OK, you are using a quote that claims that there are smart and dumb people on both sides of the political spectrum as an example to support the thesis in your OP? That’s…hilariously ironic.
He was using that case to suggest that she was typical of welfare recipients, in an attempt to discredit the program altogether. While not strictly a lie, in the excessively-technical, blinkered, Bricker-typical manner, it was still dishonest of him. But then you’d know that if you understood the concept.
It is a bipartisan trait. Is it possible that some of this is selective judgement? We’re more likely to give the benefit of the doubt to people we:
- Like
- Agree with politically.
On late preview, add the qualifier “If that case was, in fact, true at all”.
Oh yeah? Well at least the airplane thing happened in a movie. Hillary made up her Bosnian snipers out of whole cloth.
So glad this thread came along. We haven’t gotten our good old fashioned liberal v, conservative flame war (fLame war?) on since the election really.
And here’s a link to Lou Cannon’s account of what was wrong with Reagan’s story about the heroic pilot:
Are we applying Costanza’s rule here? “It’s not a lie if you believe it.”
I admit I did not know until reading this thread that the fiddle and violin were the same instrument. But unlike your example I’m not arguing, I will accept this as ignorance fought. 
Or simply informed liberals whose ideas have stood up to re-examination.
EXHIBIT C (political):
ME: The Left isn’t always the tolerant side – there was a famous case in which a university disciplined a janitor for reading a book about the KKK during his lunch break.
NEIGHBOR: What’s wrong with that?
ME: Well, apart from the general proposition that it was his lunch break and he should be free to read whatever book he wants to? The book was *anti-*KKK. It was a scholarly work on defeating the influence of the KKK.
NEIGHBOR: But if the co-workers are upset by the book, I think that’s enough. Racial tensions aren’t something to make light of.
ME: I don’t think anyone was making light of racial tensions. It was more…
NEIGHBOR: The African-American experience can’t be understood by the white man.
ME: Oh. So a book, a scholarly, footnoted, required-class-reading book that makes a coworker uncomfortable is grist for disciplinary action?
NEIGHBOR: If it’s about the KKK? Yes.
The example was intended to show the lack of acceptance about the specific welfare queen. Perhaps, if another example had been raised about Reagan’s mendacity, I would have acknowledged it. I asked for an excample, was given an “example” that doesn’t prove the point, and challenged it.
[quote=“Shodan, post:49, topic:484233”]
Things I Have Seen Liberals Insist Were True - [ul][li]The poverty rate went up under Reagan[/li][/QUOTE]
I did find some graphs that stated that the poverty rate did increase under Reagan, but unfortunately the graphs were from what I think people would consider liberal sources (like Paul Krugman). The Cato Institute admits that Krugman’s claim that poverty rates increased under Reagan is true, but goes on to say that there are nuances that need to be examined.
So, while it would seem that poverty rates did increase under Reagan, I agree that economic discussions are usually more complex than a single statistic can state.
[QUOTE]
[list][li]The CIA invented AIDS [/li]
[li]Bush planned 9/11[/li][/QUOTE]
I don’t know anyone who truly believes either of these things, but I can see how they would be more likely to be posited by people with a liberal viewpoint.
[QUOTE]
[list][li]Clinton staffers did not trash the White House during the transition of 2001[/li][/QUOTE]
I think this depends on one’s definitions - “trashing” the White House might be defined differently by some people than others. Some reports I’ve read claim about $20,000 worth of damage was done, but went on to say that the damages were consistent with 8 years of constant occupation. Others say that the figures are exaggerated, minimized, etc. I can see how one side might define pranks as “trashing,” while another side might define “trashing” as pranks.
[QUOTE]
[list][li]The Soviet Union never invaded any countries without being invited first[/li][/QUOTE]
Unfortunately, I am not conversant enough with military history to address this statement.
[QUOTE]
[list][li]Bush was planning to cancel the elections of 2004 and rule as a dictator[/ul][/li][/QUOTE]
Did anyone actually believe this? But again, I can see how someone who believes this would be more likely to be liberal.
Thanks for these examples, by the way.
edited to add: Thanks to Bricker also.
Bricker, while those examples are plausible, and certainly believable, it must be noted that they’re still hypotheticals, while the ones presented in the OP (barring evidence to the contrary) are actual conversations.
I never said it wasn’t a bipartisan trait. I said that in my personal experience, the only people who have admitted to me that they do this deliberately to piss other people off are conservatives. I have not, in my personal experience, had a liberal admit to me that they deliberately take points of view with which they do not agree for the simple sake of pushing people’s buttons.
This does not negate the possibility that you, or other people have had liberals admit that they enter into discussions for the sole purpose of pissing people off.
Wasn’t there a study done lately on the thought processes of liberals and conservatives? Maybe I’ll look into that later.
And isn’t education a good predictor of voting habits- the more education one receives, the more likely one is to vote Democratic? Of course, that could just be the corrupting influence of academia…
But the larger truth was that Reagan was unusually skillful at presenting fiction as the truth, and if your interlocutor gave you an example of that characterisitic mendacity that could have been better chosen, that still didn’t make him wrong by a long shot. That’s what I mean by cherry-picking. You’re claiming a small victory because of an anecdote, while implying that the truth is that Reagan was, in fact, unusually accurate, insisted on verifying details in every stump speech, etc. The closest you could come, IMO, would be a ‘tu quoque,’ they all lie, kind of argument in Reagan’s favor, which would be very weak indeed. You hear someone say “Reagan lied a lot,” and your prime directive (“Defend Reagan’s honor!”) kicks in, preventing you from considering that the point being made is a fair one.
You are.
The final quote I referenced in my previous post *was *Hilarity N. Suze’s. . It was his sole contribution to the conversation in question. (Exhibit A in the OP)
Not quite. Republicans as a whole are more educated. Higher percentages of all degrees up to and including masters.
Democrats dominate the Ph.d ranks, though.
As is clearly explained by the scholars at www.timecube.com, we have all been “educated stupid.”
QED
Oh, please. Given the fairly strong correlation between conservatives and fundamentalist Christians, I think there is a pretty substantial conservative constituency that is perfectly happy to go along with “just trust me, it’s true.” 'Cause the Bible tells me so – not to mention the preacher man. Oh, yeah, and churches never say “we know what’s best.” Sure, they don’t. :rolleyes: