[Jeb Stuart Thurmond]

I think we need to create a "nontroversy" measuring unit, to allow us to compare the amount of effort spend investigating this VS that.

The unit of measurement is an "Epstien".

"One Epstien" equals the amount of effort put into investigating the death of Jeffery Epstien.

Then we would have a quantified debate as we compare statistics on Benghazigate and Monicagate and Whitewater and Emailgate to wastes of time like Watergate and this.

How many Epstiens are we up to in this futile coup-hunt? Millions? Billions?

It was worth spending a few thousand Epstiens to find out that the cigars in the oval office had been up Monica's hoo-hoo. Otherwise George W. Bush might have smoked one, and I think he's allergic to fish.

But as for Watergate and this, I'd give them maybe one and a half Epstiens, and that's it.

Who cares if there was a coup attempt or not? Turkey had a coup attempt, and they're prospering. Africa has a coup or two a month, and they are the happiest people on earth.

[Jeb Stuart Thurmond]

Originally Posted by Jeb Stuart Thurmond

I think we need to create a "nontroversy" measuring unit, to allow us to compare the amount of effort spend investigating this VS that.

Because I'm having a hard time quantifying the amount of effort put into the Epstien investigations, if they even exist, I'm proposing an alternative.

"Kabulgategate" equalling 5 minutes of time on CBS, ABC and NBC combined.

By this I mean the fact that the Taliban were literally at the almost-literal gates of Kabul for a year, and they got 5 minutes of media time:

"Out of a combined 14,000-plus minutes of the national evening news broadcast on CBS, ABC, and NBC last year, a grand total of five minutes were devoted to Afghanistan..." - Tyndall Report

So then, anyone want to estimate how many Kabulgategates have been dedicated to this bruhaha/couphaha nonsense?

[Johny Joe Hold]

Originally Posted by Jeb Stuart Thurmond

So then, anyone want to estimate how many Kabulgategates have been dedicated to this bruhaha/couphaha nonsense?

Condensing coverage of non events is needed in many places. For example, the Southern Baptist Convention just concluded. News coverage went on and on about male preachers who had affairs with women and how the denomination's leadership hid this information. It had nothing about the women and their role in this sin.

Why cover it at all then? Best to do what the leadership tried to do, keep it quiet, move the preachers around and move on. Now there is going to be a list of poor fellows who will face obstacles staying in the ministry and preaching against sin.

[Jeb Stuart Thurmond]

Originally Posted by Johny Joe Hold

Condensing coverage of non events is needed in many places. For example, the Southern Baptist Convention just concluded. News coverage went on and on about male preachers who

And notice how they never say anything about the Eastern Baptist Convention or the Western Baptist Convention. Obviously those guys must be squeaky clean, because I've never heard a single thing about them.