Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Truth Under Fire [Libs Lie Again on Forest Fires]
Wall St. Journal ^ | July 11, 2002 | Editorial

Posted on 07/11/2002 1:28:56 AM PDT by The Raven

Edited on 04/22/2004 11:46:46 PM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-55 last
To: The Raven

Nicer to see them admit it once in a while

Not only is it in their eyes a sign of weakness to admit their own errors, it is to demonstrate a demarcation point wherein an observer can delineate that the person does in fact have honor and integrity to act honestly.

The importance of that is overwhelming. Once a person has shown that degree of maturity -- that degree of honesty and integrity -- it is expected that they will continue to demonstrate a similar high degree of that character trait.

Thus, it is not a one time event of showing weakness they most fear, rather, it is an ongoing condition of honest charter development that they fear the observer will hold them to.

You see, they know how often they intentionally deceive and to demonstrate the honest character of freely admitting one's own error would thwart their future deceptions. ...They would be called to the matt -- their feet held to the fire -- to again demonstrate mature character development to acknowledge/admit their error. For the alternative is far more destabilizing to their authority (which is really just their self-proclaimed authority). That would be for them to defend their argument, to defend an argument that is indefensible. So they avoid at all cost demonstrating a mature character trait that the vast majority of adults take for granted in themselves.

Also, a person over time can admit to only so many errors before they become discredited. Admitting errors and position oneself  as "everyone makes errors" only goes as far as people make a few errors, not several errors in their field of expertise. So that can't take that route either.

In effect, they chose to pigeon hole themselves into continued irrationality that leads to deceptions and dishonesty. All in effort to support their "authority" status. Which again is merely their self-proclaimed authority status.

Bottom line, they have sullen self-esteem and envy others that have earned their self-esteem based on rational, honest and mature charter development. Those positive charter traits are the properties of the value creator -- the workers of the world that create the goods and services that increase the well-being, health and prosperity of self, others and society. They hold real and valid power. They create the sustenance for enhancing human life. They are the envy of self-proclaimed authorities.

The above identifications are wider in scope than to include just bogus environmentalist. It encompasses all self-proclaimed authorities and especially politicians and bureaucrats with their supporting/complicit media and academia "authorities".

Thank you. I needed a "sounding board" to collect my thoughts in forming a somewhat complex psychological structure to deliver a coherent message deconstructing an unfortunate and unnecessary everyday occurrence -- self-proclaimed authorities harming or destroying honest value creators and their work.

41 posted on 07/11/2002 12:31:14 PM PDT by Zon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Movemout
Well, they will have US troops wearing those Blue Helmets so 99% of America will accept it. Nothing will be said about the truth on TV, so it must be okay, huh Mommy?
42 posted on 07/11/2002 2:28:27 PM PDT by B4Ranch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: B4Ranch
Well, they will have US troops wearing those Blue Helmets so 99% of America will accept it.

I hope you're wrong. If you're right we are in deep kimchee.

43 posted on 07/11/2002 2:34:52 PM PDT by Movemout
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies]

To: BOBTHENAILER
Actually, I like that line, should be followed by: Playboy's burning hot next issue will feature "Women of the Sierra Club".

Think I'll skip that Playboy issue. I don't like my women with hair on their legs and under their arms!

44 posted on 07/11/2002 2:39:12 PM PDT by CedarDave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Movemout
When I start to think of all the Americans that work under the UN control now without realizing it, I get frustrated. Actually pissed off. The ignorance that abounds in America regarding the United Nations today is a common as dog fleas.

Our entire National Park Dept. works under UN guidlines. Agenda 21 is a UN guidline. Bio-diversity is a UN guided program. Any program with the name Heritage in it is UN guided. Our US Forestry Service is working under UN guidlines. Our INS is following UN guidlines. The Army Corp of Engineers has been following their guidlines for so long I can't stand it. EPA, ESA are both agencies strictly following UN rules.

Just look at the different Agencies or Departments in your own local community and I'll bet 3/4 of the employees are working under UN guidlines and DON'T EVEN KNOW IT!

If they were all required to wear a UN patch, I'll bet it would be 250,000 people.

45 posted on 07/11/2002 2:52:28 PM PDT by B4Ranch
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: madfly
bump
46 posted on 07/11/2002 8:57:44 PM PDT by mafree
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: CWRWinger
==Where do they get the money from?

The most obvious is donations. Save the whales, save the trees, save the water, save the three toed toadies... It is a billion dollar industry. The not so under the table blackmail, aka "jackson outrage for sale" is far too present. Many cases of "do this for us (give us this land, make this park, pass this law) and we will drop the protest" is in evidence. Look into how land wealthy the Sierra Club is.

If they were held accountable for the damages they cause directly with lawsuits they do not carry through, clear harassment cases, they would be bankrupt in no time and would have to find a different way.

I personally have no problem with a suit they carry through to the end, it is all the launch and leave suits that are using the court delay time to obstruct instead of debate the issues. To use the stays as a targeted destruction of an environmental report is not the intention or meaning of the right to sue, and is in fact a clear indication of the hypocrisy of the left in its own distain of the environmental reports forced on business at their hands.

Accountability is what they demand of others, and avoid at all costs on themselves.
47 posted on 07/11/2002 9:37:59 PM PDT by American in Israel
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
Bump
48 posted on 07/12/2002 12:26:28 AM PDT by Kay Soze
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: American in Israel
Look into how land wealthy the Sierra Club is.

I went to their website. They claim to have 700,000 members and donations are not tax deductible. I still suspect there may be government study grants somewhere in the largess.

49 posted on 07/12/2002 3:55:04 AM PDT by CWRWinger
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 47 | View Replies]

To: The Raven
Bump!
50 posted on 07/14/2002 6:56:18 PM PDT by AuntB
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: madfly
Mega-bump!!!!
51 posted on 07/15/2002 4:19:23 PM PDT by FReethesheeples
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: madfly
Mega-bump!!!!
52 posted on 07/15/2002 4:19:23 PM PDT by FReethesheeples
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
What do these people do for a living. . .?
53 posted on 08/26/2002 4:18:57 PM PDT by cricket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: cricket
Their parents pay them an allowance to stay away from home and from them.
54 posted on 08/26/2002 5:33:49 PM PDT by Grampa Dave
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Grampa Dave
"Their parents pay them an allowance to stay away from home and from them."

. . .I'll buy that :^)

. . . wonder how how much gas they use as they crisscross the country in their old vans. . .less than a new SUV?

55 posted on 08/27/2002 6:22:56 AM PDT by cricket
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-55 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson