Originally posted by: tnitsuj
All of the Democratic candidates except for Kicini(whatever his name is) , Dean, and I think Graham are a bunch of fuc*ing hypocrites. They voted for the war, the patriot act, etc. in order to not be seen as "unpatriotic" and now they kind of pretend they were against it all along. Try again a$$holes.
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
All of the Democratic candidates except for Kicini(whatever his name is) , Dean, and I think Graham are a bunch of fuc*ing hypocrites. They voted for the war, the patriot act, etc. in order to not be seen as "unpatriotic" and now they kind of pretend they were against it all along. Try again a$$holes.
Well at least they came to their senses. I wish Bush would.
Or maybe the came the correct conclusion that the Bush posse lied to them about the imminent threat posed by Hussien and his yet to be found WMD's. Hell I believed that BS and supported our invasion thinking that it was in our and the worlds best interest. Who knows, maybe I would have supported it without the lies but obviously Bush didn't trust the American Public to come to the same conclusion as him and his group of Neo Conss.Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
All of the Democratic candidates except for Kicini(whatever his name is) , Dean, and I think Graham are a bunch of fuc*ing hypocrites. They voted for the war, the patriot act, etc. in order to not be seen as "unpatriotic" and now they kind of pretend they were against it all along. Try again a$$holes.
Well at least they came to their senses. I wish Bush would.
Or maybe they are the real axis of weasels who lack the backbone to take a stand when it may be politically non-expedient, and are now shifting tunes as the body count and costs increase in Iraq.
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Or maybe the came the correct conclusion that the Bush posse lied to them about the imminent threat posed by Hussien and his yet to be found WMD's. Hell I believed that BS and supported our invasion thinking that it was in our and the worlds best interest. Who knows, maybe I would have supported it without the lies but obviously Bush didn't trust the American Public to come to the same conclusion as him and his group of Neo Conss.Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
All of the Democratic candidates except for Kicini(whatever his name is) , Dean, and I think Graham are a bunch of fuc*ing hypocrites. They voted for the war, the patriot act, etc. in order to not be seen as "unpatriotic" and now they kind of pretend they were against it all along. Try again a$$holes.
Well at least they came to their senses. I wish Bush would.
Or maybe they are the real axis of weasels who lack the backbone to take a stand when it may be politically non-expedient, and are now shifting tunes as the body count and costs increase in Iraq.
Originally posted by: freegeeks
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Or maybe the came the correct conclusion that the Bush posse lied to them about the imminent threat posed by Hussien and his yet to be found WMD's. Hell I believed that BS and supported our invasion thinking that it was in our and the worlds best interest. Who knows, maybe I would have supported it without the lies but obviously Bush didn't trust the American Public to come to the same conclusion as him and his group of Neo Conss.Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
All of the Democratic candidates except for Kicini(whatever his name is) , Dean, and I think Graham are a bunch of fuc*ing hypocrites. They voted for the war, the patriot act, etc. in order to not be seen as "unpatriotic" and now they kind of pretend they were against it all along. Try again a$$holes.
Well at least they came to their senses. I wish Bush would.
Or maybe they are the real axis of weasels who lack the backbone to take a stand when it may be politically non-expedient, and are now shifting tunes as the body count and costs increase in Iraq.
Red
what I don't understand in this whole discussion is the fact that a majority of the american public still supports Bush on the Iraq thing. When you look at Great-Britain the public opinion has swung the other way completely. There was strong support for Bush and Blair before the war began and now a majority of the Brits is convinced that they have been lied to.
why doesn't that happen in the USA??? Why is the american public opinion not so critical about the Iraq thing??? I don't say you have to become a Bush basher all of the sudden but a bit of critical view on this whole thing is the least you can do (like you do)...
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Or maybe the came the correct conclusion that the Bush posse lied to them about the imminent threat posed by Hussien and his yet to be found WMD's. Hell I believed that BS and supported our invasion thinking that it was in our and the worlds best interest. Who knows, maybe I would have supported it without the lies but obviously Bush didn't trust the American Public to come to the same conclusion as him and his group of Neo Conss.Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
All of the Democratic candidates except for Kicini(whatever his name is) , Dean, and I think Graham are a bunch of fuc*ing hypocrites. They voted for the war, the patriot act, etc. in order to not be seen as "unpatriotic" and now they kind of pretend they were against it all along. Try again a$$holes.
Well at least they came to their senses. I wish Bush would.
Or maybe they are the real axis of weasels who lack the backbone to take a stand when it may be politically non-expedient, and are now shifting tunes as the body count and costs increase in Iraq.
I don't think they came to their senses. I think there just what tnitsuj called them. They're a bunch of gutless, fingers in he wind, what's popular today, centerless assholes. The horrible rub is that there's a bigger asshole in the other party that can win. Dean at least is leading, but who knows when he'll chicken out. Signs are he already is starting to. Why can't we have a contest between the moron and a more progressive truth, even if the truth doesn't win. At least there was the chance. I'm tired of Mr. Suck and Mr. Suckmore.Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
All of the Democratic candidates except for Kicini(whatever his name is) , Dean, and I think Graham are a bunch of fuc*ing hypocrites. They voted for the war, the patriot act, etc. in order to not be seen as "unpatriotic" and now they kind of pretend they were against it all along. Try again a$$holes.
Well at least they came to their senses. I wish Bush would.
Originally posted by: sandorski
The Senators seemed to use the Spears Method when it comes to what comes out of the mouth of the President. They quickly found out that those words were untrustworthy and now they reject the Spears Method, at least some of the Leaders are not morons.
The Founders used your logic for the creation of a represenative democracy (Electoral College) but by no means do most intelligent Americans believe as such today. Do you really think most Americans voted for Bush b/c he can make intelligent decisions? The man choked on a pretzel . . .When has a president ever trusted the public? That's the whole reason why we elect people to make our decisions for us, because we can't possibly be informed enough on all the topics to make an intelligent decision.
So when you have some information which agrees with your perspective (DOD, NSA) and some information which disagrees (State, CIA). What do you call it when you use only part of the information . . . selective truth telling?BTW: There were no lies. There was only information and a decision based on that information. A lie is when someone knows for a fact that something is false, yet they proclaim it as true (ex: I did not have sexual relations...). Making a decision based on faulty evidence is not lying. Besides, there were many reasons to assume Saddam had weapons. Remember how we could never inspect their buildings? We had to wait 4 - 6 months before we could look in some of them? Oh how convenient that we forget all that stuff after the fact.
Originally posted by: JellyBaby
Oh there were lies alright, lies aplenty. It's just a question of who originated them, who fell for them and who's getting called on it.
There are other forms of lying than the simplist definition you listed. Consider a lie of omission -- purposefully withholding vital information in order to persuade or manipulate. I believe that form of deceit is rampant in the Bush administration and it's amazing to see people go the extra mile to turn their cheek to these lies.