a year and six weeks
Cliff
[
The secret is out now. As Keith Olbermann points out, it only took Sarah Palin a
year and six weeks to name 3 news sources that she reads, and at the top of her
very short list sits Newsmax.com. While much has been made of the current White
House�s attitude toward Fox News, it makes you wonder what a Newsmax-guided
Palin Presidency would be like.
Here�s the clip of Palin .....
]
Let the ignorance shine on !!
[
....
I traced the smear to an article that used two sources. One of them was a book
that doesn�t exist. The other: Newsmax. (I note with particular pride that the
article has since been updated to call me a foaming at the mouth, Clintonista
asshole.) The sources Newsmax quoted were all heavily compromised in some way,
so much so that no other publication ever ran the quotes.
Since then, Newsmax has done little to distinguish itself from that nonexistent
book. Aside from the right-wing slant evident from a quick scan of their front
page, they have also published columns that blamed Barack Obama for the
Holocaust Museum shooting, advocated a (bloodless) military coup, speculated
about the President�s birth certificate, and suggested poison gas
(�figuratively, but in a very real way�) to remove the current occupants.
....
]
Ham Sandwich + Palin in 2012 !!!!
--
Cliff
Lookout
<Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
> http://www.mediaite.com/online/what-sarah-palin-is-absorbing-from-newsmax/
>[
>The secret is out now. As Keith Olbermann points out, it only took Sarah Palin a
>year and six weeks to name 3 news sources that she reads, and at the top of her
>very short list sits Newsmax.com. While much has been made of the current White
>House�s attitude toward Fox News, it makes you wonder what a Newsmax-guided
>Palin Presidency would be like.
>
>Here�s the clip of Palin .....
>]
>
> Let the ignorance shine on !!
Olbermann is killing them single handedly.
T.Alan Kraus
> http://www.mediaite.com/online/what-sarah-palin-is-absorbing-from-newsmax/
> [
> The secret is out now. As Keith Olbermann points out, it only took Sarah Palin a
> year and six weeks to name 3 news sources that she reads, and at the top of her
> very short list sits Newsmax.com. While much has been made of the current White
> Palin Presidency would be like.
>
> ]
>
> Let the ignorance shine on !!
>
> [
> ....
> I traced the smear to an article that used two sources. One of them was a book
> article has since been updated to call me a foaming at the mouth, Clintonista
> asshole.) The sources Newsmax quoted were all heavily compromised in some way,
> so much so that no other publication ever ran the quotes.
>
> Since then, Newsmax has done little to distinguish itself from that nonexistent
> book. Aside from the right-wing slant evident from a quick scan of their front
> page, they have also published columns that blamed Barack Obama for the
> Holocaust Museum shooting, advocated a (bloodless) military coup, speculated
> (�figuratively, but in a very real way�) to remove the current occupants.
> ....
> ]
>
> Ham Sandwich + Palin in 2012 !!!!
You are obsessed with Sarah, does she remind you of some school teacher
you were madly in love with?
Curly Surmudgeon
> Olbermann is killing them single handedly.
Keith Olbermann continues to impress me, more each day.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/
ALeqM5i8mCKJOh6EIcIqb0pxn4gMUWbmNAD9C35N2O7
Free clinics tied to health care debate
By ANDREW DeMILLO (AP) – 1 day ago
LITTLE ROCK, Ark. — A nonprofit group's campaign to hold free medical
clinics for the uninsured in three states is turning into a not-so-subtle
jab at moderate Democrats to support their party's efforts to reform
health care.
More than 800 people have signed up for free care Saturday at a downtown
convention center in Little Rock at an event organized by the National
Association of Free Clinics — the Virginia-based association's second
free event in the past month under a campaign promoted by MSNBC's Keith
Olbermann.
More than 1,000 people showed up at the first, in New Orleans on Nov. 14,
and a two-day free clinic is planned in Kansas City, Mo. Dec. 9-10.
Olbermann urged his viewers last month to contribute to the association,
saying he wanted mass clinics in the states of the "six senators key to
defeating a filibuster against health care reform in the Senate." Since
then, more than $1.7 million has been contributed to the group for the
clinics.
Olbermann has been targeting Democrats from those states who are seen as
crucial to passing Democratic-led health care reform legislation spear-
headed by Majority Leader Harry Reid. The Senate is expected to begin
debating the legislation, which would include a government-run insurance
option, Saturday night.
"I want Sens. (Blanche) Lincoln and (Mark) Pryor to see what health care
poverty is really like in Little Rock," Olbermann said on his show last
month.
The New Orleans clinic was aimed partly at Sen. Mary Landrieu, a Democrat
who has not said how she plans to vote on health care reform, while the
Kansas clinic was chosen because it symbolized the need for health care
in the Midwest, said Rich Stockwell, senior producer for "Countdown with
Keith Olbermann."
"We hear the 46 million in this country without insurance over and over,
but those people go largely unseen to most of us. By bringing them all to
one place, or a very small percentage, on one day is showing, 'hey, you
guys in Washington, you need to get something done to help those people,"
Stockwell said.
Lincoln, who faces a tough re-election battle next year, has not said
whether she supports the legislation, but does say she opposes a so-
called public option. She has not said if she would support moving
legislation forward for debate, but asserts that a larger overhaul of the
nation's health care is needed.
"This one-day clinic is a blessing, but it is not a sustainable way to
deliver health care for the thousands of uninsured and underinsured
Arkansans," Lincoln said in a statement released by her office.
Pryor said this week he was still undecided on Reid's proposal but that
he supports moving the legislation to the Senate for debate.
The campaign has found an advocate in Arkansas Lt. Gov. Bill Halter, a
Democrat who has said he is raising money for a re-election bid. He has
not said if he is considering running against Lincoln.
Halter helped the association secure space at the Statehouse Convention
Center for the free clinic and connected the group with an Arkansas team
of health care providers, nonprofit associations and government offices
to prepare for the free clinic.
Billing the clinic as a nonpolitical event, volunteers have been told
that no petitions, buttons or handouts regarding health care reform will
be allowed at the clinic.
"What we're focused on is providing health care to as many Arkansans as
we can," Halter said.
Nicole Lamoureux, the association's executive director, credited
Olbermann and talk show host Dr. Mehmet Oz with helping raise awareness.
"Anytime someone is talking about the 1,200 free clinics in the United
States of America who this year will see 8 million patients with 6
million volunteers and little to no state or federal funding at all is a
good thing," Lamoureux said. "Mr. Olbermann and Dr. Oz talking about this
cause has just elevated the awareness of the average American about
what's going on."
-----end-----
The article fails to mention that Olbermann launched the campaign by
donating $50,000.00 of his own money putting his money where his mouth is
while Limbaugh gave a caller who was about to be thrown out of his home a
$29.99 kitchen appliance.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 Run, Sarah, Run! 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff
>Cliff wrote:
>> http://www.mediaite.com/online/what-sarah-palin-is-absorbing-from-newsmax/
>> [
>> The secret is out now. As Keith Olbermann points out, it only took Sarah Palin a
>> year and six weeks to name 3 news sources that she reads, and at the top of her
>> very short list sits Newsmax.com. While much has been made of the current White
>> House�s attitude toward Fox News, it makes you wonder what a Newsmax-guided
>> Palin Presidency would be like.
>>
>> Here�s the clip of Palin .....
>> ]
>>
>> Let the ignorance shine on !!
>>
>> [
>> ....
>> I traced the smear to an article that used two sources. One of them was a book
>> that doesn�t exist. The other: Newsmax. (I note with particular pride that the
>> article has since been updated to call me a foaming at the mouth, Clintonista
>> asshole.) The sources Newsmax quoted were all heavily compromised in some way,
>> so much so that no other publication ever ran the quotes.
>>
>> Since then, Newsmax has done little to distinguish itself from that nonexistent
>> book. Aside from the right-wing slant evident from a quick scan of their front
>> page, they have also published columns that blamed Barack Obama for the
>> Holocaust Museum shooting, advocated a (bloodless) military coup, speculated
>> about the President�s birth certificate, and suggested poison gas
>> (�figuratively, but in a very real way�) to remove the current occupants.
>> ....
>> ]
>>
>> Ham Sandwich + Palin in 2012 !!!!
>
>You are obsessed with Sarah, does she remind you of some school teacher
>you were madly in love with?
What's wrong with a Ham Sandwich?
--
Cliff
RD (The Sandman)
news:1a6eg5hok112scddm...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 15:13:50 -0500, Cliff
> <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>> http://www.mediaite.com/online/what-sarah-palin-is-absorbing-from-new
>> smax/
>>[
>>The secret is out now. As Keith Olbermann points out, it only took
>>Sarah Palin a year and six weeks to name 3 news sources that she
>>reads, and at the top of her very short list sits Newsmax.com. While
>>much has been made of the current White House�s attitude toward Fox
>>News, it makes you wonder what a Newsmax-guided Palin Presidency would
>>be like.
>>
>>Here�s the clip of Palin .....
>>]
>>
>> Let the ignorance shine on !!
>
> Olbermann is killing them single handedly.
Not with his ratings, he isn't.
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand
it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who
hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't
pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese
Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke.
What could possibly go wrong?
tankfixer
CurlySu...@live.com says...
>
> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:33:59 -0600, Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Olbermann is killing them single handedly.
>
> Keith Olbermann continues to impress me, more each day.
That could be but he is by no means a newsman.
>
>
> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/
> ALeqM5i8mCKJOh6EIcIqb0pxn4gMUWbmNAD9C35N2O7
>
> Free clinics tied to health care debate
>
> By ANDREW DeMILLO (AP) ? 1 day ago
>
> Olbermann urged his viewers last month to contribute to the association,
> saying he wanted mass clinics in the states of the "six senators key to
> defeating a filibuster against health care reform in the Senate."
advocacy of a postition.
>
> Olbermann has been targeting Democrats from those states who are seen as
> crucial to passing Democratic-led health care reform legislation spear-
> headed by Majority Leader Harry Reid.
Again
>
> "I want Sens. (Blanche) Lincoln and (Mark) Pryor to see what health care
> poverty is really like in Little Rock," Olbermann said on his show last
> month.
And again.
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> In article <he8d94$iou$3...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> CurlySu...@live.com says...
>>
>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:33:59 -0600, Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > Olbermann is killing them single handedly.
>>
>> Keith Olbermann continues to impress me, more each day.
>
> That could be but he is by no means a newsman.
Baseless opinion noted and discarded.
>> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/
>> ALeqM5i8mCKJOh6EIcIqb0pxn4gMUWbmNAD9C35N2O7
>>
>> Free clinics tied to health care debate
>>
>> By ANDREW DeMILLO (AP) ? 1 day ago
>>
>> Olbermann urged his viewers last month to contribute to the
>> association, saying he wanted mass clinics in the states of the "six
>> senators key to defeating a filibuster against health care reform in
>> the Senate."
>
> advocacy of a postition.
I understand the words despite the misspelling but it is still
incomprehensible.
>> Olbermann has been targeting Democrats from those states who are seen
>> as crucial to passing Democratic-led health care reform legislation
>> spear- headed by Majority Leader Harry Reid.
>
> Again
Can you not construct a cogent sentence? WTF are you talking about?
>> "I want Sens. (Blanche) Lincoln and (Mark) Pryor to see what health
>> care poverty is really like in Little Rock," Olbermann said on his show
>> last month.
>
> And again.
At least you used a period to end the thought. Now, try to tell us in
complete sentences, what you're trying to say.
tankfixer
CurlySu...@live.com says...
>
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:20:51 -0800, tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > In article <he8d94$iou$3...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > CurlySu...@live.com says...
> >>
> >> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:33:59 -0600, Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Olbermann is killing them single handedly.
> >>
> >> Keith Olbermann continues to impress me, more each day.
> >
> > That could be but he is by no means a newsman.
>
> Baseless opinion noted and discarded.
If you continue to maintain that Olbermann is any sort of newsman you
will find people continue to discount your ideas ...
>
> >> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/
> >> ALeqM5i8mCKJOh6EIcIqb0pxn4gMUWbmNAD9C35N2O7
> >>
> >> Free clinics tied to health care debate
> >>
> >> By ANDREW DeMILLO (AP) ? 1 day ago
> >>
> >> Olbermann urged his viewers last month to contribute to the
> >> association, saying he wanted mass clinics in the states of the "six
> >> senators key to defeating a filibuster against health care reform in
> >> the Senate."
> >
> > advocacy of a postition.
>
> I understand the words despite the misspelling but it is still
> incomprehensible.
I know ideas are hard for you leftists...
Mr Olbermann is taking sides on an issue.
You can pretend you don't notice it but that only makes you look the
stooge
>
> >> Olbermann has been targeting Democrats from those states who are seen
> >> as crucial to passing Democratic-led health care reform legislation
> >> spear- headed by Majority Leader Harry Reid.
> >
> > Again
>
> Can you not construct a cogent sentence? WTF are you talking about?
More evidence that leftists are unwilling to acknowledge any bias by
their mouthpieces.
>
> >> "I want Sens. (Blanche) Lincoln and (Mark) Pryor to see what health
> >> care poverty is really like in Little Rock," Olbermann said on his show
> >> last month.
> >
> > And again.
>
> At least you used a period to end the thought. Now, try to tell us in
> complete sentences, what you're trying to say.
You are a partisan hack who can't see bias on your side.
Keep pretending you don't know what is meant in a post.. it only
continues to discredit you and your positions.
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> In article <he9i6d$iou$2...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> CurlySu...@live.com says...
>>
>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:20:51 -0800, tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <he8d94$iou$3...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> > CurlySu...@live.com says...
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:33:59 -0600, Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Olbermann is killing them single handedly.
>> >>
>> >> Keith Olbermann continues to impress me, more each day.
>> >
>> > That could be but he is by no means a newsman.
>>
>> Baseless opinion noted and discarded.
>
> If you continue to maintain that Olbermann is any sort of newsman you
> will find people continue to discount your ideas ...
Then it should be easy for you to provide ample evidence that, while
partisan, Keith Olbermann has made any factual errors without retraction.
Arguing and criticizing without a shred of evidence is the now tired
Rovian argument. It doesn't work any longer.
>> >> http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/
>> >> ALeqM5i8mCKJOh6EIcIqb0pxn4gMUWbmNAD9C35N2O7
>> >>
>> >> Free clinics tied to health care debate
>> >>
>> >> By ANDREW DeMILLO (AP) ? 1 day ago
>> >>
>> >> Olbermann urged his viewers last month to contribute to the
>> >> association, saying he wanted mass clinics in the states of the "six
>> >> senators key to defeating a filibuster against health care reform in
>> >> the Senate."
>> >
>> > advocacy of a postition.
>>
>> I understand the words despite the misspelling but it is still
>> incomprehensible.
>
> I know ideas are hard for you leftists... Mr Olbermann is taking sides
> on an issue. You can pretend you don't notice it but that only makes you
> look the stooge
Speaking of stooges, you've ignored my qualifiers in a number of threads
where _I_ identify Keith Olbermann as focused on Republican lies and
abuses. That is what a real newsman does, he makes public lies and
abuses. The same lies and abuses you defend and criticize being made
public.
I realize that it is embarrassing that the crimes and lies of your
leaders and party are being examined. If you do not like being held
responsible for your programs then I strongly suggest changing your
platforms.
A man stands up and takes responsibility for his fuck ups. You do not.
>> >> Olbermann has been targeting Democrats from those states who are
>> >> seen as crucial to passing Democratic-led health care reform
>> >> legislation spear- headed by Majority Leader Harry Reid.
>> >
>> > Again
>>
>> Can you not construct a cogent sentence? WTF are you talking about?
>
> More evidence that leftists are unwilling to acknowledge any bias by
> their mouthpieces.
You're shifting the goalpost. What factual errors do you have to
complain about? Yes, Keith Olbermann turned over a rock and found
Republicans crawling beneath. Is a "newsman" supposed to ignore the
crimes and lies of your party and leader? Is a "newsman" supposed to
ignore un-American activities?
>> >> "I want Sens. (Blanche) Lincoln and (Mark) Pryor to see what health
>> >> care poverty is really like in Little Rock," Olbermann said on his
>> >> show last month.
>> >
>> > And again.
>>
>> At least you used a period to end the thought. Now, try to tell us in
>> complete sentences, what you're trying to say.
>
> You are a partisan hack who can't see bias on your side.
What, in your fantasy world, is "my side"?
> Keep pretending you don't know what is meant in a post.. it only
> continues to discredit you and your positions.
If you cannot elucidate your position then I am not going to assume a
nebulous intention. Even with my assistance you've been unable to
construct a position, platform or coherent program _for_ government, only
whining against Obama.
Being against Obama will not help America recover from the damage wrought
by Republicans and identifies you as an embittered Bushbot still smarting
from the bitch-slap received in 2008. Your candidates, leaders and
platforms were so widely repudiated that a black man won. Don't whine
now against Obama, your party put him into office, not the Democrats.
tankfixer
>
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:23:01 -0800, tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > In article <he9i6d$iou$2...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > CurlySu...@live.com says...
> >>
> >> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:20:51 -0800, tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > In article <he8d94$iou$3...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> >> > CurlySu...@live.com says...
> >> >>
> >> >> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:33:59 -0600, Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Olbermann is killing them single handedly.
> >> >>
> >> >> Keith Olbermann continues to impress me, more each day.
> >> >
> >> > That could be but he is by no means a newsman.
> >>
> >> Baseless opinion noted and discarded.
> >
> > If you continue to maintain that Olbermann is any sort of newsman you
> > will find people continue to discount your ideas ...
>
> Then it should be easy for you to provide ample evidence that, while
> partisan, Keith Olbermann has made any factual errors without retraction.
Trying to shift the subject again I see.
You surrender is accepted
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> In article <he9nb6$iou$2...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> CurlySu...@live.com says...
>>
>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 13:23:01 -0800, tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > In article <he9i6d$iou$2...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> > CurlySu...@live.com says...
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:20:51 -0800, tankfixer
>> >> <paul.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > In article <he8d94$iou$3...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> >> > CurlySu...@live.com says...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:33:59 -0600, Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com>
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> > Olbermann is killing them single handedly.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Keith Olbermann continues to impress me, more each day.
>> >> >
>> >> > That could be but he is by no means a newsman.
>> >>
>> >> Baseless opinion noted and discarded.
>> >
>> > If you continue to maintain that Olbermann is any sort of newsman you
>> > will find people continue to discount your ideas ...
>>
>> Then it should be easy for you to provide ample evidence that, while
>> partisan, Keith Olbermann has made any factual errors without
>> retraction.
>
> Trying to shift the subject again I see.
How so? You asserted that Keith Olbermann is not a newsman. You brought
up the issue therefore it is your responsibility to substantiate the
claim when called on questionable statements.
Are you really unable to recognize that you initiated that line of
reasoning or just throwing out distractions to avoid proving your claim?
All your bases are belong to me. Seriously, are you incapable of putting
your thoughts down in a cohesive manner where others can see how you come
up with these claims or just reacting the best way that ignorance permits?
Have you no vision of the future? No concept of how to get from here to
there other than Obama must have more transparency?
tankfixer
I substantiated the claim already.
> >> >> >> Olbermann has been targeting Democrats from those states who
are
> >> >> >> seen as crucial to passing Democratic-led health care reform
> >> >> >> legislation spear- headed by Majority Leader Harry Reid.
>
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
No, you responded with single word diversions. Even Koko can assemble a
sentence such as "I want a banana."
>> >> >> >> Olbermann has been targeting Democrats from those states who
> are
>> >> >> >> seen as crucial to passing Democratic-led health care reform
>> >> >> >> legislation spear- headed by Majority Leader Harry Reid.
>
>
>
>> Have you no vision of the future? No concept of how to get from here
>> to there other than Obama must have more transparency?
--
Lookout
wrote:
>In article <he8d94$iou$3...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>CurlySu...@live.com says...
>>
>> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:33:59 -0600, Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Olbermann is killing them single handedly.
>>
>> Keith Olbermann continues to impress me, more each day.
>
>That could be but he is by no means a newsman.
No one said he was.
Lookout
>On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:20:51 -0800, tankfixer
><paul.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Keith Olbermann continues to impress me, more each day.
>>
>>That could be but he is by no means a newsman.
>
>Exactly
>
>But we know he isn't
>
>Faux fools don't seem to get it.
Touch�
tankfixer
It's fun to watch you allegedly compassionate leftists engage in hate
speech...
tankfixer
mrLo...@yahoo.com says...
All you leftists keep quoting him like he is some holy grail...
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
You're still evading and misdirecting. Here is one evasion:
> If you continue to maintain that Olbermann is any sort of newsman you
> will find people continue to discount your ideas ...
Then it should be easy for you to provide ample evidence that, while
partisan, Keith Olbermann has made any factual errors without retraction.
Arguing and criticizing without a shred of evidence is the now tired
Rovian argument. It doesn't work any longer.
then:
> I know ideas are hard for you leftists... Mr Olbermann is taking sides
> on an issue. You can pretend you don't notice it but that only makes you
> look the stooge
Speaking of stooges, you've ignored my qualifiers in a number of threads
where _I_ identify Keith Olbermann as focused on Republican lies and
abuses. That is what a real newsman does, he makes public lies and
abuses. The same lies and abuses you defend and criticize being made
public.
I realize that it is embarrassing that the crimes and lies of your
leaders and party are being examined. If you do not like being held
responsible for your programs then I strongly suggest changing your
platforms.
A man stands up and takes responsibility for his fuck ups. You do not.
then:
> You are a partisan hack who can't see bias on your side.
What, in your fantasy world, is "my side"?
and:
> Keep pretending you don't know what is meant in a post.. it only
> continues to discredit you and your positions.
If you cannot elucidate your position then I am not going to assume a
nebulous intention. Even with my assistance you've been unable to
construct a position, platform or coherent program _for_ government, only
whining against Obama.
Being against Obama will not help America recover from the damage wrought
by Republicans and identifies you as an embittered Bushbot still smarting
from the bitch-slap received in 2008. Your candidates, leaders and
platforms were so widely repudiated that a black man won. Don't whine
now against Obama, your party put him into office, not the Democrats.
Each fantasy you post has been directly repudiated. But instead of
getting more egg on your face you build yet another straw man. Which I
then demolish. Do you not see the pattern?
Dissecting your fantasies and replying with reality is by no means
"hate." "Hate" is a monopoly of your party. We understand that you hate
Obama but Obama didn't force your party to lie nor Bush, Cheney,
Rumsfeld, Wolfowitz, Rice, Ashcroft, Gonzalez, Meyers, Libby, Fleischer
or Pearl.
You cannot deflect responsibility for your party and those who you put
into office. Blaming Obama for your massive fuckups is not only dumb but
transparent.
We understand that you blame Obama for the ants in your kitchen, bad
economy, joblessness, your misplaced reading glasses and fruit yogurt.
We get it. We really do. We understand that you hate Obama.
What is your plan to help America survive and prosper? The only "plan"
you've offered is that Obama should be more transparent. Do you think
that will restore to the Treasury the trillions of dollars wasted in
nation building? Or the trillions lost in a deregulated banking system?
Or the deteriorating infrastructure robbed to pay for Bush's invasions?
What is _your_ plan?
tankfixer
Statement of fact.
Hurts doesn't it.
>
> > If you continue to maintain that Olbermann is any sort of newsman you
> > will find people continue to discount your ideas ...
>
> Then it should be easy for you to provide ample evidence that, while
> partisan, Keith Olbermann has made any factual errors without retraction.
You seem concerned he has made factual errors..
I am only concerned you leftist syncopates think he is some sort of
newsman.
>
> Arguing and criticizing without a shred of evidence is the now tired
> Rovian argument. It doesn't work any longer.
I am confidante you can counter with some Carville'isk hand waving.
>
> then:
>
> > I know ideas are hard for you leftists... Mr Olbermann is taking sides
> > on an issue. You can pretend you don't notice it but that only makes you
> > look the stooge
>
> Speaking of stooges, you've ignored my qualifiers in a number of threads
> where _I_ identify Keith Olbermann as focused on Republican lies and
> abuses. That is what a real newsman does, he makes public lies and
> abuses. The same lies and abuses you defend and criticize being made
> public.
Onece more you try and pretend he is anything but a partisan hack.
>
> I realize that it is embarrassing that the crimes and lies of your
> leaders and party are being examined. If you do not like being held
> responsible for your programs then I strongly suggest changing your
> platforms.
>
> A man stands up and takes responsibility for his fuck ups. You do not.
When I screw up I take responsibility for it.
Your whining is just tiresome.
You don't understand much then...
>
> What is your plan to help America survive and prosper? The only "plan"
> you've offered is that Obama should be more transparent. Do you think
> that will restore to the Treasury the trillions of dollars wasted in
> nation building? Or the trillions lost in a deregulated banking system?
> Or the deteriorating infrastructure robbed to pay for Bush's invasions?
>
> What is _your_ plan?
You sound like you have ideas, why not share them.
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
Then tell us. I've spent a week trying to pry anything positive from you
with only "more transparency" as a result. What am I missing?
>> What is your plan to help America survive and prosper? The only "plan"
>> you've offered is that Obama should be more transparent. Do you think
>> that will restore to the Treasury the trillions of dollars wasted in
>> nation building? Or the trillions lost in a deregulated banking
>> system? Or the deteriorating infrastructure robbed to pay for Bush's
>> invasions?
>>
>> What is _your_ plan?
>
> You sound like you have ideas, why not share them.
Come to misc.survivalism and read. You are not worth repeating past
postings.
And still, you are incapable of offering squat. Only attacks and
criticism without an iota of participation in restoring our nation.
tankfixer
Everything.
>
> >> What is your plan to help America survive and prosper? The only "plan"
> >> you've offered is that Obama should be more transparent. Do you think
> >> that will restore to the Treasury the trillions of dollars wasted in
> >> nation building? Or the trillions lost in a deregulated banking
> >> system? Or the deteriorating infrastructure robbed to pay for Bush's
> >> invasions?
> >>
> >> What is _your_ plan?
> >
> > You sound like you have ideas, why not share them.
>
> Come to misc.survivalism and read. You are not worth repeating past
> postings.
Thanks, no.
Thre are plenty enough loons in the groups I read as it is.
>
> And still, you are incapable of offering squat. Only attacks and
> criticism without an iota of participation in restoring our nation.
I would say that most of the attacks are coming from you.
S
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
Yet you are unable to show an iota of that distorted opinion. Just as
you are unable to voice an iota of vision of our collective future, like
a rock on the roadside with traffic in both directions but unable to
voice alternative routes or see beyond travelers on your side of the road.
tankfixer
CurlySu...@live.com says...> > [quoted text muted]
> >> And still, you are incapable of offering squat. Only attacks and
> >> criticism without an iota of participation in restoring our nation.
> >
> > I would say that most of the attacks are coming from you. S
>
> Yet you are unable to show an iota of that distorted opinion. Just as
> you are unable to voice an iota of vision of our collective future, like
> a rock on the roadside with traffic in both directions but unable to
> voice alternative routes or see beyond travelers on your side of the road.
I showed where Olbermann is just another partisan hack a number of posts
back.
Instead of acknowledging that you launched into yet another set of
personal attacks...
I'd say you don't want to know what other people think, you just want
them to post so you can insult and abuse them.
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> In article <heci57$kd0$2...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> CurlySu...@live.com says...
>> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 13:10:41 -0800, tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > [quoted text muted]
>> >> And still, you are incapable of offering squat. Only attacks and
>> >> criticism without an iota of participation in restoring our nation.
>> >
>> > I would say that most of the attacks are coming from you. S
>>
>> Yet you are unable to show an iota of that distorted opinion. Just as
>> you are unable to voice an iota of vision of our collective future,
>> like a rock on the roadside with traffic in both directions but unable
>> to voice alternative routes or see beyond travelers on your side of the
>> road.
>
> I showed where Olbermann is just another partisan hack a number of posts
> back.
Nope, you made that assertion. In fact I agree that Olbermann is
reporting on Republican and Fox "News" lies and that he may be partisan
however that does not negate the truth of his reporting.
> Instead of acknowledging that you launched into yet another set of
> personal attacks...
Nope, I highlighted your inability to offer a plan for recovery.
> I'd say you don't want to know what other people think, you just want
> them to post so you can insult and abuse them.
Ha! After spending a week trying to get your plan how can you possibly
make that claim? I've wheedled you, instructed you, even making
suggestions on how to intelligently present your position, plan or
program. All you've offered is "more transparency."
Critics without an alternative should be insulted. Would you like to see
what a real insult is? So far I've been extraordinarily kind and helpful
despite your reticence.
DockScience
"Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in message
news:he8d94$iou$3...@news.eternal-
> The article fails to mention that Olbermann launched the campaign by
> donating $50,000.00 of his own money putting his money where his mouth is
> while Limbaugh gave a caller who was about to be thrown out of his home a
> $29.99 kitchen appliance.
You REALLY want to start a Olbermann donates more than Limbaugh fight?
Do you have any clue how much Rush donates to charity?
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
No, I have no idea. Tell us how much Limbaugh donates as a percentage of
his $20,000,000.00 per year income to the poor and sick.
tankfixer
>
> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 16:49:24 -0800, tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > In article <heci57$kd0$2...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> > CurlySu...@live.com says...
> >> On Sun, 22 Nov 2009 13:10:41 -0800, tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> > [quoted text muted]
> >> >> And still, you are incapable of offering squat. Only attacks and
> >> >> criticism without an iota of participation in restoring our nation.
> >> >
> >> > I would say that most of the attacks are coming from you. S
> >>
> >> Yet you are unable to show an iota of that distorted opinion. Just as
> >> you are unable to voice an iota of vision of our collective future,
> >> like a rock on the roadside with traffic in both directions but unable
> >> to voice alternative routes or see beyond travelers on your side of the
> >> road.
> >
> > I showed where Olbermann is just another partisan hack a number of posts
> > back.
>
> Nope, you made that assertion. In fact I agree that Olbermann is
> reporting on Republican and Fox "News" lies and that he may be partisan
> however that does not negate the truth of his reporting.
You couldn't acknowledge the sky is blue on a sunny day.
>
> > Instead of acknowledging that you launched into yet another set of
> > personal attacks...
>
> Nope, I highlighted your inability to offer a plan for recovery.
>
> > I'd say you don't want to know what other people think, you just want
> > them to post so you can insult and abuse them.
>
> Ha! After spending a week trying to get your plan how can you possibly
> make that claim? I've wheedled you, instructed you, even making
> suggestions on how to intelligently present your position, plan or
> program. All you've offered is "more transparency."
>
> Critics without an alternative should be insulted. Would you like to see
> what a real insult is? So far I've been extraordinarily kind and helpful
> despite your reticence.
Fetch
Gray Ghost
news:eZudnZGNxf0wlpfW...@giganews.com:
Didn't Rush get over 2 million bucks for ebaying the hate letter he got from
some dickhead senator and give it all away to some charity?
--
�Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel
of envy, its inherent value is the equal sharing of misery.� Winston
Churchill
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
Your ability to self-delude despite the evidence in front of your face is
simply amazing.
>> > Instead of acknowledging that you launched into yet another set of
>> > personal attacks...
>>
>> Nope, I highlighted your inability to offer a plan for recovery.
>>
>> > I'd say you don't want to know what other people think, you just want
>> > them to post so you can insult and abuse them.
>>
>> Ha! After spending a week trying to get your plan how can you possibly
>> make that claim? I've wheedled you, instructed you, even making
>> suggestions on how to intelligently present your position, plan or
>> program. All you've offered is "more transparency."
>>
>> Critics without an alternative should be insulted. Would you like to
>> see what a real insult is? So far I've been extraordinarily kind and
>> helpful despite your reticence.
>
> Fetch
Off to the Bozo Bin with you.
Gunner Asch
<DockS...@yahoo.com> wrote:
Rush donates over $5 MILLION dollars every year to various charities.
These are the Known charities. He also donates where his name is not
used. Estimates run between $7-15 million dollars..per year.
IGunner
Gunner Asch
(Gray Ghost) wrote:
>"DockScience" <DockS...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>news:eZudnZGNxf0wlpfW...@giganews.com:
>
>>
>> "Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in message
>> news:he8d94$iou$3...@news.eternal-
>>
>>> The article fails to mention that Olbermann launched the campaign by
>>> donating $50,000.00 of his own money putting his money where his mouth is
>>> while Limbaugh gave a caller who was about to be thrown out of his home a
>>> $29.99 kitchen appliance.
>>
>> You REALLY want to start a Olbermann donates more than Limbaugh fight?
>> Do you have any clue how much Rush donates to charity?
>>
>>
>>
>
>Didn't Rush get over 2 million bucks for ebaying the hate letter he got from
>some dickhead senator and give it all away to some charity?
$1.2 on ebay..and he matched those funds for a total of $2.2 million
dollars
Gunner
Lookout
wrote:
>In article <n4dhg5ta9pd16j4l4...@4ax.com>,
>mrLo...@yahoo.com says...
>>
>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:20:51 -0800, tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <he8d94$iou$3...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>> >CurlySu...@live.com says...
>> >>
>> >> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:33:59 -0600, Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Olbermann is killing them single handedly.
>> >>
>> >> Keith Olbermann continues to impress me, more each day.
>> >
>> >That could be but he is by no means a newsman.
>>
>> No one said he was.
>
>All you leftists keep quoting him like he is some holy grail...
Nope. Not at all. But he does present truth backed up with
facts..something Faux Commentary seems to be missing.
Curly Surmudgeon
"Seems"?
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 Run, Rudy, Run! 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lookout
<CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 23 Nov 2009 19:42:15 -0600, Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:37:00 -0800, tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>In article <n4dhg5ta9pd16j4l4...@4ax.com>,
>>>mrLo...@yahoo.com says...
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:20:51 -0800, tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >In article <he8d94$iou$3...@news.eternal-september.org>,
>>>> >CurlySu...@live.com says...
>>>> >>
>>>> >> On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 16:33:59 -0600, Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> > Olbermann is killing them single handedly.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Keith Olbermann continues to impress me, more each day.
>>>> >
>>>> >That could be but he is by no means a newsman.
>>>>
>>>> No one said he was.
>>>
>>>All you leftists keep quoting him like he is some holy grail...
>>
>> Nope. Not at all. But he does present truth backed up with
>> facts..something Faux Commentary seems to be missing.
>
>"Seems"?
Trying to be nice.
tankfixer
I'm sure you feel that way..
It's common for people to project their failings onto others
>
> >> > Instead of acknowledging that you launched into yet another set of
> >> > personal attacks...
> >>
> >> Nope, I highlighted your inability to offer a plan for recovery.
> >>
> >> > I'd say you don't want to know what other people think, you just want
> >> > them to post so you can insult and abuse them.
> >>
> >> Ha! After spending a week trying to get your plan how can you possibly
> >> make that claim? I've wheedled you, instructed you, even making
> >> suggestions on how to intelligently present your position, plan or
> >> program. All you've offered is "more transparency."
> >>
> >> Critics without an alternative should be insulted. Would you like to
> >> see what a real insult is? So far I've been extraordinarily kind and
> >> helpful despite your reticence.
> >
> > Fetch
>
> Off to the Bozo Bin with you.
Uh huh, sure...
RD (The Sandman)
> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:20:51 -0800, tankfixer
> <paul.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Keith Olbermann continues to impress me, more each day.
>>
>>That could be but he is by no means a newsman.
>
> Exactly
>
> But we know he isn't
>
> Faux fools don't seem to get it.
Don't get what? That Olbermann is not a newsman? I am sure that know it.
;)
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand
it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who
hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't
pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese
Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke.
What could possibly go wrong?
Curly Surmudgeon
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
> s...@above.com wrote in news:195hg5lqo9k9k1moq...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:20:51 -0800, tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>> Keith Olbermann continues to impress me, more each day.
>>>
>>>That could be but he is by no means a newsman.
>>
>> Exactly
>>
>> But we know he isn't
>>
>> Faux fools don't seem to get it.
>
> Don't get what? That Olbermann is not a newsman? I am sure that know
> it. ;)
Why do you say that? What is _your_ definition of "newsman" and tell me
how Keith Olbermann, Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh et. al. don't fit the
dictionary definition:
news⋅man
/ˈnuzˌmæn, -mən, ˈnyuz-/ Spelled Pronunciation [nooz-man, -muhn, nyooz-]
–noun, plural -men /-ˌmɛn, -mən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [-men, -
muhn] Show IPA .
1. a person employed to gather news, as for a newspaper, magazine,
or radio or television news bureau; reporter.
2. a person who reports the news on radio or television.
3. a person who sells or distributes newspapers, periodicals, etc.;
newsdealer.
I agree with you that the Fox people do not honestly and fairly report
the news however they do disguise themselves as newsmen.
RD (The Sandman)
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:57:31 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> s...@above.com wrote in
>> news:195hg5lqo9k9k1moq...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:20:51 -0800, tankfixer
>>> <paul.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Keith Olbermann continues to impress me, more each day.
>>>>
>>>>That could be but he is by no means a newsman.
>>>
>>> Exactly
>>>
>>> But we know he isn't
>>>
>>> Faux fools don't seem to get it.
>>
>> Don't get what? That Olbermann is not a newsman? I am sure that
>> know it. ;)
>
> Why do you say that? What is _your_ definition of "newsman" and tell
> me how Keith Olbermann, Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh et. al. don't fit the
> dictionary definition:
They are political commentators. They present opinions on the news not
the news itself. Let me ask you this....if you wished to get the news
would you turn on a Walter Chronkite or a Rush Limbaugh? I hope you can
tell the difference.
> news⋅man
> /ˈnuzˌmæn, -mən, ˈnyuz-/ Spelled Pronunciation [nooz-man,
> -muhn, nyooz-]
>
> –noun, plural -men /-ˌmɛn, -mən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation
> [-men, - muhn] Show IPA .
> 1. a person employed to gather news, as for a newspaper,
> magazine, or radio or television news bureau; reporter.
> 2. a person who reports the news on radio or television.
> 3. a person who sells or distributes newspapers, periodicals,
> etc.; newsdealer.
>
> I agree with you that the Fox people do not honestly and fairly report
> the news however they do disguise themselves as newsmen.
I'm not going to change your opinion, Curly, no matter how fucked up it
is so no sense wasting my time on it. Suffice it to say that you make
plenty of statements like the one above you can't back up. 'nuff said as
you have turned from someone I felt was objective to someone as biased as
Lookout or TMT. Enjoy your new companions.
Curly Surmudgeon
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
> Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in
> news:hehoh3$qe2$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:57:31 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
>> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> s...@above.com wrote in
>>> news:195hg5lqo9k9k1moq...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:20:51 -0800, tankfixer
>>>> <paul.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Keith Olbermann continues to impress me, more each day.
>>>>>
>>>>>That could be but he is by no means a newsman.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly
>>>>
>>>> But we know he isn't
>>>>
>>>> Faux fools don't seem to get it.
>>>
>>> Don't get what? That Olbermann is not a newsman? I am sure that know
>>> it. ;)
>>
>> Why do you say that? What is _your_ definition of "newsman" and tell
>> me how Keith Olbermann, Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh et. al. don't fit the
>> dictionary definition:
>
> They are political commentators. They present opinions on the news not
> the news itself. Let me ask you this....if you wished to get the news
> would you turn on a Walter Chronkite or a Rush Limbaugh? I hope you can
> tell the difference.
Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck are not portrayed as "commentators." They
have prime time shows selling propaganda on "Fox News." Their viewers
are too stupid to know the difference.
>> news⋅man
>> /ˈnuzˌmæn, -mən, ˈnyuz-/ Spelled Pronunciation [nooz-man,
>> -muhn, nyooz-]
>>
>> –noun, plural -men /-ˌmɛn, -mən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [-men, -
>> muhn] Show IPA .
>> 1. a person employed to gather news, as for a newspaper, magazine,
>> or radio or television news bureau; reporter. 2. a person who
>> reports the news on radio or television. 3. a person who sells or
>> distributes newspapers, periodicals, etc.; newsdealer.
>>
>> I agree with you that the Fox people do not honestly and fairly report
>> the news however they do disguise themselves as newsmen.
>
> I'm not going to change your opinion, Curly, no matter how fucked up it
> is so no sense wasting my time on it. Suffice it to say that you make
> plenty of statements like the one above you can't back up. 'nuff said
> as you have turned from someone I felt was objective to someone as
> biased as Lookout or TMT. Enjoy your new companions.
If you were able to provide a reasonable argument then I'd probably agree
however you insist on portraying Keith Olbermann as a "commentator" in
the same group as Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck. That is obviously wrong.
I've challenged you to provide any evidence that Olbermann lies. Neither
you or anyone here has been able to do so. That is a critical
distinction between "newsman" and "commentator." Lumping Olbermann in
with Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh is disingenuous.
And false.
--Regards, Curly
Gunner Asch
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>They are political commentators. They present opinions on the news not
>the news itself. Let me ask you this....if you wished to get the news
>would you turn on a Walter Chronkite or a Rush Limbaugh? I hope you can
>tell the difference.
Wouldnt one need a Weegee board to listen to Chonkite?
Gunner
"Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone.
I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout"
Unknown Usnet Poster
Heh, heh, I'm pretty sure my dog is a liberal - he has no balls.
Keyton
Strabo
In your opinion.
You're compromising principle again.
<snipped>
Curly Surmudgeon
How so? I've not suggested they be muzzled or censored. Honesty, one of
my principles, demands that their campaign of lies be countered. Facts
have no "principle" or quantitative value, they just are.
"Fox News" lies and portray themselves as "News". That is a lie.
--
Lookout
<CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:57:31 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
><rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> s...@above.com wrote in news:195hg5lqo9k9k1moq...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:20:51 -0800, tankfixer <paul.c...@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Keith Olbermann continues to impress me, more each day.
>>>>
>>>>That could be but he is by no means a newsman.
>>>
>>> Exactly
>>>
>>> But we know he isn't
>>>
>>> Faux fools don't seem to get it.
>>
>> Don't get what? That Olbermann is not a newsman? I am sure that know
>> it. ;)
>
>Why do you say that? What is _your_ definition of "newsman" and tell me
>how Keith Olbermann, Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh et. al. don't fit the
>dictionary definition:
Faux Commentary admits to only 4 hours of news a day. The rest is
commentary. Why don't you ask them?
>news?man
>??/?nuz?m�n, -m?n, ?nyuz-/ Spelled Pronunciation [nooz-man, -muhn, nyooz-]
>
>�noun, plural -men ?/-?m?n, -m?n/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [-men, -
>muhn] Show IPA .
>1. a person employed to gather news, as for a newspaper, magazine,
>or radio or television news bureau; reporter.
>2. a person who reports the news on radio or television.
>3. a person who sells or distributes newspapers, periodicals, etc.;
>newsdealer.
>
>I agree with you that the Fox people do not honestly and fairly report
>the news however they do disguise themselves as newsmen.
No they don't.
Curly Surmudgeon
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:59:47 +0000 (UTC), Curly Surmudgeon
> <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:57:31 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
>><rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> s...@above.com wrote in
>>> news:195hg5lqo9k9k1moq...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:20:51 -0800, tankfixer
>>>> <paul.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Keith Olbermann continues to impress me, more each day.
>>>>>
>>>>>That could be but he is by no means a newsman.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly
>>>>
>>>> But we know he isn't
>>>>
>>>> Faux fools don't seem to get it.
>>>
>>> Don't get what? That Olbermann is not a newsman? I am sure that know
>>> it. ;)
>>
>>Why do you say that? What is _your_ definition of "newsman" and tell me
>>how Keith Olbermann, Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh et. al. don't fit the
>>dictionary definition:
>
> Faux Commentary admits to only 4 hours of news a day. The rest is
> commentary. Why don't you ask them?
Admissions buried on page 18 of daily periodicals doesn't impinge upon
the sheeple watching "Fox News". Look in the corner of the screen when
any of htose mentioned are on and you'll see the "Fox News" logo.
"Fox News" not "Fox Commentary." Capish?
>>news?man
>>??/?nuz?mæn, -m?n, ?nyuz-/ Spelled Pronunciation [nooz-man, -muhn,
>>nyooz-]
>>
>>–noun, plural -men ?/-?m?n, -m?n/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [-men, -
>>muhn] Show IPA .
>>1. a person employed to gather news, as for a newspaper, magazine, or
>>radio or television news bureau; reporter. 2. a person who
reports the
>>news on radio or television. 3. a person who sells or distributes
>>newspapers, periodicals, etc.; newsdealer.
>>
>>I agree with you that the Fox people do not honestly and fairly report
>>the news however they do disguise themselves as newsmen.
>
> No they don't.
Yes, they do.
SaPeIsMa
<s...@above.com> wrote in message
news:cb5sg59f3vt8mjm8d...@4ax.com...
>>> have prime time shows selling propaganda on "Fox News." Their viewers
>>> are too stupid to know the difference.
>>>
>>
>>In your opinion.
>
>
One has to wonder why lefties are so fascinated by
1) other people's balls
2) the firmness of said balls
Possibly because they have none themselves.
> If you weren't so stupid----you'd probably be able to
> pick out logical fallacy (which he uses to entertain
> you morons with) and feel stupid for believing his
> claims.
Feel free to list some of those "logical fallacies"
Don't forget to provide a verifiable cite
Gray Ghost
@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck are not portrayed as "commentators." They
> have prime time shows selling propaganda on "Fox News." Their viewers
> are too stupid to know the difference.
Really? And exactly what time is the Limbaugh Show broadcast on Fox?
I love you guys, your getting so unwound that your bias and hate boils
through at every step.
Yer an asshole.
Gray Ghost
@news.eternal-september.org:
And you can provide ecidence that
1) Fox indeed lies, deliberately
2) All other networks don't lie
Bigoted asshole are you.
Gray Ghost
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 16:39:16 -0500, Strabo
><str...@flashlight.net> wrote:
>
>>> Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck are not portrayed as "commentators." They
>>> have prime time shows selling propaganda on "Fox News." Their viewers
>>> are too stupid to know the difference.
>>>
>>
>>In your opinion.
>
> Limpballs admits it.
>
> If you weren't so stupid----you'd probably be able to
> pick out logical fallacy (which he uses to entertain
> you morons with) and feel stupid for believing his
> claims.
>
>
Limbaygh admits to having a prime time show on Fox????????????????
WHY WASN'T I TOLD????????????????
Stupid bigots.
Gray Ghost
news:Xns9CCE6551F...@216.196.97.130:
> They are political commentators. They present opinions on the news not
> the news itself. Let me ask you this....if you wished to get the news
> would you turn on a Walter Chronkite or a Rush Limbaugh? I hope you can
> tell the difference.
Before or after Kronkite's admissions of being a hard lefty.
2 things
1) Yes did a decent job of covering it up
2) Being a hard lefty back then is not the same as a hard lefty now.
Sid9
"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CCF6EFC7B70AWe...@216.196.97.142...
Walter Cronkite was one of the best.
Walter Cronkite was one EXCELLENT reporter of facts.
Limbo is a clown.
Every sentence he utters contains deceptions and distortions of fact.
In addition, he a straight out coward and will not debate any qualified
person of opposing views.
He refuses because he knows he's not qualified and will be instantly
discredited.
The British people understood that Winston Churchill was a great war leader.
However, they dumped him immediately upon the end of WWII
RD (The Sandman)
Fox News is the name of the channel just like the way CNN goes by CNN. I
thought you were smart enough to know the difference. ;)
>>> news⋅man
>>> /ˈnuzˌmæn, -mən, ˈnyuz-/ Spelled Pronunciation [nooz-man,
>>> -muhn, nyooz-]
>>>
>>> –noun, plural -men /-ˌmɛn, -mən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation
>>> [-men, - muhn] Show IPA .
>>> 1. a person employed to gather news, as for a newspaper,
>>> magazine, or radio or television news bureau; reporter. 2. a
>>> person who reports the news on radio or television. 3. a person
>>> who sells or distributes newspapers, periodicals, etc.; newsdealer.
>>>
>>> I agree with you that the Fox people do not honestly and fairly
>>> report the news however they do disguise themselves as newsmen.
>>
>> I'm not going to change your opinion, Curly, no matter how fucked up
>> it is so no sense wasting my time on it. Suffice it to say that you
>> make plenty of statements like the one above you can't back up.
>> 'nuff said as you have turned from someone I felt was objective to
>> someone as biased as Lookout or TMT. Enjoy your new companions.
>
> If you were able to provide a reasonable argument then I'd probably
> agree however you insist on portraying Keith Olbermann as a
> "commentator" in the same group as Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck. That
> is obviously wrong.
Where did I do that unless you feel all politica commentators shoujld be
in the same group. I simply said that Olbermann and Limbaugh are both
political commentators, neither of them is a newscaster.
> I've challenged you to provide any evidence that Olbermann lies.
I haven't made the claim that he did.
> Neither you or anyone here has been able to do so. That is a critical
> distinction between "newsman" and "commentator."
No, it isn't.....but, obviously you don't wish to realize the difference
between a newsman or newscaster and a political commentator. Sorry about
that.
Lumping Olbermann
> in with Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh is disingenuous.
No, it isn't. He just does it from the other side. Both Olbermann and
Maddow are commentators not newscasters. Unless, of course, you equate
the Daily Kos and the Huffington Post with Reuters.
> And false.
>
> --Regards, Curly
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
> 2012 Run, Rudy, Run!
> 2012
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
> -------
>
--
RD (The Sandman)
news:bl8rg5pos339olj3l...@4ax.com:
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:57:40 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>They are political commentators. They present opinions on the news not
>>the news itself. Let me ask you this....if you wished to get the news
>>would you turn on a Walter Chronkite or a Rush Limbaugh? I hope you
can
>>tell the difference.
>
>
> Wouldnt one need a Weegee board to listen to Chonkite?
That's Ouija board and it is also the reason I said "a" Walter Chronkite
not "the" Walter Chronkite. ;)
RD (The Sandman)
news:hemaj7$6rq$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> "Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CCF6EFC7B70AWe...@216.196.97.142...
>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>> news:Xns9CCE6551F...@216.196.97.130:
>>
>>> They are political commentators. They present opinions on the news
>>> not the news itself. Let me ask you this....if you wished to get
>>> the news would you turn on a Walter Chronkite or a Rush Limbaugh? I
>>> hope you can tell the difference.
>>
>> Before or after Kronkite's admissions of being a hard lefty.
>>
>> 2 things
>>
>> 1) Yes did a decent job of covering it up
>> 2) Being a hard lefty back then is not the same as a hard lefty now.
>>
>> --
>> �Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the
>> gospel
>> of envy, its inherent value is the equal sharing of misery.� Winston
>> Churchill
>
> Walter Cronkite was one of the best.
> Walter Cronkite was one EXCELLENT reporter of facts.
Yes, he was. He was a reporter, a newsman, a newscaster. He was not a
political commentator which Limbaugh is.
> Limbo is a clown.
> Every sentence he utters contains deceptions and distortions of fact.
> In addition, he a straight out coward and will not debate any
> qualified person of opposing views.
> He refuses because he knows he's not qualified and will be instantly
> discredited.
>
>
> The British people understood that Winston Churchill was a great war
> leader. However, they dumped him immediately upon the end of WWII
>
>
>
>
--
RD (The Sandman)
news:o3hrg554j858f54tn...@4ax.com:
> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 22:59:47 +0000 (UTC), Curly Surmudgeon
> <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:57:31 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
>><rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> s...@above.com wrote in
>>> news:195hg5lqo9k9k1moq...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:20:51 -0800, tankfixer
>>>> <paul.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Keith Olbermann continues to impress me, more each day.
>>>>>
>>>>>That could be but he is by no means a newsman.
>>>>
>>>> Exactly
>>>>
>>>> But we know he isn't
>>>>
>>>> Faux fools don't seem to get it.
>>>
>>> Don't get what? That Olbermann is not a newsman? I am sure that
>>> know it. ;)
>>
>>Why do you say that? What is _your_ definition of "newsman" and tell
>>me how Keith Olbermann, Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh et. al. don't fit the
>>dictionary definition:
>
> Faux Commentary admits to only 4 hours of news a day. The rest is
> commentary. Why don't you ask them?
No reason he should....from what he has posted he doesn't wish to
understand the difference bwtween political commentary and the news.
>>news?man
>>??/?nuz?m�n, -m?n, ?nyuz-/ Spelled Pronunciation [nooz-man, -muhn,
>>nyooz-]
>>
>>�noun, plural -men ?/-?m?n, -m?n/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [-men, -
>>muhn] Show IPA .
>>1. a person employed to gather news, as for a newspaper,
>>magazine, or radio or television news bureau; reporter.
>>2. a person who reports the news on radio or television.
>>3. a person who sells or distributes newspapers, periodicals,
>>etc.; newsdealer.
>>
>>I agree with you that the Fox people do not honestly and fairly report
>>the news however they do disguise themselves as newsmen.
>
> No they don't.
Thank you, Lookout. See I have told you before that sometimes you make
good comments and are on point. ;)
RD (The Sandman)
Damn, when I am watching CNN, lo and behold....in the corner of the
screen is a logo for CNN. Imagine that. I would be that I could find
the same thing for CNBC and MSNBC. Yep, there they are. Fox News is the
NAME of the channel, oh, bright one.
Gray Ghost
>
> "Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CCF6EFC7B70AWe...@216.196.97.142...
>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>> news:Xns9CCE6551F...@216.196.97.130:
>>
>>> They are political commentators. They present opinions on the news not
>>> the news itself. Let me ask you this....if you wished to get the news
>>> would you turn on a Walter Chronkite or a Rush Limbaugh? I hope you
>>> can tell the difference.
>>
>> Before or after Kronkite's admissions of being a hard lefty.
>>
>> 2 things
>>
>> 1) Yes did a decent job of covering it up
>> 2) Being a hard lefty back then is not the same as a hard lefty now.
>>
>> --
>> �Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the
>> gospel of envy, its inherent value is the equal sharing of misery.�
>> Winston Churchill
>
> Walter Cronkite was one of the best.
> Walter Cronkite was one EXCELLENT reporter of facts.
>
> Limbo is a clown.
> Every sentence he utters contains deceptions and distortions of fact.
> In addition, he a straight out coward and will not debate any qualified
> person of opposing views.
> He refuses because he knows he's not qualified and will be instantly
> discredited.
Limbaugh has offered to debate many DemoLibs. None have accepted.
>
>
> The British people understood that Winston Churchill was a great war
> leader. However, they dumped him immediately upon the end of WWII
>
>
>
>
--
RD (The Sandman)
news:dvbtg5h8s9rdt71i5...@4ax.com:
> I can provide evidence that FOX was instrumental in actively
> organizing protest movements. That is not a function of any news
> network.
>
But it can be a function of political commentators. Sorry.
Sid9
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CCF6306...@216.196.97.130...
.
More RRR bullshit obstructionism!
The only thing they are good at!
Sid9
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CCF6334F...@216.196.97.130...
.
You have it wrong.
Sid9
"RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CCF6334F...@216.196.97.130...
Sorry, I forgot to say goodbye.
Sid9
.
.
You are a liar.
If this EVER happened, and I listen to him frequently, he would brag about
it every day
.
.
.
PS Goodbye!
Dan
> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:57:40 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> They are political commentators. They present opinions on the news not
>> the news itself. Let me ask you this....if you wished to get the news
>> would you turn on a Walter Chronkite or a Rush Limbaugh? I hope you can
>> tell the difference.
>
>
> Wouldnt one need a Weegee board to listen to Chonkite?
No.
Welcome to the 20th Century, Runner [the rest of us are in the 21st, but
that statement indicates you are still in the 19th).
Dan
Dan
PARTISAN political commentators...
Dan
Gunner Asch
(Gray Ghost) wrote:
>Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in news:hek4ko$9rk$3
>@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>>
>> Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck are not portrayed as "commentators." They
>> have prime time shows selling propaganda on "Fox News." Their viewers
>> are too stupid to know the difference.
>
>Really? And exactly what time is the Limbaugh Show broadcast on Fox?
>
>I love you guys, your getting so unwound that your bias and hate boils
>through at every step.
>
>Yer an asshole.
Correction..he is a STUPID assole.
Gunner
Curly Surmudgeon
How does that apply to the projection of Hannity, Beck, O'Rielly, Malkin
and Coulter on "Fox News"?
> PARTISAN political commentators...
>
> Dan
Sure but note that RD moves the goalpost to commentators from the talking
heads on "Fox _News_". That is intentional deceit on the part of Fox and
I'm quite surprised that RD is making excuses for them.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curly Surmudgeon
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
You have by including Olberman in the same group as the "Fox _News_" team.
> I simply said that Olbermann and Limbaugh are both
> political commentators, neither of them is a newscaster.
Precisely. Disingenuous evasion for Olbermann is also a newsman.
>> I've challenged you to provide any evidence that Olbermann lies.
>
> I haven't made the claim that he did.
True but your statements lump Olbermann into the same category as
Limbaugh, Beck & Hannity. That is offensive. No matter how partisan
Olbermann is he doesn't lie and lies are the standard fare of those you
lump him in with.
>> Neither you or anyone here has been able to do so. That is a critical
>> distinction between "newsman" and "commentator."
>
> No, it isn't.....but, obviously you don't wish to realize the difference
> between a newsman or newscaster and a political commentator. Sorry
> about that.
This is the critical argument between us. Olbermann is also a newscaster
and does not lie. As above, your classification is insulting and wrong.
> Lumping Olbermann
>> in with Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh is disingenuous.
>
> No, it isn't. He just does it from the other side. Both Olbermann and
> Maddow are commentators not newscasters. Unless, of course, you equate
> the Daily Kos and the Huffington Post with Reuters.
No, that is wrong. Commentators have poetic license and are held to
entirely different standards than newsmen. You've agreed that Olbermann
does not lie, that distinguishes him from the fuckheads at 'Fox _News_".
>> And false.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curly Surmudgeon
(Gray Ghost) wrote:
> Limbaugh has offered to debate many DemoLibs. None have accepted.
Where did you get that false story? Limbaugh refused to even acknowledge
Al Franken's debate challenge.
Curly Surmudgeon
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
Precisely. "Fox _News_" not "Fox Commentary". Put a program on a news
channel without identifying it as opinion then you're held to different
standards than a network not claiming their programming is "News."
This is yet another tricky lie by misrepresentation by "Fox News" and you
seem to have bought the farm. That truly surprises me for one who claims
to be an independent.
Sid9
"Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in message
news:hemm5l$dcg$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
.
Limbo's a coward.
If Limbo ever had a legitimate debate he would be exposed for the lying
deceptive ignoramus he is.
.
On rare occasions, when a qualified opponent slips by his screeners, he runs
to a commercial and that person is never heard from again on his show.
.
.
Curly Surmudgeon
Or just cuts off an argument he cannot contend with by blowing insults.
Gunner Asch
<rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>> Walter Cronkite was one of the best.
>> Walter Cronkite was one EXCELLENT reporter of facts.
>
>Yes, he was. He was a reporter, a newsman, a newscaster. He was not a
>political commentator which Limbaugh is.
Until January, 1968...then he became a Marxist Commentator.
Gunner
Gunner Asch
(Gray Ghost) wrote:
They are all scared shitliess of Rush.
And they should be.
Gray Ghost
september.org:
Gee are you going to kill file me? Then you won't hear me mock you for your
lie that you listen to Rush "frequently". He did offer to debate the head
lib, repeatedly and never even got an answer.
Gray Ghost
@news.eternal-september.org:
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:01:09 -0600, grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com
> (Gray Ghost) wrote:
>
>> Limbaugh has offered to debate many DemoLibs. None have accepted.
>
> Where did you get that false story? Limbaugh refused to even acknowledge
> Al Franken's debate challenge.
>
He offered to debate Obama. Repeatedly.
He didn't debate Franken because Franken is s mouse and to let him debate
Limbaugh would be to elevate him.
Franken is an asshole "entertainer" whose mouth wrote a check his ass can't
cash. And the poeple are getting the returned check charges.
How dare any of you shitbirds criticise Palin in the least when you support
Franken.
Gray Ghost
news:hemns2$tgl$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> "Curly Surmudgeon" <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in message
> news:hemm5l$dcg$2...@news.eternal-september.org...
>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:01:09 -0600, grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com
>> (Gray Ghost) wrote:
>>
>>> Limbaugh has offered to debate many DemoLibs. None have accepted.
>>
>> Where did you get that false story? Limbaugh refused to even
>> acknowledge Al Franken's debate challenge.
>>
>> --
>> Regards, Curly
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> -----
>> 2012 Run, Rudy, Run! 2012
>> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----- .
> .
> Limbo's a coward.
> If Limbo ever had a legitimate debate he would be exposed for the lying
> deceptive ignoramus he is.
> .
> On rare occasions, when a qualified opponent slips by his screeners, he
> runs to a commercial and that person is never heard from again on his
> show. .
> .
>
>
>
>
>
>
Then why didn't Obama take the challenge?
Gray Ghost
Apparently neither of you actually listens to Rush.
Curly Surmudgeon
(Gray Ghost) wrote:
True, seldom. My digestive system prohibits such fare.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Curly Surmudgeon
(Gray Ghost) wrote:
/s/challenge/bait
A presidential candidate does not encourage the trolls. Why didn't
Limbaugh take the Al Franken challenge?
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gunner Asch
(Gray Ghost) wrote:
Indeed. When Rush gets a leftwinger on the phone..he brings em right
staight to the head of the line and puts em on.
Gunner
Curly Surmudgeon
(Gray Ghost) wrote:
> Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in news:hemm5l$dcg$27
> @news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 11:01:09 -0600, grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com
>> (Gray Ghost) wrote:
>>
>>> Limbaugh has offered to debate many DemoLibs. None have accepted.
>>
>> Where did you get that false story? Limbaugh refused to even
>> acknowledge Al Franken's debate challenge.
>>
>>
> He offered to debate Obama. Repeatedly.
>
> He didn't debate Franken because Franken is s mouse and to let him
> debate Limbaugh would be to elevate him.
Franken is a left wing commentator on the same level as Rush Limbaugh. A
presidential candidate does not elevate a troll.
> Franken is an asshole "entertainer" whose mouth wrote a check his ass
> can't cash. And the poeple are getting the returned check charges.
Franken --------------------------+---------------------------Limbaugh
^
> How dare any of you shitbirds criticise Palin in the least when you
> support Franken.
How dare you shitbirds criticize the president when you support Limbaugh?
(note that my retort is a true question)
See, this is the crux of the dissention. You guys want to elevate
Limbaugh, Palin, Beck, Hannity, Coulter, Malkin, etc., to the level of
Olbermann or the U.S. President. In other words you demand that your
liars be accepted as equals of those who who do not.
That is not going to happen.
And do not come back claiming that "Obama lied" while ignoring the that
Keith Olbermann doesn't. A change in Obama's position is not a lie. Nor
is his inability to fulfill election promises. I have issues with Obama
too but lying isn't one of them.
Instead of taking the low road clean your own house before demanding
respect for your representatives. Liars can never be respectable.
Strabo
You're in deep now. I can tell because you grunt from the difficulty
in walking through the BS you're exuding.
Strabo
>>> have prime time shows selling propaganda on "Fox News." Their viewers
>>> are too stupid to know the difference.
>>>
>
> Limpballs admits it.
>
> If you weren't so stupid----you'd probably be able to
> pick out logical fallacy (which he uses to entertain
> you morons with) and feel stupid for believing his
> claims.
>
Whenever I see the term "logical fallacy" or "assertion"
I know I'm talking to educated individuals about stuff
way above my pay grade.
Curly Surmudgeon
Did you have anything to add on-topic?
Strabo
No. Carry on.
You're up early/late. What time zone do you post in?
Curly Surmudgeon
The Twilight Zone.
RD (The Sandman)
> On Thu, 26 Nov 2009 10:41:33 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in
>> news:hek4ko$9rk$3...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>> On Wed, 25 Nov 2009 10:57:40 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
>>> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote in
>>>> news:hehoh3$qe2$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 24 Nov 2009 10:57:31 -0600, "RD (The Sandman)"
>>>>> <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> s...@above.com wrote in
>>>>>> news:195hg5lqo9k9k1moq...@4ax.com:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 21 Nov 2009 11:20:51 -0800, tankfixer
>>>>>>> <paul.c...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Keith Olbermann continues to impress me, more each day.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>That could be but he is by no means a newsman.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Exactly
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But we know he isn't
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Faux fools don't seem to get it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Don't get what? That Olbermann is not a newsman? I am sure that
>>>>>> know it. ;)
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you say that? What is _your_ definition of "newsman" and
>>>>> tell me how Keith Olbermann, Hannity, Beck, Limbaugh et. al. don't
>>>>> fit the dictionary definition:
>>>>
>>>> They are political commentators. They present opinions on the news
>>>> not the news itself. Let me ask you this....if you wished to get
>>>> the news would you turn on a Walter Chronkite or a Rush Limbaugh?
>>>> I hope you can tell the difference.
>>>
>>> Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck are not portrayed as "commentators."
>>> They have prime time shows selling propaganda on "Fox News." Their
>>> viewers are too stupid to know the difference.
>>
>> Fox News is the name of the channel just like the way CNN goes by
>> CNN. I thought you were smart enough to know the difference. ;)
>>
>>>>> news⋅man
>>>>> /ˈnuzˌmæn, -mən, ˈnyuz-/ Spelled Pronunciation
>>>>> [nooz-man, -muhn, nyooz-]
>>>>>
>>>>> –noun, plural -men /-ˌmɛn, -mən/ Show Spelled
>>>>> Pronunciation [-men, - muhn] Show IPA .
>>>>> 1. a person employed to gather news, as for a newspaper,
>>>>> magazine, or radio or television news bureau; reporter. 2. a
>>>>> person who reports the news on radio or television. 3. a
>>>>> person who sells or distributes newspapers, periodicals, etc.;
>>>>> newsdealer.
>>>>>
>>>>> I agree with you that the Fox people do not honestly and fairly
>>>>> report the news however they do disguise themselves as newsmen.
>>>>
>>>> I'm not going to change your opinion, Curly, no matter how fucked
>>>> up it is so no sense wasting my time on it. Suffice it to say that
>>>> you make plenty of statements like the one above you can't back up.
>>>> 'nuff said as you have turned from someone I felt was objective to
>>>> someone as biased as Lookout or TMT. Enjoy your new companions.
>>>
>>> If you were able to provide a reasonable argument then I'd probably
>>> agree however you insist on portraying Keith Olbermann as a
>>> "commentator" in the same group as Limbaugh, Hannity and Beck. That
>>> is obviously wrong.
>>
>> Where did I do that unless you feel all politica commentators shoujld
>> be in the same group.
>
> You have by including Olberman in the same group as the "Fox _News_"
> team.
Hmmm, simply by referring to Olbermann as a political commentator (which
he is) says he is in the same group as the Fox team? Interesting
observation, I would have stated the same profession. ;)
>> I simply said that Olbermann and Limbaugh are both
>> political commentators, neither of them is a newscaster.
>
> Precisely. Disingenuous evasion for Olbermann is also a newsman.
He is a commentator.
>>> I've challenged you to provide any evidence that Olbermann lies.
>>
>> I haven't made the claim that he did.
>
> True but your statements lump Olbermann into the same category as
> Limbaugh, Beck & Hannity. That is offensive.
Too bad. Get over it.
> No matter how partisan
> Olbermann is he doesn't lie and lies are the standard fare of those
> you lump him in with.
I lump him with political commentators......if you feel that political
commentators all lie, that is your cross to bear, not mine.
>>> Neither you or anyone here has been able to do so. That is a
>>> critical distinction between "newsman" and "commentator."
>>
>> No, it isn't.....but, obviously you don't wish to realize the
>> difference between a newsman or newscaster and a political
>> commentator. Sorry about that.
>
> This is the critical argument between us. Olbermann is also a
> newscaster and does not lie. As above, your classification is
> insulting and wrong.
As noted earlier, get over it. We are both expressing opinions. There is
absolutely nothing that says my opinion has to match yours.
>> Lumping Olbermann
>>> in with Beck, Hannity and Limbaugh is disingenuous.
>>
>> No, it isn't. He just does it from the other side. Both Olbermann
>> and Maddow are commentators not newscasters. Unless, of course, you
>> equate the Daily Kos and the Huffington Post with Reuters.
>
> No, that is wrong. Commentators have poetic license and are held to
> entirely different standards than newsmen. You've agreed that
> Olbermann does not lie,
No, I haven't. I said I hadn't claimed he lied......nor have I claimed
that he hasn't.
that distinguishes him from the fuckheads at
> 'Fox _News_".
>
>>> And false.
>
--
Sleep well tonight,
RD (The Sandman)
Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to pass
a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't understand
it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a president who
hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury chief who didn't
pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax, overseen by an obese
Surgeon General and financed by a country that's nearly broke.
What could possibly go wrong?
RD (The Sandman)
news:hemgvg$g7n$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CCF6334F...@216.196.97.130...
>> "Sid9" <si...@bellsouth.net> wrote in
>> news:hemaj7$6rq$1...@news.eternal-september.org:
>>
>>>
>>> "Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9CCF6EFC7B70AWe...@216.196.97.142...
>>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>>> news:Xns9CCE6551F...@216.196.97.130:
>>>>
>>>>> They are political commentators. They present opinions on the
>>>>> news not the news itself. Let me ask you this....if you wished to
>>>>> get the news would you turn on a Walter Chronkite or a Rush
>>>>> Limbaugh? I hope you can tell the difference.
>>>>
>>>> Before or after Kronkite's admissions of being a hard lefty.
>>>>
>>>> 2 things
>>>>
>>>> 1) Yes did a decent job of covering it up
>>>> 2) Being a hard lefty back then is not the same as a hard lefty
>>>> now.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> �Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and
>>>> the gospel
>>>> of envy, its inherent value is the equal sharing of misery.�
>>>> Winston Churchill
>>>
>>> Walter Cronkite was one of the best.
>>> Walter Cronkite was one EXCELLENT reporter of facts.
>>
>> Yes, he was. He was a reporter, a newsman, a newscaster. He was not
>> a political commentator which Limbaugh is.
>>
>>
>>> Limbo is a clown.
>>> Every sentence he utters contains deceptions and distortions of
>>> fact. In addition, he a straight out coward and will not debate any
>>> qualified person of opposing views.
>>> He refuses because he knows he's not qualified and will be instantly
>>> discredited.
>>>
>>>
>>> The British people understood that Winston Churchill was a great war
>>> leader. However, they dumped him immediately upon the end of WWII
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Sleep well tonight,
>>
>> RD (The Sandman)
>>
>> Let's see if I have this healthcare thingy right. Congress is to
>> pass a plan written by a committee whose head has said he doesn't
>> understand it, passed by a Congress that hasn't read it, signed by a
>> president who hasn't read it, with funding administered by a Treasury
>> chief who didn't pay his taxes because he didn't understand TurboTax,
>> overseen by an obese Surgeon General and financed by a country that's
>> nearly broke. What could possibly go wrong?
> .
> .
> You have it wrong.
I have what wrong?