Matt Osborn wrote:
>
> On Fri, 13 Feb 2004 14:45:22 GMT, "Roger" wrote:
>
> >"Richard Rongstad" wrote in message
> >news:402CE177.26AA3778@NOSPAMvikiingphoenix.com...
> >> Right wing wacko Roger mounted an attack on a Liberal and wrote:
> >> >
> >>
> >> [snip]
> >>
> >> > > (1) By your standards then, far left-wing wackos think that
> >> > > because another newspaper is "Washington Post", that it's credible.
> >> >
> >> > It's credible because it's credible. Because it has a history of being
> >> > credible.
> >>
> >> That's incredible.
> >>
> >> > > (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.
> >> >
> >> > You're probably more right-wing wacko than you think. Or more gullable.
> >>
> >> Impossible. I am a Liberal.
> >>
> >> > >
> >> > > (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.
> >> >
> >> > If you think the NYT and WP are "fish wrapers", you are a right-wing
> >wacko.
> >>
> >> Impossible. I am a Liberal.
> >
> >Bullshit. You prefer the WT over the NYT and WP.
> >
> >Liar.
> >
>
> Richard didn't say he was a socialist, he said he was a Liberal. You
> need to pull your head out of your armpit long enough to learn the
> difference.

George Washington and Thomas Jefferson are Liberals,
Josef Stalin and Bill Clinton are not.

He didn't get it any further than his armpit?