• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

What A Lie Is

j-mac said:
That is a clever spin you have there, but suppose you tell me what is inaccurate so that we may determine?
Click to expand...

Again, that is in other threads, this is about helping people who don't know what a lie is to recognize one.
 
j-mac said:
No, it is a question, designed to further discourse. Is that not what you are seeking here?
Click to expand...

No the topic is to define lying for those who are confused. Did you read the topic? Are you trying to derail?
 
tererun said:
Opinion, the auto industry is still here and those people are still employed. So yes he did save their jobs. The future is up for debate, but he did save their jobs.
Click to expand...

You are presuming that if not for Obama's wasteful bailouts and stimulus scams, that the automobile industry would not still be here. This presumption is highly dubious at best.

Of the formerly three great automobile manufacturers in the country, only one still remains standing that merits such a description, and that would be Ford, which is the one of the three that didn't get any kind of government bailout. Ford is the only one of the three that is succeeding on the value of its products and the soundness of its business decisions, rather than surviving only because taxpayer money is being used to prop it up. General Motors, which was the biggest recipient of government assistance, continues to teeter on the edge of bankruptcy; it likely would be in better shape today if, instead of crying and begging to Big Brother for help, it had simply gone through a normal and proper Chapter Eleven bankruptcy process; certainly we taxpayers would be in better shape for not having so much of our own earnings funneled into GM.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
You are presuming that if not for Obama's wasteful bailouts and stimulus scams, that the automobile industry would not still be here. This presumption is highly dubious at best.

Of the formerly three great automobile manufacturers in the country, only one still remains standing that merits such a description, and that would be Ford, which is the one of the three that didn't get any kind of government bailout. Ford is the only one of the three that is succeeding on the value of its products and the soundness of its business decisions, rather than surviving only because taxpayer money is being used to prop it up. General Motors, which was the biggest recipient of government assistance, continues to teeter on the edge of bankruptcy; it likely would be in better shape today if, instead of crying and begging to Big Brother for help, it had simply gone through a normal and proper Chapter Eleven bankruptcy process; certainly we taxpayers would be in better shape for not having so much of our own earnings funneled into GM.
Click to expand...

All talking points and so little understanding of the complex consequences that would have occured if GM had been allowed to go bankrupt.

You may not like the Bailout of GM but believe me, you wouldn't have liked the alternative either.

The knock on effect of GM going bankrupt would have been catastrophic.
 
Jetboogieman said:
All talking points and so little understanding of the complex consequences that would have occured if GM had been allowed to go bankrupt.

You may not like the Bailout of GM but believe me, you wouldn't have liked the alternative either.

The knock on effect of GM going bankrupt would have been catastrophic.
Click to expand...


Yes, the unions would have had to renegotiate.
 
tererun said:
Again, that is in other threads, this is about helping people who don't know what a lie is to recognize one.
Click to expand...


Well, that is simple. Just watch what the Obama administration says, and there you have it.
 
Jetboogieman said:
All talking points and so little understanding of the complex consequences that would have occured if GM had been allowed to go bankrupt.

You may not like the Bailout of GM but believe me, you wouldn't have liked the alternative either.

The knock on effect of GM going bankrupt would have been catastrophic.
Click to expand...

I don't see how.

The very worst case (or, perhaps best, to put it out of its misery) would be for GM to go out of business completely. The demand for cars—American cars in particular—wouldn't be much affected, so people who would have bought GM cars would instead be looking to Ford and Chrysler, both of which would surely have to increase their own manufacturing capability to meet the demand that GM is no longer filling. Perhaps the increased business for Chrysler would have allowed it to continue to succeed without it also needing taxpayer handouts.

But GM going through Chapter Eleven would not necessarily mean going out of business. The point of Chapter Eleven is to try to save a troubled business, not to kill it.

As it is, GM is teetering on the brink of exactly the sort of bankruptcy that it would have gone through anyway without Big Brother's intervention. It is most likely that all that this intervention accomplished was to put off the bankruptcy that will end up happening anyway; and this procrastination took place at a great cost to the taxpayers and to the economy as a whole.
 
Bob Blaylock said:
You are presuming that if not for Obama's wasteful bailouts and stimulus scams, that the automobile industry would not still be here. This presumption is highly dubious at best.

Of the formerly three great automobile manufacturers in the country, only one still remains standing that merits such a description, and that would be Ford, which is the one of the three that didn't get any kind of government bailout. Ford is the only one of the three that is succeeding on the value of its products and the soundness of its business decisions, rather than surviving only because taxpayer money is being used to prop it up. General Motors, which was the biggest recipient of government assistance, continues to teeter on the edge of bankruptcy; it likely would be in better shape today if, instead of crying and begging to Big Brother for help, it had simply gone through a normal and proper Chapter Eleven bankruptcy process; certainly we taxpayers would be in better shape for not having so much of our own earnings funneled into GM.
Click to expand...

That is a good example of an opinion and being wrong. and I don't think you are lying when you say all that. You are just wrong.

Are you beginning to see the difference between an opinion and a lie yet?
 
Bob Blaylock said:
I don't see how.

The very worst case (or, perhaps best, to put it out of its misery) would be for GM to go out of business completely. The demand for cars—American cars in particular—wouldn't be much affected, so people who would have bought GM cars would instead be looking to Ford and Chrysler, both of which would surely have to increase their own manufacturing capability to meet the demand that GM is no longer filling. Perhaps the increased business for Chrysler would have allowed it to continue to succeed without it also needing taxpayer handouts.

But GM going through Chapter Eleven would not necessarily mean going out of business. The point of Chapter Eleven is to try to save a troubled business, not to kill it.

As it is, GM is teetering on the brink of exactly the sort of bankruptcy that it would have gone through anyway without Big Brother's intervention. It is most likely that all that this intervention accomplished was to put off the bankruptcy that will end up happening anyway; and this procrastination took place at a great cost to the taxpayers and to the economy as a whole.
Click to expand...

Posilutely!!!! Absotively!!!!!

A structured bankruptcy would have renegotiated the corrupt union contracts that caused their financial problems in the first place.

Unions would have been set back to where they should be, a business plan would have been put in place to give them a great opportunity for solvency and long term survivability would have been enhanced.

All the things that Romney wanted to happen and advocated for.

Instead, we have the stockholders and taxpayers shafted for the benefit of union thugs who are continuing the same policies that destroyed GM in the first place, and will do it again with greater cost to the public and jobs.

but in the meantime, Obama can count on millions of dollars of union funds to help him complete the destruction of the American economy = if not the nation itself. His goal is for the US to become just another 3rd world country dependent on the largesse of a new world governing power to hand out daily crumbs for a miserable subsistence.
 
j-mac said:
Well, that is simple. Just watch what the Obama administration says, and there you have it.
Click to expand...

Not everything Obama says is a lie, some of it is just an opinion or interpretation that you think is wrong. That is just being wrong, that is not a lie.
 
tererun said:
That is a good example of an opinion and being wrong. and I don't think you are lying when you say all that. You are just wrong.

Are you beginning to see the difference between an opinion and a lie yet?
Click to expand...

I am well versed in the difference between an opinion and a lie.

You are wrong about his opinion. He is correct.

See the difference???
 
tererun said:
Not everything Obama says is a lie, some of it is just an opinion or interpretation that you think is wrong. That is just being wrong, that is not a lie.
Click to expand...

Well, that's your opinion.
 
Rokkitsci said:
I am well versed in the difference between an opinion and a lie.

You are wrong about his opinion. He is correct.

See the difference???
Click to expand...

We are not arguing about how wrong he is, we are arguing that it is an opinion and not a fact. You want to change the argument, and I am not changing the argument.
 
tererun said:
Not everything Obama says is a lie, some of it is just an opinion or interpretation that you think is wrong. That is just being wrong, that is not a lie.
Click to expand...

When a President of the United States issues a statement in his official capacity that is designed to misinform, or that is issued without due diligence in looking for the facts, then that is a lie.

to wit - the POTUS giving any support to the idea that the Libya massacre was the result of a public uprising stemming from a u-tube video is a lie when he says it from the official position of President.

If he wants to lie in his fund-raising jaunts, that is dispicable, but after all he is addressing people who came there to be lied to, so it is just normal DEMs being DEMs. Even GOPs do it sometimes.

But, using the office of the presidency in a mendacious effort to do anything but level with the American people is a lie. (see richard nixon)

If what he has to say is too embarrassing, he should just say 'no comment,' until he is forced to do so by public pressure. But to put forth a knowingly false 'reason' is a damnable lie - and he should be called on it by congressional investigation. A much more 'innocent' lie brought down the presidency of RMNixon, and deservedly so. Nixon was my hero, but he lied to me and had to be removed.

Obama lies about everything - but this latest one is by far the most important. Impeachment is not off the table in my opinion. If it was deserved by Nixon, this is orders of magnitude worse.
 
tererun said:
How much of it is opinion and fact is opinions, the general statement is a fact.

You are almost there, you are going to get it soon.
Click to expand...

Have you ever entertained the thought that "Bush lied to get us into a war with Iraq?"

Just interested in your thoughts on that.
 
tererun said:
How much of it is opinion and fact is opinions, the general statement is a fact.

You are almost there, you are going to get it soon.
Click to expand...


I assure you young lady, I was there before you thought of it....But now your game is boring me....night now.
 
Rokkitsci said:
Bob Blaylock said:
I don't see how.

The very worst case (or, perhaps best, to put it out of its misery) would be for GM to go out of business completely. The demand for cars—American cars in particular—wouldn't be much affected, so people who would have bought GM cars would instead be looking to Ford and Chrysler, both of which would surely have to increase their own manufacturing capability to meet the demand that GM is no longer filling. Perhaps the increased business for Chrysler would have allowed it to continue to succeed without it also needing taxpayer handouts.

But GM going through Chapter Eleven would not necessarily mean going out of business. The point of Chapter Eleven is to try to save a troubled business, not to kill it.

As it is, GM is teetering on the brink of exactly the sort of bankruptcy that it would have gone through anyway without Big Brother's intervention. It is most likely that all that this intervention accomplished was to put off the bankruptcy that will end up happening anyway; and this procrastination took place at a great cost to the taxpayers and to the economy as a whole.
Click to expand...

Posilutely!!!! Absotively!!!!!

A structured bankruptcy would have renegotiated the corrupt union contracts that caused their financial problems in the first place.

Unions would have been set back to where they should be, a business plan would have been put in place to give them a great opportunity for solvency and long term survivability would have been enhanced.

All the things that Romney wanted to happen and advocated for.
Click to expand...

And what is very likely going to end up happening anyway; the only difference being that now, a great deal of taxpayer money has been wasted to delay this ultimate result.
 
Rokkitsci said:
When a President of the United States issues a statement in his official capacity that is designed to misinform, or that is issued without due diligence in looking for the facts, then that is a lie.

to wit - the POTUS giving any support to the idea that the Libya massacre was the result of a public uprising stemming from a u-tube video is a lie when he says it from the official position of President.

If he wants to lie in his fund-raising jaunts, that is dispicable, but after all he is addressing people who came there to be lied to, so it is just normal DEMs being DEMs. Even GOPs do it sometimes.

But, using the office of the presidency in a mendacious effort to do anything but level with the American people is a lie. (see richard nixon)

If what he has to say is too embarrassing, he should just say 'no comment,' until he is forced to do so by public pressure. But to put forth a knowingly false 'reason' is a damnable lie - and he should be called on it by congressional investigation. A much more 'innocent' lie brought down the presidency of RMNixon, and deservedly so. Nixon was my hero, but he lied to me and had to be removed.

Obama lies about everything - but this latest one is by far the most important. Impeachment is not off the table in my opinion. If it was deserved by Nixon, this is orders of magnitude worse.
Click to expand...

You have to read what I said. not everything Obama says is a lie. I did not say he did not lie. There is a problem when you take things from a statement that are not there. If you want to say that some of the things obama says are lies, then I would agree. We actually expect a POTUS to lie. It is part of national security. However, if you want to say everything he says is a lie then you are incorrect.
 
tererun said:
I did not entertain that thought, he did lie.
Click to expand...

Yes, but according to an self-proclaimed expert on veracity, "We actually expect a POTUS to lie. It is part of national security."
 
tererun said:
I did not entertain that thought, he did lie.
Click to expand...

SO - you are saying what? In order for it to be a lie, he had to have KNOWN there were no WMDs in Iraq. Is that what you are asserting? And if so, what are you basing that assertion on?

Do you have any insight into the Intel reports that show Bush was informed of no WMDs and he buried that report, in order to assert a lie?

Do you suggest that the Intel community prepared two different reports, one explaining the extent of WMDs which they presented to congress and which the DEMs themselves overwhelmingly believed, and then they had a DIFFERENT report that they gave to Bush saying 'no WMD' but Bush said = "heck, let's start a war anyway."

Just what are you saying here, other than of course the tired old lie staple of the DEMs = "Bush lied."

You realize of course that it makes you to be a liar when you say that in complete contradiction of all known facts. So unless you have facts that are not generally known, you are lying.
 
tererun said:
You have to read what I said. not everything Obama says is a lie. I did not say he did not lie. There is a problem when you take things from a statement that are not there. If you want to say that some of the things obama says are lies, then I would agree. We actually expect a POTUS to lie. It is part of national security. However, if you want to say everything he says is a lie then you are incorrect.
Click to expand...

I engage in normal hyperbole when I say 'everything Obama says is a lie.' I am sure he is sincere when his daughters ask him what time it is. I am sure he is honest when discussing private matters with his family. I am positive he is accurate in much of the day-to-day business in the WH.

I am referring to his campaign statements about Romney. Every statement he makes about Romney is a calculated lie. His strategists will form a statement for him that has some element of technical truth so that he can then lie his butt off in a campaign. Take the "5 trillion tax cut for the rich" he continues to spew. It is based on a 'study' designed exclusively to come up with that result. No other study in the universe agrees with it. And he is even misinterpreting the results of that study. The people he asked to make the study to come up with that number says that how Obama is 'interpreting' his results are not valid. He has asked him to stop using his study as the source for that stupid number.

HOWEVER, the Obamas have a piece of paper that THEY can 'interpret' as '5 trillion tax cut' and they are going with it = damn the fact that they know it is false.

THAT my dear is a total LIE.

But I suspect you wholeheartedly support that lie because it works for the ignorant people who form the Obama base.

But I am wasting my time - you are smart enough that you know all this. The sad fact is that you approve of it. Not only approve, but joyously proclaim it.

I don't understand how one's self-respect can survive such duplicity. I can never = ever = support an outright lie.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom