Liars (1 Viewer)

[Excon]

I'm not sure Mustard gas is a WMD.

:doh
Look it up.

Also, incomplete quote, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence unless evidence is to be expected (which it is in about 99% of all cases).

:doh
Wrong. Although it has been said by others, I did not actually quote them.
As it was, as a well known saying, it was complete.

And even as a quote, it would have been complete.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!"
-- Carl Sagan, Astronomer

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!"
-- Donald Rumsfeld, Military strategist ​

Grin of salt as always but there isn't any definitive answer for a WMD, I wouldn't call mustard gas or any of the agents listed a WMD.

Your apparent lack of knowledge concerning chemical and biological weapons being WMD, is your problem. Not mine.

your reality isn't everyone else's reality

:doh And your reality is the one shown to be flawed.

---

Intellectual dishonesty--taking a sliver of truth and twisting it to support a greater lie. That's what you're doing here.

No, that is what you are doing.
WMD were found. Some where even found in stockpiles.

Even Bush admits that the intelligence was faulty:

Irrelevant. WMD were found.
That is the only correct statement.

there were no stockpiles of WMD in Iraq.

Wrong.

We did not find what we were looking for.

Wrong. We did not find all that was being looked for.
But it is a lie to say that we were not looking for any WMD which may have existed.

You twisting that truth to some bs by saying that the few old canisters we found (something even the UN knew he had and was devising a plan on how to destroy) proved WMD was present is just another form of lying.

Wrong all the way around.
The twisting (which is an outright lie) is saying that WMD were not found, when MWD was found.

As for your UN comment. Wrong again. He declared he had destroyed, yet here we were finding un-destroyed munitions. So stop telling untruths. It is exactly in-part what we were looking for.

You are just blowing smoke with these lies.

Thanks for the demonstration. I would not have thought of it.

Thanks for demonstrating the lie again. I knew you would do it.

 

[calamity]

:doh
Look it up.


:doh
Wrong. Although it has been said by others, I did not actually quote them.
As it was, as a well known saying, it was complete.

And even as a quote, it would have been complete.

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!"
-- Carl Sagan, Astronomer

"Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence!"
-- Donald Rumsfeld, Military strategist ​

Your apparent lack of knowledge concerning chemical and biological weapons being WMD, is your problem. Not mine.


:doh And your reality is the one shown to be flawed.

---

No, that is what you are doing.
WMD were found. Some where even found in stockpiles.


Irrelevant. WMD were found.
That is the only correct statement.


Wrong.


Wrong. We did not find all that was being looked for.
But it is a lie to say that we were not looking for any WMD which may have existed.


Wrong all the way around.
The twisting (which is an outright lie) is saying that WMD were not found, when MWD was found.

As for your UN comment. Wrong again. He declared he had destroyed, yet here we were finding un-destroyed munitions. So stop telling untruths. It is exactly in-part what we were looking for.

You are just blowing smoke with these lies.



Thanks for demonstrating the lie again. I knew you would do it.

Nonsense. You've been trying to call that crap from the 80's WMD for years now. Funny how no one in the Bush administration saw them as WMD :lol:

 

[Excon]

Nonsense. You've been trying to call that crap from the 80's WMD for years now.

Yes your position is nonsense and a lie.
WMD were found.
Saying none were found is a blatant lie.
Saying Saddam had none is a blatant lie.
Saddam having WMD which had not been discovered is him having what he was not allowed to have, and was what was being looked for.

The only truthful thing you can say, is that the amounts expected to be found were not.


And crap from the eighties and 90's are still WMD.
Too bad you think they are not.

 

[calamity]

Yes your position is nonsense and a lie.
WMD were found.
Saying none were found is a blatant lie.
Saying Saddam had none is a blatant lie.
Saddam having WMD which had not been discovered is him having what he was not allowed to have, and was what was being looked for.

The only truthful thing you can say, is that the amounts expected to be found were not.


And crap from the eighties and 90's are still WMD.
Too bad you think they are not.

Maybe you should be an adviser to the GOP because they pretty much lost the election in '06 because of the fact that no WMD were ever found, and that discredited the party so much that we all elected a black guy named Hussein in '08. Who knew, Excon had the answers that could have saved the republicans all along? :roll:

 

[grip]

Can anyone explain the statement "the truth will set you free"?

 

[Excon]

Maybe you should be an adviser to the GOP because they pretty much lost the election in '06 because of the fact that no WMD were ever found, and that discredited the party so much that we all elected a black guy named Hussein in '08. Who knew, Excon had the answers that could have saved the republicans all along? :roll:

More nonsense from you. Figures.

 

[calamity]

More nonsense from you. Figures.

Well, considering what you call WMD, I'd say you're a poor judge on what is or is not nonsense.

 

[Tim the plumber]

I find that there are those of us who can lie when we wish to and those who seem to have taken to it as lifestyle.

I have become estranged from my family as a result of this. Telling you black is white and it's your fault that it's not white.

They also became semi Christian at the same point. I don't know which is symptom and which is cause.

The way religious people seem to think on this forum and all others seems to be very similar. Even clever types who post good, well argued, reasonable posts on deeply scientific subjects in other sections seem to become brain dead reality is a myth types when they start talking about God.

I would like to know if anyone else has had similar experiences.

 

[Excon]

Well, considering what you call WMD, I'd say you're a poor judge on what is or is not nonsense.

What they were looking for was specifically that which he was not supposed to have, what they found falls under that.
It was WMD. It was deteriorated and of limited use like I stated. But still WMD.

 

[radcen]

You must really dislike car salespersons and sales people at Bestbuy? :lol:

To me, some of the worst liars are salespeople. They know they're lying, yet they still do it.

And lying-by-omission is still lying.

 

[radcen]

If the internet is any indication... nobody shops at Walmart. Nobody eats at McDonald's. Nobody drinks soda.

Liars.

And half of them will respond and deny this.

 

[Jerry]

I never considered shielding the truth as lying. Yes/no answers when more detail is expected by the inquisitor is not lying, IMO.

BTW: That gets me in trouble with the wife. She has said I remind her of a hostile witness facing the prosecution's questions in a murder trial.

"Shielding the truth" is lying because you aren't just telling the truth. Yes/no answers when more detail is expected is the lie omission.

Unles you're telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, you're lying in one form or another. We're all liars.

 

[Jerry]

If the internet is any indication... nobody shops at Walmart. Nobody eats at McDonald's. Nobody drinks soda.

And everyone is an expert on everything, exept the person they're talking to, that person is a dumbass.

 

[calamity]

What they were looking for was specifically that which he was not supposed to have, what they found falls under that.
It was WMD. It was deteriorated and of limited use like I stated. But still WMD.

nonsense.

 

[calamity]

"Shielding the truth" is lying because you aren't just telling the truth. Yes/no answers when more detail is expected is the lie omission.

Unles you're telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth, you're lying in one form or another. We're all liars.

I do not don't deny that. But, being evasive is not perjury; it's contempt of court.

 

[Excon]

nonsense.

Yes, your position is nonsense and a lie.

 

[calamity]

Yes, your position is nonsense and a lie.

If what you say is true, the GOP would have shouted about it from the roof tops. Bush would not have said he regretted following faulty intelligence. :roll:

 

[Paxaeon]

`
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you_______________?

In court, you are not asked to tell the facts, just the truth. Why is that?

 

[Excon]

`
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you_______________?

In court, you are not asked to tell the facts, just the truth. Why is that?

Because facts are that which are said to be true.
So by telling the truth, you are in fact stating factual information. Supposedly.

 

[Jerry]

`
Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help you_______________?

In court, you are not asked to tell the facts, just the truth. Why is that?

You may not know the facts, is why. You might only have your point of view as a witness, or you might be there to give a qualified opinion or appraisal.

 

[Excon]

If what you say is true, the GOP would have shouted about it from the roof tops. Bush would not have said he regretted following faulty intelligence. :roll:

The truth has already pointed out.
It is why I can reference what was found.

 

[Paxaeon]

Because facts are that which are said to be true.
So by telling the truth, you are in fact stating factual information. Supposedly.

`
I was always taught facts have more validity. Twenty five people can witness one fact yet there might be 25 different truths. In Milwaukee, there was an incident where a cop shot a supposedly unarmed man. 25 people came forward as eye witnesses with 25 different truths, none however made it to court because they did not square with the facts.

Truth is what you believe is true or more precisely, what your mind perceives to be true. It can be based on fact, contain factual matter or none at all. It is still the truth to that person.
`

 

[code1211]

I have a friend who paints a rosy picture of everything. He'll tell you a turd is a diamond.

One time, years back, he took me to his favorite bar. The whole way there he's telling me how great the place was and how hot the bartender is; that the place was packed with gorgeous blondes. We get there. The place is a dive; the bartender looked to be 55 and addicted to crack, while the "hot blondes" in the crowd are all over 40 and fat as apples.

I had a similar friend in school. Again, amusing to be around and always selling something. The less rational the claim, the more strongly he asserted it.

However, this guy would take up for you if you were his friend and fight to the death on your side.

Take the bitter with the sweet. On balance, a good friend and a good partner in almost any situation.

 

[Excon]

`
I was always taught facts have more validity. Twenty five people can witness one fact yet there might be 25 different truths. In Milwaukee, there was an incident where a cop shot a supposedly unarmed man. 25 people came forward as eye witnesses with 25 different truths, none however made it to court because they did not square with the facts.

Truth is what you believe is true or more precisely, what your mind perceives to be true. It can be based on fact, contain factual matter or none at all. It is still the truth to that person.
`

Of course. And it also depends on how you are factually using the word. :mrgreen:

I was using the word under the definition of; Something said to be true.

 

[calamity]

I had a similar friend in school. Again, amusing to be around and always selling something. The less rational the claim, the more strongly he asserted it.

However, this guy would take up for you if you were his friend and fight to the death on your side.

Take the bitter with the sweet. On balance, a good friend and a good partner in almost any situation.

I hear ya. My first wife embellished a lot. Sweet woman, loved her dearly, but you just could never take her word at face value. Example:

We were getting ready to move from one state to another. Someone asked her if she was nervous. Her response was to say she moved 257 times before. :shock:

Now granted, She did move a lot. And, I knew she moved about 50 times in her life, whic is no small number. But, for some reason she says she moved 257 times. I confronted her on it later that night. She insisted she was right. So...I asked her to write down and list every time she ever moved. Sure enough, the number was in the 50's. Needless to say, she was mad at me.

Some people maybe just have a different sense of reality, especially when it comes to numbers.