Presidential Debate: In Sum, Kerry Kicked Butt

Panasonic Lumix G 14mm F2.5 ASPH

10/18/2004 06:48:53 PM · #77

Originally posted by bdobe:

BUSH: Gosh, I just don't think I ever said I'm not worried about Osama bin Laden. It's kind of one of those exaggerations.

HOWEVER!

We all know that, in fact, Mr. Bush was OUTRIGHT lying! [see Bush: Flip Flopper in Chief] (Surprise, surprise. Right!?) Well, let's just think for one second what would have happened if Mr. Kerry had been the one caught in a BLATANT lie like Mr. Bush was.

Well, this has been beaten to death here, particularly in the thread you link to above. On the second part, I would say that he's correct in that it is "one of those exaggerations", or probably better put, a misrepresentation of what he meant.

But maybe you just didn't watch enough of the news response to see that even Fox picked up on Bush's response and called him on it. So I guess that means Fox is liberal..? ;)

Originally posted by bdobe:

Of course, every time there's an attack on our troops in Iraq we hear how the Iraqi insurgents are now increasingly linked to Al Queda and how their local leader, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, is affiliated with Bin Laden. The question must be asked, if Bin Landen had been captured in Afghanistan during the war, and if we had still gone into Iraq, would our troops be seen the same level of resistence that they're witnessing in Iraq?

According to this story from the Washington Post, the insurgents and local Iraqis seem to be tiring of the foreign terrorists: Insurgent Alliance Is Fraying In Fallujah. But I know, if its not critical of Bush, the war, or America, then it must not be a credible source...

(edit: The above Yahoo News link is no longer active. But if you do a Google News search on "Insurgent Alliance Is Fraying In Fallujah", you can link directly into the original Washington Post article.)

Message edited by author 2004-10-20 20:29:23.

bdobe

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

10/29/2004 01:06:08 AM · #78

NASA PHOTO ANALYST: BUSH WORE A DEVICE DURING DEBATE
Physicist says imaging techniques prove the president's bulge was not caused by wrinkled clothing.
- - - - - - - - - - - -
By Kevin Berger

Oct. 29, 2004 | George W. Bush tried to laugh off the bulge. "I don't know what that is," he said on "Good Morning America" on Wednesday, referring to the infamous protrusion beneath his jacket during the presidential debates. "I'm embarrassed to say it's a poorly tailored shirt."

Dr. Robert M. Nelson, however, was not laughing. He knew the president was not telling the truth. And Nelson is neither conspiracy theorist nor midnight blogger. He's a senior research scientist for NASA and for Caltech's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, and an international authority on image analysis. Currently he's engrossed in analyzing digital photos of Saturn's moon Titan, determining its shape, whether it contains craters or canyons.

[...]

Nelson stresses that he's not certain what lies beneath the president's jacket. He offers, though, "that it could be some type of electronic device -- it's consistent with the appearance of an electronic device worn in that manner." The image of lines coursing up and down the president's back, Nelson adds, is "consistent with a wire or a tube."

[...]

Bruce Hapke, professor emeritus of planetary science in the department of geology and planetary science at the University of Pittsburgh, reviewed the Bush images employed by Nelson, whom he calls "a very highly respected scientist in his field." Hapke says Nelson's process of analyzing the images are the "exact same methods we use to analyze images taken by spacecraft of planetary surfaces. It does not introduce any artifacts into the picture in any way."

[...]

In the enhanced photo of the first debate, Nelson says, look at the horizontal white line in middle of the president's back. You'll see a shadow. "That's telling me there's definitely a bulge," he says. "In fact, it's how we measure the depths of the craters on the moon or on Mars. We look at the angle of the light and the length of shadow they leave. In this case, that's clearly a crater that's under the horizontal line -- it's clearly a rim of a bulge protruding upward, one due to forces pushing it up from beneath."

[...]

Nelson admits that he's a Democrat and plans to vote for John Kerry. But he takes umbrage at being accused of partisanship. "Everyone wants to think my colleague and I are just a bunch of dope-crazed ravaged Democrats who are looking to insult the president at the last minute," he says. "And that's not what this is about. This is scientific analysis. If the bulge were on Bill Clinton's back and he was lying about it, I'd have to say the same thing."

"Look, he says, "I'm putting myself at risk for exposing this. But this is too important. It's not about my reputation. If they force me into an early retirement, it'll be worth it if the public knows about this. It's outrageous statements that I read that the president is wearing nothing under there. There's clearly something there."

- - - - - - - - - - - -

//www.salon.com/news/feature/2004/10/29/bulge/

MadMordegon

10/29/2004 04:26:00 AM · #79

Hmm.

Olyuzi

Panasonic Lumix DMC-GX7

10/29/2004 09:01:06 AM · #80

Hmmm...looks like you can even see the wire running up his right shoulder to his ear(?).

ScottK

10/29/2004 04:04:13 PM · #81

(Hmmmm - my reply either didn't take - or was deleted? A little warning would be nice. Maybe if I reword it??? I think what I said, with a slight edit, was...)

This distraction is pathetic. I saw Bush's taylor on one of the networks the other day, and he demonstrated how the jacket bunches up like that when you cross your arms or you're hunched forward, as Bush was.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

10/29/2004 05:49:13 PM · #82

Originally posted by ScottK:

Though I was not the one who hid your previous post, I can see that it was hidden, and I can see the content. The post was hidden because it contained a personal attack. The site policy on personal attacks is very clear, and posts that violate that policy will be removed without warning.

-Terry

magicshutter

Nikon D70

10/29/2004 06:57:28 PM · #83

I rarely post on political forums, or anything else political. The main reason for the is, it seems to be there is way too much he didn't do this and not enough explanation of how they intend to do better. All I seem to hear from any candidate (going back to clinton after all i'm only 26) 'i can lower taxes and he wants to raise them'. Maybe I missed something but I havn't heard anyone explain how this will work.

I also hear alot of people raggin' on Bush about not being a robotic like perfect human being but how many of us are what we hold him up to?
Sure G.W. is the President, the Leader, the Commander in Chief. But what I look for in leadership is not perfection. It's how they look out for me and my best interest. We would all be saying the same kind of thing but opposite if GW did nothing and they really did have those weapons. WE would ALL be screwed. For those who didn't vote for GW, I can only say you should support your country in all fashions including the rest of us and the validity of our oppinion as it obviously outnumbered your opinions. The problem is that you can't please everyone, and someone is always hurt by everything. The only way to stop 'higher taxes on the poor' is by cranking up taxes on the rich.. As a poor man I'm all for this (strictly judgement) In my 'opinion' if you have more money, you have more to pay (steal from the rich and give to the poor i guess). I don't see a way around hurt feelings and hurt wallets. If you want traffic you ease up you have to give up some cash and not complain about the 'environment' or about nature being tread upon. It cannot happen both ways unless you want bi-ways all over the place similar to california. Then you have polution which kills the trees you're trying to save by deleting the ozone and warming the planet.

I'm sorry to all the people in America who feel violated by one thing or another. I too have felt similar feelings on just about everthing. I can't explain the answers to the world and the above is only my opinion. My only hope is that people everywhere, not just americans, can realize no human is perfect. It's how we recover from those jackass moves we made because we believed something. I mean, it takes two.. one to lie and one to listen.

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

10/29/2004 07:03:08 PM · #84

One point with which I take issue:

Originally posted by magicshutter:

For those who didn't vote for GW, I can only say you should support your country in all fashions including the rest of us and the validity of our oppinion as it obviously outnumbered your opinions.

George W. Bush did not win the popular vote. He did however win in the Electoral College, which is why he is president, however, to say those who voted for Bush outnumbered those who voted for someone else is simply not accurate.

-Terry

Message edited by author 2004-10-29 19:03:16.

magicshutter

Nikon D70

10/29/2004 07:11:41 PM · #85

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

One point with which I take issue:

Originally posted by magicshutter:
For those who didn't vote for GW, I can only say you should support your country in all fashions including the rest of us and the validity of our oppinion as it obviously outnumbered your opinions.

George W. Bush did not win the popular vote. He did however win in the Electoral College, which is why he is president, however, to say those who voted for Bush outnumbered those who voted for someone else is simply not accurate.

-Terry

Point taken, he's still president and should be supported.

joshua

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

10/29/2004 07:17:24 PM · #86

Originally posted by Olyuzi:

Hmmm...looks like you can even see the wire running up his right shoulder to his ear(?).

yeah man, that wire sure was effective too cause that was bush's worst debate performance and there was no outcry about devices when he did better in later debates. also how naive are all of you to think that technology hasn't advanced passed the 70's and that if bush really wanted to have a wire he would have chosen something much less visible? keep fishin

MadMordegon

10/29/2004 07:19:54 PM · #87

Originally posted by magicshutter:

Point taken, he's still president and should be supported.

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the president or that we are to stand by the president right or wrong is not only unpatriotic and servile, it is morally treasonable to the American people."
Theodore Roosevelt (R).

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

10/29/2004 07:45:59 PM · #88

Okay, please explain why my post was deleted? It was copied and pasted from another thread where the same thing was said to me, and after I asked two SC members to delete it, it is still there today. All I did was change the name, taking mine out and inserting another.

PLEASE EXPLAIN???

Is it only a personal attack when I say it? Has the policy changed in the last few days? I'm confused.

Canon EOS-20D

10/29/2004 07:58:15 PM · #89

The policy has always been that personal attacks are not allowed. In the past few days, a few of the SC members, myself included, have gotten fed up with the childish personal attacks and rather than taking our time to edit them, we are simply deleting them. If you'd like to PM me a link to the thread you're referring to, I'd be glad to take a look at it.

10/29/2004 07:59:11 PM · #90

Originally posted by louddog:

First of all, you did more than just take out the name. The post to which you refer contained more than just the one sentence you reposted.

Second, our enforcement of the policy has been updated since the 21st (the date of the post to which you refer) to respond to the increase in personal attacks. At the time, if a post contained a personal attack but also made points that were relevant to the debate, the post was allowed to stand but a reminder to abide by the guidelines was posted by SC (on the forums and/or via PM to the offending user(s). It was our hope at the time that users would heed those reminders.

Since that time, enough users have ignored those reminders that we are taking a more hardline stance. If a post contains a personal attack, the entire post will be removed. The policy has not change, our method of enforcement has.

Since your post contained a personal attack and nothing else, it would have been removed in either case.

-Terry

Message edited by author 2004-10-29 20:00:41.

10/29/2004 08:06:52 PM · #91

Then I request, for the third time, that SC do something about the personal attack I received in that other thread. If it's not okay here, it shouln't have been okay there.

10/29/2004 08:09:43 PM · #92

Appropriate action was taken according to the enforcement procedures that were in effect at the time. Not all Site Council actions are visible, and you should rest assured that the post was not ignored.

That said, I do not have the time, patience or inclination to go back through 8 days' worth of posts to retroactively apply a change in enforcement policy. The change will be made going forward.

-Terry

Message edited by author 2004-10-29 20:10:31.

10/29/2004 08:22:26 PM · #93

How can I be "rest assured that the post was not ignored" when I can't see any action that was taken and the post I found insulting is still there.

I'm not asking you to go through 8 days of threads. I have one specific thread, which I have emailed you, and 2 other SC members, that I would like personal attacks against me deleted. I'd bet you could take care of that in just a few minutes.

10/29/2004 08:44:30 PM · #94

Originally posted by louddog:

Because I told you then, and am telling you now, that appropriate action was taken at the time, under the enforcement procedures that were then in effect. You may choose to take my at my word, or you may choose not to beleive me.

It is generally not site policy to apply rule or enforcement policy changes retroactively.

-Terry

10/29/2004 08:55:06 PM · #95

Originally posted by magicshutter:

Point taken, he's still president and should be supported.

America was founded on the belief that a free society is dependent on the right of the people to criticize the government. A person can support his or her country and be critical of its leaders at the same time; the two are not mutually exclusive.

-Terry

10/29/2004 09:17:18 PM · #96

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

Originally posted by louddog:
How can I be "rest assured that the post was not ignored" when I can't see any action that was taken and the post I found insulting is still there.

I'm not asking you to go through 8 days of threads. I have one specific thread, which I have emailed you, and 2 other SC members, that I would like personal attacks against me deleted. I'd bet you could take care of that in just a few minutes.

Because I told you then, and am telling you now, that appropriate action was taken at the time, under the enforcement procedures that were then in effect. You may choose to take my at my word, or you may choose not to beleive me.

It is generally not site policy to apply rule or enforcement policy changes retroactively.

-Terry

Okay, I'll take your word for it that I should no longer feel insulted.

10/29/2004 09:20:20 PM · #97

Originally posted by louddog:

Okay, I'll take your word for it that I should no longer feel insulted.

Likewise, if you see any posts that need our attention, please continue to point them out with us. We'll do our best to deal with them as fairly and even-handedly as we can, and in a manner consistent with current site policy.

No hard feelings, I hope?

-Terry