Re: Lying
- From: "Jerry Okamura" <okamuraj005@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 6 Jul 2007 18:40:10 -0700
"Islander" <nospam@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message news:NbadnTRaAtS95RDbnZ2dnUVZ_q63nZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Jerry Okamura wrote:Some of us have made a big deal about people in this administration not being truthful. But have you ever considered the fact that our pundits tell us all the time, that in order for these people who are running to be our next President, they can only succeed by lying? We hear all the time, about what it takes to win a party's nomination, and what it takes to win the Presidency. That in order to win the party nomination, they have to say one thing, and when they win the nomination, they have to appeal to the general population and change their message. Isn't that the definition of lying? And "if" they have to "lie" to win, then why should we expect that they will suddenly be "reformed" and not lie when they become the President?
Jerry, whether you realize it or not, you are parroting the Republican line that all politics are corrupt as a way of excusing the widespread corruption in their party. Call me naive, if you wish, but I don't believe it. With today's capability to retrieve every public statement made by every would-be politician, the consequences for lying are too high.
"If" the consequences of lying are so high, why do they continue to lie? In Hawaii, we recently elected a member of the House of Representatives. In campaign ads that person said that Bush wanted to "destroy" Social Security. Was that the truth or a lie? Besides, democrats have been telling us for years that Bush "lied" when he took us to war with Iraq. "If" he lied, what price did he pay? He took us to war in 2003, he got re-elected in 2004.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Lying
- From: Islander
- Re: Lying
- Prev by Date: Al Gore
- Next by Date: Re: Where are all the liberals?
- Previous by thread: Re: Lying
- Next by thread: Re: Lying
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|