I point, for example to a more recent comment, on a November 10, 2007 thread called “CNN: The New Fox News.” Concerning CNN’s distortion of a Nancy Pelosi soundbite, about which you were understandably outraged, you wrote: “I might not leap quite so quickly to whine about CNN if they were skewering a right-wing politician in that fashion; I’ll grant you that.” Why not? You say in your manifesto that “if someone is bullshitting, and I find out about it, I’m going to call them on it, regardless of who they are or what position they’re advocating.” Doesn’t that imply that if that bullshit constitutes a dishonest attack upon or an injurious misrepresentation of another person, regardless of that person’s politics or what position they advocate? Personal bias and agenda are only natural, but if you know that someone is lying, or promoting a lie by whatever means, and you have to stop and think whether or not you’re going to say anything about it based on your politics, haven’t your politics made you an enabler to the lie?

When Hillary Clinton and her staff planted questions at a press conference, a la the FEMA press conference you covered extensively, where was lies.com? There’s an item circulating today that one of the questioners featured on last night’s Republican debate was an employee of the Clinton campaign, a fact CNN neglected to mention when putting the guy on the air. Had a Fred Thompson operative infiltrated the Democratic debate, you would post on it immediately and passionately-why do I doubt, based on its track record, lies.com will even mention it?

If you’re going to call your blog “lies.com” and set yourself up as a Champion of The Truth and Enemy of All Liars, as this manifesto suggests, you have to do better than that. It’s alright to be a partisan and, as I’ve said before, bias is only natural, especially within the context of a campaign cycle. Why then, keep a manifesto such as this posted and try to pretend this blog is something that it’s not, and can’t ever be?

I’m hoping, too, that instead of getting people painting me with a broad brush when they disagree with me, I can lure a few of the more thoughtful disagreeing types into actuallly engaging in a substantive debate on the merits of our positions, rather than just having lots of name-calling.

However, they’re also pretty newsworthy, so it’ll be quite hard to ignore them.

So which is it? Tediously sourced examples of further Bush mendacity, or a focus on more non-Bush examples of lying? Sure, that’s a false dilemna, but I’d be interested how this relates to politics and the bigwig politicians of our day.

Maybe you’re going to focus more on claims made by corporations, but every corporation bullshits. I’m looking at a box of graham crackers while I type this, and the box reads: “No Cholesterol”.

This is a form of bullshit. Of course a plant product contains no animal fat (cholesterol). They’re just trying to make their crackers seem healthier than they really are.

Heck, my Jolly Time Healthy Pop pop corn box says in big letters that it’s “94% fat free” when the label on the back says that 20 out of 90 calories come from fat.

Where are you going with this as far as categories are concerned?