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 : Foreign Affairs Discussion Group -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Neocon who wrote (131414)	5/4/2004 3:50:52 PM
From: cnyndwllr	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

I guess your definition of lying is different from mine. If you want a simple illustration of what lying is, look at the example of a used car salesman selling a car. The salesman tells you that he "knows" the car "doesn't burn oil." He's lying if he knows that the car does burn oil. He's also lying if he doesn't know whether the car is burning oil. The existence of the lie doesn't depend on whether the car burns oil or not, it rests on the representation that he "knows" when, in fact, he knows he DOESN'T know. In the second instance he's lied EVEN IF the car DOESN'T burn oil. IF the car does turn out to be an oil-burner, the damage is done when the buyer relies upon the statement of the salesman and ends up with a much less valuable car than was represented to him. The wmd lie was, at a minimum, of the second variety. We trusted the war "salesmen" when they told us they "knew" there were wmds in Iraq. Some of us even trusted the salemen when they told us those weapons were a threat to the U.S., although many of us couldn't see the suicidal motive or delivery system to threaten us. But WE NOW KNOW that the quality of intelligence was much more ambiguous than the "certainty" level that we were assured it met. And yes, because of their lies on the certainty of the intelligence, we bought a "war" car that's burning a lot of oil. If we'd known better we'd have kicked a few tires, done some inspecting and probably not bought that "war" car at all. If you look critically at some of the other "flowers and open arms,... and paid for by Iraqi oil revenues" statements, I think you'll see more evidence of the second kind of "lies." But hey, go on finding innovative ways to deny the obvious. PS, your statement that, "[y]ou trust, all right, as long as the pundit or politician agrees with you in your negative stereotypes of Republicans, your contempt for Bush, and your conspiratorial view of people like Cheney and Rumsfeld," does me an injustice. I neither think like that nor post such "trusting" views. Just as I've done in this post, my posts attempt to convey the logic that I follow to reach my conclusions. I think we've got one relatively average choice for president and one really bad choice. My non-Bush posts are well earned by a Bush camp that has shown their incompetency very clearly. I'd rather see the other frog get kissed cause the Bush frog was no prince. By the way, when people tend to trust blindly, they always seem to label those that refute their "trusted" heroes as being contemptuous. Why is that? I really believe that while people in power purportedly work for me, many times they fail to serve in my interest. What do you believe?