You guys have been drinking again.Spumantiii wrote:
Do not store up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust destroy,
and where thieves break in and steal. But store up for yourselves treasures in heaven,
where moth and rust do not destroy, and where thieves do not break in and steal.
For where your treasure is, there your heart will be also.
off topic I know. That one above is real, Matthew 6:19 (?)
AUSTIN 3:16!!!
for truthfully Austin is the name given upon kr@cker upon his departing and arising from within the loins of his mother
for truthfully Austin is the name given upon kr@cker upon his departing and arising from within the loins of his mother
WTF, you screwed your mom with some Austin guy on you.kr@cker wrote:
AUSTIN 3:16!!!
for truthfully Austin is the name given upon kr@cker upon his departing and arising from within the loins of his mother
Oh like you wouldn't
OK, we have a criminal, a bad guy, who is on parole. The police put out an APB/ Arrest Warrant for him for a list of things. He has not actually done any of these things listed on the arrest warrant but, what the hell, he is a bad guy! Lock him up.kr@cker wrote:
Funny thing about disarmament agreements, as they are the military equivalent of being found guilty of a crime and being put on parole or under house arrest, they place burden of proof on a party already found guilty to prove that they were in compliance.
You don't check in with your parole officer, you get bitch slapped, your ankle bracelet doesn't show you as being back inside your house by the designated curfew, you get bitch slapped.
Whether it was because he actually had weapons, or because he didn't and wanted all his neighbors to keep thinking he was "da shit", burden of proof was Hussein's responsibility, as in this case it was as if he had already been convicted of a crime, and proving his disarmament was his equivalent to checking in with his parole officer, he had over a decade to provide such proof, he failed, he was bitch slapped.
Convenient for us no?
If you make a case to go to war, you better believe the burden of proof is on you.
To the moron who left me this.....
Date Value From Post Reason Being...
Today 16:40:08 -1 Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? You really believe those docs had been forged? wake up
In regards to this....
Date Value From Post Reason Being...
Today 16:40:08 -1 Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? You really believe those docs had been forged? wake up
In regards to this....
Darth_Fleder wrote:
Like Dan Rather and his forged documents 60 days before an election...or the NYT "All the news we can dream up to print'?
Dan Rather himself admitted they were less than trueAndrew Heyward
CBS News President wrote:
'60 Minutes Wednesday' had full confidence in the original report or it would not have aired. However, in the wake of serious and disturbing questions that came up after the broadcast, CBS News has done extensive additional reporting in an effort to confirm the documents’ authenticity.
That included an interview featured on last week’s edition of "60 Minutes Wednesday" with Marian Carr Knox, secretary to the late Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, the officer named as the author of the documents; the interview with Bill Burkett to be seen tonight; and a further review of the forensic evidence on both sides of the debate.
Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret. Nothing is more important to us than our credibility and keeping faith with the millions of people who count on us for fair, accurate, reliable, and independent reporting. We will continue to work tirelessly to be worthy of that trust.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/ … 4539.shtml
Put that in your pipe and smoke it, twit.The Washington Post wrote:
Rather Concedes Papers Are Suspect
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 16, 2004; Page A01
CBS anchor Dan Rather acknowledged for the first time yesterday that there are serious questions about the authenticity of the documents he used to question President Bush's National Guard record last week on "60 Minutes."
"If the documents are not what we were led to believe, I'd like to break that story," Rather said in an interview last night. "Any time I'm wrong, I want to be right out front and say, 'Folks, this is what went wrong and how it went wrong.' "http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24633-2004Sep15.html
Know David Copperfield? Cuz you sure are making an attempt at misdirection. If you are on parole and don't commit to the terms of the parole, you better believe your ass goes to jail. I hope if I ever end up in court, your the opposition's counsel.BN wrote:
OK, we have a criminal, a bad guy, who is on parole. The police put out an APB/ Arrest Warrant for him for a list of things. He has not actually done any of these things listed on the arrest warrant but, what the hell, he is a bad guy! Lock him up.kr@cker wrote:
Funny thing about disarmament agreements, as they are the military equivalent of being found guilty of a crime and being put on parole or under house arrest, they place burden of proof on a party already found guilty to prove that they were in compliance.
You don't check in with your parole officer, you get bitch slapped, your ankle bracelet doesn't show you as being back inside your house by the designated curfew, you get bitch slapped.
Whether it was because he actually had weapons, or because he didn't and wanted all his neighbors to keep thinking he was "da shit", burden of proof was Hussein's responsibility, as in this case it was as if he had already been convicted of a crime, and proving his disarmament was his equivalent to checking in with his parole officer, he had over a decade to provide such proof, he failed, he was bitch slapped.
Convenient for us no?
If you make a case to go to war, you better believe the burden of proof is on you.
And you used a poor example, if an arrest warrant is issued, it doesn't matter if you are guilty or not, you get arrested.
And Fleder, weren't some of those documents dated after LC Killian died? I think your anon-negger has perhaps been putting too much in their pipe and smoking it lately. Funny how their retraction didn't get near as much airtime as their madeup headlines.
Last edited by kr@cker (2006-07-07 19:25:07)
We can sit and argue all day. The facts remain. Saddam = bad guy. Should have been removed after gulf war 1. The war was sold to the UN, public etc on things that just were not there. ( i have listed a few examples on the previous page)kr@cker wrote:
Know David Copperfield? Cuz you sure are making an attempt at misdirection. If you are on parole and don't commit to the terms of the parole, you better believe your ass goes to jail. I hope if I ever end up in court, your the opposition's counsel.
And you used a poor example, if an arrest warrant is issued, it doesn't matter if you are guilty or not, you get arrested.
This still makes him a bad guy, but dont bullshit to eveyone. Be honest. Cos once you have lied and been caught out. Its pretty hard to earn the trust back.
I are a post spamming whore
Ah well
It are sadestkr@cker wrote:
I are a post spamming whore
I think its funny when someone grabs quotes, rants an opnion, and states - point proven end of story.Darth_Fleder wrote:
To the moron who left me this.....
Date Value From Post Reason Being...
Today 16:40:08 -1 Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? You really believe those docs had been forged? wake up
In regards to this....Darth_Fleder wrote:
Like Dan Rather and his forged documents 60 days before an election...or the NYT "All the news we can dream up to print'?Dan Rather himself admitted they were less than trueAndrew Heyward
CBS News President wrote:
'60 Minutes Wednesday' had full confidence in the original report or it would not have aired. However, in the wake of serious and disturbing questions that came up after the broadcast, CBS News has done extensive additional reporting in an effort to confirm the documents’ authenticity.
That included an interview featured on last week’s edition of "60 Minutes Wednesday" with Marian Carr Knox, secretary to the late Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, the officer named as the author of the documents; the interview with Bill Burkett to be seen tonight; and a further review of the forensic evidence on both sides of the debate.
Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret. Nothing is more important to us than our credibility and keeping faith with the millions of people who count on us for fair, accurate, reliable, and independent reporting. We will continue to work tirelessly to be worthy of that trust.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/ … 4539.shtmlPut that in your pipe and smoke it, twit.The Washington Post wrote:
Rather Concedes Papers Are Suspect
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 16, 2004; Page A01
CBS anchor Dan Rather acknowledged for the first time yesterday that there are serious questions about the authenticity of the documents he used to question President Bush's National Guard record last week on "60 Minutes."
"If the documents are not what we were led to believe, I'd like to break that story," Rather said in an interview last night. "Any time I'm wrong, I want to be right out front and say, 'Folks, this is what went wrong and how it went wrong.' "http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24633-2004Sep15.html
Fake documents or not, Bush got out early, lost his flying status for lack of participation all during a time of war. Hmmmm... we should have elected Kerry... We would still be in Iraq, boged down in an occupation (for better or worse) and we would still complain about the situation but at least he wouldnt appear like a retard doing it.
Last edited by rawls2 (2006-07-10 15:57:29)
Please post your facts to back this up. Again facts please, not an article written by some Bush hater full of opinions.rawls2 wrote:
I think its funny when someone grabs quotes, rants an opnion, and states - point proven end of story.Darth_Fleder wrote:
To the moron who left me this.....
Date Value From Post Reason Being...
Today 16:40:08 -1 Do you believe President Bush's actions justify impeachment? You really believe those docs had been forged? wake up
In regards to this....Darth_Fleder wrote:
Like Dan Rather and his forged documents 60 days before an election...or the NYT "All the news we can dream up to print'?Dan Rather himself admitted they were less than trueAndrew Heyward
CBS News President wrote:
'60 Minutes Wednesday' had full confidence in the original report or it would not have aired. However, in the wake of serious and disturbing questions that came up after the broadcast, CBS News has done extensive additional reporting in an effort to confirm the documents’ authenticity.
That included an interview featured on last week’s edition of "60 Minutes Wednesday" with Marian Carr Knox, secretary to the late Lt. Col. Jerry Killian, the officer named as the author of the documents; the interview with Bill Burkett to be seen tonight; and a further review of the forensic evidence on both sides of the debate.
Based on what we now know, CBS News cannot prove that the documents are authentic, which is the only acceptable journalistic standard to justify using them in the report. We should not have used them. That was a mistake, which we deeply regret. Nothing is more important to us than our credibility and keeping faith with the millions of people who count on us for fair, accurate, reliable, and independent reporting. We will continue to work tirelessly to be worthy of that trust.”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/09/ … 4539.shtmlPut that in your pipe and smoke it, twit.The Washington Post wrote:
Rather Concedes Papers Are Suspect
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, September 16, 2004; Page A01
CBS anchor Dan Rather acknowledged for the first time yesterday that there are serious questions about the authenticity of the documents he used to question President Bush's National Guard record last week on "60 Minutes."
"If the documents are not what we were led to believe, I'd like to break that story," Rather said in an interview last night. "Any time I'm wrong, I want to be right out front and say, 'Folks, this is what went wrong and how it went wrong.' "http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24633-2004Sep15.html
Fake documents or not, Bush got out early, lost his flying status for lack of participation all during a time of war. Hmmmm... we should have elected Kerry... We would still be in Iraq, boged down in an occupation (for better or worse) and we would still complain about the situation but at least he wouldnt appear like a retard doing it.
Bush got out early as a request to assist in a Senatorial campaign, by no means an unusual request, true he got out early, yet he still had more than the minimum amount of fly points required for a 6 year enlistment. How early did he get out? He served 5 years and 6 months. So he (fleder) grabbed quotes from the publishing company stating that the story they themselves published was based on forged documents, that would appear to be "point proven end of story".
Last edited by kr@cker (2006-07-10 21:07:43)