Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
From the Daily Mirror:
THE TURKEY HAS LANDED Nov 28 2003 Bush secret Iraq trip to US troops By Mark Ellis "US troops in Iraq were served up a real turkey for Thanksgiving Day yesterday - when President George Bush joined them for a surprise visit." Hmmm... Dubya & Co. just couldn't let Hillary steal all those headlines for tooooo long with her recent trip to Afghanistan and Iraq, could they? |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
"Sandman" wrote in message ... From the Daily Mirror: THE TURKEY HAS LANDED Nov 28 2003 Bush secret Iraq trip to US troops By Mark Ellis "US troops in Iraq were served up a real turkey for Thanksgiving Day yesterday - when President George Bush joined them for a surprise visit." Another Sanders quote form an 'unbiased' source. Hmmm... Dubya & Co. just couldn't let Hillary steal all those headlines for tooooo long with her recent trip to Afghanistan and Iraq, could they? As if she were running against him for Pres? hmmmmm...... ----== 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 =--- |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
Sandy swooned:
Bush secret Iraq trip to US troops Hmmm... Dubya & Co. just couldn't let Hillary steal all those headlines for tooooo long with her recent trip to Afghanistan and Iraq, could they? Here's a different take on the matter: "Hillary in Frantic Bid to Outdo Bush in Baghdad" "I think they're more excited about [meeting] Geraldo..." http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...8/112105.shtml GeoSynch |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:03:14 GMT, "GeoSynch"
wrote: Sandy swooned: Bush secret Iraq trip to US troops Hmmm... Dubya & Co. just couldn't let Hillary steal all those headlines for tooooo long with her recent trip to Afghanistan and Iraq, could they? Here's a different take on the matter: "Hillary in Frantic Bid to Outdo Bush in Baghdad" Actually, yesterday, even the Fox Network choked on the words that she actually handled the situation pretty well during their roundtable discussion during the Brit Hume show (he wasn't there). They ran a clip to try and stir the pot a little, but they were in the same boat that she was in - they couldn't diss her for her comments because they were quite laudatory to President Bush, and that's the general tack that they had to take with her (it was amusing to see the sort of grudging respect that they gave her). That must have really hurt them. They initially tried to put a little negative spin on it, but quickly realized that they couldn't really diss her. "I think they're more excited about [meeting] Geraldo..." http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...8/112105.shtml Yeah, like *that* story isn't partisan to the hilt. Why is it that guys like you are the first to scream BIASED! but mostly use biased reports yourselves? |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
Obviously, the headline story from the Daily Mirror was biased, referring to
Bush as "The Turkey". That was merely included as a joke. And it wasn't the point. The point was: (1) Bush and Blair had planned an Iraq "celebration summit" for November but (a) their miscalculations/deceits/general lack of planning/not having a clue what they're really doing in Iraq or what they're up against had by then resulted in increasing casualties to U.S., British, Italian and Polish troops there. This November alone, at least 30 U.S. troops have been killed, and an untold number wounded; (b) Bush was met by a crowd of angry protestors in London estimated to be over 300K strong. Luckily, the Michael Jackson thing hit the news just in time so that FOX, MSNBC and CNN could hold a Jackson-circle-jerk-athon-marathon blackout of what was going on in London during the demonstrations. (2) Hillary upstaged Bush by traveling to Afghanistan (and spending a lot more than 2 piddly hours with American troops at the airport) before Bush decided to try to upstage her on Thanksgiving with his ridiculous photo-op. He just had to beat her to Baghdad before she arrived there Friday. Hillary is traveling with another Senator not just to boost troop morale, but to assess the situations in those countries. Pretty damned pathetic and childish of Bush, overall. And typical of the thinking of this most dangerous administration in American history. "dave weil" wrote in message ... On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:03:14 GMT, "GeoSynch" wrote: Sandy swooned: Bush secret Iraq trip to US troops Hmmm... Dubya & Co. just couldn't let Hillary steal all those headlines for tooooo long with her recent trip to Afghanistan and Iraq, could they? Here's a different take on the matter: "Hillary in Frantic Bid to Outdo Bush in Baghdad" Actually, yesterday, even the Fox Network choked on the words that she actually handled the situation pretty well during their roundtable discussion during the Brit Hume show (he wasn't there). They ran a clip to try and stir the pot a little, but they were in the same boat that she was in - they couldn't diss her for her comments because they were quite laudatory to President Bush, and that's the general tack that they had to take with her (it was amusing to see the sort of grudging respect that they gave her). That must have really hurt them. They initially tried to put a little negative spin on it, but quickly realized that they couldn't really diss her. "I think they're more excited about [meeting] Geraldo..." http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...8/112105.shtml Yeah, like *that* story isn't partisan to the hilt. Why is it that guys like you are the first to scream BIASED! but mostly use biased reports yourselves? |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
"dave weil" wrote in message ... On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:03:14 GMT, "GeoSynch" wrote: Sandy swooned: Bush secret Iraq trip to US troops Hmmm... Dubya & Co. just couldn't let Hillary steal all those headlines for tooooo long with her recent trip to Afghanistan and Iraq, could they? Here's a different take on the matter: "Hillary in Frantic Bid to Outdo Bush in Baghdad" Actually, yesterday, even the Fox Network choked on the words that she actually handled the situation pretty well during their roundtable discussion during the Brit Hume show (he wasn't there). They ran a clip to try and stir the pot a little, but they were in the same boat that she was in - they couldn't diss her for her comments because they were quite laudatory to President Bush, and that's the general tack that they had to take with her (it was amusing to see the sort of grudging respect that they gave her). That must have really hurt them. They initially tried to put a little negative spin on it, but quickly realized that they couldn't really diss her. "I think they're more excited about [meeting] Geraldo..." http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...8/112105.shtml Yeah, like *that* story isn't partisan to the hilt. Friday, Nov. 28, 2003 10:54 a.m. EST Hillary in Frantic Bid to Outdo Bush in Baghdad Upstaged by President Bush's amazing Thanksgiving Day visit with U.S. troops in Baghdad, New York Sen. Hillary Clinton seemed frantic on Friday to meet with more soldiers than Bush had seen during his appearance at the city's airport-turned-military base - and to be seen doing so in less-protected circumstances. "At the moment, she is on a visit with a military division outside the security zone," Clinton's spokeswoman told Agence France-Press Friday afternoon, Iraq time. Earlier in the day Clinton "had lunch with troops from her home state in the dining hall at [Saddam Hussein's former] palace," the press aide said. Though there were no reports of the former first lady being greeted with the kind of standing ovations generated by the Bush visit, the Clinton flack did her best to paint a picture of an enthusiastic welcome for her boss, telling reporters, "She was walking through the hall [of the palace] and people were coming up to her." Before lunch with American soldiers, the top Democrat met with senior officials of the Coalition Provisional Authority, including U.S. administrator Paul Bremer, whose surprise introduction of Bush yesterday had soldiers leaping to their feet in amazement. The scene had to rankle the former first lady. Her own trip to Afghanistan yesterday was dramatically overshadowed by the president's bombshell visit. And even though the Bush trip wasn't known when Clinton met with soldiers in Afghanistan, her own lackluster reception was something of a public relations disaster. "I think they're more excited about [meeting] Geraldo," coalition spokesman Lt. Col. Bryan Hilferty told the Boston Globe, referring to the Fox News Channel correspondent who covered Clinton's visit with the troops at Bagram Air base. With European press accounts describing Sen. Clinton as Bush's "undeclared Democratic opponent," she seemed determined to repair the damage, embarking on her whirlwind tour of Baghdad in an apparent bid to show that she was at least as big a military morale booster as the president. "We are running a little bit behind schedule," Clinton's spokeswoman explained at one point. "She may then have time to meet with more U.S. troops." Seems pretty objective IMO. Most people in the military despise the Clintons IME, and from reports I've heard and read. Why is it that guys like you are the first to scream BIASED! but mostly use biased reports yourselves? |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
"Sandman" wrote in message ... Obviously, the headline story from the Daily Mirror was biased, referring to Bush as "The Turkey". That was merely included as a joke. And it wasn't the point. The point was: (1) Bush and Blair had planned an Iraq "celebration summit" for November but (a) their miscalculations/deceits/general lack of planning/not having a clue what they're really doing in Iraq or what they're up against had by then resulted in increasing casualties to U.S., British, Italian and Polish troops there. Let's suppose for a moment that Clinton were President, would you still feel the same way if things were going the same way with Clinton as Commander in Chief? It's not always possible to know how things are going to go in an operation like Iraq. The numbers of troops being killed is, all things considered very small. More people die here from falling than are being killed in Iraq. This November alone, at least 30 U.S. troops have been killed, and an untold number wounded; (b) Bush was met by a crowd of angry protestors in London estimated to be over 300K strong. Luckily, the Michael Jackson thing hit the news just in time so that FOX, MSNBC and CNN could hold a Jackson-circle-jerk-athon-marathon blackout of what was going on in London during the demonstrations. (2) Hillary upstaged Bush by traveling to Afghanistan (and spending a lot more than 2 piddly hours with American troops at the airport) before Bush decided to try to upstage her on Thanksgiving with his ridiculous photo-op. What makes you think her trip was a morale booster? I know of no military person who thionks she or Bill deserve any respect. The Commander in Chief visiting the troops is vastly more important to moral than a freshman Senator from any state. He just had to beat her to Baghdad before she arrived there Friday. Hillary is traveling with another Senator not just to boost troop morale, but to assess the situations in those countries. Pretty damned pathetic and childish of Bush, overall Your hatred is blinding you to the fact that the troops would rather have 2 hours with Bush than 2 days with Hilary. snip |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
"Michael Mckelvy" wrote in message ... Your hatred is blinding you to the fact that the troops would rather have 2 hours with Bush than 2 days with Hilary. Our lesbian warriors would rather have 2 hours with Hilary. ----== 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 =--- |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:28:47 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote: Seems pretty objective IMO. You're joking of course. Bush was "amazing", while Clinton was "frantic". "The scene had to rankle the former first lady". Oh really? I guess that mindreading has become an objective standard. And I'm not even factoring bombastic phrasing like: "Her own trip to Afghanistan yesterday was dramatically overshadowed by the president's bombshell visit". "And even though the Bush trip wasn't known when Clinton met with soldiers in Afghanistan, her own lackluster reception was something of a public relations disaster". It's all in the tone, you know. No, this wasn't objective in *any* sense of the word. I will give you credit for getting the formatting right, though. Please keep it up. It makes it a lot easier to read what you cut 'n paste. 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. Hey, I've got nothing against the Right having their own outlets. Even though I find Fox News appalingly partisan in a way the the major networks seem to avoid for the most part, I occasionally check it out to see how the other side lives (and since I'm going to be spending Christmas with one of my closest friends, a guy who comes close to being a neo-conservative, I want to be conversant in FoxSpeak, as Fox is the only new outlet that darkens his door). My objection is calling these sorts of outlets that keep getting quoted here anything more than op-ed pieces, thinly disguised as legitimate news. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
"dave weil" wrote in message ... My objection is calling these sorts of outlets that keep getting quoted here anything more than op-ed pieces, thinly disguised as legitimate news. Fair enough, now what about Sanders? ----== 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 =--- |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:30:29 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe"
wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message .. . My objection is calling these sorts of outlets that keep getting quoted here anything more than op-ed pieces, thinly disguised as legitimate news. Fair enough, now what about Sanders? I think he accepted that that particular piece was biased. It would be like using The National Enquirer as a source for news, as The Mirror is one of the most notorious tabloids around (and yet, it's not so much that they are leftist, but just a rather ridiculous, sensational yellow journal tabloid). I think it's clear that Sandman used this little bit of a "story" more for the headlines joke than as a substantive report about Bush's visit. In fact, the article itself goes from being sarcastic, likening the President to a turkey, to actually a fairly positive LITTLE article (note emphasis on the word little). So, it didn't seem to me that Mr. Sanders was using this article as "proof" of anything. If he actually tried to counter an argument using an article from The Mirror, well yeah, I'd scoff at him as well. Incidentally, I heard a report on NPR the other day that The Times of London is now going to publish a tabloid version of their daily edition in addition to the regular version, although tabloid in this case simply refers to the paper's physical format, distinguishing it from the normal broadsheet version. |
#12
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
"dave weil" wrote in message ... On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:28:47 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy" wrote: Seems pretty objective IMO. You're joking of course. Bush was "amazing", while Clinton was "frantic". "The scene had to rankle the former first lady". Oh really? I guess that mindreading has become an objective standard. And I'm not even factoring bombastic phrasing like: "Her own trip to Afghanistan yesterday was dramatically overshadowed by the president's bombshell visit". "And even though the Bush trip wasn't known when Clinton met with soldiers in Afghanistan, her own lackluster reception was something of a public relations disaster". It's all in the tone, you know. No, this wasn't objective in *any* sense of the word. It is if it's true, which is very likely. I will give you credit for getting the formatting right, though. Please keep it up. It makes it a lot easier to read what you cut 'n paste. 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. Hey, I've got nothing against the Right having their own outlets. Even though I find Fox News appalingly partisan in a way the the major networks seem to avoid for the most part, 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. I occasionally check it out to see how the other side lives (and since I'm going to be spending Christmas with one of my closest friends, a guy who comes close to being a neo-conservative, I want to be conversant in FoxSpeak, as Fox is the only new outlet that darkens his door). My objection is calling these sorts of outlets that keep getting quoted here anything more than op-ed pieces, thinly disguised as legitimate news. That's different from the New York Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, or the L.A. Times, how exactly? |
#13
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
dave weil wrote:
Here's a different take on the matter: "Hillary in Frantic Bid to Outdo Bush in Baghdad" Actually, yesterday, even the Fox Network choked on the words that she actually handled the situation pretty well during their roundtable discussion during the Brit Hume show (he wasn't there). Oh, so you do watch the Fox News Channel? Excellent, excellent. There's hope for you, yet! They ran a clip to try and stir the pot a little, but they were in the same boat that she was in - they couldn't diss her for her comments because they were quite laudatory to President Bush, and that's the general tack that they had to take with her (it was amusing to see the sort of grudging respect that they gave her). That must have really hurt them. They initially tried to put a little negative spin on it, but quickly realized that they couldn't really diss her. They must've been swept up by the Thanksgiving spirit. "I think they're more excited about [meeting] Geraldo..." http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...8/112105.shtml Yeah, like *that* story isn't partisan to the hilt. Why is it that guys like you are the first to scream BIASED! but mostly use biased reports yourselves? They're a most welcome counterbalance to the heavily leftist media elite, who themselves are breaking out in cold sweats seeing their influence evaporate quicker than water in a hot skillet. GeoSynch |
#14
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
"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. ----== 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 =--- |
#15
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 23:14:38 GMT, "GeoSynch"
wrote: dave weil wrote: Here's a different take on the matter: "Hillary in Frantic Bid to Outdo Bush in Baghdad" Actually, yesterday, even the Fox Network choked on the words that she actually handled the situation pretty well during their roundtable discussion during the Brit Hume show (he wasn't there). 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. But I think I addressed why I was watching Fox in another post. It isn't a regular occurance, believe me. They ran a clip to try and stir the pot a little, but they were in the same boat that she was in - they couldn't diss her for her comments because they were quite laudatory to President Bush, and that's the general tack that they had to take with her (it was amusing to see the sort of grudging respect that they gave her). That must have really hurt them. They initially tried to put a little negative spin on it, but quickly realized that they couldn't really diss her. They must've been swept up by the Thanksgiving spirit. Nah, that wasn't it. "I think they're more excited about [meeting] Geraldo..." http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2...8/112105.shtml Yeah, like *that* story isn't partisan to the hilt. Why is it that guys like you are the first to scream BIASED! but mostly use biased reports yourselves? They're a most welcome counterbalance to the heavily leftist media elite, who themselves are breaking out in cold sweats seeing their influence evaporate quicker than water in a hot skillet. I'm not talking about reading them for entertainment, or even for agenda reinforcement. I'm talking about using them as "news sources". This would be like me using a column by Ellen Goodman as "fact". Your statement sounds like a little desperate itself. "Leftist media elite". Where do you get your dialogue from - Spiro Agnew? 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? |
#16
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
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 But I think I addressed why I was watching Fox in another post. It isn't a regular occurance, believe me. Your loss. 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. After that, the politically correct influences took over and the numbers are no longer believable. BTW, have you seen any photos to support the 100,000 claim? GeoSynch |
#17
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
Dormer resurfaced:
Actually, yesterday, even the Fox Network choked on the words that she actually handled the situation pretty well during their roundtable discussion during the Brit Hume show (he wasn't there). Oh, so you do watch the Fox News Channel? Excellent, excellent. There's hope for you, yet! LOL! dave was too far gone into his 'full-tilt-boogie trying to prove me wrong' mode to appreciate the humor in that comment. But here's a chance for you to redeem yourself, Dormer: Can you cite an authoritative, definitive, independent estimation of protester count? GeoSynch |
#18
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
StynchBlob blubbered: Can you cite an authoritative, definitive, independent estimation of protester count? It's an established fact that Dubya is a dork. Why do you keep begging for more punishment? File your political faith right next to the rest of your wigged-out hangups and go eat your gun. |
#19
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 00:56:14 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 And one can say the same about all of the other news outlets? Who gave the Conservatives voice for over 30 years? Why, that notoriously liberal bastion, PBS, of course. Watch NBC's Meet the Press lately? 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. Also, you are obviously blind to the reports that have leaked out regarding the way that they slant their news. 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. 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 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). 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. No, face it, you were simply wrong. Scotland Yard says so. |
#20
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 01:29:44 GMT, "GeoSynch"
wrote: Dormer resurfaced: Actually, yesterday, even the Fox Network choked on the words that she actually handled the situation pretty well during their roundtable discussion during the Brit Hume show (he wasn't there). Oh, so you do watch the Fox News Channel? Excellent, excellent. There's hope for you, yet! LOL! dave was too far gone into his 'full-tilt-boogie trying to prove me wrong' mode to appreciate the humor in that comment. But here's a chance for you to redeem yourself, Dormer: Can you cite an authoritative, definitive, independent estimation of protester count? Doesn't Scotland Yard count anymore? |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
Congratulations, Dave. You and Paul Dormer are the only posters in this
thread who seem to "get it". Perhaps because none of the other posters in this thread have any sense of humor whatsoever. "dave weil" wrote in message ... On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 15:30:29 -0500, "Sockpuppet Yustabe" wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message .. . My objection is calling these sorts of outlets that keep getting quoted here anything more than op-ed pieces, thinly disguised as legitimate news. Fair enough, now what about Sanders? I think he accepted that that particular piece was biased. It would be like using The National Enquirer as a source for news, as The Mirror is one of the most notorious tabloids around (and yet, it's not so much that they are leftist, but just a rather ridiculous, sensational yellow journal tabloid). I think it's clear that Sandman used this little bit of a "story" more for the headlines joke than as a substantive report about Bush's visit. In fact, the article itself goes from being sarcastic, likening the President to a turkey, to actually a fairly positive LITTLE article (note emphasis on the word little). So, it didn't seem to me that Mr. Sanders was using this article as "proof" of anything. If he actually tried to counter an argument using an article from The Mirror, well yeah, I'd scoff at him as well. Incidentally, I heard a report on NPR the other day that The Times of London is now going to publish a tabloid version of their daily edition in addition to the regular version, although tabloid in this case simply refers to the paper's physical format, distinguishing it from the normal broadsheet version. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
PD said: It's an established fact that Dubya is a dork. It's beyond doubt that he's a ropey ****, too. Ropey? Does that mean he snorts a lot of coke? |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:31:45 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:28:47 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy" wrote: Seems pretty objective IMO. You're joking of course. Bush was "amazing", while Clinton was "frantic". "The scene had to rankle the former first lady". Oh really? I guess that mindreading has become an objective standard. And I'm not even factoring bombastic phrasing like: "Her own trip to Afghanistan yesterday was dramatically overshadowed by the president's bombshell visit". "And even though the Bush trip wasn't known when Clinton met with soldiers in Afghanistan, her own lackluster reception was something of a public relations disaster". It's all in the tone, you know. No, this wasn't objective in *any* sense of the word. It is if it's true, which is very likely. There is no objective "truth" possible when you talk about interpreting adjectives and tone. I fully admit that my reading also suffers from this lack of objectivity. But I think there's a good case to be made that the article is slanted *against* Senator Clinton simply by looking at the tone and the use of certain adjectives. I will give you credit for getting the formatting right, though. Please keep it up. It makes it a lot easier to read what you cut 'n paste. 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. Hey, I've got nothing against the Right having their own outlets. Even though I find Fox News appalingly partisan in a way the the major networks seem to avoid for the most part, Fox always presents 2 sides of every issue They do NOT. and gives equal time to the left. They do NOT. 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. I occasionally check it out to see how the other side lives (and since I'm going to be spending Christmas with one of my closest friends, a guy who comes close to being a neo-conservative, I want to be conversant in FoxSpeak, as Fox is the only new outlet that darkens his door). My objection is calling these sorts of outlets that keep getting quoted here anything more than op-ed pieces, thinly disguised as legitimate news. That's different from the New York Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, or the L.A. Times, how exactly? The bulk of their reporting is through AP and UPI and Reuters. That's the difference. That and a ****load of Pulitzers. |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
"Sandman" wrote in message ... Congratulations, Dave. You and Paul Dormer are the only posters in this thread who seem to "get it". 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. ----== 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 =--- |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
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. |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
"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. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
Pudge the Gimp limped on:
It's an established fact... So, pudgy-wudgy, why did your mother and sister disown you? And why wouldn't they permit you to use the family name? GeoSynch |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
Dormer traipsed:
It's an established fact that Dubya is a dork. It's beyond doubt that he's a ropey ****, too. And you're a limey pantywaist. GeoSynch |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
Dormer repented:
But here's a chance for you to redeem yourself, Dormer: Can you cite an authoritative, definitive, independent estimation of protester count? Only about 25 guys turned up. Sorry about that! All is forgiven, then. GeoSynch |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
dave weil wrote:
Oh, so you do watch the Fox News Channel? Excellent, excellent. There's hope for you, yet! LOL! dave was too far gone into his 'full-tilt-boogie trying to prove me wrong' mode to appreciate the humor in that comment. But here's a chance for you to redeem yourself, Dormer: Can you cite an authoritative, definitive, independent estimation of protester count? Doesn't Scotland Yard count anymore? After this whole brouhaha, I seriously doubt Scotland Yard knows how to count anymore! GeoSynch |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
"dave weil" wrote in message ... On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 14:31:45 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy" wrote: "dave weil" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 29 Nov 2003 09:28:47 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy" wrote: Seems pretty objective IMO. You're joking of course. Bush was "amazing", while Clinton was "frantic". "The scene had to rankle the former first lady". Oh really? I guess that mindreading has become an objective standard. And I'm not even factoring bombastic phrasing like: "Her own trip to Afghanistan yesterday was dramatically overshadowed by the president's bombshell visit". "And even though the Bush trip wasn't known when Clinton met with soldiers in Afghanistan, her own lackluster reception was something of a public relations disaster". It's all in the tone, you know. No, this wasn't objective in *any* sense of the word. It is if it's true, which is very likely. There is no objective "truth" possible when you talk about interpreting adjectives and tone. I fully admit that my reading also suffers from this lack of objectivity. But I think there's a good case to be made that the article is slanted *against* Senator Clinton simply by looking at the tone and the use of certain adjectives. It would be hard to write an objective article about Senator Clinton that didn't wind up being slanted against her. I will give you credit for getting the formatting right, though. Please keep it up. It makes it a lot easier to read what you cut 'n paste. 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. Hey, I've got nothing against the Right having their own outlets. Even though I find Fox News appalingly partisan in a way the the major networks seem to avoid for the most part, 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. 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? I occasionally check it out to see how the other side lives (and since I'm going to be spending Christmas with one of my closest friends, a guy who comes close to being a neo-conservative, I want to be conversant in FoxSpeak, as Fox is the only new outlet that darkens his door). My objection is calling these sorts of outlets that keep getting quoted here anything more than op-ed pieces, thinly disguised as legitimate news. That's different from the New York Times, the San Francisco Chronicle, or the L.A. Times, how exactly? The bulk of their reporting is through AP and UPI and Reuters. 3 more biased sources, especially Reuters. That's the difference. That and a ****load of Pulitzers. Liberals patting each on the back, how nice. |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
SandGrinch whined: Sandbrain has a bleeding heart and a bleeding brain. you're both humorless turkeys, just like Dubya. Yep, that's me -- humorless. Are you a bedbug, TrustFundBaby? |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
StynchBlob years for the comfort of the Kroo-bosom. So, pudgy-wudgy, why did your mother and sister disown you? At least you don't have to worry about getting jism on your keyboard, Limpy. And why wouldn't they permit you to use the family name? Tell us again how you flunked your plumber's apprenticeship. I am ceaselessly amazed at your sudden aversion to toilets, which have affored you so much comfort over the years. |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
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? 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. Who gave the Conservatives voice for over 30 years? Why, that notoriously liberal bastion, PBS, of course. William Buckley was no Barry Goldwater. 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) 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. 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. How would you rate his credibility to that of Bernad Goldberg's? 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. 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? 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. 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. 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. No, face it, you were simply wrong. Scotland Yard says so. No, sorry, but you have not conclusively proven so. GeoSynch ì |
#35
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
"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. ----== 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 =--- |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
On Sun, 30 Nov 2003 04:21:17 GMT, "GeoSynch"
wrote: dave weil wrote: Oh, so you do watch the Fox News Channel? Excellent, excellent. There's hope for you, yet! LOL! dave was too far gone into his 'full-tilt-boogie trying to prove me wrong' mode to appreciate the humor in that comment. But here's a chance for you to redeem yourself, Dormer: Can you cite an authoritative, definitive, independent estimation of protester count? Doesn't Scotland Yard count anymore? After this whole brouhaha, I seriously doubt Scotland Yard knows how to count anymore! I see. Facts tailored to fit your agenda. Cool. |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
"GeoSynch" wrote in message link.net... 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? 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 ----== 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 =--- |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
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 |
#39
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
dave weil wrote:
Oh, so you do watch the Fox News Channel? Excellent, excellent. There's hope for you, yet! LOL! dave was too far gone into his 'full-tilt-boogie trying to prove me wrong' mode to appreciate the humor in that comment. But here's a chance for you to redeem yourself, Dormer: Can you cite an authoritative, definitive, independent estimation of protester count? Doesn't Scotland Yard count anymore? After this whole brouhaha, I seriously doubt Scotland Yard knows how to count anymore! I see. Facts tailored to fit your agenda. Inconvenient lack of confirming photos or ability to find same noted. Cool. Way... GeoSynch |
#40
|
|||
|
|||
"The Turkey Has Landed"
Pudge the Gimp bloviated:
... years for the comfort of .... WARF ! WARF ! WARF ! WARF ! WARF !!! GeoSynch |