Supreme Court Upholds Republican Group's 'right To Lie'

[Politico]

Sounds like it was a dishonest ad, and if it was then shame on the person or group who tried to run it.

However having a law agains telling a lie then puts the government in charge of defining what is true and what is not....and that wouldn't work so well in the long run.

Same deal with Sent Reid's draft constitutional amendment.

That.

 

[Star]

Seeing what the Republican wing of the USMB has to say on this thread, it's no wonder that the Republican party is the only party that has asked the Supreme court to cover their asses for lying their asses off.
Can that be right, only Republicans find their message so unappealing to the American electorate that they're willing to go all the way to the Supreme Court multiple times to ensure their right to deceive the public?
.

I'm pretty sure you must have missed comment #2 because I didn't see your response to that comment. What is your response to that comment?

If you want to change subjects... change threads.
.

 

[Stephanie]

A federal judge has struck down Ohio's law forbidding lies in political campaigns, saying voters -- not the government -- should decide whether a campaign is telling the truth.


True, as government has no monopoly on what constitutes the truth.


And of course without the benefit of their Constitutional right to lie, republicans would be completely lost.

lets see, who was it that won LIE of the YEAR?
a Democrat I do believe and our own damn President

 

[Sallow]

So why isn't Obama impeached or in prison?

Well he didn't lie, number one.

 

[Stephanie]

So why isn't Obama impeached or in prison?

Well he didn't lie, number one.

well, you're one in that 30% who still approves of him who thinks that
carry on in the dream

 

[2aguy]

However having a law agains telling a lie then puts the government in charge of defining what is true and what is not....and that wouldn't work so well in the long run.

It would work perfectly for the democrats though...they government control...well...when they are in charge...

 

[Freewill]

From the "like DUH!" department:

Democrats more Tolerant of Liars than Republicans, New Study Shows.

A little bit of insightful information managed to find its way through the liberal filter of the mainstream news media. It came from a very unlikely source. That source was National Public Radio. Unfortunately N.P.R. is not usually noted for either its accuracy or impartiality in broadcasting the news, but today they actually told the truth for a change. They reported that Democrats are more willing to tolerate lies from politicians than Republicans are. That is what a new study shows. Now it's not just the subject of idle speculation anymore by conservatives and members of the Tea Party. It's actually a proven fact backed up by hard scientific data. Democrats actually prefer liars more than Republicans do. Well, well, well, isn't that interesting?

 

[Stephanie]

From the "like DUH!" department:

Democrats more Tolerant of Liars than Republicans, New Study Shows.

A little bit of insightful information managed to find its way through the liberal filter of the mainstream news media. It came from a very unlikely source. That source was National Public Radio. Unfortunately N.P.R. is not usually noted for either its accuracy or impartiality in broadcasting the news, but today they actually told the truth for a change. They reported that Democrats are more willing to tolerate lies from politicians than Republicans are. That is what a new study shows. Now it's not just the subject of idle speculation anymore by conservatives and members of the Tea Party. It's actually a proven fact backed up by hard scientific data. Democrats actually prefer liars more than Republicans do. Well, well, well, isn't that interesting?

that's going to burn. lol
good find

 

[Freewill]

From the "like DUH!" department:

Democrats more Tolerant of Liars than Republicans, New Study Shows.

A little bit of insightful information managed to find its way through the liberal filter of the mainstream news media. It came from a very unlikely source. That source was National Public Radio. Unfortunately N.P.R. is not usually noted for either its accuracy or impartiality in broadcasting the news, but today they actually told the truth for a change. They reported that Democrats are more willing to tolerate lies from politicians than Republicans are. That is what a new study shows. Now it's not just the subject of idle speculation anymore by conservatives and members of the Tea Party. It's actually a proven fact backed up by hard scientific data. Democrats actually prefer liars more than Republicans do. Well, well, well, isn't that interesting?

that's going to burn. lol
good find

Won't even dent them, they will just lie about it.

 

[Freewill]

So why isn't Obama impeached or in prison?

Well he didn't lie, number one.

Are you invoking the "he didn't lie, he is just damn stupid" defense?

 

[Star]

So why isn't Obama impeached or in prison?

Well he didn't lie, number one.

Republicans on the USMB seem to have conveniently missed the conundrum created by Politifact. Politifact chose their "lie of the year" then-----then debunked it themselves when it became clear that they should not have called it "lie of the year" but-----but the rightwing echo chamber that masquerades as our "news" media seems to have fallen silent about Politifact's debunking their own bunk.
So which is it, was Politifact to hasty in their attempt to needle Obama or-----or is Politifact wrong when they call the Republican use of the "lie of the year" "mostly false"?


6. Under Obamacare, people who "have a doctor they’ve been seeing for the last 15 or 20 years, they won’t be able to keep going to that doctor." Mostly False.

U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., July 31, 2013 in a Fox News interview
Some have suggested that Obamacare would interfere with doctor-patient relationships. Actually, there’s no more interference than what existed before Obamacare. Right now, patients can lose access to their doctors when their insurance policies change. This typically happens when employers switch plans or when workers switch (or lose) jobs. Under Obamacare, some patients who buy health insurance through the marketplace could lose access to their current doctor, but it’s difficult to predict how many. And it would be because they have a new insurance plan. We rated this claim Mostly False.

​

.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Seeing what the Republican wing of the USMB has to say on this thread, it's no wonder that the Republican party is the only party that has asked the Supreme court to cover their asses for lying their asses off.
Can that be right, only Republicans find their message so unappealing to the American electorate that they're willing to go all the way to the Supreme Court multiple times to ensure their right to deceive the public?
.

The decision did not come from the Supreme Court, and you repeating that lie makes you worse than the people you are complaining about.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

A federal judge has struck down Ohio's law forbidding lies in political campaigns, saying voters -- not the government -- should decide whether a campaign is telling the truth.


True, as government has no monopoly on what constitutes the truth.


And of course without the benefit of their Constitutional right to lie, republicans would be completely lost.

The partisan hack strikes again.

Funny think about this case, no one ever proved that they ad was a lie. In fact, I can easily show that the complaint about the ad was based on a lie. In other words, a Democrat lied to suppress a factual statement from someone who disagreed with him. But feel free to pretend that Republicans are the only ones that lie.

In Right To Lie Case SBA List Told Truth On Abortion Funding

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Sounds like it was a dishonest ad, and if it was then shame on the person or group who tried to run it.

However having a law agains telling a lie then puts the government in charge of defining what is true and what is not....and that wouldn't work so well in the long run.

Same deal with Sent Reid's draft constitutional amendment.

What, specifically, makes the ad dishonest? If you can't answer that, and back up your claims, all you are is a hack who believes everything that is put in front of them as long as it agrees with your bigoted view of the world.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

So why isn't Obama impeached or in prison?

Well he didn't lie, number one.

Which time?

 

[Rikurzhen]

So why isn't Obama impeached or in prison?

Well he didn't lie, number one.

Republicans on the USMB seem to have conveniently missed the conundrum created by Politifact. Politifact chose their "lie of the year" then-----then debunked it themselves when it became clear that they should not have called it "lie of the year" but-----but the rightwing echo chamber that masquerades as our "news" media seems to have fallen silent about Politifact's debunking their own bunk.
So which is it, was Politifact to hasty in their attempt to needle Obama or-----or is Politifact wrong when they call the Republican use of the "lie of the year" "mostly false"?


6. Under Obamacare, people who "have a doctor they’ve been seeing for the last 15 or 20 years, they won’t be able to keep going to that doctor." Mostly False.

U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., July 31, 2013 in a Fox News interview
Some have suggested that Obamacare would interfere with doctor-patient relationships. Actually, there’s no more interference than what existed before Obamacare. Right now, patients can lose access to their doctors when their insurance policies change. This typically happens when employers switch plans or when workers switch (or lose) jobs. Under Obamacare, some patients who buy health insurance through the marketplace could lose access to their current doctor, but it’s difficult to predict how many. And it would be because they have a new insurance plan. We rated this claim Mostly False.

​

.

Explain to me why a newspaper who takes a liberal hack reporter off the political beat, or off the lifestyle beat, and assigns them to the "polifact" beat suddenly transforms the liberal hack reporter into a messenger of truth? There's nothing impartial nor PROFESSIONAL about liberal hacks judging the truthfulness of positions. You'd have to be a liberal or a moron, but I repeat myself, to rely on their authority when they've been shown to be biased in their judgements.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

Sounds like it was a dishonest ad, and if it was then shame on the person or group who tried to run it.

However having a law agains telling a lie then puts the government in charge of defining what is true and what is not....and that wouldn't work so well in the long run.

Same deal with Sent Reid's draft constitutional amendment.

What, specifically, makes the ad dishonest? If you can't answer that, and back up your claims, all you are is a hack who believes everything that is put in front of them as long as it agrees with your bigoted view of the world.

1. Take your medicine as your psychiatrist prescribed. It may help keep you from flying off the handle like you did here and coming across like a douche.

2. Learn to read. I said "Sounds like", and "if it was"....

 

[martybegan]

A federal judge has struck down Ohio's law forbidding lies in political campaigns, saying voters -- not the government -- should decide whether a campaign is telling the truth.


True, as government has no monopoly on what constitutes the truth.


And of course without the benefit of their Constitutional right to lie, republicans would be completely lost.

"If you like your plan, you keep your plan, period"

 

[Quantum Windbag]

1. Take your medicine as your psychiatrist prescribed. It may help keep you from flying off the handle like you did here and coming across like a douche.

2. Learn to read. I said "Sounds like", and "if it was"....

You made the claim that the ad sounded dishonest. I asked why, and your response is to claim I am crazy for not agreeing with you. At least I know to treat you like an unthinking zealot in the future instead of expecting rational discussion.

 

[Boatswain2PA]

You made the claim that the ad sounded dishonest. I asked why, and your response is to claim I am crazy for not agreeing with you. At least I know to treat you like an unthinking zealot in the future instead of expecting rational discussion.

No, you didn't simply ask why I thought the ad sounded dishonest, you asked what "makes the ad dishonest", and then said if I can't answer your question I was "a hack who believes everything that is put in front of them as long as it agrees with your bigoted view of the world.

If you need a refresher, here is a quote of what you posted:

What, specifically, makes the ad dishonest? If you can't answer that, and back up your claims, all you are is a hack who believes everything that is put in front of them as long as it agrees with your bigoted view of the world.

If you want rational discussion, then quit attacking people with differing views.