[timzerofive]

Originally Posted by sdorn

The original poster called Bush a liar, and I asked for a specific example. I gave Clinton's lie as an example that would be acceptable. It had nothing to do with the subject matter of the lie, but rather the intention with which the lie was told.

You went into the detail that Clinton's lie was a "cold, calculated, planned lie in a special speech to the country just for the purpose of telling the lie". And suggested that Bush's remark didn't count as a "lie" because he was caught off-guard at a press conference so he just did the first thing he can think of, which was lie. All I'm doing is agreeing with you, yes, they both lied, and no, they were nothing alike. And yet, they still both lied.

Now, onto why I criticized Bush on lying and not Clinton? I criticized Clinton also at the time, but I understand why he would lie. And I personally believe we had no business asking about his personal life in the first place. It's the same reason why I belief Cheney should not be criticize about how fast he told the press what happened with the hunting accident, it's his personal business, and no one else's. Bush's lie was not about where his daughters partied the night before, or whether he ever smoked weed. The lie was prompted by the question of the people of the United States, why the federal government had not help the Katrina victims so many days into the disaster? His answer to that question was, uhhh we didn't know this would happen... when he DID know it would happen, and could've reacted must sooner.

[eleven24]

Originally Posted by docbolo

61,910,839 people can't all be wrong

Problem is, 42,193,054 of those people voted for him because the lever for Bush/Cheney was on the left. They couldn't pull the other lever because they hold their bibles in their right hands.

[sdorn]

Originally Posted by timzerofive

You went into the detail that Clinton's lie was a "cold, calculated, planned lie in a special speech to the country just for the purpose of telling the lie". And suggested that Bush's remark didn't count as a "lie" because he was caught off-guard at a press conference so he just did the first thing he can think of, which was lie. All I'm doing is agreeing with you, yes, they both lied, and no, they were nothing alike. And yet, they still both lied.

Now, onto why I criticized Bush on lying and not Clinton? I criticized Clinton also at the time, but I understand why he would lie. And I personally believe we had no business asking about his personal life in the first place. It's the same reason why I belief Cheney should not be criticize about how fast he told the press what happened with the hunting accident, it's his personal business, and no one else's. Bush's lie was not about where his daughters partied the night before, or whether he ever smoked weed. The lie was prompted by the question of the people of the United States, why the federal government had not help the Katrina victims so many days into the disaster? His answer to that question was, uhhh we didn't know this would happen... when he DID know it would happen, and could've reacted must sooner.

I pointed out that Clinton's lie was cold, calculated, etc. to show the intent with which it was told. It had nothing to do with the content of the lie itself. Also, I didn't say that Bush was caught off guard. I said the comment was made off the cuff, as in it wasn't planned out ahead of time with the intent to be a lie. That is the key difference I am trying to point out. Someone is not a liar just because something they said turned out to be untrue. To be a liar, at least in my opinion, you have to have an intention to deceive when you say something that isn't true.

I don't even really want to comment on your statements regarding the situation with Clinton, but it is so inaccurate I feel like I at least have to point out a few things. First of all, the country wasn't looking into whether Bill Clinton had sex or a bj while in office. The whole thing came up in the context of a law suit between Paula Jones and Bill Clinton. She was suing him for sexual harassment. Her attorneys had Clinton come in for a deposition, which is under oath. That means if you lie, it is perjury and a crime for which you can go to jail. They asked him specifically about Monica Lewinsky, and he lied to them about her while under oath. That is perjury. It is a crime. That is what the government investigated. They weren't investigating his personal life. They were investigating the crime of perjury.

[Laplacian]

Originally Posted by docbolo

Fanatic Liberals love to claim that Bush is a retard but then accuse him of the most clever of conspiracy theories (like how bush planned 9/11).

I have always wondered about this myself. I don't think the liberals can decide whether they want him to stupid or brilliantly evil. I'm surprised that no one has accused Bush of having the NSA build a weather changing machine to create Katrina in the first place!

The state and local governments in N.O. and LA are both liberal and were elected by the people there. That mayor is the real retard--he screwed up big time in many different ways. The rest of my Katrina commentary can best be summed up by the South Park episode "Two days before the day after tomorrow".

I agree that it has become fashionable to accuse Bush of being unintelligent. What irks me is that most people who accuse him of being stupid are much less intelligent than he is. It's easy to sit back accuse him of making bad decisions. He is doing the best he can with the information he has. Unlike his predacessor, he's not afraid to make the tough calls even if they are unpopular. Bush does what he thinks is best for the country despite exit polls. His predecessor would select his tie based exit polls.

Oh, and by the way, Clinton had THREE opportunities to capture Bin Laden. He passed on them all, vastly underestimating the threat he posed even after the embassy bombings.

[timzerofive]

Originally Posted by sdorn

I pointed out that Clinton's lie was cold, calculated, etc. to show the intent with which it was told. It had nothing to do with the content of the lie itself. Also, I didn't say that Bush was caught off guard. I said the comment was made off the cuff, as in it wasn't planned out ahead of time with the intent to be a lie. That is the key difference I am trying to point out. Someone is not a liar just because something they said turned out to be untrue. To be a liar, at least in my opinion, you have to have an intention to deceive when you say something that isn't true.

Whatever Clinton did, I agree was wrong, but that's why I said personally, I dont believe it should've been an issue at all. He lied, oh well, he didn't think oral sex was sex. Whatever. It does not undermind the life & death of thousands of people who's displaced from their home and living/dying/getting raped at the Superdome. Don't get me wrong though, I agree most of these people were given fair warning to evcuate, whether some of them were actually capable of evacuating I don't know, but the people who didn't leave definitely were responsibly for their own faith.

As far as Bush lying, its a fact. He did it. Calculated or not, his intention was to deceive. He didn't forget about hearing the fact a disaster is a great possiblity. The fact that they didn't know didn't just TURN OUT to be untrue. He intentionally lied about it. You don't think they had briefings before entering the press conference? You don't think the supposedly intelligent people he had surrounded himself with would've anticpated the press would question him on the reason of the government's slow response? He they didn't, has he really surrounded himself with enough smart people?

[shimshimhada]

Originally Posted by Laplacian

I have always wondered about this myself. I don't think the liberals can decide whether they want him to stupid or brilliantly evil. I'm surprised that no one has accused Bush of having the NSA build a weather changing machine to create Katrina in the first place!

The state and local governments in N.O. and LA are both liberal and were elected by the people there. That mayor is the real retard--he screwed up big time in many different ways. The rest of my Katrina commentary can best be summed up by the South Park episode "Two days before the day after tomorrow".

I agree that it has become fashionable to accuse Bush of being unintelligent. What irks me is that most people who accuse him of being stupid are much less intelligent than he is. It's easy to sit back accuse him of making bad decisions. He is doing the best he can with the information he has. Unlike his predacessor, he's not afraid to make the tough calls even if they are unpopular. Bush does what he thinks is best for the country despite exit polls. His predecessor would select his tie based exit polls.

Oh, and by the way, Clinton had THREE opportunities to capture Bin Laden. He passed on them all, vastly underestimating the threat he posed even after the embassy bombings.

Some guy blamed the Japanese for that; "revenge for Hiroshima and Nagasaki".

[sdorn]

Originally Posted by timzerofive

As far as Bush lying, its a fact. He did it. Calculated or not, his intention was to deceive.

You are using a bunch of assumptions to try and say it was intentional. Like I said before, find one statement he has made where you can prove he intentionally lied. The statement at issue here about not anticipating the levy breeches doesn't qualify anyway, because he prefaced the statement with "I don't think". That in itself shows he wasn't saying it was definitely true, he merely thought it was true but wasn't absolutely certain.

The fact is you can't find a statement he made that was such a blatant, intentional lie as Clinton's.

[timzerofive]

Originally Posted by Laplacian

I have always wondered about this myself. I don't think the liberals can decide whether they want him to stupid or brilliantly evil. I'm surprised that no one has accused Bush of having the NSA build a weather changing machine to create Katrina in the first place!

The state and local governments in N.O. and LA are both liberal and were elected by the people there. That mayor is the real retard--he screwed up big time in many different ways. The rest of my Katrina commentary can best be summed up by the South Park episode "Two days before the day after tomorrow".

I agree that it has become fashionable to accuse Bush of being unintelligent. What irks me is that most people who accuse him of being stupid are much less intelligent than he is. It's easy to sit back accuse him of making bad decisions. He is doing the best he can with the information he has. Unlike his predacessor, he's not afraid to make the tough calls even if they are unpopular. Bush does what he thinks is best for the country despite exit polls. His predecessor would select his tie based exit polls.

Oh, and by the way, Clinton had THREE opportunities to capture Bin Laden. He passed on them all, vastly underestimating the threat he posed even after the embassy bombings.

haha you know why, the fact is the stuff this guy's doing, he's either gotta be incredibly retarded, or an evil genius. The reason why most people who are criticizing him are less intelligent then him, is due to the fact that the stuff he does, even the dumbest person can tell he screwed up (well, perhaps not the dumbest).

[timzerofive]

Originally Posted by sdorn

You are using a bunch of assumptions to try and say it was intentional. Like I said before, find one statement he has made where you can prove he intentionally lied. The statement at issue here about not anticipating the levy breeches doesn't qualify anyway, because he prefaced the statement with "I don't think". That in itself shows he wasn't saying it was definitely true, he merely thought it was true but wasn't absolutely certain.

The fact is you can't find a statement he made that was such a blatant, intentional lie as Clinton's.

So... as long as I say "I don't think" when I lie, I'll be okay? It doesn't qualify as a lie simply because he said "I don't think"??? That count as me making assumptions?! The only assumption I'm making here is that the article is true about having this video, and the content of video are true and not made up in some hollywood back lot. That's the assumption I'm making. With that assumption, I get the fact that Bush KNEW there's a great chance of levy breaking causing a great disaster, I also know for a fact that he said he had no knowlege of that afterwards. An obvious lie. Where are the assumptions?

Another lie? Here's a CNN transcript of an interview, I'll get to the good part CNN transcript

QUESTION: One thing, Mr. President, is that you have no idea how much you've done for this country, and another thing is that how did you feel when you heard about the terrorist attack?
BUSH: Well... (APPLAUSE)

Thank you, Jordan (ph).

Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."

But I was whisked off there -- I didn't have much time to think about it, and I was sitting in the classroom, and Andy Card, my chief who was sitting over here walked in and said, "A second plane has hit the tower. America's under attack."

...

There was no live video coverage of the first plane hitting the tower. There couldn't be. Video of that first plane hitting the tower did not surface until AFTER the second plane had hit.
=================================
another article

Trailers Of Mass Destruction, Part Two..."You remember when [Secretary of State] Colin Powell stood up in front of the world, and he said Iraq has got laboratories, mobile labs to build biological weapons....They're illegal. They're against the United Nations resolutions, and we've so far discovered two.* And we'll find more weapons as time goes on, But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them." "Bush: 'We Found' Banned Weapons. President Cites Trailers in Iraq as Proof, " May 31, 2003

*At the time of this statement, no such weapons were found, and no such weapons have been found to this day. On this point as well as the use of the captured trailers as biolabs, the WP said this in the above article: "U.S. authorities have to date made no claim of a confirmed finding of an actual nuclear, biological or chemical weapon. In the interview, Bush said weapons had been found, but in elaborating, he mentioned only the trailers, which the CIA has concluded were likely used for production of biological weapons." There was no statement of fact, there was no smoking gun. The CIA's finding was advanced as an opinion based on its own particular process of elimination, and it was immediately challenged by both U.S. and U.K. intelligence analysts who had seen the trailers.
==================================

Here's another comment
"Bush lies so often and in so many different ways that I've never had the patience to keep a list of them. However, when I write something and include the generalization that Bush lies, some readers will write in and say, "Oh, yeh? What did he lie about? I don't believe it." What follows, then, is an informal listing of just some of the lies he typically tells, starting from 2/01. Now, of course, we all know that Gore lies, Lott lies, Cheney lies, etc. But the difference between those liars and Bush is the President tells us that he is telling the truth when he is lying. Hence, he will tell us what he is going to do, like get his proposed tax cut from the surplus, then try to get his proposed tax cut from military and medicare funds, instead. Or, once he has actually begun a program, tell us lies about how or why the program has begun. Or tell a closed-door Dem meeting something and then swear up and down the next day that he didn't say it. Or saying, "Yes, Mam" and meaning "No, Mam." Or having a spinner say the opposite the next day. Or, or...you get the idea."

[shimshimhada]

Bush is brilliant, so brilliant that you guys can't even begin to comprehend his jelly.

[sdorn]

Originally Posted by timzerofive

So... as long as I say "I don't think" when I lie, I'll be okay? It doesn't qualify as a lie simply because he said "I don't think"???

No, if you can prove that he knew it was untrue and lied intentionally with the intent to deceive when he said it, it wouldn't matter if he added the words "I don't think" at the beginning. I don't believe you can prove all three of the following:

1. That the statement was untrue.
2. That he knew at the time he made the statement that it was untrue, and actually realized that he was making an untrue statement.
3. He intended to deceive people with the statement.


Now, as far as the rest of the post with the quotes from CNN and wherever else, I couldn't really tell what was your analysis and what you were saying were his lies. I did pick out the part about the first plane hitting the tower on 9/11. The quote you gave said that he saw an airplane hit the first tower on the television. If there was no actual footage of a plane hitting the first tower until after a plane had hit the second tower, he obviously meant that he saw that a plane had hit the first tower on television. They were definitely reporting that fact before the plane hit the second tower. Obviously, if he had actually seen the plane that hit the first tower, he wouldn't have thought it was an accident. Obviously he, like most other people including myself, when seeing on television that a plane had hit one of the World Trade Center towers thought that it was a small plane flown by some inexperienced pilot that crashed into the building accidentally.

[Ghunger]

Political debates on a BMW internet forum.

[shimshimhada]

Originally Posted by Ghunger

Political debates on a BMW internet forum.

Reminds me of a bf.c

[sdorn]

Originally Posted by Ghunger

Political debates on a BMW internet forum.

Usually forums like this prohibit political discussions. I was surprised to find out this one doesn't. I really don't like getting into these discussions because it is like arguing with a brick wall. However, timezero and a couple others keep starting new threads filled with inaccuracies that I just can't stand to read without pointing them out to people.

You can bet I will never start one of these threads. They are a complete waste of time.

[timzerofive]

Haha then stop wasting your time. No one beckoned you to reply to any of those. I enjoy these discussions. I learn new stuff from the stuff everyone posted. In addition, read the original post, I didn't post any "inaccuracies", all I did was post an article from LA Times (both threads I started regarding Bush). People started defending him, so I figure I'll continue on with the discussion. I mean I enjoy it that's why keep the discussion going, if you don't like it, don't reply.

[timzerofive]

Originally Posted by sdorn

No, if you can prove that he knew it was untrue and lied intentionally with the intent to deceive when he said it, it wouldn't matter if he added the words "I don't think" at the beginning. I don't believe you can prove all three of the following:

1. That the statement was untrue.
2. That he knew at the time he made the statement that it was untrue, and actually realized that he was making an untrue statement.
3. He intended to deceive people with the statement.

.... I did pick out the part about the first plane hitting the tower on 9/11. The quote you gave said that he saw an airplane hit the first tower on the television. If there was no actual footage of a plane hitting the first tower until after a plane had hit the second tower, he obviously meant that he saw that a plane had hit the first tower on television.

So now you're using the "insanity" argument? I can't prove exactly what he's thinking at the time of the action, so I can't say he lied. It was temporary insanity??!! Temporary lapse of judgement... I don't need to prove any of that, all I need is to know that he had the knowledge prior to the statement being made, and he said something that's not in line with what he knows. It's a lie no matter how deep you want to analyze it.

Well, Jordan (ph), you're not going to believe what state I was in when I heard about the terrorist attack. I was in Florida. And my chief of staff, Andy Card -- actually I was in a classroom talking about a reading program that works. And I was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in, and I saw an airplane hit the tower -- the TV was obviously on, and I use to fly myself, and I said, "There's one terrible pilot." And I said, "It must have been a horrible accident."

He was sitting outside the classroom waiting to go in (this meant it was before the 2nd plane hit), and he saw an airplane hit the tower. As the article said, there were no footage of the 1st plane hitting PRIOR to the 2nd plane hitting the tower. He then said to himself, "'There's one terrible pilot.' And I said, 'It must have been a horrible accident.'" By the time he saw ANY footage and he already knew it was not just a horrible accident.

[timzerofive]

Originally Posted by sdorn

Usually forums like this prohibit political discussions. I was surprised to find out this one doesn't. I really don't like getting into these discussions because it is like arguing with a brick wall. However, timezero and a couple others keep starting new threads filled with inaccuracies that I just can't stand to read without pointing them out to people.

You can bet I will never start one of these threads. They are a complete waste of time.

Tell you what, I'll stop replying to this thread so it won't bother you anymore. I thought you enjoyed the discussion that's why you keep posting. I mean if you're getting pissed, I rather not continue on, not my intention. Next time you see me post an article, just dont go into the thread, sheesh.

[sdorn]

Originally Posted by timzerofive

Tell you what, I'll stop replying to this thread so it won't bother you anymore. I thought you enjoyed the discussion that's why you keep posting. I mean if you're getting pissed, I rather not continue on, not my intention. Next time you see me post an article, just dont go into the thread, sheesh.

I apologize. I didn't mean to make you think I was pissed. I don't get mad about things like this. I post because the things people say in these discussions are often so far off base that I can't stand it. It is like OCD. If I see one of these threads, I have to read it. Then once I read it, I have to reply when I see something that is just way out of hand. Please don't stop posting or replying on my account. I do actually enjoy the discussion.

I stand by my statement that they are a waste of time, though. I don't have a chance in hell of changing your mind, and you don't have a chance of changing mine. So, in that sense, they are a waste of time.

[timzerofive]

Originally Posted by sdorn

I stand by my statement that they are a waste of time, though. I don't have a chance in hell of changing your mind, and you don't have a chance of changing mine. So, in that sense, they are a waste of time.

Actually, I'm always opened to new ideas. I wouldn't say you don't have a chance in hell of changing my mind, but there just got to be some very good facts for me to change my mind. That's why I enjoy these discussions, and therefore don't see them as a waste of time. I'm on the board killing time anyways. When I'm busy I don't post.

[JB 330ci]

This is the exact reason why I denied an SES job in Washington. Too much politics and people set in their own ideas, ways, and perspectives.

Right now I'm fighting an uphill battle with people here calling what we have a civil war? It is not a civil war...do people even know the definition of civil war. What we see is sectarian violence Sunni vs Shia not a civil war. I don't see the Iraqi Government or military splitting, a shadow government forming, or the build up of sectarian militias.

I really hate it now that the bombings happening in Iraq are being linked to sectarian violence and civil war. Hello...bombings happened way before the Samarra Mosque Bombing and will continue. The Terrorists are not going to stop bombing the Shiites...but now the media and other organizations are blaming it on the wrong groups.


And again this has turned into a Bush hating thread? Sad indeed. People constantly throw around stuff "Bush is an idiot" "Bush this and Bush that" and don't even have any logical issues to back up their statements. When proof is shown they try (shift) attack the person, the information, discount it, or find something else like "well what about this or that". I guess most of the people here have never taken any kind of Philosophy, Reasoning, or similar classes with the amount of personal attacks, ignorance, and outright dumbness.

[timzerofive]

Originally Posted by JB 330ci

Too much politics and people set in their own ideas, ways, and perspectives.

Uhhh... are people suppose to settle for others' ideas, ways, and perspectives?

Originally Posted by JB 330ci

And again this has turned into a Bush hating thread? Sad indeed. People constantly throw around stuff "Bush is an idiot" "Bush this and Bush that" and don't even have any logical issues to back up their statements. When proof is shown they try (shift) attack the person, the information, discount it, or find something else like "well what about this or that". I guess most of the people here have never taken any kind of Philosophy, Reasoning, or similar classes with the amount of personal attacks, ignorance, and outright dumbness.

I think it's more the other way around don't you think? I haven't heard much "logical issues" backing up statements pro Bush. I was a psych major in the school of social science, so in fact, I've taken numbers of philosophy, reasoning, and "similar" classes. And I, nor anyone else on this thread had progressed to any personal attacks against each other... up to this point that is. Thank you for that.

[JB 330ci]

Originally Posted by timzerofive

Uhhh... are people suppose to settle for others' ideas, ways, and perspectives?

Ones which are misguided from the beginning. For example, one of my bosses believe civil war is already happening or in the early stages. He tries to use my work to justify his ideas which are completely wrong. We can have different opinions but when you make a statement of civil war you'd better back it up with facts and credible reporting.

I view both sides equally and decide with facts on my position on any matter. Some people will refute facts, statements, and evidence and still insist their ideas, ways, and perspectives are correct. Logical reasoning and thinking...some skills which people continue to lack. We can agree to disagree on our interpretation of the facts and what we believe. We have different methods of thinking but distorting the facts or discounting facts to support an agenda (in this case civil war) is unacceptable.

Originally Posted by timzerofive

I think it's more the other way around don't you think? I haven't heard much "logical issues" backing up statements pro Bush. I was a psych major in the school of social science, so in fact, I've taken numbers of philosophy, reasoning, and "similar" classes. And I, nor anyone else on this thread had progressed to any personal attacks against each other... up to this point that is. Thank you for that.

I'm talking about the first page in particular, not your argument.
Anti Bush or Pro Bush...Why do you lump them into either side? FACTS ARE FACTS neither anti or pro. You add the word anti or pro to the facts to support YOUR view.

For example, a killing has taken place. You believe that killing is morally wrong. Are there any moral facts about the murder? NO, only facts on how the murder was committed. A gun was used, he was shot in cold blood. Are these facts or moral facts? They are facts. They support a MORAL argument against killing based on ethics and religion. Do you follow so far?