Passing of Ronald

[1BADSC]

Did anyone watch the ceromony today. Bill and Hillary Clinton were falling asleep during the event. No dignity or respect whatsoever.

Sorry to see one of the greatest presidents ever pass.

[Shooter_Jay]

He will go down in history as one of the most great, sincere, effective, kind, tough, honest, and loving leaders in all of humanity, not just the USA. Even his former enemies say how great of a man he was. The examples he set with his optimism and faith in mankind and freedom are what revitalized our civilization, culture, national pride, and economy back in the 80's after the national disgraces, and economic disaster of the 70's. I hope now that he's gone humanity keeps his ideals alive and honors his memory and even more importantly the memory of what he stood for and why it was and is still right.

[Shooter_Jay]

By the way, I have been watching it on and off but didn't see the clintons. I particularly liked to see the constant look of amazement, pride, and thanks on Nancy Reagan's face.

[1BADSC]

Margret Thatcher did an amazing job today and a few days earlier when speaking about him.

[SlinginBeauty]

Im not too sure if the clintons were quite sleeping, but i didnt watch it so i dont know personally. My mom was tellin me everyone had their heads lowered at that point, b/c they were in the middle of a prayer or showing their respect towards Regan. Dont think they need to be jumping in their chairs but i highly doubt they were sleepin. Just my .02. Zach

[LJGriggs]

The procession to the U.S. Capitol with the horse drawn caisson brought back some of my early memories of the JFK funeral (I was around 6-yrs old then). President Reagan was one of those special (and rare) elected officials that seek public office in order to "serve the people". Even if you happened to disagree with his policies, or politics, you must admit that he always did what he believed to be in the best interest of the American people. I was in my early twenties when Mr. Reagan was first elected President. Because of the economic growth back in the 80's, I was able to get a job with a "small start-up company" that led to my 20-yr+ career. I owe a debt of gratitude to him for the opportunities his economic policies provided. He was the first Republican I ever voted for, and I am proud to say I cast my vote for him, twice...

[92TBurnSC]

Reagan was just as important to Republicans as Kennedy wa to us Democrats. They were both upstanding, good-hearted men. Regardless of your agreement or disagreement with their policies, you have to give them that.

Though there isn't one offered in this coming election, however, what we need is another Truman.

[Shooter_Jay]

Reagan was just as important to Republicans as Kennedy wa to us Democrats.

Burn I don't want it to seem like I'm picking on you, but I have to say just this. I believe that President Reagan was very important and held in the highest esteem by hundreds of millions of non-republicans around the world also, dare I say even millions of democrats.

[tim]

He was in a Movie titled Bedtime for Bonzo, Bonzo was a monkey. How soes a giy that costared with a monkey get to be President? :eek: :) :rolleyes:

[Shooter_Jay]

Tim, I love you man (not in that way) but you disappear for a week or two and make your big comeback with that post? LOL ;) where have you been working on the road?

[92TBurnSC]

Burn I don't want it to seem like I'm picking on you, but I have to say just this. I believe that President Reagan was very important and held in the highest esteem by hundreds of millions of non-republicans around the world also, dare I say even millions of democrats.
Can't you guys handle a compliment? I make an analogy (a positive one at that) and then compliment the guy. Why do you feel the need to defend him?

It's a compliment and a sign of respect. Is there something wrong with that?

[1BADSC]

Slingingbuty

at one point there was a prayer and their heads were down and that was fine. But later on after that the Camera zoomed in on them again and Bill's eyes were barley open like a 6 year old trying to make it through church. Then his head started to fall as his eyes closed and then Hillary had her eyes shut and was dosing off as well. A few places have reported on it as well but I doubt his loving media fans will mention it.

Ronald was great, he won the cold war without ever firing a shot, and then helped pick up his enemy when it was all over, building a lasting friendship.

[Shooter_Jay]

Don't be so sensitive tburn, all I did was clarify that he was important to alot more than just republicans after you said he was important to republicans.

[tim]

I drive on the road for a living. All over the country. Sure wish I knew how to get ahold of more of the guys in the east . I made my coment simply as a statment, take it as you will. It is a know fact however that he was sick for a long time while he was in office. I wonder who was calling the shots than. Maybe Nancy? Anyhow have a nice day. Tim

[1BADSC]

yeah Tim, Nancy stopped the cold war.

[Shooter_Jay]

yeah Tim, Nancy stopped the cold war.

:eek: LOL

[Shooter_Jay]

Yeah I know you drive a truck that's why I asked if that's where you've been. I was just joking about your bonzo post because of how silly we both know it was. Your comment and my comment were in fun I'm pretty sure. I can actually get along with people with different ideals than me. Actually some good friends of mine are VERY liberal and we go at it sometimes but still are good friends. I hope yous guys and us guys can agree to disagree too and not make enemies with each other here. As for your later comment:

It is a know fact however that he was sick for a long time while he was in office.

It is not a known fact that he was sick for a long time while he was in office Tim, that is false. It is said by democrats that his sickness was with him along time while he was in office because they fight dirty and would sell their mothers' kidneys to discredit any conservative, and especially the greatest one. They also say Bush is a dunce, reagan was a dunce, quayle is a dunce, wwii hero bush 1 was a whimp and a dunce, rumsfeld is a dunce, powell is a puppet, rice is a dunce, those liberals are one hit wonders. I can't believe the liberal followers don't notice that that is their main argument against all conservatives they are a bunch of dunces. How lame.

[Shooter_Jay]

Did any of you guys hear/see the singing at the service? I had no idea George "The Animal" Steele could sing so beautifully. I was looking for the turnbuckle for him to start chewing on after he was done singing but it didn't happen, I was disappointed :rolleyes:

[tim]

I was just watching the T.V. They showed Reagan with his wife. I admire how in love they were, actually brought a tear to my eye. I poke fun at all the politicians. Most of the time its to get a rise. I think the way he died being sick so long is sad. If I offended anyone I am sorry. Sometimes I go to far. :(

[1BADSC]

No problem Tim, we all go off everynow and then. I never do though. :) lol

[92TBurnSC]

It is not a known fact that he was sick for a long time while he was in office Tim, that is false.
Actually he was showing early stages as Governor of California. However, at the time, it was mild enough that no one would have guessed. However, to say the Democrats are saying this and the Republicans are telling the truth is kinda off. Reagan isn't the only person with covered up medical problems that's controled our nation. For example, Kennedy could hardly stand on his own and it was practically forbidden for the press to show photos of Roosevelt in his wheelchair. It's all posturing. Don't take it as a shot at Reagan, it's not. That's just how this country is run.

Keep in mind, in 1994, when he announced he had it, it was pretty progrssed. By 1996 he had forgotten his own son's name.

They also say Bush is a dunce
He is. Actually, there is an entire book devoted to his lack of intellect. It's called The Bush Dislexicon by Mark Crispin Miller. Agree with the statements or not, he makes a VERY convincing case. The read is a little slow though, due to the fact it is obviously written by a college professor as opposed to some political pundit.

reagan was a dunce
Who said that? I've always found Reagan to be VERY intelligent, though a touch misguided.

quayle is a dunce
Quayle WAS a dunce. Oh, lord, man. He makes Baby Bush look smart. He was the perfect cover for Daddy Bush's grammatical blunders.

wwii hero bush 1 was a whimp and a dunce
I wouldn't say either. He wasn't the SHARPEST knife in the drawer, but he was no dunce. He just had a habit of fumbling words. But no one really noticed because we all had Quayle to make fun of. Quayle was the Republican equivalent to Al Gore. Wimp...I dunno. I can't say I agree or disagree with that.

rumsfeld is a dunce
Rumsfeld is smart. Everyone knows that. However, he's also shady and a little underhanded.

powell is a puppet
Powell should have continued his run. I would have voted for him. Nobody is saying he is a puppet, they're saying he should have left the administration while his integrity was still in tact. However, he presented that BS case to the UN and, well, bye bye career. He's already announced that if Bush wins he will not return for the second term.

rice is a dunce
Who on Earth said Rice is a dunce? She's smart, but she has trouble identifying a good idea (Sandy Berger's plan to kill bin Laden) when she sees one.

I can't believe the liberal followers don't notice that that is their main argument against all conservatives they are a bunch of dunces. How lame
Actually, you're the only one I have heard call ALL those people a dunce. How does it feel to be part of the dogmatic right-wing smear machine? I seriously want to know who has called all those people stupid. Can you produce evidence?

[1BADSC]

are you talking about Rice in those BS left wing political interagations from the the 911 commision. The ones where they weren't even listening to anything she said, they were just talking to each other and looking at other things. They turned the questions into a wich hunt instead of what it was intended to be. They were supposed find out how could we prevent further attacks.... NOT WHO IS TO BLAME! Funny though, Clinton was questioned behind doors with no cameras.

[92TBurnSC]

No, I'm talking about Sandy Berger (Clinton's NSA) handing Rice and the Bush Administration an operational plan to find and kill bin Laden. All she had to say was "go." It had already been approved for use (unfortunately the approval wasn't secured by Clinton's administration until January 11th, 2001 and they didn't want to hand Bush a war on his first day). However, she just looked at it puzzled, passed it around for other people to blankly stare at, a few committees looked at it and sat on it for a while...long story short, Bush approved it...on September 9th, 2001.

They were supposed find out how could we prevent further attacks.... NOT WHO IS TO BLAME!
Actually, the aim of the panel is twofold. First, they want to find out if someone dropped the ball. This was a blaring blunder on the hands of our intelligence community and enforcement community. We need to find out what we did that screwed up. 2,900 lives need to be answered for. Secondly, we need to find out what we can do to prevent anything even maybe kinda sorta resembling 9/11 from happening again.

And you know what else is funny? Bush refused to testify before the panel individually (read: without Cheney) though the panel explicitly requested him to do so. Yes, I realize he doesn't HAVE to, but in order to maintain the integrity of this investigation, he should have complied. Clinton didn't make Gore come along with him.

And the reason they spoke to Clinton behind closed doors was because it was going to be a one shot deal. Since they were going to be asking him about classified information, they had to have the doors closed.

On a side note: how many of you think half of the stuff that is classified is probably crap we shouldn't have gotten into the first place?

[Shooter_Jay]

However, she just looked at it puzzled, passed it around for other people to blankly stare at, a few committees looked at it and sat on it for a while...long story short, Bush approved it...on September 9th, 2001.


Are you kidding me? Yes bushed caused 9/11/01

[Shooter_Jay]

wow, what a bunch of crap. Everybody should review that garbage 9 times to realize how off it all was.

[Shooter_Jay]

Secondly, we need to find out what we can do to prevent anything even maybe kinda sorta resembling 9/11 from happening again.

thanks for breaking it down so precisely for us even maybe kinda sorta resembling.... :rolleyes:

[Shooter_Jay]

quayle is a dunce

Quayle WAS a dunce. Oh, lord, man. He makes Baby Bush look smart. He was the perfect cover for Daddy Bush's grammatical blunders.


Ha what an intellectual donkey burn... I hope people are paying attention to this typical garbage. Please cite some examples of such with quayle burn other that the potato incedent.... :rolleyes:

[92TBurnSC]

The wit and wisdom of Dan Quayle:
"Hawaii has always been a very pivotal role in the Pacific. It is in the Pacific. It is a part of the United States that is an island that is right here."
I thought it was over there.
"El Salvador is a democracy so it's not surprising that there are many voices to be heard here. Yet in my conversations with Salvadorans, I have heard a single voice."
Which one was that?
"I believe we are on an irreversible trend toward more freedom and democracy -- but that could change."
I'll let this one stand on its own ;)
"If we do not succeed, then we run the risk of failure."
Well, at least he's right.
"I have made good judgments in the past. I have made good judgments in the future."
I will butcher the English language in the past, I will butcher the English language in the future.
"We have a firm commitment to NATO. We are a part of NATO. We have a firm commitment to Europe. We are a part of Europe."
What a smart guy, that Quayle.
"I love California. I practically grew up in Phoenix."
This one made me want to cry.
"My friends, no matter how rough the road may be, we can and we will, never, never surrender to what is right."
They tried to make this the Republican party mantra a few years back. Somehow it didn't take. ;)
"I deserve respect for the things I did not do."
This was his other suggestion for a new slogan. After that they just slapped him around a while and told him to be quiet. :D
"We are ready for any unforeseen event that may or may not occur."
Didn't Bush say something like this too? Anyone?

Let's see here...other Quayle accomplishments...
-First Republican Vice President to lose his party's nomination since 1952.
-P-O-T-A-T-O-E (c'mon...you know it's priceless and you would be no nicer to a Democrat had they made the same mistake)
-When asked on Larry King if his 13 year old daughter got pregnant (Quayle is predictibly anti-abortion), he said he would support her decision to abort should she choose to do so. However, he told another 11 year old girl that she would have to have the baby, even if her father raped her.
"You're a very strong woman.* *Though this would be a traumatic experience that you would never forget, I think you would be very successful in life."*
-And, like Clinton, had his own Paula problem. However, this Paula was Paula Parkinson. She was a lobbyist, he was a congressman (as well as a couple other men he was golfing with). He apparently slept with her and all three of them voted for what she wanted. At least she was attractive, she was a Playboy model. However, Marilyn Quayle (who's leagues more conservative than either Danny or Georgie) defended him saying, "anyone who knows Dan Quayle knows he'd rather play golf than have sex any day."

That's priceless material.

Are you kidding me? Yes bushed caused 9/11/01
Did I say that? Read my post 9 times and tell me where I said that. What I DID say, and I'll simplify it for you since it seems necessary, is that Bush had a plan sitting on his desk collecting dust for eight months and change that would have at least given him a snowball's chance. If Bush was as tough on terrorism as he wants you to believe he would have jumped on that. Wouldn't you had you been there? I should certainly hope so. Bin Laden had already gotten under our skin pretty deeply...so this was our chance.

Some educational reading:
TIME Magazine (http://www.time.com/time/covers/1101020812/story.html)

And for those of you who think Clinton did nothing about terrorism, here's a few people who disagree:
In reference to the Clinton
administration's national security efforts, Robert Oakley, a
counter-terrorism expert in Reagan's State Department said to The
Washington Post:
"Overall, I give them very high marks." He then went on to say:
"The only major criticism I have is the obsession with Osama, which
made him stronger."
Newt Gingrich, a longtime critic of the Clinton administration
had said:
"I think the president did exactly the right thing." Gingrich further
praised Clinton by saying:
"By doing this we're sending the signal there are no sanctuaries for
terrorists." Gingrich also complemented Clinton's aides for being
"sensitive to making sure we were not blindsided in this."
There were many fronts on which Clinton fought terrorism. The first was
in policy. Clinton tripled the FBI's anti-terrorism budget. He gave
funding to other agencies and organizations to be used against al Qaeda
and other terrorist groups. He also sought tough anti-terrorism
legislation, although the bill presented to him was not as strong as he
originally wanted. Clinton had ordered the stockpiling of vaccines for
smallpox and anthrax, which became very important after 9/11. Another
law signed in by Clinton was an airport security bill. There were many
other policy changes that Clinton brought about to fight terrorism,
even though Congress fought against Clinton's anti-terrorism efforts
whenever they could.

You know what just occurred to me, Jay? I am always the one posting links and citing information and such. It seems you just make blanket statements. After this, in the interest of being succint, I'm just going to make blanket statements too from now on.

[1BADSC]

That Clinton stuff is a bunch of BS. Not one president would have taken action with any of that stuff. "We have news that something is going to happen sometime and it is going to be big" Clinton did nothing but run and hide from terrorism. America's method for dealing with terrorism has always been "get attacked and then retaliate against who did it, and treat them like a criminal and not a pow. No president would have acted on any pre-emptive strike. Now that we have been attacked Bush wants to stop that horrible policy and start attacking them before they can attack us. And guess what, the whining liberal media can't get enough out of bashing him for trying to protect our coutry.


What type of quotes do you think I can put together from stuff you have written over the years. I bet you i could take a lot of stuff out of context and you would sound really bad.

[Shooter_Jay]

There were many
other policy changes that Clinton brought about to fight terrorism,
even though Congress fought against Clinton's anti-terrorism efforts
whenever they could. .

I didn't realize the congress was pro-terrorism. You mean the conservatives I'm sure because that's the liberal line, conservatives want to starve your babies, take away your grandparents medication and heat, and now want more terrorism I gather. Oh I noticed you cited clinton with the air security bill, that was good but the patriot act is bad right? I also noticed that you made a good point with one of those quotes, it seems gingrich can admit when a liberal has a good thought, too bad the liberals can never admit when the conservatives are right. Of course they can't, because they'd be admitting it way too often and would stop getting elected even faster than they already are.

[92TBurnSC]

Regarding Clinton, my post above clearly disproves that. Perhaps you should read it 9 times as Jay suggests. Or read ALL of it once, that's my suggestion.

And as far as finding my flubs, well, all you're gonna get is typos. I have a pretty solid command of the English laguage. I guess you can credit my liberal schooling or whatever for that. :rolleyes:

[kevenj90sc]

Wow! Good for you Shooter Jay.....you are right on the money. I believe Ronald Reagan was our greatest president in the 20th century, and unlike many who say that now, i thought so at the time and proudly voted for him in 1984 (i was not old enough in 1980). At the time i mainly liked Reagan for his domestic program, but as it turned out his greatest legacy is of course the elimination of the Soviet Union. I'm 'only' 40 but I still remember civil defense sirens on the telephone polls on my street, and the drills we did in elementary school where if the siren went off we all had to get under our desks (as if that would have done ANY good, but that's another story). Kids today don't have that threat , and it's mostly because of Ronald Reagan. It cracks me up when people give credit to Gorbachev. Yeah right....it's just that the liberals can't bring themselves to admit that Reagan was Smarter than Gorbachev and out-negotiated him by standing firm and building up the strength of the United States. And yes, Reagan was called a dunce and puppet back then (for those of you too young to remember , he was not always spoken of in the glowing terms of the past week or so). He was very controversial at the time, but he was right. And he stood by what he belived in.

I see a lot of similarities between Reagan and our current president. True, Bush is NOT the public speaker Reagan was.....and he never will be. But he is certainly not a dunce (like the liberals call him now, and called Reagan at the time) and he obviously will not change his beliefs for political gain. Bush will risk losing the presidency before he'll back off what he thinks is right. I just hope to God that we are smart enough give him another term because he's doing what HAS to be done for the future of our country.

[Shooter_Jay]

Thanks Kevin and I agree with everything you just said, you are exactly right.

[92TBurnSC]

But he is certainly not a dunce
Um...next time you happen to be in the vicinity of a bookstore or library, leaf through (you don't have to read, it is a little boring at times) but leaf through Mark Crispin Miller's The Bush Dislexicon. You might learn a few things about Bush the Junior.

I just hope to God that we are smart enough give him another term because he's doing what HAS to be done for the future of our country.
According to this news report (http://cnn.netscape.cnn.com/news/story.jsp?flok=FF-APO-1131&idq=/ff/story/0001%2F20040613%2F1709603633.htm&sc=1131&floc=NW_1-T), people who are smarter than any of us think he should start getting comfortable back in Crawford again...including a couple Reaganites.

[92TBurnSC]

It cracks me up when people give credit to Gorbachev.
No one gives 100% credit to Gorbachev. But you have to give him SOME credit, after all, he COULD have just stood there with his arms crossed and told Reagan where to stick it.

Gorbachev was a good man.
Reagan was a good man.
In this instance, they BOTH did what the world needed them to do.

[1BADSC]

Burn, I hope you realize that polls mean absolutley nothing. They go from one end of the extreme to the other, pro Bush then pro Dem.


From your article

"The group does not endorse Kerry."

"Harrop said he listed himself as an independent for years"

[Shooter_Jay]

He[Harrop] said the group was disillusioned by Bush's handling of the war in Iraq and a list of other subjects, including the Middle East, environmental conservation, AIDS policy, ethnic and religious conflict and weapons proliferation.


Oh the aids thing again. I thought that was Reagan's fault. Oh he passed the torch to the evil aids promoter Bush. What about the how many billions Bush sent to south africa to help fight aids. The reality is no matter how much any conservative does for aids, the environment, health care, education, the liberals will whine that the conservatives are not doing enough, and/or are causing more harm than good. That is their lame and weak M.O. because they don't have any real arguments FOR their policies, so they go negative on their opponents. It's shameful.

[92TBurnSC]

Burn, I hope you realize that polls mean absolutley nothing. They go from one end of the extreme to the other, pro Bush then pro Dem.

::looks around:: What poll are you responding to?

"The group does not endorse Kerry."
Not yet at least. They haven't announced their official position yet, however they are expected to on Wednesday. Direct support for Kerry is not expected, however, I never said they did. They support "voting for anyone but Bush." I think that makes their position pretty clear, though.

"Harrop said he listed himself as an independent for years"
Harrop also said he usually votes Republican. However, that will not be the case this time around.

Oh the aids thing again.
Yes, the AIDS thing again. Let's examine this in detail:

-Up until 2003, Bush would only give money to abstinence only AIDS programs. If you so much as mentioned the word "condom" by accident you lose your funding. Thing is, abstinence only is like telling someone to not look behind them...it doesn't work, now does it? As a result, AIDS got worse.
-In 2003, I will commend Bush for his $15 billion initiative. Yet, it's not very well thought through. For one, it includes countries like South Africa and the Ivory Coast (both of which have the wherewithal to keep trucking with what they have very easily) but excluded Angola, the Dominican Republic and Zimbabwe (the three of which have been desparately ravaged by AIDS). The United Nations Global Fund only got $1 billion when they are the most effective group at combating AIDS on a global scale. He also excluded the provision of using generic drugs. You can't spend any of this money on generic drugs (which, as we all know, is just as effective) which means the money will not go as far as it potentially could.

Though I applaud his effort and his donation, he needs to work some major kinks out of the fine print. This is kinda like 5 steps forward and 3 steps back. Better, but it could be much more so. However, it's apparently that the gentlemen in the article are upset about the abstinence only approach that was originally undertaken (while pandering to the religious right).

That is their lame and weak M.O. because they don't have any real arguments FOR their policies, so they go negative on their opponents. It's shameful.
Nice blanket statement. Care to back it up?

[1BADSC]

we didn't have to give any money to help them... I think you should be happy with what you got. And if we are giving the money then we can dictate who it goes to and what for. Ever hear of beggars can't be choosers

[Shooter_Jay]

Yes, the AIDS thing again. Let's examine this in detail:

blah blah blah.....As a result, AIDS got worse.
-In 2003, I will commend Bush for his $15 billion initiative. Yet, it's not very well thought through.... The United Nations Global Fund only got $1 billion...
Though I applaud his effort and his donation, he needs to work some major kinks out of the fine print.

You've reviewed the fine print I take it?


This is kinda like 5 steps forward and 3 steps back. Better, but it could be much more so. However, it's apparently that the gentlemen in the article are upset about the abstinence only approach that was originally undertaken (while pandering to the religious right).


Nice blanket statement. Care to back it up?


Ooh, "blanket statement" gonna hurt my feelings. Anyone reading this sees that I am the one talking honestly here and you are acting like I say attacking everything hoping dirt sticks to Bush. Anyway, where I just quoted you backs up my "blanket statement" of your and the liberal side of the media tactics.

[Shooter_Jay]

Somebody should start a thread to debate this upcoming election...Oh wait, I already did. We should debate it there.

Anyway this thread is for Ronald. I love you man.

[XR7JAKE]

92TBurnSC,
You shouldn't believe everything that is in print. As an NYUer, I would like to make it emphatically clear that Mark Crispin Miller, and his little goofball "media ecology" department, are part of the School of EDUCATION, not of the College of Arts & Science. And they have nothing to to with the Journalism department, which is part of CAS. (And of course we all know what sorts of people end up majoring in education in college.)Please note that this "media genius" has apparantly never even set up his own home page.

Also, why is it OK to spend billions to help countries with aids but it is not OK to spend billions to free Iraq from rape, torture and oppression???

[lowflying90]

i hate to see any president die, but you all act like he was god. :eek:

yea, reagan was so great a president. ask anyone who is poor, black, making minimum wage, in a union, people with aids, people who care about the environment, financially needy college students, or holocaust survivors. they'll tell you how great he was in the 80's.

Jeff

[92TBurnSC]

As an NYUer, I would like to make it emphatically clear that Mark Crispin Miller, and his little goofball "media ecology" department, are part of the School of EDUCATION, not of the College of Arts & Science.
So...you're saying he knows nothing about communication and media effect? Well, I did a little checking, and yes, he is part of the Eductaion Department (a department in which NYU is VERY highly regarded) and I went to look at his credentials. First, his directory listing from NYU:

Mark Crispin Miller
New York University
Division: The Steinhardt School of Education
Department: Culture & Communication
(emphasis added)

then I checked his faculty profile here (http://www.nyu.edu/education/steinhardt/db/faculty/1216/Dept_design/0) which reads:

Mark Crispin Miller - Professor

Culture and Communication
Phone: 998 5188 Email: mark.miller@nyu.edu


Research interests include: modern propaganda, history and tactics of advertising, American film, and media ownership. Books include Boxed In: The Culture of TV; Seeing Through Movies, ed.; Mad Scientists: The Secret History of Modern Propaganda; Spectacle: Operation Desert Storm and the Triumph of Illusion; and The Bush Dyslexicon. Director of the Project on Media Ownership.

Degrees Held
Ph.D., 1977, Johns Hopkins
M.A., 1973, Johns Hopkins
B.A., 1971, Northwestern


Courses Taught
Mass Persuasion and Propaganda
Advertising and Society


Recent Publications
The Bush Dyslexicon
Mad Scientists: The Secret History of Modern Propaganda
Boxed In: The Culture of TV

To keep this long story from getting longer, just because he's an education department guy doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's talking about.

lso, why is it OK to spend billions to help countries with aids but it is not OK to spend billions to free Iraq from rape, torture and oppression???

If you look at the context of our other military expiditions under Bush it's clear we didn't go to free people from rape murder and torture. If that were the case we wouldn't have pulled our troops out of Africa when the Tootsies were issued machetes to kill the ethnic Huutus. We don't care about genocide. Hussein was popular. That's also why we went up against him instead of Kim Jong-Il, the REAL threat to the US (considering they were building nukes that could hit Seattle).

You've reviewed the fine print I take it?
I make a habit of it.

Ooh, "blanket statement" gonna hurt my feelings. Anyone reading this sees that I am the one talking honestly here and you are acting like I say attacking everything hoping dirt sticks to Bush. Anyway, where I just quoted you backs up my "blanket statement" of your and the liberal side of the media tactics.
A blanket statement is when you say everything is like this, no exceptions. The comment you quoted of mine was analytical criticism. You see, I posted the facts and numbers (something you avoid, apparently) and then offered my summary thereof. however, since you don't feel like backing up your original statement, I guess I will debunk it...

The statement was...
That is their lame and weak M.O. because they don't have any real arguments FOR their policies, so they go negative on their opponents. It's shameful.
Statistically speaking, Bush is currently running the most negative campaign ever run by anyone (especially an incumbant) running for president. Daddy Bush wasn't so great about it either, but in no way as bad as his son's. You can, of course, view all the ads run by either candidate and do your own context analysis, and you will find more negative ads on Bush's site than on Kerry's. Do the checking. And, what's worse, is Bush's ads were so negative they were hurting him because Kerry responded to them. Now, I can hear you asking, if this is the case, how come Daddy Bush beat Dukakis with HIS negative campaigning? Because Dukakis refused to play his game and ignored the ads...and that cost him a LOT of votes (if not the election itself). Clinton responded...and beat Bush.

If you wish to check out ads from past candidates, go to http://www.ammi.org/livingroomcandidate/ and check them out (They're all there up to Eisenhower, I think). Some of them are kinda funny, especially a few from Johnson (they were crazy) and Nixon (WAY too uptight).

we didn't have to give any money to help them... I think you should be happy with what you got. And if we are giving the money then we can dictate who it goes to and what for. Ever hear of beggars can't be choosers
You're right...but you see...you are not creating a contradictory statement. I specifically said that it was GREAT, I mean absolutely GREAT, that we sent out that money (which was a HUGE donation). I just think we could have done a better job at distributing it. That's all I said.

C'mon, 1BADSC, you're making it too easy for me. As much as he babbles, at least Shooter_Jay is making me do a little research to rebut.

[Shooter_Jay]

You're right...but you see...you are not creating a contradictory statement. I specifically said that it was GREAT, I mean absolutely GREAT, that we sent out that money (which was a HUGE donation). I just think we could have done a better job at distributing it. That's all I said.


My "blanket statement" was that no matter how much the conservatives give or do the liberals will still complain about it which is what you just proved again thank you very much. Sometimes a blanket statement of the reality of a situation is more useful than too many blinding details such as some professors credentials on paper. I'm sure you'll try to take that out of context too...

[1BADSC]

Jeff... nice rants, care to put any facts into your statement.


Burn...That's also why we went up against him instead of Kim Jong-Il


Are you really that dumb. We didn't have to go against him because he already folded under pressure just like we knew he would. Just the same as Lybia.

[XR7JAKE]

just because he's an education department guy doesn't mean he doesn't know what he's talking about.

And just because someone is educated doesn't mean they have any intelligence. There are a lot of educated idiots in this world. I have worked for a few. This Guy is your typical wacko liberal. He writes about conspiracy theories. His books are loosely based on hearsay. His tenure is the only reason these books get published. Of course liberals praise his books while conservatives see his books as miscellaneous ramblings of a moron.

Not yet at least. They haven't announced their official position yet, however they are expected to on Wednesday. Direct support for Kerry is not expected, however, I never said they did. They support "voting for anyone but Bush." I think that makes their position pretty clear, though.

That is great way to elect our next president. The California Republican party tried that & California ended up with Gov. Gray Davis(D) who procceded to spend all their money & bury them in debt.

[Shooter_Jay]

His tenure is the only reason these books get published.


Tenure has to be the worst policy in this country that I can think of. What other job gives an employee the right to NOT BE FIRED?! I've debated this issue with a large number of people and still I'm nowhere near convinced how this can have a good effect. Oh yeah, liberals ignore cause and effect relationships generally. They only care what is politically correct, not what is reality. I had one liberal friend argue "I can't believe you are against teachers!" (bs liberal mudslinging) and that teachers are the most caring people out there by definition so they should have the right to not be fired. What? Hey, wake up, what about the rights of the students to get a legitimate education on reality???????