what is it you think this site is about? feelings?

Feelings, no never…

yes, what I said was wrong, but believe me when I tell you I never knew it was wrong when I said it!

is sufficient to constitute plausible deniability?

I was merely saying my peace about why I am sensitive to accusations of lying

who the fuck cares what you’re “sensitive to?”

what is it you think this site is about? feelings?

I would be very interested in learning how it is possible to prove intent

I guess you would have to eliminate or discredit any and all plausible deniability. And for the record I am not arguing that Tony Snow did or didn’t lie, I was merely saying my peace about why I am sensitive to accusations of lying (and no it has nothing to do with my personal past).

only a moron or a dishonest partisan would even attempt to argue differently.

it is my considered belief that we are looking at a case of “or both”

I won’t call them that until I know their intent.

not that it matters a bit to me, but what else could snow’s intent be? he’s paid to advance the administration’s goals. he said something untrue to do that. anyone watching that briefing, but not reading reuters or having access to defense dept data was deceived.

if snow or thompson or corralo or anyone else doesn’t know something for a fact, they should shut the fuck up until they do. not authoritatively assert something and then leave it to the pathetic spin people like you distribute.

we’ve been over standards of proof here before. proof to you seems to be admission by the guilty parties, not news reports, government data, independent confirmation, because oh, we may not know what was in their heart at the moment they deceived or cheated, or the like. i have news for you. that’s not the standard we use here, and that’s not negotiable.

snow lied yesterday. only a moron or a dishonest partisan would even attempt to argue differently.

I … feel that the standard of proving the intent must be there in order to call someone a liar

I would be very interested in learning how it is possible to prove intent, short of waterboarding or some other form of voluntary confession.

But I do want to explain something about me.

From Websters:

lie: to make an untrue statement with intent to deceive

I hold very strong feelings towards the latter part of that definition and feel that the standard of proving the intent must be there in order to call someone a liar otherwise it is just someone who said an incorrect or untrue statement and I have given democrats especially Bill Clinton same level of the benefit of the doubt.

The people you call liars may very well be liars but I won’t call them that until I know their intent.