I don't know how many of you know that Dan Rather and 60 Minutes (CBS News)
ran a story attacking George Bush and his time in the National Guard.  One
of the basis points of this attack garbage where documents which have now
been determined to be forgeries!  Rather than admit to their biased
reporting and lack of professionalism, Dan Rather has attempted to stand
behind thier report!  This has been done in spite of the Colonels wife and
son specifically stating that they did not believe that the documents were
real, that the Colonel did not keep typed notes of any sort, and that they
did not provide the information from the files!  They both have specifically
stated that they do not know where the files came from because they did not
have them nor did anyone they know!  On top of this over a dozen
cryptologists have come out and voiced their feelings that the documents are
fakes.

Because of this we are calling for a National boycott of CBS and all of its
advertisers!

Please email these people voicing your displeasure.  To email go to their
web site http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/home/main100.shtml and click on
"Contact Us" and tell them that you are disgusted with their lack of
professionalism and bias in covering this Presidential race!

Thank you,

A Concerned Citizen

An email sent to CBS News Follows:

Dan Rather sucks!

Even I spotted the "th" of the "111th" as a  problem and knew that the
documents were not created in the time frame reported by you people!

I am calling a boycott of all CBS shows and all CBS advertisers.  You will
see this note posted all over the internet.  I hope you lose millions of
dollars because you deserve it for your incredibly biased  and
unprofessional coverage of the presidential race.

Where is your show featuring the Swift Boat Vets?  Where?

Your new detractor,
XX XXXXX

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 19:51:25 +0000, libs stink wrote:


George Bush is a coward just like his daddy.   Bush 43 froze like a deer
in headlights when they told him America was under attack.   The 7 minutes
he sat in the class room failing to act and the time wasted giving an
impromptu press conference meant the Air Force had 27 minutes less time to
catch flight 77 before it slammed into the Pentagon.  Those Langley Air
Force pilots were 12 minutes away from flight 77 when

911 happened on his watch and everyone told him it was coming before it
happened.   The 911 commission blamed him for 911 because it happened on
his watch, he was responsible for national security since inauguration,
and he was the person in the White House to whom the heads of the DOD,
DIA, FBI and CIA report.

Starting with Bush 41 the only nation to invade more than 2 countries in
the last 15 yrs is the US. Panama, Grenada, Iraq, Afghanistan, Iraq.  The
US retaliated with missles strikes against Libya and Afghanistan.   The US
possesses WMDs and is still the only nation it the world to use a nuclear
weapon against another nation.  And the US is constantly trying to over
throw and directly influence internal politics of other nations.   Is it
any wonder other nations hate our government.

It is clear to everyone except assholes for Bush, that Bush 43 skipped out
the last year of his Air National Guard duty.   He failed to take his
physical because at that time the US was activating Air Guard pilots for
military service, and apparently disobeyed a direct order to take the
physical.

Do you really think Bush 43 is bringing troops home from Korea, Germany,
etc to save money or be with their families?   NO he has a 10yr war and he
has run out of fresh volunteer Army units to fight in Iraq.

Bush 43 is a XXXXing, fascist, coward who will send you, sons and
daughters to war but not himself or members of his family.   His politics
will morally and finacially bankrupt the US.   None of his policies will
even remotely make America safer.   If you think you are safe then take
your next vacation in Morroco, Eygpt or Indonesia.



> I don't know how many of you know that Dan Rather and 60 Minutes (CBS
> News) ran a story attacking George Bush and his time in the National
> Guard.  One of the basis points of this attack garbage where documents
> which have now been determined to be forgeries!  Rather than admit to
> their biased reporting and lack of professionalism, Dan Rather has
> attempted to stand behind thier report!  This has been done in spite of
> the Colonels wife and son specifically stating that they did not believe
> that the documents were real, that the Colonel did not keep typed notes
> of any sort, and that they did not provide the information from the
> files!  They both have specifically stated that they do not know where
> the files came from because they did not have them nor did anyone they
> know!  On top of this over a dozen cryptologists have come out and
> voiced their feelings that the documents are fakes.
>
> Because of this we are calling for a National boycott of CBS and all of
> its advertisers!
>
> Please email these people voicing your displeasure.  To email go to
> their web site http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/home/main100.shtml and
> click on "Contact Us" and tell them that you are disgusted with their
> lack of professionalism and bias in covering this Presidential race!
>
> Thank you,
>
> A Concerned Citizen
>
> An email sent to CBS News Follows:
>
> Dan Rather sucks!
>
> Even I spotted the "th" of the "111th" as a  problem and knew that the
> documents were not created in the time frame reported by you people!
>
> I am calling a boycott of all CBS shows and all CBS advertisers.  You
> will see this note posted all over the internet.  I hope you lose
> millions of dollars because you deserve it for your incredibly biased
> and unprofessional coverage of the presidential race.
>
> Where is your show featuring the Swift Boat Vets?  Where?
>
> Your new detractor,
> XX XXXXX

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

charles hill wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Sep 2004 19:51:25 +0000, libs stink wrote:
>
>
> George Bush is a coward just like his daddy.   Bush 43 froze like a
> deer in headlights when they told him America was under attack.   The
> 7 minutes he sat in the class room failing to act and the time wasted
> giving an impromptu press conference meant the Air Force had 27
> minutes less time to catch flight 77 before it slammed into the
> Pentagon.  Those Langley Air Force pilots were 12 minutes away from
> flight 77 when

[... other mindless ignorant drival snipped ...]

I ususally stay away from plitical sparrings, but this is jsut getting
too much. Ther seem to be so many eithr mininformed or jsut plain
ignorant folks out there (and in many cases, both apply.) The media out
there deserves a lot of blamefor this (dis)information, twisting around
facts, doign everything possible jsut to make Bush bad. Granted not lal
news outlets are that bad, but a great many are.

What we don't need is more brain washed fanitis preaching utter garbage
like this post I'm replying to. People like Mr Hill who know next ot
NOTHING of what they are talking about, peaching what amounts to nothing
but sheer proganda, are whats hurting society most.

In fact, this sort of propaganda is what's turning more and more people
off from politics (and at the same time infuriating others.

And worst of all, people engage in this sort of thing while we are at a
*time of War*. One would think that this sort of behavior would be
outrageous given our war-time status. Sigh...

"Dam lemmings!"

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

In article <2qn0leF11ul32U1@uni-berlin.de>, 187 wrote:
> charles hill wrote: 
>
> [... other mindless ignorant drival snipped ...]
>
> I ususally stay away from plitical sparrings, but this is jsut getting
> too much. Ther seem to be so many eithr mininformed or jsut plain
> ignorant folks out there (and in many cases, both apply.) The media out
> there deserves a lot of blamefor this (dis)information, twisting around
> facts, doign everything possible jsut to make Bush bad. Granted not lal
> news outlets are that bad, but a great many are.
>
> What we don't need is more brain washed fanitis preaching utter garbage
> like this post I'm replying to. People like Mr Hill who know next ot
> NOTHING of what they are talking about, peaching what amounts to nothing
> but sheer proganda, are whats hurting society most.
>
> In fact, this sort of propaganda is what's turning more and more people
> off from politics (and at the same time infuriating others.
>
> And worst of all, people engage in this sort of thing while we are at a
> *time of War*. One would think that this sort of behavior would be
> outrageous given our war-time status. Sigh...
>
> "Dam lemmings!"
>
>

What you fail to understand is that the current situation is not
'a time of war'. It is one society laboring against another society.
War is for nations... terrorism is for individuals.

Mike

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Mike wrote:
> In article <2qn0leF11ul32U1@uni-berlin.de>, 187 wrote: 
>
> What you fail to understand is that the current situation is not
> 'a time of war'. It is one society laboring against another society.
> War is for nations... terrorism is for individuals.

I undertand what you are trying to say, but this IS a time of war. We
*WERE* attacked, and we've bee nresponding to this attack. Why is this
so difficult to grasp for some? They used planes to damage, or in the
case of the WTC, completely destroy a few buildings (not jsut the twin
towers but surrounding buildings too were demolished as a result.)

We've been at war since that time. It may not be a war with a single
contry, but that alone does not nullify the fact that this IS a war,
which is still being fought, foguht by our people in uniform over seas.
Just becuase the enemy is too much of a coward does not mena this isn't
a war.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

In article <2qoh5cF11hv93U1@uni-berlin.de>, 187 wrote:
> Mike wrote: 
>
> I undertand what you are trying to say, but this IS a time of war. We
> *WERE* attacked, and we've bee nresponding to this attack. Why is this
> so difficult to grasp for some? They used planes to damage, or in the
> case of the WTC, completely destroy a few buildings (not jsut the twin
> towers but surrounding buildings too were demolished as a result.)
>
> We've been at war since that time. It may not be a war with a single
> contry, but that alone does not nullify the fact that this IS a war,
> which is still being fought, foguht by our people in uniform over seas.
> Just becuase the enemy is too much of a coward does not mena this isn't
> a war.

Using that definition we have been at war since the first founding
of the Weathermen and related groups. The 'enemy' is not a coward. The
enemy simply has different values from you. It is not possible to
conduct combat against terrorism using armies and troops. You fight
against terrorism using society and changing society. Examine the
page on the 'Prisoner's Delimma' at wikipedia.org.

Actually this event is nothing new. What is new and suprising is that
the American public had a severe slap-in-the-face. Other countries
have been dealing with this problem for centuries. Planes or
carts full of burning hay, the concept is the same, the magnitude
is different.

Mike

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

In article <10ke4q3dgv1uld5@corp.supernews.com>, Mike wrote:
> In article <2qoh5cF11hv93U1@uni-berlin.de>, 187 wrote: 
>
> Using that definition we have been at war since the first founding
> of the Weathermen and related groups. The 'enemy' is not a coward. The
> enemy simply has different values from you. It is not possible to
> conduct combat against terrorism using armies and troops. You fight
> against terrorism using society and changing society. Examine the
> page on the 'Prisoner's Delimma' at wikipedia.org.
>
> Actually this event is nothing new. What is new and suprising is that
> the American public had a severe slap-in-the-face. Other countries
> have been dealing with this problem for centuries. Planes or
> carts full of burning hay, the concept is the same, the magnitude
> is different.
>
> Mike

I just read the group this thread is in. Move the discussion to another
group... it doesn't belong in this group.

Mike

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On 2004-09-14, 187 <bigal187@invalid.rx.eastcoasttfc.com> wrote:

> I undertand what you are trying to say, but this IS a time of war. We
> *WERE* attacked, and we've bee nresponding to this attack. Why is this
> so difficult to grasp for some? They used planes to damage, or in the
> case of the WTC, completely destroy a few buildings (not jsut the twin
> towers but surrounding buildings too were demolished as a result.)
>
> We've been at war since that time. It may not be a war with a single
> contry, but that alone does not nullify the fact that this IS a war,
> which is still being fought, foguht by our people in uniform over seas.
> Just becuase the enemy is too much of a coward does not mena this isn't
> a war.

So why exactly are we so deeply involved in Iraq, which had absolutely
nothing to do with these attacks, while basically ignoring everything
else?

--

-John (john@os2.dhs.org)

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

187 wrote:
> charles hill wrote:
> 
>
>
> [... other mindless ignorant drival snipped ...]
>

> In fact, this sort of propaganda is what's turning more and more people
> off from politics (and at the same time infuriating others.
>
> And worst of all, people engage in this sort of thing while we are at a
> *time of War*. One would think that this sort of behavior would be
> outrageous given our war-time status. Sigh...

While I agree that the poster was spewing "mindless garbage" (most of
which has been debunked in the blogosphere, but nothing is as
closed-minded as a closed-mind), the thing is that politics in the
U.S.A. (at least) has ALWAYS been a very nasty game.

If you have the time and the interest, pick up a copy of David
McCollough's interesting biography of John Adams. Read some of the
contemporary dialog during the elections of 1796 and 1800. The partisan
mud-slinging and outrageous claims against the candidate of each party
by partisans of the other (the "Federalists" and the
"Republicans"--ironically the original name of the Democrat party).

So I don't think it is the vituperative nature of politics that turns
them off--if that were true, where would Ricki Lake get her audience?
Rather, it is that we have a less-educated populace today than ever
before, and our Republic is founded on the notion that the electorate
will be informed.

Only the informed really care, and only those who care, vote.

Personally I have no problem with a lower voter turnout, if it means
that those who don't give a d*mn, or don't bother to become informed,
aren't participating. I don't want their ignorance reflected in the
election returns.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Tue, 14 Sep 2004 15:53:26 +0000, Mike wrote:

> In article <10ke4q3dgv1uld5@corp.supernews.com>, Mike wrote: 
>
> I just read the group this thread is in. Move the discussion to another
> group... it doesn't belong in this group.
>
> Mike

That's what made me reply in the first place.   His drivel was posted to
this NG instead of say lemmingsforBush or stickwitha50smentality
NGs.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]