The key difference between a mistake and a lie
By Steve Benen Wednesday Jul 30, 2008 7:30amIf someone makes a false claim, it’s a little easier to get away with it the first time. He or she could always just claim ignorance: “Wait, he wasn’t caught in a compromising position with farm animals? Oh, I’d heard that he was. My mistake.”
When someone makes a false claim after he/she has been told it’s false, there’s less of an excuse. At that point, it goes from a mistake to a lie. It’s the difference between inadvertently misleading people and deliberately misleading people.
And John McCain is deliberately misleading people.
McCain and his campaign repeated at least two lines of attack against Obama, which when first said in early July, were called “bogus,” “wrong,” “inflated” and “misleading” by independent fact checkers.
At his town hall today, McCain repeated that Obama wants to raise taxes on those making as little as $32,000 a year and in his campaign’s response to Obama’s event in Springfield, Mo., today, repeated that “…Obama’s bad judgment led him to vote in support of higher taxes 94 times….”
Now, I won’t bore you detailing all of the ways in which McCain is lying here. Instead, I’ll just farm this one out — the claim about raising taxes on those making as little as $32,000 a year is demonstrably false, and the claim about voting for higher taxes 94 times is just as ridiculous.
I bring this up, though, because I think the presumptive Republican nominee is offering up an opportunity to create a new campaign meme: “John McCain has a problem telling the truth.”
This might even work, if there’s a concerted push behind it. Reporters may be slowly realizing that this is a legitimate area of criticism — whether they’re willing to say so out loud or not — as evidenced by the MSNBC blog item mentioned above.
For that matter, reporters also seem to coming to the realization that McCain has become relentlessly negative as a candidate. The next natural step is to point out the obvious: McCain isn’t just launching negative attacks, he’s launching false negative attacks.
McCain lied about Obama snubbing the troops. We know it, he knows it, the media knows it. McCain lied about Obama’s economic policies. We know it, he knows it, the media knows it. McCain lied about coastal drilling offering “short-term” relief. McCain lied about Obama wanting to raise taxes on 23 million small businesses. McCain lied when he held Obama responsible for high gas prices. We know it, he knows it, the media knows it.
Arguing that McCain has become entirely negative is almost beside the point — a candidate can be negative and honest. In fact, I kind of expected to see McCain go after Obama for things that are true — Obama attended Jeremiah Wright’s church; he wants to end the war in Iraq; he’s only held elected office for 12 years, etc. If McCain wanted to go on the attack in a truthful way, he could.
But he’s following a different path. “John McCain has a problem telling the truth.” Tell your friends.
Login or Register to post comments.
Good Morning!
I don't think McCain or his campaign care one bit about the truth. They are just slinging dung and hoping some of it sticks to something. Not the best way to begin the campaign season.
This just in...exclusive video of first version of Obama "celeb" ad. Watch it here. http://www.tagg-lines.com/2008/07/just-intagglines-exclusive-video.html
Mornin'.
People surprised about politicians, any politicians lying?
Excuse me I-hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.
Sorry. I'm not sure I read that right. Politicians lie...and people are suprised?
McCain and the GOP have nothing for America--just ask Karl Rove--unless more death, war, and debt are "something" voters in November need.
Repbulicans are pathetic, chronic, pathological liars.
Their political views are bankrupt. Their so called approach is bankrupt. Their entire ideology is bankrupt. Because of 20 years of Republican majority rule...the country is bankrupt.
General_Rennenkampf @ 3:
If you don't see the difference here, then you simply don't get it. It's called LIBEL, my friend.
There is another key difference, at least in the MSM:
Republican's make mistakes. Democrats lie.
For instance: George Bush made a mistake when he invaded Iraq looking for WMD.
Obama lied when he said the surge wouldn't work.
When you gotta DENY it, you already LOST!
That's Propaganda 101
There's only one way to counteract lies: tell bigger, better ones, with a straighter face, to more people, more often.
Liberal AND Proud @ 6:
Oh, I see the difference. And technically, libel is printed, slander is spoken. I'm just astonished that after 6,000 years of the state, people are shocked by lying from politicians. Admittedly, McPapen did much worse over longer than Obama's done, but at this stage, I'm prepared for any stupidity the American political system can unleash.
As further evidence of McCain's "pathologies," even McCain’s Skin Lesions Ask That McCain Be Removed.
.
jitter @ 7:
Heh, they both lie. It's just as much a lie to state that you authored a bill you never touched as it is to state that you are for family values while you are banging the pages.
Anyone who expects any politician anywhere to be truthful and altruistic is as wrong as all generalizations are.
As a resident of Arizona, I get this joker as "my" senator. And all that McKeating has done in the last 8 years is to lie lie lie. Rove & Co punked him back in '00 and Songbird McKeating bravely surrendered. Now he is one of them.
McGoo fearing colossal defeat has passed into the land of Kriminal Rove. A land where there is no possible concern for facts let alone truth or high mindedness.
Here is Glenn Greenwald's latest on these very matters.
Liberal AND Proud @ 5:
Even I can see that. The GOP offers nothing good because they're stuck in the past. I mean, who would even get upset at somebody being a fucking Communist today? After the lovely little turds the USSR left behind, anyone who claims to be Communist is a sucker.
Alice X - trolling for perfection (Chomsky Nader) - status quObama - change you can pretend in - @ 13:
Rove wants to be Machiavelli, but he's not even a Commodus.
General_Rennenkampf @ 9:
The issue here is that the GOP isn't playing semantic games or even distortion, which is de rigeur in politics, or at least it was until the extreme right defined their brand of criminality and lunacy as "the center". This is outright LYING. And can be proven to be lies. But the media is SO in the pocket of the GOP that they don't fact check, so the GOP is able to repeat the same lies over and over again.
It is dishonest and a terrible way to conduct national political affairs.
To paraphrase John Stewart...they're hurting the country.
The truth has never played any part in republican politics.
I wouldn't expect an honest or coherent answer from mcsame if he were asked what time it was.
The only people who don't or won't see his obvious lies are the conservo-sheep they round up for his sleep inducing speeches.
I'm with PO'd P, the mcsame campaign is not interested in truth or any of the values that their geriatric candidate has been taught to repeat. They don't care what they have to say or who they have to step on so long as the end result is their guy in the oval office and they can get back to looting the place.
So pretty much like every other reslug campaign ever.
Well theThe Politico was impressed.....
Liberal AND Proud @ 16:
As I said, they try to be Machiavelli and Confucius when they aren't even close to Commodus or Wang Mang.
*Well The Politico was impressed.....
john j @ 21:
The Politico would be impressed if a dog crapped in front of it, then.
The GOP know dirty tricks. That's all they know. They can't play it fair. God knows they can't play it honest. They lie and think nothing of it. "The ends justify the means" mentality is their creed.
Not to put Obama on a pedestal but this kind of bullshit needs to end. These people need to spend a generation as a laughed-at minority political party (I'll be happy with two generations as well). Maybe then they'll realize they ought to try something new and novel like honesty and integrity and actually serving the American people instead of their fat, rich corporate buddies and defense contractors.
I've said it. I'd say it again if I had to.
It's sort of unsettling to think that the McCain people have hired the very cabal (the Rovebots--who have destroyed the GOP) to convince America that the Republicans are the ones we need in office to fix the Republican mess visited upon us by Rove, Bush, and the "we left gov't in disgrace" neocon clowns.
Moral Compass @ 24:
Rove's like Li Si, promised Luna, delivered Nix. Let's just hope that McPapen doesn't get inaugurated to make this analogy more complete....
General_Rennenkampf @ 20:
I am just so fed up with this bullshit.
I can't wait for the debates. Obama should make it a referendum on the 20 years of Republican policies sanctioned and signed off by Republican Congresses of which John McCain has been a major player.
Let's end this bullshit once and for ALL.
General_Rennenkampf @ 22:
...or their candidate. They would hold up the turd, point at it and proclaim it the most perfect and patriotic turd ever shat.
McLiar. Oh, those Republican morals.
General_Rennenkampf @ 22:
From what I've read the ad has been pretty heavily panned. Unless you're a conservo-sheep. For them the sky is green the grass is blue so of course their response is to assume that the ad is good and well accepted. And if they say it three times, well, then it's practically in the bible.
Liberal AND Proud @ 26:
Oh, I agree. The question is whether McPapen's advisers will pull the wool over people's eyes. Considering he's pro-war, Obama needs to harp on that repeatedly, pointing out that most of the nation disagrees with him. Obama also needs to counterbalance what McPapen will likely do (run ads with Hillary criticizing him, and some other Dems as well) by running ads of the Rovebots from 2,000.
Pretty fu*king pathetic when all you have going for you are the lies you are telling about your opponent. When a candidate only has lies to sell, what does that say about that quality of that candidate? It's saying we cannot win so we are going to try to make you lose. Like Sen.Obama said yesterday, why is McCain talking so much about Sen. Obama and not more about himself?
Nada @ 29:
I could probably sell a book like Hannity or Limbaugh that's nothing but Hitler speeches with "Liberal" in place of Jew and "America" in place of Germany, and make millions, because few of the GOPers would get that. Conservative rank-and-file are not always the brightest...
Liberal AND Proud @ 27:
LOL. How this ad exactly became...uh...a big deal I don't know. It seems like two kids on the playground "nah-nahing" each other.
Liberal AND Proud @ 26:
I read an article that the mcsame campaign is asking for a five minute delay or something like that in the debates.... is that so they can fix his lies... er I mean mistakes... on the fly? Or do they just need time to compose a response to send to him via the hidden ear piece?
pissed off patricia @ 31:
Because talking about himself gets him dogcatcher in Sitka. Talking about Obama, he thinks, gets him the Presidency. The question will be who gets more voters in November. If the GOP overcomes its ennui with McPapen....
General_Rennenkampf @ 30:
It's time to take the gloves of. Fuck this "war hero" crap.
Obama should start the debates by thanking McCain for his service, call him hero...then wipe up the floor of the debate hall with his wrinkled up, past his time, flip flopping, positionless ass.
CHECK THE NEWS..... John "THE BUSH REPUBLICAN" McCain and his "TEAM" have actually decided that THEY CANNOT WIN.
They have run their issues and understand that to get to the White House....OBAMA MUST LOSE.
He must be caught with the GUN IN HIS HAND.
They have determined that they will NOT WIN on the positions of John "THE BUSH REPUBLICAN" McCain.
IT WAS ON SEVERAL STATIONS.
What can we do? His name is and always will be JOHN "THE BUSH REPUBLICAN" MCCAIN
please help him wear this proudly... like a lapel pin!!!!
Josh Patashnik takes a critical look at "most liberal senator" rankings and concludes that voteview.com is probably the most accurate, ranking Obama at number 11. What I want to know is why no one is concerned -- or even brings up as worrisome -- the fact that John McCain is the ninth most conservative member of the Senate, just behind the likes of Wayne Allard, James Inhofe and Tom Coburn.
Liberal AND Proud @ 35:
Heh, I'd like to see the Dems throw as much shit as the GOP did. After what they did to Kerry and Gore, both of whom are, like Obama, fairly conservative people, the Dems need to give as good as they get.
Repeat a lie often enough...
My 87 year old aunt passed away, leaving a bank account of about $3000 and no other assets. Her son, a right winger, was concerned about having to pay an estate tax on it.
i don't believe Obama's going to have to do much in the way of countering McCain's lies himself, if Andrea's reaction was any example.
i believe that McCain is just so brazen in his crapola the media eventually won't be able to help themselves in calling him what he is; a lying liar.
I'm not betting all my lunch money on the debates and here's why. I remember the low expectations that were placed on bush before the debates of 2004. By the time the debates actually happened, all bush had to do was utter words to be declared the winner.
Sen. Obama will have a fine line before him. He has to look as though he respects McCain at the same time he disagrees with him. He can't verbally beat up on the old POW grandfatherly man with the strangest smile on earth.
Really, folks...complaining about this stuff is like complaining about the weather. Are we supposed to be shocked in 2008 that politicians are lying about one another's record?
Here's how the G.O.P. goes about things, courtesy of Karl Rove: You paint your opponent in general terms as "soft" on something...terrorism, crime, gun ownership, taxes, whatever. Then you cherry-pick statements said opponent once made that confirm his so-called softness. Then you apply those statements to current issues, as if the candidate had just made them. To reinforce this, you make stuff up that isn't true but seems consistent with what you said before. When you're caught in the lie, you tell a new lie about something else to distract the media from the first lie.
pissed off patricia @ 41:
Fuck niceties. Just beat up on him. If he's capable of running the nation, he should be capable of taking some ribbing from a guy like Obama. OTOH, if as it really is, he's an American Konstantin Chernenko, then that should end the debate right there, then.
What a polite way of putting it. I prefer to just say he's a liar.
john j @ 37:
no one is concerned — or even brings up as worrisome — the fact that John McCain is the ninth most conservative member of the Senate
MSM is in love with McCain
john j @ 37:
Because the center is moving left, that's why. I had a post on this yesterday. Mainstream Americans are hurting, and understand that all this "economic freedom", "free market", half baked Laissez-faire bullshit has only benefited the rich and the corporations, while real people are now struggling to hold their jobs, feed their families and simply get to work. Social programs are NOT socialism, which is how the right wants it defined...and social programs are not giveaways to the poor...social programs are for EVERYONE.
Obama is going to rip McCain a new one on the economy. His numbers are going to go higher. The GOP, like the Democrats, do allll kinds of scientific polling. They know which direction the numbers are moving, and it is not looking good for McFake. That is why they are going so heavily negative.
scioto @ 39:
Yeah...he won't be able to buy a new gun rack for his truck.
pissed off patricia @ 41:
Pop, Kerry won the debates against Bush...everyone agrees on that. The only reason Kerry lost was the Swift boating.
You know that there are a myriad of debating strategies to make McCain look stupid without calling him stupid, and Obama can pull that off because he is simply smarter then John McInsane.
Just like Obama mentioned yesterday, McGeezer can't talk about what he's going to do to make this Nation better, he only can speak negatively on Obama.
The same cesspool shit that Johnny2Bad, Dennis, LAC, and Swampthing bring to the debate here.
How about a comparison of how the two candidate's wives dress? That'd be a fine foundation upon which to base the future of the...Republic for which it stands... and all...
His supporters aren't interested in truthiness, they all watch Faux News. They want to hear the lies that comfort them.
The contrast in the two candidates is going to surprise a lot of people when the first debate begins, especially if the candidates are standing. I think that's why the McCain campaign wanted a whole bunch of town hall meetings beforehand. They wanted the public to get accustomed to seeing that contrast ahead of time. One tall good looking guy with a winning smile beside one old guy with a strange smile. One who is comfortable in his own skin beside one who seems less so.
Left&Left @ 49:
Obama and John McCain have moved to such centrist positions that they are nearly indistinguishable, which is understandable because most of their funding comes from the same sources with the same interests.
Liberal AND Proud @ 48:
Unfortunately, in American politics, subtlety's ineffective. The Dems need rough-boot politics to win this one, even after 8 years of the last asshole-in-chief, which says a lot, IMHO.
General_Rennenkampf @ 11:
and after 6000 years of the state, and its well known history of lying, and winners rewriting...
that you would still cling the delusion that a state wouldn't attack its own citizens in order to advance its agenda.
Dean @ 44:
Yeah but media never corrects him. They just spreads his lies as truth.
L.A. Confidential @ 53:
Moved? They've always been there. Politics here have shifted to the right since 1919.
Yesterday McCain put an ad showing B. Spears and P. Hilton in his attack on Obama becoming a star because he was able to bring over 200,000 people to listen to him in Europe.
But people who came to listen to Obama did not come to listen to a song,see a dance or an act. They came to hear what Obama had to say about the current conditions of world affairs and where are we going from here.
The irony here by McCain and Republicans in general is that they are accusing Obama of becoming a star, when in fact the modern Republican's party Godfather Ronald Reagan was the true Hollywood star,who is still admired by McCain and all Republicans.
Nada @ 18:
If only that were true. In the past few days I've spoken with several friends--people who despise Bushco and their antics, people I consider (or had considered) bright, well-educated, sophisticated, and open-minded--and they all have parroted the McCain lies and upside-down "logic" word for word. I was stunned, and sickened.
And every one of them started the conversation with precisely the same words about Obama--"He scares me." I asked them why they aren't frightened by a man who is practically promising World War III, has a hair-trigger temper, is a blantant liar, and show signs of senility. "Well, he has experience."
This is in Massachusetts, supposedly a liberal, Democratic state. I cannot begin to tell you how frightened *I* am.
Truth B Told @ 55:
I've asked you twice to provide an actual source that doesn't parrot Nazi bullshit like some people have provided, and every damn time you get the hell away. Please provide a genuine source, preferably one that doesn't think of the Protocols as genuine.
The US had no reason to use something like 9/11 to draw people into invading Iraq. Too clumsy, much too given to conspiracy-theory analysis, hardly the way I'd do it if I had that sort of power.
It's all they have at this point. They know they aren't going to win based on McCain's merits alone so the only way they can possibly win is for Obama to lose and the only way to get Obama to lose is to go false and negative. It's all the have.
Randy @ 58:
Well, not that much of a star - The Gipper?, Bonzo's uncle, Hellcats of the navy. Death Valley Days? Not much of a star at all.
Go to alz.org, click on Alzheimer's disease and go to the checklist. Apply McCain's performance to the checklist. Things aren't going to get any better as he ages. Once he gets a concept wrong, no amount of factual evidence will change his incorrect perception. Sounds too familiar, doesn't it?
What Repug does NOT have a problem with telling the truth?
General_Rennenkampf @ 60:
when I see your footnotes, I'll provide mine.
There was some funny news this morning on Morning Joe. Seems Paris Hilton's parents have maxed out their donations to McCain. Then he uses their daughter's picture in a negative ad against Sen.Obama.
Randy @ 58:
No, according to some of the posts here those 250,000 people were there to see a free concert and get bratwurst.
"Confabulation" (making stuff up) is a symptom of some forms of dementia.
McCain is Not So Much of a Maverick as a Desperado
By Brilliant at Breakfast
This is one of the most pathetic things I've ever seen. I almost feel sorry for the poor old bastard, the operative word being "almost."
Because it was a stupid (not to mention a losing) risk to acknowledge Obama's growing popularity and to try to portray it as a weakness rather than a strength. Sour grapes make for lousy Koolaid.
Is Obama ready to lead? Until inauguration day, we'll never know any more than whether McCain is fit to lead.
But Obama doesn't think Iraq borders with Pakistan, a nation in central Asia. Obama doesn't think that Iran is funding al Qaeda. Obama doesn't think that he can cut two trillion dollars a year out of a three trillion dollar annual budget while cutting taxes even more and counting on some massive, magical windfall to balance the books. Obama knows Czechoslovakia is no longer on the map. Obama knows the real troop level and doesn't underestimate them by 25,000 pairs of boots. Obama never called for sending hot bottled water to dehydrated babies.
And I think it's safe to say that Obama knows the election is in November instead of January. Is either man fit to lead?
You be the judge...
AirAmerica
Truth B Told @ 65:
What sort of footnotes would you like, and what exactly would you ask for? I'll get it for you, if only to see you squirm to provide something that doesn't have psuedoNazi ideals behind it.
Only in US politics can a serial liar develop a reputation as a "straight talker". And many in the media will continue to defend McCain's lies because they think he really doesn't like to do that; it's just that he "has to do it to win". Well, maybe if you have to lie to win you don't really deserve to win...
Incidentally, I noticed this line this morning in The Boston Globe in an article about the McCain ads. Perhaps it's a start. (Of course the Globe, although a NYT paper, isn't exactly one of the leading fans of Republicans in general, but I'll take what we can get.)
"Independent analysts have said that several assertions in the ads are based on questionable claims or outright falsehoods."
General_Rennenkampf @ 70:
Nazi Ideals? Like the one the US government/military is currently emulating?
lets see...
1. wars of aggression
2. phony evidence used to justify the wars... parallels Operation Himmler
3. Torture
4. Haliburton contracted for internal holding camps for "illegals."
5. Use of depleted uranium
6. Anthrax attacks to quiet opposition
need anymore?
General_Rennenkampf @ 15:
Rove is many bad things, and I am not one to praise him for it... however -- I am not going to dismiss him as an unworthy opponent! In case you haven't noticed, his plotting got the boy-king selected twice. His scheming helped very much to get us into the state of almost-might-as-well-be-dictatorship in the United States. The jury is still out as to whether or not he is closer to Machiavelli. He certainly did read The Prince, and took at least a few things to heart. Whether or not one likes him, he is very certainly an expert at what he does (read: evil son of a bitch), and it does no one any good to simply dismiss him like he's not worth your attention. Again, that's how we got here in the first place.
As a matter of fact, I would recommend that everyone here should read The Prince, and they might be able to jump the gun on some of his tactics istead of simply reacting to them. Lords knows McPalpatine will be taking his advice quite frequently in the months to come.
Liberal AND Proud @ 47:
Hey now, that's a little unfair to someone who just lost a relative. It may not be much money, but a lot of people are worrying about finances, and having a relative die and leave any kind of additional finance questions can be scary, especially if you've never had to deal with it before. He might look back on it and realize it was a stupid worry, but grief does bad shit to people with a heart.
Secondly, this person's relative is a normal/real person, not a McCain pundit... I think it's bad form to be so brash in that regard.
The Obama campaign hasn't hit any real bumps so far so I have faith in them to do what they need to do. They have money and smarts and look how far they have come against a ton of odds.
Truth B Told @ 73:
No, I want to know what sort of sources you want me to provide to prove what? If you don't want to answer, then you're a fraud.
Nazi ideals, lessee:
1. Hypernationalism. Bush's Administration hasn't quite taken nationalism to the pre-1939 level.
2. Anti-Semitism-For some reason, I've never heard any Bushite speak quite the level of conspiratorial nonsense directed at Jews as much as I've heard it about Muslims.
3. Expansionism-Wrong era, wrong time.
4. Glorification of Manliness and denigration of Femininity-Actually, the Christian Right's proto-fascist, but they're only a part of Bush's base, and he's using them for his own agenda.
5. Master-Slave ideal-Hah, tell me one GOP person that stupid to say something like that in the US. Go on, do it. It would be political suicide.
6. Anti-Socialism-effectively meaningless since 1991.
7. Paramilitary groups-Last I checked, Obama's never had goons break up his rallies.
8. Racial hierarchy-A real racist would not have any blacks anywhere near the seat of government. Rationality has no effect on it whatsoever.
9. Centralized Planning-The first GOP President to dare try something like this would effectively have destroyed his career.
10. Total control of the Media-The Media is for the Media.
Georgette Orwell @ 59:
I agree. It's amazing that so many generally thoughtful people are searching for reasons to dislike Obama. They cannot even listen to what each of the candidates is saying. I really hate to say this but a big part of it has to be that even the most liberal among us just can't think of supporting a bi-racial candidate. It's so hard to give up prejudices that you were raised with.
Wise_Fool @ 74:
Well...it seems to me that he's a clear an present danger to this nation.
Wise_Fool @ 74:
No, Rove's an incompetent sonofabitch. He struggled to get Dubya a majority in 2004, and he failed to get it in 2000. He also has allowed the current President's approval ratings to sink from 90% to 30%, something that a real political operative might have been able to avoid. Rove also has a very limited repertoire of politics, basically "BOO! THERE'S A TERRORIST UNDER THE BED," which IMHO, puts him with Commodus, not Machiavelli. Rove sucks. I could do better than he did.
Pissed Pat.:
I agree. Obama's campaign has done surpassingly well for all of the uphill battles they go through just because they exist. It still worries me though that the media is trying their damnest to make something... ANYTHING... stick on Obama. My fear is that the longer they try, more viciously they will drive it home when something finally does stick, and they longer they will beat him with it. I hope they have good riot gear, because the bad part hasn't even come around the corner yet.
General_Rennenkampf @ 77:
Oh, I see... you apparently think that since Nazi Germany is the only version of Nazism that if the US isn't following the entire playbook that it isn't following the Nazi ideals? Foolish and naive. As the old saying goes, there is more than one way to skin a cat. And the elite and intelligentsia in this country realized that a German version of Nazism wouldn't fly here. So all your points sort of evaporate into the ether.
I don't think 1 million dead civilian Iraqi's would have your optimism.
liberalMcSuuurgeNmoderation @ 79:
Yes, he is... Someone get our taser-happy police force on that, right away! I can only hope they zap him a few times before they frog-march him in before the Congress. Oh, the happiest of days would look like...
Truth B Told @ 82:
Nazism cannot work in the US, because Nazism is German. An American fascism will be a hybrid of Christian Identity with the fringes of the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party as a whole. Nazism won't work, but something like what I've described will, if the economy keeps crashing down due to the CEOs' greed.
And on the 1 million dead figure, if the study can't even get the pre-2003 population of Iraq right (it overestimated it by 20%) I'm hardly going to trust it to manage something as confused as the body count. My guess is around 750,000 by now, not 1 million. Either way, that's too damned many.
Let me repeat again, and see if you'll actually answer this time: What sources, to prove what?
General_Rennenkampf @ 77:
I think, you're both missing something...the administration is taking ideas from both the Nazi's and the Fascists from the pre WWII era...alot of what BushCo has done is clearly fascist.
But I think the only thing that is keeping this Fascist movement in check, is that some folks in DC are seeing it for what is, and doing their best to stop it. Though it's also evident that they didn't get started soon enough...I think there was a kind of disbelief by the Dems that this was really happening.
And these Neo-cons don't need to be exactly like Nazi's or Fascists...they're some of both, and with something else thrown in...
Someone with a bigger brain than me will come with an "ism" that will describe these people to a T.
Nazi and Fascist are close, but don't quite fit.
General_Rennenkampf @ 80:
Okay, um, he still got Dubya selected twice, against all odds of his surpassing idiocy. That my friend IS a victory for Rove. He managed to keep Dubya's approval rating at a stalwart 20-something% despite ALL odds and despite all people with brainstems, and that is also quite the achievement. And if you actually read Machiavelli, playing to people's fears and keeping level of discourse among your subjects at the infant level keeps your higher goals clear of opposition. All in all, everything you said makes the case that Rove IS in fact doing pretty well in his Mchiavellian schemes.
Why do you think so many people are praying for an Obama win like he's a friggin saviour? Because Rove's politics DIDN'T work? Um, methinks you need to take off the blinders, cuz kidding yourself will only get you so far. Rove knows very well what he is doing, and we are collectively VERY lucky that enough of the populace has wisened up to his schemes to even give us a chance of winning back our government. Putting your head in the sand at pointing fingers and calling dirty names won't save us, buddy.
General_Rennenkampf @ 84:
wow, look at all your unqualified assumptions about the Libertarian Party, the Constitution Party, and so on. Where are your sources? What makes you the preeminent Decider on whose sources are superior?
and you magically wave your hand and say the Iraq body count is off by 250k - by using a GUESS?
at least the studies involved put feet on the ground to do their questionnaires/survey. You - a guess.
yeah.... that is good sourcing.
Truth B Told @ 87:
OKAY CAN WE PLEASE START TRUNCATING OUR QUOTES?!?!?! Even I'm not this bad, people. A two page essay answer is one thing... A STRING OF THEM IS ANOTHER.
Left&Left @ 49:
its interesting that an obama bott can accuse anyone whos against barack obummer for selling out the liberals who supported him back when he needed them , back when he was going to fillabuster fisa, and before he was against the patriot act , and was a man who says he wouldnt have voted to go to war in iraq and afganistan but turns around and votes for more war by voteing to keep on funding more war in iraq and afganistan, then he goes to israel and promisses to back a country determinined to run the middle east with the threat of nukeing iran , after they allready bombed lebannons infrastructer back to the stone age and killed hundreads of innocent lebanese men women and children all over two soldiers who were sent into lebannon in a snatch lebannon citizens for interrogation, then obama declares hes willing to keep nukes on the table against iran if our dear friends the isralies need us to do thier dirty work for them, not to mention ol left must approve of obamas stance on widening the war in afganistan and going into packistan if he feels the need for more deaths in that part of the world ,sorry lefty your guys just a war monger furthering bushes wars of agression!
Wise_Fool @ 83:
That would indeed be a day of days...
Wise_Fool @ 86:
What exactly has Rove done? Said "BOO!" and made the US jump. He's got neither the balls nor the brains to do half of what has happened, rather a McCarthyist-Salemist attitude of hysteria and witch-hunting grew and took hold because...GASP!!!...stuff that had gone on in much of the rest of the world ended up in the US. Rove's done very little beyond say "BOO!", but the attitude of fear that emerged after 9/11 did everything else that was necessary.
liberalMcSuuurgeNmoderation @ 85:
The Neocons are ex-Trotskyists. That's why their political system resembles Communism, in part, and they've got a few fascist traits, but by the 1930s standards, FDR could have and did measure up to the basic aim of fascist leaders (centralize far more power into the hands of the centralized government than had previously existed.) FDR was different, of course. He brought stability and kept the US capitalist, which applies to neither Nazism or Fascism, which of course, are different from Communism. The Nazis and Fascists represented a startling new development of people who took the powers of the old absolute monarchs with neither the authority of tradition behind them, nor any actual trappings of monarchy. Fascism-Nazism is basically absolute monarchy without some of the trappings.
swampfox @ 89:
sorry swampfox, but to reiterate the question I posed to you on another thread... Your viable alternative is WHOM, did you say? Was it the toothfairy? Don't get me wrong, Obama isn't some Christ figure, but he the closest thing we have to Decent. Or would a write-in ballot for Snoopy make you feel better while McCain takes the presidency and completely destroys any chances of us winning back democracy?
swampfox @ 89:
So who's your guy for '08 Swampy?
All I've heard from you is negative BS about Obama, and I think once you said somethin negative about McBain...
Who are you supporting? Or or you just comin in to try to sow the seeds of discord?
My response would be to contrast the perception of McCain in 2000 with the reality of the McCain of 2008.
Something like:
"How can a candidate who seemed so right in 2000 be so wrong in 2008."
Or: "The John McCain of 2000 would never have made such a statement. But that was then."
Or: "Would the John McCain of 2000 support the John McCain of 2008? He probably wouldn't even give him the time of day."
General_Rennenkampf @ 91:
Hmmm...interesting stuff for sure...to bad this goin on now, and not something from a history book...trotskyists...I'm gonna have to do some readin on that. thanks
Truth B Told @ 87:
I know that the population of Iraq prior to the invasion, when Saddam was despot, was some 20% lower than they said it was...with Saddam's statistics. Considering the nature of the Al-Majid regime, I doubt it would have undercounted its population. If the population in 2003 doesn't correlate with the statistics of Saddam...why exactly should I trust something as inherently confusing as counting Iraq war deaths? 750,000 is quite a lot, you know. Considering the estimate of the initial population was off by nearly a quarter of it, subtracting a quarter might make it a little more harmonious.
General_Rennenkampf @ 91:
Um, Rove did everything I wrote in the last two posts on this. And yes, the 9/11 fear did the rest. Just like in business he seized an opportunity, some would say he helped to game it. I think it's just dick-swinging and ego-posturing to sit back and so blithely call the man who had a large role -- most of which is yet to be uncovered -- in hijacking our country nothing and arrogantly state that you could do a better job at destroying democracy. First off, that's nothing to boast about. secondly, if you could do a better job, you'd be a republican and you'd be DOING THE JOB. so shit or get off the pot. Either back up your ego and join the dark side, or at least have the fortitude to admit that Rove requires more intelligence to capture and convict than to just swing the ego between your legs and call names like you're back in middle school.
liberalMcSuuurgeNmoderation @ 95:
You should, at that. Many people, both on the Right and on the Left throw terms like "Neocon" around and make it lose all meaning. It has a very specific meaning.
Wise_Fool @ 75:
I apologize. Guess I'm off my feed this morning. My point really was that middle Americans really have been conned on the whole inheritance and capital gains red herring, that the GOP has pushed. A majority of average Americans have little to no impact from changes to these tax rates.
Wise_Fool @ 97:
It would be pretty damn easy to get him. Just send the police after him without warning him first. Rove skipped the country due to prior warning.
And yes, that's nothing to boast about, but yes, I could outdo Rove easily. He's only got one trick. That fortituious incident called 9/11 that worked better for him than the 1993 bombing in Clinton's Administration gave him a shot in the arm, but even without it, at age 12 I could tell that they were shaping the Chinese to be the villain. If a 12-year-old can detect it...
No. I stand by my statement. Rove sucks as a political operative.
General_Rennenkampf @ 98:
will do. and I think you're right...but I have yet to hear a rightwinger use the term "Neo-con"...
McFrankenChipmunk is a liar!
P.S. When is he finally going to eat those walnuts he's storing within his cheeks?
Liberal AND Proud @ 99:
Mah, don't worry about it... I normally wouldnt have noticed except that I have family members going through the same thing right now, except in much alrger sums of money... Hell, I am one of the only liberals in my whole flippin family! LOL, it's a trip all unto itself to be the lone liberal in a very conservative, Roman-Catholic, diehard Republican family. Buuut, at least I get first-hand experience with learning about the woes of the republican citizen.
liberalMcSuuurgeNmoderation @ 101:
Stormfronters do. They use it as a less-than-subtle term for "Jew." It seems the high prevelance of Jews among the Neo-Cons (in the real sense, not the meaningless sense (if that makes sense)) has attracted their less-than-kind notice. The Stormfronters are the real fascists in this nation, and they hate Bush's guts as much as the rest of you.
liberalMcSuuurgeNmoderation @ 93:
whats really sad is you people falling for the notion that the powers that be gave you two of the corporations picks for the democratic presidency, i dont have to say anything negative about mccain , his neggatives are apparent , i wouldnt bother to waste my gas going to vote for either of these corporation goons , you call the truth bs great but you cant defend obamas sellouts just attack any that point out that hes a warmonger, just like mccain is ! were out of options the primaries are over you picked a loser , whos sold out the liberals who believed in him !
General_Rennenkampf @ 100:
One more thing...Rove seems to take political models from the 1930s dictators and Idi Amin Dada and Joseph Mobutu. I prefer to look to models such as Otto von Bismarck, Octavian, Liu Bang, and Suleiman the Magnificent. Sooner or later backbiting despotism collapses under its own rot. A sustaining society for centuries must be able to tolerate masses of people with differences.
General_Rennenkampf @ 106:
Ack! Forgot Talleyrand.
General_Rennenkampf @ 106:
One more thing...Rove seems to take political models from the 1930s dictators and Idi Amin Dada and Joseph Mobutu. I prefer to look to models such as Otto von Bismarck, Octavian, Liu Bang, and Suleiman the Magnificent. Sooner or later backbiting despotism collapses under its own rot. A sustaining society for centuries must be able to tolerate masses of people with differences.
Wow, ummm... Rove gets shit done because of prior knowledge... that's because he and his friends have worked very hard to form a network of liars to work for and with them; and because he's blackmailed everyone under the sun I would wager. If you were to waltz into the headquarters of the RNC and demand that someone hire you because you believe you could do a better job than Rove, you'd be Baker-Act'ed... when they stopped laughing. Governance is much more than book lore would let on, General. It takes a special kind of evil, and certain amount of skill, and finally it takes an immersion in the game. You'd have to have his connections and his history to be able to pull the kind of power he does... and no matter how emphatically you say it, you just don't have any of those to back up your words. so I apologize, but I sincerely disagree that you would be shit compared to Rove, unless its somewhere in a pipedream where you could walk up and take the reins of the republican party without any prior knowledge or experience.
And one more thing, Governance is much more than name-dropping and book reading, and I sincerely doubt that the ability to backwards engineer some of Rove's broader points from recent historical hacks is the most basis for Bona Fides in despotism. Try starting with ROTC general, then work your way up to fascism in practise.
swampfox @ 105:
I hope you and your fellow scum bag whiners don't vote. All you do is whine like a little b*tch and that's all your far, far, far left-wing losers do. Congrats.
swampfox @ 105:
whats really sad is you people falling for the notion that the powers that be gave you two of the corporations picks for the democratic presidency, i dont have to say anything negative about mccain , his neggatives are apparent , i wouldnt bother to waste my gas going to vote for either of these corporation goons , you call the truth bs great but you cant defend obamas sellouts just attack any that point out that hes a warmonger, just like mccain is ! were out of options the primaries are over you picked a loser , whos sold out the liberals who believed in him !
A lovely tapdance, troll. but you still haven't answered the question: Who then, is your pick for President, who is so above the fray? Who is your political messiah that lacks any of the spiteful criticism you portray in all the apparent choices? You've been refusing to put your money where your mouth is for days, and it's fun watching you run away from any serious commitment of your own ideas... easier to hack away at others, than to dare any faith of your own, methinks?
damn it! sorry for the consta-link there
swampfox @ 105:
Answer the fucking question!
WHO. ARE. YOU. VOTING. FOR?
Ron Paul? Nader? Elvis?
At least you made a decent point about McBain...and I didn't like Obama caving on FISA. And I think you're exaggerating greatly about Obama's so called warmongering tendencies.
"""If someone makes a false claim, it’s a little easier to get away with it the first time. He or she could always just claim ignorance: “Wait, he wasn’t caught in a compromising position with farm animals? Oh, I’d heard that he was. My mistake.”
When someone makes a false claim after he/she has been told it’s false, there’s less of an excuse. At that point, it goes from a mistake to a lie. It’s the difference between inadvertently misleading people and deliberately misleading people."""
Would this be good enough to legally take people like O'riely off the air?
I am sure on-air he has already been told that he is wrong about a fact, and he continues to tell his mistaken fact over and over as truth after being told the real facts.
What law is being broken, when Fox or Mcain, O'riely, Lieberman, Rove, Cheney, Rice, Santorum, and all the other 30 or so publically spoken individuals continue to LIE after being told the truth?
And furthermore, despite the fact that Obama is not a perfect candidate, he is by FAR the best choice for me.
"At his town hall today, McCain repeated that Obama wants to raise taxes on those making as little as $32,000 a year..."
Hey, I wish I made as "little" as $32,000/year.
That would be a significant raise over what I make now.
BTW Mr. McSame, I would gladly pay HIGHER taxes if it would
afford me nationalized health insurance.
So Mr. McSame RICH guy, I do hope you enjoy that
FREE government health health care you receive
from the taxes paid by those of us who earn
as little as or less than 32K/yr.
What a smug arrogant lying self-serving elist Mesozoic Era prick
you are!
General_Rennenkampf @ 104:
oh for God's sakes. Stormfront was and is a cointelpro like operation. most of the organized white supremacists are all infiltrated and steered by the powers that be.
just like in Seattle at the WTO. agent provocateurs. Even the supremacist Hal Turner was exposed as an FBI mole/informant.
That's how they operate.
Alice @13:
"McGoo fearing colossal defeat has passed into the land of Kriminal Rove. A land where there is no possible concern for facts let alone truth or high mindedness."
McKeating's real problem is that he's just not as Good a LIAR as the current Prez'nit.
But, he seems to be practicing real hard and KKKarl is likely tutoring him, so I'm sure he'll have it perfected by the time the conventions and debates roll around.
Good1 @ 113:
I would lvoe that we could take some of these arseholes off the air for the above quote... but we can't. They are independent corporations of 'the Fourth Estate' so there is little law that Government can make to regulate them without a HUGE outcry of fascism. (never mind the hypocrisy of political games with funding is somehow okay *sigh*)
Beyond that, O'Reilly is an 'opinion show' so he is entitled to lie all he wants, it's just his opinion. It's comparing apples to oranges when you consider the factuality of an opinion. they're mutually exlucive except by coincidence.
:( Why can't YOU be in charge of Fox? I'd watch it once in a while if someone with sense was running the show. LOL. Any time you want to attempt a corporate takeover, let me know. I'll do what little I can to help! hehehehehe
Wise_Fool @ 108:
Wow, ummm... Rove gets shit done because of prior knowledge... that's because he and his friends have worked very hard to form a network of liars to work for and with them; and because he's blackmailed everyone under the sun I would wager. If you were to waltz into the headquarters of the RNC and demand that someone hire you because you believe you could do a better job than Rove, you'd be Baker-Act'ed... when they stopped laughing. Governance is much more than book lore would let on, General. It takes a special kind of evil, and certain amount of skill, and finally it takes an immersion in the game. You'd have to have his connections and his history to be able to pull the kind of power he does... and no matter how emphatically you say it, you just don't have any of those to back up your words. so I apologize, but I sincerely disagree that you would be shit compared to Rove, unless its somewhere in a pipedream where you could walk up and take the reins of the republican party without any prior knowledge or experience.
And one more thing, Governance is much more than name-dropping and book reading, and I sincerely doubt that the ability to backwards engineer some of Rove's broader points from recent historical hacks is the most basis for Bona Fides in despotism. Try starting with ROTC general, then work your way up to fascism in practise.
Heh, Hitler and Mussolini are those recent historical hacks, too, bub.
When I said that I could outdo Rove, that was assuming that I had the necessary connections to do it with. I by no means think that as a person who hasn't even entered college yet that I can outdo somebody like Rove...now. My assumption in stating that I could do better was "If I was Karl Rove, I would do X." I was operating on an assumption in that thought-experiment that you seemed not to catch on. I'm not stupid (all the time.)
Besides, I'd never work for the GOP or the Dems. Too much ugliness in both.
General 119:
Sorry to be so hard on you.. I didn't know you hadn't gone thru college yet, or I would have been more understanding and caught on to the aspirations. You have a better command of the English language and the political landscape than a lot of young persons your age, I mistook you for someone much older. But still, consider my words. Rove is no pushover, and in the intricacies of the world beyond college and even beyond your first few voting decades, the reality is much harder to swallow.
Keep studying though... maybe if you get into politics and keep your wit, you can do us all some good, one day.
Sorry again about pushing you, it's not in my nature to squash young people's dreams and hopes. In fact, it's one of the few things that still makes fools like me happy :-/
wheeeee @ 115:
The sad part is that if you break down their tax plans, Obama is lowering taxes on most people under $150K, and raising it on the higher earning brackets of $250K plus. McCain is lowering taxes on the opposite fashion: raising them on the $80K and under, where as the $150K plus crowd get scott free literally.
Yet another case of a right winger asshole lying to his teeth in order to convince a bunch of idiots to vote against their own interests.
However, I am having a hard time deciding who is at fault here: the right winger asshole for peddling his lies, or the middle class populace who are too fucking dumb and uneducated to figure out they are being lied to.
The people have the responsibility of bettering themselves and seek education on issues in order to have a functioning democracy, period.
John McCain has a problem telling the truth.”
Who would have thunk it?
OMG Tyler, you just made me a little wet.... lemme repost some of that good ol', down-home (un)COMMON SENSE, just so it can sink in for everyone:
Legal deffinition of Mistake, Legal Definition of Lie.
The Legal difference between Mistake and Lie.
THE LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY of making a mistake.
THE LEGAL RESPONSIBILITY of telling a Lie.
This causes harm to alot of people, mental and physical, to point of death for some.
5 awsome lawyers could do this I am sure, but wait till after the Obama apointments if they are any good?
Wise_Fool @ 123:
That is some good ol' fashioned horse sense, if ever I did see!
Truth B Told @ 116:
I know very little about stormfront, except that they are not the type of folks I'd have over for bbq...
As for cointelpro...I have seen a documentary years ago that covered it...from what I remember...it wasn't good at all...
liberaMcSuuuurgeNmoderation @ 125:
Yes it is.
The entire republican platform is based on economic policies that benefit only the "haves and have mores!" Therefore, they must betray the trust of the other 95% of the people who vote! The only way to do this is to become a sociopathic liar, which they ALL are.
In their own deluded republican minds however, there is no such thing as lying. Just call it conservapedia truth. The republican agenda justifies everything else.
Thus, there really is no difference between lying and misleading to a republican. They are the two basic tools required to defend their sick bankrupt ideology. Misleading = lying = truth in GOP land! They really are some very sick f**kers.
We need to find the prozac equivalent for people who vote republican!
liberaMcSuuuurgeNmoderation @ 112:
im voteing for the only candidate whos worth a crap ,dennis kucinich , you know the guy who didnt vote for the war the guy whos trying to impeach bush! and if standing before a crowd in berlin and asking europeans to join in the war in afganistans not warmongering explain the difference! you think obama can promiss you change when hes going to leave troops in iraq and widen the war in afganistan? wheres the money comeing from for change? obama said the otherday after we subjugate afganistan then we can spend money on americans , its a nice thought!
Georgette Orwell @ 59:
His only 'experience' is being a bush co. bobble head. Do they realize that? I've heard similar comments and it makes me laugh. Any population that can elect a brain dead frat boy twice is obviously not looking for facts. They're just hoping the talking points they'll be taught to repeat will make sense... Then again I'm assuming people care if they sound like an ignorant dumbya sock puppet.
swampfox @ 129:
Your "candidate" endorsed and is supporting Obama. Is he also a fool like us?
Damn you, left and left... you beat me to the punch! LOL
And I would have voted Kucinich, and if in some strange play-out he becomes a viable candidate again, I would pick him over Obama. My hope would be that Kucinich would be a Veep, and then I could rest easy at night.
However, Kucinich's ideals do not resonate with enough people to be the popular choice for President. I wish he were, but HE'S NOT, so get over it, and stop bashing the next best thing, called a VIABLE ALTERNATIVE. Sitting there and whining in a bucket of your own piss and vinegar isn't helping Kucinich get elected, and it's just making the rest of the liberals tune you out when they might have listened had you not taken every breath just to bash the populace for being less liberal than you are. twit.
Jeebus, if it's not the Republicans screaming 'Holier than Thou' its the farthest left feather screaming 'Libruler than Thou Art'!
Left&Left @ 131:
Thanks L&L....
And Swampy...my first choice was Kucinich. Since he wasn't nominated and Obama was, I now support Obama.
Though, obviously I can't speak for Kucinich, or anyone but myself, I DO think that Kucinich realizes how VITAL it is to get Obama in the WH...again he's not perfect, but he's better by leaps and bounds, of anyone else on the ticket.
I ask you, don't throw away your vote by writing in Kucinich...I bet he'd tell you the same thing.
And as for the warmongering...the reality is, we're already AT WAR, we had the world behind us when we invaded Afghanistan, which was where we were, fact attacked from. Obama asking Europe for more support to fight the Taliban is not warmongering.
Obama will get us out of Iraq as soon as is logistically possible. We can't just leave either Iraq or Afghanistan overnight.
Look at what happened in Afghanistan after we helped them fight off the Russians. We split damn near after the last shot was fired.
911 was a direct result of that.
Wise_Fool @ 132:
Left&Left @ 131:
not my problem who kucinich supports hes the only one ill support,
tune out all you want, but as long as obamas for fisa the patriot act and more war hes no better then mccain, ill support obama when hes saying ill give you back what bush took from you and the war bush starteds over it ends with me,
McCain wants to go negative and false? Ok then,
This just in:
At a campaign event in Missouri, irate over impertinent questions, McCain yelled, "Show you? Show you? I'll f**king show you!" and punched a 67-year old grandmother in the throat.
Asked about his objections to Martin Luther King Day, McCain replied, "I don't have a problem with setting aside a day. I just think instead of his birthday it should be the day he was shot."
The McCain campaign, in response to the allegation Cliff Schecter makes in his book, "The Real McCain", that he called his wife a c**t, responded with this statement. "Senator McCain uses that word as a term of endearment, frequently referring to his wife, campaign staffers, and women in general as c**ts, b*tches, and c*m dumpsters."
You heard it here first. Now, when he is asked about these incidents, and claims they are lies, someone should ask him in what way are they different from the untrue things he has been saying about Obama.
(Site monitor: I know there is about a 0% chance you'll let this stand, but that's ok, since I tried to come up with the most offensive things I could think of this early in the morning.)
swampfox @ 134:
Well Swampy...that is of course your right to do so.
Just think about what will happen if enough people like you, write their candidate of choice, and hand the election to McCain...it would be the last nail in the coffin for this country.
The future of this nation is on razors edge man...don't push us off.
WiseFool@132 and LiberalMcSuuuurgeNmoderation@133
Originally Kucinich was my second choice after Hillary(believe it or not). Kucinich was the most impressive candidate we had. Long ago I decided to support the candidate who best could beat the Repukes...it became Obama.
I was reminded of the difference between a mistake and a lie yesterday, listening to The Diane Rehm Show on NPR, guest hosted by some CNN newsperson. The notorious Ralph Reed was being interviewed, and he stated that "evangelicals are just not going to vote for the senator with the most liberal voting record in the senate, according to the National Review" while referring to Obama. Well, I think anybody who makes a statement like that knows it's a damned lie. There are many senators with a more liberal voting record than Obama, and it's just not very hard to figure that out!
My thought was while this CNN dude let it slide, Diane Rehm never would have let him get away with a statement like that unchallenged!!!
liberaMcSuuuurgeNmoderation @ 136:
the future of this nation is already in the dumpster.
the best way to work on a defective engine.... is to turn the damned thing off. then rebuild it.
you really think the US is ever gonna be able to grow its way out of the tens of trillions of $$$ in debt? perhaps even hundreds of trillions?
not likely.
the only way the US can get rid of that debt - excepting raising taxes to an obscene level... is by killing off the debt holders. and that is ultimately where this is heading.
McCain says "Obama wants to raise your taxes" because he is talking exclusively to greedy rich pricks.
Left&Left @ 137:
I hear ya L&L...Hillary was not my second choice...but I would be supporting her just as enthusiastically as I do Obama, if she were the nominee.
Truth B Told @ 139:
Wow...pessimistic much?
Isn't China our largest lender? We're gonna kill THEM off? I'm thinkin...not bloody likely.
liberaMcSuuuurgeNmoderation @ 141:
sorry but i pretty well read most posts on here but i dont recall l &l ever saying he supported clinton or that he donated to her campsighn , just saying !
liberaMcSuuuurgeNmoderation @ 142:
always thinking in the overt ways... gonna drop some bombs.
no wonder the democrats and the republicans always con you.
Karl Rove understands something most people don't yet grasp. Fact is, when you have your political ducks lined up in row, you don't need a majority (or even close to one) to take power and keep it.
"Possession is 9/10 of the Law." Rove knows it. Rove uses it. This is why they rush to announce and confirm Republican victors in close races. Get your man in office, by any means necessary, and then, let the losers see if they can take it back.
The GOP doesn't merely want to govern: they seek control, which is a very different animal. Until the Liberals, Progressives, and some true Conservatives treat this ideological struggle as a literal WAR, the ruthless Karl Roves will always win.
Pelosi needs to go. She hasn't done shit.
Nada @ 130:
It doesn't make me laugh--it makes me cry with frustration, rage, and fear. The fact that we do indeed have a brain-dead frat boy as president makes it much worse. People think they sound as though they're wise and above being "fooled" by an arrogant, slick candidate, and facts, schmacts, those talking points make sense to them--and they're taking them into the voting booth with them.
Truth B Told @ 144:
Enlighten me then.
swampfox @ 143:
So were you using a different name then?
And just because YOU didn't see it...don't mean it's not so.
liberaMcSuuuurgeNmoderation @ 148:
ok im not looking for a fight here but if he backed clinton why after clinton stayed in the race was he useing racial hatred remarks about her on here and what difference does it make if i post with a different name? whats up with that remark?
liberaMcSuuuurgeNmoderation @ 147:
for starters... read carefully the PNAC document, rebuilding Americas defenses. There is an item in there about using genetically tailored bioweapons to target specific ethnicities.
that is a lot less messy than dropping enviromentally destructive, as well as infrastructure, explosives.
Login or Register to post comments.