Nick Berg video: Hoax?

[NewGuy]

Patriot54................

Many points can be found on the web that are not brought up in mainstream news.

If you choose to promote uncommon information as fact, you need to back up the claim with evidence.

Evidence doesn't come from a geocities or yahoo freebie web site. Those are merely starting grounds for investigation.

Most of those never pan out anyway.

-HOWEVER:

If one is smart about their searches, one can find important hidden information in the RIGHT places.

The following link started from a wacko mind-control conspiracy forum with no legitimacy.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=8043&highlight=microwaves+rats


-Yet they linked to the doc on another govt site.

Notice people did not comment. They passed it by. The link: Totally legit. The information: Devistating in scope.

People chose to then ignore it because they didn't know what to do with it.

When trying to present your case, be aware it encompasses all of the above.

You need to be right, and be able to prove it logically and legitimately.

 

[remie]

Originally posted by Patriot54
http://www.awolbush.com/

Wow, now there is a site that is fair and balanced. Give it up Pat. The Presidents honorable discharge stands and ALLEGATIONS by you and your anybody but Bush crowd will never change that. Have you come up with any facts overnight or just more conspiritorial rants.

 

[Patriot54]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
I think we all were expecting some credible sources!

There's no need for me to provide a million individual links to each article. Like I said, they're all there for anyone who isn't afraid of the truth.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by Patriot54
Actually, that site provides all the links, sources and copies of documents you need. Did you expect a right-wing website to gather all that info and search for the truth about this? Of course not!

You're getting stale, fast:

http://billhobbs.com/hobbsonline/003289.html

February 16, 2004
The Kerry Rumor ... and "Bush Was AWOL" is Dead
The rumor of Sen. John Kerry's rumored affair with a young intern is edging toward the mainstream press. An unnamed television network has reportedly taped a tell-all interview with the young woman, and is investigating her claims before airing it. Meanwhile, Chicago Sun-Times columnist Richard Roeper has mentioned the Kerry affair rumor, if only to say we should ignore it and focus on the "issues." Interestingly, Roeper also urges folks to forget the whole "Bush was AWOL!" subject, because the election ought to be about issues like "the economy, the war in Iraq, education, providing medical care to the poor and the elderly, etc., etc.."

Roeper's column tells me two things: The anti-Bush media knows there's no "there" there in the "Bush was AWOL" story - the facts are Bush volunteered, served, and was honorably discharged. And the anti-Bush media fears there might be something to the Kerry rumor. So they want you to ignore both stories.

UPDATE: Kevin Drum over at CalPundit says we can "stick a fork in" the Kerry-affair rumor because Kerry denied it, the girl denied it, and the girl's parents denied it.

So - a lack of evidence for the accusation, and a lack of witnesses to corroborate the story means that we must believe the accused? Okay - well - it sure would've been nice, Kevin, if you had applied the same standards to the Bush AWOL story and the Dan Burkett sidebar. For Kevin and the members of The Cult of Bush Was AWOL, no evidence+no witnesses+a denial = Kerry told the truth, while no evidence+no witnesses+a denial = "BUSH LIED! BUSH SANITIZED HIS RECORDS! BUSH WAS AWOL!"

Posted by Bill in Campaign Season

Hey junior, if you can read more, there are links to 'reliable' sources embedded all the links. The following is a debrieffing on democratic tactics, you seem well versed on the playbook:

http://hippercritical.typepad.com/hipp/2003/11/altermans_dream.html

November 12, 2003
Alterman's Dreaming
Today, Eric Alterman points out all the differences that he sees between Clinton-haters and Bush-haters. In the end, he is lying to you, lying to himself, or is just a plain idiot. First, here's his take on "Bush-haters":

1) Bush “haters” talk about policy not personality.
Hmmm, I'm sure Mr. Alterman would agree that Bush is a stupid cowboy who lied to the American people in order to drag this country into an unnecessary war. Wouldn't he?

3) Bush “haters” do not accuse the president of drug-running and murder
No, but they do accuse him of mass genocide (of innocent Afghanis and Iraqis) and mafia-like connections to the nation's (allegedly) most corrupt and fraudulent businesses - Enron, Halliburton, Bechtel, etc. Don't they?

5) Bush “haters” do not control any media properties remotely as powerful and influential as the Wall Street Journal editorial page, the Murdoch empire, the Moonie network, their own cable network, world-famous internet gossip sites, weekly and bi-weekly magazines, dozens of multi-million dollar “think” tanks, various publishing houses, etc.
Yes, I know. Mr. Alterman wrote a book about the "myth" of the liberal media. But I also know where The NY Times, the LA Times, the TV network news anchors, PBS and general American academia stand with President Bush. It's really not that hard to figure out.

6) Bush “haters” are quite removed from the Democratic establishment.
Are they? What about House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senator Ted Kennedy, Democratic Party cheerleader Al Franken. Don't they count? (By the way, I was invited to some Democratic Party event a little while ago. Whose picture was on the invite? Who was the main draw? Take a guess before you click)

7) Bush “haters” back up their arguments with references and, frequently, footnotes, all of which can be checked for accuracy.
As long as they don't have to produce actual evidence. Unless Sen. Kennedy has some on that "fraud made up in Texas". But I haven't seen any.

9) Bush “haters” are addressing themselves to a president whose dishonesty has led to the death of thousands of people in a counterproductive war, the looting of the treasury, and the trashing of the environment, for starters.
Oh, that's nice. Mr. Alterman proves my case on his Point #1. Thank you!

Now lets look at Mr. Alterman's take on the Clinton-haters:

5) Just about all of these refused to vote for a resolution in support of U.S. troops risking their lives for freedom and democracy in Kosovo, when given a chance.
Suddenly, Mr. Alterman cares about freedom? And what democracy did Clinton bring to the people of Kosovo? Several years later, Kosovo is still mired in a UN administered purgatory. But he doesn't ever want to talk about that. Despite all the problems that have arisen with the Iraqi Governing Council, Iraq has already surpassed Kosovo on its way towards some form of democracy. Kosovo is forgotten.

10) Virtually all of their arguments were driven by either paranoid fantasies, planted lies, or at best, personal actions that had no bearing on the well-being of the country.
Bush and the neocons. Bush and the neocons. Bush and the neocons.

11) A few of them—including the one who sought to raise money by accusing the president of murder—blamed the attacks of 9/11 on Americans.
I can find some others who blamed 9-11 on Americans...and they were not all Clinton-haters.

12) Clinton-haters abused the constitutional system to shut down the government and later, impeach the president.
If only the Bush-haters had the chance.

Mr. Alterman wraps it up:



I could go on, obviously, but I’m not getting paid by the word here. And if you don’t get the point by now, you’re probably a bonafide Clinton hater...

Oh, I must be an enigma. After all, I voted for Clinton twice, opposed his impeachment, and still sorta like him (even though I know he's a scumbag). Well, he did say 'probably'. But is there any remaining doubt that this guy lives in his own little fantasy world? The disconnect from reality is practically tangible.

Update: I may think that Mr. Alterman is a bit loony, but I know that he cares very much for this country. Ted Rall, on the other hand, is an absolute atrocity. Here is his call to arms to the Baathist holdouts and Islamist terrorists who are murdering American soldiers, Red Cross workers and innocent Iraqis every day: WHY WE FIGHT

Posted on November 12, 2003 at 05:44 PM

 

[JIHADTHIS]

I notice the trend of 54's posts. In a thread that started out about Nick Berg, it has now boiled down to an Anybody But Bush bash fest. Any calls for proof on his behalf result in links to LLL moonbat nonsense. He/She also glosses over any questions or points made that He/She doesn't like. The next predictable step will be his withdrawal saying that we are all brainwashed neocons and He/She is packing up his toys and going to play with the smart elitist folks who worship Michael Mooreon

{YAWN}

 

[Patriot54]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
Actually there is! if you wanted to make outlandish statements you had better have some credible sources to back them up or you will only be seen as more humorous than you already are.

OK - I just did some research on your post about "Al-Jazeera Praising Beheadings". Your source was newsmax.com, a biased right-wing site. What is the difference between your source and mine?

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by Patriot54
OK - I just did some research on your post about "Al-Jazeera Praising Beheadings". Your source was newsmax.com, a biased right-wing site. What is the difference between your source and mine?

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
Is it really any surprise?

No, not at all. A debate with a non moonbat dem would be nice for a change, but there doesn't seem to be many of those:

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by Patriot54
OK - I just did some research on your post about "Al-Jazeera Praising Beheadings". Your source was newsmax.com, a biased right-wing site. What is the difference between your source and mine?

What I posted to you was a mix of media and slants, coming down to the same thing, spin by dem. partisans. You ignore facts and just attack, then wonder why you're gaining a rep for a fool.

 

[Annie]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
Gaining? I think gained may be more appropiate here!

Hey, I was trying to be nice!

 

[Patriot54]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
Because it is a newsite, not a anti - we hate the president site.

You're right - it's a "Bush is our hero and can do no wrong" site. There is no difference.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Originally posted by Patriot54
You're right - it's a "Bush is our hero and can do no wrong" site. There is no difference.

Plenty of non liberals on THIS site have posted many things that they disagree with GWB on. But they are intelligent well thought out arguements as opposed to your pablum.......

 

[Patriot54]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
Ignorance is the difference here Patsy! If you don't like the truth go make up your own like the rest of the far left wing nuts!

That's your problem right there - if someone disagrees, they're "ignorant". There are left wing nuts, but no right wing nuts, right? Come on man - the first thing on your "source" was an article by Rush Limbaugh (poster boy for right wing nuts)

 

[Patriot54]

Originally posted by Sir Evil
Patsy - I am not even close to being a right wing nut, conservative for sure but not a radical in any way! I support Bush, but don't agree with all his decisions. If someone disagrees I am fine with that so long as they have some credible supporting sources. So far you show yourself to be a conspiracy theorist, as well as a Bush basher as you have nothing credible to say!

I didn't say or even imply that you are a right wing nut. But I stick by my statement that newsmax.com is a right wing biased source.

 

[JIHADTHIS]

Car 54 Where art thou?

 

[Patriot54]

Originally posted by JIHADTHIS
Car 54 Where art thou?

I art over at newsmax.com looking at articles like "Kerry and Abortion" by Limbaugh and "Political Frontlines" by Falwell. It is the right-wing equivalent of michaelmoore.com (and no, that's not where I get my news from)

 

[JIHADTHIS]

So much for Nick Berg........

 

[007]

Originally posted by Patriot54
I art over at newsmax.com looking at articles like "Kerry and Abortion" by Limbaugh and "Political Frontlines" by Falwell. It is the right-wing equivalent of michaelmoore.com (and no, that's not where I get my news from)

Keep one thing in mind right up front patty, if one of us were to go over to your d.u. we all hate Bush B.B., as soon as we gave any hint we were conservative, they'd ban us immediately. And that would be the liberal lefts policy of "inclusion".

It appears you've fared a little bit better than that here on this board, wouldn't you say? You're still here and still bashing our President.

Just goes to show, conservatives are the true "inclusive" party. democraps are mental militants against anyone who disagrees with them.

I hope your taking notes.