You're reading too much into it. When you read op-ed's or listen to commentators and find a couple that you agree with you tend to stick with them. Not because they're brainwashing you but because of like opinions and you learn over time who's right more often than not. They have the time and resources to research the issues and you learn to trust them so it saves time. Like that George Will article could have saved a lot of time two days ago :) We never take everything they say as gospel. I don't agree with any of the talk radio conservatives more than 70%. I like to listen to Salvage but I think he's half genius half crazy. Language, borders and culture. I agree with borders but not the other two. Rush thinks everyone should get an SUV and stop whining about big cars blocking your view and the safety is equalized. Hannity and O'Reilly are annoying but I do agree with them often and they have good guests. You might find a handful of fools that agree 100% with anyone in particular but it's not common like you imply. The same thing can be said for the news content of the WSJ that you pride yourself on. I hope you don't consider everything in it to be 100 percent accurate.
> They pray on people's emotions and insecurities. They try to convince > them that there's 2 sides and that their side is the right one. Actually what comes to mind is your google post about privacy. Scare tactics to make us think Bush is watching us type. On 1/20/06, Gruss Gott wrote: > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:193647 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
