Jump to content

Cbc/bbc And Anti-americanism


Recommended Posts

I did some quick searches on the BBC and CBC's 'Impartial' [suppressing laughter] 'news' sites. The BBC is applying for a domestic US broadcasting license and a bigger share of the US news market.

Frightening. Why Bush would allow this, is beyond my ken.

On the BBC site I found:

1) BBC's reporting of U.S. President George Bush's pledge of $15 billion to fight AIDS in Africa makes a good case study. Approximating as it does to four times the entire GDP of Zambia, one might expect that such a gigantic aid package would be reported positively. However, a search of the BBC's Web site reveals an altogether different picture.

>Of the articles that relate to the AIDS initiative, one reports President Bush's summer tour of five African countries, entitled: "Is the US Africa's friend or foe?" Within the piece its author remarks: "others saw ulterior motives behind Mr. Bush's visit. Some of the AIDS cash is dependent on deals with U.S. pharmaceutical companies, while others saw America's thirst for oil as the key motivation. Meanwhile the U.S. has refused to commit help to Liberia during [the] recent heavy conflict."

>This is one way that the BBC achieves "impartiality" -- countering positive, real news about the U.S. with hostile "quotes" ascribed to anonymous "sources" or rent-a-rant pressure groups.

The CBC adds 'The president's interest in the continent is a big change from his attitude during the 2000 presidential campaign, in which he called the continent a country and said the U.S. had no "national strategic interests" there.'

Again not adding that Canada does nothing on AIDS relief and has no pharma industry to produce an antidote to the disease. They side swipe Bush's package with belittling comments.

2) When the BBC reported how U.S. troops had unearthed in early May a mass grave containing the bodies of 15,000 Iraqi men, women and children murdered by Sadam Hussein's regime, the BBC's radio newscaster announced the discovery thus: "Human-rights groups have today criticized the U.S. military for failing to protect the site of a mass grave in Iraq." In other words, the BBC reported the inconsequential (invented?) anti-U.S. reaction as the main issue rather than the far more newsworthy event vindicating U.S. policy from which that reaction emanated.

The CBC adds: 'Some people who lost relatives told a CBC news crew that the world should be ashamed of itself for not doing anything to help protect them from a brutal dictatorship until now.' Again the CBC does not state that the war was moral, justified or a force for good, nor does it add details on the US efforts to secure the mass grave sites or the lack of Canadian efforts in anything to do with Iraq qua grave sites, security or military aid. It sticks on its front page to:

But that was not fast enough for George Bush, who maintained war was the only option. "Time is running out on Saddam Hussein… he must disarm. I'm sick and tired of games and deception," Bush said.

Even though the Bush administration has been caught in its own deceptions. The U.S. insisted it had proof Iraq was trying to buy uranium for a nuclear bomb, but the documents themselves were false.

There isn't a situation, event or initiative extolling conservative principles or institutions which the BBC or CBC does not actively seek to diminish, distort or alter completely through the inclusion of extraneous matter.

Impartial ? Surely you jest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the bbc covers more real news in a day then all the US networks combined.

whatever 'bias' you think the bbc has, it most likely just a product of its international perspective. if you think that US media is the norm, you are taking a self obsessed, rarely critical opinion. since when have you seen questions about the US funding terrorism by buying oil from saudi arabia seriously addressed on network news? i have never seen any national news source even suggest that maybe the US knew it was funded terrorism in saudi arabia, iraq, and afganistan. have you seen mainstream US news address the whole missing WMD issue? nope, forgotten. the lies and hype of Bush? nope.

so if you consider US to be fair or correct, your whole baseline of comparison is wrong.

what exactly are you comparing the BBC against?

certainly not what american "news" has become

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. The BBC and the CBC suffer from the same problems

a)zero accountability for bias-how do you fire a Crown corp?

b)zero repercussions when they're caught in their manipulation of the news[when was the last time you read a re-traction or apology from Neil McDonald or Andrew Gilligan?]

c) zero competition-the CRTC protects CBC from competition and until recently the BBC was also protected in a similar fashion...but Tony Blair has new plans for BBC and it ain't pretty-it's called Ofcam and BBC is fighting to be kept separate from this new regulatory body...developing story...

d) mucho in-breeding[he/she who warms the seat the longest gets promoted - as a result, these mediocre quota hires at CBC/BBC start believing they are good!]-what happened to merit hiring? do we need people with UN sounding last names to write the news? do they have better clarity of vision? will Quebec separate if there aren't 20% French Canadians in CBC news dept?

The CBC hired the largest AMERICAN PR firm to help them with damage control re: all the complaints they have received about their anti-Israel and anti-American bias. The CBC does not believe it is wrong or that it has to change it's ways. The CBC just believes it should re-package it's offensive message. This bloated corporation of otherwise unemployable artsy fartsy civil servants has an operating budget of $937 Million and they think they are really suffering because their budget has been trimmed from its former $1.07 Billion.

Media report about the CBC and BBC.

Both the CBC and the BBC have come under attack recently for having pronounced left wing biases. The BBC has taken steps to inquire into allegations of bias but not the CBC. The CBC’s solution to criticisms that were made against the corporation was to hire the public relations firm of Edelman Worldwide. Edelman was hired to help the people’s network with several problems including criticism about how the news is presented. CBC, under the anti-American Heritage Minister Sheila Copps, sees itself as defending Canadians against a cultural invasion from the Great Satan. That being said, it isn’t surprising that the network turned to the New York City based PR firm. Much like the staunch defenders of Canada’s health system who run to Boston or the Mayo Clinic whenever they get a headache, the CBC sees nothing inconsistent between its Canadian mission and hiring Americans when it’s in their interest to do so.The hiring of Edelman does seem appropriate--the firm has experience in handling disasters. Edleman worked for Exxon after the Valdez spill in the late 80s and was also retained by the City of New York after the terrorist attacks in 2001. And the CBC certainly qualifies as a disaster.

2. The Guardian is a long standing pillar of left wing media in the UK. But it's become steadily more offensive in its rabid anti-Isreal and anti-American reporting.

A popular columnist at the Guardian just announced her resignation in a painfully honest column a couple of weeks ago. She lets out the dirty secret about the Guardian's anti-Semitism and racist view of America. It's an interesting read, not that it will change the Guardian's posturing, because that mindset is too entrenched in the organization.

Julie Burchill reveals the Guardian's dirty secrets, Nov.29/03

As you might have heard, I'm leaving the Guardian next year for the Times, having finally been convinced that my evil populist philistinism has no place in a publication read by so many all-round, top-drawer plaster saints. (Well, that and the massive wad they've waved at me.)

Once there, I will compose as many love letters to the likes of Mr Murdoch and Pres Bush as my black little heart desires, leaving those who have always objected to my presence on such a fine liberal newspaper as this to read only writers they agree with, with no chance of spoiled digestion as the muesli goes down the wrong way if I so much as murmur about bringing back hanging. (Public.)

Not only do I admire the Guardian, I also find it fun to read, which in a way is more of a compliment. But if there is one issue that has made me feel less loyal to my newspaper over the past year, it has been what I, as a non-Jew, perceive to be a quite striking bias against the state of Israel. Which, for all its faults, is the only country in that barren region that you or I, or any feminist, atheist, homosexual or trade unionist, could bear to live under.

I find this hard to accept because, crucially, I don't swallow the modern liberal line that anti-Zionism is entirely different from anti-semitism; the first good, the other bad. Judeophobia - as the brilliant collection of essays A New Antisemitism?

Debating Judeophobia In 21st-Century Britain (axt.org.uk), published this year, points out - is a shape-shifting virus, as opposed to the straightforward stereotypical prejudice applied to other groups (Irish stupid, Japanese cruel, Germans humourless, etc). Jews historically have been blamed for everything we might disapprove of: they can be rabid revolutionaries, responsible for the might of the late Soviet empire, and the greediest of fat cats, enslaving the planet to the demands of international high finance. They are insular, cliquey and clannish, yet they worm their way into the highest positions of power in their adopted countries, changing their names and marrying Gentile women. They collectively possess a huge, slippery wealth that knows no boundaries - yet Israel is said to be an impoverished, lame-duck state, bleeding the west dry.

If you take into account the theory that Jews are responsible for everything nasty in the history of the world, and also the recent EU survey that found 60% of Europeans believe Israel is the biggest threat to peace in the world today (hmm, I must have missed all those rabbis telling their flocks to go out with bombs strapped to their bodies and blow up the nearest mosque), it's a short jump to reckoning that it was obviously a bloody good thing that the Nazis got rid of six million of the buggers.

Perhaps this is why sales of Mein Kampf are so buoyant, from the Middle Eastern bazaars unto the Edgware Road, and why The Protocols of The Elders of Zion could be found for sale at the recent Anti-racism Congress in Durban. T

he fact that many Gentiles and Arabs are rabidly Judeophobic, while many others are as horrified by Judeophobia as by any other type of racism, makes me believe that anti-semitism/Zionism is not a political position (otherwise the right and the left, the PLO and the KKK, would not be able to unite so uniquely in their hatred), but about how an individual feels about himself. I can't help noticing that, over the years, a disproportionate number of attractive, kind, clever people are drawn to Jews; those who express hostility to them, however, from Hitler to Hamza, are often as not repulsive freaks.

Judeophobia: where the political is personal, and the personal pretends to be political, and those swarthy/pallid/swotty/philistine/aggressive/ cowardly/comically bourgeois/filthy rich/delete-as-mood-takes-you bastards always get the girl.

I'll return to this dirty little secret masquerading as a moral stance next week and, rest assured, it'll get much nastier. As the darling Jews them-selves would say (annoyingly, but then, nobody's perfect), enjoy!

3. If anyone wants to read an excellent book about bias in the media, I highly recommend Coloring the News by Wm. McGowan.

He has a website to get a flavour for his book. Here's a couple of url's to his speeches. McGowan used to work for the BBC as well as American media.

Interview with MgGowan re: damage done by PC Journalism

McGowan's Remarks to the Pacific Research Institute

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morgan this is excellent. Some other good sources on the media bias would include books by Ann Coulter www.anncoulter.org, B. Goldberg 'Bias : A CBS Insider Exposes How the Media Distort the News' and research by the MRC http://www.mediaresearch.org/

Liberal bias includes massive distortions on US foreign policy - on every single issue the rapacity, corruption and illogic of American intention is covered in depth - never the rationales, morales, or good intentions of US policy makers.

The CBC fires up Canadian jingoism through smug self assuredness and elitist pronouncements on superiority.

Free riding, having no beliefs, appeasement, caving in to every liberal whim and fancy and now appeasing Muslims through Sharia adjudication does not a great country make.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Some other good sources on the media bias would include books by Ann Coulter...
Craig

Sorry I have to put this one in again because I can't quite believe it:

...Good Source ... Ann Coulter..."
?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??!?!?!?!?

Craig, Ann Coulter is a certified nut and lier. I don't dispute the CBC is open to criticism but that fact that you site her on media bias renders anything else you say on the matter irrelevent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

MC, nice, provide proof for your statements. Otherwise you have no credibility. Coulter actually sources her statements, provides good arguments and counter attackes liberal idiocy on every single issue -by repeating back to them their lies, deceptions and falsehoods. Do you source your comments, remain consistent and provide insight at her level ? I don't think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Witness more anti-Americanism from the Socialist CBC. Fresh off the press. These clowns kill me. First they say Hussein must be tried internationally - that the Iraqi's i guess are too stupid to figure out how to do it themselves, but of course the Iraqi's should 'govern themselves immediately' according to King Kofi and those wonderful democrats - the French. Which is it boys ???

Now part 2 in the anti-US story. I knew that the Liberal media would declare either the incarceration of Hussein as 1. Illegal or 2. A Hoax. CNN was doing its best on Wedn. night trying to convince US viewers [in the Paula Zahn show] that Hussein was never captured and that the man show on video is a double, that no one in Iraq believes he was captured and so on. I guess the Clinton News Network gets it editorial material from the CBC.

The CBC beat CNN by 2 days. What a waste of space it is.

From the NP - great editorial on the nonsense coverage of the 'trusted, connected and sadly Canadian' network:

All week, millions of people in Iraq have been celebrating Saddam's capture. So what footage did CBC reporter Nahlah Ayed show us to lead off the public TV network's broadcast? Why, an angry group of Saddam loyalists, of course. Ms. Ayed then told us that, aside from more violence, "Saddam's capture seemed to make little difference to what's become the everyday here." For good measure, she added later that the former dictator's capture is militarily meaningless and, therefore, Iraq "will likely continue to witness more bombings, more killings, and more injustice."

CBC viewers were then whisked off to Washington where reporter David Halton suggested Saddam's capture had caused U.S. President George W. Bush to lapse into a characteristically "gloating" oratorical style. In conclusion, Mr. Halton informed viewers that "what some Democrats worry about" -- i.e., what the CBC worries about -- "is a big show trial in the fall that will remind people of Saddam's atrocities just before the presidential vote."

From there, CBC viewers were taken to Kabul to get Afghans' take on Saddam's capture. Why Afghanistan? We haven't the foggiest -- except that the backdrop provided a convenient pretext to remind Canadians that, although Saddam is caught, Osama bin Laden -- who "many argue ... is far more dangerous than the former Iraqi leader" -- is still at large.

CBC viewers who hadn't already turned off their sets were later treated to an anti-American hit-job segment titled Skeletons in the Closet, in which reporter Brian Stewart focused on U.S. links with Saddam a generation ago. It was, in fact, France and the Soviet Union that supplied Saddam with most of his 1980s-era arsenal. Yet, oddly, the CBC piece focussed almost entirely on the United States as Saddam's friend. Go figure.

To summarize, here are the impressions a casual viewer might have taken from Monday night's CBC news: (1) Iraqis still love Saddam, and so his capture has only enraged them; (2) Despite Mr. Bush's "gloating," things will get worse; (3) Saddam's trial will be a propaganda trick engineered to re-elect a Republican president; (4) To the extent Saddam did anything bad, America was the real villain; and (5) Saddam's capture is meaningless anyway because Osama is still on the loose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Craig,

On many of my posts where I am trying to express an arguement I have provided links and sources for those who care to check.

In most cases those sources have either been unanswered or brushed off as Left wing this or that.

In this case I freely admit I am expressing an opinion, but one that is shared by many.

In my OPINION, Ann Coulter is one of two things or maybe both:

1) a complete nut, lier and total bimbo

2) Someone who is out to make money and will say anything to get air time and sell books.

She is dismissed by both the political right and left. There are many credible and intelligent conservative thinkers and it boggles the mind that you would site anything from this woman.

Check this exchange from Hardball with Chris Mathews re Hollywood and in this case a discussion on the film Patton:

COULTER: "...intended to make Patton look terrible, but it was accurate to history and it made Patton look great and people loved him. And that’s why they don’t do it accurately any more.

MATTHEWS: You are dead wrong. Everybody loved “Patton” from the first day it came out.

COULTER: But that isn’t the way it was intended.

MATTHEWS: I was in the Peace Corps in Africa and everybody over there loved it when we got to see it. From the first day we loved it.

CORN: How could you not love that movie from the opening scene?

MATTHEWS: He’s God-like. Ann, where do you get this malarkey from?

Everybody loved “Patton.” How old were you, when “Patton” came out. How old were you, two?

COULTER: I think you’re misunderstanding.

MATTHEWS: No, I think you’re wrong, Ann. I think everybody loved “Patton.”

COULTER: Can I respond?

MATTHEWS: Who didn’t like it?

COULTER: That is precisely my point, because it was made accurately.

But it was made, the people making it were intending to make Patton look bad.

MATTHEWS: Who did that?

COULTER: That is why George C. Scott turned down his Academy Award for playing Patton.

MATTHEWS: Who told you that? Who told you that?

COULTER: It’s well known.

MATTHEWS: It’s well known?

COULTER: Why do you think he didn’t accept the award?

CORN: Why did he take the role? Why did he take the role, Ann, if he didn’t want to do it?

COULTER: Why do you think he turned down the award, Chris? You never looked that up? It never occurred to you? “I wonder why George C. Scott didn’t accept his award.”

MATTHEWS: Because he said he wasn’t going to a meat parade, because he didn’t believe in award ceremonies because they’re all about women wearing no clothes and showing off their bodies...

COULTER: By portraying Patton as negatively as possible, but by doing it accurately the American people loved it.

MATTHEWS: Facts mean nothing to you, Ann.

MATTHEWS: I’m glad you are not making movies, Ann Coulter"

source: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3404637/

So here is a woman who is wrong about one of the most widely know stories in Hollywood. If she can't get something as simple as this right you expect me to believe she's credible on more complex subjects?

I'm laughing as I write this. Ann Coulter... total joke.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Witness more anti-Americanism from the Socialist CBC. Fresh off the press. These clowns kill me. First they say Hussein must be tried internationally - that the Iraqi's i guess are too stupid to figure out how to do it themselves, but of course the Iraqi's should 'govern themselves immediately' according to King Kofi and those wonderful democrats - the French. Which is it boys ???

Now part 2 in the anti-US story. I knew that the Liberal media would declare either the incarceration of Hussein as 1. Illegal or 2. A Hoax. CNN was doing its best on Wedn. night trying to convince US viewers [in the Paula Zahn show] that Hussein was never captured and that the man show on video is a double, that no one in Iraq believes he was captured and so on. I guess the Clinton News Network gets it editorial material from the CBC.

The CBC beat CNN by 2 days. What a waste of space it is.

From the NP - great editorial on the nonsense coverage of the 'trusted, connected and sadly Canadian' network:

All week, millions of people in Iraq have been celebrating Saddam's capture. So what footage did CBC reporter Nahlah Ayed show us to lead off the public TV network's broadcast? Why, an angry group of Saddam loyalists, of course. Ms. Ayed then told us that, aside from more violence, "Saddam's capture seemed to make little difference to what's become the everyday here." For good measure, she added later that the former dictator's capture is militarily meaningless and, therefore, Iraq "will likely continue to witness more bombings, more killings, and more injustice."

CBC viewers were then whisked off to Washington where reporter David Halton suggested Saddam's capture had caused U.S. President George W. Bush to lapse into a characteristically "gloating" oratorical style. In conclusion, Mr. Halton informed viewers that "what some Democrats worry about" -- i.e., what the CBC worries about -- "is a big show trial in the fall that will remind people of Saddam's atrocities just before the presidential vote."

From there, CBC viewers were taken to Kabul to get Afghans' take on Saddam's capture. Why Afghanistan? We haven't the foggiest -- except that the backdrop provided a convenient pretext to remind Canadians that, although Saddam is caught, Osama bin Laden -- who "many argue ... is far more dangerous than the former Iraqi leader" -- is still at large.

CBC viewers who hadn't already turned off their sets were later treated to an anti-American hit-job segment titled Skeletons in the Closet, in which reporter Brian Stewart focused on U.S. links with Saddam a generation ago. It was, in fact, France and the Soviet Union that supplied Saddam with most of his 1980s-era arsenal. Yet, oddly, the CBC piece focussed almost entirely on the United States as Saddam's friend. Go figure.

To summarize, here are the impressions a casual viewer might have taken from Monday night's CBC news: (1) Iraqis still love Saddam, and so his capture has only enraged them; (2) Despite Mr. Bush's "gloating," things will get worse; (3) Saddam's trial will be a propaganda trick engineered to re-elect a Republican president; (4) To the extent Saddam did anything bad, America was the real villain; and (5) Saddam's capture is meaningless anyway because Osama is still on the loose.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I like her and here is why - Dec 19th 2003 - she attacks as she usually and artfully does - the idiocy, anti-Americanism and unsourced claims of the NY Times. Like I said before i think CNN and the NY Times get their editorial cues from the BBC-CBC complex.

Did you read the quote about the CBC and Iraq btw ? Rather disturbing isn't it ?

In 24 months Bush has perceptibly degraded terrorist operations around the world.  The rebuilding of Iraq is going better than could possibly be expected.  LIberals don't care.  They just want to turn everything over to the French.....

NY Times on Sunday;  'A Baghdad Neighbourhood, Once Hopeful now reels as Iraq's turmoil persists', 'Saboteurs, Looters and Old Equipment work against efforts to restart Iraqi Oil Fields', 'It is going to be a bloody Christmans', 'Dean strives for a nuanced approach to foreign policy'. 

The NY Times has not looked this foolish...well, i guess since the day before.  Liberals should perk up.  It is not all bad news.  True Saddam Hussein has been captured, but Norman Mineta is still at large.

Good points raised here.

1. NY Times' incredibly anti-US editorial stance has been proven wrong almost daily by events in Iraq. Where is the balanced reporting ? Instead of showing the positive aspects of this liberation and there are many - it is all doom and gloom with the NYT.

2. Liberals and internationalism - hey listen and listen close - The French, Germans and Russians ARE NOT your friends. They don't give a monkey's ass about the US or Canada - only about their world position, their trade balances and levelling the playing field through higher international taxes ie. Kyoto.

3. The Liberal media plays Saddam's capture as; a hoax, an irrelevancy; or illegal. This is after 9 months of whining 'where is Saddam?' When Bin Laden is confirmed dead, we will the witness the same response over Tiny's tiny remains.

4. Dean is 'nuanced'. A classic Liberal argument. What the hell is nuanced about NOT fighting terror, abdicating national security concerns to the UNO and criticising a successful military campaign ? This is not nuanced, - it is stupid.

Media bias. Very dangerous and quite unhealthy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Catch this. The Bush Admin. is planning a direct news feed from Iraq to USA markets. This approach is intended to bypass the biased alphabet channels "interpretive" news reports about the Iraq war and re-construction. Understandably, the alphabet channels executives are "appalled", journalistic nazis that they are.

Too bad Bush couldn't do the same for Canadian markets so as to bypass Pravda Broadcasting Corp. yuk, yuk

Iraq news feed draws criticism from local media, Dec.19/03 Boston Globe

News executives of most Boston television stations are decidedly unenthusiastic about a Bush administration plan to transmit news footage from Iraq for local TV outlets in an attempt to supplement media coverage from that war-torn country.The satellite link, dubbed "C-SPAN Baghdad," is designed to put a more positive spin on events and circumvent the major networks by making it possible for press conferences, interviews with troops and dignitaries, and even footage from the field to be transmitted from Iraq for use by regional and local media outlets, according to news accounts."I'm kind of appalled by it. I think it's very troubling," said Charles Kravetz, vice president of news at the regional cable news outlet NECN. "I think the government has no business being in the news business."

2. I agree, Craig, that Ann Coulter is a very smart, articulate lady. Left wingers can't abide by her intelligent, on-the-fall repartees that's in the same package as good looks. Moderate Centrist says:

She is dismissed by both the political right and left.
There you go. The Left despises Coulter for no reason but for the fact that she exposes their foibles and their phony icons in no uncertain terms. Her latest book about Mccarthyism demonstrates her research skills and her courage to challenge the Left's mantra, which was that McCarthy was evil and he carried on witch hunts against innocent people. Modern Centrist, who I'll bet has not read Coulter's book, nonetheless calls it "mindless garbage" because Chris Matthews doesn't like Coulter.

Here's a non-Chris Matthews review about Coulter's book,Treason.

Townhall book review of Treason.

Btw, Modern Centrist, Chris Matthews worked in the White House under the Jimmy Carter Admin. What does that tell you? IMHO, Matthews is the evil twin of Phil O'Donahue's.

Coulter is very blunt...no pc thought police controlling Coulter's brain, and that's "intolerable" for good liberals. I've seen her make mincemeat of some Democrat stooges...Alan Combs comes to mind. As I recall she has a law degree from Harvard but she doesn't practice law. Another bright gal is Laura Ingram, a lawyer and talk show host. If you can get to hear her program via streaming audio, it's well worth the time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Her latest book about Mccarthyism demonstrates her research skills and her courage to challenge the Left's mantra, which was that McCarthy was evil and he carried on witch hunts against innocent people.
Morgan

Well that fact that she is trying to rehabilitate McCarthy again goes to show that

1) she knows how to pick a subject that will make her money

2) she has mush for brains.

McCarthy is universally acknowledged as an alcoholic jackass who "couldn't find a communist in red square".

He was detested by Eisenhower ( who was hesitant to take him on publically):

"Eisenhower loathed McCarthy and the ruthless tactics of his communist witch hunt. He considered the senator to be a hate-filled, power-hungry thug who would go to any lengths for publicity."
Source:http://www.nps.gov/eise/5accomp4.htm

Richard Nixon later sought to distance himself considerably from McCarthy in his later career as well.

The man left a black mark on the republican party.

And we all know how he ended up:

"The Senate voted 65 to 22 on December 2, 1954 condemned McCarthy for "conduct that tends to bring the Senate into dishonor and disrepute."
source:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_McCarthy#Fall_of_McCarthy

And how about this famous quote which sums up my, and millions of others thoughts about this goof:

"At long last, have you left no sense of decency"
source:http://www.webcorp.com/mccarthy/mccarthypage.htm

And back to Coulter:

"...Ann Coulter is a very smart, articulate lady. Left wingers can't abide by her intelligent...
Morgan

Again I'm laughing as I write this. I'm not sure if you guys are serious or just trying to get my goat. Anyway:

"We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."
Ann Coulter source:http://www.nationalreview.com/coulter/coulter091301.shtml

This is intelligent?!?

The next thing you'll be praising the virtues of the John Birch society

"Btw, Modern Centrist, Chris Matthews worked in the White House under the Jimmy Carter Admin. What does that tell you? IMHO, Matthews is the evil twin of Phil O'Donahue's."
Morgan

Let me see if I understand you.  Are you seriously suggesting that Chris Mathews of hardball is part of the liberal media?  Is that what you're saying? 

And back to Mathews, if Coulter is so smart how come she couldn't get something as simple as George C. Scott's Oscar rejection right?

As for her material - I took a stab at Treason... like I said mindless garbage.

"Here's a non-Chris Matthews review about Coulter's book,Treason.

Townhall book review of Treason."

Morgan

Wow what a hard hitting in depth book review. The democrats lost lost the cold war eh? If memory serves Cuba went communist under Eisenhower and Nixon, (whom is my pick as a real leader in Foreign Policy) withdrew from Vietnam.

You and your reviewer seem to forget Nixon was the first US president to acknowledge China and pursue a policy of peace with the Communist world.

One other thing on your "non-Mathews" reviewer...

"Anastazia M. E. Skolnitsky is a STUDENT at George Mason University in Virginia, where she is studying international politics and history."
http://www.townhall.com/bookclub/coulter.html

Her expertise in international relations and American Foreign policy certainly shine through.

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ModerateCentrist said:

McCarthy is universally acknowledged as an alcoholic jackass who "couldn't find a communist in red square".

Your obtuse comments demonstrate that Coulter is right. In the past 50 years, the Left wing has done such a good job revising historical fact that people like you have been brain washed by school educators to believe McCarthy's concerns had no substance.

The declassification of the NSA's Venona Papers in 1995 should have served to vindicate McCarthy were their existence better publicized:

Introduction to the VENONA Project by Mr. William P. Crowell, Former Deputy Director, National Security Agency

In July 1995 the Intelligence Community ended a 50-year silence regarding one of cryptology's most splendid successes - the VENONA Project. VENONA was the codename used for the U.S. Signals Intelligence effort to collect and decrypt the text of Soviet KGB and GRU messages from the 1940's. These messages provided extraordinary insight into Soviet attempts to infiltrate the highest levels of the United States Goverment.

Guess you never heard about the Venona Project, certainly CBC and Macleans did not make a big deal about it.

If you don't believe the NSA site, [bush propaganda machine, in your mind, no doubt]you might want to borrow the following book from your public library, which is written by 2 respected US historians, John Haynes and Harvey Klehr, entitled Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America. John Earl Haynes is a 20th Century Political Historian, Library of Congress. Harvey Klehr is Andrew W. Mellon Professor of Politics and History at Emory University.

I'll make it easy for you, here are the reviews from Amazon:

Amazon blurbs about Venona book

Harry Truman may have even known about the infiltration of KGB agents into his government:

The Origins of McCarthyism, Robert Novak, Weekly Standard, June 30/03

So for you to claim that Coulter, a Harvard graduate lawyer, is just "rehabilitating" McCarthy to make money or because her brain is made of mush, reflects poorly on your own lack of knowledge with regards to historical fact.

Couter is opinionated and often uses hyperbole and satire to make her points, I'll grant you that, but to say her brain is mush is a sad reflection on your judgement.

As for your comment:

Are you seriously suggesting that Chris Mathews of hardball is part of the liberal media?  Is that what you're saying? 

You bet, that's what I'm saying. Chris Matthews is a loudmouth liberal ignoramous hiding in "tough man" sheep's clothing. Matthews worked for Jimmy Carter for 4 years...good grief. And so what if Anastazia M. E. Skolnitsky is a poli sci STUDENT? Does that make her incapable of reviewing the content of Coulter's book? Ms. Skolnitsky is probably a 150% more intellectually "able" to critique Coulter's ideas than Chris Matthews, whom you obviously think is such a genius. Fyi, Skolnitsky is on a MERIT BASED $10,000 renewable scholarship at George Mason University, no small feat. She's a sophomore on the Dean's list and she has worked for the Mercatus Center, an economic think tank, and the Institute for Humane Studies, and has participated in programs offered by the Heritage Foundation and Clare Booth Luce Policy Institute. She also was an intern for Reuters Television in Washington, D.C. Maybe you should show a little more respect for Ms. Skolnitsky's intellectual abilities, Moderate Centrist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Your obtuse comments demonstrate that Coulter is right. In the past 50 years, the Left wing has done such a good job revising historical fact that people like you have been brain washed by school educators to believe McCarthy's concerns had no substance."
Morgan

Who said they had no substance? There is no doubt the Soviet Union was trying to plant spies in the American and many other western governments and some were sucessfully caught to prove it. This is not in dispute and I make no such claims to dispute it.

I'm speaking specifically of McCarthy and his tactics. The man was a clown and accomplished little or nothing on his four year rampage.

Although Nixon wouldn't come out and harshly condemn him the way many others had he made the point that McCarthy hurt the anti-communist cause as a whole because he went too far.

"So for you to claim that Coulter, a Harvard graduate lawyer, is just "rehabilitating" McCarthy to make money or because her brain is made of mush, reflects poorly on your own lack of knowledge with regards to historical fact."
Morgan

My knowledge of historical fact is in pretty good shape. I'm not attacking the fact that the USSR was an expansive power using subversive means to achieve it's ends.

If Coulter had come out and said the threat from Communist Russia was more serious than the left is led to belief I would have nothing to say on the matter.

She did not do this. She's taking a man who has been throughly discredited for good reason and trying to make him sound like some kind of godsend.

"Couter is opinionated and often uses hyperbole and satire to make her points, I'll grant you that, but to say her brain is mush is a sad reflection on your judgement.
Morgan

I'm not telling you or anyone else who to listen to or that to like her is wrong.

I'm saying Coulter is a joke, has the mentality of a two year old, is only on T.V. to feed its' ever growing need for sensationalism and that I have little or no use for her point of view.

When someone asks me what I think of her I tell them not much. When someone says they consider Coulter to offer a balanced intelligent view of anything it makes me wonder.

As for Chris Mathew, I don't think he's a genius and I would appreciate it if you and your buddies would quit putting words in people's mouths and quit expressing their points of view for them.

If you want to know what I think of a subject ask me a direct question if it is not clear in the post.

As for Skolnitsky, I did not say she wasn't capable of reviewing a book. I thought the quality of the review was in question.

Quite Frankly I think Mathews with over 30 years experience might be a little more credible than a university student yes.

And so what if she went to Harvard? I thought you Right Wing types didn't like the intellectual elite?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Chris Matthews is a dull witted, loud mouthed buffoon. The only people who watch him(apart from you) are the SNL crew, for material on their next show.

2. You say:

I would appreciate it if you and your buddies would quit putting words in people's mouths and quit expressing their points of view for them

But further on you do the same thing to me:

And so what if she went to Harvard? I thought you Right Wing types didn't like the intellectual elite?

Well, I'd appreciate it if you Left Wing types wouldn't claim to know what I think about intellect, thank you very much. I value intellect and I value a college education. I have 2 degrees myself. I value smarts. So Coulter and Skolnitsky are people I respect.Ann Coulter graduated cum laude from Harvard despite her conservative opinions. Similarly, Anastazia M. E. Skolnitsky is on the Dean's list at George Mason U. despite threats by liberal professors to lower her grades for her activism on behalf of freedom of speech and religious freedom.

What I don't value are pseudo-intellects like Peter Jennings, or Maureen Dowd, Paul Krugman, or Nicholas DeGenova, to name a few.

3. You say:

She's taking a man who has been throughly discredited for good reason and trying to make him sound like some kind of godsend.

Here's what Coulter was doing...she was trying to bring to light new historical material that's become available from the Soviet Union's archives and from de-classified National Security Agency to show that McCarthy was unfairly demonized. If that's what you think is the equivalent of making McCarthy seem like a "godsend" ...I don't think so.

Her point is that McCarthy was "discredited" for things he didn't even do or for the way he went about his investigation. Many of the things commonly associated with McCarthy are false. The House Un-American Activities Committee conducted most of the probes into Hollywood politics and undertook university blacklisting. McCarthy was a Senator and he had nothing to do with HUAC. McCarthy was a jerk, but he was right for the most part.

Two cheers for McCarthyism" Jonah Goldberg Feb.26/03.

Senator Joe McCarthy was a lout, generally speaking. But he was on the right side of history and, in a broad sense, of morality as well.What is a matter of fact — unmitigated, irrefutable, undeniable fact — is that there were hundreds of Communists working for Moscow, directly or indirectly, in the United States during the Roosevelt and Truman administrations. The Rosenbergs were guilty and got what they deserved. Alger Hiss too. Victor Perlo, Judith Coplon, Morton Sobell, William Perl, Alfred Sarant, Joel Barr, and Harry Gold were all either pawns or lackeys of a foreign and evil foe. We know the Hollywood Ten were all Communists, but what else they were we can't know for sure, because they believed taking the Fifth was more important than protecting the country (and if you think it's unfair to cavalierly call people who devotedly followed the Moscow line for all their adult lives "Communists," I sure hope you don't ever call, say, President Bush a "fascist" on the basis of no evidence at all). The American Communist Party (CP-USA) was in fact a Soviet franchise.

In other words, you are free to describe McCarthyism as a witchhunt if and only if you are willing to concede that actual witches existed in our midst. The evidence — from declassified Venona transcripts, Soviet archives, memoirs, etc. — is still mounting, but what we have so far is plenty in itself. In 1996, Nicholas Von Hoffman wrote an essay for the Washington Post that caused no small amount of hysteria on the American Left, which has been milking its myths and denial for decades. Yet, as Hoffman reluctantly conceded, these assessments were in turn lies, myths, and carefully constructed distortions. The reality was that "in a global sense McCarthy was on to something. McCarthy may have exaggerated the scope of the problem but not by much… The Age of McCarthyism, it turns out, was not the simple witch hunt of the innocent by the malevolent as two generations of high school and college students have been taught."

4. You say:

If Coulter had come out and said the threat from Communist Russia was more serious than the left is led to belief I would have nothing to say on the matter.

Coulter's point is that today there are "enemies" within like there were in the past. She had to debunk the Left's myths about McCarthy because it's central to her premise that today, like before in WWII, there are enemies within who are working against America's best interests [ACLU? DNC? media?]or worse, are seeking to do harm to America[Al Queda cells]. It's these very people who howl "McCarthy witch-hunt" when they are revealed, as many did in the 1950's and were later found out to be, in fact, "witches." The KGB had penetrated the US government, in fact may still be in the US gov't, Truman may have purposely ignored the security breach, and you still say McCarthy was a "clown?" Critics of McCarthy say far more outrageous things about McCarthy then he said about others.

Btw, did you know that McCarthy started out as a Democrat? Did you know that Robert Kennedy was an aide to McCarthy and that McCarthy was a godfather to one of Ethel Kennedy's children? JFK could not bring himself to condemn McCarthy because he knew that much that the Left was saying about McCarthy were lies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't regularily watch Chris Mathews but do catch the show from time to time and am aware of his guests.

Well I'm not left wing. Perhaps you are not right wing but more to the centre.

"Did you know that Robert Kennedy was an aide to McCarthy and that McCarthy was a godfather to one of Ethel Kennedy's children? JFK could not bring himself to condemn McCarthy because he knew that much that the Left was saying about McCarthy were lies."
Morgan

I'm well aware of Robert Kennedy's involvement I've seen the tapes. I doubt a man like JFK (who's team and even himself were known for hardball politics) did not condemn McCarthy for the reasons you stated. Possible but I doubt it.

Well how about Coulter's quote on "killing their leaders and converting them to Christianity" do you agree with this sentiment?

It could be interpretted as hate speech by some.

What are you thoughts on it?

Regardless of Coulter's arguements a lot of innocent people were harassed for no good reasons and a lot of time, money and resources were wasted.

I don't want to see this kind of thinking invade American or Canadian culture today.

I oppose any move that gives the government the ability to arbitrarily start suspecting the innocent.

This was what happened during that era and some feel we are getting close to that again - hence the proposed Biometric Card for Canadians.

Finally on Coulter:

"Ann Coulter graduated cum laude from Harvard..."

Morgan

I was not able to verify this. I did find the following information:

"A graduate of Cornell University and the University of Michigan Law School,..."
source:http://conservativechronicle.com/columnists/coulter.htm

If she did graduate from Harvard can you provide a source link?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Ann Coulter graduated from Cornell, not Harvard, mea culpa, but both are Ivy League colleges and substantiate my point that Coulter is a very smart lady. How does my oversight excuse or vindicate your comments about Coulter having a brain of "mush?" You also stated Coulter is "a joke, has the mentality of a two year old." And your ultimate coup de gras to reveal Coulter's lack of intelligence was[laughably]:

"if Coulter is so smart how come she couldn't get something as simple as George C. Scott's Oscar rejection right?" I'm sure many Mensa folks would be stumped by the George C. Scott question.

2. If you see yourself as centrist, then indeed, I am centrist too.

3. JFK admired McCarthy, according to Dallek, the author of "Unfinished life":

"Dallek reminds readers how stridently anti-communist the young Kennedy was. In Congress, Kennedy joined with Republicans in arguing that the loss of China "rests squarely with the White House and the Department of State." He said he valued Joe McCarthy's "energy, intelligence and political skill" and thought that McCarthy was "onto something" in his charges of communist infiltration. "

4. You said:

"Well how about Coulter's quote on "killing their leaders and converting them to Christianity" do you agree with this sentiment? It could be interpretted as hate speech by some.What are you thoughts on it?"

First off, I don't see Coulter's hyperbolic, tongue-in-cheek, in your face comments as "hate speech." How absurd! But no doubt, many a dour-faced, humourless, self-righteous liberal sees them as "hate speech." The left wing's main goal in life is that we all become more sensitive. As usual mark Steyn says it best :

Mark Steyn on post 9/11 sensitivity

5. Btw, here's the full text article, from which you took Coulter's comments:This is war, Ann Coulter Sept.13/01 Nat'l Review:

We know who the homicidal maniacs are. They are the ones cheering and dancing right now. We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren't punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That's war. And this is war.

Coulter lost a friend, Barbara Olsen, wife of Solicitor General Ted Olsen, on one of the downed 9/11 planes, not that anyone cares.

6. Here's Ann Coulter's admission of her liberal-baiting:I love to pick fights with Liberals, Telegraph 7/19/02

"Coulter is no idiot and few would describe her as pedestrian. With an Ivy League degree from Cornell, she went to law school before joining a corporate practice and working as legal counsel for the Senate Judiciary Committee. Coulter's approach is not so much take no prisoners as capture one's opponents, string them up with piano wire, machine-gun them until all movement has ceased and then fire a celebratory volley into the air. "No, I have thought many times that I was being too circumspect and that I should have cut loose a little more," she chuckles. "Obviously, I engage in a lot of invective."But liberals can't tell the difference between invective that's true and invective that isn't true. My invective is backed up in my book with 35 pages of footnotes and examples. They just lie when they call people things."She admits she is deliberately provocative. "Normally, when I write columns I am specifically baiting liberals and I know exactly which line they are going to scream blue murder about."

7. Not that the same people would see anything wrong with "intemperate comments" by their "sensitive" left wing comrades-in-arms:

a)Bill Maher

"During his return show, Maher agreed with one of his panelists that calling the terrorists "cowards" was inaccurate because they had been willing to die for a cause they believed in. He went on to say, "We have been the cowards, lobbing cruise missiles from 2,000 miles away; that's cowardly."

b)Michael Moore

"To me, al-Queda is a men's club. To have the world's only superpower at war with a men's club is a little ridiculous."

c) Harry Belafonte

"I not only think that they (U.S. leaders) are misguided, but I think they know exactly what they are doing and I think that they are men who are possessed of evil."

d)Sandra Bernhard

"The real terrorist threats are George W. Bush and his band of brown-shirted thugs."

e)David Clennon, actor in The Agency

"I'm saying that the moral climate within the ruling class in this country is not that different from the moral climate within the ruling class of Hitler's Germany." I'm not comparing Bush to Adolf Hitler - because George Bush, for one thing, is not as smart as Adolf Hitler. And secondly George Bush has much more power than Adolf Hitler ever had." I'm saying that we (Americans) have sunk pretty low and I'm saying that you can look at the moral climate in Germany in 1933. We have to ask ourselves if we found ourselves in Nazi Germany, what would we do. Now I say, let the inspection process take its course."

f)Tom Cruise

"I think the U.S. is terrifying and it saddens me.Unfortunately we're in a position where people are so irresponsible that human life holds so little value to them."

g)Janeane Garofalo

"When Communist U.S.S.R. was a superpower, the world was better off."

h) Richard Gere

"In a situation like this, of course you identify with everyone who's suffering. (But we must also think about) the terrorists who are creating such horrible future lives for themselves because of the negativity of this karma. It's all of our jobs to keep our minds as expansive as possible. If you can see (the terrorists) as a relative who's dangerously sick and we have to give them medicine, and the medicine is love and compassion. There's nothing better."

i)Woody Harrelson

"This is a racist and imperialist war. The warmongers who stole the White House (you call them "hawks", but I would never disparage such a fine bird) have hijacked a nation's grief and turned it into a perpetual war on any non-white country they choose to describe as terrorist.The war against terrorism is terrorism. The whole thing is just bullsh*t."

j)Chrissie Hynde

"Have we gone to war yet? We f****** deserve to get bombed. Bring it on."Let's get rid of all the economic (expletive) this country represents! Bring it on, I hope the Muslims win!"

k) Norman Mailer

"Americans can't admit that you need courage to do such a thing. For that might be misunderstood. The key thing is that we in America are convinced that it was blind, mad fanatics who didn't know what they were doing. But what if those perpetrators were right and we were not? We have long ago lost the capability to take a calm look at the enormity of our enemy's position."

l)Michael Moore, again

"Many families have been devastated tonight. This just is not right. They did not deserve to die. If someone did this to get back at Bush, then they did so by killing thousands of people who DID NOT VOTE for him! Boston, New York, DC, and the planes' destination of California--these were places that voted AGAINST Bush!"

AND

"The passengers were scaredy-cats because they were mostly white. If the passengers had included black men those killers, with their puny bodies and unimpressive small knives, would have been crushed by the dudes."

m)Viggo Mortensen [Lord of the Rings]

"Since 9-11, more people have died in Afghanistan and Iraq than in New York that day — and for not a very good reason."

n)Sean Penn

"I think that people like the Howard Sterns, the Bill O'Reillys and to a lesser degree the bin Ladens of the world are making a horrible contribution."

o)Kevin Richardson[backstreet Boy]

"I just think we are a little bit of an arrogant nation and maybe this is a little bit of a humbling experience ... what has our government done to provoke (9/11) that we don't know about?"

p)Oliver Stone

"They control culture. They control ideas. And I think the revolt of September 11th was about ‘F-- you! F-- your order."

q)Robin Williams

"We have a president for whom English is a second language. He's like 'We have to get rid of dictators,' but he's pretty much one himself."

r)Ken Livingstone, the Mayor of London

"I actually think that Bush is the greatest threat to life on this planet that we've most probably ever seen. The policies he is initiating will doom us to extinction."

s)Jim Moran Democrat Congressman-Virginia

"If it were not for the strong support of the Jewish community for this war with Iraq, we would not be doing this"

t) Nicholas de Genova, Columbia U. anthroplogy professor

"Peace is not patriotic. Peace is subversive, because peace anticipates a very different world than the one in which we live – a world where the U.S. would have no place.The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military. I personally would like to see a million Mogadishus." u) Eric Foner, Head of Columbia U's History Dept.

"I'm not sure which is more frightening: the horror that engulfed New York City or the apocalyptic rhetoric emanating daily from the White House."

Sources:

Moment of truth by David Horowitz.

Celebrities discuss the War on Terrorism.

8. If you want to get a glimpse of what's truely offensive,said in all seriousness and supported by your taxpaying $'s, read the following:

a) the article "Shame on CBC" by Norman Spector

CBC's Mideast coverage is amoral, irresponsible and rife with double standards Jan.08/02 originally in Nat'l Post.

or

B)a new book entitled, Hidden Agendas: How Journalists Influence the News by Lydia Miljan and Barry Cooper

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morgan,

This comes down opinions as we both know. I do not and never will take Ann Coulter seriously. She has nothing to offer me.

"Here's Ann Coulter's admission of her liberal-baiting:I love to pick fights with Liberals, Telegraph 7/19/02"

Well that's fine but it really turns me off. I'm not interested in people who's sole reason for speaking is to pick fights with other people rather than offering something constructive. I want to hear from people who have serious arguments to make and present them maturely.

Sure maybe her approach may be tongue and cheek. Which in my opinion is all the more reason not to listen to her.

As for her comments on killing and Christian conversion it's not that far a stretch to call it hate speech. If it's not then what is? Regardless of what she meant there are many out there that took it that way.

Let say it was not hate speech it's still ranting. It certainly is not an intelligent basis for foreign policy. President Bush, nor any leader, would never take such a position.

I'm well aware that JKF was an anti-communist( a fact over-looked by conspiracy buffs). I merely hold that Kennedy was probably using McCarthy to get into power and had no personal loyalty to the man.

Ann Coulter and her ilk are the best friends the left ever had.

As for:

Bill Maher, Michael Moore, Sandra Bernhard, David Clennon, Tom Cruise, Richard Gere, etc. etc.

None of these people are serious thinkers, have anything insightful to say on foreign policy and lack any kind of serious credentials to intelligently speak on anything outside they're celebrity filled worlds. They're opinions , (I would say like Coulters') are not worth mentioning or listening to.

I have no sympathy or use for Right Wingers ( I feel the same about left wingers) and Coulter fits that bill.

Consider Richard Nixon’s comments on the John Birch Society taken from a September 7, 1983 interview with Frank Gannon:

Gannon: "Did you ever support the John Birch Society and/or do you--do you feel that it did any good or does any good today?”
Nixon: "Well, far from supporting it, I would say that I was perhaps its most effective opponent… I mean, you could just hear them crackling there in the head. They were SCARY… they've done more HARM than they've done good, because they OVERSTATE, like MCCARTHY who OVERSTATED his case…when he went so far as to say they're--there were sixty-one card-carrying Communists, he overstated it, and as a result that cleared the rest of them as well. And so it is with the John Birch Society. They give sort of a KOOKY feeling to the responsible conservatives--responsible hawks--and that DOESN’T HELP us at all.”
Source: http://www.libs.uga.edu/media/collections/.../nixonday9.html

Here we see the essential problem with the Coulter’s, the Limbaugh’s, the Birchers and the McCarthy’s – sensationalism. In Coulter’s and Limbaugh’s case sensationalism with no purpose other than to be sensational.

They shoot their mouths off non-stop and as a result any valid conservative critique is lost. All conservatives become painted with the same brush and the bulk of the population who doesn’t know the difference between conservative and liberal anyway is further turned off.

I would say the same is true of people like Michael Moore who in trying to criticize the Bush Administration make jokes instead and render anything useful they may have to say on the subject invalid.

Coulter maintains that Liberals lie about Everything, that they are All Bad and that they are Traitors. How could you expect me to take anyone seriously (maybe you don’t expect me to take her seriously?) who makes comments like that?

The other thing to remember is that yes media bias exists and is not going away… period. People expect too much from the media, honesty, intelligence, presenting topics from their point of view.

The very fact that people call for the media to have a point of view shows they aren’t concerned about bias itself but rather want bias to work for them.

Fox news is the conservative flagship in the States. They are no more honest or have no more integrity than their left wing(if you want to call them that) counter parts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ModerateCentrist,

It's become obvious to me that you don't like Coulter, Limbaugh, FOX News because they represent conservative viewpoints. Period. It has nothing to do do with whether or not their points of view are valid or not. It's that they're conservative and you don't like that mindset.

You wish that Limbaugh and Coulter have a negative effect on the general public , but you're wrong. They challenge the re-hashed liberal mantras of snot nosed left wing twits like Peter Jennings;they poke holes in lies of the NYT and LAT[and yes, Virginia, the left lie like rugs]; they energize voters to feel their votes count and that a socialist buffoon like "Red" Davis can be booted out of office. It's FOX News channel that has reminded Americans that is okay to be patriotic and to cheer for American GI's in a war.

CBC is a third rate broadcasting system. The CRTC has to protect its pathetic sagging ratings from totally tanking by not allowing FOX News to be broadcast in Canada. How do you like living in a totalitarian run country?

You want to know what I think is an example of "hate speech?"[a left wing term that I personally can only sneer at most of the time]... Listen up.

Peace is not patriotic. Peace is subversive, because peace anticipates a very different world than the one in which we live – a world where the U.S. would have no place.The only true heroes are those who find ways that help defeat the U.S. military. I personally would like to see a million Mogadishus."

Nicholas de Genova, Columbia U. anthropology professor, campus teach-in, March, 2003

This "elite" spokes person didn't even lose his job. The President of Columbia said it was an example of "free speech."

So until left wing low lifes like this professor start paying consequences for their dispicable words, Coulter can say whatever she likes. It's "free speech" don't you know?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Morgan,

I have nothing against the conservative viewpoint and consider myself to be moderately conservative for reasons I've explained on other posts.

You seem to be interpreting my dislike of these clowns as a defense of the extreme left which it isn't.

I seek out the best in both viewpoints. There are liers on both the left and right. There is good and bad in both the left and right. Left and Right cover an extremely large area of viewpoints. Any rational person knows you can't claim one side is all bad.

If you claim the left is ALL BAD then please don't make statements like this:

"If you see yourself as centrist, then indeed, I am centrist too."
Morgan

I say this because to me the left is far from ALL GOOD - there are unquestionable faults there.

It all comes down to perspective. To me Coulter is a nut but it's perfectly alright for you to like her.

To me the CBC is an OK source for news. To say it's third rate is an opinion that you are free to hold.

I'm aware of what free speech is.

This professor's rant is certainly bizarre to say the least.

I'll grant you the following:

I'll concede that this is hate speech if you concede that Coulter's rant on killing and Christian conversion were hate speech.

Do we have a deal?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Mod hates the following facts:

1. Liberal blowhards have been proven wrong on about every issue from Kyoto [socialist world governance !!], to Iraq.

2. Coulter and Matthews and others use the Liberals own printed and stated words and rationales against them. Nothing pisses off a Lib more than having their inanity served back to them as crow. The long list of Liberal idiocies on Kyoto, Iraq and other international issues, not to mention economics, fills entire volumes of Conservative books.

3. Conservative radio and books sales outpace Liberal ones by about 4:1. This is no coincidence. Only the arrogant feminized elite can bother to read the palaver by such 'sages' as Naomi Klein - who don't bother to research or source their rants and who have never worked in the real world and who for the most part are on public payroll and get their books published on public grant money. The mass of the US electorate knows garbage when they hear it - this is another reason why Fox News is bounding up the viewer rankings - people are just plainly tired of listening to the Clinton News Networks anti-America program.

4. Read Goldberg's book 'A CBS Insider' - even as a pink liberal you should read it - why ?

Goldberg is respected 28-year CBS veteran AND a confirmed LIBERAL. He just states how reporter's and editor's personal biases influence how they report and present the news.

The incredible, venom-filled overreaction by CBS to Mr. Goldberg's initial (and rather mild) whistle-blowing article in 1996 truly indicates he'd struck a nerve and exposed an uncomfortable truth. It is not without irony that the network that introduced America to corporate whistle-blowing (via "60 Minutes") couldn't handle the lens being turned on itself.

Amen. The Libs hate it when you point out their lies, inconsistencies and stupidities.

But then again, these are the people that are pro-Socialist, loved Communism [Russians loved their children too!], are angry Hussein has tongue depressors in his mouth [Geneva violation!], concerned that France is sulking [they after all are the great guardians of freedom!], and wonder why Baghdad has not been rebuilt yet into Bel Air.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Mod hates the following facts"
Craig

Please explain how you determine what I do and/or do not hate as I've never used the word hate on any of the topics you mentioned. Are you psychic or something?

While you're at it here's some more Coulter wisdom:

""In contemplating college liberals, you really regret, once again, that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to Physically intimidate liberals by making them realize that they could be killed, too."
source:http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=1625

I took this quote from what you probably consider a left wing source. If you can prove it's false I'll remove it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ModerateCentrist:

1. Your Coulter quote was incomplete.Per a 02/02 Alan Colmes interview with Coulter on Hannity & Colmes:

“...regret once again that John Walker is not getting the death penalty. We need to execute people like John Walker in order to physically intimidate liberals by making them realize that they can be killed, too. Otherwise they’ll turn out to be outright traitors .”

That is not hate speech. This is a legal opinion about the death penalty being a deterrent factor against treason, given, no less, by a constitutional lawyer[ie. Coulter].

I'm not sure if you know the story behind the John Walker case. That Marin County airhead committed treason. He should have been given the death penalty. That's the penalty in the USA, btw, for treason.

Walker joined the Taliban. He took up arms against America. That worthless piece of traitorous crap admitted to being trained by terrorists. Walker actually was in a camp that OBL visited, and more importantly, he was found but a few feet away from where a young CIA officer[ a family man with young children and a new baby] was murdered in cold blood. Many Americans were shocked that Walker was not put to death.

If you still don't "get" Coulter's comments, let me explain them to you more fully.

She's saying that the left, in particular college leftists, are so far out there against America with their seditious comments[de Genova is a prime example] that what keeps them from crossing the line into treasonous action is the death penalty. If the government does not implement the death penalty for treason, then there's nothing that will keep demented leftists from crossing the line.

Her comments are common sense.

Also, Professor de Genova's comments are not "bizarre."They are seditious, pure and simple. He should have been canned from his job and he should have been put in jail after being canned.

De Genova's dispicable remarks were made on a college campus to college students when his country was at war. His comments represented "aid and comfort" to the enemy.

It was common knowledge at this point that Saddam ordered thousands of copies of Blackhawk Down and had his military and Al Feyedeen watch that video OVER AND OVER AGAIN. Then the good professor throws his lot in with Saddam and uses the power of his bully pulpit to persuade students to think like he does.

And fyi, I think "hate speech" is a nonsensical term that flies in the face of living in a free world. There's free speech and there's seditious speech.

Hate speech is anything the liberals don't like, anything that "offends" their inner sensitive UN guided souls and now has been made into a crime. How pathetic. Parents can't raise their children to believe homosexuality is immoral because that represents "hate speech." But Professor de Genova can be a cheerleeder for Al feyadeen to kill American GI's in a monstrous fashion and that's "free speech."

But getting back to Coulter . Her only crime is that she says things that the left find offensive. Tough beans. De Genova speaks seditiously and should be jailed. Johnny Walker acted treasonously and he should have paid the ultimate consequence.

2. CBC is a third rate broadcasting system run by third rate minds. That you can't see a state run broadcasting system being an offensive symbol of totalitarianism in a supposedly first world democracy is beyond my comprehension.

3. I've tried to be "centrist" Mod and you know what...whenever I get into conversation or read the words of left wing "thinkers"[misnomer], I always kick myself for wasting valuable time.

Whereas I may not agree with all the conservative positions, I at least respect those positions because they are not intellectually dishonest nor are they emotionally shallow as are left wing positions.

Your "right wing" watch is a perfect example. Compare the writing on that site to Media Research Center. No comparison. The news blogs of the left vs the right show similar quality differences.

If you are ruled by intellect and not by emotional hooey, the arguments/opinions of the right are the only ones that make sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...