Bush supporters' aftermath thread II

No offense, Tico, but I'm not interested in arguing the point with ya; I understand there are certain factors which prevent you from being honest about the situation and force you to nitpick.

Quote:

I don't think our troops ought to be used for what's called nation building. I think our troops ought to be used to fight and win war.
Source: Presidential Debate at Wake Forest University Oct 11, 2000

Cycloptichorn

"The British government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa."

State of the Union Address - 1/28/2003

No offense, Tico, but I'm not interested in arguing the point with ya; I understand there are certain factors which prevent you from being honest about the situation and force you to nitpick.

What, exactly, is the evidence being found now showing that Bush didn't knowingly mislead about WMD in Iraq?

I have plenty of evidence to show you that he and his team did; ...

As for the previous issue, he may still think that way, but world events have made him go against what he believes.

On Jan. 19, 1992 Bill Clinton said, "I want to make it very clear that this middle-class tax cut, in my view, is central to any attempt we're going to make to have a short-term economic strategy."

But on Jan. 14, 1993 at a press conference, Bill Clinton said, "From New Hampshire forward, for reasons that absolutely mystified me, the press thought the most important issue in the race was the middle-class tax cut. "I never did meet any voter who thought that.

Also, you seem to use the 'belief' card a lot. Bush believed something was true, therefore, he didn't lie about it because he thought he was telling the truth. A conveinent out for your boy, as it is easy to understand the fact that he doesn't know what the hell is going on, and therefore can't be held responsible for the things coming out of his mouth, because he thought he was telling the truth. I don't buy it.

Cycloptichorn

Sigh. I'm not interested in your petty personal attacks today, Tico. What the hell is your problem, anyways? You're usually so much more highbrow than that.

I suspect it's the fact that it's looking like neither the NSA nor the Plame case are going to go the way you've argued, and it's got your panties in a bunch. But who knows?

Cycloptichorn

In that case, the first lie listed by Clinton is also invalidated; he believed he did remember Black churches burning, even though it never really happened; therefore, he wasn't lying.

Cycloptichorn

There is no lie there?

Quote:

There is no lie there?

No. Do I need to write it out for you again?

Just because middle-class tax cuts are a vital part of his economic strategy, that doesn't mean that they were the most important part of his campaign, and he claims he never met anyone who thought they were.

Where is the contradiction, exactly? Point it out for me or find another example to serve in it's place.

Cycloptichorn

On Jan. 19, 1992 Bill Clinton said, "I want to make it very clear that this middle-class tax cut, in my view, is central to any attempt we're going to make to have a short-term economic strategy."

But on Jan. 14, 1993 at a press conference, Bill Clinton said, "From New Hampshire forward, for reasons that absolutely mystified me, the press thought the most important issue in the race was the middle-class tax cut. "I never did meet any voter who thought that.

On Jan. 19, 1992 Bill Clinton said, "I want to make it very clear that this middle-class tax cut, in my view, is central to any attempt we're going to make to have a short-term economic strategy."

But on Jan. 14, 1993 at a press conference, Bill Clinton said, "From New Hampshire forward, for reasons that absolutely mystified me, the press thought the most important issue in the race was the middle-class tax cut. "I never did meet any voter who thought that.

Heh, ALL the news that has come out lately points against your position in both cases. But don't take my word for it; go read the threads yourself.

I am not a robot, nor a device specifically tuned to claim that everything Bush says or has done is wrong or a lie. Therefore it is misrepresentative of you to claim that I believe that this is the case, or to imply that I have no ability to objectively tell what is a lie and what isn't. I think I've been more than fair in the game so far and I feel your criticisms are unwarranted; the lies I have presented by Bush are at least as provable as the ones presented by Clinton, yet I don't see you upbraiding McG for the same behavior. Because you are a partisan. That's fine, but at least have the decency to admit it out loud, and stop giving me a hard time for also being partisan; you do yourself a disservice by doing so.

Did Clinton lie about the Black churches? Yes, he probably did, the same way that Bush probably lied about a lot of things that you will claim he 'believed' were true. You have no way of knowing what someone really 'believes' down deep, therefore, the only two ways to judge the lie are:

1, to prove that the liar had or didn't have prior knowledge that his position was fallacious, or

2, failing the ability to prove that knowledge due to a lack of access to the situation, judge the accuracy of the statement, no matter what the 'belief' is.

No, there is no objective way to know whether someone actually 'believes' something or not. It is far better to look at the objective reality of the situation in order to form judgements of truth.

Cycloptichorn

Dems' attempted hostile takeover of national security

By David Limbaugh

Feb 28, 2006

In their opportunistic opposition to the Dubai Ports World takeover of commercial container operations at six major U.S. ports, Democrats aren't just reversing themselves on so-called "racial profiling" but on their phony condemnation of President Bush for allegedly shattering our alliances in the War on Terror.

Since 9/11, Democrats have railed against any hint of profiling, even for national security reasons. Liberal political correctness is the intangible, misguided moralistic force that has demanded that airport baggage checkers scrutinize blue-haired Caucasian ladies as readily as, if not more so than, young Middle Eastern male adults. Yet, there's no other conceivable explanation for their objection to the alleged transfer of "foreign control" over these ports than that the transferee company is Arab.

The Democrats' opposition, as distinguished from the differently motivated opposition from some on the right, has also demonstrated their wholesale hypocrisy in having castigated President Bush for all these years for his supposedly ham-handed approach to international diplomacy and turning otherwise peaceful Muslims into homicidal terrorists. So, in one fell swoop, they've done an about-face on their positions on both profiling and alienating our allies in the War on Terror.

But there is a method to the Democrats' madness. Whatever principles the Democrats have, even those most unattractive ones leading to their appeasement orientation, they're always for sale if the price -- the reacquisition of political power -- is right.

They're obviously calculating that their betrayal of these principles is necessary to portray themselves as the stronger party on national security.

Because, make no mistake, the Democrats recognize that national security has been their foremost obstacle to recapturing the White House. Hillary Clinton asserted as much in no uncertain terms just last week, and she is, after all, the putative Democratic presidential nominee for 2008.

The Democrats' condemnation of the ports transfer, then, is just one more in their long line of pathetic attempts to break up the Republicans' perceived monopoly on national defense.

....