Comments on: Lie By Lie

By: midderpidge

midderpidge — Sun, 03 Sep 2006 03:08:00 +0000

Dugger thinks when George Bush talks his intent isn’t for us to accept as true what he says.

I guess we shouldn’t wait for that list of pre-Iraq administration claims that turned out to be true.

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 20:06:40 +0000

It must be tough when the Uncertainty Principle is how you life your life.

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 16:30:09 +0000

Quaker, you’re right. I am willing to call it a draw. On the proviso that Mr.Dugger refrain from the “not one documented lie” falderal henceforth.

By: midderpidge

midderpidge — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 16:29:38 +0000

Poor Dugger. It has to be confusing to him when people talk about the War on Terror. That assumes we know motive and what these people are thinking. What everyone else calls the 9-11 attacks are just a sad accident that occurred when individuals caused planes to hit buildings in America. We can’t possibly know they were hijacking the planes, maybe they took over the cockpit by mistake thinking it was the bathroom. But what if they meant to take over the planes, how do we know they meant to attack the US? Maybe they just got lost on the way to Cuba or somewhere. We can’t possibly know what they meant to do because we aren’t mind readers. Osama bin Laden might just have been their travel agent. Who can say?

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Sat, 02 Sep 2006 00:21:32 +0000

“Dugger doesn’t deserve the satisfaction of making us play on his terms.”

And yet he gets you to do so, time after time.

He’s setting out a literal and precise definition for the word “lie” and then challenging you to apply that definition to support the charge “Bush lied.”

And commenter oblige him eagerly every time he sets the bait.

So be my guest. Stay the course. Continue to try to “prove” a lie instead of simply conceding your assumptions and moving on.

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 23:29:23 +0000

And besides that, he brings it up. He issues the throwdown, but he doesn’t have the chutzpah when he gets pwned. he disappears.

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 23:19:48 +0000

“Dugger doesn’t deserve the satisfaction of making us play on his terms.”

Well by all means, stay the course.

By: Nimrod Gently

Nimrod Gently — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 23:02:10 +0000

Quaker, you’re right in terms of identifying Dugger’s tactics, but modifying our statements to suit him would be to dignify those tactics with a response.

Dugger doesn’t deserve the satisfaction of making us play on his terms.

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 22:45:18 +0000

Mid, I don’t think Dugger wants to play with us anymore.

By: midderpidge

midderpidge — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 22:01:58 +0000

Are you seriously arguing Dugger, that when George Bush talks his intent isn’t for us to accept as true what he says?

By: Dr. Anatole Gavage-Huskanoy

Dr. Anatole Gavage-Huskanoy — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 21:18:52 +0000

Okay, so we agree it’s okay to call him a liar, sort of like it’s okay to call someone a sinner or a Christian, or a jerk — all because ‘liar’ isn’t subject to rules of absolute proof. Rather, it’s “proved,” such as it is, by preponderance of evidence, which is what we’ve been arguing. I’m glad to see you admit that, Dugger. What I can’t figure is why you were so worked up about it.

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 20:46:07 +0000

Quaker is right, but you’re not getting off that easy, pal.
I strongly beleive that Bush has lied, and a preponderance of evidence and documentation seems to bear that out. I would like you to honestly admit that.

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 20:25:26 +0000

“(Quaker is right.“…blah, blah, blah…)

I’d like a set of 5 by 7′s and an 11 by 14 to hang over the mantle, please.

By: Dugger

Dugger — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 19:23:51 +0000

Tom.

I believe, but can’t prove Clinton lied. Many on the right will swear they know he lied. They are in the same boat as you guys. And a lot of it on both sides revolves around a dehumanization of the perceived ‘enemy’.

(Quaker is right. We’ve beat it to death. I fully accept that you, Midder, duros and many others on the left strongly believe Bush lied.)

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 19:10:29 +0000

Don’t you people ever tire of this argument?

Just modify your statement to: “In my opinion Bush lied,” and you’re done.

You needn’t document or prove your opinion. You may make assumptions therein.

By: Dr. Anatole Gavage-Huskanoy

Dr. Anatole Gavage-Huskanoy — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 18:33:00 +0000

Dugger, you yourself said that you will accept “proof” of a lie in the event that a court ruling. The standard of the court is preponderance of evidence. Why is that standard okay for a Clinton lie but not for a Bush lie?

By: Duros62

Duros62 — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 18:30:52 +0000

Is is uncomfortable reading minds?
It must be pretty easy for you, given your frequency.
Answer my question, please.

By: Dugger

Dugger — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 18:10:37 +0000

Tom

“Just remember that Dugger’s fine proving Clinton’s lie by a standard of preponderance of evidence’

This is absolutely 100% wrong.

Midder,

Is is uncomfortable reading minds?

By: Quaker in a Basement

Quaker in a Basement — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 18:06:53 +0000

‘Pidge, did you remember that comedian who had the one bit, “You can call me Ray, you can call me Jay….but you doesn’t has to call me Johnson.”

That’s pretty much what Dugger is doing to you.

Listen, I’ve been sparring with Dugger here for a long, long time. I’m very familiar with his style.

He’s laying a snare for you by being both literal and precise. The Bush statements you point to can be called wrong, errors, blunders, spin, misdirection, selectivity, misinformation, or even plain ol’ B.S.

But when you call them “lies,” you’re reaching beyond the factual content of the Bush statements and trying to read intent.

You’ll never, ever win that one because George Bush will never, ever admit that he intended to relay false information.

By: midderpidge

midderpidge — Fri, 01 Sep 2006 17:30:02 +0000

No Dukker, I am asking you which is better: a liar, a puppet, an incompetent, or a president with mental deficiencies?

You add things that you can’t argue. For instance, veracity of his claims. We have outlined statements such as, “Nothing has changed, by the way. When we’re talking about chasing down terrorists, we’re talking about getting a court order before we do so.” Which we now know is false, was false when Bush made the statement, and that fall under his knowledge base and decision-making as president. That makes it a lie, unless you want to argue special circumstances such as mental disease or severe incompetence, gross or criminal. Which is it?