Taro T Posted November 1, 2006 Share Posted November 1, 2006 Because I'm such a swell guy, here are at least SOME of the reasons why those documents were fake. Link Take your time, read it all, and follow the links. Try not to feel too embarassed about being over two years behind everyone else in the world on this story. 822423[/snapback] OK, so you might have proof on that one, but you have nothing proving the moon landings really happened and I saw a movie starring OJ Simpson (yes, THAT OJ) proving that they didn't happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wacka Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 That was the MARS landing! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taro T Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 That was the MARS landing! 822485[/snapback] That's just what THEY want you to think. That one didn't happen either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 And of course, like the rest of the right wing blogosphere that started the whole 60 minutes charade, you over nothing to disprove they weren't faked documents.Keep believing whatever you want....as long as it looks good for your man. 822372[/snapback] You are what you hate. Stick around. We got plenty of windows that need licked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 You don't get it, do you? 821636[/snapback] No. Is it a problem? Should I give a **** about kerry when he doesn't matter a hill of beans to the current US policy? The right obviously cares about him, because there's nothing positive you can claim about this current regime. They suspend habeas corpus, but air america folding is big news. They support torture but gay marriage is a bigger issue. They've turned government into one big pork barrel of enrichment for themselves, but Bill Clinton couldn't sell tickets to his birthday bash. DC Monkey Jumper may be "contemptuous" of me, but we agree on one thing: the majority of Americans are stupid. You'll go out there and continue to vote for people who steal you blind. It's true, you get the government you deserve... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 Yeah, they're just the ones who do the writing in the papers and the talking on the television. And as BJ pointed out, they're also the ones who become the editors and the ones who run the networks. Do you really think the owners of the newspapers and television channels go through every story and newsbroadcast and then fax over notes on how to make things more conservative? Of course not. Nope, but the financial departments do critique the reporting and have a ton of power over how the news is reported. Its the financial people who have control, as well as the owners. There used to be a sort of "brick wall" between the financial department of news organizations and the editors and reporters which prevented them from getting into the business of the news reporting (Watergate is a great example of something that would not be able to happen today - the financial departments prevent long-term, expensive investigative reporting). However, this broke down for two reasons in the latter part of last century: A.) As the media was bought up by several small companies and converged which led these companies to cater to shareholders and the bottom line. B.) With the discovery that the news could be presented as entertainment and make a fortune it increased the pressure on companies to increase profits in order to compete in the industry. This has placed a lot of the current power in the media into the financial departments rather then the editors and journalists. A bunch of the shows on CNN and MSNBC led their broadcasts last night quickly trying to explain what Kerry "meant to say." I had no idea it was their job to go to the mattresses for the guy. Why not start with what he said, the response, and then his response to that response? They basically started their shows with Kerry's explanation as solid fact. Susanne Malveaux (CNN) even let the mask slip and literally said on air that "we hope this whole things blows over tomorrow." What the hell kind of reporting is that? And that's not to mention the complete opposite treatment that was given to Trent Lott (for his compliment to Strom Thurman at the old geezer's friggin' birthday party), George Allen (somehow "Macaca" was more offensive than what Kerry said), and even Rush Limbaugh. In context, what Rush Limbaugh said wasn't that bad but did even one reporter on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, NBC, or CBS go out of their way to explain what Limbaugh "meant to say"? Nope. 822344[/snapback] Here's the problem - the shows on CNN and MSNBC aren't as much reporters as they are entertainers. All they care about is getting partisan audiences to watch their shows for entertainment. Thats probably the worst place to look for reliable news. The news sources that are going to be better are the NY Times, WSJ, Washington Post, AP, Reuters, and other news sources which sell their stories to other news organizations, and therefore have to be more centrist as they are attempting to sell their stories to conservative, neutral, and liberal outlets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 Should I give a **** about kerry when he doesn't matter a hill of beans to the current US policy? A sitting US Senator doesn't matter to current US policy? The right obviously cares about him, because....... ....he hasn't ruled out running for POTUS in 2008. BTW the left should care about that too. You'll go out there and continue to vote for people who steal you blind. It's true, you get the government you deserve... So, who'd you vote for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bungee Jumper Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 A sitting US Senator doesn't matter to current US policy? 822547[/snapback] In this administration? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OnTheRocks Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 He would have made a much better President than the fool who is in there now. That's not saying much, I know. Bush is so bad, that saying Jessica Simpson could do a better job wouldn't be that far off the mark. Hell, at least she wouldn't have the moron Congress behind her. Oh, bad choice of words, anyway, what Kerry, the combat veteran, said today: "If anyone thinks that a veteran, someone like me, who's been fighting my entire career to provide for veterans, to fight for their benefits, to help honor what their service is, if anybody thinks that a veteran would somehow criticize more than 140,000 troops serving in Iraq and not the president and his people who put them there, they're crazy. It's just wrong. This is a classic GOP textbook Republican campaign tactic. I'm sick and tired of a bunch of despicable Republicans who will not debate real policy, who won't take responsibility for their own mistakes, standing up and trying to make other people the butt of those mistakes. I'm sick and tired of a whole bunch of Republican attacks, most of which come from people who never wore the uniform and never had the courage to stand up and go to war themselves. Enough is enough. We're not going to stand for this. This policy is broken. And this president and his administration didn't do their homework. They didn't study what would happen in Iraq. They didn't study and listen to the people who were the experts and would have told them. And they know that's what I was talking about yesterday. I'm not going to be lectured by a White House or by the likes of Rush Limbaugh who's taking a day off from mimicking and attacking Michael J. Fox, who's now going to try to attack me and lie about me and distort me. No way. It disgusts me that a bunch of these Republican hacks who've never worn the uniform of our country are willing to lie about those who did. It's over." 821561[/snapback] i half expected to hear him let out a big "yeeehawwhhhhh" at the end of that rant yesterday. John Kerry is a tool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 Nope, but the financial departments do critique the reporting and have a ton of power over how the news is reported. Its the financial people who have control, as well as the owners. 822535[/snapback] But they don't. Because shoddy, slanted journalism is the order of the day in every outlet that you mentioned above. So either they aren't doing anything to improve the reporting or it's not working. You remember the NYT's big "missing explosives in Iraq" story on their front page a week before the 2004 Presidential Election that completely fizzled out? Or the 60 Minutes fiasco that we're talking about in this very thread? Or, wait, how about the NYT constantly publishing classified information (most recently on a surveillance problem that was almost universally accepted as legal)? The AP and Reuters are "centrist"? Their coverage of Israel is embarassing. Or maybe you thought the doctored and staged photos from a few months back were "centrist." You can argue about how there is theoretically no liberal media all you want but they are printing and broadcasting the proof every single day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 But they don't. Because shoddy, slanted journalism is the order of the day in every outlet that you mentioned above. So either they aren't doing anything to improve the reporting or it's not working. Whether or not the reporting is bad or not is not related to whether it is biased or not. You remember the NYT's big "missing explosives in Iraq" story on their front page a week before the 2004 Presidential Election that completely fizzled out? Or the 60 Minutes fiasco that we're talking about in this very thread? Or, wait, how about the NYT constantly publishing classified information (most recently on a surveillance problem that was almost universally accepted as legal)? The AP and Reuters are "centrist"? Their coverage of Israel is embarassing. Or maybe you thought the doctored and staged photos from a few months back were "centrist." You can argue about how there is theoretically no liberal media all you want but they are printing and broadcasting the proof every single day. 822689[/snapback] Wait, you mean that the media has fked up badly in their coverage? Say it aint so! The truth is you can look at it from either side and claim that the media is biased toward that side. FAIR shows that's the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC-Bills Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 You Kerry bashers need to get over yourselves. The man is not an Idiot. He's a moron! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TPS Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 A sitting US Senator doesn't matter to current US policy? ....he hasn't ruled out running for POTUS in 2008. BTW the left should care about that too. So, who'd you vote for? 822547[/snapback] Tell me how he has influenced Bush's foreign policy? Do you think Kerry will have a chance in Hell in 2008? I'd give rosie o'donnell a better chance.... The last major party candidate I voted for was Clinton in the 1996 pres election. However, I have voted for dems/reps over the years who appear to have some independence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Balls Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 Because I'm such a swell guy, here are at least SOME of the reasons why those documents were fake. Link Take your time, read it all, and follow the links. Try not to feel too embarassed about being over two years behind everyone else in the world on this story. 822423[/snapback] I guess it takes a righty blog to validate the far right wing blogosphere who first ran with the silly Rather story. God, where to begin to take apart your weak response link? Ok, for starters the typography matter: http://voice.aiga.org/content.cfm?ContentA...icle&aid=730650 "Just as quickly it was pointed out by others—including those critical of the President—that there were typewriters available during Mr. Bush’s period of service in the early 1970s that were capable of such typographic subtleties.' I can continue to take your weakest link apart if you don't feel sufficiently chastened yet? As the albino told Gary Bussey in the Firm before he blew him away "Now this is going to turn out badly for you...." Or we can get over 2004 and this current stupid non-story involving Kerry and all ask our current commander in chief why he hasn't apologized to our troops for leaving them wanking in the wind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chef Jim Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 Tell me how he has influenced Bush's foreign policy? I didn't say he had, but if he was any good at his job he might. Do you think Kerry will have a chance in Hell in 2008? I'd give rosie o'donnell a better chance.... No, I don't think he does. But he makes Hilliary look good, and that's freaking scary. The last major party candidate I voted for was Clinton in the 1996 pres election. However, I have voted for dems/reps over the years who appear to have some independence. What I was referring to was that you've voted for politicians. I have yet to see any difference in most of them. We have not had statesmen in a loooonnngggg time. So you have probably voted for several that have robbed you blind too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 "Just as quickly it was pointed out by others—including those critical of the President—that there were typewriters available during Mr. Bush’s period of service in the early 1970s that were capable of such typographic subtleties.' 822853[/snapback] Was there ever any proof that such a typewriter would be used by the supposed author or that he would worry about such subtilities when writing a simple memo or two? No? Oh, then I guess what you just said means absolutely nothing. Do you have ANY proof that these are real? Anything? Besides the fact that you like what they say? Seriously, I imagine that less than 1% of Americans still cling to the hope that these were real. Do you really want to be in that group? "I can continue to take your weakest link apart if you don't feel sufficiently chastened yet? As the albino told Gary Bussey in the Firm before he blew him away "Now this is going to turn out badly for you...." 822853[/snapback] I doubt that. Your first example above failed to take anything apart. I actually would like for you to continue trying, though, because this is friggin' hilarious. Meeting someone in October (now November) 2006 still peddling the fake memo story is pretty much like finding a frozen cavemen in my backyard. Or a unicorn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joey Balls Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 Was there ever any proof that such a typewriter would be used by the supposed author or that he would worry about such subtilities when writing a simple memo or two? No? Oh, then I guess what you just said means absolutely nothing. Do you have ANY proof that these are real? Anything? Besides the fact that you like what they say? Seriously, I imagine that less than 1% of Americans still cling to the hope that these were real. Do you really want to be in that group? I doubt that. Your first example above failed to take anything apart. I actually would like for you to continue trying, though, because this is friggin' hilarious. Meeting someone in October (now November) 2006 still peddling the fake memo story is pretty much like finding a frozen cavemen in my backyard. Or a unicorn. 823177[/snapback] Is it sort of the equivilant of the right still blaming Clinton for everything, including...now get this...9/11? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 Is it sort of the equivilant of the right still blaming Clinton for everything, including...now get this...9/11? 823186[/snapback] Nice comeback. I'd love to respond but I have no idea how what you just said relates to anything about the last few posts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kegtapr Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 Nice comeback. I'd love to respond but I have no idea how what you just said relates to anything about the last few posts. 823196[/snapback] Simple actually. When a liberal doesn't have a point to make or is losing an arguement, one of the points they can fall back on is that Republicans blame Clinton for everything. Even though, that's really not true. There is just so much to blame on Clinton that it seems that way. Fast-forward about 4 years from now and we'll see the Dems pulling the same thing on Bush. Not everything will be Bush's fault, but there will be so much that was it will appear that way as well. Pretty pathetic actually. Even more pathetic is that people like Joey Balls eat it up and don't realize how stupid they sound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverNRed Posted November 2, 2006 Share Posted November 2, 2006 Pretty pathetic actually. Even more pathetic is that people like Joey Balls eat it up and don't realize how stupid they sound.823207[/snapback] But we keep telling him how stupid he sounds! Aaaarrrggghhhh! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts