'Fairness Doctrine' Would Have to Balance Networks, NPR/PBS
If the Democrats want to usher in an era of Stalinism not seen in America since the earliest 20th century (that's regressive, not 'progressive'), they'll unfortunately have to play tinker-tinker with the news networks as well as their chosen sole enemy - AM political talk radio.
Ted Rall Hates the Troops, Liz Edwards Has No Comment
Maybe this is what Elizabeth Edwards referred to as "poisoning the political dialogue." Courtesy of Troop-smearing, liberal Democrat dipsh*t Ted Rall:
Don't you see? This, folks, is patriotism. This is support for the military. Behold, peons.
A federal grand jury indicted former Newark Mayor Sharpe James on corruption charges Thursday, accusing him of fraud in the sale of city-owned land and using city-issued credit cards to spend extravagantly on himself and several women.
Can you guess the party affiliation? It isn't mentioned in the article.
This is a 33 count corruption indictment. Maybe, given NJ politics, they just assume you know, and that mentioning it isn't all that important. Funny how only one political party in this country seems to get that kind of treatment in the mainstream press.
La Times Changing Stories Mysteriously w/o Notice
Allah points us to a hit-piece on Fred Thompson, in which facts from the original version of the story "are disappearing without a trace." No corrections, no note of the changes, nothing. More important context left out is found at Newsbusters.
MSM 101 -most people don't read a story close enough to notice something changes, so do it whenever and however often you want.
Well, somebody noticed. I'm sure the LA Times will be as forthcoming as the AP in offering an explanation of the sudden and unexplained changes in their hit piece.
Posted by: Good Lt. at
08:09 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 100 words, total size 1 kb.
Should We Lie More To Report "The Truth?"
That's the question being knocked around in this Poynter Institute column.
The question is framed as a great ethical dilemma for journalists, and their chosen case study (now the editor of Harper's) is angry that the Washington Press corp for being afraid to "lie" more to get to "the truth."
I'll leave it to you to decide whether this 'deception tool' is good for the already abysmal credibility of the mainstream press. The column's writer appears to be on the "use rarely, if ever" side of it, which I think sounds reasonable.
Posted by: Good Lt. at
09:02 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 100 words, total size 1 kb.
When Does A Massacre Matter?From Bob Owens who, after forcing two retractions/corrections regarding the non-existent '20 beheadings' misinformation stories, is now trying to get the AP and Reuters on record for ignoring Michael Yon's discovery and documentation of a real massacre caused by terrorists:
Why is the Associated Press willing to run the claimed of a false massacre on June 28, but unwilling to report a well-documented and freely-offered account of a massacre that was discovered just one day later?
Posted by: Good Lt. at
02:23 PM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 80 words, total size 1 kb.
STOP INTERFERING IN THE WAR ON TERRORISM. NOBODY ELECTED BILL KELLER AND PINCH SULZBERGER TO DO ANYTHING. WE KNOW YOU WANT AL-QAEDA TO WIN. YOU DON'T HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO MAKE IT HAPPEN. NO, HIDING BEHIND THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT WON'T WORK.
Ridiculous comments like this are what make your posts meaningless. Do you really believe the NYT wants Bin Laden to win? You don't have to agree with their actions, but to imply they are unAmerican only pollutes political discussion.
Lets discuss consequences. What are the consequences of the NYT disclosing classified intelligence information?
---Our enemies get our sources and methods....thus it is easier for them to kill our troops.
End of Story.
Now, we all know the NYT and the rest of the lib media have one thing on their minds.....and it is NOT America's best interest.
That ONE thing is this............HOW TO FUCK BOOOOSH AT EVERY POSSIBLE TURN. Even if it means disclosing classified information, sources and methods. They simply turn their heads and say "Al Queda doesn't read the NYT" Oh, but they do Bo......they do.
Like I said....end of story.
Posted by: mrclark at July 03, 2007 08:50 PM (lEgmh)
4
Yep, They'll trade an an american soldier's life for an arrow to shoot a the President. No wonder the lefties treat our soldiers as if they are victims, they are, their victims.
Posted by: Howie at July 03, 2007 09:05 PM (YHZAl)
5
Bo: Are you paid by some group? And would you tell the truth about it? I say that because most lefturds wouldn't.
Posted by: greyrooster at July 03, 2007 10:27 PM (visiI)
6
Again, Bo got it part right,
"WE KNOW YOU WANT AL-QAEDA TO WIN" is indeed wrong- the left doesn't believe in winners, just losers.
They cynically deride the value in the lessons of hard work, preserverence, loyalty, or any value in anything really... there is nothing but failure, death and loss to the libs. They don't hope or think Al-Q can win, but they sure do want to see US lose.
I don't disagree necessarily that the left is hopelessly devoid of individual responsibility, but I'm afraid I don't quite buy the argument that they want Al-Q to win. Kerry made a point of rallying the troups around the fact that Bush abandoned the hunt for Bin Laden when he took our finite resources and plunged them into Iraq. How do you reconcile this with a blind belief that the Democrats do not want to win? All I hear is that they want to focus on the true culprits of 9/11?
Posted by: Bo at July 04, 2007 09:18 PM (euN4c)
8
All I hear is that they want to focus on the true culprits of 9/11?
Who? 1 person named bin Laden? What happens when he dies - terrorism ends forever?
Didn't think so.
Posted by: Good Lt at July 07, 2007 12:23 PM (yMbfY)
AP/Reuters Retract "20 Decapitated Bodies" Stories
Confederate Yankee claims the wire-service scalp. The AP and Reuters ran unverified stories based on the unfounded rumors of dubious and uncorroborated sources. Gee - we've never seen that happen before. The stories got picked up and were run in major newspapers, compounding the lies and inaccuracies.
Bob Owens, however, is as bad as any child-killing terrorist for holding the press accountable for this misinformation. Roger Ebert told me so.
Posted by: Howie at July 03, 2007 10:22 AM (YHZAl)
3
"We can do the innuendo, We can dance and sing. When its said and done we havent told you a thing, We all know that crap is king. Give us dirty laundry!"
Gotta love that song!
Posted by: Barry at July 03, 2007 12:52 PM (NsWwz)
I’ll tell you something that those who want to control the media apparently don’t know. Everyday, more people are listening to streaming radio on the Web and downloading podcasts. Some popular talk shows skip radio altogether and go straight to the Internet. You can even hear talk shows on Web-enabled telephones if you want, and that will get much easier and cheaper quickly.
If the current stars of talk were pushed off the radio dial, they’d get their audiences anyway. The era of controllable media is over, and nothing will ever bring it back.
1Then, a congressman, who is also an ex-radio talk show host, managed to
get a “yes†vote on language in a House bill that could permanently
stop those who want to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine.
How is this "permanent?" What's to keep the Leftards from reviving this the way they tried with the immigration bill. Nothing is permanent in politics.
2
Thank God there's soon to be no controlled media any more. But I wonder if Clear Channel, Cumulus, NewsCorp and any other media conglomerate that owns hundreds of media outlets at a time and keeps buying 'em up knows this yet?
Democrats Trying Desperately To Stifle Political Speech
Great piece here on the Democrats' ridiculous saber-rattling about the "Fairness Doctrine," which (in the current multimedia environment) can simply be referred to as the "Hush Rush" Bill.
What are the Democrat so afraid of? Why do the feel the need to regulate political speech and opinions, despite the text and letter of the First Amendment? Why aren't they interested in regulating the opinions and biases of journalists, who have shown overwhelmingly that they are not only Democrats, but that they actively support Democrats financially while lying to the public about their biases? Why do they want to dictate to you what you should be able to listen to? What laws are preventing liberals from entering talk radio (besides the law of supply and demand)? Why does John Kerry advocate government meddling in media content? Why, if talk radio is just fringe and inconsequential, are the Democrats trying to censor it?
Can any Democrat actually answer these questions without pretending they're not trying to chill free political speech?
More from Michelle, who notes that Mike Pence is already moving in the House to counter this.
FUCK THEM! THOSE FUCKING SLEAZE-BAGS OWN THE MAIN STREAM MEDIA, BUT IS THAT GOOD ENOUGH FOR THEM??? FUCK NO! NOW THEY WANT TO STIFLE THE LAST VESTIGES OF CONSERVATIVE THOUGHT AVAILABLE ON THE PLANET EARTH. IN THE NAME OF FREE SPEECH & "DIVERSITY", NO LESS!
Those cock-suckers had their fucking chance with Air America, and they blew it. Why? Because that is NOT what the people who listen to talk radio want to hear. Because they are morally corrupt. Because they are poor at business, ignoring their consumer's preferences, instead opting to pander to their own philosophy.. Because Americans get enough of their bullshit from CNN, PBS, ABC, NBC, CBS, BBC, The New York Times, Time Magazine, and The LA Times.
Fairness doctrine my ass.
Posted by: Kafir at June 27, 2007 10:51 AM (HsmTD)
2
Also, I'd like to preemptively tell John Ryan to shut the fuck up, because it is inevitable that he will weigh in on the wrong side, and do his best to obfuscate the obvious with his simpering brand of illogic.
Posted by: Kafir at June 27, 2007 11:05 AM (HsmTD)
3
'Logic' and 'John Ryan' are diametrically opposed elements and don't belong in the same sentence.
What are you trying to do - cause a black hole of contradiction? Sheesh!
:-)
Posted by: Good Lt at June 27, 2007 11:34 AM (yMbfY)
It is the same thing that Hugo Chavez, Vladimir Putin and the like are afraid of when they control the media. It is also what motivates "Islamists" to demand death for apostates and absolute protection from criticism, disrespect and insults even though they know it makes them look insane. What they fear is that they will be required to defend their indefensible positions without having a monopoly on the information provided. It is hard to win an argument when the other side gets to talk. It is why fringe groups love to speak to friendly audiences or those which are not familiar with criticism of their beliefs. But when a fringe group becomes powerful enough to dominate the debate, not due to a persuasive case but through political machinations it becomes truly dangerous. Fortunately, the fact that they feel the need to do this is indicative that their domination of the media is not translating into complete domination of the market. Careful documentation and extensive exposure of their desire to enforce "fairness" must be continued. Nothing is more damaging to these people than their own words, beliefs and deeds.
Posted by: Saul Wall at June 27, 2007 05:10 PM (hgX7d)
Why The Fairness Doctrine Should Apply To News Media
Remember this name - Travis Loller. Anything she writes will be Democrat-fangirl propaganda, and this little episode shows you why.
Loller is a former leftwingnut activist now writing for the AP, and is (of course) coordinating attacks on Fred Thompson from her "perch" as an "objective, nonpartisan, neutral" journalist.
1. DNC talking point: “In his most recent stint in Washington, Thompson worked for a London company lobbying Congress to limit liability claims for asbestos-related illnesses. Over the past three years he’s made $760,000 fighting for the interests of his corporate clients.
AP (Loller)/CNN talking point: â€More recently, while Frist led the Senate, Thompson earned more than $750,000 lobbying for a British reinsurance company that wanted to limit its liability from asbestos lawsuits.
2. DNC Talking Point: “And just this month, as part of his role as the ultimate Washington insider, Thompson offered to host yet another fundraising event for Scooter Libby’s legal defense fund. Thompson has been vocal in his support of Libby, saying that he would “absolutely†pardon him.â€
AP (Loller)/CNN Talking Point: “Thompson also helped run the Scooter Libby Legal Defense Fund Trust, an organization that set out to raise more than $5 million to help finance the legal defense of Vice President Dick Cheney’s former chief of staff, who was convicted in March of lying and obstructing Special Prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald’s investigation into the leak of a CIA operative’s identity.â€
3. DNC Talking Point: “For years, acting wasn’t the Law & Order star’s profession — it was a hobby. In the real world, Thompson has made a fortune in a decades-long career as a Washington lobbyist.â€
AP (Loller)/CNN Talking Point: “Republican Fred Thompson, who likes to cast himself in the role of Washington outsider, has a long history as a political insider who earned more than $1 million lobbying the federal government.â€
AP (Loller)/CNN Talking Point: “That history as a Washington insider is at odds with the image Thompson has sought to convey to voters. When he first ran for the Senate in 1993, Thompson cast himself in the part of the gruff, plainspoken everyman, leased a red pickup truck and drove around Tennessee in his shirt sleeves.â€
And as for Loller's partisan political career prior to "journalism?" Well, look no further than Mother Jones for some background:
Three American citizens, along with nine other foreigners, were deported from Mexico on April 12, 1998 for alleged collusion with the Zapatista rebels (EZLN). The woman, Travis Loller, 26, and two men, Michael Sabato, 30, and Jeffrey Conant, 30, are part of an American relief group called Intercambio de Tecnologia Apropiada (ITA) or, in English, Appropriate Technology Exchange. The Mexican government accused the three of agitating for the rebel army that's been struggling in the southeastern state of Chiapas for over four years in an effort to win basic civil rights and gain land reform for the indigenous Indians in the region.
*********
The three Americans have extensive activist histories, having worked for reproductive rights, the homeless and protests against the Gulf War, the Rodney King verdict and Propositions 187 and 209.
Here's a pic of Loller getting arrested by Mexican Authorities:
So bring on the Fairness Doctrine! The MSM needs some government-mandated balance! Right, lefties? Live by the 'fairness' sword, die by the 'fairness' sword...
Also interesting how the moronic editor cites a "right to know," as if legal gun owners are comparable to child molesters/sexual predators.
Note to Democrat activists journalists of the world: In addition to the 1st Amendment, there is also a 2nd Amendment in that Constitution that you claim to have read. We know these registries are a matter of public record. The problem, of course, is discretion. As Jeff Goldblum said in Jurassic Park, they were so obsessed with the idea that they could that they never stopped to think if they should. And in this case, what is the urgency and public interest served in "outing" private citizens who aren't breaking any laws?
I'm sure they'd give the same kind of treatment to law-breaking illegal aliens if they knew where they were working and living. These journalists are 'patriots.'
If you want to call Sandusky Register editor Matt Westerhold and let them know how you feel about their assault on the privacy and safety of legal gun owners, fell free.
Matt Westerhold
419-609-5866
mattwesterhold@sanduskyregister.com
This is a blatant abuse of what newspapers claim to do, and it is unfortunately all too common in the leftwing press. First they came for the gun owners - who knows what legal, law-abiding citizens they'll come after next.
1
I wonder how Sandusky Register Editor Matt Westerhold would react to posters with his picture on them, saying "This man does not have a concealed carry permit. Don't worry about him shooting you."
Posted by: Phillep at June 27, 2007 10:10 AM (0H33l)
2
I propose that someone start an online searchable database called "The Sodomite Registry" with the names, addresses, and phone numbers of guys known to bugger each other. Frankly, I don't know enough about Westerhold to know if he'd make that list - don't care to - but I wonder how that would go over with him?
Posted by: Hucbald at June 27, 2007 01:09 PM (wii9D)
3
Just another reason why lefturd reporters will be valid targets when TSHTF. They are nothing but enemy propagandists and deserve no mercy.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 27, 2007 02:24 PM (jQsc/)
4
Direct conspiracy to overthrow the Constitution is treason, and thus punishable by death.
Posted by: MegaTroopX at June 28, 2007 12:22 AM (eOJxr)
Of course, we're not allowed to criticize them or even notice this kind of stuff. According to film critic and noted military expert Roger Ebert, pointing out when journalists are wrong is tantamount to killing them.
2
WOLF BLITZER has ben running around with his eyes closed and ran into a tree BAM and remember when RAND,McNALLY neglected to mention CANADAS contribution in WW II?
Posted by: sandpiper at June 24, 2007 10:34 AM (h6CK1)
UPI: 9/11 Attacks Perpetrated by Guerrillas, Not Terrorists or Jihaddists
A linguistic inversion of moral culpability if there ever was one.
NEW YORK, June 21 (UPI) -- The number of FBI prosecutions for non-terror prosecutions have fallen since the guerrilla attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, federal data shows.
An analysis of Justice Department data by the Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse at Syracuse University in New York found almost 19,000 prosecutions were credited to the FBI in 2001, but in 2006 that number fell to 12,700. During that same five-year period, terrorism prosecutions rose 26 percent, the Christian Science Monitor reported Thursday.
An entirely bulls**t linguistic inversion, I might add.
Resistance? Is that what UPI is implying with the term guerrilla? Was Atta a *freedom fighter* or a cold blooded, fanatical murder?
Does the UPI think the jihaddists have a right somehow to mass civilian murder? The standard usage of the term guerrilla warfare implies a small force fighting asymmetrically against a larger army. Is the UPI proposing the US is a militarized society and there are no civilians anymore, which is a fundamental predicate that the fanatics use to justify modern jihad?
If you pay taxes, you are a legitimate target, according to the terrorists and apparently, UPI.
United Press International is fostering the continuing erosion of the concept of civilian immunity with the use of the word "guerrilla" to describe the attacks of 9/11. There is a moral bottom line. Sometimes wrong is just wrong.
Posted by: Darth Vag at June 21, 2007 08:47 PM (b0FZu)
3
20 niggers beat to death a man in Austin and not much on the news. Wonder if there would be outrage if 20 while people beat to death a black. You know the answer. Texas. Ugh. I hear there is a building posing as an university in Austin.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 21, 2007 08:59 PM (O5Ss2)
4
Well I suppose someday we can twist the words to justify nuking the guerillas rear operations, because there aren't any civilians. I guess we will see. USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at June 21, 2007 09:22 PM (2OHpj)
5
Isn't Guerillas is a just a term that is, like, ten reporter beheadings shy of Freedom Fighters?
Posted by: Dusty at June 21, 2007 09:57 PM (GJLeQ)
7
Greyrooster, I live in San Antonio, and even though Austin is technically located in Texas it is actually owned and operated by retarded lefties that defected from Northern California (ask Tom Delay). My father, a San Antonio resident for 30+ years, and quite the gentleman and a devout christian moved to Austin because my step mother thought it would be a better place to live. A year later, their back in San Antonio. His explanation for the return, and I'll quote him "That place is fucked!" I nodded in agreement.
Posted by: Rome at June 21, 2007 11:18 PM (/GrlO)
8
The M$M is a dying tyrant. They aren't the gatekeepers of information any longer, the internet has done away with the scarcity of information avenues.
I was told that the Lawyers would be the first up against the wall when the revolution came. I was wrong.
12
Darth Fag continuous to lick his lips at the prospect of visiting the Russian River bathhouses. Believe me. Scum like Darth Fag would never be allowed to collect garbage at the Bohemian Grove. And the fag knows it.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 22, 2007 09:11 AM (yhGrC)
13
How about that. The Dallas Dick Head gets one vote from the Greyrooster.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 22, 2007 09:18 AM (yhGrC)
14
But, but isn't Austin the seat of learning in Texas? If this is the best they can teach the blacks in Austin better close the school. Amazing how many of the black animals running through the streets (terrorist style) were college age. Any coons at school that day. Perhaps someone should check the role amd see what they are really teaching. Nothing worse than a lefturd is conservative clothing.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 22, 2007 09:22 AM (yhGrC)
15
Loads of pictures. Are there going to be any arrests for murdering this man? Hell no. Texas is to frightened of Al Sharton and the black panthers paying them a visit.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 22, 2007 09:25 AM (yhGrC)
17
Don't Guerrilla's fight within their OWN country?!? Does this make me a stormtrooper? Sweet.
Posted by: tbone at June 22, 2007 11:09 AM (HGqHt)
18
Guerillas? How the Hell are men crashing planes into buildings guerillas? Fucking idiots.I was in Jersey City when it happened and I saw the smoke. Those men were not fucking guerillas. Pricks.
Posted by: George Ramos at June 22, 2007 11:38 AM (TmLg9)
19
Greyrooster has been nipping a little bit too much moonshine. I guess I better stop paying taxes so I dont become a "legitimate" target. That is totally sick...guerrilla's....why in the hell does the press want to legitimize the attacks on 9/11? Are they afraid of the terrorists or are terrorists among them.
Posted by: allahakchew at June 22, 2007 03:27 PM (m2p07)
20
Greyrooster, The man beaten to death was hispanic. Hitched a ride home from work. The driver hit a two year old and stepped out to help and the passenger (the man beaten) got out to help the driver. The story was blown out of proportion by the press due to the stupid press release by the Austin Police Dept. They are good at screwing things up as well as shooting black suspects in the back. Austin is like a minature version of San Francisco, weird liberal leftist.
Posted by: allahakchew at June 22, 2007 03:39 PM (m2p07)
21Guerilla is just a generic term that refers to someone who practices asymmetric warfare, and is as close as they can get to saying freedom fighter without showing their true loyalties too openly. All fucking lefturd journalists deserve to fucking hang.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 22, 2007 08:11 PM (jQsc/)
22
Jane: Fuck me? You have the advantage. I sure as hell wouldn't fuck you. Your color doesn't matter to me. I say blacks that beat to death people 20 on 1 are niggers and coons. If you disagree then you're are one of them.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 22, 2007 10:09 PM (k0DWG)
Media Matters Fails To Notice Journalist's Political Contributions (Updated)
...and here we are, doing the job that Democrat noise machines refuse to do.
It also means that, since both Media Matters and 90% of the journalists listed as Democrat donors are in the same boat, that Democrats, Media Matters and the mainstream press work in simpatico. That is, they're all one and the same noise machine.
I await their "nuanced" take on this little bombshell. If it ever comes.
The MSNBC article on the Democrat journalist list above says this:
Donations and other political activity are strictly forbidden at The Washington Post, ABC, CBS, CNN and NPR.
Not really sure when that WaPo policy kicked into gear (of they simply lok the other way for Priest), but it really doesn't matter - nobody was enforcing it anyway. And NPR? That's a larf. Look at the list under "radio." All (D)'s.
It doesn't matter anyway - telling journalists they can't donate to political candidates won't stop them from being biased in favor of those candidates. It will simply make their biases financially untraceable, which is the obvious next move by the media organizations. CYA time! Someone lifted the rock, scattered the roaches, and now the change has got to come down.
This list also proves beyond a reasonable doubt that the mainstream press is balanced by FOX and talk radio, not threatened by it. Tough cookies there, libs.
We're having a field day with this one. You lefties all had it coming for a long time, and now the sunshine has been let into some of the smoky newsrooms of the major media outlets of America. Read 'em and weep.
1
Could it be that journalists, like most people with a higher education, don't support the current Republican party because is it filled with rascists, hypocrites, and religious wack-jobs? Nah, it couldn't be that now could it?
Posted by: Bo at June 21, 2007 02:03 PM (rMxJF)
2
Aww. Somebody's not getting away with lying to the American people about media bias anymore. Isn't that sad.
Your buddies repeating your memes day and night under the guise of 'objectivity' have been B U S T E D as nothing more than shills and financiers for the Democrat party. Like you. Of course you're going to jump to their defense, while whining about FOX and talk radio. Bwahahaha!
is it (sic) filled with rascists (sic), hypocrites, and religious wack-jobs (sic)?
No. They're just brainwashed Democrat mouthpieces, and always have been.
And for the record, liberals are the ones trying to balkanize society into racial, ethnic and religious groups while pretending that they're really not interested in any of those demographics. Liberals are the ones lying by claiming they don't have political biases, and yet we find that they support and contribute to the Democrat political machine by a 9-1 margin. Liberals are the ones trying to hypocritically protect religious groups they see as "victims (Muslims)" while trying to shut out other groups they declare as "oppressors (Christians)." Give it a rest, Bo.
FYI, most people in 'higher education' have never had real jobs. That's where the expression "Those who can, do. Those who can't, teach" comes from.
Can't you be honest about anything you bloviate? That's a rhetorical question.
Posted by: Good Lt at June 21, 2007 03:45 PM (yMbfY)
Jesus preached do onto others, turn the other cheek, love thy neighbour, and a host of other benevolent things. So I have to ask myself how warmongers of pastor John Hagee's type
get off twisting Jesus's teachings so that peace is war, love is hate?
Snake oil salesman that live in obscene luxury because little old ladies send them their pension cheques in a blind belief that they will obtain salvation.
I have nothing against Christians, in fact I am a practicing Christian. I simply detest false Christians - one's who regularly pass judgement on others and do not respect individual liberties.
I don't care about or even like John Hagee. If you don't like his version of Christianity, there are others out there. Get over it. People who don't agree with your worldview exist. Tolerate them, because they tolerate you - you seem to have a problem with tolerance.
Jesus wasn't a liberal, because Jesus wasn't a communist. Jesus wasn't a Democrat. Jesus wasn't a Republican. In fact, nobody in the Ancient world was a Democrat or Republican, liberal or conservative. Get it?
Jesus didn't advocate stealing others' money to pay for the whims of your own beliefs, for example. Liberals believe in that religiously. Jesus believed in voluntary charity, not forced charity.
And by the way, you've been hijacking the thread with this ongoing rant about your cartoonish vision of "Christianity," which you are conflating with Republicanism/Liberalism. They're not one and the same - that's why they're all different words.
None of anything you wrote here has anything to say about the OBJECTIVE JOURNALISTS LYING ABOUT BEING OBJECTIVE, which is the whole point of the post.
Liberal opinions are fine. Liberal journalists pretending they don't have opinions or liberal agendas is LYING.
Therefore, you (like Clinton before you) defend lying and dishonesty as "not that big of a deal, as long as it is Republicans/neeeeeeocons you are lying about and to."
And what did Jesus say about lying? How about adultery? How about infidelity? How about those who don't believe in Him? Go look that all up, and come back with some evidence that Jesus was a Clintonite. I anxiously await your findings.
Don't pretend that liberals who want to silence conservatives in radio with government intervention and regulation of opinion are concerned with individual liberties. They are concerned with THEIR liberties, and stifling the liberties of those with whom they disagree. They are the most Stalinistic people in the country
It is liberals who want to restrict religious freedom in America (guaranteed in the Bill o' Rights). It is liberals breaking crosses off war memorials, courthouses and manger scenes. It is liberals defending the actions of militant Islam while trying to draw contemporary comparisons to Christianity, when any educated person with two brain cells to rub together can see that one if truly more violent as a religion that the other at this time in history. You are a moral idiot, because you can't distinguish good from bad, and better from worse. That's a self-inflicted condition, by the way.
Stop lying, and stop trying to make Jesus a Democrat. Jesus transcends political alignment, especially liberal, secular political alignment.
And learn to stay on topic in the comments.
Posted by: Good Lt at June 21, 2007 09:37 PM (yMbfY)
Posted by: Michael Weaver at June 22, 2007 03:16 AM (2OHpj)
10
Why des Bush always say he wants a "liberal democracy" in Iraq and not a conservative democracy ?
Posted by: John Ryan at June 22, 2007 10:56 AM (TcoRJ)
11
That doesn't mean that everyone in a democracy is a liberal, retard. It is liberal with a small "l," meaning that it adopts classical liberal values.
He doesn't say "leftist democracy" either, which it what you want. There' no such thing as a leftist democracy, because leftists would make sure it ceases to be a democracy.
And we're not a pure democracy, either. We're a representative republic.
Posted by: Good Lt at June 22, 2007 11:51 AM (yMbfY)
12
GEE ... JOHN, If Bush is so "liberal" why do you hate him so much??? Someone else made the point, but just to be clear, being "Liberal" isn't the same as being "liberal". Just like "Progressive" really means reaching backwards to failed institutions like communism, instead of advancing civilization using the most reliable system ever tested, which is the one our Founding Fathers gave us. Yep ... "Progressive" is just a word. Real "progress" comes from the proven American way of doing things. I know you won't get this because your ideological father was a man who lived on the wealth of his friends. All he produced of his own was an arguement that justified his own selfish, lazy, leeching behavior. Not that ol' Marx didn't touch quite a few lives, what with all the dead Ukrainians and all. Your just mad cause Mamma took your 'Che' action figures away from you again didn't she? Probably for'executing' your sister's 'Barbie' dolls again ...
USA, all the way!
Posted by: Michael Weaver at June 22, 2007 05:15 PM (2OHpj)
13
Che action figures. Ha, ha. I can see John Ryan sitting on the floor (camel jockeys do that) playing with his Che, Fidel and Hugo figurines.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 22, 2007 10:21 PM (k0DWG)
Color us all surprised - we were under the impression that journalists were unbiased, neutral, disinterested stewards of facts and information. Liberals will deny and try to obfuscate and distort this, but all you have to do is follow the money and see who 'journalists' personally open their wallets for while pretending they have no biases.
This list puts Former Clinton Chief of Staff John Podesta's (D) "study" on talk radio into some context.
The extent and depth of this bias is unbelievable how biased the 'news media' (all media, including TV, radio, magazine and newspaper). Click below the fold to see the 5-1 pro-Democrat imbalance of just the nation's newspaper journalists:
FOLLOW THE LIBERAL MONEY BELOW THE FOLD --->
more...
1
Is this your smoking gun that the press is Liberal?
LOL!
Could it be that journalists, like most people with a higher education, don't support the current Republican party because is it filled with rascists, hypocrites, and religious wack-jobs?
Nah, it couldn't be that now could it?
Posted by: Bo at June 21, 2007 01:39 PM (rMxJF)
2
It's a shot in the dark, I know, but I'm going to take a WILD guess that Bo votes Democrat.
By the way, there is another report out showing that 90% radio talk shows are dominated by the right wing. But so what, this war is not about right vs left. It is about right vs wrong - and all the Republicans except Paul are pandering to religious right extremists who are so far removed from the teachings of Jesus Christ they may as well be cannibals.
Next.....
Posted by: Bo at June 21, 2007 07:00 PM (euN4c)
4
9 to 1... Harry ReidBO has a lower education than Inmate William Jefferson (D-LA)! Fu*K Yeah!!!
Posted by: JihadGene at June 21, 2007 07:29 PM (l8Hl5)
5
P.S. There is another report out that shows at least 90% of what BOalleges is 100% Weasel Shit!
Posted by: JihadGene at June 21, 2007 07:33 PM (l8Hl5)
6
Political talk radio is conservative territory. Liberals just plain suck at it, because (as this list shows), there is already a saturation of liberals in the 'objective' news media. Sorry, Bo. Those are the facts, and you can't change them.
And they're (with the exception of sports) supposed to generally be objective and non-partisan. They aren't. We have statistical, financial evidence of this now. We see that talk radio is the ONE format which liberals want control of but have absolutely no answer for and no control over. Stalinists will advocate government control, but that controls will also have to now extend to the news media. Hence, a crisis of the First Amendment. It isn't like there's a law preventing liberals from engagin in political talk radio (Rhani Rhodes, Mike Malloy, Taylor Marsh, Ed Schultz, Al Franken, Sam Seder, etc.). There are plenty of lib talkers. The just plain SUCK.
For BO, only 100% Democrat opinion and Democrat-filtered news all-day-all-the-time is acceptable. He wants to live in a Democrat-approved echo chamber, and can't as long as political talk radio is ruled by conservatives, balancing the uniform one-sidedness of the media. That's a damn shame.
No wonder he's so ticked by this story.
Posted by: Good Lt at June 21, 2007 09:48 PM (yMbfY)
7
By the way, there is another report out showing that 90% radio talk shows are dominated by the right wing. ~~ Bo
Progressive radio host Ed Schultz appeared on MSNBC last night to discuss the new report by the Center for American Progress and Free Press, which revealed the conservative monopoly that currently exists over talk radio.
Schultz — the host of the most popular progressive radio show in the country — debunked the right-wing myth that conservatives dominate simply because they are winning in a “free market.†Schultz explained that the market is being controlled by a few ownership groups that are forcing conservative talk shows into local markets:
I beat Sean Hannity in Denver. I beat him in Seattle. I beat him in Portland. I beat in San Diego. How many markets do I have to beat Hannity in before I get 200 or 300 stations? It’s an ownership issue. … The fact is, it’s market opportunities and liberal talkers, progressive talkers are being held to a totally different standard than conservatives.
Posted by: JihadGene at June 22, 2007 09:38 PM (l8Hl5)
10
Progressive radio show. Who the hell decided Schultz was progressive. He's regressive back to 1920 Russia.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 22, 2007 10:26 PM (k0DWG)
11
In other news: oil companies, media moguls, polluters, developers, pharmaceuticals, defense contractors, and douche bags donate to Republicans 10 to 0.
Expect this Story and Reporter to Be Buried Quickly
Aptly named MSNBC reporter Bill Dedman reveals the unsurprising fact that many "journalists" are on the rolls of political donors:
MSNBC.com identified 144 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 17 gave to Republicans. Two gave to both parties.
Another unsurprising fact: today's journalism doesn't require much in the way of intelligence - so long as one's political beliefs are suitably leftist - many of the donors didn't just give to candidates, but to lunatic fringe organizations like MoveOn.org, and many don't understand why it's a big deal.
5
Why the surprise. Journalists are the product of the liberal, socialist, whimpy professors that give them degrees in Journalism. Even Pol Pot has a use.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 22, 2007 09:33 AM (yhGrC)
Hirsi Ali Confronts Media's Role in Permitting JihadTough questions for the "objective" media:
"Journalists ... face the unpleasant reality of taking sides or getting lost in the incoherence of the so-called middle ground," she said. "The role of journalists serving the West, who understand what this particular battle is about, will be to inform their audiences accordingly."
Hirsi Ali said journalists must acknowledge the discrepancies between tenets of Islam and foundational beliefs of the West before they can accurately report on Islamic-related events.
Although Hirsi Ali praised journalists' work since the Sept. 11th attacks, she said reluctance to defend Western values against Islamic threats surprises her.
"Why are Westerners so insecure about everything that is so wonderful about the West: political freedom, free press, freedom of expression, equal rights for women and men and gays and heterosexuals, critical thinking, and the great strength of scrutinizing ideas - and especially faith?" Hirsi Ali asked.
She said Western journalists appeared hesitant to defend free speech - "the very right from which they earn their bread."
1"Why are Westerners so insecure about everything that is so wonderful
about the West: political freedom, free press, freedom of expression,
equal rights for women and men and gays and heterosexuals, critical
thinking, and the great strength of scrutinizing ideas - and especially
faith?" Hirsi Ali asked.
That question would have merit if we did have such freedoms, but those died long ago, except for weirdos, scumbags, lefturds, and unevolved animals who rape and murder White people with immunity. Revolution is the only answer.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 20, 2007 04:06 PM (jQsc/)
2
Shocked to be informed today that 62% of New York City is foreign born. THAT'S FRIGGIN CRAZY! It's already so crowded that the Democrat, Republican, Independent mayor wishes to charge $8.00 to drive in Manhatten. In 1898 the average vehicle speed in NYC was 9 mph. Now it's 6 mph.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 20, 2007 05:05 PM (NOVbS)
NYT Doing PR for Hamas
The New York Times giving precious ink and space to Hamas supporters and apologists? Well, this is just shocking. The 'editorial' (terrorist PR) is basically a list of demands from Hamas which says give us X and the killing will stop.
Which of course is bunk, since nothing short of the extermination of Israel will (hypothetically) cause the killing and insanity to stop for the group that makes annihilating Israel a pillar of its existence. And even if that happens (which it won't), the killing will continue among the Islamists, since they spend a good portion of their lives killing each other, too.
Some of us have been, you know, alive and perceptive over the past few decades.
2
Their leadership no more wants the destruction of Israel than a cactus enema, because then they would lose their reason for being, and their international support would dry up, thus forcing them to actually do something productive. They only care about maintaining a perpetual state of war.
Posted by: Improbulus Maximus at June 20, 2007 12:07 PM (jQsc/)
Boston Globe: Dirty Jooos Causing Gaza Troubles
Not only does the editorial board of the Boston Globe question whether the Palestinian Civil War is really a civil war, they blame it on Israel:
The Hamas campaign to eradicate Fatah from Gaza is certainly not the sole cause of Gazans' misery. They long suffered from Israel's suffocating occupation, and then from Ariel Sharon's foolishly unilateral withdrawal in 2005, a move that allowed Hamas to bid for power with the misleading claim that its rockets and suicide bombings had driven Israeli soldiers and settlers out of Gaza. Gazans were victimized as well by the corruption and misrule of Yasser Arafat's Fatah cronies.
That's right, the Palestinian Civil War is not really the fault of the poor, victimized, innocent Palestinians who elected a terrorist organization as their government (and, by the way, ululated in joy when the Twin Towers fell), it's those evil Zionist pigs and monkeys.
There's only one thing to say to the Boston Globe's editorial board: SIEG HEIL!
UPDATE (Good Lt): I'm completely and giddily in sync with Ace here:
Me? I'm just hoping a lot of extremists get killed. I think for once I'll be pleased by the news coming out of a Muslim country.
Is joking appropriate? Why yes it is. These animals are making all their own decisions; if they choose to butcher everything that moves, including themselves, what can we do but laugh darkly at them?
1
This inability to identify and accept personal moral responsibility and always blaming others for ones own problems betokens a personal and societal life devoid of morality or civility.
You know, I almost pity the Paleo's.
Posted by: Garduneh Mehr at June 14, 2007 05:14 PM (j97MF)
2
"nothing could be better than red on red unless it's pali on pali"
I wish both Hamas and Fatah all the luck in the world in killing each other.
Posted by: Barry at June 14, 2007 06:04 PM (PzQS1)
3
I hope Hamas get nice and cozy with a big build up in Gaza so it will make it easier for Israel to wipe out a bunch of them.
Posted by: Randman at June 14, 2007 06:04 PM (Sal3J)
4
OK, is it just me, or the mental gymnastics performed by the Boston Globe just to hard to understand?
First, this is the Joooooooos fault for 40 years of occupation.
But wait, It's also the Jooos fault for leaving Gaza like all the leftists wanted.
Soooooooooooo, which is it?
These morons elected this govt, and are now dealing with what I call "The Law of Unintended Consequences".
BRILLIANT!!!!!
Posted by: Todler at June 14, 2007 08:28 PM (wxO4R)
5
When you throw your hat in the ring for terrorists and every kind of degenerate scum the way Leftards do it's inevitable that they're going to sound retarded trying to defend them.
Posted by: doriangrey at June 14, 2007 10:49 PM (XvkRd)
8
The BOSTON GLOBE the NEWS YORK TIMES and LOS ANGELES TIMES none worth reading none worth lining a birdscage with
Posted by: sandpiper at June 15, 2007 12:45 AM (g1M1/)
9
Nothing will ever top the Palis drowning in their own excrement when the dam to their cesspool broke, but this comes closer than anything else yet.
I hope there's lots of video coming out of this red-on-red violence. "Toss the Fatah F#@& From the Building" seems like a good game. Excellent beer drinkin' material.
Ace shows the NYT taking this to heart, in an article which makes sure to slime at least six Republicans by name as 'nativists' while not mentioning a single, solitary Democrat in any context at all. None. He characterizes it as a Jedi Mind Trick - I categorize it as an egregious example of Democrat propaganda masquerading as news.
Republicans Mentioned By Name: Six
Democrats Mentioned By Name: Zero
Mentions Of Republicans As Either Nativist Monsters Or Incompetent Failures: Six
Mentions of Democrats Contributing to Demise of Bill For "Nativist" Motives: Zero
Total Mentions of "Republicans," By Name Or Party Affiliation, As Architectects of This Putative Disaster: Nine
Total Mentions of "Democrats" Even Being Present In The Room During This Putative Disaster: Zero. Zero point fucking zero times the square root of zero, log zero
Gee - the New York Times marching in lockstep with direct orders to do so by the Senate leader of the Democrat party. Not that we've spent years pointing this kind of this out to the anti-FOX brigades stuck on perpetual stoopid, but the proof is in the own ink of the NYT that they take orders directly from the Democrats in Congress.
I also love how the article is entitled " A Failure of Leadership," as if the Democrats aren't in control of both Houses of Congress. Somebody page the NYT and let them know that the Democrats shoulder Congressional failure responsibility ever since November of last year. If the widdle babies don't like that, we can arrange a change in 2008.
Cue moonbats screaming "FOX does it too!!!" Which, of course, is a tacit admission that they, too, know this hit piece is Democrat propaganda masquerading as news in the nation's most 'important' newspaper.
Pathetic. Not as pathetic as the NYT stock performance over the past five years, but pathetic. And we're sure their relentlessly worthless, biased coverage has nothing to do with their financial troubles:
Posted by: Good Lt. at
08:32 AM
| No Comments
| Add Comment
Post contains 336 words, total size 2 kb.
Please go fuck yourself and die......
.............................................................................................................................................
Good Lt.
Posted by: doriangrey at June 07, 2007 11:43 AM (XvkRd)
4
John Smith: You're right. Us right wingers just keep trying instead of quiting like a sissy assed left winger would. Bend over boy. You might even like it.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 07, 2007 12:06 PM (wWnfQ)
5
Funny that it was a Dem who presided over the Presidency back during WWII. But, that's still the days when Dems had testicles and they weren't a bunch of castrated Nancy-boys running around like eunuchs trying to keep their constituency from rolling over on them like a crocodile with an ox in its jaws. Yeah. Dems had balls up until Kennedy and then they turned into a bunch of whiney, pussy-whipped little girls who sound more like cultural Marxists than American politicians. So, John Smith, fuck you and the horse you rode in on. If you want to smoke crack and naively believe that the world will just fix itself if we do nothing, then you might want to live in Canada instead. This is America, and in America, we've been kicking ass and taking names for 200 plus years because we long ago figured out that if you want to get shit done, you have to do it yourself.
Posted by: DrTheopolis at June 07, 2007 01:07 PM (9ZqGe)
No thanks Dr Theopolis, I'm into blonde women, not men. Thanks for the replies, it's nice to know what you think of me. I figured you all curse and rant because of your political beliefs. And no thanks Dorian Grey, I don't want to fuck myself. I'll die someday. I just don't know when. And I do love my country. I support the war in Afghanistan but not the war in Iraq. And to me, all political parties are corrupt. Jefferson and Delay are both corrupt and awaiting trials.
Posted by: John Smith at June 07, 2007 03:57 PM (TmLg9)
10
John Smith: Don't really give a shit what you think. If you don't support our nation on both fronts you are not much of an American. There were as many Dems yelling remove Saddam as there were Republicans. Only difference is Right wingers don't quit and turncoat when things don't go our way. We keep up the fight and don't give support to the enemy by bitching at our own government. WTF is a matter with you lefturds? Bitching about the part of America who have the balls to keep up the fight. We are fighting over there to keep from fighting over here. If you can't comprehend that, have enough class to support your government by shutting your mouth. It's a fucking war for our childrens future. Not a political contest.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 07, 2007 04:45 PM (iv0xv)
Posted by: John Smith at June 07, 2007 05:21 PM (TmLg9)
12
So you can pick and choose who and what you support, John? So you support the troops in Afghanistan and wish them all the best and hope they defeat the Taliban, right?
yet you say you dont support the war in Iraq so in extension you do not support the troops in Iraq and wish to see them defeated, right John?
Thats what im getting and as such here is what im gonna pick and choose.
Youre probally a nice guy, but youre a friggin coward who would probally screw over a good friend to get what you wanted the moment his back was turned. Youre no better than the Islamicnazis the troops are fighting and as such that makes you out to be one of the enemy and a useless pig.
See, i can pick and choose as well.
Oh, and like they did during WWII, any journalist who is out on the field in Iraq/Afghanistan should have their reports and stories censored by the military so that they dont "accidently" leak out secret information to the enemies of America. It worked than, it should be done now. If the NYCrimes doesnt like it, well they dont get to have any of their journalists(really enemy spies as far as im concerned) be out in the field. Boo-friggin-Hoo!
Posted by: JoiseyMafia at June 07, 2007 06:08 PM (6l2pd)
13
Amusing conjecture. Now go to the Onion and read George Washington's opinion of George Bush ... seems Washington showed up last Sunday on "Meet the Press."
17
The Onion stinks or is it onions stink. I've read the Onion before. Its manned by snooty, smarmy, self-important Marxist Liberals who love to pat themselves on the back for being such clever and sarcastic beavers; so busy building dams to hold back the tide of logic and rationalism that, if it got through, would surely taint their delusional bath waters with notions and ideas like national pride or love of one's country. We wouldn't want you onions to ripen to such quaint notions after all. All the while, they get to snicker at Conservatives and thumb their noses at what they perceive as a bunch of war-mongering, fascist bullies who won't let them have what they want because those Conservatives are just such an unenlightened bunch. Boo hoo! Well, you can keep on stinking Onionite just don't stink up the Jawa Report with your ignorant pandering. Don't forget to call your buddies at the Onion so you can remind them to wear their Che Guevera shirts on Monday morning to show Solidarity. You want to make sure your as Pro-Communist and Anti-American as you can be so you can curl up with your Onion and feel so good about yourself and your comrades.
Posted by: DrTheopolis at June 08, 2007 01:18 PM (9ZqGe)
Fair and Balanced Coverage? PBS reporter Jeffrey Brown did an excellent report on the indictment of William Jefferson (D. LA) on the News Hour yesterday. But don’t bother trying to link the text of the story on PBS’s webpage. PBS punished poor Jeff for his lack of vision by depriving the text to his story of a link.
WASHINGTON - Rep. William J. Jefferson told congressional leaders Tuesday that he plans to take a temporary leave of absence from the House Small Business Committee after his indictment on charges of receiving more than $500,000 in bribes, according to a Democratic leadership aide.
The official, speaking on condition of anonymity because Jefferson's announcement had not been made public, said the Louisiana Democrat was stepping down while his legal affairs are resolved. A spokeswoman for the congressman did not have immediate comment.
It seems to me that a congressman willing to sell his er….uh…. “services†to Nigeria might be big news. The Tom Delay issue was front page news for weeks, hell months.
I’m not sure what the difference is between these two cases. Both seem to be strait forward greed over duty sell outs. Jefferson should get the boot and now. I had the same opinion over the Delay story. If Delay was corrupt he should go and the same should be for Jefferson.
But where is the outrage? Where are the hundreds of Photo Shopped images and political cartoons of Jefferson? Where is the stern rebuke from Nancy Pelosi, who promised, “The most ethical congress in history.�
Someone please help me because I cannot see any difference between the two cases that warrants the overblown coverage of Delay vs. the hush hush coverage of William Jefferson. What is so untouchable about Jefferson that even righty blog coverage seems a bit sparse?
1Someone please help me because I cannot see any difference between the
two cases that warrants the overblown coverage of Delay vs. the hush
hush coverage of William Jefferson.
The difference is obvious: Jefferson is a Democrat, Delay is one of those evil Rethuglikkkans.
2
Well perhaps also because Delay was the Republican majority leader, not just one of 435 regular congressmen.
Also of course there seemed to be a Republican consensus to protect him, going so far as to change there own rules just before he was indicted. I haven't yet seen any similar moves on the part of the Democrats. Here is a link to the Republican rules change.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A54572-2004Nov16.html
My personal choice would be for them to be celled together.
Posted by: John Ryan at June 05, 2007 02:26 PM (TcoRJ)
3
"My personal choice would be for them to be celled together"
Fair enough.....
Posted by: Darth Odie at June 05, 2007 02:28 PM (YHZAl)
4
A google search for "Tom Delay indicted" revealed about 600,000 hits.
A google search for William Jefferson indicted" revealed about 700,000 hits.
Howie where is your sense of racial injustice ??? lol
Posted by: John Ryan at June 05, 2007 02:35 PM (TcoRJ)
5
Uh, John Ryan, a google search for "William Jefferson indicted" has a grand total of 565 hits.
"Tom DeLay indicted" has 23,400.
When you remove the quotations, you get more hits for Jefferson because of some guy named William Jefferson Clinton, and the fact that William and Jefferson are more common names for criminals in America than DeLay.
Posted by: wooga at June 05, 2007 03:01 PM (t9sT5)
6
Now perhaps we should compare the staments of Pelosi and then Speaker of the House Hastert when members of their own party were indicted.
Denis HASTERT " He will fight this and we will give him our utmost support"
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/09/28/delay.indict/
Nancy PELOSI " The charges in the indictment are extremely serious. While Mr Jefferson, just as any other citizen, must be considered innocent until proven guilty, if these charges are true, they constitute an egregious and unacceptable abuse of public trust and power.
There does seem to be quite a bit of difference between the 2 statements.
Posted by: John Ryan at June 05, 2007 03:02 PM (TcoRJ)
7
Bigots. Just a bunch of bigots. Not taking into consider that his ancestors were slaves. Parents were sharecroppers. The socio-economic situation where he was raised. He was just trying to get a piece of the pie like the rest of the democrats. That's the problem with you racist bigots. You fail to take into consideration that you white mutha fuckas drove him to be a thief, a bride taker and a liar. Because of your racism he was forced comitted these crimes. Bigots.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 05, 2007 03:05 PM (1h1Tb)
8
Scotter Libby just got 30 months and a $250,000 fine for lying. Wonder how much time Willie Jefferson will get.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 05, 2007 03:07 PM (1h1Tb)
9
With all respect, I find the comparisons of Tom DeLay and a crook like Jefferson odious.
DeLay was the victim of a partisan DA who went `jury shopping' to get an increasingly feeble indictment which has had almost all of its charges thrown out of court for lack of evidence.
The reason DeLay resigned was because he was pressured into it by the Bush Administration and the RNC because they wanted him gone for PR purposes.
Tom DeLay was a superb legislator, a stalwart on national defense,on Israel, and on conservative principles. As with other supporters the Bush Administration has thrown under the bus, DeLay's absence has not endeared the president to his enemies, but made things a lot tougher for Bush.
Posted by: Freedom Fighter at June 05, 2007 03:54 PM (+55wR)
Defending indicted Democrat criminals is not a good way to get people to vote Democrat.
Posted by: Good Lt at June 05, 2007 03:56 PM (yMbfY)
11
Willie Chocolate City Nagin says New Orleans needs Willie Jefferson and supports him. Now we know where the rest of the $500,000 went.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 05, 2007 04:02 PM (1h1Tb)
12
"With all respect, I find the comparisons of Tom DeLay and a crook like Jefferson odious"
Yes I am odius thus the Darth Odie. I agree if anything Jefferson's alledged crimes are more numerous and serious and involves a foreign power. SB bigger news. Still does not excuse Tom for getting caught up in his mess. You seem to forget he is a politician not the Christ.
Posted by: Darth Odie at June 05, 2007 04:21 PM (YHZAl)
17
We dont call it pBS for nothing its no better then the rest of the liberal left-wing news media
Posted by: sandpiper at June 06, 2007 10:25 AM (hm7/x)
18
O don't think so. I took my image from an AP story. Heard about the fox thing....let me double check..... (sound of howie rummaging aroundthe sandcrawler).... Ok, er uh, I'll be darned, I got it right.
Posted by: Darth Odie at June 06, 2007 01:44 PM (YHZAl)
19
John Ryan you are a lying raghead. If you didn't like America why did you bring your filty arab ass here to begin with. Or was it you goat fucking parents who brought you over. They should received the death penalty for that one.
Posted by: greyrooster at June 06, 2007 04:22 PM (30TNB)
PBS reporter Jeffrey Brown did an excellent report on the indictment of William Jefferson (D. LA) on the News Hour yesterday. But don’t bother trying to link the text of the story on PBS’s webpage. PBS punished poor Jeff for his lack of vision by depriving the text to his story of a link. 
