Originally posted by: Fern
Geez, silly me. I thought this was thread about Kerry and T-Bone.
I somehow accidently stumbled into a useless Bush & Vietnam thread.
Typical around here. BDS is a very severe disease, and it seems to be widespread.
Originally posted by: Fern
Geez, silly me. I thought this was thread about Kerry and T-Bone.
I somehow accidently stumbled into a useless Bush & Vietnam thread.
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Fern
Geez, silly me. I thought this was thread about Kerry and T-Bone.
I somehow accidently stumbled into a useless Bush & Vietnam thread.
Typical around here. BDS is a very severe disease, and it seems to be widespread.
Originally posted by: Fern
Geez, silly me. I thought this was thread about Kerry and T-Bone.
I somehow accidently stumbled into a useless Bush & Vietnam thread.
Fern
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Fern
Geez, silly me. I thought this was thread about Kerry and T-Bone.
I somehow accidently stumbled into a useless Bush & Vietnam thread.
Fern
Yeah, amazing isn't it?
Originally posted by: Craig234
TO be fair, I was thinking the same thing before seeing this post, but I noticed, there's only so much to say about the fact that Pickens has welched on his offer by changing the terms, and it's not unnatural for the discussion to segue to the ongoing denial of the right about the facts of Bush's own Vietnam history, from the lies they told about Kerry's. But you guys on the right can't handle that, so all you can get from the thread is an attack on the left for continuing to say the accurate info against your president.
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Craig234
TO be fair, I was thinking the same thing before seeing this post, but I noticed, there's only so much to say about the fact that Pickens has welched on his offer by changing the terms, and it's not unnatural for the discussion to segue to the ongoing denial of the right about the facts of Bush's own Vietnam history, from the lies they told about Kerry's. But you guys on the right can't handle that, so all you can get from the thread is an attack on the left for continuing to say the accurate info against your president.
I'll just keep this response handy the next time you waltz in and bitch about Clinton being brought up. So long as there's even a remote tidbit which could apply, it is fair game for discussion. I'm glad you've clarified that.
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Craig234
TO be fair, I was thinking the same thing before seeing this post, but I noticed, there's only so much to say about the fact that Pickens has welched on his offer by changing the terms, and it's not unnatural for the discussion to segue to the ongoing denial of the right about the facts of Bush's own Vietnam history, from the lies they told about Kerry's. But you guys on the right can't handle that, so all you can get from the thread is an attack on the left for continuing to say the accurate info against your president.
I'll just keep this response handy the next time you waltz in and bitch about Clinton being brought up. So long as there's even a remote tidbit which could apply, it is fair game for discussion. I'm glad you've clarified that.
And a typical misrepresentation of what I said. If you cared a whit about what people said on your misbehavior, you'd start with sticking to the accurate facts, for example.
But here's a hint for a guideline:
If someone starts a thread, "Bush sexual indiscretions embarrass the presidency, proving Republicans are the sex scandal party", you might want to mention Clinton's affair.
If someone starts a thread, "Bush policies allow torture of detainees", a response of "but Clinton had an affair" is not helpful.
I'm curious about this as well. Especially because this quote is by TLC in that thread.Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I do read books that are unreleased, on occassion. Plame's was one of them. In the early 90s I owned and ran a publishing company and I still have contacts in the publishing industry. So once again you make assumptions that you know nothing about.
Does my memory serve me correctly when I seem to recall you previously explaining that incident by saying you had made a mistake when you claimed to have read the book?
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I do read books that are unreleased, on occassion. Plame's was one of them.
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
I posted a wapo article or a wapo interview? LMFAO.
So my source is bush and i'm interpreting the source and you have a problem with this? You don't think very clearly. This isn't about burdens of proof this is about weighing of proof. You've provided nothing so far. But you also won't admit you were full of it from the start.
Instead of coming across as a credible and intelligent debater, you come across as a desperate attorney clinging to anything to uphold a clearly losing position. I don't need more "words" from you I want evidence. If you don't have it, then case dismissed.
And I didn't claim to have read the book then. Look a little bit. I did read it later, but before it was released.Originally posted by: Gaard
I'm curious about this as well. Especially because this quote is by TLC in that thread.Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I do read books that are unreleased, on occassion. Plame's was one of them. In the early 90s I owned and ran a publishing company and I still have contacts in the publishing industry. So once again you make assumptions that you know nothing about.
Does my memory serve me correctly when I seem to recall you previously explaining that incident by saying you had made a mistake when you claimed to have read the book?
"I didn't claim I read a book that's unreleased."
Psshhh. Facts. It's become glaringly obvious you don't give a shit about the actual facts. It appears facts can be molded to whatever you want them to be in your book. We've seen that plainly already with your dishonesty in this thread.Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: Craig234
TO be fair, I was thinking the same thing before seeing this post, but I noticed, there's only so much to say about the fact that Pickens has welched on his offer by changing the terms, and it's not unnatural for the discussion to segue to the ongoing denial of the right about the facts of Bush's own Vietnam history, from the lies they told about Kerry's. But you guys on the right can't handle that, so all you can get from the thread is an attack on the left for continuing to say the accurate info against your president.
I'll just keep this response handy the next time you waltz in and bitch about Clinton being brought up. So long as there's even a remote tidbit which could apply, it is fair game for discussion. I'm glad you've clarified that.
And a typical misrepresentation of what I said. If you cared a whit about what people said on your misbehavior, you'd start with sticking to the accurate facts, for example.
But here's a hint for a guideline:
If someone starts a thread, "Bush sexual indiscretions embarrass the presidency, proving Republicans are the sex scandal party", you might want to mention Clinton's affair.
If someone starts a thread, "Bush policies allow torture of detainees", a response of "but Clinton had an affair" is not helpful.
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: CADsortaGUY
Originally posted by: Fern
Geez, silly me. I thought this was thread about Kerry and T-Bone.
I somehow accidently stumbled into a useless Bush & Vietnam thread.
Fern
Yeah, amazing isn't it?
TO be fair, I was thinking the same thing before seeing this post, but I noticed, there's only so much to say about the fact that Pickens has welched on his offer by changing the terms, and it's not unnatural for the discussion to segue to the ongoing denial of the right about the facts of Bush's own Vietnam history, from the lies they told about Kerry's. But you guys on the right can't handle that, so all you can get from the thread is an attack on the left for continuing to say the accurate info against your president.
Waddya know? No "welch" at all. The offer still stands. Kerry merely has to provide the proof.U.S. Senator John Kerry
304 Russell Building
Third Floor
Washington DC 20510
Dear Senator Kerry:
So glad to hear from you regarding the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth political ad campaign, and an offer I made public at an American Spectator dinner in Washington, D.C. last week. I am intrigued by your letter, and am certainly open to your challenge.
My concern at the Spectator Dinner was, and continues to be, that you and other political figures were and are maligning the Swift Boat Veterans, and I want to prevent this important part of American history from being unfairly portrayed.
In order to disprove the accuracy of the Swift Boat ads, I will ultimately need you to provide the following:
1) The journal you maintained during your service in Vietnam.
2) Your military record, specifically your service records for the years
1971-1978, and copies of all movies and tapes made during your
service.
When you have done so, if you can then prove anything in the ads was materially untrue, I will gladly award $1 million. As you know, I have been a long and proud supporter of the American military and veterans' causes. I now challenge you to make this commitment: If you cannot prove anything in the Swift Boat ads to be untrue, that you will make a $1 million gift to the charity I am choosing -- the Medal of Honor Foundation.
Sincerely,
T. Boone Pickens
That wasn't the offer. The offer was to prove one thing that was falsely stated by the Swiftboat Veterans For Truth.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Waddya know? No "welch" at all. The offer still stands. Kerry merely has to provide the proof.U.S. Senator John Kerry
304 Russell Building
Third Floor
Washington DC 20510
Dear Senator Kerry:
So glad to hear from you regarding the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth political ad campaign, and an offer I made public at an American Spectator dinner in Washington, D.C. last week. I am intrigued by your letter, and am certainly open to your challenge.
My concern at the Spectator Dinner was, and continues to be, that you and other political figures were and are maligning the Swift Boat Veterans, and I want to prevent this important part of American history from being unfairly portrayed.
In order to disprove the accuracy of the Swift Boat ads, I will ultimately need you to provide the following:
1) The journal you maintained during your service in Vietnam.
2) Your military record, specifically your service records for the years
1971-1978, and copies of all movies and tapes made during your
service.
When you have done so, if you can then prove anything in the ads was materially untrue, I will gladly award $1 million. As you know, I have been a long and proud supporter of the American military and veterans' causes. I now challenge you to make this commitment: If you cannot prove anything in the Swift Boat ads to be untrue, that you will make a $1 million gift to the charity I am choosing -- the Medal of Honor Foundation.
Sincerely,
T. Boone Pickens
Any word from Kerry yet on this matter?
Originally posted by: her209
That wasn't the offer. The offer was to prove one thing that was falsely stated by the Swiftboat Veterans For Truth.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
And I didn't claim to have read the book then. Look a little bit. I did read it later, but before it was released.Originally posted by: Gaard
I'm curious about this as well. Especially because this quote is by TLC in that thread.Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
I do read books that are unreleased, on occassion. Plame's was one of them. In the early 90s I owned and ran a publishing company and I still have contacts in the publishing industry. So once again you make assumptions that you know nothing about.
Does my memory serve me correctly when I seem to recall you previously explaining that incident by saying you had made a mistake when you claimed to have read the book?
"I didn't claim I read a book that's unreleased."
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
And I didn't claim to have read the book then. Look a little bit. I did read it later, but before it was released.
I know nuance and timelines confuse the BDS idiots in here, but check really, really hard and you just might figure it out.
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
So your article wasn't from the WaPo. It just happened to be at the washingtonpost.com?
Hahaha. Yeah. LMFAO too.
The conditions that Kerry must surrender his journal, movies, and open his military record were added after the fact. Pickens doesn't even know what allegation(s) Kerry will dispute yet.Originally posted by: Pabster
No, the offer was $1 million bucks if Kerry could prove any allegation materially false. That would mean offering up his records, for starters.Originally posted by: her209
That wasn't the offer. The offer was to prove one thing that was falsely stated by the Swiftboat Veterans For Truth.
Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Impeach this man's credibility, somebody.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/...hed&ctrack=1&cset=true
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: her209
That wasn't the offer. The offer was to prove one thing that was falsely stated by the Swiftboat Veterans For Truth.
No, the offer was $1 million bucks if Kerry could prove any allegation materially false. That would mean offering up his records, for starters.
Originally posted by: Pabster
Originally posted by: her209
That wasn't the offer. The offer was to prove one thing that was falsely stated by the Swiftboat Veterans For Truth.
No, the offer was $1 million bucks if Kerry could prove any allegation materially false. That would mean offering up his records, for starters.
Riiiight. Changing the rules after the initial offer is dishonest no matter how you slice it. Again I ask, why does Pickens want Kerry's military record for 1971-1978 when Kerry was discharged from active duty in 1970?Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Shhhh. Don't confuse them with facts. It's obvious from this thread that ommitting a word here or there, or even redefining words/statements are perfectly justifiable in their book.Originally posted by: Pabster
No, the offer was $1 million bucks if Kerry could prove any allegation materially false. That would mean offering up his records, for starters.Originally posted by: her209
That wasn't the offer. The offer was to prove one thing that was falsely stated by the Swiftboat Veterans For Truth.
Then if you disagree with their redefinition you're a joke. That's just how it works in here.
The record is there in black and white. Your attempt to imply otherwise holds no water.Originally posted by: Stoneburner
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
And I didn't claim to have read the book then. Look a little bit. I did read it later, but before it was released.
I know nuance and timelines confuse the BDS idiots in here, but check really, really hard and you just might figure it out.
So... you didn't read it when you claimed to have read it, even though you say you never claimed to have read it, but then you claimed to have read it before it was released but after you claim you never claimed to have read it. But, despite having supposedly read it, you still can't demonstrate any knowledge of the book???
Seeing as you appear to be intimately familiar with bullshit...that's not nuance, that's just bullshit.
And if I posted the same interview from say, rushlimbaugh.com, YOU would be calling BS on the source. You've done it already in this thread. So speaking of bullshit, apparently you don't like to be served the very same kind you consistently dish out. Shows what a duplicitous tool you are.Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
So your article wasn't from the WaPo. It just happened to be at the washingtonpost.com?
Hahaha. Yeah. LMFAO too.
I didn't say it wasn't from wapo, I said it was an interview and that the source was GWB himself. And if you bothered reading that interview, you'd see somebody offering rather clumsy explanations about him not going to vietnam. However, it's nowhere near the level of you and your own inability to keep a straight story on the Plame Book.
Changing the rules? Pickens said that Kerry would have to disprove "even a single charge" by the Swiftboaters. What were the Swiftboater's charges? And how can Kerry disprove those charges? Why, he can provide his military records, as requested. That should put any questions to bed for sure. Surely John Kerry, Vietnam war hero, has nothing to hide?Originally posted by: her209
Riiiight. Changing the rules after the initial offer is dishonest no matter how you slice it. Again I ask, why does Pickens want Kerry's military record for 1971-1978 when Kerry was discharged from active duty in 1970?Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Shhhh. Don't confuse them with facts. It's obvious from this thread that ommitting a word here or there, or even redefining words/statements are perfectly justifiable in their book.Originally posted by: Pabster
No, the offer was $1 million bucks if Kerry could prove any allegation materially false. That would mean offering up his records, for starters.Originally posted by: her209
That wasn't the offer. The offer was to prove one thing that was falsely stated by the Swiftboat Veterans For Truth.
Then if you disagree with their redefinition you're a joke. That's just how it works in here.