Liberals Have To Lie To Win

That’s not entirely true. Some liberals lie to win while other liberals believe the lies. While that may yet not be wholly true, that is indeed my perception. To understand my perception, several other items must be understood. First of which is understanding what I mean by “lie.”



1. a false statement made with deliberate intent to deceive; an intentional untruth; a falsehood.
2. something intended or serving to convey a false impression; imposture: His flashy car was a lie that deceived no one.
3. an inaccurate or false statement.
4. the charge or accusation of lying: He flung the lie back at his accusers.

–verb (used without object)
5. to speak falsely or utter untruth knowingly, as with intent to deceive.
6. to express what is false; convey a false impression.

–verb (used with object)
7. to bring about or affect by lying (often used reflexively): to lie oneself out of a difficulty; accustomed to lying
his way out of difficulties.


–verb (used with object)
1. to mislead by a false appearance or statement; delude: They deceived the enemy by disguising the destroyer as a freighter.
2. to be unfaithful to (one’s spouse or lover).
3. Archaic. to while away (time).
–verb (used without object)
4. to mislead or falsely persuade others; practice deceit: an engaging manner that easily deceives.


1. the act of omitting.
2. the state of being omitted.
3. something left out, not done, or neglected: an important omission in a report.

In researching Lying by Omission, led me to a list of articles which surprisingly (or maybe not so urprisingly) listed two different articles from a blogsite I frequent (Patterico’s Pontifications) which has an issue with people who lie by omission. I also found this definition from (ironic that it’s a Pro-Choice site):

To lie by omission is to remain silent and thereby withhold from someone else a vital piece (or pieces) of information. The silence is deceptive in that it gives a false impression to the person from whom the information was withheld. It subverts the truth; it is a way to manipulate someone into altering their behavior to suit the desire of the person who intentionally withheld the vital information; and, most importantly, it’s a gross violation of another person’s right of self-determination.

That Pro-Choice site ironically went on to harshly rail against lies of omission.

A lie of omission is the most insidious, most pervasive, and most common lie on the entire planet. Commonly, those who use this type of lie, have conned themselves into believing that to intentionally remain silent when ethical behavior calls for one to speak up is not a lie at all. In spite of overwhelming evidence that their silence deceives, misleads, and often causes untold grief and misery, they refuse to speak the truth.

I strongly agree that a lie of omission is the most insidious form of lying. Lies of commission (where you actually “tell a lie”) are less insidious in that they give reference points to research. Lies of omission, in contrast, have no reference points to research because the lies are unseen and unheard. It is thus more difficult to defeat a lie of omission. Not only does it take someone knowledgeable in the omitted material, it also takes someone knowledgeable enough to notice the material was, in fact, omitted.

And mainstream media (lame stream media or drive-by media or state-owned media) uses both forms of lies: commission and omission. But they’re not the only ones. The public education system uses both, but lies of omission are much more prevalent in the public education system from K to PhD. One only need to crack a history book (and be nowledgeable in history) to see rampant lies of omission.

There is also Deception by Mixed Measurement.

I’m sure there’s a different term and I didn’t find a definition for it, so allow me to define it in a rather verbose manner. When using Deception by Mixed Measurement, one uses two distinct forms of measurement to convey the connotation one desires.

As an example of dealing with mixed measurements, if I offered you 10 cents a pound for your corn or 6 dollars a bushel, which would you accept? This is an example of a mixed measurement with a secondary issue, but if I hadn’t looked it up, I wouldn’t know myself since I’m not a farmer or anything related to farming. In this situation, if you know what you’re galking about, your answer would be “it depends.” Based on my research, it would be wise to take the price per pound if your corn is still on the ear and the price per bushel if it’s shelled. This is an example of a general-specific compared to a general-general (pound is specific, bushel is general).

The mainstream media often uses Deception by Mixed Measurement in its stories, depending on the connotation value of their general-specific v general-general reporting. If I were to ask you which is greater, “several dozen” or “nearly 100,” which would you choose? Of course, now, you’d say “it depends” since I focused on it. But what is our connotation when you hear those terms? Connotation says “nearly 100” is much more than “several dozen.” And that’s where the media lies to you. It’s Deception by Mixed Measurement. It’s general-general vs general-specific. A dozen is specific but it has a general feel to it, but 100 is a specific with a specific absolute to it. And a dozen is a small amount when compared to a three-digit number. And how close to 100 is “nearly” 100? Is 80 “nearly” 100? How about 78? Is twelve dozen (a gross) “several” dozen? How about ten dozen? Or eight dozen?

Do you see how this particular mixed measurement is poisonous? If you have 80 people on your side, you could legitimately call that number “nearly 100.” If you have 90 people against you, you could legitimately call that number “several dozen.” But if both are true, you have crossed the line from legitimacy into Deception by Mixed Measurement. And this is exactly what mainstream news does. Nearly 100 on the liberal side and several dozen on the conservative side. On the face of it, they didn’t lie. Their reporting was generally accurate when each clause is looked at in a vacuum. But they intentionally combined the two to create a false perception for which, of course, they cannot be held accountable. “It’s not our fault people misconstrued the numbers.”

Therefore, a Deception by Mixed Measurement is a Lie by Commission due to Omission or a Lie by Omission due to Commission.

And, while the lamestream media does depend on Lies by Omission and Deception by Mixed Measurement, it also depends on Lies by Commission. The vast majority of their readership or viewership will not research their statements. These people on which the lamestream media depends are mostly too lazy or self-absorbed to do any research themselves. Others are too busy with work or life to find the time to do the research, while yet others don’t have the capability to do the research. And, again, that’s the key to the lamestream media’s power.

The problem lamestream media has, a problem which could utterly kill them, is that more and more people are depending on the new media for their information. More and more people are connected to the internet, where the lamestream media doesn’t have a monopoly, and that’s killing the lamestream media. It’s also letting more and more people see through all the lies of the lamestream media, which is also killing lamestream media.

And what’s the lamestream media’s response? To get more shrill in their Lies of Commission. A large part of their “reporting” has dropped all pretense, all effort to use Lies of Omission and Deception by Mixed Measurement, and gone straight to Lies of Commission. But, yes, they use the other two forms of lying as underpinnings for their Lies of Commission.

Max Blumenthal, working for Salon Magazine, an old lamestream media source who has crossed over to new media, is a personal example of someone in the media who Lies by Commission. But he also lies by Omission (which is obviously harder to see). And when being hammered to the wall on it, he does the best impersonation of Jell-O he can. And Hot Air has it on record. Falsely accuse someone of being racist (which is the hugely overplayed trump card the left uses, denying history (see my “The Truth about ‘Race’ Lies” sidebar item) and all facts surrounding the event talked about), deny you ever accused some specific person of being racist, and when pushed on it with facts, claim “If that appeared on my blogsite, then I guess I said it.”

Did you notice that admission in the video Hot Air embedded? It wasn’t really an admission. Did you see the Jell-O caveat? If it’s on my site… That still leaves Blumenthal an out to claim he didn’t actually say what he said he said. Jell-O being nailed to the wall. Dishonesty even to the end.

I honestly believe any liberal who takes 30-60 days to actually study and research history and other facts will find him- or herself far more conservative after the study and far more cynical of the lamestream media. And I honestly believe more and more people are doing just that, to the detriment of the lamestream media (name a newspaper actually making money or a non-FOX TV news outlet that has not lost viewership).

(I would’ve gone into much further detail on multiple aspects, but my daughter is on-line.)
Cross Posted on Truth Before Dishonor


  1. Oh, and also this on the subject of lying to “win”.

    Make no mistake: Last fall, both Breitbart and O’Keefe, with the help of Fox News, did their best to confuse people about that fact. It’s true the duo seemed to purposefully push that falsehood and mislead the public and the press about the ACORN story. And more importantly, they did it to make the ACORN workers captured on video look like complete jackasses for not being able to spot O’Keefe’s pimp ruse a mile away.

    But the story was not true.

    Fact: On the guerilla clips posted online and aired on Fox News, O’Keefe was featured in lots of cutaway shots that were filmed outside and showed him parading around with Giles in his outlandish cane/top hat/sunglasses/fur coat pimp costume.

    The cutaway shots certainly left the impression that that’s how O’Keefe was dressed when he spoke to ACORN workers.

    But inside each and every office, according to one independent review that looked at the public videos, O’Keefe entered sans the pimp get-up. In fact, he was dressed rather conservatively. During his visit to the Baltimore ACORN office, he wore a dress shirt and khaki pants. For the Philadelphia sting, he added a tie to the ensemble.

    Instead, the ’70s-era, blacksploitation pimp costume was a propaganda tool used to later deceive the public about the undercover operation. It was a prop that was quickly embraced by the mainstream media and turned into a central part of the ACORN story.

    So when you say:

    Some liberals lie to win while other liberals believe the lies. While that may yet not be wholly true, that is indeed my perception. To understand my perception, several other items must be understood.

    …one of those items that must be understood is “wingnut projection”.

Comments are closed.