feedback.pdxradio.com Topic: Obama the liar!

feedback.pdxradio.com Topic: Obama the liar! http://feedback.pdxradio.com/ feedback.pdxradio.com Topic: Obama the liar! en Wed, 08 Sep 2010 21:29:08 +0000 Skybill9 on "Obama the liar!" http://feedback.pdxradio.com/topic/obama-the-liar/page/2#post-25108 Fri, 08 Jan 2010 11:02:32 +0000 Skybill9 25108@http://feedback.pdxradio.com/ " You won't find "credence" and "gaffe" used in language very much." I use the word "Credence" every time I speak of my favorite all time band and quite possibly the most perfect band that has ever been!!! (IMHO, of course!) Listener_Pete on "Obama the liar!" http://feedback.pdxradio.com/topic/obama-the-liar/page/2#post-25105 Fri, 08 Jan 2010 10:47:03 +0000 Listener_Pete 25105@http://feedback.pdxradio.com/ I think because of the internet and the thousands of blogs availiable it is very tough to be transparent. You can't get much done when you have everyone on the planet kibitzing on your every step in real time. Nsive works for me. I don't think you'll see transparency from any White House in the future. missing_kskd on "Obama the liar!" http://feedback.pdxradio.com/topic/obama-the-liar/page/2#post-25104 Fri, 08 Jan 2010 10:42:11 +0000 missing_kskd 25104@http://feedback.pdxradio.com/ I would go with naive way more than lie. Delusional has a burden that speaks to his general mental state being not solid. That's a tough one. The guy is sharp, and rational. Naive is on the table with me at least, and I don't think that's a bad thing either. And make no mistake, I'm not a happy Obama camper on economic matters, and his position on health care so far is just annoying. We need more from him. On the other hand, his most recent speech on how we don't let "little" terrorists define us is excellent!! I'm 100 percent there, and that's real leadership in that FINALLY, we have a President who won't validate these guys and cultivate fear about them. Good. A+ On a macro scale, I don't see any intent to fuck us over, and an awful lot of the negative commentary implies just that, and it's BS. Some will call me on "parsing", and they would be right too. However, when there is regular abuse of the language, I don't see an option, but to make that the subject and get the air cleared, so that's what I did. Notalent on "Obama the liar!" http://feedback.pdxradio.com/topic/obama-the-liar/page/2#post-25103 Fri, 08 Jan 2010 10:33:53 +0000 Notalent 25103@http://feedback.pdxradio.com/ How about saying his statements of transparency were naive and delusional? Is that better? missing_kskd on "Obama the liar!" http://feedback.pdxradio.com/topic/obama-the-liar/page/2#post-25102 Fri, 08 Jan 2010 09:45:30 +0000 missing_kskd 25102@http://feedback.pdxradio.com/ So then, we have to come full circle around to Obama and this "open government pledge" he made during his campaign. We know it's not possible at that time to fully vet the statement. The discussion then surrounds intent. Did he know it was not possible to vet? I think that's absolutely true. Does that show intent to decieve? Seems to me, it all about whether or not he actually intends to open things up, doesn't it? There have been some openings of things, denied us by the last administration. And we've not seen the full term yet, perhaps opening things is difficult. If there is a lie there, it's not very negative as there just isn't that strong of intent statement to be made, as we are not yet in a position to see facts which would clarify it. The point I am making here, and I know it's painful, is that anyone declaring "LIAR!" has very low credence given these things. That statement may be true, but the "may be" seriously diminishes it's weight, and on that basis should be largely ignored until such time as more facts are in. Anyone else want to play word games :) BTW: You won't find "credence" and "gaffe" used in language very much. That should tell you something about the weight of many of the stuff we consume. missing_kskd on "Obama the liar!" http://feedback.pdxradio.com/topic/obama-the-liar/page/2#post-25100 Fri, 08 Jan 2010 09:29:09 +0000 missing_kskd 25100@http://feedback.pdxradio.com/ So then, does this statement... "if someone makes a statement without bothering to check if its factual, then he has made a lie. They have to come out and stay up front that they're guessing, even if its just a little bit." ...contain an element of deception? I don't see one stated. There is one implied, in that one should always check to see whether or not a statement is factual, but no direct element of deception is there. Why didn't they check? Not possible to check? , Ignorance?, Incomptence?, Deception by another? (person being a fool accepting successful lies from another), what? That's why it's not really proper to declare lie, particularly with the negative connotation so often associated with it. Usually, when confronted with a statement like that, we associate a burden with it, as in we need facts to understand what it means. If one were to declare "lie" on that basis, they would have the burden of intent, or suffer loss of credence themselves. <pre><code>Noun Singular credence Plural uncountable credence (uncountable) 1. Acceptance of a belief or claim as true, especially on the basis of evidence. Based on the scientific data, I give credence to this hypothesis. 2. (rare) Credential or supporting material for a person or claim. He presented us with a letter of credence. 3. (religion) A small table or credenza used in certain Christian religious services. Verb to credence (third-person singular simple present credences, present participle credencing, simple past and past participle credenced) 1. (obsolete) To give credence to; to believe.</code></pre> Note the third definition, one I have always found very interesting. A device can be used to establish credence. The table in a religious context is the old form, but we have badges, insignia and other devices today that lend credence to a body, person, or thing. One outstanding example of this is Budweiser Beer. The label has devices of various kinds to lend credence to the brew, as in "it's a good brew". Brilliant use of old world culture association to convey some extra stature to what is otherwise a rather ordinary beer. missing_kskd on "Obama the liar!" http://feedback.pdxradio.com/topic/obama-the-liar/page/2#post-25097 Fri, 08 Jan 2010 09:14:07 +0000 missing_kskd 25097@http://feedback.pdxradio.com/ If somebody makes a statement without checking, what's the intent? <pre><code>lie{2} vi. lied, ly'ing 1. a) to make a statement that one knows is false, esp. with intent to deceive b) to make such statements habitually 2. to give a false impression; deceive one [statistics can lie] vt. to bring, put, accomplish, etc. by lying [to lie oneself into office] n. 1. a false statement or action, esp. one made with intent to deceive 2. anything that gives or is meant to give a false impression 3. the charge of lying --give the lie to 1. to charge with telling a lie 2. to prove to be false; belie --lie in one's throat (or teeth) to tell a foul or outrageous lie</code></pre> That looks like it could be a gaffe to me <pre><code>Main Entry: gaffe Pronunciation: \ˈgaf\ Function: noun Etymology: French, gaff, gaffe Date: 1909 1 : a social or diplomatic blunder 2 : a noticeable mistake</code></pre> You have to meet the burden "intent to deceive" for it to be a lie. Your statement: "if someone makes a statement without bothering to check if its factual." Does not contain that element of intent; therefore, no assertion of there being a lie is proper. It could be a lie, likely is, but it is a gaffe actually to declare it a lie, without discovering the intent with any real clarity. Secondly, there is a negative, or bad connotation associated with lies. The degree of that connotation is linked to the intent, diminishing all the way to gaffe, if there really isn't any malicious intent. If you want the negative connotation to have any credence at all, then the element of intent needs to be solid. We have a lot of basic words for these things. It's well worth exploring them to understand the little distinctions people make, and why they make them. skeptical on "Obama the liar!" http://feedback.pdxradio.com/topic/obama-the-liar/page/2#post-25074 Thu, 07 Jan 2010 23:44:20 +0000 skeptical 25074@http://feedback.pdxradio.com/ A lie is differentiated from an error or gaffe by intent; namely, with said intent to disceive. What that means here is that, until we know WHY, we cannot assert a lie has occurred. On the other hand, if someone makes a statement without bothering to check if its factual, then he has made a lie. They have to come out and stay up front that they're guessing, even if its just a little bit. You're either pregnant or you're not. missing_kskd on "Obama the liar!" http://feedback.pdxradio.com/topic/obama-the-liar/page/2#post-25071 Thu, 07 Jan 2010 23:36:56 +0000 missing_kskd 25071@http://feedback.pdxradio.com/ A realization I thought I would share: A lie is differentiated from an error or gaffe by intent; namely, with said intent to disceive. What that means here is that, until we know WHY, we cannot assert a lie has occurred. I'm open to it being flat out a lie, but I'm also open to the idea that we just don't know why we are seeing what we are seeing. Just thought I would explain my earlier post where somebody else called "semantics". No. Really, it's just accurate. missing_kskd on "Obama the liar!" http://feedback.pdxradio.com/topic/obama-the-liar/page/2#post-25058 Thu, 07 Jan 2010 21:50:35 +0000 missing_kskd 25058@http://feedback.pdxradio.com/ Yeah, I think that's a distinct possibility Brian. Not happy to see that potentially becoming a trend. On the other hand... If Progressive minded people can organize, there might be a fair number of openings there for the taking! Deane, one variable in all of this that I continue to struggle to understand is the Internet. We have a lot more people engaging in a lot more dialog! We saw the potential impact of that in the Obama campaign, where it's clear that Internet politics has an impact now, where it didn't in say 2000. 2004 was debatable, but to me significant as that time was kind of a break through time for a lot of new media political things. Bush taking a second term motivated a lot of people, and there were groups well organized enough to leverage that. I myself became aware and involved at that level, about that time. Took about 3 years to figure out my own politics and get a great grasp of the dynamics. Clearly that education continues... Another is "new media". Technically, I still mean Internet, but not completely. Podcasts, streaming audio, video, often combined with actual broadcast efforts these days, all are having a growing and significant impact. I'm meeting more and more ordinary people, who consume these things in a surprising number of ways. Finally, the news cycle is short, short! It's getting more and more difficult to just blow garbage through. The up and coming generations will often tune out and talk among themselves when deciding who and what to align with. Generally, these things are advantage to the people. And that's why we see ongoing and regular attacks on Net Neutrality. Where things are monetized, there is control and the control rests with those that have the money, and we see the same old, same old. Brian, as for "fast enough", I'm not sure that's the core problem. The core problem is direction. We've not yet reached a change in norms that comes from acceptance that it just does not "trickle down" and that "free markets" are not some magic force for good. Part of the problem then is direction. We got a Stimulus that was perhaps a third of the size needed, spread out over a very long time, and that was composed of half tax cuts! The product of that was tepid, as in enough to prevent mass trouble and rioting in the streets, but not enough to make the case for progressive solutions to things. This was by design, and the desire of the financial industry to cover it's bet with the sweat off our backs, and the value in our savings... That kind of thing is getting noticed. Bank bill is the same way. Tepid. It will do some good, but the delay tactics allow the banks to really gouge people solid, then "reform" starts from there. Nice. It's a lot like a sale at Krogers! Mark it up double, then a little more just because of the neon, then brag big about a 40 percent off sale! That's how the health care thing is shaping up, and it's not pretty at all. Many of the provisions are so clever, I'm amazed actually. It's as if the best word smiths, and the bought off politicans and private insurers all did lunch, coming out with this difficult to frame, easy to spin as reform, mess that doesn't really make a meaningful impact. The hook is that a lot of people will be insured. The toxic part is the lack of serious competition based cost controls, and this damn excise tax, where plans will get diluted every year "to save costs" by distributing cost and risk onto us annually to avoid the tax. Lovely, and I would like to kick the shit outta the fucker that thought that up.