or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Lies and the Presidency
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Lies and the Presidency - Page 8  

post #281 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac

For a good time click on this.

http://www.gwbush.com/home.shtml

I don´t like hate sites like that. But it had a few good quotes.
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
"I reject your reality and substitute it with my own" - President Bush
post #282 of 561
jimmac:

Quote:
Ok, now you will have to acknowlege that people aren't going to like or take it very well and that it's not morally right.

Obviously people don't like it.
What the hell does morality have to do with it?
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #283 of 561
Quote:
We went to war for a very specific set of reasons stated by our president. Now it turns out this wasn't true.

Who says? Is there a time limit on us finding the WMD, but not for the inspectors? I believe that just about everyone here agaisnt war argued that we should give the inspectors more time....now, you're ready to call the game in the 3rd inning!!! The case isn't closed.

Quote:
he problem is that the premise wasn't true. That means :


A. Bush and his support group are really stupid.

B. He lied to accomplish this for whatever reason.

C. All of the above.


However you slice it this is bad and not acceptable in any form


A. Bush and his support group are anything but stupid.
B. There is no evidence Bush lied.
C. All of the above.

However you slice it, there's no proof Saddam ever got rid of his WMD.

giant:

Quote:
You sure write a lot, but say nothing.

Guess what, sdw, we went to war in Iraq to 'preempt' a 'threat' to the 'american people.' Bush said this, not me. If an accusation is being made, the burden of proof is on the person making the accusation. If there's no substance to the accusation that Saddam was a threat to the US, then a 'defensive' war to 'preempt' a threat to the 'american people' was not justified. No ifs, ands or buts about it. Any discussions otherwise are simply revisionist attempts to contort the issue.

And what is your basis for that statement? Who are you to determine what was and wasn't a threat? Your implied contention is that there are no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, and therefore Iraq was not a threat. But, how do you know this? How do you know there were no weapons? The only thing you have going for you is that they haven't found large stockpiles of WMD in 90 days. Once again, you are saying that "because I can't see them, they aren't there". This is the most childish and misguided logic I have ever seen. Have you ever seen a Russian nuclear missile silo? No. But, they are still there....aren't they?

Bush never came out and said they he worried about a chemical weapon being launched by say, ICBM at us. What he focused on was the possibility that Saddam could give chemical, biological or eventually nuclear weapons to a terrorist organization. THAT'S what the threat was. Are you denying this possibility? Of course you are.....because according to you Saddam didn't have any WMD!!! According to you, he just magically made them disappear....in a manner that was not consistent with what the UN wanted. According to you, we should just take Saddam's word for it that he destroyed his WMD. According to you, we don't need any evidence that he destroyed the weapons we already knew he had.

Looks like you're there, giant! You have now fully arrived at the thought that not only will we have a hard time finding weapons, but that there were no weaponsat all!
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #284 of 561
SDW, let me make it simple for you:

1. ALL of the bush admin 'evidence' has turned out to be wrong or fabricated. They have inspected every site they cited as proof of a weapons program and turned up NOTHING. NOT A TRACE. NO EVIDENCE THAT ANYTHING HAD EVEN BEEN IN ANY OF THE SITES. The Bush 'intel' was wrong. You can't avoid this simple, cold fact.

2. Anyone that actually looks at the details of Iraq's weapons programs already knew this. There is nothing substantial to find according to anything other than the Bush admin. It is clear that weapons programs were NOT restarted and we know for a FACT that any stockpiles of nerve agent would be degraded and useless at this time right now.

The only evidence the Bush admin has presented has been demonstrated false by their own searches. PERIOD. END OF STORY.

THE END
post #285 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
jimmac:



Obviously people don't like it.
What the hell does morality have to do with it?


Morality has everything to do with it! Just because most politicians are corrupt and lie left and right is no reason to embrace it! It's not ok just because everybody does it. The thing to do is to aspire to doing the right thing ( even if that isn't always possible ). Look you've read my posts and you know I'm not naive or a goodie two shoes but I really believe we shouldn't start down that road of saying it's ok just because everyone does it.


By the way I thought Fran441's thread had a lot of good content. If even some of that is true it needs to be brought to light.

See I didn't bring up Clinton or the democrats once....oops!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #286 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by Anders
I don´t like hate sites like that. But it had a few good quotes.


I don't think it's as much a hate site as a making fun of site. I don't think even they take themselves that seriously.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #287 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
What the hell does morality have to do with it?



Oh my God. You really have no sense of morals, do you? Do you even have a conscience?

Lying is bad.

Bad.

Bad.

Lying as a pathetic attempt at saving face in personal/family matters, and as a knee-jerk panic attack for fear of losing a family is bad.

Lying for political/financial gain is bad.

Lying resulting in a war is bad bad bad hella damn ass bad.

Who raised you, Groverat? I'm serious. I wouldn't want your parents as a role model if they're teaching you traht lying is okay. It is not. It is not okay "because everybody does it". It is not okay because you happen to support the result. It is not okay. At all.

A have serious issues with your morals, Groverat. Your MORALS. Or lack of them, as the case may be.

Our President MUST be a positive role-model. A liar is NEVER a positive role model. I would hate to end up having a country of people like you. I would completely lose faith in American human nature.

America is the most hated country in the world. As an American, I am affacted by that by association. But the world doesn't hate people like me. The world hates people like you (only people like you hate people like me).
post #288 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by giant
SDW, let me make it simple for you:

1. ALL of the bush admin 'evidence' has turned out to be wrong or fabricated. They have inspected every site they cited as proof of a weapons program and turned up NOTHING. NOT A TRACE. NO EVIDENCE THAT ANYTHING HAD EVEN BEEN IN ANY OF THE SITES. The Bush 'intel' was wrong. You can't avoid this simple, cold fact.

2. Anyone that actually looks at the details of Iraq's weapons programs already knew this. There is nothing substantial to find according to anything other than the Bush admin. It is clear that weapons programs were NOT restarted and we know for a FACT that any stockpiles of nerve agent would be degraded and useless at this time right now.

The only evidence the Bush admin has presented has been demonstrated false by their own searches. PERIOD. END OF STORY.

THE END


giant, now you've crossed the line into total denial and absurdity. ALL of the evidence Bush cited was wrong? ALL OF IT???? Please. That's just an absurd, ridiculous statement.

Your also wrong about point #2. It is NOT clear that the weapons programs were discontinued. In fact, NOTHING indicates they were discontinued. Nothing. Absolutely nothing!!!

You still don't get it. It wasn't up to the inspectors to find weapons. It was up to to SADDAM HUSSEIN to prove he destroyed the weapons he previously admitted having and using. He didn't do that.

Seriously giant, your reasoning is like a small child:

Child: Mommy, where are the M&M's?

Mom: They're in the cabinet.

Child: But where? I can't see them!

Mom: They are there. It's not time to eat them yet.

Child. There are no M&M'S! Where are the M&M's! I can't see them...WAAAAAAAHHHHHHH! I want M&M's! You never bought any!!!!

Mom: They were there yesterday. No one has eaten any since then. They are still there. They're behind the cereal.

Child: You never bought them! I bet there's no such thing as M&M's! You lied to me! I'm calling DCF! Show me the M&M's!!!!!!!!

Mom: [opens the cabinet to show the child, she looks behind the cereal but the M&M's aren't there. As she looks through the cabinet, she realizes that her husband must have taken them and put them in the other cabinet....before she can open the cabinet, DCF shows up and takes the child away...That lying bitch!]
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #289 of 561
Quote:
You really have no sense of morals, do you? Do you even have a conscience?

Yeah, because what I am willing to tolerate from an elected official is certainly the tell-tale sign of my personal morality?

Please, tonton, you're not this stupid.

Quote:
Lying is bad.

Lying is bad, yes. George Bush is a liar, yes.
I don't care because I got what I wanted out of his lie and I consider his lie not only a lie oft-repeated by world leaders for a decade, but one that had very positive consequences.

Quote:
Lying resulting in a war is bad bad bad hella damn ass bad.

Quote:
Who raised you, Groverat? I'm serious. I wouldn't want your parents as a role model if they're teaching you traht lying is okay. It is not. It is not okay "because everybody does it". It is not okay because you happen to support the result. It is not okay. At all.

You are serious, indeed, you are seriously ****ing retarded to make any of this personal. If you want a flamewar with me you'd better rethink the decision, I'll burn your melodramatic ass alive.

WHAT DO YOU WANT ME OR ANYONE ELSE TO DO ABOUT BUSH'S LIE? I acknowledge it. What now? What now, you melodramatic freak? What now?

Should I quiver and fall to my knees at the revelation that a president lied!? OH NO! What will become of the ****ing world NOW!?

Clinton lied about blowjobs: I didn't give a shit.
Clinton lied about Iraqi WMD: I didn't give a shit.
Bush lied about WMD: I don't give a shit.

Quote:
Our President MUST be a positive role-model. A liar is NEVER a positive role model. I would hate to end up having a country of people like you. I would completely lose faith in American human nature.

So wait... was Clinton treated unfairly or not?
Liars must not be tolerated! What a crock of shit.

What a hypocritical crock of shit that is.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #290 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Child. There are no M&M'S! Where are the M&M's! I can't see them...WAAAAAAAHHHHHHH! I want M&M's! You never bought any!!!!

Good one!



Hey gaint, I live in a small town and somebody stole my car---could you find it for me?
post #291 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
Your also wrong about point #2. It is NOT clear that the weapons programs were discontinued. In fact, NOTHING indicates they were discontinued. Nothing. Absolutely nothing!!!

Uh. The lack of weapons would be something. The lack of any credible evidence right now of any programs whatsoever would be something (and no, the vans they found are not evidence of any kind). This is something that indicates that the programs were discontinued. For those of us not in denial.
post #292 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
I don't care because I got what I wanted out of his lie

Says it all. Where's that brick wall smiley?

When you have kids, you'll teach them that lying is okay if you get what you want out of it? I really don't understand. Please explain how advocacy of lying is not saying that lying os okay. Explain how that is not a reflection on your personal morals.

I'm really not trying to be personal here, but I realize that that's how it appears. I seriously objet to any premise that lying is okay if you get what you want. What other reason would there be to lie? That's basically saying lying is okay no matter what.

President Bush answers the the citizens of the United States of America. Not to you. Not to me. When the citizens' will is manipulated through deliberately dishonest means, I take offense. And this kind of offense is considerably more objectionable than white lies about sex.

No matter how you put it, I am of the opinion that lying is not okay. You are of the opinion that it is okay.
post #293 of 561
So what prevented SH and that fun luvin rape gang from destroying the weapons en masse as the war started---poison pill style?

You guys crack me up!
post #294 of 561
tonton:

Quote:
Says it all. Where's that brick wall smiley?

Yeah, my words say it all. You're right.

I know Bush lied but I don't particularly care. Just like I didn't care about Clinton lying. Notice a pattern?

It's called being consistent. A concept foreign to you in your political beliefs (notice how I don't make broad judgements about your personal morality?) to be sure.

Quote:
When you have kids, you'll teach them that lying is okay if you get what you want out of it?

Is President George W Bush my child? Did I **** Barbara in the 1950s and spawn the big-eared freak?

What does that have to do with anything, tonton?

Quote:
I really don't understand.

Obviously.

Quote:
Please explain how advocacy of lying is not saying that lying os okay. Explain how that is not a reflection on your personal morals.

Telling a lie to get someone to do the right thing isn't always bad. Lies are not always bad.

Quote:
I'm really not trying to be personal here, but I realize that that's how it appears.

Interesting, you tell me that I'm morally bankrupt and want to follow it with "nothing personal"? **** that, you either have the balls to say what you say or don't say it.

Better yet, think about what you say before you spew it out your talkhole and you might not have that problem. A guy your age should've learned that lesson by now.

Can you even begin to comprehend how insanely stupid it is to intimate that I have no moral fiber because I choose not to freak out about a president lying?

A question you didn't answer but I'd like you to: What the hell should I do?

Quote:
President Bush answers the the citizens of the United States of America. Not to you. Not to me.

We are citizens of the United States. At least I am.

Quote:
When the citizens' will is manipulated through deliberately dishonest means, I take offense. And this kind of offense is considerably more objectionable than white lies about sex.

Oh, they're "white lies" now? The moral clarity suddenly gets foggy. The indignation tones down and gets confused. The generalities and blanket accusations get lost.

The Limbaugh-esque moral outrage stutters.

What a pathetic hypocrite, shut up before you make yourself look even more stupid.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #295 of 561
Groverat: Not only the lack of differentiation but also a lack of tact thoroughly out of line for a moderator . . . shame on you young man!!

ooops better watch what I say or Groverats going to toungue lash me and tell me to shut up


Some people find themselves to be very moral and yet somehow find sexual promiscuity is not immoral, immorality, in cases of sexuality can be seen as more a matter of what spirit it is in: are all parties involved open and involved out of a a love of the body? is there coercion? ect. I have no problem with sex. sex is not immoral.

I agree that lying is immoral. and breaking vows is bad, if your vows were 'not to f*ck around' then that is bad. That is also between the married couple to work out, and friends and family . . . who knows maybe they had an 'agreement' . . . if we start to legislate the morality of the bedroom (as if we haven't allready-sodomy laws -sheesh!) then where does the line of demarcation get drawn seperating us from the Taliban? . . . well, that's a bit dramatic . . . but it can point out something:

in one case the lie was not political business and should not be made part of the Public concern via the mechanisms of politics . . . as per the example above
whereas the other fib involves the complete reversal of the role of American politics: from being seen as the benign superpower to possibly being seen as the aggressor: a country that invades and takes . . . and kills . . . for reasons that are not to be trusted.

One is a lie about the foibles of the heart, the other is on such a grand scale that many lives were lost and whole countries changed (including our own) America and the world will never be the same.

I don't know . . . if it is true that Bush lied, and for the sake of this post lets leave that aside for now, I think that there is a very very big difference between the forms of 'lying'

Both were bad
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

post #296 of 561
Oh yeah . . . and also, it is of course true that breaking an oath is immoral.

In ancient cultures that would have been enough to stone you . . .

thank goodness we're not living in Sparta . . .
"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

"They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."
--George W Bush

"Narrative is what starts to happen after eight minutes
--Franklin Miller.

"Nothing...

post #297 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
I know Bush lied but I don't particularly care. Just like I didn't care about Clinton lying. Notice a pattern?

I do indeed. Lying is okay. I've never said you weren't consistent (in fact in this very thread I've said explicitly that you were). You're sure a great listener.
Quote:
It's called being consistent. A concept foreign to you in your political beliefs (notice how I don't make broad judgements about your personal morality?) to be sure.

I object to Clinton lying. I object to Bush lying. I'd object to anyone lying. Notice a pattern? Who is making broad judgments about my political beliefs? I don't like Bush because of his record and his results. Nothing personal or partisan there. I like Clinton because of his record and his results. Not that he didn't make mistakes. I think you might notice in the other thread that I actually give Bush credit when credit is due. Notice a pattern?
Quote:
Is President George W Bush my child? Did I **** Barbara in the 1950s and spawn the big-eared freak?

What does that have to do with anything, tonton?

It's called deductive reasoning. You might try it some time.
You are telling us here that not only should Bush be excused for his lies, but that he should be praised for them because according to you, the result was a good one. Why would I not deduce that you would represent such an opinion to your children? And in turn spawn another generation of liars.

I'm not saying I'm not a liar. I am. We all are liars. I just do not excuse myself for it. I do not excuse anyone for it. There is always a better solution that does not involve lying. In Clinton's case it would have been to keep his f^cking pants on. In Bush's case it would have been to tell Congress, "We need to attack Iraq because Saddam is killing his own people" or "We need to attack Iraq because it will improve stability in the Middle East" or "We need to attack Iraq because my daughters want new Porsches" and see if Congress and everyone else agrees with his truthful reasoning. Unless he believes his opinion is beyond objective critique. Does he think he's God? Apparently you do. Or King. King George the Filth. No. By agreeing to represent the people of the United States of America to the best of his ability, he is agreeing to do so with honesty and integrity.
Quote:
Telling a lie to get someone to do the right thing isn't always bad. Lies are not always bad.

I disagree. Lies are only excusable when they are minor enough to not have any negative effects and when they are made to spare people's feelings (like "I don't think you look fat in that dress at all.") If you are lying to protect yourself then it's too late. You shouldn't have done whatever it was you did, Bill. Now fess up and take the consequences. If you are lying to get political or financial advantage, then you are no better than a thief. A thief of the freedom of dissent.
Quote:
Interesting, you tell me that I'm morally bankrupt and want to follow it with "nothing personal"? **** that, you either have the balls to say what you say or don't say it.

What I'm saying is that it's morally bankrupt (your words) to excuse lies of this magnitude for any reason. You just happen to be caught up in this objection.
Quote:
Better yet, think about what you say before you spew it out your talkhole and you might not have that problem. A guy your age should've learned that lesson by now.

I agree. But we're all learning throughout life, are we not? I need to be a little more patient with people who frustrate me.
Quote:
Can you even begin to comprehend how insanely stupid it is to intimate that I have no moral fiber because I choose not to freak out about a president lying?

Not that you choose not to freak out. You have every right to choose not to freak out. But what you are doing is congratulating him for a job well done. That's why I contend (are we getting intimate, now, Groverat?) that you lack morals. Can't you tell the difference? I've never heard Applenut complain about Bush but I've never lambasted him for not being outraged, have I? Actually, what you are is worse than a liar. You are an advocate for lying. If you think being a liar is okay, please keep it to yourself. Otherwise I have every right to call foul and say "It is NOT OK".
Quote:
A question you didn't answer but I'd like you to: What the hell should I do?

Stop excusing yourself. Stop excusing Bush. Stop excusing Clinton. Be honest, and be an example of integrity so that those that might learn from you can be honest themselves. Then we might not end up with politicians that lie.
Quote:
We are citizens of the United States. At least I am.

Slowly here: We (you and I) are citizens of the United States. We are not the citizens of the United States. Last I checked there were a few hundred million more than just us that fall into that group.
Quote:
Oh, they're "white lies" now? The moral clarity suddenly gets foggy. The indignation tones down and gets confused. The generalities and blanket accusations get lost.

There is a difference between the lies Clinton told about his penis and the lies Bush told about the personal safety of the citizens of the United States of America and the reasons for attacking a sovereign nation. If you cannot see that difference then I cannot help you.
Quote:
The Limbaugh-esque moral outrage stutters.

At least it stutters with honest intentions. Actually, I object far more to the advocacy of the lying than to the lying itself. Because it sets an example that can only beget more liars among us. That's where morality is being diminished. It is better for a people to know right from wrong and fail at practicing it than to not even realize the difference in the first place. If they don't know the difference, how can they be expected to do what's right at all? You saying, "Politicians lie. It's what they do." becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. At least I'll always have your words to prevent you from ever being elected to a political position.
Quote:
What a pathetic hypocrite, shut up before you make yourself look even more stupid.

Did I lie? Was I inconsistent? How was I being hypocritical? At least my attack against your morality was backed up by your statements. Your attack was simply childish name-calling.
post #298 of 561
Quote:
Not only the lack of differentiation but also a lack of tact thoroughly out of line for a moderator . . . shame on you young man!!

we'll, you're half right......
post #299 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Yeah, because what I am willing to tolerate from an elected official is certainly the tell-tale sign of my personal morality?

Please, tonton, you're not this stupid.



Lying is bad, yes. George Bush is a liar, yes.
I don't care because I got what I wanted out of his lie and I consider his lie not only a lie oft-repeated by world leaders for a decade, but one that had very positive consequences.





You are serious, indeed, you are seriously ****ing retarded to make any of this personal. If you want a flamewar with me you'd better rethink the decision, I'll burn your melodramatic ass alive.

WHAT DO YOU WANT ME OR ANYONE ELSE TO DO ABOUT BUSH'S LIE? I acknowledge it. What now? What now, you melodramatic freak? What now?

Should I quiver and fall to my knees at the revelation that a president lied!? OH NO! What will become of the ****ing world NOW!?

Clinton lied about blowjobs: I didn't give a shit.
Clinton lied about Iraqi WMD: I didn't give a shit.
Bush lied about WMD: I don't give a shit.



So wait... was Clinton treated unfairly or not?
Liars must not be tolerated! What a crock of shit.

What a hypocritical crock of shit that is.


Well I don't think you'll win any awards for persuasion or moderation for this one.

Look this is a forum. A place where people exchange ideas. Sometimes those ideas clash. That's life.

As far as Bush's lies and you don't care. What do we want you to do about it? Nothing. Not one thing. You can go your merry way. You can vote for whom you please.

We will of course vote for whom we please.

There are many of us who aren't ok with it.

I'm so happy that you got what you wanted out of this.

I'm even ok with you being comfortable with Bush ( or any other politician ) lying.

The thing about Clinton......well let me try one more time ( before you start that partisian ploy again ).

I'm really kind of angry with Mr. Clinton. If it wasn't for his little mistake we wouldn't have Bush in office right now and the world ( for better or worse ) would be in a different place. He set off the chain of events that led us here. I still don't think his infidelity was any of our business. The place where he went wrong was when he lied. That's where he stepped over the line. He should have said no comment or told the truth. It would have been a lot of ammo for the republicans but look what happened anyway. That's what happens when you lie. You only make things worse. As far as him lying about WOMD in Iraq in 98 well we'll never know. That was a different time and we have no way of investigating it now. With Bush we can be fairly sure. I think many presidents used Saddam when their ratings were low. If Clinton lied about it I would feel that was wrong. However Bush's situation is of a different magnitude. Much more money spent. Many more lives lost. And an attempt to steer the country the way he wants no matter the method or cost.

That's really the problem here. Bush has demonstrated that he doesn't care what anyone else thinks. He just wants what he wants and is willing to go to any length to get it.

I don't want a president like that. That's not what this country is about.

So no I don't think Clinton was treated unfairly ( after he lied ). And before you start I've always felt this way.

I think it's funny that seems to be all the conservatives talk about when they critisize Clinton.

Bush's lie was of a whole different magnitude. It resulted in much loss and it deceived the american people to acheive that end. Clinton was just covering his ass ( bad enough ) but Bush had an agenda.

Now as I said you can believe what you want. But if you come into one of these threads and even tacitly imply that the president lying is ok for any reason. Or that we should be ok with that. Myself or others will continue to counter that notion.

Every time.


By the way I don't think tonton looks stupid at all.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #300 of 561
pfflam:

Quote:
Groverat: Not only the lack of differentiation but also a lack of tact thoroughly out of line for a moderator . . . shame on you young man!!

Grab a dictionary and look up "emeritus" and check the sig. It's all over now, baby blue.

Quote:
Some people find themselves to be very moral and yet somehow find sexual promiscuity is not immoral, immorality, in cases of sexuality can be seen as more a matter of what spirit it is in: are all parties involved open and involved out of a a love of the body? is there coercion? ect. I have no problem with sex. sex is not immoral.

What if the guy who is lying has been accused repeatedly (over a period of decades) of sexual harrasment and sexual assault? What if the guy is in a position of power and makes promises to an extra-marital sex partner in a lower position than himself?

Clinton was a scumbag, hell he IS a scumbag even today, but that's what modern presidents are. Does it make me morally bankrupt to acknowledge that and not really care all that much, that's your call.

Quote:
in one case the lie was not political business and should not be made part of the Public concern via the mechanisms of politics . . . as per the example above
whereas the other fib involves the complete reversal of the role of American politics: from being seen as the benign superpower to possibly being seen as the aggressor: a country that invades and takes . . . and kills . . . for reasons that are not to be trusted.

Clinton didn't use lies to kill people? Desert Fox anyone? 33,000 American troops attacking Iraq on the exact same WMD lie? Anyone? Bueller? The same WMD lies that made Clinton push for stronger sanctions that killed ~1 million Iraqis during his terms? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?

But no, let's act like all Clinton ever did wrong was get a blowjob, that's easier if our goal is good 'ole fashion partisan bitchin'!

You want a lie that will piss me off? The lies to keep sanctions going; from Bush's daddy, Clinton and Dubya pre-9/11. Just like I don't support sanctions in Cuba.

--

tonton:

Quote:
You are telling us here that not only should Bush be excused for his lies, but that he should be praised for them because according to you, the result was a good one.

Define "excused". Excused from what? Please answer that.
Define "praised". When did I once say he should be praised? Answer that.

Quote:
Why would I not deduce that you would represent such an opinion to your children? And in turn spawn another generation of liars.

Well you shouldn't come to that conclusion because your entire premise is bullshit.

Tell me, tonton, when the Lewinsky thing went down, were you so full of moral indignation about lying?

Quote:
Does he think he's God? Apparently you do. Or King. King George the Filth. No. By agreeing to represent the people of the United States of America to the best of his ability, he is agreeing to do so with honesty and integrity.

Yeah, I think he's god. You're obviously thinking about this very intelligently and reasonably.

Do you even read what you write before you post it?

Quote:
A thief of the freedom of dissent.

How did Bush rob anyone of their right to dissent? I guess those million-strong protests while he lied were figments of my imagination?

Quote:
I agree. But we're all learning throughout life, are we not? I need to be a little more patient with people who frustrate me.

I'd say drop the drama queen attitude when someone dares say something bad about your precious Democrats and doesn't shit blood at the mere mention of a dirty Republican.

This Limbaugh moral outrage act is ****ing priceless.

Quote:
But what you are doing is congratulating him for a job well done. That's why I contend (are we getting intimate, now, Groverat?) that you lack morals. Can't you tell the difference?

Am I congratulating him on lying? Am I? Could you show me where?

You can see I'm glad he did what he did (war) and I don't care that he lied to do it. Mainly because it was the exact same lie that kept sanctions on and Saddam in power.

Where was this moral outrage on WMD for the last 12 years, tonton?

Quote:
There is a difference between the lies Clinton told about his penis and the lies Bush told about the personal safety of the citizens of the United States of America and the reasons for attacking a sovereign nation. If you cannot see that difference then I cannot help you.

Desert Fox. What about Desert Fox?
Were you tongue-lashing and moralizing in 1998 when Clinton bombed the shit out of Iraq on the WMD lie?

Be honest now, tonton, lying is bad!

I love it when hypocrites moralize, it's priceless.

Quote:
At least it stutters with honest intentions.

You are quite open with your status as a partisan tool and a hypocrite, I must agree.

"Desert Fox?! Uh... well... obviously uh... YOU HAVE NO MORALS! YOU THINK BUSH IS GOD!"
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #301 of 561
Since Clinton only lied about the little things, like cheating on his wife, I think we can assume that Iraq did have CBN weapons/program in 1998.

When the inspectors went back this year, they went under the assumption that Iraq had not disarmed. In reality, like a policeman, they had probable cause and they acted on it.

The only other alternative is that the whole UN/(the world) was duped/strongarmed by Halliburton's sinister agents of evil--otherwise the inspectors would never have gone back.

Since Iraq didn't comply with the requirements of the UN we (the US and Britain) kicked their ass. Iraq had plenty of time in the run-up to the war to "get rid of the dope" and, like the Museum of Antiquities, the absence of CBN is being played for maximum effect.

At the end of the day, this entire argument rests on the assumption that GWB is a lair (and profoundly stupid) and that SH was an innocent victim, mauled by the west for nefarious reasons.
post #302 of 561
Quote:
At the end of the day, this entire argument rests on the assumption that GWB is a lair (and profoundly stupid) and that SH was an innocent victim, mauled by the west for nefarious reasons.

I think for many the truth is whatever would be worst for GeeDub.

Facts are mere hinderances.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #303 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by ena
At the end of the day, this entire argument rests on the assumption that GWB is a lair (and profoundly stupid) and that SH was an innocent victim, mauled by the west for nefarious reasons.

No.

Dubya is both a "lair" and stupid.

However,

SH is not an innocent victim, but a murderous psycopath who was mauled by the west for reasons other then his WMD.

Get it?

You seem to forget that members of the US government have come out and SAID WMD was used for beaurocratic reasons.
meh
meh
post #304 of 561
When are you guys going to settle down on a figure of when SH had the goodies, and when he did not?
post #305 of 561
He obviously had them in 1998 (even though the guy who said they were destroyed in 1991 is trumpeted as evidence that Iraq had no WMD before this war), because ... well... Bush uses made-up words.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #306 of 561
I wonder if we could hold down giant and give him nuggies until he admitted that.
post #307 of 561
Well guys what did you expect. The denial continues........


Bush colored glasses.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #308 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by jimmac


Bush colored glasses.


Well, when did he have them? 91? 98?
post #309 of 561
From groverat,


" Clinton was a scumbag, hell he IS a scumbag even today, but that's what modern presidents are. Does it make me morally bankrupt to acknowledge that and not really care all that much, that's your call. "


So why not decide to not except this standard? Try to move to something better and more trustworthy be it republican or democrat. Following this road and just accepting it can only lead to one thing. The errosion of our democracy.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #310 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by ena
Well, when did he have them? 91? 98?


How do you know I wasn't talking about you?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #311 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
ALL of the evidence Bush cited was wrong? ALL OF IT???? Please. That's just an absurd, ridiculous statement.

For the love of god, please present something to back up what you post!

Quote:
Originally posted by groverat, ena and SDW
He obviously had them in 1998

What is this 'them'? What *exactly* are the weapons that he 'had'? This shouldn't be difficult at all since it is so 'obvious'.

For extra credit, you can demonstrate that what you refer to is and 'imminent threat' to the 'american people.'
post #312 of 561
I just lost an entire post because Safari quite. I'm not going through that again....let me summarize:

1) There is no evidence Bush lied. There are so many other possible explanations at this point we can't begin to say that. We still may find weapons (asI believe we will). They could have ben moved in the five years there were no inspectors. The intelligence could have been dead wrong (though that would be another matter). One can't base this assumption on one mistatement about an IAEA report. That in itself could have a million different explanations. Perhaps he was thinking of another report. Perhaps he was just wrong about it. Who knows? I agree he shouldn't have said it but that doesn't make it a lie.

2) If he did lie, I have as much of a problem with that as some of you do. However, those of you calling Bush stupid enough to blatantly lie about this should realize that one of his biggest strengths is that people underestimate his intelligence and political skills. We'll see.

3) I agree...when exactly did Saddam get rid of his weapons? Since we know they were there in 1998, at what point between then and now did he destroy them? Where did he destroy them? How? Where is the evidence? He was required to present this information, and/or lead inspectors to stockpiles he DID have so they could be destroyed. He didn't do that. End of story. The aformmentioned questions MUST be answered for me to agree there are no weapons. The mere apparent absence of CBN now is not sufficient to say "there are no weapons".

4) Tonton, Clinton did not tell a white lie as you claim. He literally looked at the camera and shook his finger at the nation. That's no white lie.


Oh, and the noogie idea could be fun:
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
post #313 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
I just lost an entire post because Safari quite. I'm not going through that again....let me summarize:

1) There is no evidence Bush lied. There are so many other possible explanations at this point we can't begin to say that. We still may find weapons (asI believe we will). They could have ben moved in the five years there were no inspectors. The intelligence could have been dead wrong (though that would be another matter). One can't base this assumption on one mistatement about an IAEA report. That in itself could have a million different explanations. Perhaps he was thinking of another report. Perhaps he was just wrong about it. Who knows? I agree he shouldn't have said it but that doesn't make it a lie.

2) If he did lie, I have as much of a problem with that as some of you do. However, those of you calling Bush stupid enough to blatantly lie about this should realize that one of his biggest strengths is that people underestimate his intelligence and political skills. We'll see.

3) I agree...when exactly did Saddam get rid of his weapons? Since we know they were there in 1998, at what point between then and now did he destroy them? Where did he destroy them? How? Where is the evidence? He was required to present this information, and/or lead inspectors to stockpiles he DID have so they could be destroyed. He didn't do that. End of story. The aformmentioned questions MUST be answered for me to agree there are no weapons. The mere apparent absence of CBN now is not sufficient to say "there are no weapons".

4) Tonton, Clinton did not tell a white lie as you claim. He literally looked at the camera and shook his finger at the nation. That's no white lie.


Oh, and the noogie idea could be fun:


Give it up SDW. The world has already pasted you by. Hey Nixon was a very intelligent man. He lied. Intellegence doesn't imply common sense and I don't think Bush is any where near as intellegent or skillfull as Nixon was.

Safari occasionally does stupid things doesn't it?
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #314 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by SDW2001
when exactly did Saddam get rid of his weapons? Since we know they were there in 1998, at what point between then and now did he destroy them? Where did he destroy them? How? Where is the evidence?


C'mon giant---you need to settle down on an answer for this.


AND NO 58,000 WORD POSTS!!
post #315 of 561
jimmac:

Quote:
So why not decide to not except this standard?

By voting for an honest, hard-working advocate of the little guy... like... Ralph Nader?

Let's see, I already did that.

Why don't you *ahem*except this standard?

Quote:
Try to move to something better and more trustworthy be it republican or democrat. Following this road and just accepting it can only lead to one thing. The errosion of our democracy.

Who did you vote for in 2000?
Who did I vote for in 2000?

And again, what the hell does that have to do with anything?
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #316 of 561
giant:

Quote:
What is this 'them'? What *exactly* are the weapons that he 'had'? This shouldn't be difficult at all since it is so 'obvious'.

For extra credit, you can demonstrate that what you refer to is and 'imminent threat' to the 'american people.'

Sarcasm.

"He obviously had them in 1998..." is a satirical impersonation of a partisan tool trying to defend 1998's Desert Fox (or at least ignore it) while screaming bloody murder about Operation Iraqi Freedom; both of which were pushed by the president-of-the-time with the WMD story.

Flex that NW muscle, come on!
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #317 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
jimmac:



By voting for an honest, hard-working advocate of the little guy... like... Ralph Nader?

Let's see, I already did that.

Why don't you *ahem*except this standard?



Who did you vote for in 2000?
Who did I vote for in 2000?

And again, what the hell does that have to do with anything?

I'll give you a clue. I'm registered independent.
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
post #318 of 561
Holy hell I can't believe I missed this gem:

Quote:
As far as him lying about WOMD in Iraq in 98 well we'll never know. That was a different time and we have no way of investigating it now.

That may be the weakest cop-out I have ever seen in my life.

Yikes.
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
post #319 of 561
Quote:
Originally posted by ena
C'mon giant---you need to settle down on an answer for this.


AND NO 58,000 WORD POSTS!!

That he destroyed what? Please, tell me exactly what weapons Saddam had that posed an 'imminent threat' that required immediate war. If I don't know exactly what weapons people are referring to I can't answer the question.

Stop avoiding it.

And I will post the relevant information in the amount required by the topic. I have no pity for people that base their lives on unsubstantiated assumptions.

Quote:
Originally posted by groverat
Sarcasm.

I understand what your post said, but what I was referring to was an underlying unsubstantiated assumption in many of the posts here.

I ask again, what *exactly* are these weapons that are an 'imminent threat' to the US?

This should be a really easy question to answer for anyone with even a remote knowledge of Saddam's weapons programs, which certain individuals here claim to have but obviously don't.
post #320 of 561
giant:

Quote:
I understand what your post said, but what I was referring to was an underlying unsubstantiated assumption in many of the posts here.

Read: "I am unable to counter your actual arguments so I'm making assumptions about what you are 'really' saying and using those assumptions to build fake arguments that I can battle more easily."

Quote:
I ask again, what *exactly* are these weapons that are an 'imminent threat' to the US?

*Since* I never *said* there *were* weapons *that* were *an* imminent *threat* I *don't* know why *the* hell you would *ask* me *that* question*.*

QUICK, GIANT, WHY DO YOU EAT BABIES!? WHY!? TELL ME NOW!
proud resident of a failed state
proud resident of a failed state
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
This thread is locked  
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Lies and the Presidency