Rudy is a Liar

Cancel7

Banned
Sigh…did I ever mention that I have a tiny little crush on Paul Krugman?

“The fact is that the prostate affair is part of a pattern: Mr. Giuliani has a habit of saying things, on issues that range from health care to national security, that are demonstrably untrue. And the American people have a right to know that.”

Prostates and Prejudices
By PAUL KRUGMAN

“My chance of surviving prostate cancer — and thank God I was cured of it — in the United States? Eighty-two percent,” says Rudy Giuliani in a new radio ad attacking Democratic plans for universal health care. “My chances of surviving prostate cancer in England? Only 44 percent, under socialized medicine.”

It would be a stunning comparison if it were true. But it isn’t. And thereby hangs a tale — one of scare tactics, of the character of a man who would be president and, I’m sorry to say, about what’s wrong with political news coverage.

Let’s start with the facts: Mr. Giuliani’s claim is wrong on multiple levels — bogus numbers wrapped in an invalid comparison embedded in a smear.
Mr. Giuliani got his numbers from a recent article in City Journal, a publication of the conservative Manhattan Institute. The author gave no source for his numbers on five-year survival rates — the probability that someone diagnosed with prostate cancer would still be alive five years after the diagnosis. And they’re just wrong.

You see, the actual survival rate in Britain is 74.4 percent. That still looks a bit lower than the U.S. rate, but the difference turns out to be mainly a statistical illusion. The details are technical, but the bottom line is that a man’s chance of dying from prostate cancer is about the same in Britain as it is in America.

So Mr. Giuliani’s supposed killer statistic about the defects of “socialized
medicine” is entirely false. In fact, there’s very little evidence that Americans get better health care than the British, which is amazing given the fact that Britain spends only 41 percent as much on health care per person as we do.
Anyway, comparisons with Britain have absolutely nothing to do with what the Democrats are proposing. In Britain, doctors are government employees; despite what Mr. Giuliani is suggesting, none of the Democratic candidates have proposed to make American doctors work for the government.

As a fact-check in The Washington Post put it: “The Clinton health care plan” — which is very similar to the Edwards and Obama plans — “has more in common with the Massachusetts plan signed into law by Gov. Mitt Romney than the British National Health system.” Of course, this hasn’t stopped Mr. Romney from making similar smears.

At one level, what Mr. Giuliani and Mr. Romney are doing here is engaging in time-honored scare tactics. For generations, conservatives have denounced every attempt to ensure that Americans receive needed health care, from Medicare to S-chip, as “socialized medicine.”
Part of the strategy has always involved claiming that health reform is suspect because it’s un-American, and exaggerating health care problems in other countries — usually on the basis of unsubstantiated anecdotes or fraudulent statistics. Opponents of reform also make a practice of lumping all forms of government intervention together, pretending that having the government pay some health care bills is just the same as having the government take over the whole health care system.

But here’s what I don’t understand: Why isn’t Mr. Giuliani’s behavior here considered not just a case of bad policy analysis but a character issue?
For better or (mostly) for worse, political reporting is dominated by the search for the supposedly revealing incident, in which the candidate says or does something that reveals his true character. And this incident surely seems to fit the bill.

Leave aside the fact that Mr. Giuliani is simply lying about what the Democrats are proposing; after all, Mitt Romney is doing the same thing.
But health care is the pre-eminent domestic issue for the 2008 election. Surely the American people deserve candidates who do their homework on the subject.

Yet what we actually have is the front-runner for the Republican nomination apparently basing his health-care views on something he read somewhere, which he believed without double-checking because it confirmed his prejudices.

By rights, then, Mr. Giuliani’s false claims about prostate cancer — which he has, by the way, continued to repeat, along with some fresh false claims about breast cancer — should be a major political scandal. As far as I can tell, however, they aren’t being treated that way.

To be fair, there has been some news coverage of the prostate affair. But it’s only a tiny fraction of the coverage received by Hillary’s laugh and John Edwards’s haircut.

And much of the coverage seems weirdly diffident. Memo to editors: If a candidate says something completely false, it’s not “in dispute.” It’s not the case that “Democrats say” they’re not advocating British-style socialized medicine; they aren’t.

The fact is that the prostate affair is part of a pattern: Mr. Giuliani has a habit of saying things, on issues that range from health care to national security, that are demonstrably untrue. And the American people have a right to know that.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/02/o...int&adxnnlx=1194015618-9wb+ti4bSwDzV6tlQ6EvGg
 
lol I wonder if the media will jump all over this "lie", with the same ferocity and enthusiasm they jumped all over Gore, for trival alleged lies and mistatements?

Cons have to lie about universal healthcare. They know that universal healthcare of some form, is probably inevitable. If done right, its going to be good for business, and good for american citizens. As I've mentioned previously, I've never heard congresswomen or senators complain once about the publically-financed healthcare they and other federal employees receive. I just don't know what cons are afraid of. Taxes? That's just ideology. The only important measure of an american families liquid wealth, is their net, after-tax disposable income, not their tax rate. We already spend more on healthcare, than any other developed nation in the world.
 
lol I wonder if the media will jump all over this "lie", with the same ferocity and enthusiasm they jumped all over Gore, for trival alleged lies and mistatements?

Cons have to lie about universal healthcare. They know that universal healthcare of some form, is probably inevitable. If done right, its going to be good for business, and good for american citizens. As I've mentioned previously, I've never heard congresswomen or senators complain once about the publically-financed healthcare they and other federal employees receive. I just don't know what cons are afraid of. Taxes? That's just ideology. The only important measure of an american families liquid wealth, is their net, after-tax disposable income, not their tax rate. We already spend more on healthcare, than any other developed nation in the world.

I know you're not really "wondering" cypress.
 
Yeah I saw my ex SIL the other day and she was talking about Edwards $400 haircut and his mansion....
She is a fairly unblanced fan.
Runs down welfare and such and lives on SS disability....
 
"The only important measure of an american families liquid wealth, is their net, after-tax disposable income, not their tax rate. We already spend more on healthcare, than any other developed nation in the world."

Well since we spend more than anyone else, we must have the best health in the world....
 
“The fact is that this is part of a pattern: Mr. Krugman has a habit of saying things, on issues that range from health care to national security, that are demonstrably untrue. And the American people have a right to know that.”
This sounds like it is right out of the Krugman Truth Squad.

One liar calling out another.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
“The fact is that this is part of a pattern: Mr. Krugman has a habit of saying things, on issues that range from health care to national security, that are demonstrably untrue. And the American people have a right to know that.”

This sounds like it is right out of the Krugman Truth Squad.

One liar calling out another.

Yeah...too bad the Krugman "truth squad" is a group of highly funded right wing bitches with a vested interest in keeping the status quo...or the resememblance would be stunning.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah...too bad the Krugman "truth squad" is a group of highly funded right wing bitches with a vested interest in keeping the status quo...or the resememblance would be stunning.

Actually I don't think many would call the financial and economic changes they would like to see as 'status quo'.

The problem is Krugman can no longer lie without impunity as he is being called on it. Thus the rich irony in him calling others liars.
 
Actually I don't think many would call the financial and economic changes they would like to see as 'status quo'.

The problem is Krugman can no longer lie without impunity as he is being called on it. Thus the rich irony in him calling others liars.

I'd call them the status quo, since they've gotten many of these "changes".
And their own fortunes depend on shutting up Paul Krugman who has credentials they can only dream of. Pretending that he is a “liar” is one very effective way to do so. Problem is? He’s not. And just because you swallow every word these people, with clear self-interests, put out, doesn’t make it any more credible. I’ve read some of them and debunked them myself, never mind what Krugman could do to their false claims about him.
 
Actually I don't think many would call the financial and economic changes they would like to see as 'status quo'.

The problem is Krugman can no longer lie without impunity as he is being called on it. Thus the rich irony in him calling others liars.
Link us up to this "Truth Squad", it sounds interesting.
 
"It would be a stunning comparison if it were true. But it isn’t. And thereby hangs a tale — one of scare tactics, of the character of a man who would be president and, I’m sorry to say, about what’s wrong with political news coverage."

Kind of like saying the sea levels will rise 20 feet because of global warming when most "experts" think it will only rise 8-10 inches?

Bottom line... don't trust politicians who use statistics... because 89.4% of their stats are simply made up.
 
LOL. Like your 89.4%...

One of the easiest ways of lying is to give percentages call it a statistic and keep talking as if you know what you are speaking of.

Much like saying that 74% translates to the same as the 84% even though the numbers were figured in the same way.
 
Yeah...too bad the Krugman "truth squad" is a group of highly funded right wing bitches with a vested interest in keeping the status quo...or the resememblance would be stunning.

and Krugman does the same as a left wing bitch with a vested interest in keeping the status quo.
 
I'd call them the status quo, since they've gotten many of these "changes".
And their own fortunes depend on shutting up Paul Krugman who has credentials they can only dream of. Pretending that he is a “liar” is one very effective way to do so. Problem is? He’s not. And just because you swallow every word these people, with clear self-interests, put out, doesn’t make it any more credible. I’ve read some of them and debunked them myself, never mind what Krugman could do to their false claims about him.

The guy who works for the New York Times and is their fact checker has called out Krugman for playing loose with the truth.

You are allowing your heart to interfere with your mind here. :)
 
The guy who works for the New York Times and is their fact checker has called out Krugman for playing loose with the truth.

You are allowing your heart to interfere with your mind here. :)

That's the public editor, one time, nitpicking first of all, and he used to work for the wall street journal, and Krugman disagrees. You're letting your ideology interfere with how your view Krugman Cawacko. you need him to be lying because if he's not, then your whole world turns upside down. :)
 
and Krugman does the same as a left wing bitch with a vested interest in keeping the status quo.

He's not trying to keep the status quo, get your facts straight. right now his most passionate issue is trying to get health care. You tell me what vested interest someone like Krugman has to do that?

But it's very easy to see the interests of the very wealthy who are aligned agaisnt him isn't it? And see, that's your problem.
 
Back
Top