I keep hearing both sides (Republican and Democrats) talking about how the other side is lying through its teeth.

You know what?

I believe you both.

What I would like to ask you is which one is telling the truth?

Not some of the time or most of the time, which one is honest. If someone lies or even distorts the truth doesnt it make them dishonest? If that is the case than shouldnt BOTH of them be disqualified? How can you run for president on the grounds that you lie slightly less than the other guy?

Isnt this just one big case of the pot calling the kettle black?

[edit on 12-10-2004 by Amuk]

To me, lying to Congress and the American people about the rationale for a war killing thousands of servicemen and women and innocent civilians is an inexcusable lie, and Bush needs to be brought to justice.

If only i could get a few backers, id love to put a tv show together which would be like the NFL wrap-up....but for politics.

Not to be partisan, but to hold up independant research up to the rhetoric....is essence, raising the bar on politicians by exposing what they are doing on the job and the real issues and figures in the works.
Their voting records, talks about the curent bills in the pipeline etc.
But this needs to be done with flash and pizzaz too or it would be too booring to keep an audience.

on a side note
should i be congratulating you amuk? When did you become a MOD?
Now im worried that there is a hillbilly biker MOD that ive clashed with out there on the loose. (just recalling our vigilante justice discussions)
Im joking of course....so congrats for your promotion?

Originally posted by CazMedia
should i be congratulating you amuk? When did you become a MOD?
Now im worried that there is a hillbilly biker MOD that ive clashed with out there on the loose. (just recalling our vigilante justice discussions)
Im joking of course....so congrats for your promotion?

Thanks

Dont worry I have too much fun tearing your feable arguements to shreds to ban you......LOL

Just kidding Thanks for the congrats, I guess they must have got desperate

Originally posted by MaskedAvatar
To me, lying to Congress and the American people about the rationale for a war killing thousands of servicemen and women and innocent civilians is an inexcusable lie, and Bush needs to be brought to justice.

But the question is which one is honest.

Are you saying Kerry is the honest one or just that Kerry lies less than Bush?

.
What is the most important decision a president makes?
Whether or not to go to war.

Bush lied at the UN about aluminum rocket tubes to get us into war.

58% of the American people didn't think we should go to war with Iraq.

DOE employees were Forbidden from talking to reporters. They could not tell the truth that the aluminum tubes were for rockets and NOT for a centrifuge.

Cheney was told by Saddam's son in law, that the nuclear program had been dismantled. He lied and told us it had been restarted.

TRUTH: This has cost the lives of 20,000 Iraqis and over 1000 Americans.
This has created a haven and breeding ground for terrorists, which it was not before.
Saddam had NEVER given a WMD to a terrorist organization.
North Korea has.
Pakistan has given materials and know-how to Iran, Libya, and North Korea.
Iran has/had many ties to terrorists, overwhelmingly more than Iraq ever did.

edit: spelling

[edit on 13-10-2004 by slank]

.
The difference in my opinion?

Bush will tell Blatant lies to do what he gets it into his head to do. 'Courtesy of his voices perhaps?'

If Kerry lies, I believe he will have the best interest of the American people in his heart. That over the long run is infinitely more important. In the long run I believe he has the courage to level with the American people.

Bush is still Afraid to admit he has made a huge error in Iraq.
.

So I guess we are all in agreement that BOTH are liars?

If no one can come forward and say "my man is honest" than why call the other a liar? No one?

Isnt being kinda honest like being kinda pregenant?

If neither is honest than are we voting for the one that lies the least?
How about the one that lies the best? If both are liars what is the difference? If neither is honest shouldnt you vote for neither?

It seems to me I would have a hundred responses on this considering how both sides claim the other is lying.

[edit on 13-10-2004 by Amuk]

We are talking about politicians here aret we?
I think that lies are expected by the population to come from politicians.
i think that this is why you havnt gotten a bunch of replies...THEY ALL LIE!

The only thing that matters is that the citizens dont hold them accountable
The lies would stop if their term in office was cut short by the people.
(can you say california govenor replacement)?

Why would i expect politicians to stop lying when there is no downside to doing it?

Sounds like saddams belief that nothing was really going to be done about him...he too thought there was no downside to thumbing his nose at the UN sanctions.

Our politicians can learn the hard way like saddam if we choose to remove them from power as well. (im talking thru the democratic process here, not thru revolution)

I dont blame politicians for capitalizing on the leeway the lazy citizen have allowed them. I blame all of us.

Originally posted by Amuk
Whos the honest one Bush or Kerry?

You are talking about politicians here...I dont think that the word truth means anything to any of these people, especially Bush, I second what Masked says about the war. SEE THE LIE PEOPLEs

[edit on 13/10/2004 by earthtone]

There is a saying: Anyone who wants to become a politician should be automatically disqualified.
The idea being if you WANT power there has to be a reason, an alteriour motive if you will.

All people lie. You lie, I lie, everday. Not intentionally, but by the simple fact that we never tell the whole truth. We leave things out. Shaving the value off of the truth is how the world goes round. Your statement precludes any question of who's "the honest one." That's cause he's not standing in either debate podium.

So what does it mean that both presidents lie? It means you either vote on the basis of "lesser of two evils" or vote true to your heart. Weigh this in with a chunk of reality and most choose the lesser of two evils. I am.

I think the real question is, voters, when you vote, who's the honest one? You?

*Sigh* - I was Palmer was up for election ktprktpr....!

Originally posted by CazMedia
We are talking about politicians here aret we?
I think that lies are expected by the population to come from politicians.
i think that this is why you havnt gotten a bunch of replies...THEY ALL LIE!

That is my point.....LOL

I have just grown VERY tired of each side pointing the finger at the other screaming "LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE"

Both of them wouldnt know the truth if it bit them on the ass, so where does EITHER side get off calling the other side a liar? To me if you are gonna accuse the other side of something you should make sure your man isnt JUST as guilty.

If you will notice........

NOT ONE PERSON HAS POSTED THAT THEIR MAN IS HONEST

Even the ones foaming at the mouth at the other sides lies.

Originally posted by ktprktpr
I think the real question is, voters, when you vote, who's the honest one? You?

That is a good question and also the reason I am voting Libertarian and not the lesser of two evils.

To be honest to MYSELF and my beliefs I can not vote any other way.

I respect those voting for either one because they believe in them a HECK of a lot more than those who say I really believe in so-and-so but I must vote the "lesser of two evils"

But it come s down to the question of who the best mna for the job is at the time. There is only one answer: JFK.
I've seen Badnarik in action; quiet frankly, he's Dick Gephart without the party affiliation.
How can we know whom is honest? We can't. Though Kerry has been vetted in everything hurled at him by Team Rove, I can not attest to his honesty because, like you and Badnarik, I don't socialize with him.
Dishonesty, on the other hand, is trackable. It's a matter of public record. Because of that, I strongly feel that there is more than enough information to impeach George Bush.
While Libertarians are very much the champions these days of 'the conscience vote', truth be told, it's an avoidance vote. Looking to 2008, which is what a Badnarik vote is, qualifies as defeatist in my book.
When you can say in the same breath that the policies of Team Rove have endagered the country and they need to be removed BUT I'm voting Badnarik, you've crossed into never-never land.

Mi Dos Centavos.

What I would like to ask you is which one is telling the truth?

NONE OF THE ABOVE....

However, the Kerry camp does LESS stretching of the truth, from a glance at factcheck.org, whereas Bush fought an entire war on a premise we now know as false....

Originally posted by Bout Time
While Libertarians are very much the champions these days of 'the conscience vote', truth be told, it's an avoidance vote. Looking to 2008, which is what a Badnarik vote is, qualifies as defeatist in my book.
When you can say in the same breath that the policies of Team Rove have endagered the country and they need to be removed BUT I'm voting Badnarik, you've crossed into never-never land.

Mi Dos Centavos.

I dont think Kerry is any better than Bush. What you are saying is even though we dont like EITHER of them we must none the less vote for one of the because why? Because you say so?

What you, and most supporters of one of the big two, dont seem to understand is most Libertarians dont want to see EITHER of them in office.
I for one REFUSE to give my vote to someone that I dont think should be in office.

Please explain why I should vote for someone I think is not fit for the office?

I've heard more, from Libs, that Bush absolutely needs to be removed from power, though some on your Team are so for him, I've questioned their candidate allegiance.
It's a case of 'same masters' in your denial of Kerry? Not talking about the parties, but the men as leaders, taking into account the Exec. office of this country's stewardship since 2000, you actually think there's no differene between Kerry & Bush?

And no, employees are the only ones who have to do something because I say so!

Please explain why I should vote for someone I think is not fit for the office?

Lets take a hypothetical family of five.

Mom
Dad
Sis
Bro
Me

We're all deciding where to go out to eat. The choices so far are Pizza Hut or Taco Bell. Others have been suggested, but Mom and Dad have the car, and are paying for it, so the only viable choices are those two.

Mom says Pizza Hut
Dad says Taco Bell
Sis says Pizza Hut
Bro says Taco Bell
You say McDonalds! You don't like Pizza Hut or Taco Bell, but would settle for Taco Bell in a pinch....

McDonalds simply isn't going to happen, yet you keep screaming "McDonalds! McDonalds!" etc.

Dad then acquiesces to Pizza Hut.(equivalent to resolving a tie in an election) Because we now have 3 for Pizza Hut, 1 for Taco Bell, and one for McDonalds....

Now you're stuck with Pizza Hut, despite being "ok" with Taco Bell (and had you voted for Taco Bell, that's where you'd be going).

[edit on 13-10-2004 by Gazrok]