Jimmy Carter website

[Charles Self]

Last night, Forest Gump's 'Nam scenes showed up on my SIL's TV set as we came in. Weird movie for Christmas Eve, but...who knows with teenagers. Anyway, I thought during that part of the show that if today's reporters were allowed to show the action in Iraq as the 'Nam reporters showed the action back then, we'd already be out of Iraq.

But, hey, the media is biased. We can't ALLOW them to show real action that results in real deaths and maiming because then...oh, right. Because then parents and brothers and sisters and wives and children might insist on better reasons for the bloodshed.

Merry Christmas all.

And for the nitwit who thinks I wouldn't have supported Roosevelt's actions in WWII, learn something about people, life and the English language.

Mark--show some cites for some of your claims, and while you're doing that, understand that being great and being perfect are two very, very different things.

[Steve W.]

phenomenon. Get

Americans

homes."

teenagers.

reporters

[todd]

to center than any of the major networks' nightly newscasts. And the CBS Evening News gets the same score as the New York Times. In commening on whether or not there exists a liberal bias in major media outlets, the study says: "Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox News' Special Report and the Washington Times received a score to the left of the average member of Congress. And a few outlets, including the New York Times and CBS Evening News, were closer to the average Democrat in Congress than the center."

todd

[Greg G]

But do take note that they excluded all "Editorial" type reporting. Like Maureen Dowd and Bill O-Reilly. I'd like to see a comparison of THOSE two. Well... maybe not.

Greg G.

[CW]

That pretty good reason, I'd suppose, is that there is no documentation. It is just one of those rumers that surface after a president is long gone and can't defend himself.

[Steve Peterson]

There are just a few little differences between WWII and the Depression, and the current mideast war. Just for starters, we were attacked in 1941 by enemies with armies and fleets. The country actually mobilized and committed effort and resources to the war effort and won in just a few years. The terrism war which started for us on 9/11 has already gone on longer than our participation in WWII. And in fact, it had already been going on for years. As for the Depression, I guess you would have preferred to have Herbert Hoover continue as president? He was clueless and inept. FDR was elected in the depth of Hoover's mess and in fact did get it cleared up. Go to the FDR Memorial in DC.

Steve

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

[Charles Self]

Probably not. I'd like to see Annie Coullter compared to...something human? That is one vile woman.

[Tim Daneliuk]

All those big words she uses are confusing?

[Charles Self]

Sure are, Timmy boy. Her statements like, "It might be fun to nuke Iran" contain a major number of big words.

Any person in the public eye who makes that kind of statement consistently is just going for shock value. She should get together with your buddy, Howard Stern, maybe? Between the three of you, come up with a sensible way of ruling the world.

[Dave]

I AGREE

[Guess who]

Simple: Make me king. The first thing I'd do is stop the OT crap that ruins otherwise sensible newsgroups, and then move on to stop other kinds of abuse.

[Charlie Self]

Like the OT crap you just posted?

[Tim Daneliuk]

It's not a practical option. Any nuclear detonation in the Middle East will cause radioactive particles to encircle the globle courtesy of the jet stream. A far better option is to send Iran our "best and brightest" like Babs Streisand, Sean Penn, Alec Baldwin, George Clooney, Tim Robbins, etc. With their deep understanding of geopolitcs and their "help", we'd have Iran begging for mercy (the extraction of those aforementioned bozos) and willing to do our ever bidding.

Hee, hee - I was just teasin' Charlie - I often don't agree with her either. I do not, however, think she is "vile". You may not like her ideas, but at least she hasn't, say, gotten drunk, dunked her car into a river, killed her fellow passenger, and then lied about it all. *That* is vile.

Ann is also right about some things now and then. But mostly, she is entertaining. I love to watch the Rightwingers wince and the Lefties shriek when she says something especially provocative. It's mighty entertaining to see someone treat politics for the complete sham that it is.

BTW, I cannot abide Howard Stern. He is provocative without a shred of entertainment value nor any demonstration of IQ above shoe size. I'm quite happy for him to be on sat radio so I can never again accidentally come across his puerile droolings on radio or TV...

[Dave]

Let's get back to talking Woodworking and stop this crap. Go to another newsgroup if you want to talk politics.

[Tim Daneliuk]

1) This group has wandered Off Topic for many years. 2) You are not the group's Den Mother so quit handing out advice. Do you moderate conversations with your friends when you're all sitting around the coffee shop? 3) Learn to use filters.

4) Whoever started this thread did so *on* topic and then the thread drifted *off* topic. When this happend, the subject should have been changed to note this fact and it was not. This was a Bad Thing. I have now fixed it in this subthread.

5) Relax and have a lovely week...

[Charles Self]

One action, or series of actions, by one person, something over 30 years ago, and that seems to be all many people can think of. Coulter IS vile. She would murder if she thought she could get away with, and she incites others to do so.

Political commentators need to be entertaining, but when their entertainment is primarily shock value from moronic and dangerous attitudes, then they are vile.

Can you believe he got half a billion bucks? For what? I really don't need anyone to teach me how to cuss, and that seems to be all he does. He's not even talented at it.

By the way, you're wrong about his IQ, unless he wears a terribly small shoe. He has the IQ of a Pet Rock or a Pet Rock buyer.

[David Stuve]

Thanks Steve, that was an interesting read. I think the study is flawed - their metrics are just way too simple. I'm no expert, but I've seen bias show up in editorial decisions of what to cover, and then the opinion pieces - neither of which is covered by the study.

examples: I could run stories all day long challenging the administration, bring guests on who call the administration a bunch of cruel jerks that would make Scrooge look like Mother Theresa, and cite a few studies by the Rand corporation in a story about national defense and be branded on the right politically?

Or run terror alerts all day, wave the flag and try to make GW look heroic no matter what, cynically urgent stories about "Christmas Under Attack", a few hours of Hannity and O'Reilly complaining that our social safety net is wasteful and for sissies, and that John Kerry looks French and you don't trust him. Put up one chart by the Brookings Institute on the economy and you're politically on the Left?

Or better yet, run whatever you want but don't cite anybody, just lace your coverage with "some say" or "there are those who say" and then enter your pro- or ant- bias there. Your citation ratio is 0 - does that mean you're politically neutral?

Or what if your politician for comparison is a rabid idealogue who rages all day on the senate or house floor using emotion and innuendo to make ugly slurs against the Left or Right and never uses citations to back up their crazy arguments. Are they centrist?

Wow, the more I write the less I like their metrics. I'd be very interested to see who's funding this study. It smells like one of those "here's the conclusion we want, make something fit" studies used all too often in politics these days.

Dave

[Mark & Juanita]

Then I'm sure you feel the same way about political "commentators" like Michael Moore and Al Franken?

... snip

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

[Tim Daneliuk]

However good or bad Coulter's ideas are (and she's expressed both kinds) there are just *ideas*. What happened "over 30 years ago" *killed* another person. There's a huge difference, morally and qualitatively, between good/bad ideation and manslaughter.

You're also not giving Coulter her due when she's right. She's said for a very long time that McCarthy - however big a jerk he was - was correct about the degree of Communist infiltration of the US generally, and the government particularly. She has been vindicated in this claim. For all the gory details see:

"The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB"

is a primary source from a former KGB senior officer who defected in the 1980s and confirms widespread Communist infiltration throughout the West at almost frightening levels.

McCarthy got painted with a brush that started long before he was ever in office by HUAC - The *House* UnAmerican Activities Committee - McCarthy was a *senator*. He was a depicable paranoid drunk, but he was right about some things, and Coulter has been almost alone in giving him his due.

Sure she's hyperbolic but so is pretty much every commentator on all sides in popular culture. Any civilization that has the short attention span to actually require shows like "Deal Or No Deal" and "Fear Factor" isn't going to listen to thoughtful political commentary. It has to be dished out like Reality TV. Coulter can be outrageous sometimes but she is consistently funny. The rest of gasbags in that space (O'Reilley, Hannity, Franken, the New York Times entire editorial staff ...) are neither interesting NOR funny. Give her some credit...

In retrospect, I think he's a genius for getting that much money on so little actual ability. It is his audience that has the IQ of shoeleather...

[Tom Watson]

Did you go to college?

If you did, does the concept of Academic Freedom have any resonance?

If every teacher at the college level is to be judged by what meetings they attended, and I mean, attended, which is different than the degree of participation breathlessly proclaimed by your reference, then the whole concept goes to hell.

And it is a fine concept.

When I was at school I had a course in Marxism.

Does that make me a Marxist?

If I had chosen to work for the government and Fox News dug up the fact that I had taken a course on Marxism, and referred to it as:

"Mr. Watson was heavily involved in Marxist thought as a young man.",

Without explaining further, without misstating the fact but ignoring the context of the facts - would you be OK with that?

Oppenheimer was an academic, who went to work for the government, as so many do. When Joe decided to go after he and others,Joe acted very much like Fox News.

That is why I call Fox News -

The New McCarthyism.

Tom Watson - WoodDorker tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (email)

(website)