- E. M. Forster
Easy. Lying to the Nazi SS to divert them from hidden Jews, giving a Nazi agent false information on the target and time of D-Day, telling his pursuers that an escaped slave went west instead of east, and so on.
OK, I agree with that.
Most of the following is anecdotal, so I’m hesitant to bring it up in GD.
Having said that:
Both sides have their nutcase fringes. Right-wing idiots like Jerry Falwell who believe that Clinton murdered 60 people back in Arkansas and covered it all up. Left-wing idiots like Cynthia McKinney who believe that the Bush administration knew about the 9/11 attacks and let them happen as a favor to their defense contractor friends.
Nuts on both sides. Duly noted.
However, as you start to step away from the fringe, IMO, the right is more willing to believe the straw men they create.
One example is the right’s success in manufacturing satirical hyper-PC phrases (e.g., “vertically-challenged”) and convince many of their own that not only did liberals make these up seriously, but that they are standard usage for anyone left of center.
I offer a couple of anecdotal examples.
A very conservative mathematician I once worked with was adamant that Clinton had, if not ordered Vince Foster’s murder, at least covered it up. We sparred endlessly on this – he dismissed anyone who didn’t agree with him as part of the Clinton ‘conspiracy’.
I felt vindicated when Ken Starr, who had been examining the case, very publicly announced ca. 1996 that there was no evidence of foul play in the matter. I carried the newspaper to my colleague’s office. How could he dispute this? Was Ken Starr part of the Clinton conspiracy? His reply (paraphrased from my 10-year old memory): No, Starr wasn’t part of the conspiracy. But this latest move was obviously an attempt to spoof the perpetrators into believing that the heat was off, so they could talk, at which time, the real truth would come out.
:eek:
A second anecdote: I later shared this story with another conservative colleague and long-time friend, equally intelligent and educated. He haltingly stated that he still didn’t believe we knew the whole truth about the Vince Foster matter.
Please understand: neither of these guys are nuts – both are very intelligent professionals with master’s degrees. Which is my whole point here.
Over the last couple of decades, the right has been much more united than the left. It doesn’t seem especially far-fetched to me to believe that a more united party would give the benefit of the doubt to beliefs that serve victory. This spirit is summed up in the "11th-commandment"quote attributed to Ronald Reagan: “Thou shalt never speak ill of another Republican”.
The very principled Barry Goldwater, spiritual father of the modern conservative movement, famously asserted that he’d “rather be right than be president”.
The assertion implies that such a prioritization is necessary.
Goldwater’s landslide defeat, at the hands of a really unprincipled Democrat, may have caused his descendents to question this priority.
You do know better than that, but then, it would get in the way of taking a shot, wouldn’t it? The lack of “UN” approval for the anti-Serbia operation was in fact the lack of Russian approval, involving their Security Council veto, for something that would oppose the interests of their old ally. The general support of the rest of the civilized world for proceeding with stopping the genocide anyway speaks for itself.
The lack of UN support for Bush’s Iraq invasion was in fact the lack of support for it by the rest of the civilized world but the strong-armed UK and self-interested Australia and Spain.
In both cases, the bulk of the civilized world was right. Party politics had nothing to do with it, although it’s certainly a convenient rationalization for those who do not share the attitudes of the civilized world.
Great, a two-fer: Counterfactual hypothetical and a tu quoque. Great argument, Sam, well done. 
srmclauren, in what way do you think Clinton actually *was * “unfaithful to his country”? Are there any actual examples in fact that you can point to, or was that just more empty hypocritical moralization?
Thanks for your anecdotes. I have ones about very intelligent people I know insisting that Starr’s inability to find evidence of Clinton’s criminality simply meant that Clinton was *hiding * the evidence.
We still hear people claim, even on this board, that we still don’t know the whole truth about Saddam’s WMD’s, either.
I’d attribute most of the True Believers’ strong reluctance, even refusal, to admit they’d been fooled to simple human nature. We all hate to admit that to others, sometimes even more so to ourselves. Overall intelligence is not a factor other than to be a deterrent, not a guarantee, against being fooled in the first place.
That one goes back into the 19th century, along with the best retort:
srmclauren, in what way do you think Clinton actually *was * “unfaithful to his country”? Are there any actual examples in fact that you can point to, or was that just more empty hypocritical moralization?
[/QUOTE]
Mainly I remember the perjury as the most obvious, blatant example. I guess we can dismiss that one because he meant well? He lied but we forgave him.
Websters definition of faithful only fits one Person perfectly, so I guess I’m an immoral hypocrite in comparison. That’s why I trust His grace and mercy. I still have to hate and expose evil, even if it’s in myself.
faithful - adj. 1. steady in allegiance or affection; loyal; constant 2. reliable; trusted, or believed 3. adhering or true to fact…
Judge for yourself…but be merciful even if you judge rightly.
The day I saw Bush’s response to the Illinois governor saying he was going to stop executitions because it was proven that innocent men had been put to death. He said Texas had never executed an innocent man. He was lying or crazy. Not good choices for president.
As the old saw goes, “I do not belong to any organized political party - I’m a Democrat.”
[iIIF* I were going to argue that Clinton was unfaithful to his country, I imagine I would point out his avoidance of military service, his arguable prostitution of the office to a group of insiders, his lack of respect for the office, and the military secrets to China scandal.
IMO each individual has to decide whether those (and any other) transgressions are worse than the lives and $ Bush has cost us by leading us into an unecessary and uninterminable war.
There is another aspect of Bush/Clinton hate I’m trying to get my mind around, based on personal anecdotes. Something subtly different about the way folks on different ends of the spectrum criticize/praise individuals/groups. It seems as tho the Repubs direct their criticism at specific personalities - such as Clinton. And much of the criticism is often directed at inaction - the attempt at health care reform comes immediately to mind.
At the same time, they criticize Dems as a group. For example, if you criticize anything about previous Repub admins, you will be reminded that that any undesireable results were the fault of the Dem majority in Congress.
I readily acknowledge that many Dems do not respect Bush as an individual. But I suspect most folk would prefer that he were snorting coke and getting blowjobs in the oval office, if it distracted him from some of his administration’s efforts. Which leads back to the idea that the Repubs are simply a more unified and effective group in getting their ageda passed…
Sorry if this is rambling…
Ummm, he was impeached, settled a law suit, and lost his law license. That’s not what I would call “forgiving” him.
And if you cannot tell the difference between the ramifications between perjury about a blowjob and misleading the country into an unjust war, your priorities are seriously messed up.
It depends on what you hate more. Take your pick.
War-monger or whore-monger, I see a big difference between the two. We can live with one. I’m not so sure about the other. A lot of folks obviously haven’t.
But then I’m from Texas… I’ve had enough of the Bush family retard for many years now.
I think your memory is a bit fuzzy. Can you produce a cite that supports your version of what the Illinois governor said, and can we have a cite that proves Texas had executed anyone who was innocent?
Oops. That was my emphasis added to your post, gonzomax.
Illinois Governor George Ryan:
http://www.truthinjustice.org/haltdp.htm
So, not a proven wrongful conviction with death penalty, but one shown to have serious flaws.
On Texas’ system:
http://www.law-forensic.com/wcrc_washington_post.htm
Again, no execution of anyone proven innocent, but a release of someone on death row upon oproof that the defence was extremely inadequate. That’s enough for me – I’m not bloodthirtsy enough to want actual wrongful executions.
Of the 150 or so executed during Bush’s reign in Austin, do you really think that all 150 were truly guilty? Not one was railroaded by the system or poorly represented by a disinterested court-appointed attorney?
What is most telling of Bush’s character is this snippet from Tucker Carlson’s profile fo Bush in the premiere issue of Talk
So as governor he mocked a woman begging to be spared execution. Whether she was guilty or not, whether she deserved to die or not, here is a man mocking another human pleading for her life. This is the true character of this man.
Thanks for digging up those cites. I’m anti-death penalty and anti-Bush. I just don’t see why people feel the need to make up stuff in order to bloster either argument. Yes, the death penalty looks like it has serious flaws in it, and yes Bush seems overly cavalier about it. Neither of those things supports the erroneous statemenst made by gonzomax.
You guys are SOL if you think Texas is gonna admit to executing an innocent person. They quit trying the case asap. Sometimes even before the case starts. The mentality is “even if they aren’t guilty of this, they’re guilty of something.”
They damn sure ain’t gonna let it be proven AFTER the execution.
The ONLY way that’s gonna happen is if somebody else confesses to the crime that isn’t currently incarcerated. Yeah, that’s gonna happen.
Even then the confessor would be played off as insane.
Hah…that won’t stop’em down here. Hell, we execute the insane too.
Men, women, children, sick or insane it don’t matter. They’ll stick it to 'em.
You think I’m kidding?
I don’t recall the defense lawyers’ name but he used to sleep during the cases.
warmonger v. whoremonger heh 