|
Title: Bush's Guard Service (60 Minutes Forgery?) Post by: Phoenix on 2004-09-10, 06:48 http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Vo...s_040909-1.html (http://abcnews.go.com/sections/Politics/Vote2004/bush_documents_040909-1.html)
Quote "These documents do not appear to have been the result of technology that was available in 1972 and 1973," said Bill Flynn, one of country's top authorities on document authentication. "The cumulative evidence that's available ? indicates that these documents were produced on a computer, not a typewriter:" 60 Minutes is the most widely watched documentary program in the USA, and is usually touted as THE most watched program on television, period. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that it is not the role of the media to try to directly influence the political process. Rather, it is the duty of the media to remain impartial and objective and report the facts. We all hear reports of media bias from both sides, liberals and conservatives, but this story, if this is indeed true, is downright fraud. The media is supposed to watchdog the government, but who watchdogs the media? This is why in this day and age, as I've said before, it is imperitive that people question what they are told. If you don't like someone, it's very easy to buy into what sounds pleasing to one's preconceptions. That is the trap that is all too easy to fall into. Logic - not emotion - should dictate one's choice in the leader of a nation, especially in the dangerous times we live in. The problem now is... how do you determine the truth about either candidate when you have news sources fabricating information about them? This is an extremely dangerous trend, one that I have been watching for some time, and it only confirms my fears that nobody is interested in the truth, only in having their way. God help this world when the future of the last superpower and the very cradle of Western democracy, the country looked upon by all the world as an example, a place where freedom is the rule and not the exception, is decided not by the people but by the corporate-owned news media. That, to me, is more of a threat to liberty than all the Bin Ladens in the world could ever hope to be. Title: Re: Bush's Guard Service Post by: Tabun on 2004-09-10, 11:38 Aye, fully agreed. Just look at the way war propaganda forms - that's the media's work for a big chunk too.
In this day and age, the world is just too damned big to know things. One can only assume, deduct, rely on sources etc. And yet, how many people out there appear so confident, so sure. I've talked to people about 'a clear cut case' when there was no evidence other than media reports and propaganda. Perhaps people just believe what they want to believe. I'm just scared by the things people are willing to accept as truth, sometimes. Title: Re: Bush's Guard Service Post by: Phoenix on 2004-09-10, 14:32 What also concerns me is that all the major media outlets are controlled by a mere 10 parent mega-corporations that have been gobbling up smaller media outlets left and right over the last decade. Then you throw in rich billionaires who can fund agenda-driven organizations like moveon.org that can basically say anything they want and the situation worsens further. Lest people forget history:
Quote All this was inspired by the principle - which is quite true in itself - that in the big lie there is always a certain force of credibility; because the broad masses of a nation are always more easily corrupted in the deeper strata of their emotional nature than consciously or voluntarily; and thus in the primitive simplicity of their minds they more readily fall victims to the big lie than the small lie, since they themselves often tell small lies in little matters but would be ashamed to resort to large-scale falsehoods. It would never come into their heads to fabricate colossal untruths, and they would not believe that others could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously. Even though the facts which prove this to be so may be brought clearly to their minds, they will still doubt and waver and will continue to think that there may be some other explanation. For the grossly impudent lie always leaves traces behind it, even after it has been nailed down, a fact which is known to all expert liars in this world and to all who conspire together in the art of lying. These people know only too well how to use falsehood for the basest purposes. - Mein Kampf, Adolf Hitler. Quote The essence of propaganda consists in winning people over to an idea so sincerely, so vitally, that in the end they succumb to it utterly and can never again escape from it. - Joseph Goebbles. Quote Tell the biggest lie you can and repeat it often and eventually people will believe it. - Joseph Goebbles. Title: Re: Bush's Guard Service Post by: Woodsman on 2004-09-10, 16:06 I care about George bushs national guard years about as much as i care about John Kerrys time in vietnam. Jack shit. I do belive that military service is a plus for a public official ( it illustrates that hes willing to sacrifice for the good of the country ) But i dont think it should be a requirement. This isnt Sparta we dont have to chose our leaders based on thier war heroics. ( not that it hasent happened it just dosent have to happen all the time.
Oh and enough attacks on the national guard. My brother served in it for 4 years before going active duty. Title: Re: Bush's Guard Service Post by: Phoenix on 2004-09-10, 17:05 Woods: The point isn't what Bush did or did not do in the National Guard, it's the fact that a major news outlet appears to have forged documents in an attempt to undermine the credibility of a presidential candidate, and worse than that, they're attempting to undermine the credibility of the sitting President of the United States during a time of war. If verified as true, such actions fall under the guidelines of treason as far as I'm concerned, and those involved should be prosecuted accordingly.
Title: Re: Bush's Guard Service Post by: Assamite on 2004-09-25, 21:48 Jon Stewart as Zell Miller: "HOW DARE THEY RUN A CANDIDATE DURING AN ELECTION YEAR!"
CBS was duped by documents they assumed to be real. If they had an "agenda", they wouldn't have delayed the release of Abu Ghraib. How's that for Treason, Mr. McCarthy? You say Moveon.org (Which I am a member of, THANKYOUVERYMUCH - unfortunately, I have received zero cash from Soros, despite the rants of various wingnuts), I say NewsCorp, GE, Heritage, AEI - whaddyaknow? The difference is that MoveOn is NOT manufacturing agenda. They're a frickin' lobby group! Title: Re: Bush's Guard Service Post by: Phoenix on 2004-09-25, 23:54 Lobby groups EXIST to advance an agenda! I don't care if it's Moveon.org, PETA, or the NRA, that is the ONLY purpose for lobbying is to advance a specific agenda. As for receiving money, you're a subscriber to a website, you're not on MoveonPAC's or ACT's payroll or any of the other lobbying arms that are putting out propaganda. Obviously they're getting money from SOMEWHERE or they can't pay for airtime on the networks (duh). Why don't you do some research about Mr. Soros and exactly who he funds and what his aims are? You'll be surprised at how many organizations he funnels money into. Maybe then you'll see just what the agenda is, since they only exist to advance his own personal agenda. First rule of any investigative work is to follow the money. Of course, you may find yourself agreeing with him, that's entirely up to you, but the fact that you can take some wealthy billionaire and have them sling endless funds into all these 527 groups to influence public opinion prior to elections to skirt the so-called "Campaign Finance Reform" laws is disturbing. Yes, I know the Swift Boat Vets are also a 527 group. While I may agree with their assessment of Kerry, I am not blind to the fact that this election has basically turned into "MoveonPAC vs. Bush" and "SwiftBoatVets vs. Kerry". That's a pretty sad state of affairs no matter how you look at it. Western democracy may end up alongside Communism in the graveyard of "big ideas with good intentions" if this trend continues.
So CBS was duped by documents it assumed were real? Funny, didn't Rumsfeld say the same thing about the CIA's handling of British intelligence regarding Iraq's WMD's? So I guess if we let CBS off the hook we have to let everybody off the hook to be fair now don't we? Nevermind the fact that CBS's "source" in this had an axe to grind against Bush ever since Bush was Governer in Texas. No, they went with the story without doing their homework first, tried to defend it and had to backpeddle when the truth came out. Now it's costing them dearly. They got caught with their finger in the pie this time, and other competing news networks been merciless toward them as a result. The question on a lot of people's minds now is "How many other stories have they run based on questionable information?" Those who have been blasting the "old" news networks for bias and spin can now say "We've been vindicated in our position". Like it or not, the era of the "Big Three" liberal news monopoly is over, and this was just the final nail in the coffin. With the advent of the internet, talk radio, and other competing news organizations people finally have a choice in where they get their information. Granted, it's pretty much limited to choosing one biased source vs another biased source, but I like to think if someone has enough brains and are skeptical enough they can sift through the BS from both sides and arrive at some kind of rational conclusion. It's not so much a matter of finding the truth, but learning how to recognize spin and distortion and avoiding it as much as possible. Oh, and you can call me McCarthy all you like, if that makes you feel better. I have no love of Communism. Stalin was a butcher and every bit as bad as Hitler, if not worse. McCarthy was a patriot, if a bit overzealous and misguided. He was doing what he thought was right for his country, he just went a bit too far with it. Perhaps that's why liberals fear the name McCarthy is that liberals have something in common with those McCarthy was looking for? An interesting premise for certain. While I can't excuse the witch hunt and persecution of innocent citizens, I can certainly say that Communist sympathizers would have much more to fear from him than the every day citizen would. Seriously though, I'm not "out to get people" Assamite, I just tend to think that undermining the office of the President during a time of war, just because you don't like the person who's in it is extremely dangerous to the country's security. That endangers people I know, friends of mine who are overseas dodging bombs and bullets so that people HERE don't have to. That angers me - no, it INFURIATES me. Anything that gives aid and/or comfort to the enemy to me is by definition treason. I take this whole "War on Terror" thing fairly seriously. I take terrorism seriously. Title: Re: Bush's Guard Service Post by: Woodsman on 2004-09-26, 05:49 Dont forget Mao pho Mao was worse than stalin.
Title: Re: Bush's Guard Service Post by: Phoenix on 2004-09-26, 07:44 Hold the Mao, please! :D
|