Kennedy 0 #26 September 9, 2004 You dispute some of the facts listed in Anvil's post? or are you just going to sit there and ad hominem the original writer? Guess which one I expect from you.witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #27 September 9, 2004 Quote>What part of HONORABLE DISCHARGE is congruent with "Did not fulfill his obligations"? The same sort of congruency you see between "decorated Vietnam vet" and "undeserving liar." Not true. Because I believe the real term was "incapable leader."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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #28 September 9, 2004 >Because I believe the real term was "incapable leader." Fair enough. So yes, a decorated Vietnam officer who is an incapable leader makes about as much sense as a honorably discharged guardsman who did not fulfill his obligations. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #29 September 10, 2004 What part of "decorated Vietnam vet" is congruent with "I personally, raped, tortured, blah blah blah..."Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #30 September 10, 2004 QuoteWhat part of "decorated Vietnam vet" is congruent with "I personally, raped, tortured, blah blah blah..." An inaccurate paraphrase. Afraid of quoting the actual full transcript? After all, it's not difficult to find it.... 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
storm1977 0 #31 September 10, 2004 Forged Documents.... CBS???? http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-bush10.html ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #32 September 10, 2004 Quote "I personally, raped, tortured, blah blah blah..." Does "paraphrase" mean to totally distort what he said and make outright false statements..... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnealtx 0 #33 September 10, 2004 QuoteQuote "I personally, raped, tortured, blah blah blah..." Does "paraphrase" mean to totally distort what he said and make outright false statements..... Hell, why not? That seems to be the liberal definition of "documentary".... why can't the conservatives use it too? *added the sarcasm tags for the benifit of certain humor-deficient people*Mike I love you, Shannon and Jim. POPS 9708 , SCR 14706 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #34 September 10, 2004 QuoteQuoteQuote "I personally, raped, tortured, blah blah blah..." Does "paraphrase" mean to totally distort what he said and make outright false statements..... Hell, why not? That seems to be the liberal definition of "documentary".... why can't the conservatives use it too? They can, and they would be just as wrong. I don't consider F9/11 a documentary and have stated that I don't agree with Moore's tactics. Nice to see that you embrace those tactics though. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #35 September 10, 2004 QuoteForged Documents.... CBS???? http://www.suntimes.com/output/elect/cst-nws-bush10.html Maybe. If so, I hope they catch the idiots that forged them and give them the same treatment you would give the folks who lied on the Swift Boat Veterans ads (Thurlow, O'Niell, ...). You do condemn the Liars for Bush too, don't you?... 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
turtlespeed 226 #36 September 10, 2004 There is a giant difference between the 1st amendment and submitting something as an official document. One is punishable by law. I think the charge would be falsifying a government document. It could just be fraud. At the very least it is forgery.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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #37 September 10, 2004 QuoteThere is a giant difference between the 1st amendment and submitting something as an official document. One is punishable by law. Slander is also punishable by law. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #38 September 10, 2004 QuoteThere is a giant difference between the 1st amendment and submitting something as an official document. One is punishable by law. I think the charge would be falsifying a government document. It could just be fraud. At the very least it is forgery. I believe that the alleged forged documents are claimed to be "personal" records, not official records. There haven't been any allegations made over the newly discovered Bush records obtained from the DoD under FOI.... 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
billvon 3,107 #39 September 10, 2004 > There is a giant difference between the 1st amendment and >submitting something as an official document. One is punishable by law. The White House gave copies of that document to reporters. If it is shown to be a fraud, what punishment should they receive? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #40 September 10, 2004 Can't say I even Know much about the SBV adds... other than there is controversy about them. Truthfully I haven't followed it. All I know is that MoveOn and SBV should not really be allowed to do what they are doing since they can be catagorized as "527" groups. DOn't even think they are running in my state. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jazzjumper 0 #41 September 10, 2004 QuoteI believe that the alleged forged documents are claimed to be "personal" records, not official records. MFRs written by service members are still considered official records. QuoteThere haven't been any allegations made over the newly discovered Bush records obtained from the DoD under FOI. Sure there have been. Watch Fox news for 30 mintues...they are flying everywhere. No matter how good she looks, someone, somewhere is sick of her shit! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #42 September 10, 2004 Quote> There is a giant difference between the 1st amendment and >submitting something as an official document. One is punishable by law. The White House gave copies of that document to reporters. If it is shown to be a fraud, what punishment should they receive? I guess it would depend on why they gave them out. Was it so they could research the document more? Was it so they could all be on the same page about what CBS "Obtained"? It is quite conveinient that on the title page of 60 Minutes II there is a referance to the documents being aquired by CBS, but when you click on the link, it takes you to the interview of Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes. You would think that they wouldn't have over looked that, or are they just trying to cover up a fuck up?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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jazzjumper 0 #43 September 10, 2004 QuoteThe White House gave copies of that document to reporters. If it is shown to be a fraud, what punishment should they receive? What documents are you talking about? CBS says..."On "60 Minutes II" on Wednesday night, CBS' Dan Rather introduced four documents he claimed were written by Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, 1st Lt. George W. Bush's superior, establishing that Bush failed to meet the standards required by the Texas Air National Guard in the early 1970s." Where did you get the idea that the White House turned them over? Puff puff, give. No matter how good she looks, someone, somewhere is sick of her shit! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #44 September 10, 2004 >Where did you get the idea that the White House turned them over? The AP. From here: After the broadcast, the White House, without comment, released to the news media two of the memos, one ordering Bush to report for his physical exam and the other suspending him from flight status. So I will ask you again. If it's a crime to release forgeries, what sort of punishment should the white house receive? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #45 September 10, 2004 They were passing on what CBS gave to them.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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #46 September 10, 2004 again bill it comes down to "knowing" they were forgeries. If CBS knew, they are screwed. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jazzjumper 0 #47 September 10, 2004 QuoteThe AP. From here: After the broadcast, the White House, without comment, released to the news media two of the memos, one ordering Bush to report for his physical exam and the other suspending him from flight status. Okay, we're talking about two diff things. I'm referring to the CBS story with the personal memos. Getting suspended from flight status isn't all that uncommon (esp for Guard pilots that don't fly commercially.) It completely fails to mention the fact that he gained more points every year of service to fulfill his baseline obligations to the Guard, which is the reason no one ever disciplined him. QuoteSo I will ask you again. If it's a crime to release forgeries, what sort of punishment should the white house receive? Ask me? I didn't claim those memos were forgeries. I was talking about the personal memos the CBS discussed on 60 minutes... which are by all 3rd party accounts. The ones referred to in your story are ones that had been release earlier (as stated in the story.) No matter how good she looks, someone, somewhere is sick of her shit! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,107 #48 September 10, 2004 > They were passing on what CBS gave to them. And CBS was just passing them on as well. So no one is to blame if they are forgeries, eh? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
turtlespeed 226 #49 September 10, 2004 Yes, the people that CBS compensated for the false documents, as well as CBS, IF THEY KNEW.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 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #50 September 11, 2004 QuoteQuoteThe AP. From here: After the broadcast, the White House, without comment, released to the news media two of the memos, one ordering Bush to report for his physical exam and the other suspending him from flight status. Okay, we're talking about two diff things. I'm referring to the CBS story with the personal memos. Getting suspended from flight status isn't all that uncommon (esp for Guard pilots that don't fly commercially.) It completely fails to mention the fact that he gained more points every year of service to fulfill his baseline obligations to the Guard, which is the reason no one ever disciplined him. QuoteSo I will ask you again. If it's a crime to release forgeries, what sort of punishment should the white house receive? Ask me? I didn't claim those memos were forgeries. I was talking about the personal memos the CBS discussed on 60 minutes... which are by all 3rd party accounts. The ones referred to in your story are ones that had been release earlier (as stated in the story.) Well, the "expert" who declared them forgeries is now back pedaling fast, since apparently he forgot to consider the IBM Selectric - just about the most popular office typewriter of the 60s, 70s and 80s. IBM introduced proprtional spacing on its Executive model in 1944. "Bill Glennon, a technology consultant in New York who worked for I.B.M. in Midtown Manhattan for 14 years and repaired typewriters throughout that time, said that the Executive had proportional spacing and that its typebar could be fitted with superscript characters. Documents from the period show the Air Force used the Selectric Composer as early as April 1969." So they're not forgeries "by all third party accounts", only by some. Seems premature to draw conclusions based on the CBS memos. The DoD documents obtained under FOI, on the other hand, are indisputably genuine. They indicate much the same thing.... 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
