John Edwards is a liar

[Don Vito Corleone]

FWIW, I don't call for Rip to be banned - he does a good enough job of discrediting himself that I don't think he's really persuading anyone anyway. It'd be nice if he didn't post so much phony "information," though, because it has a way of derailing sincere discussion.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Riprorin
There were other ways of answering the question without telling a bold faced lie.

Such as?

Lauer persisted: "Would you consider being a vice presidential candidate?

Edwards could have said something like this: "Right now I'm focused on becoming the democratic nominee for the presidency so it's really premature for me to entertain that question".

If really, really pressed, he could have said: I will cross that bridge at the appropriate time. Right now I'm trying to get my ideas and vision for this country out to the American people and prove to them why I'm the best candidate to run against George Bush in November".

The end.

LMAO!!

Yeah, right. And you would have been ripping into him saying he's wishy-washy and lacks confidence.


Your "logic" is such a joke!

 

[happyhelper]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: happyhelper

Originally orated by: the late President Ronald Reagan

You know, by the time you reach my age, you've made plenty of mistakes. And if you've lived your life properly?so, you learn. You put things in perspective. You pull your energies together. You change. You go forward.

My fellow Americans, I have a great deal that I want to accomplish with you and for you over the next two years. And the Lord willing, that's exactly what I intend to do. Good night, and God bless you.

Over the next two years of course, he got a lot of pleasant cat naps with us, and for us.

Awwww, what a moving bunch of tripe. I guess I should read/listen to those lies every 17 years or so. Anyway, Ollie took the heat and so did some other guys... and once they finally got all their stories straight, the gipper took one for the team and said (with a little spin, and just the right amount of emotion learned in acting school and perfected with years of performing in movies), "It wasn't my fault, but it was my fault! America, please forgive me because I am the handsome actor president who knows how to speak in front of a camera. I've got Charisma, so don't be mad!" and then he went and pardoned everyone that helped him out. What a Godly person that gipper was. Sounds just like Clinton to me.

Anyway, I notice you did not respond to my arguments, didn't take the time to think critically for yourself, which seems to be normal for you, but merely cut and pasted more bs since you thought the mention of North was good reason to spurt out some Reagan rhetoric. Not that I mind reading Reagan rhetoric; it's good to inspect well manufactured lies, so you know them when you see (or hear) them.

Don't you think the endless accusations of lying is getting a tad old?

The truth is they are lies... the truth never gets old!

Why, may I ask, are you soooo certain that every word uttered by a Republican is truthful?

Who the fvck is that moron Mike Reagan you keep quoting, anyway? Some imbecile like you that believes President Ronald Reagan was the fictitious sinless Jesus Christ or something?? Ronald the Christ - yea that sounds good. Are you Mike Reagan? Your just like I'd imagine him. Do fantasies of you being with Mike Reagan consume much of your day?

As for truth, Jr's (no, not dubya's) eyes are open, at least:
"My father crapped bigger ones than George Bush, ... the overall thrust of this administration is not my father's -- these people are overly reaching, overly aggressive, overly secretive, and just plain corrupt. I don't trust these people."
-- Ronald Reagan Jr.

The only truth in Mike Reagan's quote in your sig is that if Iraq had been a roaring success, if we had put on a nice fireworks show for CNN and then been met with nothing but jubilation in the streets, then insane brainwashed sheeple like yourself would be rabid to do the same thing in every country on Earth until something went wrong and finally dampened your jingoist, mindless madness. I would say, though I truly can't speak for them, that most Democrats are relieved that did not happen. I know I am.




As for your evil twin....

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Wow, all that because you don't like someone pointing out the hypocrisy of those who are trying to call this thread trolling?

There was no hypocrisy, idiot. That's what I pointed out, guess you can't read more than a sentence before you flip out.

you said
And then why don't you read what Rip posted in his OP and the following 2-3 posts.

If you haven't noticed, dimwit, I am the only one discussing anything remotely on the subject of what Riprotten posted, and the only reason it is not on the subject anymore is because he carried it off the subject by spurting Reagan rhetoric all over the place. The rest are feeding your trolling ass, as am I at the moment and only for a moment.

you said
Yep, you'll find that they were all exact quotes and/or transcripts.

No shlt sherlock, that's what I said, in the post you are responding too!

me said
So somebody, not me, said he uses factual evidence to support his claims against Bush while Riprotten doesn't use factual evidence to support his claims against Edwards, and whoever said that was indeed wrong, in this particular case.

And besides all that, Riprorin does not and can not prove that, in January, Edwards was lying about not wanting to be the VP candidate. It is entirely possible that someone in this world made him an "offer that he couldn't refuse" and thus changed his mind. It's also possible that he doesn't want to be vice-president now, even though he is running - maybe he still "wants to be President" and is confident that some insane Bush fanatic will kill Kerry soon after they take over the White House - thus resulting in him getting what he wants - the Presidency. No matter what, it is not something Riprorin can prove in any way, just like you couldn't prove or disprove that most environmentalists live in much nicer houses than average.

you said
Just because you don't agree with his opinion about them or his conclusions doesn't mean he is trolling.

No shlt sherlock - that's why I defined exactly how he trolls, which had nothing to do with his opinion or conclusions (in the same post you are responding to!:

me said
Riprotten is ... very frequently a troll (with the meaning of a person who makes an outrageous claim or inflammatory remark in order to incite debate or to "disturb the peace" and never comes back to actually debate).

you saidand then try getting some help with your reading comprehension issues.

LMAO

And remember, if you don't like being called a troll, don't be one.

Are either of you actually old enough to vote?

 

[Riprorin]

It's interesting that some of you condemn Bush for supposedly lying while you turn a blind eye to Edwards' and Clinton'sdocumented lies.

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
It's interesting that some of you condemn Bush for supposedly lying while you turn a blind eye to Edwards' and Clinton'sdocumented lies.

Bushes alleged lies had deadly consequences

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
It's interesting that some of you condemn Bush for supposedly lying while you turn a blind eye to Edwards' and Clinton'sdocumented lies.

Edwards hasn't lied. He may have engaged in political banter and rhetoric but he did not lie.

Clinton lied under oath and was nearly impeached for it. He tarnished the office of the President.

Bush, on the other hand, did more than tarnish that office. With his lies, Bush has pissed on the floor, vomited on the couch, kicked holes in the walls, ripped down the curtains, shredded the rugs, and splintered the floor.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Riprorin
It's interesting that some of you condemn Bush for supposedly lying while you turn a blind eye to Edwards' and Clinton'sdocumented lies.

Bushes alleged lies had deadly consequences

The decision to go to war usually does have deadly consequences.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Riprorin
It's interesting that some of you condemn Bush for supposedly lying while you turn a blind eye to Edwards' and Clinton'sdocumented lies.

Edwards hasn't lied. He may have engaged in political banter and rhetoric but he did not lie.

Clinton lied under oath and was nearly impeached for it. He tarnished the office of the President.

Bush, on the other hand, did more than tarnish that office. With his lies, Bush has pissed on the floor, vomited on the couch, kicked holes in the walls, ripped down the curtains, shredded the rugs, and splintered the floor.

Edwards:

"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It?s about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability ? a capability that could be less than a year away.
I believe that Saddam Hussein?s Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear."

What?s more, the terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam?s arsenal, and there is every possibility that he could turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11th had had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them. On September 12, 2002, we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat, and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror."

"Saddam Hussein?s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.
Iraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf War and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq?s efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction.

By ignoring these resolutions, Saddam Hussein is undermining the credibility of the United Nations, openly violating international law, and making a mockery of the very idea of collective action that is so important to the United States and its allies."

How is this different from what Pres. Bush said?

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: Red Dawn

Originally posted by: Riprorin
It's interesting that some of you condemn Bush for supposedly lying while you turn a blind eye to Edwards' and Clinton'sdocumented lies.

Bushes alleged lies had deadly consequences

The decision to go to war usually does have deadly consequences.

Especially when it is based on ficticious intel!

 

[AcidicFury]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

John Edwards in 2002: "Saddam Hussein . . . has weapons of mass destruction and . . . is doing everything in his power to get nuclear weapons"

You realize that by using "..." that that usually mean that a quote is taken out of context? Just to let you know. Its not a very convincing quote.

 

[Riprorin]

Here's another Edwards' lie:

During a 1998 Senate campaign, Edwards said, "I think partial-birth abortions should be banned. These are terribly gruesome procedures. I think the only exception is where there is a grave, serious threat to the health of the mother." Then when given the opportunity to vote for the ban in 1999, he went the other way! Given a second opportunity in 2003, he skipped the vote to ban partial-birth abortions.

Link

 

[Red Dawn]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Here's another Edwards' lie:

During a 1998 Senate campaign, Edwards said, "I think partial-birth abortions should be banned. These are terribly gruesome procedures. I think the only exception is where there is a grave, serious threat to the health of the mother." Then when given the opportunity to vote for the ban in 1999, he went the other way! Given a second opportunity in 2003, he skipped the vote to ban partial-birth abortions.

Link

Obviously he came to his senses. Good for him.

 

[IndieSnob]

Originally posted by: Riprorin
Here's another Edwards' lie:

During a 1998 Senate campaign, Edwards said, "I think partial-birth abortions should be banned. These are terribly gruesome procedures. I think the only exception is where there is a grave, serious threat to the health of the mother." Then when given the opportunity to vote for the ban in 1999, he went the other way! Given a second opportunity in 2003, he skipped the vote to ban partial-birth abortions.

Link

Again, how is CHANGING a position a lie? He said 'I think', not 'I will'. Keep grasping.

 

[Ozoned]

Rip, you are retaining all of these replies for the next *Bush lied* thread aren't you?

 

[Riprorin]

They are in the archives.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Riprorin
It's interesting that some of you condemn Bush for supposedly lying while you turn a blind eye to Edwards' and Clinton'sdocumented lies.

Edwards hasn't lied. He may have engaged in political banter and rhetoric but he did not lie.

Clinton lied under oath and was nearly impeached for it. He tarnished the office of the President.

Bush, on the other hand, did more than tarnish that office. With his lies, Bush has pissed on the floor, vomited on the couch, kicked holes in the walls, ripped down the curtains, shredded the rugs, and splintered the floor.

Edwards:

"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It?s about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability ? a capability that could be less than a year away.
I believe that Saddam Hussein?s Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear."

What?s more, the terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam?s arsenal, and there is every possibility that he could turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11th had had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them. On September 12, 2002, we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat, and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror."

"Saddam Hussein?s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.
Iraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf War and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq?s efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction.

By ignoring these resolutions, Saddam Hussein is undermining the credibility of the United Nations, openly violating international law, and making a mockery of the very idea of collective action that is so important to the United States and its allies."

How is this different from what Pres. Bush said?

You will NEVER understand it.

You lack the mental capacity for rational thought.

I'm sorry I can no longer help you.

 

[Riprorin]

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: conjur

Originally posted by: Riprorin
It's interesting that some of you condemn Bush for supposedly lying while you turn a blind eye to Edwards' and Clinton'sdocumented lies.

Edwards hasn't lied. He may have engaged in political banter and rhetoric but he did not lie.

Clinton lied under oath and was nearly impeached for it. He tarnished the office of the President.

Bush, on the other hand, did more than tarnish that office. With his lies, Bush has pissed on the floor, vomited on the couch, kicked holes in the walls, ripped down the curtains, shredded the rugs, and splintered the floor.

Edwards:

"As a member of the Senate Intelligence Committee, I firmly believe that the issue of Iraq is not about politics. It?s about national security. We know that for at least 20 years, Saddam Hussein has obsessively sought weapons of mass destruction through every means available. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons today. He has used them in the past, and he is doing everything he can to build more. Each day he inches closer to his longtime goal of nuclear capability ? a capability that could be less than a year away.
I believe that Saddam Hussein?s Iraqi regime represents a clear threat to the United States, to our allies, to our interests around the world, and to the values of freedom and democracy we hold dear."

What?s more, the terrorist threat against America is all too clear. Thousands of terrorist operatives around the world would pay anything to get their hands on Saddam?s arsenal, and there is every possibility that he could turn his weapons over to these terrorists. No one can doubt that if the terrorists of September 11th had had weapons of mass destruction, they would have used them. On September 12, 2002, we can hardly ignore the terrorist threat, and the serious danger that Saddam would allow his arsenal to be used in aid of terror."

"Saddam Hussein?s regime represents a grave threat to America and our allies, including our vital ally, Israel. For more than two decades, Saddam Hussein has sought weapons of mass destruction through every available means. We know that he has chemical and biological weapons. He has already used them against his neighbors and his own people, and is trying to build more. We know that he is doing everything he can to build nuclear weapons, and we know that each day he gets closer to achieving that goal.
Iraq has continued to seek nuclear weapons and develop its arsenal in defiance of the collective will of the international community, as expressed through the United Nations Security Council. It is violating the terms of the 1991 cease-fire that ended the Gulf War and as many as 16 Security Council resolutions, including 11 resolutions concerning Iraq?s efforts to develop weapons of mass destruction.

By ignoring these resolutions, Saddam Hussein is undermining the credibility of the United Nations, openly violating international law, and making a mockery of the very idea of collective action that is so important to the United States and its allies."

How is this different from what Pres. Bush said?

You will NEVER understand it.

You lack the mental capacity for rational thought.

I'm sorry I can no longer help you.

Yeah, it's tough when you're not preaching to the choir, isn't it?

 

[DAPUNISHER]

A politician who lies?!? The hell you say!

 

[happyhelper]

Originally posted by: DonVito
recent spate of silly anti-Edwards threads just clog up the board, inhibiting thoughtful discussion.

Your excellency, you point out the best tool the Bush regime employs in it's efforts to stay alive. It was this tool, the inhibition of thoughtful discussion (and critical thought in general) that caused us to go to Iraq.

Their two best tactics for inhibiting thought are fear and distraction - inhibit thought(ful discussion) with fear, inhibit thought(ful discussion) with distraction. The use of fear to inhibit thought(ful discussions) was extremely effective between late 2001 and early 2003, for some reason (because at that point we were continually told about imminent threats/attacks, I suppose), however that has finally waned. As long as those who believe the Bush lies only see petty arguments and stupid attacks and the same tired and worn party line lies frequently repeated, they will continue to be distracted from finding or thinking about anything close to the truth.

Riprotten is carrying out his master's bidding quite well, whether he knows it or not. It's funny that someone accused us of censorship for wanting the troll removed, when in fact trolling (distracting) can be a type of censorship used to prevent people from reading (or used to make it more difficult to read) what the troll doesn't want other people to read. Kinda like standing in the way of someone who is trying to see something, and continually popping up in the way.

"Why of course the people don't want war. Why should some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war: neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."

(Some Nazi named Goering).

The Nazi omits the reason why it is easy, and why it works the same in any country - telling the people they are being attacked puts them in a state of fear - and being in a state of fear hampers their ability to reason - being incapable of reasoning they follow the orders of whoever is in charge (the leaders). similar to deer in headlights

 

[cain]

he's a motherfvcking liar all right

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Happyhelper:

Well put, and I agree completely (though I'm not sure if I'm meant to feel insulted by being called "your excellency"). The other day I tried to add an excerpt from that very Goehring quote to my sig, as it happens, but was told it had too many characters.

 

[thereaderrabbit]

Riprorin,

As always, your understanding of the political world is dismal, even as you spend most of your time glossing over it. You manage to come across like a horse being lead to water by el-Rush-o (yes, you seem no smarter than a horse and yes, horses shouldn't be drinking with the fine people who enjoy this forum).

<sarcasm> I mean Seriously, I can't believe a politician is going back on his word. Those republicans and democrats have always been the most honest people I've ever met. </sarcasm>

-Reader

 

[burnedout]

Well, his brother is wanted on an 11 year-old drunk driving charge in Colorado.

Link

 

[Chadder007]

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: AcidicFury
Well Riporin, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee, it was clear that Bush and Co. exagerrated the threat to the US. Why don't you read that report?

Edwards - who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee and thus has his own access to our intelligence on Iraq - gave full-throated support for what has become the most controversial justification for the war: that Saddam Hussein?s regime had weapons of mass destruction.

Why aren't you calling Edwards a liar?

The Ownage is strong with this thread.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Chadder007

Originally posted by: Riprorin

Originally posted by: AcidicFury
Well Riporin, according to the Senate Intelligence Committee, it was clear that Bush and Co. exagerrated the threat to the US. Why don't you read that report?

Edwards - who sits on the Senate Intelligence Committee and thus has his own access to our intelligence on Iraq - gave full-throated support for what has become the most controversial justification for the war: that Saddam Hussein?s regime had weapons of mass destruction.

Why aren't you calling Edwards a liar?

The Ownage is strong with this thread.

Ayup...Rip's been owned MANY times over!