U.S. tourism may be casualty of war on terror

john wrote:


I guess that you must agree with the statements which you conventionly

chose to not copy and comment on.

Well, here they are again:

" It was a Kerry hit piece to influence the presidential election.

No it was not, most emphatically, most certainly. It was a most
fair look at the issues.



The Sinclair executives have only been ALLOWED to license the
use of the airwaves. They don't own them.

They get their license like everybody else.



The FCC should go after those *******s and take away their
license."



They are not *******s ... they are just doing their job. They
are exercising their Constitutional rights. In fact, because
they hold broadcast licenses, they are REQUIRED to issue
public affairs programming, which this was. Are you sure that
you actually watched the show? I did. DID YOU?

Even showing shows that are lies is not a reason to lose
a license. If that were true, all CBS TV stations would
be in dire trouble over the fraudlent attacks on President
Bush. Basically, the only way to lose a license is

1) and by far the easiest, lie on an official document
sent to the FCC. This is a slam dunk for the FCC: you lie
to them and they WILL take away your license.

2) repeatedly and flagrantly broadcast outside the parameters of your
license ... this has to be, in the current climate or regulation,
really really flagrant. Broadcasting at 350 kW when your license
says 316 won't do it.

3) repeatedly and flagrantly allow the "seven dirty words" to
be used on your station.

Doug McDonald

PTRAVEL wrote:
2. Why is there no outrage by Republicans that taxpayer money was used by
the administration to bribe columnists?

Instead they just call names, a debating technique they've apparently
learned from right-wing talk show hosts, Fox News and their
commander-in-chief.

Oh please. Names? What names? Read the thread entirely and you'll
note the opposite is true. Look at your above oh so leftist typical
stereotyping with a quick jab at right wing talk show hosts and Fox
News. As if the leftist talk shows or ABC, CBS, NBC or CNN are any
different.

Blue states are, for the
most part, "donor states," i.e. they pay far more in federal taxes in to the
system than they get back in government services -- blue states subsidize
the red states.

Oh please. What a load of crap. The blue states are blue because of
the high number of people dependent on government services. How to ****
off a liberal: Work, Be Successfull, Be happy.

Alan Street wrote:

Yet even when I cut the debate into little baby sized bites for you,
you fail to disagree and support your position. That's OK. I'll take
your inability to rebut my points as tacit agreement.

Funny, when have you tried to debate? Instead you twist the topic or
make a pointless what if statement about the right. Try to debate
rather than making hypothetical rants.

john wrote:

Stop avoiding my question.

I repeat, asshole:

How about you telling us who was responsible and how that occurred?

Who and when and by whom was Gannon cleared to attend the White House
briefing new conferences?


Ah yes, once again the lefts use of foul language or name calling as a
form of debate. Good grief. Why does the left always resort to such
tactics every time? The question I replied to was regarding who was
paid with tax $'s. We know who got paid and who paid them. Your retort
is to ask a seperate question.

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 14:45:00 -0700, miles wrote:


Oh please. What a load of crap. The blue states are blue because of
the high number of people dependent on government services. How to ****
off a liberal: Work, Be Successfull, Be happy.

Sounds like it worked well for bitter old you.
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--.

Deep Foiled Malls wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 14:45:00 -0700, miles wrote:

How to ****
off a liberal: Work, Be Successfull, Be happy.



Sounds like it worked well for bitter old you.


Yep! I work, am successfull and darn right happy! Bitter? Usenet is
pure entertainment. These guys are a hoot!

In article yw8Sd.18707$Tt.13845@fed1read05, miles
wrote:

Deep Foiled Malls wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 14:45:00 -0700, miles wrote:

How to ****
off a liberal: Work, Be Successfull, Be happy.

Sounds like it worked well for bitter old you.

Yep! I work, am successfull and darn right happy! Bitter? Usenet is
pure entertainment. These guys are a hoot!

Ignorance is bliss is quite true for you then...

Ah, sorry couldn't resist.

It's really not hard to **** off a liberal these days. Just say to one
that Dubya is [insert any non-evil description here].

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 15:52:15 -0700, miles wrote:

Deep Foiled Malls wrote:
On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 14:45:00 -0700, miles wrote:

How to ****
off a liberal: Work, Be Successfull, Be happy.



Sounds like it worked well for bitter old you.


Yep! I work, am successfull and darn right happy! Bitter? Usenet is
pure entertainment. These guys are a hoot!

Shouldn't you be working?
--
---
DFM - http://www.deepfriedmars.com
---
--

On Sun, 20 Feb 2005 14:49:49 -0700, miles wrote:

john wrote:

Stop avoiding my question.

I repeat, asshole:

How about you telling us who was responsible and how that occurred?

Who and when and by whom was Gannon cleared to attend the White House
briefing new conferences?


Ah yes, once again the lefts use of foul language or name calling as a
form of debate. Good grief. Why does the left always resort to such
tactics every time? The question I replied to was regarding who was
paid with tax $'s. We know who got paid and who paid them. Your retort
is to ask a seperate question.


***********************************************
On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 18:05:39 -0700, miles wrote:

Its already been established how that occurred and who was responsible. QUOTE FROM MILES
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^^
************************************************** ***********************

How about you telling us who was responsible and how that occurred?


Stop avoiding my question.

I repeat, asshole:

How about you telling us who was responsible and how that occurred?

Who and when and by whom was Gannon cleared to attend the White House
briefing new conferences?

"miles" wrote in message
news:vx7Sd.18701$Tt.3356@fed1read05...
PTRAVEL wrote:
2. Why is there no outrage by Republicans that taxpayer money was used
by the administration to bribe columnists?

Instead they just call names, a debating technique they've apparently
learned from right-wing talk show hosts, Fox News and their
commander-in-chief.

Oh please. Names? What names?

How about "leftist" for starters. I'm a moderate. I always have been (I've
even voted for a couple of Republicans in my time).

Read the thread entirely and you'll note the opposite is true.

Then when will you provide a substantive response? I've raised two very
specific issues, which I've discussed in the context of the First Amendment.
You've responded by calling me a leftist and simply ignoring what are
reported and verified facts.

Look at your above oh so leftist typical stereotyping

I told you, I'm not a leftist. Do you think that everyone who disagrees
with you is a "leftist"?

with a quick jab at right wing talk show hosts and Fox News.

Because those are media sources that far too many people rely on for news.

As if the leftist talk shows or ABC, CBS, NBC or CNN are any different.

There aren't any "leftist talk shows" on ABC, CBS, NBC or CNN. There are
partisan pundits on those networks. The difference is, none of those
networks confuse partisan punditry with journalism, unlike Fox.


Blue states are, for the
most part, "donor states," i.e. they pay far more in federal taxes in to
the system than they get back in government services -- blue states
subsidize the red states.

Oh please. What a load of crap.

No, a simple statement of fact.

The blue states are blue because of the high number of people dependent
on government services.

I'm sure that's what Rush tells you. It is not, however, true.

How to **** off a liberal: Work, Be Successfull, Be happy.

As I said, nothing of substance, only mindless name calling.

Would you care to respond to the substantive issues I raised? No? Thought
not.

By the way, I work, I'm successful and I'm happy. And liberal.