2007-09-16 18:25:33 · 11 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Edit: to Jackie Oh!- I see you have a problem with reading comprehention. This question was about liberals. Not our President. Thanks for adding credibility to my question, though.
2007-09-16 18:35:18 · update #1
Good question!
I believe it has alot to do with the negative public perception of liberals in general, and leftwing ideology in particular.
Socialism and communism have extremely negative connotations for the vast majority of the US public (and rightly so). This leads leftwingers to re-label and re-package themselves as something else...for example, "socialist" is changed to "progessive"...in the hopes of fooling some people.
The leftists only hope for political success in the USA is to pull the wool over people's eyes. The American people are a freedom-loving breed, and will not willingly allow the tyranny of Socialism to be imposed upon them.
2007-09-16 20:46:12 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 9⤋
I posted this answer to a similar question.
A more informative approach is asking "Why" adherents of each party thinks and believes the way they do.
In his book, "Moral Politics, (how Liberals & Conservatives think,)" George Lakoff, addresses this question.
Lakoff says that our beliefs about what we want for ourselves and our children, and how to get there are formed early; we view government metaphorically, as if the Country were a big family. The President is the father, and we are the children.
He posits "strict father" and "nurturant parent" models to explain Liberal and Conservative viewpoints, but concedes that most people are some mixture of the two models.
http://www.press.uchicago.edu/Misc/Chicago/467716.html
So, what's the role of the father once the children become adults? Does, or should, he intrude on our lives?
Does he offer a helping hand, or should we sink or swim on our own? Should we question his judgements?
Lakoff says we unconsciously hark back to how we feel about these and similar questions when forming our political viewpoints.
Very interesting book, and a new way of understanding our differences.
2007-09-16 19:34:39 · answer #2 · answered by Just an American 3 · 0⤊ 3⤋
Pathological lairs are not born, they do this to cover up , to make them self look better or more qualified, when in reality they are not better or more qualified. If they were better or more qualified, then why would they have to be so mendacious, when referring to them self, or talking about some one else.
2007-09-16 19:51:54 · answer #3 · answered by lilly4 6 · 0⤊ 2⤋
I have never said that I thought Bush was an upstanding, truthful, honest man!!
But seriously.
Please point out where I have ever lied about anything.
2007-09-16 22:15:42 · answer #4 · answered by midnight&moonlight'smom 4 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Like Harriet Miers being the most qualified candidate for the Supreme Court? Like Clarence Thomas stating he had no opinion about Roe v Wade? Like WMD? Like Ney and DeLay and Cunningham's pleas of innocence?
2007-09-16 18:35:14 · answer #5 · answered by iwasnotanazipolka 7 · 6⤊ 5⤋
Mendacious is in the eye of the beholder. I don't see them as such.
2007-09-16 18:36:16 · answer #6 · answered by truth seeker 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
My answers to all questions following the format "Why are ___ always ___" is simple; they are not.
2007-09-16 18:39:29 · answer #7 · answered by St. Bastard 4 · 5⤊ 2⤋
LOL!! Well...Liberals are not mendacious. They're veracious, sometimes audacious, often tenacious... but rarely mendacious.
Actually, it's cons that are prone to being mendacious. Not to mention 'rapacious'!
2007-09-16 18:53:18 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 4⤊ 7⤋
let me guess, you think extreme over-generalization is what makes common sense?
And before you report me for not answering your question....
that comment has an implied statment, That implied statment is simply:
They aren't.
2007-09-16 18:36:56 · answer #9 · answered by avail_skillz 7 · 4⤊ 4⤋
Why are they so sphinctitious?
2007-09-16 18:51:25 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋