Until We Find ONE WMD in Iraq, Republicans Should Really Calm Down About “Obamacare"
- Thread starter poet
- Start date
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
If I say 'I am working to INCREASE my capacity to conduct chemical warfare' that means I ALREADY have some capacity to do so.
Wrong again dimwit; the only thing you have proved here is what a repugnant ignoramus you are. The irony here is that you are too stupid to even comprehend it.
maineman
Banned
and...the difference between a lie and a mistake is easy. A mistake is when you say something that you think is true, and it turns out to be false. A lie is when you say something you KNOW to be false at the time you say it. Bush was well aware of the sketchy nature of some of the WMD intel. He was well aware that analysts doubted Curveball and that many of the bits of data were old and possibly obsolete. He KNEW of the existence of doubts surrounding Saddam's stockpiles of WMD's even as he told us that THERE IS NO DOUBT. THAT's a lie. And all you can do is call ME names because you cannot refute that basic statement.
booooooring.
::yawn::
booooooring.
::yawn::
maineman
Banned
increase it from the point where all he had was old, degraded rusty cans of chemical weapons from the 1980's? if you want to call that "capacity" in any meaningful way... go for it. It certainly does not state with any degree of certainty that Saddam had acquired stockpiles of non-obsolete, functional chemical weapons.
Wrong again dimwit; Bush believed the same evidence foreign leaders believed, the previous administration believed and Democratic Party leaders believed as posted originally.
The fact that you are too stupid to comprehend the obvious does make your moronic talking points any more relevant or make you look less stupid.
Now what Obama did was a lie. He proclaimed without a doubt that people could keep their doctor and their plans under ACA. Now you might be able to make the case that he was simply stupid and didn't know what was in his own signature legislation, so he is either a prolific liar, or incredibly stupid. Which one? I'm thinking he is both.
Obama also claimed that he would end partisan rancor and heal this nation. Was he lying to get gullible buffoons like you to vote for him or is he simply that incredibly stupid?
Obama also claimed that his massive stupimulus bill would lead to job creation. Evidence suggests this was also either a lie to get gullible buffoons like you to vote for him or he was merely that stupid. Which was it?
Obama also claimed that he would repair our relationship abroad which now appears to be worse. Was he deliberately lying to gullible buffoons like you to get your vote or simply that stupid?
Yet what does not occur to incredibly stupid dimwits like you was that our troops were wearing chemical suits in the real belief Saddam would use his chemical arsenal. I guess the military was fooled by that big dumb cowboy as well eh Ken?
I'm amused with armchair warriors like you who, armed with hindsight, believe you can spin yarns about Bush to support the failed ideological lies you love to wallow in.
Yes, you really are THAT incredibly stupid and repugnant.
SJJRSJJS
Verified User
The Senators had the same information about the WMD that Bush did and they voted overwhelmingly for the War, especially The Hillary. Again you Libs try to skewer the truth in order to promote your agenda. Obama lied to US about Obamacare, he even apologized to US, so now I coined it ObamDon'tCare. Now the Libs are trying to call it the Affordable Care Act, just another lie, everyone that I know has had their Health Insurance premiums go way up. This is just another attempt to take from the haves and give to the have nots. I am not against helping out all poor people, but do not try to pull the wool over our eyes, by lying to US. "Give a man a fish and feed him for a day, teach that man how to fish and feed him for a lifetime". You libs think that you have all the answers, with your so-called bleeding heart BS, that is until this commie sheet affects you personally, "Do as I say, not as I do".
maineman
Banned
No one is questioning what he BELIEVED. If he had stated that it was his belief that Saddam had WMD's, who could question what he believed. He did not say that. He made a declarative statement of fact, which he knew to be false. He may have believed that Saddam had WMD's but he also knew that others within his administration were not entirely sure... others questioned the veracity of some of the intelligence, the interpretation of some intelligence, and the age of some of the intelligence. He KNEW that. He KNEW there were varying degrees of doubt yet LIED to us when he said THERE IS NO DOUBT. It was a lie because there WAS doubt, and Bush knew of it and told us otherwise. A lie.
If you think that THERE IS NO DOUBT and I HAVE NO DOUBT are synonymous, then you must think that when you say, THERE IS A STUPID BRAIN DEAD CARROT and I AM A STUPID BRAIN DEAD CARROT, they are also synonymous.
maineman
Banned
so that, somehow, makes it NOT a lie when Bush told us there was no doubt that Saddam had stockpiles of WMD's even though he knew of doubts within his own administration? really?
explain
"No one is questioning what he BELIEVED."
Thats great.....then you know that stating what you believe, CANNOT be a lie, by definition.....
...he wasn't speaking for others in the administration....he was speaking for himself. It is irrelevant what others believed.
he can't speak for others.....not for the VP, Sec. of State, the UK, Germany or anyone else....he can only convey what he believes.
lien.1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
v. lied
1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
I you say "That color is red"......that is sufficiently clear in its meaning....you don't need to add "I believe", that is understood to be what you believe.
whether you're right or wrong is irrelevant....you are stating what you believe, and that does not meet the definition of a lie....
=====================================================================
Lets say you take a test in school, answer all 10 questions, consider the test easy, and are absolutely sure you aced the test...got that scenario....?
A classmate says to you that he thinks you got #10 wrong......
The teacher asks you if you're confident you aced the test and you have no doubt you answered all questions correctly.....you say 'YES".....understand that part ?
Lets start with an easy question....At this point, did you just lie to the teacher ? Thats a yes or no question
no other if, ands, or buts, are necessary. No other conditions need to be added or taken away.....
Now there are 2 outcomes....
You DID ace the test......Did you lie to the teacher ?
You DIDN'T ace the test.....Did you lie to the teacher ?
I'd love that have a somewhat reasonable person like Christiefan in this debate ... just to make it interesting.
Last edited:
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
You mean like saying you complied with all the laws of searches, while entering Mexico, and you saying that they conducted a search.
Cancel 2020.1
Canceled
Remember, Jerry - it's not a lie, if YOU believe it...
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
Please show us where that is what she meant. You are simply trying to make excuse after excuse for Dems that were 'sure' he had WMDs as well. It is quite pathetic and rather telling.
That is absolutely the case....I post a clear example in post 133
lien.1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.
2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
v. lied
1. To present false information with the intention of deceiving.
Note the conditions that must be satisfied to LIE....
stating a deliberate falsehood with the intent to deceive or mislead
To satisfy these conditions, the speaker MUST KNOW what they are stating is untrue, ie, they cannot actually believe what they declare.
The two are diametrically opposed, you can NEVER have it both ways.
English 101....something every child knows and understands by the age of six.
So thanks Thingy....
Last edited:
When you or your pastor or priest declare "there is definitely a God" or "No doubt, there is a God"........even though you both KNOW that others have doubts and others
deny his existence completely, .... are you lying ?
If you declare, "There is no doubt, I love my wife"....even though you KNOW shes has reservations and doubts about your love....are you lying ?
Better yet.....If I say, "There is no doubt that Bush and the Democrats were telling the truth", even though I KNOW maineman has "doubts", to put mildly, am I lying ?
Last edited:
maineman
Banned
If someone makes a declarative statement that proclaims a total absence of doubt about something, when they are aware of the existence of doubt about that very thing, it's a lie. pure and simple. They KNOW it's a lie because they know of the existence of doubt, even if they, themselves, have convinced themselves of the matter, that does not change the fact that they know of, and are well aware of the presence of doubt in others. So... "THERE is no doubt", is clearly a lie. END OF STORY.
maineman
Banned
I would never say that there is no doubt about the existence of God, because I am well aware of the fact that others do, in fact, hold doubts about that. I would have no hesitation in saying that I had no doubt of His existence, however.
I would never declare that THERE IS NO DOUBT that I love my wife, because I can only speak for myself. I have no doubt, and, I'd like to think that she has none either.
In both cases, I would be perfectly happy to voice my opinion, but not to make a declarative statement of fact.
In regards to your last example, why would you falsely say that there is no doubt about something even though you know of the fact that others do, in fact, doubt it? Why wouldn't you simply, and accurately, say "I have no doubt that Bush and the Democrats were telling the truth"? That would be an accurate assertion of your opinion.