BS: Liberals - Liars or just ignorant?

Subject: BS: Liberals - Liars or just ignorant?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 02:38 PM

I'll repost this, since it was removed without telling me why.



Here is a summary, for those out there who have problems actually looking at facts.

"The Annenberg Political Fact Check, a nonprofit and nonpartisan project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, says: "It's a rank falsehood for the DNC to accuse McCain of wanting to wage 'endless war' based on his support for a presence in Iraq something like the U.S. role in South Korea."

The Democrats are undeterred. "It's seldom you get such a clean shot," a senior Obama adviser told Politico. It's seldom that you see such a dirty lie. "



********************************************************************
Washingtom Post

'A Rank Falsehood'

By Charles Krauthammer
Friday, March 28, 2008; Page A19

Asked at a New Hampshire campaign stop about possibly staying in Iraq 50 years, John McCain interrupted -- "Make it a hundred" -- then offered a precise analogy to what he envisioned: "We've been in Japan for 60 years. We've been in South Korea for 50 years or so." Lest anyone think he was talking about prolonged war-fighting rather than maintaining a presence in postwar Iraq, he explained: "That would be fine with me, as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or wounded or killed."

And lest anyone persist in thinking he was talking about war-fighting, he told his questioner: "It's fine with me and I hope it would be fine with you if we maintained a presence in a very volatile part of the world."

There is another analogy to the kind of benign and strategically advantageous "presence" McCain was suggesting for postwar Iraq: Kuwait. The United States (with allies) occupied Kuwait in 1991 and has remained there with a major military presence for 17 years. We debate dozens of foreign policy issues in this country. I've yet to hear any serious person of either party call for a pullout from Kuwait.

Why? Because our presence projects power and provides stability for the entire Gulf and for the vulnerable U.S. allies that line its shores.

The desirability of a similar presence in Iraq was obvious as long as five years ago to retired Gen. Merrill McPeak, one of Barack Obama's leading military advisers and his campaign co-chairman. During the first week of the Iraq war, McPeak (an Iraq war critic) suggested in an interview that "we'll be there a century, hopefully. If it works right." (Meaning, if we win.)

Why is that a hopeful outcome? Because maintaining a U.S. military presence in Iraq would provide regional stability, as well as cement a long-term allied relationship with the most important Arab country in the region.

As McPeak himself said about our long stay in Europe, Japan and Korea, "This is the way great powers operate." One can argue that such a presence in Iraq might not be worth the financial expense. A legitimate point -- it might require working out the kind of relations we have with Japan, which picks up about 75 percent of the cost of U.S. forces stationed there.

Alternatively, one might advocate simply bolstering our presence in Kuwait, a choice that would minimize risk, albeit at the sacrifice of some power projection. Such a debate would be fruitful and help inform our current negotiations with Baghdad over the future status of American forces.

But a serious argument is not what Democrats are seeking. They want the killer sound bite, the silver bullet to take down McCain. According to Politico, they have found it: "Dems to hammer McCain for '100 years.' "

The device? Charge that McCain is calling for a hundred years of war. Hence:

• "He says that he is willing to send our troops into another 100 years of war in Iraq" (Barack Obama, Feb. 19).

• "We are bogged down in a war that John McCain now suggests might go on for another 100 years" (Obama, Feb. 26).

• "He's willing to keep this war going for 100 years" (Hillary Clinton, March 17).

• "What date between now and the election in November will he drop this promise of a 100-year war in Iraq?" (Chris Matthews, March 4).

Why, even a CNN anchor (Rick Sanchez) buys it: "John McCain is telling us . . . that we need to win even if it takes 100 years" (March 16).

As Lenin is said to have said, "A lie told often enough becomes truth." And as this lie passes into truth, the Democrats are ready to deploy it "as the linchpin of an effort to turn McCain's national security credentials against him," reports David Paul Kuhn of Politico.

Hence: A Howard Dean fundraising letter charging McCain with seeking "an endless war in Iraq." And a Democratic National Committee news release in which Dean asserts: "McCain's strategy is a war without end. . . . Elect John McCain and get 100 years in Iraq."

The Annenberg Political Fact Check, a nonprofit and nonpartisan project of the Annenberg Public Policy Center of the University of Pennsylvania, says: "It's a rank falsehood for the DNC to accuse McCain of wanting to wage 'endless war' based on his support for a presence in Iraq something like the U.S. role in South Korea."

The Democrats are undeterred. "It's seldom you get such a clean shot," a senior Obama adviser told Politico. It's seldom that you see such a dirty lie.

[e-mail]

**************************************************************

Subject: RE: BS: Liberals - Liars or just ignorant?
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 02:53 PM

I agree with you, Bruce, that his soundbite got a little bit torqued. I think I understand why. The critical exchange was when his questioner said "being in Iraq for 50 years" meaning, I think plainly enough, on a war footing, beset by hotspots of ongoing battles between ideological extremists and cultists and clans. When John answered the question, he answered with a totally different context--meaning, a safely based presence similar to our installations in S. Korea, Germany, and so on.

This flipping of context is not unusual in politics, but it is what started the misinterpretation. People kind of expected he would answer the question that was posed, not flip it into a re-definition of terms.

Given that, what he ended up saying is a lot mroe reasonable, from his perpsective, than what it has been portrayed as.

Obama has experienced similar defamation of character, of amuch more deliberate and malicious sort, stemming from the intentionally distorted Wright sound bites.

I think the very term swift-boating came from a similar distortion aimed against John Kerry, far removed fromt he ground truth.

I recall a similar extreme distortion, using audio editing, that was used to make Howard Dean look like a screamer, when the original context was more benign.

SO it seems to me that more lying has been promulgated from the right than from the left. ANd your divisive and somewhat vicious thread title strikes me as a fine example of something Ann Coulter would approve of. Is that where you mean to be?


A

A

Subject: RE: BS: Liberals - Liars or just ignorant?
From: katlaughing
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 03:03 PM

We need ONE THREAD PER CANDIDATE and all other political threads subsumed into them!

Subject: RE: BS: Liberals - Liars or just ignorant?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 03:03 PM

My thread title is based on the ones here about McCain- To be truely fair, I SHOULD have made it "Obama- Liar or just Ignorant" But I think better of Obama than that- he is using bits from the party "talking point" book without checking them as well as he should- which ALL the candidates have been guilty of.

As for which side is using it more, THAT depends on which side you look at. From MY prospective, the comments about Bush's military service are as much "swiftboating" as any about Kerry.

Yet you seem comfortable in making them, wehen the evidence is just as poor- ie, opinions of people who were around at the time. You can't decide it is wrong to let the opinions of those in the same service count against Bush, but NOT against Kerry.

Not if you want to pretend you have any desire for the truth.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberals - Liars or just ignorant?
From: kendall
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 03:16 PM

He said it. I heard him say it. It is the truth.

Bush had no military record. Kerry was done in by lies from people who did not serve with him aboard his boat. Paid liars and his anti war attitude is what did him in.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberals - Liars or just ignorant?
From: beardedbruce
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 03:20 PM

And paid liars and pro-war attitude is what did Bush in...


WHAT did you hear? IT IS THE TRUTH that I heard Obama say he would bomb an ally- but I looked at the context and understood what he was saying.

Did you read the article that explains why the Democrats are lying? Or are you just deciding that Dems can do no wrong, and conservatives no good?

Subject: RE: BS: Liberals - Liars or just ignorant?
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 03:30 PM

Bruce

I don't read Charles Krauthammer, so I stopped at the name.

I do object to your heading it is both bigoted and untrue. You are implying that all Liberals are either liars or ignorant and basing that on the behavior of very few people who may or may not all be what you or Charles Krauthammer call Liberals.

It would behoove you to only libel people when you can back it up. It would behoove you to make your own arguments.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberals - Liars or just ignorant?
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 03:33 PM

Lets put things in perspective.

If I were to say that all "conservatives" were loud mouthed egotistical vicodin addicted scum after listening to Rush Limbaugh for five minutes. It would be neither fair nor true.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberals - Liars or just ignorant?
From: kendall
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 03:34 PM

No one makes up my mind for me.I weigh the evidence and decide for myself. The republican party has never done a damn thing for me, and the democrats have.Details upon request.
Three years ago I asked Doug what the republicans have ever done for the working man. I'm still waiting for an answer.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberals - Liars or just ignorant?
From: Ebbie
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 03:44 PM

I think it is quite plausible that McCain wasn't implying that it should be a shooting war for the next hundred years. However, if it is just a matter of being a presence for stability in the region why wasn't it enough to be in both Kuwait and Kurdistan? And why shouldn't it be enough in future?

Saddam was able to do precious little- before we went in with our six-shooters.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberals - Liars or just ignorant?
From: irishenglish
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 03:49 PM

Fair enough, the comment was misconstrued, although was there any kind of persistent attack upon Americans in post war Japan, Germany, and Korea? Five years on from Bush's statement on that aircraft carrier, and our troops are still getting killed nearly everyday, something that did not happen in post war Europe/Japan. His point about a pay for US troops is valid for Japan, but do you honestly think Iraqis would be willing to pay for such a scheme? I doubt it. His point about in lieu of that maintaining a presence in Kuwait seems flawed as well, when one recalls the sentiments of a number of Saudis to the mere proximity of US forces to Saudi Arabia. And speaking as a liberal, I am neither a liar, nor am I ignorant, so the mere suggestion of being either is highly offensive to me, and as offensive as when someone like Coulter says it.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberals - Liars or just ignorant?
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 03:52 PM

McCain has said more about this than just that one speech. What disturbs me most is that he seems to favor using Iraq as a base of attack against Iran. If we attack Iran while we have our force structure as it is, with small groups of soldiers spread out in Shiite neighbourhoods, I fear that we could double the four thousand we have lost so far in a matter of months.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberals - Liars or just ignorant?
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 03:57 PM

Who the hell is this working man? Most references here seem to be to the blue collar factory worker, who is near obsolete in North America because of robotization and more efficient, modern assembly methods here and in developing countries.

Should developing countries be denied the right to become equal? That seems to be the unstated demand.

Neither party had developed a program for education of the young for the new world; that would require billions and therefore is hard to sell to the public and their elected representatives.

Of course it is inevitable that, as fewer and fewer people are required to produce food and goods, that solutions hinted at in science fiction become thinkable.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberals - Liars or just ignorant?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 04:19 PM

Jack - 0.33pm. Oh yes it would. It's what they do to make war on the common man and money for their rich friends.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberals - Liars or just ignorant?
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 04:24 PM

Q:

I am.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Liberals - Liars or just ignorant?
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 04:32 PM

Lets be reasonable Richard, surely all conservatives are not addicted to Vicodin.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberals - Liars or just ignorant?
From: Donuel
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 04:43 PM

Ignorance often leads to lieing, however
Lieing to the ignorant is mostly a Republican trait.

ie "Our next war is for God, country and the American way* ."
"We need to kill the dictator, find the WMD, spread freedom, and put the fear of God into every potential Christian soul.


* = the well being of Lockheed Martin & friends as well as all the private para military contractors.


What happens when we get so broke we can't wage any more war?

answer: ask N.K.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberals - Liars or just ignorant?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 05:40 PM

Shaving cream - a necessary grooming accessory or a needless extravagance that just plugs up your razor and doesn't work as well as shampoo anyway?

Subject: RE: BS: Liberals - Liars or just ignorant?
From: Peace
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 05:54 PM

I'm gonna answer that question, Little Hawk, but seein's how I'm mostly a Liberal, I don't think my answer will carry much weight. However . . . .

When I shave my legs I insist on disposable razors. They are sharp, and I get one leg per razor. The bigger problem I find is that of a hair-plugged drain in the bathtub, the ONLY civilized place to shave one's legs, IMHO. But with a little water and Drano, ipso presto, unclogged drains. As for the shampoo rider to that question: It tastes like crap, IMHO.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberals - Liars or just ignorant?
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 06:05 PM

I am really, really pissed off with the Republican party for a whole host of reasons, but I can personally vouch for a number of Republicans who are personal friends, who are not war mongers, who are not liars and who are not ignorant. They see a lot of problems in their party but they see no better choice. On friend, back in Georgia, voted for Bush in 2004 to give him a chance to "finish what he started, in Iraq."

I suspect Bearded Bruce is a Republican I don't consider him to be a monster. He is a good man and he honestly believes that a lot of the things the Republican's do are for the best.

On the other hand, I am pretty sure that Amos is a liberal as I am sure that he is neither a liar nor ignorant.

Making these blanket statements, which are inflammatory, which both side know are not true does not help the discussion.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberals - Liars or just ignorant?
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 06:11 PM

I am a liberal you are right; but I try to adhere to the best and wisest parts of the LIberal Tradition that founded the country, and avoid the clammy grip of idiocy, absolute socialism, fascism, warmongering, and disrespect for individuals that seems to inform the extremes on one or the other side.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Liberals - Liars or just ignorant?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 06:12 PM

Well, yeah, Peace, but shaving foam tastes like crap too! It does! Have you tasted any? I have. Yuck.

Now, here's another divisive little question, meant to stir up a fuss:

Pigs - Naturally plain filthy or just suffering from poor living accomodations?

Subject: RE: BS: Liberals - Liars or just ignorant?
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 06:25 PM

Suffering from filthy living conditions.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Liberals - Liars or just ignorant?
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 07:02 PM

Luxuriating in filthy living conditions.

But some pigs are clean and housebroken. It is unfair to baste them all with the same brush.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberals - Liars or just ignorant?
From: Amos
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 07:52 PM

That brush would wear out faster than Dick Nixon's toothbrush.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Liberals - Liars or just ignorant?
From: Ebbie
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 08:07 PM

I agree that pigs given clean, moist and cool surroundings tend to stay clean, even going so far as to have a toilet area.

However, when a pig eats, it is not a pretty sight.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberals - Liars or just ignorant?
From: Peace
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 08:14 PM

Y'ever seen a group of politicians at the trough?

Subject: RE: BS: Liberals - Liars or just ignorant?
From: artbrooks
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 08:16 PM

I am a liberal. IMHO, "liberal" means thinking for myself and not blindly accepting someone else's opinion on anything, giving the other guy the benefit of the doubt, and giving other people the maximum amount of space...or, as Webster puts it: not bound by authoritarianism, orthodoxy, or traditional forms.

I don't tell lies. If it is a valid measurement of intelligence vs. ignorance, I have three advanced degrees.

As a liberal, I believe that an individual should be able to own a firearm if he or she wants to, subject to some restrictions on felons and nuts and with appropriate registration - and I do not believe that the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution governs this. As a liberal, I believe that rich people have just as much right to vote and participate in government as anyone else - and no more than equal rights. As a liberal, I think that elections should be entirely - and exclusively - funded by the government. As a liberal, I am entitled to my opinions, and I have the right not to care what anyone else's opinion of them might be. I am also retired from the Army and I volunteer for the DAV.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberals - Liars or just ignorant?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 08:18 PM

I think the likelihood that there won't always be a fair number of people in Iraq who will see American troops (and any bases they are holed up in) as targets is pretty remote. And I can't see how that is likely to change in a hundred years.

The distinction between a fighting war and a garrison presence is not really sustainable in this context.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberals - Liars or just ignorant?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 08:31 PM

Comparing the extended US presence in Germany and Japan with a similar potential presence in Iraq misses an important point: Germany and Japan were aggressors who were defeated. Post-war US military presence was part and parcel of the surrender agreement. It's something the Germans and Japanese have had to put up with as a consequence of losing the war.

Iraq was invaded for the specific purpose of deposing Saddam Hussein. Whether that goal was sufficient justification for the invasion or not, the US was the aggressor, not the attacked party. So any continued US presence, no matter how benign, will always be seen by some Iraqis as a continuation of the unwarranted invasion and occupation of their country by a foreign aggressor. It's possible that the majority of Iraqis may accept a continued US presence as necessary or even beneficial, but there will be a substantial number who will see it as unjustified and will fight it tooth and nail.

I'm not saying a continued presence is or isn't necessary, only that anyone who thinks it would be accepted as freely as it has been by Japan or Germany is mistakenly looking at two radically different sets of circumstances and naively expecting the same outcome.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberals - Liars or just ignorant?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 10:07 PM

Heh! That's it exactly, Bee-dub. The USA is the aggressor in this one, and its occupying forces will be resisted by a substantial number of Iraqis indefinitely...until the USA finally leaves Iraq. That's what happens to invaders. It certainly is what happened to the Germans and Japanese and Italians in WWII. They were resisted wherever they occupied someone else's land by force...and they finally left (due to being kicked out by the forces of America, Russia, Great Britain, and a number of other Allied nations).

There is no military power or alliance big enough in the world today to do what really ought to be done and forcibly kick the USA out of Iraq, where the USA has never belonged, but I trust the Americans will leave someday anyway. That day, however, may be some considerable way off yet. Hard to say about that. It might be years yet. Four more years? Eight more? Much blood is yet to be spilled, much money yet to be spent (and made), many lies yet to be told, many lives yet to be ruined.

One thing, though, Bee-Dub. I don't think they really went in there to get rid of Saddam Hussein. Uh-uh. I think they went in there for grand strategic reasons in regards to that whole Middle Eastern region, not just in regards to Iraq, and I think Saddam was a very juicy and marketable PR excuse for doing so...Saddam and a bunch of nonexistent WMDs. Remember? The war was supposedly fought to protect the world from all those terrible Weapons of Mass Destruction that Saddam had hidden...somewhere....under the bed? In the closet? Behind a picture on the wall? Beneath the ruins of Babylon? Well, it remains a mystery, doesn't it? Perhaps they will yet be rumored to be in Syria or Iran...and then we can have another American planned war of convenience in pursuit of the great unfindable WMDs.

Nope...the guys who HAVE and MAKE the largest supplies of WMDs in the world and who have willfully USED them on people are the guys who are going to one day leave Iraq and give it back to the Iraqis. That's the USA. They are the number one people with the WMDs that they keep warning us about, and they use them. They ARE the danger to international peace and security that they keep warning us all about. And most of the world already knows that. It's only too obvious.

No one dares openly challenge the Empire, because the Empire is armed to the teeth, worships its military power like a God, is capable of justifying anything it does in its own mind, and has no mercy. People outside America know that.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberals - Liars or just ignorant?
From: Bee-dubya-ell
Date: 31 Mar 08 - 11:18 PM

Right, LH, I should have inserted an "allegedly" into that deposing Saddam sentence.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberals - Liars or just ignorant?
From: kendall
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 09:45 AM

Let's blame it all on England. They created Kuwait didn't they?

Subject: RE: BS: Liberals - Liars or just ignorant?
From: irishenglish
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 10:31 AM

Little Hawk- "No one dares openly challenge the Empire, because the Empire is armed to the teeth, worships its military power like a God, is capable of justifying anything it does in its own mind, and has no mercy. People outside America know that.

Um...trust me, people inside America know that as well.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberals - Liars or just ignorant?
From: Amos
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 01:22 PM

Us poor citizens of the Empire know full well how anti-social the Emperor and his court are. But he has the power of incarceration and harassment and rendition over us. Alas!! Whatever can we do???

(Tongue halfway in cheek).

A

Subject: RE: BS: Liberals - Liars or just ignorant?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 05:57 PM

Oh, I know that some of you know it, believe me. ;-) But I wish that even more of you did, that's all. Then it might be stopped.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberals - Liars or just ignorant?
From: Bill D
Date: 01 Apr 08 - 06:33 PM

McCain doesn't seem to understand the difference between what 'staying' in either Japan or Korea was about and what it meant, and what 'staying' in Iraq or Afghanistan would mean.

The basic point is, McCain IS committed to extended presence in an area where the country itself is not only unstable, but has a deep basic dislike of America. Some folks there can barely decide whether to kill Americans or fellow countrymen of different sects.

How clear does it have to BE to Bush, McCain and others that any significant control over the violence would require many more troops, much more money for an indefinite time? Whether McCain actually meant "a hundred years" or not is almost a side issue. He cannot control Iraq in any sane time frame...and probably not without introducing a military draft!

I hope he doesn't GET elected so I don't have to offer to make bets.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberals - Liars or just ignorant?
From: Greg F.
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 10:22 AM

McCain doesn't seem to understand ...

Period. 'Nuff said.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberals - Liars or just ignorant?
From: Ebbie
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 12:40 PM

McCain was on the David Letterman show last night. He tried hard to be funny and sometimes succeeded.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberals - Liars or just ignorant?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 12:54 PM

Ah, well, but notice how hard he had to try. ;-) Chongo can be funny without exerting himself even slightly.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberals - Liars or just ignorant?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 01:02 PM

Little Hawk,

Have you seen the monkey on the motorcycle thread? I posted it for Chongo fans, assuming that there would be a convergence of interests.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberals - Liars or just ignorant?
From: PoppaGator
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 03:54 PM

"Who the hell is this working man?"

Nowadays, the vast number of working Americans who live from paycheck to paycheck, whose standard of living has been in a constant state of decline since the early 1980s, and whose access to healthcare and to retirement income is much less than it used to be and should be, generally work in offices and enjoy some degree of post-secondary education. Many have the dubious "honor" of being paid a salary, and are expected to contribute unpaid overtime to their employers.

Too damn many of these undercompensated wage-slaves believe that they have something in common with their rich-and-getting-richer "superiors," and consistently vote against their own economic interests because they can successfully be swayed by "conservative" "principles." This is especially true of many white Americans, who are easily duped by arguments that their tax payments are in danger of being fraudulently transferred to the scapegoated minorities they've been brought up to mistrust.

In today's industrialized world, the average "working man" is a fool who imagines that he is something "more" than a mere worker.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberals - Liars or just ignorant?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 04:02 PM

That's devastatingly accurate, Poppa Gator. The fools you describe are helping to maintain the power of their own jailors and exploiters...yet imagining they are protecting themselves by so doing. It's the Archie Bunker mentality, the "great silent majority", still alive and well in lower & middle-class White America.

They can always be bribed by a conservative politician's promise to "cut taxes", somehow not realizing that those tax cuts and privatizations are causing the decay and collapse of the very social institutions they once depended upon and could once take for granted.

They are helping place the chains and manacles upon their own wrists and ankles every time they vote in another "conservative" measure...all the time imagining that they are still better off than the Blacks, the Latinos, and whoever else is a notch or two lower on the vicious pecking order than themselves.

"the poor white man's used in the hands of them all like a tool..." - Bob Dylan (Only a Pawn in Their Game)

Subject: RE: BS: Liberals - Liars or just ignorant?
From: pdq
Date: 02 Apr 08 - 04:13 PM

PoppaGator,

You need to get Bill Kirchen's latest CD "Hammer Of The Honky-Tonk Gods" and listen to the song "Working Man".

It's your post put to music. Also has playing by the world's greatest Fender-slinger, Bill Kirchen.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberals - Liars or just ignorant?
From: Greg F.
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 08:13 AM

Sounds suspiciously like 'false class consciousness'. Can't be that 'ol Karl got something right?

Subject: RE: BS: Liberals - Liars or just ignorant?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 01:00 PM

Like most people...and I will say this again and again....he was most likely right about some of what he said and wrong about some of it.

I've never yet met anyone who was right about everything.

You can't just say of someone: "He was right." or "He was wrong." You have to look at what they said and realize that like anyone else they were probably partly right and partly wrong. Then go through it all and see if you can learn something from it.

Sheep don't do that. They simply make everything 100% black or white. Everyone is either "right" or "wrong" in the eyes of a sheep, period....and that means no further discussion, no desire to learn anything new, no impulse to understand where another viewpoint is coming from, and no willingness to change.

Subject: RE: BS: Liberals - Liars or just ignorant?
From: Bobert
Date: 03 Apr 08 - 01:07 PM

Ditto, p-gator... You hit it square on the head...

There's a Steve Earle song that also purdy much says the same thing... Can't quite pull up the title with the meds I'm on but it'll come to me...

B~