Kerry Caught in yet Another Lie

[marksmanHL2 :)]

politicians.

yeah... I kinda knew it was spelled completely wrong... just could not be bothered to change it. +I had a driving lesson at that precise moment :thumbs:

 

[blahblahblah]

Dont be so f'cking naive. We all know Seinfeld posted this because he's pro Bush. You just sit in your tower, blah. You're no clairvoyant.

So because he has past tendencies to support Bush, thus opens up the floods gates to say that Bush is worse regardless the original post never mentioned the word Bush? I can even argue that his post never implied Bush or republicans. It only implied (explictly) that Kerry lied and suggested Kerry was a habitual liar (implicitly). Proving Kerry's voting record would be a suitable defense for that. Not attacking Bush.

If I did that in another random thread, that would qualify as spam or pointless posting. Most likely I would be flamed for it.

I don't think that. I think most _problems_ are caused by the incompetance of elections officials. But the Republicans are responsible for the lion's share of really detestable dirty tricks to keep people from voting. There's a big difference between the general shoddiness of the way elections are conducted, and the political games that parties play to make sure that particular groups have a hard time voting.

Lion's share? So its the republican's who want to reinforce the fact the voter's must vote at a pre-assigned precinct?

Let's assume this republican anti-voting thing was an epidemic. Shouldn't the voter be able to log a complaint somewhere? Or even make sure their vote is counted? If you were to address the underlying fundamental problems of the system, you fix the symptoms (voter fraud, etc).

Saying shame on a person trying to affect an election through less than ethical means is like an accountant taking advantage of a tax loophole. You want the problem to be solved, close the loophole. Yet, we don't see that today. I see you complaining about republicans without trying to solve the problem. Haven't you learned that complaining does nothing? Action is everything.

I think there's a VERY big difference between confusing ballots that get sent to everyone, and a concerted effort to lie to African Americans telling them false things about what voting involves and where to go. Voter supression just is not the same thing as dumb election officials. Putting Democratic registrations in a SHREDDER is not the same thing as a confusing ballot sent to everyone.

All I know is I have no idea on God's green Earth if my vote will be counted. I'd rather be told that I can't vote and then being able to act upon that later than to be told I voted even though my vote was later disqualified on a technicality.

Like I say, fix the problems, you fix the symptoms.

Make sure your clown is fresh. It does't work if you get a stale one.

Yeah, I have that problem sometimes too.

 

[Yuri]

Make sure your clown is fresh. It does't work if you get a stale one.

Damn, that must've been it. I forgot to go to the CircusShop and pick up some fresh clowns this week.

 

[The Mullinator]

Damn, that must've been it. I forgot to go to the CircusShop and pick up some fresh clowns this week.

If you want some truly fresh clowns then you are going to have to go to the circus and capture one yourself. Those canned clowns you get at the shop just don't cut it when it comes to freshness.

 

[blahblahblah]

If you want some truly fresh clowns then you are going to have to go to the circus and capture one yourself. Those canned clowns you get at the shop just don't cut it when it comes to freshness.

You speak the truth. Too bad circuses are far and few between.

 

[Triggerhappy41]

Am I the only one who thinks they are both idiots? Oh wait, no. Most voters are moderates, now I remember.

Bush has said an unbelievable amount of total bullsh!t and Kerry has contradicted himself an unbelievable amount of times. :|

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Okay, Kerry said he met with everyone, but only met with almost everyone?

Oh no! Oh no! Liar! This is actually important somehow. He missed four people!

 

[Apos]

Lion's share? So its the republican's who want to reinforce the fact the voter's must vote at a pre-assigned precinct?

Yes, but that's not what I'm talking about because that's within the realm of legitimate argument over how to conduct elections. I agree that we should still try to get people to their assigned precincts.

Let's assume this republican anti-voting thing was an epidemic. Shouldn't the voter be able to log a complaint somewhere? Or even make sure their vote is counted? If you were to address the underlying fundamental problems of the system, you fix the symptoms (voter fraud, etc).

Uh, what? There ARE plenty of complaints, every time. In fact, there are plenty of lawsuits and convictions too. The Rep is currently under federal injuction for several of their most favorite dirty tricks. This is a well known thing. It isn't a matter of underlying problems with how voting works. It's a matter of outright evil stuff, both legal and illegal. Trying to make voting difficult, confusing, and scary is not an acceptable way to win elections.

Saying shame on a person trying to affect an election through less than ethical means is like an accountant taking advantage of a tax loophole. You want the problem to be solved, close the loophole. Yet, we don't see that today. I see you complaining about republicans without trying to solve the problem. Haven't you learned that complaining does nothing?

You are actually DEFENDING voter supression tactics?

Laws do nothing either. Every year, the Republicans pull all sorts of a stunts that are either so unethical that they have to cover that loophole, or flat out illegal. They happily pay the fines, or even send a few lackeys to jail (the Bush Cheney New England director just resign admist one such scandal, and the South Dakota Republicans who were indicted for fraud were quickly hired to run the campaign in Ohio: fraud is apparently grounds for promotion!). That's well worth the cost, because in elections, there are no doovers. Even if you do something despicable to supress turnout, the results stand. The damage is done.

The only thing that will truly stop this behavior is getting people to recognize and speak out against it: to punish the Republican party at the polls.

All I know is I have no idea on God's green Earth if my vote will be counted. I'd rather be told that I can't vote and then being able to act upon that later than to be told I voted even though my vote was later disqualified on a technicality.

Again, this is apples to oranges. This isn't the sort of gross systematic abuses I am talking about, it's just you complaining that you don't know if your vote was counted. How do you propose anyone fixes THAT? How is that even really a definate problem since you don't know that your vote WASN'T counted either? How does this in ANY way compare to stationing police officers outside of African American polling locations, or having the polling location in an African American be at a club that was until a few years ago a "whites-only" establishment? How does that compare to trying to strip people off the ballots because they happen to have the same names as felons like they tried to do in Florida before the courts exposed their scheme (but of course, they only try this trick with African Americans, who lean Democrat, and not Latinos, who lean Republican)

 

[seinfeldrules]

I havnt even read this thread..


I just wanted to say something...


Has anyone else noticed that all these "Kerry lied about this" and "Bush lied about that" threads have only proved one obvious known fact.


All Polititions lie!!!!

Cant argue with that either.

I just found the first remarks funny, as blah mentioned.

"I am not admitting or denying Kerry lied, BUT Bush has done so much worse, so lets only focus on that!!!"

"Your website is biased, so that means the quote cant be used!!"

Of course it is biased, it is a blogger site.

PS Neutrino I never mentioned Bush at all, so I dont see how I attempted to prove or disprove who lies more. There are plenty of threads that claim Bush is a liar, but you dont point out that it is "an attempt to paint Bush as the worse one". If you arent going to do it for everyone, dont be a hypocrite about it. I dont see why I cant post one topic about Kerry lying without it turning into a massive Right Wing conspiracy to dish it out to all the media outlets.

so I was responding to his attempt to paint Kerry as being worse than Bush.

 

[Johan_Tayn]

What's wrong with stationing police officers near Afro-American polling stations? Its just a fact that they want to beef up security because in, say, Minnesota, 25 black men are put in prison for every one white man. Some might say racism is behind it, but regardless, it's too high for just that to be it.

I have nothing against people because of their color; I have something against them if they constantly fulfil stereotypes to the detriment of their own race.

 

[gh0st]

haha... the hostility here is amazing.

I never wanted to say this, but seinfeldrules your a pathetic stupid mother ****er. I'm suck of Bush fans, they ****ing do my head in because they are so god dam stupid and blind. ARRGGHHHHHH!!!

I HATE THE HUMAN RACE!

if this doesnt sum up the rabid, vehemant left, i dont know what will. or maybe this just sums up "dipshit." bush might be a chunk of coal, but kerry is no diamond. kerry supporters are even worse, i've gotten into plenty of street arguments with them and its the same everytime. people bitch about the right wing talkshow hosts shouting people down, but its the same with the left, if not worse, because of the hypocrisy they demonstrate each day.

apos, youre inane democratic propaganda is HOOOOlarious. no one could expect a proper argument from you because youre engrossed in the 2 party system (as john stewart aptly said, partisan hackery) your zealot like attitude toward kerry is frankly stupid, because it makes no difference how much wisdom is portrayed by blah, or anyone else because you wont believe a thing that comes from anyone but john kerrys botox injected, zombie like mouth.

 

[blahblahblah]

*snip*

This is a point I want to make clear: The system needs to re-written. You re-write the system, you can fix all of these problems (the problems you have, and the problems I have with the elections).

That is a fact. A well written system takes the steam out of any potential fraud and makes it easier to do whatever you want to do. I know that as a fact because I'm preparing to enter a field that is largely rule based (accounting). You have to fix the underlying problem and you will fix the symptoms (even if the symptons seem unrelated to the problem). I can give you many examples of that in accounting if you wish.

Punishing the republicans at the polls will only encourage more fraud. Learn how fraud works before you suggest a solution to it.

Punishing the republicans who commit the fraud is only intended to treat the symptoms as well. You fix the actual problems with the current election system in the US, you will fix all of these symptoms. That is my point. Worrying about the small stuff will not help you at all. Trust me.

I would go on except I'm late for a some stuff I've got to do.

PS - Forcing voters to go to their precinct is the dumbest thing you can do. I will be 30 minutes away from my precinct the entire day on 11/2/04. That means if I vote in person it will take atleast 1.5 hours out of my schedule to do so. For me, that is a minor inconvience, but for a person trying to earn a living is a completely different story.

That is almost like fraud. It makes it terribly difficult for the average person to make it to vote on 11/2/04. Don't even suggest mail-in ballots.

:cheers:

 

[seinfeldrules]

An example of what Gh0st was referring to:

http://www.dailyrecycler.com/blog/2004/10/breakdown.html
*Notice how the liberal responds to O'Neil's arguments.

The notion that conservatives are the ones doing all the bashing is quite frankly shocking. I see much worse stuff (insults) coming out of the mouth of Al Gore than I do Shaun Hannity. This thread only went on to prove this.

 

[gh0st]

An example of what Gh0st was referring to:

http://www.dailyrecycler.com/blog/2004/10/breakdown.html
*Notice how the liberal responds to O'Neil's arguments.

The notion that conservatives are the ones doing all the bashing is quite frankly shocking. I see much worse stuff (insults) coming out of the mouth of Al Gore than I do Shaun Hannity. This thread only went on to prove this.

i heard this on drudge, i was laughing my ass off, while sobbing.

edit: haha "you creepy liar"

 

[Apos]

This is a point I want to make clear: The system needs to re-written. You re-write the system, you can fix all of these problems (the problems you have, and the problems I have with the elections).

I agree that the system needs work, but this is not a coherent response to the fact that fraud and suppression is happening. Fraud and suppression will always be possible no matter how good the system is. Your response is to apparently declare that we shouldn't decry fraud because the only real solution is to magically fix the system (though you don't explain how or with what money)... which Republicans generally oppose anyway.

That is a fact. A well written system takes the steam out of any potential fraud and makes it easier to do whatever you want to do. I know that as a fact because I'm preparing to enter a field that is largely rule based (accounting). You have to fix the underlying problem and you will fix the symptoms (even if the symptons seem unrelated to the problem). I can give you many examples of that in accounting if you wish.

Accounting just isn't like voting. What is the underlying problem that you think needs fixing?

And, indeed, what does that have to do with the despicable acts Republicans do to try and keep the system confusing and intimidating?

Punishing the republicans at the polls will only encourage more fraud. Learn how fraud works before you suggest a solution to it.

Uh, I think I know pretty well how it works, seeing as part of my job is to combat it.

You fix the actual problems with the current election system in the US, you will fix all of these symptoms. That is my point. Worrying about the small stuff will not help you at all. Trust me.

I can't, because you don't seem to know what you are talking about. There is no way to "fix" the fact that Republicans are shredding Democratic voter registrations or committing fraud or phone jamming GOTV efforts. How do you propose we "fix" that? It's already illegal.

It's just that you want to avoid having to admit that the Republican party is playing extremely dirty.

PS - Forcing voters to go to their precinct is the dumbest thing you can do. I will be 30 minutes away from my precinct the entire day on 11/2/04. That means if I vote in person it will take atleast 1.5 hours out of my schedule to do so. For me, that is a minor inconvience, but for a person trying to earn a living is a completely different story.

Then I suppose you support the Democrats in trying to make this possible? The Republicans oppose it (again, because allowing working people to vote more easily is very very BAD for them).

That is almost like fraud. It makes it terribly difficult for the average person to make it to vote on 11/2/04. Don't even suggest mail-in ballots.

They can vote early at the BOE. And they can vote absentee. But I AGREE that voting should be easier and less of a hardship (though I'm not sure that mixing polling locations is a feasible solution without millions of dollars in federal aid that Republicans will never let get spent). What does that have to do with anything?

 

[Apos]

An example of what Gh0st was referring to:

http://www.dailyrecycler.com/blog/2004/10/breakdown.html
*Notice how the liberal responds to O'Neil's arguments.

Sure, he explodes. But that's because at some point, the level of lies just gets too unbelievable to bear. O'Neil has been caught contradicting himself and lying so many times that it's simply unbelievable. For instance, he says things like how we were never in Cambodia and anyone that says so is a traitor. But he's also ON TAPE telling PRESIDENT Nixon that he was in Cambodia. And he knows this! And yet he still repeats this garbage with a wink in his eye. He's the worst sort of paid partisan hack there is, and at some point it just gets too outrageous to bear.

The notion that conservatives are the ones doing all the bashing is quite frankly shocking. I see much worse stuff (insults) coming out of the mouth of Al Gore than I do Shaun Hannity.

What a joke that is.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Sure, he explodes. But that's because at some point, the level of lies just gets too unbelievable to bear. O'Neil has been caught contradicting himself and lying so many times that it's simply unbelievable. For instance, he says things like how we were never in Cambodia and anyone that says so is a traitor. But he's also ON TAPE telling PRESIDENT Nixon that he was in Cambodia. And he knows this! And yet he still repeats this garbage with a wink in his eye. He's the worst sort of paid partisan hack there is, and at some point it just gets too outrageous to bear.

If he is so wrong, sue him. It is perfectly legal to do so if he is telling lies and slandering your canidate. Instead all you can think of is acting like a barbarian by yelling "LIAR, LIAR, LIAR". Imagine how much would be accomplished if that is all we did to someone we disagreed with. You sound like you are reaching deep into your bag for this one.

the level of lies just gets too unbelievable to bear. O'Neil has been caught contradicting himself and lying so many times that it's simply unbelievable.

Puhlease. So since Johnny boy was caught lying about Vietnam too, we should all yell "LIAR LIAR LIAR" everytime he speaks? Come on now.

What a joke that is.

I know, an ex-VP acting more immature than a radio talk show host. Whats next? Clinton doing it? Well lets not go there.

 

[gh0st]

He's the worst sort of paid partisan hack there is, and at some point it just gets too outrageous to bear.

ah yes that just excuses his outbursts, that not only are just rude, but not giving oneill a chance to explain anything. :upstare: cant imagine what the democratic party would do if oneill was a democrat

 

[seinfeldrules]

cant imagine what the democratic party would do if oneill was a democrat

They would, without a doubt, name O'Neil their Presidential canidate :cheers:

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Sure, there are liberals who are assholes, and there are conservatives who are personable and truthful.

Using "liberal" and "conservative" as blanket terms to undermine the opinions of half of america, whichever half that is, is stupid.

The problem is liars, whichever party they are from.
Instead spouting generalisations and so on, no matter how researched those generalisations are, let's just look at the topic at hand:

Kerry said he met everyone, but he actually missed four of them.
If that's the huge lie that all this mess is about, then I am very sad.

"I went down to a football game once and saw all the players on [popular team]."
"Did you see [well-known football star]?"
"Maybe. I didn't see him specifically, but he was probably there."
"You just lied! Argh, I hate you so much! and all your liberal friends too!
"Conservatives lie too."
"You lie more!"
"No, you lie more!"
"You're lying now!"
"Am not!"
"There! You did it again, liar."

That sort of nonsense isn't important.
The important thing is that the "lie" that sparked this whole thing is so minor, it probably didn't need to be brought up in the first place.

"Everyone" could mean anything:
Everyone he wanted to meet.
Everyone who could best summarise things.
Everyone who he actually met.
Etc.
It's all relative, and it's not a even close to a lie unless you take the word at it's 100% most literal meaning.

Sheebus.

 

[Apos]

apos, youre inane democratic propaganda is HOOOOlarious. no one could expect a proper argument from you because youre engrossed in the 2 party system (as john stewart aptly said, partisan hackery) your zealot like attitude toward kerry is frankly stupid, because it makes no difference how much wisdom is portrayed by blah, or anyone else because you wont believe a thing that comes from anyone but john kerrys botox injected, zombie like mouth.

You're hilarious. I respond to claims with actual arguments refuting the claims being made here, and you respond with nothing BUT insults. And yet, I am the one accused of doing nothing but bashing.

What's the wisdom? blah doesn't even have a clue what he is talking about, or even what the subject under discussion is. He started by angrily denying my claim that Republicans have fielded a massive voter suppression campaign and committed tons of instances of systematic fraud, but then when pressed to refute that claim, starting complaining that his ballot was confusing to him. He now seems to basically concede what Republicans are doing, but without retracting his previous denial, and all the while implying that it's not really important. It certainly seemed important enough for him to deny it originally!

 

[gh0st]

except in the case of that video, it was obviously one side vs another. one kerry supporter (clearly) against a swiftboater, and there was ONE side being the insulting, and accusative side.

edit: apos, youre right, sorry i havent been reading your posts because i prefer to live in my cozy republican bubble. :dork:

 

[seinfeldrules]

Kerry said he met everyone, but he actually missed four of them.
If that's the huge lie that all this mess is about, then I am very sad.

The article said they talked to five countries. Out of those five, he didnt talk to four.

Another quote in which Kerry proclaims he met with all the members:

And I met with the entire Security Council in a room just like this at a table like this. I spent two hours with them. (inaudible), just me and the Security Council, asking them questions.

That sort of nonsense isn't important. The fact that the "lie" that sparked this whole thing is so minor, it probably didn't need to be brought up in the first place.

Yeah, we should just ignore it because it was Kerry. My bad, next time I'll make sure its a Bush mistake, because we all know he is the reincarnated Hitler in an odd disguise.

What's the wisdom? blah doesn't even have a clue what he is talking about, or even what the subject under discussion is.

What a suprise, Blah acts very mature and responds with well thought out arguments. The liberal response "He is an idiot." Man, keep these gems coming, I'm loving this.

 

[gh0st]

What a suprise, Blah acts very mature and responds with well thought out arguments. The liberal response "He is an idiot." Man, keep these gems coming, I'm loving this.

the best part will come when a third party will come in and tell us ALL how immature we are, and how much they hate this threads these are so predictable theyve lost their shine.

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Yeah, we should just ignore it because it was Kerry. My bad, next time I'll make sure its a Bush mistake, because we all know he is the reincarnated Hitler in an odd disguise.

Where in the hell did I say that?

If Bush says he spent four days visiting his grandmother, and it was actually only three and a half, and then I make a big thread with quoted sources and 60 pages of rabid partisanship, with the title "Bush Caught In His Lies: Again!", then you can complain.

In the meantime, there are far more important things to look at, like "Iraq has WMDs."

And I swear if Kerry had made that announcement, and kept up the war, I'd call him "a re-incarnated Hitler in disguise" too.

But, since that's not the case: Clam it.

(Respectfully, of course. :O)

 

[Apos]

If he is so wrong, sue him. It is perfectly legal to do so if he is telling lies and slandering your canidate.

You can't sue for slander in the US against public figures. You actually can lie all you want in the US. It's free speech.

Instead all you can think of is acting like a barbarian by yelling "LIAR, LIAR, LIAR". Imagine how much would be accomplished if that is all we did to someone we disagreed with. You sound like you are reaching deep into your bag for this one.

The fact is, O'Neil's lies have been refuted and exposed so many times that it's simply exasperating to see him drag out the same dog and pony show over and over, no matter how many times you expose him. It just gets exhausting after awhile. I agree that only screaming liar is not a good way to debate. But I am just explaining how it's possible to get to the point where it just gets to absurd to take it anymore.

Puhlease. So since Johnny boy was caught lying about Vietnam too, we should all yell "LIAR LIAR LIAR" everytime he speaks? Come on now.

Sorry, but the minor issues with Kerry are in no way comparable to O'Neil. Just isn't even in the same universe. O'Neil was originally hired by Nixon to smear people like Kerry who were opposing Nixon. That's like, the origin of dirty tricks.

I know, an ex-VP acting more immature than a radio talk show host. Whats next? Clinton doing it? Well lets not go there.

It's physically impossible to be more immature than Sean Hannity. Even intelligent Republicans disown people like him and Ann Coulter as embarrasments on the level of Michael Moore.

 

[seinfeldrules]

Where in the hell did I say that?

If Bush says he spent four days visiting his grandmother, and it was actually only three and a half, and then I make a big thread with quoted sources and 60 pages of rabid partisanship, with the title "Bush caught in his lies: Again!", then you can complain.

In the meantime, there are far more important things to look at, like "Iraq has WMDs."

And I swear if Kerry had made that announcement, and kept up the war, I'd call him "a re-incarnated Hitler in disguise" too.

But, since that's not the case: Clam it.

(Respectfully, of course. :O)

Well there probably are 60 topics on Bush lying. It is a major part of Kerry's foreign policy too. 4/5

 

[gh0st]

You can't sue for slander in the US against public figures. You actually can lie all you want in the US. It's free speech.

i know you liberals are all over your free speech rights, but as a journalism student, i do know that slander/libel will get you sued and your funding taken away. haha lie all you want in public press? stunning!

You could learn something

 

[seinfeldrules]

Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages.

........

 

[Apos]

The article said they talked to five countries. Out of those five, he didnt talk to four.

Sigh. None of whom were the permanent members. All of them the transitory countries with no real power.

Another quote in which Kerry proclaims he met with all the members:

Again, so he didn't say "permanent" members. Confusing to a layman who might not know that there is a difference and what most people mean when they talk about the SC, but not in any sense a bold lie. But it IS a lie to say that he just "made up" the meeting.

What a suprise, Blah acts very mature and responds with well thought out arguments. The liberal response "He is an idiot." Man, keep these gems coming, I'm loving this.

But I didn't call just him an idiot. I explained what was wrong with what he was saying, in addition to pointing out that his response was incoherent and an attempt to divert attention from the subject at hand. You can't even tell the truth about the stuff that's posted in the very same thread!

 

[Mechagodzilla]

Well there probably are 60 topics on Bush lying. It is a major part of Kerry's foreign policy too. 4/5

I didn't say topics, I said pages. And I didn't even mention anything to do with Kerry's foreign policy.

See, those are the sort of mistakes that can get one branded a liar, come election time.

 

[Apos]

i know you liberals are all over your free speech rights, but as a journalism student, i do know that slander/libel will get you sued and your funding taken away. haha lie all you want in public press? stunning!

If you were a good journalism student, you'd know that the slander and libel laws in the U.S. are extremely difficult to apply in practice, especially to public figures. The woman in your cite was not a public figure. Proving "actual malice" is virtually impossible. And O'Neil is not a press organization with "funding" that can be taken away. Most slander and libel suits in the US fail, because the burden is on the person who claims slander/libel. Mere untruth is not sufficient: a person must first prove actual substantive damage AND an intent to cause that specific damage.

The law is also generally pretty much never applicable in politics: virtually every attempt to pass and enforce such laws has failed.
Educate yourself here before claiming to know what you are talking about:
http://factcheck.org/specialreports188.html

 

[seinfeldrules]

O'Neil's lies have been refuted and exposed so many times

So have Kerry's.

It just gets exhausting after awhile

I know what its like, but I refrain from calling you a LIAR, or in this board's case, a bigot.

Sorry, but the minor issues with Kerry are in no way comparable to O'Neil.

XMass in Cambodia sure was a fun time wasnt it. Same with throwing his medals away.

It's physically impossible to be more immature than Sean Hannity. Even intelligent Republicans disown people like him and Ann Coulter as embarrasments on the level of Michael Moore.

Hannity was one of the few people invited to talk with the Republican members of Congress in a closed door meeting they hold from time to time.

Sigh. None of whom were the permanent members. All of them the transitory countries with no real power.

They all would have voted on the Iraq issue.

Again, so he didn't say "permanent" members. Confusing to a layman who might not know that there is a difference and what most people mean when they talk about the SC, but not in any sense a bold lie. But it IS a lie to say that he just "made up" the meeting.

I think its confusing you. He said all members, not permanent. Not once, but at least twice and probably more times than that. Maybe somebody so 'sophisticated' as you can now read into everything everybody says because you are so in tune with the world surrounding you.

Remember, a spokesman for France's chief U.N. representative at the time said that Kerry did not have a single group meeting, rather several smaller, even one-on-one meetings.

blah doesn't even have a clue what he is talking about, or even what the subject under discussion is.

Ahem.

In the meantime, there are far more important things to look at, like "Iraq has WMDs."

Um, Kerry did make an announcement saying Iraq had WMD. Many, many anouncements of this.

Where in the hell did I say that?

Hold on so I can edit in your quote of which I was referring to.

EDIT:

That sort of nonsense isn't important.

But it is, of course, when Bush makes a mistake. Hold on for a moment while I go cry about posting a lie Kerry made, but not posting one that Bush did.

 

[seinfeldrules]

If you were a good journalism student, you'd know that the slander and libel laws in the U.S. are extremely difficult to apply in practice, especially to public figures. The woman in your cite was not a public figure. Proving "actual malice" is virtually impossible. And O'Neil is not a press organization with "funding" that can be taken away. Most slander and libel suits in the US fail, because the burden is on the person who claims slander/libel. Mere untruth is not sufficient: a person must first prove actual substantive damage AND an intent to cause that specific damage.

The law is also generally pretty much never applicable in politics: virtually every attempt to pass and enforce such laws has failed.
Educate yourself here before claiming to know what you are talking about:
http://factcheck.org/specialreports188.html

Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with "actual malice". In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth. For example, Ariel Sharon sued Time Magazine over allegations of his conduct relating to the massacres at the Sabra and Shatila refugee camps. Although the jury concluded that the Time story included false allegations, they found that Time had not acted with "actual malice" and did not award any damages.

This should be the case if the charges O'Neil has brought against Kerry were false.*the bold part.

 

[sublidieminal]

"Well, to tell you the truth, I'm not too worried about Osama Bin Laden. As a matter of fact I don't really care too much for him."

-gwb

"I'm afraid thats one of those, exaggerations"

-3rd Debate.

 

[hasan]

ok, kerry lied.
bush lied.

who lied more? bush. why? becuse kerry hadn't got enough time to lie as many lies as bush lied.

you're all stupid

the best part will come when a third party will come in and tell us ALL how immature we are, and how much they hate this threads

 

[seinfeldrules]

Post his entire message. Are you trying out for a role in one of Moore's films or something? (subilideminal)

 

[sublidieminal]

Post his entire message. Are you trying out for a role in one of Moore's films or something? (subilideminal)

What's this supposed to mean? Would it be fair if I asked you to rehearse for celcius 9/11? (or whatever it was called).

I stated that because I was deeply offended from his blantent lie. Maybe if Bush would start admitting his mistakes I would have more respect for him.. but when he lies through his teeth all the way through, well hot damn I don't know why you're not pissed.

 

[P-Lo]

"Well, to tell you the truth, I'm not too worried about Osama Bin Laden. As a matter of fact I don't really care too much for him."

-gwb

"I'm afraid thats one of those, exaggerations"

-3rd Debate.

lol.... -_-

 

[brink's]

Well I'm just happy that the GB would never lie about winning an election, invading a country or his military record.