New Republican Lies

**Jimaz** · August-31-12, 12:00 PM

I have an uneasy feeling that the Republicans are trying to throw the fight. Why else would they deliberately alienate so many different groups? Hell, they're trying to alienate even the voters themselves with all their suppression attempts!

I can imagine one motivation explaining why they would want to lose the election but it's too crazy [[in a conspiracy theorist sense) to mention even here. I'll just note that there has been a surprising amount of unprecedented political maneuvering lately. That doesn't sound very "conservative" [[in the literal sense) to me.

**firstandten** · August-31-12, 12:18 PM

Originally Posted by Jimaz

I have an uneasy feeling that the Republicans are trying to throw the fight. Why else would they deliberately alienate so many different groups? Hell, they're trying to alienate even the voters themselves with all their suppression attempts!

I can imagine one motivation explaining why they would want to lose the election but it's too crazy [[in a conspiracy theorist sense) to mention even here. I'll just note that there has been a surprising amount of unprecedented political maneuvering lately. That doesn't sound very "conservative" [[in the literal sense) to me.

Repubs know that under the best of circumstances it is very difficult to beat an incumbent and that goes for election to any office by either party. My bet is that there preparing for 2016 when the office is again open and they are hoping that the people will have enough of 8 yrs of Dems in the WH. At that point they will run someone they really like and not a compromise candidate like Romney.

**old guy** · August-31-12, 02:20 PM

There just doesn't seem to be any single message coming from the Republican party and the pairing of the Mitten and Eddie Munster puts an exclamation point on that fact. I admit that the Democrats message is somewhat vague but I have no idea what the Republicans are shooting for. It is becoming more obvious that they do enjoy wars though.

**rb336** · August-31-12, 03:58 PM

add to wars starving children, broke seniors paying $6k more for what they are getting from medicare, destroying our environment to pump more money into Big Oil's pockets, and you're on the right track

**Pam** · August-31-12, 05:48 PM

Originally Posted by rb336

add to wars starving children, broke seniors paying $6k more for what they are getting from medicare, destroying our environment to pump more money into Big Oil's pockets, and you're on the right track

And rolling back women's rights and cutting taxes on the rich.

**Jimaz** · August-31-12, 09:33 PM

Regarding Republicans, theoretically, deliberately trying to lose the election:

Could it be an attempted coup d'état? Winning office by force despite deliberately losing an election — to enhance the shock-and-awe factor of the victory over democracy that much more? Remember, they regard hubris as a display of strength.

Three Georgia Soldiers Face Death Penalty in Killings

Prosecutors say the militia group comprised an unknown number of active and former members of the military. The group contemplated several attacks, including poisoning the apple crop in Washington State, attacking a dam and assassinating President Obama. The group spent at least $87,000 buying guns and bomb components.

Granted $87k is chump change at a national level but why bother to win an election if you're betting on the success of one of multiple operations like that. Consider the history of Nixon's Plumbers & Oliver North, et. al.

Conspiracy theory atcha! LOL! There. I said it.

**rb336** · August-31-12, 10:36 PM

my favorite part of the hubris definition?

" Hubris often indicates a loss of contact with reality "

**Jimaz** · September-04-12, 05:57 PM

A Romney Lying Robocall

**rb336** · September-09-12, 07:12 PM

Rand Paul gets schooled by Paul Krugman

**oladub** · September-09-12, 11:41 PM

rb, I missed the part where Krugman schooled Rand Paul. The video starts with Making excuses for Obama. He just didn't spend enough money when he had a Democratic congress or something. Then Roberts cuts him off. Finally, Rand Paul mentions the size of government under Obama. Krugman starts imagining instead how much bigger it would have been if it had grown at the rate it did under Bush. The strategy is still to blame Bush or imagine Bush doing something if he were still President. Rand tries to get Krugman back to the here an now. Video ends. We probably will never know what happened after that because the right wing Associated Press won't report it.

**Jimaz** · May-31-13, 01:35 PM

Can democracy survive Republican lies?

**oladub** · June-01-13, 10:05 AM

Originally Posted by Jimaz

Can democracy survive Republican lies?

Tom Hartman wasn't having one of his better days. The Tampa fact checker was presented with 100 pre-selected statements. I'm faulting the methodology not the fact checker. If I could hand the fact checkers 100 Obama statements of my choice, fact checkers might reach the conclusion of my choice.

Next, Hartman claims that Paul Ryan lied about death panels and proceeds to show a clip of Ryan correcting a questioner and claiming, without proving, that Ryan claimed there were death panels. Then on to someone who said that open carry laws reduce the level of violence. Hartmans's proof was that it was "pretty much impossible" to prove. Hartman then quotes Lindsey Graham as claiming that Social Security was going bankrupt. Hartman assures us that these social programs are "not going bankrupt". How much more proof can we ask for than having Tom Hartman tell us so and claiming that everyone who disagrees with him is a liar?

What was this Hartman post supposed to be; a smokescreen? While we have IRS people making 167 visits to the White House, Holder lying, Lerner taking the Fifth, the fist of government punishing and intimidating political opponents, the IRS leaking Romney's information. People involved in possibly distorting the results of the last election and the rest of these crimes should go to jail. Meanwhile Tom Hartman seems to be obfuscating.

**rb336** · June-01-13, 12:48 PM

Originally Posted by oladub

Next, Hartman claims that Paul Ryan lied about death panels and proceeds to show a clip of Ryan correcting a questioner and claiming, without proving, that Ryan claimed there were death panels.

The questioner asked about death panels, and Ryan said "THose aren't the words I'd use..but it's the Independent Payment Advisory Board" Translating to plain English he said, well i don't call it that, but the death panel is the IPAB. He didn't say the IPAB was a "death panel" or that "death panels" are a fiction, which is the truth. He said they ARE something, which is a plain old fashioned lie.

Then on to someone who said that open carry laws reduce the level of violence. Hartmans's proof was that it was "pretty much impossible" to prove.

That wasn't "Hartman's proof," it was Hartman's rebuttal. Then again, you have shown time and time again that rules of evidence are not your strong suit. It is up to the person who claims something exists, in this case a reduction in violence due to open carry laws, to prove it.

Hartman then quotes Lindsey Graham as claiming that Social Security was going bankrupt. Hartman assures us that these social programs are "not going bankrupt". How much more proof can we ask for than having Tom Hartman tell us so and claiming that everyone who disagrees with him is a liar?

Guess what? Social Security is perfectly solvent until at least 2033. Graham is a liar

The rest of your nonsense is just what we expect from you - utter bullshit taken from your newsmax newsletter that has absolutely no basis in fact

**oladub** · June-01-13, 02:03 PM

rb wrote, "The questioner asked about death panels, and Ryan said "THose aren't the words I'd use..but it's the Independent Payment Advisory Board" Translating to plain English he said, well i don't call it that, but the death panel is the IPAB. He didn't say the IPAB was a "death panel" or that "death panels" are a fiction, which is the truth. He said they ARE something, which is a plain old fashioned lie."

Go back to your previous sentence; "Those aren't the words I'd use". Ryan distanced himself from the term "death panels" which is what Hartman suggested Ryan said. I must have missed the part where Ryan said that he defined the IPAD as a death panel. Either Ryan said that on or off tape or Hartman is the liar.

That wasn't "Hartman's proof," it was Hartman's rebuttal. Then again, you have shown time and time again that rules of evidence are not your strong suit. It is up to the person who claims something exists, in this case a reduction in violence due to open carry laws, to prove it.

Hartman made the claim. Hartman has the obligation to defend his statement with something a little more meaty than substituting that it was pretty much impossible to prove for statistics showing that it is. You are confusing beliefs for statistics.

Guess what? Social Security is perfectly solvent until at least 2033. Graham is a liar

The rest of your nonsense is just what we expect from you - utter bullshit taken from your newsmax newsletter that has absolutely no basis in fact.

Your evidence of a Newsmax news letter is about as good as Hartman's beliefs substituted as facts except his mother taught him better language. 2013 is only 20 years from now and payouts were greater than income in 2010. Again, it is Hartman who is the liar. If it is unable to pay its bills in 20 years, it is going broke as as Graham claimed. Something has to be done. However, I don't think that Hartman was speaking about just Social Security. Optimistically, Medicare is not scheduled to go bankrupt for 18 years. Should we just do nothing and deal with the mess when it hits us in 10-20 years?