Democrats are loosing their cool and the media isn't covering it. [Archive]

SlyHunter

Apr 22, 2004, 08:53 AM

SENATOR'S WIFE CHARGED WITH ASSAULT

This is one of those stories that almost too good to be true...it's almost difficult to imagine how someone could be this stupid. But they are, so here we go. Wanda Baucus, wife of Democratic Senator Max Baucus, got into it at Johnson's Garden Center in Washington D.C. She wound up assaulting someone, for which she was later charged. And what was all this over?

A bag of mulch.

That's right, a bag of mulch. Apparently Mrs. Baucus was upset that someone was being served ahead of her and decided to strike the woman in the face and body several times. She must have snapped. Maybe the person was annoying. Who knows? Baucus says he is standing by his wife, and no one would expect him to do anything different.

Anyway, notice how this is being covered in the media. Outside of a passing mention here or a link there, not much coverage. What if say, it had been the wife of Republican Senator Bill Frist? Why then you know it would be top story team coverage!

Something to think about when it comes to bias in the media.

numediaman

Apr 22, 2004, 09:07 AM

Anyway, notice how this is being covered in the media. Outside of a passing mention here or a link there, not much coverage. What if say, it had been the wife of Republican Senator Bill Frist? Why then you know it would be top story team coverage!

Something to think about when it comes to bias in the media.

As a media consultant I can answer your question. A bag of mulch does not equal thousands dead in Iraq. If you think this story is as important as the bus bombings in Iraq, the car bombing in Saudi Arabia, or the hearings being held in Washington, you are never going to be taken seriously.

SlyHunter, if CNN were owned by Al Franken you might be able to convince me that the media is owned by liberals. But CNN is owned by a multinational corporation, Time Warner.

In 2000, 138 daily newspapers endorsed Bush, 52 endorsed Gore (http://www.wheretodoresearch.com/Political.htm#Endorsements). And still you conservatives talk about media bias!

(and the word is "losing")

blackfox

Apr 22, 2004, 09:07 AM

Don't want to oversimplify here...but there are more pressing matters of attention for the media (at least that which covers the political beat)...like, say...an expensive, ill-advised, disorganized quagmire in Iraq which we can't fund properly (or fast enough)...or any of the other big issues, nicely represented in other threads here...assault over mulch? Not worth anyones time...

wwworry

Apr 22, 2004, 05:56 PM

SENATOR'S WIFE CHARGED WITH ASSAULT
What if say, it had been the wife of Republican Senator Bill Frist? Why then you know it would be top story team coverage!

Something to think about when it comes to bias in the media.

That's a completely stupid thing to say.

First you invent a senario where Frist's wife has some trouble, then you invent a media uproar, then you point to your inventions as proof of media bias.

:rolleyes:

oh, and a republican killed his wife the other day. maybe I should post a thread called:

REPUBLICANS ARE KILLING THEIR WIVES AND THE MEDIA ISN'T COVERING IT

numediaman

Apr 22, 2004, 05:59 PM

That's a completely stupid thing to say.

First you invent a scenario where Frist's wife has some trouble, then you invent a media uproar, then you point to your inventions as proof of media bias.

:rolleyes:

I don't think you are being far to Sly. Isn't Frist the one married to Janet Jackson?

Desertrat

Apr 22, 2004, 07:55 PM

I"m not about to say that Mrs. Baucus' behavior was any big deal, although physically striking somebody can mean some serious court problems. However, it seems to me it's a wee bit of a bigger deal than Dubya's daughter engaging in some underage drinking--which got more than just one day of national media coverage.

As far as media bias, I believe I see more of it in the way that news is presented than in the issue of "spiking" or editorial opinions. To me, an editor is entitled to whatever bias suits him/her. After all, editorials ARE opinions and are obviously so. "Bias" involves a lack of neutrality in presenting information, where one should avoid emotionally-loaded words and keep one's viewpoint out of the article.

:), 'Rat

diamond geezer

Apr 22, 2004, 08:15 PM

JamesDPS

Apr 22, 2004, 08:20 PM

As a media consultant I can answer your question. A bag of mulch does not equal thousands dead in Iraq. If you think this story is as important as the bus bombings in Iraq, the car bombing in Saudi Arabia, or the hearings being held in Washington, you are never going to be taken seriously.

SlyHunter, if CNN were owned by Al Franken you might be able to convince me that the media is owned by liberals. But CNN is owned by a multinational corporation, Time Warner.

In 2000, 138 daily newspapers endorsed Bush, 52 endorsed Gore (http://www.wheretodoresearch.com/Political.htm#Endorsements). And still you conservatives talk about media bias!

(and the word is "losing")

Hear hear! Great post... plus I agree: PEOPLE, IT'S "LOSING". I don't usually care too much about spelling errors, but it has become an epidemic... I don't want to go through and list the offenders, but a search on "loosing" brings up well over 300 posts. Come on, people! You lose a lot of credibility when you try to make an intellectual argument and expose yourself as uneducated/illiterate in the title line! I don't have a problem with shorthand or typos, and I'm sure I've had my fair share of mistakes, but jeeez... anyway, I just had to vent.

SlyHunter

Apr 22, 2004, 08:32 PM

So I stuck in one too many o's big whoop.

Most polls had been showing Senator John Kerry (Democrat-Massachusetts), Bush's likely challenger in the 2 November election, leading Bush by a small margin. But a poll issued on 19 April by ABC News and "The Washington Post" found support for Bush among 48 percent of respondents, and only 43 percent for Kerry. A poll by CNN and the nationwide newspaper "USA Today" issued the same day had very similar results.

"Polls this early have absolutely no bearing whatever on the outcome of an election. The polls are not predictive, but they are indicative of what is going on right now," Lichtman said.
http://www.rferl.org/featuresarticle/2004/04/43fb2c01-0d8b-4cc3-b560-a3b00a451307.html

Skewing the Bush Polls: Headlines from the Washington Post/ABC News

A BUZZFLASH READER NEWS ANALYSIS

SAME poll...

ABC Headline:

Poll: Bush Slipping
Iraq, Economic Problems Level the '04 Playing Field
[LINK] http://abcnews.go.com/sections/us/Politics/iraq_economics031014_poll.html

The generic matchup is not an ideal test; it's easy for some to imagine a superior opponent who may not in reality exist. And indeed Bush polls better against named, flesh-and-blood Democrats. But the generic test does reliably highlight an incumbent's strengths and vulnerabilities, and the issues that shape perceptions.

Washington Post:

President Rallying Support in Polls
Rebound Sets Campaign Team into Action
[LINK] http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A25667-2003Oct14.html

A BuzzFlash Reader

A BUZZFLASH READER NEWS ANALYSIS

Neserk

Apr 22, 2004, 08:51 PM

I think that Dubya's hot twin daughters underage drinking story was carried because of the salaciousness of of the subject.

That and the fact it points to the troubles Dubya had. His daughters are following in his footsteps. They are possibly alcoholics by genetic inheritance (vs. mutation) or using alcohol to cope with other problems.

note: I'm not saying they are doing that just that that is why it was an "important" news event.

Personally, the poor girls have enough to deal with having a moron for a father... leave them alone already!

mactastic

Apr 22, 2004, 08:58 PM

wwworry

Apr 22, 2004, 09:44 PM

The press sure managed to cover Roger Clintons escapades. Chelsea wasn't an embarrasment to her parents, and so never had the problems the Bush twins have. Any family member of a president is fair game as far as the media sees it.

Anyone still got any Billy Beer? :D

Well you don't hear to much about the other Bush brother, Neil...

except for

Bush brother's divorce reveals sex romps (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/25/bush.brother.reut/)

HOUSTON, Texas (Reuters) -- Neil Bush, younger brother of President Bush, detailed lucrative business deals and admitted to engaging in sex romps with women in Asia in a deposition taken in March as part of his divorce from now ex-wife Sharon Bush.

According to legal documents disclosed Tuesday, Sharon Bush's lawyers questioned Neil Bush closely about the deals, especially a contract with Grace Semiconductor Manufacturing Corp., a firm backed by Jiang Mianheng, the son of former Chinese President Jiang Zemin, that would pay him $2 million in stock over five years.

Marshall Davis Brown, lawyer for Sharon Bush, expressed bewilderment at why Grace would want Bush and at such a high price since he knew little about the semiconductor business.

"You have absolutely no educational background in semiconductors do you?" asked Brown.

"That's correct," Bush, 48, responded in the March 4 deposition, a transcript of which was read by Reuters after the Houston Chronicle first reported on the documents.

you don't hear about this on AM radio, do you?

mactastic

Apr 22, 2004, 09:47 PM

Well you don't hear to much about the other Bush brother, Neil...

except for

Bush brother's divorce reveals sex romps (http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/11/25/bush.brother.reut/)

you don't hear about this on AM radio, do you?

Lol, yeah I'd forgotten all about Neil. This came out about a year ago right? Talk about someone who was doing a job soley because of who he knew and not what he knew.

Desertrat

Apr 22, 2004, 09:49 PM

Aw, wwworry, young Neil just figured out a way to do his part in reducing the balance of payments problem with China!

:D:D

'Rat

wwworry

Apr 22, 2004, 09:59 PM

except he left it there at the whore house! :D

Neserk

Apr 23, 2004, 12:27 AM

Lol, yeah I'd forgotten all about Neil. This came out about a year ago right? Talk about someone who was doing a job soley because of who he knew and not what he knew.

Is this Billy Bush's Daddy?

blackfox

Apr 23, 2004, 12:29 AM

That and the fact it points to the troubles Dubya had. His daughters are following in his footsteps. They are possibly alcoholics by genetic inheritance (vs. mutation) or using alcohol to cope with other problems.

note: I'm not saying they are doing that just that that is why it was an "important" news event.

Personally, the poor girls have enough to deal with having a moron for a father... leave them alone already!
As far as Jenna Bush goes, Austin(TX) is a hard city to not be seduced by alcohol...although as I remember things, she may have inherited the genes for stupidity from her father...it is hard to pass a fake ID w/ secret servicemen lurking...sorry to divert from the topic...I believe the other daughter goes to Vanderbilt?

Flowbee

Apr 23, 2004, 12:41 AM

SENATOR'S WIFE CHARGED WITH ASSAULT

Woah... you know things are getting tough for Republicans when *this* is the best story they can point to.

amnesiac1984

Apr 23, 2004, 03:49 AM

I don't get it, I'm not sure of all the facts regarding bush's daughter but what's wrong with getting drunk and having a good time? So she did it underage, but the legal age is 21 in the US, I wouldn't be surprised if everyone their age was doing it. (Unless she was really young, then its stupid) but I mean, pretty much eveyrone I know has been going out to bars and drinking since we were 15, call us irresponsible but it means that now we are 19/20 we are all responsible and experienced drinkers! :D :D

Krizoitz

Apr 23, 2004, 05:59 AM

I"m not about to say that Mrs. Baucus' behavior was any big deal, although physically striking somebody can mean some serious court problems. However, it seems to me it's a wee bit of a bigger deal than Dubya's daughter engaging in some underage drinking--which got more than just one day of national media coverage.

-----
A: Hey did you hear about what Sen. Baucus wife did?
B: Who is Sen. Baucus?
A: Umm...a Senator?
B: Yeah I caught that. From where?
A: Umm...Montana I think.
B: What were we talking about?
------

Everyone knows who Bush is and so the media can get more interest out of it. Unless you are a big fan of mulch or from Montana you probably don't care who Sen. Baucus is or if his wife had some mulch related anger problems. Not saying its right, just that it is.

Thomas Veil

Apr 23, 2004, 07:08 AM

Democrats are loosing their cool and the media isn't covering it.
Democrats are cool by definition, so they very well can't lose it. ;)

SlyHunter

Apr 23, 2004, 07:53 AM

Electrifying, is it not? And Democrats are wondering why their man is trailing a rather wounded George Bush not just overall, but on Iraq -- and precisely at a time when Iraq is going so badly.

``If I'm president,'' Kerry said, ``I will not only personally go to the U.N., I will go to other capitals.'' For Kerry, showing up at Kofi Annan's doorstep and sweeping through Allied capitals is no rhetorical flourish, no strategic sideshow. It is the essence of his Iraq plan: ``Within weeks of being inaugurated, I will return to the U.N. and I will literally, formally rejoin the community of nations and turn over a proud new chapter in America's relationship with the world.''

This is an Iraq policy? Never has a more serious question received a more feckless answer. Going back to the U.N.: What does that mean? It cannot mean the General Assembly, which decides nothing. It must mean going back to the Security Council.

There are five permanent members. We are one. The British are already with us. So that leaves China, indifferent at best to our Middle East adventure, though generally hostile, and Russia, which has opposed the war from the very beginning. Moscow was so wedded to Saddam that it was doing everything it could to prevent an impartial Paul Volcker commission from investigating the corrupt oil-for-food program that enriched Saddam and, through kickbacks, hundreds of others in dozens of countries, including Russia.

That leaves ... France. What does Kerry think France will do for us? Perhaps he sees himself and Teresa descending on Paris like Jack and Jackie in Camelot days. Does he really believe that if he grovels before Jacques Chirac in well-accented French, he will persuade France to join us in a war that it has opposed from the beginning, that is now going badly, and that has moved Iraq out of the French sphere of influence and into the American?

The idea is so absurd that when Tim Russert interviewed Kerry and quoted Democratic foreign policy adviser Ivo Daalder as saying that handing political and military responsibility to the U.N. and other countries is not realistic, Kerry simply dodged the question. There was nothing to say.

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/ck20040423.shtml

True, it would be politically suicidal to zigzag yet again on the war. After having voted No on the Gulf War, Yes on the Iraq war, No on the $87 billion for reconstruction, and today advocating a firm Yes on finishing the job, to now reverse himself once again and advocate pulling out would be a politically fatal flip-flop.

radhak

Apr 23, 2004, 08:13 AM

-----
A: Hey did you hear about what Sen. Baucus wife did?
B: Who is Sen. Baucus?
A: Umm...a Senator?
B: Yeah I caught that. From where?
A: Umm...Montana I think.
B: What were we talking about?
------

Everyone knows who Bush is and so the media can get more interest out of it. Unless you are a big fan of mulch or from Montana you probably don't care who Sen. Baucus is or if his wife had some mulch related anger problems. Not saying its right, just that it is.

Thanks Krizoitz, much needed info.
I was a bit worried that since I had no clue who this Baucus was, maybe I was not watching enough of the political news. But no wonder, Montana!
and i am not sure 'wife' and 'mulch' add or detract from the newsworthiness. (i mean, would have been really good if the senator himself had swung a fist ;))

mactastic

Apr 23, 2004, 08:20 AM

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/charleskrauthammer/ck20040423.shtml

Hey Sly, do you ever have any opinions of your own other than those handed to you by the conservative media?

Taft

Apr 23, 2004, 10:03 AM

Marketing idea for Johnson & Johnson. The "Purple Heart" Band-aid.

Nice. I'm guessing you look down upon Kerry's miltary service? Just flippin' amazing.

Let me follow this trail of logic...

You are a Bush supporter, correct? So somehow you are able to excuse the fact that Bush never served our country, and in fact may have skipped out of the precious little service he did give our country. At the same time, you look down upon Kerry, who is a decorated war hero. Now, let's pretend that his Purple Hearts were undeserved (even though, by all accounts, he did deserve them). He still served two full tours of duty in Vietnam. That's two more than Bush ever served. Kerry has seen more action than Bush has seen in his nightmares.

If you are going to be a hypocrite, you may want to play down the issues you are hypocritical on. Its amazing to me that ANY Bush supporter would criticize Kerry's service record. I personally don't think their service records are really consequential to their performance as Commander in Cheif. Nonetheless, the right's very public hypocrisy on this issue confounds me.

I just hope the American people aren't that stupid. We'll see in November...

Taft

SlyHunter

Apr 23, 2004, 10:20 AM

Nice. I'm guessing you look down upon Kerry's miltary service? Just flippin' amazing.

Let me follow this trail of logic...

You are a Bush supporter, correct? So somehow you are able to excuse the fact that Bush never served our country, and in fact may have skipped out of the precious little service he did give our country. At the same time, you look down upon Kerry, who is a decorated war hero. Now, let's pretend that his Purple Hearts were undeserved (even though, by all accounts, he did deserve them). He still served two full tours of duty in Vietnam. That's two more than Bush ever served. Kerry has seen more action than Bush has seen in his nightmares.

If you are going to be a hypocrite, you may want to play down the issues you are hypocritical on. Its amazing to me that ANY Bush supporter would criticize Kerry's service record. I personally don't think their service records are really consequential to their performance as Commander in Cheif. Nonetheless, the right's very public hypocrisy on this issue confounds me.

I just hope the American people aren't that stupid. We'll see in November...

Taft
I didn't realize a tour of duty = 2 months for he only served 4 months in vietnam. I do not thing you have to have military service to be a good president. Lots of people did their best to stay out of Vietnam, Bush may of just been one of them. But I don't hear when Bush's record being questioned his response being "well I was in the NG." However when Kerry is asked about his voting record instead of defending it he says "you don't have the right to question my patriotism, I was in Vietnam." See if it weren't for the fact that he uses Vietnam as a crutch and if it weren't for the fact that he puts other people down like Cheney etc for not serving in vietnam I wouldn't care one iota about his 4 months of service or his use of technicalities to get purple hearts etc. I'm not the one being a hypocrite.

the other thing. When I put out my point of view people here demand wheres your proof. So I have to spend more time than I like trying to find something on the internet to verify my opinion. Thus its easier to post things as I come accross them and not bother speaking and then you say I don't have my own opinion. Seems as if things around here is a little lopsided to me.

numediaman

Apr 23, 2004, 10:40 AM

I didn't realize a tour of duty = 2 months for he only served 4 months in vietnam. I do not thing you have to have military service to be a good president. Lots of people did their best to stay out of Vietnam, Bush may of just been one of them. But I don't hear when Bush's record being questioned his response being "well I was in the NG." However when Kerry is asked about his voting record instead of defending it he says "you don't have the right to question my patriotism, I was in Vietnam." See if it weren't for the fact that he uses Vietnam as a crutch and if it weren't for the fact that he puts other people down like Cheney etc for not serving in vietnam I wouldn't care one iota about his 4 months of service or his use of technicalities to get purple hearts etc. I'm not the one being a hypocrite.

the other thing. When I put out my point of view people here demand wheres your proof. So I have to spend more time than I like trying to find something on the internet to verify my opinion. Thus its easier to post things as I come accross them and not bother speaking and then you say I don't have my own opinion. Seems as if things around here is a little lopsided to me.

Sly, the problem people have with your posts in that you don't back up your opinions with articles from non-partisan sources. For instance, you claim Kerry had four months of service. Where do you get this stuff? It took me five seconds on google to find this from The Atlantic:

John Kerry enlisted in the Navy in February of 1966, months before he graduated from Yale. In December of 1967 Ensign Kerry was assigned to the guided-missile frigate USS Gridley; after five months of service in the Pacific, with a brief stop in Vietnam, he returned to the United States and underwent training to command a Swift boat, a small craft deployed in Vietnam's rivers. In June of 1968 Kerry was promoted to the rank of lieutenant (junior grade), and by the end of that year he was back in Vietnam, where he commanded, over time, two Swift boats. He received the Purple Heart three times for wounds suffered in action, and was awarded the Bronze Star and the Navy's Silver Star for gallantry in action. Kerry was discharged from the Navy in January of 1970, and soon became one of the most prominent spokesmen for the antiwar movement.

Yes, there are more liberals here than conservatives -- and I'm sure conservatives are shouted out here more often than are liberals. But I rarely see 'Rat or Frohickey shouted down by regulars here.

I come and go from this forum (including the regular MacRumors threads) and sometimes I get frustrated by people who are rude and like to blast people. (I'm sure I lose my temper, as well,.) I must admit that you are not someone who shouts down other posters -- good for you. But, like a lot of people, you seem to get your news from sources that are not very credible. You may not have much respect for the NY Times or Washington Post -- but I must tell you, some of the best journalists in the world work for these organizations. Some times I get incredibly angry when they screw up: like when Judith Miller (Times) reported garbage for months on end about WMDs only to have to retract everything. Or when the Times kept Jayson Blair on staff even when it was clear he was a fraud. But guys like John Burns have been in Iraq the whole time and are risking their lives to bring us the truth. (As you can see, as someone with a "J" degree, I still get hyped up about good journalism.)

mactastic

Apr 23, 2004, 10:53 AM

the other thing. When I put out my point of view people here demand wheres your proof. So I have to spend more time than I like trying to find something on the internet to verify my opinion. Thus its easier to post things as I come accross them and not bother speaking and then you say I don't have my own opinion. Seems as if things around here is a little lopsided to me.

Most of us are able to do what you claim takes you 'more time' than posting your conservative media rants. If I want to read Newsmax, I'll go there. If you have a relevant point that culls something from one of their stories, fine add it in to YOUR opinion. I just get tired of reading posts from you that contain nothing other than a quoted article that I could have gotten on my own. Also, just last night I caught you posting several links that you were claiming as 'proof that Kerry called Bush a liar'. Only after calling you on them did you bother to find something that ACTUALLY proved your point. So now I know I can no longer trust that you are posting legitimate links. That gives me a hell of a big incentive to put you on ignore rather than deal with having to check to see if you are telling the truth with your links.

IJ Reilly

Apr 23, 2004, 11:10 AM

Numediaman, I think I know what the issue is here, and being a journalist-type yourself, I'll bet you have a very good idea too. The problem is, some people have suckled at the teat of talk radio for so long, that they're entirely unused to the idea of having to justify their positions, let alone address anyone who doesn't buy them without question. To them, a place like this, where ideas are exchanged and facts are demanded, is an excruciating experience. They take one step out of the echo chamber, and find themselves lost and frustrated, if not angry and suspicious.

Taft

Apr 23, 2004, 11:29 AM

I didn't realize a tour of duty = 2 months for he only served 4 months in vietnam. I do not thing you have to have military service to be a good president. Lots of people did their best to stay out of Vietnam, Bush may of just been one of them. But I don't hear when Bush's record being questioned his response being "well I was in the NG." However when Kerry is asked about his voting record instead of defending it he says "you don't have the right to question my patriotism, I was in Vietnam." See if it weren't for the fact that he uses Vietnam as a crutch and if it weren't for the fact that he puts other people down like Cheney etc for not serving in vietnam I wouldn't care one iota about his 4 months of service or his use of technicalities to get purple hearts etc. I'm not the one being a hypocrite.

How can you pack so many assumptions into a single paragraph?

First, the Bush administration and many conservative pundits and lawmakers have made national security and looking tough on terror a very high priority. They have tried to cast themselves as the great protectors of the US and as tough and unrelenting on terrorists. At the same time, they have tried to cast Democrats as soft on terror and on national security. That's fine and is their right.

But how can you fault Kerry for trying to also look tough on terror and on national defense? He is using his Vietnam record in an attempt to say, "I KNOW combat. I know how important national defense is. I am not soft on terror." This comes as a direct response to conservative critisicm of his voting and defense records.

Also, you yourself quoted many interviews in which Kerry did in fact address the issue of his voting record. Look at the posts you made in the "War in Iraq" thread. One of them was an interview with Tim Russert in which he directly answers the question of why he voted to support action against Iraq. He has answered questions about his war record. He doesn't use his military service as a crutch.

And the reason Bush doesn't make more use of his military record is that his military record sucks. He didn't do anything in the military. OF COURSE he isn't going to brag about it, because there is nothing to brag about.

Finally, and most importantly, where the heck do you get off saying that Kerry used, "technicalities to get purple hearts." Can you examplain exactly how Kerry used technicalities to get purple hearts? Do you have any evidence of this whatsoever? He just released his military record, so you should have ample ammunition, right? WRONG!

Unless you can provide some proof of this scenario you are presenting, I suggest you shut up with the slanderous innuendos. They don't become a person claiming to be intellectually honest.

Taft

SlyHunter

Apr 23, 2004, 11:51 AM

Most of us are able to do what you claim takes you 'more time' than posting your conservative media rants. If I want to read Newsmax, I'll go there. If you have a relevant point that culls something from one of their stories, fine add it in to YOUR opinion. I just get tired of reading posts from you that contain nothing other than a quoted article that I could have gotten on my own. Also, just last night I caught you posting several links that you were claiming as 'proof that Kerry called Bush a liar'. Only after calling you on them did you bother to find something that ACTUALLY proved your point. So now I know I can no longer trust that you are posting legitimate links. That gives me a hell of a big incentive to put you on ignore rather than deal with having to check to see if you are telling the truth with your links.
The knowledge of Kerry calling Bush a liar came from TV the fact that I didn't have a web page at my fingertips doesn't make it not true.

Where I get the 4 months from is not his entire duty of service but his entire duty in Vietnam was 4 months.

Sayhey

Apr 23, 2004, 11:52 AM

SlyHunter

Apr 23, 2004, 11:54 AM

Finally, and most importantly, where the heck do you get off saying that Kerry used, "technicalities to get purple hearts." Can you examplain exactly how Kerry used technicalities to get purple hearts? Do you have any evidence of this whatsoever? He just released his military record, so you should have ample ammunition, right? WRONG!

Unless you can provide some proof of this scenario you are presenting, I suggest you shut up with the slanderous innuendos. They don't become a person claiming to be intellectually honest.

Taft
No innuendo fact.
None of his inujuries which got him his purple hearts required much more than a bandaid. One of his purple hearts and his silver star came from an incendent where he ran his ship onto a shore right on top of a fox hole. Something his commanding officer ordered him to stop doing because apparently it was a habit of his to ground his boat on purpose and that wasn't his job. Anyhow a Vietcong jumped out of the fox hole and took off running. Kerry had his m-60 gunner fire on the dude but he managed to slip behind a building of some type. Kerry jumped out of the boat raced around that building and found the vietcong wounded defenseless and slit his throat. There is no innuendo here.

Ugg

Apr 23, 2004, 11:59 AM

No innuendo fact.
None of his inujuries which got him his purple hearts required much more than a bandaid. One of his purple hearts and his silver star came from an incendent where he ran his ship onto a shore right on top of a fox hole. Something his commanding officer ordered him to stop doing because apparently it was a habit of his to ground his boat on purpose and that wasn't his job. Anyhow a Vietcong jumped out of the fox hole and took off running. Kerry had his m-60 gunner fire on the dude but he managed to slip behind a building of some type. Kerry jumped out of the boat raced around that building and found the vietcong wounded defenseless and slit his throat. There is no innuendo here.

Ok, let's see his military commander's report on the situation, not something from news max or townhall or drudge or any other obviously sleazy news org.

Unless I'm mistaken, purple hearts weren't handed out like candy in Vietnam, nor was anyone bribed or influenced to decorate Kerry. Are you saying the military is horribly corrupt?

SlyHunter

Apr 23, 2004, 12:04 PM

Originally Posted by SlyHunter
No innuendo fact.
None of his inujuries which got him his purple hearts required much more than a bandaid. One of his purple hearts and his silver star came from an incendent where he ran his ship onto a shore right on top of a fox hole. Something his commanding officer ordered him to stop doing because apparently it was a habit of his to ground his boat on purpose and that wasn't his job. Anyhow a Vietcong jumped out of the fox hole and took off running. Kerry had his m-60 gunner fire on the dude but he managed to slip behind a building of some type. Kerry jumped out of the boat raced around that building and found the vietcong wounded defenseless and slit his throat. There is no innuendo here.

Ok, let's see his military commander's report on the situation, not something from news max or townhall or drudge or any other obviously sleazy news org.

Unless I'm mistaken, purple hearts weren't handed out like candy in Vietnam, nor was anyone bribed or influenced to decorate Kerry. Are you saying the military is horribly corrupt?

Thats the problem with this biased news media they won't report those things that are contrary to their agenda as such you aren't going to find this information of the left wing liberal mass media circuits. And the information comes from his own commander which I think I did post a link to an interview with him here but also is on FOX news and on several other radio news sources reporting.

So if you are going to only accept those items from the left wing liberals as evidence about anything than you are only going to get things you as a liberal already believe.

Besides why should I put out the effort to find a link that you may your may not consider a right wing source. I am not going to take the time to come up with a source like for example earlier, showing how Kerry said Bush lied, and then after all that effort pass on to the next thing and forget it even happened. Just aint worth it.

But since I did just stumble accross something which probably won't meet your approval so might just be pointless to post it I will anyhow.

The truth is about to come out, or is out already: Kerry's war claims are fake or at least are greatly exaggerated. Kerry served in Viet Nam for only four months. He collected a bronze star, a silver star and three purple hearts. However, he got these awards by repeatedly applying for them. He used his three purple hearts as the basis to be sent home early, eight months before he had completed his tour of duty, and then he got out of military service early so that he could run for Congress.
Ever since, John Kerry has based his political career on his supposed war record. Kerry rarely utters a single paragraph without mentioning his service in VietNam.

Men who have fought in wars and have seen serious combat rarely talk about it. Five of my uncles were military officers in World War II. Three of them saw heavy combat. My Uncle Newell fought in the Battle of the Bulge where almost all of the other men in his unit died in that battle. My Uncle Edward fought in the invasion of Iwo Jima. My Uncle Alden was a B-29 Pilot who flew 30 bombing missions over Japan and flew on the mission but in a different bomber during which the A-Bomb was dropped on Nagasaki.

When they came home, did they brag about their service to their country? No! They rarely if ever spoke of it. They never talked about the battles in which they had fought or about the men whom they had seen die.

Senator John Kerry talks endlessly about his war record, about how he was wounded three times in combat, and about how he knows this or that better than the rest of us because of his war experiences.

How was a man able to get wounded three times in battle and survive? Why have not the details of his great acts of heroism in which he sustained these war wounds ever been published? Why have most actual VietNam veterans turned their backs on John Kerry?

The truth is that John Kerry saw very limited military service, did not deserve the awards he got, applied for these awards repeatedly so that he could be sent home early, and has exaggerated his accomplishments ever since in order to get elected to public offices.
http://www.ishipress.com/kerrywar.htm

And yes I realize it doesn't include the commanders report on Kerry or on that Silver Star as reported by his commander live and taped on TV on Hannity and Colmes, Fox News and other sources none of which happen to be left wing media sources you would require before considering them as proof.

Sayhey

Apr 23, 2004, 12:09 PM

There are those who keep spreading the fabrication of Kerry slitting the throat of the "helpless" Viet Cong soldier. This is only speculation on the part of the right-wing echo chamber in order to put out the idea the medal won by Kerry was undeserved. Of course the account of the battle by those who were there and those who saw fit to award the Silver Star is far different than the partisans who can teleport themselves back in time and space to tell us the "truth."

SlyHunter

Apr 23, 2004, 12:13 PM

numediaman

Apr 23, 2004, 12:20 PM

some people have suckled at the teat of talk radio for so long. . .

Hey, this is a family web site. :D

You are right, of course. But I think another part of it is the inability of large parts of our country (Sly included) to engage in a civil discussion of the issues without blinders on. There are people like this on both ends of the political spectrum.

If I were in a bar and I denigrated anyone's Vietnam record that looks like Kerry's there would be a large group of Vietnam veterans who would want to beat my brains in. But it is OK to talk badly of Kerry's record simply because he is the Democratic candidate for President.

SlyHunter will continue to read his web sites because to read a newspaper would be an attack on his world view. The media is biased, remember? This is how we end up with "Freedom Fries".

mactastic

Apr 23, 2004, 12:34 PM

The knowledge of Kerry calling Bush a liar came from TV the fact that I didn't have a web page at my fingertips doesn't make it not true.

Problem is, you've been caught in exaggerations before, so you'll have to pardon me if I need to see proof of the veracity of your claims.

Would you accept someone calling Bush a liar without proof?

zimv20

Apr 23, 2004, 12:41 PM

The media is biased, remember?
i figured out the difference between the "liberal" media and the "normal/moderate" media.

the "liberal" media asks questions and does investigations. the "moderate" media tells us what we all "already know".

Ugg

Apr 23, 2004, 12:43 PM

This site takes all the information about Kerry's vietname record and lays it out.
http://www.vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com/
Yes they are doing it for the sole purpose of making him look bad. Just like mentioning Bush' missing 5 months from the NG over and over again is simply trying to make Bush look bad. Doesn't mean they are liars.

Dude, that site does nothing more than denigrate Kerry's war record. There is nothing in there that he should be ashamed about. So many of the neocons and gw's cabinet did everything possible to get out of serving in Vietnam. When Kerry tried to extend his studies for a year in Paris and was then turned down by the draft board, he went and served AND volunteered to serve in Vietnam.

Why are you so intent in making Kerry look bad? Let's face it, we have a chickenhawk prez, cabinet and neocons who for the most part got out of Vietnam and yet they are doing everything to make Kerry look bad. Don't you think you should question their motives? Why so much hate towards a man who is a man unlike gw and cheney?

Sayhey

Apr 23, 2004, 01:00 PM

Ugg, the joy of having Slyhunter on my ignore list is that I don't have to see all of his nonsense, but in looking at the link provided in your quoted section I found this amazing quote from Republican Senator John McCain:

"I strongly caution reporters who may be contacted by or are interested in Mr. Ted Sampley and the various organizations he claims to represent, and his opinions on the subject of Senator Kerry, or any subject for that matter, to investigate thoroughly Mr. Sampley's background and history of spreading outrageous slander and other disreputable behavior before inadvertently lending him or his allegations any credibility.

"I am well familiar with Mr. Sampley, and I know him to be one of the most despicable people I have ever had the misfortune to encounter. I consider him a fraud who preys on the hopes of family members of missing servicemen for his own profit. He is dishonorable, an enemy of the truth, and despite his claims, he does not speak for or represent the views of all but a few veterans. The many veterans I know would think it a disgrace to be considered a comrade or supporter of Ted Sampley."

Of course, I should just disregard his assessment of the author of SlyHunter's site.

mactastic

Apr 23, 2004, 01:09 PM

Of course, I should just disregard his assessment of the author of SlyHunter's site.

Yeah McCain is just another one of those 'cowards' who served in Vietnam, and a tool of the 'liberal media'. Right? :rolleyes:

Oh wait, he's a hero and a republican....

Sayhey

Apr 23, 2004, 01:16 PM

Yeah McCain is just another one of those 'cowards' who served in Vietnam, and a tool of the 'liberal media'. Right? :rolleyes:

Oh wait, he's a hero and a republican....

If he decides to run as Kerry's VP he will be a coward who got shot down on purpose and enjoyed North Vietnamese hospitality for years while the true heroes were in Texas and Alabama.

Ugg

Apr 23, 2004, 01:30 PM

IJ Reilly

Apr 23, 2004, 01:40 PM

Hey, this is a family web site. :D

You are right, of course. But I think another part of it is the inability of large parts of our country (Sly included) to engage in a civil discussion of the issues without blinders on. There are people like this on both ends of the political spectrum.

If I were in a bar and I denigrated anyone's Vietnam record that looks like Kerry's there would be a large group of Vietnam veterans who would want to beat my brains in. But it is OK to talk badly of Kerry's record simply because he is the Democratic candidate for President.

SlyHunter will continue to read his web sites because to read a newspaper would be an attack on his world view. The media is biased, remember? This is how we end up with "Freedom Fries".world view.

I don't get much satisfaction debating people who've fallen down an ideological rabbit-hole and seem to be getting all of their information about the world from the Mad Hatter. (How's that for a more family-oriented analogy?)

pseudobrit

Apr 23, 2004, 05:24 PM

That gives me a hell of a big incentive to put you on ignore rather than deal with having to check to see if you are telling the truth with your links.

I already did. His spam was too much for me. I still see his nonsense when other quote it though, and I'm glad someone posted this:

I have to spend more time than I like trying to find something on the internet to verify my opinion.

If your opinion is based on verified facts from reputable sources, you'll find a glut of articles with a Google search.
If you read it on a wackjob "news" site like Drudge, heard it on Limbaugh or read it at an extremist right-wing website, it's no wonder you hae problems digging up the ************.

Thus its easier to post things as I come accross them and not bother speaking and then you say I don't have my own opinion. Seems as if things around here is a little lopsided to me.

It's lopsided the way you're doing it. We have opinions based on things we've read over the months and years. We weigh everything we read depending on what the source is and opinions form from that process.

What your problem seems to be is that you let extremist websites and talk radio take over the thinking for you and you allow them to arrive at the conclusions and shape your opinions for you. You've done this the easy way by relinquishing your responsibility to do your own research.

Which is precisely why you can't buttress your beliefs; they aren't yours.

Taft

Apr 23, 2004, 06:37 PM

Link (http://www.miafacts.org/prankster.htm)

The above goes to a site that gives a brief rundown on Joe Sampley, one of the "sponsors" of Sh's fact sheet on Kerry. He is a charlatan and has done his best to denigrate anyone and everyone whom he doesn't see eye to eye with including gw's daddy. He's in it for the money, not for the truth, I wouldn't be surprised if he isn't receiving funding from gw's buddies and encouragement from Rove. What a slimeball.

Yikes! Pretty bad track record.

But ignoring his track record, did that site (vietnamveteransagainstjohnkerry.com) list ANY sources or back any of its statements with facts?

This is the definition of an echo chamber. All these guys (Ted Smapley, SlyHunter, etc.) are saying these things without any sources or backing. Then, when someone questions the accuracy of these statements, they are just pointed to the another site making the same claims without backing. Its just a miracle that anyone buys it.

Whatever. These discussions are getting to be too much to handle.

Taft

skunk

Apr 23, 2004, 06:49 PM

Then, when someone questions the accuracy of these statements, they are just pointed to the another site making the same claims without backing. Its just a miracle that anyone buys it.

Taft
Let's just hope sales are down in November...

Flowbee

Apr 23, 2004, 07:11 PM

Just like mentioning Bush' missing 5 months from the NG over and over again is simply trying to make Bush look bad. Doesn't mean they are liars.

Well, thanks for admitting that the people who talk about Bush being AWOL from the National Guard aren't liars. First sensible thing you've ever posted. :D

Neserk

Apr 23, 2004, 08:11 PM

the "liberal" media asks questions and does investigations. the "moderate" media tells us what we all "already know".

ahhh... makes perfect sense :D

numediaman

Apr 23, 2004, 09:19 PM

What's the difference between the left and the right? I would argue that today's right wing has no sense of humor -- specifically, no self-deprecating sense of humor.

Case in point: http://www.johnkerryisadouchebagbutimvotingforhimanyway.com/

Krizoitz

Apr 23, 2004, 10:57 PM

Let see

Bill Clinton - objected to the war, avoided the war
George W. Bush - used his family connections to avoid active duty
John Kerry - served actively, highly decorated, AND after seeing his friends colleagues die in what was a political war with no end in site protested it.

Guess which one I'd rather have as my President. Yep thats right John Kerry. You know why?

Personally i feel that veterans are less likely to get us into long drawn out unnecessary wars. Why? Because they have been there and know what its like to see people die because of decisions made by politicians in Washington.

When the Iraq conflict started I said to myself, "I know I don't like some of Bush's policies, but hey if he says we have intelligence that says Sadaam has WMD well, he wouldn't lie and send kids to die for his own political agenda, no one is THAT bad right?"

WRONG.

To date we have NO evidence of WMD and hundreds of Americans are dying for a war being fought over a LIE. A poorly planned war with no end in sight, just like Vietnam.

Now I'm not saying Sadaam shouldn't have been ousted, but it should have been planned out and sold to the American people based on the TRUTH.

Now you expect me to take anything Bush says seriously? Especially in regards to Kerry?

Honestly, like me Kerry supported the war because based on the evidence it seemed like the right thing to do. Then he found out the evidence was wrong. And he changed his mind. Heaven forbid we have a politician who is willing to admit he is wrong.

People are lambasting Kerry for changing his mind. HOLY COW rather than having a politician who is always voting the same, here is a guy who can be convinced that something is wrong and is open to new ideas. This is a bad thing how?

You spread all this horse-manure about how honorable Bush is, and how horrible Kerry is SlyFox, well back it up. Give me reputable sources. Evidence. I don't want stuff from extremist right wing web sites. I want FACTS. Oh and this liberal media bias? Prove it. You have your homework. i don't want second hand quotes, or random links I want hard evidence. Convince me that it is true, I'm open to changing my mind. But its not going to be because you say, well I heard Kerry did this, or that somebody said he said that. Show me the proof. Or are you afraid of the truth?

radhak

Apr 23, 2004, 11:27 PM

Well said, Krizoitz.

A poorly planned war with no end in sight, just like Vietnam.

and there lies the rub. if i had started any of my projects at work like this, and a year later had lesser clue than at the beginning about how to finish the job i had started, i would be fired before i could expand WMD. if my boss thought i had begun a 'critical' project when it was not really critical and spent a ton of resources on it, honest mistake or not i would be severely reprimanded, reallocated to something much 'safer' (distribute reports), if not outright fired.

the reason somebody is elected president is that he is supposed to take the best decision for the whole country (even whole globe, when it is the US president). it is not idle talk that he has the best resources in the world at his finger tips to get to know the problem before he takes the decision : it is the simple truth. It is okay for John Kerry (or any John Doe) to be misled about Iraq, but not for the Chief of Army Staff of the USA. And if he is misled, he is plain incompetent, and should be ashamed of standing for election a second time. (this holds good for whoever is the president at the moment).

SlyHunter

Apr 24, 2004, 08:34 AM

Let see

When the Iraq conflict started I said to myself, "I know I don't like some of Bush's policies, but hey if he says we have intelligence that says Sadaam has WMD well, he wouldn't lie and send kids to die for his own political agenda, no one is THAT bad right?"

WRONG.

To date we have NO evidence of WMD and hundreds of Americans are dying for a war being fought over a LIE. A poorly planned war with no end in sight, just like Vietnam.

Now I'm not saying Sadaam shouldn't have been ousted, but it should have been planned out and sold to the American people based on the TRUTH.

Now you expect me to take anything Bush says seriously? Especially in regards to Kerry?

Honestly, like me Kerry supported the war because based on the evidence it seemed like the right thing to do. Then he found out the evidence was wrong. And he changed his mind. Heaven forbid we have a politician who is willing to admit he is wrong.

You spread all this horse-manure about how honorable Bush is, and how horrible Kerry is SlyFox, well back it up. Give me reputable sources. Evidence. I don't want stuff from extremist right wing web sites. I want FACTS. Oh and this liberal media bias? Prove it. You have your homework. i don't want second hand quotes, or random links I want hard evidence. Convince me that it is true, I'm open to changing my mind. But its not going to be because you say, well I heard Kerry did this, or that somebody said he said that. Show me the proof. Or are you afraid of the truth?
Bush did not have any additional info than Kerry had. As you said Kerry supported the ware based on the evidence at the time. So did Bush. They both had the same evidence therefore how could one be a liar and the other simply mistaken.

Krizoitz

Apr 24, 2004, 08:51 AM

Bush did not have any additional info than Kerry had. As you said Kerry supported the ware based on the evidence at the time. So did Bush. They both had the same evidence therefore how could one be a liar and the other simply mistaken.

You are telling me that the President of the United States didn't have more information with all his staff than Sen. Kerry?

mactastic

Apr 24, 2004, 11:40 AM

Bush did not have any additional info than Kerry had. As you said Kerry supported the ware based on the evidence at the time. So did Bush. They both had the same evidence therefore how could one be a liar and the other simply mistaken.

BS. Total BS. Kerry did NOT have access to the reports from the OSP. Kerry didn't muscle his way into the pentagon and talk to the analysts the way Cheney did. And they don't call them PDBs for nothing. If they were for everyone they would be called EDBs.

What you are saying is that every senator is allowed access to everything the president sees? Can you really believe that? That's just crazy.

SlyHunter

Apr 24, 2004, 11:52 AM

Originally Posted by SlyHunter
Bush did not have any additional info than Kerry had. As you said Kerry supported the ware based on the evidence at the time. So did Bush. They both had the same evidence therefore how could one be a liar and the other simply mistaken.

BS. Total BS. Kerry did NOT have access to the reports from the OSP. Kerry didn't muscle his way into the pentagon and talk to the analysts the way Cheney did. And they don't call them PDBs for nothing. If they were for everyone they would be called EDBs.

What you are saying is that every senator is allowed access to everything the president sees? Can you really believe that? That's just crazy.

I'm just saying Bush didn't lie.

mactastic

Apr 24, 2004, 12:03 PM

I'm just saying Bush didn't lie.

Fine, but if he didn't lie than he made a grave error. Where does the buck stop for that error? Senator Kerry? Or the man responsible for overseeing the group that made the errors, GWB?

toontra

Apr 24, 2004, 12:31 PM

I've said it once and I'll say it again - SH is a troll. He/she's starting intentionally provocative threads - fine. But then he/she uses nonsensical rational to keep them going.

IMHO it is a waste of everyone's time. Nowhere is there an exchange of ideas, certainly not on his part.

I have to say that responding to his posts will only encourage him, and will burden this forum with ever-increasing piles of garbage (this thread being a good example). Do we really want to waste our time participating in (or having to avoid) these threads?

To be clear, it's not his views I object to, it's his forum etiquette and his methodology, which is almost dictionary definition trolling! The way I see it, we have a choice.

skunk

Apr 24, 2004, 12:31 PM

I'm just saying Bush didn't lie.
The W doesn't stand for Washington, you know.

Neserk

Apr 24, 2004, 01:14 PM

Krizoitz

Apr 24, 2004, 03:26 PM

I'm just saying Bush didn't lie.

President Bush stated on numerous occasions that we had evidence of WMD. For example (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021007-8.html) a Speech by GWBush, or this document (http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB80/wmd14.pdf) from the CIA. Oh here are some great quotes:

Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of mass destruction.
Dick Cheney
August 26, 2002

Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised.
George W. Bush
March 17, 2003

But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong, we found them.
George W. Bush Interview with TVP Poland
5/30/2003

Evidence that was either completely wrong, or was later proved to be falsified. This tells me one of two things.

Either he was:

A) Lying
B) Completely misled

I'm not sure which scares me more. The idea of a President so willing to lie and send people into harms way for his own political gain, or a President who has surrounded himself with advisors who will lie and manipulate him into going to war.

As of April 17th, 690 U.S. soldiers, along with 133 allied soldiers have been killed in Iraq.