No balance in Rocky
Reading this liberal Rocky Mountain News on a daily basis is becoming a frustrating experience. The columnists use allegations and try to make them appear to be facts. That’s not their job. The Rocky is supposed to reach out to all citizens. I am so tired of the daily “warm fuzzies” you give to the Democratic Party.
Between anti-Bush cartoons and anti-Republican articles, I’m at the point of giving up on this newspaper. You cannot tell me that with a party as dirty as the Democratic Party there are not columns that can be written to balance the information the Rocky puts out every day.
I believe in free speech and sharing opinions, but when it comes to a newspaper, good journalists will look at both sides, not just what they believe. Good journalists, where are you? I just pray people who read only the Rocky’s opinions don’t believe everything your paper puts out.
Elaine Neade, Aurora
yep elaine, you are so right about the dirty democratic party..
funny thing tho, i can't keep all the GOP/evangelical scandals straight anymore. it's all just congealing into one giant smug bible thumping gay bashing evangelical congressman caught with a gay prostitute using meth in diapers while using campaign funds to take his wife to strip clubs while trolling the mens restroom at an airport.
Posted by Michelle on September 1, 2007 01:25 AMThe RMN too liberal? What a hoot. It's too conservative for me. And Michelle: nicely done.
Posted by bebop on September 1, 2007 05:37 AMElaine, I agree. This town needs another paper.
Posted by Ben on September 1, 2007 06:08 AMI disagree with Elaine. The RMN is pro GOP (grand old perverts). We should continue to cull the herd of GOP felons. The RMN doesn't report facts like Bush, UCMJ-felon (40+ years AWOLee, deserter, and guilty of illegal separation and discharge), hired a fellow felon. USCC Judge Affrimative Action (AA) Alito, like Bush, is also a UCMJ-felon, for the same reasons as Bush. Alito (plantation "masa" and pimp of oppression) pimped and exploited taxpayers. He joined the US Army ROTC program and "copped" 7 years of "free" college education (JD and undergrad degrees), where he incurred an "11" year active duty military obligation. Alito blew off his time under the disguise of him being a federal law clerk. Federal law clerk ain't mentioned in my copies of the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) or Manual of Court Martial. Therefore, Alito should be sentenced to 3 years in federal prison. I challenge Elaine and the RMN, to investigate and audit Alito's military service records. Then they should complete their investigation and report back to the folks. HINT: Alito's online "bio" doesn't even mention his military service. This flies in the face of the GOP's stance, "serving in our military units is "NOBLE". Let's highlight this defeatist, surrender monkey, communist-sider, and draft-dodger's "nobility". Folks should be calling their congressional reps concerning Alito and have all of his decisions and votes thrown out.
Posted by 40acresandmymuleandNAMvetbennies on September 1, 2007 07:03 AMIf only there were some way we could sit down and read news from more than just the local newspaper. What if we had some easy means of INTERnational communication? What if, when fishing for news, we could cast our NETs across the globe? Or, if I may be forgiven for such a fanciful image, what if the articles and editorials we wanted to read were insects, and we were spiders weaving a WORLD-WIDE WEB? I'm sure I could go ON in this LINE of thought for some time, but I know it's just a fantasy. It's no more real than a will-o'-the-wISP.
Posted by If Only on September 1, 2007 07:10 AMAnd I'm sure Elaine gets all of her TV news from Faux Noise.
Posted by TJ on September 1, 2007 07:46 AMElaine I suggest you keep on reading the RMN but then turn on Rush,Mark Levin and the rest of the talk radio people.They will show you the important things that the media leave out of a story.That is why talk radio has become so popular.I think 30,000,000 people listen to talk radio.Of course, the Democrats tried to start their own talk radio but it failed.That is because their lies do not stand up to debate on talk radio.We the average citizen can call in and get the truth out to the public.The Democrats are even trying to close talk radio down because they can't lie to the public and get away with it.Everybody listen to talk radio!!!!!
Posted by An American on September 1, 2007 08:51 AMAn American
Conservative talk radio is nothing more than opinion, spins, lies and smears. Instead of debating the issues they smear the person. If you get your so-called "facts" from that you are truly in sad shape.
Posted by GK on September 1, 2007 10:07 AMIt needs repeating "Facts have a liberal bias"
Posted by on September 1, 2007 10:22 AMPeople wake up!!!! It will be way too late when you realize the Democrat party is Socialism in disguise. Do you really want to the government to have all the power you liberals give it?? France, Germany and England are now starting to wake up as we are going in the direction they are trying to come out of. Sooner or later the government will make laws that liberals don't agree with but by that time it will be too late and they will have given the government too much power for the people to change anything. GK is obviously listening to liberal not conservative radio and confusing them! I have never heard a liberal be fair to the other side.
Posted by on September 1, 2007 11:55 AMGK-
Talk radio , whether conservative or liberal , gives OPINIONS.
Newspapers do have opinion sections but are supposed to be neutral and unbiased in their NEWS REPORTING.
Can you understand the difference?
The RMN,and most media outlets, in my opinion, consistently feature stealth opinion pieces as news stories, championing Dems and their causes ,like illegal immigration ,gay rights,womens rights, anti-gun, anti-war ,Christian bashing, welfare entitlements, govt nanny-ism ..., while Conservative causes are most often portrayed negatively.
Another clever tactic is the selective reporting of actual news, and the double standards they employ.
There is overblown coverage of Republican wrong doing, complete with feigned outrage, while Dem scandals are ,if even reported on, excused ,dismissed and then buried.
This practice isn't exclusive to newsprint either.
It goes on daily with TV news, magazines like Time and Newsweek ,and the entertainment and music industries.
To see documentation of this on a day to day basis,with an archive section that goes back over a decade,please do go to http://www.newsbusters.org/
Posted by Get Real on September 1, 2007 12:10 PMWell said Get Real, when a Democrat does something unacceptable it is super downplayed but let a Republican do something unsavory and every news organization here and abroad report it to death. Democrats very rarely have to suffer the consequences of what they do and the self righteous liberals always sit in judgement of any Replubican wrong doing. Look at what Ted Kennedy got away with and he is still a senator and they like to say Bill Clinton got impeached for having sex with an intern but they choose to forget that he got impeached for lying to the grand jury.
All the major news stations except for Fox news gives super biased news and that is why Fox is so hated by the liberals. The RMN is at least a little less liberal then the Post but not by a lot.
Liberals claim to be so accepting of things but they are much more closed minded then conservatives in this day and age and that is really too bad because if we all listened to each other we would have a much better country. I just recently withdrew my Democrat affiliation because I refuse to give allegiance to George Soros, Moveon.org and Daily Kos who now own the Democrat party. Look it up for yourselves and you will find the truth.
Posted by on September 1, 2007 12:28 PM12:28,
All other news stations except for Fox give biased news? Fox is not biased? Now that is funny!!! I guess of course if they say everything you agree with they are not biased right. And liberal stations have survived, Liberals just think more for themselves and don't have to rely on ditto heads to fall all over each other agreeing with Rush.
Posted by Mike D. on September 1, 2007 03:20 PMAir America could not survive because while the social conservatives were sitting in their trailer parks listening to rush, the moderates and liberals were at work to provide the socons their monthly welfare checks. The same welfare checks the socons get their panties in a knot over if anyone black, brown, or not attending a fundamentalist church receives.
Posted by Edmond on September 1, 2007 04:58 PMMike D.-
I believe Fox News leans to the right but not near as much as the Main Stream Media leans to the left.(ABC,NBC,CBS,PBS,CNN,MSNBC,NPR,Time,Newsweek,USA TODAY,New York TIMES,L.A. Times....)
BTW-
I don't rely on anyone but myself to gather information from numerous sources before I make judgements.
That includes Fox, Rush and conservative blogs ,but also the MSM and liberal web sites such as Huff Post, Daily Kos and Media Matters.
You have to hear all sides for an informed opinion, no?
It is easy to hear the Lib talking points, you cant get away from it, the MSM bombards you daily.
Where do you go to get your Conservative point of view on the issues?
I would really like to know.
Posted by Get Real on September 1, 2007 05:26 PMThe difference between the parties... When a Republican gets into an ethics dilemma, we ask them to leave... When the democrats do it, they ask him to be president.
Funny, isnt it, how the left conveniently forgets their pervs like Jerry Studs, Barney Frank, Bill Clinton..... oh yeah, and none of them stepped down.....
they forget Feinstein's hubby making millions off of defense contracts she wrote, the unethical dealings of Mrs Clinton, Barak Obama and of course, Ted Kennedy. And who can forget, William Jefferson... who is still serving... I wish I had a freezer full of cash.
Yep, one of ours gets caught in a scandal and we do the right thing.... the left considers it a resume enhancement.
Posted by Dravur on September 1, 2007 05:34 PMHey..we're lucky! Edmond, the pompous ass speaks to us poor unworthy peons again. What downward slope that nose has.
Posted by on September 1, 2007 06:07 PMDravur- 5:34,
Good post, you've got that right.
And when there is Dem maleficence the media will ignore it until they are finally forced to report it, due mainly to continued exposure from alternative news sources like talk radio or the Internet.
Take the scantly covered Air America Radio/Boys Club taxpayer ripoff to the tune of almost a MILLION DOLLARS.
Or happening right now, The Clinton/Dem fundraising scandal that you would think ,during the primaries and involving a presidential candidate ,would be BIG DAILY HEADLINES dominating the news cycle.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2007/09/01/hillary-s-history-accepting-contributions-felons-ignored
But,since the Dems are in the hot seat , the story receives preferential treatment.
Business as usual for the MSM.
Just as I thought. Newsbusters is a conservatively spun site just like the rest of the conservatively dominated media.
Posted by GK on September 1, 2007 06:26 PMEdmond 4:58-
So you're suggesting Conservatives are the majority reciprocates of welfare?
What color is the sky in your world?
Posted by Get Real on September 1, 2007 06:27 PMGK-
Indeed it is important to consider the source but what Newsbusters does is expose blatant liberal spin in the daily news cycle.
They comment on LINKED MSM stories that exhibit this bias,and you can access them and decide for yourself. They aren't making up these stories.
I believe some of there critiques are nit picking but overall ,if you read them on a regular basis,you will see what I'm talking about.
Compare that to the liberal "watchdogs" Media Matters, or Fox Watch,which I also read daily, and if you are to be intellectually honest, must admit the case they make is not nearly as persuasive ,and the MSM does lean leftward.
But, since reading your Truther posts on previous threads, I realize how far out on the left you sit, and that explains your absurd contention that the Media is pro Republican.
Good luck with that.
Posted by Get Real on September 1, 2007 07:02 PMI've had foreign friends ask me how Bush maintains a 30% approval rating. Elaine Neade furnishes the answer. Can't quite figure out just how corrupt her party has become (Ney, Lay, Cunningham, Stevens, Gonzales, the list is endless).
poor Temple. He isn't going to win. The Bushites consider him liberal (just short of communist) and middle america considers his paper just short of the Deutsche Allgemeine Zeitung (1938).
Posted by Republican - past on September 1, 2007 08:20 PMRead the Christian Science Monitor it's the best paper for facts not opinions.
I always thought the RMN was conservative and the Denver Post much too conservative. And then they became one. So we get the conservative side of all issues.
08:24 PM
...the Denver Post much too conservative. Are you freakin' nuts? The Post rivals the New York Times in be a flaming leftist yellow sheet -- they're so far left that they make Karl Marx look to the Right of dittoheads.
Ms. Neade has written a fundamentally dishonest letter. She is completely ignoring the conservative columnists who are published in the RMN's opinion section, not to mention the mostly conservative editorials regularly featured.
I believe her idea of "balance" would be to have no liberal opinions included in the RMN whatsoever.
Posted by mytwosense on September 1, 2007 09:52 PMHa, well said 9:43.
I don't think RMN is a liberally biased. Only to the extent that they use the extremely liberally biased Associated Press for many of their stories. The AP and Paul Campos are the two main reasons I canceled my subscription. I just can't stand the thought of funding either one of them.
As for the rest of the RMN, it's mostly an inconsequential wanna-be newspaper. I found myself flipping through it in under a minute and tossing it in the trash. It's boring.
Posted by John II on September 2, 2007 09:26 AMFor someone who has such a low opinion of the RMN, you cerrtainly spend a lot of time on its Website. Why?
Posted by Old Grouch on September 2, 2007 09:36 AMI love their forum. It's so much more interesting to interact with the various characters of Colorado than to read some idiot reporter's B.S. story on whatever crime he happened to have heard on the police radio that day. If I can't immediately respond to a newspaper story or letter, I usually have no interest in reading it. I don't regard news reporters/journalists as particularly intelligent people. I think the enormous power of the pen is wasted on them.
Posted by John II on September 2, 2007 10:00 AMGet Real
Your posts suggest you are way out on the far right field, so good luck with that. Oh, and I do read many sites, liberal and conservative and I have found that the mainstream media is conservatively dominated. No doubt about it.
9:43 said
"..the Denver Post much too conservative. Are you freakin' nuts? The Post rivals the New York Times in be a flaming leftist yellow sheet -- they're so far left that they make Karl Marx look to the Right of dittoheads."
Yeah right. The paper that endorsed Bush for another term.
Posted by on September 2, 2007 10:05 AMOld Grouch we spend a lot of time on this Website to counter you and your friends liberal lies.To make sure the public can see what you guys really are and it is not a pretty picture.Also you can call talk radio and get the truth out to the public.Like I said the reason that liberal talk radio failed is because they were just repeating the same lies their friends in the liberal media were printing.With talk radio you can call in and get the truth out to the people and that does not work well with the Democrat agenda.I have called talk radio thousands of times and exposed the Democrats and media for the liars they are on the gun issue.I am just a common person but I have been able to talk to millions of people about something I know very well the gun issue.I think if we did not have talk radio the Democrats were well on their way to destroying the Second Amendment.I called a media outlet in 1989 and told them they were putting out false information about guns.They told me "we will lie if we want to".I realized at that time talk radio was the only way to bypass the liberal Democrat controlled media.The liberals hate talk radio because the average citizen can have their say and that threatens the liberal Democrat elites.The Democrats do not trust the people that is why they want to disarm them.It is really not about the gun.It is about the fact the Democrats do not trust the people with REAL power and that is why they want to close talk radio.
Posted by An American on September 2, 2007 10:39 AMHi Captain America. Still sleeping with your guns?
Posted by Sharon B. on September 2, 2007 11:33 AMread the Denver Posts article in perspective page E 1 on war wounded.
Yep reality has a liberal bias.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 2, 2007 11:43 AM10:05
I am conservative concerning economic and defense issues but back womens rights,and the legalization of drugs and prostitution .
Does that sound like I am on the far right?
Why don't you tell me about the conservative values you embrace?
Posted by Get Real on September 2, 2007 11:51 AMSharon B.,
Were you referring to the article entitled "Always, war's chilling reality"?
If so, I don't know how that applies to reality's liberal bias. The article was about American soldiers wounded in battle. War is hell. Conservatives and liberals alike know this.
Posted by John II on September 2, 2007 12:05 PMYes, I was.
Yes war is hell. And this was an unnecessary war from my point of view.
Liberals think this war, and the reality of all its horrors could have been avoided.
When papers print articles like this I often hear conservatives complain that this only shows one side of things.
Like all those photos and videos of Baghdad. Conservatives don`t like them and complain bitterly that we see so many.
Reality is liberal, at least in the case of this war.
Do you have to talk to me as if you were my grandfather?
Posted by Sharon B. on September 2, 2007 12:47 PMAgain, I don't get the phrase "reality is liberal". Yes, liberals focus on the negative; that does not mean they are morally above anyone.
There are many things which constitute "reality". Death, sorrow, pain, suffering, injustice, boredom, mediocrity, success, glory, heroism, faith, etc.
Just because liberals choose to focus solely on one aspect of reality, that is pain and suffering, does not mean they own reality. Just as conservatives who tend to focus on success and glory do not own reality. Each celebrates certain aspects of reality but neither owns the whole of it.
Your grandfather must be (have been) a very wise man.
Posted by John II on September 2, 2007 01:16 PMWhen it comes to polotics the media is generally for the democratic party. There have been just as many serious allegations and crimes committed however the democratic party often has the same views as the media. People need to take everything in and learn to judge for themselves about issues. BE INDEPENDANT AND THINK FOR YOURSELF. Niether party lives up to their promises or idealouge. If anything the current political parties are beholden to the Special Intrest Groups.
Posted by Chris on September 2, 2007 01:23 PMJohn II you are right that people focus on the negative or positive to make their points, no matter the issue.
But I like the phrase that reality has a liberal bias when it applies to the Iraq war.
By the way, the war looks the same or worse on foreign tv.
My grandfather was a carny man. He showed my daughter how to make ice snow balls to throw at the boys who tormented her on the way home from school
He stockpiled these missiles, had her lead the boys to his house, and the two of them let fly.
Yes, a wise old man.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 2, 2007 01:42 PMWell, well, well.
I see yappy puppy is out again:
Grrrrrrrush! Grrrrrush! Grrrrrrush! As he grabs at your trouser cuffs. Poor old Limbaugh sure is hard up for shills.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 2, 2007 05:43 PMAs you can see the liberals can't counter what I said about the media.Whatever Sharon B. has to say about what the media says about the war is probably a lie .Just like the lies they told about the gun issue.The point is do not trust anything the media is telling you about the war.When the Democrats and their media friends were attacking the Second amendment and the gun issue with lies the truth was being put out on talk radio.Because I have a fair amount of knowledge about guns I knew the media was lying.I am willing to bet the media is doing the same with the war.You can't debate the liberals on the lies they spew out to the public because by the time you counter one lie they have another one ready.This is what they did on the gun issue.Listen to talk radio because their facts on the gun issue were right on the money.Remember the Democrat party can't tell the truth about what they think because the people would turn against them.They are the party of fraud and deception and the media is on their side.
Posted by An American on September 2, 2007 07:16 PMElaine,You are exactly right.rmn is not a creditable news source.Look at the people that they have tainted basically making morons like drew,og,charles b.,sharon b.,edmond,mike d.,michelle and the rest of the village idiots.
Posted by Keith on September 2, 2007 07:41 PMkeith moved to Texas, what can I say.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 2, 2007 09:11 PMKeith, An American,
Do you guys share the same house? I think you two make a cute couple!! I can perform a commitment ceremony for you two, after all I am a liberal...
Posted by Mike D. on September 2, 2007 09:12 PMmike d., you are a product of the rmn.You should sue the bastards for making you into a village idiot.
Posted by Keith on September 3, 2007 08:13 AMAh! well!
The "conservatives" really are something else.
They have both their un-trained, un-housebroken, yappy puppies out playing tug-of-war with the newspaper. And then they complain when the paper gets in the house.
But, then again, that's the perfect measure of the "conservaive" anyway, yapping, snarling, and noisy nuisance. And the whelps are right there to lead the pack.
Certainly does go to prove the old saw about how humans come to closely resemble their favorite animal.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 3, 2007 08:33 AMAh yes, the " don't confuse me wtih the facts, I've got my mind made up" crowd is on a roll again throwing verbal knives at each other in gay abandonment of common sense while the politicians rape all the freedoms we have and look with distain upon at this foolish circus of ignorance we insist on carrying on and on to the extreme limits of absurdity in the hope we will never see the truth and kick their greedy and corrupt asses out of office.
Posted by Allen Campbell on September 3, 2007 09:56 AMAllen Campbell,
A whole lot of the time, you make good sense, and post well reasoned material.
But something does bother me about much of the current postings to be found all through the lines. This is the general diatribe of "anti-government" that seems to have become so fashionable, along with the "anti-politicians" shtick that goes with it.
Just our of curiosity, how do you propose to govern, without people in office?
And who is to replace all those "greedy and corrupt" whose asses you want thrown out?
There is an old saying: "Nature abhors a vacuum". And, while someting of a cliche, it really does apply to almost any area.
It seems to me there is something missing from the thinking processes that lead one to put up the proposition that the voters can't trust those they elect. So by Initiative made into law, the elected are forbidden - along with their families, and even the families of non-elected low echelon employees, etc., etc., - forbidden to receive even scholarships for the children, in order to keep government employees honest. And, then, in turn, these same voters rant away about getting rid of the elected wholesale; while themselves doing nothing to replace the ones for whom they have expressed so much disgust and distrust; while at one and the same time expecting someone - SOMEONE ELSE - to want to run for office; or work for the very people who tell him/her that he/she is so toally dishonest in the first place that he/she must be micro-managed unto the extent of the next generation.
And, if that doesn't make sense when read, just how much sense does it make when it is actually put into effect by the stupid, brainles, idiots who express the disgust and distrust in the first place?
Out in the run of general business, how many employers wiil get good help by starting with the presentation: "I don't trust you. I am going to make it my policy to remind you, every day, that I don't trust you; and I am going to show that distrust at every possible opportunity, in every way possible, even to making you turn over your family finances and opportunities to my approval as well. And, along with not trusting you, I'm going to run you down, insult you as much as possible on every occasion possible. BUT! I expect you to work for me, and do the best possible job you can do for my benefit.
Well, nevermind. It's just politics anyway.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 3, 2007 01:19 PMSome columnists are liberal, some are conservative. I try to read them all. But I skip the Duck because that cartoon is just stupid.
Still, I love how the artist draws conservatives, with their lovely round faces and sweet expressions. Their big soulful eyes and curly hair.
Then he does liberals and they all have pointy eyebrows, long chins and beady little black pupils in their eyes. Then he adds wild unkempt hair, except for Edwards, where he makes it look like he thinks a $400.00 hair do should look, all pouffe and sculpted.
However, when actual news is printed, especially when it comes with pictures, then the truth has a liberal bias.
Scooter is convicted, the stall meister pleads guilty, supposadly lost e-mail shows up, memos are leaked.
some political commentator shows a video of Bush or Cheney talking and is called a liberal lier.
Truth hurts conservatives.
Posted by Sharon B. on September 3, 2007 09:36 PMWhich truth would that be, Sharon B.? You mean the truth that war is hell and liberals love to wallow in sorrow? Yes, that's certainly a truth.
Here's another truth: Mr. Bush lowered taxes and revenue soared despite the fact that liberals predicted otherwise. The liberals predicted the same thing when Mr. Reagan cut taxes. They also said Mr. Reagan was going to start a nuclear war and that we should get rid of our nuclear weapons. It's a good thing we didn't listen to them. Oh, they also said about 30 years ago that the world was heading for massive starvation due to over-population. Hm, that didn't quite pan out. And what was it they were saying about global cooling? Oh, and now they tell us we should not build a missile defense system because it would not work. Yet, recent tests have shown the system to be effective. And what was it the liberals said about raising the speed limit from 55? That never quite panned out either: traffic deaths decreased, not increased, after the speed limit was raised. What about gun control? The liberals said the issuance of concealed weapons permits would increase the crime rates. Of course, crime rates have dropped in every city that issue the permits. And then, there's the "gun free zones". A liberal idea with the good intention of decreasing crime despite conservatives warnings that it would put innocent people in danger. Virginia Tech was a gun-free zone.
I could go on and on with many more examples of "liberalism's reality".
I know it's a cute thing to say "reality has a liberal bias" or "liberalism is reality-based". But, it's meaningless nonsense that women throw out there to sound intellectual in the male-dominated world of politics. The real truth is that liberalism is the philosophy of the dumb, the weak, the deranged, the young, the effeminate, and the feminine segments of society. In the sense that all of those things are a part of reality, yes, liberalism is reality-based. But, that doesn't mean it's based on a reality that truly protects people.
Posted by John II on September 3, 2007 10:23 PMCute? You dare to call me cute?
Conservative truth: Cake walk, greeted as liberators, welcomed with flowers. Yawn, heard it all didn`t you? We will stand down when they stand up. yap,yap yap.
John II you mixed liberal opinions and predictions, some from scientists and some from politicians and some from Newsweek with facts and truth. Cute.
No world wide starvation, maybe the AIDS deaths headed that off a bit. Maybe the millions killed in civil war. Yep, dodged that bullet somehow. Maybe just dumb luck.
The 55 speed limit saves gas, sorry it killed so many people before it was upped.
True rock solid conservatism is neurotic, based upon fear of change, fear of anyone different and fear of the government.
Conservatives are usually old, unable to grasp new concepts and generally impotent in their private lives, so they carry guns and vote for cowboys.
Social conservatives are hide under the bed scared that their kids will "turn" gay.
Fiscal conservatives are afraid the unions will better the lives of workers, afraid the people will demand a different health care system and scared that their inheritance, like that of the 12 million dollar dog, will be taken away.
Most of all conservatives fear their time is running out. Every day more people support liberal ideas, candidates and programs.
For all the good conservative ideas have done us, there is good from liberal ideas. This mix and match makes a great country.
Did you really check out the tatoos on every woman at Taste of Colorado, you old dog you?
Posted by Sharon B. on September 4, 2007 12:34 AMJohn II,
Your last post is all anyone should ever need to read in order to dismiss you all together as a serious thinker..
Posted by Charles B on September 4, 2007 06:53 AMsharon b.,wrong again.The majority of Americans want us to win the war,support our troops,wants our elected officials to follow the constitution.They want to keep there jobs.They don't want to be over taxed so liberals in congress can spend there money on there private interest.The majority believes marriage is between a man and a women.John II,your letter was over charles b. head.
Posted by Keith on September 4, 2007 09:40 AMCharles B,
I think the point that everyone misses here is, simply, that John 2 is an excellent example of the "True Believer". As with his postings on marriage, his presentations are, usually, couched in terms that illustrate dogmatism, rather than terms of presenting postulates that are open to modification by way of debate, discussion, amplification, and the other ways of presenting evidence for opposed, or contrary, positions.
Within the context of his expressed belief-system, his statements/assertions are matters of fixed absolutes. And, IN CONTEXT of the belief-system itself, they are self-sustaining, self-validating, and "right".
The mistake being made so often here is that of attempting to DEBATE a belief-system; something which is impossible by the very nature of the belief-system itself.
Nothing you, nor I, nor anyone else presents, or can present, has any ability to affect the unmodifiable fixed absolutes of the belief-system. And, while others may hold to an acceptance of parts of, or one of more of the ideas contained in, the belief-system, the repeated - and tiresomely repititious - questions John 2 always asks are not asked for purposes of distingushing terms, or otherwise opening the fixed absolutes to modification; but, rather, they are asked for the sole purpose of forcing others to "validate" - or adopt - the belief system itself, as if all parts of the belief-system were essential to the whole, and excluded from existence outside the belief-system itself.
For example, a while back, John 2 asked what actions, or ommissions, concerning civil rights for gay people constituted "prejudice". He was given a rather long list, by several people, as answer. To which he responded that HE DID NOT SEE these as being at all matters of "prejudice". Which, in terms of his belief-system, concerning the "religious" nature of marriage, is a perfectly expectable answer.
His "religious" belief-system simply takes for granted, as part of the fixed absolutes contained in it, that HIS RELIGIOUS BELIEF-SYSTEM is both universal and absolutely right as such. That others do not accept this as a final conclusion to debate is, for him, THEIR fault.
Or to put it in simpler terms: When John 2 states that the "cart comes before the horse", then the cart MUST come before the horse. It's not a matter of discussion.
Now, NO ONE should ever deny John 2, or anybody else, the RIGHT to express anything and everything he/she desires to express.
On the other hand, recognition of the fact that expression of a belief-system, containing fixed absolutes, is not debateable - and is NOT an opening premise, or postulate, for debate and discussion, will certainly save everyone a whole lot of time, effort, and energy that might be better expended DEBATING a topic.
Posted by Old Grouch on September 4, 2007 10:34 AMThe two biggest stories in the country today are missed by the rmn again,the large amount of progress in Iraq and hillary again taking illegal money from the Chinese.No wonder charles b.,drew,sharon b.,og and the rest of the village idiots don't know what's going on in this world or nation.
Posted by Keith on September 4, 2007 12:40 PM"hillary again taking illegal money from the Chinese"
Mitt Romney has taken illegal money but the conservative media completely ignores that story.
Posted by GK on September 4, 2007 01:33 PMGK:--
Get a life. If Romney picked a penny up from the ground the mainstream media would be screaming that he both took an illegal contribution and was stealing the opportunity from the depressed poverty stricken by removing the penny from their potential grasp.
Posted by on September 4, 2007 03:15 PMgk,What a idiot.It"s proven that all charges against the Republicans have been made up.
Posted by Keith on September 4, 2007 04:45 PM3:15 and Keith
Here's my proof, where's yours that it's made up. As usual nothing but name calling and no facts from you corrupt Republics.
"Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's national finance committee co-chairman, Alan B. Fabian was, according to an August 9 Associated Press article, "charged in a 23-count indictment unsealed Thursday [August 9] with mail fraud, money laundering, bankruptcy fraud, perjury and obstruction of justice," NBC, CNN, and Fox News did not air reports or discussions about it during programs available in the Nexis database. The AP reported that Fabian "allegedly ran a scheme to make $32 million in false purchases of computer equipment, spending the money instead on beach real estate and private jet travel." Fabian resigned from Romney's finance committee shortly after being indicted, and the Romney campaign said it would return Fabian's $2,300 contribution, but not, however, "contributions from donors who were recruited by or have ties to Fabian," as The Boston Globe reported. While Fabian's indictment has generated some print coverage, it has resulted in no television coverage on news shows airing on NBC, CNN, or prime-time shows broadcast on Fox News."
Posted by on September 5, 2007 07:48 AMboston globe owned by n.y. times,no creditability.
Posted by Keith on September 5, 2007 08:54 AMKeith
Didn't think you could provide any proof. Now go back and bury your head in the sand, or the bottle or whatever form of delusion you use.
Posted by GK on September 5, 2007 09:40 AMAwww, the Obfuscation..
The Hildabeast et al.RECEIVED donations of more than $1 million from Hsu... These were hinky donations to the candidate. They were a direct attempt to influence and an attempt to circumvent campaign limits.
Mitt Romney's advisor only donated $2300 to the campaigns while stealing from other people for himself, not the campaign. In other words, he did not steal from others and give to Mitt, he gave it to himself. He will pay for that. Any other people he got to donate to Mitt's campaign are fine, unless he supplied the money, which there is no indication of.
See the difference? But the article cited sure does try to paint the picture of wrongdoing by the Romney campaign. Of course, the facts don't back it up, at least in that article.
So, don't get your panties in a wad. Mitt will return the $2300 from this guy. Hildabeast will "donate" her ill gotten booty to some lib charity and the world will go on.
Posted by Dravur on September 5, 2007 10:53 AMI highly recommend you go to the letter"Moore overlooked shooting in Canada" and read the posting by "Mountain Cat".You will see how dishonest the liberal Democrats really are with their facts.If the Democrat Michael Moore will lie that much to destroy the Second Amendment imagine how much the democrats will lie to help the terrorists in the war.
Posted by An American on September 5, 2007 12:07 PMWrong Dravur
She received $23,000 from Hsu. Both Hsu and Fabian are crooks.
My point in the above post being that the conservative MSM ignored the Romney story.
Posted by GK on September 5, 2007 05:27 PMI can't believe all the factual news you don't get because you relied on the rmn.That's why there is so many ignorant people on these post.
Posted by Keith on September 5, 2007 09:57 PMKeith
I'll take that as your concession speech.
Posted by GK on September 6, 2007 05:18 AMI think Keith must subscribe to the Rush Limbaugh newsletter and get his 'facts' there. The Papers, ALL papers and news sources say 70% of Americans OPPOSE the War, now try and understand that leaves 30% who want the War. 30% is not a majority, got it?
UnAmerican: is the 2nd amendment the ONLY one you care about? How aout the others, or will you give those away as long as you have your guns?
Posted by the antii-Keith on September 6, 2007 07:45 AMThe antii-Keith,I do not think you and the other coward Democrats care about the Second Amendment because you fear being hurt.That is my point.Get it!!! That is why I keep bringing it up so you guys can keep hiding behind your wives dresses.
Posted by An American on September 6, 2007 09:55 AM