Dakoth Posted September 21, 2004 Posted September 21, 2004 So what do you guys think of Dan Rather apologising after he relised his big story about Bush and the reserves might have been smoke and mirrors. This is not Pro or anti Bush this is more of a state of news media thing.
Product of the Cosmos Posted September 21, 2004 Posted September 21, 2004 The media is so easy to manipulate. They do not validate somuch they report. Like the Iraq beheading hoax a man did in his garage in Cali. And sent to US media and they trumpted it all over. This is a big thing for Bush's campaign. nd another nail in the coffin for Kerry, who doesnt do anything. Like he knows the next 4 years are Bush's. And he's just occupying the Dem vote so it's not an issue. I wouldn't be suprised if it wasn't the Bush followers who did this. Of course I'll be critisized for thinking this. But it would be good strategy. And they are not free from that type of manipulation IMO.
Volourn Posted September 21, 2004 Posted September 21, 2004 WE WANT AL AND HILLARY! DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
Product of the Cosmos Posted September 21, 2004 Posted September 21, 2004 LOL^ Not much a difference IMO. Although Hillary would be better then Bush in a very small amount of environmental issues most likely.
Dakoth Posted September 21, 2004 Author Posted September 21, 2004 WE WANT AL AND HILLARY! Ok its a slow day and Ifeel like talking. Please Volourn expand on that.
deganawida Posted September 21, 2004 Posted September 21, 2004 He wants a steamy sex-scandal between ice-queen Hilary Clinton and stone-golem Al Gore! With pics!
Volourn Posted September 21, 2004 Posted September 21, 2004 What's to expand on? I think either of those candidates would make good presidents. Even though, I supported the Iraq War (I hate saying that, as I don't really support any war but meh); but I supported it in spite of Bush. Hilary knows what she is doing, and for the most aprt I agree with her policies. And, she has done an ok job in NY. Gore is just Gore. He's obviously got the WH experience and was a aprtner to one of the best presidents ever. Clinton must of saw soemthing in him to be stuck alongside him for 8 years. LOL DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
Product of the Cosmos Posted September 21, 2004 Posted September 21, 2004 He wants a steamy sex-scandal between ice-queen Hilary Clinton and stone-golem Al Gore! With pics! <{POST_SNAPBACK}> LMAO! Funny how people think more of a sex scandal then a war and 9-11 scandal...
Dakoth Posted September 21, 2004 Author Posted September 21, 2004 What's to expand on? I think either of those candidates would make good presidents. Even though, I supported the Iraq War (I hate saying that, as I don't really support any war but meh); but I supported it in spite of Bush. Hilary knows what she is doing, and for the most aprt I agree with her policies. And, she has done an ok job in NY. Gore is just Gore. He's obviously got the WH experience and was a aprtner to one of the best presidents ever. Clinton must of saw soemthing in him to be stuck alongside him for 8 years. LOL That is exactly what I wanted from you. Give a reason not a one sentence answer that you think sums it up.
Volourn Posted September 21, 2004 Posted September 21, 2004 So.. You were trolling. I shall now ignore you. kthnxbye. DWARVES IN PROJECT ETERNITY = VOLOURN HAS PLEDGED $250.
Dakoth Posted September 21, 2004 Author Posted September 21, 2004 So.. You were trolling. I shall now ignore you. kthnxbye. All I am going to say is typical. No I was not I wanted you to defend your stance just as you want other people to when they say the NWN OC was bad. How hard is that to understand? Did I attack either of your coments, or flame you in anyway? No I asked for clarification that is all.
taks Posted September 21, 2004 Posted September 21, 2004 I wouldn't be suprised if it wasn't the Bush followers who did this. Of course I'll be critisized for thinking this. But it would be good strategy. And they are not free from that type of manipulation IMO. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> actually, the burkett guy (whatever his name is) is a die-hard democrat that has been griping about bush for years. he was also consulted by the kerry campaign just prior to the release of the story though they deny any involvement. it is more likely kerry's campaign had something to do with this than bush's. taks comrade taks... just because.
Dakoth Posted September 21, 2004 Author Posted September 21, 2004 actually, the burkett guy (whatever his name is) is a die-hard democrat that has been griping about bush for years. he was also consulted by the kerry campaign just prior to the release of the story though they deny any involvement. it is more likely kerry's campaign had something to do with this than bush's. Now wouldn't that be one hell of a scandal, if it were true?
taks Posted September 21, 2004 Posted September 21, 2004 well, it is true in some sense, not the collusion part. burkett has admitted the documents were not official. apparently he has also admitted he met with one of kerry's advisors (not sure which) but kerry's camp has denied any involvement. i don't think they even knew it was going down. so far, i've seen nothing to implicate kerry and even less to implicate bush. hence my "kerry is more likely involved" statement, but that's like comparing a snowball's chance in hell vs. a snowflake's chance in hell... neither is really probable at this moment. taks comrade taks... just because.
Dakoth Posted September 21, 2004 Author Posted September 21, 2004 I think it will hurt Kerry a little bit the way it is because even though their is no proof of colusion it is a strange coincidence isn't it.
Product of the Cosmos Posted September 21, 2004 Posted September 21, 2004 IMO it definetly helps Bush as it will increase skepticism of anything agianst Bush that actually has merit.
taks Posted September 21, 2004 Posted September 21, 2004 a point i never disagreed with, btw... taks comrade taks... just because.
deganawida Posted September 21, 2004 Posted September 21, 2004 The Kerry campaign advisor-Burkett article is here. I saw another copy of the report on Yahoo! earlier today, but I can't find it now (Yahoo! tends to cycle through AP & Reuters reports every 15 min. or so, and I'm at work, so I can't just bookmark it). No proof of collusion, though.
Grandpa Posted September 21, 2004 Posted September 21, 2004 What's to expand on? I think either of those candidates would make good presidents. Hilary knows what she is doing, and for the most aprt I agree with her policies. And, she has done an ok job in NY. Gore is just Gore. He's obviously got the WH experience and was a aprtner to one of the best presidents ever. Clinton must of saw soemthing in him to be stuck alongside him for 8 years. LOL <{POST_SNAPBACK}> For one, the only reason Hilary is in NY is because she saw an easy mark in a popular locale. Defeat a candidate who would otherwise be defeated anyway, and do it in a state that gets a lot of attention just because it's NY, and viola! Political-career-freedom. She has no ties to NY, and no business represnting anyone in the state, but people were tired of her opponent's lack-luster performance. They'd have voted for a sock-puppet. Two: Al Gore is a prefab politician. He spent his entire adult life training to be president. That does not make a good president, that makes a good politician. Debatable on that "good politician" bit, but I think you get what I mean. Hilary might make a decent president, but we'll probably never know. Al would never be a good president. Despite all of the training he's received, he will always be a follower and not a leader. Does that mean I'm all crazy for the Reprocus...er...Republicans? No. Bush? No. So let's not turn this partisan.
Judge Hades Posted September 21, 2004 Posted September 21, 2004 Don't really care about that. Its the past and I am more converned about the present. Bush hasn't done jack here on the Domestic front so I am voting for Kerry. How people do things in other countries is not my business. What goes on where I live is.
Grandpa Posted September 21, 2004 Posted September 21, 2004 Don't really care about that. Its the past and I am more converned about the present. Bush hasn't done jack here on the Domestic front so I am voting for Kerry. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Out of the frying pan and into another frying pan, if you ask me. I personally think Kerry will, if elected, turn out to be one of America's worst nightmares.
Judge Hades Posted September 21, 2004 Posted September 21, 2004 Hey, can't be worse than Reagon. Man, I hated him.
taks Posted September 21, 2004 Posted September 21, 2004 you're right, he only got us out of double digit inflation, reduced taxes and helped to win the cold war... damn what a sucky president. taks comrade taks... just because.
Ellester Posted September 21, 2004 Posted September 21, 2004 Out of the frying pan and into another frying pan, if you ask me. I personally think Kerry will, if elected, turn out to be one of America's worst nightmares. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Who knows? All that is an assumption. I could say Hillary Clinton has a wiener and it would hold the same credibility. Wait... that doesn't support my argument. Honestly I like the idea that Kerry plans of focusing on the US, I Life is like a clam. Years of filtering crap then some bastard cracks you open and scrapes you into its damned mouth, end of story. - Steven Erikson
Nartwak Posted September 21, 2004 Posted September 21, 2004 You could go to Kerry's website. Or just wait for the Presidential debates.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now