Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Ripsnort on September 16, 2004, 08:19:55 AM
-
(Waves to RPM, Nash)
Rather now has his doubts (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24633-2004Sep15.html)
CBS Guard Documents traced to Texas Kinko's (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24635-2004Sep15.html)[/b]
-
I think I found the real memo though, guys!
(http://www.imao.us/img/bush_awol_memo.jpg)
-
:rofl
The only improvement would be to change the date to 31 JUN 73.
-
Yellow journalism
Rather Concedes Papers Are Suspect
..... "If the documents are not what we were led to believe, I'd like to break that story," Rather said in an interview last night. "Any time I'm wrong, I want to be right out front and say, 'Folks, this is what went wrong and how it went wrong.' "
....
Rather said he was "relieved and pleased" by Knox's comments that the disputed memos reflected Killian's view of the favorable treatment that Bush received in the military unit. But he said, "I take very seriously her belief that the documents are not authentic." If Knox is right, Rather said, the public "won't hear about it from a spokesman. They'll learn it from me."
I see no concession.
-
Link requires registration.:(
-
If he were to resign would the 100,000 people who whatch him really care?
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Yellow journalism
I see no concession.
Yeah, Rather would never admit a mistake. You're correct.
-
They've got CBS to the boat. Next comes the net.....:D
-
I saw the 60 Minutes episode. Knox said she didn't type the memos, but the information contained was correct. She spoke of memos and notes that Killian (sp?) kept locked away.
After it was all said and done, Rather stated that if the documents were indeed forgeries, they would report it, BUT... Bush's preferential treatment entering the Guard and his dereliction of duty was an important story and they would continue to report.
It's not important. It's not relevant. The president is coming up on four years in office. It's a little late to question his character of thirty years ago. What difference does it make?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I saw the 60 Minutes episode. Knox said she didn't type the memos, but the information contained was correct. She spoke of memos and notes that Killian (sp?) kept locked away.
After it was all said and done, Rather stated that if the documents were indeed forgeries, they would report it, BUT... Bush's preferential treatment entering the Guard and his dereliction of duty was an important story and they would continue to report.
It's not important. It's not relevant. The president is coming up on four years in office. It's a little late to question his character of thirty years ago. What difference does it make?
Exactly. So why does the Dems focus on this? It didn't win the election for them in 2000? Best to focus on Kerry's 20 years as a senator, no?
-
Knox said she didn't type the memos, but the information contained was correct.
And that's good enough for cBS.
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Yeah, Rather would never admit a mistake. You're correct.
No need to duck. The point passed well over you.
-
He's just trying to keep his job......CBS is hiding something..if they are authentic then release the source.
Here's a question..how the hell does someones secretary remember how her boss felt about 1 pilot is a whole squadron from 30 years ago? This whole thing is just as rediculous as the Swift Boat Vet thing....
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
Exactly. So why does the Dems focus on this? It didn't win the election for them in 2000? Best to focus on Kerry's 20 years as a senator, no?
I'm not sure this is a focus of the Democratic campaign. It might be one of their talking points, but it's a weak one, IMHO.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
Here's a question..how the hell does someones secretary remember how her boss felt about 1 pilot is a whole squadron from 30 years ago?
Having been in two squadrons, I didn't see this beyond the realm of reason. It's a small command.
-
who cares
-
Come on Squadrons have as many personnel as a destroyer..You would know that..some secretary who doesn't deal with a pilot everyday probrably would hardly know who he was.
She's trying to say she remembers the feelings from 30 years ago a CO had towards one obscure pilot...can she name any other pilots in the squadron at that time...probrably not. So she remembers Bush? Come on...
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
Come on Squadrons have as many personnel as a destroyer..You would know that..some secretary who doesn't deal with a pilot everyday probrably would hardly know who he was.
She's trying to say she remembers the feelings from 30 years ago a CO had towards one obscure pilot...can she name any other pilots in the squadron at that time...probrably not. So she remembers Bush? Come on...
I've not been in the Air Force, but a Navy squadron is nothing like a destroyer. The command secretary is there every day. If the pilots go to talk to the CO, they talk to her first. She maintains his schedule, writes his memos, and knows where he is at any time. It's also a reserve unit. I'm guessing that their personnel turnover rate wasn't nearly as high as an active unit.
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
No need to duck. The point passed well over you.
;)
Researchers at the Kinsey Institute began their study in 1999 by giving 200 married couples who were planning on starting families within the next four years Intelligence Quotient (IQ) tests. By 2003, all but 27 of these couples had conceived.
Another IQ test was given to each set of parents successful in conceiving and birthing a baby six months after their child was born. These results were compared to the previous intelligence tests.
In every single one of the 173 cases, both parents scored at least twelve points lower on the second IQ test, with the majority of parents losing twenty or more IQ points.
-
(http://www.onpoi.net/ah/pics/users/514_1095346699_rathersucks.jpg)
-
This whole fiasco is beginning to sound familiar....
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/LIE/nbc.html
-
Originally posted by Ripsnort
quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Researchers at the Kinsey Institute began their study in 1999 by giving 200 married couples who were planning on starting families within the next four years Intelligence Quotient (IQ) tests. By 2003, all but 27 of these couples had conceived.
Another IQ test was given to each set of parents successful in conceiving and birthing a baby six months after their child was born. These results were compared to the previous intelligence tests.
In every single one of the 173 cases, both parents scored at least twelve points lower on the second IQ test, with the majority of parents losing twenty or more IQ points.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
;)
When I was a Junior in HS, I scored a 137, I will not be taking a "second one".
Karaya
-
Originally posted by Sandman
I've not been in the Air Force, but a Navy squadron is nothing like a destroyer. The command secretary is there every day. If the pilots go to talk to the CO, they talk to her first. She maintains his schedule, writes his memos, and knows where he is at any time. It's also a reserve unit. I'm guessing that their personnel turnover rate wasn't nearly as high as an active unit.
I think she probably remembers correctly. Too bad for the democrats that any validity of the sentiments contained in the bogus documents is far overshadowed by the forgery and fraud of presenting them. One step forward, ten steps back.
-
Picked up from AGW
The First Rathergate (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/morse200409150552.asp)
It seems he has a history of this type of "journalism".
-
Niel Boortz made a good observation....
Memo's come out against Democrats..the media says we should demand the validity of the documents and ignore the content until proven authentic.
Memo's come out against republicans, the media says we should ignore the validity and focus on the content wether or not they are authentic
-
rather is either very evil or very stupid.
Is anyone surprised that he went after Bush like a pit bull but allmost gave sadam a lip massage during the respective interviews?
lazs
-
It's time for someone in a position of reponsibility at CBS to get one of those big hook things and yank Rather off the stage before he does any more damage. The man belongs in a rubber room.
-
Originally posted by ra
It's time for someone in a position of reponsibility at CBS to get one of those big hook things and yank Rather off the stage before he does any more damage. The man belongs in a rubber room.
His ratings are plummeting this week:
CBS CONCERN OVER VIEWERSHIP PLUNGE; RATHER RATINGS FADE IN MAJOR MARKETS
CBS executives on both coasts have become concerned in recent days that Dan Rather's EVENING NEWS broadcast has plunged in the ratings since the anchor presented questionable documents about Bush's National Guard service.
NIELSEN numbers released this week show Rather fading and trailing his rivals in every Top 10 city, other than San Francisco, with audience margins in some cities running more than 6 to 1 against CBS
-
Waves back to Rip. I still don't see a retraction.
-
Originally posted by rpm371
Waves back to Rip. I still don't see a retraction.
do you think the documents are authentic or at least copies of real documents?
-
Originally posted by anonymous
do you think the documents are authentic or at least copies of real documents?
According to Knox, neither is correct.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Picked up from AGW
The First Rathergate (http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/morse200409150552.asp)
It seems he has a history of this type of "journalism".
rather and his idiot crew had it explained to them that its impossible for anyone to have ever been deployed SEAL before age of nineteen. several SEAL including some former BUD/S CO explain to rather and friends exactly why this is impossible. they still ran the story on tv.
-
oddly... cbs never ran any swift boat exposse... They certainly had enough people willing to question kerries service.
lazs
-
CBS seems to have used a source without fully investigating it's veracity. Rush Limbaugh and the rest of his mokettes are doing the same thing regarding the validity of the claim that these are fakes.
Hello pot.
-
Limbaugh doesn't pretend to be a journalist.
-
Originally posted by ra
Limbaugh doesn't pretend to be a journalist.
He pretends to tell the truth.
-
The memos are fake..
Here is the most in-depth expert analysis I have seen on them written by computer and text expert Joseph Newcomer:
http://freecache.org/http://www.flounder.com/bush2.htm
This is the authors resume:
http://www.flounder.com/resume.htm
His business website:
http://www.flounder.com/index.htm
-
Knox said as much.
Flounder needs to quit playing with fonts and find a woman.
-
So thats the new tack, eh sandman? It doesnt matter that the memos are now proven forgeries...
Hey whatever floats your boat.. :rofl :rofl
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
He pretends to tell the truth.
He's a more accurate source of news than cBS. But that's not saying much.
-
So we have the NY Times and CBS making stuff up, writing fraudulent articles, lying etc. etc..... Amazing year for proffesional journalism...
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
So thats the new tack, eh sandman? It doesnt matter that the memos are now proven forgeries...
Show me where I stated as much.
Some wackjob that likes to play with fonts proved that he could make the same documents at home. It's an awful lot of effort when you can go to Killian's secretary and she says, "I didn't type them. They're not authentic... but the information in them is correct."
-
Attack the guy and make fun of him for taking the time and using his expertese to disprove your dear fake CBS memos... Forged memos that are attempting to sawy a presidential election..
Pathetic...
-
CBS News will make every effort to resolve the contradictions and answer the unanswered questions about the documents and will continue to report on all aspects of the story.
"We will keep an open mind and we will continue to report credible evidence and responsible points of view as we try to answer the questions raised about the authenticity of the documents,"
While these are not out and out retractions, they definitely are backpedaling from the origninal brodcast that said that these documents were proof of Bush's ANG behavior.
Why should one defend CBS news for using questionable intellegence and attack Bush for doing the same?
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Attack the guy and make fun of him for taking the time and using his expertese to disprove your dear fake CBS memos... Forged memos that are attempting to sawy a presidential election..
Pathetic...
What difference does it make? Knox already stated that she did not type them.
We now have solid "proof" from the fontgeek that Knox didn't type them.
Whoopee.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
go to Killian's secretary and she says, "I didn't type them. They're not authentic... but the information in them is correct."
So, the Swift Vets can MS Word up some memos from Kerry's deceased Det commander saying "this dumbaxe fragged HIMSELF, not ONCE but TWICE. I'm going to gave him the hearts hoping he'll scratch himself on a doorhinge so I can give him a third and get him out of VN altogether". Then they get a clerk from the unit to say "nah, those memos are fake, but that's sure what the dead guy said way back then."
And we'll all accept that as good to go, right? Correct info?
I doubt that.
This thing is stinkin' to high heaven. What a goof-up. It has the potential of yet another Watergate.
-
Unless they actually produce the memos that Knox typed, I think we can take her opinion of Mr. Bush with a grain of salt (or two).
I don't quite follow the reference to Watergate. IIRC, the president resigned over that one. ;)
-
I can't wait until they find the guy that made those and put him on trial.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
I can't wait until they find the guy that made those and put him on trial.
...and charge him with what?
-
It's possible that a potential President will fail to get elected over this one. If they trail leads to the Kerry campaign.......... bad juju.
A year ago, I was thinking the Dems should be able to walk away with this one; Bush hasn't been sterling by any means.
But, they continue to prove they can screw up a wet dream.
Maybe they'll save the situation in the next 7 weeks but they're looking pretty sorry right now and have since their convention.
-
I wouldn’t take the "word” of an 86 year old secretary. She was a secretary for 30+ recollecting events that about Bush’s service 30+ years ago.
Sandman I was in the Navy as well and the “command secretary” may have been there every day and had contact with the squadron folks everyday but that’s not how the ANG works. Bush wouldn’t have had every day contact with her. So all her years (’57-’79) as a secretary at Ellington Air Force Base I find it very hard to believe that she remembers GWB at least in the details see claimed on 60 min. He wasn’t around much anyway.
I wouldn't rely on her recollection as to whether she typed the memos or whether she could accurately recall the thoughts of Killian. Killian's own son contradicts her. It’s just too stupid to take her recollections at face value.
Old lady Knox’s hearsay is a lot less believable then the memos themselves.
Let the memos stand by themselves, if they are forgeries then CBS and Mr. Rather ought to admit that and not try to mitigate their sloppy form of "journalism". At the very least they should reveal where they got them. It is not like its that big of a story to begin with. Bush will still beat Kerry.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
...and charge him with what?
Heres two:
Fraud
Forgery
I think theres a charge that has to do with election tampering too...which if they are forgeries..they would fall under that.
I'm not sure but W can probrably get him for defamation of character / Libel
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Bush wouldn’t have had every day contact with her. So all her years (’57-’79) as a secretary at Ellington Air Force Base I find it very hard to believe that she remembers GWB at least in the details see claimed on 60 min.
No arguement about seeing Bush everyday. She probably wouldn't. Still, if Bush was the bad apple that she says, she might have remembered him. The sharp ones and the real knuckleheads leave an impression. :)
I wouldn't rely on her recollection as to whether she typed the memos or whether she could accurately recall the thoughts of Killian. Killian's own son contradicts her. It’s just too stupid to take her recollections at face value.
[/B]
I don't put too much stake in the recollections of Killians son. I doubt he was following his dad around at work.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
Heres two:
Fraud
Forgery
I think theres a charge that has to do with election tampering too...which if they are forgeries..they would fall under that.
I'm not sure but W can probrably get him for defamation of character / Libel
Pretty thin case. Good luck.
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Pretty thin case. Good luck.
Regardless of which side you take, if these are forgeries, wouldn't you want to see they guy/guys that caused all this trouble go down?
It really is detracting from the real issues. Issue that neither canidate can take the time to talk about because they are always on the defensive.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
Regardless of which side you take, if these are forgeries, wouldn't you want to see they guy/guys that caused all this trouble go down?
Ni Sandman would not want Kerry to "go down." ;)
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
Ni Sandman would not want Kerry to "go down." ;)
That's right... the vast number people in this country that do not like Bush won't make a move unless Kerry gives it the go ahead first.
:rolleyes:
-
No I was actually implying that Kerry wrote the fake memos himself, while he was throwing his medals away in cambodia...
-
The 2004 Disinformation Election.
Too bad it ain't got no spam filter, maybe they should hookup with Yahoo.
-
Originally posted by Torque
The 2004 Disinformation Election.
Too bad it ain't got no spam filter, maybe they should hookup with Yahoo.
yep...
Why anyobdy would bother to vote this year with these candidates is beyond me...
:(
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
yep...
Why anyobdy would bother to vote this year with these candidates is beyond me...
:(
Civic duty?
-
Originally posted by Sandman
Civic duty?
You mean going through the motions?
I'm just not bit enthusiastic to vote for the lesser of two bad choices, sorry it just doesnt do anything for me..
Where are the serious adults in government? Where are the real leaders?
-
Rationalize all you want, but if you don't participate, you get the government you deserve. I doubt that the solution to this circus is less voters. It's more.
-
Lazy sensational journalism at it's finest, unless you consider the roll over in the months leading up to the invasion of Iraq. That showcased about the same level of ineptitude with the exception of some like Helen Thomas.
These guys aren't "liberal" media, they're just overpaid corporate hacks.
Charon
-
Lets see, I live in California.
I vote for Bush, nothing changes.
I vote for Kerry, nothing changes.
-
To honor the sacrifice of people that gave their life so that you could excercise your right to vote?
Don't even answer Grun. It REALLY P.O.'s me that you take that stance.
I mean REALLY
-
I'd love to vote. Heck, I come from a country where we had much more limited rights..
But what about the responsibilty of these candidates and these campaigns to be serious.
And what do we get?
You know the answer to that.
-
Originally posted by Toad
To honor the sacrifice of people that gave their life so that you could excercise your right to vote?
Don't even answer Grun. It REALLY P.O.'s me that you take that stance.
I mean REALLY
Yeah..what Toad said!!:mad:
-
I asked you not to answer because you just tick me off to an even greater degree.
You can always write in someone you think would be good for the job.
There are OTHER races besides just the Presidential that you can find someone to support.
There are surely local issues on the ballot upon which you have an opinion.
Get yer sorry butt to the polls. You owe that to guys that shall rest forever at Yorktown, Gettysburg, and many other places in Europe, Asia and the Middle East.
All I have to say about it, I guess.
-
In cali the other races are more important Grun, getting rid of Boxer would be a good thing.
-
Originally posted by GtoRA2
In cali the other races are more important Grun, getting rid of Boxer would be a good thing.
Boxer..you mean Joe Boxer?:)
-
Grun,
Then stay out of the political threads.
You have the ability to vote and won't. That is pure bull.
I'm writing in. I'm also voting on the local issues that affect me.
As Tip O'Neil once said "All politics are local."
He's spot on, and you're wasting bandwith in political threads if you don't exercise your right to vote, period. And don't compare yourself to folks outside the US who participate in US Political threads here. You are different because you can vote here.
Answering with what about the candidates responsiblity to us is a pure cop-out on not voting.
-
Its Grun's right to abstain.
-
Originally posted by hawker238
Its Grun's right to abstain.
It may be his right to abstain..However, if thats the case he has no say in politics. You can't ***** about something if you won't take part in it.
-
The right to vote is the ultimate form of self expression and free speech. The right not to vote is also a right of self expression and free speech.
Candidates ought to earn your vote not take it for granted. These two current tards haven't shown me anything that would give a reason to vote for them. I didn’t vote for GWB last time and there's no way in hell this time. Kerry is out of the question as well.
Any vote that goes to the loser is wasted, it means nothing.
Grun could write in some one or vote for a candidate that has no way of winning or he can refuse to participate until such time a candidate comes a long and earns his vote.
One could argue that those people who don’t participate present on opening for another party to step in and fill the void.
Neither the Dem's nor the Rep's have earned my vote. Its well with in my rights not to give my vote to some I feel doesn't deserve it. By doing so I certainly am not giving up any right and will speak out on any political matter I see fit.
It’s as American as Apple pie...
more so then shaming some into voting for some one they wouldn't even allow in their house for dinner.
-
I have right to be pissed at the major candidates, I have the right to xpress those views, and as a result not vote in the presidential election.
-
at the same time an unused vote is wasted..write himself in if he wants to make his point..at least vote on his local issue that will also be on the ballot...but to not do it at all is part of the problem...a small percentage of Americans vote..the majority do not....but you hear alot of grumblings about the govt from EVERYBODY...how can people who do not take part in choosing their govt be justified in their whines? They can't that the bottom line.
-
I have no problem with voting on local issues if they affect me..
I do have a problem with the presdiential election and the 2 choices presented now. And I dont likle the idea of write ins, seems like a mere gesture to me...
-
SeeBS
-
If you don't vote then don't beech later.
-
Wow, this thread de-railed.
-
BTW: Can someone cut and paste the articles from the two links?
Requires registration.
-
Makes no sense to me. I agree with Wotan and support Grun.
If you cast a vote for BS, you will continue to get BS.
Voting for the sake of voting may make the "apathy" quotient less salient, but the apathy is a voice, a vote, in and of itself.
It speaks of indifference to what's being served. As a result, in the future an otherwise unheard voice may get heard, and a change from the BS offerings will result.
-
Or you might say not doing enough research to find a man you can support and write in defines apathy.
All in the point of view, I guess.
You want change? Imagine how the highest number of write-ins in modern history would speak for change. Or even the Libertarians getting the highest percentage of the vote in their history.
Stay out of it and you are guaranteed to be ignored.
Speak and you might not be heard... but then again you might be heard.
-
If you cannot be bothered to to excercise your right to vote then IMO you have relinquished your right to complain because things don't go your way. You had the option to in some small way take resposinbility for how your nation, state, county or city is goverened. If you cannot be bothered to get involved then just STFU about the results. You had a chance and couldn't hack it, anything you say afterwards is less than a whine.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Makes no sense to me. I agree with Wotan and support Grun.
If you cast a vote for BS, you will continue to get BS.
Voting for the sake of voting may make the "apathy" quotient less salient, but the apathy is a voice, a vote, in and of itself.
It speaks of indifference to what's being served. As a result, in the future an otherwise unheard voice may get heard, and a change from the BS offerings will result.
It's a bad bet. As long as people abstain, there will never be more than the two dominant parties. You can't affect change by standing on the sideline and waiting for a candidate that suits your tastes.
-
Originally posted by Toad
You want change? Imagine how the highest number of write-ins in modern history would speak for change.
But where is this man? Who is this guy?
He'll never emerge if voters continue to repay canditates for their stupid-arse tactics.
Say no to it.
Or say yes.
Either way, it's valid.
Not voting nowadays, with all this crap, is voting, in my opinion.
-
Okay fer sure I know what you guys are talking about...
Thing is - you don't like your choices. When was the last time you really liked your choices? How long do you think it will be before you like your choices?
"Where are the good guys?"
They cannot nor will not emerge.
Something's gotta give, in order for them to, no?
-
The universe doesn't revolve around the presidency. Vote for whoever you think is best, or least bad. What's the bfd? The best and worst things that ever happen to you will have nothing to do with whoever occupies the White House for 4 years.
ra
-
Originally posted by Nash
Okay fer sure I know what you guys are talking about...
Thing is - you don't like your choices. When was the last time you really liked your choices? How long do you think it will be before you like your choices?
"Where are the good guys?"
They cannot nor will not emerge.
Something's gotta give, in order for them to, no?
I like my choices now. I liked them under Reagan too.
By the way, what choices do other nations have? Anyone you like? (okay, trick question...because you love Kerry for no apparent reason)
-
Originally posted by NUKE
By the way, what choices do other nations have?
Same watermelon - different place.
It's definitely la la stuff to expect better.... but year by year the criteria for what can emerge seems to have become more and more constricted.
"Electable" is a word that didn't exist 20 years ago. And it's an important word to consider.
"Electable."
It means "What the people could consider electing".
Now how do they figure that?
It's figured on an ever narrowing expression of the issues. It's figured on what seems to work and who seems to represent what seems to work.
And that's based upon a growing record of what got shovelled to the public in years past, and what stuck.
"This works. Here. That works. There. Don't say that, despite... Say this, because..."
Your vote for it is simply a sample..... a quotient entered into a database.
-
Originally posted by Nash
But where is this man? Who is this guy?
Doesn't have to be anyone particular man.
Imagine an election where 80% of the elegible voters voted. 50% voted for one of the two "standard" candidates. The other 30% just individually wrote in themselves.
What would that tell the politicos in the next election. The Dems and Reps would be thinking "how do we get those guys?" A third party could consider getting them.
You sure as heck don't get change by sitting it out. You play right into their hands that way.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Same watermelon - different place.
It's definitely la la stuff to expect better.... but year by year the criteria for what can emerge seems to have become more and more constricted.
I do not hold your view. We have a lot of choice.... only 2 usually end up in the final race, but we have a lot of choice all along the way.
All the Senators, Governers, Actors....etc..... we have made the choices from the very begining until the end.
We can even have write-in votes. So choice is a non issue.
-
Besides the cliché nonsense none of the presidential candidates have earned my vote therefore they won’t get it. It has nothing to do with "not being bothered". I am as well informed if not more then any one of this forum and most average folk out in the world.
I know the "issues" and I know what I want from someone I would vote for. I am not going to get it from these two clowns or any 3rd party. Any write in is just a waste of time.
I am well within my right of free expression to not support some one I don't agree with.
Because you bite the bullet and vote for a bad candidate or "the better of 2 evils" is no virtue. In fact it’s more apathetic then some like me who knows what he wants and refuses to offer a default vote just because voting is "good"...
RA is correct in that who ever the president is it really doesn’t matter much in the everyday lives of average people.
If you live in state where one guy will win or lose regardless of your vote, then your vote doesn’t matter no matter how good you think it should feel. It doesn’t matter if you vote for the loser or vote for "none of the above".
Grun's California vote won’t make one difference in how California turns out. At least he can maintain some self respect by choosing "none of the above". Because he doesn’t vote doesn't mean he gives up his right to be critical of who ever is in power. Telling some one they are only a "good" citizen because they refuse to vote for some who hasn't earned their vote isn’t "patriotic" it’s asinine.
It's ridiculous to think that a nation of 280 million (?) people that 2 parties can represent them all. Its even more ridiculous for those of you to claim that we as citizens should be obligated to chose one just because...
Folks who don’t vote haven’t given up anything. It’s the candidates who have given up on them. Maybe some day some smart fellow will come around and figure that out. Until then the Dem or Rep Presidential Candidates are just 2 arms of the same body politic and are too similar to make any real difference in my life; both are equally worthless.
-
I guess the bottom line is that every American can vote for whoever they want .....regardless.
So how can someone say we do not have a choice?
Simple as that.
-
No one said that. What Grun and I have said is that our choice is not to vote because no candidate has earned it.
You can limit your choices however you wish but dont play this "my limits are more American" because thats just BS...
It's as simple as that....
-
Originally posted by Wotan
You can limit your choices however you wish but dont play this "my limits are more American" because thats just BS...
It's as simple as that....
sorry, you lost me there.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I guess the bottom line is that every American can vote for whoever they want .....regardless.
So how can someone say we do not have a choice?
Simple as that.
Oh sure. True.
You get a choice, absolutely.
Crap vs crap.
That cool with you?
If so... continue to play along and give nobody the suspicion that there is even the hint of discontent with it. Vote one of two and dupe them all.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Oh sure. True.
You get a choice, absolutely.
Crap vs crap.
That cool with you?
If so... continue to play along and give nobody the suspicion that there is even the hint of discontent with it. Vote one of two and dupe them all.
In what way am I limited?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
In what way am I limited?
Yer limited by what you don't get to choose, because of what you choose to choose.
-
Originally posted by Nash
Yer limited by what you don't get to choose, based on what you choose to choose.
I can vote for anyone in that is a born US citizen pretty much, so how does that limit me?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
sorry, you lost me there.
You can limit your choices to:
Crap
Crap
3rd party crap
Write in
My choices are:
Crap
Crap
3rd party crap
Write in
No one
My choice of no one is no less responsible then any of the others, its no less American, its no less patriot and its well within "rights" to do so.
If you need more clarification try actually reading the replies or do I need to outline them for you...?
I might as well…
Grun:
- I won’t vote
Mavoadman
- If you don’t vote you are slapping the faces of those who died to give you that right.
- If you don’t vote then you can’t complain.
- If you don’t vote you aren’t a responsible citizen.
Blah blah blah
I guess something as simple as that can get difficult if you don’t pay attention.
-
Wotan, I can only limit my choices to almost every natural born US citizen. In what way am I limited?
-
Asked and answered...
Nash may have patience with you then I...
-
Originally posted by Wotan
Asked and answered...
Nash may have patience with you then I...
So, even though I can vote for anyone I want, I am limited?
Nash loses everytime he tries to argue with me because he does not use his head.
-
So, when will Rather answer these "serious questions" regarding the fraud he helped perpetrate?
-
Write in? Right..... Your vote, for say, Kermit, would accomplish what?
Because if everyone did that, there would be a vote for Kermit, a vote for Fozzy, a vote for Miss Piggy and etc.
Actually, that's not so bad... it's the same thing.
Your lack of a vote, and the lack of millions of votes, might say to *somebody*.... *somewhere*.... "Okay, maybe the Washington instruction book on how to win friends and influence people might not be that great". "Maybe I actually have a sporting chance against the clowns."
It may make the entire thing somewhat accessable to the types of people that we actually kind of fantasize about voting for.
Being in Cali and casting a useless vote for Kerry does what?
-
I'm going to assume that CBS is protecting the Kerry campaign team by their refusal to reveal the criminals that committed this sleezy act. Who's with me?
-
Originally posted by Nash
Being in Cali and casting a useless vote for Kerry does what?
I was born In California. I remember when Reagan was Gov. You think votes are useless? Nash, you make little sense.
(not to mention that California is pro Kerry)
-
Originally posted by NUKE
So, even though I can vote for anyone I want, I am limited?
Nash loses everytime he tries to argue with me because he does not use his head.
My dog could win arguement based on your reply above....
Why dont go back and re-read what's written a few times and give it a chance to sink in.
Here is a clue:
The choice of "no-one" is as valid as any other. Deciding that the choice of "no one" is "out of bounds" limits your choices.
No matter how many choices you think you have I have the same +1 (no one).
I know its tough but keep trying you may actually understand it someday.
-
Originally posted by Wotan
My dog could win arguement based on your reply above....
Why dont go back and re-read what's written a few times and give it a chance to sink in.
you really got me there!
I have a choice to vote for whoever I wish, and you are telling me I have limited choices?
-
Originally posted by NUKE
I was born In California. I remember when Reagan was Gov. You think votes are useless? Nash, you make little sense.
(not to mention that California is pro Kerry)
Non-sequitur. And juggle Bush for Kerry there or many places elsewhere. Same diff.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
you really got me there!
I have a choice to vote for whoever I wish, and you are telling me I have limited choices?
The phrase:
you can limit your choices however you wish
Does not equate to:
you have limited choices
As I suspect you just not able to understand what it is you are reading.
-
I could be wrong.... but the fact that Nuke is the only dog in this fight (as opposed to the usual pile) is telling....
-
Still wondering when CBS will come clean.
Sure hope Skuzzy censors you guys coming out of the closet off topic posts. Not that there's anything wrong with that, just don't want you all to be embarrased about admitting you're gay after the alcohol wears off. :p
-
Originally posted by AKIron
Sure hope Skuzzy censors you guys coming out of the closet off topic posts.
Whatever...
Something more interesting to talk about happened. So folks started talking about it instead. If folks still wanted to talk about whatever it was originally, that woulda got talked about instead of that. But it turns out it was more boring. Or it reached some kind of finality.
I don't get this OT stuff...
Whaddya, anyways... the hall monitor?
-
Just havin' a little fun Nash. Not like I was forging anything, sheesh. If he does mark your posts as off topic maybe you'll get the joke.
-
CBS doesnt need to come clean at this point for the truth to be known. They need to to save their reputation.
Its pretty clear where CBS got the memos, Bill Burkett
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/082504Burkett/08-25-04_Burkett.pdf
He has as much as admitted it
I know from your files that we have now reassembled, the fact that you did not fulfill your oath, taken when you were commissioned to "obey the orders of the officers appointed over you". I know that you not only lied to the American people in 1994, but have lied consistently since then. Mr. Bush, not every serviceman except you is incompetent. When you failed to show up as ordered for duty, they simply recorded the truth. And the truth was, they didn't think you were especially important enough to jeopardize their own careers to cover for your absence by fraudulently counting you as present in any piece of documentation when you clearly were not present. Now Mr. Bush, we have finally confirmed the truth concerning your failure to complete your minimum satisfactory drill participation in 1972 and 1973. Yes, you did receive an honorable discharge, and, for whatever reason, someone in Texas did cover your "six" on that one. And someone in June of 1997 also tried to cover your "six" by making sure that the counseling statements and other files, which explained the reason you were grounded, did not survive a records scrub.
-
"I know from your files that we have now reassembled"
Wondering who the "we" is?
-
Oh, he probably will. It will wipe out 3/4 of the posts in here.
It will render dozens of man-hours of labour, not to mention the junk soul searching, desperate reaches into the unknown, new but insignificant insights, and the significant insights.....
....into digital nothingness.
Maybe not a big loss.
I get the joke though (so nothing personal - I was kidding)... but it's a sore spot.
As far as I'm concerned thars a reason why you posted what you did, and thars a reason I am posting a response to it. It may have nothing to do with the orginal post, but it's where we ended up.
Again, if the grip of the original post still had any strength left to it, we wouldn't be here talking about this. We'd be talking about that.
So... but... we aren't allowed to talk about this just because?
Ahh,.. wotev...
9 am tmmrw this entire thing won't have ever happened.
-
Admittedly I'm no Chris Rock, but I'll never stop trying.
Hey, I've been the victim of the dreaded off-topic virus too. No biggie tho, we have our conversations and they disappear. Not so different than the spoken word.
-
Originally posted by AKIron
No biggie tho, we have our conversations and they disappear. Not so different than the spoken word.
Quite true... But with the spoken word and nobody able to filter it, we choose for our own selves what we dismiss.
-
No argument from me, my bedtime, good night.
-
Cheers
-
Originally posted by Wotan
CBS doesnt need to come clean at this point for the truth to be known. They need to to save their reputation.
Its pretty clear where CBS got the memos, Bill Burkett
http://www.onlinejournal.com/Commentary/082504Burkett/08-25-04_Burkett.pdf
He has as much as admitted it
I agree that Burkett is likely the source. But forcing a news organization to reveal it's sources isn't the way to go. If Burkett forged the docs, it's a huge black eye. But so far there is no definitive evidence.
-
Rpm the memos are forged, and if Burkett is the source then he forged them..
Just another disguisting thing during this campaign..
You know by the end of this I might go to vote in the presidential election just so I can write some obscenties on the ballot as my "write in"... That will e a lot more meaningful than putting the namew of somebody who wont win...
-
Burkett has already lawyered up and declined to answer any questions from reporters.
His lawyer David Van Os made this statement
"Asked what role Mr. Burkett had in raising questions about Mr. Bush's military service, Mr. Van Os said: "If, hypothetically, Bill Burkett or anyone else, any other individual, had prepared or had typed on a word processor as some of the journalists are presuming, without much evidence, if someone in the year 2004 had prepared on a word processor replicas of documents that they believed had existed in 1972 or 1973 - which Bill Burkett has absolutely not done'' - then, he continued, "what difference would it make?"
-
You are kidding about that quote, right???
-
Nope
David Van Os, issued a statement on Burkett's behalf saying he "no longer trusts any possible outcome of speaking to the press on any issue regarding George W. Bush and does not choose to dignify recent spurious attacks upon his character with any comment.
:p
They also traced the documents to a Texas Kinkos...
Incidentally Os is running for the Texas Supreme court. You probrably guessed it; he is a democrat...
-
CBS Guard Documents Traced to Tex. Kinko's
Records Reportedly Faxed From Abilene
By Michael Dobbs
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 16, 2004; Page A06
Documents allegedly written by a deceased officer that raised questions about President Bush's service with the Texas Air National Guard bore markings showing they had been faxed to CBS News from a Kinko's copy shop in Abilene, Tex., according to another former Guard officer who was shown the records by the network.
The markings provide one piece of evidence suggesting a source for the documents, whose authenticity has been hotly disputed since CBS aired them in a "60 Minutes" broadcast Sept. 8. The network has declined to name the person who provided them, saying the source was confidential, or to explain how the documents came to light after more than three decades.
There is only one Kinko's in Abilene, and it is 21 miles from the Baird, Tex., home of retired Texas National Guard officer Bill Burkett, who has been named by several news outlets as a possible source for the documents.
Robert Strong, who was one of three people interviewed by "60 Minutes," said he was shown copies of the documents by CBS anchor Dan Rather and producer Mary Mapes on Sept. 5, three days before the broadcast. He said at least one of the documents bore the faxed header "Kinko's Abilene."
Strong's comments came as CBS News President Andrew Heyward in an interview acknowledged that there were "unresolved issues" that the network wanted "to get to the bottom of." Since the broadcast, critics have pointed to a host of unexplained problems about the memos, which bore dates from 1972 and 1973, including signs that they had been written on a computer rather than a Vietnam War-era typewriter.
"I feel that we did a tremendous amount of reporting before the story went on the air or we wouldn't have put it on the air," Heyward said in an interview last night, while acknowledging "a ferocious debate about these documents."
Asked what role Burkett may have played in CBS's reporting, Heyward said: "I'm not going to get into any discussion of who the sources are."
Burkett, who has accused Bush aides of ordering the destruction of some portions of the president's National Guard record because they might have been politically embarrassing, did not return telephone calls to his home. His lawyer, David Van Os, issued a statement on Burkett's behalf saying he "no longer trusts any possible outcome of speaking to the press on any issue regarding George W. Bush and does not choose to dignify recent spurious attacks upon his character with any comment."
In news interviews earlier this year, Burkett said he overheard a telephone conversation in the spring of 1997 in which top Bush aides asked the head of the Texas National Guard to sanitize Bush's files as he was running for a second term as governor of Texas. Several days later, he said, he saw dozens of pages from Bush's military file dumped in a trash can at Camp Mabry, the Guard's headquarters.
The Bush aides Burkett named as participants in the telephone conversation were Chief of Staff Joe M. Allbaugh and spokespeople Karen Hughes and Dan Bartlett. All three Bush aides and former Texas National Guard Maj. Gen. Daniel James have strongly denied the allegations.
Suspicions that Burkett could have been a source for the CBS documents first surfaced earlier this week when Newsweek magazine reported that Mapes flew to Texas to interview him over the summer. Yesterday, the New York Times reported that a CBS staff member, speaking on the condition of anonymity, confirmed that Burkett was a source for the "60 Minutes" report but "did not know the exact role he played."
Yesterday, reporters from several news organizations were camped near Baird, Tex., outside Burkett's home, which is on a working ranch, with a gate barring access to a one-story farmhouse and a pickup truck outside. At 6 p.m. Central Time, Burkett walked to the gate on his cane with a black dog by his side to collect his mail. He refused to answer questions about whether he provided the documents to CBS.
"Get out of my way," he told the reporters. "You need to go home."
Earlier this year, Burkett gave interviews to numerous news outlets, including The Washington Post, alleging corruption and malfeasance at the top of the Texas National Guard, much of which have never been substantiated. He has also been a named source for several reports by USA Today, which reported Monday that it had independently obtained copies of the disputed memos soon after the broadcast.
-
Originally posted by ASTAC
I can't wait until they find the guy that made those and put him on trial.
isn't he supposed to be dead ?
(J/K ;))
-
Originally posted by GRUNHERZ
I have right to be pissed at the major candidates, I have the right to xpress those views, and as a result not vote in the presidential election.
IMO you should vote blank (if it's possible)
-
Originally posted by Nash
I could be wrong.... but the fact that Nuke is the only dog in this fight (as opposed to the usual pile) is telling....
Nash,
I can't speak for others with a similiar stance to mine, but as far as I'm concerned, I said my piece, stated my opinion, and that's all I wanted to do. Nothing else to read into it.
-
I also said my piece about voting here. There is no need to further clarify my position so why continue posting. I am not interested in how many posts I have on the bbs.
-
Originally posted by NUKE
So, even though I can vote for anyone I want, I am limited?
Nash loses everytime he tries to argue with me because he does not use his head.
Black Knight
-
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Vote2004/staudt_bush_040917-1.htmlRetired Col. Walter Staudt, who was brigadier general of Bush's unit in Texas, interviewed Bush for the Guard position and retired in March 1972. He was mentioned in one of the memos allegedly written by Lt. Col. Jerry Killian as having pressured Killian to assist Bush, though Bush supposedly was not meeting Guard standards.
"I never pressured anybody about George Bush because I had no reason to," Staudt told ABC News in his first interview since the documents were made public.
The memo stated that "Staudt is pushing to sugar coat" a review of Bush's performance.
As Jon Stewart reported on the Daily Show, among some of the unanswered questions Dan Rather referred to about these memos is "Why the f#$% didn't you check out these memos before you broadcast them?"
-
Fun to go back and read this now that CBS is about to admit the papers were forged.
Anyone want any hot sauce with their order of crow?
I think the Clintons are the responsible party,
She wants 2008
-
Originally posted by Scootter
Fun to go back and read this now that CBS is about to admit the papers were forged.
Anyone want any hot sauce with their order of crow?
I think the Clintons are the responsible party,
She wants 2008
The real question is, will Dan admit his error?
-
Was watching Fox News this morning. Col Killian's immediate superior during this period was interviewed. Basically he said that Bush was an exemplary officer and that he was sure the documents were bogus as well as their content. He even said that there were ANG in Vietnam and that Bush had volunteered to go. He said Bush wasn't sent as they wanted more experienced pilots.
This fraudulent attempt to discredit Bush's service has already backfired but may be far more costly to the Democrats than anyone imagined.
-
Ya know CBS was all over it when former Texas Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes claimed he helped Bush get into the ANG. Did they ever mention his daughter's rebutal? That seems like a newsworthy story to me.
CBS has proven their bias beyond all argument. It was a fun ride but the fantasy of media objectivity has been dispelled.
-
It's nice to know that if I ever decide to run for president that I'll be able to learn about things I did in high school and in college, regardless of if I did them or not. Sounds like a fun learning opportunity.
Never understood why something that happened 30 years ago is at the forefront of the elections. Must be new campaign tactics. I wasn't even around for Vietnam...why should I care if the canidates were there, either?
-
Guess this is as close to an admission of lying to the public as we're gonna get. I think the "good faith" part is particularly smelly.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/20/politics/main644546.shtml