Some answers for swing voters, or even liberals!

[DealMonkey]

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?

If you believe your own lies are you still lying?

 

[Spencer278]

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.

 

[josphII]

that was a nice little column

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: 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?

Hey etech, since you're out attacking "liberals" again today (i.e., anyone who doesn't worship King George), I want to make sure you have a chance to respond. You're so eager to demand everyone else provide "facts and evidence" I'm sure you'll want to explain why you rarely (ever?) do so yourself. It seems rather relevant given all of the content-free attacks you've posted in other threads recently.

 

[LordMagnusKain]

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.

Moon, i don't think you intentionally ignorant so:

If the cots of other forms of fuel where lower why wouldn't they be used? they would gain the investor in those other fuels more money, thus the profit motive exists for anyone that can usurp the fossil fuel industry.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

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.

Moon, i don't think you intentionally ignorant so:

If the cots of other forms of fuel where lower why wouldn't they be used? they would gain the investor in those other fuels more money, thus the profit motive exists for anyone that can usurp the fossil fuel industry.

I do think you are intentionally ignorant. But I'll try to help. You assume markets are free markets, number 1, and number 2, you assume that the costs of production include things like waste, health effects, global warming, etc. Number 3, you don't see the economies produced in a wartime state as in a war on energy dependence.

And what does it profit a man that he gain the world and loose his immortal soul, remember?

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: LordMagnusKain

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.

Moon, i don't think you intentionally ignorant so:

If the cots of other forms of fuel where lower why wouldn't they be used? they would gain the investor in those other fuels more money, thus the profit motive exists for anyone that can usurp the fossil fuel industry.

I do think you are intentionally ignorant. But I'll try to help. You assume markets are free markets, number 1, and number 2, you assume that the costs of production include things like waste, health effects, global warming, etc. Number 3, you don't see the economies produced in a wartime state as in a war on energy dependence.

And what does it profit a man that he gain the world and loose his immortal soul, remember?

The cost/benefit for pollution is a eye-of-the beholder thing; I'm in Texas, we have open market on electricity, you can pay 30% more for the wind-power and help support the 'pollution free' energy, thus allowing the people to decide with their pocket books.

as it is most don't want the more expensive pollution free' energy;

although if we're going to have to clean up fossil fuels I'd be good to add a tax that pays out what it costs to clean it up.

So unless you can show me some numbers that state losses from fossil fuel pollution are 30% higher than the price they go for on the market you are still wrong or at very least making an equivocal argument about the word 'cost';

If you CAN come up with supporting evidence then it may well be usable to get state-funding for renewable energy, as it will save the state money.

 

[Moonbeam]

Knock yourself out!

 

[LordMagnusKain]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Knock yourself out!

i see the number of good peer-review articles came up that support your view: http://www.ieer.org/ensec/no-1/comffnp.html

i can do a goggle search and come up with propaganda pages; give me a few representative propaganda pages you believe and I'll be happy to look over the sources.