Liar, Liar, 935 Pairs Of Pants On Fire (Trees And Things)

Lou: At least this much is true...

Tue, 29 Jan 2008 06:49:40 EST

If a I had lied (or obfuscated for you effete Eastern intellectuals) that much when I was a young 'un, my south end would met up with a north bound strap.

If daddy Bush had been more liberal with the 32 inches of leather, we might-a not been in this mes

permazorch: Re: Two issues

Mon, 28 Jan 2008 23:09:47 EST

That's the thing -- when I look at the entire body of evidence, I don't.
Huh. Do you think Mr. Orenthal J. Simpson was innocent of murder, too?

...and for some reason I suspect Saddam and Company weren't exactly virgin snow pure.
W

keta: Re: Two issues

Mon, 28 Jan 2008 11:37:05 EST

Being able to convince me that they 'lied' would involve showing proof that they knew what they were saying, when they said it, to be bollocks.

Oh, they knew they were selling the American public a load of bullshit. Pure, unmitigated bullsh

keta: Re: Dictionary

Mon, 28 Jan 2008 11:16:00 EST

1a all the way...the only time Bush might ever get this designation from anyone.

Fael: Re: Two issues

Sun, 27 Jan 2008 23:23:18 EST

I think that most people would agree that an untrue statement made in accordance with the speaker's own belief is (potentially) forgivable, and that an untrue statement made despite said speaker's knowledge to the contrary is (generally) immoral. The

JimmyHavok: Re: Two issues

Sun, 27 Jan 2008 12:19:23 EST

Nice defense! "They weren't lying, they were stupid." The evidence tends to indicate that the Bushies are are both stupid and liars.

gerrymander: Re: Two issues

Sat, 26 Jan 2008 16:37:02 EST

When you look at the entire body of evidence, surely you can begin to a pattern of intent to deceive?

That's the thing -- when I look at the entire body of evidence, I don't. I agree that original estimates about the cost of the war were far too

profwhat: Re: Dictionary

Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:58:02 EST

Main Entry:: lie
Function:: noun
Etymology:: Middle English lige, lie, from Old English lyge; akin to Old High German lugī,<

skeptic: Re: Two issues

Sat, 26 Jan 2008 09:18:45 EST
You are perfectly correct, inaccuracy is not the same thing as dishonesty. However, in this case, when there is so much inaccuracy in spite of so many intelligence reports which could have been used to arrive at more accurate conclusions, we can reas

wetkarma: Re: Two issues

Sat, 26 Jan 2008 06:57:47 EST
I agree with what you are saying gerry. But note: its not the inaccuracies about WMD's that fucked us, its the lies/inaccuracies to create a drumbeat for war.
Eg. Wolfowitz said the U.S. would be greeted as liberators, that Iraqi oil money would pay

wetkarma: Re: Two issues

Sat, 26 Jan 2008 06:41:28 EST

Your second paragraph is disingenuous. A lie is defined as an untruth meant to deceive. Bush et al. lied their fucking faces off to get what they wanted - a military offensive against Iraq. Your defining these lies as "incorrect s

Lou: What's that sound?

Sat, 26 Jan 2008 06:12:06 EST
It's the sound of Rove slapping his forehead..."Doh! Why didn't we think of that?"

MayorBob: As Dick Cheney Would Say.

Fri, 25 Jan 2008 23:11:30 EST
"What about the whole Plame affair?"
We didn't lie; she was the one living the lie. We blew her cover as a spy.

shane: Re: Two issues

Fri, 25 Jan 2008 22:46:04 EST
What about the whole Plame affair?

Lou: shhhh

Fri, 25 Jan 2008 20:04:53 EST
Careful with the "healthy lung" talk around Urkel.

keta: Re: Two issues

Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:54:19 EST
Enough with the namby-pamby tap dancing.
Bush et al. LIED. Dress it up as "actively mislead(ing)," "purposely misleading," or "manvague" all you like, but no amount of mental masturbation can change the fact THEY FUCKING LIED THEIR ASSES OFF, henc

keta: Re: Two issues

Fri, 25 Jan 2008 18:40:31 EST
Your first paragraph reeks of the, "But Clinton...!" mindset.
Your second paragraph is disingenuous. A lie is defined as an untruth meant to deceive. Bush et al. lied their fucking faces off to get what they wanted - a military offensive aga

thefadd: Re: Two issues

Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:36:24 EST
On a general basis, I think we can all agree that the media really doesn't scrutinize any press releases, frequently reprinting them original mistakes and all.
I will give you that "lying" is a strong word and would be best left out of the discussion

Steve Urkel: Re: Two issues

Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:34:27 EST
"We wouldn't accept the unvarnished conclusions from "The Healthly Lung Institute" if the study was paid by the RJ Reynolds"
Speak for yourself.

gerrymander: Two issues

Fri, 25 Jan 2008 17:15:03 EST
One: When will the media start treating NGO press releases with the same scrutiny of corporate press releases? In this case, the issue is with the pet "research" organizations of the vocally anti-war George Soros buying a laughably bad news analysis, but t