AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

I suppose it goes to the whole discussion of misrepresenting another's point of view, deliberately misstating another member's words or intent, putting words into the mouth of somebody who didn't say those words, claiming that something has been supported but being unable to verify that, etc. All of that ties into the discussion of how conservatives and liberals see things differently along with the issue of honesty/integrity in how we defend or criticize people and/or points of view.

I was just curious if the liberals' contempt for everything Thomas Sowell writes would include this article. For that matter I am a little curious if the conservatives will condemn what Sowell is condemning here.

And is it a given that a McCain or Clinton supporter took Sowell's name in vain? Or is it possible that the story was manufactured by an Obama supporter either to smear Sowell himself or to be able to point fingers and say "See what THEY do?"

Do we really know?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

I suppose it goes to the whole discussion of misrepresenting another's point of view, deliberately misstating another member's words or intent, putting words into the mouth of somebody who didn't say those words, claiming that something has been supported but being unable to verify that, etc. All of that ties into the discussion of how conservatives and liberals see things differently along with the issue of honesty/integrity in how we defend or criticize people and/or points of view.

I was just curious if the liberals' contempt for everything Thomas Sowell writes would include this article. For that matter I am a little curious if the conservatives will condemn what Sowell is condemning here.

And is it a given that a McCain or Clinton supporter took Sowell's name in vain? Or is it possible that the story was manufactured by an Obama supporter either to smear Sowell himself or to be able to point fingers and say "See what THEY do?"

Do we really know?

No, of course, we don't really know. Who knows who the first people to write false and hateful chain emails are?

An even more pertinent question: does it matter?

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

You simply don't want to, can't face up to the fact that you are one of the intellectual and moral bankrupts, Foxy.

Just one of the stronger traits of Conservatism.

0 Replies

Yes it matters, Cyclop. To Conservatives, traditional values include personal integrity and responsibility in all matters, and holding people accountable for the choices that they make. Those who would presume to maliciously impune a man's character through misrepresentation or fraud should be so soundly condemned and excoriated by all honorable people that they will be persuaded not to repeat such an offense. If we can determine the origin of intentional malice, it should be prosecuted.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Yes it matters. To Conservatives, traditional values include personal integrity and responsibility in all matters, and holding people accountable for the choices that they make. Those who would presume to maliciously impune a man's character through misreprsentation or fraud should be so soundly condemned and excoriated by all honorable people that they will be persuaded not to repeat such an offense. If we can determine the origin of intentional malice, it should be prosecuted.

So, those folks who make up hateful and false emails about Obama - think they ought to be gone after as well?

Heck, maybe we should track down anyone who's ever written a chain email with false info in it, and throw them in jail too.

Or, I have another idea - maybe you guys could quit whining and grow the hell up. Prosecuting people who send around chain emails? Jeez, half the Conservatives in the country would be in jail.

Cycloptichorn

ps - impugn, not impune

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Yes it matters. To Conservatives, traditional values include personal integrity and responsibility in all matters, and holding people accountable for the choices that they make. Those who would presume to maliciously impune a man's character through misreprsentation or fraud should be so soundly condemned and excoriated by all honorable people that they will be persuaded not to repeat such an offense. If we can determine the origin of intentional malice, it should be prosecuted.

So, those folks who make up hateful and false emails about Obama - think they ought to be gone after as well?

Heck, maybe we should track down anyone who's ever written a chain email with false info in it, and throw them in jail too.

Or, I have another idea - maybe you guys could quit whining and grow the hell up. Prosecuting people who send around chain emails? Jeez, half the Conservatives in the country would be in jail.

Cycloptichorn

ps - impugn, not impune

Well you say this after previously saying this:

Quote:

Um, I think everyone could agree that making up false stories, with others' names on them, isn't an honorable act.

So I guess it's safe to put you down as one who will not condemn the practice but think it should be accepted as just some of the **** that happens on the internet and anybody who has a problem with people who try to falsely smear people on line should just accept that and grow up. Is that a fair assessment? If not, please state clearly what you do think about Sowell's article.

Next?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Yes it matters, Cyclop. To Conservatives, traditional values include personal integrity and responsibility in all matters, and holding people accountable for the choices that they make.

Holy Smoke, is this not hypocrisy of a magnitude one would think impossible.

If it weren't so phucking sad, it just might be funny.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Yes it matters. To Conservatives, traditional values include personal integrity and responsibility in all matters, and holding people accountable for the choices that they make. Those who would presume to maliciously impune a man's character through misreprsentation or fraud should be so soundly condemned and excoriated by all honorable people that they will be persuaded not to repeat such an offense. If we can determine the origin of intentional malice, it should be prosecuted.

So, those folks who make up hateful and false emails about Obama - think they ought to be gone after as well?

Heck, maybe we should track down anyone who's ever written a chain email with false info in it, and throw them in jail too.

Or, I have another idea - maybe you guys could quit whining and grow the hell up. Prosecuting people who send around chain emails? Jeez, half the Conservatives in the country would be in jail.

Cycloptichorn

ps - impugn, not impune

Well you say this after previously saying this:

Quote:
Um, I think everyone could agree that making up false stories, with others' names on them, isn't an honorable act.

So I guess it's safe to put you down as one who will not condemn the practice but think it should be accepted as just some of the **** that happens on the internet and anybody who has a problem with it should just grow up. Is that a fair assessment? If not, please state clearly what you do think about Sowell's article.

Next?

Aw, jeez.

I'll condemn the practice. Here I go: Cyclo condemns the practice of making up **** and putting others' names on it!!!!!!!1!!!one!!!

Now, step two: just what is it you think should be done? Because if you can figure out how to trace scurrilous chain emails, and don't mind prosecuting those who sent them, I'd like to hear the method you'd employ to do this.

As is obvious, there is no real method for doing this; therefore, the best thing to do is to simply ignore it.

You need to relax a bit, Fox; it's Friday afternoon, go have a drink or something. Getting all breathless about a chain email, just b/c your sainted hero Sowell happens to be the target? Oh Noez!

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

JTT wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Yes it matters, Cyclop. To Conservatives, traditional values include personal integrity and responsibility in all matters, and holding people accountable for the choices that they make.

Holy Smoke, is this not hypocrisy of a magnitude one would think impossible.

If it weren't so phucking sad, it just might be funny.

I know. I wonder how she feels about the last 8 or so years, and holding Republicans accountable for the choices they made? Or just how much personal integrity matters to those whose leaders are confirmed liars?

Laughing

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

Cycloptichorn wrote:

JTT wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
Yes it matters, Cyclop. To Conservatives, traditional values include personal integrity and responsibility in all matters, and holding people accountable for the choices that they make.

Holy Smoke, is this not hypocrisy of a magnitude one would think impossible.

If it weren't so phucking sad, it just might be funny.

I know. I wonder how she feels about the last 8 or so years, and holding Republicans accountable for the choices they made? Or just how much personal integrity matters to those whose leaders are confirmed liars?

Cycloptichorn

What's so amazing, Cy, is how they so brazenly continue to shovel this doublespeak and think no one will notice. The depth that this type of delusion goes to is truly astonishing.

0 Replies

Okay, Cyclop is on the record as condemning the practice but hasn't commended Sowell for bringing it up.

What I think should be done about it is that I think honorable people should be incensed that anybody would do that to Thomas Sowell and/or Barack Obama and should condemn it unequivocably and in no certain terms. I think honorable people should agree that malicious and deliberate attempts to damage a person's reputation with false information should be prosecutable. I think all honorable people should condemn this disgusting practice loud and long until the internet trolls who create these lies become so afraid they might be found out they will cease and desist in such activities.

When I receive one of those ridiculous e-mails full of lies re Barack Obama, I return it to sender along with the Snopes link or other source showing that it is false. I used to get several of those every day, but the flow has now slowed to a trickle so I hope I am having some effect. If I had reliable information on somebody creating that kind of garbage, I would turn them in.

The politics of personal destruction is not a Conservative principle.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

The politics of personal destruction is not a Conservative principle.

Is this a quote from Karl Rove, Lee Atwater, George Bush, Dick Cheney, ... ?

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

Okay, Cyclop is on the record as condemning the practice but hasn't commended Sowell for bringing it up.

What I think should be done about it is that I think honorable people should be incensed that anybody would do that to Thomas Sowell and/or Barack Obama and should condemn it unequivocably and in no certain terms. I think honorable people should agree that malicious and deliberate attempts to damage a person's reputation with false information should be prosecutable. I think all honorable people should condemn this disgusting practice loud and long until the internet trolls who create these lies become so afraid they might be found out they will cease and desist in such activities.

When I receive one of those ridiculous e-mails full of lies re Barack Obama, I return it to sender along with the Snopes link or other source showing that it is false. I used to get several of those every day, but the flow has now slowed to a trickle so I hope I am having some effect. If I had reliable information on somebody creating that kind of garbage, I would turn them in.

Why would I commend Sowell for bringing it up? He is acting in his own defense, not displaying some sort of higher principle. I hadn't seen him write a piece on scurrilous emails prior to himself being the one attacked.

We have very clear Libel and Slander laws in this country, and while I am not an expert on either one, I don't see how either would eventually ever be used to prosecute someone in the case of chain emails; I don't even know how one could accurately figure out who started them! The point isn't that it's a low thing (it is) it's that it's a fact of the internet, and railing about it will get us nowhere.

This on the other hand -

Quote:

The politics of personal destruction is not a Conservative principle.

Whew; it sure is a Republican principle. It sure is. I guess it's just a coincidence that that is the party full of Conservatives. Because that's exactly what the Republicans have done my entire life.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

I've got the picture and believe I understand you point of view, Cyclop and thanks for responding. I'm just waiting to see if any other liberals chime in on this.

0 Replies

We need to make important distinctions here. There is a difference between blatant and fraudulant claims, more specifically slander, and honest opinions which are not universally agreed upon. Obviously, somebody created a fraudulant column, which goes beyond an honest opinion. I believe there is a high threshold in the law, in terms of proving slander as a crime, and rightfully it should be that way in my opinion. Also, syndicated columnists are copyrighted or something, are they not, every time they write a column, and if somebody creates a column fraudulantly, couldn't they be prosecuted if proven who did it?

We have heard about the politics of personal destruction, primarily during the Clinton administration, as a defense against criiticisms and accusations of wrongdoing, much of which was demonstrably founded upon evidence. Nixon could also have complained about the poltics of personal destruction, but those that destroyed him with accusations are held out as heros.

The Swift Boaters are trying to regain their terminology, as libs have turned the term into a verb, being "swiftboated." I believe most of their accusations were essentially true, but their detractors have succeeded in creating considerable doubt that any of their accusations were true at all.

Politics has always been about mud slinging to one degree or another, and some is justified. Obviously a candidate should point out deficiencies in their opponents record, and if corruption is real, it should be pointed out. Of course corruption does exist, and I think it is important for voters to not only know about it, but also care about it.

0 Replies

okie wrote:

Obviously a candidate should point out deficiencies in their opponents record, and if corruption is real, it should be pointed out. Of course corruption does exist, and I think it is important for voters to not only know about it, but also care about it.

The hypocrisy just keeps mounting, spectacularly so!

0 Replies

RE: Sowell chain letter

This type of thing transcends left or right. I think Sowell has the right to be judged by his own work, and I'm glad to judge him by his own work. Why somebody would do this, is beyond me, and it seems to be counter productive.

On a different topic, I want to know what okie, Fox, ican, et al have to say about Rush Limbaugh's "Project mayhem or chaos (whatever it was called) where he called for conservatives to register as democrats and vote for Hillary in the primaries to keep the race going as long as possible. It did have an effect.

I think that this issue transcends left and right as well. Do the conservatives here agree that this kind of thing is repugnant? Do you condemn this?

T
K
O

0 Replies

Vote #2. Deist registers his vote. No disgust, outrage, or condemnation detected but he stated Sowell should be judged on his own work and the incident was 'counter productive'. (Not sure whether counter productive means ineffective in skewing Dr. Sowell or counter productive in smearing Obama.)

As for Rush's 'Operation Chaos', this was a fun thing and a 'theme publicity gimmick' and during the entire process I think I recall only two or three callers to the show saying they had 'changed their registration' and I didn't believe them. Maybe a few did, but I don't personally know a soul who did so and I don't believe it had any effect whatsoever. If it had, given the size of Rush's audience and the closeness of the popular vote, Hillary Clinton likely would be your nominee instead of Obama. Rush knows darn well that his radio audience are free thinkers and not easily manipulated, but he expects most liberals to be gullible enough to believe anything so long as it is pro-liberal and/or anti-GOP. He enormously enjoys pulling all the liberal chains out there and he is extremely effective in doing so. Just looking at it logically, if Operation Chaos had been a real deal, you would have seen a huge surge in Democrat registrations just before each primary and a correspondending decrease in Democrat registrations following each primary. There were no reports of that happening anywhere.

(I still remember years ago when Rush, playing the part of the greedy, hard-hearted Republican, did a tongue-in-cheek short monologue about buying his mother a better brand of dog food and a new can opener. Pat Shroeder, Congresswoman from Colorado, bought it and did an incensed condemnation of it from the House floor. Some liberals are soooo easy. Needless to say, Rush had a lot of fun broadcasting her tirade to his audience.)

But being fair, he got us conservatives one time too when he did a sorrowful explanation that he simply could not support the GOP nominee and he had come to the decision that he would vote for Bill Clinton. He was so convincing that there was practically a meltdown of phone lines all over the country.

Having said that, no I do not think people should 'sell their Constitutionally guaranteed vote' under any circumstances for any reason. I thought it shameful when McCain and Huckabee ganged up on Romney to trade votes and deny him what would have been a certain victory in I think Florida. I was apalled that people would have so little integrity so as to shift votes between Nader and Gore in that election and between Nader and Kerry in that one to ensure victories for one or the other. I was absolutely appalled at THIS STUDY which I hope beyond hope is not typical of what the younger generation has come to.

I am a conservative and my vote is not for sale.

0 Replies

Okie writes

Quote:

There is a difference between blatant and fraudulant claims, more specifically slander, and honest opinions which are not universally agreed upon.

After thinking about it for awhile, I think the issue with somebody writing using Sowell's name would fall under identify theft instead of slander. As his syndicated column is likely a substantial part of his income, he certainly should not have to endure people faking his column and therefy smearing his integrity and reputation. Though it is disgusting, there are no damages when the immature and mean spirited put words in my mouth or your mouth or whomever here on A2K as we are largely anonymous here. I can imagine my distress, however, if somebody put my byline on a stupid or fallacious newspaper article or sent out a mass mailing of a letter like that over my signature.

Slander and libel are specific legal terms and you are correct that offenses involving these are not broadly enforced. To make up a fact that Barack Obama is not a U.S. citizen would certainly constitute slander; however, as much as I abhor the practice, such has been tolerated in politics for so long now that it would be difficult to show intent of malice in order to make a charge of slander or libel stick.

That should not hinder principled people from condemning the practice, however. In the case of most politicians, there is usually plenty of valid criticism without having to deliberately make stuff up. I think a conservative principle is to value and respect a good name and reputation.

0 Replies

Quote:

Rush knows darn well that his radio audience are free thinkers and not easily manipulated

Funny, I think he knows the exact opposite is true.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know