Are you loyal or a traitor?

golf-forums.net
Promoting golf discussion.

Main

Date: 29 Jan 2007 15:47:36
From: larry
Subject: Are you loyal or a traitor?

"That poll about Iraq... came out last week and it posed various
questions about whether folks thought the 'surge' was a good idea or
not. Including the following: 'Do you personally want the Iraq plan
President Bush announced last week to succeed?' And here's how the
American people answered: 63 percent said yes, 22 percent said no, 15
percent said they didn't know. Let me see if I understand that. For
four
years, regardless of this or that position on the merits of the war,
almost everybody has claimed to 'support our troops.' Some of us have
always thought that 'supporting the troops' while not supporting them
in
their mission is not entirely credible. But here we have 37 percent of
the American people actually urging defeat on them. They 'support our
troops' by wanting them to lose. This isn't a question about whether
you
think the plan will work, but whether you want it to work. And nearly
40
percent of respondents either don't know or are actively rooting for
failure... What were the numbers like for D-Day?" -k Steyn"

----------------------------------------------------

Wow! That can only mean that over 1 of 3 Americans WANT the American
military to lose the Iraq war. They want Radical Islam to win and
they WANT more soldiers to be killed and more maimed-- because that is
what any military loss always means. They want America to leave the
battlefield in what would be one of the most ignominious defeats in
American history.

Obviously those same Americans (?) would actually prefer their country
to be defeated than to see a Republican Commander-in-Chief have a
success that would raise his popularity rating-- and likely make it
harder for them to retain a congressional majority.

Are those really loyal Americans-- or traitors?

Larry

Date: 03 Feb 2007 12:06:07
From: Simon
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

On Feb 2, 7:02 pm, "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com >
wrote:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ----
>
> "Networks Distort Good Economy to Hammer Bush, Study Says

> -- Reports negatively charged: More than twice as many stories and briefs
> focused on negative aspects of the economy (62 percent), compared to good
> news (31 percent). News broadcasts dwelled on one prospective cataclysm
> after another, yet each time, the economy continued unfazed.
>
> -- Negative stories given more air time: Bad news was emphasized on all
> three networks. Negative news appeared in full-length stories twice as often
> as it appeared in shorter, brief items. Good news was relegated to briefs.
> More good news appeared in brief form than as full-length stories.
>

"Negative stories given more air time". Why is this put forward as an
attack on Bush? This is true of the media in every country whatever
the flavour of government.
>From an outsider's point of view, I doubt if you'd find the media in
any other country supporting Bush either. Whether this is because the
rest of the world is against his policies or their media is turning
them that way, well, make your own mind up...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6288933.stm

Date: 04 Feb 2007 15:06:03
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

On 3 Feb 2007 12:06:07 -0800, "Simon" <hancock_simon@hotmail.com >
wrote:

>On Feb 2, 7:02 pm, "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com>
>wrote:
>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ----
>>
>> "Networks Distort Good Economy to Hammer Bush, Study Says
>
>> -- Reports negatively charged: More than twice as many stories and briefs
>> focused on negative aspects of the economy (62 percent), compared to good
>> news (31 percent). News broadcasts dwelled on one prospective cataclysm
>> after another, yet each time, the economy continued unfazed.
>>
>> -- Negative stories given more air time: Bad news was emphasized on all
>> three networks. Negative news appeared in full-length stories twice as often
>> as it appeared in shorter, brief items. Good news was relegated to briefs.
>> More good news appeared in brief form than as full-length stories.
>>
>
>
>"Negative stories given more air time". Why is this put forward as an
>attack on Bush? This is true of the media in every country whatever
>the flavour of government.
>>From an outsider's point of view, I doubt if you'd find the media in
>any other country supporting Bush either. Whether this is because the
>rest of the world is against his policies or their media is turning
>them that way, well, make your own mind up...
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6288933.stm

The BBC is leading the pack of baying liberals tarring our country and
our president.

Larry

Date: 04 Feb 2007 23:17:08
From: Not me
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

In article <clpcs2tqtn8sh2v7bmjon2u1kau94e1c2k@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:

> On 3 Feb 2007 12:06:07 -0800, "Simon" <hancock_simon@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Feb 2, 7:02 pm, "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com>
> >wrote:
> >> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
> >> -
> >> ----
> >>
> >> "Networks Distort Good Economy to Hammer Bush, Study Says
> >
> >> -- Reports negatively charged: More than twice as many stories and briefs
> >> focused on negative aspects of the economy (62 percent), compared to good
> >> news (31 percent). News broadcasts dwelled on one prospective cataclysm
> >> after another, yet each time, the economy continued unfazed.
> >>
> >> -- Negative stories given more air time: Bad news was emphasized on all
> >> three networks. Negative news appeared in full-length stories twice as
> >> often
> >> as it appeared in shorter, brief items. Good news was relegated to briefs.
> >> More good news appeared in brief form than as full-length stories.
> >>
> >
> >
> >"Negative stories given more air time". Why is this put forward as an
> >attack on Bush? This is true of the media in every country whatever
> >the flavour of government.
> >>From an outsider's point of view, I doubt if you'd find the media in
> >any other country supporting Bush either. Whether this is because the
> >rest of the world is against his policies or their media is turning
> >them that way, well, make your own mind up...
> >
> >http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/6288933.stm
>
> The BBC is leading the pack of baying liberals tarring our country and
> our president.

Sorry, but your president doesn't equate to your country.

Date: 04 Feb 2007 23:15:44
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

Date: 03 Feb 2007 16:50:06
From: Not me
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

In article <mp1tr2t9qmqg2t825i41ggnaek06mf7qrv@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:

> "That poll about Iraq... came out last week and it posed various
> questions about whether folks thought the 'surge' was a good idea or
> not. Including the following: 'Do you personally want the Iraq plan
> President Bush announced last week to succeed?' And here's how the
> American people answered: 63 percent said yes, 22 percent said no, 15
> percent said they didn't know. Let me see if I understand that. For
> four
> years, regardless of this or that position on the merits of the war,
> almost everybody has claimed to 'support our troops.' Some of us have
> always thought that 'supporting the troops' while not supporting them
> in
> their mission is not entirely credible. But here we have 37 percent of
> the American people actually urging defeat on them. They 'support our
> troops' by wanting them to lose. This isn't a question about whether
> you
> think the plan will work, but whether you want it to work. And nearly
> 40
> percent of respondents either don't know or are actively rooting for
> failure... What were the numbers like for D-Day?" -k Steyn"
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Wow! That can only mean that over 1 of 3 Americans WANT the American
> military to lose the Iraq war. They want Radical Islam to win and
> they WANT more soldiers to be killed and more maimed-- because that is
> what any military loss always means. They want America to leave the
> battlefield in what would be one of the most ignominious defeats in
> American history.
>
> Obviously those same Americans (?) would actually prefer their country
> to be defeated than to see a Republican Commander-in-Chief have a
> success that would raise his popularity rating-- and likely make it
> harder for them to retain a congressional majority.
>
> Are those really loyal Americans-- or traitors?
>
> Larry

I'm glad your world is so simple that one can't disagree with the policy
of a bunch of politicians without being labeled a traitor...

Date: 04 Feb 2007 15:04:47
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 16:50:06 GMT, Not me <user@foobar.com > wrote:

>In article <mp1tr2t9qmqg2t825i41ggnaek06mf7qrv@4ax.com>,
> larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
>
>> "That poll about Iraq... came out last week and it posed various
>> questions about whether folks thought the 'surge' was a good idea or
>> not. Including the following: 'Do you personally want the Iraq plan
>> President Bush announced last week to succeed?' And here's how the
>> American people answered: 63 percent said yes, 22 percent said no, 15
>> percent said they didn't know. Let me see if I understand that. For
>> four
>> years, regardless of this or that position on the merits of the war,
>> almost everybody has claimed to 'support our troops.' Some of us have
>> always thought that 'supporting the troops' while not supporting them
>> in
>> their mission is not entirely credible. But here we have 37 percent of
>> the American people actually urging defeat on them. They 'support our
>> troops' by wanting them to lose. This isn't a question about whether
>> you
>> think the plan will work, but whether you want it to work. And nearly
>> 40
>> percent of respondents either don't know or are actively rooting for
>> failure... What were the numbers like for D-Day?" -k Steyn"
>>
>> ----------------------------------------------------
>>
>> Wow! That can only mean that over 1 of 3 Americans WANT the American
>> military to lose the Iraq war. They want Radical Islam to win and
>> they WANT more soldiers to be killed and more maimed-- because that is
>> what any military loss always means. They want America to leave the
>> battlefield in what would be one of the most ignominious defeats in
>> American history.
>>
>> Obviously those same Americans (?) would actually prefer their country
>> to be defeated than to see a Republican Commander-in-Chief have a
>> success that would raise his popularity rating-- and likely make it
>> harder for them to retain a congressional majority.
>>
>> Are those really loyal Americans-- or traitors?
>>
>> Larry
>
>I'm glad your world is so simple that one can't disagree with the policy
>of a bunch of politicians without being labeled a traitor...

You can disagree-- but everyone who speaks out should bear in mind
that the enemy in wartime is listening-- and taking encouragement from
disarray in America. Accordingly, dissenters have a responsibility
to shut up and sit down once the majority makes the decision. That
is exactly what they did during WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam except
the last-- when their dissent caused the death of 3 MILLION people
when funding was cut and America abandoned its promises.

In times past, Rome for instance, after the decision to go to war was
made, dissenters were considered traitors-- and killed.

Larry

Date: 04 Feb 2007 23:15:14
From: Not me
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

In article <qdpcs2dleiuuguiieekmqrafeigpp26ddi@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote:

> On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 16:50:06 GMT, Not me <user@foobar.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <mp1tr2t9qmqg2t825i41ggnaek06mf7qrv@4ax.com>,
> > larry <larry@deldata.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "That poll about Iraq... came out last week and it posed various
> >> questions about whether folks thought the 'surge' was a good idea or
> >> not. Including the following: 'Do you personally want the Iraq plan
> >> President Bush announced last week to succeed?' And here's how the
> >> American people answered: 63 percent said yes, 22 percent said no, 15
> >> percent said they didn't know. Let me see if I understand that. For
> >> four
> >> years, regardless of this or that position on the merits of the war,
> >> almost everybody has claimed to 'support our troops.' Some of us have
> >> always thought that 'supporting the troops' while not supporting them
> >> in
> >> their mission is not entirely credible. But here we have 37 percent of
> >> the American people actually urging defeat on them. They 'support our
> >> troops' by wanting them to lose. This isn't a question about whether
> >> you
> >> think the plan will work, but whether you want it to work. And nearly
> >> 40
> >> percent of respondents either don't know or are actively rooting for
> >> failure... What were the numbers like for D-Day?" -k Steyn"
> >>
> >> ----------------------------------------------------
> >>
> >> Wow! That can only mean that over 1 of 3 Americans WANT the American
> >> military to lose the Iraq war. They want Radical Islam to win and
> >> they WANT more soldiers to be killed and more maimed-- because that is
> >> what any military loss always means. They want America to leave the
> >> battlefield in what would be one of the most ignominious defeats in
> >> American history.
> >>
> >> Obviously those same Americans (?) would actually prefer their country
> >> to be defeated than to see a Republican Commander-in-Chief have a
> >> success that would raise his popularity rating-- and likely make it
> >> harder for them to retain a congressional majority.
> >>
> >> Are those really loyal Americans-- or traitors?
> >>
> >> Larry
> >
> >I'm glad your world is so simple that one can't disagree with the policy
> >of a bunch of politicians without being labeled a traitor...
>
> You can disagree-- but everyone who speaks out should bear in mind
> that the enemy in wartime is listening-- and taking encouragement from
> disarray in America. Accordingly, dissenters have a responsibility
> to shut up and sit down once the majority makes the decision. That
> is exactly what they did during WWI, WWII, Korea, and Vietnam except
> the last-- when their dissent caused the death of 3 MILLION people
> when funding was cut and America abandoned its promises.

Utter nonsense. For a start, the U.S. is *not* at war, for one thing.
Bush didn't have the balls to declare war back when the Republicans held
both houses. Why is that?

America is engaged in a propaganda exercise designed to make GW look as
good as his daddy.

>
> In times past, Rome for instance, after the decision to go to war was
> made, dissenters were considered traitors-- and killed.

And we know how much you'd like to be able to do that to your political
antagonists...

Date: 02 Feb 2007 11:41:13
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

On Feb 2, 2:02 pm, "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com >
wrote:
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------=
--=AD-
> ----
>
> "Networks Distort Good Economy to Hammer Bush, Study Says
> By Randy Hall
> CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
> October 17, 2006
>
> (CNSNews.com) - Network news stories have painted a bleak picture of an
> economy in decline in an effort to keep President Bush's approval numbers
> low, according to a study released Monday by a group dedicated to
> challenging misconceptions in the media about free enterprise.
>
> The Business and Media Institute (BMI) report "Bad News Bears: How Networ=
ks
> Distort a Good Economy and Batter President Bush" is the result of an
> analysis of all stories referring to the "economy" or "economic" news on =
the
> evening news shows of all three broadcast networks between Aug. 1, 2005, =
and
> July 31, 2006.
>
> Reporters on ABC, CBS and NBC "treated gas prices as a metaphor for the
> economy -- only when they were high," said Dan Gainor, director of the BM=
I,
> which is a division of the Media Research Center, the parent organization=
of
> Cybercast News Service.
>
> "And a slowing housing ket coming off two record years was just another
> club used against Republican incumbents by a pessimistic press," Gainor
> added.
>
> "But the truth of the economy is far different. The United States continu=
es
> to enjoy solid job growth," the BMI director noted. "In the last year, 1.7
> million new jobs were added, and nearly 6 million have been created since
> August 2003 -- a streak of more than three years of positive growth.
>
> "Unemployment is a low 4.7 percent. Gas prices have declined once again --
> more than 75 cents from their recent highs," Gainor stated. "And though t=
he
> economy actually grew just 2.6 percent in the second quarter of 2006, that
> followed the rapid expansion of the first quarter -- revised upward to 5.6
> percent."
>
> Nevertheless, "polls have repeatedly shown a public that is dissatisfied
> with the economy under President Bush," he said.
>
> "A January 2006 Pew Research Center survey said 64 percent of those
> questioned thought economic conditions were fair or poor -- and that wasn=
't
> even Bush's low point," the BMI director stated. "The May New York Times/=
CBS
> poll gave Bush just a 28 percent rating for the economy."
>
> The BMI study resulted in several significant findings, including:
>
> -- Reports negatively charged: More than twice as many stories and briefs
> focused on negative aspects of the economy (62 percent), compared to good
> news (31 percent). News broadcasts dwelled on one prospective cataclysm
> after another, yet each time, the economy continued unfazed.
>
> -- Negative stories given more air time: Bad news was emphasized on all
> three networks. Negative news appeared in full-length stories twice as of=
ten
> as it appeared in shorter, brief items. Good news was relegated to briefs.
> More good news appeared in brief form than as full-length stories.
>
> -- Man-on-the-street interviews spin stories: Reporters used ordinary peo=
ple
> to underscore negative stories by roughly a 3-to-1 ratio over positive.
> Since these are interviews chosen entirely by the reporter, this shows
> particular bias. NBC was especially bad at this, featuring negative accou=
nts
> six times as often as positive ones.
>
> -- Worst network: More than 80 percent of the full-length stories on the
> "CBS Evening News" delivered a negative view of the economy -- easily the
> worst of the three broadcast news programs. The network hid the good news=
of
> jobs or economic growth in short items. More than 56 percent of CBS's bri=
ef
> stories were positive.
>
> -- Best network: ABC was hardly the "best" anything for its economic
> coverage. It simply wasn't as negative as either NBC or CBS. More than 56
> percent of ABC reports were negative compared to slightly more than 36
> percent positive.
>
> To improve coverage, BMI recommends that the networks carefully select a
> range of economists and analysts to balance negative reporting and cover
> stories that reflect the economic data, not the reporter's opinion.
>
> The network news should "educate the public about what the economic data
> really mean," Gainor added. "Don't just report changing numbers like spor=
ts
> scores.""

Well, if BMI says it, it must be true.

Date: 04 Feb 2007 14:55:21
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

On 2 Feb 2007 11:41:13 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

>On Feb 2, 2:02 pm, "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com>
>wrote:
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------�-
>> ----
>>
>> "Networks Distort Good Economy to Hammer Bush, Study Says
>> By Randy Hall
>> CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
>> October 17, 2006
>>
>> (CNSNews.com) - Network news stories have painted a bleak picture of an
>> economy in decline in an effort to keep President Bush's approval numbers
>> low, according to a study released Monday by a group dedicated to
>> challenging misconceptions in the media about free enterprise.
>>
>> The Business and Media Institute (BMI) report "Bad News Bears: How Networks
>> Distort a Good Economy and Batter President Bush" is the result of an
>> analysis of all stories referring to the "economy" or "economic" news on the
>> evening news shows of all three broadcast networks between Aug. 1, 2005, and
>> July 31, 2006.
>>
>> Reporters on ABC, CBS and NBC "treated gas prices as a metaphor for the
>> economy -- only when they were high," said Dan Gainor, director of the BMI,
>> which is a division of the Media Research Center, the parent organization of
>> Cybercast News Service.
>>
>> "And a slowing housing ket coming off two record years was just another
>> club used against Republican incumbents by a pessimistic press," Gainor
>> added.
>>
>> "But the truth of the economy is far different. The United States continues
>> to enjoy solid job growth," the BMI director noted. "In the last year, 1.7
>> million new jobs were added, and nearly 6 million have been created since
>> August 2003 -- a streak of more than three years of positive growth.
>>
>> "Unemployment is a low 4.7 percent. Gas prices have declined once again --
>> more than 75 cents from their recent highs," Gainor stated. "And though the
>> economy actually grew just 2.6 percent in the second quarter of 2006, that
>> followed the rapid expansion of the first quarter -- revised upward to 5.6
>> percent."
>>
>> Nevertheless, "polls have repeatedly shown a public that is dissatisfied
>> with the economy under President Bush," he said.
>>
>> "A January 2006 Pew Research Center survey said 64 percent of those
>> questioned thought economic conditions were fair or poor -- and that wasn't
>> even Bush's low point," the BMI director stated. "The May New York Times/CBS
>> poll gave Bush just a 28 percent rating for the economy."
>>
>> The BMI study resulted in several significant findings, including:
>>
>> -- Reports negatively charged: More than twice as many stories and briefs
>> focused on negative aspects of the economy (62 percent), compared to good
>> news (31 percent). News broadcasts dwelled on one prospective cataclysm
>> after another, yet each time, the economy continued unfazed.
>>
>> -- Negative stories given more air time: Bad news was emphasized on all
>> three networks. Negative news appeared in full-length stories twice as often
>> as it appeared in shorter, brief items. Good news was relegated to briefs.
>> More good news appeared in brief form than as full-length stories.
>>
>> -- Man-on-the-street interviews spin stories: Reporters used ordinary people
>> to underscore negative stories by roughly a 3-to-1 ratio over positive.
>> Since these are interviews chosen entirely by the reporter, this shows
>> particular bias. NBC was especially bad at this, featuring negative accounts
>> six times as often as positive ones.
>>
>> -- Worst network: More than 80 percent of the full-length stories on the
>> "CBS Evening News" delivered a negative view of the economy -- easily the
>> worst of the three broadcast news programs. The network hid the good news of
>> jobs or economic growth in short items. More than 56 percent of CBS's brief
>> stories were positive.
>>
>> -- Best network: ABC was hardly the "best" anything for its economic
>> coverage. It simply wasn't as negative as either NBC or CBS. More than 56
>> percent of ABC reports were negative compared to slightly more than 36
>> percent positive.
>>
>> To improve coverage, BMI recommends that the networks carefully select a
>> range of economists and analysts to balance negative reporting and cover
>> stories that reflect the economic data, not the reporter's opinion.
>>
>> The network news should "educate the public about what the economic data
>> really mean," Gainor added. "Don't just report changing numbers like sports
>> scores.""
>
>Well, if BMI says it, it must be true.

It is absolutely true. Everyone knows it-- at least those who read
newspapers and watch the Big Three TV news, CNN, MSNBC, etc. Their
relentless pounding of negatives and complete skipping of positives
becomes extremely obvious even if you don't do a stastical analysis
like the article above. Flip the channels and compare the coverage,
listen to talk radio-- read more fair and balanced newspapers and news
letters such as Stratfor.

The liberal media has very obviously shaped your opinion-- you think
what they want you to think. When they do a popularity poll, you
reguritate the pap you have been fed. When there is an election, you
behave exactly like you were programmed. If you hate Bush, believe
all the negative stuff about the war, etc. you are a complete dunce,
"easily led." You are free, but not really unless you take positive
action to inform yourself.

Larry

Date: 03 Feb 2007 07:41:23
From: Michael Anselmo
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1170445273.705141.41090@m58g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 2, 2:02 pm, "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com >
wrote:
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------�-
> ----
>
> "Networks Distort Good Economy to Hammer Bush, Study Says
> By Randy Hall
> CNSNews.com Staff Writer/Editor
> October 17, 2006
>
> (CNSNews.com) - Network news stories have painted a bleak picture of an
> economy in decline in an effort to keep President Bush's approval numbers
> low, according to a study released Monday by a group dedicated to
> challenging misconceptions in the media about free enterprise.
>
> The Business and Media Institute (BMI) report "Bad News Bears: How
> Networks
> Distort a Good Economy and Batter President Bush" is the result of an
> analysis of all stories referring to the "economy" or "economic" news on
> the
> evening news shows of all three broadcast networks between Aug. 1, 2005,
> and
> July 31, 2006.
>
> Reporters on ABC, CBS and NBC "treated gas prices as a metaphor for the
> economy -- only when they were high," said Dan Gainor, director of the
> BMI,
> which is a division of the Media Research Center, the parent organization
> of
> Cybercast News Service.
>
> "And a slowing housing ket coming off two record years was just another
> club used against Republican incumbents by a pessimistic press," Gainor
> added.
>
> "But the truth of the economy is far different. The United States
> continues
> to enjoy solid job growth," the BMI director noted. "In the last year, 1.7
> million new jobs were added, and nearly 6 million have been created since
> August 2003 -- a streak of more than three years of positive growth.
>
> "Unemployment is a low 4.7 percent. Gas prices have declined once again --
> more than 75 cents from their recent highs," Gainor stated. "And though
> the
> economy actually grew just 2.6 percent in the second quarter of 2006, that
> followed the rapid expansion of the first quarter -- revised upward to 5.6
> percent."
>
> Nevertheless, "polls have repeatedly shown a public that is dissatisfied
> with the economy under President Bush," he said.
>
> "A January 2006 Pew Research Center survey said 64 percent of those
> questioned thought economic conditions were fair or poor -- and that
> wasn't
> even Bush's low point," the BMI director stated. "The May New York
> Times/CBS
> poll gave Bush just a 28 percent rating for the economy."
>
> The BMI study resulted in several significant findings, including:
>
> -- Reports negatively charged: More than twice as many stories and briefs
> focused on negative aspects of the economy (62 percent), compared to good
> news (31 percent). News broadcasts dwelled on one prospective cataclysm
> after another, yet each time, the economy continued unfazed.
>
> -- Negative stories given more air time: Bad news was emphasized on all
> three networks. Negative news appeared in full-length stories twice as
> often
> as it appeared in shorter, brief items. Good news was relegated to briefs.
> More good news appeared in brief form than as full-length stories.
>
> -- Man-on-the-street interviews spin stories: Reporters used ordinary
> people
> to underscore negative stories by roughly a 3-to-1 ratio over positive.
> Since these are interviews chosen entirely by the reporter, this shows
> particular bias. NBC was especially bad at this, featuring negative
> accounts
> six times as often as positive ones.
>
> -- Worst network: More than 80 percent of the full-length stories on the
> "CBS Evening News" delivered a negative view of the economy -- easily the
> worst of the three broadcast news programs. The network hid the good news
> of
> jobs or economic growth in short items. More than 56 percent of CBS's
> brief
> stories were positive.
>
>> -- Best network: ABC was hardly the "best" anything for its economic
>> coverage. It simply wasn't as negative as either NBC or CBS. More than 56
>> percent of ABC reports were negative compared to slightly more than 36
>> percent positive.
>>
> >To improve coverage, BMI recommends that the networks carefully select a
> >range of economists and analysts to balance negative reporting and cover
> >stories that reflect the economic data, not the reporter's opinion.
>>
> >The network news should "educate the public about what the economic data
>> really mean," Gainor added. "Don't just report changing numbers like
>> sports
>> scores.""

>Well, if BMI says it, it must be true.

Anyone with an IRA and can read their statement or anyone who is aware of
the traffic and the masses out shopping in high-end and low-end stores knows
the economy is doing just great.

I'm 65 and I have a great memory. Trust me, we're doing just fine. Now, I
understand, that that statement holds as much truth as any network
man-in -the-street interview of some sobbing neer-do-well telling you he
hasn't work in 4 years.

I was in my 20s when JFK cut taxes to spur the economy. It worked just as
Reagan's and GWB's tax cuts. I was also around for the Carter debachel. Long
view or short view, the economy is doing great.

Just my 2 cents, adjusted for inflation.

Mike

Oh, by the way, try to get your news from various sources and make up your
own mind. Don't just watch the networks and take their word for it.

Due diligence is not just for stocks and mutual funds.

Did you know that Vanguard S&P 500 was up over 14% last year?

Date: 03 Feb 2007 11:16:41
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

"Michael Anselmo" <manselmo@NOEFFINGSPAMoptonline.net > wrote in message
news:3cednZPXlM-CGVnYnZ2dnUVZ_oGlnZ2d@adelphia.com...
> I'm 65 and I have a great memory. Trust me, we're doing just fine.

At least you are not one of the 48 million uninsured with no medical
coverage.

Otto

Date: 04 Feb 2007 15:00:06
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 11:16:41 -0500, "Otto"
<ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net > wrote:

>
>"Michael Anselmo" <manselmo@NOEFFINGSPAMoptonline.net> wrote in message
>news:3cednZPXlM-CGVnYnZ2dnUVZ_oGlnZ2d@adelphia.com...
>> I'm 65 and I have a great memory. Trust me, we're doing just fine.
>
>
>At least you are not one of the 48 million uninsured with no medical
>coverage.

A full half or maybe more of those are kids and young people who
really don't need health insurance. They don't get sick. Insurance
on such a population is accordingly dirt cheap.

Larry

Date: 05 Feb 2007 01:07:42
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 15:00:06 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com >
wrote:

>A full half or maybe more of those are kids and young people who
>really don't need health insurance. They don't get sick. Insurance
>on such a population is accordingly dirt cheap.

My brother was an executive in between jobs when he got cancer. By
the time he got a new job (and fell under our socialized medical
system for employed people and old folks) it was too late.

If it is so cheap, why not include them?

Date: 04 Feb 2007 22:36:44
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 01:07:42 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:

>My brother was an executive in between jobs when he got cancer. By
>the time he got a new job (and fell under our socialized medical
>system for employed people and old folks) it was too late.

Howard, your brother had the right to continue his coverage at group
rates after leaving his job under COBRA, unless he was fired for gross
misconduct. It's generally more expensive than when he was working,
because he will have to pay his employers contribution, but this
option is usually cheaper than buying individual coverage.

It sounds like he took a gamble and lost. I hope things turned out OK
for him and he is in remission.

Date: 05 Feb 2007 13:05:49
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 22:36:44 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:

>>My brother was an executive in between jobs when he got cancer. By
>>the time he got a new job (and fell under our socialized medical
>>system for employed people and old folks) it was too late.
>
>Howard, your brother had the right to continue his coverage at group
>rates after leaving his job under COBRA, unless he was fired for gross
>misconduct. It's generally more expensive than when he was working,
>because he will have to pay his employers contribution, but this
>option is usually cheaper than buying individual coverage.

He thought he needed his money for his family, and didn't know his
cough was important enough to take money from them.

>It sounds like he took a gamble and lost. I hope things turned out OK
>for him and he is in remission.

He didn't last a year.

The point is that we do have socialized medicine - for the employed
and old.

Date: 06 Feb 2007 08:59:09
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:05:49 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:

>On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 22:36:44 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
>wrote:
>
>>>My brother was an executive in between jobs when he got cancer. By
>>>the time he got a new job (and fell under our socialized medical
>>>system for employed people and old folks) it was too late.
>>
>>Howard, your brother had the right to continue his coverage at group
>>rates after leaving his job under COBRA, unless he was fired for gross
>>misconduct. It's generally more expensive than when he was working,
>>because he will have to pay his employers contribution, but this
>>option is usually cheaper than buying individual coverage.
>
>He thought he needed his money for his family, and didn't know his
>cough was important enough to take money from them.
>
>>It sounds like he took a gamble and lost. I hope things turned out OK
>>for him and he is in remission.
>
>He didn't last a year.

If he had lung cancer medical treatment would not have helped prolong
his life in any case. Chemo, etc. is worthless against 90% of lung
cancers. Did he smoke?

Larry
>
>The point is that we do have socialized medicine - for the employed
>and old.
>

Date: 06 Feb 2007 10:48:02
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 08:59:09 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com >
wrote:

>>He didn't last a year.
>
>If he had lung cancer medical treatment would not have helped prolong
>his life in any case. Chemo, etc. is worthless against 90% of lung
>cancers. Did he smoke?

Nope. Which is rare with people who die from small-celled lung
cancer. His first wife smoked though.

Date: 08 Feb 2007 23:46:20
From: FredK
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:2pfhs2tg6ehujugjn9sucvijgf483vtedj@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 06 Feb 2007 08:59:09 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>He didn't last a year.
>>
>>If he had lung cancer medical treatment would not have helped prolong
>>his life in any case. Chemo, etc. is worthless against 90% of lung
>>cancers. Did he smoke?
>
> Nope. Which is rare with people who die from small-celled lung
> cancer. His first wife smoked though.

Small cell has a survival rate of about 1% past 5 years. By the time you
get symptoms (which may be something off-the-wall like hyponatremia) its
usually stage 4. It is about 15% or so of lung cancer. Non small cell,
contrary to Larry's assertion, has about a 50% survival rate. Chemo is very
effective with small cell as opposed to non-small cell - surgery is
effective with non-small cell, and small cell is inoperable. The problem is
that about 5 months of chemo gives you about a 9-12 month lifespan as
opposed to weeks to a few months without it once they find small cell.

Spent a year of my life going through this with my mother-in-law.

Date: 05 Feb 2007 11:47:09
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:05:49 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:

>>Howard, your brother had the right to continue his coverage at group
>>rates after leaving his job under COBRA, unless he was fired for gross
>>misconduct. It's generally more expensive than when he was working,
>>because he will have to pay his employers contribution, but this
>>option is usually cheaper than buying individual coverage.
>
>He thought he needed his money for his family, and didn't know his
>cough was important enough to take money from them.
>

He should have at least had a full physical exam before he let his
insurance lapse. Twenty twenty hindsight to be sure.

>>It sounds like he took a gamble and lost. I hope things turned out OK
>>for him and he is in remission.
>
>He didn't last a year.
>
>The point is that we do have socialized medicine - for the employed
>and old.

Sorry to hear that.

The private insurance provided to most employed people is not
socialized medicine. It's a private system and is much better than
any socialized medicine plan you could possible have on the scale of
medical services in the US. Socialized medicine in the US would be a
disaster. It's a moot point because it will never happen and for that
I give thanks. Why fuck things up for 85% of the people to try to
provide coverage for 15% of the people. This is especially true
because around half of that 15% are people who could afford health
insurance but choose not to pay for it. I was a member of that class
for many years in my younger days. The trick is to provide medical
coverage for the people who can't afford it and need it without
fucking up health care for everyone else.

You can get bad health care in the US, but if you have good coverage
and know what you're doing, you can get better health care in the US
than anywhere else in the world. I'm not your average health care
consumer, but anyone with private coverage who takes the time to do
his/her homework can get excellent treatment.

I'm about 5 years away from being eligible for Medicare but I have no
plan to let my private insurance lapse. Medicare, which is socialized
medicine, sucks. Almost all of the physicians that I have seen over
the past 20 years would no longer be available to me on Medicaid. One
of my doctors wont even deal with private insurance agencies. I have
to pay him cash and I submit the claim and pay the difference.

Date: 05 Feb 2007 09:57:39
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 11:47:09 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:

>The private insurance provided to most employed people is not
>socialized medicine.

Sure it is. If society shares the expense of my medical care, it's
socialized medicine. Whether my employer pays for it out of my
withdrawals or whether the state pays for it out of my withdrawals, it
is a group expense.

Sometimes the benefits are obvious - as when the state pays for an
inoculation program. Other times, the costs don't match the benefits
as well - as when we keep 90 year olds alive longer. Businesses
believe it is a worthwhile investment to assist in health care for
their employees and families - keeping them at work.

Date: 05 Feb 2007 15:02:14
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 09:57:39 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:

>>The private insurance provided to most employed people is not
>>socialized medicine.
>
>Sure it is. If society shares the expense of my medical care, it's
>socialized medicine. Whether my employer pays for it out of my
>withdrawals or whether the state pays for it out of my withdrawals, it
>is a group expense.

The general term socialized medicine refers to a medical plan that is
provided to all members of a society by their government out of tax
revenue.

In the US, if you're under 65 or not destitute (Medicare and Medicaid)
you have to get your health insurance from a private source. There
are also government run medical programs like the VA for veterans.
Most people belong to group plans through their employers. However,
these are still provided by private insurers. Some of these insurers
are corporations and others are mutual companies. These plans usually
provide the worker with a number of choices. A young single person in
good health can choose to only have catastrophic coverage that will
cover a serious illness or accident and pay for all the small medical
expenses when necessary. Generally speaking, the private insurance
provides better, and more expedient, care that you can get in a large
socialized medical system.

Date: 05 Feb 2007 13:14:21
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 15:02:14 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:

>The general term socialized medicine refers to a medical plan that is
>provided to all members of a society by their government out of tax
>revenue.

Which doesn't mean that private insurance is not also socialized, with
many of the same problems and costs that a state run insurance would
have.

...

> Generally speaking, the private insurance
>provides better, and more expedient, care that you can get in a large
>socialized medical system.

And paying cash provides better, and more expedient care than we can
get with a large insurance system - for those who have (and spend) the
cash.

Date: 05 Feb 2007 16:45:18
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 13:14:21 -0700, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:

>>The general term socialized medicine refers to a medical plan that is
>>provided to all members of a society by their government out of tax
>>revenue.
>
>Which doesn't mean that private insurance is not also socialized, with
>many of the same problems and costs that a state run insurance would
>have.

I don't know anyone with private health care who has to wait to see a
physician for diagnostic procedures or treatment. However, there are
problems in the US. I would never belong to a HMO because it has the
most similarities to a sociaalized sysyem. Obviously, a HMO makes
more profit from not giving you service. In a similar light,
socialized medicine spend less tax money by delivering less service.

My wife got up this morning and felt a lump in her breast. She had an
appointment with he OB/GYN specialist three hours after she called
him. He saw her and sent her for a sonogram which was completed by
2PM this afternoon. The radiologist called the doctor back by 3PM and
the doctor called my wife not a half hour ago to inform her it was
just a cyst. Try that in a country with socialized medicine.

Socialized medicine sucks. The people who can afford it in those
countries have private insurance and see physicians outside the system
or they come to the US for medical care.

Date: 05 Feb 2007 14:27:54
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

In article <7q3fs2h0l7ackuh9n0vc2g9c292nqtvtjg@4ax.com >,
Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net > wrote:

> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 15:02:14 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The general term socialized medicine refers to a medical plan that is
> >provided to all members of a society by their government out of tax
> >revenue.
>
> Which doesn't mean that private insurance is not also socialized, with
> many of the same problems and costs that a state run insurance would
> have.
>
> ...
>
> > Generally speaking, the private insurance
> >provides better, and more expedient, care that you can get in a large
> >socialized medical system.
>
> And paying cash provides better, and more expedient care than we can
> get with a large insurance system - for those who have (and spend) the
> cash.

Administrative costs to do it in a private medical system are higher
than medicare's.

Date: 05 Feb 2007 14:57:49
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote in message
news:lloydparsons-E715C6.14275405022007@individual.net...
>
> Administrative costs to do it in a private medical system are higher
> than medicare's.

I am afraid I am going to have to ask for a source on this.

Date: 05 Feb 2007 15:49:59
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

In article <Ke-dner73Z3TB1rYnZ2dnUVZ_q6vnZ2d@centurytel.net >,
"the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:

> "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:lloydparsons-E715C6.14275405022007@individual.net...
> >
> > Administrative costs to do it in a private medical system are higher
> > than medicare's.
>
> I am afraid I am going to have to ask for a source on this.

I don't remember the source. I read it in another newsgroup, with a
link quite some time ago.

Date: 05 Feb 2007 16:18:57
From: sfb
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

The comparison will be all smoke and mirrors. Unlike the private system that
must follow legally mandated accounting rules to cover all revenues and
costs, the government can cook the books hiding costs to prove anything they
want including that the earth is flat.

"the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote in message
news:Ke-dner73Z3TB1rYnZ2dnUVZ_q6vnZ2d@centurytel.net...
>
> "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:lloydparsons-E715C6.14275405022007@individual.net...
>>
>> Administrative costs to do it in a private medical system are higher
>> than medicare's.
>
> I am afraid I am going to have to ask for a source on this.
>
>

Date: 05 Feb 2007 11:39:44
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

"Howard Brazee" <howard@brazee.net > wrote in message
news:e0oes2lobi7j84q2r4c580rva0plcq57qk@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 11:47:09 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >The private insurance provided to most employed people is not
> >socialized medicine.
>
> Sure it is. If society shares the expense of my medical care, it's
> socialized medicine. Whether my employer pays for it out of my
> withdrawals or whether the state pays for it out of my withdrawals, it
> is a group expense.
>
> Sometimes the benefits are obvious - as when the state pays for an
> inoculation program. Other times, the costs don't match the benefits
> as well - as when we keep 90 year olds alive longer. Businesses
> believe it is a worthwhile investment to assist in health care for
> their employees and families - keeping them at work.

You can use the VA unless your income is higher than their minimum. The
free medical that was part of my agreement with the government now has lots
of strings attached. I went to the VA a couple times right after I got
discharged. The waiting and shuffling from one waiting area to the next was
oppressive. That is what socialized medicine is.

Date: 05 Feb 2007 15:05:08
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 11:39:44 -0600, "the Moderator"
<sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:

>You can use the VA unless your income is higher than their minimum. The
>free medical that was part of my agreement with the government now has lots
>of strings attached. I went to the VA a couple times right after I got
>discharged. The waiting and shuffling from one waiting area to the next was
>oppressive. That is what socialized medicine is.

Absolutely, the VA system is not known for its quality of care. The
same is true for Medicare and Medicaid. I certainly wouldn't want to
see all health care in the US brought down to that level.

Date: 05 Feb 2007 14:26:38
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

In article <la3fs29men4bp7n8olhgpbno47k55lh4rm@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Mon, 5 Feb 2007 11:39:44 -0600, "the Moderator"
> <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com> wrote:
>
> >You can use the VA unless your income is higher than their minimum. The
> >free medical that was part of my agreement with the government now has lots
> >of strings attached. I went to the VA a couple times right after I got
> >discharged. The waiting and shuffling from one waiting area to the next was
> >oppressive. That is what socialized medicine is.
>
> Absolutely, the VA system is not known for its quality of care. The
> same is true for Medicare and Medicaid. I certainly wouldn't want to
> see all health care in the US brought down to that level.

The VA system provides pretty damn good care considering the funding
issues that have gone on for them for years. With them, it isn't that
they don't want to give better care, it is that they don't have the
funding to do it.

Pretty much the same story with Medicaid.

Medicare pays for the medical care provided by your local doctor.
Probably the same one you used before you started on Medicare. If you
get poor care under Medicare then I would suggest you hold the doctors
hands to the fire.

Date: 05 Feb 2007 17:06:11
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 14:26:38 -0600, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:

>The VA system provides pretty damn good care considering the funding
>issues that have gone on for them for years. With them, it isn't that
>they don't want to give better care, it is that they don't have the
>funding to do it.
>
>Pretty much the same story with Medicaid.

That's the problem. If there's a limited amount of funding then the
system really is a type of rationing.

>Medicare pays for the medical care provided by your local doctor.
>Probably the same one you used before you started on Medicare. If you
>get poor care under Medicare then I would suggest you hold the doctors
>hands to the fire.

Some physicians never see Medicare patients at all. They wont work
for the amount of money they get from Medicare. My GI specialist wont
even accept private insurance. He refuses to have anything to do with
insurance companies in any way. He works for cash only. You pay him,
he sends you an invoice and you deal with the insurance company.

Date: 05 Feb 2007 16:34:43
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

In article <cl9fs25rclm8nt179k6dkan7l4j03vj5mc@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 14:26:38 -0600, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >The VA system provides pretty damn good care considering the funding
> >issues that have gone on for them for years. With them, it isn't that
> >they don't want to give better care, it is that they don't have the
> >funding to do it.
> >
> >Pretty much the same story with Medicaid.
>
> That's the problem. If there's a limited amount of funding then the
> system really is a type of rationing.
>
> >Medicare pays for the medical care provided by your local doctor.
> >Probably the same one you used before you started on Medicare. If you
> >get poor care under Medicare then I would suggest you hold the doctors
> >hands to the fire.
>
> Some physicians never see Medicare patients at all. They wont work
> for the amount of money they get from Medicare. My GI specialist wont
> even accept private insurance. He refuses to have anything to do with
> insurance companies in any way. He works for cash only. You pay him,
> he sends you an invoice and you deal with the insurance company.

I've seen that, but not much where I live. Unfortunately we have a high
percentage of Medicaid and for a doctor to stay in practice they almost
have to take it. That said, most manage the percentage of Medicaid
patients so that they stay profitable.

Medicare is accepted by over 90% of the doctors here.

Date: 05 Feb 2007 20:34:13
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

On Mon, 05 Feb 2007 16:34:43 -0600, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:

>> Some physicians never see Medicare patients at all. They wont work
>> for the amount of money they get from Medicare. My GI specialist wont
>> even accept private insurance. He refuses to have anything to do with
>> insurance companies in any way. He works for cash only. You pay him,
>> he sends you an invoice and you deal with the insurance company.
>
>I've seen that, but not much where I live. Unfortunately we have a high
>percentage of Medicaid and for a doctor to stay in practice they almost
>have to take it. That said, most manage the percentage of Medicaid
>patients so that they stay profitable.
>
>Medicare is accepted by over 90% of the doctors here.

It depends on the physician. Many people have supplemental coverage
which covers the difference, or most of the difference, between what
the physician charges and what Medicare pays. As a general rule, if
you want to see a top class physician, you're going to have to pay a
lot more than Medicare covers. When I retire, I plan to keep my
private insurance.

Date: 05 Feb 2007 14:56:59
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote in message
news:lloydparsons-5BB7F6.14263805022007@individual.net...
>
> The VA system provides pretty damn good care considering the funding
> issues that have gone on for them for years. With them, it isn't that
> they don't want to give better care, it is that they don't have the
> funding to do it.

When was the last time you were treated at a VA facility?

Date: 05 Feb 2007 15:51:45
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

In article <cLmdnejuStaBB1rYnZ2dnUVZ_rSjnZ2d@centurytel.net >,
"the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com > wrote:

> "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:lloydparsons-5BB7F6.14263805022007@individual.net...
> >
> > The VA system provides pretty damn good care considering the funding
> > issues that have gone on for them for years. With them, it isn't that
> > they don't want to give better care, it is that they don't have the
> > funding to do it.
>
> When was the last time you were treated at a VA facility?

Never. But I have many friends that use the local facility and are
pleased with the level of care. Their issues with them are the long
waits and the initial sign up.

Date: 03 Feb 2007 15:41:23
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

Are you loyal to the principles of freedom shown by our Founding
Fathers or are you a traitor to the freedoms that define our country?

Date: 03 Feb 2007 15:40:19
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 07:41:23 -0500, "Michael Anselmo"
<manselmo@NOEFFINGSPAMoptonline.net > wrote:

>I was in my 20s when JFK cut taxes to spur the economy. It worked just as
>Reagan's and GWB's tax cuts. I was also around for the Carter debachel. Long
>view or short view, the economy is doing great.

It worked much better - because he didn't increase the deficit at the
same time. And the deficit is a tax.

Date: 04 Feb 2007 14:58:30
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 15:40:19 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:

>On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 07:41:23 -0500, "Michael Anselmo"
><manselmo@NOEFFINGSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
>
>>I was in my 20s when JFK cut taxes to spur the economy. It worked just as
>>Reagan's and GWB's tax cuts. I was also around for the Carter debachel. Long
>>view or short view, the economy is doing great.
>
>It worked much better - because he didn't increase the deficit at the
>same time. And the deficit is a tax.

The projected deficit 5 years ago was "$300 Billion+ as far as the eye
can see." Well, it turned out to be half that. This year it is a
third of that. Next year it will be a fraction of that--even with
Iraq and Afghanistan in full swing. Duhhh. The roaring economy
created by tax cuts paid it off!!

Larry

Date: 05 Feb 2007 09:42:38
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

"larry" <larry@deldata.com > wrote in message
news:35pcs2d9iaa27l95euut1pladlrs2ijnsd@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 15:40:19 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 07:41:23 -0500, "Michael Anselmo"
> ><manselmo@NOEFFINGSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
> >
> >>I was in my 20s when JFK cut taxes to spur the economy. It worked just
as
> >>Reagan's and GWB's tax cuts. I was also around for the Carter debachel.
Long
> >>view or short view, the economy is doing great.
> >
> >It worked much better - because he didn't increase the deficit at the
> >same time. And the deficit is a tax.
>
> The projected deficit 5 years ago was "$300 Billion+ as far as the eye
> can see." Well, it turned out to be half that. This year it is a
> third of that. Next year it will be a fraction of that--even with
> Iraq and Afghanistan in full swing. Duhhh. The roaring economy
> created by tax cuts paid it off!!
>
> Larry

Since the start of the war the growth of the GDP can be measured in
Trillions.

Date: 05 Feb 2007 01:06:10
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

On Sun, 04 Feb 2007 14:58:30 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com >
wrote:

>>>I was in my 20s when JFK cut taxes to spur the economy. It worked just as
>>>Reagan's and GWB's tax cuts. I was also around for the Carter debachel. Long
>>>view or short view, the economy is doing great.
>>
>>It worked much better - because he didn't increase the deficit at the
>>same time. And the deficit is a tax.
>
>The projected deficit 5 years ago was "$300 Billion+ as far as the eye
>can see." Well, it turned out to be half that. This year it is a
>third of that. Next year it will be a fraction of that--even with
>Iraq and Afghanistan in full swing. Duhhh. The roaring economy
>created by tax cuts paid it off!!

So is this a counter to my statement?

Date: 31 Jan 2007 11:16:12
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

On Jan 31, 10:21 am, "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com >
wrote:
> "Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>
> news:mHRvh.27073$uW.8157@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
>
>
> > "larry" <l...@deldata.com> wrote in message
> >news:fqnvr25m9sm62lq9d54dk0j6fo1en1rh3p@4ax.com...
> > >Please watch FNC and judge for
> > > yourself. Brit Hume (Head of FNC news) is the best newsman in D.C.
>
> > I've watched plenty of it and listened to plenty of Ditto head diatribe on
> > the radio.
>
> > It's all about ratings and money and none of them could give a shit about
> > you or I or the truth.
>
> > Otto
>
> This is true for all media. It is just as likely for the media to create
> news as it is to report it.

And this is what we call a conspiracy theory.

Date: 01 Feb 2007 08:26:52
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1170270971.969484.310990@j27g2000cwj.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 31, 10:21 am, "the Moderator" <sparky@no_spam_engineer.com>
> wrote:
> > "Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> >
> > news:mHRvh.27073$uW.8157@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> >
> >
> >
> > > "larry" <l...@deldata.com> wrote in message
> > >news:fqnvr25m9sm62lq9d54dk0j6fo1en1rh3p@4ax.com...
> > > >Please watch FNC and judge for
> > > > yourself. Brit Hume (Head of FNC news) is the best newsman in D.C.
> >
> > > I've watched plenty of it and listened to plenty of Ditto head
diatribe on
> > > the radio.
> >
> > > It's all about ratings and money and none of them could give a shit
about
> > > you or I or the truth.
> >
> > > Otto
> >
> > This is true for all media. It is just as likely for the media to
create
> > news as it is to report it.
>
> And this is what we call a conspiracy theory.

What is it when the media fabricates a conspiracy theory, ala voter fraud?

Date: 04 Feb 2007 19:02:15
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

On Feb 4, 5:58 pm, larry <l...@deldata.com > wrote:
> On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 15:40:19 GMT, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 07:41:23 -0500, "Michael Anselmo"
> ><manse...@NOEFFINGSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
>
> >>I was in my 20s when JFK cut taxes to spur the economy. It worked just as
> >>Reagan's and GWB's tax cuts. I was also around for the Carter debachel. Long
> >>view or short view, the economy is doing great.
>
> >It worked much better - because he didn't increase the deficit at the
> >same time. And the deficit is a tax.
>
> The projected deficit 5 years ago was "$300 Billion+ as far as the eye
> can see." Well, it turned out to be half that. This year it is a
> third of that. Next year it will be a fraction of that--even with
> Iraq and Afghanistan in full swing. Duhhh. The roaring economy
> created by tax cuts paid it off!!
>
> Larry

You are wrong on every count. How unlike you. The Bush adminstration
every year projects higher deficits than what they really expect so
that when the deficit comes in lower than the projection, they can
take credit for it. Duhhh yourself, dumbass.

Date: 04 Feb 2007 22:08:31
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1170644535.660712.5940@a34g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > The projected deficit 5 years ago was "$300 Billion+ as far as the eye
> > can see." Well, it turned out to be half that. This year it is a
> > third of that. Next year it will be a fraction of that--even with
> > Iraq and Afghanistan in full swing. Duhhh. The roaring economy
> > created by tax cuts paid it off!!
> >
> > Larry
>
> You are wrong on every count. How unlike you. The Bush adminstration
> every year projects higher deficits than what they really expect so
> that when the deficit comes in lower than the projection, they can
> take credit for it. Duhhh yourself, dumbass.

The deficit is also quoted lower than actual as they add in the suprlusses
of payroll taxes for social security and medicare. Those surpluses are soon
to end and the bill will come due.

3.6 trillion in unfunded social security liabilities.

36 trillion in unfunded medicare liabilities.

9+ trillion federal debt(3 trillion belongs to Georgie and the republican
congress)

Who ya gonna call?

Otto

Date: 04 Feb 2007 22:04:26
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

John B. wrote:
> On Feb 4, 5:58 pm, larry <l...@deldata.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 03 Feb 2007 15:40:19 GMT, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 3 Feb 2007 07:41:23 -0500, "Michael Anselmo"
>>> <manse...@NOEFFINGSPAMoptonline.net> wrote:
>>
>>>> I was in my 20s when JFK cut taxes to spur the economy. It worked
>>>> just as Reagan's and GWB's tax cuts. I was also around for the
>>>> Carter debachel. Long view or short view, the economy is doing
>>>> great.
>>
>>> It worked much better - because he didn't increase the deficit at
>>> the same time. And the deficit is a tax.
>>
>> The projected deficit 5 years ago was "$300 Billion+ as far as the
>> eye can see." Well, it turned out to be half that. This year it
>> is a third of that. Next year it will be a fraction of that--even
>> with Iraq and Afghanistan in full swing. Duhhh. The roaring
>> economy created by tax cuts paid it off!!
>>
>> Larry
>
> You are wrong on every count. How unlike you. The Bush adminstration
> every year projects higher deficits than what they really expect so
> that when the deficit comes in lower than the projection, they can
> take credit for it. Duhhh yourself, dumbass.

Show some respect - Larry's neighbor is Rush Limbaugh's personal advisor.

Date: 01 Feb 2007 15:52:31
From: Otto
Subject: Re: I AGREE WITH DICK CHENEY!

"Carbon" <nobrac@nospam.tampabay.rr.com > wrote in message
news:pan.2007.02.01.20.48.57.522405@nospam.tampabay.rr.com...

> Half a trillion dollars spent, thousands of dead troops, chaos on the
> ground, all to get 3 guys. You can't be serious.

But they were very evil.

3 Nasty evildoers.

<S >

Otto

Date: 29 Jan 2007 22:54:08
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 15:47:36 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com >
wrote:

>
>
Buuuuuuuzzz!

Plonka-o-rama. Thanks for playing,
--

jvdp
Start clearing your calendars
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

Date: 29 Jan 2007 21:52:50
From: Miss Anne Thrope
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

Then Jesus was a traitor too.

Damn peace lovers.

Date: 29 Jan 2007 18:31:12
From: greg
Subject: Re: Are you an idiot or a maroon? /nt

The /nt means no text you oon.

Date: 29 Jan 2007 19:55:07
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

As an 11 year veteran of the armed forces and a father of three teenage
boys, I am a traitor.

I recently shredded my 18 year old boy's registration card. It doesn't
matter. He is still registered by default.

I am on a major, multi-year campaign to convince my 3 sons to avoid US
military service at all costs.

Bush is lost and so is his administration.

I don't care for the idea of some raghead slitting my throat in my cockpit
as they fly my 300 pax into a tall building, but I am fed up with the Iraq
situation.

Bin laden and Zwahiri run loose while we grind our military(active, reserve,
and guard) to a pulp in Iraq to eliminate a guy who threatened Georgie
junior's daddy. Let us not forget--Hussein was our ally in the 1980s. We had
an ambassador that told him it was no biggy if he crossed into Kuwait in
1990.

Bush jr. is an idiot.

The men and women of our armed forces are heroes. They won. They are and
have been victorius since may 2003.

Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and all of their civilian henchman have lost.
They are idiots. They are lousy policymakers.

The amazing thing is:

They have yet to be fired.

Shame.

Otto

Date: 29 Jan 2007 22:23:29
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

Otto wrote:
> As an 11 year veteran of the armed forces and a father of three
> teenage boys, I am a traitor.

12 year reservist here.

> I am on a major, multi-year campaign to convince my 3 sons to avoid US
> military service at all costs.

I am the father of five children, and agree with you 100%.

> Bush is lost and so is his administration.

I would take it further - the Republicans and Democrats are completely
lost. They are all a bunch of tyrants.

> Bush jr. is an idiot.

The apple did not fall far from the tree.

> The amazing thing is:
>
> They have yet to be fired.

They deserve to hang and stand before a firing squad after being tried for
crimes against the State.

Date: 29 Jan 2007 23:28:52
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

"Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote in message
news:xSyvh.11695$Cg1.3650@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
> Otto wrote:
> > As an 11 year veteran of the armed forces and a father of three
> > teenage boys, I am a traitor.
>
> 12 year reservist here.

Active duty here. ; >)

> > I am on a major, multi-year campaign to convince my 3 sons to avoid US
> > military service at all costs.
>
> I am the father of five children, and agree with you 100%.

As a multi generational offspring of men who have fought back past the civil
war, it is very discomforting for me to to take this position.

This once great country has been hijacked by business interests and clergy.

It breaks my heart.

> > Bush is lost and so is his administration.
>
> I would take it further - the Republicans and Democrats are completely
> lost. They are all a bunch of tyrants.

I agree.

> > Bush jr. is an idiot.
>
> The apple did not fall far from the tree.

No it did not. But George senior had a brain.

As a Commander in Chief, I think George Jr. has been a failure. Afghanistan
was a wonderful idea. Iraq was a personal vendetta and a very bad idea. My
tears flow for the 30 thousand mend and women killed and wounded in Iraq.

I am also disappointed in the legislative branch(both sides of the isle).

> > The amazing thing is:
> >
> > They have yet to be fired.
>
> They deserve to hang and stand before a firing squad after being tried for
> crimes against the State.

I don't know about that but there is certainly disappointment in the fact
that the citizens in this country did not have the sense to remove these
people from office via the ballot box.

otto

Date: 30 Jan 2007 21:15:41
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

Otto wrote:
> I don't know about that but there is certainly disappointment in the
> fact that the citizens in this country did not have the sense to
> remove these people from office via the ballot box.

I don't want to come off as too much of a pessimist; but it seems like no
matter who the voters pick; it keeps going from bad to worse.

--
___________________________________________________________
A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises,
I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it
gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas
Jefferson

Date: 31 Jan 2007 17:06:39
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 21:15:41 -0500, "Head Shot"
<HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com > wrote:

>Otto wrote:
>> I don't know about that but there is certainly disappointment in the
>> fact that the citizens in this country did not have the sense to
>> remove these people from office via the ballot box.
>
>
>I don't want to come off as too much of a pessimist; but it seems like no
>matter who the voters pick; it keeps going from bad to worse.

We have never faced an enemy like Radical Islam-- who hate the US (and
the remainder of the non-Muslim world) because they have been
brainwashed that they are in a life-and-death struggle, a "1000 year
war." They think they cannot exist in the same world with Infidels.
And they are not afraid to die.

We are very very lucky that GW Bush learned about their project after
9/11 and basically turned the entire government resources over to
preventing another attack on his watch. Afghanistan, Iraq, and soon
Iran and maybe Syria will be part of that effort. I hate it, but I
prefer seeing those wars happen to watching NYC and Chicago, etc.
start looking like Baghdad.

Larry

Date: 31 Jan 2007 20:30:32
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

"larry" <larry@deldata.com > wrote in message
news:d0f2s2pdc365u77mugri02qbstbr8q0u4l@4ax.com...
> We have never faced an enemy like Radical Islam

You give them waaaay too much credit.

Stop being such a chicken.

>-- who hate the US (and
> the remainder of the non-Muslim world) because they have been
> brainwashed that they are in a life-and-death struggle, a "1000 year
> war." They think they cannot exist in the same world with Infidels.
> And they are not afraid to die.

Neither am I and I'll take 10 of them with me.

Stop being such a chicken.

> We are very very lucky that GW Bush learned about their project after
> 9/11 and basically turned the entire government resources over to
> preventing another attack on his watch. Afghanistan, Iraq, and soon
> Iran and maybe Syria will be part of that effort. I hate it, but I
> prefer seeing those wars happen to watching NYC and Chicago, etc.
> start looking like Baghdad.

You give them waaaay too much credit.

Stop being such a chicken.

ter�ror�ist /'t?r?r?st/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled
Pronunciation[ter-er-ist] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
-noun 1. a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates
terrorism.
2. a person who terrorizes or frightens others.

Stop being such a chicken.

Otto

begin 666 premium.gif
M1TE&.#EA$ `/`,0?`*,I`+QB1.NTH]JIF=QS4.*-<.FEC\$P`-9<,ZHK`,8R
M`,0Q`//6S+(P!/79S^W4S/+,O_SQ[M >/=_GQ[OGEW]^ 8-99,.69?^22=\]
M$-)-(/SR[]EF0/[^_LPS`/___R'Y! $``!\`+ `````0``\```5YX" >*Q<=M
MPJB*U^85'N$Y!K6:FJ?K6;9 >%LMNF+%41IN<!]-I,A">C.US&3('DL=DH3M^
M*CMFH"'I-#R6C<G:&6 B#(!.8P/KF!V*0)- L]@!``D-"ETC2F('.U(C0$H-
;`(H >&AP<*QQ*BSXW+3$>8! U-RPF*&HJ(0`[
`
end

begin 666 thinsp.png
MB5!.1PT*&@H````-24A$4@````(````$" 8```"D[^XY````!F)+1T0`_P#_
M`/^@O: >3````"7!(67,```L3```+$P$`FIP8````!W1)344'U@(#$08U?<L#
M_@```!9)1$%4 >-IC_/__/P,#`P,#$P,48#(`9DX#!9Z@R"T`````245.1*Y"
"8((`
`
end

begin 666 speaker.gif
M1TE&.#EA$0`2`,00`):6EM#0T-G9V<;&QKR\O*FIJ >/CXX.#@WEY>:"@H.SL
M['!P<(R,C+.SL_;V]F9F9O___P``````````````````````````````````
M`````````````````````````"'Y! $``! `+ `````1`!(```6-("2.)*0@
M04D*I),\K*HLXFQ P.*4SO&(KH7"L6B47K"%H< > -&@CPF/:0T $C^$CP.A.
MIZ;'`((P,AK?M B0@"0`D (C_14UFG?GG/[3^^]\?0QM`' )9PUH=0I;9 00
M!T8B`U\]!Q !60Z-(T@&"$L(;4\J/D '0D22+5 G-PP(.RHW(PXYM"H\H",A
"`#L`
`
end

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 30 Jan 2007 14:00:02
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 23:28:52 -0500, "Otto"
<ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net > wrote:

>
>"Head Shot" <HeadShot@ThePinkMist.com> wrote in message
>news:xSyvh.11695$Cg1.3650@bignews8.bellsouth.net...
>> Otto wrote:
>> > As an 11 year veteran of the armed forces and a father of three
>> > teenage boys, I am a traitor.
>>
>> 12 year reservist here.
>
>
>Active duty here. ;>)
>
>
>> > I am on a major, multi-year campaign to convince my 3 sons to avoid US
>> > military service at all costs.
>>
>> I am the father of five children, and agree with you 100%.
>
>
>As a multi generational offspring of men who have fought back past the civil
>war, it is very discomforting for me to to take this position.
>
>This once great country has been hijacked by business interests and clergy.
>
>It breaks my heart.
>
>
>> > Bush is lost and so is his administration.
>>
>> I would take it further - the Republicans and Democrats are completely
>> lost. They are all a bunch of tyrants.
>
>
>I agree.
>
>
>> > Bush jr. is an idiot.
>>
>> The apple did not fall far from the tree.
>
>
>No it did not. But George senior had a brain.
>
>As a Commander in Chief, I think George Jr. has been a failure. Afghanistan
>was a wonderful idea. Iraq was a personal vendetta and a very bad idea. My
>tears flow for the 30 thousand mend and women killed and wounded in Iraq.
>
>I am also disappointed in the legislative branch(both sides of the isle).
>
>
>> > The amazing thing is:
>> >
>> > They have yet to be fired.
>>
>> They deserve to hang and stand before a firing squad after being tried for
>> crimes against the State.
>
>I don't know about that but there is certainly disappointment in the fact
>that the citizens in this country did not have the sense to remove these
>people from office via the ballot box.
>
>otto

Whew! Naive, and a simplistic rationalization.

Read "John Adams" or "Lincoln" and learn that politics in America now
is actually cleaner and more honest than it has ever been.

We are watching the Democrats with the liberal media destroy the
President of the US for partisan gain. Very simply he has power and
they want it for themselves. They are apparently willing to
sacrifice whatever is necessary to ensure Bush does not get a victory
in Iraq which would recover his popularity. They have invested
EVERYTHING in our loss in Iraq. An ignominious loss must happen--
and they will distort the truth as necessary to ensure the American
people do not learn of any good news--and hear only the steady
drumbeat of bad news, deaths, etc. The recent fantastic victory--
500 of theirs killed and 2 of ours -- is being downplayed everywhere
except Fox News.

If you don't seek the truth elsewhere than the liberal TV channels and
newspapers, you are being duped. Listen to talk radio. Watch Fox
News, Brit Hume Special Report, O'Reilly, etc. and read Wall Street
Journal and Weekly Standard and other similar serious news outlets.
These media are actually "fair and balanced" and not only parisan
conservative as many think. But you won't know that until you
listen, read, and watch for several days. Then objectively compare
their news to CNN, et. al. and learn that you have been systematically
fed the "party line." Millions think what they want you to think.

Larry

>
>
>

Date: 30 Jan 2007 20:49:58
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

"larry" <larry@deldata.com > wrote in message
news:1afvr2d6bvsgebnn39a94ur9hv9sp6aegf@4ax.com...
> Whew! Naive, and a simplistic rationalization.
>
> Read "John Adams" or "Lincoln" and learn that politics in America now
> is actually cleaner and more honest than it has ever been.
>
> We are watching the Democrats with the liberal media destroy the
> President of the US for partisan gain. Very simply he has power and
> they want it for themselves. They are apparently willing to
> sacrifice whatever is necessary to ensure Bush does not get a victory
> in Iraq which would recover his popularity. They have invested
> EVERYTHING in our loss in Iraq. An ignominious loss must happen--
> and they will distort the truth as necessary to ensure the American
> people do not learn of any good news--and hear only the steady
> drumbeat of bad news, deaths, etc. The recent fantastic victory--
> 500 of theirs killed and 2 of ours -- is being downplayed everywhere
> except Fox News.
>
> If you don't seek the truth elsewhere than the liberal TV channels and
> newspapers, you are being duped. Listen to talk radio. Watch Fox
> News, Brit Hume Special Report, O'Reilly, etc. and read Wall Street
> Journal and Weekly Standard and other similar serious news outlets.
> These media are actually "fair and balanced" and not only parisan
> conservative as many think. But you won't know that until you
> listen, read, and watch for several days. Then objectively compare
> their news to CNN, et. al. and learn that you have been systematically
> fed the "party line." Millions think what they want you to think.
>

> Larry
> I would be ashamed to post here more than very very occasionally-- and
> then as you said, I post simply to bait you morons and watch the
> frenzy to "get" me. Pathetic. You guys apparently don't even know
> that you don't know how sick this forum has become.
>
> See ya. I may be reading the posts-- or I may not... you'll never
> know.
>
> Larry

Date: 30 Jan 2007 18:34:29
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

"larry" <larry@deldata.com > wrote in message
news:1afvr2d6bvsgebnn39a94ur9hv9sp6aegf@4ax.com...
> Listen to talk radio. Watch Fox
> News, Brit Hume Special Report, O'Reilly, etc. and read Wall Street
> Journal and Weekly Standard

Anyone who must proclaim themselves as "fair and balanced" is probably the
furthest from it.

It is sort of like the guy that starts his statement with "Well, to tell you
the truth....."

When you hear that kind of stuff--it generally means the truth is being
ignored or twisted.

Much like a golf game. If someone has to tell you how good they are--they
probably suck.

Otto

Date: 30 Jan 2007 16:23:03
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 18:34:29 -0500, "Otto"
<ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net > wrote:

>
>"larry" <larry@deldata.com> wrote in message
>news:1afvr2d6bvsgebnn39a94ur9hv9sp6aegf@4ax.com...
>> Listen to talk radio. Watch Fox
>> News, Brit Hume Special Report, O'Reilly, etc. and read Wall Street
>> Journal and Weekly Standard
>
>
>Anyone who must proclaim themselves as "fair and balanced" is probably the
>furthest from it.

AS YOU KNOW, before Fox News and talk radio came along, the liberal
media had an absolute manopoly on information to America--40+ years.
Whatever Walter Cronkite said was "IT." And he had a bias that was
FAR from fair and balanced; he was as liberal as Dan Rather. At
least FNC ALWAYS has an equally informed and vociferous liberal on
every discussion with conservatives. NO OTHER media outlet even
pretends to be objective and balanced. Often MSNBC will have a
"forum" discussion with ALL FOUR wildly liberal commentators. Which
explains why essentially nobody watches MSNBC--and fewer every day.
O'Reilly has slam-dunked Larry King in that time zone-- Fair and
balanced always trumps liberal bias.
>
>It is sort of like the guy that starts his statement with "Well, to tell you
>the truth....."
>
>When you hear that kind of stuff--it generally means the truth is being
>ignored or twisted.

Nope, not this time. The reason FNC has come from no place to blow
MSNBC and CNN out of the water and is gaining on the "Big 3" is that
it really is fair and balanced. Please watch FNC and judge for
yourself. Brit Hume (Head of FNC news) is the best newsman in D.C.

Larry

Date: 02 Feb 2007 10:11:05
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

"larry" <larry@deldata.com > wrote in message
news:fqnvr25m9sm62lq9d54dk0j6fo1en1rh3p@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 18:34:29 -0500, "Otto"
> <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"larry" <larry@deldata.com> wrote in message
>>news:1afvr2d6bvsgebnn39a94ur9hv9sp6aegf@4ax.com...
>>> Listen to talk radio. Watch Fox
>>> News, Brit Hume Special Report, O'Reilly, etc. and read Wall Street
>>> Journal and Weekly Standard
>>
>>
>>Anyone who must proclaim themselves as "fair and balanced" is probably the
>>furthest from it.
>
> AS YOU KNOW,

People who start there screed by saying "AS YOU KNOW," --- rarely know what
they claim they know -- thank you for verifying that.

before Fox News and talk radio came along, the liberal
> media had an absolute manopoly on information to America--40+ years.
> Whatever Walter Cronkite said was "IT." And he had a bias that was
> FAR from fair and balanced; he was as liberal as Dan Rather. At
> least FNC ALWAYS has an equally informed and vociferous liberal on
> every discussion with conservatives. NO OTHER media outlet even
> pretends to be objective and balanced. Often MSNBC will have a
> "forum" discussion with ALL FOUR wildly liberal commentators. Which
> explains why essentially nobody watches MSNBC--and fewer every day.
> O'Reilly has slam-dunked Larry King in that time zone-- Fair and
> balanced always trumps liberal bias.
>>
>>It is sort of like the guy that starts his statement with "Well, to tell
>>you
>>the truth....."
>>
>>When you hear that kind of stuff--it generally means the truth is being
>>ignored or twisted.
>
> Nope, not this time. The reason FNC has come from no place to blow
> MSNBC and CNN out of the water and is gaining on the "Big 3" is that
> it really is fair and balanced. Please watch FNC and judge for
> yourself. Brit Hume (Head of FNC news) is the best newsman in D.C.
>
> Larry

Date: 30 Jan 2007 20:49:15
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

"larry" <larry@deldata.com > wrote in message
news:fqnvr25m9sm62lq9d54dk0j6fo1en1rh3p@4ax.com...
> AS YOU KNOW, before Fox News and talk radio came along, the liberal
> media had an absolute manopoly on information to America--40+ years.
> Whatever Walter Cronkite said was "IT." And he had a bias that was
> FAR from fair and balanced; he was as liberal as Dan Rather. At
> least FNC ALWAYS has an equally informed and vociferous liberal on
> every discussion with conservatives. NO OTHER media outlet even
> pretends to be objective and balanced. Often MSNBC will have a
> "forum" discussion with ALL FOUR wildly liberal commentators. Which
> explains why essentially nobody watches MSNBC--and fewer every day.
> O'Reilly has slam-dunked Larry King in that time zone-- Fair and
> balanced always trumps liberal bias.
>>
>>It is sort of like the guy that starts his statement with "Well, to tell
>>you
>>the truth....."
>>
>>When you hear that kind of stuff--it generally means the truth is being
>>ignored or twisted.
>
> Nope, not this time. The reason FNC has come from no place to blow
> MSNBC and CNN out of the water and is gaining on the "Big 3" is that
> it really is fair and balanced. Please watch FNC and judge for
> yourself. Brit Hume (Head of FNC news) is the best newsman in D.C.
>
> Larry
> I would be ashamed to post here more than very very occasionally-- and
> then as you said, I post simply to bait you morons and watch the
> frenzy to "get" me. Pathetic. You guys apparently don't even know
> that you don't know how sick this forum has become.
>
> See ya. I may be reading the posts-- or I may not... you'll never
> know.
>
> Larry

Date: 30 Jan 2007 19:48:33
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

"larry" <larry@deldata.com > wrote in message
news:fqnvr25m9sm62lq9d54dk0j6fo1en1rh3p@4ax.com...
>Please watch FNC and judge for
> yourself. Brit Hume (Head of FNC news) is the best newsman in D.C.

I've watched plenty of it and listened to plenty of Ditto head diatribe on
the radio.

It's all about ratings and money and none of them could give a shit about
you or I or the truth.

Otto

Date: 31 Jan 2007 09:21:25
From: the Moderator
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

"Otto" <ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net > wrote in message
news:mHRvh.27073$uW.8157@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
>
> "larry" <larry@deldata.com> wrote in message
> news:fqnvr25m9sm62lq9d54dk0j6fo1en1rh3p@4ax.com...
> >Please watch FNC and judge for
> > yourself. Brit Hume (Head of FNC news) is the best newsman in D.C.
>
>
> I've watched plenty of it and listened to plenty of Ditto head diatribe on
> the radio.
>
> It's all about ratings and money and none of them could give a shit about
> you or I or the truth.
>
> Otto

This is true for all media. It is just as likely for the media to create
news as it is to report it.

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 30 Jan 2007 16:55:49
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

On Tue, 30 Jan 2007 19:48:33 -0500, "Otto"
<ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net > wrote:

>
>"larry" <larry@deldata.com> wrote in message
>news:fqnvr25m9sm62lq9d54dk0j6fo1en1rh3p@4ax.com...
>>Please watch FNC and judge for
>> yourself. Brit Hume (Head of FNC news) is the best newsman in D.C.
>
>
>I've watched plenty of it and listened to plenty of Ditto head diatribe on
>the radio.
>
>It's all about ratings and money and none of them could give a shit about
>you or I or the truth.
>
>Otto

Maybe. But the alternative is???

Larry

Date: 30 Jan 2007 21:23:18
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

"larry" <larry@deldata.com > wrote in message
news:u7qvr2l6ghk12kikfcog6olopcj0a5rttk@4ax.com...
> Maybe. But the alternative is???

Ignore it all and do the ostrich walk.

Play golf.

Otto

Date: 29 Jan 2007 18:12:38
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 19:55:07 -0500, "Otto"
<ottondebREMOVE%$#%^%$@@bellsouth.net > wrote:

>As an 11 year veteran of the armed forces and a father of three teenage
>boys, I am a traitor.
>
>I recently shredded my 18 year old boy's registration card. It doesn't
>matter. He is still registered by default.
>
>I am on a major, multi-year campaign to convince my 3 sons to avoid US
>military service at all costs.
>
>Bush is lost and so is his administration.
>
>I don't care for the idea of some raghead slitting my throat in my cockpit
>as they fly my 300 pax into a tall building, but I am fed up with the Iraq
>situation.
>
>Bin laden and Zwahiri run loose while we grind our military(active, reserve,
>and guard) to a pulp in Iraq to eliminate a guy who threatened Georgie
>junior's daddy. Let us not forget--Hussein was our ally in the 1980s. We had
>an ambassador that told him it was no biggy if he crossed into Kuwait in
>1990.
>
>Bush jr. is an idiot.
>
>The men and women of our armed forces are heroes. They won. They are and
>have been victorius since may 2003.

That is just moronic. The President requires all the various
advisers, State, Pentagon, CIA, NSA and a dozen others to submit their
best plan-- and then he and his top staff choose among their
recommended choices. He NEVER just makes something up. What the US
has done has always been the best course from the best minds
available. If it was wrong it was only because a mortal man did not
have a time machine to look into the future.

And it is "wrong" now only because the partisan media has decided to
ruin the popularity of this president. When Clinton made MUCH more
egregious decisions during Somalia, Kosovo, etc. NOTHING was said as
he sent troops to be killed in an undeclared war without UN
permission. If you hate the president you have been duped-- you are
their fish. Stupid and "easily led."

And at every juncture since 2002 NOBODY has offered a better choice--
they all were silent and now we hear from them (you).

Everyone is a Monday morning quarterback.

Larry
>
>Bush and Cheney and Rumsfeld and all of their civilian henchman have lost.
>They are idiots. They are lousy policymakers.
>
>The amazing thing is:
>
>They have yet to be fired.
>
>Shame.
>
>Otto
>
>
>
>

Date: 30 Jan 2007 00:47:28
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

On Mon, 29 Jan 2007 15:47:36 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com >
wrote:

>"That poll about Iraq... came out last week and it posed various
>questions about whether folks thought the 'surge' was a good idea or
>not. Including the following: 'Do you personally want the Iraq plan
>President Bush announced last week to succeed?'

Succeed at doing what? I'm not sure I have seen what the president's
measurable objectives are.

Date: 29 Jan 2007 17:14:39
From: glfnaz
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

"larry" <larry@deldata.com > wrote in message
news:mp1tr2t9qmqg2t825i41ggnaek06mf7qrv@4ax.com...
>
>
> "That poll about Iraq... came out last week and it posed various
> questions about whether folks thought the 'surge' was a good idea or
> not. Including the following: 'Do you personally want the Iraq plan
> President Bush announced last week to succeed?' And here's how the
> American people answered: 63 percent said yes, 22 percent said no, 15
> percent said they didn't know. Let me see if I understand that. For
> four
> years, regardless of this or that position on the merits of the war,
> almost everybody has claimed to 'support our troops.' Some of us have
> always thought that 'supporting the troops' while not supporting them
> in
> their mission is not entirely credible. But here we have 37 percent of
> the American people actually urging defeat on them. They 'support our
> troops' by wanting them to lose. This isn't a question about whether
> you
> think the plan will work, but whether you want it to work. And nearly
> 40
> percent of respondents either don't know or are actively rooting for
> failure... What were the numbers like for D-Day?" -k Steyn"
>
> ----------------------------------------------------
>
> Wow! That can only mean that over 1 of 3 Americans WANT the American
> military to lose the Iraq war. They want Radical Islam to win and
> they WANT more soldiers to be killed and more maimed-- because that is
> what any military loss always means. They want America to leave the
> battlefield in what would be one of the most ignominious defeats in
> American history.
>
> Obviously those same Americans (?) would actually prefer their country
> to be defeated than to see a Republican Commander-in-Chief have a
> success that would raise his popularity rating-- and likely make it
> harder for them to retain a congressional majority.
>
> Are those really loyal Americans-- or traitors?
>
> Larry

> I would be ashamed to post here more than very very occasionally-- and
> then as you said, I post simply to bait you morons and watch the
> frenzy to "get" me. Pathetic. You guys apparently don't even know
> that you don't know how sick this forum has become.
>
> See ya. I may be reading the posts-- or I may not... you'll never
> know.
>
> Larry

Date: 29 Jan 2007 16:05:38
From:
Subject: Re: Are you loyal or a traitor?

On Jan 29, 6:47 pm, larry <l...@deldata.com > wrote:
They want America to leave the
> battlefield in what would be one of the most ignominious defeats in
> American history.
>
Curious your logic is based on purely on simple emotional pride,
rather then facts, is that how we base decisions of this scale? If so,
I have to say it sure simplifies the decision making process, you
don't have to know anything about anything.