Examining Deception

This entry is part 38 of 47 in the series Blog1

Thinker: Now it’s my turn. Unlike many on the Left I don’t like calling someone a liar if they distort or give wrong information.  It’s always possible they really believe what they are saying and making an honest mistake.  I prefer to merely point out where they are in error and offer a correction.

True Believer: If you’re telling the truth that really sets you apart from most of the Right.  They call us liars at the drop of a hat when we are telling the truth.


Thinker: On the contrary, the Left has called Republicans liars over and over during their convention and went into overdrive in accusing Romney in the first debate. I let you give your best shot in finding a lie and you could not identify even one.

True Believer: That’s a matter of opinion, but your side calls us liars over nothing.


Thinker: Actually, many on the Right are like myself in that they do not call the other side liars when they are incorrect but just try and point out the facts

True Believer: That is pure fantasy.


Thinker: You’re wrong on the fantasy accusation and I can prove it.

True Believer: This I gotta see.


Thinker: I can prove it right now through Google. As you probably know the searches that come up first do so largely because of numbers. If there is a lot of activity around a word or phrase then it will have a higher ranking. Do you agree?

True Believer: I understand that is basically true. So what?


Thinker: Let us check the liar accusation from both sides to see what the numbers show. Let us try this now. Google this phrase: “Lies Democratic Convention 2012.” Then we will tabulate the first twenty sites that come up accusing the other side of lying. We will see if it is Democrats accusing Republicans of lying or the other way around

True Believer: I’m game. (They Google and tabulate on the date of Oct 9, 2012)


Thinker: Okay, out of the first twenty, where lying accusations are made, eight are accusing Democrats of lying but twelve are accusing the Republicans of lying at their convention.

True Believer: I don’t think that proves anything.


Thinker: But we are not done.  Now Google these words, “Lies Republican Convention 2012”

True Believer: If you insist. (Showing a little reluctance now).


Thinker: (They tabulate the first twenty accusations) This is interesting.  All the first twenty accusations from this search are 100%, 20 out of 20 sites, where Democrats are accusing Republicans of lying at their convention. Then in the search for Democratic lies we still had a majority of accusations of the Republicans being liars coming up.


Again, let me ask you, which side is the one which incessantly accuses the other of lying?

True Believer: Maybe the real problem is that Republicans just lie too much.


Thinker: I know you want to think this but wanting it to be true does not make it so. Now, let us look at some of the untrue statements at the Democratic convention. Governor Pat Quinn at the convention gave an often repeated Democrat distortion that Romney “left his state 47th out of 50 in job growth.” The facts according to factcheck.org and other sources is that the state was 50th in job growth when Romney began his term and moved it up to 28th when he left. How do you suppose accusers arrive at 47th place out of those figures?

True Believer: Not sure.  I’d have to check out the details.


Thinker: The Democrats tabulated the state’s position in job growth for the entire four years and averaged them to 47. It is entirely false that Massachusetts was 47th when Romney left.  Accusers also commit the sin of omission when they leave out that the state was 50th, or at the bottom of the barrel, when he became governor. That piece of knowledge makes even makes 47th place look positive. Do you support a distortion like this? Reference Link

True Believer: Like I say I’ll have to check the details but if 47% is the average then that would be one way to say it.


Thinker: It’s away to give a deceptive impression. Now let us look at a point made several times during the convention. Obama and Clinton both covered it. Clinton said, “He [Obama] has offered a reasonable plan of $4 trillion in debt reduction over a decade,”


This statement is so false and misleading that even liberal sources like the Washington Post reject it.  The first problem is that this amount includes $1 trillion in cuts already agreed to with Congress a year ago. This is a done deal even if Romney becomes president.  Subtracting this leads us to $3 trillion right there.


Another part of the savings is a projected $848 billion from ending the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan.  There are two problems with counting on this money.  First, we always seem to have some crisis that demands additional military expenses.  For instance, after Clinton spent the peace dividend we had the 9/11 attack which ate up that savings and more.


Secondly, our government always finds a way to spend peace dividends before they are applied to debt. Obama even indicated this in his convention speech where he said:  “I’ll use the money we’re no longer spending on war to pay down our debt and put more people back to work – rebuilding roads and bridges; schools and runways.”


He reveals his deception here because his plan claims the $848 billion will be spent on debt reduction but then tells us that a part of that will be spent on “roads and bridges; schools and runways.” Obviously, this means that $848 billion will not be left over to pay off the debt.


In addition to this the Washington Post says, “The administration also counts $800 billion in savings in debt payments (from lower deficits) as a ‘spending cut,’ which is a dubious claim. We didn’t realize that debt payments were now considered a government program.”


This has got to be the most bizarre idea for debt reduction I have heard of and has nothing to do with reducing real debt.


But let us suppose that the Obama administration could somehow magic $4 trillion with no painful spending cuts.  Would the debt be reduced over ten years as they claim?


The dirty little secret is the debt would not be reduced by even a dollar but would continue to expand.  $4 trillion over ten years amounts to $400 billion a year. The Obama administration has been adding over $1 trillion a year in deficit spending with no end in sight. If we apply the $400 billion to the deficit this means we will still be adding $600 billion a year to the national debt, or $6 trillion during the projected ten years.


Now the deficit is the amount of overspending we do each year and reducing this does not reduce the current debt with is now over $16 trillion. Under Obama’s rosiest projections the debt would not decrease, as Clinton said, but increase to $22 trillion by the end of the ten year period.


Can you find any flaw in my reasoning and facts here?

True Believer: I’m sure I could if I research it


Thinker: I think I’ve given you the right nickname.  You are a true believer.


I could give many more untruths from the Democratic convention but I’ll just add this third one. Wednesday featured three speakers billed as “former employees of companies controlled by Bain Capital.” One of these was David Foster who told the story about 750 steelworkers who lost their jobs when the Bain-controlled company GST Steel filed for bankruptcy in the early 1990s. The problem is that Foster never worked for GST Steel or any other company that had a relationship with Bain Capital. Instead, he was a regional union director. That’s pretty starkly deceptive, don’t you think?


True Believer: I’d have to check it out.


Thinker: Check it out here at ABC news, not exactly a conservative source.

This wasn’t the first time the Democrats used deception to make Romney’s relationship with Bain Capital look malicious. Earlier they ran an ad featuring Joe Soptic, a former steel worker who blamed Romney for the death of his wife even though the steel plant he worked at closed after Romney left Bain. Mitt Romney left Bain 1999 to go work on the Winter Olympics. GST Steel went bankrupt in 2001. Soptic’s wife was diagnosed with cancer in 2006 long after he left Bain Capital.  The strange thing is he blamed Romney for their lack of health insurance when his wife continued to have insurance through her own employer.  There was nothing stopping her from getting cancer checkups earlier than 2006.


I know that you will resist these facts but when you compare your difficulty in finding Republican lies compared to my ease of finding Democratic ones I think you’ll have to agree it is hypocritical to call Republicans liars so incessantly.

True Believer: But they do lie.


Thinker: But since you haven’t been able to identify one lie at the Republican convention but I have from the Democrats then how about if we agree to tone down the rhetoric? If we see something that seems to be incorrect let’s hold off on the name-calling and first try and identify the error and find the correct facts.  Does that sound like a deal?

True Believer: Sometimes the lies are so blatant I just have to speak up.


Thinker: And if you are proven wrong for an impulsive false accusation you look like a fool.  So how about treating each other with some respect?  Will you at least try?

True Believer: I suppose.

Copyright 2012 by J J Dewey

Register at The Majority Speaks Here

Log on to The Majority Speaks  Here

Search all of JJ’s Writings HERE

Read JJ’s new book – Fixing America – Go HERE


Series Navigation<< Where Are The Lies?The Sandy Hook Elementary Shooting >>

Speak Your Mind


Blue Captcha Image