It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

You Want a Documented Lie by George Bush?

page: 2
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 01:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by Jakomo

Yeah, so what, right?

So what if the President of the United States tells a few lies in order to get "his war"?

Who cares if most of the MAIN reasons for going to war have been proven to be falsehoods and fabrications?





Interpretation is a wonderful thing yes? To think Iraq to be "the war" is shortsighted in my opinion. "The war" is global, of which Afganistan, Iraq, Phillipines, Indonesia, Britain, Italy, Turkey, Libya, Iran, oh forget it.

And to think "Bush" is the one who led the world into this global war is crediting the man with a tremendous amount of cunning, power, and intellignece. Many and varied forces are at work in the current conflict, please don't give a lie by Bush as the reason we are where we are today.

If your neighbor runs in your kitchen, yells "my house is on fire, call 911" you henceforth make the call, later to find out your "intelligence" was faulty, did you in fact "lie" to the 911 operator. If so, then Bush is a liar too.

By the way, most likely, according to the Presidents possible operational definition of "lie"....he may in fact have not done so at all.

The entire argument is moot, perception dictates the belief.

[Edited on 3-8-2004 by smokenmirrors]




posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 01:26 PM
link   
smokenmirrors says


The entire argument is moot, perception dictates the belief.


You've got that backwards. Actually belief dictates perception. And you are the best example of that I have ever seen.



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 01:33 PM
link   
belief - confidence that a person or thing exists

perception - observation, discernment

delusion - something that is falsely propagated

don, i do believe you to be in err.




[Edited on 3-8-2004 by smokenmirrors]



posted on Aug, 3 2004 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by smokenmirrors
belief - confidence that a person or thing exists

perception - observation, discernment

delusion - something that is falsely propagated

don, i do believe you to be in err.


No, I am not in err, I am in Las Vegas. Your definitions are not acceptable to me. In particular, a delusion is not something that is falsely propagated. A delusion is a false belief or perception. You need to get a good dictionary and work on your definitions of belief and perception. While not incorrect, your definitions do need work.

All I was trying to say is that a person's beliefs have a strong influence over their perceptions. People tend to see what confirms their beliefs, and ignore what contradicts their beliefs. This latter situation is what is known as cognitive dissonance.

Belief further influences perception by how we interpret what we perceive. Bush lovers will interpret his actions and statements as further evidence of his strengh, competency, and honesty. Bush haters will interpret the same facts as evidence of his weakness, incompetency, and dishonesty.



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 02:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by donguillermo
The deluded Republican partisans reject all examples of Bush lies, because the sources that document the lies are left-wing. LMFAO! What difference does that make if the source provides valid links which document the lie?


Perhaps that's a question that you should ask yourself as well. Rejecting any website that you think is a right-wing website as "fascist" and "propoganda" if is no different...



posted on Aug, 4 2004 @ 03:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ThunderCloud

Originally posted by donguillermo
The deluded Republican partisans reject all examples of Bush lies, because the sources that document the lies are left-wing. LMFAO! What difference does that make if the source provides valid links which document the lie?


Perhaps that's a question that you should ask yourself as well. Rejecting any website that you think is a right-wing website as "fascist" and "propoganda" if is no different...


I don't automatically reject a website because it is right wing. If there are sources and links, I will of course consider it. Unfortunately, right-wing websites tend to be very thin on sources and links, except to other right-wing websites. Many of the websites documenting Bush lies have sources and links to respected news sources. Yet these websites are rejected by Bush defenders, because the websites are left-wing.



posted on Aug, 6 2004 @ 04:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by donguillermo

Originally posted by ThunderCloud

Originally posted by donguillermo
The deluded Republican partisans reject all examples of Bush lies, because the sources that document the lies are left-wing. LMFAO! What difference does that make if the source provides valid links which document the lie?


Perhaps that's a question that you should ask yourself as well. Rejecting any website that you think is a right-wing website as "fascist" and "propoganda" if is no different...


I don't automatically reject a website because it is right wing. If there are sources and links, I will of course consider it. Unfortunately, right-wing websites tend to be very thin on sources and links, except to other right-wing websites. Many of the websites documenting Bush lies have sources and links to respected news sources. Yet these websites are rejected by Bush defenders, because the websites are left-wing.




Anytime you want to see what exactly Bush said in one of his press briefings or speeches go to the website I am listing, it belongs to the president and if you will click on current news it will open up to a list of month and year, click on the month and year and it will give you a list by days of that month and the name of the speech.
www.whitehouse.gov...

[edit on 6-8-2004 by goose]



posted on Dec, 28 2004 @ 03:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by CazMedia


What are you using to determine this statement was a lie as opposed to a misstatment/innaccurate research at that time? Is it possible its a lie, yes...is it possible that this was some type of error from sources to the Prez? yes.....it it can you clarify this?

DG says,


He was speaking in an interview with David Frost of the BBC. The fact that he was not under oath doesn't make it any less of a lie.

Well it kind of does matter. Anyone can legally lie to the press, especially those "in the know"...as a member of the press that has to deal with officials i know this happens. Lying under oath is a crime however.


Yes, anyone can legally lie to the press. That's not the point. The point is Bush LIED. Full stop. End. And there's proof he lied. New full stop. New end! Add Eclamation mark!

It doesn't matter who found the bodies. If up to the point the statement was made only five thousand bodies had been found then the statement is a lie.

Much like the President saying Social Security is in crisis. Yeah, in forty years or so and only if spending increases dramatically...



posted on Dec, 31 2004 @ 04:17 PM
link   
5,000 people "slaugtered" under Saddam Hussein..

How many people have been slaugtered in this war that the right-wing war-drum beaters praise? More than 5,000..........


On a daily basis, hundreds being killed in attacks by anti-corporate insurgents who don't want big business and elitests pulling the strings in the country.

Although it is unfortunate US troops are being killed... the USA is the invader..... the one who provoked first.... It is only right for one to defend themselves against the type of imperialism called "patriotism" that the US troops fight for.

[edit on 31-12-2004 by RedOctober90]



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1   >>

log in

join