Jump to content

TigerAl is a closet Republican

Recommended Posts

The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness.

J.K. Galbraith

and the corollary: The Modern Liberal is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness, not supporting his positions with his own wealth, but by using the wealth of others to actually do the things he would never support with his own wealth. J.K. Galbraith and DKW 86

Gailbraith was Link a Berkely Economist that was by most counts a lifelong homosexual as well. :blink:

And this is who you quote? :rolleyes:

Galbraithian Philosophy

Galbraith, to Friedman8, was a 20th-century version of the early 19th-century Tory Radical of Great Britain. Galbraith believed in the superiority of aristocracy and in its paternalistic authority. These sorts of people -- and they are all too common these days -- deny that the free market should rule, deny that consumers should be allowed choice; and assert that all should be determined by those with "higher minds." As Friedman says:

Feidman: "Many reformers -- Galbraith is not alone in this -- have as their basic objection to a free market that it frustrates them in achieving their reforms, because it enables people to have what they want, not what the reformers want. Hence every reformer has a strong tendency to be adverse to a free market."

And again:

A Fraud Abroad: J.K Galbraith, Liberal, Reports on the Soviet Union

The New Yorker Magazine via The Cnservative Crack-Up

1984 John Kenneth Galbraith, Liberal Fraud

"That the Soviet economy has made great material progress in recent years is evident both from the statistics... and from the general urban scene... One sees it in the appearance of solid well-being of the people on the streets, the close-to-murderous traffic, the incredible exfoliation of apartment houses, and the general aspect of restaurants, theaters, and shops... Partly, the Russian system succeeds, because, in contrast with the Western industrial economies, it makes full use of its manpower." :blink:

John Kenneth Galbraith, New Yorker Magazine article,  1984 :blink:

In case you missed it, the Russian experiment collapsed in 1989, 5 years later.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you not think there's a difference or do you believe that any lie is as bad as any other?
Different kinds of dishonesty, for sure, but to someone who wants honesty in gov't. it should be no difference.

TA, when this first started, i admitted to being surprised at your initial response...what w/ all the 'honesty, integrity, trust' stuff you mentioned. that's stuff we didn't hear from clinton supporters during his lewinsky days, and that's why i included your post on this thread. but to answer your question posed above, i do believe all lies are bad....now, we could go into cute little games where you say, "but if i tell a co-worker she looks nice when she doesn't...", but hopefully we won't have to go down that road. (maybe you aren't doing her a favor by fostering the opinion she looks ok when she doesn't ;) ...sorry -- couldn't resist).

you seem to want us to apply one standard to ourselves (and our guy) without wanting to apply it to yourself (and your guy).

with clinton, we're not talking about just anybody lying...we're talking about the president of the US lying, under oath, and regardless of your opinion as to the validity of the reason he's under oath, he lied, under oath [as well as wagging his finger in the face of america, but we'll let that one slide, i guess]. that in & of itself speaks to his honesty, integrity and trustworthiness doesn't it? to quote a liberal cyber-buddy of mine, in reference to a president lying,

All those things point to a person who acts recklessly...The problem now, as I see it, is that when confronted with his past his tendency has been to lie

so it's ok for clinton to lie when confronted w/ his recent past, but you use bush's supposed lies about his ancient past (alcohol/guard service) to indict him as reckless and as an indication that he lies about other things of consequence. what am i missing here?

again, you seem to want us to apply one standard to ourselves (and our guy) without wanting to apply it to yourself (and your guy). if the issue is 'lying when confronted w/ your past', when the 'past' deals w/ drinking/drugs (inhaling), guard service or sex, then either its a problem or its not. if, as you contend, it's not a problem for clinton, then why is it a problem for bush? per you, it's shouldn't be. have i followed your logic well enough for us to agree on that? if not, please show me where my interpretation of your logic breaks down. i've tried to quote you faithfully to support my understanding of your stance...

put another way, with artistic adjustment, "Was it "OK" that Clinton/Bush lied? No. I wish that he would've never had an affair, drank alcohol, done drugs..., then he would've had nothing to lie about. But, it was stupid to go around and around about it with the mindless investigation that followed. It was a non-issue except where his family was concerned."

TA, i couldn't have said it better myself. before moving on to what you probably consider the 'consequential lie', are we on the same page up to this point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CT, I love you, man, but you're being a Bush enabler. Speaking only for myself, the drugs, the DUI's, the druken car wrecks, etc. that occurred when he was younger and 'unsaved', as he's said, are in the same category as Clinton's hummers. But, when Bush was campaigning one of his 'promises' was to bring honor and integrity back to the White House. He himself claimed moral superiority. He himself raised the standard by which we were to judge him. This wasn't hoisted upon him by the masses. When asked about all of the aforementioned indiscretions his first response, under the guise of honor and integrity, was to lie about them. And then to lie again. And again, until finally realizing that he wasn't talking to the Texas media who was willing to accept his first answer as gospel. And he lied about them from the moral highground which he appointed himself to, all under the guise of honor and integrity.

This issue is also twofold. We can let Bush slide with his youthful (if 26 yrs. old is considered youthful) indiscretions. But, how can Bush supporters, who also calim the moral highground, let him slide when lying about it after saying he was bringing honor and integrity (his words) back to the White House after all of their wailing about Clinton? There is not only a deafening silence about it, but an exaltation of Bush as being an honest man!

Link to comment
Share on other sites


This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Create New...