WHAT IS YOUR POINT???   Have you gone off your medication??????  Maybe you need to get out and go for a walk or something.  You seriously need to get off your -  I hate anyone that's not a Republican - kick.   It's ugly.

(Yawn)

For the record.  lucy is a troll who only comes out from under the bridge to attack.  Never a real comment, just attacks.  I've come to the conclusion it's either a regular who hasn't the courage to use their own name or someone from the past like redkern.  This is exactly his style.

Another for the record.  I've been blogging here for many years, long before my family started blogging.  People who've been here a while know I need no defending and can give as good as I get.  The fact that my family DOES come to my defense seems to bother some and I can't imagine why that is.  Unless of course, they don't have anyone who cares enough about them to speak up.

Sorry lucy, nice try.

A hint.  For anyone who sees a joke for what it is knows that all you have to do is change Republican to Democrat .... all it means is that the MSM will print anything for readership.

Most jokes are interchangeable.

If the shoe doesn't fit, don't put it on.

Nancy:  I LOVED that story!  It is so very appropriate for the current situation.  It's funny and well-written, as well. 

Recently, when what's-his-name chose to go on shows on all the networds, plus one or two others, but pointedly omitted Fox News, that was the best compliment he could have given to Fox.  One of the reasons was, of course, that people had somewhere else to go when w-h-n showed up. 

It was a great compliment to Fox. 

C'mon lucy and sweetness.  It's no coincidence that you both appeared at once.  Tell us who you really are..don't be shy.  Or at least be honest.

HAHAHAHHA  good one NANCY.... I love to see these posts rile up the idiots. ITS A FREAKIN JOKE PEOPLE, [edit.] and laugh a little. NOTHING in this whole world is worth going through life attacking people for a JOKE...

nancy

I have no idea who sweetness is, but apparently she/he's an intelligent person.  You really are delusional.

Yes Nancy.....  Thank you for the joke.     Laughter is good for folks.  "The practice of "laughter therapy" is growing in popularity. Devotees say the simple act of laughing helps relieve stress and improves things like blood flow and digestion. It's getting so popular that even the Pentagon is training military families to use it." Read more here  http://www.npr.org/template...   

FYI   witterpitters posted this same item last week.   http://people.bakersfield.c...  

The story does make an excellent point about how half-truths are used. It's something I tried to teach children when I was a school teacher and, not surprisingly, even young kids understand such things.  This story is really pretty explicitly biased (That is to say, the example is clearly how biased the MSM can be.) but what we see in real life is far more subtle.  

For example, my local newspaper used to have a column on page three of the front section where they heading was "Science News". You could go to the page and read all kinds of interesting stories about every kind of science from medicine to anthropology to space explorations to zoology.  Once in a while there were stories of wide interest on social science issues and since my area has an unusually large number of gay people, the paper would public results of social research into sexual orientation. 

Well, the way they did it was unique. When serious science is peer reviewed, it draws comments from people who are expert in the field or discipline from which a scientific study comes from. So, if someone discovers a gene for, say, autism, professionals in the field of genetic or autism are the ones who are asked to comment for the purpose of the newspaper story.

Not with sexual orientation studies.  The Associated Press wouldn't seek ANY comment from social scientists in that field. Instead they called up Focus On The Family's Family Research Council where, usually, Tony Perkins, who hold a PhD in Religion would render his review. Never would his review address the quality of the science. He only address the moral aspect of homosexuality.

So remember that is would be an article under the banner heading of "Science News".  

I wrote and asked the newspaper why they used religious critics to review science only for science having to do with sexual orientation.  They decided not to answer that question, even though it was asked privately and not as a letter to the Editor. Why, for example, would any scientist send their work to a religious group for the quality control purposes that are best done by experts in their field?

Subtle, isn't it.  It doesn't have to be so explicit as Nancy's fine example.  The MSM "owns the press" and they want a certain message coming from that press. They will tell you if you want YOUR message told, get yourself your own press. 

Well, we have. It's called the internet. If you look at the latest figures on the financial health of daily newspapers throughout the nation, only ONE paper was solvent - The Wall Street Journal.

McClatchy? Nope. Deep doo-doo.  LA Time, New York Times, Houston, Chicago, Atlanta, all the Gannet papers, Seattle, Dallas, 

ALLLLL of them have taken a DEEP profit dive.  We can now shop daily for our own version of the "truth" and we are not at the mercy of our local newspaper any more.

Ooooops, thanks Not.  Sorry Witters, I didn't see it.

Is ok Nancy II  -  bears repeating :-)

I think lucy needs to get a life.  I thought it was pretty funny.

And in the past I've read jokes like that and changed the political affiliation/job/gender....whatever, to fit MY taste.  I can't imagine anyone attacking someone else like that over a JOKE

lucy, please disappear again.

I know for a fact nancyII's meds are working juuuust fine

ROFL

idiots