One thing our local liberals love to bash me for is because I admitted I don’t mind being dishonest if I can stick it to the liberals. I know that is a low position to take and I shouldn’t “stoop to their level” but the way I see it if you don’t get your hands dirty you aren’t going to get things done; if you don’t get in the ring with the mudslingers the bell won’t sound. I know that doesn’t justify my behavior and I know two wrongs don’t make a right. Shame on me. I bet I could say I was joking with the time I was being dishonest, but alas, I am not liberal and that cop out won’t work with me.
I like to highlight liberal dishonesty because, well, they are dishonest about it. If a liberal catches me on an intentional spin on a subject I am happy to say, “got me” and leave it alone. There is a great deal of commentary I choose not to peddle because it is dishonest (Pelosi and her jet to get home). I don’t like being dishonest the way I do but if it furthers my agenda the so be it. If the liberals can do it, why can’t I? Maybe I am dishonest in the same manner as liberals to highlight their double standard. The difference between liberals and me, however, is that I will take responsibility for my dishonesty whereas liberals cover it up.
Over the past few weeks I have noticed two shining examples of liberal dishonesty that have to do with the illegal immigration problem and Fox News.
The illegal immigration debate is purposefully mischaracterized as an immigration debate. The brave “minute men” who voluntarily patrol our border and turn in illegal border crossers are not only mischaracterized as vigilantes but attacked as being anti-immigration. A lot of conservatives are also attacked being anti-immigration for simply speaking out against illegal immigration. I wish I could cite this but I can only share what I heard on Colmes’, of Hannity and Colmes, radio show as well as past personal experiences of witnessing liberals in illegal immigration debate.
I am all for legal immigration. As I have learned in my studies immigrants help our country a great deal. Only the best and brightest of immigrants can make it in our country with having to deal with language barriers and culture shock. As a result these immigrants are some of the greatest minds and workers our country has.
Illegal immigration, however, is a cancer on our nation. Liberals will peddle that they are hard workers, pay taxes, and our country needs them to work jobs our citizens won’t and to fund social security. Saying those things is sugar coating a turd. The welfare used by illegal immigrants, medical and otherwise, combined with the money sent back to their home countries is the problem. Other problems are refusal to integrate into our society, employers illegally employing illegal immigrants, and not deporting illegal immigrants who are repeat criminals.
I can’t even begin to have a solution to the entire illegal immigration debate. I believe something needs to be done about the border to stop the influx of illegals. That should be our first priority but doesn’t solve the whole problem. The remainder is what to do with the illegals that are here already, some 11 million of them. I have a real problem with deporting all of them. Not only would it be too costly, but tearing people’s families apart is ridiculous. My personal opinion is that they should be felonised and then some. Illegal immigrants already here don’t have to go to jail straight away but they shouldn’t be able to vote, own firearms, consume alcohol, can only have a special driver’s license, must pay a fine, and complete all the necessary steps a regular immigrant has to and all of this must be completed within 3 years of enactment, otherwise they are deported or jailed. Once they have completed their duties they are a full citizen. I know a lot of people will disagree with me but that is the only way I know to punish the law breaking illegals but not destroy their lives at the same time.
The second example of liberal dishonesty I witnessed this past week was in regards to fox news. I read a headline on digg that had to do with a segment on The O’Reilly Factor I happen to catch this past Friday. At the link you can watch the video.
Now I don’t mind people criticizing O’Reilly, there is a lot to criticize. Where the dishonesty comes in is the text of the caption of the headline. In the caption the question is asked, “Can anyone argue with a straight face that FOX doesn’t engage in pure agenda journalism?”
Here is a news flash to you liberals: The O’Reilly Factor isn’t a news program and doesn’t pretend to be. Bill O’Reilly is a commentator and says so, that’s why it’s The O’Reilly Factor and not News at 7 with Bill O’Reilly.
If you read along in the comments the hatred for Fox news comes out big time. Liberals are intentionally skewing the line between commentary and journalism to attack fox news. I would venture to guess that if the same comparison were made of MSNBC and Countdown with Keith Olberman, that Olberman’s program was news and not commentary, the liberals would come out of the woodwork shouting down those who disagreed with them.
I am curious why liberals are doing this. Do they pursue this cause in order to attack and attempt to destroy those they disagree with and shatter the marketplace of ideas? What purpose does attacking Fox in this manner serve?
Again, if anyone wants to point out me being dishonest and I am, I will say so. I won’t defend a lot of talking points out there that are dishonest, either, like attacking Pelosi saying she requested a plane for her family from the west coat to DC when it was really some department official who requested it. I could characterize the department official as the fall guy for Pelosi, but that would be dishonest.
Great post, Bo. As I was reading it, it occurred to me that there is a difference between truth and lies versus honesty and dishonesty. The former is absolute; the latter is much more relative.
I can still hear my logic professor teaching us the three principles of Aristotilian logic: 1) If A, then A (“If it is raining, then it is raining.); 2) Either A or not A (“It is either raining or not raining.”) and 3) Not A and not A (“It cannot be both raining and not raining.”).
Honesty versus dishonesty is much more subtle. My favorite example is the apocryphal sports cast on Radio Moscow during the Communist era. The Americans had just defeated the Soviets in the annual U.S.A.-U.S.S.R. track meet. The Soviet announcer proclaimed: “In an international track and field compettion, the Soviet Union came in a close second, and the United States finished next to last.” Is it true? Yes. Is it honest? Not so much. Al Gore coined an interesting name for it: “the over-representation of factual presentations.” Others call it polemics, propaganda, or prevarication, depending on their point of view (e.g. “I’m strong willed, you’re obstinate, and he’s a pig-headed fool.”)
In the past, I’ve theorized that the liberal tendency toward debate style has to do with how their brains are wired (see my earlier post entitled Field Independence v. Field Dependence). At this point, I’m willing to admit that not acknowledging the differences between abortion and partial-birth abortion, immigration and illegal immigration, and global warming and anthropogenic global warming could be deliberate, at least in some cases.
When liberals can see the differences but refuse to acknowledge them when called on it, they’re being dishonest.
Otherwise they don’t know any better because thats how their brains are wired, heh. How fitting.
It’s the old “nurture or nature” debate, isn’t it. Are liberals the way they are because of their environment or by choice, or are they simply born that way?
Liberals are stupid, lieing, backstabing, chunks of treasonous road kill. But they can’t help it they were born that way LOL. It was a good post and I was going to comment but CT pretty much took the words out of my mouth.