On 5/26/2011 7:00 AM, Ignoramus31410 wrote:


I read Google News for news, mostly, and Drudge report. Also
Washington Post and New York Times. I have a few categories
pre-selected under google news.

With the exception of Google, you're leaning a bit left there. The
Post was nicknamed the "Pravda on the Potomac." You might try a
subscription to the Washington Times for a bit of balance; y'know, see
what and how the other half thinks and get some added perspective.


Larry, you are stuck in this "right wing", "left wing" mentality,
instead of looking at the substance of things. This mentality is not
unusual, but it is not helpful.

I suggest reconsidering the way you read news, staying generally away
from any editorials and opinions, of any kind, and reading more facts
instead, to make your own conclusions.

Good point, there. It's not really where you get the news that matters.
After all, news is news, and opinion isn't. Didn't matter which channel
you were on when they were reporting on the tornado story, did it? Most
of what is on the news is straight reporting of every day events.

But then you have the sources that are pushing an agenda, and they are
different in that some are pushing really hard, and some hardly at all.
Fox is pushing the conservative agenda harder than anyone else, so you
can use them as a measuring stick to compare other outlets.

So it's really a matter of what you hear and what you tune out. It's
really all about your personal filter. People who only watch Fox only
allow right wing information into their heads. Anything that says Obama
is doing a good job they simply ignore. That's what it boils down to,
whether your mind is open or not. Most people have closed minds. That's
why they go to the same place for all their information. They know
exactly what they are going to get and they don't want to hear different
views. It ****es them off. In other words, it's not the station that
matters, it's the person that does.






Then think about what exactly is the implication of

1) Buying so much jewelry from Tiffany as to incur a revolving loan of
500,000 USD

and

2) Accepting an unusually advantageous loan terms that Tiffany is not
offering to the general public, amounting to an advantage of $100,000
per year based on the 500k balance.

What's worse in my view is the hypocrisy of the man. Here he sits and
claims that he's frugal. Then you find he's buying half a million
dollars worth of trinkets and baubles from Tiffany's. I'd hardly call
that being frugal.

I'd like to see how much he contributed to charity too. I'll bet it's
pitiful. Funny how we all heard how cheap Gore and Obama were in their
charitable contributions. But not a peep from anyone about the right
wingers. Does anyone spend more on themselves and less on charity than
people on the right? I doubt it.





and

3) While at the same time being in a position to influence legislation
that affects Tiffany's.

Approximately 15 years ago I admired Newt Gingrich, but many nasty
facts came to my attention since then.

That makes me wonder what was wrong with your judgment back then.
Gingrich has not changed at all since he hit Washington. He's been out
for himself from day one. Seeing the real Newt should make you question
why you would ever see this guy as a good man. The evidence clearly
shows he's anything but. How could he fool you so easily? I knew he was
a liar the first time I heard him speak.

Hawke