PDA

View Full Version : OMG - Unbiased source says KERRY IS A FUCKING LIAR!!!



Parkbandit
10-25-2004, 08:31 PM
You can find this on Unbiased Source (http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_102504/content/truth_detector.guest.html)
:

Integrity, Integrity, Integrity?
Kerry Caught In Two More Lies

October 25, 2004


RUSH: I want to go back to the third debate in St. Louis. John Kerry made a statement during that debate on October 8th. This was it.

KERRY: This president hasn't listened. I went to meet with members of the Security Council in the week before we voted. I went to New York. I talked to all of them to find out how serious they were about really holding Saddam Hussein accountable. I came away convinced that if we worked at it, if we were ready to work at letting Hans Blix do his job and thoroughly go through the inspections, that if push came to shove, they'd be there with us.

RUSH: "UN ambassadors from several nations are now disputing assertions by Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry that he met for hours with all members of the UN Security Council just a week before voting in October 2002 to authorize the use of force in Iraq." He did not meet with all of them. He did not. Remember the story he told about his mother? Let's relive that story.


KERRY: If I could just say a word about a woman that you didn't ask about, but my mom passed away a couple years ago, and just before I was deciding to run, and she was in the hospital, and I went in to talk to her and tell her what I was thinking of doing and she looked at me from her hospital bed and she just looked at me and she said, "Remember: integrity, integrity, integrity." Those are the three words that she left me with.

RUSH: Sounds like Mr. Kerry is admitting his mother knew him pretty well. She had to remind him three times to use "integrity, integrity, integrity," and he still is having trouble doing so. He out-and-out lied in the debate on October the 8th in St. Louis in which he said that he had gone to New York, he talked to all of the Security Council members prior to his October 2002 vote. He did not. (story)

"U.N. ambassadors from several nations are disputing assertions by Democratic presidential candidate Sen. John Kerry that he met for hours with all members of the U.N. Security Council... Speaking before the Council on Foreign Relations in New York in December 2003, Mr. Kerry explained that he understood the 'real readiness' of the United Nations to 'take this seriously' because he met 'with the entire Security Council, and we spent a couple of hours talking about what they saw as the path to a united front in order to be able to deal with Saddam Hussein.' But of the five ambassadors on the Security Council in 2002 who were reached directly for comment, four said they had never met Mr. Kerry. The four also said that no one who worked for their countries' U.N. missions had met with Mr. Kerry either. The former ambassadors who said on the record they had never met Mr. Kerry included the representatives of Mexico, Colombia and Bulgaria. The ambassador of a fourth country gave a similar account on the condition that his country not be identified.

"A U.S. official with intimate knowledge of the Security Council's actions in fall of 2002 said that he was not aware of any meeting Mr. Kerry had with members of the panel. An official at the U.S. mission to the United Nations remarked: 'We were as surprised as anyone when Kerry started talking about a meeting with the Security Council.' Jean-David Levitte, then France's chief U.N. representative and now his country's ambassador to the United States, said through a spokeswoman that Mr. Kerry did not have a single group meeting as the senator has described, but rather several one-on-one or small-group encounters."

Kerry did not meet with the Security Council. They're out there denying that he did, and this, folks, is something you have to just put this in your pipe and smoke it. He's lying about a number of things throughout this campaign. He's flip-flopping all over the place. If you don't like the word 'lying,' he's misstating. He's forgetting. He's misleading. I don't care what you want to say, but to me this is an out-and-out lie when he said he met with the members of the Security Council and didn't.

He also is famous for saying that he sat 30 yards away at the 1986 World Series in Shea Stadium when Bill Buckner blew a ground ball; let it roll between his legs. Kerry has spoken often of the agony that he personally witnessed. The problem is he wasn't there. He was in Boston. He was at the World Trade Center in Boston for a meeting and fund-raiser with other Massachusetts Democrats. He was not in Shea Stadium in 1986 during Game 6 of the World Series between the Red Sox and the Mets! He did not meet with members of the UN Security Council. He cannot get France and Germany into our alliance; they've already said they're not going to come. The man is not operating with "integrity, integrity, integrity." You can't count on what the man says.

Ravenstorm
10-25-2004, 08:38 PM
Yes, he lied. Damn politicians. Can't trust any of them.

Raven

Ilvane
10-25-2004, 08:42 PM
:yawn:

We could post all of Bush's lies, but that might take a while.

-A

Parkbandit
10-25-2004, 08:43 PM
Originally posted by Ravenstorm
Yes, he lied. Damn politicians. Can't trust any of them.

Raven

Yes.. it's funny though.. if it were Bush.. you would be making a far bigger deal out of it.

Such is life here with you and your hypocite liberals. If Kerry fucks up.. "He's only human!" If Bush fucks up.. "LOOK HE IS THE ANTI-FUCKING CHRIST! WE SHOULD KILL HIM NOW BEFORE HE TURNS THE US INTO A DICTATORSHIP!"

:rolleyes:

DeV
10-25-2004, 08:52 PM
Bush is only human as is Kerry. Bush has fucked up far more than Kerry has had the chance to. That's the route I'm taking.

Wezas
10-25-2004, 08:52 PM
Edine will be heartbroken that you cracked this RL story before he did.

He's the president of the Rush Limbaugh fanclub.

http://members.cox.net/legendwezas/dave.jpg

Axhinde
10-25-2004, 08:53 PM
Sounds like a good idea to me PB.

Parkbandit
10-25-2004, 08:53 PM
LMAO.. I may not like your political views Wezas.. but you certainly make me laugh.

nice Printshop. :)

Wezas
10-25-2004, 08:56 PM
Originally posted by Parkbandit
LMAO.. I may not like your political views Wezas.. but you certainly make me laugh.

nice Printshop. :)

It was done back in May or so, but I found it.

Seran
10-25-2004, 08:57 PM
You're naming Rush Limbaugh and unbiased source? Hahaha..

And Dick Cheney is unbiased when it comes to corporate gifts.

Parkbandit
10-25-2004, 08:57 PM
Originally posted by DarkelfVold
Bush is only human as is Kerry. Bush has fucked up far more than Kerry has had the chance to. That's the route I'm taking.

God.. I am good. It's like I was reading your mind.

I am concerned though.. if Kerry would lie about something as trivial as being at a World Series game.. what else would he lie about? Especially since it was so easy to figure out where he actually was.. so he's not even a GOOD liar.

:?:

TheRoseLady
10-25-2004, 08:59 PM
:heart: Wezas

Warriorbird
10-25-2004, 09:01 PM
All politicians are liars, Parkbandit.

Parkbandit
10-25-2004, 09:01 PM
Originally posted by Seran
You're naming Rush Limbaugh and unbiased source? Hahaha..

And Dick Cheney is unbiased when it comes to corporate gifts.

It's as unbiased as the other sites I see posted here all the time.. like Salon.com and reuters.com

Obviously I was being sarcastic though... sorry you didn't get it.

Parkbandit
10-25-2004, 09:02 PM
Originally posted by Warriorbird
All politicians are liars, Parkbandit.

heh.. I should look for a Bush lie.. post it under a new user name and see the outrage posts from the Liberals here.

DeV
10-25-2004, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by DarkelfVold
Bush is only human as is Kerry. Bush has fucked up far more than Kerry has had the chance to. That's the route I'm taking.

God.. I am good. It's like I was reading your mind.

I am concerned though.. if Kerry would lie about something as trivial as being at a World Series game.. what else would he lie about? Especially since it was so easy to figure out where he actually was.. so he's not even a GOOD liar.

:?: Reading my mind, eh. Bet you couldn't guess what I'm thinking about now. And to answer your questions, hopefully we'll get a chance to see. Bush successfully lied about a major fuckin' war. I mean, if that doesn't count for anything I don't know what does.

P.S. Yes, you have shown us the light, PB. For thank, we salute you. :cheers: Kerry is a big fat liar.

Ravenstorm
10-25-2004, 09:21 PM
Originally posted by Parkbandit
Yes.. it's funny though.. if it were Bush.. you would be making a far bigger deal out of it.

Gee, are you calling me partisan? Mea culpa.

I'll say this though... If thousands of people had been killed because of Kerry's lie? I'd certainly be making a bigger stink about it. One more lie in this campaign is nothing. Just go to factcheck for a very tiny list of them for both candidates.

My sig is still the Stevenson one right? I have them turned off.

Oh, and when did Reuters become liberal? Since they don't spin like Fox? Supply a list of unbiased sources and I'll be sure to reference them when I post.

Raven

[Edited on 10-26-2004 by Ravenstorm]

TheRoseLady
10-25-2004, 09:29 PM
Originally posted by Ravenstorm

Oh, and when did Reuters become liberal?

When Arkans said so. :lol:

StrayRogue
10-25-2004, 09:33 PM
Wait, a republican, who supports Bush, an already confirmed liar on a great manner of important and world changing things, is calling out on Kerry? Erm...

Ravenstorm
10-25-2004, 09:37 PM
I've had an epiphany! I just realized what makes a news agency "liberal".

If a paper has the nerve to look into a story that could possibly paint Bush in a negative light, it's dubbed "liberally biased". It doesn't matter if every single fact of the story is true or not. They dared to investigate a story that might make Bush and/or the right wing look bad.

Raven

Hulkein
10-25-2004, 09:42 PM
News Flash, multiple independant commissions have come to the conclusion that Bush didn't purposely mislead/lie about war. If all you have against him for being a liar is debunked than you're losing it.

DeV
10-25-2004, 09:49 PM
Perhaps the multiple independant commisions should have done the initial investigations on Iraq posessing WMD, which led to the start of the war and which was the only leg Bush had to stand on proving war was the last resort. I don't see anything being debunked except for his former "half-truths".

Ravenstorm
10-25-2004, 09:56 PM
I'll just point out Bush's continual lies of 'everything is going fine in Iraq' as more than enough evidence. Oh, and everything cited on factcheck too as I already mentioned.

And here's another liberal rag that can now be discounted (though they aren't a news agency): New Yorker magazine for the first time in its 80 year history has decided to endorse a presidential candidate. Yes, they picked Kerry. I guess they won't be printing any columns by Rush from now on.

Raven

xtc
10-25-2004, 11:40 PM
I saw the same story on a Canadian news outlet that is usually quite liberal. I think CNN ran it as well.

At least he didn't say he invented the internet like Gore.

Kerry did meet some members of the security council in an informal meeting not all of them. So it is an exageration not a lie.

10-26-2004, 12:14 AM
Wait, when a news agency decides to endorse a canditate they can still be non-biased? You've got to be kidding me.

- Arkans

Warriorbird
10-26-2004, 12:26 AM
Yeah. You'll just quote them more then.

10-26-2004, 12:31 AM
Honestly, a media outlet that has a political slant is one that writes about more negatives about a canidate than others. This can be seen in a lot of the sources you libs love posting on here.

- Arkans

Ravenstorm
10-26-2004, 12:37 AM
New Yorker magazine isn't a news agency. It just happened to come ot my attention while this thread was active and it was as good a place to mention it as any.

To respond to the issue though... Considering your question, I think you can be unbiased and still endorse a candidate. Being biased means you'll immediately consider something in either a good or bad light depending on what your bias is. But it is certainly possible to report issues fairly and accurately even if you've made a decision on who you think will make a better President. They just need to do the same thing any other news agency does: not write with a slant. Also, try to give equal time and make sure what they report is a real issue.

Further, a reporting journalist doesn't necessarily share the same views of the agency. One could support Kerry even though his paper endorsed Bush. And if his articles are published, unedited so as not to change the story, how does the endorsement come into play? It doesn't.

That's all idealistic of course. But it is possible and probably happens to some degree; more than the reverse case where an endorsement immediately makes it impossible to get a "good" story out for the other candidate. I'm fairly certain that Bush's hometown paper isn't suddenly bashing everything he does despite it endorsing Kerry this election and the threats that prompted. Then again, they might be.


Originally posted by Arkans
This can be seen in a lot of the sources you libs love posting on here.

And unlike all the ones the conservatives love to cite. I'd be curious to see your list of what you consider an unbiased site.

Raven

[Edited on 10-26-2004 by Ravenstorm]

10-26-2004, 12:41 AM
Having endorsed a canidate and not writing with a bias is really a ideological way of thinking. It would be great if that could happen, but I think we can all be upfront about that it doesn't happen. The same goes for us. We all have our preferred canidate and I won't see you, Raven, posting positives for Bush, just as I won't be posting anything positive about Kerry.

- Arkans

Slider
10-26-2004, 03:48 AM
well, I think that FactCheck.org would be a good example of an un-biased sight.

Here's a look at John Kerry's record in the Senate.

http://www.factcheck.org/article134.html

Yup, he's "'leading the fight" all right.

Warriorbird
10-26-2004, 06:31 AM
Heh heh. I think it proves my point about politicians. Bush sure doesn't look wonderful either.

TheRoseLady
10-26-2004, 06:33 AM
Originally posted by Slider
well, I think that FactCheck.org would be a good example of an un-biased sight.

Here's a look at John Kerry's record in the Senate.

http://www.factcheck.org/article134.html

Yup, he's "'leading the fight" all right.


:yawn:

Let me guess, next you'll call him the most liberal flip-flopper right? I prefer to actually look at the record of the sitting president who has had 4 years and a Repub Congress to see how we're really "leading the fight". What? You don't want to talk about Bush's record during his presidency? I'm sorry, I know, you just want to talk about how Kerry was ineffectual in the Senate and that he is a horse-faced flip flopper.

Soon it will all be over, but you still have time to go sit and boo and cheer on cue at a rally. :D

TheRoseLady
10-26-2004, 06:35 AM
Originally posted by Warriorbird
Heh heh. I think it proves my point about politicians. Bush sure doesn't look wonderful either.

It's the liberal media again! They have even infiltrated factcheck.org :lol:

Slider
10-26-2004, 09:54 AM
RoseLady, in case I haven't made it perfectly clear in my posts before this....I do not like Bush, I do not like his policies since the end of the war, I personally think that his handling of the aftermath of the war have been, as I have stated in the past, moronic at best. I am not now, nor have I ever been a member of the Republican Party, and again, I plan on voting for neither of these idiots come Election day. Is that clear enough for you? Or do you require further clarification? Perhaps smaller words?

I will however continue to point out fallacies, lies, and the sheer ignorance of people when it comes to some of the bullshit posted on these boards.

I did NOT call him a flip-flopping Liberal, I merely pointed out that HE has said that he is "Leading the fight", yet his record does not support this. Now if you have some evidence to the contrary, some method of pointing out that the facts as put forth in that article are untrue, feel free to post them, I will be more than happy to veiw them. But untill then, please refrain from putting words into my mouth.

[Edited on 10-26-2004 by Slider]

10-26-2004, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by Wezas
Edine will be heartbroken that you cracked this RL story before he did.

He's the president of the Rush Limbaugh fanclub.

http://members.cox.net/legendwezas/dave.jpg

you know I am thinking about joining his RUSH 24/7 website :wink:

xtc
10-26-2004, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
Yes, he lied. Damn politicians. Can't trust any of them.

Raven

Yes.. it's funny though.. if it were Bush.. you would be making a far bigger deal out of it.

Such is life here with you and your hypocite liberals. If Kerry fucks up.. "He's only human!" If Bush fucks up.. "LOOK HE IS THE ANTI-FUCKING CHRIST! WE SHOULD KILL HIM NOW BEFORE HE TURNS THE US INTO A DICTATORSHIP!"

:rolleyes:

Naw Bush isn't the Anti-Christ. The Anti Christ is going to come out of the EU as the Prince of Peace. He will bring peace to the world, don't you ever watch Jack Van Impe?

http://www.jvim.com/

Latrinsorm
10-26-2004, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by Ravenstorm
I think you can be unbiased and still endorse a candidate.Like me and PB, right? :)

Parkbandit
10-26-2004, 01:02 PM
I wouldn't consider myself to be unbiased... I would consider myself to be more objective than most though.

I'm voting for a candidate.. that in itself makes me biased. I've obviously decided which candidate would make a better President.