# Is it really necessary to portray the election of the opposing candidate as the end of humanity? **URL:** \ **Category:** Politics & Elections\ **Created:** [August 10, 2012, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-necessary-to-portray-the-election-of-the-opposing-candidate-as-the-end-of-humanity/631121 "2012-08-10T20:18:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 7
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2012, 4:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-necessary-to-portray-the-election-of-the-opposing-candidate-as-the-end-of-humanity/631121/122 "2012-08-18T04:38:03Z")
Thank you RTFirefly. I would say that purveying falsehoods is far worse than being mean to your opponent. If you want to be cerebral, you should first focus on accuracy. A blatant lie that makes its way into Romney’s speeches is that Obama started his Presidency by apologizing for America. When asked to substantiate it - you know, offer evidence - the campaign doesn’t. But Romney repeats the lie anyway. Most politicians stretch the truth, but Romney is unusually dishonest, alas. And the press won’t call him on it. Doesn’t that last paragraph sound shrill? But what if it’s _accurate_? Would it be cerebral to replace “lie” with “inaccuracy”? Actually no: euphemism doesn’t fight ignorance, though politeness can. **greenslime** : Civility is over-rated but not unimportant. But if you really want to raise the quality of discussion, you have to be willing to dig into the details. That means mucking around with citations. If a candidates numbers don’t add up (eg Ryan’s 2010 budget) that’s a _technical_ claim that requires a little investigation. So it’s inappropriate to eschew citations while calling for civility: it gets the priorities wrong. ---
**Author:** ![greenslime1951](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e9bcb4/32.png) [@greenslime1951](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/greenslime1951)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2012, 5:11am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-necessary-to-portray-the-election-of-the-opposing-candidate-as-the-end-of-humanity/631121/123 "2012-08-18T05:11:51Z")
> [@RTFirefly](#): > > Could you quote specific untrue statements in the ad? That Soptic’s wife didn’t have health insurance after Bain shut down GST Steel. In fact, she remained with health insurance until two years after her husband lost his job at Bain, because she remained employed (not by any company related to Bain), according to Soptis. That there was a causal link between the shutting down of GST Steel and Soptic’s wife’s death from cancer. She was actually diagnosed in 2006, and had had health insurance from her own employer in 2002-03. There’s no particular reason to think that Soptic would still have been employed five years later had the plant not been shut down in 2001 (factories are usually shut down for good reasons, including no longer being efficient). That Romney was the driving force behind the plant’s shutdown. In 2001, as Romney has repeatedly explained, he was no longer responsible for the day-to-day operation of Bain. He was the nominal CEO but was not involved in management after 1999, when he left to help manage the SLC Olympics. Soptic’s wife wasn’t killed by Bain or Romney, but from her own refusal to disclose her worsening symptoms to her own husband, for fear that their finances wouldn’t be able to handle the cost of treatment. Heartrending, to be sure, but hardly a direct Romney-Bain-Death link; even uninsured, the Soptises would still have had options, and if Mrs. Soptis had visited a doctor when she first noticed symptoms, her cancer might have been easily treated (Soptis doesn’t elaborate on this in the ad). ---
**Author:** ![greenslime1951](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e9bcb4/32.png) [@greenslime1951](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/greenslime1951)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2012, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-necessary-to-portray-the-election-of-the-opposing-candidate-as-the-end-of-humanity/631121/124 "2012-08-18T05:16:25Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > So it’s inappropriate to eschew citations while calling for civility: it gets the priorities wrong. I heartily disagree. Without civility, _any_ debate is worse than pointless. If you’re going to have a reasoned discussion, there have to be some ground rules, such as that neither side will call the other an evil, insane asshole. Much as I dislike the sometimely overly zealous meddling of the moderators here, with them and the rules they (unevenly) impose, these boards would be like the chimpanzee cage at the zoo, with everyone screeching and throwing feces at one another. Edit: The constant calling for citations is often more a manifestation of chimpanzee mode than anything else; it’s just another form of screeching. ---
**Author:** ![greenslime1951](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e9bcb4/32.png) [@greenslime1951](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/greenslime1951)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2012, 5:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-necessary-to-portray-the-election-of-the-opposing-candidate-as-the-end-of-humanity/631121/125 "2012-08-18T05:22:01Z")
> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#): > > A blatant lie that makes its way into Romney’s speeches is that Obama started his Presidency by apologizing for America. When asked to substantiate it - you know, offer evidence - the campaign doesn’t. . They don’t because it’s easily accessible in the public record for anyone who was too ashamed for Obama to actually remember it. I do remember it, and I was disgusted as Obama kowtowed before leader after leader after despot after nutjob, expessing shame for our evil actions. But as I noted before, the apologies weren’t sincere; they were a continuation of his campaign tactic of tarring GWB with the blackest possible brush (“Don’t worry, _ **I** _ won’t be as big of a jerk as that guy was.”). ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2012, 6:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-necessary-to-portray-the-election-of-the-opposing-candidate-as-the-end-of-humanity/631121/126 "2012-08-18T06:07:30Z")
> [@greenslime1951](#): > > Edit: The constant calling for citations is often more a manifestation of chimpanzee mode than anything else; it’s just another form of screeching. Nope, specially when one side brings cites to support what they say. What me and many others notice is just a clear lack of support for what you claim. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2012, 6:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-necessary-to-portray-the-election-of-the-opposing-candidate-as-the-end-of-humanity/631121/127 "2012-08-18T06:18:55Z")
> [@greenslime1951](#): > > Edit: The constant calling for citations is often more a manifestation of chimpanzee mode than anything else; it’s just another form of screeching. No, it’s the customary practice of this board. Helps to cut through bullshit on either side of an issue up for debate. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2012, 6:32am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-necessary-to-portray-the-election-of-the-opposing-candidate-as-the-end-of-humanity/631121/128 "2012-08-18T06:32:27Z")
The ROmney campaign should respond to the challenges about Obama’s apology tour by just playing the segments they interpret to be apologies and let the public decide. I felt that Obama was apologizing for America as well, although it was kinda justified. Heritage has listed what they consider the top 10 apologies: > **[Barack Obama's Top 10 Apologies: How the President Has Humiliated a Superpower](https://www.heritage.org/europe/report/barack-obamas-top-10-apologies-how-the-president-has-humiliated-superpower)** > > A common theme that runs through President Obama's statements is the idea the United States must atone for its past policies, whether it is America's application of the war against Islamist terrorism or its overall foreign policy. At the core of this... we can disagree on whether these constitute apologies or not, but it is just not a lie to think that he does this. I call it the “nukular” syndrome: Liberals define what is truth, and any disagreement with that view is tantamount to dishonesty, bad faith, and general malevolence. Why do I call it the “nukular” syndrome? After liberals’ constant attacks on GWB for supposedly mispronouncing “nuclear”, and calling that obvious evidence of his stupidity. Problem is, not only does Merriam Webster recognize it as legitimate, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, being southerners, also used the “Nucular” pronunciation. Likewise, liberals define truth and then define all challenges to that truth as lies. It’s common to nearly all the top liberal bloggers and is a syndrome found on all the major discussion boards I’ve seen. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2012, 6:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-necessary-to-portray-the-election-of-the-opposing-candidate-as-the-end-of-humanity/631121/129 "2012-08-18T06:48:50Z")
And coming from a partisan source like the Heritage that is not impressive at all, Politifact, that does criticism to both sides also look at them and they are not really apologies, frankly it is what one can see when politicians that do claim to make an apology do. Many do laugh at the politicians claiming that they did apologized for something when they just report that mistakes were made. > **[Mitt Romney repeats claim that Obama went around the world apologizing for...](https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2011/sep/22/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-repeats-claim-obama-went-around-world-/)** > > In a debate in Orlando on Sept. 22, 2011, Mitt Romney charged that President Obama has gone around the world apologizing > [@](#): > > Our ruling > > Some of the Obama speeches that Romney cited in his book certainly laid out Obama’s foreign policy ideas, and it seems fair to say that a less confrontational approach was among Obama’s goals. Obama had made no secret during the campaign that he intended to set a different course on foreign policy than Bush – a committed unilateralist – had pursued. > > Still, we think it’s incorrect for Romney to portray these early speeches as part of a global apology tour. Using Romney’s standard, you could argue that any change in foreign policy that’s undertaken after a presidential transition and announced to the world would constitute an “apology” for the previous policy. > > On the substance of Romney’s charge, we believe that what we wrote in March 2010 still stands. While Obama’s speeches contained some criticisms of past U.S. actions, those passages were typically leavened by praise for the United States and its ideals, and he frequently mentioned how other countries have erred as well. We found not a single, full-throated apology in the bunch. And on the new angle Romney has added – that the trips were intended to offer the president a forum to apologize to other countries – we think it’s a ridiculous charge. There’s a clear difference between changing policies and apologizing, and Obama didn’t do the latter. So we rate Romney’s statement Pants on Fire ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2012, 6:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-necessary-to-portray-the-election-of-the-opposing-candidate-as-the-end-of-humanity/631121/130 "2012-08-18T06:54:06Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > No, it’s the customary practice of this board. Helps to cut through bullshit on either side of an issue up for debate. I never, ever, ever, ask for a cite. You know why? They almost never cut through bullshit, they add to it. If a fact catches my eye and doesn’t sound kosher, I research it myself. The request for a cite is motivated 99% of the time by the poster not liking the fact. The provided cite doesn’t generally get the poster to like or accept the fact any better, and tends to make the debate descend into a linking war with ad hominem attacks on sources and appeals to authority. Besides, anyone who has debated politics or science or whatever before the internet age should recognize that internet cites aren’t exactly the most reliable way to cut through crap. They can contribute to each side’s arguments, but they do not settle or cut through anything. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2012, 6:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-necessary-to-portray-the-election-of-the-opposing-candidate-as-the-end-of-humanity/631121/131 "2012-08-18T06:59:07Z")
> [@GIGObuster](#): > > And coming from a partisan source like the Heritage that is not impressive at all, > > Politifact, that does criticism to both sides also look at them and they are not really apologies, frankly it is what one can see when politicians that do claim to make an apology do. Many do laugh at the politicians claiming that they did apologized for something when they just report that mistakes were made. > > [PolitiFact | Mitt Romney repeats claim that Obama went around the world apologizing for the United States](http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2011/sep/22/mitt-romney/mitt-romney-repeats-claim-obama-went-around-world-/) See, I agree with everything Politifact says up until “Pants on fire”. I recall many liberals praising Obama’s speeches on exactly the same grounds as conservatives hating them, until it became a political hot potato and the talking points had to change. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2012, 7:04am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-necessary-to-portray-the-election-of-the-opposing-candidate-as-the-end-of-humanity/631121/132 "2012-08-18T07:04:12Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I call it the “nukular” syndrome: Liberals define what is truth, and any disagreement with that view is tantamount to dishonesty, bad faith, and general malevolence. Why do I call it the “nukular” syndrome? After liberals’ constant attacks on GWB for supposedly mispronouncing “nuclear”, and calling that obvious evidence of his stupidity. Problem is, not only does Merriam Webster recognize it as legitimate, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter, being southerners, also used the “Nucular” pronunciation. > > Likewise, liberals define truth and then define all challenges to that truth as lies. It’s common to nearly all the top liberal bloggers and is a syndrome found on all the major discussion boards I’ve seen. Nah, I learned on this board that Jimmy Carter used that pronunciation, and it was not because the use of the pronunciation showed Bush was stupid, it was that some posters suspected that Bush was even faking that pronunciation, (I still think that Bush had huge street smarts, but not much else), in any case most here thought it was a very very lame item to criticize the president; so, so much for your “syndrome” > **[It's nucular, Lisa: NUCULAR](https://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=301996)** > > Anyone else notice that once Bush secured re-election, his conformance to Standard American English suddenly improved? All of a sudden it seems it’s okay to refer to technology relating to the center of an atom by the term he no doubt grew up with:... ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2012, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-necessary-to-portray-the-election-of-the-opposing-candidate-as-the-end-of-humanity/631121/133 "2012-08-18T07:05:24Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > See, I agree with everything Politifact says up until “Pants on fire”. I recall many liberals praising Obama’s speeches on exactly the same grounds as conservatives hating them, until it became a political hot potato and the talking points had to change. That why I pointed out that Politicians love these **non apologies** , it does also fool many followers. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2012, 7:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-necessary-to-portray-the-election-of-the-opposing-candidate-as-the-end-of-humanity/631121/134 "2012-08-18T07:06:00Z")
Here’s the most memorable example: > **[PDBerger.com - Rekomendasi Toko & Jasa Terpercaya](https://pdberger.com/)** > > Informasi toko & jasa diseluruh Indonesia **Here in the Rhenus Sports Arena in Strasbourg, I’ve just witnessed what is surely a very important – I hesitate to say historic – moment in transatlantic relations. Barack Obama went further than any previous president in apologising for American behaviour.** And the response of the blogger linking to that story: **I’m having a very hard time trying to maintain an iota of cynicism about this man.** ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2012, 7:08am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-necessary-to-portray-the-election-of-the-opposing-candidate-as-the-end-of-humanity/631121/135 "2012-08-18T07:08:18Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > No, it’s the customary practice of this board. Helps to cut through bullshit on either side of an issue up for debate. Yes. **greenslime** : Compare post 124 (yours) with post 127 (adaher’s). You delivered a set of memories: adaher gave me a cite. If I was your Mom, your therapist or your parole officer I might be interested in your perceptions of the world. But if we’re interested in fighting ignorance, such subjective stuff is just twaddle. Now Heritage is a notoriously partisan operation. But at least now we have something we can affirm or refute. Citations are key: they aren’t just ways of tripping your adversary up. OBTW: I read a couple of the Heritage examples and I found them laughable. The words, “Sorry”, “Apologize” and “Regret” never appeared in any of the quotes. They did sound like Obama though: he likes to express empathy with his audience before delivering a challenging remark. Heritage presented half of that. All the same, now I have an idea about what the hell the wingers were talking about. So a tip of the hat to **adaher**. The other benefit of the cite is that they encourage posters to be constrained by fact, rather than just spouting whatever horsepucky materializes in their head. > [@adaher](#): > > Besides, anyone who has debated politics or science or whatever before the internet age should recognize that internet cites aren’t exactly the most reliable way to cut through crap. They can contribute to each side’s arguments, but they do not settle or cut through anything. Nonsense. Cato has more credence than a blogger. The Economist has more credence than Cato, though the former quotes the latter. And primary source material such as statutes and regs can be best of all. ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2012, 7:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-necessary-to-portray-the-election-of-the-opposing-candidate-as-the-end-of-humanity/631121/136 "2012-08-18T07:12:12Z")
Sure, if the cite is a primary source, but how often is that? Most disputed facts are from studies or analyses of basic data, like the Nutting cite that claims Obama spent less than any President since Eisenhower. Needless to say, that cite does not cut through anything, it further confuses people. As for me providing that cite, it really shouldn’t have been necessary. Is there anyone here unaware of the gist of Obama’s speeches, especially the ones most cited as apologies? And did my cite really clarify anything? Greenslime remembered what he remembered, I remembered the same thing, and I think you remembered the same thing, you just took away something different from it than we did. If we have a debate over what exactly the President said off mic to the Russians over having more flexibility we’ll run into the same issue. ---
**Author:** ![Measure\_for\_Measure](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/measure_for_measure/32/557_2.png) [@Measure\_for\_Measure](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Measure_for_Measure)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2012, 7:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-necessary-to-portray-the-election-of-the-opposing-candidate-as-the-end-of-humanity/631121/137 "2012-08-18T07:18:20Z")
And here, ladies and gentlemen, are the words that made the loons apopleptic: > [@Toby Harnden](#): > > ``` > “In America, there is a failure to appreciate Europe’s leading role in the world,” he said in a prepared speech delivered before a campaign-style town hall meeting in which he took questions from mainly French and German students. > > “Instead of celebrating your dynamic union and seeking to partner with you to meet common challenges, there have been times where America has shown arrogance and been dismissive, even derisive.” > > But he balanced this startling mea culpa – or, perhaps more accurately, a George W. Bush culpa – with a clear message to Europeans that blaming America for everything was unacceptable. > > “In Europe, there is an anti-Americanism that is at once casual, but can also be insidious. Instead of recognising the good that America so often does in the world, there have been times where Europeans choose to blame America for much of what is bad.” > > Then, in classic Obama fashion, he sought to find a synthesis between the two poles. “On both sides of the Atlantic, these attitudes have become all too common. They are not wise. They do not represent the truth. > > ``` Obama wasn’t apologizing for America. He was laying a marker down: the days of boneheaded chickenhawk posturing were over. No longer would those who love war -up to the point of participating in it on the field- no longer would they run US policy. It will be replaced by an America that doesn’t shirk from tough-minded analysis. So out with color coded alert hysteria. Instead, we will combine quiet intelligence with a ruthless focus on those who have actually attacked America. And so Bin Laden was slain. The wingers can’t handle this of course: so they make things up. ETA: Crosspost! But that’s it for me tonight. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2012, 7:21am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-necessary-to-portray-the-election-of-the-opposing-candidate-as-the-end-of-humanity/631121/138 "2012-08-18T07:21:00Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > Here’s the most memorable example: > > [http://pdberger.com/obama-apologizes-to-europe/](http://pdberger.com/obama-apologizes-to-europe/) > > **Here in the Rhenus Sports Arena in Strasbourg, I’ve just witnessed what is surely a very important – I hesitate to say historic – moment in transatlantic relations. Barack Obama went further than any previous president in apologising for American behaviour.** > > And the response of the blogger linking to that story: > > **I’m having a very hard time trying to maintain an iota of cynicism about this man.** And the context follows what Politifact reported, once again a non apology, just a change in policy and a blame to the past administration, that as also Politifact noticed, also “apologized” when needed, and this does remains a very silly point. > **[Fox Won't Let Go Of Ridiculous Myth That Obama "Apologized" For America](https://www.mediamatters.org/sean-hannity/fox-wont-let-go-ridiculous-myth-obama-apologized-america)** > > Fox News is once again pushing the myth that President Obama "apologized" for the United States, following a speech by Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney in which he vowed to "never again apologize for America." In fact, Obama has never... > [@](#): > > Fox News’ Juan Williams: Obama “Apologizing For America” Is “A Phony Political Argument.” On The Five, co-host Juan Williams said of the apology claim: [T]alk about a phony political argument. This business that somehow President Obama goes around apologizing for America – PolitiFact, everybody has said [it’s] bogus. [Fox News, The Five, 4/25/12] > > Associated Press: “Obama Has Not Apologized For America.” The Associated Press has written that Obama “never made” any apologies and added: > > ``` > ROMNEY: "A few months into office, he traveled around the globe to apologize for America." > > THE FACTS: Obama has not apologized for America. What he has done, in travels early in his presidency and since, is to make clear his belief that the U.S. is not beyond reproach. He has told foreigners that the U.S. at times acted "contrary to our traditions and ideals" in its treatment of terrorist suspects, that "America has too often been selective in its promotion of democracy," that the U.S. "certainly shares blame" for international economic turmoil and has sometimes shown arrogance toward allies. Obama, whose criticisms of America's past were typically balanced by praise, was in most cases taking issue with policies or the record of the previous administration, not an unusual approach for a new president -- or a presidential candidate. Romney's actual point seems to be that Obama has been too critical of his country. > > But there has been no formal -- or informal -- apology. No saying "sorry" on behalf of America. [Associated Press, 6/3/11] > > ``` ---
**Author:** ![adaher](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/dec6dc/32.png) [@adaher](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adaher)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2012, 7:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-necessary-to-portray-the-election-of-the-opposing-candidate-as-the-end-of-humanity/631121/139 "2012-08-18T07:28:08Z")
I think it’s fair to say the argument is wrong, but hardly phony, and saying that it’s phony makes those who read or heard those words and think he was apologizing more stiff-necked in their view. Portraying something that is merely wrong as a lie causes those who believe the wrong thing to see an attempt to delegitimize a view they regard as not only legitimate, but correct, and makes them think that the mainstream media is trying to cover for the President. While we’re on the subject of cites, I nominate this statement as the most said thing that is never supported by cites, yet accepted as fact even though it’s probably very wrong: Corporations control the government. ---
**Author:** ![GIGObuster](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gigobuster/32/421_2.png) [@GIGObuster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/GIGObuster)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2012, 7:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-necessary-to-portray-the-election-of-the-opposing-candidate-as-the-end-of-humanity/631121/140 "2012-08-18T07:47:30Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I think it’s fair to say the argument is wrong, but hardly phony, and saying that it’s phony makes those who read or heard those words and think he was apologizing more stiff-necked in their view. Portraying something that is merely wrong as a lie causes those who believe the wrong thing to see an attempt to delegitimize a view they regard as not only legitimate, but correct, and makes them think that the mainstream media is trying to cover for the President. That was a guy at FOX out off all people who made the “phony” remark, but I guess I agree that they should be thrown under the bus. > [@adaher](#): > > While we’re on the subject of cites, I nominate this statement as the most said thing that is never supported by cites, yet accepted as fact even though it’s probably very wrong: > > Corporations control the government. Only if Romney wins the election. 🙂 ---
**Author:** ![greenslime1951](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e9bcb4/32.png) [@greenslime1951](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/greenslime1951)\ **Post date:** [August 18, 2012, 8:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-necessary-to-portray-the-election-of-the-opposing-candidate-as-the-end-of-humanity/631121/141 "2012-08-18T08:48:26Z")
> [@adaher](#): > > I never, ever, ever, ask for a cite. You know why? They almost never cut through bullshit, they add to it. If a fact catches my eye and doesn’t sound kosher, I research it myself. **The request for a cite is motivated 99% of the time by the poster not liking the fact**. The provided cite doesn’t generally get the poster to like or accept the fact any better, and tends to make the debate descend into a linking war with ad hominem attacks on sources and appeals to authority. > > Besides, anyone who has debated politics or science or whatever before the internet age should recognize that internet cites aren’t exactly the most reliable way to cut through crap. They can contribute to each side’s arguments, but they do not settle or cut through anything. All very, very true. “CITE CITE CITE!!!” is just another way of saying, “I disagree with you, but I’m too lazy to state a cogent reason why.” I also agree with you that you won’t change the cite-chimpanzee’s mind no matter what you cite. I also agree that internet cites are worthless anyway as you can selectively mine the immense load of crap out there to support almost any position. So all you’ll get is a chimp-screech: “Well, that cite’s bullshit!” because it, like your post, won’t agree with the chimp. Pointless exercise. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-necessary-to-portray-the-election-of-the-opposing-candidate-as-the-end-of-humanity/631121.md?page=6) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/is-it-really-necessary-to-portray-the-election-of-the-opposing-candidate-as-the-end-of-humanity/631121.md?page=8)