You said "he was never elected in the first place." You may be qualified to teach Constitutional Law or Underwater Basketweaving... but your response certainly doesn't justify your original comment. Sorry to say, hearing the same old complaints about what was a legitimate election, gets pretty old. Let's move forward, and perhaps if Kerry wins the election, you'll embrace the system like you should, Professor.
For Those Of You That Contradicted And Critized Me
- Thread starter FredF
- Start date
You said "he was never elected in the first place." You may be qualified to teach Constitutional Law or Underwater Basketweaving... but your response certainly doesn't justify your original comment. Sorry to say, hearing the same old complaints about what was a legitimate election, gets pretty old. Let's move forward, and perhaps if Kerry wins the election, you'll embrace the system like you should, Professor.
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #17
TWAnr said:
A Plant, I thought people like you were usually called fruits?
I am just me. I got tired of reading the same lies about the president. I got tired of reading the moaning and groaning of the liberal media establishment and hearing their biased and blatant lies and mis-statements echoed as if they were gospel.
I got tired of hearing that we "Are going it alone" in IRAQ except for the 40 some other countries that are standing by us in IRAQ.
I got tired of hearing the repeated lies that the President has not released all of his national Guard records when he has done just that. Form 180 was signed months ago yet people still continue the lie that he is hiding something.
I got tired of people claiming that Bush did not fulfill his service requirements when the records clearly show that for each year of his service he more the fulfilled his obligation.
I got tired or hearing how Kerry has released all his records when he clearly has not.
I got tired of hearing how there was never any connection between Iraq and ql-queida when there has been tons upon tons of proof otherwise.
I got tired of hearing how, four years later, people are still lamenting the supreme court decision that they say what was that TWAnr "anointed " the president when they did not such thing. They merely decided that for a re-count to count, all the votest must be counted the SAME way, and that no, there was not enough time to count the entire state as they said must happen for the process to be FAIR and that therefor the previous recount had to stand.
I get so tired of people trying to revise history. I got tired of people saying that voters were denied their legal right to vote in floriday when all the people down there looking for those people could not find a single person. I got tired of these same people having no compunction about doing everything they could to disqualify votes from American Servicemen serving overseas.
I got so tired of people caliming that our rights have been stripped away yet they cannot point to a single instance of where that has happened.
I got tired of reading the same drivel over and over and over again. People that should know better, refuse to believe anything that would take away from their obsessive hatred of the President.
I got tired of sitting on my hands and letting these very same people like yourself get away with these blantant lies and misstatements that I finally decided that I should exercise my same rights and attempt to correct these lies.
I am not in any way shape or form related or connected to any political party or campaign. I do not participate in political pols when they call nor do I answer questions from parties about my likes and dis-likes.
I read, I try to determine the actual truth, which fortunatley for the internet I no longer have to rely on the likes of Dan Rather and CBS for their bias and half truth reporting.
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 11,179
- 1,420
Yet Hannity, Limbaugh, Newsmax (who is unbiased enough to run RNC adds in the middle of their articles) aren't putting out their fair share of "mis-statements"?
Yep, We've got the help of Ghana and Bulgaria, but we shot the bird to France, Germany, Russia,....
He more than fulfilled his obligation right here in the good old US of A. How many "Joe Middle Class" guardsmen did he serve with?
One thing you can't take away from Kerry was that his "fulfilled his obligation" over in Vietnam. Bush clearly did not.
From Newsmax
Besides, Scalia had a hunting trip planned in Lousiana. If you want the process nationwide to be "fair", why not lobby for abolishing the electoral college? There were 5 million non-Floridians who said they preferred Gore to Bush...but the Supreme Court got involved to determine where the 25 electoral votes (out of 6 million voters) would be allocated. IIRC the Florida Supreme Court got involved first, why were they deemed unworthy to rule on an election in their own state?
We can fix that by abolishing the electoral college. use the popular vote. 11,000,000 votes in California were narrowed down to 54. 1,100,000 votes in Kansas were narrowed down to 6. Do you think Bush would have demanded a recount of 5,000,000 votes? I don't. But because the electoral college is what it is, the popular vote in Florida became important...and too close for comfort.
Read the patriot act. You know how we attacked Iraq in an preemptive measure....I mean we didn't WAIT until we were attacked again...we TOOK action. Yet the Patriot act opens up the governments rights to violate several of your rights. specified in the bill of rights to our constitution. Yet it is wrong for us to stage a "preemptive uprising" to prevent the rights from being violated. The groundwork is in place...much more so than Saddam's Weapon's of mass destruction. You know, I hear you justify the war by saying that another attack on American soil is too late. The very first time that someones rights are violated (as they already have been) it is also too late.
I don't hate the president...I hate his policies. Sadly, I believe that when Clinton was president, many on the right really DID hate the president.
Yes...Rather is biased. There you have it. But until you recognize that most of your "sources" on the internet are just as biased, then you really aren't reading the "truth".
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #24
Imagolfer said:If you are so TIRED, why not just go take a LONG nap
[post="182334"][/post]
Like you put a lot of effort into this one? :down:
In case you have not been reading, and based on your comment here you haven't,
I have been contradicting him for a while. I have undertaken great pains to get and show articles and all sorts of information to suppor the position that I have taken and in fact, very little of it has come from newsmax. I get a lot of it from other sources.
He keeps saying the same things even though I have shown gobs of proof to the contrary. The Dem party line, Bush was AWOL(a lie), there is no link between iraq and al-queida(another lie)
All kinds of evidence to support what I have been saying all along.
And to this point, I have not gotten personal but I can change that if you would like as well.
Too late for what? To rise against the government for going "too far"? It's never too late to vote against what your government is doing. In fact, you get a chance just about every 2 years to decide whether what is happening should continue or stop. John Kerry's America won't be any safer without the Patriot Act though. At least the President is consistent on his beliefs for the path of America... that's what we need now.
And with regard to reliable news sources, yes there is a lot of bias out there, on the internet, Fox News, CNN, etc. But when a network anchor, the supposed source of "unbiased news" becomes partisan, then we need to watch out. Because they are pushing an agenda rather than reporting facts.
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 11,179
- 1,420
Could you be more specific how John Kerry's America won't be any safer without the Patriot Act? And your right...gotta give Bush credit for being consistent...wrong, but consistent. I mean consistently telling yourself over and over "2+2=5" won't make it right.
And I don't watch CBS (or ABC or NBC) news. Consequently, Dan Rather (or Peter Jennings or Tom Brokow) will not influence me by pushing any sort of agenda. Only thing I am saying to Fred is that until he understands that his "news sources" also carry a "bias", albeit a bias that supports his view of the 'truth", then he isn't really hearing the "truth" either. And....any voter who makes his decision to vote based on something that is over 30 years old most likely isn't really up on the real issues facing this country.
And one other thought...if Fred was driven to post because he was upset with all the 'lies people are telling about our president', where was his outrage about the lies being told about our president during the Clinton years (troopergate, Vince Fosters death, cocain smuggling ring in Arkansas...the list goes on) .
- Thread Starter
- Thread starter
- #27
KCFlyer said:
One item at a time here KC.
If you start with the premise that all news reporting is biased, each in it's own direction then you can look at what is reported by whom and with what slant.
You can take numbers for instance. When you see a news source report actual dollars spent on an entitlement program and the numbers increase each year, if one source says that a certain group is making cuts to spending and another is reporting that spending is not increasing at the same level, you begin to get a sense as to who is reporting the way things actually are and another is reporting with a bias. You then get to gauge the bias and can take it out of what is being reported.
Just like when you see reported that over 40 countries are standing with the US and supporting us in IRAQ,(more than stood with the US durning WWII by the way) and then you see another "news"report saying that we are "Going it Alone" you know that they are full of themselvs and they get discounted.
So over a period of time, I have started to realise those sources that are more reliable than others and they do not just report news that I like, they also report a lot of stuff that I am not happy about at all.
As far as the deal with Clinton, first my opinion of him was that he would tell people what he thought he wanted to hear and he actually stood for nothing(much like Kerry). The news media and those running against him gave him a complete pass on his string of lies. I saw clips of him giving press conferences where he contradicted himself numerous times between press conferences yet he continued to not be called on any of it.
Case in point, when he first became a candidate, he was agains NAFDA and no I do not want to debate that treaty. Clinton, when asked directly about it said he oppossed it. About 6 months later he was asked about it again and he said that he had always supported it. Now no news agency had to report that he lied because anyone that saw him say it the first time and saw him say it the second time could tell that he lied. There is no bias there. Just un-disputed facts.
When you lie before a federal grand jury, it is called perjury and most people would go to jail for it not him, he managed to parse the word is and the media let him skate by with it.
I would not defend him because most of what people were saying about him was TRUE. Wow, imagine that one. Go back and look at the details of the Vince Foster deal. You will find that anybody with a forensic brain will tell you that his body was moved and that suicide was highly improbable.
Forensic people, not politicians, not media, but professional individuals whose whole career was based on scientific fact were the ones saying that his body had been moved and that the park police had completely botched the crime scean.
The people going on about Bush are politicains, media elite out to see him loose the election and others that have a very specific agenda(Max Cleland comes to mind)
It's like the deal with the swift boat people here. There are people out there trying to do away with them. They are not refuting what they are saying backed up by anything, they are just trying to make them go away. WHY? If Kerry can prove what he claims that they are lying, why has he not. That would be the fastest way to dis-credit them. Surely there must be some truth to what they are saying otherwise why have they not been discredited, not attacked personally, but have their side of the story dis-proven?
KCFlyer
Veteran
- Aug 20, 2002
- 11,179
- 1,420
Humor me here Fred...care to list those 40 countries? Please include the size of their military, and the number of forces serving alongside us. Please note any who's citizenry is expressing deep concerns about their involvement with us (that'd be Britain). Please list any middle eastern countries fighting right alongside us. I think you'll find that the vast majority of those courtries are countries that really REALLY need us. FWIW, while we may have more countries standing beside us now than in WW II, during WWII we had minor little countries like France, Germany, and Russia (remember them...used to be a "superpower" just like us).
For your reading pleasure (and since you never resonded in the other thread) I give to you what Bush told people versus what he did:
In 2000 he argued against new military entanglements and nation building. He has done both in Iraq.
Opposed a homeland security department, then embraced it
opposed creation of 9/11 commission, then supported it.
refused to speak to 9/11 commission members, then agreed if Edgar Bergan (Dick Cheney) was present.
argued for free trade, imposed tariffs on steel imports in 2002, then withdrew them
doubted war on terror could be won, then reversed himself
Said after 9/11 that he wanted Osama bin Laden dead or alive. Six months later he said "I am truly not that concerned about him."
How is this different from Bill Clinton?
The media let him skate with it?! It seemed like no matter what network news station I tuned into (remember the "liberal media"?), it might as well have been called "MNN" - Monica News Network. Also, I'm one who believes that one who lies about a blowjob under oath in front of a grand jury in order to nab him on perjury charges is more a victim of a witch-hunt than a perjuror.
You mean to tell me that with all the funding behind Ken Starr, they couldn't turn up any "good" forensic people to "prove" that Clinton had Foster murdered? That had millions (of my dollars I might add) in funding to seek the "truth" about Bill Clinton. And somehow the "liberal media" let him skate? You know, I was channel surfing during the Vince Foster thing, and couldn't help but notice Jerry Falwell hawking a "true" videotape about the Foster death. Now, I know that ole Jerry's a man of God, but somehow I think that when he shows up at the pearly gates, merely claiming that he accepted Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior won't be enough to grant him passage. I'm not much of a student of the bible, but what I have studied of it, Jesus didn't preach hate as Dr. Falwell does. And Falwell was a veritable "fountain of information" on the Foster matter.
No, the people going on about Bush are folks like me, NWA/AMT, Sentrido, Fly, and a host of other "plain old Americans" who are sickened by the direction that Bush is taking our country.
There you go...basing your vote on events of 1969. Look close....really close... at the state of this country THIS year. If you do, you might find that Bush ain't all you've got him cracked up to be.
