On Mon, 01 Dec 2003 05:39:45 GMT, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:

"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .

And an argument like the one you're making here is a legitimate one,
while a
lie like Ford is perpetuating is not.

Where was the lie? If a statement is ambiguous that doesn't make it a lie
if you
disagree with one of the possible interpretations of it.

Buddabing! (rimshot)

I think you've just put your finger on it, Gunner. So, if you can get away
with a plausible denial about the meaning of something that can be parsed
into a valid syllogism but which is presented to give a false impression,
you'll accept it as "truth," eh?

If you like that, you'll *love* reading Goebbels. You're just the kind of
student he would have appreciated. g

Geeze Ed , I dont even have to leave the US to read that sort of
thing. I simply have to read "Earth In the Balance", any Clinton
Speech (either him or her), Any commentary from the DNC, all works
from the environmentalists, anything from Handgun Control Inc, Sarah
Brady's stuff etc etc ad neaseum ad infinitum.

Shrug..It wasnt Goebbels whom perfected this..but the 1990s Liberals
in the US.

One of the big differences though..my Ford sig was true. While the
others above use Big Lie theory in much of their work.

Its only propaganda when a Conservative uses the same tactics the Left
brags about.

Gunner

"[T]he Clinton administration launched an attack on people in Texas
because those people were religious nuts with guns.
Hell, this country was founded by religious nuts with guns.\
Who does Bill Clinton think stepped ashore on Plymouth Rock?
Peace Corps volunteers? Or maybe the people in Texas were attacked
because of child abuse. But, if child abuse was the issue,
why didn't Janet Reno tear-gas Woody Allen?
-- P.J. O'Rourke, speech at the Cato Institute, May 6, 1993