Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

How do you know when Sen Kerry is lying?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • How do you know when Sen Kerry is lying?

    A. His Lips are moving.


    Our "Objective News Media" is going all gaga over a guy who has yet to give a direct answer on WHAT he would do or HOW he would do it, as President. We need to get just ONE reporter to say "Senator Kerry, without reference to President Bush, please answer the following questions?"

    You claim to be against Deficit Spending. How are you going to balance the Budget? Even if you repeal all of the Bush Tax Cuts, you will still face a $200 billion annual short fall even ASSUMING that your tax hikes do not throw the economy back into recession.

    You claim to be worried about "43 Million uninsured" How are you going to give them Health Care and balance the budget?

    You claim President Bush *(&^ed up the War on Terror. What would a Kerry administration do different? Again, NO hysteric rhetoric, just a simple straight forward answer of WHAT and HOW. No dodging behind "Oh that is too complicated for a straight answer, just a straight forward answer to straight forward questions. THAT is what our "Objective" news media should be giving us.

    The problem is Kerry has NO ideas. NONE. He is an empty suit spewing forth demagogary and lies. He has yet to answer, or even be asked, one serious follow up in any of his interviews.

  • #2
    YEP, when his lips are moving!

    What really gets me is that people don't seem to understand that if someone like Kerry were in office when 9/11 happened we wouldn't have done squat....we'd have sat here and said "shame on you" and let them do it again.

    dog

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: How do you know when Sen Kerry is lying?

      Originally posted by JohnKnight77
      A. His Lips are moving.


      Our "Objective News Media" is going all gaga over a guy who has yet to give a direct answer on WHAT he would do or HOW he would do it, as President. We need to get just ONE reporter to say "Senator Kerry, without reference to President Bush, please answer the following questions?"

      You claim to be against Deficit Spending. How are you going to balance the Budget? Even if you repeal all of the Bush Tax Cuts, you will still face a $200 billion annual short fall even ASSUMING that your tax hikes do not throw the economy back into recession.

      You claim to be worried about "43 Million uninsured" How are you going to give them Health Care and balance the budget?

      You claim President Bush *(&^ed up the War on Terror. What would a Kerry administration do different? Again, NO hysteric rhetoric, just a simple straight forward answer of WHAT and HOW. No dodging behind "Oh that is too complicated for a straight answer, just a straight forward answer to straight forward questions. THAT is what our "Objective" news media should be giving us.

      The problem is Kerry has NO ideas. NONE. He is an empty suit spewing forth demagogary and lies. He has yet to answer, or even be asked, one serious follow up in any of his interviews.
      The simple truth is that Senator Kerry, like his aged Massachusetts comrade, cannot come up with any answers because he CANNOT THINK FOR HIMSELF!! Mr McAuliffe and the other DNC talking heads have him in regularly for a rhetoric refill, and then send him off to meet the adoring throngs, who are similarly mindless (what do you expect of a party that largely depends for its support on "organized labor"). What do you think, a Kerry/Edwards ticket? What pathetic mouthpiece will Nader drag out of obscurity to be his running mate? Will anyone engage in original, issues-based debate this year? I'm not holding my breath waiting for it
      Mens Est Clavis Victoriae
      (The Mind Is The Key To Victory)

      Comment


      • #4
        The funny thing is Bush can't think for himself either. Maybe Bush should awnser all of the above questions with out the use of the terms "War on Terror" and "Because of 9/11". I am by nomeans a supporter of Kerry but Bush is no better. My choice was Dean then Edwards but I obviously can't pick the winners. To tell the truth I don't think that any of the people running for president should have the job. They are all morons and should live in the real world before they become president. I am tired of friggin elitest shmucks being the only ones who can run for office. Maybe if these people WORKED for a living they would know what has to be done. Kripes why the heck can't anyone i like run.

        Oh and By the way if I hear "what would the Dems have done if the were in office on 9/11? Nothing!" one more time I'm gonna puke. It's alternate history and can be argued a number of ways but republicans seem to think that it makes a difference who was in there at the time so that they can defend their boy in charge.

        I think that the system is turning into BS and being corrupted from what the Founding Fathers ment to happen. Now people BUY elections. How come these candidates can rase together almost half a BILLION dollars and yet we can't fund programs that do get passed in congress.

        I will vote this year. I do whenever an election comes up. I just wish that the campaingnig was shorter and that all of the candidates had more to say to me rather than their rich contributers. I got a family of 4 and I make about $400 a week. it gets kind of discuraging when I see them talking to people who make at the least twice what I make if not more. I can't go up to one of them and ask questions that I want awnsered because I don't have the MONEY to talk to them. Gahhh!!!

        Thanks for listening to my rant. I needed to get that off my chest.

        Comment


        • #5
          Its the failings of the two party system. Both sides realize that they are THE only game in town, taken out competitors, and made the field/bar too high to reach to challange the powers that be.

          Why do you think that Campaign Reform was hearlded as "a giant step forward", when, all it did was favor incumbants? It wasn't money - it was to secure the system to keep the status quo...

          That is why there are no ideas. Both think alike, its just the speed of the rot that makes them different.

          There are no challenges to the two parties. There are plenty of smaller 'parties', but not to a level of either DNC or RNC. Oh, sure, there are plenty of Libertarians, Socialists, ect., but nothing like the two Kings of the Hill.

          Until they realize that the electorate is the reason why they are there, not PAC-bought coctail parties, junkets, privilages, and other bennies that go with becoming DC 'royalty', there will never be change in DC.

          No wonder why its called "The Logic Free Zone".

          Comment


          • #6
            I hate to say this but in my opinion Bush has destroyed any credibility he should be entitled to as President. I personally rank him with Nixon and Johnson in terms of his personal credibility. I realize there are and will remain people who continue to believe what he says, but to me these people are just willing their belief like people who don't want to admit their spouse is cheating on them despite all the evidence.

            So Kerry, by default, is the candidate who wins the credibility issue for me.

            Comment


            • #7
              I realize there are and will remain people who continue to believe what he says, but to me these people are just willing their belief like people who don't want to admit their spouse is cheating on them despite all the evidence.

              I haven't seen any evidence that Bush lied. The most important document I know of regarding WMD is the Kay report which indicates Iraq was probably even more dangerous than previously believed.

              Of course St. Clinton also believed Iraq was a threat, but, hey, thats different. :crazy:

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Coldfiregod
                The funny thing is Bush can't think for himself either. Maybe Bush should awnser all of the above questions with out the use of the terms "War on Terror" and "Because of 9/11". I am by nomeans a supporter of Kerry but Bush is no better. My choice was Dean then Edwards but I obviously can't pick the winners. To tell the truth I don't think that any of the people running for president should have the job. They are all morons and should live in the real world before they become president. I am tired of friggin elitest shmucks being the only ones who can run for office. Maybe if these people WORKED for a living they would know what has to be done. Kripes why the heck can't anyone i like run.

                Oh and By the way if I hear "what would the Dems have done if the were in office on 9/11? Nothing!" one more time I'm gonna puke. It's alternate history and can be argued a number of ways but republicans seem to think that it makes a difference who was in there at the time so that they can defend their boy in charge.

                I think that the system is turning into BS and being corrupted from what the Founding Fathers ment to happen. Now people BUY elections. How come these candidates can rase together almost half a BILLION dollars and yet we can't fund programs that do get passed in congress.

                I will vote this year. I do whenever an election comes up. I just wish that the campaingnig was shorter and that all of the candidates had more to say to me rather than their rich contributers. I got a family of 4 and I make about $400 a week. it gets kind of discuraging when I see them talking to people who make at the least twice what I make if not more. I can't go up to one of them and ask questions that I want awnsered because I don't have the MONEY to talk to them. Gahhh!!!

                Thanks for listening to my rant. I needed to get that off my chest.
                Quite so, I believe that the VP exerts some influence, probably Condi Rice and Powell as well. The difference is that Bush is not a lapdog to the RNC in the way that Kerry is to the DNC (and to "pappa" Kennedy, various unions, and the icons of the extreme left. In fact, some say that the extreme right are far more critical of Bush than the DNC, et al.
                Mens Est Clavis Victoriae
                (The Mind Is The Key To Victory)

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Mike King
                  I hate to say this but in my opinion Bush has destroyed any credibility he should be entitled to as President. I personally rank him with Nixon and Johnson in terms of his personal credibility. I realize there are and will remain people who continue to believe what he says, but to me these people are just willing their belief like people who don't want to admit their spouse is cheating on them despite all the evidence.

                  So Kerry, by default, is the candidate who wins the credibility issue for me.
                  I can't wholly agree with this. The jury is still out on any lying, misleading or anything other than the uncertainty that can occur in estimating another nation's weapons, policy and/or intents. In my view, it is Kerry that has little if any credibility. He is nothing more than a "talking head" for the DNC, unions, leftist reactionary extremists, and other nefarious characters.
                  Mens Est Clavis Victoriae
                  (The Mind Is The Key To Victory)

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    The most important document I know of regarding WMD is the Kay report which indicates Iraq was probably even more dangerous than previously believed.
                    The Kay report actually said the exact opposite; that Iraq's WMD programs were nowhere near what we thought they were.

                    These are statements from a CIA assessment of October 2002 on Iraq's weapons program:

                    "Iraq largely has rebuilt missile and biological weapons facilities damaged during Operation Desert Fox and has expanded its chemical and biological infrastructure under the cover of civilian production."

                    "Baghdad has begun renewed production of chemical warfare agents, probably including mustard, sarin, cyclosarin, and VX."

                    "Saddam probably has stocked a few hundred metric tons of CW agents."

                    "The Iraqis have experience in manufacturing CW bombs, artillery rockets, and projectiles, and probably possess CW bulk fills for SRBM warheads, including for a limited number of covertly stored, extended-range Scuds."

                    "All key aspectsóR&D, production, and weaponizationóof Iraq's offensive BW program are active and most elements are larger and more advanced than they were before the Gulf war."

                    "Iraq has some lethal and incapacitating BW agents and is capable of quickly producing and weaponizing a variety of such agents, including anthrax, for delivery by bombs, missiles, aerial sprayers, and covert operatives, including potentially against the US Homeland."

                    "Baghdad has established a large-scale, redundant, and concealed BW agent production capability, which includes mobile facilities; these facilities can evade detection, are highly survivable, and can exceed the production rates Iraq had prior to the Gulf war."

                    "Iraq has preserved and in some cases enhanced the infrastructure and expertise necessary for WMD production and has used that capability to maintain a stockpile of WMD and to increase its size and sophistication in some areas."

                    "Iraq probably has stocked at least 100 metric tons (MT) and possibly as much as 500 MT of CW agents."

                    "Iraq has the ability to produce chemical warfare (CW) agents within its chemical industry, although it probably depends on external sources for some precursors. Baghdad is expanding its infrastructure, under cover of civilian industries, that it could use to advance its CW agent production capability."

                    "Iraq has now established large-scale, redundant, and concealed BW agent production capabilities based on mobile BW facilities."

                    In October 2003, Daniel Kay testified before Congress and had to admit that none of the weapons described above had been found. In fact he stated no actual weapons of mass destruction had been found.

                    Kay then went on to explain that there were some operations that might have produced WMD's (but no evidence that they actually had) and that there were numerous plans to build WMD production operations. He also said that the WMD might still be found but they might not be. Among the reasons he gave was that they might have been stolen by looters, smuggled out of the country by fleeing military officers, or that they might not have been noticed yet because the largest of these WMD sites would be "smaller than a two-car garage". (I have a two car garage, but you don't see me storing 100 metric tons of chemical weapons in it. That amount of poison doesn't seem a likely prospect for looting or smuggling either.) But we weren't told that we were going to war because Iraq might be building a weapons program. We were told the weapons existed and were almost ready to be sued. And this wasn't true.

                    Now don't get me wrong. I'm a Republican. When Bush said that Iraq had large stockpiles of weapons of mass destruction and was almost ready to use them against the US, I believed him. I figured it was exactly the kind of thing Saddam Hussein would do. And when the UN and other countries said there was no evidence that these weapons existed, I figured they just didn't know what they were talking about and didn't have the information our government had. I openly declared my support for the President and the plans for invading Iraq if he said it was necessary.

                    Now it turns out we were wrong and they were right. Despite all the spin since the invasion and occupation, it's virtually undeniable that the weapons that were described before the war didn't exist. It's almost virtually impossible to believe that there was credible evidence that they did. From everything I can see, our President sent our troops into combat and lied to us about the reasons why he did this.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Oh, ok:

                      WARNER: Could you say that the work thus far of the ISG -- and I recounted a number of things, including the ricin and so forth in my opening statement -- does that not lend itself to the understanding, the conclusion that Saddam Hussein and this military machine under his control posed an imminent threat...

                      KAY: Perhaps.

                      WARNER: ... to the neighbors...

                      KAY: Perhaps.

                      WARNER: ... to those beyond the parameter of the neighbors?

                      KAY: Senator Warner, I think the world is far safer with the disappearance and the removal of Saddam Hussein. I have said I actually think this may be one of those cases where it was even more dangerous than we thought.

                      I think when we have the complete record you're going to discover that after 1998 it became a regime that was totally corrupt. Individuals were out for their own protection. And in a world where we know others are seeking WMD, the likelihood at some point in the future of a seller and a buyer meeting up would have made that a far more dangerous country than even we anticipated with what may turn out not to be a fully accurate estimate.



                      MCCAIN: So the point is, if he were in power today, there is no doubt that he would harbor ambitions for the development and use of weapons of mass destruction. Is there any doubt in your mind?

                      KAY: There's absolutely no doubt. And I think I've said that, Senator.

                      MCCAIN: But you agree with the fundamental principle here that what we did was justified and enhance the security of the United States and the world by removing Saddam Hussein from power?

                      KAY: Absolutely.





                      Nothing to see here, move along

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Like I said before, I'm not going to convince anyone who wants to keep believing.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Oh, ok :bowdown: :bowdown:

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by Mike King
                            Like I said before, I'm not going to convince anyone who wants to keep believing.
                            I think we can see that from your statement.
                            Texas, where we have the death penalty and aren't afraid to use it!

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Bush has lost 3 million Jobs during his term. How about that?
                              He also said shortly after 9/11 that he would not use it for political purposes. What a liar. And he lied ot get us into Iraq. He is a Liar, now a Murderer.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X