|
dandarez
4,478 posts
152 months
|
voyds9 said: dandarez said: So, in this case, to many he looks a liar, he's thinks he's 'B'liar except Bliar is/was far, far more astute than CMD can ever be! I would rather have a liar we can catch out than one we haven't been able to nail. Which would you prefer? Neither.
|
|
|
singlecoil
14,945 posts
115 months
|
dandarez said: So, in this case, to many he looks a liar, he's thinks he's 'B'liar except Bliar is/was far, far more astute than CMD can ever be! Not to me he doesn't. The idea that he would choose to deliberately lie about something like that is ridiculous.
|
|
|
Adrian W
Original Poster
8,128 posts
97 months
|
dandarez said: As said by the poster, CMD really 'argued with conviction' the 21.
In truth you don't argue with conviction if 'supplied' with information.
'IF' he had said 'the information I have been given is 21 playing fields', he's off the hook.
But no.
So, in this case, to many he looks a liar, he's thinks he's 'B'liar except Bliar is/was far, far more astute than CMD can ever be! This was my point, he argued so strongly and even stated that it was absolute fact, you can't do that and when proved wrong go oops my information was wrong, it brings into doubt anything else he says.
|
|
|
Adrian W
Original Poster
8,128 posts
97 months
|
singlecoil said: Not to me he doesn't. The idea that he would choose to deliberately lie about something like that is ridiculous. Why does it matter if it was deliberate or not, it doesn't even matter where it started, it was still a lie.
|
|
|
singlecoil
14,945 posts
115 months
|
Adrian W said: singlecoil said: Not to me he doesn't. The idea that he would choose to deliberately lie about something like that is ridiculous. Why does it matter if it was deliberate or not, it doesn't even matter where it started, it was still a lie. Well if you don't know that, then I don't know how to explain it to you. But even if I did, I get the feeling it wouldn't make any difference to you.
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
loafer123
2,699 posts
84 months
|
Adrian W said: dandarez said: As said by the poster, CMD really 'argued with conviction' the 21.
In truth you don't argue with conviction if 'supplied' with information.
'IF' he had said 'the information I have been given is 21 playing fields', he's off the hook.
But no.
So, in this case, to many he looks a liar, he's thinks he's 'B'liar except Bliar is/was far, far more astute than CMD can ever be! This was my point, he argued so strongly and even stated that it was absolute fact, you can't do that and when proved wrong go oops my information was wrong, it brings into doubt anything else he says. Hopefully the civil servant that collated the incorrect information will be summarily dismissed. Presumably, given your vitriol and outrage, that would help?
|
|
|
andymadmak
6,231 posts
139 months
|
Adrian W said: singlecoil said: Not to me he doesn't. The idea that he would choose to deliberately lie about something like that is ridiculous. Why does it matter if it was deliberate or not, it doesn't even matter where it started, it was still a lie. A lie is surely when you say something that you know to be untrue Saying something that you honestly believed was true, but is found later to be incorrect is not a lie. It's a mistake
|
|
|
singlecoil
14,945 posts
115 months
|
andymadmak said: Adrian W said: singlecoil said: Not to me he doesn't. The idea that he would choose to deliberately lie about something like that is ridiculous. Why does it matter if it was deliberate or not, it doesn't even matter where it started, it was still a lie. A lie is surely when you say something that you know to be untrue Saying something that you honestly believed was true, but is found later to be incorrect is not a lie. It's a mistake  perhaps I should have had a go anyway, but since you have it will be interesting to see what the reaction is.
|
|
|
Mr Snap
891 posts
26 months
|
The Labour Party is, quite rightly, questioning The Dept of Education, not Cameron, as to how the wrong figures were given out. Cameron can't be blamed for imperfect information but it does make him look a bit of a cock and it tends to reflect badly on him that he doesn't get the right information when he needs it. Part of his job description is making sure that his civil servants are up to snuff. More worrying are Gove's interventions in the sell offs as disclosed by The Telegraph (definitely not The Guardian) - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/9481937/Kee...
|
|
|
don4l
3,315 posts
45 months
|
Adrian W said: singlecoil said: Not to me he doesn't. The idea that he would choose to deliberately lie about something like that is ridiculous. Why does it matter if it was deliberate or not, it doesn't even matter where it started, it was still a lie. The Chambers Dictionary said: lie n a false statement made with the intention of deceiving; My bold above. If the intention to deceive is not present, then it is clearly not a lie. You know that he was given the information by officials. Now that you know what a lie is, you should retract your stupid assertion. Don --
|
|
|
Adrian W
Original Poster
8,128 posts
97 months
|
don4l said: My bold above.
If the intention to deceive is not present, then it is clearly not a lie.
You know that he was given the information by officials.
Now that you know what a lie is, you should retract your stupid assertion.
Don
-- It's amazing how right wing PH is, when the expenses scandal was at its hight people were calling the MPs all sort of names, yet they kept saying it wasn't there intention to deceive or lie, they were doing as they had been advised, Obviously there were exceptions to this, some really were liking thriving gits.
|
|
|
Adrian W
Original Poster
8,128 posts
97 months
|
don4l said: My bold above.
If the intention to deceive is not present, then it is clearly not a lie.
You know that he was given the information by officials.
Now that you know what a lie is, you should retract your stupid assertion.
Don
-- It's amazing how right wing PH is, when the expenses scandal was at its hight people were calling the MPs all sort of names, yet they kept saying it wasn't there intention to deceive or lie, they were doing as they had been advised, Obviously there were exceptions to this, some really were lying thriving gits.
|
|
|
Caulkhead
4,938 posts
26 months
|
Adrian W said: don4l said: My bold above.
If the intention to deceive is not present, then it is clearly not a lie.
You know that he was given the information by officials.
Now that you know what a lie is, you should retract your stupid assertion.
Don
-- It's amazing how right wing PH is, when the expenses scandal was at its hight people were calling the MPs all sort of names, yet they kept saying it wasn't there intention to deceive or lie, they were doing as they had been advised, Obviously there were exceptions to this, some really were lying thriving gits. If PH was as right wing as you say, they wouldn't be defending Cameron as he's at best, a little damp. The fact is in your haste to launch a tirade against someone you obviously hate, you got your facts wrong.
|
|
|
turbobloke
55,495 posts
129 months
|
Caulkhead said: Adrian W said: don4l said: My bold above.
If the intention to deceive is not present, then it is clearly not a lie.
You know that he was given the information by officials.
Now that you know what a lie is, you should retract your stupid assertion.
Don
-- It's amazing how right wing PH is, when the expenses scandal was at its hight people were calling the MPs all sort of names, yet they kept saying it wasn't there intention to deceive or lie, they were doing as they had been advised, Obviously there were exceptions to this, some really were lying thriving gits. If PH was as right wing as you say, they wouldn't be defending Cameron as he's at best, a little damp. The fact is in your haste to launch a tirade against someone you obviously hate, you got your facts wrong. According to all those internet quiz websites that tell you such things, I'm a centre-right libertarian, and as it's from the internet it must be true. As such I find it difficult to defend CMD at the best of times, regardless of any wingliness. In this case, as with similar cases in the past, it looks like he was fed duff data by minions, and what's more likely than CMD lying deliberately is the minions deliberately feeding through duff data as happened with Gove on BSF. More likely but obviously not certainly.
|
|
|
singlecoil
14,945 posts
115 months
|
Adrian W said: don4l said: My bold above.
If the intention to deceive is not present, then it is clearly not a lie.
You know that he was given the information by officials.
Now that you know what a lie is, you should retract your stupid assertion.
Don
-- It's amazing how right wing PH is, when the expenses scandal was at its hight people were calling the MPs all sort of names, yet they kept saying it wasn't there intention to deceive or lie, they were doing as they had been advised, Obviously there were exceptions to this, some really were liking thriving gits. And it's amazing how, even though your error has been pointed out, you are sidestepping the issue as adroitly as any politician, and are trying to move the discussion away from your own f  kup into an area you are more comfortable with. As a reminder, saying something that you believe to be true is NOT lying whether it is true or not.
|
|
|
don4l
3,315 posts
45 months
|
Adrian W said: It's amazing how right wing PH is, when the expenses scandal was at its hight people were calling the MPs all sort of names, yet they kept saying it wasn't there intention to deceive or lie, they were doing as they had been advised,
Obviously there were exceptions to this, some really were liking thriving gits.
I have an intense dislike for Cameron. I didn't vote for his party at the last election. However, I can critisise him without resorting to lies - which you seem unable to do. Whether it was 21 fields, or 30 isn't that important - and certainly not something that Cameron would lie about. Don --
|
|
|
fbrs
7,644 posts
132 months
|
Adrian W said: It's amazing how right wing PH is, when the expenses scandal was at its hight people were calling the MPs all sort of names, yet they kept saying it wasn't there intention to deceive or lie, they were doing as they had been advised,
Obviously there were exceptions to this, some really were lying thriving gits. wtf has critisising mps from all sides got to do with being 'right wing'? your posts are nonsense
|
|
|
DJRC
19,847 posts
105 months
|
Adrian W said: don4l said: My bold above.
If the intention to deceive is not present, then it is clearly not a lie.
You know that he was given the information by officials.
Now that you know what a lie is, you should retract your stupid assertion.
Don
-- It's amazing how right wing PH is, when the expenses scandal was at its hight people were calling the MPs all sort of names, yet they kept saying it wasn't there intention to deceive or lie, they were doing as they had been advised, Obviously there were exceptions to this, some really were lying thriving gits. Or you could listen to those of us who are sane and point out that all politicians are lying incompetent gits who should be ignored as much as possible.
|
|
|
Odie
3,675 posts
51 months
|
Id just assumed it was different criteria to counting them.
|
|
|
davepoth
19,963 posts
68 months
|
vixen1700 said: Why is that pope wearing a cowboy hat?  My guess is he's going on a hen night.
|
|
