Who tells the most brazen lies? And gets a pass?

[Michael_Ellis]

@Bricker

OK, let’s take the first one: a summary line says, “Limbaugh lied about 9-11 Commission report.” That link reveals this:

In fact, the 9-11 report says:

My only question would be: what were Limbaugh’s actual words? “The [9-11 Commission] report said…” is the presented quote, but the use of square brackets for the words 9-11 Commission indicate that those were not actually used. Could Limbaugh have been referring to one of the many reports examined by the 9-11 Commission?

Without more, I am reluctant to call this an umambiguous lie by Limbaugh, although I certainly acknowledge that the sentence The 9-11 Commission report said that Mohamed Atta did meet with an Iraqi Intelligence Agency, or agent, in Prague on April 9th of 2001 is a lie. (Note the ansebce of square brackets in my version.)

One of the fun things about talk radio guys like Limbaugh is that they say so damn much that it’s almost impossible to track down a single quotation a couple years after the fact. The sheer volume of words they can put out over three hours makes transcription almost improbably hard.

[Bricker]

@Michael_Ellis

One of the fun things about talk radio guys like Limbaugh is that they say so damn much that it’s almost impossible to track down a single quotation a couple years after the fact. The sheer volume of words they can put out over three hours makes transcription almost improbably hard.

But this claim is of an exact quote – they even have the square brackets in there, further suggesting precision of quoting. I’m entitled to ask for a specific quote before accepting the “Limbaugh lied” conclusion – especially since some of the other claims are equally shaky.

(Note that lied is a high bar. I would certainly not dispute a general claim that Limbaugh fails to give a full, unbiased, neutral account of many issues.)

But let’s take another claim, at random: Limbaugh lied about AIDS.

That leads to these specifics:

LIMBAUGH: They [mainstream journalist Leftists] have spent their lives since the Reagan Presidency trying to rewrite those eight years, and they have -- they -- they have no choice but then to face full square their failure, by simply witnessing public events this week...Their effort to rewrite the '80s has failed. And they know it. So they're starting all over again. They're continuing it. ... [H]e [Reagan] didn't do enough to stop AIDS. And he did -- he did -- he didn't anything for AIDS, so he's anti-gay.

[...]

LIMBAUGH: And remember, back then in the '80s, one of the accompanying -- there -- there -- there -- there was a lot of fear-mongering going on around -- about AIDS, as a lot of people were scared about it. And one of the things that -- that the -- the AIDS activists said regularly back then was, oh, this is only a matter of time before it spreads to the heterosexual community. It's only a matter of time.

And they used that as -- as one of the weapons to try to get people like Reagan to start talking about it from their standpoint. And of course it -- it hasn't. It -- it didn't, and it hasn't, other than in Africa, and in Africa it is -- it is being spread not just by -- it -- it -- it's promiscuity that -- that -- that spreads this, if you want to know the truth. It's promiscuity.

But it -- **it hasn't made that jump to the heterosexual community.**

[...]

And when Reagan would not go to the bully pulpit and say what they wanted said, despite the money he spent, he was allowing people to die from AIDS, because he wasn't spreading the propaganda about it they wanted spread.

(emphasis in orginal, showing the “lie.”

They then purport to show the lie by reporting statistics from the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention’s Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, as of December 2002, an estimated 135,628 Americans had been diagnosed with AIDS as a result of heterosexual contact, compared with 420,790 from male-to-male sexual contact and with 59,719 from male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use.

To me, that shows that fifteen years after Reagan’s term ended, despite the vastly larger population of heterosexuals, still over four times the AIDS infections involved male-to-male sexual contact. Now, we may argue about why this is true, but it’s reasonably clear that the epidemic has not repeated itself in the American heterosexual community the way it did in the gay community. Africa is another story, but Limbaugh specifically excludes Africa in his statement.

So while it’s far from an unbiased and neutral review of the facts, neither is it an out-and-out lie.

[GIGObuster]

@Bricker

But this claim is of an exact quote – they even have the square brackets in there, further suggesting precision of quoting. I’m entitled to ask for a specific quote before accepting the “Limbaugh lied” conclusion – especially since some of the other claims are equally shaky.

(Note that lied is a high bar. I would certainly not dispute a general claim that Limbaugh fails to give a full, unbiased, neutral account of many issues.)

But let’s take another claim, at random: Limbaugh lied about AIDS.

That leads to these specifics: (emphasis in orginal, showing the “lie.”

They then purport to show the lie by reporting statistics from the Centers for Disease Control & Prevention’s Division of HIV/AIDS Prevention, as of December 2002, an estimated 135,628 Americans had been diagnosed with AIDS as a result of heterosexual contact, compared with 420,790 from male-to-male sexual contact and with 59,719 from male-to-male sexual contact and injection drug use.

To me, that shows that fifteen years after Reagan’s term ended, despite the vastly larger population of heterosexuals, still over four times the AIDS infections involved male-to-male sexual contact. Now, we may argue about why this is true, but it’s reasonably clear that the epidemic has not repeated itself in the American heterosexual community the way it did in the gay community. Africa is another story, but Limbaugh specifically excludes Africa in his statement.

So while it’s far from an unbiased and neutral review of the facts, neither is it an out-and-out lie.

Media matters also reported that “approximately 9,300 American children under age 13 had been infected with the disease by the end of 2002”

Now, was Limbaugh right in saying that promiscuity was the reason or the “true” cause?

[Sailboat]

@handsomeharry

But, I also remember when the Monicagate deal came out. Hillary said that her darling Bill had a tremendous gift for counseling young, troubled women. Mmmm hmmmm…and she expects us to swallow this.

In both cases, nobody called them on it. These entirely obvious lies make me want to go slap the crap out of the interviewer, such as King, who just kept up the charade, making me also want to barf.

Well, you have the parameters. Ballsy lies, with excrement eating grins and nods of the head from the interviewers. Nobody challenges the nonsense. Nobody. This thread, ergo, can include partisan hits, but does not extend to things like WMD, the health bill, etc, things with a lot of legitimate controversy.

Uh…wasn’t there a lot of controvesy about Hillary’s stance on Monicagate? Didn’t Hillary recently lose the presidency largely because people don’t trust her? I don’t see a significant difference of degree between the Right (and everyone who looks clearly at the Clintons) calling Hillary on her comments and the Left (and everyone who can think clearly) calling Bushies on the WMD story.

So I guess I don’t understand your examples of what does and does not belong in this thread.

[Diogenes_the_Cynic]

Hillary said that her darling Bill had a tremendous gift for counseling young, troubled women.

What is your evidence that Hillary’s statement was not true? Do you have some evdience that either Bill Clinton did not have an ability to counsel young women, or that Hillary did not believe that he did?

In any case, what would drive a desire to “call her on it?” She was the only thing close to a victim in that whole affair, after all. Even if she was in denial, why do you feel that she needed to be kicked for it? Is this really the most egregious example of a “lie” by a public figure that you can think of in the last 10 years?
Here are a couple of much better examples – Dick Cheney’s continued efforts to try to claim Iraq had any involvement with al Qaeda or 9/11 long after that lie had been so thoroughly debunked that even W himself wasn’t trying to sell it any more.

Michael Jackson denying he’d ever had plastic surgery.

Also, pretty much every word out of Sean Hannity’s mouth.

[Bricker]

@GIGObuster

Media matters also reported that “approximately 9,300 American children under age 13 had been infected with the disease by the end of 2002”

Now, was Limbaugh right in saying that promiscuity was the reason or the “true” cause?

Right enough that I wouldn’t call his statement unambiguously false. 9,300 children is less than one and half percent of the 480,000 infections that can be associated with male-to-male sexual contact. They are statistically insignificant.

Again, it doesn’t tell the whole story, nor is it fairly characterized as a neutral, even-handed recitation of facts. But it’s not an unambiguous lie.

[MeanOldLady]

Sylvia Browne? The damned filthy whore.

[muttrox]

@Knorf

What logical reason can one have to oppose same-sex marriage that does not include the judgment that there is something morally unacceptable about homosexuality?

Off the top of my head:
[ul]
[li]You could think there is something unacceptable about homosexuality that is not related to morality.[/li][li]You could oppose the practice of same-sex marriage without casting judgment on anyone who does it. (In the same way you can be against excessive bonuses on Wall Street without casting judgment on those who get them. Or oppose legalized gambling without casting judgment on the gamblers themselves.)[/li][li]You could be a politician who just does what you think will further your career, leaving your personal opinions aside.[/li][/ul]

[Knorf]

[quote=“muttrox, post:48, topic:505724”]

Off the top of my head:

[li]You could think there is something unacceptable about homosexuality that is not related to morality.[/li][/quote]

Sophistry and nothing more.

[quote]
[li]You could oppose the practice of same-sex marriage without casting judgment on anyone who does it. (In the same way you can be against excessive bonuses on Wall Street without casting judgment on those who get them. Or oppose legalized gambling without casting judgment on the gamblers themselves.)[/li][/quote]

Baloney. If you oppose Wall Street bonuses, it’s because you think there’s something wrong with them; you have the judgment that it is a bad idea. If you oppose same-sex marriage, it’s because you think there’s something wrong with that, and the only logical reason involves morality.

[li]You could be a politician who just does what you think will further your career, leaving your personal opinions aside.[/li][/LIST]

Ok, I can modify my statement to say, “any sincerely-held opposition to same-sex marriage necessarily includes the judgment that homosexuality is morally unacceptable.”

You left off Bricker’s reason, which is out of dumbassery, which I will accept as a triviality.

[kidchameleon]

@Knorf

Ok, I can modify my statement to say, “any sincerely-held opposition to same-sex marriage necessarily includes the judgment that homosexuality is morally unacceptable.”

You could, as some of my friends do, feel that marriage is purely about breeding children.

[Ludovic]

@Knorf

Baloney. If you oppose Wall Street bonuses, it’s because you think there’s something wrong with them; you have the judgment that it is a bad idea. If you oppose same-sex marriage, it’s because you think there’s something wrong with that, and the only logical reason involves morality.

Speaking of bonuses: you could oppose SSM because you think it would cost the taxpayers too much money.

[42fish]

@kidchameleon

You could, as some of my friends do, feel that marriage is purely about breeding children.

Which, of course, is why we don’t let post-menopausal women get married.

[muttrox]

Can’t get the nested quotes right…

@Knorf

Sophistry and nothing more.

How so? Be sure that you are factual. You are the one who made the claim that there is absolutely no way to oppose gay marriage without judging the morality of homosexuality.

@Knorf

Baloney. If you oppose Wall Street bonuses, it’s because you think there’s something wrong with them; you have the judgment that it is a bad idea. If you oppose same-sex marriage, it’s because you think there’s something wrong with that, and the only logical reason involves morality.

Congratulations on completely missing the point. See the last paragraph of this post.

@Knorf

Ok, I can modify my statement to say, “any sincerely-held opposition to same
-sex marriage necessarily includes the judgment that homosexuality is morally unacceptable.”

That’s better, although still incorrect. It would also not be relevant to the Sarah Palin quote. Which is:

Palin lied when she told Charlie Gibson that she does not pass judgment on gay people; in fact, she opposes all rights between gay spouses and belongs to a church that promotes conversion therapy.

Note the difference between judging a **policy **and a person. They are different things.

[Frylock]

Who tells the most brazen lies? And gets a pass?

Shaft!

[BlinkingDuck]

@Diogenes_the_Cynic

What is your evidence that Hillary’s statement was not true? Do you have some evdience that either Bill Clinton did not have an ability to counsel young women, or that Hillary did not believe that he did?

If someone can counsel young women…then can also counsel young men. If they do not or cannot…the only difference between the two is gender. Therefore, I do not see any logical flaw in being very skeptical of this claim…and that the ‘counseling’ young women is actually sexually motivated in nature.

It could be true…that Clinton was somehow much better with younger women than men. However, there is a substantial probability that it was sexually motivated.

[Knorf]

@Ludovic

Speaking of bonuses: you could oppose SSM because you think it would cost the taxpayers too much money.

Then you should logically oppose all marriage for the same reason. There’s no logic to denying same-sex partners the same benefits unless you make the judgment that homosexuality is morally unacceptable. Anything else is either sophistry or people being idiots. I acknowledge that both exist, but to me it hardly seems worth mentioning, and doesn’t derail my main point.

[muttrox]

@Knorf

Anything else is either sophistry or people being idiots. I acknowledge that both exist, but to me it hardly seems worth mentioning, and doesn’t derail my main point.

Your main point seems to be judging everyone else’s reasoning to fit your own preconceptions. You don’t seem to understand the difference between objective and subjective viewpoints.

[Knorf]

@muttrox

Note the difference between judging a **policy **and a person. They are different things.

Sure, I suppose you could buy into the right-wing nonsense that right-wingers “hate the sin, not the sinner.” Judgment of individuals is still involved, however, despite that mendacious rhetoric. People who judge an action invariably judge the people who engage in said action.

Frankly, I think it’s still involved on an individual basis with regard to executive bonuses, because basically people oppose them because it’s greedy. Anyone who would accept such bonuses is therefore also greedy. “Those greedy bastards.” Judgment of individuals follows hand-in-hand with judgment of “policy.”

You can try to dance around the point with silly trivial entanglements, but the basic fact is that people who oppose same-sex marriage do so because they judge it to be morally wrong. Sure, there is also the possibility of illogical dumbassery from some, but that does not invalidate the point.

If you judge an act to be morally wrong, than the people who commit that act are also morally wrong.

[Knorf]

@muttrox

Your main point seems to be judging everyone else’s reasoning to fit your own preconceptions. You don’t seem to understand the difference between objective and subjective viewpoints.

Nice non-argument, complete with an ad hominem. Congrats on your failure to debate.

[muttrox]

@Knorf

Sure, I suppose you could buy into the right-wing nonsense that right-wingers “hate the sin, not the sinner.” Judgment of individuals is still involved, however, despite that mendacious rhetoric. People who judge an action invariably judge the people who engage in said action.

Simply untrue. I oppose state-supported legalized gambling, but I am a gambler myself and certainly don’t judge myself badly. Would you like a couple left-wing ones for balance? I think the state has some moral calling to promote good health in it’s citizens, but I think caloric labeling in restaurants is a bad idea. I don’t think that the legislators who passed it are bad people, just mistaken. I think the Iraq War was an incredible mistake in many ways including some moral ones. Some of the supporters were immoral, but there were many who were not, and I don’t always presume to know which is which. I’m sure if you think about it, you can come up with a few examples in your own life.

@Knorf

Frankly, I think it’s still involved on an individual basis with regard to executive bonuses, because basically people oppose them because it’s greedy. Anyone who would accept such bonuses is therefore also greedy. “Those greedy bastards.” Judgment of individuals follows hand-in-hand with judgment of “policy.”

It follows to for you. It doesn’t for me. You have jumped into assuming that anyone who opposes them opposes them on moral grounds, that there is no other possible reason to oppose them. That’s simply nonsense.

You may think it’s “right-wing nonsense” or “silly trivial entanglements”, but that is your own opinion. It’s not an argument, it’s just contradiction.

@Knorf

,the basic fact is that people who oppose same-sex marriage do so because they judge it to be morally wrong. Sure, there is also the possibility of illogical dumbassery from some, but that does not invalidate the point. If you judge an act to be morally wrong, than the people who commit that act are also morally wrong.

You made a nice jump there. We started discussing about those who oppose gay marriage (Sarah Palin specifically). Now you’re talking about people who think it’s morally wrong. You’re assuming you’re own conclusion. How about I make this explicit?

• It is possible to oppose a policy/act/viewpoint that has moral components, but for reasons unrelated to those components.
• It is possible to believe a policy/act/viewpoint is immoral, but not believe that everyone who follows that policy/act/viewpoint is immoral.

@Knorf

Nice non-argument, complete with an ad hominem. Congrats on your failure to debate.

Okay, let me say it better. Bricker and myself have proposed a few theories why someone could oppose gay marriage without morally judging homosexuals. I haven’t followed the previous threads, but I’d wager there’s a few more good theories in them also. I have given multiple examples from my own life that speak to the inconsistencies in your stance. In each case, you have not engaged in debate, you have simply asserted them away. You have used your own preconceptions about the examples *really *mean to see through them, you have branded them as right-wing nonsense, you have refused to see even a possibility that anyone could ever have any beliefs that don’t fit with your worldview. You haven’t given any cogent reasoning. That is why I wrote an ad hominem post, because you aren’t giving any other hominems their due. Apparently Knorpf gets to decide the motivations and reasoning of every single person who opposes who gay-marriage. That’s what I meant by subjective - you take your own opinions (example: “basically people oppose them because it’s greedy”) and present them as fact. They aren’t.