Hannity's phony video
Cliff
"Media Matters documents how Hannity's phony video is only "the tip of Fox
News' video-doctoring iceberg"..."
Straightarrow
wrote:
> http://mediamatters.org/research/200911110019
>
> "Media Matters documents how Hannity's phony video is only "the tip of Fox
> News' video-doctoring iceberg"..."
Media Matters !!!?? ROTGDFLMMFAO !! MEDIA MATTERS ??!!
HHAAHHAHHHAAAHHAHAHHAHAAHHHAAAHHHAAAHHHAAAHHHWWWWWWWWWW !!!!
SteveB
>
> "Media Matters documents how Hannity's phony video is only "the tip of Fox
> News' video-doctoring iceberg"..."
I guess they got tired of showing how the truck gas tank explosions were
staged, and how Rather lied about Bush. On to something new. What will it
be tomorrow? Maybe Obama's birth certificate? I'd watch that.
Steve
Gunner Asch
Media Matters? Clit actually used that bit of buffoonery as a cite?
ROFLMAO!!!
Buffoon..an absolutely brain dead fucking buffoon!
Roflmao!!
Curly Surmudgeon
Did they use too many long words for your limited comprehension?
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 Run, Sarah, Run! 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff
<hoofhe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
They caught him fair & square, eh?
--
Cliff
Cliff
wrote:
Truth is not a thing that stays near gummer ...
--
Cliff
Straightarrow
wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 07:31:36 -0800, Straightarrow
>
> > On Nov 16, 8:37 am, Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om>
> > wrote:
> >> http://mediamatters.org/research/200911110019
>
> >> "Media Matters documents how Hannity's phony video is only "the tip
> >> of Fox
> >> News' video-doctoring iceberg"..."
>
> > Media Matters !!!?? ROTGDFLMMFAO !! MEDIA MATTERS ??!!
> > HHAAHHAHHHAAAHHAHAHHAHAAHHHAAAHHHAAAHHHAAAHHHWWWWWWWWWW !!!!
>
> Did they use too many long words for your limited comprehension?
>
> --
> Regards, Curly
> 2012 Run, Sarah, Run! 2012
Whassamatta fool?? You can't understand ROTGDFLMMFAO ??? Or was it
HAAAHHHAAHAHAHHAHAHHAAHHAHHHHAAHHAHAAWWWWWWWW !! that threw you for a
loop? Btw,why won't those same eleven "reporters" do a "fact check" on
Dr.Al Gore's books/movies on global warming buffoonery??
Hawke
> Whassamatta fool?? You can't understand ROTGDFLMMFAO ??? Or was it
> HAAAHHHAAHAHAHHAHAHHAAHHAHHHHAAHHAHAAWWWWWWWW !! that threw you for a
> loop? Btw,why won't those same eleven "reporters" do a "fact check" on
> Dr.Al Gore's books/movies on global warming buffoonery??
After all your bullshit you're not saying that Media Matters was wrong
about Hannity's deception, are you? Because the truth is the truth.
Hannity was doing his thing, which is trying to make his opponents look
bad, and the truth of things doesn't much matter to him. Now that's a
guy you would have utter faith in. We have proof that Hannity isn't to
be believed but that won't shake your trust in him at all. What's your
problem? You still trust people, sorry, I mean other right wingers, even
when they are caught lying. Knowing that, no one should pay any
attention to what you have to say.
Hawke
Curly Surmudgeon
Get back to me when you finally graduate Junior High School and learn how
to construct a cogent response.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 Run, Bobby, Run! 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lookout
He admitted it was a fraud to Jon Stewart. It was hilarious watching
him eat his own shit.
Gray Ghost
So let's see if I have this right.
Hannity - evil lieing swill, deliberatly trying to fool America.
Rather- simpleton, fooled by a clever forgery even after 50 years in the
business.
Is that your story?
--
�Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance and the gospel
of envy, its inherent value is the equal sharing of misery.� Winston
Churchill
Buerste
"Hawke" <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
news:hdscf5$gau$1...@aioe.org...
I assume the shot was included on purpose. But why? It's next to
impossible to pull something like that off and nobody would notice. Just
like the Bush papers on...ABC was it? I don't care for the framing of every
story, just report the news and report both sides of an issue. We'll never
see unbiased news again.
Buerste
"Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CC5AB91070C2We...@216.196.97.142...
As a mater of degrees, the included shot was a small infraction compared to
many others. But, the libs don't have a lot to work with so they overreact.
Gray Ghost
news:jRlMm.33007$Wf2....@newsfe23.iad:
And the liberals themselves never make mistakes.
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> Now if they would just try to catch the leftist wingers "fair and
> square" they might qualify as a source.
Which leftist wingers do you think should be caught and what equivalent
lies do you think were missed?
HH&C
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:21:00 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_r...@bogus.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
> >>On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 07:31:36 -0800 (PST), Straightarrow
> >><hoofhearte...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>On Nov 16, 8:37 am, Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om>
> >>>wrote:
> >>>> http://mediamatters.org/research/200911110019
>
> >>>> "Media Matters documents how Hannity's phony video is only "the
> >>>> tip of Fox
> >>>> News' video-doctoring iceberg"..."
>
> >>>Media Matters !!!?? ROTGDFLMMFAO !! MEDIA MATTERS ??!!
> >>>HHAAHHAHHHAAAHHAHAHHAHAAHHHAAAHHHAAAHHHAAAHHHWWWWWWWWWW !!!!
>
> >> They caught him fair & square, eh?
>
> > Now if they would just try to catch the leftist wingers "fair and
> > square" they might qualify as a source.
>
> Which leftist wingers do you think should be caught and what equivalent
> lies do you think were missed?
Dean Wormer to Curly: "Fat, drunk and stupid is no way to go through
life, son."
> --
> Regards, Curly
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 2012 Run, Bobby, Run! 2012
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:21:00 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 07:31:36 -0800 (PST), Straightarrow
>>>><hoofhe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Nov 16, 8:37 am, Cliff <Clhuprichguessw...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>> http://mediamatters.org/research/200911110019
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Media Matters documents how Hannity's phony video is only "the
>>>>>> tip of Fox
>>>>>> News' video-doctoring iceberg"..."
>>>>>
>>>>>Media Matters !!!?? ROTGDFLMMFAO !! MEDIA MATTERS ??!!
>>>>>HHAAHHAHHHAAAHHAHAHHAHAAHHHAAAHHHAAAHHHAAAHHHWWWWWWWWWW !!!!
>>>>
>>>> They caught him fair & square, eh?
>>>
>>> Now if they would just try to catch the leftist wingers "fair and
>>> square" they might qualify as a source.
>>
>>Which leftist wingers do you think should be caught and what equivalent
>>lies do you think were missed?
Good, meat, not fluff. Let me return the favor and opinionate:
> Global warming is a fact; it is not a scam. Cooling climate and less
> storms means the climate is heating and there are more storms.
The first is true, the second isn't.
> The TARP is only an investment, we will get it back and the taxpayer
> might even make a profit.
Remotely possible but unlikely.
> Why yes we need to pay massive bonuses. Otherwise those incompetent
> managers that made the system collapse will quit their jobs and go....
> and go... and go to.... We need big bonuses. Without those incentives
> they will go flip burgers or become dog walkers.
Absolute bullshit, let them learn to drive shovels.
> Open borders is the only fair thing to do. We will build/not build a
> fence. Illegal immigration is down because we now have the border
> secure, not because no one wants to come into the BushBama depression.
Overacted but substantially correct. Illegal immigration is kryptonite
to both parties, it ain't gonna be touched by either party.
> ObamaCare will not bankrupt the country
True.
> and the death panels certainly won't kill millions by benign neglect.
False, there are no "death panels." Don't fall for the bullshit.
> ObamaCare won't add one dime to the national budget.
Not true. The Obama Administration has repeatedly stated that it will
cost $90 Billion per year, or rather $900 billion over 10 years, and that
he will veto any legislation more than that.
> ObamaMotors will turn around now that they are nationalized and save
> American jobs.
Possibly. Today GM announced it's plan to repay the loan early. Money
to Chrysler is down the toilet though.
> They had to sign the bailout hurry up, right now, or the economy will
> crash by Friday, maybe Thursday.
Again, over acted but yeah, they did demand quick action. With cause,
the economy was rapidly going down the toilet:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=^DJI&t=2y&l=on&z=l&q=l&c=
> No time for that pesky transparent oversight.
That was the Bush Bailout. Funds invested by Obama at least have some
guarantees, stock and loans for instance rather than outright gifts.
> Let's just "hope".
We don't have much of an alternative, do we?
> Most of it still has not been used. It's scheduled to be spent leading
> into 2012. I wonder what happens that year?
TEOTWAWKI.
> We want to spend the stimulus fast on "shovel ready jobs". Those shovel
> ready jobs are out there, lots of them, but they have yet to see
> funding.
Nope, lots have been funded and many more, at the rate of about a
thousand a day, are being let. http://www.fbo.gov
> Stimulus is to create jobs. Most of the money is being used to keep
> from cutting existing jobs quite as much.
So?
> Unemployment is only 10.2 percent. Truthfully it's close to 22%. In
> some areas it's 50%. In certain demographics it's higher than that.
True. Employment statistics have been twisted since Reagan began listing
prisoners and soldiers as "employed" and eliminating the unemployed who
exhaust their benefits.
We should talk about solutions though.
> The only problem is in housing. That's just in sub-prime. And that's
> just a little 30 billion dollar problem.
Much more. What's your solution?
> We can't afford to let Goldman collapse.
I'm with you, let the suck hind tit.
> But we can afford to let Lehman collapse.
Yup, that was a good call.
> We can't afford to let AIG collapse because Goldman
> won't make yet more money.
I'm with you, let AIG suck hind tit too.
> Freddy and Fanny are doing fine.
Think so? I don't, but they aren't in nearly as bad shape as the
industry at large. And if they are what is your solution?
> Why yes, we do care about having a strong dollar.
Who said that?
> Why yes we are going to close Guantanamo and get out of Iraq
> lickity-split.
Pisses me off enormously too. However I feel that the fragile economy
cannot survive too many shocks at the moment and am biding my time on a
number of issues.
> And yes, this is an amalgam of BushBama. Two liberals; two parties, no
> difference.
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>>On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:29:35 -0700, Winston_Smith >wrote:
>>> Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>>>>On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:21:00 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>
>>>>> Now if they would just try to catch the leftist wingers "fair and
>>>>> square" they might qualify as a source.
>>>>
>>>>Which leftist wingers do you think should be caught and what
>>>>equivalent lies do you think were missed?
>>
>>Good, meat, not fluff. Let me return the favor and opinionate:
>
> I was writing in the voice of the government liars; most of what I wrote
> is the lies the left tells.
>
> That you do agree with much of it means we agree there is much about the
> left that should be placed under investigation. Perhaps we have
> designed, calculated, intentional lies. Perhaps we have honest
> misunderstandings by the left. They will be acquitted on some things no
> doubt, but they are either lying or in error on many things. Let's give
> them the same journalistic scrutiny they like to give the right. WS
>
>>> Global warming is a fact; it is not a scam. Cooling climate and less
>>> storms means the climate is heating and there are more storms.
>>
>>The first is true, the second isn't.
>>
>>> The TARP is only an investment, we will get it back and the taxpayer
>>> might even make a profit.
>>
>>Remotely possible but unlikely.
>
> Let's investigate the left then.
For what? The history isn't under contention to my knowledge.
>>> Why yes we need to pay massive bonuses. Otherwise those incompetent
>>> managers that made the system collapse will quit their jobs and go....
>>> and go... and go to.... We need big bonuses. Without those
>>> incentives they will go flip burgers or become dog walkers.
>>
>>Absolute bullshit, let them learn to drive shovels.
>
> Let's investigate the left then.
And the Republicans. Goldman Sachs and their ilk have owned the Treasury
Department for decades.
>>> Open borders is the only fair thing to do. We will build/not build a
>>> fence. Illegal immigration is down because we now have the border
>>> secure, not because no one wants to come into the BushBama depression.
>>
>>Overacted but substantially correct. Illegal immigration is kryptonite
>>to both parties, it ain't gonna be touched by either party.
>>
> Let's investigate the left then.
Why exclude the Republicans and Bush?
>>> ObamaCare will not bankrupt the country
>>
>>True.
>>
>>> and the death panels certainly won't kill millions by benign neglect.
>>
>>False, there are no "death panels." Don't fall for the bullshit.
>
> I can read. There are all sorts of panels and bodies to do undetermined
> things in the bills. The actual rules will be made up a year and a half
> after the legislation is signed. They are under constraint to keep a
> campaign pledge of no added costs. But they are under a constraint to
> expand the depth and breadth of the coverage to people that can't afford
> to pay for it.
>
> How to do that? Waste is a bogus argument. Obama and his mentors are
> already on record to limit resources used on old (unproductive) people.
What is wrong with that when over half of all medical costs occur during
hte last six months of life?
> It's part of the communist/liberal play book. He is already talking
> about cutting Medicare. He is already talking about replacing treatment
> with just making people comfortable (in cheap facilities) while they get
> about the business of dying. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the
> old will be allotted a crumb and told that's all the beloved government
> can "justify".
You can't argue both sides. Either costs are going to climb if you want
coverage to the grave or cutbacks will have to be enacted. You can't
have both.
>>> ObamaCare won't add one dime to the national budget.
>>
>>Not true. The Obama Administration has repeatedly stated that it will
>>cost $90 Billion per year, or rather $900 billion over 10 years, and
>>that he will veto any legislation more than that.
>
> Let's investigate the left then.
For what?
>>> ObamaMotors will turn around now that they are nationalized and save
>>> American jobs.
>>
>>Possibly. Today GM announced it's plan to repay the loan early. Money
>>to Chrysler is down the toilet though.
>
> Let's investigate the left then.
Why not the Republicans and Bush who gave them unsecured funds?
>>> They had to sign the bailout hurry up, right now, or the economy will
>>> crash by Friday, maybe Thursday.
>>
>>Again, over acted but yeah, they did demand quick action. With cause,
>>the economy was rapidly going down the toilet:
>
> Let's investigate the left then.
For what? History is clear and there doesn't seem to be any disagreement
over events.
>>http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=^DJI&t=2y&l=on&z=l&q=l&c=
>>
>>> No time for that pesky transparent oversight.
>>
>>That was the Bush Bailout. Funds invested by Obama at least have some
>>guarantees, stock and loans for instance rather than outright gifts.
>>
>>> Let's just "hope".
>>
>>We don't have much of an alternative, do we?
>
> Yeah, we do. Let the failing businesses fail and get on with it.
> Austrian economics. The depression of 1922 that never happened.
That is not an option for any president.
>>> Most of it still has not been used. It's scheduled to be spent leading
>>> into 2012. I wonder what happens that year?
>>
>>TEOTWAWKI.
>
> And an election. Oh. I see your point. ;>}
>
>>> We want to spend the stimulus fast on "shovel ready jobs". Those
>>> shovel ready jobs are out there, lots of them, but they have yet to
>>> see funding.
>>
>>Nope, lots have been funded and many more, at the rate of about a
>>thousand a day, are being let. http://www.fbo.gov
>>
>>> Stimulus is to create jobs. Most of the money is being used to keep
>>> from cutting existing jobs quite as much.
>>
>>So?
>
> Not what they told us. Let's investigate the left then.
Details. The money is going toward jobs as promised. We can argue the
larger question of whether or not the Federal government should be
involved in employment but this isn't an issue.
>>> Unemployment is only 10.2 percent. Truthfully it's close to 22%. In
>>> some areas it's 50%. In certain demographics it's higher than that.
>>
>>True. Employment statistics have been twisted since Reagan began
>>listing prisoners and soldiers as "employed" and eliminating the
>>unemployed who exhaust their benefits.
>>
>>We should talk about solutions though.
>
> Let's investigate the left then. And the right. Time for some honest
> numbers.
Agreed. Not just for the unemployed but those who are chronically
unemployed and fallen off the rolls, under-employed, part-time and want
full-time, etc. And let's get realistic about prisoners and soldiers
being "employed."
>>> The only problem is in housing. That's just in sub-prime. And that's
>>> just a little 30 billion dollar problem.
>>
>>Much more. What's your solution?
>
> Why were we told that lie?
You'll have to show me where and who claimed $30 Billion. I thought it
was the Bush administration.
> Let's investigate. We are big boys. We can handle the truth.
But politicians cannot.
>>> We can't afford to let Goldman collapse.
>>
>>I'm with you, let the suck hind tit.
>>
>>> But we can afford to let Lehman collapse.
>>
>>Yup, that was a good call.
>>
>>> We can't afford to let AIG collapse because Goldman won't make yet
>>> more money.
>>
>>I'm with you, let AIG suck hind tit too.
>>
>>> Freddy and Fanny are doing fine.
>>
>>Think so? I don't, but they aren't in nearly as bad shape as the
>>industry at large. And if they are what is your solution?
>
> Let's investigate the left then.
Again, investigate them for what? The real estate disaster was mainly a
Republican invention with a few Democrats involved. If you're going to
prosecute then include both but investigations are entirely inadequate.
To stop this shit you need the Hammer of Thor above their collective
heads.
> Let them fail.
Too late, FDIC.
> They funded people that could never expect to meet mortgage payments
> just because it was a nice thing to do.
You're kidding? This bubble was a conspiracy between "regulators,"
brokers, salesmen, appraisers, banks and financial institutions. It was
planned and intentional.
> Besides the economic crash, the human side is they
> set lots of people up to hope for something they never dreamed they
> could have and then smashed them into personal nightmare. Liberals care,
> huh?
Yeah, they do. Really, they do but their plans often go awry as in this
case when they tried to coat tail the Republican plan to explode lending
practices. With FDIC insurance.
>>> Why yes, we do care about having a strong dollar.
>>
>>Who said that?
>
> Pretty much every FED chairman, Treasury secretary, and President since
> God was a baby. It has been a lie since at least the 1950s. I can dig
> you up a link to Bernanke saying it this very day.
If that's the case why would you single out Bernanke? Note: I don't
follow these claims by the Fed.
>>> Why yes we are going to close Guantanamo and get out of Iraq
>>> lickity-split.
>>
>>Pisses me off enormously too.
>
> Let's investigate the left then. Were they stupid enough to think it
> was possible on that time table or were they lying?
Stupid covers it. There is no indication of lying, they "hoped" too big.
>>However I feel that the fragile economy cannot survive too many shocks
>>at the moment and am biding my time on a number of issues.
>
> All that is necessary if for good men to do nothing.
Not a matter of doing nothing but biding my time. I will not contribute
to bringing down the only man in the entire world that can sell a
functional economy to every nation on earth.
Yet.
Gunner Asch
wrote:
>On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:07:06 -0500, "Buerste" <bue...@wowway.com>
>wrote:
>Not as long as "News" is seen a revenue center in the entertainment
>department we won't.
>
>The litmus stick at one time used to be Walter Cronkite along with
>Chet Huntley and David Brinkley. It is highly unlikely that we will
>ever see men of that caliber again. In the beginning ad time wasn't
>even sold on TV News Broadcasts and it was only 15-minutes long. There
>were also completely staffed real news departments with investigative
>reporters as well. Most of today's talking heads aren't even
>journalists by training or trade, they are Entertainers looking for an
>audience share.
The end started when that rat bastard Cronkite made the public claim
that Tet of 1968 spelled the end of America in Vietnam. We had lost the
war.
Despite the fact that American and SVA casualties were very light..most
of the Viet Cong died THROUGHOUT the country and it was a fiasco for the
North.
Its been declining ever since..and the last gasp was the Dan Rather
buffoonery..for which he was ultimately fired.
Gunner
"Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone.
I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout"
Unknown Usnet Poster
Heh, heh, I'm pretty sure my dog is a liberal - he has no balls.
Keyton
Cliff
No errors in it.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Now if they would just try to catch the leftist wingers "fair and
>square" they might qualify as a source.
>
>
>Leftist WINGERs crash and burn on climate alarm
><http://www.examiner.com/examiner/x-25061-Climate-Change-Examiner~y2009m11d5-Climate-change-induced-disaster-predictions-falling-flat#>
>
>Big fat problem.
><http://image3.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID25061/images/gore-inconvenient.jpg>
>
>...snip
>But what if you predicted global natural disaster catastrophes and
>they didn�t happen? Does that invalidate your entire message? This is
>the conundrum faced by climate change alarmists as many of their
>predictions begin to fall flat.
>
>Mother Nature can be very fickle and predicting what she will bring
>tomorrow is difficult. Trying to do so over a span of years is next to
>impossible. Complicating matters, recent empirical evidence indicates
>that despite increasing carbon dioxide temperatures are decreasing and
>there has been no increase in climactic related events at all.
>
>Researchers at Florida State University recently updated their
>analysis of tropical cyclones and determined that tropical activity
>continues to decrease and is approaching 30 year lows. The Accumulated
>Cyclone Energy index (ACE) which is the standard for measuring
>tropical cyclone activity sits at 525 globally � far below the normal
>level of 769.
>
>Every tropical cyclone basin when looked at individually is seeing
>similarly low levels. Close to home to the United States, the North
>Atlantic hurricane basin as been very quiet and at low levels not seen
>in 12 years.
><http://image3.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID25061/images/2009-11-05_132415.jpg>
>
>
>The predictions of �cataclysmic hurricanes� that would be stronger due
>to global warming are also not coming true. A peer reviewed study in
>the publication Geophysical Research Letters discovered that, "the
>mean maximum intensity (i.e., averaged over all cyclones in a season)
>has decreased, while the maximum intensity attained by the strongest
>hurricane each year has not shown a significant change."
><http://image3.examiner.com/images/blog/EXID25061/images/majorhurricanes.jpg>
>
>Tornadoes, one of nature�s smaller disasters but also one of the most
>destructive, are not seeing increases in frequency or intensity. For
>the 2009 calendar year, tornado activity is approaching the 10th
>percentile of historical activity since 1954. Over the longer term,
>according to the National Climactic Data Center the number of strong
>to violent tornadoes (F3 to F5) is decreasing as well.
>
>In the end there is not one measure of storm frequency or intensity
>that has seen a measurable increase corresponding to global warming.
>
>...snip
Lookout
No one ever said or implied that. Stop trying to change the subject
just because you lost the argument.
Lookout
wrote:
>Now if they would just try to catch the leftist wingers "fair and
>square" they might qualify as a source.
Stop trying to change the subject. This sis about Faux Commentary
lies.
Lookout
>On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:07:06 -0500, "Buerste" <bue...@wowway.com>
>wrote:
>
>>
>Not as long as "News" is seen a revenue center in the entertainment
>department we won't.
>
>The litmus stick at one time used to be Walter Cronkite along with
>Chet Huntley and David Brinkley. It is highly unlikely that we will
>ever see men of that caliber again. In the beginning ad time wasn't
>even sold on TV News Broadcasts and it was only 15-minutes long. There
>were also completely staffed real news departments with investigative
>reporters as well. Most of today's talking heads aren't even
>journalists by training or trade, they are Entertainers looking for an
>audience share.
You're making a huge mistake. Cronkite, Huntley and Brinkley and the
rest were NEWS men. Hannity is opinion. Different standards all
together. Faux Commentary is just that .. opinionated commentary. They
admit to only 4 hours of news a day and as Jon Stewart pointed out
last week even the supposed news hours is filled with
"news" followed by opinions in the form of guffaws and smirks from the
pretty news readers that Faux employs.
Lookout
Wrong again. Cronkite just opined, and he made it clear it was his
opinion, that HE thought the war was lost. It was already lost when he
said that. There was no hope of winning a war in Viet Nam. Period.
Straightarrow
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:07:06 -0500, "Buerste" <buer...@wowway.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"Hawke" <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
> department we won't.
>
> The litmus stick at one time used to be Walter Cronkite along with
> Chet Huntley and David Brinkley. It is highly unlikely that we will
> ever see men of that caliber again. In the beginning ad time wasn't
> even sold on TV News Broadcasts and it was only 15-minutes long. There
> were also completely staffed real news departments with investigative
> reporters as well. Most of today's talking heads aren't even
> journalists by training or trade, they are Entertainers looking for an
> audience share.
>
> "Gustatus Similis Pullus"- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
OOOO-NNOOOOOOO !!! PROFIT !!! OOOOHHHHMYYYYYGAAAWWWD !!! THE HUMANITY
OF IT ALL !!! A CORPORATION WANTS TO MAKE A PROFIT !!
AAAAAHHHHHHHRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Straightarrow
> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:53:30 -0800, Gunner Asch
>
>
>
>
>
> <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:
> >wrote:
>
> >>On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:07:06 -0500, "Buerste" <buer...@wowway.com>
> >>wrote:
>
> >>>"Hawke" <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
Correction: There was NO HOPE of winning the war in Vietnam as long a
there was a demorat POTUS and congress was controlled by 'Rats.
Gunner Asch
wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:25:19 -0600, Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com>
>No he never said it was lost. He said it was destined to be a
>Stalemate.
A stalemate in such a situation IS a loss.
Need I refer you to North/South Korea?
Hawke
> Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in news:hdscf5$gau$1...@aioe.org:
>
>> Straightarrow wrote:
>>
>>> Whassamatta fool?? You can't understand ROTGDFLMMFAO ??? Or was it
>>> HAAAHHHAAHAHAHHAHAHHAAHHAHHHHAAHHAHAAWWWWWWWW !! that threw you for a
>>> loop? Btw,why won't those same eleven "reporters" do a "fact check" on
>>> Dr.Al Gore's books/movies on global warming buffoonery??
>> After all your bullshit you're not saying that Media Matters was wrong
>> about Hannity's deception, are you? Because the truth is the truth.
>> Hannity was doing his thing, which is trying to make his opponents look
>> bad, and the truth of things doesn't much matter to him. Now that's a
>> guy you would have utter faith in. We have proof that Hannity isn't to
>> be believed but that won't shake your trust in him at all. What's your
>> problem? You still trust people, sorry, I mean other right wingers, even
>> when they are caught lying. Knowing that, no one should pay any
>> attention to what you have to say.
>>
>> Hawke
>>
>
> So let's see if I have this right.
>
> Hannity - evil lieing swill, deliberatly trying to fool America.
> Rather- simpleton, fooled by a clever forgery even after 50 years in the
> business.
>
> Is that your story?
>
No that's not it. Rather had nothing to do with it. Neither did Larry
Craig or Sarah Palin. This was Fox News at work and specifically
Hannity. He was nailed trying to fool you right wingers with a lie. Now
did you have a comment on that? Or are you going to come up with an
excuse what he did. You already tried to change the subject to something
else and that didn't work. So what's your next way to excuse the deception?
Hawke
Hawke
I was around when all this happened so I know the truth. By 1968 people
were already tired of the war. That's when General William Westmoreland
told LBJ that he needed more troops to win the war, just like the
commander in Afghanistan is saying. Westmoreland had over half a million
troops in Vietnam at the time and was asking LBJ for another 200,000 men
and he was sure that would do the trick. After all, according to him we
could see light at the end of the tunnel and had the enemy on the ropes
even though we were losing 200 KIA per week. Then the enemy launched Tet
and what it showed was that everything the military was telling us was
complete bullshit. The enemy was everywhere and could attack the whole
country at their pleasure. There was no light at the end of the tunnel
and the truth was after everything we had done and all the money we had
spent we were no closer to winning than when we started. That is what
Tet showed the American public. When the people realized we were nowhere
near a victory the majority simply said enough is enough and it's time
to pull the plug. Anyone saying we could have won is just plain full of
shit. Oh, wasn't that what Gummer was saying? But of course. What else
would you expect he would say?
Hawke
Harold Burton
Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
> Hannity was doing his thing, which is trying to make his opponents look
> bad...
Which makes him different from Chris Matthews, how?
Harold Burton
grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com (Gray Ghost) wrote:
> Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in news:hdscf5$gau$1...@aioe.org:
>
> > Straightarrow wrote:
> >
> >> Whassamatta fool?? You can't understand ROTGDFLMMFAO ??? Or was it
> >> HAAAHHHAAHAHAHHAHAHHAAHHAHHHHAAHHAHAAWWWWWWWW !! that threw you for a
> >> loop? Btw,why won't those same eleven "reporters" do a "fact check" on
> >> Dr.Al Gore's books/movies on global warming buffoonery??
> >
> > After all your bullshit you're not saying that Media Matters was wrong
> > about Hannity's deception, are you? Because the truth is the truth.
> > Hannity was doing his thing, which is trying to make his opponents look
> > bad, and the truth of things doesn't much matter to him. Now that's a
> > guy you would have utter faith in. We have proof that Hannity isn't to
> > be believed but that won't shake your trust in him at all. What's your
> > problem? You still trust people, sorry, I mean other right wingers, even
> > when they are caught lying. Knowing that, no one should pay any
> > attention to what you have to say.
> >
> > Hawke
> >
>
> So let's see if I have this right.
>
> Hannity - evil lieing swill, deliberatly trying to fool America.
> Rather - simpleton, fooled by a clever forgery even after 50 years in the
> business.
>
> Is that your story?
Sadly, it is.
Snicker.
Harold Burton
Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
> Gray Ghost wrote:
> > Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote in news:hdscf5$gau$1...@aioe.org:
> >
> >> Straightarrow wrote:
> >>
> >>> Whassamatta fool?? You can't understand ROTGDFLMMFAO ??? Or was it
> >>> HAAAHHHAAHAHAHHAHAHHAAHHAHHHHAAHHAHAAWWWWWWWW !! that threw you for a
> >>> loop? Btw,why won't those same eleven "reporters" do a "fact check" on
> >>> Dr.Al Gore's books/movies on global warming buffoonery??
> >> After all your bullshit you're not saying that Media Matters was wrong
> >> about Hannity's deception, are you? Because the truth is the truth.
> >> Hannity was doing his thing, which is trying to make his opponents look
> >> bad, and the truth of things doesn't much matter to him. Now that's a
> >> guy you would have utter faith in. We have proof that Hannity isn't to
> >> be believed but that won't shake your trust in him at all. What's your
> >> problem? You still trust people, sorry, I mean other right wingers, even
> >> when they are caught lying. Knowing that, no one should pay any
> >> attention to what you have to say.
> >>
> >> Hawke
> >>
> >
> > So let's see if I have this right.
> >
> > Hannity - evil lieing swill, deliberatly trying to fool America.
> > Rather- simpleton, fooled by a clever forgery even after 50 years in the
> > business.
> >
> > Is that your story?
> >
>
>
> No that's not it. Rather had nothing to do with it.
From the leftard handbook: when caught DENY, DENY, DENY.
Snicker.
Harold Burton
Hawke <davesm...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
> country at their pleasure....
...and the idiot Dan Rather bought it. Of course we found out in 2004
he bought a lot of phony bullshit. In 1968 he overlooked the fact that
anyone "can attack anywhere at their pleasure"....if they're willing to
take horrible casualties, which the Viet Cong took. Good thing ole Dan
wasn't reporting during Operation Michael in 1918.
Snicker.
HH&C
> Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
> >On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 20:29:35 -0700, Winston_Smith >wrote:
> >> Why yes we are going to close Guantanamo and get out of Iraq
> >> lickity-split.
>
> >Pisses me off enormously too.
>
> Let's investigate the left then.
What did they know and when did they know it?
> Were they stupid enough to think it
> was possible on that time table or were they lying?
If they were lying, were the leftist voters stupid enough to believe
it or were they lying to themselves?
Ed Huntress
"Winston_Smith" <not_...@bogus.net> wrote in message
news:3on6g5ddq7midb6hn...@4ax.com...
> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>> Hannity's phony video
>
> It's sort of like Dan Rather's phony video.
>
> Oops, excuse me. He's liberal so what he did is fine.
Yeah, it is something like Rather's video. Rather got fired for treating
phony news as real news, whether it was "inadvertent" or not.
How about Hannity? It looks like he gets mostly cheers.
--
Ed Huntress
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
> The "history" is that we were told things that were outrageous on the
> face of them. It's the lies that need investigating, not the history of
> the liars.
>
>>>>> Why yes we need to pay massive bonuses. Otherwise those incompetent
>>>>> managers that made the system collapse will quit their jobs and
>>>>> go.... and go... and go to.... We need big bonuses. Without those
>>>>> incentives they will go flip burgers or become dog walkers.
>>>>
>>>>Absolute bullshit, let them learn to drive shovels.
>>>
>>> Let's investigate the left then.
>>
>>And the Republicans. Goldman Sachs and their ilk have owned the
>>Treasury Department for decades.
>
> Yup. see next comment.
>
>>>>> Open borders is the only fair thing to do. We will build/not build
>>>>> a fence. Illegal immigration is down because we now have the border
>>>>> secure, not because no one wants to come into the BushBama
>>>>> depression.
>>>>
>>>>Overacted but substantially correct. Illegal immigration is
>>>>kryptonite to both parties, it ain't gonna be touched by either party.
>>>>
>>> Let's investigate the left then.
>>
>>Why exclude the Republicans and Bush?
>
> Agreed. If you recall my original point was that leftist wingers have
> been/are lying to us. That includes Bush and his merry band of NeoCons.
> Bush set it up; Obama executes. Like a well oiled team.
> But Obama promised. pout. I think our lad is starting to come to grips
> with the basic fact of economic life and he is shifting his pitch. Now
> if he could just get rid of the wayback machine ...
>
>>>>> ObamaCare won't add one dime to the national budget.
>>>>
>>>>Not true. The Obama Administration has repeatedly stated that it will
>>>>cost $90 Billion per year, or rather $900 billion over 10 years, and
>>>>that he will veto any legislation more than that.
>>>
>>> Let's investigate the left then.
>>
>>For what?
>
> Lying.
>
>>>>> ObamaMotors will turn around now that they are nationalized and save
>>>>> American jobs.
>>>>
>>>>Possibly. Today GM announced it's plan to repay the loan early.
>>>>Money to Chrysler is down the toilet though.
>>>
>>> Let's investigate the left then.
>>
>>Why not the Republicans and Bush who gave them unsecured funds?
>
> BushBama. Same thing. See above comment.
>
>>>>> They had to sign the bailout hurry up, right now, or the economy
>>>>> will crash by Friday, maybe Thursday.
>>>>
>>>>Again, over acted but yeah, they did demand quick action. With cause,
>>>>the economy was rapidly going down the toilet:
>>>
>>> Let's investigate the left then.
>>
>>For what? History is clear and there doesn't seem to be any
>>disagreement over events.
>
> Lies, not for the history of the liar.
I don't see this issue as a lie. The economy was crashing. We escaped a
world wide depression only due to the bailouts signaling that nations
world over would not permit failure. It was true, conditions improved.
>>>>http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=^DJI&t=2y&l=on&z=l&q=l&c=
>>>>
>>>>> No time for that pesky transparent oversight.
>>>>
>>>>That was the Bush Bailout. Funds invested by Obama at least have some
>>>>guarantees, stock and loans for instance rather than outright gifts.
>>>>
>>>>> Let's just "hope".
>>>>
>>>>We don't have much of an alternative, do we?
>>>
>>> Yeah, we do. Let the failing businesses fail and get on with it.
>>> Austrian economics. The depression of 1922 that never happened.
>>
>>That is not an option for any president.
>
> We certainly do need one that 1. understands economics, and 2. has a
> pair of round ones. Harding did and got away with it. Hoover/FDR did
> not and gave us a lost generation. BushBama seem to be clean and
> smooth too.
>
>>>>> Most of it still has not been used. It's scheduled to be spent
>>>>> leading into 2012. I wonder what happens that year?
>>>>
>>>>TEOTWAWKI.
>>>
>>> And an election. Oh. I see your point. ;>}
>>>
>>>>> We want to spend the stimulus fast on "shovel ready jobs". Those
>>>>> shovel ready jobs are out there, lots of them, but they have yet to
>>>>> see funding.
>>>>
>>>>Nope, lots have been funded and many more, at the rate of about a
>>>>thousand a day, are being let. http://www.fbo.gov
>>>>
>>>>> Stimulus is to create jobs. Most of the money is being used to keep
>>>>> from cutting existing jobs quite as much.
>>>>
>>>>So?
>>>
>>> Not what they told us. Let's investigate the left then.
>>
>>Details. The money is going toward jobs as promised. We can argue the
>>larger question of whether or not the Federal government should be
>>involved in employment but this isn't an issue.
>
> They SAY it's going there. Today's example of how they lie. Full post
> in another thread.
I saw it but didn't research the validity.
> Jobs 'Saved or Created' in Congressional Districts That Don't Exist
> <http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/jobs-saved-created-congressional-
districts-exist/story?id=9097853>
>
>>>>> Unemployment is only 10.2 percent. Truthfully it's close to 22%.
>>>>> In some areas it's 50%. In certain demographics it's higher than
>>>>> that.
>>>>
>>>>True. Employment statistics have been twisted since Reagan began
>>>>listing prisoners and soldiers as "employed" and eliminating the
>>>>unemployed who exhaust their benefits.
>>>>
>>>>We should talk about solutions though.
>>>
>>> Let's investigate the left then. And the right. Time for some honest
>>> numbers.
>>
>>Agreed. Not just for the unemployed but those who are chronically
>>unemployed and fallen off the rolls, under-employed, part-time and want
>>full-time, etc. And let's get realistic about prisoners and soldiers
>>being "employed."
>>
>>>>> The only problem is in housing. That's just in sub-prime. And
>>>>> that's just a little 30 billion dollar problem.
>>>>
>>>>Much more. What's your solution?
>>>
>>> Why were we told that lie?
>>
>>You'll have to show me where and who claimed $30 Billion. I thought it
>>was the Bush administration.
>
> BushBama. Two of a kind.
>
>>> Let's investigate. We are big boys. We can handle the truth.
>>
>>But politicians cannot.
>>
>>>>> We can't afford to let Goldman collapse.
>>>>
>>>>I'm with you, let the suck hind tit.
>>>>
>>>>> But we can afford to let Lehman collapse.
>>>>
>>>>Yup, that was a good call.
>>>>
>>>>> We can't afford to let AIG collapse because Goldman won't make yet
>>>>> more money.
>>>>
>>>>I'm with you, let AIG suck hind tit too.
>>>>
>>>>> Freddy and Fanny are doing fine.
>>>>
>>>>Think so? I don't, but they aren't in nearly as bad shape as the
>>>>industry at large. And if they are what is your solution?
>>>
>>> Let's investigate the left then.
>>
>>Again, investigate them for what? The real estate disaster was mainly a
>>Republican invention with a few Democrats involved. If you're going to
>>prosecute then include both but investigations are entirely inadequate.
>
> BushBama.
>
> Investigation produces the basis for prosecution.
You need to voice a reason in order to initiate an investigation. Witch
hunts aren't permitted.
>>To stop this shit you need the Hammer of Thor above their collective
>>heads.
>>
>>> Let them fail.
>>
>>Too late, FDIC.
>
> For banks. We could have let GM, Chrysler, GMAC, Goldman, AIG, etc go.
GMAC, Goldman, AIG, etc. were covered under FDIC. At least their real
estate investments and a government cannot retroactively revoke such a
promise.
> If you or I do something stupid and get someone killed there is a
> penalty. Someone must pay the penalty for killing the economy and the
> hopes and dreams of a generation.
You describe an economic crime, and I'm with you on that but you can't
assign murder to an economic crime. I wish dearly for an independent
Attorney General who has the balls and latitude to go against the crooks
which precipitated this mess.
But not in the traditional way, working from the bottom up. It's very
difficult to nail small fry, often they are only following directions.
If prosecution fails at any point in the chain the higher ups get off.
That is not an acceptable risk. Nail the policy makers first then work
down the food chain looking at those who profited and participated.
>>>>However I feel that the fragile economy cannot survive too many shocks
>>>>at the moment and am biding my time on a number of issues.
>>>
>>> All that is necessary if for good men to do nothing.
>>
>>Not a matter of doing nothing but biding my time. I will not contribute
>>to bringing down the only man in the entire world that can sell a
>>functional economy to every nation on earth.
>>
>>Yet.
>
> Depends on whether he is successful selling that snake oil. I predict
> not. Time will tell.
I hope you are wrong. I fear you may be right. Until the trend is clear
I refuse to attack Obama too much. The economy is his Dan Quayle.
>>>>> And yes, this is an amalgam of BushBama. Two liberals; two parties,
>>>>> no difference.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 Run, Newt, Run! 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray Ghost
And your prrof that it was a deliberate lie is...
BTW your attempt to change the subject to Sarah Palin and Larry Craig was
quite pathetic.
And the original numbnuts's claim was that FOX deliberately lies, not just
Hannity.
So, piss off.
Lookout
wrote:
>On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 08:25:19 -0600, Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com>
>No he never said it was lost. He said it was destined to be a
>Stalemate.
He made it clear the war was lost.
Lookout
<gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:
Yup. We lost that one too
Lookout
I was 10 in 68. When I hit Jr High we discussed the war in class on a
regular basis. The history teacher would show the headlines and we'd
discuss it. We also had to do papers in English class on it. The
teachers made us read the papers as part of the class. I was very
fortunate to be in such a school.
Lookout
wrote:
>Lookout <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:21:00 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>>>On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 07:31:36 -0800 (PST), Straightarrow wrote:
>>>>>On Nov 16, 8:37�am, Cliff wrote:
>
>>>>>> �<http://mediamatters.org/research/200911110019>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> � "Media Matters documents how Hannity's phony video is only "the tip of Fox
>>>>>> News' video-doctoring iceberg"..."
>>>>>
>>>>>Media Matters !!!?? ROTGDFLMMFAO !! MEDIA MATTERS ??!!
>>>>>HHAAHHAHHHAAAHHAHAHHAHAAHHHAAAHHHAAAHHHAAAHHHWWWWWWWWWW !!!!
>>>>
>>>> They caught him fair & square, eh?
>>>
>>>Now if they would just try to catch the leftist wingers "fair and
>>>square" they might qualify as a source.
>>
>>Stop trying to change the subject. This sis about Faux Commentary
>>lies.
>
>Lies are lies. Left, right, socialist, NeoCon, Fox, Air America.
>Lies are lies. If you don't want to root them all out, you are either
>a sheeple or a party loyalist droid.
Stay ignorant. It suits you.
Ed Huntress
"Lookout" <mrLo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:kt37g55vupgt5pesf...@4ax.com...
Did you and the other kids in class believe what the government was telling
you about the war in 1968, or did you assume that everything they said was a
lie by then?
Just curious.
--
Ed Huntress
Hawke
There is a big difference between Hannity and Rather, as if it needs to
be pointed out. Rather was a real journalist and one of the best newsmen
the country ever had. He had a real and outstanding career as a
professional journalist. Hannity, what can I say? He's just a loudmouth
demagogue with not one credential to his name and not even a college
degree either.
It may be that Rather made one very big mistake, which cost him dearly.
But, I have seen him interviewed recently and he still has a multi
million dollar lawsuit against CBS and there is at least one judge that
thinks his case has merit. So it remains to be seen whether Rather may
yet be vindicated for his supposedly bogus story. The fact remains that
the actual events regarding Bush and what really happened in the Air
National Guard have not all come to light. One of these days the truth
about what he did and did not do are going to come out. My hunch is that
when it does Rather is going to look more like a hero than a goat. Now
Hannity, he's never going to be anything but a right wing dope.
Hawke
Ed Huntress
Yeah, well, I remember that there was a lot of cheering here when Rather got
shoved out. I just wonder if the righties feel that the same thing should be
done with Hannity.
--
Ed Huntress
Gray Ghost
75BB94.200...@news.newsguy.com:
Well for one thing, Hannity doesn't get a tingle up his leg from other men.
Chris is very disturbing.
Gray Ghost
Might the fact that there were so mnay VC and NVA in the south have anything
to do with the fact that they were being smuggled in through violating other
country's territory and we were restricted as to what we could do about it.
Fighting with only one hand "just to make it fair" seems pretty stupid and
unproductive to me.
Gray Ghost
Yes indeed, wonderful job they did occupying the US embassy. And then getting
wiped out to no tactical or strategic gain, except of course for the
caterwauling of the 5th columnists and useful idiots back home.
Gunner Asch
How We Won The War
by Vo Nguyen Giap
Excerpt from: http://www.war-stories.com/Hayden.htm
By Gene Kuentzler: The question raised by Gary Beaver, "Do you have any
data on actual U.S. troops, by name who were killed as a direct result
of Fonda's actions?" can be answered by reading the book written by
General Giap, Commander of NVA forces. Giap clearly indicated that NVA
troops were without sufficient supplies, and had been continually
defeated time and again.
By 1968, NVA morale was at it's lowest point ever. The plans for "Tet"
'68 was their last desperate attempt to achieve a success, in an effort
to boost the NVA morale. When it was over, General Giap and the NVA
viewed the Tet '68 offensive as a failure, they were on their knees and
had prepared to negotiate a surrender.
At that time, there were fewer than 10,000 U.S. casualties, the Vietnam
War was about to end, as the NVA was prepared to accept their defeat.
Then, they heard Walter Cronkite (former CBS News anchor and
correspondent) on TV proclaiming the success of the Tet '68 offensive by
the communist NVA. They were completely and totally amazed at hearing
that the US Embassy had been overrun. In reality, The NVA had not gained
access to the Embassy--there were some VC who had been killed on the
grassy lawn, but they hadn't gained access. Further reports indicated
the riots and protesting on the streets of America.
According to Giap, these distorted reports were inspirational to the
NVA. They changed their plans from a negotiated surrender and decided
instead, they only needed to persevere for one more hour, day, week,
month, eventually the protesters in American would help them to achieve
a victory they knew they could not win on the battlefield. Remember,
this decision was made at a time when the U.S. casualties were fewer
than 10,000, at the end of 1967, beginning of 1968.
Today, there are 58,000 names on the Vietnam Wall Memorial that was
built with the donations made by the American public. Although Giap did
not mention each and every protester's name in his book, many of us will
never forget the 58,000 names on the Wall. We will also never forget the
names of those who helped in placing those additional 48,000 names
there: Bill, Jane, Tom, Cronkite, and others.
Those of us who rotated prior to Walter Cronkite's report on "Tet-68"
can clearly state, "We were still winning when I left!"
General Tran Van Tra admits that the Viet Cong were utterly destroyed in
Ted, 1968 and the North lost the war. At which point..that cocksucker
Cronkitte gave it back to them.
He should have been taken out and hung
I piss on his grave.
Cliff
>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>> Hannity's phony video
>
>It's sort of like Dan Rather's phony video.
>
>Oops, excuse me. He's liberal so what he did is fine.
Unlike Faux he had no phony videos (& endless lies).
--
Cliff
Straightarrow
> Lookout wrote:
> > On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:53:30 -0800, Gunner Asch
> > <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:
>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:07:06 -0500, "Buerste" <buer...@wowway.com>
> >>> wrote:
>
> >>>> "Hawke" <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
And the demorat congress cut off funding for the war.
Straightarrow
YES !!
Lookout
We had both "for" and "against" teachers so we got both sides. The pro
war side would use the Boston Herald as their newspaper of choice. The
anti war side used the Boston Globe. Having two competing newspaper on
opposite sides of the debate was of immeasurable help. Personally I
turned to magazines like TIME and Newsweek, along with foreign
magazines. The library was very well stocked with about 20 magazines
each month and they kept back issues. So I guess we heard the lies and
the truths from both sides.
I knew the war was wrong on moral grounds. There was no reason to get
involved. Period. The threat of a Red take over was greatly
exaggerated by the hawks.
My father was in politics at the time so I knew from first hand
experience that ALL politicians lie ;)
Cliff
wrote:
>
>"Winston_Smith" <not_...@bogus.net> wrote in message
>news:3on6g5ddq7midb6hn...@4ax.com...
>> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>
>>> Hannity's phony video
>>
>> It's sort of like Dan Rather's phony video.
>>
>> Oops, excuse me. He's liberal so what he did is fine.
>
>Yeah, it is something like Rather's video. Rather got fired for treating
>phony news as real news, whether it was "inadvertent" or not.
What "video", Ed?
And he still seems dead-on about bush's being AWOL ...
>How about Hannity? It looks like he gets mostly cheers.
--
Cliff
Cliff
>Ed Huntress wrote:
>> "Winston_Smith" <not_...@bogus.net> wrote in message
>> news:3on6g5ddq7midb6hn...@4ax.com...
>>> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hannity's phony video
>>> It's sort of like Dan Rather's phony video.
>>>
>>> Oops, excuse me. He's liberal so what he did is fine.
>>
>> Yeah, it is something like Rather's video. Rather got fired for treating
>> phony news as real news, whether it was "inadvertent" or not.
>>
>> How about Hannity? It looks like he gets mostly cheers.
>>
>
>
>There is a big difference between Hannity and Rather, as if it needs to
>be pointed out. Rather was a real journalist and one of the best newsmen
>the country ever had. He had a real and outstanding career as a
>professional journalist. Hannity, what can I say? He's just a loudmouth
>demagogue with not one credential to his name and not even a college
>degree either.
>
>It may be that Rather made one very big mistake, which cost him dearly.
The only thing was not having more sources for one item.
It was never shown to be in any way false and was
just confirming what was known from many other sources
anyway,
In addition, it was up to the producer & staff, not Rather.
>But, I have seen him interviewed recently and he still has a multi
>million dollar lawsuit against CBS and there is at least one judge that
>thinks his case has merit. So it remains to be seen whether Rather may
>yet be vindicated for his supposedly bogus story. The fact remains that
>the actual events regarding Bush and what really happened in the Air
>National Guard have not all come to light.
Copies of the original "missing" pay records did show up in some
military off-base archives.
bush was gone & not paid.
bushco had not managed to hide everything.
>One of these days the truth
>about what he did and did not do are going to come out. My hunch is that
>when it does Rather is going to look more like a hero than a goat. Now
>Hannity, he's never going to be anything but a right wing dope.
>
>Hawke
--
Cliff
Cliff
You blame poor little Monica for the bushco lies, eh?
--
cLIFF
Gray Ghost
news:nfk7g5p1j3oolhert...@4ax.com:
No, just obvious forgeries.
Cliff
Ghost) wrote:
>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>news:nfk7g5p1j3oolhert...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:43:30 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hannity's phony video
>>>
>>>It's sort of like Dan Rather's phony video.
>>>
>>>Oops, excuse me. He's liberal so what he did is fine.
>>
>> Unlike Faux he had no phony videos (& endless lies).
>
>No, just obvious forgeries.
None, just lying confused wingers as far
as anybody knows. The usual.
--
Cliff
Hawke
What's stupid is to comment when you don't have the facts. The truth is
the U.S. was violating every rule in the book during the war. We were
assassinating people, we were running secret wars in Laos and Cambodia.
We were bribing people all over the place. To say we were playing by the
rules and they weren't is laughable. The truth is we were doing
everything we could to win that war. Saying we weren't is just a mealy
mouth excuse for not winning. The truth is the North Vietnamese weren't
going to quit no matter what the cost or how long it took. We didn't
have that level of commitment. So that's it. Game over. They were going
to keep fighting even if it took fifty years.
As to Tet being a win for the North, it clearly was. They proved they
were nowhere near being defeated. Once they showed how vulnerable we
were it proved to Americans that what the military was telling us was a
crock. After almost five years of fighting to find out we were being
lied to and that we were no closer to a victory told most of us this was
a bummer of a war and it had to stop.
Hawke
Hawke
> There is a big difference between Hannity and Rather, as if it needs to be
>> pointed out. Rather was a real journalist and one of the best newsmen the
>> country ever had. He had a real and outstanding career as a professional
>> journalist. Hannity, what can I say? He's just a loudmouth demagogue with
>> not one credential to his name and not even a college degree either.
>>
>> It may be that Rather made one very big mistake, which cost him dearly.
>> But, I have seen him interviewed recently and he still has a multi million
>> dollar lawsuit against CBS and there is at least one judge that thinks his
>> case has merit. So it remains to be seen whether Rather may yet be
>> vindicated for his supposedly bogus story. The fact remains that the
>> actual events regarding Bush and what really happened in the Air National
>> Guard have not all come to light. One of these days the truth about what
>> he did and did not do are going to come out. My hunch is that when it does
>> Rather is going to look more like a hero than a goat. Now Hannity, he's
>> never going to be anything but a right wing dope.
>>
>> Hawke
>
> Yeah, well, I remember that there was a lot of cheering here when Rather got
> shoved out. I just wonder if the righties feel that the same thing should be
> done with Hannity.
>
Ha!, right. They just make excuses when their heroes get caught breaking
rules. They close ranks and fight to keep them from paying any price for
their wrong doing. Which reminds me. I just heard that the former
congressman from Louisiana, Reynolds I think, just got sentenced to 13
years in prison. He was made famous for having 90,000 in cash in his
freezer. I think you remember him. Anyway, that's what happens when
Democrats get caught doing wrong. They get nailed to the wall. For
republicans, Scooter Libby is an example of how they handle their own.
He gets a conviction for lying under oath, and he's a lawyer. I saw him
a week or so ago at a big award ceremony thrown by the right wing and he
was there in his tux being treated like a hero. I think that about
demonstrates the difference between the parties very well. One group
punishes its members when they commit a crime and the other commutes the
criminal's sentence and gives him an award. I wonder what the people who
say the parties are the same say about that.
Hawke
Gray Ghost
news:f258g5ldg96tpri0e...@4ax.com:
Are you having trouble following again? We had redirected the conversation to
Dan Blather and the forged documents which ruined his career.
Are you denying they were forgeries?
Are you denying Rather lied?
HH&C
wrote:
Back off the glue rag. Monica was Bill's girlfriend, not GWs.
cop welfare
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 01:37:35 -0600, grey_ghost471-newsgro...@yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
>
> (Gray Ghost) wrote:
> >Harold Burton <hal.i.bur...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> >news:hal.i.burton-A2BF...@news.newsguy.com:
>
> >> In article <hdvguh$6p...@aioe.org>,
> >> Hawke <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote:
>
> >>> Lookout wrote:
> >>> > On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 22:53:30 -0800, Gunner Asch
> >>> > <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:
>
> >>> >> wrote:
>
> >>> >>> On Mon, 16 Nov 2009 19:07:06 -0500, "Buerste" <buer...@wowway.com>
> >>> >>> wrote:
>
> >>> >>>> "Hawke" <davesmith...@digitalpath.net> wrote in message
>
> General Tran Van Tra admits that the Viet Cong were utterly destroyed in
> Ted, 1968 and the North lost the war. At which point..that cocksucker
> Cronkitte gave it back to them.
>
> He should have been taken out and hung
> I piss on his grave.
>
> Gunner
>
> "Aren't cats Libertarian? They just want to be left alone.
> I think our dog is a Democrat, as he is always looking for a handout"
> Unknown Usnet Poster
>
> Heh, heh, I'm pretty sure my dog is a liberal - he has no balls.
>
> - Show quoted text -
very good, goonar...
that's all very interesting but remember that the american ppl (thru
the american journalists present every night at the five o'clock
follies) were regaled daily t with false tales of the disappearance
and obvious defeat of the nva. westmoreland would tolerate no
defeatist alternative opinions from junior officers who would be
transferred for trespassing certain parameters. the white house was
being fed the same bs. westmoreland had, i believe, scheduled a
reduction in troops due to his winning ways and the light he could
clearly see at the end of the tunnel. then tet came along and caught
him with his pants in disarray. the vc, supposedly no longer capable
of mounting an attack of any significance, surprised them all.
"where did the vc all come from?"
westmoreland was recalled.
and perhaps that giap quotation is horseshit. read on.
http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_general_giap.htm
Circulating in various forms ever since the 1990s, this statement
attributed to General Vo Nguyen Giap of North Vietnam is not
authentic, has never been authentic, nor will any amount of repetition
will make it so.
The quote surfaced most recently in an anonymous forwarded email
(example above) composed in December 2007, days after being mentioned
on Rush Limbaugh's website, which in turn cited an October 3, 2007
NewsMax.com column by Geoff Metcalf as the source. According to
Metcalf, the passage came from "[Giap's] memoirs currently found in
the Vietnam War memorial in Hanoi."
Rewind to three years and one finds the same passage being used as a
weapon against John Kerry during the 2004 presidential campaign. It
was repeatedly cited in texts inferring a connection between the
candidate's antiwar activities during the 1970s and the Communist
victory in Vietnam. This example, authored by ex-POW Michael Benge, is
typical:
General Vo Nguyen Giap, the North Vietnamese general, the architect of
the military campaign that finally drove the U.S. out of South Vietnam
in 1975, is cited as crediting Presidential aspirant John Kerry and
his VVAW with helping them achieve victory. In Giap's 1985 memoir
about the war, he wrote that if it weren't for organizations like
Kerry's Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Hanoi would have surrendered
to the U.S." Giap was quoted as saying, "What we still don't
understand is why you Americans stopped the bombing of Hanoi. You had
us on the ropes. If you had pressed us a little harder, just for
another day or two, we were ready to surrender! It was the same at the
battles of TET. You defeated us! We knew it, and we thought you knew
it. But, we were elated to notice the media were definitely helping
us. They were causing more disruption in America than we could in the
battlefields. Yes, we were ready to surrender. You had won!"
-- Michael Benge, "Open Letter," Web-posted October 29, 2004
The charge against Kerry was couched in slightly different terms by
conservative columnist Greg Lewis, who also made reference to alleged
remarks by General Giap:
In the early 1970s, Kerry's group, Vietnam Veterans Against the War,
was highly visible in the antiwar movement in America. North
Vietnamese General Vo Nguyen Giap goes to far as to report that Hanoi
was considering surrendering to the United States during the early
'70s, but that groups such as Kerry's convinced them to stay the
course because America was not firm in its resolve. According to Fox
News Analyst and decorated Vietnam Veteran Colonel Oliver North, "The
Vietnam Veterans Against the War encouraged people to desert,
encouraged people to mutiny." North puts it bluntly: "John Kerry has
the blood of North American soldiers on his hands."
-- Greg Lewis, "Fellow Travelers, Useful Idiots, and Other Innocents,"
February 19, 2004
I have not been able to find a trace of the alleged Giap quote in any
source published prior to 2004.
Vietnam War historian: Giap made no such statement
According to Clemson University history professor Edwin Moise, General
Giap never wrote or stated any such thing. From Moise's comprehensive
Vietnam War Bibliography (emphasis added):
Supposedly, General Giap had written in How We Won the War that in the
aftermath of the Tet Offensive of 1968, the Communist leaders in
Vietnam had been ready to abandon the war, but that a broadcast by
Walter Cronkite, declaring the Tet Offensive a Communist victory,
persuaded them to change their minds and fight on. This rumor was
entirely false. Giap had not mentioned Cronkite, and had not said the
Communists had ever considered giving up on the war.
Several variants of this rumor appeared in 2004. In these, Giap is
supposed to have credited either the American anti-war movement in
general, or John Kerry's organization (Vietnam Veterans Against the
War) in particular, for persuading the Communist leaders to change
their minds and not give up on the war. Giap is sometimes said to have
made this statement in How We Won the War, sometimes in an unnamed
1985 memoir. All versions of the rumor are false. Neither in How We
Won the War, nor in any other book (the 1985 memoir is entirely
imaginary), has Giap mentioned Kerry or Vietnam Veterans Against the
War, or said that the Communist leaders had ever considered giving up
on the war.
In his own words
The most relevant statement I could find that is actually attributable
to General Giap was uttered in a 1989 interview with Morley Safer, as
excerpted in The Vietnam War: An Encyclopedia of Quotations by Howard
Langer (Greenwood Press, 2005, p. 318):
We paid a high price [during the Tet offensive] but so did you
[Americans]... not only in lives and materiel.... Do not forget the
war was brought into the living rooms of the American people. ... The
most important result of the Tet offensive was it made you de-escalate
the bombing, and it brought you to the negotiation table. It was,
therefore, a victory....
The war was fought on many fronts. At that time the most important one
was American public opinion.
Email This Article
Sources and further reading:
Open Letter to Vietnamese-Americans, Vietnam and Other Veterans
Concerning the Upcoming Elections
Open Letter by former POW Michael Benge, 29 October 2004
North Vietnamese General: America Lost at Home
RushLimbaugh.com, 3 December 2007
Iraq: We Must Remain Committed
NewsMax.com, 3 October 2007
Jonathan Winkler: Did General Giap Say the Vietnam War Was Won on the
Streets of America?
History News Network, 25 October 2004
Did VVAW Lengthen the War by Protesting It?
Vietnam Veterans Against the War, Frequently Asked Questions
Vietnam War Bibliography
Edwin Moise, historian, Clemson University
Vietnam War: Vo Nguyen Giap
About.com: Military History
Last updated: 12/13/07
Ed Huntress
"cop welfare" <cop.w...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:71dbcbf6-b786-4998...@v30g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 18, 2:12 am, Gunner Asch <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:
<snip>
>and perhaps that giap quotation is horseshit. read on.
>http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/bl_general_giap.htm
>Circulating in various forms ever since the 1990s, this statement
>attributed to General Vo Nguyen Giap of North Vietnam is not
>authentic, has never been authentic, nor will any amount of repetition
>will make it so.
Gunner has been re-posting the phony Giap "quotation" here since the early
part of the decade. He doesn't care that it's a pile of made-up crap. It's
been brought to his attention before, and he just ignores it.
--
Ed Huntress
Gunner Asch
<cop.w...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Vietnam War historian: Giap made no such statement
So you are claiming that General Tran Van Tra is Gen. Giap in drag?
Fascinating..you are still a fucking buffoon of the worst type.
A brain damaged leftard. That in itself is bad news..but now you are
bellyaching about your idological buddies on the North Vietnamese
general staff.
Dont you have any idea of how fucking STUPID that makes you look?
Hummmm...I suspect you dont have any idea exactly just how stupid you
are.
But claiming that General Tran Van Tra is General Giap...is really
really making you look the utter yutz.
In fact..its starting to sicken even me.
So Im simply going to killfile the retarded and utterly stupid little
boy you have again and again shown yourself to be.
With luck..someday soon, when you are crossing the street, a bus will
strike you and drag you under it for a few blocks, peeling off your
arms and legs, so no one will have to read your utter buffoonery and
pathetic posts on usenet. I dont care if it kills you..just prevents
you from posting your buffoonery into other peoples homes.
And it may even keep you alive when they come and drag the Leftwingers
up to street lamps and hang them until they are dead.
So..pray for a bus..or face the noose.
<plink>
Cliff
Ghost) wrote:
>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>news:f258g5ldg96tpri0e...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 08:54:01 -0600, grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com
>> (Gray Ghost) wrote:
>>
>>>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>>>news:nfk7g5p1j3oolhert...@4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:43:30 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hannity's phony video
>>>>>
>>>>>It's sort of like Dan Rather's phony video.
>>>>>
>>>>>Oops, excuse me. He's liberal so what he did is fine.
>>>>
>>>> Unlike Faux he had no phony videos (& endless lies).
>>>
>>>No, just obvious forgeries.
>>
>> None, just lying confused wingers as far
>> as anybody knows. The usual.
>
>Are you having trouble following again? We had redirected the conversation to
>Dan Blather and the forged documents which ruined his career.
What "forged documents"? FORGED BY WHOM?
Did you not claim it was about a truck exploding?
>
>Are you denying they were forgeries?
What ?
>Are you denying Rather lied?
About what?
OTOH Faux forges & lies all the time ...
Wingers, eh?
--
Cliff
Curly Surmudgeon
<Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:14:39 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net>
> wrote:
>
>>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>>On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:03:18 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>>Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>>>>On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:43:30 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>>>> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Hannity's phony video
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's sort of like Dan Rather's phony video.
>>>>>
>>>>>What Dan Rather phony video?
>>>>
>>>>Exploding gas tanks on one of the US made pickup trucks.
>>>
>>> The trucks that had the exploding gas tanks?
>>>
>>> I don't recall Dan Rather on that episode of Dateline NBC.
>>
>>If I'm in error on the name, plug in any liberal news reporter you care
>>to.
>
> And where was Dan Rather? Noplace near so you lied (yet again).
I doubt that Winston lied. To lie requires intent to deceive and while I
disagree with Winston on occasion there is no history to indicate that he
shares the Republican pathology of lying.
Winston does need to retract, unequivocably, his assertion that Dan
Rather was in any way connected with the false story.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 Run, Rudy, Run! 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cliff
Found those "WMDs" yet?
--
Cliff
Gray Ghost
news:eulag5t99c4slkj6r...@4ax.com:
Cliff if you can't keep up then there is little point in continuing.
Yes Dateline NBC did an investigative report about General Motors pickup
trucks allegedly exploding upon impact during accidents due to poor design of
fuel tanks. Dateline's film showed a sample of a low speed accident with the
fuel tank exploding. In reality, Dateline NBC producers had rigged the truck
with remotely detonated explosives. The program did not disclose the fact
that the accident was staged. GM investigators studied the film, and
discovered that smoke actually came out of the fuel tank a split-second
before impact. GM subsequently filed an anti-defamation lawsuit against NBC
after conducting an extensive investigation. On February 18, 1993 GM
conducted a highly publicized point-by-point rebuttal that lasted nearly two
hours after announcing the lawsuit. The lawsuit was quickly settled by NBC,
and Jane Pauley read an apology on the program.
The following Dateline NBC producers were dismissed: Jeff Diamond, executive
producer; David Rummel, senior producer; and Robert Read, producer of the
report on the pickups. Michele Gillen, the reporter involved in the segment,
was transferred to Miami station WTVJ. Michael G. Gartner, president of the
news division, resigned under pressure.
As well as bogus reports such as
"Cataract Cowboys" in which Brian Ross claimed that doctors unnecessarily
performed surgery on elderly patients.
Quixtar
St. Louis Helicopter Hijack Attempt orchestrated by 2 NBC employees
To Catch a Predator issues
The 15th DEFCON hacker conference, Dateline producer Michelle Madigan failed
to register as a reporter and used a hidden camera to covertly film
attendees, apparently intending to catch hackers admitting to crimes
No I am refering to the Dan Rather report wherein he claimed that obviously
forged documents alleged certain untrue statements regarding then President
Bush. The story he lost his job over.
Silly boy. Do they call you Cliff because you keeping driving off of them?
Beam Me Up Scotty
> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 09:56:26 -0500, Cliff
> <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:14:39 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:03:18 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>>> Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:43:30 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>>>>> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hannity's phony video
>>>>>>> It's sort of like Dan Rather's phony video.
>>>>>> What Dan Rather phony video?
>>>>> Exploding gas tanks on one of the US made pickup trucks.
>>>> The trucks that had the exploding gas tanks?
>>>>
>>>> I don't recall Dan Rather on that episode of Dateline NBC.
>>> If I'm in error on the name, plug in any liberal news reporter you care
>>> to.
>> And where was Dan Rather? Noplace near so you lied (yet again).
>
http://outsourcenews.net/j-news/images/stories/DanRather.gif
Lookout
(Gray Ghost) wrote:
Stop trying to change the subject. This is about Faux Commentary and
Sean Hannity.
Cliff
Ghost) wrote:
What an idiot.
We know all of that & people got fired IIRC. Unlike lies from Faux
where they seem to get rewarded for them.
None of which has anything to do with IT WAS NOT DAN RATHER.
Keep drooling.
--
Cliff
Cliff
Oops ... there were no "obviously forged documents" and
the statments were indeed true (and very widely known anyway).
He just did not have second sources & etc for the one item.
--
Cliff
Cliff
<CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 09:56:26 -0500, Cliff
><Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:14:39 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>>>On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:03:18 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>>>Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>>>>>On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:43:30 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>>>>> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>>> Hannity's phony video
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's sort of like Dan Rather's phony video.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>What Dan Rather phony video?
>>>>>
>>>>>Exploding gas tanks on one of the US made pickup trucks.
>>>>
>>>> The trucks that had the exploding gas tanks?
>>>>
>>>> I don't recall Dan Rather on that episode of Dateline NBC.
>>>
>>>If I'm in error on the name, plug in any liberal news reporter you care
>>>to.
>>
>> And where was Dan Rather? Noplace near so you lied (yet again).
>
>I doubt that Winston lied.
Perhaps not intentionally but I think he had
plenty of time to check his "facts" in the face of
other posts but failed to do so.
>To lie requires intent to deceive
About Dan Rather?
>and while I
>disagree with Winston on occasion there is no history to indicate that he
>shares the Republican pathology of lying.
Perhaps not.
>Winston does need to retract, unequivocably, his assertion that Dan
>Rather was in any way connected with the false story.
I think he gets the idea by now <g>.
--
Cliff
Cliff
<Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 09:56:26 -0500, Cliff
>> <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 18 Nov 2009 19:14:39 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_...@bogus.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 22:03:18 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>>>> Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Tue, 17 Nov 2009 19:43:30 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>>>>>> Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Hannity's phony video
>>>>>>>> It's sort of like Dan Rather's phony video.
>>>>>>> What Dan Rather phony video?
>>>>>> Exploding gas tanks on one of the US made pickup trucks.
>>>>> The trucks that had the exploding gas tanks?
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't recall Dan Rather on that episode of Dateline NBC.
>>>> If I'm in error on the name, plug in any liberal news reporter you care
>>>> to.
>>> And where was Dan Rather? Noplace near so you lied (yet again).
>>
>
>http://outsourcenews.net/j-news/images/stories/DanRather.gif
??
So what?
--
Cliff
Cliff
>
>"Cliff" <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in message
>news:iosag5l9c4vo3d7h3...@4ax.com...
>> Found those "WMDs" yet?
>> --
>> Cliff
>
>Over & over again, in fact.
IOW That's a clear "NO" then.
Thanks.
Cliff
>
>"Cliff" <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in message
>news:hrsag5h6fn3v7t7gf...@4ax.com...
Gray Ghost
news:7p0dg51qo7l7porsc...@4ax.com:
Again, do you have proof, proff that is presentable to the public, that Fox
has "lied" as is deliberately misleading?
> None of which has anything to do with IT WAS NOT DAN RATHER.
Which is why he was fired and had his lawsuit thrown out of court, right?
Gray Ghost
news:vv0dg59dico7h62le...@4ax.com:
So you're sticking with the "the documents were authentic" story despite them
having been proven to be forgeries, I think even the moron who provided them
admitted it.
Your objectivity is noted.
Cliff
Ghost) wrote:
See many threads, including this one.
>> None of which has anything to do with IT WAS NOT DAN RATHER.
>
>Which is why he was fired and had his lawsuit thrown out of court, right?
Dan Rather did not even work for NBC much less for
Dateline NBC.
He worked for CBS.
And it seems that CBS paid him anyway so he suffered no
loss ... hence it was out of that court.
So how did they "fire" him & pay him too?
--
Cliff
Cliff
Ghost) wrote:
>Cliff <Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote in
>news:vv0dg59dico7h62le...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 12:16:15 -0600, grey_ghost47...@yahoo.com
>> (Gray Ghost) wrote:
>>
>>>No I am refering to the Dan Rather report wherein he claimed that
>>>obviously forged documents alleged certain untrue statements regarding
>>>then President Bush. The story he lost his job over.
>>
>> Oops ... there were no "obviously forged documents" and
>> the statments were indeed true (and very widely known anyway).
>> He just did not have second sources & etc for the one item.
>
>So you're sticking with the "the documents were authentic" story
They only confiremed what had long been known from other sources.
It had even long been posted about even here long before.
>despite them
>having been proven to be forgeries,
Nope.
>I think even the moron who provided them
>admitted it.
Winger lies?
>Your objectivity is noted.
I had followed events at the time.
You clearly never bothered.
Curly Surmudgeon
<Clhuprich...@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>To lie requires intent to deceive
>
> About Dan Rather?
No, generically and globally. A mistake is not a lie no matter how
stupid or inane. Lying requires an intent to deceive, that the liar
knowingly passed on false information.
An example is George Walker Bush telling America, and through his cabinet
the world, that Saddam Hussein had Weapons of Mass Destruction. A few
selected Bush lies:
- "We do not torture."
- "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt
that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most
lethal weapons ever devised."
- "The Iraqi regime . . . possesses and produces chemical and biological
weapons. It is seeking nuclear weapons. We know that the regime has
produced thousands of tons of chemical agents, including mustard gas,
sarin nerve gas, VX nerve gas."
- "We've also discovered through intelligence that Iraq has a growing
fleet of manned and unmanned aerial vehicles that could be used to
disperse chemical or biological weapons across broad areas."
- "Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein had the
materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin, mustard and VX nerve
agent."
- His regime has amassed large, clandestine stockpiles of biological
weapons—including anthrax and botulism toxin, and possibly smallpox.
Or Dick Cheney continuing to lie about nuclear material even recently,
"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein now has weapons of
mass destruction.".
Or Scooter Libby testifying that he didn't out Valerie Plame.
Or Donald Rumsfeld telling us, "We know where they[WMD's] are. They're in
the area around Tikrit and Baghdad and east, west, south and north
somewhat."
Or Ari Fleischer, "We know for a fact that there are weapons there." and
"Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information that
Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical
particularly."
Or General Tommy Franks: "There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam
Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. As this operation
continues, those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people
who have produced them and who guard them."
Or John Bolton: "We estimate that once Iraq acquires fissile material --
whether from a foreign source or by securing the materials to build an
indigenous fissile material capability -- it could fabricate a nuclear
weapon within one year. It has rebuilt its civilian chemical
infrastructure and renewed production of chemical warfare agents,
probably including mustard, sarin, and VX. It actively maintains all key
aspects of its offensive BW [biological weapons] program.
Or Condoleeza Rice: "But I want to just caution, it is not incumbent on
the United States to prove that Saddam Hussein is trying to acquire
weapons of mass destruction. He's already demonstrated that he's trying
to acquire weapons of mass destruction." and:
- "Our policies toward Iraq simply are to protect the region and to
protect Iraq's people and neighbors."
- an example of lying by inference: "The problem here is that there will
always be some uncertainty about how quickly Saddam can acquire nuclear
weapons. But we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud."
- moving back to premeditated lying: "There was no silver bullet that
could have prevented the 11 September attacks. There was nothing
demonstrating or showing that something was coming in the United States.
If there had been something, we would have acted on it."
- "We are at war, and our security as a nation depends on winning that
war." On the Iraq invasion.
- Condoleeza demonstrates blatent lie: "We know that there are
unaccounted-for Scud and other ballistic missiles in Iraq. And part of
the problem is that, since 1998, there has been no way to even get
minimal information about those programs except through intelligence
means."
- "We need a common enemy to unite us."
- Then the coverup: "U.S. officials never expected that "we were going to
open garages and find" weapons of mass destruction."
- on asking Congress for permission to invade: “We're going to seek a
peaceful solution to this. We think that one is possible”
- *after* the CIA report indicating the Niger yellowcake document was a
fraud Condie was quoted: "He's trying to acquire nuclear weapons. Nobody
ever said that it was going to be the next year." and Bush told us:
"[Iraq] could have a nuclear weapon in less than a year."
- Another Condie lie: “I don't think anybody could have predicted that
these people would take an airplane and slam it into the World Trade
Center, take another one and slam it into the Pentagon. [No one
predicted] that they would try to use an airplane as a missile, a
hijacked airplane as a missile," *after* that precise scenario had been
presented to her National Security Team by George Tenent.
Or Colin Powell, "We know that Saddam Hussein is determined to keep his
weapons of mass destruction, is determined to make more."
The list of Bush Administration lies is endless and other than Colin
Powell none have retracted or admitted even an error much less lying.
I don't believe that Winston intentionally lied but he must retract his
claim that Dan Rather lied.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2012 Run, Sarah, Run! 2012
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gray Ghost
news:cicdg5p4k92g5cakp...@4ax.com:
None of which provide the least but of evidnce of deliberate deciet. Except
for your baseless accusations.
>
>
>>> None of which has anything to do with IT WAS NOT DAN RATHER.
>>
>>Which is why he was fired and had his lawsuit thrown out of court, right?
>
> Dan Rather did not even work for NBC much less for
> Dateline NBC.
I didn't say he did. Are you a mental microbe?
> He worked for CBS.
No, really?
> And it seems that CBS paid him anyway so he suffered no
> loss ... hence it was out of that court.
> So how did they "fire" him & pay him too?
Whcich, once again does not answer my question.
Gray Ghost
news:bscdg5dt1sgmhkukg...@4ax.com:
Cliff alL I can wish for you is a speedy and painful death. You're
irrational, jumping about, acoidung the areas whuch are uncomfortable to you.
Basically you are an obnoxious and congenitally wrong asshole.
Fuck off and die.
I'm sure you'll consoider this a victory but I call it a refusing to argue
with an idiot.
Cliff
Ghost) wrote:
So you claim that the Tooth Fairy did it?
>>
>>>> None of which has anything to do with IT WAS NOT DAN RATHER.
>>>
>>>Which is why he was fired and had his lawsuit thrown out of court, right?
>>
>> Dan Rather did not even work for NBC much less for
>> Dateline NBC.
>
>I didn't say he did. Are you a mental microbe?
Exactly how confused have your endless lies left you?
Dan Rather worked for CBS.
Dateline NBC was on NBC.
>> He worked for CBS.
>
>No, really?
So how did he lie in any way on Dateline NBC?
He was never on it.
>> And it seems that CBS paid him anyway so he suffered no
>> loss ... hence it was out of that court.
>> So how did they "fire" him & pay him too?
>
>Whcich, once again does not answer my question.
"Whcich"?
--
Cliff
Cliff
Ghost) wrote:
Your endless winger lies & confusion do not fly.
>
>Fuck off and die.
>
>I'm sure you'll consoider this a victory but I call it a refusing to argue
>with an idiot.
I'm not the one that made the claims.
ATP*
"Winston_Smith" <not_...@bogus.net> wrote in message
news:bppgg5hoefvmpgb8v...@4ax.com...
> Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destro...@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>
>>> Rather was in any way connected with the false story.
>
>
> I compared the actions of a network broadcast NEWS organization being
> give a pass by our leftist wingers while calling for the head of an
> OPINON program host.
>
> My facts were correct in all aspects except the news reporters'
> identity. That is regrettable but that is NOT the point of my post.
> To pretend otherwise is to try to deflect criticism of the
> hypocritical leftist wingers.
>
> http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/LIE/nbc.html
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dateline_NBC
They've been caught in a number of lame attempts to trick and defame.
Nothing to do with left-wingers, just typical sensational "journalism". If
you look at the targets in that wikipedia link, the attacks were not
politically motivated.
>