HOME | POLITICS | SPORTS | LIFE | SCI/TECH | OPEDS | HELPFUL TIPS
|
By Tom Pain
Oct. 23, 2006 I don’t recall a time in my adult life when it was more popular to accuse someone of lying. Admittedly, the recent upsurge is almost totally because of Democrats, liberals, and others dissatisfied with the Bush administration and/or the Iraq war, but still the volume of the accusations of perjury is simply fantastic compared to other eras in our history. Could it be that the increase is because there has been a corresponding upsurge in lying? I’m sure the accusers will say so, but I don’t think that is the case. I think it is nothing more than a political tactic intended to quiet opposition. It reminds me of a Richard Pryor sketch in which he describes having a man-to-man disagreement with someone and having that person call him a "nigger." He describes how it was intended to shut him up. His opponent had just dehumanized him, it was no longer a "man-to-man" argument, it had become a "man-to-nigger" argument, and the black man was at a disadvantage. Bush’s opponents use the same corrupt tactic and giggle behind the public’s back when they see it working among the Great Unwashed whom they despise as nothing but votes to be bought, then discarded. The difference between saying "I think Bush lied," and saying "Bush lied" is HUGE, yet these propagandists interchange the phrases like they were synonyms. There is no proof required or expected when saying, "I think Bush lied." The words explain that it is but your opinion and that you do not expect the listener to accept it without reservation. If one said "Bush lied," on the other hand, that is a statement of fact that one should be able to confirm with undeniable proof. But, does saying "Bush lied" without that undeniable proof at hand, in fact, make the one saying it a liar? Absolutely not, because of the same technicality that those who accuse Bush of lying lack. When is one lying; when is one a liar? Is stating an untruth lying? No. The definition of lying includes a component of intent. The person stating the untruth has to know it is untrue at the time they say it. I have yet to hear any Bush-hater offer any proof that Bush knew any thing he said was untrue at the time he said it. Yes, I have heard conjecture arising from a case built upon circumstantial evidence that could lead one to "believe" he knew – but it falls way short of proof and anyone with any intellectual honesty would admit that. But, is that all it takes to prove someone a liar – that they knew it was untrue at the time the stated it? Technically no – in the context of accusing a PERSON of such a despicable deed, one should also prove that the speaker also INTENDED to deceive. If I were to say, "The Tennessee Titans are the best football team," I would not expect to be accused of lying. Yes, I would have known it was untrue when I said it, but I wasn’t intending to deceive anyone. It was just innocent hyperbole. Thus, when charging someone with perjury – the legal term for lying – it is required that it be proved that the speaker intended to deceive. Bush-haters are not doing any of this. They can’t prove he knew anything he’s said was untrue when he said it, and they can’t prove he had any intent to deceive. Yes, it is their "opinion" that he knew and it is their "opinion" that he intended to deceive, but they have no proof that would convict him of perjury in our legal system. However, let’s turn this around and examine the Bush-haters. As examples, I can use several U-K contributors with whom I had the above discussion. None has ever denied the truth of what I’ve said above – it would be patently absurd for them to, the definition of "liar" is printed in every dictionary and the perjury statutes are very precise in their descriptions. So, they know the components of proof required for them to legitimately say, "Bush lied." Again, we are not discussing their right to say, "I think Bush lied," and in truth, they rarely state their accusation that way. According to, it seems, the Bush-haters Official Talking Points, it is required that these people use the statement of fact, "Bush lied." Anyway, they make the statement of fact and I ask for the required proof. This has happened at least a dozen times and none has yet provided that proof. They provide the conjecture and always ignore my request for the additional evidence missing at that point when their opinion commences and facts fall away. Thus, it is accurate to say that these Bush-haters know at the time they are making the statement of fact that it is, in fact, not a fact – it is merely opinion. Yet, they continue to say it anyway. But here’s the kicker: they also pass the final test for being a liar. They are absolutely intending to deceive the readers on this site with their untruth. They really want others to think that Bush lied. Thus, these Bush-haters are liars. Without question, certified, Grade A Liars. And there are many more. Almost the entire Democratic Party are liars by this proof, assuming most have heard or understand the definition of lying and perjury. If not liars, they are idiots because the concept is fairly basic – I’m sure most of you knew what I’ve stated without reading this. What do I get from these liars when I reveal their lies? They accuse me of being a Bush apologist. In other words, they again resort to the "nigger" tactic to shut me up. NOTHING I HAVE SAID IN THIS ARTICLE OFFERS ANY OPINION FROM ME AS TO WHETHER BUSH LIED OR DID NOT LIE. I do not know the answer to that question, just as they don’t. I have an opinion, but it is not relevant to this conversation and I don’t offer it. These liars could be lying about Bozo the Clown and I would ask these same questions, and I would come to the same conclusion. IT IS NOT MY FAULT THAT THEY HAVE CHOSEN TO LIE ABOUT BUSH. Readers on this site know I have exposed many liars and distorters, from all perspectives. Today I read another charge of lying bandied without evidence. The author declared that one of the two opinions as to the number of Iraqi deaths was a lie. That charge was so utterly baseless that the author should be ashamed. How can one know whether an unknown is true or not, such that you could be knowingly stating an untruth? No one knows how many Iraqis have died. Every estimate is a guess based on almost no facts – there are simply very few records of these deaths. It’s like one person saying God has blond hair and another saying it’s red. How can you accuse either of lying when there is no way to know whether God has blond hair, red hair, any hair, or even whether there is a God? It is just stupid Bush-haters spewing propaganda and I hate propagandists no matter which party or viewpoint they represent. If our readers would start calling these liars out, maybe this could end. For it is each of you that these liars seek to manipulate. Stand up for your right to not be lied to. If the liars understood that by lying their argument is actually perceived as suspect and weak, maybe they would stop. As it is, they obviously believe your intelligence is suspect and weak, and that you will fall for their lies. To the Liars I say, all you have to do to instantly gain tremendous credibility and integrity is add these three tiny little words to your propaganda: "In my opinion." Try it. I think you’ll actually even feel better about yourself. Life in the gutter as a sniveling liar can’t be fun. ------------ About the author Tom Pain: Just an American boy with so much common sense, it hurts. Email: thomas.pain@hughes.net Comment on this article here! ------------ All articles are EXCLUSIVE to Useless-Knowledge.com. Please link to this article rather than copying and pasting it onto your site (which would be unauthorized and illegal). |
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
