• 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!

Geithner: White House Wanted Me to Lie on Sunday Shows

yes because it never happened before, but this is not so much a lie as a way of not focusing on the unimportant. It is like saying that when I pick a flower from a bed I contributed to its destruction even though the neighbor's dog tore up the other 30 flowers.


A lie on a Sunday would be for example: Saddam as WsMD and we know where they are or they will treat us like liberators or the fundamentals of the economy are strong.....

Unless they believed it to be true (or its an opinion), in which case its not a lie. As in your example.
 
Of course you love it. You look at the two parties and think yours is actually HELPING.

I'm choosing between the two available choices, and it's my view that the GOP (and right wing in general) is pursuing ends that are actively destructive and has no positive agenda at all. I'm not naive enough to believe that as a rule, results under Democrats are much better, but the difference is Republicans openly embrace the faults that Democrats try to hide - namely that they're owned and respond only to the interests of the plutocrats.

And I am sympathetic to libertarian ideas, but as a practical matter believe they'd be disastrous if applied in the real world. A simple example why is pollution. Libertarians would eliminate the EPA, and then assert that people damaged by pollution simply sue to protect their own property rights and to get reimbursed when a polluter damages them. OK, great plan. But in general the harm I can demonstrate in court from, say, dirty air is either small (harder to breath, cannot see the nearby mountains) or hard to prove (lung disease can be caused by many factors, how do I prove it was pollution, and specifically the defendant's pollution, that caused my cancer - could be pollution from this other business... etc.). And a big polluter can, with ease, tie me up in court for years, require me to spend $100s of thousands or $millions, to prove damage and then survive appeals. Obviously, a lawsuit only makes sense if it's a class action suit. But right wingers want to make those suits harder to bring, and limit damages when plaintiffs win. Also, libertarians support the ability of polluters to spend unlimited sums to elect officials, including the judges, who would hear those suits. Obviously that tilts the odds against plaintiffs even more. I could go on...
 
Threads like this really are the comedy dose we can all use at the start of a day. I know I've had a pretty good laugh at some of the posters here this morning. Which ones? Well the thread did not even make it to the bottom of the first page of scroll before we had Bush dragged into it. But the best part of it all? The cadre of clueless posters who are making the argument that "(insert name) lied about (insert claim) on (insert date/show name)". You just have to wonder, do these geniuses of debate have a clue that they are tacitly admitting that Geithner was told to lie by the White House then? With this "logic" of theirs? Apparently not. I'd bet real money that if you could point that out to them, they would then proceed to collectively say, nuh uh. :clap:
 
I'm choosing between the two available choices, and it's my view that the GOP (and right wing in general) is pursuing ends that are actively destructive and has no positive agenda at all. I'm not naive enough to believe that as a rule, results under Democrats are much better, but the difference is Republicans openly embrace the faults that Democrats try to hide - namely that they're owned and respond only to the interests of the plutocrats.

And I am sympathetic to libertarian ideas, but as a practical matter believe they'd be disastrous if applied in the real world. A simple example why is pollution. Libertarians would eliminate the EPA, and then assert that people damaged by pollution simply sue to protect their own property rights and to get reimbursed when a polluter damages them. OK, great plan. But in general the harm I can demonstrate in court from, say, dirty air is either small (harder to breath, cannot see the nearby mountains) or hard to prove (lung disease can be caused by many factors, how do I prove it was pollution, and specifically the defendant's pollution, that caused my cancer - could be pollution from this other business... etc.). And a big polluter can, with ease, tie me up in court for years, require me to spend $100s of thousands or $millions, to prove damage and then survive appeals. Obviously, a lawsuit only makes sense if it's a class action suit. But right wingers want to make those suits harder to bring, and limit damages when plaintiffs win. Also, libertarians support the ability of polluters to spend unlimited sums to elect officials, including the judges, who would hear those suits. Obviously that tilts the odds against plaintiffs even more. I could go on...

So deceiving people about corruption is better than being honest about it? Such that you vote for the former?
 
The most transparent administration in history wanted one of their own to lie?

I'm shocked.

or not.

This is where you are dead wrong...

This administration is very transparent... I can clearly see their deception and lies a mile away... They don't hide it well at all.
 
`
Your reply brings up an unfortunately, common problem, with the right. You ask for empirical proof of faux news' lack of credibility but accept none of it because of confirmation bias. What evidence, by what source would you accept?



And this perpetuates the myth...

To reverse the debate to one of the right demanding proof [thanks for the buzzword "empirical"] of the "lack" of bias is dishonest.

and typical of the academic based socialist ideologue. You simply cannot prove a negative. Ever, even in the socialist universe.


YOU must first show what can be shown, that FOX is biased in its news reporting, as, I believe has been adequately demonstrated that "Media Matters" is a self described left wing ideological outlet with no distinction made between news and op ed.

and there is where the left continues to fail, one is not knowing the difference and two, not actually watching Fox, it's news OR opinion shows, but rather repeat the talking point meme...
 
So deceiving people about corruption is better than being honest about it? Such that you vote for the former?

That's not what I'm saying - the GOP isn't honest about the corruption.

They don't say that ALEC, for example, is a collection of corporate lobbyists that write bills and hand them to GOPer legislators to pass as is in the various state houses. What I recognize is that is what ALEC does and GOPers pass those bills. There is no ALEC equivalent on the democratic side. The Senate might pass TPP, but if it does it will be because nearly all GOPers support it and a few democrats cross over to get to 60. And Obama might even sign the TPP, but the opposition to Obama will coming from democrats who haven't completely sold out, not republicans. Same with Keystone.

But more than anything, I'm just pointing out that I have to vote for the least bad option. It's not a hard choice, but that doesn't mean I pretend the democratic option is somehow good and pure and uncorrupted by influence of powerful interests, just that I'd prefer getting 20% of what I want instead of 100% of all I don't want.
 
That's not what I'm saying - the GOP isn't honest about the corruption.

They don't say that ALEC, for example, is a collection of corporate lobbyists that write bills and hand them to GOPer legislators to pass as is in the various state houses. What I recognize is that is what ALEC does and GOPers pass those bills. There is no ALEC equivalent on the democratic side. The Senate might pass TPP, but if it does it will be because nearly all GOPers support it and a few democrats cross over to get to 60. And Obama might even sign the TPP, but the opposition to Obama will coming from democrats who haven't completely sold out, not republicans. Same with Keystone.

But more than anything, I'm just pointing out that I have to vote for the least bad option. It's not a hard choice, but that doesn't mean I pretend the democratic option is somehow good and pure and uncorrupted by influence of powerful interests, just that I'd prefer getting 20% of what I want instead of 100% of all I don't want.

So you intentionally embrace the dishonest party that screws you over 80% of the time, because at least you arent getting screwed 100% of the time. Can you understand why we independents shake our heads?
 
So you intentionally embrace the dishonest party that screws you over 80% of the time, because at least you arent getting screwed 100% of the time. Can you understand why we independents shake our heads?

yet you independents continue to play the game of politics regardless.
 
And this perpetuates the myth...To reverse the debate to one of the right demanding proof [thanks for the buzzword "empirical"] of the "lack" of bias is dishonest. and typical of the academic based socialist ideologue. You simply cannot prove a negative. Ever, even in the socialist universe.YOU must first show what can be shown, that FOX is biased in its news reporting, as, I believe has been adequately demonstrated that "Media Matters" is a self described left wing ideological outlet with no distinction made between news and op ed. and there is where the left continues to fail, one is not knowing the difference and two, not actually watching Fox, it's news OR opinion shows, but rather repeat the talking point meme...
`
You want to see another big word and be really impressed? You sir, are a classic example of Epistemic Closure. What, you may ask, is that?

Well; to put it in the colloquial, it means reality is defined by a multimedia array of interconnected and cross promoting conservative blogs, radio programs, magazines, and of course, faux news. Whatever conflicts with that reality can be dismissed out of hand because it comes from the liberal media, and is therefore ipso facto not to be trusted. (How do you know they’re liberal? Well, they disagree with the conservative media!) This is epistemic closure.

Another point, Media Matters isn't the only organization that keeps an eye on what faux news says, to wit;

NewsHounds - NewsHounds

FoxAttacks - FOX Attacks: They Distort. We Reply.

FauxNewsChannel - FOX: The Most Ridiculed Name in News

Fauxnewsboycott - Fox News Boycott | FNC truth, lies and advertisers exposed!

News Corpse - News Corpse | The Internet's Chronicle of Media Decay
 
`
You want to see another big word and be really impressed? You sir, are a classic example of Epistemic Closure. What, you may ask, is that?

Well; to put it in the colloquial, it means reality is defined by a multimedia array of interconnected and cross promoting conservative blogs, radio programs, magazines, and of course, faux news. Whatever conflicts with that reality can be dismissed out of hand because it comes from the liberal media, and is therefore ipso facto not to be trusted. (How do you know they’re liberal? Well, they disagree with the conservative media!) This is epistemic closure.

Another point, Media Matters isn't the only organization that keeps an eye on what faux news says, to wit;

NewsHounds - NewsHounds

FoxAttacks - FOX Attacks: They Distort. We Reply.

FauxNewsChannel - FOX: The Most Ridiculed Name in News

Fauxnewsboycott - Fox News Boycott | FNC truth, lies and advertisers exposed!

News Corpse - News Corpse | The Internet's Chronicle of Media Decay




fast track to ignore...

personal insults are childish, have fun in the sand box
 
So you intentionally embrace the dishonest party that screws you over 80% of the time, because at least you arent getting screwed 100% of the time. Can you understand why we independents shake our heads?

I could vote for independents, but we have a two party system in this country. I don't care who's running in 2016, I'd bet my house and all I own that a democrat or a republican will win, but am quite sure I won't find a fool to take the other side of that bet. So, given that reality, I choose between one of the two who can win an election. Ron Paul even gets that - he a REPUBLICAN Congressman, and ran last time as a REPUBLICAN candidate for POTUS, not as a libertarian.

During the primary, I vote for my preferred candidate even if it's my opinion that candidate will not win. Doesn't matter, I want to express my preference at that point in the process. But when it comes to the general election, I vote between the two major party candidates - don't see any strategic value in casting a protest vote for a candidate that might pull 10% on a record day. And, yes, the lesser of bad options is less bad.

BTW, the Green Party pushes for instant run off voting. If libertarians or other third parties really want their candidates to have a chance to win, it's a mystery why they don't actively push for this system. It allows people to cast a vote for a long shot, and still have their vote count if as expected (and is nearly always the case) the race comes down to one of the two major party candidates
 
Last edited:
I could vote for independents, but we have a two party system in this country. I don't care who's running in 2016, I'd bet my house and all I own that a democrat or a republican will win, but am quite sure I won't find a fool to take the other side of that bet. So, given that reality, I choose between one of the two who can win an election. Ron Paul even gets that - he a REPUBLICAN Congressman, and ran last time as a REPUBLICAN candidate for POTUS, not as a libertarian.

During the primary, I vote for my preferred candidate even if it's my opinion that candidate will not win. Doesn't matter, I want to express my preference at that point in the process. But when it comes to the general election, I vote between the two major party candidates - don't see any strategic value in casting a protest vote for a candidate that might pull 10% on a record day. And, yes, the lesser of bad options is less bad.

BTW, the Green Party pushes for instant run off voting. If libertarians or other third parties really want their candidates to have a chance to win, it's a mystery why they don't actively push for this system. It allows people to cast a vote for a long shot, and still have their vote count if as expected (and is nearly always the case) the race comes down to one of the two major party candidates

Case in point. All you care about is winning. Youre just as bad as the people you hate.
 
I'm choosing between the two available choices, and it's my view that the GOP (and right wing in general) is pursuing ends that are actively destructive and has no positive agenda at all. I'm not naive enough to believe that as a rule, results under Democrats are much better, but the difference is Republicans openly embrace the faults that Democrats try to hide - namely that they're owned and respond only to the interests of the plutocrats.

And I am sympathetic to libertarian ideas, but as a practical matter believe they'd be disastrous if applied in the real world. A simple example why is pollution. Libertarians would eliminate the EPA, and then assert that people damaged by pollution simply sue to protect their own property rights and to get reimbursed when a polluter damages them. OK, great plan. But in general the harm I can demonstrate in court from, say, dirty air is either small (harder to breath, cannot see the nearby mountains) or hard to prove (lung disease can be caused by many factors, how do I prove it was pollution, and specifically the defendant's pollution, that caused my cancer - could be pollution from this other business... etc.). And a big polluter can, with ease, tie me up in court for years, require me to spend $100s of thousands or $millions, to prove damage and then survive appeals. Obviously, a lawsuit only makes sense if it's a class action suit. But right wingers want to make those suits harder to bring, and limit damages when plaintiffs win. Also, libertarians support the ability of polluters to spend unlimited sums to elect officials, including the judges, who would hear those suits. Obviously that tilts the odds against plaintiffs even more. I could go on...
As long as people like you and your brethren continue to send pieces of **** to congress, we will continue to get what we have.

I dont care if you vote Libertarian and I have no illusions on their chances. They are a better alternative to voting lock step for garbage. You dont challenge your party. Partisan republicans dont challenge their party. As a result they are free to act in the interest of party and not country.

There are things about the Libertarian party I dont agree with. You never have to agree on every issue. I think many peoples ideas on a 'real' Libertarian government are foolish. Great in fairy tale land but not practical in the real world. Thats one of the reasons why the Libertarians remain a non player, even though the libertarian message of increased personal freedom and smaller more responsible federal government resonates with so many people.
 
As long as people like you and your brethren continue to send pieces of **** to congress, we will continue to get what we have.

I dont care if you vote Libertarian and I have no illusions on their chances. They are a better alternative to voting lock step for garbage. You dont challenge your party. Partisan republicans dont challenge their party. As a result they are free to act in the interest of party and not country.

There are things about the Libertarian party I dont agree with. You never have to agree on every issue. I think many peoples ideas on a 'real' Libertarian government are foolish. Great in fairy tale land but not practical in the real world. Thats one of the reasons why the Libertarians remain a non player, even though the libertarian message of increased personal freedom and smaller more responsible federal government resonates with so many people.

then why does the libertarian party never try to win local elections first?
 
then there are two options: try harder, or moderate the message to attract more voters.

The far left did it by infiltrating the Democrats while the Libertarians and the Tea Party are trying to influence the Republicans. That's easier than starting a new party.
 
Back
Top Bottom