Why Do the Libtards Keep Lying About Bush?

[WTF]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Of course Obama knew at the time that many people would NOT be able to keep their doctors!

Could you prove that Obama knew at the time? Provide me a credible link.

Originally Posted by lustylad

However, it wasn't a lie because we the people are clearly too stupid to handle the truth and it was done for our own good as defined by the Harvard-MIT social engineering elite. [SARCASM ALERT]

That sounds a whole lot like the Iraq invasion. Without the false threat (remember the Powell UN presentation?) of WMD's there is a very good chance the would have been no Iraq invasion , even though GWB thought it was a good idea even without the WMD threat and he said he would do it again even without the false threat.



Now do you understand the comparison? Probably not. You think a lie is not a lie when Bush tells it but is a lie when Clinton or Obama tells it!

And you are trying to deflect that idiots nevergivesitathought's fuck up on not understanding that tone can be used in writing.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

It's actually quite simple .... keep the "hot lights" on Bush and off Obaminable, plus justify Obaminable lying by feebly attempting to prove Bush lied.

"Redirection"!!!

.

I did not start this tread you dumb fuck. Lustynuts did. So no redirection on my part. Bush told a lie. That is all I have tried to get you idiots to understand. That is undisputable. Obama told a lie, that is undisputable. There were no WMD's and not all can keep their Doctor.

Figuring out if it was told on purpose for the good of the country is another question all together. COG, thinks Bush lied on purpose. You think Obama lied on purpose. I tend to agree with you both but there is enough deniability to not convict either.....depending on the jury. If you get a bunch of COG's on the jury , Bush is a goner! Kinda like wtf I said with Zimmerman.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

WTF did the same exercise when predicting that Zimmerman would get convicted of something out of the trial over the Martin killing when he called himself a "racist" in order to prove that all people are racists .. His flaw: Not all people ARE "racists"!!!! And just because Obaminable lies regularly doesn't mean Bush did.

I posted this study showing all are racist. Evidently you are the only person that is not racist in the world. And may I ask why you continue to distort what I posted when I have corrected you already? Are you lying on purpose?


https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog...e-bit-racist-0
The implication is clear. We may all be racist and sexist and ageist at heart, but this is not our doing—we have merely internalized what we have been hearing and reading and seeing our whole life, that is, we are thirsty sponges, and we pick up the patterns that culture happily spoonfeeds us, and we haplessly store it all in our thirsty memory banks, gladly retrieving the connection and filling in the blanks.
One conclusion from this study is clear. For most of us, the racist/sexist/ageist inside us may not be a monster of our own making; s/he is not a reflection of who we are, but a reflection of where we've been. Being faster to associate ‘black' with ‘violence' doesn't imply that you are a hardcore racist, it sadly just means you're American.
This conclusion is both reassuring and sad.
Reassuring, because now we can understand why we are all a little bit racist (and sexist, and ageist). And understanding is half the battle against it.

Originally Posted by LexusLover

.. His flaw: Not all people ARE "racists"!!!! And just because Obaminable lies regularly doesn't mean Bush did.

You are not even half way there LexusLiar! You are to fucking stupid to acknowledge science or understand it.

Reassuring, because now we can understand why we are all a little bit racist (and sexist, and ageist). And understanding is half the battle against it.

[WTF]

Originally Posted by WTF

Let us use this as another teaching moment ... one that boardman , nevergaveitathought and lustyfornuts might actually learn from. See gents, words often have more than one meaning. Tone , much like lie , is one such word. Small minds that try and narrow it down to only one meaning, look foolish. One does not have to hear tone , to speak of it. Say you're sorry never and move one.
1tone


noun \ˈtōn\


: the quality of a person's voice
: the quality of a sound produced by a musical instrument or singing voice
: a quality, feeling, or attitude expressed by the words that someone uses in speaking or writing

Did this run you off nevergivesitathought?

Or do you want to debate how this is an obscure definition?...like boardman and lustynuts are doing about the definition of a lie!

[boardman]

Originally Posted by WTF

Did this run you off nevergivesitathought?

Or do you want to debate how this is an obscure definition?...like boardman and lustynuts are doing about the definition of a lie!

You used a single definition just like I did and then argue that you didn't. How does that work. I say the more common definition includes intent to deceive. You use a less common definition which doesn't. What makes your's right and mine wrong? You are no less ignorant than you claim me to be. You're doing the same fucking thing.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by boardman

I say the more common definition includes intent to deceive. You use a less common definition which doesn't.

When someone calls him a "turd," he probably prefers the "more common definition" in order to explain to them the word does not technically apply to him.

Does that help?

[boardman]

turd



noun \ˈtərd\

Definition of TURD

1
sometimes vulgar : a piece of fecal matter

2
usually vulgar : a contemptible person

See turd defined for English-language learners


Examples of TURD

1. He's an obnoxious little turd.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by lustylad

Lemme try that again, fagboy:

....after all these word games you can't tell the difference between lying and grubering? [SARCASM ALERT]

Of course Obama knew at the time that many people would NOT be able to keep their doctors! However, it wasn't a lie because we the people are clearly too stupid to handle the truth and it was done for our own good as defined by the Harvard-MIT social engineering elite. [SARCASM ALERT]

Now, do you understand the difference between lying and grubering? [SARCASM ALERT]

You're not very good at detecting a writer's tone, are you fagboy?

.

+1

On February 25, 2010, Odumbo admitted he knew that his 'absolute' wasn't as 'absolute' as he lyingly claimed:

Odumbo: "Well, let me -- since you asked me a question, let me respond. The 8 to 9 million people that you refer to that might have to change their coverage..."

http://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_...on-Health-Care

And PolitiFact named Odumbo's mantra the "Lie of the Year" in 2013.

PolitiFact has named "If you like your health care plan, you can keep it," the Lie of the Year for 2013....

The problem for insurers was that the Odumbocare rules were strict. If the plans deviated even a little, they would lose their grandfathered status. In practice, that meant insurers canceled plans that didn’t meet new standards.

Odumbo’s team seemed to understand that likelihood. U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius announced the grandfathering rules in June 2010 and acknowledged that some plans would go away. Yet Odumbo repeated "if you like your health care plan, you can keep it" when seeking re-election last year.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-me...-plan-keep-it/

[WTF]

Originally Posted by boardman

You used a single definition just like I did and then argue that you didn't. How does that work. I say the more common definition includes intent to deceive. You use a less common definition which doesn't. What makes your's right and mine wrong? You are no less ignorant than you claim me to be. You're doing the same fucking thing.

I'm using all the definitions.

Words matter. A lie is a lie. For instance, one can say without intent , GWB did not lie if you stick to only one definition. But you can not argue that he did not tell a lie. Intent does not change the lie to the truth.

What the Judge in lustynuts article is doing , much like your Humpty Dumpty , is playing with words, making them work. To counter that argument , I too have had to make words work.

I have tried to make you understand the difference in nuanced verbiage.

I am trying to make you think.

What does a lie turn into without intent? Can we agree that without intent the person is not a liar, like you had said he just may be an idiot. If you want to say that without intent , he can not be lying (and I disagree) , ok. But he still told a lie. The lie did not change into the truth just because the teller thought it true. That is without question.

If you think a Tiger is a Lion, would the Tiger magically lose his stripes? You would not be a Liar if you truly thought that but and you can make a case like the Judge has made for GWB that you were not lying but there is no doubt that you told a lie. Unless of course the Tiger turns into a Lion. That is what some folks are trying to do by saying that WMD's were moved. The Judge is not trying to do that , he is Humpty Dumpty'n you with words. Which is fine but just know that I am on to him. Which is wtf I am trying to educate you and a few others on. Words matter, especially subtle nuanced verbiage!

[WTF]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

+1






And PolitiFact named Odumb's mantra the "Lie of the Year" in 2013.

Lucky for GWB, Politifact does not go back to 2003

Ebola scare was named the 2014 bullshit lie of the year. I bet LexusLiar does not want me to go back and dig up that thread!



Today at 4 p.m. ET, we’ll announce PolitiFact’s Lie of the Year for 2014. So it seems like a good time to look back at the past five years of "winners." PolitiFact’s editors and reporters award the Lie of the Year to the most significant falsehood or exaggeration of the past 12 months.
2013: 'If you like your health care plan, you can keep it'
This statement was said by President Barack Obama and other Democrats when talking about the Affordable Care Act, popularly known as Obamacare. The statement was most often made when the legislation was being drafted in 2009; it was definitively proved wrong in the fall of 2013 when people started getting cancellation notices.
From our story:
Boiling down the complicated health care law to a soundbite proved treacherous, even for its promoter-in-chief. Obama and his team made matters worse, suggesting they had been misunderstood all along. The stunning political uproar led to this: a rare presidential apology. …
Obama’s ideas on health care were first offered as general outlines then grew into specific legislation over the course of his presidency. Yet Obama never adjusted his rhetoric to give people a more accurate sense of the law’s real-world repercussions, even as fact-checkers flagged his statements as exaggerated at best.
Instead, he fought back against inaccurate attacks with his own oversimplifications, which he repeated even as it became clear his promise was too sweeping.
2012: Mitt Romney campaign's ad on Jeeps made in China
During the 2012 presidential campaign, the campaign for Mitt Romney unleashed an ad in the critical swing state of Ohio suggesting that Jeep was pulling out of Ohio for China. But the Ohio Jeep plants were going about business as usual; the moves in China were to expand into the Chinese auto market.
From our story:
It originated with a conservative blogger, who twisted an accurate news story into a falsehood. Then it picked up steam when the Drudge Report ran with it. Even though Jeep's parent company gave a quick and clear denial, Mitt Romney repeated it and his campaign turned it into a TV ad.
And they stood by the claim, even as the media and the public expressed collective outrage against something so obviously false.
People often say that politicians don’t pay a price for deception, but this time was different: A flood of negative press coverage rained down on the Romney campaign, and he failed to turn the tide in Ohio, the most important state in the presidential election.
2011: 'Republicans voted to end Medicare'
Democrats pounded Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives for voting for a conservative, cost-cutting budget resolution promoted by Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., who would go on to serve as Romney’s runningmate in 2012. Ryan never proposed ending Medicare; instead he wanted to bring more private insurers into the program. Democrats later modified their talking point to say Republicans wanted to end Medicare "as we know it."
From our story:
Rep. Steve Israel of New York, head of the DCCC, appeared on cable news shows and declared that Republicans voted to "terminate Medicare." A Web video from the Agenda Project, a liberal group, said the plan would leave the country "without Medicare" and showed a Ryan look-alike pushing an old woman in a wheelchair off a cliff. And just last month, House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi sent a fundraising appeal that said: "House Republicans’ vote to end Medicare is a shameful act of betrayal."
After two years of being pounded by Republicans with often false charges about the 2010 health care law, the Democrats were turning the tables.
PolitiFact debunked the Medicare charge in nine separate fact-checks rated False or Pants on Fire, most often in attacks leveled against Republican House members.
2010: 'A government takeover of health care'
While the health care law was being finalized, Republicans couldn’t stop repeating their mantra that the law was a government takeover of health care. It wasn’t.
From our story:
"Government takeover" conjures a European approach where the government owns the hospitals and the doctors are public employees. But the law Congress passed, parts of which have already gone into effect, relies largely on the free market:
• Employers will continue to provide health insurance to the majority of Americans through private insurance companies.
• Contrary to the claim, more people will get private health coverage. The law sets up "exchanges" where private insurers will compete to provide coverage to people who don't have it.
• The government will not seize control of hospitals or nationalize doctors.
• The law does not include the public option, a government-run insurance plan that would have competed with private insurers.
• The law gives tax credits to people who have difficulty affording insurance, so they can buy their coverage from private providers on the exchange. But here too, the approach relies on a free market with regulations, not socialized medicine.
2009: 'Death panels'
This claim was first made by Sarah Palin but repeated by others often: that the health care law included "death panels."
Palin, the former GOP vice presidential nominee, put it this way on her Facebook page: "The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama's ‘death panel' so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their ‘level of productivity in society,' whether they are worthy of health care."
It wasn’t hard to fact-check. There were no death panels in the law. But the words drove debate anyway.
From our story:
Two independent polls showed that about 30 percent of the public believed death panels were part of health care reform, both the week after Palin made the comment and a month later.
Yet seniors were no more likely to believe it than other age groups. The polls showed a closer correlation by party, with Republicans more likely to say that death panels were part of the plans pending in Congress. It's not clear whether Palin's comments swayed anyone who was undecided or unsure about health care reform.
"It touched a nerve of anxiety, and then there was a big response from the press and from experts that assured people that euthanasia wasn't anywhere near this debate," said Robert Blendon, a Harvard University researcher who studies public opinion on health care. "Most people, at the end of the day, did not believe it was being proposed."

[LexusLover]

For WTF, #3 toss!



or is it #4?

[boardman]

Originally Posted by WTF

I'm using all the definitions.

Words matter. A lie is a lie. For instance, one can say without intent , GWB did not lie if you stick to only one definition. But you can not argue that he did not tell a lie. Intent does not change the lie to the truth.

What the Judge in lustynuts article is doing , much like your Humpty Dumpty , is playing with words, making them work. To counter that argument , I too have had to make words work.

I have tried to make you understand the difference in nuanced verbiage.

I am trying to make you think.

What does a lie turn into without intent? Can we agree that without intent the person is not a liar, like you had said he just may be an idiot. If you want to say that without intent , he can not be lying (and I disagree) , ok. But he still told a lie. The lie did not change into the truth just because the teller thought it true. That is without question.

If you think a Tiger is a Lion, would the Tiger magically lose his stripes? You would not be a Liar if you truly thought that but and you can make a case like the Judge has made for GWB that you were not lying but there is no doubt that you told a lie. Unless of course the Tiger turns into a Lion. That is what some folks are trying to do by saying that WMD's were moved. The Judge is not trying to do that , he is Humpty Dumpty'n you with words. Which is fine but just know that I am on to him. Which is wtf I am trying to educate you and a few others on. Words matter, especially subtle nuanced verbiage!

So when some of these fucktards call you gay does that mean all definitions apply?

gayVariation

Houghton Mifflin

• adj.adjective
  
  
  1. Of, relating to, or having a sexual orientation to persons of the same sex.
  2. Showing or characterized by cheerfulness and lighthearted excitement; merry.
  3. Bright or lively, especially in color.
     a gay, sunny room.
  4. Socially inappropriate or foolish.
  5. Given to social pleasures, especially at the expense of serious pursuits.
  6. Dissolute or licentious.

Which ones don't apply?


Don't fall Humpty

[WTF]

Originally Posted by boardman

So when some of these fucktards call you gay does that mean all definitions apply

Which ones don't apply?


Don't fall Humpty

All applicable definitions apply. For instanc if one of the cocksuckers were licking my balls, I'd say the first one applied. In the case of the WMD lie. All applicable definitions apply. But nothing changes the fact that Bush told a lie unless it in fact was not a lie.

If you want to try and Humpty that Bush unknowingly telling a lie means he was not lying....ok. But nothing will change the fact that he told a lie.If that means to you he is not a liar and was not lying I can live with knowing that he told a lie a subtle distinction.

[boardman]

Originally Posted by WTF

All applicable definitions apply. For instance in one of the cocksuckers were liking my balls, I'd say the first one applied. In the case of the WMD lie. All applicable definitions apply. But nothing changes the fact that Bush told a lie unless it in fact was not a lie.

If you want to try and Humpty that Bush unknowingly telling a lie means he was not lying....ok. But nothing will change the fact that he told a lie.

All applicable definitions apply?

OK, Humpty. Go tell Alice...You're still in wonderland.

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by WTF

Could you prove that Obama knew at the time? Provide me a credible link.

IB just gave you one. There's a lot of other evidence out there. Or would you rather argue that Odumbo didn't even understand how his own “signature achievement" would impact everyone? In that case, he didn't tell a lie but he looks a thousand times stupider than Bush, who relied on the overwhelming consensus of the world's intelligence community when he said Saddam had WMD.

Originally Posted by WTF

You think a lie is not a lie when Bush tells it but is a lie when Clinton or Obama tells it!

Wrong again, fagboy. If Clinton or Obama was POTUS in 2003 and relied on the same intelligence to tell us Saddam had WMD, they would not have been lying either.

Originally Posted by WTF

What the Judge in lustynuts article is doing, much like your Humpty Dumpty, is playing with words, making them work. To counter that argument, I too have had to make words work.

No dumbass, stop comparing yourself to a federal judge, you are the big loser there! For the third time in this thread, I will repeat - Judge Silberman uses the legal definition of a lie and that is why he objects so strenuously to those who would apply it to Bush and WMD in Iraq. Legally you are dead wrong and no “playing with words” can change that. All you are doing is arguing for a looser, non-legal colloquial meaning of the word that lets you continue to say Bush lied because it obscures the difference between an unintentional misstatement and a malicious lie.

And by the way, you are taking the lazy way out here. When I started this thread I said there are legitimate reasons to be critical of our invasion of Iraq. But you are too lazy and/or poorly informed to go there. It's much easier to keep posting convoluted rationalizations of why it is ok to use "Bush lied" bumper sticker slogans than it is to dissect complex foreign policy issues.


.

[nevergaveitathought]

Originally Posted by lustylad

No dumbass, stop comparing yourself to a federal judge, you are the big loser there! For the third time in this thread, I will repeat - Judge Silberman uses the legal definition of a lie and that is why he objects so strenuously to those who apply it to Bush and WMD in Iraq. Legally you are dead wrong and no “playing with words” can change that. All you are doing is arguing for a looser, non-legal colloquial meaning of the word that lets you continue to say Bush lied because it obscures the difference between an unintentional misstatement and a malicious lie.

.

would that WTF could read and understand your post, the world would be a better place