"Nothing can be believed which is seen in a newspaper. Truth itself becomes suspicious by being put into that polluted vehicle."Fake news and all that.
Wait! What?
He was quoting Thomas Jefferson written in a correspondence on June 14, 1807!
Huh.
I guess Presidents and the press have had an adversarial relationship for a really, really long time!
14 comments:
... except for the hiatus when they're fawning over Democratic presidents -- Obama being an example of extreme hagiography.
Although one suspects Jefferson was a bit more judicious in his choice of alternative facts.
Cherrypicking a line in a letter does not give any insight into Jefferson's ideas about or relationship with the press, which was complicated: Bache, the Virginia-Carolina Resolves and more.
erp, of course, has no idea of what is in the press. The idea that the press sanctified Obama is absurd. The press has always been slanted against Democrats, inasmuch as almost all of it is owned by rightwingers. The Times's jihad against Bill Clinton is a case that everyone but erp knows about.
Journolist.
Harry, Leftwing media a GO-GO and remember Murdoch is not conservative and neither is Fox News.
Skipper, comes a point when derangement is so far advanced that no further discussion is possible. That's where Harry is now.
erp, you have to understand that Harry knows hardly any history, and never reads the papers.
Skipper -- Must disagree. Harry hardly knows anything about any of the Jeopardy categories, including history, because he does read the papers and probably watches the news and listens to NPR as well.
A perfectly turned out example of the uninformed citizen that old Ben warned us to watch out for.
If this isn't a hoax, then Cali has morphed into the Soviet Union.
I don't think it's a hoax, but we're not quite the Soviet Union either.
I suspect if someone took it to the supreme court, the law would get struck down. But here's the thing, most folks that are part of those organizations probably completely agree with the travel ban and so nobody would both suing.
If your kid goes to a state school, he or she couldn’t attend a family function in one of the named states?????
erp,
The article is a little misleading. It's not really a travel ban. The kid can do whatever he likes as long as he pays for it. The ban is on using taxpayer funds to pay for the travel.
Why should taxpayers pay for a student's travel for any reason other than a school sponsored event? Can't we go back to paying our own way again? Be a heck of a lot cheaper, than supporting huge, inefficient bureaucracies to administer what's none of its business in the first place.
>>>>>>>>> Sigh.
That's what the ban is. The school won't pay for academic events that occur in those states. The students and others can obviously still go, they just have to pay their own way.
The school won't have to pay from fees they collected from the students.
Post a Comment