New Contributor Column: Media Research Center Head Brent Bozell on “SHAMELESS BIAS BY OMISSION”

User Profile: tbeachhead

tbeachhead

Member Since: December 02, 2010

CommentsDisplaying tbeachhead's 10 most recent comments.

  • Someone actually had sense enough to tell here she’s an idiot? Thank God for the pilot…What the heck’s wrong with the BLAZE? My six year old doesn‘t need to be exposed to some dumb momma’s political fantasies, real or imagined.

  • I don’t know…Maybe I’m just confused…The nuance between a “tingle” and a “thrill” is lost on me. I’m more interested in the location of that feeling: What was it doing going “up his leg?” Was it going at all? Or was it stationary…and up? And…where….up? Now, at the risk of being labeled by viscious invective, I wonder if I will ever live to see that question asked.

  • He is a great man. Thank you, Chuck, for demonstrating repentance, and for walking in it in humility and obedience. You have given me hope that this job can be done. Receive God’s richest blessing, knowing that many of us here are in your debt.

  • Translation 101: As a translator, I can go one of three ways. I can transcribe the word…”Hors d’oeuvre” and hope there are enough folks who, reading it both know what it is, and how it’s pronounced; or I can transliterate the word, “or derve”…and invent a word to which I ascribe a meaning; or I can translate the word, “appetizer”, and know that even the most simple will understand. In Biblical translation, the translators often opted for transliteration when controversial material took biblical interpretation outside the realm of ecclesiastical oversite. Hence “baptizo” was transliterated to “baptize”, rather than translated to its exact meaning “immerse”. Hence, any priest can explain sprinkling babies and pretend that this is what was intended when John the Immersing one immersed Jesus, and Jesus told us to immerse believers. Who can argue with a priest, when he’s using a word for which he invented the definition?
    Likewise, it’s easy to say there are no “apostles” today…but do we argue that “envoys” no longer get sent? And if the reader himself gets to decide that this “messenger” (angel) is heavenly, and this one is earthly, but sent notwithstanding by God…then the reader might become more aware of God’s divine intervention thrugh the simple agency of his neighbor. How humble must we then become?

  • In all fairness to Ted, Glenn‘s questions concerning the Secret Service’s interest in Farakhan is far more enlightening…It is clear that aarakhan’s threats are real, and involve the well-being of the “traitor Obama”…a reference that he used when speaking of Malcom X, whose elimination is history. If there is not answer to that question, then prayer for the president and his safety is of utmost importance…and not because of Nugent, but because of another so shallow he has confused the color of his skin with the depth of his depravity.

  • The conditional…”I am truly sorry ‘IF’…” There is no apology there. This doesn’t need to be parsed…Someone from the LDS church ought to take him at his words, and watch what happens to Joe Smith…Or Lawrence O’Donnell…We will see how far his “apology’ goes. It should be at least as sincere as Smith’s commitment to his forty odd wives.

  • Definition of “Faux war”…any salvo the left makes that reveals just how vapid and shallow they really are, how bereft of insight and understanding, how blind they are to how ignorant they sound.

  • Despite he egregious bigotry of your question, let me attempt a reasonable reply: Christianity is merely Man’s meagre attempt, sometimes admirable, too often inadequate, to respond to a Love so powerful that it gave that which was Most Precious to restore us to the intimate fellowship with Him for which we were designed, and which we willingly and deliberately spurned in the ignorance and pride demonstrated in your question, of which we all are guilty. The undeniable and historic proof of this assertion is given in a Man, Jesus of Nazareth, who died at the hands of pride and selfishness, and rose again from the dead…the one Man in history who can boast, though it was never robbed, an empty tomb.

  • Let me see if I get this straight: He’s delighted that his fiction sparked such interest, when it was misrepresented as fact?

    Why! That‘s every propagandist’s dream…

  • To arbitrarily remove the only folks who had remained behind is outrageous…They should have arbitrarily removed the ones who had already left, then arbitrarily removed the ones who never came in the first place…and only then could they have deliberately insured that the ones who refused to comply with the police mandate, who were doing the nameless and headless peoples’ business, were removed as well…Why didn’t the jury get this?