Replies

Must be so darn frustrating to know they are being one upped by people in pajamas!

Its not just the end of Dan Rather. Its the end of Dan Rathers.

They just don't get it, do they? They can't even be correct in their speeches! Most credible bloggers claimed that the attributes of such a typewriter existed - proportional pitch, superscripted th, and even the Times New Roman font - but such attributes were on typewriters used by highly paid executive secretaries and would have been cost-prohibitive for general use by the military.

And check the panelists -- where is anyone from Fox? All MSM stooges from what I can see - especially Bill Moyers. And while they try to paint us with the "hates Rather" brush, they fail to mention WHY we dislike Rather - because of his close ties to the Democratic Party in Texas -- and we dislike CBS because they have failed to run ANY story that does not paint Bush in an unfavorable light. Pro-Kerry, Pro-Democrat.

At least when we're wrong, we friggin' ADMIT it (to cite her example). As Charles Johnson put it - "if I'm wrong, I have 10,000 fact checkers to correct me." Somewhere along the lines, the MSM decided we were all too stupid to find facts ourselves. Must be a real disappointment to them to learn that hey - guess what? We have brains. For me, this is why I watch Fox -- it assumes I have some degree of intelligence (although my Moonbat friends would call me a "Dittohead" without realizing what the origin of the term is, as usual).

Notice that still, this author reflects the attitude that speaking out about facts should somehow depend upon an elite class, the urinalists.

We, who can observe and comment as part of our natural inherent rights with which we were endowed by our Creator, are actually not supposed to have a right, in the Hohfeldian sense, but only a possible privilege, which we "must not abuse" in the eyes of the ruling elite.

That individuals such as this are a big joke inside a bubble can be made evident by a single test: what would come out as the facts in an actual trial? So here the assertions as to the date of the invention of the font in question, the superscript capability, and so forth, are used to show that we are "not to be trusted," even though this author acknowledges that the likelihood, under the actual facts of the case, that this was not a crude forgery, is zero. Thus we are discredited by a member of the chattering classes because we got to the truth swiftly, and did not show the requisite willingness to ignore common sense and pee on it in order to demonstrate our "superiority."