Scenario with question for you:
1 Joe has no money in his front right pants pocket
2 George W Bush, gives Joe 2 quarters, 1 dime, 1 nickel, and 3 pennies.
3 Joe puts the all of it in his front right pocket.
4 George W Bush says, "Joe has 68 cents in his right front pocket."
5 Joe pulls out his front right pocket and reveals:
2 quarters, 1 nickel, 2 pennies, and a hole in the pocket
QUESTION: Did George Bush lie when he said, "Joe has 68 cents in his right front pocket."?
I DON'T WANT TO HEAR ANY SIDETRACK COMMENTS, LIKE SOMETHING ABOUT IRAQ. THIS IS NOT ABOUT IRAQ, THIS IS ABOUT JOE'S POCKETS. TRY TO KEEP YOUR FOCUS ON THIS EASY QUESTION UNTIL YOU ANSWER IT. THANK YOU.
2006-11-04 08:40:15 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
I'm not a liberal but I'll take a stab at it. Yes, he did lie, because Bush only gives money to people who already have plenty like Halliburton and multi-millionaires.
2006-11-04 08:43:08 · answer #1 · answered by spongeworthy_us 6 · 5⤊ 3⤋
George W Bush didn't give Joe 68 cents, it was Joes money in the 1st place...
2006-11-04 08:46:16 · answer #2 · answered by Nick F 6 · 2⤊ 2⤋
Is this supposed to mean that Bush is staightforeward...something you made up to prove Bush and his crew is ethical...watch these:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rvn7yXOb-ks&mode=related&search=
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jtica4Q401w
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ctlmholr45c
He did not tell the truth, but he did not lie...lying implies that he knew otherwise. Now i know you are twisting this in your little head, and comparing this to worldly events, but if it had been of larger importance, he should have verified before acting that the facts were in place.
your question is like O'Reilly asking a question that can only serve his interests...it has nothing to do with the position of the answerer and should not even be answered....because the question is purely to discredit...it's deceitful
2006-11-04 08:55:29 · answer #3 · answered by Ford Prefect 7 · 3⤊ 0⤋
He can say, "I gave Joe 68 cents." But he can't say how much Joe has in his pocket unless Joe told him. Or, unless he had his hands in Joes pocket. Oh, no, now we are going down that gay road again. Sorry!
2006-11-04 08:45:00 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 1⤋
Ohhhhhh, I get it. So when someone makes a statement that he THINKS is true, even though he lacks all the relevant information, it's not a lie. Even if he states it as though it's completely true.
So like when I say, "You're an idiot," I'm not lying.
2006-11-04 08:48:43 · answer #5 · answered by dark_phoenix 4 · 6⤊ 1⤋
... yes...
this seems to be a very hard issue for you to grasp...
but a lie is when you speak something that is not true... and that was not true... so it was a lie...
was it an intentional lie?
or is it morally wrong?
perhaps that was your question... and no it would not be really
2006-11-04 09:03:26 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
Nope, but when he looks into a camera and says "John Kerry want to raise YOUR taxes".. He's lying to more than 80% of the country. And he's definitely lying to me..
2006-11-04 08:47:47 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
As always, a false assumption was made by not understanding all the circumstances and unseen problems that could arise
2006-11-04 08:42:22 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 2⤋
He had the identical equivalent in coins.
This is called setting up a strawman, by the way
2006-11-04 08:43:45 · answer #9 · answered by Strawman Detector 2 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Are you saying that Bush gave Saddam the WMD before he said Saddam had them? Is that the point of your metaphor?
That's an odd position for a conservative to take.
And I say this despite your admonition that this has nothing to do with Iraq, because drawing such a parallel is clearly your intent. And after all, elections are decided on real issues, not men handing change to people named Joe.
2006-11-04 08:42:12 · answer #10 · answered by Steve 6 · 5⤊ 6⤋