A recap of what LYING means

[AURaptor 1,126]

def :

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

See, in order for something to be a lie, there must be knowledge to the contrary and/or an active , willing attempt at deception.

So, take Oprah and author James Frey. Frey writes a *book in which he KNOWINGLY lies about the details of his life. He doesn't tell anyone about the lies in his book, and presents them as fact. He calls his book his Memoirs. Fact is, they aren't his.... they are made up. Fiction. He knows that, yet sells his book anyways. He LIED.

Many folks seem to have the wrong idea about what is a lie.

A lie is NOT a wrong answer

A lie is NOT a forgotten fact.

A lie is NOT a [mistake

A lie is NOT conjecture, or answer based on incomplete data.

A lie is NOT acting on information which you believed to be true at the time.

Those are not lies.

Just in case some might be wonderin'.

[TexasTiger 13,000]

def : 

  1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

  2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

See, in order for something to be a lie, there must be knowledge to the contrary and/or an active , willing attempt at deception.

215169[/snapback]

Like these two:

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution. 

George W. Bush, April 2004

"I want to tell the American people something and I want you to listen to me: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky. Bill Clinton, January 26, 1998

[Tigermike 3,050]

def : 

  1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

  2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

See, in order for something to be a lie, there must be knowledge to the contrary and/or an active , willing attempt at deception.

215169[/snapback]

Like these two:

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution. 

George W. Bush, April 2004

"I want to tell the American people something and I want you to listen to me: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky. Bill Clinton, January 26, 1998

215175[/snapback]

You even manage to make this partisan. Your brain is stuck and skipping like an old vinyl record.

[AURaptor 1,126]

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

George W. Bush, April 2004

Is a wiretap the same thing as eavesdropping? What about stateside vs internatinal? I'm not tring to split hairs here, but there are distinctions. If W is erring on the side of stopping another attack, can you seriously blame him?

Another 3,000 dead or the piece of mind that the law , as some see it, was followed to the letter while we're fighting a group that follows no law, and murders w/ out purpose or remorse ?

Seems a simple answer for me.

[TexasTiger 13,000]

def : 

   1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

   2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

See, in order for something to be a lie, there must be knowledge to the contrary and/or an active , willing attempt at deception.

215169[/snapback]

Like these two:

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution. 

George W. Bush, April 2004

"I want to tell the American people something and I want you to listen to me: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky. Bill Clinton, January 26, 1998

215175[/snapback]

You even manage to make this partisan. Your brain is stuck and skipping like an old vinyl record.

215182[/snapback]

Actually, I made it bi-partisan. You're just too partisan to recognize it.

[TexasTiger 13,000]

Secondly, there are such things as roving wiretaps. Now, by the way, any time you hear the United States government talking about wiretap, it requires -- a wiretap requires a court order. Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so. It's important for our fellow citizens to understand, when you think Patriot Act, constitutional guarantees are in place when it comes to doing what is necessary to protect our homeland, because we value the Constitution.

George W. Bush, April 2004

Is a wiretap the same thing as eavesdropping? What about stateside vs internatinal? I'm not tring to split hairs here, but there are distinctions. If W is erring on the side of stopping another attack, can you seriously blame him?

Another 3,000 dead or the piece of mind that the law , as some see it, was followed to the letter while we're fighting a group that follows no law, and murders w/ out purpose or remorse ?

Seems a simple answer for me.

215183[/snapback]

You support the policy as described by Bush and you're comfortable with it. Fine. That's your choice. That's a different point, though.

You posted this:

 

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

   2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

That describes this:

Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.

As it also describes this:

"I want to tell the American people something and I want you to listen to me: I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky."

Both are deceptions. Neither was true. Both men felt the need to deceive the public about what they were doing. Listen to Bush now--- he vigorously defends doing what he previously claimed he didn't do when he was going around the country trying to placate concerns over the Patriot Act. Support him, support his policy, support his actions if you want, but if you're going to dedicate a thread to reminding us what a deception is, recognize it no matter who is doing it. That's all I'm sayin'.

[AURaptor 1,126]

You posted this:

QUOTE

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

  2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

That describes this:

QUOTE

Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.

Again, we're not dealing w/ the full statement, in context, so I can't really comment on the cherry picked line there.

But beyond that, I'd say we're talking past each other now. I don't care that Bush said one thing, while in a war, and did another. That's SOP during war time, to not devulge your methods to the enemy. Thanks to a NY Times reporter, everyone knows about it now. If Bush said we didn't have any super secret planes, for example, and it turns out that we did, do you really think it's justified for a reporter to break such a story? While we're fighting a war ? I don't.

[TexasTiger 13,000]

You posted this:

QUOTE

1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood.

   2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.

That describes this:

QUOTE

Nothing has changed, by the way. When we're talking about chasing down terrorists, we're talking about getting a court order before we do so.

Again, we're not dealing w/ the full statement, in context, so I can't really comment on the cherry picked line there.

But beyond that, I'd say we're talking past each other now. I don't care that Bush said one thing, while in a war, and did another. That's SOP during war time, to not devulge your methods to the enemy. Thanks to a NY Times reporter, everyone knows about it now. If Bush said we didn't have any super secret planes, for example, and it turns out that we did, do you really think it's justified for a reporter to break such a story? While we're fighting a war ? I don't.

215199[/snapback]

You don't care that he lied in this instance. That's your right, too. But we are told we are now in a perpetual state of "war", even though there is no declaration of war as laid out in the Constitution.

The "methods", as you call them, aren't the question. Claiming we always get a court order when we don't doesn't change what we don't get one to do. Bush admitted in the same speech that we eavesdrop on "terrorists" he just claimed that we get a court order. Do you think the "enemy" cares if Bush gets a court order or not? There is no analogy here with "secret planes."

[AURaptor 1,126]

There is no analogy here with "secret planes."

Yeah, there is, in this case. War is war. al Qaeda declared war on the U.S. back in 1997, and they've been killing our soldiers, our civillians ever since.

W is using his power as chief Execuitive, and I for one am ok w/ it. Were it Clinton or any other in the same situation , I'd still be for it.

[TexasTiger 13,000]

There is no analogy here with "secret planes."

Yeah, there is, in this case. War is war. al Qaeda declared war on the U.S. back in 1997, and they've been killing our soldiers, our civillians ever since.

W is using his power as chief Execuitive, and I for one am ok w/ it. Were it Clinton or any other in the same situation , I'd still be for it.

215208[/snapback]

That's not where the analogy breaks down. A secret plane is a "secret weapon". Surveillance is the same tool whether there is a court order or not. The secret is...he doesn't get the court order. The secret is not that we eavesdrop.

[AURaptor 1,126]

That's not where the analogy breaks down. A secret plane is a "secret weapon". Surveillance is the same tool whether there is a court order or not. The secret is...he doesn't get the court order. The secret is not that we eavesdrop.

Information, secret weapons, all tools of war. And we can't risk having the information from eavesdropping delayed, or even worse, denied because of some goofy Liberal judge who thinks a terrorist in Islamabad has the same rights as the American citizens he wants to murder.