Old 7th September 2004, 09:21   #1
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,410
Top 25 censored media stories 2003/2004

http://www.projectcensored.org/publi...005/index.html

A little list for those who still think the media are biased to the left.
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th September 2004, 16:25   #2
bgesley
Major Dude
 
bgesley's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: without wax
Posts: 948
Send a message via AIM to bgesley
# 11 The Media can Legally Lie


wtf.

bgesley is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th September 2004, 20:03   #3
Wolfgang
Forum King
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,069
I wish CaboWaboAddict and papadoc would read some of them and realise what a load of bullshit they and everyone else like them will get the world into by reelecting Bush and Cheney.
Wolfgang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 7th September 2004, 20:07   #4
MegaRock
Forum King
 
MegaRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Inside my water bong
Posts: 6,851
Send a message via ICQ to MegaRock Send a message via Yahoo to MegaRock
Quote:
Originally posted by Wolfgang
reelecting Bush and Cheney.
FOUR MORE BEERS!!! FOUR MORE BEERS!!!
MegaRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2004, 12:43   #5
CaboWaboAddict
Forum Sot
(Major Dude)
 
CaboWaboAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Marietta, Ga. U.S.A.
Posts: 3,915
Quote:
Originally posted by Wolfgang
I wish CaboWaboAddict and papadoc would read some of them and realise what a load of bullshit they and everyone else like them will get the world into by reelecting Bush and Cheney.
Ok I read them.
They are student papers. They do not have to be factual. They do not even have to receive a passing grade to be posted there.

Quote:
Originally posted by bgesley
# 11 The Media can Legally Lie


wtf.
Are you making an assertation that students don't lie?
I will not take someones opinion as fact. Too bad if you folks do.

edit: LOL - some of the sources are posts on forums. We all know that people who post on forums are experts in the subject matter, don't we?

Idiot's Advocate
My site (under construction)
CaboWaboAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2004, 14:25   #6
Wolfgang
Forum King
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,069
Well, you seem to think you're quite knowledgeable about assertions you make, but a lot of people would say you're very subjective and a bit narrow-minded.

Do you really think a student would write a whole paper on something that is the opposite to what is true. "The Media can Legally Lie." That would not be the title if it wasn't true. Also, students tend to be the least subjective and most open-minded people in any society.
Wolfgang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2004, 15:57   #7
papadoc
Comfortably Numb
(Forum King)
 
papadoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,612
Quote:
Originally posted by Wolfgang
I wish CaboWaboAddict and papadoc would read some of them and realise what a load of bullshit they and everyone else like them will get the world into by reelecting Bush and Cheney.
It's quite apparent you don't know me.
Look back through all my posts and find one place
where I've said I'm supporting or voting for George Bush.
This election is between two loosers, in my humble opinion.
Neither Bush nor Kerry are worthy of my vote.
Why?
Because neither one of them are addressing the most important issue to me.
The incredible and ever increasing deficit.
They are both proposing massive spending that we can't endure anymore.
There is no difference between the two on this issue.
If we don't get this deficit in control, it won't be long until
Ameirca is flat out bankrupt.
And it's the young people, like the majority of you here, that will suffer.
When America goes bankrupt, we won't have the money
to do anything, including supporting our military.
Yes there are other important issues I think about.
And by electon day, I may change my mind.

Quote:
Also, students tend to be the least subjective and most open-minded people in any society
That may have been true in the past, but it's not necessarily true anymore.
Allot of students in college today are influenced by their professers,
and their politically leaning agendas.
And the majority of those professors are liberals.
This seems to be the case with these people.
I read some of those articles, until I just couldn't go any further.
Most are just opinions based on perceptions of facts.
And when they advertise moveon.org and list one of their judges as Noam Chomsky,
then I know exactly where they're coming from.
You can't get anymore far left than that.
And If they're so dedicated to the truth in journalism,
where are the articles critical of the left and the left's agenda?
papadoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2004, 16:04   #8
Wolfgang
Forum King
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,069
No, I don't know you. The general impression I got from all the anti-Bush (but not necessarily pro-Kerry) threads was that you were defending him. However, thanks for making your position clear.

If not students, then who? Who are the most objective people? Is it possible to generalise and label a specific group as "the least subjective people"? I don't think so, but I still think students as a group contain the largest amount.
Wolfgang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2004, 16:38   #9
gaekwad2
Foorum King
 
gaekwad2's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: bar2000
Posts: 11,410
Quote:
Originally posted by papadoc
And If they're so dedicated to the truth in journalism,
where are the articles critical of the left and the left's agenda?
here?
gaekwad2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2004, 17:17   #10
papadoc
Comfortably Numb
(Forum King)
 
papadoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 4,612
I seriously doubt those students at Sonoma State University,
would look to Fox News for truth in journalism, nor should they.
But that made me laugh.
Thanks.

I'm not saying that all students are influenced by their professors.
But in this circumstance, with these students,
I have a great suspicion this is the case.
Yes, maybe the majority of people in college are objective,
some even taking journalism classes.
I hope so, because we need people like that.
The world has become oversaturated with closed minded people in the media,
who aren't really seeking the truth, just they're own truths,
or the proposed truths of others.
And more times than not, these truths are fabricated or spun,
to suit a political or social agenda.
Is that wrong?
Not necessarily, because political and social agendas are necessary for debate.
You have to have two sides.
But when journalists declare they're objective when clearly they're not,
that's disingenuous, in my opinion.
papadoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2004, 17:20   #11
Rellik
Major Dude
 
Rellik's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: localhost
Posts: 1,099
Ha ha, very funny gaekwad2

Truth be told, finding true, honest, spin-free, and unbiased political information is probably very difficult and even if it exists, you may still determine it to be biased based your own biases whether you know it or not.
Rellik is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2004, 19:30   #12
Wolfgang
Forum King
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,069
The best place to find the most unbiased news is in a foreign country.
Wolfgang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2004, 22:16   #13
CaboWaboAddict
Forum Sot
(Major Dude)
 
CaboWaboAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Marietta, Ga. U.S.A.
Posts: 3,915
Quote:
Originally posted by Wolfgang
Well, you seem to think you're quite knowledgeable about assertions you make, but a lot of people would say you're very subjective and a bit narrow-minded.
Why because I call things as I see them? Look, I have said numerous times that I'm no fan of Bush. But, I hate Kerry. In that regard, I guess I'm nearly the opposite of the 'anybody but Bush' people. If you think that makes me narrow minded, 'well, that's alright by me.'

In actuality, I'm neither Democrat or Republican. I label myself as a very flexible moderate.

Quote:
Originally posted by Wolfgang
Do you really think a student would write a whole paper on something that is the opposite to what is true. "The Media can Legally Lie." That would not be the title if it wasn't true.
For a grade, yes. Abso-friggin'-lutely! And, you know what, even if the professor said it had to be 100% factual, and that was documented here, I would still doubt any document that made reference to a web site forum as factual. Someone promoting a document as fact that contains references like that is ludicrous!

Quote:
Originally posted by Wolfgang
Also, students tend to be the least subjective and most open-minded people in any society.
I disagree here too. Students tend to be hard line liberals - people known for doing anything to further their agenda.

Quote:
Originally posted by Wolfgang
The best place to find the most unbiased news is in a foreign country.
In general I would say no. Every news org has an agenda, whether they know it or not. I feel the only way to get a realistic picture is to listen to as much as you can absorb before making up your own mind.

Idiot's Advocate
My site (under construction)
CaboWaboAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2004, 22:58   #14
Jay
Moderator Alumni
 
Jay's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Next Door
Posts: 8,942
yea, there is no particular unbiased media hot bed. It is all bias, one way or the other. So do research, don't just listen to what one or even 5 tell ya.

I am currently a college student and i can tell you that many of the students I have met are bias or nieve. You pick. Probably 25% of the students I have met actually have a clue about what they are talking about.
Jay is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 8th September 2004, 23:32   #15
Inebriant
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 16
Quote:
The world has become oversaturated with closed minded people in the media,who aren't really seeking the truth, just they're own truths, or the proposed truths of others.
Well said...

but don’t forget $$MONEY$$
Inebriant is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th September 2004, 18:18   #16
Sweetly_McNice
Junior Member
 
Sweetly_McNice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 13
Sometimes I think the whole issue of media bias, whether directed at CBS or FOX is beside the point. Present the facts with whatever bias you like, but please PRESENT THE FACTS. Look shit up, okay?

When the swift boat veterans came on, the media at first tried to handle it in a "balanced" way, examining "both sides" of the issue, instead of just looking at the record, a checking the allegations. It was a dreadful shirking of responsibility. They were criticized for it, and they seem to have woke up. The response to Zell Miller's speech is an example.

The problem with FOX News isn't the bias of the News programs. I think a conservative News Channel is a legitimate service. I'd rather Conservatives get their News from an honest responsible source than the 700 Club. The problem is the pundits, especially the half-hour when Bill O Reilly lies his face off. O'Reilly can be as far to the right as he likes, and I'll respect him, but when he makes up his own facts, he becomes a liar, period.

And there's a difference between interpreting the facts according to your philosphy and using the facts in a misleading way. The latter is just another variety of lie.
Sweetly_McNice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th September 2004, 18:22   #17
Sweetly_McNice
Junior Member
 
Sweetly_McNice's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 13
By the way, I would reccomend that everyone see Outfoxed, a documentary about bias on the FOX news channel. Even if you share FOX's view of the world, Outfoxed is a great lesson in media literacy that can be applied to other venues.
Sweetly_McNice is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th September 2004, 19:29   #18
Wolfgang
Forum King
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,069
Quote:
Originally posted by CaboWaboAddict
Why because I call things as I see them? Look, I have said numerous times that I'm no fan of Bush. But, I hate Kerry. In that regard, I guess I'm nearly the opposite of the 'anybody but Bush' people. If you think that makes me narrow minded, 'well, that's alright by me.'

In actuality, I'm neither Democrat or Republican. I label myself as a very flexible moderate.


For a grade, yes. Abso-friggin'-lutely! And, you know what, even if the professor said it had to be 100% factual, and that was documented here, I would still doubt any document that made reference to a web site forum as factual. Someone promoting a document as fact that contains references like that is ludicrous!


I disagree here too. Students tend to be hard line liberals - people known for doing anything to further their agenda.


In general I would say no. Every news org has an agenda, whether they know it or not. I feel the only way to get a realistic picture is to listen to as much as you can absorb before making up your own mind.
You have always seemed pro-Bush to me. If I assumed that because of your distaste for Kerry, then it's my mistake. Perhaps because politics in the US are so polarised. But I have never heard you criticise Bush, and I believe there is a lot to criticise, and far more to criticise than Kerry. This does not make you a narrow-minded person, although in my opinion it does a bit in terms of politics.

As for students, maybe they are surprisingly different over there compared to the UK. There is still quite a lot of ignorance amongst students in the UK, but they will rarely do things to further their agenda except study hard. They often get into trouble with the police over their "liberal" methods of voicing their opinions, which damages their agenda. Maybe they are hard-line liberals, but usually for a cause rather than for themselves.
Wolfgang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th September 2004, 21:28   #19
CaboWaboAddict
Forum Sot
(Major Dude)
 
CaboWaboAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Marietta, Ga. U.S.A.
Posts: 3,915
Quote:
Originally posted by Wolfgang
You have always seemed pro-Bush to me. If I assumed that because of your distaste for Kerry, then it's my mistake. Perhaps because politics in the US are so polarised. But I have never heard you criticise Bush, and I believe there is a lot to criticise, and far more to criticise than Kerry.
No Problem! I can see where it would be easy to get that opinion of me.

I speak up when I think things are being said that are not correct. I disagree with a lot that Bush has done. I think a lot of the criticism is in order. I don't disagree with a lot of the criticism and am content to sit back and watch (there are plenty of voices screaming against him).

I have to get off my duff when I see the masses making a huge mistake by choosing Kerry simply because they don't like Bush or his policies. That is wasting a vote. You should vote for the person most qualified to do the job at hand and not simply vote for someone because you don't like the other one running.

BTW - before someone thinks they can call my hand on what I just stated...
Part of being 'the most qualified' means not being a traitor, not tolerating war crimes committed under your command, not disgracing your uniform, and not lying to the public or under oath.

Idiot's Advocate
My site (under construction)
CaboWaboAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 9th September 2004, 23:32   #20
mikeflca
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: san diego, california.
Posts: 623
Quote:
not tolerating war crimes committed under your command,
did i read that correctly?

you say this as an attack on Kerry?



Bush's doing that now, is more important than Kerry's doing that 30 or whatever years ago, assuming they happened under his command, which they probably did to some extent.

Quote:
means not being a traitor,
Depends what you mean by traitor, but also, which is more important: Kerry being in a group that got some money from the Commies (who are a dead threat at this point, with the exception that there are still a lot of nuke sover in russia fom the cold war ....) or Bush helping export saudis who may have known where osama is/was, most of them without being questioned?

Quote:
not disgracing your uniform,
Do you remember where bush came in onto an aircraft carrier on in airplane, in uniform i believe, and talked about how we had accomplished the mission in iraq?

Quote:
and not lying to the public or under oath.
I pretty much agree with you here, and in that case neither of them should be in office.

mikeflca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th September 2004, 03:17   #21
billyvnilly
Forum King, M.D.
 
billyvnilly's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Detroit burbs
Posts: 3,379
Send a message via ICQ to billyvnilly Send a message via AIM to billyvnilly
Quote:
Originally posted by CaboWaboAddict
Part of being 'the most qualified' means not being a traitor, not tolerating war crimes committed under your command, not disgracing your uniform, and not lying to the public or under oath.
they just released documents from W.'s commanding officer in Texas saying he was told to be "easy" on W. and W. did not have to take a physical. he then was supposed to goto alabama, who had no air national guard (whats an airmen doing there i ask???) he should never have been sent there in the first place, but then he went missing for almost a year???

And no, i guess you cant count ghost(some of whom have died-and its proven) prisoners held by the CIA as war crimes. no of course not.

Oh and btw, there were quite a few people who were against vietnam, so dont think Kerry betrayed the country or his uniform in any way once he got back.

George has never lied to the people, because to lie you must first know the truth! hes a bumbling cocaine-snorting idiot. yay george- you were the first president EVER to enter the white house w/ a criminal record.



oh if only howard dean had not made that awful noise on his campaign trail.
billyvnilly is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th September 2004, 03:32   #22
MegaRock
Forum King
 
MegaRock's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Inside my water bong
Posts: 6,851
Send a message via ICQ to MegaRock Send a message via Yahoo to MegaRock
Quote:
Originally posted by billyvnilly
he then was supposed to goto alabama, who had no air national guard (whats an airmen doing there i ask???) he should never have been sent there in the first place, but then he went missing for almost a year???
They had way better coke in Alabama than Texas. George was flying alright, it just wasnt in a plane.

Megarock Radio - St. Louis Since 1998!
Tune In Now!
Corporate Radio Sucks! No suits, all rock!
MegaRock is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th September 2004, 04:16   #23
Wolfgang
Forum King
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,069
Yeah, the classic is "I never did cocaine after 1971" or whatever the date was. He has never answered the persisting question "What about before that?"

Cabo: I respect your opinion and I agree with you on your stand that you should not vote for the "least bad", but when it's such a close race like it is between Bush and Kerry, you have to chose one, and while Kerry might have problems, none of them are as big as Bush's.
Wolfgang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th September 2004, 17:02   #24
CaboWaboAddict
Forum Sot
(Major Dude)
 
CaboWaboAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Marietta, Ga. U.S.A.
Posts: 3,915
Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
Bush's doing that now, is more important than Kerry's doing that 30 or whatever years ago, assuming they happened under his command, which they probably did to some extent.
If Kerry saw it, he could have stopped it, or at least reported it upon returning to base. As far as what is going on now... are they being tolerated or did I just dream that soldiers were going to trial for abuses committed in Iraq?

Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
Depends what you mean by traitor, but also, which is more important: Kerry being in a group that got some money from the Commies (who are a dead threat at this point, with the exception that there are still a lot of nuke sover in russia fom the cold war ....) or Bush helping export saudis who may have known where osama is/was, most of them without being questioned?
Kerry unofficially met with the fuckin' enemy during war time! WTF are you trying to protect this asshole for?

Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
Do you remember where bush came in onto an aircraft carrier on in airplane, in uniform i believe, and talked about how we had accomplished the mission in iraq?
yeah, I remember... so what? Now one said he wasn't an asshole too! Being an asshole is not the same as disgracing your uniform. Soldiers take an oath and while they are in active duty or the reserves, they can be court marshalled for disgracing their uniform - ie. throwing parts of it away.

Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
I pretty much agree with you here, and in that case neither of them should be in office.
No argument here from me... but no one else has a snowball's chance in hell of getting elected. So of the two, I would rather it not be Kerry.

Quote:
Originally posted by billyvnilly
they just released documents from W.'s commanding officer in Texas saying he was told to be "easy" on W. and W. did not have to take a physical.
Yeah, looks like someone almost got away with it too. See this post

Quote:
Originally posted by Wolfgang
Yeah, the classic is "I never did cocaine after 1971" or whatever the date was. He has never answered the persisting question "What about before that?"
His cocaine use is a new one on me... do you have a link?

Idiot's Advocate
My site (under construction)
CaboWaboAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th September 2004, 17:38   #25
Wolfgang
Forum King
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,069
I can't remembre where I read it originally, but here are some links I've found.

http://www.bushwatch.com/bushcoke.htm

http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread2619.shtml
Wolfgang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th September 2004, 18:11   #26
CaboWaboAddict
Forum Sot
(Major Dude)
 
CaboWaboAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Marietta, Ga. U.S.A.
Posts: 3,915
Quote:
Originally posted by Wolfgang
I can't remembre where I read it originally, but here are some links I've found.

http://www.bushwatch.com/bushcoke.htm

http://www.cannabisnews.com/news/thread2619.shtml
The first one is mainly about him tightening the drug laws in Texas. And there was this...
Quote:
If Bush won't tell us whether he used cocaine or other illegal drugs in his first 28 years — and there's no evidence that he did — he should at least tell us whether his admitted but unspecified "young and irresponsible" escapades would have landed him in prison had the drug laws he supports been enforced against him."
So anyone can accuse him of anything they want, and he's guilty because he won't dignfy the accusations with an answer? THERE IS NO EVIDENCE! Hmmm... I wonder what their agenda is? (sponsored by WWW.BUSHSUCKZ.COM)

The second article is mainly about Clinton and written in 1999. It was published by Cannabis News - sounds like a real reliable source to me. But regardless of that, they don't give evidence he did anything.

Idiot's Advocate
My site (under construction)
CaboWaboAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10th September 2004, 19:47   #27
Wolfgang
Forum King
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 3,069
The cannabis news one is sourced from the New York Post.

Quote:
The cocaine question has flared since Republican 2000 front-runner George W. Bush was hit for days with queries on whether he did coke. He says has not used it in the last 25 years, but won't say whether he used it before 1974.
and the other article:

Quote:
TODAY'S QUOTE. "I have told the American people all I'm going to say about me and cocaine. Subject closed. Except for this one, last thing. I have stated that I didn't toot the blow for 15 years before Dad became president. That's 25 years that I'm pure as a baby's butt. At this point, I'd like to add that I didn't touch the nose candy for the first 16, hell, probably 17 years of my life! That is all I'm going to say on this issue. Anyone who isn't happy can kiss my hairy Texas [deleted]. Hey, I'm 53. Twenty-five years, plus 17 - the Bolivians haven't gone marching through my head for 42 years of my life! That's all you're going to hear on this from my sweet lips. I will, however, say this: 1964, '65 and, as far as I can recall, all of 1966 - nada! You know I speak Spanish, bucko. Who says Republicans can't be multicultural? That's all you need to know about my personal life. By the way, have I mentioned that I have never cheated on my wife? Everything else of an intimate nature is completely irrelevant and just part of a plot by my opponents to destroy my chances of living in Daddy's house. But I will say this: There was maybe a weekend in '67 for which I can't fully account for my actions. Anyone who holds that against me is a [bleep]ing [bleep]. Of course, 1970 to 1973, who the hell remembers? I've given you the blow-by-blow - I mean the gory details - of every other year of my life. I was young and irresponsible, and had a damn good time. So if anyone wants to judge me based on three, maybe four years of my 53 on God's green earth, that's their problem. If the American people don't like my position, they can go out and find someone else to vote for. That's the great thing about the American system, hombre." This is what George W. Bush should have said, according to the New York Post's Andrea Peyser.
I remember also reading it in Stupid White Men. It was referenced, so no Moore-bashing.
Wolfgang is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th September 2004, 17:53   #28
mikeflca
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: san diego, california.
Posts: 623
sorry bout the wait.

Quote:
If Kerry saw it, he could have stopped it, or at least reported it upon returning to base.
I believe he testified to congress about that, as has been pointed out so often by the right wing.

Quote:
As far as what is going on now... are they being tolerated or did I just dream that soldiers were going to trial for abuses committed in Iraq?
They were being plainly tolerated until it broke lose....and I don't suppose you know about guantanamo(sp?) bay?

Quote:
Kerry unofficially met with the fuckin' enemy during war time! WTF are you trying to protect this asshole for?
He met during the PEACE TALKS, which I consider an important factor here. If the situation was different--ie he meets while in battle and turns and shoots his own soldiers--I would have a different view.

Why am I trying to protect him? for the same reason you protect Bush--you dislike him but think the other guy is worse.

Quote:
throwing parts of it away.
those weren't his. And anyway, the important part about the medals afaik is in the records.

mikeflca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 14th September 2004, 18:28   #29
CaboWaboAddict
Forum Sot
(Major Dude)
 
CaboWaboAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Marietta, Ga. U.S.A.
Posts: 3,915
Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
I believe he testified to congress about that, as has been pointed out so often by the right wing.
Yeah, a year or so later. I'm asking: If he witnessed it, why didn't he report it when it happened?

Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
They were being plainly tolerated until it broke lose....and I don't suppose you know about guantanamo(sp?) bay?
Tolerated by the person in charge of the base at the very highest. There was no evidence that demonstrated the knowledge of it went that high.

Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
He met during the PEACE TALKS, which I consider an important factor here. If the situation was different--ie he meets while in battle and turns and shoots his own soldiers--I would have a different view.
He met unofficially. This means he was acting on his own. This means he was not representing the USA. This means it was treason.

Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
Why am I trying to protect him? for the same reason you protect Bush--you dislike him but think the other guy is worse.
Exactly.

Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
those weren't his. And anyway, the important part about the medals afaik is in the records.
Yeah, he lied to the people then, so why do you think he's changed his stripes? I guess I am so impassioned about this point because I was there in the early 70's. I went to several rallys on the University of Michigan campus. What pisses me off is either Kerry lied under oath to Congress or he lied to us, the people he supposedly was aligned with. Either way I don't respect him at all.

Idiot's Advocate
My site (under construction)
CaboWaboAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st September 2004, 04:45   #30
mikeflca
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: san diego, california.
Posts: 623
Quote:
Yeah, a year or so later. I'm asking: If he witnessed it, why didn't he report it when it happened?
From what he said, maybe he assumed it was happening all the time (ie was normal). Realistically I'm not sure how much stuff like that really happened.

Quote:
Tolerated by the person in charge of the base at the very highest. There was no evidence that demonstrated the knowledge of it went that high.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/02/10/iraq8471.htm
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/W...imeline-1.html
http://www.morningnewsonline.com/ser...75300094&path=!news
http://www.sundayherald.com/41906

however this has the most compreensive set of links:
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.pht...hey_Know_It%3F

So, all these other people know this and are talking about it, yet nobody in the white house does? yeah, right.

Also, let's go back to when the first pics of the abuse got out. Do you remember the reaction from the white house? Rumsfeld said that we should not be surprised if more worse pictures came out (ugh bad grammar ). So, he didn't have a clue before the pictures came out, and then suddenly he knew all about it, and then some?

also:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/1...1301010001.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jun7.html
http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=5423

To be perfectly honest, While I still disagree with it in nature (especially if the detained person being tortured or whatever is making stuff up in order to be left alone), I won't shed many tears about abuses at guantanamo bay, if it was proven, in either a closed court or military tribunal, that the suspect really was guilty. However afaik this hasn't happened for the detainees at guantanamo bay, and abusing those who you do not even give a trial of any sort is wrong IMHO.

"He met unofficially. This means he was acting on his own. This means he was not representing the USA. This means it was treason."

he met under a white flag, so I see it differently. However, that is beside the point. The biggest flaw I see with the "Kerry is a commie!" logic: that is, if kerry is a commie, by the same logic, Bush is in league with the terrorists. And I dobt you believe that Bush is helping the terrorists, do you?

"Yeah, he lied to the people then, so why do you think he's changed his stripes? I guess I am so impassioned about this point because I was there in the early 70's. I went to several rallys on the University of Michigan campus. What pisses me off is either Kerry lied under oath to Congress or he lied to us, the people he supposedly was aligned with. Either way I don't respect him at all."

He lied because the medals weren't his? This is a moot point, not only because he was being deceitful rather than lying afaik (not that that is good, it is really another moot point, however I might as well make the clarification), but also because, what difference does it make? the whole thing was a theatrical effect more than anything else, since when did someone have to be throwing away his own medals in order to get the point across? That is all it was about really--getting the point across.

mikeflca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 21st September 2004, 16:00   #31
CaboWaboAddict
Forum Sot
(Major Dude)
 
CaboWaboAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Marietta, Ga. U.S.A.
Posts: 3,915
Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
From what he said, maybe he assumed it was happening all the time (ie was normal). Realistically I'm not sure how much stuff like that really happened.


http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp...&notFound=true
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/02/10/iraq8471.htm
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/WNT/W...imeline-1.html
http://www.morningnewsonline.com/ser...75300094&path=!news
http://www.sundayherald.com/41906

however this has the most compreensive set of links:
http://www.disinfopedia.org/wiki.pht...hey_Know_It%3F

So, all these other people know this and are talking about it, yet nobody in the white house does? yeah, right.
From the Sunday Herald:
Quote:
As a result, Bush called defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld to the White House for briefings on January 16. Rumsfeld is said to have told Bush the extent of the concern over abuse at Abu Ghraib prison. The meeting was attended by White House chief of staff Andrew H Card Jnr.
This is the earliest date that Bush knew, according to the articles presented. This means he found out after it happened. If he had no knowledge of it when it occurred, how could he be guilty?

Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
Also, let's go back to when the first pics of the abuse got out. Do you remember the reaction from the white house? Rumsfeld said that we should not be surprised if more worse pictures came out (ugh bad grammar ). So, he didn't have a clue before the pictures came out, and then suddenly he knew all about it, and then some?

also:
http://www.hindustantimes.com/news/1...1301010001.htm
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2004Jun7.html
http://www.occupationwatch.org/article.php?id=5423

To be perfectly honest, While I still disagree with it in nature (especially if the detained person being tortured or whatever is making stuff up in order to be left alone), I won't shed many tears about abuses at guantanamo bay, if it was proven, in either a closed court or military tribunal, that the suspect really was guilty. However afaik this hasn't happened for the detainees at guantanamo bay, and abusing those who you do not even give a trial of any sort is wrong IMHO.
Yes they knew when the story broke that it had happened, that doesn't implicate them in anything though. I agree with you that the detainees should be given a hearing. But this is a minor issue compared with the other charges being leveled.

Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
he met under a white flag, so I see it differently. However, that is beside the point. The biggest flaw I see with the "Kerry is a commie!" logic: that is, if kerry is a commie, by the same logic, Bush is in league with the terrorists. And I dobt you believe that Bush is helping the terrorists, do you?
I don't believe kerry is a Commie. I simply believe he is a lieing traitor (IMHO).

Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
He lied because the medals weren't his? This is a moot point, not only because he was being deceitful rather than lying afaik (not that that is good, it is really another moot point, however I might as well make the clarification), but also because, what difference does it make? the whole thing was a theatrical effect more than anything else, since when did someone have to be throwing away his own medals in order to get the point across? That is all it was about really--getting the point across.
it may be a moot point to you and to otheres. To me it is not. I was classified 1-A. I sweated the draft lottery. I considered going to Canada. I have friends that were shot up in 'nam. To me the Vietnam War was real - not something in the history books. Kerry lied to the people and he lied to Congress. He disgraced his uniform. He met with the enemy outside of diplomatic channels.

You say it was theatrics? For theatrics, stand out on the corner in Times Square and burn an American Flag. Then try to run for governor of New York.

Kerry did an 'Aw Shit' and would like us to forget it now. People are not forgetting, so he's slinging mud to distract the voters.

Idiot's Advocate
My site (under construction)
CaboWaboAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd September 2004, 03:46   #32
mikeflca
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: san diego, california.
Posts: 623
Quote:
This is the earliest date that Bush knew, according to the articles presented. This means he found out after it happened. If he had no knowledge of it when it occurred, how could he be guilty?

....

Yes they knew when the story broke that it had happened, that doesn't implicate them in anything though. I agree with you that the detainees should be given a hearing. But this is a minor issue compared with the other charges being leveled.
The story broke in May, I believe. That quote was from january. Given that and the other evidence (ie they knew about it, and more, when it was breaking, etc etc), it seems like Bush and others knew, yet did nothing....And you complained in your last post about Kerry not saying anything earlier about what happened in Vietnam?

"I don't believe kerry is a Commie. I simply believe he is a lieing traitor (IMHO). "

Ah, I see Trying to keep Bush honorable and denounce Kerry.....interesting. However, everything i have seen so far against Kerry in this regard has an equal on Bush's side.

"Kerry lied to the people and he lied to Congress. "

yet before you said

"What pisses me off is either Kerry lied under oath to Congress or he lied to us,"

I still don't see what the big deal with the medals was, to be perfectly honest.

regardless of which one you flip-flop to use, let's take a look at the "he lied to congress" part. In short he testified and said our soldiers committed atrocities, and you call him a liar for doing so. Then you bash him for not talking sooner about how our soldiers committed atrocities.

"He disgraced his uniform. He met with the enemy outside of diplomatic channels. " under a white flag.

Bush disgraced his uniform by dodging the draft and not showing up for a physical. Then, in terms of being traitorous, he met with the people who are effectively our enemy today (rather than 30 years ago. the past is the past, what matters is here and now, and the future), albeit not in uniform.

Like I said, everything against Kerry seems to have a parallel on Bush.

mikeflca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd September 2004, 15:26   #33
CaboWaboAddict
Forum Sot
(Major Dude)
 
CaboWaboAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Marietta, Ga. U.S.A.
Posts: 3,915
Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
The story broke in May, I believe. That quote was from january. Given that and the other evidence (ie they knew about it, and more, when it was breaking, etc etc), it seems like Bush and others knew, yet did nothing....And you complained in your last post about Kerry not saying anything earlier about what happened in Vietnam?
From your own reference - the acts happened in December and Bush found out about it in January. Just because it was kept quiet doesn't imply that nothing was being done. I'm not saying that something was being done, mind you, I'm just trying to clear the mud from the water.

Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
"I don't believe kerry is a Commie. I simply believe he is a lieing traitor (IMHO). "

Ah, I see Trying to keep Bush honorable and denounce Kerry.....interesting. However, everything i have seen so far against Kerry in this regard has an equal on Bush's side.
I'm not backing Bush or 'trying to keep him honorable'. I am simply speaking out on bullshit that is being spread as truth. And since when is saying something negative about Kerry, glorifying his opponent?

Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
"Kerry lied to the people and he lied to Congress. "

yet before you said

"What pisses me off is either Kerry lied under oath to Congress or he lied to us,"
This is not a flip-flop on my part. Both arguments were presented to me and I responded in kind. I have said all along that either Kerry lied to Congress, or he lied to the people. Either way he is a confirmed liar.
BTW 'Or' and mean 'and'... either one, or the other, or both - both means 'and'.

Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
"I still don't see what the big deal with the medals was, to be perfectly honest.
It is called disgracing your uniform. And when you are in uniform, you represent your country, so by extension, it is disgracing your country.

Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
"regardless of which one you flip-flop to use, let's take a look at the "he lied to congress" part. In short he testified and said our soldiers committed atrocities, and you call him a liar for doing so. Then you bash him for not talking sooner about how our soldiers committed atrocities.
When he testified before Congress, he swore under oath that these atrocities took place. Can you do that if its hearsay? NO. So if he said it happend, he must have saw it. If he saw it and did not report it at the time, he was guilty by association. In any place in the US, if you are with someone and they commit a crime, you are guilty of it too, unless you go straight to the authorities and turn them in.

So did Kerry lie to Congress or is he guilty by association of murdering civilians? Either way I don't want him for president.

Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
"He disgraced his uniform. He met with the enemy outside of diplomatic channels. " under a white flag.
I don't give a rat's ass if it was under the pope's nose. He met with the fuckin' ememy in war time and he was not representing the United States. By definition, that makes him a traitor.

Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
"Bush disgraced his uniform by dodging the draft and not showing up for a physical. Then, in terms of being traitorous, he met with the people who are effectively our enemy today (rather than 30 years ago. the past is the past, what matters is here and now, and the future), albeit not in uniform.
READ MY LIPS - THAT IS BULLSHIT! Bush did not dodge the draft. He served in the National Guard. These are fine soldiers that Americans should be proud of. What the fuck kind of twisted logic is it that says that joining the military is avoiding the draft? By joining, you get to choose the branch of service instead of taking what is given. By enlisting you also have to sign up for a longer tour of duty than if you are drafted. How the fuck is this dishonorable?

Regardless, Bush completed his duty and was honorably discharged. Did Kerry complete his? No.

Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
Like I said, everything against Kerry seems to have a parallel on Bush.
LOL

Idiot's Advocate
My site (under construction)
CaboWaboAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 22nd September 2004, 21:54   #34
fwgx
Rudolf the Red.
(Forum King)
 
fwgx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 9,314
Quote:
Originally posted by papadoc
Yes, maybe the majority of people in college are objective,
some even taking journalism classes.
I hope so, because we need people like that.
The world has become oversaturated with closed minded people in the media,
who aren't really seeking the truth, just they're own truths,
or the proposed truths of others.
I don't believe that this is achievable with the current power and ecconomic structure of the mass media. With the very rare exception journalists will pull the line and be "coorporate whores", those that stick to their student ideals will always lose out with the current setup of the media. Thus unbiased media, especially in the US, just isn't a reality and you're deluding yourself if you think the US media is "freeer" or not just one giant predictable propoganda machine.

.: fwgx.co.uk.:.My art:.

"We think science is interesting and if you disagree, you can fuck off."
fwgx is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd September 2004, 00:02   #35
mikeflca
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: san diego, california.
Posts: 623
Quote:
Just because it was kept quiet doesn't imply that nothing was being done.
then why do you accuse Kerry of doing nothing?


Quote:
And since when is saying something negative about Kerry, glorifying his opponent?
That, coincidentally, is pretty much Bush's and Kerry's campaign strategies, although I agree with you on this issue.

Quote:
I have said all along that either Kerry lied to Congress, or he lied to the people.
Do you know what the definition of "and" is? wow, it hink we have reached a new low, arguing over the definitions of "or" and "and".....

Anyway, you say he either lied to congress or the people. By the "lying to the people" one, do you mean the medal-throwing incident?

"It is called disgracing your uniform. And when you are in uniform, you represent your country, so by extension, it is disgracing your country."

They weren't his medals, as we have already noted. However, was he actually in uniform when he threw the medals or not?

Bush disgraced his uniform when he flew a couple of miles to the aircraft carrier and gave the mission accomplished speech.

Quote:
When he testified before Congress, he swore under oath that these atrocities took place. Can you do that if its hearsay? NO. So if he said it happend, he must have saw it. If he saw it and did not report it at the time, he was guilty by association. In any place in the US, if you are with someone and they commit a crime, you are guilty of it too, unless you go straight to the authorities and turn them in.
1) You said earlier that simply because nobody knew about the prisoner abuse doesn't mean Bush was doing nothing. Yet, when Kerry comes back from Vietnam and testifies about it, you say he didn't do anything about it there if they (the atrocities) happened. How do you know he didn't do anything? this contrasts directly with:

"Just because it was kept quiet doesn't imply that nothing was being done."

Quite frankly, Kerry came clean when he testified (or got dirty, depends on the truth of his testimony). So he did report it. Bush appears not to have done so. And once again, which is more important in the world of today:

a)someone who may have witnessed atrocities thirty years ago and came back to tell about them, even if he didn't talk about them there, or

b)someone who allows our soldiers to abuse those who we aren't even fighting against (not that it would be good if we were fighting them but still, it is another line), which will inflame people against us even more today and make it easier for al-queida, our main enemy (NOT THE COMMIES!!) to recruit people against us?

I'm not sure exactly how the guilty by association stuff applies, I'm not into law, can anyone here clarify? I think that as long as he eventually tells about it, its OK, but once again I'm not a lawyer or anything.

"Either way I don't want him for president."

So you are against Kerry because you don't want to elect a president who can lie (if he really lied, although I'm sure that at some points along the road he has lied)? I won't even bother pointing out what comes next in terms of Bush's honesty. Or if you really want to say he is not a COMPLETE liar, then some of his lies, you might point out, would not be lies, as they would stem from pure stupidity. Take your pick. But, this is all getting a bit off track.

Quote:
By definition, that makes him a traitor.
Ah, interesting. Guilty until proven innocent thinking. Just like the way inmates are held in guantanamo bay. And the way the Church and right wing says we should listen to them when they say gays are out to take our jobs away by legalizing gay marriage. Then the GOP champions around the flag as if they are trying to uphold this country's standards, which is one of the reasons I find that so funny.......but anyway, sorry about that, I'm getting off track here.

Let's say I go to assassinate a commie. But first, I have dinner with him. does that make me a traitor?

We have to ask, why the hell was he over in paris? The logical side says he is interested in peace. Peace was the patriotic thing to be thinking at that time, especially because we still could EASILY have won the war, even with the troop pullout, if congress hadn't stuck its cllective head up its ass, relatively speaking. The very biased side says he is obviously a commie. in fact, a while back, the gop internet site had a poll asking people how they felt about that "fact hat Kerry was a commie." Funny stuff.

If we had handled the vietnam situation right at that point in time, the pulling out of our troops either should have happened like this:

1) never should have gotten involved, or
2)1971, pull them out. I think this is about wha happened, at the end of 1972 we had only a few people left.

By the end of 1972 we didn't even need to have our troops there, the ARVN could hande itself. That's why everyone saying Kerry is a commie (or traitor) because he tried to make us pull out of Vietnam needs to rethink their position. A quicker pullout=more lives saved. So listening to Kerry=more lives saved, and we could still win. Very interesting.

"READ MY LIPS - THAT IS BULLSHIT! Bush did not dodge the draft. He served in the National Guard. These are fine soldiers that Americans should be proud of. What the fuck kind of twisted logic is it that says that joining the military is avoiding the draft? By joining, you get to choose the branch of service instead of taking what is given. By enlisting you also have to sign up for a longer tour of duty than if you are drafted. How the fuck is this dishonorable?"

I'm not saying there is anything wrong witht he national guard. However, it is common knowldge that joining the guard there was basically a dodge. I think the term they coined was "concientious defector."

I'm not saying you have to have served in Vietnam or anything, but if you want to get into a "whose record is better" debate, fine. Kerry went to Vietnam, Bush used his dad's power to join the Guard so he didn't have to.

"How the fuck is this dishonorable?"
To be honest I don't think it was dishonorable, because I think the war was stupid. However, if Kerry's actions are dishonorable because he tries to have us pull out which would save lives, then why is dodging Vietnam honorable?

And once again you ignore what I had to say about Bush and today's current enemies etc. Apparently Bush isn't the only one who dodges questions or statements.

"
Regardless, Bush completed his duty and was honorably discharged. Did Kerry complete his? No. "

Bush's service, I don't have to remend you, is under question. Regardless, I was still under the impression that Kerry effectively was done with his duty after recieving the three purple hearts (regardless of whether or not he deserved them). Anyone care to step in here?

Once again though, you imply witht hat quote that bush server honorably, Kerry did not. Once again, I strongly suggest you compare who went to Vietnam, and who did not.

"LOL"

"Kerry is a flip-flopper."
http://forums.winamp.com/showthread....hreadid=190676

"Kerry lied"
you know, I'm not going to bother refuting this one, because it is just so self-defeating.

"Kerry didn't serve honorably"
see above.

"Kerry has no plans for the future"
See Kerry's website. Also, from what I have seen, I sure as heel don't like Bush's.

"Kerry has no morals"
This one is not as common as the others, but I have heard it or similar arguments, mostly because he stongly supports stem-cell research and things like abortion yet says he is cathloic. I say, Kerry knows how to not be fascist.

"Kerry is a commie" (this comes directly from the GOP site by the way, although it was taken down a while back)
then bush is a terrorist.

"Kerry allowed abuses"
Takea look at guantanamo bay and abu gharib.

etc etc etc.

mikeflca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 23rd September 2004, 13:57   #36
CaboWaboAddict
Forum Sot
(Major Dude)
 
CaboWaboAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Marietta, Ga. U.S.A.
Posts: 3,915
Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
then why do you accuse Kerry of doing nothing?...
1) You said earlier that simply because nobody knew about the prisoner abuse doesn't mean Bush was doing nothing. Yet, when Kerry comes back from Vietnam and testifies about it, you say he didn't do anything about it there if they (the atrocities) happened. How do you know he didn't do anything? this contrasts directly with:

"Just because it was kept quiet doesn't imply that nothing was being done."

Quite frankly, Kerry came clean when he testified (or got dirty, depends on the truth of his testimony). So he did report it. Bush appears not to have done so. And once again, which is more important in the world of today:

a)someone who may have witnessed atrocities thirty years ago and came back to tell about them, even if he didn't talk about them there, or

b)someone who allows our soldiers to abuse those who we aren't even fighting against (not that it would be good if we were fighting them but still, it is another line), which will inflame people against us even more today and make it easier for al-queida, our main enemy (NOT THE COMMIES!!) to recruit people against us?
The difference is this... Kerry was directly in command of the situation not back at HQ or Washington. By his own testimony, he saw these acts being committed. He did not report them to his superior officers at all. He reported it to Congress 6 months later.
Bush had no first hand knowledge and didn't find out until after the fact. What was reported to him was called 'rumor'. Keeping something quiet from the public is not the same as keeping something quiet from your superior officer.


Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
Do you know what the definition of "and" is? wow, it hink we have reached a new low, arguing over the definitions of "or" and "and".....
You started picking nits, not me. I was demonstrating that I was not flip-flopping as you implied.

Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
Anyway, you say he either lied to congress or the people. By the "lying to the people" one, do you mean the medal-throwing incident?
Taken out of context, in this case, yes.

Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
They weren't his medals, as we have already noted. However, was he actually in uniform when he threw the medals or not?

Bush disgraced his uniform when he flew a couple of miles to the aircraft carrier and gave the mission accomplished speech.
Kerry was in uniform and was in the reserves at the time.
Bush may have embarrassed himself due to theatrics and jumping the gun, but he did not disgrace his uniform. There is a subtle difference there. Also, If I remember correctly, he was wearing a flight suit, not a uniform.

Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
I'm not sure exactly how the guilty by association stuff applies, I'm not into law, can anyone here clarify? I think that as long as he eventually tells about it, its OK, but once again I'm not a lawyer or anything.

"Either way I don't want him for president."

So you are against Kerry because you don't want to elect a president who can lie (if he really lied, although I'm sure that at some points along the road he has lied)? I won't even bother pointing out what comes next in terms of Bush's honesty. Or if you really want to say he is not a COMPLETE liar, then some of his lies, you might point out, would not be lies, as they would stem from pure stupidity. Take your pick. But, this is all getting a bit off track.
He lied, he performed treasonous acts, but if that's not enough for you look at his Congressional record.


Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
Also, If I remember correctly, he was weqaring a flight suit, not a uniform.Ah, interesting. Guilty until proven innocent thinking. Just like the way inmates are held in guantanamo bay. And the way the Church and right wing says we should listen to them when they say gays are out to take our jobs away by legalizing gay marriage. Then the GOP champions around the flag as if they are trying to uphold this country's standards, which is one of the reasons I find that so funny.......but anyway, sorry about that, I'm getting off track here.
Well, in a military court, that's how it works. Regardless of that, he admitted to seeing things that were not reported. That means he's guilty - admission of guilt.

Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
Let's say I go to assassinate a commie. But first, I have dinner with him. does that make me a traitor?
No, but I don't believe that was his purpose.

Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
We have to ask, why the hell was he over in paris?
I was wondering that myself. Hmmm, big secret meeting with the enemy - the only logical conclusion is that everything is legit! LOL

Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
The logical side says he is interested in peace. Peace was the patriotic thing to be thinking at that time, especially because we still could EASILY have won the war, even with the troop pullout, if congress hadn't stuck its cllective head up its ass, relatively speaking. The very biased side says he is obviously a commie. in fact, a while back, the gop internet site had a poll asking people how they felt about that "fact hat Kerry was a commie." Funny stuff.
Yeah, 'Give peace a chance' was real big. But what has that got to do with what we were discussing? We could have stomped Vietnam into oblivion - what would that have done? I remind you, it was being drilled down the publics throat that thais was a 'police action'.

Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
If we had handled the vietnam situation right at that point in time, the pulling out of our troops either should have happened like this:

1) never should have gotten involved, or
2)1971, pull them out. I think this is about wha happened, at the end of 1972 we had only a few people left.

By the end of 1972 we didn't even need to have our troops there, the ARVN could hande itself. That's why everyone saying Kerry is a commie (or traitor) because he tried to make us pull out of Vietnam needs to rethink their position. A quicker pullout=more lives saved. So listening to Kerry=more lives saved, and we could still win. Very interesting.
Kerry didn't save any lives. The decision was already being made to pull out. He was directly responsible for psychological torture of our POWs though.

Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
I'm not saying there is anything wrong witht he national guard. However, it is common knowldge that joining the guard there was basically a dodge. I think the term they coined was "concientious defector."
If that's not what you meant, then why did you bring it up? BTW. you have your terms mixed up... it is concientious objector and it meant that you opposed killing on religious grounds. It had nothing to do with what branch of the service you joined.

Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
I'm not saying you have to have served in Vietnam or anything, but if you want to get into a "whose record is better" debate, fine. Kerry went to Vietnam, Bush used his dad's power to join the Guard so he didn't have to.
It didn't take someone's daddy to join the Guard. All you had to do was go to the recruiting office. If you want to get into a debate about the record, since you brought it up, what about the fact that Bush was a certified jet fighter pilot?

Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
To be honest I don't think it was dishonorable, because I think the war was stupid. However, if Kerry's actions are dishonorable because he tries to have us pull out which would save lives, then why is dodging Vietnam honorable?
There is nothing wrong or dishonorable about dodging 'nam by joining the guard. Kerry lieing and meeting with the enemy is dishonorable. What is so hard about that?

Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
And once again you ignore what I had to say about Bush and today's current enemies etc. Apparently Bush isn't the only one who dodges questions or statements.
Sorry, what exactly did I ignore?

Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
"Regardless, Bush completed his duty and was honorably discharged. Did Kerry complete his? No. "

Bush's service, I don't have to remend you, is under question. Regardless, I was still under the impression that Kerry effectively was done with his duty after recieving the three purple hearts (regardless of whether or not he deserved them). Anyone care to step in here?

Once again though, you imply witht hat quote that bush server honorably, Kerry did not. Once again, I strongly suggest you compare who went to Vietnam, and who did not.
Bush's service may be in question because of some lame ass attempts to slander him. What has been proven? What has been proven about Kerry?

Quote:
Originally posted by mikeflca
"Kerry is a flip-flopper."
"Kerry lied"
"Kerry didn't serve honorably"
"Kerry has no plans for the future"
"Kerry has no morals"
"Kerry is a commie" (this comes directly from the GOP site by the way, although it was taken down a while back)
then bush is a terrorist.
"Kerry allowed abuses"
Two of those I didn't say. You can't throw references to another thread to prove your point. So, what's your point?

Idiot's Advocate
My site (under construction)
CaboWaboAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 26th September 2004, 19:14   #37
mikeflca
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: san diego, california.
Posts: 623
Quote:
The difference is this... Kerry was directly in command of the situation not back at HQ or Washington. By his own testimony, he saw these acts being committed. He did not report them to his superior officers at all. He reported it to Congress 6 months later.
If you mean by saying Kerry was in command of the situation, those troops were under his command, then you are wrong, because Kerry commanded a swift boat, and the people on it, not everyone else. From what he said, it sounded like the superior officers knew about it anyway, which is probably one of the reasons he went to congress.

Quote:
Bush had no first hand knowledge and didn't find out until after the fact.
Kerry didn't find out until after the fact. However, memos have been found with the white house authorizing "coercive techniques."

Quote:
What was reported to him was called 'rumor'. Keeping something quiet from the public is not the same as keeping something quiet from your superior officer.
He didn't keep it quiet. For better or worse, he went to congress.

Quote:
Also, If I remember correctly, he was wearing a flight suit, not a uniform.
yes. so, by your logic:

Quote:
It is called disgracing your uniform. And when you are in uniform, you represent your country, so by extension, it is disgracing your country.
Bush disgraced the flight uniform. Therefore he disgraced the USAF. By extension he disgraced his country.

Quote:
He lied, he performed treasonous acts, but if that's not enough for you look at his Congressional record.
The first 2, we are discussing. the third, the congressional record ,
Quote:
may be in question because of some lame ass attempts to slander him
.

Quote:
Regardless of that, he admitted to seeing things that were not reported. That means he's guilty - admission of guilt.
There's a problem, though--he reported them.

Quote:
Yeah, 'Give peace a chance' was real big. But what has that got to do with what we were discussing?
Maybe Kerry
Quote:
is interested in peace.
Quote:
He was directly responsible for psychological torture of our POWs though.
Funny, I was under the impression that the North Vietnamese were responsible

Of course using the same logic, I assume you blame Bush for 9/11?

Quote:
If that's not what you meant, then why did you bring it up? BTW. you have your terms mixed up... it is concientious objector and it meant that you opposed killing on religious grounds. It had nothing to do with what branch of the service you joined.
I know there was a term coined for someone who joined the guard to dodge Vietnam. I don't think concioentous objector was it because as you said, that si someone who opposed it on religious grounds or something like that etc.

No, there was a specific term for the gaurd-joiners back then.

Quote:
All you had to do was go to the recruiting office.
True-but because so many people wanted into the guard, there was a huge waiting list. yet Bush has no trouble getting in almost instantly.

Quote:
If you want to get into a debate about the record, since you brought it up, what about the fact that Bush was a certified jet fighter pilot?
Good for him.

Quote:
There is nothing wrong or dishonorable about dodging 'nam by joining the guard.
Funny, I've heard the exact opposite from the right wing for years (until Bush ran for pres, that is). By extension I suppose there is nothing dishonorable about dodging the war altogether. Do you remember what everyone saus about clinton's war record when he ran?

Quote:
There is nothing wrong or dishonorable about dodging 'nam by joining the guard. Kerry lieing and meeting with the enemy is dishonorable. What is so hard about that?
Depends on the outcome of the meeting. And once again this was the Paris Peace talks. (please note the second word in "Paris Peace Talks")

Quote:
Sorry, what exactly did I ignore?
when you responded to me saying

Quote:
Bush disgraced his uniform by dodging the draft and not showing up for a physical. Then, in terms of being traitorous, he met with the people who are effectively our enemy today (rather than 30 years ago. the past is the past, what matters is here and now, and the future), albeit not in uniform.
you only addressed the first sentence and not the rest of the paragraph.

Quote:
Bush's service may be in question because of some lame ass attempts to slander him. What has been proven? What has been proven about Kerry?
Bush's service may be in question because of a missed physical and some apparent strings that were pulled. As for what has been proven 100% about either one = very little.

Quote:
Two of those I didn't say. You can't throw references to another thread to prove your point.
actually I can, because I was only pointing out that
Quote:
So, what's your point?
Quote:
Like I said, everything against Kerry seems to have a parallel on Bush.

mikeflca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th September 2004, 03:45   #38
CaboWaboAddict
Forum Sot
(Major Dude)
 
CaboWaboAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Marietta, Ga. U.S.A.
Posts: 3,915
You know ... I 've had way too much Cabo tonight to read this spin you've put on things. I know you're trying to say that it doesn't matter is someone doesn't report something for six months. If you want to believe that or any of the other crap, that's up to you.

Here is another reason for believing Kerry will never change his stripes... Read it if you want - I really don't care.
Another post

You are not going to convince me that Kerry is a good honest man by slamming Bush. I've heard all of those pathetic arguments before. I know what I saw, I know how I felt in the 60's and early 70's. I know Kerry betrayed me and everyone. I know he lied. I know he met with the enemy.

g'night!

Idiot's Advocate
My site (under construction)
CaboWaboAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th September 2004, 04:08   #39
mikeflca
Major Dude
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: san diego, california.
Posts: 623
Very well. I look forward to what you have to say when you aren't wasted.

On another note, you are obviously very deluded or very drunk AND very deluded. That is the only way you could have come to the conclusion that I think kerry is a good honest man. Seems like you want to believe that I believe that Kerry is a good honest man.

You think I think slamming Bush makes Kerry honest? ? So I point out the equal bad qualities about Bush (that are worse, in that we are fighting terrorists nowadays), and you say I am trying to prove Kerry honest? Yep, you really must be pretty drunk. I was pointing out that things applying to Kerry have an equal and usually worse thing for Bush. ie if Kerry = dishonest, Bush - more dishonest.

Agreed, slamming Bush in an attempt to prove Kerry honest would be pathetic. In fact, that would almost be as pathetic as you saying that that is what i am trying to do!

You know, its funny, it seems like every time you and I get into a long discussion, after a while you simply can't stand it any more and say that I am putting a spin on everything.

For example, from this thread:

Quote:
...this spin you've put on things.
From the stem-cell thread (yes, there were more people, but you and I were the main ones debating there):

Quote:
Fuck that. You (collectively) have twisted everything I said into something else.
g'night.


Last edited by mikeflca; 27th September 2004 at 04:29.
mikeflca is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 27th September 2004, 15:40   #40
CaboWaboAddict
Forum Sot
(Major Dude)
 
CaboWaboAddict's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Marietta, Ga. U.S.A.
Posts: 3,915
Quote:
If you mean by saying Kerry was in command of the situation, those troops were under his command, then you are wrong, because Kerry commanded a swift boat, and the people on it, not everyone else. From what he said, it sounded like the superior officers knew about it anyway, which is probably one of the reasons he went to congress.
First off, Kerry was the officer in charge of the swift boat run that was to drop soldiers on a search & destroy mission in which Kerry allegegly shot the VC in the back. That was one of the missions referred to in the testimony. This makes him responsible. He was there, saw it, may have participated in it, and did nothing to stop it.

If Kerry's superior officers had knowledge of what was happening, that puts a different light on things. This is the first I have heard of this.
Quote:
Kerry didn't find out until after the fact. However, memos have been found with the white house authorizing "coercive techniques."
White House memos that authorize coercive techniques? I would be very interested in reading about this. Do you have a reference?

Quote:
He didn't keep it quiet. For better or worse, he went to congress.
Yeah, six months later. In legal terms, that is witholding evidence.

[quote]Bush disgraced the flight uniform. Therefore he disgraced the USAF. By extension he disgraced his country.[quote]So, anyone that gets a used flight suit or set of fatigues from the local surplus store can disgrace the uniform too?

Quote:
The first 2, we are discussing. the third, the congressional record ,.
I was referring to his record as a Senator.

Quote:
Funny, I was under the impression that the North Vietnamese were responsible Of course using the same logic, I assume you blame Bush for 9/11?
Yep, they were responsible for playing tapes of Kerry's voice to the POWs as psychological torture.

Why would I blame Bush for 9/11? Are you nuts?

Quote:
I know there was a term coined for someone who joined the guard to dodge Vietnam.
Yeah, they were called 'weekend warriors'. I know of no other term. Does anyone else?

Quote:
True-but because so many people wanted into the guard, there was a huge waiting list. yet Bush has no trouble getting in almost instantly.
You have never had anyone pull a string for you? If you could help out your kid get a job by calling someone you knew would you? This is not a real big deal.

Quote:
Do you remember what everyone saus about clinton's war record when he ran?
I remember what I was saying... he was not deserving to be president.

Quote:
...the Paris Peace talks
The Paris Peace Talks were the official proceedings. Kerry met with the enemy unofficially outside of this.
Quote:
when you responded to me ... you only addressed the first sentence and not the rest of the paragraph.
Quote:
Then, in terms of being traitorous, he met with the people who are effectively our enemy today (rather than 30 years ago. the past is the past, what matters is here and now, and the future), albeit not in uniform.
I guess i didn't follow what you were trying to say. If you are saying that Bush met with the enemy before being president, if that were the case, I would most likely agree - I don't know what you are talking about though.

If you are saying he met with the enemy after becoming president, that is not treason by definition. He is the representative of the US. Now if he did something impeachable (misrepresenting us) that is another story.

Please explain yourself.
Quote:
Bush's service may be in question because of a missed physical and some apparent strings that were pulled. As for what has been proven 100% about either one = very little.
You really are forcing me to defend Bush when I would rather not. Some people alledge that Bush missed a physical. Some people alledge his daddy pulled some strings. These things have not been proven.

Now let's talk about some of the allegations against Kerry:
Kerry disgraced the uniform - captured on film.
Kerry testified he witnessed atrocities - Congressional Record.
Kerry has made recorded statements that conflict with each other.
Kerry supports assault rifle bans - but Kerry owns one.

Idiot's Advocate
My site (under construction)
CaboWaboAddict is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply
Go Back   Winamp & Shoutcast Forums > Community Center > Breaking News

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump