Not so hidden agendas

I think I have this figured out, though there are a few points of pretzel logic here. You have to read both what MM published and what AAA wrote. Where the thing went sour was that AAA's original answers were SO outrageous that any normal person would have recognized them as such. But the rabid moonbats at MM actually BELIEVE that such statements are typical of Republicans, and ran the "unbiased" (from their perspective) story.

NOW... the problem comes when AAA reveals that Republicans do NOT think this way. We all know that to be the truth, thus we knew the original to be false. So does reinforcing someone else's totally false impression of you constitute a lie, or is it merely telling them what they already believe to be true, and would STATE to be true if AAA had not given them the REAL truth?

I guess, in short, the question is: Who is lying to whom? Seems to me like MM is lying to himself and his readers, and all AAA did was to point it out.