From: Alan Baker <>
Subject: Re: Biased...maybe. True...absolutely
Full headers:
From: Alan Baker <>
Subject: Re: Biased...maybe. True...absolutely
Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2018 13:55:10 -0800
Organization: NNTP Server
Lines: 56
Message-ID: <p7sbfs$10fg$>
References: <>
<p7r1tb$foj$> <p7rio2$1gcb$>
<> <p7s8r0$s3l$>
<> <p7sb7h$10g0$>
NNTP-Posting-Host: mfLSWd2A/
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.13; rv:52.0)
Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.6.0
X-Notice: Filtered by postfilter v. 0.8.3
Content-Language: en-US
Print Article
Forward Article
On 2018-03-08 1:50 PM, MNMikeW wrote:
> wrote:
>> On Thu, 08 Mar 2018 15:09:54 -0600, MNMikeW<>  wrote:
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 8 Mar 2018 18:24:40 -0000 (UTC), "DumbedDownUSA"
>>>><>   wrote:
>>>>> Dene wrote:
>>>>>> On Thursday, March 8, 2018 at 6:52:52 AM UTC-8, MNMikeW wrote:
>>>>>>> Moderate wrote:
>>>>>>>> Wrote in message:
>>>>>>>>> This will be met with the usual denigration from some here.  The
>>>>>>> same>>   ones that deign to post tweets that are biased.  If this
>>>>>>> will be read>>   with an open mind it'll be clear that even though
>>>>>>> it may be biased it>>   is factual and there won't be one thing that
>>>>>>> can be said is otherwise.
>>>>>>>> Even Booby knows he needs to forewarn the
>>>>>>>> reader that this opinion
>>>>>>>>     piece is shit.
>>>>>>>> Why would he even post it?  He is a mental defective.
>>>>>>> And yet, he has a completely different view of opinion pieces we
>>>>>>> post.  Gee, wonder why. Maybe if he only had an open mind.
>>>> You have no idea of my view on your opinion pieces since they are
>>>> mostly bullshit.  This one isn't and you can't point to an untruth.
>>> Sure I do. You comment on them all the time. It isn't bullshit in YOUR
>>> opinion. My opinion is entirely different. And seeing who wrote said
>>> opinion, I'm more than sure there are untruths in it.
>> LOL.  Then find them, which means you have to read it.
> I have read it. It's all basically an opinion.
> Ned Price served as a special assistant to President Barack Obama on the 
> National Security Council staff

And of course, if he worked for Obama's administration, he cannot be 
trusted, can he?

Except he was ALREADY IN GOVERNMENT SERVICE when Obama's administration 
came to power.

But failing any factual basis to disagree, you'll just smear somebody.