 | | Re: Detroit's woes, unaddressed by the Dems
|
| (...) Classic! Who cares if the article appeared on Barney's newsletter? If you are going to bother to comment, why not address the specifics in the article? (...) Now that is "offensive". (...) For sure. Totally. I guess that the reality of Detroit (...) (21 years ago, 30-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Detroit's woes, unaddressed by the Dems
|
| You mean the National Review is not a known right-wing rag run by William Buckley? Haven't I stated my own opposition to the Dems clearly or regularly enough? Why don't you do somehting useful like respond to this thread: (URL) The "Evil Dictator" (...) (21 years ago, 30-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Detroit's woes, unaddressed by the Dems
|
| (...) Although bias should not automatically be assumed, a media source that has demonstrated unrelenting bias (such as Ann Coulter or Michael Moore) then it is not unreasonable to suspect bias in any given piece. That's not to say that such bias (...) (21 years ago, 30-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Detroit's woes, unaddressed by the Dems
|
| (...) I would tend to think that this line of argument can be used against many of the sources (both factual and cultural) cited here on a regular basis... NPR, the NYT, Fox, The Economist, The Guardian, DemocraticUnderground etc, all have (...) (21 years ago, 30-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| | | | | Re: Detroit's woes, unaddressed by the Dems
|
| (...) Yes, of course they do. And that's not always a bad thing except when it gets kinda rabidly slanted a particular way. I try to post stuff that is at least semi-objective from a huge variety of sources. Sure, some of it is just (...) (21 years ago, 30-Oct-03, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
| |
