There are few who dispute this
I disagree. I believe I am holding him to the only standard that an elected leader should have, which is to be forward and honest with the American people. Do a google search, read a conservative editorial, or listen to AM talk radio, and you will heard liberals attacked for misleading the American people about something. It is easy to dwell on the Lewinsky scandal because he actually lied, but in fact the accusations of misleading were continuous. In most cases, they were also accurate.
6) „When you want to open the door to censorship, by claiming deception can be based on omission, or how information is structured, you are saying all people must have all the information all the time and received in the same manner as the disseminator. Cannot do. If yours were the standard everybody is always guilty of deception, pick any instance, I’ll prove it.“
I am afraid I do not understand this portion of your post. What meaningful hyperlink does censorship have to do with anything? Also, why would people need all information all the time, and in the same manner? I don’t understand. Perhapsd you can clarify what it is you are accusing me of advocating.
7) „But your bias is playing a bigger part than you recognize. I too consider my opinion to be informed and I am opposite you. How can that be?“
You do not believe that two informed people can come to opposite conclusions? I would say that the authors of the Federalist Papers were just as informed as the authors of the Anti-Federalist papers. If your conclusion is that one of us must be wrong, I do not agree. Furthermore, it goes without saying that any calls of bias has no bearing, since I think it is safe to say that we both consider the others biases play a part in their interpretation of the data. The only way to really know is consistency. If John Kerry wins, and you have no problem with him giving people the wrong impression while being factually correct, then I will applaud your consistency.
8) „The opposition is associating the president with a confused, illogical, nebulous standard of “deception” to infer guilt upon him. Just as you claim he associated Saddam with WMD, OBL or whatever else to infer guilt upon him. You are doing the same thing you accuse the president of.“
Actually, I consider my standard of deception to be quite clear and accepted everywhere I have ever seen the term. However, since you seem to find my usage “ confused, illogical, nebulous,“ allow me to make it more explicit:
Deception is false representation of the facts. That is the manner in which I am using the term. To put it another way, a person can deceive by presenting the facts in such a way as they logically lead to an incorrect conclusion. Had I know that the term was being understood in such an uncertain way, I would have defined it at the outset.
If you would like to open up the debate on what Bush said Iraq had, I have no objection, but I don’t know if that was your intent in the above statement
9) „Hey I got a good idea, let’s strap GWB to a ducking stool and cause him to be made underwater for a term determined by it’s operator. If he floats, as we all know he will be rightfully pronounced guilty of “deception” but if he drowns let us declare that he had no deception in him at all.“