info
Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Could I have some news with my emotions, please?
28 views
Skip to first unread message
Ubiquitous
Jul 13, 2019, 8:54:37 AM7/13/19
to
https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/452148-could-i-have-some-news-
with-my-emotions-please
Walter Cronkite unnerved a nation 56 years ago, by taking off his
glasses.
The video has been seen by countless millions over the decades:
Cronkite announcing on live television in 1963 the death of President
Kennedy. He stops for a moment, removes his glasses, composes himself
and moves on. That gesture rattled Americans because they expected
journalists to convey a calm sense of authority, a reassuring stoicism
in the face of Cold War standoffs, civil unrest and even the
assassination of a president.
Things have changed. Emotion now blankets the media landscape like an
infant’s crib at bedtime. Google “Shepard Smith emotional,” and up come
nearly 3 million results, many of them focused on the Fox anchor’s
recent visceral response to immigrant suffering. A search of “Rachel
Maddow crying” delivers more than 1 million offerings, many for the
MSNBC host’s reaction to border detentions and the Mueller report.
“Brooke Baldwin tears” uncovers nearly 2 million entries for the CNN
reporter’s reaction to a variety of news events.
They are not alone. Contemporary culture trusts feelings over facts,
rewards heated emotion — tears or anger — and rejects medium cool. The
effect on journalism is unmistakable. And a lot of the blame can be
placed on those all-too-common twin devils: television and the
internet.
From the earliest days of television, journalists understood the power
of an image to overwhelm objectivity. That’s why Cronkite and others
worked hard to present the news without emotional cues: no raised
eyebrows, head-shaking, or wide-eyed incredulity. They presented the
news simply, expecting this would counteract that gut-level response
all humans have to striking images.
It didn’t work for long. As television began to overtake newspapers,
images trumped words, viewing overpowered reading. In the 1980s TV news
actually became profitable, which increased pressure on electronic
journalism to highlight emotional images that delivered viewers.
Then, in this century, the internet blew everything up. Now photos and
video are available all the time, in any quantity. News organizations
feel pressed to do whatever they can to grab viewers’ attention in the
midst of this staggering clutter of emotional imagery.
But emotions can be like an addiction. The only way to hold a viewer’s
attention is to continually ratchet up the emotional stakes. It’s not
enough to connect passionately to a picture or a video clip; the
audience also expects a fierce attachment to news anchors and reporters
— they want to see journalists emote, which is embraced as a more
reliable truth than the facts and figures being reported.
Media analysts refer to this as the “post-literate” society, where
words matter less and images are our main “language,” the most
effective way for humans to communicate.
In a way, we’ve been here before: Call it “pre-literate” America, at
the beginnings of mass communication more than century ago. Back then,
vast sections of the populace, from rural areas to immigrant-swelled
cities, had at best a basic grasp of reading. In that culture, “yellow
journalism” thrived. Newspapers relied on simple sentences, bold
headlines and lots of big photos. The Hearst and Pulitzer chains
competed for emotion-driven stories like crime sprees and sex scandals.
Their papers were often aligned with a political party (Pulitzer the
Democrats, Hearst the Republicans) and each accused the other of
exaggeration and sensationalism — in other words, “fake news.”
Their battle for dominance is even blamed for whipping up public
passion and sparking the Spanish-American War.
Tabloid journalism never totally went away, of course. But its power
diminished thanks to increased literacy, especially after World War II,
as the nation poured money into education. Words mattered.
Literacy can also mitigate today’s journalism trends. “Media literacy”
is now being taught in many schools — training students to view images
critically, to be aware of the fervor they conjure up, and to put those
in perspective. Studies show younger viewers are in fact better able to
cut through the clutter, separating facts from emotion and reporting
from opinion.
The genies of image and emotion can’t be pushed back into their
bottles, nor should they; impersonal and objective always threatened to
seem cold-blooded, especially in the face of tragic news. But a new
literacy, a new vigilance, is required.
William Randolph Hearst, at the height of his tabloid power, is quoted
as saying, “Don’t be afraid to make a mistake, your readers might like
it.” But journalism is better off when readers (and, now, viewers) can
look critically at what’s in front of them — whether words or images —
and value the facts above all else.
:Joe Ferullo is an award-winning media executive, producer and
:journalist and former executive vice president of programming for CBS
:Television Distribution. He was a news executive for NBC, a writer-
:producer for “Dateline NBC,” and has worked for ABC News and as a
:reporter or essayist for such publications as Rolling Stone magazine,
:the New York Times, the San Francisco Chronicle and the Village Voice.
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
with-my-emotions-please
Walter Cronkite unnerved a nation 56 years ago, by taking off his
glasses.
The video has been seen by countless millions over the decades:
Cronkite announcing on live television in 1963 the death of President
Kennedy. He stops for a moment, removes his glasses, composes himself
and moves on. That gesture rattled Americans because they expected
journalists to convey a calm sense of authority, a reassuring stoicism
in the face of Cold War standoffs, civil unrest and even the
assassination of a president.
Things have changed. Emotion now blankets the media landscape like an
infant’s crib at bedtime. Google “Shepard Smith emotional,” and up come
nearly 3 million results, many of them focused on the Fox anchor’s
recent visceral response to immigrant suffering. A search of “Rachel
Maddow crying” delivers more than 1 million offerings, many for the
MSNBC host’s reaction to border detentions and the Mueller report.
“Brooke Baldwin tears” uncovers nearly 2 million entries for the CNN
reporter’s reaction to a variety of news events.
They are not alone. Contemporary culture trusts feelings over facts,
rewards heated emotion — tears or anger — and rejects medium cool. The
effect on journalism is unmistakable. And a lot of the blame can be
placed on those all-too-common twin devils: television and the
internet.
From the earliest days of television, journalists understood the power
of an image to overwhelm objectivity. That’s why Cronkite and others
worked hard to present the news without emotional cues: no raised
eyebrows, head-shaking, or wide-eyed incredulity. They presented the
news simply, expecting this would counteract that gut-level response
all humans have to striking images.
It didn’t work for long. As television began to overtake newspapers,
images trumped words, viewing overpowered reading. In the 1980s TV news
actually became profitable, which increased pressure on electronic
journalism to highlight emotional images that delivered viewers.
Then, in this century, the internet blew everything up. Now photos and
video are available all the time, in any quantity. News organizations
feel pressed to do whatever they can to grab viewers’ attention in the
midst of this staggering clutter of emotional imagery.
But emotions can be like an addiction. The only way to hold a viewer’s
attention is to continually ratchet up the emotional stakes. It’s not
enough to connect passionately to a picture or a video clip; the
audience also expects a fierce attachment to news anchors and reporters
— they want to see journalists emote, which is embraced as a more
reliable truth than the facts and figures being reported.
Media analysts refer to this as the “post-literate” society, where
words matter less and images are our main “language,” the most
effective way for humans to communicate.
In a way, we’ve been here before: Call it “pre-literate” America, at
the beginnings of mass communication more than century ago. Back then,
vast sections of the populace, from rural areas to immigrant-swelled
cities, had at best a basic grasp of reading. In that culture, “yellow
journalism” thrived. Newspapers relied on simple sentences, bold
headlines and lots of big photos. The Hearst and Pulitzer chains
competed for emotion-driven stories like crime sprees and sex scandals.
Their papers were often aligned with a political party (Pulitzer the
Democrats, Hearst the Republicans) and each accused the other of
exaggeration and sensationalism — in other words, “fake news.”
Their battle for dominance is even blamed for whipping up public
passion and sparking the Spanish-American War.
Tabloid journalism never totally went away, of course. But its power
diminished thanks to increased literacy, especially after World War II,
as the nation poured money into education. Words mattered.
Literacy can also mitigate today’s journalism trends. “Media literacy”
is now being taught in many schools — training students to view images
critically, to be aware of the fervor they conjure up, and to put those
in perspective. Studies show younger viewers are in fact better able to
cut through the clutter, separating facts from emotion and reporting
from opinion.
The genies of image and emotion can’t be pushed back into their
bottles, nor should they; impersonal and objective always threatened to
seem cold-blooded, especially in the face of tragic news. But a new
literacy, a new vigilance, is required.
William Randolph Hearst, at the height of his tabloid power, is quoted
as saying, “Don’t be afraid to make a mistake, your readers might like
it.” But journalism is better off when readers (and, now, viewers) can
look critically at what’s in front of them — whether words or images —
and value the facts above all else.
:Joe Ferullo is an award-winning media executive, producer and
:journalist and former executive vice president of programming for CBS
:Television Distribution. He was a news executive for NBC, a writer-
:producer for “Dateline NBC,” and has worked for ABC News and as a
:reporter or essayist for such publications as Rolling Stone magazine,
:the New York Times, the San Francisco Chronicle and the Village Voice.
--
Dems & the media want Trump to be more like Obama, but then he'd
have to audit liberals & wire tap reporters' phones.
The Horny Goat
Jul 13, 2019, 9:01:51 PM7/13/19
to
On Fri, 12 Jul 2019 21:05:02 -0400, Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net>
wrote:
>https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/452148-could-i-have-some-news-
>with-my-emotions-please
>
>Walter Cronkite unnerved a nation 56 years ago, by taking off his
>glasses.
>
>The video has been seen by countless millions over the decades:
>Cronkite announcing on live television in 1963 the death of President
>Kennedy. He stops for a moment, removes his glasses, composes himself
>and moves on. That gesture rattled Americans because they expected
>journalists to convey a calm sense of authority, a reassuring stoicism
>in the face of Cold War standoffs, civil unrest and even the
>assassination of a president.
Thing is I can understand a newsreader crying over the murder of a
president - or 9/11 - or the explosion of the Chalenger. I >DON'T<
understsand peope who would be moved to tears by the Muller report or
pretty much anything that has happened since Trump was elected. (OK I
was in London the week before the Brexit referendum and confess I shed
a tear for poor Jo Cox who I had never heard of before I went to the
UK on holiday)
I >didn't< cry for Leonard Nimoy or even Leonard Cohen though I made a
point of hoisting a glass for each of them the night I heard of their
passing.
If I were 20 years older I likely would have said a quiet "Thank you
Lord" on April 30, 1945 (the day one of the worst men in history blew
his ****ing brains out)
I hate the word 'snowflake' but really - if somebody is crying over
the Muller report one has to wonder if they have an adult emotional
level and if not wonder what they're doing on TV.
Nobody expects a constant stiff upper lip but things have gone way way
too far the other way today.
wrote:
>https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/452148-could-i-have-some-news-
>with-my-emotions-please
>
>Walter Cronkite unnerved a nation 56 years ago, by taking off his
>glasses.
>
>The video has been seen by countless millions over the decades:
>Cronkite announcing on live television in 1963 the death of President
>Kennedy. He stops for a moment, removes his glasses, composes himself
>and moves on. That gesture rattled Americans because they expected
>journalists to convey a calm sense of authority, a reassuring stoicism
>in the face of Cold War standoffs, civil unrest and even the
>assassination of a president.
president - or 9/11 - or the explosion of the Chalenger. I >DON'T<
understsand peope who would be moved to tears by the Muller report or
pretty much anything that has happened since Trump was elected. (OK I
was in London the week before the Brexit referendum and confess I shed
a tear for poor Jo Cox who I had never heard of before I went to the
UK on holiday)
I >didn't< cry for Leonard Nimoy or even Leonard Cohen though I made a
point of hoisting a glass for each of them the night I heard of their
passing.
If I were 20 years older I likely would have said a quiet "Thank you
Lord" on April 30, 1945 (the day one of the worst men in history blew
his ****ing brains out)
I hate the word 'snowflake' but really - if somebody is crying over
the Muller report one has to wonder if they have an adult emotional
level and if not wonder what they're doing on TV.
Nobody expects a constant stiff upper lip but things have gone way way
too far the other way today.
Rhino
Jul 13, 2019, 10:51:18 PM7/13/19
to
possible. By contrast, Solzhenitsyn was released from the gulag a few
weeks before his 8 year sentence ended. He had cancer and the gulag
administration figured him for a goner and let him leave to seek medical
care, not expecting it to work. As luck would have it, the radiation
treatment he got actually saved him.
A few days after he'd been released, he heard a radio broadcast saying
that Stalin had died. While he was inwardly dancing a jig at the death
of the man who tormented so many millions of people, he didn't dare show
it in public. He had to put on a stern face and pretend to be devastated
by Stalin's death, just like everyone else.
> I hate the word 'snowflake' but really - if somebody is crying over
> the Muller report one has to wonder if they have an adult emotional
> level and if not wonder what they're doing on TV.
>
> Nobody expects a constant stiff upper lip but things have gone way way
> too far the other way today.
>
crying the night that Trump got elected. You'll see lots. (By contrast,
try to find videos of Republicans having emotional hysterics of any kind
the night Obama got elected - or re-elected.)
Look at all the times "progressive" Trudeau has gotten weepy on TV then
contrast that with the number of emotional displays by his predecessor,
Harper.
It's tempting to say that emotional incontinence is largely a phenomenon
of the Left - and a tool to manipulate its followers.
--
Rhino
Message has been deleted
RichA
Jul 14, 2019, 2:17:16 AM7/14/19
to
On Saturday, 13 July 2019 08:54:37 UTC-4, Ubiquitous wrote:
> https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/452148-could-i-have-some-news-
> with-my-emotions-please
>
> Walter Cronkite unnerved a nation 56 years ago, by taking off his
> glasses.
>
> The video has been seen by countless millions over the decades:
> Cronkite announcing on live television in 1963 the death of President
> Kennedy. He stops for a moment, removes his glasses, composes himself
> and moves on. That gesture rattled Americans because they expected
> journalists to convey a calm sense of authority, a reassuring stoicism
> in the face of Cold War standoffs, civil unrest and even the
> assassination of a president.
Liberals contaminated the news media and everything went to Hell. Watch TV overnight news shows, you are treated to sappy emotions galore with a good mix of completely inane comments about news items thrown in by what passes for journalists (actually, second-rate "news readers") today. But what is behind all of it is the liberal agenda. This is why so many ethnics are being used, because they are easier to agitate than more composed white "journalists." This is derived from the the freak-shows that are daytime TV which originally were aimed only at low-educated women but are now viewed by everyone from truant children to "house husbands."
> https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/452148-could-i-have-some-news-
> with-my-emotions-please
>
> Walter Cronkite unnerved a nation 56 years ago, by taking off his
> glasses.
>
> The video has been seen by countless millions over the decades:
> Cronkite announcing on live television in 1963 the death of President
> Kennedy. He stops for a moment, removes his glasses, composes himself
> and moves on. That gesture rattled Americans because they expected
> journalists to convey a calm sense of authority, a reassuring stoicism
> in the face of Cold War standoffs, civil unrest and even the
> assassination of a president.
FPP
Jul 14, 2019, 3:17:19 AM7/14/19
to
On 7/13/19 10:51 PM, Rhino wrote:
>>
> Go to YouTube and see how many videos you can find showing Democrats
> crying the night that Trump got elected. You'll see lots. (By contrast,
> try to find videos of Republicans having emotional hysterics of any kind
> the night Obama got elected - or re-elected.)
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/the-republicans-plan-for-the-new-president/
>>
> Go to YouTube and see how many videos you can find showing Democrats
> crying the night that Trump got elected. You'll see lots. (By contrast,
> try to find videos of Republicans having emotional hysterics of any kind
> the night Obama got elected - or re-elected.)
--
Trump: "I'm rich." (* but you can't see my taxes.)
"I'm smart." (* but you can't see my grades.)
"I'm totally exonerated." (* but you can't see the report.)
Michael OConnor
Jul 14, 2019, 3:59:02 AM7/14/19
to
> >>
> > Go to YouTube and see how many videos you can find showing Democrats
> > crying the night that Trump got elected. You'll see lots. (By contrast,
> > try to find videos of Republicans having emotional hysterics of any kind
> > the night Obama got elected - or re-elected.)
>
> https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/the-republicans-plan-for-the-new-president/
FPP
Jul 14, 2019, 6:27:14 AM7/14/19
to
We KNOW it happened, with Obama.
FPP
Jul 14, 2019, 6:28:42 AM7/14/19
to
On 7/14/19 3:59 AM, Michael OConnor wrote:
>
>>>>
>
>>>>
Or would, if someone bet him 10 bucks.
FPP
Jul 14, 2019, 6:31:04 AM7/14/19
to
On 7/14/19 3:59 AM, Michael OConnor wrote:
>
>>>>
>
>>>>
don't think Fox News would do that story, if they had it?
Who's being naive, Kay?
hector
Jul 14, 2019, 7:39:49 AM7/14/19
to
On 13/07/2019 11:05 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/452148-could-i-have-some-news-
> with-my-emotions-please
>
> Walter Cronkite unnerved a nation 56 years ago, by taking off his
> glasses.
>
But Walter Cronkite said he stands with Satan.
> https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/452148-could-i-have-some-news-
> with-my-emotions-please
>
> Walter Cronkite unnerved a nation 56 years ago, by taking off his
> glasses.
>
hector
Jul 14, 2019, 7:42:41 AM7/14/19
to
On 13/07/2019 11:05 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/452148-could-i-have-some-news-
> with-my-emotions-please
>
> Walter Cronkite unnerved a nation 56 years ago, by taking off his
> glasses.
>
Cronkite glad to sit at the right hand of Satan!
> with-my-emotions-please
>
> Walter Cronkite unnerved a nation 56 years ago, by taking off his
> glasses.
>
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w2isCEoEmN8
Rhino
Jul 14, 2019, 12:11:24 PM7/14/19
to
On 2019-07-14 3:17 AM, FPP wrote:
> On 7/13/19 10:51 PM, Rhino wrote:
>>>
>> Go to YouTube and see how many videos you can find showing Democrats
>> crying the night that Trump got elected. You'll see lots. (By
>> contrast, try to find videos of Republicans having emotional hysterics
>> of any kind the night Obama got elected - or re-elected.)
>
> https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/the-republicans-plan-for-the-new-president/
>
I followed your link. I didn't see *any* crying. All you've done is
> On 7/13/19 10:51 PM, Rhino wrote:
>>>
>> Go to YouTube and see how many videos you can find showing Democrats
>> crying the night that Trump got elected. You'll see lots. (By
>> contrast, try to find videos of Republicans having emotional hysterics
>> of any kind the night Obama got elected - or re-elected.)
>
> https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/the-republicans-plan-for-the-new-president/
>
shown me that some Republicans *opposed* Obama. I thought that was
allowed in democracies?
By contrast, here's how Democrats, including their operatives in the
media, reacted to Trump's win:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=do8yfcNDVJQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrWzBg475Q8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TraWM2Psixs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wDYNVH0U3cs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oiyc2hQD4dI
--
Rhino
David Johnston
Jul 14, 2019, 2:49:08 PM7/14/19
to
---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus
FPP
Jul 14, 2019, 4:07:58 PM7/14/19
to
The Horny Goat
Jul 15, 2019, 9:05:12 AM7/15/19
to
On Sat, 13 Jul 2019 22:51:13 -0400, Rhino
<no_offlin...@example.com> wrote:
>> If I were 20 years older I likely would have said a quiet "Thank you
>> Lord" on April 30, 1945 (the day one of the worst men in history blew
>> his ****ing brains out)
For sure my forbears made a few good choices on the way to me. (I
<no_offlin...@example.com> wrote:
>> If I were 20 years older I likely would have said a quiet "Thank you
>> Lord" on April 30, 1945 (the day one of the worst men in history blew
>> his ****ing brains out)
believe I've said previously that though I am a Canadian I have more
American relatives than Canadian and my American-born father who made
darned sure I was well aware of how things worked in the US as I had
dual status until age 21 and had to decide at that point - but lost my
choice as Canada dropped voting age from 21 to 18 and in my excitement
did cast my first vote not fully understanding that the US government
would say that doing so made my choice for me) On top of that the
Vietnam draft was still in place when I turned 18 though had ended by
my 21st birthday. (Meaning I restricted my choice of universities to
Canadian schools and 40 years later haven't regretted it though it's
been a LONG time since I've donated as my alma mater is far too
friendly to the Peoples Republic of China for my liking)
In any case my father was too young for WW2 being born (no fooling!)
January 30, 1933 which is a rather important day in the Hitler story
as that's the day he became German chancellor.
>Luckily, you probably would have lived in a free society where that was
>possible. By contrast, Solzhenitsyn was released from the gulag a few
>weeks before his 8 year sentence ended. He had cancer and the gulag
>administration figured him for a goner and let him leave to seek medical
>care, not expecting it to work. As luck would have it, the radiation
>treatment he got actually saved him.
>
>A few days after he'd been released, he heard a radio broadcast saying
>that Stalin had died. While he was inwardly dancing a jig at the death
>of the man who tormented so many millions of people, he didn't dare show
>it in public. He had to put on a stern face and pretend to be devastated
>by Stalin's death, just like everyone else.
>> I hate the word 'snowflake' but really - if somebody is crying over
>> the Muller report one has to wonder if they have an adult emotional
>> level and if not wonder what they're doing on TV.
>>
>> Nobody expects a constant stiff upper lip but things have gone way way
>> too far the other way today.
>>
>Go to YouTube and see how many videos you can find showing Democrats
>crying the night that Trump got elected. You'll see lots. (By contrast,
>try to find videos of Republicans having emotional hysterics of any kind
>the night Obama got elected - or re-elected.)
>
>Look at all the times "progressive" Trudeau has gotten weepy on TV then
>contrast that with the number of emotional displays by his predecessor,
>Harper.
>
>It's tempting to say that emotional incontinence is largely a phenomenon
>of the Left - and a tool to manipulate its followers.
headquarters in October 2015 (I live in a riding that had a heavy
swing the other way last election) and definitely saw a few.
Ubiquitous
Jul 15, 2019, 9:05:37 AM7/15/19
to
mpoco...@aol.com wrote:
>>> Go to YouTube and see how many videos you can find showing Democrats
>>> crying the night that Trump got elected. You'll see lots. (By contrast,
>>> try to find videos of Republicans having emotional hysterics of any kind
>>> the night Obama got elected - or re-elected.)
>
>>> Go to YouTube and see how many videos you can find showing Democrats
>>> crying the night that Trump got elected. You'll see lots. (By contrast,
>>> try to find videos of Republicans having emotional hysterics of any kind
>>> the night Obama got elected - or re-elected.)
>
> I'm sure there were Democrat leaders in the late hours of 11/8/2016 or
> early hours of 11/9/2016 who got together in secret and formulated plans
> about how to make Donald Trump's presidency a living hell
The Democrats were talking about impeaching him the day he announced his
> early hours of 11/9/2016 who got together in secret and formulated plans
> about how to make Donald Trump's presidency a living hell
intention to run.
The Horny Goat
Jul 15, 2019, 9:07:44 AM7/15/19
to
On Sun, 14 Jul 2019 00:59:00 -0700 (PDT), Michael OConnor
<mpoco...@aol.com> wrote:
>> https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/the-republicans-plan-for-the-n=
>ew-president/
>
>I'm sure there were Democrat leaders in the late hours of 11/8/2016 or earl=
>y hours of 11/9/2016 who got together in secret and formulated plans about =
>how to make Donald Trump's presidency a living hell, but you'll never see F=
>rontline doing documentaries detailing who these Democrats were and what th=
>ey were talking about.
I'm sure there are lots on both sides who feel the next campaign
starts on "the first Wednesday of November" every 4 years. That's how
the hardcore politicos operate.
The United States is hardly unique on that point.
<mpoco...@aol.com> wrote:
>> https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/article/the-republicans-plan-for-the-n=
>ew-president/
>
>I'm sure there were Democrat leaders in the late hours of 11/8/2016 or earl=
>y hours of 11/9/2016 who got together in secret and formulated plans about =
>how to make Donald Trump's presidency a living hell, but you'll never see F=
>rontline doing documentaries detailing who these Democrats were and what th=
>ey were talking about.
I'm sure there are lots on both sides who feel the next campaign
starts on "the first Wednesday of November" every 4 years. That's how
the hardcore politicos operate.
The United States is hardly unique on that point.
Ubiquitous
Jul 15, 2019, 9:08:49 AM7/15/19
to
In article <qgftet$166p$1...@gioia.aioe.org>, davidjo...@yahoo.com wrote:
>On 13/07/2019 6:01 p.m., The Horny Goat wrote:
>> Ubiquitous <web...@polaris.net> wrote:
>On 13/07/2019 6:01 p.m., The Horny Goat wrote:
>>> https://thehill.com/opinion/technology/452148-could-i-have-some-news-with-my-emotions-please
Surely you saw the thread about it...
Jim G.
Jul 15, 2019, 11:59:45 AM7/15/19
to
The Horny Goat sent the following on 7/13/19 at 8:01 PM:
of us -- including me -- wouldn't be here. In my case, my dad made a
lifelong buddy while training in the Air Force (the war ended before he
saw any combat) and opted to take up that friend's offer of a job with
his family's company after their military service was done. That company
happened to be located in my mom's hometown, which ended up being my
hometown, as well.
Of course, had Hitler not risen to power, I would have hardly been in a
position to have realized that I was missing out on anything. :)
--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"She mustn't kill Aaron. I mean it. I hate to be strict but she really
mustn't kill anyone." -- Carolyn Martens, KILLING EVE
> If I were 20 years older I likely would have said a quiet "Thank you
> Lord" on April 30, 1945 (the day one of the worst men in history blew
> his ****ing brains out)
One of the interesting things about Hitler is that, without him, a lot
> Lord" on April 30, 1945 (the day one of the worst men in history blew
> his ****ing brains out)
of us -- including me -- wouldn't be here. In my case, my dad made a
lifelong buddy while training in the Air Force (the war ended before he
saw any combat) and opted to take up that friend's offer of a job with
his family's company after their military service was done. That company
happened to be located in my mom's hometown, which ended up being my
hometown, as well.
Of course, had Hitler not risen to power, I would have hardly been in a
position to have realized that I was missing out on anything. :)
--
Jim G. | A fan of the good and the bad, but not the mediocre
"She mustn't kill Aaron. I mean it. I hate to be strict but she really
mustn't kill anyone." -- Carolyn Martens, KILLING EVE
FPP
Jul 15, 2019, 6:01:58 PM7/15/19
to
On 7/15/19 4:35 AM, Ubiquitous wrote:
> mpoco...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>>> Go to YouTube and see how many videos you can find showing Democrats
>>>> crying the night that Trump got elected. You'll see lots. (By contrast,
>>>> try to find videos of Republicans having emotional hysterics of any kind
>>>> the night Obama got elected - or re-elected.)
>>
>> I'm sure there were Democrat leaders in the late hours of 11/8/2016 or
>> early hours of 11/9/2016 who got together in secret and formulated plans
>> about how to make Donald Trump's presidency a living hell
>
> The Democrats were talking about impeaching him the day he announced his
> intention to run.
>
Sure. Trump. Right.
> mpoco...@aol.com wrote:
>
>>>> Go to YouTube and see how many videos you can find showing Democrats
>>>> crying the night that Trump got elected. You'll see lots. (By contrast,
>>>> try to find videos of Republicans having emotional hysterics of any kind
>>>> the night Obama got elected - or re-elected.)
>>
>> I'm sure there were Democrat leaders in the late hours of 11/8/2016 or
>> early hours of 11/9/2016 who got together in secret and formulated plans
>> about how to make Donald Trump's presidency a living hell
>
> The Democrats were talking about impeaching him the day he announced his
> intention to run.
>
"Tom Fitton, president of Judicial Watch, a conservative group long at
the forefront of legal harassment of both Bill and Hillary Clinton,
wants to go further. According to Seitz-Wald and Sarlin, Fitton is
critical of “Republican lawmakers for failing to pre-emptively impeach
Clinton.”
Preemptive impeachment would be an innovation in American presidential
politics, but it certainly shows foresight. If your goal is to make
Clinton’s presidency a nightmare of gridlock and partisan strife, why
not start early?"
--
There are three inescapable facts from the Mueller report that Mitch
McConnell can't hide:
1. A foreign government attacked our elections in order to help Donald
Trump.
2. Trump welcomed that help.
3. Trump tried to obstruct the investigation into his actions.
-Elizabeth Warren
0 new messages