Yes We Can, But... Obama on Jon Stewart Show

I would think it rather more complex then genetics, hypothetically we could engineer altruist superhuman with unwavering logical reasoning, but real natural people are more complex. Certainly education plays into it, one must understand others and learn critical reasoning skills as well as economic status from the aforementioned natural selfishness of people, one must be willing to learn new things and throw out ideology and paradigms when evidence disproves them, something the old find mentally challenging.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Sure.

He lied about what he said in 2007 and when he said it. Here's what he said then: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18227928/

Here's him fumbling and lying about it now: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XWn7Va4ksWM

He attempts to say he supported the surge. That's bullshit. He tried to pass a resolution in the Senate saying he was against it: http://www.sptimes.com/2007/02/18/Worldandnation/GOP_blocks_Iraq_resol.shtml

"A majority of the United States Senate is against the escalation in Iraq," said Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada. "As for the Republicans who chose once again to block further debate and protect President Bush, the American people now know they support the escalation" in troops.

So he lied. Pure and simple. But I am sure you will try to excuse it all and have some amazing bit of rhetoric about how this all a Republican plot or something...

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The news media fully coopted by corporate Republican interests would include Fox entirely, good shares of other TV, almost all talk radio, and good shares of the rest. Nothing controversial about that - comes under the heading of "everybody knows".

You compare the Lewinsky affair to the propaganda campaign for launching a land war in Asia? I rest my case.

But going along with the comical notion: No, it provides dozens of further examples supporting my assertions there.

Republicans repeatedly lying about important matters, even after the facts were out, without the slightest embarrassment. An entire panel of multiply divorced serial philanderers sitting in straightfaced judgment, the only one facing any embarrassment of his own a Dem (Kennedy). A Dem President impeached - fucking actually impeached, the entire Federal government shut down for a trial - over a comparatively trivial dishonesty that many people would have taken as a virtue (a gentleman always lies to protect the lady) in other circumstances - and 60% of the relevant American public surveyed as not thinking was a dishonesty at all (60% of the men from Clinton's demographic, answering a survey widely published, agreed that a blow job was not "having sexual relations").

Meanwhile the recording of Lewinsky's phone calls seems to have been a felony, btw. The rest of the accusations continually leveled at Clinton pure fabrications, then and now. The videos edited deliberately to play false, the stories planted and then quoted as if from authority, the barrage of incoherent nonsense guiding the Republican base as one trains a dog - by tone of voice and body language, not meaning in words. But we take for granted that the Republican unitary side gets a pass on anything like that.

And when someone did get fired, even temporarily for image reasons, it took this: http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=David_N._Bossie

On the standard applied to Clinton, W would have been gone a dozen times over in his first term for major issues of his performance in office - most flagrantly among the swarm for the violations of FISA and the lying to Congress about them, which would not even have required much of a trial - he admitted them. But there's no embarrassment there, no fuss, no hassles with a David Bossie making shit up for lack of real material - that's the Rep side, unitary and immune.

One set of sides embarrassed, impeached, fired, castigated in public with real consequences, for comparatively minor stuff. The other single side just rolling along as per usual - despite far more serious betrayals of the public trust.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

No, Ice. Like a lot of other malarky you post, this does not fall under "everybody knows." Maybe it's just everyone you know? You and your kooky friends? See, everyone else, those of us who are connected to reality, can clearly see the Media, aside from the few easy to spot exceptions (which are easy to spot precisely because they are exceptions), is largely Democrat-leaning. And the quantifiable data I've posted on this topic, time and again, corresponds with that.

I make no claim about the relative import of the issues involved, I merely reached for the obvious case where numerous Democrats in the White House, including the president himself, were LYING to people, day in and day out. And nothing happened to them.

I wasn't commenting on the merits of the case, and I don't care what you think about it, either.

When did he lie about them?

 

You seemed to think there was some kind of significance in a claimed lack of consequences - with issues of no import, consequences of no import are kind of expected.

But since we see an impeachment for trivialities, on one side, and no consequences for seriously damaging lies (resulting in an impeachment, shutdown of the government, the various effects of damaging Clinton's authority and power, etc) on the other, even that weasel out is not credible.

And once turned to the Iraq War Marketing, our little revelatory flashlight hits a wall of diamonds bright - a tower of babble flying what appears, from the distant perspective allowed to the subpoena-deprived, to be a Jolly Roger.

Once again, corporate Republican campaign spin is asserted by you as fact and reality.

What you "clearly see" is completely bullshit - every member of David Brooks's revolving set of panel buddies is another tree in the overlooked forest of media dominance by DB's backing powers;

and the frame hammered into place - "Democrat-leaning" presented as opposed to "coopted by corporate Republican interests" - is the major goal of spreading it.

This thread taking its place in the diligence.

 

I was asked about lying, I gave an example. I had no idea the bar was war and peace. You never said that. But hey, if that's the case, then we have to go back to Johnson (the last Democrat in charged of a War's beginning). He lied. About Gulf of Tonkin and more.

Let's talk about fact and reality, since you like to label people and all...

I asked you to back a claim up you made, and as usual, you ignored my request. Here it is agian: Post an example of Bush lying about the "swarm" of FISA violations? If there is a swarm, a lie should not be that hard to find.

Like Frank Rich and Maureen Dowd? Yeah, they are sooooo Republican

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Not that you have much of a reputation, at least in my eyes, but statement's like that make you look ridiculous.

 

A few minor details for you countezero. I thought maybe you could produce some solid proof that Reid lied. But unfortunately, the pure and simple truth is that was not the case.

First, Reid was not fumbling as you claimed. He spoke clearly and without hesitation in response the question asked and he did not offer excuses has the Tea Party candidate did.

Two your claim Reid lied is pure and simply not true. In your first post from early 2007, Reid claims that the military only strategy in Iraq is not working and he felt it would not work.

Dems opposed a military only and forever which was the Republican solution. It was only when Democrats started to presssure Republicans that they got off their ass and started to get serious about resolving the conflict in Iraq which meant political and economic solutions had to be a part of the ultimate solution...which it was. Now you can label my response as you undoubtly will as marxist, socialist, etc. But it is true.

The surge was nothing without also implementing social, economic and political fixes.

 

You were not.

You did not.

Because you posting your usual garbage is not a form of demand I respect. You can't follow arguments, and it's a waste of time to try to correct you every time you run your mouth.

Well that's easy enough, however irrelevant. Here's W talking many months after he had specifically and officially authorized wiretapping Americans in America without obtaining a warrant from a judge:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eEyHcajIYuk&feature=related

That practice was declared illegal - a violation of FISA, and contrary to the US Constitution - by several judges in their professional capacity, and essentially every single independent legal scholar who addressed the matter. Several Congressmen - including the Republican chair of the relevant Congressional committee - declared that they had been misled about the program by W.

For whatever it's worth. No consequences befell W for this - several pundits of various stripes did point out that the event marked the first time a sitting President had voluntarily admitted to an impeachable offense in public, but then everybody just looked around at each other wondering what to do next, and after a while the usual amnesiac revision was spun into the retellings.

 

Simply and utterly amazing, even though I knew this is exactly the sort of bullshit you would parrot back. Oh, well. That's what I get for talking to you.

 

Jesus, back to playing picky semantics and arguing about arguing -- which is your last refuge, no doubt. The topic was lying. Its symmetry, which you denied here: One set of sides, when caught in error or even a mistake in support of a fact, is embarrassed - may even fire someone. The side at issue is not embarrassed - will not even necessarily quit repeating known falsehoods, let alone fire somebody over them.

So I posted an obvious example of Dems lying for weeks and months on end for political reasons (Clinton/Lewinsky), so you upped the bar. I gave you Johnson. You now have two major examples of Democrats lying about issues. There are many more (see the Harry Reid post I made).

Yes, I did. Pay attention.

In post a previous post I wrote: When did he lie about them? in reference to your odd assertion -- or rant really -- about Bush and FISA. Typically, I got no answer, because you think you're Zeus or something and none of your inane proclamations of "truth" from on high can be questioned by us lowly plebs. When you didn't answer, I asked again: Post an example of Bush lying about the "swarm" of FISA violations? If there is a swarm, a lie should not be that hard to find.

So you've been asked twice.

Oh, cry me a river, Ice. No one respects you. No one can follow your incredible arguments -- especially like the time when you linked two events (hostages in Iran in 1979 and Iran Contra) that had nothing to do with each other. Or the other time you posted an Onion article as proof of a something or the numerous times you link to WSD and other fountains of wisdom. Yeah. No respect. Gee, I wonder why?

He's lying. But he was probably protecting the program's security. And being familiar with the program, there was no "swarm" of violations. But was he truthful there? No, he was not.

It was also declared legal by plenty of people.

Every case I recollect was thrown out of court for lack of standing? But maybe I missed some? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warrantless_wiretaps#FISCR_Ruling_of_August_2008

I wouldn't say no consequences. He was pilloried in the press about it and the PATRIOT ACT and new FISA provisions became major talking points when it came time to renew. As far as legal prosecution, the path is nowhere near as clear as you make it. He authorized those wiretaps with an Executive Order and he did so under his interpretation of the War Powers. Those typically are never challenged in court. And you're also ignoring the one-party issue, in which the calls are emanating from a foreign source (it's only problematic they are being "tapped" at switches here, we tap overseas at will). So it's not as if the other side didn't have a case, either.

But as usual, you see things only one way. And everyone else is lying. And of course, you're the same person who argued that PATRIOT came about through some bizarre machinations of NSA, in which the bill was written well in advance in 9/11 and left on ice. Stupidity is rarely so apparent as it is in that kind of argument.

 

No, I'm not, and I didn't. Anything you ascribe to me other than a direct and complete quote (not the dishonest partials above, from your bag of bully tricks), I disown and deny - past, present, and future.

In a comment about the Republican obstructionism, a deliberate and sustained and destructive and explicitly partisan strategy, you recognized yourself. I agree.

You are after all posting more or less nothing but personal attacks and stuff like this:

which is obviously partisan spin, a dishonesty intended to support the "both sides" frame. But never mind, we can roll with it - what from the Dem House over that time was as insufferably contemptuous of any reality involved as John Boehner's every speech? And were any of his speeches widely and routinely reported as the lies and attempted misinformation deliveries they invariably were?

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Getting past the insult, the bottom line is you have not proven your claims on several fronts. One there is no indication in the video that Reid was fumbling. Two, there is no evidence that Reid lied.

That is probably why you failed to provide detail/source when you first made the allegation. Wishing moral transgressions on Reid does not mean that Reid commits them.