PDA

View Full Version : CBS News is a Joke


Lenny Lennerson
September 16th 04, 12:51 AM
http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040914-114023-3708r.htm

- And people "whine" and "bitch" about FOX News being unfair.

Jim
September 16th 04, 01:01 AM
"Lenny Lennerson" > wrote in message
om...
> http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040914-114023-3708r.htm
>
> - And people "whine" and "bitch" about FOX News being unfair.

I dont know about CBS. Seems like a thing for you righties to grab on to
now. FOX News is unfair 24/7.

Jim

Harry Mofo
September 16th 04, 02:09 AM
Lenny Lennerson wrote in
> :

>http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040914-114023-3708r.htm
>
>- And people "whine" and "bitch" about FOX News being unfair.

Looks like these documents were as easily debunked as the "Niger
yellowcake" documents. Forgery just ain't what it used to be. *sigh*

--
Harry

MJL
September 16th 04, 03:16 AM
On 15 Sep 2004 16:51:23 -0700, (Lenny Lennerson)
wrote:

>http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040914-114023-3708r.htm
>
>- And people "whine" and "bitch" about FOX News being unfair.

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/cbsstatement.pdf

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/matley1.pdf

http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/pierce1.pdf


--
http://www.texansfortruth.org/

ATP
September 16th 04, 04:02 AM
"Lenny Lennerson" > wrote in message
om...
> http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040914-114023-3708r.htm
>
> - And people "whine" and "bitch" about FOX News being unfair.

A paper owned and controlled by Sun Myung Moon sounds like a good place to
get unbiased news.

http://www.realjournalism.net/times.htm

Top Sirloin
September 16th 04, 04:51 AM
MJL wrote:
> On 15 Sep 2004 16:51:23 -0700, (Lenny Lennerson)
> wrote:
>
>
>>http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040914-114023-3708r.htm
>>
>>- And people "whine" and "bitch" about FOX News being unfair.
>
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/cbsstatement.pdf
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/matley1.pdf
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/pierce1.pdf

Thanks for expanding on the fact that they're a joke.

Now CBS wants to admit that the memos were fake
but the content was "accurate". LOL!

I'm going to go type up some memos from Dan Rather
to James Carville orchestrating the whole fake
memo fiasco, and if busted I'll just claim it was
justified because I was _sure_ it happened. That's
how journalism works, right?

Killians widow needs to sue CBS for libel-they can
either name their source in discovery or settle
out of court for millions.

Heck, _Bush_ should sue CBS for libel too.

--
Scott Johnson / scottjohnson at kc dot rr dot com

Jim
September 16th 04, 05:21 AM
"Top Sirloin" > wrote in message
...
> MJL wrote:
> > On 15 Sep 2004 16:51:23 -0700, (Lenny Lennerson)
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040914-114023-3708r.htm
> >>
> >>- And people "whine" and "bitch" about FOX News being unfair.
> >
> >
> > http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/cbsstatement.pdf
> >
> > http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/matley1.pdf
> >
> > http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/pierce1.pdf
>
> Thanks for expanding on the fact that they're a joke.
>
> Now CBS wants to admit that the memos were fake
> but the content was "accurate". LOL!
>
> I'm going to go type up some memos from Dan Rather
> to James Carville orchestrating the whole fake
> memo fiasco, and if busted I'll just claim it was
> justified because I was _sure_ it happened. That's
> how journalism works, right?
>
> Killians widow needs to sue CBS for libel-they can
> either name their source in discovery or settle
> out of court for millions.
>
> Heck, _Bush_ should sue CBS for libel too.

The American people should put Bush in prison.

Jim

Proton Soup
September 16th 04, 05:52 AM
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 03:51:20 GMT, Top Sirloin
> wrote:

>MJL wrote:
>> On 15 Sep 2004 16:51:23 -0700, (Lenny Lennerson)
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040914-114023-3708r.htm
>>>
>>>- And people "whine" and "bitch" about FOX News being unfair.
>>
>>
>> http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/cbsstatement.pdf
>>
>> http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/matley1.pdf
>>
>> http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/pierce1.pdf
>
>Thanks for expanding on the fact that they're a joke.
>
>Now CBS wants to admit that the memos were fake
>but the content was "accurate". LOL!

Maybe it was meant to be one of those "dramatic re-enactments".

>I'm going to go type up some memos from Dan Rather
>to James Carville orchestrating the whole fake
>memo fiasco, and if busted I'll just claim it was
>justified because I was _sure_ it happened. That's
>how journalism works, right?
>
>Killians widow needs to sue CBS for libel-they can
>either name their source in discovery or settle
>out of court for millions.
>
>Heck, _Bush_ should sue CBS for libel too.

I would rather that he didn't, and that politicians at that level
weren't allowed to sue for such things, anyway. Better that we just
have a system where all the info can be brought to the surface and let
the people figure it out for themselves. I think it's clear to
everyone who isn't on the left lunatic fringe now that it was all a
lie.

Whoever perpetuated this fraud either thought that it'd take until
after the election before the public caught on (at which point it'd
either be too late, or no one would care anymore), or they're just
****ing retarded.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

Will Brink
September 16th 04, 02:07 PM
In article >,
Top Sirloin > wrote:

> MJL wrote:
> > On 15 Sep 2004 16:51:23 -0700, (Lenny Lennerson)
> > wrote:
> >
> >
> >>http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040914-114023-3708r.htm
> >>
> >>- And people "whine" and "bitch" about FOX News being unfair.
> >
> >
> > http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/cbsstatement.pdf
> >
> > http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/matley1.pdf
> >
> > http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/pierce1.pdf
>
> Thanks for expanding on the fact that they're a joke.
>
> Now CBS wants to admit that the memos were fake
> but the content was "accurate". LOL!

They did neither.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Top Sirloin
September 16th 04, 02:24 PM
Jim wrote:
> "Lenny Lennerson" > wrote in message
> om...
>
>>http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040914-114023-3708r.htm
>>
>>- And people "whine" and "bitch" about FOX News being unfair.
>
>
> I dont know about CBS. Seems like a thing for you righties to grab on to
> now. FOX News is unfair 24/7.

Any network that has Dr. Cornell West as a guest
and _advertises_ it can't claim membership in the
vast right wing conspiracy.

--
Scott Johnson / scottjohnson at kc dot rr dot com

Top Sirloin
September 16th 04, 02:26 PM
Jim wrote:


> The American people should put Bush in prison.

The reminds me of something: what did we do with
all dudes in Gitmo during Hurricanes Frances and
Ivan? Remember they're outside in chain link cells.

--
Scott Johnson / scottjohnson at kc dot rr dot com

John Hanson
September 16th 04, 04:23 PM
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 00:21:11 -0400, "Jim" > wrote
in misc.fitness.weights:

>
>"Top Sirloin" > wrote in message
...
>> MJL wrote:
>> > On 15 Sep 2004 16:51:23 -0700, (Lenny Lennerson)
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> >>http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040914-114023-3708r.htm
>> >>
>> >>- And people "whine" and "bitch" about FOX News being unfair.
>> >
>> >
>> > http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/cbsstatement.pdf
>> >
>> > http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/matley1.pdf
>> >
>> > http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/pierce1.pdf
>>
>> Thanks for expanding on the fact that they're a joke.
>>
>> Now CBS wants to admit that the memos were fake
>> but the content was "accurate". LOL!
>>
>> I'm going to go type up some memos from Dan Rather
>> to James Carville orchestrating the whole fake
>> memo fiasco, and if busted I'll just claim it was
>> justified because I was _sure_ it happened. That's
>> how journalism works, right?
>>
>> Killians widow needs to sue CBS for libel-they can
>> either name their source in discovery or settle
>> out of court for millions.
>>
>> Heck, _Bush_ should sue CBS for libel too.
>
>The American people should put Bush in prison.
>
And what should they convict him of?

Will Brink
September 16th 04, 04:24 PM
In article >,
Top Sirloin > wrote:

> Jim wrote:
>
>
> > The American people should put Bush in prison.
>
> The reminds me of something: what did we do with
> all dudes in Gitmo during Hurricanes Frances and
> Ivan? Remember they're outside in chain link cells.

The troops yelled from their dry shelters "How do ya like Allah now?!" I
assumed.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

bc
September 16th 04, 07:06 PM
Will Brink > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> Top Sirloin > wrote:
>
> > MJL wrote:
> > > On 15 Sep 2004 16:51:23 -0700, (Lenny Lennerson)
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040914-114023-3708r.htm
> > >>
> > >>- And people "whine" and "bitch" about FOX News being unfair.
> > >
> > >
> > > http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/cbsstatement.pdf
> > >
> > > http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/matley1.pdf
> > >
> > > http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/pierce1.pdf
> >
> > Thanks for expanding on the fact that they're a joke.
> >
> > Now CBS wants to admit that the memos were fake
> > but the content was "accurate". LOL!
>
> They did neither.

I saw Dan Rather last night saying, "Whether or not the memos are
genuine, we know the information in them is true." Then they showed
him interviewing the secretary who was supposed to have typed them and
she said she didn't think they were real, but that the information was
accurate.

- bc

Lenny Lennerson
September 16th 04, 07:15 PM
> > Now CBS wants to admit that the memos were fake
> > but the content was "accurate". LOL!
>
> They did neither.

- "I know that I didn't type them," Knox said in an interview
Wednesday on the "CBS Evening News." "However, the information in
those is correct."

a.k.a. "The memos are fake but the content of the fake memos is
accurate."

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6019186/

John Hanson
September 16th 04, 11:38 PM
On 16 Sep 2004 11:15:25 -0700, (Lenny Lennerson)
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>> > Now CBS wants to admit that the memos were fake
>> > but the content was "accurate". LOL!
>>
>> They did neither.
>
>- "I know that I didn't type them," Knox said in an interview
>Wednesday on the "CBS Evening News." "However, the information in
>those is correct."
>
>a.k.a. "The memos are fake but the content of the fake memos is
>accurate."
>
>http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6019186/

I wonder what Knox's political affiliation is.

MJL
September 17th 04, 01:18 AM
On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 03:51:20 GMT, Top Sirloin
> wrote:

>MJL wrote:
>> On 15 Sep 2004 16:51:23 -0700, (Lenny Lennerson)
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040914-114023-3708r.htm
>>>
>>>- And people "whine" and "bitch" about FOX News being unfair.
>>
>>
>> http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/cbsstatement.pdf
>>
>> http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/matley1.pdf
>>
>> http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/pierce1.pdf
>
>Thanks for expanding on the fact that they're a joke.
>
>Now CBS wants to admit that the memos were fake
>but the content was "accurate". LOL!
----
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/06/politics/main641481.shtml

{excerpt}
"We will keep an open mind and we will continue to report credible
evidence and responsible points of view as we try to answer the
questions raised about the authenticity of the documents," CBS News
Anchor Dan Rather said on 60 Minutes on Wednesday.

But Rather said CBS' critics have never attacked the thrust of the
network's story: that Mr. Bush received preferential treatment to get
into the National Guard and stay stateside during the Vietnam War, and
failed to satisfy the requirements of his service.

"If we uncover any information to the contrary, rest assured we shall
report that also," the embattled anchor said.

----

www.texansfortruth.com


Texans for Truth is offering a reward of $50,000 for original
information proving whether George W. Bush performed duties in the Air
National Guard between May 1972 and May 1973 at Dannelly Air National
Guard Base in Alabama on the terms and conditions set forth here. This
offer of reward expires on September 30, 2004.
----

If Dubya is your kinda guy shouldn't you get busy submitting that
proof to claim your money?


--
http://www.texansfortruth.org/

Austin Newton Rice
September 17th 04, 02:08 AM
"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 00:21:11 -0400, "Jim" > wrote
> in misc.fitness.weights:
>
>>
>>"Top Sirloin" > wrote in message
...
>>> MJL wrote:
>>> > On 15 Sep 2004 16:51:23 -0700, (Lenny Lennerson)
>>> > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> >>http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040914-114023-3708r.htm
>>> >>
>>> >>- And people "whine" and "bitch" about FOX News being unfair.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/cbsstatement.pdf
>>> >
>>> > http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/matley1.pdf
>>> >
>>> > http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/pierce1.pdf
>>>
>>> Thanks for expanding on the fact that they're a joke.
>>>
>>> Now CBS wants to admit that the memos were fake
>>> but the content was "accurate". LOL!
>>>
>>> I'm going to go type up some memos from Dan Rather
>>> to James Carville orchestrating the whole fake
>>> memo fiasco, and if busted I'll just claim it was
>>> justified because I was _sure_ it happened. That's
>>> how journalism works, right?
>>>
>>> Killians widow needs to sue CBS for libel-they can
>>> either name their source in discovery or settle
>>> out of court for millions.
>>>
>>> Heck, _Bush_ should sue CBS for libel too.
>>
>>The American people should put Bush in prison.
>>
> And what should they convict him of?
>

war crimes

John Hanson
September 17th 04, 02:27 AM
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 01:08:33 GMT, "Austin Newton Rice"
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>
>"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 16 Sep 2004 00:21:11 -0400, "Jim" > wrote
>> in misc.fitness.weights:
>>
>>>
>>>"Top Sirloin" > wrote in message
...
>>>> MJL wrote:
>>>> > On 15 Sep 2004 16:51:23 -0700, (Lenny Lennerson)
>>>> > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> >>http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040914-114023-3708r.htm
>>>> >>
>>>> >>- And people "whine" and "bitch" about FOX News being unfair.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/cbsstatement.pdf
>>>> >
>>>> > http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/matley1.pdf
>>>> >
>>>> > http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/pierce1.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for expanding on the fact that they're a joke.
>>>>
>>>> Now CBS wants to admit that the memos were fake
>>>> but the content was "accurate". LOL!
>>>>
>>>> I'm going to go type up some memos from Dan Rather
>>>> to James Carville orchestrating the whole fake
>>>> memo fiasco, and if busted I'll just claim it was
>>>> justified because I was _sure_ it happened. That's
>>>> how journalism works, right?
>>>>
>>>> Killians widow needs to sue CBS for libel-they can
>>>> either name their source in discovery or settle
>>>> out of court for millions.
>>>>
>>>> Heck, _Bush_ should sue CBS for libel too.
>>>
>>>The American people should put Bush in prison.
>>>
>> And what should they convict him of?
>>
>
>war crimes
>
What specific war crimes has he committed?

Top Sirloin
September 17th 04, 02:46 PM
Will Brink wrote:

> You are clearly paraphrasing Rather in an attempt to make your point.
> Rather said something to the effect of CBS stands by the authenticity
> of the documents as the experts we have consulted with have assured us
> type thing. What you are willing to grasp at to maintain your warm
> fuzzy opinion of Bush is very transparent.

Except all of CBS's experts have fled the
plantation! I nominate the above for quote of the
year - if you think the documents are authenthic
_you're_ the one who's grasping, not bc.

Why didn't Dan just ask her what kind of
typewriter she used in the TANG?

--
Scott Johnson / scottjohnson at kc dot rr dot com

Will Brink
September 17th 04, 02:47 PM
In article >,
(Lenny Lennerson) wrote:

> > > Now CBS wants to admit that the memos were fake
> > > but the content was "accurate". LOL!
> >
> > They did neither.
>
> - "I know that I didn't type them," Knox said in an interview
> Wednesday on the "CBS Evening News." "However, the information in
> those is correct."
>
> a.k.a. "The memos are fake but the content of the fake memos is
> accurate."

Neither of which has anything to do with CBS admitting they were fake
but the content was accurate.

>
> http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6019186/

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Will Brink
September 17th 04, 02:47 PM
In article >,
John Hanson > wrote:

> On 16 Sep 2004 11:15:25 -0700, (Lenny Lennerson)
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>
> >> > Now CBS wants to admit that the memos were fake
> >> > but the content was "accurate". LOL!
> >>
> >> They did neither.
> >
> >- "I know that I didn't type them," Knox said in an interview
> >Wednesday on the "CBS Evening News." "However, the information in
> >those is correct."
> >
> >a.k.a. "The memos are fake but the content of the fake memos is
> >accurate."
> >
> >http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6019186/
>
> I wonder what Knox's political affiliation is.
>

I wondered the same thing.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Will Brink
September 17th 04, 02:53 PM
In article >,
(bc) wrote:

> Will Brink > wrote in message
> >...
> > In article >,
> > Top Sirloin > wrote:
> >
> > > MJL wrote:
> > > > On 15 Sep 2004 16:51:23 -0700, (Lenny Lennerson)
> > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040914-114023-3708r.htm
> > > >>
> > > >>- And people "whine" and "bitch" about FOX News being unfair.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/cbsstatement.pdf
> > > >
> > > > http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/matley1.pdf
> > > >
> > > > http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/pierce1.pdf
> > >
> > > Thanks for expanding on the fact that they're a joke.
> > >
> > > Now CBS wants to admit that the memos were fake
> > > but the content was "accurate". LOL!
> >
> > They did neither.
>
> I saw Dan Rather last night saying, "Whether or not the memos are
> genuine, we know the information in them is true."

You are clearly paraphrasing Rather in an attempt to make your point.
Rather said something to the effect of CBS stands by the authenticity
of the documents as the experts we have consulted with have assured us
type thing. What you are willing to grasp at to maintain your warm
fuzzy opinion of Bush is very transparent.

> Then they showed
> him interviewing the secretary who was supposed to have typed them and
> she said she didn't think they were real, but that the information was
> accurate.

Exactly. And you can't see the difference?

>
> - bc

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

truegrit
September 17th 04, 07:32 PM
Top Sirloin > wrote in message >...
> Will Brink wrote:
>
> > You are clearly paraphrasing Rather in an attempt to make your point.
> > Rather said something to the effect of CBS stands by the authenticity
> > of the documents as the experts we have consulted with have assured us
> > type thing. What you are willing to grasp at to maintain your warm
> > fuzzy opinion of Bush is very transparent.
>
> Except all of CBS's experts have fled the
> plantation! I nominate the above for quote of the
> year - if you think the documents are authenthic
> _you're_ the one who's grasping, not bc.
>
> Why didn't Dan just ask her what kind of
> typewriter she used in the TANG?

Question for MFW users: would it affect your view of Bush if
regardless of the authenticity of the documents, it turned out their
content was accurate? Personally, I don't think it adds or subtracts
anything to what I know of Bush. If the info is correct, it shows
Bush was a) the beneficiary of a powerful family; and b) not
particularly responsible at that time. So what else is new?

Dally
September 17th 04, 07:43 PM
truegrit wrote:

> Question for MFW users: would it affect your view of Bush if
> regardless of the authenticity of the documents, it turned out their
> content was accurate? Personally, I don't think it adds or subtracts
> anything to what I know of Bush. If the info is correct, it shows
> Bush was a) the beneficiary of a powerful family; and b) not
> particularly responsible at that time. So what else is new?

Good question. Is anyone voting for Bush because of his bravery during
Vietnam? I doubt it.

There's a scathing story about Dick Cheney in this week's issue of
Rolling Stone magazine. It's not up on the website yet, but I suspect
it will be next week. The premise is that Dick Cheney is just shy of
Satan only not as nice.

It won't make any difference to anyone, though.

In fact, Rolling Stone has an article on why it won't make any
difference up at their website. The premise of that is that only the
most indifferent and uneducated voters in the few swing states make any
difference at all. And they don't read Rolling Stone. They listen to
Howard Stern and Country Music.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/6477828?

Dally

Will Brink
September 17th 04, 07:55 PM
In article >,
Top Sirloin > wrote:

> Will Brink wrote:
>
> > You are clearly paraphrasing Rather in an attempt to make your point.
> > Rather said something to the effect of 3CBS stands by the authenticity
> > of the documents as the experts we have consulted with have assured usS?2
> > type thing. What you are willing to grasp at to maintain your warm
> > fuzzy opinion of Bush is very transparent.
>
> Except all of CBS's experts have fled the
> plantation! I nominate the above for quote of the
> year - if you think the documents are authenthic
> _you're_ the one who's grasping, not bc.

What I or you "think" does not matter.

>
> Why didn't Dan just ask her what kind of
> typewriter she used in the TANG?

Ask Dan.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

bc
September 17th 04, 11:43 PM
Will Brink > wrote in message >...
> In article >,
> (bc) wrote:
>
> > Will Brink > wrote in message
> > >...
> > > In article >,
> > > Top Sirloin > wrote:
> > >
> > > > MJL wrote:
> > > > > On 15 Sep 2004 16:51:23 -0700, (Lenny Lennerson)
> > > > > wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >>http://washingtontimes.com/national/20040914-114023-3708r.htm
> > > > >>
> > > > >>- And people "whine" and "bitch" about FOX News being unfair.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/cbsstatement.pdf
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/matley1.pdf
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.cbsnews.com/htdocs/pdf/pierce1.pdf
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for expanding on the fact that they're a joke.
> > > >
> > > > Now CBS wants to admit that the memos were fake
> > > > but the content was "accurate". LOL!
> > >
> > > They did neither.
> >
> > I saw Dan Rather last night saying, "Whether or not the memos are
> > genuine, we know the information in them is true."
>
> You are clearly paraphrasing Rather in an attempt to make your point.

Yes

> Rather said something to the effect of CBS stands by the authenticity
> of the documents as the experts we have consulted with have assured us?
> type thing. What you are willing to grasp at to maintain your warm
> fuzzy opinion of Bush is very transparent.

I wasn't grasping at anything. I was saying that Rather allowed for
the possibility they were false, put on the lady who was supposed to
have typed them and interviewed her saying she didn't, but also
interviewed her saying the situation represented by the memos was
accurate.

I don't particularly like Bush. I was just providing a data point
from the Rather stuff I saw on TV.

>
> > Then they showed
> > him interviewing the secretary who was supposed to have typed them and
> > she said she didn't think they were real, but that the information was
> > accurate.
>
> Exactly. And you can't see the difference?

Again, I'm not driving a political agenda, I was just providing info.

My personal opinion? I think Bush shirked his duty there. I think he
was playing with his upper echelon, don't need to try very hard
status. I don't think he's very bright, and I won't vote for him.

- bc

aj
September 18th 04, 12:51 AM
On 2004-09-17, Dally > wrote:
> truegrit wrote:
>
>> Question for MFW users: would it affect your view of Bush if
>> regardless of the authenticity of the documents, it turned out their
>> content was accurate? Personally, I don't think it adds or subtracts
>> anything to what I know of Bush. If the info is correct, it shows
>> Bush was a) the beneficiary of a powerful family; and b) not
>> particularly responsible at that time. So what else is new?
>
> Good question. Is anyone voting for Bush because of his bravery during
> Vietnam? I doubt it.
>
> There's a scathing story about Dick Cheney in this week's issue of
> Rolling Stone magazine. It's not up on the website yet, but I suspect
> it will be next week. The premise is that Dick Cheney is just shy of
> Satan only not as nice.

He does live in the center of the Earth.

--
-aj
I'll mess with Texas.

Madelin McKinnon
September 18th 04, 01:04 AM
Dan Rather is a big boy. He can defend himself because he has CBS
behind him. Margie Schoedinger was not so lucky. She did not have
the luxury to promote her views on national television. Margie
Schoedinger was a woman who filed a sexual assault lawsuit against
George W. Bush. Margie Schoedinger claimed that George Bush had
raped her, but the court documents filed to prove the point were so
outrageous, that it is easier to believe in space aliens --which
raises the question, were the court documents authentic? In
retrospect, court documents outlined bizarre and outrageous
allegations as a tactic to divert attention away from any detail
about the alleged rape. It would be nice to be able to confirm or
deny what is beginning to look like a common, diversionary tactic,
but on September 22nd 2003, Ms. Schoedinger received a gunshot wound
to the head, allegedly, self-inflicted. Dan Rather has the
opportunity to defend himself against the effort to discredit him.
Ms. Schoedinger was denied the opportunity. Ms. Schoedinger's law
suit was filed on December 2, 2002 and at the time, she was sane and
competent enough to act as her own legal representative.

Ms. Schoedinger was not a publicity seeker. When questioned by a
reporter, the 38-year-old African-American woman who lived in the
Houston suburb of Missouri City, said, "I am still trying to
prosecute [the lawsuit], I want to get this matter settled and go on
with my life." At the same time, Schoedinger was surprised the case
wasn't covered more in the media because, in her own words, "it is
true......People have to be accountable for what they do, and that's
why I'm pursuing it." Ms. Schoedinger did not sound like a crackpot
who filed bizarre court documents and killed herself. There was
nothing outlandish about Ms. Schoedinger, outside the possibility
that outlandish court documents were not authentic --they were
merely supposed to divert attention away from Ms. Schoedinger's
assertion that she had been raped by George Bush.

It is ironic that the Republican trash machine has inadvertently
revived the memory of Ms. Schoedinger. Indeed, the current effort to
bury the embarrassing gaps of Bush's National Guard service, have
resurrected Margie Schoedinger's neglected story. After all, this
controversy about the authenticity of documented evidence is
ultimately about credibility, and how do we assess that? First and
foremost, it is important to understand the fact that Karl Rove rose
to political prominence by stealing Democratic candidate letterhead
and producing fraudulent documentation, to produce the opportunity
to promote lies about democrats. Karl Rove is the expert in the art
of using fraudulent documentation to misrepresent the truth, and it
is therefore reasonable to assume that the current, CBS controversy
is nothing more than manufactured theatre -to shift the focus away
from the reliable information in the document to the document
itself.

Clearly, that is the only consequence of the current controversy
that is produced by repeatedly insisting that the 60 Minutes story
about newly found documents about President Bush's National Guard
service has eliminated any remaining credibility at CBS News.
Likewise, the absurd demand to fire Dan Rather is equally
preposterous and this obsessive determination to divert attention
away from credible allegations by creating a phony controversy is
not new. It is the time honored practice that has repeatedly rescued
George Bush from embarrassing allegations.

Dan Rather is currently being attacked with the ferocity that is
spared for people who tell the truth. After all, there is no dispute
over the fact that George Bush received preferential treatment to
get into the National Guard and stay stateside during the Vietnam
War, and that he failed to satisfy the requirements of his service.
The documents that are necessary to prove or dispute these well
known facts have conveniently vanished without a trace or their
authenticity is challenged, but that does not change anything
because the truth is absolutely invincible.

Bill Burkett, a retired National Guard officer from Texas, witnessed
efforts in 1997 in Texas by allies of then-Gov. Bush to destroy
military records that might "embarrass the governor," but that does
not change anything because the truth is absolutely invincible.
Perhaps, Bush's allies think that the current, National Guard
document is not authentic because they thought they destroyed
everything. The White House contends Mr. Bush received no favorable
treatment and fulfilled his duties. If that is the case, the White
House should produce the documents that prove it. In the meantime,
the tactics that Karl Rove is bringing to the White House are
absolutely repugnant. If, for example, somebody decided to attack
the credibility of Ms. Schoedinger by making her allegations sound
preposterous [ie. the outlandish statement of claim is not
authentic], Karl Rove's perverse capacity to destroy the substance
of an allegation, demands serious investigation. Did Ms. Schoedinger
in fact kill herself, or is she a victim of Karl Rove's slimey
tactics? We all know that George Bush avoided service in Vietnam by
pretending to be on active duty in the National Guard, but what else
is George W. Bush trying to cover up?

http://media.shorturl.com

MJL
September 18th 04, 02:17 AM
On 17 Sep 2004 11:32:25 -0700, (truegrit) wrote:

>Top Sirloin > wrote in message >...
>> Will Brink wrote:
>>
>> > You are clearly paraphrasing Rather in an attempt to make your point.
>> > Rather said something to the effect of CBS stands by the authenticity
>> > of the documents as the experts we have consulted with have assured us
>> > type thing. What you are willing to grasp at to maintain your warm
>> > fuzzy opinion of Bush is very transparent.
>>
>> Except all of CBS's experts have fled the
>> plantation! I nominate the above for quote of the
>> year - if you think the documents are authenthic
>> _you're_ the one who's grasping, not bc.
>>
>> Why didn't Dan just ask her what kind of
>> typewriter she used in the TANG?
>
>Question for MFW users: would it affect your view of Bush if
>regardless of the authenticity of the documents, it turned out their
>content was accurate? Personally, I don't think it adds or subtracts
>anything to what I know of Bush. If the info is correct, it shows
>Bush was a) the beneficiary of a powerful family; and b) not
>particularly responsible at that time. So what else is new?

What's the Matter With Kansas

Read it.

If I had to bottom-line it, no it would not matter. Backlashers are
in the hip pocket of neocons and the neos know EXACTLY how to push
every button and pull every lever. I admit it is virtuoso performance
by a group of wealthy nihilistic elitists that have convinced Joe and
Jane White Biblebumber that the neos are "just like them". To do this
while linking the corporate media with the progressive liberals is
even more impressive.

The neos found this ABC formula that works every single time they use
it and it is small consolation to point at the backlashers and laugh.
But it is better than no consolation at all.


--
http://www.texansfortruth.org/

John M. Williams
September 18th 04, 04:31 AM
MJL > wrote:
>
>Backlashers are
>in the hip pocket of neocons and the neos know EXACTLY how to push
>every button and pull every lever. I admit it is virtuoso performance
>by a group of wealthy nihilistic elitists that have convinced Joe and
>Jane White Biblebumber that the neos are "just like them".

You mean like how John Kerry, educated at the finest academies, prep
schools, and universities in Europe and America, and married to an
ultra-wealthy heiress, convinces inner-city blacks and Hispanics that
he is "just like them," and looking out for their interests?

Brandon Berg
September 18th 04, 06:59 AM
"MJL" > wrote in message
...
> If I had to bottom-line it, no it would not matter. Backlashers are
> in the hip pocket of neocons and the neos know EXACTLY how to push
> every button and pull every lever.

So what is a neocon, anyway?

Lenny Lennerson
September 18th 04, 07:08 AM
> > > They did neither.
> >
> > - "I know that I didn't type them," Knox said in an interview
> > Wednesday on the "CBS Evening News." "However, the information in
> > those is correct."
> >
> > a.k.a. "The memos are fake but the content of the fake memos is
> > accurate."
>
> Neither of which has anything to do with CBS admitting they were fake
> but the content was accurate.

- Get your head out of your ass, brother. Several CBS journalists have
said publicly that they think the memos are forgeries. When you
invite the secretary who supposedly typed the memos (and an obvious
Bush hater) and even she comes right out and says they are fake, what
message are you exactly trying to convey?

The Washington Post, USA Today and several other papers are calling
on CBS to fess up and apologise for being duped. If you are waiting
for CBS to make an "official" apology, you need only wait a few days
or weeks, depending on how stubborn or classless they are. They will
continue to do what they are doing now in claiming the content of
those fake documents to be accurate. Rathers reputation is in the
toilet and colleges are suggesting he will be canned in 6 months.

If you do the least bit of research on them, it's abvious the
documents were a hoax. It seems only Dan Rather and yourself are
deluded enough to think otherwise. It is incredibly clear Rather and
CBS have chosen the "those documents are forged, yet the story is
true" defence. Get a grip on reality, Willy. I still think the reason
Bush gets so much support is due to anti-Bush fools like yourself. You
just make your side look absolutely ridiculous.

John M. Williams
September 18th 04, 07:45 AM
Will Brink > wrote:
> (Lenny Lennerson) wrote:
>
>> > > Now CBS wants to admit that the memos were fake
>> > > but the content was "accurate". LOL!
>> >
>> > They did neither.
>>
>> - "I know that I didn't type them," Knox said in an interview
>> Wednesday on the "CBS Evening News." "However, the information in
>> those is correct."
>>
>> a.k.a. "The memos are fake but the content of the fake memos is
>> accurate."
>
>Neither of which has anything to do with CBS admitting they were fake
>but the content was accurate.

Uh, OK. They bring in the secretary to say that. How is that
different from SwiftBoatVets saying, "His citations are on record, but
they were based on his own combat reports; I was there, and it didn't
happen like that"?

You can hardly criticize them, but glom onto what Killian's former
secretary said 30 years later, particularly when his wife and son have
refuted both the documents and their contents.

Madelin McKinnon
September 18th 04, 12:19 PM
Dan Rather is a big boy. He can defend himself
ecause he has CBS behind him. Margie Schoedinger
was not so lucky. She did not have the luxury to
promote her views on national television. Margie
Schoedinger was a woman who filed a sexual assault
lawsuit against George W. Bush. Margie Schoedinger
claimed that George Bush had raped her, but the
court documents filed to prove the point were so
outrageous, that it is easier to believe in space
aliens --which raises the question, were the court
documents authentic? In retrospect, court documents
outlined bizarre and outrageous allegations as a
tactic to divert attention away from any detail
about the alleged rape. It would be nice to be able
to confirm or deny what is beginning to look like a
common, diversionary tactic, but on September 22nd
2003, Ms. Schoedinger received a gunshot wound to
the head, allegedly, self-inflicted. Dan Rather has
the opportunity to defend himself against the effort
to discredit him. Ms. Schoedinger was denied the
opportunity. Ms. Schoedinger's law suit was filed on
December 2, 2002 and at the time, she was sane and
competent enough to act as her own legal
representative.

Ms. Schoedinger was not a publicity seeker. When
questioned by a reporter, the 38-year-old
African-American woman who lived in the Houston
suburb of Missouri City, said, "I am still trying to
prosecute [the lawsuit], I want to get this matter
settled and go on with my life." At the same time,
Schoedinger was surprised the case wasn't covered
more in the media because, in her own words, "it is
true......People have to be accountable for what
they do, and that's why I'm pursuing it." Ms.
Schoedinger did not sound like a crackpot who filed
bizarre court documents and killed herself. There
was nothing outlandish about Ms. Schoedinger,
outside the possibility that outlandish court
documents were not authentic --they were merely
supposed to divert attention away from Ms.
Schoedinger's assertion that she had been raped by
George Bush.

It is ironic that the Republican trash machine has
inadvertently revived the memory of Ms. Schoedinger.
Indeed, the current effort to bury the embarrassing
gaps of Bush's National Guard service, have
resurrected Margie Schoedinger's neglected story.
After all, this controversy about the authenticity
of documented evidence is ultimately about
credibility, and how do we assess that? First and
foremost, it is important to understand the fact
that Karl Rove rose to political prominence by
stealing Democratic candidate letterhead and
producing fraudulent documentation, to produce the
opportunity to promote lies about democrats. Karl
Rove is the expert in the art of using fraudulent
documentation to misrepresent the truth, and it is
therefore reasonable to assume that the current, CBS
controversy is nothing more than manufactured
theatre -to shift the focus away from the reliable
information in the document to the document itself.
Clearly, that is the only consequence of the current
controversy that is produced by repeatedly insisting
that the 60 Minutes story about newly found
documents about President Bush's National Guard
service has eliminated any remaining credibility at
CBS News. Likewise, the absurd demand to fire Dan
Rather is equally preposterous and this obsessive
determination to divert attention away from credible
allegations by creating a phony controversy is not
new. It is the time honored practice that has
repeatedly rescued George Bush from embarrassing
allegations.

Dan Rather is currently being attacked with the
ferocity that is spared for people who tell the
truth. After all, there is no dispute over the fact
that George Bush received preferential treatment to
get into the National Guard and stay stateside
during the Vietnam War, and that he failed to
satisfy the requirements of his service. The
documents that are necessary to prove or dispute
these well known facts have conveniently vanished
without a trace or their authenticity is challenged,
but that does not change anything because the truth
is absolutely invincible.

Bill Burkett, a retired National Guard officer from
Texas, witnessed efforts in 1997 in Texas by allies
of then-Gov. Bush to destroy military records that
might "embarrass the governor," but that does not
change anything because the truth is absolutely
invincible. Perhaps, Bush's allies think that the
current, National Guard document is not authentic
because they thought they destroyed everything. The
White House contends Mr. Bush received no favorable
treatment and fulfilled his duties. If that is the
case, the White House should produce the documents
that prove it. In the meantime, the tactics that
Karl Rove is bringing to the White House are
absolutely repugnant. If, for example, somebody
decided to attack the credibility of Ms. Schoedinger
by making her allegations sound preposterous [ie.
the outlandish statement of claim is not authentic],
Karl Rove's perverse capacity to destroy the
substance of an allegation, demands serious
investigation. Did Ms. Schoedinger in fact kill
herself, or is she a victim of Karl Rove's slimey
tactics? We all know that George Bush avoided
service in Vietnam by pretending to be on active
duty in the National Guard, but what else is George
W. Bush trying to cover up?

http://media.shorturl.com

Will Brink
September 18th 04, 01:59 PM
In article >,
John M. Williams > wrote:

> Will Brink > wrote:
> > (Lenny Lennerson) wrote:
> >
> >> > > Now CBS wants to admit that the memos were fake
> >> > > but the content was "accurate". LOL!
> >> >
> >> > They did neither.
> >>
> >> - "I know that I didn't type them," Knox said in an interview
> >> Wednesday on the "CBS Evening News." "However, the information in
> >> those is correct."
> >>
> >> a.k.a. "The memos are fake but the content of the fake memos is
> >> accurate."
> >
> >Neither of which has anything to do with CBS admitting they were fake
> >but the content was accurate.
>
> Uh, OK. They bring in the secretary to say that. How is that
> different from SwiftBoatVets saying, "His citations are on record, but
> they were based on his own combat reports; I was there, and it didn't
> happen like that"?

If you can't see the difference John I am not going to explain it. It's
clear at this point that it does not matter what I say, the objectivity
of the pro Bush camp is non extistant at this point.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

MJL
September 18th 04, 05:16 PM
On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 22:59:28 -0700, "Brandon Berg" >
wrote:

>
>"MJL" > wrote in message
...
>> If I had to bottom-line it, no it would not matter. Backlashers are
>> in the hip pocket of neocons and the neos know EXACTLY how to push
>> every button and pull every lever.
>
>So what is a neocon, anyway?
>

Well, as best I can tell they are conservatives who have accepted a
few of the less troubling (to backlashers) social advances of the last
50 years. Things like the end of racial segregation.

They still use "codewords" like welfare reform and immigration though.
I guess there is not all that much change from a rhetorical POV. If
one looks at their actions, neocons are far more liberal in the use of
the US military than old style conservatives and are not at all wary
of budget deficits. However of those two only use of the military
gets rhetorical support.

Also they're conservatives without the simmering hatred. Zell Miller
has that simmering hatred and it really was genius to put him up there
to appeal to the old style racist bigot conservatives. They got to do
this and had the "cover" of him being a "democrat" when really he is a
racist bigoted dixiecrat who never forgave the progressive wing of the
democratic party for dismantling segregation.


--
http://www.texansfortruth.org/

John M. Williams
September 18th 04, 05:53 PM
Will Brink > wrote:
> John M. Williams > wrote:
>> Will Brink > wrote:
>> > (Lenny Lennerson) wrote:
>> >
>> >> > > Now CBS wants to admit that the memos were fake
>> >> > > but the content was "accurate". LOL!
>> >> >
>> >> > They did neither.
>> >>
>> >> - "I know that I didn't type them," Knox said in an interview
>> >> Wednesday on the "CBS Evening News." "However, the information in
>> >> those is correct."
>> >>
>> >> a.k.a. "The memos are fake but the content of the fake memos is
>> >> accurate."
>> >
>> >Neither of which has anything to do with CBS admitting they were fake
>> >but the content was accurate.
>>
>> Uh, OK. They bring in the secretary to say that. How is that
>> different from SwiftBoatVets saying, "His citations are on record, but
>> they were based on his own combat reports; I was there, and it didn't
>> happen like that"?
>
>If you can't see the difference John I am not going to explain it.

No, Will, you can't explain it. If using oral evidence to dispute
written evidence in one case is reliable, it is equally reliable in
another case, particularly if there is a question about the written
evidence, such as three different citations, with differing accounts,
all for Kerry's Silver Star, which nobody seems able to explain.

>It's
>clear at this point that it does not matter what I say, the objectivity
>of the pro Bush camp is non extistant at this point.

It is the blind, unreasoning hatred from those in the anti-Bush camp,
unwilling to consider any evidence contrary to their arbitrary views,
that may have the greatest effect on undecided voters.

John M. Williams
September 18th 04, 07:00 PM
(Madelin McKinnon) wrote:

>Dan Rather is a big boy. He can defend himself
>cecause he has CBS behind him. Margie Schoedinger
>was not so lucky.

You already posted this. Go back to worshipping Michael Jackson.

Madelin McKinnon
September 19th 04, 04:19 AM
Dan Rather is a big boy. He can defend himself
because he has CBS behind him. Margie Schoedinger
was not so lucky. She did not have the luxury to
promote her views on national television. Margie
Schoedinger was a woman who filed a sexual assault
lawsuit against George W. Bush. Margie Schoedinger
claimed that George Bush had raped her, but the
court documents filed to prove the point were so
outrageous, that it is easier to believe in space
aliens --which raises the question, were the court
documents authentic? In retrospect, court documents
outlined bizarre and outrageous allegations as a
tactic to divert attention away from any detail
about the alleged rape. It would be nice to be able
to confirm or deny what is beginning to look like a
common, diversionary tactic, but on September 22nd
2003, Ms. Schoedinger received a gunshot wound to
the head, allegedly, self-inflicted. Dan Rather has
the opportunity to defend himself against the effort
to discredit him. Ms. Schoedinger was denied the
opportunity. Ms. Schoedinger's law suit was filed on
December 2, 2002 and at the time, she was sane and
competent enough to act as her own legal
representative.

Ms. Schoedinger was not a publicity seeker. When
questioned by a reporter, the 38-year-old
African-American woman who lived in the Houston
suburb of Missouri City, said, "I am still trying to
prosecute [the lawsuit], I want to get this matter
settled and go on with my life." At the same time,
Schoedinger was surprised the case wasn't covered
more in the media because, in her own words, "it is
true......People have to be accountable for what
they do, and that's why I'm pursuing it." Ms.
Schoedinger did not sound like a crackpot who filed
bizarre court documents and killed herself. There
was nothing outlandish about Ms. Schoedinger,
outside the possibility that outlandish court
documents were not authentic --they were merely
supposed to divert attention away from Ms.
Schoedinger's assertion that she had been raped by
George Bush.

It is ironic that the Republican trash machine has
inadvertently revived the memory of Ms. Schoedinger.
Indeed, the current effort to bury the embarrassing
gaps of Bush's National Guard service, have
resurrected Margie Schoedinger's neglected story.
After all, this controversy about the authenticity
of documented evidence is ultimately about
credibility, and how do we assess that? First and
foremost, it is important to understand the fact
that Karl Rove rose to political prominence by
stealing Democratic candidate letterhead and
producing fraudulent documentation, to produce the
opportunity to promote lies about democrats. Karl
Rove is the expert in the art of using fraudulent
documentation to misrepresent the truth, and it is
therefore reasonable to assume that the current, CBS
controversy is nothing more than manufactured
theatre -to shift the focus away from the reliable
information in the document to the document itself.
Clearly, that is the only consequence of the current
controversy that is produced by repeatedly insisting
that the 60 Minutes story about newly found
documents about President Bush's National Guard
service has eliminated any remaining credibility at
CBS News. Likewise, the absurd demand to fire Dan
Rather is equally preposterous and this obsessive
determination to divert attention away from credible
allegations by creating a phony controversy is not
new. It is the time honored practice that has
repeatedly rescued George Bush from embarrassing
allegations.

Dan Rather is currently being attacked with the
ferocity that is spared for people who tell the
truth. After all, there is no dispute over the fact
that George Bush received preferential treatment to
get into the National Guard and stay stateside
during the Vietnam War, and that he failed to
satisfy the requirements of his service. The
documents that are necessary to prove or dispute
these well known facts have conveniently vanished
without a trace or their authenticity is challenged,
but that does not change anything because the truth
is absolutely invincible.

Bill Burkett, a retired National Guard officer from
Texas, witnessed efforts in 1997 in Texas by allies
of then-Gov. Bush to destroy military records that
might "embarrass the governor," but that does not
change anything because the truth is absolutely
invincible. Perhaps, Bush's allies think that the
current, National Guard document is not authentic
because they thought they destroyed everything. The
White House contends Mr. Bush received no favorable
treatment and fulfilled his duties. If that is the
case, the White House should produce the documents
that prove it. In the meantime, the tactics that
Karl Rove is bringing to the White House are
absolutely repugnant. If, for example, somebody
decided to attack the credibility of Ms. Schoedinger
by making her allegations sound preposterous [ie.
the outlandish statement of claim is not authentic],
Karl Rove's perverse capacity to destroy the
substance of an allegation, demands serious
investigation. Did Ms. Schoedinger in fact kill
herself, or is she a victim of Karl Rove's slimey
tactics? We all know that George Bush avoided
service in Vietnam by pretending to be on active
duty in the National Guard, but what else is George
W. Bush trying to cover up?

http://media.shorturl.com

Harry Mofo
September 19th 04, 03:07 PM
Brandon Berg wrote in > :

>So what is a neocon, anyway?

Start here:

http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=2727


--
Harry

Brandon Berg
September 19th 04, 10:46 PM
"MJL" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 17 Sep 2004 22:59:28 -0700, "Brandon Berg" >
> wrote:
>>"MJL" > wrote in message
...
>>> If I had to bottom-line it, no it would not matter. Backlashers are
>>> in the hip pocket of neocons and the neos know EXACTLY how to push
>>> every button and pull every lever.
>>
>>So what is a neocon, anyway?
>
> Well, as best I can tell they are conservatives who have accepted a
> few of the less troubling (to backlashers) social advances of the last
> 50 years. Things like the end of racial segregation.

What members of the old right support racial segregation?

> They still use "codewords" like welfare reform and immigration though.

"Welfare reform" and "immigration" are code words? For what?

> I guess there is not all that much change from a rhetorical POV. If
> one looks at their actions, neocons are far more liberal in the use of
> the US military than old style conservatives and are not at all wary
> of budget deficits. However of those two only use of the military
> gets rhetorical support.

> Also they're conservatives without the simmering hatred. Zell Miller
> has that simmering hatred and it really was genius to put him up there
> to appeal to the old style racist bigot conservatives.

Huh? Does Zell Miller disagree with the neocons on any significant issues?
What did he say to appeal to "old[-]style racist bigot conservatives?" Also,
unless I'm sorely mistaken, racism was characteristic only of Democratic
conservatives, not the old Republican right.

> They got to do
> this and had the "cover" of him being a "democrat" when really he is a
> racist bigoted dixiecrat who never forgave the progressive wing of the
> democratic party for dismantling segregation.

On what evidence do you base this?

--
Brandon Berg
Fix the obvious homonym substitution to reply.

Top Sirloin
September 20th 04, 11:34 AM
Brandon Berg wrote:
> "MJL" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>If I had to bottom-line it, no it would not matter. Backlashers are
>>in the hip pocket of neocons and the neos know EXACTLY how to push
>>every button and pull every lever.
>
>
> So what is a neocon, anyway?

Look at John F. Kennedy's policies in office.
_That_'s whats called a neocon today.


--
Scott Johnson / scottjohnson at kc dot rr dot com

Top Sirloin
September 20th 04, 11:36 AM
Madelin McKinnon wrote:

> Bill Burkett, a retired National Guard officer from
> Texas, witnessed efforts in 1997 in Texas by allies
> of then-Gov. Bush to destroy military records that
> might "embarrass the governor," but that does not
> change anything because the truth is absolutely
> invincible.

Burkett was in the Army National Guard. How did he
witness attempts to destroy Air National Guard
documents?

--
Scott Johnson / scottjohnson at kc dot rr dot com

Brandon Berg
September 21st 04, 04:55 AM
"Top Sirloin" > wrote in message
...
> Brandon Berg wrote:
>> "MJL" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>If I had to bottom-line it, no it would not matter. Backlashers are
>>>in the hip pocket of neocons and the neos know EXACTLY how to push
>>>every button and pull every lever.
>>
>> So what is a neocon, anyway?
>
> Look at John F. Kennedy's policies in office. _That_'s whats called a
> neocon today.

I've always thought that the parallels between the Bush and Kennedy
administrations were rather striking, which lends credence to my theory that
the reason the left hates Bush so much is that he acts like a Democrat
without being one.

My definition of a neocon is a Republican who thinks that FDR was one of the
two greatest presidents of the 20th century. How can people with such
reverence for the architect of the modern welfare state claim to be
conservatives with straight faces?