How can politicians lie so much?

Great Debates
1

No, I’m not actually thinking of Bill Clinton right now, although it certainly applies to him.

The New York Times had an article (Op-Ed, maybe?) detailing George W. Bush and his “environmentalism.” Specifically, when Bush took office, the state was ready to enact a vehicle inspection plan similar to many across the country to reduce automobile pollution – a major component of smog. Although staff had already been hired and the program was about ready to go, he killed it, because of some complaints that people didn’t want to have to take the hour or so every couple years to have their cars tested. Ok, fine. That was his perogative.

BUT, as you might know, Houston last year surpassed L.A. as the smoggiest city in the U.S. Coincidence? No.

Bush and some allies are claiming that he is an environmental type of guy.

How can he sit there and lie through his teeth like that? How can any of them? (Especially the ones, like Bush, who claim to be good Christians, yet who seem to forget that lying is a sin.)

2

David B:

Once again, your hypocrisy is showing. Bewailing ‘lying’, you immediately exclude Clinton from the equation, and go on to attack GWB, citing sin as your rationale. This is hilarious coming from an atheist, and only provides further evidence of your mindless prejudice.

::

3

Um, **Boomer?[/] Think you’re in the wrong thread, babe. The “Bash DavidB” thread is over in the Pit.

Unless you were looking for the Remedial Reading class, which is up on the second floor. Look for the big :slight_smile: poster on the door.

“Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast!” - the White Queen

4

David B wrote:

Coincidence? Maybe.. Los Angeles’s old reputation for being the smoggiest city in the U.S. has caused it to institute massive air-cleanup measures. If Houston’s air pollution level stayed absolutely constant, while L.A.'s air quality steadily improved, it would be inevitable that L.A.'s air quality would eventually surpass that of Houston’s.

So, then, how much has L.A.'s air quality improved over, say, the last ten years? Is Houston’s air quality right now better or worse than L.A.'s was ten years ago?

5

He specifically said it applied to Clinton. He didn’t “exclude Clinton from the equation” at all, he just spoke more extensively about GWB. Anyone who wants to talk about a different politician’s lies is welcome to. Boomer, don’t you realize your comments would have more weight if they were actually backed up by the facts? Your drive-by posts are getting a bit irritating.

6

FACT:
David B is an atheist.

FACT:
David B does not recognize sin as fact

FACT:
David B uses sin (something he does not recognize as fact) in an argument supporting his ‘point of view’.

This is not hypocrisy?*

::

7

FACT: David B asked why someone who did believe lying is a sin would lie.

FACT: David B did not say that GWB should not lie because it was a sin, he said GWB should not lie because GWB thought it was a sin. I have the same right to say a vegetarian should not eat steaks for breakfast, lunch and dinner, even though I personally have no problem with eating meat.

That is not hypocrisy.

8

Calif,

Huh?

He brought the “Clinton” name into this, saying

Then you bring into the train of thought, although misguided

As a theist, I look at his statement of:

To be something worth discussing.

If a person has a devotion to a religion, and specifically within the confines of the Bible regarding the OP, then the hypocrisy is not within DavidB’s comment, but the idea that Bush is going against what Bush says he believes in.

Regardless of DavidB’s beliefs, he is maintaining that Bush seems to be not devoted to the religion he claims to be his. Under the Christian belief system, it is never okay to lie. David is just pointing this out and possibly questioning whether or not Bush really is a Christian or is using it as a front to his religious right voters.

That’s what I get out of.

Calif, I think you should take a step back from the boards and realize that over and over again people are questioning your ability to post in a manner that is cohesive and thought-filled. You seem to only read into another’s post what you want to see, so sad.

Seriously reconsider your contribution here, as most of your posts make little sense.

< that wasn’t a flame, but critisism that hopefully you will think through >

9

Actually, a correction: (better get my facts straight) “he said GWB should not lie because GWB thought it was a sin.” should be “he implied that it was hypocritical for GWB to lie because GWB thought lying was a sin.”

10

Because we let them. If they don’t say what we want to hear, then we don’t support them.

Heaven help any politician who asks America to sacrifice. We don’t want to, and we are accustomed to our politicians pretending that this is not necessary.

It is OUR fault! We should chuck the whole thing and start over.

Peace

11

techchick:

So, as a ‘theist’, you are qualified to make judgements regarding Christian behavior??

Is this a little bit like creationists making judgements about science - a practice David B abhors?

::

12

BTW Calif,

As Gaudere pointed out in a different manner, one does not need to believe to question the intentions of another person under the system of the other person’s beliefs.

If I saw a member of Green Peace dumping oil in his backyard, I might question whether or not this person is using Green Peace as a front to satisfy some need in the public eye, whether that be on a political level or on a social level. If you are devoted to a belief system, then how can you against those beliefs without seeming a hypocrite?

It calls into question the person’s character, not whether or not I feel the same way.

13

An atheist is qualified to point out contradictions between the tenets and behavior of Christians. A creationist is qualified to point out contradictions between scientific tenets. Your analogy is inappropriate. DavidB made no judgement, but simply illustrated the contradiction. You must admit that an atheist can recognize deviance from relgious doctrine.

14

Yes, in fact I am. I live in a very Christian oriented community, my family are devoted Christians. Discussions regarding Christianity are frequent. I just happen to have serious doubts to certain things within the Christian church – or any religion for that manner. My doubting does not mean I am not educated in Christianity. In fact, I am always learning about it because it helps me understand my family better.

You just like to argue for the sake of arguement and you seem love to make assumptions without all the facts.

15

Nen:

I think you have a logical problem here. ‘Religious doctrine’ is only one of the components of believers. The more significant component is faith. And whether or not you like it, the exercise of faith is a fact. To exclude that fact from your analysis causes your results to be based on partial truths, therefore invalid.

::

16

techchick:

I have had the same difficulties, until I understood that I was confusing Christian belief with denominational religion. They are separate things. Not all groups who call themselves “Christian” are. The secular world makes this mistake all the time.

::

17

Has anyone ever seen Bullworth? You know, the movie where the politician just tells the truth? Funny idea, that. Anyway, the reason why no politician tells the truth is three-fold. 1. It’s never been done before. I mean, come on, these poeple, like most of Americans, are sheep, they’re not going to break from the norm. 2. This kind of goes along with 1, in that everyone before them that has been elected since Grover’s time has used similar politics, and they have also succeeded (noteable exception: Abe Lincoln-he didn’t campaign at all, other people did it for him.) 3. They don’t think very much of us, the general voting public (well, you, I’ve still got a ways to go before I can vote.) Apparently, the expect us to vote for a politician who can spin the best lie rather than one who can address the problem and come up with a solution. Which would you rather have in office, a politician who tries to talk to North Korea about its nukes, or one who pretends East Asia is still a 3rd world power, and that the US is untouchable? You decide.
~Dan
“Everybody Dies.”
-Telletubies, Simpsons

18

Golly, CalifBoomer, you’re so anxious to jump in here and bop David on the head with your rubber chicken that you’re missing the whole point of the OP.

Weren’t you the one who just told me, over in the “Justice Dept.” thread:

I should think you’d be glad of a chance to bash politicians. Isn’t the Justice Dept. made up of politicians? Well, here’s your chance. David’s paying for the hall. Here’s the microphone–go!

And, BTW, saying atheists have no right to talk about the concept of “sin” because they don’t believe in it is like saying that someone who doesn’t believe that diets work has no right to talk about dieting.

Or like saying that someone who doesn’t believe in UFOs has no right to talk about them.

Or like saying…shall I go on?

And it’s wrong to say that atheists have no right to point a finger and shout, “Sinner!” at someone who DOES believe in sin, when they think they see him sinning (i.e. going against his own expressed value system). Atheists all over the country pointed their fingers and shouted, “Sinner!” at Jimmy Swaggart just as loudly as the Christian community. Are you saying that atheists had no right to call him on that, that only Christians had the right to shout, “Sinner!”

'Cause if so, that’s bushwah. And I mean that in the nicest possible way, CB.

(Oh, and as for the rest of you folks–please take a moment to notice how EFFORTLESSLY CalifBoomer has hijacked this thread in order to bop David on the head with his rubber chicken. If the next post isn’t about politicians, or at least addressing the OP, I’m going back over to the Pit.)

“Why, sometimes I’ve believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast!” - the White Queen

19

You are incorrect. I made no assertions pertaining to deviance from faith. I only made assertions pertaining to religious doctrine. The subject in question is that of sin. Lying is a sin according to GWB’s religious doctrine. The ramification for committing the sin is based on faith. I presented no analysis of the consequences of the act of lying. I only noted that the deviance from religious doctrine can be noted by anyone who has beed educated to the extent that the doctrine is a component of one’s knowledge. Faith is irrelevant in this context.

20

DavidB,

Back your OP.

I think 2sense is right.

We give license to politians to lie. We also have this huge problem with lobbyists within government to get their way.

I honestly believe this is a big part of the problem.

In the Colorado State government, there are over 2000 (if my calculations are correct) registered lobbyists.

My thinking here is, the politicians make promises to the people to get elected, but the “truth” (I use that lightly because I can’t say for sure) is that the lobbyists are the ones that make or break the promises.

Why they do this is beyond me. I often have thrown up my arms in disgust for the ridiculous nature of our political system.