Posted on 06/06/2004 12:25:13 AM PDT by My Dog Likes Me
Big whoopdie crap! Emotions are fine behind a fence and held in check, but the only thing that I see when a grown man emotes in public, is a grown man emoting. Turns my stomach. Dan Rather is a giant pile of phony.
"Clinton's scandle was that he couldn't get enough ass unless he was where he should have been, in the family quarters."
]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]]
Unfortunately that was the least of Sick's scandles...Even though I thought it enough to resign from office a disgraced man. Instead the man is fawned over.....
Disgusting..........
A vigil?! Are you serious? The man is dead. Life goes on.
Geeze, get a grip. Did you read my whole post?
I hardly praised him.
Good grief. Easy tears does not equal good, said I. I'd think you'd agree with me than to take time to hector me about it.
Oh, I see. You're just a cantankerous mean old coot who is mad at everyone and everything.
Carry on.
LOL. Thanks. I need a little humor in my life after a weekend of a not so pleasant Texas State Convention. Well, it did have a few good moments.
Alright, alright. Your point is well taken. Where do I pick up my candle and a copy of the lyrics to Kum Ba Yah?
You're asking the wrong person! LOL
First of all, thanks for understanding what I meant to say, even though I printed the opposite of what I meant.
Look, you and I and most people know that men are falible. They make mistakes. When I address what Clinton did, it is with the understanding that this wasn't an isolated mistake. It was a decades long pattern of character that was exhibited in this very public manner.
The infidelity wasn't just against Hillary, it was against his daughter who had every right to expect her father to respect her mother. If on the whole he had made any pretense to do that, I would hold him in much higher esteem. Instead he thought only of himself constantly, time after time after time after time.
Yes the transfers of technology to China were worse. Yes the failure to take Osama Bin Laden into custody was worse. Yes the witness tampering was worse. Yes, the obstruction of justice was worse. Yes the attempts at bribery were worse. Yes the rapes were worse. Yes the placing of spys in key positions within our government was worse. You'll get no arguement from me there.
IMO the character of Bill Clinton is most easily revealed by the most simple of subjects for people to understand. When you understand his betrayal of his family, friends, women in general and the public over decades of time, you understand that such a person would be capable of almost anything. He is a moralless ship sailing through the night with no rudder.
Should it surprise anyone that he would sell anyone and anything out? No. This has been crystal clear for decades. Only the mentally challenged (his supporters in the face of everything) have missed the obvious.
Thanks for the comments.
I think you might be missing the point...it's not necessarily what news is being reported. It's how it's being reported. If Dan Rather reports two soldiers have died in Iraq, that's news. If he then goes on to imply that we're losing everything over there when the true facts bely his position, that's propaganda. There's a difference and it goes way beyond whether or not he's reporting on a "rebuilt school".
For example, during MonicaGate, Rather insisted on referring to the Independent Counselor as Special Prosecutor Kenneth Starr. Ol' Dan knew the Independent Counselor statute replaced the Special Prosecutor back in the '70s but he also knew that the term "Special Prosecutor" had a more negative connotation. So that's why he used it. It implied that Starr was simply out to get Clinton...which, coincidentally [/sarcasm off], was exactly the Democratic Party line.
Was that objective reporting? No...it was bias-laden propaganda and it was done purposely.
The bottom line is it's not a "good news versus bad news" issue. It's "truthful news versus agenda-driven news" reporting and while Rather, Brokaw and Jennings claim they are objective, their nightly news programs prove that claim to be false. They're liberals. It's easy to tell. And because it's easy to tell, they can't truthfully claim to be objective because if they really were, it wouldn't be easy to tell.
It's also worth noting that while the mainstream media claims there is a "conservative" network", Fox News, in this country there are simply no "liberal" networks in America. And we're left to believe that because why? Because they said so. And everyone knows that liberals are the only people capable of objectivity, again, because they said so.
That, my friend, is pure elitism.
I was in the Iowa State Capitol where CBS was doing their night news broadcasts. In the library, sitting alone, was Dan Rather.
I decided to walk up to him and introduce myself. We talked for several minutes and I told him that I was a Republican, albeit a moderate one.
I thought Dan Rather was one of the more self-effacing, congenial media celebrities I had ever met. He seemed sincerely interested in talking with me.
At the end, we brought one of his assistants over to take a picture of him and I. Though I've frequently questioned his ideology over the years, his dealings with an average guy like me improved my view of him tremendously.
If you believe Dan Rather, I pity you. He lies for the lefty DemocRAT party for a living and HATES Republicans. Go ahead and promote Rather. In the end you'll find out you have been had BIGTIME!
Nobody knew what the hell that meant...
Dan's network break came after Hurricane Carla, which he was sent to cover by a Houston station. JFK/Dallas came later.
Fine. I'll go along with that. But then how did the story get around that he made his bones on the Kennedy assassination, that he was a nobody until that event? It seems to me the story came from Dan Rather himself. I remember him discussing it on a panel show with Robert McNeil, who also began his rise to prominence on November 22, 1963 on the streets of Dallas.
I don't remember Rather discussing any earlier glorious coverage of Hurricane Carla which brought him to the attention of the New York brass, nor any mention of the fact that he had already worked with the top on-air guy at the network and a former president of the United States months before Kennedy was killed.
I'm not saying Rather hasn't included an accurate career chronology in his books and in other written records. Frankly I don't know one way or another about that, since it would be a cold day in hell before I'd ever read his books. I'm just saying that the legend of Dan Rather making his name during coverage of the Kennedy assassination is too well known to be accidental, and Rather is the prime suspect for its promulgation over the years.
Well, I only know that Rather caught the network's eye with Hurricane Carla in '61 and was hired by CBS in '62, well before JFK was shot. I'm sure Dan does think he made his bones in Dallas, since he was still low in the pecking order of network correspondents. And in media circles, no news event is as sexy as any Kennedy event, so Dan's using that day in Dallas as his starting point makes sense for him. He also uses his Texas roots when it's to his advantage, and, as so many here suspect, uses emotions when they suit the occasion. It's all relative.
The world is not as "black and white" as you portray it.
Folks can disagree with your politics and still be good folks.
"IMO the character of Bill Clinton is most easily revealed by the most simple of subjects for people to understand. When you understand his betrayal of his family, friends, women in general and the public over decades of time, you understand that such a person would be capable of almost anything. He is a moralless ship sailing through the night with no rudder.
Should it surprise anyone that he would sell anyone and anything out? No. This has been crystal clear for decades. Only the mentally challenged (his supporters in the face of everything) have missed the obvious.
Thanks for the comments."
\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\
I didn't mean to imply that...you weren't aware of all the "gates"....I've read your posts for many years now...
Geesh, there were so many "gates"...sometimes it seemed planned to just flood the people with so much info...nobody could follow the "money" thru all the twists and turns. Besides the info overload....most sheeple wouldn't believe...the Clinton's were/are that corrupt..to include blackmail, intimidation, pay-offs, threats, and yes, murder. Unfortunately, or fortunately ( not sure which...) ...the sheeple do understand sex. And that's what stuck.
I argued long that the "sex" and it's recklessness should have been enough to impeach & remove him...I understand, and agree to the character angle....it should have been / should be the easiest to understand...for the masses. Alas....I will never truly understand those days....
Best FRegards,
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.