>Hi Dean,
>
>I love my country. I don't, however, love it as a child loves its mother. I love it more along the lines as I love my wife. With a child, "mommy" can do no wrong. If my wife does something wrong, while I love her unconditionally, we're still going to have a dialog about it.

We all do. That's why we live here.
I'd like to see all does who say they want to move out of the country because Bush was elected actual move out. These are the people who preach "TOLERANCE" all the time. But tolerance is only good if they get what they want.

>
>>>
>>>The points I made are all documented in the published media. The book I mentioned contains an extensive bibiography as to the sources.
>>
>>The documented "truth", whatever that is, is in the eyes of the beholder. If you believe Al Franken is telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth, then that's ok. I happen to feel that he and his clonies are just a bunch of liberal hate mongers. They seem to preach tolerance this and tolerane that, but when it comes down to it, they tolerate you as long as you believe what they believe. Otherwise you're nothing but and RightWing-bible-thumping-anti-science fool. I think evey time people like him and Woopie Goldberg open their month, nothing needs to be said. They are the ones making a fool of themselves.
>
>In the instance of the 9/11 information, I knew about that, because it was first published back in August of 2002 in a Time magazine article. I read that article. At the time, I was so annoyed at both parties that I went into my "apolitical mode".


"I knew about that..." knew what? Please clarify


>>>Now if you're a person who watches FoxNews or listens to Rush Limbaugh as your primary source of information, let me tell you this:
>>
>>Nope I don't watch FoxNews or listen to Rush Limbaugh.
>>I don't watch much TV at all. If I do listen to any one in particular concerning politics, its Dennis Prager and Michael Medved.
>
>Sorry, didn't mean to offend.

I don't get offended.


>>>You think that the media is "liberal"? Look at the research done by the Pew Foundation on the 2000 election. Guess what? There were more negative stories on Al Gore than George W. In the 2004 election, there were more positive stories on George W. than John Kerry.
>>
>>So, I guess you're saying that anyone who speaks well of Bush is not to be trusted. So what if Pew Foundation wrote more positive things about Bush. Maybe they're right.
>
>No, I'm not saying that at all. First, the Pew Foundation doesn't write the articles. Second, their studies are purely scientific.
>
>What I misstated was that in 2000 there were more positive stories on George W. than Al Gore. In 2004 there were more positive stories on John Kerry than George W. The question is why?

You gotta agree that the main stream media tends to lean left. If you don't see that then I don't know what you're watching.

>
>I think that it's because the party in power tends to get more negative press than the party that isn't.

Perhaps.


>
>>Are they as big as NBC, ABC, CBS or even CNN? Not to mention MSNBC and PBS. So it really doesn't matter what they say. Not many people know them. And don't forget all the do-gooders of the ACLU, NAACP and Hollywood.
>
>>>
>>>As far as FoxNews is concerned, any organization that would advertise itself as "fair and balance" and who have someone like Bill O'Reilly on is being hypocritical. O'Reilly is a liar, and Franken calls him out.
>>
>>Ok. I get it. Al Franken is God. Oh, sorry. I mean god. ;)
>
>No, he isn't and doesn't pretend to be.

Ok he acts like a smart as$ when he can't answer a question or he gets up throws his chair down and walks out.


>>
>>>
>>>I was channel surfing the other evening, and there was Bill, saying that he was just an ordinary guy from Levittown, NY. The problem is that he isn't from Levittown. He's from Westbury, NY an afluent suburb about 8-10 miles awat. He went to a private school. He went to a private college. What's the source? His mother in article in the Washington Post. If this guy can't be honest about where he's from, why should anyone believe that he's being honest about anything else he says.
>>
>>Come on George, eight miles. People around Dallas say they'er from Dallas because it's easier to say. I live in Irving, about 5-15 miles from Dallas. When I go out of town it's just easier to say I'm from Dallas, because 99.999% of the people I meet know where Dallas is. Heck, even some Fort Worthians say they'er from Dallas.
>>
>>Ok so he's from a upper middle class family and went to a prestigious school. So what? They can't be normal? That makes him a liar?
>
>When you represent yourself as someone who came from a working class family and pulled himself by his bootstraps when that isn't the case, yes, it does make in a liar.
>
>Eight miles might not seem like much, but, where I'm from (Chicago) eight blocks can mean the difference between being brought up in poverty, or a working class family, or in wealth.

Well-to-dos can't be working class people or normal?

>
>The entire point was that O'Reilly misrepresents who he is and what he's done. Isn't that lying?

I've heard bigger lies....
"I didn't have sexual realtions with that woman, Monica....." ;-)