Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Politics for Pros- moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (41869)	5/2/2004 9:50:51 PM
From: Nadine Carroll	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793640

What was the purpose of Ted Koppel's little stunt the other night? Why, if it was to honor the fallen as he claims, did he omit the fallen of Afghanistan? Why did he call this a war that should never have been fought, if he wasn't taking a political stance? To encourage a pullout, in effect a total surrender, without acknowledging the costs of defeat or the potential benefits of victory, is that what you call "pro-American"? If that's pro-American, who needs enemies? If the media were working on purpose to destroy morale, what would they do differently?

To: Lane3 who wrote (41869)	5/2/2004 11:50:37 PM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 793640

but your drawing from that the notion that American journalists are "working for an American defeat" is not objective either. They aren't doing that, Karen. They don't wish that upon America. What they do wish is to defeat Bush. They will "accentuate the negative and eliminate the positive" in their news presentations to help accomplish that if they can. They don't think through to the logical outcome of their activity until it happens. And then it would be, "Oh, no, I never wanted that!"

To: Lane3 who wrote (41869)	5/3/2004 4:28:48 AM
From: LindyBill	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 793640

I think Horowitz is overboard with this review. To me, the only jarring note in the otherwise interesting "Frontline" show on Bush was their critic. I said, "this guys a commie" as I listened to him. Turns out I was right. Guided by God, or Guided by his Gonads? By David Horowitz FrontPageMagazine.com \| May 3, 2004 “The Jesus Factor,” which aired on Monday, is an hour “documentary” on the role that religion plays in the mind of President Bush. It was produced by the leftwing series “Frontline” for PBS, which has been a subsidiary of the Democratic Party since its creation nearly forty years ago. Predictably, “The Jesus Factor” was a not-so-subtle election year effort to scare the PBS audience into believing that the President is a religious fanatic, hostage to faith-driven and (therefore) mindless evangelicals. The President’s thinking on the issue of war and peace, according to the producers, is guided not by his assessment of America’s enemies, but knee-jerk, delusional Christian beliefs. In this production, the featured critic of the President’s God-talk on the war was the Reverend Jim Wallis, who explained that calling the enemy “evil” was “bad theology” and in effect un-Christian. Use of the term “evil” derived from precisely the kind of religious delusion that characterized Christian fanatics generally, becoming when it entered the vocabulary of a war President. To regard the war with Islamic jihad as a “religious war” was itself “bad theology” in Wallis’ view. The Frontline documentary failed to mention that Wallis is a liberation theologian (in other words, a Marxist) with a long history of support for Communist causes. The one good thing one could say about this documentary was that the spokesmen for the evangelicals were articulate and one of them did point out that refusing to recognize evil in this world is a hallmark of the political left. He was too gracious to add the reason for this, which is that the left has so often been (and in the war on terror so obviously is) itself in bed with evil. frontpagemag.com