On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:54:09 GMT, "GeoSynch"
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

Oh, so you do watch the Fox News Channel?
Excellent, excellent. There's hope for you, yet!

Actually, unlike certain people, I try to cover all of the bases.

And I see more than enough liberals just on Fox: Mara Liasson,
Juan Williams, Alan Colmes, Ellen Ratner, Eleanor Clift, Susan
Estrich, Pat Halpin, Ellis Hennigan, ad nauseum

Oh, did I forget to mention Neal Gabler and Jane Hall?

You forgot Geraldo.

And one can say the same about all of the other news outlets?

No, one most certainly can not. You are exagerrating.
Name an equivalent number of conservative talking heads on
CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, etc.

You can't compare the first three to FoxNews

As for CNN, they have quite a few conservatives. Their Chief
Washington Correspondent is one of them (can't remember his name
rightnow). They also have run Crossfire for quite a few years now, and
there has been a steady stream of Tucker Carlsons that have gone
through that show. Robert Novak, Al Hunt, David Gergan, R. Emmett
Tyrrell, etc. And guys like Neil Cavuto, a Fox staple, also contribute
to CNBC. I don't think you can really bitch much about CNBC, since
they mostly concentrate on financials.

I don't watch enough MSNBC to know much about their lineup.

Who gave the Conservatives voice for over 30 years?
Why, that notoriously liberal bastion, PBS, of course.

William Buckley was no Barry Goldwater.

That's right. He had/s a sense of humor and a world-class brain.

Watch NBC's Meet the Press lately?

Oh, you mean with Tim Russert, who worked for New York Governor
Mario Cuomo (D) and Senator Daniel Patrick Moyniham (D)

No, I meant guys like David Gergan and Bil Kristol. Last week was
choice as they had Matalin/Carville (or was it two weeks ago?) She
made him look like more of a fool than he usually does.

And then there's our friend George Will on the George Stephanopolis
Sunday show.

I happen to think that Russert is one of the best for asking pointed
questions to his "own". And he generally has panelists from both sides
of the spectrum.

ad nauseum...

But I think I addressed why I was watching Fox in another post. It
isn't a regular occurance, believe me.

Your loss.

Nah, not really. I find them generally strident and rather
unappetizing. If you base your news viewing on them, then I certainly
understand why you come off the way you do. I know I hear enough of
the "Fox Party Line" from my buddy.

Fox is only one of many alternative media I can turn to in order to avoid
the leftist propaganda spewed by the liberal media, which seem to have
reeled you in hook, line and sinker.

Looks like it's *you* who's hooked.

And see, it's *you* who's too afraid of getting a wide view of the
world.

Also, you are obviously blind to the reports that have leaked out
regarding the way that they slant their news.

Oh, by a disgruntled former staffer, you mean.

Yes, facts suck (props to Trotsky).

How would you rate his credibility to that of Bernad Goldberg's?

I don't know the gentleman.

BTW, I see you are *still* trying to deperately cover your mistake
about the Bush demos. Just give in and admit that you were wrong,
won't you?

All we're going to agree on here is the 30,000 figure at 4 p.m.

Why? I gave you Scotland Yard's own web site with *two* different
estimates? Why are you overlooking this? Why don't you admit that
"Official sources - those without a partisan axe to grind - tell a
different story. Scotland Yard estimated 70,000 people. However,
London's Metropolitan Police figured the number of participants at
only 30,000, nearly none of whom were middle class" is a totally
stupid report considering that Scotland Yard and the Metropolitan
Police ARE THE SAME THING? Note that they say "official sources -
those without a partisan axe to grind" *actually said "over 100,000.

There did seem to be a pattern among all the various sources I listed:
The 70,000 figure was associated with Scotland Yard, whereas the
30,000 figure was associated with the London Metropolitan Police,
which we now know to be one and the same. This makes their
subsequent estimations all the more suspect.

No it doesn't. It means that they gave estimates throughout the day.
What *is* suspect is that one of your main sources didn't even know
that Scotland Yard and the Metropolitan Police WERE the same thing.

After that, the politically correct influences took over and the numbers
are no longer believable.

You mean like SCOTLAND YARD? Are you NOW saying that they aren't a
credible source?

Once again, here are two quotes from Scotland Yard:

"Demand: Despite more than 100,000 demonstrators participating, the
largest midweek protest in London's history, passed off peacefully".

http://www.met.police.uk/job/job917/live_files/6.htm

Commander Mick Messinger, Gold for this event, said all security and
public order objectives were achieved.

More than 5,000 police officers and police staff were involved in
facilitating Thursday's protests - the largest mid-week demonstration
in recent memory.

"The professionalism and dedication of our staff enabled more than
100,000 demonstrators to express their views in a safe way as well as
manage the demands of operating with an increased security threat."

http://www.met.police.uk/job/job917/live_files/1.htm

I pointed that site out to you, don't you remember?

No, *I* pointed it out to *you*, remember?

You're having a little trouble following along.

Note that these quotes are not only official, but actually AFTER THE
DEMONSTRATION WAS OVER and released the next day, not in the middle of
the demonstration (the picture on their web site clearly shows a
packed square at dusk - and I'm sure that the demonstrations went on
quite late in the evening).

See above regarding suspect estimations.

They were estimates given at specific points in time *during* the
demonstrations.

BTW, have you seen any photos to support the 100,000 claim?

Frankly, I don't know how you're going to get photos that are
conclusive one way or another and I wouldn't base any estimate on that
sort of thing. I'll stick with *official sources*, thank you very much.

Photos would provide more conclusive proof than suspect estimations
generated by Scotland Yard/London Metropolitan Police.

So now, we can't even rely on the figures that your OWN sources
quoted, since they came from SY/LMP.

Ooops.

You lose.

Again.

And the photos
that I've seen of the demonstrations DO NOT seem to have crowds
numbering in the 70,000s, let alone the 100,000 protesters.

I haven't seen any photos that could be considered shots of the full
crowd, so how would you know?

No, face it, you were simply wrong. Scotland Yard says so.

No, sorry, but you have not conclusively proven so.

Look, you can't have it both ways. First you want to use their
figures, then you say that they *aren't* to be used. You use suspect
logic like "It's 4:00 and the protest is over. No more counting
allowed".

Nah, I nailed you on this one and you know it.

Spin little top, spin.

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:36:29 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:

Also, let's look at the columnists used on this site:

David Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell, Dr. Jack Wheeler (who created the
Reagan Doctrine and, who wrote about Clinton "Let's start with two
things we know for sure about Hillary. First, she wants to be
president. Second, she will do anything to be so. There is no lie she
won't tell, no friend she won't destroy, no pledge she won't break, no
slander she won't spread, no political dirty trick she won't employ in
order to reside in the White House again, this time as the POTUS"),
and, of course, the infamous founder of the afformentioned Front Page
Magazine, David Horowitz.

Formerly employed by the Black Panthers, raised by socialists.

So? Eldridge Cleaver sold cock socks and Bobby Seale sold BBQ sauce.

He's seen both sides and chose other than liberal.

BTW, *he* employed the Black Panthers, not the other way around.

I will say that I like the fact that he's still against racial
profiling.

However, the only thing that what you mention shows is that one guy
changed his political orientation. it doesn't "prove" anything about
being liberal (or conservative, for that matter).

The point is, he's a pretty arch conservative at the moment.

Who knows what he'll be in 10 years?

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:36:29 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:

Fox always presents 2 sides of every issue

They do NOT.

and gives equal time to the left.

They do NOT.

They do. For every conservative utterance, there is a liberal one.

You've lost all perspective. You're spouting the party line.

"GeoSynch" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

Oh, so you do watch the Fox News Channel?
Excellent, excellent. There's hope for you, yet!

Actually, unlike certain people, I try to cover all of the bases.

And I see more than enough liberals just on Fox: Mara Liasson,
Juan Williams, Alan Colmes, Ellen Ratner, Eleanor Clift, Susan
Estrich, Pat Halpin, Ellis Hennigan, ad nauseum

Oh, did I forget to mention Neal Gabler and Jane Hall?

And one can say the same about all of the other news outlets?

No, one most certainly can not. You are exagerrating.
Name an equivalent number of conservative talking heads on
CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, etc.

SCORE!!!!!
Exactly, there are very few on those networks, except for MSNBC, which
is
balanced nicely

MSNBC has wised up to the fact that it needs more Joe Scarboroughs and
fewer
Phil Donahues if it is to stay financially afloat. I'm looking forward to
watching
Dennis Miller on MSNBC, even if I don't always agree with him.


GeoSynch



I would like to see a Franken & Miller show.
Much better than Hannity and Colmes, I would imagiine.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:36:29 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:

The main difference with Fox is you know the politics of the talking
heads
where you don't always on the other networks.

Yes, George Will, Bill Kristol and William F. Buckley are notorious
left-wing radicals.

How long did it take to find out that Cronkite was a liberal?

That should tell you how well he hid it.

How long did it take for Brit Hume to come out of the closet? 20
some-odd years?

On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:36:29 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:

The bulk of their reporting is through AP and UPI and Reuters.

3 more biased sources, especially Reuters.

You've *really* got to be kidding.

Now I *know* you've gone 'round the bend.

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

MSNBC has wised up to the fact that it needs more Joe Scarboroughs and
fewer Phil Donahues if it is to stay financially afloat. I'm looking forward to
watching Dennis Miller on MSNBC, even if I don't always agree with him.

I would like to see a Franken & Miller show.

Sure, with a dead John Belushi propped up between the two of them!

Much better than Hannity and Colmes, I would imagiine.

You'd overdose on one-line zingers.


GeoSynch

"GeoSynch" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

MSNBC has wised up to the fact that it needs more Joe Scarboroughs and
fewer Phil Donahues if it is to stay financially afloat. I'm looking
forward to
watching Dennis Miller on MSNBC, even if I don't always agree with
him.

I would like to see a Franken & Miller show.

Sure, with a dead John Belushi propped up between the two of them!

I saw Joe Piscipo on a financial show on CNBC today.
He was half dead.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

I would like to see a Franken & Miller show.

Sure, with a dead John Belushi propped up between the two of them!

I saw Joe Piscipo on a financial show on CNBC today.
He was half dead.

You'd probably get better financial advice from Norm MacDonald.


GeoSynch

"GeoSynch" wrote in message
hlink.net...
Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

I would like to see a Franken & Miller show.

Sure, with a dead John Belushi propped up between the two of them!

I saw Joe Piscipo on a financial show on CNBC today.
He was half dead.

You'd probably get better financial advice from Norm MacDonald.


I'll stick with Ben Stein.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

dave weil wrote:

Oh, so you do watch the Fox News Channel?
Excellent, excellent. There's hope for you, yet!

Actually, unlike certain people, I try to cover all of the bases.

And I see more than enough liberals just on Fox: Mara Liasson,
Juan Williams, Alan Colmes, Ellen Ratner, Eleanor Clift, Susan
Estrich, Pat Halpin, Ellis Hennigan, ad nauseum

Oh, did I forget to mention Neal Gabler and Jane Hall?

You forgot Geraldo.

Oh, thanks for reminding me. He's more popular with the troops over
in Afghanistan than Hillary is, you know?

And one can say the same about all of the other news outlets?

No, one most certainly can not. You are exagerrating.
Name an equivalent number of conservative talking heads on
CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, etc.

You can't compare the first three to FoxNews

You got a point there - they make no pretense of objectivity.

As for CNN, they have quite a few conservatives. Their Chief
Washington Correspondent is one of them (can't remember his name
rightnow). They also have run Crossfire for quite a few years now, and
there has been a steady stream of Tucker Carlsons that have gone
through that show. Robert Novak, Al Hunt, David Gergan, R. Emmett
Tyrrell, etc. And guys like Neil Cavuto, a Fox staple, also contribute
to CNBC. I don't think you can really bitch much about CNBC, since
they mostly concentrate on financials.

Al Hunt, though writing for the Wall Street Journal, is quite the liberal.

I don't watch enough MSNBC to know much about their lineup.

Who gave the Conservatives voice for over 30 years?
Why, that notoriously liberal bastion, PBS, of course.

William Buckley was no Barry Goldwater.

That's right. He had/s a sense of humor and a world-class brain.

Well, he is a globalist anyways.

Watch NBC's Meet the Press lately?

Oh, you mean with Tim Russert, who worked for New York Governor
Mario Cuomo (D) and Senator Daniel Patrick Moyniham (D)

No, I meant guys like David Gergan and Bil Kristol. Last week was
choice as they had Matalin/Carville (or was it two weeks ago?) She
made him look like more of a fool than he usually does.

Oh, are Gergan or Kristol the moderators of Meet The Press?
You do know that Matalin and Carville are married, don't you?
She used to be rather pretty, but it looks like some of Carville's
ugliness has rubbed off on her.

And then there's our friend George Will on the George Stephanopolis
Sunday show.

I was wondering when you'd get around to mentioning the token
conservative who's treated like a cabin boy by the other co-hosts.
(BTW, do you think it was Stephanopoulus and Rahm Emanuel
that Gary Aldrich described in his book as smoking crack and
carrying on a homosexual affair in the Clinton White House?)

I happen to think that Russert is one of the best for asking pointed
questions to his "own". And he generally has panelists from both sides
of the spectrum.

Yes, Russert does ask tough and pointed questions of all guests.

ad nauseum...

But I think I addressed why I was watching Fox in another post. It
isn't a regular occurance, believe me.

Your loss.

Nah, not really. I find them generally strident and rather
unappetizing. If you base your news viewing on them, then I certainly
understand why you come off the way you do. I know I hear enough of
the "Fox Party Line" from my buddy.

Fox is only one of many alternative media I can turn to in order to avoid
the leftist propaganda spewed by the liberal media, which seem to have
reeled you in hook, line and sinker.

Looks like it's *you* who's hooked.

An "IKYABWAI"? How original!

And see, it's *you* who's too afraid of getting a wide view of the world.

I believe I have a more informed worldview than you do.

Also, you are obviously blind to the reports that have leaked out
regarding the way that they slant their news.

Oh, by a disgruntled former staffer, you mean.

Yes, facts suck (props to Trotsky).

How would you rate his credibility to that of Berna[r]d Goldberg's?

I don't know the gentleman.

Former renowned correspondent for CBS News with two recent
bestsellers: "Bias" and "Arrogance."

Thanks for acknowledging your ignorance on this.

BTW, I see you are *still* trying to deperately cover your mistake
about the Bush demos. Just give in and admit that you were wrong,
won't you?

All we're going to agree on here is the 30,000 figure at 4 p.m.

Why? I gave you Scotland Yard's own web site with *two* different
estimates? Why are you overlooking this? Why don't you admit that
"Official sources - those without a partisan axe to grind - tell a
different story. Scotland Yard estimated 70,000 people. However,
London's Metropolitan Police figured the number of participants at
only 30,000, nearly none of whom were middle class" is a totally
stupid report considering that Scotland Yard and the Metropolitan
Police ARE THE SAME THING? Note that they say "official sources -
those without a partisan axe to grind" *actually said "over 100,000.

There did seem to be a pattern among all the various sources I listed:
The 70,000 figure was associated with Scotland Yard, whereas the
30,000 figure was associated with the London Metropolitan Police,
which we now know to be one and the same. This makes their
subsequent estimations all the more suspect.

No it doesn't. It means that they gave estimates throughout the day.
What *is* suspect is that one of your main sources didn't even know
that Scotland Yard and the Metropolitan Police WERE the same thing.

Let me reiterate: Quite a few of the sources I cited listed the 70,000 figure
with Scotland, and quite a few of the sources I cited listed the 30,000
figure with the London Metropolitan Police.

After that, the politically correct influences took over and the numbers
are no longer believable.

You mean like SCOTLAND YARD? Are you NOW saying that they aren't a
credible source?

Once again, here are two quotes from Scotland Yard:

"Demand: Despite more than 100,000 demonstrators participating, the
largest midweek protest in London's history, passed off peacefully".

http://www.met.police.uk/job/job917/live_files/6.htm

Commander Mick Messinger, Gold for this event, said all security and
public order objectives were achieved.

More than 5,000 police officers and police staff were involved in
facilitating Thursday's protests - the largest mid-week demonstration
in recent memory.

"The professionalism and dedication of our staff enabled more than
100,000 demonstrators to express their views in a safe way as well as
manage the demands of operating with an increased security threat."

http://www.met.police.uk/job/job917/live_files/1.htm

I pointed that site out to you, don't you remember?

No, *I* pointed it out to *you*, remember?

You're having a little trouble following along.

Sorry, you're wrong. Again.
You originally cited the http://www.met.police.uk/job/job917/live_files/6.htm .
I subsequently cited the http://www.met.police.uk/job/job917/live_files/1.htm .
You're losing it, son.

Note that these quotes are not only official, but actually AFTER THE
DEMONSTRATION WAS OVER and released the next day, not in the middle of
the demonstration (the picture on their web site clearly shows a
packed square at dusk - and I'm sure that the demonstrations went on
quite late in the evening).

See above regarding suspect estimations.

They were estimates given at specific points in time *during* the
demonstrations.

Can you prove it? We do know the estimate of 30,000 was at 4 p.m.
What was the precise time for the 70,000 figure and what was the
precise time for the 100,000 figure?

BTW, have you seen any photos to support the 100,000 claim?

Frankly, I don't know how you're going to get photos that are
conclusive one way or another and I wouldn't base any estimate on that
sort of thing. I'll stick with *official sources*, thank you very much.

Photos would provide more conclusive proof than suspect estimations
generated by Scotland Yard/London Metropolitan Police.

So now, we can't even rely on the figures that your OWN sources
quoted, since they came from SY/LMP.

Not when they are so widely and inexplicably disparate.

Ooops.

You lose.

Again.

What did trots use to say about declaring premature victory?

And the photos
that I've seen of the demonstrations DO NOT seem to have crowds
numbering in the 70,000s, let alone the 100,000 protesters.

I haven't seen any photos that could be considered shots of the full
crowd, so how would you know?

Because said photos would be ubiquitous if there had in fact been
100,000 or even 70,000 protesters.

No, face it, you were simply wrong. Scotland Yard says so.

No, sorry, but you have not conclusively proven so.

Look, you can't have it both ways. First you want to use their
figures, then you say that they *aren't* to be used. You use suspect
logic like "It's 4:00 and the protest is over. No more counting
allowed".

30,000 at 4 p.m., then 70,000 at who knows when and finally 100,000
at once again who knows when and no conclusive photos. No sale.

Nah, I nailed you on this one and you know it.

Spin little top, spin.

Nope. Sorry. You lose. Again. And again. And again.


GeoSynch

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 08:19:11 GMT, "GeoSynch"
wrote:

No, I meant guys like David Gergan and Bil Kristol. Last week was
choice as they had Matalin/Carville (or was it two weeks ago?) She
made him look like more of a fool than he usually does.

Oh, are Gergan or Kristol the moderators of Meet The Press?

No. Of course not. Few of any of the people that you mention are
"moderators", either.

You do know that Matalin and Carville are married, don't you?

Of course I do. I've mentioned it several times.

She used to be rather pretty, but it looks like some of Carville's
ugliness has rubbed off on her.

She has *never* been "rather pretty". That's like saying that Carville
used to look like Bruce Willis.

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 08:19:11 GMT, "GeoSynch"
wrote:

You can't compare the first three to FoxNews

You got a point there - they make no pretense of objectivity.

Neither does Fox(*our* troops all the time)News.

I suspect you know what I meant, but I'll point it out anyway - news
shows on the big three are pretty much limited to straight news and
not some sort of rambling "roundtable" format, plus, they aren't 24
hour news channels.

It's funny that someone would dare use the term 'objective" to any
news outlet that insists on using the word "our" in place of US when
referrign to troops and "friends" in place of allies and runs as much
fawning coverage of the war as FoxNews does.

Oh yeah, the blond this morning patted themselves on the back again
saying how "fair and balanced" they were.

Look my argument isn't that they don't allow the liberal viewpoint to
be shown. I'm talking about the content and presentation of the news
stories themselves *and* the fact that their anchors are in the main
conservative mouthpieces, or at least spout the FoxNews slant on
things. Story selection is another thing as well...

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 08:19:11 GMT, "GeoSynch"
wrote:

I happen to think that Russert is one of the best for asking pointed
questions to his "own". And he generally has panelists from both sides
of the spectrum.

Yes, Russert does ask tough and pointed questions of all guests.

That's what I like about George Will as well. I like Will, even though
it seems like he's always sitting with a baseball bat up his ass.

What I've always hoped for was a "Crossfire" type show somewhere
featuring p j o'rourke and Al Franken. That would be hilarious (and
insightful).

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 08:19:11 GMT, "GeoSynch"
wrote:

And see, it's *you* who's too afraid of getting a wide view of the world.

I believe I have a more informed worldview than you do.

Since you "avoid" a whole spectrum of coverage, I don't think so.

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 08:19:11 GMT, "GeoSynch"
wrote:

How would you rate his credibility to that of Berna[r]d Goldberg's?

I don't know the gentleman.

Former renowned correspondent for CBS News with two recent
bestsellers: "Bias" and "Arrogance."

Thanks for acknowledging your ignorance on this.

Of course. When I don't know something, I say so. I don't try to cover
up. I've *still* never heard of him. The only Bernard I remember from
CBS (a network that I rarely watch, except for many Sunday mornings)
is Bernard Kalb.

But I'll check him out.

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 08:19:11 GMT, "GeoSynch"
wrote:

No it doesn't. It means that they gave estimates throughout the day.
What *is* suspect is that one of your main sources didn't even know
that Scotland Yard and the Metropolitan Police WERE the same thing.

Let me reiterate: Quite a few of the sources I cited listed the 70,000 figure
with Scotland, and quite a few of the sources I cited listed the 30,000
figure with the London Metropolitan Police.

And one of them didn't even apparently know that the two were one and
the same.

I think it's interesting that none of the sources you cite (including
the AP story) didn't even follow up with the final figure. In fact,
the story seems to have been dropped like a lead balloon. No final
followup that I can find. Just stories that seem to have been written
DURING the event and filed so that they would hit as early as possible
in the next US news day.

The only thing that matters is that your *own* required "official
source" only has one first hand publically published official figure
and that's "more than 100,000".

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 08:19:11 GMT, "GeoSynch"
wrote:

http://www.met.police.uk/job/job917/live_files/1.htm

I pointed that site out to you, don't you remember?

No, *I* pointed it out to *you*, remember?

You're having a little trouble following along.

Sorry, you're wrong. Again.
You originally cited the http://www.met.police.uk/job/job917/live_files/6.htm .
I subsequently cited the http://www.met.police.uk/job/job917/live_files/1.htm .
You're losing it, son.

I went back and checked and you are correct (except for the last part
chuckle).

And the reason that I didn't notice it is that I didn't follow your
link but found it later independently while searching for any more
Scotland Yard references.

So, I stand corrected.

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 08:19:11 GMT, "GeoSynch"
wrote:

They were estimates given at specific points in time *during* the
demonstrations.

Can you prove it? We do know the estimate of 30,000 was at 4 p.m.
What was the precise time for the 70,000 figure and what was the
precise time for the 100,000 figure?

The precise time for the 100,000 figure was obviously *after* the
demonstration was over. One assumes that the 70,000 figure was
sometime after 4pm and before the end of the demonstration *or* it was
an unofficial estimate given to a reporter by some Bobbie eager to
file a quick story, since none of your sources use the term "official
estimate".

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 08:19:11 GMT, "GeoSynch"

That's what I like about George Will as well. I like Will, even though
it seems like he's always sitting with a baseball bat up his ass.


Being a man of principles, he refuses to rub any tar oil on it.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 08:19:11 GMT, "GeoSynch"
wrote:

How would you rate his credibility to that of Berna[r]d Goldberg's?

I don't know the gentleman.

Former renowned correspondent for CBS News with two recent
bestsellers: "Bias" and "Arrogance."

Thanks for acknowledging your ignorance on this.

Of course. When I don't know something, I say so. I don't try to cover
up. I've *still* never heard of him. The only Bernard I remember from
CBS (a network that I rarely watch, except for many Sunday mornings)
is Bernard Kalb.

But I'll check him out.

He may have been some sort of editor or exeutive, rather than "talent",
as they call newsreading droids.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 08:19:11 GMT, "GeoSynch"
wrote:

They were estimates given at specific points in time *during* the
demonstrations.

Can you prove it? We do know the estimate of 30,000 was at 4 p.m.
What was the precise time for the 70,000 figure and what was the
precise time for the 100,000 figure?

The precise time for the 100,000 figure was obviously *after* the
demonstration was over. One assumes that the 70,000 figure was
sometime after 4pm and before the end of the demonstration *or* it was
an unofficial estimate given to a reporter by some Bobbie eager to
file a quick story, since none of your sources use the term "official
estimate".

Next time, they should sell tickets, then we
would have an accurate count.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 09:50:38 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 08:19:11 GMT, "GeoSynch"
wrote:

They were estimates given at specific points in time *during* the
demonstrations.

Can you prove it? We do know the estimate of 30,000 was at 4 p.m.
What was the precise time for the 70,000 figure and what was the
precise time for the 100,000 figure?

The precise time for the 100,000 figure was obviously *after* the
demonstration was over. One assumes that the 70,000 figure was
sometime after 4pm and before the end of the demonstration *or* it was
an unofficial estimate given to a reporter by some Bobbie eager to
file a quick story, since none of your sources use the term "official
estimate".

Next time, they should sell tickets, then we
would have an accurate count.

Maybe they did and the fine print forbade reproducing the event with
photographic or recording equipment.

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Sandman" wrote in message
...

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


SockY said:

Perhaps because none of the other posters in
this thread have any sense of humor whatsoever.

Perhaps it just wasn't the least bit funny.

Sandbrain has a bleeding heart and a bleeding brain.

You've both proven both Dave's point and my point - you don't get it
because
you're both humorless turkeys, just like Dubya.


See, if we are not 'like you', we are worng, stupid, humorless, whatever.
Please tell more about the tolerance of the extreme left.


Isn't it interesting how when a left winger says something that proves to be
false, there's all kind of rhetoric about how there are shades of gray and
different way to interpret things. If a right winger days something that
turns out to be false or even just different from the exact statement
originally made, they are LIARS and we much KILL them.





----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:36:29 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:

Also, let's look at the columnists used on this site:

David Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell, Dr. Jack Wheeler (who created the
Reagan Doctrine and, who wrote about Clinton "Let's start with two
things we know for sure about Hillary. First, she wants to be
president. Second, she will do anything to be so. There is no lie
she
won't tell, no friend she won't destroy, no pledge she won't break,
no
slander she won't spread, no political dirty trick she won't employ
in
order to reside in the White House again, this time as the POTUS"),
and, of course, the infamous founder of the afformentioned Front
Page
Magazine, David Horowitz.

Formerly employed by the Black Panthers, raised by socialists.

So? Eldridge Cleaver sold cock socks and Bobby Seale sold BBQ sauce.

He's seen both sides and chose other than liberal.

BTW, *he* employed the Black Panthers, not the other way around.

That's not what I've heard him say.

I will say that I like the fact that he's still against racial
profiling.

As should any reasonable person. The problem is that much of is cliamed as
racial profiling is simply intreting data that shows group X commits more
crime or traffic violations than group Y. Statistics are not neccessarily
profiling. They may be simple reality.


However, the only thing that what you mention shows is that one guy
changed his political orientation. it doesn't "prove" anything about
being liberal (or conservative, for that matter).

The point is, he's a pretty arch conservative at the moment.

Who knows what he'll be in 10 years?

Hopefully he'll continue to brutally honest.

"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:36:29 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:

Fox always presents 2 sides of every issue

They do NOT.

and gives equal time to the left.

They do NOT.

They do. For every conservative utterance, there is a liberal one.

You've lost all perspective. You're spouting the party line.

Prove it.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:36:29 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:

The main difference with Fox is you know the politics of the talking
heads
where you don't always on the other networks.

Yes, George Will, Bill Kristol and William F. Buckley are notorious
left-wing radicals.

How long did it take to find out that Cronkite was a liberal?

That should tell you how well he hid it.

It tells me only that he hid it. CBS has a long history of left wing bias.


How long did it take for Brit Hume to come out of the closet? 20
some-odd years?

I don't know enough about his past to comment. But I do watch him and he is
IMO very balanced.

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:36:29 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:

The bulk of their reporting is through AP and UPI and Reuters.

3 more biased sources, especially Reuters.

You've *really* got to be kidding.

Now I *know* you've gone 'round the bend.

Reuters and CNN both refused to use the word terrorist in reference to the
9/11 incident. They were terrorists, not simply hijackers who flew into the
WTC and the Pentagon. To not recognize their bias shows thatit you who's
gone round the bend.

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

"dave weil" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:36:29 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:

The main difference with Fox is you know the politics of the talking
heads
where you don't always on the other networks.

Yes, George Will, Bill Kristol and William F. Buckley are notorious
left-wing radicals.

How long did it take to find out that Cronkite was a liberal?

That should tell you how well he hid it.

It tells me only that he hid it. CBS has a long history of left wing
bias.


How long did it take for Brit Hume to come out of the closet? 20
some-odd years?

I don't know enough about his past to comment. But I do watch him and he
is
IMO very balanced.



He has his perspective, it is a known quanity. He is a conservative,
probably of
the moderate variety.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote in message
...

"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message
...

Fox always presents 2 sides of every issue and gives equal time to the
left.
The main difference with Fox is you know the politics of the talking
heads
where you don't always on the other networks.


there is no middle ground with radical libs, if you aren't
with them, you are against them. Evidently, they
lump me in the same political heap as you.


Now that's scary!


----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 100,000
Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 07:24:18 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:36:29 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:

Also, let's look at the columnists used on this site:

David Limbaugh, Jerry Falwell, Dr. Jack Wheeler (who created the
Reagan Doctrine and, who wrote about Clinton "Let's start with two
things we know for sure about Hillary. First, she wants to be
president. Second, she will do anything to be so. There is no lie
she
won't tell, no friend she won't destroy, no pledge she won't break,
no
slander she won't spread, no political dirty trick she won't employ
in
order to reside in the White House again, this time as the POTUS"),
and, of course, the infamous founder of the afformentioned Front
Page
Magazine, David Horowitz.

Formerly employed by the Black Panthers, raised by socialists.

So? Eldridge Cleaver sold cock socks and Bobby Seale sold BBQ sauce.

He's seen both sides and chose other than liberal.

BTW, *he* employed the Black Panthers, not the other way around.

That's not what I've heard him say.

This from his bio at Front Page:

"In the 1970s he created the Oakland Community Learning Center, an
inner city school for disadvantaged children that was run by the Black
Panther Party".

Will we see your retraction?

Hardly likely. You'll be likely to spin and spin and spin...

I will say that I like the fact that he's still against racial
profiling.

As should any reasonable person.

Except for the Administration, which is bouncing up against the
concept.

The problem is that much of is cliamed as
racial profiling is simply intreting data that shows group X commits more
crime or traffic violations than group Y. Statistics are not neccessarily
profiling. They may be simple reality.

I don't think that it's what's being discussed.

I think that what most people think of when they think of racial
profiling is more practical applications, like pulling people out of
lines at airports because they look Islamic. It's something we have to
resist - using "homeland security" to strip the Constitution of its
basic protections.

However, the only thing that what you mention shows is that one guy
changed his political orientation. it doesn't "prove" anything about
being liberal (or conservative, for that matter).

The point is, he's a pretty arch conservative at the moment.

Who knows what he'll be in 10 years?

Hopefully he'll continue to brutally honest.

Or maybe he'll flip-flop again.

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 07:24:48 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:36:29 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:

Fox always presents 2 sides of every issue

They do NOT.

and gives equal time to the left.

They do NOT.

They do. For every conservative utterance, there is a liberal one.

You've lost all perspective. You're spouting the party line.

Prove it.

Prove *your* statement first.

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 07:26:35 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:36:29 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:

The main difference with Fox is you know the politics of the talking
heads
where you don't always on the other networks.

Yes, George Will, Bill Kristol and William F. Buckley are notorious
left-wing radicals.

How long did it take to find out that Cronkite was a liberal?

That should tell you how well he hid it.

It tells me only that he hid it.

If he hid it, then it had no effect on the coverage, right?

CBS has a long history of left wing bias.

I think we were talking specifically about Cronkite.

How long did it take for Brit Hume to come out of the closet? 20
some-odd years?

I don't know enough about his past to comment. But I do watch him and he is
IMO very balanced.

The few times that I have seen him, I haven't found that to be the
case. The research that I have done on him on the Net say otherwise as
well. The conservatives worhip him and the left castigates him (and
that's enough background evidence to support my limited observations).
His leanings are far less hidden than Cronkite's were. And he's just
about the equivalent of Cronkite on Fox, right?

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 07:29:03 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:


"dave weil" wrote in message
.. .
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 20:36:29 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote:

The bulk of their reporting is through AP and UPI and Reuters.

3 more biased sources, especially Reuters.

You've *really* got to be kidding.

Now I *know* you've gone 'round the bend.

Reuters and CNN both refused to use the word terrorist in reference to the
9/11 incident.

Oh really?

http://www.space.com/news/plane_attack_010911.html

World Trade Center Towers Destroyed in Terrorist Attack in the U.S.
By Alan Elsner
Reuters
posted: 10:40 am ET
11 September 2001

snip

If you look at the date stamp on this article, it's clear that Reuters
used the word terrorist only 10 minutes after the second tower
collapsed.

http://www.cnn.com/2001/US/09/11/wor...ash/story.html

Terror attacks hit U.S.
Posted: September 11, 2001


People walk away from the World Trade Center as ash rains down.


NEW YORK (CNN) -- Terrorists struck the United States Tuesday morning
in harrowing, widespread attacks that included at least three
commercial jet crashes into significant buildings.

• In the first attack, a plane hits the north tower of the World Trade
Center in Manhattan shortly before 9 a.m., followed by another plane
into the second tower about 20 minutes later. Both towers later
collapse.

snip

What's the first word in the body of this story?

They were terrorists, not simply hijackers who flew into the
WTC and the Pentagon. To not recognize their bias shows thatit you who's
gone round the bend.

Do you just make this stuff up, or do you just read blogs by people
spouting nonsense?

dave weil wrote:

How would you rate his credibility to that of Berna[r]d Goldberg's?

I don't know the gentleman.

Former renowned correspondent for CBS News with two recent
bestsellers: "Bias" and "Arrogance."

Thanks for acknowledging your ignorance on this.

Of course. When I don't know something, I say so. I don't try to cover
up. I've *still* never heard of him. The only Bernard I remember from
CBS (a network that I rarely watch, except for many Sunday mornings)
is Bernard Kalb.

But I'll check him out.

Here's a bio:

http://www.webdesk.com/media-bias-bo...g-cbs-insider/


GeoSynch

dave weil wrote:

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

Next time, they should sell tickets, then we
would have an accurate count.

Maybe they did and the fine print forbade reproducing the event with
photographic or recording equipment.

"Yeah, that's it! That's the ticket!" J. Lovitz


GeoSynch

dave weil wrote:

No, I meant guys like David Gergan and Bil Kristol. Last week was
choice as they had Matalin/Carville (or was it two weeks ago?) She
made him look like more of a fool than he usually does.

Oh, are Gergan or Kristol the moderators of Meet The Press?

No. Of course not. Few of any of the people that you mention are
"moderators", either.

The one's that aren't show hosts are regular "Fox news contributors"
that appear quite frequently or sit-in for Colmes when he ain't there.

You do know that Matalin and Carville are married, don't you?

Of course I do. I've mentioned it several times.

She used to be rather pretty, but it looks like some of Carville's
ugliness has rubbed off on her.

She has *never* been "rather pretty". That's like saying that Carville
used to look like Bruce Willis.

You're right. Except for this photo
http://www.reaganfoundation.org/cpa/...nf_matalin.jpg
all these other ones depict her as rather homely
http://images.google.com/images?hl=e...re&sa=N&tab=wi


GeoSynch

GeoSynch wrote:


dave weil wrote:

Sockpuppet Yustabe wrote:

Next time, they should sell tickets, then we
would have an accurate count.

Maybe they did and the fine print forbade reproducing the event with
photographic or recording equipment.

"Yeah, that's it! That's the ticket!" J. Lovitz


GeoSynch










We need a political talk show moderated by Tommy Fla-nay-gan, yeah, that's the
ticket! (Or perhaps, Joe Isuzu).



Bruce J. Richman

On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 20:08:53 GMT, "GeoSynch"
wrote:

dave weil wrote:

No, I meant guys like David Gergan and Bil Kristol. Last week was
choice as they had Matalin/Carville (or was it two weeks ago?) She
made him look like more of a fool than he usually does.

Oh, are Gergan or Kristol the moderators of Meet The Press?

No. Of course not. Few of any of the people that you mention are
"moderators", either.

The one's that aren't show hosts are regular "Fox news contributors"
that appear quite frequently or sit-in for Colmes when he ain't there.

Both of those people I mentioned are also "regular" contributors as
well. In fact, Gergan was just on this morning. And Robert Novak is a
frequent contributor as well. The fact that Russert rarely takes a day
off shouldn't be to his detriment.

And all of the other conservative talking heads that anyone could
mention show up routinely on CNN and the other news shows as well.

You do know that Matalin and Carville are married, don't you?

Of course I do. I've mentioned it several times.

She used to be rather pretty, but it looks like some of Carville's
ugliness has rubbed off on her.

She has *never* been "rather pretty". That's like saying that Carville
used to look like Bruce Willis.

You're right. Except for this photo
http://www.reaganfoundation.org/cpa/...nf_matalin.jpg
all these other ones depict her as rather homely
http://images.google.com/images?hl=e...re&sa=N&tab=wi

Now, back to watching West Wing reruns...

dave weil wrote:

You can't compare the first three [CBS, NBC, ABC] to FoxNews

You got a point there - they make no pretense of objectivity.

Neither does Fox(*our* troops all the time)News.

Your liberal biases are showing. Just because Fox doesn't parrot the
liberal media propaganda, they are automatically deemed "conservative."

That is precisely the sort of 'bias' and 'arrogance' Bernard Goldberg
chronicled in his two books during the time he worked at CBS.

I suspect you know what I meant, but I'll point it out anyway - news
shows on the big three are pretty much limited to straight news and
not some sort of rambling "roundtable" format, plus, they aren't 24
hour news channels.

Are you straighfacedly denying Dan Rather, Peter Jennings - and to
a lesser extent - Tom Brokaw are not liberals, and that the news
they read are not tainted by their liberal beliefs?

You do remember that 89% of journalists of all kinds voted for Clinton?
Do you think some of them were something other than liberals?

It's funny that someone would dare use the term 'objective" to any
news outlet that insists on using the word "our" in place of US when
referrign to troops and "friends" in place of allies and runs as much
fawning coverage of the war as FoxNews does.

Is there a subliminal pattern for the way you write the word objective?
That's twice you've written it thusly. As to the speciousness of what
follows: are they not "our" troops, are allies not our "friends"? I will
admit that currying favor with your sources is a good way to get the
inside scoop. Any reporter worth his salt intuitively knows that.

Oh yeah, the blond this morning patted themselves on the back again
saying how "fair and balanced" they were.

Look my argument isn't that they don't allow the liberal viewpoint to
be shown. I'm talking about the content and presentation of the news
stories themselves *and* the fact that their anchors are in the main
conservative mouthpieces, or at least spout the FoxNews slant on
things. Story selection is another thing as well...

Right, as opposed to Rather, Jennings & Brokaw, who are paragons of
objective and unbiased credibility!


GeoSynch