millroy, ye wee fucking wanker:
Did you read the original thread?
How many people in that thread who derided Bush did so on the basis of the quotations december posted?
Go ahead, you can look it up. Take your time. I’ll be here.
December, putting aside your politics for a minute, I am amazed at your lack of instinct for self-preservation. Were you a wild animal you would be a turtle without a shell. Much could be gained if you were willing to admit, without qualification when you made an unwise post or argument.
For future reference if you must pull out the dictionary and crow that you only fulfilled one of two definitions of lying it is time to give up. I am just amazed that you don’t recognize the credibility that accrues when one admits to the occasional error in judgement.
BTW, just caught a glimpse of december, composing his next OP.
Cozy, ain’t it?
Um, yes they did, and worse. They called Bush a liar about statements made by someone else, the Clintons.
It wasn’t “years ago” since it referenced 9/11. Interesting how you come up with all kinds of excuses for BC, maybe it was true, maybe he thought it was true, maybe it was all empty rhetoric. But when the exact same statement was attributed to President Bush, he’s a liar. :rolleyes:
Once again, you are proving December’s point. You’re criticizing President Bush just because, and making excuses for the Clintons, when they are the original source of the OP’s quotes! :rolleyes:
You know, I’m a little curious myself as to the existence of this very thread. The OP here appears to be nothing more than an attempt to continue the discussion from the previously closed GD thread. Does that not bend the generally applied rules with respect to crossposting/multiposting, to say nothing of skirting the principle of board members adhering to the spirit of a moderators rulings ?
I wish a Mod would step in and let us know what the deal is with being able to post a OP strictly to get a reaction. Especially one in which the OP lies about the source.
If it’s ok, I don’t see what the difference is between that and putting words in a posters mouth with a quote and then waiting untill called on it to say it was “a mistake”.
Kudos to TwistofFate, Binarydrone, and Guinastasia for at least being consistent.
Never said they were. Why were the Clintons’ statements used to justify calling President Bush a liar?
At least six of them, by my count.
This am Bizaro World now?
One (1) person responded to the “presidential” quotation. That’s one (1).
Are you also so very desperate to be right that you find it acceptable to deceive, inveigle, and obfuscate?
Are you an idiot? Oh wait, you are. The six (6) people I listed directly called Bush a liar, based on COMMENTS MADE BY THE CLINTONS!
Well, because they were lead to believe it was a quote from Bush, milroyj. D’uh. Are you really that fucking dense?
I submit the bolded part is incorrect.
Can you back it up?
…And here I thought that what december had to say in his OP had something to do with the responses he garnered :smack:
I’m not sure how I feel about this.
Tricking people is not very nice. On the other hand, if you can trick them and show them something important by doing so, perhaps it is not without merit.
But then I guess, it would demonstrate weakness and bad character to trick somebody. I’ve done it myself and regretted it.
I think if one is going to do something like this, they have to be very very careful.
The proper way is to not trick somebody, but to allow them to trick themselves.
To say the President said _____ and to simply not tell which President it was, and allow people to trick themselves would probably be a fair or at least acceptable way to go about it.
Unfortunately, that’s not how December’s OP read. It did not simply ommit specificity and allow people to trick themselves. The false attribution of the second quote leads people into the trick. They do not do it themselves.
People were tricked with false information. This is not a fair way to do it.
Now December is claiming that it was an accident. Perhaps it was. I can’t read his mind. Certainly, it is a convenient accident.
I will submit to you that it doesn’t really matter whether it was deliberate or not.
If December is going to choose to play with dynamite and fire in this very dangerous way, and skate this close to the edge, than he is doing so knowingly.
If such a dangerous thing backfires because he does it improperly, it really is his own fault. It hardly matters whether he cheated deliberately with the false attribution, or it was an accident. It’s just as bad both ways.
Quite a few times I have thought December was being unfairly picked on. This is not such an occasion.
I would think a very strong apology, offered unconditionally is in order.
For accuracy’s sake, make that FIVE for the time being. My post was in direct response to the thread title. To wit:
**
Response:
**
How the fuck was I responding to any “Comments made by the Clintons”?
Utter rubbish.
First, the Bill Clinton comment, according to December’s original source, was made in 1998.
Second, I am not criticizing Bush “just because.” I am criticizing him for something he DID.
You and December seem to think these comments could come from anyone’s mouth and still be equally honest or dishonest. That’s ridiculous. We know a great deal about what Bush was told about the intelligence on Iraq, and we know what he told us about. We can therefore judge whether or not he lied, twisted the truth or gave us the unvarnished facts.
I can’t make that judgment about something Bill Clinton said five years ago. I can’t make that judgment about something Senator Clinton said because I don’t know how she reached her conclusions.
Look, if Bill Clinton says “I did not have sexual relations with that woman,” it’s a lie. If you take that statement, take it five years into the future and pretend it came out of George W. Bush’s mouth, it’s the gospel truth. Context matters.
December actually did not prove anything important by tricking people.
The fact of the matter is that Clinton did not start this war. And that is a huge difference between him and Bush, is it not?
By seemingly attributing the quotes to Bush, the quotes become connected with Bush’s actions. And that is when, in some opinions, they go from being mistakes to lies.
People say a lot of things, many of them mistaken. When they are mistaken, they can be corrected. No harm done.
However, when you say something, and you are mistaken, and based on that mistake you start a war and many people are killed, then we can no longer say “no harm done” can we?
In fact, isn’t it true that we hold statements to a higher standard when WAR and DEATH are on the line?
The point is this:
When Clinton made his statements, war and death were not the result.
When Bush made his statements, war and death were the result.
Can you not see why one statement should be held to a higher standard? If you are going to risk war and death, you had better be SURE.
I’m not even saying Bush lied. That is beside the point. Can you even admit that statements must be held to a higher standard when the risks of being wrong are so much deadlier?
Holy farging shnit . . . call me Mr. Observant over here, but . . .
Hey Clark! How the hell ya been?
Do you stand by this statement?
If you had attributed the quote this way, it would also be a lie. The quote must have come from some time in the past two years. In no way could Hillary Clinton be considered “a close advisor of the President” during that time.
No one could reasonably be expected to instantly determine the sources and dates of the conflated quotes without some sort of attribution. The OP deliberately set out to deceive readers and has admitted as much; smells like lying to me.
I don’t think banning is in order, but I’d to propose that for incidents like these, maybe the Mods would consider changing the offender’s “member” tag to something like “no credibility” for a 1-3 month period.
December: As much as I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt, I find it exteremely hard to believe that you did not knowingly include the Hillary quote in your OP. Just think how much better you would have been able to make your case if you had simply been above board about the whole thing and debated the issue on it’s own merits. Instead, you ended up with a closed thread and a Pit experience. If your objective was to get a little chuckle for yourself, then I suppose you have succeeded. If your objective was to engage in serious debate, then I’m afraid you have failed. Only you can be the judge.