Jump to content

This just furthers my belief that Kerry is a LIAR


Recommended Posts

R Cow's list:

 

Michael Moore

Dan Rather

George Soros

Kitty Kelly

Lenin

Lennon

Susan Sarandon

NPR

85284[/snapback]

 

I will send you ten dollars for every time I have cited anyone of these sources. Better yet, show me a source I've cited that you can legitimetly say has a left wing agenda and the information is suspect.

 

You can say it but it isn't true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 45
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

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?

85380[/snapback]

I've never seen you cite anyone. Only disparage others. Now you don't answer the question...

 

Hypocrisy, thy name is RCow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will send you ten dollars for every time I have cited anyone of these sources.  Better yet, show me a source I've cited that you can legitimetly say has a left wing agenda and the information is suspect.

 

You can say it but it isn't true.

85399[/snapback]

Can you also send me $10 for every time you've taken a joke in a good natured manner? That envelope would be worth 37 cents until the post mark hit it.

 

:D:angry::D:):D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you also send me $10 for every time you've taken a joke in a good natured manner?  That envelope would be worth 37 cents until the post mark hit it.

85410[/snapback]

 

You Sir, did not use you're smiley. S'OK, I don't either. Unless I'm guilty of something.

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]

 

Hey, go ahead and believe what Novak says. May as well read RNC press releases while your at it.

 

I like Paul Gigot, Robert Kagan, Tom Friedman, David Broder, David Gergen, Kevin Phillips, Tim Russert, Jeff Greenfield, Michael Barone, Andrew Sullivan, Richard Cohen, David Remnick, John B. Judis to name a few. I find these people to more or less balanced -- that is, they are likely to praise and criticize both sides and find fault with those they lean toward. I don't see many pieces ready made by the DNC and RNC press shops.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can you also send me $10 for every time you've taken a joke in a good natured manner?  That envelope would be worth 37 cents until the post mark hit it.

85410[/snapback]

 

Well, gall darn, that WAS funny. Especially after you take it totally out of the context of the conversation. Though things tend to be funnier when there's more than a hint of truth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never seen you cite anyone.  Only disparage others.  Now you don't answer the question...

 

Hypocrisy, thy name is RCow.

85408[/snapback]

 

I'm now convinced you really don't know what hypocracy means. I mean you can cite it in a dicationary but you don't know how its applied.

 

I've cited Friedman and the others quite a lot thank you. I have explained myself quite clearly that both sides should be honest and not offer commentators with clear partisan and unobjective agendas as anything other than opinion that should be taken with more than a grain of salt. If we want to play that game we can just continually link them without ever making a point.

 

I provided a list of those I believe have the greatest amount of credibility and you can't even offer a candidate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey, go ahead and believe what Novak says.  May as well read RNC press releases while your at it. 

 

I like Paul Gigot, Robert Kagan, Tom Friedman, David Broder, David Gergen, Kevin Phillips, Tim Russert, Jeff Greenfield, Michael Barone, Andrew Sullivan, Richard Cohen, David Remnick, John B. Judis to name a few.  I find these people to more or less balanced -- that is, they are likely to praise and criticize both sides and find fault with those they lean toward.  I don't see many pieces ready made by the DNC and RNC press shops.

85447[/snapback]

What part of "I DIDN'T READ THE ARTICLE" is hard to understand?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

85348[/snapback]

Actually JSP, the first thing I did was pull up transcripts of the Presidential debates and then ran a search on "Lugar" and "incompetence" and I came up empty. I did get a hit on the Vice Presidential debates but then, you didn't call Edwards a liar, you called Kerry a liar. If you have a quote from Kerry that misquotes Lugar, I'd like to see it. If you want to call Edwards a liar, start another thread, look up his quote, post it along side what Lugar actually said and we can go from there and in the mean time, withdraw your unfounded charge against Kerry.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, Herr Typo.  You take style, I'll take substance.

85608[/snapback]

You call what you post substance? You really ought to publish your own dicktionary (sic) so the rest of us can "moo" properly and keep the beat.

 

You are the definition of hypocrisy. Virtually everything you rail against on this board is something you are guilty of. You can keep up the charade as long as you want, but that dog doesn't hunt.

 

You'll forgive me if I don't remember your posts that have articles attached to them. They are apparently few and far between, hidden amongst your regular childish games and self-induced sabbaticals.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cow, I've got to ask you. You speak of substance, did you feel that the responses that BiB gave you in numorus threads today had any substance. Your reply’s seemed to say no?

85613[/snapback]

 

Coming from someone who just a parrot it would seem odd to even respond to your post. However, since you feel inclinded to speak for me I will tell you that your absolutlely wrong.

 

Not to say I usually agree with him but I have great respect for BiB, he's one of my favorite posters, thoughtful and intelligent and not afraid to say exactly what he believes, not just a line or two from talk show dittohead script sheets. He may have thought I was disrespectful re: his recent links but quite frankly he probably knows as much about those issues as the partisan hack pieces without having to use the sources.

 

I wanted to respond further to our discussion on the Vietnam War but didn't have the time. It would be nice to have more threads like that one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You call what you post substance?  You really ought to publish your own dicktionary (sic) so the rest of us can "moo" properly and keep the beat.

 

You are the definition of hypocrisy.  Virtually everything you rail against on this board is something you are guilty of.  You can keep up the charade as long as you want, but that dog doesn't hunt.

 

You'll forgive me if I don't remember your posts that have articles attached to them.  They are apparently few and far between, hidden amongst your regular childish games and self-induced sabbaticals.

85624[/snapback]

 

I know I get under your skin but it would end if you just be honest. It's really a very simple question -- who will YOU vote for, why do you support that person, and how are they better than the candidates you continually crap all over. Why are you immune to such criticism? I suppose you think your free to crap all over other people and not be held accountable for your own opinion. What a boring place this would be if no one ever said who they supported for President because they were afraid to be criticized. You want to talk hypocracy? It's laughable.

 

Yeah, I may have a thing about posting partisan crap as a legitimate source of news but I'm honest about it. I've told you and others exactly why I think it's a bad PPP form and have no problem calling people out on it. Do I concentrate on the Right's cites, yeah probably guilty, but I do not even join conversations or threads when done on the left. I probably should . . . This place gets very dull when we're simply citing partisan commentary as news without ever admitting that it's just opinions and the source and its agenda should be questioned.

 

If you really need to know, the sabbaticals are due to work. You know, a job. Sorry if I can't spend as much time here as you. Nice of you to say you missed me.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know I get under your skin but it would end if you just be honest.  It's really a very simple question -- who will YOU vote for, why do you support that person, and how are they better than the candidates you continually crap all over.  Why are you immune to such criticism?  I suppose you think your free to crap all over other people and not be held accountable for your own opinion.  What a boring place this would be if no one ever said who they supported for President because they were afraid to be criticized.  You want to talk hypocracy?  It's laughable.

 

Yeah, I may have a thing about posting partisan crap as a legitimate source of news but I'm honest about it.  I've told you and others exactly why I think it's a bad PPP form and have no problem calling people out on it.  Do I concentrate on the Right's cites, yeah probably guilty, but I do not even join conversations or threads when done on the left.  I probably should . . . This place gets very dull when we're simply citing partisan commentary as news without ever admitting that it's just opinions and the source and its agenda should be questioned. 

 

If you really need to know, the sabbaticals are due to work.  You know, a job.  Sorry if I can't spend as much time here as you.  Nice of you to say you missed me.

85886[/snapback]

Except it has nothing to do with individual candidates and you know it, despite your ridiculous arguments. The two parties at the top of the pyramid in this country care little about anything except retaining access to power and in turn the purse strings of this country.

 

You can continue to play your game of pretend, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a giant crock of crap and is contrary to every ideal this country was founded upon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Except it has nothing to do with individual candidates and you know it, despite your ridiculous arguments.  The two parties at the top of the pyramid in this country care little about anything except retaining access to power and in turn the purse strings of this country.

 

You can continue to play your game of pretend, but that doesn't change the fact that it's a giant crock of crap and is contrary to every ideal this country was founded upon.

85903[/snapback]

 

It has everything to do with individual candidates and parties. Are you saying there isn't a single candidate or party that comes even close to your personal politcal views? Are you saying the whole system is hopeless, that maybe we should have a revolution to start over? Of course, we wouldn't really know since you NEVER offer an articulate, rationale or realistic alternative to anything.

Edited by KRC
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It has everything to do with individual candidates and parties.  Are you saying there isn't a single candidate or party that comes even close to your personal politcal views?  Are you saying the whole system is hopeless, that maybe we should have a revolution to start over?  Of course, we wouldn't really know since you NEVER offer an articulate, rationale or realistic alternative to anything.

85914[/snapback]

The current system is pretty much hopeless. You can say otherwise and that will prove the argument about your willingness to maintain the status quo on this road to ruin.

 

The party I most identify with is the Libertarians, which I have stated so many times I'm not sure why it keeps coming up. I don't agree with every platform they run on (the open borders concept is the most disturbing). Virtually every organization at some point becomes more about maintaining the bureaucracy than the original mission, which is the reason every government program fails with striking similiarity.

 

Your last sentence is your opinion. Means dick. Last time I checked, you don't speak for a "we" only for a "ye". I don't care about "ye" - another point I'm sure I've articulated well enough for even you to understand.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...