Suggestion for John: Before you abdicate your Constitutional duty, shame your constituants, and dishonor your party by voting based on bs you read in a forwarded email from a nutjob relative, you might want to check the numbers you spew out on the floor of the Senate.
You are my favorite moderator, Mannahnin. Even if both the Daily Show and Colbert Report are comedy shows, Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are both very intelligent people.
Frazzled wrote:Can't open which is ashame because it sounds like another politician imploding which is always fun to watch.
Stewart and Colbert making idiots of themselves. Other people taking what comedians on a comedy show say at face value while making fun of a legitimate news station. You're really not missing much.
Frazzled wrote:Can't open which is ashame because it sounds like another politician imploding which is always fun to watch.
Stewart and Colbert making idiots of themselves. Other people taking what comedians on a comedy show say at face value while making fun of a legitimate news station. You're really not missing much.
Sad then that the daily show is a more factually reliable source then the majority of televised news media in the US. Kinda makes you wish they would just open up a 24 hour station to put MSNBC to bed.
Frazzled wrote:Can't open which is ashame because it sounds like another politician imploding which is always fun to watch.
Stewart and Colbert making idiots of themselves. Other people taking what comedians on a comedy show say at face value while making fun of a legitimate news station. You're really not missing much.
Sad then that the daily show is a more factually reliable source then the majority of televised news media in the US. Kinda makes you wish they would just open up a 24 hour station to put MSNBC to bed.
Yeah, so much truth here. Its really sad to say, but time has shown that it is true.
But, biccat loves to be contradictory to everything, so arguing with him is like beating your head against a brick wall.
Sad then that the daily show is a more factually reliable source then the majority of televised news media in the US. Kinda makes you wish they would just open up a 24 hour station to put MSNBC to bed
It's sad when the daily show is more factually reliable than the majority of politicians. Truth is funnier than fiction! and yet sadder too!
Mannahnin wrote:Biccat, thank you for ripping on Steward and Colbert. There is no faster way for anyone to totally discredit their own political opinions in public.
Wait...You do understand that Stewart and Colbert are comedians, right?
Mannahnin wrote:Biccat, thank you for ripping on Steward and Colbert. There is no faster way for anyone to totally discredit their own political opinions in public.
Wait...You do understand that Stewart and Colbert are comedians, right?
A a source that reports truthfully and comedically on news matters can still report ethically and accurately. They are not mutually exclusive. Being comedians gives them a pass for reporting things incorrectly or falsely. That they don't in the current media environment is both the key to their massive commercial success and is sadly telling about the other news media outlets in the U.S.
Shouting that he's a comedian doesn't make him any less legitimate when his shtick is pointing out funny and true things in politics and the media.
Mannahnin wrote:Biccat, thank you for ripping on Steward and Colbert. There is no faster way for anyone to totally discredit their own political opinions in public.
Wait...You do understand that Stewart and Colbert are comedians, right?
Wait....you do realize that they can, and do, speak facts as well as comedy, right?
ShumaGorath wrote:A a source that reports truthfully and comedically on news matters can still report ethically and accurately. They are not mutually exclusive. Being comedians gives them a pass for reporting things incorrectly or falsely.
So they're a legitimate news source that can report either truth or falsehood with equal impunity? The term "news" used to mean that the information was presented fairly and without bias.
I suppose when the mainstream sources for news (e.g. CNN, CBS) are so untrustworthy, you would turn to a comedian where at least their falsehoods and outright lies on news stories can be rationalized. But most adults prefer a source for news that presents facts, rather than opinion and distortions.
ShumaGorath wrote:A a source that reports truthfully and comedically on news matters can still report ethically and accurately. They are not mutually exclusive. Being comedians gives them a pass for reporting things incorrectly or falsely.
So they're a legitimate news source that can report either truth or falsehood with equal impunity? The term "news" used to mean that the information was presented fairly and without bias.
I suppose when the mainstream sources for news (e.g. CNN, CBS) are so untrustworthy, you would turn to a comedian where at least their falsehoods and outright lies on news stories can be rationalized. But most adults prefer a source for news that presents facts, rather than opinion and distortions.
So, for those of us who aren't American and can't get those videos to play in our country (although I absolutely love Stewert and Colbert), could someone please summarize?
And for the record, just because they satirize the news regularly doesn't mean they can't be truthful or serious. I found Jon Stewert's interview with 9/11 first respondants to be incredibly moving.
Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) said in the last-holdout budget debate about Planned Parenthood that abortion is “well over 90 percent of what Planned Parenthood does.”
In fact, the correct percentage is 3%. Abortions are not funded by federal dollars
When asked for an explanation of the discrepancy, his office issued the following clarification:
His remark was not intended to be a factual statement, but rather to illustrate that Planned Parenthood, an organization that receives millions of dollars in taxpayer funding, does subsidize abortions."
Not intended to be a factual statement"? Unbelievable.
That's a new way of getting out of saying "I lied".
Oh, and sorry mate, but I always read your name as "sexist_hero".
Stewart and Colbert are comedians. They shout this every day. They are not responsible to the same level of journalistic integrity that real news reporters are, which makes it all the more ironic and all the more damning an indictment of every real news organization in this country when they DO report on a given story more directly and accurately than any news organization (of whatever political suasion) does.
Being comedians also gives them the freedom to indulge in "gotcha" journalism, in the sense that they're not afraid to play back to back clips of a politician (right or left; they hit both) flip flopping and contradicting themselves. In this sense they've filled an important void in the American news media.
I challenge you openly to find anything they've reported on seriously (as opposed to in a clearly comedic tone) which wasn't factual. They do a hell of a job.
ShumaGorath wrote:A a source that reports truthfully and comedically on news matters can still report ethically and accurately. They are not mutually exclusive. Being comedians gives them a pass for reporting things incorrectly or falsely.
So they're a legitimate news source that can report either truth or falsehood with equal impunity? The term "news" used to mean that the information was presented fairly and without bias.
I suppose when the mainstream sources for news (e.g. CNN, CBS) are so untrustworthy, you would turn to a comedian where at least their falsehoods and outright lies on news stories can be rationalized. But most adults prefer a source for news that presents facts, rather than opinion and distortions.
If you're going to respond to my post read all of it. Don't cut it off at an important point. thats lazy, lame and disingenuous.
Essentially, they're like the fool in the king's court. As insensical and comedic as they may be, they're the only ones that can get away with saying the truth in a human context.
ShumaGorath wrote:A a source that reports truthfully and comedically on news matters can still report ethically and accurately. They are not mutually exclusive. Being comedians gives them a pass for reporting things incorrectly or falsely.
So they're a legitimate news source that can report either truth or falsehood with equal impunity? The term "news" used to mean that the information was presented fairly and without bias.
I suppose when the mainstream sources for news (e.g. CNN, CBS) are so untrustworthy, you would turn to a comedian where at least their falsehoods and outright lies on news stories can be rationalized. But most adults prefer a source for news that presents facts, rather than opinion and distortions.
What about El Rustbo? he's considered an entertainer and a god in his own mind, yet lots of conservatives take his dribble as "News and Facts"?
Neither Stewart or Colbert has ever said that drug addicts should be thrown in prison without probation, then be themselves later found to be addicts.
But.. but Rush's addiction helped big Pharm and is ok, those dopeheads and crack addicts don't support big industry so need to be punished.
Anyone who ignores what Stewart showed because he's a comedian just wants to ignore the stupidity of this politician.
He showed actual clips of the man stating that abortion was 90% of what Planned Parenthood did. This is fact. Senator John Kyl said this, he tried to get people to accept this as real.
We then get shown an actual newsclip of his office's response when called on this. "It was not meant to be a factual statement".
The lie and then stating that the lie was "not meant to be a factual statement" are the important things here, not how people received the news.
Sen Kyl: "Well over 90% of what Planned Parenthood does is abortions."
Stewart/CNN: "Actually, about 3% of what they do is abortions, and here's an embarassing press release from Sen Kyl's office where they can't even make a pretense of defending him."
Stewart/Colbert: "This is crazy. 3% is nowhere near 'well over 90%'. And no taxpayer money goes to abortions anyway. So the foundation of his argument is entirely fallacious. Fart joke."
Fox & Friends: "Planned Parenthood isn't necessary for low-income women to get health services. You can those services at Walgreen's".
Colbert: "You can get pap smears and breast exams at Walgreen's?"
Biccat: "Stewart and Colbert making idiots of themselves."
The rest of the world:
Mannahnin wrote:Sen Kyl: "Well over 90% of what Planned Parenthood does is abortions."
Stewart/CNN: "Actually, about 3% of what they do is abortions, and here's an embarassing press release from Sen Kyl's office where they can't even make a pretense of defending him."
Stewart/Colbert: "This is crazy. 3% is nowhere near 'well over 90%'. And no taxpayer money goes to abortions anyway. So the foundation of his argument is entirely fallacious. Fart joke."
Fox & Friends: "Planned Parenthood isn't necessary for low-income women to get health services. You can those services at Walgreen's".
Colbert: "You can get pap smears and breast exams at Walgreen's?"
Biccat: "Stewart and Colbert making idiots of themselves."
The rest of the world:
Yeah, this thread pretty much sums it up for the quality of Republican debate right now. A Republican politician tells a ridiculous lie. Someone points out there was a ridiculous lie.
Republican footsoldiers, so desperately attached to their cause that they're happy to ignore reality rather than concede a point, attack the person who pointed out the lie instead.
This whole thread would be funny, but biccat is hardly the only super-loyal footsoldier out there, there's millions of them and plenty are worse than he is. And the result is political debate, and therefore governance of the most powerful nation in the world, is absolutely, positively ridiculous.
To have an honest, productive political movement it's members need to be first and foremost committed to what is real, and when your leaders spout lies then the first step needs to be to condemn those people, not to attack the person who pointed out the lie.
And yes, the easy response is to say the Democrats do it too. Well, yes, they do, and they could also get a lot better. But they're simply nowhere near as bad, and while it hurts their cause too, it is nowhere near as crippling as it is on the Republicans right now.
Until the Republicans commit meaningfully to being honest first and foremost, they're doomed to be nothing more than a destructive force in politics.
sebster wrote:And yes, the easy response is to say the Democrats do it too. Well, yes, they do, and they could also get a lot better. But they're simply nowhere near as bad, and while it hurts their cause too, it is nowhere near as crippling as it is on the Republicans right now.
Until the Republicans commit meaningfully to being honest first and foremost, they're doomed to be nothing more than a destructive force in politics.
This is, of course, completely disingenuous. When you're willing to admit that X is bad, and that your side does X just as much as the other side, we can have an honest debate.
But when you are willing to concede that both sides are bad, but those other guys are totally worse at it, you're not interested in debate, you're just being a political bomb thrower. Also, why should the Republicans be the first to "commit meaningfully to be[] honest"? If lying to the public works - and it works for both sides - why should one side be the first to give up a useful tool, unless your real intent is political gain, and not improving the political climate.
Given that you'd rather have the other side give up than demand honesty from your own side, it's clear that your interest here isn't improving the political atmosphere.
sebster wrote:Yeah, this thread pretty much sums it up for the quality of Republican debate right now. A Republican politician tells a ridiculous lie. Someone points out there was a ridiculous lie.
Republican footsoldiers, so desperately attached to their cause that they're happy to ignore reality rather than concede a point, attack the person who pointed out the lie instead.
This whole thread would be funny, but biccat is hardly the only super-loyal footsoldier out there, there's millions of them and plenty are worse than he is. And the result is political debate, and therefore governance of the most powerful nation in the world, is absolutely, positively ridiculous.
To have an honest, productive political movement it's members need to be first and foremost committed to what is real, and when your leaders spout lies then the first step needs to be to condemn those people, not to attack the person who pointed out the lie.
And yes, the easy response is to say the Democrats do it too. Well, yes, they do, and they could also get a lot better. But they're simply nowhere near as bad, and while it hurts their cause too, it is nowhere near as crippling as it is on the Republicans right now.
Until the Republicans commit meaningfully to being honest first and foremost, they're doomed to be nothing more than a destructive force in politics.
biccat wrote:This is, of course, completely disingenuous. When you're willing to admit that X is bad, and that your side does X just as much as the other side, we can have an honest debate.
But when you are willing to concede that both sides are bad, but those other guys are totally worse at it, you're not interested in debate, you're just being a political bomb thrower. Also, why should the Republicans be the first to "commit meaningfully to be[] honest"? If lying to the public works - and it works for both sides - why should one side be the first to give up a useful tool, unless your real intent is political gain, and not improving the political climate.
Given that you'd rather have the other side give up than demand honesty from your own side, it's clear that your interest here isn't improving the political atmosphere.
And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. Republicans are allowed to blatantly lie, becuase the other side does so as well (if not as blatantly). Therefore, anyone who points out the outageous lies of one side or the other should be shunned and condemned.
Frazzled wrote:Can't open which is ashame because it sounds like another politician imploding which is always fun to watch.
Stewart and Colbert making idiots of themselves. Other people taking what comedians on a comedy show say at face value while making fun of a legitimate news station. You're really not missing much.
biccat wrote:This is, of course, completely disingenuous. When you're willing to admit that X is bad, and that your side does X just as much as the other side, we can have an honest debate.
But when you are willing to concede that both sides are bad, but those other guys are totally worse at it, you're not interested in debate, you're just being a political bomb thrower. Also, why should the Republicans be the first to "commit meaningfully to be[] honest"? If lying to the public works - and it works for both sides - why should one side be the first to give up a useful tool, unless your real intent is political gain, and not improving the political climate.
Given that you'd rather have the other side give up than demand honesty from your own side, it's clear that your interest here isn't improving the political atmosphere.
And there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. Republicans are allowed to blatantly lie, becuase the other side does so as well (if not as blatantly). Therefore, anyone who points out the outageous lies of one side or the other should be shunned and condemned.
I'm starting to think you don't even read my posts before responding to them. I would suggest you do so in the future, as it will make your posts make sense.
Biccat, how about you start practicing what you preach?
Sebster's not a Democrat, and he doesn't live in this country. It's not "his side".
Both parties are deeply flawed, and politicians on both sides dishonest, venal, and tragically disappointing. This doesn't mean they are the same, or equivalent. We have to be able to point out when one person is lying, and not excuse it by saying "this other person lies too." While that may be true, it doesn't help anything. We need to start taking responsibility for not electing and supporting liars, no matter whether they're on our own side or not.
Growing up Conservative, I was taught that we need to look at hard realities while we're dreaming of the stars. Take it one lie or liar at a time if we have to. The whole task is monumental and frightening, but it has to be done. If John Kyl was MY Senator, I'd still be ripping into him. 3% does not equal "well over 90%" no matter how you slice it. When you call someone an idiot for pointing that out, you are blocking your ears off from truth, and making yourself a part of the problem.
John Kyl voted, misusing his power, to defund Planned Parenthood based on the entirely false premise that taxpayer money was going to pay for abortions, and the either made-up-out-of-his-head or pulled-from-a-moronic-chain-email number that "well over 90%" of the services provided by them were abortion. Find me a Democrat doing something like that, and I'll be happy to rip them a new one too.
biccat wrote:This is, of course, completely disingenuous. When you're willing to admit that X is bad, and that your side does X just as much as the other side, we can have an honest debate.
It would be disingenuous if I actually believed Democrats lied as much as Republicans do. I don't. I don't believe that for one second, and I don't think people can sensibly reach a conclusion that they do.
Given that you'd rather have the other side give up than demand honesty from your own side, it's clear that your interest here isn't improving the political atmosphere.
You're assuming I must be on the other side because I'm criticising your team. That's part of the problem that's caused you to come into this thread to defend a politician who told a straight up lie.
I'm not a Democrat. I'm certainly to the left of you, but in Australian politics I've voted for the right wing, conservative party in all but this last election (and only then because I really can't stand the current leader of the conservative party). Not because I particularly agree with their politics more than the other side, but because for most of my voting life the candidates they've put forward have been more honest and more competent.
It's very important to realise how closely honesty translates into competency. Right now we have a left wing government in power, Labor, and they've not been honest. Not to us, and not to themselves. As a result they've bungled a lot of policy initiatives, and we've basically drifted. And our government is nowhere near as dishonest as Republicans are right now. Hell, our government is nowhere near as dishonest as Blair's New Labour, and they're nowhere near as dishonest as the Republicans.
If someone here was to stand up and claim that a group spent 90% of its money on abortion when it was actually 3%, they would be utterly condemned. Members of their own side would publically saying that kind of thing isn't on. That person would be cast to the backbenches, and not seen again a year or more. They would probably miss pre-selection for the next election.
And that's the standard, and we could still stand with getting a lot more honest.
Yet here you are, trying to defend this liar by attacking everyone who criticises him. Why are you willing to tolerate these lies coming from your political leaders?
biccat wrote:This is, of course, completely disingenuous. When you're willing to admit that X is bad, and that your side does X just as much as the other side, we can have an honest debate.
It would be disingenuous if I actually believed Democrats lied as much as Republicans do. I don't. I don't believe that for one second, and I don't think people can sensibly reach a conclusion that they do.
Given that you'd rather have the other side give up than demand honesty from your own side, it's clear that your interest here isn't improving the political atmosphere.
You're assuming I must be on the other side because I'm criticising your team. That's part of the problem that's caused you to come into this thread to defend a politician who told a straight up lie.
I'm not a Democrat. I'm certainly to the left of you, but in Australian politics I've voted for the right wing, conservative party in all but this last election (and only then because I really can't stand the current leader of the conservative party). Not because I particularly agree with their politics more than the other side, but because for most of my voting life the candidates they've put forward have been more honest and more competent.
It's very important to realise how closely honesty translates into competency. Right now we have a left wing government in power, Labor, and they've not been honest. Not to us, and not to themselves. As a result they've bungled a lot of policy initiatives, and we've basically drifted. And our government is nowhere near as dishonest as Republicans are right now. Hell, our government is nowhere near as dishonest as Blair's New Labour, and they're nowhere near as dishonest as the Republicans.
If someone here was to stand up and claim that a group spent 90% of its money on abortion when it was actually 3%, they would be utterly condemned. Members of their own side would publically saying that kind of thing isn't on. That person would be cast to the backbenches, and not seen again a year or more. They would probably miss pre-selection for the next election.
And that's the standard, and we could still stand with getting a lot more honest.
Yet here you are, trying to defend this liar by attacking everyone who criticises him. Why are you willing to tolerate these lies coming from your political leaders?
biccat wrote: When you're willing to admit that X is bad, and that your side does X just as much as the other side, we can have an honest debate.
That's a platitude. You can't have honest debate if you open with a platitude. If you would have said X is bad, we need to stop X, then you might get somewhere. Otherwise you're still looking at this as a matter of sides, and not a matter of process.
Besides, it is incredibly difficult to support any argument which concludes that two things are absolutely equivalent; especially when those two things aren't directly quantitative.
biccat wrote:So they're a legitimate news source that can report either truth or falsehood with equal impunity? The term "news" used to mean that the information was presented fairly and without bias.
You'd think that a news organisation would be forced to actually report facts (however it wants to present them) rather than be able to make stuff up and present it as fact (ie lying). Having been used to the BBC my whole life (who are not perfect, I will be the first to admit), I really can't fathom how your broadcasters (of any stripe) get away with half the things they broadcast. If the BBC had put programming out like some on Fox (and others, from both political affiliations) they would have been ripped a new one.
sebster wrote:It would be disingenuous if I actually believed Democrats lied as much as Republicans do. I don't. I don't believe that for one second, and I don't think people can sensibly reach a conclusion that they do.
And this, as Dogma would point out if he were here, is a platitude. You can't prove that Democrats lie as much as Republicans do, and you can't prove the opposite. Unless you're interested in reviewing every statement ever made for it's veracity, and even then, you're going to make some judgment calls. When Democrats say Republicans want to close cancer screening centers, is this true or false? Or when Democrats, on the floor of Congress, accuse the president and troops of being war criminals, is this true or false?
The argument that you're not American doesn't give you status as a neutral observer either. You have clearly indicated that you have some liberal ideas, and generally have a left-of-center outlook on things. This colors your view of American politics, and you're more likely to support those whose ideas you agree with. Similarly, if we were discussing Australian politics, my view wouldn't be neutral, but colored by my political perceptions.
So, given that you can't quantitatively assess the degree of honesty of either political party, and that your perspective on this issue is colored by your political views, can we put to rest the idea that Republicans lie more than Democrats?
The sole reason for this thread was that a Republican lied and then acknowledged that he was wrong (assuming the best of motives). The only newsworthy element of this story is that a politician acknowledged he was wrong. I don't see threads popping up every time a politician tells a lie, because this board would soon be flooded with those threads.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote:
biccat wrote:So they're a legitimate news source that can report either truth or falsehood with equal impunity? The term "news" used to mean that the information was presented fairly and without bias.
sebster wrote:It would be disingenuous if I actually believed Democrats lied as much as Republicans do. I don't. I don't believe that for one second, and I don't think people can sensibly reach a conclusion that they do.
And this, as Dogma would point out if he were here, is a platitude. You can't prove that Democrats lie as much as Republicans do, and you can't prove the opposite. Unless you're interested in reviewing every statement ever made for it's veracity, and even then, you're going to make some judgment calls. When Democrats say Republicans want to close cancer screening centers, is this true or false? Or when Democrats, on the floor of Congress, accuse the president and troops of being war criminals, is this true or false?
The argument that you're not American doesn't give you status as a neutral observer either. You have clearly indicated that you have some liberal ideas, and generally have a left-of-center outlook on things. This colors your view of American politics, and you're more likely to support those whose ideas you agree with. Similarly, if we were discussing Australian politics, my view wouldn't be neutral, but colored by my political perceptions.
So, given that you can't quantitatively assess the degree of honesty of either political party, and that your perspective on this issue is colored by your political views, can we put to rest the idea that Republicans lie more than Democrats?
The sole reason for this thread was that a Republican lied and then acknowledged that he was wrong (assuming the best of motives). The only newsworthy element of this story is that a politician acknowledged he was wrong. I don't see threads popping up every time a politician tells a lie, because this board would soon be flooded with those threads.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Ouze wrote:
biccat wrote:So they're a legitimate news source that can report either truth or falsehood with equal impunity? The term "news" used to mean that the information was presented fairly and without bias.
It certainly is not necessary to examine every statement ever made by every politician ever to decide if some politicians are more liable to lie than others.
A good representative sample is all that is required, followed by some statistical analysis.
Oh yeah. NHS 'Death Panels' (don't exist. At all)
'If Stephen Hawking were British (he is) and he had to rely on the NHS, he'd be dead (he has, and he's not).
That's two pretty massive porkers right there youngfellamelad.
Face it, the Republicans are a bunch of arseholes, who it would appear spend almost all of their effort to further the goals of their kooky little special interest groups.
But hey, just tell a massive, feth-off great lie and the say 'hey, it wasn't meant to be factual' and run away!
I never said Republican politicians don't lie. I just dispute that lying is an exclusively Republican trait.
When the left-wing posters on this site continually lie, flame, and troll, it's difficult to have a reasonable discussion. To those posters, please try to apply a little bit of intellectual firepower to these issues before you post.
I never said Republican politicians don't lie. I just dispute that lying is an exclusively Republican trait.
When the left-wing posters on this site continually lie, flame, and troll, it's difficult to have a reasonable discussion. To those posters, please try to apply a little bit of intellectual firepower to these issues before you post.
You didn't say that. You said that it was impossible to tell if one side lied more than the other because you would need to examine every statement ever made.
That isn't true.
Please don't issue general insults to forum members. While not personal, it could certainly be considered trolling.
I never said Republican politicians don't lie. I just dispute that lying is an exclusively Republican trait.
When the left-wing posters on this site continually lie, flame, and troll, it's difficult to have a reasonable discussion. To those posters, please try to apply a little bit of intellectual firepower to these issues before you post.
You didn't say that. You said that it was impossible to tell if one side lied more than the other because you would need to examine every statement ever made.
That isn't true.
Please don't issue general insults to forum members. While not personal, it could certainly be considered trolling.
It is true. You can't do a statistical analysis unless you follow them around. recording them. Even then you are biased in your interpretation of what is or isn't a lie. Anything else is sophistry.
Frazzled wrote:It is true. You can't do a statistical analysis unless you follow them around. recording them. Even then you are biased in your interpretation of what is or isn't a lie. Anything else is sophistry.
Kilkrazy wrote:You didn't say that. You said that it was impossible to tell if one side lied more than the other because you would need to examine every statement ever made.
Um...yes, I did. Which indicates that Republicans and Democrats both lie. Holy gak, call the obvious police, politicians lie.
Kilkrazy wrote:That isn't true.
Prove it. Please show that Republicans lie more than Democrats.
Kilkrazy wrote:Please don't issue general insults to forum members. While not personal, it could certainly be considered trolling.
Sorry. Most leftists are reasonable people and I find their social and economic ideas childishly selfish and badly in conflict with reality.
Much of what politicians say is recorded for us, especially the public pronouncements that we are mainly interested in.
It is not necessary to examine all of someone's statements to make a valid statistical study of how likely they are to lie.
Some statements are certainly liable to bias of interpretation. Many are verifiable, though. If I say, "The GDP of Burkina Fasso was recorded as 8.14 billion US dollars by the World Bank in 2009" it is a verifiable fact. You can look it up. Many political statements fall into this category, especially the ones that are used in argument about taxation, value for money, and social consequences.
Other political statements are of course rhetorical; "We have nothing to fear except fear itself". "Four score years and ten...". "Government exists to protect us from each other".
biccat wrote:So they're a legitimate news source that can report either truth or falsehood with equal impunity? The term "news" used to mean that the information was presented fairly and without bias.
Give me a legitimate source and I'll happily debate the issue.
Of course, any source I provide for you will be inadequate, I strongly suspect. This is a foolish game which I will not play with you. I picked that site because it had the most concise summary of the facts I portrayed; but what I started is not in the realm of opinion, it is an indisputable fact. If you'd like the debate the facts of the issue, as I have attempted to, I'm game; but I'm sure you're more the capable of educating yourself on the facts of the matter using virtually any source you like, if you were inclined to actually participate. Let me help you get started.
SilverMK2 wrote:You'd think that a news organisation would be forced to actually report facts
They are. Fox isn't news. It's Noise.
Actually they aren't. That infringes on free speech rights. Issues of libel or slander are civil issues and unless they endanger public safety in a noticeable and inarguable fashion they are allowed to operate as a faux news source. The enquirer functions on this principle.
biccat wrote:When the left-wing posters on this site continually lie, flame, and troll, it's difficult to have a reasonable discussion.
LOL.
This coming from a poster whose first posts I remember seeing on this site were whining about group-think and echo chambers in OT. Because if there's one thing you can say about OT. it's that it's completely unified on its opinions with any others unable to penetrate its wall of blinkered intellectual unity.
biccat wrote:and I find their social and economic ideas childishly selfish and badly in conflict with reality.
Seriously dude, as the above quote clearly indicates, the problem here lies solely with you, and not other posters.
Ouze wrote:Of course, any source I provide for you will be inadequate, I strongly suspect.
Reminds me of the time that I linked an article on factcheck.org, and some guy bitched me out for trying to use biased, left wing BS instead of an accurate, neutral source. Yes, because a site that links to the source documents and statements with its articles, allowing you to read and confirm the original data yourself is so absolutely biased and inaccurate.
Melissia wrote:That's also how Extra! works too. But then I might be biased, I consider tabloids that focus on celebrity news to be the epitome of stupid.
Oh, me too. Unfortunately the scale of the news organization doesn't change the dedication to truth that is('nt) required by law.
But that is the problem with internalizing politics- Republicans and so called conservatives often will not recognized the liars and such in their midst because to do so would mean they might have to question their own views. Same for hardcore Democrats.
That being said, Republicans tend to be more accepting of a unified message (this is how you get big business, fundamentalist Christians, and military hawks into the same bed) whereas Democrats tend to be more scattered and represent more divergent interests (hence the phrase, "getting Democrats to agree on anything is like herding cats!"). Interestingly, this also tends to result in Republicans accepting a more authoritarian view (they tend to like a strong, pro-business, militaristic Christian leader- who is generally a wealthy white male) and Demiocrats often favoring a broad based charismatic (who is generally a wealthy white male who professes Christianity- but have shown support for minorities and women more broadly in leadership).
There are any number of interesting demographics about political affiliation and I would urge people to look at it by region instead of nationally as it gives a more detailed picture. It also leads to hilarity like discovering that Texas, a so called conservative bastion that lambasted "liberal" big spending states like California, have huge budget issues despite having bone thin spending (except on majority pet projects, of course), and obsessing over low tax rates. Turns out, keeping taxes low and letting business do whatever they want while not funding anything (Texas has some of the worst rates in education and child medical insurance coverage in the nation) may not work any better then Democrat big spending with higher taxes!
I would argue entrenched political majorities are a problem with both sides.... No real options- just political machinery and gamesmanship.
But instead of having a rational debate, it's easier to make politically charged attacks and claim the other side is hurting our children.
I've always thought of the Republican factionalism as a contradiction of heroic individualism and authoritarianism -- quite simply they value both and the two things cannot synthesize. I don't see a similar contradiction in the Democratic Party. It's true that Democrats embrace a great diversity of issues but the party is founded on a belief in solidarity. It's not that solidarity and the diversity of concern are mutually exclusive -- it's just hard to get everyone as worked up as you are about your particular issue. Maybe there is a contradiction in Democratic politics, but the nearest I can think of is that between working for the benefit of the nation as apposed to the locality. And that's an issue with which both parties have to deal.
Ouze wrote:Of course, any source I provide for you will be inadequate, I strongly suspect. This is a foolish game which I will not play with you. I picked that site because it had the most concise summary of the facts I portrayed; but what I started is not in the realm of opinion, it is an indisputable fact. If you'd like the debate the facts of the issue, as I have attempted to, I'm game; but I'm sure you're more the capable of educating yourself on the facts of the matter using virtually any source you like, if you were inclined to actually participate. Let me help you get started.
You cited to a site dedicated to attacking Fox News. You don't think this is a problem?
OK, so lets look at the case, shall we?
First of all, Fox didn't sue for the "right to lie." The opposing parties in the case sued Fox for illegal termination under a Florida whistleblower lawsuit.
Second, the whistleblower statute only allows a cause of action where the offending party has violated a law, rule, or regulation.
Third, the jury's decision in the lower case was that "WTVT retaliated against her in response to her threat to disclose the alleged news distortion to the FCC". The judge did not rule on the veracity of the story, although the appellate opinion did state "Each time the station asked Wilson and Akre to provide supporting documentation for statements in the story or to make changes in the content of the story, the reporters accused the station of attempting to distort the story to favor the manufacturer of BGH" (that is, the reporters refused to support their claims).
Fourth, as above, in order to recover, the party must show that a "law, rule, or regulation" had been violated. There is no "law, rule, or regulation" that requires a broadcast station to be truthful. This was Fox's position: it doesn't matter if the story was true or not, there's no law requiring us to be truthful.
edit: Note: this isn't admitting untruthfulness, it is arguing that the defendants can't prove that we broke a law. The truthfulness of the story is irrelevant.
sebster wrote:It would be disingenuous if I actually believed Democrats lied as much as Republicans do. I don't. I don't believe that for one second, and I don't think people can sensibly reach a conclusion that they do.
And this, as Dogma would point out if he were here, is a platitude.
That's not a platitude, its a meaningful statement regarding what he believes (hence the repeated use of "I"). A platitude is a statement which lacks meaning, so basically any positive statement intended to be diplomatic. Admittedly, you may truly believe that Republicans and Democrats lie at roughly the same rate (ie. there is no statistically significant difference between the two sides), which would make your initial statement something other than a platitude. I was assuming you were speaking from a position of practicality rather than description.
biccat wrote:
You can't prove that Democrats lie as much as Republicans do, and you can't prove the opposite. Unless you're interested in reviewing every statement ever made for it's veracity, and even then, you're going to make some judgment calls.
Strictly speaking, you can't priove the truth of any positive statement. You can, however, develop a logical argument based upon a body of evidence. So, for example, you might review the statements of a random sample of GOP politicians at the national level, and a random sample of Democrat politicians at the national level, then collect all the obtainable statement made by politicians in each group, and determine whether or not they were true or false. Of course, that doesn't prove that anyone lied, which requires intent, only that they made false statements; though one can certainly make the argument that most politicians are sufficiently capable to be regarded as generally intentional.
biccat wrote:
When Democrats say Republicans want to close cancer screening centers, is this true or false? Or when Democrats, on the floor of Congress, accuse the president and troops of being war criminals, is this true or false?
There's a difference between making an accusation and lying, which is one of the reasons its very difficult to catch politicians, or really anyone, in a lie.
biccat wrote:
The sole reason for this thread was that a Republican lied and then acknowledged that he was wrong (assuming the best of motives).
Manchu wrote:I've always thought of the Republican factionalism as a contradiction of heroic individualism and authoritarianism -- quite simply they value both and the two things cannot synthesize. I don't see a similar contradiction in the Democratic Party. It's true that Democrats embrace a great diversity of issues but the party is founded on a belief in solidarity. It's not that solidarity and the diversity of concern are mutually exclusive -- it's just hard to get everyone as worked up as you are about your particular issue. Maybe there is a contradiction in Democratic politics, but the nearest I can think of is that between working for the benefit of the nation as apposed to the locality. And that's an issue with which both parties have to deal.
Great post!
The contradiction in Republican outlooks (Autonomy v. Authoritarianism) is a striking one that always amazes me personally. Almost as much as the conflict between cultural conservatives and big business conservatives who couldn't be further apart on immigration. But it seems like the Republicans do a better job of getting a message that unites the factions as the issues ignite the base but the money knows who's driving the ship. Democrats seem to flounder in that their base issues tend to less unifying. Add to that that their money needs are no less than the Republicans, but they lack the same appeal in policy to big spenders and you have another problem (though they seem no less beholden to their contributors, naturally).
Put another way, when the Republicans start on about Abortion, Gun Control, and Lower Taxes, they pretty much appeal to everyone on the base and they fall in line, even the grumblers. The Democrats don't have the same ease of coherency. Additionally, success in many areas such as civil rights and a somewhat functional welfare system blunts much of the impetus that would motivate much of their base. And since Republicans tend to draw those who vote to begin with (wealthy, landowners, older voters, moral issue voters) I think it translates to an overall advantage even though Democrats probably have more who are potential voters (nationally).
It's a very interesting dynamic, though, and the Tea Party movement certainly seems to be an issue for the Republicans as it seems to have more of a populist flavor that is bucking the Republican establishment. Ironically, many of the Tea Partiers seem to be in the Republican core (older whites) that they tend to rely on to be quiet and vote! I can't help but wonder if it's shades of Ross Perot and the Independant party....
I've heard grumblings of local repugs about how they wish the tea party thing would die off, because it's splitting the party between more moderate repugs and the more extremist ones whom are far less willing to compromise for the greater good of the nation (IE tea party) and instead just want to push their point, damn everything else.
Frazzled wrote:Can't open which is ashame because it sounds like another politician imploding which is always fun to watch.
Stewart and Colbert making idiots of themselves. Other people taking what comedians on a comedy show say at face value while making fun of a legitimate news station. You're really not missing much.
And yet you claim to take your news from Fox, which is obviously a comedy network.
It is strange that the Republicans energize their base with appeals against the status quo while Democrats struggle to energize their base at all. I wonder if this is because Democrats are less likely to attempt to or respond to dramatically simplified claims about culture war and the like. Some liberals (not necessarily democrats) do this, to be sure -- see the Moby thread. But Democrats, IMO, come off as much more content with the status quo than Republicans, whose most dramatic appeals are basically counter-cultural, albeit in a (imagined) reactionary sense.
mattyrm wrote:Fox has great ratings, I always watch it when im in the US.
Its funnier than the comedy network!
Thats not saying a lot, about the Comedy Network...
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:@jmurph
It is strange that the Republicans energize their base with appeals against the status quo while Democrats struggle to energize their base at all. I wonder if this is because Democrats are less likely to attempt to or respond to dramatically simplified claims about culture war and the like. Some liberals (not necessarily democrats) do this, to be sure -- see the Moby thread. But Democrats, IMO, come off as much more content with the status quo than Republicans, whose most dramatic appeals are basically counter-cultural, albeit in a (imagined) reactionary sense.
As republican issues routinely poll with majority opinion of the US, they are cultural, not countercultural.
The Onion is excellent, but its more obviously comedy.
Glenn Beck and Billo are far better at satirical comedy than someone like Ricky Gervais. I mean, the way they manage to keep such a straight face when they are saying that hilarious stuff. The blokes deserve their own movie!
Yes, Republicans usually side with the majority of opinion in this country. Except on taxes, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, wars, education, legalization of marijuana, gay marriage, and abortion. Except for that the Republican Party is representative of the views of the rest of America!
The Democrats major problem, and why I will never be one, is that they don't believe in anything. They have various constituencies that influence them to do some good things but for the most part it is a party without a coherent ideology.
For all the ranting and raving the right and the media do about how the Democrats of today are extremist they fail to understand that things like Medicare, Social Security, Civil Rights, the New Deal, fair trade, and a progressive tax system that tries to create a somewhat more equitable society and give a chance for the poor to escape the cycle of poverty would never be passed in today's Democratic Party.
Instead Democrats are tripping over themselves to expand free trade and otherwise destroy the middle class. They are too busy capitulating to the desires of business and trying to apologize for not wanting to plunge America back into the laissez faire hell of the 1890s.
See, I knew letting you find your own sources would be ultimately beneficial to us both.
biccat wrote:There's no truth to the statement that "Fox sued for the right to lie." It is a complete fiction.
I will concede that perhaps I was, if not wrong, then inexact. A more accurate statement, I suspect, would have been "Fox News defended their right to fire journalists whom refuse to lie".
biccat wrote:If you're interested in First Amendment law on the subject of the "Right to Lie," I suggest you look up the Stolen Valor Act.
I'm familiar with it already. Do you think it was constitutional? I myself agree with the Supremes that it was not. I guess we're kinda getting offtopic here, though.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:It is strange that the Republicans energize their base with appeals against the status quo while Democrats struggle to energize their base at all.
Probably because, in my opinion, Democrats have spent the last 2 years aggressively pushingly legislation, never really defending it even half heartedly against attacks both legitimate (individual mandate) and not ("death panels"), and then, once they triumph, they distance the hell out of whatever it was they wanted as if they never really cared about it at all. I can't understand what motivates them at all. They never cease to fail to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.
The Republicans, I can understand. They want lower taxes on the rich, and they want to cut as many social programs as possible to pay for it. They have never been vague or vacillated on this message. I don't agree with their ideas and I'm not on their team, but I certainly respect the way they play the game, which is: organized, mean, and to win. When the Dems push legislation, the right wing says outlandish, crazy things about it, then suggest, as a compromise, something wildly radical to the right of it. Then when the Democrats finally settle on something way to the right of what they originally wanted, the Republicans attack them for that as extreme anyway while the Democrats essentially shrug like Jim on The Office. There hasn't been a moment in the last decade, no matter how little actual power they wielded, that the Republicans didn't frame the narrative to their benefit. The Democrats give a long winded, convoluted explanation for why they want something and how it's good for the country, and they very next day; all the face-time Republicans are on message the next day with a short catchy lie about it, syncronized and on-message. The Democrats refute this with some extra complicated snooooooooze about charts and graphs about how they're wrong, and the Republicans just double down and repeat it that same short catchy lie/phrase, again and again as much as possible.
See, I knew letting you find your own sources would be ultimately beneficial to us both.
I'm glad I could help dispel the myths and half-truths that the left perpetuates. But seriously, making a bold accusation and forcing them to find an unbiased source is not a good way to have a civil conversation.
Ouze wrote:
biccat wrote:There's no truth to the statement that "Fox sued for the right to lie." It is a complete fiction.
I will concede that perhaps I was, if not wrong, then inexact. A more accurate statement, I suspect, would have been "Fox News defended their right to fire journalists whom refuse to lie".
Still wrong.
More like "Fox News defended itself against a frivilous lawsuit." The truth or falsehood of the story in question was irrelevant to the lawsuit. Fox simply pointed this out, thereby avoiding a lengthy trial.
If I can get a case thrown out on a technicality, I will. That doesn't mean I'm opposed to the law in question, simply that the technical requirements of the law haven't been met.
Ouze wrote:
biccat wrote:If you're interested in First Amendment law on the subject of the "Right to Lie," I suggest you look up the Stolen Valor Act.
I'm familiar with it already. Do you think it was constitutional? I myself agree with the Supremes that it was not. I guess we're kinda getting offtopic here, though.
Not really off topic, because you raised the issue of a "constitutional right to lie." So was Fox News' defense in the previous case a strong support for the right of free speech, or was Alvarez wrongly decided? Because opposition to the "Stolen Valor Act" is based on the idea that the "right to lie" is a first amendment freedom.
Mannahnin wrote:Biccat, how about you start practicing what you preach?
Sebster's not a Democrat, and he doesn't live in this country. It's not "his side".
Both parties are deeply flawed, and politicians on both sides dishonest, venal, and tragically disappointing. This doesn't mean they are the same, or equivalent. We have to be able to point out when one person is lying, and not excuse it by saying "this other person lies too." While that may be true, it doesn't help anything. We need to start taking responsibility for not electing and supporting liars, no matter whether they're on our own side or not.
Growing up Conservative, I was taught that we need to look at hard realities while we're dreaming of the stars. Take it one lie or liar at a time if we have to. The whole task is monumental and frightening, but it has to be done. If John Kyl was MY Senator, I'd still be ripping into him. 3% does not equal "well over 90%" no matter how you slice it. When you call someone an idiot for pointing that out, you are blocking your ears off from truth, and making yourself a part of the problem.
John Kyl voted, misusing his power, to defund Planned Parenthood based on the entirely false premise that taxpayer money was going to pay for abortions, and the either made-up-out-of-his-head or pulled-from-a-moronic-chain-email number that "well over 90%" of the services provided by them were abortion. Find me a Democrat doing something like that, and I'll be happy to rip them a new one too.
There is this dude in the senate named Joe Lieberman...
Ouze wrote:The Democrats refute this with some extra complicated snooooooooze about charts and graphs about how they're wrong, and the Republicans just double down and repeat it that same short catchy lie/phrase, again and again as much as possible.
Because it works.
Like "Hope and Change." Or "Bush Lied." Or "No War For Oil"?
Besides, the only presidential candidate I recall ever using charts and graphs failed to gain even a single electoral vote.
Ouze wrote:The Democrats refute this with some extra complicated snooooooooze about charts and graphs about how they're wrong, and the Republicans just double down and repeat it that same short catchy lie/phrase, again and again as much as possible.
Because it works.
Like "Hope and Change." Or "Bush Lied." Or "No War For Oil"?
Besides, the only presidential candidate I recall ever using charts and graphs failed to gain even a single electoral vote.
Hope and change is a mantra, not a political statement or statement of fact. Bush did lie, it's been determined in numerous courts. He lied a lot about a lot of gak. No war for oil was a protest slogan. It's a bit different then "Obamas trying to kill the elderly" or "Planned parenthood is an abortion factory". The former are bumper stickers, the latter are things oft stated in conservative news media and by elected officials as truth.
Ouze wrote:The Democrats refute this with some extra complicated snooooooooze about charts and graphs about how they're wrong, and the Republicans just double down and repeat it that same short catchy lie/phrase, again and again as much as possible.
Because it works.
Like "Hope and Change." Or "Bush Lied." Or "No War For Oil"?
Besides, the only presidential candidate I recall ever using charts and graphs failed to gain even a single electoral vote.
Lets all get on the perot boat the perot boat the perot boat, lets all get on the perot boat and we'll all sail away.
Ouze wrote:The Democrats refute this with some extra complicated snooooooooze about charts and graphs about how they're wrong, and the Republicans just double down and repeat it that same short catchy lie/phrase, again and again as much as possible.
Because it works.
Like "Hope and Change." Or "Bush Lied." Or "No War For Oil"?
Besides, the only presidential candidate I recall ever using charts and graphs failed to gain even a single electoral vote.
Ross Perot?
Funny story, my father once tried to convince the owner of the company that he worked for that his (the owners) reckless spending of company funds on crackpot new ventures was unsustainable. To convince the owner of this my father made a number of graphs (line graphs, bar graphs, pie charts, the works) he then presented this all this to the owner in an hour long one on one meeting. The owners response to my father was…
”Karl, how am I supposed to run a company off of all these graphs?”
When the company went under a year later the owner had 6 million in personal debt.
ShumaGorath wrote:Hope and change is a mantra, not a political statement or statement of fact. Bush did lie, it's been determined in numerous courts. He lied a lot about a lot of gak. No war for oil was a protest slogan. It's a bit different then "Obamas trying to kill the elderly" or "Planned parenthood is an abortion factory". The former are bumper stickers, the latter are things oft stated in conservative news media and by elected officials as truth.
So what I get from this is "my side's political slogans are totally true, the other sides' are lies."
Ma55ter_fett wrote:”Karl, how am I supposed to run a company off of all these graphs?”
Right. Your dad's name was Karl. Nice try, we all know it was Boba!
The only newsworthy element of this story is that a politician acknowledged he was wrong.
He didn't say he was wrong though! He basically stated that he was never trying to be correct. "It was not meant to be factual statement" was his response. So it was meant to be a lie. Saying 10% might be exaggeration, 90% is just a lie.
ShumaGorath wrote:I tried that. He said I was going "yay team" and blew off my response. As he has in every one of my responses to him in this thread and others.
Shuma and biccat, I'd advise that both of you take a short break from the computer -- or at least Dakka's OT. I appreciate that you disagree but you're both much, much more intelligent than the type who must resort to tit-for-tat insults and barbs.
Frazzled wrote:
As republican issues routinely poll with majority opinion of the US, they are cultural, not countercultural.
Which Republican issues?
Not abortion, at least not in any sense other than branding (note the graph illustrating the difference between abortion regulation, and abortion prohibition).
Gay marriage is split, but demographics don't favor the continuation of that opinion; especially given strong support among Democrats and Independents.
Taxes are aplit, which is pretty interesting given the state of the economy.
Healthcare is broadly unsupported, though I can't find anything that doesn't focus on the bill that just passed, so I'm not sure if there is broad support for reform, no support for reform, or what support might exist for a certain kind of reform. Well, except Social Security, which everyone seems to like, want only minimal reform to (scroll down), and favor additional taxes to support.
biccat wrote:
Besides, the only presidential candidate I recall ever using charts and graphs failed to gain even a single electoral vote.
You know, I have participated in 2 OT threads so far today, and for what it's worth, they have both been very useful to me, although not in the way you would think. I tend to argue with my coworkers about this stuff (news, political stuff) on the job, and you know what? Perhaps it's better I just leave it there, and keep Dakka a refuge from fighting about things that don't involve the grimdark future, glue-related fiascos, and Mat Ward mockery.
ShumaGorath wrote:Hope and change is a mantra, not a political statement or statement of fact. Bush did lie, it's been determined in numerous courts. He lied a lot about a lot of gak. No war for oil was a protest slogan. It's a bit different then "Obamas trying to kill the elderly" or "Planned parenthood is an abortion factory". The former are bumper stickers, the latter are things oft stated in conservative news media and by elected officials as truth.
So what I get from this is "my side's political slogans are totally true, the other sides' are lies."
This is honestly mindblowing. Did you actually read what he said?
There is a difference between a slogan on a sign, and a statement of fact made in Congress or to the American people in support of a political policy.
"Hope and Change" isn't a statement which can be proved true or false. "No war for oil" is an expression of the person's opinion.
"Abortion is well over 90% of what Planned Parenthood does" is a statement of fact, and it's a lie.
"Iraq recently attempted to buy enriched Uranium from Niger" is a statement of fact, and was a lie.
"Iraq is working with Al Qaeda" is a statement of fact, and was a lie.
"End of life planning assistance = a panel will decide when your grandmother will die" is a statement of fact, and a lie.
I never said Republican politicians don't lie. I just dispute that lying is an exclusively Republican trait.
When the left-wing posters on this site continually lie, flame, and troll, it's difficult to have a reasonable discussion. To those posters, please try to apply a little bit of intellectual firepower to these issues before you post.
You didn't say that. You said that it was impossible to tell if one side lied more than the other because you would need to examine every statement ever made.
That isn't true.
There are even convenient nonpartisan websites like Factcheck.org where people actually track politicians' public statements and verify their accuracy.
No one ever said that "lying is an exclusively Republican trait". Quite the opposite, actually, which means Biccat is clearly employing a Strawman argument right here. What they said is that Republicans lie MORE than Democrats.
Which is their opinion, but something you can check for yourself by employing critical thinking and a tiny bit of research to claims made by politicians on BOTH sides, and using convenient resources like factcheck.org, wikipedia, google, and the multitude of incredibly convenient tools out there which help voters keep themselves better informed nowadays if they care enough to bother.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
biccat wrote:The sole reason for this thread was that a Republican lied and then acknowledged that he was wrong (assuming the best of motives). The only newsworthy element of this story is that a politician acknowledged he was wrong.
This is an objectively false statement. You are posting a blatant untruth right here.
He did not acknowledge that he was wrong. His office issued an absurd statement that his claim was "never intended to be factual". He made a numeric, checkable claim, on the floor of Congress, about the activities of an organization he was arguing to defund. He premised his position on entirely false pretenses. Then his office tried to claim afterward that his statement of fact was not meant to be a statement of fact, when there's nothing else it could have been.
This is why he's being mocked. Not just for lying. Lying, or at least making false statements, as you say, is pretty common. It's that he...
1. Totally failed to do even elementary research before debating budget on the floor of congress
2. Adopted a position based on lies
3. Made a totally inaccurate, not-even-close-to-true claim, and based his political argument on that fiction
4. Then tried to pretend that wasn't what he did.
ShumaGorath wrote:Hope and change is a mantra, not a political statement or statement of fact. Bush did lie, it's been determined in numerous courts. He lied a lot about a lot of gak. No war for oil was a protest slogan. It's a bit different then "Obamas trying to kill the elderly" or "Planned parenthood is an abortion factory". The former are bumper stickers, the latter are things oft stated in conservative news media and by elected officials as truth.
So what I get from this is "my side's political slogans are totally true, the other sides' are lies."
And you accuse me of not reading other people's posts.
youbedead wrote:We should treat the floor of the senate like a courtroom anyone lieing can be charged wIth contempt. After a few months there wouldn't be anyone left
QFT.
Congress used to have a jail, where they could hold people in Contempt of Congress like a court does.
Mannahnin wrote:Biccat, thank you for ripping on Steward and Colbert. There is no faster way for anyone to totally discredit their own political opinions in public.
Wait...You do understand that Stewart and Colbert are comedians, right?
label it what you want. Colbert is a sarcastic joker about most things and pretty much whatever he says you can almost assume he means the opposite, that has been obvious for years. Other than obvious farce intended sarcastically, though, I don't think the daily show actually addresses things with outright lies, they are just funny about it instead of "reporting" it. He's a comedian because he makes fun of his interpretation of nasty things. If he neutrally reported his interpretation of nasty things, they would still be nasty things, just not funny to hear.
There should be a nun wandering the floor and when someone tells a fib she smacks them with a ruler on the knuckles. C-Span viewership would skyrocket.
Ahtman wrote:There should be a nun wandering the floor and when someone tells a fib she smacks them with a ruler on the knuckles. C-Span viewership would skyrocket.
No, a sexy nun, in black vinyl, with a bull whip! Good I wish Friday would get here already!
PLEASE DON'T MAKE ARGUMENTS PERSONAL. KEEP IT ABOUT THE PERSON'S ARGUMENT, NOT THE PERSON HIM OR HERSELF, THANKS. -The Mgmt. never ceases to amaze me. He is the Glen Beck of Dakka, most definitely.
Ahtman wrote:There should be a nun wandering the floor and when someone tells a fib she smacks them with a ruler on the knuckles. C-Span viewership would skyrocket.
Good idea but it would have to be this nun:
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Mannahnin wrote:
frgsinwntr wrote:I like the idea of holding lies in congress as a crime
They should be sworn in before speaking, and verifiably false statements treated as perjury. That'd be pretty cool.
Its the opposite actually. Statements on the floor are specifically exempt so as to protect Congressmen and allow them to speak them minds. Else the Speaker would hammer the other party.
However duels should be permitted, provided they are held in the middle of stage 1 of Ninja Warrior!
Yeah, I know. I just think that there should be some accountability for giving checkable and provably false data in a debate. It poisons and damages the integrity of the system.
The accountability comes from a free press and the ability of other debaters to oppose the offender.
The real problem is not members of Congress lying to the public, it is sections of the public that want to be lied to -- these are on all parts of the political spectrum.
As is news organizations' tendency to cheer on and enable the more degenerate and shallow forms of debate as revenue-enhancing ratings-boosters, rather than calling people on their bs.
This is part of why Stewart and Colbert are (ironically) actually important and useful, not just funny. Because in being funny, they can maintain ratings while still calling people on their bs.
biccat wrote:You can't prove that Democrats lie as much as Republicans do, and you can't prove the opposite. Unless you're interested in reviewing every statement ever made for it's veracity, and even then, you're going to make some judgment calls. When Democrats say Republicans want to close cancer screening centers, is this true or false? Or when Democrats, on the floor of Congress, accuse the president and troops of being war criminals, is this true or false?
First up, you don't know what a platitude is. Second up, I take it as obvious, given the performance of Republicans in the last decade or so. I can think back to which party pretended HCR would produce death panels, and did not have the majority of its members looking to shut down those kind of lies.
You don't have to agree. In fact, I know you don't. That's basically the problem here. They're your side, and you look past it when they tell lies, because the cause is more important than truth. That's why they've been able to tell so many lies, and you've kept on not caring.
The argument that you're not American doesn't give you status as a neutral observer either. You have clearly indicated that you have some liberal ideas, and generally have a left-of-center outlook on things. This colors your view of American politics, and you're more likely to support those whose ideas you agree with. Similarly, if we were discussing Australian politics, my view wouldn't be neutral, but colored by my political perceptions.
You skimmed what I read, and misunderstood what you did read. Which is, again, part of the problem.
The point is not that I'm not from the US, therefore a neutral observer. You correctly pointed out that I do have beliefs that put me well on the leftwing of US politics. The point is that I don't pick 'good' or 'bad' based on ideology, but on whether the people involved are actually competent. Which is why, despite being on the left of Australian politics, I was happy to vote for the conservative government, because they were more competent than their leftwing opponents.
If you pick a side and stand by them regardless, and dismiss any criticism as coming from ideological sources, then you'll end up having a very simplistic, naive set of political beliefs. Your inability in this thread to say "Sen John Kyl is a lying ass and the party should publically censure him for his lies" is a pretty strong indicator of how deeply you've bought into the Republican machine, and how much you're willing to look past honesty to avoid breaking ranks.
The sole reason for this thread was that a Republican lied and then acknowledged that he was wrong (assuming the best of motives). The only newsworthy element of this story is that a politician acknowledged he was wrong. I don't see threads popping up every time a politician tells a lie, because this board would soon be flooded with those threads.
No, that's not what happened. You know, deep down buried under all your ideological convictions, that that isn't what happened. The guy was off by a factor of 30. 90% is very fething different to 3%. When called on it, he said that his statement wasn't meant to be truthful. That's no acknowledging. That's a big deal.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Frazzled wrote:[It is true. You can't do a statistical analysis unless you follow them around. recording them. Even then you are biased in your interpretation of what is or isn't a lie. Anything else is sophistry.
That sort of fuzzy non-thought used to be the problem with the fringes of the left wing. Now I see it crop up all the time in mainstream right wing politics. "Oh everything is influenced by personal bias, so just pick whatever source you like and go with that."
There is an objective, observable world out there, and it can be studied and considered with reason and thought. We can debate points of difference, and we can find out which beliefs are consistent with reality. We won't be able to remove all doubt, but we can actually confirm that the Laffer Curve is nonsense, for instance.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Manchu wrote:I've always thought of the Republican factionalism as a contradiction of heroic individualism and authoritarianism -- quite simply they value both and the two things cannot synthesize. I don't see a similar contradiction in the Democratic Party. It's true that Democrats embrace a great diversity of issues but the party is founded on a belief in solidarity. It's not that solidarity and the diversity of concern are mutually exclusive -- it's just hard to get everyone as worked up as you are about your particular issue. Maybe there is a contradiction in Democratic politics, but the nearest I can think of is that between working for the benefit of the nation as apposed to the locality. And that's an issue with which both parties have to deal.
I think the Democratic difference exist more on the practical level. Someone brought into the party by a commitment to the environment will often clash politically with someone brought into the party by a commitment to worker's rights. Ultimately, you will see issues of trees vs jobs, and one part of the party or the other has to back down.
The divides in the Republican exist on a more fundamental level, which is why it's able to present a more unified front in the short term, but suffer a real risk of fracture in the long term. The Christian theocrats and the libertarians, for instance, won't but heads nearly as often, but when they do neither group can surrender so easily.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kilkrazy wrote:The accountability comes from a free press and the ability of other debaters to oppose the offender.
The real problem is not members of Congress lying to the public, it is sections of the public that want to be lied to -- these are on all parts of the political spectrum.
Definitely. It just never ceases to amaze me. They lie, people believe the lies and repeat them, and you'd think when they were called on those lies they'd feel shame that they'd been played for a fool and stop listening to the liars. But they just don't care that they've been made to look silly, and I absolutely cannot understand the lack of pride these people have.
sebster wrote:I can think back to which party pretended HCR would produce death panels, and did not have the majority of its members looking to shut down those kind of lies.
I can also think back to which party accused their opponents of wanting old people to eat cat food. And which one said that HCR would decrease costs. There are a lot of lies in politics.
sebster wrote:You don't have to agree. In fact, I know you don't. That's basically the problem here. They're your side, and you look past it when they tell lies, because the cause is more important than truth. That's why they've been able to tell so many lies, and you've kept on not caring.
And you somehow manage to say this with a straight face. You are just as guilty of looking past it when your side tells lies, and you don't care.
sebster wrote:You skimmed what I read, and misunderstood what you did read. Which is, again, part of the problem.
Your failure to make a coherent or consistent point is not my problem.
sebster wrote:The point is that I don't pick 'good' or 'bad' based on ideology, but on whether the people involved are actually competent.
This is deflecting. You are picking 'competency' based on your ideological views.
sebster wrote:Which is why, despite being on the left of Australian politics, I was happy to vote for the conservative government, because they were more competent than their leftwing opponents.
No, you said before that you voted for the conservative government because you agreed with them. You're simply disguising your political bias with some vague concept of competency.
sebster wrote:If you pick a side and stand by them regardless, and dismiss any criticism as coming from ideological sources, then you'll end up having a very simplistic, naive set of political beliefs. Your inability in this thread to say "Sen John Kyl is a lying ass and the party should publically censure him for his lies" is a pretty strong indicator of how deeply you've bought into the Republican machine, and how much you're willing to look past honesty to avoid breaking ranks.
He's a lying ass, but the party shouldn't censor him, any more than the DNC should censor any other Democrat for their lies on the floor. It's demagoguery and both sides engage in it.
sebster wrote:No, that's not what happened. You know, deep down buried under all your ideological convictions, that that isn't what happened.
Wait, it's not? Let me get the facts straight:
1) Senator cited a fact on the floor.
2) Senator recanted that fact.
Holy crap, I was right, and in fact, your point doesn't make any sense. Seriously, try reading the story sometime, it will really help the content of your posts.
Unrelated personal insults disregarded in this post. I'd appreciate it if you would stop the personal attacks, seriously.
biccat wrote:
1) Senator cited a fact on the floor.
2) Senator recanted that fact.
Holy crap, I was right, and in fact, your point doesn't make any sense. Seriously, try reading the story sometime, it will really help the content of your posts.
Holy crap, you weren't right. Recanting is hardly the same as claiming you meant something else so you don't have to apologize.
biccat wrote:I can also think back to which party accused their opponents of wanting old people to eat cat food. And which one said that HCR would decrease costs. There are a lot of lies in politics.
First up, you don't know what a lie is. There has to be an actual effort to deceive. Do you think the aim behind Clinton's goal was to have people believe that people would really b forced to eat cat food, or was it just hyperbole?
Second up, the cat food line was given in 1996, when the Democrats were about as bad as the Republicans (the Democrats have gotten no better, the Republicans have gotten a whole lot worse), if you have to go back to 1996 to find an example of Democrat lie as bad as one of the countless Republican fibs then your case is very weak.
There are Democrat lies out there, it would have been far more effective to go with the effort to claim GW Bush went AWOL. If you want to go for something that was a plain lie, albeit only a little more recent than your effort, then you'd go with Clinton denying the (something that a lot of Democrats shamefully do pretend was not a lie). But really, I shouldn't have to be making your case for you here.
sebster wrote:And you somehow manage to say this with a straight face. You are just as guilty of looking past it when your side tells lies, and you don't care.
I've never come into a thread to defend a Democrat lie. Even the above "cat food" comment, while obviously hyperbole and not a lie, was poor form and not something I would defend.
You're making things up to try and justify your very silly decision to come into this thread to defend the lying senator. Did it bother you that much that people were making fun of a Republican? Is your ego that closely aligned to a political party?
Your failure to make a coherent or consistent point is not my problem.
It was perfectly clear, if you'd bother to read it. Too hard, obviously, easier to just complain about someone else being biased and mean to your favourite Republicans, yeah?
This is deflecting. You are picking 'competency' based on your ideological views.
Have you drunk from the fountain of 'bias' so deeply that you are completely incapable of thinking somethings might actually be possible?
No, you said before that you voted for the conservative government because you agreed with them. You're simply disguising your political bias with some vague concept of competency.
Your reading comprehension is terrible; "Not because I particularly agree with their politics more than the other side, but because for most of my voting life the candidates they've put forward have been more honest and more competent. "
And no, I'm not. At least, whatever bias I have isn't directed at all to one team or another. The fact that you simply cannot get that is incredible.
He's a lying ass, but the party shouldn't censor him, any more than the DNC should censor any other Democrat for their lies on the floor. It's demagoguery and both sides engage in it.
Not "censor", I said "censure". You need to learn what words mean.
And yes, when Democrats make blatant lies they should also be censured. I look forward to you coming here to posts threads about Democrats and Republicans telling lies and calling for their censure.
Wait, it's not? Let me get the facts straight: 1) Senator cited a fact on the floor. 2) Senator recanted that fact.
Holy crap, I was right, and in fact, your point doesn't make any sense. Seriously, try reading the story sometime, it will really help the content of your posts.
Are you seriously going to stand there saying that a note from his office that his statement wasn't intended a factual statement is the same thing as retracting the comment? Seriously.
Unrelated personal insults disregarded in this post. I'd appreciate it if you would stop the personal attacks, seriously.
They're not personal attacks, they're calls for you to lift your game.
sebster wrote:First up, you don't know what a lie is.
sebster wrote:You're making things up
sebster wrote:It was perfectly clear, if you'd bother to read it. Too hard, obviously, easier to just complain about someone else being biased and mean to your favourite Republicans, yeah?
sebster wrote:you are completely incapable of thinking somethings might actually be possible
sebster wrote:Your reading comprehension is terrible
sebster wrote:The fact that you simply cannot get that is incredible.
sebster wrote:You need to learn what words mean.
sebster wrote:Are you seriously going to stand there saying that a note from his office that his statement wasn't intended a factual statement is the same thing as retracting the comment? Seriously.
And of course, the comment that brings it all together:
sebster wrote:They're not personal attacks, they're calls for you to lift your game.
Classy dude, real classy. It's plain to see that you're not interested in actual discussion.
He has been trying to have one for several pages, and you are refusing to engage with facts.
You have carelessly or willfully misunderstood or misinterpreted most of his statements, and the facts of the incidents which provoked this thread. Please take some responsibility. That's supposed to be a Conservative strength.
If I were just a "yay team" guy, I'd actually be happy to have you on here representing the "other side", because you provide an objective example of someone totally distorting fact and ignoring truth. But I'm a "truth" guy, so it's just frustrating and annoying.
Wait, it's not? Let me get the facts straight:
1) Senator cited a fact on the floor.
2) Senator recanted that fact.
#NotIntendedToBeAFactualStatement
Fixed that for you!
Wait, it's not? Let me get the facts straight:
1) Senator cited a fact on the floor. (Except it was not a fact, no where near a fact, it couldn't see the real fact with a telescope!)
2) Senator recanted that fact. (except that he didn't recant, he never said "My bad" I made a mistake, he said he never intended it to be factual. So he basically admitted to attempted deception!)
biccat wrote:1) Senator cited a fact on the floor.
2) Senator recanted that fact.
See, sometimes you do portray yourself as a smart and clever fellow, so it's hard to tell whether you're actually saying this bs with a straight face, or whether the fact that it's not meant to be a factual statement it meant to be presumed...
*edits* Whoops, thoroughly beat. That's what I get for immediately hitting 'reply' instead of reading out the thread when I see someone posting something stupid.
biccat wrote:Classy dude, real classy. It's plain to see that you're not interested in actual discussion.
Diddums. Everything I said that obviously hurt your feelings was just a comment on the standard of your posting, if you don't want to hear those kind of comments then I think you should try contributing at a higher standard.
biccat wrote:Classy dude, real classy. It's plain to see that you're not interested in actual discussion.
Diddums. Everything I said that obviously hurt your feelings was just a comment on the standard of your posting, if you don't want to hear those kind of comments then I think you should try contributing at a higher standard.
No, it's a collection of the juvenile insults you seem to think pass for an argument.
You "win" at arguments by shouting down and insulting other posters, with little to no regard for their responses, it's just another chance for you to belittle and attack them. I'm tired of putting up with your crap.
biccat wrote:No, it's a collection of the juvenile insults you seem to think pass for an argument.
But I wasn't just giving insults. This is obvious just from reading what's been written. You made a number of mistakes, and I pointed these out. You've decided to read these as attacks because that's easier for you than conceding you were making a lot of mistakes.
Which, again, is part of the problem.
I'm not looking to "win" at the internet. I'm looking to make what I hope are interesting posts with some points to consider, and hoping to read the same from other posters. You came into this thread trying to attack people for having a laugh at a guy who claimed 3% of spending was 90% of spending, and things have gone downhill for you from there. The way to change what's happened is to improve your posting standards, read other people's posts, look to respond to what they've written.
biccat wrote:Classy dude, real classy. It's plain to see that you're not interested in actual discussion.
Diddums. Everything I said that obviously hurt your feelings was just a comment on the standard of your posting, if you don't want to hear those kind of comments then I think you should try contributing at a higher standard.
No, it's a collection of the juvenile insults you seem to think pass for an argument.
You "win" at arguments by shouting down and insulting other posters, with little to no regard for their responses, it's just another chance for you to belittle and attack them. I'm tired of putting up with your crap.
So, you're right. Congrats.
In every thread when you're presented with a dissenting opinion that references your cognitive dissonance and double standards you call people out on it. Of course its insulting to you. They are pointing out a flaw. That doesn't invalidate it. They aren't somehow juvenile for pointing out that you're posting to a much lower standard then is seemingly expected of you. Cheer up. He's trying to get you to actually interface with your beliefs and understand them a tad better. If you were lordhat or even frazzled I doubt he would put the effort forth.
ShumaGorath wrote:In every thread when you're presented with a dissenting opinion that references your cognitive dissonance and double standards you call people out on it. Of course its insulting to you. They are pointing out a flaw. That doesn't invalidate it. They aren't somehow juvenile for pointing out that you're posting to a much lower standard then is seemingly expected of you. Cheer up. He's trying to get you to actually interface with your beliefs and understand them a tad better. If you were lordhat or even frazzled I doubt he would put the effort forth.
I'd try with lordhat, and expect more success. I have tried with fraz in the past.
T'would seem then, surprise surprise, that something of an impasse has been reached here. I'm sure we've all learnt a lot .
About like morals, taking care of the planet, not stealing and taking unsolicited advice from a man who lies to his friends and family constantly, wears furry underpants and boots and rides a cat into battle. Or something.
