# When you lose Jimmy Fallon, you lose America



## billc (Mar 23, 2011)

Doing what the main stream media seems incapable of doing, Talk show host Jimmy Fallon directs some pointed questions to one of President Obamas media representatives, Brian Williams of NBC news.  Defending the President as best he can, and in ways he would never have done for the last republican president or  any republican president ever, Brian williams effectively spells out the white house talking points.

This article and video are from John Nolte at Bighollywood.com:

http://bigjournalism.com/jjmnolte/2...bamas-water-on-jimmy-fallon-show/#more-178576

From John Nolte's article:

he golfing, the NCAA brackets, the vacations, the date nights&#8230; From an isolated point of view, you might be able to defend Williams here, but when you look at the left-wing media as a whole, you don&#8217;t see them doing to Obama what they did to Bush. When a Republican is in office, the MSM is always looking for a narrative to fixate on that will define and diminish. When an Obama is in office and that same narrative opportunity presents itself, they do what Williams does here with Jimmy Fallon: they fight that narrative from gaining a foothold and try to snuff it out.


----------



## K831 (Mar 23, 2011)

One of the great occurrences of the Obama presidency is the ongoing exposure of just how unprincipled and hypocritical the progressive movement is.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Mar 23, 2011)

Did I miss something?

It seems that your whole point here is that the liberal media isn't attacking our liberal president the same way they attacked our former conservative president. 

Um......duh.......

Are there subtleties here that I haven't spotted? 'Cos, seriously - what did you expect?


----------



## billc (Mar 23, 2011)

I expected exactly what you saw on the video, but it never gets old showing it.  At times it is even pretty hilarious when these script readers do verbal gymnastics covering for their favorite liberal incompetents and criminals.  Some of the funniest times were watching the media during the clinton years.  That was funny.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Mar 23, 2011)

Agreed. About as funny as the conservative media's treatment of liberals.

I can't get riled about either one. On the other hand, I can get seriously pissed off about how little news we get has any real substance - it's all celebrities or some talking head pandering to the lefties or the righties - anything to get us distracted by petty dramas and squabbles, rather than pissed off about the real **** that's going on.


----------



## K831 (Mar 23, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> Agreed. About as funny as the conservative media's treatment of liberals.
> 
> I can't get riled about either one. On the other hand, I can get seriously pissed off about how little news we get has any real substance - it's all celebrities or some talking head pandering to the lefties or the righties - anything to get us distracted by petty dramas and squabbles, rather than pissed off about the real **** that's going on.



Unfortunately it works. Americans are seriously distracted. 

I keep RCP as my homepage and get the Economist and the WSJ among others....which helps, but these days, you really have to go out and look to stay "genuinely" informed. Few are willing, what with the pressing issues of American Idle, Brad and Angelina, and whatever new vampire trend is on the tube.


----------



## LuckyKBoxer (Mar 23, 2011)

I think the point is there are a handfull of left leaning zombies on this site who are always spouting how unbiased the media is, how fair they are, how biased fox is, how good Obama is, how Bad Bush is... etc.etc.. ad nauseum..
If someone bashes Obama for something, they immediately throw out Bush like it matters...
If someone links a story they dont like they bash the source if they can for being biased, but when the same is done to them they adamantly disagree that its biased in any way shape or form...

the ultimate hypocrites.. I can think of several routine posters on our very board....


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 23, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> the ultimate hypocrites.. I can think of several routine posters on our very board....



Why so shy, cupcake?


----------



## billc (Mar 23, 2011)

Don't forget calling people trolls, that's always a good response.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Mar 23, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> I think the point is there are a handfull of left leaning zombies on this site who are always spouting how unbiased the media is, how fair they are, how biased fox is, how good Obama is, how Bad Bush is... etc.etc.. ad nauseum..
> If someone bashes Obama for something, they immediately throw out Bush like it matters...
> If someone links a story they dont like they bash the source if they can for being biased, but when the same is done to them they adamantly disagree that its biased in any way shape or form...
> 
> the ultimate hypocrites.. I can think of several routine posters on our very board....



I see the same behavior on the part of several routine conservatives posting here. Attacking behavior in a liberal that they would defend if it were a conservative saying or doing precisely the same thing.

I just don't understand why we've become so polarized. It's blinding people on both sides.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 23, 2011)

Why is Jimmy Fallen a important?


----------



## elder999 (Mar 23, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> Why is Jimmy Fallen a important?


 
More to the point, isn't he part of that so-called "liberally biased media?"
:lfao:


----------



## K831 (Mar 23, 2011)

elder999 said:


> More to the point, isn't he part of that so-called "liberally biased media?"
> :lfao:



So called.... meaning you find no bias? Interesting.


----------



## Ramirez (Mar 23, 2011)

"When you lose Jimmy Fallon you lose America"?   


  Obama shouldn't even bother running again,  tomorrow he should hold a press conference and just tell America "I've lost Jimmy Fallon....game over."


----------



## K831 (Mar 23, 2011)

Ramirez said:


> "When you lose Jimmy Fallon you lose America"?
> 
> 
> Obama shouldn't even bother running again,  tomorrow the should hold a press conference and just tell America "I've lost Jimmy Fallon....game over."



That fact that he has momentarily lost America (and Jimmy Fallon) doesn't change the fact that he knows a few speeches full of empty rhetoric, some swiftly played race cards a few empty promises about "free stuff" for the masses... and most will gladly forget history and re-elect him. 

I'm sure he'll be fine... I've met enough of his supporters.


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Mar 23, 2011)

K831 said:


> That fact that he has momentarily lost America (and Jimmy Fallon) doesn't change the fact that he knows a few speeches full of empty rhetoric, some swiftly played race cards a few empty promises about "free stuff" for the masses... and most will gladly forget history and re-elect him.
> 
> I'm sure he'll be fine... I've met enough of his supporters.



Worked for both Bushes, Clinton and Reagan. I was 7 when Carter got out, so I can't speak to others - but I would bet it's been going on since the beginning. This ain't a liberal thing, or a Democrat thing. It's a politics thing.

Any cynical old curmugeons out there to speak to earlier?


----------



## Empty Hands (Mar 23, 2011)

Ramirez said:


> Obama shouldn't even bother running again,  tomorrow he should hold a press conference and just tell America "I've lost Jimmy Fallon....game over."



"Game over man!  Game over!"


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 23, 2011)

So that's it then?


----------



## Steve (Mar 23, 2011)

LuckyKBoxer said:


> I think the point is there are a handfull of left leaning zombies on this site who are always spouting how unbiased the media is, how fair they are, how biased fox is, how good Obama is, how Bad Bush is... etc.etc.. ad nauseum..
> If someone bashes Obama for something, they immediately throw out Bush like it matters...
> If someone links a story they dont like they bash the source if they can for being biased, but when the same is done to them they adamantly disagree that its biased in any way shape or form...
> 
> the ultimate hypocrites.. I can think of several routine posters on our very board....


Like who?


----------



## billc (Mar 23, 2011)

The fact that Jimmy fallon is asking about the Ncaa brackets, and the golf and the wednesday night parties, and the vacations is serious.  Normally a guy like fallon doesn't get into politics, just like Williams said.  The fact that he is means that Obama's leisure time is starting to make even people who normally would support him think something funny is going on.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 23, 2011)

billcihak said:


> The fact that Jimmy fallon is asking about the Ncaa brackets, and the golf and the wednesday night parties, and the vacations is serious.  Normally a guy like fallon doesn't get into politics, just like Williams said.  The fact that he is means that Obama's leisure time is starting to make even people who normally would support him think something funny is going on.


As if he doesn't have a team of people constantly around him at any given moment where ever he is...
Sean


----------



## billc (Mar 23, 2011)

Every president does, they are never really on vacation, but that understanding of the nature of the office only applies when democrats are in power.  Not complaining, just explaining, and  the bias is no longer a surprise.  In fact, if that bias wasn't there, I would think something had gone drastically wrong in the universe.


----------



## Big Don (Mar 24, 2011)

bushidomartialarts said:


> Did I miss something?
> 
> It seems that your whole point here is that the liberal media isn't attacking our liberal president the same way they attacked our former conservative president.
> 
> ...


Uh, the phrase is: DUH, WINNING! Did you learn nothing from Charlie Sheen?


----------



## CanuckMA (Mar 24, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Every president does, they are never really on vacation, *but that understanding of the nature of the office only applies when democrats are in power.* Not complaining, just explaining, and the bias is no longer a surprise. In fact, if that bias wasn't there, I would think something had gone drastically wrong in the universe.


 

No. That understanding of the nature of the office only applies to the media supporting the current President. Same crap was brought up about Bush spending so much time in Maine and Texas. The 'liberal' media pointed it out as a bad thing, the 'conservative' media pointed out that he always had staff with him. It's politics as usual.


----------



## crushing (Mar 24, 2011)

Ramirez said:


> "When you lose Jimmy Fallon you lose America"?
> 
> 
> Obama shouldn't even bother running again, tomorrow he should hold a press conference and just tell America "I've lost Jimmy Fallon....game over."


 
Not so fast.  Obama still has the Baldwins, so all is not lost.  Everyone knows Baldwin Power > Fallon Nation.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 24, 2011)

crushing said:


> Not so fast.  Obama still has the Baldwins, so all is not lost.  Everyone knows Baldwin Power > Fallon Nation.


Except for Stephen... the black sheep of Baldwin.
Sean


----------



## crushing (Mar 24, 2011)

Touch Of Death said:


> Except for Stephen... the black sheep of Baldwin.
> Sean


 
Ummm...yeahhhh.....Not really supposed to talk about that one.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 24, 2011)

Media covered when Bush went to Camp David during war. Media covered when Dubya kept reading to children at school on 9/11.  Media covers Obama "playing soccer" during Libya.

Nothing to see here.  Move along.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 24, 2011)

K831 said:


> So called.... meaning you find no bias? Interesting.


 
No, meaning that the disticntion is an artificial construct, created by the _corporations that own the media_ in order to keep the populace polarized.....I've said it here many, mamy times: the media are as "liberal" as their "conservative" corporate owners permit them to be.

NBC-*owned* by General Electric-that same GE that supplies appliances, lightbulbs, powerplant turbines, and, oh yeah, _brings good things to light_ like jet engines, nuclear reactors, and nuclear weapons. The same GE that ran the Hanford Reservation Facility for the U.S., making nuclear materials for weapons. The same GE that began releasing nuclear material from Hanford in 1949...just to see how far downwind it would go. The same GE that was run by Mr. Jack Welch-Republican, and major contributor the Bush campaign......

CBS-Owned by VIACOM, 

ABC-Owned by Disney

Fox News-Owned by NewsCorp (Rupert Murdoch)

CNN-Owned by Time Warner.

These _5 companies_ control* 75%* of the media's prime time viewing.


A good example is that ultimate organ of the left, MSNBC- a joint venture between NBCUniversal and Microsoft. The same Microsoft that gave millions to get George W. Bush elected. NBC Universal is jointly owned between GE and Comcast. The same GE that gives millions to Republicans....of course, in the instance of GE and Microsoft, we have corporations that have donated generously to *both* major parties, but the majority of their donations have gone to the Republicans, most years.

"Both major parties"....if you follow the money, you'll see that you're being bamboozled....flim-flammed......manipulated into arguing over a division that shouldn't really exist. 

Fact is,if you look at any major news story from the last 10 or 15 years, and look atboth ends of the spectrum on that story-FoxNews and MSNBC, say, the reportage of *facts* would substantially be the same, but the nuance, spin and commentary-the things on which people invariably base their _truth_, would be vastly different.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 24, 2011)

Sadly the days of Walter Cronkite are long gone and now ratings matter much more than news


----------



## yorkshirelad (Mar 24, 2011)

elder999 said:


> No, meaning that the disticntion is an artificial construct, created by the _corporations that own the media_ in order to keep the populace polarized.....I've said it here many, mamy times: the media are as "liberal" as their "conservative" corporate owners permit them to be.
> 
> NBC-*owned* by General Electric-that same GE that supplies appliances, lightbulbs, powerplant turbines, and, oh yeah, _brings good things to light_ like jet engines, nuclear reactors, and nuclear weapons. The same GE that ran the Hanford Reservation Facility for the U.S., making nuclear materials for weapons. The same GE that began releasing nuclear material from Hanford in 1949...just to see how far downwind it would go. The same GE that was run by Mr. Jack Welch-Republican, and major contributor the Bush campaign......
> 
> .


You mean the same GE whose CEO is now Jeff Immelt, the same Jeff Immelt who is a major supporter of Obama and advisor. The same Jeff Immelt who let Zucker allow NBC/MSNBC get so over the top liberal that it's viewership is down the proverbial toilet. The same Jeff Immelt who has presided over GE stock going down the same toilet. The same Jeff Immelt who has ordered NBC to go easy on the Oamessiah. The same Immelt who had to back track on his dealings with Iran because of the Fox news expose. Oh and the same Jeff Immelt whose corporation stands to recoup almost all of its losses if Cap and Trade becomes a reality.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 24, 2011)

yorkshirelad said:


> You mean the same GE whose CEO is now Jeff Immelt, the same Jeff Immelt who is a major supporter of Obama and advisor. The same Jeff Immelt who let Zucker allow NBC/MSNBC get so over the top liberal that it's viewership is down the proverbial toilet. The same Jeff Immelt who has presided over GE stock going down the same toilet. The same Jeff Immelt who has ordered NBC to go easy on the Oamessiah. The same Immelt who had to back track on his dealings with Iran because of the Fox news expose. Oh and the same Jeff Immelt whose corporation stands to recoup almost all of its losses if Cap and Trade becomes a reality.


 

Yes-if you think about it, you make my point for me. The artificial construct is made to make one "side" think that their man got elected, and the other that their man didn't. To divide them on issues that are not significnt, or less than significant: I worked with a guy who voted for GW Bush in the 2000 election because "_he's going to stop them from killing the little babies." _Didn't exactly happen that way, though, did it? In the meantime, corporate interests are served, because, in the case of either party, the *corporations' man* gets elected.

And the only issue a corporation cares about is making as many $$$$$ as they can....all other issues are viewed through that lens: is it going to cost us, or can we make a profit from it?


----------



## bushidomartialarts (Mar 24, 2011)

elder999 said:


> corporate interests are served, because, in the case of either party, the *corporations' man* gets elected.



Bingo


----------



## yorkshirelad (Mar 24, 2011)

elder999 said:


> Yes-if you think about it, you make my point for me. The artificial construct is made to make one "side" think that their man got elected, and the other that their man didn't. To divide them on issues that are not significnt, or less than significant: I worked with a guy who voted for GW Bush in the 2000 election because "_he's going to stop them from killing the little babies." _Didn't exactly happen that way, though, did it? In the meantime, corporate interests are served, because, in the case of either party, the *corporations' man* gets elected.
> 
> And the only issue a corporation cares about is making as many $$$$$ as they can....all other issues are viewed through that lens: is it going to cost us, or can we make a profit from it?


 
Hmm....Interesting!!


----------



## billc (Mar 24, 2011)

I'm glad Cronkite's gone.  He was a real jerk.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 24, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I'm glad Cronkite's gone.  He was a real jerk.


I think you could be a little more offensive if you put you mind to it.
Sean


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 24, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I'm glad Cronkite's gone.  He was a real jerk.



:bs1:



Touch Of Death said:


> I think you could be a little more offensive if you put you mind to it.
> Sean



:hammer:


----------



## billc (Mar 24, 2011)

He doesn't deserve that much.  For the record, gone as in off the air.  Not dead.  I don't wish anyone dead, except for mass murderers.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 25, 2011)

billcihak said:


> I'm glad Cronkite's gone. He was a real jerk.


 

:hmm: so youre against integrity in the news then are you... interesting... and rather telling


----------



## billc (Mar 25, 2011)

Cronkite was just able to hide his partisan reporting because there wasn't anything else on the air.  He was one of the last of the lucky old media who got out well before Rush, and Fox news allowed the other side to get their point of view across.  If he was around today, with actual competition, he would have been in the same place as the other media.  For example, Rush and Hannity, and Beck would have pointed out that the Tet offensive was a disaster for North Vietnam, not a loss for the U.S.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 25, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Cronkite was just able to hide his partisan reporting because there wasn't anything else on the air.  He was one of the last of the lucky old media who got out well before Rush, and Fox news allowed the other side to get their point of view across.  If he was around today, with actual competition, he would have been in the same place as the other media.  For example, Rush and Hannity, and Beck would have pointed out that the Tet offensive was a disaster for North Vietnam, not a loss for the U.S.


Except for all the people that died. And if memory seves it was the Viet Kong and not the Viet Nhim that pulled it off; so, I would hardly call it a disaster for the Noth.
Sean


----------



## billc (Mar 25, 2011)

From Thomas Sowel's book, Intellectuals and Society from the chapter on war:

"...Moreover, many in the media depicted what happened as defeat for the United States, when in fact the Communist guerilla movement was decimated in the fighting and was never the same again.11" (Source, Peter Braestrup, "Big Story: How the American Press and Television Reported and interpreted the Crisis of Tet 1968 in Vietnam and Washington(Garden City New YOrk:Anchor Books, 1978 pp. 49-54)

"Communist leaders themselves ,after taking over south vietnam, openly admitted in later years that they had lost militarily in their war with American troops in Vietnam, including during their Tet offensive, but pointed out that they had won politically in America." 



From Me, I use the above to point out that Walter Cronkite was the face of the people who did not tell the truth, or to give him the benfit of the doubt that he himself did not know the truth, about the real outcome of Tet.  His influence encouraged the North and helped drive LBJ from seeking another term.  All based on the false reporting that Tet was our disaster and not theirs.


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 25, 2011)

Tet was everyone's disaster. What are you smoking?


----------



## billc (Mar 25, 2011)

It was our disaster because of guys like Cronkite.  The communists were devestated militarily by Tet, and yet, because of the american media and the political turmoil in America, they continued to fight.  It isn't me saying this, read what the North vietnamese generals say.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Mar 25, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Cronkite was just able to hide his partisan reporting because there wasn't anything else on the air. He was one of the last of the lucky old media who got out well before Rush, and Fox news allowed the other side to get their point of view across. If he was around today, with actual competition, he would have been in the same place as the other media. For example, Rush and Hannity, and Beck would have pointed out that the Tet offensive was a disaster for North Vietnam, not a loss for the U.S.


 
Wrong!!!! How old are you anyway....

But I will waste no time trying to convince you

Believe what you will.... but integrity is gone in the media and the people you listed are a big part of it no longer being there as is every other reporter out there on TV today REGARDLESS of party affiliation



billcihak said:


> It was our disaster because of guys like Cronkite. The communists were devestated militarily by Tet, and yet, because of the american media and the political turmoil in America, they continued to fight. It isn't me saying this, read what the North vietnamese generals say.


 
Wrong again, you prove time and time again you know nothing about history and in general little about reality... but thanks for the entertainment


----------



## crushing (Mar 25, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Cronkite was just able to hide his partisan reporting because there wasn't anything else on the air. He was one of the last of the lucky old media who got out well before Rush, and Fox news allowed the other side to get their point of view across. If he was around today, with actual competition, he would have been in the same place as the other media. For example, Rush and Hannity, and Beck would have pointed out that the Tet offensive was a disaster for North Vietnam, not a loss for the U.S.


 
So which side was the partisan Cronkite on?  His editorial following the Tet Offensive dealt a blow to the LBJ administration's execution of the war.  Supposedly after Cronkite's comment LBJ said, "If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost middle America."

I wouldn't have taken you to be a big fan of LBJ.


----------



## billc (Mar 25, 2011)

General Giap:  "Tet was designed to influence American Public opinion."  As for the results of the Tet Offensive: "Our losses were staggering and a complete surprise."  Giap later told me that Tet had been a military defeat, though we had gained the planned political advantages when Johnson agreed to negotiate and did not run for re-election."  Militarily, however, "Our forces in the South were nearly wiped out by all the fighting in 1968." 16 (Stanley Karnow,"Giap Remembers," New YOrk Times Magazine,June 24 1990, p. 36.)


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 25, 2011)

Do you really have zero understanding of how communists - especially Asian communists - work?  Even if they lose they claim victory.  They will pull out all the stops to gain some kind of ally in the weakest of minds.

The people of that nation, when given the gift of getting their sight back from surgeons who go and donate their expertise, time and surgical supplies (what their very own government won't give them) are so subservient and brainwashed they praise their great general for giving them the opportunity for their sight back.

No thanks for the doctors.

Any victory will be claimed over everyone.  I'd be surprised if the generals didn't claim victory over Chilean coffee farmers for making them produce coffee for them every damn day.

Victory over the ants in the ground for doing their bidding.

Seriously.


----------



## billc (Mar 25, 2011)

Thomas sowell, "Intellectuals and Society."

CBS anchor man Walter Cronkite said, "we are mired in stalemate"20 and, while this was a less dire conclusion than some others, the size of Cronkite's audience and the fact that he had been shown in a poll to be the most trusted person in America, gave great weight to his conclusion that the war was militarily unwinnable.  Aides to President Johnson  later said that the Cronkite broadcast had convinced the president that he was losing the public support necessary to carry on the war to a military victory.  A month later, Lyndon Johnson announced that he would not seek re-election and that he was seeking negotiations with North Vietnam."

Thomas Sowell:

As we now know, the North Vietnamese Communist leaders in Hanoi had virtually the same military evaluation of the Tet Offensive as American leaders in Washington-NAMELY, THAT IT WAS AN OVERWHELMING DEFEAT FOR THE COMMUNIST GUERILLAS.(capitalized for emphasis, not for shouting)


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 25, 2011)

Seems like we've gotten off topic, eh?


----------



## billc (Mar 25, 2011)

Fan of the country, actually, and Cronkite undermined the truth of the Tet offensive and who knows what other little things he did on the air that hurt the country.  That is why I think he is a jerk.  He had no other voices competing with his, so the damage he did wasn't countered by anyone the way it is today by Rush, Beck, Hannity, Fox news and the internet.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 25, 2011)

shesulsa said:


> Do you really have zero understanding of how communists - especially Asian communists - work? .


 
Sure he does. It's the same as those Nazi communists and Fascist communists, and left-wing white-supremacists do.......:lfao: :lfao: :lfao:


----------



## billc (Mar 25, 2011)

Perhaps just an eensy weensy tiny bit.  But now, for something completely different...


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 25, 2011)

billcihak said:


> Fan of the country, actually, and Cronkite undermined the truth of the Tet offensive and who knows what other little things he did on the air that hurt the country.  That is why I think he is a jerk.  He had no other voices competing with his, so the damage he did wasn't countered by anyone the way it is today by Rush, Beck, Hannity, Fox news and the internet.



You do realize that Rush's tagline used to be "Your news, digested," ... riiiight?

You do understand what food turns into when it's digested ... riiiight?


----------



## billc (Mar 25, 2011)

Actually, we just rely on him to tell us what to think.  It makes life a lot easier that way.  By the way, would you care to take home a Rush Pod.  The care instructions are easy, just place it under or next to your bed tonight, before you go to sleep, and things will look differently in the morning.


----------



## Ramirez (Mar 25, 2011)

billcihak said:


> From Thomas Sowel's book, Intellectuals and Society from the chapter on war:
> 
> "...Moreover, many in the media depicted what happened as defeat for the United States, when in fact the Communist guerilla movement was decimated in the fighting and was never the same again.11" (Source, Peter Braestrup, "Big Story: How the American Press and Television Reported and interpreted the Crisis of Tet 1968 in Vietnam and Washington(Garden City New YOrk:Anchor Books, 1978 pp. 49-54)
> 
> ...



 argument from authority again Bill?


----------



## billc (Mar 26, 2011)

A last note on Walter Cronkite:

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/13068

From the article:

We found out after his retirement that he was not only a liberal, which was evident from his broadcasts, but a one-worlder. In appearances before the World Federalist Association, which favors world government financed by global taxes, he called for the U.S. to renounce &#8220;some of its sovereignty&#8221; and pass a series of United Nations treaties-many of which are now being pushed in the Senate by President Barack Obama. Cronkite called for an &#8220;international Liberty Bell.&#8221;


----------



## billc (Mar 26, 2011)

One last, last article on Cronkite:

http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/dgifford/2009/07/29/walters-krankeit/

From the article:

Only after retirement did Cronkite actually admit the liberal newsroom influences that are still denied today by those in them in addition to the personal beliefs his critics had said all along were skewing his reporting.
*1996:* &#8220;Everybody knows that there&#8217;s a liberal, that there&#8217;s a heavy liberal persuasion among correspondents,&#8221; Cronkite told those at a Radio and TV Correspondents Association dinner.
*1999:* During an awards ceremony at the United Nations, Cronkite admitted that &#8220;half a century ago&#8221; he was offered &#8220;a job as spokesman and Washington lobbyist for the World Federalist organization&#8221; that advocates a one-world government. &#8220;I chose instead to continue in the world of journalism.&#8221; Then he riffed: &#8220;[W]e must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world government &#8230; We must change the basic structure of our global community to a new system governed by a democratic UN federation &#8230; Today the notion of unlimited national sovereignty means international anarchy. We must replace the anarchic law of force with a civilized force of law &#8230; [we must ratify the] &#8220;Treaty for a Permanent International Criminal Court&#8221; &#8230; [and we must have a] revision of the [U.S. power of] Veto in the Security Council. Cronkite then praised international billionaire financier George Soros as one of the best thinkers on this topic.
*2004:* On CNN&#8217;s Larry King show: &#8220;I have a feeling that [Osama bin Laden's newly released videotape] could tilt the [presidential] election a bit. In fact, I&#8217;m a little inclined to think that Karl Rove, the political manager at the White House, who is a very clever man, that he probably set up bin Laden to this thing.&#8221;​Karl Rove set-up Bin Laden?

"... but nobody else appears to be pointing out that Cronkite was actually a liberal ideologue; an advocate of a politically correct, totalitarian world government who used his trust to influence public policy in accordance with his own beliefs...
Cronkite was accused of political prejudice by Republicans and conservatives as soon as he became CBS&#8217; big kahuna. The bias they claimed was not so much in the words he said, it was in the way he said those words in combination with his story selection, pictures and facial expressions following comments made by non-liberals.
The first time I really noticed Cronkite&#8217;s tricks was while watching his TV newscasts during the 1964 presidential campaign between Arizona&#8217;s Republican Senator Barry Goldwater and incumbent Texas Democratic President Lyndon Johnson. What most caught my attention was that Cronkite&#8217;s favoring of Johnson was different than the overt fawning over JFK four years earlier by Cronkite and the general news establishment. This was a subtle, sub-textual skewing which presented benign accurate facts about Goldwater in a way that demonized and marginalized him.


----------



## elder999 (Mar 26, 2011)

billcihak said:


> We found out after his retirement that he was not only a liberal, which was evident from his broadcasts, but a one-worlder. In appearances before the World Federalist Association, which favors world government financed by global taxes, he called for the U.S. to renounce some of its sovereignty and pass a series of United Nations treaties-many of which are now being pushed in the Senate by President Barack Obama. Cronkite called for an international Liberty Bell.


 
This is correct, and well established:



> _It seems to many of us that if we are to avoid the eventual catastrophic world conflict we must strengthen the United Nations as a first step toward a world government patterned after our own government with a legislature, executive and judiciary, and police to enforce its international laws and keep the peace. To do that, of course, we Americans will have to yield up some of our sovereignty. *That would be a bitter pill*. It would take a lot of courage, a lot of faith in the new order. But *the American colonies did it once and brought forth one of the most nearly perfect unions the world has ever seen."*_


 
Of course, while his ideal*ism* should be appealing to most of us, his _ideal_ clearly is not. 

Doesn't make him wrong about Viet Nam, though.....


----------



## granfire (Mar 26, 2011)

Now get me get this....
billi is taking a comedian/actor over Kronkite in the news value department (big surprise, he gets his news from Rush and Beck...)

Then he puts the man down for putting his professional views before his private ideas.

(and just as an FYI, Dan Rather resigned, not because he was disappointed that the fake papers were not real, nor that they were 'his papers' but because he committed an unpardonable faux pas by not doing his due diligence of double checking the facts. Something Beck and Co don't bother to begin with.)


----------



## yorkshirelad (Mar 26, 2011)

granfire said:


> (and just as an FYI, Dan Rather resigned, not because he was disappointed that the fake papers were not real, nor that they were 'his papers' but because he committed an unpardonable faux pas by not doing his due diligence of double checking the facts. Something Beck and Co don't bother to begin with.)


 You really believe that Rather and Mapes were not forced to resign? Rather and Mapes let their political agenda cloud their judgement.


----------



## granfire (Mar 26, 2011)

yorkshirelad said:


> You really believe that Rather and Mapes were not forced to resign? Rather and Mapes let their political agenda cloud their judgement.



Resigning beat sepuku...
naturally they were sacrificed on the altar of whatever. probably after the same people told them to go ahead and publish the story.


----------



## Touch Of Death (Mar 26, 2011)

Reasons within reasons...:yoda: (closest thing to Dune I could find)


----------



## billc (Mar 27, 2011)

Well, I only caught your post granfire because Yorkshirelad posted part of it.  Rather was defiant the last time I saw him.  He said he would love to be part of the team if there was proof that the papers were fake, or some nonsense like that.

From wikipedia:

Dan Rather continues to stand by the story, and in subsequent interviews has articulated that he believes that the documents have never conclusively been proven to be forgeries  and that even if the documents are false, that the underlying story is true.[114]


----------



## yorkshirelad (Mar 27, 2011)

granfire said:


> Resigning beat sepuku...
> .


</p>I don't know about that. Can you imagine the ratings if Rather had performed sepuku on the anchor desk?


----------



## shesulsa (Mar 27, 2011)

You know, with my ignore list growing, the board will be so quiet.

:lurk:

What to do, what to do?

:hmm:

Post sensible articles with sensible commentary??? :boing2:  That would be so ... soo .... refreshing!   :cofeespit:


----------

