Liars (1 Viewer)

calamity · Aug 10, 2014

Over the years, I've run across a lot of liars. I've seen enough of them to begin distinguishing one liar from another. Not all liars are bad people, and most liars have more differences between them than they share similarities.

The worst liars, IMO, are those who lie with malice aforethought. These are the liars who tell you they need to borrow your computer for a minute to email their sick child when, in fact, they are using your computer to perform an illegal transaction. He's the guy who says he needs to borrow $200 to pay rent but really wants it to go on a hot date with a woman half his age, whom he is also lying to by pretending he's a computer scientist or independently wealthy. These people are irredeemable, in my view.

Another liar is the drug addict. They lie like the people above, but more so to feed their addiction. These people are redeemable, especially once they get off drugs and/or alcohol.

A third liar is the "tell you what you want to hear guy." His lies are less calculating than simple reaction to avoid conflict or promote goodwill. These people tell you your bike will be ready tomorrow when, in fact, your bike won't be ready for another week. It's not that they are over-optimistic. It's just their pathology to tell you what you want hear.

There's the overly optimistic. Much like "tell you what you want to hear guy," they constantly push good news. The difference is, they actually believe their BS.

Another liar is the one who refuses to see reality. These are the people who still insist Iraq had WMD. Whether they believe it or not isn't even relevant. They simply deny any and all facts which interfere in their world view.

Lastly, or maybe not, there is the liar who is just wrong a lot. He's promise-guy who never comes through. These people cancel meetings at the last minute or are always running late for the lunch date. He's the friend whose word you just can't trust.

NoC_T · Aug 10, 2014

If not for lying, we'd be extinct.

AJiveMan · Aug 10, 2014

calamity said:
Over the years, I've run across a lot of liars. I've seen enough of them to begin distinguishing one liar from another. Not all liars are bad people, and most liars have more differences between them than they share similarities.

The worst liars, IMO, are those who lie with malice aforethought. These are the liars who tell you they need to borrow your computer for a minute to email their sick child when, in fact, they are using your computer to perform an illegal transaction. He's the guy who says he needs to borrow $200 to pay rent but really wants it to go on a hot date with a woman half his age, whom he is also lying to by pretending he's a computer scientist or independently wealthy. These people are irredeemable, in my view.

Another liar is the drug addict. They lie like the people above, but more so to feed their addiction. These people are redeemable, especially once they get off drugs and/or alcohol.

A third liar is the "tell you what you want to hear guy." His lies are less calculating than simple reaction to avoid conflict or promote goodwill. These people tell you your bike will be ready tomorrow when, in fact, your bike won't be ready for another week. It's not that they are over-optimistic. It's just their pathology to tell you what you want hear.

There's the overly optimistic. Much like "tell you what you want to hear guy," they constantly push good news. The difference is, they actually believe their BS.

Another liar is the one who refuses to see reality. These are the people who still insist Iraq had WMD. Whether they believe it or not isn't even relevant. They simply deny any and all facts which interfere in their world view.

Lastly, or maybe not, there is the liar who is just wrong a lot. He's promise-guy who never comes through. These people cancel meetings at the last minute or are always running late for the lunch date. He's the friend whose word you just can't trust.

You must really dislike car salespersons and sales people at Bestbuy? :lol:

calamity · Aug 10, 2014

NoC_T said:
If not for lying, we'd be extinct.

I read that somewhere. Agreed.
Phys.Org Mobile: Evolution of lying

grip · Aug 10, 2014

Curiously, I was just discussing this subject with someone. Pinning absolutes to Lying as always being evil, wrong or unproductive is probably inaccurate. Saying that lying usually leads to temporal positive effects, selfish gain or ultimately to self destructive behavior could be more correct.

Exaggerators or embellishing fables is one the least negative forms, along with "white" lies and omission of relevant information. Active deceit for gain at the expense of others, or self deception for pleasure are the more destructive forms.

Excon · Aug 10, 2014

calamity said:
Another liar is the one who refuses to see reality. These are the people who still insist Iraq had WMD. Whether they believe it or not isn't even relevant. They simply deny any and all facts which interfere in their world view.

Said the one who apparently is denying reality. :doh

Iraq did have WMD. Saddam even used them on his own people and the Kurds.

Location	Weapon Used	Date	Casualties
Haij Umran	Mustard	August 1983	fewer than 100 Iranian/Kurdish
Panjwin	Mustard	October–November 1983	3,001 Iranian/Kurdish
Majnoon Island	Mustard	February–March 1984	2,500 Iranians
al-Basrah	Tabun	March 1984	50-100 Iranians
Hawizah Marsh	Mustard & Tabun	March 1985	3,000 Iranians
al-Faw	Mustard & Tabun	February 1986	8,000 to 10,000 Iranians
Um ar-Rasas	Mustard	December 1986	1,000s Iranians
al-Basrah	Mustard & Tabun	April 1987	5,000 Iranians
Sumar/Mehran	Mustard & nerve agent	October 1987	3,000 Iranians
Halabjah	Mustard & nerve agent	March 1988	7,000s Kurdish/Iranian
al-Faw	Mustard & nerve agent	April 1988	1,000s Iranians
Fish Lake	Mustard & nerve agent	May 1988	100s or 1,000s Iranians
Majnoon Islands	Mustard & nerve agent	June 1988	100s or 1,000s Iranians
South-central border	Mustard & nerve agent	July 1988	100s or 1,000s Iranians
an-Najaf - Karbala area	Nerve agent & CS	March 1991	Unknown

(Source:[SUP][29][/SUP])

Lies
Iraq had no WMDs.
No WMDs were found.

Truth
Iraq had WMDs.
Previously possessed WMDs were unaccounted for.
WMDs were found. These WMDs were not what was expected and were deteriorated limiting their use. A cache of such was just reported being taken by ISIS.

Some biological "seed stocks" were found.

Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence.
Not finding what was expected, does not mean it hadn't existed.

One such claim that has failed to be debunked, is that of General Sada.

General Georges Sada, from his book titled - Saddam's Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied And Survived Saddam Hussein

"Well, I want to make it clear, very clear to everybody in the world that we had the weapon of mass destruction in Iraq, and the regime used them against our Iraqi people...I know it because I have got the captains of the Iraqi airway that were my friends, and they told me these weapons of mass destruction had been moved to Syria. Iraq had some projects for nuclear weapons but it was destroyed in 1981".

Georges Sada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You should be more careful in what you call lies and of your own wording.

code1211 · Aug 10, 2014

I worked with a guy who lied all the time.

We are in a position in which negotiations and promises are routine and fulfilling the promise is the bedrock of the occupation.

He was hysterical. He simply could not tell the truth. He would lie when the truth would have worked better.

Still, he was a very entertaining person to be around. As long as you didn't need to depend on him for ANYTHING.

calamity · Aug 10, 2014

Excon said:
Said the one who apparently is denying reality. :doh

Iraq did have WMD. Saddam even used them on his own people and the Kurds.

Location Weapon Used Date Casualties
Haij Umran Mustard August 1983 fewer than 100 Iranian/Kurdish
Panjwin Mustard October–November 1983 3,001 Iranian/Kurdish
Majnoon Island Mustard February–March 1984 2,500 Iranians
al-Basrah Tabun March 1984 50-100 Iranians
Hawizah Marsh Mustard & Tabun March 1985 3,000 Iranians
al-Faw Mustard & Tabun February 1986 8,000 to 10,000 Iranians
Um ar-Rasas Mustard December 1986 1,000s Iranians
al-Basrah Mustard & Tabun April 1987 5,000 Iranians
Sumar/Mehran Mustard & nerve agent October 1987 3,000 Iranians
Halabjah Mustard & nerve agent March 1988 7,000s Kurdish/Iranian
al-Faw Mustard & nerve agent April 1988 1,000s Iranians
Fish Lake Mustard & nerve agent May 1988 100s or 1,000s Iranians
Majnoon Islands Mustard & nerve agent June 1988 100s or 1,000s Iranians
South-central border Mustard & nerve agent July 1988 100s or 1,000s Iranians
an-Najaf -
Karbala area Nerve agent & CS March 1991 Unknown

(Source:[SUP][29][/SUP])

Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence.
Not finding what was expected, does not mean it hadn't existed.

One such claim that has failed to be debunked, is that of General Sada.

General Georges Sada, from his book titled - Saddam's Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied And Survived Saddam Hussein

You should be more careful in what you call lies and of your own wording.

We've hashed this out before. Those weren't WMD of any consequence, and they were not what we were looking for at the time. They were old cannisters of crap from the 80's. They certainly were not from any ongoing WMD program that Cheney insisted existed.

There were no huge stockpiles of WMD, only remnants of what everyone knew he still had left.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

But thanks for showing us another example of lying: intellectual dishonesty.

clownboy · Aug 10, 2014

The classics are almost always the best.

There are three types of liars. Liars, damn liars, and statistics.

calamity · Aug 10, 2014

code1211 said:
I worked with a guy who lied all the time.

We are in a position in which negotiations and promises are routine and fulfilling the promise is the bedrock of the occupation.

He was hysterical. He simply could not tell the truth. He would lie when the truth would have worked better.

Still, he was a very entertaining person to be around. As long as you didn't need to depend on him for ANYTHING.

I have a friend who paints a rosy picture of everything. He'll tell you a turd is a diamond.

One time, years back, he took me to his favorite bar. The whole way there he's telling me how great the place was and how hot the bartender is; that the place was packed with gorgeous blondes. We get there. The place is a dive; the bartender looked to be 55 and addicted to crack, while the "hot blondes" in the crowd are all over 40 and fat as apples.

Excon · Aug 10, 2014

calamity said:
We've hashed this out before. Those weren't WMD of any consequence,

Dishonesty.
Saying none was found is a lie. Saying, someone saying that Iraq had WMD is a lie, is itself a lie as he/Iraq did have them.

calamity said:
and they were not what we were looking for at the time.

Wrong. Just more dishonesty.
They were looking for "any" that he was not supposed to process.
Or do you really not understand that?

calamity said:
They were old cannisters of crap from the 80's. They certainly were not from any ongoing WMD program that Cheney insisted existed.

I already said they were deteriorated and of limited use. That is called being honest, unlike saying that none existed.

calamity said:
There were no huge stockpiles of WMD, only remnants of what everyone knew he still had left.

:doh I never said there were huge stockpiles.
And more dishonesty from you, as not all of what was found had been previously discovered.
And huge stockpiles is a matter of quantity, not of existence.

Secondly, I do not recall the Administration using the term "Huge" stockpiles.
Must be more dishonesty from you, eh?

calamity said:
But thanks for showing us another example of lying: intellectual dishonesty.

Lying and intellectual dishonesty is what you are engaged in.
Truth - WMD was found
Lie - WMD wasn't found.
Like I said, be more careful with the language you use.
You want to say that what was expected to be found wasn't, go ahead. That would be true and reality.
But saying none was found is blatantly false, a lie and a delusion, not reality.

AJiveMan · Aug 11, 2014

calamity said:
We've hashed this out before. Those weren't WMD of any consequence, and they were not what we were looking for at the time. They were old cannisters of crap from the 80's. They certainly were not from any ongoing WMD program that Cheney insisted existed.

There were no huge stockpiles of WMD, only remnants of what everyone knew he still had left.
Iraq and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But thanks for showing us another example of lying: intellectual dishonesty.

Saddam at the very least didn't have nuclear, which is what bush cronies told everyone (mushroom clouds) and he didn't have intercontinental ballistic capabilities either. He would have needed both those two things to make a real dent on American soil, and he didn't.

Saddam got his chemical weapons from the USA and other countries. I know cons don't believe this, so here's a story from a conservative rag;

Rumsfeld 'helped Iraq get chemical weapons' | Mail Online

Jerry · Aug 11, 2014

calamity said:
Over the years, I've run across a lot of liars. I've seen enough of them to begin distinguishing one liar from another. Not all liars are bad people, and most liars have more differences between them than they share similarities.

The worst liars, IMO, are those who lie with malice aforethought. These are the liars who tell you they need to borrow your computer for a minute to email their sick child when, in fact, they are using your computer to perform an illegal transaction. He's the guy who says he needs to borrow $200 to pay rent but really wants it to go on a hot date with a woman half his age, whom he is also lying to by pretending he's a computer scientist or independently wealthy. These people are irredeemable, in my view.

Another liar is the drug addict. They lie like the people above, but more so to feed their addiction. These people are redeemable, especially once they get off drugs and/or alcohol.

A third liar is the "tell you what you want to hear guy." His lies are less calculating than simple reaction to avoid conflict or promote goodwill. These people tell you your bike will be ready tomorrow when, in fact, your bike won't be ready for another week. It's not that they are over-optimistic. It's just their pathology to tell you what you want hear.

There's the overly optimistic. Much like "tell you what you want to hear guy," they constantly push good news. The difference is, they actually believe their BS.

Another liar is the one who refuses to see reality. These are the people who still insist Iraq had WMD. Whether they believe it or not isn't even relevant. They simply deny any and all facts which interfere in their world view.

Lastly, or maybe not, there is the liar who is just wrong a lot. He's promise-guy who never comes through. These people cancel meetings at the last minute or are always running late for the lunch date. He's the friend whose word you just can't trust.

You forgot one: the liar who's simply concealing private information and avoiding unwanted questions. That one's me, and I'm a very good liar.

By asking a question you are presuming you have a right to know the answer. Check your ego. If I see no reason for you to know, I'll likely lie and deflect. I don't even want you to know that I don't want you to know.

Ironically, I get in the most trouble when I tell the truth, which is just more incentive to lie.

HonestJoe · Aug 11, 2014

Coincidentally, I was just talking about this to my girlfriend as we were driving to our villa in the South of France in one of my Ferraris. She was saying how many liars there are in the underwear modelling industry.

calamity · Aug 11, 2014

Excon said:
Dishonesty.
Saying none was found is a lie. Saying, someone saying that Iraq had WMD is a lie, is itself a lie as he/Iraq did have them.

Wrong. Just more dishonesty.
They were looking for "any" that he was not supposed to process.
Or do you really not understand that?

I already said they were deteriorated and of limited use. That is called being honest, unlike saying that none existed.

:doh I never said there were huge stockpiles.
And more dishonesty from you, as not all of what was found had been previously discovered.
And huge stockpiles is a matter of quantity, not of existence.

Secondly, I do not recall the Administration using the term "Huge" stockpiles.
Must be more dishonesty from you, eh?

Lying and intellectual dishonesty is what you are engaged in.
Truth - WMD was found
Lie - WMD wasn't found.
Like I said, be more careful with the language you use.
You want to say that what was expected to be found wasn't, go ahead. That would be true and reality.
But saying none was found is blatantly false, a lie and a delusion, not reality.

Intellectual dishonesty--taking a sliver of truth and twisting it to support a greater lie. That's what you're doing here.

Even Bush admits that the intelligence was faulty: there were no stockpiles of WMD in Iraq. We did not find what we were looking for. You twisting that truth to some bs by saying that the few old canisters we found (something even the UN knew he had and was devising a plan on how to destroy) proved WMD was present is just another form of lying.

Thanks for the demonstration. I would not have thought of it.

calamity · Aug 11, 2014

AJiveMan said:
Saddam at the very least didn't have nuclear, which is what bush cronies told everyone (mushroom clouds) and he didn't have intercontinental ballistic capabilities either. He would have needed both those two things to make a real dent on American soil, and he didn't.

Saddam got his chemical weapons from the USA and other countries. I know cons don't believe this, so here's a story from a conservative rag;

Rumsfeld 'helped Iraq get chemical weapons' | Mail Online

He also did not have an extensive weapons program nor stockpiles of WMD which is what Bush-Cheney were selling. The fact that Bush himself apologized, or should I say regretted, following faulty intelligence says it all, IMO.

Bush later said that the biggest regret of his presidency was "the intelligence failure" in Iraq,[17] while the Senate Intelligence Committee found in 2008 that his administration "misrepresented the intelligence and the threat from Iraq".[18] A key CIA informant in Iraq admitted that he lied about his allegations, "then watched in shock as it was used to justify the war".
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iraq_and_weapons_of_mass_destruction

calamity · Aug 11, 2014

Jerry said:
You forgot one: the liar who's simply concealing private information and avoiding unwanted questions. That one's me, and I'm a very good liar.

By asking a question you are presuming you have a right to know the answer. Check your ego. If I see no reason for you to know, I'll likely lie and deflect. I don't even want you to know that I don't want you to know.

Ironically, I get in the most trouble when I tell the truth, which is just more incentive to lie.

I never considered shielding the truth as lying. Yes/no answers when more detail is expected by the inquisitor is not lying, IMO.

BTW: That gets me in trouble with the wife. She has said I remind her of a hostile witness facing the prosecution's questions in a murder trial.

Reformedfindlay · Aug 11, 2014

Excon said:
Said the one who apparently is denying reality. :doh

Iraq did have WMD. Saddam even used them on his own people and the Kurds.

Location Weapon Used Date Casualties
Haij Umran Mustard August 1983 fewer than 100 Iranian/Kurdish
Panjwin Mustard October–November 1983 3,001 Iranian/Kurdish
Majnoon Island Mustard February–March 1984 2,500 Iranians
al-Basrah Tabun March 1984 50-100 Iranians
Hawizah Marsh Mustard & Tabun March 1985 3,000 Iranians
al-Faw Mustard & Tabun February 1986 8,000 to 10,000 Iranians
Um ar-Rasas Mustard December 1986 1,000s Iranians
al-Basrah Mustard & Tabun April 1987 5,000 Iranians
Sumar/Mehran Mustard & nerve agent October 1987 3,000 Iranians
Halabjah Mustard & nerve agent March 1988 7,000s Kurdish/Iranian
al-Faw Mustard & nerve agent April 1988 1,000s Iranians
Fish Lake Mustard & nerve agent May 1988 100s or 1,000s Iranians
Majnoon Islands Mustard & nerve agent June 1988 100s or 1,000s Iranians
South-central border Mustard & nerve agent July 1988 100s or 1,000s Iranians
an-Najaf -
Karbala area Nerve agent & CS March 1991 Unknown

(Source:[SUP][29][/SUP])

Absence of evidence, is not evidence of absence.
Not finding what was expected, does not mean it hadn't existed.

One such claim that has failed to be debunked, is that of General Sada.

General Georges Sada, from his book titled - Saddam's Secrets: How an Iraqi General Defied And Survived Saddam Hussein

You should be more careful in what you call lies and of your own wording.

I'm not sure Mustard gas is a WMD.

Also, incomplete quote, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence unless evidence is to be expected (which it is in about 99% of all cases).

Weapon of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Grin of salt as always but there isn't any definitive answer for a WMD, I wouldn't call mustard gas or any of the agents listed a WMD.

:doh your reality isn't everyone else's reality :doh

ocean515 · Aug 11, 2014

calamity said:
Intellectual dishonesty--taking a sliver of truth and twisting it to support a greater lie. That's what you're doing here.

Even Bush admits that the intelligence was faulty: there were no stockpiles of WMD in Iraq. We did not find what we were looking for. You twisting that truth to some bs by saying that the few old canisters we found (something even the UN knew he had and was devising a plan on how to destroy) proved WMD was present is just another form of lying.

Thanks for the demonstration. I would not have thought of it.

Read through the actual documents filed with the UN, and then apply your truth test to your posts.

IAEA and Iraq - Global Special Weapons - Nuclear, Biological Chemical and Missile Proliferation News

humbolt · Aug 11, 2014

I never lie, and I only read good books. I also have a very small friend who lives in a hole in an apple tree.

bubbabgone · Aug 11, 2014

humbolt said:
I never lie, and I only read good books. I also have a very small friend who lives in a hole in an apple tree.

Maybe so ... but the main page says that thing about you getting humped by some guy.

Oh crap ... now it says I'm a Liar.

humbolt · Aug 11, 2014

bubbabgone said:
Maybe so ... but the main page says that thing about you getting humped by some guy.

Oh crap ... now it says I'm a Liar.

I saved my ass from destruction several times with strategic lies designed to implicate my older brother. I admit this, and hang my head. And laugh.

calamity · Aug 11, 2014

ocean515 said:
Read through the actual documents filed with the UN, and then apply your truth test to your posts.

IAEA and Iraq - Global Special Weapons - Nuclear, Biological Chemical and Missile Proliferation News

The United States and the UK asserted that Saddam Hussein still possessed large hidden stockpiles of WMD in 2003, and that he was clandestinely procuring and producing more. Inspections by the UN to resolve the status of unresolved disarmament questions restarted from November 2002 until March 2003,[3] under UN Security Council Resolution 1441, which demanded Saddam give "immediate, unconditional and active cooperation" with UN and IAEA inspections, shortly before his country was attacked.[4]

During the lead-up to war in March 2003, United Nations weapons inspector Hans Blix said that Iraq made significant progress toward resolving open issues of disarmament noting the "proactive" but not always "immediate" cooperation as called for by UN Security Council Resolution 1441. He concluded that it would take “but months” to resolve the key remaining disarmament tasks.[5] The United States asserted this was a breach of Resolution 1441 but failed to convince the UN Security Council to pass a new resolution authorizing the use of force due to lack of evidence.

Despite being unable to get a new resolution authorizing force and citing section 3 of the Joint Resolution passed by the U.S. Congress,[9] President George W. Bush asserted peaceful measures could not disarm Iraq of the weapons he alleged it to have and launched a second Gulf War,[10] despite multiple dissenting opinions[11] and questions of integrity[12][13][14] about the underlying intelligence.[15] Later U.S.-led inspections agreed that Iraq had earlier abandoned its WMD programs, but asserted Iraq had an intention to pursue those programs if UN sanctions were ever lifted.

Iraq and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

ocean515 · Aug 11, 2014

calamity said:
Iraq and weapons of mass destruction - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's been my experience that open source cites, such as Wiki, aren't a good place for absolute facts. Too much opportunity for conjecture and manipulation, which explains why some are so dependent on them for supporting their own bias.

Much better to go directly to actual historical submitted reports. Of course, that is if credibility is a requirement, which again, many don't see as being necessary.

S/1998/694, Letter of GS to the President

COMPLETENESS OF THE TECHNICALLY COHERENT PICTURE

7. As has been previously recorded, some uncertainty is inevitable in any country-wide technical verification process that aims to prove the absence of readily concealable objects, such as components of centrifuge machines or copies of weapon-related documentation, or activities such as small-scale enrichment or weaponization experimentation or computer-based studies. Thus, although IAEA has assembled a technically coherent picture of Iraq's clandestine nuclear programme, there is an inherent uncertainty in the completeness of that picture deriving from the possible existence of duplicate facilities or the possible existence of anomalous activities or facilities outside the technically coherent picture. This inherent uncertainty is compounded by Iraq's lack of full transparency in the provision of information, which has resulted in added uncertainties regarding the extent of external assistance to Iraq's clandestine nuclear programme and Iraq's achievements in some aspects of its clandestine nuclear programme, owing to the absence of related programme documentation.

bubbabgone · Aug 11, 2014

humbolt said:
I saved my ass from destruction several times with strategic lies designed to implicate my older brother. I admit this, and hang my head. And laugh.

... like they say in the White House ... if someone believes it, it ain't a lie to them.

Liars (1 Viewer)

calamity

Privileged

NoC_T

Imposition of miscellany

AJiveMan

Paying To Play

calamity

Privileged

grip

Slow 🅖 Hand

Excon

code1211

calamity

Privileged

clownboy

calamity

Privileged

Excon

AJiveMan

Paying To Play

Jerry

HonestJoe

calamity

Privileged

calamity

Privileged

calamity

Privileged

Reformedfindlay

cynical class clown

ocean515

humbolt

bubbabgone

humbolt

calamity

Privileged

ocean515

bubbabgone

Users who are viewing this thread