Worst President In History

[Dr. Shane]

The pot-smoking, long-hair, hippie magazine Rolling Stone has decided to do its own version of political reporting.

[]http://www.drudgereport.com/rs.jpg[/]

[Planey]

Quote:

---

Shane said:

The pot-smoking, long-hair, hippie magazine Rolling Stone

---

Now come on, Shane.

Tell us what you really think about this magazine.

Graeme

[bevin]

I wonder where they got the photograph.

/Bevin

[Ron Griffith]

I must say, that is rather amusing.

The Libertarian side of me would have to agree that there might be some truth to that title.

[Dr. Shane]

My comment was intended to be a transparent spin. But really it is an example of the entertainment industry thinking they need to push a political agenda. Does an actor, director or screenwrite have the right to express their political opinion? Of course they do. However it is wrong for us (the public) to esteem the opinion of an entertainer any more than we esteem the opinion of a plumber, mechanic or waitress. The job position of being an actor or musician doesn't give them any more insight or credibility on politics than a cook or a cashier has. So I find no fault in entertainers expressing their opinion but I do find fault in the public treating the opinion as if it has some elevated worth.

I don't think Rolling Stone magazine needs to be making political comment any more than Sports Illistrated, Good Housekeeping or Car & Driver. It certainly doesn't seem to have the credibility of Newsweek or Time. However it seems that GW Bush has done what Dr. Hook claimed he couldn't... got his picture on the cover of Rolling Stone.

[Ron Lambert]

Since the Democrats have lost the presidency, both houses of Congress, and de facto control of the Supreme Court to the Republicans, it certainly seems that something is the worst in history--for the Democrats.

[Dr. Shane]

The Democrats may win one house of Congress back this fall. If they do, that may prove to be a blessing for the Republican seeking the White House in 2008 because it will motivate their base to go to the polls.

This fall elections are the Democrats to lose. If the Democrats do not win at least one house of Congress they will have no one to blame but themselves. Their extreamism is what may cost them. There is no moderate voice in the Democrat party like Richard Gebhart. Radicals like Nancy Poloci and Harry Reed are not appealing to moderates but are activating their own base. If the Republican base sits home, like it is expected to, the Democrats win. However once the radical Democrats take control, they will motivate the Republican base to go out and vote in 2008, thus assuring the White House stays in the hands of the Republicans.

[Bravus]

Rolling Stone actually has a quite a strong history of journalism and has had some very good journalists and investigative reporters write for it over a long period of time. It is a popular culture magazine, and interprets that brief broadly. Sure, 'consider the source' is always excellent advice when reading any reporting, no matter what source, but to say that Rolling Stone has no business commenting on politics is disingenuous...

...and I thought 'hippie' as an insult had died in the 70s! <img src="/adventist/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" />

[Dr. Shane]

I think we get it. The Hollywood crowd is off-the-chart liberal. The only ones that take them seriously are other off-the-chart liberals.

[Dr. Shane]

Here are some examples of their political reporting:

Quote:

---

The Pentagon has finally released the names of 558 Gitmo prisoners who’ve passed through the kangaroo court known as the Combatant Status Review Tribunal.

---

Quote:

---

Bush himself cherry-picked more intelligence to leak to the media and spin the public. That’s not presidential; that’s pathological.

---

It is nothing more than left-wing commentary. It is the politics of the pot-smoking hippies I am sure it caters to their subscribers but isn't anything a serious news junky is going to consider credible.

[Pockey]

[]http://lefdm.com/media/Bush%20Door%202.jpg[/]

[gina i]

But if Times or Newsweek or whatever 'newsie' magazine put that picture on the cover I bet it would be okay, right?

Everyone has an opinion. They're allowed to express it. I think the cover is brilliant.

[Dr. Shane]

Everyone has an opinion and everyone has a right to express it BUT not all opinions are to be taken seriously. Rolling Stone's cover places it on the same level as MAD Magazine or Saturday Night Live. Both are great forms of entertainment but not to be taken seriously. Rolling Stone Magazine is about entertainment, not politics. Its political section is nothing more than a left-wing commentary.

[gina i]

Oh right, I forgot, left wingers are horrible people & shouldn't be taken seriously.

[Nan]

This is the comment of an Australian journalist who would be to the left rather than the right of centre - written in yesterday's Sydney Morning Herald (22.4.06) as part of his Opinion column. Whatever the wrongs or rights, this is the impression being given by perusal of American news and blog sites. The journalist is Mike Carlton and he is not very kind to Australian politicians either when he suspects their motives and behaviour. However my impression of him is that he is a man of professional integrity.

SYDNEY, NSW, is a long way from Washington DC but, even at this distance, it is clear that the Bush Administration is falling to pieces.

In recent weeks, scanning the political coverage in the mainstream US media and sampling the blogs has been to watch a flood tide ebbing to reveal a rotting, skeletal hulk. It is the George W. Bush ship of fools, stuck in the mud for the world to see in all its mendacity, its incompetence, its faith-based stupidity.

It is possible, at this late stage, that even Bush himself has begun to realise something is wrong. That oddly simian face is ashen, the eyes leaden. The voice is shrill and its tone defensive.

"I'm the decider and I decide what's best," he squawked to reporters in the White House rose garden the other day, as the screws turned tighter on his disastrous Defence Secretary, Donald Rumsfeld. Can you imagine Roosevelt, Eisenhower or Kennedy blurting something like that?

Rummy is looking knackered too, with six retired generals going public to agree that he is "incompetent strategically, operationally and tactically", to quote one of them.

These men would have been junior officers in Vietnam, veterans of the all-American nightmare they now see replicated in Iraq. They don't want the mad old warmonger doing it over again in Iran. As former Marine Corps Lieutenant-General Gregory Newbold wrote in Time magazine: "… we must never again stand by quietly while those ignorant of and casual about war lead us into another one and then mismanage the conduct of it".

But the Middle East quicksands are not all that is killing Bush's presidency. Domestically, the rot is wide and deep. It is a budget deficit blowing out towards $US700 billion this financial year as Dubya juggles to fund his war while stealing from the American and immigrant poor to bestow tax cuts on the rich.

It is criminal sleaze in Washington, with the Republicans' favourite influence peddler, Jack Abramoff, headed for jail, and one of Bush's closest Texan buddies, the disgraced House Majority Leader, Tom DeLay, not far behind him.

It is arrogant, Nixonian trampling of the law to order the wiretapping of American citizens and the leaking of national security secrets. It is the rape of the environment to enrich big business, especially big oil. And resonating with ordinary Americans most of all, it is the loss of the city of New Orleans - not by Hurricane Katrina but by the bottomless incompetence of the feds' post-apocalypse response.

[Dr. Shane]

There are some right-wingers in the entertainment industry too. Bruce Willis is one. Charlie Daniels is another. Mel Gibson is another. I don't think their opinion should be taken any more seriously than the guy that manages the local ice cream shop. Everyone has a right to their opinion. But that doesn't mean every opinion has to be taken seriously.

The world is full of left-wingers that hate Bush. The world is also filled with the likes of Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hanity that are ready and willing to defend Bush and make fun of those that oppose him. So what does it prove? Nothing.

Now I like Saturday Night Live's political scits. I also enjoy listening the Jay Leno make political jokes. I am going to take Rolling Stone magazine as seriously as I take SNL or Jay Leno. They are funny. Hahahahahhaha. I like a good joke too. I even like the knee-slappers.

[Neil D]

Quote:

---

The world is full of left-wingers that hate Bush. The world is also filled with the likes of Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hanity that are ready and willing to defend Bush and make fun of those that oppose him. So what does it prove? Nothing.

---

On the contrary, it proves that there are more rich republican leaning people who like to put before the public the extreme right wingers like Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity and the Rush Limbaughs under the guise as "entertainment" and get thier republican view point out there more effectively than the montage of democratic thinkers whose ideas are effectively reviewed by the many voices of varied viewpoints and philosophies.

[Dr. Shane]

The "extreame right wing" that has talk shows is funded by advertisers and they turn a profit. They are not funded by other "extreame right wingers".

My point is this. Brother Neil's opinion is just as valid as Madona's. Just because Madona knows how to sing doesn't mean her political opinion should be valued any more than Brother Neil's is.

[Tom Wetmore]

Quote:

---

Shane said:

...The world is also filled with the likes of Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hanity that are

ready and willing to defend Bush and make fun of those that oppose him.

So what does it prove? Nothing.

---

And Shane, who in his zeal to defend Bush decided to make fun of those who oppose him by belittling their opinions and characterizing them as utterances of the "pot-smoking, long-hair, hippie magazine Rolling Stone..."

So what value do we give the opinion of some nobody construction guy from Texas? Too quote you - "Nothing." Your lame attempt at equal opportunity minimizing of all sides, given your typical pro-Bush conservative spin on life, is more than a little disingenuous. To that extent, whatever you say counts for nothing and proves nothing, Shane. Your own logic defeats your own opinions and arguments.

How about trying this on for size? Our democracy is a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. At its very heart that means that every citizen's voice counts, every person's opinion has value, because it is by our freedom of press, association and speech that we can most effectively collectively govern ourselves. To respect and value the opinions and views of those with whom you disagree and to zealously defend their right to be heard is a most patriotic act of a citizen in a democracy.

Tom

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

Shane... make fun of those who oppose him by belittling their opinions and characterizing them as utterances of the "pot-smoking, long-hair, hippie magazine Rolling Stone..."

---

First I have not defended Bush in this thread. In another thread I posted recently I called his call for an investigation into the oil companies meaningless and called the Congressional Republicans do-nothings in yet another thread.

If someone is going to quote me it should at least be in context. Refering to my "pot-smoking, long-hair, hippie magazine" comment I stated the following:

Quote:

---

My comment was intended to be a transparent spin.

---

Quote:

---

So what value do we give the opinion of some nobody construction guy from Texas?

---

I didn't call anyone a nobody. Nor did I say all opinions should be of equal value. There are some on this board whose opinion I value more than others and certainly more than those in the entertainment industry. The generals that recently spoke out against Rumsfield should be listened to more than some actor or singer. There are various people in various lines of work whose opinions mean more in some issues than the opinions of others.

Yet actors and singers don't know much more about politics than garbagemen and waitresses. I refuse to fall at the idol of Hollywood.

[Neil D]

Shane,

I never said how the "extreame right wing" is funded. I only said that republicans are better able, due to thier base, to put before the public thier philosophy in nice bumper sticker thoughts. I merely agreed with you that there are those who are "willing to defend Bush and make fun of those that oppose him". They are able to do so under the guise of "entertainment", as if you look at what Rush does, fighting the 'liberal pinko wacko commies with one hand tied behind his back', then you would know that it is entertainment, and not political commentary that drives his audience.

Now, regarding the comment you made about MY comment being as valid's as Madonna's....I would think that my comments regarding health care, as one on the front lines in giving health care, would be of more weight than Madonna's, just as her opinion of the Entertainmnet industry would be of more value than yours. Since we already know that YOUR opinion of the Entertainment industry is limited to recieving whatever you watch, we know that your opinion carrys little weight on the subject of the entertainment industry. Whereas, MY experience has been in production, acting and producing plays with volenteers, would seem to carry more weight than yours, but much less than Madonna's whose experience would not only include what Ihave done, but on a professional acting and muscial carreer.

So you see, Shane, while one person opinion does carry more weight, it does depend upon the subject and the experience of the individual. And therefore, it is MUCH MORE COMPLEX than your assertion of "Neil's opinion is just as valid as Madona's"....

When it comes to YOUR opinion regarding someone's else's sugury, I don't think yours would count for spit.

[Dr. Shane]

If we are talking about economic policy, war, evironmentalism, trade, budget deficets, civil rights or gay marriage, Neil's opinon is just as valid as Madona's.

If we are talking about how to hold a tune when one sings, how to write music, how to dance or make sexually explicit videos, than Madona's opinion would be of greater value.

I don't know if Neil works in administration, billing, insurance, etc. so I don't how much more valuable his opinion in healthcare finance reform is. Certainly if we are going to talk about putting someone under and keeping them that way until a surgery is complete, his opinion is of much more value than mine.

Since I work with government contracts I have a little (just a smidg) of knowledge about how various levels of government bid and award construction contracts. I know a little bit about construction law and engineering. But my opinion on war, environment, energy and politics in general isn't worth any more than any other average American.

I reject the notion that because actors and singers are employed in the entertainment industry that they know more about how it affects society than the clergy and school teachers do. They certainly know more about how to make it but I am not so sure they know the impact it has on society or most of the world that it is exported to.

[Tom Wetmore]

Shane,

You seem to have missed my point in the rush to defend yourself. My point being that in the exchange of ideas it should be the ideas which have value regardless of who expresses them. To be dismissive of the opinions of a Hollywood type just because they are only an actor or singer, is just as rudely prejudiced against them for their station in life (reverse snobbism, if you will) as my sarcasticly tongue in cheek suggestion that some "nobody construction guy from Texas" surely can't have anything of value to say. The truth should have value regardless of whose mouth it comes from.

Tom

[Dr. Shane]

Quote:

---

Does an actor, director or screenwrite have the right to express their political opinion? Of course they do. However it is wrong for us (the public) to esteem the opinion of an entertainer any more than we esteem the opinion of a plumber, mechanic or waitress. The job position of being an actor or musician doesn't give them any more insight or credibility on politics than a cook or a cashier has. So I find no fault in entertainers expressing their opinion but I do find fault in the public treating the opinion as if it has some elevated worth.

---

My issue isn't with the actors and singers. It is with the masses that fall down and adore them as if they are somehow worthy of adoration.

[Parade Orange]

Finally someone has acknowledged Madonna's singing talent.

hooray!