Speaking, er, “truth” to power
Talk about timely . . . as William ramps up his personal attacks (”crazy!”"liar!”"wimpy!”) . . . I just stumbled upon this aggregation of studies comparing the integrity or honesty of Liberals/Progressives and Conservatives (and the article has a whole bunch of links, William!)
I dug a little into the “sources” of the op/ed, but is that necessary? This assertion will surely irritate you Liberals that frequent tennesseefree.com, but I’m not sure that it should. I don’t want to seem patronizing, but I don’t think dishonesty is inconsistent with Liberalism. Moral Relativism is plainly not inconsistent with dishonesty. Cheating is good or “necessary” sometimes. You know, it’s okay if it’s “for the children” . . . or something.
Cheating is good or “necessary” sometimes.
Like warrantless wiretapping. Rule of law!
.
The fact remains the ME was never going to be healed with Saddam sitting in the middle of it, WMDs or no.
Well, not as long as he insisited on selling oil for Euros, at least.
Jingo all the way!
Unlike the 2 scientific studies that I cited, (one a million dollar US Government National Science Foundation and National Institutes of Health study) that concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as: a set of neuroses rooted in “fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity” and that conservatives are less able to cope wih changing conditions, Ned cites a non scientific study based on a survey by a conservative author funded by the Hoover Institute … a conservative think tank that has taken big bucks from industry to fund such things as global warming junk science, etc…
What this shows is that conservatives talk a moral world view, attempt to claim a moral high ground, but there authoritarianism allows them to surrender and abandon all moral and ethical principles for what they percioeve as “the greater good”. That “greater good” has manifest itself in mass murder and injury of war, the restriction of stemcell research, the polltion of the environment, and the surrender of constitutional rights and freedoms… all while they consider themselves oh so christ-ee and moral. Sickening, isn’t it?
whoops that should be over here
Bush would never lie
Fallacy.
So tell us Ned, clarify your position, do you believe Bush never lied or that he did?
First, I don’t doubt that Dubya has ever told a lie; and I am almost certain that you would and have lied. But I guess I need to know if you’re referring to a specific issue, about Abramoff?
I just read your post about this . . . yes, I believe that a president can be photographed with someone–on multiple occasions even, and not “know” that person. The amount of fundraising and state dinners and campaign events and bill signings and . . . and . . . are staggering, william.
Yes, I believe that in a bureaucracy the size of “the Administration” (even “the White House”) MULTIPLE meetings by a lobbyist with people inside of the Administration does not mean that Bush “kn[e]w” Abramoff.
But even if it were true, I’m not sure how much it proves to establish that Bush lied about knowing Abramoff. I’m glad to see that honesty has become such a high priority to you Libs these past few years. It can only be progress. Though that sensitivity will likely (and plainly does) wane when a Dem is at issue. Is this an example of the proverbial “don’t wrestle in the mud with a pig”? Dubya and Republicans certainly don’t have the corner on this category of “lying,” right?
And I know that you didn’t start paying attention to politics until the Fourth Reich started, but it is funny to see how much credence you place in (and how authoritative you deem to be) Congressional “oversight” reports or studies. They’re almost always conclusory. Thanks for weighing in, Congress, but show us the facts and let us draw our own conclusions. Too much summarizing goin’ on . . . we already know that you hate Dubya . . . show us the money.
And I forgot to address JP’s assertion. Well, if what the Bush Administration has been doing is illegal, or if it’s “cheating” then I guess it’s illegal or cheating, huh? Unless there’s a lack of consensus on how the law applies . . . hmmm.
yes, I believe that a president can be photographed with someone–on multiple occasions even, and not “know” that person.
Unbelievable. Abramoff raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for Bush, met him 6+ times, had documented influence in presidential appointments … Bush even asked Abramoff about his kids when they got together, but Ned believes Bush when he said he “didn’t know him.”
Wow! Check it out … a true specimen specimen … an authentic authoritarian denialist. Thanks Ned.
Well, if all that is true (wasn’t mentioned in your post, and your saying it has little weight with me) then Bush would appear to be lying if he said “I don’t know him.”
And since it seems to flabbergast you so much, I’ll reiterate. I believe that a president can be photographed with someone–on multiple occasions even, and not “know” that person.
“raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for Bush” –there were 455 such people in that category.
Did it ever occur to you the breadth of “presidential appointments”?
And yes, I’m more likely to believe Dubya than the horndog executive or ol’ William. But so what if longtime GOP activist Abramoff turned out to be a scumbag. Is every person who ever knew him or was around him or worked with him a crook?
And, for the record, are you asserting (like the raft of articles I just skimmed about Bush’s fundraising prowess) that raising lots of money for a campaign is de facto corrupt?
And I just noticed this blather: “all while they consider themselves oh so christ-ee and moral. Sickening, isn’t it?” Man, you’re hard to stomach, william. BTW, the article I linked to was based on polling of actual (specimen) Libs, not one person’s opinion. Argue you with all your Liberal buddies about how truthful or not they are in answering questions posed by pollsters. “DANG, why were we so candid?!?”
“raised hundreds of thousands of dollars for Bush” –there were 455 such people in that category.
HAHAHA …Abramoff was one of 221 “Bush Rangers” that raised more than $200,000 - and I’m sure you looked it up - how many of them were documented to influence presidential appointments, were invited to Crawford, met Bush in “almost a dozen settings” and “joked with” them “about a bunch of things,” including details involving their kids, ” and had over 400 documented contacts with the White House??
Is this the kind of reasonable doubt that would hold up in court? You can sit there and say you believe Bush when he says he doesn’t know Abramoff?
So Ned tell us, what was the motivation to protect those White House visitor logs, lose over a million emails, fail to appear for subpoenas?
You are utterly amazing in your level of denial. Truly a textbook case.
Well, I can tell you that proving “lying” or perjury is pretty difficult in court, chump.
Those are some allegations I haven’t read before (I’ve let my Think Progress and DailyKos subscriptions lapse), and please forgive me for taking most of what you write/post with a grain of salt.
But so what if you proved that he lied about knowing Abramoff? I guess that’s a building block for your Bush Lied! house of cards? Gotta start somewhere, I guess.
White Houses have always been protective of information–has Bush lost any of his court battles over keeping records confidential?
Here’s something that I may not have ever said explicitly to you william. You pretty completely misread me when you assert that I am a Bush devotee or Dubya Worshiper. (Actually, this might help you in having some credibility with others). The guy’s not perfect; I have a Messiah and am not looking for one in a presidential candidate or president. But I know that he’s not evil for resisting Gore’s effort to steal the 2000 election or choosing to take the GWOT to the Jihadists or disagreeing with Liberals.
BDS is so over the top that it motivates almost anyone who is paying attention to balk at the outrageous claims and allegations.
Wow, here’s a perfect example of overreach: I just read the article you linked to above . . . do you ever read beyond the headline?
Disgraced lobbyist Jack Abramoff and his colleagues billed their clients for more than 400 contacts with White House officials between 2001 and 2004, according to a report released yesterday by the House Government Reform Committee. The report did not determine how many of those contacts — referenced in e-mails and Abramoff’s often falsified client bills — actually occurred.
Where’s the beef, william?
Where’s the beef? 35 Articles of beef were read this evening on the House floor.
Well, if what the Bush Administration has been doing is illegal, or if it’s “cheating” then I guess it’s illegal or cheating, huh? Unless there’s a lack of consensus on how the law applies . . . hmmm.
Oh, the 4th Amendment and FISA are very specific. Only an idiot would argue that FISA is not the sole authority by which any electronic surveillance by the federal government of ANY AMERICA CITIZEN communicating with anyone outside the U.S. can be authorized.
Why won’t the Bush administration fight it in court? They keep dodging, hiding behind “state secrets” and “national security,” even though schoolchildren these days understand in camera.
.
.
White Houses have always been protective of information–has Bush lost any of his court battles over keeping records confidential?
He hasn’t fought any. He’s sent the Solicitor General to assert that he doesn’t have to play. He’s directed ex-staff to NOT appear before Congressional committees to give testimony.
Face it — these are not the actions of innocents. If this was a Democratic POTUS, your face and the face of every radio yahoo would be a fucking lovely shade of deep purple. You know it.
.
Yeah, good luck with that, william.
JP,
It is ironic to here you pooh-pooh concern for state secrets and national security (on second thought, it isn’t all that ironic) given the nigh-unto treasonous revelations of outfits like the NYT. But, as I’ve said to william, go ahead and indict ‘em if it’s such a slam dunk. Heck, we indicted Clinton for much less serious alleged offenses. Go for it!
And we know that Democratic POTUSes have asserted similar things, and no, my face rarely if ever looks like Libs’ these past six years.
BTW, are you expecting Bush himself to actually go over the the Supreme Court or the DC Circuit Court and file papers or argue his case? He’s kind of busy with all his other nefarious dealings after all . . . It’s called “separation of powers.” Do schoolchildren understand that?