On 11/19/2012 12:28 AM, geoff wrote:
I just read that article and I don't know the guy or even much of the
back-story. As a result it was pretty transparent that the write is very
pro-republican. Any even half-way bipartisan article might have equated
Obama's forcefulness with the last terms experience for the Republicans
opposing any and every measure he put forward regardless of its worth. Or at
least hinted that perhaps after failing to get the Republicans to negotiate
in good faith that he was adopting a more attacking posture.
what it wasnt was an article written without significant bias.
Hi Geoff,
I suppose it is somewhat difficult to get the backstory from Oz news
sources. But maybe . . .
Has the Oz press covered the ecstatic worship of foreign crowds toward
Obama? If they have, keep that in mind.
Similarly, the "flexibility" Obama promised Medvedev into an open mike
"after the election . . .
None of this is in the best interest of the American people. If it were,
it would be "pro-republican", as you put it.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2012/11/16/three-words-to-define-obama-20/?in
tcmp=obnetwork
"evasive, strident and pugnacious"
Benghazi is a big deal. Even the puppy-dog press might not save him this
time.
--
Regards,
Pete
http://pete-theisen.com/
http://elect-pete-theisen.com/
_______________________________________________
Post Messages to: ProFox@leafe.com
Subscription Maintenance: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox
OT-free version of this list: http://mail.leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech
Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox
This message:
http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/50a9d3bb.1010...@verizon.net
** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the
author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added
to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
