...in the US with circulations over 300 are The Nation and the National Review," according to The Poor Man. A very funny rant against the loony left and the loony right on the subject of war. He suggests a semi-regular feature, "Who's Crazier: The Nation or The National Review?"
Warning: this rant contains some salty language, including the "f" and "s" words, though anyone likely to be put off by them probably isn't going to be able to tell what the author is talking about anyway.
Come on, Theo, why waste time exposing phoney BS a--when you can deal with real BS.
DOH ! The Congressional Record ?
Anyhow, the National Review is OK by me on a lot of things, so some writer taking some quotes pulled from context ain't much of an argument either way .
B.S. is easy to find.
Howsabout some cool stuff worthy of your intellect and of TecHIMO?
Presidents Blair / Bush want to kill lots of American / British / Iraqi people, World markets a little repressed because of this, otherwise not much goin on !!
MegalosSkylaki, I'm not exposing anything except an amusing rant. As you know, I subscribe to The Nation; but I don't subscribe to many of its writers' opinions. And I don't subscribe to the National Review, but I (very occasionally) agree with something one or another of its writers says.
That said, both rags are by and large lunatic fringe, and it's amusing to see someone point out why.
Linear Mode
