happythoughts 0 #301 February 16, 2004 Kerry was 60 and seeing a 22 yo for 2 years. There's hope for me yet. Very few differences. He is rich, good-looking, and politically connected. Other than that, it is like we are twins or something. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #302 February 16, 2004 QuoteQuoteI suspect they made a calculated risk based on sketchy and conflicting intelligence and the strong desire that it be true 'cos they were itching for a fight, dismissed the conflicting part when they made the case to Congress, and were caught out when their version turned out to be bogus Again they didn't lie...they might have made a mistake. Liars or incompetents - you get to choose. Deficit - wrong Unemployment - wrong "We know where they are" - wrong "Uranium from Africa" despite being told by the CIA the "intelligence" was no good - wrong "Compassionate conservative" - wrong "They can deploy WMD in 45 minutes" - wrong Powell's evidence to the UN - wrong, it turned out to be from a 9 year old PhD thesis! And I could continue.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
skydivexxl 0 #303 February 16, 2004 Lets see... Kerry+Lie=divorce Bush+Lie=War Go Kerry!!!! Blog Clicky Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #304 February 16, 2004 QuoteLets see... Kerry+Lie=divorce Bush+Lie=War Go Kerry!!!! Here's an interesting link from exactly one year ago. www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=386350#386350... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #305 February 17, 2004 Interesting how rumous and innuendo can spark a huge thread. Expect more to come. These statements have been released: A statement released Monday by Alexandra Polier, who has been the subject of rumors linking her to Sen. John Kerry: "For the last several days I have seen Internet and tabloid rumors relating to me and Senator John Kerry. Because these stories were false, I assumed the media would ignore them. It seems that efforts to peddle these lies continue, so I feel compelled to address them. I have never had a relationship with Senator Kerry, and the rumors in the press are completely false. Whoever is spreading these rumors and allegations does not know me, but should know the pain they have caused me and my family. I am in Kenya with my fiance visiting his family, and we ask that the press respect our privacy and leave all of us alone." A statement by Terry and Donna Polier, the parents of Alexandra Polier: "We have spoken to our daughter and the allegations that have been made regarding her are completely false and unsubstantiated. We love and support her 100 percent and these unfounded rumors are hurtful to our entire family. We appreciate the way Senator Kerry has handled the situation, and intend on voting for him for president of the United States."--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #306 February 17, 2004 QuoteKerry was 60 and seeing a 22 yo for 2 years. There's hope for me yet. Very few differences. He is rich, good-looking, and politically connected. Other than that, it is like we are twins or something. Are you 60 yet, Bill? I know you look it, but that might just be from hard living.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Amazon 7 #307 February 17, 2004 Hey Mikkey Long time no see.. good to have a friend back here to counterbalance the BUND. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #308 February 17, 2004 So can we assume you have the same contempt for the totally bogus accusations against GWB regarding his ANG Service? I wonder why the media seized on that unsubstantiated allegation and ran with it and didn't give this story the same attention? Even after GWB released all his records, still the media hounds him with disbelief. You are right that more stories like this will emerge against both candidates. Watch the intensity and attention given those against GWB as opposed to John Kerry. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #309 February 17, 2004 QuoteSo can we assume you have the same contempt for the totally bogus accusations against GWB regarding his ANG Service? I wonder why the media seized on that unsubstantiated allegation and ran with it and didn't give this story the same attention? Even after GWB released all his records, still the media hounds him with disbelief. You are right that more stories like this will emerge against both candidates. Watch the intensity and attention given those against GWB as opposed to John Kerry. Maybe it's because the records were quite inconclusive. Unlike the outcome of his economic policies. I'd still like an answer to this .... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #310 February 17, 2004 QuoteQuoteSo can we assume you have the same contempt for the totally bogus accusations against GWB regarding his ANG Service? I wonder why the media seized on that unsubstantiated allegation and ran with it and didn't give this story the same attention? Even after GWB released all his records, still the media hounds him with disbelief. You are right that more stories like this will emerge against both candidates. Watch the intensity and attention given those against GWB as opposed to John Kerry. Maybe it's because the records were quite inconclusive. Unlike the outcome of his economic policies. I'd still like an answer to this . Since when is it up to someone in the ANG to keep their own records for over 30 years? I don't even keep my tax records for more than 3 years so why is it such a surprise they are inconclusive? Only inconclusive to those who don't like the fact they were wrong. GWB would have had to carry a video camera around with him day and night before the libs would have been satisfied and even then they would claim the records were manipulated. As for your other question, I already answered it last week as did many others. You just don't want to accept the answer. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #311 February 17, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteSo can we assume you have the same contempt for the totally bogus accusations against GWB regarding his ANG Service? I wonder why the media seized on that unsubstantiated allegation and ran with it and didn't give this story the same attention? Even after GWB released all his records, still the media hounds him with disbelief. You are right that more stories like this will emerge against both candidates. Watch the intensity and attention given those against GWB as opposed to John Kerry. Maybe it's because the records were quite inconclusive. Unlike the outcome of his economic policies. I'd still like an answer to this . Since when is it up to someone in the ANG to keep their own records for over 30 years? I don't even keep my tax records for more than 3 years so why is it such a surprise they are inconclusive? Only inconclusive to those who don't like the fact they were wrong. GWB would have had to carry a video camera around with him day and night before the libs would have been satisfied and even then they would claim the records were manipulated. As for your other question, I already answered it last week as did many others. You just don't want to accept the answer. Your only post on the topic in the last two weeks (according to DZ.COM's forum search) didn't address the question at all. It said: "Again, Kallend, give it a rest. Predictions like this are made based on the economic information available at that time. Who was to know Sept 11 would happen? Who would know that because Clinton's Justice Dept was run by a corrupt Janet Reno that companies like Enron, Global Crossing etc would create the economic impact they did and be allowed to get away with it for 8 years? Get real. " You are in denial. 1. Bush's prediction came in January 2002, which was AFTER 9/11, not before, so he knew 9/11 had happened. 2. You didn't address AT ALL why he predicted one thing and then pursued policies that would do the exact opposite (lower revenues and raise expenditures). Both of those were under his control. Bush proposed the tax cuts, and Bush created the increase in the bureaucracy. 3. Enron and Worldcom are drops in the bucket compared to the increase in the deficit. You are just throwing dust in the air. A discussion on the state of the US economy is NOT a dead horse. Fact is, none of you Bush fans want to admit that the only explanations for the economic outcomes of the last three years in relation to Bush's statements are (a) deceit by Bush, or (b) ineptitude by Bush. So each time I ask the question you folks disappear (like Michele) or throw insults.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #312 February 17, 2004 QuoteSo each time I ask the question you folks disappear (like Michele) or throw insults. I haven't disappeared, Kallend. I am just ignoring you. Ciels- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #313 February 17, 2004 QuoteXXXXX DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU FEB 12, 2004 11:45:28 ET XXXXX CAMPAIGN DRAMA ROCKS DEMOCRATS: KERRY FIGHTS OFF MEDIA PROBE OF RECENT ALLEGED INFIDELITY, RIVALS PREDICT RUIN . This stuff also came from Drudge: www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=689179#689179 The righties all jumped on the bandwagon. Don't you guys EVER learn?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #314 February 17, 2004 QuoteQuoteSo each time I ask the question you folks disappear (like Michele) or throw insults. I haven't disappeared, Kallend. I am just ignoring you. Ciels- Michele Well, gee Michele, it's one sauce for the gander and another for the goose. Exactly one year ago this very day you wrote: "Kallend, why have you not provided me with answers to my questions in the past? Why are you so opposed to the war? Why are you so persistent in not answering direct questions? " Do I detect some hypocrisy here? PS I think the reasons for opposing the war have now become quite apparent. It was fought under false pretenses. And you folks on the right swallowed the bait, hook, line and sinker.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #315 February 17, 2004 Quote"For the last several days I have seen Internet and tabloid rumors relating to me and Senator John Kerry. Because these stories were false, I assumed the media would ignore them. It seems that efforts to peddle these lies continue, so I feel compelled to address them. I have never had a relationship with Senator Kerry, and the rumors in the press are completely false. Whoever is spreading these rumors and allegations does not know me, but should know the pain they have caused me and my family. I am in Kenya with my fiance visiting his family, and we ask that the press respect our privacy and leave all of us alone." Oh. Well. Alex Polier denied it, so it must be the truth.... Monica Lewinsky also denied it, and did so in a sworn affidavit, as well. That's what her immunity deal was about. Or don't you recall that part of the scandal? (in case of forgetfulness, here's a link.) Ciels- Michele (Edited to add link...) ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,148 #316 February 17, 2004 QuoteQuote"For the last several days I have seen Internet and tabloid rumors relating to me and Senator John Kerry. Because these stories were false, I assumed the media would ignore them. It seems that efforts to peddle these lies continue, so I feel compelled to address them. I have never had a relationship with Senator Kerry, and the rumors in the press are completely false. Whoever is spreading these rumors and allegations does not know me, but should know the pain they have caused me and my family. I am in Kenya with my fiance visiting his family, and we ask that the press respect our privacy and leave all of us alone." Oh. Well. Alex Polier denied it, so it must be the truth.... Monica Lewinsky also denied it, and did so in a sworn affidavit, as well. That's what her immunity deal was about. Or don't you recall that part of the scandal? Ciels- Michele Monica Lewinski had an affair with Kerry? I'm horrified! I guess every sworn affidavit in the USA has now become worthless.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #317 February 17, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteSo can we assume you have the same contempt for the totally bogus accusations against GWB regarding his ANG Service? Quote I wonder why the media seized on that unsubstantiated allegation and ran with it and didn't give this story the same attention? Even after GWB released all his records, still the media hounds him with disbelief. You are right that more stories like this will emerge against both candidates. Watch the intensity and attention given those against GWB as opposed to John Kerry. Maybe it's because the records were quite inconclusive. Unlike the outcome of his economic policies. I'd still like an answer to this . Since when is it up to someone in the ANG to keep their own records for over 30 years? I don't even keep my tax records for more than 3 years so why is it such a surprise they are inconclusive? Only inconclusive to those who don't like the fact they were wrong. GWB would have had to carry a video camera around with him day and night before the libs would have been satisfied and even then they would claim the records were manipulated. As for your other question, I already answered it last week as did many others. You just don't want to accept the answer. Your only post on the topic in the last two weeks (according to DZ.COM's forum search) didn't address the question at all. It said: "Again, Kallend, give it a rest. Predictions like this are made based on the economic information available at that time. Who was to know Sept 11 would happen? Who would know that because Clinton's Justice Dept was run by a corrupt Janet Reno that companies like Enron, Global Crossing etc would create the economic impact they did and be allowed to get away with it for 8 years? Get real. " You are in denial. 1. Bush's prediction came in January 2002, which was AFTER 9/11, not before, so he knew 9/11 had happened. Quote So what. Are you saying he knew his predictions weren't accurate? You got any evidence to back up your claim? 2. You didn't address AT ALL why he predicted one thing and then pursued policies that would do the exact opposite (lower revenues and raise expenditures). Both of those were under his control. Bush proposed the tax cuts, and Bush created the increase in the bureaucracy.Quote Correct. Because I don't know why. I'm not an Economist and even if I were, I wouldn't be so pretentious to claim to understand all the relational complexities of global economics and the sometimes delicate balance of such. Quote3. Enron and Worldcom are drops in the bucket compared to the increase in the deficit. You are just throwing dust in the air. Is it throwing dust in the air to realize how much these scandals have affected consumer confidence in the stock market? QuoteA discussion on the state of the US economy is NOT a dead horse. Your constant harping on it and finding a way to bring it up in almost every thread you've been involved in over the last 2 weeks classifies it as a dead horse. The answers you've gotten from many people and still you continue to harp on it classifies it as a dead horse. QuoteFact is, none of you Bush fans want to admit that the only explanations for the economic outcomes of the last three years in relation to Bush's statements are (a) deceit by Bush, or (b) ineptitude by Bush. Or that the answer isn't as simple as "he lied" which seems to be the only answer you are willing to accept. The truth is that GWB has been employing Liberal Economic policies and has recieved considerable criticism from many Conservatives including Denny Hastert, but your obsesion with the subject has apparently blinded you to these facts. QuoteSo each time I ask the question you folks disappear (like Michele) or throw insults. I never disappear. I may have business to attend to or I may just figure you aren't going to accept any other answer other than "you are right, Kallend" or I may just decide for some reason to ignore you. I have also put several questions to you over the last year or so that you never answered for some reason, but thats your choice. I never followed you around like an obsessed ex-wife screaming "answer zee question" (in a Nazi-like voice). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites kallend 2,148 #318 February 17, 2004 Quote "Again, Kallend, give it a rest. Predictions like this are made based on the economic information available at that time. Who was to know Sept 11 would happen? Who would know that because Clinton's Justice Dept was run by a corrupt Janet Reno that companies like Enron, Global Crossing etc would create the economic impact they did and be allowed to get away with it for 8 years? Get real. " You are in denial. 1. Bush's prediction came in January 2002, which was AFTER 9/11, not before, so he knew 9/11 had happened. Quote So what. Are you saying he knew his predictions weren't accurate? You got any evidence to back up your claim? You have to be kidding. His statement on the "small and short-term" deficit was in the SoU address 2002, and his budget with an ALL TIME RECORD deficit was submitted to Congress last month. Bush's Economic Report to the Nation, Feb. 2003 predicted 1.7M new jobs in 2003. Labor Dept. figures for 2003 showed 50k FEWER jobs. How much more evidence do you need than official (Republican controlled) government data? You ARE in denial. The guy is a clueless liar.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #319 February 17, 2004 QuoteQuote "Again, Kallend, give it a rest. Predictions like this are made based on the economic information available at that time. Who was to know Sept 11 would happen? Who would know that because Clinton's Justice Dept was run by a corrupt Janet Reno that companies like Enron, Global Crossing etc would create the economic impact they did and be allowed to get away with it for 8 years? Get real. " You are in denial. 1. Bush's prediction came in January 2002, which was AFTER 9/11, not before, so he knew 9/11 had happened. Quote So what. Are you saying he knew his predictions weren't accurate? You got any evidence to back up your claim? You have to be kidding. His statement on the "small and short-term" deficit was in the SoU address 2002, and his budget with an ALL TIME RECORD deficit was submitted to Congress last month. Bush's Economic Report to the Nation, Feb. 2003 predicted 1.7M new jobs in 2003. Labor Dept. figures for 2003 showed 50k FEWER jobs. How much more evidence do you need than official (Republican controlled) government data? You ARE in denial. The guy is a clueless liar. So F@cking what!! Maybe he was wrong. People do make mistakes sometimes. OK Kallend tell us what nefarious plot GWB is trying to hatch by telling all these lies you claim. Tell us what possible motive he has. And don't continue to beat that "he's an idiot dead horse either. Nepotism may have gotten him into Harvard, but unless you are willing to provide evidence of some secret "Skull and Bones Plot" to phony up his grades, then you will have to concede he did the work to earned his diploma. To conclude otherwise is a slanderous statement against all Harvard Grads. (sheesh... I can't believe I'm standing here watching you beat this horse. The only thing left at this point is horseshit and I'm starting to feel like a part of the horses anatomy) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mikkey 0 #320 February 17, 2004 QuoteOh. Well. Alex Polier denied it, so it must be the truth.... Monica Lewinsky also denied it, and did so in a sworn affidavit, as well. That's what her immunity deal was about. Or don't you recall that part of the scandal? (in case of forgetfulness, here's a link.) Ciels- Michele If we follow your thinking anyone can post any smear on the Internet and even if all parties state that it is untrue then we still should believe that there is "smoke"? Makes is too easy to perform dirty tricks campaigns.... Most (decent) journalists demand 2 independent sources before they print anything for just this reason.--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #321 February 17, 2004 QuoteQuoteOh. Well. Alex Polier denied it, so it must be the truth.... Monica Lewinsky also denied it, and did so in a sworn affidavit, as well. That's what her immunity deal was about. Or don't you recall that part of the scandal? (in case of forgetfulness, here's a link.) Ciels- Michele If we follow your thinking anyone can post any smear on the Internet and even if all parties state that it is untrue then we still should believe that there is "smoke"? Makes is too easy to perform dirty tricks campaigns.... Most (decent) journalists demand 2 independent sources before they print anything for just this reason. So you agree the BS regarding GWBs ANG service is unsubstatiated rumor from 32 years ago? Then why do you think the press is all over it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mikkey 0 #322 February 17, 2004 QuoteSince when is it up to someone in the ANG to keep their own records for over 30 years? I don't even keep my tax records for more than 3 years so why is it such a surprise they are inconclusive? Only inconclusive to those who don't like the fact they were wrong. GWB would have had to carry a video camera around with him day and night before the libs would have been satisfied and even then they would claim the records were manipulated. I have not been following the Bush ANG service issue closely. I read somewhere that the reason for the "questions" is mainly that they can not find people who actually remember serving with GWB during the period in question. People wonder why, the Bush family was well known even back then. Not sure what the facts are.--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Gravitymaster 0 #323 February 17, 2004 Once you've had time to familiarize yourself with the facts, I'd appreciate your opinion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites mikkey 0 #324 February 17, 2004 QuoteIf we follow your thinking anyone can post any smear on the Internet and even if all parties state that it is untrue then we still should believe that there is "smoke"? Makes is too easy to perform dirty tricks campaigns.... Most (decent) journalists demand 2 independent sources before they print anything for just this reason. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So you agree the BS regarding GWBs ANG service is unsubstatiated rumor from 32 years ago? Then why do you think the press is all over it? I am not familiar enough with the facts to discuss in detail. However, I agree in principle that the media should be more careful in regard to communicating "rumours" - it is not fair on anyone.--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites PhillyKev 0 #325 February 17, 2004 QuoteOK Kallend tell us what nefarious plot GWB is trying to hatch by telling all these lies you claim. Tell us what possible motive he has. Because he knows people are willing to buy anything he says and he wants to be re-elected. Plenty of examples on here alone of who believes his lies and thinks he's actually doing good things based solely on his claims instead of actual results. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites Prev 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Next Page 13 of 18 Join the conversation You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account. Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible. Reply to this topic... × Pasted as rich text. Paste as plain text instead Only 75 emoji are allowed. × Your link has been automatically embedded. Display as a link instead × Your previous content has been restored. Clear editor × You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL. Insert image from URL × Desktop Tablet Phone Submit Reply 0 Go To Topic Listing
kallend 2,148 #318 February 17, 2004 Quote "Again, Kallend, give it a rest. Predictions like this are made based on the economic information available at that time. Who was to know Sept 11 would happen? Who would know that because Clinton's Justice Dept was run by a corrupt Janet Reno that companies like Enron, Global Crossing etc would create the economic impact they did and be allowed to get away with it for 8 years? Get real. " You are in denial. 1. Bush's prediction came in January 2002, which was AFTER 9/11, not before, so he knew 9/11 had happened. Quote So what. Are you saying he knew his predictions weren't accurate? You got any evidence to back up your claim? You have to be kidding. His statement on the "small and short-term" deficit was in the SoU address 2002, and his budget with an ALL TIME RECORD deficit was submitted to Congress last month. Bush's Economic Report to the Nation, Feb. 2003 predicted 1.7M new jobs in 2003. Labor Dept. figures for 2003 showed 50k FEWER jobs. How much more evidence do you need than official (Republican controlled) government data? You ARE in denial. The guy is a clueless liar.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #319 February 17, 2004 QuoteQuote "Again, Kallend, give it a rest. Predictions like this are made based on the economic information available at that time. Who was to know Sept 11 would happen? Who would know that because Clinton's Justice Dept was run by a corrupt Janet Reno that companies like Enron, Global Crossing etc would create the economic impact they did and be allowed to get away with it for 8 years? Get real. " You are in denial. 1. Bush's prediction came in January 2002, which was AFTER 9/11, not before, so he knew 9/11 had happened. Quote So what. Are you saying he knew his predictions weren't accurate? You got any evidence to back up your claim? You have to be kidding. His statement on the "small and short-term" deficit was in the SoU address 2002, and his budget with an ALL TIME RECORD deficit was submitted to Congress last month. Bush's Economic Report to the Nation, Feb. 2003 predicted 1.7M new jobs in 2003. Labor Dept. figures for 2003 showed 50k FEWER jobs. How much more evidence do you need than official (Republican controlled) government data? You ARE in denial. The guy is a clueless liar. So F@cking what!! Maybe he was wrong. People do make mistakes sometimes. OK Kallend tell us what nefarious plot GWB is trying to hatch by telling all these lies you claim. Tell us what possible motive he has. And don't continue to beat that "he's an idiot dead horse either. Nepotism may have gotten him into Harvard, but unless you are willing to provide evidence of some secret "Skull and Bones Plot" to phony up his grades, then you will have to concede he did the work to earned his diploma. To conclude otherwise is a slanderous statement against all Harvard Grads. (sheesh... I can't believe I'm standing here watching you beat this horse. The only thing left at this point is horseshit and I'm starting to feel like a part of the horses anatomy) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #320 February 17, 2004 QuoteOh. Well. Alex Polier denied it, so it must be the truth.... Monica Lewinsky also denied it, and did so in a sworn affidavit, as well. That's what her immunity deal was about. Or don't you recall that part of the scandal? (in case of forgetfulness, here's a link.) Ciels- Michele If we follow your thinking anyone can post any smear on the Internet and even if all parties state that it is untrue then we still should believe that there is "smoke"? Makes is too easy to perform dirty tricks campaigns.... Most (decent) journalists demand 2 independent sources before they print anything for just this reason.--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #321 February 17, 2004 QuoteQuoteOh. Well. Alex Polier denied it, so it must be the truth.... Monica Lewinsky also denied it, and did so in a sworn affidavit, as well. That's what her immunity deal was about. Or don't you recall that part of the scandal? (in case of forgetfulness, here's a link.) Ciels- Michele If we follow your thinking anyone can post any smear on the Internet and even if all parties state that it is untrue then we still should believe that there is "smoke"? Makes is too easy to perform dirty tricks campaigns.... Most (decent) journalists demand 2 independent sources before they print anything for just this reason. So you agree the BS regarding GWBs ANG service is unsubstatiated rumor from 32 years ago? Then why do you think the press is all over it? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #322 February 17, 2004 QuoteSince when is it up to someone in the ANG to keep their own records for over 30 years? I don't even keep my tax records for more than 3 years so why is it such a surprise they are inconclusive? Only inconclusive to those who don't like the fact they were wrong. GWB would have had to carry a video camera around with him day and night before the libs would have been satisfied and even then they would claim the records were manipulated. I have not been following the Bush ANG service issue closely. I read somewhere that the reason for the "questions" is mainly that they can not find people who actually remember serving with GWB during the period in question. People wonder why, the Bush family was well known even back then. Not sure what the facts are.--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gravitymaster 0 #323 February 17, 2004 Once you've had time to familiarize yourself with the facts, I'd appreciate your opinion. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mikkey 0 #324 February 17, 2004 QuoteIf we follow your thinking anyone can post any smear on the Internet and even if all parties state that it is untrue then we still should believe that there is "smoke"? Makes is too easy to perform dirty tricks campaigns.... Most (decent) journalists demand 2 independent sources before they print anything for just this reason. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- So you agree the BS regarding GWBs ANG service is unsubstatiated rumor from 32 years ago? Then why do you think the press is all over it? I am not familiar enough with the facts to discuss in detail. However, I agree in principle that the media should be more careful in regard to communicating "rumours" - it is not fair on anyone.--------------------------------------------------------- When people look like ants - pull. When ants look like people - pray. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #325 February 17, 2004 QuoteOK Kallend tell us what nefarious plot GWB is trying to hatch by telling all these lies you claim. Tell us what possible motive he has. Because he knows people are willing to buy anything he says and he wants to be re-elected. Plenty of examples on here alone of who believes his lies and thinks he's actually doing good things based solely on his claims instead of actual results. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
