NOYB wrote:

Since elections aren't until next year, our troops will be there for at
least that long. When all of the info comes out in September and October
about the Iranian connection with al Qaeda, and about the Iranians impending
acquisition of nukes, even you'll be calling for a US-led invasion.

Not with anyone named Bush in the White House. I don't trust the lying
buttwipe, his thug of a vice president, his fundie attorney general or
any of the other crapmeisters who make up the Bush misadministration.



--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me -
you can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept.
17, 2002

NOYB wrote:
1) you've quoted the extreme-leftist paper, The Guardian, so I'm suspect of
any factual and accurate reports from them.

Hah! *You* were quoting the Guardian a short while ago. Isn't this a
nice double standard, it's credible for you but not for him?





2) If the Guardian story *is* accurate, then Iran best be careful what they
ask for. They figured that we'd wipe out Saddam for them, eh?

We did.

Now you're crowing about how Bush & Cheney were outsmarted and
outmaneuvered by the Iranians? Good work, Comrade NOBBY!

DSK

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

Since elections aren't until next year, our troops will be there for at
least that long. When all of the info comes out in September and
October
about the Iranian connection with al Qaeda, and about the Iranians
impending
acquisition of nukes, even you'll be calling for a US-led invasion.

Not with anyone named Bush in the White House. I don't trust the lying
buttwipe, his thug of a vice president, his fundie attorney general or
any of the other crapmeisters who make up the Bush misadministration.


Fine. fBut if Kerry is President, would you support a US-led invasion of
Iran if: a) further evidence comes forth about Iran's complicity in the 1998
Khobar Towers bombing and/or the 9/11 attack, or b) Iran remains determined
to seek nukes despite UN condemnation.

NOYB wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:

Since elections aren't until next year, our troops will be there for at
least that long. When all of the info comes out in September and
October
about the Iranian connection with al Qaeda, and about the Iranians
impending
acquisition of nukes, even you'll be calling for a US-led invasion.

Not with anyone named Bush in the White House. I don't trust the lying
buttwipe, his thug of a vice president, his fundie attorney general or
any of the other crapmeisters who make up the Bush misadministration.


Fine. fBut if Kerry is President, would you support a US-led invasion of
Iran if: a) further evidence comes forth about Iran's complicity in the 1998
Khobar Towers bombing and/or the 9/11 attack, or b) Iran remains determined
to seek nukes despite UN condemnation.



Nope. We can't handle what's on our plate now.



--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me -
you can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept.
17, 2002

NOYB wrote:
"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
1) you've quoted the extreme-leftist paper, The Guardian, so I'm suspect
of
any factual and accurate reports from them.

Hah! *You* were quoting the Guardian a short while ago. Isn't this a
nice double standard, it's credible for you but not for him?



There's a difference. If a liberal wants to prove something to a
conservative, he needs to use a conservative news source to back his claim
(ie-Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, etc).


Some of us aren't so binary. I don't have any problem with serious,
reliable conservative sources of news. That does not include Fox or the
Moonie Times. The WSJ is fine for business reporting and interesting
features, but it is extraordinarily right wing on political news.




--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me -
you can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept.
17, 2002

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
1) you've quoted the extreme-leftist paper, The Guardian, so I'm
suspect
of
any factual and accurate reports from them.

Hah! *You* were quoting the Guardian a short while ago. Isn't this a
nice double standard, it's credible for you but not for him?



There's a difference. If a liberal wants to prove something to a
conservative, he needs to use a conservative news source to back his
claim
(ie-Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, etc).


Some of us aren't so binary. I don't have any problem with serious,
reliable conservative sources of news. That does not include Fox or the
Moonie Times. The WSJ is fine for business reporting and interesting
features, but it is extraordinarily right wing on political news.

I'd be interested to know what you consider to be "serious, reliable
*conservative* sources of news". Please don't include any op-ed pieces
from the NY Times, Washington Post, or LA Times, either. Any story that Dan
Rather or Tom Brokaw has a hand in is also out of bounds.

What are your "serious, reliable *CONSERVATIVE* sources of news"?

JohnH wrote:

On Mon, 2 Aug 2004 21:09:25 -0400, "NOYB" wrote:


"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
"DSK" wrote in message
...
NOYB wrote:
1) you've quoted the extreme-leftist paper, The Guardian, so I'm
suspect
of
any factual and accurate reports from them.

Hah! *You* were quoting the Guardian a short while ago. Isn't this a
nice double standard, it's credible for you but not for him?



There's a difference. If a liberal wants to prove something to a
conservative, he needs to use a conservative news source to back his
claim
(ie-Fox News, the Wall Street Journal, Washington Times, etc).


Some of us aren't so binary. I don't have any problem with serious,
reliable conservative sources of news. That does not include Fox or the
Moonie Times. The WSJ is fine for business reporting and interesting
features, but it is extraordinarily right wing on political news.

I'd be interested to know what you consider to be "serious, reliable
*conservative* sources of news". Please don't include any op-ed pieces
from the NY Times, Washington Post, or LA Times, either. Any story that Dan
Rather or Tom Brokaw has a hand in is also out of bounds.

What are your "serious, reliable *CONSERVATIVE* sources of news"?



You've got me holding my breath waiting for this answer!

John H

On the 'Poco Loco' out of Deale, MD,
on the beautiful Chesapeake Bay!

Me, too. As I said, the WSJ, a conservative paper, is a good source of
some sorts of news, but certainly not news that touches on politics or
policy. The problem with Fox, the WSJ, the Moonie Times, NewsMax, and
these other obviously right-wing outlets is that virtually EVERY article
they publish on politics or policy is colored by their political slant.
While the NY Times and Washington Post are moderate to liberal in their
editorials, their news stories for the most part are straight news...the
reporters report what they see and what they find. You may not like
that, but it is a news slant, not an editorial slant.

Hey, the one newspaper I worked for, the Kansas City Star, was a
moderate to conservative newspaper when I worked there, but its politics
was limited to its editorial pages. No one EVER said to me, "give that
piece a more conservative slant," or "don't cover that guy...he's a
liberal." And when I worked as the Assistant World News Editor, no one
ever said to me, "Your headlines and copy editing is too liberal..."

The political control of the Moonie church at the Washington Times was
documented in great and finite detail in the 1980s. Nothing has changed
there. The slant at Fox is too obvious to be ignored, and NewsMax
*advertises* its position on its opening pages.



--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me -
you can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept.
17, 2002

JohnH wrote:



As to the rest of your story, I take it as just that - another Harry Story.

You must be under the delusion I give a crap. You're just another
mindless, mustered-out military malcontent.

--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me -
you can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept.
17, 2002

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JohnH wrote:



As to the rest of your story, I take it as just that - another Harry
Story.

You must be under the delusion I give a crap. You're just another
mindless, mustered-out military malcontent.



The old Krause MO...insult the other person when losing the argument.

jim-- wrote:

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
JohnH wrote:



As to the rest of your story, I take it as just that - another Harry
Story.

You must be under the delusion I give a crap. You're just another
mindless, mustered-out military malcontent.



The old Krause MO...insult the other person when losing the argument.


Argument? I don't engage in arguments with idiots. What's the point?
Just because you and the rest of the right-wing crap around here post
effluent doesn't mean I'm going to jump into it.



--
"There's an old saying in Tennessee - I know it's in Texas, probably in
Tennessee - that says, fool me once, shame on - shame on you. Fool me -
you can't get fooled again." -George W. Bush, Nashville, Tenn., Sept.
17, 2002