| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
" fâhç" |
| Date: |
27 Oct 2004 12:20:24 AM |
| Object: |
Re: Did the democrats lie? |
"Dana" <dana_at2001@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:2afb3e8b.0410261720.44f73647@posting.google.com...
Why do some people continue to call Bush a liar? Calling the
president a liar is both inappropriate and inaccurate.
1) A lie is the deliberate act of telling the opposite of what
one *knows* is the truth. More accurately, people should be
saying that he came to wrong conclusions or assumptions about
Iraq having WMD.
Hilarious! Now you rightards are doing nuance, doing the "depends on what
the meaning of 'is' is" routine.
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entries/52/l0155200.html
lie
NOUN: 1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a
falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong
impression.
Bush is clearly guilty of lying. He and his cohorts altered the CIA report,
replacing inconclusive phrases like "might be" with definitive terms like
"is." That clearly was meant to deceive or give a wrong impression (item 2
in the definition). Bush used the Nigerian white cake story in his state of
the union address even after he had been told repeatedly that the story was
not true. That is a false statement deliberately presented as being true
(item 1). Bush is by definition a LIAR! (And those are only two out of
hundreds of examples of Bush lying)
2) It seems a great number of people easily forget that the President
wasn't the only person who came to that wrong assumption. Indeed,
there were *many* others who also thought Iraq had weapons of mass
destructions.
Really? So are people who are DECEIVED by a LIAR (Bush) guilty of lying in
your loony world? I suppose you would like to blame those who were
deceived by Bush for Bush's lies and declare Bush innocent of lying. How
convenient.
.
|
|
| User: "Sir Cumference" |
|
| Title: Re: Did the democrats lie? |
27 Oct 2004 04:54:42 PM |
|
|
fâhç wrote:
Bush is clearly guilty of lying. He and his cohorts altered the CIA report,
replacing inconclusive phrases like "might be" with definitive terms like
"is." That clearly was meant to deceive or give a wrong impression (item 2
in the definition).
You have proof of that?
.
|
|
|
| User: "fencingsax" |
|
| Title: Re: Did the democrats lie? |
28 Oct 2004 01:35:51 AM |
|
|
Sir Cumference <me@this.moc> wrote in message news:<WNKdnSh4id1JhB3cRVn-3g@gbronline.com>...
fâhç wrote:
Bush is clearly guilty of lying. He and his cohorts altered the CIA report,
replacing inconclusive phrases like "might be" with definitive terms like
"is." That clearly was meant to deceive or give a wrong impression (item 2
in the definition).
You have proof of that?
Uranium selling?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "clifto" |
|
| Title: Re: Did the democrats lie? |
27 Oct 2004 08:58:30 AM |
|
|
fâhç wrote:
"Dana" <dana_at2001@yahoo.ca> wrote...
Why do some people continue to call Bush a liar? Calling the
president a liar is both inappropriate and inaccurate.
1) A lie is the deliberate act of telling the opposite of what
one *knows* is the truth. More accurately, people should be
saying that he came to wrong conclusions or assumptions about
Iraq having WMD.
Hilarious! Now you rightards are doing nuance, doing the "depends on what
the meaning of 'is' is" routine.
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entries/52/l0155200.html
lie
NOUN: 1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a
falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong
impression.
Now, that's funny. First you misrepresent what he said, then you provide
the proof that you misrepresented it.
No comment on the rest of your contrived horseshit. You'll obviously
say or do anything necessary to rationalize your need to misrepresent
Bush as a liar. It's that deep, emotional need to believe that
Clinton wasn't the only pathological, constant liar in politics.
--
So those 380 tons of missing explosives were moved by Saddam before all
those expert inspectors noticed, eh?
No wonder twelve years of inspections found NOTHING.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mr William Ev erhart III" |
|
| Title: Re: Did the democrats lie? |
27 Oct 2004 03:20:28 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 27 Oct 2004 08:58:30 -0500, clifto <clifto@clifto.com> wrote:
fâhç wrote:
"Dana" <dana_at2001@yahoo.ca> wrote...
Why do some people continue to call Bush a liar? Calling the
president a liar is both inappropriate and inaccurate.
1) A lie is the deliberate act of telling the opposite of what
one *knows* is the truth. More accurately, people should be
saying that he came to wrong conclusions or assumptions about
Iraq having WMD.
Hilarious! Now you rightards are doing nuance, doing the "depends on what
the meaning of 'is' is" routine.
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entries/52/l0155200.html
lie
NOUN: 1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a
falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong
impression.
Now, that's funny. First you misrepresent what he said, then you provide
the proof that you misrepresented it.
No comment on the rest of your contrived horseshit. You'll obviously
say or do anything necessary to rationalize your need to misrepresent
Bush as a liar. It's that deep, emotional need to believe that
Clinton wasn't the only pathological, constant liar in politics.
Cliffy, You're an angry fatso you are.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lenny" |
|
| Title: Re: Did the democrats lie? |
27 Oct 2004 12:34:01 AM |
|
|
" fâhç" <%s%e%f%s@%f%x.br> wrote in message
news:GeGfd.44307$bk1.15099@fed1read05...
Bush is clearly guilty of lying. He and his cohorts altered the CIA
report,
replacing inconclusive phrases like "might be" with definitive terms
like
"is." That clearly was meant to deceive or give a wrong impression
(item 2
in the definition).
Good point. I would be very grateful for a link from a reputable news
source laying out the specifics of this and Bush's direct role in any
alterations.
Bush used the Nigerian white cake story in his state of
the union address even after he had been told repeatedly that the
story was
not true. That is a false statement deliberately presented as being
true
(item 1).
I've been led to believe, perhaps inaccurately, that the Senate
Intelligence report, and subsequent events discrediting former
Ambassador Joseph Wilson (who was the source for arguing against the
*yellow* cake story) indicated that there was some grounds for Bush's
comments. Perhaps you could comment on the Senate intelligence Report
specifically, the discrediting of Joseph Wilson, as well as reports
from Britain that supported the intelligence shared by them. TIA.
.
|
|
|
| User: " fâhç" |
|
| Title: Re: Did the democrats lie? |
27 Oct 2004 12:52:25 AM |
|
|
"Lenny" <latvia_lenny@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6PidnU9-HfaoruLcRVn-2Q@rcn.net...
" fâhç" <%s%e%f%s@%f%x.br> wrote in message
news:GeGfd.44307$bk1.15099@fed1read05...
Bush is clearly guilty of lying. He and his cohorts altered the CIA
report,
replacing inconclusive phrases like "might be" with definitive terms
like
"is." That clearly was meant to deceive or give a wrong impression
(item 2
in the definition).
Good point. I would be very grateful for a link from a reputable news
source laying out the specifics of this and Bush's direct role in any
alterations.
What would you consider a reputable news source? Fox News? NewsMax? World
News Daily?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lenny" |
|
| Title: Re: Did the democrats lie? |
27 Oct 2004 01:00:28 AM |
|
|
" fâhç" <%s%e%f%s@%f%x.br> wrote in message
news:IIGfd.44313$bk1.35798@fed1read05...
"Lenny" <latvia_lenny@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6PidnU9-HfaoruLcRVn-2Q@rcn.net...
" fâhç" <%s%e%f%s@%f%x.br> wrote in message
news:GeGfd.44307$bk1.15099@fed1read05...
Bush is clearly guilty of lying. He and his cohorts altered the
CIA
report,
replacing inconclusive phrases like "might be" with definitive
terms
like
"is." That clearly was meant to deceive or give a wrong
impression
(item 2
in the definition).
Good point. I would be very grateful for a link from a reputable
news
source laying out the specifics of this and Bush's direct role in
any
alterations.
What would you consider a reputable news source? Fox News?
NewsMax? World
News Daily?
I'm not all that sure what the latter two are; a national daily would
be fine, but I'm curious enough not to want to limit you.
.
|
|
|
| User: " fâhç" |
|
| Title: Re: Did the democrats lie? |
29 Oct 2004 02:48:24 AM |
|
|
"Lenny" <latvia_lenny@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:s6SdnWUgN9LzpOLcRVn-uw@rcn.net...
" fâhç" <%s%e%f%s@%f%x.br> wrote in message
news:IIGfd.44313$bk1.35798@fed1read05...
"Lenny" <latvia_lenny@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6PidnU9-HfaoruLcRVn-2Q@rcn.net...
" fâhç" <%s%e%f%s@%f%x.br> wrote in message
news:GeGfd.44307$bk1.15099@fed1read05...
Bush is clearly guilty of lying. He and his cohorts altered the
CIA
report,
replacing inconclusive phrases like "might be" with definitive
terms
like
"is." That clearly was meant to deceive or give a wrong
impression
(item 2
in the definition).
Good point. I would be very grateful for a link from a reputable
news
source laying out the specifics of this and Bush's direct role in
any
alterations.
What would you consider a reputable news source? Fox News?
NewsMax? World
News Daily?
I'm not all that sure what the latter two are; a national daily would
be fine, but I'm curious enough not to want to limit you.
Remember way, way back in Oct 2002? This is after Bush's propaganda
machine was in full swing, talking about an imminent threat from Iraq,
mushroom clouds over the US, Iraq being able to attack with WMD within 15
minutes, unmanned flying bombs capable of hitting the US, etc. The Senate
Intelligence Committee was trying to get George Tenet to give up some
classified info that backed up Bush's claims, anything that would help them
decide if they should give Bush authority to go to war. After Tenet was
backed into a corner, he gave a report and released some classified info
that said Saddam was *not* a threat against the US and the only way Saddam
would try to attack the US was if the US attacked him first.
The report was filled with inconclusive, indefinite statements like "Should
Saddam conclude that a U.S. led attack could no longer be deterred, he
probably would be come much less constrained in adopting terrorist actions,"
"Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist terrorists
in conducting an attack using weapons of mass destruction against the US
would be his last chance to exact vengeance," "While he is not likely to
share his weapons with anyone as long as he remains in power, it is less
apparent, however, whether this limit to proliferation would still apply
under conditions in which his regime was collapsing and his power was under
threat."
So here we have Bush and his administration already out there claiming
Saddam *will* attack and attack soon if we do not invade. Yet Bush's source
material was not only inconclusive, but also said that the only reason
Saddam might attack the US was if he were attacked first. The report stated
that attacking Iraq would likely *increase* not decrease terrorism.
You can google any of the quotes above for more info on Tenet's report.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Cosmo" |
|
| Title: Re: Did the democrats lie? |
29 Oct 2004 03:47:48 AM |
|
|
" fâhç" <%s%e%f%s@%f%x.br> wrote in message
news:bBmgd.49628$bk1.22679@fed1read05...
"Lenny" <latvia_lenny@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:s6SdnWUgN9LzpOLcRVn-uw@rcn.net...
" fâhç" <%s%e%f%s@%f%x.br> wrote in message
news:IIGfd.44313$bk1.35798@fed1read05...
"Lenny" <latvia_lenny@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6PidnU9-HfaoruLcRVn-2Q@rcn.net...
" fâhç" <%s%e%f%s@%f%x.br> wrote in message
news:GeGfd.44307$bk1.15099@fed1read05...
Bush is clearly guilty of lying. He and his cohorts altered the
CIA
report,
replacing inconclusive phrases like "might be" with definitive
terms
like
"is." That clearly was meant to deceive or give a wrong
impression
(item 2
in the definition).
Good point. I would be very grateful for a link from a reputable
news
source laying out the specifics of this and Bush's direct role in
any
alterations.
What would you consider a reputable news source? Fox News?
NewsMax? World
News Daily?
I'm not all that sure what the latter two are; a national daily would
be fine, but I'm curious enough not to want to limit you.
Remember way, way back in Oct 2002? This is after Bush's propaganda
machine was in full swing, talking about an imminent threat from Iraq,
mushroom clouds over the US, Iraq being able to attack with WMD within 15
minutes, unmanned flying bombs capable of hitting the US, etc. The Senate
Intelligence Committee was trying to get George Tenet to give up some
classified info that backed up Bush's claims, anything that would help
them
decide if they should give Bush authority to go to war. After Tenet was
backed into a corner, he gave a report and released some classified info
that said Saddam was *not* a threat against the US and the only way Saddam
would try to attack the US was if the US attacked him first.
The report was filled with inconclusive, indefinite statements like
"Should
Saddam conclude that a U.S. led attack could no longer be deterred, he
probably would be come much less constrained in adopting terrorist
actions,"
"Saddam might decide that the extreme step of assisting Islamist
terrorists
in conducting an attack using weapons of mass destruction against the US
would be his last chance to exact vengeance," "While he is not likely to
share his weapons with anyone as long as he remains in power, it is less
apparent, however, whether this limit to proliferation would still apply
under conditions in which his regime was collapsing and his power was
under
threat."
So here we have Bush and his administration already out there claiming
Saddam *will* attack and attack soon if we do not invade. Yet Bush's
source
material was not only inconclusive, but also said that the only reason
Saddam might attack the US was if he were attacked first. The report
stated
that attacking Iraq would likely *increase* not decrease terrorism.
You can google any of the quotes above for more info on Tenet's report.
The bush camp told so many stories about Iraq, there is no way they could go
back now, and patchwork them all togther and come out with anything that was
intelligable. They had Condi talking abiut the tubes, Colin lying to the
senate and the UN, Cheney, saying anything he could think of, Rummy was
ramblling like a crazy old man on speed, Ridge was giving fake warnings, and
Bush changed the rationale so many time he lost track then, Tenent said it
was slam dunk. Man, what a mess they created, They never thought it would
unravel over a weapons cache 5 days before the election.
They must be going crazy off camera. I noticed something unusual. Rummy has
been out of sight latley. His two interviews today weere by radio. I know
he's in bad favior over Abu Ghraib, but he's been highly visible for a long
time. Ashcroft is keeipng a low profile too. Is there something going on
behind the scene? There is a strange sensation here. Bush has incriminated
himself with a weeks full of stupid statements. Even thier commercial are
really nutty. After that lunatic performance at the convention, Bush is
dragging Zell miller around with him again. Tonight, they said Bush will
have Niel Bortz, Arnold and Zell with him tomorrow. What the hell kind of
team is that?
Bortz calls people bedwetters on TV, and bush drags that crude right wing
crazy man with him?
This is beyond reason. The party that was supposed to have it all under
control, has fragmenetd into a lunatic fringe on the eve of the election.
They said the democrats wereloing it. The democrats are totaly unified and
all on the same page eveyday. Everyday is an adventure in this campaign.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Telamon" |
|
| Title: Re: Did the democrats lie? |
27 Oct 2004 12:26:15 AM |
|
|
In article <GeGfd.44307$bk1.15099@fed1read05>,
" fâhç" <%s%e%f%s@%f%x.br> wrote:
"Dana" <dana_at2001@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:2afb3e8b.0410261720.44f73647@posting.google.com...
Why do some people continue to call Bush a liar? Calling the
president a liar is both inappropriate and inaccurate.
1) A lie is the deliberate act of telling the opposite of what
one *knows* is the truth. More accurately, people should be
saying that he came to wrong conclusions or assumptions about
Iraq having WMD.
Hilarious! Now you rightards are doing nuance, doing the "depends on what
the meaning of 'is' is" routine.
< Snip >
You mean like the current Kerry lying. No nuance there. Wish it was
funny.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
.
|
|
|
| User: " fâhç" |
|
| Title: Re: Did the democrats lie? |
27 Oct 2004 12:34:42 AM |
|
|
"Telamon" wrote in message
news:telamon_spamshield-90684B.22261626102004@newssvr13-ext.news.prodigy.com...
In article <GeGfd.44307$bk1.15099@fed1read05>,
" fâhç" <%s%e%f%s@%f%x.br> wrote:
"Dana" <dana_at2001@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:2afb3e8b.0410261720.44f73647@posting.google.com...
Why do some people continue to call Bush a liar? Calling the
president a liar is both inappropriate and inaccurate.
1) A lie is the deliberate act of telling the opposite of what
one *knows* is the truth. More accurately, people should be
saying that he came to wrong conclusions or assumptions about
Iraq having WMD.
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entries/52/l0155200.html
lie
NOUN: 1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a
falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong
impression.
Bush is clearly guilty of lying. He and his cohorts altered the CIA
report,
replacing inconclusive phrases like "might be" with definitive terms
like
"is." That clearly was meant to deceive or give a wrong impression
(item 2
in the definition). Bush used the Nigerian white cake story in his
state of
the union address even after he had been told repeatedly that the story
was
not true. That is a false statement deliberately presented as being
true
(item 1). Bush is by definition a LIAR! (And those are only two out of
hundreds of examples of Bush lying)
You mean like the current Kerry lying. No nuance there. Wish it was
funny.
I gave two examples of Bush lying that are irrefutable. You gave nothing.
Run along you nit-wit.
.
|
|
|
| User: "clifto" |
|
| Title: Re: Did the democrats lie? |
27 Oct 2004 08:59:15 AM |
|
|
fâhç wrote:
I gave two examples of Bush lying that are irrefutable. You gave nothing.
Your "examples" are as irrefutable as the statement "the earth is flat."
--
So those 380 tons of missing explosives were moved by Saddam before all
those expert inspectors noticed, eh?
No wonder twelve years of inspections found NOTHING.
.
|
|
|
| User: " fâhç" |
|
| Title: Re: Did the democrats lie? |
29 Oct 2004 01:51:14 AM |
|
|
"clifto" <clifto@clifto.com> wrote in message
news:j6m452-u5l.ln1@remote.clifto.com...
fâhç wrote:
I gave two examples of Bush lying that are irrefutable. You gave
nothing.
Your "examples" are as irrefutable as the statement "the earth is flat."
--
So those 380 tons of missing explosives were moved by Saddam before all
those expert inspectors noticed, eh?
No wonder twelve years of inspections found NOTHING.
Notice that you did not refute them, but rather distracted to the latest lie
of the Bush administration. The civilian administration of Iraq *after* the
fall of Baghdad informed the UN that the site was a sensitive site and
needed guarding because of all the explosives there. Therefore they were
still there *after* the fall of Baghdad. Too bad Bush was too busy ignoring
the UN, and not coordinating with the civilian administration and ignoring
looters, and only guarding oil wells.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Telamon" |
|
| Title: Re: Did the democrats lie? |
27 Oct 2004 01:12:04 AM |
|
|
In article <WrGfd.44311$bk1.40495@fed1read05>,
" fâhç" <%s%e%f%s@%f%x.br> wrote:
"Telamon" wrote in message
news:telamon_spamshield-90684B.22261626102004@newssvr13-ext.news.prodi
< Snip >
You mean like the current Kerry lying. No nuance there. Wish it was
funny.
I gave two examples of Bush lying that are irrefutable. You gave
nothing. Run along you nit-wit.
When is Kerry lying? When his lips move.
Another irrefutable fact is you are a moron.
There is your two irrefutable examples.
--
Telamon
Ventura, California
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
