Can someone post me a link...

[TheAnvil 0]

...to ANY interview from any major media outlet covering sKerry and Edwards castigating the Swift Boat Vets ad where either of 'The Johns' is asked about MoveOn.org advertisements in any manner? Or Moron Moore's F-911?

Just wondering if one exists. I'd wager that it doesn't.

Vinny the Anvil
Post Traumatic Didn't Make The Lakers Syndrome is REAL
JACKASS POWER!!!!!!

[quade 4]

Not really sure that proves much.

Not really sure what the significance of it would be either way. While it may be a legit question to ask, it's really up to the reporters to ask the questions.

It'll be interesting to see if Stewart does anything along these lines tonight. He does some interesting interviews and while most of it is for comedic effect, he actually manages to get in a shot or two every once in awhile.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[turtlespeed 226]

Quote

Not really sure that proves much.

Not really sure what the significance of it would be either way. While it may be a legit question to ask, it's really up to the reporters to ask the questions.

It'll be interesting to see if Stewart does anything along these lines tonight. He does some interesting interviews and while most of it is for comedic effect, he actually manages to get in a shot or two every once in awhile.

And yet another democratic policy - this time it's the media's - instills "Don't ask - Don't tell"

I'm not usually into the whole 3-way thing, but you got me a little excited with that. - Skymama
BTR #1 / OTB^5 Official #2 / Hellfish #408 / VSCR #108/Tortuga/Orfun

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

Not really sure that proves much.

Not really sure what the significance of it would be either way. While it may be a legit question to ask, it's really up to the reporters to ask the questions.

And you don't see possible media complicity in the fact that reporters are not pointing out, in questions to "the Johns," that there are biased, questionable groups trying to make the Republicans look bad for the benefit of the Democrats?

I mean, Kerry has all but screamed that SVT is a front for the Republicans... What is MoveOn.org, then? Isn't there a guy in charge of that who was some high-up in Kerry's campaign?? Aren't they smearing Republicans so that Kerry benefits? But the media are asking no questions about them to Kerry/Edwards, giving it no coverage. Strange.

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[jazzjumper 0]

Quote

Not really sure that proves much.

Not really sure what the significance of it would be either way. While it may be a legit question to ask, it's really up to the reporters to ask the questions.

Sure it does. It proves that the media isn't interested in the obvious question. It also proves that of all the reporters that either will talk with, they all seem to be of the same ilk. Hey, why not just let the facts of the medal citations speak for themselves. Release them all and prove the Switf Boat Vets wrong? Why not? The answer is obvious to me.

No matter how good she looks, someone, somewhere is
sick of her shit!

[billvon 3,110]

>Hey, why not just let the facts of the medal citations speak for
>themselves. Release them all and prove the Switf Boat Vets wrong?
> Why not?

Why not indeed? The commendations for the medals have been released and are easily available on-line. Heck, some of the SBVFT _wrote_ them.

[billvon 3,110]

>I mean, Kerry has all but screamed that SVT is a front for the
>Republicans... What is MoveOn.org, then?

A front for democrats.

>Isn't there a guy in charge of that who was some high-up in Kerry's
>campaign??

No. Kerry hired someone from MoveOn.Org; the guy quit working for MoveOn.Org. I suspect that's what you are thinking of.

>Aren't they smearing Republicans so that Kerry benefits?

Definitely.

>But the media are asking no questions about them to Kerry/Edwards,
>giving it no coverage. Strange.

A google search on "moveon.org CNN Kerry" returns 24,700 hits. That's one media outlet alone. If you think there's been no coverage, you're simply not reading any news. From one such CNN story:

--------------------------------
"It's another example of the coordination between MoveOn.org and the Kerry campaign that is illegal under campaign finance law," a Bush campaign official said.

"The Media Fund and MoveOn are functioning as Kerry's slush fund, a shadow Democratic Party that's illegally using soft dollars."
--------------------------------

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

>Hey, why not just let the facts of the medal citations speak for
>themselves. Release them all and prove the Switf Boat Vets wrong?
> Why not?

Why not indeed? The commendations for the medals have been released and are easily available on-line. Heck, some of the SBVFT _wrote_ them.

No, really, WHY is there an absence of pundits and reporters talking about the way groups are ganging up against Bush (MoveOn.org, all these pinhead celebrities and rock stars, etc.) but they're shrieking about how unfair it is that a bunch of veterans, with experience and knowledge of John Kerry and the circumstances (the Vietnam War) in which he is touting his performance, are criticizing him??

I see t-shirts that say "Buck Fush" and shit like that, and website after website with bullshit polls about Bush (check About.com -- I saw someone in my office reading it, had never heard of it before, myself). Every day in the paper here there is an article about which self-important rock star feels Bush is eroding freedom... No one is writing articles about the gang-banging of Bush by liberal cadres of whiners. Why won't you address this, bill?

-

-Jeffrey
"With tha thoughts of a militant mind... Hard line, hard line after hard line!"

[jazzjumper 0]

Quote

Why not indeed? The commendations for the medals have been released and are easily available on-line. Heck, some of the SBVFT _wrote_ them.

Is that accurate? I haven't seen them yet, and I've heard and read that Kerry refuses to release them. I've love a link.

No matter how good she looks, someone, somewhere is
sick of her shit!

[billvon 3,110]

>I've love a link.

http://www.johnkerry.com/about/john_kerry/military_records.html

>I've heard and read that Kerry refuses to release them.

Although that makes for good copy, they are on his website.

[billvon 3,110]

>WHY is there an absence of pundits and reporters talking about the
>way groups are ganging up against Bush (MoveOn.org, all these
> pinhead celebrities and rock stars, etc.)

??? O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Coulter etc have all been screaming incessantly about them for months now. Perhaps you heard about a group called the Dixie Chicks maligning Bush, for example.

>I see t-shirts that say "Buck Fush" and shit like that . . .

I like it! More creative than Hanoi Kerry or sKerry I think.

>Every day in the paper here there is an article about which self-
>important rock star feels Bush is eroding freedom... No one is writing
> articles about the gang-banging of Bush by liberal cadres of whiners.
> Why won't you address this, bill?

Cause I think that the SBVFT, rock stars, moveon.org, even pundits have first amendment rights, and should be allowed to say pretty much whatever they want. Freedom's a bitch, ain't it?

A better response than getting the press to whine about how mean everyone is being to Bush would be to get them to write something good about him. If everyone is saying that people should run on their records - tout his record!

[peacefuljeffrey 0]

Quote

>WHY is there an absence of pundits and reporters talking about the
>way groups are ganging up against Bush (MoveOn.org, all these
> pinhead celebrities and rock stars, etc.)

??? O'Reilly, Limbaugh, Coulter etc have all been screaming incessantly about them for months now. Perhaps you heard about a group called the Dixie Chicks maligning Bush, for example.

Umm, I'm talking about mainstream news people, not the ones YOU yourself would call conservative whackos and biased jerkoffs.

Quote

>I see t-shirts that say "Buck Fush" and shit like that . . .

I like it! More creative than Hanoi Kerry or sKerry I think.

Well, technically, I didn't actually see that one. I made that one up on the spot. I just couldn't remember the other, lame, ones that I actually have seen. They were similar.

The one really dumb overused one is "Shrub." Gee. Ha ha.

>Every day in the paper here there is an article about which self-
>important rock star feels Bush is eroding freedom... No one is writing
> articles about the gang-banging of Bush by liberal cadres of whiners.
> Why won't you address this, bill?

Cause I think that the SBVFT, rock stars, moveon.org, even pundits have first amendment rights, and should be allowed to say pretty much whatever they want. Freedom's a bitch, ain't it?

[Ron 10]

Quote

Second, I DIRECTLY asked you, in another thread (now locked, coincidentally), what your stance on the rights of the "suspected Al Qaeda member" who tried to buy guns at a gun shop was. You neglected to answer me. It was something about the presumption of innocence of a guy who you did NOT say had a criminal history. You just weren't "comfortable" with him being able to buy a gun since he was a "suspected Al Qaeda terrorist." Now, there are LOTS of "people of interest" around this country. What other rights, Bill, would you like to see them denied (besides their 2nd Amendment rights) just because the FBI (which I'm sure you're real fond of and think is doing a terrific job in the fight against terrorism) THINKS they MIGHT have terrorist ties?

So really, Bill... what's your take on allowing "people of interest" to continue to possess their constitutional rights until and unless they are convicted of specific crimes? Because from the tone of your post in that (now locked) thread, I could have sworn you didn't favor the arab guy being able to buy guns like the rest of us can! I'm sorry to have to point out that you did not say he was a criminal with a conviction for something that would prohibit him from buying guns. And if he was, well, it was YOUR example, and YOUR responsibility to make clear that the guy really should NOT have been able to make a gun purchase.

Bill has problems with "innocent till proven quilty" when it suits him...He is a judge and a jury ya know

"No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms." -- Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson Papers, 334

[billvon 3,110]

>what your stance on the rights of the "suspected Al Qaeda member"
>who tried to buy guns at a gun shop was.

I am glad he was unable to buy guns and disappear, and I am glad that requiring him to wait resulted in his capture.

>What other rights, Bill, would you like to see them denied (besides their
> 2nd Amendment rights) just because the FBI (which I'm sure you're real
>fond of and think is doing a terrific job in the fight against terrorism)
> THINKS they MIGHT have terrorist ties?

None. I don't want to see them prohibited from buying guns either. But a waiting period, especially one proven to catch terrorists, seems like a good compromise - it still allows people to buy whatever they want, it just takes another 3 days.

[PhillyKev 0]

Quote

No, really, WHY is there an absence of pundits and reporters talking about the way groups are ganging up against Bush (MoveOn.org, all these pinhead celebrities and rock stars, etc.) but they're shrieking about how unfair it is that a bunch of veterans, with experience and knowledge of John Kerry and the circumstances (the Vietnam War) in which he is touting his performance, are criticizing him??

Yeah, I haven't heard any shrieking about MoveOn or F911...

[billvon 3,110]

>No, really, WHY is there an absence of pundits and reporters talking
> about the way groups are ganging up against Bush (MoveOn.org, all
> these pinhead celebrities and rock stars, etc.)

To answer you more completely:

Moveon.org is a PAC - a political action group. They are an official advocate for democrats, and thus must obey strict contribution and advertising laws. Complaining about them promoting democratic candidates is like complaining about Clinton making pro-Kerry speeches.

SBVFT is a 527 organization. It's similar to a PAC, but with fewer restrictions. There is one very big one though:

--------------------------
Prohibitions on Direct Election Activity Because contributions to a §527 orgnaization are not regulated by the Federal Election Commission, these organizations may not make any expenditures involving express advocacy for the election or defeat of any candidate for federal elective office.
--------------------------

On to celebrities and rock stars:

Celebrities are people, and their rights to say whatever fool thing they want are as protected as yours are.