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: one_less who wrote (149478)	10/27/2004 9:38:58 PM
From: Sun Tzu	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 281500

You still have not answered my question. Do you find his statement factual and truthful? Your logic seems to go like this: If the statement is true, then Bush is telling the truth. If it is false, he is not lying because he did not mean to and had poor command of the language or false info or made an innocent mistake. I on the other hand believe that people who make it to the top understand well what they are doing or they would not have made it. Politicians in particular have a fine grasp of language and its ambiguities. So if he says one thing, I am not willing to accept he meant something else. A lie is a lie is a lie and this does not change based on your personal belief of the events. There is an objective reality out there. Now in terms of weather a person is a liar or not, you can argue that if the person did not know his information is false, then he is an unintentional party to the lie and perhaps can be catergorized as not being a "liar". Although even so, this still does not make the person reliable. Now do you really believe that Bush did not know what effect his tax cuts have had and whom they went to most? If so, then he must be the most ignorant and incompetent politician and is unfit as a president. If he did know that most of his tax cuts went to the rich and still said otherwise, then he is a liar. Take your pick.