President Bush: Is He a Liar?

Your whole argument reduces to "I don't think that's proof." That's fine... but the rest of us can make up our own minds.

DrewDad wrote:

Your whole argument reduces to "I don't think that's proof." That's fine... but the rest of us can make up our own minds.

Of course you can, DD. And if you choose to employ DL's definition of "lie," then pretty much anything anybody has ever said has the potential of being a lie, so long as it misleads somebody.

But such a definition of the term waters it down completely to the point where it has no meaning. If you want the rules of this thread to be, "a lie can be whatever we think it is," well by all means, go ahead and play your game. To everyone besides the leftist, anti-Bush crowd, however, a lie requires an untruth be deliberately told with an intent to deceive.

Funny you phrase it that way, because to everyone besides the 31% of brainwashed rightwingnuts left in the country, your boy is out to lunch.

So what are you saying, Tico< it's not surveillance? Or it's not surveillance by the Bush administration?

It's clearly done by the administration, since the NSA is part of it. It's clearly surveillance as well, since it's correlating phone numbers of callers and callees--phone records similar to those which are often introduced in criminal cases to indicate contacts between parties. If that ain't surveillance, you have a strange definition of what is. And you assume we know all of what the NSA is sdoing, since even this much wasn't known generally until today.

And since the alleged topic of this thread is Bush lies, what I have introduced is what seems to me to be such a lie, and some of the reasons it seems to me to be so. Completely on topic, tho apparently you disagree. Tough.

You deny he has ever lied. That is a position that reminds me of the proverbial ostrich with his head in the sand. The question is, has he ever told the truth.

And for those, such as the-poster-currently-known-as-BernardR, who keep trying to impose their own definitions of "lie" on the topic, let me cite the well-recognized expert on definitions, the Merriam-Webster New Collegiate Dictionary, whcih includes the following: "1a: an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive b: an untrue or inaccurate statement that MAY OR MAY NOT BE BELIEVED TRUE BY THE SPEAKER 2: SOMETHING THAT MISLEADS OR DECEIVES 3: a charge of lying", (emphasis added). Clearly Debra Law is closer to common usage than either Brandon or Bernard.

Debra_Law wrote:

Most of us are intelligent enough to determine for ourselves whether Bush lied in accordance with the common understanding and usage of the word "lie."

It's obvious from reading this thread that the above statement is a lie.

That common understanding of the word includes ANYTHING which misleads or deceives. A lie can be intentional; a lie can be unintentional.

Ofercrissakes. According to that bizzaro theory, every damn thing you ever said that happened to mislead somebody else, even unintentionally, was a lie.

You liar.

Ticomaya wrote:

Debra_Law wrote:

Most of us are intelligent enough to determine for ourselves whether Bush lied in accordance with the common understanding and usage of the word "lie."

It's obvious from reading this thread that the above statement is a lie.

I didn't say "ALL of us;" I said "MOST of us." Maybe you're not included in the "most of us" part of the statement, but that's not my problem. MOST of us are indeed intelligent enough to determine for ourselves whether Bush lied in accordance with the common understanding and usage of the word "lie."

Quote:

That common understanding of the word includes ANYTHING which misleads or deceives. A lie can be intentional; a lie can be unintentional.

Ticomaya wrote:

Ofercrissakes. According to that bizzaro theory, every damn thing you ever said that happened to mislead somebody else, even unintentionally, was a lie.

You liar.

If the topic was Debra Law: Is she a Liar? . . . perhaps your childish outburst would be relevant if you listed my statements that allegedly misled or deceived the American people or Congress. But it's not. I'm not the president of this country. I'm not lying to the faces of the American people while I carry on secret operations behind their backs.

Deflection is certainly his object. He's willing to discuss Clinton, he's willing to sneer about definitions of the word "lie," i wouldn't be surprised to see him argue what "is" is--but he would love to move the topic away from the Shrub and his lies.

When are you going to provide evidence for your contention that the Shrub is more honest than Clinton? So far, the most of what you've contributed to this thread is to call people names.

DrewDad wrote:

If we're going for legal angles, then let me introduce reasonable inference... something brough up by Deborah LAW :wink: on another thread.

Obviously one cannot absolutely know another's mind, but one can observe their actions and draw inferences.

So I will repeat what I said earlier:

DrewDad wrote:

Being consistently wrong about such an important subject, when one is the President of the United States and can certainly put great resources toward finding the truth, and presenting this "inaccuracy" as if it could stand up in a court of law, is lying.

Or psychosis.

I can't believe it to be incompetence.

Although I should have said "...and repeatedly presenting this 'inaccuracy....'"

Yes, DL attempted to claim "reasonable inferences" show Bush was a liar, yet she was unable to make that assertion stand on the "Amarica ... Spying on Americans" thread, and you're unable to do it now.

On that thread, DL claimed Bush lied, but stated that his "lies" could not be proven, but she believed a court could find he's lied with no proof, because she would employ the "elementary law" of "reasonable inferences." As I said on that thread, faced with ZERO evidence that Bush lied, a court is much more likely to the evidence and arguments concerning the justiciable issues before them, and then make the appropriate findings, based upon the evidence, than to leap to follow DL's "reasonable inferences" argument. And, as I said on that thread, applying the "reasonable inferences" approach to the the argument you are presenting, when you claim that Bush lied, but cannot prove that Bush lied, the reasonable inference is that it is you who is lying, not Bush.