Re: "clear enough?"
It was always 'clear' enough... it just didn't make any *sense*!
To imagine that a secular, Western media would be CLAMORING for religious rule of society... just because they really, really, really disliked a lame duck US President who's days are counting down anyway.
Really now, it's just FANTASY (especially when there are *some many OTHER ways* to express a dislike for the guy, if that's what 'they' want to do.)
And, I thought that I was pretty clear in my two posts about this, too:
Re: "Yes... as long as it can make Bush look bad...."
P-L-E-A-S-E! The 'LIBERAL', secular (that means: non-religious), 'Main Stream Media' is a 'friend' of fundamentalist, Theocratic-leaning, religious nut-jobs?
The modernity-loving secular Western media are secretly craving a religious fundamentalism that will return them, and their societies, to AUTHORITARIAN RELIGIOUS RULE such as was seen in the 12th. and 13th. centuries --- (& an Islamic Theocracy at that... not even a Christian Theocracy such as existed in Europe at that time in history....)
And, ALL BECAUSE they so hate a lame duck American President who only has a little more then 2 years left in office anyway?
For this they are willing to toss science and freedoms and liberty and Democracy and human rights ALL OVERBOARD and sign-up for FUNDAMENTALIST ISLAMIC RELIGIOUS RULE??????????
Sorry, doesn't pass the basic sanity test --- (Perhaps on Planet Bizarro, where everything is upside down... but not here in the 21st. Century, on Earth. :-)
Message 22686479
And:
Re: "You give the msm more credit than they deserve"
Not really....
Just pointing out the OBVIOUS: they ain't exactly CLAMORING for a Theocracy to rule us all!
Some, somewhere may be --- but the media ain't leading that charge! LOL! (Unless it's a *Christian* Theocracy envisioned... perhaps some small segment of the media [900 Club?] may be... but NOT MANY.)
Message 22686654 |
