23 Jan 08
Originally posted by duecerSarcasm but oh so true.
public integrity.org is a suspect source, and you must be an anti-American communist😠🙄😵
edit: sarcasm
Anything that doesn't confirm the inherent brilliance of the republican/conservative ideology is dismissed out of hand.
Think of little kids with their fingers in their ears saying, 'I can't hear you! La la la laaa.'
23 Jan 08
Originally posted by treetalkIt's like telling South African cricket fans that Hansie Cronje took bribes to fix matches. Oh no...
Sarcasm but oh so true.
Anything that doesn't confirm the inherent brilliance of the republican/conservative ideology is dismissed out of hand.
Think of little kids with their fingers in their ears saying, 'I can't hear you! La la la laaa.'
23 Jan 08
Originally posted by Bosse de Nageyeah, it's not surprising that they lied (who knew?), but I like seeing all the Bush admin's statements laid bare and matched with the actual known intel at the same time of the statement. This study lets the Bush admin statements speak for themselves, and they certainly are worth examination.
It's like telling South African cricket fans that Hansie Cronje took bribes to fix matches. Oh no...
23 Jan 08
Originally posted by Darth Spongehttp://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004498
http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Default.aspx?src=project_home&context=overview&id=945
what says the peanut gallery?
the fact that Soros is donating to them shows public integrity's agenda. Another biased source used to further the brainless group think in RHP forums.
23 Jan 08
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenthe source is the Bush administration's public statements quoted verbatim. If Bush says, "We found the weapons of mass destruction," but there are no WMDs found, then Bush's statement is false. How is this biased?
http://www.opinionjournal.com/editorial/feature.html?id=110004498
the fact that Soros is donating to them shows public integrity's agenda. Another biased source used to further the brainless group think in RHP forums.
(btw- a WSJ editorial from 2004 about Soros? relevant?)
23 Jan 08
Originally posted by Darth SpongeSo if Bush thought the wmd's were there, due to faulty intellegence, you call that a lie? Maybe you should look up the defenition of "lie". And the report speaks of 935 lies, you don't call that a slanted view? The fact is he was wrong, his statement was false, and he made a mistake; the biased slant comes in to play when you say he lied, and there were 934 subsequent lies.
the source is the Bush administration's public statements quoted verbatim. If Bush says, "We found the weapons of mass destruction," but there are no WMDs found, then Bush's statement is false. How is this biased?
(btw- a WSJ editorial from 2004 about Soros? relevant?)
23 Jan 08
Originally posted by Darth SpongeAnd the Dems. didn't know about this all along? So, what are they going to do about it? Nothing, i would suggest. I, guite frankly, don't trust any politician anymore. I was actually thinking of voting for Hillary; thinking, how much worse can it get. I have now discovered that i'd rather have Gene Simmons ( of KISS ) lick his dog's butt, stick his tongue salami down my throat and tickle my roids, than vote for anyone.
http://www.publicintegrity.org/WarCard/Default.aspx?src=project_home&context=overview&id=945
what says the peanut gallery?
Peanut Popping Fascist Granny.
23 Jan 08
Originally posted by smw6869vote for pedro
And the Dems. didn't know about this all along? So, what are they going to do about it? Nothing, i would suggest. I, guite frankly, don't trust any politician anymore. I was actually thinking of voting for Hillary; thinking, how much worse can it get. I have now discovered that i'd rather have Gene Simmons ( of KISS ) lick his dog's butt, stick his tongue s ...[text shortened]... down my throat and tickle my roids, than vote for anyone.
Peanut Popping Fascist Granny.
23 Jan 08
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenthe Methodology section defines the 935 "false statements" as "Direct False Statements" here's the criteria for this categorization:
So if Bush thought the wmd's were there, due to faulty intellegence, you call that a lie? Maybe you should look up the defenition of "lie". And the report speaks of 935 lies, you don't call that a slanted view? The fact is he was wrong, his statement was false, and he made a mistake; the biased slant comes in to play when you say he lied, and there were 934 subsequent lies.
"Direct false statements. False statements by the eight Bush administration officials were counted as "direct"—and included in the total count of false statements—when they specifically linked Iraq to Al Qaeda or referenced Iraq's contemporaneous possession, possible possession, or efforts to obtain weapons of mass destruction (chemical, biological, or nuclear weapons). In addition, any use of the verb "disarm" was categorized as a direct statement because of the literal meaning of the word. (Example: "Saddam Hussein has got a choice, and that is, he can disarm."😉 These false statements can be found within the passages that are highlighted in yellow in the project database."
so it's not a matter of the intel or Bush "thinking WMDs were there" when they weren't. it's a matter of a Bush admin official making a statement that contradicted contemporaneous intelligence.
and why does the fact that Bush lied 935 times mean the report is slanted? That's quantifiable according to the above criteria.
and the 935 doesn't even include "Indirect false statements".
23 Jan 08
Originally posted by Darth Spongewhen you think someone has wmds you would say they "should disarm" wouldn't you? You can spin it however you want, you can't prove a lie. the interpretation of 953 "direct" lies, along with your sites history, show they have an agenda. George Soros would not donate 1.7 million to them if they were not going to try to destroy Bush.
the Methodology section defines the 935 "false statements" as "Direct False Statements" here's the criteria for this categorization:
"Direct false statements. False statements by the eight Bush administration officials were counted as "direct"—and included in the total count of false statements—when they specifically linked Iraq to Al Qaeda or refere ...[text shortened]... teria.
and the 935 doesn't even include "Indirect false statements".
The fact is I don't know if Bush lied, and that is the difference between you and me. I don't know if Bush knew there were no wmds, or really believed they were there based in bad intellegence. But i'm certainly not going to base anything on an internet web site that gets donations from Soros, and I'm not going to say some one lied when thre is no proof of it.
23 Jan 08
Originally posted by NimzovichLarsenIf they wern't lying, then they (Bush admin.) were grossly negligent, and should be open to lawsuits from the families of fallen soldiers
when you think someone has wmds you would say they "should disarm" wouldn't you? You can spin it however you want, you can't prove a lie. the interpretation of 953 "direct" lies, along with your sites history, show they have an agenda. George Soros would not donate 1.7 million to them if they were not going to try to destroy Bush.
The fact is I d ...[text shortened]... ations from Soros, and I'm not going to say some one lied when thre is no proof of it.
23 Jan 08
Originally posted by uzlessand you're reading it.
Both you Republicans and Democrats gotta stop playing gotcha politics with every partisan study that is released.
"Oh look, here's a study that shows you are dummies so no one should vote for you next time...Gotcha!"
It's boring and tiresome.