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: Sun Tzu who wrote (148701)	10/22/2004 3:45:07 PM
From: michael97123	Respond to of 281500

Then dont call him a liar, call him a f**k up. Thats far more legit criticism i think. And call him one who seems not to learn from mistakes and one who doesnt hold folks accountable. Those are really the strongest anti-bush arguments on the war. The other stuff is way to personal and i actually believe help bush among reagan democrats who feel sorry for the guy because of the personal nature of the attacks. Remember when Gephart called him miserable failure? It would have been far more effective for dems to have said his policies have been miserable failures. The dems do themselves political harm when they personalize it this way. mike

To: Sun Tzu who wrote (148701)	10/22/2004 3:49:08 PM
From: one_less	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 281500

"Firstly, you cannot prove the intent to say the truth for the same reasons that I cannot prove its contrary. I started by saying that it is hard to prove a lie and that is why some people do it often. Declaring a man to be a liar without proof is one form of that. "So it is pointless to debate the intent." No it isn't. I agree that in the vast majority of cases we can not prove that a man is truthful/lying. A man's conduct may speak very highly of him. Giving large amounts to charity and such. However, he may be secretly running a corrupt scheme to corrupt and defraud his admirers. And even if this is true, it may not be provable. Or a man's conduct may put him in very bad public esteem, like an act of violence against one of our friends. However, we may find out later that the act of violence actually was performed to stop some heinous injustice such as rape or molestation on a child. Sometimes this may be true but can't be proven. Actions are not always enough to determine the nature of the man. So, the only measure we can use to accurately determine the truth or falsehood of a man's word is by producing evidence that reveals something of the intent to of the man that conflicts with the utterance or actions performed by the man. "But how many lies do I have to show to make him a liar? one