White Knight

Who is this guy?  I've seriously never heard of him and I've followed politics most of my life.  lol.  Ammusing read though.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'm not sure what the guys real name is but the language filter obviously altered it from whatever it was to truckyamama. I guess chalk one more victory for censureship!

(btw, Fat I am not griping about the lang filter, I just think this is HILARIOUS)

Yeh this isn't a flip flop ZD...of course I'm still trying to figure out when exactly changing your mind after learning more informaiton became a bad thing...

Bush administration has used 27 rationales for war in Iraq, study says.

I read a snippet about this on USAToday...and decided to look it up.

http://www.news.uiuc.edu/news/04/0510war.html

Interesting...

So the student decided to host her thesis online:

Executive summary http://www.pol.uiuc.edu/news/largio_execsum.pdf

Thesis http://www.pol.uiuc.edu/news/largio_thesis.pdf

The ES is only 4 pages long and I'd encourage everyone to read it.

Before I comment further I'm going to work my way through the entire 212 page thesis.

That is DEFINATELY watch being sarcastic.

It has been linked in these forums several times. After 9/11 and before we invaded the Russians provided us intelligence stating he was planning attacks on Americans, here and abroad. Also he tried to have Bush Sr. killed in the past.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Your CNN link did not say that. Please go back to it and edit your remark to accurately reflect your source.

I can' t vouch for all of those, but most of those I know to be accurate. The land of Iraq had been the craddle of civilization for 4000 years. Iraq hadn't of course, because it was created by the Allies at the end of WWI.

and he has now changed his stance, like always, and promotes democracy after saying it was not a priority.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Please explain how that is chaning his stance?

Also,

and I had the original quote...that took a lot...

That's not a quote smarty.

In closing, your new favorite sight Weekly Standard appears to be a perfect example as to why I encourage people to only post from real news sites. They post incorrect and deliberately misleading information.

How did that show my initial tally was wrong? 1 of your five wasn't even a quote, another wasn't even from Kerry.

It is a waste of time for you to actually prove something that you type? Or is it simply that you already know that you are unable to prove what you say and make excuses as to why not?

That is what he does best, changes his stance to suit the group in front of him...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Where? He didn't change his stance here. He didn't even make a statement in this article.

Why shouldn't he be sued? He is the one who through the chair?

David Rinetti, A's vice president of stadium operations, said Tuesday a review of the ninth-inning fracas the night before -- which took place in the field box seats between the Texas dugout and bullpen -- showed the fans' behavior wasn't over the line according to baseball's rules of conduct that are posted at every ballpark entrance.

 

The incident became ugly when players approached the seating area," Rinetti said before the teams played the second game of the four-game series.

 

He noted the fans didn't yell racial slurs or swear at the Texas players.

So basically this was 100% the Rangers fault I think he's saying.

Uneducated and 3rd world?

Dude, Bin Laden is the son of a multi billionaire....his father could afford all the kids.

Btw, what does 55 kids have to do with 3rd world?

If you are going to accuse me of inaccurate calculations, then I encourage you to prove it.

Uhh dude, how can Kerry change his stance that he didn't state?

FYI, not campeign's statement, it was "a" campeign spokesperson's statement.

And if we are to hold candidate's and thier spokepeople to single statements, then Bush is saving the world from democracy.

That's exactly what I said when I souls post...I wonder what the "...Russia" is.

I tried to track down the original quote from WP in May and let me tell you what I found.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A...anguage=printer

First, that quote isn't a quote...its a paraphrase. The real article is actually really interesting, and I encourage yall to read it. But needless to say, he was simply stating that his priority would be US Security over spread of democracy.

Sen. John F. Kerry indicated that as president he would play down the promotion of democracy as a leading goal in dealing with Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, China and Russia, instead focusing on other objectives that he said are more central to the United States' security.

In essence, that article is bub-kiss.

Thank you, come again.

It is garbage? Perhaps you do not like the conservative viewpoints but the article is well documented and has all the sources in it for fact checking.

 

I forgot to link the source when I posted it, I readily gave it when you pointed that out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well documented? Your entire article is based off of a single quote from a spokesman...Kerry didn't even say it.

If a single quote denotes a complex position then someone needs to go post a huge article on Bush stating that his quest is to save the world from democracy. Man what a horrible postition! This Bush guy is nuts...

I'd like to see what you come up with if you do a few more articles.  One article is reason to look further.  It's an intriguing reason, but just a reason.  Post up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I'll do that when I get a chance. The analysis of a single article took a lot longer than I had anticipated (almost an hour to get the same count twice).

Soul, if you doubt my results, feel free to do your own tabulation. As for the AP article, its an article posted on Fox News website, my only requirement in selection.

So I had a thought today...I'd test Outfoxed theory about Fox having heavy Conservative bias, but I'd do it scientifically.

I decided that I would find a Fox Kerry/Bush article and do a tabulation. Giving this much thought, I deciding on counting the following things:

1 & 2. Candidate A quotes critisizing Candidate B.

3 & 4. Candidate A general quotes (non-issue related).

5 & 6. Candidate A issue quote (non attack).

7 & 8. Paraphrazed quote by Candidate A.

9 & 10. Non-quote Candidate A critisizng Candidate B.

11 & 12. Remark critisizing candidate A (from Author or other)

13 & 14. Positive remark about candidate A (from Author or other)

15 & 16. # of Sentances where Candidate A is the subject.

(I want to apologize ahead of time if I make an addition mistakes. Obviously no computer can be used to tabulate this easily).

I will count each occurance of each of these as one point for the candidate that it is beneficial for.

So, I went to foxnews.com and clicked on the first Kerry vs Bush Article I could find:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,132637,00.html

Here we go:

1 Bush critisizing Kerry 11

2 Kerry critisizing Bush 4

3 Bush general quote 1

4 Kerry general quote 0

5 Bush issue (non attack) quote 1

6 Kerry issue (non attack) quote 1

7 Paraphrased Bush quote 6

8 Paraphrased Kerry quote 2

9 Non quoted action of Bush critisizing Kerry 5

10 Non quoted action of Kerry critisizing Bush 0

11 Remark critisizing Bush 2

12 Remark critisizing Kerry 1

13 Positive Remark about Bush 1

14 Positive Remark about Kerry 0

15 # of Sentences with Bush as the subject 22

16 # of Sentences with Kerry as the subject 7

This a result:

Kerry: 16

Bush: 48

I think we have a clear winner here. Please feel free to perform your own tally and post it here, or discuss. I gotta run now, but I think I might try this on another article later.

Please post links to your articles as you post them so we can understand the credentials of the author.

As for the article...impressive bias.

Spin #1. I'm pretty sure that Kerry's vietnam service records are public record...so Kerry wouldn't be releasing them. As for his Journal, well I think its probably acceptable for that to be private. So we have spin here.

Spin #2. Kerry wouldn't be the one releasing records for a classified briefing...because its classified. Kerry would not have the authority to release those records.

Spin #3. Secret Tax returns? No, those are private records and Kerry has already released his, as is required by law.

Spin #4. Medical files are private records as well.

5. "diplomatic missions" is a new one on me. I'd love to see where that came from.

6. "hats"? This is kinda silly.

Spin #7 "He needs to be interviewed by the media to prove that he's up to the task. " I find it ironic that in an article that cites Kerry from a news conference and an interview the author is implying that Kerry doesn't take interviews.

That article is just a bit biased for my tastes. With a tone like it has, I doubt it would convince anyone not already opposed to Kerry that Kerry was bad.

Interesting, a mandatory period of national service. I honestly like that idea...though I have no doubt that the language will allow senators children to perform their service period while working on daddy's campeign.

Another question...what good is an assult rifle going to do against our military?

 

Bradley > AK

Unfortunately, if you want an example of this: look at Chechnya. Those rebels (now dubbed terrorists) simply want freedom from their oppressive government, and since they cannot stand up to them in the field, have taken another route.

I also do not believe that the government could gain enough control over the military to become oppressive of it's own people.

I wish I was as optimistic as you.

OIC...what hes campeigning on...not what we predict will happen. I get it. Thanks gond.

You and soul have picked up the bad habbit of terming everything I do as moderator abuse. As with every other member of the forums, if you feel I step out of line, then report the post. Otherwise you are told specifically to let it go.

Which unprovable accusation was that? Bush himself admits to being an alcoholic before he quit in 1978 (IIRC on the exact year).

"50 ways..." Pro USA? Did you even read what it says there? Of course not.

Did you? Its an advertisement for a book on starting grass roots politics.

Once again you've made statements that you are unable or unwilling to back up.

1. I asked you to back up you statement that MoveOn.org was a "liberal" .

2. I asked you to define what a "liberal" was.

Go "move on" if you are unwilling to debate.