Montanas Governor Donald G. Nutter died in a plane crash in 1962. After reading this: I asked myself Where have all the good guys gone? The answer came easily: They are still here only the media crucifies them while portraying bad guys as good guys. Governor Nutter would be committed to a mental institution today for saying this: An American hero from another world 1962 Posted: Saturday, July 28, 2012 7:02 pm FRANK MIELE/Daily Inter Lake Daily Inter Lake http://www.dailyinterlake.com/opini...cle_25a14dec-d875-11e1-86bb-001a4bcf887a.html Not only did the media justify socialism since Governor Nutter nailed it, the education industry force-fed generations of Americans the belief that socialism and communism are not the same thing. I know what Im talking about because Ive been debating the brainwashed products of Socialist/Communist educators for the 12 years Ive posted messages on message boards. Halloween Finally, Im not sure if the United Nations is still supplying little collection boxes, but I remember liberals on another board in 2006 going bunkers because I said the UN is even ruining Halloween! The UN was giving away little cardboard boxes on the Internet. The boxes had a coin slot in them like a piggy bank. Trick or treaters were encouraged to ask people to donate money to some UN charity or other. The filthy bums would not let little kids have their trick or treat fun. Im sure that UN dirt-bags have a story to justify their B.S. Its more than the money. Its planting, in the heads of five year olds, the idea that the UN is good. Parents who do that to their own children should be ashamed of themselves. Halloween is about kids and candy and scary costumes not about sick politics. My UN-loving opponents had a collective nervous breakdown when I said If I had little gumps out trick or treating, I would let them collect for the UN then I would tell them to keep the money because the UN sucks. Kids collecting for the UN and then keeping the money as I suggested is a good way to ripoff the UN for a change instead of the other way around. Admittedly, the amount of money involved is peanuts when compared to what the UN gets from American taxpayers, but kids keeping the money also shoots socialist brainwashing in the rear end. Theres no better message to send to American youngsters than this: Scam UN true believers the way they scam Americans only do it first and do it often. I still cant think of anything more satisfying that ripping off half-wits who voluntarily contribute to the United Nations. Apparently, the government funding United Nations bums with tax dollars isnt enough for half-wits.
Not really. If you look at contemporary media reports of any historical figure or politician over their entire career, they are likely to be a mixed bad - some positive, some negative. That's because all politicians and public figures have a variety of aspects, a variety of opinions about them, do some good things, and do some bad things. That's real life. 'Good guys' and 'bad guys' are only defined on a (usually pretty vague) assessment of the balance of their actions after their days never while they are doing what they are doing, because people will disagree with them (and they will be making mistakes - everyone does, no matter how 'good' they are viewed in terms of the public perceptions about history). Take Churchill, for example (only because he is a particularly good example!) - most people see him, historically speaking, as generally a 'good guy', because of his leadership during WWII. That's wasn't the universal view of him at the time, and was a very long way from being the universal view of him before the war. He'd made alot of mistakes (some of them pretty serious, and the reason why he wasn't in high office between the wars), and done some pretty bad things (and there are still those who don't see him as a 'good guy' in certain places to this day - as about him in Welsh mining valleys and you might well get a surprising reaction!). “Where have all the good guys gone?” - they are still there, every bit as much as they once were. We just haven't worked out who they are yet, and won't until after they have gone!
To cenydd: Youre correct about judging personalities from the past; however, I was trying to make the point that the MSM judges active politicians as either or good or bad in the way they slant their reporting. Liberal politicians are generally portrayed as compassionate, loving, humanitarians while conservative politicians are generally portrayed as meanspirited, fascist, kooks. Of course, its more subliminal than I am putting it, but it is there for anyone who looks. There is a luxury in judging dead politicians because they can be judged on balance; were they more good than bad. Even there, liberals play fast and loose determining who was good and who was bad. The best example is Hitler and Stalin. They were equally bad, but Hitler is portrayed as the most evil man that ever lived, while Stalin is good because Hitler was so bad. In the same vain one of Husseins czarinas, Anita Dunn, openly admired Mao: If a conservative bureaucrat ever openly admired Hitler the MSM would not rest until that person, and the president who appointed her, was run out of public life. Note that Dunn cites a vicious dictator and Mother Teresa in the same sentence. Do you think she was ascribing Maos political posture to Mother Teresa? or was she tying Teresas humanity to a murderer who is still admired by liberals like Dunn?
Most media outlets do that to some extent, but those in the US do seem to be more extreme in ther judgemental behaviour than some others - I think it's feature of the polerization of US politics. You can probably see it most clearly in the treatment of presidents - the 'left' press hated Bush, and therefore everything Bush did was bad and wrong and awful, and now the 'right' media are doing the same towards Obama. Whether or not there is any merit to a particular thing, the 'opposite side's' media will paint it as utterly appauling simply becuase it is their figure of hatred that has done it, so it must be awful. How offensive people consider it to be often depends on whether they happen to agree with the poltical views of the media outlet in question (and we can see evidence of that all over the forum, of course). Both 'sides' are at it just the same, though - Obama is either a 'compassionate, loving, humanitarian', or he's an evil socialist communist out to destroy America. The reality, of course, is usually somewhere in between the two (although that leaves an awful lot of space, obviously!), and people should make themselves aware of that when faced with such outright media polarity. I don't think any liberals would catagorise Stalin as being 'good' at all! If they did, they would quite obviously be wrong. He was a violent and vicious dictator who perpetrated some appauling crimes against humanity, and that's well recognised. He may be slightly less badly though of by some than Hitler, because of the particular horrors that Hitler inflicted (and there is an element of publicity to those horrors that perhaps Stalin's haven't recieved, and not everyone is as aware of history as they should perhaps be), and potentially, of course, because history is usually written to favour the victors, and Stalin was 'on our side' in the war. Both were clearly 'bad' - whether they were equally 'bad' is perhaps a matter of personal interpretation (and knowledge or otherwise, of course), but being perhaps a tiny bit less awful in some ways certainly doesn't make someone 'good'.
To cenydd: Actually, the American Left began doing it in the 1930s. Hitler was a prince of a fellow to American Communists until he invaded the Soviet Union. From that day forward Hitler became the arch villain while Stalin became America’s trusted ally. Then-Senator Truman had their number in 1941:
Opinions about them in the 1930s varied among pretty much everybody - a classic example of people not knowing what they were like at the time (and alot of Stalin's worst stuff didn't become known about until much later, of course), but history judging them once they were gone. Of course, during that wartime period, Hitler was the most direct and imminent threat to Western Europe, so you'd expect them to by most concerned about him.
To cenydd: It all comes down to one thing. Does a principled nation remain in bed with the Devil’s evil twin when it is no longer necessary. The American Left obviously thinks the answer is yes.
Do they? Really? All of them? Because one particular person says she often turns to the philosophy of a particular person with a certainly very tainted history? I think not! The fact that she turns to that philosphy does not necessarily mean she admires that person or everything about them, or forgives their evils in any way, just that in their works they have made some useful or interesting observations from which things can be drawn. That goes back to the 'good' and 'bad' aspects of a political figure - while he no doubt did some very bad things, that doesn't mean that everything he ever did or said should therefore automatically be treated as inherently utterly evil. Now, if we really want to consider the issue of biased reporting of political figures, let's look at that report on the Dunn speech! There is an anchorman of some sort pulling faces (and on a little screen pulling faces throughout the speech), and then dismissing it as somehow disgusting at the end. Then look at the emphasis - it was all about that one reference, not about what was actually being said. As far as I can see from that clip (which, in fairness, may be an incomplete version of the item), it's just a dismissal of Dunn on the basis that she must be bad because she quoted anything at all from someone who did bad things in their time - actually, the quote she was using to illustrate a particular point she wanted to make wasn't actually offensive in any way that I could see, any more than the quote from Mother Teresa was. that point wasn't made by the anchorman, though - no discussion of what she was saying or why, but simply dismissing it and her utterly because of that single quote. Now that is a beautiful example of exactly how to do biased reporting - draw out something you want paint as bad, ignore absolutely everything else, and make disgusted faces so that the audience know that they should feel just awful about it and not question what you are doing. I should say that as someone not in the US, I have no axe to grind on that particular issue - I don't know (or care!) anything about Dunn, or what philosopher or politician she happens to like or happens to find useful illustrative points from, or whether or not she is, in fact, an idiot. The bias in the reporting is so blindingly obvious, though. Yes, it does happen on both sides, of course, but both sides should recognise when their 'side' are blatantly doing it to them just as much as they should see the bias in what the other side are doing. Question everything, ESPECIALLY the stuff that seems to confirm and just strengthen and radicalise your existing opinion (and even more so if it does so on the basis of 'proving' just how 'evil' your opponents are). It's always much easier to pull the wool over someone's eyes if they already have the right type of wooly hat on their head, if you see what I mean! Biased media organsiations with their own agenda that wants to push people in a certain direction only talk to those who are already receptive to their general viewpoint (because the know others will see straight through what they are doing!), and use techniques like this to push them further in the direction they want (the old 'you think that's bad, well look at how appauling THIS is' technique, essentially). Both sides do it, and both sides should really be on the look out for it from their own - stuff like that isn't helping anybody to make an informed choice about politics, or hold a real political discussion based on fact. All it does is make the entrenched mud-slinging ever worse, and frankly it's more than bad enough already!
