AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2007 > March > 22 > Entry
Is Fox News an appropriate sponsor for a presidential debate?
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
The question could just as easily be whether CNN is an appropriate sponsor for a presidential debate. As Fox News Corp. (FNC) was being black-balled by Democrats and getting the axe to host a debate in Nevada, CNN was scheduling debates there and in New Hampshire. No one questions CNN’s sponsorship, unlike FNC, which moveon.org calls “a mouthpiece of the Republican Party.” That is ironic, because conservatives feel pretty much every other network is a mouthpiece for liberal viewpoints!
It is intensely frustrating to watch media coverage and feel like the truth has to get out in spite of CNN and other supposedly objective sources. It is infuriating to watch CNN anchor Miles O’Brien grill AG Alberto Gonzales over the “unprecedented” mass firing of eight U.S. Attorneys - and never once mention that the Clinton Administration once conducted a politically-motivated firing of all ninety-three. Why did none of the other networks mention that highly important point?
Every news network tries to be “fair and balanced” - but when most people at that network think the same way, a consensus inevitably finds its way into the reporting. So the “fair” thing to do is to recognize that either any major news group is a legitimate debate sponsor, or none are.
Hence the question: why should any news group organize debates? CNN recently banned former Democrat Senator Mike Gravel from participating in their New Hampshire debate, for no clear reason. According to Gravel campaign communications director Elliot Jacobsen, CNN polls “didn’t show that he had enough political support. Yet everyone knows that a year before the first primary, all the polls reflect is name recognition.” So how is someone supposed to raise their name recognition if media gatekeepers refuse to let them participate?
After another recent debate, an ABC poll found that Gravel had the third most effective presentation. If he can be banned this early on just because ratings-hungry media organizations need more “names,” something is seriously wrong with the process. At least having Fox News and CNN both sponsoring debates increases the chances of hearing a slightly broader view. Otherwise, we should scrap media groups altogether and pull all presidential debates under the umbrella of an unbiased debate commission.
Rebuttal
Is there really any organization that will remain truly unbiased? I don’t think so. Organizations are made up of people and people have opinions. So I doubt that creating a debate commission will resolve the underlying suspicion Americans have about institutions and the people who house them.
Even a 2006 study by the Pew Research Center concedes that “since the mid-1980s, Americans have become increasingly skeptical of what they see, hear, and read in the media, and almost no major news outlet has escaped this trend.”
But there’s a difference about perception and reality and the problem with the Fox News Channel is that it doesn’t even feign impartiality. According to a non-partisan study by Pew Research less than 33 percent trusted Fox News objectivity. The national media watch group FAIR found that guests on the show are labeled in two ideological buckets: “conservative and non-conservative,” with no shades of gray. Even moderate conservatives were classified as non-conservatives.
FAIR also found that only eight of 92 guests on Fox News channel’s show, Special Report, “were women, and only six were people of color — making for a guest list that was 91 percent male and 93 percent white.” The Wolf Blitzer Report “was hardly a model of diversity either; its guests were 86 percent male and 93 percent white.”
Fox News channel views the world through the lens of a white, male conservative. Everything else is lumped together wholesale. Such findings are hardly confidence-building statistics for democratic hopefuls who’d endure a debate on the “biased and unbalanced” Fox News channel.
Conservatives have long held to the specter of a liberal media to rally their troops, to create their own networks and radio talk shows. But the difference between the “liberal media” and the Fox News Channel is that the former at least attempts objectivity. This isn’t something Fox News has mastered and no amount of marketing and personal opinion, or Condoleeza’s approval, can deter us from hard research that shows otherwise.
Comments
By Brian Curtis
March 26, 2007 8:34 AM | Link to this
Faux News doesn’t even pretend that what they do is journalism, so why should they be treated as legitimate media?
All that aside, I think public sponsorship of debates is the best choice—with no two-party rule at the entry gate, either. If you’re a candidate, you should be able to appear and debate—and be allowed full time for rebuttal, followup questions, etc. Let’s have some REAL debates, instead of prescripted and pre-approved sound-byte matches.
By blablabla
March 26, 2007 8:43 AM | Link to this
the “liberal media” attempts objectivity…
thanks, diane, you made my morning. that was hysterical. and i thought joke day wasn’t until friday?
clearly diane isn’t a subscriber to the AJC.
By Lyrazel
March 26, 2007 8:47 AM | Link to this
By the hour this TV show of debates most voters will have already made up their minds 2 years back and will not be watching. These debates have been rendered frivolous by the lengthy primaries and the primary elections where voters hear everything the candidate stands for but will end up not doing because of politics as usual. Sure a politician wants to have everyone hear how they can grandstand and possibly pick up a few voters by being nasty to the person on the podium next to them but how can it be fair election debate when the debates fail to allow representation by Libertarian and Independent candidates? As for what channel it is on—so what?
By DRL
March 26, 2007 9:44 AM | Link to this
…and never once mention that the Clinton Administration once conducted a politically-motivated firing of all ninety-three. Why did none of the other networks mention that highly important point?
Maybe because it is not the same thing? Clinton, was following a normal procedure at the beginning of his administration, one that Reagan and Bush 1 followed as well. ALL USAs were replaced in an orderly manner, given good recommendations and let out to continue their careers.
George W fired 8 specific USAs in the middle of his second term, saying they all had performance issue. Curiously, one of them had displeased his Republican Senators because he wasn’t prosecuting claims of Democratic voter fraud (because there was no evidence to support the charges) and one was getting way to close to very powerful people in her prosecution of Duke Cunnigham.
Shaunti, the “Clinton did it too” excuse no longer holds water. You wouldn’t accept “But Billy did it too!” as an excuse from your kids now, do you?
By lozen
March 26, 2007 9:51 AM | Link to this
Hummmmmm, another earth shattering question for the women’s blog! Of course BC has it right. Public sponsorship of debates and open it up to everyone… the libertarians, the greens, the socialist party. I’d like to hear what they all have to say. Maybe something NEW?
By NetBanker
March 26, 2007 10:08 AM | Link to this
I agree with both BC and Lyrazel on this one. I think the debates should be run independently and allow all declared candidates the opportunity to participate and all news stations to cover the debate. This approach ensures that all viewers would see the exact same debate regardless of station viewing preference as well as giving a voice to candidates that haven’t yet sold their souls to corporate sponsors…oops, donors. (I’m sure the next statement will go over real well). What BC suggests is exactly how it works in some European countries. I know from personal experience that this is exactly how it works in France and what I noticed is that by giving an equal opportunity to the fringe candidates or one who little hope of actually getting elected the mainstream candidates are forced to articulate a position on issues that they would gloss over or skip altogether. The other nice thing about the French system is that campaigning is prohibited until January of the election year. After X months (I can’t recall the number) of campaigning that includes several debates there is an election. If no one wins at least 50% of the vote there is a runoff in 60-90 days of the top 2-3 candidates. The entire process takes less than 9 months so the population is still relatively engaged. Say what you will about the French, but their rate of participation in elections is significantly higher than here in the country claiming to be the champions of democracy.
Lyrazel makes some excellent points about how people become desensitized by the length of the campaigns. I enjoy watching politics, but I’m just plain over it by the time the elections come around. I think one of the best things the country could do for campaign reform would be to put strict limits on the start dates and when the elections occur. Do we really learn anything significant about any particular candidate with such a lengthy process? I think all that truly occurs is that the campaigns end up costing ungodly amounts of money that could be better spent solving issues instead of publicizing one’s stand on it and that the public becomes numb to the process.
On a completely off subject item…has anyone heard from or of RF? He crossed my mind over the weekend as my partner and I were near Monticello on our way to Lake Sinclair. Might as well throw out a shout to Tim, too, since he drops in on rare occasion.
By Keith
March 26, 2007 10:18 AM | Link to this
I started watching Fox News during the 2000 election aftermath.It was obvious that MSNBC,CNN, the three old networks and old line media had an agenda- get Gore in the White House. Greg Jarrett on MSNBC was very partisan for Gore-now he is on Fox News. Liberals got used to usually hearing only one side of issues and it * drives them crazy to hear both sides of a story, and they hate to hear hard questions asked of Dems and Repubs.* I consider Fox the least biased, I’m sitting here right now listening to Bob Beckel’s fantasies and lies on Fox.
By lozen
March 26, 2007 10:19 AM | Link to this
Interesting article about GWB -
George Bush’s “irrational” consideration of a “surge” in the wake of the Iraq Study Group report — which apparently defies all credible counsel - has begun to generate speculation regarding his sanity.
References to Bush’s “delusions” have appeared in the mainstream media and throughout the blogosphere.
As a psychiatrist, I understandably get concerned when I see clinical terminology bandied about in political discourse, and thought it might be of interest to share a professional perspective on this question. I have a distinct clinical impression that I think explains much of Mr. Bush’s visible pathology.
First and foremost, George W. Bush has a Narcissistic Personality Disorder. What this means, is that he has rather desperate insecurities about himself, and compensates by constructing a grandiose self-image. Most of his relationships are either mirroring relationships — people who flatter him and reinforce his grandiosity — or idealized self-objects — people that he himself thinks a lot of, and hence feels flattered by his association with them. Some likely perform both functions. Hence his weakness for sycophants like Harriet Miers, and powerful personalities like Dick Cheney.
Even as a narcissist, Bush knows he isn’t a great intellect, and compensates by dismissing the value of intellect altogether. Hence his disses of Gore’s bookishness, and any other intellectual that isn’t flattering him. Bush knows that his greatest personal strength is projecting personal affability, and tries to utilize it even in the most inappropriate settings. That’s why he gives impromptu backrubs to the German Chancellor in a diplomatic meeting — he’s insecure intellectually, and tries to make everyone into a “buddy” so he can feel more secure.
The most disturbing aspect about narcissists, however, is their pathological inability to empathize with others, with the exception of those who either mirror them, or whom they idealize. Hence Bush’s horrifying insensitivity to the Katrina victims, his callous jokes when visiting grievously injured soldiers, and numerous other instances. He simply has no capacity to feel for others in that way.
When LBJ was losing Vietnam, he developed a haunted expression that anybody could recognize as indicative of underlying anguish. For all his faults, you knew he was losing sleep over it. By the same token, we know just as well that Bush isn’t losing any sleep over dead American soldiers, to say nothing of dead Iraqis. He didn’t exhibit any sign of significant concern until his own political popularity was sliding — because THAT’S something he CAN feel.
Which brings us to his recent “delusion.” To be blunt, I don’t see any indication that Bush has any sort of psychotic disorder whatsoever. The lapses in reality-testing that he exhibits are the sort that can be readily explained by his characterological insensitivity to the feelings and perceptions of others, due to his persistently self-centered frame of reference.
Mr. Bush knows that things aren’t going his way in Iraq, and he knows that it is damaging him politically. He also sees that it is likely to get worse no matter what he does, and in fact it may be a lost cause. However, he recognizes that if he follows the recommendations of the Iraq Study Group, that Iraq will almost certainly evolve into a puppet state of Iran, and given his treatment of Iran he will completely lose control of the situation — and he will be politically discredited for this outcome.
The ONLY chance that he has to avoid this political disaster, and save his political skin, is to hope against hope for “victory” in Iraq. Advancing the “surge” idea offers Bush two political advantages over following the ISG recommendations. One is that if it is implemented, maybe, just maybe, he can pull out some sort of nominal “victory” out of the situation. The chances are exceedingly slim, granted, but slim is better to him than the alternative (none).
Alternately, if the ” surge” is politically rejected, he gains some political cover, so when things inevitably go bad, he can say “I told you so” and blame the “surrender monkeys” for the outcome. Most people probably won’t buy it, but some (his core base) will.
Now, I know what many of you are thinking — is George Bush willing to risk the lives of hundreds, maybe thousands more American soldiers, on an outside chance to save his political skin, in a half-baked plan that even he knows probably won’t work at all? Yes, he is. Because George Bush is that narcissistic, that desperate, and yes, that sociopathic as well.
Especially interesting about Mr. Bush, but quite common, Narcissistic Personality Disorder is frequently associated with alcoholism. The insufferable “holier than thou” attitude associated with “Dry Drunk Syndrome” is indicative of underlying narcissism.
Also, the way that Bush embraces Christianity is characteristically narcissistic. Rather than incorporating the lessons of humility and empathy modeled by Jesus, Bush uses his Christian faith to reinforce his grandiosity. Jesus is his powerful ally, his idealized “buddy” who gives a rubber stamp to anything he thinks.
Finally — and this will sound VERY familiar to many readers — those persons with NPD are notoriously unable to say they’re sorry. Admitting error is fundamentally incompatible with their precarious efforts to maintain their sense of order. Anyone having this particular character flaw almost certainly has NPD.
By Ga Liberal
March 26, 2007 10:26 AM | Link to this
With Faux News there is only one correct side - Republican. There would be no ‘fair and balanced’ debate on Faux. Just look at how they slang all of their so-called news to bash liberals/Democrats and praise neo-cons/Republicans. Faux maybe just a front for Republican hate groups like the KKK, American Nazis, and skinheads. But it is not the place for intelligent and free debate.
By Tom
March 26, 2007 10:30 AM | Link to this
How about CNN instead? Or perhaps Katie … No bias there.
By kimberly
March 26, 2007 10:35 AM | Link to this
Hey NetB! Haven’t heard from RF in ages. Tim dropped by not too long ago.
Regarding the debates, I’m one of those silly folks who actually listens carefully and pays attention, whether or not I’ve made up my mind beforehand. I have not decided which (non-Republican) I’m supporting next year, and am not in a hurry, either. Will wait and see what kind of information, ideas, and promises come to light.
People are surprised to learn that I actually DO watch Fox “news” from time to time. Relying on one primary source is just silly, IMO. But the most important thing I glean from Fox “news” is that I do indeed know what nonsense they’re spouting as truth. So when the dittoheads repeat it word for word, I’ll know they get their “news,” I mean, “enemy of the week” and bad jokes from Hannity, and back it up with talking points from their RNC emails. Makes it much easier to dissect the b-llsh-t and explain to their confused faces why they have no credibility whatsoever.
By Archie
March 26, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this
Yes Fox News is an appropiate sponsor for the presidential debate and yes Fox is biased. I don’t know what conservatives are complaining about because I can always find a conservative point of view on a news page,paper, or tv. BAW publishes articles written by G Kane and Joseph C Phillips all the time and I can always read Michael Graham and M. Malkin in a local newspaper here in Columbia,SC and I can read Wooten on the AJC.
By chuck
March 26, 2007 11:10 AM | Link to this
Good morning all: Time to correct some of the misinformation being spouted here.
First, it is perfectly legitimate for a news organization to host a Presidential debate. It is one of many debates to be held over the next several months. In this particular instance, these are PRIMARY debates so one of them will be JUST DEMOCRATS and the other will be JUST REPUBLICANS. ALSO, the network is planning to CO-SPONSOR the debates with the Congressional Black Caucus Political Education and Leadership Institute.
Second, some of you are just knuckleheads who don’t know the difference between JOURNALISM and Entertainment. The Fox News organization has some great JOURNALISTS who report the news including Brit Hume, Jim Angle, Shep Smith and others. These are JOURNALISTS. Then it has some political pundits, talking heads and talk show hosts who are there more for entertainment/opinion purposes. They are no different than Nancy Grace and Glenn Beck on CNN or John Stossel on ABC. They serve a different purpose than the NEWS reporting arm of Fox News. They don’t claim to be journalists.
Third, Lozen, please provide the source for that “ARTICLE” you posted. It doesn’t sound like an article, but rather like some lame pop psychologist on moveon.org or some other such group.
By DrTom
March 26, 2007 11:30 AM | Link to this
Bumper Stickers
1.) End of an Error 2.) Let’s Fix Democracy in This Country First 3.) If You Want a Nation Ruled By Religion, Move to Iran 4.) Bush: Like a Rock. Only Dumber. 5.) If You Can Read This, You’re Not Our President 6.) Of Course It Hurts: You’re Getting Screwed by an Elephant 7.) George Bush: Creating the Terrorists Our Kids Fight 8.) Impeachment: It’s Not Just for B***** Anymore 9.) One Nation, Under Surveillance 10.) They Call Him “W” So He Can Spell It 11.) We Need a President Who’s Fluent In At Least One Language 12.) We’re Making Enemies Faster Than We Can Kill Them 13.) Is It Vietnam Yet? 14.) You Elected Him. You Deserve Him. 15.) When Bush Took Office, Gas Was $1.46 16.) The Republican Party: Our Bridge to the 11th Century 17.) One Nation Under Clod
By Archie
March 26, 2007 11:31 AM | Link to this
Second, some of you are just knuckleheads who don’t know the difference between JOURNALISM and Entertainment. The Fox News organization has some great JOURNALISTS who report the news including Brit Hume, Jim Angle, Shep Smith and others. These are JOURNALISTS. Then it has some political pundits, talking heads and talk show hosts who are there more for entertainment/opinion purposes. They are no different than Nancy Grace and Glenn Beck on CNN or John Stossel on ABC. They serve a different purpose than the NEWS reporting arm of Fox News. They don’t claim to be journalists.
That paragraph is true,Chuck. People may not like it but that paragraph is true.
By chuck
March 26, 2007 11:42 AM | Link to this
Nevermind Lozen, I found it. I assume you took this from the Blog of Dr. Tom O’Connell, a thoracic surgeon. This “article” was sent to him by another physician who apparently had seen it somewhere and it is purportedly written by a third “doctor” supposedly a psychiatrist. Now I don’t know about you, but an admitted THIRD-HAND blog post doesn’t really seem like it rises to the level of being an “article”.
Also, are psychiatrists in the habit of diagnosing people that they have never met or examined? Maybe we should apply that idea here. Wouldn’t it be fun to diagnose each other based on what has been written on this blog?
Who wants to give it a shot? I think john should diagnose BruDog to start us off.
By Joe L
March 26, 2007 11:49 AM | Link to this
“That paragraph is true,Chuck. People may not like it but that paragraph is true.”
Actually this paragraph shows exactly how twisted the mindset of regular Faux News viewers is that they can’t separate fact from opinion anymore. Yeah Fox makes no effort to have commentators who are anything but biased conservatives, but those are commentators who are allowed or expected to be biased. However their “news” is anything but unbiased and their “journalists” often make comments that are nothing but unfounded, biased opinion and spin the stories to be completely skewed and palatable to the right-wing, neocon POV. It’s been shown again and again and again and yet people can’t stop putting forth the myth that Fox’s “news” is unbiased journalism. It’s as bad as any opinion/commentator that’s out there.
By Monica
March 26, 2007 12:13 PM | Link to this
Okay, how about ESPN host the debates? I’m sure “Rome is Burning” could add a nice twist :)
By Archie
March 26, 2007 12:19 PM | Link to this
Sorry Joe L, I disagree with you slightly because Chuck did make a distinction betweens news and entertainment/opinion. Fox does give some plain news and it is given by journalists. Fox news means more than just the cable channel as it should include local channels giving news as well. A lot of tv news has editorializing and you know upfront Fox news cable channel veers to the right but you get opinions from Nancy Grace,etc. on other channels as Chuck says. The gist of Chuck’s point is that there is news and then there is entertainment/opinion and you can find that combination on most networks. I have a friend that actually gets his news from opinion programs like Limbaugh’s and he thinks he is getting the real national news but then he is a dittohead, but that doesn’t change the gist of Chuck’s statement.
By tired
March 26, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this
lozen,
I’m very happy to finally have found someone that knows exactly what otheres are thinking. It must truly be beneficial to everything. Could you possibly share the lottery numbers with us? Please!!!!
By dee dee
March 26, 2007 12:32 PM | Link to this
hi, how are u guys doing…wasn’t it sad that lil yola got shot….but he survived….dats a soilder rite derr
By dee dee
March 26, 2007 12:32 PM | Link to this
hi, how are u guys doing…wasn’t it sad that lil yola got shot….but he survived….dats a soilder rite derr
By RF
March 26, 2007 12:33 PM | Link to this
HEY Net!! You must be psychic. I thought about the blog-gang this morning and just decided to wander in for a quick moment to see if anyone familiar was still posting. Been busy with master’s degree work online- as if I didn’t have enough to do already—OIY!!
This approach ensures that all viewers would see the exact same debate regardless of station viewing preference as well as giving a voice to candidates that haven’t yet sold their souls to corporate sponsors…oops, donors
Exactly the point. Set up debates and encourage all media to attend and broadcast if they want. That would end the bias debate very neatly. Why is it the simple solution is never considered? I think we all love controversy and finger pointing way too much to ever meet in the middle and actually get along. Personally, I don’t care who hosts the debate and broadcasts it, just so long as the candidates will actually answer the questions!!
By Trent Reznor
March 26, 2007 12:43 PM | Link to this
Hi guys, hi kimberly. Hope you all had a great weekend. Life is sweet! All of you (especially kimberly) are invited to drop by Fuzzy’s tonight and hang out. Ralph and the boys will be jamming around 8 or 9 PM. I know it’s a school night, but F it, it‘s Spring and you only live once! It’s located on North Druid Hills Rd., right near I-85.
By Elizabeth
March 26, 2007 12:43 PM | Link to this
How about public television as a debate host? The only news I am willing to watch on TV is the News Hour with Jim Lehr on public TV. It’s about as non-biased as you can get. They enable you to think for yourself and come up with your own conclusions.
By NetBanker
March 26, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this
Hey Kimberly! Hope you had a good weekend. I’m one of those silly people who pay attention too, but I still wouldn’t mind having more than just the Republican/Democratic candidates blabbing away. Good for you for keeping an eye on ‘the enemy.’ I am a regular Hannity listener in the afternoons to hear the other side of the story and while he does make some good points the majority of his talking is pure liberal bashing wrapped in an American flag.
By NetBanker
March 26, 2007 1:11 PM | Link to this
HEY RF!! Psychic or pyscho…they don’t seem all that far apart these days! Maybe you felt the disturbance in the force from my passing near Monticello? You popped into my head on 441 at the light for Monticello Road when I saw a gold pickup truck with GA Educator plates and a male driver sparking up a cigarette. You didn’t replace Big Red, did you? So how goes the Master’s program? I keep thinking about one because of a personal goal to have my Masters by the time I turned 40 (oops…missed that one 2 weeks ago), but I’m just not sure that it would help my career prospects due to the specialized nature of my industry. How are the boys?
Personally, I don’t care who hosts the debate and broadcasts it, just so long as the candidates will actually answer the questions!! Don’t you wish they could be required to answer the question posed? Or maybe take some sodium penethol (spelling?) so they’d tell the truth about their positions? It’s so frustrating to hear the question and then this rambling response that doesn’t reveal diddly squat. All too frequently the candidate stops speaking and I’m thinking he didn’t answer the question…”Answer the question, Claire!”
By JP
March 26, 2007 1:16 PM | Link to this
NetBanker: Hannity’s only point is to bash liberals and get Hillary elected to be beaten by a Republican (the purpose of the “Stop Hillary Express.” I’m a local Atlanta listener with plenty of disposable income that has sworn off WSB until they bring some balance to their talk lineup. My iPod sounds much better than Hannity’s liberal-bashing.
And on TV, his partner Colmes is a moderate (not a liberal) which fits Han’s domineering persona quite well. Fox is no place for a reasonable debate.
By NetBanker
March 26, 2007 1:17 PM | Link to this
Okay, how about ESPN host the debates? Or FX? How about HGTV or maybe Oxygen? Oh..oh…MTV and VH1!
By Lyrazel
March 26, 2007 1:18 PM | Link to this
Wouldn’t it be fun to diagnose each other based on what has been written on this blog? You mean you haven’t? Actually HMOs or PPOs tend to diagnose policy holders for needing further medical care without seeing them.
By Trent Reznor
March 26, 2007 1:23 PM | Link to this
If Monday nights aren’t good for you, kim, give me a holler sometime at my new yahoo email address and let me know when you’re available. brunoez123@yahoo.com. Dinner’s on me, sweetie. Can’t wait to see what kinds of food you like. We need to fatten you up a little….
By Mara
March 26, 2007 1:25 PM | Link to this
I most emphatically disagree the Fox is an actual “News” channel. “News” implies factual (if biased…) information. That is most definitely NOT Fox’s strong poing. From touting Republican talking points regarding WMDs, the “imminent danger” meme, Libruls Hate ‘Murika (TM), spreading blatant lies about “liberals” like Obama being educated in an Indonesian madrassa, emphasising the non-issue that Barak Obama’s middle name happens to be Hussein (thus tying him to a more “famous” Hussein…), it goes on an on.
THAT is why a lot of grass-roots liberals do not want to give the network the cachet of a “News” channel by hosting a presidential debate. It has little to do with slant (at least im MY circle) and more to do with honesty-of-content.
If the forum wants to debate the “merits” of various media outlets, that’s fine. But this particular question focuses on Fox “News”.
As for the debates themselves, I’m with the folks who want to see EVERY viable candidate. And I’d prefer to have a real debate, not a moderated press conference where the questions are preapproved and the answers are written and practiced beforehand.
By Trent Reznor
March 26, 2007 1:26 PM | Link to this
Okay, how about ESPN host the debates? Or FX? How about HGTV or maybe Oxygen? Oh..oh…MTV and VH1!
Maybe we could get my buddy Marilyn Manson to host.
By Trent Reznor
March 26, 2007 1:32 PM | Link to this
Best line ever in a Presidential debate:
When asked if it was legitimate for voters to be concerned with the age of a political candidate, Ronald Reagan quipped, “That may be so, but I refuse to hold my opponent’s youth and inexperience against him”.
By RF
March 26, 2007 1:33 PM | Link to this
Net- nah, didn’t get the educator plates. Been driving my raggedy old Honda of late—sooooo much cheaper to fill up! My boys are wonderful, of course! My oldest just made Jr. Beta club. He’s such a smarty!!
I decided it was time for the degree and some professional work for myself. Online’s the only way to go these days. I love being able to debate class discussions in my pj’s!!
I got so, so tired of the debates in ‘04. I tried to keep track of how many times the fools dodged questions. Lost count way early in the evening! I’m hoping, though, hoping that maybe, just maybe a few of them will come through for me this time around. As my dad would say, “wish in one hand and sh*t in the other, and see which fills up first!” ;-)
By Trent Reznor
March 26, 2007 1:45 PM | Link to this
You know Fox is doing a good job of reporting news fairly by how p** off all the Libs get if you merely mention their name. You’d think they would be satisfied by the fact that 99% of the other “news” outlets are pure Lib propaganda machines.
By All Presidents clean house
March 26, 2007 1:47 PM | Link to this
Shaunti Feldhahn,
You’re just one in a long line of conservative pundits who keep repeating how Clinton fired all 93 attorneys as a talking point. It’s an ignorant and misleading talking point at that. He replaced the attorneys at the beginning of his term and so did Carter, Reagan, Bush I, and Bush II. It’s as common as replacing the previous administrations Energy secretary. There is a precident for replacing US attorneys, but not at mid-term. You and your ilk are so ignorantly spreading this b****** that “OH Clinton replaced 93 and no one said anything and Bush replaces 8 and the media has a field day.” Do you think your readers/supporters are stupid? Obviously you do! Of course, most of your supports probably still think Saddam attacked us on 911. With that said, US attorneys do serve at the pleasure of the President. He can fire them at will, but he is not above the political fallout. Gonzalez said to our congress the 8 were replaced for poor job performance. YOU KNOW GOOD AND WELL THAT THE 8 HAD JUST RECIEVED HIGH EVALUATIONS! That’s what started this! The fired attorneys who were going to keep their mouths shut and be good little GOP foot soldiers are now coming out with the truth and “The truth hurts”, at least politcally. I look foward to the hearings! Yes, this is a political side show, but Rove’s day has been a long time coming. The price of loyality will bite Bush in the a* again.
By Trent Reznor
March 26, 2007 1:48 PM | Link to this
Mara, why don’t you and your hubby come on out to dinner as well? The word on the street is that your butt is just way too skinny these days. ; > }
By Mara
March 26, 2007 2:27 PM | Link to this
As of March 2 - coverage of top news stories by major media outlets
Fox News
Anna Nicole - 121 Walter Reed Hospital - 10
MSNBC
Anna Nicole - 96 Walter Reed Hospital - 84
CNN
Anna Nicole - 40 Walter Reed Hospital - 53
so much for “news” content on Fox “News”…unless, of course, you count the life and death of Anna Nicole Simpson to be newsworthy. Of course every true-blue patriot knows that CNN covers the Walter Reed fiasco more than the Anna Nicole story ONLY because “They Hate George Bush” more than they love a dead Playmate
By lozen
March 26, 2007 2:44 PM | Link to this
TIRED at 12:28. What the h-ll are you talking about?
By MrRogers
March 26, 2007 2:51 PM | Link to this
There goes the neighborhood.
Replace GW’s name with Trent Reznor in the Pyschotic piece and would it read any differently?
By Trent Reznor
March 26, 2007 2:56 PM | Link to this
Anna Nicole - 121 Walter Reed Hospital - 10
Gotta give you that one, Mara. I stopped watching all news channels once the Anna story broke. I felt for her, but wasn’t interested in hearing about her dirty laundry ad nauseum.
Out of curiosity, are you and your husband interested in local drag racing as well. A friend of mine, Joe Yarini, used to race on the local circuit.
By Trent Reznor
March 26, 2007 3:05 PM | Link to this
Stocks are flat today, bummer. My plan is to make kimberly a wealthy woman so that she can lead the life of leisure that God intended for her.
By kimberly
March 26, 2007 3:06 PM | Link to this
I know Trent Reznor. Trent Reznor is a friend of mine. Mongrel, you are no Trent Reznor.
By lozen
March 26, 2007 3:10 PM | Link to this
Anybody who knows anything about alcoholism/drug addiction has seen the dry drunk (?) syndrome in W from the beginning. I actually received the article about him from a friend and did not know where it came from. Based on my studies of alcoholism and abnormal psychology, I believe whoever wrote it pretty much nailed him. If you still believe he’s a little god, that’s just fine with me Chuck!
By lozen
March 26, 2007 3:12 PM | Link to this
Dog, how many times is Kimberly going to have to tell you to F off before you stop sniffing? Huh? Nobody wants to listen to you talk to yourself. And nobody cares how many BIG IMPORTANT people you claim to know. Geeeezz.
By Trent Reznor
March 26, 2007 3:13 PM | Link to this
I know Trent Reznor. Trent Reznor is a friend of mine. Mongrel, you are no Trent Reznor.
Ha, Ha, Ha. You know, I almost referenced the Lloyd Benosn line as well, but didn’t think it would be as funny in print as in person. Obviously you remember him skewering Dan Quayle.
P.S. What do you think if my plan to make you a wealthy woman?
By Monica
March 26, 2007 3:15 PM | Link to this
Hi RF! How’s school going? Are you surviving NCLB fallout? My boys are growing too fast!
When the NCAA tournament began, the political cartoon in our little local paper used the “bracket” with the presidential candidates: dems on the left side, reps on the right side. Too funny! The title: “Presidential Madness: The final 1 1/2 years!”
By GOD
March 26, 2007 3:20 PM | Link to this
kimberly, my dearest, my sweetest. all my Love to you, the rarest of flowers in my garden.
we certainly have been through a lot together! you see, when i wrote the epic poem that is your life, i held nothing back—neither the greatest of joys, nor the darkest despairs. i wanted you to experience all of me, in every manifestation. you were created in my image, you know. what’s really beautiful is that all of the best verses are still ahead. i saved the best for last for you. but keep remembering, i work in very mysterious ways, and wear many disguises.
for now, i’ve sent someone very special to love you until we are reunited. he’s a little rough around the edges, but i’m sure you’ll have him whipped into shape in no time at all. all you have to do is open up your heart, and he will be there. i understand that you have no reason to trust, which, of course, makes it the right thing to do. So, until we meet again……………
By GOD
March 26, 2007 3:24 PM | Link to this
Dog, how many times is Kimberly going to have to tell you to F off before you stop sniffing?
lozen, you haven’t completed your homework assignment yet. “The Lion and the Mouse” by Aesop, remember? And don’t fall for the “modern” PC version in which the lion and the mouse become friends…..
By kimberly
March 26, 2007 3:27 PM | Link to this
Lozen, I’ve also read that analysis of Dubya, and concur wholeheartedly. Classic dry drunk behavior. Everything is someone else’s fault — ironic coming from the folks who spout “personal responsibility” all the time. The blinky thing is also characteristic of those who have, at some point, seriously abused cocaine. In one of the 2004 debates he was blinking so much I had to suspect he was using that day.
Mongrel, you seem to remember (frighteningly) too many details about me, but have forgotton that I am most impressed by the things money can’t buy. That being said, if I took this conversation offline, would you give these nice people here a break already?
By chuck
March 26, 2007 3:36 PM | Link to this
Just so you know…THEY WILL NEVER ANSWER ANY QUESTION IN ANY WAY THAT BACKS THEM INTO A CORNER. Politicians on both sides are best judged by what they have done NOT what they say. That’s why I won’t be voting for Romney, McCain or especially Giuliani. They are SAYING conservative things NOW, but they have not voted as conservatives to this point.
By RF
March 26, 2007 3:39 PM | Link to this
Hey Monica!!! Surviving the NCLB fallout is a relative term. We’re doing graduation test this week, my boys have CRCT coming up I think the week after next, and then it’s EOCT the first week in May. I’m practicing my quiet “do not open the test booklet until you are instructed to do so voice” (kinda like the teacher in Ferris Bueller actually…)
Isn’t it amazing how quickly they grow up? I’d swear it was yesterday I was buying 2T for my “baby” who is now a 10 HUSKY—
How’s life treating you?
By NetBanker
March 26, 2007 3:58 PM | Link to this
JP…It does rather seem that Hannity’s only schtick is about eeeeevil libruls and goodness knows he does have a domineering personality. It drives me crazy when he’ll keep interrupting someone to ask questions when they’re trying to make a point. Or when he badgers someone to respond to one of his questions that he’s posing during his response to one of their questions and he never really answers. He’s just too darn smug!
I’d prefer to have a real debate, not a moderated press conference where the questions are preapproved and the answers are written and practiced beforehand. That’s the truth! Where’s the intellectual honesty in that format or the opportunity for disclosure? I’d also love to add an open question period for audience members to ask non-vetted questions.
RF…LOL over Dad’s axiom. Aren’t gas prices enough to make one’s head spin with all the movement in price that seems almost daily? Good to hear that your boys are doing well and turning out smart like their dad! You must be very proud!
Do you know much about Lake Sinclair? We’re poking around looking at properties (which is why I was in your part of GA on Saturday) and could use all the help we can get with suggestions for locations on the lake. What I can tell is that the scent of money was on the wind and will be getting stronger based on the numbers of new construction properties and what’s happening just up river on Lake Oconee. I am little concerned about the closeness of Millegeville since my partner could trick me into thinking we’re heading to the store and drop me at the hospital instead. ~grin~
By NetBanker
March 26, 2007 4:22 PM | Link to this
By RF
March 26, 2007 4:44 PM | Link to this
Net- I’m proud of my little chunky monkey. He was underweight when I got him (27lbs. at 3 yrs.) and in the last year has shot up and out! I thought he’d always be small for his age, so I’m happy. It’s just a lot harder to pick him up anymore! He proves what a little bit of good cooking and some fresh air will do for a child!
Sinclair’s not my specialty, but I’ll ask around. I haven’t been there in a while, but I recall it being a nice lake. I like Oconee, but it’s going to end up being like Lanier. I’d definitely jump on some affordable lake property right now. Oconee has certainly turned into a good investment! If the legislature approves the development zone thing, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Sinclair become a hot commodity. I’ve been hearing the name a lot more of late…
By RF
March 26, 2007 4:46 PM | Link to this
Happy 40th, by the way Net!! It isn’t so bad—I crossed that line a couple of years ago myself. Life gets better with age I do believe.
By lozen
March 26, 2007 5:10 PM | Link to this
RF, it’s good to see you back today.
By Ryan
March 27, 2007 8:19 AM | Link to this
Fox News viewers supported George Bush over John Kerry by 88 percent to 7 percent. No demographic segment, other than Republicans, was as united in supporting Bush. Conservatives, white evangelical Christians, gun owners, and supporters of the Iraq war all gave Bush fewer votes than did regular Fox News viewers.
By kimberly
March 27, 2007 8:50 AM | Link to this
Fox “news” doesn’t report what Bush s-ckers don’t want to hear:
The line of ships at the Al Basra Oil Terminal (ABOT) stretches south to the horizon. Close by, two more tankers fill up at the smaller Khawr Al Amaya Oil Terminal (KAAOT). Guarding both terminals are dozens of heavily-armed U.S. Navy troops and Iraqi Marines.
Heavily armed soldiers spend their days at the oil terminals scanning the horizon looking for suicide bombers and stray fishing dhows (boats). Meanwhile, right under their noses, smugglers are suspected to be diverting an estimated billions of dollars worth of crude onto tankers because the oil metering system that is supposed monitor how much crude flows into and out of ABOT and KAAOT - has not worked since the March 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq.
Officials blame the four-year delay in repairing the relatively simple system on “security problems.” Others point to the failed efforts of the two U.S. companies hired to repair the southern oil fields, fix the two terminals, and the meters: Halliburton and Parsons of Pasadena, California.
By candide
March 27, 2007 8:56 AM | Link to this
Is Paul Joseph Goebbels an appropriate sponsor for a presidential debate?
By chuck
March 27, 2007 10:01 AM | Link to this
I noticed that Snoop Dog was banned in Britain. Any chance we can get him banned here in America?…along with the “other” dog?
By MrRogers
March 27, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this
Dog? That Trent Reznor wannabe yesterday?
By morgan-lynn lamberth
March 27, 2007 10:52 AM | Link to this
Fox says it isn’t liberal like the others, thereby showing its unfairness. Colmes sometimes sets the record straight ,other times says nothing while the other guy rat-a-tats and brays .O’Reilly is a hypocrite in that he constantly smears others . He cannot take valid criticism. Oh, he can be so nice. On the other hand on MSNBC, Scarborough can be a thoughtful conservative . I see no liberal bias . Why won’t one ever define that ? That is a mere ploy to scare others .Those who find Fox objective merely like to see their biases at work ! And aren’t historians liberal ? They see Clinton as a good president and the current president a failure; maybe he gets just credit for the Pill Bill .Those who demean liberalism demean Americanism ! I expect the rightwing nuts to bray !
By Mara
March 27, 2007 10:56 AM | Link to this
off topic - hey y’all. I know that a lot of us like animals alot, so I thought some of you might like to check this video…the horse is amazing!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zKQgTiqhPbw
By Jack
March 27, 2007 11:07 AM | Link to this
40 is not so bad other than being reminded daily of every injury you inflicted on yourself when you were young. 50 is better cause then all of the young people call you “Sir”, your doctor is younger than you and the cop that gave you that ticket is younger than you too. :(
By NetBanker
March 27, 2007 11:35 AM | Link to this
LOL, Jack! I’m not really sure how to absorb your post, though. So far not so much on feeling previous injuries which is good, but I’ve been getting called ‘Sir’ for a few years which is bad. Now I’m wondering if the people who tell me that I look younger than my age are just sucking up.
RF…thanks for the b-day wishes and encouragement.
All in all I’m not really worried or freaked out by age. I have great examples from the prior 3 generations who have lived long lives and been extremely active. If anything I think I’m starting to look forward to getting older because it means that retirement is getting closer. As one of my favorite in-laws recently told me “Your 40’s are even better than your 30’s because you’re still in good shape, better able to afford to do the things that you want and you’re less concerned with what other people think about you.”
By kimberly
March 27, 2007 11:47 AM | Link to this
Hey NetB! I can say that as women approach 40, we do get more um… amorous. Haha! Somehow, I don’t think you’ll see that as a perk. In any case, it’s my opinion as one who always looks, that unless you just let yourselves go, men are WAYYYY more handsome and sexy with a little maturity on them. Welcome to your [different kind of] PRIME!
By NetBanker
March 27, 2007 11:48 AM | Link to this
Mara…thanks for sharing! I haven’t been to a Dressage event or even a large horse show for a long time and forgot how beautiful it can be. Watching a really good group during one of the team dressage competitions is like watching a ballet or synchronized swimming.
Kimberly…great article!
By candide
March 27, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this
Cancer is obviously an equal-opportunity killer. It has hit for a second time Eliz. Edwards, a lovely woman of grace and talent who has a fine husband. It has also hit a second time that worm Tony Snow who specializes in doing Bush dirty work. I wish them both well as human beings but there the comparison ends.
By Monica
March 27, 2007 12:14 PM | Link to this
Happy 40th Net! My 36th is tomorrow, and I am depressed about being closer to 40 than 30. However, I wouldn’t trade the experiences I have had in the last 6 years for anything (including the births of my children)!
Hey RF! Life is good! Admittedly, I am behind on current events because our television is on Disney or PBS Kids these days, and reading material is also child-friendly. The only time I watch “news” is in the morning when I’m gettting ready, and that’s just good old Channel 2. That’s one of the reasons I stay on the blog - thanks to all of you for keeping me posted on the issues! Have a great day all!
By Jack
March 27, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this
I see it as a perk. Although the “prime” should have been aligned better between female and male. (but I’m not complaining)
By Mara
March 27, 2007 12:35 PM | Link to this
Net - you’re more than welcome. The control and training it takes for these four-legged athletes to get to this level of competition is breath-taking. Fabulous…
candide - I, too, hope they both have a successful and speedy recovery. But I have to disagree that Tony does Bush’s “dirty work”. He has plenty of other henchmen to do that. Tony is just the mouthpeice that amplifies the propaganda through the MSM. One wonders if he’ll continue on or if not, whether Dubya will have to go back to Fox “News” to find someone else who can…equivocate…as well as Tony does.
By NetBanker
March 27, 2007 12:41 PM | Link to this
Kimberly…hehehe you’re right about the lack of perk for me, but hey it’s good for someone out there… especially the woman. I’m in agreement with you about sexiness of men in the 40+range. I always thought so which makes it kind of funny (strange, not haha)that I’m ‘married’ to someone 3 days younger than I am.
Monica…Happy 36th Birthday! Trust me being closer to 40 than 30 really isn’t worth getting too depressed about. I had that kind of moment at 26, but it was more along the lines of “Oh God! I’m 26! That means I’ve been out of college for 4 years which means that I’m not really a ‘recent’ graduate any more. I’m on the on-ramp to the highway of adulthood! YIKES! An adult! Sh it! I need to be responsible for real and take control of my life rather than go with the flow.”
You know, I’m not really sure you’re missing much by not watching the ‘news’ quite so much as in your pre-child days. Given the lead stories of murder, corruption, fires, and generally bad stuff that happens to people I’m starting to become convinced that the point of the news is to make people realize that their own lives aren’t so bad in comparison to the people in the stories.
By lozen
March 27, 2007 12:41 PM | Link to this
Absolutely beautiful Mara! I could watch that all day. I saw Clydesdales in the St. pat’s parade and it’s the first time I remember ever seeing them except on tv. I was so excited and so amazed at how big and beautiful they are. I rode paso finos in the past and love those horses too. Yes, Kimberly it was a very good article about what’s going on as the empire wages war to take over the world and its resources. In doing so, of course, it’s spreading itself thin and cheating its citizens out of education, health care, etc. as well as losing the good will of the world community. I wonder if Bush and toadies ever read about the rise and fall of the roman empire?
By morgan-lynn lamberth
March 27, 2007 12:49 PM | Link to this
Candide, I suggest Neil Cavuto . Ann Coulter is the love child of Bill O’Reilly and Phyllis Schafly[ aka Phil Shoofly] .
By Mara
March 27, 2007 1:52 PM | Link to this
lozen - the Bud Clydesdales are pretty impressive, aren’t they!? I agree with you about that, but what’s really breathtaking are the Lipizzaner stallions. Regular Dressage is one thing, these moves are a whole tier above that. Hoooo-WEEEE!! It was so beautiful it brought tears to my eyes the first time I say them.
morgan - Neil Cavuto? nah. They need someone tough…like Charles Krauthammer, perhaps. Though all things being equal, Robert Novak should probably be in there somewhere. :^)
Hi Monica, Jack! Happy-happy to everyone who has a special day coming up…
By Mara
March 27, 2007 3:39 PM | Link to this
Yikes! no visible posts since my last at 1:52!!! did I break it?
By MrRogers
March 27, 2007 3:55 PM | Link to this
At least I have not had to post There goes the neighborhood (looking on the bright side)
By Monica
March 27, 2007 3:57 PM | Link to this
Yeah, Mara, I’m getting worried - no sign of dog, no sign of Kimberly. I hope she didn’t agree to talk to him off-line (don’t do it Kimberly!)
By chuck
March 27, 2007 4:00 PM | Link to this
No Mara, unfortunately I think droop doggy dogg broke it.
By kimberly
March 27, 2007 4:21 PM | Link to this
I’m here! Just working and “listening.” Said what I had to say, unless someone wants to talk about the BS WWIII Dubya’s trying to start with Iran. Otherwise, no worries.
By Getitright
March 27, 2007 4:31 PM | Link to this
Diane?! “…the ‘liberal media’ at least attempts objectivity…”? Since WHEN? Their definition of objectivity is spending the same amount of time touting Mrs. Bill Clinton and Barak Obama. Try watching the different networks and make a decision without checking with your masters at the DNC.
By Jack
March 27, 2007 4:31 PM | Link to this
Kim has me on “ignore” :(
By kimberly
March 27, 2007 4:40 PM | Link to this
Nuh-uh. I always listen to Jack the delightful… {;->
By velvel of sandy springs
March 27, 2007 4:46 PM | Link to this
Wait just a minute!!! First we are told that we need the Fairness Doctrine put back on the books because Fox News (okay, Rupert Murdock and Roger Ailes) operates a “conservative” broadcasting and publishing empire (and we won’t parse “conservative”). Then we are told that because Murdock and Ailes operate a “conservative ” news operation the Democratic Party (its real name—-nota bene, Bill Bennett, Squash Limberger, Sean Hanni-pie, and the rest of the cutsie-momzerim). Soooo, Harry Reid, Queen Nancy Pelosi, James Carville, and my Democratic friends: WHAT DO YOU WANT?
Maybe (perish forbid!!!) the Newt and the Governor are right: we need a series of one-on-one single issue discussions among the candidates without their handlers and without the talking heads and announcers of the news. But then we would see the lack of skill in questioning and the lack of skill in answering.
Are my yeller dog and blue dog brothers and sisters as craven as the elephants?
By Dog
March 27, 2007 4:49 PM | Link to this
Yeah, Mara, I’m getting worried - no sign of dog, no sign of Kimberly. I hope she didn’t agree to talk to him off-line (don’t do it Kimberly!)
I appreciate the thought, Monica, but I’m not that lucky! Plus, unfortunately, kimberly is way too smart to mess with a lowly cur like me. The weather is too nice to be blogging, I’m going golfing!! See you all at Fuzzy’s.
By MrRogers
March 27, 2007 5:01 PM | Link to this
There went the neighborhood.
By Lyrazel
March 28, 2007 9:50 AM | Link to this
Does anyone understand MOU? Thats where candidates issue a memorandum of understanding of what the debate will cover in minute detail. Bush used it with Gore. Bush used it with Kerry. It lines up everything the candidate will discuss and will not.
The Princeton Review obtained transcripts of the Gore-Bush debates, the Clinton-Bush-Perot debate of 1992, the Kennedy-Nixon debate of 1960, and the Lincoln-Douglas debate of 1858. It analyzed these transcripts using a standard vocabulary test that indicates the minimum educational level needed for a reader to understand a document. This test is ordinarily used to evaluate textbooks and other educational materials.
The results? In the debates of 2000, George W. Bush spoke at a sixth-grade level (6.7); Al Gore spoke at a high seventh-grade level (7.9). In 1992, challenger Bill Clinton scored in the seventh grade (7.6), President George Bush in the sixth grade (6.8), and Ross Perot at a sixth-grade level (6.3).
Our contemporary politicians, who found it necessary to speak to us as sixth and seventh graders, compared unfavorably with Kennedy and Nixon, both of whom spoke in a vocabulary appropriate for tenth graders. And they, in turn, looked sophomoric when compared to Abraham Lincoln and Stephen Douglas, whose scores, respectively, were 11.2 and 12.0.
Is it the candidates who have dumbed down their appeals or are they simply acknowledging that the public has a limited vocabulary? Candidates for public office, it is clear, must tailor their arguments to what the public can understand. Even though most Americans have completed at least twelve years of education, our candidates for president know that they cannot use big or unusual words when they address the voting public. This is what happens in a society that tolerates low expectations in our schools.
By chuck
March 28, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this
Of course Gingrich wants head-to-head single issue debates. If HE WAS THE CANDIDATE he would win EVERY ONE of them. The dems are unable to respond beyond a sound-bite. They wouldn’t know what to do if they had to actually formulate a ?REAL argument. While I don’t think I could vote for Newt, there is no doubt that he is one of the smartest men in Washington. NO DOUBT.
I’m hoping that we will have a better option…Fred Thompson. Smart, mature, conservative. That’s what we need.
By lozen
March 28, 2007 10:25 AM | Link to this
Lyrazel, good info on the past debates.
By Obama
March 28, 2007 10:35 AM | Link to this
(Fred Thompson) Smart, mature, conservative
not to mention ARTICULATE
hahahahaha
By chuck
March 28, 2007 10:53 AM | Link to this
articulate also…and he ought to make Hollywood happy…He’s an ACTOR. If he is as good as the last actor we had in the Whitehouse, America will be great again.
By Monica
March 28, 2007 11:06 AM | Link to this
I always thought Fred Thompson looked like UT coach Phillip Fulmer. I didn’t realize that Thompson was also from Tennessee.
By NetBanker
March 28, 2007 11:07 AM | Link to this
Well this topic is just setting the blog world on fire, isn’t it? NOT!!
So it’s Wednesday….time for a topic change? There was an interesting discussion on the radio this morning about bullying in schools and how it can impact someone into adulthood. I can see that and think that maybe some of my own behaviors have been influenced by the harsh anti-gay teasing and bullying I experienced in middle school and high school.
By NetBanker
March 28, 2007 11:23 AM | Link to this
If he is as good as the last actor we had in the Whitehouse, America will be great again. Hmmmm…would that be the actor who caused the explosion of the national debt, grew government to it’s largest size ever to date (only to be surpassed by W), knowingly allowed ARMS to be sold to IRAN in order to raise funds to support the Contras? And those things made America great how?
By Obama
March 28, 2007 11:26 AM | Link to this
I didn’t realize that Thompson was also from Tennessee.
Maybe the similiarity in looks has to do with that Inbred Tennessean thing.
hahahahaha
By chuck
March 28, 2007 11:27 AM | Link to this
And it kept you from being successful NetB? I don’t think so.
I caught heck every day because of my teeth and the fact that I was poor in a school of preppy little rich kids.
I think we worry too much about those things and not enough on teaching kids how to overcome.
By chuck
March 28, 2007 11:31 AM | Link to this
DEFEATED COMMUNISM
Greatest economic expansion in decades
Had to deal with a Democrat congress…hence deficits.
Fixed Carter’s MESS
Lower interest rates, miniscule inflation, higher employment, LOWER TAXES.
By Jack
March 28, 2007 11:36 AM | Link to this
Chuck. How did you know that I was an 80 lbs. accountant? (That was supposed to be a secret, glad you didn’t mention my wooden leg)
By Scalia
March 28, 2007 11:44 AM | Link to this
Bullying does have an effect on children into adulthood. I agree with Chuck, not on the actor thing, but on the successful part. On the whole, most gay men end up being successful because they feel like they have something to prove and to overcome the obstacles they faced growing up.
It seems like today, most kids don’t use that bullying to their advantage and light a fire underneath them to succeed. Instead, they cop out like the Columbine kids. Or they bring a knife or gun to school to fix the situation.
By NetBanker
March 28, 2007 11:47 AM | Link to this
Chuck…interesting that you immediately assume my take on the topic would be how to stop the bullying or that it had a negative impact on me when I never said anything of the sort. I only stated that my own behaviors were influenced without indicating whether it was ultimately a positive or negative influence. Of course the bullying hasn’t kept me from being successful because I can be a very focused and stubborn SOB who wasn’t going to let a bunch of idiots who called me names and physically harassed me to stand in my way. I knew I was smarter than they were and that the best revenge would ultimately to become their boss one day. I never did directly do that, but I know that I’ve gone much farther in life than have they.
By Mara
March 28, 2007 11:52 AM | Link to this
Net, chuck - bullying affects different people in different ways. I had 2 friends from school who were both bullied mercilessly by the same set of prep/jocks (we were all in the same clique of uber-geeks). One ended up withdrawing into himself with a bottle of Jack. He eventually ended up committing suicide. The other became determined to “prove them wrong” and is currently working on her second (or third?) PhD.
Many people come through the experience of being bullied little worse for wear. Some use the experience to become stronger. Some end up being completely destroyed.
By Opweration Smile
March 28, 2007 11:56 AM | Link to this
I caught heck every day because of my teeth
I know what you mean, chuck. Please keep Operation Smile in mind when y’all make out your checks to charity.
By Monica
March 28, 2007 12:12 PM | Link to this
Because some middle school boys called me fat, I always believed it, in spite of my mother’s and fathers’ incessant compliments. And I wasn’t fat; I just wasn’t a size 2 like the other girls. I wish I had listened. In high school kids made fun of me because I made good grades, but that didn’t bother me. I must confess, however, that I did enjoy one evening (8 years after high school) when my husband and I went to a low dollar bar & grill type place, and one of the “mean girls” from high school was our waitress. It gave me great pleasure when I asked her if she could bring me another coke!
By kimberly
March 28, 2007 12:19 PM | Link to this
Is Chuck saying that Reagan single-handedly defeated communism and won the cold war? Interesting…
So, over four decades, the contributions of Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, and Carter (with regard to foreign policy, strenghtening and organizing defenses in the West, standing up to the Soviets, ground-breaking relations with China, economic sanctions, and fostering the first ever meaningful peace treaties in the middle east) had nothing to do with it? That’s right folks. The Great Quipper ended the cold war all by hisself. HAHAHA!
By Operation Smile
March 28, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this
The Great Quipper ended the cold war all by hisself. HAHAHA!
All hail Reagan!
By NetBanker
March 28, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this
Mara…I completely agree with your assessment and know that my reaction is my own. I still find it interesting that I introduced a topic in a non-leading way and the first response assumes that I was taking the ‘victim’ position.
I don’t think we can ever stop school yard bullying or fights nor do I really think that we should. There is a certain amount of character building and/or dose of reality in experiencing bullying. One needs to learn how to deal with bullies and how to grow a thicker skin.
What I do think we, as a society, need to be concerned about are the individuals who are chronic bullies or chronically bullied in order to intervene. For the bully maybe it’s about identifying and working to overcome the insecurities that cause one to be a bully. For the bullied it’s to help them cope and learn that most bullies are really just scared themselves and attack others as a way to cover their own insecurities…and that the bullies who don’t fall into the insecure category are just genetic as sholes for whom there is no help and hence should be pitied.
Scalia…I think you’re right about gay men, in general, being successful as a way of proving their former bullies wrong.
By Archie
March 28, 2007 12:31 PM | Link to this
Kimberly most conservative folk believe The Great Quipper ended the cold war all by hisself and arguing with them is like arguing with a wall.
By chuck
March 28, 2007 12:32 PM | Link to this
I didn’t really assume that NetB, but there were a couple of context clues that could have led one to that conclusion. I was just commenting on the general way that society as a whole gets bent out of shape over some of the things that kids say to each other. We live in a fallen world and let’s face it, kids are a lot like their parents. Civility is almost a thing of the past, nobody cares how their actions affect others anymore. It is a sad world.
My point directed toward you was that I thought it actually helped to mold you into a successful business person, as Scalia suggested.
The Christian version of that, which I teach my kids at home, comes from the Bible:
Matthew 5:10-12 (King James Version) King James Version (KJV) Public Domain
10Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake.
12Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
By Operation Smile
March 28, 2007 12:35 PM | Link to this
Don’t forget human nature in this discussion of bullying, guys. It does have it’s roots in biology after all—Haven’t you ever seen how a “defective” baby chick is often pecked to death by the others? Although we humans (ok, I’m not including myself) like to think of ourselves as being way above the other animals, a lot of our behaviors can be understood by observing our furry friends. Hint: It has to do with establishing a hierarchy.
By Joe L
March 28, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this
“DEFEATED COMMUNISM”
Oh please. I am so tired of this myth. Reagan “defeated” communism like the soldier that fired the last bullet in WWII “defeated” the Nazis. Reagan happened to be in office for an endgame that had begun YEARS before he ever came along.
I will never, ever understand the ridiculous fascination conservatives have for Reagan. He was an adequate President at best if you ignore such things as subverting the Constitution and selling weapons to our enemies (which would be treason if a colonel or major in the field was caught doing it). That’s not to mention the immoral concept of living high on the hog off our children that he started.
If there is a President conservatives should be proud of and “worship” it should be Eisenhower. The fact that conservatives fawn over Reagan does nothing but undercut their positions and viewpoints with more objective viewers.
By Operation Smile
March 28, 2007 12:37 PM | Link to this
Scalia…I think you’re right about gay men, in general, being successful as a way of proving their former bullies wrong.
Well, whatever the reason is, some gay guy has been kicking my a* at poker recently, and I’m p**.
By Scalia
March 28, 2007 12:42 PM | Link to this
Netbanker, you are right. The bullies have insecurities that they are afraid to reveal. That could be a learning disability, or just a feeling of adequacy.
By Operation Smile
March 28, 2007 12:42 PM | Link to this
Kimberly most conservative folk believe The Great Quipper ended the cold war all by hisself and arguing with them is like arguing with a wall.
I repeat, all hail Reagan!!
By MrRogers
March 28, 2007 12:44 PM | Link to this
There goes the neighborhood.
By RF
March 28, 2007 12:45 PM | Link to this
It gave me great pleasure when I asked her if she could bring me another coke
Every now and then life gives you those moments to glimpse the payback people earn. I live by the idea that we get out of life the good we put into it, and no more.
There is a certain amount of character building and/or dose of reality in experiencing bullying. One needs to learn how to deal with bullies and how to grow a thicker skin
Absolutely… I really think sometimes we need to be able to let kids settle their disputes. The bully eventually gets his in the end. It’s hard to watch a child go through the emotional trauma of bullying, but character isn’t something you automatically develop. It’s experience based. Problem is nowadays they suspend you for hitting, period.
By kimberly
March 28, 2007 12:48 PM | Link to this
Joe L, I agree. Eisenhower was an excellent President, IMO. (Um… before my time actually, but I do follow history just a lil’ bit.) I’ve often wondered why the modern Republicans don’t spend more time worshipping him instead of the Quipper, but then I remembered that they’ve traveled SO FAR from the principles he stood for, that they dare not bring him up at even the most amiable of cocktail parties.
By TakeThemOut
March 28, 2007 12:49 PM | Link to this
Chicks peck a defective chick to clean-up.
If we would only apply that concept to bullies, and take them all out, the world would be a better place.
Too bad there are laws against us being more animalistic.
By Operation Smile
March 28, 2007 12:52 PM | Link to this
Cuz remember, “Chicks dig the long ball”. Anyone remember that commercial with Tom Glavine and Greg Maddux? In other words, it’s great to be a “nice guy”, but don’t expect to get laid.
By Scalia
March 28, 2007 12:56 PM | Link to this
RF…what’s going on? It is glad that you back around. How is teaching?
By Jack
March 28, 2007 1:03 PM | Link to this
I’m a conservative and Reagan did nothing for me other than make me pay more taxes. They tell us that he was great for not raising taxes. He didn’t raise taxes, he took a big deduction away from the middle class. All of the current politicians other than maybe Lieberman should go the same way Caesar did.
By Operation Smile
March 28, 2007 1:03 PM | Link to this
But don’t worry guys, I’m actually a nice guy underneath of it all. Unfortunately, to be a successful business person, you have to learn how to be a real prick sometimes.
By RF
March 28, 2007 1:09 PM | Link to this
Scalia- all is well. Busy year this year and teaching without a planning time, so it’s nonstop allllll day!! I love it though!
How’s the world treating you?
By Operation Smile
March 28, 2007 1:11 PM | Link to this
All of the current politicians other than maybe Lieberman should go the same way Caesar did.
The current crop of candidates is rather thin ; > { I would vote for Lieberman as well, Jack, despite the fact that he is an obsequious sycophant.
Just poking, Mara. If it means anything to you, I actually think you’re a pretty “cool” chick, despite the Lawrence Welk thing. P.S. Don’t tell anyone, but I actually have a Carpenter’s CD in my collection which I play every so often. Karen sings like an angel, brings tears to my eyes every time.
By RF
March 28, 2007 1:12 PM | Link to this
Jack- totally agree with your 1:03. Reaganomics ended up forcing me to pay student loans for years because of cutbacks on Pell grants. YEP, he was a nice guy alright!
By Operation Smile
March 28, 2007 1:21 PM | Link to this
Oh, yeah, sing it Karen!
We’ve only just begun to live
White lace and promises
A kiss for luck and we’re on our way
We’ve only just begun
Before the rising sun we fly
So many roads to choose
We start our walking
And learn to run
And yes! we’ve only just begun
Sharin’ horizons that are new to us
Watchin’ the signs along the way
Talkin’ it over just the two of us
Workin’ together day to day, together
And when the evening comes we smile
So much of life ahead
We’ll find a place where there’s room to grow
And yes! we’ve only just begun
My love to all!
By Operation Smile
March 28, 2007 1:24 PM | Link to this
So beautiful:
Love, look at the two of us
Strangers in many ways
We’ve got a lifetime to share
So much to say and as we go on from day to day
I’ll feel you close to me
But time alone will tell
Let’s take a lifetime to say
I knew you well
For only time will tell us so
And love may grow for all we know
By chuck
March 28, 2007 1:29 PM | Link to this
Here’s an analogy for you Kimberly:
Bobby Bragan 1963-66 Billy Hitchcock 1966-67 Luman Harris 1968-72 Eddie Mathews 1972-74 Clyde King 1974-75 Connie Ryan 1975 Dave Bristol 1976-77; 1977 Ted Turner 1977 (also club owner; managed one game) Vern Benson 1977 (also managed one game) Bobby Cox 1978-81; Joe Torre 1982-84 Eddie Haas 1985 Bobby Wine 1985 Chuck Tanner 1986-88 Russ Nixon 1988-90 Bobby Cox 1990-present
Which one wone the World Series? Bobby Cox…NOT Bobby Bragan
Some of those other guys were decent managers but they never won the BIG ONE.
By Testerbgq
March 28, 2007 1:32 PM | Link to this
Hellordy - this is just a testing, don’t worry about it
By Operation Smile
March 28, 2007 1:44 PM | Link to this
So, Jack—Do you sing love songs to your wife?
By Joe L
March 28, 2007 1:52 PM | Link to this
Right let’s compare global politics and economics to baseball. That depth of thinking is astounding.
By Operation Smile
March 28, 2007 1:54 PM | Link to this
Well gotta run and get a quick round in. See y’all next week.
By Monica
March 28, 2007 2:01 PM | Link to this
Can anyone recommend a good website that gives impartial info on the potential/announced presidential candidates? Vote Smart gives background info, but I want to see how they all stand on the current issues.
By kimberly
March 28, 2007 2:08 PM | Link to this
Chuck, I’m a life-long Braves fan as well, with childhood memories of always losing and drifting off to sleep to the sound of Skip Carey’s voice on Daddy’s radio. But global politics differs just a bit from baseball, Teacher. Even though teams can build up over time through personnel and coaching, the season resets itself every year. The broad iron grip of communism that seized large, vulnerable portions of the globe at the end of WWII had no annual reset mechanism. At its inception, their economic system was doomed to fail of its own shortcomings; it was just a matter of time. The stand taken by American Presidents over time, both in consistency of stance, and in their individual efforts, helped contain the red beast and hasten its demise. Fortunately for us, we were in the better position when that happened because of the diligence of our numerous leaders. To give Reagan his due credit, he did deliver some good speeches when the wall came tumbling down, and we all love straighforward symbolism and a good speech!
By lozen
March 28, 2007 2:10 PM | Link to this
To operation smile: Not if we see you first!
By Jack
March 28, 2007 2:24 PM | Link to this
Yes I do Dog.
I remember when Torre was a catcher for the Braves. (and when dirt was new)
By Operation Smile
March 28, 2007 2:35 PM | Link to this
Eisenhower was an excellent President, IMO.
Ok, kim, I gotta give you credit for good political judgment for recognizing Eisenhower. One sign of his political genius is how little attention paid to his name. People with strong German names were under suspicion during WWII. I’m sure you studied his farewell speech in which he warned about the growing military industrial complex. Another overlooked Prez, IMO, is Gerald Ford. Many can’t forgive him for pardoning Nixon, but it was the best way for the country to move forward. (Forgive the murderer, bulldoze the crime scene).
To give Reagan his due credit, he did deliver some good speeches when the wall came tumbling down, and we all love straighforward symbolism and a good speech!
Please don’t overlook the fact that America was stuck in a self-identity crisis brought on by four years of self-doubting Jimmy Carter, kim. Since you were a mere youngster at the time, you may not remember the sombre mood Jimmy left us with, along with the “Stagflation”.
To operation smile: Not if we see you first!
Lozen, I apologize for being rude to you in the past. It will be your choice to forgive me or not.
By Operation Smile
March 28, 2007 2:47 PM | Link to this
Do you remember any on the Phillies players from way back when, Jack? My personal favorite was Willie Montanez, the first baseman. He played with incredible passion, kind of like Andres Gallaraga did later for the Braves. Steve Carlton was amazing as well, and how about old Mike Schmidt?
My sports nickname growing up was Moose in honor of Moose Dupont who was a defenseman for the Flyers. Get it, Bruce—Moose? I was always a defenseman when we played ice hockey as kids, goalie when we played soccer, and catcher when we played baseball. I liked the title usually given t o catchers “Field General”.
By Scalia
March 28, 2007 2:55 PM | Link to this
All is well. I am also teaching middle school, which is kinda fun. They keep me on my toes, and I have to realize that they are still kids. That sucks not to have a planning period. I have a good one.
By chuck
March 28, 2007 3:04 PM | Link to this
Truman: Sat idly by during the partitioning of Germany. Truman Doctrine did nothing to stop the spread of communist influence, it only changed the direction from Europe to Asia. He made a conscious decision to avoid the issue with Russia because He did not think the American people could stomach another war.
Eisenhower: What exactly did he do to end the cold war? He got us into the U.N. appeasement business. He left the cold war up to them.
Kennedy: He had the opportunity, but let it pass. While he did stand strong on the missile crisis AND join the race to space (for which I give him full credit), but when it came to Kruschev, he blinked.
Johnson: Got us into a war he had no intention of trying to win and further emboldened the communists
Nixon: Normalized relations with China to a point, but what else? Continued Johnson’s failed policy in Viet Nam then instead of WINNING, he wussed out and brought the troops home, further emboldening the commies.
Carter: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
By chuck
March 28, 2007 3:08 PM | Link to this
Truman: Sat idly by during the partitioning of Germany. Truman Doctrine did nothing to stop the spread of communist influence, it only changed the direction from Europe to Asia. He made a conscious decision to avoid the issue with Russia because He did not think the American people could stomach another war.
Eisenhower: What exactly did he do to end the cold war? He got us into the U.N. appeasement business. He left the cold war up to them.
Kennedy: He had the opportunity, but let it pass. While he did stand strong on the missile crisis AND join the race to space (for which I give him full credit), but when it came to Kruschev, he blinked.
Johnson: Got us into a war he had no intention of trying to win and further emboldened the communists
Nixon: Normalized relations with China to a point, but what else? Continued Johnson’s failed policy in Viet Nam then instead of WINNING, he wussed out and brought the troops home, further emboldening the commies.
Carter: BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
By Operation Smile
March 28, 2007 3:08 PM | Link to this
Another great player for the Phillies from the 70s was The “Bull”, Greg Luzinski. I’ll never forget during a Phillies broadcast once when Greg was at bat. The camera zoomed in on his massive thighs. The announcer, Richie Ashburn, quipped, “How would you like a piece of that meat?” There were several seats marked with bullseyes in the upper deck of the old Veteran’s Stadium with “Bull Shot” painted on them to mark how far his homers went.
As much as I loooooove the Braves announcing crew, it’s hard to top Richie Ashburn and Harry Callas. Richie was the ultimate competitor. Once he played a round of golf for money wearing a full catcher’s outfit and won. Even when he was past 70, when Harry would mention getting together to play tennis, Richie would crow “Make sure you bring your checkbook!”
Am I the only one who appreciates good trash talking?
By AntiReagan
March 28, 2007 3:26 PM | Link to this
Reagan did not bring down the Berlin Wall.
The collapse of Communism as an economic model brought down the Berlin Wall.
By APRIL_M_COLEMAN
March 28, 2007 3:31 PM | Link to this
Sorry if this message wasn’t interesting for you. Please delete it. 132 buy carisoprodol buy lexapro
By Operation Smile
March 28, 2007 3:31 PM | Link to this
Nixon: Normalized relations with China to a point, but what else?
C’mon, chuck, I thought you were a History teacher, for crying out loud? You seem to be forgetting that Nixon was also the one who got the Russkies to the bargaining table. It’s hard to see how these accomplishments are small. Domestically, I think his Presidency was a mixed bag. I’m sure Jack remembers the chaos that Johnson left the country in with all of the destructive, violent protests going on. You have to give him credit for settling things down. At the same time, his “price and wage controls” were a disaster IMO. Anyone remember the price and wage controls?
By lozen
March 28, 2007 3:35 PM | Link to this
Just ignore it and maybe (it’s almost enough to make me pray) it’ll go away. Forgive all you want; you’re still an idiot and a self-centered egotistical maniac who talks to himself!
By Joe L
March 28, 2007 3:37 PM | Link to this
And Super Ronnie did what exactly? Two things toppled the Soviet Union, the first and foremost was Afghanistan - something America had little to nothing to do with even with our support of the mujahadeen. Afghanistan decimated an entire generation of Russians and shattered the myth of Soviet infallibility. The second was western culture, again something the government had nothing to do with. The Cold War was ended more by Coca-Cola, blue jeans, and The Beatles than it was nuclear missiles.
By Operation Smile
March 28, 2007 3:40 PM | Link to this
chuck, I wish I could agree with you about the failure in Vietnam. Are you sure you’re really a History teacher? If you recall, the puppet government that the US supported in South Vietnam was not supported by the natives. And as we’re seeing once again in Iraq, the cooperation of the natives is critical to military success. If you’ll restudy the Vietnam War, you’ll see that Madame Nhu tried to force a Catholicism-based government on the South Vietnamese, and they weren’t going for it.
By lozen
March 28, 2007 3:41 PM | Link to this
So apparently, Chuck, you love every war even the Vietnam war. Tell me what country fell to the commies after we left Vietnam. The “reason” for that little conflict (never declared a war) was to keep those other countries from falling like dominoes to the communists. So what countries fell like dominoes when we pulled out of Vietnam?
By Operation Smile
March 28, 2007 3:44 PM | Link to this
Just ignore it and maybe (it’s almost enough to make me pray) it’ll go away. Forgive all you want; you’re still an idiot and a self-centered egotistical maniac who talks to himself!
Would you really be happy if I just went away. lozen?? Okay, sweetie, I’ll do it just for you. I do actually like you a lot and enjoyed trash-talking with you. Your boyfriend is lucky to have a quality person like you. And I love your taste in music! So take care, lozen. Smooches to you.
By MrRogers
March 28, 2007 4:06 PM | Link to this
Congratulations, Lozen (if it works) but we know once a liar, always a liar. Some bozos think apologizing means something, another indication of how wacked out they are.
By Jack
March 28, 2007 4:16 PM | Link to this
Lib’s talk about Cheney. LBJ was worse, much worse. JFK was going to get us out but after LBJ took over, he thought it was a good idea to stay. That’s how I ended up there.
By NetBanker
March 28, 2007 4:34 PM | Link to this
Civility is almost a thing of the past, nobody cares how their actions affect others anymore. It is a sad world. Chuck…I do agree with you there. It’s just a shame how many people don’t even have the manners to say “Thank You” when you’ve held a door open for them. I must be getting old and cranky because now when I get zero response for holding a door I make sure to loudly say “You’re Welcome!” Frequently I get a glare in response reminiscent of a child who has just been scolded and doesn’t like it because they know they were rude and got called on it.
Reagan did nothing for me other than make me pay more taxes *Reaganomics ended up forcing me to pay student loans for years because of cutbacks on Pell grants. * Well gentlemen, I guess we were all too far down for the trickle of ‘trickle down economics’ to reach us. Jack…was that the deduct for credit card interest? I can’t remember.
Please forgive me everyone….I do think Dog makes a valid point about human nature. I think there is some degree of truth in his statements about human nature being to establish a hierarchy in addition to this underlying condition whereby we seem to feel better about ourselves by pointing out the flaws in others.
By kimberly
March 28, 2007 4:39 PM | Link to this
Jack Hunny…. I’ll cop to that. In my opinion, LBJ did the right thing with the Civil Rights Act here at home, but I have NO IDEA wtf he was trying to do in Vietnam. I shake my head trying to comprehend the arguments that supported those horrors, just as I shake my head now. Strong young men and women are our greatest resource. A strong defense keeps us safe, it’s true! But misusing them in a misguided, mismanaged offensive role is a treasonous crime, IMO. But neither my President nor Senators, nor Congressweasel care what I think. Thank you for your service. I’m SO GLAD you made it back! Salute!
By RF
March 28, 2007 4:42 PM | Link to this
The Cold War was ended more by Coca-Cola, blue jeans, and The Beatles than it was nuclear missiles LOL Gotta love that line!
I’ve always said pop culture has much more influence than military power. You can do more to influence a country by influencing its culture and economy than you can with a bomb blast or troops.
By Joe L
March 28, 2007 4:54 PM | Link to this
Kimberly - I never understood Vietnam and how it became such a mess much, UNTIL our more recent conflict. It was just as much a silly ideological war (the whole “containment” policy) taken to a sad degree combined with a series of steps trying to “fix” what was broken before getting you so far down a path of no return. You can totally see how the script played out when you look at the events of the last 4 years.
By blablabla
March 28, 2007 4:57 PM | Link to this
reagan was imperfect, but to minimize his impact in winning the cold war would be foolish. certainly the soviets did things to hasten their demise, but we didn’t win the cold war just by watching the soviets collapse while selling them cokes and levis.
to win the cold war required us to show the soviets (and the world) that we were just as strong militarily and economically, and that we wouldn’t wilt when it mattered. further, we had to demonstrate that not only was the soviet model a failure, but that our model of free markets and individual liberties was superior. reagan did many things on these fronts.
first, he did much to rebuild our national identity following the carter years. the late 70’s was an awful time in our history, as we collectively questioned ourselves following vietnam, and many doubted the strength of our economic model after years of low growth and high inflation. he was a strong leader who inspired courage and renewed our faith in american ideals. his belief in america was infectious.
second, he undertook a military buildup that showed the soviets that we meant business, and that we would not retreat from the communist threat that was spreading throughout much of the world in the late 70’s. he reminded the world that messing with the US had severe consequences. given our stature as a superpower, reagan possessed a position of strength; unlike carter, he played from that position of strength.
third, he deserves credit for several of the economic successes that began in the 1980’s and remain today. while not personally his ideas, the policies he implemented help create the low interest environment we continue to enjoy to this day. low inflation and low interest rates have resulted in stable, rising wages, and fostered an environment conducive to capital investment, which has made our economy the envy of the world. forbes rightly pointed out in the mid 90’s that clinton never had any significant economic policies; he never needed them. to clinton’s credit, he wisely did not tinker with what had been a booming economy (other than the hiccup in late 1990).
critics lament (among other things) the level of national debt incurred during his two terms, but i, and many others, believe the consequences of continued stagflation and signs of military weakness would have been far greater.
By Monica
March 28, 2007 5:01 PM | Link to this
I’ve always said pop culture has much more influence than military power. You can do more to influence a country by influencing its culture and economy than you can with a bomb blast or troops.
And that’s pretty scary considering bald Britney, anorexic Nicole, and lush Lindsey, not to mention the latest fashion statements!
By NetBanker
March 28, 2007 5:16 PM | Link to this
You can do more to influence a country by influencing its culture and economy than you can with a bomb blast or troops. It is also amazing how quickly even the appearance or fear of military aggresion can undue the soft influences. Look at Iran where we were rather popular with the general population up until Iraq and more specifically the threats regarding their nuclear ambitions. We could have been far more successful in changing the political climate in Iran through better support of their grassroots organizations (note how slightly we stood by during the student protests of a year or more ago) than through official diplomatic channels.
By chuck
March 29, 2007 9:07 AM | Link to this
I don’t know why I even try with you Lozen, but what the heck: No I do not like ANY war. I thought Viet Nam was a terrible waste BECAUSE WE HAD NO INTENTION OF WINNING IT!!!!!! When we do go to war it ought to be ALL OUT WAR. Kill-everybody-take-no-prisoners war. You don’t keep the world safe for democracy ESPECIALLY here at home, unless our enemies know that if they mess with us we will wipe them out. One of my favorite movies is War Games with Matthew Broderick. At the end, the computer learns that the only way to win global thermonuclear war is to not have one. Surely you have heard of MAD. (for the uninformed that stands for mutually assured destruction).
BRUDOG, the question was not whether or not Eisenhower or Nixon were good presidents, the question was how much did they contribute to winning the cold war. The answer is NOT MUCH. If anything, Nixons SALT talks with the Russians PROLONGED the cold war.
Fortunately for the world, Gorbachev could see the look in Reagan’s eyes. Reagan was not going to “blink”.
By Mara
March 29, 2007 10:45 AM | Link to this
new JibJab is out. “What We Call The News”. Sorta relevant on the original topic. Enjoy :^)
http://movies.msn.com/movies/jibjab?gt1=7707
By Joe L
March 29, 2007 10:46 AM | Link to this
“I thought Viet Nam was a terrible waste BECAUSE WE HAD NO INTENTION OF WINNING IT!!!!!! When we do go to war it ought to be ALL OUT WAR. Kill-everybody-take-no-prisoners war. You don’t keep the world safe for democracy ESPECIALLY here at home, unless our enemies know that if they mess with us we will wipe them out.”
Sigh So how would you win in Vietnam (or let’s say IRAQ) by “wiping out everyone”? You can’t. To say we had no intention of winning it is insanity. You really believe that our President and Generals pursued a wholly unpopular action that sacrified thousands of American lives with no intent of victory? Poppycock. So what WAS the goal in Vietnam if it wasn’t victory?
And what would have been the price of “unbridled” war against North Vietnam? Would you have risked potential nuclear or large-scale conventional war against China and Russia to stop the “domino” of South Vietnam from falling? That’s a silly risk to take and it was one that our leaders were wise to avoid.
By Joe L
March 29, 2007 10:49 AM | Link to this
“Fortunately for the world, Gorbachev could see the look in Reagan’s eyes.”
And and again POPPYCOCK! Gorbachev wanted out regardless of anything Reagan or anyone else did. He saw the writing on the wall that started LONG before Reagan stepped foot in Washington. It never ceases to amaze me that people can look at a forty-five year process and give all the credit to the guy that was there for the last eight.
To use your baseball analogies, Reagan came in to close with a 10 run lead and 2 outs and you want to act like he was the MVP.
By Mara
March 29, 2007 11:22 AM | Link to this
sigh
Since I have absolutely no interest in debating the relative merits of ex-presidents, I guess I’ll just be the “here’s something interesting” vendor today…
excerpt of an interestin article -
The top 10 percent, roughly those earning more than $100,000, …reached a level of income share not seen since before the Depression.
While total reported income in the United States increased almost 9 percent in 2005, the most recent year for which such data is available, average incomes for those in the bottom 90 percent dipped slightly compared with the year before, dropping $172, or 0.6 percent.
…new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980.
…the top 10 percent of Americans collected 48.5 percent of all reported income in 2005
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/29/business/29tax.html?ei=5065&en=f30aed8087a73065&ex=1175745600&adxnnl=1&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print&adxnnlx=1175181067-hPKC/9W3/qfACDYi76sZSg
By blablabla
March 29, 2007 11:47 AM | Link to this
To use your baseball analogies, Reagan came in to close with a 10 run lead and 2 outs and you want to act like he was the MVP.
obviously joe wasn’t alive in the late seventies. or he was dancing like a disco loving fool! bc nobody in their right mind would think the US had a “ten run lead” on the soviets at the end of the carter years.
By kimberly
March 29, 2007 11:53 AM | Link to this
Good info, Mara! Looks like the economic policies of the last several years are working out quite well for them — the top 10%, that is. Deductive reasoning would indicate then, that a goodly percentage of Americans have been voting AGAINST their own best interests, at least financially, for this to happen.
What insidious propaganda do you have to feed people to get them to vote against their own best interests? Today’s blog fun task: Let’s make a list! Who wants to go first?
By RF
March 29, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this
Per person, the top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980.
The rich get richer, the poor get deeper in debt to Mastercard…
The unrealistic pay increase, unfortunately, is the result of economic policies begun during the Reagan era. Yes, he turned a great many things around, and definitely restarted a stalled economy, but at whose expense? Certainly not the rich, a trend that is apparently getting worse instead of better.
By RF
March 29, 2007 11:56 AM | Link to this
nobody in their right mind would think the US had a “ten run lead” on the soviets at the end of the carter years I have to wonder if we were even in the stadium! It wasn’t the best decade for us in a lot of way, but weren’t the polyester clothes and platform shoes cool?? NOT!!
By AntiReagan
March 29, 2007 11:58 AM | Link to this
“ten run lead” on the soviets at the end of the carter years.
Maybe 7 runs? The Soviets were eager to get out of the arms’ race, due to the economic hardship it caused. Back to that guns vs. butter thing from Econ101. But for Reagan to get all the credit is ridiculous.
By GOB
March 29, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this
I thought Viet Nam was a terrible waste BECAUSE WE HAD NO INTENTION OF WINNING IT!!!!!! When we do go to war it ought to be ALL OUT WAR. Kill-everybody-take-no-prisoners war.
Ahhh…Nothing says Christian love like “kill everybody”
By Monica
March 29, 2007 12:30 PM | Link to this
Interesting article, Mara. What do you think of a flat tax - say 10% or 15% of annual income - with no deductions, no paperwork, no refunds, etc? Do you think it would help or harm the lower class?
By AntiReagan
March 29, 2007 12:33 PM | Link to this
Crediting Reagan with bringing down the Berlin Wall or even the Soviet Union would be like crediting Carter for economically bringing down the Soviet Union as a result of his boycott of both broadcasters and Olympic hopefuls at the 1980 Moscow Olympic games.
By Joe L
March 29, 2007 12:45 PM | Link to this
” bc nobody in their right mind would think the US had a “ten run lead” on the soviets at the end of the carter years.”
You mean nobody except most intelligence analysts who said that the demise of the Soviet Union was definitive in the 70’s. Now they were ultimately surprised that it happened in a shorter period than expected and in a very abrupt turn rather than a slow and steady decline, but they knew the Cold War was won in the 70’s it just had to play out the final gambits.
Did Reagan speed up an inevitable end? Sure I’ll give him that. Did Reagan turn a tide or contribute anything more than speediness? No. And ultimately I think the speediness of the demise hurt us (created a power vacuum we and the world were unprepared for) and we spent WAY more money than necessary and created a false belief in bad, bad principles.
By Joe L
March 29, 2007 12:54 PM | Link to this
“What do you think of a flat tax - say 10% or 15% of annual income - with no deductions, no paperwork, no refunds, etc? Do you think it would help or harm the lower class?”
I like the idea of a simplified tax code that disposes of all or nearly all deductions (and I lean more to all because binary decisions are clearer than ones of degrees) but not with a “flat” structure. Maintain a tiered structure and dispose of all the deductions and I think you will find it works in the favor of the great majority of Americans.
The one thing that many people don’t acknowledge is our tax code is as much about steering certain social decisions as it is about dollars and cents. The very same conservatives that rail against “socialism” have no problem with the government deciding that people should be married and codifying this SOCIAL CONTROL as a tax break. Or children for the same matter. Not saying I necessarily disagree with the decisions just with the hypocrisy involved and the same people who will complain when these social controls are removed.
By Monica
March 29, 2007 1:13 PM | Link to this
Maintain a tiered structure and dispose of all the deductions and I think you will find it works in the favor of the great majority of Americans.
Does that mean the more you make, the more you are taxed?
By Mara
March 29, 2007 1:13 PM | Link to this
Monica - What do you think of a flat tax - say 10% or 15% of annual income - with no deductions, no paperwork, no refunds, etc? Do you think it would help or harm the lower class?
I’m not sure if the flat tax would help or harm. Haven’t researched the issue very much. On the face it seems like it would help. But as you know, “the devil is in the details”. One of the interesting statements in the article (which I didn’t post) was that we managed to collect properly for 90% of private returns but there was a dismal history on corporate profits being taxed. Maybe a mixture of a simplified progressive system plus a flat tax on corporate profits and un-earned income?
kimberly - What insidious propaganda do you have to feed people to get them to vote against their own best interests
lets see. 1. “The gays want to recruit your baby boys so stop gay marriage NOW!”.
“Libruls want to take away your bible, your guns and burn down all the churches”.
“Democrats want to destroy the Armed Services because the HATE America”.
“The tree-hugging, latte-swilling, Birkenstock-wearing libruls HATE small businesses”.
ROTFL!!! Your turn…
By blablabla
March 29, 2007 1:23 PM | Link to this
You mean nobody except most intelligence analysts who said that the demise of the Soviet Union was definitive in the 70’s.
please. jokes are for tomorrow.
By Joe L
March 29, 2007 1:31 PM | Link to this
“please. jokes are for tomorrow.”
Says the uninformed.
By Joe L
March 29, 2007 1:35 PM | Link to this
“Does that mean the more you make, the more you are taxed?”
Yes. So we would have tax brackets but they would be reduced from current percentages and have no deductions.
By blablabla
March 29, 2007 1:36 PM | Link to this
The very same conservatives that rail against “socialism” have no problem with the government deciding that people should be married and codifying this SOCIAL CONTROL as a tax break.
another funny. the gov’t doesn’t decide that we should be married. we do. and for many people, there was this thing called the marriage penalty, where, in fact, the opposite of a tax break was the norm for many married couples.
oh, and can you not see the obvious items in our tax code that are driven by left-leaning initiatives?
By Mara
March 29, 2007 1:37 PM | Link to this
another “here’s something interesting”.
It’s a bit long but it made me think of chuck’s comment When we do go to war it ought to be ALL OUT WAR. Kill-everybody-take-no-prisoners war. You don’t keep the world safe for democracy ESPECIALLY here at home, unless our enemies know that if they mess with us we will wipe them out This is just an excerpt -
For the classical theological tradition, everything that exists is good, full stop. “How do we know that God loves sinners?” asks Thomas Aquinas? “Because there are sinners.” God does not create evil creatures or natures. And nothing else “creates” in the technical theological sense of that word. Evil must therefore be the lack or corruption of something good rather than the presence of something purely or intensely evil.
There is a vital practical significance to the classical view. Since we can’t reduce our enemies to pure blackness, we have to take them seriously as creatures of God whose evil willing is nonetheless always done under the aspect of some good. Even the suicide - the classical hard case - wills evil for the sake of the good of some peace, namely, being free from the distress of life. Even Bin Laden wills what he wills under some aspect of the good. Even Bin Laden wants peace of some sort.
Amazingly, some neoconservative Christians seem to make nihilism a genuine option in the world. As if one could actually will nothingness. Thus the neoconservative “remedy”: annihilate the terrorists. As it turns out, this just makes an entire people feel backed into a corner and spawns more terrorists. It would be far more constructive to try to find some way to connect with that aspect of the good under which even the vilest of offenders are doing their evil deeds. For Bush, there is one path: kill the evil terrorists. This is the cul de sac of the new Manicheaism. But there are other options: get rid of the military bases in the Middle East; treat the terrorists as an international criminal conspiracy that requires international collaboration at the level of policing and prosecuting (like drug dealers and mafia syndicates); seek a genuine solution to the Palestinian crisis.
http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/thedailydish/2007/03/pure_evil.html
By blablabla
March 29, 2007 1:45 PM | Link to this
oh, no, joe is calling me uninformed. ok, joe. name all these intelligence analysts and provide links to their publications. i’ll check back tomorrow and see how you’re doing.
By blablabla
March 29, 2007 1:51 PM | Link to this
kimberly - personally i would be more interested in knowing why americans ACT against their own best interests financially. we vote every once in awhile. but we make decisions that impact our financial well-being every day.
this is part of the reason why i have long been a proponent of teaching some level of personal finance in school.
By Archie
March 29, 2007 2:01 PM | Link to this
*Acting Assistant Attorney General Richard Hertling said that certain statements in last month’s letter to Democratic lawmakers appeared to be “contradicted by department documents included in our production.”
the Feb. 23 letter, which was written by Sampson but signed by Hertling, emphatically stated that “the department is not aware of Karl Rove playing any role in the decision to appoint Mr. Griffin.” It also said that “the Department of Justice is not aware of anyone lobbying, either inside or outside of the administration, for Mr. Griffin’s appointment.”
Those assertions are contradicted by e-mails from Sampson to a White House aide, saying that getting Griffin appointed “was important to Harriet, Karl, etc.” Former White House Counsel Harriet Miers was among the first people to suggest Griffin as a replacement for Cummins.*
I know the above is off topic but when do we start calling people liars and stop using words like contradict, or misspeak. If kids were paying attention they would see some poor role models in this situation. TELL THE TRUTH, it can’t hurt — too much. How can we believe any intelligence reports if they are rearranged by Rove,etc?
By Archie
March 29, 2007 2:03 PM | Link to this
blablabla we disagree politically but I agree with this: *kimberly - personally i would be more interested in knowing why americans ACT against their own best interests financially. we vote every once in awhile. but we make decisions that impact our financial well-being every day.
this is part of the reason why i have long been a proponent of teaching some level of personal finance in school.*
By Joe L
March 29, 2007 2:17 PM | Link to this
“oh, and can you not see the obvious items in our tax code that are driven by left-leaning initiatives”
Yes but the left-leaning do not disparage government as a tool. The right-wing does. Therefore this is not HYPOCRISY. Notice I did not say that there was a problem with these parts of the code, just that many of the plums of the right would disappear and you would hear the uproar (but if taxes are discussed for say universal health care the hypocrisy of “socialism” cries ran down).
The marriage “penalty” was yet more bs when you consider all the other advantages that come with marriage offset the few people that fell into this small group. And what about deductions for children?
By Mara
March 29, 2007 2:32 PM | Link to this
Archie, we stopped calling liars “liars” when truth-tellers became nothing more than “Bush-haters”,”traitors”, and “damn Libruls”
By Mara
March 29, 2007 2:36 PM | Link to this
We quit calling liars “liars” when expressing reservations regarding public policy became “treasonous” and when anyone not “fer us” was “agin us”.
By MrRogers
March 29, 2007 2:40 PM | Link to this
Archie, we stopped calling liars “liars” when truth-tellers became nothing more than “Bush-haters”,”traitors”, and “damn Libruls”
and it ain’t even joke day. Good one.
By Mara
March 29, 2007 2:47 PM | Link to this
LOL! Sorry for the double post…
By kimberly
March 29, 2007 2:52 PM | Link to this
What insidious propaganda do you have to feed people to get them to vote against their own best interests?
By RF
March 29, 2007 2:54 PM | Link to this
The tree-hugging, latte-swilling, Birkenstock-wearing libruls HATE small businesses
ROFL You get the points for humor today!! Save some for tomorrow!
By Monica
March 29, 2007 2:55 PM | Link to this
Chuck mentioned Fred Thompson for president yesterday. I did not know that Thompson has a commentary on the Paul Harvey show. The transcripts for his commentaries are on [National Review Online[ (http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZDhkY2M1Yzk4YjM1YmYyNWFmNWRhOWJjM2Y4YmFkZjg=),FYI. I did not realize how prolific his political career was. I just thought he was a good actor.
By blablabla
March 29, 2007 3:01 PM | Link to this
one of the big problems the right has with the use of gov’t as a “tool” as you describe it, is the unintended problems that the gov’t “solutions” create.
funny you would mention universal health care, bc that’s a perfect example.
if i purchase health insurance through my employer, i do it with pre-tax dollars. the insurance is tax deductible both to me and my employer. but if i do it on my own, i pay for it with post-tax dollars. this is a gov’t created inequality within our tax code that prices certain families out of the health insurance market.
further, the gov’t has made it illegal in some instances and downright impossible in most others, for small businesses to join together as though they were one large employer to purchase group health insurance for all the employees.
combine those two factors, and what do we have…45MM uninsured americans. lefties run around with their panties in a wad that we need a gov’t solution: universal health care.
never once do any of these people notice that a full 60 percent of all people uninsured today are the employees or dependents of employees of small businesses, and that by removing the prohibitions on small businesses banding together to buy group insurance, the number of uninsured would drop dramatically.
inequality in the gov’t’s tax code and gov’t red tape/prohibitions on small biz has created a tremendous amount of the uninsured problem in america.
the biggest reason why people believe we should have universal health care is to provide coverage for these people. but if the gov’t wouldn’t have created this problem, we wouldn’t need the gov’t solution.
By RF
March 29, 2007 3:16 PM | Link to this
Jesus loves you, but shares your hatred of Hillary Clinton and homosexuals
Well, geez, kimberly, you just summed up about twenty years of pulpit work for the conservative clergy!!
By Archie
March 29, 2007 3:23 PM | Link to this
Unfortunately,Mara, your 2:39 post is right. It seems as if this administration will tell any old lie and when caught in the lie, they respond by saying they misspoke or cannot be expected to remember everything. Is Iran really an enemy? Is Iran really evil? The people that say they are, are the same people that said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
I really hate Jesus is associated with conservatives because I do go to church and yes I do favor universal healthcare,gay marriage, and other things people consider liberal but I think of those things as for the common good. If your name is Archie and you to marry Tim why can’t you? Why can’t you deed your property to Tim and your money to him since you were the one who made that money?
By Monica
March 29, 2007 3:31 PM | Link to this
Sorry - I put a space in between the bracket and the link - let me try again
Fred Thompson commentary transcripts
By Joe L
March 29, 2007 4:16 PM | Link to this
“never once do any of these people notice that a full 60 percent of all people uninsured today are the employees or dependents of employees of small businesses, and that by removing the prohibitions on small businesses banding together to buy group insurance, the number of uninsured would drop dramatically.”
I’m curious where you get this impression from as I formerly worked as a health care consultant and I’m not aware of any tax codes that forbid this and I know that my company essentially offered a product that did this. You purchased your insurance from us and we leveraged the entire population composed of small groups and individuals as a means of getting good rates.
And the government didn’t create this problem, big business did. Look into how section 125 came it being and it’s original intents. The use of tax law and how it applies to health benefits today is an evolution (and a bad one in many ways) from a totally different intent, not the original goal of “government”. As a matter of fact the problem was government not getting involved enough and deciding what needed to be done and how, but instead constantly lagging behind the situation.
By WTH
March 29, 2007 4:24 PM | Link to this
I worked for a trade association that had small businesses as members, and most/all employees of each small business were on the trade association’s Group Health Plan. about 5,000 primary insureds, excluding dependents. 18,000 to 20,000 insureds if dependents were counted. All in the same state, of course. Not sure that material, but…
By NetBanker
March 29, 2007 5:23 PM | Link to this
Jesus loves you, but shares your hatred of Hillary Clinton and homosexuals Kimberly…do you have a side job writing for Betty Bowers?
Joe…As a member of the 28% tax bracket I’m willing to consider flat tax or even a tiered flat tax so long as the difference between the top and bottom tiers isn’t as huge as it is today. Somehow it seems antithetical in country with a belief that everyone can work hard and be a success that the more successful one becomes the more one is penalized for that success.
By vovka
March 29, 2007 5:33 PM | Link to this
april fools neopets april day fools fun
By nihiasebe
March 29, 2007 8:38 PM | Link to this
nihiasebe i privet vam vsem
By nihiasebe
March 29, 2007 10:34 PM | Link to this
nihiasebe i privet vam vsem
By nihiasebe
March 29, 2007 10:35 PM | Link to this
nihiasebe i privet vam vsem
By blablabla
March 30, 2007 8:26 AM | Link to this
where do i get this impression…this little thing called personal experience. my fam built, owned and eventually sold a small biz. trying to get affordable health care for employees was essentially impossible. certain things we wanted to do weren’t allowed under the law and just about every other creative technique we tried to employ was going to bury us in red tape. we hired know-it-all consultants, but their ideas rarely worked in the real world; by the time my father sold the company he knew more than any of them on the issue. so while not tax code issues, there were legal issues at both the state and federal levels that precluded us from ever offering employees a compelling health care plan, despite our every intention and attempt to do so. gov’t causing problems.
the inequality between pre- and post- tax dollar usage for health care is most certainly a tax code issue, and an obvious one. the problem could be fixed if the gov’t wanted to fix it. the problem is perpetuated by the gov’t, just like it is with AMT. lots of politicians don’t want this inequality in the code to go away bc they want to legislate universal health care, and inequalities like this are a means to that end.
big biz created the problem of uninsured by offering insurance to employees? that’s a new one. big biz does what it always does – it finds a creative way to compete for and retain the best people. and the gov’t does what it always does – trails a few years behind the free market, tries to regulate it, screws it up, and in doing so creates loopholes and problems.
By guest1982
March 30, 2007 8:54 AM | Link to this
hello,all
By Monica
March 30, 2007 9:13 AM | Link to this
Blablabla, A friend of ours is a doctor with a private practice. You would think that doctors would have access to good insurance, right? They have $5000 deductible helath insurance policy because they are small business owners.
And a story from the headlines to start off joke day: homeless men awarded 45k in poop suit
By Archie
March 30, 2007 9:42 AM | Link to this
How do the women feel about Hillary trailing both Rudy G and John McCain in a head-to-head for the presidency? Do women have an obligation to give Hillary a better shot at the presidency? Any opinion is fine.
By NetBanker
March 30, 2007 9:52 AM | Link to this
Good Morning kids. First of all my apologies for the horrible typing the past few days. I reread some of my posts and you’d think English was my second or third language.
“Reagan defeated communism by initiating an arms race. The American economy could support it. The Soviet economy could not.” Is this Chuck’s item in today’s Vent?
Unfortunately,Mara, your 2:39 post is right. It seems as if this administration will tell any old lie and when caught in the lie, they respond by saying they misspoke or cannot be expected to remember everything. Is Iran really an enemy? Is Iran really evil? The people that say they are, are the same people that said Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Kudos to Mara and Archie on these observations! I don’t really think that Iran is an enemy in the classic sense of the term. What most people fail to consider about Iran is that the current government was the Iranian people’s response to the U.S. backed Shah of Iran’s government which was abusive to it’s people. We’re reaping what we sowed just as we are in Afghanistan and Iraq where the U.S. backed the mujahadeen (i.e. Osama bin Laden) and Saddam Hussein. In Iran rather than support the people (for whom the pendulum started to swing away from the Ayatollah and toward a more democratic and open society) and their grassroots efforts to change their own government we’ve done nothing but politically attack the government. This tends to have the effect of the people backing a government they don’t particularly agree with out of nationalist sympathies and it emboldens the government to crack down on the grassroots change movements. Both of those situations have occurred due to the actions and inaction of our current administration.
The other thing is that is amusing about these involvements is that each time we’ve tried to manipulate the politics in the Middle East by claiming altruistic intentions they’ve really been for the advantage of America and each time they’ve ended up backfiring in our faces. How credible or believable do you think a government would be if they helped put in place or backed a governmnet that supressed you (as a citizen), they’ve done this in one or more of your neighboring countries, they make threats and posture against the backed goverment when said government doesn’t do exactly as the backer wants, then they invade your country in order to depose the government they had been backing, take over the country and direct the formation of a new government? Would you honestly trust either the foreign nation or the one they help put in place (again) in your country? As an Iranian would you be concerned given what that foreign government did in the past with your government and is currently doing in 2 neighboring countries?
By NetBanker
March 30, 2007 10:03 AM | Link to this
Nice story there Monica! LOL! I wonder if the ordinance defined the type of feces. I just picture dozing off while sitting on a park bench, a dog poops near the bench, and then being startled awake by the police arresting you for sleeping too close to a pile of poo that wasn’t there when you dozed off.
Happy Weekend everyone! I probably won’t be around too much today due to work and needing to get out early to greet the parents when they arrive for the weekend.
By Ray Allen
March 30, 2007 10:53 AM | Link to this
Absolutely, FNC should be a host for debates. All other forums, newspapers (including AJC), TV, and universities are extremely left wing biased. At least FNC consciously puts opposite points of view on at the same time.
By blablabla
March 30, 2007 10:59 AM | Link to this
the other thing to consider, netbanker, is that the people of these countries are certainly working with less than perfect information regarding the US, our motives and our intentions.
people complain about gov’t’s manipulation of intelligence, information and reporting to the general public in this country, where we have a “free” press. think what it must be like in the mid east?
By Bill G
March 30, 2007 11:58 AM | Link to this
I don’t watch CNN for the same reason I don’t read the New York Times or the AJC. I don’t trust them. I think they not only slant their coverage but make stuff up. Perhaps when they lose enough viewers/readers to so-called Faux News (that name calling is about as clever as Commie News Network) CNN and AJC might try to offer more diverse viewpoints. Until they do, I’ll take my business elsewhere.
By Ronnie B
March 30, 2007 12:02 PM | Link to this
Is Fox News an appropriate venue for a prez debate? Well, they’re definitely partisans. But that just means that, if you want to be president, you’ve got to be able to step up your political game. Some venues won’t always be captive audiences.
Obama wouldn’t have won Illinois if he didn’t go to the areas where some of his views were less popular.
If you’re going to be my president, I need to know that you’re able to provide leadership anywhere and everywhere.
By kimberly
March 30, 2007 12:17 PM | Link to this
Hello Archie! Good questions: How do the women feel about Hillary trailing both Rudy G and John McCain in a head-to-head for the presidency? Do women have an obligation to give Hillary a better shot at the presidency?
I don’t feel any obligation to vote for a woman because I’m a woman. I admire Senator Clinton a great deal, and am greatly impressed with what she has accomplished, especially when you factor in the additional crap that gets thrown at her that her male counterparts don’t get. But there are more factors in my decision whom to support than admiration and respect, which I earnestly have for most of the declared candidates, even the (some) republicans. IMO, it is too early to commit to any of them.
As for the purported “lead” that Rudy & McCain have in the polls, I just don’t give a damn. These so-called journalists use their non-scientific polls as air-time fillers instead of doing their <bleep bleep> JOB, which is to provide us with news and information. Whether some housewife or farm worker in Kansas likes this one or that one a full year and half before November ‘08 is NOT news, and it’s NOT information! Elections are not horseraces, they are the serious business of a participatory democratic republic. These news wh-ores ramble on with their gossip and opinions and talking points, when they should be providing us with pertinent factual data with which to make informed choices. If I had editorial control over these “news” organizations, I would eliminate the coverage of pre-election polls in effort to encourage people to actually THINK about their choices, and not just concede to popular opinion.
By ItsjokeFriday
March 30, 2007 12:27 PM | Link to this
Atlanta
This is for anyone who lives in Atlanta, Georgia, has ever lived in Atlanta, has ever visited Atlanta, ever plans to visit Atlanta, knows anyone who already lives in Atlanta, or knows anyone who has ever heard of Atlanta.
Atlanta is composed mostly of one-way streets. The only way to get out of downtown Atlanta is to turn around and start over when you reach Greenville, South Carolina.
All directions start with, “Go down Peachtree” and include the phrase, “When you see the Waffle House.” Except that in Cobb County, where all directions begin with, “Go to the Big Chicken.”
Peachtree Street has no beginning and no end and is not to be confused with: Peachtree Circle Peachtree Place Peachtree Lane Peachtree Road Peachtree Parkway Peachtree Run Peachtree Terrace Peachtree Avenue Peachtree Commons Peachtree Battle Peachtree Corners New Peachtree Old Peachtree West Peachtree Peachtree-Dunwoody Peachtree-Chamblee Peachtree Industrial Boulevard
Atlantans only know their way to work and their way home. If you ask anyone for directions, they will always send you down Peachtree.
Atlanta is the home of Coca-Cola. Coke’s all they drink there, so don’t ask for any other soft drink unless it’s made by Coca-Cola.
The gates at Atlanta’s Hartsfield International Airport are about 32 miles away from the Main Concourse, so wear sneakers and pack a lunch.
The 8am rush hour is from 6:30 to 10:30 AM. The 5pm rush hour is from 3:00 to 7:30 PM.
Friday’s rush hour starts Thursday afternoon and lasts through 2am Saturday.
Only a native can pronounce Ponce De Leon Avenue, so do not attempt the Spanish pronunciation. People will simply tilt their heads to the right and stare at you. The Atlanta pronunciation is “pawntz duh LEE-awn.”
And yes, they have a street named simply, “Boulevard.”
The falling of one raindrop causes all drivers to immediately forget all traffic rules.
If a single snowflake falls, the city is paralyzed for three days and it’s on all the channels as a news flash every 15 minutes for a week.
Overnight, all grocery stores will be sold out of milk, bread, bottled water, toilet paper, and beer.
I-285, the loop that encircles Atlanta, which has a posted speed limit of 55 mph (but you have to maintain 80 mph just to keep from getting run over), is known to truckers as “The Watermelon 500.”
Don’t believe the directional markers on highways. I-285 is marked “East” and “West” but you may be going North or South.
The locals identify the direction by referring to the “Inner Loop” and the “Outer Loop.”
If you travel on Hwy 92 North, you will actually be going southeast.
Never buy a ladder or mattress in Atlanta. Just go to one of the interstates and you will soon find one in the middle of the road.
Possums sleep in the middle of the road with their feet in the air.
There are 5,000 types of snakes and 4,998 live in Georgia.
There are 10,000 types of spiders. All 10,000 live in Georgia, plus a couple no one has seen before.
If it grows, it sticks. If it crawls, it bites. If you notice a vine trying to wrap itself around your leg, you have about 20 seconds to escape, before you are completely captured and covered with Kudzu, another ill-advised “import,” like the carp, starling, English sparrow, and other “exotic wonders.”
It’s not a shopping cart, it’s a buggy. “Fixinto” is one word (I’m fixinto go to the store).
Sweet Tea is appropriate for all meals and you start drinking it when you’re 2 years old.
“Jeet?” is actually a phrase meaning “Did you eat?”
If you understand these jokes, forward them to your friends from Atlanta, Georgia and those who just wish they were.
By ICrapUnot
March 30, 2007 12:40 PM | Link to this
Sweet Tea is appropriate for all meals and you start drinking it when you’re 2 years old.
Sweet Tea started out from having to use tons of sugar to mask the bitterness of ancient tea, tea that had traveled the globe to reach the south, and then was stored forever in the heat and cold. Sugar took care of the resulting bitterness.
Tea is actually quite tasty without all that sugar.
By Monica
March 30, 2007 12:58 PM | Link to this
Tea is actually quite tasty without all that sugar.
I beg to differ. If not for the sugar, tea is not worth drinking. And some places you go to ask if you want iced tea. Is there any other kind?” :)
By Lyrazel
March 30, 2007 1:05 PM | Link to this
How do the women feel about Hillary trailing both Rudy G and John McCain in a head-to-head for the presidency? Do women have an obligation to give Hillary a better shot at the presidency?
Archie, I have no obligation because of gender. I agree with Kimberly about too distant future and the media paying more attention in upcoming candidates then on concerns facing daily life. Of course though, news is for entertainment. It brings me back though to a question about WHY our election debates are on cable stations because not all citizens have cable so will it be privatized? There are rural districts that do not get cable and what accommodation will be made for voters or is this the first step of needing $$$ to vote? New Hampshire is one area that does not have cable in its rural areas—so expect some commentary on putting national debates on a private network there.
I really think if Hilary’s husband could toss a hat into the 2-ring circus that he would win the national election but I doubt Hilary will place. Its not the USA is not ready for a woman president. Its HER voters dont like and Dems need cross-over votes to win elections. I expect the Dem PARTY to churn out some white dude who has been in office 20 years and now deserves the party support behind him. Kerry was that sort as was Bob Dole who both made lackluster candidates but proved just how much dominance PARTY has in politicians. Expect it soon.
Just politics as usual. Nothing will get done if we keep sending 2 parties to Washington. America really needs a strong 3d party candidate to keep the lobbyists at bay. I am hoping for that. Was really shocked me McCain was going for the anti-abortion crowd. Turned off a block of stray voters who might have given him a look. As for Rudy the man has too much credit and too much ego. Will be fun to watch his seedy past be exposed in glorious detail by his Ex-Wives fan club. Rudy is my joke for Friday…
Enjoy
By kimberly
March 30, 2007 1:10 PM | Link to this
Turbo Tea: - Boil three quarts of water. - Add three large, Luzianne family-sized iced-tea teabags. - Steep for three hours, or until liquid is black and opaque. - Add two cups of sugar and stir well. - Gulp with ice on a hot August morning. - Zoom.
By morgan-lynn lamberth
March 30, 2007 1:30 PM | Link to this
Reagan’s big spending helped the economy ,not his tax cut which to an extent the biggest tax increase ever- -the Reagan- Dole tax bill o f83 counting for inflation and six more increases -helped cover . Of course , it is a matter of the golden mean where to put tax levels ,where diminishing returns kicks in , not the idiotic Laugh-er cuve. It was known that the Soviet economy was in shambles.Gorbacheav, the last of the Czars, was the hero of the collapse of Soviet communism .Reagan and the Pople had their little role .It was Keenan’s containment doctrine that HST and all presidents thereafter followed that helped defeat communism . The big spend and borrow Bush has insured future tax increases .Thankfully ,pay-go operates now! Go .Hillary, go !
By Joe L
March 30, 2007 1:37 PM | Link to this
“Somehow it seems antithetical in country with a belief that everyone can work hard and be a success that the more successful one becomes the more one is penalized for that success.”
Oh I feel so sorry for the poor downtrodden millionaires being penalized by having to buy one less Mercedes. Seriously I’m not trying to make it a class war, but I’m tired of this silly and completely illogical argument that someone with more money, more means, and more security (and generally receives much superior service from the government) is “penalized”. If they are so penalized then they can trade with the fortunate others who aren’t penalized as much.
Virtually no one in this world would be successful without the often unseen contributions of hundreds of people who generally are not as fortunate as the successful person.
By morgan-lynn lamberth
March 30, 2007 1:53 PM | Link to this
Joe L.and then there is the joke that “it’s your money.”Where do the spend and borrow crowd think that the mony comes from for the hitech weapons and the roads and such ? How about that really funny joke that if we don’t fight them in Iraq ,then we’ll fight them here ? That glosses over the upwards of 650,ooo Iraqis killed as a result of the war and that the terrorists will harm us at their leisure ! At their leisure and pleasure . Notice how cozy Hillary is with the generals !How she has studied diligently military matters .
By JokesOn
March 30, 2007 1:55 PM | Link to this
Three men walk into a bar; the fourth one ducks.
By KJV
March 30, 2007 1:57 PM | Link to this
Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour’s wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his a*, nor any thing that is thy neighbour’s.
By KJV
March 30, 2007 2:07 PM | Link to this
Hey JokesOn! Didn’t see you at the last Ralph show. A lot of the old gang was there—lotta fun.
By KJV
March 30, 2007 2:11 PM | Link to this
Well, gotta run and try to collect some rent from my deadbeat tenants. They’re lucky I’m a nice guy. ; > }
By MrRogers
March 30, 2007 2:23 PM | Link to this
There goes the neighborhood.
Anybody coveting anything of KJV? Yeah, didn’t think so.
By NetBanker
March 30, 2007 2:23 PM | Link to this
JoeL…so you’re only talking about millionaires? Is that people who EARN a million a year or simply have a million plus in assets? I’m not a millionaire, I do make just over $100K a year, and I pay a sh it load in taxes due to the tax brackets. I feel penalized because I’ve gotten where I am by working long hours for many years, at times placing my career ahead of my personal life, and also by spending wisely. I’m one of those people who is penalized into paying a higher percentage of my income as my income has risen over my working life. You won’t find the “unseen contributions of hundreds of people” behind my success.
I’m very curious as to why you think people with more money “generally receives much superior service from the government.” What is your basis for this statement? I can certainly tell you that when renewing my DL, or at the tag office, or when paying property taxes, or in court suing renters over a lease breach, or obtaining my passport there was absolutely no questions asked about my income, no way for them to know my income, and no discernable difference in the service I noted my fellow line-standers receiving.
By blablabla
March 30, 2007 2:31 PM | Link to this
ok, joe. name all these intelligence analysts and provide links to their publications. i’ll check back tomorrow and see how you’re doing.
so how you making out on this one, joe?
By KJV
March 30, 2007 2:38 PM | Link to this
Anybody coveting anything of KJV? Yeah, didn’t think so.
Well, I have been told I have a cute a* before.
By blablabla
March 30, 2007 2:42 PM | Link to this
Oh I feel so sorry for the poor downtrodden millionaires being penalized by having to buy one less Mercedes.
ah yes, and here it manifests itself once again - the left’s favorite misguided equation:
high income equals high net worth. so by taxing the heck out of high incomes, we’re getting the rich to pay their “fair share”.
never mind that income and wealth aren’t perfectly correlated, and the relationship between earnings and wealth will be skewed for the young, upwardly mobile.
By blablabla
March 30, 2007 2:47 PM | Link to this
exactly, net. to its credit, the gov’t hasn’t treated me any differently as my income has grown. unfortunately, that consistent level of service could always be described as… underwhelming.
By kimberly
March 30, 2007 2:54 PM | Link to this
YAAAWWWWWWWWWNNN! Who’s going on Spring Break next week? Squeeeeeee! Who thinks this afternoon is dragging way too slowly?
By Joe L
March 30, 2007 3:20 PM | Link to this
Right, I’m sure that the water and sewage, police protection, roads, etc. are equal in a neighborhood of 500K homes as say 50K homes right?
And NetBanker what is your career success path? Do you not work at a company with janitors, maintenance workers, factory workers (if your company makes a product), etc.? Do you have garbage men that pick up your trash? There are literally hundreds of people that do “menial”, low-paying jobs that you would make it able to do your job and live in a nice stable society. And since the successful gain MORE from that nice stable society and have much more means above subsistence they get taxed a little more. Our taxes really aren’t that high at all and I know that you are not taxed that much more than I am or even close to exorbitantly high.
Blabla - I have read, heard, seen, etc. many, many analysts say the things I put forth but I have not found a good on-line source to reference. Wikipedia has a decent article on the Cold War that talks about much of what I said, but it’s a semi-reliable source. Needless to say the Soviet economy was bankrupt and reeling in the late 70’s LONG before Reagan’s portion of the arms war (which existed for the entirety of the CW) started.
By Monica
March 30, 2007 3:25 PM | Link to this
I’ll be on Spring Break next week! woo-hoo! We stay away from the beach, though. I made that mistake once; we were in Panama City for all of 10 minutes before I saw one of my students drunk off her butt - one of my 16 year old students, that is. Since then, we go to the mountains or take advantage of the exciting activities that Georgia has to offer. Should be fun this next week, since everything outside has a lovely yellow glow.
By blablabla
March 30, 2007 4:22 PM | Link to this
Right, I’m sure that the water and sewage, police protection, roads, etc. are equal in a neighborhood of 500K homes as say 50K homes right?
you couldn’t have picked any better examples, joe.
my previous house, which i sold last year, was in morningside, and i sold it for a little more than 500k. don’t know if you know morningside, joe, or if you’re even familiar with atlanta, but just about every road in morningside and the virginia highlands area was under construction for about the last two full years. traffic delays (even more than usual)…gravel everywhere…gigantic swallow-half-your-car potholes…entire foot-wide cuts of missing road running LENGTHWISE through the the road. it was insane.
and what were they fixing?? you guessed it, the sewers. the atlanta intown sewer system is incredibly antiquated and was woefully inadequate to serve the growing city’s needs. during a heavy rainstorm, you would have three foot deep water on busy streets near my house. people’s cars would get stuck.
which leads me to the police and fire… they’d never show up to help these people out until well after the storm was over and the water levels had receded from their cars. there was a string of break-ins on my street last spring, of which i was a victim, and the cops didn’t seem to care. they’d usually show up a couple days after the incident was reported. my next-door neighbor had his jag stolen from his driveway. it had lo-jack and the police didn’t bother to find it for almost two weeks - it had been completely stripped.
so please, don’t get me started about the great gov’t “service” i get for having a somewhat more expensive home. in-town schools, aside from a few glowing exceptions, are terrible, so that portion of your property taxes is essentially a waste. anybody who can afford to will send their kids to private school.
truth be told, while i’ve been an atlanta resident, the level of service received from my gov’t, across all areas, has been beyond awful.
By cars
March 31, 2007 2:49 PM | Link to this
Ford Dealer Clearance www.volny.cz/forddealerFord Dealer Clearance www.volny.cz/forddealer ++ Ford Dealer Clearance www.volny.cz/forddealer ** Ford Dealer Clearance www.volny.cz/forddealer
By cars
April 1, 2007 6:29 AM | Link to this
Lexus Is350 Lexus Is350 [url=www.volny.cz/lexus350]Lexus Is350 [/url] www.volny.cz/lexus350 - Lexus Is350
By cars
April 2, 2007 5:42 AM | Link to this
Wholesale GM Parts [URL=www.volny.cz/gmparts]Wholesale GM Parts [/URL] Wholesale GM Parts - www.volny.cz/gmparts
By cars
April 2, 2007 3:31 PM | Link to this
GMC chicago [URL=www.volny.cz/gmcchicago]GMC chicago[/URL] www.volny.cz/gmcchicago - GMC chicago