PDA

View Full Version : Democrats' Deceit & "Spin" - Don't Be A Sucker



Dolfan02
02-13-2004, 01:18 PM
I'm presenting these articles straight from the most left-wing liberal news network out there - CNN. So you don't need to worry if I'm bringing in my own bias. Well, the first article is more "spin" from the Democrats' consiprancy of trying to make Bush look like a liar and "deserter". The 2nd article is PROOF that the Democrats give you nothing but political motive 'spin' and deceive you, and STILL refuse to believe records/evidence they are presented with. So don't be a pawn (a person used by another to gain an end) by relaying false accusations when you don't know the half of it.

CNN article #1 - Careful, entering Spin zone. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/12/elec04.prez.bush.texas.records/index.html)
CNN article #2 - The response (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/12/elec04.prez.bush.military/index.html)

Dolfan02
02-13-2004, 03:45 PM
Mr.Clean would you like to answer this one?

ohall
02-13-2004, 06:20 PM
Originally posted by Dolfan02
I'm presenting these articles straight from the most left-wing liberal news network out there - CNN. So you don't need to worry if I'm bringing in my own bias. Well, the first article is more "spin" from the Democrats' consiprancy of trying to make Bush look like a liar and "deserter". The 2nd article is PROOF that the Democrats give you nothing but political motive 'spin' and deceive you, and STILL refuse to believe records/evidence they are presented with. So don't be a pawn (a person used by another to gain an end) by relaying false accusations when you don't know the half of it.

CNN article #1 - Careful, entering Spin zone. (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/12/elec04.prez.bush.texas.records/index.html)
CNN article #2 - The response (http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/02/12/elec04.prez.bush.military/index.html)

How come when Clinton was exposed the press just let that go when the proof was in he ran? The problem for Bush is he is going up against Kerry and the press/liberal press.

Bush is smart enough to over come both of them, but it's a darn shame some just ignore the double standard being exhibited by the DEM's recently.

Oliver...

MrClean
02-13-2004, 07:13 PM
The liberal press is never more liberal than the conservative corporations that own them allow them to be. :)

Thanks 02 for considering my comments so much that you ask for me specifically to respond. :) I am honored. :)

Well, the first article seems to say that according to this retired Lt Col Burkett that some of George's records were thrown out in '97 to prevent possible embarrassment while he was governor. Of course the person who supposedly did this, has denied it, so we have a: Yes you did, no I didn't, back and forth exchange. Will we ever know if some things got trashed in '97?

Then we have the 2nd article that says there is record of one dental exam in Alabama in Jan '73. There seems to be a question as to whether he did his duty in the Guard between May '72 and May '73, so this says he did show up for at least one dental exam.

I really am not sure what I totally think of all this. To me right now, the main point is that he went into the Guard to begin with to avoid combat duty in Nam, when guys like Clark, Kerry and even Gore volunteered to go.
All things being equal, I would prefer a Commander in Chief that knows what it is like to have been in combat, making the decisions to send our young men and women into harms way.
Even if there was no Iraq war, from MY point of view things are not equal to begin with anyway.

We all have certain issues that are most important to us. You apparently feel the Reps best address these issues, I happen to feel the Dems best address the issues that I find most important.

Dolfan02
02-13-2004, 08:30 PM
Originally posted by MrClean
The liberal press is never more liberal than the conservative corporations that own them allow them to be.
CNN is completely owned and operated by the Democrat Party and its affiliates. If you're going to pretend to be a strong Democrat, then at least know some things about it.



Thanks 02 for considering my comments so much that you ask for me specifically to respond. :) I am honored. :)
You're honored that I said your name for a response on a m-b? Either you have no life or you think you won something. Which one is it? The only reason why I specifically called for your attention was because you are the only one here consistently posting childish threads with name-calling and false girlie gossip that the DEM party spits out and then you quickly write a whole thread about it, like a little pawn.



Well, the first article... Then we have the 2nd article that says there is record of one dental exam in Alabama in Jan '73. There seems to be a question as to whether he did his duty in the Guard between May '72 and May '73, so this says he did show up for at least one dental exam.

Woooow. No wonder you can't see the spin the democrats give you. Let me summarize it for you: the Dems said GW "deserted" his duty at the Texas National Guard and kept away in his home state to avoid military obligations during the Vietnam War. Got it so far? Well, the military showed proof, dental visit records as well as testimonials from his lueitenants, that GW was at the Air National Guard in Alabama, he got honorably discharged to from Texas to go to Alabama to perform equivalent training. The only reason why he moved was because he was working a Senate political campaign.


I really am not sure what I totally think of all this.
You should start thinking how much SPIN and trickery the Democrat is all about, confusing and manipulating people like yourself. Have you thought about why this issue is all of sudden not discussed anymore by the Dems?


We all have certain issues that are most important to us. You apparently feel the Reps best address these issues, I happen to feel the Dems best address the issues that I find most important.

The ONLY ONLY ONLY reason why I brought this up is because I noticed you enjoy posting threads with articles leading to more girlie gossip from extremist liberal websites. So what I did is take the most popular rumor from the Dems and cleared it up just for you, so hopefully you can open those blinds in front of your eyes.

MrClean
02-13-2004, 09:57 PM
Originally posted by Dolfan02

CNN is completely owned and operated by the Democrat Party and its affiliates. If you're going to pretend to be a strong Democrat, then at least know some things about it.


You're honored that I said your name for a response on a m-b? Either you have no life or you think you won something. Which one is it? The only reason why I specifically called for your attention was because you are the only one here consistently posting childish threads with name-calling and false girlie gossip that the DEM party spits out and then you quickly write a whole thread about it, like a little pawn.



Woooow. No wonder you can't see the spin the democrats give you. Let me summarize it for you: the Dems said GW "deserted" his duty at the Texas National Guard and kept away in his home state to avoid military obligations during the Vietnam War. Got it so far? Well, the military showed proof, dental visit records as well as testimonials from his lueitenants, that GW was at the Air National Guard in Alabama, he got honorably discharged to from Texas to go to Alabama to perform equivalent training. The only reason why he moved was because he was working a Senate political campaign.


You should start thinking how much SPIN and trickery the Democrat is all about, confusing and manipulating people like yourself. Have you thought about why this issue is all of sudden not discussed anymore by the Dems?



The ONLY ONLY ONLY reason why I brought this up is because I noticed you enjoy posting threads with articles leading to more girlie gossip from extremist liberal websites. So what I did is take the most popular rumor from the Dems and cleared it up just for you, so hopefully you can open those blinds in front of your eyes.

Gee, I apogioze for not being as up to speed on CNN as you are. Care to show some proof that the Democratic Party completely own them? And I am not pretending to be a Dem any more than you are pretending to be whatever you are.

When I said I was honored, etc, did you see the smiley faces? I was attempting to be lighthearted, apparently you take yourself too seriously for this. So anything the Dems spit out is "false girlie gossip"? I thought you good Republicans were above name calling and hurling insults. The REPS don't take the high road any more than the DEMS so don't try to pretend that they are above spinning the facts or name calling. It happens on both sides, open your eyes. You think I'm the one with blinders on? Give me a break.

We were discussing the two articles only weren't we? The second one does not say the things you say it does. It mentions one, as in singular, dental exam. Fine. That article doesn't mention any testimonials from his lueitenants, as you put it. This may be said elsewhere, but you brought up these two articles only.
Get your facts straight, if you want anyone to think you are some kind of expert. He did not get Honorably Discharged to go from Texas to Alabama. He put in for a transfer to make that move. His Honorable Discharge did not come until he was discharged. Don't you know the difference between the two? I guess you weren't previously in the military then?

You are too funny. The Dems are confusing and manipulating me about as much as the Republicans are doing the same to you.
It just amazes me how some of you hard line followers of the GOP seem to believe that they are the party of honesty and morality, while the Dems are just a bunch of left wing wacko extremists, or whatever bunch of insults you care to throw out at the moment. Keep living in your dream world.

The rumors about Bush's Guard service may get completely cleared up, but if you really think those two articles clear up anything, in My opinion you are delusional.

Yes I enjoy sharing articles from primarily The Nation, but since they don't share your point of view, you just prefer to insult the integrity of the writers and the publication. You obviously have your mind made up and do not care to be bothered by other points of view. The Nation is the oldest news magazine in the country, as for their print publication, they are not just some website.

DeDolfan
02-14-2004, 02:40 PM
Bottom line is that the Reps think they have proven Bush's mitary record without a doubt while the Dems still question it. Of course the key word here is "think'. This whole thing may very well have all blown over by election anyway but my main question that has yet to be answered anywhere is that if the Reps THINK his record has been [totally] proven, why is there so much gray area left unaccounted for?

Dolfan02
02-15-2004, 11:57 PM
Originally posted by DeDolfan
...why is there so much gray area left unaccounted for?

Because it was so long ago!! The dems DUG up something that occurred a very long time ago, saw the word "honorable discharge", and right away conspired that something secretive and bad was behind it. Thats all. Do you expect the Texas or Alabama National Guard to keep detailed records of all its servicemen since day 1? G.W. Bush gave his reasons for switching locations, gave his reasons for honorabe discharge, HAS testimonials from top military adminstrators CONFIRM his reasons. But yet the dems refuse it and call it "sketchy". Malicious, I tell you.

PhinPhan1227
02-16-2004, 09:37 AM
Originally posted by MrClean
The liberal press is never more liberal than the conservative corporations that own them allow them to be. :)




ROFL!!! Ted Turner, husband of Jane Fonda is a Conservative? Oh God that's rich!!! Ted Turner is about as Conservative as Michael Moore!!!!

ohall
02-16-2004, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by DeDolfan
Bottom line is that the Reps think they have proven Bush's mitary record without a doubt while the Dems still question it. Of course the key word here is "think'. This whole thing may very well have all blown over by election anyway but my main question that has yet to be answered anywhere is that if the Reps THINK his record has been [totally] proven, why is there so much gray area left unaccounted for?

They have proven it. The DEM's however will not take YES for an answer. Plus the liberal press is going to do whatever they can to help the current DEM canidate. Just like they did when Clinton was proven to be a runner they hardly said 3 words about it.

Oliver...

DeDolfan
02-16-2004, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by ohall


They have proven it. The DEM's however will not take YES for an answer. Plus the liberal press is going to do whatever they can to help the current DEM canidate. Just like they did when Clinton was proven to be a runner they hardly said 3 words about it.

Oliver...

Oliver,
I hate to be the one to have to tell you this, but the only thing they have proven so far is that basically, he collected SOME paychecks and went to the dentist. Other than that, they haven't really proven anything. There are nor records, per say, of daily musters, etc. For a person to be actually AWOL, they have to be reported as such. That would mean a superior would have to have reported him as being AWOL. Now, here is where alot of "theory" comes into play. First, one can not deny that Bush was offered preferential treatment to begin with, alot of gov't officials pulled the same strings for their own sons/friends, whatever and I will say that alot of ppl would have loved to have had that luxury, myself included. However, it doesn't make it right at all and is quite unfair to the others. But that is not the point here but rather did Bush put in all the time required of him? i say no and my reason/s are that there is alot unnaccounted for time during this period of question. I'm sorry, but a supposedly "superior" saying he reported is not good enough. Nobody else "remembers" him there at that time and when i say nobody else, I mean other pilots and everyday serving buddies he would have met. Nobody has said that he NEVER showed up at all but rather the question is whether or not he was where he was supposed to be and when he was supposed to have been. Oh sure, he was attached to that particular unit all right, but he apparently didn't serve his full time there. Suppose that "preferential treatment" he enjoyed perhaps included simply just reporting as ordered and then being "excused" of actually having to do anything else during that time. Except for collecting a few paychecks and receiving dental care. I was in the military during 67-71. We did not have daily musters. We all were assigned particular duty stations that we reported to each and every day. but like I said, there was not a formal muster, or roll call, if you will, we just showed up and commenced our duties. if someone was not present, it was pretty much common knowledge by all rith then, not days later, since word traveled pretty fast. for myself, this was over 30 yrs ago and I can remeber pretty much everyone I served with. If not right off hand, upon seeing their pic and name, I surely would then at least. so my big thing with Bush is that while he may have "officially" reported for duty, he apparently did not report for actual duty each and every day that was required of him. Does it not seem strange that none of the other guardsmen he "served" with has come forward to verify his claims? It would take a rather naive person to think that every member of that Alabama unit [except for the deceased ones] knows about this story, particulary how long it has been going on. now granted, there may be more evidence still to come that will prove him out and I would like nothing less actuall to clear this all up. But IMO, if there was, i hardly think it would take them THIS long to come up with it. So I am sorry, the Reps have not proven one thing yet, Oliver.