• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Are you willing to lie to push your agenda?

Are you willing to lie to push your agenda?

  • Yes.

    Votes: 6 9.0%
  • No.

    Votes: 61 91.0%

  • Total voters
    67
I don't have an agenda. Truth is tempered by years of experiences in many realms of learning, but more importantly through a concerted effort in letting go and shedding of what does not serve. The ultimate truth resides in our spiritual nature - not in mind or emotional arguments - and there is only one truth. The better one's relationship is with that, the less one has to lie, and the more that they just naturally connect with others without pretense.

In short, if you're right with yourself then there's no real need to lie about anything. Lies come from resistance to truth and trying to force something to fit where it doesn't, instead of simply accepting what is. People who are lie are stuck, and are trying to get fed from the wrong source. They've either forgotten or never learned where the real source is.
 
False. The final (and every other) report from the inspectors clearly states otherwise. Further, Saddam claimed he perpetuated the belief that he had a WMD program, by running inspectors around and denying access, because he feared Iran more than the UN.

Learn history. Or... give us more of that Unabomber Manifesto crap.

Leading To War :: a film that chronicles the path to war in Iraq

In a commentary in the Chicago Tribune (published on September 10, 2002), former chief United Nations Special Commission in Iraq [UNSCOM] weapons inspector Scott Ritter challenges Vice President Cheney’s August 26, 2002 claim that Saddam Hussein has resumed efforts to acquire nuclear weapons. Ritter points out that Cheney omitted a key part of Saddam’s son-in-law, Hussein Kamal’s story
[link to source] [link to source]


“Throughout his interview with UNSCOM, a U.N. special commission, Hussein Kamal reiterated his main point—that nothing was left. ‘All chemical weapons were destroyed,’ he said. ‘I ordered destruction of all chemical weapons. All weapons—biological, chemical, missile, nuclear—were destroyed. There is not a single missile left.’”






September 1, 2002
Scott Ritter, former Chief U.N. Weapons Inspector from 1991–1998, writes in the Baltimore Sun [link to source]

“From 1991 to 1998, U.N. weapons inspectors, among whom I played an integral part, were able to verifiably ascertain a 90 percent to 95 percent level of disarmament inside Iraq. This included all of the production facilities involved with WMD, together with their associated production equipment and the great majority of what was produced by these facilities.”



Of the rest, Ritter told the U.K. Guardian three weeks later on September 19, 2002 [link to source]

“Iraq has destroyed 90 to 95% of its weapons of mass destruction... We have to remember that this missing 5 to 10% doesn't necessarily constitute a threat. It doesn't even constitute a weapons programme.

“We destroyed all the factories, all of the means of production. We couldn't account for some of the weaponry, but chemical weapons have a shelf-life of five years. Biological weapons have a shelf-life of three. To have weapons today, they would have had to rebuild the factories and start producing these weapons since December 1998.”
 
It's you refusing to reply to the point I made.

There was no other company with the infrastructure and personal to perform the contract. Cheney didn't even own stock then. So, big deal ****in deal. Spare me the Cheney hate. Were you even alive during his VP?

And I'm still wondering how "dick in the asshole" finds its way into your statement. There's something wrong there.
 
Last edited:
False. The final (and every other) report from the inspectors clearly states otherwise. Further, Saddam claimed he perpetuated the belief that he had a WMD program, by running inspectors around and denying access, because he feared Iran more than the UN.

Learn history. Or... give us more of that Unabomber Manifesto crap.

Funny how people forget that even Bill Clinton claimed Saddam had WMDs
 
There was no other company with the infrastructure and personal to perform the contract. Cheney didn't even own stock then. So, big deal ****in deal.

Spare me the Cheney hate. Were you even alive during his VP?

He made money off of Iraq. Don't even try to defend him.
 
No. I have seen many people appear to do that in these forums but I have never understood the point. Why support an opinion or factual assertion if it isn't true? There have been times I thought something was true and was going to post evidence, but then I found I was wrong or that the evidence was inconclusive, so I didn't make the claim. I have corrected a couple of posts with inaccurate information. My views and posts are based in reality and I am willing to prove it.
 
There was no other company with the infrastructure and personal to perform the contract. Cheney didn't even own stock then. So, big deal ****in deal.

Spare me the Cheney hate. Were you even alive during his VP?

This^^^×100
 
This notion came up recently in a thread discussing deGrasse Tyson apparently using fraudulent anecdotes and quotes as a means of pushing various parts of his agenda. Many on this forum basically shrugged, saying even if he did it intentionally it doesn't really matter because he was essentially pushing "good" things so who cares if he fudged a bit of the information regarding the anecdotes he used to push his point.

I was actually kind of surprised. Why? Because so often people cast a negative view towards Machavellian style "ends justify the means" mentality, and yet people were VERY quick to embrace that mentality when the ENDS were ones that they agreed with.
 
This notion came up recently in a thread discussing deGrasse Tyson apparently using fraudulent anecdotes and quotes as a means of pushing various parts of his agenda. Many on this forum basically shrugged, saying even if he did it intentionally it doesn't really matter because he was essentially pushing "good" things so who cares if he fudged a bit of the information regarding the anecdotes he used to push his point.

I was actually kind of surprised. Why? Because so often people cast a negative view towards Machavellian style "ends justify the means" mentality, and yet people were VERY quick to embrace that mentality when the ENDS were ones that they agreed with.

I posted in that thread and condemned him for knowingly lying. What blew me away in that thread was a certain posters need to carry water for Mr Tyson for many pages until he gave up, and admitted essentially Tyson was lying!! Priceless.
 
The problem these days is that people have different sources for their truth and ways of dismissing solid evidence.

  • Some people may be completely sincere in their understanding of the facts but they are getting their facts from inaccurate or deceptive sources.
  • Many people wrongly think that the anecdotal evidence that they have gathered through their life experience can be applied broadly. (ie. Everyone from Connorton that I have met has been mean, all people from Connorton must be mean)
  • Many people think that the people and events that they see in the media are representative of those people and places, ignoring the fact that it is nearly always only exceptional people and events that are featured in the news. They see a few extremists from a group and assume that they represent the whole group.
  • There is also "the few exceptions don't matter" rationalization for inaccurate beliefs. I.e. "Sure there are few exception but everyone else in Connorton is mean."
  • There is also prejudice and conspiracy theories that color people's understanding of the truth such as those who will not believe any statistics from academics and/or government.
  • And of course, religious beliefs are often favored over truths and realities that contradict those beliefs no matter how strong the evidence. Ie. "The devil created fossils to deceive people."
 
Almost everybody subconsciously lies to push their agenda. It doesn't make you more honest when you believe your own BS; it just means that you're gullible in addition to being dishonest.
 
But, non disclosure of something irrelevant to the issue at hand is not covering up the truth.
Sure, but as soon it becomes relevant to a given topic or activity in your day, and you don't reveal that proprietary or confidential information, you are concealing the truth and that's a lie.
 
Sure, but as soon it becomes relevant to a given topic or activity in your day, and you don't reveal that proprietary or confidential information, you are concealing the truth and that's a lie.

Only if you lead the other person to believe you do not have something on your person etc. Non disclosure is not a lie unless you want to believe every single person is lying every second of every day.
 
So, you know the question....Are you willing to lie to push your agenda? Will you answer truthfully? I know thats an ironic thing to ask for this particular poll but I'm hoping that since the poll won't be public and not aimed at any particular agenda people will actually be emboldened enough to do so.

Note: This is one of the VERY FEW polls that I will EVER make that is not public.

Our political leaders sure are. It seems the ability to lie is the number prerequisite to run for office. In the end the politician who lies the best and tells the most lies that are believable wins.
 
Only if you lead the other person to believe you do not have something on your person etc.
That's what happens when you conceal the item.

Non disclosure is not a lie unless you want to believe every single person is lying every second of every day.
Every single person is lying every second of every day, in some way. Maybe the lie they tell is related to a non-disclosure agreement, or maybe they're lying to save someone's feelings, or maybe they're lying to protect their privacy...but everyone lies all the time.
 
That's what happens when you conceal the item.


.

To me, that is not a lie. It is a "that's none of your business" thing. If I carry concealed, it is none of anyone else's business, as long as it's legal.
 
That's what happens when you conceal the item.


Every single person is lying every second of every day, in some way. Maybe the lie they tell is related to a non-disclosure agreement, or maybe they're lying to save someone's feelings, or maybe they're lying to protect their privacy...but everyone lies all the time.

LOL okay. If that is your perspective then...well....it is a perspective. I don't share it but oh well. I can't see that it will matter much when it is all said and done.
 
So, you know the question....Are you willing to lie to push your agenda? Will you answer truthfully? I know thats an ironic thing to ask for this particular poll but I'm hoping that since the poll won't be public and not aimed at any particular agenda people will actually be emboldened enough to do so.

Note: This is one of the VERY FEW polls that I will EVER make that is not public.

Would I lie about my agenda? In the case of politics and direction of government, the role it plays, etc.. No.

Right, wrong, it consists of my take on what works, and what doesn't. It's based on my principles which are not negotiable, and are not for sale.
 
Back
Top Bottom