"Liberal" CBS Won't Run Any Report Remotely Criticizing the President

[giant]

And the first victim of this decision is a report on the forged Niger docs.
The CBS statement followed a report in the online edition of Newsweek that described the frustration of CBS News reporters and producers who said the network had concluded that it could not legitimately criticize the president because of the questions about the National Guard report.

According to the Newsweek report, the "60 Minutes" segment was to have detailed how the administration relied on false documents when it said Iraq had tried to buy a lightly processed form of uranium, known as yellowcake, from Niger. The administration later acknowledged that the information was incorrect and that the documents were most likely fake.

The Newsweek article said the segment was to have included the first on-camera interview with Elisabetta Burba, the Italian journalist who was given the fake documents and who provided them to a United States Embassy for verification. The documents were sent to Washington, where some officials embraced them as firm evidence that Iraq was aggressively trying to make nuclear weapons.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/25/politics/campaign/25cbs.html

You all in your "liberal media" fantasy land are no doubt happy, since you people have made it crystal clear that your ideal world doesn't include truth, just political point scoring. Well, now you have another network. We look forward to the next round of "liberal bias!" attacks on the rest of the media that still tries to provide balance.

[trumptman]

Here is the more accurate view. CBS won't run a story about how others were fooled by fake documents until they sort out why THEY were fooled by fake documents.

Of course CBS still hasn't issued a retraction for the story created by the forged documents and still hasn't held anyone accountable nor have they announced any changes in their procedures or personnel that would lead us to believe their professionalism has been restored.

Shawn kept pestering me to turn another CBS thread into a college writing exercise. I generated this paragraph about how CBS had failed in their professional duties but never got around to posting it.

Journalism's first obligation is to the truth. It’s practitioners must maintain an independence and neutrality from those they cover and this is demonstrated in part by following the practice and discipline of verification. When neutrality is not possible, their accuracy, intellectual fairness and ability to inform will be the criteria by which their journalism will be judged. Journalists can act as an independent watchdog over the powerful. Finally, since it also acts as a forum for public criticism, it should strive to fairly represent the various viewpoints that are possible when making that criticism.

CBS cannot currently show they have maintained independence from the political process. So they have to pull political pieces out of fear of being accused of affecting the process. That isn't Bush's fault. It is CBS who tossed away their professionalism.

It is likely that they looked at this piece and realized, just as with the memos, that they had intentionally withheld dissenting information or views, that they might have ignored their own experts, or that there were other sides or views to the story that they simply never attempted to get since, as we saw with the memo story, they really weren't interested in their professionalism.

All of the fall out from Rathergate rests on CBS's shoulders. It will remain so until they show they have made the changes necessary to regain their professionalism and also the public trust. Being unable to pursue certain stories where their professionalism might again be questioned is just a consequence from not fixing it.

Nick

[Aquatic]

I never understood why everyone calls CBS "liberal." Buzzflash is liberal. CBS seems pretty objective. I still don't believe all this crap about those documents. I haven't read a single fact just a bunch of hype from the GOP Attack Machine aka most of the media these days.

This new development is fucked up.

News is certainly now Right wing in general. Of course this was inevitable with all the consolidation. Who are big companies going to like more? Republicans who give them fat tax cuts, exemptions, let them headquarter in fuckin' Jamaica and export our jobs overseas, or Democrats?

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
<patronizing> Yeah that's exactly what I wanted. Because you know, I don't already know your writing is terrible-- on par with middle of the road freshman comp students. But hey, if you want to write a 3-5 page essay for me, I'll be glad to help you out there. </patronizing>

;)

Here's that "college writing exercise":





I obviously wanted the reason why the Burkett-Lockhart-Mapes calls were wrong-- or a violation of journalistic ethics. Instead, we got a whole bunch innuendo about why it's wrong. Maybe you shouldn't start a thread condemning something if you don't know why it's a wrong. Just a thought.

Hey, you got your statement. It shows what the standard should be. It is clear CBS screwed the pooch with regard to that standard. To flush out that paragraph probably would take about three or so pages but I didn't have the time. If you want to show that CBS fulfilled their journalistic professional obligation with regard to presenting multiple points of view with criticism, followed through on the advice of their own experts with regard to verification, etc you are welcome to do so. You are the one who asserts no wrong-doing when it is clear the documents were forgeries (not even clever or hard to detect forgeries) and CBS was duped because of their agenda and lack of journalistic professionalism.

As for my writing, remember, some of us already have our degrees. Some of even were able to get them without mommy working at our college and being able to talk to our teachers for us. Some of us don't call other people uncaring while banking away a free private school education because of who our mommy is at that campus. We do what "normal" people do which is work, get grants and take loans.

Take, take, take and criticize. You can complain about my writing, but at least my view of the world isn't stuck in middle school where mommy and daddy handle everything while you go around trying hard to see past the end of your nose. Worse still you complain about others who don't fit into your myopic little worldview. Get over yourself. You can judge others when you aren't holding onto mommy and daddy's pant legs and instead are standing on your own two feet.

Nick

[a_greer]

BREAKING NEWS!

http://www.geocities.com/a_greer2003/rather.jpg

SOMEONE CALL THE BSA! Did CBS make the docs on an ilgotten copy of word or windows...it was so cheasy that it is unlikely the work of a mac user...

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by trumptman
Here is the more accurate view. CBS won't run a story about how others were fooled by fake documents until they sort out why THEY were fooled by fake documents. OK. At least CBS does not dictate or influence WMD's policy of an administration the way mentioning BS info. from forged WMD documents in a SOTU or at the UN does. Let's keep a little perspective here. Of course CBS still hasn't issued a retraction for the story created by the forged documents and still hasn't held anyone accountable nor have they announced any changes in their procedures or personnel that would lead us to believe their professionalism has been restored. Even better. They've appointed a former Republican Cabinet member and a retired news executive to investigate its "60 Minutes" report on President Bush's National Guard service. But you knew that right?
:no: Shawn kept pestering me to turn another CBS thread into a college writing exercise. I generated this paragraph about how CBS had failed in their professional duties but never got around to posting it. Well that's too bad. PM it to him or something. Journalism's first obligation is to the truth. .................................................. ..........................................Finally, since it also acts as a forum for public criticism, it should strive to fairly represent the various viewpoints that are possible when making that criticism. Too bad you don't apply those standards to Fox now do you? CBS cannot currently show they have maintained independence from the political process. So they have to pull political pieces out of fear of being accused of affecting the process. That isn't Bush's fault. It is CBS who tossed away their professionalism. That's one of the hot current Bush Fan™ talking points. I see you got the memo. Of course, the fact that CBS now has to sit on an investigation of the well known Niger forged documents which could be potentially damaging to Bush Corp. has nooooothing to do with your sudden cry for journalistic integrity.

If only you could watch Fox with those same critical eyes. :lol: Nah. That would go in detriment of the Party.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by a_greer
BREAKING NEWS!
SOMEONE CALL THE BSA! Did CBS make the docs on an ilgotten copy of word or windows...it was so cheasy that it is unlikely the work of a mac user...]
Well, after seeing that cheesy graphic you just posted, plus your spelling, and Naples websites....there appears to be some exceptions to Mac users higher standards. :D

[shetline]

Originally posted by trumptman
Take, take, take and criticize. You can complain about my writing, but at least my view of the world isn't stuck in middle school where mommy and daddy handle everything while you go around trying hard to see past the end of your nose. Worse still you complain about others who don't fit into your myopic little worldview. Get over yourself. You can judge others when you aren't holding onto mommy and daddy's pant legs and instead are standing on your own two feet.
Hey, trumptman.

I think maybe you had a little copy/paste mix-up or something and accidently posted this message of yours here on AI when you meant to send it to Bush. If you need the e-mail address, it's probably "dubya@whitehouse.gov", or something like that. :D

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Why were the Burkett-Mapes-Lockhart calls wrong again?

Here's a handy template:

"The Burkett-Mapes-Lockhart calls were wrong because.....

They violated journalistic ethics because....."


Add paragraph I gave you here. Not impartial. Did not verify. Did not add multiple views when making public criticism...etc....



Are you talking about my momma!? ;)

I didn't say anything bad about your momma. I mean she puts up with you so she's got to be pretty great.



My nascent little self senses a bit of jealousy. ;)

You mistake jealousy for lack of patience for dealing with your sanctimonious bullshit.


I have the solution.

The Nickster and I should have White Male Bonding Day-- preferably on Adam Smith's birthday. We can sit, laugh, cry, and reminisce about the days when we had it all-- when the world was ours.

Bring the wife and kids and we could make it a family outing.

Actually some of us weren't born with the silver spoon in our mouth. We were born with nothing and earned what we have. We made our way in a land of opportunity that you claim doesn't exist. Worse still you've had everything handed to you, given nothing back and defame others because they don't "care" as much as you do.

So to summarize.... when you actually are that which you claim to fight against, do something about yourself and stop pointing fingers at others. When you sit there and reap that which you never sowed, don't go judge what others have reaped because you've never even seen the plow or the field.

Now I have a better solution. Why don't you stop questioning the motives of others until you've walked a mile or two in adult shoes at a minimum. I know you're an adult by age, but you are not in actions. The food in your belly, the roof over your head, and the education you receive are all paid for by the actions of others. When all three are handled by you, then you can start comparing your actions to others.

Nick

[midwinter]

To get this back on track:

1) CBS needs to get up off the fucking mat. They screwed up. They caught holy hell for it (and rightly so). They need to get back to work.

2) Let me get this straight: the flagship investigative show of CBS got something wrong, in a very high-stakes way, and so now all CBS news has lost all integrity? That's called poisoning the well.

[Scott]

This one situation proves it though! CBS is not liberal. Exception proves the rule!

[trumptman]

Originally posted by midwinter
To get this back on track:

1) CBS needs to get up off the fucking mat. They screwed up. They caught holy hell for it (and rightly so). They need to get back to work.

2) Let me get this straight: the flagship investigative show of CBS got something wrong, in a very high-stakes way, and so now all CBS news has lost all integrity? That's called poisoning the well.

1) For CBS to get off the mat, they need to realize what put them there. They still havent done that. Part of getting back to work is fixing the problems that stopped the work. CBS has in no way stated or shown that anything has changed with regard their previous manner of reporting the news.

2) Why is it poisoning the well? No one has suggested that CBS News can never again report on anything or even anything political. However the reality is that CBS themselves are going to be reluctant to report on an area where they lack credibility until they fix that credibility.

I go to CBSnews.com (http://www.cbsnews.com/sections/politics/main250.shtml)

I can still see stories about Haliburton on the very first page. CBSnews has not given up reporting negative news, or reporting negatively on the Bush campaign. What they probably have given up is running stories about the authenticity of documents until their own house is in order. They can blame or spin it as being caused by someone else, but the reality is that they have to reestablish themselves in this area.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Ah well, here's the deal. I won't call you a "wife-beating domestic and professional failure who can't get his students up to grade level" IF you don't make "reaping and sowing" analogies. Deal? Good :)

Anyway-- since our personal lives aren't even tangentially related to this thread-- can you answer the question about that one aspect of CBS' conduct, the Burkett-Mapes-Lockhart calls? I don't remember any clear statement of why they were wrong-- and you seem gung-ho on saying they are-- so can you at least copy and paste it here? I went through that thread and absolutely couldn't find what you were talking about. Again, thanks.

Here's the deal. Commit slander, get sued. As a future lawyer, you should be pretty familiar with the term.

Because everything I said about you happens to be true and if you care to engage in slander, that is your preogative, but be prepared to hit mommy and daddy up for a little more money for a lawyer.

The paragraph contained the following phrase...

It’s practitioners must maintain an independence and neutrality from those they cover and this is demonstrated in part by following the practice and discipline of verification. When neutrality is not possible, their accuracy, intellectual fairness and ability to inform will be the criteria by which their journalism will be judged.

CBS did not follow the practice of verification with the memos. CBS also crossed a line when placing Burkett in contact with Lockhart because you are supposed to keep your news reporting independent of interested parties.

CBS claims they needed to place those parties in contact in order to get those memoes. In doing that, they had to compromise their independence and neutrality. They crossed the line to get the story, but I even that might be okay as long as the result serves a purpose and is done to an even more exacting level of professionalism.

When neutrality wasn't possible, the criteria becomes accuracy, intellectual fairness and ability to inform.

CBS was not accurate. The memos did not come from Killian, his family or his employer. The family of Killian would not attest to the memos and CBS ignored and did not broadcast any person or party who had any problem with the memos.

Intellectual fairness, CBS misrepresented the memos to the parties and experts from whom they got semi-confirmation. CBS told Hodges that the memos were in Killian's handwriting as confirmed by a handwriting expert. They intentionally neglected to mention they were photocopies, were typed, and that the expert had only been willing to attest to one signature on one of the memos. CBS ignored their own experts who told them not to go forward or use the memos.

Ability to inform, CBS used this story not to inform, but to smear. They have not issued a retraction even to this day. They did not present the views of Killian's family, Hodges, their experts who disagreed with them, the experts who have since proven the documents forgeries, etc.... and THEY STILL HAVE NOT done so. CBS however has put on Burkett the source of the memos

In otherwords it is one thing to make a mistake and issue a retraction. It is another to refuse a retraction and also refuse to broadcast anything from anyone that proves your mistake as well. In fact CBS has done the opposite. They have run a story on CBS news attempting to prop up 60 minutes. They have claimed the story accurate about the memos even without the memos. They have given airtime to discredited, untrustworthy individuals (Burkett) and not given an iota of air time to a single critic of the memos.

If you can't undestand what makes that wrong, it is your loss.

Nick

[SDW2001]

CBS most likely did nothing intentionally wrong. What they did was let an overriding ideology of their managing editor/anchor and producer(s) influence their judgement on accepting questionable documents.

The political beliefs of Rather and his producer are well known. They saw a "big story" that just happened to fit their political ideology, and they took a gamble and lost.

CBS is not the victim here. If they were, they would have been furious beyond belief at being embarassed. Instead, we got a week of standing by the obvious fake documents, followed by a "non-apology apology" that said "we can't prove the docs are real", instead of "uh, hello....they're obviously fake and we totaly fucked up".

Not liberal my ass.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by trumptman
I can still see stories about Haliburton on the very first page. CBSnews has not given up reporting negative news, or reporting negatively on the Bush campaign. LMAO Why the hell should they stop running stories that YOU perceive as negative to the Bush campaign? Because YOU perceive them as negative? Change the channel to Fox News. What they probably have given up is running stories about the authenticity of documents until their own house is in order. They can blame or spin it as being caused by someone else, but the reality is that they have to reestablish themselves in this area.
Ohhh, so in other words they ARE doing something to "reestablish themselves". That plus a full investigation by outside parties which you probably had no clue about.
Anything that goes against Bush must be a lie right? Lol Talk about living in denial.

And about the Halliburton stories...are they false? how about putting your money where your mouth is and debunking those stories that CBS is posting?

Do you own stock on Halliburton or something? Otherwise why would you even try defend them? It's not like they haven't admitted to wrongdoing in the past.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Gilsch
LMAO Why the hell should they stop running stories that YOU perceive as negative to the Bush campaign? Because YOU perceive them as negative? Change the channel to Fox News. Ohhh, so in other words they ARE doing something to "reestablish themselves". That plus a full investigation by outside parties which you probably had no clue about.
Anything that goes against Bush must be a lie right? Lol Talk about living in denial.

Do you read before you post? The claim was that CBS would not run anything critical of the president. I mean I know it is hard to understand that seeing as it is the thread title and all.

Pointing out that they are indeed running negative stories doesn't mean I perceive them as such or desire CBS to become FoxNews. It does mean that I don't view as suspicious the action of CBSNews deciding not to run another story about forged documents.

And about the Halliburton stories...are they false? how about putting your money where your mouth is and debunking those stories that CBS is posting?

Do you own stock on Halliburton or something? Otherwise why would you even try defend them? It's not like they haven't admitted to wrongdoing in the past.

Stop embarrassing yourself.

Hahahaha... you are ranting so hard that you can't even see the point. The point is that it was claimed CBS wouldn't even run a story like the very one you see about Halliburton. I don't have to debunk it or even care about it. But the reality is that the story is there and criticism of Bush and people and companies perceived as associated with Bush are still easily found. There's nothing wrong with that, but don't let someone scream that censorship is occuring when the stories still run and are easily found.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
I would IP Block you from reading my blog just as I have blocked you on AIM from harassing me again and again. But honestly-- I've had enough. Drop this whole line of attack and I'll do the same. Deal? Honestly. Enough.

Like I said before, it always felt fishy to me. It seems professional journalists mostly agree, the phone call was wrong (http://www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=45&aid=71756) (Poynter Online). Great-- we could put this one to bed then.

Perhaps in the future, you shouldn't let your lack of comprehension enrage you to the point of making hateful slanderous remarks. If you can so easily find a source that proves my point and I had already proven it as well, then why ask for elaboration? Perhaps you were hoping that some minor detail would allow you to discredit the messenger?

Don't waste my time.

Nick

[shetline]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Your posts are the most vile things I've ever read-- and yes-- I've been to rotten.com.
I have no idea what feuding is going on behind the scenes here, but I'm just amazed at the hypocrisy of a Bush supporter trying to slam someone for having a privileged background and parents with money.

I get the impression from all of this that ShawnJ is still in college. George W. Bush has relied on Papa Bush and Papa's friends all the way up to, and including, being elected President of the United States, bailing him out of failed ventures and propping him up to start new ones.

If you're going to worry about someone's who has never really grown up because he's never had to work hard for what he's gotten, who has been protected time and again from the consequences of his own failures, then worry about the man who fits that description who has somehow ended up in charge of the world's most powerful country.

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by trumptman
Do you read before you post? The claim was that CBS would not run anything critical of the president. I mean I know it is hard to understand that seeing as it is the thread title and all. This coming from someone who couldn't, or wouldn't see BIG BOLD headline letters in a box on that Swift Boat Liars flier someone posted. Ironic.
I do read before I post. I wasn't addressing the title of the thread, which I admit I should've before I addressed your rant. But if you want me to address it I will. I disagree with it. But I will be keeping an eye an CBS's future reporting because no doubt they will be treating Bush Corp. with kid gloves for a while until the dust settles, which is quite an unfortunate consequence of the memo fiasco.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Gilsch
This coming from someone who couldn't, or wouldn't see BIG BOLD headline letters in a box on that Swift Boat Liars flier someone posted. Ironic.
I do read before I post. I wasn't addressing the title of the thread, which I admit I should've before I addressed your rant. But if you want me to address it I will. I disagree with it. But I will be keeping an eye an CBS's future reporting because no doubt they will be treating Bush Corp. with kid gloves for a while until the dust settles, which is quite an unfortunate consequence of the memo fiasco.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Now this is an example of poisoning the well.

:lol:

Nick

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by shetline
I have no idea what feuding is going on behind the scenes here, but I'm just amazed at the hypocrisy of a Bush supporter trying to slam someone for having a privileged background and parents with money.
I was thinking the exact same thing. The level of bitterness and jealousy Mr. T shows towards Shawn is just delicious to watch. LOL
I mean, how much do you have to hate yourself to vote for (and idolize) a guy with the same characteristics you're so bitter and jealous about. Priceless.
:D

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by shetline
I have no idea what feuding is going on behind the scenes here, but I'm just amazed at the hypocrisy of a Bush supporter trying to slam someone for having a privileged background and parents with money.

I get the impression from all of this that ShawnJ is still in college. George W. Bush has relied on Papa Bush and Papa's friends all the way up to, and including, being elected President of the United States, bailing him out of failed ventures and propping him up to start new ones.

If you're going to worry about someone's who has never really grown up because he's never had to work hard for what he's gotten, who has been protected time and again from the consequences of his own failures, then worry about the man who fits that description who has somehow ended up in charge of the world's most powerful country.

Bush was privileged. Kerry was privileged. Get over it.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
So now you're crying like a baby and sending me private messages threatening to sue me for "slander" and "libel?"

Pathetic.

Your posts are the most vile things I've ever read-- and yes-- I've been to rotten.com.

Shawn,

I've never seen Nick act in the way you're describing, especially not publicly. I have, however seen you slander people and go off the deep end when you disagree with them.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
So now you're crying like a baby and sending me private messages threatening to sue me for "slander" and "libel?"

Pathetic.

Your posts are the most vile things I've ever read-- and yes-- I've been to rotten.com.

*Note to mods, as Shawn mentioned, I did attempt to take this to PM's to avoid publicly posting about this, but if Shawn continues to make public claims, I will answer publically.

I don't have to threaten you with anything Shawn. Crying like a baby is what you would be if I ever actually cared to deal with you in a manner befitting the real world and not the little sheltered life you live. The reality is that slander is illegal and simply calling a name isn't. Also telling the truth about someone isn't illegal while defaming someone is indeed against the law. I can call you a butthead and you can call me an asshole all day long for whatever reasons we desire. But if I, for example, alleged that you were a convicted child molester or something of that nature, it would cross into different territory.

You made claims about me with regard to my wife, my community and my professional standing. If you don't think those are grounds for slander then be prepared to pay for your ignorance because in the adult world when your big mouth attempts to cause people personal and professional harm, you pay for it.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Gilsch
I was thinking the exact same thing. The level of bitterness and jealousy Mr. T shows towards Shawn is just delicious to watch. LOL
I mean, how much do you have to hate yourself to vote for (and idolize) a guy with the same characteristics you're so bitter and jealous about. Priceless.
:D

I assure you, if I cared to detail my personal life to you, the last thing you would think is that I am jealous. I just don't like being called uncaring by someone who is profoundly selfish. The level of hypocrisy demonstrated by Shawn is amazing.

As for voting for Bush, I don't see him going around accusing me of gross polluting while owning an SUV. I've not seen him declaring himself a hero while declaring those he served with criminals.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Just to clear the record: I don't think Nick beats his wife. I do, on the other hand, feel my reputation has been libeled as someone who accuses other people of beating their wife and that's just not the case. What I *meant* was that I won't make outrageous claims about another's background if that person wouldn't make outrageous claims about mine. Fairness, really. I thought it was a pretty obvious statement anyway-- you know the classic example-- "when did you stop beating your wife?"

I guess I struck a nerve there, trumpy. Have you been accused of that before? Want to talk about it?

:)

No nerve struck. It's just there are certain things in life I take too seriously to joke about and the respect I accord my wife happens to be one of them. You can't be libeled when what you typed and proof of it are right there for all to see. Amazingly you didn't even claim I said something wrong about you. You simply said you didn't like my analogies.

I've not made any outrageous claims about you. Last I checked, being a white rich kid who looks down on others, makes ignorant claims about them, and doesn't realize that their sheltered existance has insulated them from the clear consequences that should occur from these actions isn't something outrageous. Heck you claim it is the norm and that we should all be enlightened to act differently, excusing yourself from that of course. Everything I said was the plain truth spoken straight from your own lips. You may not like the tone I took but I never made a single claim about you that is not true.

Name a single thing I was wrong about and I'll gladly apologize which is more than you have done or even offered. Find the words, quote them, and tell me what was untrue. As I said previously, since you were the source, you would have to contradict yourself.

Nick

[Outsider]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Just to clear the record: I don't think Nick beats his wife. I do, on the other hand, feel my reputation has been libeled as someone who accuses other people of beating their wife and that's just not the case. What I *meant* was that I won't make outrageous claims about another's background if that person wouldn't make outrageous claims about mine. Fairness, really. I thought it was a pretty obvious statement anyway-- you know the classic example-- "when did you stop beating your wife?"

I guess I struck a nerve there, trumpy. Have you been accused of that before? Want to talk about it?

:)

Edit: To add to that, how can anyone sue for defaming "Anonymous Internet Discussion Board Poster 'Nick?'" Isn't that one of those "frivolous" lawsuits conservatives are supposed to be so much against? You may not beat your wife but sure are hypocritical. :no:

[crazychester]

Pull your fuckin' heads in now both of you.

Shawn make a clear public apology to him (yes alright again).

Trumpty you do the same. Whether or not what you said was true is beside the point. It was unnecessary. Cut the legal threats.

Frickin' well rise above it both of you and be the better men I know you both are.

Yeah I'm sticking my bib in. Deal with it.

Now I have a luncheon appointment for which I am going to be late. I'm sure by the time I check back in you'll have pulled this thread out of the cesspit.

BTW sorry I told you to piss off Shawn. I have been getting around to an apology.

Had to do it this way sunshine. Busy. Plus you're both making arses of yourselves.

Now hop to it fellas.

Oh hell. You're here. I'm sorry Outsider as well. See if I can do it, I'm sure you both can.

Come on group hug. Come on trumpty, come on..........

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Edit: To add to that, how can anyone sue for defaming "Anonymous Internet Discussion Board Poster 'Nick?'" Isn't that one of those "frivolous" lawsuits conservatives are supposed to be so much against? You may not beat your wife but sure are hypocritical.

I suggest you start doing some research on your own question. Remember that ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it.

Nick

[Outsider]

Originally posted by crazychester
... ;)

[rageous]

Would the two of you stfu and either settle this via PMs, IM or e-mail and let this trite soap opera die?

This thread sucks.

[bunge]

Nick, Shawn's comments were obviously satire. You're simply being a prick and there's no way a judge would consider Shawn's comments slander. Take your bullshit elsewhere, please.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by bunge
Nick, Shawn's comments were obviously satire. You're simply being a prick and there's no way a judge would consider Shawn's comments slander. Take your bullshit elsewhere, please.

Thanks, but I don't really consider you a good source for legal advice. Shawn even characterized the post as being about our personal lives. I think it at a minimum would go to trial and that can be pretty expensive to defend. Maybe I'll call John Edwards up and see if he will take it. He's got a pretty good track record and seems to get large judgments. He could probably use a house in Pennsylvania for his next election run as well.

Nick

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by trumptman
I assure you, if I cared to detail my personal life to you, the last thing you would think is that I am jealous. I just don't like being called uncaring by someone who is profoundly selfish. The level of hypocrisy demonstrated by Shawn is amazing.[/B] No offense, but I really don't care to know anything more about you. And the jealous part is quite obvious from all the whining and bitching about silver spoons etc you have done. [QUOTE]As for voting for Bush, I don't see him going around accusing me of gross polluting while owning an SUV. So in your eyes Kerry owning an SUV makes him worse than the miserable failure the Bush admin. has been when it comes to the environment....brilliant. Yeah, cause owning an SUV is the same as dictating disastrous policy, bending over for special interests, looking the other way when the big energy companies **ck the taxpayers by the likes of good buddies like "Kenny Boy", and pulling out of treaties and conventions.
:lol:
Good to know you live in the real world. I've not seen him declaring himself a hero while declaring those he served with criminals. L_M_A_O Damn right you haven't because Kerry actually volunteered to go to Vietnam unlike other cowards.
You just had to defend your hero didn't you? lol You just had to. lol

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by bunge
Nick, Shawn's comments were obviously satire. You're simply being a prick and there's no way a judge would consider Shawn's comments slander. Take your bullshit elsewhere, please. He's just being a baby, that's what he's doing.

Go nightie night. Get up early tomorrow. Watch the TeleTubbies and everything will be fine.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Gilsch
So in your eyes Kerry owning an SUV makes him worse than the miserable failure the Bush admin. has been when it comes to the environment....brilliant. Yeah, cause owning an SUV is the same as dictating disastrous policy, bending over for special interests, looking the other way when the big energy companies **ck the taxpayers by the likes of good buddies like "Kenny Boy", and pulling out of treaties and conventions.
:lol:
Good to know you live in the real world. L_M_A_O Damn right you haven't because Kerry actually volunteered to go to Vietnam unlike other cowards.
You just had to defend your hero didn't you? lol You just had to. lol

Isn't speaking almost exclusively in sentence fragments the sign of some sort of mental disorder?

I could address it, but really, what could I say that your own thinking doesn't already reveal with regard to your reasoning ability.

Nick

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by trumptman
Isn't speaking almost exclusively in sentence fragments the sign of some sort of mental disorder?No. But I find that highly ironic coming from a Bush Fanatic™ living in fantasyland. I guess going nightie night didn't help at all eh? Maybe the purple Teletubby made you cranky again?
I could address it, but really, what could I say that your own thinking doesn't already reveal with regard to your reasoning ability.
We're glad you didn't. We've had enough of your BS on this thread already. From your ridiculous indignation to your paranoia about suing people. Haven't you embarrassed yourself enough already?

Take a break dude.

:\

[Northgate]

Originally posted by trumptman
Isn't speaking almost exclusively in sentence fragments the sign of some sort of mental disorder?Nick

Are you referring to Gilsch or George W. Bush?

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by Northgate
Are you referring to Gilsch or George W. Bush? Very funny Northgate. Are you comparing me to Bush? :devil:
:p

[crazychester]

Well the effort you've made has been a little less than exemplary so far. I see the peanut gallery are doing there best to keep things chugging along.

I don't want to read the stuff in this thread. And posts don't come with flashing, neon signs at the top saying "Warning. Vile content within. Proceed with extreme caution." I don't mind heated debates, I don't even necessarily mind ad hominens, what I do mind is when it gets vicious and the bounds of what's a fair thing are exceeded.

Trumpty, I have no idea what Shawn's family backround is, but if you want to argue that he's had a privileged upbringing that prevents him from fully understanding X, Y and Z, you could probably say it in a way I'd cop. But your posts here are full of nothing but malice and language loaded to the hilt. Your comments extend beyond insulting Shawn to his family as well. That'd be a pretty sure bet to get most people fired up. People can't choose their parents or the circumstances into which they're born. What should he do? Dress down? Insist on going to only the very worst schools? Go live in a cave and meditate his way to enlightenment? Hope that he gets old quicker?

Shawn, deft bit of tip toeing through the posting guidelines. I don't think you were trying to slander the name of Trumpt. I think you were really pissed and just tried to come up with an insult that would press his buttons and them some. Congratulations, you succeeded admirably. Unfortunately, you over-stepped the mark by a country mile in the process. As for satire....I'm not sure it's your forte, old chap. You may be the spoilt little rich kid who's parents selfishly showered you with the best money could buy, but you're complete lack of talent for satire proves we all have our crosses to bear.


See, I don't want to read this stuff. I don't want to dodge my way around it. I'm not interested in Trumpt v Shawn or the mental conundrum involved in slander against an anonymous internet identity. It makes my brain hurt. I am uncomfortable with the degree of personalizing. I find the level of vehemence disturbing. I'm not interested in who said what, to whom and why? I'm going to get increasingly pissed off if these character assassination death matches become a regular feature. I'm not thrilled about George winning the election but hey! life will probably go on. But should the terrorist hords and/or Dubya bring doom down upon us, I know I'm going to be really pissed off you two wasted my time and energy with the big hot steaming pile of crap you dumped in this thread.


So I'll leave you to it. I hear pride doesn't taste too bad if you swallow it whole.

[Northgate]

Originally posted by Gilsch
Very funny Northgate. Are you comparing me to Bush? :devil:
:p

Only referring to Bush's inability to speak in anything but sentence fragments...which speaks volumes of his mental disorder.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by Gilsch
No. But I find that highly ironic coming from a Bush Fanatic™ living in fantasyland. I guess going nightie night didn't help at all eh? Maybe the purple Teletubby made you cranky again?
We're glad you didn't. We've had enough of your BS on this thread already. From your ridiculous indignation to your paranoia about suing people. Haven't you embarrassed yourself enough already?

Take a break dude.

:\


And there it is. Conservative=Bush freak. Bush supporter=Bush freak. I was waiting for that one. Thanks.

[rageous]

Let me sum up every single post for the next 7 weeks into 10 little sections for everyone to copy and paste as needed. No need to thank me, it's the least I could do:

--

1. Bush looks like an idiot in the debates. If you vote for this lying hypocritical idiot, you are a blind lying hypocritical idiot.

2. Kerry is flip-flopping like an idiot in the debates. If you vote for this flip-flopping hypocritical idiot, you are a blind flip-flopping hypocritical idiot.

3. If you vote for that bumbling idiot Bush after those debates, you are a blind right wing idealouge idiot nut.

4. If you vote for that stiff liar Kerry after those debates, you are a blind left wing idealouge idiot nut.

5. Thanks for posting the RNC talking points. You embody the Karl Rove philosophy.

6. Thanks for posting the DNC talking points. You embody the Terry Mcauliffe philosophy.

7. Attack and smear is all the Republican campaign machine does.

8. Attack and smear is all the Democratic campaign machine does.

9a. Bush stole another election! CONGRATS!!!
9b. BUSH IS GONE!!!!!!! YAY @ LIFE!!!!!

10a. Kerry may have stolen this election, but his presidency will weaken us! CONGRATS!!!
10b. KERRY GOT PWNED!!! THOSE RECOUNTS WON'T EVEN BE CLOSE!!

[Hassan i Sabbah]

This thread is ghey.

[Towel]

Try to make it sightly less ghey...

Sumner Redstone, the CEO of Viacom, announced at a CEO conference in Hong Kong on Friday that he was endorsing (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005669) President Bush for re-election. He's apparently been called a liberal Democrat in the past, but is crossing the fence. His reason for doing so, I think, speaks volumes about what's wrong with our nation:"I look at the election from what's good for Viacom. I vote for what's good for Viacom. I vote, today, Viacom. I don't want to denigrate Kerry," he went on, "but from a Viacom standpoint, the election of a Republican administration is a better deal. Because the Republican administration has stood for many things we believe in, deregulation and so on. The Democrats are not bad people. . . . But from a Viacom standpoint, we believe the election of a Republican administration is better for our company."
Forget about what's good for our nation, the good ol' US of A. Or her people. You know, us. This election is all about what's good for [insert multinational corporation of choice here].

I wonder how much editorial freedom CBS News really has these days?

[rageous]

Originally posted by Towel
Try to make it sightly less ghey...

Sumner Redstone, the CEO of Viacom, announced at a CEO conference in Hong Kong on Friday that he was endorsing (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005669) President Bush for re-election. He's apparently been called a liberal Democrat in the past, but is crossing the fence. His reason for doing so, I think, speaks volumes about what's wrong with our nation:
Forget about what's good for our nation, the good ol' US of A. Or her people. You know, us. This election is all about what's good for [insert multinational corporation of choice here].

I wonder how much editorial freedom CBS News really has these days?

hahaha that is one of the funniest quotes I've read.








In a really sad way. :(

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Towel
Try to make it sightly less ghey...

Sumner Redstone, the CEO of Viacom, announced at a CEO conference in Hong Kong on Friday that he was endorsing (http://www.opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110005669) President Bush for re-election. He's apparently been called a liberal Democrat in the past, but is crossing the fence. His reason for doing so, I think, speaks volumes about what's wrong with our nation:
Forget about what's good for our nation, the good ol' US of A. Or her people. You know, us. This election is all about what's good for [insert multinational corporation of choice here].

I wonder how much editorial freedom CBS News really has these days?

They have plenty of editorial freedom. They just call it the news.

Nick

[trumptman]

Someone has nicely started compiling a checklist of what CBS legally has done wrong with regard to evidence tampering on their own story.

Evidence tampering checklist (http://scyllacharybdis.blogspot.com/2004/09/cbs-and-growing-evidence-tampering.html)

A few of my favs...

CBS Legal terminated the involvement of its outside experts Emily Will and Linda James, when the experts cast doubt on the story. Notably, CBS Legal terminates Will when she begins internet research to provide CBS with futher backup of her opinion that the memos are not authentic. Nixon fired Archibald Cox, remember? Same thing.

This it the one I am amazing more people don't have trouble with, you use the reaction of someone to a fake story to justify supporting the fake story?

CBS makes incomplete and misleading statements to General Hodges (according to Hodges) in order to obtain some appearance of backup for the story from an old Texas Guard vet. Mapes has been working the story for 5 years and had come up empty handed, and certainly had ample time to speak with Hodges. Why the late, incomplete interview of Hodges? CBS then includes Hodges' reactions to the partial, misleading story told to him over the phone. (Hodges claims that CBS led him to believe that it was in possession of original, authenticated handwritten notes of Killian, and CBS paraphrased the content and asked for Hodge's thoughts.). CBS includes his reactions to CBS's "fake but accurate" half-truths as bona fide backup for the story. This is a boot-strap. CBS's own words are cited by CBS as coming from a third party. CBS presumably had reasons for doing so, most of which appear unethical and/or even criminal.

CBS intentionally misrepresented the substance of its experts' opinions, basically by falsely claiming that its experts had authenticated the forged documents. All four experts have come forth and stated that they did not authenticate the forged memos in any manner, or in the manner claimed by CBS.

A lot of Kerry supporters engage in this exact type of "you're screwed if you do and if you don't" type of reasoning. You don't have the documents, we do and we say they're real. Later, uh, we never handled the originals...

CBS first criticized skeptics due to their lack of having the source material, then CBS disavowed any handling of the original memos. The turnabout is an attempted defense under the Texas forgery statute.



CBS falsely stated that its experts vetted the memos, then claimed its experts were not relevant, then accused its experts of violating their nonexistent confidentiality obligations, then stated the experts were lying about their work for CBS.

. CBS’s Betsy West falsely claims that experts Will and James raised no substantive objections to the memos. In fact, they issued written objections, pre-broadcast, and were promptly terminated by CBS.

There's more of course, but you'll have to go read them yourselves.

Nick

[Northgate]

Do you think Fox would spike a Kerry story? A Clinton story? Nope. This is bullshit!

CBS -- the Cowardly Broadcasting System, refuses to run a story showing that we went to war based on a lie:

One measure of the debacle is a "60 Minutes Wednesday" segment that millions of viewers now will now not see: a hard-hitting report making a powerful case that in trying to build support for the Iraq war, the Bush administration either knowingly deceived the American people about Saddam Hussein's nuclear capabilities or was grossly credulous. CBS news president Andrew Heyward spiked the story this week, saying it would be "inappropriate" during the election campaign.

The importance that CBS placed on the report was evident by its unusual length: It was slated to run a full half hour, double the usual 15 minutes of a single segment. Although months of reporting went into the production, CBS abruptly decided that it would be "inappropriate to air the report so close to the presidential election," in the words of a statement that network spokeswoman Kelli Edwards gave the New York Times.

The real reason, of course, was that because of CBS's sloppy reporting on the Bush National Guard story, the network's news executives believed they could no longer report credibly on the heart of the Iraq nuclear issue, involving another set of completely forged documents: those purporting to show that Iraq had purchased yellowcake uranium from the African country Niger.

Salon was given the videotape by CBS News on the condition that we report on it only shortly before it was to air. But after the network effectively spiked its own story (which was reported by Newsweek online and by the New York Times), we sent an e-mail late last week to CBS stating that we believed that the embargo no longer applied. We received no reply and therefore feel free to report.

[snip]

A source close to CBS said Bradley was furious with the decision to spike the report and angry that the reputation of the "60 Minutes" Sunday program has suffered because of the missteps of the Wednesday version of the show. Bradley did not return phone calls seeking comment. On Tuesday, his assistant said the correspondent was "swamped" after returning from a trip to the Middle East.

[snip]

Whatever the case, the CBS producers apparently decided to concentrate on what could be nailed down: the Bush administration had, either intentionally or with breathtaking credulity, relied on patently false intelligence to make the case for invading Iraq.

"Two years ago, Americans heard some frightening words from President Bush and his closest advisers," Bradley said in his introduction of the now-shelved report. "Saddam Hussein, they said, could soon have a nuclear bomb. Of course, we now know that wasn't true." Not only did Saddam not have a nuclear program, Bradley said, but "he hadn't for more than ten years. How could the Bush administration be so wrong about something so important?"

The answer, Bradley was to have told viewers, "has a lot to do with a single piece of evidence: A set of documents that appear to prove Saddam was secretly buying uranium ore." The mysterious surfacing of the forged Niger documents, Bradley said, helped "explain why President Bush and his cabinet delivered the frightening message we all heard in the early autumn two years ago." The broadcast then cut to video clips of Vice President Dick Cheney, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld and National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice making public statements with eerily similar wording:

"We now know that Saddam has resumed his efforts to acquire nuclear weapons," Cheney said in an address to the Veterans of Foreign Wars. Cut to Rumsfeld: "We do now know that Saddam Hussein has been actively and persistently" pursuing nukes." Then, Rice on a television talk show, insisted: "We do know that he is actively pursuing a nuclear weapon."

By showing the video clips in rapid succession, the television piece conveyed, in a manner beyond the printed word, how deliberate and practiced was the administration's sense of urgency.

Bradley then interviewed Sen. Joe Biden, D-Del., the senior Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. (No one from the Bush administration or any Republican on the Senate Intelligence Committee would cooperate, Bradley told viewers.) Biden said in the run-up to the war, he had been perplexed by the remarks of Cheney, Rumsfeld and Rice, because nothing he knew about Iraq's nuclear threat squared with their claims. Asked why he thought they were making such dire pronouncements, Biden said: "What's the one way to energize the American public to go to war? The threat of nuclear weapons."

Cut to Bush: "We cannot wait for the final proof, the smoking gun that could come in the form of a mushroom cloud." The expression on Bush's face as he speaks portentously was a look of concern. Yet, had the segment aired, the viewer would have understood that the president was not telling the truth.

The next scene: Bradley walks down a crowded sidewalk in Milan with Dr. Jafar Dhia Jafar, who had been Saddam's chief nuclear scientist. Jafar explains that Iraq dismantled its nuclear program after the Gulf War in the face of United Nations inspections. "So what was going on?" Bradley asks. "Nothing was going on," Jafar replies. He tells Bradley that the Bush administration was either "being fed with the wrong information" or "they were doing this deliberately."

In a voice over, Bradley asks: "So what information did the Bush administration have to support its argument that Saddam was rebuilding his nuclear weapons? They began hearing reports about one piece of evidence that, if true, would have been the smoking gun."

Cut to a man leading a camel down a crowded city street and a boy playing with a tire in the dirt. We are in Niger, the world's fourth-leading supplier of uranium yellowcake, Bradley explains, as he moves into an interview with former ambassador Joseph Wilson. The CIA dispatched Wilson to Niger in 2002 to investigate reports that Iraq had attempted to purchase uranium from the African nation. Wilson reported that he found no evidence to support the claim. But the Bush administration ignored him and the CIA. In his State of the Union address in January 2003, President Bush cited the supposed Iraqi nuclear threat, slyly attributing its sourcing to British intelligence, since discredited by the Senate Select Intelligence Committee report.

[snip]

In his closing, Bradley explains how fiercely the White House fought his report. Administration officials and Republicans in Congress turned down "60 Minutes'" requests for interview. So did former Rep. Porter Goss, the Florida Republican whom Bush has appointed as the new director of the CIA.

"60 Minutes" defied the White House to produce this report. But it could not survive the network's cowardice -- cowardice born of self-inflicted wounds.

Everyone associated with this travesty of a network should hang their head in shame. _THe only patriotic thing for a CBS underling to do now is to leak the broadcast to Michael Moore, so he can append it to the DVD of Fahrenheit 911.