Why Do the Libtards Keep Lying About Bush?

'When I make a word do a lot of work like that,' said Humpty Dumpty, 'I always pay it extra.'
'Oh!' said Alice. She was too much puzzled to make any other remark.
'Ah, you should see 'em come round me of a Saturday night,' Humpty Dumpty went on, wagging his head gravely from side to side, 'for to get their wages, you know.'
(Alice didn't venture to ask what he paid them with; and so you see I can't tell you.)

Humpty appears in Lewis Carroll's Through the Looking-Glass (1872), where he discusses semantics and pragmatics with Alice.[21]

"I don't know what you mean by 'glory,' " Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. "Of course you don't—till I tell you. I meant 'there's a nice knock-down argument for you!' "
"But 'glory' doesn't mean 'a nice knock-down argument'," Alice objected.
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master—that's all."

Alice was too much puzzled to say anything, so after a minute Humpty Dumpty began again. "They've a temper, some of them—particularly verbs, they're the proudest—adjectives you can do anything with, but not verbs—however, I can manage the whole lot! Impenetrability! That's what I say!"[22]

This passage was used in Britain by Lord Atkin in his dissenting judgement in the seminal case Liversidge v. Anderson (1942), where he protested about the distortion of a statute by the majority of the House of Lords.[23] It also became a popular citation in United States legal opinions, appearing in 250 judicial decisions in the Westlaw database as of 19 April 2008, including two Supreme Court cases (TVA v. Hill and Zschernig v. Miller).[24]
It has been suggested by A. J. Larner that Carroll's Humpty Dumpty had prosopagnosia on the basis of his description of his finding faces hard to recognise.

"The face is what one goes by, generally," Alice remarked in a thoughtful tone.
"That's just what I complain of," said Humpty Dumpty. "Your face is the same as everybody has—the two eyes,—" (marking their places in the air with his thumb) "nose in the middle, mouth under. It's always the same. Now if you had the two eyes on the same side of the nose, for instance—or the mouth at the top—that would be some help."[25]

Link

Other critical reviews of Through the Looking Glass claim that Humpty Dumpty is nonsensically discussing semantics and pragmatics.

Originally Posted by boardman

boardman do you think Humpty Dumpty is nonsensically discussing semantics and pragmatics?

I'm reminded of this scene in the Dirty Dozen...http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=...9C7CBAD2A8E5F0

Was the General a General...to all, some or none?

Let us try this again..

It is always a lie if it starts as a lie but you are not a liar if you are an innocent repeater of a lie...except if the innocent repeater is GWB , then the lie is not a lie. Is that wtf you are trying to sell me?

That is what you and others have twisted yourselves up in to.

No damn wonder boardman wants to quit discussing wtf a lie is!

boardman , please tell nevergivesitathought what a lie , that started off as a lie, turns into when an innocent repeater of a lie repeats said lie. Is it still a lie or does it depend on who the innocent repeater of said lie, is. Originally Posted by WTF

your post is nonsensical

and don't start it again without reading and comprehending what i posted

for a lie to be a lie, it must start as a lie, it always is a lie if it begins as a lie, but if you are an innocent repeater of a lie you aren't a liar, the originator of the lie is the liar.

. Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

not reading that but if it did start as a lie, bush didn't lie in any case, for the non originator of a lie to lie, he must repeat the lie knowing it is a lie
Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Which is it never?

It started as a lie....which seems to fit your first quoted definition of.it always is a lie if it begins as a lie...yet when Bush tells it, it is no longer a lie.

your post is nonsensical

and don't start it again without reading and comprehending what i posted Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

I comprehend that you can not delineate anything other than black and white and seem to be have trouble doing that simple task.

Which is it never?

It started as a lie....which seems to fit your first quoted definition....yet when Bush tells it, it is no longer a lie.


I comprehend that you can not delineate anything other than black and white and seem to be have trouble doing that simple task. Originally Posted by WTF

it didn't start as a lie

but if it did bush didn't lie anyway

it didn't start as a lie

but if it did bush didn't lie anyway Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

A glimpse into the mind of a Bush apologist. Much like Bart Simpson

http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=...ADA0007D3B55A0

I didn't do it, Nobody saw me, there is no way they can prove anything!

boardman do you think Humpty Dumpty is nonsensically discussing semantics and pragmatics? In Wonderland Humpty's words make perfect sense.

I'm reminded of this scene in the Dirty Dozen...http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=...9C7CBAD2A8E5F0

Was the General a General...to all, some or none?


Originally Posted by WTF

Perhaps Caroll's writings were to illustrate that some cannot distinguish the real world from Wonderland.
Is this Wonderland?

It started as a lie....which seems to fit your first quoted definition of.it always is a lie if it begins as a lie...yet when Bush tells it, it is no longer a lie.


. Originally Posted by WTF

are you having comprehension issues?

it, just assuming it started as a lie, was a lie but bush didn't lie

but it remained a lie but for bush to lie he had to have known it was a lie

unlike the mantra "bush lied and ppl died" , where ppl know that is a lie yet they repeat it anyway

you have trouble with distinctions

Perhaps Caroll's writings were to illustrate that some cannot distinguish the real world from Wonderland.

Is this Wonderland? Originally Posted by boardman

Is this a court of law?

Wonderland seems to be the real world for some of you...

are you having comprehension issues?

it, just assuming it started as a lie, was a lie but bush didn't lie

but it remained a lie but for bush to lie he had to have known it was a lie

unlike the mantra "bush lied and ppl died" , where ppl know that is a lie yet they repeat it anyway

you have trouble with distinctions Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

So a lie that started as a lie and remained a lie was not a lie when told by Bush!

You are golden...Bart Simpson golden!

In my best Hogan's Hero impersonation would you agree that Bush told a lie? Even though he did not know it was a lie, it started as a lie , was still a lie when Bush told it, correct? Can we then say Bush did not lie , he just told a lie?

Can we then say Bush did not lie , he just told a lie? Originally Posted by WTF

no because it didn't start as a lie

and no because he didn't tell a lie

no because it didn't start as a lie
Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Really? Now you are just sounding naive.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...-lies-iraq-war

Rafid Ahmed Alwan al-Janabi, codenamed Curveball by German and American intelligence officials who dealt with his claims, has told the Guardian that he fabricated tales of mobile bioweapons trucks and clandestine factories in an attempt to bring down the Saddam Hussein regime, from which he had fled in 1995.
"Maybe I was right, maybe I was not right," he said. "They gave me this chance. I had the chance to fabricate something to topple the regime. I and my sons are proud of that and we are proud that we were the reason to give Iraq the margin of democracy."
The admission comes just after the eighth anniversary of Colin Powell's speech to the United Nations in which the then-US secretary of state relied heavily on lies that Janabi had told the German secret service, the BND. It also follows the release of former defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld's memoirs, in which he admitted Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction programme.

and no because he didn't tell a lie Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

So you think there were WMD's in Iraq?

So you think there were WMD's in Iraq? Originally Posted by WTF

I refuse to repeat myself

I refuse to repeat myself Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Yet , you do. Another lie by you.

Post #200

it didn't start as a lie

but if it did bush didn't lie anyway Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Post # 206

no because it didn't start as a lie

and no because he didn't tell a lie Originally Posted by nevergaveitathought

Yet , you do. Another lie by you.

Post #200

Post # 206 Originally Posted by WTF

yawn

those weren't exact word for word repeats, so you lied in any sense