not even if someone pays you a million bucks?
Are you operating under the assumption that lie is the semantic opposite of fact? Lie has a pragmatic dimension apart from fact.
ok so what is a lie?
Will not make the denial of gravity true, but at least I’ll be richer if broken, or my family will inherit the loot.
This post sounds like it belongs in the BBQ section, as it is not much more than outright liberal propaganda. And, like most liberal propaganda, it is peppered with assumptions of “conservative” reactions to various stimuli, like Reagan’s “raising taxes.” Of course, the post omits the fact that top marginal rates were lowered dramatically before being raised a little toward the end of Reagan’s stint.
I Googled the Goldwater quote and couldn’t find it, exactly. I found several instances of Johnson’s reply. But, it’s been my experience that when liberals rant about the inhumanity of conservatives, their “facts” typically aren’t facts at all – they’re just propaganda, so I suspect the Goldwater quote is either overblown or taken out of context.
As for lying, modern American liberals are masters of propagating lies. The proof is everywhere (global warming “scientific consensus”, Hermain Cain smear campaign, etc.). The MSM is ardently left-leaning, just as many of the programs on Fox News are right-leaning. However, IMHO, there are several shows on Fox News that cut right down the middle (On The Record, O’Reilly, Fox News Sunday, etc.). Heck, Chris Matthews called Michele Bachman a “flake” in an interview last month. How in the world is that “right wing propaganda?” Simply put, it isn’t.
The original rant, er, post, is a hyper-disconnected set of platitudes and vitriolic propaganda and is a very sad addition to an otherwise very interesting forum.
To begin with, there is a scientific consensus on what is causing the current warming trend, and no, it is not just coming from liberals.
-That was Barry Brickmore, Republican scientist from BYU, BTW. 
As for the Fox bias, you have not pay really attention, The bias does show up in spades just by looking at who appears as a substitute in the FOX shows:
When O’reilly and others have an issue with their butts or loofahs and can not appear in their shows, then replacements like Newt Gingrich, Oliver North, Cal Thomas, (heck, even Chuck Norris replaced Hannity once.) Michelle Malkin, etc. substitute for them as hosts or commentator.
There is nothing wrong with that, right wingers have the right to show how silly their “fair and balanced” act is.
However, look what happens when the so called “leftist” outfits like CNN or ABC or NBC have to put substitutes in their news shows: the substitute is almost always a reporter or an expert that makes you say “Who the heck is this guy or gal?", in other words, we get plain vanilla substitutes.
I would expect that if outfits like CNN or NBC were so leftist as many insist that they are, that then something like this would happen often:
“Substituting tonight for Wolf Blitzer, Michael Moore!!!”
Now, I would love to see that, but not because I would like to see Michael Moore calling the shots in a mainstream channel.
It will be because I know that many conservatives would shit themselves at the sight of that.
It would appear that you are confusing opinion/talk with news.
Nope, as long as FOX continues to put their “FOX News” logo on those shows (In itself a dishonest thing IMHO) this will be a valid comparison to make, BTW in the past it was not only FOX business that was caught being dishonest, other “more serous” “just news” departments at FOX also made a mountain of the fake climatagate “scandal” molehill.
This whole thread is full of proof of my point.
I see also that in the case of **commoncents ** he did indeed go down in flames in a mess of post modernism… with a pinch of racism as the other thread showed.
Lie is both a noun and a verb (unlike fact). As such, it references an implicit performative speech act. However, it can do this only in the second or third person. A statement such as, “I’m lying to you by saying that I’m going to pay back the money” has no realistic perlocutionary force. On the other hand, “You’re lying,” (or “He lied”), “by saying he’d pay back the money,” becomes an accusation–(of deceit, in this case)–in addition to being a proposition.
The term fact (or, “It’s a fact that XYZ…”) is just a simple proposition. Using the term fact presupposes mutual acceptance of the threshold for truth value. Whether that acceptance exists is a different question; the truth value of either (the fact or the lie) is not the only thing that makes them different, and so we really can’t say that acceptance of the truth value is what distinguishes a “lie” from a “fact.”
It may be that the Right lies more than the Left (especially on science-related issues). Whether that’s a consistent, objectively demonstrable fact across the board is another question not likely to be answered by competing anecdotes. My take is that any difference is not so great as to permit smugness (or a determination to launch a major new lying campaign on the grounds that it’s justified) by the Left.
At best, this theme that the other side is wretchedly dirty so it has an unfair advantage represents a bad case of misperception; at worst it’s just another cynical attempt at spin. A jaw-dropping example from the Right appeared in yesterday’s Wall St. Journal, where the op-ed writer was commenting on the expected role of American Crossroads, a GOP super-PAC which plans to spend gazillions in the upcoming campaign which of course will not be coordinated with the GOP to stay within campaign finance law:
“One of its biggest tasks in 2012 will be to protect the eventual Republican presidential candidate from being demonized by the Obama campaign. The fear is that the GOP nominee, having exhausted his own funds during the primary season, would be helpless against a wave of attack ads by the Obama campaign in the months before the GOP convention in August. Absent a full-blown counterattack, the candidate could fall behind by an insurmountable margin… American Crossroads is prepared to fill the gap and spend millions of dollars on a TV blitz defending the Republican candidate and criticizing Mr. Obama to ensure that “the candidate remains viable,” as a Republican operative told me.”
You see, the dastardly Obamanauts will “demonize” the poor Republicans, but they will run ads in defense to…tell the truth about Obama. :dubious: One wonders if they actually believe their own press releases (I’m convinced that some actually do).
This guy is not saying what you think he’s saying, if I understand you correctly.
You seem to be holding this up as an example of “the other side is wretchedly dirty so it has an unfair advantage”. What the guy actually says is “The fear is that the GOP nominee, having exhausted his own funds during the primary season, would be helpless …”.
Which is a simple factual matter. The Republicans are having primaries, the Democrats are not. Obama had a huge fundraising advantage in 2008, and now he has the additional advantage of not having to spend any of his cash on primaries.
In sum, this seems to actually be an example of a different phenomenon altogether, that of someone seeing what he is predisposed to see, rather than what is actually in front of him.