Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2016/05/17/ krauthammer_wh_advisor_ben_rhodes_completely_embar
rassed_himself_exposed_obama_deception.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/wp/2016/05/16/ben-rhodes-wont-testify-to-congress-on-iran-deal-narratives/

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/05/17/gop-reps-hammer-wh-aide-rhodes-at-hearing-senators-seek-firing.html

He admits he sold the false story to reporters and straw maned them, and now he is getting grilled by the Senate and refuses to go before the Senate to testify on his lies. And now they are calling for his job.

http://freebeacon.com/national-security/congressmen-demand-obama-fire-top-aide-iran-deal-deception/

The liberal utopia they tried to pull on us is built on a lie.

Who would have thought Obama lied about the deal to the American people. He's like a used car sales men that sells the car as is no warranty, and 5 months later the engine busts.

I don't get it. You post a notoriously liberal rag site to prove conservatives are overreacting or making things up? Lol

Not to mention, you didn't even bother responding to what TI was saying (strange because this has never been hard for anyone). Rhodes DID admit lying to the public to make the Iran deal more attractive. This part is a fact.

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
Rhodes DID admit lying to the public to make the Iran deal more attractive. This part is a fact.

Where? The sources TI posted state that Rhodes claims the opposite.

http://nypost.com/2016/05/05/playing-the-press-and-the-public-for-chumps-to-sell-the-iran-deal/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/17/editorial-ben-rhodes-must-account-for-lies-about-i/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/6/l-todd-wood-obama-adviser-admits-lying-media-seal-/

Trying to find none right wing sources for this.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/09/politics/ben-rhodes-iran-deal/

He definitely tries to justify it in the CNN piece.

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
http://nypost.com/2016/05/05/playing-the-press-and-the-public-for-chumps-to-sell-the-iran-deal/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/17/editorial-ben-rhodes-must-account-for-lies-about-i/

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/may/6/l-todd-wood-obama-adviser-admits-lying-media-seal-/

Trying to find none right wing sources for this.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/09/politics/ben-rhodes-iran-deal/

He definitely tries to justify it in the CNN piece.

None of these state that Rhodes admitted that he lied.

Originally posted by Bardock42
None of these state that Rhodes admitted that he lied.

The very first paragraph


Third Paragraph of the 2nd WashingtonTimes link

Yes, I get that the articles change his statement into saying he lied. But there's no quoted or anything provided besides the opinion and redefining of "spin" to support that. So I'm sorry, but your claim that Ben Rhodes admitted that he lied is blatantly false. And he states the exact opposite on direct quotes.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, I get that the articles change his statement into saying he lied. But there's no quoted or anything provided besides the opinion and redefining of "spin" to support that. So I'm sorry, but your claim that Ben Rhodes admitted that he lied is blatantly false. And he states the exact opposite on direct quotes.

My claim that he lied is not blatantly false. It's not even close to that. DO you know what blatantly false is? According to multiple non right wing articles, he lied to the public. Now all of a sudden, the articles changed his statement? I think you're being intellectually dishonest here, and you definitely wouldn't afford this much latitude if it was a republican in question.

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
My claim that he lied is not blatantly false. It's not even close to that. DO you know what blatantly false is? According to multiple non right wing articles, he lied to the public. Now all of a sudden, the articles changed his statement? I think you're being intellectually dishonest here, and you definitely wouldn't afford this much latitude if it was a republican in question.

Even when the person admits they were lying the idiots here say "no he wasn't lying cause I said he wasn't."

Maybe this is in clearer English.

http://www.dailywire.com/news/5526/obama-administration-admits-they-lied-about-iran-ben-shapiro

I think you are being dishonest due to your conservative bias. He said very clearly he did not lie and everything they published is what they truly believed.

Basically the right wing is smearing him for doing PR. Which is ludicrous, and that you don't have the backbone to admit that this is another partisan witch hunt by Republicans is very telling.

Hold on, all of a sudden you're accusing me of bias? You then basically said "well he said he didn't lie so that's that"? That's pretty hypocritical since you just showed a liberal bias. And if we're going to be accusing each other of bias, there's no point in any discussions.


Yea honestly this is incredibly poor liberal biased rationalization. I don't have a dog in this race, you apparently do.

Liberals use Saul Alisnki tactics: 12 rules for radicals to shut down any discussion.

Originally posted by Bardock42
None of these state that Rhodes admitted that he lied.

As usual you cant be taken more serious then a common troll.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/gop-lawmakers-call-top-white-house-adviser-ben/story?id=39167616

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
Hold on, all of a sudden you're accusing me of bias? You then basically said "well he said he didn't lie so that's that"? That's pretty hypocritical since you just showed a liberal bias. And if we're going to be accusing each other of bias, there's no point in any discussions.


Yea honestly this is incredibly poor liberal biased rationalization. I don't have a dog in this race, you apparently do.

Yes, you said he admitted he lied, so showing that not only did he not admit it he is claiming the exact opposite is perfectly sufficient to put your lie to rest.

It's pathetic that you have basically turned into a slightly more articulate version of TI. Try to look at things more objectively, like you like to claim that you do.

Yes, according to the article he lied. Him claiming the exact opposite in another article means what exactly? Oh, apparently you pick and choose sources that fit your narrative? Gotcha.


What's more pathetic is that you've turned into the left version of TI (which I believe I've mentioned on more than one occasion before you decided to compare me to TI, lol), and your posts are filled with hypocrisy and double standard. I've never lied or made up stuff about politics and at least my posts are consistent with objectivity with sometimes right leaning rhetoric. You on the other hand decry the right for everything, then engage in the exact same nonsense you criticize. That makes you a hypocrite. I can't remember the last time you brought anything intelligent to a debate other than "nuh uh".

Ok, so in aggregate, he admitted to creating an "echo chamber" and putting a "spin" on something, both perfectly normal things that politicians of all parties everywhere do. Basically standard Public Relations work. And in this case, because Republicans are babies, they decided to pretend that is equivalent to lying, and you play along due to party affiliation. Got it.

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
Yes, according to the article he lied. Him claiming the exact opposite in another article means what exactly? Oh, apparently you pick and choose sources that fit your narrative? Gotcha.


What's more pathetic is that you've turned into the left version of TI (which I believe I've mentioned on more than one occasion before you decided to compare me to TI, lol), and your posts are filled with hypocrisy and double standard. I've never lied or made up stuff about politics and at least my posts are consistent with objectivity with sometimes right leaning rhetoric. You on the other hand decry the right for everything, then engage in the exact same nonsense you criticize. That makes you a hypocrite. I can't remember the last time you brought anything intelligent to a debate other than "nuh uh".

You didn't know he was a literally a troll?

Originally posted by Bardock42
Ok, so in aggregate, he admitted to creating an "echo chamber" and putting a "spin" on something, both perfectly normal things that politicians of all parties everywhere do. Basically standard Public Relations work. And in this case, because Republicans are babies, they decided to pretend that is equivalent to lying, and you play along due to party affiliation. Got it.

So now your excusing willful deception as "standard Public Relations work"

Now your trying to lash out at republicans as if we care about them

I'm not calling Bardock a troll. I'm calling him someone that doesn't even attempt to be objective, instead electing to dismiss anything that doesn't fit his narrative.

Thats a troll. He's purposely denying and or dismissing anything in attempt to piss you off. He is passive aggressive and does this to get you wound up.

"make a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them." trolling

Come on, man, we know that is the Republican MO now. Make up fake charges and have a hearing about it. Planned Parenthood, Benghazi, now this...

He said he created an "echo chamber", and later clarified that they did not publish or do anything that they did not believe to be correct. He did not admit to lying, you saying that is propaganda.

Back to "look the republicans."

So Hilary didn't get 4 people killed in Benghazi, lied to the families, then told her family something else.

Then she said she never lost anyone in Benghazi.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-dem-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/hillary-clinton-libya-deaths-220762

Please... If that's the Republican MO then the democratic MO is (well I don't believe this so when someone say it isn't true, I'll believe THEM). That's about as much credibility as you have right there. Lol@fake charges. There's a difference between exaggerated and fake but again, you're throwing around a bunch of nonsense that fits your narrative, with a mixture of confirmation bias. This isn't surprising.


I'm saying the articles admitted he lied, and Rhodes repeatedly backpeddled. The fact that you said "nah he said he didn't so that's that" says enough about how interested you are in objectivity.

I'm not even crucifying Rhodes for lying to the American public to get an agenda passed. We've seen that with W, Clinton, etc..

http://nypost.com/2016/05/06/white-houses-lies-on-iran-deal-is-humiliating-for-chuck-schumer/
http://www.mediaite.com/online/obama-advisor-openly-brags-about-lying-to-public-media-yawns/

There's two more. So according to some sources, he admitted deception. According to ALL the sources, he lied. It doesn't fit into your narrative, so you'll just claim it's all a desperate spin by the Republicans, because that's MUCH easier than looking at it objectively and saying "hmm he lied and maybe admitted to it."

NYP is only relevant to liberals when it bashes Trump though. Like Rob posting from it yesterday.

TI you're not really helping here. All the left wing psychos pretty much stopped posting here so you need to tone down your rhetoric as well, same with XYZ. Otherwise you're just making the center/right conservatives look bad by comparison. Some of what you say is relevant but you just need to tone it down. Just bring it down from 11. Otherwise there's no real debates here, just people creating threads to attempt to get their point across while facing zero opposition.

Again, what he actually said is that they created an "echo chamber" and that they put a "spin" on something. That's what he admitted. The jump to "he admitted he lied" has to be made first, because that is not what actually happened.

And I'm not even saying that he didn't lie. I'm saying he didn't admit to it. Which is accurate.

If you can give me one direct quote of him admitting he lied, then we could put that to rest. But there isn't any, cause he didn't.

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
TI you're not really helping here. All the left wing psychos pretty much stopped posting here so you need to tone down your rhetoric as well, same with XYZ. Otherwise you're just making the center/right conservatives look bad by comparison. Some of what you say is relevant but you just need to tone it down. Just bring it down from 11. Otherwise there's no real debates here, just people creating threads to attempt to get their point across while facing zero opposition.

Haha point taken

I am going by the sources. The sources said he admitted it, that's really the issue.


In the interest of objectivity, I am trying to find one that is left leaning. This post is a far cry from your previous posts where you said basically said, "well he said he wasn't lying so that's that."

Originally posted by Bardock42
Again, what he actually said is that they created an "echo chamber" and that they put a "spin" on something. That's what he admitted. The jump to "he admitted he lied" has to be made first, because that is not what actually happened.

And I'm not even saying that he didn't lie. I'm saying he didn't admit to it. Which is accurate.

If you can give me one direct quote of him admitting he lied, then we could put that to rest. But there isn't any, cause he didn't.

Apparently you dont know what an echo chamber is

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=echo%20chamber

All the sources take the same New York Times Magazine article as their sources. All of them only have admitting to "spin" and "creating an echo chamber" as direct quotes. And some of the articles jump from that to stating that he admitted he lied. But there is absolutely no direct evidence that he admitted he lied, he himself stated that he did not lie when asked, and all the direct quotes do not show him admitting to lying.


And I don't think it's a far cry. It's been my standpoint from the start. Here are some quotes that show this standpoint:

Originally posted by Bardock42
Yes, I get that the articles change his statement into saying he lied. But there's no quoted or anything provided besides the opinion and redefining of "spin" to support that.
Originally posted by Bardock42
He said very clearly he did not lie and everything they published is what they truly believed.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Ok, so in aggregate, he admitted to creating an "echo chamber" and putting a "spin" on something, both perfectly normal things that politicians of all parties everywhere do.

Those are all things you posted, which are not facts, they are your opinions.

Echo Chamber
http://goo.gl/WjLTHG

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Apparently you dont know what an echo chamber is

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=echo%20chamber

I know what an echo chamber is. An echo chamber does not make a statement regarding to the truth of the opinion that is discussed within the echo chamber. Therefore that does not equate to lying or misstating the truth.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I know what an echo chamber is. An echo chamber does not make a statement regarding to the truth of the opinion that is discussed within the echo chamber. Therefore that does not equate to lying or misstating the truth.

But an echo chamber allows ideas to be intentionally misleading which while isn't a downright lie, it is very close to it.

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
But an echo chamber allows ideas to be intentionally misleading which while isn't a downright lie, it is very close to it.

It allows for it, but it's not necessary.

Basically what we are talking about is that Ben Rhodes said he created a journalistic landscape that repeated the administrations standpoint (which the administration believes to be true). That's exactly what every politician that tries to get his or her policies to be supported does.

And, tbh, I think his main mistake was to shit all over journalists, they do not take kindly to that.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I know what an echo chamber is. An echo chamber does not make a statement regarding to the truth of the opinion that is discussed within the echo chamber. Therefore that does not equate to lying or misstating the truth.

So your spinning just like rhodes now.

He admits the Obama administration lied on his behalf, is this not lying indirectly?

He admits to creating an echo chamber, this probably resulted from lies or deception.

He admits to creating spin. Spin is where you draw out irrelevant facts to twist the truth so divert attention from what he actually did.

If this isn't accountable as lying, then I believe you either don't care of the Obama administration as being deceptive, or you'd rather attack a poorly arranged argument for being poorly arranged instead of the connotations of such argument.

Case in point, I don't care which one it is, Bardock, you're German humour isn't working here.

This Iran deal deception does not look good for the Middle East or foreign policy in general.

No, I am not spinning. I'm just going by the direct quotes we have from the sources that you provided. The spin comes solely from those that equate him saying that he created an echo chamber and put a spin on the topic to him admitting he lied.

You are trying to thread a needle.

http://goo.gl/xwVJ2X

You dont think anyone lies on the left. So there really is no point in arguing with you.

Do you think he is stupid enough to say outright "I lied and so did Obama!!!"

According to how you operate, without an official self admittance statement like that, he didn't .

Originally posted by Bardock42
No, I am not spinning. I'm just going by the direct quotes we have from the sources that you provided. The spin comes solely from those that equate him saying that he created an echo chamber and put a spin on the topic to him admitting he lied. i didn't say you were spinning, Ben Rhodes created spin.

I haven't provided any sources.

It's accountable to lying, which was my point.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
He admits the Obama administration lied on his behalf, is this not lying indirectly?

He didn't

Originally posted by It's xyz!
He admits to creating an echo chamber, this probably resulted from lies or deception.

Deception and lies is a presumption on your part.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
He admits to creating spin. Spin is where you draw out irrelevant facts to twist the truth so divert attention from what he actually did.

No, that's not the definition of spin.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
blah blah blah

Serious?

Originally posted by It's xyz!
i didn't say you were spinning, Ben Rhodes created spin.

I haven't provided any sources.

It's accountable to lying, which was my point.

Unless Rhodes admits he was lying directly or gets caught on a polygraph Bardock will never accept it.

He has created an echo chamber. This is deceptive. I am suspicious.

Deception should be accountable, Ben Rhodes in on thin ice. Originally posted by Bardock42
He didn't



Deception and lies is a presumption on your part.



No, that's not the definition of spin.

Sure, you can be suspicious. You just can't truthfully claim that he admitted that he lied. That's the only point I've been arguing.

Originally posted by Bardock42
Sure, you can be suspicious. You just can't truthfully claim that he admitted that he lied. That's the only point I've been arguing.

So your just playing devils advocate and arguing something you dont really believe in. After all how could you believe in it, its American politics, not German.

That's just full of nonsense and non-sequiturs.

German humour is boring. Originally posted by Bardock42
Sure, you can be suspicious. You just can't truthfully claim that he admitted that he lied. That's the only point I've been arguing.

Bardock is right in the sense that Rhodes did what every politician does when they get accused of lying. Basically a "well technically I didn't lie I..." statement. That is what he did and it definitely appears to be a poor rationalization for lying but apparently every politician does that. It's a huge issue because the Iran deal was shitstorm as far as having completely mixed reactions to it.

Could we even call it an Iran deal?

What does this mean for US-Iran relations?

Originally posted by MS Warehouse
Bardock is right in the sense that Rhodes did what every politician does when they get accused of lying. Basically a "well technically I didn't lie I..." statement. That is what he did and it definitely appears to be a poor rationalization for lying but apparently every politician does that. It's a huge issue because the Iran deal was shitstorm as far as having completely mixed reactions to it. How do you know every politician does this? He did technically not lie. Its not a poor rationalisation of lying, it is fact from a news article. It is a huge issue, but I'm more concerned about Trump and how rich he claims to be.

Burdock, amidoingitrite?

spin=deceitful maneuvering of information to create an outlook that can differ if given straight talk.

The fact that its acceptable behavior for leaders/corporations/politicians should be a crime.

Originally posted by snowdragon
spin=deceitful maneuvering of information to create an outlook that can differ if given straight talk.

The fact that its acceptable behavior for leaders/corporations/politicians should be a crime. he wasn't lying tho.

This is super important.

State Departments admits to lying and editing video prior to Iran deal.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/06/state-department-edited-video-fox-223814

http://www.cnn.com/2016/06/01/politics/state-department-edited-iran-video/

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/state-dept-admits-editing-iran-press-briefing-video/story?id=39543597