October 29, 2004
Slant-o-meter: policy issues, personalities and leadership qualities
This week, the Slant-o-meter shows not only where the TV networks and Fox news stand regarding each one of the candidates, but also regarding the most important subjects likely to influence voters in the election.
Hard issues made up the largest share of all information TV audiences received last week. A large share of the coverage was also dedicated to the two candidates’ campaigns. This week’s Slant-o-meter will take a closer look at how the networks and Fox’s Brit Hume evaluated Bush and Kerry on the most important policy issues, on their personalities and on their leadership qualities.
Download complete report with graphics at: http://www.mediatenor.com/slant.html
Posted by Isadora Badi at October 29, 2004 04:59 PMI feel that the entire news media does not want to face the fact that they screwed up. Talk about being caught in between a rock and a hard place, if they do not support Bush they have to state that they were part of his mistake that lead up to the War in Iraq. If they show favor to Kerry, they also have to admit that they were wrong on Iraq.
Besides people like Hannity and Rush, we see more and more conservatives taken a nose dive for Bush. How much of the conservative media will be left standing after November 2, 2004 who the American People will believe? Even the Right must now realize that if Bush wins, they lose.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 29, 2004 05:15 PMHenry
So close to Election Day, most minds are probably made up. I am not going to try to spin.
I support George Bush. I will certainly go to the polls and will certainly vote for George Bush. Bush does not excite me, however. He is no Ronald Reagan. I don’t like his body language and I don’t like his intellectual lightness. Considering all that happened, I think he did a good job on the economy and on the war on terrorism. But I think that this success was tarnished (maybe even compromised) by the weakness of his communication ability. Communication is no trivial matter. The ability to communicate effectively and inspire is one of the keys to presidential leadership. John Kennedy made several serious mistakes, but he inspired the country in such a way that he was able to turn setbacks (the Berlin Wall or the colossal intelligence failure in the Cuban missile crisis) to his and the country’s advantage.
George Bush is also no John Kennedy. But neither is John Kerry. He isn’t even an Edward Kennedy. I don’t want to support John Kerry because of his record after he returned from Vietnam and his Senate record. That said, I think I could overlook that if Kerry could inspire me with a vision for the future. But he can’t. The man has almost negative charisma.
This is an important election, but unfortunately it is not a clash of titans. If Hollywood were making a movie, they would never cast either of these guys in a leading role. The only sympathetic and attractive one in the whole election is Laura Bush. But we have the responsibility to make a choice and be consequent in the defense of that choice. That is what I have done. For an election this important, we should have Ronald Reagan versus John Kennedy. We don’t.
Jack,
I thank you for you honesty and no spin. While I am with you on voting for None of the Above, I must disagree with you on Bush.
Yes, Bush may have been dealt 9/11, yet he himselve is totally responsible for the mess we find Our Country because he forgot that as President of the United States he is Bigger than Life. However 9/11 affected the people of this land it is the duty of Our Elected Officals to carry the day and the fight to our enemy.
Iraq and Saddam was a military play to protect Isreal. And while I hold Isreal as our friend, I think Bush would of done the world a favor if he would of held up Saddam for his actions over Terrorism support of sucide bommbers in Isreal.
See I grew up and became aware of my surrounds when Nixon and Company took this country for a ride. And for that reason I can not vote for Bush and Cheney. Unless Bush can admit the total truth about the War on Terror and Iraq to every American before the election, the up coming investigations will lead to just more embrassement for our government. Check out the CIA 9/11 report when the White House releases it after the election. Also, Al QaQaa is only the tip of the icebreg in Iraq as well as a complete aduit over the last three years of our government (All Congressional Oversight was shut down for over two years).
No, Bush may win the election, but America will not lead the world nor our country until we change what and how we are running our country. The republicans had the right idea in 94 about everyone needed to grow up and take responsiblity for their own actions and I liked that. However, Bush’s steadfast stand of not taking responsiblity for what our government is doing is like watching a dog run after his tail.
Kerry is right on one thing. If you don’t admit you have a problem, you will never sober up and do what is right for this Our Country.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 29, 2004 11:06 PMjack, we have disagreed on a number of issues, but you comment above is wholly rational and I find no basis for debate. Kerry’s vision is too nebulous, and his short term focused goals offer little to contrast with Bush’s. That is why I am concerned for our future. There are no real dynamic and capable leaders who can win this election in the offing.
To resolve America’s problems and improve our future, a President would have to unite the country. And neither Bush nor Kerry have demonstrated even an inkling of having that capacity.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 30, 2004 06:49 AMNo spin from me either on this one. I am voting for Bush because he realizes the ineffectiveness of the UN. The way I see it is simple. He went to the UN and told them in no uncertain terms that this organization needs to lead or get out of the way. They chose neither.
In the past year, we have now seen the corruptness of the UN and the failed policies of the IAEA, which in turn leaked questionable information about weapons missing in Al QaQaa to discredit the Bush Administration, with Kerry not far behind in typical fashion (ala 1971) spouting information, gleaned from second hand information. Because Elbaradei completely missed Iran and North Korea and even Libya, he felt the wrath of the Bush Administration. What a surprise!
Kerry is right on one thing. If you don’t admit you have a problem, you will never sober up and do what is right for this Our Country.
Henry as long as Kerry continues to spout about how he needs to gather a consortium of agreeable folks in the world before anything can be done and continue to use an ineffective organization such as the UN, then guess what? Nothing will be done! And the big loser on this one is our great country, because nothing will be done and we are the ones taking the biggest hits. Not the little countries.
So to me, doing something, anything, is better than sitting around talking about it and hiding the corruptness within. This kind of leadership President Bush has shown is rare and is the exact reason for my total endorsement of him and his administration. And an organization such as the UN that is not designed to improve the world condition and its inhabitants is in my estimation is doomed.
I feel that the entire news media does not want to face the fact that they screwed up.
In addition Henry when we can admit that it was not the media that screwed up here but in fact it was the UN that screwed up then I will call on Bush to admit his mistakes. That will happen when hell freezes over.
MAW,
Without an united front world-wide, Our Country can not do a thing about Terrorism except stay on the defense. Unless “We the People” demand that Our Government live up to its word to help the citizens and leaders in the Middle East change their point of view through economic means we will always face terrorist. No, the people behind Al Qaeda and Hamus must be brought to justice as individuals. The taking of land and innocent life just because will not do the trick. How can you fight lies with lies?
Unless the truth is Our Country’s guiding light, we walk in the dark. Therefore, Our President can not tell us lies and expect us to follow him.
As far as the UN, I have stated it before. The UN needs to change or be replaced; however, you do not throw the baby out with the bath water. Bush/Kerry must use it to draw attention to the rest of the 6 billion people on this planet that Our Earth can do better.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 30, 2004 05:23 PMHenry,
Where are you suggesting this world-wide front come from? Certainly not the UN!
As I stated in my post, it is without any doubt a corrupt organization that is governed by a philosophy of “what is good for me not what is good for the world” will ever be able to exact a solution to the madness we see surrounding us.
Sans an organization that is effective, just how would you propose we go about getting a consensus from the world on policy that keeps the inhabitants of this world safe from nuclear, biological and conventional weaponry as John Kerry suggests? And how long should we wait for the UN to fix itself? Before or after Al Qaeda and Hamas have gotten their hands on all this weaponry!
Without an united front world-wide, Our Country can not do a thing about Terrorism except stay on the defense.
The UN has simply not to stepped up to the task. And for the most egregious of all reasons, GREED! But instead you blame the media for allowing the Bush Administration to go into Iraq. You don’t blame the UN for not putting up a united front when it could have or was morally obligated to do so. If it had, we may never have seen the death of over 1,000 of our most finest sons and daughters. Or the maiming of 6,000 more. The possibility that Saddam disarmed depended entirely on the integrity of the UN and that united front that you spoke of. Not on the Bush Administration.
With all that has been uncovered about the UN, were we ever going to be able to rid the world of scum such as Saddam? Of course not. This makes it an ineffective organization and if we continue to fool ourselves into believing that by some miracle we will all be safe by the policies of this organization makes us as safe as chickens in a coop being guarded by a fox.
Where is the negative press concerning the UN? Or the Oil for Food Program? Or the underhanded dealings of the French and Russian with Saddam? Why blame the media for giving the Bush Administration a pass on Iraq without blaming the UN? Why not blame the true culprits in this war on terrorism. The head in the sand award should go to the media, the UN and of course, all those on the left that think the UN is our only hope for salvation!
If the NY Times spent as much effort on real problems rather than fixating itself on destroying a President during a time of war, we will all be much better off.
We need to start putting the blame where it belongs. On the press and the media for not exposing the corruption and ineffectiveness of these organizations that are chartered to protect us! This is where the problem truly lies. They are simply not doing their jobs and until we demand they do so rather than watch them follow their blind ideology of ousting the President, then we are truly doomed.
MAW,
If we don’t go through the UN who and how do expect us to do it? Do you realize when America stepped away from The League of Nations WWII started.
Henry,
Exactly the way we are doing it now.
BTW, the UN is following the same path of the League of Nations. Irrelevancy!
Posted by: MAW at October 30, 2004 06:57 PMMAW,
So you support walking away from the UN and leave the rest of the planet on their own?
MAW-
Look at Iraq and tell me it’s less of a security threat now. For twelve years, sanctions worked to keep a nation that once actively sought WMDs free of that threat. And Saddam Hussein himself, because of his politics and and his greed for power, left no real room for al-Qaeda in his nation. He wasn’t an good man, but he wasn’t Osama Bin Laden’s bosom buddy either.
Now, our troops face explosives that UN once kept quite effectively under lock and key, bullets that once belonged in our ammo dumps and our enemies conspired with terrorists once shut out of Iraq.
Iraq was long ago successfully disarmed, Saddam Hussein couldn’t make move one without our knowing. It wasn’t a situation that actually called out to as a security threat.
If we had been vindicated about the banned weapons, the UN would have stepped in, and stepped in quickly. They would have been much more cooperative. We would have had France embarrassed in front of the world.
Instead, we vindicated them. Worse, we vindicated Saddam’s repeated claims that he didn’t have weapons. What could have remained an inconsequential myth got turned by this war into a grievous intelligence failure.
If we are to lead the world in the war against terror, we can’t act like such fools. We can’t be so profoundly wrong about the threats out there, excoriate people for not believing us, then fall on our face like this. It’s just pitiful.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at October 30, 2004 10:24 PMHenry,
When has the UN done anything for us? I am not saying to walk away. I am saying that the media and the world should be calling for accountability at the UN. Simple request. Just do what they should be doing. Not acting like 2-bit banana republic dictators that want nothing less than the destruction of the US.
In addition, Stephen if you think that Saddam was effectively contained by the UN, well that is nothing less than laughable. It is that kind of thinking that got us to where we are today which is accepting terrorism as simply a fact of life and the only way to combat it is to appease it.
This feckless approach to terrorism has not worked in the past nor will it work in the future. It certainly did not work during the 90’s and has been an accepted approach to the kind of rampant lawlessness accepted by those on the left, elitist in Europe and the UN all the way back to Carter’s acceptance of the overthrow of the Shah in Iran and the acceptance of Yasser Arafat as some kind of god or hero.
Stephen there are some of us that do not want to build walls around us or look for bogeymen on all corners any longer. We want our lives back. And the UN, the media and the left continually succumb to all terrorism on the planet and put no pressure on anyone or any organization that should be accountable
Answer this simple question if you think that Saddam was contained. For what reason and under what circumstances were all 400,000 tons of explosives that were supposedly held under some simple mechanism, that could have been undone with a pair of needle nose pliers not blown up and destroyed? Why were they still there!
What could possibly be the rationale for leaving that many explosives anywhere near that regime? I do not need a complex answer, just a simple answer. Why? Why were they not destroyed? Can you honestly tell me that now knowing how much weaponry was not destroyed, did not concern you in the slightest? Well it horrified me! What was he going to do with all that weaponry? Have a wienie roast!
And while you’re at it, please tell me why the left seems so righteous in discovering that less than 1% of conventional weaponry that was unaccounted for or missing, but thinks nothing of crying Bush lied when there were no stockpiles of bio and chemical agents found and they were never there.
We grow weary of those that cry ‘Bush lied’ when the outcry on something that should be considered insignificant as 1% is tossed around as if it were worse than the bombing of Hiroshima.
So yes, I am telling you that now I think it is less of a security threat now that I know that 400,000 tons of explosives have been destroyed. The answer is yes, yes, yes, and yes.
Please, do you think we are stupid!
Iraq was long ago successfully disarmed, Saddam Hussein couldn’t make move one without our knowing. It wasn’t a situation that actually called out to as a security threat.Saddam was laughing at us, all the while building up his war chest of stolen money from the Oil for Food program and hiding behind France’s veto of any invasion! As for being disarmed that is a joke. See my earlier post to you! Putting a piece of 20 gauge wire with a cap that said IAEA on a door as a seal is hilarious.
I do read the papers and watch the news.
Posted by: MAW at October 31, 2004 03:20 AMMAW, You forgot to mention that you listen to Rush Limbaugh religeously too. I do for a few minutes at a time because that is all I can stand. But I sure as hell don’t take him seriously or anyone who listens to him either. Sheesh, get an opinion of your own once in a while why don’t you??? Kisses.
Posted by: rapidray at October 31, 2004 10:02 AMOh, MAW. You have such a poor understanding of the UN, I don’t even know where to start.
The UN is a group of diplomats representing 191 nations. To say the UN is corrupt is to beg the question, to which delegates in particular are you referring? The UN has no executive power. They have to requisition troops (usually US troops) for any resolution that gets passed - and they all get passed or not depending on whether or not the US wants to use it’s veto power.
To blame the UN for not going into Iraq just ignores reality. The French didn’t threaten to veto war until it was clear that war was unnecessary. The oil for food scandal, if it’s proven to be true, didn’t affect any other UN member any more than US recipients of the vouchers affected US policy. That kind of reasoning only serves to delude Bush fans into thinking Bush really is a great diplomat, the rest of the world just didn’t want to cooperate.
And to think that the United States can win the war on terror alone is dangerous dreaming. From a numbers standpoint alone, Bush’s policies are working to pit 290 million Americans against 1.4 billion Muslims who have a higher birth rate.
You guys need to get over the perceived slight the UN gave Bush. They were right. Bush was wrong. Let’s get over it and unite to rid the world of Islamic extremism.
Well rapidray, since you know me so well, you must ride around in my car with me and follow me around all day. And all this time I thought it was my dog Oreo.
It amazes me that someone could call me a person that does not have a mind of my own yet can not even muster up enough of an argument to support his own position except to chastise my opinions and beliefs.
If you had, I could have responded with an intelligent response. But, why bother with someone that is unarmed.
MAW,
While I agree with you that “The UN Nest” needs to be cleaned out, we are faced with even a bigger challange than that. How does America build a stronger “International Organization with Teeth” and still keep our military advantage over the world? Wouldn’t logic state that the International Organization have power over all countries?
However, I think Our Country needs to get Our State and Federal Governments under control first. Although I think almost every state has the same problems and that it is good the federal government to assist, I am for the Local Governments having the most power over Our Lives. We just got to keep the two political parties from playing games with Our Votes!
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at October 31, 2004 11:06 AMAP
The question in this thread seems to be the perception of policy, issues and personalities.
The point I have been trying to make is that the media forms our opinions. And only recently have other sources formed to bring out the bias in those conventional media outlets. The truth does get out, as it should in spite of the suppression that the left uses against Nader, or threatening Sinclair with law suits, or the refusal to put any spokesman for the SBVT on the regular news channels or even any mention of them. Not to mention allowing blatant disenfranchisement of the military vote or the failure to chastise Kerry when he is politicking in Churches but is all over Bush at even the mention of God. Even the left’s ranting about Fox News only serves Fox News.
As for your expert opinion and review of the UN, I can only say this:
The French didn’t threaten to veto war until it was clear that war was unnecessary.
The French were not only threatening to veto, they were campaigning actively and overtly to muster up votes against us. Please AP, we both know this. We also knew they never intended to force Saddam to do anything.
And the statement
The oil for food scandal, if it’s proven to be true, didn’t affect any other UN member any more than US recipients of the vouchers affected US policy.
shows just how much you want to bury your head in the sand! You chose to believe there was no scandal when there is substantial proof that supports a scandal. But the Bush Lied mantra works better.
That kind of reasoning only serves to delude Bush fans into thinking Bush really is a great diplomat, the rest of the world just didn’t want to cooperate.
You are correct. Bush is no diplomat. This is exactly why I am voting for him. Inaction and appeasement is not something I want to go back to as we did in the Clinton years. That worked well didn’t it?
The rest of the world did not care because the rest of the world knew that in the end the US would save their behinds anyway. They were satisfied to use the Clinton Doctrine along with that bright bulb Madelaine hAlfbright and allow terrorism to spread and take root until it became a cancer and could no longer be dealt with through diplomatic means. In addition, why not, we have always been there to pull countries out of the fire.
You make my whole point for me AP. I can see from your definition of the UN that it is useless. Absolutely powerless, feckless and not worth the power to support it any longer. So why bother? Of course it makes for a great social gathering and diplomats that run rampant in the US racking up tabs and parking tickets.
You guys need to get over the perceived slight the UN gave Bush. They were right. Bush was wrong. Let’s get over it and unite to rid the world of Islamic extremism.Again, another blanket statement about ridding the world of Islamic extremism with absolutely no solution or accountability in that statement. Perhaps we could form a “hands across America day”, or even candlelight vigils across the US or even bell ringing at noon on a specific day! Those work well! I am sure that extremist that kidnap innocent people and behead them will certainly be impressed with that.
AP, if you have a solution then lets hear it. Other than ”unite to rid the world of Islamic extremism”. Yes, lets do that! I have nothing else to do today. And please don’t tell me that Kerry has a plan! A plan to bring together a united front! A plan for a global unification of kumbayah! Oh brother. Who is he kidding? His plan is to sweep it under the rug, like Clinton and Carter.
Oh, and I could not help myself with that pet name. I only used it once, so I am trying!
Posted by: MAW at October 31, 2004 11:35 AMHenry,
I agree with everything you stated with one small exception. I do not believe the Federal Government should be there to bail out local governments except for extraordinary circumstances and of course natural disasters. To do otherwise would not encourage responsibility at local and state levels.
The power to clean out local and state governments should be in the hands of the people, such as what was done here in California and should be continued by ridding ourselves of the Socialists we have put in office in Sacramento.
And yes, we do need to build an organization that has the power to rid the world of the scourge we are seeing today. The present way the UN is structured does not work any longer.
I’m not from the US, but I do have a considerable interest in this election. I don’t have the solution to the problem of Islamic Extremism, but I know that it will require two things that Bush seems to hold in contempt, namely diplomacy and an International front.
This war should be the top priority for all civilised nations, and all civilised nations shouuld be contributing to a solution; which should be agreed upon by consensus. I’m not going to speculate about why this was or wasn’t feasible post 9/11, suffice to say that it should have been made feasible, and that Bush was the person that should have made it so.
I can’t see this state of affairs changing with another 4 years of Bush/Cheney, and as such I’m afraid to say that the world will become even more polarised.
Posted by: Jim at October 31, 2004 03:25 PMJim
Our public diplomacy capacity was gutted under Clinton. You can’t use what you don’t have. I wrote more of it under the Osama sends and election bomb post.
Posted by: jack at October 31, 2004 04:41 PMMAW,
If Our Federal Government mandates to Our States that they will do this and that, than the federal government must ensure that the states have the money to impliment the programs fully. Could you see any state being able to afford the resurfacing of all interstate roads through them?
On the UN, here is a good web site UN Reform which talks about reforming the UN. However, Americans must be made aware of some of these proposed changes over the next few years no matter who is President.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 1, 2004 01:54 AMThe point I have been trying to make is that the media forms our opinions. And only recently have other sources formed to bring out the bias in those conventional media outlets.
Hmm… MAW, I could easily make a better point that the conventional media has no bias, and your other sources, recently formed, are nothing but shills for a radical right-wing agenda and are misleading their listeners.
I don’t know where you get your info about the UN, but it’s clearly not from a serious, unbiased source.
You call the UN useless because as an institution it has no power to act. Do you really want a UN that has executive power? Are you suggesting that the UN recruit it’s own troops? Of course not. You’re advocating that we just scrap the UN. But consider this:
Organizations like the UN and NATO lend legitimacy to an endeavor. That should be totally obvious, but a recent example is Afghanistan’s presidential election. The only reason boycotts and charges of fraud were dropped was because they were monitored by the UN. You can expect the same kind of disputes of Iraq’s election in January, but without a substantial UN monitoring force, there will be no acceptance of any outcome. The US just doesn’t have the credibility in Iraqi eyes to pull that off.
And consider that the UN was one of al Qaeda’s first targets. They realize that a UN mandate in Iraq effectively means they’ve lost. If Bush had any brains, he wouldn’t have turned down France, India, and Germany’s offers of troops after the fall of Baghdad.
AP,
I don’t know where you get your info about the UN, but it’s clearly not from a serious, unbiased source.
I get my info about the UN from observation. The same place I get my info about most things. I am no scholar, just a mother of 4, grandmother of 5 that raised all my children as a single parent in a male dominated world. Spent most of my life as an IT Director and now semi-retired and bought and run a horse ranch. I form my opinions by watching events and recognizing bias when I believe I see it. And I see a lot of it. That makes me nothing but common, ordinary folk. The ones that will decide this election. If that makes me biased, then I guess I am biased.
My opinions, contrary to what others may think about me on this blog are formed by watching silly little inane things like Kitty Kelly getting a 3 day interview on The Today Show and John O’Neil getting shunned by the same organization. Or Dan Rather with his bogus National Guard story while never calling for John Kerry to release his records via Form 180 or do any investigation at all.
Nothing sophisticated, nothing deep or intellectual. Just common ordinary observation.
Observations that are formed by watching events and people spinning them to suit their own agendas. Sadly, I see more of this from Democrats than Republicans. Just an observation.
My favorite radio talk show people are Dennis Prager for intellectual value and Tammy Bruce for entertainment value. Tammy has effected me quite dramatically because she was where most people on the left were at one time, but saw the duplicity and the venom that comes from the left.
I am a moderate Republican. Mostly because I am socially liberal on most issues, not all. You could probably say I am in the Dennis Miller column, sans the Democratic party affiliation.
I have voted for Democrats in the past and will mostly vote for one in the future if I thought they were right for this country.
So AP, can you honestly tell me that you would vote for a Republican under normal circumstances? If you cannot then you are in no position to tell me where or how I form my opinions. They do not come from mountains of reading or research, just observations.
My observations tell me that we are facing a serious crisis in our nation today. A crisis that will determine how we will live our lives in the future. Not just ourselves but the entire world.
The part that saddens me is that most people are voting out of hatred for the other candidate and not for who will do the best for this country. I will let you decide who I think that person is. My guess is that you will guess correctly. And I don’t need a litany of reasons why you choose Kerry. I am not interested in your opinion and it will not change mine.
It’s the hatred part that bothers me. I will be sadly disappointed in the citizens of this country if they allow the millions of dollars that has allowed hatred to be injected into this race by the likes of Soros and Moore, to name just a few, and influence who will determine the future of our lives.
These are my observations since you think it is noteworthy to mention how flawed my thinking is and how pure and rational your thinking is. Sounds a bit elitist if you ask me.
No sir, I am not in your category, but have no fear, my dear adversary. I form my own opinions and it is not fostered by hate or intolerance. And I am thankful for the opportunity to express my opinion on a vehicle such as this blog and want the same for all people. Sorry if that disappoints you also.
As for the situation in Iraq, I see no massive demonstrations by the Iraqi people in the streets of Baghdad, such as those I observed in Iran that cause that visionary Carter to abandon support of the Shah. A move that I believe started this whole mess in the middle east.
I see only bad news in the media and realize that there must be something good coming out of that country, mostly because occasionally I hear glimmers of it from people that have visited there. But sadly only the news of the horrors end up on the front pages which forms the opinions for most people. Never is there any news of the successes. Too bad. If people only read about bad news in this country, they would never want to step foot in it. And in contrast, if we only heard good news, that would be biased too. But I see no balance at all. Even in Afghanistan where there is now hope and women were once treated about the same as dogs.
Instead, what I see are Iraqi people that just want to be left alone. Yes left alone by Americans and by insurgents. Simple requests. Not much to ask. And all I see is the same from the left, at the expense of the Iraqi people, an all out effort to divide this country and at the same time embolden the insurgents. All in an effort to gain power in this country. Another sad commentary to my bias against the left.
This is just my observation. Sorry if it disappoints you.
just read all of those comments,
My only thought is on the Hate that MAW commented about. I was working closely with a Kerry supporter recently and found that everything including armpit odor was G.W.B’s fault. This Kerry supporter felt that we were very close to world peace, and it is all Bushes fault that we are not there now.
The real question which I will not answer is, are human beings basically good, or are they basically selfish people? Before you answer that question think to yourself are your thoughts basically loving toward all or are they basically self motivated?
Oh yeah, Try playing the board game Risk with 4 friends and then re-think your political views. Idealism is soon lost in lies and intrigue. Humans will justify about anything for their own personal gain, Americans included.
Dave
Dave,
Appreciate your comments. I think people are basically good. The glass is usually half full for me.
So now I am off to buy that board game and give it a try.
Thanks.
Posted by: MAW at November 1, 2004 04:09 PMMAW & Dave,
The game of Risk comes with one rule that you might want to keep in mind. Although it has been a long time since I looked at the game’s instruction and it may have been removed over “Political Correctness.” However, did you know that the game comes with a “MAD” clause in the rules? Yes, one can of lighter fluid and a match is allowed in the game. Pure lighter fluid over entire board and touch it with a lite match ensuring that you are the winner.
While I don’t suggest anyone try it in a house, I know I don’t want to see it in real life. Therefore, I propose the following rule in your “Game of Risk.” In order to “Rule the World” you must figure out how to take it over without allowing a person to use a WMD to destory the board.
Posted by: Henry Schlatman at November 1, 2004 06:41 PMI get my info about the UN from observation.
MAW, after reading your quite lengthy life story, I’m surprised you have so much time to hang out at the UN building in New York observing things.
I actually do get my information from mountains of reading and research. You should try it sometime, if you can pry yourself away from The Today Show and Tammy Bruce. :)
