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: Dan B. who wrote (491208)	11/12/2003 11:04:04 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

PART I 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. Sorry but the parens don't help. In any case, I am not about apologize for duplicity or misrepresentation you claim I made. The criticisms I have made of Bush and his administration have been researched and well thought through. If anything, the situations in Iraq worsens much as I expected it would last fall. Sorry that you choose to be blind to it. 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. Excuse me, you think you can tell me what a lie is? I hardly think you know yourself. 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. He also claimed there were WMDs, he said that Iraq presented a serious threat to the US, he said that Saddam was buying weapons grade uranium, he said there were definite links between al Qaeda etc. In the meantime, Powell showed pics in front fo the UN that he claimed were trucks carrying armaments. He went on to show buildings where WMDs were being constructed. Those are just a few lies off the top of my head. 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. Get over yourself.......are your trying to win a Nobel prize for your outstanding posting on the subject of Bush's lies.

To: Dan B. who wrote (491208)	11/12/2003 11:04:26 PM
From: tejek	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769670

PART II 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. My God, I said that at least two posts ago. There would be no way to prove it. Where were you? 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). Right! So this is how you determine someone is lying or not. You have to either get into their heads which is an impossibility unless you are telepathic, or you have to have them take a lie detector test. At this pace, the US will be ruins waiting for you to figure it out. Bushed lied! Deal with it! 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." Of course, I don't have proof that he was intentionally lying. We know he distorted the truth but I can't prove that he lied intentionally without a some sort of judicial inquiry where records are seized, witnesses interrogated etc. If that's what you need to make a decision, like I said earlier, it may be too late by the time you get around to figuring things out. 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. Impeachment requires proof beyond a shadow of a doubt. I have said repeatedly that it would be difficult to come up with that quality of proof. However, for your own personal decision making process, that quality of proof normally would not be required. 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. You're full of it! You think by responding the way you are that you are being clever and managing to entrap me! Sorry, big guy, you are neither.......frankly, all you're doing is playing with yourself.