Let me show you a flip flop

[SDW2001]

It seems that now some of the lefties are claiming that Kerry HAS been consistent on Iraq. He's nuanced, we hear.

Here's a great example of Kerry saying whatever he thinks sounds good at the time:

Today:

"George Bush made Saddam Hussein the priority. I would have made Usama bin Laden the priority," Kerry said. "I will finish the job in Iraq and I will refocus our energies on the real war on terror."

from this link.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,133421,00.html

But, just a few weeks ago, when the 1000th troop was killed, Kerry said:

"Today we've passed a [sad] milestone in Iraq...1000 of our troops have been killed....in Iraq,...in the war on terror..."

OK. Now I'm going to sit back and watch giant, tonton, existence, shawnj, MarkUK, Hassan, bunge and jimmac et al flame me. rip Bush, call conservatives stupid and brainwashed.... yet provide no explanation at all for the above. It's indefensible, plain and simple. It's either part of the WOT or not, John.

[pfflam]

you're getting desperate aren't you?


.
http://www.babydoll.be/BushCartoon%2009.jpg

[Northgate]

Gore is a liar.
Gore is a liar.
Gore is a liar.
Gore is a liar.

Wash. Ringse. Repeat.

Gore is a liar.
Gore is a liar.
Gore is a liar.
Gore is a liar.

Wash. Ringse. Repeat.

Gore is a liar.
Gore is a liar.
Gore is a liar.
Gore is a liar.

Wash. Ringse. Repeat.

Gore is a liar.
Gore is a liar.
Gore is a liar.
Gore is a liar.

Wash. Ringse. Repeat.

Gore is a liar.
Gore is a liar.
Gore is a liar.
Gore is a liar.

Wash. Ringse. Repeat.

Gore is a liar.
Gore is a liar.
Gore is a liar.
Gore is a liar.

Wash. Ringse. Repeat.

[giant]

Originally posted by SDW2001
But, just a few weeks ago, when the 1000th troop was killed, Kerry said:

"Today we've passed a [sad] milestone in Iraq...1000 of our troops have been killed....in Iraq,...in the war on terror..."

You got the quote wrong:

"Today marks a tragic milestone in the war in Iraq; more than 1,000 of America's sons and daughters have now given their lives on behalf of their country, on behalf of freedom, the war on terror."

Why replace "tragic" with "sad?" Why totally misquote him, rearranging the words?

[iPoster]

Guess who said this on Crossfire in 1997 (http://www.washtimes.com/national/inbeltway.htm)?

"We know we can't count on the French. We know we can't count on the Russians," said XXXX. "We know that Iraq is a danger to the United States, and we reserve the right to take pre-emptive action whenever we feel it's in our national interest."


a)George W. Bush
b)Donald Rumsfield
c)Dick Cheney
d)John Kerry

Free maple syrup for ayone who gets it correct!

[giant]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Now I'm going to sit back and watch giant, tonton, existence, shawnj, MarkUK, Hassan, bunge and jimmac et al flame me.

Bush said today that "blacks" want to "harm our country." See, it shows that he wants to take over the world.

Now watch sdw flame me and call me a liar.

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by iPoster
Guess who said this on Crossfire in 1997 (http://www.washtimes.com/national/inbeltway.htm)?



a)George W. Bush
b)Donald Rumsfield
c)Dick Cheney
d)John Kerry

Free maple syrup for ayone who gets it correct!

hmmmm I wonder... (http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1087918/posts)

Fellows

[pfflam]

Originally posted by iPoster
Guess who said this on Crossfire in 1997 (http://www.washtimes.com/national/inbeltway.htm)?



a)George W. Bush
b)Donald Rumsfield
c)Dick Cheney
d)John Kerry

Free maple syrup for ayone who gets it correct! 'reserving the right' and incompetently occupying based on possibly faulty, possibly intentionally misleading information are TWO VERY DIFFERNET THINGS.

WAKE UP!!!

The asshole who did the latter of the two options is running our country!
He is making you care about little bullsiit while he runs us intothe completely wrong direction: chasing his completely inadequately thought out 'Vision' and debasing our best values through total distortions and candy-colored lies!!

[Northgate]

Originally posted by Fellowship
hmmmm I wonder... (http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1087918/posts)

Fellows

http://a799.g.akamai.net/3/799/388/cb9d149b6917b2/www.msnbc.com/comics/editorial/jd040923.gif

[trumptman]

Originally posted by giant
Bush said today that "blacks" want to "harm our country." See, it shows that he wants to take over the world.

Now watch sdw flame me and call me a liar.

Why would he have to do that? I'm sure it would be smarter to just show how micro-quotes of a single word or partial phrase can be used to create distortions. It's good you decided to demonstrate the technique because I'm sure you are very well familiar with using it as it is often what you do.

Nick

[pfflam]

Originally posted by trumptman
Why would he have to do that? I'm sure it would be smarter to just show how micro-quotes of a single word or partial phrase can be used to create distortions. It's good you decided to demonstrate the technique because I'm sure you are very well familiar with using it as it is often what you do.

Nick Yeah, a skill . . . some people will run a whole campaign on it.

BTW, I forgot, can we win this WOT?
or not?

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SDW2001
It seems that now some of the lefties are claiming that Kerry HAS been consistent on Iraq. He's nuanced, we hear. This is a pretty tame flip-flop, as these things go. He probably shouldn't have said "war on terror" in discussing Iraq. But it's hardly a major issue, given that the basic Republican line is that Kerry "supported the war" and now "opposes the war." Both of which are basically wrong. I do think it's a nuance rather than a flip-flop, but it's not a nuance that's so difficult or contorted that it can't very simply be explained: Kerry voted to give the prez authority to follow a process, including building an international coalition and weapons inspections, that could have resulted in war if all else failed. But Kerry says Bush didn't following that process as he promised, and he instead simply went to war.

Here's Kerry's speech (http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html) in the Senate when he voted (supposedly) "for the war."

If we go it alone without reason, we risk inflaming an entire region, breeding a new generation of terrorists, a new cadre of anti-American zealots, and we will be less secure, not more secure, at the end of the day, even with Saddam Hussein disarmed.

Let there be no doubt or confusion about where we stand on this. I will support a multilateral effort to disarm him by force, if we ever exhaust those other options, as the President has promised, but I will not support a unilateral U.S. war against Iraq unless that threat is imminent and the multilateral effort has not proven possible under any circumstances.

[pfflam]

oh yeah, it also just crossed my mind: wasn't Osama Bin Laden supposed to be our top priority?
or . . . um . . . . maybe not . . . i guess its just not THAT IMPORTANT!!!

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
It's simple really-- SDW (Dude, do you have a real name or what?), Nick, and Mika simply don't care whether all Americans have health care-- or whether all Americans have economic opportunity-- or quality education regardless of income level-- or vibrant inner cities-- or even peace.

Progress?

Actually Shawn, there is a difference between desiring them and understanding that desires do not become reality just because we wish them to be so.

I'm sure you can say you "care" about it. However how do you pay for it? It's a pretty good question to ask of someone like yourself who continually advocates that others should have their lives altered or equalized in some way by the government.

Do you ever do without anything young Shawn so that others can be more equal? When do you ever stop taking and start giving?

What do you do to make the priorities you listed a reality beside accuse and complain?

Nick

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by Fellowship
hmmmm I wonder... (http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1087918/posts)

Fellows LMAO. I had a great time reading some of the most idiotic and retarded posts on that site. It kinda proves that "the left" is indeed the "intellectual elite". Thanks for the laughs. So who are you voting for this week Fellows? :D

By the way, can you point me to where on the link/page you provided, Kerry says what Poster ...posted? Thanks.

[pfflam]

Originally posted by Gilsch
LMAO. I had a great time reading some of the most idiotic and retarded posts on that site. It kinda proves that "the left" is indeed the "intellectual elite". Thanks for the laughs. So who are you voting for this week Fellows? :D

By the way, can you point me to where on the link/page you provided, Kerry says what Poster ...posted? Thanks. Seriously, what a dispicable crew over there . .

isn't that the site which gave birth to the term 'freeper'?
meaning: extremist Rightwing nutcase with a few fillaments askew . . .

[giant]

Originally posted by Gilsch
By the way, can you point me to where on the link/page you provided, Kerry says what Poster ...posted? Thanks.
I just checked full lexisnexis transcript, excerpts of which appear on the free republic page linked to by fellowship.

The "quote" posted by iposter does not appear anywhere in the transcript.

Furthermore, the bullshitting washington times says "While no "Crossfire" transcripts from 1997 are available," however, both I and the freepers were able to find the transcript on lexisnexis.

So now we have you people posting 2 fake kerry "quotes." Go find somewhere else to lie.

[Fellowship]

Originally posted by Gilsch
LMAO. I had a great time reading some of the most idiotic and retarded posts on that site. It kinda proves that "the left" is indeed the "intellectual elite". Thanks for the laughs. So who are you voting for this week Fellows? :D

By the way, can you point me to where on the link/page you provided, Kerry says what Poster ...posted? Thanks.

If you want to ignore what Kerry said go ahead. He sure sounded like he was on Saddam's case in 1997.

Now of course he is in an election and has to change his tune so he can be the "anti-Bush". If you trust John Kerry by all means vote for him.

I trust neither Bush nor Kerry and find both not worthy of leading the world.

Fellowship

[Gilsch]

Originally posted by Fellowship
If you want to ignore what Kerry said go ahead. He sure sounded like he was on Saddam's case in 1997.

Now of course he is in an election and has to change his tune so he can be the "anti-Bush". If you trust John Kerry by all means vote for him.

I trust neither Bush nor Kerry and find both not worthy of leading the world.

Fellowship Nice spin. iPoster posted a "quote" from Crossfire. You posted with the "answer" in the form of a link. I was merely asking you to point it out from the link that you provided because I couldn't find it . Or anything close to it.

Edit: Toned it down a little. ;)

[Northgate]

In a startling development late in the presidential campaign cycle, editors of the satirical magazine The Onion have taken over the Bush-Cheney '04 Communications Office and seized at least operational control of Winger Central (WC), the office in downtown Washington near the corner of 17th and M, which sends out marching orders to conservative columnists.

The first sign of the overnight take-over came when Charles Krauthammer led off with this morning's column (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A45794-2004Sep23.html) in the Post charging Sen. Kerry with being insufficiently respectful and supportive of America's traditional allies. :lol: :lol:

Confirmation of the scope of the takeover came later in the afternoon when President Bush denounced Kerry for dissing American allies.

"You can't lead this country" while undercutting a valued ally, the president said. :lol: :lol: :lol:

Rumors of a coming attack on Kerry for war-profiteering in connection with a secret no-bid ketchup contract for the Heinz Corporation could not be confirmed as this story went to press.

For the satirically impaired (http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/week_2004_09_19.php#003520)

To bad this particular satire is ACTUALLY happening.

THE HYPOCRISY KNOWS NO BOUNDS!

[trumptman]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
Evade the question why don't you. Go right ahead. No one will notice.

Care to show me where the accusation/statement stops and the question begins?

It's simple really-- SDW (Dude, do you have a real name or what?), Nick, and Mika simply don't care whether all Americans have health care-- or whether all Americans have economic opportunity-- or quality education regardless of income level-- or vibrant inner cities-- or even peace.

Progress?

What is it I am avoiding answering? You are posting a statement.

Now speaking of questions, perhaps you will now address mine.

Do you ever do without anything young Shawn so that others can be more equal? When do you ever stop taking and start giving?

What do you do to make the priorities you listed a reality beside accuse and complain?

Nick

[giant]

Originally posted by Gilsch
Nice spin. iPoster posted a "quote" from Crossfire. You posted with the "answer" in the form of a link. I was merely asking you to point it out from the link that you provided because I couldn't find it . Or anything close to it.
Because the liars fabricated it, of course. Once again we have proof that they have no regard for the truth whatsoever and are fully willing to spread flat out unmistakable lies.

[iPoster]

Originally posted by giant
I just checked full lexisnexis transcript, excerpts of which appear on the free republic page linked to by fellowship.

The "quote" posted by iposter does not appear anywhere in the transcript.

Furthermore, the bullshitting washington times says "While no "Crossfire" transcripts from 1997 are available," however, both I and the freepers were able to find the transcript on lexisnexis.

So now we have you people posting 2 fake kerry "quotes." Go find somewhere else to lie.

When I posted that, I was going by the WT story, I did not know about any transcript. And BTW I'm not voting for either Kerry or Bush, I was posting that because I belive Kerry would not know a principle if it bit him in the ass, or how to take a stand on anything, which makes him only marginally better than W in my book. So go find somewhere else to generalize about other people's (whom you don't know) posts. :no:

[MarcUK]

SDW, WTF has this got to do with me?

Still sore that we got Banned?

[giant]

Originally posted by iPoster
So go find somewhere else to generalize about other people's (whom you don't know) posts.
I don't need to generalize, and to be honest, I don't really care to know anything about you other than this cold, hard fact: you posted a completely fabricated quote in an attack on Kerry.
I belive Kerry would not know a principle if it bit him in the ass.
And we know what you believe was founded in at least one lie. How many more are back there?

AFAIAC, I don't care who you people vote for. Go ahead and vote for bush or nader or your cousin ted or nobody. The reason this country is going down the tubes is because of the rampant dishonesty and misquided beliefs. At the center of that trend is the current administration, but the dishonesty is so pervasive that their followers continue to lie to themselves and others about everything and anything.

[iPoster]

Originally posted by giant
I don't need to generalize, and to be honest, I don't really care to know anything about you other than this cold, hard fact: you posted a completely fabricated quote in an attack on Kerry.

I believe you mean a completely fabricated quote from a national news outlet.
But you can go ahead and make this a personal attack all you want. From your rhetoric, I assume you're a Kerry voter, and we all know there are no lies coming from the Democratic side...:rolleyes:

And BTW, what 'I believe' comes from everything he's said and done since Vietnam, which is in the public record, unless you think that is all lies also.

I do agree that there is 10lbs of shit in this 5lb bag we call politics in America, but it's not all Republican shit. IMHO, this country is badly in need of a viable 3rd party, because all the dems and reps care about is 'I know you are, but what am I?', not the real issues facing middle America, which I don't think either party represents.

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by iPoster
I believe you mean a completely fabricated quote from a national news outlet.
But you can go ahead and make this a personal attack all you want. From your rhetoric, I assume you're a Kerry voter, and we all know there are no lies coming from the Democratic side...:rolleyes:

And BTW, what 'I believe' comes from everything he's said and done since Vietnam, which is in the public record, unless you think that is all lies also.

I do agree that there is 10lbs of shit in this 5lb bag we call politics in America, but it's not all Republican shit. IMHO, this country is badly in need of a viable 3rd party, because all the dems and reps care about is 'I know you are, but what am I?', not the real issues facing middle America, which I don't think either party represents.

Middle america isn't part and parcel the entire country. Do not pretend it to be. What is good for middle america may not be good for the nation as a whole and what is good for the great urban centers of this nation also won't necessarily be good for the nation as a whole. No politician can reasonably focus on such a limited section of this nation.

[iPoster]

Originally posted by hardeeharhar
Middle america isn't part and parcel the entire country. Do not pretend it to be. What is good for middle america may not be good for the nation as a whole and what is good for the great urban centers of this nation also won't necessarily be good for the nation as a whole. No politician can reasonably focus on such a limited section of this nation.

By middle America, I meant the middle class, the greatest percentage of the population.

"While the U.S. Census Bureau has no official definition of the “middle class,” conventionally it has come to represent a large swath of the American populace with incomes between approximately two hundred percent of the federal poverty threshold and those of the nation’s top-five percent income earners—roughly $25,000 to $100,000 a year (U.S. Census Bureau)."

[hardeeharhar]

Originally posted by iPoster
By middle America, I meant the middle class, the greatest percentage of the population.

That clearly isn't what that phrase refers to in point of fact.

But ah well, you are right, the middle class disappearing as it is is losing its voice...

[giant]

Originally posted by iPoster
I believe you mean a completely fabricated quote from a national news outlet.
A national news outlet created by the moonies to spread their religion and long known for its right wing BS.
From your rhetoric, I assume you're a Kerry voter,
What rhetoric is that? That you posted a fabricated quote to attack kerry? Or that the Bush administration has been completely FOS from the beginning, lied to bring us into war, still lies in the war and is now kept in power by Rove whose whole career is to decieve and lie. Knowing that has nothing to do with party affiliations, it has to do with honesty, critical thought and doing research before forming opinions.
and we all know there are no lies coming from the Democratic side...
Nothing even remotely comparable.

And that's the problem with you pretend independents. You guys think being independent means that buying into the Bush admin's BS propaganda is OK, as seen above. Note that you aren't even the only person posting a fabricated Kerry quote in this very thread. We had 2 of you guys posting fake quotes.

Guess what else. My beliefs about economics, and therefore global politics, are very likely to be far more free market than almost any "conservative" out there, the vast majority of which only seem to have a very glazed over understanding of the views they claim to support. Real independents do real research before forming their beliefs and are thus able to see what is going on in this administration and understand that the fantasy of finding the ideal candidate needs to take a back seat to making practical choices in the real world.

[faust9]

Click Me! (http://www.comedycentral.com/mp/play.php?player=realplayer&type=v&quality=high&reposid=/multimedia/tds/headlines/9036.html)

Kerry related flip-flop for all to enjoy.

[iPoster]

Originally posted by giant
A national news outlet created by the moonies to spread their religion and long known for its right wing BS.

And that's the problem with you pretend independents. You guys think being independent means that buying into the Bush admin's BS propaganda is OK, as seen above. Note that you aren't even the only person posting a fabricated Kerry quote in this very thread. We had 2 of you guys posting fake quotes.

I admit to not knowing that about the WT, so should I get my news from an unbiased, reputable source like CBS?

And why do you keep thinking I posted that to support Bush? I detest W even more than Kerry. There are many blind Bush supporters, but I would be just as careful about buying Kerry, or any other professional politician, 'hook line and sinker'...

[faust9]

We need look no further than 1600 Pennsylvania for flop-flops SDW: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/09/24/politics/24CND-POLI.html

[pfflam]

Originally posted by Fellowship
If you want to ignore what Kerry said go ahead. He sure sounded like he was on Saddam's case in 1997.

Now of course he is in an election and has to change his tune so he can be the "anti-Bush". If you trust John Kerry by all means vote for him.

I trust neither Bush nor Kerry and find both not worthy of leading the world.

Fellowship Being on "Saddam's case" and fabricating stories in order to invade half-assedly are two different things . .

If you want to eat up the cream-colored horse shiit by all means do so . . . but you should recognize the distinction between it and the real thing

[giant]

Originally posted by iPoster
I admit to not knowing that about the WT, so should I get my news from an unbiased, reputable source like CBS?
More consumption of propaganda. You don't know about the washington times but you know enough about the history of the various media outlets to condemn CBS outright. Got it. I guess the whole Abu Ghraib thing can be totally ignored too (and don't forget to let the arab world know), since Mapes was the one who broke it. :rolleyes:
And why do you keep thinking I posted that to support Bush?
I never said you did it to support bush, I said you uncritically ate up propaganda by posting a fabricated quote in an attack on kerry that fell straight in line white house-manufactured "flip flopper" line of attack. (actually, I didn't say that last part before, but I am doing so now)
There are many blind Bush supporters, but I would be just as careful about buying Kerry, or any other professional politician, 'hook line and sinker'...
What are you worried he's going to do, create an administration that lies to lead us into one of the, if not the, biggest violent mistake of a war this country has been involved in, meanwhile driving up deficits and using every spare moment to promote issues that serve absolutely no purpose other than to divide the country so he can be more easily re-elected? After the past few years, I'm willing to take that risk.

Of course, it's also very telling that ever thread I've started that actually talks about Kerry's likely foreign policy has died, likely because a) most people don't really know squat about foreign policy so they can't have a real conversation about it and b) most righties and fake independents are more concerned with buying into the propaganda put out by the current admin and dealing with politics like it's a battle between sports teams.

[bunge]

Originally posted by SDW2001
"Today we've passed a [sad] milestone in Iraq...1000 of our troops have been killed....in Iraq,...in the war on terror..."

The war in Iraq IS part of the war on terror, but that doesn't mean it's accurately part of the war on terror. Bush could attack ANY country in the name of the war on terror, and it would be called part of the war on terror. That wouldn't make it right.

Bush attacked Iraq in the name of the war on terror. He was wrong, but it's still part of the war on terror. Just as someone who dies because of friendly fire dies as part of the war on terror. A misguided target is still part of the war on terror. Iraq just happens to be a really fucking big misguided target, unlike that football player that was killed by friendly fire.

[giant]

For the record, the quote that you have there from SDW's post isn't a real kerry quote, it's a fabrication he made up or stole from another liar. The real quote is:
"Today marks a tragic milestone in the war in Iraq; more than 1,000 of America's sons and daughters have now given their lives on behalf of their country, on behalf of freedom, the war on terror."
So what he was saying, and it's clear in the non-fabricated quote, is that they gave their lives on "behalf of ... the war on terror."

So either his point was what you stated above or he was simply saying why these brave soldiers made the sacrifice, not that the Iraq war was actually a legitimate part of the War on Terror.

so no matter which way you look at it, SDW and his fabricated quote are wrong, as is often the case with people that use fabricated information to back their claims.

[Cake]

Since we have SDW fabricating lies, here's Bush doing exactly the same - Video (http://homepage.mac.com/njenson/movies/abc-bushlie.html)

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by giant
Bush said today that "blacks" want to "harm our country." See, it shows that he wants to take over the world.

Now watch sdw flame me and call me a liar.

Originally posted by SDW2001 "OK. Now I'm going to sit back and watch giant, tonton, existence, shawnj, MarkUK, Hassan, bunge and jimmac et al flame me. rip Bush, call conservatives stupid and brainwashed.... yet provide no explanation at all for the above. It's indefensible, plain and simple. "

---I think your Bush image pretty much proves the above.

---Show me the link for the Bush quote

---I couldn't find the exact quote. I don't think I changed the meaning though.

One more thing: I now see the Dems have finally and fully played the race baiting card. Kerry has come right out and accused the Republicans of supressing the black vote. This is desparation, plain and simple.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by pfflam
'reserving the right' and incompetently occupying based on possibly faulty, possibly intentionally misleading information are TWO VERY DIFFERNET THINGS.

WAKE UP!!!

The asshole who did the latter of the two options is running our country!
He is making you care about little bullsiit while he runs us intothe completely wrong direction: chasing his completely inadequately thought out 'Vision' and debasing our best values through total distortions and candy-colored lies!!

It's amazing:

OK. Now I'm going to sit back and watch giant, tonton, existence, shawnj, MarkUK, Hassan, bunge and jimmac et al flame me. rip Bush, call conservatives stupid and brainwashed.... yet provide no explanation at all for the above. It's indefensible, plain and simple.

This thread is about Kerry. But really, no thread can be about Kerry. His positions are indefensible and you know it. We can argue about Bush and his policies all day. I have no problem doing that. But right now, we're talking about Kerry. Why can you not get this through your skull?

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by BRussell
This is a pretty tame flip-flop, as these things go. He probably shouldn't have said "war on terror" in discussing Iraq. But it's hardly a major issue, given that the basic Republican line is that Kerry "supported the war" and now "opposes the war." Both of which are basically wrong. I do think it's a nuance rather than a flip-flop, but it's not a nuance that's so difficult or contorted that it can't very simply be explained: Kerry voted to give the prez authority to follow a process, including building an international coalition and weapons inspections, that could have resulted in war if all else failed. But Kerry says Bush didn't following that process as he promised, and he instead simply went to war.

Here's Kerry's speech (http://www.independentsforkerry.org/uploads/media/kerry-iraq.html) in the Senate when he voted (supposedly) "for the war."

Pardon me, but that's bullshit. He voted for an authorization to use force. Period. If he had conditions or reservations about the timing he should have voted against it. The resolution didn't say "We only give the President this authority.

http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/hgop_iraq_resolution.shtml



H.J.Res. 114 authorizes the Use of Military Force Against Iraq._ The resolution expresses support for the President's efforts to: (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq; and (2) obtain prompt and decisive action by the Security Council to ensure that Iraq abandons its strategy of delay, evasion, and noncompliance and promptly and strictly complies with all relevant Security Council resolutions.

The bill authorizes the President to use the U.S. armed forces to: (1) defend U.S. national security against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq._ It also directs the President, prior to or as soon as possible (but no later than 48 hours) after exercising such authority, to make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that: (1) reliance on further diplomatic or peaceful means alone will not achieve the above purposes; and (2) acting pursuant to this resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those who planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001._ Furthermore, the resolution declares that this section is intended to constitute specific statutory authorization for use of the armed forces, consistent with requirements of the War Powers Resolution._ Finally, the bill requires the President to report to Congress at least every 60 days on matters relevant to this resolution.

Kerry knew what he was voting for. Please.

[segovius]

Originally posted by SDW2001
This thread is about Kerry. But really, no thread can be about Kerry. His positions are indefensible and you know it. We can argue about Bush and his policies all day. I have no problem doing that. But right now, we're talking about Kerry. Why can you not get this through your skull?

No - this thread is about you trying to divert your own attention from Bush's woeful failings by deriding what you see as his polar opposite.

In fact you have invested too much in Bush and the stocks have crashed so you need to focus on something 'worse' to maintain equilibrium.

It's a good theory but unfortunately you haven't yet realised they're both exactly the same.....

New boss, old boss, same old same old - the one thing they'll never give you is real choice. Fair enough really, most people are happy with the illusion of it so why rock the boat.....

[bunge]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Kerry knew what he was voting for. Please.

Yes, this:

The resolution expresses support for the President's efforts to: (1) strictly enforce through the United Nations Security Council all relevant Security Council resolutions applicable to Iraq

Through the United Nations Security Council. Seems plain to me.

Besides, you ignored my earlier post that pretty much destroys your argument that Kerry made a flip-flop.

[bunge]

Originally posted by SDW2001
This thread is about Kerry.

Sort of. Judging by the title I'd say this thread is about flip flops.

Here's a backwards one (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20040925/ap_on_el_pr/bush&cid=694&ncid=1473).

Bush certainly flip flops Kerry's words:

"...[Bush] stated flatly that Kerry had said earlier in the week "[Kerry] would prefer the dictatorship of Saddam Hussein to the situation in Iraq today.

But Kerry never said that. In a speech at New York University on Monday, he called Saddam "a brutal dictator who deserves his own special place in hell." He added, "The satisfaction we take in his downfall does not hide this fact: We have traded a dictator for a chaos that has left America less secure."

Nice job of flip flopping someone else's words!

[Anders]

Thats the ultimate flip flop by Kerry. In Bush words he is saying one thing and in his own he is saying another. How flippityflop can you get?

[jimmac]

Originally posted by pfflam
you're getting desperate aren't you?


.
http://www.babydoll.be/BushCartoon%2009.jpg


Goodone!:lol:

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Pardon me, but that's bullshit. He voted for an authorization to use force. Period. If he had conditions or reservations about the timing he should have voted against it. The resolution didn't say "We only give the President this authority.

http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/hgop_iraq_resolution.shtml







Kerry knew what he was voting for. Please.


Man you really must be desperate ( or worried ) to dredge this up again!;)

[giant]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Originally posted by giant
Bush said today that "blacks" want to "harm our country." See, it shows that he wants to take over the world.

Now watch sdw flame me and call me a liar.

Originally posted by SDW2001
"OK. Now I'm going to sit back and watch giant, tonton, existence, shawnj, MarkUK, Hassan, bunge and jimmac et al flame me. rip Bush, call conservatives stupid and brainwashed.... yet provide no explanation at all for the above. It's indefensible, plain and simple.

---I think your Bush image pretty much proves the above.

---Show me the link for the Bush quote

---I couldn't find the exact quote. I don't think I changed the meaning though.

One more thing: I now see the Dems have finally and fully played the race baiting card. Kerry has come right out and accused the Republicans of supressing the black vote. This is desparation, plain and simple.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

you crack me up, sdw. That one went right over your head, didn't it?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

If you want the bush quote, it's in my sig.
I couldn't find the exact quote. I don't think I changed the meaning though.
You fabricated a kerry quote. You can't just take a bunch of words he says and toss them together in whatever order you want and put quotes around it to pretend he actually said it. That's called fabricating a quote, also known as lying.
This is desparation, plain and simple.
Since the race-baiting is all in your head, so must be the desperation. Hence, I guess, your fabrication of quotes.

I do have to say how truly interesting it is to watch you totally misread my post and proceed to formulate a whole new wacked out theory about some race something-or-other. It allows us to see exactly how you come to some of these wild ideas you post here: total misunderstanding.

Or maybe you people have been immersed in lies for so long that you can't tell reality from fiction anymore. It would explain a lot.

[BRussell]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Pardon me, but that's bullshit. He voted for an authorization to use force. Period. If he had conditions or reservations about the timing he should have voted against it. The resolution didn't say "We only give the President this authority.

http://www.policyalmanac.org/world/archive/hgop_iraq_resolution.shtml

Kerry knew what he was voting for. Please. I want to understand how you perceive the resolution you're talking about. Do you view it as a resolution saying "OK now we're off to war?" In effect, a war declaration? Because that's not the way Bush described it the day it passed (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/10/20021016-1.html):

With this resolution, Congress has now authorized the use of force. I have not ordered the use of force. I hope the use of force will not become necessary. Yet, confronting the threat posed by Iraq is necessary, by whatever means that requires. Either the Iraqi regime will give up its weapons of mass destruction, or, for the sake of peace, the United States will lead a global coalition to disarm that regime. If any doubt our nation's resolve, our determination, they would be unwise to test it.

...

Our goal is not merely to limit Iraq's violations of Security Council resolutions, or to slow down its weapons program. Our goal is to fully and finally remove a real threat to world peace and to America. Hopefully this can be done peacefully. Hopefully we can do this without any military action. Yet, if Iraq is to avoid military action by the international community, it has the obligation to prove compliance with all the world's demands. It's the obligation of Iraq.

...

Like the members of Congress here today, I've carefully weighed the human cost of every option before us. If we go into battle, as a last resort, we will confront an enemy capable of irrational miscalculations, capable of terrible deeds. As the Commander-in-Chief, I know the risks to our country. I'm fully responsible to the young men and women in uniform who may face these risks. Yet those risks only increase with time. And the costs could be immeasurably higher in years to come.
I personally believe Congress should have fulfilled its constitutional duty and been asked to actually declare war, which would have been exactly the kind of thing you and other Bush supporters are now saying this resolution was. I doubt it would have passed as a war declaration though.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by giant
Originally posted by SDW2001


---I think your Bush image pretty much proves the above.

---Show me the link for the Bush quote

---I couldn't find the exact quote. I don't think I changed the meaning though.

One more thing: I now see the Dems have finally and fully played the race baiting card. Kerry has come right out and accused the Republicans of supressing the black vote. This is desparation, plain and simple.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

you crack me up, sdw. That one went right over your head, didn't it?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

If you want the bush quote, it's in my sig.

You fabricated a kerry quote. You can't just take a bunch of words he says and toss them together in whatever order you want and put quotes around it to pretend he actually said it. That's called fabricating a quote, also known as lying.

Since the race-baiting is all in your head, so must be the desperation. Hence, I guess, your fabrication of quotes.

I do have to say how truly interesting it is to watch you totally misread my post and proceed to formulate a whole new wacked out theory about some race something-or-other. It allows us to see exactly how you come to some of these wild ideas you post here: total misunderstanding.

Or maybe you people have been immersed in lies for so long that you can't tell reality from fiction anymore. It would explain a lot.

Man giant, your tactics are as obvious as a cheap romance novel.

Again no position. Do you care whether Kerry's position on Iraq has changed. Do you care whether it is the right position for the country? Can you even state what his position is this week?

No instead it becomes, did SDW quote Kerry accurately or was he actually was sort of paraphrasing him since he had one word wrong. The paraphrasing didn't change the meaning of the quote, but darn it, that SDW is an evil liar because I focus on this tiny bit of info and claim he handled it wrong.

It's not that "you people" go around telling lies all the time. It is that your tactic of "gotcha" reasoning is so lame, that no one pays attention.

Typical giant gambits...

It's not about whether Rather lied or broadcast bogus documents... it's about where you learned the definition of kerning...

It's not about Kerry declaring that we are going to cut and run creating more violence in Iraq, it is about what Bob Novak quoted from an anonymous source.....

It's not about Kerry changing his position multiple times on Iraq, it's about if SDW quoted him when he should have paraphrased him....or whether the quote was accurate with regard to tragic vs. sad....

Now those of you reading the thread aside from this reply, do yourselves a favor. Don't reply to giant until he takes a position and actually addresses the thread topic. The topic is that Kerry has flip-flopped with regard to his position in Iraq. It is not about whether "sad" means the same thing as "tragic." Giant hasn't taken a position on Kerry at all in this thread, just thrown up a lot of dust about how to quote, who to quote, etc.

He won't say whether Kerry has indeed gone back and forth on Iraq because then he would have to take a position instead of going around and calling people stupid because they changed a word in a quote, or because they read the Washington Times, or... well just because that is what he enjoys doing.

Do yourselves a favor... ignore his little baiting tactics and address the thread topic.

Nick

[giant]

Originally posted by trumptman
giant...giant...giant...giant...
You have serious fucking issues. If this was the real world, you would be in jail by now. Go stalk someone else, freak.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by trumptman
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:



Man giant, your tactics are as obvious as a cheap romance novel.

Again no position. Do you care whether Kerry's position on Iraq has changed. Do you care whether it is the right position for the country? Can you even state what his position is this week?

No instead it becomes, did SDW quote Kerry accurately or was he actually was sort of paraphrasing him since he had one word wrong. The paraphrasing didn't change the meaning of the quote, but darn it, that SDW is an evil liar because I focus on this tiny bit of info and claim he handled it wrong.

It's not that "you people" go around telling lies all the time. It is that your tactic of "gotcha" reasoning is so lame, that no one pays attention.

Typical giant gambits...

It's not about whether Rather lied or broadcast bogus documents... it's about where you learned the definition of kerning...

It's not about Kerry declaring that we are going to cut and run creating more violence in Iraq, it is about what Bob Novak quoted from an anonymous source.....

It's not about Kerry changing his position multiple times on Iraq, it's about if SDW quoted him when he should have paraphrased him....or whether the quote was accurate with regard to tragic vs. sad....

Now those of you reading the thread aside from this reply, do yourselves a favor. Don't reply to giant until he takes a position and actually addresses the thread topic. The topic is that Kerry has flip-flopped with regard to his position in Iraq. It is not about whether "sad" means the same thing as "tragic." Giant hasn't taken a position on Kerry at all in this thread, just thrown up a lot of dust about how to quote, who to quote, etc.

He won't say whether Kerry has indeed gone back and forth on Iraq because then he would have to take a position instead of going around and calling people stupid because they changed a word in a quote, or because they read the Washington Times, or... well just because that is what he enjoys doing.

Do yourselves a favor... ignore his little baiting tactics and address the thread topic.

Nick

You're one to talk! You back a president that obviously lied to us! Also this last post by you was a tactic in itself!:rolleyes:

Speaking of Bush, Kerry, and flip flopping why did we attack Iraq? To find the nonexistant WOMD or because " They tried to kill his daddy? ":rolleyes:

What's pathetic here is you try to make an issue to distract from the discussion. Just like your last dozen or so threads. I can see why you don't like the " gotcha ". No one likes to lose.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by segovius
No - this thread is about you trying to divert your own attention from Bush's woeful failings by deriding what you see as his polar opposite.

In fact you have invested too much in Bush and the stocks have crashed so you need to focus on something 'worse' to maintain equilibrium.

It's a good theory but unfortunately you haven't yet realised they're both exactly the same.....

New boss, old boss, same old same old - the one thing they'll never give you is real choice. Fair enough really, most people are happy with the illusion of it so why rock the boat.....

I don't agree that Bush has failed. I just don't. You can't label someone a failure because you disagree with his policies. I started the thread because the comments by Kerry are typical. The thread is about KERRY. It's not about Bush. If you want to have a real policy debate on what Bush has done, then start a thread and I'll see you in it.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by bunge
The war in Iraq IS part of the war on terror, but that doesn't mean it's accurately part of the war on terror. Bush could attack ANY country in the name of the war on terror, and it would be called part of the war on terror. That wouldn't make it right.

Bush attacked Iraq in the name of the war on terror. He was wrong, but it's still part of the war on terror. Just as someone who dies because of friendly fire dies as part of the war on terror. A misguided target is still part of the war on terror. Iraq just happens to be a really fucking big misguided target, unlike that football player that was killed by friendly fire.

Oh, bunge, you mean this one that I ignored? OK then....actually, I didn't see it, but here goes:

Your point is absurd. Kerry called Iraq part of the war on terror. KERRY called it that, not Bush. Bush could invade England as part of the war on terror, and about 200 million people would disagree, including John Kerry. But Kerry's words are Kerry's. They are what HE thinks, or rather...what he did think but doesn't think now. ;)

[giant]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Your point is absurd. Kerry called Iraq part of the war on terror. KERRY called it that, not Bush.
Not in your bullshit fabricated quote and not in his real quote. He said, and this is a real quote: "more than 1,000 of America's sons and daughters have now given their lives on behalf of their country, on behalf of freedom, the war on terror."

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by giant
Originally posted by SDW2001


---I think your Bush image pretty much proves the above.

---Show me the link for the Bush quote

---I couldn't find the exact quote. I don't think I changed the meaning though.

One more thing: I now see the Dems have finally and fully played the race baiting card. Kerry has come right out and accused the Republicans of supressing the black vote. This is desparation, plain and simple.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

you crack me up, sdw. That one went right over your head, didn't it?

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

If you want the bush quote, it's in my sig.

You fabricated a kerry quote. You can't just take a bunch of words he says and toss them together in whatever order you want and put quotes around it to pretend he actually said it. That's called fabricating a quote, also known as lying.

Since the race-baiting is all in your head, so must be the desperation. Hence, I guess, your fabrication of quotes.

I do have to say how truly interesting it is to watch you totally misread my post and proceed to formulate a whole new wacked out theory about some race something-or-other. It allows us to see exactly how you come to some of these wild ideas you post here: total misunderstanding.

Or maybe you people have been immersed in lies for so long that you can't tell reality from fiction anymore. It would explain a lot. [/QUOTE]


OK, now hold on. This is what I responded to:

giant:




You got the quote wrong:

"Today marks a tragic milestone in the war in Iraq; more than 1,000 of America's sons and daughters have now given their lives on behalf of their country, on behalf of freedom, the war on terror."

Why replace "tragic" with "sad?" Why totally misquote him, rearranging the words?

I told you I didn't have the exact quote. That's why. I didn't fabricate it. The point is he called Iraq a part of the WOT. There is no question about that whatsoever.

If you meant something else, then you really *must be* more intelligent than I am. Perhaps your post is in some sort of genius-only code.

As far as the race card: John Kerry himself said he believes that there is an organized Republican effort to supress the black vote. Jesse Jackson was on Sean Hannity the other day talking about the same thing. The race card is real, and Democrats are playing it in full now.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by ShawnJ
It's simple really-- SDW (Dude, do you have a real name or what?), Nick, and Mika simply don't care whether all Americans have health care-- or whether all Americans have economic opportunity-- or quality education regardless of income level-- or vibrant inner cities-- or even peace.

Progress?


I care. I just disagree on how to attain those things. I also think that America DOES offer unlimited ooportunity, whereas you don't. In your world, America is an unfair and unjust place where only the born-rich can succeed.

[giant]

Originally posted by SDW2001
I didn't fabricate it.
Did he say what you put in quotes and attributed to him? No! That makes the quote fiction and the author a liar.

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by jimmac
You're one to talk! You back a president that obviously lied to us! Also this last post by you was a tactic in itself!:rolleyes:

Speaking of Bush, Kerry, and flip flopping why did we attack Iraq? To find the nonexistant WOMD or because " They tried to kill his daddy? ":rolleyes:

What's pathetic here is you try to make an issue to distract from the discussion. Just like your last dozen or so threads. I can see why you don't like the " gotcha ". No one likes to lose.

And you have no evidence whatsoever that Bush lied. You're smoking crack, jimmac.

First, you claim that WMD was the only justifcation for war. Because we haven't found them, the war was therefore bogus. However, when someone points out the other, say, 10 reasons we went in there, you accuse the person of "switching justifications". Right, I've got it now.

Diversion from what? Kerry getting his ass kicked by a supposedly unpopular and stupid president?

[SDW2001]

Originally posted by giant
Did he say what you put in quotes and attributed to him? No! That makes the quote fiction and the author a liar.

The word "sad", which is what you have a problem with, was put in brackets because I had forgotten the word he used. But yeah, I must be both stupid, and also smart enough to carefully craft a ruse based on changing on word in a statement that didn't change it's overall meaning.

Do what Nick suggested. Take an actual position.

[giant]

Originally posted by SDW2001
This is what I responded to:

giant:
You got the quote wrong:

"Today marks a tragic milestone in the war in Iraq; more than 1,000 of America's sons and daughters have now given their lives on behalf of their country, on behalf of freedom, the war on terror."

Why replace "tragic" with "sad?" Why totally misquote him, rearranging the words
Lying again.

What post were you responding to? Let's look. Your post in full:
Originally posted by giant
Bush said today that "blacks" want to "harm our country." See, it shows that he wants to take over the world.

Now watch sdw flame me and call me a liar.


Originally posted by SDW2001

"OK. Now I'm going to sit back and watch giant, tonton, existence, shawnj, MarkUK, Hassan, bunge and jimmac et al flame me. rip Bush, call conservatives stupid and brainwashed.... yet provide no explanation at all for the above. It's indefensible, plain and simple.
"

---I think your Bush image pretty much proves the above.

---Show me the link for the Bush quote

---I couldn't find the exact quote. I don't think I changed the meaning though.

One more thing: I now see the Dems have finally and fully played the race baiting card. Kerry has come right out and accused the Republicans of supressing the black vote. This is desparation, plain and simple.

It's crystal clear that all of your posts in this thread are nothing but a series of lies and fabrications.

[giant]

Originally posted by SDW2001
The word "sad", which is what you have a problem with,
No, liar, you also added multiple words other than that.

I can't fucking believe what a series of lies your posts in this thread are.

[bunge]

Originally posted by SDW2001
Your point is absurd. Kerry called Iraq part of the war on terror. KERRY called it that, not Bush.

Bush defines what the War on Terror is by default, because he's in the White House. So if he considers masturbating with his left hand while singing the pledge of allegiance part of the War on Terror, then it is. It's just another flawed part of that war. If Kerry were to say that he thought it was disgraceful that all those poor sperm have died in the War on Terror, he wouldn't be confirming that masturbating with his left hand while singing the pledge of allegiance should be part of that war.

Your inability to use logic is disconcerting.

[jimmac]

Originally posted by SDW2001
And you have no evidence whatsoever that Bush lied. You're smoking crack, jimmac.

First, you claim that WMD was the only justifcation for war. Because we haven't found them, the war was therefore bogus. However, when someone points out the other, say, 10 reasons we went in there, you accuse the person of "switching justifications". Right, I've got it now.

Diversion from what? Kerry getting his ass kicked by a supposedly unpopular and stupid president?

To quote Sherlock Holmes : " When all other posibilities have been exausted whatever remains ( how ever improbable ) must be the truth ".

Those other possiblities were exausted a long time ago! :rolleyes:

WOMD and the implied threat was the only reason this war got off the ground. It's the truth and I'll go on repeating it!

Bush obviously lied. There was no WOMD to be found or threat to the U.S.

If he hadn't made up this story about Iraq the protest from the world in general would have been so strong this war would have never got off the ground. Also it served as a distraction from the ugly headlines he would have gotten about the economy and other things that could have tarnished his image. As a matter of fact if one word could be used to discribe Bush tactics it's " Distraction ".

When something goes wrong he blames someone else. He can't stand behind his own office and take responsibility for his own actions!

The man is totally without honour of any sort!

Get over it!

OUT THE DOOR IN 2004!

[Anders]

I can understand the discussion whether the administration lied or didn't lie about WoMDs. Based on the very detailed presentation Powell did in UN to justify the war I still have my money on they did. But of course the 911 hearings said no...

But to claim that the WoMDs didn't make 99% of the case for war is ridicules beyond reason. I simply cannot understand why people wants to make a fool out of themselves claiming otherwise. The procents can be discussed but put below 75% is dishonest in every case.

[Gilsch]

What an interesting thread. I smell some desperation here. :lol:

Just wanted to add this re: a slightly OT discussion from page 1 based on a false Kerry quote provided by iPoster and a very lame and borderline dishonest attempt at perpetuating the falsehood by Fellowship.
WT CORRECTION (http://www.washtimes.com/national/inbeltway.htm) Due to erroneous information from Rep. Peter T. King, New York Republican, an item in the Inside the Beltway column in yesterday's editions incorrectly quoted Sen. John Kerry in a 1997 appearance on CNN's "Crossfire" as arguing for a unilateral, pre-emptive war against Iraq.
____In reference to a U.N. Security Council resolution demanding access to Iraqi weapons sites, Mr. Kerry actually said: "I think that's our great concern [-] where's the backbone of Russia, where's the backbone of France, where are they in expressing their condemnation of such clearly illegal activity [-] but in a sense, they're now climbing into a box and they will have enormous difficulty not following up on this if there is not compliance by Iraq.

Come to think of it. It's right on topic. The topic of perpetuating falsehoods through the echo chamber. Well done boys.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by jimmac
You're one to talk! You back a president that obviously lied to us! Also this last post by you was a tactic in itself!:rolleyes:

Speaking of Bush, Kerry, and flip flopping why did we attack Iraq? To find the nonexistant WOMD or because " They tried to kill his daddy? ":rolleyes:

What's pathetic here is you try to make an issue to distract from the discussion. Just like your last dozen or so threads. I can see why you don't like the " gotcha ". No one likes to lose.

Hey jimmac, if you think the president lied to us, that is your opinion and you are welcome to it. At least you express a position and we can have a discussion about that.

There are plenty of people here who I can disagree with and still easily have a discussion. They can have a view that is the polar opposite of mine and we still post and talk just fine. Your view is that Kerry hasn't flip-flopped, but has had his position distorted by the Bush campaign.

We can discuss that view or discuss SDW's position which is Kerry has gone back and forth trying to keep the percentage of his own supports who back the action in Iraq, while also trying to keep the large percentage of his base who believe it a lie and wrong.

The point I made with giant is that he doesn't come into a thread, take a position, and attempt to back up or convince people of that position. Instead he often latches onto some small bit of irrelevent information and calls people stupid because of it. He doesn't even care about the discussion, he just gets off on calling people stupid.

I'll tell you what jimmac, go through the thread and simply tell me what giant said regarding Kerryand flip-flopping or not flip-flopping. You'll see he never took a position. He never does. He's content to just kill the messenger and think he is vindicated by that.

Nick

[trumptman]

Originally posted by giant
No, liar, you also added multiple words other than that.

I can't fucking believe what a series of lies your posts in this thread are.

I can't believe you've posted about 15 times and still won't say whether you believe Kerry has changed his position on Iraq.

It's funny to watch you not only lose face because of your constant carping and spinning over essentually nothing, but watch you lose it emotionally when people refuse to get pissed off in concert with you.

Your view amounts to claiming someone stole your quarter because they gave you back two dimes and a nickle in change from a purchase. State a position about Kerry or shut up.

Nick

[Wrong Robot]

Why is it so important that you know giant's position? That shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not information is true or false, or whether or not someone else's argument is flawed. :\

[trumptman]

Originally posted by Wrong Robot
Why is it so important that you know giant's position? That shouldn't have any bearing on whether or not information is true or false, or whether or not someone else's argument is flawed. :\

Your point would be true of the information giant was bringing into the discussion were about any of the points in the discussion. Instead they are merely a vehicle for him to make personal attacks. He grabs anything he can that isn't even relevent to the discussion and the just keeps calling people liars because they don't give credence to it. In this thread it is about whether SDW misquoted Kerry. Giant doesn't really care about Kery's position on Iraq or information related to it. He just likes calling people names.

Bush said today that "blacks" want to "harm our country." See, it shows that he wants to take over the world.

Now watch sdw flame me and call me a liar.


Go find somewhere else to lie.

Because the liars fabricated it, of course.

Since the race-baiting is all in your head, so must be the desperation.

Or maybe you people have been immersed in lies for so long that you can't tell reality from fiction anymore. It would explain a lot.

You have serious fucking issues. If this was the real world, you would be in jail by now. Go stalk someone else, freak.

That makes the quote fiction and the author a liar.

Lying again. It's crystal clear that all of your posts in this thread are nothing but a series of lies and fabrications.

No, liar, you also added multiple words other than that.

I can't fucking believe what a series of lies your posts in this thread are.


Point well proven. Those are from giant and just in this thread.

Nick

[giant]

The thread was invalid from the beginning when the topic was based on a fabricated kerry quote. Then another fabricated kerry quote came in with iposter. Then SDW lied again. And again. And again.

And then we have you. You honest to god would be in jail right now if this wasn't on the internet. You are a fucking stalker psycho. Months ago I found your obsession with me amusing, now it's just creepy. Get a fucking life.

[faust9]

Originally posted by trumptman
Your point would be true of the information giant was bringing into the discussion were about any of the points in the discussion. Instead they are merely a vehicle for him to make personal attacks. He grabs anything he can that isn't even relevent to the discussion and the just keeps calling people liars because they don't give credence to it. In this thread it is about whether SDW misquoted Kerry. Giant doesn't really care about Kery's position on Iraq or information related to it. He just likes calling people names.

This is just dumb. This entire thread is predicated on a misquote which was pointed out early on. The thread continues because some are unwilling to accept the real quote because it isn't as damning as the original(the one used in this thread not Kerry's actual words mind you) "quote" appeared to be.


Point well proven. Those are from giant and just in this thread.


Well, actually you cut one sided snippetts while not presenting the untruths used by the other side, so your "proof" is not valid. The fact of the matter is this thread began with a lie and certain individuals continue to predicate that lie and new one's as well. Trump you insist on defending the indefensible here.

[trumptman]

Originally posted by giant
The thread was invalid from the beginning when the topic was based on a fabricated kerry quote. Then another fabricated kerry quote came in with iposter. Then SDW lied again. And again. And again.

And then we have you. You honest to god would be in jail right now if this wasn't on the internet. You are a fucking stalker psycho. Months ago I found your obsession with me amusing, now it's just creepy. Get a fucking life.

Hahahahahaha... I post about your logical fallcy and trolling nature and you call it stalking. You post 15+ times calling someone a liar and you think someone else has an obsession.

You are hilarious.

Nick

[giant]

Are you even capable of writing a post that isn't just a personal attack on me?

[Anders]

Okay this thing is closed.

Those who are complaining about eachother: We will look into it all but untill then just stay clear of one another. If you have to interact do not call eachother names even if you think it is based on careful analysis. Focus on the arguments not what the other person is or isn´t.