Lie by Lie Timeline

Cycloptichorn wrote:

As we cannot know what people where thinking when they state statements, it is impossible to prove that people were lying. This is exactly the game that you are playing, Brandon, as I pointed out in the other thread; you have set the bar for 'lying' so high that it is almost impossible to prove that anyone is lying, ever.

There were several instances that you had no clear response to in the previous thread, as you well know.

Cycloptichorn

The problem is, though, that this is actually the correct definition of lying. Supose that some friends and I are meeting for lunch, and when I arrive, someone asks, "Is Bill coming?" and I say that he is, because I don't know that he has had an automobile accident on the way. I am not lying, although I am wrong. Your objection is invalid for the following reason. It has always been true that one cannot view another person's intentions, but it has never stopped people from being successfully prosecuted for perjury, libel, or slander, all of which require a conclusion that the speaker, or writer, was lying. One doesn't need airtight proof to show that someone is a liar, just a reasonable amount of evidence, something you prefer not to be troubled with. The Bush haters appear to want the freedom to scream, "liar, liar" without the pesky requirement that they provide some specific evidence to lend plausibility to the charge.

0 Replies

Quote:

One doesn't need airtight proof to show that someone is a liar, just a reasonable amount of evidence, something you prefer not to be troubled with.

This is patently untrue. You have been/were provided several different statements of Bush's where there was a 'reasonable amount of evidence' that he was lying, and you brush this off without admitting that your opponents have a point.

For example, the Domestic wiretapping lie; Bush had re-authorized this program dozens of times before he made this statement to the public, so there is little doubt that he knew that we were listening to phone calls without a judge's approval. Yet you try to say that this doesn't count as 'reasonable evidence' that Bush was lying.

You've just shifted the goalpost from 'proving a lie' to 'proving what evidence is reasonable,' but you have no intention of ever admitting that there is reasonable evidence that Bush has lied on several occasions, even when presented with that reasonable evidence.

I can go hunt links if you like, but you and I both know that you remember the posts you are talking about.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Quote:
One doesn't need airtight proof to show that someone is a liar, just a reasonable amount of evidence, something you prefer not to be troubled with.

This is patently untrue. You have been/were provided several different statements of Bush's where there was a 'reasonable amount of evidence' that he was lying, and you brush this off without admitting that your opponents have a point.

For example, the Domestic wiretapping lie; Bush had re-authorized this program dozens of times before he made this statement to the public, so there is little doubt that he knew that we were listening to phone calls without a judge's approval. Yet you try to say that this doesn't count as 'reasonable evidence' that Bush was lying.

You've just shifted the goalpost from 'proving a lie' to 'proving what evidence is reasonable,' but you have no intention of ever admitting that there is reasonable evidence that Bush has lied on several occasions, even when presented with that reasonable evidence.

I can go hunt links if you like, but you and I both know that you remember the posts you are talking about.

Cycloptichorn

I thought I admitted that this might be a lie above in this thread. My only caveat is that when someone speaks publicly constantly, it is possible to say something that is false occasionally without having intended to lie. You know as well as I do that if thousands of people who hate you recorded everything you say all day long, and studied every word in the hopes of finding a contradiction, there would be occasional statements of yours that would appear to be lies, even though you had not intended to lie. Still, I did say that the wiretapping quotation appears to be a lie. And, yes, given the poor quality of the accusations against the president, I will admit any lies only one by one, and only if you describe them first. I'm sure not going to admit them because you maintain that they were already proven.

0 Replies

Well, it isn't anything to me whether you admit that something was a lie or not; unlike you, I'm not here to 'win' anything.

I'm merely reminding you that when you make blanket statements such as:

Quote:

I'd tell you to specify one and only one lie, in your own words, clearly, or provide a link to a past post in which someone did, but I know I'd never get a straight answer.

You should remember that you have, in fact, gotten straight answers to this very question in the past, on more than one occasion. Feel free to re-read the 'Bush: Is he a Liar?' thread which you started in order to find evidence of this, should you require it.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well, it isn't anything to me whether you admit that something was a lie or not; unlike you, I'm not here to 'win' anything.

I'm merely reminding you that when you make blanket statements such as:

Quote:
I'd tell you to specify one and only one lie, in your own words, clearly, or provide a link to a past post in which someone did, but I know I'd never get a straight answer.

You should remember that you have, in fact, gotten straight answers to this very question in the past, on more than one occasion. Feel free to re-read the 'Bush: Is he a Liar?' thread which you started in order to find evidence of this, should you require it.

Cycloptichorn

I have sometimes gotten straight answers, but only a very small percentage of the time. More often I get assertions that it's obvious, or already proven, or that I should verify the other poster's position with Google, or comments about my character.

The fact is that in order for something to be a lie, the speaker must be aware that he's lying. If he thinks he's telling the truth, then it's only a mistake. The Bush haters follow Bush around testing every word to see if it could be presented as a lie. It's standard dirty politics. It's not very hard to make anyone look like a liar if you put enough manpower on the job. But if you only find a few such things in the case of a person who speaks in public several times a day, you are probably not dealing with a liar. It's just standard, gargen variety chacter assasination. You guys should spend more time worrying about your own platform, and less trying to prove that Bush secretly bombs orphanages for kicks.

0 Replies

Quote:

Bush admits the CIA runs secret prisons

WASHINGTON - President Bush on Wednesday acknowledged for the first time that the CIA runs secret prisons overseas and said tough interrogation forced terrorist leaders to reveal plots to attack the United States and its allies.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060907/ap_on_go_pr_wh/bush

0 Replies

Lie by Lie Timeline

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know