Republican lies used to trick the public

[Ivan Seeking]

A list of ongoing lies seems appropriate at this point. I will list my top six.

1). The media is liberal

Clinton was more than ample evidence that the media goes after anyone possible. They only seem liberal because the Republicans give them so much more to attack. This has been true for most of my life; going back to Nixon.

2). Republicans are fiscal conservatives :rofl:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=90511

3). Here is the lie that gets me the most: We are fighting the terrorists in Iraq.

My uncle still thinks that Saddam attacked New York - this is the thinking that gives Republicans their power. We have the corrupt leading the blind.

4). The price of oil is based solely on supply and demand

This week investigations began as retail prices have outpaced wholesale prices by as much as 70%.

5) We have been preparing for future terrorist attacks

New Orleans proved that if anything, the Federal Gov response was inept, and the real protectors of homeland security - The National Guard - are short on equipment and unable to do their primary job of keeping Americans safe. Which leads us to the greatest lie of all

6). The Republicans have acted responsibly to keep America safe.

Not only are we clearly unprepared for large scale terror attacks at home, as was seen in New Orleans, also, the war in Iraq has had exactly the opposite effect of that claimed: The Bush administration has sacrificed homeland security for other agendas.

 

[faust9]

Dude, you are un-American. I don't need to back that up with proof that you are wrong---I just have to say it for it to be true.

[/sarcasm]

 

[russ_watters]

Some of those are just opinions being presented as facts, some are intentionally misleading or intentionally absolute, but several are actually facts that liberals just don't want to accept. For example, #3: That guy al Zar...something is a member of al Qaeda. He is a terrorist and we are fighting him in Iraq. Generally, that fact is intentionally obfuscated by liberals (ie, as it is in the OP), by mixing the why with the what. While it can't be said that we went to Iraq to fight al Qaeda, or that Saddam had something to do with 9/11 (as the OP points out), it is still a fact that we are now fighting terrorism by being in Iraq.

#1 is self contradictory.

#5 is also especially weak. It is a trivially obvious fact that the federal government has taken action to protect us from future terrorist attacks. #5 is the opinion that adequate preparations are not being taken, presented as a fact that no preparations have been made. I'm not a big fan of presenting opinions as facts, especially when they are so self-evidently factually wrong. It gives the impression of purposeful intent to mislead.

 

[russ_watters]

Faust, it is not unAmerican to disagree with the actions of our government, but intentional deception is wrong.

 

[faust9]

#5 is also especially weak. It is a trivially obvious fact that the federal government has taken action to protect us from future terrorist attacks. #5 is the opinion that adequate preparations are not being taken, presented as a fact that no preparations have been made. I'm not a big fan of presenting opinions as facts, especially when they are so self-evidently factually wrong. It gives the impression of purposeful intent to mislead.

Well, if something is so "...so self-evidently factually wrong." then you should be able to supply those facts to back your claim instead of simply stating it as fact when it is in fact opinion.

Do you dispute the fact that the government's response to a large-scale disaster was lacking to say the least? Do you beilive the war in Iraq is keeping the fight over there? Just a couple of questions.

 

[SOS2008]

1). The media is liberal - With exception of FOX News, which clearly follows a conservative agenda, the media is neither liberal or conservative but rather driven by ratings/profit and often inept all together.

2). Republicans are fiscal conservatives - I'd like to know where the money went?! :grumpy:

3). We are fighting the terrorists in Iraq - We are fighting some terrorists in Iraq now because of the invasion, but the invasion had nothing to do with terrorists initially. Good job Georgie.

4). The price of oil is based solely on supply and demand - The goal of oil companies is like any other capitalist organization, and that is to maximize profit how ever they can.

5) We have been preparing for future terrorist attacks - As I've said repeatedly, I always knew that was Bush*t if for not other reason than our open borders. Homeland Insecurity - see #2 above.

6). The Republicans have acted responsibly to keep America safe - If Gore had become the president, as he should have, we wouldn't be in the mess we're in now. Americans who support a more conservative (less activist-hah) Supreme Court should at least think on that one.

 

[edward]

The so called liberal media is primarily owned by large conservative corporations. If the media is truly liberal, why would the conservative owners approve?? It is because in the guise of being liberal, the media can allow people like Karl Rove to still get their conservative propoganda to the people.

 

[pattylou]

I don't happen to think the media is liberal.

NPR is touted as being one of the most liberal media outlets around. Listen to any of their talk shows - every view is balanced by someone from the other party.

The listenership is liberal, because we demand balanced reporting. So the calls that are fielded, come from liberals by and large. But you can hardly call NPR liberal on the basis that I listen to it.

 

[BobG]

1). The media is liberal

For the most part, there's a pretty good mix of liberal and conservative reporters in the media. I think there's slightly more liberal reporters in the media than conservative, so that may be kind of true, but at least way overblown.

2). Republicans are fiscal conservatives :rofl:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=90511

Well, you got'em there. I've been pretty disappointed with the 'changes' brought by a Republican majority in Congress. (Of course, the obvious solution would be to vote Democratic next election - they've clearly mended their ways and will be much more fiscally conservative than they were back when they had a Democratic majority, right? )

3). Here is the lie that gets me the most: We are fighting the terrorists in Iraq.

That's more a Bushism than a Republican line of thought. It is technically true, but very misleading. The terrorists we're fighting would be in Chechnya if they weren't in Iraq. I also have my doubts about al-Zaqawari being a true al-Qaeda loyalist. It sounds more like an alliance of convenience that might be a little problematic for both. I would think Bin Laden would be in favor of a Shi'ite theocracy - al-Zaqawari attacks the Shi'ites in hopes of sparking a civil war. He's a terrorist, none the less, even if he doesn't adhere to the al-Qaeda goals.

4). The price of oil is based solely on supply and demand

The price of oil is based on supply and demand. When the demand is high, the price stays high even when the costs are low. The investigation is about charging prices way above the costs - something that's only possible when retail demand is high. Most price gouging occurs as wholesale prices drop - refiners and retailers put off or slow the drop in prices as long as they can - they don't mind being followers when it comes to dropping prices and people are unlikely to complain enough to spark investigations when prices are dropping. Prices spiked almost momentarily, enough extra oil was put into the market to push the price back down - refineries raked in a big profit by the delay between the drop in wholesale prices and retail prices.

5) We have been preparing for future terrorist attacks

This is true. Preparing for terrorist attacks is hard work. We've been working hard. Here's a list of the exercises FEMA has taken part in (you have to scroll down a ways to the schedule). In 2004 and 2005 FEMA participated in a slew of exercises testing response to terrorist attack and participated in three exercises testing hurricane response - the purpose of two of the hurricane related exercises was to test FEMA's ability to respond to a terrorist attack that occurred during a hurricane.

6). The Republicans have acted responsibly to keep America safe.

If you discount Bush and some Bush loyalists, many Republicans have acted as responsibly as Democrats. A majority of Democrats voted to authorize the invasion, so it's not only Republicans that were duped by the Bush administration. Quite a few Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, would be a little hesitant to pull the troops out of Iraq today - it would be pretty irresponsible to create a disaster in Iraq and then leave it. Republicans like Chuck Hagel and Richard Lugar (both solidly conservative Republicans, by the way) have done as much to expose the gaps in Bush's pre-war rhetoric as any Democrat.

 

[Echo 6 Sierra]

Why can't we prevent terrorist attacks instead of having to clean up after them? Honestly...I just want to learn to fly the plane, not take off or land... HEH-LOW!

Your drivers ed instructor would not have let you take the class if you had no interest in the first and last part of the driving.

I love my country but fear my government.

 

[BobG]

Why can't we prevent terrorist attacks instead of having to clean up after them? Honestly...I just want to learn to fly the plane, not take off or land... HEH-LOW!

Your drivers ed instructor would not have let you take the class if you had no interest in the first and last part of the driving.

I love my country but fear my government.

Have you known many students in your life?

My gradeschool daughter's tearful response to the 'help' I gave her on her spelling assignment: "I have to know how spell it, Dad! I don't have to know what it means!"

An electrical engineering student's question to the instructor in a Circuit Analysis class after the first test was complete: "Will we have to remember what the colors on the resistors mean for the next test, too?" "Um, yeah, that's pretty much something you'll have to remember for the rest of your life."

Not a student, but someone in management asking about an orbital mechanics class designed for satellite operators (hoping to cut some time off the class): "Can't you teach this without the math?"

I see nothing strange at all about a flying student only wanting to learn the 'easy' part of flying and hoping they could avoid having to deal with the tougher things like taking off and landing.

 

[Echo 6 Sierra]

I see your point Bob but I was referring to an adult who is seeking to actually be in control of a pressurised metal tube with live humans in it and several thousand gallons of flammable liquid going several hundred miles an hour through the air above our homes and businesses, not spelling a word or soldering electronics though they may also have serious implications too...I'm just sayin'...there should be a higher degree of "hell no, your not taking this class any more-edness" than what is commonplace at the local "want fries with that" certification rubberstamp place..thingy.

Don't mind me too much, I'm on my 50th piece of nicorette today.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Here is another one for the list: If you don't support the war in Iraq, you aren't supporting your troops or country. In other words, the only acceptable position for any loyal American is to be pro-war.

What lie could be greater or more devious?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Most price gouging occurs as wholesale prices drop - refiners and retailers put off or slow the drop in prices as long as they can - they don't mind being followers when it comes to dropping prices and people are unlikely to complain enough to spark investigations when prices are dropping.

The statement was that prices have outpaced wholesale by 70%.

You may remember back in the seventies, during the oil crisis, companies were caught dumping gasoline out in the desert. They have a long history of this.

We have been preparing for future terrorist attacks

This is true. Preparing for terrorist attacks is hard work. We've been working hard. Here's a list of the exercises FEMA has taken part in (you have to scroll down a ways to the schedule). In 2004 and 2005 FEMA participated in a slew of exercises testing response to terrorist attack and participated in three exercises testing hurricane response - the purpose of two of the hurricane related exercises was to test FEMA's ability to respond to a terrorist attack that occurred during a hurricane.

We saw how good of a job was done. And there was no terrorist attack to complicate matters.

6). The Republicans have acted responsibly to keep America safe.

If you discount Bush and some Bush loyalists, many Republicans have acted as responsibly as Democrats. A majority of Democrats voted to authorize the invasion, so it's not only Republicans that were duped by the Bush administration. Quite a few Democrats, including Hillary Clinton, would be a little hesitant to pull the troops out of Iraq today - it would be pretty irresponsible to create a disaster in Iraq and then leave it. Republicans like Chuck Hagel and Richard Lugar (both solidly conservative Republicans, by the way) have done as much to expose the gaps in Bush's pre-war rhetoric as any Democrat.

The Dems caved under the fervor for war generated by Bush and his gang, post 911. They were running scared because Bush's lies had been so effective. But I'm not saying that we should pull out now; no, now we're screwed. And you have the Republicans to thank for it for a very long time to come.

 

[Echo 6 Sierra]

Before I removed myself from the Marines I would ask things like, "why are we doing that in that country?" or "why are you buying that?" and would be met with looks of complete bewilderment. If I asked why more than they could answer, I was given "other duties" to perform. I have about a zillion stories of how people with no sense are in charge of bands of crazed 18-20 years olds with guns and bombs, some funny, the majority not. Basically I wasted 11 years of my life.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Another one that I was reminded of that comes from the deep south. While in Arkansas I once engaged a hard right fundamentalist who was promoting war. I asked how he can be so pro-war when the bible is clear on the issue of killing.

Apparently we have a new commandment: It's okay to kill, just not to murder.

Edit: Of course, this also completely ignores the entire point of the new testament which is the basis for Christianity.

 

[SOS2008]

What will it take for the truth to be the truth?

The Dems caved under the fervor for war generated by Bush and his gang, post 911. They were running scared because Bush's lies had been so effective. But I'm not saying that we should pull out now; no, now we're screwed. And you have the Republicans to thank for it for a very long time to come.

In a counter rally ("Defenders of war in Iraq respond to large Saturday protest in Washington" Associated Press, Sept. 25, 2005) here is an excerpt with quotes from participants:

The pro-military rally was billed by organizers as a time to honor the troops fighting “the war on terrorism in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere around the world.”

"war on terrorism in Iraq" -- The stupid people who believe this keep repeating it (like another stupid person in the White House). Getting back to the media, they contribute to this by referring to the invasion of Iraq as "war on terror." The damn liberal media ( ) is so infuriating. The article goes on:

‘It’s the silent majority’
War supporters said the scale of the antiwar march didn’t take away from their cause.

“It’s the silent majority,” said 22-year-old Stephanie Grgurich of Leesburg, Va., who has a brother serving in Iraq.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9478262/

Why do I suspect it is the "silent majority?" We know people still believe there were WMD and links to 9-11, but they aren't willing to go to the rally -- because someone might yell at them that they're stupid? I wish I could go to rallys like this and pass out copies of the 9-11 Commission Report to these people. Ah, what am I thinking--they would claim it's a conspiracy anyway. Lord save us all.

 

[Lapin Dormant]

Wasn't it G Bush who said that the War in Iraq was to "Liberate the Iraqi People" bring them freedom...they were not then, under 'terrorist' attack, althought it would appear as such today, certainly the 'Under Attack' part.

As for using lies, it's an old political trick.

But the Propaganda campaigns, now that is telling, the recent History of Movies, and Stories, Glorifieing the Second World War, all adding to the Idea that wars are (somehow) "good" and Flying in the Face of the message that all of those vetrans try to expound, "Never Again!" apparently G. Bush Didn't, and isn't, listening to them.

 

[Lapin Dormant]

Rabbits LOVE Freedom!

In the very first post it says that: "The media is Liberal"

from this page Defintion of the Word "Liberal"

this piece reference:

Middle English, generous, from Old French, from Latin lberlis, from lber, free. See leudh- in Indo-European Roots.]

The Bold is mine, it says Free.

The United States is supposed to be The Most Freedom Loving Country in the World, on the face of the Planet, and yet, if I say you live in a Liberal Country, saying your FREE, your insulted. US Politics.

Your also not all that free, in certain respects.

 

[russ_watters]

Well, if something is so "...so self-evidently factually wrong." then you should be able to supply those facts to back your claim instead of simply stating it as fact when it is in fact opinion.

faust9, the Homeland Security Department was created due to 9/11 for the purpose of defending against terrorism. You, of course, know that. That I have to state obvious facts is something that really annoys me about the politics forum here.

Do you dispute the fact that the government's response to a large-scale disaster was lacking to say the least?

No. I agree that planning for disaster relief was lacking. But that isn't what Ivan's point was in the OP. Or perhaps it was and perhaps the OP was just rhetoric (since he backed off with a later post), but the OP says nothing was done, not that what was done was inadequate. Here it is again:

We have been preparing for future terrorist attacks.

If that statement is a lie, then the truth would be that 'we have not been preparing for future terrorist attacks'. And you, of course, know that that is wrong (as, of course, does Ivan).

Again, saying that nothing was done is trivially obviously factually wrong.

The line about fighting terrorism in Iraq contains exactly the same type of misleading rhetoric. Very ironic in a thread supposedly about lies from the other side.

Do you beilive the war in Iraq is keeping the fight over there?

For the most part, yes.

 

[selfAdjoint]

faust9, the Homeland Security Department was created due to 9/11 for the purpose of defending against terrorism

So that's the only role of FEMA and the Coast Guard, to defend us against terrorism?

 

[faust9]

faust9, the Homeland Security Department was created due to 9/11 for the purpose of defending against terrorism. You, of course, know that.

The creation of a department---which now houses FEMA and we know how that all turned out---does not make us safer. A fact is "Last year we had X terrorist attacks world-wide which is greater then the year before and the year before" The fact is we have milk supplies unprotected to the point were the CIA tried to put the kybosh on a professor's paper telling us as much.

That I have to state obvious facts is something that really annoys me about the politics forum here.

I'm going to start using this excuse from now on.

No. I agree that planning for disaster relief was lacking. But that isn't what Ivan's point was in the OP. Or perhaps it was and perhaps the OP was just rhetoric (since he backed off with a later post), but the OP says nothing was done, not that what was done was inadequate. Here it is again: If that statement is a lie, then the truth would be that 'we have not been preparing for future terrorist attacks'. And you, of course, know that that is wrong (as, of course, does Ivan).

Again, saying that nothing was done is trivially obviously factually wrong.

You must have missed this:
6). The Republicans have acted responsibly to keep America safe.

Ivan posted that and my comments:
"Do you dispute the fact that the government's response to a large-scale disaster was lacking to say the least?"

is in regard to #6.

We can't protect ourselves from an 800lb gorilla that takes 3 days to strike how are we protecting outselves from a proverbial mosquito with malaria(a single terrorist going after lunch milk).

The line about fighting terrorism in Iraq contains exactly the same type of misleading rhetoric. Very ironic in a thread supposedly about lies from the other side. For the most part, yes.

Ummmm, the republicans are the ones using this rhetoric Russ. Just in case you don't know the war in Iraq is with insurgets. This is so self evident that I don't even have to post any of the articles from the last week or month or year to support it.

 

[SOS2008]

This site provides a comprehensive list for the Bush administration:

The regime (http://www.onelook.com/?w=regime&ls=a), or cartel (http://www.onelook.com/?w=cartel&ls=a), of George W. Bush has been, since inception, characterized by blatant disregard for fact, willful deception even of themselves, and a fierce determination to impose their rule, globally and nationally, without regard to law, the U.S. Constitution or the principles contained therein. Examples and evidence can be found in the pages linked hereto. Individuals comprising the regime are indexed in the Bush regime characters article.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_Regime

The list/timelines/charts of instances, article, books, etc. on this topic are immense--you could spend hours going from one link to the next. Or google the Internet in general, or browse through Amazon.com, and you can see for yourself--it's overwhelming. Here is another quote from the Source Watch site:

Moe Blue, in his March 29, 2004, Bad Attitudes posting "Reliable Numbers", puts it this way: [4] (http://badattitudes.com/MT/)

"The Bush administration has a proven proclivity for doctoring the output of government agencies to suit the agenda of the moment. Whether it's messing with EPA reports (deleting all references to global warming, falsely claiming the air at Ground Zero is safe, etc.) or submitting known-false cost projections to Congress over the prescription drug benefit, the White House has shown time and time again its willingness to lie about anything and everything.

"All of which leads to the real dilemma: The reliability of the data issued by the White House is questionable, and that makes it difficult or impossible to govern the country, and impossible for business to flourish. The president's economic forecast, issued last month, was quickly proven to be so much fantasizing to meet the political needs of Team Bush. With that document now on the trash heap, how can Congress or the White House do any substantial planning for the next year?

"Similarly, the Bush budgets famously leave out known extreme expenses (i.e., the cost of the Iraq occupation). Again, this makes it impossible to prepare a budget that's based on anything other than blue-sky fantasies.
"All this should disturb voters of any political stripe -- from far-right to extreme left. If the data upon which our government governs is twisted or fabricated to suit instant political needs, governing is impossible. And that poses far more of a threat to our system of government and our way of life than any possible terrorist attack."

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Bush_lies_and_deceptions

I don't recall a time when there have been so many investigations, whether GOP leaders or more local scandals like "Coingate" in Ohio.

 

[russ_watters]

So that's the only role of FEMA and the Coast Guard, to defend us against terrorism?

Huh? No, but what does that have to do with anything?

The creation of a department---which now houses FEMA and we know how that all turned out---does not make us safer.

That's an opinion and you are welcome to it, but that is not what the OP says. The OP posited a fact that nothing has been done. It wasn't the opinion that nothing has been done that has helped, it was the fact that nothing has been done. And that fact is wrong.

6).

I'm not interested in arguing the opinion of #6. But I will reiterate that it is an opinion, not a fact, and therefore it cannot be a lie.

Just in case you don't know the war in Iraq is with insurgets.

And some of those insurgents are terrorists. But the statement in the OP doesn't say that and is therefore quite obviously wrong. By not completing the sentence, you give the appearance of trying to split the same hair.

Ummmm, the republicans are the ones using this rhetoric Russ.

This thread was started by a Democrat trying to put words in the mouths of Republicans and trying to use word-play to fabricate lies (irony intended) and failing. For example, the above (about doing nothing) is pointlessly obvious. But trying to change that into a lie with word-play and rhetoric is pointless, precisely because it is so trivially obviously true.

 

[Pengwuino]

Factcheck.org just posted another article detailing the same ol same ol Democrat lies used to trick the public.

http://www.factcheck.org/article349.html

I wonder if this is the end of the democratic party. America will soon realize that half of everything the democrats say end up being lies.

 

[russ_watters]

Let me provide a counterexample that may help:

Clinton worked to prevent 9/11.

If that were a lie, then the truth would be:

Clinton did nothing to prevent 9/11.

The logic here works precisely the same as what we are discussing above. Here's where the opinion comes into cloud the fact: Clearly, 9/11 happened and therefore Clinton did not act adequately to prevent it and therefore Clinton did nothing to prevent it.

Now I'm sure a liberal can see that there are a good 3 problems with the above:
1. It is a fact that Clinton did things to try to counter al Qaeda.
2. The initial statement is a statement of fact and the logic justifying it is opinion, not fact.
3. The opinion does not follow logically from the fabricated fact, much less the real fact.

 

[SOS2008]

Factcheck.org just posted another article detailing the same ol same ol Democrat lies used to trick the public.

http://www.factcheck.org/article349.html

I wonder if this is the end of the democratic party. America will soon realize that half of everything the democrats say end up being lies.

You should review your links.

And while much of what the ad calls lies was indeed wrong, there's evidence that the President and his advisers believed the falsehoods at the time.

In any event, these ads are sponsored by private organizations, not government officials. Not at all the same thing.

Here's another site as my reply post to you: http://mysite.wanadoo-members.co.uk/penguin_pages/video.html

Edit: Highlighting corrected.

 

[russ_watters]

SOS, you should reread that quote you posted...

 

[SOS2008]

SOS, you should reread that quote you posted...

Part of the defense being made is that Bush may have thought the falsehoods were true at the time. What does falsehood mean to you? Nonetheless, as usual you are missing the point that these ads are not statements made by government officials. Here's one for you:

(http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030317-7.html ):

George W. Bush's Address to the Nation, March 17, 2003: "Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possesses and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised. This regime has already used weapons of mass destruction against Iraq's neighbors and against Iraq's people. The regime has a history of reckless aggression in the Middle East. It has a deep hatred of America and our friends. And it has aided, trained and harbored terrorists, including operatives of al Qaeda. The danger is clear: using chemical, biological or, one day, nuclear weapons, obtained with the help of Iraq, the terrorists could fulfill their stated ambitions and kill thousands or hundreds of thousands of innocent people in our country, or any other."

 

[Ivan Seeking]

But that isn't what Ivan's point was in the OP. Or perhaps it was and perhaps the OP was just rhetoric (since he backed off with a later post),

Misrepresentation number 1

I never backed off on anything:

but the OP says nothing was done, not that what was done was inadequate. Here it is again: If that statement is a lie, then the truth would be that 'we have not been preparing for future terrorist attacks'. And you, of course, know that that is wrong (as, of course, does Ivan).

Misrepresentation number 2

5) We have been preparing for future terrorist attacks

New Orleans proved that if anything, the Federal Gov response was inept, and the real protectors of homeland security - The National Guard - are short on equipment and unable to do their primary job of keeping Americans safe.

Again, saying that nothing was done is trivially obviously factually wrong.

Misrepresentation number 3

I never said that nothing was done.

Do you ever get your story straight?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Note also how the effort is to change the subject. This, since the accusations against the Republicans are true.

Now consider this interview from the News Hour tonight.

except

CAROL PHILLIPS: Well, I disagree with what she said because I truly believe our president, the commander in chief of the troops that are over there right now did not go into this war based on lies. He went into this war as the other presidents, President Clinton and Kerry, the, you know, candidate, everybody had the same information. I just thank God that we have a president now that's willing to take a stand instead of letting our men and women in uniform continue to be battered, to be blown up, to be shot at and nothing to be done about it.

Misrepresentation number 1: Unless you support Bush and his war, you are hurting our troops. Note also that we ignore the poll [denial].

GWEN IFILL: Do you feel like the antiwar sentiment is growing as these polls suggest?

CAROL PHILLIPS: You know, no, I don't. I believe the news media is blowing it up again. You can get your numbers however you want to get your numbers. You can talk to a lot of people and get the numbers that you want to get. I truly do not believe that most of Americans do not support our president and our troops

Misrepresentation number 1, again...

Unfortunately, people like this group and others are feeding into the insurgency and giving them hope that they can do, and they can beat down the American people. And we are here to say no, you can't.

Misrepresentation number 1, again... etc etc etc

From this link
http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/military/july-dec05/protests_9-26.html

I don't think we should cut and run now, but lies are still lies; or even worse. What she is really saying is that we should have a dictatorship - we should do whatever Bush wants to do and the public should have no voice. Can you think of anything more un-American than that?

 

[kcballer21]

Factcheck.org just posted another article detailing the same ol same ol Democrat lies used to trick the public.

http://www.factcheck.org/article349.html

I wonder if this is the end of the democratic party. America will soon realize that half of everything the democrats say end up being lies.

have you had a chance to read any of the other articles on that website? To read factcheck and come out saying democrats are liars without mentioning anything about republicans is a strange, strange thing.

 

[russ_watters]

I never said that nothing was done.

You said that "We have been preparing for future terrorist attacks" is a lie. If that is a lie, then the opposite must be true, ie, 'we have not been preparing for future terrorist attacks'. But if that isn't what you meant, why don't you clarify?

If all you meant is that 'we have not been preparing enough for future terrorist attacks', then that is an opinion, not a fact.

Speaking of misrepresenting - putting a quote from me next to a quote from you that it wasn't in response to is a misrepresentation. I, in fact, never responded to that later statement by you. The reason? Because it contradicts what you said in the OP and I'm not a big fan of changing the argument in the middle without at least an admission that you misspoke.

 

[faust9]

You said that "We have been preparing for future terrorist attacks" is a lie. If that is a lie, then the opposite must be true, ie, 'we have not been preparing for future terrorist attacks'. But if that isn't what you meant, why don't you clarify?

If all you meant is that 'we have not been preparing enough for future terrorist attacks', then that is an opinion, not a fact.

Speaking of misrepresenting - putting a quote from me next to a quote from you that it wasn't in response to is a misrepresentation. I, in fact, never responded to that later statement by you. The reason? Because it contradicts what you said in the OP and I'm not a big fan of changing the argument in the middle without at least an admission that you misspoke.

What have we done to prepare ourselves for a future attack? Making a huge governmental agency does not prepare us for an attack. Attack preperations require drills(you should know this being an ex-sailor) and we have run less than a handful of these. We are not prepared for an attack. Cities are not prepared to exacuate. The government is not prepared to take control of a bad situation. We do not have the troop and equipment stateside to handle an attack muchless to drill and prepare on top of normal operations. Once again Russ creating an agency does not prepare for an attack---it may prevent an attack, but that is not preperation for an attack.

As Ivan said, NO shows how prepared we are, or were, as a nation. How many cities had proper plans of evacuation prior to this? Don't you think it's important for the HLS department to know what these plans are? Don't you think it is important to have a central agency to coordinate response to an attack? NO shows the above were simply not there. We had a lackey in place with no experience and a president who refused to ask questions like "Who is in charge?" We are not prepared to evacuate Washington DC---if we are then please post some evidence---in the event of a large scale biological, chemical, or nuclear assault.

 

[faust9]

Huh? No, but what does that have to do with anything? That's an opinion and you are welcome to it, but that is not what the OP says. The OP posited a fact that nothing has been done. It wasn't the opinion that nothing has been done that has helped, it was the fact that nothing has been done. And that fact is wrong. I'm not interested in arguing the opinion of #6. But I will reiterate that it is an opinion, not a fact, and therefore it cannot be a lie. And some of those insurgents are terrorists. But the statement in the OP doesn't say that and is therefore quite obviously wrong. By not completing the sentence, you give the appearance of trying to split the same hair. This thread was started by a Democrat trying to put words in the mouths of Republicans and trying to use word-play to fabricate lies (irony intended) and failing. For example, the above (about doing nothing) is pointlessly obvious. But trying to change that into a lie with word-play and rhetoric is pointless, precisely because it is so trivially obviously true.

Again Russ, please back up your statements of fact. You are of the opinion that the creation of the HLS department has made us safer but you have to supplied a fact yet to back your opinion.

This thread was started by a Democrat who is simply debunking the statements echoed by Republicans on a daily basis.

PS. I like how you say:
"But that isn't what Ivan's point was in the OP"

And when I respond by saying my point was directed at #6---I don't know if you read down to 6 or stopped at 5. you suddenly said:
"I'm not interested in arguing the opinion of #6. But I will reiterate that it is an opinion, not a fact, and therefore it cannot be a lie."

Opinions can be lies Russ---when the opinion is built on a lie. I'll give you an example: F911. M.Moore's opinions have been berated as lies. If they are just opinions then by your logic they cannot be lies and as such cannot be denegrated or characterised as lies. As such, I expect you to defend Moore's stance from this point on when he is called a liar.