FROM 2012 INTO 2013 POLITICS THREAD

The Western Journalism Center is basically the same thing as World Net Daily.

 

Just to balance the equation, here's what Stephen King had to say about his novel "Under the Dome," which now has been adapted for TV:

Speaking to Time magazine and The New York Times Book Review regarding the novel's politics, King said: "I was angry about incompetency. Obviously I'm on the left of center. I didn't believe there was justification for going into the war in Iraq. And it just seemed at the time, that in the wake of 9/11, the Bush Administration was like this angry kid walking down the street who couldn't find whoever sucker punched him, and so turned around and punched the first likely suspect. Sometimes the sublimely wrong people can be in power at a time when you really need the right people. I put a lot of that into the book. But when I started I said, 'I want to use the Bush-Cheney dynamic for the people who are the leaders of this town.' As a result, you have Big Jim Rennie, the villain of the piece. I got to like the other guy, Andy Sanders. He wasn't actively evil, he was just incompetent—which is how I always felt about George W. Bush. I enjoyed taking the Bush-Cheney dynamic and shrinking it to the small-town level. The last administration interested me because of the aura of fundamentalist religion that surrounded it and the rather amazing incompetency of those two top guys. I thought there is something blackly humorous in it. So in a sense, Under the Dome is an apocalyptic version of The Peter Principle."


I got this off Wikipedia, which still is more reputable than Tony's source.

 

I'm sure tony will be along any second know to acknowledge his error.

 

The Western Center for Journalism should probably put Journalism in quotation marks.

Also, it should probably be mentioned that The Western Center for "Journalism" is run by Floyd Brown, the guy who gave us the Willie Horton ad.

 

Tony is a graffiti hack. Just spray the wall and run away.

 

http://mediamatters.org/research/2006/10/13/in-recent-weeks-media-outlets-have-misidentifie/136941

 

I'm up late as usual and on CSPAN just watched Democratic Rep. Tammy Duckworth tear some IRS contractor a new asshole. She was sensational and committee Darrell Issa let her go well past her allotted time. Awesome stuff.

 

I know most things go over the heads of liberals here. They're using Holtzman's words from 2006 -- and, by proxy, The Nation -- to make the case that she either believes Obama needs to be impeached or, like most leftists, she's a raving hypocrite.

http://dailycaller.com/2013/06/28/dc-world-exclusive-venerable-leftist-weekly-demands-presidents-impeachment-over-mass-surveillance/#ixzz2Xm7o0GYl

 

You have got to be kidding me. Whatever tiny shred of credibility you may have once had is completely gone if you support what they did there.

That would have been fine if they had actually acknowledged in the piece that they were applying her words from 2006 to the current situation. But they didn't do that. They just hoped nobody would notice their deception. That piece is a joke and so are you for defending it.

 

I'm stunned that you don't understand an argument made on principles. Oh, wait. No I'm not.

 

I'm stunned that you don't understand a matter of journalistic integrity. Oh, wait. No, I'm not.

 

No where in that story are the words or numbers "Bush" or "2006." He is sticking words in someone's mouth.

He can make the case by typing that she wrote something in 2006 and how would that play today, but that would not fan the flames of the LCD.

It's bullshit writing at best. I'm surprised you are defending it.