Join 3,494 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


Perverted, God-Hating Frenchies vs. Inbred, Sex-Obsessed Yokels
January 23, 2005 8:23 PM   Subscribe

Perverted, God-Hating Frenchies vs. Inbred, Sex-Obsessed Yokels
Truth About Liberals #1: They're Just As Moral As Conservatives
Truth About Conservatives #1: They're Just As Smart As Liberals
An interesting article on the role of faith by Steven Waldman that exposes 'moral values' as not being the sole domain of either side while pointing out that the media continues to polarize by playing tempest. Via Speaking of Faith on NPR.
posted by geekyguy (62 comments total)

 
A pretty good analysis of some of my own thoughts. I wish I had read it in 2004, because frankly, I'm tired of this listening to people spew hateful remarks back and forth under the premise of 'discussing' issues without having taken the time to understand how politics work.
posted by gagglezoomer at 8:41 PM on January 23, 2005


to understand how politics work.

so um, how do politics work? ;)
posted by reflection at 8:46 PM on January 23, 2005


liberals may have been wrong about the Soviet Union

He lost me with that. The Cold War was more or less started by liberals. And did Kennedy and LBJ suddenly become conservatives?
posted by raysmj at 8:50 PM on January 23, 2005


The Marquis de Sade, Foucault and I would like to know what is wrong, exactly, with being perverted, god-hating frenchies?
posted by mek at 8:50 PM on January 23, 2005


The media polarize? What'$ in it for them?
posted by ZenMasterThis at 8:55 PM on January 23, 2005


so um, how do politics work? ;)

I realize my statement needs a little clarification. Where I am from, it's hard to have a conversation with very many people about politics without running into major problems with the data they are using to support their assumptions. If you are getting all of your in depth news from blogs, radio talk shows, and Maxim then I am not going to be able to chat with you for very long.
posted by gagglezoomer at 8:56 PM on January 23, 2005


Can I get my 5 bucks back? Kidding. Good read here.

Reminds me somehow of Steinbeck, as if it would take some huge calamity like the Great Depression or a really good World War to break the polarization.

What does it mean when we call our country the "United States"? How are we united? What caused that unity?

Our founding fathers had differences and put them aside in order to create and develop the most diverse and tolerant governmental body in existance at that time.

Everything degrades with time. If we find that our government no longer represents our American Ideals, then maybe it's time to act as our for-fathers did and break the system and repair it in an apporpriate fashion.

Diversity and tolerance. Freedom.
posted by snsranch at 8:57 PM on January 23, 2005


"Truth About Conservatives #1: They're Just As Smart As Liberals"

They may be as smart, but they are certainly not as wise.
posted by VP_Admin at 9:01 PM on January 23, 2005


VP_Admin - Because anybody who disagrees with you can't possible be as wise. It's simply not possilbe to have nuanced and cogent beliefs based on different rational premises.
posted by thedevildancedlightly at 9:03 PM on January 23, 2005


how do politics work?

I try to get what I want. You try to get what you want.

All else is decoration.
posted by cosmonik at 9:07 PM on January 23, 2005


Accuracy is a virtue to liberals and intellectuals, who believe in the power of truth - it is inconsequential to others, who believe in the truth of power. -- Lawrence Lessig
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 9:08 PM on January 23, 2005


Because anybody who disagrees with you can't possible be as wise. It's simply not possilbe to have nuanced and cogent beliefs based on different rational premises.

When you study a certain issue with what one deems to be a fair amount of time, you get the feeling that people who haven't reached the same conclusions as you from the supporting data aren't wise. It's a tension between the faith in one's own beliefs and the tolerance of other people's own worldview.
posted by gagglezoomer at 9:09 PM on January 23, 2005


fold_and_mutilate: Thats a great quote... very Orwellian
posted by gagglezoomer at 9:10 PM on January 23, 2005


If you like this post, you'll like Jim Wallis's book God's Politics... from the site...

Since when did believing in God and having moral values make you pro-war, pro-rich, and pro-Republican? And since when did promoting and pursuing a progressive social agenda with a concern for economic security, health care, and educational opportunity mean you had to put faith in God aside?

While the Right in America has hijacked the language of faith to prop up its political agenda -- an agenda not all people of faith support -- the Left hasn't done much better, largely ignoring faith and continually separating moral discourse and personal ethics from public policy. While the Right argues that God's way is their way, the Left pursues an unrealistic separation of religious values from morally grounded political leadership. The consequence is a false choice between ideological religion and soulless politics.


Basically... the Left needs to embrace religion and start using it to convince people to forget about gays, and abortions and get back to the basic social justice policies that would bring respect back to America as a country. Maybe we could convince them to stop bombing people and going to war with other countries too... that would be nice.
posted by banished at 9:17 PM on January 23, 2005


"VP_Admin - Because anybody who disagrees with you can't possible be as wise. It's simply not possilbe to have nuanced and cogent beliefs based on different rational premises."

Whoever has "different rational premises" which lead them to "cogent beliefs" upon which rationalizations for the current war are based, is not truly wise.

The "conservatives" of the US tend to be advocates and apologists for Bush's violence.

Bush's followers are not wise. In fact, they are among the most unwise people to be found anywhere on earth.
posted by VP_Admin at 9:30 PM on January 23, 2005


They may be as smart, but they are certainly not as wise.

That's extremely debatable
posted by Hands of Manos at 9:32 PM on January 23, 2005


Banished, I've met (and have had a lecture from) Jim Wallis before. He is a kind and intelligent man. He has a new book out called "Why the Right is Wrong and the Left doesn't get it." I'm aiming to read this one day.
posted by Hands of Manos at 9:33 PM on January 23, 2005


Threepeatfilter:

VP_Admin, I'm not trollbaiting but I'm guessing from the language you use, you're not a conservative but you call them the most unwise people to be found anywhere on earth. However one only has to go to your Metatalk thread to find such and unwise decision you made right here on Metafilter.

Don't get me wrong, I'm no conservative (but no liberal either...I just think they are two arms to one beast) and I'm certainly not trying to pick a fight with you here. However for someone that was asking for tolerance (in your metatalk callout) perhaps you could take a dose of your own prozac. I know plenty of very wise and intellectual conservatives. Calling them a bunch of unwise people is like saying "all blondes are dumb."
posted by Hands of Manos at 9:41 PM on January 23, 2005


OK, facts have never gotten in the way for liberals, either. We've abused "facts" about everything from affirmative action to social promotion to ESL to the environment to abortion.

I think the difference is that we tend to stretch and make up facts, whereas the "other side" ignores inconvenient ones. But that's a generalization, and I admit as much.
posted by sachinag at 9:43 PM on January 23, 2005


I think the difference is that we tend to stretch and make up facts, whereas the "other side" ignores inconvenient ones. But that's a generalization, and I admit as much.

Wow. I don't know why, but I agree. I mean, as a generalization, but yeah. Although certainly some of the Soviet apologists violate this divide.

Great article, by the way. Too many arguments don't see past their own nose.
posted by Sticherbeast at 9:57 PM on January 23, 2005


I think anyone who studies political science long enough realises that there's no 'we', no real identifiable differences between the two ends of the false dichotomy created by a two-party system. The right-left spectrum isn't a horizontal line, it's a circle (as Hands of Manos has articulated).

It seems tempting to some people to polarize every issue into 'us and them', except that most people are infinitely more complex, so they agree with some people on one issue, and other people on another other, and violently disagree with both regarding a third issue.
posted by cosmonik at 10:01 PM on January 23, 2005


Definatly an interesting artical. He keeps it pretty well balanced, but like anything it's one mans point of view. I think he missed the mark in some places. But that's because even he is generalizing and one can only be so specific.

i.e. he talks a lot about morals. Morals a fine, and everyone has them in some form. But many people like me do not think laws should be based on morals at all, but on protecting individual rights.

on preview

cosmonik how the Hell did you work Manos into a political discussion? So is Torgo a Republican you think?
posted by MrBobaFett at 10:08 PM on January 23, 2005


I thought this article had its heart in the right place, but didn't provide much in the way of support. At bottom, many of these 'myths' are empirical questions. Unfortunately, there isn't (as far as I know) much existing data out there that can answer them one way or the other. Some of the issues are admittedly difficult to address because of definitional issues (e.g., do you really want to equate a person's degree of morality with the frequency of their church attendance?), but others could be tackled with fairly simple designs.

For example, if you want to determine whether liberals or conservatives are smarter, all you'd have to do is give a large sample of people of diverse demographic background and political affiliation a battery of standard psychometric tests. I'm reminded of the "Wealth of Nations" graph of IQ by state that even made it into the economist a couple of months ago. That data turned out to be bogus; but there's no reason why you can't collect this sort of data in principle (granted, there might be all sorts of practical obstacles). An opinion piece that cites two or three questionable statistics just isn't the right way to answer this kind of question, even though it has an "awww shucks, we're all the same deep down" kind of appeal going for it.
posted by heavy water at 10:45 PM on January 23, 2005


But can we all agree that, en masse, Americans are selfish and ignorant, no matter their political stripes? Can we at least have that much agreement? ;)
posted by The God Complex at 11:23 PM on January 23, 2005


The idea that red state voters chose Bush because they’re ignorant or uneducated is bigoted, not to mention inaccurate.
[...]
Conversely, most people who are highly educated are quite religious too: 72% percent of people with post-graduate degrees believed in miracles


Educated != intelligent.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 11:50 PM on January 23, 2005


the only thing worse than following a political system is choosing it.

lefties, righties--bah! to you both.
posted by gorgor_balabala at 12:15 AM on January 24, 2005


The only problem is that comparing the Bush Administration to the Nazis is completely, although apparently perversely, rational.
posted by Embryo at 12:17 AM on January 24, 2005


MrBobafett, I believe he was talking about Hands of Manos the person, not Hands of Manos the movie...
posted by graventy at 3:30 AM on January 24, 2005


Whether you agree with it or not, the heart of the pro-life position is the belief that life begins at conception, and therefore abortion is murder. Liberals who don't share that the foundational assumption have a hard time understanding the passion of pro-life voters. Yet they easily admire the radical abolitionists of the 1860s -- who were as "rabid" and doctrinaire in their opposition to slavery as pro-lifers are today.

This is one particular point that seems like a sound logical argument (although I'd argue that anti-abortion politics is a little more religiously charged than he makes it out to be) and convinces me that barring tremendous scientific breakthroughs on the definition of life, abortion will be the most inflammatory political issue for a long time to come.
posted by themadjuggler at 3:51 AM on January 24, 2005


But can we all agree that, en masse, Americans are selfish and ignorant, no matter their political stripes? Can we at least have that much agreement? ;)

God Complex, I could argue that, but I just sent my wife out to get the H2 warmed up and I'm late for my MAI TAI Latte from starbucks.
posted by Hands of Manos at 4:27 AM on January 24, 2005


This article is shit. He picks and chooses with abandon and uses statistics with no sources. This, for instance:

The idea that red state voters chose Bush because they’re ignorant or uneducated is bigoted, not to mention inaccurate. The least educated voters, people with no high school diploma favored Kerry 50%-49%.

But earlier he was discussing intelligence but then switched it to education level. I'm sure the author realizes that you drop out of high school because you have bad parents, not because you're necessarily dumber than your peers who finish. And he leaves out the stat that defeats his crappy reasoning at the other end-- people with PhDs voted for Kerry by a huge margin. The author probably knows this, but he didn't bother mentioning it because it doesn't fit his argument.

Liberals believe that historically red state conservatives were on the wrong side of the civil rights struggle (first as conservative Democrats and then as Republicans) and that they opposed much of the campaign for equal rights for women that enabled Condoleezza Rice to be National Security Advisor and Sandra Day O'Connor to be on the Supreme Court...

When I read that passage, I was done reading. Why does he preface with "liberals believe"? Unless you're opposed to the civil rights movement, that preface is unnecessary. The author can't be that scared of offending anyone...
posted by Mayor Curley at 4:41 AM on January 24, 2005


Its not about education level or intelligence level, its about the level of dissonance. Partitioning your life into neat little segments to allow high levels of dissonance isn't a sign of a healthy person. Anyone notice how our current culture of consumption, greed and dissonance promotes bad health?
posted by nofundy at 5:07 AM on January 24, 2005


President Bush's faith based initiative is highly pluralistic and he has spoken out for religious tolerance. Equating him or his supporters with regimes that execute dissidents or blow up buildings is heinous.

Dissidents Executed... [Check]
Buildings Blown Up...[Check]
seems pretty equatable to me

back on semi-topic...
Seems to me that most republicans seem to frame the issues differently than myself, and focus on completely different issues than those i would. i mean, for the republicans, this election seemed to be mainly about a gay marriage ban and endorsing the war on terror. while i would love to see the war end in iraq, personally i am more concerned about domestic policy changes that have been completely ignored / hidden ever since clinton left.

healthcare reform? (i dont have any health insurance)
education?
alternative energy initatives?

these seem like pretty universal concerns, at least for those of us who arent rich on oil profits just yet. our country is falling apart and we are argueing about a war on the other side of the world that we started for no good reason and whether or not gays can get married. seems to me we are going downhill fast and we havent even started looking for the brakes yet.
posted by sophist at 5:25 AM on January 24, 2005


As an outsider, can I point out that by worldwide standards, the U.S. political spectrum runs from moderate-right to extreme-right?
posted by signal at 5:31 AM on January 24, 2005


MrBobafett, I believe he was talking about Hands of Manos the person, not Hands of Manos the movie...

Haha, my bad, ignore me.
posted by MrBobaFett at 5:31 AM on January 24, 2005


Worry not, sophist, for freedom is on the march!
posted by mek at 5:32 AM on January 24, 2005


I've always thought the disparity between liberals and conservatives wasn't really intelligence versus stupidity but Id versus Superego- or rather pretending to exert parental authority versus pretending to maintain youthful naivite.

I think the best example of this is the difference between liberals and conservatives in their desire to "parent" the other side- liberals discuss politics like the teenager angry at their parents- look what they did wrong, look what they made me do, look how outdated and stupid they are, they need to get with the times.

Conservatives always like to "give advice" to liberals- "you silly children, you'll never get anywhere hanging out with that nasty Michael Moore boy from down the street." And how many times do you see a conservative article about what he/she thinks the Democrats need to do? George Will wrote an article this weekend about his feelings on Dean as the DNC chair. He's fuck-all as far as relevance to the Democratic Party, so why does he care? Because as a conservative, it's his mindset to act as though he's in an authority over Democrats.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:08 AM on January 24, 2005


the disparity between liberals and conservatives wasn't really intelligence versus stupidity but Id versus Superego

I can see elements of this. Republicans play so much with the truth because, like children, they want things that some people don't want them to have. So they lie in order to get it, or throw temper tantrums that cost billions of dollars and kill thousands of people when it looks like Mommy's on to them.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:39 AM on January 24, 2005


Civil,

I'm just being the devil's advocate here but didn't Michael Moore throw a little temper tantrum at the awards ceremony? I know the answer to that (or what I feel that you might say) but isn't it on a similiar scale?

As far as Democrats lying. Clinton: "I didn't have sex with THAT woman." And Al Franken's little mishap with putting his notes on Harvard letterhead when he never really went to Harvard?

I know these things are on a different scale and can be said "none of these things the Democrats did killed thousands of Americans" but isnt' a lie a lie and a tantrum a tantrum?

(Once again I'd like to point out that I am certainly not backing a political party rather I'm showing that neither Dem's or Rep's/Libs or Cons are knights in shining armor)
posted by Hands of Manos at 7:18 AM on January 24, 2005


Basically... the Left needs to embrace religion

I am a Christian, and I attend regularly. I am also a liberal Democrat who believes that my morals come from my faith, but the works that come out of those morals come from rational thought and experimentation.

The problem with the current religious argument is not that liberals want to remove religion from the country -- we don't. The problem is that conservatives want to remove rationality from public discourse and base everything upon unquestioned religious beliefs dictated from the pulpit.

We tried that once in England. The English Christian hierarchy allowed other Christians no freedom to worship, and it was so damaging that many Christians fled England to come to a new world. We should not go back to a time when one type of Christianity tells other Christians or people of other faiths how to worship. This country was specifically founded to put that to rest.

Our founders based their new country on the ideals of rationalism, assuming that God had created a rational universe and that through greater understanding came greater good. They believed science would reveal God's works, even if it did not reveal God.

They left the revelation of God to the church, and specifically allowed everyone to attend the church of their desire without being told how, when or whether to worship.
posted by nathanrudy at 7:26 AM on January 24, 2005


I really think it's unfair to say "Republicans lie to get what they want" even though it's true. You see, both major parties lie to get what they want. When they have all the power, there's no reason not to do so.

This is why it's best when the power is split, and it requires approval of more than one party to get anything done.

Nothing scares me as much as a government with the ability to act without significant internal opposition.
posted by mosch at 7:26 AM on January 24, 2005


President Bush's faith based initiative is highly pluralistic and he has spoken out for religious tolerance. Equating him or his supporters with regimes that execute dissidents or blow up buildings is heinous.

I'll grant you the latter sentence but not the former. The country already provides funding to religious organizations to provide good works in the community. That is not new, and has been going on for eons.

However, that money was conditioned on the organizations adhering to federal non-discrimination laws and not pushing their own particular religious beliefs on the people they were supposed to be helping. In short, it meant that these organizations could not use the taxpayers' dollars to push their religious agenda. That seems perfectly rational to me whether we are talking about Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Wiccan or whatever.

But Bush's "faith-based initiatives" program is working to remove those strictures, which allows my money to be used to push specific religious doctrines. He specifically wants taxpayers' money to be used to fund religious services, and to pay for jobs that hire based on religious beliefs. That is not rational at all.
posted by nathanrudy at 7:32 AM on January 24, 2005


"One can disagree, but I would love the opportunity to watch Anne Coulter tell the Pope his opposition to the war isn't based on morality."

Me too. ; )
posted by SisterHavana at 7:57 AM on January 24, 2005


didn't Michael Moore throw a little temper tantrum at the awards ceremony

There's a difference between outrage and war.

but isnt' a lie a lie and a tantrum a tantrum

I guess so, but my point was that the motivation behind the actions separate us. A lie to protect (or create) personal integrity is a world apart from a lie used to manipulate or coerce. This doesn't even take into account the actual implication of the lie--which, as you already note, are vastly more dire with Republicans.

Nothing scares me as much as a government with the ability to act without significant internal opposition.

Or external opposition.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:22 AM on January 24, 2005


[rats, didn't preview]

A lie to protect (or create) personal integrity is a world apart from a lie used to manipulate or coerce someone into action.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:23 AM on January 24, 2005


Truth About Conservatives #1: They're Just As Smart As Liberals

"Smart" is an ill-defined, meaningless term. But certainly, on average, they are less educated.

A lie to protect (or create) personal integrity

I see your words, but they don't mean anything...
posted by rushmc at 9:18 AM on January 24, 2005


Hands of Manos: VP_Admin, I'm not trollbaiting...

Are you calling me a troll or are you saying you don't wish to be mistaken for a troll?

Hands of Manos: "you're not a conservative but you call them the most unwise people to be found anywhere on earth."

What I said was this: The "conservatives" of the US tend to be advocates and apologists for Bush's violence.

Bush's followers are not wise. In fact, they are among the most unwise people to be found anywhere on earth."

Notice how I put "conservatives" in quotes, implying that I don't really consider them conservatives. I actually consider them radicals.

Notice I condemned "Bush followers" as "among the most unwise on earth".

You ought to read more carefully.

Hands of Manos: I know plenty of very wise and intellectual conservatives. Calling them a bunch of unwise people is like saying "all blondes are dumb."

That analogy is totally inappropriate. Blondness is a genetic inheritance. Political support for Bush is a psycho/social disease.
posted by VP_Admin at 9:58 AM on January 24, 2005


C_D: A lie to protect (or create) personal integrity [is not as bad as ...]
rushmc: I see your words, but they don't mean anything...


Don't play stupid. Surely you don't believe all lies are exactly equivalent. Surely a lie about one's personal life in front of a political smear machine isn't the same as a lie involving billions of dollars of public money and thousands of human lives. Take responsibility for your side, and stop shunting blame.

Why do the Republicans think that "we're at least as bad as Clinton" is a good defense?
posted by fleacircus at 10:10 AM on January 24, 2005


VP_Admin,

trollbaiting - setting you up to eat you alive. (that was not my intent).

Implications on a heated topic - not very wise. (it's like assuming)
posted by Hands of Manos at 10:21 AM on January 24, 2005


Don't play stupid. Surely you don't believe all lies are exactly equivalent.

Did I say that I did? But I do think they are all bad and to be avoided whenever possible. My direct point, though, was that the statement "a lie to create integrity" is paradoxical and meaningless, as integrity is defined by honesty.

Take responsibility for your side

My side? :::breaks down in a fit of laughter::: I assure you, I'm more opposed to Bush and his ilk than anyone else on this board.
posted by rushmc at 10:26 AM on January 24, 2005


The current political party system doesn't suit the way I believe the government should run. Of course that is because I'm too "conservative" to be a "liberal" (i.e. I am for moderate to low taxation and am a little to straightlaced), but I'm way to "liberal" to be a "conservative" (because I believe in social justice, ending the Iraq war, and reducing the army to a size that will "provide for the common defense") So, what party out there embraces my "moderate" stance? Ever since I've been able to vote, I've felt like I had to choose between the lesser of two evils. For once it'd be nice to have a true moderate run for office.
posted by Numenorian at 10:36 AM on January 24, 2005


For once it'd be nice to have a true moderate run for office.

Numenorian,

This is probably going to open pandora's box but Libertarian is a good starting point. The Lib's are trying to get enough supporters to move to Vermont to make it the very first Libertarian state.

I'd already be up there and moved in however my wife is none too keen on the idea (she doesn't want to move that far up north).

Actually I don't care if a true moderate ran for office or not. HE/She would just lie his/her ass off too to get where He/She needed to be. What I wish was that they'd just speak the truth. If Dear ol' Dubya would just say:

"Hi I'm George W Bush and I'm mean as hell. I've got an agenda, I'm rich and I'm for the rich but somewhere along the line I'll make sure that if you want to be rich, you can have that chance too. I'm for oil, I'm for blowing the shit out of things, I like the words 'shock' and 'awe.' Vote for me, I'm Dubya and I'm gonna kick ass! GOOO TEAM!"

Then I'd almost vote for the guy for being honest (same goes for kerry and/or anyone else). If Clinton would have not said "I didn't have sex with THAT woman" and said "No I didn't have sex with Monica, but she's got a little carpet burn on her knees...if you know what I mean..." then I'd had a little more respect for him in that situation.

Sugar coating is something I hate. Politics is the art of deception (IMHO)
posted by Hands of Manos at 11:00 AM on January 24, 2005


a lie involving billions of dollars of public money and thousands of human lives.

Shouldn't that be "hundreds of thousands of human lives"? Or did they change the defintion of "human" while I wasn't looking?
posted by signal at 11:27 AM on January 24, 2005


the statement "a lie to create integrity" is paradoxical and meaningless, as integrity is defined by honesty

Clinton lied in order to maintain the integrity people perceived in him. Understand now, Corky?
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:19 PM on January 24, 2005


Numenorian, something we should clear up. Liberal is not the opposite of conservative. progressive is the opposite of conservative. Liberal only indicates open mindedness and drawing your own unbiased conclusions. Liberals are not inherently pro-gun or pro-gun-control.. they can be either as long as they looked at as many facts as they can from both sides, analyze it themself, and come to their own conclusion.

Think of it this way, Conservatives tend to be Republicans, Progressives tend to be Democrats, and Liberals are all party independent.
posted by MrBobaFett at 3:20 PM on January 24, 2005


Actually I don't care if a true moderate ran for office or not. HE/She would just lie his/her ass off too to get where He/She needed to be. What I wish was that they'd just speak the truth.

Damn missed this on preview. Anyway. Exactly! Well almost. I wouldn't vote for Bush if he told the truth, but I would have at least an ounce of respect for him. And yes Clinton's lie was not a big lie, however the fact is he shouldn't have.

When you fuck up you have to fess up to it. Even if you make an honest mistake, you absolutely should own up and take responsibility. From the various bosses I've worked for, those who own up and don't hide that they make mistakes, have always been better leaders and were more trusted.
posted by MrBobaFett at 3:26 PM on January 24, 2005


New Hampshire, Hands of Manos, not Vermont.
posted by Zed_Lopez at 3:39 PM on January 24, 2005


doh! Thanks Zed!
posted by Hands of Manos at 5:47 PM on January 24, 2005


Clinton lied in order to maintain the integrity people perceived in him.

A lie to maintain an illusion (or even the truth, for that matter) is still just a lie...it doesn't make the jump to integrity.
posted by rushmc at 9:28 PM on January 24, 2005


Hey, I know what will make a grrrreat! discussion! Let's get bogged down in semantics!

"What is 'truth', really?" "What is, 'is'?"

Really, you must be a gas at parties, rush.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 3:04 AM on January 25, 2005


At least what I say makes sense. You should try it sometime.
posted by rushmc at 8:42 AM on January 25, 2005


Are you sure those bastards aren't just the Devil?
posted by nanojath at 9:41 PM on February 22, 2005


« Older Who's in the mood for some crunches!!!?...  |  The Scandal of the Evangelical... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments