Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2007:December:29 Saturday <Friday, Sunday>
Berkeley CSUA MOTD
2007/12/29-2008/1/4 [Uncategorized] UID:48863 Activity:nil
12/26   Happy Holidays everyone.  Anyone get anything different or interesting
        besides the usual clothing and electronic junk?
        \_ My father-in-law got a can of roasted peanuts from his son.  I got
           nothing, per my request.
2007/12/29-2008/1/4 [Politics/Domestic/Election, Politics/Domestic/RepublicanMedia] UID:48864 Activity:high
12/29   Is Kristol a hypocrite or the NYT selling out? Or both? Or visa versa?
        \_ Or maybe they both recognize the value of including opposition
           voices. -dans
        \_ I find it amusing that you would call the NYT a sellout for
           printing a conservative in the oped pages.  What next?  Having the
           regular article writers doing well researched and unbiased articles?
           And then pigs flying?  When do the flaming frogs fall from the sky?
           \_ I wouldn't call Kristol a conservative.  I would call him
              a delusional fuckhead.  Keep him in the Weekly Standard
              where he belongs, he should quit polluting other places with
              his crap.
              \_ Wow you sure made your point.  Well spoken!
           \_ The NYT already has regular columists that are conservatives,
              but none that have been so consistently wrong about everthing
              as Kristol has been. And I didn't say that the NYT was a
              sellout, I asked what other people thought. I think it is
              mighty strange that they are publishing someone who has been
              such a vocal and adamant critic. Even stranger that he would
              want to run a column in a paper that he claims to despise.
              \_ What's so strange about publishing a vocal and adamant critic?
                 This is precsely who intelligent and informed debate is
                 supposed to work.  Even a brutal critic may make valid and
                 relevant points, and that's worth considering. -dans
                 \_ Bill Kristol does not make "valid and relevant points".
                    He's a wildly dishonest pundit who cofounded and ran a
                    Murdoch mouthpiece, and cofounded and ran PNAC.  He lies
                    in his arguments, in his premises, and in his journalism.
                    He has abdicated his place in what can be considered
                    intelligent and informed debate.  As have you.
                 \_ You're off topic.  That has nothing to do with flaming
                    frogs falling from the sky.
                    \_ E_ROBERT_BORK?  Cool! -dans
                       \_ No.  Flaming frogs from the sky.
                          \_ Yes, E_ROBERT_BORK. -dans
                             \_ Sigh... no.  You're not getting it.  Go ahead
                                and post another bork and let's just be done
                                with it.
                                \_ Do you even know who Robert Bork is? -dans
                                   \_ Yes.  Do you?  Do you know anything about
                                      flaming frogs from the sky?
                 \_ We are talking about Bill Kristol here. He does not
                    contribute to intelligent and informed debate about
                    \_ Again, you have helped educate us all with facts,
                       details, and hard core specifics.  Appreciated.
                    \_ I kind of liked him in "When Harry Met Sally". I
                       never realized he was so into politics.
                 \_ Sure a brutal critic can make valid points. From the
                    pages of another publication.
Berkeley CSUA MOTD:2007:December:29 Saturday <Friday, Sunday>