Archives for posts with tag: Lies

A picture being worth a thousand words (or at least 47% of them), here is a sign from outside of a Romney event:

Image

The man STILL does not understand the difference between the private and public sectors. You can’t trust someone who doesn’t trust you (or his own idiot mouth).

Mr B & C

Disclaimer: not all individual Republicans are being bitch-slapped herein. Mr. Blunt and Cranky was raised as an Eisenhower Republican (which makes him a Radical Centrist these days, the Modern Repubs having nothing to do with the traditions, values, or conduct of the party), so be it understood that it is the Party and its leadership that are being called out. Got it? Great.

It has become increasingly clear that the Republican Party has lost all contact with facts  (AKA “truth”). They lie, rinse, and repeat. When called out on their lies, they mock the facts and those who check them. Not that the phenomenon is new, but the degree is:

Apologies for the ad, but worth the wait – Peter King said “I don’t care about fact-checkers”: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7BBZ0xFp6Ws&feature=related

Here’s another top Repub pooh-poohing facts – Neil Newhouse said “We’re not going to let our campaign be dictated by fact-checkers,” http://www.tennessean.com/article/20120905/COLUMNIST0150/309050062/Fact-checking-beneath-Romney-campaign

More examples, of course exist; a depressingly large number (this writer took all of ten minutes to find, read/listen, then post these two examples, so imagine how many you could find if you actually tried) of occasions on which top Republicans straight-out say that they don’t care what the truth is.

The modern Republican party has decided that lying is a good thing. They have embraced dishonesty. They proudly spew their lies and act as though they are right in so doing. While your humble correspondent misses his departed parents, he is at least pleased that they aren’t here to see the slimy, filthy, prevaricating, cheating, thieving f***ing Falsehood Factory that their beloved party has become.

Gentle readers, ask yourself these two questions:

[1] If your five-year-old child  tried treating you like the Republicans treat you, would you reward them for lying?

[2] How can you trust an organization that straight-out says that they have lied to you, are lying to you, and will continue to lie to you?

Ask yourselves these questions. And if you still vote for the Republican Party (v.2012), then you are saying that you like liars, and trust them to control your life.

Mr.  B & C

As Mister Blunt and Cranky kvetched yesterday, lying in politics has hit a new high (or low) with the current GOP ticket: these two a**holes have even less respect for the truth than did Nixon, ferchrissakes.  So he thought it would be good to explain three often-used lying techniques so that you can more easily filter through the B.S.

Newspeak: The term is from George Orwell, but the tool is one that post-Ford Repubs (especially the Rovians and Atwaters) have honed to a fine edge and used with ever-increasing frequency and effectiveness of late.  It involves taking existing words and making them mean (or generate an emotion) that is contrary to the original meaning and intent; or, making new words up completely. Examples:

  • Instead of “Democratic Party”, say “Democrat Party”, emphasizing the syllable “Rat” to add a negative association to a formerly neutral word.
  • Take a market-based private-sector health-care system and call it “Socialist”, thus misrepresenting the nature and essence of the program.
  • Add an adjective to a noun and do so consistently: e.g. “Failed Stimulus”, whether the adjective fits or not.

Loud and Often: State a lie as if it were the truth, and do so consistently, at high volume (shout other speakers down if they try to state an alternative case) and as frequently as possible. Examples:

  • Once again, “Failed Stimulus” – that is a lie, but because this phrase has been used so much and so loudly, people are starting to believe  the lie.
  • The “Obama Deficit” – It is actually a combined Bush/Obama deficit, but because this phrase has been used so much and so loudly, people are starting to believe the lie.
  • “Failure” – In fact, Obama, like all Prexies, has a mixed record, but you’d never know it from the lie-driven media coverage.

Selectivity: State a partial truth, or an individual fact that is true. Leave out context or additional facts that would expose the liar as, well, lying. Examples:

  • “You didn’t build that” – removed from a poorly-constructed sentence and used to convey a message that is      absolutely opposite of what the full statement meant.
  • “Bain Capital Created 100,000 jobs” –  Fails to mention the tens of thousands of other jobs that were cut, or sent overseas; the companies that went bankrupt; or the fact that many of the jobs were at minimum wage or below, and part-time at that.
  • “I worked three jobs to go to college” – Paul Ryan had a paper route, mowed lawns, and shoveled snow, like lots of kids: most of us would not call that “working three jobs”. In fact, he was a child of wealth and never knew want or financial uncertainty. He was sufficiently affluent that he could bank the Social Security Benefits he received as a teenager and use them to pay for much of his college education.

The Crankster is not saying that Dems, Whigs, Tories, Commies, and other parties do not use the same techniques: of course they do. But, as opposed to the occasional fib or whopper that most politicos employ when they see an opportunity or advantage, the modern Republican party is unique in that it has made lying a central part of its communication strategy.

Later this week  –  a few examples of just how deep the layers of bulls*** have become.

Mr. B & C

Wednesday evening, Paulie Ryan had to give a speech at the Republican Wingnut Fest National Convention. Not a long speech, only 40 minutes, but plenty of time to talk some talking points, talk some smack, talk some advertising talk. And plenty of good, solid, factually accurate (plus, Repub-favorable) material available. So why did he choose to lie instead?

Infotainment outlets from the Right (Fox) to the Left (Huffpo) and everywhere in between had a hootenanny fact-checking his speech, so Mr. Blunt and Cranky shan’t re-invent that wheel for you. All y’all know how to use search engines, after all. The short version: Ryan lied like a cheap, moldy old rug, and just about everyone knows he did it.

And the hell of it is, he didn’t have to. He has a long record of government service (he’s done almost nothing else, after all), Obama has some baggage that could be brought up, and Mitt has serious business successes to brag about.  So Ryan could have delivered a rousing oration that brought the crowd to its feet, without lying once. So why did he lie?

Your humble blogger has to admit, he is stumped this time. The motivations behind the bald-faced and repeated lies of the GOP Presidential ticket of late escape him. Even after fact-checkers point out that the lies are lies, these two keep on telling the same lies.  (The behavior of most down-ticket liars is more traditional, opting for “I mis-spoke” or a variant thereof, unlike the ticket-toppers who just keep on lying the same lies ad nauseum.)

One thing to note: hardcore Repubs and those who hate Obama do not care about the lies or the liars – they will vote for Romney/Ryan no matter what. But even that does not explain the complete and utter lack of shame for the lies, or the lack of respect for facts on display by the Bull Elephants of late.

There are some theories floating about the ether, purporting to explain the lies of the Ryan/Romney Campaign: we’ll dig into them tomorrow.

Mr. B & C

People often tag politicians with labels that may or may not fit.  Sometimes they are exaggerations, sometimes they are accurate, and sometimes they leave one scratching one’s head.  Following are three definitions, and two Prexies to whom one or more of the labels have been applied:

Nazi:  shorthand for “National Socialist German Worker’s Party”; believed in the inferiority of Jews, Gyspys, Blacks, and pretty much anybody who wasn’t  a lily-white Aryan; also that when in doubt, ask yourself “What Would Adolph Do?”

Communist: member or supporter of the Communist Party; believes in a theory or system of social organization based on the holding of all property in common, actual ownership being ascribed to the community as a whole or to the state.

Socialist: An advocate or believer in socialism; a theory or system of social organization that advocates the vesting of the ownership and control of the means of production and distribution, of capital, land, etc., in the community as a whole.

A whole helluva lot of people used to call Gee Dubya Bush a Nazi. Pretty clearly, he was not (yes, yes, we all know about the family history. Mr. Blunt and Cranky’s paternal grandfather used to run factories that made tanks in WWII, but he can neither build nor drive a tank himself.  Not everything gets handed down via DNA, ya know.), but people said it anyway, even though it was and is patently obvious that he is not a Nazi.

Quite a few people call Barack Obama one or all of the three. Pretty clearly, he is not.  If he were a Nazi, he would have to consider himself at least half-inferior. If he were either a commie or a socialist, he wouldn’t have kept the piles of money he has made over the years. Nonetheless, people say it anyway, even though it was and is patently obvious that he is none of these three things.

Disliking politicians is a venerated and longstanding practice, and this writer likes to think he does it well. He also likes to think he picks labels that actually make a wee bit of sense, and that match up with the actual meanings of the labels. But then, Mr. B & C rarely watches network “news” programs and never listens to the pundits on talk radio, so he has an advantage in that he gets less propaganda and fewer lies crammed into his skull on a daily basis.

Plus, he reads a friggin’ dictionary when he wants to know the meaning of a word.

Next time: What do they mean when they say “never”?