Text 3056, 153 rader
Skriven 2006-06-29 11:07:00 av Robert E Starr JR (3529.babylon5)
Ärende: Re: Atheists: America's m
=================================
* * * This message was from Dennis \(Icarus\) to rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.m * *
*
         * * * and has been forwarded to you by Lord Time * * *         
            -----------------------------------------------             

@MSGID: <7b836$44a336ed$18d64cf6$12361@KNOLOGY.NET>
@REPLY: <646m829g7bnop29r7nik0veo9k3irc04k5@4ax.com>

"Josh Hill" <usereplyto@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:om96a2pidir5l02jve3pk201rrvhbobvkf@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 28 Jun 2006 02:40:33 +0000 (UTC), "Dennis \(Icarus\)"
> <ala_dir_diver@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >
<snip>
> >> >And liberals have done the same - where does the term "borking" come
> >from?
> >>
> >> From the politically-motivated disclosure that Judge Bork had smoked
> >> marijuana at parties, which is to say that while regrettable in and of
> >
> >That wasn't all there was, Josh.
>
> It's what I remember.

Oookk.....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Bork

>
> >> itself it has nothing to do with the broadbrushing of liberals and
> >> broad segments of the American population. In any case, the comment
> >> that "liberals have done the same" is a distortion of the truth,
> >> equating as it does one man's parking ticket with another's murder
> >> rap.
> >
> >Liberals have been painting conservatives with a broad brush
> >"racist, anti-immigrant, stupid, starve your children, etc" for decades.
>
> They have?

uhm...yes, they have.

>
> >> ><snip>
> >> >
> >> >And you'll find similar lettrs from all stripes.
> >>
> >> Not that I've seen. I mean, you'll find campaign letters, sure, that
> >> tell you that if the other party is elected, so and so will get such
> >> and such a position and that he'll do this and that. But I'm not
> >> complaining about that aspect of Hastert's letter. Rather, I was
> >> providing a convenient example per your request of the in-your-face
> >> lies and the patently obvious demagoguery and truth twisting to which
> >> I referred above. Evidence to support my assertion that "Republicans
> >> seem to fall for the most obvious spin and vote for people who want to
> >> exploit them" and that "much of what [the Republican leadership says]
> >> is complete and utter bollocks." And I didn't even have to try very
> >> hard -- this just happened to be in my in box.
> >
> >As do they all.
>
> Again, I haven't noticed. Whether I agree or not, the Democratic
> campaign missives that come my way tend to be on the level. The

That's, I think, is because you agree with them.

> Republicans, OTOH, lie a lot. They have to, because if they told the
> truth they'd only get the votes of some multi-millionaires.

That's, I think, is because you disagree with them.

<snip>
> >>
> >> How would you feel if a slick con man was laying something on your
> >> brother and when you tried to persuade him not to sign over his
> >> fortune he insisted that not only was the con man a decent fellow but
> >> that you were the enemy yourself? Because of course one of the things
> >> the con man is going to do -- create distrust of those most likely to
> >> thwart his designs. And when you say to your brother "This guy is
> >> pulling the wool over your eyes," the con man is going to say "Your
> >> brother is pulling the wool over your eyes because he wants to get his
> >> hands on your fortune. He's an elitist snob who thinks he's better and
> >> smarter than you are, who thinks you're dumb and can't make your own
> >> business decisions."
> >
> >Should be easy for you to prove then, right?
>
> Dude, do a search on "Tom DeLay." Or "Enron tapes." Or "Cheney energy
> committee." Or "corruption Iraq rebuilding effort." Or "Carl Rove
> smear." Or "Swift Boat." Or "energy industry contributions." Or
> "Indian tribe contributions." I could go on, but . . . once you've
> done this, ask yourselves whether these people have your interests in
> mind.

Harry Reid (D) NV, William Jefferson (D), LA
Hillary Clinton Health-care task force
etc

>
> >> That's the game, and we don't know how to counter it, because what
> >> with the television press reduced to puppy-dog docility and people no
> >
> >Yeah....the NYT - puppydog-like.
>
> What does the New York Times have to do with the "television press"?
> The New York Times and the Washington Post are read by a few million
> in the elite. Most people don't even read the local newspaper anymore
> -- and that's a big part of the problem, because even when it had
> teeth and was allowed to devote time to hard news television newscasts
> were never more than a headline service. And these days, even the
> people who watch television news are in the minority . . .

Well, the Internet provides a much wider varienty of news sources, and I
dont have to recycle newspapers if I don't get them. :-)

>
> >> longer reading the newspaper and Republican smears and propaganda the
> >
> >Look at whats been done to Michael Steele.
>
> Not sure who he is.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/metro/20051101-104932-4054r.htm

>
> >> dialog has been reduced to attack ads, sound bites, and spin, and
> >> these media don't allow the public to distinguish between lies and
> >> truth. So we're stuck with the painful process of watching the
> >> Republicans dig their own grave at the country's expense. Oh, the
> >> people will wake up eventually -- you can't fool all of the people all
> >> of the time -- in fact, in the case of Dubya, most of them already
> >> have. But it comes too late. The idea is to ward off the harm /before/
> >> it's done, before we have to deal with a failed war, an unprecedented
> >
> >Seems to be doing pretty well.
>
> What is, the country?

The war, that is what you said was failed.

>
> Interesting thing, that -- the Bush Administration keeps pointing to
> positive statistics, and people keep pointing to their lives . . .

<snip>

Dennis


.
                                                        
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: Time Warp of the Future BBS - Home of League 10 (1:14/400)