Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

The only lies I know about are the Lowenski thing and maybe Whitewater. BTW when the SUV thing first came up I heard someone say that Kerry just kinda pushed that aside saying it's his wifes

At 6/30/04 10:07 PM, Captain_Kingfish wrote:

Its not fun living our Lives scared of a Terrorist attack.

If you're so afraid of another terrorist attack, you might as well tromp on over to the terrorists and say "you've won." Cause if there are many more people liek you they have. The whole point of terror is to make people fear them. And you're fear over 1 event is encouraging them, making them think that it's easy to scare America. You might as well be funding them.
I say the best way to fight terrorism, is to get up, flip off the terrorists and go about your daily life as if they couldn't touch you. Show them what real American resilience is.

At 7/1/04 10:43 PM, PsychoMonkeyParade wrote:

At 6/30/04 10:29 PM, PsychoMonkeyParade wrote: You mean you smell a really good president coming. you said you smell a bill clinton. exactly when did clinton 'lie'? Besides the sex scandal.

anyone wanna answer me?

Okay, since you are so eager to get an ass kicking...

The original poster alluded to Bill Clinton, a LIAR (a person who knowingly utters falsehood), and connected John Kerry's hypocrisy to him.

Now, you asked when else did Clinton "lie." The answer is probably very often, seeing as how he is just as human as you or I, but that does not matter legally. What matters is that he knowingly uttered faslehood under oath in front of the grand jury, which not even our friend George Bush has yet to do.

Well, Bush did lie about Iraq trying to get uranium from Africa, during the State of the Union, where he's addressing congress. And, last time I checked, it's technically illegal to lie to congress.

At 7/2/04 01:23 AM, SCHMEGULTON_MACGEE wrote: Well, Bush did lie about Iraq trying to get uranium from Africa, during the State of the Union, where he's addressing congress. And, last time I checked, it's technically illegal to lie to congress.

The problem with dinging him on that is we have to prove without a shadow of a doubt that he knew the information was faulty.

At 7/2/04 01:23 AM, SCHMEGULTON_MACGEE wrote: Well, Bush did lie about Iraq trying to get uranium from Africa, during the State of the Union, where he's addressing congress. And, last time I checked, it's technically illegal to lie to congress.

He also lied about iraq having ties with Al-Qaeda and he said he had undeniable proof Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but like reiper said, its just hard to prove he knowingly lied about it.

At 7/2/04 01:07 PM, The_Deadly_Spoon wrote: He also lied about iraq having ties with Al-Qaeda and he said he had undeniable proof Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, but like reiper said, its just hard to prove he knowingly lied about it.

even Clinton after making military strikes said he had damaged the weaponds of mass distruction. If they did not exist, what was he targeting? Clinton's targets were often scrutinised for not being substantial to be more for the media than anything yet he used the words WMD as much as Bush.

At 7/2/04 01:13 PM, gem1 wrote:

even Clinton after making military strikes said he had damaged the weaponds of mass distruction. If they did not exist, what was he targeting? Clinton's targets were often scrutinised for not being substantial to be more for the media than anything yet he used the words WMD as much as Bush.

i see this to be a total lie. give me some proof of this.

At 6/30/04 10:07 PM, Captain_Kingfish wrote: I dont even care if they had WMD or not. The fact is that they are capable of harming America. Its not fun living our Lives scared of a Terrorist attack.

So if something is a threat to something else it should be destroyed? By this logic the world should have attacked America long ago, seeing as we have enough nuclear weapons to hit every major city in every country.

At 7/2/04 01:00 AM, Thelonius wrote:
Now, you asked when else did Clinton "lie." The answer is probably very often, seeing as how he is just as human as you or I, but that does not matter legally. What matters is that he knowingly uttered faslehood under oath in front of the grand jury, which not even our friend George Bush has yet to do.

Yep... good ol' trust-worthy Bush. I'm so glad we found that African Uranium. And all those WMD's in Iraq. After all, he told us all about this in his State of the Union Address, he wouldn't lie in front of Congress, and all of America. He's way above Clinton. I mean, who the hell cares about personal responsibility for the ruin of two countries and the personal order to kill thousands of people (not including the execution orders he signed when in Texas) when a president HAD SEX WITH SOMEONE BESIDES HIS WIFE?!?

At 7/2/04 01:17 PM, niffweed17 wrote:

i see this to be a total lie. give me some proof of this.

What do you mean proof, this was in the newspapers then as much as it is now.

At 7/2/04 03:35 PM, Evark wrote: Yep... good ol' trust-worthy Bush. I'm so glad we found that African Uranium. And all those WMD's in Iraq. After all, he told us all about this in his State of the Union Address, he wouldn't lie in front of Congress, and all of America. He's way above Clinton. I mean, who the hell cares about personal responsibility for the ruin of two countries and the personal order to kill thousands of people (not including the execution orders he signed when in Texas) when a president HAD SEX WITH SOMEONE BESIDES HIS WIFE?!?

Obviously, you are too blind to see the point, so let me put it in perspective. Bush has intelligence reports, even though we know them now to have been flawed, to back up what he said. The intelligence reports have nothing to do with Bush. He does not write them and he is not the first one to see them. The CIA, and some other intelligence orgnaizations, gather information from sources, document it in reports, make conjectures based off that information and other information/knowledge, and then pass it up along the branch.

So, if you look up the definition of LIE (a false statement deliberately presented as being true), you will find that Bush did not lie in that statement. He made an accurate statement based off the information that he was given. On the other hand, Bill Clinton, who we know and has admitted to having the relations described by M. Lewinsky, categorically DENIED them infront of the grand jury, making it a lie.

At 7/2/04 07:47 PM, Thelonius wrote: Obviously, you are too blind to see the point, so let me put it in perspective. Bush has intelligence reports, even though we know them now to have been flawed, to back up what he said. The intelligence reports have nothing to do with Bush. He does not write them and he is not the first one to see them. The CIA, and some other intelligence orgnaizations, gather information from sources, document it in reports, make conjectures based off that information and other information/knowledge, and then pass it up along the branch.

Ah HA! Thats it, I'm too blind to see the point, now you are going to get technical with the wording. So the point is... you can speak English well? No, you have missed the point. It doesn't matter if it was intentional or not, the point is that it was done. Bush, with his false crusade against terror, has presented misinformation and cited it as a reason to invade a country immediately after ripping another to shreds and then ignoring the clean up.

So, if you look up the definition of LIE (a false statement deliberately presented as being true), you will find that Bush did not lie in that statement. He made an accurate statement based off the information that he was given. On the other hand, Bill Clinton, who we know and has admitted to having the relations described by M. Lewinsky, categorically DENIED them infront of the grand jury, making it a lie.

Your technicality is also incorrect. You can't accidentally say something, and I for one will not just believe Bush was the ignorant fool you make him out to be (although, believe me it is tempting). Our intelligence is damn good. We see pretty much everything. We even had intelligence on the possibility of something like 9/11 happening before it happened. But it is the leaders that choose to ignore that intelligence, and only see the part they want to see. There is no way in hell every single one of the reports he had suggested such a falsehood, he just latched on to the one that was most damaging to the enemy's case, and ignored the ones that had more truth to them. Be clear, he did lie, and I'm not going to be counted as one of the ignorant fools who believes he didn't.

At 7/2/04 10:56 PM, Evark wrote: Our intelligence is damn good. We see pretty much everything. We even had intelligence on the possibility of something like 9/11 happening before it happened. But it is the leaders that choose to ignore that intelligence, and only see the part they want to see. There is no way in hell every single one of the reports he had suggested such a falsehood, he just latched on to the one that was most damaging to the enemy's case, and ignored the ones that had more truth to them. Be clear, he did lie, and I'm not going to be counted as one of the ignorant fools who believes he didn't.

Check out a book called "WEDGE" by Mark reibling. It is an indepth book on our CIA and FBI. It is a real eye opener to how screwed up the inteligence agencies really are. The FBI and CIA have always been fighting over turf, and the are constantly paying some one for intelegence only to find out they were just being squesed for inteligence money. That's just a tip of the iceberg. If anything, they have too much inteligence, no way to sort it, and a chain of comand that does not allow important information to get where it needs to be. Too often you see some one yelling "Conspiracy" when it is just a system that does not work well. If any of you have ever worked in a large company. Does administration really know what is going on at the front lines?

At 7/2/04 10:56 PM, Evark wrote: Ah HA! Thats it, I'm too blind to see the point, now you are going to get technical with the wording. So the point is... you can speak English well? No, you have missed the point. It doesn't matter if it was intentional or not, the point is that it was done. Bush, with his false crusade against terror, has presented misinformation and cited it as a reason to invade a country immediately after ripping another to shreds and then ignoring the clean up.

Let me explain this one more time. You seem a little slow so let me dumb it down a bit, o k a y?

source --> CIA --> report --> President --> public

Next time I will teach you how to tie your shoes!!!!

Your technicality is also incorrect. You can't accidentally say something, and I for one will not just believe Bush was the ignorant fool you make him out to be (although, believe me it is tempting).

It was not a technicality and to someone who is not an ignorant fool - and we all know by your statement that you are not! - it should have seemed a truism.

How could it be a lie if he was going by what intelligence told him? And your next statement justiefies it even more.

Our intelligence is damn good. We see pretty much everything.

Since we are so "damn good" and "see pretty much everything," should we not also be able to act on that information?

We even had intelligence on the possibility of something like 9/11 happening before it happened. But it is the leaders that choose to ignore that intelligence, and only see the part they want to see. There is no way in hell every single one of the reports he had suggested such a falsehood, he just latched on to the one that was most damaging to the enemy's case, and ignored the ones that had more truth to them. Be clear, he did lie, and I'm not going to be counted as one of the ignorant fools who believes he didn't.

Think back to 9/10/01 just for a moment please. Which seemed to be more of an accurate intelligence report? A scatchy one stating terrorists might attack sometime around summer by using our own planes against us, or a lengthy report indicating Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, which includes an Iraqi colonel who states with surety that Saddam has access to them as a source? I think the answer is obvious to anyone who is NOT an ignorant fool.

You all DO know that SUVs are incredibly useful, versitile vehicles that get no worse gas mileage than pickups and performance cars, right?
But then again, people on this site are a bunch of bandwagoners who can't form their own opinions on anything and only do what their favorite punk band tells them is cool......

At 7/2/04 11:29 PM, Thelonius wrote:

At 7/2/04 10:56 PM, Evark wrote:

Let me explain this one more time. You seem a little slow so let me dumb it down a bit, o k a y?

I am, by no means, slow, make no mistake about that. You didn't understand my retort. You told me I missed the point, and then made no reassertion of the point I missed, you simply gave me the definition of a lie, after slating everything to fit that definition. I don't think Bush is was as misinformed as you think he was, that point, by now is moot as neither of us can really prove either way.

source --> CIA --> report --> President --> public

You didn't specify what the source was, I'll assume it is the trustworthy one that wasn't good enough reason to go to war with Iraq vs. the lie (I'm still going to maintain it as such) Bush fed us. They will both go through the CIA unchanged, and be written on a report unchanged. The only filter is the president, a man with an agenda.

Next time I will teach you how to tie your shoes!!!!

Thanks, I've always had trouble with that ; )

It was not a technicality and to someone who is not an ignorant fool - and we all know by your statement that you are not! - it should have seemed a truism.

Really, so I missed the point, you failed to restate the point, and then you took my argument apart based on something else besides a technicality? When you start getting into the definitions of words, that is a technicality.

How could it be a lie if he was going by what intelligence told him? And your next statement justiefies it even more.

Yes, he was going by what intelligence told him, and he was also ignoring other information intelligence told him. There are always two sides to everything. This conversation fits my point quite nicely. There are always at least 2 different viewpoints on each issue, this intelligence issue is no exception. I'm willing to bet at the time that Bush went in favor of the less credible source for the sole reason of its conformity to his agenda.

Since we are so "damn good" and "see pretty much everything," should we not also be able to act on that information?

Uh... there was nothing to act on. Remember when they found those WMD's that were the entire reason for the invasion? No?! Me neither, but it doesn't matter, at least we got rid of the 'evil Saddam'.

Think back to 9/10/01 just for a moment please. Which seemed to be more of an accurate intelligence report? A scatchy one stating terrorists might attack sometime around summer by using our own planes against us, or a lengthy report indicating Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, which includes an Iraqi colonel who states with surety that Saddam has access to them as a source? I think the answer is obvious to anyone who is NOT an ignorant fool.

Whew, I'd go with the first report, we did, after all, have very few people informing us as to terrorist information. And I guess that makes me an ignorant fool for your argument. But consider this. Wouldn't you feel kind of foolish putting your faith in the WMD report that turned out to be false and not putting it in the report of terrorists using commercial airlines to attack American monuments? I know I would feel like an ignorant fool, and I'm not even the one who made that mistake.

So far you've managed to call Bush an ignorant fool, as well as yourself one. In addition to pegging me as an ignorant fool who can't tie his shoes, and am too slow to understand you when I've clearly fired back quite valid points.

At 7/2/04 03:35 PM, Evark wrote: Yep... good ol' trust-worthy Bush. I'm so glad we found that African Uranium. And all those WMD's in Iraq. After all, he told us all about this in his State of the Union Address, he wouldn't lie in front of Congress, and all of America. He's way above Clinton.

Lets get straight to the point, shall we? You are trying to turn this into way big of an issue to hide your mistake. You are a regular Clinton, Nixon.

Please note that in the above text you sardonically stated that he would not lie, therefore implying that is what he did. This was after I said that Bush did not lie in his State of the Union Address. So, I defended myself by providing to you the definition of lie. If you want to argue about that, take it up with Mr. Webster.

On a side note, if you do not even know a lie is, then perhaps you are not worth listening to...

At 7/2/04 11:22 AM, ReiperX wrote: The problem with dinging him on that is we have to prove without a shadow of a doubt that he knew the information was faulty.

Yes, well, you have to draw a line somewhere.

The CIA told him that the info was a blatant forgery, that it was total crap, a few months previous. And it had been taken out of several speeches between the time it was proven false, and the State of the Union.

If someone doesn't consider this a "lie", then what will they?

Evark just got SERVED

At 7/3/04 01:54 AM, Thelonius wrote:

At 7/2/04 03:35 PM, Evark wrote: Yep... good ol' trust-worthy Bush. I'm so glad we found that African Uranium. And all those WMD's in Iraq. After all, he told us all about this in his State of the Union Address, he wouldn't lie in front of Congress, and all of America. He's way above Clinton.

Lets get straight to the point, shall we? You are trying to turn this into way big of an issue to hide your mistake. You are a regular Clinton, Nixon.

Please note that in the above text you sardonically stated that he would not lie, therefore implying that is what he did. This was after I said that Bush did not lie in his State of the Union Address. So, I defended myself by providing to you the definition of lie. If you want to argue about that, take it up with Mr. Webster.

On a side note, if you do not even know a lie is, then perhaps you are not worth listening to...

Hang on, you're beating the dead horse here... You already replied to this, I already replied to that, then you replied to that, and I've since replied to your latest reply. In the above text, I used an incredibly stupid train of thought to get my point across. Essentially telling you that your train of thought was along those lines, and that I consider those lines to be stupid.

The only one here making an issue about a minute detail is you sir. You've decided the argument is about the definition of a lie. I didn't particularly feel like getting that particular, as it isn't an important definition. I have no qualms with Webster. I will, however, respond when you decide you wish to drag the argument down to that level. You just accused me of misdirection to avoid a mistake I've made when you've just simply ignored all my previous points. http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=hypocrite Hypocritical... eh?

The point here is that Bush had false information he chose to share with the public over accurate information. He deliberately spread misinformation. Since word definitions are so important, here's the definition of deliberate:
1 Done with or marked by full consciousness of the nature and effects; intentional: mistook the oversight for a deliberate insult.
2 Arising from or marked by careful consideration: a deliberate decision. See Synonyms at voluntary.

So you are saying he involuntarily gave false information? The president doesn't do anything involuntarily, he calls the shots, he deliberately told us misinformation (lied).

And to the man who just said 'I got served'... what are you doing? You clearly have no idea what is being said, you simply jumped in when it appeared as though he had 'won' without seeing my response first. Its apparent here that if anybody 'got served' it was the both of you, one for his hypocracy and foolish ignorance, and the other for arbitrarily backing the foolishly ignorant hypocrite.

If anybody else has a valid argument I'm willing to hear it. I've decided it is no longer worth my time to debate with someone who doesn't read all my posts, and it is definitely not worth my time to debate with someone who's only opinion is rooted in catering.

At 6/30/04 08:48 PM, ReiperX wrote:

Everything that comes out of his mouth is a lie. Uh Oh I smell another Bill Clinton. Sucky Sucky 5 Dollars my friends. The answer is Yes John Kerry is retarded.

And our current President is any better? Yes Bill Clinton was a liar, yes he lied under oath, yet somehow he manages to balance the budget, get a surplus, and was probally one of the best presidents in recent history. At least we don't know what harm Senator Kerry will do, and hopefully he can do a better job than our current president. I'd rather chance with Senator Kerry than have another term with President Bush who has proven his incompetance.

And Clinton is any better? Clinton is the reason 9/11 wasnt prevented. If he did his fuckin job we wouldnt of had it. Stop listening to the liberal media. Oh and btw, Clinton fired missles...so I guess hes not the PEACEFUL liar you thought he was. So you want to live in a socialist country? You want Kerry to win right? You just proved your incompetance.

At 7/4/04 10:21 AM, Peter90688 wrote:

And Clinton is any better? Clinton is the reason 9/11 wasnt prevented.

No he wasn't. In order to have assuredly prevented 9/11, you would have had to capture all the terrorists involved in the hijackings before they hijacked, as well as anyone remotely affiliated to al-Qaida. Even if he had taken out Osama, the 9/11 terrorist attacks would have probably taken place anyway.

Stop listening to the liberal media.

Stop listening to the conservative media.

Oh and btw, Clinton fired missles...so I guess hes not the PEACEFUL liar you thought he was.

No one here has claimed Clinton to be a pacifist. Why are you trying to debunk non-existent arguments?

So you want to live in a socialist country? You want Kerry to win right?

Some people believe that socialied services are a good thing. Like Bush. He certainly doesn't have any problem with socialized medicine for seniors, or trying to maintain a socialized retirement system.

You just proved your incompetance.

Incompetence.

At 7/4/04 10:21 AM, Peter90688 wrote:

And Clinton is any better?

Yes President Clinton was, he was 100 times better when it comes to domestic issues, you know the issues that President Bush generally doesn't do much to help with.

Clinton is the reason 9/11 wasnt prevented. If he did his fuckin job we wouldnt of had it.

Care to explain in a few more details?

Stop listening to the liberal media. Oh and btw,

I tend to listen to conservitive, libral, and pretty much everything else I can read to get my information, that way I have an idea of the points of view of everyone, and then from there I can try to make an educated opinion.

Clinton fired missles...so I guess hes not the PEACEFUL liar you thought he was.

There is a slight difference between firing missles and dropping bombs on what is thought to be a strategic target rather than doing an all out invasion of a country. I didn't agree with the missle strikes when they happened though personally, but you don't have to agree with everything a president does to concider him a great one.

So you want to live in a socialist country?

I wouldn't mind this country having a few socialistic <if thats a word> thing in the government, such as socializing healthcare possibly. To me democracy with both socialistic and capitalistic ideals would seem to work greaetly.

You want Kerry to win right?

I would like Senator Kerry to win this election, yes.

You just proved your incompetance.

Oh yeah, real mature of you. Could you please explain some on how I just proved how incompetant I am?

Why do conservatives always call liberals socialists? That's the equivalent of liberals calling conservatives evangelical Christians.

he should drive one of them hybrids. i cant really trust someone that doesnt practice what they preach. oany thoughts on this hypocracy

At 7/4/04 01:58 PM, Checkers-Dunk wrote: he should drive one of them hybrids. i cant really trust someone that doesnt practice what they preach. oany thoughts on this hypocracy

Dammit, I'm tired of the GOP's efforts to establish Kerry as a hypocrite. But you can't really blame them because, that's the only thing they have against democrats. The current administration is so bullshit that they're going to have to twist and turn every thing that Kerry said throughout his entire career in order for people to even about voting for Bush. All Kerry has to do is speak the truth.

At 7/4/04 02:17 PM, NotYouZ wrote: order for people to even about voting for Bush.

...order for people to even [think] about voting for Bush, my bad :P

At 7/4/04 10:21 AM, Peter90688 wrote:
And Clinton is any better? Clinton is the reason 9/11 wasnt prevented. If he did his fuckin job we wouldnt of had it. Stop listening to the liberal media. Oh and btw, Clinton fired missles...so I guess hes not the PEACEFUL liar you thought he was. So you want to live in a socialist country? You want Kerry to win right? You just proved your incompetance.

Uh, Clinton was better. Clinton cannot be held responsible for 9/11... he wasn't the president at the time, George Bush was, and since he handled it so horribly, it makes much more sense to me to have Kerry in office.

You've also just essentially told us that you consider everything the liberal media tells people as poison and that you would never ever listen to it. That makes you unqualified to debate, since you only listen to one side of the story.

Uh... who cares if he's peaceful or not, he's the president so he needs to be able to act. Bush on the other hand is downright trigger-happy. He's invaded two countries in rapid fire succession without finishing what he started in the first before he moved on to the next. Everyone has heard about the 87 billion budget he approved for Iraq. I think the figure for Afghanistan was something like a couple hundred million dollars, a paltry sum compared to Iraq. Bush has essentially screwed up pretty badly in everything that he's set out to do.

Uh.. I guess if liberals want a socialist country you want to live in a feudal country?

Wanting Kerry to win doesn't say anything about our competence, it just says something about who we think is more qualified and will better handle the duties imposed on him. Bush's track record so far is (much) less than perfect, and Kerry offers us the chance to have someone in office who will handle situations in a way that more people find more acceptable.

At 7/4/04 11:22 PM, Evark wrote: ...Everyone has heard about the 87 billion budget he approved for Iraq. I think the figure for Afghanistan was something like a couple hundred million dollars, a paltry sum compared to Iraq.

FYI - that $87 billion went to a lot of places. You can look it up yourself, but offhand I think it was something like;
30-something billion directly to the Iraq war effort
~13 billion to continuing Afghanistan operations
& then the rest went into general pentagon spending.

Don't quote me on the exact numbers, but it was something like that. Afghanistan was considerably more than a couple hundred million, and we're still there.