Lying politicians

  • News
  • Thread starter Zero
  • Start date
  • #76
Zero
Did I win some points? To be fair, neither side is ever reported on objectively, but the claims of 'liberal media bias' don't explain how people have been dragging around this 'Invented the internet' story without ever looking back on what he actually said. Irresponsible media, is what it is.

I don't really blame any person for believing a lie when it is so well-spread, so universal, and so darned catchy...Gore explained the misunderstanding by saying he had been tired...he was up late the night before inventing the camcorder.
 
  • #77
russ_watters
Mentor
19,861
6,286
Originally posted by Zero
Did I win some points? To be fair, neither side is ever reported on objectively, but the claims of 'liberal media bias' don't explain how people have been dragging around this 'Invented the internet' story without ever looking back on what he actually said. Irresponsible media, is what it is.

I don't really blame any person for believing a lie when it is so well-spread, so universal, and so darned catchy...Gore explained the misunderstanding by saying he had been tired...he was up late the night before inventing the camcorder.
Well hey - even you believed it - and you brought it up. I knew what he said and I knew it wasn't a lie - he just said it because he's dumb.

Yeah, I guess you get some points. This falls into that "if you correct yourself, its not a lie" category.
 
  • #78
schwarzchildradius
"That is not new, nor is it illegal."
The NEW part is that the white house is interfering with the justice system that is investigating possible wrongdoings on the part of Harken. It IS illegal or more accurately, undemocratic (contraindicating our system of checks and balances... remember that from school-house rocks?) for the EXECUTIVE branch to interfere with the justice system.

The executive branch acts as if it is above the law. One of the First Principles of a Republic is that a Code of Laws exists, and is enforced, applicable to all citizens. When the Code of Law is not upheld by the government, the Republic ceases to exist, and must default to something like Monarchy.
 
  • #79
Zero
Originally posted by russ_watters
Well hey - even you believed it - and you brought it up. I knew what he said and I knew it wasn't a lie - he just said it because he's dumb.

Yeah, I guess you get some points. This falls into that "if you correct yourself, its not a lie" category.
So, if you agree that Gore didn't lie, what do you think of Bush and Co., and their intentional misrepresentation of Gore's comments for political gain?
 
  • #80
russ_watters
Mentor
19,861
6,286
Originally posted by Zero
So, if you agree that Gore didn't lie, what do you think of Bush and Co., and their intentional misrepresentation of Gore's comments for political gain?
What misrepresentation? Gore is an idiot. That's all that quote shows.
 
  • #81
Zero
Originally posted by russ_watters
What misrepresentation? Gore is an idiot. That's all that quote shows.
You see that he didn't claim to invent the Internet, I see it...so everyone else who spead that he DID claim to invent the Internet was a liar. That covers all of the media, with very few exception, and the Shrub crew took full advantage of a LIE.


Never mind, Russ, go back to the lies you tell yourself.
 
  • #82
schwarzchildradius
Gore probably did smoke a little too much pot during the college years... too bad. It may have injured his killer instinct or whatever. Somehow I remember some video of him saying "we took the initiative to... invent the internet" but clearly the internet was 'invented' by the pentagon in the '60's, the public side was pioneered by local 'BBS's' in the late 70's. What Gore said was goofy, but no major deception. More importantly his statement is relatively irelevant. I believe that you can determine the 'evil' of a lie by the damage it causes, and Gore's statement caused no damage except to himself.
 
  • #83
russ_watters
Mentor
19,861
6,286
Originally posted by Zero
You see that he didn't claim to invent the Internet, I see it...so everyone else who spead that he DID claim to invent the Internet was a liar. That covers all of the media, with very few exception, and the Shrub crew took full advantage of a LIE.


Never mind, Russ, go back to the lies you tell yourself.
Zero, I didn't bring it up (you did), I didn't dwell on it during the election, and I didn't see the media or the republican party dwelling on it. Like I said, the reason it mattered to me was not that it was a lie, but that he was too dumb to know he was wrong - and thats all I saw the media and the republicans using it for. Whenever I saw it mentioned it was for a laugh. Thats it.

I don't think anyone (except you maybe - which could be why you are getting mad about it) really believed he invented the internet or believed he believed he invented the internet.

Since you admitted you were wrong about the meaning of what he said, you should also admit to being wrong about how other people USED what he said. The two are the same thing. Or were you tricked into believing it was a lie?

Its so ironic - you complain that others dwell on it when YOU brought it up. So the question is why do YOU dwell on it? You claim others are lying when YOU mis-interpreted it. I think you are lashing out to cover for (save face over) your own mistakes. With that you lose any points you earned by admitting your mistake.

Ugh, this is so pointless. You really shouldn't have brought it up.

And as a mentor, you really should rephrain from direct or even thinly veiled insults.
 
Last edited:
  • #84
Nicool003
You accept lies or nothing, huh?


That's a load of bull who told you that one? No I listen to the truth or nothing. Demiocratic lies and propoganda are lies and therefore are inn the NOTHING category. Bet you guys have missed me...wait till I come back from vacation
 
  • #85
FZ+
1,561
3
Originally posted by Nicool003
That's a load of bull who told you that one? No I listen to the truth or nothing. Demiocratic lies and propoganda are lies and therefore are inn the NOTHING category. Bet you guys have missed me...wait till I come back from vacation
But to say that, you have already made the assumption that whatever the democrats say must be a lie. You can't determine truth or lie by who says so. That is only a possibility of bias, not such an absolute measure. You don't determine to begin with x is true, and select evidence in that way. Unless you have an obscure definition of truth, you need to display contrary evidence with objectively greater credibility.
 
  • #86
Zero
Thanks FZ+, that was exactly what I was going to say. If you are only going to accept as true what you already believe, even in the face of contrary evidence, why even bother posting, or reading, or anything at all?
 
  • #87
Nicool003
But to say that, you have already made the assumption that whatever the democrats say must be a lie.

that's a lie





Haha but actually no I have not made that assumption. Some great presidents were democrats and I'd be behind them all the way. However the democratic party has not been chosing well candidate wise.
 
  • #88
schwarzchildradius
I think Nader was right, just not articulate enough to prove it. Both sides can be construed as being damaging to democracy - the democrats are allegedly not going along with the mandate of the people by blocking the republicans, yet the republicans definitely do not include the wishes of the people in their plans although they say that they do. The fact is that although high-minded, the purported goals of the republicans do not reflect reality (in almost every case!) while their actual goals remain 'secret.'

GWB senior was involved up to his neck in Watergate, he was in charge of Laundering money for Nixon, and later appointed to the CIA. He used Gestappo tactics against the media when running for president (and after he was president), pulling press releases to Newsweek when it ran a 'negative' story on him. During press conferences, 41 would make demagogic statements about the economy, telling flat lies that the nation was in a recovery when it was obviously in a deep depression with millions of lost jobs.

GWB senior's Stalinesque (probably closer to Slobo-esqu) media manipulation makes him the greatest lying politician in modern history. Subject to uncontrolled fits of anger because of a hyperactive thyroid condition, he often made irrational decisions. Luckily, competant military handlers prevented Gulf War from becoming a complete disaster (although the behavior of the US right after is nothing to brag about).
 
  • #89
Zero
A Republican LYING?!?!? No way, they are all superhero saviors of humanity!!!

*snickers*
 
  • #90
Nicool003
A Republican LYING?!?!? No way, they are all superhero saviors of humanity!!!

*snickers*QUOTE]


A SEX SCANDAL IN THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION?! CLINTON LYING UNDER OATH?!?!??! AL GORE LYING ABOUT INVENTING THE INTERNET?!?!

NOT THEDEMOCRATS! THEIR SO PERFECT IN EVERY WAY!


*Snickers*






























hungry? grab a snickers:wink:
 
  • #91
Zero
Hmmm...but, somehow, Bush's lying about EVERYTHING is less important than Clintons' lying about his personal life, repulsive though it may have been?


The point is, why do some people think that Bush is somehow Clinton's opposite?


*EDIT*

I even started a thread about how, instead of refuting the claims that some Republican is lying, some people skirt the issue by yelling 'Clinton' at the top of their lungs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #92
schwarzchildradius
You're so wierd Nicool003. Why dont you have an argument?
 
  • #93
Zero
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
You're so wierd Nicool003. Why dont you have an argument?
Is this a personal attack, or is this going somewhere?
 
  • #94
Zero
Hmmmmm....or to make things even more general, to make a better point. Just because politician A is caught in a lie by politician B, it is no guarantee that B isn't also a liar.
 
  • #95
schwarzchildradius
How could that be construed as a personal attack? Nicool003 just simply doesn't seem to be taking a coherent viewpoint. A personal attack would be "~~~~ is an idiot!" or "~~~~ should leave!"
 
  • #96
Zero
Originally posted by schwarzchildradius
How could that be construed as a personal attack? Nicool003 just simply doesn't seem to be taking a coherent viewpoint. A personal attack would be "~~~~ is an idiot!" or "~~~~ should leave!"
Well, that is the strategy of the right-wing politicians and media, isn't it? Go on the counterattack whenever attacked, and hope that you simply drown out your opponents, instead of addressing an issue.

For instance, I've posted

http://www.house.gov/appropriations_democrats/caughtonfilm.htm [Broken] ? America spent years and millions of dollars to find out that Clinton was a lousy husband...can we spend a few minutes actually looking at the facts about Bush? (We can look up the word 'facts' if you like...you won't find them on Fox News.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #97
russ_watters
Mentor
19,861
6,286
Clearly nearly all politicians talk out of both sides of their mouths. Bush is no exception. Integrity is important to me so its one of my criteria for voting. I voted for Bush as a lesser of two weevils - I didn't really like either him or Gore (I voted for McCain in the primary). But Bush has shown leadership and thats probably the most important characteristic right now (and its the reason his approval ratings are so high despite a lackluster economy).
 
  • #98
Nicool003
Hmmm...but, somehow, Bush's lying about EVERYTHING is less important than Clintons' lying about his personal life, repulsive though it may have been?

Bush hasn't luied about anything. Give me some real true proof that he lied. You say he EVADES some topics. That isnt lying! duh! Maybe he doesnt have answers or would like to think them through. And everything clinton did for us was bad. Breaking down the military giving away military secrets...things like that. His wife practically ran the administration, he just destroyed things.


You're so wierd Nicool003. Why dont you have an argument?

I have an argument was this post by zero an argument:


A Republican LYING?!?!? No way, they are all superhero saviors of humanity!!!

*snickers*QUOTE]

no it was a commmment so i did the same thing except for the democratic party. What are you a sore loser? And I have plenty arguments left in me.
 
  • #99
Zero
Originally posted by russ_watters
Clearly nearly all politicians talk out of both sides of their mouths. Bush is no exception. Integrity is important to me so its one of my criteria for voting. I voted for Bush as a lesser of two weevils - I didn't really like either him or Gore (I voted for McCain in the primary). But Bush has shown leadership and thats probably the most important characteristic right now (and its the reason his approval ratings are so high despite a lackluster economy).
I don't really think Bush has shown any real leadership. In fact, I'm sure there is someone right now writing a book about the almost insane brainwashing that has occured in America, that so long as teh man in charge shows teh symbols of leardership, and has teh right PR team, he doesn't have to do anything but stand there, and people will fill in the gaps for him. People are desperate for a leader, and teh media tells us that leader is Bush; therefore, most Americans believe Bush is a leader. Our general need, fed by fear, is the only reason people don't see him for the joke he is.
 
  • #100
russ_watters
Mentor
19,861
6,286
Originally posted by Zero
I don't really think Bush has shown any real leadership.
There is no better way to get the respect of your troops than to mingle with them - for example by landing on a carrier and staying there for a night. The main purpose was probably publicity, but the action was still leadership at its purest.
 

Related Threads on Lying politicians

Replies
15
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • Last Post
3
Replies
71
Views
4K
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
2K
Top