Author Topic: I have no obligation to be honest  (Read 16325 times)

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
I have no obligation to be honest
« on: September 18, 2019, 10:01:30 AM »
"They have been inaccurate on many occasions and perhaps I was inaccurate that time, I have no obligation to be honest with the media because they are just as dishonest as everybody else"

Philosophically and as it comes to values I have a problem with the statement.
Have we crossed a line where dishonesty is not only expected but justified?
My mom never let me get away with the 'everyone else does it' excuse.

Wonder how people will spin this.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« Reply #1 on: September 18, 2019, 10:31:40 AM »
Is this a tweet? I assume it's from Trump?

scifibum

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« Reply #2 on: September 18, 2019, 01:52:23 PM »
It's from Corey Lewandowski's testimony before the House Judiciary Committee yesterday. 

He also refused to answer many questions because he was "instructed" not to by the White House. This would be an entirely novel scope for executive privilege - the ability to hush any private citizen on what conversations they had with the President or his appointees. It's ridiculous.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« Reply #3 on: September 18, 2019, 01:53:08 PM »
The statement was made by Corey Lewandowsk

I find the statement troubling in itself, more so from a public servant in a position of influence. 
« Last Edit: September 18, 2019, 01:55:34 PM by rightleft22 »

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« Reply #4 on: September 18, 2019, 06:42:46 PM »
I think I’d like to see the context of that remark. What were the questions leading up to to it and to whom was he responding.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« Reply #5 on: September 18, 2019, 07:00:29 PM »
What's the difference between no obligation to honesty and Hillary Clinton's inability to recall or remember dozens of times if not over a hundred? Is he saying he can lie outright or is he saying that complete candor and telling the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth is not required? Because Hillary Clinton obviously felt exactly the same way even if she wasn't, ironically enough, as forthright and honest about it.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« Reply #6 on: September 18, 2019, 07:10:15 PM »
Raw and uncut, just for you Crunch.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4817187/corey-lewandowski-i-obligation-honest-media

It was a direct yes or no question asked in a television interview. There's nothing in there about full disclosure, or anything else. He is saying he can make an outright polar opposite statement any time he's not under oath.

As far as spinning him as a better guy, because he was honest about being dishonest, I don't even know how to tackle that. So I won't.

ScottF

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« Reply #7 on: September 19, 2019, 06:55:26 AM »
I found his f-you approach refreshing and entirely appropriate, given the spirit of the exercise.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« Reply #8 on: September 19, 2019, 10:06:11 AM »
I watched more of the hearing than I should have.  Couple of take aways:

Lewandowski was more of a jerk than he needed to be, and I think that made him look worse than he needed to look.  There was too little pointing out the committee was acting illegitimately.

I find it beyond absurd that the committee members can flat out insult people, call them criminals and lie and then demand their witnesses treat them politely and with respect.  Last I checked this is America, we are still a free people and no one made them kings or entitled to special rights.  In fact, these committee hearings have gotten so bad, I'd recommend that witnesses do call them out directly to their faces.  I particularly find it troubling in the context that it was SO VITAL that we have a PUBLIC hearing to hear the testimony from a witness that in fact turns into five minute speeches by the politicians for which they ask no questions of the VITAL WITNESS.

I find it even worse that they ask ridiculous compound questions that include multiple false statements and compound lies.  There's not a single question the Democrats asked that they could have asked in court, everyone of them would have been thrown out in objections.  That says a lot about the validity of a Congressional investigation.

The Republicans any better?  Not one bit.  They did they exact same thing the Dems did when Blasey-Ford testified and spent their time on puffery of the witness.  Granted, they probably believed the material questions were few - and they asked them - but the way they acted didn't make them look like the grown ups in the room either.  Congress is an absolute joke and they should never do a televised hearing again.

The idea of asking a witness to read a passage should just be dead from now on.  Mueller refused to do it because it's a ridiculous made for tv moment, no witness should agree to comply with compelled speech in such a manner.  Lewandowski was great on that just telling them he would be happy to let them read it to him.

As to the purpose of the hearing?  After Nadler's opening monologue if I was Lewandoski I would have asked if I could leave.  I mean I'm called to testify on the question of whether there was obstruction of justice and Nadler flat out states that the President was guilty of obstruction of justice.  What's the purpose of this hearing again?  If you've already decided (without facts) that something is true what are you looking to get now?

I think the Dem's were flat out stupid in how they did their questions.  They wanted to create perjury charges so they repeatedly phrased a question like this, 'In the Meuller report you said....' can you tell us why you did this, what you were told, what someone was thinking.  But that form is both ridiculous and prone to absurd response.  Why?  The Dem's weren't prepared with the passages they were referencing, and why not?  Well mostly because they were paraphrasing and adding gloss that wasn't there to try and increase what Lewandowsky was responding to, and he played that well, by demanding the references and taking the time to read the section.  I mean Nadler's whole five minutes was spent looking for a reference to his question.  But even more no witness should ever be asked to verify a written statement prepared by someone else without having it in front of him, it's on the scale of abuse by prosecutors that again would never be allowed in court.

I also found it ridiculous to demand a witness confirm or respond to a legal judgement, on the spot, not being a lawyer and not having counsel present.  Specifically, they wanted him to say or deny that communicating to Sessions that he should make a statement about the special counsel's investigation would be illegal because of Session's recusal.  Frankly, I don't even think that's accurate statement of the law, but it's beyond absurd to expect someone who isn't a lawyer to make a conclusion on it under oath. 

On executive privilege there seems to be some reasonable disagreement, but Congress's position is definitely weak when they are expressly trying to get at conversations directly with the President where the person was there to provide the President with advice.  I can guaranty that Nadler would through an absolute fit if his aides were subpeoned to testify about what he's been told on this matter.  Congress is not an oversight body for the executive branch's every breath.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« Reply #9 on: September 19, 2019, 11:18:21 AM »
So why doesn't congress simply jail him for contempt of congress?  He is required to answer lawful questions that aren't subject to immunity.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« Reply #10 on: September 19, 2019, 01:37:44 PM »
Quote
What's the difference between no obligation to honesty and Hillary Clinton's...

It reveals your position on honesty.

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« Reply #11 on: September 19, 2019, 02:10:38 PM »
Well it may be a matter of where his loyalties lie (lie, hehe).

Look at a real estate agent. It's actually against the law for them to be completely honest. How is that for a legal system that makes it illegal to tell the whole truth?

For instance, look at the law regarding the disclosure of the fact that someone died of AIDS in a house. On the surface the law allows that fact to be kept hidden from a purchaser. A bit deeper into it there is a valid interpretation that it actually makes it illegal to disclose the fact that someone died of AIDS there.

https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1990-03-11-re-40-story.html

The next year, Congress passed an amendment to the Federal Fair Housing Act of 1968, adding the handicapped--including persons with AIDS--as a new protected class.

That meant that the real estate industry was prohibited from discriminating against those with AIDS in the sale or rental of property.

Although the legislation does not specifically address the issue of disclosure, “such a disclosure could be considered a discriminatory action which is clearly prohibited by the Federal Fair Housing Act,” according to a NAR discussion paper.

What does the real estate broker do when asked specifically by the buyer if the seller has AIDS?

“If you are asked by a potential purchaser, ‘Is there any peculiar history to this house?’ the new statutes do not authorize a broker to lie,” said Mike Finn, director of license law at NAR.

“But there are a number of options for the broker. He can say, ‘Gee, let me ask the seller and find out if there are any things he will tell you.’ But if the seller responds, ‘That’s none of your business,’ that is acceptable under the law too.”

Likewise in California, according to Creel, “the law doesn’t immunize a real estate broker and allow him to tell a lie or make an intentional misrepresentation. But that is very different from saying he must answer truthfully. He could beg off, but he couldn’t say absolutely ‘no.’ He could certainly say, ‘I am not prepared to answer that question.’ ”

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

That's funny to me. Congress passes a law making it illegal to answer a question truthfully. Then they turn around and get on this guy's case when he says he doesn't owe them an obligation of honesty to the media when Congress itself said that real estate agents have no obligation of honesty to home buyers.

Another completely unrelated case regarding politicians' spokesmouths' obligation of honesty to the media, or lack thereof, is when they are running for office and they know they have no chance and really don't have any serious intention of going all the way but they always say they are going all the way anyway even though everyone knows that's a farce and they are really just building up their campaign war chests, getting traction for their favorite issues, setting up their re-election for their lower office, getting face and press time and name recognition, and maybe ogling for a seat at the table for instance in the Cabinet or perhaps an ambassadorship. In that case their obligation is absolutely not to be honest with the media but to serve their campaign and the two are sometimes mutually exclusive.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« Reply #12 on: September 19, 2019, 02:14:24 PM »
So that shell game about Benghazi and the riot is no big deal? It's not like anyone had an obligation to be honest to the media  after all. We should just be grateful the administration decided to tell the truth eventually.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« Reply #13 on: September 19, 2019, 02:57:16 PM »
Quote
The idea of asking a witness to read a passage should just be dead from now on.  Mueller refused to do it because it's a ridiculous made for tv moment, no witness should agree to comply with compelled speech in such a manner.  Lewandowski was great on that just telling them he would be happy to let them read it to him.

I think it is pretty common practice to have a witness read from a document in evidence. Annoying things that lawyers do (PDF)

Quote
It is not proper to ask a witness to read out loud from some portion of an admitted
document, except to prove the witness can read, which is not an issue. The entire document is
evidence after it is admitted. It is then appropriate during the presentation of a party’s evidence
to ask the finder of fact to note this provision or that provision in the document in evidence. It is
not appropriate to ask a witness to do this.
For reasons that escape me, many lawyers think it is very effective lawyering to ask an
adverse party witness to read from a document in evidence in an attempt to get the adverse party
to admit to some fact that suggests he is untruthful or that is contrary to the facts supporting his
case.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« Reply #14 on: September 20, 2019, 08:31:07 AM »
I found his f-you approach refreshing and entirely appropriate, given the spirit of the exercise.

This right here is what was happening. Was the guy really telling you it’s ok to lie to the media? Maybe a little but not as much as the fake outrage gang pretends. You have to have the context I asked about.

Lewandowski is looking at a election, his own. He took this opportunity to send a message. His comment was the medium, not the message.  Lewandowski is telling people he will stand up to this asinine bull*censored*, he will fight.. You guys can get all lathered up about the way he chose to send this message but the normal people out there are receiving it loud and clear as ScottF demonstrates. They know what he’s really telling them and it’s not about lying to the media.

The second part of this is earning a Trump endorsement for his election bid. That also was accomplished.

Lewandowski derangement Syndrome is about to be a thing.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« Reply #15 on: September 20, 2019, 09:50:29 AM »
Quote
is comment was the medium, not the message.  Lewandowski is telling people he will stand up to this asinine bull*censored*, he will fight.. You guys can get all lathered up about the way he chose to send this message but the normal people out there are receiving it loud and clear as ScottF demonstrates.

What your suggesting requires a sophistication of thought, I gues only the 'normal people' will understand... and those that want to hear what they want to hear.

Words mater, how you say them matters and Lewandowski is clear - honesty to the media is not required. Begs the question what media sources he intends to use to get his honest statements out on.

Maybe it is refreshing that he says it how he sees it in this regard. However he might be lying.  Spin it and dress it up as you will it's a troubling statement.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« Reply #16 on: September 20, 2019, 10:13:21 AM »
It sure is refreshing to see someone act like a unhinged lunatic in the face of oppression. It reminds me of when Thomas Paine said he would lie to the English because they don't deserve the truth.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« Reply #17 on: September 20, 2019, 10:41:58 AM »
What your suggesting requires a sophistication of thought, I gues only the 'normal people' will understand... and those that want to hear what they want to hear.

Does it really?  What exactly was the point of the hearing?  Nadler opened the hearing by stating that Trump has obstructed justice, ergo, by Nadler's own words he's already reached the conclusion that articles of impeachment should be filed.  Of course he has not done so - why not?  Because the whole point is the show.

So in effect you think it takes a sophistication of thought to realize that Lewandoski's "standing up" to a process that clearly looks like it's primary motivation is to prevent Nadler from being primaried is also a show?

I think it is pretty common practice to have a witness read from a document in evidence. Annoying things that lawyers do (PDF)

I understand the tactic and the point, and I don't think it makes sense - even in court - but there at least there is a neutral judge providing oversight, not a "Nadler" judge/jury/executioner that doesn't even need to hear evidence to make up his mind.

In any event, it has no place in Congressional hearings.  Ask yourself if they would have asked him to read passages in a private session - you already know the answer - this is a tv only thing they do.  As it's not a question, nor is compelling speech an entitlement of Congress or a power they have, I think all witnesses should just decline to do it.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« Reply #18 on: September 20, 2019, 10:51:23 AM »
So he's standing up to a farce of a Congressional hearing by asserting his freedom to lie to the press?

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« Reply #19 on: September 20, 2019, 11:22:11 AM »
Yes that's exactly what I said it took him 5 hours to say one single line, not.

I mean, let's get real, it's not like every single politician hasn't lied about the costs of the plans they will implement or the "consequences" of the other sides plans.  In fact, our politicians are world famous for only telling the absolute truth to the press and never encouraging false stories.

Do I think they should lie to the press?  Nope, but it's just a fact that they frequently do, and sometimes they may have to do (particularly when a non-response impacts a serious national issue).  I mean I'm still waiting for any charges for Brennan - who lied under oath to Congress - but I'm guessing he's getting a national security pass, and maybe we should think that's reasonable.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« Reply #20 on: September 20, 2019, 12:03:37 PM »
I don't know about the details of this particular hearing, but I've seen enough Congressional hearings to know that it seems normal at this point for a direct factual question to be met with "I cannot recall" or "I can't answer that as I don't have the documents in front of me", or "I will have to check with my staff", or even a more transparent lie like "I am personally not sure that happened, but if it did perhaps an investigation will turn up something." This happens time and again, even in cases such as investigating the Fed - supposedly a part of government! - and asking directly whether certain public monies were spent or not. And they stonewall even that, which in my opinion is essentially treason. As things stand I see no material difference between that and "f-you, I don't have to answer your questions." It's the same thing, in different words. Either they should all be arrested for contempt of Congress, or none of them; right now it seems that it's none of them. So that's at least a consistent standard, and it seems to me a waste of time to complain about one case of it in isolation.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« Reply #21 on: September 20, 2019, 12:23:47 PM »
Are we not undermining of our own foundations?
I suspect the argument is that we already are, but how far do we go? Is it necessary to let the house fall down?

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« Reply #22 on: September 20, 2019, 12:52:09 PM »
Fen, the quote they are responding to here is that Corey told Mueller the truth and Congress the truth but that he'd previously mislead reporters.  They showed a video of him denying talking with Trump about Sessions on MSNBC, and then confronted him with what he said to Mueller.  And then he told them he has no obligation to be honest with the media.  Not a great look for someone who claims to be honest, but absolutely not illegal as lying to Mueller or Congress would have been.

The frustration in the hearing wasn't about standard evasions (e.g., "I don't recall") it was about (i) the claim that his conversations with the President were privileged, which Nadler disputes but hasn't won a case on, the Dems compounded that by asking virtually every question in the first hour an a half in the format of trying to get a confirmation or expansion of those conversations and receiving the canned response,  and (ii) the little annoying evasions and time wastings, which honestly, the Reps should have been prepared for.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« Reply #23 on: September 20, 2019, 12:56:14 PM »
Ok, thanks Seriati.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« Reply #24 on: September 20, 2019, 03:01:07 PM »
“As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.” ― H.L. Mencken

We play these games and wonder why home we live in has fallen down.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« Reply #25 on: September 20, 2019, 03:14:13 PM »
So he's standing up to a farce of a Congressional hearing by asserting his freedom to lie to the press?

What law would he be breaking if he lied to the press?

The less has been, with malice and forethought, lying to everyone. That the targets of their smears are now asserting the same privilege should not be a surprise.

You don’t want these guys lying, start with holding the press to that same standard.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« Reply #26 on: September 20, 2019, 05:06:36 PM »
Quote
What law would he be breaking if he lied to the press?

none we don't want truth

Quote
You don’t want these guys lying, start with holding the press to that same standard.

That justifies everything. lets burn it all down.

Sorry. Watched a debate about what is happening on the University campuses about free speech, safe spaces, trigger words
It was absurd - I understand why so many have had it with the new left. I say new because I don't recognize it

I have little hope for honest discourse

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« Reply #27 on: September 20, 2019, 06:36:21 PM »
Words mater, how you say them matters and Lewandowski is clear - honesty to the media is not required. Begs the question what media sources he intends to use to get his honest statements out on.

Maybe it is refreshing that he says it how he sees it in this regard. However he might be lying.  Spin it and dress it up as you will it's a troubling statement.

Not really. They questioned him under oath about his honesty to the press.

There is no legal obligation to be truthful to the media. And it is very unlikely that any career politician in Washington would allow any such effort to make that a legally binding requirement to become law.

He spoke frankly, and he spoke honestly, and it's also how most of the political elite in Washington treat the press, although they'll never openly admit it.

He is under no obligation to be truthful to the media, particularly so in a media environment where the press makes it clear they have more interest in spin than they do in facts.

Now if they were questioning his truthfulness to a lawful investigation conducted by law enforcement, that's another matter. But they weren't.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« Reply #28 on: September 20, 2019, 06:41:12 PM »
Are we not undermining of our own foundations?
I suspect the argument is that we already are, but how far do we go? Is it necessary to let the house fall down?

Considering the hearings themselves are a kangaroo court being held by the Democratic Party. The whole point is moot, the system was undermined the moment they convened the hearing, no witness defiance required.

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« Reply #29 on: September 20, 2019, 06:45:29 PM »
Quote
You don’t want these guys lying, start with holding the press to that same standard.

That justifies everything. lets burn it all down.

Sorry. Watched a debate about what is happening on the University campuses about free speech, safe spaces, trigger words
It was absurd - I understand why so many have had it with the new left. I say new because I don't recognize it

I have little hope for honest discourse

Welcome to where a large portion of Trump's "base" is coming from. His job is to "burn it down" and the best means of doing so is by making as many of the "rotten elements" within the system expose themselves due to his presence. He's doing a very effective job of getting them to come out of the woodwork.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« Reply #30 on: September 21, 2019, 08:00:16 AM »
Quote
What law would he be breaking if he lied to the press?

none we don't want truth

Quote
You don’t want these guys lying, start with holding the press to that same standard.

That justifies everything. lets burn it all down.

Sorry. Watched a debate about what is happening on the University campuses about free speech, safe spaces, trigger words
It was absurd - I understand why so many have had it with the new left. I say new because I don't recognize it

I have little hope for honest discourse

We are in the post truth era.

Quote
Post-truth politics (also called post-factual politics and post-reality politics) is a political culture in which debate is framed largely by appeals to emotion disconnected from the details of policy, and by the repeated assertion of talking points to which factual rebuttals are ignored.

If you look at the left today, you see this appeal to emotion (among other logical fallacies) rules their thinking. The Russian collusion hoax demonstrates it perfectly as do so many other issues. We are in an era where feelings are more important than facts, words overrule acts, and intent means everything regardless of results. It’s all about emotions and if the facts support a story then it’s just a coincidence.

Quote
In its most extreme mode, post-truth politics can make use of conspiracism.

« Last Edit: September 21, 2019, 08:05:18 AM by Crunch »

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« Reply #31 on: September 21, 2019, 08:52:51 PM »
I held off on bringing this up as long as I could and frankly I think I deserve a pat on the back.

Should I be surprised that Obama hasn't come to Lewandoski's defense here? Obama obviously agrees that nobody has an obligation to be honest to the press, or the public. Not even the President.

https://www.politifact.com/obama-like-health-care-keep/


Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« Reply #32 on: September 21, 2019, 11:40:12 PM »
I suspect they’ll tell you that’s different. Somehow.

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« Reply #33 on: September 23, 2019, 09:10:12 AM »
I'd doubt it.  Most of the group you are referring to either don't agree it's a significant issue that he left off "most of you" in that statement; OR (the more significant portion) believe it was well worth these bumps. 

That this is trotted out as some grievous deception told to the public to rob them of their doctors reads as, "Wow, if that's their main gripe I think they are bigger fans of the guy than us!"

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« Reply #34 on: September 23, 2019, 09:49:27 AM »
Welcome to where a large portion of Trump's "base" is coming from. His job is to "burn it down" and the best means of doing so is by making as many of the "rotten elements" within the system expose themselves due to his presence. He's doing a very effective job of getting them to come out of the woodwork.

Unfortunately, it's becoming clear we don't live in a house at all, just a giant termite mound we thought was a house.

Seriati

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« Reply #35 on: September 23, 2019, 09:52:42 AM »
Should I be surprised that Obama hasn't come to Lewandoski's defense here? Obama obviously agrees that nobody has an obligation to be honest to the press, or the public. Not even the President.

I'm surprised you chose that example, my personal favorite was how Obama was against gay marriage, which even his supporters agreed was a lie (and that they rationalized as necessary to win).  Now don't get me wrong, in my view all politicians ought to support gay marriage, but that one was an openly known lie, that the media specifically carried water on to bolster him in fly over country.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« Reply #36 on: September 23, 2019, 10:14:32 AM »
Quote
Welcome to where a large portion of Trump's "base" is coming from. His job is to "burn it down" and the best means of doing so is by making as many of the "rotten elements" within the system expose themselves due to his presence. He's doing a very effective job of getting them to come out of the woodwork.

I can see how this is a affect but can't imagine Trump capable of such thought or subtleties. I can imagine him being used in this way. The problem is were settings wild fires that we may not be able to come back from.

We undermine our own moral and ethical foundation and should not be surprised when we find no place to stand.

I initial post had no context and wasn't attributed to any one. Just the statement 'I have no obligation to be honest'
Years ago on this site that should have been enough to trouble everyone.  But we asked for context. I have no obligation to be honest because the Media is not honest.
No context was asked about the Media lying. Just one big brush to paint it all as lies. We are justified in being dishonest.
No argument to fight lies with truth just the justification to fight lies with lies, even is I swear to tell the truth I am not obliged to.

How do you come back from that. There is nothing under our feet.

Maybe Adams was right
“Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.” – John Adams
« Last Edit: September 23, 2019, 10:17:27 AM by rightleft22 »

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« Reply #37 on: September 23, 2019, 11:45:45 AM »
Read as:  D.W. agrees with this
Not much to LIKE about it.  :P

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« Reply #38 on: September 23, 2019, 12:04:21 PM »
I initial post had no context and wasn't attributed to any one. Just the statement 'I have no obligation to be honest'
Years ago on this site that should have been enough to trouble everyone.  But we asked for context. I have no obligation to be honest because the Media is not honest.

Consider that one of the prevailing views espoused by the public (or that many people claim to believe, whether or not they're capable of it) is that there *is* no truth, only narrative and point of view. You get this in the cultural relativist arena, in the lifestyle arena, in the personal values arena ("it's valid because it's mine" rather than "it's valid because it's correct"), of course the political arena, and even in the ethics arena. In many cases you will have people declare openly that there is no such thing as objective truth, and in the academic sphere you'll get added in that the idea of objective truth is an imperialist notion forced on the weak by the strong.

So it's hard to speak of honesty when there's a movement that says that 'the truth' is just some story consistent with your own beliefs or point of view. From that standpoint saying the truth is basically equivalent to restating that which you like or which benefits you. So from a weird (IMO) point of view telling the truth isn't some objective thing that an outside observer can verify, but rather it basically means being consistent with...whatever your deal is.

I think a statement like the one you cited can be said with impunity because largely the public has lost trust in the idea of truth. Lies don't offend them because they're just another competing narrative, rather than an attack on one objective truth.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« Reply #39 on: September 23, 2019, 01:29:28 PM »
I see what your saying being played out.
I don't understand how we progress when any competing idea/narrative is experienced as something to be offended by.

Philosophy isn't dead we just refuse to learn anything. Where playing the fool with hands over ears screaming LA, LA, LA I can't and wont hear you.

There is a saying some attribute to Churchill: ‘If you’re not a liberal when you’re 25, you have no heart.  If you’re not a conservative by the time you’re 35, you have no brain.’
Today the new left and new right has no heart or brain

We are ‘cutting off our nose to spite our face’ and when it is over I have not doubt will wonder how the heck it all happened??? wasn’t me….  lets burn whats left down again.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2019, 01:31:33 PM by rightleft22 »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« Reply #40 on: September 23, 2019, 01:36:36 PM »
We are ‘cutting off our nose to spite our face’ and when it is over I have not doubt will wonder how the heck it all happened??? wasn’t me….  lets burn whats left down again.

Don't forget, though, that you're also seeing a long-term technological progression played out in day-to-day politics, which at times will seem strange and random. In 50 years if you looked back 'this era' would probably make more sense than it does today looking up from the ground. That is, unless we're still in revolutionary quagmires by then. Maybe at a certain point there's a technological singularity (not the AI-related one) where once you pass it sociology becomes a non-stop changing mayhem for which no clear rules can be deduced. It takes like 20-30 years for a new tech to be normalized, I feel like, and global connectedness it may be longer since the modes of that may change.

That said I think the WWII-era psyop techniques weren't only technological in the sense of electronic, but were a new form of psychological-technology, which is also something that advances even though we don't really hear about it in everyday life. We're so in the dark about these things we literally don't even know whether Manchurian Candidate type stuff is science fiction or 50 year old technology.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« Reply #41 on: September 23, 2019, 04:01:26 PM »
I held off on bringing this up as long as I could and frankly I think I deserve a pat on the back.

Should I be surprised that Obama hasn't come to Lewandoski's defense here? Obama obviously agrees that nobody has an obligation to be honest to the press, or the public. Not even the President.

https://www.politifact.com/obama-like-health-care-keep/

Obama was telling the truth.  At the time he made the statement - it accurately reflected the proposal of that time.  It was even accurate as a description of the final deal.  People were 'allowed to keep' their existing plans to the same extent as in the past - as long as the insurance company didn't eliminate the plan - people could still keep it.  What happened is that insurance companies decided to simplify their insurance offerings and canceled many plans that were previously available.  (In the past they changed their plans and gave it the same name with 'notifications' that the plan changed - so people weren't really keeping their plans in the past - they were getting a new plan every couple of years with the same name but often reduced benefits and higher price).  So he was not dishonest with respect to that statement. 
« Last Edit: September 23, 2019, 04:07:47 PM by LetterRip »

D.W.

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« Reply #42 on: September 23, 2019, 04:05:11 PM »
Way to prove rightleft22's point.  :P
Welcome to the quantum age!  Information age is caveman stuff now.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« Reply #43 on: September 23, 2019, 04:23:32 PM »
LR, I thought the admin knew that most insurance companies wouldn't or couldn't abide by the grandfathering rules when Obama made than promise. It was able to pass for truth because the proposal allowed the industry to keep older plans. It was a lie because they knew full well almost all plans would be cancelled.

I'd also like to point out to the peanut gallery that there's a difference between failing to meet an obligation and believing that one doesn't have an obligation in the first place.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« Reply #44 on: September 23, 2019, 05:14:26 PM »
LR, I thought the admin knew that most insurance companies wouldn't or couldn't abide by the grandfathering rules when Obama made than promise. It was able to pass for truth because the proposal allowed the industry to keep older plans. It was a lie because they knew full well almost all plans would be cancelled.

There was never any research that suggests they couldn't abide by the grandfathered plans.  He also made the statement in 2009 - prior to any research on what expected turnover would be for grandfathered plans (there was research in 2010 that grandfathered plans might be cancelled due to typical plan turnover in the industry).  Also what happened is that many states changed the law so that instead of 'amended policies' which is what insurance companies did historically when they changed their plans (then you'd have a certain amount of time to cancel if you didn't agree with the updated policy terms and conditions) - the states instead required that insurance companies would have to 'cancel and renew' policies to 'avoid confusion'.  So really most of those cancellations were not due to the the ACA but rather states forcing insurance companies to do cancellations instead of  their past practices of changing their policy and then people not really realizing they had a different policy then what they originally signed up for.
« Last Edit: September 23, 2019, 05:19:44 PM by LetterRip »

cherrypoptart

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« Reply #45 on: September 23, 2019, 05:32:35 PM »
All of that would be more convincing if the architect hadn't let the cat out of the bag. Even CNN covered it.

https://www.cnn.com/2014/11/13/politics/tapper-gruber/index.html

True, he wasn't talking specifically about the like your doctor part of it but he made it very clear that lying to the American people about it was an essential part of the process in getting it passed into law. Now I'll give Obama some credit for not hedging at all in his statement about "like your doctor." He left himself no wiggle room, no disclaimer, no fine print. He said "Period." You don't often see politicians, especially lawyer politicians, brave enough to do that. He didn't try to finesse it by saying if it passes the way we intend it, if the states cooperate, and so on. He said, "Period." So when that didn't happen even if it was for reasons beyond his control or ability to anticipate, that made him a liar. As he might put it, period.

Now none of that means that we should all just accept everyone lying to us all the time. Sure we know it happens, but we still need to call them on it. It just means that it's harder for the left to get up on their high horse about it because Obama ran that horse through uneven terrain, hobbled it, and sadly had to take it out back and shoot it. I've got no problem with calling Lewandowski on this. No problem at all. Let's just call them all on it from now on, shall we?

TheDeamon

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« Reply #46 on: September 23, 2019, 06:03:39 PM »
How do you come back from that. There is nothing under our feet.

Maybe Adams was right
“Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts and murders itself. There was never a democracy that did not commit suicide.” – John Adams

Adams is one to talk. His campaign against Jefferson is one of two such presidential era's that could be easily compared to Trump on the tone/tenor of national politics. In many respects, it is the best fit, aside from the matter that Trump comes off like Andrew Jackson, rather than either John Adams or Thomas Jefferson.

We recovered after the 1800 presidential election, we stand a decent enough chance of surviving the current iteration of the media--which is lot like what was back in the 1790's. Everybody and their dog has a printing press(website/social media account), and a handful of powerful elites control the information (news) flow both within and without the respective states.

Crunch

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« Reply #47 on: September 23, 2019, 06:24:56 PM »
I held off on bringing this up as long as I could and frankly I think I deserve a pat on the back.

Should I be surprised that Obama hasn't come to Lewandoski's defense here? Obama obviously agrees that nobody has an obligation to be honest to the press, or the public. Not even the President.

https://www.politifact.com/obama-like-health-care-keep/

Obama was telling the truth.  At the time he made the statement - it accurately reflected the proposal of that time.  It was even accurate as a description of the final deal.  People were 'allowed to keep' their existing plans to the same extent as in the past - as long as the insurance company didn't eliminate the plan - people could still keep it.  What happened is that insurance companies decided to simplify their insurance offerings and canceled many plans that were previously available.  (In the past they changed their plans and gave it the same name with 'notifications' that the plan changed - so people weren't really keeping their plans in the past - they were getting a new plan every couple of years with the same name but often reduced benefits and higher price).  So he was not dishonest with respect to that statement.

Obama was lying, everyone knew it. It was called out constantly as a lie, even in Congress. That you chose to believe that lie doesn’t make it any less a lie.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« Reply #48 on: September 23, 2019, 07:30:40 PM »
It was clearly misleading. You can quibble and say that once the insurance companies altered the plan, then it wasn't really the same plan. But no plan was ever going to remain static. If you know this, then you are misleading people badly to suggest that they weren't going to be affected. They also didn't want the old plans to stick around that failed to cover what they considered baseline care.

They knew they were going to die, they wanted them to die, and they did die.

LetterRip

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: I have no obligation to be honest
« Reply #49 on: September 24, 2019, 11:53:16 AM »
All of that would be more convincing if the architect hadn't let the cat out of the bag. Even CNN covered it.

https://www.cnn.com/2014/11/13/politics/tapper-gruber/index.html

All he said is that the Administration focused discussion on costs, even though the primary benefit was expanded coverage.

[quote[True, he wasn't talking specifically about the like your doctor part of it but he made it very clear that lying to the American people about it was an essential part of the process in getting it passed into law.[/quote]

That is fairly absurd spin.  That isn't at all what the economist said.  He was suggesting they were overselling cost savings but they were using a 'spaghetti approach' - and while many of the proposed measures seemed promising there were no guarantees they would be effective.  The 'guaranteed' effective benefit was that everyone would be covered but that wasn't something that people already covered cared about so it wasn't a focus of public discussion.  That has zero to do with lying.

Quote
Now I'll give Obama some credit for not hedging at all in his statement about "like your doctor." He left himself no wiggle room, no disclaimer, no fine print. He said "Period." You don't often see politicians, especially lawyer politicians, brave enough to do that. He didn't try to finesse it by saying if it passes the way we intend it, if the states cooperate, and so on. He said, "Period." So when that didn't happen even if it was for reasons beyond his control or ability to anticipate, that made him a liar. As he might put it, period.

Yes he used firm language.  Unfortunately usage of any hedge language doesn't work for sound bites or speeches.  No one realistically expected that the practice of doctors only working with specific insurance companies would change and changing insurers would result in you no longer having the same doctor.  Also he didn't realize that some states would try and deliberately sabotage their constituents.  Yes he was naive to not realize that Republican politicians hate him more than they care about their own constituents and were willing to *censored* over their constituents to make it look like he lied.  That isn't the same as lying - he should have realized the duplicity he was facing and perhaps anticipated it so that people like you wouldn't be deceived.

Did you really think that Obama was promising they would eliminate insurance companies only contracting with specific doctors?