The single reason why America WILL not be saved.

[FiveGoodMen]

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x8219546

The left is okay with the right telling lies.

The right is very good at that.

The left has nothing to counter those lies with except the truth, which is still putting its boots on while a lie is half-way around the world.

This is the coup de grace. This is why nothing we do here will matter. We've already ruled out any attempt to really fight back.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

1. America will not be saved because of how 39 people voted in an online poll?

Isn't that just a tad melodramatic?

[saltpoint]

2. Don't worry everyone! Iron Man will save us.

[ShortnFiery]

3. How many times do we have to tell the FACT that "the left" does not exist in ANY organized sense

within the USA?!?

Call Obama's Administration and supporters CENTRISTS.

No, they are NOT "the left."

The only LEFT members of our Congress are Rep. Kucinich (D-OH) and Senator Sanders (IND-VT). They hold no profound LEADERSHIP positions in our party nor do they have a significant following.

THERE IS NO LEFT-WING IN ORGANIZED AMERICAN POLITICS - IT'S THE CENTRISTS WHO RUN THE PARTY.

[RandomThoughts]

6. There is a progressive party.

Just they are the population. Not what you hear in many other places.

[ShortnFiery]

10. No, nothing progressive has full representation in any ORGANIZED sense. Our progressive caucus

folded like "a cheap suit" to the HRC's give away to big insurance companies.

They are NOT tough like the conservative democrats. These good people need to FIND THEIR spines and take the firm stands.

Even Dennis Kucinich was pressured into bending. NO, this can not happen in the future lest they refer to themselves as "centrists in action" NOT liberals, the left, and/or progressives.

ACTION not RHETORIC is what's all important.

[FiveGoodMen]

9. True.

But even here -- where you'd expect to find SOME on the left -- you mostly get people willing to sign America's death warrant.

[ShortnFiery]

13. If there was any time not to be GUTLESS that time is now.

If not, welcome to The United States of Corporate America. The Owners will all come out of the ranks of Goldman Sachs.

Voting is now nothing more than a way to carry on the delusion that there's two parties instead of ONE right-wing corporate duopoly. :(

[cali]

12. uh, Russ Feingold, Sherrod Brown, Peter Welch, Pat Leahy, Sheldon Whitehouse

and quite a few more, not as many as there should be, but there are quite a few- not just 2.

[Name removed]

15. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[JuniperLea]

26. Well, we elected a centrist...

Obama and Hillary both ran as centrists.

Yes, there is a distinction, and no, the left is not in charge; however, it seems many are under the false idea that Obama was anything other than a centrist at any point in time.

I will continue to support the centrist until such a time as the left decides to put a lefty on the ballot. Until that time, I feel it's exceedingly dangerous NOT to continue supporting the centrist.

[truedelphi]

56. If we voted for him as a Progressive it is because

Obama made speeches that were totally progressive in their content.

Google him for his YouTube recorded speeches from Wisconsin, October 2008.

[lonestarnot]

65. +50

[Ghost Dog]

36. What about this outfit:

http://www.dsausa.org/dsa.html ?

[Mojeoux]

70. Agreement and I voted "Other."

God, I love Dennis Kucinich.

Wow the DU dictionary recognizes "Gingrich," but not "Kucinich."?!!

[RandomThoughts]

4. You are making the point of the power of lie over truth.

First I do not conceed that point, but even if you did, would you want to be on the lie side just to presume to win?

[ShortnFiery]

7. Exactly! But the voices of "the TRUE left" are drown out by the overly cautious ...

go along to get along CENTRISTS.

When we want to "get in the faces of the GOP and right-wing" we are shouted down and degraded MORE SO sometimes than the other side would subject us to.

As long as our party as "a whole" wishes to PLAY NICE and knee-jerk compromise, the longer we stand for NOTHING. The longer we will be ABUSED by the right wing GOP noise machine.

http://yorick.infinitejest.org:81/1/img/card-us_democrats.jpg http://yorick.infinitejest.org:81/1/img/card-thoughtcrime_cynthia_mckinney.jpg

[proteus_lives]

62. Thought-criminal? No.

Anti-Semite dumb-ass? Yes.

[FiveGoodMen]

11. You're missing my point entirely.

No.

I most definitely do NOT want to be on the lie side just to win.

There is another way. You make lying about matters such as this a crime. You try those who go ahead and lie anyway. Some of them lose their jobs (which was their platform for lying). Others go to prison (and we don't let them continue to broadcast from there).

Many lies will obviously still make it into the public consciousness, but not at the no-holds-barred, flood-water rate that happens today.

Then the ones telling the truth have a fighting chance.

But if we all say, "Hey, have at it dude. Lie all you want. Let's see if you can topple the country."

Well, then, that's what will happen.

Propaganda -- the kind where you tell falsehoods from a position of assumed trustworthiness -- cannot be protected speech.

If it is. Then we lose. Not maybe. For sure.

We just lose.

Everything.

[RandomThoughts]

43. With more diversity in press, more competition and individual thought

then propaganda is seen as lies. and when that happens it is a double whammy, the liar first loses the argument they lied about, then people lose respect for their method and lack of honesty.

[FiveGoodMen]

46. That's good sounding hypothesis

It never seems to work that way in real life.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

5. America is doomed by the First Amendment? That's well traveled ground...

Consider the world before and after the ratification of the First Amendment.

Human beings were not any more evolutionarily disposed to truth back in the old days but we have made a lot of social progress since making the world safe for diverse expression, including lies.

So we lack not only demonstrable cause, we lack correlation.

[DJ13]

8. Honest question

Does the First Amendment cover those who knowingly lie?

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

14. Yes, it does.

[Marr]

16. Of course it does.

Are you suggesting we put people in jail for lies-- perhaps even lies of omission, which is what most deceitful political arguments are?

[DJ13]

28. Im suggesting that deliberate lies told by corporations

Should have less protection, and those lies told with deliberate intent to deceive shouldnt be permitted constitutionally when the lies are coming from a for profit corporation like a Fox News.

In this case Im not talking about an individual's right, but extension our society affords of the constitutional right of a corporation that abuses it and misinforms their customers (audience) in order to foment violence.

[FiveGoodMen]

29. I think we'd have to make a clear distinction

Telling your aunt that the Christmas fruit cake she sent was delicious surely should not be any kind of offense.

On the other hand, we already prosecute people for lying under oath.

What I think we need is to identify those sources and situations where the public will believe they are hearing the so-help-me-god truth and demand that the same rules apply.

Fox, for instance, should either start every program with a clear disclaimer that they may not be telling the facts, or else they should be legally liable for any lies they tell.

Why? Because many people actually think that Fox is news.

[NoNothing]

25. Yes

Unless they are lying about another person, then it's libel or slander.

Your question was very well-discussed by J.S. Mill in 1869, in his work On Liberty, which I hope you will permit me to excerpt:

We can never be sure that the opinion we are endeavouring to stifle is a false opinion; and if we were sure, stifling it would be an evil still.

First: the opinion which it is attempted to suppress by authority may possibly be true. Those who desire to suppress it, of course deny its truth; but they are not infallible. They have no authority to decide the question for all mankind, and exclude every other person from the means of judging. To refuse a hearing to an opinion, because they are sure that it is false, is to assume that their certainty is the same thing as absolute certainty. All silencing of discussion is an assumption of infallibility. Its condemnation may be allowed to rest on this common argument, not the worse for being common.

Unfortunately for the good sense of mankind, the fact of their fallibility is far from carrying the weight in their practical judgment, which is always allowed to it in theory; for while every one well knows himself to be fallible, few think it necessary to take any precautions against their own fallibility, or admit the supposition that any opinion, of which they feel very certain, may be one of the examples of the error to which they acknowledge themselves to be liable.

...

The objection likely to be made to this argument, would probably take some such form as the following. There is no greater assumption of infallibility in forbidding the propagation of error, than in any other thing which is done by public authority on its own judgment and responsibility. Judgment is given to men that they may use it. Because it may be used erroneously, are men to be told that they ought not to use it at all? ... Ought we therefore to lay on no taxes, and, under whatever provocation, make no wars? Men, and governments, must act to the best of their ability. There is no such thing as absolute certainty, but there is assurance sufficient for the purposes of human life. We may, and must, assume our opinion to be true for the guidance of our own conduct: and it is assuming no more when we forbid bad men to pervert society by the propagation of opinions which we regard as false and pernicious.

I answer, that it is assuming very much more. There is the greatest difference between presuming an opinion to be true, because, with every opportunity for contesting it, it has not been refuted, and assuming its truth for the purpose of not permitting its refutation. Complete liberty of contradicting and disproving our opinion, is the very condition which justifies us in assuming its truth for purposes of action; and on no other terms can a being with human faculties have any rational assurance of being right.

...

It is not too much to require that what the wisest of mankind, those who are best entitled to trust their own judgment, find necessary to warrant their relying on it, should be submitted to by that miscellaneous collection of a few wise and many foolish individuals, called the public. The most intolerant of churches, the Roman Catholic Church, even at the canonization of a saint, admits, and listens patiently to, a "devil's advocate." The holiest of men, it appears, cannot be admitted to posthumous honours, until all that the devil could say against him is known and weighed. If even the Newtonian philosophy were not permitted to be questioned, mankind could not feel as complete assurance of its truth as they now do. The beliefs which we have most warrant for, have no safeguard to rest on, but a standing invitation to the whole world to prove them unfounded. If the challenge is not accepted, or is accepted and the attempt fails, we are far enough from certainty still; but we have done the best that the existing state of human reason admits of; we have neglected nothing that could give the truth a chance of reaching us: if the lists are kept open, we may hope that if there be a better truth, it will be found when the human mind is capable of receiving it; and in the meantime we may rely on having attained such approach to truth, as is possible in our own day. This is the amount of certainty attainable by a fallible being, and this the sole way of attaining it.

Strange it is, that men should admit the validity of the arguments for free discussion, but object to their being "pushed to an extreme;" not seeing that unless the reasons are good for an extreme case, they are not good for any case. Strange that they should imagine that they are not assuming infallibility, when they acknowledge that there should be free discussion on all subjects which can possibly be doubtful, but think that some particular principle or doctrine should be forbidden to be questioned because it is so certain, that is, because they are certain that it is certain. To call any proposition certain, while there is any one who would deny its certainty if permitted, but who is not permitted, is to assume that we ourselves, and those who agree with us, are the judges of certainty, and judges without hearing the other side.

[FiveGoodMen]

18. How is it that the Supreme Court long ago decided that the 1st Amendment does not protect

someone creating mayhem with lies (e.g. the famous yelling of fire in a crowded theater)?

It seems that we've known all along that malicious use of free speech doesn't count.

You, on the other hand, say don't worry it's okay.

[salguine]

17. I think there's a big flaw in your theory.

When you say "the left" and "the right", shall we assume you're talking about the rank-and-file, or about left and right leaders and politicians? I'm inferring that you're speaking of the latter.

The problem with that is, it makes the assumption—and it's a very, very big assumption—that "the left", by which I gather you're referring to the Democrats, if we want to make a generalization—is allowing these lies and other wrongs to stand because they're just too slow, weak, spineless, disorganized, and/or generally ineffectual to counter them in any way.

Hasn't it occurred to enough people that the Republicans' tactics don't get stopped because the Democrats actually aren't interested in stopping them?

Come on, people. Nobody's that goddamned slow, weak, spineless, disorganized, and/or generally ineffectual ALL THE TIME. It's like those news stories about women who have ten babies who all die by the same freak accident—after a while you start to realize it can't be a coincidence any more.

Democrats come across that way because it's the role that they play in an effort to make it look like they WANT to do something, which is necessary because they and the Republicans need to be able to present themselves each as a foil to the other. Which is why there hasn't been any significant progressive change that benefits all Americans in my lifetime (I was born after 1964). Which is why the Democrats can have complete control of the House AND the Senate AND the fucking White House and still not manage to do anything. This is not an accident. And THAT is why America will not be saved, not because the left "has truth".

[ShortnFiery]

20. Bingo! Ladies And Gentlemen We Have A Winner!

[upi402]

21. Corporatism controls both parties

and the corporate media whips Americans into a frenzy over the Democrats' brand of corporatism-lite.

We're toast.

[FiveGoodMen]

24. I don't dispute your point, but it's a tangent to mine.

I'm not -- at this particular moment -- discussing who is really progressive versus who is not.

I'm saying that when someone hides behind the 1st Amendment in order to destroy America's economy as well as the rest of the Bill of Rights, we cannot let them.

People who voted yes in that poll were saying that they'd rather see Americans ...

* fight unwinnable wars for no reason,
* give up our civil rights to enrich corporations,
* and generally turn into a mass of teabaggers who know they're angry but have no real idea of what's going on...

rather than demand that we make collective decisions based on reality.

(I'm well aware that the 1st Amendment is the beginning of the Bill of Rights. I'm saying that it's being interpreted here in a way that is hopelessly destructive and has effectively been rejected by the SCOTUS in the past.)

[Seneca]

19. Well, that settles it

I am just going to pack it in. Hole up, and surrender: that's my motto!

[ShortnFiery]

22. It's about time GOOD PEOPLE realize what we're up against.

It's not the pissant tea party or the amorphous right-wing who are "The American Peoples'" true enemy, it's the CORRUPTION WITHIN OUR GOVERNMENT.

We rave about Palin and McCain while our democratic legislators give Billions upon Billions of our money (mandates) to Health Insurance companies.

Read the Financial Reform bill? It gives the power to LARGE banks to absorb smaller ones. In addition, for the first time, it will allow these large banks to dissolve Credit Unions.

Do not TRUST legislators JUST BECAUSE they claim to be democrats.

I say vote out all incumbents every two years until we hit upon ONES that SERVE THE PEOPLE before corporations. That fix is the simplest most easily conveyed tactic that all average Americans can do to clean up government. :shrug:

[Seneca]

30. It sounds like you are willing to fight

You are offering your solution, rather than giving up.

While I used a bit of sarcasm and irony in my reply above, I think we're on the same page, at least as far as not wanting to surrender is concerned.

[ShortnFiery]

32. Yes, it's not going to be easy but we have legal, non-violent options that we have

not committed to yet. In addition to voting out incumbents until they get it right, we could also support greater labor organization. There are many good actions we can do.

I know that many democratic representatives stand for the same values that the American People do. However, I don't think THOSE representatives are now in leadership positions.

Thanks for the encouragement. :-) :hi:

[defendandprotect]

23. Interesting . . . but --

I think the poll would have to be more explicit --
as some point our advertising is propaganda --
and government is barred from propagandizing citizens, except it has happened
and Bush has done it quite frequently mangling the laws --

US government put 75,000 propagandists on streets to talk up WWI --
and arrested the anti-war demonstrators who were propagandizing in the other anti-war
direction.

If we really want to fight back, you have to disconnect from corporatism and capitalism ---

and from patriarchy/organized patriarchak "values."

Like "Manifest Destiny" and "Man's Dominion Over Nature" which are all based on exploitation --
not only of nature and natural resources, but of animal-life --
and even of other human beings based on myths of inferiority.

These are exploitive and suicidal systems --

[FiveGoodMen]

27. It seems to me that "Lying is fair game" has become the American default attitude.

I've gotten that impression here so many times that I don't think the problem with the poll is just the wording of it.

[defendandprotect]

39. And yet quite a large handful cling to the notion this is "conspiracy-fre-America" . . .

[Xenotime]

31. America won't be saved because it won't give up the poison that is capitalism.

[Silent3]

34. As opposed to the proven nourishment of.... what exactly? n/t

[Xenotime]

45. fairness, equality, equal pay all for starters.

[Silent3]

53. Equal pay meaning what...?

Everyone gets paid the same for all jobs? The same pay for the same jobs?

At any rate, all of what you say you want is possible under regulated capitalism (at least equal pay for, say, men and women working the same jobs), and is not automatically guaranteed under any alternate -ism.

[defendandprotect]

41. Agree . . . and they have so long been propagandized about the virtues of capitalism...

that I think it's difficult for them to see anything else!

Democratic socialism -- time to move on!!

An economy based on predatory capitalism and its exploitations of nature and humans

is suicidal!!

[TheKentuckian]

33. Lies can be dealt with but the Lilly livered keeping the powder dry school

of politics is a complete failure.

The left of center and "center" (whoever the fuck that is) just won't stand up and slam the Reich's bullshit in their face and "we" pretend that they have something of value to say that should be heard instead of ridicule and smackdowns early and often. Now we've got caught up in actually executing their lame brained ideas on our watch like they have any legitimacy at all and we have a Democratic President that includes their delusional bullshit without even securing their votes.

Our troubles are in no small part do to spinelessness and a refusal to stand by any principles in the hunt for short term political success.

[FiveGoodMen]

35. But the spineless ones are also afraid of public opinion

And that opinion is guided almost entirely by lies.

Because each one of us can't do independent research on every statement made on the news, we're pretty well screwed if we can't put the habitual liars in the penalty box.

If the public were not continually duped, some of those cowards in DC would be afraid of us.

[MilesColtrane]

37. The Left is OK with the Bill of Rights.

Your beef is with corporate controlled mass media.

[FiveGoodMen]

38. Well, if you follow my link...

The overwhelming majority is okay with the lying (or disputes that definition of propaganda).

So either DU is NOT the left or else your impression is mistaken.

[MilesColtrane]

42. Re: lying

The First Amendment gives anyone to the right to publish or broadcast their version of reality. Libel and slander laws are in place to protect individuals, but not to protect ideas or political parties.

Liberals tend to support greater freedom, not less like right wingers.

[FiveGoodMen]

48. So you are okay with two wars started by deliberate lies that couldn't even be

double-checked at the time because of national security concerns?

[MilesColtrane]

61. Yes, that is exactly what I said.

:eyes:

[FiveGoodMen]

72. That is the direct result of the policy that you endorse.

:eyes: back at ya.

[MilesColtrane]

74. Here are the policies I endorse:

Freedom of the press, and the breakup of corporate media monopolies.

Have a nice day.

[FiveGoodMen]

76. Sounds so noble when you divorce the slogans from their demonstrated outcome

[MilesColtrane]

77. The Constitution is a slogan!

:rofl:

[FiveGoodMen]

78. Is "the breakup of corporate media monopolies" in the Constitution?

or do you just toss these off without even re-reading them?

Do you believe the Constitution protects intentional lying?

If so, can you cite exactly where.

Also, can you explain the exceptions based around court testimony and public mayhem?

Can you, in fact, make an argument without a smiley?

[MilesColtrane]

86. "Is "the breakup of corporate media monopolies" in the Constitution?"

Obviously not, but we can dream.

Yes, I believe the the Constitution as it is currently interpreted by the courts protects intentional lying except in specific cases. Biased reporting is not one of those cases.

"If so, can you cite exactly where."

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." That is pretty plain.

"Also, can you explain the exceptions based around court testimony and public mayhem?"

There is no overarching principle behind the exceptions to the First Amendment. They vary from commercial fraud to inciting immanent lawless action, to obscenity, etc...
If you are looking for some unified reason for these, I can't make one up and explain it to you.

You are the one who wants the government to restrict the press. The burden is upon you to explain how and why such a move is Constitutional.

Prior restraint of speech has been allowed in some cases, but the Supreme Court has ruled that in such cases the government must: clearly define what's illegal, cover the minimum speech necessary, make a quick decision, be backed up by a court, bear the burden of suing and proving the speech is illegal, and show that allowing the speech would "surely result in direct, immediate and irreparable damage to our Nation and its people" (New York Times Co. v. United States).

You'll notice there is no smiley on this post, so that covers your last question.

[FiveGoodMen]

87. Two points

1) You didn't really address why perjury can exist if it's unconstitutional.

2) I haven't called for prior restraint.

I've said that lying should be subject to criminal prosecution when it causes or is likely to cause or is meant to cause material harm. (Which it certainly has in Iraq and Afghanistan!)

I have also not called for the government to decide what is printable. I don't want a Ministry of Truth.

I want lies to be punished.

[MilesColtrane]

88. "You didn't really address why perjury can exist if it's unconstitutional."

I imagine the law against perjury exists because the judiciary could not function without being able to persuade truthful testimony from witnesses.

"I haven't called for prior restraint."

Forgive me for not researching all of your posts on this subject. I usually only read the replies directed toward me.

"lying should be subject to criminal prosecution when it causes or is likely to cause or is meant to cause material harm."

Who exactly would you prosecute for the stories in the NYT written by Judith Miller that later turned out to be untrue?

And, how would you prove that the reporter and/or the editors knew they were printing false information?

And, how would you show that those stories directly led to the Bush administration's decision to invade raq?

Remember that the administration was where Miller got her (false) information from.

It's not like W woke up one day, read Miller's story about intercepted aluminum tubes bound for Iraq in 2002, and based on that story, decided to invade.

[MilesColtrane]

89. BTW, what media lies led to the U.S. attacking Al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan?

(This is the first question I probably should have asked you.)

[BlooInBloo]

40. I'm pretty sure this thread isn't going the way you planned.

:rofl:

[FiveGoodMen]

75. I'm not surprised by the results.

What do you think is funny?

[denbot]

44. Free speach is just that, Free.

Deal with it.

[FiveGoodMen]

47. We will ALL deal with the consequences of letting lies go unchallenged

Your smug attitude will not save you.

[Echo In Light]

49. Anyone who routinely opines at an online political forum is a propagandist

The recurring problem w/how non-right wingers deal w/RW lies and propaganda is the real problem: too many simply deny they're being deceived, and/or attempt to trivialize the degree to which they're being lied to

[FiveGoodMen]

55. Either you're saying that you and all the rest of us are liars...

OR you're saying that we need to review the definition of 'propaganda' that we're using.

I hope it's the latter.

[Echo In Light]

58. Well, saying neither of those, actually.

The worst things one can imagine RWers and corporatists being involved in are often the very things that way too many Dems seek to avoid discussing by labeling those who do 'conspiracy theorists.'

[FiveGoodMen]

59. Okay, now I'm lost.

I don't imagine we're having a fight here and I don't want to start one.

What is the connection with conspiricy theories?

[blindpig]

50. There is no left.

That is the problem. The Democratic Party is not the 'left', the so-called centrists have been right about that all along. It is wishful thinking to call the Democratic Party in any way left, perhaps but for the period 1932 -1945, and that was strictly expediency. The crisis passed, the commie were suppressed and demonized and we have been getting back to 'business as usual' ever since.

There are no great philosophical differences between the Democratic and Republican parties, not on the important stuff like war and money, and really, that's all that matters to the ruling class. Access to abortion, gay rights, the environment, those are all just political footballs to those people, they don't care, they can buy those things for themselves while they purposefully divide the people on these same things.

It's a fuckin' racket.

[Echo In Light]

51. +1

[FiveGoodMen]

54. I agree with what you're saying, but it's a separate issue from whether deceiving the public

is a constitutionally protected activity.

[William Z. Foster]

64. access

It is access to the media that is the issue, not what is or isn't being said.

So long as access to the media, and the government, is for sale to the highest bidder the wealthiest people will control both. No surprise there.

If you had the power to stop people from lying, you would also have the power to give power over the media back to the public and take it out of the hands of the few. It does no good to propose solutions without talking about power. No solution that would benefit the working people means anything so long as we the working people have no power.

Yes, if the working people had the power, we could make those nasty Republicans stop lying. Of course, if we had the power we wouldn't need to stop the Republicans from lying and we would have more important things to do than worry about what the fringe right wing was saying.

May as well say "if only we had the power, we would have the power."

[FiveGoodMen]

71. If we could get all Americans committed to the PRINCIPLE that news should be honest

then people could make decisions based on real facts.

That would help the working people work together (right now they are disorganized because they don't know who to believe).

If all the rank-and-file stuck together, we would have the power.

[William Z. Foster]

80. both sides are lying

People are confused because both sides of the political fray are lying. Most people don't believe either side, nor should they.

If all of the rank and file stuck together, there would be power in that, yes. The people controlling the political debate in the country, "on both sides of the aisle," are carrying water for the haves and betraying the have nots. That is what breaks up any chance for working class solidarity.

[FiveGoodMen]

81. If you mean that Democratic politicians have been known to lie. Well, yes.

However, since this is a fight between the haves and have nots, I consider those to be the two sides.

Are they both lying?

[William Z. Foster]

83. the have nots don't have a side

The have nots do not have a side, have no representation.

[FiveGoodMen]

84. Their side is that they are human beings and citizens and entitled to respect and fair play

Just because they don't have a media outlet doesn't mean they don't have a side.

[William Z. Foster]

85. I mean in the political realm

Working people have no voice, no representation.

I did not say they shouldn't have a voice or representation.

[truedelphi]

57. The One Money party is a One Big Tent affair.

The devoted and loyal Repugs enter on the side that says "We will provide a strong defense. We will save you from people of color. There will not be any legal abortions if we get in,"

And the loyal Dems enter in on the side that says, "Women's right to choose. We will be good for the environment. We will help people with food stamps, and if you are a person of color from a foreign land, we will provide amnesty in terms of your status here."

But when you get inside the tent, you realize that none of those promoting the slogans are to be found. Regardless of whom was elected. And the new slogans from the podium come across a speaker that says things like "Clean Coal and safe nukes will power our country.

And "The concern with terrorism is number one - so be sure and take off your shoes at the airport." And yada yada yada.

So we end up with a HC"Reform" bill that is mostly to the advantage of the Big Insurers. A Financial "Reform" Bill that nowhere contains Glass Steagall. And on and on.

[NaturalHigh]

52. FREE SPEECH.

What's the point of fighting for our rights if we're willing to curtail the most fundamental ones?

I've long said that most people only care about free speech if they agree with the speech. Anything else is labeled propaganda, libel, or slander.

Your post = fail. That is all.

[FiveGoodMen]

60. Try committing perjury sometime.

Let me know what happens.

Well... don't waste your one phone call.

[Name removed]

63. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[lonestarnot]

67. And what has Mr. President lied about? And Acorn?

WTF are you about?

[Toucano]

66. Wrong. The U.S. will not be saved because they clearly prefer spending their

money on things that kill people more than spending on things that help people.

It is their VALUES that doom them.

This doesn't require a media conspiracy or a plot. Just relying on the people themselves, they would rather kill a child than (a. educate b. medicate c. levatate) a child.

[lonestarnot]

68. Like death panels?

[lonestarnot]

69. X3.

What are you about?

[FiveGoodMen]

73. Without all those years of Limbaugh, Hannity, Coulter, Robertson, Fallwell, Dobson, etc

I don't think people would be as bad as they are now.

I agree with you about the way they are now.

[WilliamPitt]

79. You're right. I give up.

[FiveGoodMen]

82. If you endorse the legal practice of lying to the American people, then you might as well.

The average American isn't smart enough and isn't paying enough attention to weed through all the constant crap and figure out what's really happening. Witness the way that we all struggle to figure out what's what at this site.

If we're going to keep bringing rubber bands to a gun fight, we are going to lose. Period.