Besides, genius boy, until someone who's actually credible (i.e., not the Republican usual suspects) tells me they're forged, why the hell should I believe a bunch of Fox news watching mouth breathers telling me they are?
Correction: Stoudt (?) was the supposed *recipient* of the memos, and he denies not only the memos but the bullshit story they purport to tell. What does it take to wake you guys up?
Dan Rather was uncovered in a week, and liberals readily admitted he was wrong. The secretary to the purported author of the documents backed up the content, claiming it to be true. Since she was directly involved with the situations in question, she is a primary source, just like real documents would be.
And the dozen or two other "real sources" in Bush's squadron have all backed Bush's story, including the guy (Stoudt?) who was the subject of the phoney memos. I guess you missed that. I wonder why. Left-wing media bias perhaps?
I knew that slashdot is full of lefty losers, but I didn't realize it was this bad. You are right: I'm wasting my time here with know-nothings like you.
By the way, I don't where the rock is that you live under, but wherever it is, the chances are good that you owe your freedom to the United States of America. You should be thankful, you despicable loser.
Bush signed a Form 180, releasing all his military records, and responsible media has reported on it extensively. On the other hand, war-hero John Kerry refuses to sign a 180. But you'd never know that by watching the "mainstream" (left-biased) media, would you. Hmmm... I wonder what Kerry is trying to hide. Don't you?
You are in the dark. Bush performed well beyond the minimum requirements for years before he took a leave of absense, which was very commonly done. The ANG had a glut of pilots at the time and were aggressively trying to get rid of them. Oh, you didn't know that? I guess your lefty sources didn't give you the relevant facts, did they? This entire episode is a classic example of left-wing media distortion. It's sad that so many of you here at slashdot fall for it hook, line, and sinker.
Gee, could it be because if he didn't no source would ever give him confidential information ever again? No. That's just crazy talk. It must be a vast left wing conspiracy to defame George W Bush. Yeah that sounds much more believable.
Oh, so Danno wants more "confidential information" from the same fake source that may cost him his career? Please tell me you aren't *really* that dumb.
Then we should also call for Fox News journalists' heads on platters, because they are trying to influence the presidential election just as much, and probably moreso than Dan Rather.
But they're not using forged documents, are they. You left out that part.
Yes, that's probably right. But did you notice that the U.S. is the lone superpower in the world? Think there's a connection?
By the way, if you read the U.S. Founding Fathers, you might just realize that they were to tthe right of Barry Goldwater. But our public schools don't teach that stuff anymore. The Chumash Indians are more important.
Hey, genius, why don't you ask yourself why Dan Rather is shielding the identity of a *fraudulent* source? What's the principle behind that? If Danno was just an innocent victim himself, then he should be mad as hell that this source is costing him his credibility and perhaps his career.
In case you can't put 2+2 together, Danno was probably in on the fraud -- or at least he closed his eyes and hoped for the best. And the source may lead back to the Kerry campaign. Watergate anyone?
By the way, for all you folks who think this is the first time Danno and CBS tried to do a hatchet job on Republicans, I have a bridge for sale... You're not really that stupid, are you?
What absolutely amazes me is how many of the lefties here on good ol' slashdot think the media is biased to the "right." What most of them are too ignorant to realize is that that very perception is the result of fact that they have been influenced by the leftist bias in the "mainstream" media (CBS, ABS, NBC, NYT, LAT, etc.).
I wonder how many of these people believe Dan Rather when he says, OK, the documents were phoney but the story behind them is true. What kind of baloney is that? The entire story of Bush's guard service is crap. Bush served for two or three years well above and beyond the minimum requirements. Then he took a leave of absence, which was very common, especially when they had a glut of pilots at the time and were trying to get rid of them. Oh, I guess Dan forgot to mention that, eh? What a joke.
Oh, and one more thing. If Dan Rather was fooled by the fraudulent docs, why is he not as eager as hell to nail the fraud who may have cost him his career if not his credibility? Think about it, folks. No, Dan is "protecting" his fraudulent sources. What exactly could be the thinking behing that?
You are pathetically ignorant. Don't worry, it's common these days, particularly on slashdot. I'll bet you trust Dan Rather for objective, reliable news, and Michael Moore for unbiased commentary.
By the way, I forgot to mention something else you are no doubt ignorant of. The period when Bush was supposedly absent from service (never mind that several of his colleagues have discredited this notion) was when the war winding down and the ANG had way too many pilots and was agressively trying to get rig of them. So even if he "deserted", they would have been happy.
Also, if you read Unfit for Command you will be acutely embarrassed by your support of Kerry. I guarantee it.
I really don't have time to waste on this, but I'll try to cure you of your ignorance.
Bush flew an F-102 full time for something like 3 years, well beyond his minimal required commitment. The F-102 was a notorously dangerous aircraft, and several of Bush's fellow pilots crashed and burned right here in North America. He was in more danger than today's pilots in Iraq ever were, and quite possibly more than today's groundtroops are (I haven't done the calculation).
When Bush joined the guard, F-102 pilots from his very squadron were in Viet Nam. It was not a guaranteed out of the war. Bush even volunteered to go the Viet Nam, but he was not sent.
Kerry did got several deferments, then he joined the Naval Reserve, where he thought he was unlikely to see combat.
Kerry is a dickless self-promoter who has climbed his way to the top on the backs of his fellow soldiers whom he slandered, using his phony medals for influence and cover every step of the way. But he is about the take his party into a well-deserved bloodbath at the polls.
Here are the basic facts, my friend. John Kerry served for four months on the Swift boats (one month of which was for training). He received three purple heart awards, a Bronze Star, and a Silver Star. I'll bet that's more medals in a shorter time than any military man in history -- certainly one who was never seriously injured. He never suffered any "injury" beyond what my 8-year-old boy got a few weeks ago (and my boy didn't even cry). After three purple hearts he went home. A little fishy, no?
If you'd open your eyes for a minute, you'd realize that you're the one who is hopeless if you buy all that as legitimate. And you'd realize that when 200+ of his peers and superiors say he's a phoney, it shouldn't be a major stretch to think that they just might be right. And you just might not know which end is up.
You, my friend, are hopeless and delusional. The nonsense your write is not worthy of debate.
I guess that's how a liberal wins a debate. Insult your "friend," and declare that his viewpoint is not even worthy of your consideration. Fortunately, the polls show that the public is starting to see through this ruse.
So Kerry's entire peer group of Swift Boat commanders and chain of command was a "kooky partisan nutjob"? And you know that how? Oh, you just assumed it. That's exactly what I thought.
Just for the record, these guys came together spontaneously as soon as they realized that Kerry had a shot at the presidency. They were only funded later to get their message out. And unlike Moveon.org, which is largely funded by some wacko billionaire, the vast majority of funding for the Swift Vets is from the average Joe. Last I heard, that's exactly how Free speech is supposed to work.
Unfit for Command does make some very damning claims about Kerry, but I find it interesting that they come primarily from people who did not serve with him directly. In comparison, the men who served on his boat with him support his side of the story (the same story supported by military records).
It comes from his fellow Swift Boat commanders who were in the other boats in his group. The idea that they did not serve "directly" with him is nonsense. Also, note that the men on his boat who are supporting him served with him for a few weeks at most. The one who served the longest, Steve Gardner, says he's a liar.
Here's another interesting question. Has anyone looked into possible payoffs to the handful of men who are supporting him? At least a couple of them have apparently quit their day jobs to campaign with him full time. I wish I could afford to do something like that!
This has all been fully vetted, and you have fallen for a scam. The reports that corroborate Kerry's version originated with Kerry himself. And many times more of Kerry's fellow sailors have disputed his version than have agreed with it. The guy who he supposedly saved was in no position to know exactly what was going on.
And the notion that 200+ sailors in Kerry's peer group and chain of command would lie about this is patently ridiculous. If Kerry came anywhere near actually *earning* all those medals, they would be praising him regardless of his or their politics. They certainly would not be orchestrating a massive lie campaign for some Republican fatcat.
Read Unfit for Command, and think for yourself. Just thinking for yourself given the undisputed facts would be a good start.
Let's consider the *undisputed* facts. Kerry spent 4 months on a Swift Boat (including one month in training). He received 3 purple hearts and a Bronze and Silver Star (if I recall correctly). His most severe wound was treated with a dab of ointment and a band-aid. Now, if you don't sense something very fishy, something is seriously wrong with your judgment.
The guy who praised Kerry 8 years ago and changed his tune recently had relied on Kerry's own dishonest report when he praised him. He has clarified this, but the media has ignored his clarification because it goes against their agenda.
I certainly don't claim to be an unsung hero, but I am a bit disappointed at how little attention my GVI (Graphical Voter Interface) has received. Check it out. I think you will like it.
The public school system was created to insure that no child goes uneducated due to lack of financial means. That admirable objective does not require all publicly funded schools to be owned and operated by the government, however, just as food stamps can prevent starvation even though the government does not own and operate a huge chain of grocery stores (at least not in the USA). Food stamps are given directly to the beneficiary, who then decides where to spend them, whereas public funding of elementary education is currently permitted only at government schools. Why the difference? The answer is painfully obvious: as long as most parents are unwilling or unable to "pay twice" for a private school, the government schools can be used to indoctrinate their children against their will. After all, many "liberals" believe that traditional religious morality constitutes dangerous bigotry that children need to be inoculated against.
Public funding of elementary education has the effect of transferring funds from wealthier families to less affluent families, but average families will break even, more or less, paying about as much in taxes toward education as is spent in their behalf for educational services. For those average families, the net effect of the government school monopoly is that the government takes money away from them in taxes, then gives it back in the form of benefits -- but with a huge string attached. The government takes away money that could have been used at any school, public or private, then it gives the money back, but on the condition that it can only be used at a government school. It all boils down to a perverse money-laundering scheme in which parental choice is washed down the drain.
The transfer of funds to lower-income families could be accomplished, without sacrificing parental choice, by simply giving parents vouchers and letting them choose for themselves where to send their children to school. The vast majority of underclass families prefer this approach, yet liberal Democratic politicians vociferously oppose it, and the teachers unions characterize it as "radical." They think they know better than parents what is best for their children. Of course, the fact that the Democrats receive huge contributions from the teachers unions is a major factor. After all, neither Bill Clinton nor Al Gore would dream of sending their own children to government schools, yet they arrogantly insist that those schools are good enough for the rest of us. (The excuses about security beg the question: why are private schools more secure than public schools?)
Opponents of school vouchers contend that they violate the First Amendment by allowing parents to spend public money at private religious schools. The First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing an official state religion, but it also guarantees religious freedom. The notion that letting parents choose religious schools somehow constitutes the establishment, or even endorsement, of a particular religion is patently absurd, as the Supreme Court has recognized. A much stronger case can be made, in fact, that it is the current system that violates religious freedom by stripping parents of their religious educational options unless they are willing and able to "pay twice." It is the current government school monopoly, not a voucher system, that violates the First Amendment.
Another phony argument used against school vouchers is that they would divert funds from the government schools and cause them to deteriorate. It is true that vouchers would divert money from government schools, but they would obviously also divert the responsibility to educate children. Vouchers are virtually always worth less than what is spent per student at the government schools, so the net effect is to increase the spending per student at the government schools. A typical elementary school might spend $7000 per student annually, for example, and vouchers might be available for up to $4000. That leave
Slashdot Mirror
Besides, genius boy, until someone who's actually credible (i.e., not the Republican usual suspects) tells me they're forged, why the hell should I believe a bunch of Fox news watching mouth breathers telling me they are?
That says it all. You're a genuine fool, dude.
Correction: Stoudt (?) was the supposed *recipient* of the memos, and he denies not only the memos but the bullshit story they purport to tell. What does it take to wake you guys up?
I guess you need to *want* to be woke up.
Dan Rather was uncovered in a week, and liberals readily admitted he was wrong. The secretary to the purported author of the documents backed up the content, claiming it to be true. Since she was directly involved with the situations in question, she is a primary source, just like real documents would be.
And the dozen or two other "real sources" in Bush's squadron have all backed Bush's story, including the guy (Stoudt?) who was the subject of the phoney memos. I guess you missed that. I wonder why. Left-wing media bias perhaps?
I knew that slashdot is full of lefty losers, but I didn't realize it was this bad. You are right: I'm wasting my time here with know-nothings like you.
Your post says it all.
By the way, I don't where the rock is that you live under, but wherever it is, the chances are good that you owe your freedom to the United States of America. You should be thankful, you despicable loser.
Bush signed a Form 180, releasing all his military records, and responsible media has reported on it extensively. On the other hand, war-hero John Kerry refuses to sign a 180. But you'd never know that by watching the "mainstream" (left-biased) media, would you. Hmmm... I wonder what Kerry is trying to hide. Don't you?
You are in the dark. Bush performed well beyond the minimum requirements for years before he took a leave of absense, which was very commonly done. The ANG had a glut of pilots at the time and were aggressively trying to get rid of them. Oh, you didn't know that? I guess your lefty sources didn't give you the relevant facts, did they? This entire episode is a classic example of left-wing media distortion. It's sad that so many of you here at slashdot fall for it hook, line, and sinker.
Gee, could it be because if he didn't no source would ever give him confidential information ever again? No. That's just crazy talk. It must be a vast left wing conspiracy to defame George W Bush. Yeah that sounds much more believable.
Oh, so Danno wants more "confidential information" from the same fake source that may cost him his career? Please tell me you aren't *really* that dumb.
Then we should also call for Fox News journalists' heads on platters, because they are trying to influence the presidential election just as much, and probably moreso than Dan Rather.
But they're not using forged documents, are they. You left out that part.
Yes, that's probably right. But did you notice that the U.S. is the lone superpower in the world? Think there's a connection?
By the way, if you read the U.S. Founding Fathers, you might just realize that they were to tthe right of Barry Goldwater. But our public schools don't teach that stuff anymore. The Chumash Indians are more important.
Hey, genius, why don't you ask yourself why Dan Rather is shielding the identity of a *fraudulent* source? What's the principle behind that? If Danno was just an innocent victim himself, then he should be mad as hell that this source is costing him his credibility and perhaps his career.
... You're not really that stupid, are you?
In case you can't put 2+2 together, Danno was probably in on the fraud -- or at least he closed his eyes and hoped for the best. And the source may lead back to the Kerry campaign. Watergate anyone?
By the way, for all you folks who think this is the first time Danno and CBS tried to do a hatchet job on Republicans, I have a bridge for sale
What absolutely amazes me is how many of the lefties here on good ol' slashdot think the media is biased to the "right." What most of them are too ignorant to realize is that that very perception is the result of fact that they have been influenced by the leftist bias in the "mainstream" media (CBS, ABS, NBC, NYT, LAT, etc.).
I wonder how many of these people believe Dan Rather when he says, OK, the documents were phoney but the story behind them is true. What kind of baloney is that? The entire story of Bush's guard service is crap. Bush served for two or three years well above and beyond the minimum requirements. Then he took a leave of absence, which was very common, especially when they had a glut of pilots at the time and were trying to get rid of them. Oh, I guess Dan forgot to mention that, eh? What a joke.
Oh, and one more thing. If Dan Rather was fooled by the fraudulent docs, why is he not as eager as hell to nail the fraud who may have cost him his career if not his credibility? Think about it, folks. No, Dan is "protecting" his fraudulent sources. What exactly could be the thinking behing that?
If you don't get it yet, you are beyond hope.
You are pathetically ignorant. Don't worry, it's common these days, particularly on slashdot. I'll bet you trust Dan Rather for objective, reliable news, and Michael Moore for unbiased commentary.
By the way, I forgot to mention something else you are no doubt ignorant of. The period when Bush was supposedly absent from service (never mind that several of his colleagues have discredited this notion) was when the war winding down and the ANG had way too many pilots and was agressively trying to get rig of them. So even if he "deserted", they would have been happy.
Also, if you read Unfit for Command you will be acutely embarrassed by your support of Kerry. I guarantee it.
I really don't have time to waste on this, but I'll try to cure you of your ignorance.
Bush flew an F-102 full time for something like 3 years, well beyond his minimal required commitment. The F-102 was a notorously dangerous aircraft, and several of Bush's fellow pilots crashed and burned right here in North America. He was in more danger than today's pilots in Iraq ever were, and quite possibly more than today's groundtroops are (I haven't done the calculation).
When Bush joined the guard, F-102 pilots from his very squadron were in Viet Nam. It was not a guaranteed out of the war. Bush even volunteered to go the Viet Nam, but he was not sent.
Kerry did got several deferments, then he joined the Naval Reserve, where he thought he was unlikely to see combat.
Kerry is a dickless self-promoter who has climbed his way to the top on the backs of his fellow soldiers whom he slandered, using his phony medals for influence and cover every step of the way. But he is about the take his party into a well-deserved bloodbath at the polls.
I'll be laughing all the way.
Bye bye.
Here are the basic facts, my friend. John Kerry served for four months on the Swift boats (one month of which was for training). He received three purple heart awards, a Bronze Star, and a Silver Star. I'll bet that's more medals in a shorter time than any military man in history -- certainly one who was never seriously injured. He never suffered any "injury" beyond what my 8-year-old boy got a few weeks ago (and my boy didn't even cry). After three purple hearts he went home. A little fishy, no?
If you'd open your eyes for a minute, you'd realize that you're the one who is hopeless if you buy all that as legitimate. And you'd realize that when 200+ of his peers and superiors say he's a phoney, it shouldn't be a major stretch to think that they just might be right. And you just might not know which end is up.
You, my friend, are hopeless and delusional. The nonsense your write is not worthy of debate.
I guess that's how a liberal wins a debate. Insult your "friend," and declare that his viewpoint is not even worthy of your consideration. Fortunately, the polls show that the public is starting to see through this ruse.
That's like saying, "Listen to Rush Limbaugh and think for yourself".
You should try it sometime. Rush is usually (but not always) right. That's why he has 20,000,000 listeners, and they are not all dummies.
So Kerry's entire peer group of Swift Boat commanders and chain of command was a "kooky partisan nutjob"? And you know that how? Oh, you just assumed it. That's exactly what I thought.
Just for the record, these guys came together spontaneously as soon as they realized that Kerry had a shot at the presidency. They were only funded later to get their message out. And unlike Moveon.org, which is largely funded by some wacko billionaire, the vast majority of funding for the Swift Vets is from the average Joe. Last I heard, that's exactly how Free speech is supposed to work.
Unfit for Command does make some very damning claims about Kerry, but I find it interesting that they come primarily from people who did not serve with him directly. In comparison, the men who served on his boat with him support his side of the story (the same story supported by military records).
It comes from his fellow Swift Boat commanders who were in the other boats in his group. The idea that they did not serve "directly" with him is nonsense. Also, note that the men on his boat who are supporting him served with him for a few weeks at most. The one who served the longest, Steve Gardner, says he's a liar.
Here's another interesting question. Has anyone looked into possible payoffs to the handful of men who are supporting him? At least a couple of them have apparently quit their day jobs to campaign with him full time. I wish I could afford to do something like that!
This has all been fully vetted, and you have fallen for a scam. The reports that corroborate Kerry's version originated with Kerry himself. And many times more of Kerry's fellow sailors have disputed his version than have agreed with it. The guy who he supposedly saved was in no position to know exactly what was going on.
And the notion that 200+ sailors in Kerry's peer group and chain of command would lie about this is patently ridiculous. If Kerry came anywhere near actually *earning* all those medals, they would be praising him regardless of his or their politics. They certainly would not be orchestrating a massive lie campaign for some Republican fatcat.
Read Unfit for Command, and think for yourself. Just thinking for yourself given the undisputed facts would be a good start.
Let's consider the *undisputed* facts. Kerry spent 4 months on a Swift Boat (including one month in training). He received 3 purple hearts and a Bronze and Silver Star (if I recall correctly). His most severe wound was treated with a dab of ointment and a band-aid. Now, if you don't sense something very fishy, something is seriously wrong with your judgment.
The guy who praised Kerry 8 years ago and changed his tune recently had relied on Kerry's own dishonest report when he praised him. He has clarified this, but the media has ignored his clarification because it goes against their agenda.
"Like those Swift Boat Vet adds. They have been completely discredited ..."
In your dreams.
I certainly don't claim to be an unsung hero, but I am a bit disappointed at how little attention my GVI (Graphical Voter Interface) has received. Check it out. I think you will like it.
End the Government School Monopoly
The public school system was created to insure that no child goes uneducated due to lack of financial means. That admirable objective does not require all publicly funded schools to be owned and operated by the government, however, just as food stamps can prevent starvation even though the government does not own and operate a huge chain of grocery stores (at least not in the USA). Food stamps are given directly to the beneficiary, who then decides where to spend them, whereas public funding of elementary education is currently permitted only at government schools. Why the difference? The answer is painfully obvious: as long as most parents are unwilling or unable to "pay twice" for a private school, the government schools can be used to indoctrinate their children against their will. After all, many "liberals" believe that traditional religious morality constitutes dangerous bigotry that children need to be inoculated against.
Public funding of elementary education has the effect of transferring funds from wealthier families to less affluent families, but average families will break even, more or less, paying about as much in taxes toward education as is spent in their behalf for educational services. For those average families, the net effect of the government school monopoly is that the government takes money away from them in taxes, then gives it back in the form of benefits -- but with a huge string attached. The government takes away money that could have been used at any school, public or private, then it gives the money back, but on the condition that it can only be used at a government school. It all boils down to a perverse money-laundering scheme in which parental choice is washed down the drain.
The transfer of funds to lower-income families could be accomplished, without sacrificing parental choice, by simply giving parents vouchers and letting them choose for themselves where to send their children to school. The vast majority of underclass families prefer this approach, yet liberal Democratic politicians vociferously oppose it, and the teachers unions characterize it as "radical." They think they know better than parents what is best for their children. Of course, the fact that the Democrats receive huge contributions from the teachers unions is a major factor. After all, neither Bill Clinton nor Al Gore would dream of sending their own children to government schools, yet they arrogantly insist that those schools are good enough for the rest of us. (The excuses about security beg the question: why are private schools more secure than public schools?)
Opponents of school vouchers contend that they violate the First Amendment by allowing parents to spend public money at private religious schools. The First Amendment prohibits the government from establishing an official state religion, but it also guarantees religious freedom. The notion that letting parents choose religious schools somehow constitutes the establishment, or even endorsement, of a particular religion is patently absurd, as the Supreme Court has recognized. A much stronger case can be made, in fact, that it is the current system that violates religious freedom by stripping parents of their religious educational options unless they are willing and able to "pay twice." It is the current government school monopoly, not a voucher system, that violates the First Amendment.
Another phony argument used against school vouchers is that they would divert funds from the government schools and cause them to deteriorate. It is true that vouchers would divert money from government schools, but they would obviously also divert the responsibility to educate children. Vouchers are virtually always worth less than what is spent per student at the government schools, so the net effect is to increase the spending per student at the government schools. A typical elementary school might spend $7000 per student annually, for example, and vouchers might be available for up to $4000. That leave