Tea Party 4-18-11 Topic

My "source" is the dictionary, liar. Merriam-Webster.

And the yellowcake lie falls squarely under definitions 1 and 2 . Nowhere in there does it say the intent to deceive must rest with the speaker. If I write a speech for you that contains a deliberate false statement, designed to deceive the audience, and you deliver that speech, you have told a lie. Which is exactly what Bush did. So thanks for proving my point.

You yourself are covered nicely by definition 1 of "liar". You consistently present false information with the intent to deceive. You tend to call it "spin" or "normal political debate". Honest people call it lying.

You are such an unbelievably inept debater. It's really quite incredible how enormous a fucktard you are.
4/22/2011 9:55 AM
I assume anton, that you consider Clinton, Kerry, and the whole host of others who voted for the war and justified it to be liars  to have lied too, based on your criteria.  I am sure you are fair minded about who you call a liar consider to be lying.

I also assume that you must consider just about everyone who ever said something factually inaccurate a liar  to have lied if someone back in the chain knew something different to be true. 

Personally I think it's semantics to play that game.  I don't consider Hilary Clinton or John Kerry a liar  to have lied for saying Iraq had WMD's, which is what they did.  They spoke based on what they thought to be true.  Intent is very germaine to the discussion because lying goes to character.  If you tell me something that's not true, the fact that it is untrue has no bearing on your character unless it's your intent to deceive me.  The burden would be on me to prove you intended to deceive me.  Otherwise all you've done is tell me a factually inaccurate statement.  I think everyone has done that at some point in their lives.

We all get your point about what you think of swamp.  Better debaters don't resort to what you're doing either.
4/22/2011 2:58 PM (edited)
Since you're interested in the semantics of this, padna, please quote where I called Bush a liar.

Someone has to lie an awful lot for me to pin that label on them.
4/22/2011 1:26 PM
Posted by antonsirius on 4/22/2011 1:26:00 PM (view original):
Since you're interested in the semantics of this, padna, please quote where I called Bush a liar.

Someone has to lie an awful lot for me to pin that label on them.
Let me restate, since you were talking about what constitutes a lie.  Perhaps I didn't word my post clearly enough.  Point taken on the "calling someone a liar" bit.  See the rewording in the above post.
4/22/2011 3:00 PM
Yes, I would consider any statement that said Saddam had WMDs, for instance, a lie, regardless of who said it.

I'm very, very tied of being lied to in the name of political expediency, and having it be considered impolite not to even mention that I've just been lied to.

As for the idea that people in the public sphere can only be considered to tell lies if they are intending to deceive, I think they have a bigger responsibility to make sure their statements are actually, y'know, true, before they say them, especially when those statements can affect millions and get people killed and that sort of thing.

John Kyl stand on the floor of the Senate and tells a bald-faced lie. None of his colleagues even blink, and when his office says that it "wasn't intended to be a factual statement" it becomes a joke meme. Pundits and commentators who make a career out of telling lies continue to be regarded as champions of their political teams, when they should be tossed in the garbage bin.

I'm done being "polite" about it.
4/22/2011 4:32 PM
Posted by antonsirius on 4/22/2011 1:26:00 PM (view original):
Since you're interested in the semantics of this, padna, please quote where I called Bush a liar.

Someone has to lie an awful lot for me to pin that label on them.
This is the biggest juggle ever. A liar is someone who has lied. If you say someone lied, even if you just did it once, you called them a liar.

So in fact you did call Bush a liar!

It Amazes me that a person who tap dances around semantics and context as much as you do can in good conscience call anyone a liar!
4/22/2011 4:46 PM
Posted by antonsirius on 4/22/2011 9:55:00 AM (view original):
My "source" is the dictionary, liar. Merriam-Webster.

And the yellowcake lie falls squarely under definitions 1 and 2 . Nowhere in there does it say the intent to deceive must rest with the speaker. If I write a speech for you that contains a deliberate false statement, designed to deceive the audience, and you deliver that speech, you have told a lie. Which is exactly what Bush did. So thanks for proving my point.

You yourself are covered nicely by definition 1 of "liar". You consistently present false information with the intent to deceive. You tend to call it "spin" or "normal political debate". Honest people call it lying.

You are such an unbelievably inept debater. It's really quite incredible how enormous a fucktard you are.
1 I never tried to say your source was not credible. I wanted to imply that someone can find a source for a lot of things. Common sense logic would lead us to believe that making a mistake and telling a lie are very different things.

2 Again the intent to deceive has to lie with the person you are calling a liar. No matter how much everyone around you lies, if you believe that what you are saying is truthful you are not a liar.

3 Spin by definition is not a lie. If I say "I have never dated a porn star that didnt perform oral sex on me" I am telling the truth. If you interpet that I have received oral sex from a porn star that is your fault, not mine.

4 I have never met anyone so divorced from reality as you. Everything is grand theories and subtext. Nothing is real.

4/22/2011 5:16 PM (edited)

Posted by swamphawk22 on 4/22/2011 5:16:00 PM:
I have never met anyone so divorced from reality as you.







Quoted for posterity

4/22/2011 6:09 PM
I am glad you realize that Anton is in every way possible divorced from reality.

Just because he is close to you politically does not mean he isnt nuts!
4/22/2011 9:53 PM
Wasn't this chick a teabagger also?



DOVER, Del. – New campaign finance reports filed by former U.S. Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell include what appear to be previously undisclosed payments to her for travel expenses and indicate that she ended 2010 with $230,000 less cash on hand than previously reported.

In an April 15 memorandum to the Federal Election Commission, O'Donnell campaign committee lawyer Cleta Mitchell said the committee had retained FEC compliance experts who reviewed the Delaware Republican's campaign finance paperwork for the 2009-2010 election cycle.

According to Mitchell, the compliance experts discovered several "inadvertent" errors resulting from campaign software used in 2009 and early 2010.

"We believe that the reports from the 2010 election cycle for Friends of Christine O'Donnell are now reconciled to the bank account and accurately reflect the receipts and disbursements in accordance with FEC regulations," Mitchell wrote in an e-mail to The Associated Press.

"We also went through all records of the campaign and sorted all receipts and documentation to show that the disbursements reported by the campaign were for legitimate and proper campaign purposes," Mitchell wrote.

Mitchell told the AP that the 2009 reports were filed before the campaign could afford compliance software, and that 2010 reports filed after the campaign acquired a compliance reporting software system had to be amended because of glitches in that system.

But Mitchell could not explain why the committee's amended year-end report for 2010 showed cash on hand at the close of the period of $424,130.08, when the original filing showed $654,336.15, a difference of $230,206.07.

There were no corresponding revisions of other line items on the amended year-end summary to account for the discrepancy, and Mitchell, who said she was not in her office Friday and did not have access to the documents, refused to explain the discrepancy in a subsequent e-mail.

"All your questions have been answered in that e-mail sent earlier today, ... — do NOT write that "where did the money go,'" she wrote, adding that the campaign had to "painstakingly identify and calculate fundraising costs because of the manner in which the online fundraising vendor transferred funds."

Mitchell also denied that some of the filings for 2009 were new, even though the FEC notified the O'Donnell campaign in 2009 that its July and October quarterly reports for that year had not been filed. As of Friday afternoon, those quarterly filings had not been posted on the FEC Web site, but Mitchell maintained that all required reports had previously been filed.

"There were not `missing' reports as you suggest," she wrote.

O'Donnell campaign treasurer Matt Moran did not respond to messages seeking comment.

The new filings also show that O'Donnell's campaign committee spent more than $120,000 in the first quarter of this year, a period in which the tea party favorite formed her own political action committee, worked on a book and flirted with the idea of appearing on television's "Dancing with the Stars."

The report shows that most of the first-quarter 2011 expenditures were for campaign-related expenses such as staff payments and report compliance consulting.

Meanwhile, federal authorities are continuing a criminal investigation into whether O'Donnell illegally used campaign money for personal use.

The federal investigation, reported by the AP in late December, was launched after a complaint was filed with the FEC in September by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, a nonpartisan watchdog group.

Two former staffers alleged that O'Donnell used campaign money to pay her rent and other expenses such as meals, gas and a bowling outing. CREW filed a complaint with the FEC based on the staffers' allegations and the campaign's spending reports, and also asked the Delaware federal prosecutor to look into the matter.

O'Donnell has denied misspending any money and has said the accusations were politically motivated and stoked by disgruntled former campaign workers.

Melanie Sloan, executive director of CREW, said Friday that she had not seen O'Donnell's amended filings, but that she doubts that all the errors in previous filings could be attributed to computer software problems.

"A software glitch would really not explain how you sent a rent check out of your campaign account, a personal rent check," she said. "So that just sounds like an excuse. I think you call this a user issue."

The new filings show that the campaign committee made a $400 payment to a car-rental agency in April 2009 and a $500 payment to O'Donnell the following month for travel expenses. The AP could not find records for those payments in previous campaign finance filings, nor for more than $1,200 in utility payments in April 2009, a period in which O'Donnell was not a declared candidate for office.

An amended year-end report for 2009 also shows what appear to be previously undisclosed travel payments of $172.95 and $202.75 the campaign committee made to O'Donnell in November and December of that year.

O'Donnell said in February 2009 that she was raising money for a U.S. Senate bid, but she did not formally announce her candidacy until more than a year later, in March 2010.

She went on to shock longtime congressman and former governor Mike Castle in last year's GOP Senate primary before losing badly to Democrat Chris Coons in November.

Associated Press writer Ben Nuckols contributed to this report.

4/23/2011 11:23 AM
Hillary still owes a pile of money from her failed 2008 campaign.
4/23/2011 12:56 PM
Clerical error.
4/23/2011 1:14 PM
Posted by raucous on 4/23/2011 12:56:00 PM (view original):
Hillary still owes a pile of money from her failed 2008 campaign.
Campaign debt is not at all the same thing as misusing campaign funds.
4/23/2011 2:16 PM

This is what happens when real people try to break into the "Politiicans only"Club.

This is all minor amounts and appears to be actual clerical errors. Campaign rules are very complex. If you are not an insider mistakes can occur.

If you have party support you can get away with more.

4/23/2011 3:15 PM
Do you ever get dizzy from all the spinning you do swamp?
4/23/2011 3:27 PM
◂ Prev 1...123|124|125|126|127...133 Next ▸
Tea Party 4-18-11 Topic

Search Criteria

Terms of Use Customer Support Privacy Statement

© 1999-2025 WhatIfSports.com, Inc. All rights reserved. WhatIfSports is a trademark of WhatIfSports.com, Inc. SimLeague, SimMatchup and iSimNow are trademarks or registered trademarks of Electronic Arts, Inc. Used under license. The names of actual companies and products mentioned herein may be the trademarks of their respective owners.