Time for Dems to start lying again! (1 Viewer)

[craigfarmer]

The current Bush administration, following the actions of our esteemed leader, and I sincerely mean that, have taken an institution and expanded it beyond belief. Which great pillar am I referring to?

Lying!

I am of the belief that no one can make it to the presidency without lying to various people. This is a necessary quality, though obviously a bad habit if it persists. Lying is defined here as simply speaking to deceive another person. It once might have, and in a legal context still may, include an actual untruthful statement. Yet, the creativity of the human spirit has found countless examples of deceit that are technically true in some sense, but clearly not honest. To be sure, I want my President tobe fundamentally an honest person but be able to lie when it is in the nation's best interest. We have to routinely deal with rogue nations and evil dictators who don't deserve the truth at all times. In addition the truth in various circumstances is very difficult for the American people to deal with, so often it is best left alone. We must remember our higher calling is to do what's right and pleasing in God's eyes.

Notwithstanding this, the Bushies have become liars rather than simply telling a strategic lie as needed. This appelation has been earned through numerous statements where they seemlingly don't care about facts, history, or future implications. They rely on the Republican base supporting them no matter what, a media that won't be bold enough to demand honesty, and a good amount of Americans who want to believe in the goodness of our leaders and our system of government. Many refuse to accept that a President and an Administration could be so brazenly dishonest. This Bush team has enlarged this tradition to unknown bounds by being wreckless in so many ways, and we as Democrats need a conscious strategy to defeat them. I fear if we don't stumble onto an appropriate response, this not only will lock us out of the White House in 2008, and make permanent a governing Republican majority, but it will literally be the end of the Democratic Party.

Our response needs to be both strong and creative:

1. Democrats need to start telling lies again: We used to be good at making statements that weren't true that served a larger goal, but somewhere in these last 10 years we've gotten a sense of carefulness that each time we critique the President or the Republicans , all of our facts must be readily available, and our arguments tempered to the reality.

We need big lies again like the NAACP--James Byrd ad of the 2000 election cycle. Though the facts didn't support the ad, the overall goal of the commercial that Bush would be a dangerous President was absolutely correct. Many on both sides have denounced the ad, as I have personally, but politically it was/is necessary.

Also in big idea battles, we need to stop speaking to the college educated crowd, and speak to main-street America. These are people who when recounting what they just heard in a political debate speak in very broad strokes, not in colorful detail.

"President Bush has a goal to end Social Security, which will leave seniors without a safety net".

Statements short of this which relate to possible benefit cuts, or shortfalls in the system won't work against their big lies.

On one side, the Bush team is inviting the idea that Social Security is in a crisis, and and won't be there for young workers. This is a big lie. Everyone involved in the debate on a policy level agrees it is false. Yet it will be the motivation for the Ameican people to accept Bush's ideas, the same way America re-elected a man who invaded Iraq under false and changing reasons.

2. We need cutting edge ideas that we honestly believe will help America, that Republicans won't steal because their base won't let them.

my ideas include:

-abolish the federal income tax and replace it with a flexible federal tax that among others decriminalizes "victimless" acts that occur regularly and regulates them. A corporate board could find the least obtrusive way to collect tax revenue including using an ebay auction model for high demand items. The principle could be that everything we "must" do (work, shelter, food) would be tax-free, and luxury/leisure items would be taxable. We would re-evaluate our laws to make sure items that should be illegal are, and those that can't really be impacted by the state can be decriminalized (even if they are still stigmatized).

-Medicare for everyone starting at birth that includes personal accounts with various options: fee for service, any market-based plans, and a government as last resort option. There would be ultimate flexibility, and competition that will help reign in prices.

-Afffirmative Action in politics/government to include more of our population's talent. This could be done as a policy of the Democratic party for all open appointments and nominations. The idea of diversity can be expanded beyond race and gender, into geographic regions, economic background, political ideology, and other pertinent areas where our system often breaks down due to lack of opportunity. In politics for example: the Democratic party could declare that where feasible all open seats will be filled by a candidates who represents a new tradition.

There are countless ideas, but it must be mandatory that the Democratic Party stand for important issues on it's own two feet, not simply as an opposition. In victory or defeat we must be identified by the progress we represent for America.

Craig Farmer
making the word "liberal" safe again

http://www.newliberals.org

 

[Schweddy]

Craigfarmer,

You sure are a unique character. I like your unique ideas, though they are in a field all thier own.

Lies:
Listen to Kennedy speak at any gathering. There are your lies for the democratic party. He is so old and drunk that he doesn't know what he is saying.

On one side, the Bush team is inviting the idea that Social Security is in a crisis, and and won't be there for young workers. This is a big lie. Everyone involved in the debate on a policy level agrees it is false. Yet it will be the motivation for the Ameican people to accept Bush's ideas, the same way America re-elected a man who invaded Iraq under false and changing reasons.

Might want to pay more attention. BOTH parties are saying BOTH positions. At this point, no one knows what the SS situtation really is.

Affirmative action:

Afffirmative Action in politics/government to include more of our population's talent.

Please explain to me how "talent" has anything at all to do with color of one's skin.

 

[heyjoeo]

The Republican party has MASTERED lying. If you want some proof see www.factcheck.org

Look at all the false things that personally I've heared used in a debate against me. This site has prepared me for them however

 

[craigfarmer]

Might want to pay more attention. BOTH parties are saying BOTH positions. At this point, no one knows what the SS situtation really is.





I spoke precisely to the serious people who deal with the economics on both sides, who all agree on the fundamental facts. There is no crisis in social security, that at worst using assumptions of a terrible economy will be able to pay 70% of promised benefits for the next generations. By the way, this 70% crisis benefit cut would still be more in REAL dollars at that time, than seniors receive today.

Also, given the prevalence of tax cuts, including supply side cuts, in addition to dividend tax cut, the same people who are quoting the pessimistic figures about social security, are also predicting robust economic growth due in part to their fiscal policies. If that growth occurs they will be exposed once again!

Either the economy will continue to grow and the so-called crisis will be averted, or the tax cuts failed and will be accompanyed by a poor economy.

The truth is somehow in someway, we either have to grow the economy sufficiently, or cut the benefits of those who won't be working in their retirement. This is the case whether their "money" is from social security or some private pension system. The workers of that day will have to pay for themselves and the non-workers.

 

[Locke]

Wow, craigfarmer, it sounds like you would enjoy living in Britain during the Cold War. Your ideas seem to lean dangerously close to a Welfare State.
Locke

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Now wait. Why is it that a president nominee... or anyone for that matter NEEDS to lie? Why do think that America must be decieved by its politicians so that the country can move forward?

 

[Pacridge]

Now wait. Why is it that a president nominee... or anyone for that matter NEEDS to lie? Why do think that America must be decieved by its politicians so that the country can move forward?

I like that.

Both sides have risen to new levels of lying. Then each side debates which is telling more lies. It’s all absurd. It would be nice if they’d all quit lying altogether. Sadly the American voter has shown they’re too stupid to follow anything that doesn’t involve Brad and Jen’s wedding plans. So the parties have sunk into this constant vat of repeated lying and dirty tricks because they know most people don’t care or aren’t paying any attention. The average guy on the street can tell you the batting average of at least 10 major league ball players. He can’t name his congressman.

 

[Contrarian]

As usual, I agree with Pac. The rule of 80 / 20 applies. 80% of the American (or world) population is a s dumb as a stump. This was proven by the election of "W" through selling fear, and the "threat" of gay marriage to the dumb f*cks who live in trailers across this great country. Evoking a divinely sanctioned candidacy (he does talk directly to god you know) that made Mr and Mrs America believe his Bull... most people in this country have about as much intellect and substance as a Big Mac... thats why we are led by a yahoo and listening to jerks like DeLay and Frist.... sad, very sad

 

[Schweddy]

As usual, I agree with Pac. The rule of 80 / 20 applies. 80% of the American (or world) population is a s dumb as a stump. This was proven by the election of "W" through selling fear, and the "threat" of gay marriage to the dumb f*cks who live in trailers across this great country. Evoking a divinely sanctioned candidacy (he does talk directly to god you know) that made Mr and Mrs America believe his Bull... most people in this country have about as much intellect and substance as a Big Mac... thats why we are led by a yahoo and listening to jerks like DeLay and Frist.... sad, very sad

I completly disagree.

If folks were as 'dumb' as you claim - they wouldn't have voted. Right?

"he does talk directly to god you know"
So do I. Some of us nut jobs have a direct line. It's called prayer.

 

[Pacridge]

I completly disagree.

If folks were as 'dumb' as you claim - they wouldn't have voted. Right?

"he does talk directly to god you know"
So do I. Some of us nut jobs have a direct line. It's called prayer.

So the fact that they voted proves their not dumb as a stump. And what exactly does it tell you when people vote and still aren’t able to name their Senator?

 

[Schweddy]

So the fact that they voted proves their not dumb as a stump. And what exactly does it tell you when people vote and still aren’t able to name their Senator?

Many just vote straight ticket. That proves nothing.

I couldn't tell you the name of the mayor in my town off the top of my head.
Am I in that stump category?

I give more credit to someone whom actually votes over someone whom just complains and is unwilling to do anything about it. Because of that alone - they are in a higher level of smarts in my book. Even if they don't know what they are voting about or for at least they have the gumption to punch the ballot.

Counting those punched ballots is another issue.

 

[Pacridge]

Many just vote straight ticket. That proves nothing.

I couldn't tell you the name of the mayor in my town off the top of my head.
Am I in that stump category?

I give more credit to someone whom actually votes over someone whom just complains and is unwilling to do anything about it. Because of that alone - they are in a higher level of smarts in my book. Even if they don't know what they are voting about or for at least they have the gumption to punch the ballot.

Counting those punched ballots is another issue.

I completely and whole heartedly disagree. In fact I think this is a very real problem in the country today. We have people voting that have no idea what it is they’re voting for or against. Who they’re voting for, what that person stands for or what is that persons back ground. During our last election here in Oregon we had a land use issue on the ballot. Measure 18. As I left the post office (we vote by mail in ballot) I over heard one lady tell another “Oh, I didn’t know what that was, I don’t like the number 18 so I voted against it.” Brilliant! Then when people do put some effort in the decision it’s usually very little effort. People rely on sound bites to decide who or what to vote for. And the parties know it. That’s why they make every effort to reduce every issue down to tag lines. I’m not willing to simply give credit to those who show up and press the pretty buttons. Monkeys could do that, possibly better.

 

[Contrarian]

I completly disagree.

If folks were as 'dumb' as you claim - they wouldn't have voted. Right?

"he does talk directly to god you know"
So do I. Some of us nut jobs have a direct line. It's called prayer.

The act of voting does not demonstrate rational thought or intellectual understanding of the reason for that vote. Voting has evolved into a response to marketing campaigns from the political parties... it has nothng to do with an understanding of the platforms of the candidates. The candidates have learned not to have a platform, but rather a "market position"... sell the ignorant masses what they will buy... nothing more, nothing less.

Prayer is a one way conversation.... demonstrate to me when you last got a direct call from the almighty. Maybe you get a fax or an email like W?

 

[Schweddy]

The act of voting does not demonstrate rational thought or intellectual understanding of the reason for that vote. Voting has evolved into a response to marketing campaigns from the political parties... it has nothng to do with an understanding of the platforms of the candidates. The candidates have learned not to have a platform, but rather a "market position"... sell the ignorant masses what they will buy... nothing more, nothing less.

TV, radio, fast food - name one thing that is NOT capitolistic in our society? I would rather encourage folks to go to the polls in a minute hope that it will be read and use rational thought than give an ID test before allowing then to use their most sacred right in the US.

Prayer is a one way conversation.... demonstrate to me when you last got a direct call from the almighty. Maybe you get a fax or an email like W?

A friend of mine at work ask me a very similar question recently.

"Dude, God has never answered me. I am about to give up on him altogether. I am sick of it."
I said, "Your problem is that you are not listening."

Then, I went onto tell him a story.

A guy was in his house and it began to rain. He prayed for the rain to stop. It rained so much that the water was up to his waist. A boat came by - "hey jump abord - we are here to rescue you". The guy told them that God was going to save him. He prayed again. It continued to rain. He jumped on the roof. Prayed to God again. A helicopter came buy with a rope - "Grab the rope - we are here to resuce you." over a loud speaker. Again, the guy refused - God was going to save him. He kept praying.

He eventually drowned and went to heaven. He went up to God and asked him why God didn't help him. God answered - "I tried - I sent you a boat and a helicopter."

To answer your question, not sure I can demonstrate - never been in a flood.

 

[Squawker]

Contrarian said:

The act of voting does not demonstrate rational thought or intellectual understanding of the reason for that vote. Voting has evolved into a response to marketing campaigns from the political parties... it has nothng to do with an understanding of the platforms of the candidates. The candidates have learned not to have a platform, but rather a "market position"... sell the ignorant masses what they will buy... nothing more, nothing less.

Clinton was a master at manipulating his audience. I do believe lying is an art form. Not everyone is good at it. I recall that women voted for him because they thought he was handsome. Some of the prettiest snakes are poisonous.

 

[Contrarian]

Contrarian said:
Clinton was a master at manipulating his audience. I do believe lying is an art form. Not everyone is good at it. I recall that women voted for him because they thought he was handsome. Some of the prettiest snakes are poisonous.

If you notice, I wasn't taking a partisan point of view on that subject. Both parties are equally guilty. It use to be a contest of issues and principals. Now it is a contest of telling the public what they want to hear. The Republicans of today, are not philosophically the Republicans they evolved from. Nor are the Dems. They have moved so close together on so many issues in order to capture the market, that you veruy often can't tell them apart. In my mind that is why focus has come away from the real issues that face us like the economy, trade deficits, energy policy, the environment etc and have been hovering around religiousity, abortion, etc... this is why the Dems in an effort to get back in the game, chose religion as the #1 reason they lost the election, not accepting the fact that their candidate had no message and couldn't run a campaign.

You quote JFK, and he is a PRIME example of a pretty boy appealing to the womans vote. Getting assinated also helped his party (sick as that sounds) As a president he was mediocre, but is often remembered as a great one often for those two reasons.

 

[Contrarian]

TV, radio, fast food - name one thing that is NOT capitolistic in our society? I would rather encourage folks to go to the polls in a minute hope that it will be read and use rational thought than give an ID test before allowing then to use their most sacred right in the US.


A friend of mine at work ask me a very similar question recently.

"Dude, God has never answered me. I am about to give up on him altogether. I am sick of it."
I said, "Your problem is that you are not listening."

Then, I went onto tell him a story.

A guy was in his house and it began to rain. He prayed for the rain to stop. It rained so much that the water was up to his waist. A boat came by - "hey jump abord - we are here to rescue you". The guy told them that God was going to save him. He prayed again. It continued to rain. He jumped on the roof. Prayed to God again. A helicopter came buy with a rope - "Grab the rope - we are here to resuce you." over a loud speaker. Again, the guy refused - God was going to save him. He kept praying.

He eventually drowned and went to heaven. He went up to God and asked him why God didn't help him. God answered - "I tried - I sent you a boat and a helicopter."

To answer your question, not sure I can demonstrate - never been in a flood.

YOu are right Vauge... there is no literacy requirement for exercising the right to vote, which supports my arguement. If 80% of those who vote don't know anything about the issues, the logical thing for political candidates is to appeal to them on another level... is he handsome? does he have an honest face? does he go to church on Sunday? does he go out on his ranch and cut down trees and drive a pick up? It is all sizzle and very little steak, if you know what I mean.

As far as contemplative thought, meditation, or prayer. Whether you are getting the answers from your own subconscious or some spiritual source, I think it's great! However, it becomes a problem when a world leader claims devine providence over his decisions giving it an aire of infallibility. When a world leader can "look into the soul" of the leader of a historically totalitarian regime with a history of oppression and decree him to be pure (without intelligence support) is over the top.

 

[Schweddy]

However, it becomes a problem when a world leader claims devine providence over his decisions giving it an aire of infallibility. When a world leader can "look into the soul" of the leader of a historically totalitarian regime with a history of oppression and decree him to be pure (without intelligence support) is over the top.

I do not and did not see it this way. Perhaps you are adding your own interpetation into what Bush said. Bush said he talks to God before he makes decisions. That does not make him or his choices infallable.

Obviously, you didn't read the story and garner the full interpetation. The man talked to God - but indeed his choices were wrong.

 

[Contrarian]

I do not and did not see it this way. Perhaps you are adding your own interpetation into what Bush said. Bush said he talks to God before he makes decisions. That does not make him or his choices infallable.

Obviously, you didn't read the story and garner the full interpetation. The man talked to God - but indeed his choices were wrong.

No Vauge, I read the story. It is a very old story that has been told over and over again by ministers etc...

As far as W goes. I don't think many of us mind that he seeks wisdom from the spiritual depths of his soul / or the roots of his subconscious (semantics). It only becomes a problem when it is self-righteously done. There is a difference in presentation between relying on God's wisdom as opposed to acting like all his decisions come straight from God. It's the difference between praying that you are right and believing that prayer MAKES you right. This is conscripting God so that his policy become inarguable.

That is called THEOCRACY.

There was a cute story that was told to me by a colleague (Jewish guy), that might amuse you:

For over 40 years this very old pious Jewish man in Jerusalem, would walk down to the holy whaling wall and pray for hours each day. He would pray for peace, understanding, cooperation, and caring between people of all faiths, ethnic backgrounds and races... an American Priest approached the old man after hearing his story, and asked him.. "Rabbi, have you found answers? What is it like to pray at this holy site every day?"... The old man looked up from his prayer book and said... "It's like talking to a f*cking wall!"

 

[Schweddy]

No Vauge, I read the story. It is a very old story that has been told over and over again by ministers etc...

As far as W goes. I don't think many of us mind that he seeks wisdom from the spiritual depths of his soul / or the roots of his subconscious (semantics). It only becomes a problem when it is self-righteously done. There is a difference in presentation between relying on God's wisdom as opposed to acting like all his decisions come straight from God. It's the difference between praying that you are right and believing that prayer MAKES you right. This is conscripting God so that his policy become inarguable.

That is called THEOCRACY.

You see one thing and I see another. You think that Bush claims to have a direct line and is talking for God on earth. Negative - wrong - naddah. Bush is seeking wisdom from God through prayer and relies on that before making decisions. Bush does not claim to be some guy closer to God than the next man or woman. Nor does he claim that his discision is always correct or infallible because he utilizes prayer and his relationship with God.

IMO, Bush is not qualified to talk for God - nor is anybody on this planet. Sorry pope dude. Nor do I believe that he said as such. If you do, then every protestant Christian is guilty of action on what they believe is Gods word directly to them. Again, I think you are adding a bit much. It's just strange to you that a President could be a man of faith and act that line as well. Unlike our last Prez whom claimed to be Christian, but the only thing he would say or even do that was remotely Christian like was to say "God Bless the USA" after a speech. Whereas the current President doesn't hesitate to put his full thoughts on the board about his personal relationship with the almighty. To me that takes integrity and Bush has a lot of it.

It sounds like you are looking for a conspiracy and there is not one. It also sounds like you just need something to complain about that is totally irrelivant. Bush's relationship with God affects you not in the slightest.

There was a cute story that was told to me by a colleague (Jewish guy), that might amuse you:

For over 40 years this very old pious Jewish man in Jerusalem, would walk down to the holy whaling wall and pray for hours each day. He would pray for peace, understanding, cooperation, and caring between people of all faiths, ethnic backgrounds and races... an American Priest approached the old man after hearing his story, and asked him.. "Rabbi, have you found answers? What is it like to pray at this holy site every day?"... The old man looked up from his prayer book and said... "It's like talking to a f*cking wall!"

haha - thats funny!

 

[Contrarian]

I know you are interpreting this like a reasonable man. However, Bush has on a number of occassions (I will seek out the quotes when I have some free time) stated that he had spoken to - or - BEEN spoken to by God.

I don't see a "conspiracy" in the belief system, only in those who have and continue to exploit the beliefs of sincere people for their own political or personal gain. People like Bush, DeLay and Frist are playing on a powerful emotional / spiritual thread to capitalize on that opportunity. Clinton did the same thing by ratcheting up his "faith" and seeking forgiveness and council from ministers.... just to dodge the bullet. These guys are about as spiritual as I am... and they use it to victimze and manipulate for personal gain.

Now that's IMMORAL!

 

[sebastiansdreams]

I know you are interpreting this like a reasonable man. However, Bush has on a number of occassions (I will seek out the quotes when I have some free time) stated that he had spoken to - or - BEEN spoken to by God.

I don't see a "conspiracy" in the belief system, only in those who have and continue to exploit the beliefs of sincere people for their own political or personal gain. People like Bush, DeLay and Frist are playing on a powerful emotional / spiritual thread to capitalize on that opportunity. Clinton did the same thing by ratcheting up his "faith" and seeking forgiveness and council from ministers.... just to dodge the bullet. These guys are about as spiritual as I am... and they use it to victimze and manipulate for personal gain.

Now that's IMMORAL!

But it is the very nature of Christianity to speek to and be spoken to by God. If he claimed to be Christian and actively seeking the will of God and has not spoken to God and been spoken to by God then there would be a serious problem in his statement. As far as his statements regarding all of that, he is just (at least hypothetically) honestly seeking the will of God and following it. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with that. If you believe in a higher authority, especially one that cannot err, you must follow that higher authority to its end, don't you think?

The second part I do however agree with. I do think that it is a completely seperate issue to use the name of God to push your own agendas, so in that case, you are very right in criticizing Bush. BUT, you are speaking of two seperate issues in this post. The first is "what Bush said regarding his speaking to God" and the second being "using the name of God to push a personal agenda."

 

[Contrarian]

Sebastian, I know you are thinking about this as a religious person... and that is one perspective. You have to think on a more global level and realize that when the President of all the American people continually envokes the "will of God", as a direct recipient of "God's plan for the US", it smacks of "Holy War" to the Islamic fundamentalists and is inflamatory. I think that many people want their President to be a religious person (obviously I'm not one of them), BUT NOT self-righteously so. As Vauge pointed out, the decisions are made by the President after he digs into his soul... NOT that the decisions are being MADE BY GOD. Even you can agree through your beliefs (not mine), that God basically provides options for people to choose from.

Can you see the difference?

 

[sebastiansdreams]

Sebastian, I know you are thinking about this as a religious person... and that is one perspective. You have to think on a more global level and realize that when the President of all the American people continually envokes the "will of God", as a direct recipient of "God's plan for the US", it smacks of "Holy War" to the Islamic fundamentalists and is inflamatory. I think that many people want their President to be a religious person (obviously I'm not one of them), BUT NOT self-righteously so. As Vauge pointed out, the decisions are made by the President after he digs into his soul... NOT that the decisions are being MADE BY GOD. Even you can agree through your beliefs (not mine), that God basically provides options for people to choose from.

Can you see the difference?

It is one perspective. But it is also the perspective of the president, and a president who (God knows why ((pardon the pun))) was elected by the people. Now, I know you do not believe that God speaks and directs. I understand that. But he and I both (note, one of the few times Bush and I will ever agree) know that God does lead a soul that seeks Him. I think he is entitled (freedom of speech) to say that under his understanding God willed him to make a choice. That is his call and there is certainly no grounds on which he should be silenced form saying that. I personally may not agree with what he believes God is telling Him. And frankly, he may be lying about it. No one knows. But you cannot say that Bush should not say these things or cannot say these things, because he is entitled to his own freedoms just as we are. And frankly, I would imagine that most Islamic fundamentalist in our nation and others right now believe that this is to a degree a "Holy War" scenerio anyhow, regarless of what the retard says. Yes, God always allows us the option of choosing His will or not. But, He does often make His will unavoidably clear. And there is the possibility (on the far outlying hypothetical... I suppose) that God honestly did say to Bush "I want you to start this war." And if indeed that was the case, and Bush did not want to act against God, then it was Bush acting on the will of God. I do not think that is the case in this instance based on my knowledge and understanding of God and the way He works. But, if you say that Bush should not or cannot say these things, you are setting a precedence, and that is not something that should be desired. I personally love the idea of a president who believes in a Higher Power. Because if you are the President of one of the strongest nations on the globe, and you believe that there is no Higher Power, then it would be easy to believe that you were the ultimate power in the world, and that is a very scary thought.

 

[Contrarian]

Well it's debateable that he was elected "by the people" the first time!

You still didn't address the thought of inflaming a "Holy War"... can you not see how envoking the word of the Christian God for every decision MIGHT incite Islamic fundamentalists in their Jihad? It should be easy to comprehend especially since it has managed to tick off almost everyone in Europe. Just ask some of our forum colleagues from the EU...