Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: BlackDog777 who wrote (618736)	9/6/2004 1:06:05 PM
From: Kevin Rose	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

Are you simply deceiving yourself, or do you really believe what you post? Lie #1: You say: She's only quoting what was in Kerry's book. She even mentions that the Kerry campaign spinners are saying the "we" means Kerry's men, not him. Dubious language choice on Kerrys' part regardless...pretty convenient excuse. No lie here from Coulter. She said: Among the eyewitnesses who say Kerry came under no enemy fire on Dec. 2, 1968, is John Kerry himself. There is the lie, right in your face. John Kerry never said that he was not under fire in the first PH. Coulter assumes that through an incorrect leap of illogic, or maybe a blatant lack of understanding of the English language. Kerry's quote of "we hadn't been shot at" clearly refers to Kerry and his crew. That was a true statement that in no way indicates that Kerry was never shot at in a different setting with different personnel. Lie #2: You said: Again, she is only using direct quotes that are from the Kerry's own people. There are discrepancies between accounts mentioned by Rassman & Brinkley. She only points these out. No lie here...Geeeesh. She said: In his Kerry campaign pamphlet, "Tour of Duty," hagiographer Brinkley resolves the conflicting accounts by having Rassman fall off both the boat that hit the mine (PCF-3) and Kerry's boat. (What would we do without historians?) Did you even bother reading what I originally wrote, or do you share Coulter's lack of English expertise? Coulter is saying that in "Tour of Duty", there are conflicting accounts of which boat Rassman fell off of. That is a lie. I have the book; check pages 314-315. Lie #3 You said: How can she lie when she asks a question? Did you see that hook thing at the end of the sentence? How come none of those guys got Bronze Stars? This is a question, not a statement of fact. She may have been unaware of Mr. Lambert...this whole swiftboat mess is a ever-changing debacle. Thurlow got pulled out huh?...isn't that the same guy who said there wasn't any enemy fire from the banks of the river? It's nice to see him being used as a reference when it suits you, but he's a big liar otherwise. There is no Coulter lie here either. She said: How come none of those guys got Bronze Stars? That is the lie, even if it is in the form of a question. If you say, "How come Bush likes little boys?", is that the truth? Or, do you think that all lies magically become truths by ending them with a question mark? Lambert did get a Bronze Star, specifically for pulling someone (Thurlow) out of the river. Was Coulter unaware? The Goddess of Research, the one that you guys are sooo amazed at because she includes...gasp...end notes? It's nice to see that you don't read much, either, you'd see that Lambert, who does NOT support Kerry, says that Thurlow was wrong about there not being enemy fire, and that Thurlow was 'too distracted' with the rescure of PCF-3 to say there was no fire. So, there it is. Not only Coulter's lies, but your lies in trying to cover them. Of course, maybe you're not lying; maybe your understanding of the English language is quite what it should be. Which is it?