[Peace-discuss] Not that Obama's any better

[C. G. Estabrook]

Why isn't it better to find out what's true in regard to Obama's position -- 
such as what he's said about Rev. Wright's observations? --CGE


Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
> John and Mort,
> Yeah, the Bush Gang, Limbaugh, O'Reilly et al follow the same course of 
> action: Say that a thing is true often and loudly enuff, and folks will 
> believe it's true... hence the unrelated and perjorative subject line 
> which gets objected to, repeated, and read over and over again by 
> subscribers to this list (and which I've again bowdlerized)... 
>  --Jenifer 
> 
> */"C. G. Estabrook" <galliher at uiuc.edu>/* wrote:
> 
>     Delighted to be able to give you such joy, John. While you're
>     writhing with
>     pleasure, you might reflect on what you know quite well, that
>     liberalism is the
>     name we give currently to the covert and overt political theory of
>     possessive
>     individualism.
> 
>     The theory holds that society is made up of isolated individuals,
>     having only
>     chosen and not necessary relations to others. (Or as one of its
>     modern prophets,
>     Margret Thatcher, put it, "There is no such thing as society: there are
>     individual men and women, and there are families...")
> 
>     Not the least contradiction in the theory is that it ignores the
>     condition of
>     its own apparition, viz. the rise of capitalist society, in which
>     all human
>     relations are fantasized as commodities ("the fact-value
>     distinction"), and
>     everyone becomes a salesman. --CGE
> 
> 
>     John W. wrote:
>      > At 09:38 AM 4/29/2008, C. G. Estabrook wrote:
>      >
>      >> Liberals entertain the fantasy that reality is subject to their
>     wills.
>      >>
>      >> Solipsism is a constant temptation to them.
>      >
>      >
>      > Oh, GOD Carl, I LOVE it when you do the pot-kettle-black thing!!! :-P
>      >
>      >
>      >
>      >> Jenifer Cartwright wrote:
>      >>
>      >>> "True" only in YOUR reality, Carl :-)
>      >>>
>      >>> */"C. G. Estabrook" /* wrote:
>      >>> No, the subject line is explained by the fact that it's true, and
>      >>> the opposite
>      >>> implication is false.
>      >>> ...
> 
> 
>     _______________________________________________
>     Peace-discuss mailing list
>     Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>     http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try 
> it now. 
> <http://us.rd.yahoo.com/evt=51733/*http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ 
>  >
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Peace-discuss mailing list
> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss