Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

Foxfyre wrote:

nimh wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Except that one of the gunner's who WAS on Kerry's boat was among the Swift Boat vets. And others were on adjacent boats with a full view. And so far there is no indication that they intentionally lied. We know Kerry did.

What about all of Kerry's other crewmates? All intentionally lying too, when they stood up against the Swift claims?

None of them backed him up that they were in Cambodia with him.

Nope - but I dont think that was the issue - note that this was the post you were responding to:

snood wrote:

I am just as impressed by the fact that Kerry lied about his presence in Cambodia as all of you Bushites seem to be by the absence of any of the "swift-boat vets" at any of the events leading to his medals that they so heatedly dispute.

The swiftboaters accused Kerry of everything from falsifying his medals to committing a war crime himself. A roster of Kerry's own crewmates stood up against those allegations. You say we should believe the Swiftboaters because "one WAS on Kerry's boat [and] others were on adjacent boats with a full view" - and we should not believe Kerry because he was shown to have intentionally lied re: Cambodia. OK, so what about Kerry's own crewmates, a whole list of whom stood up to tell the story of how he did rightfully won his medals? Why shouldnt we believe them, even if we dont quite trust Kerry himself?

0 Replies

nimh wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
nimh wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Except that one of the gunner's who WAS on Kerry's boat was among the Swift Boat vets. And others were on adjacent boats with a full view. And so far there is no indication that they intentionally lied. We know Kerry did.

What about all of Kerry's other crewmates? All intentionally lying too, when they stood up against the Swift claims?

None of them backed him up that they were in Cambodia with him.

Nope - but I dont think that was the issue - note that this was the post you were responding to:

snood wrote:
I am just as impressed by the fact that Kerry lied about his presence in Cambodia as all of you Bushites seem to be by the absence of any of the "swift-boat vets" at any of the events leading to his medals that they so heatedly dispute.

The swiftboaters accused Kerry of everything from falsifying his medals to committing a war crime himself. A roster of Kerry's own crewmates stood up against those allegations. You say we should believe the Swiftboaters because "one WAS on Kerry's boat [and] others were on adjacent boats with a full view" - and we should not believe Kerry because he was shown to have intentionally lied re: Cambodia. OK, so what about Kerry's own crewmates, a whole list of whom stood up to tell the story of how he did rightfully won his medals? Why shouldnt we believe them, even if we dont quite trust Kerry himself?

Accusing and lying are separate things. There was ample evidence, even in the 'missing doctor's reports', etc., the curious circumstance of Kerry's discharge, etc. coupled with his proven misrepresentations of the facts to given the Swift Boaters some credibility in their accusations, and nobody to date has come up with anything to prove they were wrong about that. Was some of their rhetoric exaggerated in their anger at somebody they felt had completely misrepresented their own service? Almost certainly. Does that mean everything they said was wrong? Nope.

But even Kerry's own people finally had to admit he was never in Cambodia after he claimed that this event was "Seared...seared....SEARED into his memory."

And Kerry to this date, despite numerous promises to do so, has never signed the form releasing all his military records.

0 Replies

Time magazine reports in its newest issue that
"A White House misstep on port security has the G.O.P. running away from its President".

0 Replies

Walter Hinteler wrote:

Time magazine reports in its newest issue that
"A White House misstep on port security has the G.O.P. running away from its President".

You really don't take Time magazine seriously do you? A hot button here with me, I get Newsweek passed on to me. I would never pay for it myself. Front page headline screams "Cheney's Secret World." Inside, among other useless articles, the headline reads, "The Imperial (Vice) Presidency." The magazines are virtually useless in terms of actual news. The magazines are actually filled with nothing but opinion columns by ultra-liberal hacks. I would advise you to find a better, more reliable source of news.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

I would advise you to find a better, more reliable source of news.

Like, what?

0 Replies

I will admit it is tough anymore to find reliable news. As far as the ports, I do not think 99% of the people know hardly anything about how they are run, and what is involved here. And I do not think either Republican or Democrat politicians know a whole lot more than some of the rest of us. I think the reaction so far is nothing more than knee jerk. I would not suggest throwing away Time or Newsweek, but I would definitely not put much stock in them concerning many issues, particularly this one. They seem to like portraying any rift they may perceive among the Republican ranks, no matter how small, because they are huge supporters of liberal, Democrat causes.

It may be true that some Republicans are leery of the ports being run by a Middle Eastern country, but I think much of it is political because of citizens calling and faxing them, and when more of the facts are established, this whole issue may prove to be a tempest in a teapot.

As far as my news, I will look at all I hear and see, plus I will listen to talk radio, which dredges up much information not heard on the news. I read Time occasionally, Newsweek quite a bit, and I don't think either of them have much credibility. Just my opinion.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

As far as my news, I will look at all I hear and see, plus I will listen to talk radio, which dredges up much information not heard on the news. I read Time occasionally, Newsweek quite a bit, and I don't think either of them have much credibility. Just my opinion.

Certainly. Everybody here offers just his opinion. If he doesn't just cut and past. Besides Time and Newsweek, what are your news sources?

0 Replies

Can't speak for Okie, but I generally read CNN and BBC as well as A2K. Those are my MAIN sources. I back them up with Boortz, Realclearpolitics.com and commondreams.com for opinions based on the news.

0 Replies

I get news on the radio every hour on the hour while at work each day. I listen to a local talk show on radio every day, the host being moderate, neither Republican or Democrat, and the callers are the same, then Rush and Hannity, and other people occasionally, some of which are more liberal, like npr. I read Newsweek. I read most opinion columns in the newspaper every day, including liberal opinions, but also others like George Will, and a host of others. I check internet news, because I can choose and pick what I want to read or see. I watch some, but not alot of news on TV.

How about yourself?

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

... and commondreams.com ....

You had me going there .... just for a second.

0 Replies

For news on tv, I usually watch one of our national networks. If I missed them on tv or didn't bother to watch it, I usually check their websites on heute.de or tagesschau.de. I quite like to watch their streams, too, when I'm abroad. When I want to talk to somebody about something I've seen in the German news, I usually check if I can find an English version on Deutsche Welle. Those are the RSS-feeds I've got on my customized Netvibes page, too. Plus one from an English/German Austrian radio station that I'm usually listening to when I'm working. Offline, I'm reading either a local newspaper (good to check what movies are playing...) or a regional one (better journalism). They've both got websites, too. But I really prefer the paper versions. Too risky to have a mug of coffee standing on my laptop, is why. For news in English I usually check the BBC first.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
... and commondreams.com ....

You had me going there .... just for a second.

Oh, I thought he might. What with "know your enemy" and so on....

0 Replies

I never consindered Tim or any other magazine as a source for news but as ... magazines.

0 Replies

old europe wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
... and commondreams.com ....

You had me going there .... just for a second.

Oh, I thought he might. What with "know your enemy" and so on....

well, yes actually. How else can I constantly be reminded just how big an a-hole Fisk is if I don't read his sputum?

0 Replies

Quote:

Saddam Had WMD
investors.com editorial

0 Replies

Facts don't matter anymore. The media has already written history in stone. Bush lied about WMD. All of this proves that if you repeat a lie often enough, people start believing it. Bush lied, Bush lied, Bush lied, Bush lied. Got it now?

How about a real fact? My vote is: Pathetic press, pathetic press, pathetic press, pathetic press, pathetic press. Truly it is pathetic.

Thats why I listen to Talk Radio. At least you get some useful information.

Old Europe, I forgot to mention reading 2 newspapers per day for possible "news."

As far as WMD, all anyone need to have done is to have observed Hussein over the last 10 to 15 years, and the answer would be obvious by simply using a little bit of common sense.

Quote:

They deserve a full airing in the media, since they essentially validate part of Bush's casus belli for invading Iraq and deposing the murderous Saddam.

I won't hold my breath.

0 Replies

Best news sources: If you watch CNN AND Fox News you will get both left and right perspectives on most news. Actually you can get it all on Fox but so many think Fox is the GOP Network Channel that I recommend that it be backed up with CNN which we once affectionately called the Clinton News Network.

Balance the New York Times with the New York Post for the whole picture; balance the Washinton Post with the Washington Times for the whole picture, and balance the LA Times with the Chicago Sun for the whole picture. All of these sources are quite biased, but between them all, you can usually get the news that's out there once you filter out the garbage commentary reporters insert in their news stories these days.

For Radio you have a lot of conservative sources on the talk radio circuit balanced by CNN, ABC, CBS, and NBC newscasts, all of which are generally tilted left. And of course if you want a 100% biased radio source, stream in Air America.

Of the news magazines (Time, Newsweek, US News & World Report) I think the latter makes the best effort to give a balanced view of things. All three are good at providing back ground information on the news such as an in depth description of who the Shias, Sunnis, Kurds, etc. are and things like that.

0 Replies

Quote:

Thats why I listen to Talk Radio. At least you get some useful information.

Unfettered by editors or accuracy, reinforcing one's pre-existing position; yeah, talk radio is useful for something all right. Just not factual information.

Quote:

Bush lied, Bush lied, Bush lied, Bush lied. Got it now?

He most specifically has lied to the American public, on a number of occasions. This isn't even a matter of debate any longer, sheesh

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Let's play a quick game. I will quote a Clinton lie, then you post a Bush lie.

One rule. It must actually be a lie, which means that one knows that what they are saying is a lie, not that what they have said later proves to be untrue based on further investigations.

Clinton: "I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Monica Lewinski."

Your turn.

0 Replies

Let's start with an easy one:

"A wiretap requires a court order," President Bush declared in a statement in 2004. He added, "When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order when we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand [that] constitutional guarantees are in place... because we value the Constitution."

Direct, bold-faced lie.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know