| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Winston wrote:
On Sun, 12 Sep 2004 18:20:08 -0400, A boater A wrote: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-12-bush-documents_x.htm *Some experts pointed to the small "th" symbol raised above the line of type as the kind of symbol that could be produced only by computer. But a separate document released by the White House in February as part of Bush's military file contains a similar but not identical small "th" character on a form listing Bush's service assignments. The more I read about this, the more it sounds like the NeoCons got caught with their shorts down and they are doing a little dance to divert attention from their nakedness. Let's all talk about the typography, not about the contents. Typical Republican dirty trick. I'm a Republican, but that particular habit has always bothered me. No less so now. My take entirely. Let's talk about the Bush record. I defy anyone to explain why we should re-up this guy. Resources - Bush & Kerry military records http://news.findlaw.com/legalnews/lit/election2004/docs.html#gbush -- W§ mostly in m.s - http://members.1stconnect.com/anozira |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads
|
||||
| Thread | Forum | |||
| Harry reveals his true colors! | General | |||
| OT--Not again! More Chinese money buying our politicians. | General | |||
Threaded Mode
