• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

of course, it is possible beck is lying:


Politfact eh?

Glenn says this: "Van Jones "is an avowed, self-avowed radical revolutionary communist." To which Politifact says - "Was" not "is".. :)

Sites like these bury themselves in semantics, and what I call "retreat statements".

As far as Holdren goes, I guess it depends on exactly how one might interpret what "they" said. Why would Holdren and Co. even bring up the narrative if, as Politfact claims, the whole idea is reprehensible? If it's reprehensible to the society, perhaps not so to the authors? The logic flows.. People don't bring up ideas they oppose, generally speaking.

Tim-
 
Politfact eh?

Glenn says this: "Van Jones "is an avowed, self-avowed radical revolutionary communist." To which Politifact says - "Was" not "is".. :)

Sites like these bury themselves in semantics, and what I call "retreat statements".

As far as Holdren goes, I guess it depends on exactly how one might interpret what "they" said. Why would Holdren and Co. even bring up the narrative if, as Politfact claims, the whole idea is reprehensible? If it's reprehensible to the society, perhaps not so to the authors? The logic flows.. People don't bring up ideas they oppose, generally speaking.

Tim-

Nonsense. Part of being truthful is being accurate. There is a REAL difference between was and is. Nearly all deception begins witha little truth taken to an extreme. What amazes me most about Beck is how far he stretches little things and how willingly his followers suspend disbelief to accept his nonsense.
 
Politfact eh?

Glenn says this: "Van Jones "is an avowed, self-avowed radical revolutionary communist." To which Politifact says - "Was" not "is".. :)

Sites like these bury themselves in semantics, and what I call "retreat statements".

As far as Holdren goes, I guess it depends on exactly how one might interpret what "they" said. Why would Holdren and Co. even bring up the narrative if, as Politfact claims, the whole idea is reprehensible? If it's reprehensible to the society, perhaps not so to the authors? The logic flows.. People don't bring up ideas they oppose, generally speaking.

Tim-

um...did you happen to read all of it? i guess not.
 
Wow, thats a great site. They look at political statements from all over the place. Thanks for the link.

no problem. they do look at statements from everywhere.
 

But who facts-checks the fact-checkers?

And can they recognize a joke when they see one?

"In the health care bill, we're now offering insurance for dogs."
Obviously - without the context - this is nothing but a joke . . . but they rated it "pants on fire"

Seriously?

But, yeah - I think he's making it up. He's such a drama queen. I'll believe ti when he goes blind.
Then I'll write him a card and appologize.
 
Oh God help us all, not another beck thread. :beatdeadhorse
 
But, yeah - I think he's making it up. He's such a drama queen. I'll believe ti when he goes blind.
Then I'll write him a card and appologize.

he's not, this is another example of Politifacts' unsurprising bias (would you trust a factcheck organization run by Sean Hannity?). What Holdren wrote was that forced abortions and sterilants in the water, along with other coercive population control measures, would be necessary to avoid worse results.

politifact says that's not 'advocacy' :shrug:
 
he's not, this is another example of Politifacts' unsurprising bias (would you trust a factcheck organization run by Sean Hannity?). What Holdren wrote was that forced abortions and sterilants in the water, along with other coercive population control measures, would be necessary to avoid worse results.

politifact says that's not 'advocacy' :shrug:

LOL.

It wouold be nice to learn to read without your own bias poluting meaning. ;)
 
Nonsense. Part of being truthful is being accurate. There is a REAL difference between was and is. Nearly all deception begins witha little truth taken to an extreme. What amazes me most about Beck is how far he stretches little things and how willingly his followers suspend disbelief to accept his nonsense.
Maybe beck believes that the "was" is a lie and he is still a communist in disguise.
 
Your priorities are straight. You can call out someone who has no impact on the lives of individuals in America, but Obama gets a free pass. Remind us again when the worst economy since the great depression took place.

i love it when people assume they know me without knowing anything about me. you must be a beck fan.
 
Maybe beck believes that the "was" is a lie and he is still a communist in disguise.

Maybe. But a truthful effort would be to frame it that way. Otherwise, it is deceptive. Remeber, the best lies start with a little truth. But they are still lies.
 
The fact that so many liberals are obsessed with Beck screams volumes more than any of the "articles" they pose.

I think it's jealousy because nobody gives a damn about Matthews or Olbermann, as they're insignificant little insects in the political media scene.
 
The fact that so many liberals are obsessed with Beck screams volumes more than any of the "articles" they pose.

I think it's jealousy because nobody gives a damn about Matthews or Olbermann, as they're insignificant little insects in the political media scene.

I'm not claiming Oberman or Matthews matter. I don't defend them. So, hard to argue much. Conservatives seem to want to defend Beck, which leads t more discussion. So, why does your side defend Beck when my side rarely defends our political entertainers? I think that is what speaks volumes. ;)
 
Maybe. But a truthful effort would be to frame it that way. Otherwise, it is deceptive. Remeber, the best lies start with a little truth. But they are still lies.
I just think that in today's society people are way to eager to call someone racist or a liar for their views when really they might just have different views, however wrong, that they sincerely believe for perfectly good reasons.
 
I just think that in today's society people are way to eager to call someone racist or a liar for their views when really they might just have different views, however wrong, that they sincerely believe for perfectly good reasons.

I think when a person lies, he's a liar. I don't think it's more complicated than that. Much what is disputed with Beck can't be classified as a different view. He actually makes factual errors than can only be made dilberately.
 
Nonsense. Part of being truthful is being accurate. There is a REAL difference between was and is.

Ya except he WAS a radical until he got called out on it and it jeopordized his future in politics. He was a 9-11 truther until it was found out that he was a 9-11 truther when it became politically advantageous not to become a 9-11 truther any longer.
 
Back
Top Bottom