Republican lies used to trick the public

  • #26
russ_watters
Mentor
19,296
5,326
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 in to 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.
 
Last edited:
  • #27
SOS2008
Gold Member
24
1
Pengwuino said:
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 [Broken]

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 [Broken]

Edit: Highlighting corrected.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #28
russ_watters
Mentor
19,296
5,326
SOS, you should reread that quote you posted.... :rolleyes:
 
  • #29
SOS2008
Gold Member
24
1
russ_watters said:
SOS, you should reread that quote you posted.... :rolleyes:
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 [Broken]):
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 possess 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."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #30
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
174
russ_watters said:
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

Ivan Seeking said:
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?
 
Last edited:
  • #31
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
174
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 [Broken]

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?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #32
Pengwuino said:
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 [Broken]

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.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #33
russ_watters
Mentor
19,296
5,326
Ivan Seeking said:
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #34
691
1
russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #35
691
1
russ_watters said:
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.
 
  • #36
SOS2008
Gold Member
24
1
faust9 said:
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.
Irwin Redlener, M.D., is associate dean of the Columbia University Mailman School of Public Health and director of The National Center for Disaster Preparedness said last night in an interview that despite the large sums of money spent on HLS, America is not prepared. I tend to believe his statement over opinion or rhetoric on PF.
 
  • #37
Ethics Truce Frays in House
Since 1997, the House ethics panel has remained quiet as:
• A Texas grand jury began investigating a political action committee set up by DeLay.
• Several newspapers described how officers of Kansas-based Westar Energy wrote memos about steering $56,500 to GOP campaigns in return for legislative help from DeLay and Reps. W. J. "Billy" Tauzin (R-La.) and Joe Barton (R-Tex.). Barton later sponsored a legislative exemption sought by Westar, but it eventually was dropped.
• The Washington Post reported that Blunt, the House's third-ranking Republican, tried to slip a last-minute provision into a bill to help a tobacco company for which his son lobbied. Blunt said the measure was meant to combat cigarette smuggling, but a Hastert aide removed it.
• Common Cause, the public watchdog group that helped topple Wright, called for an ethics probe after the Post reported that aides to Rep. Michael G. Oxley (R-Ohio), who chairs the House Financial Services Committee, told a trade group that a congressional probe might ease if the group replaced its Democratic lobbyist with a Republican.
• The Campaign Legal Center and Democracy21.org, public interest groups, charged DeLay's charitable children's organization is improperly soliciting large donations from special interests to finance lavish parties at this summer's Republican National Convention. DeLay says the charity is legal and proper.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A64604-2004Mar16?language=printer - This list was as of March 17, 2004

Other Current/Ongoing Matters:
· Commission on the Intelligence Capabilities of the United States Regarding Weapons of Mass Destruction
· Medicare Prescription Drug Bill Vote Scandal, 2003
· Memogate
· National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States (9-11 Commission)
· Valerie Plame
· Weapons of mass destruction investigation

The problem is when the Executive and Legislative branches are both controlled by the GOP, the investigations are not independent and are easily manipulated by the Whitehouse (e.g., Katrina, which has become the mode of operation for Bush & Co.). Here is Dubya's view on the topic:

"See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda." GWB, May 24, 2005, while in Greece - http://www.crooksandliars.com/2005/05/25.html#a3118

Bamboozlepalooza Tour '05:
“If you've retired, you don't have anything to worry about — third time I've said that. (Laughter.) I'll probably say it three more times. See, in my line of work you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda. (Applause.)” - http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2005/05/20050524-3.html [Broken]

Kinda tells ya something.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #38
288
0
I don't know if the following counts as opinion or as fact, but I thought it was appropriate for this thread. Please click on the link.

 
  • #39
Astronuc
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
18,704
1,718
Some background -

That guy al Zar... is Abu Musab al-Zarqawi ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi )

not to be confused with Ayman al-Zawahiri ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayman_al-Zawahiri )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Qaeda

Al Qaida was not very functional in Iraq until the US and it coalition invaded.

al-Zarqawi was most likely in Jordan, Syria and/or Lebanon, or possibly the west Bank before he got involved in Iraq.


. . . . but intentional deception is wrong.
I certainly concur. Too bad Bush and his administration do not believe the same. :rolleyes:
 
  • #40
SOS2008
Gold Member
24
1
Astronuc said:
Some background -

That guy al Zar... is Abu Musab al-Zarqawi ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abu_Musab_al-Zarqawi )

not to be confused with Ayman al-Zawahiri ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayman_al-Zawahiri )

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al_Qaeda

Al Qaida was not very functional in Iraq until the US and it coalition invaded.

al-Zarqawi was most likely in Jordan, Syria and/or Lebanon, or possibly the west Bank before he got involved in Iraq.


I certainly concur. Too bad Bush and his administration do not believe the same. :rolleyes:
U.S.: Al-Zarqawi No. 2 killed in Baghdad
Military says top aide to Jordanian-born terrorist shot dead on Sunday
Associated Press - Sept. 27, 2005
Al-Qaida in Iraq issued an Internet statement denying Abu Azzam was the group’s deputy leader, calling him “one of al-Qaida’s many soldiers” and “the leader of one its battalions operating in Baghdad.” It confirmed the raid but said it was not certain yet whether he was killed.
----------
It was not clear what effect Abu Azzam’s death would have on al-Qaida in Iraq. The U.S. military has claimed to have killed or captured leading al-Zarqawi aides in the past and attacks continued unabated — though Abu Azzam appeared to be a more significant figure.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9498356/

U.S. forces hunted down and killed terrorist Abu Azzam, the top lieutenant of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, the leader of al-Qaida in Iraq. Yep, the healine was hype.
 
  • #41
288
0
pattylou said:
I don't know if the following counts as opinion or as fact, but I thought it was appropriate for this thread. Please click on the link.

It's hard to say if he's lying or telling the truth in the quote below, but it sure is more of the same spinning.

In other words, the middle east and particularly Iraq is a mess. He could just say that, you know.
Bush Warns of Upsurge of Violence in Iraq

WASHINGTON Sep 28, 2005 — President Bush on Wednesday warned there will be an upsurge in violence in Iraq before next month's voting, but said the terrorists will fail. "Our troops are ready," he said.
I mean, now, no matter what events occur over the next few weeks, he can claim to have told us.

Anyway, is this quote a lie, propaganda, the truth, or all of the above? I'm not even sure exactly that it has any meaning.
 
  • #42
SOS2008
Gold Member
24
1
pattylou said:
It's hard to say if he's lying or telling the truth in the quote below, but it sure is more of the same spinning.

In other words, the middle east and particularly Iraq is a mess. He could just say that, you know.


I mean, now, no matter what events occur over the next few weeks, he can claim to have told us.

Anyway, is this quote a lie, propaganda, the truth, or all of the above? I'm not even sure exactly that it has any meaning.
Weren't we told the same thing before the last election? I hate to break it to 'em, but increased violence and additional loss of lives are not acceptable whether prewarned or not. Quite frankly, I almost saw the statement "Our troops are ready for them," as being a little too close to "Bring it on."
 
  • #43
Personally I think that the biggest problem is that the US's Media's are Not Liberal, meaning Not Free, you've lost some of the "Freedom of the Press" in that 9/11 follow-up legislation.

Makes it easier to Hoodwink people, doesn't it?
 
  • #44
loseyourname
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
1,749
5
Lapin Dormant said:
Personally I think that the biggest problem is that the US's Media's are Not Liberal, meaning Not Free, you've lost some of the "Freedom of the Press" in that 9/11 follow-up legislation.

Makes it easier to Hoodwink people, doesn't it?
Which passages of legislation are you referring to?
 
  • #45
russ_watters
Mentor
19,296
5,326
faust9 said:
Opinions can be lies Russ---when the opinion is built on a lie.
Just to be clear, here, can an opinion be a fact? I would assume so, based on your statement (they are related) but I need you to clarify this before I respond to the rest, because this point is huge.

You may wish to review the definitions of the relevant words before we continue....
 
Last edited:
  • #46
Good Question!

loseyourname said:
Which passages of legislation are you referring to?
Specifically? none, just that the climate, and the ability, to openly report upon 'news events' seems to me to have been stifled by the subsequent pieces of empowerments that have been emitted by the Governing Body of the United States of America.

Maybe something like that Patriot Act, How it gets applied, I'm not certain as I don't study US Law.
 
  • #47
221
0
Lapin Dormant said:
Specifically? none, just that the climate, and the ability, to openly report upon 'news events' seems to me to have been stifled by the subsequent pieces of empowerments that have been emitted by the Governing Body of the United States of America.
You think so? What gives you that impression, if you don't mind?
 
  • #48
Informal Logic
Lapin Dormant said:
Specifically? none, just that the climate, and the ability, to openly report upon 'news events' seems to me to have been stifled by the subsequent pieces of empowerments that have been emitted by the Governing Body of the United States of America.

Maybe something like that Patriot Act, How it gets applied, I'm not certain as I don't study US Law.
Maybe smearing opponents in campaigns, pundits on the whitehouse payroll, pressure from the whitehouse to retract stories even though true, and state news like Faux News, or fear of retaliation like the Plame case, etc., etc., maybe things like that?
 
  • #49
More like in all governments some things get suppressed, but usually it is Because it is for the Public Benefit. In some governments this silent power can be used quite subversively, especaily when they are Media Informed from a Concentrated Group of Media companies, coupled with a Nationalistic Bias (is a Polite word) tends to lead one to the sense that immersent in the Obviousness of the reality, is the Truth of it, out front, so unseen.

LD
Hey Just A Rabbits Opinion....ou sont les Lapine?
 
Last edited:
  • #50
Ivan Seeking
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,213
174
Here are a couple of quotes from today regarding surpreme court judges.

Sen. Richard Burr (R): "If we aren't careful, no one will want the job."

In other words, support ourt candidate or you'll ruin the supreme court. :rofl:

Another R Sen. whose name escapes me stated approx:
~"He [Bush] said that he would nominate conservative judges and that's what he's doing. This shows that there are still politicians who can be trusted to keep their word"

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: Oh God just shoot me now!!!! Could these yahoos be any more shallow and obvious? What is sickening is that someone doesn't run down there and slap them silly.
 

Related Threads for: Republican lies used to trick the public

Replies
13
Views
3K
Replies
238
Views
22K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
4K
Replies
32
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
3K
Top