|
Post by Gorf on Oct 28, 2004 12:17:49 GMT -5
[quote author=BiK link=board=news&thread=1098725192&start=13#0 date=1098980856]Gorf why didn't you cite the source of the article as The New York Times? Could it be because the Times broke the phoney story to begin with in an attempt to sway voters ala CBS News and "Rathergate"? Nobody is sure the explosives were even there you doof!. Just another example of desperation on the part of Kerry and his supporters in the media.
[/quote]
Isn't ironic that you're still citing "Rathergate"?
Rather makes a mistake, admits it, and the "conservatives" call for him to be fired.
Bush / Cheney make a plethora of mistakes, refuse to even admit or discuss their mistakes and the "conservatives" call for 4 more years.
Another irony is Bush trying to call Kerry on the carpet for not waiting until he knows "all the facts" on the missing explosives when Bush didn't even remotely wait for "all the facts" (little details like missing WMD's and no connection between 9/11 and Iraq) before starting a war in Iraq that has gotten over 1,000 of his consituents killed and thousands more of them severely wounded.
Oh and by the way BiK - your "CNSNew" (Cybercast News) report form above that you cited as a refutation of my report despite their sites claims of covering both sides have main headlines on their front page that are virtually all pro-Bush / anti-Kerry.
Its nice of you to post here form purely "reputable" sources. ROFL.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Oct 28, 2004 12:53:16 GMT -5
Oh and by the way BiK - your "CNSNew" (Cybercast News) report form above that you cited as a refutation of my report despite their sites claims of covering both sides have main headlines on their front page that are virtually all pro-Bush / anti-Kerry. Its nice of you to post here form purely "reputable" sources. ROFL. No different from your questionable sources. Anybody that thinks the NY Times is an objective news source is as dumb as a brick. At least I listed the source of the article. You on the other hand deliberately left the source of the article off but you can't fool someone as informed and astute as I Gorf. Btw, saw the new Democratic Campaign add for cowardly Hanoi John Kerry here in Hawai'i, what a load of crap. I wasn't sure who I was going to vote for but now I'm certain I'm going to vote for Bush. I would not be suprised to see the good President Bush take Hawaii's 4 electoral votes as well.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Oct 28, 2004 12:55:41 GMT -5
BiK, you're the one that questions the sources of articles all the time withouth questioning the source of your own articles. You've got a nice double standard. I didn't leave the source out since it wasn't mentioned in the article itself. If you're so astute you would have known that. The entire article was copied. You've done that on numerous occasions yourself if you want to backtrack through all of your past postings. Plus, you of course mean Kerry when you refer to the "good president" since Bush certainly isn't now and hasn't been a "good president". www.allhatnocattle.net/27doggy.jpg[/img]
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Oct 28, 2004 13:00:27 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Oct 28, 2004 13:02:57 GMT -5
BiK, you're the one that questions the sources of articles all the time withouth questioning the source of your own articles. You've got a nice double standard. I don't need to question the sources of my own articles, I know where they come from. The source is copied for all you doofs to see! I didn't leave the source out since it wasn't mentioned in the article itself. If you're so astute you would have known that. The entire article was copied. You've done that on numerous occasions yourself if you want to backtrack through all of your past postings. Copied from where? again no mention of the source of the article or where the article was copied from. Talk about being selective. Btw, both Dwyer and Sanger write for the NY Times, doof!
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Oct 28, 2004 13:15:48 GMT -5
GORF..................................
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 28, 2004 13:25:30 GMT -5
The New York Times, BY ANY STANDARD, is a reputable news source. You may have quarrels with their editorial page--and that is stupid, too, since they are OPINIONS--but anyone who would equate this newspaper with CNS.com is a moron.
And you are not a moron, BiK. (In spite of appearances to the contrary.)
Can we at least employ some reason in our discussions here?
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Oct 28, 2004 13:31:06 GMT -5
The New York Times, BY ANY STANDARD, is a reputable news source. You may have quarrels with their editorial page--and that is stupid, too, since they are OPINIONS--but anyone who would equate this newspaper with CNS.com is a moron. And you are not a moron, BiK. (In spite of appearances to the contrary.) Can we at least employ some reason in our discussions here? The only difference between The NY Times and CNS is that the Times is mainstream. The Times not only covers the news (in a less than objective way I might add), It creates it. ;D
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Oct 28, 2004 16:27:43 GMT -5
CNS is objective?
Look at their main page - virtually every article is pro-Bush or anti-Kerry. That some creative objectivitiy.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Oct 28, 2004 16:30:16 GMT -5
[quote author= BiK link=board=news&thread=1098725192&start=20#1 date=1098987348] GORF.................................. [/quote] You mean they're inviting me to be their tour guide to the White House? How quaint. I was under the impression they'd already know what's in the White House by now, but I guess with the amount of time that GWB spends away form there its awful easy for him to forget.
|
|
|
Post by Barefoot In Kailua on Oct 28, 2004 16:36:56 GMT -5
CNS is objective? Look at their main page - virtually every article is pro-Bush or anti-Kerry. That some creative objectivitiy. CNS is not objective but neither is the NY Times. The difference is the Times claims to be objective. Anybody who thinks that is the case is as dumb as a brick. Gorf, (R)uffda!, the both of you are as dumb as a brick.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Oct 28, 2004 16:48:24 GMT -5
[quote author=BiK link=board=news&thread=1098725192&start=25#1 date=1098999416]
CNS is not objective but neither is the NY Times. The difference is the Times claims to be objective. Anybody who thinks that is the case is as dumb as a brick. Gorf, (R)uffda!, the both of you are as dumb as a brick.[/quote]
Apparently you haven't read the CNS site description of themselves.
"CNSNews.com endeavors to fairly present all legitimate sides of a story and debunk popular, albeit incorrect, myths about cultural and policy issues."
|
|
|
Post by TheSantaBarbarian on Oct 28, 2004 20:01:43 GMT -5
[quote author=BiK link=board=news&thread=1098725192&start=9#0 date=1098893985]
Not ironic since it's true. Kerry's an empty mouthpiece. All mouth, no backbone![/quote]
That's an odd conclusion given that Kerry voluntered for combat while dumbya went AWOL. Then again, that type of thinking is quite typical of republican sheep.
|
|
|
Post by Gorf on Oct 28, 2004 21:57:58 GMT -5
An interesting development - journalists for a local TV station had embedded journalists that may have made videos of the now missing explosives in their bunker on April 18th of 2003. kstp.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=1
|
|
|
Post by TheSantaBarbarian on Oct 29, 2004 0:09:30 GMT -5
An interesting development - journalists for a local TV station had embedded journalists that may have made videos of the now missing explosives in their bunker on April 18th of 2003. kstp.com/article/stories/S3723.html?cat=1The sheep will just write this off as more liberal press. After all, if you disagree with dumbya, you must be an evil, terrorist loving, US troops hating, liberal.
|
|