Is this for real?

[opewon]

Is This For Real? If it is, This is pretty disturbing.....Could not access the link so I'm not sure if it's true or not.
_______________________________________________

If you want to hear the Vice President speak in public then you should be prepared to sign a pledge to vote for Bush, otherwise you will be denied tickets.

At least, that's what's happening in Rio Rancho, NM, for Cheney's appearance today. According to the Caspar Star Tribune, Democrats who tried to pick up their tickets were required to sign the pledge, as well as give their driver's license numbers and disclose if they associate with "veterans, pro-life, gun rights or teacher groups."

Though it is common for screening measures to be employed when high-ranking officials speek in public, this is the first time a party loyalty oath has been a pre-requisite for listening to what our elected officials have to say. Is anybody else completely unsurprised that this didn't make any of the network news channels? Yeah, sure it's a liberal media. Right. That must also be why they gave so very much coverage to Sandy Berger being cleared of all charges.

link: http://www.casperstartribune.net/ar...ee10054e715.txt

 

[Major_Baker]

well, with the 'free speech zones' and all, doesn't suprise me a bit. Why would they want to taint "the golden image of truth" with dissent?

 

[Hobbit]

The link gives me a 404 error, and I doubt it's what you're making it to be. It's probably just a few activists who think they're doing the Bush campaign good (or harm) by this. I'd have to actually read the article to be sure.

 

[opewon]

The link gives me a 404 error, and I doubt it's what you're making it to be. It's probably just a few activists who think they're doing the Bush campaign good (or harm) by this. I'd have to actually read the article to be sure.
_______________________________________________

Agreed Hobbit, I'm not sure if it's true either...Will do some research on it. Just thought someone might have heard the same story.

 

[krisy]

I can't get to the link either. Maybe that is why it's not on any "liberal" news shows,becuase it's not true. I have a lot a lot of trouble believing this. I know people that have seen Bush speak recently and none of this went on. The liberal media would be salivating if it were true.

 

[tim_duncan2000]

Yeah, sure it's a liberal media. Right. That must also be why they gave so very much coverage to Sandy Berger being cleared of all charges.

1) I don't think he was cleared.

2) If he was cleared and there was a lot of coverage, that would actually prove the liberal bias once again because of how little coverage the theft received and how they focussed on the timing of it. Here is what I mean:

Consider the way the media treats the missing paper scandal involving former national security advisor Sandy Berger. In preparing for his appearance before the 9/11 commission, Berger, at former President Clinton's request, spent three days at the National Archives. Investigators now think Berger illegally took papers from the archives. But Berger calls his removal of the documents an "honest mistake." A key advisor to presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry, Berger promptly resigned from Kerry's campaign. The day the story broke, The New York Times online placed it on page 17. On television, CBS's Dan Rather cautioned viewers that the story "was triggered by a carefully orchestrated leak about Berger, and the timing of it appears to be no coincidence."

Now examine how the media -- on its own -- lowered Berger's stature in the Kerry campaign.
Way back in May 2004, The Washington Post called Berger "a top Kerry advisor." After the scandal, the Post busted him down to "informal advisor." Similarly, the Los Angeles Times in May called Berger a "Kerry foreign policy advisor." It now tags him as an "unpaid consultant." The Boston Globe in May called Berger a "top advisor." Now the paper relegates him to "informal advisor."

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/larryelder/le20040729.shtml

 

[winston churchi]

Just remember there are half truths in the media. No matter what I read or who I read about - I have to consider there are two sides to the issue, and rarely are both given.
Many times a reporter will see and then assume something, report it without full facts - I know this is sooo hard to believe with todays journalists!
So while part of that may be true, there is a lot more to that than what the author wants you to know...what else is new huh?

 

[Annie]

http://www.nypost.com/news/nationalnews/28379.htm