Lying Liars and their Lies

How liberal and conservative hypocrisy is not equally dangerous

from JoeUser Forums

What is it with left-wing zealots and the word "lie". It really gets under my skin. For liberals, it seems, conservatives never make mistakes. Oh no. Conservatives aren't, you know, actually human. And so whenever a conservative makes a statement that turns out to be wrong, it isn't that he was mistaken, it is that he lied.

Al Franken has made this into a mini-career with books like "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them". Sure, other zealots on the left like him will eat that stuff up. But is it convincing? To me, it just makes ugly stereotypes of the left ring that much more true. The left certainly has no monopoly on hypocrisy. The right is full of nuts and zealots on its own.  Many charactertures of the right are actually true. I have actually met rich Republicans who pretty much believe that the poor should be liquidated (and I had this conversation in a hot tub in Grand Cayman with people who have never had to struggle or work hard for anything mind you).

But to me, the left's hypocrisy is more disturbing. And I'll tell you why: The left is the one that believes that the government is the solution to all of life's problems. Name a social problem and the left's solution is to have the government solve it. And why not? Because they would love to run the government because they are, after all, more civilized. Where the right generally wants the government to leave them the hell alone, the left wants the government to be all encompassing. A benevolent parental figure. And that's the problem.

The left's view of itself is that liberalism is simply the more civilized way to approach life. Combine that with a healthy dose of righteousness and the power of the government and you have a recipe for authoritarianism.  Anyone who's been a student at a major university in the past decade knows what I'm talking about.  It is on universities that we get a taste of what would happen if the liberals ran the world.  You see, because liberals are more civilized, or more to the point, because conservatives are a bunch of evil, selfish bastards, they feel the need to play referee in the game of life. But they're not an impartial one because they don't recognize that other ideas may deserve equal time with theirs.

The net result is that all conservative actions are viewed by liberals under the most cynical of lenses.  Conservatives who don't support affirmative action on campus are against it not because they believe it is morally wrong to favor people based on their skin pigment but because they're a bunch of racists. Conservatives who favor military action in Iraq are not in favor because they understand what is a stake and concluded this is the right course of action, they favor it because they're war mongers or at best, duped by "The Bush Clan". And when a conservative statement turns out to be wrong, it's a lie.

Let me give you some examples:

When Clinton bombed a civilian Aspirin factory in Sudan during the height of the Monica Lewinski nonsense, his claim that it was a chemical weapons lab wasn't a lie. It was a simple mistake based on faulty intelligence.  Even though the timing of the whole thing was incredibly suspect and the target odious, that was pretty much the end of that.

However...

When Bush follows the same intelligence that Clinton did and assumes Iraq has WMD and calls for military force to remove Saddam for failing to comply with UN resolutions and said WMD are not instantly found (despite Iraq being a huge country) the result is loud cries that Bush "lied" about the WMD.  Clinton was in error about WMD when he attacked Iraq in 1998 but Bush lied. Huh?

It is a symptom of a broader problem. Clinton must have simply made a mistake because he's a liberal and liberals are civilized people.  Bush couldn't have made a mistake because he's a conservative barbarian and is only capable of lying.

Like I said, conservatives can be zealots too full of nasty habits. But there's a big difference -- conservatives aren't the ones hoping that the government gets to be a huge, all encompassing thing with the power to civilize society by force. Conservatives don't view the government as "Mom". Hence, the liberal's tendency for selective tolerance should be a warning to those who believe that in an ideal world, the government would be the one solving life's problems rather than individuals solving them for themselves, their families and their communities.

 

politics
14,639 views 31 replies
Reply #1 from JoeUser Forums Top
One could go through your article and swap the word "conservative" with the word "liberal" and the word "Bush" with the word "Clinton", and you article would be just as coherant and valid. Go ahead, try it.

Does this exercise tell you anything?
Reply #2 from JoeUser Forums Top
Bah, not editing ability for "comments"...

OK, there are a few exceptions to what I posted above, but essentially it holds true. What I am really try to say is that conservative and liberal zealots are really two sides of the same coin. You often come off as a zealot in your posts.
Ashes of the Singularity II
Reply #3 from JoeUser Forums Top
Call me crazy, but the conservative's creation of the Department of Homeland Security, the largest, and most useless and inept bureaucracy in the history of these United States, along with the continuous attempts at eroding privacy laws and rights to privacy do little to convince me of the desire of conservatives to, in the words of right-wing zealot Grover Norquist, shrink government down to the point where you can drown it in the bathtub.
Reply #4 from JoeUser Forums Top
============
Like I said, conservatives can be zealots too full of nasty habits. But there's a big difference -- conservatives aren't the ones hoping that the government gets to be a huge, all encompassing thing with the power to civilize society by force. Conservatives don't view the government as "Mom". Hence, the liberal's tendency for selective tolerance should be a warning to those who believe that in an ideal world, the government would be the one solving life's problems rather than individuals solving them for themselves, their families and their communities.
============

lol, come on. i mean no one disagrees that extremists suck and mistakes are always looked at in the worst possible light by the other side. but did you really have to tack on the 'our crappy bottom 1% is more idealogically sound than your crappy bottom 1%!'?

let's look at the last paragraph for example. i mean you basically compare the 1% of communists on the left to the moderates on the right.

ie:
the "ones hoping that the government gets to be a huge, all encompassing thing with the power to civilize society by force"
vs.
"individuals solving [problems] for themselves, their families and their communities"

one of these statements belongs on a propaganda poster, the other belongs is a campaign slogan!
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Abe - I don't know how to even respond to what you said. You either didn't read the article or didn't understand the difference. If you think liberals and conservatives have the same views then there's not much point in even discussing it.
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
russellmz2: I don't think it's the crappy 1% going on here. Ted Kennedy and a good chunk of house democrats fall into this "crappy 1%". What about the nonsense at Universities now? Is that part of the crappy 1%?

Furthermore, you ignore the fact that this happens now. I'm only 20 miles from the University of Michigan where liberal dogma is enforced at the point of expulsion for having "incorrect" beliefs. Same thing at WMU where I went. This isn't theoretical stuff, this is stuff happening here and now.
Reply #7 from JoeUser Forums Top
OK, let me try it this way...
------------------------------------------
What is it with right-wing zealots and the word "lie". It really gets under my skin. For conservatives, it seems, liberals never make mistakes. Oh no. Liberals aren't, you know, actually human. And so whenever a liberal makes a statement that turns out to be wrong, it isn't that he was mistaken, it is that he lied.

Rush Limbaugh has made this into a mini-career with books like "Insert Book by Rush Limbaugh Here". Sure, other zealots on the right like him will eat that stuff up. But is it convincing? To me, it just makes ugly stereotypes of the right ring that much more true. The right certainly has no monopoly on hypocrisy. The left is full of nuts and zealots on its own. Many charactertures of the left are actually true. I have actually met poor Democrats who pretty much believe that the rich should be liquidated...

But to me, the right's hypocrisy is more disturbing. And I'll tell you why: The right is the one that believes that the government is the solution to all of life's problems. Name a moral problem and the right's solution is to have the government solve it. And why not? Because they would love to run the government because they are, after all, more civilized. Where the left generally wants the government to leave them the hell alone, the right wants the government to be all encompassing. A benevolent parental figure. And that's the problem.
---------------------------------------

Does that clarify my point or do you still think I am speaking another language?

Reply #8 from JoeUser Forums Top
Brad, you're major dilemma here is that you're seeing everything from a bipolar political spectrum where it seems one is simply a "rightist" or a "leftist" and are both constantly in conflict with each other. However such a traditional political model (with communism on the left and fascism on the right) cannot accurately represent the realities of the population's modern philosophies. Many new models have been presented recently where they've attempt to more accurately classify people's political views such as the 2 dimensional Nolan chart or even the 3 dimensional Vosem Chart allowing broader opportunities and minimizing the generalisation of everyone into two factions.

The considerable schism in American culture regarding the conservative Right and the liberal Left can be attributed to many factors over its history but it is mainly due to a residuum of the Cold war where the Soviets would be identified as the enemies from the Left, thus sinking anyone who's philosophies would, on a left and right scale, be on the same side whether or not they were similar to the Soviet approach. This fear as remained embedded, consciously or not, in many's mentality where they see the Right as being the only democratic and "free" choice as Reagan pointed it out in a 1965 convention : "You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or a right. There is only an up or down: up to man's age-old dream -- the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order -- or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism."

As for your argument about liberal hypocrisy concerning the "lies" claimed, you should remember that the Democrats, as the opposition party, are simply attempting to capitalise off any mistakes seeming deceiving. The emergence in media attention of "liberal" author such as Al Franken is simply because he opposes the leading party's views, venturing on a controversial and argumentative grounds; often loved. The Rebublican and the "conservative" people do the exact same thing when the aren't in power (How many people called Clinton a liar after Monica?). It is nothing more than an easy way to gain popular attention and support.

A.K.
Reply #9 from JoeUser Forums Top
"How many people called Clinton a liar after Monica?"

There is one large difference though when comparing this with Bush's claim of Weapons of Mass Destruction. Clinton DID lie! He lied straightfaced to the entire country about something he knew absolutely all the facts about.

Even if Bush was wrong about the WMD, and even if he pushed for the war a little too much, he was STILL basing it upon intelligence recieved from others.
Reply #10 from JoeUser Forums Top
why is that even worth a discussion? of course each side considers the other side to be liars. in the bombing cases it should be obvious that they either both lied or your intelligence services are a complete joke (what might be a possibility, a friend of mine recently made a vacation in Jordan and brought that idiotic deck of cards of the Iraqi leadership. guess what: half of the cards don´t have photos, maybe hey should have asked the Iranians, Russians or Israelis for help ;) ).
Reply #11 from JoeUser Forums Top
The Bolshevik revolutionaries on the left love to claim lies, lies, lies, this is their official battle hymn, everyone is a liar. The left like to portray conservative thinking as is brutal or repressive. In matters of police brutality they will view a horrible accident such as the case of Amado diallo as a police assassination when in reality he was reaching for something the cops didn’t know what it was, so they reacted out of fear, not out of desire to slay him. So the left was spearheaded by none other than Alexander “street thug” Sharpton,” to take to the streets screaming “41 shots,” without ever considering how dangerous and difficult it must be to be an police officer in an urban high crime area. Police brutality, Brutality in America! America has minor police brutality issues that the left want to distort into something that it is not, because it gives them a platform, if you look at other places in the world such as Brazil for instance, while the Brazilian people are a warm spirited kind, and they listen to their fun salsa music, many impoverished people living in a favela in and around Sao Paulo live in terror of police death squads, Alexander Sharpton the savior of humanity from police brutality doesn’t give a rats ass about them.
Reply #12 from JoeUser Forums Top
Most on the right do not refer to mistakes on the left as lies. That was kind of my point. There is no right-wing equivalent of Al Franken or Michael Moore.
Reply #13 from JoeUser Forums Top
"There is no right-wing equivalent of Al Franken or Michael Moore."--Draginol

Well, I can't really comment on that because I tend to ignore extremist propaganda no matter where it comes from.
Al Franken, Michael Moore, Rush Limbaugh, that way right wing inflamatory blonde woman (no idea what her name is, saw her speaking on tv once, she made me laugh out loud, then I had to turn the channel in disgust), should all be taken with a grain of salt.

To point out that the commentators on one side of the extreme are worse than the other in some particular way is...well...trivial.
Reply #14 from JoeUser Forums Top
Once again the youngins are misusing the word "conservative." Bush is not a conservative. Neoconservatism is NOT conservatism. People, please use the right words. Words mean something and to misuse them makes you look foolish. The Trotskite notion of "permanent revolution" that the neocons and their worshippers hold so dear is NOT a conservative idea. Any massive and intrusive government body like the Department Of Homeland Security is NOT a conservative concept. Calling yourself a conservative because you subscribe to the party line as deliniated in the neoconservative rags like the Weekly Standard, National Review and on their cable network Fox (Faux) News, is laughable. Real conservatives read Chronicles, the American Free Press and the American Conservative. 3 truly conservative, America First reads that I dare suggest none of the pimpleboys here have ever laid eyes on.
Reply #15 from JoeUser Forums Top

It is strange how the left had no quarrel when Clinton ordered the use of 90 Tomahawk missiles on an aspirin factory, a bunch of ten dollar tents, and desert sand. Bill Clinton, he was so persuasive he could argue what the meaning of the word “is” is, but he couldn’t figure out what crime to charge bin laden with. A president who was caught red handed lying as he looked into a camera eye and denied an illicit affair in the white house, This is what they are applauding.
Reply #16 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ron Paul and Buchanan are Nazi's not conservatives.
Reply #17 from JoeUser Forums Top
Only those who don't listen to Rush Limbaugh would lump him in with Michael Moore or Al Franken.

Michael Moore WON AN OSCAR. Al Franken's book i sa best seller. They're not at the fringe of the left. They are right smack in the middle of it. I don't like Rush Limbaugh but there's nothing "extreme" about him other than he's a partisan.
Reply #18 from JoeUser Forums Top
To Abe Cabbage:
If you are going to quote a post, and reverse the identities inside the post, what you are doing is "holding up a mirror" to the person who's post you are responding to. Therefore, that person must recognise him/her self in the mirror and believe that the faults identified about the people he/she posted about, also apply to him/her self. Simply reversing the names, and parties, without PROVING SUCH FAULT EXISTS IN THE PERSON OR GROUP THAT PERSON IS REPRESENTING IN THE POSTING, produces a fun house mirror, where the person posting doesn't see a reflection; only distortion; and gains a possibly reinforced proof of his/her views the opposition.

Conservatives do not wish for bigger government, do not look for a "mommy state", etc. and have repudiated those who officials lie, or seem to do so. Reference the difference in reactions/behavior to Trent Lott vs. Torriecelli (sp?). Also note the difference in the posts by the bloggers. What I am saying is, I don't see myself in the mirror, and therefore, your reversed post doesn't apply to me or other conservatives. I also believe that the liberals believe themselves justified in lying, "what is the defination of 'is'", "we must work up scary screenos", etc., while conservatives will remove those who "seem" to be lying (Gingrich)(Lott)etc.
Reply #19 from JoeUser Forums Top
I know, I know - I said I'm staying out of discussions of politics - and darnit (dunno of the other term is acceptable or not ^_^) I'm going to - and going to try to keep this comment as unpolitical as possible...

"Once again the youngins are misusing the word "conservative." Bush is not a conservative. Neoconservatism is NOT conservatism"

THIS statement has one major flaw. That is conceived perception. People who consider themselves "true" (or Classic, to vaguely make a Simpsons reference,) Conservatives may not consider people like Bush to be conservative. Congratulations. However, to a large percentage of the rest of the country, people on the left, right, middle, or wherever you want to place them, they /are/ viewed as conservative. They are representatives of what is currently considered 'conservative' to the populace. Conceived perception lends towards becoming accepted perception.
Reply #20 from JoeUser Forums Top
I am a military veteran who was in the USAF for four years in the 1960s. My political views
have not changed much since then. I had middle of the road political views forty years ago,
and they are still that way today--- except, according the the "neo cons", I am now a
"traitor". I cannot stand to watch these lying, neo nazis such as Bill O'Reilly, Pat Buchanan,
Bill Kristol on t.v. night spewing their outrageous, disgusting mean spirited falsehoods on
the American public. O.K., lets see how many of the "Super Patriots" were ever in the U.S
military? Answer, NONE! We'll start with poor Rush Limbaugh. He avoided military service
in the 1960s because he had a "spinal problem. I feel sooooo sorry for him. I had the same
condition when I went in the Air Force, and it didn't keep me from doing my duty.
All this shows me about this creep is that he's the biggest coward on this planet. Now that he's
been caught with his hand in the cookie(pill) jar, we're all supposed to feel sorry for him.
Here is a guy who has spent decades attacking liberals in the most mean spirited, partisan
way, and we're supposed to pity him. He disgusts me. O.K., next there is Pat Buchanan,
mister "bad knees", another lying bully. Back in the 1960's, when I was in the Air Force,
there was a guy in my unit who had two trick knees, which gave out on him right in front of
the Judge Advocate Generals office. Three officers had to help him up. I want the cowards
who use that dodge to explain their "bad knees" to my face. And finally, there is my "pal"
Bill O'Reilly. I saw him verbally abusing a lawyer on his show a while ago where ol' Bill
looked into the camera with a straight face and piously declared that he was going to take
the moral high ground. Tell me, how does a pornographer do this?
What ever happened to civil political discourse? BTW, if Ann (horse face) Coulter gets her
way and the right wing brings back the world of 200 years ago, the only job she will be
able to get will be managing the"darkies" on her daddys plantation. I never thought of myself
as anyone special, but after seeing this bunch of total hypocrites night after night, I'm voting
Democrat. To hell with the the neocons..
Reply #21 from JoeUser Forums Top
Anthony R,
Here you are claiming that Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan are "Nazis" and "not conservatives." That's a VERY liberal habit my young friend...and it is more than clear that you have no idea what Ron Paul stands for and are relying on 3rd parties to tell you what Buchanan stands for. Grow up and if you're going to act like a liberal you may as well proclaim yourself one. Buchanan and Ron Paul are among the few TRUE conservatives out there. You on the otherhand are just another Israel-first neocon poser.
Reply #22 from JoeUser Forums Top


Ron Paul's decision to align himself with the terrorist enemies of America and Israel is an unsound policy that no true American patriot would participate in.
Reply #23 from JoeUser Forums Top
This is strange, if you look at don davis's message he is clearly a liberal, voting Democrat, he boldly proclaims “to hell with the Neo-Cons.”

Next we have a message from American Conservative who declares himself a "conservative," he rips into me and calls me a “neo-con” poser. So who has the official rights to use this derisive term, and does the definition vary by party affiliation?
Reply #24 from JoeUser Forums Top
The term isn't derisive to those who are neocons Anthony. The pseudoconservative Trotskyites who follow the teachings of Leo Strauss and go by the names of Kristol, Feith, Wolfowitz, Perle and Ledeen among others. Neoconservatism is un-American and a very dangerous philosophy. Real conservative patriots fight neoconservatism tooth and nail and if leftists or liberals want to join us, fine. We can use the manpower.

You seem to think that support of Israel is some patriotic litmus test. Where does that nonsense come from? It's support of Israel that caused the events of 9/11. The USS Liberty ought to have been a cautionary tale to ALL good Americans, the coverup in its aftermath ought to be the fire under us all.
Reply #25 from JoeUser Forums Top
How wonderful it is to transform society into black and white; liberal and conservative; Christian and non-believers, etc. George Orwell had a wonderfully descriptive scene in ANIMAL FARM where the animals looked into the house window and couldn't tell the difference between the humans and master pigs. Rather than arguing the merits or negative of "liberals" and "conservatives," why not just demand accountability of those holding public office. Demand to know why taxpayers are giving Halliburton $2.65 per gallon of gasoline taken into Iraq and then sold for minscule pennies.....demand to know why troops in Iraq lack body armor, ammunition, water, food and other necessary items to wage war.......demand to know why injured GIs are on medical in barracks lacking basic comforts and languishing without proper medical care.....demand to know why over 300,000 Veterans have to wait 6 months to see a physican in the DVA health system.....point being, arguing about the relative merits of liberal versus conservative only occupies diverts many away from major issues and politicians know this tactic well.

CORRECTIONS: Pat Buchanan received a dishonorable discharge from college ROTC and was ineligible for military service. He goes to great lengths to avoid discussing this, but he was on obligatory service (final two years of college) and was technically on active duty as an E-5. Rush Limbaugh had an inflammed follice on his arse and took adequate documentation to his draft physical. The condition could have been corrected, but to do so would have meant induction. Bill O'Reilly came from a relatively rich family, graduated from high school in 1967, attended Marist College and then went to England to study at the same time Bill Clinton was there. He returned, graduated and immediately went to graduate school.. His disdains the Vietnam word and avoids it like the plague...it appears those who advocate moral values and benefits of military incursion carefully maneuvered around active military service (Tom DeLay, Dan Quayle, Rush, O'Reilly, George W. Bush) and now must prove their manhood by through blustering patriotic actions. Will end this now by simply saying "patriotism is the last refuge of the scoundrel. After spending four years in the military, two of which were in Vietnam, I came to the conclusion dying with and for my my buddies was inherently preferred than perishing simply to gain some politician's objective. Enough....get to the real issues rather the ideological blather....Take care.