Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

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 : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: tejek who wrote (491046)	11/12/2003 12:18:51 AM
From: Dan B.	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 769670

Re my "Yes, I must be(seriously demented) if I imagined you'd apologize. Despite the incongruity between your claims of proven "lies" and your tacit admission that you aren't likely to ever prove the only one(lie) you've delineated, you won't(apologize). and your "Your post above is barely understandable" I think you should ask around about that, lol. Hey, a simple lack of specificity on my part I'll admit to. I rather thought you'd figure out the appropriate references. Hopefully, the clarity brought within parenthesis added above will make it clear to you. That was easy. Now that you understand it, reply again. Re: "Sometimes its just a distortion or exaggeration of the truth but mostly its lying. I don't know whether he does it intentionally or whether its a kind of manipulation on the part of his staff." You still haven't gotten through your head what a lie is. You've described only one to date in all our conversations here. You did that when you said you think Bush knew there were no WMD's but said there were anyway. If you are correct, that would be a lie from Bush. However, in this only instance when you have delineated an actual lie from Bush, you've admitted it would be very difficult to prove. If he purposefully and knowingly distorted, that would qualify too. It's the "purposefully and knowingly" part you can't prove, and that is a necessary part to prove before you can say anyone KNOWS he lied, let alone suggest that EVERYONE knows or should know. Re: "his statements include words like "I believe" or "I think" or "its been reported". If you can prove he DOESN'T believe what he says, or knows the offered reports are false yet passes them on, you'd have just cause to KNOW he lied. Lacking that, you don't(have just cause to say anyone KNOWS he lied, let alone you). Re: "Instead, its about a war where thousands of lives have been lost and billions have been spend. That's what makes his brand of lying despicable and dastardly." Well, you don't have a proven lie on him, IMO, and if you truly have thought through it and believe you HAVE shown he's lied, and believe the above statement is accurate(particularly the last sentence), I can't imagine how you could POSSIBLY say this, re: "Its enough to suck you all in but its soft enough that a call for impeachment would be inappropriate." Dude, you talk of war, the billions spent, the cost of thousands of lives(400 or so Americans to date, in fact) and the dispicable lies engendering said war, but you don't think impeachment is "appropriate?" LOL...sorry, can't help it. I know if I believed as you write, I would purely INSIST that impeachment is necessary immediately; I'm quite sure all of America would too. I'm sorry for your confusion, but your statements concerning lies are reactionary, and lead you to write in a way which leaves me with the ability, if not the duty(lol) to respond as I just have. Dan B.