Fox News

Force · Post by **Force** » Wed Oct 06, 2004 7:45 pm

B.A.= Buncha Assholes?

Bare Assed (liars)?

Bigtime Amnesiacs?

Butthole Administrators?

Bankruptcy Activators?

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 3:36 am

my thoughts are... i hope all of you detractors of the Bush/Cheney administration use the same "yardstick" to measure the following administrations ('04, '08, '12, '16 etc) and point out those adminstrations errors with same zealous rancor you use on the current adminstration.

additionally, i hope you develop some alternative course of action which illustrate what you value and believe in... as opposed to what you don't value and/or believe in, which seems to be the case at this time.

and finally, i would hope that your energies are directed at the legislatures, both of which have failed to use their oversight authority to reel the current adminstration in...

cite, you ask? read the constitution.

samtzu · Post by **samtzu** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 7:48 am

Simply Joel wrote:my thoughts are... i hope all of you detractors of the Bush/Cheney administration use the same "yardstick" to measure the following administrations ('04, '08, '12, '16 etc) and point out those adminstrations errors with same zealous rancor you use on the current adminstration.

additionally, i hope you develop some alternative course of action which illustrate what you value and believe in... as opposed to what you don't value and/or believe in, which seems to be the case at this time.

and finally, i would hope that your energies are directed at the legislatures, both of which have failed to use their oversight authority to reel the current adminstration in...

cite, you ask? read the constitution.

Actually, you'd have to go to the Harding administration to find the same quality of leadership that we have seen in this one... except that Harding didn't invade another soverign nation.

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 11:00 am

what are you for

always have, well not when I was, say, 12

here is the basic thing I want

money out of politics. Everyone given an equal voice. And no, a company does not count as a person. Those companies are run by people and those people can have their equal voice just like the rest of us.

I think achieving the above will result in other things I want like

universal healthcare; stop kicking those middle men .25 out of every buck
alternative energy research; cuz we is at or very near peak oil
reasonable drug policies; shit aint workin now
get the fuck out of iraq; why are we there again? I lost track of the bullshit
stop propping up israel; how come they are the only kids in that hood allowed to have nukes?
safe and legal abortion; another four years of W is gonna put that shit at grave risk
close tax loopholes; if we could do this there would be no need to raise rates

basically, I wanna stop graft and other forms of corruption

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 11:42 am

Simply Joel wrote:my thoughts are... i hope all of you detractors of the Bush/Cheney administration use the same "yardstick" to measure the following administrations ('04, '08, '12, '16 etc) and point out those adminstrations errors with same zealous rancor you use on the current adminstration.

Ya know Joel, I've been wondering where all those conservatives who spent 8 years pointing out that Clinton didn't win more than 50% of votes cast in either of his elections are. Cause I certainly haven't heard them compliaing about how illegitimate Bush's presidency is when he didn't even win a simple majority of votes cast. Your integrity is impeccable. But some of your fellow travellors are inconsistant.

(and I really should have more sence than to even read the political threads.)

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 11:43 am

stuart wrote: money out of politics. Everyone given an equal voice. And no, a company does not count as a person. Those companies are run by people and those people can have their equal voice just like the rest of us.

I think achieving the above will result in other things I want like

universal healthcare; stop kicking those middle men .25 out of every buck
alternative energy research; cuz we is at or very near peak oil
reasonable drug policies; shit aint workin now
get the fuck out of iraq; why are we there again? I lost track of the bullshit
stop propping up israel; how come they are the only kids in that hood allowed to have nukes?
safe and legal abortion; another four years of W is gonna put that shit at grave risk
close tax loopholes; if we could do this there would be no need to raise rates

basically, I wanna stop graft and other forms of corruption

Nice going, Stuart.

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 11:52 am

theCryptofishist wrote:
Simply Joel wrote:my thoughts are... i hope all of you detractors of the Bush/Cheney administration use the same "yardstick" to measure the following administrations ('04, '08, '12, '16 etc) and point out those adminstrations errors with same zealous rancor you use on the current adminstration.
Ya know Joel, I've been wondering where all those conservatives who spent 8 years pointing out that Clinton didn't win more than 50% of votes cast in either of his elections are. Cause I certainly haven't heard them compliaing about how illegitimate Bush's presidency is when he didn't even win a simple majority of votes cast. Your integrity is impeccable. But some of your fellow travellors are inconsistant.

(and I really should have more sence than to even read the political threads.)

what, you don't think being a republican is a wee bit embarrassing at this time? yeah, i know the NeoCons and religious right (neither right or religious IMHO) have hijacked my party, the party of Lincoln.

i would bet the conservatives you are referring to are the same ones that suggested Alan Keyes move to Illinois to run against Barak Obama .

as i have told Judy Barr Topinka, IL Republican Chairperson/State Treasurer... she should have asked for resignations by the committee's members if they weren't going to work for the betterment of Illinois, not the Illinois Repulican Party.

so, as the seemingly lone republican here... yeah some folks need to be taken to the woodshed for some "counseling."

and thanks for the compliment on integrity... i will always attempt to live up to requirements of that noun.

Main Entry: in·teg·ri·ty
Pronunciation: in-'te-gr&-tE
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English integrite, from Middle French & Latin; Middle French integrité, from Latin integritat-, integritas, from integr-, integer entire
1 : firm adherence to a code of especially moral or artistic values : INCORRUPTIBILITY
2 : an unimpaired condition : SOUNDNESS
3 : the quality or state of being complete or undivided : COMPLETENESS
synonym see HONESTY

Rian Jackson · Post by **Rian Jackson** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 11:53 am

theCryptofishist wrote:
stuart wrote: money out of politics. Everyone given an equal voice. And no, a company does not count as a person. Those companies are run by people and those people can have their equal voice just like the rest of us.

I think achieving the above will result in other things I want like

universal healthcare; stop kicking those middle men .25 out of every buck
alternative energy research; cuz we is at or very near peak oil
reasonable drug policies; shit aint workin now
get the fuck out of iraq; why are we there again? I lost track of the bullshit
stop propping up israel; how come they are the only kids in that hood allowed to have nukes?
safe and legal abortion; another four years of W is gonna put that shit at grave risk
close tax loopholes; if we could do this there would be no need to raise rates

basically, I wanna stop graft and other forms of corruption
Nice going, Stuart.

yet another example of why i wish i'd kissed his feet when i had the chance.
on second thought, he probably wouldn't have let me

Rian Jackson · Post by **Rian Jackson** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 11:56 am

someone was telling me the other day that historically, the republican party has stuck together in public and squabbled in private, unlike the democrats.

if true, it could explain a lot about what those non-republicans see...

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 11:59 am

stuart wrote:
what are you for
always have, well not when I was, say, 12

here is the basic thing I want

money out of politics. Everyone given an equal voice. And no, a company does not count as a person. Those companies are run by people and those people can have their equal voice just like the rest of us.

I think achieving the above will result in other things I want like

universal healthcare; stop kicking those middle men .25 out of every buck
alternative energy research; cuz we is at or very near peak oil
reasonable drug policies; shit aint workin now
get the fuck out of iraq; why are we there again? I lost track of the bullshit
stop propping up israel; how come they are the only kids in that hood allowed to have nukes?
safe and legal abortion; another four years of W is gonna put that shit at grave risk
close tax loopholes; if we could do this there would be no need to raise rates

basically, I wanna stop graft and other forms of corruption

Stuart, we agree on everything but international policies... i believe we have a responsibility to the international community based on our voracous appetite for resources (human and otherwise)

but, hey, just one man's opinion.

theCryptofishist · Post by **theCryptofishist** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 12:02 pm

Simply Joel wrote:... i believe we have a responsibility to the international community based on our voracous appetite for resources (human and otherwise)

2nded. Although we may disagree on the exact remedy.

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 12:43 pm

kissed his feet

did we not discuss my feet issues? I think I remember drinking and showing off scars.

You owe me an email goddammmit

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 12:47 pm

Joel

it is the harshest of ironies that we agree on so much when you get right down to it. I think our situation is a true microcosm for the rest of the country. Most of us, and by that I mean a helluvalot more than 50.8% in this country really do agree on a lot of these issues. Where does all the rancor and confusion come from? Isn't it very anti-productive? I wish there was a misguided ill-will money market fund.

Rian Jackson · Post by **Rian Jackson** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 1:41 pm

stuart wrote:
kissed his feet
did we not discuss my feet issues? I think I remember drinking and showing off scars.

You owe me an email goddammmit

of course we discussed it.
you wouldn't even let me see them
hence :

on second thought, he probably wouldn't have let me

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 2:06 pm

all right then

you can kiss them in roughly 330 days. Just make sure I shower that day. Water truck chasing does not count. And, I must be blind drunk.

Rian Jackson · Post by **Rian Jackson** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 2:18 pm

stuart wrote:all right then

you can kiss them in roughly 330 days. Just make sure I shower that day. Water truck chasing does not count. And, I must be blind drunk.

whisky arabic coffee??

samtzu · Post by **samtzu** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 2:20 pm

stuart wrote:Joel

it is the harshest of ironies that we agree on so much when you get right down to it. I think our situation is a true microcosm for the rest of the country. Most of us, and by that I mean a helluvalot more than 50.8% in this country really do agree on a lot of these issues. Where does all the rancor and confusion come from? Isn't it very anti-productive? I wish there was a misguided ill-will money market fund.

My theory (butting my fat ass into this discussion) is that there is an extremely loose conspiracy that sees that it is more advantageous to have division in the country than unity. It is plainly outlined in Machiavelli, and even more clearly delineated in Sun Tzu.

If the people of this (or any nation) could actually get together with the facts, and not have to wade through half truths, false information, blatant out and out lies, then they would see what has been perpetrated on them by all those in power, and they would rise up and destroy them.

However, like blackberries, the roots of those lies run deep... in some cases, centuries deep, and the thorns that protect them cut deep, and no one can really clear the field of these lie to get to the productive soil underneath. And, like blackberries, even if you do clear away a patch of soil and start to plant something there, the roots are still there and the vines begin to twine through everything that is good an nourishing. Yeah, everybody likes blackberries, but they can't provide the nourishment to sustain a real life. There, I've worn that metaphor right down to the nubs.

Like Joel's story of the Honor Killing, over on the "Why War" thread, you don't just do away with injustice (lies and mistruths are an injustice) just by wishing it away: it has to be weeded out, and then the roots themselves have to be destroyed. The lies that divide people have to be removed... but who is capable, or has the tools, to do that? Nobody human that I know... and I don't trust anyone who claims to be divine. Sigh...

(... hmmm... all this from a guy whose dick has it's own avatar?....) Ahhh, yes... keeping it in perspective...

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 6:57 pm

more on the media...

SELF-INFLICTED WOUNDS

The e-mail on last week's Rather-gate column was almost entirely furious with CBS. About 95 percent of some 300 letters and e-mails attacked the network, and all but four or five of those messages denounced my oh-so-moderate suggestion that the goal is not a vengeful assault on CBS but safeguards for fairer reporting. "No," wrote one reader, "we really want a vengeful assault."

Normally the mail hovers around 50 percent pro and 50 percent con, partly because many readers greatly enjoy pointing out my many deficiencies. A lopsided reaction like this indicates a huge amount of anti-press animosity, while here in Manhattan news circles, the Rather incident is regarded as a simple mistake and not a very important one at that. The war over press bias has reached a boil that may threaten the whole news business, but the industry seems to think that nothing much is going on. It's just those yahoos in flyover country getting all excited again.

In truth, the news business had a disastrous summer. In July, a Senate intelligence committee and an official British investigation both concluded that President Bush had been on firm ground when he spoke the famous 16 words in his 2003 State of the Union message (that the British had learned Saddam Hussein had sought to acquire uranium in Africa). When the 16 words appeared to be untrue, the press endlessly trumpeted them, often on the front page, but when Bush drew heavy support from the two investigations, you could hardly find the news with a magnifying glass.

In The New York Times, the British report was carried way inside the paper and read like a muddled translation from classical Urdu. This seems to happen a lot when the Times is forced to report news it doesn't like. On July 25, The Washington Post press critic, Howard Kurtz, reported that his newspaper had carried 96 references to the issue when Bush appeared to be wrong and only two after the revelation that he looked to be right. The totals for the three major networks and three elite newspapers, including the Los Angeles Times, were 302 before and nine after. According to Kurtz, CBS never did get around to mentioning that the investigations had supported the president.

Media handling of the charges by the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth was even more peculiar. Most major news media stayed silent for nine or 10 days as the story of the charges spread over radio and the Internet. A few bloggers argued that this was an attempt by big-time media outlets to rule the Swifties' charges out of bounds. It seemed that way to me, too. When big media finally did rouse themselves and address the issue, they tended to focus tightly on Democratic talking points, such as who provided the funding and were the Swifties illegal surrogates for the Bush campaign. In many news outlets, the adjective "unsubstantiated" seemed welded to the noun "charges."

A few major papers, including the Los Angeles Times and The New York Times, produced long and incurious reports on the issue, generally hostile to the Swifties. In The New York Times, Kerry's imaginary Christmas-in-Cambodia yarn was pushed way to the back of an endless story, along with the news that Kerry had told the Senate in 1986 that he had entered Cambodia on his Swift boat. The Times apparently had no room to mention that Kerry had told this story many times over 25 years and had described it as a life-changing incident seared into his memory.

But the life-altering experience of Christmas in Cambodia apparently never happened. It was a Kerry fantasy. The press yawned and looked the other way. Kerry said he entered Cambodia with a CIA agent. But how likely is it that the CIA would choose to penetrate an illegal area with a clunky, noisy boat commanded by someone as inexperienced as Kerry?

Soon the words "discredited" and "debunked" began to describe the Swifty charges in news reports and commentary. Some Swifty allegations were indeed wildly out of line. But not all. Kerry got his first Purple Heart after alleged hostile fire, but nine days later he wrote in his journal, "We hadn't been shot at yet." No witnesses have come forward to tell us how Kerry's first Purple Heart came to be issued.

Then there was the mysterious third version of the Silver Star citation, an improved and glowing one that appeared late and that John Lehman, secretary of the Navy, said he didn't write or order to be written. Nobody came forward to explain how or why the citation improved over the years. Kerry refused to make public his journal or his full military records, and the media seemed uninterested in pushing for him to do so. (Compare this with the energetic media demands for Bush's National Guard records.)

Apparently only one media outlet, The Washington Post, made an effort to open up Kerry's records and received only six of 100 pages. On the whole, big-time media reporting on the Swifties was dismal. No wonder the credibility of the news media is headed south.

COPYRIGHT 2004 JOHN LEO

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Thu Oct 07, 2004 7:13 pm

whisky arabic coffee??

are you MAD girl?

Rian Jackson · Post by **Rian Jackson** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 9:14 am

stuart wrote:
whisky arabic coffee??

are you MAD girl?

do you really need to ask, oh neighbour, oh e-buddy, oh playalove??

cowboyangel · Post by **cowboyangel** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 9:16 am

Fox news will not be covering today's Red Sox game but ESPN will

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 9:54 am

cowboyangel wrote:Fox news will not be covering today's Red Sox game but ESPN will

only thing great about the red sox was ted williams... of course, i am not a baseball fan.

tisha2 · Post by **tisha2** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 11:14 am

speaking of lies...a friend just sent this to me - first i've heard of this.

whadday'all think?

http://www.freedomunderground.org/memor ... n.php#Main

buckethead alien · Post by **buckethead alien** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 11:23 am

Have you seen this?

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/ ... ex_np.html

Bush's mystery bulge
The rumor is flying around the globe. Was the president wired during the first debate?

- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Dave Lindorff

Oct. 8, 2004 | Was President Bush literally channeling Karl Rove in his first debate with John Kerry? That's the latest rumor flooding the Internet, unleashed last week in the wake of an image caught by a television camera during the Miami debate. The image shows a large solid object between Bush's shoulder blades as he leans over the lectern and faces moderator Jim Lehrer.

The president is not known to wear a back brace, and it's safe to say he wasn't packing. So was the bulge under his well-tailored jacket a hidden receiver, picking up transmissions from someone offstage feeding the president answers through a hidden earpiece? Did the device explain why the normally ramrod-straight president seemed hunched over during much of the debate?

Bloggers are burning up their keyboards with speculation. Check out the president's peculiar behavior during the debate, they say. On several occasions, the president simply stopped speaking for an uncomfortably long time and stared ahead with an odd expression on his face. Was he listening to someone helping him with his response to a question? Even weirder was the president's strange outburst. In a peeved rejoinder to Kerry, he said, "As the politics change, his positions change. And that's not how a commander in chief acts. I, I, uh -- Let me finish -- The intelligence I looked at was the same intelligence my opponent looked at." It must be said that Bush pointed toward Lehrer as he declared "Let me finish." The green warning light was lit, signaling he had 30 seconds to, well, finish.

Hot on the conspiracy trail, I tried to track down the source of the photo. None of the Bush-is-wired bloggers, however, seemed to know where the photo came from. Was it possible the bulge had been Photoshopped onto Bush's back by a lone conspiracy buff? It turns out that all of the video of the debate was recorded and sent out by Fox News, the pool broadcaster for the event. Fox sent feeds from multiple cameras to the other networks, which did their own on-air presentations and editing.

To watch the debate again, I ventured to the Web site of the most sober network I could think of: C-SPAN. And sure enough, at minute 23 on the video of the debate, you can clearly see the bulge between the president's shoulder blades.

Bloggers stoke the conspiracy with the claim that the Bush administration insisted on a condition that no cameras be placed behind the candidates. An official for the Commission on Presidential Debates, which set up the lecterns and microphones on the Miami stage, said the condition was indeed real, the result of negotiations by both campaigns. Yet that didn't stop Fox from setting up cameras behind Bush and Kerry. The official said that "microphones were mounted on lecterns, and the commission put no electronic devices on the president or Senator Kerry." When asked about the bulge on Bush's back, the official said, "I don't know what that was."

So what was it? Jacob McKenna, a spyware expert and the owner of the Spy Store, a high-tech surveillance shop in Spokane, Wash., looked at the Bush image on his computer monitor. "There's certainly something on his back, and it appears to be electronic," he said. McKenna said that, given its shape, the bulge could be the inductor portion of a two-way push-to-talk system. McKenna noted that such a system makes use of a tiny microchip-based earplug radio that is pushed way down into the ear canal, where it is virtually invisible. He also said a weak signal could be scrambled and be undetected by another broadcaster.

Mystery-bulge bloggers argue that the president may have begun using such technology earlier in his term. Because Bush is famously prone to malapropisms and reportedly dyslexic, which could make successful use of > a teleprompter problematic, they say the president and his handlers may have turned to a technique often used by television reporters on remote stand-ups. A reporter tapes a story and, while on camera, plays it back into an earpiece, repeating lines just after hearing them, managing to sound spontaneous and error free.

Suggestions that Bush may have using this technique stem from a D-day event in France, when a CNN broadcast appeared to pick up -- and broadcast to surprised viewers -- the sound of another voice seemingly reading Bush his lines, after which Bush repeated them. Danny Schechter, who operates the news site MediaChannel.org, and who has been doing some investigating into the wired-Bush rumors himself, said the Bush campaign has been worried of late about others picking up their radio frequencies -- notably during the Republican Convention on the day of Bush's appearance. "They had a frequency specialist stop me and ask about the frequency of my camera," Schechter said. "The Democrats weren't doing that at their convention."

Repeated calls to the White House and the Bush national campaign office over a period of three days, inquiring about what the president may have been wearing on his back during the debate, and whether he had used an audio device at other events, went unreturned. So far the Kerry campaign is staying clear of this story. When called for a comment, a press officer at the Democratic National Committee claimed on Tuesday that it was "the first time" they'd ever heard of the issue. A spokeswoman at the press office of Kerry headquarters refused to permit me to talk with anyone in the campaign's research office. Several other requests for comment to the Kerry campaign's press office went unanswered.

As for whether we really do have a Milli Vanilli president, the answer at this point has to be, God only knows.

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

http://www.cannonfire.blogspot.com/
(scroll down to "Promptergate" on this one)

http://www.isbushwired.com/
(this site is pretty badly put together but lots of interesting info)

The photo of the bulge itself can be found on this site; scroll down a bit:

http://www.bluelemur.com/index.php?p=321

DVD Burner · Post by **DVD Burner** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 11:36 am

buckethead alien wrote:Have you seen this?

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/ ... ex_np.html

This would be consistant with a low I.Q. Bush.

Simply Joel · Post by **Simply Joel** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 11:46 am

DVD Burner wrote:
buckethead alien wrote:Have you seen this?
http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/ ... ex_np.html
This would be consistant with a low I.Q. Bush.

i wish you could spell.

Alpha · Post by **Alpha** » Fri Oct 08, 2004 4:43 pm

Pentagon: I dunno Tish, I could swear I remember the live coverage showing pieces of an airplane lodged in the Pentagon.

Audio device: WOW. I can't wait to hear the official story on this one, if it ever breaks! I'm sorry to say that it wouldn't surprise me in the least.