No winner yet in 'Doonesbury' Bush search

Ragnar wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...
Ragnar wrote:
"George Z. Bush" wrote in message
...

RNC play book: If you hate the message, go after the messenger!

DNC Playbook: Make baseless accusations. When proof is presented, change
the conditions of the proof.

You guys never get anything right. My copy of the Playbook says: "Don't
make baseless accusations. Present proof and then watch their faces turn
red as they try to think of how to change the subject!"

It works every time. I say something about going after the messenger, and
you immediately start talking about baseless accusations. They're your
words, so I rest my case on them. (^-^)))

Awww, thats so cute. Look how the Demorat attempts to make a joke.

Judging from how you spell Democrat, I guess you too learned something in cutesy
school. You're sooooo clever.....I don't know how you stand yourself. Demorat
indeed.

George Z.

In article ,
(BUFDRVR) wrote:

The way some of you talk, this should have been easy money....yet here
we are nearly two weeks later and still no takers.

This is the first I've heard of it. Perhaps those "in the know" are uninformed
about Mr. Trudeau's little scheme, or simply don't want to play his game.


Or perhaps don't read a paper or watch the news.


--Mike

In article ,
"John Keeney" wrote:

NEW YORK (Reuters) -- A $10,000 reward offered by the
"Doonesbury" comic strip for proof that U.S. President George W.
Bush served in the Alabama National Guard during the Vietnam War
has elicited over 1,300 responses but turned up no credible
evidence yet, the cartoonist said on Friday.

With so much controversy surrounding Bush's National Guard
service, a credible witness would have turned up by now if there
was one, said Garry Trudeau.

"You can be sure some very motivated people have tried to find a
witness who can establish Bush's presence at Dannelly Base
beyond a reasonable doubt," said the creator of the politically
irreverent and satirical daily cartoon. "Anyone who could do so
would almost certainly have surfaced by now."

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/...ush.doonesbury
reut/index.html


With $10,000 as the prize, you would think just one person who can prove
they saw Br. Bush drilling in Alabama would step forward.

Two weeks? First I've heard of it, I wonder how many
Alabama ANG folks from those days haven't heard of it either?

Who can say, but if they don't know what a newspaper is or even watch
the news as seems to be the case with some of the more opinionated
poltical wonks around here, it may be more than a few.

The way some of you talk, this should have been easy money....

Proof to Trudeau? You got to be ****tin' me...
The man is so solidly a democrat that papers run his cartoon
on the editorial pages.


Who cares what his party is. Let's just see what kind of evidence turns
up; we're all grown up enough to judge it on it merits.


yet here we are nearly two weeks later and still no takers.

How many people are going to have movies (stills are
too easy to fake) with recognizable shots of GWB that
can be dated and placed sufficiently?


Faked stills are easy to spot. As I said earlier, even the design dept.
interns at the magazines I've worked at can spot a fake.


How about any other
member of the Alabama ANG during '72? None, unless
somebody happens to have some local news film shot
on the base where the individual shows up in the background.

Let's just see what gets submitted as evidence and wait to pass
judgement on it until that time.

Hmmmmm

Hmmmm yourself.

That's right.


I just went and found the thing -the above URL didn't work:
http://doonesbury.msn.com/strip/bush_guard.html
Even if you could "definitively prove that George W. Bush
fulfilled his duty to country" to Trudeau, you don't get the
money. "The winner won't actually receive the reward for himself;
instead we'll be donating $10,000 in his name to the USO."
So there goes that powerful reward for coming forward.


A $10k contribution to the organization who has spent its entire
existance trying to improve the morale of those in uniform is not reward
enough?


--Mike

In article k.net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

So then you've seen pictures of Mr. Bush serving in AL?


Nope.



Easy money...eh?


Easy money if you just have to satisfy on objective judge. Hard money if
you have to satisfy Trudeau.


Do objective judges accept one guy's claim of having seen something as
something even approaching conclusive evidence? An objective judge might
be swayed is two people came forward with similar testimony...but one?


--Mike

In article k.net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

I'm not certain, but a single guy swearing up and down he saw Mr. Bush
in the squadron is probably not going to persuade many...unless he has
pictures.


No, a single guy swearing up and down he saw Mr. Bush in the squadron is not
going to persuade anyone that has decided Bush wasn't there. As for
pictures, well, obviously any pictures showing Bush serving as required are
recently manufactured computer images.


Manufactured images are easy for the trained eye to spot.

--Mike

In article E4I0c.6541$Pc.6396@okepread02, "t_mark"
wrote:

Worried about authenticity issues? Most digital photo pros can identify
a doctored image. Heck, even the design interns at the magazines I have
worked at can tell. Just put up the photos or any other evidence, and
you get the prize.

Are you even listening to yourself? Is this the depths of stupidity to
which Bush haters have stooped?


You're claiming that the factual statement that trained eyes can spot a
doctored photo is not only stupid...but indicative of somebody hating
anybody?

Is English your first language?



Seriously, I spent the last few years
hoping against hope for some quality opposition to Bush because I believe we
need a change,


You had that opportunity four years ago in McCain...although the
sentiment has nothing to do with the topic being discussed.


--Mike

"Michael Wise" wrote in message
...

Manufactured images are easy for the trained eye to spot.


So what? That doesn't mean a genuine image won't be declared a fake.

In article . net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

Manufactured images are easy for the trained eye to spot.


So what? That doesn't mean a genuine image won't be declared a fake.


Put up the image for lay as well as professional examination...and let
the people make the conclusion.

--Mike

"Michael Wise" wrote in message
...

Put up the image for lay as well as professional examination...and let
the people make the conclusion.


Sounds good to me, but if Trudeau was that reasonable the reward would have
already been paid.

In article k.net,
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote:

Put up the image for lay as well as professional examination...and let
the people make the conclusion.


Sounds good to me, but if Trudeau was that reasonable the reward would have
already been paid.


And you know this because you've seen and evaluated any evidence
provided to him?


--Mike