LawTalkers

LawTalkers (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/index.php)
-   Politics (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=16)
-   -   The babyjesuschristsuperstar on Board: filling the moral void of Clinton’s legacy (http://www.lawtalkers.com/forums/showthread.php?t=719)

Shape Shifter 11-22-2005 06:04 PM

Catch 22
 
Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Most of us would have it no other way. Taking no action and then being wrong means we're going to find out about those weapons the hard way.
What weapons?

Shape Shifter 11-22-2005 06:04 PM

Happy Thanksgiving
 
Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Millions of very grateful Iraqis, and I, would hardly call it "unnecessarily." "Bravely", and "in service to freedom", and, of course, "sadly", but not unnecessarily, unless you belong to the New Isolationist Party.

Oh, right. You do.
What weapons?

bilmore 11-22-2005 06:06 PM

Catch 22
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
His belief needs to be objectively reasonable.
It's your dissent that needs to be objectively reasonable. You're objecting that he took action when almost everyone around was convinced that Saddam had WMDs, and the price of NOT taking that action if he actually had them would have been horrific, for someone. Maybe even us. To not act in that situation would have been grossly negligent. As it is, the downside is that millions will not be killed by Saddam, the middle east may well become more stable (heck, look what's happened just since SH no longer pays islamikazee families the death bounty) and AQ has lost a financing and support base.

I think we got the right deal.

Spanky 11-22-2005 06:09 PM

Catch 22
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
His belief needs to be objectively reasonable.
On what planet? On planet earth, when using the English language a lie requires intent. It requires belief. That belief does not have to be reasonable. If Clinton believed that he really did not have sex with that women then Clinton did not lie. But nobody believes that he really thought he did not have sex with her.

But if you believe that Bush thought Iraq had WMDS then you don't think he did lie - no matter how unreasonable you think his thinking was.

bilmore 11-22-2005 06:13 PM

Happy Thanksgiving
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Millions of Iraqis want us out, and the government just called for the U.S. to set a timetable for withdrawl. I thought you wanted democracy in Iraq. You support subverting the will of the people there, too?

The call for U.S. withdrawl also stated that "national resistance is the legitimate right of all nations." Sounds like the Iraqi people favor the insurgency over the U.S. occupation. Maybe we should think of getting out.
Boy, do you read things from an uninformed base. I thought this was very cool - probably the most hopeful sign that the various factions are really going to work together to build something. For the majority to actually try to assuage the Sunni's like this means, to me, that they're seriously going to bargain with them, instead of telling them to go blow, which would, of course, lead to the feared civil war and make the whole thing a mess.

You should study the country a bit. Your posts would sound more . . . sound, I guess.

BTW, note the absence of a deadline in that resolution. If pressed, my guess is that they would pick a date in late 2006 or early 2007.

taxwonk 11-22-2005 06:15 PM

Catch 22
 
Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Cool. So, acting on incorrect information makes it a lie?

I was right. You don't know what it means.
I believe what he said was that acting on incorrect information when you are aware that the information is most likely no longer correct is the functional equivalent of a lie.

To put it into an age-appropriate context, you now know the Earth isn't really flat. So, to repeat the advice you gave to Columbus a few years back would be less than honest of you.

bilmore 11-22-2005 06:15 PM

Happy Thanksgiving
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
What weapons?
Begone. You're a sloganeering idjit. Go watch a Michael Moore movie.

bilmore 11-22-2005 06:20 PM

Catch 22
 
Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
I believe what he said was that acting on incorrect information when you are aware that the information is most likely no longer correct is the functional equivalent of a lie.
I don't think he had factual information that would contradict the years-old CW. He had new analyses from sources he didn't much trust.

Face it - had Bush really believed there were none, there's no way he would fake it to this extent. Better info is always down the road a bit, and people historically tell what they spoke to the Prez about later. It would be a guaranteed loser for him to do that.

Make allegations of negligence. I can see that as an honorable, and supportable, position. But this "lie" crap is just that - partisan crap that just makes you all (meaning, those of you still parroting it) look stupid and venal.

Spanky 11-22-2005 06:20 PM

Catch 22
 
Quote:

Originally posted by taxwonk
I believe what he said was that acting on incorrect information when you are aware that the information is most likely no longer correct is the functional equivalent of a lie.

To put it into an age-appropriate context, you now know the Earth isn't really flat. So, to repeat the advice you gave to Columbus a few years back would be less than honest of you.
Bush believed there were weapons of mass destruction. He tried to convince the public of that. Just because he did not use facts that didn't support his position does not mean that he lied. If we are in a argument and I don't use facts that support you position does that make me a liar: no.

What is so perplexing about this is I wouldn't really care if he did lie. It doesn't really matter. Therefore, if he had lied I would admit it. But he didn't lie. It just blows me away that the opposition is focusing on something that didn't occur. Why not focus on the mistake?

Shape Shifter 11-22-2005 06:22 PM

Happy Thanksgiving
 
Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
Begone. You're a sloganeering idjit. Go watch a Michael Moore movie.
And your a partisan suck-up with your tongue so firmly up W's anus that you can't see the world around you. Fuck off until you quit viewing the world through Rove-colored glasses.

lie
16 entries found for lie. The first 10 are listed below.
To select an entry, click on it. For more results, click here.
lie[1,intransitive verb]lie[2,noun]lie[3,verb]lie[4,noun]LieLie[1]big liegive[1,verb]lie bylie detector

Main Entry: 3lie
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): lied; ly·ing /'lI-i[ng]/
Etymology: Middle English, from Old English lEogan; akin to Old High German liogan to lie, Old Church Slavonic lugati
intransitive senses
1 : to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive
2 : to create a false or misleading impression

taxwonk 11-22-2005 06:22 PM

Catch 22
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
You may think cherry picking is "not cool" but that does not make it a lie. What makes it a lie is if Bush did or did not believe it. Obviously we can't read his mind, but do you really believe that Bush believed there were no WMDs?
I believe he had reason to believe there weren't. He didn't particularly care. He had made up his mind and he refused to discuss or consider any input that contradicted his chosen course.

I'm not sure whether he is so deluded that he was actually incapable of processing the negative information or he is so arrogant that he believes he can simply ignore it.

Spanky 11-22-2005 06:23 PM

Catch 22
 
Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore
I don't think he had factual information that would contradict the years-old CW. He had new analyses from sources he didn't much trust.

Face it - had Bush really believed there were none, there's no way he would fake it to this extent. Better info is always down the road a bit, and people historically tell what they spoke to the Prez about later. It would be a guaranteed loser for him to do that.

Make allegations of negligence. I can see that as an honorable, and supportable, position. But this "lie" crap is just that - partisan crap that just makes you all (meaning, those of you still parroting it) look stupid and venal.
2. I keep trying to say stuff like this but you always seem to sum it up better.

bilmore 11-22-2005 06:24 PM

Catch 22
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Spanky
What is so perplexing about this is I wouldn't really care if he did lie. It doesn't really matter.
Dissent. Strong dissent. The value of the goal notwithstanding, honor means something. Bush has given scant cause for worry about his honor, and there's no need to even concede what you do here.

As soon as you say "it doesn't matter anyway", you've given the shape shifters of the world another slogan for a year or two. It doesn't matter if it's substantive. Idiots will latch on to it, and it's not worth it.

Gattigap 11-22-2005 06:25 PM

Catch 22
 
Quote:

Originally posted by bilmore


Make allegations of negligence. I can see that as an honorable, and supportable, position. But this "lie" crap is just that - partisan crap that just makes you all (meaning, those of you still parroting it) look stupid and venal.
Doesn't rhyme as well.

"Bush was negligent! People ... the war was a improper allocation of blood and treasure!"

bilmore 11-22-2005 06:26 PM

Happy Thanksgiving
 
Quote:

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
And your a partisan suck-up with your tongue so firmly up W's anus that you can't see the world around you. Fuck off until you quit viewing the world through Rove-colored glasses.
Ah, you've been reading my "spend like a drunken sailor" rants, haven't you?

God, you can't even insult without resort to overbroad inaccurate MoveOn.BS


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:41 AM.

Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Limited.
Hosted By: URLJet.com