100 Factual Reasons to NOT vote for Bush...

[Neutral]

The Nation is one of America's oldest social and political magazines publishing since 1865. From their founding prospectus in 1865, "The Nation will not be the organ of any party, sect, or body. It will, on the contrary, make an earnest effort to bring to the discussion of political and social questions a really critical spirit, and to wage war upon the vices of violence, exaggeration, and misrepresentation by which so much of the political writing of the day is marred."

Why are the 100 reasons from the link below facts? Because they provide us with a reference to a source for EACH fact. Some of this stuff is scary. Makes you think twice about voting for Bush when you read a FACT from this list that sites a New York Times source.

http://thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041108&s=facts

 

[Abrahán]

thanks

 

[[email protected]]

> The Nation is one of America's oldest social and political magazines
> publishing since 1865. From their founding prospectus in 1865, "The
> Nation will not be the organ of any party, sect, or body. It will, on the
> contrary, make an earnest effort to bring to the discussion of political
> and social questions a really critical spirit, and to wage war upon the
> vices of violence, exaggeration, and misrepresentation by which so much of
> the political writing of the day is marred."

> Why are the 100 reasons from the link below facts? Because they provide us
> with a reference to a source for EACH fact. Some of this stuff is
> scary. Makes you think twice about voting for Bush when you read a FACT
> from this list that sites a New York Times source.

> http://thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20041108&s=facts

was that the magazine that had the editor who fabricated years worth of material in the past?

 

[national]

+ Bin Laden was in shoot line of GB and French task force 2 times in Afganistan and 2 times Bush and

Co asked them to do nothing!

 

[Neutral]

> was that the magazine that had the editor who fabricated years worth of
> material in the past?

The very same. The person was named Stephen Glass and fabricated 2/3rds of his stories. He did so at the time a new editor took over and did so during a 3 year stretch (1995-98).

3 years out of 140 cannot discredit the magazine as a whole...but it can make the magazine work harder to keep falsities out of it's journalism.

 

[anonymous]

> The very same. The person was named Stephen Glass and fabricated 2/3rds of
> his stories. He did so at the time a new editor took over and did so
> during a 3 year stretch (1995-98).

> 3 years out of 140 cannot discredit the magazine as a whole...but it can
> make the magazine work harder to keep falsities out of it's journalism.

It's also important to note that it wasn't the editor who fabricated...but his reporter that did.

 

[[email protected]]

> It's also important to note that it wasn't the editor who fabricated...but
> his reporter that did.

yeah, i really didn't mean anything by it. just wanted to confirm it was the same mag is all. BTW, he wrote some pretty good stuff though!!