Delete This Account

GG: Give me a break. You suggest -- no, you not only suggest you say with sole conviction -- that the U.S. is the only nation in which people have the opportunity to go from rags to riches. You actually write, and I quote -- "Of course people in other lands want to improve their lot in life, but I defy you to find a place other than the US where a person can go from rags to riches as long as he's smart, driven and motivated to succeed." I point out my story, and now I'm wrong for that? Suddenly, Canada is a mere "exception" as if this somehow this now further proves your point. Don't change the subject here. I know it's difficult on this board to concede anything, because lord knows that would make you look weak. But to argue in the face of you being proven wrong takes that to a level that I thought was above you. And now I'm somehow trashing the U.S. Canada has its many share of flaws. And yet it's not all right to question America, because it is a perfect nation? Geography certainly plays a role, and yet so does philosophy. Thanks to regulations, the Canadian banking system was not as severely affected by the bursting of the real estate bubble. Jesus. And now you proceed to interpret my meaning of the Bible, as if "Love Thy Neighbor" is full of exceptions. No, it's Love Thy Neighbor, not judge they neighbor, not pity thy neighbor and certainly not look down on thy neigbor because they are down on their luck and, oh well, thems' the breaks. it doesn't take a Jesus Freak or layman or non-believer to understand and appreciate that is essentially a good way to live one's life, without fear of being smitten or smited, whichever may be the case. jw

i'm quite glad you are blessed with a heightened sense of self-fulfilling superiority. what have is said that indefensible. in your mind that might be the case, and yet in your self-righteous zeal, you have no ability to see other points of view. please, i've stated my case. some people disagree. that's fair. as for your Canadian doctor point, geez. i've lived in both countries. i can compare the differences. and here's the point that i make that never gets an answer from all those who rail against universal health care. never in my 36 years in Canada did i ever have to attend a fund-raiser in order to help a friend, colleague or anyone else for that matter to make ends meet or in a position to be bankrupted as a result of medical care. here, different story. why is it that basic needs that everyone should have access to cannot be met in this rich nation. guess this is digging or running or whatever. i've made my points: -- i've noted that i in fact come from a family that went from rags to riches, and it happened in Canada. -- i've never not accepted there being a liberal media bias. and yet, it's bedeviling to understand why others don't see biases in every media outlet, mainstream or whatever. -- i've questioned posters points of view on a lack of compassion, and wondered in what chapter of the Bible, it reads that the poor require no priveleges or standing in society. i will not apologize for my views, and yet you seem to think you hold the sole and brilliant idea, and that we should goose-step behind it, because obviously, you have the rare gift of being perfect and right minded. some might say delusional, but why be judgemental. jw here's the problem i find with this response, it assumes far too much. i have never said people without money are "victims." you suppose i say that, but that's not true. endless government handouts. puh-leeze. there's a neat juxtaposition here, which i'm sure some might not grasp the nuance. if it is ok to question government money spent on welfare programs, then is it not also ok to question the amount of money spent on Wall Street and war? jw

quit making my point. ... jw

yes, we should hold a parade every day at noon to salute the rich because we simply wouldn't know misfortune without them. they deserve our glowing praise and sympathy for the hard work many of them put in influencing government to ensure the rules continue to be fixed in their favor. because who, but them, have access to the front door of government, and the opportunities and lawyers to water down laws, win government contracts and reap the whirlwind of gold and silver poured into our failed banking and investment institutions without even to have to say thank you. after all, we are indebted to all of them. and in the spirit of "let them eat cake," perhaps we can cobble up a collection and buy them all a gold-plated Rolls Royce as a sign of our unfettered gratitude. in fact, i will begin taking up a collection, because without the rich, we wouldn't have someone to aspire to or grace our magazines (though, speaking of winning the baby womb lottery, how misfortunate so many of us are to not be born into great inheritance. Paris Hilton will forever remain my hero, because of her wealth, grace and charm, and in that order.) .... my apologies for questioning the rich. unlike we here in the trenches, they are without sin. jw

oh, my god. such self-serving, navel-centric bull. you can't name another place other than the US where a person can go from rags to riches. well, i bring up my father, who went from being an off the boat immigrant in Canada to building TVs at General Electric to eventually running two bars in Windsor, where he set his family up before he died too early to enjoy what he built. and yes, he was hard-working and fortunate, and got a few breaks along the way. and yet, enough of him rubbed off on his oldest son to know that not everyone is so fortunate, and it's not Christian to judge one person's success over another's failures. this self-made man baloney is usually elicited by self-made men, and more-over become a myth in a modern society in which the wealthier among us have a far easier path to success. and i was one of those fortunate ones who "made" it, but made it in part because i had the benefit of a good start and in a position where i could make mistakes along the way. perhaps i learned from those mistakes, but at the very least i had the cushion to make them, whether it was the opportunity to go to school of my choosing, and to move to Vancouver, with my first 3-4 years there partially covered by my mother. thank god, i had that, and made something out of the half-lick of talent i had, because i was given far more than many in different circumstances ever have the chance to benefit from. i refuse to judge people because of their status in life. everyone has their own crosses to bear, and that's on them. everyone might have the opportunity to be successful, but if everyone were successful, then there would be no poverty. and when it comes to math, that equation just doesn't add up because even if you have a penny in your pocket, there will always be those less fortunate than you. people "deserving fates." that's quite a loaded statement. i pray nothing goes wrong to those you know. but good god, what you suppose GG just seems wrong, and to throw in liberal guilt into the mix is attempting to score debating points without taking into account compassion or reason. jw and there are those in this world who by virtue of geography and the unluck of being born in the wrong place at the wrong time have no tablet, keyboard, the luxury of travel or even the ability to know i'm making naive speculations and accusations on their behalf ... jw well, that's just bad luck. there is no room for accidents in a Darwinian world. jw

really, this is just in America. wow. how naive. no one else in the world wants to aspire to make more money instead of less. that's quite an innovative thing. maybe someone should write a book about it. if you'd stop for a second in your name-calling naivete, perhaps you'd actually give yourself time to think things through and take a little time to step off a ledge that's so instably elitist, that it could well topple over with the next gold coin you thumb in your precious pocket. at no point, have i said all people with money are bad. though greed is a dreadful thing, and it is the root cause for much of humanity's problems going back to, well, the first day someone traded something for something. yet you, are the one, who seems to think that all people without money deserve their fate in life, require no sympathy or compassion, and seem to suggest that the haves should limit themselves to living in gated communities and limit to the poor what can be stored away in compost bins. of course, i might be exaggerating your point here, but not by far. i've made a good life for myself, and i won't apologize for it. but it's beyond me to suggest anyone to thumb their nose at the less fortunate. that's, well, freaking mean. jw

uhh, not always. hell, forget your regular joe and jane blow cops who have to hold fund-raisers to make ends meet, how about some actual 9-11 fist-responders who couldn't get the benefit of any doubt. oh, sorry, my bias is showing. jw well, rush was on pills at one point wasn't he. does that make him a provider of some sort? jw

i don't? when did i say that? now, you have a problem with retention? no one's unbiased. thus all have a bias. you just have certain bias that appear to be blind to other biases. jw

there have been several fundraisers for cops that i've known of -- those who have been hurt on the job -- that it's mind-boggling to believe they aren't covered for some of these debilitating injuries. jw

and then wait to see how many hoops you need to jump through in order to get insurance down here, whether you're a sports writer or a cop. oddly enough, the number of fund-raisers i've attended to help sick people cover their medical costs in the 11 years i've lived here is astounding and quite sad. jw

again, please submit to me someone who is unbiased. jw

thanks for proving my point. you should see the number of accidents that occur at the traffic circle near our home here in Buffalo. it's a meee-first society. jw

i stand in judgment at St. Pete's gates. i'm serious. as for this, the theory kinda works, and then you bring greed into the equation. people helping one another is all well and good, until it comes time to help one another. i see the wall street boys are doing a bang-up job in helping us all out, out of the goodness of their hearts. and we all know how the middle-east dictators work in doling out the gold nuggets. works great. greed effects more greed. some people, i've found, have difficulty getting their hands dirty. to take your point further, why have traffic lights. liberals like me, think there outta be laws in place to prevent people from running through intersections like morons. conservatives like you, think there should be no laws because people generally go out of their way to look out for each other. right, more often than not, a majority of today's billionaires were born into poverty and through the magic of free enterprise rose up from nothing. head down to the local food bank and trot out that theory, and see where it gets you. but wait, you have money. good for you. funny, i keep thumbing through my Bible, and can't seem to find the chapter and verse on that approach. was that in Mark or Luke? jw

be careful what you wish for. jw

putting the economic meltdown into context is no easy thing. of course, those opposed to Obama like to blame him fully and completely for that, when it's clear that the downturn began before he was elected. so to tie the 7.6 percent unemployment number of the Obama administration is quite wrong. but why quibble with points. (and note, the downturn was bound to happen because people were both naive and greedy.) an argument can be made that this economy didn't become Obama's economy until say three months into his term when the money began flowing out of Washington hand over fist. don't know exactly what the unemployment rate was then. but a case could be made that would be where the comparisons should begin. to call this "gratuitous editorializing" is a little far-fetched. Romney asserts that Obama has ruined the economy, even though it's showing signs of coming back. either way, the facts balance the story out, rather than slant it. it quotes Romney and points out how his comments might be going against the grain. in the Bledsoe piece, we (me and other reporters) quoted Bledsoe, and then noted that what he thinks might go against reality. i don't see how different this is. jw not entirely. the heart attack happen in 2006. i don't buy this Darwinian response because it assumes we all started out equally. we all came from the womb. the few fortunate among us, landed in middle-to-upper class households. others in poverty. others ethiopia. it doesn't fly with me. and to say she or anyone didn't take care of herself well ... geez. the judgemental thing just doesn't suit you. jw like Canada? jw

-- that was actually a typo on Fux. i actually meant to write "Fox," i'm serious. -- no, no one pays attention to the Times, i know that. -- that's a question that wouldn't need to be asked in some civilized nations. jw

"dialogue" doesn't necessarily mean talks with Stevie Johnson have re-opened according to this story. AP Story on Nix presser jw

i will also assume the same as you on this point. and please, don't drag me down this hole of narcissism. jw

and there you go again, coming up with buzz words that really mean nothing. "New Media" isn't that MSNBC or the new network Ohlberman's working for. that's relatively new, isn't it? bias, show me a reporter without bias and i'll show you a real live uni-corn. buhloney, you're in over your head. jw i respect that point of view. and i fully agree with it. i rarely watch any of the cable news, or network news shoes, though i tune into Fox for kicks, especially now since they're doing far more in covering this death march to the republican nominee, which has this curious car-wreck rubber-neck quality to it. jw

oh, in all seriousness, i have my issues with Fox News, but understand that it does provide a purpose -- and the Daily Show wouldn't be worth watching without Fox (again, a failure to resist). all i'm really asking is that when posters here refer to "mainstream" media are they referring to the Liberal media or is it the popular media, or is it simply the media that they don't agree with at that point in time. of course, how Sarah could come up with such a line, given that we're still not sure what's she's ever read (gotcha!), is a little mind-boggling to begin with. jw what do you mean by MAINSTREAM? 1) The popular media (which would include Fox and Wall Street Journal) 2) The mainnstream media identified by Sarah Palin, who has acknowledged she doesn't read all that much (though it's possible she could see a newstand from her backyard). 3) Any media that you disagree with. 4) All media that doesn't end with a .com. 5) Jon Stewart? jw

i have no trouble with Tebow. i think he makes for a good story. in my few dealings with him, he comes off as a good genuiune kid, who's done well for himself and has been true to himself. the point i was making with the Bledsoe piece is that by merely quoting Bledsoe as saying he considers the Bills' starting job as his, flies in the face of the fact that he struggled the previous season. to simply quote Bledsoe and not apply perspective by citing mitigating facts is irresponsible. it's no different than what somebody here was accusing the AP of doing with its debate story. by taking political emotion out of the argument, i provided an example of how and why stories without perspective are mere press releases, or what Fox News does (couldn't resist ) jw

no, actually, if you read further down, the lack of universal health care did them in. "In 2006, Andono suffered a heart attack. She spent nine days in the hospital, undergoing an angioplasty so a stent could be inserted to help blood flow. The result: a whopping $47,000 bill, the family says." well, i guess that's just bad luck, eh? jw

here's something that's eluded me. when people refer to the "mainstream media," is Fux part of it? and is the Wall Street Journal and Washington Times part of the East Coast Elite? so many labels, so many square pegs or is it square holes, these things i cannot keep straight. jw

it is not. the sky turned green today. we won't explain why it turned green. but it turned green. please allow yourselves to come up with your own conclusions, because to go further and attempt add perspective as to why the sky turned green today would lead to a certain bias. the world is flat, according to scientists. The Bible states that the first humans on Earth were Adam, followed by Eve. to dispute that, would lead to the media being second-guessed or labeled as biased. jw i merely asked a question. more people watch Hannity. i hope it's a result of entertainment value than anything else, but i fear that not to be the case. oh, and GG, as far as some here are concerned, it would be biased to report on Bledsoe in the way we did. so, if i was wrong in making such a broad and awkward comparison, there are those here who consider it to be a serious flaw in how i do my job, so please go on and continue to shoot this communist messenger. jw

ok, b-man,let's try this. you can call it editorializing when others call it providing perspective. it's something that happens in the business, because News doesn't happen in a vaccuum. it's no different than would be expected of any good reporter on the sports beat: Drew Bledsoe still regards the starting job to be his next season, despite his struggles this year. that was something which many of us wrote after 2004. was that editorializing? you tell me. how is this false, when Bledsoe did in fact struggle and, some might argue, cost the Bills a playoff berth by losing that fumble in the finale against the Steelers. how are the job numbers wrong? they showed improvement. jw