parados wrote:I think there is little question that Bush has made statements that are factually untrue.
Everyone seems to agree with that. Can we see a show of hands that think he has never made a statement that has proven false?
As you said, everyone seems to agree with that. That does not mean those statements are lies, unless you adopt DL's bizarro definition of "lie."
Setanta wrote:That is precisely why the Bush supporters here have harped upon a definition of "lie," and have been ranting about honesty. They know that they cannot deny that so many of his statements have been proven to be untrue, so they want to portray him as an ultimately honest man who simply erred.
An honest man who has simply erred is not a liar ... unless you adopt DL's bizarro definition of "lie."
It's obvious that Bush haters think saying 'everybody knows it' is sufficient evidence to prove a lie. It is also obvious that any who see a difference between a lie and a misspeak or mistake are going to be ridiculed or trashed.
That's pretty much how politics are done these days though.
DrewDad wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:username wrote:We post them. We back them up. You don't listen. That's why Bush's numbers keep falling. The hardcore doesn't hear when everyone else tells them Bush is wrong, and everyone else doesn't believe the hardcore anymore.
Not the truth. Look at the posts on A2K. For every case in which the President is accused of a specific lie, and there is some attempt to give evidence or supporting logic, there are many, many, many posts in which the accusation is made without either.
Now you're lying, Brandon. She did not say that every post is substantiated; that is a condition you are adding.
I didn't claim that she said that every post is substantiated. I claim that her statement, "We post them. We back them up," is false. And, just for the record, I asserted that her statement is false. I did not accuse her of lying, since I reserve that for cases in which I am very sure. To accuse people of lying as indiscriminately as you do, without really understanding what they meant or their intent is unethical.
snood wrote:Brandon9000 wrote:username wrote:We post them. We back them up. You don't listen. That's why Bush's numbers keep falling. The hardcore doesn't hear when everyone else tells them Bush is wrong, and everyone else doesn't believe the hardcore anymore.
Not the truth. Look at the posts on A2K. For every case in which the President is accused of a specific lie, and there is some attempt to give evidence or supporting logic, there are many, many, many posts in which the accusation is made without either.
It's just like the harcore Right's answer to why Bush and the Republicans poll rock-bottom low among Blacks - the Blacks just don't see the real truth about wo the Republicans are, and what party really is best.
It's exactly like the hardcore rightwing answer to why Bush is polling at about 30% popularity these days - people just don't understand the real truth about what Bush is doing that's good for them.
You f*ckers just don't get it, Brandon - you will buy and then try to resell anything - AN"YTHING that Bush and Co sell you. You will defend ANYTHING they do. You are pathetic.
What's pathetic is the inability to argue your viewpoints without usually trying to impeach the character of your opponent.
Foxfyre wrote:It's obvious that Bush haters think saying 'everybody knows it' is sufficient evidence to prove a lie. It is also obvious that any who see a difference between a lie and a misspeak or mistake are going to be ridiculed or trashed.
That's pretty much how politics are done these days though.
This entails a presumption that if one doesn't lap up every word of the Shrub like mother's milk, one hates him. It is an unwarranted assumption. As has already been pointed out, if one assumes that the Shrub is completely honest, one cannot escape the conclusion that he is disasterously incompetent.
parados wrote:I think there is little question that Bush has made statements that are factually untrue.
Everyone seems to agree with that. Can we see a show of hands that think he has never made a statement that has proven false?
Now we have a new definition of a lie, as defined by Parados.
And to quote you Parados, "Everyone seems to agree with that." It should be obvious that not everyone would seem to agree with that, but Parados is here to make that claim nevertheless. Obviously you just lied yourself because everyone obviously would not agree with that statement, and a person of your intelligence should know that, and yet you make that claim. It appears to be an intentional effort to mislead and lie to all of us here on this forum.
Maybe we should take these one by one. Who disagrees that the president's claim that the government was abiding by FISA not long after he'd approved the NSA program was a lie?
"Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way..." April 2004
The order authorizing the NSA surveillance program was authorized in 2002. I'm pretty sure that Tico already accepts this as a lie regardless of excuses, so who still says it isn't?
As for the definition of lie, can we go with this one?
Quote:lie2 Audio pronunciation of "lie" ( P ) Pronunciation Key (l)
n.
1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
v. lied, ly·ing, (lng) lies
v. intr.
1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
2. To convey a false image or impression: Appearances often lie.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=lie
Sounds reasonable, FD. I believe an intent to deceive is a necessary element of lying. Thus, if a person has a good faith belief in the truth of what they are saying, even if it turns out to be false, it's not a lie.
I don't believe that is true at all. I believe that is the biggest cop-out there ever was.
All the accused ever has to say is, 'well, I thought I was telling the truth.' It is extremely hard to prove differently, even in the fact of facts which would seem to do so; because you cannot prove that the person understood those facts, you cannot prove that they believed that the facts mean the same things as what you think they mean. You don't have any way of knowing whether or not the person is also lying about what they actually believed at the time.
We aren't a court of law, where a judge or jury will make a decision based upon what they believe. This is a political discussion board. Those supporters of Bush can state 'well, he didn't mean what he said' 'he mis-spoke, not lied' 'He believed it was true at the time, so it wasn't a lie' all day long, and then accuse those bringing up the lies of being unable to prove that Bush was lying in the vast majority of instances, instances where we all can see that untruths come out of his mouth.
It is a bullsh*t copout. The die-hard conservatives will never believe that Bush is a liar, no matter what evidence is shown, because they always have a copout. Witness Fox's refusal to believe that Bush was lying when he talked about needing warrants to tap phones in 2004; the facts don't matter, the fact that other conservatives (such as Tico and McG) have suggested that he was, in fact, lying, doesn't matter. All that matters is the wiggle room at the end, because that's what lets them go on thinking that everything is o.k., and that they made the right choice, and therefore they are okay.
This thread is bullsh*t. It has never mattered what anyone said here. There is a zero chance that any conservative would say that Bush is, in fact, a liar. The whole thing was designed to get a good 'ol partisan fight going on, and that's the extent of it.
Well, f*ck that.
Cycloptichorn
Cycloptichorn wrote:I don't believe that is true at all. I believe that is the biggest cop-out there ever was.
All the accused ever has to say is, 'well, I thought I was telling the truth.' It is extremely hard to prove differently, even in the fact of facts which would seem to do so; because you cannot prove that the person understood those facts, you cannot prove that they believed that the facts mean the same things as what you think they mean. You don't have any way of knowing whether or not the person is also lying about what they actually believed at the time.
We aren't a court of law, where a judge or jury will make a decision based upon what they believe. This is a political discussion board. Those supporters of Bush can state 'well, he didn't mean what he said' 'he mis-spoke, not lied' 'He believed it was true at the time, so it wasn't a lie' all day long, and then accuse those bringing up the lies of being unable to prove that Bush was lying in the vast majority of instances, instances where we all can see that untruths come out of his mouth.
It is a bullsh*t copout. The die-hard conservatives will never believe that Bush is a liar, no matter what evidence is shown, because they always have a copout. Witness Fox's refusal to believe that Bush was lying when he talked about needing warrants to tap phones in 2004; the facts don't matter, the fact that other conservatives (such as Tico and McG) have suggested that he was, in fact, lying, doesn't matter. All that matters is the wiggle room at the end, because that's what lets them go on thinking that everything is o.k., and that they made the right choice, and therefore they are okay.
This thread is bullsh*t. It has never mattered what anyone said here. There is a zero chance that any conservative would say that Bush is, in fact, a liar. The whole thing was designed to get a good 'ol partisan fight going on, and that's the extent of it.
Well, f*ck that.
Cycloptichorn
How many times have you said something to someone else that turned out not to be true, even though you honestly thought it was true at the time? Do you consider yourself to be a liar every time that happens, even though your really thought it was true?
If you honestly believe that to be the case, then it's clear that,
for you, Bush is a big fat hairy liar. Of course, so is everyone else in the world, but whatever floats your boat.
You're missing the point. The point is that this thread is bullsh*t, as it was never designed to come to any sort of meaningful conclusion, and since those who defend Bush can fall back on cop-outs such as the one you suggested, there is no way to ever prove that any of the lies were actually lies. This allows Conservatives to accuse Liberals of making baseless accusations. THAT is the point of this thread, to start a partisan fight.
Go back and read it, and you'll see that is exactly what happened.
As I said before, f*ck that. I'm done with this thread, and I would suggest the same for everyone involved.
Cycloptichorn
okie wrote:parados wrote:I think there is little question that Bush has made statements that are factually untrue.
Everyone seems to agree with that. Can we see a show of hands that think he has never made a statement that has proven false?
Now we have a new definition of a lie, as defined by Parados.
And to quote you Parados, "Everyone seems to agree with that." It should be obvious that not everyone would seem to agree with that, but Parados is here to make that claim nevertheless. Obviously you just lied yourself because everyone obviously would not agree with that statement, and a person of your intelligence should know that, and yet you make that claim. It appears to be an intentional effort to mislead and lie to all of us here on this forum.
Funny how you got any definition of "lie" out of my statement.
I said we can all agree that Bush has made statements that have turned out to be factually untrue. Do you agree or disagree? You seem to be arguing that everything Bush has said is factually true. Is that your case?
Cycloptichorn wrote:You're missing the point. The point is that this thread is bullsh*t, as it was never designed to come to any sort of meaningful conclusion, and since those who defend Bush can fall back on cop-outs such as the one you suggested, there is no way to ever prove that any of the lies were actually lies. This allows Conservatives to accuse Liberals of making baseless accusations. THAT is the point of this thread, to start a partisan fight.
Go back and read it, and you'll see that is exactly what happened.
As I said before, f*ck that. I'm done with this thread, and I would suggest the same for everyone involved.
Cycloptichorn
Fine, Cyclops ... I understand your point. And I hope you understand mine: Unless you truly believe the answer to the question I posed in my last post is true, you must consider the responses of the "Conservatives" on this thread to be valid, and not simply "cop-outs." Those of you who hate Bush are going to think he lied no matter what, even if you have to torture the definition of the word "lie" to do it. You aren't concerned that you can't "prove" that Bush lied, because you "
know in your heart" (to quote you) he's a liar -- which is funny, because Debra_Law (and Colbert) attacks conservatives for trying to "know with their hearts." (
Link for Debra_Law's benefit.) "Liberals "know with their heart" ... good; Conservatives "know with their heart" ... bad."
But I understand you are done with this thread. Have a good day.
An intent to deceive is needed, I think. But I think we have that in at least a couple of pieces. I've argued elsewhere that same thing about the 16 words in the SOTU address. Were they technically accurate? Probably, but what was the intent? The intent was to make us believe something that the person speaking those words had been told wasn't true. In my view that qualifies as, if not an outright lie, a deception. And I think if we look closely we will find many such deceptions.
So I ask again, anyone disagree that Bush lied about requiring a warrant for wiretaps? Speak now or I'll chock that one up as number 1 and move on to the next.
FreeDuck wrote:An intent to deceive is needed, I think. But I think we have that in at least a couple of pieces. I've argued elsewhere that same thing about the 16 words in the SOTU address. Were they technically accurate? Probably, but what was the intent? The intent was to make us believe something that the person speaking those words had been told wasn't true. In my view that qualifies as, if not an outright lie, a deception. And I think if we look closely we will find many such deceptions.
FD, can you give me a link to where it's been established that the Bush Administration had been told the 16 words were not true?
parados wrote:
I said we can all agree that Bush has made statements that have turned out to be factually untrue. Do you agree or disagree? You seem to be arguing that everything Bush has said is factually true. Is that your case?
No, you said:
"I think there is little question that Bush has made statements that are factually untrue.
Everyone seems to agree with that. Can we see a show of hands that think he has never made a statement that has proven false?"
I did not say that everything Bush has said is factually true. I merely pointed out that your claim that "Everyone seems to agree with" "I think there is little question that Bush has made statements that are factually untrue." Where is your evidence that "Everyone" seems to agree? Everyone includes alot of people, more than your opinion, Parados. I think there is pretty good evidence that you probably told a whopper with your statement, Parados, because at least one person somewhere, probably many, would disagree with you. Using the yardstick employed by many on this thread, you are a liar Parados.
Ticomaya wrote:FD, can you give me a link to where it's been established that the Bush Administration had been told the 16 words were not true?
I've posted it twice... Aren't you the one that refuses to do other people's research?
Actually the 16 words assert that British intelligence discovered and/or believed something. That is actually true. The deceptive part is that our intelligence services did not agree with the British assessment, and the administration had been told at least three times before Bush's speech.
