Did Kerry Use a Cheat Sheet?

mrbrown1602 writes "The Drudge Report is reporting that repeated viewing of video from the first Presidential Debate shows Senator John Kerry reaching into his coat pocket for what looks like to be a piece of paper, and he proceeds to unfold it on the lectern. According to the rules set by the Commission on Presidential Debates, candidates are not allowed to bring anything with them on stage (even something as simple as a pen, which is what Kerry's people says it was), and everything they may need (water, tissues, pens, etc.) are provided at the lectern. So what DID Senator Kerry bring out there, anyways?" There's also a QuickTime movie.

Comments

Naked?

[skinfitz]

According to the rules set by the Commission on Presidential Debates, candidates are not allowed to bring anything with them on stage

So he was naked then?

Re:Naked?

[cerebralsugar]

And with a detached member. Like that "detachable penis" song by king missle.

Methinks a lot of people have put too much thought into attack kerry and bush today on "debate cheating" issues. Obviously someone would have seen Kerry do that if the camera could.

The related ear-piece bush story was equally as moronic.

Re:Naked?

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah ha! So that's why they supply them with tissues!

. . .

(Get your mind out of the gutter. I was suggesting using it as a crude fig leaf-style covering, you pervert.)

Re:Naked?

[Rahga]

Slightly offtopic, but I see great things for the future of women in politics if such a situation was agreed upon by the parties for the next set of debates.

Re:Naked?

[Anonymous Coward]

Can someone tell me why this is informative? Shouldn't it be funny, if anything?

See...?

[brilinux]

Slashdot is not biased!

(Okay, mostly sarcasm).

So what is this?

[elmegil]

Duelling moderator biases? Michael on the left claming Bush had a wire, and Pudge on the right claiming Kerry had a cheat sheet?

Grow up kids!

Re:So what is this?

[sgant]

This is from "wow, someone emailed a rumor to me, must be true! I'll print a story about it" Drudge?

The guy has no credibility at all and isn't even a journalist...just some shmoe that started a web site. He's not someone people should get they're news from, unless you like it for the entertainment value.

Re:So what is this?

[aelbric]

Maybe the 4th presidential debate should be the /. pundits speaking out. Sounds like they are just as polarized as the candidates.

Re:So what is this?

[squiggleslash]

Michael claimed no such thing:

If Bush was wired, the receiver would be the size of a deck of cards or smaller, not some giant thing strapped to his back.

(This is somewhat ironic, as it's pretty hard to tell how big it is from the pictures going around the 'net.)

Re:So what is this?

[Methlin]

So I take it you neither read the article or watched the video then?

Re:So what is this?

[sgant]

Wasn't commenting on the article/video...only the source of the article/video.

Re:So what is this?

[eyeye]

Watch the video and look at bush he unfolds a piece of paper quite clearly.

There is also a pic on the net taken from above that shows bush with a typewritten sheet on his podium.

Re:So what is this?

[sgant]

Read further down about this...it's already been said by everyone it was a pen he was getting, not a piece of paper.

Also, the whole story is about KERRY doing this, not Bush. And yes, Bush had a typewritten sheet on his podium...so did Kerry. That was allowed by the rules...they just couldn't bring anything out with them when they walked out there, it had to be already on the podium per the rules.

And while we're at it...what the FUCK does any of this have ANYTHING to do with who we want to be President?

Re:So what is this?

[Kick the Donkey]

That, and its not a very good website (visually. I don't much like the content, either).

Re:So what is this?

[Timex]

what ... does any of this have ANYTHING to do with who we want to be President?

Everything.

I've seen the video, and it's very clear that Kerry pulled something out of his jacket, which violates the rules. I've seen a picture that is supposed to support the claim that Bush had some sort of hearing aid/receiver, but I didn't see it.

What does it mean? Based on what I've seen so far, Kerry is showing a disregard for the rules. There are some who will proclaim from the towers that this is "situation normal" for John Kerry. I think that disregard for the rules of the debate reflects very poorly on Kerry's character.

If Kerry can't follow something as stupid as an agreement on how a debate will be conducted,what else will he fail to follow? How could we trust him to do the right thing when something more important comes up? Kerry is the sort of guy that will have no problem doing whatever makes him look good. He will have no problem doing whatever will save his neck... Everyone else's neck be damned. John Kerry is only looking for one thing: Glory for John Kerry. He cares for nobody else.

He jumps on Bush for the number of countries that started this whole mess in Iraq, but I don't seem to see a whole lot of countries (like France) stating that they would be looking forward to working with Kerry if he won the presidency; in fact, I have read several reports stating exactly the opposite. He won't have the support he says he will have. If you think he will, you've not been paying attention.

Nobody that values American sovereignty and the American way of life wants Kerry in the White House. The only people I have seen so far that want Kerry for president are EITHER terrorists OR people that hate Bush (and are extremely bitter about their loss in 2000). I doubt there are any people that really support Kerry based on who he is and what he believes. (If there are, I hope they can share the basis for their beliefs with the rest of us, because Kerry has been doing a piss-poor job of letting on that he has any.)

Re:So what is this?

[elmegil]

This is somewhat ironic, as it's pretty hard to tell how big it is from the pictures going around the 'net

In the picture I saw, he had a big crease in his back. Probably the usual bunchy jacket thing going on, but of course it only takes a little bit of foil to join the tin hat brigade.

Re:So what is this?

[superyooser]

The guy has no credibility at all and isn't even a journalist

Right-o, I put my trust in CBS and the New York Times to get the straight dope on what's happening.

Shmoes are more credible when they become professional shmoes.

Re:So what is this?

[sgant]

It was a pen...a PEN!

A PEN FOR GODSAKE!!!!

PEN PEN PEN

Everyone is in agreement that it was a PEN now...I can't help it if the idiot Drudge wants to keep up his reputation as the National Enquirer of the net.

I've seen the video...over and over...IT'S A PEN! You can even see when he puts the top of the pen on the back of it to get ready to write.

And yes, according to the rules, they could bring PENS out there with them.

Again, in case you didn't get it...it's a PEN!

Now, get back to real issues like 1000's dying every day in Iraq, the economy in the crapper and oil prices sky-high etc etc etc...but no, we have to focus on this stupid STUPID PEN!

Also, I'm voting for Kerry not because what he stands for or his policies...I'm voting for him because he's NOT BUSH. That's right, I'd rather take an unknown over what Bush has done so far! Hell, I'd vote for Hillary before I'd vote for Bush again (yes, I voted for him in 2000).

Again...PEN

Re:So what is this?

[sgant]

Yes, I do put my trust in CBS and the New York Times...why? Because of the fact that they were up front when they got something wrong (well, CBS drug their heels admitting this...but they DID).

They came out and said they were wrong. They also have MILLIONS of people watching every step they make, so of course, when something like this happens they get caught and they fix the problem. Now, do you really really think the New York Times is going to let something like that happen again if they can help it? Don't you think they got a bloody nose because of that and they don't want another one? Don't you think they are going to go out of their way now to make sure it doesn't repeat?

I do.

Also, as a side note, I don't even have a TV and get my news from the Net and newspapers so I only read about CBS's fiasco.

Re:So what is this?

[Timex]

... Again, in case you didn't get it...it's a PEN! ...

Apparently, YOU didn't get it.

Section 5, pages 4-5 of the binding "Memorandum of Understanding" that was negotiated and agreed upon by both political campaigns states:

"No props, notes, charts, diagrams, or other writings or other tangible things may be brought into the debate by either candidate.... Each candidate must submit to the staff of the Commission prior to the debate all such paper and any pens or pencils with which a candidate may wish to take notes during the debate, and the staff or commission will place such paper, pens and pencils on the podium..."

There was to be nothing brought in by either candidate. There would be the clothes on his back. Whatever was in his pocket (by "his", I mean either candidate), stays there. Kerry didn't obey the rule. He broke the rules. QED.

As I mentioned in my journal, it doesn't matter if it was a love note from Theresa, a pen, a or crib notes-- "no ... tangible things" means that it wasn't allowed. The only pens they were allowed to use were the ones that the staff or commission put there before it began.

Re:So what is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

You just described Michael Moore, except he makes movies instead of web sites.

Re:So what is this?

[elmegil]

I only read about CBS's fiasco.

So you must have missed Rather's first "non-apology" where he said there was doubt about the documents, but CBS was standing by the truth of the story. Which was so ludicrious that it pretty much destroyed any credibility he might have had. If they'd simply admitted they were too quick to go to "press" with what they had, then I'd agree with you, but they didn't. They got defensive and truculent, and finally had to be beaten into admitting they were completely in the wrong. Even then, it was a "see, this guy tricked us, not our fault" when the fact was, they were just plain too eager to find something bad about Bush.

Don't get me too wrong--I really don't buy the myth of the liberal media in any monolithic sense--but Rather clearly showed his own biases.

Re:So what is this?

[abdulla]

The guy has no credibility at all and isn't even a journalist

Since when did journalists have any credibility?

Re:So what is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Having watched the video myself, I can say that was a pretty fucking thin and wide pen.

It's thicker than two of his fingers. You can see it more than clearly enough if you pause it when he raises it near the end.

Re:So what is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck.

I meant it's *wider* than two of his fingers.

Re:So what is this?

[sgant]

Apparently YOU didn't get it.

Why does it FUCKING MATTER? Jesus Christ I'm so sick of you idiots focusing on this minute crap that doesn't matter one iota.

I don't care if he broke every rule of the debate he aggreed too...ok? How's that? I don't care if he walked out there with a fucking Playboy under his arm and a 6 pack of beer. What counts is what he had to say and how he is going to run the country!

If this is the only thing you idiots can fault him for then you REALLY need to re-think your strategy on getting party-boy Bush back in the White House.

Re:So what is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

Guess what? Neither candidate was permitted to directly address each other during the debates. All comments were supposed to be addressed to the monitor.

It looked to me that they were addressing each other at times. I say we lock both of them up and throw away the key! (Also, there weren't supposed to be "reaction shots" of either candidate while the other was speaking. Oops. That kind of makes the split-screen against the rules. Lock up the networks as well!)

Re:So what is this?

[Anonymous Coward]

you mean schmoes like o'reilly? yeah, his credibility is peabody winning... (oops, i mean, 'polk winning' ;p ). he'd the first to claim he's just a schmoe...

Re:So what is this?

[squiggleslash]

The pictures I've seen really don't show anything other than a number of apparent creases, with no real idea of scale given the resolution.

Of course, if you're one of the privileged few in posession of a HDTV 1080i screen capture...

Re:So what is this?

[SandiConoverJones]

It could easily have been that dice that he uses to decide his position on complex issues, or the coin that he uses for deciding his position on simpler issues. When he's really flummoxed he gets out the Ouija board.

Kerry's people?

[wizbit]

[a pen] ...which is what Kerry's people said it was

No, not Kerry's people, you linked the NY Post, one of the more conservative-leaning newspapers in the nation. And if you'd RTFA, you'd know that they reviewed footage from Fox News, the preeminent right-leaning news channel. The paper's "finding"?

But the mystery was solved when The Post reviewed a Fox News Channel feed from Thursday's debate: Kerry pulled out . . . a black pen.

All the Post did was repeat rumor and speculation on the internet. Not surprisingly, it's a Kerry spin attempt in pudge's view.

Okay.

Re:Kerry's people?

[NanoGator]

"All the Post did was repeat rumor and speculation on the internet. Not surprisingly, it's a Kerry spin attempt in pudge's view."

I know, this is not the most insightful thing I could say, but I really hate election years. Last night I watched something on TV about Afghanistan's elections. They mentioned having like 16 candidates to choose from. Instead of using TV (well there aren't many TVs from what I gather, but I am rather ignorant of Afghani culture) the elders etc promote the candidate. It was depicted as being somewhat primitive copmared to the elections in the USA, but man, I ached for that type of thing here. Although I imagine they're immune to all the half truths flying around from all sides.

Re:Kerry's people?

[wizbit]

Israel has a similar system, where practically every distinct combination of political views is represented by at least one candidate. Usually the elected officials don't earn a majority of votes, but yeah, it'd be nice to back a candidate you are completely on board with instead of someone who mostly represents a modicum of your views and whose views aren't completely at odds with your only other obvious choice.

Re:Kerry's people?

[drdink]

If I recall, NPR said that Fox News Channel was in charge of the pooled cameras that night. While I despise that channel except for comedic purposes, that is likely why they used FNC footage.

Re:Kerry's people?

[wizbit]

They were indeed, but let's not pretend this is at all controversial. I imagine FNC would've been on the front lines or at least other right wing pundits would've taken a swing at this had the footage revealed something other than a pen.

Re:Kerry's people?

[Anonymous Coward]

We've got the debates
Only in Afghan
Come to Afghan. we've got debates!
We've got the elders
Only in Afghan
Debates and elders, only in Afghan!
Afghan, oh Afghan
Where the real men run for office!
Afghan, afghan, afghan, afghan!
Afghan, come to Afghan!
Afghan't believe it!

Re:Kerry's people?

[mrdogi]

And if you'd RTFA, you'd know that they reviewed footage from Fox News, the preeminent right-leaning news channel.

I call straw-man. I heard about this a few days ago, and checked out my taped copy from PBS. It was the same video. I expect EVERYBODY would have the same video shots. If not, I'd love to see it from another angle. From my videotape, it looks like paper.

Re:Kerry's people?

[wizbit]

My point was that Fox would've LOVED to seize upon something that ultimately THEY provided the basis for (video coverage). Of course your tape is the same, everyone used the Fox feeds. And the Post has an outlier if they want, since they love to Kerry-bash like there's no tomorrow. But they say a study of the (heavily right-predisposed) Fox Network's video revealed it was a pen, so I'm inclined to believe there's no story here.

Re:Kerry's people?

[Anonymous Coward]

They have another angle and I saw a screenshot and it was a pen.

Re:Kerry's people?

[pudge]

No, not Kerry's people, you linked the NY Post, one of the more conservative-leaning newspapers in the nation

It quoted a Kerry spokesman saying it was a pen. I read the article; you apparently did not.

Re:Kerry's people?

[wizbit]

Selective memory. The article first mentioned that the Post reviewed the tape from Fox News and determined it wasn't a pen. Regardless of what Kerry's spokesman said, there wasn't any spin since we're dealing with a videotape, which is, at least in my mind, incontrovertible evidence. If the Post is willing to say it's a pen on the record, Kerry's spokesman doesn't need to spin it, which was what was implied. You could've just as easily said the Post made the determination so it didn't sound like campaign spin.

Re:Kerry's people?

[pudge]

If the Post is willing to say it's a pen on the record, Kerry's spokesman doesn't need to spin it, which was what was implied.

No, it was inferred. I trust Kerry's people more than I trust the Post.

Re:Kerry's people?

[Politburo]

Please don't let the simplicity of Afghanistan's elections fool you.

Instead of using TV (well there aren't many TVs from what I gather, but I am rather ignorant of Afghani culture) the elders etc promote the candidate.

When we turn on the TV, it's very likely that we see a representative of one of the candidates or their party. How is this different from 'the elders etc'?

Who Cares?

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

The Drudge Report is nothing more than a Republican mouth-piece for mud slinging. Why would this load of crap from Drudge surprise anyone, and why would anyone pay attention to it?

Re:Who Cares?

[Beatbyte]

What does the messenger matter.

If it is true, it is true. Correct?

Would it be better if it came from NBC's liberal media?

Re:Who Cares?

[zulux]

The Drudge Report is nothing more than a Republican mouth-piece for mud slinging. Why would this load of crap from Drudge surprise anyone, and why would anyone pay attention to it?


Moore is nothing more than a Democrat mouth-peice for mud slinging. Why would this load of crap from Moore suprise anyone, and why would anyone pay attention to it?

(Hint.... sometimes the far right/left wakos can be right)

Re:Who Cares?

[zygote]

I heard Drudge (driving in the father-in-law's car, no radio control!) and he was humping this on Sunday. I can't believe it is still bouncing around -- slooooow day on /.

If I recall, all those rules between the two candidates' camps were loudly decried as trivial, over-the-top and plain silly. But, since GWB performed the Dance of the Sourpuss King, his henchmen are now treating those rules like the Ten Commandments. Puhleez.

Hopefully, the .Mac account hosting that QT movie will meltdown from the "Slashdot Effect" and we can all move onto more vital things -- like whether Bill Gates is the Devil or just a very close facisimile. (I vote Devil.)

PS - You can tell he's putting a cap on a pen at the end of the clip. So there's your news: Illegal Lucky Pen Tips Debate to Kerry.
Quote Pres. Bush: I could have gotten away with four more years, if it weren't that lucky pen!

Re:Who Cares?

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

If it is true, it is true. Correct?

But it wasn't true, now was it. Even though Drudge reported it as coming from the mouth of Jesus. Yet, it wasn't true at all.

The point it, everything that comes out of Drudge is soaked in so much right wing spin, it rarely has much at all to do with reality.

Re:Who Cares?

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

Moore is nothing more than a Democrat mouth-peice for mud slinging. Why would this load of crap from Moore suprise anyone, and why would anyone pay attention to it?

Trying to bait me? Good try, but no go. I didn't see the Moore film, and if I do, I'll take it with a grain of salt.

On the other hand, I'll bet your troll worked with flying colors with most of the /. crowd!

Re:Who Cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Quote Pres. Bush: I could have gotten away with four more years, if it weren't that lucky pen!

Kerry then proceeded to remove President Bush's mask, revealing him to really be Mr. Parker, the man who owns the haunted amusement park.

Re:Who Cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like someone paying attention to Michael Moore's "Fahrenheit 9/11 which is the Democrate ideological distortion without regard for facts, Moore hates america and it's people FUD so called documentry.

Vote Smart not with emotion study all the facts.

Re:Who Cares?

[GreyWolf3000]

Look what I found on the front page when I visited it:

OIL HITS $53.25...

Unemployment rate remains at 5.4%...

'585,000 jobs have been lost since President Bush took office'...

Those are the first story headlines I read on the website.

Re:Who Cares?

[NanoGator]

"Why would this load of crap from Drudge surprise anyone, and why would anyone pay attention to it?"

It gives the Republicans ammo to fire back with.

Re:Who Cares?

[follower_of_christ]

Why would this load of crap from Drudge surprise anyone, and why would anyone pay attention to it?

Why do you think FoxNews is dwarfing all of the Liberal spewers in ratings? Could it be because they are closer to the middle than the rest and are threatening to lean right? Fox definately isn't fair and balanced, it is however more balanced than the rest and that's why it's more popular.

It might also be why littlegreenfootballs' web server broke slashdots' hit records once Drudge linked them during the RatherGate scandal. Conservatism is on the rise.

I'm sure if most /. subscribers had their way, they'd mod FoxNews as a Troll. They don't like anyone talking unless its someone that holds their same opinion.

Re:Who Cares?

[zulux]

No baiting going on. I was just trying to point out the old saw " A broken clock is right twice a day."

Re:Who Cares?

[willy134]

And yet we all forget that it against debate rules. That doesn't matter at all. Why does Kerry not have to follow the rules.

If Bush pulled a pen out, there would be millions of conspiracies about that.

Re:Who Cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

But at least Gentoo is gaining ground on the most popular distro out there.

Re:Who Cares?

[sgant]

Why do you think FoxNews is dwarfing all of the Liberal spewers in ratings?

Source please...where are you getting this? They are the most popular news? over CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC?

If you make this statement, please include links to the source of this...or else one could say:

"FoxNews has admitted to being funded by the Republican party and that they are going to end their broadcasting and cease operations next Friday due to this scandel..."

See, without a source I could make things up too...not saying that is what you're doing, but please be helpfull to others here.

Re:Who Cares?

[Jahf]

The messenger only matters when they have proven time and time again to have significant bias and a tendency to spread rumors.

Drudge -leads- in that category and has for years.

Dan Rather appears to be catching up from the other side of the magnet.

If the messenger was not known to use influence to benefit their bias, then yes, it wouldn't matter who reported it. Unfortunately in today's media there are fewer and fewer outlets that I would see as being balanced.

Re:Who Cares?

[Sevn]

Why do you think FoxNews is dwarfing all of the Liberal spewers in ratings?

Because it's ridiculously easy to sell things with fear. Especially the good, Christian people of our nation. People that are afraid will believe anything. Fox sells fear. Our current whitehouse sells fear. Fear sells. And I agree. Conservatism is on the rise. That's why the current non-conservative administration needs to go. I want my small Gov't, state control, and civil rights back. The radicals in office are going to be the end of us.

Re:Who Cares?

[Beatbyte]

did they bias the camera in to showing that?

if you pay attention to any text from any large media outlet, you're paying attention to bias.

but i don't think they would take their bias to a level of editing the video to be biased.

i agree it's kinda stupid and even if it was a cheat sheet, he didn't know what he was going to get asked so it would probably be worthless.

my point being:
if you expect a source of unbiased news, you're probably the same person that expects a politician to be honest. ;-)

Re:Who Cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

in this video you can't see it because they crop him out, but it looks like Bush may also have gone into his coat for... A PEN!?!?!!

drudge did have a full shot of both of them for a while but it seems to have been replaced with this. i don't really see what the close up does to improve things, so it kindof looks like it was just done to obscure bush and his PEN!!?!?!!?

Re:Who Cares?

[phyruxus]

>>And yet we all forget that it against debate rules. That doesn't matter at all. Why does Kerry not have to follow the rules.

RTFA. It's just innuendo from Drudge, the king of partisan bullcrap.

>>If Bush pulled a pen out, there would be millions of conspiracies about that.

No, there'd be one comment about it, and it would be modded flamebait in .01 seconds, and there would be a half dozen "liberal bias" and "bush basher" comments.

Re:Who Cares?

[Jahf]

Based on the comments in the thread it sounds like other camera angles have shown that it was really a pen and that this was discovered before the rumor mongering that inspired this thread. So Fox didn't bias the camera, but Drudge apparently did spread a rumor that had supposedly been disproved (nothing new there).

I'll confess I didn't research past the thread because I don't really care if Kerry used a cheat sheet OR if Bush used an in-ear audio prompter (the other rumor of the day, though that one goes back a ways).

And no, I don't expect a major party politician to be honest. I expect a -statesman- to be honest. And I don't see the major parties producing those much anymore. I expect the next honest person I elect to office to be from a 3rd party.

Re:Who Cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Dude. No one said anything about Moore. Stop tilting at windmills.

Re:Who Cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't see how anyone could watch FoxNews and not see it as intentionally biased. The news anchors don't even act like professionals using all sorts of right wing slogans and childish slurs. I was shocked when I first saw that FoxNews wasn't even trying to be objective. I don't watch either CNN or FoxNews unless I'm forced to.

Re:Who Cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

If you can't tell that some news sources are more biased than others, you'll never learn to use proper capitalization.

Some politicians are more honest than others, too. Really!

Re:Who Cares?

[follower_of_christ]

Link
Link
Link

Re:Who Cares?

[Disevidence]

Except drudge report was specifically referred to in the write-up, whereas Moore is irrelevant (both in this story, and every other one.)

Nice try with the strawman though. I bet it made you feel good.

Re:Who Cares?

[oldgeezer1954]

I watch Fox News because I truly find it funny. My wife thinks I'm nuts (ok i am, so what) but I think watching what that calls news is great amusement. That's obviously form my perspective and anyone elses can differ. But you did ask.

Re:Who Cares?

[Ohreally_factor]

I think the "Broken record player" is a more apt analogy here.

Re:Who Cares?

[sgant]

Thanks!

Though when listing a source, perhaps one at "oreilly-sucks.com" should be kinda left off...credibility and all that kinda thing...

Re:Who Cares?

[Anonymous Coward]

Kerry then proceeded to remove President Bush's mask, revealing him to really be Mr. Parker, the man who owns the haunted amusement park.

Are you implying that Bush/Cheney plan on burning down the country and collecting the insurance money?

Re:Who Cares?

[conrad pdx]

But who wouldn't care ya know? After all this is the burning issue in the coutry. It simply pales in compairison to things like Iraq, (un)employment, the economy, crime, foregn relations, taxes, government services, superme court nominee, and the such. This really, really, really, really (oh did i say really) matters. I think I'll base my vote on who broke a minor rule (and migt I say 90% of those rules are also very very very very important)on 30+ pages of debate rules. And for those that haven't noticed you can grease your hair with the sarcasim oozing off this post.

Already debunked

[metalhed77]

God this is so old and debunked trash. The guy who broke it allready has noted that it was a pen. According to the rabidly right wing fox news.

Jesus christ, this kind of wild speculation doesn't belong on slashdot. Oh wait, nevermind.....

Not a cheat sheet exactly.

[seasleepy]

Uh.... it was a pen.

Well, so what?

[hey!]

How useful would a cheat sheet be to a guy like Kerry, under the circumstances. Since neither candidate knew the questions in advance, at most it could be general outlines for a few points he wanted to make. For the predictable stuff he simply went with the usual stump rhetoric (90% percent of the cost, 90% of the casualties etc.) which he's used on talk shows and at campaign appearances for weeks now. And that was probably weakest. Historically, he's best in a debate when he's thinking on his feet anyway, he's horrible repeating the kind of canned stuff that Reagan was fantastic with.

I mean, what supposedly was written on the paper? "Don't forget Poland!"?

Re:Well, so what?

[JVert]

It is reffered to as a cheat sheet because it is cheating. You are absolutly not allowed to bring notes in to the debate. You really are not supposed to bring your own pens, but I dont think people really care about that.

Seriously think about the advantage of a cheat sheet for Bush, if he can cut his 2 second pause and stare down to 1 second or 1/2 a second that would be HUGE.

So, it could have been a big deal, but I doubt its anything more then a pen, a bit too obvious.

Re:Well, so what?

[Anonymous Coward]

How useful would a cheat sheet be to a guy like Kerry, under the circumstances.

For a guy like Kerry, it would not be useful. Bush on the other hand clearly needed any help he could get.

Re:Well, so what?

[Shakrai]

You really are not supposed to bring your own pens, but I dont think people really care about that.

How do you even know he brought his own pen? For all we know he pocketed one of the pens provided by the commission while the camera was focusing on Bush and took it out later. If I have a pen in my hand and I don't need it my habit is to put it in my shirt pocket -- who says Kerry doesn't have a similar habit?

Or maybe he's a wanton pen thief! That would give Fox and Drudge something to run as a story for the next day or so. And after they are done with it Dan Rather can interview some people from the Texas Guard that claim a number of pens went missing when Bush was transferred to Alabama. Shit... shouldn't have put those ideas out there.

Oey! What a stupid thing to argue about.

Re:Well, so what?

[Hard_Code]

I heard he threw his pens over a fence. I don't know about you, but I think that's sort of disrespectful. Talk amongst yourselves.

Re:Well, so what?

[anthony_dipierro]

You really are not supposed to bring your own pens, but I dont think people really care about that.

Oh sure. Say that when the Supreme Court declares Bush the winner again.

Re:Well, so what?

[Shakrai]

I heard he threw his pens over a fence. I don't know about you, but I think that's sort of disrespectful. Talk amongst yourselves.

Look, for the last time, he didn't throw his pens over a fence. He threw the caps over a fence. And at least Kerry had pens -- I heard Bush skipped over thousands of people to get an easy job working with #2 pencils.

Re:Well, so what?

[Anonymous Coward]

I heard Bush skipped over thousands of people to get an easy job working with #2 pencils.

i heard it was crayons. the pencils were too pointy and they didn't want him putting an eye out.

Re:Well, so what?

[Rayonic]

> I mean, what supposedly was written on the paper? "Don't forget Poland!"?

If Bush was allowed a cheat sheet, he would probably load it up with choice quotes from Kerry. You see, then he'd have a counter for everything Kerry says. ;-)

Re:Well, so what?

[Anonymous Coward]

i heard it was crayons. the pencils were too pointy and they didn't want him putting an eye out.

But instead of reporting to the Alabama National Guard to use the crayons, he ate them.

What did Kerry bring onto the stage?

[Gothic_Walrus]

A bag of Fritos.

You know how it gets when you spend hours studying up for your big presedential debate...you get so busy that you can't eat.

Come on...give the guy a break! He just had a case of the munchies...

Re:What did Kerry bring onto the stage?

[arcanumas]

OMG!! Kerry is a wallhack!

Re:What did Kerry bring onto the stage?

[magefile]

Any candidate that admitted to smoking pot (currently) and inhaling would win votes - for courage and honesty, if for nothing else.

That does it!

[Anonymous Coward]

I was all set to vote for Kerry but this is such an outrage that I'm swinging all the way to the right for this election! Sure, the economy is in the shitter, we're in a quagmire in Iraq, and the deficit is at an all time high. But at least Bush would never dream of bringing a cribsheet with him onstage for a largely symbolic dual-press conference! This madness must stop! I emplore all of you to forget about the PATRIOT Act, Gitmo, and all those other things and concentrate on this vital issue of the cribsheet!

Seriously, who gives a flying fuck? Yes, I know it's against the rules. Big whoopie. These are serious times, people. Let's not get obsessed with minutia. I can't believe I'm reading about such trivial concerns here on slashdot. I have no objections to a Politics section here but, please, make the Politics stories interesting and important. Not this idiotic bickering over pointless crap.

Re:That does it!

[XsynackX]

What is this country coming to!??? Literally, today it's a pen on the stage, tomorrow we are going to here about Mr. Kerry ripping the tag off his mattress! This maddness must be stopped, Vote Republican 2004, they may not follow antitrust and anti-monopoly laws, but at least they can pay attention to technicalities!

Re:That does it!

[jgoemat]

It's perfectly all right to rip the tag off of a mattress you own. They clearly state that they are not to be removed except by the purchaser.

Re:That does it!

[spu]

I've been playing Talking Points Bingo. I just need you to say something about tax cuts for the rich, and I win. Could you help me out with that?

Re:That does it!

[Anonymous Coward]

maybe that is what it was--Kerry had the tag from his mattress with him!! Oh the humanity

Re:That does it!

[erlenic]

Out of curiosity, what are some examples of Republican's not following anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws?

Re:That does it!

[phyruxus]

Heh. That's funny :)

It's especially ironic since republicans break every rule in the book, and some that aren't, at every turn. Like Bush's reasons for attacking Iraq: There's WMD. Oops, no WMD, but programs. Oops, no programs, but Saddam's a bad guy and he was in with alqaeda. Oops, Saddam and alqaeda hated each other. Erm, well, Bush "has faith it was the right thing to do". Okay.... well, I have faith that Bush is a puppet leader, and that my country is being manipulated by a small group of very rich people. I have faith that we're headed towards a totalitarian police state, and it's not far off. Having faith means you can do whatever you want, right? Hell, I'm going over to a republican neighborhood to bash some heads in. I have faith it's the right thing to do! Whee! Murder isn't wrong if you have faith.. why didn't someone tell me about this scam before? Lets all have faith! Faith that we are above the law! Faith that our emotions overrule our social responsibilities! Faith in whatever damn fool lie we want to make up! Yay! Faith for everyone! Wheee!!!

Dear FBI: I am not actually going to bash heads. Hey, can you guys do something about the massive collusion between politicians and big money? No? Well, I hadda ask.

Re:That does it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, As soon as W came into office, Gates walked away from the DOJ's suit.

Re:That does it!

[Anonymous Coward]

the PATRIOT Act, Gitmo, and all those other things

Those are reasons to vote FOR Bush. Unless you're a terrorist.

Re:That does it!

[sckeener]

Vote Republican 2004, they may not follow antitrust and anti-monopoly laws, but at least they can pay attention to technicalities!

Definition of a LE society: enforce the laws that suit you.

Wait A Second . . . .

[XsynackX]

Wait a second . . . since when did anyone care about the debate rules anyway? I mean we all know they are totally set up by a bipartisan commission seeking to make both of their guys look good and robbing us all of a fair real debate. So who gives a crap? Honestly, cuz I don't.

And on a second note, the Drudge Report has always been a republican, or at the very least conservatively-biased, report. Matthew Drudge is always looking to bash anyone who isn't republican and always trying to impress his buddy Bill O'Reilly.

Just my two cents.

It was a pen, just like Kerry said...

[manyoso]

Drudge is a partisan hack who shouldn't be trusted to report on anything related to Kerry. Besides, the video is not clear at all.

This is just desperate carping by those who are terrified the President will be outed as a cheat for his obvious use of an electronic earpiece system.

Link through and you'll find the incriminating photo as well as other instances of the Pres caught red handed with an earpiece -- see the CNN d-day footage.

Re:It was a pen, just like Kerry said...

[MImeKillEr]

Sure, its not that clear. But Kerry's camp is saying it was a pen.

Since when do you have to unfold a pen?

Go back and watch it a few more times. Don't let your hatred for Bush cloud your common sense.

Re:It was a pen, just like Kerry said...

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't watch the movie on this machine but, as numerous other people are pointing out, even The New York Post (you know, the paper that's owned by the same guy who owns the Fox News Channel) have stated that it was a pen.

Yes, bringing a pen was against the rules, but does it really make that much difference in the grand scheme of things? (And, if you do happen to think that a pen is a big deal, I suggest that you should re-examine your priorities.)

Re:It was a pen, just like Kerry said...

[sudog]

You don't. But obviously you have no clue that most expensive pens have caps which need to be removed before the pen can actually be used. What, you think everyone uses a cheap dollar-a-bag Bic push-pen like you?

Re:It was a pen, just like Kerry said...

[Anonymous Coward]

What, you think everyone uses a cheap dollar-a-bag Bic push-pen like you?

This clearly shows that Kerry is out of touch with the common man.

Re:It was a pen, just like Kerry said...

[MImeKillEr]

I only bought the cheap Bic pens because your mom was out peddling them outside my building to raise money for an abortion. Apparently the two of you are /very/ close.

Re:It was a pen, just like Kerry said...

[Anonymous Coward]

I only bought the cheap Bic pens because your mom was out peddling them outside my building to raise money for an abortion. Apparently the two of you are /very/ close.

wow. that stunning insight has convinced me, that was no pen!

Re:It was a pen, just like Kerry said...

[Anonymous Coward]

That all depends on what you see as the main issue, the pen, or the ability or willingness to follow the rules of the debate.

Re:It was a pen, just like Kerry said...

[damiam]

Even the cheap Bic pens generally have caps.

Re:It was a pen, just like Kerry said...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush wears a bullet proof vest everywhere. Considering all the people that would want to shoot him and the tecumsuh curse, it would be a smart thing.

Tecumsuh curse = those presidents who are elected on years divisible by 20 die in office.

Re:It was a pen, just like Kerry said...

[Anonymous Coward]

Except, of course, Reagan.

And then there's the fact that three of them didn't die until they were on the term after the one divisible by twenty. (That would be the second term for Lincoln and McKinley, and the 4th for FDR). Unless you believe that everything we do is already pre-ordained (In which case, it makes no difference if you vote in the upcoming, because the outcome has already been decided! Boy, isn't that outlook on life depressing as hell...), then the curse is all just a combination of coincidence and superstition.

Also, it's traditionally called Tecumseh's Curse, after the Indian leader whose defeat at the Battle of Tippecanoe by Harrison was supposedly the basis for the curse. (Except, of course, for the fact that Tecumseh wasn't present at the Battle of Tippecanoe.) Of course, no one can agree on just exactly when the curse was placed, or who placed it.

Traditionally, it was held that the curse was placed on Harrison when he visited Tippecanoe during the election campaign of 1840 (his slogan was "Tippecanoe and Taylor too") by either Tecumseh himself, or his brother, known as "the Prophet" (who was the person in charge of the warriors during the Battle of Tippecanoe). Problem is, Tecumseh died during the War of 1812 (1813, to be precise), and his brother died in 1836. Oops.

Other versions say that Harrison was told he would be elected president but die in office immediately following the Battle of Tippecanoe. Again, no one can seem to agree on whether it was the Prophet who placed it, or whether Tecumseh got the Prophet to place it on Harrison. (Most versions claim that it was the Prophet, since he had a history of making predictions, but they can't agree on whether it was at the request of Tecumseh or not. We'll get to just how accurate some of the Prophet's predicitons were by the end of this. Some versions claim the Prophet had nothing to do with it, but they appear to be slightly less prevalent, as having it placed by someone with a history of predicitons sounds so much better.) Also, no one can agree on just how the curse was relayed to Harrison. (Versions that are currently popular are via a letter, and via prisoners released after the battle.)

From people who prefer the prisoners version, I've yet to hear an explaination involving the Battle of Tippecanoe that explains why the Prophet's warriors would be taking prisoners in what was reportedly an ambush by one side and then a massacre by the other.

Basic gist of the Battle of Tippecanoe: General Harrison approaches Prophet's Town (alt. spellings: Prophets Town, Prophetstown. Yes, that really was its name.) during a time period specifically chosen to coincide with Tecumseh's absence. (November 6th, 1811, IIRC) A messenger rides out with a white flag and asks for a truce so that a meeting can be held the following day (the 7th). Harrison agrees, but sometime during the night they discover Indian warriors attempting to ambush them. They eventually manage to drive them back, and capture Prophet's Town the next day (the 8th). The official reports claim that the town was deserted, while unofficial reports claim that a number of women and children were still there, and that they were killed. Indian casulties are unknown, but the casulties of Harrison's forces aren't (slightly over 150 killed and wounded, no mention in reports is made about any of his men had being taken prisoner.)

If you want even more info about how full of it this is: the Prophet, the same one that most versions of the story have predicting that Harrison would die in office, had predicted that the ambush would be a success, as Harrison's weapons would be unable to harm his warriors. Seeing as he lost the battle, I think it's safe, once again, to say the following: oops. (So much for infallible predictions).

(I can't believe I just typed up this much about this nonsense.)

I have the answer....

[Dark Nexus]

It was obviously the man on the grassy knowl. The reason he was never found was he was so small.

Re:I have the answer....

[Anonymous Coward]

FYI,

That's "knoll"

Mod parent up

[Anonymous Coward]

nt

A related question: is Bush wired??

[onenationunderdog]

Blogger Rory O'Connor posts an official denial today from Mark McKinnon, Bush's Media director:

"I love this. Am tempted to say, 'I cannot confirm or deny,' and let the story get some legs. Or, how about, 'Since we put the metal plate in his head, we have had some measure of success with audio transmissions to the President.' Or, 'Yeah, but it clearly broke down during the debate.'"

McKinnon continues:

"Unfortunately, the truth is not nearly as interesting. The answer is, 'The President has never been assisted by any audio signal.'"

So what do you all think? There are an increasing number of sites and posts about this topic (IsBushWired.com for example), but does anybody have proof?

Re:A related question: is Bush wired??

[Ohreally_factor]

"Unfortunately, the truth is not nearly as interesting. The answer is, 'The President has never been assisted by any audio signal.'"

Given what we know Bush is dyslexic and avoids reading, relying on oral reports for his information, from advisors who's job is to keep him insulated from reality, then it's clear that he's not being assisted by any audio signal.

Re:A related question: is Bush wired??

[Politburo]

Or, 'Yeah, but it clearly broke down during the debate.'"

In his attempt to make a joke, McKinnon does admit that Bush was a stumbling idiot during the debates. Interesting.

In other news...

[cerebralsugar]

President Bush expected to have "lifeline" to God in Friday night's debate.

Kerry to be replaced by super-knolwedgelable vietnam vetran alien from mars clone.

How unpredictable!

[billybob]

Pudge, posting anti-Kerry stories??? Oh, how I could never have predicted that one!

Ya know, even if he did use a cheat sheet, like it would really make any difference. It was probably just a list of some points he didnt want to forget to go over.

While many people are claiming "it was a pen", well, it sure doenst look like a damn pen. But who gives a flying fuck. Kerry beat the shit out of Bush in the debate because Bush is a horrible speaker who can't say anything meaningful unless it's written for him or he has a speaker in his ear.

Thoroughly discredited story

[Anonymous Coward]

And outdated. But not yet duped.

That's a tissue

[Anonymous Coward]

That's a TISSUE to use during the debate.

Anyone would see that and stoped him if it was a note. It was in the biginning so very easy to detect. Nobody is so stupid.

I'd just like to add

[metalhed77]

I'd like to add that Kerry is an experienced debater and had a distinguished record of it. To suggest that he would need such a cheat sheet, and that he would be stupid enough to use one is laughable in the first place.

Alright

[antifoidulus]

I say we all deluge CmndrTaco with emails demanding that pudge's rights to post stories in the politics section be revoked till he can at least learn, to, oh I dunno, CHECK SOME FACTS AND STOP SPINNING HIS STORIES!!!!
He posts comments on his own stories, he posts stuff that he just decided needed to be there without anyone submitting them, he admits he uses his mod points in stories he posts comments to, what else do we need?

Re:Alright

[Anonymous Coward]

Well you need a tin hat. Make sure it fits tight cuz Pudge has special lazers to control your mind.

Bush Cheated?

[ewithrow]

Salon is reporting that Bush may have been wearing a device that would allow him to receive sound from someone offstage.

Here is the article

Here is the image

Re:Bush Cheated?

[ForestGrump]

boo! you work for salon or something?

its asking me for a subscription! i'm a college student here! My rent/utilities/gas/food/imaginary girlfriend (after all, on /. it is illegal to possess a real girlfriend) comes out of my paycheck!

Re:Bush Cheated?

[ewithrow]

Salon allows you to view the site for 24 hours as long as you watch a ~1 minute ad. Just click on "free day pass". No registration is required.

Also, I am a starving college student as well, I do not work for salon, or any place else for that matter. :(

Re:Bush Cheated?

[Twirlip of the Mists]

This one was de-bunked by 1:30 this morning. It's a bullet-proof vest.

Re:Bush Cheated?

[topologist]

That hardly qualifies as a "debunking" - I'm afraid you'll have to come up with more than that, unlikely as this scenario seems. There's some fairly interesting material at "isbushwired.com", which doesn't seem to rely solely on that photograph. While the hardly seems objective, the whole Kerry pen thing was picked up by Fox news etc. in a blatantly dishonest fashion (well after Fox's own clips showed it was a pen, they ran the "story" under the provocative headline "What did Kerry pull out of his pocket?" and condescended to mention that it was a pen only at the very end. I wish the media would give this equally far-out "story" equal time.

Re:Bush Cheated?

[demachina]

I'd have to agree its unlikely it was a wire, or if it was the person that was coaching him over it was as brain damaged as Bush.

If its a bullet proof vest then it tends to suggest Bush and his Secret Service are paranoid chicken shits. He was inside a tightly controlled auditorium, and I imagine its a given everyone was screened on the way in. I doubt you could find a much safer venue.

He is routinely in campaign appearances in shirt sleeves where I doubt he's wearing a vest and he has people 360 around him.

If it is a bullet proof vest I guess its indicative of how afraid of Democrats he is. In his campaign appearances only loyal Republican's are allowed. Here half the people in the hall were Democrats so apparently George is deathly afraid for his life in the presence of Democrats.

I'm compelled to think this may be further proof that Bush is a paranoid sociopath after having lived the life of a bubble boy for the last 4 years.

Re:Bush Cheated?

[cgenman]

I'm compelled to think this may be further proof that Bush is a paranoid sociopath after having lived the life of a bubble boy for the last 4 years.

It's just further proof that if you're going to shoot him, aim for the head.

Wait, I was just sayGAHfhH3FJfKDd34ff
---#434 Carrier signal lost---

Re:Bush Cheated?

[demachina]

I'm pretty sure Bush's head is his least vulnerable and least used part of his anatomy. I wager Bush uses his balls in place of his brain so I'm guessing he must wear a bullet proof jock strap. Anyone have photos with bulges down that way?

Re:Bush Cheated?

[Anonymous Coward]

It looks like the Bush campaign claims it was neither a bullet proof vest nor a transceiver, but a wrinkle in the fabric. I'm guessing that stating that he wore a vest would've affected public perception or something.

Re:Bush Cheated?

[Anonymous Coward]

Oops, here's a link for that.

Re:Bush Cheated?

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck you you fucking fuckwit

Re:Bush Cheated?

[Anonymous Coward]

pls comeback i no u sometimes get mad wehn ppls say 2 u things like 'PLS CHANG NIK" butt ppls dont want u 2 leeve they want u 2 stay sory if u want 2 leeve pls change ur mind and pls want 2 stay + tipe posts thx

Re:Bush Cheated?

[Anonymous Coward]

fuck you you fucking fuckwit

Excuse me Sir, but Mr. Cheney ordered me not to allow you to troll Slashdot anymore, at least until after the election. Besides, you have a meeting in the Oval Office in a few minutes with the Saudi royal family.

Still nothing to see

[KilobyteKnight]

I suppose to in the spirit of equal time I should repeat myself from the article earlier today:

Can we please discuss something that matters?

WMD

[jdawg]

Maybe it was a map to Iraq's WMDs stockpile?

I mean, it's pretty obvious Kerry was responsible for ensuring the Coalition of the Willing wouldn't find anything. He's the only one with something to gain.

this is not logical

[Anonymous Coward]

let's be logical here captain.

bringing a cheat note and _taking it out and unfolding it_ in the _beginning_ of the debate and _not_ doing it _before_ the debate so you would put your hands on the desk and just _place_ it there you must be so illogical that you wouldn't have the intelligence to stand on your feet captain.

t'pol out

Bush had the typed cheat sheet.

[leftie]

Link with pictures...

http://americablog.blogspot.com/archives/2004_10 _0 3_americablog_archive.html#109690608330802330

Was it a pen...?

[Apparently someone]

WTF ...then my vote is going to a guy with pen.

By the way, enjoy the debate tonight. I hear Kerry may even NOT bring a pen!

The excitement is almost overwhelming, isn't it?!?

Re:Was it a pen...?

[Anonymous Coward]

By the way, enjoy the debate tonight. I hear Kerry may even NOT bring a pen!

but one of the events in my Debate Drinking Game is to drink when Kerry starts scribbling. this will just not do.

Actually Drudge.

[the_skywise]

hates Bill O'Reilly...

Re:Actually Drudge.

[Anonymous Coward]

man, who doesn't?

translation....

[Anonymous Coward]

It must be that you have much hatred for our President to have a different opinion. Mine is correct and no other point of view is valid because I see something being unfolded, and not a cap being taken off a pen. Surely I'm not biased. I am right. I am right. I am right. So believe my partisan view and forget your view. Keep reading my post and watching the video until your eyes play tricks with you and you see what I want you to see. Just like Iraq! Try squinting.

Still against the rules...

[jgoemat]

"No props, notes, charts, diagrams, or other writings or other tangible things may be brought into the debate by either candidate.... Each candidate must submit to the staff of the Commission prior to the debate all such paper and any pens or pencils with which a candidate may wish to take notes during the debate, and the staff or commission will place such paper, pens and pencils on the podium..."

Doesn't seem too difficult to understand to me. Anyway, checkout the quicktime movie linked to in this story. It sure looks like a piece of paper to me. Maybe he puts the pen down and picks up some folded paper and unfolds it...

Re:Still against the rules...

[Anonymous Coward]

OMFG, DQ the Sen from MA. This is treason! That's a violation of the Patriot Act! He's a witch! Burn him, burn him!

Re:Still against the rules...

[Anonymous Coward]

jgoemat, I'd like you to meet a friend of mine: sense of proportion.

jgoemat, sense of proportion
sense of proportion, jgoemat

(Translation, for the humour impaired: There are far more important issues involved in this election than a hollow tube of metal and/or plastic with some ink in it.)

still trying to win...

[feidaykin]

I swear it looks like Bush is still trying to win that first debate... Everyone was dissapointed with his perfomance. His camp should just suck it up and concentrate on tonight, but instead they have to resort to "Kerry cheated! Vote Bush!" which makes them seem overly desperate.

Honestly, unless it was some mind-controlling pen that made Bush perform the way he did, they should just drop it.

I agree with the parent

[Pluvius]

Considering how old and discredited this is (as has already been pointed out many times here), the only reason I can think of for this being posted now is as a rebuttal to the "bulge" post. (I guess pudge could've made a mistake, but I find it hard to believe that this wasn't submitted by someone a week ago.)

Rob

Ok, time to go tweak /. front page settings...

[Urkki]

It's nice to read a bit about the coming elections over the pond and all, but come on. I mean, seriously, why is this kind of crap on /. front page? This is tabloid stuff, not "News for Nerds."

Electronic voting machines, fine. NASA budget news, fine. IP related politics, fine. Duplicates of the above, fine. But this article is ridiculous...

Re:Ok, time to go tweak /. front page settings...

[_xeno_]

Good luck with those front page settings... last I checked this bug still hasn't been fixed, so you'll accomplish nothing. :(

(I keep on bringing this up in the hopes that the squeeky wheel will get some oil, but so far, nothing.)

Oh, and on another note, I guess it's on the front page because if you go to the Politics section, you'll get a random jumble of stuff, so I suppose they want to do that to everyone or something.

I don't know if anyone else is having this issue, but the current stories for me on the politics section are:

• The Mezonic Agenda: Hacking the Presidency
• Politics: Did Kerry Use a Cheat Sheet?
• Games: Sony CTO Reassures PSP Fans
• Your Rights Online: RFID Drivers' Licenses Debated
• Games: Molyneux Apology Explained

Re:Ok, time to go tweak /. front page settings...

[_xeno_]

I posted too soon...

Turns out this is happening in all sections (although it wasn't happening in Games earlier this morning, the other section I check out on occasion).

I've also got a nice screenshot of slashdot.org coming up as it.slashdot.org for some reason (at least, in that color scheme, but with articles from every section).

I suppose it could be my user preferences, I messed around with them some regarding filtering stories, because I happen to want to read stuff in the Politics section, although I can understand that others do not.

Re:Ok, time to go tweak /. front page settings...

[EnronHaliburton2004]

Looks like the editors updated Slashdot's Homepage preferences. I don't recall seeing "Sections All Best None" when I tweaked my settings last week.

This morning my homepage was very different then I left it last night. There were slashboxes that I never subscribed to (Freshmeat, among others); and I hitting the 'Up Close Down' buttons failed to do anything.

I suspect a bug is in the new code.

Re:Ok, time to go tweak /. front page settings...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's been doing it, at least with my account, since sometime last night at between 10PM and 11:30PM Eastern time.

Re:Ok, time to go tweak /. front page settings...

[_xeno_]

Excellent! I've been wanting that feature for ages. I've wanted to get all Games and Politics stories, but only "best" in the rest of the sections for ages.

I hope this actually works... Things seem to be a bit messed up right now.

Re:Ok, time to go tweak /. front page settings...

[Anonymous Coward]

The bug you linked to was fixed at 2004-10-08 03:44 (GMT?) Your post was made 2004-10-08 20:04 GMT.

You're a fucking idiot.

HUH?

[Hard_Code]

Guys. He pulls it out right in the middle of freaking everybody and smiling while he is doing it. Why the fuck would he do something so obvious if he was pulling out notes? It's a just a damn pen.

Yeah, but like...

[Sevn]

Nobody has been able to shoot down a single fact in the movie. It's very easy to take issue with how the facts are presented, but not the facts themselves. So sorry. Thank you for playing.

The biggest thing I took away from moore's film was that we kiss Saudi Arabia's ass. They attacked our country, but we didn't do anything about it because they are very tight with our President's family. We let the real criminals get away and deflected the blame to Iraq. They they tried to block the 9/11 commision investigation, and ended up blocking 32 pages of content on Saudi Arabia anyway. If you don't think, in the very least, that something extremely fishy is going on you need to seriously rethink how much you care about your Country. Who CARES when the FBI helped 200+ Saudi's fly out of the country after 9/11. The real question is WHY THE FUCK DID THEY DO IT. When 15 hiijackers are from Saudi Arabia, and the guy that organized it all is from Saudi Arabia, it just MIGHT be possible you look the other way when Saudi Arabia OWNS 7 percent of the United States. They can't very well come out and say that now can they. There's a reason "Bandar Bush" has his own Secret Service detail.

When I watch the news and just today the new line from the whitehouse is:

"Ok, Ok, we finally admit it. There were no WMD in Iraq and there was no connection with Iraq and 9/11 so now the war was about THE FOOD FOR OIL PROGRAM" I wonder how many people are still buying it.

That's 4 different justifications for attacking a sovereign nation is a very short amount of time. And I freaking HATE moore. That doesn't mean I'm going to walk around with my fucking eyes closed. Sorry for the rant, but this shit is getting really fucking old. Get your God damn fingers out of your fucking ears and the blinders off before it's too late.

Re:Yeah, but like...

[HavokDevNull]

"Nobody has been able to shoot down a single fact in the movie." LOL ok here we go...

1. The Gore victory rally is not celebrating a Florida win. It was held before the polls had even opened.

2. Like all the other networks, Fox mistakenly said that Gore had won in Florida. The first network to retract the Florida mistake was CBS, not Fox.

3. A 6-month study by a consortium of major newspapers shows that Bush would have won the Florida recount under any of the terms which Gore sought in his lawsuits.

4. Investigation by the Palm Beach Post and others shows that race was not a reason why election officials mistakenly disqualified some voters because they were incorrectly thought to have felony convictions.

5. Bush's Presidency before 9/11 was not in serious trouble. No commentator said that he looked like a lame-duck president. Congress had passed his #1 bill (the tax cut) and was
on the way to passing his #2 bill (the education bill). The scene at the end of the movie in which Bush tells a rich audience "I call you my base" was from an October 2000 charity fund-raiser. Both Gore and Bush spoke at the fund-raiser and, as is the custom at the fund-raiser, made fun of themselves.

and here is 54 more facts distorted
http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits-i n-Fahrenheit-911.htm

Re:Yeah, but like...

[Your_Mom]

Oh yes, no one, NO ONE, has disproven anything about Farenheight 9/11. Is that a 'nuanced' response?

http://www.davekopel.com/Terror/Fiftysix-Deceits -i n-Fahrenheit-911.htm
http://www.f411.com/
http:/ /www.eppc.org/publications/pubID.2190/pub_de tail.asp
http://www.ndol.org/ndol_ci.cfm?cp=1&kai d=127&subi d=177&contentid=252483
http://fahrenheit_fact.blo gspot.com/
http://www.workingpsychology.com/fahre nheit.html

Not that hard. And it's not "how the facts are portrayed" it's mostly complaints about the outright fabrications Moore does.

Re:Yeah, but like...

[TykeClone]

See - you still didn't shoot down one fact in that movie!

Re:Yeah, but like...

[Sevn]

LOL, here I go. Kopel has been shot down pretty hard already. I'd LOVE to see you say anything about the Saudi Arabia connection and information. That's kinda SLIGHTLY more important than the tiny things that you are still wrong about.

1. "With information provided from the Voter News Service, NBC was the first network to project Gore the winner in Florida at 7:48 pm. At 7:50 pm ,CNN and CBS project Gore the winner in Florida as well." By 8:02 pm , all five networks and the Associated Press had called Gore the winner in Florida. Even the VNS called Gore the winner at 7:52 pm. At 2:16 am, Fox calls Florida for Bush, NBC follows at 2:16 am. ABC is the last network to call the Florida for Bush, at 2:20 am, while AP and VNS never call Florida for Bush. HERE

2. Ten minutes after the top of the hour, network excitement was again beginning to build. At 2:16 a.m., the call was made: Fox News Channel, with Bush's first cousin John Ellis running its election desk, was the first to project Florida -- and the presidency -- for the Texas governor. Within minutes, the other networks followed suit. "George Bush, Governor of Texas will become the 43rd President of the United States," CNN's Bernard Shaw announced atop a graphic montage of a smiling Bush. "At 18 minutes past two o'clock Eastern time, CNN declares that George Walker Bush has won Florida's 25 electoral votes and this should put him over the top. HERE

But it's just the liberal media right?

3. The Florida Department of State awarded a $4 million contract to the Boca Raton-based Database Technologies Inc. (subsidiary of ChoicePoint). They were tasked with finding improperly registered voters in the state's database, but mistakes were rampant. "At one point, the list included as felons 8,000 former Texas residents who had been convicted of misdemeanors." St. Petersburg Times (Florida), December 21, 2003.

4. Database Technologies, a subsidiary of ChoicePoint, "was responsible for bungling an overhaul of Florida's voter registration records, with the result that thousands of people, disproportionately black, were disenfranchised in the 2000 election. Had they been able to vote, they might have swung the state, and thus the presidency, for Al Gore, who lostin Florida. Oliver Burkeman, Jo Tuckman, "Firm in Florida Election Fiasco Earns Millions from Files on Foreigners," The Guardian, May 5, 2003 HERE. See also, Atlanta-Journal-Constitution, May 28, 2001.

5. A] consortium [Tribune Co., owner of the Times; Associated Press; CNN; the New York Times; the Palm Beach Post; the St. Petersburg Times; the Wall Street Journal; and the Washington Post] hired the NORC [National Opinion Research Center, a nonpartisan research organization affiliated with the University of Chicago] to view each untallied ballot and gather information about how it was marked. The media organizations then used computers to sort and tabulate votes, based on varying scenarios that had been raised during the post-election scramble in Florida. Under any standard that tabulated all disputed votes statewide, Mr. Gore erased Mr. Bush's advantage and emerged with a tiny lead that ranged from 42 to 171 votes. Donald Lambro, "Recount Provides No Firm Answers," Washington Times, November 12, 2001.

As for any other comments, WHO CARES. How important are your tiny points compared to the huge looming things presented by the movie that you simple CAN NOT REFUTE. Go ahead. Take on the Saudi Arabia connection. Take on the military spending and cut funding for OUR SOLDIERS. Take on the Unocal connections. Take on the Carlyle group connnections. YOU CAN'T. You may draw comfort from taking issue with moores ridiculously slanted style, but you can't shoot down a single fact in the movie. And you haven't. So sorry. Thank you for playing.

Re:Yeah, but like...

[Sevn]

That's why there have been so many lawsuits. That's definitely why the mainstream media have jumped all over it and not just a bunch of partisan hacks on the net. Man. I bet the movie makes NO MONEY AT ALL with all these important people and their important facts armed with THE TRUTH!!!!!. Please. You haven't even seen the movie and you know it. Go ahead and complain about camera angles and footage taken out of context and ignore the important things from the movie that can't be disproven because they are true. Moore is heavily slanted, but the damaging facts from the movie do not appear on any of those sites. I suggest you watch the film.

Re:Yeah, but like...

[HavokDevNull]

pffft A central theme of Michael Moore's controversial documentary (if you can call it a documentary) "Fahrenheit 9/11" (and the connection you refer to.) is a bare allegation that Saudi Arabian interests provided $1.4 billion to firms connected to the family and friends of President George W. Bush.

However, as a special Newsweek investigative report notes, there is really less - not more - than meets the eye re the dramatic Moore claim:
# Nearly 90 percent of that claimed amount, $1.18 billion, comes from contracts in the early to mid-1990's that the Saudi Arabian government awarded to a U.S. defense contractor, BDM, for training the country's military and National Guard. The "Bush" connection: The firm at the time was owned by the Carlyle Group, a private-equity firm whose Asian-affiliate advisory board once included the president's father, George H.W. Bush.

# But, points out Newsweek, former president Bush didn't join the Carlyle advisory board until April, 1998 -- five months after Carlyle had already sold BDM to another defense firm.

# As for the sitting president's own Carlyle link, his service on the board ended when he quit to run for Texas governor -- a few months before the first of the Saudi contracts to the unrelated BDM firm was awarded.

# The Carlyle Group is hardly a "Bush Inc," noted Newsweek - but rather features a roster of bipartisan Washington power figures. "Its founding and still managing partner is Howard Rubenstein, a former top domestic policy advisor to Jimmy Carter. Among the firm's senior advisors is Thomas "Mack" McLarty, Bill Clinton's former White House chief of staff, and Arthur Levitt, Clinton's former chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission. One of its other managing partners is William Cannard, Clinton's chairman of the Federal Communications Commission."

# According to the report, the movie neglects to offer any evidence that Bush White House intervened in any way to bolster the interests of the Carlyle Group. In fact, the one major Bush administration decision that most directly affected the company's interest was the cancellation of a $11 billion program for the Crusader rocket artillery system. The Crusader was manufactured by United Defense, which had been wholly owned by Carlyle until it spun the company off in a public offering in October, 2001. Carlyle still owned 47 percent of the shares in the defense company at the time that Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld canceled the Crusader program the following year.

# As to Moore's dealings with the matter of the departing Saudis flown out of the United States in the days after the September 11 terror attacks, the 9/11 commission found that the FBI screened the Saudi passengers, ran their names through federal databases, interviewed 30 of them and asked many of them "detailed questions." "Nobody of interest to the FBI with regard to the 9/11 investigation was allowed to leave the country," the commission stated.

# The entity in the White House that approved the flights wasn't the president, or the vice president -- it was Richard Clarke, the counter-terrorism czar who was a holdover from the Clinton administration. Clarke has testified that he gave the approval conditioned on FBI clearance.

your point #1 ya so????
The film shows CBS and CNN calling Florida for Al Gore. According to the narrator, "Then something called the Fox News Channel called the election in favor of the other guy....All of a sudden the other networks said, 'Hey, if Fox said it, it must be true.'"

We then see NBC anchor Tom Brokaw stating, "All of us networks made a mistake and projected Florida in the Al Gore column. It was our mistake."

Moore thus creates the false impression that the networks withdrew their claim about Gore winning Florida when they heard that Fox said that Bush won Florida.

To sum it up about the Film IMHO!!! it is amazing what one can do with a little editing.

#3 #4 #5 And I suppose you are now going to tell me that Bush pulled a

Re:Yeah, but like...

[HavokDevNull]

Oh ya Sevn

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=123805&cid=1 03 96915

Speaking about the link above.... "Which way dose the wind blow???? "

My name is Havok and I approved this message.

Bush had the cheat sheet

[leftie]

Here's the link with pictures...

http://americablog.blogspot.com/archives/2004_10 _0 3_americablog_archive.html#109690608330802330

The Point?

[Anonymous Coward]

For the countless people who will undoubtably chant "Drudge is a hack!", "Right-wing crap!", "It was just a pen, not paper!", etc, etc - You're missing the point. It doesn't matter which it was, both pens and paper broke the rules. Admittedly the original post asks the wrong question, as usual on Slashdot, to which you're answering. But, he still broke the rules plain and simple.

Re:The Point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know for a fact that he brought that pen with him and didn't, in fact, pick it up off the lecturn and put it in his pocket earlier in the debate? In either case, did this mystery pen provide any sort of advantage in the debate?

This is mindnumbingly stupid. If you can't see that, then you're missing the point.

Re:The Point?

[Narchie Troll]

And there were times when both candidates clearly addressed each other. Minor infractions, especially when the rules are so numerous and strict, aren't really something to get hot and bothered about.

I carry a pen or a pencil at all times, and I'd instinctively reach for it if I needed to write something down. At worst, it looks like this is what Kerry did -- he had a pen in his pocket and used it.

A 'cheat sheet' would be worse, because both candidates are supposed to be debating with equal resources. An outside pen does not significantly unbalance that, and can be forgiven.

A cheat sheet or a radio earpiece, on the other hand, could tip the scales. However, neither are likely -- I don't think either candidate has the skill to correctly use outside help during the debate without making it obvious.

Re:The Point?

[EnronHaliburton2004]

Who cares if it was a pen? Oh no, a minor rule was broken!

Look, we're talking about the Presidential race here. A pen shouldn't phase either Kerry or Bush-- the job of the President is to deal with people who break REAL MAJOR rules-- hiding bombs instead of pens.

Re:The Point?

[searchr]

Pen and Paper did NOT break the rules necessarily. The copious "rules" doc, which by the way was written BY Kerry's and Bush's people, its THEIR rules, what the f#$@ do I care if they used cheat sheets (tho that might explain the "You forgot Poland!" remark Bush made after glancing down at his podium..) says the pens and paper will be decided upon and be whatever the candidates want to use.

If while waiting in the greenroom, or in the wings waiting to be introduced, how do you know the f@#%ing intern responsible for setting the pen and paper down on the podiums FORGOT, or another intern saw eBay $$ and stole them? Someone rushes to the candidates and hands them notecards and a pen, the show goes on.

But you don't know that. We weren't THERE. and it was THEIR RULES. Lots of THEIR rules were broken that night: they interrupted each other, they ran long, they took way more 30 second rebuttals than alloted, the cameras didn't stay on just the candidate talking, Kerry wore lifts, Bush wore a hump, it was their party. Whether they flailed blindly at the pinata or crouched over it and tore it apart with their bare hands, it still came up full of nothing but Bit-o-Honeys.

Only one more month, then maybe we can get back to talking about the stuff that's actually going on in the world...

Re:The Point?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you know for a fact that he brought that pen with him and didn't, in fact, pick it up off the lecturn

Yes, that's agreed. That happened before he got to the lectern for the first time.

This is mindnumbingly stupid

So the rules Bush and Kerry came up with together, each for specific reasons and backed by an army of lawyers on both sides, are stupid? Because your pea brain can't fathom the reason, they're stupid. Typical 12-yr-old attitude. Or liberal attitude, take your pick.

Give it a rest

[metalhed77]

Yeah, except none of that is in the video or happened. And fox only has higher quality footage of him holding a pen, no paper.

You know maybe saddam had WMD then evaporated them and any evidence of their existance just as bush invaded. Doesn't seem too difficult to understand to me.............

Re:Give it a rest

[flink]

You know maybe saddam had WMD then evaporated them and any evidence of their existance just as bush invaded. Doesn't seem too difficult to understand to me.............

Haven't you heard the news? We didn't invade over WMD anymore. Now we invaded because Iraq wasn't following the food-for-oil sanction rules.

Re:Give it a rest

[metalhed77]

You know maybe saddam had WMD then evaporated them and any evidence of their existance just as bush invaded. Doesn't seem too difficult to understand to me.............

Haven't you heard the news? We didn't invade over WMD anymore. Now we invaded because Iraq wasn't following the food-for-oil sanction rules.

I know that. I'm sticking with the same position I have since this thread started. That other guy, he's the one waffling.

This is fucking ridiculous

[hedrek]

How many more people died in Iraq today that didn't need to? Why the hell are we in Iraq?

Oh gee, wait, no let's talk about this instead! Though not quite as fascinating as 1970s era typography, it will do!

Re:This is fucking ridiculous

[yaddayaddayadda]

I'd say about 50 times less people died without cause today than any day that Sadam Hussein was in power.

Re:This is fucking ridiculous

[protohiro1]

That's a bold statement. Fifty times. My rough count is that it was a slow day in Iraq and 22 people died as a result of the occupation or the insurgency. So you are claiming that at least 1,100 people died without cause when Saddam was in power. Meaning that as a result of Saddam's rule roughly 9.6 million people were killed. This is quite clearly not true. This wasn't a holocaust. Saddam was a bad man but you are giving him more credit than he deserved. Around 5,000 people were killed in Saddam's gas attack on the kurds. There are no exact numbers on the shi'a uprising in 1991, but it wasn't millions. A horrible moment in history, but you seem to be alleging that this happened every five days in Iraq under saddam, which it didn't.

I am guessing you were exagerating and I am being a pedant. But I am willing to bet that Iraq is more dangerous for the average Iraqi today that it was two years ago.

Now, possibly you are refering to the situation during the sanctions, a time during which something between 350,000 and 1.2 million excess deaths are alleged to have been caused by the economic sanctions on iraq. A serious toll to be sure. The situation that caused this resulted also from a severly damaged infrastructure which has not been repaired, so it is unclear how much better things are in terms of sanitation, food supply and water in comparison to the under sanctions. Whether or not the infratructure and food suppy issues have been since resolved are unclear, so it is hard to say whether the humanitarian situaion during sanctions has really been alieviated. It is very difficult to pronounce "net gains" for the people of iraq in terms of death. Regardless it is not the kind of arithmatic you want to be doing. Even if there is a net improvment in death in Iraq, these deaths are our fault now. Saying that more would have died had we not invaded is a tenuous assertion at best. More difficult still is to argue that we are not responsable for the death that continues in iraq because it may have been worse had we done nothing. If someone jumps from a building and you shoot them on the way down you are still guilty of murder.

I know! I know!

[Anonymous Coward]

Bill O'Reilly

Re:I know! I know!

[Anonymous Coward]

Under the thin veneer of narcisism, there is a huge amount of self-hatred and self-loathing. Bill O'Reilly's punishment for being Bill O'Reilly is being Bill O'Reilly.

Was Bush Wired During Debate?

[Izaak]

Check out this article at Salon.com that suggests Bush was wearing an audio receiver at the first debate (a clear violation of the rules if true). The web site Is Bush Wired also discusses it and includes more evidence from previous Bush speaking events. In a couple of cases, the audio of the voice prompter feeding him the answers has been picked up and accidently transmitted as part of the live news broadcast.

Re:Was Bush Wired During Debate?

[skinfitz]

Thats obviously an alien mind control device.

Boy I bet the aliens were pissed when they realised they wasted all that money.

Re:Was Bush Wired During Debate?

[werfele]

Check out this article at Salon.com that suggests Bush was wearing an audio receiver at the first debate...

That particular horse was beaten to death here, although if true it would seem to violate the spirit of things more than bringing in a few notes.

Re:Was Bush Wired During Debate?

[Anonymous Coward]

Um, Bush is wearing a bullet proof vest. He wears it all day except when he sleeps.

But was bush wearing a radio??

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/08/bulge /index_np.html
http://www.isbushwired.com/

Apparently, there was a bulge on Bush's back during the first one. Speculation as to what it really was, but many people are leaning to a radio prompter. So was Bush reciting what Rove was saying during the debate?

Perhaps the commission should frisk the candidates and jam RF. That would take care of both the Bush and Kerry theories.

Re:But was bush wearing a radio??

[mr. mulder]

Oh, come on! A radio - I immediately thought it to be a rather bulky bullet proof vest.

Re:But was bush wearing a radio??

[Lord Bitman]

now that I've read those, I'd like to offer my counter theory: Those short sentences, the looking around, the long pauses, are all because Bush is a horrible speaker and they want people to hear more applause than speech.

What did Kerry take out of his pocket?

[cheezus]

a big can of whoopass!

Uh... wouldn't he want some paper for that pen?

[Elwood P Dowd]

Was he writing graffiti on the lectern?

My liberal friends were all bragging about how Kerry looked all "regal" because during Bush's statements, he would carefully listen & take notes. Wouldn't that kindof imply that he also had paper up there?

If he had paper, wouldn't he have had to bring it up to the podium? How could he *ever* prove that the paper was blank when he brought it up there? He couldn't. Whether or not it was a cheatsheet, it certainly could have been.

So. How has this revelation changed your opinion of the candidates and their trustworthiness?

Re:Uh... wouldn't he want some paper for that pen?

[Anonymous Coward]

I suggest you re-read the debate info. Both candidates were supplied with blank sheets of paper for the express purpose of writing down notes during the debate.

Re:Uh... wouldn't he want some paper for that pen?

[Elwood P Dowd]

On a related note, I hear that Puerto Rico wants to become a steak.

Oh. Nevermind.

Re:Uh... wouldn't he want some paper for that pen?

[damiam]

If you read the rules, you would see that candidates can have blank paper and pens placed on the podium prior to the debate. Kerry's pen was a minor violation of that, but not in a way that actually mattered.

Re:Uh... wouldn't he want some paper for that pen?

[Elwood P Dowd]

Yeah, I'm dumb. Reading *any* of the articles would have cleared this up for me.

Re:Uh... wouldn't he want some paper for that pen?

[Scrameustache]

If he had paper, wouldn't he have had to bring it up to the podium?

No.
Paper was provided.

Good

[IRNI]

I hate kerry and bush. I am for Badnarik but I am glad someone is cheating and not paying attention to the rules. The rules are absolutely retarded and are geared to water down the debates as much as possible.

I agree

[spitzak]

It's pretty sad to see what the great Internet and blogs have done to actual discussion and debate about the issues.

Neither Kerry or Bush (or their people) are stupid enough to cheat at the debate because getting caught would far outweigh any plausable gains from reducing the chances that their candidate might screw up. Just show a little common sense everybody. This is an implausable as any pseudo-science or elaborate conspiracy theory, and only people of those intelligence levels should believe or even talk about these things.

It would be nice if we could argue about whether Bush or Kerry as President would be better for the future of America. But no, the morons who can run a web browser and post to a blog would rather read and write this nonsense and retreat into fantasyland of crap unrealistic nonsense. And rather than ignore this extremism like we used to, it becomes the most visible part of the debate. This is a pretty sad result of what should have been a great breakthrough in free speech.

Re:I agree

[Doc Ruby]

Reagan cheated on his 1980 "there you go again" debate against Carter. His campaign manager, (later CIA director) William Casey, got stolen copies of Carter's debate briefing notebooks, against which they coached the old actor. That resounding catchphrase was seen in a new light after the truth was revealed, but of course it was too late to do anything after Reagan was elected. The same stalling process is going on here with Bush's cheating, and deniers in this thread are part of it.

Re:I agree

[ConceptJunkie]

Yeah, whatever. Now back to the real topic.

I think it was instructions from Kerry's French Overlords, whom he, for one, welcomes. It probably reads:

1. Jan 20, 2005: Surrender
2. ????
3 Profit!!!!

Also, Bush wasn't wearing a wire, he had a surgical implant into his motor cortex and Dick Cheney was controlling him with a $10 Radio Shack universal remote. Bush didn't do so well, because they didn't find the code for "Republican President" until halfway through the debate. In the second half, Cheney was distracted by the idea of a Beowulf cluster of brush-clearing Texan automatons, and kept letting the face controls slide, you insensitive clod.

p.s. If you want real discussion about politics, you probably shouldn't read /.

Re:I agree

[Timex]

heh. I suppose you'll deny the POSSIBILITY that the laptops stolen from one of Bush's campaign offices could end up in the hands of Kerry's people (assuming, of course, that they weren't the perps)?

Re:I agree

[Doc Ruby]

I don't know what you're talking about, but I won't deny the possibility that you're repeating some kind of spin invented by Rove to explain the incoherent spluttering of the Commander-In-Chief last Thursday. That lowers expectations of the top chump when he flails tonight under the fire of having the miserable failure of his domestic depradations flung back in his face. And doesn't reiterate the possibility that Bush was too dumb to handle a secret earpiece delivering debate prompts to his otherwise empty skull.

Re:I agree

[Timex]

I won't deny the possibility that you're repeating some kind of spin invented by Rove to explain the incoherent spluttering of the Commander-In-Chief last Thursday.

No, i'm not. I watched the debate last week, and I came out of it thinking that Bush blubbered his way through. Kerry was much more organized, but I found his smirks annoying.

Screw it. You want my thoughts? Read my journal. I'm getting tired of typing this stuff over and over again.

Re:I agree

[Anonymous Coward]

Kerry was much more organized, but I found his smirks annoying.

You found KERRY'S smirks more annoying? I'll admit, I'm a yellow-dog democrat (actually, a little left of that), but I kinda' want Bush to lose just to wipe that G*d-awful smirk off of his face.

Every time I see W make that face, I just get the feeling that he's pulling the wool over our eyes again, and he knows he's getting away with it with far too many Americans...

Re:I agree

[ConceptJunkie]

Whoops! I should have slammed President Bush first to get the karma bonus.

Good point

[spitzak]

Really, even if a "crib sheet" would be helpful, why not just write a memorized list of all the points down as soon as you get to the podium, using the pens and papers that are there for that purpose, before you get confused by the debate. That would not be cheating and would serve just as good of a purpose as bringing a pre-written sheet. Memorizing the list, but then writing a backup, would work much better than a non-memorized list, since you may not have to glance at it to recall the item.

Further proof that the whole idea is ludricous.

Kerry, pen. Bush, most definitely w/cheat sheet..

[kfractal]

This has been covered elsewhere.

Drudge hung his own... the one with the cheat sheet was Bush. See: http://americablog.blogspot.com/archives/2004_10_0 3_americablog_archive.html#109690350018230874

and subsequent postings about the same topic:
http://americablog.blogspot.com/archives/2004_10_0 3_americablog_archive.html#109690608330802330
http://americablog.blogspot.com/archives/2004_10_0 3_americablog_archive.html#109697989288905008

why?

[Anonymous Coward]

...bullshit envy?

:)

Really?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm suprised at that... 'cause last night, *your* mom told me you get your pens from the gay hobo that rides your backside. BTW, tell your mom she was great last night, and that her crack is on the third shelf on the left by the sink.

Hey, how's your bad thumbs? Did soaking your hands in feces help or was that just for fun? You sick freak :P

Attention moderators: This is flamebait. It's true, but it's flamebait.

Candidates' clothes

[chandoni]

Kerry's red tie was clearly broadcasting subliminal (or as Bush would say, subliminable) messages to people in the Red states, giving him an unfair advantage.

Candidates should have to show up and debate naked, after being cavity searched and deloused to make sure they are, in fact, hiding nothing.

Later on...

[Sun Nori]

I saw Kerry write down some notes about what Bush said when speaking, to create his rebuttal. There is no rule on the debate to disallow note taking DURING the debate.

Delayed posting

[Timex]

I submitted this when it came out. It was rejected.

O/T - Parliament system in Israel

[Subjective]

Israel has a parliament system - in the national elections each citizen votes for a party, and the 120 seats in parliament are divided by votes.

the leader of the largest party (or rather, the party most likely to form a coalition) is elected by the President (read: houseplant) to form a coalition.

Technically, every parliament member can vote as he likes on any vote

The government is composed of the 'top' of the coalition parties, and, well, their relatives.

The members who join the coalition spend more time in government work (comittees and such)
The members who are actually ministers spend even more time on such things, not to mention spending half the time abroad

So most the law making would be done by the opposition. ;)

It's WONDERFUL what's happening

[DesScorp]

" It's pretty sad to see what the great Internet and blogs have done to actual discussion and debate about the issues."

I fall on my knees and thank God for the Internet and the bloggers. For the first time, people have alternatives to the established media. CBS wouldn't have been caught so quickly on the fake guard memos if it wasn't for bloggers. And contrary to what you're saying, there's real honest discussion going on the web. There's a lot of one-sided mudslinging, but that inevitable. But we're so much better off now. We have real choices where to get our information now.

Re:Kerry, pen. Bush, most definitely w/cheat sheet

[Anonymous Coward]

Wow great, you have a slow motion picture of bush putting the cap on his white pen. Your l33t.

And bush wears a bullet proof vest all the time, there is no wire.

This story that kerry used notes is really old and was debunked like 4 days ago.

Re:Kerry, pen. Bush, most definitely w/cheat sheet

[Anonymous Coward]

This has been covered elsewhere.

And long before Pudge was directed to counterTurf.

Remember when Slashdot had breaking news?

Pot meets kettle

[ttfkam]

If it's against the rules, they *both* broke the rules. This isn't partisanship. Go to c-span.org and click on the first presidential debate. After the video starts playing, fast forward to 42 minutes 20 seconds into the 90 minutes. This is a segment where Bush is speaking. Oh! What's that clearly in his right hand? Would that be A PEN!?!

Watch the video in ten minutes leading up to that point. Bush periodically looks down at the podium and moves that pen around. Is he writing?

Personally I don't care either way. Why? Debates are about arguments. Arguments don't become more or less cogent because you have notes. When I'm in a debate, it's nice to be able to take notes on what your opponent said to better use it against them. That's what a debate is. It's ridiculous to me that pen and paper are not allowed.

But even so, if a pen is against the rules, they *both* broke the rules.

Re:Pot meets kettle

[jgoemat]

They were allowed pens and paper. They just had to give them up beforehand and they would be placed on the podium for them, ready to be used. For some reason, both parties decided to put that in the rules for the debate. They both new about it.

This is OLD news - it was PEN!

[aurum42]

See this link. This was reported on foxnews.com as well, well after the "mystery" was solved with a teaser headline "What did kerry pull out of his pocket?" and at the end the story stated it was a pen. Sheesh.

alien overlords again

[bigenchilada]

I couldn't help but flash onto Robert Heinlein's Puppet Masters, http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0345 330145/qid=1097298460/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/002-394259 4-9503219?v=glance&s=books/ where the alien overlords jump onto your back, mesh with your spinal cord and take over your brain.
Actually, Heinlein called them "slugs from outer space" and they were from one of Saturn's moons. But you could always tell when someone was taken over by that tell-tale bulge on their back....

about your sig

[Anonymous Coward]

at this point I wish me and now.

Bullshit

[Anonymous Coward]

Not that hard. And it's not "how the facts are portrayed" it's mostly complaints about the outright fabrications Moore does.

I clicked randomly on your sites, and here what I saw:

NARRATOR: On March 19, 2003, George W. Bush and the United States military invaded the sovereign nation of Iraq. A nation that had never attacked the United States. A nation that had never threatened to attack the United States. A nation that had never murdered a single American citizen.

The rebuttal:

The first of the 42 pages of Iraqi documents is dated Jan. 18, 1993, approximately two years after American troops defeated Saddam's army in the first Persian Gulf War. The memo includes Saddam's directive that "the party should move to hunt the Americans who are on Arabian land, especially in Somalia, by using Arabian elements ..."

Wow! How conclusive it is that Saddam Hussein wanted to attack the United States of America, I've never seen a best proof.... NOT!

The rebuttal are twisting reality even more than Michael Moore, I can't believe it.

who cares?

[rsheridan6]

We're talking about who's going to be leader of the motherfucking free world here, not debate class. I really don't give a crap whether Kerry or Bush had notes/earpieces during the debate.

So what about the BUMP of Bush?

[thrill12]

...in his coat? This warrants a clear Slashdot story, but I will certainly not send it in(after 4 rejections, sigh).

I would call every slashdotter to get out his personal jamming device, and go to the next debate.

Heck, wouldn't it be kewl to instead of jamming it, to actually transmit your own answers to mr. Bush ?

Q: Gentlemen, what do you think of the leader of Afghanistan ?
K: I think he deserves all the support we got.
B: I ... eh... think Saddam Hussayn should lead Afghanistan to true freedom, like he has done before!

Q: Gentlemen, what is the message you would like to bring out to your voters ?
K: Make a choice for a new America, a shining star amongst nations.
B: I think .... eh .... we should vote for a Democrat government this time. I resign !

grassy knoll

[dbcad7]

And this major incident, analyzed frame by frame I'm sure, was noticed.

However nobody noticed the "W" ignoring the moderator, spewing forth his tirade, when it clearly was not his turn to speak

I continue to read the polls, and I hope they contine to say what I don't beleive.. so that the media can be shocked into reality.

If "w" wins, then I know that things have been tampered with.. and this is no "tin foil hat" opinion for me.

It is impossible for me to beleive that "most" Americans are behind this guy,.. And that they would vote for him to in effect say "I agree with you dubbya, and lets do more good stuff like you been a doin"

regards

dbcad7

USA is NOT the same as "free world"

[Anonymous Coward]

Bzzt. Wrong.

You're talking about the next possible leader of the U.S.A. The "free world" is a much bigger place, and while the elected leader of the U.S.A. may choose to particpate in the free world, they are *NOT* the leader of the free world.

Re:USA is NOT the same as "free world"

[Hassman]

Bzzt. Wrong.

The preseident of the US is often refered to as "Leader of the free world." As well as "Most powerful man in the world".

The USA is often looked at as the "alpha" dog of the world...whether or not it should be is another story.

The candidates who didn't cheat

[relaxrelax]

If I were American, I'd vote for the ones that didn't cheat:

The third parties!

The Democrat-Republican front that runs the debate might have to pay damages to the Libertarians, but that won't make them any less of a cheat upon the electoral process.

A cheat sheet?

[Pan T. Hose]

On a global test?