How many years ago was that 60 Minutes report? And he's got nothing else? No other 'liberal media' outrage to flog? No more, shall we say, recent grievances? No, heaven forbid, more relevant outrage?
Pretty soon his website will have nothing but KIDS, GET OFF MY LAWN scrolling across a black, black screen of fail.
Flogging your own website like some infomercial salesman isn't exactly the best way to establish credibility.
Bush could've volunteered to go to Vietnam knowing for certain that he would be turned down, therefore fronting an appearance o dutiful and brave sacrifice while in reality risking nothing. But on the other hand, I'm not sure he's smart enough to have figured that move out.
Rather screwed up for some reason- I have no idea why...but the evidence against Bush's National Guard record was sitting right on the internet at the Boston Globe website. I can't believe Rather never heard about these docs. But that's besides the point. This guy Goldberg conveniently attacks Rather and Mapes, while Moonves is facing a $70 million lawsuit on Rather's termination.
@Motoko Kusanagi:
I doubt that CBS did the forgery. It was given forgeries that were probably made from real documents.
The question to ask is did the forger deliberately use some superscript font to later"catch" CBS or did the forger just do it without that knowledge & CBS still fell for it.
And I still think Karl Rove will be found out as behind it.
@Motoko Kusanagi: Actually- the documents were hanging out on the net for awhile, with many other docs. CBS didn't forge them-the source Bill whathisname did.
But- I was interpreting the point (the video wouldn't play for me so...) Gawker made on this being-Bush wanted to go to Vietnam.
I suppose then, we are to believe that Bush broke all the rules so that he might have the opportunity to go to war in Vietnam.
I know Bush isn't the brightest, but someone could have explained that all he had to do was enlist for a tour of duty. If he wanted to fly while in service, then he might have a problem, because he conveniently went missing many times for those training hours.
Bush was to have signed in with the Guard when he arrived at Harvard. He didn't. Most normal recruits would have been sent off to Vietnam at that point.
Something prevented Bush doing a tour in Vietnam and it wasn't the fact that he didn't have enough flight training.
I was pretty pissed that Rather ignored this information. It is bad journalism to rely on a single source for the story.
@lil red: The whole episode was some of the most criminally inept journalism ever. The first thing I said when I heard that the supposed documents had come to light was, "They'd better check the typeface." I've never been an investigator, a journalist, nothing, I'm just an ordinary citizen with a functioning frontal lobe. However, the beauty here is it's being responded to with more of the same.
I think there may of been a simpler way for Bush to of gone to Vietnam. Like by applying to the Air Force instead of using his parents connections to go to the National Guard.
@cockfightbarmitzvah: Exactly. There is nothing so ironic or despicable that some of the biggest war mongerers shirked their duties when it came to actual war. I have yet to meet a veteran who wasn't profoundly affected by their experience, leading them to approach war as the grave, terrible force it is.
I overheard the most ridiculous rant at a wedding two weeks ago (in the church! moments after the ceremony!) "He's destroying the very fiber of this country! He's an Acorn, ACLU supporting socialist who is undoing everything this country is about!" I had to wait two more minutes to overhear him say "Obama" to clarify exactly what he was talking about before this man launched into the Sotomayor choice: "What a disaster this woman is! Every single decision she's made in her life is a complete disaster! He's absolutely destroying America" and on and on as the all too polite elder gentleman he was speaking to tried to redirect the idle chat he had somehow turned into a landmine. I had to walk away because I was getting angry and couldn't decide whether to get into or laugh in his face. Needless to say that was the sore loser Republican side of the aisle. Jon Voight, I'd give you the guys number if I knew who he was.
@Mediahohoho: Well, when your party platform consisted of "Do it this way, or else Democracy dies!" you're actually behaving rationally because you hold the maxim that anything opposite to your ideology is lethal. The difference between parties isn't even about ideologies anymore, as much as it is that one stands for "American ideals," whatever that means, and the other stands for "non-American ideals."
Is it just me or does Bill O'Reilly almost sound reasonable when talking to Jon Voight? What I think he's doing is just playing that role in order to set up a strawman for Voight to attack.
Also, Voight is wrong about a crucial point: Pravda is not the "Soviet news agency" anymore, it's under Putin's thumb and it publishes outright lies and Kremlin propaganda.
@i'm a bottle: pravda is great. I check it out every day. It's like the national inquirer or world news (plenty of sex and aliens), but with even more bizarre editorializing--and just to keep you guessing, every once in a while legitimate analysis, from a distinctly Russian perspective.
I think the real state agency news is found in RIA Novosti, or maybe Itar-Tass.
@mossdale: RIA Novosti is wonderful in its own right. I've never seen a more blatantly propagando-militaristic newspaper. There isn't a page without at least two completely extraneous pictures of rockets, missiles, mortars, fighter jets and tanks.
Can you get over the "ha-ha, Obama is a socialist" (meaning, of course he is not; Republicans see a commie behind every tree). Instead of using this inoculation means of argument, deal with reality. There is such a thing as socialism, which is an economic concept. It is not either/or. Sweden is not the Soviet Union, but it is more socialist than Australia. Taking over the auto companies is more socialist than letting the market decide their fate. Giving states federal money and then dictating how they run their unemployment insurance programs is more socialist than not doing so. Government mandated health care, however wonderful, falls under socialism. What puzzles about the American left is that it basically endorses every socialist program imaginable and then ridicules anyone who dares call it socialism. To say Obama is a socialist is not the same as calling him Lenin.
@Preopsician: You're right, it's not either/or, but nor is there some continuum with socialism on one side and free markets on the other. I understand socialism to be laborers owning the means of production, either directly and/or through the circuits of government. If so, giving federal money to states and investing in GM aren't remotely socialist. A better term, which moves away from this continuum, is government entrepreneurship. They (and we!) are banking on making their money back (and they probably will).
You bring up a good point about the American left - I heartily endorse Social Security and nationalized health care and all that stuff. But I'm also critical of government entrepreneurship, not because it's a new thing (it's cute how people think the federal government only started bailing companies out in 2007 when there's a long, glorious, decades long history of such activity), but because it is, indeed, not socialist in any way, shape or form.
@Excited_Utterance: Some good points, but "investing" in GM? Government could have bought stock if it wanted to invest in GM. No private money wants any part of GM; how can there be any hope of getting those billions back? The first wave of money evaporated almost immediately. The unions still have most of their work rules in place, because the unions are a greater priority for the Democrats than the taxpayers are. Does anyone on earth believe that Chrysler is a viable company or ever will be? When government "invests" in something that no one else will touch, that is not entrepreneurship, that is government running a business and using public money to compete against companies in which people have actual money at risk. Like the stock I owned in GM. Wiped out.
To be fair, I only attack the "D-list wingnuts" when they crawl out from under their rock and using their celebrity to arrange a photo-op with Saddam or Chavez. So I don't like Sean Penn because he likes to visit scum bag rulers and I don't like Tim Robbins just because I think he's goofy. Separate issues.
Holy crap. Who'd have thought that Bill O'Reilly would be he voice of reason and moderation in that exchange?
Best moment is when that asshat Voight laments that the Obama administration is attacking the "enterpeners" at 5:10. (I think he means "entrepreneurs.")
He also quotes Lincoln and Pravda to bolster his fuzzy argument -- all of which boils down to: Angie! Brad! Pay attention to me or I'll embarrass you even more!
Stay tuned, soon it will be revealed that Voight and Nelson, like Heston and Reagen before them, suffer from dementia. The crazier the better for those GOPers...
No, John Voight does (did?) the Chabad telethon every year. He is or was their big celeb. But why? Why John Voight? It would be fund to hear how they met.
Chabad anecdotes: The local Chabad Rabbi's kids used to go down into the village and play video games on Friday nights. On Yom Kippur once, Bob Dylan's limo drove into the Chabad building. Bob went up to the shul while his son roller skated around the underground parking lot. On Yom Kippur. (Good name for a song in there somewhere) Barbara Streisand used to come over to the Chabad house one in a while and reportedly received permission to pray with the men.
08/26/09
Pretty soon his website will have nothing but KIDS, GET OFF MY LAWN scrolling across a black, black screen of fail.
08/26/09
Bush could've volunteered to go to Vietnam knowing for certain that he would be turned down, therefore fronting an appearance o dutiful and brave sacrifice while in reality risking nothing. But on the other hand, I'm not sure he's smart enough to have figured that move out.
08/25/09
Rather screwed up for some reason- I have no idea why...but the evidence against Bush's National Guard record was sitting right on the internet at the Boston Globe website. I can't believe Rather never heard about these docs. But that's besides the point. This guy Goldberg conveniently attacks Rather and Mapes, while Moonves is facing a $70 million lawsuit on Rather's termination.
Why do we even listen to these idiots?
[www.boston.com]
08/26/09
08/26/09
08/26/09
I doubt that CBS did the forgery. It was given forgeries that were probably made from real documents.
The question to ask is did the forger deliberately use some superscript font to later"catch" CBS or did the forger just do it without that knowledge & CBS still fell for it.
And I still think Karl Rove will be found out as behind it.
08/26/09
But- I was interpreting the point (the video wouldn't play for me so...) Gawker made on this being-Bush wanted to go to Vietnam.
I suppose then, we are to believe that Bush broke all the rules so that he might have the opportunity to go to war in Vietnam.
I know Bush isn't the brightest, but someone could have explained that all he had to do was enlist for a tour of duty. If he wanted to fly while in service, then he might have a problem, because he conveniently went missing many times for those training hours.
Bush was to have signed in with the Guard when he arrived at Harvard. He didn't. Most normal recruits would have been sent off to Vietnam at that point.
Something prevented Bush doing a tour in Vietnam and it wasn't the fact that he didn't have enough flight training.
I was pretty pissed that Rather ignored this information. It is bad journalism to rely on a single source for the story.
08/26/09
08/25/09
08/26/09
06/10/09
06/10/09
It's called a free and fair election.
The entire anti-Obama movement consists of sour grapes.
06/10/09
Never said it was a good maxim to hold though...
06/10/09
He's not one of us real Americans. It's not hard to figure out what it's really about.
06/10/09
Also, Voight is wrong about a crucial point: Pravda is not the "Soviet news agency" anymore, it's under Putin's thumb and it publishes outright lies and Kremlin propaganda.
06/10/09
I think the real state agency news is found in RIA Novosti, or maybe Itar-Tass.
06/10/09
06/10/09
06/10/09
You bring up a good point about the American left - I heartily endorse Social Security and nationalized health care and all that stuff. But I'm also critical of government entrepreneurship, not because it's a new thing (it's cute how people think the federal government only started bailing companies out in 2007 when there's a long, glorious, decades long history of such activity), but because it is, indeed, not socialist in any way, shape or form.
06/10/09
06/10/09
Exhibit A: Halliburton.
06/10/09
06/10/09
06/10/09
I've DATED girly-boys; I KNOW girly-boys. The President, sir, is NO girly-boy.
06/10/09
06/10/09
Best moment is when that asshat Voight laments that the Obama administration is attacking the "enterpeners" at 5:10. (I think he means "entrepreneurs.")
He also quotes Lincoln and Pravda to bolster his fuzzy argument -- all of which boils down to: Angie! Brad! Pay attention to me or I'll embarrass you even more!
06/10/09
06/10/09
06/10/09
06/10/09
06/10/09
06/10/09
06/10/09
No, John Voight does (did?) the Chabad telethon every year. He is or was their big celeb. But why? Why John Voight? It would be fund to hear how they met.
Chabad anecdotes: The local Chabad Rabbi's kids used to go down into the village and play video games on Friday nights. On Yom Kippur once, Bob Dylan's limo drove into the Chabad building. Bob went up to the shul while his son roller skated around the underground parking lot. On Yom Kippur. (Good name for a song in there somewhere) Barbara Streisand used to come over to the Chabad house one in a while and reportedly received permission to pray with the men.