's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions

Archive Home >> Non-Cycling Discussions(1 2 3 4 )

What is worse, lying about weapons or sex?(25 posts)

What is worse, lying about weapons or sex?rjarrell
Aug 9, 2003 2:10 PM
The right wing was all over Clinton for lying about sex, Bush lies about weapons of mass destruction, thousands die from this lie and we hear nothing. Were the French right when they said they said there was no compelling evidence in the Administrations case against Iraq. Want some freedom fries?
I lied about sex, and I'm not ashamed!jesse1
Aug 9, 2003 2:54 PM
Being a healthy male and appreciating the beauty of a woman, I was attracted to a lady I'd been riding a nearby rail-to-trail with.
We were just running into each other on a regular basis since we both had a "usual start time" that coincided, and talked constantly for the 2-3 hrs we rode together. We never really talked about any relationships in our lives and I just assumed she was unatached, so one day I asked her out. She politely informed me she is a lesbian. Not wanting to give up on this lovely creature, I told her that I am as well! She changed her "usual start time" to something other than mine.
Aug 10, 2003 1:49 PM
I suppose that's possible. It seems that every iteration of genetic/gender choice exists. Certainly, there are women who behave as men, men who behave as women, any of whom may prefer one sex or the other. So, I suppose it's possible for a genetic man to behave as a woman and desire women, too.

Nonetheless, it's quite another thing to convince someone of your sincerity and desireability (wrong parts?), particularly in such an unusual circumstance. ;-)

Consensus is clearly sex, because . . . .cory
Aug 9, 2003 3:20 PM
. . . . whenever I mention Bush's lies about Iraq, I get 25 letters from readers who way, "Oh, yeah? What about Monica?"
which is worse?DougSloan
Aug 10, 2003 8:29 AM
Which is worse, sitting back in the oral orifice getting bj's and ignoring a huge problem, or having the guts to put a maniacal dictator out of the world's misery?

Doug, you're begging the question.Spoke Wrench
Aug 10, 2003 10:39 AM
I'm thinking that means the answer is one you'd rather not say.
Aug 10, 2003 11:39 AM
The initial question assumes Bush lied. Still far from proven.

How much proof?Spoke Wrench
Aug 10, 2003 11:46 AM
I'll give you reasonable doubt but I think that preponderence of evidence proof is there.
of what?DougSloan
Aug 10, 2003 12:04 PM
My understanding is that a "lie" is "intentionally making a statement of fact known to be false." Has that been proven? What statement, exactly, are we talking about?

Why the ever popular 16 words. (nm)Spoke Wrench
Aug 10, 2003 12:28 PM
Aug 10, 2003 1:11 PM
Do we know that he knew them to be false? "Taking responsibility" is different than knowing something was false at the time. Information is filtered through about 20 levels of people before ultimately landing in a President's speech, isn't it? At some point, he can't personally confirm every reported fact, and must simply rely upon what information he's given. "Taking responsibility" means he's not passing the buck, but that's far from admitting a lie.

That's why I'll allow him reasonable doubt.Spoke Wrench
Aug 10, 2003 2:51 PM
On the other hand. The State of the Union Speech isn't just an off the cuff comment. Every word is analyzed by the entire Whitehouse staff and Cabinet. Actually, if I were a lawyer, I'd make the case that filtering it through so many levels makes it worst. The facts were known by at least part of that staff and the decision was made to make the statement anyway. My belief, and I think the preponderence of the evidence supports it, is that comment was intended to mislead the American people. Color it anyway you like, but that's a lie.

Since you brought up poor old Bill Clinton, did he ever actually admit to lying or is he still confused about the meaning of the word "is"? I don't expect the current president will admit to lying so long as his people can find him an out either. That's one of the ways that I think George W and Bill Clinton have a lot in common.
Clinton's confessionDougSloan
Aug 10, 2003 3:09 PM
which is worse?rjarrell
Aug 10, 2003 11:58 AM
Are you ready to go after all of the worlds maniacal dictators ?
Aug 10, 2003 12:02 PM
Sure, but I doubt anyone would let me. Seems odd to me that some people are all in favor of ridding the planet of hunger and disease, but are perfectly willing to stand by and watch murder and oppression take place.

Alternatively, let's put up a big wall and ignore the rest of the world.

Good point!Spoke Wrench
Aug 10, 2003 12:34 PM
The real question is: What are you willing to sacrifice to rid the world of hunger and disease? With our manufacturing jobs going to the far east and our tech support jobs going to India, how much are Americans going to be willing to sacrifice to level the world wide economic playing field?
I assumeCaptain Morgan
Aug 11, 2003 6:45 AM
"having the guts to put a maniacal dictator out of the world's misery?"

I assume you are referring to Hillary?
The only people who think lying about sex is okay...Matno
Aug 10, 2003 1:24 PM
are people who have done it themselves. (Be honest with yourself here...)

"Bush lies about weapons of mass destruction, thousands die from this lie and we hear nothing." Hmmm. Don't know which news you've been watching/reading, cause that's about all they ever talk about in the mainstream media. Besides, it's not nearly as clear of a case of lying as with Bill. In this case, Bush only said we have enough evidence to assume that Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. The presumption was strong enough to act on. I don't think anybody can prove that he KNEW there WEREN'T weapons of mass destruction (although they may have a good case for "he should have known").
This is old alreadyLive Steam
Aug 10, 2003 6:44 PM
The question could also be asked - "If Clinton so willingly lied on National television in front of the American people and before the rest of the World about having sex with an Intern, what else was he capable of lying about or doing?" You could also ask the question - "If Clinton could so easily lie before a judge in a legal proceeding, what else is he capable of lying about or doing?"

I say we move on here. Saddam is on the run and Iraq is in the throws of forming a new government and France is good for nothing other than the Tour. They certainly don't make a great ally :O)
You're not being very consistent, Steam.Spoke Wrench
Aug 10, 2003 7:46 PM
You're rehashing stuff that happened five years ago but say that stuff that happened just this year shouldn't be discussed because it's old?
Maybe your right, but ...Live Steam
Aug 11, 2003 5:08 AM
the point I tried to make in response to the question was that Clinton's lies were proven. As Doug has stated over and over again, there is no evidence that Bush lied. There is also no evidence that Iraq had no WMD prior to the war. They have not been found, but that does not mean they do not exist.

It seems faily obvious how much of the liberal press wants to paint this administration. Every time they announce the death of some unfortunate American soldier they preface it with "since President Bush claimed an end to major conflict in Iraq". I don't think anyone, not even Bush, no matter how dumb some may believe he is, figured that would be an end to fighting and the loss of lives there. The media has done the same with WMD.

Does anyone believe that Saddam's pride was such that he was willing to lose all rather than simply comply with the inspections - allow full and uninhibited access and provide documentation of what happened to the WMD EVERYONE knew he had? That area of the World is known for mysterious happenings. I would add the missing WMD to the lore of that region. They will find them eventually.
i'd think so.rufus
Aug 11, 2003 5:45 AM
saddam was the big bad man of the region. if the true capabilities of his defense program and military were revealed to the world for all to see, suddenly, he's the weak, outdated military palooka that our forces showed his military to be. subject to attack from every other country in the region, maybe especially from iran right next door, with their large shiite population and interest in stirring up revolt in iraq. either defy the un and gamble that he could maintain his hold on power, or admit he was powerless and surely lose it.
He still had a much bigger army that IranLive Steam
Aug 11, 2003 6:07 AM
and much more military equipment. I don't think that was the reason. He could have lived to fight another day. Now he is on the run with no power and his sons are dead. Everyone, including the French, the UN and who ever else you would like to name, agreed on his WMD, that is until the US said they were going in because of the breached UN resolutions. Then all bets were off. Something is rotten here and the liberal media chooses to look at the Bush administration instead of questioning why these other countries and entities chose to change their stance on WMD. Very curious to me.
Bush is simply a dishonest person.czardonic
Aug 11, 2003 12:05 PM
Parroting that Clinton was dishonest too does not change this basic fact. Moreover, he will never have to take personal responsibility for these lies because a) they further the agenda of his supporters and b) his supporters are equally dishonest (at best, believing that few conscious ommisions or specious parsings justify their important work on behalf of the decieved).
It's hard to discuss "gut" feelings with lawyers.Spoke Wrench
Aug 12, 2003 8:10 AM
Next November, however, when I pick up my voteing stylus, my gut will take over.

I've had the pleasure to know a few people who, if they asked me to sit down, I wouldn't even look to see if there was a chair. If, however, I shook hands with the president, I think that I'd want to count my fingers afterward.

Uh - before you mock me too much for being unsophisticated, consider this. I'm a swing voter. The next election is likely to be determined by people like me so my gut feelings are what's going to count.