President Bush: Is He a Liar?

BernardR wrote:

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.

Erm, if you're referring to the dates in Amigo's post, then maybe you should remember that Clinton was elected in 1992 and there was a different administration in power for the events that he is talking about.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

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.

There were no insults thrown your way--it may disturb you to have your rhetorical style ridiculed, but that does not constitute insult.

You have said yourself that you have refuted charges here of lies on the part of the Shrub--so there is no reason for me to point you to posts you claim you have already refuted.

My remarks were directed toward Fox's silly statement about the relative honesty of Presidents in this century. You quickly came in with a claim that the Shrub is more honest than was Clinton. Therefore, you have the burden of proof for such a claim--i'm not obliged to disprove it. Futhermore, Fox has quixotically (and hilariously) stated that she indeed meant that the Shrub is more honest than any other President in the last one hundred years. I am just tickled pink to see that. First of all, such a claim needs proof to be taken seriously, but i don't see her (or you) providing such proof. Additionally, it inferentially says that Fox considers the current office-holder to be more honest than were either Eisenhower or Reagan, two Presidents who are icons of the Republican Party. I'd be amused to know what Fox alleges to have been their dishonesty, and how that stacks up in comparison with the current President.

I've not made any statements about the relative honesty of the President. It is not for me to prove or disprove other people's theses.

0 Replies

I suppose one way to determine Bush's honesty is to have a special prosecutor go after Bush in the same manner one went after Clinton.

But I doubt Republicans will ever allow that to happen. They may find out he is not as honest as they picture him.

0 Replies

xingu wrote:

I suppose one way to determine Bush's honesty is to have a special prosecutor go after Bush in the same manner one went after Clinton.

But I doubt Republicans will ever allow that to happen. They may find out he is not as honest as they picture him.

Without subpoena power, in asnese, the denialistas are right, we can't prove anything. No crime can be proven without an investigation and prosecution.

BTW Arlen Specter just announced that he is going after the admin on domestic spying.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
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.

There were no insults thrown your way--it may disturb you to have your rhetorical style ridiculed, but that does not constitute insult.

That may explain why you insult so many posters at this site, Setanta ... you don't realize you're doing it. In your mind you're not "insulting" them, you're just "ridiculing" them.

Quote:

You have said yourself that you have refuted charges here of lies on the part of the Shrub--so there is no reason for me to point you to posts you claim you have already refuted.

In an attempt to "ridicule" my "rhetorical style," you alleged I would refer to "argue single points, extracted from their context, rather than the topic at hand, or the burden of someone's thesis." I don't know what kind of a complaint that is, but I've noticed several of you leftists jumping to lodge this accusation against me -- or something similar. Apparently you think there is but one appropriate method to argue, and I'm not sticking to your rules by isolating single points. I guess you will just have to deal with my "rhetorical style," or not. I mean, I'd prefer you weren't such a horse's keister all the time, but I don't see that changing any time soon.

In any case, in response I asked you directly to isolate what you would characterize on this thread as "ample proof" of Bush's dishonesty, so that I might attempt to rebut same. It strikes me that such a request is in harmony with the "topic at hand," and is not in violation of the rules you would prefer be followed at this site, so you ought to have no complaint. I submit that those of you who have lodged the charge of dishonesty against Bush have failed to meet your burden in all but one instance, which I have identified, and I would specifically ask that you identify all other alleged lies you believe have sufficient evidence to support the charge and withstand scrutiny. It appears you are not up to the task, or perhaps you are merely unwilling.

Quote:

My remarks were directed toward Fox's silly statement about the relative honesty of Presidents in this century. You quickly came in with a claim that the Shrub is more honest than was Clinton. Therefore, you have the burden of proof for such a claim--i'm not obliged to disprove it.

And I told you I've provided proof of Clinton's dishonesty on other threads -- no "alledged" dishonesty, here ... he's an admitted liar. Clinton lied under oath. So when you compare a self-admitted liar in Clinton, to Bush, when all the proof against him are the bare claims put forth in this thread, it seems to me the claims put forth in this thread are rather iimportant. Yet you are disinclined to respond to my request that you isolate the "ample proof," preferring instead to let the meager efforts of your fellow posters, which have been sufficiently refuted thus far, stand on their own.

Quote:

Futhermore, Fox has quixotically (and hilariously) stated that she indeed meant that the Shrub is more honest than any other President in the last one hundred years. I am just tickled pink to see that. First of all, such a claim needs proof to be taken seriously, but i don't see her (or you) providing such proof.

I didn't make that claim, so I don't see why you would expect that I provide any proof regarding it. Moreover, I don't see as that is relevant to the discussion you are having with me.

Quote:

Additionally, it inferentially says that Fox considers the current office-holder to be more honest than were either Eisenhower or Reagan, two Presidents who are icons of the Republican Party. I'd be amused to know what Fox alleges to have been their dishonesty, and how that stacks up in comparison with the current President.

Well, why don't you ask her.

Quote:

I've not made any statements about the relative honesty of the President. It is not for me to prove or disprove other people's theses.

But you have claimed there has been "ample proof" of Bush's dishonesty presented on this thread, but when asked to isolate same and present it to me for rebuttal, you fail to rise to the challenge. What's that saying you like? "All hat and no cattle"?

0 Replies

Comparing Clinton's deceptions to Bush's is a canard as Clinton was investigated, "tried" and exonerated of the charges.

In Bush's case, any sentient human being would observe that Bush's deceptions are potentially deeper and more harmful than anything Clinton did. However, without an iunvestigation, it is impossible to discern the truth.

Perhaps an investigation would clear Bush and his conspirators, I kinda doubt it though.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

That may explain why you insult so many posters at this site, Setanta ... you don't realize you're doing it. In your mind you're not "insulting" them, you're just "ridiculing" them.

I didn't ridicule you, i ridiculed your rhetorical style--try to keep up, 'K?

Quote:

I guess you will just have to deal with my "rhetorical style," or not. I mean, I'd prefer you weren't such a horse's keister all the time, but I don't see that changing any time soon.

I deal with it just fine. But here we have an excellent example of what definitely is a direct insult of a member. Pot, meet Kettle . . .

You stated that you had already refuted many of the claims made here, but then you asked me to point them out to you. That was disingenuous, and a rather paltry tactic. It won't work. As i've already pointed out, you claimed that Clinton was more dishonest than the Shrub. You've provided not a shred of evidence to that effect.

Your contention about proof of Clinton's dishonesty does not constitute evidence that he were more dishonest than the Shrub. Once again, you beat the "ample proof" drum, despite having earlier claimed that you have refuted the charges against the Shrub in this thread. This leads us back to two points which it appears don't sink in with you. The first is that your claim to have refuted charges against the Shrub makes a request that i point them out to you pointless--i'm not your errand boy to run down posts to which you've already responded (or to which you claim you've responded); second, you have claimed that the Shrub is more honest than Clinton, but you've provided no proof. The burden of proof is yours.

I don't consider that you are burdened to prove Fox's surreal contention. But you did make a claim about the relative honesty of the Shrub for which you provide no evidence. It is, however, relevant, because this "discussion" arose from my response to Fox's idiotic contention.

I didn't make that claim, so I don't see why you would expect that I provide any proof regarding it. Moreover, I don't see as that is relevant to the discussion you are having with me.

I have asked Fox, but she hasn't responded. Meanwhile, you're attempting to ride in like a knight in shining armor, trying to pick apart my posts when i have addressed her. If you don't want to play, then don't come here to rant at me for posts which i address to her.

Tediously, once again, you are the one who claimed that you have refuted charges against the Shrub here. But then you ask me to provide evidence for his dishonesty, after having butted into a discussion which i was attempting to have with Fox (who seems, at this point, no longer inclined to the discussion). If you have refuted those charges, you don't need me to point them out to you. You are the one who appears to be all hat and no cattle. It's an inapt metaphor anyway, as i'm no cowboy, never have claimed to be, and have a low opinion of cowboys in general.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
That may explain why you insult so many posters at this site, Setanta ... you don't realize you're doing it. In your mind you're not "insulting" them, you're just "ridiculing" them.

I didn't ridicule you, i ridiculed your rhetorical style--try to keep up, 'K?

So if I call you fat, I'm not ridiculing you, I'm ridiculing your gut?

Set wrote:

Tico wrote:
I guess you will just have to deal with my "rhetorical style," or not. I mean, I'd prefer you weren't such a horse's keister all the time, but I don't see that changing any time soon.

I deal with it just fine. But here we have an excellent example of what definitely is a direct insult of a member. Pot, meet Kettle . . .

Wait a second ... I'm not insulting you, I'm ridiculing the way you treat other posters on this site. Try to keep up.

Set wrote:

You stated that you had already refuted many of the claims made here, but then you asked me to point them out to you. That was disingenuous, and a rather paltry tactic. It won't work. As i've already pointed out, you claimed that Clinton was more dishonest than the Shrub. You've provided not a shred of evidence to that effect.

It's not disingenuous at all. I'm basically asking you to put up or shut up. You claim I've not refuted the claims sufficiently, and there is "ample proof" of Bush's dishonesty. I'm asking you to present your case, so I know which claims in particular you believe the evidence supports the charge. You've provided ZERO evidence of Bush's dishonesty.

On the contrary, I've asserted that Clinton is a self-admitted liar and he lied under oath. Do you dispute that?

Quote:

Your contention about proof of Clinton's dishonesty does not constitute evidence that he were more dishonest than the Shrub. Once again, you beat the "ample proof" drum, despite having earlier claimed that you have refuted the charges against the Shrub in this thread. This leads us back to two points which it appears don't sink in with you. The first is that your claim to have refuted charges against the Shrub makes a request that i point them out to you pointless--i'm not your errand boy to run down posts to which you've already responded (or to which you claim you've responded); second, you have claimed that the Shrub is more honest than Clinton, but you've provided no proof. The burden of proof is yours.

You seem to want to go back to the Clinton v. Bush issue, which is not the issue of this thread, and thus you seem to be doing the very thing you were complaining about me doing earlier. I'm more than willing to debate the Clinton v. Bush issue, but I must point out that you are the one continuing to switch the focus back to Clinton v. Bush.

I didn't respond to every assertion of Bush's dishonesty on this thread. In fact, I only responded to Cyclops post (and even then not specifically to every claim in his post, just those that were not adequately debunked by a general statement) and perhaps to one other claim by a different poster. You claim "ample proof," yet you don't want to commit to what that proof is. Seems to me you're skirting the issue.

Quote:

I don't consider that you are burdened to prove Fox's surreal contention. But you did make a claim about the relative honesty of the Shrub for which you provide no evidence. It is, however, relevant, because this "discussion" arose from my response to Fox's idiotic contention.

I believe it to be sufficient to show Bush is less dishonest than Clinton by pointing out that Clinton lied under oath, and is a self-admitted liar -- at least sufficient to meet my initial burden. But I can point out a thread or two where I have gone into specific details about Clinton's lies ... just let me know if you want those links, and I'd be more than happy to provide you with one or two.

Set wrote:

Quote:
I didn't make that claim, so I don't see why you would expect that I provide any proof regarding it. Moreover, I don't see as that is relevant to the discussion you are having with me.

I have asked Fox, but she hasn't responded. Meanwhile, you're attempting to ride in like a knight in shining armor, trying to pick apart my posts when i have addressed her. If you don't want to play, then don't come here to rant at me for posts which i address to her.

If you wouldn't refer to me in your posts to Foxy, I might not need to respond to your ridiculous assertions. In a post to Foxy you claimed:

[quote="Setanta"]But neither you nor Tico have shown that the Shrub is completely honest. [/quote]
And so I responded directly to that bizarre statement, by pointing out that I've never claimed Bush was completely honest.

You then claimed there was "ample proof" of Bush's dishonesty somewhere on this thread, but have completely failed and refused to make an attempt to isolate that proof when pressed.

If you think there is some other thread you have addressed to Foxy, but I came along "like a knight in shining armor," please point them out to me, because I think you're delusional.

Set wrote:

Tediously, once again, you are the one who claimed that you have refuted charges against the Shrub here.

I have. Some I have done with particularlity ... others I have addressed with a broader brush. You have not identified which claims you think I've failed to refute adequately, which leaves me asking you to assert those claims where you believe "ample proof" of Bush's dishonesty remains.

Set wrote:

But then you ask me to provide evidence for his dishonesty, after having butted into a discussion which i was attempting to have with Fox (who seems, at this point, no longer inclined to the discussion). If you have refuted those charges, you don't need me to point the out to you.

Show me where I "butted into" a discussion you were attempting to have with Foxy. I made a comment about "accord" with Foxy's claim about Bush being the most honest President in this century, and you responded to that claim. You didn't address your post to Foxy specifically, and you've shown on numerous occasions your tendency to address points within your posts to multiple posters.

What we are left with is your claim of "ample proof" of Bush's dishonesty, my calling for you to articulate with particularity that proof which you believe to be "ample" so that I may specifically rebut same, and your dogged refusal to do so for whatever reason. It remains that you can choose to either isolate the "ample proof" you are referring to, or not. You have chosen to not do so, and what that tells me is you are not confident your "ample proof" will withstand scrutiny.

Quote:

You are the one who appears to be all hat and no cattle. It's an inapt metaphor anyway, as i'm no cowboy, never have claimed to be, and have a low opinion of cowboys in general.

How about "all talk and no substance"? You prefer that?

0 Replies

Yes, "all talk and no substance" nicely describes your contributions to this site. Calling someone a horse'sass, no matter how elliptically worded, is an insult about the person, not their idea. I ridiculed your rhetorical style, not you personally.

You claimed that the Shrub is more honest than was Clinton. You have provided no evidence. There is no reason to play any more of your stupid games about that.

I had specific questions about Fox's contention, and you butted in. Now you want to claim that there is a separate discussion between you and me. There is no such discussion, unless and until you provide proof that Clinton was less honest than the Shrub is. I will ignore any more of your attempts to divert the topic, unless you address the issue of proof for your contention about the relative honesty of the Shrub.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Yes, "all talk and no substance" nicely describes your contributions to this site. Calling someone a horse'sass, no matter how elliptically worded, is an insult about the person, not their idea. I ridiculed your rhetorical style, not you personally.

And I ridiculed the way you treat people, not you personally. Sorry you don't see it that way.

Quote:

You claimed that the Shrub is more honest than was Clinton. You have provided no evidence. There is no reason to play any more of your stupid games about that.

Fine, Mr. All-Talk-and-No-Substance. But I have provided evidence ... evidence you've refused to comment upon. Seems as if you are going to choose to skirt this issue as well.

I told you why Clinton can properly be considered to be more dishonest than Bush, and so the ball is now in your court to respond or not. One wonders why you are running away from both of these issues, but would like to have everyone believe it is I who is failing to address your concerns.

Quote:

I had specific questions about Fox's contention, and you butted in. Now you want to claim that there is a separate discussion between you and me. There is no such discussion, unless and until you provide proof that Clinton was less honest than the Shrub is. I will ignore any more of your attempts to divert the topic, unless you address the issue of proof for your contention about the relative honesty of the Shrub.

I've addressed your silly claim of some private conversation between you and Foxy ... you failed to respond to that as well.

And AGAIN, I've been attempting to get you back on topic for several posts now, but you insist on trying to divert the issue back to a comparison between Clinton and Bush, yet you refuse to participate in that discussion as well ... demonstrating -- again -- that you are all talk and no substance.

0 Replies

I'm going to remind you of this thread the next time you accuse me of trying to divert attention from the main topic of a thread, choosing instead to focus on one specific point of someone's argument ... hypocrite.

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

And I ridiculed the way you treat people, not you personally. Sorry you don't see it that way.

This is a lie, because, in fact, you wrote: I mean, I'd prefer you weren't such a horse's keister all the time, but I don't see that changing any time soon. You made no reference to how i treat people, you just called me a name.

Quote:

Fine, Mr. All-Talk-and-No-Substance. But I have provided evidence ... evidence you've refused to comment upon. Seems as if you are going to choose to skirt this issue as well.

No, you simply made a set of unsupported contentions. That is not evidence. There is nothing to repond to, other than to note that you've provided no proof.

Quote:

I've addressed your silly claim of some private conversation between you and Foxy ... you failed to respond to that as well.

I didn't say i was having a private conversation with Fox, that is your construction, which you make as convenient to your silly argument. It is relevant to note that i was addressing Fox, because it beggars your claim about what i am or am not obliged to prove.

You've shown no interst in the topic. If you had, you'd have provided proof for your thesis that the Shrub is more honest than was Clinton. Of course, that's the typical, tired old conservative "Oh yeah, well what about Clinton ? ! ? ! ?" ploy--but i can be construed as germane.

Where's that proof, Tico?

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
And I ridiculed the way you treat people, not you personally. Sorry you don't see it that way.

This is a lie, because, in fact, you wrote: I mean, I'd prefer you weren't such a horse's keister all the time, but I don't see that changing any time soon. You made no reference to how i treat people, you just called me a name.

No, I didn't "just call you a name," that's an assumption on your part. And I think you and I both know what it means when you ass-u-me.

The comment was made because of the way you treat people. If you treated people differently, I wouldn't refer to you in the same manner. I fail to see how that is any different than you calling someone ignorant because of something they posted, which you do routinely -- and are doing right now on another thread.

Quote:

Quote:
Fine, Mr. All-Talk-and-No-Substance. But I have provided evidence ... evidence you've refused to comment upon. Seems as if you are going to choose to skirt this issue as well.

No, you simply made a set of unsupported contentions. That is not evidence. There is nothing to repond to, other than to note that you've provided no proof.

I said Clinton is a self-admitted liar. Do you disagree? Do you need support for that contention?

I said Clinton lied under oath? Do you disagree? Do you need support for that contention?

There's plenty for you to respond to if you were inclined to do so. On the other hand, you've got precious little on this thread to prove Bush is a liar. I've identified one claim where you can prove Bush to be a liar, and even that has an argument to be made in his defense. You, Setanta, Mr. All-Talk-and-No-Substance, have provided NOTHING to this discussion other than bluster.

Quote:

Quote:
I've addressed your silly claim of some private conversation between you and Foxy ... you failed to respond to that as well.

I didn't say i was having a private conversation with Fox, that is your construction, which you make as convenient to your silly argument. It is relevant to note that i was addressing Fox, because it beggars your claim about what i am or am not obliged to prove.

Watching your performance in this thread, I'm reminded of the Monty Python scene in the "Holy Grail": "Run away! Run away!"

Keep running, Set ... don't look back.

Quote:

You've shown no interst in the topic. If you had, you'd have provided proof for your thesis that the Shrub is more honest than was Clinton. Of course, that's the typical, tired old conservative "Oh yeah, well what about Clinton ? ! ? ! ?" ploy--but i can be construed as germane.

Where's that proof, Tico?

Hell, you've shown no interest in the topic. You have consistently failed to bring anything to the table other than your oversized head. Run away, Set. Don't let the door hit you ...

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

No, I didn't "just call you a name," that's an assumption on your part. And I think you and I both know what it means when you ass-u-me.

The comment was made because of the way you treat people. If you treated people differently, I wouldn't refer to you in the same manner. I fail to see how that is any different than you calling someone ignorant because of something they posted, which you do routinely -- and are doing right now on another thread.

No, what you wrote makes no mention of my treatment of others. You indulged name-calling, plain and simple.

Quote:

I said Clinton is a self-admitted liar. Do you disagree? Do you need support for that contention?

I said Clinton lied under oath? Do you disagree? Do you need support for that contention?

The contention is that Clinton was more dishonest than the Shrub. What you have contended is that this proves the case. That is petitio principi because it only works to prove your case if someone assumes at the outset that the Shrub has always been honest. For a relative judgment about which of the two is more honest, you either need to canvass all of Clinton's dishonesty, then canvass all of the Shrub's dishonesty, and apply a qualifying and/or quantifying measurement which will show one or the the other to have been the most dishonest.

You have failed to meet such a standard. You have proven nothing.

There is, therefore, nothing to respond to, because you have provided no proof that Clinton was more dishonest than the Shrub is.

Quote:

Watching your performance in this thread, I'm reminded of the Monty Python scene in the "Holy Grail": "Run away! Run away!"

Keep running, Set ... don't look back.

I've not run from you, despite my distaste for facilitating your effort to derail the thread. What sort of weird free association may go on in whatever passes for a brain in your head is not relevant to the topic of who is more dishonest between Clinton and the Shrub. A contention for which you offer the opinion that it is Clinton, but for which you provide no evidence.

Quote:

Hell, you've shown no interest in the topic. You have consistently failed to bring anything to the table other than your oversized head. Run away, Set. Don't let the door hit you ...

I'm still here, and will remain. You have contended that Clinton was more dishonest than the Shrub is. You have failed to provide any evidence to that effect.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Ticomaya wrote:
No, I didn't "just call you a name," that's an assumption on your part. And I think you and I both know what it means when you ass-u-me.

The comment was made because of the way you treat people. If you treated people differently, I wouldn't refer to you in the same manner. I fail to see how that is any different than you calling someone ignorant because of something they posted, which you do routinely -- and are doing right now on another thread.

No, what you wrote makes no mention of my treatment of others. You indulged name-calling, plain and simple.

And you made an assumption. You also failed to address why you calling someone ignorant is not similarly "name-calling."

Quote:

Quote:
I said Clinton is a self-admitted liar. Do you disagree? Do you need support for that contention?

I said Clinton lied under oath? Do you disagree? Do you need support for that contention?

The contention is that Clinton was more dishonest than the Shrub. What you have contended is that this proves the case. That is petitio principi because it only works to prove your case if someone assumes at the outset that the Shrub has always been honest. For a relative judgment about which of the two is more honest, you either need to canvass all of Clinton's dishonesty, then canvass all of the Shrub's dishonesty, and apply a qualifying and/or quantifying measurement which will show one or the the other to have been the most dishonest.

You have failed to meet such a standard. You have proven nothing.

There is, therefore, nothing to respond to, because you have provided no proof that Clinton was more dishonest than the Shrub is.

I never said my contention proved my case, but it met my burden of production and moved the burden of proof from me over to you. I have made a prima facia showing. Your refusal to respond at this point means you lose by default.

Quote:

Quote:
Watching your performance in this thread, I'm reminded of the Monty Python scene in the "Holy Grail": "Run away! Run away!"

Keep running, Set ... don't look back.

I've not run from you, despite my distaste for facilitating your effort to derail the thread. What sort of weird free association may go on in whatever passes for a brain in your head is not relevant to the topic of who is more dishonest between Clinton and the Shrub. A contention for which you offer the opinion that it is Clinton, but for which you provide no evidence.

You're running. Either provide something of substance to this thread or move on. Your just taking up space as it is.

And I suppose you think "whatever passes for a brain in your head" is not an insult? What a pathetic display you're putting on.

Quote:

Quote:
Hell, you've shown no interest in the topic. You have consistently failed to bring anything to the table other than your oversized head. Run away, Set. Don't let the door hit you ...

I'm still here, and will remain. You have contended that Clinton was more dishonest than the Shrub is. You have failed to provide any evidence to that effect.

Why you're here remains a mystery.

0 Replies

BernardR wrote:

Debra LAW has inspired me to become precise in my thinking. I will try to follow her example although I will never be able to match her brilliance. I have, because of her example, purchased a Legal Dictionary and am attempting to understand its definitions.

One which fascinates me is the legal definition of Lie.

Black's Law Dictionary--Sixth Edition

quote( Capitals mine)

lie- "A falsehood uttered for the PURPOSE OF DECEPTION; AN INTENTIONAL STATEMENT OF AN UNTRUTH DESIGNED TO MISLEAD ANOTHER"

I am certain that many feel that it is not difficult to decide that a person is a "liar" but, in a court of law, it is necessary that those who make such a charge prove it in terms of the definition above.

I'm pretty sure that the Black's definition of the word "lie" includes "anything which misleads or deceives."

Accordingly, that makes YOU a LIAR because you deliberately excluded the entire definition of the word in your attempt to mislead or deceive people with respect to the broad meaning of the word. You could have provided us with the entire definition, but you chose not to. You intended, through deception, to limit the meaning and application of the word when the word, in fact, has a much broader meaning and application than the one that you presented. You engaged in a deliberate omission that misleads or deceives.

According to Webster's, the word "lie" means 1: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive; 2: to create a false or misleading impression. The Webster's definition comports with the broad definition of "anything which misleads or deceives."

The word "lie" has several synonyms. Some are as follows:

Prevaricate (which softens the bluntness of LIE by implying quibbling or confusing the issue);

Equivocate (which implies using words having more than one sense so as to seem to say one thing but intend another);

Palter (which impies making unreliable statements of fact or intention or insincere promises);

Fib (which applies to telling of an untruth that is trivial in substance or significance).

The people who have posted several of Bush's LIES have made their case that Bush is a LIAR.

0 Replies

Debra_Law wrote:

...The people who have posted several of Bush's LIES have made their case that Bush is a LIAR.

A legal question for you. Under the law, can a statement be a lie which the speaker believes to be true when he says it? Can a statement be a lie if there is absolutely no intent to deceive?

0 Replies

Ticomaya wrote:

And you made an assumption. You also failed to address why you calling someone ignorant is not similarly "name-calling."

It was no assumption, it was the direct and clear understanding of what you wrote. You wrote nothing about my treatment of others. You just trot that out after the fact to attempt to justify your name calling. I did not call anyone in this thread or any other ignorant. I pointed out in another thread that claiming that a President can force UN sponsored gun control on the United States is an example of ignorance. The member in question may well be well-informed on many topics, but obviously not in such a matter as that.

Quote:

I never said my contention proved my case, but it met my burden of production and moved the burden of proof from me over to you. I have made a prima facia showing. Your refusal to respond at this point means you lose by default.

There is no "winning" or "losing" here. You made a contention, and you have failed to demonstrate the truth of your contention. I don't have anything to prove--i made no contention about the relative honesty of anyone. You did, and you've not proven your case.

Quote:

You're running. Either provide something of substance to this thread or move on. Your just taking up space as it is.

No, i've not run. I've provided as much substance as this pathetic attempt to derail this thread constitutes. You made a contention, and you have not supported your contention.

Quote:

And I suppose you think "whatever passes for a brain in your head" is not an insult? What a pathetic display you're putting on.

That is high praise indeed, coming from the master of pathetic displays. You made a contention,and you have failed to support your contention.

Quote:

Why you're here remains a mystery.

So now you assume the mantle of Judge of Relevance? Why are you here, Tico. Why do you continue these exchanges if you are so devoted to relevance to the topic? You have made a contention, and you have failed to support your contention.

0 Replies

Debra LAW, calling Debra LAw, calling Debra LAW. The definition in Black's LAW Dictiionary is exactly as I wrote it.

You should know the exact definition of liar in Black's. Look it up and let's dispense with the "pretty sure" business. I am surprised that you would even use that phrase-"pretty sure"--Do you tell the judge that you are "Pretty sure"????

0 Replies

Oh, please, Debra LAW. A lawyer using Webster's to define law terms. Check out Black's If you don't have a copy, go to the library.

And, as a lawyer, you certainly are aware that anyone in the USA can call President Bush a liar over and over and over and it means nothing except in the political realm.

Clinton admitted, in order to avoid indictment( a case with which I hope that you, as a master lawyer, are familiar with) that he lied. It is on the record.

Can you find for me any instance in which President Bush admitted he lied?

Better still, can you find for me, an instance where it has been found in a court of law( Not the Nation Magazine or the left wing blogs) that President Bush has been found to be a liar?

I am sure that you and many others can find instances in which you "claim" the President lied. That means nothing except in the political realm.

I have material which shows that FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter, Reagan, Bush Sr. and G. W. Bush lied but only one president- only one- one- is on record in a legal proceeding admitting that he lied.

William Jefferson Clinton.

As a lawyer, I am sure that you know that ALLEGATIONS do not mean a thing until they are proven in a court of law.

Or have you invented a new procedure?

0 Replies

President Bush: Is He a Liar?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know