Um, Ken..., or, suddenly, $24,000.00 for a evening out in NYC seems like a bargain...

wrote:
snip
And on a related note, if you two Apostles of St. Nitwit think that Seymour
Hersh is a credible journalist, you need and deserve a little more
religion... oh, to be sure, he knows how to get pseudoliberal wannabe
intellectuals whipped into a tizzy to further his "career," but as far as
providing a truly informative bit of journalism, not so much...

Seymour Hersh is a Pulitzer prize winning investigative journalist.
You are the gullible dimbulb who swallows nonsensical anti-Obama
fabrications from the far-right whackosphere and regurgitates them
to a fly fishing group.

Hope this helps.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Mon, 08 Nov 2010 06:32:30 -0600, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:


Seymour Hersh is a Pulitzer prize winning investigative journalist.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

You are the gullible dimbulb who swallows nonsensical anti-Obama
fabrications from the far-right whackosphere and regurgitates them
to a fly fishing group.

Yeah, uh-huh - whatever you and Stormin' Mormon, the Latter-day Loon, et al,
need to tell yourselves...

Hope this helps.

--
Ken Fortenberry

IAC, Hersh is to journalism, even Glenn Beck/Keith Olbermann/Rush Limbaugh/Chris
Matthews "journalism," what potted meat and Ripple are to...I was going to say
"fine dining," but the "fine" isn't even necessary...

As to Hersh, 40 years ago, he essentially weaseled a Pulitzer (which, while
somewhat prestigious - but OTOH, Roget Ebert won one - is often, well, not
exactly objective, both as to liberal leanings as well as emotional sway, and
has had brushes with Hershesque nonsense, ala Janet Cooke) by being given the
basics and overall framework of a legit story and then, fabricating a fair
amount of the peripheral details. And amusingly, he has managed to make quite a
"career" for himself by feeding whatever flames happen to be crackling with a
lot of hot air and cow chips. And you might notice, he's not been awarded
another (or AFAIK, been remotely close to another), despite what you appear to
believe is a stellar career as an "investigative journalist." Simply, he's a
running ****ing joke among many actual journalists of every personal political
leaning.

The really funny part is that if you accept what Hersh writes as _fact_, Obama,
as it turns out, is actually more of a war criminal, not to mention an amoral
liar, than what he alleges Dick Cheney to be.

HTH,
R

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Seymour Hersh is a Pulitzer prize winning investigative journalist.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

You are the gullible dimbulb who swallows nonsensical anti-Obama
fabrications from the far-right whackosphere and regurgitates them
to a fly fishing group.

Yeah, uh-huh - whatever you and Stormin' Mormon, the Latter-day Loon, et al,
need to tell yourselves...

Like it or not, both of my statements are demonstrably true.

IAC, Hersh is to journalism, even Glenn Beck/Keith Olbermann/Rush Limbaugh/Chris
Matthews "journalism," what potted meat and Ripple are to...I was going to say
"fine dining," but the "fine" isn't even necessary...
snip the usual rdean hyperventialting

That's all you got ? Attack the messenger ?

You posted complete bull**** lies which have been debunked five ways`
into Sunday. I posted a link to a *real* scandal and all you got is
a rabid attack on a Pulitzer prize winning investigative journalist ?

Do you even care how stupid and deranged you appear ?

No need to answer that, it was a rhetorical question.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Nov 8, 3:38*am, wrote:
On Sat, 06 Nov 2010 15:15:22 -0500, Ken Fortenberry





wrote:
DaveS wrote:
Yep, Ken is skeptical and less than adulatory as to the US military.
And that gets old, ****es people off, me included, and gets a general
negative reaction. If you haven't noticed its not too popular an
attitude round here. It ****es me off about as much as his anti-Mormon
slurs.

The history of the US military and likewise the history of the
Latter Day Saints provides precious little which would lead me
to conclude they are deserving of adulation. The former is a
history of necessary evil and the latter a history of a racist
cult theocracy which became, for all practical purposes, the
state religion of Utah.

I am able to respect a persons service in the military but I
cannot respect the military. I can likewise respect a persons
right to worship any way they please without respecting the
cult in which they worship.

And I can respect your right to be ****ed off. You'll get
over it.

Reminds me of a little story...

It seems there were two little boys (or armies, if you prefer) circling each
other, about to duke it out. *One was little Billy Smith. *The Smiths were
extremely religious - Sunday school, Sunday service, day service, night service
- if the doors were unlocked, there were the Smiths, raising praise to their
deity. *Boy howdy, were they respected in their town! *Even folks of other
religions had to admit the Smiths were obviously devoutly religious. *The other
boy was little Johnny Jones. *These Jones' were not the ones with which the
folks in town wished to keep up, *Oh, everyone said that while they weren't
_bad_ people, they couldn't be all that good because they never went to church
or gave any outward sides of having any particular religion. *So, anyway, there
are little Billy and little Johnny, doing little-boy fight prep, with little
Billy asking his deity to smite the non-believer and little Johnny thinking
about what his parents might say about him fighting. *Suddenly, little Billy
screamed, "I'm gonna whip yer atheist ass, you son of a bitch!," and took a
series of wild, awkward swings. *Little Johnny took advantage of his opponent's
misplaced exuberance and without saying a word, beat the snot-slinging **** out
of little Billy. *As he stepped back, little Johnny looked up to the skies and
said, "Um, God, excuse me, sir, but when you have a moment, please forgive
Johnny...he knows not what he does..."

And on a related note, if you two Apostles of St. Nitwit think that Seymour
Hersh is a credible journalist, you need and deserve a little more
religion...oh, to be sure, he knows how to get pseudoliberal wannabe
intellectuals whipped into a tizzy to further his "career," but as far as
providing a truly informative bit of journalism, not so much...

HTH,
R- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ditto what Ken said. "Further his career" your ass. Hersh is an old
man Richard. His rep and "career" are pretty much in the bag. You
obviously do not have a clue as to Hersh's work.

There is not a single Rightard journalist in the USA with a better
reputation than Hersh as an investigative journalist. In his 70s he is
still tilling the ground, cannot be bought and is feared by sneaky
bureaucrats, Trotsky Communists posing as "Neo Conservatives," war
profiteering defense contract thieves, ethnic cleansers and idiots
alike.

Like his mentor I.F.Stone, Hersh is independent, certainly left of
center , but not some ideological parrot or groundless Rightard
seditious slanderer.

Dave
Even caught dead cold, passing on fabrications they beauregard on.
Hell hath no fury like Rightards cut off the govt tit.

On Mon, 08 Nov 2010 11:16:40 -0600, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Seymour Hersh is a Pulitzer prize winning investigative journalist.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

You are the gullible dimbulb who swallows nonsensical anti-Obama
fabrications from the far-right whackosphere and regurgitates them
to a fly fishing group.

Yeah, uh-huh - whatever you and Stormin' Mormon, the Latter-day Loon, et al,
need to tell yourselves...

Like it or not, both of my statements are demonstrably true.

IAC, Hersh is to journalism, even Glenn Beck/Keith Olbermann/Rush Limbaugh/Chris
Matthews "journalism," what potted meat and Ripple are to...I was going to say
"fine dining," but the "fine" isn't even necessary...
snip the usual rdean hyperventialting

That's all you got ? Attack the messenger ?

Well, since you've got no message and your "messenger" is a clown...

You posted complete bull**** lies which have been debunked five ways`
into Sunday. I posted a link to a *real* scandal

Um, you do realize that New Yorker is primarily a tongue-in-cheek humor
magazine, don't you? And you do realize that most folks actually in the know,
from across the political spectrum, snicker at cocktail parties about pieces
(and I mean both the article and the author...) such as the one you cited,
right? Oh, wait...obviously, you don't...snicker

and all you got is a rabid attack on a Pulitzer prize winning investigative journalist ?

Well, lessee here - parties as diverse as Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, just
about the entire Kennedy family and Colin Powell have called him, basically, a
lying, grandstanding loon, and even allowing that some or all might have
ulterior motives, among the concrete proof that he is so far off the deep end
that he can't even see the merest glimpse of its edge is that Richard Nixon, a
man so paranoid he considered Carol Channing and Dick Cavett as serious threats
and enemies and thought reporters like Daniel Schorr, John Osborne, and James
Deakin ought to be shot, dismissed Hersh as a goofball. But the funniest thing
is that in your defense of Hersh, you, by implication, call Obama either a
completely uninformed dumbass, or, a lying war criminal (or even both)...and I
suspect that if the wind shifts sufficiently against Obama, Hersh will come up
with some "expose" centering upon him...snicker...

Do you even care how stupid and deranged you appear ?

Oh, yes, lots and lots...snicker...I actually spend days on end worrying about
little more than what you and the Stormin' Mormon, er, "think"...

No need to answer that, it was a rhetorical question.

snicker,
R

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Seymour Hersh is a Pulitzer prize winning investigative journalist.
You are the gullible dimbulb who swallows nonsensical anti-Obama
fabrications from the far-right whackosphere and regurgitates them
to a fly fishing group.

Yeah, uh-huh - whatever you and Stormin' Mormon, the Latter-day Loon, et al,
need to tell yourselves...

Like it or not, both of my statements are demonstrably true.

IAC, Hersh is to journalism, even Glenn Beck/Keith Olbermann/Rush Limbaugh/Chris
Matthews "journalism," what potted meat and Ripple are to...I was going to say
"fine dining," but the "fine" isn't even necessary...
snip the usual rdean hyperventialting

That's all you got ? Attack the messenger ?
You posted complete bull**** lies which have been debunked five ways`
into Sunday. I posted a link to a *real* scandal

Um, you do realize that New Yorker is primarily a tongue-in-cheek humor
magazine, don't you? And you do realize that most folks actually in the know,
from across the political spectrum, snicker at cocktail parties about pieces
(and I mean both the article and the author...) such as the one you cited,
right? Oh, wait...obviously, you don't...snicker

Is that what they tell you down at the Piggly Wiggly there in
Piddlybucket, Mississippi ? Lots of folks "actually in the know"
down there in Piddlybucket are there ? Why didn't all those folks
"actually in the know" tell you that the travel budget silliness
was all a big fat lie before you shot your mouth off and made a
fool of yourself ?

You're a hoot and a half, Rick.

And I know this won't help. LOL !!

--
Ken Fortenberry

yes he is...dangerous also...to the financial security of the USA...


Moron.

g.

On Nov 8, 2:01*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 08 Nov 2010 11:16:40 -0600, Ken Fortenberry





wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Seymour Hersh is a Pulitzer prize winning investigative journalist.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

You are the gullible dimbulb who swallows nonsensical anti-Obama
fabrications from the far-right whackosphere and regurgitates them
to a fly fishing group.

Yeah, uh-huh - whatever you and Stormin' Mormon, the Latter-day Loon, et al,
need to tell yourselves...

Like it or not, both of my statements are demonstrably true.

IAC, Hersh is to journalism, even Glenn Beck/Keith Olbermann/Rush Limbaugh/Chris
Matthews "journalism," what potted meat and Ripple are to...I was going to say
"fine dining," but the "fine" isn't even necessary...
snip the usual rdean hyperventialting

That's all you got ? Attack the messenger ?

Well, since you've got no message and your "messenger" is a clown...



You posted complete bull**** lies which have been debunked five ways`
into Sunday. I posted a link to a *real* scandal

Um, you do realize that New Yorker is primarily a tongue-in-cheek humor
magazine, don't you? *And you do realize that most folks actually in the know,
from across the political spectrum, snicker at cocktail parties about pieces
(and I mean both the article and the author...) such as the one you cited,
right? *Oh, wait...obviously, you don't...snicker

and all you got is a rabid attack on a Pulitzer prize winning investigative journalist ?

Well, lessee here - parties as diverse as Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, just
about the entire Kennedy family and Colin Powell have called him, basically, a
lying, grandstanding loon, and even allowing that some or all might have
ulterior motives, among the concrete proof that he is so far off the deep end
that he can't even see the merest glimpse of its edge is that Richard Nixon, a
man so paranoid he considered Carol Channing and Dick Cavett as serious threats
and enemies and thought reporters like Daniel Schorr, John Osborne, and James
Deakin ought to be shot, dismissed Hersh as a goofball. *But the funniest thing
is that in your defense of Hersh, you, by implication, call Obama either a
completely uninformed dumbass, or, a lying war criminal (or even both)...and I
suspect that if the wind shifts sufficiently against Obama, Hersh will come up
with some "expose" centering upon him...snicker...



Do you even care how stupid and deranged you appear ?

Oh, yes, lots and lots...snicker...I actually spend days on end worrying about
little more than what you and the Stormin' Mormon, er, "think"...

No need to answer that, it was a rhetorical question.

snicker,
R- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Jeebus, sometimes I just have to attribute your stuff to rancid bacon.
I have known just a few Mississippians in my time and none gloried in
putting on ignorance as much as you although one Mississippi grad of
Columbia in math once tried to play me that she didn't know how to
solve a linear equation, and another Ivy grad from Jackson kept
mentioning something called "Tar I-rons" and waited for me to react
some way that I could never fathom.

Yuk it up Richard. This playing stupid thing is I think some kind of
regional put-on whose purpose I have never fully understood. Kind of
like Catskill humor which I also do not get much from. It probably
has something or other to do with getting hung out to dry on your
posts of clearly fabricated India trip expense nonsense. I guess we
should just be thankful that most Southern boys don't want to fight
duels when caught fibbing by other men anymore.

Dave
This too shall pass.

On Nov 8, 2:01*pm, wrote:
On Mon, 08 Nov 2010 11:16:40 -0600, Ken Fortenberry





wrote:
wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
Seymour Hersh is a Pulitzer prize winning investigative journalist.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

You are the gullible dimbulb who swallows nonsensical anti-Obama
fabrications from the far-right whackosphere and regurgitates them
to a fly fishing group.

Yeah, uh-huh - whatever you and Stormin' Mormon, the Latter-day Loon, et al,
need to tell yourselves...

Like it or not, both of my statements are demonstrably true.

IAC, Hersh is to journalism, even Glenn Beck/Keith Olbermann/Rush Limbaugh/Chris
Matthews "journalism," what potted meat and Ripple are to...I was going to say
"fine dining," but the "fine" isn't even necessary...
snip the usual rdean hyperventialting

That's all you got ? Attack the messenger ?

Well, since you've got no message and your "messenger" is a clown...



You posted complete bull**** lies which have been debunked five ways`
into Sunday. I posted a link to a *real* scandal

Um, you do realize that New Yorker is primarily a tongue-in-cheek humor
magazine, don't you? *And you do realize that most folks actually in the know,
from across the political spectrum, snicker at cocktail parties about pieces
(and I mean both the article and the author...) such as the one you cited,
right? *Oh, wait...obviously, you don't...snicker

and all you got is a rabid attack on a Pulitzer prize winning investigative journalist ?

Well, lessee here - parties as diverse as Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, just
about the entire Kennedy family and Colin Powell have called him, basically, a
lying, grandstanding loon, and even allowing that some or all might have
ulterior motives, among the concrete proof that he is so far off the deep end
that he can't even see the merest glimpse of its edge is that Richard Nixon, a
man so paranoid he considered Carol Channing and Dick Cavett as serious threats
and enemies and thought reporters like Daniel Schorr, John Osborne, and James
Deakin ought to be shot, dismissed Hersh as a goofball. *But the funniest thing
is that in your defense of Hersh, you, by implication, call Obama either a
completely uninformed dumbass, or, a lying war criminal (or even both)...and I
suspect that if the wind shifts sufficiently against Obama, Hersh will come up
with some "expose" centering upon him...snicker...



Do you even care how stupid and deranged you appear ?

Oh, yes, lots and lots...snicker...I actually spend days on end worrying about
little more than what you and the Stormin' Mormon, er, "think"...

No need to answer that, it was a rhetorical question.

snicker,
R- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Richard, I am a grad of BYU, I am not a "Mormon," and my use of
profanity, my irreligious comments, and possibly even my hostility to
anti-Mormon bigotry, would all be mostly embarrassing to most LDS. I
just have no use for bigotry. I also cannot turn away JWs, because of
the respect I have for their stand to the death against the Nazi
Holocaust. That doesn't make me a Jehovah Witness. Calling me a
"Stormin Mormon" is not just stupid, it is inaccurate.

Dave

On Mon, 8 Nov 2010 23:54:02 -0800 (PST), DaveS wrote:


Richard, I am a grad of BYU, I am not a "Mormon," and my use of
profanity, my irreligious comments, and possibly even my hostility to
anti-Mormon bigotry, would all be mostly embarrassing to most LDS. I
just have no use for bigotry. I also cannot turn away JWs, because of
the respect I have for their stand to the death against the Nazi
Holocaust. That doesn't make me a Jehovah Witness. Calling me a
"Stormin Mormon" is not just stupid, it is inaccurate.

Which, to me, shows me just how little you actually understand about me or even
common sensibility - if I actually thought you were a Mormon, I'd not even
consider calling you "Stormin' Mormon"...unless, of course, you were a Mormon
and styled yourself as such...

Sheesh,
R