BS: Bush's Lies: Political or Pathological?

Subject: BS: Bush's Lies: Political or Pathological?
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 05:20 PM

Now I realize that there are a few Catfolk who will believe anything that Bush says but here recently the boy seems to have gotten a tad out of control. He lies about Saddam having nuclear weapons within 6 months. He lies about a link between Saddam and Al Queda. He lies about a fleet of unmanned aircraft capable of attacking the US. He gets his folks to lie for him about a meeting that never took place between Mohamed Atta and an Iraqi intellegence agent. He lied about John McCain's position on breast cancer during the S.C. primary. Face it folks, Bush is starting to make Bill Clinton like a Boy Scout.

But what I'm having problems with in trying to affix motive is whether or not Bush just likes to lie... or if he thinks that politicans are supposed to lie. I really don't have an opinion nailed down on this one... ahhh, for a change.

What are other folk's thoughts?

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Lies: Political or Pathological?
From: katlaughing
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 05:25 PM

Bobert, I've been out of the news loop. Fill us in on when all of this was discovered/reported? Sorry, I really have missed hearing anythign specific about these.

Thanks!

kat (you know where my sympathies lie, no pun intended!)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Lies: Political or Pathological?
From: NicoleC
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 06:08 PM

Without knowing the man personally, no one can really say. But, hey, part of the price of being President is that you're bound ot be psychoanalyzed by those who've never met you. So I'll venture a guess.

Bush has been priviledged, pampered and protected almost all (all?) of his life. Money or friends or Daddy's connections have always bailed him out. I don't think he's ever had to face the consequences of lies or half-truths. And while I don't doubt that intellectually he thinks falsehoods and untruths are wrong, it just doesn't sink in that it applies to HIM.

It reminds me of teenagers. Most teenagers lie as easily as they sleep. When caught, they'll bluster about how it wasn't really a lie or how the lie was justified, or as a last resort they'll try to change the subject by claiming how unfair it is that they are being tormented.

Of course, you could change the first word of my 2nd paragraph to "Clinton" and the same principle would apply. As a matter of fact, most politicians are from pampered and privileged backgrounds -- maybe that's one of the things that's so frustrating about American politics in general, because our politicians aka "leaders" can tell a different lie out of each side of their mouth and it never seems to phase them.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Lies: Political or Pathological?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 06:28 PM

He fronts the leaders, feircely bumbling;
Our consequential King!
He sits on the wall, and while not yet tumbling,
Tells us the words we're to sing!

As the figurehead, he has us all led
Through the maze of the moral and right...
If he is misled, He'll sleep well instead
To dream as a dictator might!

ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Lies: Political or Pathological?
From: Gareth
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 06:44 PM

Does he know the difference ??????

Gareth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Lies: Political or Pathological?
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 08:32 PM

He should get lessons from your man Clinton Bobert...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Lies: Political or Pathological?
From: GUEST
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 08:43 PM

Q: What do you get when you offer Bobert a penny for his thoughts?
A: Change.

Q: How do you confuse a Liberal?
A: You don't. They're born that way.

Q: Why is it good to have a Democrat passenger?
A: You can park in the handicap zone.

Q: What's the difference between Elvis and a smart Liberal?
A: Elvis has been sighted.

A Democrat died and a friend went around collecting for a fund for his funeral. A woman was asked to donate ten dollars.
"Ten dollars?" she said. "It only takes ten dollars to bury a Democrat? Here's a hundred - go bury 10 of them!"

Q: How do you keep a Democrat busy?
A: Write 'Please turn over' on both sides of a piece of paper.

Q: How do you keep a Liberal busy all day?
A: Put him in a round room and tell him to wait in the corner.

Q: What do you call a Democrat with an IQ of 130?
A: A foursome

Q: How do you get a one-armed Liberal out of a tree?
A: Wave to him.

Q: What do you call a basement full of Liberals?
A: A whine cellar.

Q: What is the definition of gross ignorance?
A: 144 Democrats.

Q: What is foreplay for a Democrat?
A: Thirty minutes of begging.

Q: What is the Democrat doing when he holds his hands tightly over his ears?
A: Trying to hold on to a thought.

Q: Why did the Liberal have blisters on his lips?
A: From trying to blow out lightbulbs.

Q: Why do Liberals work seven days a week?
A: So you don't have to retrain them on Monday.

A Democrat found a magic genie's lamp and rubbed it. The genie said, "I will grant you one wish." He said, "I wish I were smarter". So the genie made him a Republican.

Q: What the difference between a Democrat and the rear end of a horse?
A: I don't know either.

Q: How is a Liberal different from a sewer rat?
A: Some people actually like sewer rats.

Q: How many Democrats does it take to change a light bulb?
A: None. They prefer to walk in the dark.

Q: Why do so many Liberals live in L.A.?
A: It's the only city that is easy enough for them to spell.

Q: What's five miles long and has an IQ of forty?
A: A Democrat parade.

Q: What is it called when a Liberal blows in another Liberal's ear?
A: Data transfer.

Q: Why don't they let Liberals swim in the ocean?
A: Because they can't get the smell out of the tuna.

Q: How do you plant dope?
A: Bury a Democrat.

Q: What's the difference between a Liberal and a sack of manure?
A: The sack.

Q: What's the definition of a Democrat running for Congress for the first time?
A: A mouse trying to become a rat.

Q: What's the difference between God and a Democrat?
A: God knows He's not a Democrat.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Lies: Political or Pathological?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 08:58 PM

Ha! Ha! Ha! Geez, GUEST, you oughta get a job at the Toronto Sun (Canada's worst newspaper). They would just love you! Har! Har!

The thing I always find amusing is the absolute faith that both liberals and conservatives have in one thing...the complete idiocy of the people in the other camp!

Now let's have a similar list of jokes about conservatives, just to up the ante and get E-e-e-e-rybody upset ('cept me).

I find both liberals and conservatives very predictable and quite fallible...but likeable at times in their enthusiasm and idealism.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Lies: Political or Pathological?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 08:59 PM

Oh, Bobert...how about "mythological"?

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Lies: Political or Pathological?
From: Bobert
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 09:29 PM

Well, danged, LH. This ol' hillbilly ain't got that much imagination. Yeah mean, mythological, don't cha? Well fir starters, I got a big kick out of GUEST's nice collection of lawyer, ahh strike that. Ahhh, Polish, no definately strike that one. Ahhh, well nice collection of stuff that other folks have thought up fir him ot her. Never can tell with these GUEST's but, hey, the other's are sometimes hard to figure out id they ain't got a picture over at the Catbox Post Office.

Well, back to the mythology part. Yo, GUEST, just what is a "liberal" anyway. Do you have a working defination. I used to think it meant someone who wants chancge but then if that were the case, I reackon the biggest liberal in America these days is Junior Bush hisself.

I've never considered myself a liberal or a Democrat for that matter. Radical? Well, ahhh, yeah. But liberal? No thanks. I thinks its that Volvo thing. I don't like the feel of 'em. The seats are too wide for my boney Wes Ginny but. I like my old Toyota just fine, thanky. Okay, maybe it's the earth shoes, too. I tried a pair of them on in a store and like to fell over frontward. Yep, right then and there I said to myself, "This liberal stuff ain;t fir me. Give me a pair of worn in work boots, tahnk you!"

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Lies: Political or Pathological?
From: katlaughing
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 11:20 PM

I think we all ought to download the poster at the bottom of this page and put it in our car windows. And, before someone makes a snide remark about having to give your name and email addy to download...use a hotmail one or something and/or read their privacy policy.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Lies: Political or Pathological?
From: Ebbie
Date: 24 Oct 02 - 11:56 PM

Thanks for that link, kat. The poster is beautiful and should be thought-provoking. I don't have a car but I'll find a place to post it.

Ebbie

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Lies: Political or Pathological?
From: DougR
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 02:33 AM

Nope, Bobert, don't point your finger at me! I ain't no guest. Never have been. Still, it is refreshing to see an enlightened one show up on the Mudcat for a change. :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Lies: Political or Pathological?
From: Hrothgar
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 04:15 AM

I'm with Gareth.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Lies: Political or Pathological?
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 08:14 AM

Good point, Hrothgar, maybe there is an I.Q. cut-off point where they just don't realize they are lieing thru their teeth.

But I think Junior is on the *greater than* side, but don't hold me to it.

Bobert

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Lies: Political or Pathological?
From: Willie-O
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 08:27 AM

Guest is being insensitive to Canadians, and the rest of you don't seem to know the difference between a large-L Liberal and a small-l liberal. (Even you LH, I'm shocked Shocked)

But as a bunch of large=L Liberal jokes, yep that's good.

Liberal: our "natural governing party", mostly because the small-c conservatives, progressive and other, can't get it together to row in the same direction. In fact, they can't even get on the same boat.   

small-l liberal: to the left of the Liberals.

In another era it was said appropriately: "You could take all the small-l liberalism in the Liberal Party and fit in into a gnat's navel, and still have room for Trudeau's Mercedes-Benz."

Doug, I'm sure we all knew that wasn't you, since you have the admirable trait of being willing to take responsibility for your own opinions.

I've met some smart conservatives. They're the ones that lead with arguments, not invective.

Willie-O

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Lies: Political or Pathological?
From: Peg
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 08:57 AM

Nicole: with all due respect, Clinton did NOT come from a privileged pampered background. He was raised by a single mom in fairly low-class environs. He pulled himself up by his own bootstraps. He won a Rhodes scholarship. He got to be president because he was smart and ambitious and charismatic, not because he was coddled or groomed for it. The man's not perfect, but let's give credit where it's due. As for his lies, where they originate from is anyone's guess...I would speculate a kid from the wrong side of the trcaks grows up telling all sorts of lies. In my experience, Clinton made one promise during his candidacy that he kept and followed through on within a week of being elected. It made me trust him, at least more than other politicians.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Lies: Political or Pathological?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 01:14 PM

Now wait a minute, Willie...it it's Canadian Liberal Party members that all those jokes are about then why does the word "Democrat" keep coming up all over the place?

This business of "liberal" and "conservative" is a bunch of nonsense anyway much of the time, but people just have to have labels, don't they? :-)

To my astonishment, I found myself partially agreeing with Peter Worthington yesterday...for the first time in his last 500 columns. This proves that labelling doesn't necessarily work.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Lies: Political or Pathological?
From: EBarnacle1
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 01:22 PM

Are we talking about conservatives or reactionaries here? There is a difference.

Interesting that Guest seems to feel that our representatives generically qualify as rats. Maybe that's why he relates to them so well.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Lies: Political or Pathological?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 01:29 PM

Hey! Rats are very intelligent and agreeable animals. This is rank prejudice. Shocking!

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Lies: Political or Pathological?
From: Naemanson
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 01:35 PM

I think the thing that bothers me most is not that Bush can lie so glibly. After all he is a politician and it goes with the territory. I want to know where is the outrage? He has a past just as checkered as Clinton's Whitewater/Philandering eras but you don't see anyone pointing special prosecutors at Bush.

My theory is that the Democrats are too disorganized and not viscious enough. The Republicans, with their penchant for standing in line and saluting, find it easier to follow orders when told to attack a President. The Democrats have to argue about it and reconsider the idea three or four times.

The really great thing about a two party system is there really is a difference between the parites (though there are plenty of people who say otherwise). By making the electorate conform to those two parties there is a better chance of a majority opinion making it into the debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Lies: Political or Pathological?
From: DougR
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 02:03 PM

Bobert, 'ole buddy, if Bush was guilty of all those things you cite, don't you think the Washington Post and the New York Times, and particularly The Guardian, would be on the story like flies on you-know-what?

Actually, this may be your opportunity to gain your fifteen minutes of fame! Write letters to the editors of all three of those newpapers making those same charges. Then watch for the headlines the next day! They might even give you a by-line! :>)

DougR

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Lies: Political or Pathological?
From: EBarnacle1
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 02:08 PM

If we Democrats were as viscous as Republicans, would we be as thick as thieves?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Lies: Political or Pathological?
From: GUEST,Cretinous Yahoo
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 02:44 PM

Lies? you want to talk lies?
Nixon. Just before the California election for Senate. He held up a list of 150 times his democrat opponent incumbent had voted for bills favorable to communists. There was no way she could respond in time, and, given the paranoia at the time, the electorate believed him. What was on the list? Not a goddamn thing!
His lie worked so well , Joe McCarty used it a few years later to smear anyone he didn't like.
I wont even mention all the dirty tricks he and his henchmen pulled on the opposition; Senator Muskie.
Ronald the actor Reagan. He lied through his teeth about Iran-Contre, and Arms for hostages. On tv he admitted it. He gets an airport named after him, Clinton, trying to protect his lover (and himself) gets a blowjob, lies about it and the conservatives want to crucify him. Talk about having your head up your ass!
George W. Bush is not bright enough to know the difference between a lie and a dream. He is not only a moron, he is a dangerous moron. Don't think so? Get your ass out of the country and talk to Europeans instead of the loud mouth brain dead republican next door.
Guest, I, and, most other catters will match our IQ with yours any day.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Lies: Political or Pathological?
From: kendall
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 03:10 PM

You forgot George the first..."Read my lips, no new taxes."

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Lies: Political or Pathological?
From: Nerd
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 03:14 PM

Well, I'm fairly liberal and I'm also pretty smart. As was my dad, the doctor and University president and my brother the brain surgeon. (I am a black sheep folklorist myself). I also know some very smart people who are conservative (but Bush is not one of them).

i agree with Naemanson. People point out that Clinton lied. Fair enough, but he lied about his sex life. Reagan and Bush I obviously lied about Iran/Contra, and Bush II is obviously lying about a lot of issues right now. But both the opposition and the media were far more unforgiving of Clinton than of the others.

The idea that "the media" is liberal is a huge myth right now; media outlets are controlled by huge corporations which benefit from keeping the status quo. In the meantime, the dems are too meek to get out there and do what the GOP bulldogs would do to them if the roles were reversed. It's a sad time for the left...

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Lies: Political or Pathological?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 03:26 PM

The Limerick Lady

                                                Shirley J. Bailey

                                             As the world continues to dally
                                              And our leaders try to rally
                                                   Support to fight
                                                   Terror and fright
                                             Big blasts took place in Bali !!!

                                             Say some at the Capitol Dome
                                              "Al Qaeda's allowed to roam"
                                                 It'd be easy to rout
                                                 And take 'em out
                                             If only they had ONE home !!!

                                                 As CNN projected
                                              "The Butcher" was reelected
                                                 When Saddam spoke
                                                 Vote "yes" or croak
                                             Of course, no one defected !!!

                                              As sure as the sun will rise
                                             If you look, it'll blind your eyes
                                                 The dems are starin'
                                                   Some are glarin'
                                          They dread an "October surprise" !!!

                                              The Senate is acting queer
                                             It seems they want to smear
                                                 Bush and his gang
                                                 Well, I'll be goldang
                                           You'd think it's election year !!!

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Lies: Political or Pathological?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 03:31 PM

Dear Cretinous Yahoo, I would not presume to match my intelect with someone with a Guest nickname like yours. You clearly need to get a life if you take this Mudshite seriously. Those among you who are just slandering Conservatives, carry on, its really amusing to read.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Lies: Political or Pathological?
From: Amos
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 03:41 PM

There is no reason to slander Conservatives as such,

It's just the stupidity that deserves slandering. Problem is, the sets intersect frequently.

in GWB's case his falsification is part of his personality -- in other words close enough to pathological to make no difference.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Lies: Political or Pathological?
From: Kim C
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 03:47 PM

I am curious to know, why is everyone so certain he's the liar? How are you so sure it isn't the other side?

Just wondering.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Lies: Political or Pathological?
From: NicoleC
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 04:50 PM

Who said I didn't think they were both lying? ;)

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Lies: Political or Pathological?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 04:57 PM

Right. Criticizing one side in an issue does not necessarily indicate admiration or approval for the other.

- LH

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Lies: Political or Pathological?
From: Amos
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 05:45 PM

You mean Saddam (Boy Scout For Allah) Hussein?

He's the fattest-mouth liar since   "Big Lie" Schickelgruber. He is psycho, IMHO. But he's not pretending to represent the spirit of America.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Lies: Political or Pathological?
From: kendall
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 07:38 PM

Cretinous Yahoo obviously has no sense of humor.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Lies: Political or Pathological?
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 07:56 PM

Sez "Guest":

    I would not presume to match my intelect with someone
    with a Guest nickname like yours.

And a good thing too, it seems.

I'd note that your (apparent) first post was a stunning
indictment of liberal values and causes. I imagine you
have considerable forensic success with this approach
to argumentation.

Cheers,

                              -- Arne Langsetmo

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Lies: Political or Pathological?
From: Don Firth
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 07:59 PM

Legal point. It ain't slander (or libel) if it's true.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Lies: Political or Pathological?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 08:31 PM

Arne, What jerked your chain and made you bark? US politics is a farce anyway. I am amused by the ranting and raving on here, but it becomes tiring when you realize nobody is actually doing anything worthwhile in such discussions. I have heard such sanctimonious, anti guest, anti conservative bullshit, by named members on this site, than I care to be bothered with. But I do so enjoy stirring the pot occasionally....Smile... and lighten the fuck up will ya? Gawd sakes...anyone would think these people are serious about politics.

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Lies: Political or Pathological?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 08:45 PM

Wow! Another flaming guest, with a 'Holier than thou' attitude, and a penchant for kicking up the dust! I'm sorry, Oh great one... ttr

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Lies: Political or Pathological?
From: GUEST,Arne Langsetmo
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 09:00 PM

Dear "Guest":

I'm beginning to wonder whose chain is being yanked here.

As for "doing anything worthwhile in discussions", you're
certainly not setting much of an example here.

And just a little FYI, yes, some catters do indeed care
about politics. Strange as the notion might be to you,
there's a wealthy history of political overtones and
even outright activism in folk music, nay, perhaps even
more than you find in other kinds of music. If you
doubt this, just one word: "Guthrie". And there's
a whole slew of names beyond that of equal stature.
Strangely, the list of conservative voices in the
genre is close to nil; perhaps you might offer an
explanation for that ... or better yet, go out and
try to remedy that if you can.

If it gets "tiring", you know where the door is. Don't
get bored on our account.

But if you have anything "worthwhile" to add, out with it.

Cheers,

                           -- Arne Langsetmo

P.S.: If you're really bored, you might more productively
spend some time boning up on your grammar as well. . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Lies: Political or Pathological?
From: GUEST,Guest who?
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 09:10 PM

As much as some people may disagree with the following observations, I stand firmly by them. By way of introduction, let me just say that any rational argument must acknowledge this. GUEST's subhuman obiter dicta, naturally, do not. If his vicegerents had even an ounce of integrity, they would beat GUEST at his own game. Even though he presents a public face that avoids overt priggism, his closed-minded orations call evil good and good evil. News of this deviousness must spread like wildfire if we are ever to foster mutual understanding.

I claim I am not alone when I say that if GUEST is going to make an emotional appeal, then he should also include a rational argument. He has been willing to sup with the devil every time he felt he could profit personally from it. In that context, one could say that the hour is late indeed. Fortunately, it's not yet too late to focus on concrete facts, on hard news, on analyzing and interpreting what's happening in the world.

Someone once said to me, "GUEST can be so uncivilized, it would take your breath away." This phrase struck me so forcefully that I have often used it since. He accuses me of being hate-filled, yet it is he who is filled with hate. And he accuses me of being bigoted, while his expositions show nothing but bigotry. Why does GUEST make those sorts of accusations, then? Here's the answer, albeit in a somewhat circuitous and roundabout style: Only the impartial and unimpassioned mind will even consider that when GUEST tells us that "the norm" shouldn't have to worry about how the exceptions feel, he somehow fails to mention that I am offended by the way he talks down to me. He fails to mention that authority without wisdom is mere noise against the music of eternity. And he fails to mention that I recently heard him tell a bunch of people that cultural tradition has never contributed a single thing to the advancement of knowledge or understanding. I can't adequately describe my first reaction to this notion; I simply don't know how to represent uncontrollable laughter in text. Armed only with a white shirt, pocket protector, slide rule, thick glasses, and some other neat stuff, I have determined that those of us who are too lazy or disinterested to carry out the famous French admonition, écrasez l'infâme!, against GUEST's actions have no right to complain when he and his proxies separate people from their roots and cut their bonds to their natural communities. Comments on the above are welcome, but please think them out first.

Guest who?

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Lies: Political or Pathological?
From: GUEST
Date: 25 Oct 02 - 09:26 PM

*SMILE*

Subject: RE: BS: Bush's Lies: Political or Pathological?
From: Thomas the Rhymer
Date: 26 Oct 02 - 02:08 AM