LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
Now THAT is some serious wishful thinking!
Printable View
LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
Now THAT is some serious wishful thinking!
Nope. Observation of fact.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue
???Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
I'm sorry... was your link supposed to show something other than a fifth of voters are completely ignorant of Reagan's presidency?
I'm sure you could probably find an equal percentage of people in a certain group that would have no problem with letting their children have a sleepover with Michael Jackson. :rolleyes:
Reagan was a criminal and a d-bag second only to Dubya.
No. It shows that Reagan ranks as amongst the best presidents in US history, according to those polled. It stands to reason that, if the majority of people believed that he did the things you accuse him of, he would not get that result. If you think it's flawed because it's not an over-all majority, go ahead and look up his direct approval rating. You may be disappointed to find that most people disagree with your view of him, by a wide margin.
Even Obama disagrees with you, often citing Reagan's example during his campaign.
As I stated... Reagan ranks highly among those who are ignorant of the facts, and as much as I like Obama I'm not going to pretend that he's not a politician.
So, do you think he is lying? Or, is he ignorant?
Have you read the bill?
Here is what the whitehouse states
Here is The Bill
If there is a lie go find it.
934 more lies and he'll catch up...Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
We were talking about Obama's glowing references to Reagan. Not the health bill.Quote:
Originally Posted by Frets
Didn't know it was a race.Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
Kind of a ridiculous article. Many people believed lots of things that turned out to be apparently untrue about Iraq. If you include Democrats in the totals of untrue Iraq statements, it would probably bulge up to 10,000 false statements. Not being correct about something is not automatically a lie.
I didn't either. But at this rate... it's utterly childish. Case in point, publicly heckling the president. Bad manners.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
It's fact though.Quote:
Kind of a ridiculous article. Many people believed lots of things that turned out to be apparently untrue about Iraq. If you include Democrats in the totals of untrue Iraq statements, it would probably bulge up to 10,000 false statements. Not being correct about something is not automatically a lie.
I agree that it was the wrong time to do it for Wilson, assuming that's what you're referring to. He apologized. Not really a big deal.Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
It might be. I haven't looked at the methodology behind this groups findings.Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
My point is that, even if it is true, it's relatively unremarkable.
935 lies are unremarkable?
Especially given how many people have died for those lies?
You lie.
I love your "turned out to be apparently untrue about Iraq." ...you still don't get it about Iraq do you?Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
Let me spell it out... f-a-l-s-e p-r-e-t-e-n-c-e-s = L-I-E-S
...and what the hell does it have to do with the health system reforms on the table anyway?
I thought this thread was about USA's capability to provide adequate health care to all, including the 40,000,000 under the poverty line over there.
Frets was posting on topic, more than I can say about discussion of the good or bad points of former (and in some cases disgraced) presidents.
david
As I pointed out before, it isn't a lie if the person saying something believes it is true.Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
Yes. The number of times a cherry picked group of people mentions something based on faulty intelligence is unremarkable. If we added up every time someone mentioned weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, that most of the world believed Saddam had and/or was building, we could arrive at a very high number. Unremarkable information and I pity the people who wasted moments of their lives trying to figure it out.
I'm glad that you appreciate my sense to not claim things that I do not know beyond reasonable doubt.Quote:
Originally Posted by david petley
Let me spell it out: v-i-o-l-a-t-i-o-n- -o-f- -i-n-t-e-r-n-a-t-i-o-n-a-l- -l-a-wQuote:
Originally Posted by david petley
True or not?
Why don't you take that up with the person who brought it up. Thank you.Quote:
Originally Posted by david petley
Disgraced as in impeached? I don't believe anyone has mentioned Clinton yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by david petley
We're going to have to disagree here.Quote:
As I pointed out before, it isn't a lie if the person saying something believes it is true.
Once you find out otherwise and you don't correct it, just keep saying what you believe in despite being told and shown otherwise... that's living a lie.
Until I see a full retraction, it's all been a lie.
I always change my position when I find out otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
Believing something is a lie without proof doesn't sound like a very tenable position. So, I don't buy into it, given what we know.
And having no proof shown that supports your original statements, a gentleman worth anything usually will issue a sincere retraction of prior stated "truths" with actual truths.
Neither have happened fully. Thus, it is still a lie. And I will not/do not/cannot buy into your stance at all.
Like I said before; we will have to disagree here.
Strange the US hasn't invaded Israel yet.Quote:
Originally Posted by FlashLackey
dp
There's no oil there. And their tech research helps us.
That's why. I'm tired of using long-winded responses where there's no need.
Not to mention they have nukes... and can fight fairly well.Quote:
Originally Posted by gerbick
The article as proof of bush lieing about iraq... sort of childish.
Did bush appologize about getting the intell wrong on iraq's wmds.. I believe he did. Did he appologize for dismissing intelligence that stated otherwise and placing weight on individuals nicknamed "screwball" no.
Was the war in iraq about oil? No.. you would have to be fairly dim to believe invading a nation is the cheapest way to secure oil. Seriously a large heavy piece of oil rigging equipment must have fallen upon your head.
Was the war in iraq about wmds and ties to terrorism? Maybe.. slightly.
Was the war in iraq about violations of international law? seriously a warning before you say something that funny.. could have doused the keyboard in coffee.
Was the war in iraq about brining represenative government to the middle east. Possibly.. it was the nation with a history of representative government and has the highest literacy rate in the mid east. Also one of the few secular governments.
Was the war in iraq started because they new a war in Afghanistan was unwinnable? Ah now your get your conspiracy theory on.