0
   

This is interesting,I wonder why the Kerry camp said no.

 
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Aug, 2004 03:45 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Quote:
Beth,
How do you know the book is fiction?
Were you there? Did you SEE the events the book speaks about?
Since the answer to those questions is NO,and since these vets were there,then we have to let them speak and tell what they know.
Even if you think they are wrong,you DONT KNOW,because you WERENT THERE.


Neither were you, so how do you know it isn't?
How do you know they ARE telling the truth, especially given the fact that several of them have praised Kerry in the past?
There is as much evidence that it is fiction as there is that it is truth; the most telling evidence is that according to the U.S. gov't, it is fiction. Bush was just on TV yesterday saying he didn't support what the SBVfT were claiming.

Cycloptichorn


I have NEVER claimed it was truth,and you wont find any posts from me saying it was true.
I DONT KNOW if their stories are true or not,but I have said I am tempted to believe them,because they havent changed their story at all.
Kerry has changed his story several times.
And we KNOW he lied about being in Cambodia,and even you cannot deny that.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Aug, 2004 03:46 pm
BTW Cyclops,
I never said that the Bush campaign wasnt doing it.I just pointed out the obvious ones.BUT,I am willing to bet that if we had to count them,we would find more distortions by the democrats.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Aug, 2004 04:00 pm
I bet we wouldn't. I did a little search of ol' factcheck.org today, and Your Boy Bush has had a lot more time and opportunities to misquote statistics and to make mistakes than Kerry has...

But, who has the time? Perhaps we could talk about policy instead of the past?

Cycloptichorn

p.s. you might want to check out the thread where Nimh posted the little graphic made up by the NYT to show how silly the phrase 'the swift boat vets haven't changed their story' is. Or, if you like, go look over with the freepers and take a look at what passes for analysis over there:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1195870/posts
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Aug, 2004 04:09 pm
Sorry,
But I dont want to have ANYTHING to do with the Freepers.
They claim to be conservatives,but they are NOT.
They are a bunch of fruitcakes that define "idiot fringe" of the republican party.
Of course,the left has the same kinds of people,but the left wont admit it.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Tue 24 Aug, 2004 04:57 pm
mysteryman wrote:
ehBeth wrote:
I'd recommend a registration with factcheck.org to everyone. Interesting stuff pops up.


Your right,lets look at factcheck.org.
On another campaign statement that the dems have made about Bush losing manufacturing jobs. But,the left might not like it...

<snip>



That's precisely why I like factcheck.
I don't want to see just one or two sides of a discussion. I want to see as many angles as there are, and as many as I can tuck into my brain (I've got a huuuuuuge head, so I'll be ok).

Left. Right. Whatever.
Remember Dragnet?
Just the facts, Ma'am. Just the facts.

I've always been fond of that approach to things. We can't always get the straight facts - but there are people who are out there trying to sort out all the varying tales offered to us. I like factcheck, I like snopes.
0 Replies
 
braindonor
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2004 03:41 pm
Going back to the first page, it is interesting that liberals wont read sources they don't like. Since 99% of what is on Drudge is linked to other sources, most of them "mainstream", quarantining oneself from the Drudge Report seems especially silly. Conservatives get to listen to the other side every day from the networks and cable, get to pay, via taxes, to listen to the other side on NPR. Then there is the standard of news reporting, the NY times, having given up all pretense of fairness

It is absolutely the case that the liberal side must be indefensible if it cannot read and answer criticism from the other side.
0 Replies
 
angie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 25 Aug, 2004 03:52 pm
The fact that the Democratic convention occurred so many weeks before the Republican one made the playing field substantially "un-level" financially, so I am not bothered by groups such as MoveOn.org The cut-off for using unlimited funds ought to be the same.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/15/2024 at 12:26:47