He would not have to sell it, only place it in a blind trust which he has no control over. This is typically what captains of industry do when they go into politics.
why would you stick such a crappy video card into an otherwise decent box?
Because I wasn't thinking about video games when I built the system, so I just slapped the first Linux compatible video card on hand into the system. I've another system with a slower processer but a higher end Radeon video card. Perhaps I should swap the cards around.
Regardless, the current configuration has been providing reasonable frame rates for my own OpenGL programming projects, so I haven't had a compelling reason to make the switch. Using a lower end video card could actually be considered a good thing during game development; it forces the programmer to write efficient code and not lean on the hardware too much, making the game accessible to more people and allowing it to play even better on higher end systems.
Mixing OpenGL and DX9 in the same game seems like it would be counter-productive. Combining OpenGL for 3D graphics with SDL for cross-platform support of game controllers, soumd, threading, etc seems like a much more productive way to go. I've been doing that in my own game development (look for a realease in late October) and it has made it amazingly easy to compile a single code base to Linux, Mac, and Windows.
Grumble. My Doom3 box is sitting on my shelf until the Linux binaries come out. As much as I love ID I feel ripped off right now.
I won't buy Doom III until the Linux version is available for download. I am looking forward to seeing how it runs on my 2.8Ghz hyperthreaded P4 system with 1GB RAM, GeForce FX 5200 video, and high end Audigy sound card. I'm getting tired of Tux Racer.:)
I am not buying Doom III until the Linux version is available for download. That was originally promised about a week after the Windows release... but I still don't see it. Any word from ID on this?
Personally, I think the polls are missing the big story this election: voter turnout. I am seeing a lot more young people being politically active, I expect that could swing the vote in unexpected ways.
Lemme guess, you're Republican and want Bush to win Florida?
Nader has made it onto the ballot here in Wisconsin also (where the polls indicate a very close race), but he is running as an independent here. Unfortunetly, many people seem to have missed that detail and will likely vote for him with the idea that they are voting for a third party candidate, trying to push the numbers up to the that all-important 5 percent needed to reach *real* party status. I've already personally talked to two people who were planning to vote Nader under that misconception.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for third party and independent candidates... I've often voted that way in the past. I just think it is important people really know what they are voting for.
This looks like a good way to see if past presidents have fulfilled their election promises by looking at their agenda in commercials. One thing that sticks out in my mind is the "Rats" commercial in 2000, which was about Bush's prescription drug benefit plan. How did that work out, seeing how some have resorted to getting pharmaceuticals from Canada and elsewhere?
My retired parents were directly effected by this legislation and they say it is a horrible mess. They used to vote republican but are voting democrat this year with that as one of the main reasons.
I have my own reasons to vote against Bush, such as:
He left the job unfinished in Afganistan, didn't catch Bin Ladin, but instead enganged in an expensive and ill-planned war in Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction that were not there. All he really managed to accomplish was drive a wedge between America and its allies, weaken NATO, increase anti-American sentiment to unprecedented levels, and drive up terrorist recruiting.
He has made us even more dependent on foreign oil. His energy policy was crafted by Enron in secret meetings with Cheney. It gives billions of dollars to entrenched oil interests while nearly ignoring conservation and alternative fuels.
He rolled back environmental laws and increased the amount of mercury and cyanide being released into the environment. He is opening our wilderness preserves to development and logging.
He passed the Patriot Act and is pushing even worse legislation that seriously undermines our personal freedoms. He claimes the terrorists attack us because we stand for freedom, yet he is working to undermine those very values that make us great. you know, little things like judicial oversite of the police, protection from unwarranted search and seizure, right to a fair and open trial, the right to be secure in our own homes.
He ran up a record deficit, after inheriting a surplus from the previous administration. The dot com bust and additional necessary spending on defense can account for some of that, but the deficit could have been contained at a more reasonable 90 billion instead of the half a trillion it has now become. A tax cut paid for with borrowed money is not really a tax cut, any more than taking cash advances on your credit card is a 'pay raise'.
I've usually considered myself politically independent. There are things about both major parties that I like and dislike. There have been republicans politicians that I have admired and respected. It is George W. Bush that is the problem. He is hurting not only our nation, but the credibility of the republican party (at least with me). Kerry has been admittedly bad at getting his message out, but his record in the senate is still far better than Bush's four years as president. Unfortunately, Bush's talent at spin and self marketing could mean we will be stuck with his poor leadership for another four years.
In every presidential election covered by television, the candidate with the most campaign money has become President.
Yes, and it is unfortante because 30 second commercial spots are absolutely the worst way to inform yourself about the issues. The best resource I have found so far is FactCheck.org, a non-partison voter advocacy site affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania. They examine the various ads and claims made by candidates and do an excellent job separating fact from fiction. They debunk the Republican's swift boat ads. They also deconstruct the Democrat's spin on the economic numbers. All in all, a vary balanced and well researched web site.
Odd, I thought that ALL the vets that served with him stood behind him on stage and endorsed him. Oh, you mean the same swift boat vets that went on TV and outright lied and said they served with him even though they have never even met. FactCheck.org does an excellent job deconstructing the Swift Boat smear campaign. Yes, it is another Karl Rove hatchet job like the McCaine attack you mentioned. Unfornately it is working... Bush's recent surge in the polls is likely in no small part because of the these ads.
bush has put american in such a recession, not to mention his spending on iraq which put america in a huge debt, he could have used that money right here, to fix problems in USA.
Here here. There was a great chart recently (in the New York Times I think) that showed how the money we 've spent in Iraq could be better spent here on home... on things like better border security, more cops on the street, etc. Very sobering.
Bush has completely screwed up in the war on terror. He left things unfinished in Afghanistan, Bin Ladin is still at large, no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, increasing violence in Iraq, rising anti-American sentiment throughout the world, and strained relations with our allies. The Bush administration keeps beating the drum about what a steady and determined leader he is... but is anyone paying attention to where he is leading us?
In Bush's convention speach he went on about all the stuff he would do in the next four years. Reduce the deficit, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, protect the environment, and make us safer from terrorism... but he had the last four years to accomplish that and he did the exact opposite. He rolled back environmental protections, ran up a record deficit, adopted an energy policy drafted by Enron, and engaged in a illconceived, preemptive war that has become a recruiting poster for the terrorists. And we are suposed believe he will do better in the next four years?
This process actually accelerated under CLinton. Clinton was a better Republican than Eisenhower, or maybe even Nixon.
Funny, I have a very liberal friend who says almost the same thing. I don't think I would go so far, but I Clinton certainly ran rather far to the middle. That was cool with me, as I'm rather centrist myself. Of course with the neocons now in the Whitehouse, I feel like a tree huggin hippy liberal or something.
All politicians are liars. I'd rather have Clinton as president and get a balanced budget instead of national health care versus a talking chimpanzee promising whatever he's promising and getting "National Security".
I've been recommending people to FactCheck.org to see past all the political spin and really learn about the issues before the election. Factcheck is a non-partisan voter advocacy group that does a great job of separating fact from fiction in the midst of all the mudslinging going on.
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.
Yes, let's examine the undisputed facts. Kerry spent four months in Vietnam (four months more than Bush). He received 5 metals (5 more than Bush). Kerry didn't exactly just grab those metals from a bin at the PX, his superiors had to decide they were deserved. Ok, so maybe you think Kerry should have lost a limb or something before he got his purple hearts. The Navy does not agree with you, but you are welcome to your opinion. This still does not wash away the facts that he was awarded both the bronze and silver stars.
Again, if you really want to know the truth about how those metals were awarded, you can read the complete military records and interviews with the witnesses (including the swift boat vets for truth) at the non-partisan voter's advocacy site factcheck.org. They lay it all out quite clearly.
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.
So what exactly makes George Soros as a 'wacko billionaire'? If he was conservative instead of liberal would he be 'eccentric' instead? BTW, while he is the largest contributor to MoveOn, he has contributed less than 2 million of the over 17 million they have collected from individual donors.
As for the Swift Boat Vets... I still assert that this 'spontaneous' group has Karl Roves fingerprints all over it. FactCheck discusses some of this, but they are more concerned with the validity of the assertions being made. Others have discussed the Swift Boat / Rove Bush link in more depth, and some web searching will likely turn up the conspiracy theories if you are really curious.
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.
Would this be the same Steve Gardner who also admitted he was not actually on the boat during the times Kerry earned his metals? Gardner claims that Kerry did not deserve the bronze star for saving lieutenant Jim Rassmann, but Gardner was not on the boat during that incident. Perhaps we should instead listen to someone who was there. Mr. Rassmann has this to say:
Rassmann said he recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for that action, and learned only later that the Bronze Star had been awarded instead. "To this day I still believe he deserved the Silver Star for his courage," he wrote. Rassmann described himself as a retired lieutenant with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. "I am a Republican, and for more than 30 years I have largely voted for Republicans," Rassmann said. But he said Kerry "will be a great commander in chief."
The swift boat vets for truth have tried to claim that Kerry's boat was not under fire during the events, despite what the public record says. Assuming partisan leanings or back room deals might influence someone's recollection, it would be best to take the word of a witness who was independently contacted by a neutral third party. Thankfully we have just that.
On Aug. 22 the Washington Post quoted a new eyewitness in support of Kerry's version. The Post said it had independently contacted Wayne D. Langhofer, who manned a machine gun aboard PCF-43, the boat directly behind Kerry's, and that Langhofer said he distinctly remembered the "clack, clack, clack" of enemy AK-47 assault rifles.
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.
Have you even read the analysis at FactCheck.org? Let me remind you that factcheck is a non-partisan voter advocacy group affiliated with the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. They have often been as equally critical of Democrats as they have of Republicans. They have a very detailed analysis of this issue. It even includes PDF's of all the signed affidavits, the military citations, and interviews with the various parties involved.
Read Unfit for Command, and think for yourself. Just thinking for yourself given the undisputed facts would be a good start.
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).
I do believe that many of the vets bashing Kerry have a real ax to grind, but it appears to come from his criticism of the war after he got home rather than how he served when was there. Stir in some partisan politics and watch the mudslinging begin.
Trust me, I plan on turning just as critical an eye to the new Texans for Truth add that is coming out. I expect it will have equally partisan roots.
Of course it later came out that the Kerry Campaign and MoveOn.org shared the same lawyer too when this same Kerry/MoveOn.org lawyer publically defended the Bush/Swift Boat lawyer's ability to act independently while handling both accounts.
MoveOn.org was created during the Clinton administration by a couple of married computer professionals. Its original purpose was to organize a petition to skip the impeachment of the President so the country could 'move on' to more important issues. It has since grown, taken on new goals, and attracted the attention of various notable liberals, including George Soros (who donated a sizable chunk of money to them). While there has been some movement of staff between MoveOn and other liberal organizations, it seems to be mainly in the direction of Democratic candidates hiring away people who have shown talent as a volunteer.
Contrast this with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which was only recently created to take down John Kerry, and which has many ties to Karl Rove and the Bush Campaign. It shows all the tipical fingerprints of a Rove operation, even using many of the same people he used when attacking John McCain in the primaries. There was a wonderful New York Times graphic showing all the links to the Bush Campaign... I wish now that I had bookmarked it. I probably still have it in my email at work and could post it tomorrow if anyone is interested.
If there was even a hint that Bush has been involved in a conspiracy to murder US Senators, the mainstream media would be dogging him until he resigned. Even if Kerry did indeed resign in disgust after the plan was voted down, one has to wonder why a man who now wants to be President didn't immediately report the plot to the FBI.
I just read the article you pointed to, and I think you misrepresent it. Nothing was ever 'voted on'. Lets quote the relevant part.
At this meeting, a VVAW member named Scott Camil advocated the assassination of certain politicians who favored continuing the war, including Senators Strom Thurmond, John Stennis, and John Tower. This idea was quickly shouted down and was never seriously discussed.
Yup, some plot Kerry was involved in. I agree though, this election is spending too much time on events that happened decades ago and not enough on the hear and now.
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.
This argument only has merit if Kerry's version of the story was truly dishonest, but the evidence shows otherwise.
But they haven't been completely discredited. And since you didn't offer any proof of your assertion, I won't either. nyah nyah.
Several of the original swift boat vets for thruth members have recanted their stories. Other vets have come forward saying they were interviewed by the organization, but their testimony was not used becuase it confirmed John Kerry's story (which matches official Navy records). There is even video footage of one of the swift boat vets for truth completely contradicting his current story; eight years ago he praised Kerry and described Kerry's heroism under enemy fire. Rather than reproduce all the sources here, I will refer you to the great work done at FactCheck.org. They have a well researched and footnoted analysis of the swiftboat claims:
There has also been huge amounts of evidence that the sift boat vets for thruth have direct ties to the Bush campaign (a violation of campaign finance law if true). The web off connections has been document in the New Your Times as well as various web sites.
The part I liked best was his rif on 30 second commercial spots. They do nothing to inform the voters, yet they are often the thing that swings the election. They are a primary reason money has become such a huge corrupting influence in politics. Like those Swift Boat Vet adds. They have been completely discredited, but many people will never learn that part of it and only remember the adds themselves. This is why I urge people to do a few google news searches and inform yourselves of the issues before going in the voting booth.
The best part about the parent is that he[?] isn't actually trolling - he's just fucking retarded.
SATIRE!
Should we really be engaging in satire over such a sacred and important subject as our democratic process? It might be a distraction from the really important issues... like the fact that Bush is being supported by space aliens!:) wwww.AliensForBush.com/
Slashdot Mirror
He would not have to sell it, only place it in a blind trust which he has no control over. This is typically what captains of industry do when they go into politics.
why would you stick such a crappy video card into an otherwise decent box?
Because I wasn't thinking about video games when I built the system, so I just slapped the first Linux compatible video card on hand into the system. I've another system with a slower processer but a higher end Radeon video card. Perhaps I should swap the cards around.
Regardless, the current configuration has been providing reasonable frame rates for my own OpenGL programming projects, so I haven't had a compelling reason to make the switch. Using a lower end video card could actually be considered a good thing during game development; it forces the programmer to write efficient code and not lean on the hardware too much, making the game accessible to more people and allowing it to play even better on higher end systems.
Mixing OpenGL and DX9 in the same game seems like it would be counter-productive. Combining OpenGL for 3D graphics with SDL for cross-platform support of game controllers, soumd, threading, etc seems like a much more productive way to go. I've been doing that in my own game development (look for a realease in late October) and it has made it amazingly easy to compile a single code base to Linux, Mac, and Windows.
Grumble. My Doom3 box is sitting on my shelf until the Linux binaries come out. As much as I love ID I feel ripped off right now.
:)
I won't buy Doom III until the Linux version is available for download. I am looking forward to seeing how it runs on my 2.8Ghz hyperthreaded P4 system with 1GB RAM, GeForce FX 5200 video, and high end Audigy sound card. I'm getting tired of Tux Racer.
I am not buying Doom III until the Linux version is available for download. That was originally promised about a week after the Windows release... but I still don't see it. Any word from ID on this?
Personally, I think the polls are missing the big story this election: voter turnout. I am seeing a lot more young people being politically active, I expect that could swing the vote in unexpected ways.
Lemme guess, you're Republican and want Bush to win Florida?
Nader has made it onto the ballot here in Wisconsin also (where the polls indicate a very close race), but he is running as an independent here. Unfortunetly, many people seem to have missed that detail and will likely vote for him with the idea that they are voting for a third party candidate, trying to push the numbers up to the that all-important 5 percent needed to reach *real* party status. I've already personally talked to two people who were planning to vote Nader under that misconception.
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for third party and independent candidates... I've often voted that way in the past. I just think it is important people really know what they are voting for.
My retired parents were directly effected by this legislation and they say it is a horrible mess. They used to vote republican but are voting democrat this year with that as one of the main reasons.
I have my own reasons to vote against Bush, such as:
He left the job unfinished in Afganistan, didn't catch Bin Ladin, but instead enganged in an expensive and ill-planned war in Iraq to find weapons of mass destruction that were not there. All he really managed to accomplish was drive a wedge between America and its allies, weaken NATO, increase anti-American sentiment to unprecedented levels, and drive up terrorist recruiting.
He has made us even more dependent on foreign oil. His energy policy was crafted by Enron in secret meetings with Cheney. It gives billions of dollars to entrenched oil interests while nearly ignoring conservation and alternative fuels.
He rolled back environmental laws and increased the amount of mercury and cyanide being released into the environment. He is opening our wilderness preserves to development and logging.
He passed the Patriot Act and is pushing even worse legislation that seriously undermines our personal freedoms. He claimes the terrorists attack us because we stand for freedom, yet he is working to undermine those very values that make us great. you know, little things like judicial oversite of the police, protection from unwarranted search and seizure, right to a fair and open trial, the right to be secure in our own homes.
He ran up a record deficit, after inheriting a surplus from the previous administration. The dot com bust and additional necessary spending on defense can account for some of that, but the deficit could have been contained at a more reasonable 90 billion instead of the half a trillion it has now become. A tax cut paid for with borrowed money is not really a tax cut, any more than taking cash advances on your credit card is a 'pay raise'.
I've usually considered myself politically independent. There are things about both major parties that I like and dislike. There have been republicans politicians that I have admired and respected. It is George W. Bush that is the problem. He is hurting not only our nation, but the credibility of the republican party (at least with me). Kerry has been admittedly bad at getting his message out, but his record in the senate is still far better than Bush's four years as president. Unfortunately, Bush's talent at spin and self marketing could mean we will be stuck with his poor leadership for another four years.
Good thing the aliens will bail us out.
In every presidential election covered by television, the candidate with the most campaign money has become President.
Yes, and it is unfortante because 30 second commercial spots are absolutely the worst way to inform yourself about the issues. The best resource I have found so far is FactCheck.org, a non-partison voter advocacy site affiliated with the University of Pennsylvania. They examine the various ads and claims made by candidates and do an excellent job separating fact from fiction. They debunk the Republican's swift boat ads. They also deconstruct the Democrat's spin on the economic numbers. All in all, a vary balanced and well researched web site.
The candidate that will advance our understanding of the universe is obvious... only one them is being supported by space aliens!
Cheers.
Interesting. I point out an analysis from a non-partisan voter-advocacy group and get labeled a 'troll'.
Odd, I thought that ALL the vets that served with him stood behind him on stage and endorsed him. Oh, you mean the same swift boat vets that went on TV and outright lied and said they served with him even though they have never even met.
FactCheck.org does an excellent job deconstructing the Swift Boat smear campaign. Yes, it is another Karl Rove hatchet job like the McCaine attack you mentioned. Unfornately it is working... Bush's recent surge in the polls is likely in no small part because of the these ads.
bush has put american in such a recession, not to mention his spending on iraq which put america in a huge debt, he could have used that money right here, to fix problems in USA.
Here here. There was a great chart recently (in the New York Times I think) that showed how the money we 've spent in Iraq could be better spent here on home... on things like better border security, more cops on the street, etc. Very sobering.
Bush has completely screwed up in the war on terror. He left things unfinished in Afghanistan, Bin Ladin is still at large, no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, increasing violence in Iraq, rising anti-American sentiment throughout the world, and strained relations with our allies. The Bush administration keeps beating the drum about what a steady and determined leader he is... but is anyone paying attention to where he is leading us?
In Bush's convention speach he went on about all the stuff he would do in the next four years. Reduce the deficit, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, protect the environment, and make us safer from terrorism... but he had the last four years to accomplish that and he did the exact opposite. He rolled back environmental protections, ran up a record deficit, adopted an energy policy drafted by Enron, and engaged in a illconceived, preemptive war that has become a recruiting poster for the terrorists. And we are suposed believe he will do better in the next four years?
This process actually accelerated under CLinton. Clinton was a better Republican than Eisenhower, or maybe even Nixon.
Funny, I have a very liberal friend who says almost the same thing. I don't think I would go so far, but I Clinton certainly ran rather far to the middle. That was cool with me, as I'm rather centrist myself. Of course with the neocons now in the Whitehouse, I feel like a tree huggin hippy liberal or something.
All politicians are liars. I'd rather have Clinton as president and get a balanced budget instead of national health care versus a talking chimpanzee promising whatever he's promising and getting "National Security".
I've been recommending people to FactCheck.org to see past all the political spin and really learn about the issues before the election. Factcheck is a non-partisan voter advocacy group that does a great job of separating fact from fiction in the midst of all the mudslinging going on.
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.
Yes, let's examine the undisputed facts. Kerry spent four months in Vietnam (four months more than Bush). He received 5 metals (5 more than Bush). Kerry didn't exactly just grab those metals from a bin at the PX, his superiors had to decide they were deserved. Ok, so maybe you think Kerry should have lost a limb or something before he got his purple hearts. The Navy does not agree with you, but you are welcome to your opinion. This still does not wash away the facts that he was awarded both the bronze and silver stars.
Again, if you really want to know the truth about how those metals were awarded, you can read the complete military records and interviews with the witnesses (including the swift boat vets for truth) at the non-partisan voter's advocacy site factcheck.org. They lay it all out quite clearly.
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.
So what exactly makes George Soros as a 'wacko billionaire'? If he was conservative instead of liberal would he be 'eccentric' instead? BTW, while he is the largest contributor to MoveOn, he has contributed less than 2 million of the over 17 million they have collected from individual donors.
As for the Swift Boat Vets... I still assert that this 'spontaneous' group has Karl Roves fingerprints all over it. FactCheck discusses some of this, but they are more concerned with the validity of the assertions being made. Others have discussed the Swift Boat / Rove Bush link in more depth, and some web searching will likely turn up the conspiracy theories if you are really curious.
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.
Would this be the same Steve Gardner who also admitted he was not actually on the boat during the times Kerry earned his metals? Gardner claims that Kerry did not deserve the bronze star for saving lieutenant Jim Rassmann, but Gardner was not on the boat during that incident. Perhaps we should instead listen to someone who was there. Mr. Rassmann has this to say:
Rassmann said he recommended Kerry for the Silver Star for that action, and learned only later that the Bronze Star had been awarded instead. "To this day I still believe he deserved the Silver Star for his courage," he wrote. Rassmann described himself as a retired lieutenant with the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department. "I am a Republican, and for more than 30 years I have largely voted for Republicans," Rassmann said. But he said Kerry "will be a great commander in chief."
The swift boat vets for truth have tried to claim that Kerry's boat was not under fire during the events, despite what the public record says. Assuming partisan leanings or back room deals might influence someone's recollection, it would be best to take the word of a witness who was independently contacted by a neutral third party. Thankfully we have just that.
On Aug. 22 the Washington Post quoted a new eyewitness in support of Kerry's version. The Post said it had independently contacted Wayne D. Langhofer, who manned a machine gun aboard PCF-43, the boat directly behind Kerry's, and that Langhofer said he distinctly remembered the "clack, clack, clack" of enemy AK-47 assault rifles.
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.
Have you even read the analysis at FactCheck.org? Let me remind you that factcheck is a non-partisan voter advocacy group affiliated with the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. They have often been as equally critical of Democrats as they have of Republicans. They have a very detailed analysis of this issue. It even includes PDF's of all the signed affidavits, the military citations, and interviews with the various parties involved.
Read Unfit for Command, and think for yourself. Just thinking for yourself given the undisputed facts would be a good start.
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).
I do believe that many of the vets bashing Kerry have a real ax to grind, but it appears to come from his criticism of the war after he got home rather than how he served when was there. Stir in some partisan politics and watch the mudslinging begin.
Trust me, I plan on turning just as critical an eye to the new Texans for Truth add that is coming out. I expect it will have equally partisan roots.
Cheees
Of course it later came out that the Kerry Campaign and MoveOn.org shared the same lawyer too when this same Kerry/MoveOn.org lawyer publically defended the Bush/Swift Boat lawyer's ability to act independently while handling both accounts.
MoveOn.org was created during the Clinton administration by a couple of married computer professionals. Its original purpose was to organize a petition to skip the impeachment of the President so the country could 'move on' to more important issues. It has since grown, taken on new goals, and attracted the attention of various notable liberals, including George Soros (who donated a sizable chunk of money to them). While there has been some movement of staff between MoveOn and other liberal organizations, it seems to be mainly in the direction of Democratic candidates hiring away people who have shown talent as a volunteer.
Contrast this with the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, which was only recently created to take down John Kerry, and which has many ties to Karl Rove and the Bush Campaign. It shows all the tipical fingerprints of a Rove operation, even using many of the same people he used when attacking John McCain in the primaries. There was a wonderful New York Times graphic showing all the links to the Bush Campaign... I wish now that I had bookmarked it. I probably still have it in my email at work and could post it tomorrow if anyone is interested.
If there was even a hint that Bush has been involved in a conspiracy to murder US Senators, the mainstream media would be dogging him until he resigned. Even if Kerry did indeed resign in disgust after the plan was voted down, one has to wonder why a man who now wants to be President didn't immediately report the plot to the FBI.
I just read the article you pointed to, and I think you misrepresent it. Nothing was ever 'voted on'. Lets quote the relevant part.
At this meeting, a VVAW member named Scott Camil advocated the assassination of certain politicians who favored continuing the war, including Senators Strom Thurmond, John Stennis, and John Tower. This idea was quickly shouted down and was never seriously discussed.
Yup, some plot Kerry was involved in. I agree though, this election is spending too much time on events that happened decades ago and not enough on the hear and now.
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.
This argument only has merit if Kerry's version of the story was truly dishonest, but the evidence shows otherwise.
But they haven't been completely discredited.
And since you didn't offer any proof of your assertion, I won't either. nyah nyah.
Several of the original swift boat vets for thruth members have recanted their stories. Other vets have come forward saying they were interviewed by the organization, but their testimony was not used becuase it confirmed John Kerry's story (which matches official Navy records). There is even video footage of one of the swift boat vets for truth completely contradicting his current story; eight years ago he praised Kerry and described Kerry's heroism under enemy fire. Rather than reproduce all the sources here, I will refer you to the great work done at FactCheck.org. They have a well researched and footnoted analysis of the swiftboat claims:
Fact Check looks into Swift Vets.
There has also been huge amounts of evidence that the sift boat vets for thruth have direct ties to the Bush campaign (a violation of campaign finance law if true). The web off connections has been document in the New Your Times as well as various web sites.
Cheers,
Thad
The part I liked best was his rif on 30 second commercial spots. They do nothing to inform the voters, yet they are often the thing that swings the election. They are a primary reason money has become such a huge corrupting influence in politics. Like those Swift Boat Vet adds. They have been completely discredited, but many people will never learn that part of it and only remember the adds themselves. This is why I urge people to do a few google news searches and inform yourselves of the issues before going in the voting booth.
The best part about the parent is that he[?] isn't actually trolling - he's just fucking retarded.
:) wwww.AliensForBush.com/
SATIRE!
Should we really be engaging in satire over such a sacred and important subject as our democratic process? It might be a distraction from the really important issues... like the fact that Bush is being supported by space aliens!