Kerry.....again

[Weiser Wonder]

Originally posted by sjwalter@Oct 25 2004, 03:53 PM
http://washingtontimes.com/national/200410...10609-9428r.htm

Caught in another lie.

And this is who you want as President?

Yes. Thanks for asking.

You go to the Washington Times for news?

[KootenayFlamesFan]

I'm still trying to wrap my head around the fact that someone out there actually believes that politicians don't lie.

Kerry lies, Bush lies, they all lie.........or stretch the truth as far as they can.

Saying Kerry has lied about something isn't exactly some huge explosion of new information.

Especially coming from a Bush supporter...........wasn't there supposed to be WMD in Iraq?

No, Bush would never lie..............

[octothorp]

Interesting, at worst the article concludes that Kerry's statement was a half-truth. At best, they've proven that Kerry met with no more than 11 members of the security council, and at least 4, which means that at the very least, Kerry's statement was conceptually correct, if not completely correct in the details. And the only to permanent members the Times talked with confirmed that they had met with Kerry, and really those are the people Kerry should be talking with. That's fairly crappy investigative journalism, to have that wide a margin of error, though.

Jeez, the Republican attempts to smear Kerry have been so feeble it makes him look squeaky clean--if this sort of trivia is the worst they can dig up, he must be a pretty upright guy.

[Flame On]

Originally posted by sjwalter+Oct 26 2004, 01:44 AM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (sjwalter @ Oct 26 2004, 01:44 AM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Flame On@Oct 25 2004, 06:34 PM
Bush doesn't lie sj, didn't anyone tell you? Cheney tells that loser everything to say.

Yawn...

Tough Words you have there Flameon. You call every President a loser when you don't agree with them, just like you make fun of the postal service.

And Lanny its not a load of BS, its the difference between right and wrong. And the group that visited Hanoi were there to what.....aid the enemy, Jane Fonda said so herself and apologized for it. If she apologized then she admitted to do something wrong, and if she did something wrong then Kerry did as well because he was in the same boat as her. [/b][/quote]
Wrong again sj. Usually when I disagree with someone I just disagree, perhaps talk about why. When it's someone as bumbling and corrupt as Bush, I call them a loser. I lovvve the way I'm now a postal worker hater cause I used the term going postal... So what if I said keep on truckin' to someone, I guess I must think they're a trucker.
The Bush admin regularly meets with the Saudi ambassador who well knows the Bin Laden family, by your rational, that makes Bush a terrorist, OMG!

[dangler22]

Originally posted by MrMastodonFarm@Oct 26 2004, 04:02 AM
Who is this sjwalter character?

President Mccarthy reincarnated. Or just some brainwashed communist hating,god fearing- war monger.

[EddyBeers]

Originally posted by sjwalter@Oct 25 2004, 11:33 PM
The point is Kerry called Bush a lier while he was lying himself. Like i said before Kerry would do anything to become President even lie.

And Lanny those are all radical left wing sites, and i could come up with equally more against Kerry. And i was talking about Kerry's most recent lie not his whole history of lying, so keep Bush out of this, i never mentioned him.

The Washington Times is your citation for this news story, what a joke. They are as right wing as fox. I found a site that says Kerry is great and I think it is more objective than the Washington Post.

http://www.johnkerry.com/index.html

Check that site out, it clearly says that John Kerry is the best man for the job and not George Bush.

Finally, your last paragraph says, and I quote

"And i was talking about Kerry's most recent lie not his whole history of lying, so keep Bush out of this, i never mentioned him."

Are you saying that since Bush has a long illustrious history of lying we should not pay attention to it, but Kerry doesn't so we should pay attention to his most recent lie? I don't really understand your logic in that sentence. Speak plain man, like the rest of the simpletons in the republican party.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by EddyBeers@Oct 26 2004, 02:56 PM
The Washington Times is your citation for this news story, what a joke.

You people are aware that the Washington Times is owned and operated by the Rev. Sun Myung Moon and the Unification Church? Be afraid, be very afraid.

One thing that I think people are not understanding is that a lot of the neo-con types are highly religious and of the fringe Christian movements. A chunk of these guys are Rapturists and believe that the second coming is upon us. They believe that they can bring about the second coming of Christ through a cataclysmic war in the Middle East, one in which Israel is saved by great nation across the sea. They believe that this literal interpretation of the bible is their road map to what they have to do. I've seen opinion (and I don't share it) that Bush invaded Iraq to prepare for armageddon and the second coming by giving the troops of good a place to stage their war against the powers of evil. This whole idea made a shiver go up my spine. With the weapons that are at his disposal Bush could literally bring down columns of fire that suck the life out of the planet. Just a bright shiny thought to share with you people first thing in the morning.

[Bingo]

Like many have said ... this whole string is a waste of time. All politicians get caught bending or downright destroying the truth ... no shock in any of that.

Washington Times ... very right leaning, no argument there. However, if that's to be ridiculed straight up as a source, then maybe we should avoid posting links to the New York Times and LA Times in the future as well?

I know I come across some humdingers when it comes to Kerry but if it's from a newspaper or site that I know leans right, I tend to ignore posting it unless they have a source themselves. The days of "it's in the newspaper so it's true" are so far behind us.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Originally posted by Bingo@Oct 26 2004, 04:52 PM
The days of "it's in the newspaper so it's true" are so far behind us.

Very true Bingo. You really have to do some research into who is writing the article and where their sources of information are coming from. I read a piece the other day about Iraq and thought it was quite fair until I got near the end of it and noticed that the source of the information the author was writing about was from the Heritage Foundation. At that point the information itself became suspect. The writing was good (I wish I had booked marked it because the author impressed me) but the infromation had come from a source that is highly questionable. That really blew a good article out of the water. Its cavet emptor these days isn't it.

[RougeUnderoos]

According to this clickety click most of the powerful neo-cons are Jewish intellectuals. That does not mesh with the rapturists and all that claptrap.

And remember, before 9/11, George wanted nothing to do with the Middle East. Sure, he panders to the crowd, but he's not crazy.

[FlamesAddiction]

Kerry lies, Bush lies - I'm absolutely shocked! One question though: How many people died when Kerry lied?

Personally, I don't actually like Kerry all that much so insulting him doesn't bother me at all. He is your typical tacky politician - in fact, I would say that when it comes to "hand shaking and baby kissing" politics, and with his Fabutan and botox, he is worse than Bush. However, I just think Kerry is less likely to do stupid things and cause catastrophes. IMO, electing him would simply be addition by subtraction (like trading Savard for Zainullin ). It's not like he'll blow our minds with his great politicizing (is that a word?), but he won't be a complete jerk.

[Lanny_MacDonald]

Great site Rouge. I always like to bounce back to that one every now and then.

Bush, BTW, is not a neo-conservative. His brother is, but George is just a rube for the cause IMO. He's surrounded himself with neo-cons and has put together a scary bunch of individuals. If you delve deeper into the neo-con establishment you'll find a very interesting network of think tanks, policy orgainzations, media outlets and charitable foundations that support the whole movement. Much of the money comes from the uber-rich right wing ultra\neo conservative billionaires who wish to see their religious and political ideology promulgated across the world. The Rapturist component surprisingly aligns very well with many of the Lukid beliefs, even though making for strange bed-fellows. IMO neo-conservatism and zionism are not that far a part in many ways so their support of each other makes sense.

[troutman]

They Cannot Tell a Lie
Bush's deceptions are not to be named

http://www.fair.org/extra/0308/bush-lies.html

"Every government is run by liars, and nothing they say should be believed," legendary investigative journalist I.F. Stone once noted.

The word "lie," of course, is one that media are generally reluctant to use in connection with a powerful U.S. politician--particularly if the lie involves state policy and not personal sleaze.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally posted by MrMastodonFarm@Oct 26 2004, 04:02 AM
Who is this sjwalter character?

He's an oiler fan. Bush fans and Oiler fans are exactly alike. Their perception for reality is totally distorted.