Just in case you care, have you noticed the article in the Times about Kanjorski? Why now? It's old news. The cynic that I am makes me believe the Times is pounding him for a reason. He even responded yesterday with a mailbag letter. He seemed surprised also. Hey, if the Times comes up with a negative article about him, two years after the fact, doesn't that seem weird? So they start pounding Kanjorski. What would be the result? People talking about his succesor, right? Well with all the chatter about Barletta in the national press, he would seem to be the front man to take that spot. What's the Times to do about that? Let's have a negative Barletta cartoon published. Am I nuts? Maybe, but watch for more of this in the near future. I'm just saying this to keep you aware, that the Times will do anything to get their favorite mayor to ascend the ladder. Just keep tis in the back of your mind as it unfolds. Then, someday you'll know Shari knows what shes talking about.
You may be right, Shari, and the last thing I want is fro Chris Doherty to climb the political ladder. I would much rather see Doherty fade off into the political sunset maybe with some token political job from Rendell.....something with no authority how my tax money is spent.
I like Barletta and think its pathetic how the Times is doing its best to lump him in with the retard white supremacists that show up at his rallies. Barletta has repeatedly ignored the hate groups and refused their donations and help. I can't believe that anyone is against Lou Barletta's attempts to stop illegal immigration. The argument may be that its not the city of Hazleton's jurisdiction, but the fact remains that the federal government is supposed to be controlling immigration and it is not. George Bush, as well as Washington politicians on both sides of the aisle, refuse to do anything about illegal immigration, because they sold their sould to the corporate devil a long time ago. So small towns like Hazleton are forced to try and solve the problem on their own. Its too bad Doherty won't do anything about it. Doherty even made our problem worse when, in the wake of the publicity about Hazleton's legislation, our dimwitted mayor in Scranton is quoted on the front page of the paper saying that he "welcomes everyone" or something like that. I'm sure there were at least a few illegals in Hazleton who packed their bags for Scranton after that.
The only thing I worry about is some of the "foaming at the mouth" DD posters being too vocal in support for Barletta. it could be what costs him the election if he has Pilchesky and crew on the campaign trail.
__________________
Remember, next Friday is Hawaiian shirt day. So, if you want to, go ahead and wear a Hawaiian shirt...and jeans.
Holy inkwell Batman! A newspaper with a political agenda?? We are doomed!!
Are you under the impression that we are children? I can say with certainty that no one here believes the Scranton Times is without an agenda as are most, if not all, news sources. Ever read the New York Times? That newspaper could give lessons on political agendas. Shari if you blindly read, listen, watch any news source without critically evaluating the information from all angles then I suggest you will be very misinformed. I never take anything at face value. I do my own reading, listening, watching and then I decide what is news and what is spin.
For instance during a interview before Clinton was elected President he was asked about his "activities" and he admitted to not being the best husband in that department, so finding out he was once again unfaithful to his wife while in the white house, while unfortunate for her and his child, was hardly news. Yet it was presented asnews.The fact that he lied about that activity while under oath was news, however, itcertainly was not earth-shattering news, yet it commanded front page status for weeks and months. Frankly, I can't condone lying under oath, but by the same token had he not lied about his extra-marital activities; I imagine it would have created the same or more "news"damned if you do, damned if you dont, basically. So it is up to each and every oneof the electorate to educate themselves and separate the "news" from the "spin
Oh and just to reassure you I DECIDE who to vote for, I do not depend on any news outlet to lead me to the voting booth.
Well now folks, we opened OUR borders and look what happened. "3 new interesting posters" in a matter of days and they've put us "on the map". Here come those darned Canadians.
Except for Ihave's snippy retort in the begining of her post, I am pleased to agree, fully, with both of your posts.
I am glad we agree and yes I was snippy, perhaps it's because I find you to be slightly condesending.
"Just in case you care, have you noticed the article in the Times about Kanjorski?"
suggests that you believe we may not care or be able to discern information well enough to be able to know we should care, which is quite a bit removed from the truth dear.
Then, someday you'll know Shari knows what shes talking about.
We have never suggested you do not know what you are talking about, we have stated that you have not provided any concrete proof to back up what you claim to know, which is a bit different. I could say for instance that O J Simpson killed his wife and her friend, but as I am, of course, unable to prove it I don't say it, or write it for that matter. Since apparently the DA in that area was also unable to prove it, I don't feel too guilty about my short comings. I do, however, keep my mouth shut about it. So someday if you provide proof I indeed will say you were right, until such time I will continue to ask for proof. fair enough?
-- Edited by IHavehadenoughofhaters at 11:04, 2007-06-12
Ihave, I posted 2 days ago, that when you look in the mirror, you'll see me. Did you know what I meant by that? Condesending? Yep, it's the new me. It rubbed off from some of you. How's it feel?
I have no problem with you being condesending I didn't complain about your post, you did the complaining.I was merely explaining my response since you seemed confused by my snippy comment in it. Non-the-less it was nice that on this particular issue "news outlets have agenda" we are in agreement.
-- Edited by IHavehadenoughofhaters at 12:05, 2007-06-12
