A British Open Double Bogey
in [Golf]
|
Prev: Ping Alan Baker
Next: Where is the old boy today?
From: William Clark on 1 Aug 2010 21:10 In article <MPG.26bfb625b0702c098a190(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <wclark2-D509E7.13464501082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... > > > > In article <MPG.26bf616866ad2c6e98a180(a)news.giganews.com>, > > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > > > > In article <wclark2-D1994D.11114301082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > > > state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... > > > > > > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > He made a business decision. > > > > > > > > OK, so you simply refuse to see this as a total distortion of the truth > > > > for political ends. Just goes to show how much any of your "opinions" > > > > are worth. Absolutely nothing from a moral midget. > > > > > > > > > > Exactly what was distored? > > > > Nothing was "distored" - the message of her remarks were "distorted" and > > turned around 180 degrees by editing deliberately intended to deceive. > > You really do need to grow up and realize that the press has been > distoring peoples remarks for ever since the printing press was > invented. Really? Perhaps you can tell me how the press is "distoring" peoples (sic) remarks - I've never heard them accused of that before. Actually, I have never heard of anyone being accused of "distoring". :-)
From: William Clark on 1 Aug 2010 21:10 In article <4c55baf5$0$4961$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, Carbon <nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 13:43:00 -0400, BAR wrote: > > In article <4c559b53$0$7916$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > > >> The press is not allowed to libel and defame. There is a legal > >> distinction involved that you are apparently too stupid to grasp. > > > > Replaying a video of you speaking your own words is not libel or > > defamation. Journalists and make editorial decisions all of the time > > as to what is relevant to the story and what is not relevant to the > > story. The problem Sherrod has is that they are her words and her > > words alone. What is really funny is you and the other libtards are > > going apoplectic about this issue. > > > > If the government steps into this situation it will be seen as > > censorship and it will become a first amendment issue. > > Actual quote: "Some people say I killed him, but I swear I did not." > > Brietbart: "...I killed him..." > > You're obviously not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but you > understand what Breitbart did. You're just playing the fool. Again. Yes, but he does it so well - he's a natural at it ;-)
From: William Clark on 1 Aug 2010 21:13 In article <MPG.26bfb283fd64b06998a18b(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <4c55baf5$0$4961$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > > > On Sun, 01 Aug 2010 13:43:00 -0400, BAR wrote: > > > In article <4c559b53$0$7916$9a6e19ea(a)unlimited.newshosting.com>, > > > nobrac(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com says... > > > > > >> The press is not allowed to libel and defame. There is a legal > > >> distinction involved that you are apparently too stupid to grasp. > > > > > > Replaying a video of you speaking your own words is not libel or > > > defamation. Journalists and make editorial decisions all of the time > > > as to what is relevant to the story and what is not relevant to the > > > story. The problem Sherrod has is that they are her words and her > > > words alone. What is really funny is you and the other libtards are > > > going apoplectic about this issue. > > > > > > If the government steps into this situation it will be seen as > > > censorship and it will become a first amendment issue. > > > > Actual quote: "Some people say I killed him, but I swear I did not." > > > > Brietbart: "...I killed him..." > > > > You're obviously not the sharpest knife in the drawer, but you > > understand what Breitbart did. You're just playing the fool. Again. > > Breitbart didn't do tanything that other media/press outlets havent done > in the past without reprecussions. Jesus wept, Bertie - the old dyslexia kicking in again? How about "tanything, havent, reprecussions" all in one sentence? And by the way, yes, Breitbart did what the mainstream press would be prosecuted for. And he will be.
From: William Clark on 1 Aug 2010 21:16 In article <MPG.26bfab5ab15eb75698a18a(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <wclark2-F996FF.13495201082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... > > > > > > > > No, by the Dept. of Ag. If you disagree, please cite the source for > > > > "the > > > > knowledge of Obama and the DOJ", or else withdraw. Another cheap > > > > attempt > > > > to smear from a moral pygmy who defends Breitbart. > > > > > > > > > > The DOJ just confirmed that political or patronage position like US > > > > > attornies can be fired at any time for any reason. Sherrod was a > > > > > political problem for Obama and the Democrats > > > > > > > > More typical BS. > > > > > > The newsgroups most prolific liar is demanding that I withdraw an > > > opinion. > > > > > > You really don't keep up with politics Billy. > > > http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=128675651 > > > > Just your usual. Why don't you just spend the rest of the day looking > > for your moral backbone? > > What's the wording? Oh, that right "I win." Sherrod is not a US attorney - she was a low level administrator - she is nothing to do with the DoJ, and so your "cite" it totally irrelevant. Seems you need to look for your IQ along with your spine. How does it go now? Oh, yes - "I win".
From: William Clark on 1 Aug 2010 21:19
In article <MPG.26bfab179fc678af98a189(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <wclark2-7FFEA6.13503501082010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > state.edu>, wclark2(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com says... > > > > Bertie, Bertie, your syntax meter seems to be as far out of whack as > > > > your ethical one. Who builds roads in the US? You? > > > > > > You need to do some research Billy before you ask that question. You > > > would be surprised by what you find. > > > > OK, so who builds the roads you and I drive on? Simple question, but I > > am not surprised you refuse to answer it. > > > > Remember you said "roads". > > The roads are mostly built by the developers and individuals. The > county, city or state comes along after the road is completed and takes > over maintenance. > > In my county the developers cannot start building houses until they have > either built the roads or acquired bonds to complete the roads. And, no > construction can be started on housing developments until schools and > other infrastructure is built. This is all funded by those new > homeowners by the levying of special taxes in special taxing districts. > > Do you know what front footage benefit charge is and why you pay it? The > rates you pay for electricty get the power lines to your house, the > electric company does not run the lines for free. > > So, to answer you question the people pay to have the roads built. Indeed, "the people" pay to have roads built. A communal, socialistic, decision (developers don;t build interstates, must as you would wish it). Nice snip of the relevant accusation, though. Saves you another red face. |