Why Democrats Lie
JohnC
Evan Sayet
http://sayetright.blogspot.com/2005/04/why-democrats-lie.html
Sandy Berger is caught cramming top secret war-time documents down the
front of his pants. Dan Rather is caught using forged documents in an
effort to try and steal an election. John Kerry slanders one million of
his "band of brothers" in bogus testimony before Congress and
continues to lie about having been in Cambodia on Christmas eve 1968
sent there by Richard Nixon (who wasn't President yet), hearing the
Vietnamese "sing Christmas carols" (the Vietnamese are Buddhists and
don't celebrate Christmas) and being fired upon by the Khmer Rouge who
didn't become a military force until about half a decade later.
Howard Dean attempts to spread outrageous lies about the President of
the United States and the events of 9/11 only admitting after being
caught that he never believed the lies he was spreading and only found
them to be "interesting." Al Sharpton, of course, made his name by
helping to fake the rape of a young child while Ted Kennedy clung to
his family name after leaving his "female companion" to die a miserable
death while he swam to shore to sober up before calling the police. The
leadership of the Democratic Party gave a standing ovation to a movie
that they know is nothing more than a lie-filled, hate-filled,
anti-American propaganda movie while Ward Churchill's lies not only saw
him hired at the University of Colorado but then tenured and ultimately
promoted to the head of the department.
These are not the "odd-zealot" but the heart and soul of the Democratic
Party -- from its most recent standard bearer to the newly minted head
of the DNC to its leading voice in "civil rights" to its top foreign
policy advisors to its House and Senate leadership and beyond. Lying is
not a small part of being a Democrat -- it IS the Democratic Party.
Those who seek reasonable position -- the Joe Liebermans and the Dick
Gephardts for example -- find less support amongst the leftist
powers-that-be than did Saddam Hussein and Yasser Arafat. Al Gore,
always the conniving politician, recognize this and reinvented himself
for the fourteenth time -- this time as a spitting demagogue spewing
the anti-American hate and lies that is today's Democratic Party coin
of the realm.
Of course the Democrats call the Republicans "liars" but all liars call
the other side liars. It's hard to take seriously charges that Bush is
a liar because he agreed with Clinton who wasn't a liar, Chirac who
isn't a liar, and literally every other intelligence agency on the
planet with regard to Saddam's WMDs.
It is equally difficult to take seriously charges that Republicans are
"liars" in a book called "Lying Liars And The Lying Lies They Tell"
when that book is written by a man whose greatest political
contribution prior was a movie called "Stuart Smalley Saves The World"
and the book itself is so filled with lies that the author has to swear
in a court of law that he never meant for anyone to think he was
telling the truth (thus it was deemed a "satire" and the author saved
from the myriad of libel suits).
Remember, in every court case the cop says the rapist is lying and the
rapist says the cop is lying. The Nazis said the Jews were lying about
the gas chambers and the Jews said the Nazis were lying. Truth is NOT
always somewhere in the middle.
So why do Democrats lie? Well, for one thing, they have to. Democrats
recognize that the vast majority of the American people reject their
basic philosophies of redistribution of wealth, more and more power in
the hands of the federal government and more and more power over
America by corrupt and anti-American international forces like the
French and the United Nations.
Further they recognize that they have to lie because their policies
invariably fail when put into practice. The Democrats have had forty
years of uninterrupted social experimentation along their lines (as
well as the examples of socialist Europe and communist Russia) and
cannot point to a single legitimate accomplishment.
After decades of affirmative action, "new math" and their
"multicultural" experiments blacks are still disproportionately members
of an "underclass," our schools are so bad we have to outsource the
simplest jobs just to find people in India who don't speak "ebonics"
and America is more divided, not less divided, with the left's agenda
of chucking the whole "melting pot" concept in favor of
"multiculturalism" and America hatred.
The left also lies because, as I wrote in a previous post, there is
nothing they believe in except themselves. These are, in the words of
the former feminist leader Tammy Bruce, "malignant narcissists." Being
narcissists truth is defined as anything that advances their own cause.
Because of their arrogance and self-importance anyone who disagrees
with them must be either stupid or racist. Lying to the former, to get
them to do the "right" thing, then, is doing them a favor and lying to
the latter is believed a "moral imperative."
Further, because there is nothing the leftist believes in other than
self there is nothing he puts ahead of his agenda. In the old days a
Walter Cronkite might well have had the same ideological bent as a Dan
Rather but Cronkite's respect for his profession kept him from being an
out and out liar. In the old days Hollywood's love for movies might
have seen the movie-maker give the best picture Oscar to what was
really the best picture. Today the award is given without regard to the
quality of the film but rather to any picture that advances their
leftist agenda (this year it was the pro-euthanasia "Million Dollar
Baby".) Once a museum curator placed beauty ahead of ideology and thus
filled the halls with exceptional works based on their aesthetic value
rather than crosses drenched in urine and elephant dung smeared across
the Virgin Mary's private parts.
Democrats lie because, with nothing bigger than themselves to believe
in -- not G-d, not country, not democracy, not art, not truth -- truth
is defined by whatever it is they say it is. Therefore the leftist
believes themselves incapable of lying no matter how many times a Sandy
Berger is caught cramming top secret war time documents down the front
of his pants, how many forged documents Dan Rather uses, no matter how
many children Al Sharpton fakes the rape of, no matter how many hateful
slanders come from Ward Churchill and so on. To the Democrat any lie
that advances their cause is, by definition, the truth.
nancye...@comcast.net
presented, the liberal "posters" say the site has run it's course and
it's time to freeze it! The best defense against the liberals is
always facts...they can't dispute them!
Raleigh Chadderdon
liberal. Besides, I've seen few authoritative facts anywhere from
either side of the line, just a lot of opinions and cutting replies,
and "handy facts" from websites - get over being better than other
people, regardless of whether or not you agree with them, Nancy.
JohnC
today under "To the Leftists at Calvin..at the end)
I also understand that you don't think you are "better" than other
people, Nancy...perhaps just a bit more informed or thoughtful.
Raleigh, I just don't think we should dismiss the truth because someone
posted it here. We need to discuss the facts and come to agreement in
the arena of ideas.
So, suggesting "freezing" the site,just when the discussion is getting
started, is not the right idea. I look forward to "arriving at truth
through a process of honest and vigorous debate" with you Raleigh, and
PRC and others.
Thank you.
Raleigh Chadderdon
work and tired when I wrote that, so please forgive it. I am backing
out of the dialogue, however, due to reasons stated and others in the
physical world. Take care and have fun.
Signed,
Raleigh Chadderdon
tcm3...@gmail.com
political game and pretending your side is clean and the other isn't is
just not true. Here are a couple of articles that prove this point.
While I am progressive, I am not blindly behind one party or another.
They both have problems, they both spin/lie/shift the facts. While you
say you want a discussion that brings out the truth, I really don't
believe this can happen. I have been in and seen several of these
debates, and what generally happens is that each side just clings to
their position more firmly. I'm not convinced by the information you
present, and I'm betting you won't be convinced by mine.
I'm sorry that I see it end way time and again. I really wish
conservatives and progressives (especially Christians) could work
together on some issues. For instance, why can't we work together to
help women so they won't be faced with unwanted pregnancies? Instead we
just try to outlaw abortion. We need to move away from entrenched
positions and think more creatively so we can truly show Christ's love
to others.
Here's some info on what other Republicans are saying. Again, I'm not
trying to villify anyone. I'm just saying we can't paint either party
with a broad brush.
Blessings--
French fries protester regrets war jibe
By Jamie Wilson / Guardian
It was a culinary rebuke that echoed around the world, heightening the
sense of tension between Washington and Paris in the run-up to the
invasion of Iraq. But now the US politician who led the campaign to
change the name of french fries to "freedom fries" has turned against
the war.
Walter Jones, the Republican congressman for North Carolina who was
also the brains behind french toast becoming freedom toast in Capitol
Hill restaurants, told a local newspaper the US went to war "with no
justification".
Mr Jones, who in March 2003 circulated a letter demanding that the
three cafeterias in the House of Representatives' office buildings ban
the word french from menus, said it was meant as a "light-hearted
gesture". But the name change, still in force, made headlines around
the world, both for what it said about US-French relations and its
pettiness.
Now Mr Jones appears to agree. Asked by a reporter for the North
Carolina News and Observer about the name-change campaign - an idea Mr
Jones said at the time came to him by a combination of God's hand and a
constituent's request - he replied: "I wish it had never happened."
Although he voted for the war, he has since become one of its most
vociferous opponents on Capitol Hill, where the hallway outside his
office is lined with photographs of the "faces of the fallen".
"If we were given misinformation intentionally by people in this
administration, to commit the authority to send boys, and in some
instances girls, to go into Iraq, that is wrong," he told the
newspaper. "Congress must be told the truth."
by John Aravosis
You know you're in trouble when your spokesman has to deny you
masturbated in City Hall.
1. Jim West, the 54-year-old mayor of Spokane, Washington, is an
anti-gay, family-values Republican. He's made a career out of trying
to fire gay employees from schools and local government posts, opposing
AIDS-prevention programs, supporting a statewide ban on gay marriage,
and objecting to every gay-rights proposition he's ever laid eyes on.
Well, maybe not every one.
During a handful of recent America Online chats, West exchanged
messages with a person he thought was an 18-year-old boy. In fact, his
pen pal was a representative of the local newspaper, the
Spokesman-Review, posing as a horny teen. In the chats, published in
their entirety on the paper's website earlier this month, West talked
to his young friend about school, jobs, one-handed typing, and sucking
ear lobes. After the two consummated one exchange with a mutual
multilined "mmmmmmmmm," West told his e-buddy "u r soooooooooooo
good."
Adding to West's woes, two men now say he molested them as boys in
the 1970s, and the FBI is reportedly investigating whether the mayor
offered city jobs to young men in exchange for sex. A 24-year-old West
appointee, who first met the mayor on the chat site gay.com, says West
recently offered him $300 to swim in the nude. The staffer declined.
Undaunted and claiming he's the victim of a "brutal outing," West
refuses to step down but has taken a temporary leave of absence. On the
plus side, he now has ample time to brush up on his computer skills.
West's travails come to light as Massachusetts celebrates (or
bemoans) the one-year anniversary of gays' winning the right to
marry. Right-wing religious groups, predictably, marked the day by
decrying the "reign of madness" that's taken over the state and
warning that "traditional marriage is in jeopardy." And they're
right. But it's not the 6,000 or so gay and lesbian couples who
happily tied the knot this year who are the greatest threat to the
institution of marriage. It's the family's most vocal defenders in
the GOP.
2.Consider Don Sherwood, a congressman from northeastern Pennsylvania.
Apparently no one ever told the very married 64-year-old Republican
that love means never having to say you're choking. Last September,
Sherwood was giving an intimate massage to his special friend,
29-year-old Cynthia Ore, at his Washington, D.C., apartment. According
to police reports uncovered by the Wilkes-Barre Times Leader,
Sherwood's soothing touch caused Ore to lock herself in the bathroom,
call the police, and accuse the congressman of trying to choke her.
Sherwood admits having given Ore a rubdown but denies that anything
untoward happened; for her part, Ore is not talking to the press.
There's also no word from Sherwood's wife of 33 years and mother of
his three daughters, which just goes to show that Sherwood likes the
silent type. The GOP, however, is sticking by the Tunkhannock
Strangler. Sherwood heads up the National Republican Congressional
Committee, the chief fundraising arm of Republican representatives, and
no one is talking about asking him to step down.
Ironically, Sherwood first met Ore at a Young Republicans gathering in
1999, the same year Sherwood voted for legislation to permit the Ten
Commandments (including, we assume, good ol' number VII) to be posted
in public schools and government buildings.
3.Not to be outdone is W. David Hager, a controversial Bush appointee
to an advisory commission of the Food and Drug Administration, which
makes key decisions on women's reproductive health. The May 30 issue
of The Nation is reporting that Hager, according to his former wife of
32 years, pressured her to let him videotape them having sex and
regularly paid her for sex acts that she was otherwise unwilling to
perform ($2,000 for oral sex, for instance) until she put an end to the
practice in 1995; after that, Hager repeatedly sodomized her without
consent. Hager, a conservative Christian and close confidant to Focus
on the Family founder James Dobson, is a gynecologist who refuses to
prescribe contraceptives for single women and is the co-author of a
book that prescribes Bible reading for pain relief (Matthew 13:44-46
for a headache, Romans 5:1-11 for PMS).
No word on Hager's recommendation for the lingering pain of anal
rape.
Not so surprisingly, Concerned Women for America, a religious right,
"pro-family" lobbying organization that supported Hager's
nomination, is standing by its man rather than its women. On being told
of the abuse allegations, one CWA officer told The Nation that Hager is
"a person of character and integrity." Hager's term ends June 30,
and he is expected to be reappointed to the panel.
For their part, Republicans in the Senate are responding to the
Massachusetts marriage anniversary by holding yet another hearing on
why a federal constitutional amendment is needed to "protect
marriage." The GOP's wisemen might start by keeping an eye on their
own zippers.
http://www.radarmagazine.com/web-only/politics/2005/05/its-a-familyvalues-affair.php
JohnC
about others? What kind of a Christian does that?
I am talking about the failed IDEAS of the liberal Democrat party. I
never said that all people who the press calls "Republican" are
perfect like Jesus. Of course they are human and they fail and sin. But
that does not absolve you for your sinful passing along of unproven
rumors.
Stick to the issues, tcm3crew. I know I shot holes all through the ads
the Calvin leftists put in the paper, in "To the Leftists at
Calvin", but that doesn't excuse your anger and your passing along
of rumors and gossip.
So, you are right in one sense, it's not "cut-and-dried on either
side" as far as, "can we both find a low level, rogue human being
here and there that fell and sinned." Of course we can, because
"all we like sheep have gone astray". But that doesn't answer
the questions I raised about the leftist Calvin students and profs
printing lies in the newspaper ads.
And why do you use the euphemism, "progressive"? I know liberalism
has a bad name because of all the policy failures and the philosophical
failure of liberalism, but please use the correct term.
I think if you read my posts with an open mind, and pray about it, you
will find that still, small "inner voice" telling you I am right. I
know it will take some courage to admit you were wrong all these
years...but it can be done. Witness David Horowitz and many others.
David was a "red diaper baby", growing up in a communist household,
but he later had second thoughts and is now a conservative. His story
is in the books "Radical Son" and "Left Illusions". See:
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/results.asp?WRD=horowitz%2C+david
tcm3crew, you then go on to talk about abortion. I am saddened to see
you continue to call yourself a Christian while you fight to keep
abortion legal. Of course we both should work together to help women so
they won't be faced with unwanted pregnancies, and I do that. Do you?
Then comes the killing statement, "Instead we just try to outlaw
abortion."
tcm3crew, as a Christian, don't you think abortion should be
outlawed, just like any other sort of killing of innocent people is
outlawed? Can't we work to reduce unwanted pregnancies WHILE we
outlaw abortion? What part of a law that says it's legal to kill
unborn, pain-feeling children created in the image of God are you ok
with, again?
Some people once had an "entrenched position" that slavery was
wrong, that the Supreme Court made a mistake when they called black
Americans "non-persons". Do you think they should have moved away
from their "entrenched position" and thought of a more creative
solution? Like what? Maybe the slaves only had to be slaves on odd
numbered days? Would THAT have shown Christ's love to the slaves?
Will working to "reduce unwanted pregnancies" while countenancing
40 million abortions so far, and over 1 million more each year, show
Christ's love to the unborn images of God?
You can't compromise on moraliy, tcm3crew.
Comments on your silly articles showing that, "gee whiz, Republicans
are not Jesus but in fact they are sinful too!" Wow, thanks for the
newsflash, tcm3crew!
"French fries protester regrets war jibe"
So what? The French were more concerned about keeping their under the
table "oil for food" profits than helping the poor people of Iraq,
or protecting the world from WMD pass through terrorism.
Calling them "Freedom Fries" (which I think we should) or "french
Fries" is not going to bring back the 3000 that the Islamofascists
killed on 9-11-01, or the 1900 soldiers they killed, or the 300,000
Iraqis they killed and threw into mass graves. Thank God Bush and the
troops did the right thing and disarmed Saddam and liberated the
innocent people.
"You know you're in trouble when your spokesman has to deny you
masturbated in City Hall."
tcm3crew, why all the talk about homosexuality? Do you think God
approves of the sin of homosexuality? Do you think spreading unproven
rumors about others is going to make you look better in God's eyes?
"Consider Don Sherwood, a congressman from northeastern
Pennsylvania"
Apparently no one ever told tcm3crew spreading unproven rumors about
others is not going to make him look better in God's eyes. If, after
the proper investigation and trial and conviction, it turns out to be
true, then tcm3crew will have succeeded in proving that Republicans are
not Jesus but in fact they are sinful too. Wow, tcm3crew thanks for
the newsflash!
"Not to be outdone is W. David Hager"... tcm3crew, please stop
spreading unfounded rumors for your own partisan political gain. It
makes you look petty. Notice the words in your "story"...
"according to his former wife". "abuse allegations"