Our tea party friends
in [Golf]
|
Prev: Let us endeavor....
Next: I am Kenneth Gladney
From: John B. on 7 Apr 2010 17:00 On Apr 7, 4:56 pm, Dinosaur_Sr <frostb...(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote: > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Ayers is a professor at the Univ. of Chicago, which generally qualifies one as an intellectual.
From: Moderate on 7 Apr 2010 17:05 "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message news:clark-9A0F91.16421407042010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <8241c9Ft2lU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message >> news:clark-78112E.14084207042010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... >> > In article >> > <576e9a46-6587-4a6a-8e29-d9f5a33f4c6a(a)r27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, >> > Dinosaur_Sr <frostback(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. >> >> So using your logic. Fox is not biased because Alan Colmes is on it. > > No, Fox News is entertainment TV, not a serious news channel. All the networks have done away with news and replaced it with editorials and entertainment.
From: Moderate on 7 Apr 2010 17:13 "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:5c3b5472-73b8-4de6-aa1b-998793d73adf(a)z3g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... On Apr 7, 4:56 pm, Dinosaur_Sr <frostb...(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote: > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Ayers is a professor at the Univ. of Chicago, which generally qualifies one as an intellectual. **************************************************** Ayers is a Communist and a terrorist. How intellectual is that?
From: Dinosaur_Sr on 7 Apr 2010 17:16 On Apr 7, 5:00 pm, "John B." <johnb...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Apr 7, 4:56 pm, Dinosaur_Sr <frostb...(a)dukesofbiohazard.com> wrote: > > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > Ayers is a professor at the Univ. of Chicago, which generally > qualifies one as an intellectual. Lipstick on a pig is nowhere near a strong enough metaphor. Doesn't say much about the University of Chicago either. The man is a low grade thug who should be in prison.
From: MNMikeW on 7 Apr 2010 17:24
"William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message news:clark-9A0F91.16421407042010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <8241c9Ft2lU1(a)mid.individual.net>, > "MNMikeW" <MNMiikkew(a)aol.com> wrote: > >> "William Clark" <clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu> wrote in message >> news:clark-78112E.14084207042010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... >> > In article >> > <576e9a46-6587-4a6a-8e29-d9f5a33f4c6a(a)r27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, >> > Dinosaur_Sr <frostback(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. >> >> So using your logic. Fox is not biased because Alan Colmes is on it. > > No, Fox News is entertainment TV, not a serious news channel. Yet another dodge. I guess that's why it kicks all the other "serious news" channels asses every night. |