An oasis on the moon?

wrote in message
ink.net...

On 27-Feb-2005, "Chingon" wrote:

Obviously I can't tell by looking at what Presidents do to determine
whether
"America" had guts. What should I look at? (I was in Jr. High when
Kennedy died)


Look at your fellow citizens. See how many of them are sheep? That's
the
only answer I can give you. You either get it, or you don't.

Your claim wasn't that my fellow citizens has a lot of sheep, it was that
Americans during the Kennedy administration had guts. I remember sheep
back then as well.

You are implying a significant difference between then and now. I asked
for an illustration of that difference. Was it our betrayal of the Bay
of
Pigs incident that showed our guts? Was it our unwillingness to compete
with blacks on equal settings that showed our guts?

I contend that the guts you see we had in that administration that you
don't
see now are illusory.


There are always sheep. It's the ratio between sheep and citizens that has
shifted dramatically towards the bovine end of the spectrum. In today's
climate, a liar like Nixon would still be in office. Oh, wait...

America jumped the shark the day Kennedy died. You've lived most of your
life on the downhill side of the curve.

Rand Simberg wrote:

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:34:40 GMT, in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:

Bush lied as well, but he sent soldiers to fight.

No, he didn't (lie, that is), no matter how much you want to twist the
definition of lying.

Right. Apparently we now live in a world where there's no moral
distinction between being mistaken and lying. If Bush was "lying," then
so was the CIA, the Mossad, France, Germany, Clinton, the other Clinton,
Daschle, and Kerry.

But who cares about considering what actually happened, right? It's
better to just call your political opponents liars and ignore the truth.

--
Erik Max Francis && && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM erikmaxfrancis
It is only the poor who are forbidden to beg.
-- Anatole France

On 27-Feb-2005, Erik Max Francis wrote:

Bush lied as well, but he sent soldiers to fight.

No, he didn't (lie, that is), no matter how much you want to twist the
definition of lying.

Right. Apparently we now live in a world where there's no moral
distinction between being mistaken and lying. If Bush was "lying," then
so was the CIA, the Mossad, France, Germany, Clinton, the other Clinton,
Daschle, and Kerry.

If we're allowed to twist that definition (see above), being mistaken about
what you have the responsibility to be not mistaken about could qualify.
The end result is that the buck stops there.

But I didn't say Bush lied about that fight - I just said he lied. If you
believe someone can become President without lying, tell me so. Do you
believe everything he has said in his campaigns?

But who cares about considering what actually happened, right? It's
better to just call your political opponents liars and ignore the truth.

I was comparing Bush with Kennedy because a statement made about an action
of Kennedy's that Americans had guts then. I was actually *defending* the
current administration in this comparison.

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 19:34:40 GMT, in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:

Bush lied as well, but he sent soldiers to fight.

No, he didn't (lie, that is), no matter how much you want to twist the
definition of lying.

On 27-Feb-2005, "Chingon" wrote:

There are always sheep. It's the ratio between sheep and citizens that
has shifted dramatically towards the bovine end of the spectrum.

We have more cows now?

Please back up the contention that we have a higher percentage of sheep now
than during the Kennedy administration.

In today's climate, a liar like Nixon would still be in office. Oh,
wait...

My contention is that politicians got away with more before Nixon than they
have after.

wrote:

But I didn't say Bush lied about that fight - I just said he lied. If you
believe someone can become President without lying, tell me so. Do you
believe everything he has said in his campaigns?

If your contention is that no politician can ever become President of
the United States without lying, then what information content is there
in pointing out that a sitting President has lied? It becomes a
completely pointless observation if you're saying that it's a
prerequisite. So what value is there in saying it? If Bush was a liar,
then Clinton was a liar too, and so was Kennedy, and so was George
Washington. Then, so what?

--
Erik Max Francis && && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM erikmaxfrancis
If the sun comes up / And you're not home / I'll be strong
-- India Arie

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:23:09 GMT, in a place far, far away, "Chingon"
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in
such a way as to indicate that:


America jumped the shark the day Kennedy died. You've lived most of your
life on the downhill side of the curve.

rolling eyes

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 20:03:22 GMT, in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:

Bush lied as well, but he sent soldiers to fight.

No, he didn't (lie, that is), no matter how much you want to twist the
definition of lying.

I doubt if any successful president has avoided lying. I'll go further to
say that a President who doesn't lie at all is not serving his country as
well as he can.

I don't know whether he has lied about other things, but the continual
ravings that he "lied" about WMD remain nonsense.

But it if you are talking about twisting the truth to any degree, obviously
all that is necessary is to have him say something that I don't believe is
100% truth. I bet you can find something that the President has said that
you don't agree with.

I can find many such things, but that doesn't make him a liar.

On Sun, 27 Feb 2005 22:38:06 GMT, in a place far, far away,
made the phosphor on my monitor glow in such a way
as to indicate that:


On 27-Feb-2005, Erik Max Francis wrote:

Bush lied as well, but he sent soldiers to fight.

No, he didn't (lie, that is), no matter how much you want to twist the
definition of lying.

Right. Apparently we now live in a world where there's no moral
distinction between being mistaken and lying. If Bush was "lying," then
so was the CIA, the Mossad, France, Germany, Clinton, the other Clinton,
Daschle, and Kerry.

If we're allowed to twist that definition (see above), being mistaken about
what you have the responsibility to be not mistaken about could qualify.
The end result is that the buck stops there.

But I didn't say Bush lied about that fight - I just said he lied.

About what?

Erik Max Francis wrote:
wrote:

But I didn't say Bush lied about that fight - I just said he lied.
If you
believe someone can become President without lying, tell me so.
Do you
believe everything he has said in his campaigns?

If your contention is that no politician can ever become President of

the United States without lying, then what information content is
there
in pointing out that a sitting President has lied? It becomes a
completely pointless observation if you're saying that it's a
prerequisite. So what value is there in saying it? If Bush was a
liar,
then Clinton was a liar too, and so was Kennedy, and so was George
Washington. Then, so what?

--
Erik Max Francis && && http://www.alcyone.com/max/
San Jose, CA, USA && 37 20 N 121 53 W && AIM erikmaxfrancis
If the sun comes up / And you're not home / I'll be strong
-- India Arie


The definition of a lie often depends of the laws of relativity. What
context was something said in? What was specifically meant by the
words? What where they relative to?

For Clinton it had to do with what the meaning of the word "is" is. It
also had to do with his definition of sex when he looked the American
public in the eyes and said, "I never had sex with that woman."

Did Bush the first lie when he said, "Read my lips, no more taxes."?
Did Wilson lie when he ran on the slogan, "He kept us out of war."?
The intent may have been sincere at the time, they were spoken, but
times change and situations change, and not all promises can be kept.

Carter was by far the most honest President in modern times. He even
confessed to the lust in his heart! If there was ever a President who
couldn't tell a lie, it was he. But he was also the most inept
President! But a hell of a nice guy, and still is!

People were reacting to the dark and dishonest Machiavellian cynicism
of Nixon, and so elected a Sunday school teacher to be President. But
it didn't work.

I think that a good President should be as honest as he can afford to
be, but sometimes he just has to be a man of the world. That's how
things work.

Now I hate to shatter anybody's illusions about George Washington, but
I think that whole cherry tree incident was also just a lie that
someone made up!

Double-A