Disturbed by the media

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
How does anyone know what to believe anymore? This morning on FOX (*ahem*) they had 4 panelists - every one of whom was talking about how the AWOL charges were going to hurt Bush and saying how they'd take a real war hero (Kerry) over an AWOL.

They had two callers complaining about how Bush was a coward and should face charges for going AWOL - these two received sympathy and agreement. One caller said, "Were you this disturbed when you found out Clinton dodged the draft?" - this caller was cut off and disparaged.

So much for Fox being some right-wing outlet.

Anyway, I thought this was all cleared up? I thought they released Bush's pay records to prove he was where he was supposed to be? The commander guy who contributed by saying he didn't remember Bush being at his station has now come out and said he himself wasn't there at the time, which explains why he wouldn't have seen Bush there. :ohwell:

Next comes the big "Atkins was a fatty" story. His doctors have said publicly that Atkins came in trim and blew up with water weight in the hospital. So why are they still talking about Atkins being fat? I just got done watching some panelist discussion on CNN and, to a man, they were saying that Atkins - which has been going on for 30 years - is a fad that will die out and Atkins dying fat proves it.

WTF? :confused:
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Sparx? Dems? JLab? How do you all answer back to the payroll records? Do you honestly think they were fabricated? That the BFEE forced someone to forge those records to exonerate their boy?

Honestly?
 

SmallTown

Football season!
Originally posted by vraiblonde
Sparx? Dems? JLab? How do you all answer back to the payroll records? Do you honestly think they were fabricated? That the BFEE forced someone to forge those records to exonerate their boy?

Honestly?

Funny you should mention such a thing. Considering most people on here are government contractors or government employees, we can all agree we have received pay when we weren't doing what we were supposed to be doing. Records showes he was paid, but not for what or where he was.

But there are still some other gaps about his time in Alabama.

And I love the reversal of field by the right. When people were asked to come forward to knew Bush was where he was supposed to be, the right cried out "That was 30 years ago! You can't expect people to remember things from back then"
Then all of a sudden someone does come forward (who happens to be a loyal bush supporter) and says he does remember him, even recalls conversations they had and what he was reading. So now the right is jumping up and down saying 'See! See! I told you!", I guess forgetting about their earlier statements that it would be impossible. And wow, he remembers conversations and what Bush was reading. Heck, I hang with same basic crowd at work and can't tell you what we were reading or what we discussed or even who I had lunch with a month ago.

"Meanwhile a retired Alabama Air National Guard officer said he remembers Bush showing up for duty in Alabama in 1972, reading safety magazines and flight manuals in an office as he performed his weekend obligations.

"I saw him each drill period," retired Lt. Col. John "Bill" Calhoun said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press from Daytona Beach, Fla., where he is preparing to watch this weekend's big NASCAR race.

Calhoun, whose name was supplied to the AP by a Republican close to Bush, is the first member of the 187th Tactical Reconnaissance Group to recall Bush distinctly at the Alabama base in the period of 1972-1973. He was the unit's flight safety officer."

It will be interesting to see how it all pans out. He is in a sticky situation. If he lets it drag out too long, it will simply run him into the ground going into the election. If he comes forward now, he has plenty of time before the elections to bring himself back up. I'm hoping for the latter, because I don't want any reason right now to vote for Kerry.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Okay, ST - that leads to my next question: what could Bush do to put these allegations to rest? The Dems said, "Produce payroll records." Bush produced payroll records.

Now what? What would convince you that Bush wasn't AWOL?
 

Frank

Chairman of the Board
I don't know WHAT will put them to rest.

At the time in question, I was in grade school. I can just see someone claiming that I *wasn't* in school all year only because some folks who were there don't remember me being there. And if I prove my attendance by a report card, someone disputes that I could STILL get grades without actually BEING there.

I mean, if THAT doesn't prove it, what does? Apparently it's sufficient to believe he *wasn't* there because some folks DON'T REMEMBER something that happened 30 years ago.

*THAT'S "PROOF"? Someone *doesn't* remember? That's bullsh*t. Can you imagine a court case built on witnesses who don't remember one way or another? Let's see, John Kerry was out robbing banks 30 years ago, because for whole weeks at a time, no one remembers where he was. This is monumentally stupid.

Incidentally, I tried to watch Neil Cavuto deal with the "Atkins died fat, the whole last 30 years and everything he wrote is a fraud" thing with Susan Powter, the Stop the Insanity person who may be rich, well recognized and thinner but is NOT a doctor or any kind of educated expert. It was pointless. She wouldn't shut up about why Atkins was "wrong" (or shut up AT ALL, but interrrupted in her famous motor mouth) because Americans are still fat (which proves *nothing*) and you can lose weight by building muscle (true, but irrelevant). I've half a mind to write Cavuto and ask him who removed his cojones.
 

ceo_pte

New Member
Originally posted by vraiblonde
How does anyone know what to believe anymore? This morning on FOX (*ahem*) they had 4 panelists - every one of whom was talking about how the AWOL charges were going to hurt Bush and saying how they'd take a real war hero (Kerry) over an AWOL.

They had two callers complaining about how Bush was a coward and should face charges for going AWOL - these two received sympathy and agreement. One caller said, "Were you this disturbed when you found out Clinton dodged the draft?" - this caller was cut off and disparaged.

So much for Fox being some right-wing outlet.

Anyway, I thought this was all cleared up? I thought they released Bush's pay records to prove he was where he was supposed to be? The commander guy who contributed by saying he didn't remember Bush being at his station has now come out and said he himself wasn't there at the time, which explains why he wouldn't have seen Bush there. :ohwell:

Next comes the big "Atkins was a fatty" story. His doctors have said publicly that Atkins came in trim and blew up with water weight in the hospital. So why are they still talking about Atkins being fat? I just got done watching some panelist discussion on CNN and, to a man, they were saying that Atkins - which has been going on for 30 years - is a fad that will die out and Atkins dying fat proves it.

WTF? :confused:


Vrai,
Honestly, we stopped watching the news and TV for the most part. There is too much crap on TV(the show w/ the two gay guys) and I feel it pollutes my mind with crap. W/o TV I have a better outlook on life and I spend more time reading(not the Washington Post) & gaining knowledge for myself. Besides, if there is anything important I need to hear someone will tell me.
 

SurfaceTension

New Member
Originally posted by vraiblonde
Okay, ST - that leads to my next question: what could Bush do to put these allegations to rest? The Dems said, "Produce payroll records." Bush produced payroll records.

Now what? What would convince you that Bush wasn't AWOL?


Ordeal By Fire

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ordeal By Fire
Before an ordeal by fire began, all involved would take part in a religious rite. This rite lasted three days and the accused underwent blessings, exorcisms, prayers, fasting, and the taking of sacraments.

Then it was time to be exposed to the fire. Sometimes that meant carrying a lump of hot iron for a set distance, something in the order of three yards (three metres). For petty offences the lump of iron weighed about a pound (450 grams) but for more serious charges it could be as much as three pounds (1.5 kilos).
The other type of ordeal by fire was walking blindfolded across hot coals. After the ordeal, the burn wound was wrapped up. After three days, the injury was inspected to divine innocence or guilt. If there was an open sore, the defendant was guilty; if the wound was healed over, the defendant was innocent.

Needless to say, an "innocent" declaration could be arranged, depending on the power of the bribe and "the corruption of the officiating clerics. For a fee the irons and the coals would be sufficiently cool to tolerate" (Farrington 22).
 

rraley

New Member
So someone else noticed that Fox News became more liberal lately. It seems like after it came out that the only news station that is watched in the White House is Fox News, the rest of the media did nothing but pound Fox as far out right. It hasn't been the best couple of months for Fox's objectivity ratings (look at Al Franken's book and the controversy it started). They just want to save some face and appear to be just as liberal as your MSNBC's CNN's, etc.

But about this whole draft-doding bullcrap. I am a Democrat and am not the biggest fan of George W. Bush in the world, but let me say this: the party is raising the wrong issue here. Look we defended Clinton getting completely out of doing anything in the military, but we can hit George W. Bush for supposedly not going to all of his National Guard drilling (which apparently the full disclosure of his military records show that he did indeed attend when he had to for the Guard). I mean the man was honorably discharged there is no issue here. Anyways, Vietnam was a long time ago. Rather than bitching about such an old issue, how about a real debate on the President's immigration reform, the deficit, and Health Care? Can we get that at least? I think that the American people deserve that. But let me tell you, this campaign is going to be one of the nastiest campaigns in recent history. Both sides are already slinging some serious mud about the candidates' past and there doesn't seem to be an end in sight. I hope to God that Democrats get their head on straight and decide against nominating Senator "Special Interest" Kerry so that the next campaign can be a real debate and not reliving Vietnam.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Originally posted by rraley
Rather than bitching about such an old issue, how about a real debate on the President's immigration reform, the deficit, and Health Care? Can we get that at least?
My God! A sensible Democrat! Where'd you come from? :lol:

I have to take issue with you saying both sides are slinging mud - Bush has slung no mud and I challenge you to find me one instance where he has. The Republicans didn't rat out Kerry - Wes Clark did that in front of a bunch of reporters.
 

rraley

New Member
Well Bush has not done it per se but his subordinates have (like Terry McAuliffe (sp?) bringing up the AWOL bs as a subordinate not as speaking for the candidate). Drudge with the intern story, the Jane Fonda picture (Gillespie, RNC head, has mentioned this), the special interest web ad on the RNC's site. Republican backchannel sources as I call them are doing it now and the debate in the fall will be along those lines and even if the two candidates do not mention it explicitly, everyone will associate the attacks of like-minded people with them.
 

Tonio

Asperger's Poster Child
Originally posted by vraiblonde
I have to take issue with you saying both sides are slinging mud - Bush has slung no mud and I challenge you to find me one instance where he has. The Republicans didn't rat out Kerry - Wes Clark did that in front of a bunch of reporters.

Vrai, the point I've been trying to make is that "both sides" aren't just the elected officials of both parties. To me, "both sides" includes party apparatchiks like Terry McAuliffe and Ed Gillespie, as well as the partisan pundits and the extremists groups allied with the parties. Even though those latter groups are not elected, they are still vital to the parties' interests. They can get down and dirty in their rhetoric in ways that the elected officials often can't or won't. That's a big reason why I don't belong to a political party--I feel like if I support a party, I'm supporting all its extremists and pundits who hog the microphones and cameras.
 

ceo_pte

New Member
yes, but Vrai's point was that the liberal media and the democrats have been attacking Bush publicly for months. But his character and integrity is far beyond their grasp and I doubt if he will stoop to their standards. I am speaking of just the candidates.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Tonio and Raley:

The difference is that the Democratic candidates, with the exception of Carol Mosley Braun, have slandered the hell out of Bush, called him AWOL, liar and many other ugly things. It's not just the pundits, reporters and National Committee chairmen - it's the candidates themselves. Even Clinton, Gore and Hillary said ugly things about Republicans when they were in charge.

Bush, ever since he took office, has avoided ugly rhetoric. You don't hear Cheney, Powell or Rice talking smack, regardless of the nasty things the Dems say about them. Bush said he'd create a better atmosphere in Washington, and he's definitely done his part. The Dems, on the other hand, have stepped it up into the stratosphere.
 

rraley

New Member
Well the Democrats have been doing some major attacking, but prior to McAuliffe erroneously saying that Bush had been AWOL, it was mostly focused on the President's record, which is fair game. Whether you blame Clinton or not or whether you believe there should be more tax cuts for the supply sided part of the nation, the fact is that there are 2.2 million less jobs in Bush's tenure, a $520 billion budget deficit, runaway government spending, and several hundred thousand soldiers defending freedom in a place where they have many enemies. The Democrats should be talking about how they are gonna fix these problems and not Bush's service in the Air National Guard thirty years ago. And the Republicans should be talking about how the job losses are temporary, that the economy is turning around, we don't need a permission slip to defend ourselves, etc. rather than shoot back with pictures of John Kerry with Jane Fonda and intern allegations. Bush, well his friends, have stooped to the Democrats' level. Any way you look at these personal attacks, you lose. Can't we (Democrats and Republicans alike) just be civil in our democratic process?
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Originally posted by rraley
Can't we (Democrats and Republicans alike) just be civil in our democratic process?
No. If a candidate has a major skeleton in his closet, you'll never find out about it unless the opposition brings it up. I want to know these things and am smart enough to sort out the truth from the garbage.
 

rraley

New Member
Originally posted by vraiblonde
Tonio and Raley:

The difference is that the Democratic candidates, with the exception of Carol Mosley Braun, have slandered the hell out of Bush, called him AWOL, liar and many other ugly things. Bush said he'd create a better atmosphere in Washington, and he's definitely done his part. The Dems, on the other hand, have stepped it up into the stratosphere.

Fair points here vraiblonde, but I disagree with your characterization of the Democratic field. Al Sharpton called Bush a liar last night as did Dennis Kucinich (and they are gonna win the nomination when hell freezes over), but Kerry and Edwards refused to do that. I know that Edwards and Kerry have refused to call Bush AWOL, in fact Kerry said that he wasn't in the position to call Bush AWOL last night in the debate. I will not deny that Democratic candidates have attacked Bush, but they have attacked on the issues, which is part of good politics. They are pointing out differences. McAuliffe is doing the low, personal attacks and Democratic outlets are bringing up Bush's questionable involvement in an abortion in the 1960s. This is much like the other side in Gillepsie, etc. who are talking about Jane Fonda and Kerry's anti-war record after returning home from Vietnam.

And I am not so sure that Bush has done his part to change the atmosphere in Washington. Perhaps his public rhetoric is all good and dandy, but his dealings behind the camera are much harsher. When the Democrats controlled the Senate, Bush used the bully pulpit to get Democratic senators to support his tax cut, which was fine. But then he goes out and stumps for their opponents to beat the Democrats in 2002. No president has been so active in campaigning during midterms as the current one. He supports Tom Delay who has singlehandedly circumvented the electoral process in his state of Texas through re-redistricting and who blocks the minority out of all legislative dealings. When the Republican Medicare benefit was being voted on, the vote was opened for almost 4 hours because the Republicans were going to lose. Yes, Bush may not be pointedly blasting Democats, but he is winking and nodding and anomosity on Capitol Hill is at one of its highest points in years. The Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill cannot get along and the blame can be seen on both sides. This is not one side or the other, the blame is shared.
 

rraley

New Member
What Really Bothers Me about the Media

is the coverage of the Democratic primaries. John Kerry wins in Iowa and then no other candidate matters. Democrats are being unjustly pushed into their decision for nominee by the media's blackout of the other campaigns.
 

ceo_pte

New Member
Originally posted by rraley
Fair points here vraiblonde, but I disagree with your characterization of the Democratic field. Al Sharpton called Bush a liar last night as did Dennis Kucinich (and they are gonna win the nomination when hell freezes over), but Kerry and Edwards refused to do that. I know that Edwards and Kerry have refused to call Bush AWOL, in fact Kerry said that he wasn't in the position to call Bush AWOL last night in the debate. I will not deny that Democratic candidates have attacked Bush, but they have attacked on the issues, which is part of good politics. They are pointing out differences. McAuliffe is doing the low, personal attacks and Democratic outlets are bringing up Bush's questionable involvement in an abortion in the 1960s. This is much like the other side in Gillepsie, etc. who are talking about Jane Fonda and Kerry's anti-war record after returning home from Vietnam.

And I am not so sure that Bush has done his part to change the atmosphere in Washington. Perhaps his public rhetoric is all good and dandy, but his dealings behind the camera are much harsher. When the Democrats controlled the Senate, Bush used the bully pulpit to get Democratic senators to support his tax cut, which was fine. But then he goes out and stumps for their opponents to beat the Democrats in 2002. No president has been so active in campaigning during midterms as the current one. He supports Tom Delay who has singlehandedly circumvented the electoral process in his state of Texas through re-redistricting and who blocks the minority out of all legislative dealings. When the Republican Medicare benefit was being voted on, the vote was opened for almost 4 hours because the Republicans were going to lose. Yes, Bush may not be pointedly blasting Democats, but he is winking and nodding and anomosity on Capitol Hill is at one of its highest points in years. The Republicans and Democrats on Capitol Hill cannot get along and the blame can be seen on both sides. This is not one side or the other, the blame is shared.

Ever heard of fillibusters... If you feel bad for the minorities then you should be outraged at what's happening in Congress with the Federal Judge appointees. Who's to blame? The Democrats!
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
But then he goes out and stumps for their opponents to beat the Democrats in 2002.
Well...yeah. :confused: That's what they all do - Clinton spent half his Presidency campaigning for Democrats.

You're right about Edwards but I've heard Kerry call Bush AWOL and a liar with my own ears. I'll try and run you down an article somewhere so you don't have to take my word for it.

To me there's a big difference between some completely unsubstantiated rumor about Bush paying for some girl's abortion and Kerry's proven anti-war activism. And the anti-war part isn't even so much what concerns me - Kerry's got a right to his opinion. It's the way he went about it, like some damn hippie freak, screaming and protesting, calling soldiers "baby-killers" and getting arrested like some Dead Head.
 

vraiblonde

Board Mommy
PREMO Member
Patron
Originally posted by rraley
Democrats are being unjustly pushed into their decision for nominee by the media's blackout of the other campaigns.
I completely agree with you. It annoys me how the media pretty much chooses our candidates for us. I firmly believe that, if it weren't for the media, John Edwards would be the front runner right now. Maybe even Joe Lieberman, but he's not as camera-friendly as some of the others.

I'm a conservative and was very impressed with Alan Keyes (who I voted for in the 2000 primary). He had great things to say in the debates - much more impressive than Bush or McCain - yet the media never mentioned a word about him. It was all John and Dubya, all the time.
 
Top