Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 10, 2004 Posted September 10, 2004 I'll admit the Repubs are pretty goddammned good at this. But they had help. The Swift Boaters come out with a bunch of lies and it takes the supposedly liberal media three weeks to beat them down with the weight of evidence. These documents come out and within 24 hours the supposedly liberal media is falling all over itself to try to show they're forgeries. Christ, people. 1. Times New Roman was invented in 1932. It is not an exclusively "word processing font." 2. IBM had proportional spacing as early as 1941 and it was widely available during the 1960s. The "experts" (who, by the way, have now been outed as partisans) say things like "only a few typewriter models had this capability." Yeah, like the IBM Selectric, which was only the fuggin Microsoft Windows of office typewriters in the 1960s and 1970s. 3. The Selectric had font balls with proportional spacing, Times Roman-like fonts, and superscript "th"s. All this is easily looked up. 4. Who do you think might know more about what Killian was thinking about George Bush in 1973 -- his widow, or his superior? Col. Hodges has already said that the documents reflect Killian's sentiments at the time. Most people in the media hate Dan Rather and would love to embarrass the stevestojan out of him. They also hate that they got beat on this exclusive. That's what's driving this forgery stevestojan, folks. Not the truth. 25366[/snapback] That's right, because Democrats never cheat, steal or LIE, right???! God damn you are an idiot. Let's just peruse a list of a few of the crooks in the Democratic Party's history shall we? Boss Tweed. The Daleys. The kennedys. The Clintons. Yeah, some party you give allegiance to, superfreak.
Cheeseburger_in_paradise Posted September 10, 2004 Posted September 10, 2004 I'll admit the Repubs are pretty goddammned good at this. But they had help. The Swift Boaters come out with a bunch of lies and it takes the supposedly liberal media three weeks to beat them down with the weight of evidence. These documents come out and within 24 hours the supposedly liberal media is falling all over itself to try to show they're forgeries. Christ, people. 1. Times New Roman was invented in 1932. It is not an exclusively "word processing font." 2. IBM had proportional spacing as early as 1941 and it was widely available during the 1960s. The "experts" (who, by the way, have now been outed as partisans) say things like "only a few typewriter models had this capability." Yeah, like the IBM Selectric, which was only the fuggin Microsoft Windows of office typewriters in the 1960s and 1970s. 3. The Selectric had font balls with proportional spacing, Times Roman-like fonts, and superscript "th"s. All this is easily looked up. 4. Who do you think might know more about what Killian was thinking about George Bush in 1973 -- his widow, or his superior? Col. Hodges has already said that the documents reflect Killian's sentiments at the time. Most people in the media hate Dan Rather and would love to embarrass the stevestojan out of him. They also hate that they got beat on this exclusive. That's what's driving this forgery stevestojan, folks. Not the truth. 25366[/snapback] Or...it could be a forgery.
BRH Posted September 10, 2004 Posted September 10, 2004 That's right, because Democrats never cheat, steal or LIE, right???! God damn you are an idiot. Let's just peruse a list of a few of the crooks in the Democratic Party's history shall we? Boss Tweed. The Daleys. The kennedys. The Clintons. Yeah, some party you give allegiance to, superfreak. 25378[/snapback] What the F does Boss Tweed have to do with the authenticity of these documents? And as for the idiot comment, :I starred in Brokeback Mountain:
BRH Posted September 10, 2004 Posted September 10, 2004 Or...it could be a forgery. 25394[/snapback] I could be the King of England, too.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 10, 2004 Posted September 10, 2004 What the F does Boss Tweed have to do with the authenticity of these documents? And as for the idiot comment, :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: 25401[/snapback] You're making the Democrats look as if they've never cheated their way to an election victory. I was merely pointing out the deficiencies in that argument. Oh and :I starred in Brokeback Mountain: right back atcha.
DC Tom Posted September 10, 2004 Posted September 10, 2004 I'll admit the Repubs are pretty goddammned good at this. But they had help. The Swift Boaters come out with a bunch of lies and it takes the supposedly liberal media three weeks to beat them down with the weight of evidence. These documents come out and within 24 hours the supposedly liberal media is falling all over itself to try to show they're forgeries. Christ, people. 1. Times New Roman was invented in 1932. It is not an exclusively "word processing font." 2. IBM had proportional spacing as early as 1941 and it was widely available during the 1960s. The "experts" (who, by the way, have now been outed as partisans) say things like "only a few typewriter models had this capability." Yeah, like the IBM Selectric, which was only the fuggin Microsoft Windows of office typewriters in the 1960s and 1970s. 3. The Selectric had font balls with proportional spacing, Times Roman-like fonts, and superscript "th"s. All this is easily looked up. 4. Who do you think might know more about what Killian was thinking about George Bush in 1973 -- his widow, or his superior? Col. Hodges has already said that the documents reflect Killian's sentiments at the time. Most people in the media hate Dan Rather and would love to embarrass the stevestojan out of him. They also hate that they got beat on this exclusive. That's what's driving this forgery stevestojan, folks. Not the truth. 25366[/snapback] But...but...but...what about the superscript "th"? That proves they were forged! This is just like the Democrats...first blow jobs in the Oval Office, now this... Yes, I'm being sarcastic. What a load of crap this is all turning out to be...
BRH Posted September 10, 2004 Posted September 10, 2004 You're making the Democrats look as if they've never cheated their way to an election victory. I was merely pointing out the deficiencies in that argument. 25408[/snapback] No, you changed the subject is what you did.
BRH Posted September 10, 2004 Posted September 10, 2004 But...but...but...what about the superscript "th"? That proves they were forged! This is just like the Democrats...first blow jobs in the Oval Office, now this... Yes, I'm being sarcastic. What a load of crap this is all turning out to be... 25410[/snapback] I understand that, Tom, but the annoying thing is that some people will regard it as a load of crap only because some idiots claim the documents are forged -- thereby excusing them from having to consider the implications of them being genuine.
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted September 10, 2004 Posted September 10, 2004 I understand that, Tom, but the annoying thing is that some people will regard it as a load of crap only because some idiots claim the documents are forged -- thereby excusing them from having to consider the implications of them being genuine. 25418[/snapback] And you're ASSUMING they are genuine. Because of your agenda. See the problem, pal?
BRH Posted September 10, 2004 Posted September 10, 2004 And you're ASSUMING they are genuine. Because of your agenda. See the problem, pal? 25420[/snapback] I'm assuming they're genuine because you'd have to be a complete F'in IDIOT to run those things on national television two months before an election without authenticating them. And because the White House hasn't challenged their authenticity -- just like with the Swift Boat smears, they're more than happy to let others spread lies so they themselves won't have to. They'd look pretty damn stupid questioning the authenticity of the docs if they, um, turn out to be genuine, wouldn't they? I'm also assuming they're genuine because the FACTS show it was ENTIRELY possible to create those documents in 1972, and because his superior has corroborated the content of those documents. The people crying forgery are the ones spreading lies -- that you couldn't do proportional spacing in 1972, that closed 4's didn't exist back then, that you couldn't do superscripts, that Times Roman is only available on computers. All lies, and demonstrably so. But you think they're forgeries. Because of your agenda. See the problem, pal?
MichFan Posted September 10, 2004 Posted September 10, 2004 some people will regard it as a load of crap only because some idiots claim the documents are forged -- thereby excusing them from having to consider the implications of them being genuine. You can live in your make believe world of letter authenticity, but the real world is coming to the realization that where there's smoke there's fire. For some reason you want to save the sinking ship on an issue that hasn't had any impact to begin with. It's time to bail, you're starting to look desparate... Funny thing is, if they turn out to be real it has no impact. If they turn out to be forgeries, it is another devastating event for the Dems. You guys are now in a no-win situation on an issue that was supposed to revive Kerry's campaign.
DC Tom Posted September 10, 2004 Posted September 10, 2004 I understand that, Tom, but the annoying thing is that some people will regard it as a load of crap only because some idiots claim the documents are forged -- thereby excusing them from having to consider the implications of them being genuine. 25418[/snapback] The implication being...George was a poor Guardsman 30 years ago. No stevestojan, buckwheat. Tell me something I don't know. Ultimately, focusing on whether the documents are forgeries or not is probably more productive. They're not going to change anyone's mind either way; people who think they're true will continue to do so, as will people who think they're forgeries. The whole exercise is just a complete waste of time.
RkFast Posted September 10, 2004 Posted September 10, 2004 The people crying forgery are the ones spreading lies Such as the author of the letter's wife and child? Id slow down on that "liar" claim a bit if I were you.
Alaska Darin Posted September 10, 2004 Posted September 10, 2004 You do realize that the debate is whether the documents were forged recently, and not in 1972? 24639[/snapback] That would require cognitive reasoning. Yeah, right.
VABills Posted September 10, 2004 Posted September 10, 2004 The implication being...George was a poor Guardsman 30 years ago. No stevestojan, buckwheat. Tell me something I don't know. Ultimately, focusing on whether the documents are forgeries or not is probably more productive. They're not going to change anyone's mind either way; people who think they're true will continue to do so, as will people who think they're forgeries. The whole exercise is just a complete waste of time. 25437[/snapback] The only issue Tom would be the general credability that the news media has, especially CBS. In general the intelligent among us, whether lib or cons, realizes the modern day media has a bend and an agenda. This may open the eyes a little bit on the Hot Pocket crews from both camps.
SilverNRed Posted September 10, 2004 Author Posted September 10, 2004 The only issue Tom would be the general credability that the news media has, especially CBS. In general the intelligent among us, whether lib or cons, realizes the modern day media has a bend and an agenda. This may open the eyes a little bit on the Hot Pocket crews from both camps. 25442[/snapback] Amen. By the way, CNN has picked up the story. Yet another expert finds the documents fishy and, this time, reproduces them with Microsoft Word.
DC Tom Posted September 10, 2004 Posted September 10, 2004 The only issue Tom would be the general credability that the news media has, especially CBS. In general the intelligent among us, whether lib or cons, realizes the modern day media has a bend and an agenda. This may open the eyes a little bit on the Hot Pocket crews from both camps. 25442[/snapback] And again...the media, in their rush to scoop each other, publishes stevestojan. Tell me something I don't know...
Nanker Posted September 12, 2004 Posted September 12, 2004 Real or Fake? Hmmm... The guy pressuring for special treatment for Bush was retired over a year before the memo was written. A Blog in the thick of this particular fray... Scroll down to read, "CBS Docs: Bush Working on Nonexistent Campaign?" Bush Sr. was US Ambassador the the UN when the memo claims W wanted a LOA to work on a campaign. And just below is, "Another Document Experiment: 19 May 1972" which has been chronicling this misadventure from the get go. Again I'll say the proof is in the originals. If CBS only has copies then they're complete idiots for running with this story. If the orginals are printed in ink, they have at least passed the first threshold of credulity as to their authenticity. They could still be forgeries, but the FBI forensics labs could determine if the paper and ink are 30 years old and if the signatures are genuine and not literally cut and pasted onto a word processed document and were then copied. Again - an original from that date would not likely have toner anywhere on the document - especially a signature. We'll see the originals from CBS probably on the same day Kerry releases his military medical records.
Nanker Posted September 12, 2004 Posted September 12, 2004 Interesting... velly interesting! High resolution comparison of CBS document and a PC MS Word made document.
Recommended Posts