1
   

Want Us to Stop Calling You Liars? Stop Lying!

 
 
Harper
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 03:03 pm
Rick d'Israeli wrote:
Politicians lie. End of story.


Never in the history of this country has a political party gone to such great lenghts to lie about and smear a presidential opponent. I don't know about politicians in the Netherlands but what is going on witht hese liars and slanderers is unprecedented, except maybe by Nixon but he did it behind the scenes.
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 03:05 pm
Norway? (...) Now, I'm not American, but I was just trying to point out that you can expect that from politicians. Not that I accept it, but it's there. Harper, have you ever read Al Franken's books?
0 Replies
 
Harper
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 03:14 pm
Rick d'Israeli wrote:
Norway? (...) Now, I'm not American, but I was just trying to point out that you can expect that from politicians. Not that I accept it, but it's there. Harper, have you ever read Al Franken's books?


Sorry Rick but your location is not visible when I post----

This sounds funny but I had it read to me. Neil Rogers of WQAM read nearly the whole book on the air, Lying Liars----and I listen to Al Franken's Show on Air America. The kind of lie that "all" politicians lie about are promises made to voters. Lying to the peo[le about war and lying about and smearing an opponent like these lying liars who lie are doing is beyond the pale.
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 03:15 pm
I'm reading the book at the moment, I love it!
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 03:50 pm
No doubt that all politicians bend the truth, am being diplomatic. However the republicans seem to be so much better at it than the democrats. I guess it's a matter of frequency and practice.
0 Replies
 
Rick d Israeli
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 03:51 pm
OK I'll accept what you've said. Is in line with my ideology.
0 Replies
 
mesquite
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 04:08 pm
Larry434 wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
And don't forget the size of the lies, Larry. Size does matter.


I think lies told after swearing before a court of law to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth are the worst kind and least forgiveable.

Lies told for altruistic reasons are the most forgiveable.

Just my value judgment of course.

Yes, Larry. That is a very convenient way to give a trivial lie about consensual sex more importance than whoppers that lead to the cost of thousands of human lives.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 04:44 pm
mesquite wrote:
Larry434 wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
And don't forget the size of the lies, Larry. Size does matter.


I think lies told after swearing before a court of law to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth are the worst kind and least forgiveable.

Lies told for altruistic reasons are the most forgiveable.

Just my value judgment of course.

Yes, Larry. That is a very convenient way to give a trivial lie about consensual sex more importance than whoppers that lead to the cost of thousands of human lives.
I still don't know what lie you are talking about. The 9/11 commissions even said that Bush didn't lie, so I guess you libs would be the liars.

How about Kerry's lie about his silver star with the 'V" for valor. I would call that a lie. I hate to keep on the issue, but no one has been able to answer the question of how it got on there. Don't forget that he also has it listed 3 times and at least one of them has the signature for the Sec of the Navy and he doesn't recall ever signing the citation. Interesting isn't it.
0 Replies
 
Harper
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 05:04 pm
The 9/11 commissioners issued a report on the Republican Convention?
0 Replies
 
Harper
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 05:07 pm
Quote:
How about Kerry's lie about his silver star with the 'V" for valor.


Already debunked in this forum. do a search.
0 Replies
 
Larry434
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 05:08 pm
mesquite wrote:
Larry434 wrote:
FreeDuck wrote:
And don't forget the size of the lies, Larry. Size does matter.


I think lies told after swearing before a court of law to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth are the worst kind and least forgiveable.

Lies told for altruistic reasons are the most forgiveable.

Just my value judgment of course.

Yes, Larry. That is a very convenient way to give a trivial lie about consensual sex more importance than whoppers that lead to the cost of thousands of human lives.


Lying under oath is not a trivial matter for anyone. Especially the chief law enforcement of the Republic.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 05:08 pm
Did you miss the quote? Looks like you need to get your eyes worked on as well.
0 Replies
 
Baldimo
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 05:10 pm
Harper wrote:
Quote:
How about Kerry's lie about his silver star with the 'V" for valor.


Already debunked in this forum. do a search.


If it was debunked then how come it is being investigated by the dept of the Navy? I would call that still active and not debunked.
0 Replies
 
Harper
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 05:24 pm
Baldimo wrote:
Harper wrote:
Quote:
How about Kerry's lie about his silver star with the 'V" for valor.


Already debunked in this forum. do a search.


If it was debunked then how come it is being investigated by the dept of the Navy?


I don't know that it is, I have not seen that reported by any credible source.
0 Replies
 
Harper
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 05:27 pm
Baldimo wrote:
Did you miss the quote? Looks like you need to get your eyes worked on as well.


Is this directed at me? If so, I might remind you that this kind of personal attack is a violation of TOS. I made the mistake of responding to an insult yesterday by giving it back. I will in the future let the moderators deal with personal attacks.

BTW as well as...what?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 08:26 pm
Harper wrote:
F911 has been fully vetted and I believe a grand total of one errror was uncovered.


From: http://www.eecho.ie/news/bstory.asp?j=8640216&p=864xz7x&n=8640330

"Moore sued for 'doctoring newspaper'

03/08/2004 - 7:02:14 PM

Oscar-winning director Michael Moore is being sued by a furious American newspaper for allegedly "doctoring" the paper's front page for his controversial documentary Fahrenheit 9/11.

A scene in the movie shows newspaper headlines relating to the legally contested 2000 American presidential election and includes a shot of Bloomington, Illinois newspaper The Pantagraph with a headline reading 'Latest Florida recount shows (Al) Gore won election' - which was not actually used on the first page.

Instead the headline was found in much smaller type above a letter to the editor, which the paper says reflects "only the opinions of the letter writer".

The Pantagraph has now sent Moore and his production company Lions Gate Entertainment Corp a letter asking him to apologise for using the manipulated cover page and are seeking $1m (€839,000) in compensatory damages.

The paper says: 'If Moore wants to 'edit' The Pantagraph, he should apply for a copy-editing job.'"
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 08:43 pm
blacksmithn wrote:
"After more than a decade of diplomacy, we gave Saddam Hussein another chance, a final chance, to meet his responsibilities to the civilized world. He again refused, and I faced the kind of decision that comes only to the Oval Office -- a decision no president would ask for, but must be prepared to make. Do I forget the lessons of September 11th and take the word of a madman, or do I take action to defend our country?" he said. --Excerpted from Shrub's convention speech

Of course, this is untrue on it's face. We weren't relying on the word of any madman; hell, we weren't even relying on the word of the UN inspectors who were combing the country looking for supposedly ubiquitous weapons of mass destruction. The word that we relied on came from Shrub and his cronies and it was all about how many TONS of chemical weapons and how many mobile weapons factories and how many other facilities for WMD creation that this "madman" had. Not to mention the mobile missile launchers and unmanned drones supposedly on hand to spread this deadly stuff or the purportedly imminent production of nuclear weapons.

Still, only a thousand American kids or so had to die thus far for no discernable reason, so it's not much of a prevarication, is it?


Actually,thats not quite true.
After the first gulf war,Saddam Hussien signed an agreement to TOTALLY DISCLOSE ALL OF HIS WEAPONS. Notice the word ALL.
He refused to do that,he stalled,and refused to allow inspectors.Every time the world started to get angry,he would release enough to placate them for a while.
The whole war could have been avoided if Iraq had abided by the cease fire terms.They didnt,and paid for it.And I notice that you ignore the fact that thw WHOLE WORLD believed that there were still WMD in Iraq.
0 Replies
 
rabel22
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 08:52 pm
Actually thats not true either. The UN had inspectors in Iraq that reported to Bushes government that they couldent find any WOMD's so Bush told them to get out of Iraq because he was sending in troops and they would be in danger so they left.
0 Replies
 
blacksmithn
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 08:54 pm
I ignore no fact. I ignore a baseless supposition.

The inspectors were, in fact, forced to leave Iraq because WE were about to attack. As for total disclosure, well Saddam claimed repeatedly to have no WMDs, turning over documents which purported to explain their disposition and allowing said inspections. History has shown who exactly was right and wrong on that issue, at the unfortunate cost of 1000 American lives, untold Iraqi casualties and billions in taxpayer funds pissed away without cause.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 3 Sep, 2004 09:13 pm
blacksmithn wrote:
I ignore no fact. I ignore a baseless supposition.

The inspectors were, in fact, forced to leave Iraq because WE were about to attack. As for total disclosure, well Saddam claimed repeatedly to have no WMDs, turning over documents which purported to explain their disposition and allowing said inspections. History has shown who exactly was right and wrong on that issue, at the unfortunate cost of 1000 American lives, untold Iraqi casualties and billions in taxpayer funds pissed away without cause.


If you ignore no fact,then these reports should interest you...
http://www.cnn.com/WORLD/meast/9812/16/iraq.strike/
Butler's report discussed events that had taken place since mid-November, when Baghdad last agreed to cooperate fully with U.N. Special Commission (UNSCOM) inspectors.

"Iraq's conduct ensured that no progress was able to be made in either the fields of disarmament or accounting for its prohibited weapons programs," the report said.

Butler late Tuesday ordered UNSCOM staff out of Baghdad. The entire staff was evacuated before dawn on Wednesday.

"I regret that I had to report the facts yesterday, which is that (unfettered access) had not been given, and we can't adequately do our jobs under these circumstances," Butler told reporters at the United Nations on Wednesday.

Notice the date...December 16, 1998
Clinton was president.

http://www.iraqwatch.org/bulletins/vol1iss2may02.htm
Read that article,it supports what I said also.

If you would do a little work,you would see that the inspectors were FORCED OUT by Iraq in 1995.That was after the gulf war,and long before we thought about invading.
So,your argument doesnt hold water.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/13/2024 at 03:23:06