mistake - An error or fault resulting from defective judgment, deficient knowledge, or carelessness.The only way you can allow yourself make an intentional mistake is to intentionally withhold information from yourself and then perform an action that results in an error from your deficient knowledge. Even then you can't be completely sure that you will make the mistake before it happens because there is a chance you will be able to perform the action without error.I suppose an example of an intentional mistake is getting into a car and attempting to drive somewhere without knowing how to get there - you'd most likely go down the wrong roads and get lost (make an error) based on your deficient knowledge - the definition of a mistake, and you did it intentionally.
"Should read: This just in: Hell froze over (during July of 2004.)"Yes, but hell just froze over recently. It's a fairly bureaucratic place. Lots of lawyers.
Perhaps the funniest interview ever! Two extremists who can't give a straight answer or even back it up for that matter. The problem with both is that they would never agree to compromise, but if they could, you have a near perfect government!
news is spun the second it's reported - it's laughable, yes?speaking of laughable...www.calamitynews.comwe spin the news to freakishly great bulls**tiest calamitist highest, and make up our own words...www.calamitynews.com
Google Liar and see who comes up.B-LIAR told us we had 45 minutes to stop Saddam using his WMD. Now he asks us to believe him on the "Terror Plot". We can't take anything he says at face value now.
I think BOTH of those guys are enormous (fill-in-the-blank bad word here), but, and this is surprising, Moore came off worse. His entire point was that A) Bush was wrong on WMD so B) He lied.Sorry, that is NOT what a lie is. It is ONLY a lie if you know something to be false and present it as true.C'mon, according to Moores definition, if you ask me what day it is, and I get it wrong, am I lying? By that definition, any wrong answer on any high school test is a lie.If George honestly thought it was true, then it is not a lie and he is not, be definition, a liar. He can be and probably is stupid, lazy, ill-informed, and supremely bad at soliciting opinions and viewpoints as part of his decision making process, but he is most certainly not a liar (note. he migh be a liar. I am merely pointing out that the fact that he was wrong is not sufficient evidence)From Dictionary.comlie n. 1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood. 2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
no, it's because it is supremely easy to edit content to twist and manipulate words to horribly distort the truth (a fact Moore knows as well as anyone). I can't blame Moore for it at all, and if Bill went on a 'liberal' talk show, I would fully expect him to make the same request.
Here's the thing: Bush said he /knew/. He listed off quantities of WMDs with the implication and tone that he /knew/ were there, and said they were going in to stop Saddam from using them.They were never found. There is no conclusive evidence he ever had them. That's a lie.
@ BenSerwaPlease don't think I'm defending Bush. I just happen to think that there's enough 'real' stuff that he's done to criticize for without using the "he lied" angle, which, IMHO, is intellectually dishonest. I think Bush has screwed up just about everything and he's set new records in incompetence. However I do not believe he'lied' us in to war. Mainly b/c of the words of what so many others have said for so long (provided at the bottom of this post is just a quick sample - there's hudreds more though). In order for Bush to have lied about the WMD, he would to have known they *weren't* there - that Saddam *didn't* have any WMD available. So he sits around and says to his advisors "We need to start a war for oil. WE need a reason. I'm going to tell the American people he has WMD's so they'll support our war. Now, we all know Saddam doesn't have any WMD. We're going to catch a lot of flack over the invasion, and hell, after we get in there and can't find any, everyone that accused us of going in there just for oil, well, they'll have a field day. ANd since I'm lying, if anyone of the zillion lawyers and govt employees out there cares to prove that I'm lying, I'll be impeached and will certainly lose the re-election but it's worth the risk b/c we can get rich off this" Do you really imagine something this stupid went down? If he knew they weren't there, then he'd have certainly known that the invasoin would well be his downfall. He'd have to know the critics of the war would use the absence of WMD as proof of his bad intentions. I could go on and on but hopefully you get the point - that Bush was wrong on WMD and so were most of the intel agencies in teh world. He's lied about Immigration. He's lied about our committment to security. He's lied about a lot of other things - so I just think we ought to use any of the millions of 'real' examples instead of the "he lied people died" Angle--------------------------------------------------------------Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso, October 2003: “When [former President Bill] Clinton was here recently he told me was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime.”French President Jacques Chirac, February 2003: “There is a problem—the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq. The international community is right...in having decided Iraq should be disarmed.” President Bill Clinton, December 1998: “Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.…I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again….” Clinton, July 2003: “…[I]t is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in ’98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn’t know it because we never got to go back there.”
deadbambiAug 13, 2006
this show is like 2 years old and the interview was done as the election of 2004 was happening - old friggin news
Closed AccountAug 13, 2006
mistake - An error or fault resulting from defective judgment, deficient knowledge, or carelessness.The only way you can allow yourself make an intentional mistake is to intentionally withhold information from yourself and then perform an action that results in an error from your deficient knowledge. Even then you can't be completely sure that you will make the mistake before it happens because there is a chance you will be able to perform the action without error.I suppose an example of an intentional mistake is getting into a car and attempting to drive somewhere without knowing how to get there - you'd most likely go down the wrong roads and get lost (make an error) based on your deficient knowledge - the definition of a mistake, and you did it intentionally.
theone3Aug 13, 2006Submitter
"Should read: This just in: Hell froze over (during July of 2004.)"Yes, but hell just froze over recently. It's a fairly bureaucratic place. Lots of lawyers.
ehurstmvpAug 13, 2006
"As celebrities its our job to read the newspapers, and then say what we've read as if its our own idea"
cabossAug 13, 2006
Perhaps the funniest interview ever! Two extremists who can't give a straight answer or even back it up for that matter. The problem with both is that they would never agree to compromise, but if they could, you have a near perfect government!
macliberalAug 13, 2006
It wasn't fair, Moore is an intellectual, Billy is a right wing shill, nuff said.
diggnerdAug 13, 2006
news is spun the second it's reported - it's laughable, yes?speaking of laughable...www.calamitynews.comwe spin the news to freakishly great bulls**tiest calamitist highest, and make up our own words...www.calamitynews.com
nocountriesAug 14, 2006
Google Liar and see who comes up.B-LIAR told us we had 45 minutes to stop Saddam using his WMD. Now he asks us to believe him on the "Terror Plot". We can't take anything he says at face value now.
sensoukamiAug 17, 2006
I think BOTH of those guys are enormous (fill-in-the-blank bad word here), but, and this is surprising, Moore came off worse. His entire point was that A) Bush was wrong on WMD so B) He lied.Sorry, that is NOT what a lie is. It is ONLY a lie if you know something to be false and present it as true.C'mon, according to Moores definition, if you ask me what day it is, and I get it wrong, am I lying? By that definition, any wrong answer on any high school test is a lie.If George honestly thought it was true, then it is not a lie and he is not, be definition, a liar. He can be and probably is stupid, lazy, ill-informed, and supremely bad at soliciting opinions and viewpoints as part of his decision making process, but he is most certainly not a liar (note. he migh be a liar. I am merely pointing out that the fact that he was wrong is not sufficient evidence)From Dictionary.comlie n. 1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood. 2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression.
sensoukamiAug 17, 2006
no, it's because it is supremely easy to edit content to twist and manipulate words to horribly distort the truth (a fact Moore knows as well as anyone). I can't blame Moore for it at all, and if Bill went on a 'liberal' talk show, I would fully expect him to make the same request.
benserwaAug 19, 2006
Here's the thing: Bush said he /knew/. He listed off quantities of WMDs with the implication and tone that he /knew/ were there, and said they were going in to stop Saddam from using them.They were never found. There is no conclusive evidence he ever had them. That's a lie.
technuttAug 20, 2006
@ BenSerwaPlease don't think I'm defending Bush. I just happen to think that there's enough 'real' stuff that he's done to criticize for without using the "he lied" angle, which, IMHO, is intellectually dishonest. I think Bush has screwed up just about everything and he's set new records in incompetence. However I do not believe he'lied' us in to war. Mainly b/c of the words of what so many others have said for so long (provided at the bottom of this post is just a quick sample - there's hudreds more though). In order for Bush to have lied about the WMD, he would to have known they *weren't* there - that Saddam *didn't* have any WMD available. So he sits around and says to his advisors "We need to start a war for oil. WE need a reason. I'm going to tell the American people he has WMD's so they'll support our war. Now, we all know Saddam doesn't have any WMD. We're going to catch a lot of flack over the invasion, and hell, after we get in there and can't find any, everyone that accused us of going in there just for oil, well, they'll have a field day. ANd since I'm lying, if anyone of the zillion lawyers and govt employees out there cares to prove that I'm lying, I'll be impeached and will certainly lose the re-election but it's worth the risk b/c we can get rich off this" Do you really imagine something this stupid went down? If he knew they weren't there, then he'd have certainly known that the invasoin would well be his downfall. He'd have to know the critics of the war would use the absence of WMD as proof of his bad intentions. I could go on and on but hopefully you get the point - that Bush was wrong on WMD and so were most of the intel agencies in teh world. He's lied about Immigration. He's lied about our committment to security. He's lied about a lot of other things - so I just think we ought to use any of the millions of 'real' examples instead of the "he lied people died" Angle--------------------------------------------------------------Portuguese Prime Minister Jose Manuel Durao Barroso, October 2003: “When [former President Bill] Clinton was here recently he told me was absolutely convinced, given his years in the White House and the access to privileged information which he had, that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction until the end of the Saddam regime.”French President Jacques Chirac, February 2003: “There is a problem—the probable possession of weapons of mass destruction by an uncontrollable country, Iraq. The international community is right...in having decided Iraq should be disarmed.” President Bill Clinton, December 1998: “Other countries possess weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. With Saddam, there is one big difference: He has used them. Not once, but repeatedly. Unleashing chemical weapons against Iranian troops during a decade-long war. Not only against soldiers, but against civilians, firing Scud missiles at the citizens of Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and Iran. And not only against a foreign enemy, but even against his own people, gassing Kurdish civilians in Northern Iraq.…I have no doubt today, that left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again….” Clinton, July 2003: “…[I]t is incontestable that on the day I left office, there were unaccounted for stocks of biological and chemical weapons. We might have destroyed them in ’98. We tried to, but we sure as heck didn’t know it because we never got to go back there.”