Kendra17
"Kendra17" is a consortium of political analysts a
- Joined
- Jun 24, 2004
- Messages
- 1,919
Originally posted by bsears
It is also noteworthy that someone felt the need to immediately turn this into an anti Kerry thread. So typical....yeah, so what if he lied, Kerry lied too nanner nanner. Apparently they did not notice that posters said if Kerry had lied he was wrong. But here you all are, defending the indefensible once again. I just don't get why every single thing has to be defended. Do the republicans, like their leader, never make a mistake? I guess I just answered my own question as to why someone would do something like this. Because they know they can get away with it simply because some will defend what they say and do no matter what.
No, that's not why. It's because the attacks the Liberals make seem just groundless to me. . .almost always.
Like this one. Arnold "lied". Is that not a far jump? Would it be more prudent to ask the man to clarify that rather than conclude he had "lied". A falsehood told intentionally is different than misstating something or stating something ambiguously.
What happened, imo, is that he did so well making that speech, that someone found a statement that wasn't clear, and then stated he lied, rather than point out that there might have been errors in his speech. Socialism in Europe is not the same as Communism. He may have exaggerated, but he may have been just explaining things the way he sees them. That makes it, "a lie".
Democrats have been saying that Bush lies all the time. He hasn't LIED. Lie is a strong word, and implies intention.
Kerry, in fact, has lied about many things. And, if they were mistakes, rather than lies, he's had opportunities to clear it up, but hasn't.