Why Do the Libtards Keep Lying About Bush?

Oh wow.... why don't we look up the legal definition of a lie? I seem to recall lying under oath is called perjury. Do you think under the law there is no difference between making a statement that you have every reason to believe is true and making a statement that you know to be untrue? (Hint - only one is a crime.) Why do you think every political scandal since Watergate asks the question “what did he know and when did he know it?”

Diversion. You can do better.

Lying is a deliberate attempt to deceive. I've never heard a libtard try to split hairs like you and say Bush told a lie but he wasn't a liar. They just say “Bush lied” and leave out the second part. Which is a deliberate attempt to deceive. Which makes THEM the liars, not Bush.

I have no way of knowing if Bush purposefully lied about WMD's. I do know that the evidence shows that he lied about their being WMD's in Iraq per your article.

Help me out here, fagboy. What does that libtard bumper sticker say? Is it “Bush lied, people died” or is it “Bush lied but he isn't a liar”?

You do understand that both those statements could be true. One for sure is, Bush did tell a lie and many , many people died. Again I have no way of knowing for sure if Bush lied on purpose, I have chosen to give him the benefit of doubt on this issue and not call him a liar in this regard.

. Originally Posted by lustylad

Please step up your game or choose some other subject to defend Georgie on....this one is a total loser fer ya!

From dictionary.com
Lie
noun 1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. Synonyms: prevarication, falsification.
Antonyms: truth.




Deliberate intent to deceive. If you make a statement that is deliberately intended to deceive it is a lie and you are a liar. There is no room for parsing or interpretation. The definition is pretty conclusive. No, it's not a difficult concept to grasp. Originally Posted by boardman

No room for parsing you say? Well look at definition number three that I provided. WMD's in Iraq were an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood. Which falls under the definition of a lie. Does that need repeating or can you understand that words have various meanings. In this case the dictionary says that a falsehood is a lie. WMD's in Iraq were a falsehood. No parsing there.

You are making this to damn easy , you and lustyladdie need to step up your game. I expect better from you two.

According to you two hammerheads Obama did not lie if he really believed that you could keep your doctor! Clinton did not lie if he really believed a blowjob wasn't sex and radical Muslims are not lying about 72 Virgins!



http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie

1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. Synonyms: prevarication, falsification.
Antonyms: truth.

2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.


3. an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood.

4. the charge or accusation of telling a lie:

Once you bring Webster's into it, you've lost. I agree that we shouldn't have gone to Iraq. I can't say with any certainty whether Bush knew he was lying or was simply repeating bad information. And neither can you. That's the cold, hard truth. You just don't know. And we probably never will. Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

And therefor it is not accurate to say he was lying..

Once you bring Webster's into it you've lost? What kind of idiotic statement is that? Someone is wanting to argue and spin the meaning of the word. Bringing up the commonly accepted definition to counter that argument does not signify "losing"

The whole point here is not about whether it was a lie or not. On that I agree with you. We don't know for certain.

WTF has stated on several occasion something to the fact that those that voted for GWB in 2004 were supporting the lie. My contention is that there was no lie or disinformation issue in the 2004 election. I have given him the issues that were considered the hot topics in 2004. They simply do not reflect that. There were more issues on the ballot. Those who supported Bush on those issues could have still disagreed with the war but felt he was the better candidate at the time on the issues I mentioned earlier. WTF wants to break it down to one issue, failure to find WMD's and that bush lied about it to start a war. That was not even an issue in 2004. He either has information that the rest of the world was not privy to or his hindsight isn't 20/20...or he could be attemping to intentionally deceive us all by continuing to misstate facts that he should by now know not to be true.

Once I brought up that point WTF wanted to start arguing that a preemptive strike was bad and that those who supported Bush supported the preemptive strike. Once again I explained that one does not necessarily go hand in had with the other. The preemptive nature of the war was in fact an issue in 2004 but one that the majority of Americans at that time supported. Kerry tried to make an issue of it and was pretty much shot down after it was revealed that he too supported the preemptive strike. Once I counter with that WTF retreats again and argues the semantics of the word "lie" and spins it's meaning. I simply brought up a definition to counter those remarks.

So radical Muslim's are not lying when they say 72 Virgins await them just because they believe it so? Flat Earth erstwhile weren't lying...I could go on and on Originally Posted by WTF

No, muslims are not lying if they truly believe that any more than christians are lying when they say that the only way into heaven is through belief and acceptance of Jesus Christ.
If it turns out that either or both are wrong it would stand to reason that they have been deceived, not that they are lying about what they didn't know to be a deception. Mohammed or the gospels would then actually be the liars because they are the ones who claimed that this was the word of God. Now, if God exists it is impossible for him to lie, it simply is not the nature of God at least for Christians. I can't say for certain about Allah. I don't know Islam that well. Anyway, If Matthew, Mark, Luke and John received and wrote the word of God as God told them to it is truth. If they wrote the Gospels and intentionally made up the stories then they would be the liars, not the billions of people who believe the stories.
Same for flat earthers. Their thory at the time was based on the facts they could gather. They had no way of knowing any different. Once they did have a way the truth was exposed and everyone's reality changed. It's very likely that there was deception involved in the flat earth science at some point for political or religious reasons. That would make the ones perpetuating the intentional deception the liars not the ones who believed them.
Einsteins theory of relativity has yet to be proved. So have many of Steven Hawkings theories. That doesn't make them liars. It means they have theories that have not yet been proved.

No room for parsing you say? Well look at definition number three that I provided. WMD's in Iraq were an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood. Which falls under the definition of a lie. Does that need repeating or can you understand that words have various meanings. In this case the dictionary says that a falsehood is a lie. WMD's in Iraq were a falsehood. No parsing there.

You are making this to damn easy , you and lustyladdie need to step up your game. I expect better from you two.

According to you two hammerheads Obama did not lie if he really believed that you could keep your doctor! Clinton did not lie if he really believed a blowjob wasn't sex and radical Muslims are not lying about 72 Virgins!



http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/lie

1.
a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood. Synonyms: prevarication, falsification.
Antonyms: truth.

2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.


3. an inaccurate or false statement; a falsehood.

4. the charge or accusation of telling a lie: Originally Posted by WTF

I suspect Bill Clinton added the definition you are referencing because he didn't like the first two.

Just as you say, a false statement is a lie. The entire definition of a lie is predicated on intent to deceive as you can see from the previous 2 definitions. You even say yourself that it falls under the definition of a lie, the meaning of which is to intentionally deceive.

That is correct, Obama did not lie if he believed that at the time. It's looking more and more like he did believe it at the time. Perhaps someone lied to him. Perhaps he didn't ask the right questions knowing he might not like the answers he would be given. It's coming out that he did not seek answers about Immigrants and taxes. Speculation is that he did that intentionally. If he in failed to ask questions for which he knew the answers were detrimental his intention was to deceive and it was twofold. Why would he do that? Did he know that revealing the truth would keep his proposal from passing and therefor he avoided finding out the truth so he could say he didn't know? That is still intentional deception. It's either deception or incompetence. If it is incompetence then he would not be guilty of lying he would be guilty of incompetence.

Clinton did not lie if he believed his story, do you believe his story?

I've already addressed the 72 virgins question.

Then we can conclude that you believe Whir-LIE-turd's outrageous claims, screaming headlines and disconnected arguments make him the biggest liar on ECCIE.

His comments are intentionally deceptive, imho, and he needs to be called on them every time.

Thank you sir for agreeing with me, boardman. I hope you'll join us in this important mission. The integrity of the Political Forum is at risk if we are not vigilant.

The whole point here is not about whether it was a lie or not. On that I agree with you. We don't know for certain.

. Originally Posted by boardman

The OP whole premise was that Bush did not tell a lie. He did , on that we are certain. You do understand that there were no WMD's in Iraq?

No wonder you are arguing in circles. You can't even grasp the OP's point.

So you think Muslims aren't lying about the 72 Virgins!

And were you around on aspd before the invasion of Iraq , you would know that I have not flipped flopped about WMD's to Preemptive War. I have always stated the preemptive part was the slippery slope we did not want to wander down. It just so happened that the subject of this thread was Bush lying about WMD's.

Look , if you were ok with preemptive wars in 2003 then I can see why you voted for Bush a second time. I was not. Howard Dean was my man. So maybe your issue's in 2004 were not preemptive war but there is no need for you to continually lie about my position in 2004.

Q: Will you repeal Bush's pre-emptive war doctrine?

A: The Bush doctrine of preemptive war is wrong for America, and sets a dangerous precedent. So many who supported the war now say that they are opposed to the doctrine of preemption. Then why did they vote for this preemptive war? I opposed the President's war on Iraq, I continue to stand against his policy of preemption, and on my first day in office I will tear up the Bush doctrine and rebuild a foreign policy consistent with American values. Source: MoveOn.org interview Jun 17, 2003

It's either deception or incompetence. If it is incompetence then he would not be guilty of lying he would be guilty of incompetence. Originally Posted by boardman

Yes that is basically exactly how I felt about Bush and WMD's.

Then we can conclude that you believe Whir-LIE-turd's outrageous claims, screaming headlines and disconnected arguments make him the biggest liar on ECCIE.

His comments are intentionally deceptive, imho, and he needs to be called on them every time.

Thank you sir for agreeing with me, boardman. I hope you'll join us in this important mission. The integrity of the Political Forum is at risk if we are not vigilant.

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Actually, I don't know for a fact that it is Whirlaway's intention to deceive nor do I know for a fact that anyone has the intent to deceive on here. It could be that he believes his statements, could it not?
All statements here are taken with a grain of salt by me until the stater continues to try and prove his point. I will try to wait for that to engage. Sometimes the intention is not to deceive at all but to start an argument. Whirlaway does it, You do it, WTF does it, BigTex does it, I can go on and on. Hell, I've probably done it. It usually starts with a statement that is backed up by some kind of cited article that spins a story in a favorable way to the OP.
Here's the deal. A persons Intent is hard to prove because it exists only in the mind of that person. Certain actions or statements can point to intent. It's why I don't think you've ever seen me call anyone, in this forum or this board for that matter, a liar. It's why I try to make an argument to show the opponent why I feel he is wrong. I feel like that carries a lot more weight than casually calling someone a liar without proof as so many of you do and you just did. Those who start throwing the insults without addressing the argument with an intelligent counter get little consideration from me. It's one of the reasons I rarely engage with you.

Actually, I don't know for a fact that it is Whirlaway's intention to deceive nor do I know for a fact that anyone has the intent to deceive on here. It could be that he believes his statements, could it not?
. Originally Posted by boardman

Can we at least conclude , like you have with Obama on keeping your doctor and I have with Bush on WMD's that Whirly is one or the other!

No, muslims are not lying if they truly believe that any more than christians are lying when they say that the only way into heaven is through belief and acceptance of Jesus Christ.
If it turns out that either or both are wrong it would stand to reason that they have been deceived, not that they are lying about what they didn't know to be a deception. Mohammed or the gospels would then actually be the liars because they are the ones who claimed that this was the word of God. Now, if God exists it is impossible for him to lie, it simply is not the nature of God at least for Christians. I can't say for certain about Allah. I don't know Islam that well. Anyway, If Matthew, Mark, Luke and John received and wrote the word of God as God told them to it is truth. If they wrote the Gospels and intentionally made up the stories then they would be the liars, not the billions of people who believe the stories.
Same for flat earthers. Their thory at the time was based on the facts they could gather. They had no way of knowing any different. Once they did have a way the truth was exposed and everyone's reality changed. It's very likely that there was deception involved in the flat earth science at some point for political or religious reasons. That would make the ones perpetuating the intentional deception the liars not the ones who believed them.
Einsteins theory of relativity has yet to be proved. So have many of Steven Hawkings theories. That doesn't make them liars. It means they have theories that have not yet been proved. Originally Posted by boardman

Believing something doesn't mean it's not a lie.

The OP whole premise was that Bush did not tell a lie. He did , on that we are certain. You do understand that there were no WMD's in Iraq?

On that we are not certain...I agree that WMD's were not in Iraq but I do not agree that Bush told us they were with deceptive intention. I believe that the intelligence community got it wrong. That belief is supported by the WMD commission report. A bipartisan commission that also included retired members of the intelligence and judiciary communities who were considered to be impartial and some of the best minds in their area of expertise. You base your assessment on your disgust for GWB.

No wonder you are arguing in circles. You can't even grasp the OP's point.
See above.

So you think Muslims aren't lying about the 72 Virgins!
OK Zanzibar, if that's what you took away then you obviously didn't read the post.

And were you around on aspd before the invasion of Iraq , you would know that I have not flipped flopped about WMD's to Preemptive War. I have always stated the preemptive part was the slippery slope we did not want to wander down. It just so happened that the subject of this thread was Bush lying about WMD's.

I was around, I was a lurker for the most part with a handful of reviews. I'm not arguing your opinion of preemptive ware being bad for the country. That's your opinion, clairvoyant as it may have been. I'm arguing that it was not the only or even a primary issue on the minds of most Americans. Terrorism and the need to stop it was.

Look , if you were ok with preemptive wars in 2003 then I can see why you voted for Bush a second time. I was not. Howard Dean was my man. So maybe your issue's in 2004 were not preemptive war but there is no need for you to continually lie about my position in 2004.

Again, I did not feel that was an issue, Why? because at the time no one, not even the Democrats made it an issue. Your clairvoyance not withstanding, of course. So I did not cast my vote based solely on that. Did I think the war was justified? Absolutely, based on what we thought we knew. Iraq appeared to be a threat and the information that we were able to gather backed that up. In hindsight it may or may not have been the best idea. We can't possibly know for sure what the unintended consequences of not going to war would have been. Even you, with your omniscient clairvoyance, doesn't know that. Is it possible we wouldn't be still fighting in the middle east? Sure. It's also possible that we could be fighting that war on our own soil as many in the defense and intelligence community are predicting is coming. If that preemptive war delayed things moving onto our soil by ten years then some would say it was worth it. That being said, there were many issues which took the stage over preemptive war in 2004 as I have outlined previously. A vote for Bush was not about one thing. It was about the collective. For you to single out one issue and not acknowledge the others shows just how uninformed you were. Continuing to single it out as the only issue shows how uninformed you still are.

Q: Will you repeal Bush's pre-emptive war doctrine?

A: The Bush doctrine of preemptive war is wrong for America, and sets a dangerous precedent. So many who supported the war now say that they are opposed to the doctrine of preemption. Then why did they vote for this preemptive war? I opposed the President's war on Iraq, I continue to stand against his policy of preemption, and on my first day in office I will tear up the Bush doctrine and rebuild a foreign policy consistent with American values. Source: MoveOn.org interview Jun 17, 2003





Yes that is basically exactly how I felt about Bush and WMD's. Originally Posted by WTF

Good on you.

Oh wow.... why don't we look up the legal definition of a lie? I seem to recall lying under oath is called perjury. Do you think under the law there is no difference between making a statement that you have every reason to believe is true and making a statement that you know to be untrue? (Hint - only one is a crime.)

Diversion. You can do better. Originally Posted by lustylad

“Diversion”? That's all you got, fagboy? A one-word rebuttal? Is that why you had to pump up the font and highlight the color? To make a dumb wimpy reply look forceful?

Go back and read the title of the essay in my OP - “The Dangerous Lie That Bush Lied”. The author is a senior federal judge on the DC Court of Appeals. He co-chaired a bipartisan commission on WMD in Iraq. He concluded Bush did not lie but was misled by the overwhelming intelligence consensus at the time. Before you start quibbling with a federal judge about what constitutes a lie, you would be well advised to look up the legal definition. That's not a diversion. It is very much on point.

Please step up your game or choose some other subject to defend Georgie on....this one is a total loser fer ya! Originally Posted by WTF

You're the one who needs to step up his game! Let's see, who is more convincing? WTFagboy? Or the federal judge who co-chaired a bipartisan commission on WMD intelligence?

.

Believing something doesn't mean it's not a lie. Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

Not to these two! If they believe their 5 inch pecker is 12 inches no ladies (or in lustylad's case men) they've seen better tell anyone they are lying! By God some hooker at some point right before she got paid told them they had a big one and they ain't lying repeating a lie.

Believing something doesn't mean it's not a lie. Originally Posted by UnderConstruction

You are correct. By the same token not believing something doesn't mean it isn't a lie.

Intent here is the key.

Not to these two! If they believe their 5 inch pecker is 12 inches no ladies (or in lustylad's case men) they've seen better tell anyone they are lying! By God some hooker at some point right before she got paid told them they had a big one and they ain't lying repeating a lie.

Originally Posted by WTF

There you go again(recognize the phrase ?)
You're back to resorting to pecker size as your argument.

However, In rebuttal, I will indulge your pecker fantasy for a moment. If you believed your 5 inch pecker was really 12 I would conclude you are reading a metric tape by mistake, or you are a complete moron incapable of reading a tape.

If on the other hand you knew that you had measured your pecker at only 5 inches but deceptively told your boyfriend that it was twelve he would likely be upset with you as a liar when he found out the truth.