Lying liars, disagreement = dishonesty
Moving on to some nice lies
This article is an excellent example of what I have seen several people here, who seem to take great pleasure in calling others liars, do with regard to tactics.
Policy disagreement doesn't mean that one party is lying. Because if that is true, well then you are disagreeing with me which makes you a liar.
I'm seeing this happen more and more. It is sad not only in the political realm, but here in these forums when people use name calling, picking apart a post for grammar intent, question the source and most of all just repeat endlessly that others are lying.
It isn't critical thinking. It isn't convincing, and it isn't even conversation that might bring people with different views together on issue.
Nick
This article is an excellent example of what I have seen several people here, who seem to take great pleasure in calling others liars, do with regard to tactics.
Policy disagreement doesn't mean that one party is lying. Because if that is true, well then you are disagreeing with me which makes you a liar.
I'm seeing this happen more and more. It is sad not only in the political realm, but here in these forums when people use name calling, picking apart a post for grammar intent, question the source and most of all just repeat endlessly that others are lying.
It isn't critical thinking. It isn't convincing, and it isn't even conversation that might bring people with different views together on issue.
Nick
Comments
I've never called a poster on here a liar.
Crazy maybe... lame, delusional, wrongheaded... silly.
But I don't think I've called any member a liar.
Originally posted by trumptman
Moving on to some nice lies
This article is an excellent example of what I have seen several people here, who seem to take great pleasure in calling others liars, do with regard to tactics.
Policy disagreement doesn't mean that one party is lying. Because if that is true, well then you are disagreeing with me which makes you a liar.
I'm seeing this happen more and more. It is sad not only in the political realm, but here in these forums when people use name calling, picking apart a post for grammar intent, question the source and most of all just repeat endlessly that others are lying.
It isn't critical thinking. It isn't convincing, and it isn't even conversation that might bring people with different views together on issue.
Nick
While "The Daily Mislead" (of which I don't read) may be going about their mission in the wrong way, I suggest that you read Joshua Mitchell's website for more level-headed, well-thought out arguments about why the Bush administration is doing catastrophic harm to our nation and our standing on the world stage.
He regularly points out the issue, what the Bush administration's position is on it, why it's bad or wrong and what a better alternative would be.
Talking Points Memo
[edit] We all know the reason this "lying" thing is so big with us liberals. It's because Clinton was caught lying about his affair, and that came to define him. Now Bush comes in, and, in our view, is basically dishonest about larger and more important issues - really, THE most important issues - such as the federal budget and going to war. And yet he's seen as "honest and trustworthy" by the American people about 60-40% in a recent poll I saw.
Of course, his "lies" are not of the same kind as Clinton's. It's harder to sink your teeth into the the argument that he was being dishonest about the primary reasons for going to war, or that he knew that his tax cuts would destroy the solvency of the federal government, while arguing the opposite. It's harder to find a one-liner like "I did not have sexual relations..." Really, they're "Big Lies" rather than just lies.
And so you get all these liberal books such as "Lies and the lying liars...", "The lies of George W. Bush," "Big Lies," "The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told US," and the like.
Ban the naughty words!
http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/...mp/~c108wajxO2
Wonder if they'll have to censor the debate on C-SPAN.
Originally posted by BRussell
[edit] We all know the reason this "lying" thing is so big with us liberals. It's because Clinton was caught lying about his affair, and that came to define him. Now Bush comes in, and, in our view, is basically dishonest about larger and more important issues - really, THE most important issues - such as the federal budget and going to war. And yet he's seen as "honest and trustworthy" by the American people about 60-40% in a recent poll I saw.
Of course, his "lies" are not of the same kind as Clinton's. It's harder to sink your teeth into the the argument that he was being dishonest about the primary reasons for going to war, or that he knew that his tax cuts would destroy the solvency of the federal government, while arguing the opposite. It's harder to find a one-liner like "I did not have sexual relations..." Really, they're "Big Lies" rather than just lies.
And so you get all these liberal books such as "Lies and the lying liars...", "The lies of George W. Bush," "Big Lies," "The Five Biggest Lies Bush Told US," and the like.
DING DING DING DING!
Yet according to a prominent liberal website, the Medicare bill is de facto proof of dishonesty by President Bush because it includes a provision supported by Democrats that forbids the government from using its purchasing power to negotiate lower drug prices. Does the objection prove that Bush was lying? Of course not. On the contrary, it's nothing more than the sort of ideological disagreement that is inherent to democracy.
They can say 'Of course it's not lying,' but that doesn't mean it's not. I'd like a well reasoned response to this particular accusation. If costs can only go up because of the bill, and Bush knows it, how is it not lying?
Originally posted by bunge
They can say 'Of course it's not lying,' but that doesn't mean it's not. I'd like a well reasoned response to this particular accusation. If costs can only go up because of the bill, and Bush knows it, how is it not lying?
Very often the government won't pay the true cost of something. Instead they will just dictate what they will pay and demand that you provide the service. This is true in pretty much every area of society where government is deeply involved in helping provide a service. Since they don't provide the true cost, the burden is passed on to everyone else. This is true for Medicare especially and is part of why all the folks who do have private insurance have been watching the cost of it far outstrip inflation.
Nick
Originally posted by trumptman
Very often the government won't pay the true cost of something. Instead they will just dictate what they will pay and demand that you provide the service.
But Congress is barred from negotiating any price. The government can't take this position in this particular case. I believe the drug companies are in the position where they can dictate the cost, and the government can't say squat.