Spin, spin, spin, spin, spin, spin, spin.
The whole Vietnam War controversy regarding the two candidates can be summed in one black and white statement:
Kerry fought in Vietnam, Bush did'nt.
That's all anyone needs to know about that era in relation to the election.
OT - Bush was AWOL
-
brayhaven
The "documents" Dan provided info on, so redundantly, have now been shown to be generated on a computer using a Microsoft product. 
Is there no gutter that the Kerry camp won't sink to in smearing the president?? I don't care about service 35 years ago (by either man). The military service I've seen, is the duty as commander in chief during wartime for the past 3 years. Still on active duty, and the troops have performed brilliantly and heroically under his leadership. And that's my last word on this nonsense. Back to the mission of this gathering.
Greg
Is there no gutter that the Kerry camp won't sink to in smearing the president?? I don't care about service 35 years ago (by either man). The military service I've seen, is the duty as commander in chief during wartime for the past 3 years. Still on active duty, and the troops have performed brilliantly and heroically under his leadership. And that's my last word on this nonsense. Back to the mission of this gathering.
Greg
I cited one article from the Boston Globe regarding Bush's failure to fufill his military obligations, and one report from Factcheck.org on his receiving preferential treatment. Regarding the false accusations against Kerry's military records, I cited one report with updates from Factcheck.org. I don't see separate articles on a related topic as redundant. I'd say the redundancy here is in Bush's and Bush's supporter's continual spinning out of false and misleading allegations.
As for veracity, as far as I know the Boston Globe is a respectable newspaper. I believe it is relatively balanced, since I recall several previous threads where it was cited for its articles that were critical of Kerry. And, as I stated before, Factcheck.org is a non-profit, non-partisan political fact checking project sponsored by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. If you will look at its archives, you will find many reports citing false and misleading claims from both parties.
Banning off-topic political posts is fine with me. I come here for hunting and crossbow related discussions too. Frankly, however, if the discussions remain civil - and this is the crux of the matter - I don't see a problem with them. I'm not planning to post more political topics, but I'm unlikely remain silent if I see threads that I don't agree with. I've seen quite a few instances of Kerry bashing here. The only time that I recall posting a response to one of these, I was immediately the recipient of a name calling fest. OK, no sweat here - sticks 'n stones, etc. What really bothers me is: 1) the assumption that everyone agrees with with these slanderous diatribes; and 2) the intolerance by those who post them.
As for my political affiliations, I am a liberal, and I've voted for the late Senator Bill Roth and for our current congressman, Mike Castle - both Republicans, and both fine gentlemen with strong environmental records. I'm also planning to vote against a local corrupt Democrat, who is running for County Executive. I am also a Kerry supporter, and plan vote out the unelected (except by Chief Justice Rehnquist) incumbent president, since I believe George W. Bush is a threat to our civil liberties, our environment and our national security.
As for veracity, as far as I know the Boston Globe is a respectable newspaper. I believe it is relatively balanced, since I recall several previous threads where it was cited for its articles that were critical of Kerry. And, as I stated before, Factcheck.org is a non-profit, non-partisan political fact checking project sponsored by the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania. If you will look at its archives, you will find many reports citing false and misleading claims from both parties.
Banning off-topic political posts is fine with me. I come here for hunting and crossbow related discussions too. Frankly, however, if the discussions remain civil - and this is the crux of the matter - I don't see a problem with them. I'm not planning to post more political topics, but I'm unlikely remain silent if I see threads that I don't agree with. I've seen quite a few instances of Kerry bashing here. The only time that I recall posting a response to one of these, I was immediately the recipient of a name calling fest. OK, no sweat here - sticks 'n stones, etc. What really bothers me is: 1) the assumption that everyone agrees with with these slanderous diatribes; and 2) the intolerance by those who post them.
As for my political affiliations, I am a liberal, and I've voted for the late Senator Bill Roth and for our current congressman, Mike Castle - both Republicans, and both fine gentlemen with strong environmental records. I'm also planning to vote against a local corrupt Democrat, who is running for County Executive. I am also a Kerry supporter, and plan vote out the unelected (except by Chief Justice Rehnquist) incumbent president, since I believe George W. Bush is a threat to our civil liberties, our environment and our national security.
Last edited by Dan_DE on Fri Sep 10, 2004 3:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.
From Factcheck.org:
"Serious questions have been raised about the authenticity of four documents that CBS News said it had obtained from the personal files of Bush's former squadron commander in the Texas Air National Guard. We are removing reference to them in our September. 8 article on the "Texans for Truth" ad until these questions are settled to our satisfaction."
See below for full update.
http://www.factcheck.org/miscreports.aspx?docid=256
"Serious questions have been raised about the authenticity of four documents that CBS News said it had obtained from the personal files of Bush's former squadron commander in the Texas Air National Guard. We are removing reference to them in our September. 8 article on the "Texans for Truth" ad until these questions are settled to our satisfaction."
See below for full update.
http://www.factcheck.org/miscreports.aspx?docid=256
I realize I'm new here but here's my 2 cents...
I would agree with the banning of political posts and for the reasons below:
1) The 'Net is a worldwide entity. I've seen some posters here from Brazil, Australia and England (IIRC). Is it going to be ok if they start posting their thoughts regarding political matters in their own countries?
This isn't meant to offend anyone from the U.S., but honestly, I'm getting a little tired of visiting message boards (there are quite a few I visit regarding other hobbies) and seeing political posts everywhere. Yes, I understand that an election is very important, but again, the 'Net is worldwide and those from other countries aren't necessarilly interested nor informed about what is being discussed. With that, as a Canadian I am interested and informed of what is occurring, but I think there there is a place for everything and politics don't need to be on every message board.
2) There's lots of other places that politics can be discussed. Often topics such as politics or religion result in problems on message boards (In my experience at least).
3) It's nice to have a board that remains on-topic in regards to the subject of the hobby/interest.
4) Off-topic posts often result in even MORE off-topic posts and then the trolls start swooping in, etc.
I understand that the simple answer is "don't click on the thread." That's not the point. I've seen what can happen once the floodgates open. I really like this board and have learned a lot. I hope that it stays related to the outdoors and users police themselves.
Again, just my couple of cents which aren't meant to offend anyone...
Todd
I would agree with the banning of political posts and for the reasons below:
1) The 'Net is a worldwide entity. I've seen some posters here from Brazil, Australia and England (IIRC). Is it going to be ok if they start posting their thoughts regarding political matters in their own countries?
This isn't meant to offend anyone from the U.S., but honestly, I'm getting a little tired of visiting message boards (there are quite a few I visit regarding other hobbies) and seeing political posts everywhere. Yes, I understand that an election is very important, but again, the 'Net is worldwide and those from other countries aren't necessarilly interested nor informed about what is being discussed. With that, as a Canadian I am interested and informed of what is occurring, but I think there there is a place for everything and politics don't need to be on every message board.
2) There's lots of other places that politics can be discussed. Often topics such as politics or religion result in problems on message boards (In my experience at least).
3) It's nice to have a board that remains on-topic in regards to the subject of the hobby/interest.
4) Off-topic posts often result in even MORE off-topic posts and then the trolls start swooping in, etc.
I understand that the simple answer is "don't click on the thread." That's not the point. I've seen what can happen once the floodgates open. I really like this board and have learned a lot. I hope that it stays related to the outdoors and users police themselves.
Again, just my couple of cents which aren't meant to offend anyone...
Todd
Dan_DE wrote:Banning off-topic political posts is fine with me. I come here for hunting and crossbow related discussions too.