Drudge Exposes Clark as Liar

[Gustaf]

If that's true the man is a complete idiot.

[Gustaf]

Like I said, all politicians lie.

That does NOT mean that lies equate to making mistakes.  A mistake means that you had the facts in ERROR (either by confusion or lack of ability to arrive at the correct answer); not that you knew the facts and chose to tell a lie.  That is NOT a mistake, rather is a choice to intentionally deceive.

Main Entry: 1mis·take
Pronunciation: m&-'stAk
Function: verb
Inflected Form(s): mis·took  /-'stuk/; mis·tak·en  /-'stA-k&n/; mis·tak·ing
Etymology: Middle English, from Old Norse mistaka to take by mistake, from mis- + taka to take -- more at TAKE
Date: 14th century
transitive senses
1 : to blunder in the choice of <mistook her way in the dark>
2 a : to misunderstand the meaning or intention of : MISINTERPRET <don't mistake me, I mean exactly what I said> b : to make a wrong judgment of the character or ability of
3 : to identify wrongly : confuse with another <I mistook him for his brother>
intransitive senses : to be wrong <you mistook when you thought I laughed at you -- Thomas Hardy>
- mis·tak·en·ly adverb
- mis·tak·er noun


Main Entry: in·ten·tion·al
Pronunciation: in-'tench-n&l, -'ten(t)-sh&-n&l
Function: adjective
Date: circa 1727
1 : done by intention or design : INTENDED <intentional damage>
2 a : of or relating to epistemological intention b : having external reference
synonym see VOLUNTARY
- in·ten·tion·al·i·ty  /-"ten(t)-sh&-'na-l&-tE/ noun
- in·ten·tion·al·ly  /in-'tench-n&-lE, -'ten(t)-sh&-n&l-E/ adverb

His point is that all politicians are sinners, by your definition, and that those who get caught are being stupid. What's wrong with that? All politicians lie a lot, especially in enviroenments like the American political one, where spinning and polling play such a major part in politics. That's why we have to keep them on a short leash.

[Gustaf]

His point is that all politicians are sinners, by your definition, and that those who get caught are being stupid. What's wrong with that?

Well, if you want to say Clark’s mistake was that he thought he could get away with it, that the minutes of Senate testimony couldn’t be compared against his lie, then yeah, I would say that was a major “mistake”, probably to such a level that it borders on lunacy.

It reveals Clark’s hunger for power and dovetails into the insubordination that ended his military career.

Well, my first post said that if this is true, he's an idiot...

That he's a liar is to be expected, he's running for President, for crying out loud. Name a non-lying president ever...

[Gustaf]

Well, my first post said that if this is true, he's an idiot...

That he's a liar is to be expected, he's running for President, for crying out loud. Name a non-lying president ever...

I never said that people don’t lie.  We are all liars.

My first point was that lying couldn’t be considered a “mistake”, because it’s intentional.

---

My second point is regarding how it reveals Clark’s true character.

W is far from perfect, but I don’t remember him changing his positions on a major issue in order to run from president.  I remember Gore doing that, and that is the main reason why I can’t stand him.

If you were against the war – fine.  If you were for the war – fine.  But don’t lie about your position on an issue that is so important to many Americans.

And most of all, don’t insult the public’s intelligence by assuming that the American public is so dumb that it can’t compare Congressional testimony to a stated position during a campaign.

And NOT all politicians change their position simply to pander to the electorate – Zell Miller being a good example.  

I agree with you in principle. But politicians can get away with a lot. The PM of Sweden has done things which are so outrageous that one would think it impossible for him to remain, as has several of his ministers. They make for a lot of good jokes, but remain in power nonetheless.

[Gustaf]

W is far from perfect, but I don't remember him changing his positions on a major issue in order to run from president.  I remember Gore doing that, and that is the main reason why I can't stand him.

What about his claim that he was opposed to nation building?  Isn't that exactly what we're doing in Iraq?

Good point.

[Gustaf]

So, if a somebody changes thir position to the helping of the Republicans (Zell), it's acceptable.  But is it is the other way around (Gore), it isn't.
"I only lie when it services me to do so."--Me

Zell is supporting Bush because the Dem party has changed, NOT because Zell has changed.  Also Zell has no skin in this game so he can't be accused of pandering.

And I tried to think of a GOP example, but couldn't come up with one.  Maybe Pat Buch would be a good example.

Like Churchill, who changed parties TWICE!

[Gustaf]

And may I also remind you that perhaps as many as half the US has changed it's mind, after first trusting Bush & Co. was telling the truth?

How was Clark "drafted", exactly?

And if you believe that Bush lied, doesn't Clark's Congressional testimony make him an accomplice in the deception?

You can read the story on how Clark was drafted on his site, htt://www.Clark_2004.org.   I was one of the earliest supporters before he was a candidate.

I do not think you can fault a person in public life (or private, either) who publicly speaks in support of the sitting administration, when their only sin is trusting what is official policy, and they are being misled like everyone else......... (tangled sentence, but it's been a long day)

That's not the point, he claimed to have been consistently against the Iraq war since "a few weeks after 9/11" and that is directly contradicted by his other statements.

And, jmfcst, I disagree with your assesment on Clark's intelligence. The man is stupid, he has to be, doing something like that.

[Gustaf]

Is his participation mostly introducing Drudge Report offerings?

No, he takes active part in moral discussions. You can check out the VERY, VERY, VERY LONG "gay marriage" thread on this board if you wish. I think he stated somewhere that he will not make predictions at this early stage, but I'm not sure about that.

[Gustaf]

I don't see a 2004 prediction for you?

Why so much interest in my predictions?

Why haven't you made one?

He stated somewhere that he thought it was too early. But I will let him answer in person...

[Gustaf]

So now you know how it feels. You can share the pain of those you abused now.
No, just joking. But that Drudge report is garbage.

I think you've got the wrong car McFly.  I only called foreigners "trolls".  And...no, not joking.  

You're quoting "Back to the Future" instead of the bible? I am shocked!

[Gustaf]

I think it's got something to do with just how much American politics affects the rest of the world. I get your point as far as really interior matters are concerned (abortion, say)

Bingo.  I do NOT consider foreigners discussing US foreign policy as trolls, but anything else seems strange to me.  

Are you referring to anyone in particular? I have discussed gay marriage with you, but I thought that the discussion of general politics would be open for everyone. It's not like the American forum members are gonna influence policy a lot more than the non-Americans...

[Gustaf]

JMF exposing his xenophobic ways again...I remember this from the old board like it was yesterday.

I seem to recall JMF telling RP how Britain should run its health service. Which, in this context, makes him a hypocrite as well as a xenophobe.

I don't recall that.  But in any case, having opinions about your neighbors is one thing, but going over and knocking on their doors in order to voice your opinion of their internal affairs is quite another.

I understand that, though I personally never really commented on how the US should manage its affairs. Still, it's not going to stop me from pursuing an interest in American politics.

Same goes for me!

[Gustaf]

Are you referring to anyone in particular? I have discussed gay marriage with you, but I thought that the discussion of general politics would be open for everyone. It's not like the American forum members are gonna influence policy a lot more than the non-Americans...

Yes, our discussion was an in-house debate among Christians.  And obviously Leip likes an open forum...All I am saying is that I don't understand what prompt's a person to go mucking around in another country’s internal politics.  The last thing I care to know is what goes on in my neighbor's house.

If some foreigner has a moral objection to my politics, in that they find me going astray of sound moral doctrine, then I welcome their correction.  But apart from morality, there are other reasons why I like to live behind closed doors.  Likewise, there are reasons for America maintaining its own sovereignty.  

But there is no need for me to dissect why non-citizens care about internal US policy.  Even though I think it strange people do such things, I’m not curious enough to want to know the reasons behind their actions.

OK, then I wont tell you.

[Gustaf]

You're quoting "Back to the Future" instead of the bible? I am shocked!

Actually, I throw many stolen "lines" into my postings, but few pick up on it.  One of the funniest instances is when I mentioned migrendel's "highbrow Marxist ways".  He didn't know it was a lyric from the band White Town, but he admitted the term described him well.

But I usually give scripture proper credit when I quote from it.

Yes, I know you do, it's funny with quotes, I try to use them  occasionally myself.