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.

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.

Finally, here's the text of the opinion from the Florida court of appeals. It wasn't that hard to find.

There's no truth to the statement that "Fox sued for the right to lie." It is a complete fiction.

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.

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.

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).

It was also funny.

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.

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.

And yet you claim to take your news from Fox, which is obviously a comedy network.

Fox has great ratings, I always watch it when im in the US.

Its funnier than the comedy network!

I prefer The Onion myself. Their writing staff is better.

@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.

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.

biccat wrote:Finally, here's the text of the opinion from the Florida court of appeals. It wasn't that hard to find.

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.

Because it works.

Ouze wrote:

biccat wrote:Finally, here's the text of the opinion from the Florida court of appeals. It wasn't that hard to find.

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.

biccat wrote:

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.

biccat wrote:

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.

biccat wrote:

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!

So what I get from this is "my side's political slogans are totally true, the other sides' are lies."

I mean, I guess you could get that from that. If you're six.

ShumaGorath wrote:

So what I get from this is "my side's political slogans are totally true, the other sides' are lies."

I mean, I guess you could get that from that. If you're six.

Ah, what a whimsical and well-reasoned retort. At least I'm not being accused of being a 5-year-old like you did to ArtfcllyFlvrd.

edit: added link to clarify.

Shuma, please leave off the passive-aggression and argue on points rather than implied insults.

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.

Manchu wrote:Shuma, please leave off the passive-aggression and argue on points rather than implied insults.

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:

ShumaGorath wrote:

So what I get from this is "my side's political slogans are totally true, the other sides' are lies."

I mean, I guess you could get that from that. If you're six.

Ah, what a whimsical and well-reasoned retort. At least I'm not being accused of being a 5-year-old like you did to ArtfcllyFlvrd.

edit: added link to clarify.

Five to six is a huge stage in early childhood development! Rest assured it's very different!

ShumaGorath wrote:

Manchu wrote:Shuma, please leave off the passive-aggression and argue on points rather than implied insults.

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.

Just Ignore him then.

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.

Then don't post "Yay team" responses.