The V.P. Debate

thomasabarnes · Oct 5, 2004, 11:17 PM

I think the VP did an Outstanding job in supporting the President, but I'm still voting for Kerry/Edwards. I just dont like the misleading of the Bush administration as false information was used to rally support to invade Iraq. I would have had no problem with the Invasion, if the information that the administration presented before the world was accurate. There were no weopons of mass destruction in Iraq. So, the invasion was not conducted as a last resort. Now, innocent Iraqi civilians have died, U.S. troops are dying as a result, and Osama has escaped after we had him cornered. I'm not comfortable with that.

However, I think if Kerry could have the Vice President and Colin Powell in his administration, if he is elected, that would be awesome. LOL

Just some of my thoughts in the debate. The VP's performance in this VP debate surely shows that there are good and capable polititians in the present administration (Powell and the VP). Moreover, I would feel better if the VP was the President because I think the current admin will remain around for another 4 years. LOL I'm done.

thomasabarnes

The_Neon_Cowboy · Oct 6, 2004, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by thomasabarnes

I think the VP did an Outstanding job in supporting the President, but I'm still
voting for Kerry/Edwards. I just dont like the misleading of the Bush
administration as false information was used to rally support to invade Iraq. I
would have had no problem with the Invasion, if the information that the
administration presented before the world was accurate. There were no
weopons of mass destruction in Iraq. So, the invasion was not conducted as
a last resort. Now, innocent Iraqi civilians have died, U.S. troops are dying as
a result, and Osama has escaped after we had him cornered. I'm not
comfortable with that.

However, I think if Kerry could have the Vice President and Colin Powell in his
administration, if he is elected, that would be awesome. LOL

Just some of my thoughts in the debate. The VP's performance in this VP
debate surely shows that there are good and capable polititians in the present
administration (Powell and the VP). Moreover, I would feel better if the VP
was the President because I think the current admin will remain around for
another 4 years. LOL I'm done.

thomasabarnes

You mean the Information given by our intelligence agency, European
intelligence, Russian intelligence, pretty much around the world and the
general view of the United Nations? The same info John Forbes Kerry and John
Edwards were pumping out? So that which you call “false info” properly called
“bad intelligence” was being pimped hard be the very people you now intend
to vote for. Don’t use that as a reason maybe I should share a quote.

“If you do not believe that saddam is a threat with nuclear weapons then do
not vote for me” - John Forbes Kerry (2003)

Even those that guaranteed a veto, with any resolution that’s would require
military action. Saying no matter what don’t attack Iraq. Then we see the oils
for food scandal and billions rolling in to the U.N. and billions rolling into the
countries that have apposed it so. Many with government ties close to their
countries leaders such as in France and russia pulled in billions. Not to mention
the massive tab saddams regime left behind of money they still owed them.
This with a new democratic government wouldn’t be responsible for, so they
are stuck holding the bill. Now Add to the fact the U.N propping up saddams
regime which had allowed him to make over 10 billion dollars + + +.

Then added the massive Iraq old contracts they had (RE: scandal) the
dependence they had on Iraqi oil is far larger then ours has ever been.

I defiantly love the French missiles they found, with serial numbers year 2002,
date of MFG. Always good to know France was illegally selling them arms
(along with others).

Missiles to shoot down US planes and kill us servicemen enforcing the no fly
zone. Even the massive shipment of mortar shells I believe it was 2 tons
seized in Italy with forged papers believed to have been heading to Iraq to be
used against us troop in the early war.

Weapons of mass destruction may have been the biggest push for the war.

No WMD’s yet found some materials and materials they never should have
had. If it wasn’t for us going though Saddams papers they never would of
know about the oil for food scandal. Now even France, Russia and China have
been trying to impede the investigation. Funny because those are some of the
very places saddams recordeds point to. They never intended for the US or
any country for that matter to invade saddam no matter what. They were
busy with their hands in the massive honey pot. That way no one should no
of this massive multibillion dollar scandal. A scandal the propped up saddam
and his brutal regime, which kept saddam is lavish plaices with his people sick
and staving in the streets. Add to this the un didn’t inspect the goods like
they wee supposed to only like 5% of the good shipped in to IRAQ. They just
signed off on the papers and let them through.

Saddam had link to terror, saddam hada hand in terrorist training and funding.
Iraq was considered a terrorist state.

“Saddam him self is a terrorist” John Forbes Kerry 2003

WMD’s were not the only reason for going in. (Even tough he had the
capability of making chemical weapons) the oppression and slaughter of his
own people. His sponsoring of terror etc.. etc... etc… But WMD’s were the
biggest threat and thus the biggest reason to get us in there that was
pushed buy john Kerry and the bush administration. How funny it is people
that support Kerry forget little massively important things like that.

Good old Chaney handed Edwards ARSE… He was totally owned in the
debate…. Chaney brought up points the bush should have brought up in the
first debate. Points that would of seriously hurt Kerry.

The 1st presidential debate Kerry one on style points, Bush won on
substance. I’d prefer substance over a good talker wouldn’t you? Chaney won
the VP debate on style and substance.

(John kerry supported the war before it became popular to appose it.
Saying THE EXACT SAME STUFF THE BUSH ADMINISTARTION DID)

Dom · Oct 6, 2004, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Neon_Cowboy

“If you do not believe that saddam is a threat with nuclear weapons then do not vote for me” - John Forbes Kerry (2003)

John Kerry never said Saddam wasn't a threat with nukes. He's not saying he had nukes, he's saying IF he had nukes he WOULD be a threat.

Quote:

“Saddam him self is a terrorist” John Forbes Kerry 2003

The statement is correct, he was a terrorist to his own people. He wasn't a world-wide terrorist like Osama.

Stop "misunderestimating' Kerry's statements, Neon. You're taking them out of context.

GutterPunk · Oct 6, 2004, 02:20 PM

because everything aroudn the quote isnt also quoted you can take it any way you want to

Next, these debates were horrible... the VP did a nice job, Edwards did the more of Kerry approach and really did not say much and he used a total cop out cant remember what he friggen said tho

thomasabarnes · Oct 6, 2004, 02:48 PM

Quote from Neon:
"You mean the Information given by our intelligence agency, European
intelligence, Russian intelligence, pretty much around the world and the
general view of the United Nations? The same info John Forbes Kerry and John
Edwards were pumping out?"

I dont know where you got this infomation from, but you are being mislead again. The US brought information to the United Nations (that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq) . Info concerning WOMD and Chemical munitions sites was gathered through electronic means. France, Germany, and Russia among some other countries didnt accept that Info. That's why the UN was expressing to the US to allow for a continuation of the weapons inspectors in Iraq to ascertain if there were WOMD over there. We now know there werent any WOMD over there.

If other countries were smart enough not to trust that info, we should have been too, IMO.

Kerry needs to say to the American people why he changes his mind on any matter. Bush and his admin has changed their mind on matters as well. I would think Kerry and Edwards voted as they did in order to support the President after a 9/11 tragedy. The President is, however, the leader. He should have known better than to trust that info about WOMD in Iraq, other countries in the UN didnt trust it.

All this makes me think Bush was on some personal mission to attack Saddam, and if the personal mission was to cease and desist a terrorist from being a threat, he should have not let Osama (the real culprit behind the 9/11 attack) escape when we had him cornered even before the US went to strip Saddam of power!

Sorry Neon, you cant defend Bush in this area. He's not a good President IMO, but he has some good team players. That's all I can say.

thomasabarnes

The_Neon_Cowboy · Oct 6, 2004, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dom

John Kerry never said Saddam wasn't a threat with nukes. He's not saying he had nukes, he's saying IF he had nukes he WOULD be a threat.

That was his exact statement, his context? Supporting us going to war against IRAQ and the removal of saddam.

The statement is correct, he was a terrorist to his own people. He wasn't a world-wide terrorist like Osama.

Yes, and he said that Iraq supported terror, had links to terror, funded terror. You know bush adminstartion stuff ring a bell?

Stop "misunderestimating' Kerry's statements, Neon. You're taking them out of context.

I'm not you just not seeing them at face value or at all. What he says ,what he said, now what he said, he said he says. the story keeps changeing but it's the same book.

at the time he said it was in context to the matter @ hand

I'll respomd to other posts later i have to go pick up a package

flaherrc · Oct 6, 2004, 04:34 PM

Not only that, but it was obvious sanctions weren't working. 12 years of Sadam laughing at the UN and not abiding. What would more sanctions have done? Prolonged the inevitable.

John F'n Kerry wants to get the world more involved. Hell, the French and Chineese were helping Sadam scam the UN with the "Oil for Food" sanction. Now he's saying he won't be able to get France and Germany to commit troops. No joke, he has already said if he's elected - we're pulling out. Why would other countries want to commit?

What a joke.

But on topic, I thought the VP made some killer points against Sen. John Edwards.
* Medicare going up 17% due to legislation supported by Kerry and Clinton in 1997 and Edwards not paying his fair share of Medicare tax due to a Section S loophole.
* No Child Left Behind, fully supported by Kerry and Edwards in congress - now that it is a political thing, it was the wrong thing.
* $15B pledged worldwide for combating AIDS. Then Edwards says should be more. I thought earlier in the year he and Kerry were saying it was too much. Not only that, but at that comment my wife turned to me and said "Does he think I am stupid." She went on to say they pledge to reduce taxes and here he is spending more money.
* Pointing out that Kerry had voted for tax increases 98 times and opposed the tax cuts the President got signed.

The list goes on and on...

The_Neon_Cowboy · Oct 6, 2004, 05:57 PM

So you think the Iraq war was wrong, right? A lot of your guys seem though think that so what would you like us to do.

Help rebuild Iraq…Put saddam back in power... Help rebuild and train his armies remove all un sactions and put him on his merry way....

So many people bash bush over something they are happy that was done….

Quote:

Originally Posted by thomasabarnes

Quote from Neon:
"You mean the Information given by our intelligence agency, European
intelligence, Russian intelligence, pretty much around the world and the
general view of the United Nations? The same info John Forbes Kerry and John
Edwards were pumping out?"

I dont know where you got this infomation from, but you are being mislead
again. CNN, FOX News interviews etc...

The US brought information to the United Nations (that there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq) . Yes they shared some of what they had yes.
Info concerning WOMD and Chemical munitions sites was gathered through
electronic means. France, Germany, and Russia among some other countries
didnt accept that Info. Doesn't matter intel was gatherd from European,
Russian, and foreign sources as well as our own. That's why the UN was
expressing to the US to allow for a continuation of the weapons inspectors in
Iraq to ascertain if there were WOMD over there. We now know there werent
any WOMD over there. Yes, and it was said it was as good as looking for
the proverbial needle in a hay stack. They said at the current number of
inspectors and the way it was being done it would take roughly 300
years to properly complete. I love the way they go hey in 3, 4, 6, 7, and
8~ hours we are going to inspect “said location”. Gee wiz hope there
nothing there when we get there roll eyes. Iraq was given assurances
either from the U.N. or a foreign government that we would never
attack. When we finally did saddam had to even double check he was so
surprised that we actually did attack him. It was even rumored on the
battle field in the early days as reported by the leader of the US forces
in Iraq that France had helped Iraq to remove or hide WMD. As I said that was just a rumor but still makes one wonder.

If other countries were smart enough not to trust that info, we should have been too, IMO.Yes especially the ones with special interest$ in Iraq Who blocked any chance of any UN route. It was said they would veto any resoultion that required the use of force. Kerry needs to say to the American people why he changes his mind on any matter. Bush and his admin has changed their mind on matters as well.
As conditions change not as the polls or public openion change. Kerry stand on topic has changes a frequently as daily. It depends on were he is speaking and who he is speaking to.I would think Kerry and Edwards voted as they did in order to support the President after a 9/11 tragedy. The President is, however, the leader. He should have known better than to trust that info about WOMD in Iraq, other countries in the UN didnt trust it. .. .. but they said something needed to be done about it. Why would they act on something they did not belive? they wer up for anything as long as the use of force was not granted.... regardless if they found million nukes etc ... no millitary action allowed. saddam must stay in power and thier own illegal actions perfictly hid... saddam wasn't going to tell...

All this makes me think Bush was on some personal mission to attack Saddam, and if the personal mission was to cease and desist a terrorist from being a threat, he should have not let Osama (the real culprit behind the 9/11 attack) escape when we had him cornered even before the US went to strip Saddam of power!

Sorry Neon, you cant defend Bush in this area. He's not a good President IMO, but he has some good team players. That's all I can say.

thomasabarnes

Captn · Oct 6, 2004, 06:46 PM

Kerry says what ever benefits him at any given time, Plain & simple. Thats what bugs liberals about Kerry and it bothers them to have to defend Kerry every time he opens his mouth...

Dom · Oct 6, 2004, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The_Neon_Cowboy

That was his exact statement, his context? Supporting us going to war against IRAQ and the removal of saddam.

He supported the use of force if needed and only if it was done the proper way.

Quote:

Yes, and he said that Iraq supported terror, had links to terror, funded terror. You know bush adminstartion stuff ring a bell?

By deffinition if I terrorize you, I'm a terrorist. Saddam terrorized his own perple, we know that, but that doesn't make him a member nor supporter of al-Qaeda.

Quote:

I'm not you just not seeing them at face value or at all. What he says ,what he said, now what he said, he said he says. the story keeps changeing but it's the same book.

at the time he said it was in context to the matter @ hand

You rarely take anything for face value, Neon. You mostly go on anti-Kerry rants. We know Bush has flip-flopped, more than once, why don't you rant about that?

The_Neon_Cowboy · Oct 6, 2004, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dom

He supported the use of force if needed and only if it was done the proper way.

You speak of his more current stance, not his previous one..... Not his pre war stance which latter changed, again and again and again....

The only thing consistent about that man is he is consistently inconsistent...

the wording of the bill was very clear...

Quote:

The resolution for which Edwards and Kerry voted said, "The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate."

what he said then and then later doesn't match up.... i'm talking what was live footage of he himself talking... this isn't second hand information direct from the hourses...mouth the man changes his stance.....Were is was super pro go get iraq resason reason reason...... all ones he picks on bush for now

By deffinition if I terrorize you, I'm a terrorist.Not correct, by defontion you must insight to strike fear into the masses, consire, plot killings etc.... Saddam terrorized his own perple, we know that, but that doesn't make him a member nor supporter of al-Qaeda.

yea the money he paid to them, suicide bombers families (as payment), The terrorist training camps, and training they done… well like I said those must of been for boy scout cookies then huh... it it don’t have to be al quida. It just has to be terrorists. There are many groups inter connected like a web, All arms and legs of each other. Why do you get this is only about al-Qaeda. Or only Osama bin laden?

You rarely take anything for face value, Neon. You mostly go on anti-Kerry rants. We know Bush has flip-flopped, more than once, why don't you rant about that?

But what you call flip flops mostly aren't really flip flops, and the ones that look like flop flops tend to have valid reasons, or changes behind the decision change ... not because some new poll or change in the political winds or who he’s talking to that day….

nothing like Kerry is doing... I've never seen or herd of a polititon that has changes his stance more the John Kerry. John kerry is quite possably the biggest flip flopper that has ever walked this earth...

Face value? You mean other then the words coming out of his and Edwards’s mouth?

I’ve seen older footage replayed etc …

Is it fair for kerry take the same stance as the administartion then changes it and then bashes them for it? his same previous stance..

If kerry is elected I rather live just about anywere else in the bloody world then here... he's that bad...

thomasabarnes · Oct 6, 2004, 09:06 PM

My purpose is not to change your vote, but I explained why I wont vote for Bush! Loyal Republicans are stubborn and blindly stick with there party. Well, they wont be fooling me that Bush made a good move to invade Iraq when he did, and it resulted in innocent civilians lossing their life, the U.S. troop casualties, and Osama's escape!

Bush is not the better choice for President and he shouldnt be reelected. If he didnt have Powell and Cheney on his Team he wouldnt be reelected for sure. He's still not getting my vote.

There are means he could have used to go about getting Saddam differently, such as using Special Forces Operations. Instead, he takes the route he took. That strikes me as an abominable disregard of human life, yet Cheney accuses Edwards of demeaning the Iraqi soldiers fight in Iraqi.

Lastly, I think because Americans dont want to see any thing like 9/11 happening in the US again, a war inclined individual like Bush seems to be a good choice in the War on Terror to many Americans. But I dont think that stand is morally correct. As Bush has said, "I make decisions to protect the American people." I believe it was possible to get Saddam ( protect the American people) without starting that war. Here's some sarcasm: If we go in killing terrorits as Bush has done, terrorists will see that the US is big and bad, and terrorists will be afraid to pick on the US anymore. That's the equivalent of a Capital Punishment (as a deterrent) view for murderers. Since when is capital punishment a deterrent for murder. Murder is still being commited.

Bush and his attitude of "I do what I want," is gona piss off people in other countries and they will try even harder to hit the US hard. And one day chances are they will succeed. All through history you can see that Great Nations have fallen. So, no nation is invincible. I think it would be better if the War on Terror is implemented with more concern and regard for all human life. The moral power of the just against the unjust will more likely be felt by the enemy and affiliates of justice. That will mean our moral fortitude will affect the conscience of all individuals. And all individuals have a concience! So we can, in the long run, prevail against the evil of terrorism or at least lessen the liklihood of terrorists wanting to attack the US for having a "let's just go to war and kill the terrorist when I see fit attiude." Remember, some that we call terrorists are of the Islam faith, and they think they are fighting a holy war (that means they think God is on their side).

All people have a conscience and it is written, "for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)" Romans 2:14-15. That means we all know the difference between right and wrong and our own conscience condemns us when we're wrong.

I think we stand a better chance fighting individuals who feel condemned for fighting against us because we have taken a moral stand (the greater world community can relate to) before acting and going to war which results in the loss of innocent lives.

thomasabarnes

raid517 · Oct 6, 2004, 09:10 PM

Well since I don't personally have the energy for all of this right now, here is my favorite news show:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsa/n5ctrl/tv.../newsnight.ram

It's not some raving loony leftwing proagandist crap - just the BBC at it's generic best. Pretty ballance and fair.

But the point you have to consider here is whether it is fair to go to war with people - or prosecute them puely on the basis of what they might do at some point in the future?

I mean if you and some guy had an argument - is it fair or reasonable to assume that you should put the guy on trial and kill him because you were scared of what one day he might do to you?

If every guy who ever had a fight with another guy were tossed in jail for even just thinking 'one day I'm going to kill you,' there would be death camps all over the US right now. (Not that I'm neglecting that there pretty much is - but you tend to have had to have done something to someone first - and to pose a clear and present threat to society).

And what about the idea of a clear and present threat? Clearly Iraq wasn't it. It is very hard to dispute that. There were certainly very many clear and present dangers that needed even more immediate attention - like the hunt for the real bad guys and the war on terror, like taking out the threat that Iran now poses before it developed the long range missiles and the nuclear and biological weapons it now seems it has (I don't support a land war in Iran - but what we have to deal with now is certainly far more deadly than it was three years ago) like getting to grips finally with the Saudis - and their long history of supporting terrorism.

But all these things would be bad for business - and far more deadly too. They wouldn't be the impressive show stopping walkover that many imagined Iraq would be.

We are three years too late with Iran, 3 years behind on the war on terror, five years into a decayed American economy, festering on a 7 trillion dollar deficit with a cash black hole called Iraq guranteeing only that things will get worse, and 900,000 fewer jobs in America than when Bush first took office. By any standards that's an abysmal record.

How much good news is it for a government 21 days before an election to have to admit that it will default on a budget it has defaulted on twice already. First 6 trillion, now at 7 trillion - and soon at lord knows what. Do you even know how much 7 trillion dollars in borrowing really is? It isn't just you who will be paying for this, it is your children - and your childrens children.

And now we have burned much of the good will with our allies that would have helped us fight the bigger fight that now confronts us.

Yet for some reason you remain fanatically loyal to this man.

Forgive me if I cannot see why.

GJ

The_Neon_Cowboy · Oct 6, 2004, 09:27 PM

....

Quote:

Originally Posted by thomasabarnes

My purpose is not to change your vote, but I explained why I wont vote for Bush! Loyal Republicans are stubborn and blindly stick with there party. I actually don't have a party but i'd guess i'd be classificed as Republican lest this year. Well, they wont be fooling me that Bush made a good move to invade Iraq when he did, and it resulted in innocent civilians lossing their life, the U.S. troop casualties, and Osama's escape!

Osama's escape when ? and don't say in afaganistan in the mountans were they guessed he was maybe there... or how about the chances clintion had if you talking about other times... As they said more then likely osoma is dead thats why there are no more audio video tapes... He was a sick man liveing in BFE .... he's likely died sick in some hole or cave some wer but that will never see the light of daty becouse that wouldn't help his couse...

Bush is not the better choice for President and he shouldnt be reelected.
For me bush is the only hope, Sorry I really wish ther wer more choices but kerry isn't what we need, noor what I and many others wan't. I don't think thier is a kerry supporter in the whole family includeing extended family If he didnt have Powell and Cheney on his Team he wouldnt be reelected for sure. He's still not getting my vote. Good for you it's only the the electorial votes that countany ways... our votes are just a placebo to make us feel like we had a say...

There are means he could have used to go about getting Saddam differently, such as using Special Forces Operations. Instead, he takes the route he took. That strikes me as an abominable disregard of human life, yet Cheney accuses Edwards of demeaning the Iraqi soldiers fight in Iraqi. Yes ,
saying that the US has took 90% of that casulaties when the number is in fact 88.6% and iraqy soldgier/police deaths are not counted in the numbers.... so he's tottally not mentioning they fought and died at all....Lastly, I think because Americans dont want to see any thing like 9/11 happening in the US again, a war inclined individual like Bush seems to be a good choice in the War on Terror to many Americans. Well the un dosent work we've seen that, thanks to some of it's members and the oil for food scandle...But I dont think that stand is morally correct. As Bush has said, "I make decisions to protect the American people." I believe it was possible to get Saddam ( protect the American people) without starting that war. They tried intsted they got his son one of the first strikes was on his position. As reported by a creditable sourse. they failed to get him....Here's some sarcasm: If we go in killing terrorits as Bush has done, terrorists will see that the US is big and bad, and terrorists will be afraid to pick on the US anymore. That's the equivalent of a Capital Punishment (as a deterrent) view for murderers. Since when is capital punishment a deterrent for murder. Murder is still being commited. It's kerry who says we will go out and "kill the terroists".... and bush who has said "bring them to justice"Bush and his attitude of "I do what I want," is gona piss off people in other countries and they will try even harder to hit the US hard. The oher contries allready harbor that hatered an dislike they wer just given something to wine about...And one day chances are they will succeed. All through history you can see that Great Nations have fallen. So, no nation is invincible. I think it would be better if the War on Terror is implemented with more concern and regard for all human life. The moral power of the just against the unjust will more likely be felt by the enemy and affiliates of justice. That will mean our moral fortitude will affect the conscience of all individuals. And all individuals have a concience! So we can, in the long run, prevail against the evil of terrorism or at least lessen the liklihood of terrorists wanting to attack the US for having a "let's just go to war and kill the terrorist when I see fit attiude." Remember, some that we call terrorists are of the Islam faith, and they think they are fighting a holy war (that means they think God is on their side). and that thay get 99 vergian for killing men women and children. That they will be rewarded in the next liss for killing masses the more they kill the bigger the prize waiting for them

All people have a conscience and it is written, "for when Gentiles, who do not have the law, by nature do the things in the law, these, although not having the law, are a law to themselves, who show the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and between themselves their thoughts accusing or else excusing them)" That means we all know the difference between right and wrong and our own conscience condemns us when we're wrong. I think thier poverty plays a big role that and poor education...

I think we stand a better chance fighting individuals who feel condemned for fighting against us because we have taken a moral stand (the greater world community can relate to) before acting and going to war which results in the loss of innocent lives. Iraqy's are killing iraqy civillians how againt thier couse can they get?

thomasabarnes

raid517 · Oct 6, 2004, 09:31 PM

Neon will you please stop writing in red? It is giving me a migrane.

GJ

thomasabarnes · Oct 6, 2004, 09:39 PM

Neon:

LOL Man youre sure stuck on the Bush deal. I've said all I want for now.

Cant wait til the next debate.

Cya all around.

thomasabarnes

thomasabarnes · Oct 6, 2004, 09:49 PM

Raid517:

That newsnight link you posted only renders a save for a small RAM file. You have any other link to share. I would like to see that if possible.

thomasabarnes

raid517 · Oct 6, 2004, 10:00 PM

The ram file is a real media file. You will need either realone player, or real player alternative (google), or maybe Video Lan player (VLC) and a suitable codec pack. (KLite codec pack). On some systems real alternative has trouble playing some streams - but if you have problems it is simply a case of changing a 2 to a 0 on a simple ini file. If you have any difficulties, PM me.

The safe bet is the free RealOne player - hopefully someone might post a link for you here - but I have to scoot I'm afraid.

Some people complain that RealOne or real player 10 is a pain in the ass of various descriptions - but it works.

Since I only use Linux these days for all my streaming media stuff, none of the things people complain about really bothers me.

GJ

thomasabarnes · Oct 6, 2004, 10:15 PM

man, that file is only 1 kb in size. Are you susre the link is good?

raid517 · Oct 7, 2004, 03:31 AM

Yes, so long as you have the right software installed. You must be a fairly new addition to the internet if you have gever heard of real player before?

GJ

Try google man. That will tell you all you need to know.