’)Lying us into the first war of their generation can’t have helped either.
President George W. Bush’s hopes of attracting a new generation of voters to the Republican Party may be fading, as younger Americans are far more critical of his job performance than the broader population.
A Bloomberg/Los Angeles Times poll of Americans age 18 to 24 found Bush’s approval rating was 20 percent, with 53 percent disapproving and 28 percent with no opinion. That compares to a 40 percent approval rating among Americans of all ages in a separate Bloomberg/Times poll.
Much like Franklin Roosevelt attracted a new generation of voters with the New Deal, Bush and his administration have had high hopes of drawing younger voters to his party. He has sought to do that through policy initiatives aimed at creating an “ownership society,” and public relations tactics like a Youth Convention at the party’s 2004 national convention, in which his twin daughters took the stage.
Of course, not one real world lie has ever been documented re Pres Bush.
I’ve challenged progressives on this since day one. The only way they can make their point is via a magical ability to mind read.
Keep practicing the big lie Dugger, someone somewhere will believe you. Nobody with a brain, but someone will.
Bush Failing To Attract Young Republicans?
Hmm… Aug. 7 (Bloomberg) — President George W. Bush’s hopes of attracting a new generation of voters to the Republican Party may be fading, as younger Americans are far more critical of his job performance than the broader population. A…
Dugger is raping a kitten as I type this message. Since Dugger says there’s no such thing as a lie, it must be true.
I’ve challenged progressives on this since day one. The only way they can make their point is via a magical ability to mind read.
I can mind read. And since I said it, it must be true. And no, Dugger, I won’t read your mind. Last time I tried that, I had to go see a theapist for what I saw. *shudders*
This is pretty fun.
Nevertheless, not a single lie has ever been documented re Pres Bush. So when you say lie, you are flat wrong.
It always helps if a few of the posters here stay in the real world.
Of course, not one real world brain cell has been found in Dugger’s head. Not one. Since we can’t mind read, it can’t be proven.
Not to mention that by his standard, not a single person has ever lied in human history. NOT ONE PERSON!!!!!
I can the the news article now:
Progressives demand a new dictionary!! One that defines ‘lie’ as: something progressives don’t like. Democrats and Linc Chafee back progressive demand as “reasonable”, hope Republicans won’t be divisive and oppose a ‘flexible and diverse’ dictionary.
D*mn warmongering dictionary!
You do realise you’re being totally schooled here, Dugger?
Nimrod,
Schooled? Actually, no. I, one individual, have defeated a gaggle of shrill progressive haters repeatedly. The issue is ‘lies’. I challenge and no one has ever, ever adequately responded. This time is no different.
(Also, as if you are an unbiased observer!)
No lies. Not one.
not one real world lie has ever been documented re Pres Bush.
“We’ve investigated every single complaint against the detainees. It seemed like to me they based some of their decisions on the word of — and the allegations — by people who were held in detention, people who hate America, people that had been trained in some instances to disassemble — that means not tell the truth.”
So “disassemble” DOES mean lying? Call Mr. Webster and get that corrected.
Dugger, by your standard, even you admit that you are unable to come up with one documented lie in all of human history.
All of human history.
What more is there to say about the surreal weakness of your postion? I give you points for nicely embodying the problems of the out-of-touch, bizzare nature of conservatives generally, though.
AGH,
“Dugger, by your standard, even you admit that you are unable to come up with one documented lie in all of human history. ”
Nahh.
As I have said before here, we can go two ways: a reasonable open minded way with real give and take or a kind of official way.
If the first, I think it likely Bush and every other human being on earth has lied at one point or the other. I surely believe Bush and every Pres ’sells’ programs and in doing so may not tell you every possible down-side to an issue.
OTOH, progressives have become fanatical and detructive about Bush lying and have made no special case that differentiates Bush from anybody else – except that they hate Bush and whenever anybody can show a ‘possible’ contradiction – it must be a lie (naturally, because Bush is evil). To those kind of arguments, to the haters, yes I insist on the dictionary.
You said a lot about how you dislike the left, and how some people have probably lied, but you conveniently said nothing about the fact that by your standard, it’s impossible to show a documented lie told by anyone in human history. Aren’t you ashamed to be so nakedly afraid of defending your own words?
AGH,
I don’t know who you are but I’ve been posting here a long time. I have never said a lie is impossible. I would concede a finding of perjury for instance. I don’t concede an instance where a man says he mispeaks, forgets, is confused or say when the Press secretary says one thing and the Pres says another.
And it is clear that a serious debate is beyond the pale here – so I consign you to the dictionary. Don’t like it? Prove a lie.
First off, this is TomY. I don’t know why, but Oliver said we should re-register, so I’ve done so under my nome-de-blog.
Second, your standard is quite clear: you expect proof while simultaneously defining proof as impossible. Therefore, your game is rigged, not to mention that it also fails any real-world, common sense understanding of the term. Let me remind you that we live in a world where every day, people are called liars, traitors, idiots, sinful, arrogant, lazy, Bush-deranged, moonbatted, and any other number of epithets that are contingent upon “unknowable” mental states. That you think your “documentation” bit of sophistry is impressive is the kind of arrested development, juvenile thinking that, well, is pretty typical among a certain type of middle-aged, right-wing, angry, white suburbanite, where’s-my-tax-cut, no-foreign-aid, bedrock GOP voter, which is what I assume you to be, Dugger. It just has that characteristic idealistic, stupid, easy, smug, shallow charm of so many other bad GOP ideas like the flat tax, Social Security private accounts, a wall at the borders, and democratizing the Middle East by bombing it.
Third, inexplicably, you’ve now allowed court decisions as “documentation” in your increasingly ideosyncratic and silly personal definition. Obviously even you are a bit afraid of the obvious absurdity of your “mind reading” standard, but once you go over to some arbitrary third party authority, you give the game away.
So who judges the documenters, Dugger? Are the only liars worth judging and documenting the ones that go to court? Of course not! Common political lies shall be judged as they always have — by historians and the public. And the public verdict about Bush has crystalized at this point: he was uninterested in the truth of Saddam’s WMD program, and was only using it to scare us into going along with his grand project of rolling the dice in the Middle East. So for me, it was a peculiar mix of incompetence and stupidity, combined with a desire to get his way. Frankly, his shitty decision making is much worse than a lie (but just as “undocumentable,” luckily for you!”)
Your special attempt to get Bush, and Bush alone, off the hook is quite hilarious, because his dishonesty is no more special than any other polician’s, or any other person’s, for that matter. But we understand — you’re driven to do it because gosh, you hate those Bush-deranged liberals so vewwy vewwy much!!! Even so, by all means, keep raging against the futility of “documenting” humanity’s lies, betrayals, and all other sins — it’s great entertainment!
Well, Tom, you have your standards and I have mine. I merely pointed out I have never said a lie was impossible. I accept the judicial process by which lie is legally proved. You can say that that person lied. Thats not the same as taking, say, the ‘16 words’ and shrieking “Bush lied.
And I fully understand why progressives do not want to seriously debate ‘lie”.
Your own words prove you’re not interested in having a serious debate. You’ve literally responded to not one point I’ve made, only stuck even harder to your “mind reading” standard, a standard which you yourself routinely violate when convenient. Of course, I’ll take all this back if you can prove any person has ever told a lie in history, Dugger.
Dugger, you realize that by your standard, Bill Clinton did nothing worth impeaching.
Then again, why am I wasting my time arguing with someone who rapes kittens for a hobby?
“I, one individual, have defeated a gaggle of shrill progressive haters repeatedly”
No, you have not. You have repeatedly been schooled. You just refuse to accept it when it is shown to you.
You can lead a con to water, but you can’t convince him it’s water.
So, how do you prove perjury, then?
“I, one individual, have defeated a gaggle of shrill progressive haters repeatedly”
Where and when did that happen, because it sure as hell never happened here. (Not on my watch at least).
Zython: 48
Conservative trolls: 0