0
   

President Bush: Is He a Liar?

 
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 May, 2006 10:43 am
squinney wrote:
Are you guys still trying to figure out what a lie is?

Just try asking your grandma if you had made the same statements as Bush (and his administration) has made, if she'd be grabbing you up by your ear and taking you behind the shed.


Or even better,just remember this statement...
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman"

That was a lie also,remember.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 May, 2006 10:45 am
John's Law demonstrated. Although, of course, Clinton was already brought up here before.
0 Replies
 
mysteryman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 May, 2006 10:47 am
Setanta wrote:
John's Law demonstrated. Although, of course, Clinton was already brought up here before.


I thought the issue was about Presidential lies.
BTW,I didnt mention his name,you did.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 May, 2006 10:48 am
That's a feeble cop-out, even by your low standards.

The topic is President Bush: Is he a liar?
0 Replies
 
squinney
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 May, 2006 10:48 am
See! You DO know a lie when you hear it.

Good job, MM.

Now, let's try the next one:

"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. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."
0 Replies
 
JustanObserver
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 May, 2006 11:11 am
mysteryman wrote:
I thought the issue was about Presidential lies.


Holy crap dude, that was beyond weak.

In two other threads you nitpick the title to the point of absurdity, and here (in a thread titled "President Bush: is he a liar?") somehow you completely gloss over it? Nice demonstration of selective interpretation.

mysteryman wrote:
BTW,I didnt mention his name,you did.


I see you learned alot from the "White House school of weak excuses: Valerie Plame leak" class.
Yeah... you obviously weren't talking about Clinton when you quoted a line directly attributable to him and that everyone knows about. Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 May, 2006 11:14 am
squinney wrote:
See! You DO know a lie when you hear it.

Good job, MM.

Now, let's try the next one:

"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. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so."


Mystery Man, can you directly address this particular quoted lie, without squirming around or blowing smoke?
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 May, 2006 11:19 am
Fox, you don't know what the article said, because you didn't read it. You blanket condemned it, because that's what you do when presented with opinions that you don't want to agree with.

You obviously haven't even read the thread, either, because it certainly wasn't Tico that presented evidence of Bush lying, but others, merely confirmed by Tico. But since you don't listen to anyone that doesn't agree with you, you didn't realize that others had raised the issue far earlier.

I don't care what kind of Bullsh*t excuses you throw out; you must realize what a poor opinion people have of you by now, and if you don't, you're even worse than people already think. And it isn't because we are fools, I guarantee you.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 May, 2006 11:44 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Fox, you don't know what the article said, because you didn't read it. You blanket condemned it, because that's what you do when presented with opinions that you don't want to agree with.

You obviously haven't even read the thread, either, because it certainly wasn't Tico that presented evidence of Bush lying, but others, merely confirmed by Tico. But since you don't listen to anyone that doesn't agree with you, you didn't realize that others had raised the issue far earlier.

I don't care what kind of Bullsh*t excuses you throw out; you must realize what a poor opinion people have of you by now, and if you don't, you're even worse than people already think. And it isn't because we are fools, I guarantee you.

Cycloptichorn


Show where I condemned it in any way? I didn't. I said that because the writer says President Bush is a liar does not make President Bush a liar. And trotting out the same old stuff that has already been debated at length doesn't make it any more true now than it made it true earlier.

I read enough of the article to see what the content was. It was enough to know that it did not address the question that no Bush hater had yet been willing to address.
0 Replies
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 May, 2006 11:45 am
Well, Mysteryman?
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 May, 2006 11:50 am
Mysteryman is on intellectuaL vacation.
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 May, 2006 11:57 am
Mysteryman is busily polishing is bronzed, life-sized George W. Bush statue as we speak. It is anatomically correct and he is busy with the part that hangs down in a pathetic fashion.
0 Replies
 
username
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 May, 2006 12:14 pm
Gee, I could have sworn he was kissing the part around back from that.
0 Replies
 
gustavratzenhofer
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 May, 2006 12:16 pm
He will get to that. Give him time.
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 May, 2006 12:31 pm
Foxfyre wrote:

Meanwhile, I shall focus on the thesis of this thread which is: Is President Bush a liar? So far, the only person who has even come up with a possibility of that has been Tico, and nobody else has shown me any proof or even any credible suspicion that he intended to deceive or mislead.

Saying that somebody lied requires more evidence than just saying somebody lied and I don't care who is saying it.


Uh, I've laid it out in two posts now and neither have been rebutted. Here's how it works:

1) The president said something that wasn't true. (see squinney's post to MM for the quoted text, again)
2) The president knew it wasn't true because he signed more than one presidential order authorizing wiretaps without warrants and outside the parameters of FISA.

How do you come to the conclusion that saying something one knows is not true is not a lie? What was his intent if not to deceive? This is an obvious one and, though you could make an argument that it was justified, it was a lie. Just acknowledge this one obvious lie so that we continue with more ambiguous ones. There's no ambiguity here. I'm getting the feeling that the only way you will accept that he lied is if he comes right out and admits it.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 May, 2006 12:38 pm
FreeDuck wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:

Meanwhile, I shall focus on the thesis of this thread which is: Is President Bush a liar? So far, the only person who has even come up with a possibility of that has been Tico, and nobody else has shown me any proof or even any credible suspicion that he intended to deceive or mislead.

Saying that somebody lied requires more evidence than just saying somebody lied and I don't care who is saying it.


Uh, I've laid it out in two posts now and neither have been rebutted. Here's how it works:

1) The president said something that wasn't true. (see squinney's post to MM for the quoted text, again)
2) The president knew it wasn't true because he signed more than one presidential order authorizing wiretaps without warrants and outside the parameters of FISA.

How do you come to the conclusion that saying something one knows is not true is not a lie? What was his intent if not to deceive? This is an obvious one and, though you could make an argument that it was justified, it was a lie. Just acknowledge this one obvious lie so that we continue with more ambiguous ones. There's no ambiguity here. I'm getting the feeling that the only way you will accept that he lied is if he comes right out and admits it.


On this case yes. The President....and Congress.....and the media.....and members of A2K.....and everybody else are reckless, irresponsible, and put Americans at risk when they blare out the classified ways that we do surveillance or otherwise do 'research' to ferret out those who intend us harm. I do not believe President Bush ever intended to say that the U.S. does not do wiretapping or even does not do wiretapping without warrants. He has said on more than one occasion that the United States has not done ILLEGAL wiretapping. Now if he misspoke on one or more occasions leaving a different impression than that, okay. He misspoke. Was the intention to deceive? I do not believe it was. I do not believe that anybody here has yet proved that his intent was to deceive; i.e. lie.

I also think that in matters of national security, it is not a LIE to not tell all that you know about a classified matter.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 May, 2006 01:30 pm
squinney wrote:
Are you guys still trying to figure out what a lie is?

Just try asking your grandma if you had made the same statements as Bush (and his administration) has made, if she'd be grabbing you up by your ear and taking you behind the shed.

You guys keep saying this like a prayer, but when pressed for examples and proofs, you mostly come up with subjective assessments like "I'm a uniter, not a divider." Grandma would never have called you a liar either for stating a subjective matter of opinion, or for saying something that you completely believed.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 May, 2006 01:36 pm
But, grandma would have expected some integrity if what was totally believed was proven wrong. Especially when it affected the lives of so many. C'mon Brandon, get a life.
0 Replies
 
Foxfyre
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 May, 2006 01:52 pm
Intrepid wrote:
But, grandma would have expected some integrity if what was totally believed was proven wrong. Especially when it affected the lives of so many. C'mon Brandon, get a life.


The point is, those things that the President KNOWS to be wrong, he no longer supports. He is not saying there is proof that WMD were in Iraq when we invaded for instance, though I believe that he believed there was proof prior to the invasion. I think pretty much everybody in the U.N., Congress, and in the prior administration believed that too. For Bush to state that prior to the invasion simply was not a lie.

The leftwingers didn't want to use the example I used of Santa Claus. For Grandma to tell you that Santa was coming Christmas Eve was a lie, for sure, but a harmless one. For you to believe it and to tell others was to believe and tell an untruth, but it was not a lie on your part.

Admittedly, matters of state have far more reaching implications and much more potential for good or harm than does the myth of Santa Clause, but the principle remains the same. Being wrong about something does not make one a liar.

I hope that in their zeal to complete the personal destruction of George W. Bush, those who hate him will not set such impossible precedence and standards for national leaders that they will be unable to carry our their Constitutional responsibilities. At some point, intellectual honesty should trump hate.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sat 13 May, 2006 01:56 pm
Just because somebody is a stumbling buffoon does not mean that people hate him. They just don't understand him because he does not make any sense.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.48 seconds on 11/25/2024 at 03:34:51