President Bush: "Read my sig"

Do you know the story of the Glomar explorer? That was a lie.
If a reporter asks about HUMINT resoources wthin the government of the PRC should the government honestly admit that they are attempting to recuit, or that they are successful or not?
When people capture video evdence of a secret test plane that they think is a U.F.O. does the government not lie when they say they have no information?
Yes nondisclosure and disinformation about government projects is necessary for the nations security. Again If you or as average ctzens can fnd nformation that means anyone can. Not all of those seekng this type of information are friendly to the U.S. or ts citzens therefor something must be hidden from the public and in some cases further obscured by msleading the public to look in other directions.

Originally posted by mwm1331
No I said I expect the government to lie to the citizens. I never qualified that statement with a given subject.
You asked me whether I felt it was wrong or was bothered by the fact the gvernment lies. Since there are subjects the government is required to lie about I awnsered no.
Whether the government is lieing to me about a given subject, and whether or not I agree that they should in reference to that subject is a different question.
I awnsered the questions asked, its your responsibillty to ask the question you want the awnser to.

Hmm.. well let's see. My actual first question on this issue was:

If you don't think it's particularly significant whether your government lies about an issue as important as this; I would say you must be fairly young or naive.

Now, considering that the discussion in the posts prior to this question largely concerned the war on terrorism and that I also added "about an issue as important as this" in my question, I would think it to be quite obvious what the question was reffering to. Only a couple of posts later, I asked you this question very specifically:

You believe your government didn't lie about WMD's, but it wouldn't bother you if they were?

And again, a couple of posts later:

So again, you believe your government didn't lie about WMD's, but it wouldn't bother you if they were?

Pretty specific if you ask me...

If you ask a general question you will get an awnser to that question. If you want a more specific awnser then you should ask a more specific question.

It sure seems to me that you've given me a general answer to a specific question. So what is your opinion on this issue again?

[edit on 24-9-2004 by Durden]

It's hard to help a country go from tyranny to elections to peace

Interesting, as Bush is attempting the reverse of that in the US...

Going from a nation of peace, then to elections, but then to tyranny....

If you don't think it's particularly significant whether your government lies about an issue as important as this; I would say you must be fairly young or naive.

I was under the impression this was a statement not a question.

You believe your government didn't lie about WMD's, but it wouldn't bother you if they were?

I don't believe the government is now or did in the past lie about WMD's If I believed they were I would be displeased. Your assumpton that I would not be was your own, and was not supported by anything I wrote.

Allow me to give you a free lesson in readng comprehension Durden.

When someone says" the sky is blue" it does not mean that they are saying that the sky is always, irrespective of circumstances, blue. It does not mean that they said "all skies on all worlds at all times is blue". It simply means that "the sky is blue". Which sky is "the sky"? We do not know as that information is not specifically given, all that we do know is that "the sky" is blue. If from this statement you wanted to extract more information such as "which sky is the sky" or "at what time is the sky blue" you can not do so as that informaton is not given in the statement. In other words don't put words into my mouth or assume I am saying more than what I am as it only serves to make you appear unintellgent.

[edit on 24-9-2004 by mwm1331]

Originally posted by mwm1331
When someone says" the sky is blue" it does not mean that they are saying that the sky is always, irrespective of circumstances, blue.

Well, that analogy may have been valid had your statement been "The government lies."
What I questioned, and what you keep avoiding now, is the fact that you said:

The nature of a democratic society means the government is required to lie to fufill its oblgatons.

Which was why I asked:

So what you're saying here is that you're perfectly ok with fact that your government may be lying to you about a possible hidden, unethical agenda behind attacking another nation; based on the notion that the nature of a democratic society means the government is required to lie to fufill its obligations??

To which you then answered:

No I'm sayng that the fact the government does lie doesn't bother me.

You actually mean you don't notice the problem in your argument?

In other words don't put words into my mouth or assume I am saying more than what I am as it only serves to make you appear unintellgent.

I have been asking you to explain this view of yours, but you have not done so. And now you're complaining about how I'm putting words in your mouth ? Gimme a break .

Why don't you settle this once and for all and give a clear explanation as to what you really mean when you say you have no problem with your government lying to you? And please also share your view on how you're going to be able to discern if you're being lied to or not and in what situations lies told by the government are ok and when they are not?

The staement "the government lies" and "The nature of a democratic society means the government is required to lie to fufill its oblgatons." are both expressing a sentiment that the government does at unspecified times lie about unspecified things. The second goes farther by saying that the reason the government lies is due to the nature of a democratic society and that it does so to fufill its obligations. Neither statement implies any relationship to either Iraq or WMD's neither did any of my statements reflect my personal opinions about whether I liked that it is necessary for the government to lie just that I recognse its need to do so in some circumstances.

Again nterperting peoples posts based on your assumptions of what they are saying s less accurate than asking them to clarify those statements as you have so adequately illustrated.

Originally posted by mwm1331
...neither did any of my statements reflect my personal opinions about whether I liked that it is necessary for the government to lie just that I recognse its need to do so in some circumstances.

Oh, they didn't reflect you personal opinion? What about this:

I'm sayng that the fact the government does lie doesn't bother me

Saying that lies told by the government doesn't bother you isn't at all a reflection of your opinion?

Again nterperting peoples posts based on your assumptions of what they are saying s less accurate than asking them to clarify those statements as you have so adequately illustrated.

By all means; clarify.

Originally posted by mwm1331

The second goes farther by saying that the reason the government lies is due to the nature of a democratic society

Yeah but we have a representative government, not straight-up democracy.

Is it just me, or have you all just driven mwm1331 into a logjam?

I cannot understand why someone doesn't believe the government lies to us, but didn't bother them if they did. In other words, "You can steal my money, but I'll ignore it and have faith you didn't do it."

Plus, for someone so concerned about the safety of the United States of America, the government's mistakes and their potential lies to the American people doesn't concern him??? WTF???

Last try.
The government has to lie about some things.
The government should tell the truth about other things.
The government is required to lie about intelligence and military matters.
If the government had lied about the reasons for liberating Iraq it would have been a situation where they should not have.
They didn't.


Clear enough for ya?

The truth requires more effort to understand then the lie. Some people do not want to make the effort, you can show them but if they do not want to see then at least you have tried.

The cow doesn't know its on a journey to the slaughter house until its too late.

Originally posted by mwm1331
Last try.
The government has to lie about some things.
The government should tell the truth about other things.
The government is required to lie about intelligence and military matters.

I'm astonished that some can find this acceptable. Deny ignorance! Push for a free society! One where us the people , not the minority rich ruling elite, can make choices on behalf of ourselves or have someone who truly represents us to stand and speak about a freedom that we believe in, not this installed democracy to benefit agenda.

We need an open government, one whichb doesn't hide the facts of 9/11, one who doesn't hide the truth about Iraq at every turn, and one that truly acts in the interests of peace, freedom and civil rights, not oil and war and money.

open
your
eyes

Originally posted by mwm1331
Last try.

I think you're going to have to try again.

The government has to lie about some things.

So you've said. You've also said:

...the fact the government does lie doesn't bother me.

The government should tell the truth about other things.

Picking and choosing again, are we?

The government is required to lie about intelligence and military matters.

The invasion of Iraq wasn't an intelligence and military matter?

If the government had lied about the reasons for liberating Iraq it would have been a situation where they should not have.

That's a contradiction.

They didn't.

You're just going to have to explain exactly how you go about discerning as to when you are being lied to and when you are not.

Clear enough for ya?

Sorry, not really. Try again, why don't ya.

Sorry, not really. Try again, why don't ya.

I think I have been clear enough for even a child.

Originally posted by mwm1331
I think I have been clear enough for even a child.

What is clear is that your opinion on this issue simply doesn't bare scrutiny. Unless you want to recant..?

I made myself very clear. If you aren't intelligent enough to understand it thats your problem.

Originally posted by mwm1331
If you aren't intelligent enough to understand it thats your problem.

Cute. You just made the credibility of your argument very clear indeed .