Hi @all,
from my point of view the old thread is to big and is the horror for all users with analog internet connection ;). But it also shows your big interest in science.

THIS THREAD CONTINUED FROM HERE

the old thread is to big and is the horror for all users with analog internet connection ;). But it also shows your big interest in science.

Perhaps we should have a rule that after 200 posts, we spawn a new thread.

But include an ammendment to exclude the <a>href="http://setiweb.ssl.berkeley.edu/forum_thread.php?id=4083">BOTD[/url] thread. May that run as long as the Nile. ;)
Kilometers or miles?

If you do the math, from 2004-Sep-11 02:45:28 UTC through 2004-Oct-03 20:43:30 UTC there were 115 posts and 8,084 views, right? So on average, a post was made every 4:44:51 and was viewed every 0:04:03!

I think BOTD should be excluded based on the grounds that it is seen too often by too many to be forked.

Don't see any Political opinions yet.

Alright, I'll pose a question to all before I hit the sack: Aside from our two excuses/examples of leadership, who should be President? I'll throw Kofi Annan and Shimon Perez into the ring...

>yawn

> Alright, I'll pose a question to all before I hit the sack: Aside from our two
> excuses/examples of leadership, who should be President?

The vote is: None of the Above. This wouldve been the time for Ross Perot and all his colorful charts. But right now theres not even a dominate 3rd party candidate. Ralph Nader didnt even make the ballot in California. He says he's running as an Independant but tried to get the Green party nomination. As a member of the AIP I'll probably vote for Peroutka, but then again maybe I'll just write in Snoopy, Mickey, or Bugs. :P

The only real option is to get rid of Bush, I'd vote for Al Sharpton before I'd waste my vote. Anything but that lying daddy's boy without an original thought in his tiny little brain.

---

Account frozen...

> before I'd waste my vote.

The Electoral College will do that for you.

I have a question.

How many candidates are in the race and are there any
Black or woman candidate ? or a black woman ? I'd say
a black woman would be pretty cool and it would bring
fresh thoughts to Washington.

Unfortunately I guess it will never happen.

> I have a question.
>
> How many candidates are in the race and are there any
> Black or woman candidate ? or a black woman ? I'd say
> a black woman would be pretty cool and it would bring
> fresh thoughts to Washington.
>
> Unfortunately I guess it will never happen.
>
>
>
Ya thats is realy true. A black or a black magic woman would show indeed a change.



The whole is more then the sum of its particles.
Aristoteles
Best wishes from Berlin(52°35'N,13°23'O), Basti
S@h Berkeley's Staff Friends Club © member

> Don't see any Political opinions yet.
>
> Alright, I'll pose a question to all before I hit the sack: Aside from our two
> excuses/examples of leadership, who should be President? I'll throw
> Kofi Annan and Shimon Perez into the ring...
>


I don't think those two are American-born (Constitutional requirement for Presidency)




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


The game High/Low is played by tossing two nuclear warheads into the air. The one whose bomb explodes higher wins. This game is usually played by people of low intelligence, hence the name High/Low.

>> News Channel admits reporter posted fake story about Kerry[/url]
>

In one day FOX admitted their error (though the article seemed pretty suspect to me, anyway) for printing a comic spoof as a legitimate news story. But it took weeks for CBS to admit that their Bush-bashing story was based on clearly faked documentation--and still they insist (as do many on this board), that the National Guard story was accurate. So, who's arrogant and/or biased?

> >> News Channel admits reporter posted fake story about Kerry[/url]
> >
>
> In one day FOX admitted their error (though the article seemed pretty suspect
> to me, anyway) for printing a comic spoof as a legitimate news story. But it
> took weeks for CBS to admit that their Bush-bashing story was based on clearly
> faked documentation--and still they insist (as do many on this board), that
> the National Guard story was accurate. So, who's arrogant and/or biased?
>

Hi Tom

I am one of those who believe the CBS story uses fake documents for a true
story. It's not new, Bush's militaty records are known. If his records are
so good where are they anyway ? I will always remember that propaganda show
on that aircraft carrier when bush arrived dressed like a fighter pilot saying loud "mission accomplished" just like a real war hero. it's pathetic.

Friendly
Marc

> Hi Tom
>
> I am one of those who believe the CBS story uses fake documents for a true
> story. It's not new, Bush's militaty records are known. If his records are
> so good where are they anyway ? I will always remember that propaganda show
> on that aircraft carrier when bush arrived dressed like a fighter pilot saying
> loud "mission accomplished" just like a real war hero. it's pathetic.
>
> Friendly
> Marc
>
Hi Marc,

Well, first, if Junior's Dad was influential enough to get him into the Guard, so what? (If my father had that kind influence, I would not have spent six years in the Navy at the tail end of the Vietnam War.) What does Bush's Guard duty have to do with his present performance, anyway?

Which leads me to my second point. This story came out four years ago, and it made little sense then, but it makes less sense now since we have had the opportunity to see President Bush perform under the most difficult circumstances that a president can face. Now, the argument that military service of 30 years ago can be an indication of a leader's ability, no longer applies to Bush because we have a current indication of his ability (though you may not agree with me that he is doing what is right under these tough circumstances). So, the only reason that CBS put this story on the air was to try to disgrace the president.

Third, if the CBS story was true, where is the proof? As a lawyer, I would not prosecute someone without solid evidence. The mutterings of people who dislike Bush are too biased to be taken seriously without some corroboration. With the corroboration gone, the argument falls apart. If you believe the story anyway, that's your prerogative, but do you also believe the counter story told about Kerry's Vietnam experience? If you believe that, the conclusion is that Kerry lied -- which I consider much worse than not showing up for a few National Guard training sessions.

Finally, the Pentagon has released all known records on this subject. If they don't have the CBS memos (and if the memos were real, the pentagon should still have them), think about the possibility that they might have been fabricated in order to embarrass the president -- four years ago and again this year.

So many people hate President Bush, for various reasons going back to the 2000 election, that they are highly motivated, and feel justified, in doing anything, no matter how underhanded, to see that he loses this election. This particular story was shown to be, at the very least, unsubstantiated. To me, this is an indication of what those people who are biased against the president are willing to do rather than confront him on his record.

> Which leads me to my second point. This story came out four years ago, and
> it made little sense then, but it makes less sense now since we have had the
> opportunity to see President Bush perform under the most difficult
> circumstances that a president can face. Now, the argument that military
> service of 30 years ago can be an indication of a leader's ability, no longer
> applies to Bush because we have a current indication of his ability
> (though you may not agree with me that he is doing what is right under these
> tough circumstances). So, the only reason that CBS put this story on the air
> was to try to disgrace the president.

Well tom I just don't understand how did bush did prove he could be a good
commender in chief simply Because he has invated two countries ? You and I
could do the same having the same military force. The bush's war on terror
is too simplistic and is wrong from A to Z. It looks more like a vengence
towards muslims then an intelligent reflection of who and what reasons were
behind the 9/11 attacks. I think he lied to american public and the american media
played the game. There was no threats from Irak, there was no rush to
attack Irak and all other world leaders were against it. Why he was so hurry
to go there ? Because it was already planned and the 9/11 attacks just happened
to be the best pretext to scare american with Sadam and to start a war. A war
that has nothing to do with WMD, nothing to do with removing a dictator, nothing
to do with making Irakys life better and all those craps reasons. Bush went to war in
Irak for OIL period. It might be very subtil but it has something to do with the saudis
and bush's own interrest in that business. That is the real reason why innocent american
soldiers, woman and childrens are dying, people gets beheaded, Irak getting into a cival
war, etc, etc, etc, The USA and the rest of the world is much less safer now and that's
why most political leaders were against it. They knew bush's rush to war was a very bad
idea. The so called coallition is falling appart, and now bush want other country to invest
both military and financely for the huge mess he has created over there. The same countries
who opposed to that invasion. The USA has always been "trying" to stabilyse that region
but in fact it's much better for the US when it's messy. It is much easier to "financialy"
control a country that is falling appart. I am completely against Bush's policies and I am
sure that the american and the hole world will be a safer place to live without him and with
a president that is more then just a cowboy. In fact I would even vote for mickey mouse if it
could remove him from power.

Marc,

I made a comment regarding your link to the FOX story to show the difference between FOX (which many on the left hate) and CBS. My second point, that you quote, is related to what I see as bias in the media, specifically CBS, but there are others. I acknowlege that you and many others do not think that Bush is doing a good job, but that changes the subject that you brought up: bias in the media (your example showed bias by FOX). I have no problem discussing Bush's performance with you, but I don't feel you have addressed the point--that the mainstream media is biased, that is, anti-Bush. It seems that you have fallen into the logical trap of failing to question sources in which you already believe. When I read the FOX story, I didn't believe it at all, since it did not seem like the kind of thing a smart man like Kerry would do (or say) while running for presedent.

> Marc,
>
> I made a comment regarding your link to the FOX story to show the difference
> between FOX (which many on the left hate) and CBS. My second point, that you
> quote, is related to what I see as bias in the media, specifically CBS, but
> there are others. I acknowlege that you and many others do not think that
> Bush is doing a good job, but that changes the subject that you brought up:
> bias in the media (your example showed bias by FOX). I have no problem
> discussing Bush's performance with you, but I don't feel you have addressed
> the point--that the mainstream media is biased, that is, anti-Bush. It seems
> that you have fallen into the logical trap of failing to question sources in
> which you already believe. When I read the FOX story, I didn't believe it at
> all, since it did not seem like the kind of thing a smart man like Kerry would
> do (or say) while running for presedent.
>

You are absolutely right tom, I have realized it after posting. My appologies
for that. Actually your media points seemed quit acurate to me and I've just
focussed on bush's performance paragraph. I watch mostly French news, BBC and
CNN here. CNN looks pretty neutral on this debate and I can't comment about
FOX since I don't have it on the cable.

Friendly
Marc

> In one day FOX admitted their error (though the article seemed pretty suspect
> to me, anyway) for printing a comic spoof as a legitimate news story. But it
> took weeks for CBS to admit that their Bush-bashing story was based on clearly
> faked documentation--and still they insist (as do many on this board), that
> the National Guard story was accurate. So, who's arrogant and/or biased?
>
I dont blame the reporter. I blame the editor or whoever aired/posted the story. I guess if they write something for fun they should attach a cover page that says in big red letters This story is fake! Dont do something stupid with it!

> I am one of those who believe the CBS story uses fake documents for a true
> story. It's not new, Bush's militaty records are known. If his records are
> so good where are they anyway ? I will always remember that propaganda show
> on that aircraft carrier when bush arrived dressed like a fighter pilot saying
> loud "mission accomplished" just like a real war hero. it's pathetic.
>
> Friendly
> Marc
>
Ya know what was cool with that? It was in San Diego! :)