Our tea party friends
in [Golf]
|
Prev: Let us endeavor....
Next: I am Kenneth Gladney
From: Carbon on 7 Apr 2010 18:18 On Wed, 07 Apr 2010 16:31:21 -0500, MNMikeW wrote: > "John B." <johnb505(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > news:5c3b5472-73b8-4de6-aa1b-998793d73adf(a)z3g2000yqz.googlegroups.com... > >> Ayers is a professor at the Univ. of Chicago, which generally >> qualifies one as an intellectual. > > Ted Kaczynski was an intellectual too. Ted and Ayers have a lot in > common. Very true. http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/8.04/joy_pr.html
From: BAR on 7 Apr 2010 18:19 In article <clark-78112E.14084207042010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- state.edu>, clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says... > > 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. David Brooks is a wannabe, wannabe invited on the TV shows, wannabe invited to the parties, wannabe employed. Brooks is not a respected conservative intellectual by those on the right.
From: Lloyd Parsons on 7 Apr 2010 18:26 In article <MPG.2626cf0a8870e5e1989db0(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <clark-78112E.14084207042010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > state.edu>, clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says... > > > > 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. > > David Brooks is a wannabe, wannabe invited on the TV shows, wannabe > invited to the parties, wannabe employed. > > Brooks is not a respected conservative intellectual by those on the > right. I'm sure. You hold your respect for Limbaugh and Beck, right? :) -- Lloyd
From: BAR on 7 Apr 2010 19:20 In article <lloydparsons-803C65.17261107042010(a)news.eternal- september.org>, lloydparsons(a)mac.com says... > > In article <MPG.2626cf0a8870e5e1989db0(a)news.giganews.com>, > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > > In article <clark-78112E.14084207042010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > > state.edu>, clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says... > > > > > > 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. > > > > David Brooks is a wannabe, wannabe invited on the TV shows, wannabe > > invited to the parties, wannabe employed. > > > > Brooks is not a respected conservative intellectual by those on the > > right. > > I'm sure. You hold your respect for Limbaugh and Beck, right? :) Limbaugh is funny, Beck is annoying.
From: Lloyd Parsons on 7 Apr 2010 20:13
In article <MPG.2626dd3a9fdc95c8989db6(a)news.giganews.com>, BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > In article <lloydparsons-803C65.17261107042010(a)news.eternal- > september.org>, lloydparsons(a)mac.com says... > > > > In article <MPG.2626cf0a8870e5e1989db0(a)news.giganews.com>, > > BAR <screw(a)you.com> wrote: > > > > > In article <clark-78112E.14084207042010(a)charm.magnus.acs.ohio- > > > state.edu>, clark(a)nospam.matsceng.ohio-state.edu says... > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > David Brooks is a wannabe, wannabe invited on the TV shows, wannabe > > > invited to the parties, wannabe employed. > > > > > > Brooks is not a respected conservative intellectual by those on the > > > right. > > > > I'm sure. You hold your respect for Limbaugh and Beck, right? :) > > Limbaugh is funny, Beck is annoying. Limbaugh IS funny at times, although I prefer my right-wing comedy fix to come from Boortz. Beck is beyond annoying, he's certifiable! Yet he has his own show on Fox. Makes you wonder... :) -- Lloyd |