Republicans: Liars extraordinaire

[joepistole]

"Republicans are trying to abscond with a lot of things and not just their past. "

Care to expand on that or it is just that they're republicans, so you know???

Sure that is the easy question. The difficult question is finding something they have not tried to abscond or lie about. Look at all the laws they have passed with respect to Sharia law, writing law for a nonexistent threat. They have tried to rewrite their roll causing The Great Recession, attempting to shirk responsibility and putting all the blame on the borrowers. Look at the demise of the auto industry, blaming the unions rather than the executives who really did run the auto companies and make the decisions that led to the downfall of the industry. Or how about their roll in slowing the economic recovery by deadlocking further stimulus, or how about all the lies they have made and continue to make about Obamacare and their 40 votes to repeal the law, all of this done to scare and misinform people in order to regain political power.

""With the advent of the Republican entertainment complex, there is no longer any penalty for lying. A conservative politician now always has the Republican entertainment industry at his or her back. They can act impudently and never be held accountable…especially so if they are running in gerrymandered districts and can suppress opposition votes."

I'm sorry and the same could not be said of democrats? Why? Well. because they're democrats and you know?!!

Do Democrats have a comparable entertainment complex? No. Democrats don’t have a cable network devoted to promulgating their political agenda. Democrats don’t have a Fox News equivalent, nor do they have a similar presence on talk radio. So no, the same cannot be said of Democrats. Additionally, the Democratic ethos is more heavily rooted in ethical principles. When the IRS scandal first broke, Democrats were all over President Obama and more vociferous and critical than any Republican. And that is a pretty difficult feat given Republican hatred for this POTUS. Republicans have no qualms about lying, witness Romney and McCain. Just check out any of the credible fact checking sites.

""" Voters cannot be well informed without good honest information which is something our Republican brothers and sisters fear most…a well-informed voter, hence the need to deceive and lie. "

And this thread was started by a democrat!!Hmm kinda makes you wonder doesn't it? Look the point is that, yea sure some voters do not need labels for them to decide things. They are either well read, family history decides party, or simply not impressed with party politics. However, it takes real courage to be among those who a party believes is theirs for getting the vote to say that they do not follow the party. What are they usually called? Not free thinkers thats for sure!

I don’t understand the point you are trying to make. Do you think people are automatons going through life untouched and unvarnished by truth, evidence and reason? In order to make good decisions, people need good information. They need the truth. They need to be well informed.

""" And Republican lying is ubiquitous, turn on Fox News, CNBC early morning evening programming or listen to Republican talk radio it won’t take long before the lies and deceit start coming at you and with gusto."

True enough you might say that Limbaugh, Hannity, Levin and Savage may fall under this umbrella. However, what about Maddow, Olbermann, etc. do they not do the same things? Have you ever listened to Mike Church? Excellent radio personality, and I think Andrew Wilkow is solid. I have listened to Alan Colmes from time to time. Dude it goes both ways, if you do not think so. You are in denial.

Here is the difference Maddow, and Olbermann don’t intentionally lie and deceive their viewers and listeners, nor does 2 hours 5 days a week compensation for a two 24 hour news channels (Fox) and a multitude of 24 hour radio broadcasts. So dude, not it doesn’t go both ways. If you have examples of deliberate lies and misrepresentations from Maddow and Olbermann now is the time to show them. Study after study has shown viewers of Fox News to be least informed viewers…more misinformed than those who watch no news at all. No it is not the same dude.

"""I liked McCain back when he first claimed the maverick moniker, but when he yielded to crony capitalism that was the end of my support for McCain."

Wow you supported McCain?? Yet, many republicans do not like him, and yet you "supported" until he "yielded to crony capitalism". Why do I smell a rat?

LOL, I don’t know, you have a rodent problem? Reality is tough for folks like you my friend. My father was a Democrat. For the first two decades of my life I was a Republican. But since the early 90’s I have been your worst nightmare, an independent voter. I was upset with the excesses of the liberalism of the 70’s and 80’s and now I am equally upset with the excesses of the Republican Party. I am a moderate. My vote is determined by the facts, and that sends shivers up the spines of good Republican voters like you. I have no party loyalties. If Democrats got crazy, I would be upset with them. Unfortunately, at this point in time Democrats are the only sane people in town who have reality based ideas who have policies that don’t end with an implied, “and then a miracle happens”.

""" McCain and Romney lost not because of labels, or physical appearances. "

Umm, hate to break it you but yeah that is why they lost. Obama, who did not truly offer many political ideas in '08, yet McCain did not really differentiate himself. And of course being able to elect the first black president was too much for many. That is not racist either. It is simply calling it as I see it. At that time was America ready for a black president? I certainly think so, but I would have preferred one who had identical political beliefs to the Constitution and our historical beginnings (outside of slavery of course).

Romney did differentiate himself from Obama, but then again he is a republican; and you know who and what republicans are?

Yeah reality is tough for you folks. You can tell yourself whatever you want and ignore reality, and that is part of the problem with the current incarnation of the Republican Party. It operates in an echo chamber. They only hear and see what they want to see. They believe what they want to believe regardless of evidence or reason. That is why Republicans including Fox News and Romney were so surprised when they lost in 2012. All the credible polling indicated Obama was going to win in a landslide. So Republicans told themselves and their true believers that you couldn’t believe the polls. So they invented their own polling that told them what they wanted to hear. It didn’t change the election results, but it did make people like you feel better for a while. And for years they have been telling their devotees they couldn’t believe the “lame stream media” or the nonexistent “liberal media”.

The RNC did a post mortem of the 2012 election and they don’t share your opinion as to why they lost that election cycle nor do I. In their summary they cited 6 major reasons for their failure chief among them was something called epistemic closure – something you just demonstrated.

“4. Epistemic Closure Is Real

There’s been a long running debate on the intellectual right about whether the GOP suffers from “epistemic closure,” a condition in which conservatives block out all dissenting voices until eventually their own arguments sound nonsensical to anyone who doesn’t already agree with them. The RNC report concludes this is a real and growing problem.” http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...from-the-rncs-incredible-election-autopsy.php

So what do Republicans do, they doubled down by restricting and limiting the number of primary debates and selecting debate moderators that have an interest in advancing the party rather than the traditional independent nonpartisan moderators.

" They lost because the Republican Party has become more extreme and out of touch with main stream America and cronyism dominate its economic and social policies"
And their are no extremists or out of touch personalities in the demoicratic party!!??!! Right?

Sure there are, but President Obama isn’t one of them and unlike McCain and Romney he wasn’t trying to be extreme and out of touch. And the Democratic Party is a whole isn’t extreme or even left wing. Democrats, much to the chagrin of Republicans, have been moving to steadily to the right for more than two decades now. Democrats have become a centrist party. Jimmy Carter was the last truly lefty POTUS. And Republicans have been becoming an ever increasing extremist right wing party. The unpleasant fact for Republicans is they lost because they were out of touch with mainstream America and their postmortem of the election told them as much. And we are seeing the rift caused by the study. The Republican leadership wants to heed the study, while the base, people like you don’t.

You have proven my point with your rhetoric. You are also in denial about how many truly uninformed people are when it comes to politics.

Well good you just keep thinking that and we can touch base after the next Republican postmortem in 2016.

 

[billvon]

is indicative of how deeply your partisan coloring stains your notion of reality.

I guess this is where we differ. I don't care what political party someone is; I care what they do and say.

From your postings, you support anything and everything democratic. and attack everything and anything republican. And if that works for you, great. I don't see things that way.

Someone gets caught trying to lie to people and, hey—just because she's a Republican, is it, then?—you're going to defend the liar?

Nope. My first thought would be "hey, she's lying." Your first thought would be "she's a REPUBLICAN!" (With the corollary that if it was a democrat your reply would be "well, it's not really a lie, the republicans are worse anyway, all politicians lie so why the big deal" etc etc.)

 

[Tiassa]

Midwestern Decency, and Other Notes

Sorry, but I still cannot see how this lends itself to corruption.

When truth—the appropriate and relevant expression of verifiable facts in a given situation—must be characterized as unfair, the functional result is that untrue assertions of fact wield inappropriate influence.

Do you disagree?

Hutchison tried to define "nonpartisan" as something devoid of any policy outlook. Essentially, she hoped a "nonpartisan" race would be a popularity contest; that is, without political history to consider, it was celebrity versus a career politician—this should have been a lock for her.

Except it wasn't, because she didn't expect the voters to pay attention.

Part of the functional problem you're running into—

I do not care about your local politics, although from what I am reading in your posts the point is being made in your state.

—is that this is a local version of a larger phenomenon. And we can certainly take the time to discuss the larger phenomenon, whenever you're ready. But in this case, yes, the situation is perhaps uniquely local.

Around here, Republicans don't want to be seen as Republicans. And you can say whatever you want about how "the Democrats have effectively demonized the opposition party", but really, dude, nobody around here will buy that except, perhaps for a bartender looking to fill up the nut dish for happy hour at the local Tea Party lounge.

It's almost as if you're arguing for a political system without any policy substance, rhetorical integrity, or general character. And while we might certainly joke about those things in our political system, there is a difference between general scarcity and absolute lack. While we both might lament the troubles brought by that general scarcity, I do not agree with the necessary prescription of absolute lack.

That is to say that if people need to shake off the doldrums and become politically engaged in order to evade the deceptions, the no holds barred cage fight in which reliable and verifiable—i.e., true—facts have no value seems the least productive route:

"The idea of dropping labels of republicans and democrats actually puts the onus on the voter to begin to think for themselves. This is the core problem. Everything is decided by labels and not ideas; few wish to actually have to work out the issues in their minds. So we get what we deserve."​

To be specific:

• Everything is decided by labels and not ideas ... (and)

• ... few wish to actually have to work out the issues in their minds ... (so)

∴ ... the obvious answer is to create more misinformation by empowering a marketplace that rewards fraud.​

See, it's that last part I have a problem with.

But perhaps that wasn't your intention; it would seem strange to presume that your purpose is to increase dishonesty and distrust in human society. However, as applied to the situation at hand, that's exactly what you're after.

And that's because you're making this more about party than reality. That is, in this case, a conservative got caught in an embarrassing grift and we up here all had a laugh. The only reason it comes up four years later is that the "nonpartisan" candidate who so resented all the implications that she was a Republican is now running for state GOP chair.

One need not be a leftist, liberal, progressive, or Democrat in order to comprehend that there is something very, very amiss in the Republican Party. This has disproportionate impact on the marketplace because of the limited number of market players; I might not miss Oldsmobile, but if the only other mass-produced car on the market was Chevrolet? Well, okay, then I might start checking the specialty brands, you know, but thre is a legitimate question of how much of a specialist a person should have to be in order to take responsibility for his or her own life. Imagine the answer to any medical malpractice fatality was, "Well, he could have avoided this outcome by becoming a doctor, himself." You know, as if maybe since he didn't like the way you operated on his wife, maybe he should have done it himself?

And, really, I can certainly blast my fellow Americans for their political ignorance and apathy, but at the same time I don't see how the social contract excludes the proposition that our elected leaders should be expected to have enough integrity that graduate degrees in history, communications, political science, and community psychology aren't the effective prerequisites for informed voting.

Our politicians rarely live up to their constitutents' reasonable expectations. This is not any good reason to dispense with the proposition of reasonable expectations.

(I would also note that Illinois is long a symbol of nineteenth and twentieth century political corruption in the United States; combined with the amount of the state that is not Chicago, and thus more or less included in P.J. O'Rourke's explanation of midwestern decency—in which grandmothers would not say the word "Democrats" around children, preferring "bastards" as a more civilized euphemism—and, further, observing that presently it is Illinois Democrats getting squashed under the gavel right now, one can reasonably assert a more historically faithful consideration of Illinois, Democrats, Republicans, and trust than might otherwise be asserted if starting from a presupposition of a two-bit political catfight.)

 

[iceaura]

I strongly support alternative energy (solar, wind, tidal, hydro) for power generation - that makes me a democrat. I also think we should be going for more gas drilling - that makes me a republican. I also think we should be going after nuclear in a big way for baseline generation - that makes me an outcast in both parties. I think we should have a smaller government that does less - but of the functions we keep, education is critical. I think unions have done a lot of damage to the competitiveness of the US - but I also think anyone should be able to join one. I think anyone who obeys the law and wants to work in the US should be allowed in. I support equality in all areas for people of all races/religions/sexes/sexual orientations. I also think we should phase out affirmative action.

All of which is why I am registered as an independent. Neither party fits me.

Uh, your entire description there is lifted straight from the boilerplate Republican Party rhetorical suggestion box - almost word for word what guys like Mitch McConnell say when running for office, or W said, or any of 'em. My bet you've just repeated some of next year's talking point list, the one Rove and the boys hand out to their pet newsreaders and candidates. And you've been voting for 'em - right? That's your Party - own it.

New Minnick ad hides Democratic Party affiliation

Joe Newby
Spokane Examiner

In a new ad released by Walt Minnick (D-ID), no mention is made of his affiliation to the Democratic Party.
- - - -
Vulnerable House Democrats work to hide party ties

Both those examples are of Democrats campaigning as Democrats, on policies and beliefs they personally hold and have supported by vote and rhetoric for years. ( That is a common type in the Dem Party, sometimes called "Blue Dog" Democrats - notice no one pretending that Blue Dogs are some third Party of Independents.) Neither of them are examples of Democrats supporting official Democratic policies and voting lockstep with Democratic leadership and getting their money etc from Democratic power bases, calling themselves "Independents" or "Tea Party" or trying to get their Party label removed from the ballot or publicly claiming as allies popular Republican locals they've been fighting and slandering as enemies all along.

And you'll have a hard time finding any such. Republicans who behave like that are all over the place. .

See the difference? One Party's politicians are lying a lot more and a lot worse than the other one's.They are not "both the same".

They'd say you are an ignorant victim of the liberal press.

So? Reality is involved, and they're wrong about it. That's not news.

The reason Republican politicians lie as they do is because it often works for getting Republican votes. One of the current Republican lies is that "both sides do bad the same, and always have". And it seems to work on you guys.

Of course there is. But if you think "political party propaganda" = "factual reality" you've bought into that propaganda.

So far, I've at least managed to avoid parroting Fox News talking points as bases for argument.

As a brand name, "Republican" is belly up and drawing flies
So has the democratic party. Their approval rating is currently around 35%, which is abysmal.

And still these Dems do not lie about their affiliations and allies and associations and voting records and so forth. Unlike the Reps.

And the democrats have gotten stuck with the consequences of Benghazi, Wiener, Filner, the current state of progress in Congress (i.e. zero) the domestic spying scandals etc.

More Rep lies from Fox - you have a file of this crap or something?

There are no consequences of Benghazi or Weiner except garbage from the Murdoch press and Republican lies. The current lack of progress in Congress is Republican doing, completely and openly and deliberately and overtly and without qualification - which the Republicans have been lying about, of course, all together in a chorus, because that's what they do; but you don't believe them - do you? Filner, a mayor of a mid sized city, lost his job despite a long history of forthright liberal political credentials and solid political capital - how does that translate into massive and habitual and reflexive lying by Democrats?

See, that's the thing that many people don't get. Just because you voted for Clinton doesn't mean you support lying under oath. Just because you voted for Bush doesn't mean you support lying about WMD's.

If you voted for W twice, it means you supported lying about WMDs. That was the major act of his entire political career, and it was out in the open by then. If you can't tell the difference between sorta lying when forced to about a blow job you once got of little relevance to your job, and voluntarily concocting a two year dishonest propaganda campaign involving coordination of the entire Republican legislative and executive branch as well as all bribed media to get the US buried in a thirteen year land war in Asia, then you are a Republican voter and the OP is directed at you. Why are you voting for this?

 

[Tiassa]

Springboard: A Shallow Dive Into ... er ... Something

See the difference? One Party's politicians are lying a lot more and a lot worse than the other one's.They are not "both the same".

I don't know, I'm just sort of grabbing a quote to run with. But your discussion with Billvon does remind me—quite obviously, as you might imagine—of diverse encounters over the years with the fake independents.

My brother was one of the first I knew, actually, though that didn't come to the fore until adulthood. When we were kids, I was a Democrat and he was a Republican. In our late twenties, a friend of ours referred to him as a Republican over beer and pizza, and my brother took it poorly. It was explained to him, with as little interjection from me as possible, that regardless of how he thought of himself, people around him perceived him as a Republican because, well, he consistently—uniformly—supported the conservative argument. When the question of whether or not his scholarship to college was appropriate—it was a ballot question that year—he took the Republican line that sure, it was appropriate because he went to a private school, which might well have been the point that brought our friend to call him a Republican to his face. (There was also the time that he argued the same thing about Muslims in Afghanistan that white Americans used to say about his people, that it was unfair and immoral to hurt poor people by allowing them prosperity because they would just spend it on booze and excess.) It actually took the Dubya years and watching a respected professor from his alma mater destroy her own reputation as an academic and generally decent human being to finally wake him up. He still won't identify as a Republican, but he doesn't call himself independent, anymore, and nobody actually knows what his real political outlook is. By experience, though, I can tell you it's much more intelligent than it used to be. He still won't identify according to party, which is fine, but it's a lot easier to believe that he's "not a Republican" now that he's not in knee-jerk, anti-Democrat mode. I cannot, however, explain his actual political outlook, though I would suspect that a certain amount of pride prevents him from acknowledging just how far to the left of center that outlook might range. It's an operant pride; years of conditioning.

I also think of a not-quite retired insurance man I know down in Oregon. Certainly a nice guy, and when you get down to certain things it becomes clear he's not a dolt. But it's funny because he won't identify as a Republican or conservative. He considers himself "independent" in that context dripping with contempt for the "sheeple"—a word he doesn't use, though in this case would mean "Democrats". Yet it's not so much that his outlook is so obviously Republican. He's a Birther. He doesn't listen to Rush Limbaugh, apparently, but can tell you the news of the day as only could be delivered by any of the right-wing radio hosts his "independent" brother listens to.

While I might reserve my status as a "Democrat" to "supporter" or "sympathizer", by no means can anybody reasonably suggest I have postured myself as some sort of centrist in order to push a partisan cause.

In the end, I get the idea of snake oil having some virtue in a culture that reveres wheeling and dealing, buying and selling. But there is a reason we don't specifically celebrate snake oil. That is, there are times when we require, as a basic functional necessity, a certain dose of truth in packaging. Philosophers of passion often use metaphors of malady, like cancer; imagine the snake oil liberty celebrated to the point that you don't know what's in your chemotherapy. I mean, true, it will never become so specifically consequential, but the metaphor is apt.

Similarly, 'tis true that cyanide is a cure-all. After all, human life is a sexually transmitted disease with a one hundred percent fatality rate.

Something about metaphors.

When it comes to election day, I really do hope someone can show me the ballot; I want to see Walt Minnick's ballot listing. Because our neighbor cannot possibly seriously intend that a television advert saying nothing about one's party is somehow equivalent to being a Republican receiving campaign money from the Republican Party and wanting to be listed on the ballot as something other than a Republican.

Caveat emptor? Seriously? That is the counterargument? There is a reasonable assertion to be made, insofar as our shared language in American society might continue to have any meaning whatsoever, that antisocial dysfunction is not a healthy mass behavior within the concept of civilization. Simply put: Incivility is not a prescription for civilized society.

I guess today's caveat is: Always beware the political "independent" who would recommend such a denigration of civilized society.

But neither am I convinced that is what our neighbors intend.

 

[Ghostwriter]

When truth—the appropriate and relevant expression of verifiable facts in a given situation—must be characterized as unfair, the functional result is that untrue assertions of fact wield inappropriate influence.

Do you disagree?

Hutchison tried to define "nonpartisan" as something devoid of any policy outlook. Essentially, she hoped a "nonpartisan" race would be a popularity contest; that is, without political history to consider, it was celebrity versus a career politician—this should have been a lock for her.

Except it wasn't, because she didn't expect the voters to pay attention.

Part of the functional problem you're running into—



—is that this is a local version of a larger phenomenon. And we can certainly take the time to discuss the larger phenomenon, whenever you're ready. But in this case, yes, the situation is perhaps uniquely local.

Around here, Republicans don't want to be seen as Republicans. And you can say whatever you want about how "the Democrats have effectively demonized the opposition party", but really, dude, nobody around here will buy that except, perhaps for a bartender looking to fill up the nut dish for happy hour at the local Tea Party lounge.

It's almost as if you're arguing for a political system without any policy substance, rhetorical integrity, or general character. And while we might certainly joke about those things in our political system, there is a difference between general scarcity and absolute lack. While we both might lament the troubles brought by that general scarcity, I do not agree with the necessary prescription of absolute lack.

That is to say that if people need to shake off the doldrums and become politically engaged in order to evade the deceptions, the no holds barred cage fight in which reliable and verifiable—i.e., true—facts have no value seems the least productive route:

"The idea of dropping labels of republicans and democrats actually puts the onus on the voter to begin to think for themselves. This is the core problem. Everything is decided by labels and not ideas; few wish to actually have to work out the issues in their minds. So we get what we deserve."​

To be specific:

• Everything is decided by labels and not ideas ... (and)

• ... few wish to actually have to work out the issues in their minds ... (so)

∴ ... the obvious answer is to create more misinformation by empowering a marketplace that rewards fraud.​

See, it's that last part I have a problem with.

But perhaps that wasn't your intention; it would seem strange to presume that your purpose is to increase dishonesty and distrust in human society. However, as applied to the situation at hand, that's exactly what you're after.

And that's because you're making this more about party than reality. That is, in this case, a conservative got caught in an embarrassing grift and we up here all had a laugh. The only reason it comes up four years later is that the "nonpartisan" candidate who so resented all the implications that she was a Republican is now running for state GOP chair.

One need not be a leftist, liberal, progressive, or Democrat in order to comprehend that there is something very, very amiss in the Republican Party. This has disproportionate impact on the marketplace because of the limited number of market players; I might not miss Oldsmobile, but if the only other mass-produced car on the market was Chevrolet? Well, okay, then I might start checking the specialty brands, you know, but thre is a legitimate question of how much of a specialist a person should have to be in order to take responsibility for his or her own life. Imagine the answer to any medical malpractice fatality was, "Well, he could have avoided this outcome by becoming a doctor, himself." You know, as if maybe since he didn't like the way you operated on his wife, maybe he should have done it himself?

And, really, I can certainly blast my fellow Americans for their political ignorance and apathy, but at the same time I don't see how the social contract excludes the proposition that our elected leaders should be expected to have enough integrity that graduate degrees in history, communications, political science, and community psychology aren't the effective prerequisites for informed voting.

Our politicians rarely live up to their constitutents' reasonable expectations. This is not any good reason to dispense with the proposition of reasonable expectations.

(I would also note that Illinois is long a symbol of nineteenth and twentieth century political corruption in the United States; combined with the amount of the state that is not Chicago, and thus more or less included in P.J. O'Rourke's explanation of midwestern decency—in which grandmothers would not say the word "Democrats" around children, preferring "bastards" as a more civilized euphemism—and, further, observing that presently it is Illinois Democrats getting squashed under the gavel right now, one can reasonably assert a more historically faithful consideration of Illinois, Democrats, Republicans, and trust than might otherwise be asserted if starting from a presupposition of a two-bit political catfight.)

"When truth—the appropriate and relevant expression of verifiable facts in a given situation—must be characterized as unfair, the functional result is that untrue assertions of fact wield inappropriate influence.

Do you disagree? "

On this, I cannot disagree. However, what is truth? Facts can be distorted or turned to mean whatever the presenter wishes them to mean.

" Hutchison tried to define "nonpartisan" as something devoid of any policy outlook. Essentially, she hoped a "nonpartisan" race would be a popularity contest"

Does this not prove my point? Turning things into a popularity contest is not what good governance should be about.


" To be specific:

• Everything is decided by labels and not ideas ... (and)

• ... few wish to actually have to work out the issues in their minds ... (so)

∴ ... the obvious answer is to create more misinformation by empowering a marketplace that rewards fraud."

Again, this could happen. However, misinformation is in the eye of the beholder. What may seem like misinformation to you might be classified as facts by another. This is not to play flip flop with the true or legit information because there is a truth and legit information. However, remember that what is truth and legit information is guided by our belief systems. If you believe that issue X is correct and I do not then what might you say about me to discredit me? Is that information misinformation? To one it may be, to another it may not be.

Your obvious answer is a common tactic used by politicians and their accomplices who simply brand the opposition with misinformation about the known political opposition. Read some of your repsonses and Joes, this tactic is common. That is not an accusation simply an observation.

 

[Ghostwriter]

Sure that is the easy question. The difficult question is finding something they have not tried to abscond or lie about. Look at all the laws they have passed with respect to Sharia law, writing law for a nonexistent threat. They have tried to rewrite their roll causing The Great Recession, attempting to shirk responsibility and putting all the blame on the borrowers. Look at the demise of the auto industry, blaming the unions rather than the executives who really did run the auto companies and make the decisions that led to the downfall of the industry. Or how about their roll in slowing the economic recovery by deadlocking further stimulus, or how about all the lies they have made and continue to make about Obamacare and their 40 votes to repeal the law, all of this done to scare and misinform people in order to regain political power.



Do Democrats have a comparable entertainment complex? No. Democrats don’t have a cable network devoted to promulgating their political agenda. Democrats don’t have a Fox News equivalent, nor do they have a similar presence on talk radio. So no, the same cannot be said of Democrats. Additionally, the Democratic ethos is more heavily rooted in ethical principles. When the IRS scandal first broke, Democrats were all over President Obama and more vociferous and critical than any Republican. And that is a pretty difficult feat given Republican hatred for this POTUS. Republicans have no qualms about lying, witness Romney and McCain. Just check out any of the credible fact checking sites.



I don’t understand the point you are trying to make. Do you think people are automatons going through life untouched and unvarnished by truth, evidence and reason? In order to make good decisions, people need good information. They need the truth. They need to be well informed.



Here is the difference Maddow, and Olbermann don’t intentionally lie and deceive their viewers and listeners, nor does 2 hours 5 days a week compensation for a two 24 hour news channels (Fox) and a multitude of 24 hour radio broadcasts. So dude, not it doesn’t go both ways. If you have examples of deliberate lies and misrepresentations from Maddow and Olbermann now is the time to show them. Study after study has shown viewers of Fox News to be least informed viewers…more misinformed than those who watch no news at all. No it is not the same dude.



LOL, I don’t know, you have a rodent problem? Reality is tough for folks like you my friend. My father was a Democrat. For the first two decades of my life I was a Republican. But since the early 90’s I have been your worst nightmare, an independent voter. I was upset with the excesses of the liberalism of the 70’s and 80’s and now I am equally upset with the excesses of the Republican Party. I am a moderate. My vote is determined by the facts, and that sends shivers up the spines of good Republican voters like you. I have no party loyalties. If Democrats got crazy, I would be upset with them. Unfortunately, at this point in time Democrats are the only sane people in town who have reality based ideas who have policies that don’t end with an implied, “and then a miracle happens”.



Yeah reality is tough for you folks. You can tell yourself whatever you want and ignore reality, and that is part of the problem with the current incarnation of the Republican Party. It operates in an echo chamber. They only hear and see what they want to see. They believe what they want to believe regardless of evidence or reason. That is why Republicans including Fox News and Romney were so surprised when they lost in 2012. All the credible polling indicated Obama was going to win in a landslide. So Republicans told themselves and their true believers that you couldn’t believe the polls. So they invented their own polling that told them what they wanted to hear. It didn’t change the election results, but it did make people like you feel better for a while. And for years they have been telling their devotees they couldn’t believe the “lame stream media” or the nonexistent “liberal media”.

The RNC did a post mortem of the 2012 election and they don’t share your opinion as to why they lost that election cycle nor do I. In their summary they cited 6 major reasons for their failure chief among them was something called epistemic closure – something you just demonstrated.

“4. Epistemic Closure Is Real

There’s been a long running debate on the intellectual right about whether the GOP suffers from “epistemic closure,” a condition in which conservatives block out all dissenting voices until eventually their own arguments sound nonsensical to anyone who doesn’t already agree with them. The RNC report concludes this is a real and growing problem.”

So what do Republicans do, they doubled down by restricting and limiting the number of primary debates and selecting debate moderators that have an interest in advancing the party rather than the traditional independent nonpartisan moderators.



Sure there are, but President Obama isn’t one of them and unlike McCain and Romney he wasn’t trying to be extreme and out of touch. And the Democratic Party is a whole isn’t extreme or even left wing. Democrats, much to the chagrin of Republicans, have been moving to steadily to the right for more than two decades now. Democrats have become a centrist party. Jimmy Carter was the last truly lefty POTUS. And Republicans have been becoming an ever increasing extremist right wing party. The unpleasant fact for Republicans is they lost because they were out of touch with mainstream America and their postmortem of the election told them as much. And we are seeing the rift caused by the study. The Republican leadership wants to heed the study, while the base, people like you don’t.



Well good you just keep thinking that and we can touch base after the next Republican postmortem in 2016.

After reading your response their a few things I can say. First, I am not a Republican (more of a republican). I am a libertarian. If you cannot distinguish the differences, then I suggest that you are more a part of the problem than your post presents. Second, your post really highlights my point. I truly am not going to get into a urinating contest with you over identity politics, if you wish to discuss actual ideas not quantified in your mind by identity politics; then I am your man to do that.

 

[billvon]

Uh, your entire description there is lifted straight from the boilerplate Republican Party rhetorical suggestion box - almost word for word what guys like Mitch McConnell say when running for office, or W said, or any of 'em. My bet you've just repeated some of next year's talking point list, the one Rove and the boys hand out to their pet newsreaders and candidates. And you've been voting for 'em - right? That's your Party - own it.

No, I usually vote democrat. Both parties screw up about as often, but democrats generally screw up by trying to help people too much rather than trying to screw people too much - and I prefer that sort of mistake.

That's the problem with people like yourself. You can only see political parties. If someone disagrees with you, you can't really take their disagreements on a case by case basis - you just assign them to the "other party" and go off on them. That way there is no thinking involved - you just invoke FOX News, Rush Limbaugh etc and away you go, with all your points pre-digested and provided to you.

Thank you for amply demonstrating the very problem I was talking about above.

So far, I've at least managed to avoid parroting Fox News talking points as bases for argument.

I have never in my life watched FOX News. (Outside of excerpts they show on the Daily Show and the occasional airport TV.) And again, you provide a perfect example of the problem I am talking about. I disagree with you. So I must be a Republican. So I must watch FOX News. So I must believe X Y and Z. I must have voted for Bush. Reality doesn't matter - your brain shuts off and you start with the predigested democratic talking points.

Here's a challenge for you. Get out of that rut. Next time someone disagrees with you, try considering the content of their opinion, not just the color of their state. Respond without invoking the usual democratic vs republican talking points. See if you can do it.

If you voted for W twice, it means you supported lying about WMDs.

I have never voted for W.

If you can't tell the difference between sorta lying when forced to about a blow job you once got of little relevance to your job, and voluntarily concocting a two year dishonest propaganda campaign involving coordination of the entire Republican legislative and executive branch as well as all bribed media to get the US buried in a thirteen year land war in Asia, then you are a Republican voter and the OP is directed at you.

See how wrong your purely partisan approach makes you?

 

[joepistole]

After reading your response their a few things I can say. First, I am not a Republican (more of a republican). I am a libertarian. If you cannot distinguish the differences, then I suggest that you are more a part of the problem than your post presents. Second, your post really highlights my point. I truly am not going to get into a urinating contest with you over identity politics, if you wish to discuss actual ideas not quantified in your mind by identity politics; then I am your man to do that.

LOL, oh yeah there is a big difference between libertarianism and the Republican Party. That is like the pot calling the kettle black. I suppose that is why former Libertarian POTUS candidate Ron Paul, is a Republican congressman.

 

[Balerion]

After reading your response their a few things I can say. First, I am not a Republican (more of a republican). I am a libertarian. If you cannot distinguish the differences, then I suggest that you are more a part of the problem than your post presents. Second, your post really highlights my point. I truly am not going to get into a urinating contest with you over identity politics, if you wish to discuss actual ideas not quantified in your mind by identity politics; then I am your man to do that.

Sadly, this is the best you're going to get out of joepistole. Most of these issues can only be fruitfully discussed at a level he's not capable of reaching, let alone sustaining for a dozen posts, so if you engage him you're essentially slumming it. He pretends he's not a Democrat, and pretends you're a Republican so that after you brush aside all the straw he can still rely on ad hominem. There's literally nothing more to this angry little man, so I suggest looking elsewhere if you're looking for stimulating political debate.

 

[iceaura]

If you voted for W twice, it means you supported lying about WMDs.
I have never voted for W.

Good for you. The people who voted for W twice supported lying about WMDs. Contrary to your assertion. That is different from Clinton's voters, who may or may not have supported his devious language in a comparatively trivial and personal matter. Your claim of equivalence between W's lying and Clinton's lying is an example of the nonsense that has to be taken for reality in order to draw an equivalence between the dishonesty of the current Republican Party and the Democratic one (or any other, for that matter).

Uh, your entire description there is lifted straight from the boilerplate Republican Party rhetorical suggestion box - almost word for word what guys like Mitch McConnell say when running for office, or W said, or any of 'em. My bet you've just repeated some of next year's talking point list, the one Rove and the boys hand out to their pet newsreaders and candidates. And you've been voting for 'em - right? That's your Party - own it.
No, I usually vote democrat.

There are lots of rightwing illiberal Dems to vote for; "Usually" misses the point: you've been voting for some Republicans, yes or no?

Because your claim to not fit in either Party based on conflicting views is simply wrong, based on your own description of your views - they fit perfectly the standard rhetoric of the standard Republican campaign, platform, etc. You fit in with the Republican Party's rhetoric almost perfectly. So why the reluctance to claim the obvious identity?

You can still vote for some Democrats, after all, when they're the better choice. It's not like you are promising to do anything in particular.

My guess is that you, like anyone bothering to look, at some level recognize that the Republican Party is a jackal pack of incredible liars. Your close match on the rhetoric doesn't count, because their rhetoric is so completely dishonest and their behavior is so remarkably bad. You don't want to be identified as one of them, regardless of your views.

So far, I've at least managed to avoid parroting Fox News talking points as bases for argument.
I have never in my life watched FOX News.

I didn't say you had. I said you were parroting Fox News talking points - which is a fact. Where you are getting them from is irrelevant - we know Fox doesn't invent them all itself, it's just a handy label.

It's like this: You can't attempt drawing an equivalence between Clinton lying under oath and W lying about WMD's without earning the Fox label. Doesn't matter where you got that from.

Next time someone disagrees with you, try considering the content of their opinion, not just the color of their state. Respond without invoking the usual democratic vs republican talking points.

Let's see if you can go back, read what I actually posted, correct the Fox rewrite, realize that the content of your posting is all I've been dealing with, and come up with something a bit less stereotypically identifiable with the problem at issue: Republican politicians are really extraordinarily dishonest these days, much more so than other Party's politicians, and it's corrupted the political discourse to a degree difficult to even recognize let alone admit.

A genuinely independent guy should recognize that, at a glance. It's obvious. You certainly don't have to like the Democratic Party to see it.

Start by recognizing that you - not me, you - were the one invoking Party talking points vs something - arguing from them, even.

Including the big one: "both sides do it" is Republican Party cant, and to argue that you had to misread the whole of my posting. Which you did effortlessly - automatically. How did that happen, so easily?

 

[joepistole]

Sadly, this is the best you're going to get out of joepistole. Most of these issues can only be fruitfully discussed at a level he's not capable of reaching, let alone sustaining for a dozen posts, so if you engage him you're essentially slumming it. He pretends he's not a Democrat, and pretends you're a Republican so that after you brush aside all the straw he can still rely on ad hominem. There's literally nothing more to this angry little man, so I suggest looking elsewhere if you're looking for stimulating political debate.

LOL, I suggest you look up the meaning of ad hominem and maybe do something radical like take a course in logic. Yeah, I am not gullible enough to believe the baseless irrational crap that Republicans are drinking in their Kool-Aid these days. If Republicans have a good case for their ideology, they wouldn't need to lie and deceive as they do. They could have an honest reasoned and fact based discussion. But sadly that is not the case. Jonestown ideological devotion is not a substitute for reality.

Only in the Republican world does calling a spade a spade and calling out the emperor make you a nasty "liberal". I think it has something to do with that identity politics thingy.

 

[Balerion]

LOL, I suggest you look up the meaning of ad hominem and maybe do something radical like take a course in logic. Yeah, I am not gullible enough to believe the baseless irrational crap that Republicans are drinking in their Kool-Aid these days. If Republicans have a good case for their ideology, they wouldn't need to lie and deceive as they do. They could have an honest reasoned and fact based discussion. But sadly that is not the case. Jonestown ideological devotion is not a substitute for reality.

Only in the Republican world does calling a spade a spade and calling out the emperor make you a nasty "liberal". I think it has something to do with that identity politics thingy.

Case in point.

 

[joepistole]

Case in point.

LOL, yeah case in point. Reality, truth, evidence are reason are tough for you my friend. After all who needs empiricism, science or reason when you can rely on a Levin, Limbaugh or one of their 1 minute MBA’s for policy rather than scholars and experts and people who might have some real subject matter knowledge and who are not being paid to render opinions consistent with a political ideology. And it is much better to ignore the logs in your eye/ideology in favor of fantasy.

 

[Ghostwriter]

Case in point.

Actualy, it goes beyond your case in point. I will not throw flames tho!!

 

[Ghostwriter]

LOL, oh yeah there is a big difference between libertarianism and the Republican Party. That is like the pot calling the kettle black. I suppose that is why former Libertarian POTUS candidate Ron Paul, is a Republican congressman.

As I said if you do not understand the difference, you are a part of the problem.

 

[joepistole]

As I said if you do not understand the difference, you are a part of the problem.

The hair you are trying to split it is so thin, it has passed into the realm of the imaginary. Libertarianism has become just another faction of the Republican Party. If snubbing your nose at your fellow conservatives makes you feel better because you view yourself as a “social progressive”, fine. But it doesn’t change the fact that Libertarians frequently run on the Republican ticket (e.g. Ron Paul, Rand Paul, et al.) and Republicans often run on the Libertarian ticket (e.g. Ron Paul, Gary Johnson, Bob Bar, et al.). You don’t see Democrats running on the Libertarian ticket or Libertarians running on the Republican ticket.

And then you have the deep pocket libertarian financial sponsors (e.g. the Koch brothers) who also fund the Republican Party, Republican Party candidates, and Republican Party think tanks. The Koch brothers don’t sponsor the Democratic Party nor do they support Democratic candidates or Democratic think tanks. That is indeed an imaginary hair you are trying to split. It is the hair of delusion.

 

[billvon]

The hair you are trying to split is imaginary. Libertarianism has become just another faction of the Republican Party.

To large part - agreed, in that the GOP has tried to 'absorb' libertarianism because it is marginally closer to conservative than liberal ideals. But the Libertarian party itself hasn't accepted that; they still maintain a quite separate platform that is often at odds with the GOP. (Foreign interventionism for example.)

 

[billvon]

Good for you. The people who voted for W twice supported lying about WMDs. Contrary to your assertion. That is different from Clinton's voters, who may or may not have supported his devious language in a comparatively trivial and personal matter.

So democrats who vote for an admitted liar aren't supporting a liar. Because they are democrats, and they are good.
And republicans who vote for a claimed liar ARE supporting a liar. Because they are republicans, and they are bad.

You just keep proving my point, over and over.

Your claim of equivalence between W's lying and Clinton's lying is an example of the nonsense that has to be taken for reality in order to draw an equivalence between the dishonesty of the current Republican Party and the Democratic one (or any other, for that matter).

Agreed. Clinton admitted to the lie. GWB never did.

There are lots of rightwing illiberal Dems to vote for; "Usually" misses the point: you've been voting for some Republicans, yes or no?

Yes. Generally my vote goes to about 30% democrats, 10% republicans, with the balance going to libertarians, Green Party or unaffiliated candidates. (The unaffiliateds are large because most of our local races are not partisan.)

Because your claim to not fit in either Party based on conflicting views is simply wrong, based on your own description of your views - they fit perfectly the standard rhetoric of the standard Republican campaign, platform, etc. You fit in with the Republican Party's rhetoric almost perfectly.

So in your world the following are Republican party planks:

Support for alternative energy
Support for public education
Equality for everyone regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation
Support for union membership
Support for free immigration

Can we therefore assume that you now oppose them for that reason?

I didn't say you had. I said you were parroting Fox News talking points - which is a fact. Where you are getting them from is irrelevant - we know Fox doesn't invent them all itself, it's just a handy label.

So I was parroting FOX News talking points, but they weren't FOX News talking point, they were from somewhere else. You should really get a beeper so you don't run over people when you try to back up that fast.

It's like this: You can't attempt drawing an equivalence between Clinton lying under oath and W lying about WMD's without earning the Fox label.

Of course. Because to you, any criticism of anything democrats do is evil, and FOX is evil and the source of all negativity about Democrats.

Once again you are proving my point perfectly.

Including the big one: "both sides do it" is Republican Party cant, and to argue that you had to misread the whole of my posting. Which you did effortlessly - automatically. How did that happen, so easily?

Because both parties do it. If you can't see that, you are as blind as the Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters of the world - and you have provided an excellent way for party leaders to lead you around by your nose. Which, from your posting, they are clearly doing - your responses could come straight out of a Rachel Maddow show.

I will repeat my challenge. Get out of that rut. Learn to think for yourself. Next time you are tempted to give in to your jerking knee, take a second and think about the issue outside party lines. Respond without invoking the usual democratic vs republican talking points, without once using FOX News or "Bush did it first" or whatever your latest bloody shirt is. See if you can do it. Take it as a challenge.

 

[joepistole]

To large part - agreed, in that the GOP has tried to 'absorb' libertarianism because it is marginally closer to conservative than liberal ideals. But the Libertarian party itself hasn't accepted that; they still maintain a quite separate platform that is often at odds with the GOP. (Foreign interventionism for example.)

The Republican Party consists mainly of three basic factions. There are the neocons that have controlled the party for the last decade and like the military adventurism of the Bush II years while trying to characterize themselves as fiscal conservatives and pushing crony capitalism. And then you have the social conservatives who say they like fiscal conservatism and limited government but then contradict themselves with their demands for government ideological interventions in our bedrooms and in our health clinics. And then you have the Libertarian faction of the party who love the small government planks in the Republican platform but are ambivalent or at least tolerate the social conservatives. The Republican Party is a coalition of the ignorant and the deluded. Libertarians are at best naïve and their ideology suffers the same kind of intellectual weaknesses that have plagued communists. Both libertarianism and communism depend heavily on large doses of “and then magic happens” in order to make sense of their ideology. Power doesn’t magically vanish with government, and people don’t magically start behaving in the absence of government. The absence of a strong central government foments cronyism; it doesn’t stop it as libertarians believe.

The truth is science works. The truth is, evidence, logic and reason work. And the truth is that those with the gold (e.g. Koch brothers) are pretty good at manipulating their pawns. And that is why the price of freedom is vigilance, truth, reason and honesty.