Destino Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin You don't get an honorable discharge if you went AWOL, is my understanding. Yeah and murderers all get tackled in the street at gun point. Oh wait sometime you get to "turn yourself in" would you like to remind me what things create such special circumstances Ghost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 Originally posted by skin-n-vegas ready to recant the "non-forensic" "artistic" comments yet? :laugh: I concede to you good sir but I refuse to recant! I will post my 95 theses.... Get it? The little typography pun. :doh: Ahh. Some days you got it others, I guess you just keep going.... Oh and that is only one article citing forensic examination. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 Rather has a conflict of interest with this Banes character if the stories of Rather's daughter and Dan being an active participant in Barnes district and the fundraising participation for him are true Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 Originally posted by Destino Yeah and murderers all get tackled in the street at gun point. Oh wait sometime you get to "turn yourself in" would you like to remind me what things create such special circumstances Ghost. Isn't selecting bits of my posts an easy way to avoid the other content? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funkyalligator Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 That would definetly be a conflict of interest...but then when aren't there conflicts of interest when dealing with any type of reporter from someone on a local/national show to cable one like Fox..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ummagumma Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 Originally posted by Blazers21 Have you seen the images? I guess careful fact-checking is a thing of the past for journalists.. One quick glance will raise major questions for anyone who has used both a typewriter and a word processor. In case you haven't heard, CBS does have an agenda. Just ask Walter and Dan. I wouldn't necessarily call it evil, but the agenda is there. Of course they do. It's unreal that lefties just don't admit it. I'm not suggesting that they always run biased material on purpose, but when 90% of the news staff considers themselves to be liberals/leftists, how can they not be biased? It might be unintentional, but it happens. But Dan Rather has a history of this going back to the Vietnam war. He isn't and hasn't been credible...much like the NY Times. Kudo's to the Washington Post...they still have journalistic integrity. They have a liberal editorial policy (which is fine), but still make an attempt to be fair and balanced - at least compared to the NY Times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 Real or fake, isn't it safe to assume where this is going next? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 Originally posted by IAMBG Alright- Stu, Skin-n-Vegas: Noted and thank you for responding directly. Stu, I agree it would be nice to see an official USAF just to dispel certain theories and have 'concrete' evidence regarding this issue. Skin-n-Vegas: I said that I would stop running my mouth when I saw some evidence that was based on more 'factual' findings. You win. I will back down now. After these last few comments. I have not been a major supporter of the latest bashings from the DNC or Kerry camp. Haven't been at all. Personally, many here know which side I will likely vote for. I'd like for the shadiness to come to light so we can get past this and look to who will do more for the future of this country. I will personally play wait and see on this issue... IAMBG, I am impressed. That was very honorable and I respect your comments. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 quote: Originally posted by Thiebear See, you have to start off by *reading* the other stories that link to this story and provide a background... Then, as it all starts to (appear) to be a hoax you shake your head and move on... Please don't base your mental state on anyone ONE Bush bashing issue as you may snap and drop the F bomb on someone by mistake... -------------------------------------------------------------------------- First of all, I wasn't dropping the f bomb on anyone. Did I call him a name? Did I insult him? Come on. What the hell does that have to do with anything? Your last comment shows you obviously don't take the time to practice what you preach buddy... I understand you didnt read the forensics part or the family part or basically ANY part, but my part said (YOU MAY) meaning in the future if you get any more excited.. So the buddy part was actually correct and i do practice what i preach as i will converse with anyone equally. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 This is actually getting pretty serious. http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/9/10/130050.shtml Caddell: Dan Rather May Have Cost Kerry the Election Longtime Democratic strategist Pat Caddell said Friday that if documents aired by CBS newsman Dan Rather Wednesday night turn out to be forged as alleged by experts, the presidential race "is over." "It would be the end of the race," Caddell told Fox News Live. "It would be the end of the race," he repeated. Story Continues Below "[Democratic officials are] so involved in this," the former Carter pollster worried. "They have gotten themselves so involved in this issue, [in] the last 24 hours, that somebody's going to, if they're not authentic, they're going to be blamed for it. It's incredible to me that they've gotten in this." Caddell said he wasn't trying be sensationalize the issue, explaining that instead, "I'm trying to save my party, you know, by telling the truth." He said that forfeiting the presidential race would be the least of his party's problems if Democrats are tied to any forgery scandal. "The race is over - and we've got bigger problems than that," he warned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 Pat Caddell is one of my favorite politicos. He must have read my mind (or my post from earlier) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 Pat Caddell has honor. That's all I'd ask for, even if(and i'm sure we do) disagree on a wide array of issues. He was speaking out in 2000. Odd how the popular culture views 2000 as some shady electioneering by Bush, when Caddell and a precious few felt it was Gore and company trying to steal the election. As Caddell called them, a "confederacy of gangsters." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Funkyalligator Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 If this can be tied directly to Democrats it would spell the end for Kerry....they really didn't need to do this at all.....too bad so sad.....it really sux if Bush wins because Kerry gets tarnished by this.....I will hate having to listen to 4 more years of an ignorant man in the white house..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 It doesnt need to be directly tied to him. If a substantial amount in key states feel it's tied to him, that's what matters. But you guys keep calling him stupid. When he beats you a second time, it will show the intelligence of the opposition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 When a real issue that makes a good argument for the Bush camp ever comes up, the old lines of "Bush is Stupid, Bush lied, Bush snorted, Bush is an alcoholic, etc" are what the opposition is forced to turn to. The interesting part is that I have never seen someone who threw that crapout there come back to defend the statements later. It usually works out as if they want to say the false staement and then have an urgent engagement immediately following. Weak Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ghost of Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 Originally posted by skin-n-vegas When a real issue that makes a good argument for the Bush camp ever comes up, the old lines of "Bush is Stupid, Bush lied, Bush snorted, Bush is an alcoholic, etc" are what the opposition is forced to turn to. The interesting part is that I have never seen someone who threw that crapout there come back to defend the statements later. It usually works out as if they want to say the false staement and then have an urgent engagement immediately following. Weak Seems like it, doesn't it? But then this resembles their feelings towards Reagan. Oh well, we could have Jesus Christ in there, but if he had an R by his name, we all know how they'd act. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destino Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin Oh well, we could have Jesus Christ in there, but if he had an R by his name, we all know how they'd act. No guy that asks his followers to give up their worldly things and states the rich will most likely not make it into heaven would have an "R" by his name. Clearly Jesus would be a third party candidate and called a socialist by the right wing and a religious nut by the left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 Originally posted by Ghost of Nibbs McPimpin Seems like it, doesn't it? But then this resembles their feelings towards Reagan. Oh well, we could have Jesus Christ in there, but if he had an R by his name, we all know how they'd act. It's sad, really. And it's the case on both sides, but it's getting almost silly from the left these days. I heard Estrich the other day, comment that Bush is not a recovered alcoholic. Man, I hate that crazy Estrich guy! He looks like a woman and sounds like Charlie Rengle! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kilmer17 Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 Susan Estrich? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Susan Estrich? Yeah, That's the guy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BG Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 Originally posted by Thiebear I understand you didnt read the forensics part or the family part or basically ANY part, but my part said (YOU MAY) meaning in the future if you get any more excited.. So the buddy part was actually correct and i do practice what i preach as i will converse with anyone equally. riiiight. OK so I'll just let you jump on me for any reason for now on. If you say I dropped an f bomb on someone, must be true. If you say I didn't read anything here, must be true. Your comments here don't make a hell of alot of sense, but if you want to claim part of my accord to Skin-n-Vegas, who actually proved my opinion was off-base with an article that stated direct quotes and evidence from a forensic expert when there was nothing to that effect posted before, I guess go ahead.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ross3909 Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 I am surprised by this move though. There was so little of an upside and so big of a downside if they got caught. I could just be their arrogance in feeling that they know what news is important and should be covered. And for that, I am glad they got burned. Dan Rather needs to be revealed for the partisan that he is...and he is not the only one. People hate Fox but I think the difference is that at Fox they confront their biases before they go in and then try to tell a balanced story in spite of it. In places like CBS it is a taboo subject that people are biased and just dont talk about it. The problem is that when you ignore it instead of deal with it, you allow it to shade stories that you cover, or chose not to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ummagumma Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 http://www.cafepress.com/rathernot.13460387 Why I love Capitalism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Skinsfan1966 Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 Originally posted by Kilmer17 Call my a tinfoilhatwearing mofo. But wouldnt it be funny if the person who leaked the memos to CBS was actually a Bush supporter. And fed them the fakes KNOWING they would get caught? The Bush team responded wayyyyyyy to fast IMO, they had to know in advance. Wow you are really paranoid, maybe they replied so fast because they really had released all know documents? It is a possibility Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SnyderShrugged Posted September 10, 2004 Share Posted September 10, 2004 Originally posted by Skinsfan1966 Wow you are really paranoid, maybe they replied so fast because they really had released all know documents? It is a possibility Pssst. i think he was joking. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.