John Edwards is a liar

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
:roll: You people need to get a clue. You'd be all over Bush for something similar yet here you sit claiming Rip is "trolling", infact some of you have infact posted similar things.
Sudheer - if Rip should be "banned" then you should have been gone long ago. Someday maybe you'll be something other than a little bandwagon cheerleader....maybe....someday...

CkG

If a lib called out bush on this matter, he'd rightly be called a troll too. Fair enough?

On this matter? No.
As I said, some here would be bleating about Bush for something similar. There is a difference. Bush isn't in "this matter" but there are similar type things that people here blast Bush about yet sit here calling Rip a troll. I could care less if Edwards "changed his mind" or if he "lied" - my point was they hypocrisy of some who are sitting here blasting Rip.

CkG

 

[OneOfTheseDays]

when we blast Bush their is DEFINITE factual evidence to back up our claims. Rip is merely grasping at straws. That is the difference, and that is why he is a troll. It's nto a Dem. vs. Rep. thing.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
when we blast Bush their is DEFINITE factual evidence to back up our claims. Rip is merely grasping at straws. That is the difference, and that is why he is a troll. It's nto a Dem. vs. Rep. thing.

:roll: There is plenty of "FACTUAL EVIDENCE" to back up Rip's claims too. He used Edwards own words for cripes sakes. So, out of curiosity - where exactly is what Rip posted nonfactual in your opinion? Or is it just that you don't like what his implied opinions and conclusions are?

CkG

 

[EXman]

Originally posted by: conjur
Trollin' trollin' trollin'

takes one to know one! j/k

 

[busmaster11]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
:roll: You people need to get a clue. You'd be all over Bush for something similar yet here you sit claiming Rip is "trolling", infact some of you have infact posted similar things.
Sudheer - if Rip should be "banned" then you should have been gone long ago. Someday maybe you'll be something other than a little bandwagon cheerleader....maybe....someday...

CkG

If a lib called out bush on this matter, he'd rightly be called a troll too. Fair enough?

On this matter? No.
As I said, some here would be bleating about Bush for something similar. There is a difference. Bush isn't in "this matter" but there are similar type things that people here blast Bush about yet sit here calling Rip a troll. I could care less if Edwards "changed his mind" or if he "lied" - my point was they hypocrisy of some who are sitting here blasting Rip.

CkG

That you have to sit here defending a guy who fails to defend his perspective when it gets tough... kinda makes him trollish don't you think?

We all make trollish comments here and there but the guy posted no less than 20 new threads in the last week and a cursory glance shows he never bothered to stick around to defend charges for most of them.

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
when we blast Bush their is DEFINITE factual evidence to back up our claims. Rip is merely grasping at straws. That is the difference, and that is why he is a troll. It's nto a Dem. vs. Rep. thing.

:roll: There is plenty of "FACTUAL EVIDENCE" to back up Rip's claims too. He used Edwards own words for cripes sakes. So, out of curiosity - where exactly is what Rip posted nonfactual in your opinion? Or is it just that you don't like what his implied opinions and conclusions are?

CkG

Don't stoop to his level, Cad. No Presidential candidate admits to being open to a VP slot. Such an admission would instantly kill any chance of winning the nomination. That's simple, obvious human nature and Politics 101.

Further, it may have been true at the time. You don't get where Edwards did by lacking self-confidence. At the time, it is quite possible Edwards was sincerely NOT interested in VP. At that time, he might have been sure he was going to win. That he changed his mind later, after losing the nomination, is hardly remarkable.

Rip is trolling. That's what he does. (He reminds me of Heartsurgeon, only without the gratuitous Clinton attacks and the overflowing hatred.) For you to insist otherwise just discredits you as well.

 

[PatboyX]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
when we blast Bush their is DEFINITE factual evidence to back up our claims. Rip is merely grasping at straws. That is the difference, and that is why he is a troll. It's nto a Dem. vs. Rep. thing.

:roll: There is plenty of "FACTUAL EVIDENCE" to back up Rip's claims too. He used Edwards own words for cripes sakes. So, out of curiosity - where exactly is what Rip posted nonfactual in your opinion? Or is it just that you don't like what his implied opinions and conclusions are?

CkG

Don't stoop to his level, Cad. No Presidential candidate admits to being open to a VP slot. Such an admission would instantly kill any chance of winning the nomination. That's simple, obvious human nature and Politics 101.

Further, it may have been true at the time. You don't get where Edwards did by lacking self-confidence. At the time, it is quite possible Edwards was sincerely NOT interested in VP. At that time, he might have been sure he was going to win. That he changed his mind later, after losing the nomination, is hardly remarkable.

Rip is trolling. That's what he does. (He reminds me of Heartsurgeon, only without the gratuitous Clinton attacks and the overflowing hatred.) For you to insist otherwise just discredits you as well.

well said. (errr...written.)

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
i admit sometimes I do my share of "trolling", but nothing even close to this. Ok maybe not BAN him, but maybe we can have some sort of filter on P&N that blocks all posts created by Rip.

I seriously would enable such a filter the moment it was offered. It would instantly increase the integrity and credibility of the average thread here by 50%.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Sudheer Anne
when we blast Bush their is DEFINITE factual evidence to back up our claims. Rip is merely grasping at straws. That is the difference, and that is why he is a troll. It's nto a Dem. vs. Rep. thing.

:roll: There is plenty of "FACTUAL EVIDENCE" to back up Rip's claims too. He used Edwards own words for cripes sakes. So, out of curiosity - where exactly is what Rip posted nonfactual in your opinion? Or is it just that you don't like what his implied opinions and conclusions are?

CkG

Don't stoop to his level, Cad. No Presidential candidate admits to being open to a VP slot. Such an admission would instantly kill any chance of winning the nomination. That's simple, obvious human nature and Politics 101.

Further, it may have been true at the time. You don't get where Edwards did by lacking self-confidence. At the time, it is quite possible Edwards was sincerely NOT interested in VP. At that time, he might have been sure he was going to win. That he changed his mind later, after losing the nomination, is hardly remarkable.

Rip is trolling. That's what he does. (He reminds me of Heartsurgeon, only without the gratuitous Clinton attacks and the overflowing hatred.) For you to insist otherwise just discredits you as well.

No, I'm specifically asking SA what Rip posted that wasn't factual. There isn't anything that wasn't. You may not agree with his opinion and conclusion(as stated by the title) but the rest was just posting transcripts and statements by edwards.
There is no "level" stooped to and as I said - I don't give a rats ass about whether edwards "lied" or if he "changed his mind" - I'm taking issue with those who are acting hypocritical and now SA who seems to be claiming that Rip isn't posting "factual evidence".
Again, you can try to claim whatever you wish and try to discredit me because you assume I'm saying something says more about you than it does about me. You might try understanding what I post before you go off trying to "discredit" me

CkG

 

[conjur]

It's Rip's intentional misinterpretation of Edwards' words that is the source of his trolling.

Either that or Rip truly is rather ignorant.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: busmaster11

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
:roll: You people need to get a clue. You'd be all over Bush for something similar yet here you sit claiming Rip is "trolling", infact some of you have infact posted similar things.
Sudheer - if Rip should be "banned" then you should have been gone long ago. Someday maybe you'll be something other than a little bandwagon cheerleader....maybe....someday...

CkG

If a lib called out bush on this matter, he'd rightly be called a troll too. Fair enough?

On this matter? No.
As I said, some here would be bleating about Bush for something similar. There is a difference. Bush isn't in "this matter" but there are similar type things that people here blast Bush about yet sit here calling Rip a troll. I could care less if Edwards "changed his mind" or if he "lied" - my point was they hypocrisy of some who are sitting here blasting Rip.

CkG

That you have to sit here defending a guy who fails to defend his perspective when it gets tough... kinda makes him trollish don't you think?

We all make trollish comments here and there but the guy posted no less than 20 new threads in the last week and a cursory glance shows he never bothered to stick around to defend charges for most of them.

Defending? More like calling out the hypocrits who are blasting him. He might be a troll in your opinion but that isn't the argument I've taken up in this thread.

CkG

 

[Shuxclams]

And you call Bush a liar?

Everyday I seem to find more and more proof of it... I think there are many others who are coming to the same conclusion.







The BUSH Administration lied














SHUX

 

[jpeyton]

Am I the only one who thinks Riprorin is pathetic for comparing Edwards pre-primary politicking to Bush's pre-war propaganda; the former lie might make Edwards blush, while the latter was responsible for 3 dead American soldiers yesterday alone.

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Defending? More like calling out the hypocrits who are blasting him. He might be a troll in your opinion but that isn't the argument I've taken up in this thread.

CkG

He's the worst kind of troll. He is obsessive toward his "enemies" (most recently Sen Edwards), and exaggerates and even fabricates what he considers damning information in support of his points. He is an uninformed propagandist, and contributes essentially nothing here of any value.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur
It's Rip's intentional misinterpretation of Edwards' words that is the source of his trolling.

Either that or Rip truly is rather ignorant.

Ah, you don't like his opinions and conclusions so you call him a troll...

figures...

But just out of curiousity - what exactly where is the "intentional misinterpretation" in what he posted? Isn't it more that you think that there are reasons to excuse those statements by edwards when others may not think those excuses are valid? So again, isn't it just you not liking his opinion that makes you call him a troll? Couldn't this be said about you and gaard taking people's(especially the Admin's) statements and twisting them to fit your opinion/conclusion or not allowing "excuses"?

CkG

(bus - this may be construed as "defending" Rip and I don't care if you or anyone else thinks it is - I just think conjur is calling Rip a troll because he doesn't agree with Rips implied opinions or conclusions.)

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Defending? More like calling out the hypocrits who are blasting him. He might be a troll in your opinion but that isn't the argument I've taken up in this thread.

CkG

He's the worst kind of troll. He is obsessive toward his "enemies" (most recently Sen Edwards), and exaggerates and even fabricates what he considers damning information in support of his points. He is an uninformed propagandist, and contributes essentially nothing here of any value.

Maybe he is in your opinion, but again that really isn't the argument I've taken up here.

CkG

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Maybe he is in your opinion, but again that really isn't the argument I've taken up here.

CkG

Perhaps not, but if you'd like I could point you to at least three instances OTOH in which he has posted completely false information about Senator Edwards.

In this instance, I have no cause to question the accuracy of his post, but I think it's laughable he would call Sen Edwards statements "lies" - nobody running for President is going to cheerfully say, if asked, "Uh, sure, I guess I'd like to be VP. Whatever!"

 

[busmaster11]

If Rip is watching, and I'm sure he is...

I would imagine this is quite embarassing for him...

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: conjur
It's Rip's intentional misinterpretation of Edwards' words that is the source of his trolling.

Either that or Rip truly is rather ignorant.

Ah, you don't like his opinions and conclusions so you call him a troll...

figures...

But just out of curiousity - what exactly where is the "intentional misinterpretation" in what he posted? Isn't it more that you think that there are reasons to excuse those statements by edwards when others may not think those excuses are valid? So again, isn't it just you not liking his opinion that makes you call him a troll? Couldn't this be said about you and gaard taking people's(especially the Admin's) statements and twisting them to fit your opinion/conclusion or not allowing "excuses"?

CkG

(bus - this may be construed as "defending" Rip and I don't care if you or anyone else thinks it is - I just think conjur is calling Rip a troll because he doesn't agree with Rips implied opinions or conclusions.)

Intentionally distorting facts to reach a misleading conclusion and then running away when presented with rebuttals and questions is a definition of a troll.

No matter how you slice it, CkG, Riprorin is a troll.

I don't care if his opinions are different from mine but when he intentionally misinterprets statements in order to gain attention, I will call that out. I just don't like to see B.S. spewed forth uncontested.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: busmaster11
If Rip is watching, and I'm sure he is...

I would imagine this is quite embarassing for him...

Oh, I don't know. To me, watching a group of liberal hypocrits exposing their true nature is fvcking Hilarious..

 

[conjur]

yeah...I can see where exposing a troll is funny.






Care to point out where any of the "group of liberal hypocrits" have trolled?

 

[Don Vito Corleone]

Originally posted by: busmaster11
If Rip is watching, and I'm sure he is...

I would imagine this is quite embarassing for him...

You'd think that, but he has been remarkably shameless in the past. In a sense I admire that kind of resistance to criticism - he's like a pop-up punching bag. This would be a good custom avatar for Rip.

What he tends to do, and what I'd expect him to do here, is to ignore all the embarrassing comments (as he tends to pretend not to have read direct factual rebuttals of the fabrications he posts), then to seize on one post, late in the thread, quote it, and say "Typical lib - you can't debate the facts, so you resort to attacking the source," or words to that effect.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DonVito

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Maybe he is in your opinion, but again that really isn't the argument I've taken up here.

CkG

Perhaps not, but if you'd like I could point you to at least three instances OTOH in which he has posted completely false information about Senator Edwards.

In this instance, I have no cause to question the accuracy of his post, but I think it's laughable he would call Sen Edwards statements "lies" - nobody running for President is going to cheerfully say, if asked, "Uh, sure, I guess I'd like to be VP. Whatever!"

That may be, but I haven't read them as I've been gone since Thursday and even if that is true - this thread contains exact quotes and factual transcripts from edwards from what I've seen.

Conjur - so your using "Bush - The Green President" in that other thread wasn't a troll? That was a pretty intentional misrepresentation of things - however sarcastic it may have been. I'm just stating that your attempts to call this thread a troll is hypocritical considering the standards you are claiming. You are a troll by the standards you claim this thread is.
I just don't like people like you going around making claims and calling people trolls when you are guilty of similar things and I won't let it get spewed uncontested or un-noted.

CkG

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: conjur
yeah...I can see where exposing a troll is funny.






Care to point out where any of the "group of liberal hypocrits" have trolled?

Already did that earlier. Thank you..


Oh and Don Vito, since you are the one that fanned the fire against Rip, I thought I would find a custom avator for you also. But I can't seem to find one that represents a steaming pile of dog sh!t.

 

[sMiLeYz]

At least Ripporin acknowledges Bush lied. He might have hope yet!