Of these lies, which one would be the worse lie that a president has said? A possible lie about not-providing health care for "illegal" immigrants, or the lie about Iraq having something to do with 9/11 and having WMDs as justification for going to war? And yes, I purposely said "possible lie" and straight up "lie", because one is maybe a lie (although harder to prove as a lie) and the other is a flat out lie that has cost us untold billions and several thousand lives. So which lie would warrant someone yelling out during a speech given the President? I know that we all can pretty much agree that Wilson got in trouble for where he said it and not what he said it, so don't bring it up. I'm not talking about him.
It's not a lie if you believe it. And there wasn't a major intelligence agency on the planet that wasn't convinced that Saddam had WMDs. Hindsight is 20/20. President Obama is one of them fancy lawyer-types. He knows the law allows not only what is said, but what isn't said. And you could drive a truck through the loophole left in the bill regarding care for illegal immigrants.
WMDs and an alleged 9/11 involvement were just part of the reason to take out Saddam. The WMD issue, as maxiep pointed out, was hardly a "lie". Your question is deeply flawed. Ed O.
As I recall, they kept firing generals that didn't say what they wanted to hear. Perhaps it was something else. I thought there was something fishy with the CIA too, but that might be wishful thinking.
I would say in both those situations, neither were flat out lies but rather statements with spins . . . you can always justify your statements, even if they were misleading.
In this hypothetical case, the most profound result the first lie would have is more people would be healthier and in turn spread less disease to others, accomplishing it's goals. The second case would result in the unprovoked slaughter of a couple hundred thousand innocent people, the spread of disease, all for profit and military expansion with an end goal of world domination. So, obviously a pretty close call there.
Of all the bad things to be said about the new Republican party, and there are plenty, near the top of the list is your vitriolic dislike of people who are smart, or educated. Only you guys could turn "intellectual" into a pejorative. Look it up.
I was making the point that he knows better, yet plays ignorant. I'm sorry you weren't smart enough or educated enough to understand the point. As for my hate for the educated, yep, you nailed it. I hate people with graduate degrees, especially those affiliated with the University of Chicago. Pray tell, what's your educational background? I await to be crushed by the weight of your CV. P.S. I'm not a Republican.
It's not ridiculous, and it's not an assertion if it's a fact. Here read for yourself - it's well known that the Republicans are anti-intellectual. Pathetic, but true.
Well, you sure post like a Republican! As for my CV, whatever I say you say you will likely mock it, because apparently that is what people do here, so why say anything? But for the record, I have a B.A. and two graduate degrees, among other things.
I read that article, and while the writer makes some good points, the one he left out was this: I'd like to see him investigate how, in the minds of many who would call themselves "conservatives", intellectualism/IQ/education does not trump moral (some would say "religious") values or good decision-making. The President has a high IQ and Harvard Law degrees, and even seems to be a great father and "family man". But he didn't get my vote in part because of his inexperience and lack of times when he'd shown what I would call "good judgment and decision-making". But I'm probably racist for thinking that, right? I don't think Palin showed good judgment, either, but she seemed to take some pretty big stands on controversial items because she believed in them, even if she didn't know WHY she believed them. But this wasn't Obama vs. Palin. It was Obama vs. McCain. If we're talking Biden vs. Palin there's a pretty big disconnect---Joe Biden's one of the more clueless people I've ever heard speak publicly.
Fair enough, I guess. But look who the Republicans picked. Not only very much not an intellectual (894 of 899 in his graduating class), but also someone who has repeatedly displayed bad judgment (anything from plane crashes to picking Palin). So I'm not sure I see any evidence that Republicans value judgment any higher than they value intellectual horsepower. barfo
Actually, you just proved my point. I gave you facts to back up my point, and you ignore them and reiterate your point as if nothing has been said. That too is anti-intellectual.
