As many on the right contend that the Democrats are every bit as bad as the Republicans when it comes to lying. This is something I just include in the long line of Republican supported lies but in an effort to be objective I’d like to make a list examining what truth there is to Democrats lying
I’m looking for quotes from prominent Democrats that are lies about their Republican opponents. Prominent being party leaders congressmen senators presidential candidates etc.
I could have put this in general questions but some quotes are already the subject of debate. I’m not looking to have a debate on each statement however. merely come up with a list
In order to qualify as a lie for the purposes of this thread it needs only to be shown to be contrary to the truth you need not whether they intended to lie or not.
I’ll start with:
During the debates before the election Barack Obama told John McCain 100% of his campaign ads had been negative. On analysis of all of McCain’s ads this was shown to be a lie he had campaign ads that were not negative.
I think that covers the lunch counter claim quite nicely. I didn’t find any quotes directly about the separation of church and state, but I think an originalist Republican might well support the teaching of creationism.
Kennedy was not saying that America would immediately have these things happen if Bork were confirmed, but he was saying that this is the kind of America Bork supported.
That one justice, one single, solitary associate Supreme Court Justice, would overturn Roe, the Civil Rights Act of 1964, specifically rule that Creationism could be taught in schools, and that writers and artists would be censored.
Maybe not a lie so much as hyperbole. It’s like all the right wing individuals claiming that President Obama is going to institute socialism with his health care plan or kowtow to terrorists or the UN with his foreign policy. Obvious, intentional exaggeration.
Without getting into how Senator Kennedy characterized the results of Bork’s positions on constitutional law the fact that he’s just one justice doesn’t stop him from guiding the court’s major decisions.
Look, for example, at Anthony Kennedy–who, because of how the rest of the court usually votes on certain disputed issues (Stevens/Ginsburg/Breyer/ (presumably) Sotomayor vs. Roberts/Thomas/Scalia/Alito), often gets, in practice, to decide how cases come out.
In practical terms, the winner of (for example) a contentious abortion case is the side that gets Kennedy. So in many cases, the swing justice can in fact determine how constitutional law comes out.
As a historical note, Justice Kennedy wasn’t Regan’s first choice for the vacancy. He tried to nominate Douglas Ginsburg, who was rejected because he admitted to smoking pot. Ginsburg, of course, was a replacement for none other than Bob Bork.
So you’re just plain wrong to say Bork is irrelvant because he’s just one justice. All I need to do to rebut that is to look at the current court. Roberts-Scalia-Alito-Thomas-Bork is a lot different to Roberts-Scalia-Alito-Thomas-Kennedy.
That’s not what he said. He was talking about Bork’s ideology (“Robert Bork’s America”), not his practical ability make it a 100% reality, and it’s not a “lie” to say that a Supreme Court Justice can impose a lot of influence, even if they can’t get every single thing they want.
Come on now. Where did Kennedy say that? He said what the effects would be of Bork *wanted *to do, not what he *would *do or even that he wanted those effects.
If he has no practical ability to make it happen, it’s irrelevant scaremongering. It is not any different in substance from Rush Limbaugh bloviating on the radio about things that cannot and will not happen, and you have no reservations about calling him a liar.
There was no claim that he had the ability to make it all happen, only that it would be highly inappropriate to give such a person the amount of influence he would be able to exert as a Supreme Court Justice. You don’t have a lie here. Give it up. I’m sure there are tons of other more legitimate examples.
He says a lot more than that, including asserting things to be factual that he knows are not. Examples need not be reiterated here yet again except perhaps to the particularly obtuse. No one *should *have compunctions about calling him a liar.
Now, back to your Ted Kennedy quote, now that you’ve had some time to consider it more carefully, are you ready to explain what the lie is?
Can we please move on from the Kennedy quote. I understand it is a debatable quote. I’m willing to accept it anyhow for this list. Hell at the rate this list is filling out I’ll drop my standards pretty low just so I can have something to work with.
