I figured if I hid a test post in this thread, nobody would notice.

Allen

On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 13:52:13 -0400, Al Reid wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message ...
On 6 Oct 2004 09:35:24 -0700, Nate Perkins wrote:

The 9/11 commission showed an entire string of
events that could have been detected if the intel team and the
administration had been more on the ball.

The 9/11 commission has the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, as do you. Working
from the memo, nate, what specifically would you act on?

Do you think that nate has actually read the 911 report and the August 8th PDB? Probably not.

Oh, I agree, he either hasn't read them, or he's selective in his
comprehension. I'm trying to determine which it is so I can work
from there. If one had taken action on the suspicions in the
PDB in question, there would be guards around the federal buildings
in NYC who would have been watching the real target get attacked.

One thing that is interesting, in relation to the President always
being on vacation crap, is that the 911 report documents cases
where Tenet and others traveled to Crawford to deliver PDB's and
to provide other briefings.

Yeah, but why use the actual facts and stuff when they aren't convenient
for misproving your nonpoint, y'see? Nate and his type can't actually
acknowledge that, or it shoots their counter to Kerry not caring
about the Intelligence Committee meetings.

On 6 Oct 2004 12:01:30 -0700, Nate Perkins wrote:
"Dan White" wrote in message ...

The only consistent answer with many of these people is that whatever Bush
did at any time on any issue was wrong, and the exact opposite is what
should have been done, and only a democrat can fix it.

Bit of an exaggeration, don't you think?
When Bush makes choices that later turn out to be wrong, he gets
criticized for it. That's the burden you carry as an incumbent --
people see where you made mistakes. They second guess you for them.
Being an incumbent is "hard work."

And being a Senator who agrees with the reasons and decisions
doesn't come with that same burden then, Nate?

It's certainly not necessary to have a Democrat in office to fix it.
Heck, I'd be glad to vote for a Republican ticket of McCain and
Powell. Too bad that's not who the Republicans are running.

Too bad you keep evading my direct question of what in the August
6th memo is specific enough to be actionable, Nate.

"mp" wrote in message

You won't bother because you can't. In both images the vertical camera
angle is the same and any sublte difference in focal length doesn't
matter.


If you honestly think it is the same photo, you have more perception
problems that can be solved in this newsgroup.

Remember the cartoons and puzzles from grammar school that had you find the
differences in the pictures? Perhaps you'd find them a challenge.

Mark & Juanita wrote in message news:1096735856.mjMxl4mUxkVGULRV1RL45Q@teranews. ..
On 1 Oct 2004 23:07:42 -0700, (Florida
Patriot) wrote:

Two photos. The FOX news photo makes Bush 3 inches taller.

AFP Photo on Yahoo:
http://tinyurl.com/6mkeu

Fudged Fox Photo:
http://tinyurl.com/6tu5m

Not that you will answer this, since you are just a spamming troll, but
why is it that the first photo is the "real" one and the second "fudged"?
Couldn't it be the other way around?

Well, which candidate is taller in real life?


Or, gasp considering that there is not conspiracy here, just a couple
of different camera angles?

Here is what looks really peculiar to me. The vertical bar seen
on the blue background in both photos indicates that one was taken
from a position to the left or right of the other. But I cannot tell
if it is the same bar, or two different bars so I cannot tell the
direction of rotation. Kerry appears rotated between the two photos
but Bush does not, possibly both men moved between the photos, at
least one did. However, Bush does appear to be beside Kerry in
the FOX photo but in front of Kerry in the AP photo.

That should move Bush toward the foreground of the AP photo, making
him appear taller. But in fact, that is the photo in which he appears
shorter.

Unless the stage wasn't level...

--

FF

"mp" wrote in message ...

You would
expect eye contact, but Kerry's eyes are looking at Bush's upper lip.

Probably Kerry was checking to see if Bush was lying.

--

FF

Dave Hinz wrote in message ...

...

What specifically in the August 6th PDB do you feel was actionable?
BinLadin doesn't like us, and they're scoping out _FEDERAL BUILDINGS_
in New York City?

Last I checked, the WTC is not, and never was, a or the Federal Building.


There were Federal offices in the WTC. The Feds rent a lot.

--

FF

I figured if I hid a test post in this thread, nobody would notice.

I didn't notice anything.

You won't bother because you can't. In both images the vertical camera
angle is the same and any sublte difference in focal length doesn't
matter.


If you honestly think it is the same photo, you have more perception
problems that can be solved in this newsgroup.

I'm pretty confident of my level of visual literacy. I'm trained as a visual
professional and I can easily see things in photos that elude most others.
It's not me that has visual perception problems rather it's you that has
reading comprehension issues.

I did not say that the two images are the same photo. What I did say is that
the two images were photographed from the same vertical angle. In another
message in this thread I presented several simple visual clues that even you
can use to confirm this. The two photographers were very likely shooting
from the press gallery platform at the back of the hall, perhaps 10 or 15
feet apart. I'd estimate the effective focal length to be about 400-450mm.

Remember the cartoons and puzzles from grammar school that had you find
the differences in the pictures? Perhaps you'd find them a challenge.

I'm tempted to respond to your childish comment by telling you to go f*ck
yourself but that would mean lowering myself to your level, and I wouldn't
want to hurt your feelings, even if you are an *sshole.

"Nate Perkins" wrote in message
om...
"Dan White" wrote in message
...

The only consistent answer with many of these people is that whatever
Bush
did at any time on any issue was wrong, and the exact opposite is what
should have been done, and only a democrat can fix it.

Bit of an exaggeration, don't you think?

Not necessarily. Kerry's campaign, for example, consists almost entirely of
saying he would do everything differently from Bush. In fact, he's even
used those exact words.

dwhite

"Fred the Red Shirt" wrote in message
om...
(Nate Perkins) wrote in message
. com...

McCain will be, what, 75 years old in 1978? He sure looks to be
in good health.


Huh? I just figured out your problem...You still think it is 1972 and we
are arguing over Viet Nam!

Whew, now I get it!

dwhite

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
news:fUY8d.1822$Ua.258@trndny04...

"mp" wrote in message

You won't bother because you can't. In both images the vertical camera
angle is the same and any sublte difference in focal length doesn't
matter.


If you honestly think it is the same photo, you have more perception
problems that can be solved in this newsgroup.

Remember the cartoons and puzzles from grammar school that had you find
the
differences in the pictures? Perhaps you'd find them a challenge.

Well said!

Dave Hinz wrote in message ...
On 6 Oct 2004 12:01:30 -0700, Nate Perkins wrote:
"Dan White" wrote in message ...

The only consistent answer with many of these people is that whatever Bush
did at any time on any issue was wrong, and the exact opposite is what
should have been done, and only a democrat can fix it.

Bit of an exaggeration, don't you think?
When Bush makes choices that later turn out to be wrong, he gets
criticized for it. That's the burden you carry as an incumbent --
people see where you made mistakes. They second guess you for them.
Being an incumbent is "hard work."

And being a Senator who agrees with the reasons and decisions
doesn't come with that same burden then, Nate?

No, it doesn't come with the same burden. The Presidency is a far
larger job than being a senator, and I think that most people would
agree that it comes with much greater authority, responsibility, and
accountability.

I hope that you are not implying that Kerry has agreed with all of
Bush's reasons and decisions. That would certainly be false.

It's certainly not necessary to have a Democrat in office to fix it.
Heck, I'd be glad to vote for a Republican ticket of McCain and
Powell. Too bad that's not who the Republicans are running.

Too bad you keep evading my direct question of what in the August
6th memo is specific enough to be actionable, Nate.

You mean the memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US,"
discussing Al Qaeda plots to hijack planes, that was presented to the
President less than four weeks prior to the 9/11 attacks?

Yes, I agree it doesn't spell out the where, when, and how. Here are
a number of other examples that don't spell out the where, when, and
how:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002May16.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002May17.html
http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news.../16/wcia16.xml
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/D..._1_020218.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002May16.html
http://www.cjr.org/year/01/6/evans.asp

Well said!

I take it you too having reading comprehension issues.

"Nate Perkins" wrote in message om...
Dave Hinz wrote in message ...
On 6 Oct 2004 12:01:30 -0700, Nate Perkins wrote:
"Dan White" wrote in message ...

The only consistent answer with many of these people is that whatever Bush
did at any time on any issue was wrong, and the exact opposite is what
should have been done, and only a democrat can fix it.

Bit of an exaggeration, don't you think?
When Bush makes choices that later turn out to be wrong, he gets
criticized for it. That's the burden you carry as an incumbent --
people see where you made mistakes. They second guess you for them.
Being an incumbent is "hard work."

And being a Senator who agrees with the reasons and decisions
doesn't come with that same burden then, Nate?

No, it doesn't come with the same burden. The Presidency is a far
larger job than being a senator, and I think that most people would
agree that it comes with much greater authority, responsibility, and
accountability.

I hope that you are not implying that Kerry has agreed with all of
Bush's reasons and decisions. That would certainly be false.

It's certainly not necessary to have a Democrat in office to fix it.
Heck, I'd be glad to vote for a Republican ticket of McCain and
Powell. Too bad that's not who the Republicans are running.

Too bad you keep evading my direct question of what in the August
6th memo is specific enough to be actionable, Nate.

You mean the memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US,"
discussing Al Qaeda plots to hijack planes, that was presented to the
President less than four weeks prior to the 9/11 attacks?

Yes, I agree it doesn't spell out the where, when, and how. Here are
a number of other examples that don't spell out the where, when, and
how:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002May16.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002May17.html
http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news.../16/wcia16.xml
http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/D..._1_020218.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002May16.html
http://www.cjr.org/year/01/6/evans.asp


Here is the reference in the August 6 PDB about hijackings:

"We have not been able to corroborate some of the more sensational threat reportings, such as that from a [redacted] service in 1998
saying that bin Laden wanted to hijack a US aircraft to gain release of "Blind Shaykh" Umar 'Abd al-Rahman and other US-held
extremists."

So what exactly is actionable here. Looks to be historic info to me. This info was presented in detail to Clinton in a PDB on
December 4, 1998. At that time there WAS credible current intelligence of a threat provided to Clinton. He failed to act on the
intelligence and we all know the result.

You really need to stop guessing about what happened, stop reading reports of Clarke's altered story to sell a book and start
looking at the facts. A good place to start is the actual 911 report.

--
Al Reid

On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 19:38:08 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 6 Oct 2004 15:09:04 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

Aw man, I was just working him into that corner and you showed him the
cards. Oh well.

Sorry.

No problem, he'll weasel anyway.

On 6 Oct 2004 22:40:39 -0700, Nate Perkins wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote in message ...
On 6 Oct 2004 12:01:30 -0700, Nate Perkins wrote:
That's the burden you carry as an incumbent --
people see where you made mistakes.

And being a Senator who agrees with the reasons and decisions
doesn't come with that same burden then, Nate?

No, it doesn't come with the same burden. The Presidency is a far
larger job than being a senator, and I think that most people would
agree that it comes with much greater authority, responsibility, and
accountability.

And yet, Kerry wants to _be_ President, but you don't feel that he should
be held to Presidential standards to decide if he's qualified?

I hope that you are not implying that Kerry has agreed with all of
Bush's reasons and decisions. That would certainly be false.

Kerry said SH was dangerous and needed to be stopped. Do I have
to break out the quotes yet again, Nate?

Too bad you keep evading my direct question of what in the August
6th memo is specific enough to be actionable, Nate.

You mean the memo entitled "Bin Laden Determined to Strike in US,"
discussing Al Qaeda plots to hijack planes, that was presented to the
President less than four weeks prior to the 9/11 attacks?

Yes, Nate, that memo. What specifically in that memo was actionable?
Meaning, show me a sentence from the memo, and tell me what Bush should
have done based on that sentence. Move to the next one. Lather, rinse,
repeat. Don't just re-parrot the title. We knew Bin Ladin wanted to
attack us, he had done so several times in the Clinton administration
after all. Which federal buildings in NYC were attacked, Nate?

Yes, I agree it doesn't spell out the where, when, and how.

Wonderful. We're getting somewhere. If the memo doesn't give a where,
a when, or a how, what specifically should Bush have done based on
said memo that would have prevented the 9/11 attacks? (show your work).

Here are
a number of other examples that don't spell out the where, when, and
how:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002May16.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002May17.html

....with the benefit of 8 months of hindsight...and a rehash of the same
vague unactionable memo...

http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news.../16/wcia16.xml

"ISRAELI intelligence officials say that they warned their counterparts
in the United States last month that large-scale terrorist attacks on
highly visible targets on the American mainland were imminent."

In other words "Something is gonna happen and it's gonna be big". What
specifically would YOU do, Nate, given that warning? Where would you
put the security forces, Nate, and what would they be watching for?

http://abcnews.go.com/sections/wnt/D..._1_020218.html

20/20 hindsight and unactionably vague. Keep trying, Nate.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002May16.html

Same link as above. Still vague and unactionable.

http://www.cjr.org/year/01/6/evans.asp

"Americans will likely die on American soil, possibly in large numbers"

Yeah, Nate, that's certainly specific enough to blame Bush for not
acting on it. Sheesh.

"GaryH" wrote in message
...

"Edwin Pawlowski" wrote in message
news:fUY8d.1822$Ua.258@trndny04...

"mp" wrote in message

You won't bother because you can't. In both images the vertical camera
angle is the same and any sublte difference in focal length doesn't
matter.


If you honestly think it is the same photo, you have more perception
problems that can be solved in this newsgroup.

Remember the cartoons and puzzles from grammar school that had you find
the differences in the pictures? Perhaps you'd find them a challenge.


Well said!

Pawlowski misread mp's post and so attacked him for something he didn't say.

Then he insulted him personally without provocation.

Yeah, "well said." Right.

"mp" wrote in message
...

I do care greatly when the media organizations attempt to manipulate the
truth to serve their own ideological agenda. And so should you.

Yes, we all should care about this a great deal. Informed voters being
essential to democracy.

Jeff Harper

At best, FOX chose the photo most flattering to Bush, despite the
fact that it gave an unrealistic impression.

At worse, they used a doctored photo. (Yes, the two photos are
different,
but how do you explain the fact that Bush is so tall in the FOX photo?)

Camera angle, STEPS (did you not hear that the first time?), leaning
down in the first photo. Geez. Go drink your kool aide.


So you are going with the best case scenario? That FOX didn't doctor the
picture but chose the one out of hundreds that flattered Bush even though it
misrepresented his relative height.

Question for you: What's up with all the "kool aide" references I see
scattered about the newsgroups these days? What's the origin?

On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 15:05:58 -0400, Jeff Harper wrote:

"mp" wrote in message
...

I do care greatly when the media organizations attempt to manipulate the
truth to serve their own ideological agenda. And so should you.

Yes, we all should care about this a great deal. Informed voters being
essential to democracy.

That's great, Jeff. Are you suggesting that this photo you're going on
and on about has anything to do with "manipulated truth"? Two different
photos. Two different camera angles. Complete non-story over a non-issue.

Dave Hinz wrote in message ...
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 13:52:13 -0400, Al Reid wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message ...
On 6 Oct 2004 09:35:24 -0700, Nate Perkins wrote:

The 9/11 commission showed an entire string of
events that could have been detected if the intel team and the
administration had been more on the ball.

The 9/11 commission has the benefit of 20/20 hindsight, as do you. Working
from the memo, nate, what specifically would you act on?

Do you think that nate has actually read the 911 report and the August 8th PDB? Probably not.

Oh, I agree, he either hasn't read them, or he's selective in his
comprehension. I'm trying to determine which it is so I can work
from there. If one had taken action on the suspicions in the
PDB in question, there would be guards around the federal buildings
in NYC who would have been watching the real target get attacked.

Heh, now you guys are pretending to know what I've read and what I
haven't read.

One thing that is interesting, in relation to the President always
being on vacation crap, is that the 911 report documents cases
where Tenet and others traveled to Crawford to deliver PDB's and
to provide other briefings.

Yeah, but why use the actual facts and stuff when they aren't convenient
for misproving your nonpoint, y'see? Nate and his type can't actually
acknowledge that, or it shoots their counter to Kerry not caring
about the Intelligence Committee meetings.

What actual facts do you dispute? That the government missed multiple
warnings leading up to 9/11? Including the PDB as well as several
others? That is in fact pretty well established.

Recently, the Bush campaign and his supporters are repeating all over
the stump that the US will be less safe under Kerry. That only Bush
will be resolute in protecting them against the terrorists. That if
Kerry is elected, that the terrorists will hit us again. Personally,
I think that's pretty ironic -- considering that the ONLY major
domestic terrorist attack actually occurred while BUSH was supposed to
be protecting us.

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 15:05:58 -0400, Jeff Harper
wrote:

"mp" wrote in message
...

I do care greatly when the media organizations attempt to manipulate the
truth to serve their own ideological agenda. And so should you.

Yes, we all should care about this a great deal. Informed voters being
essential to democracy.

That's great, Jeff. Are you suggesting that this photo you're going on
and on about has anything to do with "manipulated truth"? Two different
photos. Two different camera angles. Complete non-story over a
non-issue.

Absolutely. Doctored or not, it was chosen to "misrepresent" Bush's "true"
height favorably.

(Nate Perkins) wrote in message . com...


http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2002May17.html

In which we read:

"I don't think anybody could have predicted that these people . . .
would try to use an airplane as a missile, a hijacked airplane
as a missile," Rice said Thursday.

Which, speaking of FOX, reminds me of:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=ef427f7c.0409300644.53604d0e%40posting .google.com&output=gplain

--

FF

"Jeff Harper" wrote in message
Pawlowski misread mp's post and so attacked him for something he didn't
say.

Then he insulted him personally without provocation.

Yeah, "well said." Right.

Perhaps I jumped on the wrong guy, but the facts remain the same. Anyone
believing they are the same photo id plain wrong.

"mp" wrote in message
...

I'm tempted to respond to your childish comment by telling you to go f*ck
yourself but that would mean lowering myself to your level, and I wouldn't
want to hurt your feelings, even if you are an *sshole.

Seems like you just did

OK, so maybe I misread and picked on the wrong guy. (that does not change
the facts though) I won't bother apologizing because you won't raise
yourself from the gutter to hear it anyway.

"Gary" wrote in message ...


There wasn't any doctoring done on the photo. Go to the second link (the
one for Fox) and go through the 6 or 7 photos of the debate. The 4th photo
shows both candidates on the stage at their podiums. It is very easy to
determine a height difference exists. Wouldn't Fox need to doctor all of
the photographs?

No. Most people won't go through them like you did. I didn't until
you pointed that out.

BTW, thanks. I especially like the photo of McCain trying to cop
a feel off the Bush twins.

--

FF

(That'll get a lot more folks to look...)

(Larry Bud) wrote in message . com...
(Florida Patriot) wrote in message om...
Two photos. The FOX news photo makes Bush 3 inches taller.

AFP Photo on Yahoo:
http://tinyurl.com/6mkeu

Fudged Fox Photo:
http://tinyurl.com/6tu5m

Two DIFFERENT photos, taken at two different instances. Put them side
by side and see the difference. In one photo Kerry is talking, Bush
has his mouth closed, and in the the other Kerry has his mouth half
way closed, and Bush is talking. They are also standing farther apart
in the Fox photo. Looks like the AP photo was taken a second later,
as Bush walked down a STEP, as you can see his right arm is bent more
in the photo. He is also leaning down a bit to his right.


I taped the debate. When I get a chance I'll replay it and see if
I can tell when the two photos were taken. Of course the perspective
from the TV camera will be different, but it there is a step it
ought ot be obvious.

In you print and measure, Kerry's head is bigger than Bush's in the
AP photo but the same size in the Fox photo.

--

FF

On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 15:31:04 -0400, Jeff Harper wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

That's great, Jeff. Are you suggesting that this photo you're going on
and on about has anything to do with "manipulated truth"? Two different
photos. Two different camera angles. Complete non-story over a
non-issue.

Absolutely. Doctored or not, it was chosen to "misrepresent" Bush's "true"
height favorably.

So let me get this straight. Instead of caring why, for instance, your
boy Kerry missed 3/4ths of the meetings he was supposed to go to (before
he quit altogether), you're upset at Bush because you feel Fox chose
this photograph rather than a different one?

On 7 Oct 2004 12:30:50 -0700, Nate Perkins wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote in message ...

Oh, I agree, he either hasn't read them, or he's selective in his
comprehension. I'm trying to determine which it is so I can work
from there. If one had taken action on the suspicions in the
PDB in question, there would be guards around the federal buildings
in NYC who would have been watching the real target get attacked.

Heh, now you guys are pretending to know what I've read and what I
haven't read.

I don't have to know if you've read it or not to know that you haven't
_understood_ it, Nate.

Yeah, but why use the actual facts and stuff when they aren't convenient
for misproving your nonpoint, y'see? Nate and his type can't actually
acknowledge that, or it shoots their counter to Kerry not caring
about the Intelligence Committee meetings.

What actual facts do you dispute? That the government missed multiple
warnings leading up to 9/11? Including the PDB as well as several
others? That is in fact pretty well established.

What specific aspects of the PDB do you feel are actionable, Nate? Provide
the wording and the suggested logical action that was not taken. This
isn't the first time I've asked what specifically you think was "missed"
in the PDB.

Recently, the Bush campaign and his supporters are repeating all over
the stump that the US will be less safe under Kerry. That only Bush
will be resolute in protecting them against the terrorists. That if
Kerry is elected, that the terrorists will hit us again. Personally,
I think that's pretty ironic -- considering that the ONLY major
domestic terrorist attack actually occurred while BUSH was supposed to
be protecting us.

Oh, so all of the other OBL attacks, which Clinton ignored and which made
OBL that much more bold didn't actually happen? boggle

I'm tempted to respond to your childish comment by telling you to go f*ck
yourself but that would mean lowering myself to your level, and I
wouldn't want to hurt your feelings, even if you are an *sshole.

Seems like you just did

Rats. I was hoping you wouldn't notice.

On 7 Oct 2004 12:30:50 -0700, (Nate Perkins)
wrote:

Recently, the Bush campaign and his supporters are repeating all over
the stump that the US will be less safe under Kerry. That only Bush
will be resolute in protecting them against the terrorists. That if
Kerry is elected, that the terrorists will hit us again. Personally,
I think that's pretty ironic -- considering that the ONLY major
domestic terrorist attack actually occurred while BUSH was supposed to
be protecting us.


well, not quite the only domestic terrorist attack. don't forget the
federal building in oklahoma city.


oh yeah, that was done by christian extremists, so it wasn't a
terrorist attack. it's only terrorism if it's done by the other
guys....

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 15:31:04 -0400, Jeff Harper
wrote:

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

That's great, Jeff. Are you suggesting that this photo you're going on
and on about has anything to do with "manipulated truth"? Two different
photos. Two different camera angles. Complete non-story over a
non-issue.

Absolutely. Doctored or not, it was chosen to "misrepresent" Bush's
"true"
height favorably.

So let me get this straight. Instead of caring why, for instance, your
boy Kerry missed 3/4ths of the meetings he was supposed to go to (before
he quit altogether), you're upset at Bush because you feel Fox chose
this photograph rather than a different one?

LOL.

You're reasoning is brilliant. I'll take that as a concession.

"Jeff Harper" wrote in message
...

At best, FOX chose the photo most flattering to Bush, despite the
fact that it gave an unrealistic impression.

At worse, they used a doctored photo. (Yes, the two photos are
different,
but how do you explain the fact that Bush is so tall in the FOX photo?)

Camera angle, STEPS (did you not hear that the first time?), leaning
down in the first photo. Geez. Go drink your kool aide.


So you are going with the best case scenario? That FOX didn't doctor the
picture but chose the one out of hundreds that flattered Bush even though
it
misrepresented his relative height.

Question for you: What's up with all the "kool aide" references I see
scattered about the newsgroups these days? What's the origin?

It's a reference to Jim Jones, a cult leader in the seventies who, along
with 900 or so followers established a community called Jonestown in Guyana.
On November 18, 1978, Jones ordered a mass suicide by commanding his
followers to drink a cyanide-laden punch. So, someone who is "drinking the
Kool-Aid" is a blind follower willing to do anything at their leader's
command.

todd

"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message
...
"Jeff Harper" wrote in message
...

At best, FOX chose the photo most flattering to Bush, despite the
fact that it gave an unrealistic impression.

At worse, they used a doctored photo. (Yes, the two photos are
different,
but how do you explain the fact that Bush is so tall in the FOX
photo?)

Camera angle, STEPS (did you not hear that the first time?), leaning
down in the first photo. Geez. Go drink your kool aide.


So you are going with the best case scenario? That FOX didn't doctor the
picture but chose the one out of hundreds that flattered Bush even though
it
misrepresented his relative height.

Question for you: What's up with all the "kool aide" references I see
scattered about the newsgroups these days? What's the origin?

It's a reference to Jim Jones, a cult leader in the seventies who, along
with 900 or so followers established a community called Jonestown in
Guyana.
On November 18, 1978, Jones ordered a mass suicide by commanding his
followers to drink a cyanide-laden punch. So, someone who is "drinking
the
Kool-Aid" is a blind follower willing to do anything at their leader's
command.


I'm familiar with Jonestown but I didn't get it as applied to those who
oppose Bush's re-election. Thanks for the explanation.

I see lots of Bush supporters using it. Has it been put out by the
right-wing radio/TV talk shows?

"Jeff Harper" wrote in message
...

"Todd Fatheree" wrote in message
It's a reference to Jim Jones, a cult leader in the seventies who, along
with 900 or so followers established a community called Jonestown in
Guyana.
On November 18, 1978, Jones ordered a mass suicide by commanding his
followers to drink a cyanide-laden punch. So, someone who is "drinking
the
Kool-Aid" is a blind follower willing to do anything at their leader's
command.


I'm familiar with Jonestown but I didn't get it as applied to those who
oppose Bush's re-election. Thanks for the explanation.

I see lots of Bush supporters using it. Has it been put out by the
right-wing radio/TV talk shows?

Not that I've heard. Perhaps Bush supporters just know history better.

todd

"Jeff Harper" wrote in message

Yes, we all should care about this a great deal. Informed voters being
essential to democracy.

Jeff Harper

I plan on being very informed. I'm going to listen to those people that
have accurate knowledge of the issues and will give me the unbiased data I
need to make a good decision. So far, I'm checking out opinions from Rosie
O'Donnell, Barbara Striesand, and Ben Affleck. I've been watching the
people standing on street corners holding signs with the names of their
candidates. They would not be out there if it was not a good thing. Lawn
signs are another good indicator that weighs in my choice of candidate to
vote for.

On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 14:42:31 -0700, wrote:

On 7 Oct 2004 12:30:50 -0700, (Nate Perkins)
wrote:

Recently, the Bush campaign and his supporters are repeating all over
the stump that the US will be less safe under Kerry. That only Bush
will be resolute in protecting them against the terrorists. That if
Kerry is elected, that the terrorists will hit us again. Personally,
I think that's pretty ironic -- considering that the ONLY major
domestic terrorist attack actually occurred while BUSH was supposed to
be protecting us.


well, not quite the only domestic terrorist attack. don't forget the
federal building in oklahoma city.


oh yeah, that was done by christian extremists, so it wasn't a
terrorist attack. it's only terrorism if it's done by the other
guys....


Timothy McVeigh was *not* a christian nor did he ever profess to be one.
His last words, "Captain of my Soul" are ample proof. His professed
motivation was the government attack on Waco -- but not because they were a
"christian" cult, but because of the extreme action of the government in
its attack on weapons-holding groups.

wrote in message . ..
On 7 Oct 2004 12:30:50 -0700, (Nate Perkins)
wrote:

Recently, the Bush campaign and his supporters are repeating all over
the stump that the US will be less safe under Kerry. That only Bush
will be resolute in protecting them against the terrorists. That if
Kerry is elected, that the terrorists will hit us again. Personally,
I think that's pretty ironic -- considering that the ONLY major
domestic terrorist attack actually occurred while BUSH was supposed to
be protecting us.


well, not quite the only domestic terrorist attack. don't forget the
federal building in oklahoma city.


oh yeah, that was done by christian extremists, so it wasn't a
terrorist attack. it's only terrorism if it's done by the other
guys....

You are right, I stand corrected.

Dave Hinz wrote in message ...
On 7 Oct 2004 12:30:50 -0700, Nate Perkins wrote:
Dave Hinz wrote in message ...

Oh, I agree, he either hasn't read them, or he's selective in his
comprehension. I'm trying to determine which it is so I can work
from there. If one had taken action on the suspicions in the
PDB in question, there would be guards around the federal buildings
in NYC who would have been watching the real target get attacked.

Heh, now you guys are pretending to know what I've read and what I
haven't read.

I don't have to know if you've read it or not to know that you haven't
_understood_ it, Nate.

Come on, Dave. You can do better than just attacking me and then
obfuscating.

Are you trying to deny that many cues were missed leading up to 9/11,
including (among others) the PDB?

Or are you just suggesting that because nobody spelled it out in big
bold capital letters to the president, specifying the exact time and
place, that he bears no responsibility for the colossal failure that
happened under his watch? It appears to me that you hold a very low
standard of performance for the president.

Yeah, but why use the actual facts and stuff when they aren't convenient
for misproving your nonpoint, y'see? Nate and his type can't actually
acknowledge that, or it shoots their counter to Kerry not caring
about the Intelligence Committee meetings.

What actual facts do you dispute? That the government missed multiple
warnings leading up to 9/11? Including the PDB as well as several
others? That is in fact pretty well established.

What specific aspects of the PDB do you feel are actionable, Nate? Provide
the wording and the suggested logical action that was not taken. This
isn't the first time I've asked what specifically you think was "missed"
in the PDB.

I think I've already addressed this at least once previously, and
again above. I have already said that although the memo titled "Bin
Laden Determined to Attack in US" did not specify an exact time and
place. And I have already said that my opinion is that sufficient
warning existed in the PDB and in multiple other sources that alarm
bells should have been going off for this administration. They
weren't. Obviously, your opinion and expectation of the president
differs from mine, but the observation that multiple intel and
priority failures led up to 9/11 is not subjective ... it is a matter
of fact to any reasonable person.

Recently, the Bush campaign and his supporters are repeating all over
the stump that the US will be less safe under Kerry. That only Bush
will be resolute in protecting them against the terrorists. That if
Kerry is elected, that the terrorists will hit us again. Personally,
I think that's pretty ironic -- considering that the ONLY major
domestic terrorist attack actually occurred while BUSH was supposed to
be protecting us.

Oh, so all of the other OBL attacks, which Clinton ignored and which made
OBL that much more bold didn't actually happen? boggle

I am not sure what your statement has to do with the section you're
replying to. Perhaps you are trying to blame 9/11 on Clinton? No,
that would be just too silly.