From: Grlygrl201@aol.com
Date: Tue Jan 30 2001 - 09:49:16 PST
In a message dated 1/30/01 9:04:41 AM Eastern Standard Time, ThosStew writes:
<< Oh, please, don't let's beat this spavined nag all the time. Quoting Dan
on the subject of media bias is like quoting Janet Reno on the subject of
prosecutorial partiality. He's a great guy and very smart, when he was at
Fortune, was a valued colleague, but Dan's about 300% more biased than the
New York Times—that's one reason he's a columnist—and one of his biases is
antipathy toward the Times. You cold probably do a Nexis search on Dan's
stuff and fail to find any column by him in which he acknowledged that the
Times might have been fair and right on anything whatsoever.
Tom >>
i thought greenspan was referring to pork. both parties went a little hog
wild (forgive me) in recent years with the surplus; i assumed he was
cautioning against spending PERIOD.
(that tried-and-true reagan-era generated agitprop "tax-and-spend liberals"
has definitely worked its way deep into right's mitochondria so that they
can't hear "spending" without hearing "liberal." thank you fox, thank you
rush.)
gg
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Feb 01 2001 - 04:40:45 PST