Topic: "Few countries on earth do lying quite like the United States." (Read 1769 times)

This begs the question: who is the biggest liar in america? I have a vague idea...

Humans are pathological liars by nature, it should come as no surprise that the US lies too. Since the world we live in has been built on lies and everybody lies to achieve their goals, the US's ability to lie better should be hailed as a virtue  Seriously though, only the one who's never told a single lie can ride this high horse with impunity.

At this point, i no longer think Washington holds most of the blame.
Its the general public. They are willing to remain asleep as long as:

American Idol is on every week
Fast food companies sell them dinner for under $10
EBT cards are handed out like candy
Public school (where their children get an inferior education just like Mom & Dad did) remains free
A new comic book themed movie is released every month
You are still free to carry a concealed gun at Walmart, so your 2yr old can shoot you

Like a few others in this thread have already pointed out, politicians are just doing what their corporate bosses tell them to do...
The general population continues to sleep-walk and at this point its no one elses fault but their own.

Kind of the first one as well, their economy has been in the tubes for quite a while now. The debt to federal reserve is quite big nowdays, they made bank so to speak.

America is just power hungry and run by corporations so it's obvious they'll say and do what they want to keep their business interests happy.


Didn't they already cause the last one?

US collapse would be bad for the world as a whole as well.
A lot of countries hold US government bonds.

At #3, most people in the US equate America to the World. So it is not surprising.

All the people who laugh at the preppers for being "paranoid" will wish that they too had the vision to prepare.
Some people enjoy going thru life with their head in the sand....eventually you have to accept reality.

The majority of the people in the US are so clueless, its almost scary.
I bet the majority of people in the US do not know:

1)Who the vice president is
2)How much (within a few hundred dollars) an once of Gold is
3)Where China is on a map
4)What president is on the $10 bill

*ok, #4 is kinda a trick question, but you guys get my point.

Less money spend on foreign aid, military defense, and illegal global wars.
More money on prioritizing higher education

If we did that, many people would be much better off in the future.

Right and what a tragedy that will be considering very few could comprehend that anything could possibly be different here in the US in terms of always getting one's paycheck or govt handout to purchase personal needs or wants. Such a wakeup call of a currency crisis would hit everyone hard as hell but less so for the preppers and pm/crypto types who'll actually have a pot to piss in while everyone else is either lined up to get food or out on their ass cause their fiat isn't buying shit anymore.

U.S. is pretty pathetic.  They're always in the spotlight too.  Just a matter of time before economic collapse and a mess in that country.

Saying "all scientists agree on global warming" is much less of a stretch than "scientists only believe in global warming because of a worldwide conspiracy instituted by governments." In any event, I was only parroting your earlier sentiments. On the topic though, of published, peer-reviewed papers, it is on the order of the high 90 percent that agree mankind's actions are changing the climate. And whether it's called "global warming" or "climate change" is ultimately of little consequence to me. The fact that the name has been confused reflects the baseless push back by conservatives to spin scientific consensus into a global conspiracy. I understand the the reason there doesn't appear to be much opposition is that science is science, and there's a scientific consensus because that's the reality. Deniers is an appropriate word for someone who refuses to accept reality because it doesn't fit their political ideology. I suppose your conspiracy theory would have more legs in a world where science was only controlled by the government, and there was no such thing as peer review, or the ability to conduct science outside of government offices. Or any shred of plausibility whatsoever in the notion that the US government can control all climate science on a global scale.

It sounds like you're claiming all scientists agree on global warming.  That's quite a stretch.  (And you used the old name instead of the modern mandate, climate change.)  But many, many such studies, probably most, are indeed paid for directly by government grants or by companies with government contracts.  I understand the reason there doesn't appear to be much opposition is that peers don't want to endanger their grants by even reviewing contrary papers.  And incentive to publish is reduced by the knowledge that the mockingbird media will knee-jerk label them deniers.



Governments want to govern.  They want to have a reason that will be seen as valid to make laws and enforce them.  They want to be seen as the white knights coming to the rescue of the adoring, ignorant masses.  And climate change gives them a free hand to wreak all manner of havoc in the name of saving the earth.  They must keep the public ignorant to pull it off.

It's extremely amusing to have to defend my thesis that the government is lying in a thread that's all about the government lying.


We totally agree on that one.

Governments would pay to have an understanding what is going on, the same reason they would pay to conduct a census every ten years that asks invasive questions about your ethnicity and income, or embark on a study of wind patterns, or any other sociological or scientific pursuit that governments sponsor studies on. The government doesn't have a pre-determined outcome they are forcing people to subscribe to. Claiming that all scientists agree on global warming because they're paid by the government to think that is just not grounded in anything but your desire for it to be true. Government doesn't do anything particularly well. Coordinating a global conspiracy rooted in faulty-science that could be so easily disproven with real science isn't something it could do competently.

You can lie by funding studies that show what you paid for, and that's what's happening.

In many science disciplines it's extremely difficult to make sure your analysis is unbiased, that you're not inadvertently making your own expectations influence the results.  Every scientist is painfully aware of this.  So imagine the pressure if you're a scientist on a grant from an agency that damn-well expects you to get an answer that supports what they want.  It would be trivially easy, even subconsciously, to allow bias to get the result that keeps grant funding coming.

Also, any scientist that shows anything different than all the other paid-for results has to be very sure of himself to stand up to peers that are also getting government grant money.  And the media is on board to keep the masses deceived, so they poo-poo honest results as the work of deniers.

When I was in high school, we were inundated with reports that man's pollution was blotting out the sun and causing global cooling that would freeze us all.  But the earth didn't cooperate with the hype, so they switched to global warming.  (It still boggles my mind that they've duped the masses into believing that carbon dioxide is pollution!!  Next it'll be water vapor.)  But the earth didn't cooperate with that either, so they switched to something vague enough that they could hype it either way--climate change.

Just ask yourself why the government would pay for this result.  Then ask yourself what any government wants.

No, I don't find the error to be revealing, because the scientific papers on the topic are actually science, not conjecture like you're offering. Trying to explain a scientific paper to someone who doesn't understand the scientific process or peer review is as fruitful as trying to convince an atheist that the bible is an historically accurate account of what happened 2000 years ago. You can't use the logic of the bible to prove the bible is true. Similarly, if you've already made up your mind that science is wrong because that's what fits your political viewpoint, using science to show you otherwise is wasted effort.

I laugh for a different reason: I can't help but read/hear "Gold bless America". 

Besides, it's not the average people. Sure, they support through taxes. But many of them simply don't know how to go about getting out of the tax system, because they do not want to support, but don't know how to get out.

It's mostly the leaders of the nations that make the trouble. If the nation is young, the leaders are often doing what they are doing to literally help the nation survive. They may be doing it for moral and just reasons. But once the nation is secure in its position as a nation, then the political liars step in to see how much they can skim off the gross national product/profit of the nation.

The difference is Africa. Many of the nations of Africa were started by rich b*****ds who wanted to rape and plunder the whole continent, if only they could figure out a way to do it.

Bigger stakes and money means bigger lies. It's quite a natural thing. The hypocrisy and arrogance is much more annoying.

Isn't that error revealing?

Liberal fundamentalists don't care about science, except to manipulate it to support their predetermined point.  They manipulate it by having the government fund lots of studies with the goal of proving that the climate is changing in sync with man's development.  They never consider that fact that the sun is getting measurably larger and brighter with time, or that the earth is still coming out of the mini ice age it was in around the time of the Revolutionary War.

I'm thinking it's most likely an unintentional error due to laziness or ineffective writing. Rather than "all scientific papers," the author probably means all scientific papers on the topic of climate change.