No. Based on their own behavior, which you excuse by whining about how everybody does it. Rush Limaugh and the Weekly Standard are an automatic discredit because of the level of their reporting, what am I saying, reporting, ha, it's yellow journalism without the journalism. The Washington Times is *not* an automatically discredit actually -- said that several weeks ago. Some good people went there when the Star closed. However, that doesn't fit your theory here. You'd rather misrepresent what I am saying than actually answer it.
But why confuse you with the facts? I repeat, Jerry has the right idea. The hell with this. Believe what you want to believe, just don't think it has any basis in reality. I'm outta here and I wash my hands of you. Dana > Aren't there two sides of a debate? I think you're point of view is > just as far to the left as you think mine is to the right. > Think about everything you've ever said about Bush, Rove or Rumesfeld > on this list. Based solely on your gut feeling. Now look at how you > ignore all the facts to defend Wilson. That's the person you just > described when you thought you were talking about me. > Your blind defense is government bad, little guy good. No matter what > the facts are. > > As far as casting "aspersions on the integrity of others", aren't you > always the first to discredit something as a Rush Limbaugh thought? > Weekly standard or Washington Times is an automatic discredit. What's > the difference? If someone > is known to be biased and makes negative claims with out a backup > source aren't they considered to be just blowing hot air? > > Gay bashing? War for personal gain? > > That's far left rhetoric. > > > On 7/14/06, Dana Tierney wrote: > > Actually - we were talking about what exactly it takes to make life > difficult for someone who was a pubic servant, just because they don't > happen to follow your script, whether this be out of integrity or > misreading the cues. > > > > Let me tell you. It takes the kind of mind that can't debate without > making wild accusations of partisanship, or casting aspersions on the > integrity of others. We're talking about a mind that sees nothing > wrong with gay-bashing to distract the ignorant from the violations of > human rights that are being carried out in their name. We're talking > about people who would declare war for personal gain and then throw a > hissy fit when someone correctly points out that they have misled the > people they are supposed to represent. > > > > It's the kind of mind that would call someone biased when it can't > even be bothered to find out what's really happening, Sam, you know > what I am saying here? You ever hear the term displacement? I have > often wondered about you. I can't really tell if you believe this > stuff you spew because you keep feeding it into your mind, or if this > is a big trollish role you play because you don't have any other life. > Hard to say. > > > > But I am thinking that maybe Jerry has the right idea after all. > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Introducing the Fusion Authority Quarterly Update. 80 pages of hard-hitting, up-to-date ColdFusion information by your peers, delivered to your door four times a year. http://www.fusionauthority.com/quarterly Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/message.cfm/forumid:5/messageid:211236 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
