OT - John Kerry - Conspiracy to Commit Murder ???

AstroPax wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 14:03:24 -0500, Walt

WHOOOOOSH!

Is that the best you can do, Walt?

Ok. I'll try to splain it to you more slowly:

Walt wrote
If you're serious about this stuff, you need to take his criticisms
seriously. Dismissing them out of hand is just pure
head-in-the-sand-ism.

Astro wrote:
??? What are you talking about? I post a link indicating a
potential conflict of interest and ethics breach by Viacom/CBS/60
Minutes and you think I'm dismissing things?

Exactly. You're looking for any excuse to dismiss Clarke's story and
change the subject. That way you don't have to listen to things you
don't want to hear.

Anyway, one clear difference between you and me is that you appear to
have the stamina to continue to argue with someone long after it's clear
that you'll never ever get anywhere. I don't have the patience for
that.

--
//-Walt
//
// http://tinyurl.com/yubxo

Walt wrote:

AstroPax wrote:

snip

Newsmax. Drudge. Do you ever read any real news sources?

Drudge, in addition to his own articles, provides links to a wide
variety of nominally reputable on-line news sources.

Anyway, even assuming it's true (which coming from Drudge is about a 30%
chance) it doesn't rebut the factual claims of Richard Clarke.

Are you sure about that? I haven't been keeping score, but my guess
would be higher.

If you're serious about this stuff, you need to take his criticisms
seriously. Dismissing them out of hand is just pure
head-in-the-sand-ism.

--
Cheers,
Bev
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++ +++++++++++++++
"History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people
maintaining a free civil government."
-- letter from Thomas Jefferson to Baron vonHumboldt, 1813

The Real Bev wrote:

Anyway, even assuming it's true (which coming from Drudge is about a 30%
chance) it doesn't rebut the factual claims of Richard Clarke.

Are you sure about that?

Yes, I'm sure about that. It doesn't rebut any factual claims.

I haven't been keeping score, but my guess would be higher.

Oh, you're talking about the 30% figure. Like 63.24% of all statistics
on usenet, it's completely made up.

I don't follow him that closely, but he's been wrong often enough that
he has -ahem- somewhat limited credibility. Remember this one from a
couple of weeks ago? http://www.drudgereport.com/mattjk1.htm


--
//-Walt
//
// http://tinyurl.com/yubxo

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 15:04:49 -0500, Walt
wrote:

Anyway, one clear difference between you and me is that you appear to
have the stamina to continue to argue with someone long after it's clear
that you'll never ever get anywhere. I don't have the patience for
that.

And one clear difference between you and me is that you just called
this thread an "argument". I call it a "debate".

-Astro

AstroPax wrote:

And one clear difference between you and me is that you just called
this thread an "argument".

No I didn't.

http://tinyurl.com/vsru

--
//-Walt
//
// http://tinyurl.com/yubxo

"Walt" wrote in message
...
AstroPax wrote:

And one clear difference between you and me is that you just called
this thread an "argument".

No I didn't.

http://tinyurl.com/vsru

Just like rsa.

Also this, I stunbled on this morning:

http://tinyurl.com/2f3wa

In article , AstroPax says...

On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 13:01:54 -0500, Walt
wrote:

Newsmax. Drudge. Do you ever read any real news sources?

Sure, but I usually try and avoid becoming "boxed-in" by limiting
myself to the big liberal controlled media giants such as NBC, ABC,
CBS, CNN, etc.


//snip

-Astro


Then maybe you should try 'fair and balanced' Fox (Murdoch's personal pulpit).
BWAHAHAHA. Isn't O'wrongly objective? Thought so.

BoftheW

"Walt" wrote in message
...
Chuck wrote:

snip Drudge-esque rumor mongering

Drudge also broke that pesky Monica Lewinski "rumor".

"Walt" wrote in message
...
AstroPax wrote:
On Mon, 22 Mar 2004 14:03:24 -0500, Walt

WHOOOOOSH!

Is that the best you can do, Walt?

Ok. I'll try to splain it to you more slowly:

Walt wrote
If you're serious about this stuff, you need to take his criticisms
seriously. Dismissing them out of hand is just pure
head-in-the-sand-ism.

Astro wrote:
??? What are you talking about? I post a link indicating a
potential conflict of interest and ethics breach by Viacom/CBS/60
Minutes and you think I'm dismissing things?

Exactly. You're looking for any excuse to dismiss Clarke's story and
change the subject. That way you don't have to listen to things you
don't want to hear.

Is that anything like dismissing a story that comes from "non real" news
orgs. like Drudge (Lewinski) and FoxNews? I'll admit that news organizations
tilt news depending on their political leanings. That's nothing new. The
difference is that there is now a conservative side too. Your just going to
have to get used to not having your liberal view being the only one put
forth these days Walt.

Anyway, one clear difference between you and me is that you appear to
have the stamina to continue to argue with someone long after it's clear
that you'll never ever get anywhere. I don't have the patience for
that.

--
//-Walt
//
// http://tinyurl.com/yubxo

"Richard Henry" wrote in message
news:XVI7c.98$Q45.1@fed1read02...

"Walt" wrote in message
...
AstroPax wrote:

And one clear difference between you and me is that you just called
this thread an "argument".

No I didn't.

http://tinyurl.com/vsru

Just like rsa.

Also this, I stunbled on this morning:

http://tinyurl.com/2f3wa

Hey! Can you spell stumbbled?