<snip>
But the lies that are more problematic here are the ones where falsehoods are fabricated, then marketed.
Ok, let's take these one at a time:
Not a lie so much as a prediction. The law clearly creates an unelected committee of bureaucrats with the power to make cost-benefit decisions about what Medicare will cover, which can only be overridden by a supermajority in Congress. Personally, I think it's a necessary feature of government-paid health care. I would prefer that it not be insulated from Congress as much as it is, but ultimately, some bureaucrat will have to say "no, extending that person's life is not worth the cost." Calling that process a death panel, may be somewhat overheated rhetoric, but it is not a lie. If you decline coverage for a necessary treatment to extend a person's life, then you are condemning that person to an earlier death.
The ACA is socialized medicine
It makes health care more government controlled and subsidized than it was before. It is a matter of opinion as to when something crosses the line into "socialized" medicine, but I think the ACA does. For example, it is no longer possible to buy a private insurance plan that doesn't meet government coverage standards.
They're coming for your guns
It's a matter of opinion whether or not they really want to come for your guns. I think they do. I also think that they can't. So it's more of a warning to stay vigilant rather than a prediction about what will happen.
President Obama is an anti-American/Socialist/Communist/Muslim/anti-Christ/Fascist/non-American citizen dictator who hates our Constitution and Wants to Destroy the United States
A matter of opinion for most of that stuff. I don't actually think Obama hates our Constitution or wants to destroy the US, but I also don't think his actions are easily distinguishable from a President who would want to hurt the US. If there really was some sort of Manchurian candidate President, what would he be doing differently?
The Iran deal is dangerous
Well, it is. Hardly a lie.
Global Warming is a liberal invention
I think it's fair to say that liberals are stoking climate change alarmism in order to further their agenda of increased government control over the energy economy. It's like Rahm Emanuel's mantra: never let a crisis go to waste. Not really a crisis, but they're trying to make it seem like one.
As Ziggurat has pointed out, it is embarrassing that anyone would cite such data as evidence. Politifact and Snopes are not only biased towards a liberal viewpoint when it comes to judging the truth of a statement, but they are also biased when it comes to selecting statements to analyze.