RE: Fox News sues to lie,and wins! WTF!!! (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

Durus -> RE: Fox News sues to lie,and wins! WTF!!! (8/16/2007 11:48:35 AM)

There was a movement in the early 1800's that would have forbidden any member of the bar from seeking office. It would have been the 13th amendment. There is a little confusion, due the the war of 1812, on ratification. (consipracy theorists suggest that is why the british army torched the library of congress in 1814. The bar association was run by Britian at the time.)



luckydog1 -> RE: Fox News sues to lie,and wins! WTF!!! (8/16/2007 12:14:47 PM)

After Dan Rather lied on the CBS news (claiming the document had been authenticated by multiple forensic document examiners, when in fact all 3 said they could NOT verify the document), this all seems rather like rubish. 

Barak did go to an Islamic School, and they are called Madrassas, so saying he did is not a lie, it is true.  The impliations, if any, of that are subjective.

There is a reason why your "swift boat debunking" relies on sentance fragments and events divorced from time.  No one says there was never any gunfire that day.  they said Kerry picked up they guy after the incoming shooting had stopped, adn the other boats were shooting the hell out of the shoreline with heavy machine guns.  I don't think they wounded guy in the water was in the best position to judge what was going on, and everyone alledges that Kerry had his boat put between the shore and the guy in the water. 

It is true that not all of the memebrs of the group "swift boat veterans for the truth" were swiftboat veterans, though all served alongside Kerry in his swift boat unit or on the destroyer he was previously posted on (and doesn't like to mention for some reason), neither are all of Cindy Sheehans "gold star Mothers" gold star mothers,  nor are all of the Veterans for Peace veterans.

All Kerry had to do was release his records, and he was unwilling to do so for some reason...He campaigned that he would serve America now as he did back then, yet was afraid to release his records, showing how he actually served.  And he never given any answer as to why.

Lets put it on the record now, that as far as Owner59 is concerned Millitary records and Millitary accounts(the paper work turned in by the soldiers) of battles are always 100% correct,  fact, and incontravertable....In all future arguments simply citing a battle field report or millitary record ends all discussion as to what occured...



caitlyn -> RE: Fox News sues to lie,and wins! WTF!!! (8/16/2007 1:10:10 PM)

Well, some of the people making these claims served with Senator Kerry, and some didn't. It's pretty clear that the doctor that said he treated Senator Kerry, was bold face lying, what with being stationed in the United States at the time. It's also very clear that a few of the people actually praised Kerry before he spoke out against the was, and did a complete one-eighty after. The same can be said for his political career ... there was one that actually campaigned for Kerry before he became a prominent liberal, and changed his story afterwards.
 
As far as releasing records, I think you may be taking a leap into the darkness by insisting that he isn't releasing them, because he has something to hide. If we go on the theory that the accusations are false, there are two potential responses. One is to release the records to prove the accusations wrong. The other is to take the stand that since a person is innocent until proven guilty here in America, he is under no obligation to release anything.
 
I can tell you that nothing would make me release these records, short of a court order. Even if they made me look Mother Theresa innocent, I still wouldn't release them. I'm not going to play that game with those that falsely accuse. If they have something, then prove it. If not, then fuck off.
 
By the way ... this point goes equally for President Bush's National Guard service. If the left has some proof, lets see it. If not, then President Bush is under no obligation to even give them the time of day.



Durus -> RE: Fox News sues to lie,and wins! WTF!!! (8/16/2007 1:49:09 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn
...The other is to take the stand that since a person is innocent until proven guilty here in America, he is under no obligation to release anything.
 
I can tell you that nothing would make me release these records, short of a court order. Even if they made me look Mother Theresa innocent, I still wouldn't release them. I'm not going to play that game with those that falsely accuse. If they have something, then prove it. If not, then fuck off.
 
By the way ... this point goes equally for President Bush's National Guard service. If the left has some proof, lets see it. If not, then President Bush is under no obligation to even give them the time of day.


Innocent until proven guilty is a legal term. If Kerry were under indictment for some crime then I would agree with you that he was innocent until proven guilty. As this isn't a legal matter but a matter of trust in someone wishing to be president his obligation is to quell any doubts that can reasonably be raised. If he doesn't do that then it leads to the opinion that he either thinks that he can ignore those that are questioning his service because he is above answering slanderous lies, or he can prove them wrong. He did everything he could possibly do to prove them wrong...except release his military records. Yes...that does lead me to believe there is something there which he doesn't want people to know about.

Let me give you a hypothetical. You are chatting a lot online and your significant other, while trusting you, finds your behavior odd. He asks you about it and you immidiatly get defensive which raises his suspicion. He asks to see your logs which (for the sake of arguement) will prove it one way or another. What do you do? If you refuse what would a normal reaction be?

Bush released his records btw.



luckydog1 -> RE: Fox News sues to lie,and wins! WTF!!! (8/16/2007 1:52:22 PM)

You can feel that way if you want Caitlyn.  But to me it seems silly to run on your record and then refuse to allow it to be examined, and I guess the majority of voters agreed with me.  Kerry made his millitary record an issue and it was absolutly fair game for it to be examined.  So you are asserting that the doctor never saw Kerry's wounds? Even later?  That he was not the primary first responder doesn't matter much.



caitlyn -> RE: Fox News sues to lie,and wins! WTF!!! (8/16/2007 2:11:02 PM)

I'm not trying to say you are wrong, just that not everyone feels the way you do.
 
Accusations are made knowingly. Releasing records will not stop these accusations, it will only move the accusers to another area. Someone that wants to spread false rumors, will find something to fill their need ... by default, a false rumor is false, so you can find them in thin air.
 
As for your scenario, if he wanted to know what was going on, he should ask, and I will give him an honest answer. If that isn't acceptable, I know where the door is. Maybe I'm being simplistic, but hyper-controlling, overly paranoid men are a dime a dozen ... sort of like political hatchet men. [;)]
 
Again, not trying to prove you wrong, only pointing out that not everyone feels like you. I don't see Senator Kerry as hiding anything because he won't release these records. I don't see President Bush as hiding anything because he won't answer these National Guard accusations. In both cases, some of the accusers have been proven to be liars. The rest ... are only people that throw their lot in with liars, in my book.
 
To me, neither one has been proven, so neither one exists. They aren't required to answer accusations that don't exist. That's just how I feel.



caitlyn -> RE: Fox News sues to lie,and wins! WTF!!! (8/16/2007 2:23:54 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: luckydog1
You can feel that way if you want Caitlyn.  But to me it seems silly to run on your record and then refuse to allow it to be examined, and I guess the majority of voters agreed with me.  Kerry made his millitary record an issue and it was absolutly fair game for it to be examined.  So you are asserting that the doctor never saw Kerry's wounds? Even later?  That he was not the primary first responder doesn't matter much.


I didn't say people couldn't examine his war record. There are documents available ... if there is some proof to the claims, lets see it.
 
Forgive me for taking right to privacy seriously, but are you honestly saying that Senator Kerry has an obligation to turn over his private records, protected by law, to his political opponents ... just because he is running for President? You have to be kidding, right?
 
As for the doctor, he is not listed on any of the official medical records. He claimed to have treated John Kerry, but has no proof. When you make an accusation, it's up to you to prove it ... right?



luckydog1 -> RE: Fox News sues to lie,and wins! WTF!!! (8/16/2007 2:26:03 PM)

But the accusations did exist.  Accusations by definition have not been proved, that is why they are called accusations and not facts.  Bush did not hide on the issue because he did release all of his records and answered every single charge.  He legally served in the Guard and was honorably discharged.  Some feel that the Guard is dishonorable, that is subjective, and I disagree.

But Kerry was the one bringing up his service, so it was a very legitimate issue to look at.   Bush never said anything like " I am a war hero, so vote for me"  Kerry did...



luckydog1 -> RE: Fox News sues to lie,and wins! WTF!!! (8/16/2007 2:31:37 PM)

What is the doctors name caitlyn, since you are making this accusation.  Lets go find the rest of the story.





caitlyn -> RE: Fox News sues to lie,and wins! WTF!!! (8/16/2007 2:46:14 PM)

Lewis Letson, which I'm sure you could have found on your own.
 
Look this isn't about an election that is long over. I will say my point again ... not everyone will see these things as these people having something to hide. I'm one of those someones.
 
Forget that it's John Kerry ... lets just make it "Person X". Person X" is under no obligation to release private records, to answer accusations that are not proven. That they refuse to do so, may mean they have something to hide, and may not. If that costs Person X an election, then so be it. It still proves nothing.



Durus -> RE: Fox News sues to lie,and wins! WTF!!! (8/16/2007 2:48:13 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

I'm not trying to say you are wrong, just that not everyone feels the way you do.
 
Accusations are made knowingly. Releasing records will not stop these accusations, it will only move the accusers to another area. Someone that wants to spread false rumors, will find something to fill their need ... by default, a false rumor is false, so you can find them in thin air.
 
As for your scenario, if he wanted to know what was going on, he should ask, and I will give him an honest answer. If that isn't acceptable, I know where the door is. Maybe I'm being simplistic, but hyper-controlling, overly paranoid men are a dime a dozen ... sort of like political hatchet men. [;)]
 
Again, not trying to prove you wrong, only pointing out that not everyone feels like you. I don't see Senator Kerry as hiding anything because he won't release these records. I don't see President Bush as hiding anything because he won't answer these National Guard accusations. In both cases, some of the accusers have been proven to be liars. The rest ... are only people that throw their lot in with liars, in my book.
 
To me, neither one has been proven, so neither one exists. They aren't required to answer accusations that don't exist. That's just how I feel.


You keep calling them false rumors but they are based on facts. This is more then just a matter of unfounded speculation. Kerry, if he wanted to be president, had the obligation to be as forthright as possible to the public. If he valued privacy more then the office he could have not run. Trust is something earned and certainly we, as voters, should not blindly accept anything a candidate tells us.

In my scenario I attempted to make the SO's suspicions reasonable, not paranoid and controlling. I suspect that you would prefer it to be unreasonable so that you don't have to answer the question, but the truth of the matter is that trust is broken all the time and unwavering unquestion trust is going to get you fucked over. Reasonable suspicion based on hard fact is going to help you.



Zensee -> RE: Fox News sues to lie,and wins! WTF!!! (8/16/2007 2:53:54 PM)

I think we are kind of straying from the central thesis of this thread, which is that a news outlet may knowingly lie, to a significant extent, and not be breaking any rules. Furthermore, employees are not protected under whistleblower legislation for revealing such lies or for refusing to publish them. That (not the swiftboat bullshit) is a serious concern and a piss poor precedent to be setting.


Z.




caitlyn -> RE: Fox News sues to lie,and wins! WTF!!! (8/16/2007 3:18:45 PM)

You continue to argue this, as if I'm saying you are wrong. I'm not ... I'm saying that not everyone will see this non-disclosure as something to hide.
 
I do apologize for my response to your hypothetical, but I did see it as paranoid. The "get defensive" line got me. What does that mean, that I denied it ... that I didn't deny it ... that I said nothing?
 
You see, that is exactly my point. Someone that wants to see defensive, will see it no matter what I do or say, so why bother? To say he trusts me, but wants to see the logs anyway ... well, those two things really don't go well together.



luckydog1 -> RE: Fox News sues to lie,and wins! WTF!!! (8/16/2007 3:44:33 PM)

xactly Zensee, like when Dan Rather lied about the documents being confirmed



Real0ne -> RE: Fox News sues to lie,and wins! WTF!!! (8/16/2007 3:55:33 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Owner59

You`d think purposely lying would be illegal or at least a FCC violation.
Thanks to Fox News,it is now legal to knowingly lie.Plain scum.

http://www.organicconsumers.org/rbgh/fox-news.cfm

http://www.organicconsumers.org/rbgh/moreakrestuff.cfm

http://www.headonradio.com/forum/read.php?3,79055,79058



actually there is a much bigger issue at stake here.  what they did in effect is given the corporation "rights".  But thgen that is the trend of the goverment, take ours and give them to corporations.



farglebargle -> RE: Fox News sues to lie,and wins! WTF!!! (8/16/2007 3:55:46 PM)

Of course, no-one's provided evidence of Bush's honorable completion of his commitment.

IIRC, he promised to fly for 6 years. We *should* have fuel receipts and things. You know. Control Tower logs. Paperwork.






Durus -> RE: Fox News sues to lie,and wins! WTF!!! (8/16/2007 4:02:46 PM)

There is no need to apologise for your response.

Let's revearse positions and it's your significant other that is acting oddly. SO alt-tabs out of chat screens when ever you enter the room, he snaps you you for interruppting him but when you ask what he is doing he says "nothing". When you can't take any more you finally confront him and he says "I don't have to answer your slanderous accusations!". What do you do?



HaveRopeWillBind -> RE: Fox News sues to lie,and wins! WTF!!! (8/16/2007 5:28:18 PM)

One interesting aspect of the whole Swift Boaters vs Kerry story is that ABC news went back to the village in Vietnam where the battle in question took place. They interviewed a fair number of witnesses to the battle who were still alive. These people had no interest in whether or not Kerry became the president or not and they all supported Kerry's side of the battle.

However, since I don't speak Vietnamese I cannot verify if the translation of their stories to English was accurate or not. Conceivably ABC News could have said whatever they wanted to as a translation and most Americans would not have a clue if it was true or not. Still I tend to believe that the translations were accurate, at least in the most part, and any errors in the story were more from the time involved and the way memory works than any intention to mislead. The part I did find most telling was that they all had versions of the same basic story with slight variations in the details. That would be normal in any group interviewed about a specific observed event. Most of then mentioned that the person killed by Kerry in that battle was indeed from the village, had been a long term "troublemaker," and had joined up with the Viet Cong when he was still a teen.

What I can't figure out is why Kerry never made a point of making this ABC news report more well known. It was on Nightline as I recall and was broadcast late enough that a lot of people may have missed it or never heard of it. Kerry's campaign staff should have made sure more were told about it.



OrionTheWolf -> RE: Fox News sues to lie,and wins! WTF!!! (8/16/2007 6:00:55 PM)

Is it just me, or are people actually arguing about, which crooked person should be liked more? If the are in Washington, they are likely slime. If they call it news in the US, they are part of an entertainment company. Links provided as a source, are only valid if the sources of the source hold up.



Sinergy -> RE: Fox News sues to lie,and wins! WTF!!! (8/16/2007 6:38:45 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: caitlyn

If they have something, then prove it. If not, then fuck off.
 


Not sure I could have made that statement any better, caitlyn.

The ignorant and the fearful engage in witch hunts and rumor mongering.  Not worth the time of day to try to think down to their level.

Sinergy



Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875