Is there some way to end journalism as we know it?

[EasyEJL]

So i'm checking the newstertainment this morning and read this Carter: Hamas is willing to accept Israel as its neighbor

heres the whole article

JERUSALEM - Hamas is prepared to accept the right of Israel to "live as a neighbor next door in peace," former President Jimmy Carter said Monday.

Carter said the group promised it wouldn't undermine Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas' efforts to reach a peace deal with Israel, as long as the Palestinian people approved it in a referendum. In such a scenario, he said Hamas would not oppose a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza.

Hamas, a militant Islamic group that both the U.S. and Israel consider a terrorist organization, calls in its charter for Israel's destruction. It has also traditionally opposed peace negotiations with the Jewish state.

Sami Abu Zuhri, a Hamas spokesman, later said Carter's comments "do not mean that Hamas is going to accept the result of the referendum."

Carter's comments came after his much criticized meetings with the top Hamas leaders in Syria in last week.

The Nobel laureate also urged Israel to engage in direct negotiations with the Islamic militant group, saying it was a "problem" that Israel and the U.S. refuse to meet with Hamas. Both governments consider it a terrorist organization.

"The problem is not that I met with Hamas in Syria," he said. "The problem is that Israel and the United States refuse to meet with someone who must be involved."

"There's no doubt that both the Arab world and Hamas will accept Israel's right to exist in peace within 1967 borders," he said, referring to Israel's frontiers before it captured large swaths of Arab lands in the 1967 Mideast war.

Over the weekend, Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert said he decided not to meet with Carter in Israel because he does not wish to be seen as participating in any negotiations with Hamas.

In his comments Monday, Carter said Israeli-Palestinian peacemaking has "regressed" since a U.S.-hosted Mideast conference in Annapolis, Md., in November.

Israel has been negotiating directly with Abbas, who heads a moderate government based in the West Bank. Abbas lost control of the Gaza Strip last June, when Hamas violently seized control of that territory.

Carter said Hamas has promised to let a captured Israeli soldier send a letter to his parents, and said the militants "made clear to us that they would accept an interim cease-fire in the Gaza Strip."

However, Carter said Hamas rejected his specific proposal for a monthlong unilateral cease-fire.

I bolded the most relevant pieces. So basically Carter says "gee hamas is all set to hold hands with israel and invite them over to their bbqs" where apparently all hamas actually said was that they wouldn't oppose the palestinians getting more control of gaza + west bank. amazing really how that could be interpreted as Hamas extending the possibility of peace with Israel. So looks like Jimmy accomplished feeding the Hamas guys a free lunch, and they accomplished making an old man feel like he accomplished something.

 

[boxmeman]

First in lol this is the usual bs reporters talk about.....

 

[OCCFan023]

If that was the title of the article on top, than the editor for that publication just turned one one of the top world issues into a Entertainment Weekly joke. Or they just want to embarrass Jimmy Carter.

"they will let a pow send a letter home and a interim cease fire" so what like a week? Month max? In fact how did Jimmy Carter's people let him announce that kind of bold utterly impossible at this time statement?

 

[EasyEJL]

I guess like most political lies, the hope is that if enough people see it, people will believe it.

To me it just goes to show how democrat positive so much of the media is, and republican negative.

Maybe Carter is starting to get alzheimers too

 

[Hank Vangut]

funny, i read the same article this morning and thought the exact same thing.

the headline gets you excited that something great his happening here but then you read it and realize it's nothing.

i should have guessed when carters name was mentioned.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

I guess like most political lies, the hope is that if enough people see it, people will believe it.

To me it just goes to show how democrat positive so much of the media is, and republican negative.

Maybe Carter is starting to get alzheimers too

Karl Rove is a political news analyst for Fox News, one of the United States' largest, and mostly overtly bias news sources. How much more 'Republican Friendly' can you get?

 

[EasyEJL]

Karl Rove is a political news analyst for Fox News, one of the United States' largest, and mostly overtly bias news sources. How much more 'Republican Friendly' can you get?

Yes, thats 1. outside of that tho its only psychos on talk radio who are republican supportive, and I think a lot of them do more harm than good. The Associated Press and print media ala newspapers has a strong democrat slant. Newstertainment, cause it sure isn't journalism anymore

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Yes, thats 1. outside of that tho its only psychos on talk radio who are republican supportive, and I think a lot of them do more harm than good. The Associated Press and print media ala newspapers has a strong democrat slant. Newstertainment, cause it sure isn't journalism anymore

I agree that viral media is a plague. However, the Rep-Demo., media bias is overblown, and balances out in the grand spectra of News Media.

Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, these polarizing figures misrepresent, for the most part, conservative NeoLiberal policy; just as Jon Stewart, or some hippy University student misrepresent Liberal-Democrats.

 

[EasyEJL]

The only thing that to me would be positive about a democrat winning the presidential election this year is that at least i'll be able to enjoy the daily show again.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

I've seen him rip the follies of Democrats and Republicans alike. The current administration just happens to provide an abundance of material. It's safe to say he'll rip on the next equally, that's the show's purpose.

 

[EasyEJL]

Yes, and i'll enjoy that a lot more. Hillary would be far funnier for that, she'd provide even more material than obama

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Haha, at least we can agree on that.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Karl Rove is a political news analyst for Fox News, one of the United States' largest, and mostly overtly bias news sources. How much more 'Republican Friendly' can you get?

The reason they exist and remain so popular is because its the only one that would actually report issues the main stream media would not.

O'Reilly, Hannity, etc...aren't even news programs...they are opinion shows.

People complain about Fox News because they are so conditioned to think the regular news outlets are actually fair. When you look at the editorial staff of almost 99% of the major newspapers and broadcast news, its mainly liberals. Count how many conservatives and Republicans you see on NBC, CBS and ABC....you can count them on one hand.


Then add the fact that most Universities and Hollywood are liberal oriented.....try to be a conservative journalist student and see what happens..lol....but all of that gets ignored while Fox News is the biased one? Ok...

 

[Bum Mahoney]

Very nicely put Jerry.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

O'Reilly, Hannity, etc...aren't even news programs...they are opinion shows.

They are news media, like it or not. That's not what we were discussing though, in terms of their form. Merely how they represent themselves.

People complain about Fox News because they are so conditioned to think the regular news outlets are actually fair. When you look at the editorial staff of almost 99% of the major newspapers and broadcast news, its mainly liberals. Count how many conservatives and Republicans you see on NBC, CBS and ABC....you can count them on one hand.

Actually, the split of ownership is on the other side, when you view who actually owns News Stations (and particularly print media). Actually FAIR (fairness and accuracy in reporting) to this date presents a 75% representation of Republicans on news media, 85% of those being white. I'm not sure your point is well made.

Add to that that 90% of all media is owned by six corporations, one of them being outright conservative (Murdoch), one slightly leaning (Viacom) and two (Westinghouse)(GE) who own major stations that do business with the Federal Government, and your point is less well made. I know you don't like 'studies' or 'statistics' but those are the facts.

Then add the fact that most Universities and Hollywood are liberal oriented.....but all of that gets ignored while Fox News is the biased one? Ok...

Apparently selective hearing is abound, because you are choosing what to recognize, and what to deny based on your affiliations. Are those places disgustingly liberal and inept? Sure are. Is there an equal amount of right-leaning ineptness? Better believe it.

You can argue specific news media programs all you want, and I will have a counter for each. When you break it down in terms of market share control, your Republicans are in the majority - it is literally that simple. I don't think I would have anything else to add, because there isn't. What would I know, my Soc., degree was only specialized for Mass Media, though.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

They are news media, like it or not. That's not what we were discussing though, in terms of their form. Merely how they represent themselves.

That's the problem....the other news organizations don't represent themselves at all but the slant is quite obvious.

Actually, the split of ownership is on the other side, when you view who actually owns News Stations (and particularly print media). Actually FAIR (fairness and accuracy in reporting) to this date presents a 75% representation of Republicans on news media, 85% of those being white. I'm not sure your point is well made.

I don't really care about ownership. Who owns something doesn't translate into what a journalist reports or the slant they take. Rupert Murdoch didn't creat Fox News because he was a conservative. He created it to make money in a niche that wasn't represented (for a reason) and he has made a killing off it.

Add to that that 90% of all media is owned by six corporations, one of them being outright conservative (Murdoch), one slightly leaning (Viacom) and two (Westinghouse)(GE) who own major stations that do business with the Federal Government, and your point is less well made. I know you don't like 'studies' or 'statistics' but those are the facts.

Thats because I don't have the opinion that these owners sit there and dictate to news orginizaiton what to report. When news anchors themsevles freely admit their slant, you going to tell them the owners are conservative therefore their point is "not well made"?

:lol:

Apparently selective hearing is abound, because you are choosing what to recognize, and what to deny based on your affiliations. Are those places disgustingly liberal and inept? Sure are. Is there an equal amount of right-leaning ineptness? Better believe it.

My opinion stems from the fact that many of the news anchors freely admit it. Dan Rather, Walter Cronkite, Bernie Goldberg, etc.... so as much as you want to make this "my opinion", I am only repeating what news people themselves state....but obviously you know more than them.

:lol:


And my affiliates have nothing to do with anything...Fox is slanted right...big revelation...but to even deny that the mainstream media is overwhelmingly liberal oriented is the height of selective hearing.

 

[EasyEJL]

That is john stewart's big plus, he admits its just entertainment with a dab of information.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

T I know you don't like 'studies' or 'statistics' but those are the facts.

Yet recent studies say the media bias is real



....but we'll ignore those.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

That's the problem....the other news organizations don't represent themselves at all but the slant is quite obvious.

I don't really care about ownership. Who owns something doesn't translate into what a journalist reports or the slant they take. Rupert Murdoch didn't creat Fox News because he was a conservative. He created it to make money in a niche that wasn't represented (for a reason) and he has made a killing off it.

Thats because I don't have the opinion that these owners sit there and dictate to news orginizaiton what to report. When news anchors themsevles freely admit their slant, you going to tell them the owners are conservative therefore their point is "not well made"?

My opinion stem form the fact that many of the news anchors freely admit it. Dan Rather, Walter Cronkite, Bernie Goldberg, etc.... so as much as you want to make this "my opinion", I am only repeating what news people themselves state....but obviously you know more than them.

And my affiliates have nothing to do with anything...Fox is slanted right...big revelation...but to even deny that the mainstream media is overwhelmingly liberal oriented is the height of selective hearing.

Ownership does affect everything. This is why were are so critical of studies in the supplement industry - ownership bias. Who funds information most definitely plays into what gets reported, that's basics.

If it didn't then the 75% representation of 'Republican' politicians would not exist.

You pointed out individual news anchors, I am talking about nation-wide control, and homogeneity of reporting. In this case, this homogenizing effect is being led by a succession of right-wing FCC leaders (see: over-control of media during Bush's presidency), and a monopoly of media ownership with a conservative mind frame.

Personal opinion does not really matter here. The representation is there, whether you see it or not. No other points to make, though you do know I love conversing with you.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Ownership does affect everything. This is why were are so critical of studies in the supplement industry - ownership bias. Who funds information most definitely plays into what gets reported, that's basics.

I'm sure Rupert Murdoch is filtering through stories as we speak...

:lol:

If it didn't then the 75% representation of 'Republican' politicians would not exist.

Where does this number come from? And do you actually watch US networks and read US newspapers? I thought you were in the great white north.

You pointed out individual news anchors,

That have commented on the news as a whole..

I am talking about nation-wide control, and homogeneity of reporting.

Take your average journalism student and ask them what their political affiliation is here in the US.

In this case, this homogenizing effect is being led by a succession of right-wing FCC leaders (see: over-control of media during Bush's presidency), and a monopoly of media ownership with a conservative mind frame.

Yes, they shielded Bush from criticism very well. :lol:

Personal opinion does not really matter here.

Well yeah, I knew that coming from you all along...

you do know I love conversing with you.

....and you defending the mass media really put a smile on my face....and a small laugh

 

[Mulletsoldier]

I'm sure Rupert Murdoch is filtering through stories as we speak...

No, he's just assisting to dictate which stories are affected.

Where does this number come from? And do you actually watch US networks and read US newspapers? I thought you were in the great white north.

I do, I made a four year degree out of it.

Take your average journalism student and ask them what their political affiliation is here in the US.

Which could not be more irrelevant. That's like saying "go ask the average Westinghouse employee about the Gaza conflict". A better point is: go ask your average NewsPaper editor/owner/regional manager what their political affiliation is here in the US. People bend for money, you know that.

Yes, they shielded Bush from criticism very well. :lol:

The dude's a walking catastrophe. Partisan politics can't even deny that. :lol:

...and you defending the mass media really put a smile on my face....and a small laugh

I know you have a degree, so your reading skills are there, implement them, haha. I'm criticizing the homogeneity of the mass media, and it happens to be homogenized conservatively.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

No, he's just assisting to dictate which stories are affected.

He's really an alien too

I do, I made a four year degree out of it.

Yes, I'm sure you have the pulse of the American media right in the palm of you hand....just like health care

Which could not be more irrelevant. That's like saying "go ask the average Westinghouse employee about the Gaza conflict". A better point is: go ask your average NewsPaper editor/owner/regional manager what their political affiliation is here in the US. People bend for money, you know that.

Yes, the political affiliations mean nothing and all journalists are just bought out by owners.

When the majority of journalists lean to one direction, there definitely wouldn't be any effect on how and what gets reported.

The dude's a walking catastrophe. Partisan politics can't even deny that. :lol:

Yes but these owners wield that much power. Don't you remember, people bend for money. I mean, Dan Rather's report with false documents was just a ruse to throw us all off

I know you have a degree, so your reading skills are there, implement them, haha.

Yes but some with a degree don't have common sense. Could you be a candidate? haha

I'm criticizing the homogeneity of the mass media, and it happens to be homogenized conservatively.

Maybe in your eyes...not most Americans.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Yes, I'm sure you have the pulse of the American media right in the palm of you hand....just like health care

Well, here I am using facts, studies, statistics, and so on. How can I compete when you can poll....well, your friends.

Yes, the political affiliations mean nothing and all journalists are just bought out by owners.

When the majority of journalists lean to one direction, there definitely wouldn't be any effect on how and what gets reported.

I know you're not this naive, so I'll assume you're arguing because you're stubborn. The assembly line worker does not affect which concept cars Ford produces, nor which T.V., design Sony produces next. This is elementary, B. You're just plain wrong here.

Yes but these owners wield that much power. Don't you remember, people bend for money. I mean, Dan Rather's report with false documents was just a ruse to throw us all off

One reporter. Your argument is striking! Haha.

Yes but some with a degree don't have common sense. Could you be a candidate? haha

Common sense < reading comprehension skills. I guess we'll have to call it a draw there.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Well, here I am using facts, studies, statistics, and so on. How can I compete when you can poll....well, your friends.

What study and what facts? I can post a study done by UCLA shows the bias exists. Would then the media bias be a fact? I'll post it then.. :lol:

I know you're not this naive, so I'll assume you're arguing because you're stubborn.

Actually I tihnk this applies to you. Don't get upset Mullet....its only the internet

The assembly line worker does not affect which concept cars Ford produces, nor which T.V., design Sony produces next. This is elementary, B. You're just plain wrong here.

One again, if you didn't get it the first time, I do not believe ownership sits there and dictates what gets reported and what does not. If they did, Fox News would have been created 30 years ago according to your conservative elite ownership theory

One reporter. Your argument is striking! Haha.

Arguement of what? I tihnk you are the one arguing that the mass media is now controlled and filtered by a conservative elite.

I just simply laughed at it....a lot.

Common sense < reading comprehension skills. I guess we'll have to call it a draw there.

Your the one who associated a degree with reading comprehension, not me

I just stated that some people with a degree lack common sense.

That Albert Einstein sure had great reading comprehension

 

[Mulletsoldier]

What study and what facts? I can post a study done by UCLA shows the bias exists. Would then the media bias be a fact? I'll post it then.. :lol:

Actually I tihnk this applies to you. Don't get upset Mullet....its only the internet

One again, if you didn't get it the first time, I do not believe ownership sits there and dictates what gets reported and what does not. If they did, Fox News would have been created 30 years ago according to your conservative elite ownership theory

Arguement of what? I tihnk you are the one arguing that the mass media is now controlled and filtered by a conservative elite.

I just simply laughed at it....a lot.

Your the one who associated a degree with reading comprehension, not me

I just stated that some people with a degree lack common sense.

That Albert Einstein sure had great reading comprehension

Haha! Bobo, I love this conversation.This is probably the most blatantly wrong you have ever been.

Before switching to Sociology w/ a focus on Mass Communications I was enrolled in the Journalism program at the University of Regina for two years. 1/2 of that time was co-ops at media outlets, with one of those semesters at Canada's largest news outlet affiliate in Toronto. Not only do I know you're wrong via text, but first hand experience within the industry. Stories are dictated from the top-down, not bottom-up.

If you honestly and truly believe that journalists dictate their stories, I'm unsure whether I want to be mad with you, or laugh. Do you sell tickets to your Wonderland? Seems like a pretty ideal place....aside from the PHI, though.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

I'd add there does exist liberal bias in some papers, stations, programs, and so on. However, I realize how pervasive it is to blame Republican mistakes on the 'liberal media'. The bias is, in terms of market share and exposure, conservative.

I don't agree with homogeneity in either respect - in fact such homogeneity is why I switched programs. I can't stand censorship, and unfortunately the mass media is abound with it.

In terms of the journalist thing, I swear to you it is laughable. That's from seeing it with my own eyes, in the exact context we're talking about it. Flat out, easiest way to put it, you're totally and completely wrong there.

 

[EasyEJL]

The thing I think is missing here mullet is that the republican elitist owners of the media care far more about the money they make than promoting the republican party. So if being liberally biased in news gets better ratings than being conservatively biased then that is how they go. Remember that they are republicans by party, but aren't politicians, they are businessmen.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Haha! Bobo, I love this conversation.This is probably the most blatantly wrong you have ever been.

:rofl:

Once agian, I repeat what most already confirmed. But keep telling me "I'm wrong". Maybe someone will believe you :lol:

Before switching to Sociology w/ a focus on Mass Communications I was enrolled in the Journalism program at the University of Regina for two years. 1/2 of that time was co-ops at media outlets, with one of those semesters at Canada's largest news outlet affiliate in Toronto. Not only do I know you're wrong via text, but first hand experience within the industry. Stories are dictated from the top-down, not bottom-up.

Well I guess your 2 years trumps my brothers 15 years here...in this country..not Canada. So wise at the age of 24...that doesnt even live here.

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist / UCLA Newsroom


Can we say the media bias is a fact now? Or will this study be cast off as the conservative elite funding their own study within UCLA...hahah

If you honestly and truly believe that journalists dictate their stories, I'm unsure whether I want to be mad with you, or laugh. Do you sell tickets to your Wonderland? Seems like a pretty ideal place....aside from the PHI, though.

Dictate their stories? No, they choose to write stories that often have their own slant based on their personal beliefs. If you have a hierarchy that controls what gets printed within the new room and they all share a common political affiliation, the result tends to pretty predictable.

The Dan Rather incident was just an very drastic example of a more subtle undertone.

"MSNBC.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans."


I'm sure ALL those people report and print stories with a completely nuetral attitude

I've already done some laughing in this thread....conservative elite ownership filtering and controlling...that still gets me




I'm still waiting for your facts though.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

The thing I think is missing here mullet is that the republican elitist owners of the media care far more about the money they make than promoting the republican party. So if being liberally biased in news gets better ratings than being conservatively biased then that is how they go. Remember that they are republicans by party, but aren't politicians, they are businessmen.

That would be naive

 

[Mulletsoldier]

:rofl:

Once agian, I repeat what most already confirmed. But keep telling me "I'm wrong". Maybe someone will believe you :lol:



Well I guess your 2 years trumps my brothers 15 years here...in this country..not Canada. So wise at the age of 24...that doesnt even live here.

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist / UCLA Newsroom


Can we say the media bias is a fact now? Or will this study be cast off as the conservative elite funding their own study within UCLA...hahah




Dictate their stories? No, they choose to write stories that often have their own slant based on their personal beliefs. If you have a hierarchy that controls what gets printed within the new room and they all share a common political affiliation, the result tends to pretty predictable.

The Dan Rather incident was just an very drastic example of a more subtle undertone.

"MSNBC.com identified 143 journalists who made political contributions from 2004 through the start of the 2008 campaign, according to the public records of the Federal Election Commission. Most of the newsroom checkbooks leaned to the left: 125 journalists gave to Democrats and liberal causes. Only 16 gave to Republicans."


I'm sure ALL those people report and print stories with a completely nuetral attitude

I've already done some laughing in this thread....conservative elite ownership filtering and controlling...that still gets me




I'm still waiting for your facts though.

LOL!

Wow, 135 journalists! I guess you choose to ignore the over $280 million contributed to Bush's campaign by the conservative media sources I noted.

Or these:

World Public Opinion

Or Chomsky's 1988 study

Or MIT's study.

But I suppose your brother trumps Noam Chomsky.

:lol:

 

[Dwight Schrute]

LOL!

Wow, 135 journalists! I guess you choose to chose the over $280 million contributed to Bush's campaign by the conservative media sources I noted.

Or these:

World Public Opinion

Or Chomsky's 1988 study

Or MIT's study.

But I suppose your brother trumps Noam Chomsky.

:lol:

Did you skip this one done in 2005?

Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist / UCLA Newsroom

And I'm sure you at 24 trumps UCLA


And its not 1988

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Did you skip this one done in 2005? And I'm sure you at 24 trumps UCLA

No, that one is valid. However, it's one study. I'll take MIT over UCLA, though.

However, I'm only 24..so what do I know?

 

[Mulletsoldier]

Stop snooping in my profile too! It's Big Brother in here!

:toofunny:

Some of your points are valid, though in terms of dictation of stories, you're totally wrong.

As I said on the first page though, the bias ends up evening out in the end. Now, it's fvcking Canada and it's +25, so I am going golfing.

New ETonics shoes are doing me well.

 

[EasyEJL]

can we all just agree that Carter was out of his mind when he said the above?

 

[Dwight Schrute]

No, that one is valid. However, it's one study. I'll take MIT over UCLA, though.

However, I'm only 24..so what do I know?

You are the one who used personal experience in a news outlet in Toronto. If you use your experience as reference, then that one experience and limited view given your young age should be questioned.

....just the way you question Universities and their results based on reputation

 

[Mulletsoldier]

You are the one who used personal experience in a news outlet in Toronto. If you use your experience as reference, then that one experience and limited view given your young age should be questioned.

....just the way you question Universities and their results based on reputation

Kind of like you saying two time periods (Iraq and Vietnam) are irrespective of each other, but the executive power exerted over a 150 year span is relatable? Maybe we're related?



And read above, B. Your comprehension skills are making me nervous. I said it was valid, just that I choose to put my stock in MIT.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

can we all just agree that Carter was out of his mind when he said the above?

Haha, definitely.

 

[Dwight Schrute]

Kind of like you saying two time periods (Iraq and Vietnam) are irrespective of each other, but the executive power exerted over a 150 year span is relatable? Maybe we're related?

You must be sore from all that "stretching".

And read above, B. Your comprehension skills are making me nervous. I said it was valid, just that I choose to put my stock in MIT.

Pot - kettle - black...

All I said was that all avenues are open for questioning. Did you not "comprehend" that?

I guess not. Its obvious what way you "choose". I think everyone knew that from the first post you made in this thread.

 

[Mulletsoldier]

You must be sore from all that "stretching".

Pot - kettle - black...

All I said was that all avenues are open for questioning. Did you not "comprehend" that?

I guess not. Its obvious what way you "choose". I think everyone knew that from the first post you made in this thread.

lol, Okay.
:rofl:

 

[Dwight Schrute]

lol, Okay.
:rofl:

I think you were right. You do need to get outside.

:lol:

 

[Bum Mahoney]

can we all just agree that Carter was out of his mind when he said the above?

Absolutely.