Why is the President Lying ... again?

I have a question about Kerry's global test, which incidentally is related to the scientific philosophy. We all know that in science, proof is rarely, if ever, mentioned; at least ideally it shouldn't be. You have evidence supporting a position and evidence against a position, never proof of a position.In Kerry's test, then, how do you prove legitimacy to the world? What if you present a lot evidence for your position, and yet the world is still unconvinced you have "proven" your case? After all, "prove" is a pretty subjective concept. Is he just saying we have to present sufficient evidence for a position from our perspective, even though other countries may disagree with our conclusion?Now, I think if we have sufficient evidence most countries will agree with us. I'm worried, though, about countries who will disagree with us for political reasons. Do we need to prove to these countries the legitimacy of our actions before we can take action? And if so, isn't that similar to a world vote?This post may or may not be comprehensible since it is early in the morning, but I'm sure you guys can get the jist of my concerns.

Bush has given people pocket change and it has had no effect on the economy. I take it from your twisted logic that the only way you would consider it a failure is if the stock market crashed, but the real measure is that there is no possible association of any surge or even burp in the stock market with the tax give-away, because there is none. IF there is NO RESULT then it is a failure. QED. NOW: in THIS topic, I am saying that the PRESIDENT is LYING and provide the latest example, a malicious prevarication of what Kerry actually said into something entirely different that is also contradicted by what Kerry said in the same debate.

​

CONCLUSION: BUSH LIES. It is intentional, it is mallicious, it is intended to deceive to harm others, and anyone and everone that does not disassociate themselves from this lie is an accessory to the lie.

​

It cannot be excused, it cannot be spun, it cannot be dodged: YOUR PRESIDENT IS A LIAR. HE CHOSE TO LIE INSTEAD OF TELL THE TRUTH.

​

WHY DO YOU WANT A LIAR FOR A PRESIDENT?the rest of your post is your usual unrational disjoint from reality.Enjoy.added by edit:Any fool can vote for Bush once.
Only an absolute fool will vote for him twice.This message has been edited by RAZD, 10-05-2004 08:56 AM

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

As a btw, the other issue on terrorist activity worldwide "doubling" since the Iraq war started is also not exactly accurate. According to the US State Department's most recent "Patterns of Global Terorism" Year in Review, released June 2004, there was a "slight increase" in terrorist acts worldwide in 2003 over 2002, but substantially less terrorism over 2001. Quoting from the article:

quote:

---

There were 208 acts of international terrorism in 2003, a slight increase from the most recently published figure of 198* attacks in 2002, and a 42 percent drop from the level in 2001 of 355 attacks.

​

A total of 625 persons were killed in the attacks of 2003, fewer than the 725 killed during 2002. A total of 3646 persons were wounded in the attacks that occurred in 2003, a sharp increase from 2013 persons wounded the year before. This increase reflects the numerous indiscriminate attacks during 2003 on soft targets, such as places of worship, hotels, and commercial districts, intended to produce mass casualties.

---

Again, be careful of hyperbole.As an aside, a quote from the end of the article is important to remember:

quote:

---

Most of the attacks that have occurred during Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom do not meet the longstanding U.S. definition of international terrorism because they were directed at combatants, that is, U.S. and Coalition forces on duty. Attacks against noncombatants, that is, civilians and military personnel who at the time of the incident were unarmed and/or not on duty, are judged to be terrorist attacks.

---

Kerry is the issue, you never answered why its not an outrage that Kerry is even allowed to run for president when he violated the fourteenth amendment section 3, the Vets that are both republicans, democrats, and independents are predominately all outraged by Mr. Kerry and not Mr. Bush lying to the American People.P.S. Kerry appears to be both a liar and a thief, lying about his qualifications to run for the highest office of the land, flip flopping, so to tickle your ear(but is he really telling the truth)(No) because Kerry consistently says the one thing and votes to raise taxes, etc..., and premeditated thief for taking a salary for time not present in the senate, when as a lawyer he knows that this is violating the laws on the books. Why is not the media, outraged, and not plastering the media that Mr. Kerry refused to release his complete medical, military records. The Vets have called Mr. Kerry a liar, you do realize he lied about being present in Cambodia on Christmas Eve, meaning he perjured himself, its Mr. Kerry thats the liar, and a traitor to us and ours, etc...Truly he is not fit for command, has not shown he is capable of leading, while in the senate, much more of a pragmatist like William Chamberlain taking Britian to the edge, that while might be good in research, is not the kind of intellect to make decisions, like Winston Churchhill (who valued the truth), because he would be stuck in researching, like he appears to not realize we were attacked, in 911, then at times he says he supported the Iraq senerio, you don't need an unstable man for president, Candidates should undergo mental testing to see, if like Kerry's case if his flip flopping on the issues, is a severe mental condition like Benedict Arnold had with self and not country, etc...Presidential DebatesMessage 130 of 130 10-04-2004 03:20 PM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------Not that I expect the quality to be higher there, but I think the Bush/Kerry debate can carry on at Why is the President Lying ... again?Adminnemooseus

This is the coffe house but I think that sticking to the topic is important. If you willfully avoid it I'll help you.If you wish to discuss Kerry's truthfulness or lack of you may start a foccussed topic yourself.

quote:

---

Candidates should undergo mental testing...

---

quote:

---

to see, if like Kerry's case if his flip flopping on the issues, is a severe mental condition like Benedict Arnold had with self and not country, etc...

---

Adminnemooseus said the Kerry debate could be discussed on this thread, but we have confusion, because another moderator disagrees though when I had a thread on Mr. Kerry Unfit for Command, they refused to limit the debate to just Mr. Kerry, so I can not respond about who between the two needs mental testing, until the moderators get their act together, its all simply an example of media bias, etc..

ahh yesthe corrected report on terrorism
Waxman - Government Reform Minority Office reportNow there is the kind of "result" we want to see from our anti-terror programs ...

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

this topic isWHY IS BUSH LYINGI do NOT see where Kerry gets into the picture here: it is about BUSH and HIS LIESAND why ANYONE would vote FOR a LIAR?

All politicians are liars.

Kerry is NOT this issue on THIS TOPICthe ISSUE HERE IS BUSH IS LYING, THERE IS UNDENIABLE EVIDENCE OF IT: WHY IS HE NOT BEING HELD ACCOUNTABLE AND WHY DOES ANYONE SUPPORT HIS LYING?your regurgitation of some of BUSH's LIES about Kerry are NOT the issue BUSH LIED, IT IS ON TAPE, IT IS OBVIOUSLY FALSE, IT IS OBVIOUSLY INTENTIONAL, IT IS OBVIOUSLY MALICIOUSwhy does anyone let him get away with it?why does anyone think that this is presidential material?USE YOUR OWN STANDARDS ON LIES: OPEN YOUR FOOLISH EYES.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

again a WUSS answer ... "all politician lie"(1) that does not make it correct, good or ethical behavior(2) there are standards that have been used -- imagine Clinton getting away with "all politicians lie" when asked about a certain blue dressAnyone voting FOR bush is intentionally choosing to be lied to, choosing to be verbally coddled while rome burnsany fool can vote for Bush once
only a COMPLETE fool will vote for him twice. BUSH:
NO Plans
NO Results
NO Changes
NO Leadership"Fool me once shame on you, fool me twice .... well you can't ... you know ..."

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

By your logic, voting is choosing to be lied to it.I don't care that politicians lie; everybody lies - I lie, you lie, your mother's brother lies, your boss lies, your friends lie and all your co-workers lie.Get over it.

Losing it is not conducive to good discussion. Personally I don't think whatever is worth engaging.He is, it appears, incabable of reading anything for comprehension or of applying simple logic.Make the letters big and yellow will not help and makes you look like you are starting to drop to his level.

You know, last week, I told a friend of mine that I was just staying home on Friday night. Instead, I went to a bar with my girlfriend. I wanted a private night out with her, and I knew he'd take it personal if I told him the truth.As a direct result of my lie, thousands of people died in the middle east. This is because the consequences of my lies are exactly the same as those of a politician. Therefore, they should be held to exactly the same standards.

---

"If I had to write ten jokes about potholders, I don't think I could do it. But I could write ten jokes about Catholicism in the next twenty minutes. I guess I'm drawn to religion because I can be provocative without harming something people really care about, like their cars."
-George Meyer, Simpsons writer