President Bush: Is He a Liar?

I think the person making an argument and asking for examples/evidence of counter arguments has more credibility than those who have nothing to contribute but criticism/ridicule of the person arguing a point.

I'm funny that way.

I think the person making an argument and asking for examples/evidence of counter arguments has more credibility than those who have nothing to contribute but criticism/ridicule of the person arguing a point.

I'm funny that way.

Roxxxanne wrote:

Only simpletons pr blind partisans ask to be pointed to specific instances in which it can be proven that Bush lied. The best liars mix a little truth in with their lies. Or lie by innuendo. See Joseph Goebbels.

The simple fact is that the the totality of waht Bush asys is a lie. Any intelligent person who is not a blind person can see this.

Then it's awfully odd that you resist so strongly supporting your allegation with an example or too. In the world of debate, asking for someone to support his position isn't considered some kind of bizarre affront. The fact is that you cannot give examples, or you would.

I think the person making an argument and asking for examples/evidence of counter arguments has more credibility than those who have nothing to contribute but criticism/ridicule of the person arguing a point.

I'm funny that way.

Foxfyre wrote:

I think the person making an argument and asking for examples/evidence of counter arguments has more credibility than those who have nothing to contribute but criticism/ridicule of the person arguing a point.

I'm funny that way.

Anyone who tries to paint Bush as Honest Abe Lincoln has no credibilty. I deal with reality not delusion. I am funny that way.

If MM thinks that anything I posted is delusional, that is absolute proof of its veracity. LOL.

PS I never claimed that Rove had been indicted. That is a total fabrication. Typical.

Roxxxanne wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I think the person making an argument and asking for examples/evidence of counter arguments has more credibility than those who have nothing to contribute but criticism/ridicule of the person arguing a point.

I'm funny that way.

Lets start with your claim,that Rove had been indicted.

At first, I gave MM that the benefit of the doubt that he was merely mistaken. Howver, since he has had a chance to check and stands by his fabrication, I can only assume he is lying.

Or perhaps, merely stupid for not understanding the difference between quoting a story and making a direct statement. Of course, it is altogether possible that he is both a liar and stupid. But I will leave it up for the readers to come to their own conclusions.

Brandon will hang onto the mast until it, too, sinks in the sea.

Foxfyre wrote:

I think the person making an argument and asking for examples/evidence of counter arguments has more credibility than those who have nothing to contribute but criticism/ridicule of the person arguing a point.

I'm funny that way.

Is that what he's doing? Sounds entirely reasonable.

Let's see what happens when we turn his "methodology" around.

Brandon...please provide evidence that Bush has spoken truthfully as regards the negative effects of American media on the war on terror.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Roxxxanne wrote:

Only simpletons pr blind partisans ask to be pointed to specific instances in which it can be proven that Bush lied. The best liars mix a little truth in with their lies. Or lie by innuendo. See Joseph Goebbels.

The simple fact is that the the totality of waht Bush asys is a lie. Any intelligent person who is not a blind person can see this.

Then it's awfully odd that you resist so strongly supporting your allegation with an example or too. In the world of debate, asking for someone to support his position isn't considered some kind of bizarre affront. The fact is that you cannot give examples, or you would.

Anyone who is not either a simpleton or a blind partisan can find the evidence on her or his own.

Brandon can't even recognize that what goes on here is a discussion. He tries to frame it as a debate. It is not.

Brandon can continue with his "You can't prove it" broken record. It's meaningless. Brandon will never accept that Bush is a liar. In fact, anyone who can't recognize that Bush is a liar after six years of this, is simply in denial of reality. I don't waste my precious time trying to convince the delusional.

The first section deals with the WMD issues. Here are the conclusions from the report:

Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) judgment that Iraq was reconstituting its nuclear weapons program. Information obtained after the war supports the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research's (INR) assessment in the NIE that the Intelligence Community lacked persuasive evidence that Baghdad had launched a coherent effort to reconstitute its nuclear weapons program.
Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) assessment that Iraq's acquisiton of high-strength aluminum tubes was intended for an Iraqi nuclear program. The findings do spport the assessments in the NIE of the Department of energy's Office of Intelligence and the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) that the aluminum tubes were likely intended for a conventional rocket program.
Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) assessment that Iraq was "vigorously trying to procure uranium ore and yellowcake" from Africa. Postwar findings support the assessment in the NIE of the State Department's Bureau of Intelligence and Research (INR) that claims of Iraqi pursuit of natural uranium in Africa are "highly dubious".
Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) assessment that "Iraq has biological weapons" and that "all key aspects of Iraq's offensive biological weapons (BW) program are larger and more advanced than before the Gulf War."
Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) assessment that Iraq possessed, or ever developed, mobile facilites for producing biological warfare (BW) agents.
Concerns existed within the Central Intelligence Agency's (CIA) Directorate of Operations (DO) prior to the war about the credibility of the mobile biological weapons program source code-named CURVE BALL. . . .
Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) assessments that Iraq "has chemical weapons" or "is expanding its chemical industry to support chemical weapons (CW) production."
Postwar findings support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) assessment that Iraq had missiles which exceeded United Nations (UN) range limits. The findings do not support the assessment that Iraq likely retained a covert force of SCUD variant short range ballistic missiles (SRBMS).
Postwar findings do not support the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate (NIE) assessments that Iraq had a developmental program for an Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) "probably intended to deliver biological agents: or that an effort to procure U.S. mapping software "strongly suggests that Iraq is investigating the use of these UAVs for missions targeting the United States." Postwar findings support the view of the Air Force, joined by DIA and the Army, in an NIE published in January 2003, that Iraq's UAVs were primarily intended for reconnaissance.

blatham wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I think the person making an argument and asking for examples/evidence of counter arguments has more credibility than those who have nothing to contribute but criticism/ridicule of the person arguing a point.

I'm funny that way.

Is that what he's doing? Sounds entirely reasonable.

Let's see what happens when we turn his "methodology" around.

Brandon...please provide evidence that Bush has spoken truthfully as regards the negative effects of American media on the war on terror.

As soon as I make a post claiming that, I shall certainly provide some kind of evidence.

Brandon9000 wrote:

blatham wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:

I think the person making an argument and asking for examples/evidence of counter arguments has more credibility than those who have nothing to contribute but criticism/ridicule of the person arguing a point.

I'm funny that way.

Is that what he's doing? Sounds entirely reasonable.

Let's see what happens when we turn his "methodology" around.

Brandon...please provide evidence that Bush has spoken truthfully as regards the negative effects of American media on the war on terror.

As soon as I make a post claiming that, I shall certainly provide some kind of evidence.

So he has not spoken the truth in this regard then?

Brandon read this :

The Lies of George Bush Exposed

(Senate Intel Pt. II)

Quote:

The first section deals with the WMD issues. Here are the conclusions from the report:.....

More Lies - Bush Finally Comes Clean On Secret CIA Prisons

Do you regret starting this thread ?

God, you're dense. I didn't say that either. Let me repeat slooowwwllllyyyy. When I make a blanket statement that he has told the truth about everything or a statement asserting that he has told the truth about something specific, I will provide evidence or a logical argument. I have said what I have said, and not what I have not said, as though that weren't obvious.

What I have mostly done so far is to ask for evidence in cases where someone made a charge of lying.

Quote:

God, you're dense. I didn't say that either. Let me repeat slooowwwllllyyyy. When I make a blanket statement that he has told the truth about everything or a statement asserting that he has told the truth about something specific, I will provide evidence or a logical argument. I have said what I have said, and not what I have not said, as though that weren't obvious.

What I have mostly done so far is to ask for evidence in cases where someone made a charge of lying.

Yes, and you characterize "evidence" in unique ways. What we are now doing is taking your methodology for a test run to see if it is in any sense useful. I'm assuming you think it is, so this ought to pose no problem for you.

Let's try it this way. Has Hillary Clinton lied?

blatham wrote:

Quote:

God, you're dense. I didn't say that either. Let me repeat slooowwwllllyyyy. When I make a blanket statement that he has told the truth about everything or a statement asserting that he has told the truth about something specific, I will provide evidence or a logical argument. I have said what I have said, and not what I have not said, as though that weren't obvious.

What I have mostly done so far is to ask for evidence in cases where someone made a charge of lying.

Yes, and you characterize "evidence" in unique ways. What we are now doing is taking your methodology for a test run to see if it is in any sense useful. I'm assuming you think it is, so this ought to pose no problem for you.

Let's try it this way. Has Hillary Clinton lied?

What makes you think I'll take your quiz? My only comment to you is that if I make any accusation of any susbtance against anyone, I will provide evidence or a logical argument to back it up, and respond to reasonable debating challenges, which is more than can be said for most of your crowd.