digging anything. Breitbart is attempting to show racism at the > > > > NAACP, not specifically to Sherrod. Whether you think he does or does > > > > not accomplish this is debatable. > > > > > > He was attempting to smear the NAACP, not "show racism." Look at his > > > deliberately misleading excerpt. Then look at the full video. Unless > > > you're totally demented you'll be able to see what he did. > > > > I think you've hit the nail on the head with the "demented" bit :-) > > By definition the NAACP is a racist organization. QED.
From: William Clark on 31 Jul 2010 17:36 In article <MPG.26be2a79e87bedb698a163(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <wclark2-479852.12420731072010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... > > > > In article <MPG.26bd1fd6d79af2ab98a156(a)news.giganews.com>, > > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > > > > In article <aij6569cpam0ad72mac777mo5cqji2gjen(a)4ax.com>, > > > bknight(a)conramp.net says... > > > > >> The White House has apologized. Breitbart, who started the mess, > > > > >> hasn't. He's an idiot. > > > > > > > > > >Has every press outlet apologized for each and every mistake they have > > > > >ever made? No. > > > > > > > > > Thanks for admitting he made a mistake. > > > > > > I made no such admission. I asked a question and answered the question. > > > > > > > >Stop acting like a spoiled child. > > > > > > > > Wanting someone to own up is acting like a spoiled child? > > > > Oh, its Bert. I forgot. > > > > > > You are forgetting that the press cherry picks bits and pieces of > > > interviews and videos to bias what they present each and every day. The > > > fact that you won't admit that this SOP is laughable. > > > > So is Breitbart a deliberate liar or not? Simple moral question - yes or > > no will do. > > Breitbart is a publisher and he made a business decision just like the > NYT, WaPo and other media outlets. > > Judgement on Breitbart's using your moral question is irrelevant. > > Remember, government censor, businesses make decisions. So did he lie with the intention of misrepresenting the NAACP and Ms. Sherrod or not? Simple question. Have the cojones to answer it.
From: William Clark on 31 Jul 2010 17:39
In article <38u856tig9v3mdq3orii3kae1vl4b74sgj(a)4ax.com>, Don Kirkman <donsno2(a)charter.net> wrote: > On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 13:39:17 -0400, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > >You are a fool if you think that the Sec of Ag went off on his own and > >fired a black woman for speaking at an NAACP event without consulting > >the White House and the DOJ first. Vislack didn't appoint Sherrod and he > >sure as hell wasn't going to fire her without getting permission. > > It wasn't even about *speaking* at an NAACP event--it was about > accepting Breitbart's cherry-picked snippet as believable evidence > that Sherrod was racist. Almost nobody did due diligence on the > episode, but Breitbart didn't even intend to. Well, at least Breibart has Bertie in his corner. That's two liars trying to smear the NAACP and the WH by deception. |