Some answers for swing voters, or even liberals!

[AEB]

Found a good article written by larry elder. He is well researched, just pick up either of his books for proof. Anyway the article answers some questions commonly proposed.

Article Here Its a short and quick read.

 

[Skyclad1uhm1]

Q: Isn't Bush lying about why he wanted to go to war bad?

A: No, lying is good when a Republican does it. When a Democratic president does so about his personal sex life it's a good reason for impeachment though.

 

[Orsorum]

Half of that article was bullsh!t, and failed to actually answer the question.

 

[Ldir]

Originally posted by: Orsorum
Half of that article was bullsh!t, and failed to actually answer the question.

Only half? I want my 3 minutes back.

 

[zephyrprime]

Half of that article was bullsh!t, and failed to actually answer the question.

Yeah, all the questions are like this:

Q: Isn't Bush bad because of [insert issue here]?
A: The Democrats are just as bad or worse!!

 

[AEB]

Well the article was intended for swing voters. Should i vote republican or democrat? If democrats are worse makes sense to vote republican? Even still some of the questions were answered like the deficit one and the evironmental issues ones. Stop being so defensive and elarn something

 

[Moonbeam]

I only read the moron's answer to the first question on fossil fuel and only so far as to where he lied about alternative energy sources being more expensive.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: AEB
Well the article was intended for swing voters. Should i vote republican or democrat? If democrats are worse makes sense to vote republican? Even still some of the questions were answered like the deficit one and the evironmental issues ones. Stop being so defensive and elarn something

There are obviously alot of swing voters in this forum

Most people already made up their minds who to vote for here, and citing an obviously biased opinion piece isn't to change anyones mind.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
Q: Isn't Bush lying about why he wanted to go to war bad?

A: No, lying is good when a Republican does it. When a Democratic president does so about his personal sex life it's a good reason for impeachment though.

Is it a lie if it was based on information believed at the time to be true?

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Skyclad1uhm1
Q: Isn't Bush lying about why he wanted to go to war bad?

A: No, lying is good when a Republican does it. When a Democratic president does so about his personal sex life it's a good reason for impeachment though.

Is it a lie if it was based on information believed at the time to be true?

George W. Bush believes that god speaks to him, is it necessarily true?

 

[Gaard]

This is an example of a lie...
"These are not assertions, they are facts."

Here's another example...
"There is NO DOUBT that Iraq possesses WMD."

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Gaard
This is an example of a lie...
"These are not assertions, they are facts."

Here's another example...
"There is NO DOUBT that Iraq possesses WMD."

And based on the information believed to be true at the time, were those lies?

 

[Zebo]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
I only read the moron's answer to the first question on fossil fuel and only so far as to where he lied about alternative energy sources being more expensive.

It's only $3 a barrel to get oil out of the ground (in exxon/moblies 10K) then tack on OPECs cartel inflation/shipping/refining costs...but I knew what you meant.

 

[SuperTool]

Rightwing commentator opinions are like rightwing commentator @ssholes. Every rightwing commentator got one

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Gaard
This is an example of a lie...
"These are not assertions, they are facts."

Here's another example...
"There is NO DOUBT that Iraq possesses WMD."

And based on the information believed to be true at the time, were those lies?

Yes, they were lies, in both senses of the word. They were lies in the technical sense because they were truly assertions, NOT facts, and there was doubt about Iraq's WMD capabilities.

They were lies in the moral sense because a lie is any statement or action intended to deceive. Bush and his minions sold this war to America with clear intentions to deceive us about what they did know, what they didn't really know, and what they wanted us to believe even though they knew it wasn't true, e.g., Iraq's (nonexistent) connection to 9/11.

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Gaard
This is an example of a lie...
"These are not assertions, they are facts."

Here's another example...
"There is NO DOUBT that Iraq possesses WMD."

And based on the information believed to be true at the time, were those lies?

Yes, they were lies, in both senses of the word. They were lies in the technical sense because they were truly assertions, NOT facts, and there was doubt about Iraq's WMD capabilities.

They were lies in the moral sense because a lie is any statement or action intended to deceive. Bush and his minions sold this war to America with clear intentions to deceive us about what they did know, what they didn't really know, and what they wanted us to believe even though they knew it wasn't true, e.g., Iraq's (nonexistent) connection to 9/11.

That is your opinion of what happened. Could you be lying to us all? I suppose you have facts and evidence to prove your biased assertions.

That is all.

 

[zantac]

What was the question?

 

[Gaard]

If I recall there was a lot of intel, info, etc, casting doubt, or otherwise questioning, the absoluteness of Iraq's possession of WMD. Correct me if I'm wrong, and I'm sure someone will, but there was plenty of reports basically stating "Maybe, possibly, probably, but we just aren't sure". Now, given those reports, if our president and his cabinet go on record saying numerous times "There is no doubt", wouldn't that be a lie?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: etech

Originally posted by: Gaard
This is an example of a lie...
"These are not assertions, they are facts."

Here's another example...
"There is NO DOUBT that Iraq possesses WMD."

And based on the information believed to be true at the time, were those lies?

Yes, they were lies, in both senses of the word. They were lies in the technical sense because they were truly assertions, NOT facts, and there was doubt about Iraq's WMD capabilities.

They were lies in the moral sense because a lie is any statement or action intended to deceive. Bush and his minions sold this war to America with clear intentions to deceive us about what they did know, what they didn't really know, and what they wanted us to believe even though they knew it wasn't true, e.g., Iraq's (nonexistent) connection to 9/11.

That is your opinion of what happened. Could you be lying to us all? I suppose you have facts and evidence to prove your biased assertions.

That is all.

No, I have no evidence of my own. I'm afraid I'll have to take the word of people like Hans Blix and David Kay and 150,000 troops who consistently report NOT finding the massive stockpiles of WMDs about which Bush and his minions droned on and on. I'll have to take the word of Joseph Wilson when he determined Iraq did NOT try to buy uranium from Niger, a claim the Bush administration ultimately acknowledged was a mistake. I'll have to assume Bush-lite is now telling the truth when he admits there was, in fact, no connection between Iraq and 9/11.


By the way, etech, you're really good at calling other people liars. I don't seem to remember you ever offering much to back up your attacks. Do you have any "facts and evidence" to justify your bias for Bush, or do you just accept as fact whatever comes out of the White House?

 

[AEB]

this isnt about WMD... at any rate Elder is Independant, he only registed republicans for reasons found in Showdown. AND as i said pick up either of his books, his statements are backed up by facts. Just because he proves your theories wrong doesnt mean its an opinion peice.

 

[Gaard]

What theories?

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: AEB
this isnt about WMD... at any rate Elder is Independant, he only registed republicans for reasons found in Showdown. AND as i said pick up either of his books, his statements are backed up by facts. Just because he proves your theories wrong doesnt mean its an opinion peice.

Are you sure you linked the right article? With all due respect, the article you linked is predictable, baseless, party-line bovine excrement. Elder proves nothing beyond his ability to parrot the Bush administration. Perhaps his books are inspired works of genius. That article is fluff.

 

[AEB]

He doesnt like the bush administration old or new because they expanded government as i said he is libertarian , and he would be the last person to defend bush if it wasnt factual, read either one of his books then get back to me

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: AEB
He doesnt like the bush administration old or new because they expanded government as i said he is libertarian , and he would be the last person to defend bush if it wasnt factual, read either one of his books then get back to me

But I'm not interested in reading his books; I have too much in queue already. His article must stand or fall on its own. In my opinion, it falls ... flat.

 

[DealMonkey]

That article sucked serious @ss. About the only thing it's good for is convincing undecided sheep to vote for Bush.