straightUp Loc: California

Once again, this was a promise about the future (one year from now). Not a misrepresentation of present reality (which is what a lie is) such as saying we have absolute proof of WMD in Iraq, when we really don't.

AuntiE Loc: 45th Least Free State

When someone states in clear unequivocal terms on nationwide TV something will happen and it does not happen, it is a minimum an equivocation if not a lie.

ABBAsFernando Loc: Ohio

Exactly what liberals are doing to America


How liberlas are doing it


Useful idiots drinking up the propaganda

straightUp Loc: California

...but since you brought it up, I decided to investigate. Here's the excerpt of the Executive Order related to what you are talking about.



I still stand on principle that even here, there is no lie. This may seem like an intentionally narrow view, but it's my personal choice to spare certain words the misfortune of overuse. Like when my dad used to tell me that "hate" is a pretty strong word. It's the preservation of language for the purpose of precision.
That being said, it doesn't mean that I am insensitive to perhaps a trend, high on promises and low on follow through. That, if proven to be excessive (compared to other presidents I guess.) would in my mind decrease the value I place on his words when he's making his next promise.

straightUp Loc: California

So... you're saying that something which is unequivocal is an equivocation?

chaneybl

Your first statement is correct, "I don't know what to say...."

"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."
George W. Bush
March 17, 2003

Intelligence that was never exposed, never supported by any proof and in fact DENIED by UN monitors AND the CIA in officially submitted reports. Not just a bunch of liberal papers.

You wanted one exposed lie (there are many) Let's unravel this one. YouTube video over Benghazi....

Note: In the first picture starts in 2007 before Obama... And outlines, maybe not the extent of your definition of "Lethal Weapons", but perhaps lethal weapons in deed???

The latter, self explanatory!

Truth or Lie??? I'll await your reply

straightUp Loc: California

re: the Nixon / Obama side-by-side... The BS is *so* obvious I had to laugh. Only two bullet items for Nixon... Guess we don't want to list his intentional genocide of 70,000 Cambodians, or any of his *serious* crimes... that would screw up the desired effect right? Likewise, on the Obama side it filled with vague references that seem to be related to a single issue... gotta try to make his list appear long.

I get it. ;)

... (soooo, obvious though) lol

Oh, as far as your question goes... try sending a link to the YouTube video you're referring to so I get some idea of what the heck you are blabbering about.

chaneybl

Typical uneducated libtard to think you deserve an explanation, so you can debate it.

Truth is, you don't debate anything. You are only here in appearance to provide an antithesis through degradation (appearing intelligent) to simple dialoguing syntax frivolously, to which you are unable!

Your epistemological relativism has been diagnosed, and provides no skeptical challenge.

Please don't attempt at replying, because you are stuck in an endless ontological argument within yourself. It's an utter embarrassment. I have no expectation you will be able to comprehend or make an argument worthwhile any further.

For your amusement, I provide the video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FRigDCkB6k8

straightUp Loc: California

No, it's not AuntiE.... First of all, nationwide TV doesn't make words any different than when whispered in private. Secondly, when words are used to state that something will happen in the future, it can be several things... A forecast, a promise, a hope, a gamble, but it is never... NEVER a statement of reality. If the point in time at which something was stated will happen arrives and what was said will happen doesn't, then the forecast is rendered inaccurate, the promise is broken, the hope or the gamble is lost but there is no lie, not even an equivocation.

I know you have an emotional desire to present Obama in the worst light possible and I can understand that desire. I feel the same way about other leaders in the past, but it doesn't serve your intentions to compromise the stregnth of your language with misused words. Is it not enough to present the detriments of inaccurate projections or broken promises? Perhaps his inability to follow up on his plans? Why does it HAVE to be about lies specifically?

Sometimes I wonder if this obsession with lies isn't a popular reaction among followers of Bush to his exposed lies... As if somehow it's unacceptable that Bush could be guilty of something that Obama is not. Obviously, whatever the cause, this obsession runs very strong as this thread has persisted since I got here.

straightUp Loc: California

LOL... I never know if you are being serious. Your suggestions are so outlandish I can only assume you are parody of conservative paranoia.



Well, that's standard practice for any authority my freind. Bush himself may not be very clever but he was surrounded by very clever and evil people like Cheney and Rove. You don't think they were using whatever resources at their disposal to get people to do their bidding? Before that it was Clinton, before that it was Bush Sr... standard practice of politics my freind. I'm not saying it's right. But what I am saying is that it's a waste of time to attack personality after personality... If you want to change something you have to attack the system.

rumitoid

It is a great and reassuring read for conservatives to hear Obama's own party are turning on him. But there is a problem: no specifics are given, only vague references. In other words, a fluff piece meant to eliminate any possible doubts on the Right. Hearsay, is the legal term: "So-and-so said such-and such." But this piece doesn't even provide who so-and-so is.

straightUp Loc: California

I didn't ask for an explanation. I only asked for a link to the video you were referring to. And why are you so worried about me having an explanation to debate?


lol - my epistemological relativism provides no skeptical challenge to anyone without the capacity to understand it. I agree.


Well, it looks like I'm replying anyway. ;) As for my endless ontological argument within myself... I'm disappointed that someone who has at least been able to detect it would consider it an embarrasement. This and your choice of $10 words leads me to suspect you are a man of faith, perhaps to the extent where knowledge gained through any method other than scripture is abhorred. That would certainly explain your distaste for educated liberals.



Ah.. there we go? Was that so hard? Thank you for the link AND for the amusing diatribe that you sent with it.

...(edited a few minutes later)

OK... saw the video. Possibly the stupidest thing I ever saw. I can't even tell if it was supposed to be funny or serious. Then I went back to the post in which you mentioned it. I can't even make sense of what you are saying... Of course, your poor grammar doesn't help... For instance, I don't know what this means...

"In the first picture starts in 2007 before Obama..."

nor can I make sense of this...

"And outlines, maybe not the extent of your definition of "Lethal Weapons", but perhaps lethal weapons in deed???"

Are you referring to a stupid amature video as a lethal weapon?

Finally, I don't see ANY reference to Obama or anything that he said. So... how does this even apply to the topic?

If you are indeed submerged in the pissy-sissy fight between Christian biggots and Muslim biggots, then leave me AND Obama out of it. That fight is exclussive to extreme conservatism, which includes the Christian Conseratives AND Muslim extremists. Liberals have nothing to do with any of this crap.

rumitoid

1) chaneybl wrote:
Typical uneducated libtard to think you deserve an explanation, so you can debate it.

2) chaneybl wrote:
Truth is, you don't debate anything. You are only here in appearance to provide an antithesis through degradation (appearing intelligent) to simple dialoguing syntax frivolously, to which you are unable!

Your epistemological relativism has been diagnosed, and provides no skeptical challenge.

3) chaneybl wrote:
Please don't attempt at replying, because you are stuck in an endless ontological argument within yourself. It's an utter embarrassment. I have no expectation you will be able to comprehend or make an argument worthwhile any further.

1) The usual charge is the liberal is an over-educated intellectual out of touch with day-to-day reality, filled with theories and empty of common sense. Now liberals are also un-educated. Interesting.

2) My dictionary is in the repair shop.

3) "Ontological arguments within ourselves" continue in most of us until we die. Aging usually redefines our ealier outlook, which either pushes us to go deeper or we settle.

straightUp Loc: California

1) - The only thing I can think of is that when a liberal is accused of being both overenducated and uneducated it means that their education is based on fallacy... science and logic and "horrible" liberal things like that rather than the goofy interpretations of scripture, which they consider true education.

2) - By epistemological relativism I am assuming he was referring to my frequent reference to relativity when explaining contrasting perspectives.

3) - I agree with you... In fact, I see it as a sign of intelligence. Apparently, he see's it as an embarrasment. This guy has "Religulous" written all over him. LOL

rumitoid

1) I tend toward what I would not refer to as necessarily "goofy" interpretations of scripture but a reliance on the Word, as I limitedly see it, to comment on world events. Yet I do know what you mean, straightup: "God intended the rape victim to be impregnated and bear that child. It was God's will." This makes God a purveyor of evil.

2) Relativity accounts for some things, but not all. But that consideration is misdirection. We could argue forever the relativity of truth. "Epistemology: the study or theory of the nature and grounds for knowledge esp. with reference to its limits and validity." To let ourselves freely identify on a heart level, walk in another's shoes from their direction, takes it out of the superficial level of critical thinking. It exits debate and enters humanity.

3) "Religulous" may be apt. However, such an easy dismissal is not in one's own best interest. Bridges are the only path to finding both peace and truth.