Remember Jeff, Yassar Arafat was awarded the prize as well. Well, like they say - birds of a feather.

Yasser Arafat
The Nobel Peace Prize 1994

The nobel peace prize is nothing but a sham, much like the UN.

--------------------------------------------
“...the term “democrat” originated as an epithet and referred to ‘one who panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses.’”

From a biography of Dr. Martin Luther King:

“In 1976, when presidential candidate Jimmy Carter made a remark about "ethnic purity," many believed that would lose him the southern black vote. King would play a instrumental role in preventing that. When King hugged Carter on a public platform, it symbolized Carter's acceptance by black civil rights leaders, and Carter went on to win 90 percent of the black vote.”

Beav, you can read Dr. Martin Luther King’s Nobel prize acceptance speech here:

Nobel Lecture

I hope you realize, but you probably don't, that you refer to two different Kings in your post. The Nobel prize winning King did not hug the dimwitted Jimmy Carter when he was a presidential candidate.

I'm always open to hearing the words of brave military officers who understand what it is to risk everything for love of their country. Great speech from a great veteran of the US Navy!

Kevin "Hack" King

"make an appointment immediately with a mental health professional" -- Glad to know that you're sending business my way!

If Beav doesn't have "a good mental health copay set-up," will you pay the difference?

"assuming you ever WERE glued" -- That's not very nice, is it?

"What in ****" -- That's not appropriate either.

I assume that you didn't like the trip down memory lane? I did.

I find it interesting that politics is the same old business and that the media that fawns over Carter now had a slightly different view of the "Southern hick" Sunday school teacher back then. Probably cries of racism are much more prevalent today, though.

Does this alleged "scandal" (the Judith Regan lawsuit) differ from any that Ted Turner has been involved in (an assumption on my part)? Or cover-ups by politicians, media personalities, and other powerful people?

Exactly how does this lawsuit support your claims of the bias of journalists at Fox News?

Sean Hannity is a commentator, not a journalist; he expresses his Republican and/or conservative opinion of the news. Alan Colmes expresses the Democrat/liberal point of view. Anyone with half a brain knows this. They NEVER claim to be objective.

As a citizen, Hannity has every right to support whichever candidate that he chooses. Listening to his many more positive comments about Giuliani than other candidates is a big clue to anyone whose gray matter is at all active that he supports Giuliani and thinks that he can beat Hillary, but Hannity will support any Republican candidate over a Democratic one. NO SURPRISE!

The claim that Roger Ailes (or is it Rupert Murdoch) has been "close friends with Rudy Giuliani for 20 years" just goes to show that he's not as conservative as everyone claims and may be a negative influence on the Republican Party, pulling it farther left (i.e., making it more like the Dem Party) rather than right.

Is anyone really surprised that Ailes and/or Murdoch is "close friends" with top-tier Republicans, or that Ted Turner (or other media elite) is "close friends" with top-tier Democrats? Do you really believe that Turner's strong beliefs had no influence on CNN?

How does any of this negate the findings of the UCLA political scientist that "almost all major media outlets tilt to the left" or Harvard's Project for Excellence in Journalism finding that "the media are sympathetic to Democrats and hostile to Republicans"?

You asked: "How does any of this negate the findings of the UCLA political scientist that "almost all major media outlets tilt to the left" or Harvard's Project for Excellence in Journalism finding that "the media are sympathetic to Democrats and hostile to Republicans"?

It cannot be negated and there is no reason that it should be.

Journalist spend their lives studying issues, thinking about them and pondering the implications. It is obvious that they would inevitably end up, "sympathetic to Democrats and hostile to Republicans".

How could it possibly be otherwise?

How could it possibly be otherwise?

Political science, as well as other disciplines, is fascinating, isn't it?

Did you hear the recent address to Congress by "Sarkozy l'Américain"? He received 12 standing ovations. I wonder, did John Kerry applaud?

And Nancy Pelosi had to smile the whole time that he spoke about "the greatest nation in the world"!

“Sarkozy Understands Us Better Than We Do”

"America did not say, 'Come, and everything will be given to you.' Rather, she said, 'Come, and the only limits to what you will be able to achieve will be those of your own courage, your boldness, and your talent.'"

"Here, in your country, on this soil, both the humblest and the most illustrious citizens alike know that nothing is owed to them and that everything has to be earned. That is what constitutes the moral value of America."

"I have come to present to you today a France that comes out to meet America, to renew the covenant of friendship and alliance that Washington and Lafayette sealed in Yorktown."

What a positive influence free-market reformer Sarkozy has been on Prime Minister Brown (and on German Chancellor Merkel)!

“Doing the Sarkozy”

Sarkozy's ideals (such as "reforming the tax system, revamping the welfare system, and slashing the budget deficit") sound as if they came straight from the Republican Party platform. And he's very committed to fighting and defeating the global terrorist threat.

Life surely can be ironic at times, can't it?

I'm sure Kerry applauded since the Republicans have finally realized that the French are allies. Remember the "Freedom Fries" tantrum?

And you are right when you say, "Sarkozy's ideals (such as "reforming the tax system, revamping the welfare system, and slashing the budget deficit") sound as if they came straight from the Republican Party platform.'

They come from the Republican platform but were not acted on.

Let's see, who "ended welfare as we know it?" Uh, that would be President Clinton.

And uh, who slashed the budget deficit and left a surplus? That would be President Clinton also?

Vote Democratic Denise, if you want those Republican platform ideals to be implemented.

Ironic indeed.

Welcome back from the straight jacket fitting. Let's see if I can offer up some answers for you:

Who lied under oath? That would be Libby on Plame, Gonzales on why justices were fired and who was envolved, not Cheney because he refused to go under oath, and Karl Rove about Novak although he did seem to remember when given a second chance. By the way, these lies were as related to material pertinent to the case being investigated as opposed to the extra-marital sidebar.

Who dishonered the White House? I'll ask you this: Is our children learning? You can answer the rest.

Who let the terrorists learn how to fly? Bill Clinton was running a Florida flight school (loud laughter and some falling out of their chairs)? Not sane again, WHO IGNORED THIS BULLETIN: "Al Qaieda determined to strike within the U.S. using airplanes?"

To bed without supper for you! And stop bringing pipe cleaners to gun fights.

Kevin "Hack" King

"Who lied under oath?"
That would be Bill 'Slick Willie' Clinton. I mean heck, he was impeachef for obstruction of justice. His legacy in the White House is and always will be nothing but a stain on a blue dress.

Who dishonered the White House?
Again, it was Bill 'Slick Willie Clinton. He used the White House to seduce an intern. What an idiot. When Hillary talks about bringing brooms and vacuum cleaners to clean up the White House, I'm sure that is what she's referring to.

Here's one for ya - Who turned down Bin Laden's head on a silver platter when it was handed to him? Why no other than Bill "Slick Willie" Clinton himself.

Who let the terrorists learn how to fly? - Probably the guys who taught them. Contrary to what every Lib Democrat believes EVERYTHING is not President Bush's fault.
----------------------------------------------------

Stop Hillary Now. She will destroy this country.

I'll take a president who indulged in a little nookie on the side over a president who sent over 3000 American soldiers to their deaths in a totally unnecessary war on false pretexts, and then bungled the operation by underestimating the enemy and not committing enough troops to get the job done. A president who authorized torturing detainees on the assumption that they MIGHT be guilty of terrorism. A president who filled top federal jobs with his incompetent cronies. A president who has ruined our economy and our credibility around the world. I could go on, but the gist is that what Clinton did PALES in comparison to the immense damage that Bush and the hypocritical right-wing Republicans have done to this country. And now, all you can do is bring up that stupid affair. At this point, WHO CARES what Clinton did with an intern all those years ago?? We are talking about our national survival, and all you can talk about is Monica Lewinski!!

You conveniently left out how Slick Willie let Osama go. Kobar Towers, the USS Cole, were all Clintons fault - they happened on his watch and he did nothing.
He allowed terrorism to spread unchecked, and 9/11 was the result.

-------------------------------------------------------------
“...the term “democrat” originated as an epithet and referred to ‘one who panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses.’”

Whether waterboarding is worse than giving a young lady what she wants!
To some, no many, people having "no sex" sex, especially in the White House, is the worst thing one could possibly do, unforgivable.
As to the incompetent cronies appointed by Bush, well if you want to run everything from the White House using Rumsfeld, Cheney, Rove, and Scooter, then those are the only kind that will work!

Let's see ... Wasn't Congress run by the Republicans when those things were initiated? Newt's "Contract with America," or something like that?

So, you're telling me that Hillary or any other Democrat will reform welfare and CUT SPENDING while handing out $5000 to babies (aborted ones, too?) ?

BTW, "Freedom Fries" was in response to Chirac, not Sarkozy. Vile France: Fear, Duplicity, Cowardice and Cheese by Denis Boyles was very informative and entertaining!

I am well aware that the Freedom Fries thing was a response to Chirac. I do keep up with those things. It was a response to the demonization of the French for being right about Iraq in defiance of the administration’s determination to invade under any circumstances. I wish we had listened to them and to all of the rest of our allies. Especially those from “Old Europe.”

However, the good news is that after the American voters throws this bunch out after the next election, and the whole world breathes a sigh of relief that they are gone, we can start rebuilding international alliances and start climbing up out of the moral abyss of torture and renditions that they have led us into with the cheerful backing of the right-wingers among us.

As for he Congress run by the Republicans, please give me a break here. We’ve had a Congress run by the Republicans and an administration run by the Republicans for years and years and it has turned out to be the worst possible combination imaginable as far as deficits and wild spending. I was just rereading Alan Greenspan’s testimony before Congress, just as Bush was taking office, where he was expressing fears that the Fed was going to lose some of its inflation fighting tools when the national deficit was paid off and they could no longer manipulate debt.

Sorry to post and run but I’m traveling out of the country for a couple of weeks. If the great logic of my posting hasn’t yet convinced you to support Hillary, I’ll be happy to resume the debate when I get back.

Peace

Denise are you proud of our national debt run up over the last seven years?
Are you proud of our six year war to avenge the twin towers deaths?
Are you proud of Abu Ghraib and waterboarding?
Are you proud of Delay, Scooter, Our recent AG, several Iraqi US war Generals, 4000 deaths of our soldiers---40,000 blown up, 100,000 plus Iraqi civilians dead, still no power, water, food, or government in Iraq?
Are you proud of $100 oil? Are you proud of lead toys and poison fish we let tin?
How about the VA, FEMA, CIA, FBI, and all intelligence services? Don't you just love them?
Want 50,000 formaldehyde unused trailers and 40,000 used ones?
Are you proud of Blackwater and 120,000 other contractors in Iraq?
What about our ruined Army Reserve and Guards?
I could go on for pages, but we maybe can clean it all up in 50
years!
Be sure and vote republican

Thanks, my comments also, but put Oprah in the hat for Obama, what makes it right because they have their own show to support and give money in her case- I could care less who they vote for. I vote for who I want to.

I never thought you would join the politically correct crowd, but you do what you have to do to defend the likes of Beaver, don't you?

"assuming you ever WERE glued" -- That's not very nice, is it?

Denise, somehow I don't visualize the very sensitive beaver crying over that mean and hate filled comment.

"What in ****" -- That's not appropriate either.

"What in God's name" is now "inappropriate"? Well goooolllyy Gomer Pile! Jeez Louise, how was I suppose to know that.

Holy Makeral, I'll be banned any moment! Well Jimminy XMas, I might as well make my last post a good one.

Let's cut to the chase:

Beave is going back to 1976 because today your party has nothing. You mock the poor, protect robber barons, support the very candidates who's values are seemingly diametricly opposed to your own (as a party) because they say the "no new taxes" and "conservative judges" buzz words. You support a policy that has produced more Army deserters than we've had since 1980. You ask not how we are going to pay the procetag for this entry into Iraq's civil war that only a conservative could support.

Denise, you cracked me up with this gem:

"Does this alleged "scandal" (the Judith Regan lawsuit) differ from any that Ted Turner has been involved in (an assumption on my part)? Or cover-ups by politicians, media personalities, and other powerful people?"

When, exactly, was Ted Turner dragged into a court of law for intimidating a witness in a govt investigation, slander, and possible felony offenses? This is no "alleged" scandal Denise. Read what the Romney and McCain campaigns are saying about it. They seem to think the darling of Pat Robertson, Rudy, has a history of poor ethical judgemnet. They also feel he is not facing this real scandal (that you won't here about on the fair and balanced channel) and clearing the air. Romney and McCain feel Fox is soo balanced that they pulled out of an upcomming Fox-sponsored political debate; the Fox "News" channel that made every candidate but Rudy Giuliani cease and desist using clips from Fox on their web sites. The Fox News" that Rudy helped get on the air in New York. The Fox "News" that quickly says, "well these talking heads are acting as private citizens." Respect as a news outlet is long, long gone for the Foxed crowd, Denise. It is a high-dollar national enquirer these days.

So feel free to go back to 1976 with Beaver and then try some extremely week justification of this post's applicability, but your perceived non-story on Ailes, Newscorp, Giuliani, Kerick, and Regan will make Howard Dean's screem of 2003 seem like a yawn. Maccaca didn't even land Senator Allen in court. Go figure. Good luck finding your moral compas candidate. I hear their hollerin Mike here in a week or so.

Kevin "Hack" King

Not at all!

I didn't call for banning you or anyone else (not even Basmati) -- or even dropping your column.

At least I cracked you up? Hope you enjoy your day!

Who is your "moral compass"? I don't look to a candidate for that, and I never used the words or meant to imply that the Regan lawsuit is a "non-story." I've never thought that Giuliani (or Hillary and Bill) is free from scandal and has good ethical judgment. You won't find me supporting him (or Pat Robertson).

The context was media bias, not the moral turpitude of CEO's and politicians.

For the historical context of my statement (since you're the one who mentioned "moral compass") . . .

The historical references (as well as my other comments about economics, etc.) are not meant to be condescending. I often use the "tough love" method.

“OUR Father which art in heaven, hallowed be thy name.” (The Lord’s Prayer)

(Hallow: To respect or honor greatly; revere; to make or set apart as holy)

VERSES for Children (from the New England Primer, the first textbook ever printed in America and the book from which most of the children of colonial America learned to read – Most, if not all, of the Founding Fathers were taught to read and write using this volume.)

For God is angry every day,
With wicked ones who go astray,
All sinful words I must restrain:
I must not take God's name in vain.

Westminster Shorter Catechism (written in the 1640s to educate lay persons, especially children, in matters of doctrine and belief and included in the New England Primer)

The third commandment is, Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain, for the Lord wilt not hold him guiltless, that taketh his name in vain.

Q. 54. What is required in the third commandment?

A. The third commandment requireth the holy and reverent use of God's names, titles, attributes, ordinances, word and works.

Q. 55. What is forbidden in the third commandment?

A. The third commandment forbiddeth all profaning or abusing of any thing whereby God maketh himself known.

Q. 56. What is the reason annexed to the third commandment?

A. The reason annexed to the third commandment is, That however the breakers of this commandment may escape judgment from men, yet the Lord our God will not suffer them to escape his righteous judgment.

The funniest part of this whole deliciously wicked scandal so far is that in the Regan lawsuit (on page 21) Judith Regan alleges that the New York Post defamed her in a 2006 story that said she was an investor in a pot ring. A News Corp (owners of the NY Post) lawyer admitted the story was fake and but not defamatory, because she said, “No one believes what they read in New York Post.”

Guess the lawyer doesn't know some of our local bloggers.