Why is the President Lying ... again?

see
http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/...ign_policy/icc/canada-en.aspWe are a member of the court and have supplied at least one judge of excellent repute.I am proud that our country isn't afraid to be scrutinised by the rest of the world. While I recognize the risk that the court could be misused I think that it is better to try to make it work well rather than hide from it.Our country attempts to actual practice what you would rather yours just preached. We do try to care for and respect our follows. We have about half as many Christians per capita as you do yet act, as a society, in a much more "Christian" like manner. Why is that?(car: couldn't find the thread on that --- I stalled long enough to smarten up and bought a 1999 Infiniti I30t --- It is great fun and half as much as I almost spent -- I love it! Now who wants a 1987 Volvo 740 GLE wagon for less than a thou US dollars? )

So uh, do you have evidence that they kept information from these people or what? By law, the Senate subcommitee on Intelligence receives the same intelligence that the president does.-Justin

Well, it appears that Shrub and Rove, at least, agree with Whatever's assessment of the Evil Atheistic One-Worlder Babykilling Demoncrats (TM):
CNN.com - Mark Shields: Bush campaign's contempt for 'people of faith' - Oct 4, 2004 Slimeballs! And I don't mean the Democrats......

Well, the link you provided doesn't, in fact, give an example of said mailing, so we are taking the author's word for it. Given his, uh, slant, I'd say take it with a grain of salt until you read for yourself the mailer.-Justin

Sometimes I wonder why it doesn't bother the right-wingers when they lie. Isn't it one of the 10 commandments? Why do the feel the need to lie to support something which they claim to be so precious? In fact, why do they need to hate when they claim that Jesus's message is all about love?

---

For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

​

Why? Bush is a right wing nutcase.

quote:

---

Sometimes I wonder why it doesn't bother the right-wingers when they lie. Isn't it one of the 10 commandments? Why do the feel the need to lie to support something which they claim to be so precious? In fact, why do they need to hate when they claim that Jesus's message is all about love?

---

I often wonder the same things about left-wingers. -Justin

The admin-mode has just closed the presidential debate topic. He feels that the debate might as well be confined to one topic. I'm sure a new debate #2 topic will start up soon.Per Whatever (now full non-admin mode writing) -I don't think that all the replies to Whatever are justified. I think his statements stand well by themselves. That he is an irrational Bush supporter, unable to focus on specific issues. Rather, he just throws out smoke-screen after smoke-screen. Perhaps a perfect local representation of the Bush neo-con campaigning methodology.Moose

Basically I got this out of Whatever's post:He's anti-communism, that's good.
Anti-UN as it pertains to Israel, that's good, since they are extremely biased and unfair to the nation.
Anti-Kerry because he's not consistent, and that's good, because who wants an unconsistent leader?What's wrong with that, exactly, and how is it "irrational"?-Justin

Spoken like a creationist, where constancy of dogma is more important than accuracy.Reasonable people, on the other hand, know that a good leader revises conclusions in the light of additional data. I'd rather have a leader who was right, as opposed to one who was "consistent". Consistency is bad when it means always "staying the course", even if you're about to drive off the cliff. Have fun on the way down. The rest of us are going to find a leader who's not afraid to change course when it's obvious we're on the wrong path.

On the way down to where, exactly? I'll be sure to have fun, I always try to. Of course, all your comments are irrelevant as it concerns to being on the "wrong path", as it would appear to be a matter of opinion. :bWhy do you feel the path your on is the wrong one? Sort of like Clinton getting the additional data showing he got caught lying, so he revised his conclusions on whether or not he had sexual contact with a certain intern, no?Granted, not exactly a parallel, but funny nonetheless. -JustinThis message has been edited by creationistal, 10-04-2004 03:55 PMThis message has been edited by creationistal, 10-04-2004 03:55 PM

quote:

---

What's wrong with that, exactly, and how is it "irrational"?

---

What fun! We happen to be going over logic in a class that I am teaching, so I can answer this one.Even if we assume that these conclusions are true (which I dispute, being a pro-U.N. communist) they do not necessarily follow from the argument presented.Your conclusion can be true, but if you logic is slipshod no one will ever know it. You have to put together a logically valid argument for anyone to accept your conclusion. whatever does not put together an argument that is even coherent, let alone logical.Then, we have to discuss whether the premises are true -- another subject altogether.

You mean the validity of my statements regarding the content of his post? Well, that's pretty much what he said, so, if you want to debate what he meant by what he said, we can get to the bottom of it very quickly, since we can just ask him. Then again, you could *USE COMMON SENSE* and understand what he was saying. :bAs to the verbosity of your post, well, less is more sometimes, ya know? :bYou *do* realize that communism is not exactly a utopia, and has manifested itself several times in very bad ways, right?-Justin

Do you believe that, if the actions of the President had made things worse in America and the world, that it would be possible to ascertain those effects? Or do you believe that there's no objective way to determine if things are worse or better? Well, just off the top of my head - terrorism is getting worse, the economy hasn't recovered, more Americans than ever lack sufficient wages to meet their needs, our national security is compromised by a vast troop committment to an irrelevant war, the government has turned billions in surplus into billions in debt, the tax burden has been shifted from the rich to the middle class and the poor, government transparency and accountability is the least its ever been, and for the first time, the IRS is focused more on auditing people like you and me than in uncovering corporate tax cheats, which cost the government billions every year.Look, I'm no knee-jerk liberal. I voted Bush in 2000. But I've looked at the numbers, and it's pretty clear that Bush is taking us in a direction that I don't want to go; one that you would have to be very foolish indeed to suggest was a positive one for our country.Bush's record sucks. Maybe you've noticed that he hasn't been running on it, this election? Why do you think that might be? Relevancy, please? I didn't vote for Clinton. Somehow, Clinton's sexual pecadillos make Bush's behavior ok? I don't understand that logic.

Actually it hasn't, ever. You're thinking of socialism.Communism has never been implemented on any kind of national level. It's been successful, I am led to understand, on local levels.

Thus, I asked why you thought things were worse, so we could ascertain some effects and see if they are as bad as you believe. What's bad for one, might not be bad for one somewhere else, and what's bad for one might just not be true at all, either. When did we get hit again? I must have missed it. If you're talking about Iraqi terrorism, I'll give you that one. We are, in fact, in their country, fighting terrorists bent on destroying our army. There happen to be some people who don't like our ideas of free societies. They are called fanatical Muslims. According to what data? According to what data? According to what data? Is this the terrorist attack that hit us that I missed again? I really should watch the news more. I happily concur that government spending is out of control, and has been for a long time. Then again, Kerry's current plan outspends Bush, so I don't see how that solves your problem, mi amigo. According to what data? As I recall, they just made the tax cuts permanent. If I'm not mistaken, tax cuts mean you pay less taxes, dollar-wise. If you want to talk about rich vs. poor in America, I'd be glad to. (I'm reading Bork right now, interesting stuff on class warfare) In one sense, I'm damned glad. I'd rather not know of every single time we get a threat from some terrorist or another, etc. Other than national security issues which we usually don't know about anyway, what are you talking about specifically? So Enron and Tyco and Martha Stewart and all that jazz really was about you and me, and not the biggest bust of corporate scandal in years and years? The horribly inept tax code and beaurocracy itself costs the government billions and billions. Thank goodness Bush wants to reform the tax code.-Justin