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

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 17:02:29 -0600, Doug McDonald
wrote:

john wrote:


Let me re-phrase my statement above:

The significant point is that the Sinclair FORCED their TV PROPERTY
to show this Bush propaganda film at prime time.


They didn;t have to "force" them. There is noting to "force".
There is nothing to "push back". Sinclair OWNS the stations ...
they, Sinclair, tell them what to broadcast. The top management
of Sinclair tells the stations what to do.

Doug McDonald


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.

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

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

On 19 Feb 2005 21:16:52 GMT, Bert Hyman wrote:

In oups.com "PTravel"
wrote:

Of course, you're right -- mere speculation isn't a substitute for
facts. So why is it that Bush et al aren't calling for an
investigation? Where's the administration outrage at using MY tax
money for partisan propaganda? Who are the Republican committee chairs
setting up Senate hearings?

Are you suggesting that the administration is entitled to determine who is
a "real" reporter, or what's a "real" news service, or if what they write
is "propaganda" and to exclude or allow reporters based on that
determination? Are you further suggesting that Congress should hold
investigations into the content of some reports?

Now, that's interesting.


Gee, you are really stupid.

Do you think that they are going to allow a "reporter" into the White

House Briefing Room without a security check of his background?

Gannon, the so-called reporter is a male prostitute.

Who checked his background?

Who cleared him?

In john
wrote:

On 19 Feb 2005 21:16:52 GMT, Bert Hyman wrote:

In oups.com "PTravel"
wrote:

Of course, you're right -- mere speculation isn't a substitute for
facts. So why is it that Bush et al aren't calling for an
investigation? Where's the administration outrage at using MY tax
money for partisan propaganda? Who are the Republican committee
chairs setting up Senate hearings?

Are you suggesting that the administration is entitled to determine who
is a "real" reporter, or what's a "real" news service, or if what they
write is "propaganda" and to exclude or allow reporters based on that
determination? Are you further suggesting that Congress should hold
investigations into the content of some reports?

Now, that's interesting.


Gee, you are really stupid.

Do you think that they are going to allow a "reporter" into the White

House Briefing Room without a security check of his background?

Nope. But others are calling for much more than a "security check", being
mostly concerned that he wasn't a "real" reporter, and didn't work for a
"real" news service, and that he was producing "propaganda". I could make
the same claims against Molly Ivins or Rush Limbaugh; would you deny them
credentials merely because you don't like their questions?

Gannon, the so-called reporter is a male prostitute.

What's wrong with that?

Who checked his background?

Who cleared him?

The same people who check and clear everybody else.

Did he kill anybody once he got inside?

What's your problem with what he does in his second job?

--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN

"Gregory Morrow"
gregorymorrowEMERGENCYCANCELLATIONARCHIMEDES@eart hlink.net wrote in
message nk.net...

miles wrote:

Gregory Morrow wrote:

Perhaps in your next life you can be Ann Coulter's sanitary napkin.

Ah yes, the ever so popular leftist form of debate. Oh so predictable.
The use of colorfull language is probably next.


Keep it up and we'll soon be calling you "inches" instead of "miles".

He is the Yin to JF Mezei's Yang.

In JF's case, perhaps that should be "Wang".

On 19 Feb 2005 23:49:16 GMT, Bert Hyman wrote:

In john
wrote:

On 19 Feb 2005 21:16:52 GMT, Bert Hyman wrote:

In oups.com "PTravel"
wrote:

Of course, you're right -- mere speculation isn't a substitute for
facts. So why is it that Bush et al aren't calling for an
investigation? Where's the administration outrage at using MY tax
money for partisan propaganda? Who are the Republican committee
chairs setting up Senate hearings?

Are you suggesting that the administration is entitled to determine who
is a "real" reporter, or what's a "real" news service, or if what they
write is "propaganda" and to exclude or allow reporters based on that
determination? Are you further suggesting that Congress should hold
investigations into the content of some reports?

Now, that's interesting.


Gee, you are really stupid.

Do you think that they are going to allow a "reporter" into the White

House Briefing Room without a security check of his background?

Nope. But others are calling for much more than a "security check", being
mostly concerned that he wasn't a "real" reporter, and didn't work for a
"real" news service, and that he was producing "propaganda". I could make
the same claims against Molly Ivins or Rush Limbaugh; would you deny them
credentials merely because you don't like their questions?

Gannon, the so-called reporter is a male prostitute.

What's wrong with that?

Who checked his background?

Who cleared him?

The same people who check and clear everybody else.

Did he kill anybody once he got inside?

What's your problem with what he does in his second job?

With your answers I see that you are nothing but a ****en troll.

Gregory Morrow wrote:

You are silly to assume that I'm "leftist".

No I'm not. You've proven that. But liberals hate to admit what they
are. Kinda sad really.

Gregory Morrow wrote:

Keep it up and we'll soon be calling you "inches" instead of "miles".

Oh geez. Originality is certainly not your forte now is it?

john wrote:
Oh, yeah, Bush will always deny knowing anything about it.

Oh yeah, the leftist conspiracy theory again. Have any proof or is this
just based on your bias and hatred?

Alan Street wrote:

That you're extremely biased.

I'm biased because I don't like either sides mud slinging just the same?
I think you just showed your own bias in that stupid remark.

PTravel wrote:
How did "Jeff Gannon" get a White House press pass from the Secret
Service (and under a false name) if not with the the collusion and
assistance of the administration?

Its already been established how that occurred and who was responsible.

Of course, you're right -- mere speculation isn't a substitute for
facts. So why is it that Bush et al aren't calling for an
investigation?

He did just that. Won't stop your hatred either way though.

Where's the administration outrage at using MY tax
money for partisan propaganda?

There was outrage. But your hatred won't allow you to hear any because
it goes against said hatred.

Who are the Republican committee chairs
setting up Senate hearings?

Senate hearings? Ya, thats a good use of tax money. Leftists rant like
hell at hearings against their own kind. Both sides waste our money.

But go ahead and keep your head in sand while the country goes to hell
in Red State handbasket.

Keep your hatred alive and your favorate politicians will continue to loose.