Probably the clearest example of how far the left has gone off the rails is how they characterize disagreement as a lie. The most clearest example of such slander is far-left hack Geoffrey Dunn's latest piece about Governor Palin.
Before we get started, here is an example of a lie. In 2007, Barack Obama claimed the following:
Just this past -- this past week, we passed out of the U.S. Senate Banking Committee, which is my committeeAs you can read at the link, the community organizer was never a member of the committee. If Obama had merely stated an opinion that I disagreed with, I wouldn't call it a lie. But Obama did not state an opinion. What he stated was a falsehood and a lie. What he stated was objectively false. Now, let's get to Dunn's shrill article:
Sarah Palin isn’t an expert on anything — remember that this is a woman who didn’t know the difference between England and Great Britain as she began her not-so-celebrated run for the vice-presidencyDoes Dunn have video to substantiate his charge that Palin didn't know the difference? Nope. Dunn even fails to cite anyone who is willing to make the claim on-the-record. If someone were to claim that Barack Obama did not know that Europe is a country, that person would have video of Barack Obama calling Europe a country to substantiate the charge.
O’Reilly lied, too, of course, when he said, “I’m pleased to have you on the program tonight [as] there is not a governor in the United States who has more experience than you do dealing with the oil companies.” Sarah Palin? The half-governor? Uh, Alaska isn’t even the largest oil-producing state in the union. Texas is, followed by Alaska, California… and you didn’t guess it: North Dakota. Is anyone touting current North Dakota governor John Hoeven as a national expert in resource policy?Does Dunn really not understand the difference between a "lie" and an "opinion with which he disagrees?" What O'Reilly stated was an opinion. In any event, what's absurd about the idea of John Hoeven as an expert in resource policy? Palin, Perry, and Hoeven dealt with energy and resource issues all the time as governors.
Dunn argues that it is a bad thing that Governor Palin was not a friend of environmentalists and oil producers. Why is this a bad thing? Is Dunn conceding that Palin isn't owned by two special interest groups from the right and the left? Is Dunn really conceding that Palin is a Republican that doesn't march to the beat of Big Oil? Of course not. Dunn just wants to have it both ways with Palin. He'll still claim that she is in bed with Big Oil and an opponent of the oil industry at the same time. Dunn and the left are too stupid to understand that you can oppose the agenda of both the environmentalists and Big Oil.
Dunn then finds Andrew Halcro to be a credible source under the logic that a Republican who criticizes another Republican is credible. If you want to play that game, then surely Dunn would have to concede that Joe Lieberman's endorsement of Governor Palin in 2008 and his criticisms of Barack Obama are credible. After all, Lieberman was the Democrat Party's nominee for Vice President in 2000. In fact, the comparison between Lieberman and Halcro is an insult to Joe considering that the former is a distinguished Senator that is respected by millions while the latter has never gotten more than 9% of the vote in one of the least religious states in the country. And of course, Lieberman never lost to Barack Obama in any election whereas Halcro lost to Palin by a substantial margin in 2006. Only in Dunn's world is Halcro's criticism of Palin in any way equivalent to Lieberman's criticism of Obama.
He concludes by calling what Governor Palin said about the Petroleum Systems Integrity Office (PSIO) a lie. He takes issue with Palin's assertion that she "set up" the PSIO. Dunn fails to provide any evidence that Palin did not "set up" the PSIO...because there isn't any. He can only argue that she didn't "really set up" the PSIO. Unlike the community organizer in the example that I cited above, Governor Palin is not a resume-padder and leaves her opponents like Dunn claiming that true statements are somehow not "really" true.
Dunn knows that Palin did not tell a falsehood about the PSIO and has to cite to an unnamed journalist who disagrees with Palin about the entity's effectiveness. So in Dunn's world, if someone expresses an opinion that he disagrees with, the person is lying. Has the left gone completely off the rails?