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.

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.

Gun control is still generally opposed, but when was the last time you heard a serious call for greater gun control?

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.

What about Regan and the infamous Laffer Curve?

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.

biccat wrote:

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.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:

biccat wrote:

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.

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.

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

biccat wrote:

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.

biccat wrote:

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.

I like the idea of holding lies in congress as a crime

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.

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.

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!

It is the same thing as "parliamentary privilege" in the UK.

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.

I think they're both real problems.

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!)

Exactly. His office's absurd statement basically = "He meant to lie."

#NotIntendedToBeAFactualStatement

My INCREDIBLY RIGHT WING LA teacher is going to hate this. He HATES abortions, so when he brings up planned parenthood again, I can hit him with this.

On a side note, he also thinks Rush Limba is an unbiased news outlet.*

*Note, this was intended as a factual statement.

Happygrunt wrote:
On a side note, he also thinks Rush Limba is an unbiased news outlet.*

/so-many-face-palms

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.