Deleted message

[Name removed]

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[efhmc]

1. I wish that I had the time and energy to answer all the nonsense that

is written daily by conservatives.

[asjr]

2. eds

And it does no good to write to Safire. He is one of the most opinionated men I have ever seen. Everyone is out of step but him. When he is acting as a pundit it is inevitable what will spew from his mouth. Just another mean Repub.

[efhmc]

3. I'd still rather things be written than on the air. So many of our hairy

friends have never read or seen a decent newspaper so the coverage doesn't go as far. Also, one can't deny having said things that are in print. It's the amount of hate that comes from these guys that continues to amaze me. Although, one would think that by now I would be immune.

[The Zanti Regent]

5. You mean "SAFFLIAR", don't you?

He'd fit right in with Himmler and the SS!

[RichM]

4. A very striking comparison.

When one "studies" the NYT, not so much taking it at face value, as regarding it as an ongoing sociology lesson, the depravity of our society is thrown into sharp relief.

Aside from Krugman & Herbert, the whole paper reeks of a self-satisfied corrupt business elite. The editorials have a pathetic weakness to them - most embarrassingly so, when they feebly try to slap the wrists of the criminals in the administration.

Safire himself is amusingly conceited, for no very good reason. He really fancies himself quite the Renaissance man.

[RichM]

6. Another example of the Times' feebleness: today's lead editorial. -

Just listen to this sentence - the 2nd in the editorial, which is about the Democratic candidates' positions on Iraq:

"As American soldiers continue to die and the cost to American taxpayers continues to mount, the Democratic presidential candidates have started to sense that Iraq could turn into a liability for President Bush's re-election campaign."

Talk about mealy-mouthed. Let's rephrase what the sniveling cowards at the Times wrote. It equates to something like this:

"As American soldiers continue to die and the cost to American taxpayers continues to mount, the Democratic presidential candidates have recognized that the deepening fiasco in Iraq could prove disastrous for President Bush's re-election campaign."

Later in the editorial, the editors write,

"A more ...useful idea was the House Democrats' proposal to require ... a detailed accounting of all American-financed reconstruction spending and to notify Congress of all noncompetitive bidding. These requirements should be restored to the legislation before final passage, so taxpayer dollars don't excessively enrich politically connected companies like Halliburton and Bechtel."

What I love about this is the "excessively enrich." It's OK if the taxpayers "enrich" Bechtel, as long as it isn't "excessively." Wouldn't want to step on any important toes, you know.

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Backlash Cometh]

7. Saffire sounds a wee bit paranoid.

Or, atleast, he appears to have expounded on what many would recognize as an irrational fear of germs.

[Hubert Flottz]

9. Bush will put them to work with an M-16 after Selection 2004!

Anybody can pass a draft physical if they don't have a rich daddy!