Lies, they’re all lies

Register
Jul 9, 2014
Beep! Beep!

Do you ever get the feeling that if ACME, manufacturers of exploding bird seed, jet-propelled tennis shoes, magnetic anvils and the portable hole came up with the perfect lie detector that our elected Roadrunners in Washington would counter it with the EMCA lie deflector?

Peeb! Peeb!

Last Sunday “Meet the Press” became “Beat the Press” when Congressman Raul Labrador, of Idaho, suggested to the show’s host, David Gregory, that during an earlier segment, Jeh Johnson, the Secretary of Homeland Security, might have uttered a falsehood or two.

That’s right — Congressman Labrador was so convinced Homeland Secretary Johnson bent the truth he believed the show should change its famous opening when he stated:

“I kept thinking during the Johnson interview that you need to change your slogan at the beginning of your show. Instead of, ‘If it’s Sunday, it’s Meet the Press’ it should be ‘If it’s Sunday, it’s another administration official making stuff up on Meet the Press’”

Once again, the American public becomes Wile E. Coyote as the anvil lands on our head while we fall through the portable hole realizing there is no ACME lie detector to help us determine who is fibbing.

The elected congressman?

Or ...

The presidential appointed cabinet member?

…. In order to make it appear their interpretative version of the USA’s immigration system is the legitimate truth.

Fortunately, before we crash to the ground and avoid getting run over by an ACME delivery truck, our information parachute opens and we land in the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services website and read for ourselves the statutes governing immigration law in the Immigration Nationality Act.

Déjà vu, all over again, Part I — Last week, while quoting President Obama, I mentioned he made those comments while at a fundraiser for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee in Minneapolis. Well after a brief Independence Day vacation our Campaignerin-Chief is at it again.

This morning he is scheduled to be in Denver for a fundraiser, then off to Dallas for his evening fundraiser followed by attending two more scheduled fundraisers in Austin tomorrow as the president adds not only to the total of money raised for the Democratic Party but also adds to the record number of fundraisers attended by a president at this stage of their presidency.

Déjà vu, all over again, Part II — As I wrote when President Bush II was practicing the same practice as President Obama is now, I have no problem with him messing around on the campaign trail because it means he’s not messing around in Washington.

What I have a problem with is, as an elected campaigner, the president is on the taxpayers’ clock and getting paid by the taxpayers. There needs to be legislation passed that the president does not get paid by taxpayers while campaigning for anyone but themselves.

However. (Yes, there’s always a however.)

However, in the interest of National Security, taxpayers will still have to pay the campaign road bill for the ACME staff, the ACME Secret Service and the ACME jet-propelled Air Force One.

The trouble when elected and appointed officials tell tales of the non-truth is a certain amount of people believe the words they’ve heard and tend to defend the chosen words even after the words have been proven falsehoods.

Such as the proven — I did not have sexual relations with those weapons of mass destruction because if you like your health care plan, you’ll be able to keep your health care plan, period.

I seriously believe when lies are told to the citizens of the United States it is indeed a form of treason because it misguides Americans’ need to know the truth by taking them away from the truth.

In order to reduce the amount of lying by our elected and appointed officials, Congress needs to appoint a committee of fact finders experienced in researching the facts, and determine if questionable statements made by elected or appointed officials are true or false.

Then give them, the human lie detectors, the authority to level the appropriate fines on those they find guilty of the treasonable offense of lying as a representative of the U.S. government, which would include hefty monetary penalties, banishment from government and government-related jobs and/or prison time. Of course just like Wile E. Coyote, Super Genius, just when I dare to believe I have it all figured out, here comes that ACME steamroller. Beep! Beep!

Comments

Contango

Re: "Congressman Labrador" & "David Gregory":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S...

Contango

To the poverty stricken of the world:

Moms & Dads: Pack up your children and send 'em to the U.S. where they will be clothed, housed, fed and educated!

Coyotes are standing by to help you!

The trickle will become a flood. There's plenty of money to be made for everyone.

The Big Dog's back

Why aren't the states taking care of the border situation? States like Texas and Rick Perry, Arizona and Jan Brewer, New Mexico and Susana Martinez. What's up with these Repubs not enforcing the law?

grumpy

"Why aren't the states taking care of the border situation?"

It is that pesky Constitution thing. The federal gov't is in control of the nations borders. The laws you are refering to to are federal laws. Much like Colorado and Washington can't bust folks for pot, even though it is against FEDERAL law, the states can't enforce FEDERAL law on borders. Same as the FBI doen't enforce jaywalking or traffic enforcement. They teach those things even in public school...

The Big Dog's back
grumpy

First two paragraphs of your linked article.

"A day after state leaders announced a directive to the Texas Department of Public Safety to increase its efforts along the border with Mexico, the DPS discussed its new mission, saying it would not include enforcing immigration laws, as it lacks that authority.

During the current operation, the DPS will instead partner with local and federal authorities on a round-the-clock basis to “deter and disrupt drug and human trafficking, and other border-related crimes.”

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

The current, quoting piddle puppy, "border situation" is NOT drug and human trafficking and other border related crimes.
it is enforcing immigration laws, which as was said in the first paragraph of YOUR linked article says they can NOT enforce.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

Try reading and comprehending your own linked articles before showing your lack of understanding of what they say. Have a 5th grader explain to you what is actually written, as often it seems not to be what you think it really says.

The Big Dog's back

Just for once admit your wrong.

grumpy

To make my statement wrong and yours correct it would require you to prove that the kids from Central America are drug or human traffickers. We are all waiting for that proof. Try getting that 5th grader to explain why you are wrong... again. Remember reading is fundamental, but comprehending what is written is also important. Just because states have law enforcement on the borders doesn't mean they can enforce immigration, they CAN'T. That is a federal enforcement responsibility. States are not allowed, as shown by my quote from YOUR linked article. I suggest you read, or have that 5th grader explain about it again

EDIT:

"your" .....the correct contraction is you're. Again consult that 5th grader.

Contango

Re: "your (sic) wrong."

Nothin' quite like attempting to argue rationally with a moronic illiterate like porky.

grumpy

It really gets sad when the article he links to prove he is wrong, in a direct statement no less. This is what living with blinders on gets you.

Contango

Re: "The Texas Tribune"

You believe a TX report? The Messiah is disappointed in you Obama boy.

The Big Dog's back

deuce pooh/grump, one in the same. Wrong, again. Wrong, still.

Contango

Re: "one in the same. Wrong, again. Wrong, still."

Per usual - you're nutz, porky.

Quoting a TX publication - shame on you.

Answer the question: So why does U.S. Customs and Border Protection exist?

Dr. Information

Contango, why even give this douche bag one second of your time. He's really dumb and it shows. IQ maybe pushing 50. Just ignore the idiotic comments.

If you give a kid attention, he will keep doing the same thing.

jazzbo

Missy Information , always name calling.

SamAdams

Arizona has repeatedly tried to do something about illegal immigration, and the FEDS have sued to overturn or otherwise prevent enforcement of laws duly passed by the state legislature there. The latest and greatest: Arizona doesn't want to issue driver's licenses to illegal aliens, but now a federal court has said that it must.

Although border security is a federal responsibility under the Constitution, I can't argue that states ought to pick up the slack when the government can't (or in this case, when the government WON'T) secure the borders and enforce the law. Illegal immigration does, after all, represent a clear threat whether it involves health issues, economic factors, or criminal matters and both the states and the federal government are supposed to protect their citizens.

Unfortunately, and no thanks to people like YOU who have repeatedly supported the Obama administration's woeful lack of enforcement concerning illegal immigration, the states keep getting overruled, the feds keep making excuses and proposing amnesty, and legal immigrants and lawful American citizens are the ones who suffer.

Awesome.

Contango

Re: "Why aren't the states taking care of the border situation?"

So why does U.S. Customs and Border Protection exist?

coasterfan

Speaking of lies, I read a fascinating article by Punditfact, a subsidiary of the non-partisan fact-checking organization Politifact. Their research showed that more than 1/2 the statements on Fox News are false:

FOX NEWS...True 8%, Mostly True 10%, Half True 22%, Mostly False 19%, False 31%, Pants on Fire 10%

It found less bias on MSNBC and much less bias on CNN:

MSNBC...True 9%, Mostly True 22%, Half True 23%, Mostly False 20%, False 22%, Pants on Fire 4%.

CNN...True 20%, Mostly True 40%, Half True 23%, Mostly False 5%, False 8%, Pants on Fire 5%

Democrats and Liberals won't be much surprised by the above. Conservatives will do what they usually do: disbelieve anything that doesn't back up their preconceived view, start the Obama blame game, and cry that it is a vast leftwing conspiracy.

The Big Dog's back

Once things are in a right wingnut's head it's hard to impossible to change with facts.

Donegan

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/20...
MSNBC is mostly opinion. All opinions are biased, so common sense tells us the most opinionated channel will be the most bias. Try some common sense some time.
The fact is American media is set up to support the government regardless of who is in office. You accept the admins propaganda in the face of lies just as those you despised accepted Bush's propaganda.

Contango

Re: "Punditfact"

Off-topic, per usual. However -

"The summaries come with a note of caution from PunditFact, in that the outlet uses its 'news judgment to pick the facts we’re going to check, so we certainly don’t fact-check everything.' Aaron Sharockman, editor of PunditFact,"

IOW: They 'cherry-picked' and this so-called "research" is riddled with fallacy and is wholly unscientific.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/bl...

Read books, magazines & newspapers and watch TV and then, "trust, but verify."

The Hero Zone's picture
The Hero Zone

One must also wonder why NBC and MSNBC were totaled together. While sister stations it seems a bit disingenuous to combine the two no matter which "way" it would influence the numbers.

The Big Dog's back

Deal with it hz.

Dr. Information

Obama has to be the biggest liar of all presidents......period.

Hey, but at least he's good at campaigning.

grumpy

The summaries come with a note of caution from PunditFact, in that the outlet uses its “news judgment to pick the facts we’re going to check, so we certainly don’t fact-check everything.” Aaron Sharockman, editor of PunditFact, tells the Erik Wemple Blog that his group is determined to “go around the block” to check on all the TV networks. That said, tips from the public supply up to 30 percent of the site’s stuff, he says. And most of those tips pertain to either the Sunday talk shows or Fox News and MSNBC. “You have a whole bunch of people watching Fox looking for falsehoods and you have a bunch of people watching MSNBC looking for falsehoods,” says Sharockman. Also, Fox News and MSNBC do a great deal of roundtable/political discussion segments, which tend to yield dumb and sometimes un-factual comments by pundits.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/bl...

------------------------------------------------------------------------

The comparisons are interesting, but be cautious about using them to draw broad conclusions. We use our news judgment to pick the facts we’re going to check, so we certainly don’t fact-check everything. And we don’t fact-check the five network groups evenly. CBS, for instance, doesn’t have a cable network equivalent, so we haven’t fact-checked pundits and CBS personalities as much.

http://www.politifact.com/pundit...

I guess some folks disregard the cautions that the authors of the articles make about drawing broad conclutions from the info. Especially when it doesn't agree with their world view. Or maybe some folks think such cautions don't apply to them..

jazzbo

I quess some folks don't like to hear the truth about Fox News.

grumpy

I guess some folks like to read the whole article and the cautions the authors say about their findings, while some folks like to cherry pick what they want. That is why some folks link to the articles, so folks can read the entire piece, and some folks cheery pick an article and leave out those things they wish weren't there. It is called propaganda. I guess some folks need to hide what they don't agree with. What do YOU think about blatant propaganda?

jazzbo

--What do you mean by :
" What do YOU think about blatant propaganda? "

Don't you mean blatant lying ?

Well , it must be alright , a zillion Right-wingers can't be wrong.

grumpy

"Don't you mean blatant lying ?"

No, propaganda and lying have different definitions. Check your dictionary.

jazzbo

Slim to none difference.

In the Righties world - its the same.

Pages