Roger wrote:
>
> "Richard Rongstad" wrote in message
> news:402BB4A7.AA31D2B6@NOSPAMvikiingphoenix.com...
> > Roger wrote:
> > >
> > > Washington Times = Moonie Bullshit
> >
> > Ah, yes. The obligatory Moonie smear, guilt by association.
> >
> > If only a few more newspapers owned by red-blooded born in the USA
> > Americans would stop running in circles like hyenas and stop
> > publishing fish wrap, the Washington Times would not be so popular.
>
> It's only popular with the Moonies and far right-wing wackos who think that
> because it's called "Washington Times" that it's credible.

(1) By your standards then, far left-wing wackos think that
because another newspaper is "Washington Post", that it's credible.

(2) I'm neither a Moonie or a right-wing wacko,
and I find the Washington Times at least as credible
if not more so than Wash. Post and NY Times, so
part of your wacko theory is out the window.

(3) The Washington Times might owe it's credibility to
the lack of credibility exhibited by the fish wrap newspapers
such as Washington Post and New York Times, which is no real
compliment to Washington Times, and does not speak well of
Washington Post and NY Times.

(4) In other words, the Washington Times is good because the others are
so bad.

> If it's "so popular," why has it lost $1 BILLION dollars?

Damned if I know, and damned if I care. Rev. Moon can keep
throwing his money into it as far as I am concerned, if
they just keep churning out good reporting on stories that
balance what Wash. Post and NY Times do such a poor job with.

Good journalism is not measured by good accounting or getting
the blessing of the media elites with their noses and asses
in the air. I suggest it is foolish to dismiss Washington Times
on the basis of red ink and a controversial owner that doesn't
pass certain litmus tests.

A propaganda mill can operate efficiently and profitably due
to good management and sharp accountants but it is still a
propaganda mill.

> >
> > > "Hanoi Jane Kerry" wrote in message
> > > news:4638d76a.0402110811.29a74345@posting.google.c om...
> > > > http://www.washtimes.com/national/20...3002-8027r.htm
> > > >
> > > > "Mr. Kerry testified in 1971 before the Senate Foreign Relations
> > > > Committee, however, citing accusations that American soldiers in
> > > > Vietnam routinely committed atrocities such as beheadings, killing
> > > > children and razing villages. He did not present evidence of these
> > > > claims."
> > > >
> > > > Kerry is a liar.
> > > >
> > > > His pal - Hanoi Jane - called American POW's "hypocrites & liars."
> > > >
> > > > http://www.snopes.com/military/fonda.htm
> > > >
> > > > "To add insult to injury, when American POWs finally began to return
> > > > home (some of them having been held captive for up to nine years) and
> > > > describe the tortures they had endured at the hands of the North
> > > > Vietnamese, Jane Fonda quickly told the country that they should "not
> > > > hail the POWs as heroes, because they are hypocrites and liars." Fonda
> > > > said the idea that the POWs she had met in Vietnam had been tortured
> > > > was "laughable," claiming: "These were not men who had been tortured.
> > > > These were not men who had been starved. These were not men who had
> > > > been brainwashed." The POWs who said they had been tortured were
> > > > "exaggerating, probably for their own self-interest," she asserted.
> > > > She told audiences that "Never in the history of the United States
> > > > have POWs come home looking like football players. These football
> > > > players are no more heroes than Custer was. They're military
> > > > careerists and professional killers" who are "trying to make
> > > > themselves look self-righteous, but they are war criminals according
> > > > to law."