Our tea party friends
in [Golf]
|
Prev: Let us endeavor....
Next: I am Kenneth Gladney
From: John B. on 7 Apr 2010 16:42 On Apr 7, 7:52 am, William Clark <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio- state.edu> wrote: > In article > <0cce1d38-1a83-4b22-ac7b-e15a120c0...(a)i25g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, > "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > On Apr 6, 3:54 am, assimil...(a)borg.org wrote: > > > On 5-Apr-2010, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > > > > > I do not know who or what the SEIU or the UAW are. > > > > unions: the former is for <cough, cough> public servants, the latter for > > > tradesmen > > > > -- > > > bill-o > > > The former is not for public servants, it's for hotel and restaurant > > workers. > > There you go - that's the level of informed opinion you are dealing with. Well, it turns out I was half wrong. It's for both.
From: William Clark on 7 Apr 2010 16:43 In article <hpiiam$cfh$1(a)speranza.aioe.org>, "Moderate" <no_spam_(a)no_mail.com> wrote: > "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message > news:clark-295E79.14094307042010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > In article > > <a6a86504-f5cf-49ac-a9dc-60af6a673207(a)30g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, > > Dinosaur_Sr <frostback(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote: > > > >> On Apr 7, 7:50 am, William Clark <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio- > >> state.edu> wrote: > >> > >> > > >> > I think yu have nailed it right there - "incapable of rational thought" > >> > does it for me. > >> > >> It hasn't worked well for you so far though. You might want to give > >> rational thought a try. Mindless subservience to ideology has reduced > >> you to fool status. > > > > Perhaps, but I am al least bright enough to know that there is no such > > thing as an "x-ray crystallograph". 15-0. > > That does not make you less of a fool. Nor does it make you look remotely intelligent. So?
From: John B. on 7 Apr 2010 16:45 On Apr 7, 11:08 am, Dinosaur_Sr <frostb...(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote: > On Apr 6, 10:46 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 07:51:39 +0000, assimilate wrote: > > > On 4-Apr-2010, William Clark <wcla...(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote: > > > >>> Are you trying to claim the NYT isn't biased? > > > >> Compared to the Washington Times? Get real. > > > > the only difference is the NYT is biased in the same way that you are > > > Everybody is biased. It's the degree of bias that matters. You would > > have to be incapable of rational thought to seriously equate a cult rag > > like the Wash Times to the NYT. > > The NYT, like the Wash Times, is deliberately biased. The bias is a > matter of policy, and both are extreme to my minds eye. I don't see a > difference. If you don't see a difference, either you've never read either paper or you're intellectually incapable of discerning a difference.
From: John B. on 7 Apr 2010 16:48 On Apr 7, 2:08 pm, William Clark <cl...(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio- state.edu> wrote: > In article > <576e9a46-6587-4a6a-8e29-d9f5a33f4...(a)r27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > Dinosaur_Sr <frostb...(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote: > > On Apr 6, 10:46 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > > > On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 07:51:39 +0000, assimilate wrote: > > > > On 4-Apr-2010, William Clark <wcla...(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote: > > > > >>> Are you trying to claim the NYT isn't biased? > > > > >> Compared to the Washington Times? Get real. > > > > > the only difference is the NYT is biased in the same way that you are > > > > Everybody is biased. It's the degree of bias that matters. You would > > > have to be incapable of rational thought to seriously equate a cult rag > > > like the Wash Times to the NYT. > > > The NYT, like the Wash Times, is deliberately biased. The bias is a > > matter of policy, and both are extreme to my minds eye. I don't see a > > difference. > > Where would you say the political bias of David Brooks lies? Thank you.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Right. You will find liberal and conservative commentary on the op-ed page of the NYT. You will find only conservative voices on the op-ed page of the Wash Times.
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 7 Apr 2010 16:56
On Apr 7, 4:45 pm, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 7, 11:08 am, Dinosaur_Sr <frostb...(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> > wrote: > > > > > On Apr 6, 10:46 pm, Carbon <nob...(a)nospam.tampabay.rr.com> wrote: > > > > On Tue, 06 Apr 2010 07:51:39 +0000, assimilate wrote: > > > > On 4-Apr-2010, William Clark <wcla...(a)colnospamumbus.rr.com> wrote: > > > > >>> Are you trying to claim the NYT isn't biased? > > > > >> Compared to the Washington Times? Get real. > > > > > the only difference is the NYT is biased in the same way that you are > > > > Everybody is biased. It's the degree of bias that matters. You would > > > have to be incapable of rational thought to seriously equate a cult rag > > > like the Wash Times to the NYT. > > > The NYT, like the Wash Times, is deliberately biased. The bias is a > > matter of policy, and both are extreme to my minds eye. I don't see a > > difference. > > If you don't see a difference, either you've never read either paper > or you're intellectually incapable of discerning a difference. Actually, I'm not so stupid as I can't see what organizations like the NYT are doing. While biased conservative media pride themselves in being blunt and plain speaking, biased liberal media engage in pseudo- intellectual; twitism, and embed a series of standard sorts of phrasings and platitudes in a worn out old rhetorical style that they think shows them off as being "intellectual"...and this did work in the 1930's...obviously the public is wise to it now. In any event, the regulars on the NYT are in fact no more intellectual that the regulars on the WT, they just use different rhetorical styles. For example, William Ayers is considered "intellectual" by NYT types, when in fact he is a low grade thug, no different that Gordon Liddy. |