Jeb Bush for prez "08"

and you don't think mis direction and spinning of facts satisfies the criteria of intent to deceive?

0 Replies

Sure. Democrats do it all the time. :wink:

0 Replies

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

So we can say that a lie undergoes some sort of metamorphosis when uttered by a politician, especially one who you feel represents your view and therefore you like, into mis-direction, spinning of the facts withholding facts.

A lie by any other name is not still a lie is what I gather from that statement. Which would mean that realty is subjective and therefore laws are not necessary.

Sometimes people know what is right but they do not do it... Some do not know wrong from right. Some know what is right and do it. Sometimes to do wrong is to do right and to do right to to do wrong..

Who will guide us?

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

blueveinedthrobber wrote:
So we can say that a lie undergoes some sort of metamorphosis when uttered by a politician, especially one who you feel represents your view and therefore you like, into mis-direction, spinning of the facts withholding facts.

A lie by any other name is not still a lie is what I gather from that statement. Which would mean that realty is subjective and therefore laws are not necessary.

Sometimes people know what is right but they do not do it... Some do not know wrong from right. Some know what is right and do it. Sometimes to do wrong is to do right and to do right to to do wrong..

Who will guide us?

Another UFO sighting.

0 Replies

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

RexRed wrote:
blueveinedthrobber wrote:
So we can say that a lie undergoes some sort of metamorphosis when uttered by a politician, especially one who you feel represents your view and therefore you like, into mis-direction, spinning of the facts withholding facts.

A lie by any other name is not still a lie is what I gather from that statement. Which would mean that realty is subjective and therefore laws are not necessary.

Sometimes people know what is right but they do not do it... Some do not know wrong from right. Some know what is right and do it. Sometimes to do wrong is to do right and to do right to to do wrong..

Who will guide us?

Another UFO sighting.

Another insult without a point. I can sling insults too but I am above that. I don't need to insult your intelligence to converse.

0 Replies

Jesse Jackson's response to the Schindler's invitation to visit was certainly an interesting turn of events. Baptists, Catholics and Jesse Jackson. A lively mix, to be sure.

0 Replies

According to the dictionary then, Bush is a gigantic liar.

You see, he talked about WMD many times while ignoring the evidence against what he was saying that he WAS presented. He did this to decieve the American public into supporting his case for war against Iraq.

Untrue statements with the intent to decieve, just like you said.

Predictably someone is going to come back and say 'he didn't know they were untrue at the time,' which is bullsh*t. They knew. Just look at the Valerie Plame case and the 'liquidization of those who didn't support the president's objectives' in the CIA if you need evidence of that.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I wonder if Jesse's visit is tied to the doctor in Texas that killed a young black woman's baby. The doctor said it was sick and had a disease and needed to die so he killed it. This is of course is perfectly legal too according to the "law". Just like the judges in Florida that ordered them to murder Terry. God only knows how many doctors and judges end peoples lives in America without the family or anyone else really even knowing...

0 Replies

I'm not insulting you or your intelligence. I am merely stating that I find your post incredulous. For the record, I dont know you well enough to make a judgement on your intelligence nor would I assume to, so I will err on the side of inelligence.

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

Jesse Jackson's response to the Schindler's invitation to visit was certainly an interesting turn of events. Baptists, Catholics and Jesse Jackson. A lively mix, to be sure.

That is an interesting mix. You can f### an altar boy or father an unwed child as long as you're not dancing while you're doing it. Razz

0 Replies

RexRed wrote:

I wonder if Jesse's visit is tied to the doctor in Texas that killed a young black woman's baby. The doctor said it was sick and had a disease and needed to die so he killed it. This is of course is perfectly legal too according to the "law". ...

The law brought in by our dear friend, George W.

You'd think that if Jesse was interested in that case, he'd be visiting with Sun's mother, not the Schindler's.

0 Replies

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

I'm not insulting you or your intelligence. I am merely stating that I find your post incredulous. For the record, I dont know you well enough to make a judgement on your intelligence nor would I assume to, so I will err on the side of inelligence.

Well the next time you find my post equally or exceedingly "incredulous" please try to articulate a bit more as to what and why you find it as such. That is the least that another reasonably intelligent person can ask.

0 Replies

I will simplify and clarify. As Al Swearingen says "I'm stupidest when I try to be funny."

0 Replies

ehBeth wrote:

RexRed wrote:
I wonder if Jesse's visit is tied to the doctor in Texas that killed a young black woman's baby. The doctor said it was sick and had a disease and needed to die so he killed it. This is of course is perfectly legal too according to the "law". ...

The law brought in by our dear friend, George W.

You'd think that if Jesse was interested in that case, he'd be visiting with Sun's mother, not the Schindler's.

I am sure he should visit the girl in Texas too.. but there are only so many days to soak up the free press with Terry. I must say I am glad he is showing support whatever the motive.

0 Replies

blueveinedthrobber wrote:

I will simplify and clarify. As Al Swearingen says "I'm stupidest when I try to be funny."

Well I was not trying to be funny at that particular moment but it is ok now. But I can be funny too and I do not need things simplified just plain talk and sound reason.

0 Replies

Quote:

You are confusing a time when Jeus was alive (and talking to the Hebrews specifically) with Romans written after Jesus' death (addressed to the world)... as you recall this was right about the time when the Roman empire fell to the Christians?

Rex, I really have to question your biblical scholarship, let alone your history.

Rome was hardly Christian at the time of Paul. Paul probably died in 64 at the hands of Nero. Constantine didn't make Christianity the religion of Rome until 313.

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

According to the dictionary then, Bush is a gigantic liar.

You see, he talked about WMD many times while ignoring the evidence against what he was saying that he WAS] presented. He did this to decieve the American public into supporting his case for war against Iraq.

Untrue statements with the intent to decieve, just like you said.

Predictably someone is going to come back and say 'he didn't know they were untrue at the time,'

While that's true, the larger point is he didn't intend to deceive....

Cyclops wrote:

....which is bullsh*t. They knew. Just look at the Valerie Plame case and the 'liquidization of those who didn't support the president's objectives' in the CIA if you need evidence of that.

You cannot prove knowledge of false statement ... you certainly can't do it by pointing to the Valerie Plame matter as your authority...

0 Replies

Quote:

While that's true, the larger point is he didn't intend to deceive....

You cannot prove either of these points; these are simply your beliefs. You have no proof that he didn't intend to decieve people.

As for the Plame statement, there's a short timeline of what happened:

1. Bush lies about Uranium from Nigeria
2. Joe Wilson says 'you are full of sh*t and three different reports confirm this
3. Bush admin. smears Wilson
4. Bush admin ousts his wife as a secret agent in retaliation

None of those are fabrications, unlike the president's original claim; that's exactly what happened. Did the Bush admin admit their lie? No. They took action to discredit the person who exposed it.

Presenting 'maybes' as 'definately' to the Ameican people is lying, Tico. I know you lawyers don't care about lying but most Americans do; or at least I thought they did....

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
While that's true, the larger point is he didn't intend to deceive....

You cannot prove either of these points; these are simply your beliefs. You have no proof that he didn't intend to decieve people.

As for the Plame statement, there's a short timeline of what happened:

1. Bush lies about Uranium from Nigeria
2. Joe Wilson says 'you are full of sh*t and three different reports confirm this
3. Bush admin. smears Wilson
4. Bush admin ousts his wife as a secret agent in retaliation

None of those are fabrications, unlike the president's original claim; that's exactly what happened. Did the Bush admin admit their lie? No. They took action to discredit the person who exposed it.

Presenting 'maybes' as 'definately' to the Ameican people is lying, Tico. I know you lawyers don't care about lying but most Americans do; or at least I thought they did....

Cycloptichorn

Cyclops, I'm going to ignore your repeated jabs at lawyers, because I know where they're coming from, and I recognize that the fact that you've resorted to that signifies you have lost the argument. I also recognize that you have made another sweeping generalization -- as you are want to do -- and further damaged your credibility in the process.

If you had an ounce of intellectual honesty, you would admit that you cannot prove your allegations, and are merely stating your beliefs ... a practice you accuse me of. Beyond that, you ask me to prove he didn't intend to deceive. Ridiculous.

You have also misspelled the word "deceive" a couple of times now, so I no longer think it is merely a typo.

0 Replies

I guess I will claim I've won the argument as well, as you've decided to decline to respond to any of my points further. I suppose my frustration with you in this conversation starts and ends with this paragraph:

The other is an off-the-cuff remark uttered by Bush during a debate with zero advance planning. He stated "I just don't think," which on the one hand states his position that he doesn't think he said those words. It could certainly have been a truthful statement (putting aside for the moment the fact that he never did utter those exact words) if he did not recall having said on that prior occasion that he was "not that concerned about" bin Laden. That's not even getting into the possible nuances of the context of his 3/13/02 statement. You cannot show an intent to mislead.

Here is where you tell me that because Bush said, 'I truly am not that concerned about him,' he could say honestly that 'I never said I wasn't worried about OBL.' Not that concerned and not worried mean are analagous, and it's only a minor technical point that the two phrases are not exactly the same. The intent is the same in both cases.

I don't see how you think that a question asked to Bush while he is talking to the press is an 'off-the cuff' comment. Surely we don't have to wait for official written documents in order to find out what the opinion of the President is.

Here's where you tell me that Bush wasn't properly prepared for a question about the #1 Enemy of America, the one who he said this about :

'"The most important thing is for us to find Osama bin Laden. It is our number one priority and we will not rest until we find him.'
- 9/13/01

Note how much time has passed in between the two quotes. Just 6politician?

And thank you for pointing out that I mis-spelled the word Deceive; I hadn't noticed.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Jeb Bush for prez "08"

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know