Look out Conservative Radio - Air America is Here

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

lemme run it down for you one more time: Executive, House, Senate, and very soon the Judiciary,

Do you know what the definition of insanity is? It's repeating the same action yet expecting a different result.

The liberals and Democrats have continiously lied, forged, sided with the enemy, and pretty much done anything within their power to hurt the war effort and to hurt this Administration, well guess what? It aint working see ya in ''06 skippy it's gonna be a good year the American people are onto you guys.

 

[Conflict]

yadyadayada so forged memos and lying to swing public opinion during a Presidential election is constitutional now??? Gimme a break the memos were forged it's been proven your whole argument is based on a lie, just like every other argument I've ever seen you make on this sight.

And by the way it's the Democrats who are all for silencing their political opponents, it's called the Fairness Doctrine which was used continiously to silence the conservative voice throughout the U.S. media.

Whatever you say bub.

I only cited the dictionary and the fact that you take anything that you disagree with and make it into some type of anti-liberal diatribe.

The fact is that just because I believe in our constitution first and foremost.. the fact that I support our troops as in I want them to live to fight a war that really matters.... that doesn't make me a liberal......

It makes you the apologetic thug of the PNAC.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Whatever you say bub.

I only cited the dictionary and the fact that you take anything that you disagree with and make it into some type of anti-liberal diatribe.
The fact is that just because I believe in our constitution first and foremost.. the fact that I support our troops as in I want them to live to fight a war that really matters.... that doesn't make me a liberal......

It makes you the apologetic thug of the PNAC.

No buddy that's you I'm the one who pointed out your ravidly anti-Bush lie and showed you why it was infact a forged fuc/king memo,

you're an apologetist for moveon.org buddy.

You wouldn't even understand my politics if I explained it to you over a 4 page thread but yours are very clear cut; whatever Bush is for you're against, whenever something goes wrong in this world it's Bush's fault, mine explosion Bush's fault, natural disaster Bush's fault, facts to you don't matter what matters to you is the newest add on to the anti-Republican smear campaign. The American people don't like dirty politics especially when they have no basis in reality that's why you people keep losing, but by all means keep it up and I'll see you in ''06.

PS: somebody needs to teach you the definition of individualism and indivual responsibility.

 

[Conflict]

No buddy that's you I'm the one who pointed out your ravidly anti-Bush lie and showed you why it was infact a forged fuc/king memo,

you're an apologetist for moveon.org buddy.

You wouldn't even understand my politics if I explained it to you over a 4 page thread but yours are very clear cut; whatever Bush is for you're against, whenever something goes wrong in this world it's Bush's fault, mine explosion Bush's fault, natural disaster Bush's fault, facts to you don't matter what matters to you is the newest add on to the anti-Republican smear campaign. The American people don't like dirty politics especially when they have no basis in reality that's why you people keep losing, but by all means keep it up and I'll see you in ''06.

PS: somebody needs to teach you the definition of individualism and indivual responsibility.

First and foremost we need to get you a copy of hooked-on-phonics.

Then once you understand simple words... I will explain to you that I'm a libertarian.

A libertarian is a person who strongly believes in personal responsibility.

That is about as far as one can get from the liberal philosophy... in a general sense.


My attempts to hold an actual logical or reasonable debate here have fallen on ignorant ears, as far as you're concerned Trajan.

You have essentially conceded with your redundant obfuscation.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

First and foremost we need to get you a copy of hooked-on-phonics.

Then once you understand simple words... I will explain to you that I'm a libertarian.

A libertarian is a person who strongly believes in personal responsibility.

That is about as far as one can get from the liberal philosophy... in a general sense.


My attempts to hold an actual logical or reasonable debate here have fallen on ignorant ears, as far as you're concerned Trajan.

You have essentially conceded with your redundant obfuscation.

First off you may be a fake Bill Mayr style Libertarian you parrot the likes of Al Frankin and Michael Moore and then want to be believed when you claim to be non-partisan? psst,

Second off there can be no debate when you use proven forgeries as your evidence how do you expect to be taken seriously? It's about as laughable as when people trumpet the D.S.M. letter. Fakes, lies, and forgeries are not a good basis on which to start a debate. What's even more enfuriating is when being confronted with the mounds of evidence that the documents are in deed fakes and not a shred of proof to confirm the documents veracity you still refuse to yeild the point, which means that you're the one not using logic and reason.

If you want to complain about Bush being a bad president there's plenty of real things to complain about without you going around parroting proven left wing smear campaign lies.

So like I said go ahead, look in the mirror, and repeat what you just told me to yourself.

 

[hipsterdufus]

Again, Thornburg's official investigation did not find that the documents were forgeries.

Cincinnati, Ohio: The CBS memos appear to have been created in Microsoft Word. I've heard you recently say that the documents could not have been created in Microsoft Word. Can you explain?

Mary Mapes: The key is that they APPEAR to have been created in Word. That is a parlor trick that doesn't bear close scrutiny. We are preparing two things on the Web site truthandduty.com which will illustrate this fallacy. One is a comparison between the memos' font and Times New Roman, which was used to supposedly recreate the Word version of the memos. The other bit of evidence is a new exhaustive analysis that shows through wer on the letters that these memos were types not laser printed.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/11/10/DI2005111001414.html

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Again, Thornburg's official investigation did not find that the documents were forgeries.



http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2005/11/10/DI2005111001414.html

Perhaps you're talking about this study:


In contrast, Dr. David Hailey, who holds a doctorate in technical communication and is an associate professor and director of a media lab at Utah State University, stated in October 2004 that "evidence from a forensic examination of the Bush memos indicates that they were typed on a typewriter." [151] Hailey's study has been controversial with critics pointing out that Hailey donated $250 to Kerry's campaign; Hailey has also been the subject of an email campaign demanding his dismissal from the university after bloggers alleged that he fabricated portions of the study and made several claims in it that were perceived to be misleading. [152] Dr. Joseph Newcomer, a document expert who produced an extensive analysis asserting the memos were forgeries, called Hailey's study "deeply flawed" [153]. After reading both Hailey's study and Newcomer's analysis, Thomas Phinney, a typography expert employed by Adobe, concurred with Newcomer.


Notice Halley's findings have been debunked.

 

[Conflict]

Perhaps you're talking about this study:


In contrast, Dr. David Hailey, who holds a doctorate in technical communication and is an associate professor and director of a media lab at Utah State University, stated in October 2004 that "evidence from a forensic examination of the Bush memos indicates that they were typed on a typewriter." [151] Hailey's study has been controversial with critics pointing out that Hailey donated $250 to Kerry's campaign; Hailey has also been the subject of an email campaign demanding his dismissal from the university after bloggers alleged that he fabricated portions of the study and made several claims in it that were perceived to be misleading. [152] Dr. Joseph Newcomer, a document expert who produced an extensive analysis asserting the memos were forgeries, called Hailey's study "deeply flawed" [153]. After reading both Hailey's study and Newcomer's analysis, Thomas Phinney, a typography expert employed by Adobe, concurred with Newcomer.


Notice Halley's findings have been debunked.

Notice.... Your proclamation of being debunked means only one thing...... you forgot your tin-foil hat.

Was Halley indicted or charged with a crime? Need we go back to the basics? You call anyone in a liberal based conspiracy a hack... yet you only offer your own version of a subjective (emotionally based and biased) rebuttal.

I haven't seen anything that has been scientifically or factually debunked, by you mr Titus, EVER.

typography? Expert? Adobe? Bah! At least your are being somewhat humurous.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

Notice.... Your proclamation of being debunked means only one thing...... you forgot your tin-foil hat.

Was Halley indicted or charged with a crime? Need we go back to the basics? You call anyone in a liberal based conspiracy a hack... yet you only offer your own version of a subjective (emotionally based and biased) rebuttal.

I haven't seen anything that has been scientifically or factually debunked, by you mr Titus, EVER.

typography? Expert? Adobe? Bah! At least your are being somewhat humurous.

You made the accusation that Bush went AWOL and in America the burden of proof is on the accuser, your only evidence has been proven to be a forgery, you have no case.

 

[KCConservative]

You made the accusation that Bush went AWOL and in America the burden of proof is on the accuser, your only evidence has been proven to be a forgery, you have no case.

And it's a simple as that. Rather lost his job over it. There is no evidence, just desperate political jealousy.

 

[Pacridge]

First off Bush landed that jet on the aircraft carrier himself, he was flying the ****ing plane, second off, the Rathergate story is an outrageous lie it was a totally baseless accusation much the same as every other accusation that has been levied against this President.

You got a source for that? My understanding was the WH asked if Bush could fly and possibly land the plane and the Navy turned them down flat. Even the Commander and Chief has to put in the flight hours and training on each aircraft before flying. Especially before landing on the deck of an aircraft carrier. It's no small feat to do a tail hook onto a chicken farm out at sea.


I could be completely wrong on this. I'll have to go do some research.

As for the Rathergate claims all being baseless and false.

I find it interesting that one way the documents of the story were proved to be faked was by interviewing Marian Carr Knox. She was Bush's commander's secretary. She said "We did discuss Bush's conduct and it was a problem Killian was concerned about. I think he was writing the memos so there would be some record that he was aware of what was going on and what he had done." She added that Killian had her type the memos and locked them away in his private files. She did not believe the CBS documents were real, due to inconsistencies, but said the content is accurate and was perhaps copied from the originals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rathergate

So the documents? Faked. The facts the documents discuss? Accurate according to the lady who would have typed them.

 

[KCConservative]

She did not believe the CBS documents were real, due to inconsistencies, but said the content is accurate and was perhaps copied from the originals[/I]

Then there was no reason to force Rather out at CBS, right? So why did they?

 

[Pacridge]

The point is that he wasn't anywhere near the airforce from 1972-1973 when he was supposed to be there. I don't care wheter or not he served well before than because he made a commitment and didn't follow up on it. Conservative articles are all over the place on this issue. They say that he helped the air force by not being there. They claim that he was there the entire time but the truth is that he wasn't and everyone should know that.

You mean National Guard right?

 

[Pacridge]

Then there was no reason to force Rather out at CBS, right? So why did they?

I'm going to take a wild guess and say because he used fake documents on a story. Documents that he and his producer didn't really check out. In journalism I would think this would be a fairly large no no.

I just find it interesting that when questioned about the documents the lady who supposedly typed them said. They can't be real. The font and structure of them is all wrong. The info in the documents is completely accurate. They could have been made from the real one, but those can't be the real ones.

 

[KCConservative]

I'm going to take a wild guess and say because he used fake documents on a story. Documents that he and his producer didn't really check out. In journalism I would think this would be a fairly large no no.

I just find it interesting that when questioned about the documents the lady who supposedly typed them said. They can't be real. The font and structure of them is all wrong. The info in the documents is completely accurate. They could have been made from the real one, but those can't be the real ones.

Forced out for that, huh? Yeah, right.

 

[Pacridge]

So, you are a self professed LIAR? :rofl

Let's be careful there. I'm assuming you're using that liar comment in jest hench the rofl. But often it can start there and go south. Trajan's accepting he's got his info wrong, that usually shows a bigger better person. Let's not be calling each other liars over something like this.

 

[AlbqOwl]

The documents were forgeries. Everybody involved has now admitted that except Dan Rather who still asserts that because they 'might have been true' that is sufficient to consider them true.

Bush did not land a plane on an aircraft carrier as his Texas National Guard unit was affiliated with the Air Force rather than the Navy and he had no training to land a plane on an aircraft carrier. He however was a skilled pilot earning high marks from his superiors. Flying a fighter plane is not non hazardous duty and we have lost more pilots in training exercises or non combat activities than we have lost in combat in the last several decades.

George W. Bush was a commissioned officer with an honorable discharge, and as such he is entitled to wear an official uniform and air force flight jacket anywhere he chooses even if he was not Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.

 

[Trajan Octavian Titus]

You got a source for that? My understanding was the WH asked if Bush could fly and possibly land the plane and the Navy turned them down flat. Even the Commander and Chief has to put in the flight hours and training on each aircraft before flying. Especially before landing on the deck of an aircraft carrier. It's no small feat to do a tail hook onto a chicken farm out at sea.


I could be completely wrong on this. I'll have to go do some research.

As for the Rathergate claims all being baseless and false.

I find it interesting that one way the documents of the story were proved to be faked was by interviewing Marian Carr Knox. She was Bush's commander's secretary. She said "We did discuss Bush's conduct and it was a problem Killian was concerned about. I think he was writing the memos so there would be some record that he was aware of what was going on and what he had done." She added that Killian had her type the memos and locked them away in his private files. She did not believe the CBS documents were real, due to inconsistencies, but said the content is accurate and was perhaps copied from the originals

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rathergate

So the documents? Faked. The facts the documents discuss? Accurate according to the lady who would have typed them.

Dude she's like 90 years old I doubt she can remember what she had for breakfast today let alone a paper she typed 30 years ago, not to mention, the fact that she is a life long Democrat and that people on that same air base have come out and contradicted her information.

If what we call evidence these days is the word of somebodys 90 year old secretary who may or may not have typed a memo 30 years ago, then the credibility of the media has hit an all time low.

 

[Pacridge]

Dude she's like 90 years old I doubt she can remember what she had for breakfast today let alone a paper she typed 30 years ago, not to mention, the fact that she is a life long Democrat and that people on that same air base have come out and contradicted her information.

If what we call evidence these days is the word of somebodys 90 year old secretary who may or may not have typed a memo 30 years ago, then the credibility of the media has hit an all time low.

She's a life long dem? Hadn't heard that where did you find that?

And there have been people from the base that support her version. All I'm saying is I don't think it's as cut and dry as you're trying to make it sound. Even if you believe, as you seem to, that these memo's never existed and the commander never thought or questioned Bush's commitment to duty. There are still some fairly large holes in Bush's attendance records. Or has someone come up with these records and I just haven't been watching the news enough?

Personally I think we make way too much out stuff like this. I really don't care what he did or didn't do 30+ years ago. I don't care what grades he got in college. Or whether or not his dad got him a choice gig with the Air National Guard rather then leaving him open to the draft. In fact I think it's some what insulting to National Guard member when people try to make it sound as if this isn't a legitimate service to the country. But then I also think it's insulting when guys like the Swift Boat Vets claimed Kerry never engaged in enemy fire or combat. If that were true a bunch of soldiers also got medals and or lied about their service.

 

[Pacridge]

The documents were forgeries. Everybody involved has now admitted that except Dan Rather who still asserts that because they 'might have been true' that is sufficient to consider them true.

Bush did not land a plane on an aircraft carrier as his Texas National Guard unit was affiliated with the Air Force rather than the Navy and he had no training to land a plane on an aircraft carrier. He however was a skilled pilot earning high marks from his superiors. Flying a fighter plane is not non hazardous duty and we have lost more pilots in training exercises or non combat activities than we have lost in combat in the last several decades.

George W. Bush was a commissioned officer with an honorable discharge, and as such he is entitled to wear an official uniform and air force flight jacket anywhere he chooses even if he was not Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.

Plus idiots don't fly fighter jets. So much for Bush being a moron.

 

[BWG]

Let's be careful there. I'm assuming you're using that liar comment in jest hench the rofl. But often it can start there and go south. Trajan's accepting he's got his info wrong, that usually shows a bigger better person. Let's not be calling each other liars over something like this.

I know you're just trying to nip something in the bud, but I didn't call anyone anything. I asked a question.


AFTER, I called TOT on Bush landing the airplane on a carrier. I get this.

TOT QUOTE = OOO he flew the plane not landed it big fuc/king difference, that's not lying that's an honest mistake, what you people do is lie I atleast admit when I'm mistaken.


I stated basically the same thing as you:
BWG = The document MAY not have been authentic, but the basis of the story has not been proven false.

and I get a rant:
TOT = Give me a break that's the most ridiculous piece of b.s. reasoning I've ever heard, this is how you libs reason: "well the story may not have been true but we all know it was true anyways so the fact that it was untrue doesn't matter."

A lie is a lie any way you cut it partna Rather is a lier.


Was the response to your post similar?

No matter, I'm done with that and moving on.

George W. Bush was a commissioned officer with an honorable discharge, and as such he is entitled to wear an official uniform and air force flight jacket anywhere he chooses even if he was not Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.

To be honest, I'm not sure about the wearing of the uniform, but if you are trying to insinuate that he is a veteran, he hasn't provided any proof that he is.


Source: Title 38, United States Code, Part I, Chapter 1

Paragraph 2: The term ''veteran'' means a person who served in the active military, naval, or air service, and who was discharged or released therefrom under conditions other than dishonorable

Paragraph 21: The term ''active duty'' means - (A) full-time duty in the Armed Forces, other than active duty for training

Paragraph 22: The term ''active duty for training'' means - (A) full-time duty in the Armed Forces performed by Reserves for training purposes

 

[hipsterdufus]

Perhaps you're talking about this study:


In contrast, Dr. David Hailey, who holds a doctorate in technical communication and is an associate professor and director of a media lab at Utah State University, stated in October 2004 that "evidence from a forensic examination of the Bush memos indicates that they were typed on a typewriter." [151] Hailey's study has been controversial with critics pointing out that Hailey donated $250 to Kerry's campaign; Hailey has also been the subject of an email campaign demanding his dismissal from the university after bloggers alleged that he fabricated portions of the study and made several claims in it that were perceived to be misleading. [152] Dr. Joseph Newcomer, a document expert who produced an extensive analysis asserting the memos were forgeries, called Hailey's study "deeply flawed" [153]. After reading both Hailey's study and Newcomer's analysis, Thomas Phinney, a typography expert employed by Adobe, concurred with Newcomer.


Notice Halley's findings have been debunked.

No, I'm not referring to Hailey's study.I'm talking about the Thornburgh-Boccardi report.

 

[Pacridge]

I know you're just trying to nip something in the bud, but I didn't call anyone anything. I asked a question.


AFTER, I called TOT on Bush landing the airplane on a carrier. I get this.

TOT QUOTE = OOO he flew the plane not landed it big fuc/king difference, that's not lying that's an honest mistake, what you people do is lie I atleast admit when I'm mistaken.


I stated basically the same thing as you:
BWG = The document MAY not have been authentic, but the basis of the story has not been proven false.

and I get a rant:
TOT = Give me a break that's the most ridiculous piece of b.s. reasoning I've ever heard, this is how you libs reason: "well the story may not have been true but we all know it was true anyways so the fact that it was untrue doesn't matter."

A lie is a lie any way you cut it partna Rather is a lier.


Was the response to your post similar?

No matter, I'm done with that and moving on.

Yep, that's exactly what I was trying to nip in the bud.

All I can say is be the bigger person and move on.

 

[Conflict]

The documents were forgeries.

What documents? Prove it.

Everybody involved has now admitted that except Dan Rather who still asserts that because they 'might have been true' that is sufficient to consider them true.

The media exists to report facts... at the same time they are obligated to offer a conjecture of popular belief.

Bush did not land a plane on an aircraft carrier as his Texas National Guard unit was affiliated with the Air Force rather than the Navy and he had no training to land a plane on an aircraft carrier.

Explain to me who is qualled to land where and why. You obviously have never flown an Air Force craft and you deny the simple fact that most Air Force personnel are "qualled" to fly or do ANYTHING.

He however was a skilled pilot earning high marks from his superiors.

Proof? Evidence? Those documents that exonerate him do little to add any substantive factor... as they are nothing more than mystical.

Flying a fighter plane is not non hazardous duty and we have lost more pilots in training exercises or non combat activities than we have lost in combat in the last several decades.

Non-Hazardous? Have you ever flown a fighter jet?

George W. Bush was a commissioned officer with an honorable discharge

He was a non-commissioned (enlistee), and there is barely a retroactive record to show that.... aside from the fact that there were several special objections and priveleges applied to his file. He was never considered as an Officer nor was he ever a Pilot of a turbine based craft.

and as such he is entitled to wear an official uniform and air force flight jacket anywhere he chooses even if he was not Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.

Halloween is a fabulous holiday. I tend to dress up as Jesus Christ and strike down upon the those who have no basis for their claim.

 

[Pacridge]

What documents? Prove it.



The media exists to report facts... at the same time they are obligated to offer a conjecture of popular belief.



Explain to me who is qualled to land where and why. You obviously have never flown an Air Force craft and you deny the simple fact that most Air Force personnel are "qualled" to fly or do ANYTHING.




Proof? Evidence? Those documents that exonerate him do little to add any substantive factor... as they are nothing more than mystical.



Non-Hazardous? Have you ever flown a fighter jet?



He was a non-commissioned (enlistee), and there is barely a retroactive record to show that.... aside from the fact that there were several special objections and priveleges applied to his file. He was never considered as an Officer nor was he ever a Pilot of a turbine based craft.



Halloween is a fabulous holiday. I tend to dress up as Jesus Christ and strike down upon the those who have no basis for their claim.

There's several things wrong with your post here. Not even sure where to begin. In fact I'm just not going to go through it error by error. But GWB was a commissioned officer not an enlistee. The US Military does not allow enlistees to pilot any aircraft. Bush was a Second lieutenant and he flew several aircraft, most notably an F-102 fighter jet.

Good with with your Halloween costume.