John F wrote on August 27, 2008 09:29 AM: Fausto,

Merriam-Webster defines "lie" as:

1 a: an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive b: an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker

The word "extreme" is defined thus:

Extending far beyond the norm: an extreme conservative. See synonyms at excessive. 4. Of the greatest severity; drastic: took extreme measures to conserve fuel.

Since opposing opening up new areas to offshore drilling can hardly be considered drastic or the most severe course of action, and since 25% of the population supporting such a stance is certainly not far beyond the norm, calling such a stance "extreme" is not true.

Since this false statement was deliberately presented as being true it must therefore be considered a lie. Please note that by definition, the teller of a lie might believe a statement to be true, but because it is not it is a lie regardless.

Look at it this way. If I wrote an editorial describing the 19% of the electorate that voted for Ross Perot in 1992 as extreme I would be lying. It might be my sincerely held viewpoint that they were extremists, but that wouldn't make it true.

Like Travis, I too strive for accuracy in language.

John F wrote on August 26, 2008 09:25 PM: Merriam-Webster defines "lie" as:

1 a: an assertion of something known or believed by the speaker to be untrue with intent to deceive b: an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed true by the speaker
2: something that misleads or deceives

They further define "extreme" as "situated at the farthest possible point from a center"

Therefore calling those who oppose expanded offshore drilling extreme is a lie.

As Travis said, we should strive for accuracy on our language.

Diogenes wrote on August 26, 2008 07:28 PM: Well, that's the usual at the R-J. For example, Tom Mitchell was obviously away late last week. Not only did he not have a column, but the R-J on Sunday was almost fair to Obama. Mitch normally doesn't allow that. The R-J has some decent reporters who want to do the right thing, but they aren't allowed.

CJJames wrote on August 26, 2008 07:17 PM: Wow, Sherman and Thomas still hate Democrats. What a shock.

These two would prefer that there be a constitutional ban against lobbying, except for that pesky "right to assemble" - I guess they hope that President Bush writes a signing statemetn to try and dump that right first.

Oh, and before you bash more Democrats for earmarks, you should do your research. The predator aircraft was an earmark-so would you agree with McCain that it should not have been made because it was "porkfat"?

You two are so quick to hate anyone with a "D" after them name that you ignore a king of earmarks, Sen. Ted Stevens, R-Alaska. His name and his "Bridge To Nowhere" escaped your editorial. Roy Blunt is an amature compared with Stevens.

Keep hating, you two. Watch more of your subscriptions walk out the door.

Fausto wrote on August 26, 2008 05:04 PM: "Only a few lies in today's editorial."

"Saying that those of us who are opposed to expansion of offshore drilling are "extreme" is absurd."

Extreme is the editorial writers viewpoint. It's an opinion, not a lie. Much like how you think their use of "extreme" is absurd.

Sham Lamb wrote on August 26, 2008 04:43 PM: Gee, the R-J Editor refused to reveal Jon Porter's $100,000,000 in pork!
Dean Heller's $250,000,000 in pork
and,
John Enisgn's $500,000,000 in pork.

Maybe it was just an oversight, or just biased "reporting".

BTW, go to iouusa website and see the future! No matter WHO is president or WHO runs Congress, the bill carried over from years before will come due during the next 4 years...it is going to hurt! ALOT!

Travis wrote on August 26, 2008 03:51 PM: Common Sense.

Impersonator is defined as: "to imitate the appearance, voice, or manner of; mimic."

The other common sense is not imitating you or your manner. They are posting under the same name, that's it. I know it's semantics, but accuracy of the language we use should be important in this forum.

"The only reason the socialist impersonator uses the pen name "Common Sense" is that I use that name to post logical, well-reasoned essays that debunk the fraudulent concepts of the left."

As I said before, don't flatter yourself. You aren't that important, and I seriously doubt the other poster's sole purpose of posting under that name (not a unique one either) is because you do. If you want to avoid the confusion, why don't you both change to posting under your own name or initials. That way we wouldn't have to read the same comments from you day after day. Either that, or you could just build a bridge and get over it.

John F wrote on August 26, 2008 01:07 PM: KDR81,

Since when did declining revenues stop the government from spending, especially a Republican government? According to the Congressional Budget Office, during the Bush Administration federal revenues were:

2001: $1.99 trillion
2002: $1.85 trillion
2003: $1.78 trillion
2004: $1.88 trillion
2005: $2.15 trillion
2006: $2.41 trillion
2007: $2.57 trillion

During the same time period, outlays were:

2001: $1.86 trillion
2002: $2.01 trillion
2003: $2.16 trillion
2004: $2.29 trillion
2005: $2.47 trillion
2006: $2.66 trillion
2007: $2.73 trillion

You will note that despite decreasing revenues from 2001 - 2003, the Republican Congress still managed to increase federal outlays by $300 billion, or about 17%, or 5.5% per year. In 2007, the year the Democrats took over in Congress, pork barrel spending declined from $29 billion to $13.2 billion - about 55% - and overall spending increased by only 2.6%, or less than the rate of inflation (and only half the rate at which spending increased when the Republicans were in charge).

So say all you want about how the Republicans are the party of fiscal responsibility. The evidence shows otherwise.

You also seem to be saying that opposing more offshore drilling is being opposed to "economic progress." What utter hogwash. Just how is more offshore drilling going to promote economic progress when even its proponents admit that it will have a negligible effect on both the supply and the price of oil? How nonsensical can you get?

As for being an extremist fascist thug, if my being one depends upon the kind of evidence you've put forth to support your other rantings, I suppose I have nothing to worry about.

patrick wrote on August 26, 2008 11:41 AM: Interesting that after spending the country into the largest debt in history (rivaled only by the republican congress during reagan's term) the republicans now "come to God" and decide that earmarks are going to be their issue.

Wonder if it has anything to do with the fact that they lost their majority in Congress and are due to lose lots more seats in the next election?

Similar to republicans changing the law after FDR won 4 terms in office to prevent another president from more than 2 terms, THEN, trying to change it back to unlimited terms when their hero Reagan was popular.

Hypocrits.

KDR81 wrote on August 26, 2008 11:01 AM: John F. that probably had something to do with declining tax revenue that could be devoted to pork spending, not Democrats behaving morally by not wasting my money.

And yes, anyone who opposes economic progress demanding it come to a halt without paying a dime out of their own pocket is an extremist. And a I dare say a thug, or perhaps even a fascist.

Read All Comments