I'm not saying it wasn't intentional, just disputing your assertion that it's a fact. Someone will have to prove it was intentional before it can be a fact. Do I think someone wanted to get revenge on the Wilsons? Yep, but that is just speculation on my part. Depend on how you look at it. Not sure if a stupid or incompetent person can get away with intentionally leaking her name and make it look unintentional.:wink: Seriously, I think republicans will have much bigger problems to deal with in the '08 elections.
So according to Red, Clinton and the UN is responsible for every problem with the Middle East right now. Because they both lied, according to your definition, we have our current and past problems with terrorism.
you are not fooling me, i know you are not that stupid. i know you are aware that a liar has to be intentionally misrepresenting the truth at the time of the lie to be lying. an unfilfilled pledge does not a lie make. but we both know you know that and you are testing my patience, hoping to make me call you a name that will require yet another mod edit of my posts. well sir, i have grown up a bit and i no longer engage in childish namecalling. of course it is also possible you are parodying 157 through the comical and absurd redefining of a term, in which case you are to be praised.
You really don't want to address the issue do you? I don't blame you. No term was redefined. Here is the definition of Lie. Note that a lie does not require that the liar be intentional. That would simply be an intentional lie. lie –noun 1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive 2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression 3. an inaccurate or false statement. 4. the charge or accusation of lying -verb 5. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly 6. to express what is false Clearly it is impossible to know if Bush intentionally lied (deliberate intent to deceive), but there is no doubt that an inaccurate or false statement (a lie) was pledged (intended or serving to convey a false impression).
i still do not belive you, you are just pulling my chain. you obviously realize that if i make a statemtnt of my intent, that statement is not innacurate, even if i do not follow through, because when i make the statement, i am speaking in the present tense. for instance if i say i am going to eat eggs for breakfast, and i end up eating pancakes, i did not lie, because the statement has to be taken in context of the time it was spoken. if i say "i am not hungry", i am not a liar, when i am hungry 5 hours later. similarly if i make a pledge of some sort, i mean that that at this point my intention is to follow a certain plan of action. that isnt to say that the plan could never possibly change. i know you realize that it is impossible to read mr bush's mind when he makes statement of his intent, so it is impossible to tell if he means it or if he is lying, regardless of whether he follows through. if you take the definition of lie totally out of context until it simply means the same thing as incorrect (which is what you are doing by isolating this part of the definition- an inaccurate or false statement), then it is pretty meaningless to accuse people of lying. but it is all a moot point because i dont believe you actually believe any of what you say. you arent fooling me, amigo.
Seems everyone except Red now knows that Joe Wilson Plame duped the media. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/31/AR2006083101460_pf.html "It follows that one of the most sensational charges leveled against the Bush White House -- that it orchestrated the leak of Ms. Plame's identity to ruin her career and thus punish Mr. Wilson -- is untrue." ---From the Washington Post no less.
By this absurd logic, lies don't exist. By this logic, all lies are simply errors unless the liar admits that he is lying. Nice try, martin, but it doesn't wash. A lie is an untrue statement, whether deliberate or simply foolish.
