Jump to content

This just furthers my belief that Kerry is a LIAR


Recommended Posts

  • Replies 45
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I've really wanted to hit on this one, as the agency I work for is responsible for executing Nunn-Lugar. We have four permanent offices in the former Soviet Union. It gets really frustrating, though, to try to debate what you actually know with people who get their information from a debate soundbite.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read THIS and find the truth.

85094[/snapback]

 

That kinda says it all aboiut kerry doesn't it? All show, and NO GO.

 

I have heard some small rumblings from Lugar around this part of the country but it does disturb me a little bit that he has not come out and been more vocal about being used like a rented whore by kerrys campaign.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You can also add two more to the list today:

 

1. Claims he was 30 yds away from Bill Buckner when he entered into baseball infamy.

The game was in NYC. Kerry was at the WTC of Boston at a fundraiser.

 

2. Claims that before the war on terror (in 2002), he met with all of the members of the UN security council about them helping in the WOT.

The date of the supposed meeting, Kerry was in Iowa. Officials from 4 of the countries on the security council then say they have never met Kerry and definitely there was on meeting of all of them with him. This includes the current French ambasador to the US.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Read THIS and find the truth.

85094[/snapback]

 

Did Lugar, in reference to the handling of reconstruction in Iraq, say or did he not say: ''This is incompetence in the administration.'' ?? How then would Kerry be lying to say that Lugar was critical of the adminstration's policy in Iraq? Is calling someone "incompetent" some sort of compliment? I think it is fair to say that calling someone's policy or actions "incompetent" would qualify as a critical remark.

 

Exactly what remarks by Kerry constitute the lie of which you accuse him? Novak includes no quotes from Kerry but instead charges simply that Kerry "implies support from such Republicans" as Lugar. "Implies support"???? What the heck does that mean?

 

I did a quick search and surprise, I can't find a quote in the debates from Kerry mentioning Lugar. The only quote I can find from Kerry on this is from a speech he gave, not from the debates:

 

"Senator Richard Lugar, the Republican chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said that the handling of the reconstruction aid in Iraq by this administration has been incompetent."

 

Compare Kerry's statement, the one you are calling a "liar" with what Lugar actually said. Here is a transcript of exactly what Lugar said during an interview on ABC's "This Week" on September 19, 2004:

 

Lugar: "...We've got to get the reconstruction money out there. That was the gist of our hearing this week, that $18 billion is appropriated a year ago and only $1 billion has been spent.

[1]10:55:31 GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (ABC NEWS)

 

(OC) Buy why isn't that happening?

 

[1]10:55:33 SENATOR RICHARD LUGAR (CHAIRMAN, FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE)

 

Well, this is incompetence in the administration.

[1]10:55:34 SENATOR JOSEPH BIDEN (RANKING MEMBER, FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE)

 

That's exactly right."

 

See This Week Transcript 9/19/04

 

Kerry quoted him dead on and in context. Please show me what part of Kerry's actual words are false. Since you saw it fit to make such a charge, the onus is on you to prove it. You guys are long and quick on the draw when it comes to accusations but always slow to come up with proof. Don't declare it, prove it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Did Lugar, in reference to the handling of reconstruction in Iraq, say or did he not say: ''This is incompetence in the administration.'' ??  How then would Kerry be lying to say that Lugar was critical of the adminstration's policy in Iraq?  Is calling someone "incompetent" some sort of compliment?  I think it is fair to say that calling someone's policy or actions "incompetent" would qualify as a critical remark. 

 

Exactly what remarks by Kerry constitute the lie of which you accuse him?  Novak includes no quotes from Kerry but instead charges simply that Kerry "implies support from such Republicans" as Lugar.  "Implies support"???? What the heck does that mean? 

 

I did a quick search and surprise, I can't find a quote in the debates from Kerry mentioning Lugar.  The only quote I can find from Kerry on this is from a speech he gave, not from the debates:

 

"Senator Richard Lugar, the Republican chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee, said that the handling of the reconstruction aid in Iraq by this administration has been incompetent." 

 

Compare Kerry's statement, the one you are calling a "liar" with what Lugar actually said.  Here is a transcript of exactly what Lugar said during an interview on ABC's "This Week" on September 19, 2004:

 

Lugar: "...We've got to get the reconstruction money out there.  That was the gist of our hearing this week, that $18 billion is appropriated a year ago and only $1 billion has been spent.

[1]10:55:31                                                       GEORGE STEPHANOPOULOS (ABC NEWS)

 

(OC) Buy why isn't that happening?

 

[1]10:55:33                     SENATOR RICHARD LUGAR (CHAIRMAN, FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE)

 

Well, this is incompetence in the administration.

[1]10:55:34                SENATOR JOSEPH BIDEN (RANKING MEMBER, FOREIGN RELATIONS COMMITTEE)

 

That's exactly right."

 

See This Week Transcript 9/19/04

 

Kerry quoted him dead on and in context.  Please show me what part of Kerry's actual words are false.  Since you saw it fit to make such a charge, the onus is on you to prove it.  You guys are long and quick on the draw when it comes to accusations but always slow to come up with proof.  Don't declare it, prove it.

85231[/snapback]

His comments could very well have been pointed at GWB, but if the situation were reversed, I have a feeling that your analysis of this quote might be:

 

Luger obviously meant the adminstering of the funds, not the presidential administration. Although the (insert prez name here) team did an admirable job in allocating the monies, the actual handling of them has been made too complex by the rules set down by (insert "escape goat" name here). They have not allowed (prez) to act. This is yet another example of the right taking a quote out of context and using it for political gain. I wish everyone could be more logical like Michael Moore.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't you give us the list of people you think tell the truth.  That'd obviously be much easier than the current system we're using.   :D

85261[/snapback]

R Cow's list:

 

Michael Moore

Dan Rather

George Soros

Kitty Kelly

Lenin

Lennon

Susan Sarandon

NPR

 

:P:D:D:):angry:;);)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't you give us the list of people you think tell the truth.  That'd obviously be much easier than the current system we're using.  :angry:

85261[/snapback]

Simply do what I did, go to the source whenever you can and draw your own conclusions hopefully applying some critical thought to the process.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Simply do what I did, go to the source whenever you can and draw your own conclusions hopefully applying some critical thought to the process.

85298[/snapback]

I didn't read the article. Don't need to read anymore from anyone to know John Kerry is a scumbag hypocrite and doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Washington, Lincoln, etc.

 

I'm simply asking Mr. Bovine to give us his list of acceptable sources so we can be as discerning as he, since everytime someone posts something here his response is to immediately discredit the source. Obviously he's privy to some pretty spectacular information that he should share.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I didn't read the article.  Don't need to read anymore from anyone to know John Kerry is a scumbag hypocrite and doesn't deserve to be mentioned in the same breath as Washington, Lincoln, etc.

 

I'm simply asking Mr. Bovine to give us his list of acceptable sources so we can be as discerning as he, since everytime someone posts something here his response is to immediately discredit the source.  Obviously he's privy to some pretty spectacular information that he should share.

85305[/snapback]

 

Doesn't it get boring to make Al-ZaRCOWy your B word?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

His comments could very well have been pointed at GWB, but if the situation were reversed, I have a feeling that your analysis of this quote might be:

 

Luger obviously meant the adminstering of the funds, not the presidential administration.  Although the (insert prez name here) team did an admirable job in allocating the monies, the actual handling of them has been made too complex by the rules set down by (insert "escape goat" name here).  They have not allowed (prez) to act.  This is yet another example of the right taking a quote out of context and using it for political gain.  I wish everyone could be more logical like Michael Moore.

85275[/snapback]

 

I see, well, I can hardly argue with your "feeling" as to what I might say in different place and in a different world. Agaist that type of hard analysis and fact based logic grounded firmly in your imagination, I am powerless.

 

If you want to take issue with what I say, fine, more power to you. I don't have the time to defend things I haven't said that you feel I might say.

 

In a way, that was what that whole analysis was about, dealing first with what people actually say rather than what some pundit thinks they "implied". JSP is calling Kerry a liar without even bothering to tell us what he said that was a lie. When you go to the actual words, it turns out he was dead on. Lugar is welcome to say now that he didn't mean what he said but Kerry isn't required to read his mind. I have no problem with people arguing that Kerry is making too much of an off hand comment by Lugar during the pressure of a live interview. Calling him a "liar" though based on that incident is just overblown, bs, partisan rhetoric by a guy who really, really hates Kerry. I think we have too much of that going around here on both sides.

 

If that is the standard for demonstrating that a candidate is a stone cold "liar", then I could convict all 4 of these guys in less time than it takes Chaney's heart to skip a beat. Politicians lying??? Egads man, say it isn't so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see, well, I can hardly argue with your "feeling" as to what I might say in different place and in a different world.  Agaist that type of hard analysis and fact based logic grounded firmly in your imagination, I am powerless.

 

If you want to take issue with what I say, fine, more power to you.  I don't have the time to defend things I haven't said that you feel I might say.

 

In a way, that was what that whole analysis was about, dealing first with what people actually say rather than what some pundit thinks they "implied".  JSP is calling Kerry a liar without even bothering to tell us what he said that was a lie.  When you go to the actual words, it turns out he was dead on.  Lugar is welcome to say now that he didn't mean what he said but Kerry isn't required to read his mind.  I have no problem with people arguing that Kerry is making too much of an off hand comment by Lugar during the pressure of a live interview.  Calling him a "liar" though based on that incident is just overblown, bs, partisan rhetoric by a guy who really, really hates Kerry.  I think we have too much of that going around here on both sides.

 

If that is the standard for demonstrating that a candidate is a stone cold "liar", then I could convict all 4 of these guys in less time than it takes Chaney's heart to skip a beat.  Politicians lying??? Egads man, say it isn't so.

85332[/snapback]

 

His was a lie of omission. He flatly stated in the debates that "prominent republicans" including Richard Lugar "agreed" with him regarding the war in Iraq.

 

I'd hardly say that Richard Lugar's statements bolster such a bold claim, but hey, that's just me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see, well, I can hardly argue with your "feeling" as to what I might say in different place and in a different world.  Agaist that type of hard analysis and fact based logic grounded firmly in your imagination, I am powerless.

 

If you want to take issue with what I say, fine, more power to you.  I don't have the time to defend things I haven't said that you feel I might say.

 

In a way, that was what that whole analysis was about, dealing first with what people actually say rather than what some pundit thinks they "implied".  JSP is calling Kerry a liar without even bothering to tell us what he said that was a lie.  When you go to the actual words, it turns out he was dead on.  Lugar is welcome to say now that he didn't mean what he said but Kerry isn't required to read his mind.  I have no problem with people arguing that Kerry is making too much of an off hand comment by Lugar during the pressure of a live interview.  Calling him a "liar" though based on that incident is just overblown, bs, partisan rhetoric by a guy who really, really hates Kerry.  I think we have too much of that going around here on both sides.

 

If that is the standard for demonstrating that a candidate is a stone cold "liar", then I could convict all 4 of these guys in less time than it takes Chaney's heart to skip a beat.  Politicians lying??? Egads man, say it isn't so.

85332[/snapback]

Don't get so touchy.

 

My point was that even something you see as cut and dried can be interpreted in another way. That is the problem with reaching a conclusion first and using the "facts" to meet your conclusion.

 

Just about every word ever written can be twisted to mean the exact opposite of what was intended.

 

FWIW, from my point of view it has seemed that Kerry has continuosly tried to imply support from various republicans (mostly McCain). I wondered why Bush didn't simply reply "well that's nice that you and John are buddies, but he has endorsed me" during the debate(s). From the Lugar article alone you can't reach the "implication conclusion" but if you've watched Kerry, you certainly can.

 

It would be a tough standard to meet if one needed every person in his party to agree with every single stance he held on every single issue. (This is true even with both parties in such ridiculous step.) For Kerry to pick out a few points where prominent R's disagree with Bush, might not be lying, but what would be the point if it did not infer a deeper division between Bush and McCain/Lugar, et al?

 

Who's Chaney? And why are you making fun of someone with a heart condition? I thought you guys were more sensitive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why don't you give us the list of people you think tell the truth.  That'd obviously be much easier than the current system we're using.  :angry:

85261[/snapback]

 

 

Let's see -- it certainly wouldn't start with you . . . I'd rather go to someone other than Bob Novak for truth. You did know he's a RNC mouthpiece, right? You can't be that out of touch. I don't see me quoting or citing many Molly Ivins columns, do you?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...