OK, I’ll do it.
Kerry lied. Kerry lied. Kerry lied. Kerry lied. Kerry lied. Kerry lied. Kerry lied. Kerry lied. Kerry lied. Kerry lied. Kerry lied. Kerry lied. Kerry lied. Kerry lied. Kerry lied. Kerry lied. Kerry lied. Kerry lied. Kerry lied. Kerry lied. Kerry lied.
Now let’s get to the mudslinging and biting and the other good stuff!
You gotta remember, SteveG1, that Bricker supports a political party which thinks lying about a blowjob is an impeachable offense, but lying to start a war is No Big Deal™.
Or, in other words, them priorities be whack.
I think we need to reach across the aisle, be kinder, gentler, and understand that it is quite plausable that millions or people, indeed, entire countries have been annihilated by blowjobs. (and not in a good way, either)
Thank you.
For keeping America safe.
If stern duty demands, I stand ready to risk annihilation.
So how did Kerry know what Bush’s true plan was? Unless he did, that comment was a lie, no matter if it turns out to be true.
We’ll find out soon enough, won’t we?
Bricker, you know damn well what the topic of conversation is. Quit pouting about it. You do need to consider that you’re effectively conceding that you supported the greater liar for President, meanwhile.
Not only “effectively” - I’ll make it entirely clear: of the two candidates, Bush’s ads were less accurate than Kerry’s. Or in plainer words, Bush’s ads lied more than Kerry’s did.
Naturally, with the apparent exception of SteveG1, your side is unable even to admit that Kerry lied at all, even though he clearly did. I, on the other hand, am not only able to admit that Bush lied, but that Bush’s lies were more numerous than Kerry’s.
So what took three pages worth of posts to wrest an admission from your side – an admission that really has only come from one person yet – is handled by my side instantly.
Of course, my side is just me. Your side is the usual crowd. Perhaps coordination is a problem. Is that it? Or is there some other reason?
Because right now it looks to me as though honesty isn’t such an issue as you pretend.
- Rick
I’ve seen some stupid shit posted here, but, wow. :rolleyes:
And the usual cogent insight from Demostylus, whose last big number was calling me an Uncle Tom. Hard to live up to that moment of glory, but keep trying, bubelah.
I calls it like I sees it. Poor, poor, persecuted Bricker. :rolleyes:
Sorry, Bricker, but perhaps you have come to realize what most of us already know.
Many of the more extreme lefties on the SDMB are not interested in honest debate, and it is a waste of time to try it.
Matthew 7:6. All you are going to get is oinking.
Regards,
Shodan
Until they jump into the water, then you get some gurgling. Briefly.
I don’t really know what the hell you’re talking about, but I’ll say Kerry lied too. I’ll also add that Bush lied more.
What are we talking about? 
Or they jump into the frying pan, then you get some bacon.
MMMmmmmm Bacon…
[
](MARK 5 NIV; - Jesus Restores a Demon-Possessed Man - Bible Gateway)
OK, I changed the text. A little.
Regards,
Shodan
Very droll, Shodan. Say, how’s that splendid little war of yours coming along? The reason I ask, the liberal media is making it look like shells are raining down on a city, pretty much indiscriminately, a city where an estimated 100,000 or so innocent civilians are cowering in fear. Bet they can’t wait to organize a “Gosh! Do we love America!” rally and parade. Well, the survivors, that is. And the ones that can still walk.
Guess they don’t know about the new! improved! artillery shells, the one’s where the shrapnel only hits the bad guys. You best tell them. Otherwise they might get the idea that we are wrecking a city, killing thousands of innocent civilians, while we accomplish diddly-squat. Had to destroy the city in order to save it, after all. Hearts and minds. Light at the end of the tunnel. It’s all Bill Clinton’s fault.
Better brush up those lines. Gonna need 'em.
elucidator, give them a break! Jesus. People are throwing candy and flowers. It’s just harder to do when you are missing hands and arms.
Why don’t we all just cut to the chase here. You have (at least) my admission that Kerry lied. Now how about answering MY questions?
Whose lies were more outrageous? Who went after character assassination based on lies? Whose lies started a war of aggression, based on either ignoring information or cherry picking pieces of that information? Whose lies got more people killed? Who didn’t have the intestinal fortitude to claim responsibility for “losing the peace” and coined the phrase “catastrophic success” instead?Whose lies split the country apart based on some yet-to-be-clearly defined “moral values”? Whose lies divided the country between the “good patriots” and "Godless librul gay Commie Amurica haters? Whose lies continue to feed on a manufactured atmosphere of fear for his own benefit?
In short who was the bigger, bolder, more egregious liar? Which one is the more disgusting of the two?
I gave you what you wanted, now answer my questions.
Still waiting for an answer…
Still waiting for an answer…
Still waiting for an answer…
YAWN
Still waiting for an answer…
Ummm, I am making pretty much my first big post here that is an answer to another thread in another forum. Because it specifically asked to not be a debate, it just happened that this thread fit my needs. Following are a list of reasons why people voted for Bush. As this topic suggested, many Bush supporters bought the lies. I have added links to the facts, took time to explain some (cuz I can’t find my link anymore) and some are just an opinion/comment. Be warned, I’m shooting my wad here…stand back!
Um, even when Condi Rice gave this statement to which she was unable to back it up. The fact is, they don’t have an accurate number of total Al Qaeda so they can’t give an accurate percentage of those captured. Bush supporters—find the exact number of Al Qaeda members still out there to prove me wrong.
President Clinton contended he could not accept Osama bin Laden because he had no legal standing to do so. Clinton is quoted as saying he pleaded with Saudi Arabia to take possession of bin Laden but to no avail.
The government of Sudan, using a back channel direct from its president to the Central Intelligence Agency in the United States, offered in the early spring of 1996 to arrest Osama bin Laden and place him in custody in Saudi Arabia, according to officials and former officials in all three countries.
The Clinton administration struggled to find a way to accept the offer in secret contacts that stretched from a meeting at hotel in Arlington, Virginia, on March 3, 1996, to a fax that closed the door on the effort 10 weeks later.
Unable to persuade the Saudis to accept Mr. bin Laden, and lacking a case to indict him in U.S. courts, the Clinton administration finally gave up on the capture.
Resigned to Mr. bin Laden’s departure from Sudan, some officials raised the possibility of shooting down his chartered aircraft, but the idea was never seriously pursued because Mr. bin Laden had not been linked to a dead American, and it was inconceivable that Mr. Clinton would sign the “lethal finding” necessary under the circumstances.
In short, Sudan claimed that it would arrest Osama and extradite him to another country, though the veracity of that offer has never been confirmed, and was doubted by many. But the Clinton administration tried to achieve this. However, the U.S. itself could not take him because at that time (and this is what the right-wing hatchet stories usually leave out), bin Laden had not been connected with any U.S. deaths, and the U.S. did not have any jurisdiction to try him. So they tried to convince the Saudis to take him, but the Saudis refused. To suggest that Clinton had the ability to nab bin Laden but decided not to goes contrary to Clinton’s 10-week effort to get bin Laden put in a Saudi jail and possibly executed there. The deal was simply unworkable, pure and simple.
http://www.factcheck.org/article278.html
He made quite the opposite statement.
http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/speeches/spc_2004_0729.html
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/10/12/edwards.stem.cell/
It’s not pandering when the one in question supported the comment : “Reeve, who was left paralyzed after a horseback-riding accident nine years ago, was an advocate for increased funding for new treatments for spinal cord injuries and stem cell research.”
Kerry has never voted against the second amendment in the way you suggest.
http://www.issues2000.org/2004/John_Kerry_Gun_Control.htm
Looking at his voting record, he stands against assault rifles, feels gun safety is important and wants background checks. So what you are saying, is every psycho should be allowed assault rifles without safety locks? Umm, that’s good, because hopefully these nuts will blow their own heads off?
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/pentagon/
If one doesn’t understand military or their tactics, one should listen to the experts. Especially view part 4.
http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004c.html
In the debate he said: "The future of things that matter to you – in terms of civil rights, what kind of Justice Department you’ll have, whether we’ll enforce the law. Will we have equal opportunity? Will women’s rights be protected? Will we have equal pay for women, which is going backwards? Will a woman’s right to choose be protected?
These are constitutional rights, and I want to make sure we have judges who interpret the Constitution of the United States according to the law."
Not pro-abortion, but pro-choice, according to the constitution. Kerry also said he is against abortion, but believes choice is a constitutional right. This is not a theocracy, use your beliefs to convince others, but don’t impose your morals on me when they conflict on my rights.
Tax rates are progressive. Example: Johnny Gotbucks makes $300,000 a year and Joey Peon makes $50,000 a year. Let’s round off the taxes they pay ($105,000 vs. $13,500). But let’s look at the real differences. Johnny makes six times more than Joey but is paying roughly only 1.3 times more proportionately. While it is more, it’s not MUCH more.
Kerry’s record has shown he wants to cut military.
http://www.factcheck.org/article177.html
http://www.factcheck.org/article147.html
http://www.factcheck.org/article159.html
http://www.factcheck.org/article247.html
http://www.factcheck.org/article163.html
http://www.factcheck.org/article167.html
Then why does he keep insisting his tax cuts are helping stimulate the economy? For further thinking:
http://www.taxprophet.com/pubs/clint_nl.html
This explains how Clinton improved the economy.
And Bush does?!
Odd, I never once heard one plan of Bush’s. Must be because he spent more time smearing Kerry than actually explaining how he will build on his record. Oh wait, he didn’t have much of a record.
Says the side that claims Fred Barnes, Ann Coulter , Sean Hannity, Robert Novak, Andrew Sullivan and Bill O’Reilly to name just a few.
One, your assertion demeans all other Purple Heart wearers. Kerry didn’t ask for them, so the rule that applies to him applies to all of them. Secondly, three times and you’re removed from battle.
Actually there is logic to those who have morals. You see, these programs which are taxpayer funded (and yes a lot more paid by the richest) is desired to help those to achieve what others have. It’s a kind of government mandate to make sure everyone “gives back to the community.” The irony of it all, is the many “Christian” conservatives want to rid of these programs so they can keep more money. Yeah, that’s great, but it’s hypocritical to say you have Christian values and deny assisting those in need.
The negotiations for Libya were started during Clinton’s term. They did most of the work. Bush had little to do with that.
Actually, Bush’s budget costs more. But what’s a few million when we’re already looking at trillions?
From the transcript of the second debate:
KERRY: I’m against the partial-birth abortion, but you’ve got to have an exception for the life of the mother and the health of the mother under the strictest test of bodily injury to the mother.
To which Bush responded:
BUSH: Well, it’s pretty simple when they say: Are you for a ban on partial birth abortion? Yes or no?
That’s not any better than your example. It’s even more dishonest because at least Kerry was emphasizing reasons to not trust Bush on his word.
Why not? It wasn’t there in the beginning?
he never said that he wanted that.
http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004d.html
He said: “We’re not giving this away for nothing.”
Never admitting your wrong does not make you right.
Odd. Bush has done little for national security, destroyed foreign relations and attacks anybody willy-nilly when it suits his need to fight terrorism.
No change. Consistent.
http://www.factcheck.org/article269.html
Had Bush let the inspectors do their job, we would have found out. Instead he ordered them out just before going to war.
Curious, do you foresee getting an inheritance of over $600,000?
Let’s take that analogy one step further. Go get rid of the hornets nest, but leave all the windows and doors open in the house when you do it.
Funny, he’s originally from Connecticut.
Does anyone realize that he is thinking about a 23% national sales tax? For some of us, taking in consideration state and local taxes, that could be as high as 35% if not higher? Not a big deal for a pack of gum, but wow, start talking bigger ticket items and I wonder how long before the economy not to mention the country’s debt goes bust.
Yes, in the same way that both have the same position on abortion.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A50679-2004Jun17.html
He implied it enough times. And many took the bait (see:
http://www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdf
Vote for spite, that simplifies decisions. Because voting only takes in account the future of a people and a country. And as for valid points, I have given you a long series of facts that disprove much of the reasons you Bush supporters found to vote for him.
As for reasons I voted for Kerry, I found him to be a man of honesty and integrity. Like him, I love this country and I don’t want it hijacked into a path of destruction whose leaders use fear mongering and deception as a method to maintain control. I want the respect back that this country once had in the world.