The World According To Jimmy Carter

Foxfyre wrote:

In an opinion piece, however, which the Christopher Ruddy piece is, you sort of expect the writer to insert opinion. Otherwise it wouldn't be called an opinion piece. The better opinion pieces, however cite and express conclusions built from facts which the Christopher Ruddy piece also did. So far better to critique what he said as well as the manner in which he said it.

Where does it say it's an opinion piece? The top of the page says Breaking News. The bottom of the page says: Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics: Middle East Saddam Hussein/Iraq.

There's no opinion section of the site that is marked as such, just News / Mpney / Jokes.

Was this in the Jokes section?

Come on, Fox. Are you saying the NewsMax piece sited by LSM is an acceptable source to site?

The rest of what you said strikes me as a further attempt to denegrate the press / media so that eventually everyone is brainwashed into thinking that no papers or news can be trusted, their all the same, it's all opinion without facts, etc. It's a cool trick some are trying to pull off so that eventually we have no facts. History can be whatever we want it to be. You're better than that.

LoneStarMadam wrote:

msolga wrote:

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Silly or not, in your opinion makes no difference, if jimmah stole anothers copyrighted work, he's a weasel & will be found out.
Ain't it just awful when your hero gets caught for the pettiness that is him.

I generally don't choose politicians as my "heroes", LSM, but I do have some regard for Jimmy Carter. I'm sure The Stolen Maps Incident will sort itself out to everyone's satisfaction. Sorry, but I just don't see it as the huge deal that you do. I can think of many far more weasely acts by politicians than that!

What do you find endearing about jimmah? What did he do as president? He has overseen some homes built, or he lent his name to the projects, but that's about all he ahs done except muck stuff up.

You really want to know? Well, speaking as someone who lives somewhere other than the US, he has always seemed to me to have integrity as a politician (Great Map Theft Incident aside!) You know, for us folks who live in otherparts of the planet, it was somehow comforting to have a US president who took the rest of the world seriously. He seemed genuine. We sort of liked that! Looking at the record of the present government, it's rather of a case of you don't know what you've got till it's gone.

I've never heard him called "jimmah" before, either. Where does that come from? Sounds rather offensive to me, but what would I know?

LoneStarMadam wrote:

....now Dennis Ross, former Bush I & Clinton administrations Middle East Envoy, has now accused Carter of taking maps from his book that he (Ross) had done himself with no accreditation.....

Ross got his book deal because he used to be an envoy.

As an envoy, he worked for the US government, and any maps he drew to describe the negotiations over territory would belong to the US government, correct?

We can safely assume that whatever maps Ross published in his book were similar to maps used to formulate policy when he worked for the US government.

So, how do we know that Carter got the maps from Ross' book? As a former president, he surely has contacts in the state department who would be privy to the maps demarcating lands in dispute when Ross worked as an envoy.

How do we know these maps were not government property, and Ross just made similar maps in his book? And the property need not have been classified either, at least not at the time Carter published his book.

Burden of proof? Ross, not Carter.

LoneStarMadam wrote:

squinney wrote:

LSM - We've already had a whole big long thread pointing out the flaws in the DC comparison. I don't think we need to go there again.

Neither of your sources are considered reliable or accurate references for factual information.

According to who?

According to people that understand language and factual reporting.

Sample from Newsmax:

Quote:

Jimmy Carter's Trail of Disaster
Christopher Ruddy
Monday, May 13, 2002
Jimmy Carter is off this week to save Cuba.

With Carter on the loose, the American public needs to watch out.

It seems that almost wherever he goes and whatever positions he pushes, Jimmy Carter leaves a wake of devastation and disaster.

Carter, we should note, has been cozying up to North Korea for years. He helped the U.S. and the communist country come to agreement during the Clinton years to defuse a tense situation over North Korea's nuclear weapons program.

Under the wacko deal Carter arranged, the U.S. would stop complaining about Korea's nuclear weapons program as long as the U.S. gave aid to North Korea and helped the communists build more modern nuclear reactors.

The U.S. was well on the path to doing this when the new Bush administration sounded the alarm and immediately stopped the cockamamy plan dead in its tracks.

Real reporters and journalists do not name call and inject their story with with personal opinions. When it's the truth, all a real journalist needs is the facts. Think about that for a minute.

squinney wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

In an opinion piece, however, which the Christopher Ruddy piece is, you sort of expect the writer to insert opinion. Otherwise it wouldn't be called an opinion piece. The better opinion pieces, however cite and express conclusions built from facts which the Christopher Ruddy piece also did. So far better to critique what he said as well as the manner in which he said it.

Where does it say it's an opinion piece? The top of the page says Breaking News. The bottom of the page says: Read more on this subject in related Hot Topics: Middle East Saddam Hussein/Iraq.

There's no opinion section of the site that is marked as such, just News / Mpney / Jokes.

Was this in the Jokes section?

Newspapers no longer restrict opinion pieces to the editorial page as they once did when they were more honest about editorializing. This is identifiable as an opinion piece because it is written as one. It is no longer a requirement that it label itself as such.

It is also far less sinister than those news pieces that present themselves as straight news but are so unbalanced or slanted to evoke a particular response from the reader that they are far more propaganda than news.

Newsmax is a good source for right-wing propaganda. Anyone who uses Newsmax as a new source loses all credibility IMO.

Anyone who sees Salon as a left-wing propaganda site is simply wrong. There is no left-wing version of Newsmax. Liberals and progressive will not support such a site. It is one of the reasons that progressive talk radio gets lower numbers than right-wing talk radio. We don't have the need to read or listen to bullshit that backs up the way we view things. And we don't all walk in lockstep like the righties do.

I like what old europe wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Question to LSM:

Would you:

a) rather move to Baghdad
b) rather move to Washington D.C.

and why?

Again, there is so much more in NewsMax Magazine, which won a Silver Eddie award in the News/Commentary category of the 2005 Eddies, Folio magazine's prestigious journalism awards.

Find out why half a million people read NewsMax Magazine each month PLUS you get a USS Reagan, Live Free or Die, or USS Bush fleece jacket worth $35 for FREE! Go Here Now.

NewsMax Magazine, like NewsMax.com, brings you exclusive stories the major media won't report.

Newsweek named NewsMax Magazine editor Christopher Ruddy one of the top 20 new media personalities in America who are "changing the way Americans get their news."

Even the liberal media can't ignore NewsMax Magazine - which has been cited on "Meet the Press with Tim Russert," CNN, Fox News, MSNBC and many other outlets.

Each month in NewsMax Magazine you'll read Christopher Ruddy's hard-hitting investigative reports, Washington Insider from award-winning journalist Ronald Kessler, and special commentaries from Dr. Laura Schlessinger, John Stossel, Dick Morris, Bill O'Reilly, David Limbaugh, James Hirsen, Thomas Sowell, Michael Reagan, and many others.

Nationally syndicated radio host Michael Reagan, son of the late President Reagan, says: "I guarantee that you'll love NewsMax Magazine. The liberal media moguls hate NewsMax.

the US is still the best of what there is

Where did LSM say that DC was safer?

LoneStarMadam wrote:

the US is still the best of what there is

A funny contention. There have been threads about this, but I think we don't need to go into details. However, stated as a fact, the above statement cannot be proven. There are numerous countries that have lower crime rates and a higher standard of living, where people live healthier and longer lives and earn more money, where hospitals and universities are free and where the public discussion revolves around the question how the government should invest the enormous budget surplus.

Oh, and this here:

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Where did LSM say that DC was safer?

If you haven't said that DC was safer than Baghdad yet, how about doing it now? Because if you're not denouncing that ridiculous notion, people might well think it's actually your opinion that DC is no safer than Baghdad...

Your opinion of what i believe about the USA matters less than nothing to me.

I will not say that Baghdad is safer becaause it isn't

BTW-Ca has more crime than does RI, guess why, Ca is bigger.

LoneStarMadam wrote:

Your opinion of what i believe about the USA matters less than nothing to me.

I haven't expressed any opinion on your beliefs. I just noted that your statement could as well have been read as someone stating a fact rather than a personal belief. Anyways, if you just stated it as a way of expressing yourself, as in "the place where I'm currently living is the best place in the whole world", than it is certainly legitimate.

LoneStarMadam wrote:

I will not say that Baghdad is safer becaause it isn't

Right.

LoneStarMadam wrote:

BTW-Ca has more crime than does RI, guess why, Ca is bigger.

In that case it's good that I was talking about crime rates and not about crimes. I'm sure you know the difference, dontcha?

If you weren't speaking to my opinion of the US, then why did you address it at all?

LSM knows that while the US has it's share of problems, that the US is still the best of what there is