Sen. Jon Kyl (R-AZ) lies and admits it

[gonzomax]

@emacknight

Do we know what the real percentage is now?

What gets me about all this is how in a thread complaining about Republican lies we have a million liberals doing the same thing. Is the real number so hard to use? Is it not a lie if the real number is closer to 80%? The point is it’s not 90%, end of story.

See, now that was some good hyperbole.

90 percent of 100 is ninety. It is not about ninety. It is not 80. It is far from 3. Do you really not understand the difference?

[emacknight]

@gonzomax

90 percent of 100 is ninety. It is not about ninety. It is not 80. It is far from 3. Do you really not understand the difference?

so what is the real percentage?

[Skip]

4: This actually seems the most likely to me. again, going by his delivery.

If Kyl employs staff that are so stupid as to not be able to do even the most basic research then he is not fit to be elected to county dogcatcher. The buck stops at his desk. Personal responsibility and all that right?

[Baal_Houtham]

@Kobal2

Dude, there’s exaggeration, and then there’s plain bullshit.

If you go fishing and catch a 2 feet trout, run back and tell the boys you just caught this HUGE, like, at least 3 footer fish, that’s hyperbole. If you tell them you caught a freshwater whale, that’s bullshit.

I’d say Kyl’s statement is a prime example of bullshit (…)

Apologies for being picky Kobal2, but saying your 2 foot trout was a three foot trout isn’t hyperbole. To be hyperbole a statement has to be an OBVIOUS exaggeration. The speaker intends that the target audience will understand that the statement is way over the top. There can be no intention to be taken literally.

If you catch a two foot trout and go back to tell your friends:
It was three feet long, that’s exaggeration. (If there’s any chance you might be believed.)
It was the size of a whale, that’s hyperbole.

Bullshit would be closer to, “When I was netting it, a ranger drove by and according to him I should get it measured because he thought it might be some kind of state or world record, but hell, I didn’t want to traumatize the fish, fucker’s probably older than I am…” etc. etc.

[Spice_Weasel]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

As people like to say here, his general point was valid. Money is fungible, and the fact that federal money can’t be used for abortions is a technicality.

In the non-profit world, no, it’s really not. When you receive a grant - particularly a federal grant - you have to account in detailed reports for every dime you spend. You have to prove that you spent the money on what it’s intended for. That’s part of the deal. So your claim that it’s a technicality makes no sense. By the basic laws governing non-profit organizations, Planned Parenthood cannot use federal money for abortions.

[gonzomax]

The Hyde Amendment prohibits using federal funds for low income people’s abortion except in cases of incest, rape or in cases where the pregnant womans life is in danger. I have no problem with that.

[LilShieste]

Identify the lie and the hyperbole:

[ul]
[li] 90% of <organization>'s funds goes towards <some action>! [/li] or
[li] 190% of <organization>'s funds goes towards <some action>![/li][/ul]

[Steve_MB]

The BS mutates to a new form and spreads:

[QUOTE=Sen. John Cornyn]
Well, I’m not so sure. Here I am in the middle of the debate and I’m not so sure. I’ve been told that 98 percent of the services they offer to pregnant women are abortion-related services. I’m not sure, but I think we ought to find out.
[/QUOTE]

Well, I’ve been told that 98 percent of the budget of Cornyn’s Senate office goes to pay for the blow he snorts off the asses of teenage hookers. I’m not sure, but I think we ought to find out.

[Malthus]

@Steve_MB

The BS mutates to a new form and spreads:

Well, I’ve been told that 98 percent of the budget of Cornyn’s Senate office goes to pay for the blow he snorts off the asses of teenage hookers. I’m not sure, but I think we ought to find out.

This guy’s rebuttal when caught in an obvious untruth reminds me of the old political tactic known as “pig-fucking”.

As in: ‘We’ll spread the rumour that the other guy fucks pigs’
‘But senator, you don’t really think he fucks pigs, do you?’
'No … but let’s make him spend his time denying it! ’

[Jack_Batty]

@Steve_MB

Well, I’ve been told that 98 percent of the budget of Cornyn’s Senate office goes to pay for the blow he snorts off the asses of teenage hookers. I’m not sure, but I think we ought to find out.

Depending on the outcome of that investigation, the next question might be: And are there any jobs available in Cornyn’s office?

I almost said, ‘are there any openings’, but I try not to float straight lines that are *that *easy.

[Kobal2]

Baal Houtham: you’re right, so no need to apologize.

[Revtim]

Sen. John Cornyn, whom some say helped Glenn Beck rape a kill a young woman in 1990? I’m not sure that he did, but I think we ought to find out.

[Steve_MB]

Now, I’m imagining it as a cadence-call:

I don’t know, but I been told…
Cornyn stole Fort Knox’s gold!
The truth of this is still in doubt…
But we damn sure should find out!

[margin]

@Damuri_Ajashi

I think the number is closer to 15% and if you count how much of their active income comes from abortions, I think the number might be closer to 40%.

90% is still a blatant lie but 3% is not exactly accurate. If you count selling a months supply of birth control pills the same as an abortion then you get 3%.

If you count birth control pills the same as an abortion you’re too stupid to live and should be aborted yourself.

[kaylasdad99]

Lighten up, margin. He wasn’t equating birth control pills with abortion. He was remarking on the fact that selling one (1) month’s supply of BC pills and performing one (1) abortion each counts as one (1) activity when counting up the list of “things PP does.” He did seem to be questioning the validity of that method of accounting (a method which I find entirely defensible), but it’s not like he was endorsing the papal position on condoms…

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Revtim

Sen. John Cornyn, whom some say helped Glenn Beck rape a kill a young woman in 1990? I’m not sure that he did, but I think we ought to find out.

I’ve just heard about this, and I think that Cornyn needs to address this right away. People are asking questions,and if he says nothing… does that mean he’s hiding something?

[Voyager]

@magellan01

1. Kyle knew the correct stat and was using hyperbole
2. Kyle knew the correct stat and was lying
3. Kyle knew the correct stat and misspoke
4. Kyle though he had the stat right, as that what was given to him by his staff

1: While jumping from some tiny percent to “90” might be used in hyperbole, I don’t think his delivery jibes with the claim that he was employing hyperbole.

As noted, it is hyperbole when you exaggerate to the point where any reasonable person knows it is false. Given the rabid Republican audience who hates PP, that isn’t the case here. I haven’t watched him, though, so I’ll take your word that he didn’t speak as if it were hyperbole.

2: This seems to be grossly unlikely. I can’t imagine and U.S. Senator being so stupid as to so overtly lie, especially about something that is so easily checked. And if he in fact lied, that means he knew the correct number. And I can’t see how someone in the Senate would try to pull off such a flagrant lie and not expect it to not blow up in his face.

You are trusting. The people he is appealing to will remember the 90% long after the flap dies down.

3: Again, given the delivery, this seems unlikely. But a more realistic explanation than 1 or 2.

Actually, this is the least likely possibility, since he could easily correct himself and apologize to PP - which he didn’t.

4: This actually seems the most likely to me. again, going by his delivery.

Now, there might very well be another explanation I’ve missed. But barring that, I’d have to go with the least bad answer and go with #4.

Which indicates that Kyl, like Bush, has no critical judgment at all, and that his staff contains at least a few total morons and liars. Really, does someone with the brains to make and vote on complex policy issues in the Senate not know that it is absurd on the face of it that PP would spend 90% of its budget under whichever metric you choose on abortions? Is he an empty suit? Is there any reason to not laugh in his face when he says anything more profound than sports talk?

The most logical explanation besides him being a moron is that it was a deliberate misstatement to justify cutting funding for PP, and the lack of truth was amply justified by the greater social cause.

[gonzomax]

Kyl is embarrassed that so many people are making fun of him. He wants us to “get over it”.
He was speaking in front of the Senate. he was not talking on Fox.

[Kobal2]

@Revtim

Sen. John Cornyn, whom some say helped Glenn Beck rape a kill a young woman in 1990? I’m not sure that he did, but I think we ought to find out.

I’m really not sure. I mean here I am, in the middle of the Pit, and I’m not sure. I’ve been told they’d used the poor girl’s organs to draw a crude hammer and sickle. I’m not sure, but I think someone oughta find out.

Not me though. I’m too busy spouting bullshit and hoping some sticks, here.

[DoctorJ]

@olivesmarch4th

In the non-profit world, no, it’s really not. When you receive a grant - particularly a federal grant - you have to account in detailed reports for every dime you spend. You have to prove that you spent the money on what it’s intended for. That’s part of the deal. So your claim that it’s a technicality makes no sense. By the basic laws governing non-profit organizations, Planned Parenthood cannot use federal money for abortions.

Not to mention that a lot of the money that PP receives from the government is just reimbursement for medical services. If I do a Pap smear on a patient with Medicaid, I bill Medicaid for the service. So does PP. If I take the money that I get paid to do that Pap smear and purchase bourbon (which isn’t exactly unlikely), it isn’t correct to say that the government is spending money on bourbon.