SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  
To: Sun Tzu who wrote (148684)10/22/2004 3:05:21 PM
From: one_less  Read Replies (1) of 281500
 
"Not only intentions are hard to prove (who can really know what is in another's heart), in case of a president they matter even less; either the man wanted to lie, or he was too naive or ignorant see the truth for himself."

It is very hard to produce proof of lies. That is why some people do it so easily and so often. A mistake is not a lie. An uninformed utterance is not a lie. etc.

Occassionally we are able to snag a liar (blue dresses for example).

"Either way, he is not qualified to lead."

True: One is too deceitful the other is too incompetent to lead.

"So this brings us to rule number one:

#1 It is the actions we are debating and not the motives. i.e. a lie is a lie is a lie."

Wrong. Actions and words are underwritten by intent.

Lie: To utter a falsehood with intent to deceive.

A lie is a lie is a lie.

"We also have to believe in the concept of responsible chain of command; the buck has to stop at the president. If people under your command lie, mislead, or misbehave and you do not reprimand them, then you are tacitly approving of their lies and are party to the crime."

In order to implicate the president as a liar by this example, we must have proof that he knew his informants were being dishonest.

"I am also not going to include little white lies and "courtesy" lies, or minor omissions of speech, but a lie that furthers his agenda is fair game."

I have no problem with you producing omissions of speech and such as long as you can prove that it was his intent to deceive us.

"So do we have a deal?"

My agreement is to remain open to your proof. But it seems you are already framing your argument in a manner that will nullify your evidence.
Report TOU ViolationShare This Post
 Public ReplyPrvt ReplyMark as Last ReadFilePrevious 10Next 10PreviousNext  

HomeMailHotSubjectMarksPeopleMarksKeepersSettings
Terms Of UseContact UsCopyright/IP PolicyPrivacy PolicyAbout UsFAQAdvertise on SI
© 2025 Knight Sac Media.  Data provided by Twelve Data, Alpha Vantage, and CityFALCON News