Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Why would we have legitimate political discussion when we can just say outrageous things that get our pretty face on the TV?

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.

biccat wrote:

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.

^Not intended to be a factual statement.

Emperors Faithful wrote:

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.

I think that Mannahnin just summed it all up and ceased a need for further talk. Move on to another thread, folks.

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?

If my tax dollars are funding abortions I should get to choose who gets them!

sebster wrote:

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?

BAM.

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 mean like when Fox News successfully argued in court for the right to lie with impunity?

What the hell is a "legitimate news source" if your own Senator can blatantly lie to you?

Ouze wrote:You mean like when Fox News successfully argued in court for the right to lie with impunity?

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.

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.

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.

You mean like when Fox News successfully argued in court for the right to lie with impunity?

Give me a legitimate source and I'll happily debate the issue.

biccat wrote:

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.

You mean like when Fox News successfully argued in court for the right to lie with impunity?

Give me a legitimate source and I'll happily debate the issue.

How can an Appellate Court not be a reliable source? or do you just not like who told you about the ruling?

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.

There are 100 million Americans who scare me. *

*Please keep negative sentiments non-specific with regard to other users. Thanks! ~Manchu

No wonder my missus moved!

Hmmm...Republican lies....Republican lies...

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!

alarmingrick wrote:How can an Appellate Court not be a reliable source? or do you just not like who told you about the ruling?

Then link to the Appellate Court. I'm not going to a site that is blatently biased against Fox and expect them to be impartial. Seriously, try harder.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Mystery wrote:Hmmm...Republican lies....Republican lies...

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.

biccat wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:How can an Appellate Court not be a reliable source? or do you just not like who told you about the ruling?

Then link to the Appellate Court. I'm not going to a site that is blatently biased against Fox and expect them to be impartial. Seriously, try harder.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Mystery wrote:Hmmm...Republican lies....Republican lies...

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.

Kilkrazy wrote:

biccat wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:How can an Appellate Court not be a reliable source? or do you just not like who told you about the ruling?

Then link to the Appellate Court. I'm not going to a site that is blatently biased against Fox and expect them to be impartial. Seriously, try harder.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Mr Mystery wrote:Hmmm...Republican lies....Republican lies...

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.

I hope that was intentional.

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:

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.

You mean like when Fox News successfully argued in court for the right to lie with impunity?

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.

alarmingrick wrote:

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.

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.