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

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.

Then again, why am I wasting my time arguing with someone who rapes kittens for a hobby?

And I fully understand why progressives do not want to seriously debate ‘lie”.

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!

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.

“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.

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.

“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.

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.

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!

It always helps if a few of the posters here stay in the real world.

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.

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…