I guess that makes three things the guy's done right.

[[email protected]]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
> > Bill Sornson wrote:
> >> cc wrote:
> >>
> >> He sees no difference between "the SS" and US soldiers, so whatever
> >> he writes has zero credibility or weight.
> >>
> >> You bias is hanging out; don't trip on it!
> >
> > Same for you - he didn't say they were the same.
> >
> > He was drawing a parallel. And the parallel he drew (and not the one
> > you are assigning) is apt.
> >
> > Just because someone thinks they are doing the right thing doesn't
> > mean they actually are doing the right thing.
>
> OK. So gassing jews in chambers if you /think/ it's the right thing to do
> is equivalent to serving in the armed forces in Iraq right now. Wow.

Boy, you're not too clear on the concept of *logic*, are you? The only
one *equating* those things is *you*, Bill. Drawing a parallel on a
line of thinking is not making a equation on actions.

Engage your brain for a second.

> > In Salem, MA, in the 17th century, some town leaders thought they were
> > doing God's will when they executed some young women who were likely
> > the victims of grain fungus poisoning. *Thinking* you are doing the
> > right thing is not the same thing as *doing* the right thing.
> >
> > Don't let your bias make you lose sight of the real argument.
>
> You mean like far-lefties who actively root against the US now because
> they're still ****** about the 2000 election. Gotcha. I won't.

I don't recall any of those folks making any of those kinds of claims
here.

Sounds like you're making it up to divert the conversation.

E.P.

 

[[email protected]]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> > I expect barbarians to do barbaric acts. I do not expect Americans to
> > do barbaric acts. That is why we are different from them. And
> > better.
>
> Man, if a pro-Bushie wrote that last part, he or she would be attacked
> big-time.

It depends on how it's approached, I guess. The "rah-rah patriots" who
just spout jingoistic BS have some derision coming. But evil is evil.
And chopping off a helpless prisoner's head while wearing a mask is
cowardly and evil.

And I ain't no pro-bushie. Or really anti, for that matter.

> > Their conduct is not the yardstick by which we measure behavior - our
> > *principles* are the yardstick by which we measure behavior. And when
> > we violate our own principles, we need to call those who do it on the
> > carpet.
>
> We do. And did.

Sort of. I still hear people refer to those things as "school
hijinks," and "necessary evil."

Evil is evil. It's never necessary, to the principled.

> > And keep in mind one thing: the worst of what we do to our prisoners
> > is the *best* that can be expected if our boys/girls ever get taken
> > prisoner. So we'd better make sure our worst is principled. Since I
> > have family members on the ground over there, this is personal for me.
>
> Agreed. And best wishes to them.

Thanks.

> (I bet a lot of prisoners now at Gitmo /really/ don't want to be sent back
> to their COOs like's being discussed.)

It's no feather bed down there. A gilded cage is still a cage, and if
the folks there didn't do anything wrong, cut them loose. Principled,
rule-of-law sort of thinking there. If they want asylum, let them ask.

E.P.

 

[Bill Sornson]

[email protected] wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>> cc wrote:
>>>>
>>>> He sees no difference between "the SS" and US soldiers, so whatever
>>>> he writes has zero credibility or weight.
>>>>
>>>> You bias is hanging out; don't trip on it!
>>>
>>> Same for you - he didn't say they were the same.
>>>
>>> He was drawing a parallel. And the parallel he drew (and not the
>>> one you are assigning) is apt.
>>>
>>> Just because someone thinks they are doing the right thing doesn't
>>> mean they actually are doing the right thing.
>>
>> OK. So gassing jews in chambers if you /think/ it's the right thing
>> to do is equivalent to serving in the armed forces in Iraq right
>> now. Wow.
>
> Boy, you're not too clear on the concept of *logic*, are you? The
> only one *equating* those things is *you*, Bill. Drawing a parallel
> on a line of thinking is not making a equation on actions.
>
> Engage your brain for a second.

But that wouldn't get a rise out of you! Duh! (Read some Mikey if you need
help with this.)

 

[cc]

"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Mark Hickey wrote:
>> Raptor <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>> cc wrote:
>>
>>>> That's all anyone needs to see or hear. Comparing ******'s Nazi
>>>> Jew-killing thugs to Coalition forces in Iraq.
>>>>
>>>> No wonder you post anonymously...
>>>
>>> Compare them to what you wish. Latest news is that the abuse of
>>> prisoners is more widespread than we thought, Abu Graib being just
>>> one example. This is not acceptable. Where is the outrage?
>>
>> I see plenty of indignation over any legitimate abuse that occurred at
>> AG. Heck, it was front page on the New York Times for weeks.
>> Fortunately, those who are responsible are being punished
>> appropriately - that's how our system works. I should point out that
>> the tapes showing Saddam's regime's treatment of prisoners would make
>> being stacked naked look like a picnic.
>>
>> OTOH, we have terrorists sawing the heads off hostages, others blowing
>> up women and children... which doesn't seem to produce a whit of
>> outrage among those complaining the loudest about AG.
>>
>> Why do you suppose some are searching so dilligently for any misstep
>> by the US, and shouting anything they find from the highest rooftop -
>> all while giving a pass to those who kill innocents by the dozen?

Are you kidding me ?!!!

How about when WE kill innocents - e.g. Iraqi civilians - by the dozen?
Covered? No.

The groundless detention and mistreatment of foreign nationals (who are
quite often free to go when they are *finally* returned to their homeland)
at Guantanamo? Hardly.

The displacement of millions of Palestinians with the use of US funds? Funny
how in the media the Israelis are the poor displaced ones, isn't it? Not
really. Israel is the biggest recipient of foreign aid in the world, thanks
to us.

The list really goes on and on. If you think the media is biased left, you
should look again. Or try reading.

> Two words: media bias.
>
> Bill "left out 'blatant'" S.

Are you living on some other planet?

 

[cc]

"G.T." <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "JD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> If our armed forces are a purely volunteer force, why did Casey
>> volunteer for what some may deem a terribe cause?
>
> Many volunteer because of economics and because they believe in our
> country
> in general, not because they believe in this war.

Exactly. Without a draft, our army is for the most part an army of the poor.
That is not meant as a disrespect. I've seen some interesting programs on
their recruiting tactics in poor areas.

>> Does that make those
>> who have volunteered to serve in our armed forces supporters of what
>> you see as a terrible cause?

I don't know; that's tricky. One might say that a true patriot would follow
orders with faith in their country in its leadership. I can see that. But
there is a line that must be drawn when the orders conflict with personal
ethics or convictions. I'm sure you don't have to think too hard to imagine
a case where you were ordered to do something you simply could not do.
Somewhere in between is a place where it is our duty to conscienciously
object.

>
> Not at all.
>
> Greg
>
>

 

[JD]

G.T. wrote:
> "JD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > If our armed forces are a purely volunteer force, why did Casey
> > volunteer for what some may deem a terrible cause?
>
> Many volunteer because of economics and because they believe in our country
> in general, not because they believe in this war.


I enlisted for economic and patriotic reasons, fully knowing I may have
to lay my life on the line for something I may or may not fully believe
in. Whether or not it was something I truly believed in, I made a
commitment built on trust and knew I was dedicated enough to trust the
decisions being made. The UCMJ gives an individual the right to not
carry out an order in the case of what the civilized world may deem an
atrocity, so I never worried about being ordered to mindlessly
slaughter innocent civilians.

War sucks, but can be an unfortunate neccesity in the eyes of some.
I'm also set to wondering how the majority of the Iraqui people really
feel about their cost of freedom, not by just what the media is feeding
us.

> > Does that make those
> > who have volunteered to serve in our armed forces supporters of what
> > you see as a terrible cause?
> >
>
> Not at all.


Which is my point to gree-c, who is obviously blinded by his own brand
of hate.

JD hates heavy traffic

 

[cc]

"JD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> G.T. wrote:
>> "JD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>> news:[email protected]...
>> >
>> > If our armed forces are a purely volunteer force, why did Casey
>> > volunteer for what some may deem a terrible cause?
>>
>> Many volunteer because of economics and because they believe in our
>> country
>> in general, not because they believe in this war.
>
>
> I enlisted for economic and patriotic reasons, fully knowing I may have
> to lay my life on the line for something I may or may not fully believe
> in. Whether or not it was something I truly believed in, I made a
> commitment built on trust and knew I was dedicated enough to trust the
> decisions being made. The UCMJ gives an individual the right to not
> carry out an order in the case of what the civilized world may deem an
> atrocity, so I never worried about being ordered to mindlessly
> slaughter innocent civilians.
>
> War sucks, but can be an unfortunate neccesity in the eyes of some.
> I'm also set to wondering how the majority of the Iraqui people really
> feel about their cost of freedom, not by just what the media is feeding
> us.
>
>> > Does that make those
>> > who have volunteered to serve in our armed forces supporters of what
>> > you see as a terrible cause?
>> >
>>
>> Not at all.
>
>
> Which is my point to gree-c, who is obviously blinded by his own brand
> of hate.
>

My hate for the loss of human life sacrificed to our imperialistic
imperatives?

 

[JD]

cc wrote:
> Exactly. Without a draft, our army is for the most part an army of the poor.
> That is not meant as a disrespect. I've seen some interesting programs on
> their recruiting tactics in poor areas.


Tell us all how your firsthand experience in the US military has shown
you all of this. I had no money and no prospects when I enlisted, but
don't remember any "recruiting tactics". I walked the five miles to
the recruiter's office and volunteered. The most interesting programs
I witnessed in the military were geared towards giving me a career path
once my enlistment was up. Shame on them!

JD

 

[cc]

"JD" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> cc wrote:
>> Exactly. Without a draft, our army is for the most part an army of the
>> poor.
>> That is not meant as a disrespect. I've seen some interesting programs on
>> their recruiting tactics in poor areas.
>
>
> Tell us all how your firsthand experience in the US military has shown
> you all of this. I had no money and no prospects when I enlisted, but
> don't remember any "recruiting tactics". I walked the five miles to
> the recruiter's office and volunteered. The most interesting programs
> I witnessed in the military were geared towards giving me a career path
> once my enlistment was up.

I READ, JD. One firsthand experience does not trump research involving
thousands. Sorry.

Look at the statistics on how many coming out get their benefits as
promised. Read about how many have been left by the wayside when they
returned from Iraq.

http://www.afsc.org/pwork/0506/050607.htm

Shame on them!
>
> JD
>

 

[[email protected]]

Bill Sornson wrote:
>
> But that wouldn't get a rise out of you! Duh! (Read some Mikey if you need
> help with this.)

You got me.

E.P.

 

[(PeteCresswell)]

Per JD:
>If our armed forces are a purely volunteer force, why did Casey
>volunteer for what some may deem a terribe cause?

Can't speak to Casey's case, but I recall writing a two-page, single-spaced,
typewritten letter to some Colonel somewhere explaining why my particular MOS
was being wasted where I was stationed and would be much better used in a war
zone: namely Vietnam.

Luckily for me, the letter was ignored.

Why did I volunteer?

Patriotism? Don't think so...

Dedication to duty? Are you kidding?


I think it was just a combination of poor judgment and most any young man's
desire to be where the action is.
--
PeteCresswell

 

[cc]

"cc" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "MTBlood" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>>
>> ">> nope...can't stand hippies...
>>>
>>> you can stop proving you're ignorant now. go back to watching
>>> television.
>>
>> Wow...what a great comeback! I'm disappointed...I thought my ignorant ass
>> would be awed with your infinite wisdom...
>
> There's no point in arguing with you. You have too much at stake to change
> your views and are clearly thoroughly washed.
>
>>
>> This is a mountain bike newsgroup..take your anti-war, anti-American ****
>> where it belongs. I made great sacrifices for this country and I did so
>> with my head high and with honor that can only be bestowed upon a U.S.
>> service member. Your statements are a disrespect to every man and women
>> in uniform.
>
> I'm not disrespecting you, but your leaders.

I take this comment back. I am not disrespecting. I am disagreeing. Funny
that dissent is so easily interpreted as being anti-American.

 

[cc]

<[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> [email protected] wrote:
>> > Bill Sornson wrote:
>> >> cc wrote:
>> >>
>> >> He sees no difference between "the SS" and US soldiers, so whatever
>> >> he writes has zero credibility or weight.
>> >>
>> >> You bias is hanging out; don't trip on it!
>> >
>> > Same for you - he didn't say they were the same.
>> >
>> > He was drawing a parallel. And the parallel he drew (and not the one
>> > you are assigning) is apt.
>> >
>> > Just because someone thinks they are doing the right thing doesn't
>> > mean they actually are doing the right thing.
>>
>> OK. So gassing jews in chambers if you /think/ it's the right thing to
>> do
>> is equivalent to serving in the armed forces in Iraq right now. Wow.
>
> Boy, you're not too clear on the concept of *logic*, are you? The only
> one *equating* those things is *you*, Bill. Drawing a parallel on a
> line of thinking is not making a equation on actions.
>
> Engage your brain for a second.
>
>> > In Salem, MA, in the 17th century, some town leaders thought they were
>> > doing God's will when they executed some young women who were likely
>> > the victims of grain fungus poisoning. *Thinking* you are doing the
>> > right thing is not the same thing as *doing* the right thing.
>> >
>> > Don't let your bias make you lose sight of the real argument.
>>
>> You mean like far-lefties who actively root against the US now because
>> they're still ****** about the 2000 election. Gotcha. I won't.

Disagreeing != rooting against. If I was anti-American, I'd say "go for it!"
and "let's get Iran next!" so the middle east could collapse at our feet,
with us holding the bag.

 

[Mark Hickey]

"cc" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]...
>> Mark Hickey wrote:

>>> Why do you suppose some are searching so dilligently for any misstep
>>> by the US, and shouting anything they find from the highest rooftop -
>>> all while giving a pass to those who kill innocents by the dozen?
>
>Are you kidding me ?!!!
>
>How about when WE kill innocents - e.g. Iraqi civilians - by the dozen?
>Covered? No.

It got lots of coverage. Where do you get your news?

>The groundless detention and mistreatment of foreign nationals (who are
>quite often free to go when they are *finally* returned to their homeland)
>at Guantanamo? Hardly.

"Groundless detention"??? Hoo boy. You know of course that the
majority have been released - and many of THOSE have been killed or
recaptured trying to kill more US servicemen and women, right?

>The displacement of millions of Palestinians with the use of US funds? Funny
>how in the media the Israelis are the poor displaced ones, isn't it? Not
>really. Israel is the biggest recipient of foreign aid in the world, thanks
>to us.

So? Why wouldn't we prop up the one real democracy in the middle
east?

>The list really goes on and on. If you think the media is biased left, you
>should look again. Or try reading.

Funny - I read through the above, and don't see any mention of
terrorists killing hundreds of innocents, of PLO and other groups
blowing up hundreds of innocents. But you're not gonna miss a few
prisoners being photographed nude by a few renegade US guards, are
you?

>> Two words: media bias.
>>
>> Bill "left out 'blatant'" S.
>
>Are you living on some other planet?

Than you? Probably.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>Mark Hickey wrote:
>>
>> I should point out that
>> the tapes showing Saddam's regime's treatment of prisoners would make
>> being stacked naked look like a picnic.
>
>We are not defined by what they do. We are defined by our own
>principles. If we use your logic, we are allowed to do all sorts of
>things, short of hacking their heads off. Rape, torture - it's OK as
>long as we don't hack their heads off, right?
>
>But I'm guessing you don't actually believe that.

Of course not - and I'm very happy that the guards responsible for the
mistreatment are being punished. My point is that it's disingenuous
(at best) for someone to be horrified by those abuses without making a
sound about the much, much greater ones being performed by those we're
at war with.

>> OTOH, we have terrorists sawing the heads off hostages, others blowing
>> up women and children... which doesn't seem to produce a whit of
>> outrage among those complaining the loudest about AG.
>
>That's because they are rightly judging our own by the high standards
>we have set for ourselves.

And we ARE living up to that. We're punishing those who stray from
those "high standards" and in fact are staying well below the
internationally accepted limits (contrary to what some would have you
believe).

>> Why do you suppose some are searching so dilligently for any misstep
>> by the US, and shouting anything they find from the highest rooftop -
>> all while giving a pass to those who kill innocents by the dozen?
>
>Strawman. Nobody is giving anyone a pass.

Funny - I don't ever seem to hear anyone (well, other than me or Bill
S) even mention that the "other side" ain't exactly choir boys.

>I expect barbarians to do barbaric acts. I do not expect Americans to
>do barbaric acts. That is why we are different from them. And better.

It's a step in the right direction to admit that we're not as bad as
the bad guys in the play I suppose...

>Their conduct is not the yardstick by which we measure behavior - our
>*principles* are the yardstick by which we measure behavior. And when
>we violate our own principles, we need to call those who do it on the
>carpet.

The problem is, to a large group of people "we" means "any individual
remotely connected with the US" can bring their hasty condemnation.
Witness the backlash over a few idiot guards in one prison. They've
extrapolated that to "the US government is corrupt and evil and
condone torture".

>And keep in mind one thing: the worst of what we do to our prisoners
>is the *best* that can be expected if our boys/girls ever get taken
>prisoner. So we'd better make sure our worst is principled. Since I
>have family members on the ground over there, this is personal for me.

I couldn't agree more with you which is why (again) I'm so glad to see
those responsible for the prison abuse punished. It's horrible to
think that their selfish, twisted acts put other military personnel in
more danger. But in the end, those we're fighting are just sick
bastards - we could put all prisoners in a five-star hotel with daily
massage and it wouldn't change how they treat their prisoners.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[Mark Hickey]

"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:

>Mark Hickey wrote:
>>
>> The fact remains that the vast majority of statesmanship is done over
>> the phone.
>
>Yeah, the POTUS telecommutes.

This is actually NEWS to you? Perhaps you think GWB is the first
President to handle most of his diplomacy over the phone? Wow.

>Good one - I'll have to add that to the list of howlers I have going.

You're easily amused, I take it...

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $795 ti frame

 

[cc]

"Mark Hickey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "cc" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote in
>>message
>>news:[email protected]...
>>> Mark Hickey wrote:
>
>>>> Why do you suppose some are searching so dilligently for any misstep
>>>> by the US, and shouting anything they find from the highest rooftop -
>>>> all while giving a pass to those who kill innocents by the dozen?
>>
>>Are you kidding me ?!!!
>>
>>How about when WE kill innocents - e.g. Iraqi civilians - by the dozen?
>>Covered? No.
>
> It got lots of coverage. Where do you get your news?

Not enough, and not as much as our "noble cause"

>
>>The groundless detention and mistreatment of foreign nationals (who are
>>quite often free to go when they are *finally* returned to their homeland)
>>at Guantanamo? Hardly.
>
> "Groundless detention"??? Hoo boy. You know of course that the
> majority have been released - and many of THOSE have been killed or
> recaptured trying to kill more US servicemen and women, right?

I'm not talking about all of them, but there are some horrific stories of
detention without grounds. Regardless of their crime, specifically intending
to violate rights guaranteed by the Geneva Convention (such that you have to
call up your buddies like John Roberts and give them a job as a Supreme
Court Justice to allow you such a privilege) is just plain wrong.

>
>>The displacement of millions of Palestinians with the use of US funds?
>>Funny
>>how in the media the Israelis are the poor displaced ones, isn't it? Not
>>really. Israel is the biggest recipient of foreign aid in the world,
>>thanks
>>to us.
>
> So? Why wouldn't we prop up the one real democracy in the middle
> east?

At what cost?

>
>>The list really goes on and on. If you think the media is biased left, you
>>should look again. Or try reading.
>
> Funny - I read through the above, and don't see any mention of
> terrorists killing hundreds of innocents, of PLO and other groups
> blowing up hundreds of innocents. But you're not gonna miss a few
> prisoners being photographed nude by a few renegade US guards, are
> you?

The PLO and the IDF are both guilty of terrorist activities to further their
agendas. Terrorist activities against the US are also seen from this
perspective.

As has been pointed out previously, we need to set a standard. We are not
doing so. In any case, the blatant disrespect that the actions at AG showed
is just unacceptable, pointless, and not good for anyone. I also find it
hard to believe that it was a few "renegade guards." This sounds too
familiar to the "bad apple" argument pushed so long about corporate fraud.
Not buying it.

>>Are you living on some other planet?
>
> Than you? Probably.

I can see disagreeing on personal philosophy on many of the above points,
but I honestly do not see how someone paying attention could say our media
is biased toward the left wing. It is owned by transnational corporations,
whose dollars buy a lot of lobbying - albeit on both sides(of our so-called
two party system, but that's another issue). It would be far from
self-serving for these media outlets to act as disseminators of dissident
opinion, and they are far from that. In fact, our media very much reflects
the interests of its owners.

 

[Raptor]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Raptor wrote:
>
>
>>This war was a bad idea from the beginning. Anyone who looked at the
>>available information knew that.
>
>
> Like Hillary, Kerry, Edwards...

They have been proved right.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall

Conservative dictionary:
Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes.

 

[Raptor]

Mark Hickey wrote:
> Raptor <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Bill Sornson wrote:
>>
>>>cc wrote:
>
>
>>>That's all anyone needs to see or hear. Comparing ******'s Nazi Jew-killing
>>>thugs to Coalition forces in Iraq.
>>>
>>>No wonder you post anonymously...
>>
>>Compare them to what you wish. Latest news is that the abuse of
>>prisoners is more widespread than we thought, Abu Graib being just one
>>example. This is not acceptable. Where is the outrage?
>
>
> I see plenty of indignation over any legitimate abuse that occurred at
> AG. Heck, it was front page on the New York Times for weeks.
> Fortunately, those who are responsible are being punished
> appropriately - that's how our system works. I should point out that
> the tapes showing Saddam's regime's treatment of prisoners would make
> being stacked naked look like a picnic.

> OTOH, we have terrorists sawing the heads off hostages, others blowing
> up women and children... which doesn't seem to produce a whit of
> outrage among those complaining the loudest about AG.

> Why do you suppose some are searching so dilligently for any misstep
> by the US, and shouting anything they find from the highest rooftop -
> all while giving a pass to those who kill innocents by the dozen?

The only passes I see being handed out are by people who actually try to
argue that we're so much better.

It's NOT about them. It's NOT about who our enemy is.

It is about US: you, me, our country.

WHO are we? WHAT do we stand for? WHAT is this war about, again?

The prisoner abuse is not acceptable, and anyone who tries to make it
look "not so bad" is flat wrong. To do so is to deny your sense of honor
and discipline, if indeed you have any. To refrain from swooping down
like an avenging angel on this cancer that has invaded the ranks of our
military is a source of shame to all Americans, whether we ever wore the
uniform or not.

Being "the better guy" in this fight is not good enough. We need to be
"the good guy." We are not.

This is just another example of our <ahem> leaders leading us astray.
Like the other myriad missteps, this will take years to redress.

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall

Conservative dictionary:
Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes.

 

[Raptor]

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Mark Hickey wrote:
>>Why do you suppose some are searching so dilligently for any misstep
>>by the US, and shouting anything they find from the highest rooftop -
>>all while giving a pass to those who kill innocents by the dozen?
>
>
> Two words: media bias.
>
> Bill "left out 'blatant'" S.

Two words: no honor.

(The media is biased against whoever's in charge.)

--
--
Lynn Wallace http://www.xmission.com/~lawall

Conservative dictionary:
Judicial Activist: n. A judge who tends to rule against your wishes.