Here she is...
Posted on 02/10/2009 12:53:23 PM PST by utahson
I’ve always thought Tina Brown was in her 50s, or at least late 40s. She’s the blond British woman who used to be at Vanity Fair.
I AM SPARTICUS!
LOL, that looks a little messy. Despite that, we’re in agreement to the original meaning of the word. I still think it has been bastardized by today’s media, and its use against Conservative is inexcusable. (along the lines of it’s substitution for ‘terrorist’) And I would add, even in its proper context as well.
Even within a Constitutional environment, open dissent is deemed healthy, not a threat. The use of this word was out of context in the extreme IMO.
Crystal cove made a comment to me that made me realize I was thinking of the wrong individual on this thread. I wanted folks to know that I had been thinking of Patti Ann Brown and not Tina Brown.
This makes me realize my position on this thread was entirely wrong. I agree wholeheartedly that Tina Brown is a seasoned reporter who would certainly know what she was saying, and would deserve the comments made on this thread.
Please accept my apology for making comments that were off base. I am sorry if I caused anyone to rethink their sound position. It was not my intention to cause confusion on this issue, and yet I may have. Sorry about that...
Crystal Cove, I appreciate your comments to me. They enabled me to admit my mistake and correct it in a timely manner. Thank you very much.
Oh, you’re welcome. Is the Patti Ann Brown you were thinking of the one who sometimes does the news breaks on Fox News? I think she started on MSNBC.
But, I still think Tina Brown was referring to Pete Sessions’ remarks about the GOP insurgency.
Here she is...
And here's the Tina Brown whose actions
you folks were properly describing.
Check out post 68.
Thanks. She is a total fool but that is now the standard for liberal journalists i.e. 90% of journalists.
Yes, I agree.
Yes, that’s her. She always seems so bland and non-descript, it’s hard for me to imagine her on Red Eye.
The language they use in reference to us is downright scary at times.
Yes, she doesn’t exactly fit in there.
Glenn Beck was just added at 5PM.
"Fair and Balanced"?
Well, that would follow, considering what bastards they are.
But the founding fathers were insurgents were they not?
The order was quickly appealed, but friendly federal judges agreed with Obama and upheld the EO.
Within minutes of the EO being upheld, all Republican House and Senate members were removed at gun point by Obama's civil defense force. As they left the Democrats laughed, jeered, and yelled "bi-partisan," which induced more gales of laughter each time someone bellowed it.
And so, just like that *poof* the Republican Party ceased to exist.
Stroke of the pen, law of the land. Kinda cool.
I am not offended by the description. Our founding fathers declared independence, formed a militia and conducted military operations to achieve a goal. I’m sure England saw them as insurgents or even terrorists. Acting against troops of the crown, I don’t see it that way. I believe they pretty much conducted themselves with honor. They weren’t out blowing up population centers to cause terror. (I’m not implying you were making that case BTW)
Maybe they're waiting until the NYT and LAT go de-listed.
Isn’t she being nasty and vitriolic by labeling Republicans “insurgents”? If not, how you would label that kind of speech?
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.