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?

"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 =---

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

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?

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?

"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?

"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

"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 =---

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.

"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 =---

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.

"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?

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

"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 =---

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?

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

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

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

"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 =---

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.

"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.

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

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

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

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

"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.

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?

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.

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

"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 =---

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.

"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 =---

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

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

Pudge the Gimp bloviated:

... years for the comfort of ....

WARF ! WARF ! WARF ! WARF ! WARF !!!


GeoSynch