Posted on 01/13/2010 8:48:17 PM PST by William Tell 2
Thanks Roses, you understand the issue and what needs to be done. Maybe you can explain it to Ripley, ReignofError and E9rtb or whatever the moniker is.
They seem to be only interested in drawing people into arguments. They would rather try to show people how smart they are ( or at least think they are) than do something about a huge scandal.
If they are representative of what the conservative movement is left with then it is doomed.
For my part, I shouldn’t have wasted the time I did with them.
Thanks again and spread the word. I was on the Quin and Rose show this morning.
What are you talking about? What do you know about journalism or anything else?
I don’t miss the point because you have none.
People like you who stand on the sidelines and boo others without ever getting into the game - or paying to see it - are phonies.
Your welcome, if I see anymore updates I will post.
And remember this about FR...if you ck, there is a pattern with some that will tell you who they really are.
Wow....
Yeah, I guess I shouldn’t be too tough on them. This is their entertainment. They could be shooting whiskey in a bar instead.
I am just getting a little aggravated banging my head against the wall of the corporate conservative media.
Oh yeah one more thing Einstein, then I really need to move on. It’s just that this is such a common mistake by pretentious people like you I have to mention it:
Usage note:http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/media
Media, like data, is the plural form of a word borrowed directly from Latin. The singular, medium, early developed the meaning “an intervening agency, means, or instrument” and was first applied to newspapers two centuries ago.
In the 1920s ***media began to appear as a singular collective noun***, sometimes with the plural medias.
***This singular use is now common in the fields of mass communication*** and advertising, but it is not frequently found outside them: The media is (or are) not antibusiness.
Later
Untwist those panties, boy... they’re making you so shrill my dog is starting to howl.
Depends on your definitions. If Hitler was not elected chancellor, than no one has ever been elected chancellor. The process that brought him to office is the same that brought Angela Merkel to office. His PARTY was elected, and as party head he was the frontrunner to form a coalition and become chancellor, as usually happens in parliamentary democracies.
Besides you are not an expert on parliamentary elections. Your comparison between the 1932 election and every British prime minister etc is incorrect.
I'm not going to quibble over my level of expertise, but I do know that the prime minister is appointed by the monarch. Every British prime minister has been appointed by the monarch. If your point is that Hitler was appointed just like Churchill was, then I concede the point. But I doubt that's where you were going.
“He was not elected at all.”
He was a spearhead, associated with the nazi party, who espoused nazi principles and stated them well.
HIs party won 44% of the vote.
He was the head of the nazi party and instrumental in seeing his party get a large part of the vote that allowed them to exercise power and manipulate themselves into the highest positions .
The German people were in a bad situation and picking at straws. That of Mr. HItler and his cohorts was attractive at the time because of their lofty rhetoric that proposed solutions to the problems of Germany. Mr. Hitler gained power with public support.
(IMHO)
(Your Democracy-hating leftists might have been Republic-hating leftists.)
(Once again, IMHO)
best regards
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.