1
   

How liberals shamelessly protect their own

 
 
Reply Fri 3 Oct, 2003 12:54 pm
How liberals shamelessly protect their own

When liberals circle the wagons to protect one of their treasured figureheads, they typically resort to shameless insincerity. You couldn't miss that photo of Hillary Clinton on the cover of Time magazine (June 16, 2003), but you might have missed the chutzpah contained in the caption that accompanied it:


IN HER OWN WORDS: the former First Lady talks candidly about Bill, her public life and private pain.

As we know, Hillary's memoir (penned by at least three hired writers) was not "in her own words" - though she did admit to reading the book before it went to print - and even the New York Times Book Review had trouble using the word "candid" in its praise of the Times' ideological goddess.

Last week, California Gov. Gray Davis said two of the dumbest things a politician has said in years:


My vision is to make the most diverse state on earth, and we have people from every planet on the earth in this state.

It was a double gaffe of interplanetary proportions, recalling visions of Gov. Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown. To the New York Times, however, the gaffe presented just another opportunity for the journalistic party of opposition to come to the rescue of one of its own.

In "Twists and Turns of Recall Give Some Voters Cold Feet" (Sept. 21, 2003), the Times concocted a quote, an attribution and a connection of dots - not in an editorial and not in a "news analysis" piece, but in a "straight," front-page news article - to shelter the California governor in a way that would have been unthinkable had the gaffe been made by a Republican.

In the days following the decision by a renegade federal court to postpone the October 7 recall election, county officials across the Golden State noticed a reduction in the return of absentee ballots. Rather than attribute this to the confusion that follows whenever a court sticks its nose into a process it doesn't belong, the Times instead attributed the decline to what "some people" (they weren't identified) were calling "recall fatigue." Then, again without attribution, the Times jumped to the conclusion that this "recall fatigue" had beset the election's participants. And thus was the set up for the Times' defense of Davis:


Mr. Davis has kept such an exhausting schedule that he managed to deliver one of the funniest lines of the campaign the other night without even intending to.

Delivering funny lines is the stock in trade of another great comedian, Woody Allen, who is a frequent contributor of humor pieces to the New Yorker magazine. But the most recent bit of humor to appear in the New Yorker was not by the nebbish from Brooklyn, but by Calvin Trillin who wrote a profile of New York Times' veteran reporter R.W. Apple Jr. ("Newshound," Sept. 29, 2003). Meant to be a "puff piece" praising the talents of Johnny Apple, Trillin delivered what has to be one of the funniest profiles to ever to appear in the New Yorker magazine, without even intending to.

R.W. Apple Jr. was described in the article as someone who "eats prodigiously," is like "an ogre," having a "round face and a pug nose," "a very big 4 year old," someone who has been called, "Three Lunches Apple" and having "the worst body in American journalism." One journalist called him a "cape buffalo" because "it rambles through the brush. It eats what it wants to eat. It does whatever it wants to do, without knowing how much other animals resent it." Another called him "a son of a b----." Yet, according to the profile's author, "People who have known Johnny Apple over the years tend to discount whatever he says about himself and trust whatever he writes in the New York Times."

Could it be that, despite how much they despise him, they happen to agree with his political views?

From time to time, the New York Times will call upon its "cape buffalo" to express those views in what the Times calls a "news analysis" - a thinly disguised editorial reflecting the political or ideological views of the Times on some story covered by the paper that day. An analysis is an opinion, like the analysis of the day's news by Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly. The only difference between a Times "news analysis" and a Times editorial is that the former appears in the news pages, often on the front page, where people normally expect to find objective news. Thus, it is nothing more than a way of sneaking an editorial opinion onto the front page where it gains a pretense of objectivity.

You will never read a "news analysis" on the front page of the Times that runs contrary to the views expressed on the paper's editorial page. And, more troubling, when these "news analysis" pieces appear on the Internet, the label "news analysis" is often omitted - so that many online readers are fooled into believing they are reading a straight news story when in fact they are reading nothing more than a Times editorial.

On Oct. 31, 2001, shortly after hostilities began in Afghanistan, the New York Times ran on its front page a "news analysis" by R.W. Apple Jr. entitled, "A Military Quagmire Remembered: Afghanistan as Vietnam." Apple's absurd comparison of the campaign in Afghanistan to the "quagmire" of Vietnam drew immediate and widespread criticism. When the Taliban collapsed a few days later, what was considered absurd became inept, and Johnny Apple was universally declared out-to-lunch.

Nevertheless, when President Bush launched the military campaign against Iraq, who do you think the Times turned to for a fresh, informative, front-page "news analysis"? Just a few days after the Iraq war began, R.W. Apple Jr. took up the challenge: to write another "news analysis" that was perfectly aligned with the Times' crusade against how Bush was waging the war against terrorism. And so he did.

In "Bush Peril: Shifting Sand and Fickle Opinion" (March 30, 2003), the New York Times gave Apple the real estate of its front page to suggest that the failure to obtain permission from Turkey was a diplomatic debacle, that in launching its military campaign the allies made gross military misjudgments, that "street by street fighting in the rubble of Baghdad ... now looks more likely," and that the war was going to last "so long that the American public would lose patience."

Never has so much prognostication on the front page of a major newspaper been later proven so false: The war ended nine days later, the lack of a northern front turned out to be inconsequential, and the American military waged the most successful and decisive military campaigns since the Battle of Marathon. If the American public was losing any patience, it was with the nattering nabobs of negativism writing for the New York Times.

Three weeks later, Apple reflected on the U.S. victory (in "A New Way of Warfare Leaves an Abundance of Loose Ends," April 20, 2003):

Nobody got it quite right. The war in Iraq, now in its final military stages after only a month of fighting, was neither as painful as its opponents predicted nor as painless as its proponents suggested.

Some analysis! Since when did Bush, or anyone, say the war was going to be "painless"? It seemed more like Johnny Apple could not fully own up to his own incompetence. Not surprisingly, that was the very last article that Three Lunches Apple has written for the Times on any subject other than food. Clearly, if the ogre (not my word) were to write again on any subject of world importance again he would either have to redeem himself or have someone else rehabilitate his credibility.

Perhaps because Apple was too busy writing about a crow he recently ate, the liberal establishment chose to gin up a formal rehabilitation on his behalf. And so, it seems, the pages of the New Yorker magazine were chosen to provide us with both an excuse for inept journalism and to prepare us for the return of Johnny Apple to the front page of the Times. Yet, for the pages of the New Yorker magazine, Woody Allen himself could not have come up with the hysterical one-liners that Apple's apologist, Calvin Trillin, delivered:


If I had to categorize [Apple's] politics in American terms, I'd say he might be a Rockefeller Republican.

Instead of blatantly manipulating Apple's credibility by bashfully categorizing him as - oh my - a Republican, how about just asking Apple what his politics are? If he really answered Republican, would anyone believe that a Republican, any Republican, would so blindly bash the Bush administration's national security policy during a time of war?

The next laugh riot arose from the following line, which suggested that Apple - like other reporters who cover politics for the Times - is unbiased, objective, impartial, a centrist, in other words, non-ideological:


Like a lot of people who have spent many years reporting politics, he is engaged by the game but not by the ideology.

Trillin praised Apple's "historical perspective," a trait he suggests made Apple particularly suited to writing "news analysis" pieces. On the heels of that observation came this howler in defense of Apple's war analysis:


A [news analysis] piece is not necessarily a profound or blindingly original piece of work. Two or three days after it's written, it can look dated or even wrong, particularly in a constantly changing situation like war.

Oh, so "news analysis" pieces appearing on the front page of the New York Times really don't require a historical perspective and its value, questionable to begin with, should not be expected to survive the week.

Finally, when a liberal really can't explain away ineptitude any other way, he resorts to pure gibberish:


You could argue that some ["news analysis" pieces], when all is said and done, amount to conventional wisdom, since they reflect the observations of people asked to assess the situation in terms of what happens, conventionally, when such situations occur.

Don't try to parse that last clause. The only sense you can make of it is that it was part of an all-too obvious attempt - with fresh quotes of praise from executive editor Bill Keller - to prepare the public for a "born again" Johnny Apple, ready to resume his front-page erudition on the events of the day.

Thus, with a laughable defense of Apple's dismal record at news analysis, the article, on the whole, portrays the portly Apple as "a lovable old Labrador," "enormously generous," and "so damn good."

If history is any indication, however, Mr. Apple's satisfaction with the "puff piece" he just received in the New Yorker could be as short-lived as his war analysis. The last time the New Yorker wrote admiringly about a New York Times staffer ("The Howell Doctrine," June 10, 2002), the subject of the profile resigned in disgrace within a year.




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

Bob Kohn is the author of "Journalistic Fraud: How The New York Times Distorts the News and Why It Can No Longer Be Trusted." Available from ShopNetDaily.
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 2,792 • Replies: 43
No top replies

 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Oct, 2003 07:09 pm
In the immortal words of Gomer Pyle . . .

Oh . . . shame, shame, shame . . .
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Oct, 2003 07:17 pm
Setanta
Setanta, tsk, tsk, tsk.

BumbleBeeBoogie
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Oct, 2003 09:13 pm
McGentrix

Good article----thanx for bringing it out for the Lefties here to "Cluck" at. I truly hope Mr. Kohn "zeroes" in on Andrew Gilligan of the BBC next.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Oct, 2003 09:54 pm
I realize I am not the brightest bulb on the tree, but i have always thought that harmony was achieved by a variety of tones representing a scale or, if you will, a variety of ideas and opinons. With that premise I have assumed a sense of respect for all sides in the spectrum of thought because I do believe that harmony is possible without violence of thought, without degradation of tones not of my liking. Because of my "liberal" education I have grown to believe that entropy results from monotones of ideas. As i read you McGentrix and Perception, I have come to the conclusion that you prefer monotones. I can only conclude that you prefer entropy.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Oct, 2003 10:33 pm
Dys

You have confused me again----did you mean "entrophy" or "entropy"?

(entropy is a measure of the disorder or randomness of a system).

All references to "entrophy" indicate actual meaning of "entropy"

You wrote:

"With that premise I have assumed a sense of respect for all sides in the spectrum of thought because I do believe that harmony is possible without violence of thought, without degradation of tones not of my liking".

Ya know----I feel exactly the same way. Very Happy
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Oct, 2003 11:06 pm
The following was written by a "Fighter pilot" with an "IQ" of 90----while my IQ is supposedly a little higher than that I would be ecstatic if I had accomplished 10
% of what this man had before he died. To revisit "entropy" and the second law of thermodynamics I post the following excerpt from "Destruction and Creation"

Entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics

Confusion and disorder are also related to the notion of entropy and the Second Law of Thermodynamics (11,20) Entropy is a concept that represents the potential for doing work, the capacity for taking action, or the degree of confusion and disorder associated with any physical or information activity. High entropy implies a low potential for doing work, a low capacity for taking action or a high degree of confusion an disorder. Low entropy implies just the opposite. Viewed in this context, the Second Law of Thermodynamics states that all observed natural processes generate entropy.(20) From this law it follows that entropy must increase in any closed system--or, for that matter, in any system that cannot communicate in an ordered fashion with other systems or environments external to itself.(20) Accordingly, whenever we attempt to do work or take action inside such a system--a concept and its match-up with reality--we should anticipate an increase in entropy hence an increase in confusion and disorder. Naturally, this means we cannot determine the character or nature (consistency) of such a system within itself, since the system is moving irreversibly toward a higher, yet unknown, state of confusion and disorder.

Destruction and Creation

What an interesting outcome! According to Gödel we cannot-- in general--determine the consistency, hence the character or nature, of an abstract system within itself. According to Heisenberg and the Second Law of Thermodynamics any attempt to do so in the real world will expose uncertainty and generate disorder. Taken together, these three notions support the idea that any inward-oriented and continued effort to improve the match-up of concept with observed reality will only increase the degree of mismatch. Naturally, in this environment, uncertainty and disorder will increase as previously indicated by the Heisenberg Indeterminacy Principle and the Second Law of Thermodynamics, respectively. Put another way, we can expect unexplained and disturbing ambiguities, uncertainties, anomalies, or apparent inconsistencies to emerge more and more often. Furthermore, unless some kind of relief is available, we can expect confusion to increase until disorder approaches chaos-- death

Fortunately, there is a way out. Remember, as previously shown, we can forge a new concept by applying the destructive deduction and creative induction mental operations. Also, remember, in order to perform these dialectic mental operations we must first shatter the rigid conceptual pattern, or patterns, firmly established in our mind. (This should not be too difficult since the rising confusion and disorder is already helping us to undermine any patterns). Next, we must find some common qualities, attributes, or operations to link isolated facts, perceptions, ideas, impressions, interactions, observations, etc. together as possible concepts to represent the real world. Finally, we must repeat this unstructuring and restructuring until we develop a concept that begins to match-up with reality. By doing this--in accordance with Gödel, Heisenberg and the Second Law of Thermodynamics--we find that the uncertainty and disorder generated by an inward-oriented system talking to itself can be offset by going outside and creating a new system. Simply stated, uncertainty and related disorder can be diminished by the direct artifice of creating a higher and broader more general concept to represent reality.

However, once again, when we begin to turn inward and use the new concept--within its own pattern of ideas and interactions--to produce a finer grain match with observed reality we note that the new concept and its match-up with observed reality begins to self-destruct just as before. Accordingly, the dialectic cycle of destruction and creation begins to repeat itself once again. In other words, as suggested by Gödel's Proof of Incompleteness, we imply that the process of Structure, Unstructure, Restructure, Unstructure, Restructure is repeated endlessly in moving to higher and broader levels of elaboration. In this unfolding drama, the alternating cycle of entropy increase toward more and more disorder and the entropy decrease toward more and more order appears to be one part of a control mechanism that literally seems to drive and regulate this alternating cycle of destruction and creation toward higher and broader levels of elaboration. Now, in relating this deductive/inductive activity to the basic goal discussed in the beginning, I believe we have uncovered a Dialectic Engine that permits the construction of decision models needed by individuals and societies for determining and monitoring actions in an effort to improve their capacity for independent action. Furthermore, since this engine is directed toward satisfying this basic aim or goal, it follows that the goal seeking effort itself appears to be the other side of a control mechanism that seems also to drive and regulate the alternating cycle of destruction and creation toward higher and broader levels of elaboration. In this context, when acting within a rigid or essentially a closed system, the goal seeking effort of individuals and societies to improve their capacity for independent action tends to produce disorder towards randomness and death. On the other hand, as already shown, the increasing disorder generated by the increasing mismatch of the system concept with observed reality opens or unstructures the system. As the unstructuring or, as we'll call it, the destructive deduction unfolds it shifts toward a creative induction to stop the trend toward disorder and chaos to satisfy a goal-oriented need for increased order. Paradoxically, then, an entropy increase permits both the destruction or unstructuring of a closed system and the creation of a new system to nullify the march toward randomness and death. Taken together, the entropy notion associated with the Second Law of Thermodynamics and the basic goal of individuals and societies seem to work in dialectic harmony driving and regulating the destructive/creative, or deductive/inductive, action--that we have described herein as a dialectic engine. The result is a changing and expanding universe of mental concepts matched to a changing and expanding universe of observed reality.(28,27) As indicated earlier, these mental concepts are employed as decision models by individuals and societies for determining and monitoring actions needed to cope with their environment--or to improve their capacity for independent action.

Footnote: The authors definition of entropy as the "concept for doing work" was the key for his creation of the "Energy manueverability theory" which is his real contribution to this country and it's citizens.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Oct, 2003 11:21 pm
McGentrix

Please forgive the digression----it was "triggered" by Dys when he used the word "Entropy" It is a meaningful word rarely used.
0 Replies
 
NeoGuin
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2003 06:07 am
Keep believing the idea of the "Liberal Media."

As a bumper sticker I once saw said.

"The Media Is Only As Liberal As The Multinational Corporations That Control It"

http://www.thenation.com/directory/view.mhtml?t=0A01

http://www.fair.org
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2003 12:24 pm
perception wrote:
The following was written by a "Fighter pilot" with an "IQ" of 90----while my IQ is supposedly a little higher than that I would be ecstatic if I had accomplished 10% of what this man had before he died.

Geez, perception, that's setting your sights mighty low. The excerpt you posted was nothing but gibberish.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2003 12:37 pm
When you are right, you are right, McG.

Davis is certainly guilty of some dumb statements!

But his intelligence, or lack of it, only affects the people in California.

We got a guy in the Oval Office that you have been defending quite vigorously that can out-dumb Davis moving only his lower lip.

Here are a couple of beauties:



Quote:
Rarely is the question asked: Is our children learning?"-Florence, S.C., Jan. 11, 2000




Quote:
"The important question is, How many hands have I shaked?"-Answering a question about why he hasn't spent more time in New Hampshire, in the New York Times, Oct. 23, 1999




Quote:
"Will the highways on the Internet become more few?"-Concord, N.H., Jan. 29, 2000





Want a couple hundred more???
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2003 02:31 pm
Joefromchicago;

You are easily influenced-----I suspect if I had said it was produced by a person with an IQ of 160 you would have gushed over it.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2003 07:52 pm
perception wrote:
Joefromchicago;

You are easily influenced-----I suspect if I had said it was produced by a person with an IQ of 160 you would have gushed over it.

No, I'm sure I would have said: "Why is such a supposedly intelligent person saying such idiotic things about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the Second Law of Thermodynamics?"
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Sat 4 Oct, 2003 08:43 pm
Joefromchicago wrote:

No, I'm sure I would have said: "Why is such a supposedly intelligent person saying such idiotic things about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the Second Law of Thermodynamics?"

This is an important digression to this thread and I will ask McG to forgive us for the deviation-----I would be delighted if you can dissect what the author says about the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle and the Second Law of Thermodynamics. I'm always willing to learn and I mean that sincerely. The philosophical piece my excerpt was taken from was published in a Biography called Boyd, the Fighter pilot who changed the Art of War and has been analysed by some very bright people ------ none of whom called it "jibberish"

If you would like the full text, Google in "Destruction and Creation".
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Oct, 2003 12:24 pm
joefromchicago wrote:
perception wrote:
The following was written by a "Fighter pilot" with an "IQ" of 90----while my IQ is supposedly a little higher than that I would be ecstatic if I had accomplished 10% of what this man had before he died.

Geez, perception, that's setting your sights mighty low. The excerpt you posted was nothing but gibberish.


Joefromchicago:

You have made a very insulting remark about the intelligence of the author of "Destruction and Creation". I have politely asked you to refute any portion of his comments. I intend to keep bumping this thread until you respond either with a credible refutation or an apology.
0 Replies
 
joefromchicago
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Oct, 2003 03:03 pm
perception wrote:
If you would like the full text, Google in "Destruction and Creation".

That's not how it works, perception: if you want me to look at a source, it's your job to track it down.

perception wrote:
You have made a very insulting remark about the intelligence of the author of "Destruction and Creation". I have politely asked you to refute any portion of his comments. I intend to keep bumping this thread until you respond either with a credible refutation or an apology.

OK, perception, don't get your undies in a bunch. Here are a few observations on the excerpt you posted:

"What an interesting outcome! According to Gödel we cannot-- in general--determine the consistency, hence the character or nature, of an abstract system within itself. According to Heisenberg and the Second Law of Thermodynamics any attempt to do so in the real world will expose uncertainty and generate disorder."
That's complete nonsense. Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle (HUP) operates on an atomic level, and it has nothing to do with "abstract systems," whatever those are. Likewise, the Second Law of Thermodynamics (2LT) deals with physical systems, not abstract ones.

"Taken together, these three notions support the idea that any inward-oriented and continued effort to improve the match-up of concept with observed reality will only increase the degree of mismatch."
Rubbish. If this has any validity, it's only on an atomic level (according to the HUP); it has no validity with regard to anything else. Rather, it flies in the face of common experience.

"Put another way, we can expect unexplained and disturbing ambiguities, uncertainties, anomalies, or apparent inconsistencies to emerge more and more often. Furthermore, unless some kind of relief is available, we can expect confusion to increase until disorder approaches chaos-- death"
Nonsense on stilts. Neither the HUP nor the 2LT lead to greater anomalies: indeed, the 2LT leads to much greater consistency among observations (that's why it's called a law).

"Remember, as previously shown, we can forge a new concept by applying the destructive deduction and creative induction mental operations."
Gibberish and double-talk.

"By doing this--in accordance with Gödel, Heisenberg and the Second Law of Thermodynamics--we find that the uncertainty and disorder generated by an inward-oriented system talking to itself can be offset by going outside and creating a new system. Simply stated, uncertainty and related disorder can be diminished by the direct artifice of creating a higher and broader more general concept to represent reality."
This is really idiotic. A system talking to itself? What the hell does that mean? And creating a higher concept to represent reality as a means of diminishing the effects of the 2LT? That defies the laws of physics and logic.

"In other words, as suggested by Gödel's Proof of Incompleteness, we imply that the process of Structure, Unstructure, Restructure, Unstructure, Restructure is repeated endlessly in moving to higher and broader levels of elaboration."
Gödel's theorem suggested nothing of the sort. It applies only to formal systems of mathematics.

"In this unfolding drama, the alternating cycle of entropy increase toward more and more disorder and the entropy decrease toward more and more order appears to be one part of a control mechanism that literally seems to drive and regulate this alternating cycle of destruction and creation toward higher and broader levels of elaboration."
Incomprehensible gobbledigook.

"Now, in relating this deductive/inductive activity to the basic goal discussed in the beginning, I believe we have uncovered a Dialectic Engine that permits the construction of decision models needed by individuals and societies for determining and monitoring actions in an effort to improve their capacity for independent action."
Decision models? What does that have to do with Heisenberg, Gödel, or the 2LT?

I'd comment on additional selections, but what's the point? The author takes some unrelated (and not fully comprehended) theories and sticks them into inappropriate places to come up with a theory of . . . something -- I'm not sure what. It's all just arrant nonsense.
0 Replies
 
Craven de Kere
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Oct, 2003 04:02 pm
perc,

Joe is right. Science does not lend itself well to meandering metaphor.
0 Replies
 
perception
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Oct, 2003 08:26 pm
Joefromchicago

So as not to drag this out ad nauseum, I will merely say that your rhetorical refutation of a philosophical work does nothing to convince me that you are qualified to maintain such an arrogant position.

Boyd was the father of the F-15 and the F-16(recognized as the two most manueverable and efficient fighter aircraft in the world today even though the design is over 20 years old) because he developed the formula for energy manueverablity which in turn
allowed aircraft engineers to design an aircraft for optimum manueverability versus available thrust, lift and drag.

He also developed the concept known as the OODA loop whish stands for Observe, Orient, Decide and Act. The applications for this concept are now being deployed in the military( the Marines in manuever warfare) and by business when attempting to out-think and outmanuever the competition. The one who can cycle through this series of actions in the shortest amount of time consistently will win.

The philosophical work "Destruction and Creation" was his effort to determine how his mind was able to create the EM theory when all other more brilliant people had failed.

As for tracking down a source----how difficult is it to type in "Destruction and Creation" in Google?
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Oct, 2003 08:32 pm
Quote:
Boyd was the father of the F-15 and the F-16(recognized as the two most manueverable and efficient fighter aircraft in the world today even though the design is over 20 years old)

Hmmm...according to Janes, the Mig 29 can outperform both, is cheaper, and is used by more nations. Smile
0 Replies
 
hobitbob
 
  1  
Reply Sun 5 Oct, 2003 08:36 pm
Or perhaps the SU 27?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
  1. Forums
  2. » How liberals shamelessly protect their own
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/20/2021 at 03:37:58