--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > 191004 > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" > <curtisdeltablues@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "raunchydog" <raunchydog@> > wrote: > > > > > > Video: http://tinyurl.com/46xqjq > > > > Media is fractionated for different markets. You gotta watch > > more than one network to get both sides. Fox news represents > > almost none of my values, that is why I also watch it. I need > > to hear the other side. > > Huh? What does this have to do with anything? > > The point of this clip is that the host wouldn't > let the woman explain why she was supporting > McCain over Obama.
That's not how I saw it. > > Everybody knows Fox News has a strongly > conservative slant, but CNN pretends to be > objective politically. > > > I don't think the written commentary was that good. Most of > > the interview was journalism 101 where the person was asked > > for specifics. > > She wasn't allowed to *give* the specifics. That's not how I saw it. > > > I don't see how it would advance our understanding to give > > this woman an unchallenged voice on TV. > > She should be allowed to make her points, > *then* challenged. > My own take: she was going through a list of talkign points that was meant to be long enough that there would have been no time to ask questions at the end. > The truth is that her claim about > > Obama's elitism IS hypocritical considering her lifestyle. > > Uh, no. "Elitism" doesn't have anything to do > with being wealthy or with one's lifestyle; > it's an attitude of superiority. One can be > an elitist without being wealthy; and not all > wealthy people are elitist. These days elitism > has much more to do with class and education. > Heh. She's the LADY Rothschilde, with a PhD, homes all over the world, and a distain for someone who wants to boost her taxes (and his own) by a significant amount. I've done the math, Judy. She's elitist. > <snip> > > The claim that ex Hillary supporters are going with McCain > > out of spite is pretty subjective and a valid criticism I > > guess. But considering what Supreme Court Judges may get > > nominated in the next term, I am surprised to see liberal > > go for McCain/Palin. > > The liberals who are supporting McCain are > doing so because they believe the Democratic > Party has failed them and needs to be brought > down and rebuilt from the ground up. They see > the threat of McCain's likely Supreme Court > nominations as a kind of blackmail. > So, you're going to stand on princile because blackmailers should never be dealt with, even if you have good reason to assume they ARE going to ruin your life if you don't comply. > I'm not supporting McCain, but the above is > the reason I'm not supporting Obama either. > Eh, good luck with that, Judy. Lawson
