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

[Polycarp]

@Sully

Not to hijack the thread, but it seems a bit related, another politician having trouble with numbers (he seems to be taking lessons from Kyl)

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j6si8dcfURg2CHhXEG1lAMY_Fhfg?docId=2ef1dd52789248d5a366c9af5dec5a58

Meh, Haley Barbour was only off 19.2 percent

@Euphonious_Polemic

It’s actually worse than that if you look at the figures using the new accounting process, which eliminates duplicates - those who go on and off Medicaid and back on again.

Let’s see how fast he says:

“Whoops, my figures were wrong because the method of counting those on Medicaid changed. And it looks like the correct figures now render my entire point moot, because rather than decreasing, the number of folks on the Medicare rolls actually increased 10.2 percent during my first seven years in office.”

Or, he could go with the tried and true:

“Governor Barbour’s remark was not intended to be a factual statement.”

Not that I have any particular enthusiasm for defending Haley Barbour, but that one is purely excusable. The same office, reporting the same statistic for two different years – I think almost anyone not privy to the methodological change (cases to individuals) would be forgiven for assuming the two numbers are equivalent – representing a decrease or increase without applying Rullan’s fudge factors. Call me when he does pull something outrageous.

[kaylasdad99]

[del]He probably pulls his pud, now and then…[/del]

No wait, that was inappropriate. Okay, I’ll call you.

[Euphonious_Polemic]

@Polycarp

Call me when he does pull something outrageous.

Call me if he corrects his excusable error.

[Typo_Negative]

@Polycarp

Not that I have any particular enthusiasm for defending Haley Barbour, but that one is purely excusable. The same office, reporting the same statistic for two different years – I think almost anyone not privy to the methodological change (cases to individuals) would be forgiven for assuming the two numbers are equivalent – representing a decrease or increase without applying Rullan’s fudge factors. Call me when he does pull something outrageous.

Doesn’t he have a staff?

[AWB]

@Euphonious_Polemic

Hyperbole is a figure of speech, such as “I could sleep for a week”, or “This backpack weighs a ton”

Hyperbole is not a Senator changing a 3% figure to 90%, and saying it as if it were a matter of accurate reporting.

From dictionary.com

hyperbole:

1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.
2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”

Um… intentionally exaggerating is the definition of hyperbole.

[elucidator]

But it assumes compicity on the part of the listener, the listener is “in on it”. For instance, its considered rude to pretend to believe that the hyperbole is offered as stark fact. Kids do that as a pretense to argument, you say “I’ve told you a million times, don’t leave the animals you experiment upon lying around the house!” and get the predictable response: “Nunh-uh, a hundred times, tops!”

[Enderw24]

I told Kyl a million times to stop saying things not intended to be a factual statement.

[emacknight]

@Enderw24

I told Kyl a million times to stop saying things not intended to be a factual statement.

cite

[Voyager]

@AWB

Um… intentionally exaggerating is the definition of hyperbole.

Not when it involves loaded words. When it rains 3 inches, saying you had to swim to your car is hyperbole. If, say, 3% of southerners were involved in direct bias during the '50s, stating that 90% of Southerners directly oppressed black people goes a bit beyond hyperbole and into demagoguery. Which is right where Kyl was.

[Voyager]

@emacknight

cite

You post that every five seconds.

[elucidator]

Is that an observation, or a dare?

[heatmiserfl]

@AWB

Quote:

hyperbole:

1. obvious and intentional exaggeration.
2. an extravagant statement or figure of speech not intended to be taken literally, as “to wait an eternity.”

From dictionary.com
Um… intentionally exaggerating is the definition of hyperbole.

You missed the adjective “obvious” which is a very important part of the definition.

Do people really not understand the difference between lies, exaggeration and hyperbole? I thought this was a message board populated by adults. WTF?

[emacknight]

@heatmiserfl

You missed the adjective “obvious” which is a very important part of the definition.

Do people really not understand the difference between lies, exaggeration and hyperbole? I thought this was a message board populated by adults. WTF?

Adults heavily invested in partisan politics. Did you not realize that if it turns out Kyl liked conservatives lose the Second Amendment, and have to have an abortion.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Marley23

Right here. As the OP notes, they really spend about THREE percent of their money on abortions.

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%.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@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.

No its not. The fact that money is fungible does mean that you can’t segregate or track money.

[crowmanyclouds]

@vivalostwages

Hey, check out the “Facts and figures” on this site: http://www.survivors.la/

@Sully

… Haley Barbour was only off 19.2 percent

Haley ain’t the only one who’s mathematically challenged,

Don’t Let Go

The winning design from the Survivors 2010 ProLife Training Camp t-shirt design contest: three balloons held by three little people, with a single balloon floating away and the words “Don’t Let Go”. The back shows the balloon deflated with the words “1/3 of our generation was taken from us”.

Uh, dude, 'cording to that shirt it’s 1 in 4.

Ooh, and black hoodies! That’ll make everyone at the Planned Parenthood clinic feel so comfortable when you show up to protest.

CMC fnord!
Like I should expect to find tasteful merchandise on a cite that compares abortion with the Holocaust*. With a looped video of actual Holocaust victims, Abe Lincoln** and MLK . . . oh and chopped up fetuses on their home page!

• Maybe someone should explain to them the usage difference between Holocaust and holocaust?
  ** I forget, was Lincoln at Utah or Omaha beach? I know MLK parachuted into Bastogne, Samuel L. Jackson is gonna play him in the up-coming film, “NUTS motherfucker!”

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@emacknight

Seems kind of like your nitpicking unnecessarily. 90% vs 3% seems like a large difference, but the point he was making was true, Plant Parenthood provides abortions. And you’re further nitpicking on what “abortion” means.

Sort of like how 125million and 47million are pretty much the same thing…

Maybe you should watch his speech. He made the point that Planned Parenthood provided abortions and he wanted to drive the point home by implying that this was basically the ONLY thing that it did (he didn’t say 90%, he said “well over 90%”).

He wasn’t merely trying to convey the notion taht PP performed abortions, he was trying to discount the fact that most of what PP does (BY ANY MEASURE) is NOT abortion related so taht defunding planned parenthood would seem like defunding abortion when in fact it would be defunding everything BUT the abortions. But mostly [puinishing PP and anyone that needs their services.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Fotheringay-Phipps

It’s not really 3%. I’ve pointed this out earlier.

The difference is in what message it’s intended to convey and how it’s likely to be taken.

If the underlying point is essentially the same regardless of the accuracy of the statement, then you have grounds for making a hyperbolic statement. If the underlying point depends on the accuracy, then you can’t.

In this case, Kyl was making the point that PP spends a lot of their money on abortions, and that money is fungible. That’s a valid point.

That said, I think it crossed the line, because I personally would assume he meant 90% or at least close to it. But I can see someone seeing things differently, so it’s very possible that he did mean it as a hyperbolic statement.

You can’t say “we provide a third of their funding” in one sentence and then say “over 90% of what they do is abortions” and just chalk it up to making a point. You are implying that federal dollars are paying for abortions. Something that doesn’t happen because there are already laws with very stiff penalties out there but congress men and senators keep trying to prevent because it gives their base a hard on.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Euphonious_Polemic

For emphasis: YOU DON"T KNOW THE ACTUAL NUMBER. You just suppose it is “obviously” more than 3%.

They get about 154 million from people who get abortions but they also get money from folks like Warren Buffett (who sepcifically earmarked his donation for abortions because his buddy Bill Gates donated money and specifically said “no abortions” just vaccination and stuff like that) that subsidizes this amount.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@gonzomax

It is about the next election. They are using Planned Parenthood as a target to rile up the abortion issue voters. It does not use very much of the budget. Killing it would not impact the wealthy nor most Republican voters.. For them it is a big win.

Yeah, I’m surprised they didn’t try to defund gay marraige while they were at it.