I think there are fewer ad hominem-style Democratic lies overall. I can’t really chalk it up to virtue though; I just don’t think the Dems are very good at it.
Other types of lies: no problem at all.
You know, it is interesting. You brought up this little “fact” in this thread and in this one. This makes at least a third time.
In the previous two threads you were shown evidence that this was an incorrect perception. Long story short - these covenants are common, and indeed have appeared in deeds I have had to sign, as well as millions of deeds around the country. They have had no legal force for more than sixty years., but depending on state law can be nearly impossible to remove from the deed.
Now - is it going to sink in this time?
I see in those other threads that when presented with this evidence you vanished, so I will take bets on whether you will be back in this discussion.
Is this similar in spirit to:
As Mr. Moto points out, this story has been debunked. There was no separate “agreement;” the restriction in question was a covenant that runs with the land, was legally unenforceable and thus a nullity, and simultaneously nearly impossible to remove from the deed. But Zoe keeps saying it.
Is that what you meant about Palin?
The OP overlooks, perhaps reasonably, the question of abundance of lies. The Dems are an earnest young woman, perhaps no better than she should be, compared to a two-dollar Shanghai waterfront hooker, who’s had more STD’s than you’ve had hot meals…
Lying has been central to the Pubbie program for a long time, but never moreso than in this last horrendous decade. Small fibs, minor lies thick upon the ground, all the way up to monumental lies, towering mendacity, lies that do for lies what Gibraltar does for rocks…
Yes and no.
Similar in that someone continues to repeat a lie that has been debunked.
Different in its overall effect.
I hope we can agree that not all lies are created equal. That there is a continuum. If I told you Bork’s car is white and you proved it was, in fact, red but I continued to repeat that it is white is that the same thing as Palin did? On the surface sure. I am repeating a lie that has been proven wrong. Does my lie matter one whit? Nope.
So too with Zoe. I doubt Zoe has as much pull in swaying public opinion and affecting policy as Palin does. I doubt Zoe repeating a lie (actually a misrepresentation of the issue…I guess technically Zoe told the truth but I can go with calling it a lie since it gives the listener a wholly wrong impression from the reality) about a long past event is meaningful anymore.
It seems many here would like to say a lie is a lie is a lie. Ravenman suggests I am not explaining myself well and that may be true. My problem is I feel like I am explaining something that is such common experience it is difficult to explain (akin to trying to explain the color “pink” to someone). There are many aspects to a lie that need to be considered. Among them are what the teller knows, what we think they ought to know, their purpose for the lie, the effect of the lie and so on.
If I lied to you to keep your surprise party a surprise would you ever after label me a liar and put me on the same plane as (say) Palin?
It does illustrate the difficulty of finding examples.
Because they are endless occupations. It not about how we got there. Iraq however will not likely be a safe and quiet occupation. We are far away from home in an area that Muslims would hate us for just being there. We would likely always face bombings and attacks.
Neither is an occupation (well, not in half a century), but a presence. The purpose of our bases and troops in Japan and Korea is deterrence of, and if necessary, defense against, outside invasion by the Red Chinese or the Soviet Union (yes, I know), and the ability to project power elsewhere in East Asia or the Pacific. Neither has as a purpose the subjugation or pacification of the native population.
What McCain said he supported was a garrisoning of Iraq. I don’t doubt for a moment that he understands the difference.
I don’t consider Korea and Japan to be occupied. They are self-governed and you are there at their convenience. Soldiers do not patrol the streets of Tokyo, do they?
And yes, they’d hate you for being there. Can’t imagine why. A real domescratcher.
Which is why I mentioned that the U.S. would need (but be unlikely to achieve) the support of not only the government in place (which we usually have a hand in choosing), but that of the community as well in order to successfully maintain a military base in Iraq. Even with both, however, they would still be at risk to casualties by independents and terrorist cells, as **gonzomax **correctly noted. Every military base is subject to those risk, but McCain must surely realizes that the ME is a quite a bit riskier than, say, Greenland.
Looking at it this way, it was sloppy of him to present the notion in an environment unsuited to deeper analysis of the pros and cons of a plan such as the one for which he indicated his support.
Agreed, but…
This has as an unintended consequence the result that one’s political position predetermines the power and perfidy of lies.
Examples… in a thread after the East Anglia e-mails were made public, one poster said, in effect, “Who really cares? Even if global climate change isn’t human-caused, we’re still getting all sorts of good effects: cleaner cars, cleaner fuel, cleaner energy.” This is along the lines of what you’re suggesting: because the lie has all these good consequences, and is executed for the right reasons, it’s of little moment.
But this pre-supposes that these end results are universally agreed upon as good, especially when weighed against other consequences.
Bush lied to get us into war! Let’s say we accept this statement as true. One might argue that it’s just fine, because the result of the war was deposing a brutal dictator and giving us the change to stabilize an unstable country, so it’s really not a big deal. Of course, for most on the left, hose are untenable assumptions. But most on the left have no trouble accepting the value of FDR’s lies to get us into World War II… even though, at the time, peace advocates would have been outraged to discover how the country was led into that war.
My intent is not to debate the specifics of each example, but to say that the various aggravating and mitigating circumstances you identify are not so clear-cut as to place everyone in agreement on how great, or little, in import each lie might be.
I do so admire the deft disbursement of pixie dust, when accompanied with a batting of big, brown innocent eyes. You have few rivals in that art.
Yes, lets just say that it is so, that every bit of evidence thus far revealed points inexorably to that conclusion. Let just say, for the sake of argument, that lies issued forth from the White House like water through a fire hose, like a brown avalanche of bullshit.
And lets just assume, strictly for the sake of argument, mind you, that we of the left find such flimsy rationales as offered to be the utterest crap, neutron density bull pucky. We are pleased that you accord us the good sense that God gave a goose. Thanks awfully. No, really, generous of you. Please be assured that we stand ready, at a moments notice, to offer such insight and perspicacity to our less gifted brethren. No, no need for thanks, least we could do.
But FDR? Barring exceptional and extraordinary evidence, we are mostly content to attribute that to an overzealous foreign policy on the part of the Japanese, and are satisfied that history will reflect that.
Nonetheless, an adroit display of rhetorical jiu-jitsu. If ever again I face the unfortunate condition of the defendant, rising, I want you right there by my side. I’ve little doubt that the jury will carry me out on their shoulders chanting “Not Guilty!” while offering me cash and my choice from amongst their daughters.
I would agree that the ends do not justify the means particularly when you look at the intent of the liar. If you look at the Bush/Iraq War example, it is easy to surmise that the lie was self-serving. Bush lied to deceive the public and drum of support for his initiative which would eventually allow him to triumphantly parade around in dick suit on a big ass carrier patting himself on the back saying, “Aren’t I an effective leader? America! Fuck yeah!”
The ends (including the numerous deaths of Iraqi citizens and US military personnel) certainly don’t justify means (invading a sovereign nation; hey, what about North Korea?) to satisfy the need for Bush to make his daddy proud and leave a presidential legacy.
As to the global warming brewhaha, get back to me when they starting systematically shedding human blood trying to save the planet.
Well, that was how most of my trials ended. 
Sorry for all the typos up there. I’d have a decent excuse if only I could say that English was my second language. Hell, I wish I could say it was my first.
That’s ridiculous. I’ve been invited to dinner with friends on Thursday. I’d really like to go, but I have to check with my wife first. So it’s true to say I won’t commit to going out with them. It’s not at all true to say I won’t go out with them – I very well might, I just don’t have enough information yet to commit to it.
I see a very big difference. “I won’t commit to meeting with Spain” =! “I won’t meet with Spain.”
True but I think we can apply some of what I mentioned in my last post to help illuminate and distinguish among lies (why are they lying?).
To use your example Bush’s lies to get us to war were self serving (at least I am hard pressed to guess what he might have had in mind that the war would be a boon to the country and the world). FDR’s lies were not self serving (there were clear and present threats in the world that were aggressively pursuing war as a policy).
If there really were death panels I could see Palin fighting vigorously against them but that has been thoroughly and completely debunked yet she continues. So one has to ask why? To me it is self serving and suits her purposes.
Grayson, on the flips side, is lying to try and push health care reform. Healthcare in the US is provably messed up this would seem a good goal. To be sure there can be a great deal of debate on how it is done to be effective and better than what we have but the overall goal is generally a good one.
I am cognizant that such thinking as this leads to an ends justifies the means debate and, personally, I tend to reject such arguments as faulty. So, I am not giving Grayson a pass on his lie because I prefer the goals he was pursuing as opposed to Palin who I completely disagree with.
That said if I had to decide which person I generally find more truthful or the person I would trust more than the other I can and do assess the why’s of their lies and the effects their lies produce.
By this measure FDR is light years ahead of Bush and Grayson is far past Palin.
I agree that FDR could reasonably have thought that the Japanese Empire and the Third Reich posed a grave threat to the US and the world. And as it happened, history has pretty much vindicated that view of his.
I contend that Bush could have reasonably thought Iraq was a threat to the US, at least for some value of “reasonable.” Unlike most people here, I think Bush’s sins were lack of intellectual rigor, not self-serving malice. By that I mean: Bush started with a preconception, and tended to listen to those analysts that validated his preconceptions. We may imagine 20 analysts, with 18 saying, “There is no real evidence of Iraqi chemical or biological weapons,” and two saying, “Iraq is likely to have chemical weapons.” Bush listened to the two, not the eighteen. And history has NOT vindicated Bush’s belief.
But that seems a poor basis for deciding that FDR was a hero and Bush was a self-serving liar.
Here I agree, even though Palin may well believe her own rhetoric. Why the difference? Why not give Palin the same pass I gave Bush above?
Because Palin’s belief, even if genuine, falls below an objectively reasonable level. Bush’s doesn’t, because we have only to look at the pre-war ramp-up to see other politicians on both sides of the aisle accepting, and repeating, the belief that WMDs would be present. This is evidence that Bush’s beliefs, while not universally accepted at the time, were not so outlandish as to be dismissed outright. Palin’s are – the only people touting “death panels” are either isiots or those truly unconcerned about lying.
I would almost go with this except Bush listed his Axis of Evil and of the three countries listed Iraq was far and away the smallest threat of the three. Not least because we already had military in place and we were actively interdicting Hussein’s ambitions.
If Bush truly wanted to go get someone he perceived as an actual threat then he had better choices.
I agree Bush lacked intellectual rigor to the point of actual stupidity. Unfortunately that left him open to advisors (notably Rove and Cheney) manipulating him for their self-serving purposes.
Perhaps Bush was too stupid to spot the bullshit he was peddling but I expect more from a US President and as President he is ultimately the one held accountable.
Well, Libya agreed to disarm itself of WMD (by odd coincidence just a short time after the Iraq invasion), NK seems to have develop nuclear weapons already, and Iran had not given any pretext for an invasion.
Or you could see it that our military presence made Iraq a better target than Iran. We already had military resources in place for action - much more than for Iran. Plus we had the UN resolution warning Iraq of “serious consequences” if she continued to ignore the terms of the ceasefire.
No doubt we are all aware that the Rockefeller report after the invasion described the idea that Iraq was actively seeking nuclear and other WMDs as “generally supported by the intelligence”.
Sure, he’s accountable. As has been mentioned more than once, every other Democrat in Congress believed the same bullshit. And therefore voted for the AUMF (with some exceptions). Kerry voted for it, as did all the other possible Dem nominees of 2004 after Dean spazzed out, which is part of the reason they couldn’t point to Iraq as a reason to vote against Bush.
Bill Clinton said that he believed Saddam still had WMDs when Bill left office. Hilary said the same thing, after the invasion. Kerry said the same sorts of things during the lead up to the invasion, and as mentioned, he voted for the AUMF. Other Democrats said Iraq was an imminent threat.
The difficulty is with a standard that says, none of them lied, but Bush did. Because they all had access to the same intelligence, and they all came to the same conclusions. You can phrase it “Democrats believed Saddam was a serious threat, but didn’t want to do anything about it - just wait it out and let it turn out like North Korea, except closer to the US and Europe’s major sources of oil” but that is not a whole lot better than “Saddam didn’t have nearly the stockpiles we thought, but at least now we are sure”.
ISTM that one of the major reasons why Obama won the White House is that there is not a lot of him talking about the invasion of Iraq, in public or on the record, especially before the fact. He wasn’t in the Senate when the AUMF passed, and if there is anywhere he is recorded as saying he would have voted for the AUMF he has done a good job of keeping it quiet.
Basically, he got lucky. He entered the national scene long enough after the invasion that he could base all his rhetoric on what became known after the fact.
Regards,
Shodan