Forged Documents

[spiderman]

What should be the fall-out?

In addition, CBS won't deny the Kerry Campaign's involvement at this time. If it is proven that they were involved or in fact are the ones that forged these documents, what should be done?

[Undertaker #59]

Sometimes I feel so out of the loop. Got a link?

[spiderman]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationalpolitics/2002032742_bushguard11.html

The Drudge Report has a bunch more links on the topic.

[Ballbustah]

You are really reaching on this one.

This proves that you do not have any moderation what so ever.
You are a fanatic.

[Undertaker #59]

I wouldn't go that far, but if the hypothetical proves true, then I would think the political fallout would be enough to doom Kerry without any punishment.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
You are really reaching on this one.

This proves that you do not have any moderation what so ever.
You are a fanatic.


:confused:

Are you talking to me???

[dchester]

Originally posted by Undertaker #59
Sometimes I feel so out of the loop. Got a link? Basically, people are saying the documents are fake because they appear to have been made via a computer (ie. MS Word), rather than having been typed on on typewriter (as one would expect for document from 1972).

Here is the link that I posted under the Media Bias thread.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Vote2004/bush_documents_040909-1.html

The memos were written using a proportional typeface, where letters take up variable space according to their size, rather than fixed-pitch typeface used on typewriters, where each letter is allotted the same space. Proportional typefaces are available only on computers or on very high-end typewriters that were unlikely to be used by the National Guard.

The memos include superscript, i.e., the "th" in "187th" appears above the line in a smaller font. Superscript was not available on typewriters.

The memos included "curly" apostrophes rather than straight apostrophes found on typewriters.

The font used in the memos is Times Roman, which was in use for printing but not in typewriters. The Haas Atlas ? the bible of fonts ? does not list Times Roman as an available font for typewriters.

The vertical spacing used in the memos, measured at 13 points, was not available in typewriters, and only became possible with the advent of computers.
________
Land Rover Discovery specifications (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Land_Rover_Discovery)

[spiderman]

Originally posted by dchester
Basically, people are saying the documents are fake because they appear to have been made via a computer (ie. MS Word), rather than having been typed on on typewriter (as one would expect for document from 1972).

Here is the link that I posted under the Media Bias thread.

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Vote2004/bush_documents_040909-1.html

I didn't mean to steal your thunder dchester. I just felt that this event was so outrageous that it deserved it's own thread.

In my opinion, this passes the "media bias" realm, and goes straight to the "go to prison" realm.

[dchester]

Originally posted by spiderman
I didn't mean to steal your thunder dchester. I just felt that this event was so outrageous that it deserved it's own thread. Think nothing of it. I was just trying to answer UT's request for a link, as well as provide a little more evidence to Ballbustah.

In my opinion, this passes the "media bias" realm, and goes straight to the "go to prison" realm. Unfortunately, this type of issues tend to be handled as civil issues (lawsuits) rather than criminal issues. I've always been a big supporter of free speech, especially for political issues, but I'm starting to consider whether the very strict libel & slander laws that are common in Europe need to be implemented here.

In Europe, the burden of proof lies with the person making the claim, as opposed to in the U. S. where the person being slandered has the burden of proof.

Dan Rather was embarrassed several years ago by Bush's father. I wonder if he still holds a grudge?
________
vaporizer reviews (http://vaporizer.org/)

[Ballbustah]

I'm sorry...
I can't see Kerry having anything to do with this.
Is there anyone who realistically thinks that Kerry gave the OK for the false documents.
What most probably happened was that some low level Kerry supporter that might not even be involved with the campaign falsified the documents. Perhaps it was Bush supporter that falsified the documents. Word file.... laser printer??? What a dumb dumb. Would Bush go down in flames if that were to happen? I don't think so.

Anyone who thinks there will be any fallout other than at CBS isn't thinking straight.

Bush is a dummy. You can see it in his eyes everytime he speaks.

[Annihilus]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
.... laser printer??? What a dumb dumb. Would Bush go down in flames if that were to happen? I don't think so.

Bush is a dummy. You can see it in his eyes everytime he speaks.

You really like that word, don't you?

On a side note, I don't think Kerry had anything to do with it either.

[spiderman]

Just to clarify...

If it is proven that they were involved or in fact are the ones that forged these documents, what should be done?

I realize that some people like making outrageous claims, that the Amazing Spiderman is a fanatic, but please note that I was simply trying to start a discussion.

I think we are all in agreement now that these documents were forged. The next logical question is, "Where did they come from!"

I found it curious that CBS news said, "No comment" when asked about the Kerry campaign's involvement. So, are they protecting the Kerry campaign, or planning on throwing them under the bus, or what?

I find this all very interesting. I also, don't think that Kerry had anything to do with this, but I don't think that Nixon had anything to do with Watergate initially either. But what IF someone in the Kerry campaign was involved and Kerry finds out...does he cover it up? Much like what Nixon did?

I realize that there are people who support CBS news & Dan Rather, and who are planning on voting for Kerry, but you have to admit, regardless of political persuasion that this is a seriously F'd up situation!

[Ballbustah]

I would not expect there to be any fallout unless someone from either the Kerry or the Bush campaign got caught red handed.

There are many connected and many unconnected arms of either campaign that could have something to do with this.

Who's side was this fabricated from? Was it from the Bush side or from Kerry... riddle with inconsistencies that would soon be discovered?

[spiderman]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
I would not expect there to be any fallout unless someone from either the Kerry or the Bush campaign got caught red handed.

There are many connected and many unconnected arms of either campaign that could have something to do with this.

Who's side was this fabricated from? Was it from the Bush side or from Kerry... riddle with inconsistencies that would soon be discovered?

Ballbustah you crack me up.

First, you seem appalled at the notion that the Kerry campaign could be tied to this, and now twice you've made mention of the possibility that the Bush campaign is tied to it. I love it.

You forgo one conspiracy theory, in favor of another more complicated one, simply because of your political views.

You should be outraged over this, and it bothers me that you aren't simply because you don't support the guy who is being slandered. It's really sad that you place politics over right and wrong.

[Ballbustah]

I believe there has been no one linked to this conspiracy yet.

You would follow Bush no matter how wrong he was or what his political agenda was.

That is truely blind.

Seems like you don't care what is right and what is wrong.
Just as long as Bush gets re-elected.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
I believe there has been no one linked to this conspiracy yet.

You would follow Bush no matter how wrong he was or what his political agenda was.

That is truely blind.

Seems like you don't care what is right and what is wrong.
Just as long as Bush gets re-elected.

WOW!

Okay, for my own sanity, let's try and re-cap.

Spidey: Hey guys, if it turns out that the Kerry campaign was linked to the forged documents, what should be done?

Bustah: You are a fanatic!

Spidey: Are you talking to me?

Bustah: There is absolutely no way Kerry's people are tied to this at all, and you are crazy for implying this. But Bush's people might be.

Spidey: I'm just saying, what if, I'm not saying Kerry's people were definitely involved.

Bustah: Could have been fabricated from either side.

Spidey: Funny how you seem so quick to absolve Kerry, yet believe Bush could be involved.

Bustah: You're a blind Bush follower!!!

I have no idea how you arrived at this conclusion.

[Ballbustah]

Spidey: Lets see if we can find another way to find Kerry at fault.

Ball: Dumbass

Spidey: Lets see if we can find another way to find Kerry at fault.

Ball: Dumbass

Spidey: Lets see if we can find another way to find Kerry at fault.

Ball: Dumbass

Spidey: Lets see if we can find another way to find Kerry at fault.

Ball: Dumbass

Spidey: Lets see if we can find another way to find Kerry at fault.

Ball: Dumbass


You are a broken record.
Why don't you give it a rest.

[dchester]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
Spidey: Lets see if we can find another way to find Kerry at fault.

Ball: Dumbass

Spidey: Lets see if we can find another way to find Kerry at fault.

Ball: Dumbass

Spidey: Lets see if we can find another way to find Kerry at fault.

Ball: Dumbass

Spidey: Lets see if we can find another way to find Kerry at fault.

Ball: Dumbass

Spidey: Lets see if we can find another way to find Kerry at fault.

Ball: Dumbass


You are a broken record.
Why don't you give it a rest. I am in agreement with Anni. You seem to have quite the infatuation with that word.

I don't mean to insult your intelligence (or your debating skills), but there really are more persuasive ways to make your point.
________
C40 (http://www.yamaha-tech.com/wiki/Yamaha_C40)

[spiderman]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
Spidey: Lets see if we can find another way to find Kerry at fault.

Ball: Dumbass

Spidey: Lets see if we can find another way to find Kerry at fault.

Ball: Dumbass

Spidey: Lets see if we can find another way to find Kerry at fault.

Ball: Dumbass

Spidey: Lets see if we can find another way to find Kerry at fault.

Ball: Dumbass

Spidey: Lets see if we can find another way to find Kerry at fault.

Ball: Dumbass


You are a broken record.
Why don't you give it a rest.

I can see by this response that you are either a mental midget, or 12 years old. I hope for your sake it's the latter.

You don't have any clue what you are talking about in any of these threads.

/puts ballbustah on ignore

[B A Rabbit]

Originally posted by spiderman
I can see by this response that you are either a mental midget, or 12 years old. I hope for your sake it's the latter.

yeah, 'cuz if he is a Mental Midget he can still vote. and thats dangerous.:jester:

[Undertaker #59]

EDIT: Or not...but name calling is very counter productive to trying to make any kind of persuasive argument.

[Ballbustah]

You better put me on ignore spiderman.
You can't take what I have to dish out.
I am tired of your whinning about Kerry... It is old and worn out.
It is OK to voice your opinion but sometimes you have to give it a rest.


dchester
I haven't even warmed up yet.


Hey Supkem
Your the mental midget. Eat me.

[Ballbustah]

Sometimes the name fits just right.

[spiderman]

I wonder if this was forged.

http://www.newscentral.tv/thepoint/attachments/attachments.htm

[Ballbustah]

I don't know but I wouldn't want to be there unless I had to.

[B A Rabbit]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
Hey Supkem
Your the mental midget. Eat me.

You know what, this is my fault... I should have known better than to come in here and try and lighten the mood. I am sorry if I offended you, BallBustah. I was just trying to make a funny











:crying:

[spiderman]

In case anyone couldn't get to the link I posted above, it is the after action report describing the incident for which John Kerry was awarded the Silver Star.

Basically, it reinforces what swift vets, and others have been saying.

Kerry shot and killed a wounded man while he fled.

Not that there's anything wrong with that, but did it deserve a Silver Star?


It's all spelled out in the report. Unless it's a forgery...
:D

[Undertaker #59]

Not that I have a side in this, but I noticed the link was slow to load and snagged the image:

[Ballbustah]

Originally posted by Supkem
yeah, 'cuz if he is a Mental Midget he can still vote. and thats dangerous.:jester:


I didn't know you were trying to be funny. It didn't come off that way to me but I accept your apology and I take back the eat me statement and the stuff about being a mental midget.

[Ballbustah]

My brother was in Vietnam.
He told me horror stories about when he was there.
I guess unless you are getting shot at you wouldn't have a clue as to what it is like to get shot at.
Some people just don't get it... They think it is like the movies.

[dchester]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
I didn't know you were trying to be funny. It didn't come off that way to me but I accept your apology and I take back the eat me statement and the stuff about being a mental midget. I knew you weren't such a bad guy (even if you don't know anything about politics).
:D

(PS: This is intended as a joke also)
________
Mazda R360 (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Mazda_R360)

[B A Rabbit]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
I guess unless you are getting shot at you wouldn't have a clue as to what it is like to get shot at.


In 1986 I joined the Navy and was awarded service aboard the USS Will Rogers, SSBN 659 (Blue). Latter that year, we were submerged off the coast of Andross Island. (Off the coast of Fla.) and were starting sea trials after a refit period. Of course I didn't know what the heck was going on and became scared as they announced the the Russian Navy had turned hostile and was going to fire on any Navy vessel crossing into waters they deemed close to Cuba. Soon an anouncement came down that we had a sonar contact that was heading into our baffles. (An area were Submarines can't "see" ) Next came those famous words nobody wants to hear. "Torpedo in the water!" It ment that we had been fired on and were all going to be killed! People started flying around with fire hoses and gas masks, turning this knob, securing this valve. the whole boat took a thirty degree down angle in an effort to out race the torpedo. Naturally the first thought that went through my brain was. "My God I'm going to die a virgin"

I have never came remotely close to any feeling like that again and fixed that situation as soon as possible with a girl from Maynard Ma. that I met on some Party line. and who I would just a soon forget about. :hump:

Six years latter in the Marines, I learned How to Face my fears and not let them control me. In 8 years of service, these are perhaps the 2 most important leassons I learned.

It just goes to show, that when you've got your life in your hands, it's no laughing matter, and shouldn't be taken lighltly.

Now granted killing somebody on the shores of a river in Vietnam, weather justified or not, is a little more extreame than what happened to me. But that only means that his standards should be held higher and with more honor than what I hold mine. I don't see that from Kerry. I see somebody who is willing to sacrifice your life and mine, Your family and your neighbor just so he can be political correct and take "God" out of the pledge of allegiance, Raise my taxes so more illegal immigrants can get free Lawyers and healthcare.

Calling Massachuttes and Boston my Home for most of my life has afforded me the Wisdom to see who John Kerry is. And bealive me, He dosen't care one wit for you or your family. Not one Massachuttes democrate does. Can you say Whitey Bulger!!! All that, it seems, Kerry cares about is getting his name on a bussiness card. The only question in my mind is weather I can do more damage to his campain by voting for Bush or Nader come Nov 2.
:bow:

[bideau]

Originally posted by Supkem
Now granted killing somebody on the shores of a river in Vietnam, weather justified or not, is a little more extreame than what happened to me. But that only means that his standards should be held higher and with more honor than what I hold mine. I don't see that from Kerry. I see somebody who is willing to sacrifice your life and mine, Your family and your neighbor just so he can be political correct and take "God" out of the pledge of allegiance, Raise my taxes so more illegal immigrants can get free Lawyers and healthcare.


That is one of the most STUPID things I have ever read!!!

How is Kerry sacrificing my life or my family's so he can be politically correct???

How does removing "God" do that. That word wasn't even in the original pledge and was put in for political reasons during the 50's.

If we're talking about illegal immigrants, why doesn't Bushy-boy fund the border patrols so that we can stop them before they get in. And how about the LEGAL immgrants who have been allowed in on work visas because big business sees a cheap alternative to American labor?

And what the hell does Whitey Bulger have to do with anything?

[B A Rabbit]

Originally posted by bideau
That is one of the most STUPID things I have ever read!!! How is Kerry sacrificing my life or my family's so he can be politically correct??? How isn't he? (For instance) He says hes For Gun control, But still accepts a rifle as a gift on stage in Ohio. Well, If he wants me to support him, he wouldn't have said anything against Guns,Yet If he wants you to support him, he wouldn't have accepted the gun, so which is it? Instead of standing for what he BELEIVES, He Plays it down the middle (IE: politically correct.) I'm sure you've heard the saying that if you don't stand for something, your going to fall for anything. AND I DON'T WANT A PRESIDENT WHOS GOING TO BRING MY FAMILY DOWN 'CUZ HE GOING TO FALL FOR ANYTHING. But , it's you opinion , Lets continue.

How does removing "God" do that. That word wasn't even in the original pledge and was put in for political reasons during the 50's.

It's a "Fer instance" is there any doubt in your mind that if Kerry was President and the case that was raised, by that Daddy who had nothing to do with his daughter, in the 9th circuit that the outcome would have been different? Would the 10 commandments even have made it to the lobby of that courthouse in alabama if Kerry was President? I DON'T THINK SO. But you know what? if those are your beleifs, so be it. I am sure you have your reasons, and they are valid.

If we're talking about illegal immigrants, why doesn't Bushy-boy fund the border patrols so that we can stop them before they get in. .

Is it in your nature to just be insulting? first you call me Stupid, then you make fun of the presidents name? I suppose its your right to do so, But be aware, it really shows your ignorance. Now, About the Border Patrol, An organization I tried to join in 2002, but outgrew the cutoff age while waiting for my 60 day letter. So who was I going to call to defend my postion to Homeland Security and speed up the hiring process? Kerry? don't think so. Kennedy Yeah Right. I felt better calling John McCain, At least he was from a state that could see the usefulness of HAVING a Boarder Patrol. Check the message board of this site www.honorfirst.com you'll find the Democrate is the worst emeney of the Boarder Patrol. AND the biggest obstacle to hiring any new agents.


And how about the LEGAL immgrants who have been allowed in on work visas because big business sees a cheap alternative to American labor?.
Why do you have to change the subject? Legal immigrants are just that, Legal. They paid their dues to get here and deserve the same rights to feed their familys as Me and My neighbors, Now if your talking about outscourceing jobs, that a different subject all together...

And what the hell does Whitey Bulger have to do with anything? Do you know who Whitey Bulger is? He corupted Beacon Hill and his legacy still lingers. His brother Billy was Dean Of Umass,(And retired with an outlandish retirement package at our expense) and before that, He ran the senate on Beacon Hill. He was the single most powerful person there. VERY Influential. But Who woudn't be when your ganster brother was pulling your strings. CHRIST, SOME PEOPLE STILL HAVEN"T BEEN FOUND!!!!
Now,all that aside, Why is it that its OK for Beacon Hill to decide WHO can get married and who can't. But not the citizens of the Commonwealth. Yet when it comes to finding a replacement for Sen. Kerry Should he become President, the law has to be changed becouse it lets the Republican governor pick his replacement and not the citizens.
This is the same Beacon Hill that lets "King"Finneran (a bulger disciple) Change his district lines so he has a better chance of getting relected and then turns around and changes the laws AGAIN so he's appointed for life.

Kerry comes from this same group of corupt people! And you guys want him for president? Shame on you.
Not only Do I NOT want him to be President, I hope he Loose his Senate seat come 2006!

All that being said, Don't call me stupid. Your a Moderator for heavans sake and SHOULD know better AND be held to a higher standard yourself.

:4321:

[bideau]

I called you're post stupid, not you personally. I apologize for the choice of words. But I will call this president anything I want. I have no respect for him or this administration. When Clinton was in office, the conservatives were having a field day with the name calling. It's part of politics. If he wants my respect, he has to earn it and he's done nothing close to accomplishing that. And being a moderator does not mean I give up my rights to post as I want. I have never used that for or against anyone.

You're post is still not making any sense. You're throwing crap against the wall and seeing what will stick. You've thrown out gun control, religion in public places, immigration and even Whitey Bulger. Perhaps we can try to pin all the hurricanes on him as well??

Your argument is, essentially, that because Kerry is a liberal democrat, he's endangering me and my family. I happen to think that religous conservatives pose a far bigger danger to my rights and freedoms in the country.

I'm a non-religous liberal. I strongly believe that religion should stay out of public places. I strongly believe that anyone has a right to marry whomever they want. I strongly believe I have a right to voice dissent without being investigated. I strongly believe that this administration will attempt to implement the draft if it wins re-election, which will be far more dangerous to my college aged children than anything Kerry would do. I strongly believe that we invaded Iraq without just cause and over 1000 of our best young men and women have paid the price.

You and I will probably never agree on political issues. I'm gonna do what I should have done and just stay out of this area. And if this country re-elects this administration, I just hope that we can survive another four years without greater damage being done.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by bideau
I strongly believe that this administration will attempt to implement the draft if it wins re-election, which will be far more dangerous to my college aged children than anything Kerry would do.

I'm just wondering why you feel this way? Rumsfeld has gone on record as saying that he is against the draft, and that an all volunteer, professional military is far more effective. He actually took heat from former draftees for saying that. Everything that he has tried to implement has been in favor of a leaner, meaner, fighting force. In addition, I think Bush knows that re-instating the draft would be a public relations disaster, and has no intentions of doing it.

I'm just wondering what you've read, seen, or heard, that says otherwise.

[bideau]

Originally posted by spiderman
I'm just wondering why you feel this way? Rumsfeld has gone on record as saying that he is against the draft, and that an all volunteer, professional military is far more effective. He actually took heat from former draftees for saying that. Everything that he has tried to implement has been in favor of a leaner, meaner, fighting force. In addition, I think Bush knows that re-instating the draft would be a public relations disaster, and has no intentions of doing it.

I'm just wondering what you've read, seen, or heard, that says otherwise.

You're correct about Rumsfeld's statements.

I certainly wouldn't expect this administration to come out publicly and support a draft. That would mean almost certain defeat. But all bets are off after the election. This administration does not have to worry about reelection. Cheney is certainly not going to take up the Republican mantle, so no worries there either.

There is currently a bill in congress which would bring back the draft. It has no chance of passing this year. Hopefully, any future attempt would be met with resistance since congress faces reelection every 2 or 6 years. I don't think the executive branch has the power to institute it without congressional approval.

Call it a gut feeling. There are dozens of stories and rumors and I do take them with a grain of salt. But the administration cannot continue to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and also provide the necessary men to protect South Korea and other interests around the world. Not only are enlistments down, but the quality of those enlistments is down as well. It's going to become a numbers game.

This is one of the issues that's important to me. I'm the father of two college kids who would be prime candidates for the draft. I'm not willing to allow them to be sent against their will to a conflict which I don't feel is justified.

I truly hope you're correct and that the administration isn't just waiting until after the election.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by bideau
You're correct about Rumsfeld's statements.

I certainly wouldn't expect this administration to come out publicly and support a draft. That would mean almost certain defeat. But all bets are off after the election. This administration does not have to worry about reelection. Cheney is certainly not going to take up the Republican mantle, so no worries there either.

There is currently a bill in congress which would bring back the draft. It has no chance of passing this year. Hopefully, any future attempt would be met with resistance since congress faces reelection every 2 or 6 years. I don't think the executive branch has the power to institute it without congressional approval.

Call it a gut feeling. There are dozens of stories and rumors and I do take them with a grain of salt. But the administration cannot continue to support the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and also provide the necessary men to protect South Korea and other interests around the world. Not only are enlistments down, but the quality of those enlistments is down as well. It's going to become a numbers game.

This is one of the issues that's important to me. I'm the father of two college kids who would be prime candidates for the draft. I'm not willing to allow them to be sent against their will to a conflict which I don't feel is justified.

I truly hope you're correct and that the administration isn't just waiting until after the election.

I've only been out of the Marine Corps for 3 years, so speaking from modern day experience, I just wanted to let you know that a draft is the LAST thing the establishment wants. If you talk to most of the Marine Corps General's these days, they'll tell you horror stories from the early 80s...about the drug use, insubordination, and overall lousy atmosphere. They attribute this mostly to the Vietnam draft, and have absolutely no desire to reinstate anything that may return the US military to those days.

I'm saying this just for your sanity's sake. If Bush tries to reinstate the draft, it will be met with great resistance by the Military establishment.

Why?

-If you're a drill instructor you want to train recruits who WANT to be there.

-If you're a Sergeant trying to get a Lance Corporal to stand watch in the pouring rain, it's much easier dealing with a VOLUNTEER as opposed to a DRAFTEE.

-If you're a Colonel or a General, you want the confidence of knowing that you have an elite force of professional Marines/Soldiers.

These General's are all students of history, and they know "historically" how Commanding conscripts went for the General's before them, as opposed to Commanding professionals.

This is not to put down draftee's, and please don't anyone respond with "So and so was a draftee and won such and such". I realize this, and obviously I'm stereotyping in order to make my argument.

[bideau]

Originally posted by spiderman
I've only been out of the Marine Corps for 3 years, so speaking from modern day experience, I just wanted to let you know that a draft is the LAST thing the establishment wants. If you talk to most of the Marine Corps General's these days, they'll tell you horror stories from the early 80s...about the drug use, insubordination, and overall lousy atmosphere. They attribute this mostly to the Vietnam draft, and have absolutely no desire to reinstate anything that may return the US military to those days.

I'm saying this just for your sanity's sake. If Bush tries to reinstate the draft, it will be met with great resistance by the Military establishment.

Why?

-If you're a drill instructor you want to train recruits who WANT to be there.

-If you're a Sergeant trying to get a Lance Corporal to stand watch in the pouring rain, it's much easier dealing with a VOLUNTEER as opposed to a DRAFTEE.

-If you're a Colonel or a General, you want the confidence of knowing that you have an elite force of professional Marines/Soldiers.

These General's are all students of history, and they know "historically" how Commanding conscripts went for the General's before them, as opposed to Commanding professionals.

This is not to put down draftee's, and please don't anyone respond with "So and so was a draftee and won such and such". I realize this, and obviously I'm stereotyping in order to make my argument.

Well said. A volunteer will always be easier to train and more willing to face live fire than a conscript.

But will the military reach a point where the available man-power is not there to carry out its assignments? At some point, will the generals have to look at Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld and say, "enough now, we can't do what you're asking."

That's my fear. No one WANTS to implement a draft, but what will happen if they NEED to?

[spiderman]

Back on topic...everybody get ready...here comes the "lone nut" theory...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24635-2004Sep15.html

It's becoming apparent this is where the finger is going to be pointed.

Anybody buying that this guy acted alone?

[spiderman]

Originally posted by bideau
Well said. A volunteer will always be easier to train and more willing to face live fire than a conscript.

But will the military reach a point where the available man-power is not there to carry out its assignments? At some point, will the generals have to look at Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld and say, "enough now, we can't do what you're asking."

That's my fear. No one WANTS to implement a draft, but what will happen if they NEED to?

I would love to spend some time to answer this in depth. I have a bit to say with regards to where I think the military is heading, where I think it wants to head, and the ramifications of it all. I'll try to prepare a better response if I get a moment this afternoon.

:cool:

[dchester]

Now that pretty much everyone acknowledges that the documents are fake, is there any reason why CBS should continue to protect the sources for these forgeries? The media has always claimed they have a "right" to protect their sources, even though the courts have not agreed with them on this "right".

The two plausible theories (according to me :D ) for how they were made are:
1) They were done by someone who's motivation was to smear Bush.
2) They were done by someone who's motivation was to make Dan Rather (or possibly even CBS) look like a fool.

In either case, I think it would restore some credibility to CBS to show their cards and state exactly how they obtained them, and from who.

What do others think?
________
silver surfer reviews (http://vaporizers.net/silver-surfer-vaporizer)

[Ballbustah]

Originally posted by spiderman
I'm just wondering why you feel this way? Rumsfeld has gone on record as saying that he is against the draft, and that an all volunteer, professional military is far more effective. He actually took heat from former draftees for saying that. Everything that he has tried to implement has been in favor of a leaner, meaner, fighting force. In addition, I think Bush knows that re-instating the draft would be a public relations disaster, and has no intentions of doing it.

I'm just wondering what you've read, seen, or heard, that says otherwise.

I know a marine who is on his second tour of Afghanistan. He has been told he will be going to Iraq after his tour is over.

I know several reserve army who are in Iraq. They are made to stay there 1.5 to 2 years.
Vietnam was only 12 months.

They are running out of soldiers... They may have to reinstate the draft just to keep the soldiers coming.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by dchester
Now that pretty much everyone acknowledges that the documents are fake, is there any reason why CBS should continue to protect the sources for these forgeries? The media has always claimed they have a "right" to protect their sources, even though the courts have not agreed with them on this "right".

The two plausible theories (according to me :D ) for how they were made are:
1) They were done by someone who's motivation was to smear Bush.
2) They were done by someone who's motivation was to make Dan Rather (or possibly even CBS) look like a fool.

In either case, I think it would restore some credibility to CBS to show their cards and state exactly how they obtained them, and from who.

What do others think?

I can only speculate as to what actually happened, but it is becoming obvious that CBS is going to point the finger at that retired guardsman.

However, I think CBS HAD to be involved, they had multiple experts telling them that the documents were fake, and yet they still ran with the story. I really don't think the people at 60 minutes expected the forgery theory to stick the way it has.

Personally, I want a full investigation into where these documents came from. And although, I don't think it necessarily came directly from Kerry's people, there are still a few issues making me uneasy.

1.) The Kerry campaign is angry that Kerry is on the defensive over his service in Vietnam.
2.) The Kerry campaign wants Bush to have to answer for what he may of may not have been doing in 1972 NOT Kerry.

And most importantly:
3.) Edwards was very quick to ask Bush to answer for these Memo's the morning after the broadcast, then very quickly shut his mouth once the forgery claims began to surface.

This last one is what is really bothering me. Edwards seemed to have planned remarks, that were piggy backing off of the 60 minutes story the next morning...then suddenly went quiet about the whole issue.

What really kills me though, is Dan Rather's stance that what's really important is that Bush didn't serve his time not the authenticity of the documents in question.

No Dan, what's important is that we don't have a 60 minutes propoganda machine falsifying evidence and lying to the American people in order to back up their agenda.

I'm really getting upset over the left's apparent silence over this. I sincerely am, this is something that shouldn't be happening in America, and we all (regardless of political belief's) should be outraged over it. I fear for America's future when people would remain silent over something like this...

[Ballbustah]

Bush's service to the military is a joke.
He relied on his father and other politicians to keep himself out of the Vietnam War.
You can never take the coward out of the man.


At least Kerry was in Vietnam. He came back and rightly so spoke against the war.
By the early 70’s everyone knew that it was a lost cause. Unable to win and a waste of human lives.

Bush’s pre-emptive attack on Iraq while they were in the crosshairs of an embargo was foolish. His facts on WMD and nuclear warheads were erroneous. He should have dealt with Afghanistan first, settled that and then moved on the Iraq. Now we are in a mess that involves half of the Middle East. Arabs hate the USA. And why not… we are the oppressors… We are responsible for a pre-emptive attack on Iraq. PRE-EMPTIVE ATTACK. That means we decided that Iraq was a dangerous place despite the fact that they were held hostage by an embargo… How stupid….
I cannot guess what Bush will come up with next. He is a ticking bomb.

[Pats247]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
Bush's service to the military is a joke.
He relied on his father and other politicians to keep himself out of the Vietnam War.
You can never take the coward out of the man.


At least Kerry was in Vietnam. He came back and rightly so spoke against the war.



Ballbustah - Based on his service, John Kerry can say anything he wants about Vietnam and the conduct of US forces there. However, he is not the only veteran with an opinion.

I happen to know some veterans who hate John Kerry, they feel he stabbed his country in the back by publicly discussing atrocities and referring to the "Genghis Khan" like approach of the US military. These men served in Vietnam and came back with a starkly different opinion than Kerry. They witnessed no atrocities (although they admit some happened), they did not come back as "monsters" (as John Kerry talked about when discussing the millions of "monsters" that the military created), and they still actually feel that the initial cause in Vietnam was just (this is not a popular opinion today, but Communist regimes
were some of the most brutal and repressive in history and many people felt that communism had to be confronted at every turn).

Bottom line, I agree that he had the right to speak out after the war. But he also must take the criticism of other veterans who shed their own blood, and think what he did after the war was despicable.

As for Bush, you will get no argument from me about his Guard service. He obviously received preferential treatment in joining the Guard in the first place, and probably throughout his entire stint.

[jim_vh]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
I'm sorry...
I can't see Kerry having anything to do with this.
Is there anyone who realistically thinks that Kerry gave the OK for the false documents.
What most probably happened was that some low level Kerry supporter that might not even be involved with the campaign falsified the documents. Perhaps it was Bush supporter that falsified the documents. Word file.... laser printer??? What a dumb dumb. Would Bush go down in flames if that were to happen? I don't think so.

Anyone who thinks there will be any fallout other than at CBS isn't thinking straight.

Bush is a dummy. You can see it in his eyes everytime he speaks.

what he said. some people really enjoy believing conspriacy theories.

[dchester]

I'll give Dan Rather credit for having chutzbah. He says he'd like to break that story, if it turns out the documents are false. Here's a news flash Dan, that story was broken the day after you ran with those fake documents.

BTW, I don't think too many people were surprised to learn that connections were used to get Bush into the Guard during the war. I just don't understand why people feel the need to make up stuff to go after Bush.

Rather Concedes Papers Are Suspect (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24633-2004Sep15.html)

CBS Anchor Urges Media to Focus On Bush Service

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 16, 2004; Page A01

CBS anchor Dan Rather acknowledged for the first time yesterday that there are serious questions about the authenticity of the documents he used to question President Bush's National Guard record last week on "60 Minutes."

"If the documents are not what we were led to believe, I'd like to break that story," Rather said in an interview last night. "Any time I'm wrong, I want to be right out front and say, 'Folks, this is what went wrong and how it went wrong.' "
________
Chevrolet Celebrity specifications (http://www.chevy-wiki.com/wiki/Chevrolet_Celebrity)

[Ballbustah]

Very thought provoking.

[O_P_T]

Originally posted by bideau
There is currently a bill in congress which would bring back the draft. It has no chance of passing this year. Hopefully, any future attempt would be met with resistance since congress faces reelection every 2 or 6 years. I don't think the executive branch has the power to institute it without congressional approval.

The bill in question was sponsored by Rep. Charles Rangel. Have you read his reason reason (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/rangel.draft/) for introducing the bill?

"I truly believe that those who make the decision and those who support the United States going into war would feel more readily the pain that's involved, the sacrifice that's involved, if they thought that the fighting force would include the affluent and those who historically have avoided this great responsibility," Rangel said.

It would appear that he is in favor of the Draft as a way to make it harder for any President to go to war, not easier.

[Annihilus]

Originally posted by O_P_T
The bill in question was sponsored by Rep. Charles Rangel. Have you read his reason reason (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/07/rangel.draft/) for introducing the bill?

It would appear that he is in favor of the Draft as a way to make it harder for any President to go to war, not easier.

I have to say that is one of the dumbest things I've heard a politician say in a while. Those who are 'affluent and historically avoid the responsibility' will not be affected by the draft. They'll either run to Canada or their rich daddies will send them to school (and other such bs).

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Originally posted by bideau
Well said. A volunteer will always be easier to train and more willing to face live fire than a conscript.

But will the military reach a point where the available man-power is not there to carry out its assignments? At some point, will the generals have to look at Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld and say, "enough now, we can't do what you're asking."

That's my fear. No one WANTS to implement a draft, but what will happen if they NEED to?
There are very few things that would suprise me more than the reinstatement of the draft, for all the reasons stated above.

To respond directly to this, remember that you need to consider this stuff in context with the other news about the Military - that there are talks of closing European military bases, discussion of leaving South Korea.

I'm not saying I think this is necessarily the right idea, but these are things being discussed.

[spiderman]

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20040919/D856Q0180.html

hmmmm......

[Ballbustah]

"The Kerry campaign had absolutely nothing to do with these documents, no ifs, ands or buts," spokesman David Wade said. "Jim Dyke inhabits the fantasy world of spin where George Bush pretends we haven't lost millions of jobs and everything in Iraq is coming up roses. He'd be better served getting answers from the president, not hurling baseless attacks."

[dchester]

Does anyone disagree with my opinion that CBS should just come clean with where they got those fake documents from? Is there any reason to protect a source of fradulent stuff like that? It's one thing to protect the source of real evidence, but when it's fake, I would think they'd just fess up with how they obtained it.
________
ST1100 (http://www.honda-wiki.org/wiki/Honda_ST1100)

[Ballbustah]

I think they should come clean.

[Annihilus]

Yeah, I think they should come clean - but I'm guessing that whoever did it won't be linked to anyone of importance.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by dchester
Does anyone disagree with my opinion that CBS should just come clean with where they got those fake documents from? Is there any reason to protect a source of fradulent stuff like that? It's one thing to protect the source of real evidence, but when it's fake, I would think they'd just fess up with how they obtained it.

This is why I'm so interested in what they're doing.

You would think they would just come clean...so why aren't they?

[spiderman]

Originally posted by Annihilus
Yeah, I think they should come clean - but I'm guessing that whoever did it won't be linked to anyone of importance.

Maybe, maybe not. But it makes you wonder why CBS won't let us know the origin of the documents, doesn't it?

If it was just some crazy National Guard guy, why not just say so?

[Annihilus]

Originally posted by spiderman
Maybe, maybe not. But it makes you wonder why CBS won't let us know the origin of the documents, doesn't it?

If it was just some crazy National Guard guy, why not just say so?

Pretty simple, really - it's probably because as a news agency, once you give up a source (no matter how kooky they may be), it's that much harder down the road to convince someone that they won't be exposed when coming forward with information.

Whether that's logical or not seeing as how certain it is that these are forged documents is certainly up for debate.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by Annihilus
Pretty simple, really - it's probably because as a news agency, once you give up a source (no matter how kooky they may be), it's that much harder down the road to convince someone that they won't be exposed when coming forward with information.

Whether that's logical or not seeing as how certain it is that these are forged documents is certainly up for debate.

I have to disagree, if someone lied to CBS news, and gave them "forged" documents, then CBS news is under no obligations to honor any confidentiality agreements that exist.

Once the documents were shown to be forged, all bets were off, and I don't think any would blame CBS for not honoring the agreement.

In fact, I would think CBS would file a suit against said individual(s).

[Annihilus]

Originally posted by spiderman
I have to disagree, if someone lied to CBS news, and gave them "forged" documents, then CBS news is under no obligations to honor any confidentiality agreements that exist.


I'm not saying I agree with their stance, but this is pretty common practice among news agencies, is it not?

I am not in disagreement with you that they have no obligations to honor any confidentiality agreements - I never said that.

What I AM saying is that they don't want to give the impression that they give up their sources easily. I have no doubt they will give up their source eventually after they make a cursory attempt at defending said source. It's really not that complicated.

[Ballbustah]

On a second thought... I would have to agree with Annihilus.

Once you give up your source no one will trust you.
It's as simple as that.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by Annihilus
I'm not saying I agree with their stance, but this is pretty common practice among news agencies, is it not?

I am not in disagreement with you that they have no obligations to honor any confidentiality agreements - I never said that.

What I AM saying is that they don't want to give the impression that they give up their sources easily. I have no doubt they will give up their source eventually after they make a cursory attempt at defending said source. It's really not that complicated.

I understand what you are saying. I just don't see it that way.

In order for me to believe what you are saying, I would have to believe that CBS News was actually fooled and is now trying to figure out what happened.

However, I don't believe that. I believe that one of the following is going on.

1.) CBS news is trying to protect their source, because exposure would be damaging to them, CBS, and/or John Kerry.

2.) They are figuring out a way to cover their tracks, by coming up with a cover story that the public will swallow and that won't be disputed.

If CBS was legitimately fooled, then I would agree with what you are saying Annihilus, but I just don't believe it...sorry!

[Ballbustah]

Yes, Yes
It was Kerry who forged the documents....
I am glad you got to the bottom of it.
He did it on his laser printer and sent them off to Dan Rather.

Kerry is sweating all over just thinking about what may happen if Dan Rather exposes him.

How simplistic.

[bideau]

From the Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/dailynews/264/politics/CBS_apologizes_concedes_it_can%3A.shtml) via the AP:

CBS apologizes, concedes it can't vouch for authenticity of documents on Bush Guard duty
By David Bauder, Associated Press, 9/20/2004 13:54

NEW YORK (AP) CBS apologized Monday and said it was misled about the authenticity of documents used to support a ''60 Minutes'' story that questioned President Bush's Vietnam War-era National Guard service, after several experts denounced them as fakes.

''We should not have used them,'' CBS News President Andrew Heyward said. ''That was a mistake, which we deeply regret.''

CBS also said it was commissioning an independent panel to review the incident, and would announce the name of the participants shortly.

The White House said the affair raises questions about the connections between CBS's source and Democrat John Kerry's presidential campaign.

CBS's concession was a major blow to the credibility of the news organization and anchor Dan Rather, who reported the story and issued his own apology Monday.

''We made a mistake in judgment, and for that I am sorry,'' he said. ''It was an error that was made, however, in good faith and in the spirit of trying to carry on a CBS News tradition of investigative reporting without fear or favoritism.''

Almost immediately after the Sept. 8 story aired, document experts questioned memos purportedly written by Bush's late squadron leader, saying they appeared to have been created on a computer and not a typewriter that was in use during the 1970s.

CBS strongly defended its story, and it wasn't until a week later after the military leader's former secretary said she believed the memos were fake did the news division admit they were questionable.

Even then, Rather said no one had disputed the story's premise: that the future president had pulled strings to get a relatively cushy National Guard assignment and failed to satisfy the requirements of his service.

Rather this weekend interviewed Bill Burkett, a retired Texas National Guard official who has been mentioned as a possible source for the documents. His interview was to be broadcast on ''CBS Evening News'' on Monday.

CBS said Burkett acknowledged he provided the documents and said he deliberately misled a CBS producer, giving her a false account of their origin to protect a promise of confidentiality to a source.

The Associated Press could not immediately reach Burkett for comment.

Rather said he would not have gone ahead with the story Burkett admitted that the documents were not authentic.

''That, combined with some of the questions that have been raised in public and in the press, leads me to a point where if I knew then what I know now I would not have gone ahead with the story as it was aired, and I certainly would not have used the documents in question,'' he said.

''Please know that nothing is more important to us than people's trust in our ability and our commitment to report fairly and truthfully,'' he added.

The documents were said to have been written by Lt. Col. Jerry B. Killian, indicating he was being pressured to ''sugarcoat'' the performance ratings of a young Bush, then the son of a Texas congressman, and that Bush failed to follow orders to take a physical. Killian died in 1984.

White House press secretary Scott McClellan said Bush was told about the CBS statement as he flew to Derry, N.H.

''CBS is now for the first time publicly acknowledging that the documents were likely forged and they came from a discredited source,'' McClellan said. ''There are a number of serious questions that remain unanswered and they need to be answered. Bill Burkett, who CBS now says is their source, in fact is not an unimpeachable source as was previously claimed. Bill Burkett is a source who has been discredited and so this raises a lot of questions. There were media reports about Mr. Burkett having senior level contacts with the Kerry campaign.''

For ''60 Minutes,'' it's the biggest ethical mess since the 1995 incident captured in the movie, ''The Insider,'' which depicted the newsmagazine caving to pressure from CBS lawyers and not airing a whistleblowing report from an ex-tobacco executive.

The call for an independent review was also reminiscent of CNN's ''Tailwind'' scandal in 1998. The cable network retracted a story that the U.S. military had used nerve gas in Laos during the Vietnam war.

[Annihilus]

Originally posted by bideau
From the Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/dailynews/264/politics/CBS_apologizes_concedes_it_can%3A.shtml) via the AP:

That's pretty much exactly as I thought it would happen. They drug their feet and admitted that they screwed up in the first place by not digging in deeply enough to their sources.

No conspiracy theory here as far as I'm concerned, just shoddy journalism. That's why I usually don't pay attention to these 'smoking gun' type of stories.

They all hit me as 'blah blah blah blah blah'.

[dchester]

Originally posted by spiderman
I understand what you are saying. I just don't see it that way.

In order for me to believe what you are saying, I would have to believe that CBS News was actually fooled and is now trying to figure out what happened.

However, I don't believe that. I believe that one of the following is going on.

1.) CBS news is trying to protect their source, because exposure would be damaging to them, CBS, and/or John Kerry.

2.) They are figuring out a way to cover their tracks, by coming up with a cover story that the public will swallow and that won't be disputed.

If CBS was legitimately fooled, then I would agree with what you are saying Annihilus, but I just don't believe it...sorry! Obviously I am just speculating, but I think the most likely reason CBS would choose not to reveal where they came from, is because it would make them look extremely foolish if it turned out they got fake documents from some flake, who they never should have believed.

I'm not ready to believe that the DNC made these and handed them to CBS to smear Bush. I do think CBS is biased, and this is why I think they were ready to accept the fakes without much scrutiny. I'd like to think there are people at CBS with enough ethics to not allow themselves to just be a tool of the DNC.
________
stocks to buy now (http://pennystockpicks.net/)

[spiderman]

You guys have to be kidding me! Are you really believing this we were fooled garbage?

If so, I've got a bridge in NY I'd like to sell ya.:rolleyes:

[spiderman]

Originally posted by dchester
I do think CBS is biased, and this is why I think they were ready to accept the fakes without much scrutiny. I'd like to think there are people at CBS with enough ethics to not allow themselves to just be a tool of the DNC.

dchester,

I'm going the step further and saying that they knew these were fake. Either:

1. They knew they were fake and went ahead anyways or....
2. They are the most incompetent news organization on the planet.

[Annihilus]

Originally posted by spiderman
You guys have to be kidding me! Are you really believing this we were fooled garbage?

If so, I've got a bridge in NY I'd like to sell ya.:rolleyes:

No, I'm not one for conspiracy theories. I have a hard time thinking that all of the people at CBS that had to approve the story knew that the documents were fake.

I still think it's just sloppy journalism and fact checking.

Sometimes there's just not a smoking gun.

If investigators find out that the CBS news department as a whole (not just one guy) knew that the documents were fake (not just suspected), then I'll buy that bridge from you, providing it's not too expensive.

Carry on.

[dchester]

Originally posted by spiderman
dchester,

I'm going the step further and saying that they knew these were fake. Either:

1. They knew they were fake and went ahead anyways or....
2. They are the most incompetent news organization on the planet. At the moment, choice #2 seems very likely to me. However, I reserve the right to change my mind if the facts prove me wrong.
:D
________
Edge (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Ford_Edge)

[spiderman]

Originally posted by Annihilus
No, I'm not one for conspiracy theories. I have a hard time thinking that all of the people at CBS that had to approve the story knew that the documents were fake.

I still think it's just sloppy journalism and fact checking.

Sometimes there's just not a smoking gun.

If investigators find out that the CBS news department as a whole (not just one guy) knew that the documents were fake (not just suspected), then I'll buy that bridge from you, providing it's not too expensive.

Carry on.

Look we can go back and forth on this for eternity. And for the record, I'm not trying to pit Democrats vs Republicans here, but that is obviously what is happening.

I refuse to believe that a news agency like CBS, that has been around forever, could be so incompetent. I'm sorry, I just don't buy it. I think these documents were given to them, I think they pretty much knew they were fake, but everybody just nodded silently and went ahead with the story.

This is unacceptable to me.

I also think they are protecting someone or something, and I want to know what it is. I don't believe they simply, don't want to expose there sources for fear of losing future them forever. Sorry, I just don't...

I have a strong feeling that various individuals were involved in this, I don't know who, but hope that eventually we'll find out.

But what I find the most humorous is how willing everyone is to give CBS the benefit of the doubt.

Basically, you are saying:

-CBS is beyond reproach.
-The Democratic party in its entirety is made up of all honest individuals.

Now this is NOT to say that Kerry or Edwards has direct involvement, but there are MANY, MANY democrats out there who want Kerry to win, and more importantly they want Bush to lose. I'm NOT saying that they were definitely involved, what I AM saying is how can you be so positive that they WEREN'T.

I'm just exploring all options, and I'm not ruling anyone or anything out.


:thumb: :thumb: :thumb:

[spiderman]

Originally posted by dchester
At the moment, choice #2 seems very likely to me. However, I reserve the right to change my mind if the facts prove me wrong.
:D

If that turns out to be the case, I'm not sure if I'll feel better or worse!

:eek:

[Annihilus]

Originally posted by spiderman
Look we can go back and forth on this for eternity. And for the record, I'm not trying to pit Democrats vs Republicans here, but that is obviously what is happening.



You're right, we could - which is why I'm stopping here.

And if you're suggesting that I'm a Democrat....well - you'd be mistaken.

You sound a lot like I did when I was in my early 20's. Just don't have a heart attack going after ghosts. I'm pretty much in agreement with dchester as #2 being the cause.

I don't believe he's a Democrat either - but you'd have to ask him about that.

:)

[spiderman]

Originally posted by Annihilus
You're right, we could - which is why I'm stopping here.

And if you're suggesting that I'm a Democrat....well - you'd be mistaken.

You sound a lot like I did when I was in my early 20's. Just don't have a heart attack going after ghosts. I'm pretty much in agreement with dchester as #2 being the cause.

I don't believe he's a Democrat either - but you'd have to ask him about that.

:)

I never said you were a democrat. In fact, I know you aren't. I wasn't talking about you or dchester.

Saying: You sound a lot like I did when I was in my early 20's was meant to be patronizing??? Believe me, I realize you are trying to belittle my opinion by somehow looking down on me.

That being said, you successfully offended me. I don't know if you are trying to say that I'm in my early 20s (I'm not) or naive.

Believe the Boston Globe story, believe the CBS story, act like somehow you are more enlightened then me...whatever.

[Annihilus]

Originally posted by spiderman
I never said you were a democrat. In fact, I know you aren't. I wasn't talking about you or dchester.

Saying: You sound a lot like I did when I was in my early 20's was meant to be patronizing??? Believe me, I realize you are trying to belittle my opinion by somehow looking down on me.

That being said, you successfully offended me. I don't know if you are trying to say that I'm in my early 20s (I'm not) or naive.

Believe the Boston Globe story, believe the CBS story, act like somehow you are more enlightened then me...whatever.

Dude, calm down already and there's no reason to be so defensive. I'm not into namecalling or patronizing, and if you have read any of my posts on this board over the past year, you'd know that already.

I meant what I said literally - I had the same views and passion that you do when I was in my early 20's, nothing more nothing less. I'm 36 now. I could really care less how old you are. I was just telling you the way I've changed over the years.

Take a chill pill man. The whole world ain't out to get you (least of all me). You're the one reacting violently to our opinion that we dare think that CBS is reckless in it's approach to this whole affair. We merely pointed out our own opinions about the matter.

It's a difference of opinion, happens all the time. You can infer that I'm crazy all you want by believing what I do about this matter, but it doesn't bother me a whole lot. I've been called crazy by plenty of people.

Life's too short.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by Annihilus
Dude, calm down already and there's no reason to be so defensive. I'm not into namecalling or patronizing, and if you have read any of my posts on this board over the past year, you'd know that already.

I meant what I said literally - I had the same views and passion that you do when I was in my early 20's, nothing more nothing less. I'm 36 now. I could really care less how old you are. I was just telling you the way I've changed over the years.

Take a chill pill man. The whole world ain't out to get you (least of all me). You're the one reacting violently to our opinion that we dare think that CBS is reckless in it's approach to this whole affair. We merely pointed out our own opinions about the matter.

It's a difference of opinion, happens all the time. You can infer that I'm crazy all you want by believing what I do about this matter, but it doesn't bother me a whole lot. I've been called crazy by plenty of people.

Life's too short.

This is ridiculous, let's just end it now...it's a waste of both of our times.
o:-)

[Annihilus]

Originally posted by spiderman
This is ridiculous, let's just end it now...it's a waste of both of our times.
o:-)

Sounds good bud :thumb:

I'll still buy that bridge from you if I end up being wrong - as long as it's a good price. :D

[spiderman]

Originally posted by Annihilus
Sounds good bud :thumb:

I'll still buy that bridge from you if I end up being wrong - as long as it's a good price. :D

For you? My best price!

peace :thumb:

[O_P_T]

I wonder if this incident will have any news organization change it's POV over the next "intelligence failure".

Regardless of which failure one considers from history, there is always a group who chastizes those in charge for either failing to "connect the dots" or "failing to properly verify" information provided to them, depending on if the failure was one of ommission or commission.

Now I fully expect the inteliigence services of this country to be far better at these types of activities than any news service.

However, if one of the major old school news organizations can run a story based on information which, by their own admission, is so substantialy flawed, then it should give them a far better perspective on the normal human foibles that even the CIA suffers from.

[dchester]

Originally posted by Annihilus
Sounds good bud :thumb:

I'll still buy that bridge from you if I end up being wrong - as long as it's a good price. :D You're going to have to out bid me for it. I hear you can make real good money from the tolls.
________
how to roll a joint (http://howtorollajoint.net/)

[dchester]

Originally posted by O_P_T
I wonder if this incident will have any news organization change it's POV over the next "intelligence failure".

Regardless of which failure one considers from history, there is always a group who chastizes those in charge for either failing to "connect the dots" or "failing to properly verify" information provided to them, depending on if the failure was one of ommission or commission.

Now I fully expect the inteliigence services of this country to be far better at these types of activities than any news service.

However, if one of the major old school news organizations can run a story based on information which, by their own admission, is so substantialy flawed, then it should give them a far better perspective on the normal human foibles that even the CIA suffers from. What you are saying makes a lot of sense, but one thing I've learned over the years is that people are much more understanding of their own mistakes than they are of any one elses.
________
Subaru Alcyone SVX (http://www.toyota-wiki.com/wiki/Subaru_Alcyone_SVX)

[spiderman]

http://usatoday.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=USATODAY.com+-+CBS+arranged+for+meeting+with+Lockhart&expire=&urlID=11703685&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitic selections%2Fnation%2Fpresident%2F2004-09-20-cbs-documents_x.htm&partnerID=1660


I'm just providing a link here people...I don't want any Fox Mulder references today...okay?! :D

[Ballbustah]

That a senior Kerry campaigner would suggest contacting a reservist that had an opposing opinion of Bush’s reserve status???

That stuff goes on all the time.

Will you please grow up.

How bout all the crap that Bush’s people are spreading about Kerry.
Bush is a coward that was afraid to go to war.

[spiderman]

http://usatoday.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=USATODAY.com+-+CBS+backs+off+Guard+story&expire=&urlID=11705426&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitic selections%2Fnation%2Fpresident%2F2004-09-21-cover-guard_x.htm&partnerID=1660

Who is this Lucy Ramirez??? Hmmmm.....

[dropKickMurphy]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
That a senior Kerry campaigner would suggest contacting a reservist that had an opposing opinion of Bush’s reserve status???

That stuff goes on all the time.



I think you're missing the point of the article. It shows that CBS News acted as a conduit between Burkett and the Kerry campaign in exchange for the documents.

Yes, I do believe that "That stuff goes on all the time." That's the point. The national media...CBS News, The NY Times, et al......pose as objective news gathering organizations. In reality, they are so tight with the Democratic Party, that their reporting is heavily slanted toward the Democrats.

Now, we see a concrete example of CBS not only reporting a bogus story, but actually playing an active role in trying to aid the Kerry campaign.

Do you think for one minute that if the shoe were on the other foot...say Fox News had aired a report based on a phony document obtained after Fox News had arranged for the source to meet with officials of the Bush campaign... that this would be The major story in the Globe, Times, CBS News, and the rest of the "mainstream" media?

You know damn well that they would all be trumpeting the unethical behavior of Fox and the Bush campaign. Funny how the mainstream media is attempting to downplay this story now. If I were a cynical guy, I might be inclined to think that they don't want their own connections to the Kerry campaign to come to light.

Thank God that the day of the news monopoly is coming to a close. The arrogance that comes from being seen as the unchallenged objective authorities is now coming back to bite them all in the ass. CBS News will be the first...but certainly not the last...to come crashing down.

[Ballbustah]

Spidy
I guess you have all the answers....

[dropKickMurphy]

Originally posted by spiderman
http://usatoday.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?action=cpt&title=USATODAY.com+-+CBS+backs+off+Guard+story&expire=&urlID=11705426&fb=Y&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.usatoday.com%2Fnews%2Fpolitic selections%2Fnation%2Fpresident%2F2004-09-21-cover-guard_x.htm&partnerID=1660

Who is this Lucy Ramirez??? Hmmmm.....

According to Kerry, she's the girlfriend of Manny Ortezz. :D

[spiderman]

Originally posted by dropKickMurphy
I think you're missing the point of the article. It shows that CBS News acted as a conduit between Burkett and the Kerry campaign in exchange for the documents.

The pieces of the puzzle are just beginning to come together.:cool:

[Ballbustah]

Yes....
And sooner or later it will all point to Kerry as being the lone gun that forged those documents.

He did it on his computer and sent it to Dan Rather himself.

[dropKickMurphy]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
Yes....
And sooner or later it will all point to Kerry as being the lone gun that forged those documents.

He did it on his computer and sent it to Dan Rather himself.

Now you're seeing the light, Bustah!!!

[spiderman]

I was just wondering...are all the people who criticized Bernard Goldberg a couple of years ago eating their big helping of crow yet?

[Ballbustah]

Will supporters of George Bush be eating crow a few years from now when it becomes apparent how he efed us up?

Probably not....

[spiderman]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
Will supporters of George Bush be eating crow a few years from now when it becomes apparent how he efed us up?

Probably not....

GOOD ONE :thumb:

[O_P_T]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
Will supporters of George Bush be eating crow a few years from now when it becomes apparent how he efed us up?

Probably not....

In all honesty it takes more than a few years to be able to make a proper historical judgement on any Presidency. 50 + years is the typical threshold.

This in not an effort to dodge the issue, simply a recognition of how historical analysis takes place.

The historical distance is necessary to be able to observe the long term effect of any particular set of actions, and to gain seperation to allow emotions to settle.

That being said, I fully accept the possibility that the historical judgement will be that GWB's efforts in Iraq was a major mistake.

The situation is still uncertain, and there is no guarentee on the final outcome.

The decision to invade Iraq, overthrow Saadam, and establish a democracy in the heart of the Arab world was always a high risk endevour.

However, the benifits that would result from success are quite large.

Is the risk worth it?

Time will tell.

[Mark_Henderson]

Originally posted by dchester
BTW, I don't think too many people were surprised to learn that connections were used to get Bush into the Guard during the war. I just don't understand why people feel the need to make up stuff to go after Bush.


Probably because the actual documents themselves have been sanitized from the record.

This story isn't necessarily over. The specifics of Bush's guard "service" are now more newsworthy than ever. I doubt there's much there that's a plus for Bush.

[Annihilus]

Originally posted by Mark_Henderson
Probably because the actual documents themselves have been sanitized from the record.

This story isn't necessarily over. The specifics of Bush's guard "service" are now more newsworthy than ever. I doubt there's much there that's a plus for Bush.

The only thing that could be less newsworthy as far as I'm concerned is whether Kerry got his purple hearts 'legitimately' or not.

This crap happened what, 30 years ago? People change a lot in 30 years, even politicians.

Maybe I'm supposed to give a damn about what Kerry did on a boat in Vietnam or what Bush did (or did not) do in the National Guard in that same time period, but I just don't.

I'm more concerned about what they've done in the past five years, and what they're going to do in the next four, which we really haven't heard a whole lot about (especially when compared to the amount of coverage provided to the swift boat groups and this fake document story).

I know I'm not alone in this. Most people I talk to have the exact same opinion as me and don't give a sh!t about all this stuff. The ones that really care about it already know how they're going to vote anyway - so it doesn't make that much of a difference.

In my opinion we spend far too much time going after the sensational stories and flashy headlines than we do concentrating on the right things.

[bideau]

Originally posted by Annihilus
The only thing that could be less newsworthy as far as I'm concerned is whether Kerry got his purple hearts 'legitimately' or not.

This crap happened what, 30 years ago? People change a lot in 30 years, even politicians.

Maybe I'm supposed to give a damn about what Kerry did on a boat in Vietnam or what Bush did (or did not) do in the National Guard in that same time period, but I just don't.

I'm more concerned about what they've done in the past five years, and what they're going to do in the next four, which we really haven't heard a whole lot about (especially when compared to the amount of coverage provided to the swift boat groups and this fake document story).

I know I'm not alone in this. Most people I talk to have the exact same opinion as me and don't give a sh!t about all this stuff. The ones that really care about it already know how they're going to vote anyway - so it doesn't make that much of a difference.

In my opinion we spend far too much time going after the sensational stories and flashy headlines than we do concentrating on the right things.

Although you make an excellent point, the polls are not backing you up on this. I recently read an analysis (sorry, can't find the source) of Kerry's drop in the polls and it pointed directly to the Swift Boat Veterans attack ads. So, the general public is buying into this stuff.

The supposed "liberal" media played a key role in this. Almost a day didn't go by that the ads weren't being brought up in a news story. Whether the strories were supporting the smear campaign or trying to debunk it, the fact that it kept being brought up made the average pea brain start to take notice.

Until the public starts to ignore the attack ads and focus on real issues, the attack ads will perpetuate. When polls show that there was no effect, then these PACs (both liberal and conservative) will figure there's no point wasting money. But right now the tactic works and we'll continue to see it.

Questioning Kerry's voting record is fair game. Questioning Bush's Iraq policy is fair game. Challenging anyone's military record 30+ years after should be met with the sound of crickets chirping.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by Annihilus
The only thing that could be less newsworthy as far as I'm concerned is whether Kerry got his purple hearts 'legitimately' or not.

This crap happened what, 30 years ago? People change a lot in 30 years, even politicians.

Maybe I'm supposed to give a damn about what Kerry did on a boat in Vietnam or what Bush did (or did not) do in the National Guard in that same time period, but I just don't.

I'm more concerned about what they've done in the past five years, and what they're going to do in the next four, which we really haven't heard a whole lot about (especially when compared to the amount of coverage provided to the swift boat groups and this fake document story).

I know I'm not alone in this. Most people I talk to have the exact same opinion as me and don't give a sh!t about all this stuff. The ones that really care about it already know how they're going to vote anyway - so it doesn't make that much of a difference.

In my opinion we spend far too much time going after the sensational stories and flashy headlines than we do concentrating on the right things.

If anything it's the Kerry campaign that is being destroyed by this.

1.) Bush has already been elected Governor of Texas & President of the US in the face of these allegations. Nobody really cared then, and nobody really cares now. Telling me that GW was a child of privelege is like telling me the sky is blue. Tell me something I don't know.

2.) If the people in this country would allow Bill Clinton to hold the title of Commander in Chief, and send troops into harms way, then obviously they don't have any heartburn with GW.

3.) Kerry decided to campaign on his war hero status, and has been significantly been beat about the head neck and shoulders by the swiftees. If you don't think they've been successful in tarnishing his record, you are in an extreme state of denial.

The difference? Everyone has known this stuff about Bush, but until the swiftees came along, nobody knew this "stuff" (true or not) about Kerry.

So instead of letting it go, and turning their attention to the things that actually matter the Kerry campaign decided to launch Operation: Fortunate Son...and nobody could have imagined how explosively that would have blown up in there face. Now, instead of discussing the issues important to the American people we are discussing the origin of forged documents...documents that basically say things that everybody already knows about, and that nobody cares about!

Although I have to admit I'm enjoying the scandal.o:-)

[spiderman]

Originally posted by bideau
Although you make an excellent point, the polls are not backing you up on this. I recently read an analysis (sorry, can't find the source) of Kerry's drop in the polls and it pointed directly to the Swift Boat Veterans attack ads. So, the general public is buying into this stuff.

Bideau,

I talked to a couple of Vietnam Vets, that live in my neighborhood, when Kerry first decided to run for office. These stories about him shooting a wounded man in the back etc. etc. have been around forever, and they assured me that they would all be brought up should he run for President.

What shocked me was how unaware Kerry was of this. It's almost like he was blind-sided and had no idea how many Vietnam Vets actually hate him. I can't figure this out, but anyways in the early days of his campaign I would cringe everytime he made a big deal of being a "War Hero"...I cringed because I knew what was coming...

...Fair or not, Politics is a dirty game, and Kerry should have been more aware of how he was viewed, and who may or may not be looking to tear him down.

[bideau]

Originally posted by spiderman
Bideau,

I talked to a couple of Vietnam Vets, that live in my neighborhood, when Kerry first decided to run for office. These stories about him shooting a wounded man in the back etc. etc. have been around forever, and they assured me that they would all be brought up should he run for President.

What shocked me was how unaware Kerry was of this. It's almost like he was blind-sided and had no idea how many Vietnam Vets actually hate him. I can't figure this out, but anyways in the early days of his campaign I would cringe everytime he made a big deal of being a "War Hero"...I cringed because I knew what was coming...

...Fair or not, Politics is a dirty game, and Kerry should have been more aware of how he was viewed, and who may or may not be looking to tear him down.

Not disagreeing with you.

What Anni was saying is that he thinks most people don't care. I agree with him that people SHOULDN'T care, but polls are showing that people DO care.

Thankfully, I've noticed a shift back to the issues in the past week. Hopefully, all this crap is finally out of the way and people can start to make decisions based on important issues.

[Annihilus]

Originally posted by bideau
Not disagreeing with you.

What Anni was saying is that he thinks most people don't care. I agree with him that people SHOULDN'T care, but polls are showing that people DO care.


Yeah, you're probably right - and most of the people I talk too probably tend to think the same way I do because people tend to socialize with people that have somewhat the same outlook as they do.

I guess maybe it's just wishful thinking on my part. Maybe once the debates start, things'll start to move forward instead of dredging up stuff from the past.

Here's to hoping.

[Ballbustah]

It is so funny how people can miss the point of a conversation.

GW was privilege to join the Air National Guard.
There were plenty of 18 year olds that were not so lucky. Many died because they went to Vietnam. They didn’t have the politically connected father that could waive GW’s status so that he was exempt from Vietnam.
My brother still carries around shrapnel from a mortar explosion about a centimeter from his spine. It happened on his birthday in 1969. He almost died that day and there are some people who do hold it against GW far getting a pass on Vietnam. Why did he not want to serve his country? Why did he take the easy way out?


The enemy is the enemy.
When you are caught in a firefight you kill your enemy.
That means any way you can.
Some people do not understand what it is like to be caught in a battle.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by bideau
Not disagreeing with you.

What Anni was saying is that he thinks most people don't care. I agree with him that people SHOULDN'T care, but polls are showing that people DO care.

Thankfully, I've noticed a shift back to the issues in the past week. Hopefully, all this crap is finally out of the way and people can start to make decisions based on important issues.

You're right,

I was just trying to make the point that the Bush Air National Guard stuff has been thrown out there before. Nobody was really going to be swayed by it.

However, the Kerry stuff was new, and as a result people sat up and said, "Hey I didn't know that".

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not saying I agree with it or not. I'm just giving my opinion on why I think it HURT the Kerry Campaign, and I'm shocked that they didn't see it coming.
:D

[dchester]

Originally posted by bideau
Although you make an excellent point, the polls are not backing you up on this. I recently read an analysis (sorry, can't find the source) of Kerry's drop in the polls and it pointed directly to the Swift Boat Veterans attack ads. So, the general public is buying into this stuff.

The supposed "liberal" media played a key role in this. Almost a day didn't go by that the ads weren't being brought up in a news story. Whether the strories were supporting the smear campaign or trying to debunk it, the fact that it kept being brought up made the average pea brain start to take notice.

Until the public starts to ignore the attack ads and focus on real issues, the attack ads will perpetuate. When polls show that there was no effect, then these PACs (both liberal and conservative) will figure there's no point wasting money. But right now the tactic works and we'll continue to see it.

Questioning Kerry's voting record is fair game. Questioning Bush's Iraq policy is fair game. Challenging anyone's military record 30+ years after should be met with the sound of crickets chirping. Both you and Anni made some great points.

I saw some articles about Kerry dropping in the polls and the Swift Boat attack ads. One of the articles I read, had said that the ones with Kerry's war crimes speeches after he left the service, were the ones that seemed to be hurting him the most. I agree that this so called "issue" about his medals is one of the stupidest things out there right now. He was there, case closed in my opinion. Frankly, I would like to see them repeal that McCain Feingold act and get rid of these 527 groups. The candidates are more responsible at spending "soft" money than these "independent" groups.

I also think that Bush had a good convention compared to Kerry, which helped his poll numbers. But for me, the thing that has made me go very negative on Kerry recently is himself. I am totally turned off by his being unable to have a consistant position. He recently huddled with all his new advisors, and he's decided that his policy on the war (now) is that it was a big mistake and we shouldn't have gone in (the Dean position, that he had criticized in the primary).

To be clear, I'm not saying the (Dean) position is neccessarily bad, but I think that Kerry doesn't have any core beliefs, and he is just taking the position that his advisors think gives him the best chance to win. That is my current perception of Kerry, and I don't think too much of it.

I certainly have some issues with Bush, but to this point Kerry has given me no reason to vote for him. I wish McCain were on the ballot this year, but he's not (I also wish Powell had run 4 years ago). I'll be watching the debates closely this year (not that I think debating skills are important to being a good president) because there's not much else available to base my decision on. But if Kerry can't convince me that there's more to him than what he's shown thus far, I'll be voting for Bush.
________
vaporizer affiliates (http://vaporizeraffiliateprogram.com)

[bideau]

Originally posted by dchester
Both you and Anni made some great points.

I saw some articles about Kerry dropping in the polls and the Swift Boat attack ads. One of the articles I read, had said that the ones with Kerry's war crimes speeches after he left the service, were the ones that seemed to be hurting him the most. I agree that this so called "issue" about his medals is one of the stupidest things out there right now. He was there, case closed in my opinion. Frankly, I would like to see them repeal that McCain Feingold act and get rid of these 527 groups. The candidates are more responsible at spending "soft" money than these "independent" groups.

I also think that Bush had a good convention compared to Kerry, which helped his poll numbers. But for me, the thing that has made me go very negative on Kerry recently is himself. I am totally turned off by his being unable to have a consistant position. He recently huddled with all his new advisors, and he's decided that his policy on the war (now) is that it was a big mistake and we shouldn't have gone in (the Dean position, that he had criticized in the primary).

To be clear, I'm not saying the (Dean) position is neccessarily bad, but I think that Kerry doesn't have any core beliefs, and he is just taking the position that his advisors think gives him the best chance to win. That is my current perception of Kerry, and I don't think too much of it.

I certainly have some issues with Bush, but to this point Kerry has given me no reason to vote for him. I wish McCain were on the ballot this year, but he's not (I also wish Powell had run 4 years ago). I'll be watching the debates closely this year (not that I think debating skills are important to being a good president) because there's not much else available to base my decision on. But if Kerry can't convince me that there's more to him than what he's shown thus far, I'll be voting for Bush.

It's become pretty obvious that this election is about the lesser of two evils. There are certainly are percentage on both sides that are voting for a candidate because they truly believe in them. But the vast majority doesn't like either candidate but must make a choice.

It's clear which choices most of us have made (the ones who post here regularly). I don't think anyone is going to switch.

I'm not a huge fan of Powell, mostly because I don't think he really wants the job (he could have had it in 2000) and I have no real track record to judge him on. I don't think he's done a great job as SoS, not because he's not capable, but mostly because I think he's been handcuffed by the extreme right of the administration.

McCain is someone who intrigued me in 2000. He's someone I see as capable of pulling in the middle of both parties and reaching a concensus. It's been pretty obvious that he's not a Bush supporter, but for the good of the party, he's campaigning for him. But he's been fairly critical of Bush policies and he's tried to be very careful with his choice of words when disagreeing. I think, and hope, that he's getting ready for another shot in '08. Remember, he was knocked out of the 2000 race by the same tactics that have been used against Kerry.

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Originally posted by Annihilus
Yeah, you're probably right - and most of the people I talk too probably tend to think the same way I do because people tend to socialize with people that have somewhat the same outlook as they do.
What's that story about the 1980 election? A (famous, I think) woman from New York City's upper west side was flabbergasted that Reagan had won (and won in a landslide, no less) saying: "How could he have won? I don't know anyone who voted for him!"

[spiderman]

I lifted this from somewhere else:

Man, those guys at the RNC are a regular Bloodhound Gang or Mod Squad. Take a look at this little observation:

9 HOURS BEFORE THE CBS REPORT: "Democratic Party chairman Terry McAuliffe said, 'George W. Bush's cover story on his National Guard service is rapidly unraveling. ... George W. Bush needs to answer why he regularly misled the American people about his time in the Guard and who applied political pressure on his behalf to have his performance reviews 'sugarcoated.'" (Terence Hunt, "Questions Raised About Bush Guard Service," The Associated Press, 9/9/04)
(I checked with the RNC how they knew it was nine hours ahead of CBS report - it turns out McAuliffe made this statement during a press event held at 11 am Sept. 8.)

The CBS memo, revealed on 60 Minutes that night: "Harris gave me a message today from Grp regarding Bush's OETR and Staudt is pushing to sugar coat it."

"Sugarcoated." What an interesting word. McAuliffe could have said that Bush's performance reviews were covered up, spun, masked, smoothed over, soft-pedaled, glossed over, prettified, veiled, whitewashed, hushed up, concealed, varnished, suppressed, or distorted. But he just happened to pick a word that appeared in the memos that were supposedly unveiled to the world hours later.

Even beyond McAuliffe's direct quote of the memos, he's specifically referring to the central allegation of the Burkett-to-Mapes memo, that Staudt wanted Bush’s records “sugarcoated.”

If this were a game of Clue, we would collectively be jumping up and down and shouting, "the attempted character assassination was committed by Burkett, Mapes, Rather, Lockhart, and McAuliffe, with the fake memo, in the observatory, er, in CBS offices and DNC headquarters!"

Or maybe this, along with the entire "Operation Fortunate Son," is all just a coincidence.


I still believe!

[O_P_T]

Originally posted by bideau
It's become pretty obvious that this election is about the lesser of two evils.

When isn't it?

I've always said that there are two things I insist happen before I die.

See the Red Sox win the World Series

and

Go into the voting booth on Presidential election day and say "Boy, I really like this candidate" as opposed to "God help us if this bozo gets into office, I guess I'll vote for the other one".


It's a good chance I may live for ever.:D

[Ballbustah]

Originally posted by spiderman
I lifted this from somewhere else:

Man, those guys at the RNC are a regular Bloodhound Gang or Mod Squad. Take a look at this little observation:

9 HOURS BEFORE THE CBS REPORT: "Democratic Party chairman Terry McAuliffe said, 'George W. Bush's cover story on his National Guard service is rapidly unraveling. ... George W. Bush needs to answer why he regularly misled the American people about his time in the Guard and who applied political pressure on his behalf to have his performance reviews 'sugarcoated.'" (Terence Hunt, "Questions Raised About Bush Guard Service," The Associated Press, 9/9/04)
(I checked with the RNC how they knew it was nine hours ahead of CBS report - it turns out McAuliffe made this statement during a press event held at 11 am Sept. 8.)

The CBS memo, revealed on 60 Minutes that night: "Harris gave me a message today from Grp regarding Bush's OETR and Staudt is pushing to sugar coat it."

"Sugarcoated." What an interesting word. McAuliffe could have said that Bush's performance reviews were covered up, spun, masked, smoothed over, soft-pedaled, glossed over, prettified, veiled, whitewashed, hushed up, concealed, varnished, suppressed, or distorted. But he just happened to pick a word that appeared in the memos that were supposedly unveiled to the world hours later.

Even beyond McAuliffe's direct quote of the memos, he's specifically referring to the central allegation of the Burkett-to-Mapes memo, that Staudt wanted Bush’s records “sugarcoated.”

If this were a game of Clue, we would collectively be jumping up and down and shouting, "the attempted character assassination was committed by Burkett, Mapes, Rather, Lockhart, and McAuliffe, with the fake memo, in the observatory, er, in CBS offices and DNC headquarters!"

Or maybe this, along with the entire "Operation Fortunate Son," is all just a coincidence.


I still believe!


Kerry had the Balls to go to Vietnam while Bush hunkered down in the States. Why did Bush not want to serve his country? Was he a coward? Was he afraid to go to Vietnam? Why did he take the easy way out. Is he prone to taking the easy way out? Is it ingrained in his character? Is he a dumbass?

[spiderman]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
Kerry had the Balls to go to Vietnam while Bush hunkered down in the States. Why did Bush not want to serve his country? Was he a coward? Was he afraid to go to Vietnam? Why did he take the easy way out. Is he prone to taking the easy way out? Is it ingrained in his character? Is he a dumbass?

getting nervous???

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
Kerry had the Balls to go to Vietnam while Bush hunkered down in the States. Why did Bush not want to serve his country? Was he a coward? Was he afraid to go to Vietnam? Why did he take the easy way out. Is he prone to taking the easy way out? Is it ingrained in his character? Is he a dumbass?
Look, bustah, you've made your position on this amply clear.

In my view, this is something that happened 30 years ago, and isn't real reflective on the character of either guy. Kerry went to Vietnam, served honorably, videotaped the whole thing, and came back and protested the war.

Bush's dad ensured he got into the ANG, he served honorably (there are questions about each man's service, but you know what? We don't know. The records say honorable discharge on both of their records. That's all we really have.)

Look, they're BOTH children of privilege. Bush's Daddy was a bigwig who eventually became President. Kerry was yachting with JFK when he was a teenager.

The difference is, Bush didn't make this an issue by running as some big war hero. Kerry did. But you know what? I still don't care. Look at their records while in the offices that they've held.

There are a few things that jump out at me:

1) In an essentially even choice, I'll generally pick someone with experience as an executive over someone with experience as a legislator. Legislators have the opportunity to throw their vote away when a win or loss is clear in order to stack their record. Having worked on Constitution Avenue, I know how often this happens. Legislators look to specific issues to run on, and throw votes to certain issues based on this, but only when a win or a loss is already clear. Executives have a more burdensome weight on them, and experience in that is something that can't be bought.

2) In some things, Bush is really right-wing. In some things, Kerry is really left-wing. However, if you look at their records, Bush is portrayed farther to the right than he actually is, while Kerry is portrayed as closer to the middle than he actually is. This frightens me - it would frighten me on either side (if Candidate A was portrayed as centrist but he was right wing).
Examples:
Bush on stem-cell research. It's portrayed that he's banned or crippled stem cell research, when in fact he inacted very minor limitations on it (which ended up become more major limitations by circumstance later on), and those limitations are ONLY on federally funded stem-cell research.
Kerry on abortion: Has voted in against any and every limitation on abortion in any form, including parental notification, limited parental notification, viability limitations, partial-birth abortion, etc.

3) As I've stated before, in a tie between two candidates I dislike, I'll go with whichever candidate will get me two fresh choices sooner. With Kerry, we have a Kerry vs. New Candidate election in 2008. With Bush, we have a New Candidate A vs. New Candidate B election in 2008. There's the clincher. I hate both of them, so why give either of them a 50% chance to be elected in 2008? Let's start as fresh as possible.

[Ballbustah]

So Flagg Wanderer...
Are you saying that with spidy pounding us over the head time after time with these innuendo's that I am not allowed to respond?

I do not care if you think my position is abundantly clear. If you had read my previous posts you would understand that I basically do not like either one of them also.

Bush's agenda to circumvent free speach on the radio because of his "born again christian ways" and his eneptness to keep the government out of scientific stem cell research is insane.

If you can not take my responces please put me on ignore because I will not stop.

[Undertaker #59]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
and his eneptness to keep the government out of scientific stem cell research is insane.


Umm....isn't that EXACTLY what Bush has done? He limited FEDERAL funding (your and mine tax dollars) on stem cell research. As far as I know he hasn't done anything to get the government more involved with restricting it.

If I am wrong, someone enlighten me please.

[Annihilus]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
Bush's agenda to circumvent free speach on the radio because of his "born again christian ways" ...



What up Bustah?

Can you clarify the part I highlighted above? I haven't heard that one before.

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
So Flagg Wanderer...
Are you saying that with spidy pounding us over the head time after time with these innuendo's that I am not allowed to respond?

I do not care if you think my position is abundantly clear. If you had read my previous posts you would understand that I basically do not like either one of them also.

Bush's agenda to circumvent free speach on the radio because of his "born again christian ways" and his eneptness to keep the government out of scientific stem cell research is insane.

If you can not take my responces please put me on ignore because I will not stop.
No, it isn't like that, Bustah. It's that Spiderman brought out new information in his post, and you responded with the same thing you've been posting over and over again. I think that both of you have made your positions abundantly clear. The difference in this particular instance was that he brought out additional information which he felt backed up a point he made earlier, and you ranted without really responding to what he said.

I don't have any problem "taking" your posts, nor do I want you to stop posting. I was just pointing out that your reply was not responsive to his post.

As to the stem cell research question, UT is correct. All he did was keep tax dollars (mostly) out of it - not because he's against the research, but because he was worried that selling embryos would become an industry, and most embryos are from elective abortions, which remains a very devisive and emotioinally charged issue in this country. He enacted the ban to make sure that federal dollars weren't being spent providing abortion providers with a secondary source of income.

I admit to being curious as to your point about "circumventing free speech on the radio because of his born again Christian ways." What are you talking about? All the FCC has done is segregate free radio and subscription radio in the same manner that it was done for television, with the same sort of dividing line. There is no restriction of any ideas on the radio, and there are radio stations that will play whatever you want - but not over the free airwaves that are easily accessible by children who may stumble across it inadvertantly.

I don't defend a lot of what Bush has done:
I think going into Iraq was a mistake, but based on the information available to us at the time, well, okay. Now that we're there, we really can't leave, however. We need to see it through.
I think there are real problems with John Ashcroft and the DOJ. He has a fine mind, but sees issues in black and white far too often.
Bush hasn't done enough to help implement No Child Left Behind, so we can't really analyze whether that is effective or not.
He hasn't addressed the issue with health care enough while he's been in office, though I like his idea of reducing the cost of health care by capping malpractice awards (and I'm a lawyer!)
He hasn't shown the ability to restrain spending (though that to a large extent falls on Congress, too). This has been one of my greatest disappointments in this administration. Spending is totally out of control.

On the other hand, he's provided the country with a clear leadership voice at a time when moral clarity was sorely needed.
He's elevated women and minorities to the highest positions, and in the greatest numbers, of any administration in history.
He's shown the ability to make a decision and stick with it even if it is unpopular (which is very important for the President, IMO).
He's passed a helluva nice tax cut.
He's had the chutzpah to take a stand against the United Nations Society of Debating, Backslapping, and Mutual Admiration when it continued to filabuster and delay.

But the two issues you just picked up on have me baffled.

[Ballbustah]

Originally posted by Annihilus
What up Bustah?

Can you clarify the part I highlighted above? I haven't heard that one before.

I listen to both sides of the story.
NPR, RKO, EEI with Dennis and Callihan as well as Howard Stern.
Howard Stern was wiped off of Clear Channel because that company is afraid of the fines that the Bush administraition can impose.
When you take into consideration that the Stern show is one of the most popular shows on the radio no matter where it is broadcast I get the sense that the Bush administraition is trying to curb free speach as well as trying to shut down a radio broadcast? Why is Bush trying to do this. Is it because of his link to Christianity. Is he closer to Christianity then to the Bill of Rights? Does he think it is OK to silence a disc jockey because he does not agree with what he is saying. That is a very dangerous position. We are supposed to be evolving... not going backwards.

[Ballbustah]

Flagg Wanderer
Obviously you only see one side of the story.

Does the deficit concern you?
Our spending is out of control and the tax cuts keep coming.
Does free speech concern you?
Who needs free speech anyway.
We might as well go back to the 50’s.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
We are supposed to be evolving... not going backwards.

I know, I tuned into Stern the other day and he had a woman on all fours with a stick coming out of her anus, and all the guys were trying to throw rings at it....

...thank GOD we're evolving as a race.

Yay Stern!!! OUR free speech advocate!!!

:D

[spiderman]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
Flagg Wanderer
Obviously you only see one side of the story.

Does the deficit concern you?
Our spending is out of control and the tax cuts keep coming.
Does free speech concern you?
Who needs free speech anyway.
We might as well go back to the 50’s.

See Flagg? This is why for the most part I completely ignore Ol' Bustah. He's like a child on ritalin...

...but I would NEVER EVER put him on ignore, because I need a good laugh throughout the day.

o:-)

[bideau]

Originally posted by spiderman
I know, I tuned into Stern the other day and he had a woman on all fours with a stick coming out of her anus, and all the guys were trying to throw rings at it....

...thank GOD we're evolving as a race.

Yay Stern!!! OUR free speech advocate!!!

:D

And the amazing thing about free speech is our right to change the dial. I actually don't like Stern (although my wife is a groupie :rolleyes: ), but he's got a right to air what he wants. And if people are so repulsed by it, just don't listen.

The problem that Stern and others are having with FCC policy is that they're not just fining the "offenders", they're going after the stations that broadcast them. Why did CBS get a $550,000 fine for something that Janet Jackson did? What it comes down to is stifling of free speech through intimidation. And the policies are dictated with very little oversight.

Whether you want to admit it or not, the Bush administration is heavily in the pockets of the fundamentalist right wing. Bush is, has been and will be beholden to them. He was their hand picked candidate and they delivered him the presidency. He has some repaying to do.

And right wing fundamentalists, for all their bluster about smaller government, is all for government intrusion. Fortunately for you, it doesn't seem to have effected you personally. At least not yet. But it has effected me and my family in a very personal way which is why I can never, ever support this administration.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by bideau
And the amazing thing about free speech is our right to change the dial. I actually don't like Stern (although my wife is a groupie :rolleyes: ), but he's got a right to air what he wants. And if people are so repulsed by it, just don't listen.

I was trying to make a light hearted joke about what an honorable and decent man Mr. Stern is...but I can see that you take this topic VERY seriously, so all humor was lost.

Anyways...

...I used to feel the way you do, but over the past couple of years I'm starting to change the way I feel.

I want to live in a society with class, decency, and decorum. I'm sorry if you feel that placing any restriction on free speech will only lead to 100% censorship, but I don't. I think that our government, and we as a society should be able to draw the line.

I wouldn't want my daughter listening to the Stern show out of curiousity when I'm not around, and as long as he's allowed to do things like "anal ring toss", then that's a possibility. I'm sorry but the "change the station" argument doesn't wash with me.

In closing, please don't get too fired up...you have to keep in mind that I have no idea what you've been through and I'm simply giving my opinion on the way I see things.


:D

[Annihilus]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
I listen to both sides of the story.
NPR, RKO, EEI with Dennis and Callihan as well as Howard Stern.
Howard Stern was wiped off of Clear Channel because that company is afraid of the fines that the Bush administraition can impose.
When you take into consideration that the Stern show is one of the most popular shows on the radio no matter where it is broadcast I get the sense that the Bush administraition is trying to curb free speach as well as trying to shut down a radio broadcast? Why is Bush trying to do this. Is it because of his link to Christianity. Is he closer to Christianity then to the Bill of Rights? Does he think it is OK to silence a disc jockey because he does not agree with what he is saying. That is a very dangerous position. We are supposed to be evolving... not going backwards.

I haven't dug much into the Stern thing as he was dropped from the Minneapolis market 5 years ago because of poor ratings. Stern is always pushing the envelope and has become more of a firm free speech advocate than he has an entertainer. He is always pushing the envelope and knows what he is doing.

I don't think this has anything to do with Bush and is more a product of the two party system, though I understand that staunch free speech advocates do not like him much (nor do they like Kerry much).

I was a regular listener of 'Off the Hook' which is a free speech vehicle produced by the publishers of 2600 magazine for years (I haven't had a lot of time to catch it lately though). If you read 2600, you'd see why they are what you would call 'hard line' free speech advocates as they publish hacking and security articles as well as ways to 'beat the system'.

During the last Presidential election they were pretty much dismissing the Republicans AND Democrats as being noncommital at best towards free speech and broadcasting rights because they were unwilling to step over the line for fear of losing the support of certain political action groups. They were supporting Nader as their candidate.

[dchester]

Originally posted by bideau
And the amazing thing about free speech is our right to change the dial. I actually don't like Stern (although my wife is a groupie :rolleyes: ), but he's got a right to air what he wants. And if people are so repulsed by it, just don't listen.

The problem that Stern and others are having with FCC policy is that they're not just fining the "offenders", they're going after the stations that broadcast them. Why did CBS get a $550,000 fine for something that Janet Jackson did? What it comes down to is stifling of free speech through intimidation. And the policies are dictated with very little oversight.

Whether you want to admit it or not, the Bush administration is heavily in the pockets of the fundamentalist right wing. Bush is, has been and will be beholden to them. He was their hand picked candidate and they delivered him the presidency. He has some repaying to do.

And right wing fundamentalists, for all their bluster about smaller government, is all for government intrusion. Fortunately for you, it doesn't seem to have effected you personally. At least not yet. But it has effected me and my family in a very personal way which is why I can never, ever support this administration. I will say that my person opinion on this stuff is that I'm a free speech advocate. I would repeal the majority of these laws and regulations if it were up to me (although the Howard Stern shenanigans is not one of my major concerns either way).

The one thing I am in favor of, is parents (that may be more conservative than me) having the right to be able to have a reasonable control over what their children are exposed to. Something like sex and nudity on Cinemax, I am fine with, because you know what you are getting.

The biggest problem with Janet at the Superbowl (in my opinion), was that people did not know what they were getting. I've never had any real restrictions on my son seeing nudity on TV, but I am fine with, and think we should be tolerant of, others who have issues with it (ie. ratings, or something similar).

The one thing that is really bizarre about this whole area is that under Clinton, a lot of these laws and regulations were not enforced, and no one complained about it (including the republicans). That lack of enforcement continued under Bush, until the Janet incident. Now these rules and regulations are being dusted off due to the "outrage" of seeing a boob for a few seconds. What really needs to happen, is for the Congress to take this up, have some serious debate, and repeal some of these laws and regulations are appear to be outdated. Otherwise what will likely happen is some idiot judge will decide that the so called "Right to Privacy" (BTW the word privacy is not even in the Constitution), now includes a right to pornography, or something just as foolish.
________
Zephyr (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Mercury_Zephyr)

[Ballbustah]

Originally posted by spiderman See Flagg? This is why for the most part I completely ignore Ol' Bustah. He's like a child on ritalin...

...but I would NEVER EVER put him on ignore, because I need a good laugh throughout the day.


:D [/B]

And insults too....
You must be getting pissed off.

[Ballbustah]

It is not about if you like Howard Stern or not.
It's about if you want your government shutting down radio stations.

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
Flagg Wanderer
Obviously you only see one side of the story.

Does the deficit concern you?
Our spending is out of control and the tax cuts keep coming.
Does free speech concern you?
Who needs free speech anyway.
We might as well go back to the 50’s.
Obviously?

I mentioned the out-of control spending as something I was most displeased with. Did you read my post?

I fail to see what Bush has done that has curbed free speech...

He didn't "wipe Stern off the radio." Clear Channel did. Anyone can say anything they want on the radio if they're willing to pay the associated fine. CC didn't want to do that. Stern isn't silenced, he's on XM or Sirius or whatever. But let's be clear - this isn't Bush v. Stern.
Do you think Skinimax or the Spice Network should be on a free channel like NBC?
How about an all Skinhead Hate Network? Society has certain standards, not about what can be said, but about what can be publicly broadcast and distributed free of charge.

As far as "his link to Christianity" goes, does that go for the entire Supreme Court, too? "I can't define pornography, but I know it when I see it." Ditto for obscenity, which is defined as something not acceptable in the general community. How's that for vague?

So - if Clear Channel nixed Stern, not Bush, what has Bush done to limit free speech? Are you not free to criticize the administration? View online porn? Post or broadcast on pirate radio about how much you hate group X, be it Jews, blacks, republicans, Muslims, Christians, gays, women, or hispanic retarded men named Harvey? Is there rampant McCarthyism and blacklisting for those who disagree with the administration?

Tell me, ballbustah, how has your free speech been limited?

[Ballbustah]

You are missing the point.
Clear channel took Stern off the radio because of the Bush's administrations severe fines.
We are not talking about unencumbered across the board fairness. We are talking about an administration seeking out an individual to shut him up.


The thing you fail to understand is that if you curtail one persons right to free speach you curtail everyones right to free speech.

You keep Bush in office and you may feel the restrictions of free speech.

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Originally posted by bideau
And the amazing thing about free speech is our right to change the dial. I actually don't like Stern (although my wife is a groupie :rolleyes: ), but he's got a right to air what he wants. And if people are so repulsed by it, just don't listen.

The problem that Stern and others are having with FCC policy is that they're not just fining the "offenders", they're going after the stations that broadcast them. Why did CBS get a $550,000 fine for something that Janet Jackson did?
I agree with you in principal, but the reason for that fine is pretty clear - CBS gets the resultant buzz from the activity - the government is out to ensure that the network on which the offending material is broadcast does not benefit from such activities. It isn't so much that they did something wrong as a fine to get them to police themselves a little better. There are a lot of things to which the law attaches strict liability - statutory rape comes to mind. It doesn't matter if the minor has a perfect fake ID showing their age, and you study it under a microscope - you're liable.

What it comes down to is stifling of free speech through intimidation. And the policies are dictated with very little oversight.
I do think it can be handled better, certainly.

Whether you want to admit it or not, the Bush administration is heavily in the pockets of the fundamentalist right wing. Bush is, has been and will be beholden to them. He was their hand picked candidate and they delivered him the presidency. He has some repaying to do.
Interestingly, the fundamentalist movement (which is both right and left politically, BTW, though more often right) is not a big fan of W. They saw the stem cell compromise as a betrayal, as with his failure to push abortion policy, prayer in school, etc. He's essentially compromised on most of the big issues of the FundiRight. It's a lesser of two evils (probably more literally) decision for them, too.

And right wing fundamentalists, for all their bluster about smaller government, is all for government intrusion.
Well, yes, I suppose. That's a tricky issue. The country DOES have obscenity laws, and DOES have limitations on time, place, and manner of free speech. This isn't new. But these things get fuzzy at the margins.
The FundiRight, as with most groups, pushes a particular agenda. But when faced with the legal repercussions of that agenda, they, like most groups, start to disavow it pretty fast.
Example:
Oh, you want prayer in school? Okay. At what time should we schedule equal time for Wiccans? Muslims? Buddhists? Voodoo Practitioners? Hari Khrisnas?
Oh, okay - you're fine praying on your own time, now. Gotcha.

Fortunately for you, it doesn't seem to have effected you personally. At least not yet. But it has effected me and my family in a very personal way which is why I can never, ever support this administration.
Obviously I can't comment on this without more information, so I'll just hope for the best for you and your family.

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
It is not about if you like Howard Stern or not.
It's about if you want your government shutting down radio stations. That IS important. Which station did they shut down?

[Ballbustah]

They made Clear Channel drop the Howard Stern show because of the fines. They are even going back 3 or 4 years to find instances that they believe they can fine the Howard Stern show. How ridiculous is that?

Maybe if the Dems get into office they shut down the Rush Limbaugh show....

Once it starts it is very hard to stop.

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
They made Clear Channel drop the Howard Stern show because of the fines. They are even going back 3 or 4 years to find instances that they believe they can fine the Howard Stern show. How ridiculous is that?
Rediculous? Maybe. But it still underscores the same point: all the Bush administration is doing is enforcing the guidelines and regulations that were already on the books.

They haven't "shut down a radio station." They told CC that as of right now, Stern's show was not within existing acceptable limits of a radio show broadcast for free over public airways.

So, DO you think that Skinamax and the Spice Network and the All Skinhead Hate Network should be available for free like NBC, or not?

Maybe if the Dems get into office they shut down the Rush Limbaugh show....

Once it starts it is very hard to stop. Maybe, but I'm gonna have to go on record as saying that I highly doubt it. Political speech is much more heavily protected, because it goes to the heart of what the Bill of Rights is all about.

I've heard a lot of ranting and raving about how this administration is infringing on civil rights here, there and everywhere, but no one can point out much of anything in terms of particulars.

ARE you less free to speak, Bustah? I'll ask again:
Are you not free to criticize the administration? View online porn? Post or broadcast on pirate radio about how much you hate group X, be it Jews, blacks, republicans, Muslims, Christians, gays, women, or hispanic retarded men named Harvey? Is there rampant McCarthyism and blacklisting for those who disagree with the administration?

[spiderman]

Hey....how 'bout those forged documents???

:eek:

[dchester]

Originally posted by spiderman
Hey....how 'bout those forged documents???

:eek: My position is that, I am against forged documents.
________
DR400 (http://www.cyclechaos.com/wiki/Suzuki_DR400)

[Ballbustah]

Originally posted by Flagg Wanderer


Maybe, but I'm gonna have to go on record as saying that I highly doubt it. Political speech is much more heavily protected, because it goes to the heart of what the Bill of Rights is all about.

I've heard a lot of ranting and raving about how this administration is infringing on civil rights here, there and everywhere, but no one can point out much of anything in terms of particulars.

ARE you less free to speak, Bustah? I'll ask again:
Are you not free to criticize the administration? View online porn? Post or broadcast on pirate radio about how much you hate group X, be it Jews, blacks, republicans, Muslims, Christians, gays, women, or hispanic retarded men named Harvey? Is there rampant McCarthyism and blacklisting for those who disagree with the administration?



I am not prejudiced against anyone. Sounds like you maybe though.
Are you blind?
You can not see what is going on?
Once they attack one man then it is easier to attack another.
Believe me you don't want to go down this road.

[Annihilus]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
I am not prejudiced against anyone. Sounds like you maybe though.
Are you blind?
You can not see what is going on?
Once they attack one man then it is easier to attack another.
Believe me you don't want to go down this road.

No offense, but I think you're pulling a spiderman here and are seeing some kind of conspiracy theory that I just don't agree with (no offense spidey :) ).

There is no way that the U.S. is going to lose (or is losing) freedom of speech because of George Bush.

Staunch free speech advocates hate the Democrats as much as they do the Republicans for their refusal to comit to their cause, which is why they endorsed Nader in the last election.

In my opinion, you're way off base here. If I lost my freedom of speech, I'd revolt no matter which party was in charge.

But I'm not worried about it.

*edit - when I'm talking about freedom of speech here - I'm talking specifically about press/radio/tv/Internet

[Ballbustah]

Well then what would you call it.
You have the Bush administraition fining Howard Stern a bunch of money. Clear Channel has dropped Stern because they don't want to get fined.
You can call it anything you want but it is what it is.

[Annihilus]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
Well then what would you call it.
You have the Bush administraition fining Howard Stern a bunch of money. Clear Channel has dropped Stern because they don't want to get fined.
You can call it anything you want but it is what it is.

Actually, Stern is accussing Clear Channel of trying to penalize him for his criticism of George W., not because they don't want to get fined. See this article for details. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Stern)

He has declared opposition to the presidency of GW and endorsed Kerry because of this.

That's enough for me to see that this is a bunch of additional political nonsense spawned by the wardrobe malfunction at the Superbowl.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by Annihilus
No offense, but I think you're pulling a spiderman here and are seeing some kind of conspiracy theory that I just don't agree with (no offense spidey :) ).

HEY!!! I'm just giving you guys info I'm not implying anything!!!

seriously....no offense taken.

But as far as comparing ME to 'bustah...I have to say that I am a wee bit offended.

I hope you don't view us both in the same light. :D

[spiderman]

Originally posted by dchester
My position is that, I am against forged documents.


:LOL:

[Ballbustah]

Originally posted by Annihilus
Actually, Stern is accussing Clear Channel of trying to penalize him for his criticism of George W., not because they don't want to get fined. See this article for details. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howard_Stern)

He has declared opposition to the presidency of GW and endorsed Kerry because of this.

That's enough for me to see that this is a bunch of additional political nonsense spawned by the wardrobe malfunction at the Superbowl.


I'm afraid you are misinformed.

[Annihilus]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
I'm afraid you are misinformed.

Additional details as to how I am misinformed would help your argument. At least I provided a source for my rebuttal.

[Ballbustah]

Originally posted by spiderman
HEY!!! I'm just giving you guys info I'm not implying anything!!!

seriously....no offense taken.

But as far as comparing ME to 'bustah...I have to say that I am a wee bit offended.

I hope you don't view us both in the same light. :D


Sure your not implying anything.
You have a neutral mind available to see both sides of the issue...

I'm a bit offended also.
Why would I want to trade my place for the depths of depravity that Spiderman has to offer.
I kick people like him to the curb all the time.

[Annihilus]

Originally posted by spiderman
But as far as comparing ME to 'bustah...I have to say that I am a wee bit offended.

I hope you don't view us both in the same light. :D

Lol - just giving you a hard time man. You two definately have your differences and don't have to worry much about being seen in the same light.

No offense to anyone implied :)

[spiderman]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
Sure your not implying anything.
You have a neutral mind available to see both sides of the issue...

I'm a bit offended also.
Why would I want to trade my place for the depths of depravity that Spiderman has to offer.
I kick people like him to the curb all the time.


You're a really weird guy. I thought I had you figured out, but now I realize that figuring you out may be impossible.

:wave:

no offense

[Ballbustah]

Radio In Persecution"
A Chronology of Major Events In The Indecency Issue
August 12, 2004 - Emmis Communications agrees to pay $300,000 to resolve indecency complaints the F.C.C. had been investigating.
July 22, 2004 - Tommy Smith, longtime Little Rock morning radio personality, was fired by employer Clear Channel Communications for what the company would only say were reasons related to its recent "Zero Tolerance" policy on Radio indecency.
June 22, 2004 - FMQB.com reports: "By a 99-1 margin, the U.S. Senate today approved an amendment that would dramatically increase indecency fines...the measure was attached to a $447 billion Defense Department funding bill. Under the amendment, the maximum fine for a single indecency incident would climb from $27,500 to $275,000 for licensees, and to $11,000 for air talent -- for a maximum of $3 million a day."
June 14, 2004 - Reuters reported: "[Because] a stand-alone bill that would raise the fines tenfold to $275,000 per violation has been stuck in the Senate...U.S.

Sen. Sam Brownback said...he would try to add a provision aimed at substantially hiking fines for airing indecent material on broadcast television and radio to a defense measure now being debated by the Senate."
June 9, 2004 - The F.C.C. and Clear Channel Radio reach an agreement where C.C. pays $1.75 million to the U.S. Treasury and in return, all indecency and other general complaints by listeners against the broadcast chain are dropped.
June 1, 2004 - Mel Karmazin stepped down as President/COO of Viacom, the parent company of Infinity Broadcasting, Howard Stern's syndicator. Karmazin has consistently defended Stern and his program.
May 24, 2004 - Howard Stern is quoted at FMQB.com as saying he was "exasperated by the indecency crackdown. After discovering that this morning's 'Robin Crapped Her Pants' song parody had been edited by show censors, Stern vented. 'I am so done with this situation,' he told listeners. 'It's ridiculous. I want out, I want to go work for another medium where I can talk and not worry if Slash says the F-word. I want that, I crave it now. I want out of this.'
May 22, 2004 - Eric Idle Releases "The FCC Song" - Free Download
April 19, 2004 - Viacom, Fox, RadioOne, Citadel, Beasley, Intercom and others announce they will fight F.C.C's recent reversal on Bono's "F" word and challenge the agency's legal standing to punish broadcasters with fines or license revocations over other words the agency doesn't like.
April 8, 2004 - The F.C.C. fines Clear Channel Radio again. This time for $495,000 "for apparently willfully broadcasting indecent material" in connection with the “Howard Stern Show”. (This fine based on content aired on Clear Channel stations before Stern was removed on February 25, 2004)
March 19, 2004 - Clear Channel Communications invoked its “Zero Tolerance Policy on indecency and suspended “The Regular Guys”, two of its Atlanta talk show hosts at WKLS-FM (96 Rock). While talking to a porn star when they thought they were not on-the-air, portions of the unedited conversation actually did air live.
March 12, 2004 - F.C.C. fines Clear Channel another $247,900 for indecency for material aired by the “Elliot in the Morning” program on Stations WWDC-FM, Washington, D.C., WRXL-FM, Richmond, Virginia, and WOSC-FM, Bethany Beach, Delaware.
February 25, 2004 - Clear Channel announced a "Zero Tolerance Policy" for indecent content. "If the FCC accuses us of wrongdoing by issuing a proposed fine, we will take immediate action," President and COO Mark Mays said. "We will suspend the DJ in question, and perform a swift investigation. If we or the government ultimately determine the offending broadcast is indecent, the DJ will be terminated without delay," Mays said.
February 25, 2004 - Clear Channel removes Howard Stern from 6 of its radio stations for "It was vulgar, offensive and insulting” comments according to Chief Executive, John Hogan.
February 24, 2004 - Bubba The Love Sponge is released from his contract by Clear Channel for sexually explicit content
January 31, 2004 - Janet Jackson exposes her right breast on national TV during the Superbowl halftime concert.
January 27, 2004 - The Federal Communications Commission fined Clear Channel Radio for apparently airing indecent material over several broadcast stations during several days in connection with the “Bubba the Love Sponge” program. The Commission proposed the highest fine the law provides resulting in a $27,500 for each of 26 apparent indecency violations. This $715,000 forfeiture is the highest ever proposed against a broadcast licensee.
October 7, 2003 - The F.C.C. rules Bono’s use of the “F” word as an adjective is not “actionable” by the agency.
January 19, 2003 - Bono uses the “F” word as an adjective on the Golden Globes Awards show.
August 28, 2002 - Infinity Broadcasting fired Opie & Anthony and cancelled their nationally syndicated show which originated from its flagship station, WNEW-FM, New York.

August 26, 2002 - Opie & Anthony are taken off-the-air after airing a stunt where a couple had sex in St. Patrick’s Cathedral.
Background
After a long-established lackadaisical approach to judging sexually explicit content on Radio, legislators and the Federal Communication Commission have suddenly cracked down on broadcast companies and their programming.
Radio companies are being fined heavily for on-air content deemed unacceptable to the F.C.C. In turn, radio personalities are being fired. The state of Radio is one of fear - with companies afraid of losing licenses and DJs not knowing what is and is no longer acceptable.
Many point to the Janet Jackson Superbowl breast incident as the beginning of this crackdown. But, in reality the seeds of this new Indecency Crusade really began when Opie & Anthony were removed from their syndicated radio show by Infinity Broadcasting.

[Ballbustah]

Originally posted by spiderman
You're a really weird guy. I thought I had you figured out, but now I realize that figuring you out may be impossible.

:wave:

no offense


Spiderman... No use throwing insults around.
I could'nt give a crap about you.
You are just a mindless sniveling insult ridden crybaby.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
Spiderman... No use throwing insults around.
I could'nt give a crap about you.
You are just a mindless sniveling insult ridden crybaby.

DO YOU NEED A HUG?

:D

[Ballbustah]

Are you turned on by hugging men?

[spiderman]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
Are you turned on by hugging men?

Look everyone!!! SEE!!! I told you Ballbustah had a CRUSH on me!!!

Now he's asking me if I like hugging men?

Ballbustah, I'm sorry but please stop following me around this board, you're not my type!!!

:p

[Undertaker #59]

About those forged documents....


I am beginning to think that some of the posts in this thread may be forged. :)

[Ballbustah]

I didn't ask if you wanted to hug me. I asked if your turned on by hugging men.

Somehow you can't seem to get anything right.
You've probably been doing this for years and never noticed.

[Annihilus]

Originally posted by Undertaker #59
About those forged documents....

I am beginning to think that some of the posts in this thread may be forged. :)

Some of them?

:D

We should rename this the 'Freeflowing stream of consciousness thread'.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
Spiderman, I like you, will you be with me!

Now THAT'S a forged document...


...and the answer (since I know Ballbustah secretly wants to ask that question) is NO!

:thumb:

[Ballbustah]

I guess there goes all of Spiderman’s credibility
I guess all the documents he produced were all fakes.
What a shame.


Spiderman.... Are you gay?
Not that there is anything wrong with that.
But if you are looking for some man love I think your on the wrong board.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
I guess there goes all of Spiderman’s credibility
I guess all the documents he produced were all fakes.
What a shame.


Spiderman.... Are you gay?
Not that there is anything wrong with that.
But if you are looking for some man love I think your on the wrong board.

:lame:

that sucked...try again.

I'll give you one more shot then I'm out of here.

[Ballbustah]

No... I really think you might be in the closet ready to come out.
Your sexual fantasies about men is alarming.
You make up what you can not conjure up.
Really... Perhaps you should try to engage in some man on man to try to solve your problem.

Best of luck to you....

[spiderman]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
No... I really think you might be in the closet ready to come out.
Your sexual fantasies about men is alarming.
You make up what you can not conjure up.
Really... Perhaps you should try to engage in some man on man to try to solve your problem.

Best of luck to you....


:rolleyes:

You have GOT to be the WORST ballbustah EVER

my 2 year old could have come up with something better then this...

...have a good weekend...

:thumb:

[O_P_T]

With regards to the whole free speech bit, I have one question.

George Carlin (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/filthywords.html) had a famous bit about the seven dirty words.

He was talking about the Supreme Court case of FCC vs Pacifica Foundation (http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/pacifica.html)

Since this took place in 1978, does that mean Jimmy Carter was trying to stop free speech?

[Ballbustah]

Originally posted by O_P_T
With regards to the whole free speech bit, I have one question.

George Carlin (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/filthywords.html) had a famous bit about the seven dirty words.

He was talking about the Supreme Court case of FCC vs Pacifica Foundation (http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/pacifica.html)

Since this took place in 1978, does that mean Jimmy Carter was trying to stop free speech?

Jimmy Carter didn't creat the 7 dirty words.... George Carlin did.
The Bush administraition has been trying to eliminate certain disc jockeys.
I suppose if you were to completely rearrange the facts in 1978 you could have Jimmy Carter trying to stop free speech.
But that might only be in your mind.

[Ballbustah]

Originally posted by spiderman
:rolleyes:

You have GOT to be the WORST ballbustah EVER

my 2 year old could have come up with something better then this...

...have a good weekend...

:thumb:


Your two year old thinks your gay too....
That is not very good.

[dchester]

Originally posted by Ballbustah Originally posted by O_P_T
With regards to the whole free speech bit, I have one question.

George Carlin (http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/filthywords.html) had a famous bit about the seven dirty words.

He was talking about the Supreme Court case of FCC vs Pacifica Foundation (http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/pacifica.html)

Since this took place in 1978, does that mean Jimmy Carter was trying to stop free speech? Jimmy Carter didn't creat the 7 dirty words.... George Carlin did.
The Bush administraition has been trying to eliminate certain disc jockeys.
I suppose if you were to completely rearrange the facts in 1978 you could have Jimmy Carter trying to stop free speech.
But that might only be in your mind.
I think that O_P_T made a great point. BTW, he said that the 7 dirty words was a George Carlin bit, so I have no clue why you felt the need to say that Carter didn't create it.

His example shows that the FCC under Carter was enforcing obsenity regulations. This appears to be similar to what I believe you have called "stopping free speech" under Bush. Based on this, why would you say that Bush is trying to stop free speech more than Jimmy Carter was in the 70's?
________
Jaguar Mark IV picture (http://www.ford-wiki.com/wiki/Jaguar_Mark_IV)

[Ballbustah]

You missed my point.
The current situation is coming from the Bush administration to silence certain disc jockeys.
The seven dirty Carlin words came from Carlin and had nothing to do with Carter. I do not even think Carter ever spoke about the seven dirty words.

Bush on the other hand has everything to do with what is going on now. He is the Kingpin who is trying to silence certain disc jockeys.

[O_P_T]

Originally posted by Ballbustah

The seven dirty Carlin words came from Carlin and had nothing to do with Carter

Go back and reread the links I provided.

Carlin came up with the seven dirty words bit in response to the case FCC vs Pacifica Network, argued at the Supreme Court.

Again I ask the question that if the FCC was enforcing obcenity laws while Carter was President, does this mean he was trying to limit free speech?

If no, then how is today's effort to enforce obcenity laws any different?

Now I tend to think that any of these complaints about obcenities is just plain silly since any listener has the option to just change the channel. As far as children is concerned, I don't think it's the government's responsibility to be the nanny for anyone's children.

If you don't want your kids listening to such stuff, get up off the couch and get involved in your kid's life.

[Annihilus]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
You missed my point.
The current situation is coming from the Bush administration to silence certain disc jockeys.
The seven dirty Carlin words came from Carlin and had nothing to do with Carter. I do not even think Carter ever spoke about the seven dirty words.

Bush on the other hand has everything to do with what is going on now. He is the Kingpin who is trying to silence certain disc jockeys.

Talk about Fox Mulder man - you could give him a run for his money, seriously (No offense, I like Fox).

Has Bush ever spoke about Howard Stern? Specifically? If so, please provide the link that shows where he tried to 'silence' him.

Dang, your logic is so fuzzy I can't even think straight. OPT and Dchester have posed excellent points you haven't yet addressed, so I'll keep my yap shut.

[bideau]

Ballbustah, you and I seem to have a general agreement on alot of issues. But I must say, I found your homophobic insults to be offensive. It's too bad we can't get past the juvenile stage when calling someone gay is considered to be an insult.

Now, as far as censorship goes....My understanding of Stern's position is how the FCC is enforcing obscenity violations. I'm not intimately involved with his issues, I get this second hand from listeners. I actually don't particularly like Stern's show. His issues are three fold: Lack of definition of what's allowed and what's not; Fining stations which air his show; inconsistencies in enforcment.

On the first, Stern contends that the FCC has never clearly defined whats allowed and not allowed. Someone like Stern has made a living pushing the limits. But he's always said that he would not cross the line if he knew what it was. The FCC has handed down fines after the fact, but they haven't made it clear what the violation was.

On the second, by fining stations that but his program, it makes them fearful of airing content that they can't directly control. Rather than go after the source, they're initmidating the "customer" into not airing the program. That intimidation is an indirect stifling of free speech since many stations will not air content that they can't directly control or that they may feel goes against the morals of the FCC. Why should CBS have been fined for Janet Jackson's screwup?

On the third, Stern contend that the FCC has not evenly applied their enforcement. One very cited example is an episode of Oprah which discussed, in detail, how teenagers perform oral sex. Stern would have been fined for that, Oprah never blinked. How about all the trash talk shows like Springer that have never run into the FCC? It does seem, at times, like Stern has a target on his backside.

That's how I understand it. And I do think there's some merit to the arguments. The bottom line, clearly define what's not allowed, enforce it evenly and fairly, and go after the source.

[Annihilus]

Originally posted by bideau
Ballbustah, you and I seem to have a general agreement on alot of issues. But I must say, I found your homophobic insults to be offensive. It's too bad we can't get past the juvenile stage when calling someone gay is considered to be an insult.

.....

That's how I understand it. And I do think there's some merit to the arguments. The bottom line, clearly define what's not allowed, enforce it evenly and fairly, and go after the source.

I agree 100% on the juvenalia being thrown around. Grow up already.

I also agree on YOUR assessment of the censorship issue, but what I wanted to hear from Ballbustah was how that was being specifically directed from the mouth of Bush. I just don't think that this is a partisan issue, let alone being dictated by Bush (like he doesn't have anything bigger to worry about).

[Ballbustah]

Originally posted by Annihilus
Talk about Fox Mulder man - you could give him a run for his money, seriously (No offense, I like Fox).

Has Bush ever spoke about Howard Stern? Specifically? If so, please provide the link that shows where he tried to 'silence' him.

Dang, your logic is so fuzzy I can't even think straight. OPT and Dchester have posed excellent points you haven't yet addressed, so I'll keep my yap shut.

The Howard Stern show has been fined many times.
I produced proof in a previous post.
Funny how OPT and Dchester come out with excellent points but you ignore mine.

[Ballbustah]

Originally posted by bideau
Ballbustah, you and I seem to have a general agreement on alot of issues. But I must say, I found your homophobic insults to be offensive. It's too bad we can't get past the juvenile stage when calling someone gay is considered to be an insult.

Now, as far as censorship goes....My understanding of Stern's position is how the FCC is enforcing obscenity violations. I'm not intimately involved with his issues, I get this second hand from listeners. I actually don't particularly like Stern's show. His issues are three fold: Lack of definition of what's allowed and what's not; Fining stations which air his show; inconsistencies in enforcment.

On the first, Stern contends that the FCC has never clearly defined whats allowed and not allowed. Someone like Stern has made a living pushing the limits. But he's always said that he would not cross the line if he knew what it was. The FCC has handed down fines after the fact, but they haven't made it clear what the violation was.

On the second, by fining stations that but his program, it makes them fearful of airing content that they can't directly control. Rather than go after the source, they're initmidating the "customer" into not airing the program. That intimidation is an indirect stifling of free speech since many stations will not air content that they can't directly control or that they may feel goes against the morals of the FCC. Why should CBS have been fined for Janet Jackson's screwup?

On the third, Stern contend that the FCC has not evenly applied their enforcement. One very cited example is an episode of Oprah which discussed, in detail, how teenagers perform oral sex. Stern would have been fined for that, Oprah never blinked. How about all the trash talk shows like Springer that have never run into the FCC? It does seem, at times, like Stern has a target on his backside.

That's how I understand it. And I do think there's some merit to the arguments. The bottom line, clearly define what's not allowed, enforce it evenly and fairly, and go after the source.


bideau
I did not start the homophobic insults. Spiderman did. I just fight fire with fire.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ballbustah
Spiderman, I like you, will you be with me!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was a complete fabrication by spiderman.

[bideau]

Originally posted by Annihilus
I also agree on YOUR assessment of the censorship issue, but what I wanted to hear from Ballbustah was how that was being specifically directed from the mouth of Bush. I just don't think that this is a partisan issue, let alone being dictated by Bush (like he doesn't have anything bigger to worry about).

The connection with Bush is the FCC chairman, Michael Powell, son of Colin Powell, who was appointed by Bush.

Whether fair or not, anytime the FCC comes down on someone who's openly campaigning against Bush, there will be an appearance of "payback". Powell owes his job to Bush (just as any chairman is appointed by the president) and is the Secretary of State's son, so conclusions can and will be drawn.

[Annihilus]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
The Howard Stern show has been fined many times.
I produced proof in a previous post.
Funny how OPT and Dchester come out with excellent points but you ignore mine.

How did I ignore your point?

I don't dispute that Stern has been fined a bazillion times - he's good at it.

I also showed YOU proof of Stern's support of the Democratic party and why HE thinks he was fined, but you ignored that.

We're just going around in circles here. I want a link to something (ANYTHING) that shows that Bush pulled the trigger on having Stern fined, that's all.

[Ballbustah]

Originally posted by bideau
The connection with Bush is the FCC chairman, Michael Powell, son of Colin Powell, who was appointed by Bush.

Whether fair or not, anytime the FCC comes down on someone who's openly campaigning against Bush, there will be an appearance of "payback". Powell owes his job to Bush (just as any chairman is appointed by the president) and is the Secretary of State's son, so conclusions can and will be drawn.

Proof.

[Annihilus]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
Proof.

Yawn.

That's like blaming the pawn broker for selling the gun to the criminal that robs a bank.

Not good enough for me.

[Undertaker #59]

Well, the proof is circumstantial. When the Janet Jackson thing happened and the associated uproar, Stern started speaking against Bush and the FCC's seemingly tighter policies. Shortly thereafter, Clear Channel yanked Stern on all of its stations, leading Stern and others to believe that Bush and Michael Powell were using the FCC to shut Stern down, and accusing Clear Channel of being Bush supporters.

On top of this, there is legislation that was recently passed, but has not been signed by Bush yet, that will fine the INDIVIDUAL broadcaster up to $500,000 for each offense (which as far as I know, the rules have not been clearly defined. The FCC seems to base its policy on the number of complaints).

When this is signed, Stern contends that he will be done on OTA broadcasting as he won't be able to afford it any longer.



If there is credence to this, its kinda scary in a fascist sense.

[bideau]

Originally posted by Annihilus
Yawn.

That's like blaming the pawn broker for selling the gun to the criminal that robs a bank.

Not good enough for me.

I never said it was absolute proof. Obviously, there would have to be a paper trail or "smoking gun."

But it does open the door to question the fairness with which the FCC, specifically Powell, handles enforcement. Because his father is a senior cabinet member, there is an intimate connection between the FCC and the administration. The chairman has to work harder to ensure that the rules are equally enforced.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
bideau
I did not start the homophobic insults. Spiderman did. I just fight fire with fire.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Ballbustah
Spiderman, I like you, will you be with me!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This was a complete fabrication by spiderman.

Ballbustah,

Do you work for CBS news? Anyone can look back at this thread and see how everything went down.

For the record, I was pushing your buttons about having a crush on me, because everytime I post something you post a response right below it within 10 minutes. Most of the time I ignore you, but sometimes (like Friday afternoon) I'm in a joking around type of mood so I engage you in a juvenile discussion.

Anyone can look back at my posts and see that I didn't say anything derogatory about homosexuals, I was joking around about you.

Anyways Ball(Rather)Bustah...you'd better go back and start editing your posts, because Bideau said he was offended by YOUR posts NOT mine.

This is such a waste of my time I can't even believe I'm bothering to respond.

[Ballbustah]

Maybe your showing a bit of immaturity by pushing my buttons.

Is it my fault I choose to respond after you push my buttons?

Joking around to say that someone else is a homosexual might be a little insulting. Perhaps you might refrain from that in the future.

It might be a good time to stop asking for trouble.

From the both of us.

[bideau]

Originally posted by spiderman
Ballbustah,

Do you work for CBS news? Anyone can look back at this thread and see how everything went down.

For the record, I was pushing your buttons about having a crush on me, because everytime I post something you post a response right below it within 10 minutes. Most of the time I ignore you, but sometimes (like Friday afternoon) I'm in a joking around type of mood so I engage you in a juvenile discussion.

Anyone can look back at my posts and see that I didn't say anything derogatory about homosexuals, I was joking around about you.

Anyways Ball(Rather)Bustah...you'd better go back and start editing your posts, because Bideau said he was offended by YOUR posts NOT mine.

This is such a waste of my time I can't even believe I'm bothering to respond.

In terms of the back and forth insults, there's plenty of blame to go around. It's bad enough that we have to read the juvenile insults going back and forth. But it touches a raw nerve for me when "gay" is passed around as an insult. And in case you're wondering, no, I'm not gay. But someone extremely important to me is and I will never sit idly by and allow it to be used as an insult.

Some of us have tried to keep this a reasonable, informed discussion. If all the two of you can contribute is juvenile insults, then I would suggest that you either start ignoring each other or take it offline.

[spiderman]

Originally posted by Ballbustah
Maybe your showing a bit of immaturity by pushing my buttons.

Is it my fault I choose to respond after you push my buttons?

It might be a good time to stop asking for trouble.

From the both of us.

Buddy, you really don't make any sense.

Bideau said he was offended by your "gay" comments.

You tried to say I was being "anti-gay" first.

I told you to look back and see that I didn't say anything about "gay people", all my comments were directed towards you having a crush on me.

Now you're moving the goal posts again, by not directly addressing either what I wrote or what Bideau wrote.

And another thing, it's funny how confrontational you've been with me saying things like:

You can't take what I have to dish out ...and

I kick people like you to the curb all the time...

...yet now you are trying to somehow position yourself as the victim.

Let's be perfectly clear, I'm perfectly happy ignoring you, but you follow me around the board, and respond to everything I say...honestly I really don't care, I have far too many other things to concern myself with,

But DON'T sit there and try to portray yourself as some kind of victim.

Just because I decided to engage you on Friday, and beat you at your own game...(which you are pathetically horrible at by the way), don't now try to act like I am the aggressor.

Bustah, if you have something intelligent to say fine, but I'm going to ask you one more time nicely...please stop following me around this board with antagonistic and juvenile comments. Otherwise I will be forced to put you on ignore, which for 2 grown adults is frankly ridiculous.

:D

[spiderman]

Originally posted by bideau
Some of us have tried to keep this a reasonable, informed discussion. If all the two of you can contribute is juvenile insults, then I would suggest that you either start ignoring each other or take it offline.

bideau,

I hope that you can please try and see that, (despite being on opposite sides of many issues :D) I try to treat everyone with dignity and respect. Mr. Bustah made it clear a few weeks back that (because he disagrees with me) that he is basically going to harrass me, and that "I better put him on ignore, because I can't take what he has to dish out".

Honestly, I couldn't care less...stuff like this doesn't bother me at all. Friday afternoon I was in a good mood, for a variety of personal reasons, so I felt like engaging him. Looking back on it, I realize that it probably wasn't a good idea, and honestly, I was just hoping to make a few of you guys laugh.

My apologies for polluting the board with this non-sense.

As of now I will cease and desist.

o:-)

[Ballbustah]

Hey Spiderman

I’m following you around…..
That is so comical I am laughing in your face right now.
What makes you think every time you respond to my posts you aren’t following me around. It works both ways buddy.
Boy, You have a lot to learn in life.
I insult only after I have been insulted.
You like to pretend your insults are not insults… Well that is not the way it is.
You throw this garbage around like it won’t stick to anything… but it does.
I offered to let things drop from here on out but you ignored my request.
That must mean you are spiteful and an angry man.

[Flagg the Wanderer]

Je SUS!

Is it possible that the two of you could STFU?

Sorry. We now return to our regularly scheduled insult hurling and logic dodging.

[Ballbustah]

Hey Flagg Wanderer...
Why don't you STFU.