Page 211 of 656 FirstFirst ... 111161201207208209210211212213214215221261311 ... LastLast
Results 3,151 to 3,165 of 9827
  1. #3151
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,562

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    Politifact's standard for calling a statement half-true is when it "leaves out important details or takes things out of context." That's not about something being contentious. It suggests either an effort to deceive or ignorance on the part of the speaker.

    But even if you don't include statements that leave out important details or take things out of context, it does leave 24 percent of Democratic statements as unambiguously false or mostly false. That still falls in the category of routine lies.
    24% is not "routine" by any stretch of the imagination -- if one wins only 24% of the time, one is not a "routine" winner and you know this.

    Conversely, by your standards, lying or making "contentious" statements more than 80% of the time would be considered "routinely" lying.

    ("By the same token, 54 percent of Democratic statements were rated as "mostly true" or "true," compared to just 18 percent of Republican statements.")

    They only told the whole truth 18 percent of the time -- all you are doing with false assertions like the above is proving your Republican credentials.

    It's basic math -- even if I allow for your definition of "half-truths", 46% is not routine, while 82% could be considered routine.

    It's likewise dishonest to claim the difference is negligible -- like claiming a 46% free throw shooter is just as skilled as an 82% free throw shooter.

    You continue to try to slander Democrats while offering no real defense for the lies of your chosen party.

    You likewise have yet to show how these Republican policies -- and lies -- benefit the "most people".
    Last edited by aja_christopher; 12-27-2019 at 04:42 PM.

  2. #3152
    Horrific Experiment JCAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,430

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by shooshoomanjoe View Post
    I agree that both parties lie but Republicans, under trump, have taken the lies to the fantastical. It began on day 1 with Conway coining 'alternative facts' and ramping it up with the Bowling Green Massacre. To my knowledge, the GOP are the only party that have members who believe in conspiracy theories and trump often tweets things that have already been proven false. The GOP we see under trump is Koch's Tea Party.
    Since I guess it needs to be said.

    Bush lied about WMDs to get us into a war, as payback for his daddy's failures and funnel 100s of billions of dollars into the hands of his war profiteer buddies in the military industrial complex.
    Obama lied about health insurance to force Americans to confront and fix our broken and immoral healthcare system.
    Trump lies about immigrants so that he can murder children in concentration camps.

    One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn't belong.

  3. #3153
    Ultimate Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,096

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JCAll View Post
    Since I guess it needs to be said.

    Bush lied about WMDs to get us into a war, as payback for his daddy's failures and funnel 100s of billions of dollars into the hands of his war profiteer buddies in the military industrial complex.
    Obama lied about health insurance to force Americans to confront and fix our broken and immoral healthcare system.

    Trump lies about immigrants so that he can murder children in concentration camps.

    One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn't belong.
    One guy's take...

    The part in blue should go a little more like -

    https://www.latimes.com/projects/la-...-obama-at-war/

    President Obama, who hoped to sow peace, instead led the nation in war
    https://www.theatlantic.com/internat...umbers/474531/

    Obama Promised to End America’s Wars—Has He?
    In his recent cover story for The Atlantic, Jeffrey Goldberg notes that when Barack Obama first entered the White House, with George W. Bush’s long wars in Afghanistan and Iraq ongoing, “he was not seeking new dragons to slay.” Just the opposite: He fit the mold, Goldberg argues, of a “retrenchment president” elected to scale back America’s commitments overseas and shift responsibilities to allies. But you could be forgiven for thinking the dragons have stubbornly remained, and even multiplied, on Obama’s watch.

    To cite just some recent examples: In October, the president authorized the first sustained deployment of U.S. special-operations forces to Syria to complement his air campaign against the Islamic State. In January, reports emerged that the Obama administration was rethinking its troop drawdown in Afghanistan, given the deteriorating security situation there, and considering sending more troops to Iraq and Syria. The next month, Obama released a defense budget that included an increase of $2.5 billion over the previous year to expand the fight with ISIS to North and West Africa, and billions more for sending heavy weapons, armored vehicles, and other equipment to Eastern and Central Europe to counter Russian aggression. In the past several weeks alone, we’ve learned of Pentagon plans to dispatch military advisers to Nigeria against the jihadist group Boko Haram and to launch an aerial offensive in Libya against the Islamic State. U.S. bombing raids recently killed 150 suspected militants in Somalia and over 40 in Libya. By one measure, in fact, the U.S. military is now actively engaged in more countries than when Obama took office.

    It wasn’t supposed to be this way. Although Obama never presented himself as a pacifist candidate, his 2007-2008 presidential campaign was predicated in part on the promise to end the war in Iraq and properly prosecute the war in Afghanistan. In March 2008, he declared of Iraq, “When I am commander in chief, I will set a new goal on day one: I will end this war.” Later that year, he listed his first two priorities for making America safer as “ending the war in Iraq responsibly” and “finishing the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban.” The president also promised a foreign policy that relied more on diplomacy and less on military might in his first inaugural address, telling his audience that “our power grows through its prudent use; our security emanates from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.” Well before the tumult of the Arab Spring and its aftermath, Obama famously offered to extend a hand to those willing to unclench their fist.

    In many ways, Obama has kept his word. He ended Operation Iraqi Freedom and Operation Enduring Freedom—the combat missions in Iraq and Afghanistan, respectively, that Bush bequeathed to him—and drastically reduced U.S. troop levels from their peaks in both countries. In the midst of the Arab Spring, the president led a limited military campaign against Libyan dictator Muammar al-Qaddafi with the support of the United Nations and a multinational coalition. He has been reluctant to intervene in Syria’s civil war in any significant way despite intense pressure to do so from both inside and outside his administration. In 2013, Obama announced his intention to shift the United States away from “a perpetual wartime footing.” He said, “Our systematic effort to dismantle terrorist organizations must continue. But this war, like all wars, must end.” And Obama has repeatedly shown his commitment to diplomacy by reestablishing relations with Burma and Cuba, and by striking a nuclear deal with Iran.

    And yet while America’s military footprint abroad is fainter today than when Obama took office, it’s also more dispersed. Not counting the probable expansion of the anti-ISIS campaign to Libya and other parts of Africa in the near future, the U.S. military is, by my reckoning, involved in more countries now than when Obama took office in 2009, albeit to varying degrees.

  4. #3154
    Horrific Experiment JCAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,430

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by numberthirty View Post
    I chalk that up to Obama failing at everything he tried more than outright lying. The Healthcare thing was specifically brought up in this discussion, and it was totally a lie.

  5. #3155
    Ultimate Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,096

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JCAll View Post
    Since I guess it needs to be said.

    Bush lied about WMDs to get us into a war, as payback for his daddy's failures and funnel 100s of billions of dollars into the hands of his war profiteer buddies in the military industrial complex.
    Obama lied about health insurance to force Americans to confront and fix our broken and immoral healthcare system.
    Trump lies about immigrants so that he can murder children in concentration camps.

    One of these things is not like the others, one of these things just doesn't belong.
    One other thing about this...

    Nothing has been anything like "Fixed".

    In the same way that the WMD lie funneled money to companies involved in making money off of conflict, it's nonsense to just avoid talking about that the ACA largely funnels money into a "For Profit..." insurance racket while not actually "Fixing..." the issues in what passes for America's "Healthcare" system.

    It does no good to ignore that reality.

  6. #3156
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,562

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by JCAll View Post
    I chalk that up to Obama failing at everything he tried more than outright lying.
    Because in addition to being routinely dishonest, Republicans also committed themselves to blocking everything Obama attempted.

    "“If Obama wanted it, we Republicans had to be against it,” said Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky."
    Last edited by aja_christopher; 12-27-2019 at 05:05 PM.

  7. #3157
    Extraordinary Member Celgress's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,895

    Angry

    Quote Originally Posted by numberthirty View Post
    One other thing about this...

    Nothing has been anything like "Fixed".

    In the same way that the WMD lie funneled money to companies involved in making money off of conflict, it's nonsense to just avoid talking about that the ACA largely funnels money into a "For Profit..." insurance racket while not actually "Fixing..." the issues in what passes for America's "Healthcare" system.

    It does no good to ignore that reality.
    I will say this much about Iraq. I clearly remember the moment I lost faith in the media. It was when Wolf Blitzer, during the Republican South Carolina 2016 primary, stated that the media had entered into an agreement with the Bush Family to never "relitigate" the lies of the Iraq War. This was so the country "could heal". The blinders came off and I've never completely trusted the media since.
    "So you've come to the end now alive but dead inside."

  8. #3158
    Ultimate Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,096

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Celgress View Post
    I will say this much about Iraq. I clearly remember the moment I lost faith in the media. It was when Wolf Blitzer, during the Republican South Carolina 2016 primary, stated that the media had entered into an agreement with the Bush Family to never "relitigate" the lies of the Iraq War. This was so the country "could heal". The blinders came off and I've never completely trusted the media since.
    Well, the "Usual Suspects" in the cable news picture(FNC/CNN/MSNBC) are the last ones who are actually going to do anything that needs to be done.

    Will FNC keep bringing up if the Republicans are going to actually have primary debates?

    Never going to happen.

    Will MSNBC ask Democrats how much money the ACA has netted "For Profit..." insurance companies during a debate that they are moderating?

    Never going to happen.

  9. #3159
    Horrific Experiment JCAll's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    4,430

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aja_christopher View Post
    Because in addition to being routinely dishonest, Republicans also committed themselves to blocking everything Obama attempted.

    "“If Obama wanted it, we Republicans had to be against it,” said Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky."
    The GOP spending a decade trying sabotage healthcare reform is every bit as much a condemnation of them as the concentration camps, and should silence any cries of "But Obama!".
    But it doesn't, of course not.

  10. #3160
    Extraordinary Member Malvolio's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Freeville, NY
    Posts
    7,907

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aja_christopher View Post
    Because in addition to being routinely dishonest, Republicans also committed themselves to blocking everything Obama attempted.

    "“If Obama wanted it, we Republicans had to be against it,” said Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky."
    This. Just because Obama didn't accomplish something he said that he would accomplish doesn't make him a liar. I mean, what was he supposed to say? "I'll try to close Guantanamo Bay?" Doesn't sound too confident. A President has to sound confident at all times, even when he knows that he probably won't get done what he wants to get done.

  11. #3161
    Ultimate Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,096

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Malvolio View Post
    This. Just because Obama didn't accomplish something he said that he would accomplish doesn't make him a liar. I mean, what was he supposed to say? "I'll try to close Guantanamo Bay?" Doesn't sound too confident. A President has to sound confident at all times, even when he knows that he probably won't get done what he wants to get done.
    See former President Obama's use of the drone program for details on what the actual reality of what we are discussing is.

  12. #3162

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aja_christopher View Post
    24% is not "routine" by any stretch of the imagination -- if one wins only 24% of the time, one is not a "routine" winner and you know this.

    Conversely, by your standards, lying or making "contentious" statements more than 80% of the time would be considered "routinely" lying.

    ("By the same token, 54 percent of Democratic statements were rated as "mostly true" or "true," compared to just 18 percent of Republican statements.")

    They only told the whole truth 18 percent of the time -- all you are doing with false assertions like the above is proving your Republican credentials.

    It's basic math -- even if I allow for your definition of "half-truths", 46% is not routine, while 82% could be considered routine.

    It's likewise dishonest to claim the difference is negligible -- like claiming a 46% free throw shooter is just as skilled as an 82% free throw shooter.

    You continue to try to slander Democrats while offering no real defense for the lies of your chosen party.

    You likewise have yet to show how these Republican policies -- and lies -- benefit the "most people".
    I think you're looking at statistics incorrectly here. Lying isn't the equivalent of losing in sports, where one side has to lose every game (and where only one team gets to win the final game of the season.) It's not a 50/50 proposition.

    The ideal is for representatives of a political party to be honest 100% of the time (with potential exceptions in really rare situations.) Unlike in sports, where one team's win means another loses, one party being consistently honest doesn't mean the other has to be dishonest.

    So if something that should be unlikely occurs 24% of the time, it would be routine. If a team wins the world series 24% of the time, it would be fair to say they routinely win the world series. If 24% of train conductors fail random blood alcohol tests, it would be fair to say they are routinely drunk on the job.

    This is before we consider that in the current month, 50% of statements by Democratic officeholders/ candidates were rated as false or mostly false. So the study from 2012 appears a bit outdated. And that's before we add the statements that were missing important context.

    Caring about facts doesn't mean I'm obligated to support the Democrats all time. I've made no claim that Democrats lie more than Republicans, just that they do it often enough that decisions on what party to vote for aren't going to be based on which of the major parties is extraordinarily honest. I've also made no claim that Republican lies have benefited the most people.

    I would imagine someone able to demonstrate in the space of message board posts that partisan policies clearly and unambiguously benefit the most people would make an excellent living as a speechwriter or at a think tank, so that's not a realistic expectation of anyone.

    You say that I slander Democrats, so what have I said about them that is untrue?

    Quote Originally Posted by Celgress View Post
    I will say this much about Iraq. I clearly remember the moment I lost faith in the media. It was when Wolf Blitzer, during the Republican South Carolina 2016 primary, stated that the media had entered into an agreement with the Bush Family to never "relitigate" the lies of the Iraq War. This was so the country "could heal". The blinders came off and I've never completely trusted the media since.
    Do you have a link about this?

  13. #3163
    Extraordinary Member
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Posts
    6,562

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mister Mets View Post
    So if something that should be unlikely occurs 24% of the time, it would be routine. If a team wins the world series 24% of the time, it would be fair to say they routinely win the world series. If 24% of train conductors fail random blood alcohol tests, it would be fair to say they are routinely drunk on the job.
    Doing something less than a quarter of the time is not doing it routinely.

    Doing it nearly 85% of the time is doing it routinely: if someone makes only 24% of their free throws, no one claims that they routinely make the shot.

    This hits the core of our disagreements -- even your definitions aren't rooted in truth.

    And you can't provide evidence that Republican tax cuts or health care policies benefit "the most people" because there is no evidence to back it up.

    That isn't partisanship -- it's about math and factual evidence, which is not on your side.

    -----
    "Since the Reagan administration, Republicans have fervently claimed lower taxes will unleash the "makers" — incentivizing them to work harder and invest more, thereby trickling down to benefit ordinary Americans. Moreover, they have consistently claimed that their tax cuts would create such dramatic economic growth that they’d literally pay for themselves. A rising tide lifts all boats! No hard choices to make — just cut taxes!

    Instead, the national debt is at a record high, and the gap between the richest and the poorest U.S. households is now the largest it has been in the 52 years the Census Bureau has been tracking it. And that inequality gap started to expand dramatically about the same time the Republican Party started cutting taxes.

    The American economy since 1950 offers a chance to consider the impact of these tax cuts. From 1950 to 1980, the top federal marginal tax rates (the rates on income above certain levels) were as high as 92% and never below 70%. Republicans have been slashing the top tax bracket for annual earned income since the early 1980s, and it is now 37% on income above $612,350.

    Further, in 2003 the GOP shrank the tax rate on unearned income (such as dividends) to 15%, resulting (for example) in the billionaire Warren Buffett having a lower tax rate than his secretary. With such dramatic tax cuts, GOP dogma predicted a booming U.S. economy.

    But it turns out U.S. economic growth was substantially higher during the period of high taxes. From 1950 to 1980, average annual growth in real (inflation-adjusted gross domestic product) was 3.9%, while from 1981 to 2018 the comparable number was 2.7%.

    Similarly, during the high tax period, median household incomes increased on average (in real terms) by a bit over 2.5% per year. During the low income tax period, average real growth in household income declined to 0.7% per year."

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/10
    /03/republican-tax-cuts-fail-record-debt-and-inequality-gap-column/3833546002/
    Last edited by aja_christopher; 12-27-2019 at 06:15 PM.

  14. #3164
    Spectacular Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Posts
    196

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aja_christopher View Post
    24% is not "routine" by any stretch of the imagination
    If you knew a guy that out-right lied to you 24% of the time, you'd call him a habitual liar, and so would everyone else who knows him. No one would take anything he says seriously.

    That's one out of every four statements as an outright manufactured lie (and more half-truths added on top of it if we're going with the rest of the statistic.)

  15. #3165
    Ultimate Member numberthirty's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2014
    Posts
    18,096

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TheManInBlack View Post
    If you knew a guy that out-right lied to you 24% of the time, you'd call him a habitual liar, and so would everyone else who knows him. No one would take anything he says seriously.

    That's one out of every four statements as an outright manufactured lie (and more half-truths added on top of it if we're going with the rest of the statistic.)
    Yep.

    If your neighbor was getting arrested for grilling in his yard without a stitch on every four days, you'd rightly say "Man, my kooky neighbor routinely gets arrested for trying to grill in his yard without any clothes on."

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •