• 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!

Republicans Lie More Than Democrats…And The Credibility Gap Is Widening

One thing is certain, any "non-partisan" group that publishes a bull**** "study" like this proves itself to be anything but.
 
When all else fails, ConservaTEA Republicans go back to the Nixon card of shooting messengers .
 
When all else fails, ConservaTEA Republicans go back to the Nixon card of shooting messengers .

When all else fails and they get called on their crap, liberal dems default to defending their liars by reframing and blaming the other fellow.
 
When ConservaTEA Republicans/Others can't think of their own coherent lines of thought,
they simply rephrase others and play the "I know you are but what am I" card ?
 
"Republicans Lie More Than Democrats…And The Credibility Gap Is Widening"

Counting lies. What a useful thing to do! Wouldn't it have saved time to count truths instead?

You start with the truths from your side first.
Should be a short post .
 
When ConservaTEA Republicans/Others can't think of their own coherent lines of thought,
they simply rephrase others and play the "I know you are but what am I" card ?

Heh, still trying to defend the non-partisan nature of a specious and ill formed partisan "study". Hilarious.
 
I don't see any links backing up the bloviating bull**** in playing the Nixon "attack the messenger" card .
 
After Republican campaigns insisting that they won't succumb to fact-checkers, I don't find this surprising.
 
I don't see any links backing up the bloviating bull**** in playing the Nixon "attack the messenger" card .

The only link necessary are the ones between functioning brain cells. A non-partisan org commissioning and/or highlighting a partisan "study", doesn't take many of the links I mentioned to see what's off about that. But then, not everyone has even that many links I suppose, so we'll continue to explain things to you. :mrgreen:
 
After Republican campaigns insisting that they won't succumb to fact-checkers, I don't find this surprising.

And of course simple reduction in order to dismiss isn't a form of lying, right?
 
"Simple reduction"? What exactly do you mean?

Reducing what happened to fit your narrative of what happened.

I'll give you an example: "The US is the only country to use nuclear bombs against another, and yet they say they want peace -the liars!"

The elements are truth, but stripped of all context and reasoning in order to make the false conclusion.
 
Last edited:
Reducing what happened to fit your narrative of what happened.

I'll give you an example: "The US is the only country to use nuclear bombs against another, and yet they say they want peace -the liars!"

The elements are truth, but stripped of all context and reasoning in order to make the false conclusion.

And this is relevant... how? Simple facts are apparently anathema to right wing politics. It's not about narrative. It's not about context. It's about raw facts.
 
And this is relevant... how? Simple facts are apparently anathema to right wing politics. It's not about narrative. It's not about context. It's about raw facts.

Quote Originally Posted by Paschendale

After Republican campaigns insisting that they won't succumb to fact-checkers, I don't find this surprising.

Once again, lying by simple reduction. The elements may be truth, but stripped of all context and reasoning in order to make the false and partisan conclusion.
 
And this is relevant... how? Simple facts are apparently anathema to right wing politics. It's not about narrative. It's not about context. It's about raw facts.

Hold on there!

Republicans LOVE facts! They pay attention to the facts and ONLY the facts...as long as the facts agree with what they already believe. But if the facts don't agree with conservative dogma, well, THAT means the facts must be wrong!
 
Hold on there!

Republicans LOVE facts! They pay attention to the facts and ONLY the facts...as long as the facts agree with what they already believe. But if the facts don't agree with conservative dogma, well, THAT means the facts must be wrong!

Wow, remove the beam from thine own eye first.
 
Once again, lying by simple reduction. The elements may be truth, but stripped of all context and reasoning in order to make the false and partisan conclusion.

"Simple reduction" was a buzzword on some talk radio show recently, wasn't it?
 
"Simple reduction" was a buzzword on some talk radio show recently, wasn't it?

If it was, then I want royalties. Honestly no, haven't listened to talk radio, or any radio, for a few years now. But that still wouldn't repair the lie I called out. Nice attempt at distraction though.
 
That explains everything. Insert Winston Churchill quote here.

If you'd check, what Winston Churchill understood to be a conservative would be what Americans today would call a liberal. In fact:

After the general election of 1951, Churchill again held the office of Minister of Defence between October 1951 and January 1952. He also became prime minister in October 1951, and his third government—after the wartime national government and the brief caretaker government of 1945—lasted until his resignation in April 1955. In domestic affairs, various reforms were introduced such as the Mines and Quarries Act of 1954 and the Housing Repairs and Rent Act of 1955. The former measure consolidated legislation dealing with the employment of young persons and women in mines and quarries, together with safety, health, and welfare. The latter measure extended previous housing Acts, and set out details in defining housing units as "unfit for human habitation."[222] In addition, tax allowances were raised,[223] construction of council housing was accelerated, and pensions and national assistance benefits were increased.[224] Controversially, however, charges for prescription medicines were introduced.[225]

Housing was an issue the Conservatives were widely recognised to have made their own, after the Churchill government of the early 1950s, with Harold Macmillan as Minister for Housing, gave housing construction far higher political priority than it had received under the Attlee administration (where housing had been attached to the portfolio of Health Minister Aneurin Bevan, whose attention was concentrated on his responsibilities for the National Health Service). Macmillan had accepted Churchill's challenge to meet the latter's ambitious public commitment to build 300,000 new homes a year, and achieved the target a year ahead of schedule.


You really should be aware that what we call a conservative in America today is a very different animal from what a conservative was back in Churchill's time...or in Eisenhower's.
 
You start with the truths from your side first.
Should be a short post .

Can't help you. I don't have a side. I'm against all political parties.
 
Yeah, but you have to remember that the liberal establishment tend to have different criteria for what qualifies as a lie depending upon whether you are talking about dens or republicans. For instance, when Bush looked at the decade of international intelligence as well as data and information from the Clinton whitehouse about the existence of chemical weapons in Iraq, and when he came to the same conclusion as everyone else, including bill and Hillary Clinton that there were chemical weapons in Iraq, he was called a liar by the left for the next decade! However, they certainly don't refer to Bill and Hillary Clinton as liars for believing the exact same thing at the same time and before!

Liberals won't call Obama a liar even though just about every promise he made about obamacare has been proven to have been knowingly false. He designed Obamacare to force people from their private plans into the system, yet lied dozens of times by telling everyone they could keep their policies. He then excused that lie by claiming he was actually helping these people, by instead forcing them onto inexpensive obamacare plans, because their own plans had been crappy. He said their policies gave them cheap insurance at the expense of high deductibles and less coverage. So instead he was giving them good policies. But now we find put that these cheaper Obsmacare plans include high deductibles and less coverage, which is the exact same situation they were in with their previous private policies, and in many cases they are actually paying more now!

He told us Obamacare would cost 800 billion, but now that number is over 2.5 trillion and rising, and that's just for the first 10 years! He promised obamacare would lower the cost of health insurance, when in fact the cost has continued to skyrocket!

He pushed obamacare and all these other expensive policies, but then when he was pushing for yet another of his debt increases, he claimed that NONE of the spending of the last 5 years was of his doing, and that it was all congress' spending, talking about republicans, even though there hasn't been a single republican sponsored bill that has passed during Obama,s presidency!

Before he took office, Obama ridiculed Bush for asking for 1 debt increase, calling Bush "unpatriotic" for asking for a debt increase and voted against it then, but now he personally calls for debt increases at least once a year! He demonizes rep's for not supporting every debt increase, even though he was against debt increases 6 years ago!

He sent out his lackeys to lie about the Ben ghazi attacks for over a week instead of admitting it was a terrorist attack.

Need I go on? But the media and liberals everywhere give Obama a pass for all these lies, and many more. This doesn't fit their subjective and ever changing definition of the word "lie".
 
Back
Top Bottom