Crawford Tx. Newspaper endorses KERRY!!!

Not necessarily, Daisy. They have proven they are liberals in other ways. Misleading information on their part makes them liberal. Funny thing, too....many of their advertisers pulled advertising from them. That helps to prove the point they are liberals in a conservative neighborhood.

 

I was just asking for you to help with the 10%. If not you, then who?

 

Then you consider Fox News to be liberal as well?

No, it doesn't unless the advertisers specifically state that that is the reason. It could just mean that they disagree or it could be something unrelated. In fact, if they were an overly liberal newspaper, wouldn't the advertisers have deserted before this?

 

Jim...if they cannot even convince 10% of the population that they are a threat...that should tell you something. Why would I waste my vote?

 

Daisy, I don't recall seeing anything like you say from Fox News. Also, because of their misrepresentation of the President, advertisers have stated that they pulled their advertising and would do so again. I don't know that the Iconclast will ever regain that advertising, though they say they'll survive without the revenues. Good luck to them.

 

Oh, you think Fox News is actually "fair and balanced", do you?

Where have the advertisers stated that they pulled their advertising? If the link to that was posted on this thread, I missed it. I also missed which advertisers.

 

To be part of the 10% si that more will join.

 

Oh, you think Fox News is actually "fair and balanced", do you?

Where have the advertisers stated that they pulled their advertising? If the link to that was posted on this thread, I missed it. I also missed which advertisers. </font>[/QUOTE]I believe it was a quote in the Dallas/Ft.Worth paper.

I never claimed Fox was fair and balanced, but I see you avoided the question. Typical.

 

To be part of the 10% si that more will join. </font>[/QUOTE]I wouldn't want to vote for something so unviable as a third party. Until they can prove themselves (outside of a loudmouth like Ventura) then I don't have time for them.

 

Do you have a citation? Also, again, which advertisers?

What question did I avoid answering, Avl1984? Why would you say that was "typical"?

 

To be part of the 10% si that more will join. </font>[/QUOTE]I wouldn't want to vote for something so unviable as a third party. Until they can prove themselves (outside of a loudmouth like Ventura) then I don't have time for them. </font>[/QUOTE]So, if they can ever get a foothold, and stop the slide of our government into socialism and debauchery, it will be no thanks to you. Just so's you remember.

 

LOL...No, if they ever get a foothold, they might be worthy of support...as of yet, they aren't.

 

AVL1984,

That's four questions you're avoiding...

 

How so, Daisy??? The advertisers were not listed individually. One person was quoted as a representative of the area businesses who withdrew the advertising. I gave you the paper I believed it was in. As stated, I was not looking at the exact paper. I will however try to find the quote.

 

Two down and two to go - What question did I avoid answering, Avl1984? Why would you say that was "typical"?

 

Daisy, where are the other two you accuse me of avoiding? Oh, and as for the Iconclast, you can go to their own editorial page and they state that many have pulled their advertising. Then, of course, they make the unfounded claim that many more have come to advertise in their paper. Ya, right!

And for your information, Daisy, I don't AVOID anything. So unless you can prove I do, then please jump in the closest river!

 

Daisy, you avoided the question concerning fox news. I find that typical of many "liberals" on the forum to skip to asking, but not answering.

 

The words just in front of the question marks, already asked twice and not answered, in the my last twp posts addressed to you. I'll repeat a third time and number them for your convenience:
1. What question did I avoid answering, Avl1984?

2. Why would you say that was "typical"?

I noticed that you FINALLY answered the second one in the post after this one that I've quoted, but What was the "question" concerning Fox News? I saw some comments by you, but no actual question as distinguished by an actual question mark ["?"].

I did have to ask several times and I have yet to receive a straight answer as to what question you asked concerning Fox News. "Avoid" was your own word rather inappropriately applied to my not being able to find an actual question asked by you concerning Fox News. What I meant by "avoid" is my having to ask direct questions several times to receive, or not, an answer. If "avoid" was the wrong word for me to use, please suggest a better.

 

I have asked you more than once, WHAT QUESTION?!!!

I have not found that to be true at all.

 

It's been more than two weeks...no answer...