# Is it okay for government to decieve the public to get laws passed? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 13, 2014, 6:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548 "2014-11-13T18:13:27Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 1\ **Showing post:** 107
**Author:** ![Fotheringay-Phipps](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/d9b06d/32.png) [@Fotheringay-Phipps](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fotheringay-Phipps)\ **Post date:** [November 14, 2014, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548/107 "2014-11-14T21:10:54Z")
> [@andros](#): > > Swing and a miss. My point was that our two opinions, mine and the Speaker’s, _do not_ carry equal weight. I understand your point. And my response is that this fact is irrelevant to the issue at hand. My prior post explained this more fully. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > Back the horse up, dude. Here’s how it went down: > > 1. Someone said that a straightforward description of ACA would suffice to convince the public it was a terrible idea. > 2. I snarkily rebutted this by reminding everyone of the paranoid lies its detractors resorted to, implying that obviously the truth wasn’t enough for detractors. > 3. Someone claimed that the lie I mentioned was just Sarah Palin, implying that no significant policymakers engaged in such hysteria. > 4. I rebutted that by mentioning Boehner–NOT AS A TU QUOQUE–but acknowledged the peril of my rebuttal because it could act as a tu quoque. THAT WAS NOT ITS POINT. > 5. And this is where you came in, deciding for whatever bizarre reason to defend Boehner’s statement as, apparently, a sober and reasonable and straightforward description of the law, as opposed to the obviously deceptive paranoid conspiracy-mongering that it was. #5 is incorrect and a false dichotomy. All I said was that what Boehner said was not about death panels (and not factually incorrect), and contrary to your false claim that it was. Whether what he said was a reasonable prediction is not beyond the scope of this discussion and not something I took a position on. > [@Left\_Hand\_of\_Dorkness](#): > > [Politifact includes Boehner’s claim under its 2009 “Lie of the Year” umbrella](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/dec/18/politifact-lie-year-death-panels/) [edit: they don’t comment specifically on his claim except to include it in the overall set of claims about government-sponsored or encouraged euthanasia and death panels; the commentary I quote below is about all the claims, not Boehner’s specifically): IOW, you’ve got nothing. > [@](#): > > Why would you choose this hill to die on? By flogging this dead horse, you’re embarrassing yourself and turning the thread away from a legit discussion of Democratic distortions. Do you really think anyone but you sees Boehner’s words as reasonable? Go back and look at them. Do you want cites to Politifact, to Factcheck? > > You’re wrong on this. I wasn’t Tu Quoquing, and I wasn’t distorting anyone. The more you continue to insist otherwise, the more you distract from the thread’s focus on Democratic distortions. I laugh at you because, what a bizarre thing for a conservative to do, but at the same time, I recognize that it’s probably not a good thing to let continue. This “hill to die on” jive reflects your mindset, in which you’re fighting the good battle for your side. This is probably also what leads to your choice to tactics and lets you feel good about yourself despite your lack of integrity when such is helpful to your side. For me, I’m just amusing myself here, and one discussion can be as good as another. Republican distortions, Democrat distortions, Left Hand of Dorkness distortions, they all have their points of interest. --- _[View the full topic](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-okay-for-government-to-decieve-the-public-to-get-laws-passed/704548)._