0
   

Let's talk about replacing GWBush in 2004.

 
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2004 08:15 am
Thomas

Try here...
http://www.casst-ccvss.ca/english/other/28a-10.htm
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2004 08:26 am
blatham wrote:

Thanks for the link, blatham. You know it's really ironic. Whenever Iran's policy against satellite dishes is discussed, it is labelled "censorship". When Canada does the same thing, while "protecting" the cable network against foreign competition, it's called "preventing satellite theft" and "cultural protection". And liberal people like you, who are otherwise all about civil rights, defend the practice! You haven't even denied yet that you would approve of a ban on US newspapers in the name of "cultural protection".

I don't like the American media policies all that much, but they sure beat the hell out of their Canadian counterpart.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2004 08:32 am
blatham wrote:
Sofia wrote:
I agree they should get a smattering of sources--but, what is this about Canada wanting to ban FOX...?

Shouldn't EVERYONE get a balance of views? Or just Conservatives?


http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=f831a3010fb37fa3

Regretfully, we Canadians will have to do without Fox.

Were you doing without CNN, I bet you'd sing a different tune, which suggests to me you simply approve of the censoring of Fox specifically. (Or am I wrong, and you're just a fan of government censorship of the media in general?)

Oh well, we'll sort it out once you folks apply for statehood. :wink:
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2004 08:33 am
Thomas wrote:
blatham wrote:

Thanks for the link, blatham. You know it's really ironic. Whenever Iran's policy against satellite dishes is discussed, it is labelled "censorship". When Canada does the same thing, while "protecting" the cable network against foreign competition, it's called "preventing satellite theft" and "cultural protection". And liberal people like you, who are otherwise all about civil rights, defend the practice! You haven't even denied yet that you would approve of a ban on US newspapers in the name of "cultural protection".

I don't like the American media policies all that much, but they sure beat the hell out of their Canadian counterpart.


Yeah!
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2004 08:50 am
thomas

You are fun to talk with.

I'm quite surprised you had not heard of Black. He's recently hit a wall (yea wall!) with his company, Hollinger. Here's a link that I just picked at random...may be helpful link
Black is no longer Canadian. He had royal aspirations. He revoked his Canadian citizenship to become a Lord (nattering all the way out the door). He is connected with AEI, sits on some boards with Richard Perle...a long list of unpleasant friends and associates.

Quote:
For my own understanding, let me probe how far you are willing to take this position. If, for purposes of 'cultural protection', your government made it illegal for Canadiens to read foreign newspapers, or to watch live streams of the Fox programs over the internet, would you support such a move? And if you opposed it -- as I expect you would -- what's the relevant difference between newspapers and websites on the one hand, and TV channels on the other hand?

Really, it is moreso (at least in the present) a differentiation of websites on the one hand, and newspapers/TV on the other. The difference is viewer/reader capturing.

But your hypothetical isn't very useful, as the CRTC would not implement a policy such as you pose. The notion or value they tend to support is multiplicity of view, with a limited bias for Canadian content and towards maintenance of a Canadian media voice. It's protectionist, but that doesn't bother me. And you'll note the point made by the fellow in Walter's link....some 80% of content in Canada is already American sourced. Get me? My claim is that we are less likely to get multiple viewpoints if we stick to an aesthetically pleasing absolute of no regulation.

Quote:
This suggests that a ban of foreign newspaper ownership, if Canada has one, didn't keep him from acquiring monopoly power. Arguably, it even supported him by erecting a barrier of entry against foreign competition, including liberal foreign competition with reasonably deep pockets, such as the New York Times Company.


It's not an easy problem. Some 80% of Canadians live within 50 miles of the American border (there are a lot of fat people in America, and the continent tilts). So, even as a kid when TV was received via aerial, American TV channels outnumbered Canadian. We didn't complain, because we liked American TV. We still do. I actually don't know what limitations we have on foreign ownership of media. We do have content regulations (eg, radio stations must play some percentage of Canadian content). Again, that percentage falls far below 50%.

Quote:
Very well, I must be a numbskull then. No offense taken, as I'm sure none was intended.
Well, let's hold off on any conclusions here just yet.

Quote:

Perhaps so, but that's not the point I'm trying to argue at the moment. My point is that I have much less faith than you do in the concept that smart people like yourself ought to tell dumb people like me which TV channel to watch. The concept has been tried in the eastern part of my country for 40 years, and has rightly been abandoned as highly defective. We don't miss it one bit.


Well, as I hinted earlier, I think you may be entranced by the aesthetics of an absolute. And the situation of media control in the old east germany isn't comparable to what the CRTC is doing. Nor what the existing regulations of the FCC in America have as their rationale (the encouragement of multiple voices).

I believe, gosh do I, that power ought to be set up with robust checks, given the ubiquitous human tendency to seek power and then to monopolize it. It's perhaps the brightest fundamental notion underlying the US constitution. Presently, in the US particularly, the press is increasingly taken to task for being a counter-force to the political administration. But that's precisely what it should be. It ought not to be right or left, it ought to be a check on both.

I wish I could convince you to read Alterman's book. I understand you likely have more than one book on your night stand, but perhaps you might take one of those speed-reading courses. Woody Allen said, back when such courses were popular, that a friend had graduated and gone on to read "War and Peace" in twenty-seven minutes! The book, Allen's friend said, "...is about Russia."
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2004 08:55 am
Thomas wrote:
blatham wrote:

Thanks for the link, blatham. You know it's really ironic. Whenever Iran's policy against satellite dishes is discussed, it is labelled "censorship". When Canada does the same thing, while "protecting" the cable network against foreign competition, it's called "preventing satellite theft" and "cultural protection". And liberal people like you, who are otherwise all about civil rights, defend the practice! You haven't even denied yet that you would approve of a ban on US newspapers in the name of "cultural protection".

I don't like the American media policies all that much, but they sure beat the hell out of their Canadian counterpart.


I don't have any formed opinion on dishes or the regs here. It's not a question that's yet jumped into my areas of interest. I'd guess that the media companies involved in all of this are simply seeking profit. It doesn't, as you know, follow for me that such a motive is anything other than self-interest.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2004 09:05 am
Scrat wrote:
blatham wrote:
Sofia wrote:
I agree they should get a smattering of sources--but, what is this about Canada wanting to ban FOX...?

Shouldn't EVERYONE get a balance of views? Or just Conservatives?


http://feeds.bignewsnetwork.com/?sid=f831a3010fb37fa3

Regretfully, we Canadians will have to do without Fox.

Were you doing without CNN, I bet you'd sing a different tune, which suggests to me you simply approve of the censoring of Fox specifically. (Or am I wrong, and you're just a fan of government censorship of the media in general?)

Oh well, we'll sort it out once you folks apply for statehood. :wink:


I do consider Fox unique, and uniquely lousy as a journalistic enterprise (not necessarily otherwise, eg the Simpsons), and a uniquely bad corporate citizen for that.

But a more appropriate comparison here would be my response were the National Enquirer to pick up, say, 90% of Canadian press and institute its 'editorial' policies in those papers. Or perhaps, if The Daily Commie Woiker were to manage such monopoly. My assumption that the polity would be negatively effected would likely move me to protest (if not bomb).

The Wall Street Journal is available at any 7-11 here in town. That's cool with me.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2004 10:12 am
blatham wrote:
You are fun to talk with.

Thanks. You too!

blatham wrote:
He is connected with AEI, sits on some boards with Richard Perle...a long list of unpleasant friends and associates.

I can see why the AEI and Richard Perle are unpleasant friends to you. But I don't see why this should affect how many media outlets he can rightfully own.

blatham wrote:
The difference is viewer/reader capturing.

I don't understand your concept of "viewer capturing". As I understand it, viewers and readers are grown-ups who have decided of their own free will which news paper to read and which TV channel to watch. You may or may not like the choice they collectively make. The Canadian government may not like it either. But how does this give any of you the right to claim that they were "captured" (against their will, by implication), and that it is your job to "rescue" them from their captors? I don't get it.

blatham wrote:
But your hypothetical isn't very useful, as the CRTC would not implement a policy such as you pose.

From my point of view, the CRTC already has implemented a policy such as I posed, because I don't see any meaningful difference between TV channels, newspapers, and websites.

This wasn't the case 30 years ago, when it was technically impossible to transmit more than about 5 TV channels in the given frequency spectrum. When only few channels are available, somebody has to make sure that those few channels are interesting to a wide audience. The government, being the elected representative of the people, was a good institution to do the job. No problem from where I stand.

But today, in the age of digital TV, there is practically no restriction on the number of channels Cable TV can carry. When German cable TV regulators regulate that I can watch CNN but not the BBC World Service (which I prefer), that's politics, not necessity. Likewise, when Canadian regulators keep Fox out of their cable network, there is no justification from "public interest" concerns anymore. It's technically feasible, and quite practical, to carry hundreds of signals on cable TV; so if regulators restrict it to a few dozens, and hand out the artificially rare channels to their favored broadcasters, that's cronyism and censorship pure and simple. The difference is, the German government lets me route around this problem by pointing a dish at a satellite that does carry BBC. The Canadian government doesn't.

blatham wrote:
My claim is that we are less likely to get multiple viewpoints if we stick to an aesthetically pleasing absolute of no regulation.

And my claim is that it is wrong to push viewpoints that people don't want to hear, just because they are different from those that people do want to hear.

blatham wrote:
And the situation of media control in the old east germany isn't comparable to what the CRTC is doing. Nor what the existing regulations of the FCC in America have as their rationale (the encouragement of multiple voices).

As it happens, the stated rationale for the East German government was to promote world peace, and to protect humanity to be taken over by evil capitalists. I don't see anything wrong with that either. But the consequences of East German policies were misery, tyranny, and distrust, which was none of the regulators intentions. And the consequences of the Canadian policies is that I can't watch a particular TV channel because you don't want me to. The point isn't moral equivalence between Canada and East Germany; it's that consequences of a policy needn't have much to do with the rationales used to justify it.

blatham wrote:
Presently, in the US particularly, the press is increasingly taken to task for being a counter-force to the political administration. But that's precisely what it should be. It ought not to be right or left, it ought to be a check on both.

Have you ever wondered why the harshest critics of the Bush administration publish in the printed press, which is practically unregulated by government? Why the big TV networks, on the other hand, are as aggressive as sedated Chihuahuas? Could it have to do with the fact that un friendly TV coverage can get your station sanctions from the administration, while unfriendly newspaper can't? If so, what does that imply about the desirablility of having media regulated by the government they exist to criticize?

blatham wrote:
I wish I could convince you to read Alterman's book.

Title added to my "to read pile". No promises though.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2004 10:40 am
Quote:
I don't understand your concept of "viewer capturing". As I understand it, viewers and readers are grown-ups who have decided of their own free will which news paper to read and which TV channel to watch. You may or may not like the choice they collectively make. The Canadian government may not like it either. But how does this give any of you the right to claim that they were "captured" (against their will, by implication), and that it is your job to "rescue" them from their captors? I don't get it.
Sure you do. An example would be the former East German media you alluded to earlier. Significant viewer capture there. To me, it doesn't matter how a monopoly on communication (particulary of political views) arises, whether through a state mechanism or through a corporate monopolization, the consequence would be the same. Five corporations now control something like 90% of North American media (I think that is the right figure) and, if Mr. Powell's preferred policy of further dereg at the FCC succeeds, there will be a further monopolization. What ought we to do when it gets to two? Or one?

The 'rights' a government possesses arise, in my view, from what the community sees fit to give it. So if Canadians preponderantly hold that their government ought to be able to put in controls on communication, then such a right is clear, if reversable.

Again, the point is not restriction of viewpoint, but rather the availability of multiple viewpoints...of establishing some regimen of regulations which will promote multiple viewpoints.

Much more to take up in your post...but have to run.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Tue 4 May, 2004 11:02 am
blatham wrote:
Significant viewer capture there. To me, it doesn't matter how a monopoly on communication (particulary of political views) arises, whether through a state mechanism or through a corporate monopolization, the consequence would be the same.

In your opinion, does the validity of those views make any difference? For example, I'm sure there once was a "Journal of Ptolemaic Astronomy", a "Medical Bleeding Letters", and the "Marxist Economics Review". No doubt diversity in their respective fields decreased when these journals went out of circulation. What I do doubt is that this loss of diversity is, by itself, deplorable, and that the government ought to have stepped in to preserve these diversity-enhancing magazines.

blatham wrote:
Five corporations now control something like 90% of North American media (I think that is the right figure) and, if Mr. Powell's preferred policy of further dereg at the FCC succeeds, there will be a further monopolization. What ought we to do when it gets to two? Or one?

Start your own newspaper. If that's too much trouble, start a weblog. And most importantly, have something to say so that people want to read it! Making the government handicap your competition because nobody voluntarily listens to you is a losing attitude.

blatham wrote:
The 'rights' a government possesses arise, in my view, from what the community sees fit to give it. So if Canadians preponderantly hold that their government ought to be able to put in controls on communication, then such a right is clear, if reversable.

Surely there must be limits to this argument. For example, fifty years ago, the citizens of the Southern States preponderantly held that their government ought to segregate public toilets and public schools, and restrict blacks' ability to register for voting. Sure, from a strictly legalistic point of view, the state governments had the right to do this. But this doesn't change the fact that from an ethical point of view, they didn't.

I'm sure you and I agree about this when it comes to the civil rights of blacks before Martin Luther King. The difference is, I think the same logic applies to a person's right to choose their TV channel, and you don't.

blatham wrote:
Again, the point is not restriction of viewpoint, but rather the availability of multiple viewpoints...of establishing some regimen of regulations which will promote multiple viewpoints.

And again -- newspapers and websites, where the regimen is practically complete laissez-faire, show much more diversity than TV, which is quite tightly regulated. What does that tell you about the relative desirability of the two regimens?
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2004 06:40 am
back in a bit...just wanted to post this here...

Quote:

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/05/05/national/05DISN.html?hp
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2004 07:52 pm
Here's a good follow-up to blatham's post.
**************
Dear MoveOn member,
Oscar-winning director Michael Moore has finished his latest documentary, but The Walt Disney Company is refusing to let the American public see it.

The film, "Fahrenheit 911," is critical of President Bush's actions before and after Sept. 11 and describes Bush's relationships with powerful Saudi families, including that of Osama bin Laden.

According to the New York Times, Moore's agent says embattled Disney chief Michael Eisner feared the documentary could endanger the company's tax breaks in Florida, where Bush's brother, Jeb, is governor.

We can't let corporate favors for politicians dictate what movies we see. Tell Disney to show us Michael Moore's documentary:

John Spelich
Corporate Communications
The Walt Disney Company
Phone: (818) 560-8543

If the line is busy, call a Disney store near you. The salespeople aren't responsible for this decision, but ask them to pass your concerns on to the manager.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2004 09:17 pm
Even George Will is questioning W's thinking.....

http://www.sacbee.com/content/opinion/national/will/story/9184291p-10109787c.html


Quote:
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Wed 5 May, 2004 10:02 pm
Lola, GWBush's statement can be interpreted more than one way; those supporting Bush will say it's a positive statement, and some of us will say it's a bigoted statement. Those who support Bush can't see the bigotry if it hit them on the head.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 May, 2004 07:19 am
thomas

Sorry, not much time lately other than for quick yuk yuk posts.
Let me address your most recent post...if you'd like to press anything earlier, please feel free.
Quote:
blatham wrote:
Significant viewer capture there. To me, it doesn't matter how a monopoly on communication (particulary of political views) arises, whether through a state mechanism or through a corporate monopolization, the consequence would be the same.

In your opinion, does the validity of those views make any difference? For example, I'm sure there once was a "Journal of Ptolemaic Astronomy", a "Medical Bleeding Letters", and the "Marxist Economics Review". No doubt diversity in their respective fields decreased when these journals went out of circulation. What I do doubt is that this loss of diversity is, by itself, deplorable, and that the government ought to have stepped in to preserve these diversity-enhancing magazines.


Validity IS important, but it seems to me surely best achieved (even established) via a JS Mill 'marketplace of ideas' context. Such a marketplace will see some magazines, or whatever, disappear and others appear. As popularity and validity aren't identical, there will be instances where more valid/valuable sources fail and others succeed. So, as you say, " I doubt a loss of diversity is, of itself, deplorable". I doubt it too, in that absolute sense.

But I'll wager you allow for some state controls on monopoly in business or technological development. And though the desired end isn't diversity itself, it is diversity that forwards the liklihood of whatever ends you have in mind.

That points to a dilemma in modern media for me. On the one hand, newstands, the digital TV universe, and the internet together yeild more diversity of voice than anyone, including Mill, ever dreamed. To my mind, that's a clear good. But it doesn't tell the whole story, because it doesn't acknowledge monopolies - or uniquely priviledged positions- which might function to reduce diversity.

If I correctly understand US and European government complaints against Microsoft, a part of those complaints pointed to the strategies MS had implemented which sought to place their products in a uniquely privledged position. Do you grant no substance to these complaints as regards likely negative consequences arising?

Television news, radio, and print news (newspapers) hold a uniquely priviledged position. They are far and away the news sources most available, most tuned into, and most influential. So it's not surprising that political entities seeking control of media voices (and partisan dominance) head straight towards newspapers, radio and TV. Last weekend, for example, Dick Cheney gave a speech saying he didn't watch network news other than Fox, which, he said his experience showed, gave the most truthful rendition of things. The same weekend, Ralph Reed (past head of Christian Coalition and now part of Bush campaign) gave a speech saying he never watched network news other than Fox which, he said his experience showed, was the empitomy of veracity in news. (As an indication of shift in media, he also advised republicans to use the internet for political news and activism...and if you've looked at sites like NewsMax, you'll appreciate the echo-chamber nature of the right wing internet). But, when you get to Alterman's book, you'll get a notion of how much money and design lies behind Republican/conservative moves to control TV, radio and print press, precisely because of their priviledged postion and influence. The consequences for actual diversity of view and speech have been profound.

Quote:
blatham wrote:
Five corporations now control something like 90% of North American media (I think that is the right figure) and, if Mr. Powell's preferred policy of further dereg at the FCC succeeds, there will be a further monopolization. What ought we to do when it gets to two? Or one?

Start your own newspaper. If that's too much trouble, start a weblog. And most importantly, have something to say so that people want to read it! Making the government handicap your competition because nobody voluntarily listens to you is a losing attitude.


Au contraire. The losing attitude has been 180% otherwise than you suggest. A bazillion blogs, unread, are effectively meaningless.

Quote:
blatham wrote:
The 'rights' a government possesses arise, in my view, from what the community sees fit to give it. So if Canadians preponderantly hold that their government ought to be able to put in controls on communication, then such a right is clear, if reversable.

Surely there must be limits to this argument. For example, fifty years ago, the citizens of the Southern States preponderantly held that their government ought to segregate public toilets and public schools, and restrict blacks' ability to register for voting. Sure, from a strictly legalistic point of view, the state governments had the right to do this. But this doesn't change the fact that from an ethical point of view, they didn't.

I'm sure you and I agree about this when it comes to the civil rights of blacks before Martin Luther King. The difference is, I think the same logic applies to a person's right to choose their TV channel, and you don't.


I agree that there are limits to this argument, and your example is a fine one. Ethical considerations, and laws which represent those considerations, form a valid and necessary wall against majoritarian idiocies and fads. But your second paragraph here is naughty (bad thomas!). If a marketplace is so contructed as to effectively hide, minimize or eradicate all but a certain variety of TV channel (or viewpoint), then 'choice' becomes a sham. That's not quite so critical in choice of an internet browser, but it is critical in political dialogue. Picking a morning paper to read, when your options are Pravda One, Pravda Two, Pravda Three and Pravda Four, isn't much of a choice.

Quote:
blatham wrote:
Again, the point is not restriction of viewpoint, but rather the availability of multiple viewpoints...of establishing some regimen of regulations which will promote multiple viewpoints.

And again -- newspapers and websites, where the regimen is practically complete laissez-faire, show much more diversity than TV, which is quite tightly regulated. What does that tell you about the relative desirability of the two regimens?


You assume two things here: TV is less diverse than print, and the cause of this is a greater quantity of regulation over TV.

On diversity, the question can be confused simply because the two media are so different. So, for example, there are far more representations of sexuality on TV than in the daily paper. As regards political voices, the print medium demonstrates a much deeper level of analysis than does modern TV. But it wouldn't be accurate at all to attribute that difference to regulations. Susceptibility to advertiser preference and demands, and the sound-bite nature of TV are the more proper culprits here. Though I wouldn't exclude some correspondence between regulation and diversity in TV, I don't perceive it.

******
We might ask "what is the proper role of TV, radio or newspapers as regards political reporting?" One could hold, as you may, that they have no 'proper' role - that TV, radio and newspapers are merely and only business enterprises, like tobacco, coke, or armaments. If so, I don't agree.

We can also ask, if we posit some greater role than widgit production and dollars in someone's pocket, "how might we measure how well news media are functioning?" Then, a proper measure might be something like "how informed are the citizens?" In September of 2003, precisely two years after 9-11, the Pew Research Centre found that 7 out of 10 Americans believed that "Sadaam Hussein played a direct role" in the attack on the WTC.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 May, 2004 08:21 am
c.i. wrote:
Quote:
Lola, GWBush's statement can be interpreted more than one way; those supporting Bush will say it's a positive statement, and some of us will say it's a bigoted statement. Those who support Bush can't see the bigotry if it hit them on the head.


Some may say that it's a positive statement, c.i. True. But let's look at what Bush said:

Quote:
"There's a lot of people in the world who don't believe that people whose skin color may not be the same as ours


I know some people who still don't understand why a statement like, "some of my best friends are black" is a condescending and bigoted statement. After all, they feel they're trying to say something positive about "these people." They don't recognize that the statement confirms the fact that they have not yet faced a clear reality, that "white" is not the one true skin color.

When Scott McClellan, the president's press secretary, later tried to explain what GW was trying to say, he ignored the fact that Bush didn't say what Mr. McClellan says (or wishes) he meant to say.

Quote:


I don't envy McClellan, whose job seems to be to stuff the cat back into the bag once it's already out and pouncing. And of course, GW has cats pouncing out of his mouth every day he's allowed to speak for himself.

What Bush said indicates that he believes, as George Will writes, that white skin defines who is American. He may wish he hadn't said it, but he did. If he doesn't believe it, he should examine his thinking on this point before speaking on the subject again.

It's true that most white folks in this country were brought up as bigots. It's equally true that, for this very reason, those of us who have white skin have a responsibility to be constantly examining our assumptions about race and religion (and hopefully do it before we speak, especially if we're the president.) This is not to say, in case I may be misunderstood for what I have not included, that bigotry exists only in the minds of whites. Bigotry and prejudice is a chronic problem that must be fought against in all cultures.

But I agree with Will, in this case when he says there is another reason why what Bush said is problematic:

Quote:


This technique of name calling while neglecting to speak coherently about his reasons for his own actions and policies, defines this administration. "If you're not for us, you're against us." So if we don't agree with this administration's policies and actions (and lack of them) then we are not only disloyal and unamerican, but now we're racists too.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 May, 2004 08:49 am
Lola, This is the sentence that should be highlighted,
This is where I see his bigotry. c.i.
0 Replies
 
Scrat
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 May, 2004 08:50 am
Quote:
...Michael Moore has finished his latest documentary...

Moore doesn't make documentaries, he creates fiction out of footage from real life. There's a big difference.

Of course, that difference is wasted on liberals.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 May, 2004 09:08 am
Scrat wrote:
Quote:
...Michael Moore has finished his latest documentary...

Moore doesn't make documentaries, he creates fiction out of footage from real life. There's a big difference.

Of course, that difference is wasted on liberals.


Danged liberals anyway! Differences wasted all over the place. Much preferable they get the goods on what is like what, and what isn't like what from Rush, who has just described the torture of Iraq prisoners as like "a college fraternity prank."
0 Replies
 
Walter Hinteler
 
  1  
Reply Thu 6 May, 2004 09:21 am
blatham wrote:


Danged liberals anyway! Differences wasted all over the place. Much preferable they get the goods on what is like what, and what isn't like what from Rush, who has just described the torture of Iraq prisoners as like "a college fraternity prank."


I nice list of of other "college fraternity prank" is HERE. Shocked
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
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 03/17/2025 at 04:48:37