President Bush: Is He a Liar?

Re: President Bush: Is He a Liar?

Amigo wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

What I ask is that anyone who wishes to show that he does lie state in each post:

1. A single quotation of the President's which is a lie
2. A bit of evidence, or an argument to demonstrate that it's a lie.

This thread is going to crash the site.

Perhaps you would like to contribute a few instances of lying.

0 Replies

Well. Mr. Drew Dad--- It appears that most of the posters on this site who talk about the President lying cannot or do not read the posts I have made on lying. Perhaps their abilities can extend only to misspellings. So I will try it on you, sir.

Can you take the legal definition of lying( I have posted it several times) and apply it to anything the President has said? If you can, do it. If you cannot, confine your comments to commenting on my depiction of misspelllings.

I am very much afraid that some of the posts I make are too taxing for some.

I have given evidence that President Clinton admitted lying. President Bush has not. Now, Drew Dad, it is up to those who charge the President with lying to show that he lied.

Lie----Black's Law Dictionary--A falsehood uttered for the purposes of deception; an intentional statement of an untruth designed to deceive another.

If you know anything about law, Drewdad,you know that the charge of lying must prove that it is uttered for the purposes of deception. You PROVE that the president has done that and I will agree that he lied.

0 Replies

Quote:

Perhaps you would like to contribute a few instances of lying.

Brandon, since the inception of the thread, you haven't contributed a goddamned thing. So why even say something like this? There's no reason, other than to further demonstrate that you don't have the balls to answer any of the allegations, but instead sit upon a high horse of superiority; 'I don't have to answer any of the allegations, but I can chide someone for not making them.' Right.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Answer what allegations?

The statement that President Bush is a liar calls for proof. You obviously are not aware of the legal definition of a lie.

Go ahead- state an allegation of lying, Cycloptichorn.

I will respond that your allegation requires that there is PROOF that the alleged "falsehood" was uttered for the PURPOSES OF DECEPTION>

It is obvious that you have little experience with legal definitions.

It is very easy to make charges. On another thread, someone charged that Hillary Rodham Clinton was a lesbian. An easy charge to make since several of her college room mates were overt lesbians, but there was no PROOFgiven.

I await YOUR proof concerning President Bush's lies- Proof that conforms to the legal definition of lying, of course!!

0 Replies

Screw you, Mortkat. I stopped talking to you ages ago.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

A stunning reply--to ?. I must say that in my opinion, it shows Cyclopitchorn's utter inablity to counter an argument which crushes his puerile attempts at argument.

Thank you for the assertion of your ineptitude. Anyone else?

As Cyrano DeBergerac commented in his famous challenge at the Hotel De Bourgogne--

"Approach, I will take your names, each in his turn, no crowding.To the first man who falls I will build a monument.

Monument to Cyclopitchorn

Alas, Poor Cyclopitchorn, like Polyphemus,he fell

But the reason for his early demise

is not for me to tell. Some say he was enraged,

others say perturbed. Whatever the cause of his

sudden flight, it is clear his tongue is curbed!!!

his

0 Replies

Re: President Bush: Is He a Liar?

Brandon9000 wrote:

Amigo wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:

What I ask is that anyone who wishes to show that he does lie state in each post:

1. A single quotation of the President's which is a lie
2. A bit of evidence, or an argument to demonstrate that it's a lie.

This thread is going to crash the site.

Perhaps you would like to contribute a few instances of lying.

And volunteer myself as a instrument for your denial? No thanks. You either choose to know the truth or you don't. There is more to Bushes lies then a quote here and there. It's a complexed coordinated deception.

The only interest (and astonishment)here is why YOU choose to deny the truth.

Lies

1. "Iraq has nucear weapons" U.N. 2002 based on fake Niger CIA B.S.

2. "Iraq has chemical and Biological weapons" Oct7 2002 (The conservative estimate was 500 tons of chemical weapons that could fill 16,000 rockets!!!!!!)

Powell said "We know that Iraq has at least seven of these mobile, biological agent factories"

Then he showed the sheep masses some computer generated pictures of some scary looking box car WMD labs and let the bombs fly onto the huddled families. Psst, The picture weren't real.

Hey wasn't there a report by a guy named Wilson about this submitted to the CIA and the president???? Yea, the guy with the wife who was also working WMDs in IRAN.

What happened to her, What happened to work in IRAN?????

What happened to the guy the burned her????

3. "Iraq has ties to Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda"
4. " This is not just the United States going to Iraq it's the coalition of the willing"
5. "The American media has brought you the truth about Iraq!"

0 Replies

Amigo- again- The legal definition of a lie is "A falsehood uttered for the purposes of deception"

I do hope that you are not suffering under the delusion that anyone( President Bush, Secretary of State Colin Powell( when he had that office) Condi Rice, General Franks, etc. goes into any conference cold. They do not. If you have ever watched Senators speak on C-Span, you might have noticed several usually youngish persons sitting behind the Senators.
Those are the people who craft the speechs for them. Of course, the Senators must approve those speeches but they trust their highly intelligent staff( Harvard, Yale, MIT) and utilize what they are given.

You do realize, I hope, Amigo, that the information you listed came from the CIA. You do realize, I hope, Amigo, that all of the major intelligence services of the world- British, German and yes, even French, were giving assurances that it was highly probable that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction.

Given that information from "reliable" sources, it is impossible to categorize those who passed the information along as liars, since the defintion of a lie is---a FALSEHOOD uttered for the PURPOSE OF DECEPTION.

I am certain, Amigo, that you know of the warnings given by the president who was held by many to be the most intelligent foreign policy wonk in the twentieth century--William Jefferson Clinton.

He said, in a speech on Dec. 18th 1998

quote:

"I have no doubt today, that left unchecked,Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again"

and

"And mark my words, he will develop weapons of mass destruction, He will deploy them and he will use them"

It almost sounds as if President Clinton was warning that Saddam would use weapons of Mass Destruction, doesn't it!!

0 Replies

Hewlett- Packard worked with Irag from 1985 to 1990 on scud and nuclear programs.

Bechtel worked with 1988 to 1990 helped Iraq build a giant petrochemical plant known for it's military ties

DuPont in 1989 sold $30,000 worth in of specially engineered oil to Iraq to use in their nuclear program.

From 1985 to 1990 the department of Commerce approved the sale of $1.5 billion worth of "duel-use" technologies, from chemical and biological components to computer equipment for conventional and nuclear weapons systems. In the same period $308 million worth of aircraft, helocoptors and associated parts, sold to Iraq.

Why didn't we use this information to go to war?

0 Replies

You pose a good question, Amigo, If your information is correct, and I see no reason to doubt it, I really don't know why Iraq received so much help from the Clinton Administration.

If I had to guess, it would be that perhaps Clinton received political donations from Iraq. It would not have been the first time. Indeed, big time Democrat donor Johnny Chung told congressional investigators that General Ji Shengde, head of Chinese military intelligence had given him $300,000 to donate to President Clinton's re-election campaign.

0 Replies

Those kinds of questions can not be answered of the cause of perpetual war would be revealed and we can't afford that now can we?

0 Replies

I am sorry, Amigo,but I am unable to respond to your question. I really do not know where to start.

0 Replies

Mesopotamia

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
Perhaps you would like to contribute a few instances of lying.

Brandon, since the inception of the thread, you haven't contributed a goddamned thing. So why even say something like this? There's no reason, other than to further demonstrate that you don't have the balls to answer any of the allegations, but instead sit upon a high horse of superiority; 'I don't have to answer any of the allegations, but I can chide someone for not making them.' Right.

Cycloptichorn

There is no reason why I should make any posts here. There is nothing wrong with creating a thread to facilitate discussion of an issue, and then sitting back and seeing what occurs. Your implication that this is somehow unethical or unworthy is nonsense. I will do it any time the whim strikes me. As for me not having the balls to answer posts you suspect from my past positions that I would disagree with, you know perfectly well that I have answered hundreds of such posts for years, sometimes defending my positions against five people at once, so my courage isn't at issue. As for chiding someone, I didn't, but if I like, I may chide anyone freely for anything.

0 Replies

Why worry if Brandon participates anyway? We already know his every answer to every allegation. I suggest that each time someone posts a lie, they also post their version of a Brandon answer.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I would like to amend my previous post to specify the last 100 years as the technical intent of my phrase 'this century'. I was not clear on that point, however, and the more discernmentally challenged of course cannot be expected to put much of anything into its proper context.

Excellent--i should have known i could count on you for the idiotic statement. With this thesis, even were it alleged that the Shrub is completely honest, you are left with explaining how and to what extent Eisenhower and Reagan, two Republican icons, were dishonest. Because even if the Shrub were completely honest, for him to have been the most honest President in the last one hundred years, you are obliged to allege that Eisenhower and Reagan were, at least to some extent dishonest.

But neither you nor Tico have shown that the Shrub is completely honest. Tico, despite his bluster, has failed to disprove allegations against the Shrub for dishonesty. That simply means that the degree of the dishonesty of Eisenhower and Reagan is greater.

Thank you, Fox, for your eternal introduction of the surreal into any such discussion.

0 Replies

Of course every other president was more dishonest than Bush. Fox's standard is it isn't a lie if they believe it.

Every other president was sane compared to Bush. Only a psychotic believes everything they say is true in spite of evidence to the contrary. Therefor it is clear that Bush is more honest and more insane than any president in the last 100 years.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

But neither you nor Tico have shown that the Shrub is completely honest.

I have not attempted to do so, and in fact have done just the opposite.

Quote:

Tico, despite his bluster, has failed to disprove allegations against the Shrub for dishonesty.

It seems you fail to grasp (intentionally, no doubt) that it is those who levy the charge of "dishonesty" who bear the burden of proving said dishonesty. It is not my burden to disprove your spurious allegations (although I have done so); it is your burden to prove dishonesty, if you can. I have demonstrated why your allegations do not rise to a level sufficient to support the charge, and you have failed to meet your burden on the overwhelming majority of alleged "lies" posted in this thread.

0 Replies

There is ample proof available in this thread for the Shrub's dishonesty. My remarks were in response to Fox's silly statement to the effect that the Shrub is the most honest President of the last one hundred years.

Once again, you'd rather argue single points, extracted from their context, rather than the topic at hand, or the burden of someone's thesis, as is the case with Fox's surreal contribution.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

There is ample proof available in this thread for the Shrub's dishonesty. My remarks were in response to Fox's silly statement to the effect that the Shrub is the most honest President of the last one hundred years.

Once again, you'd rather argue single points, extracted from their context, rather than the topic at hand, or the burden of someone's thesis, as is the case with Fox's surreal contribution.

Then would you care to isolate the "ample proof" you are referring to, and present it to me for my rebuttal? Seems to me that would be in line with the "topic at hand."

Or would you prefer to just throw spurious insults in my direction, which is your m.o.

0 Replies

President Bush: Is He a Liar?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know