Talk:Deceit/Archive 1

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

The assertion "Liberals rarely criticize deceit"

The assertion "Liberals rarely criticize deceit" is made in this "article". Please remove this lie immediately. Feel free to make some bizarre anti-abortion reference, after all, this site is your blog, basically, on the issues you hold dear. But if you think "liberals" don't criticize deceit, you're not paying attention. The clearest recent example is the Bush administration's deceit about weapons of mass destruction in order to invade Iraq. See me criticizing it? I'll criticize the BayGulf of Tonkin lies, too, if you need me to be even-handed about presidents lying us into unnecessary wars. Human 20:55, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

Carefull now, the last two users who dared to touch that claim are now banned. While using this site i have learned several new words and phrases, which is nice as i don't speak english as my native language. One of those words is: "concervative fact". And i think it's exactly what we have here. Claim that we liberals are deceivers isn't a lie or gross generalization, it's an concervative fact and claiming otherwise shows liberal bias. Allso like most conservative facts, it dosent need citation or anything to back the claim, facts are facts.
Okey, and now ill apologize my outburst, but Mr.Aschlafly, i ask you, how would you react if some one accused you of being a deceiver or accepting deceptions with out any other evidence than that you think yourself as conservative? I really ask you to reconcider both the content of this article and the banning of those two users who most likely where offended by it's content and tryed to change it. There is no way one can justify a claim like that in an encyclopedia. Timppeli 21:41, 20 April 2007 (EDT)
Thank you for the warning, Timppeli, but as much as I try, I cannot seem to get any bannings! Maybe it is because I keep adding to the "encyclopedia" that backs up this blog. Human 01:03, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

I agree: this is not encyclopedia-worth material.

Middle Man

Liberals here protest too much about this entry on deceit. In both examples, the deceit by liberals is conclusively proven. But did other liberals who joined in the deceit apologize for it? Not that I'm aware. Show me examples of apologies and I'll add them.
Additional airtight proofs of deceit can be added. But partisan opinions will not be.--Aschlafly 01:16, 21 April 2007 (EDT)
Silly me, I keep forgetting that all Liberals are, rather than being individual people with varying opinions on topics, mere appendages of a single world-spanning hivemind, and thus all are guilty for the misdeeds of every one. That's why all political statements made by anyone less Conservative than Pat Robertson have to be prefaced by a three-hour disclaimer renouncing every single evil deed committed by every liberal dating back to Ramses II, right? --Gulik2 22:53, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Politicians Lie. It's pretty much in the job description these days.
I'll run with the Gulf of Tonkin/Johnson/Viet Nam and WMDs/Bush/Iraq lies. By the way, you have a typo at "after communist collapsed". I'd fix it but, well, the article is locked. Human 18:04, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

Examples

Should these be included as an example of deceit?

Can the following examples of deceit be added to the main page? It is currently locked and a tad bit one sided. --Mtur 13:54, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

What is deceitful about Wolfowitz's statement? RobS 22:41, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
Also, Tillman could not be used like this, because it is not Tillman being accused of deceit. RobS 22:43, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
One of the reasons to go to war was "removal of troops from Saudi Arabia"[1], however the lack of finding WMDs and the various indications that known faulty/unreliable intelligence was used to come to the WMD claim. That because of bureaucracy, the case for WMDs was the one offered forward to the American people. Not the actual reasons (whatever those may be).
I have retitled the section on Pat Tillman.
Still, all of these are in the Talk section. Is there merit for moving any of these to the article? --Mtur 22:54, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

Paul Wolfowitz

"For bureaucratic reasons, we settled on one issue, weapons of mass destruction (as justification for invading Iraq) because it was the one reason everyone could agree on." Paul Wolfowitz, May 28, 2003[1] --Mtur 22:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

What a joke! Click on this one [2] Who made the above quote on May 28, 2003, Paul Wolfowitz or his interviewer, DeYoung? And you present this as an example of deceit? A little disengenous, don't you think, the wrong link, the wrong cite, not even the right person speaking, and calling this as an example of deceit ? RobS 23:04, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
The Vanity Fair interview transcript shows quite clearly:
Q: Was that one of the arguments that was raised early on by you and others that Iraq actually does connect, not to connect the dots too much, but the relationship between Saudi Arabia, our troops being there, and bin Laden's rage about that, which he's built on so many years, also connects the World Trade Center attacks, that there's a logic of motive or something like that? Or does that read too much into --
Wolfowitz: No, I think it happens to be correct. The truth is that for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction as the core reason, but -- Hold on one second.
(Pause)
Kellems: Sam there may be some value in clarity on the point that it may take years to get post-Saddam Iraq right. It can be easily misconstrued, especially when it comes to --
Wolfowitz: There have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. Sorry, hold on again.
My apologies for using the military transcript asking about the quote instead in which Wolfowitz goes more into what he meant than the Vanity Fair Transcript where it appears he was cut off. --Mtur 23:12, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
I see. So you admit to trying to convince us of something other than what the facts are. Thank you. Now, what do we make of this exchange:
Q: What do you think all the conspiritorial talk is? Do you have any notion, in Europe and here? What are people looking at this way?
Wolfowitz: I think it's pretty obvious and I think it's pretty disgraceful but all you can do is ignore it and go on and get the job done.
Q: What is it? I mean some say anti-Semitism. I guess in Europe that would be --
Wolfowitz: I just said all I'm going to say about it.
Comments? RobS 23:28, 24 April 2007 (EDT)
There is has been the accusation of a conspiracy between oil companies which the President is related to, the Saudi goverment, and other such theories. The argument for war that was mentioned in the Vanity Fair article does not have any of these. Look at Wolfowitz's statement "Wolfowitz: There have always been three fundamental concerns. One is weapons of mass destruction, the second is support for terrorism, the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people. Actually I guess you could say there's a fourth overriding one which is the connection between the first two. Sorry, hold on again." -- These were the reasons to go to war, not just WMD. By focusing on WMD and only on WMD as was done and selectively choosing the intelligence to present (and ignoring the intelligence that said there were no WMDs), there was a misleading of the American population as to the reason to go to war.
Wolfowitz then said "The third one by itself, as I think I said earlier, is a reason to help the Iraqis but it's not a reason to put American kids' lives at risk, certainly not on the scale we did it. That second issue about links to terrorism is the one about which there's the most disagreement within the bureaucracy, even though I think everyone agrees that we killed 100 or so of an al Qaeda group in northern Iraq in this recent go-around, that we've arrested that al Qaeda guy in Baghdad who was connected to this guy Zarqawi whom Powell spoke about in his UN presentation." -- In other words, the lack of support of terrorism was debated (and later shown to be correct - there was no connection), and to help the Iraqis was valid but not enough of a reason alone to go to war. Thus we heard 'WMD' repeated over and over again as the reason, even though there was evidence that the source for the WMD project was not reliable and there was no evidence that Sadam had an active WMD program. As to Zarqawi's relationship with al Qaeda read this Newsweek Article
But just last week, in little-noticed remarks, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld conceded that Zarqawi’s ties to Al Qaeda may have been much more ambiguous—and that he may have been more a rival than a lieutenant to bin Laden. Zarqawi “may very well not have sworn allegiance to [bin Laden]," Rumsfeld said at a Pentagon briefing. “Maybe he disagrees with him on something, maybe because he wants to be ‘The Man’ himself and maybe for a reason that’s not known to me.” Rumsfeld added that, “someone could legitimately say he’s not Al Qaeda.”
(a year later from the Wolfowitz interview).
Thus, the questions to answer:
  • Was the intelligence on WMDs known to be lacking or bad by those pushing it? [3]
    • Alternative reading: Was the assumption for "There are WMDs in Iraq, find intelligence to prove it" the case (read the paragraph begining "Rather, they were the product of poor intelligence collection..." from the above link).
  • Were there other reasons that lead to going to war that contributed to but were not sufficent?
  • Given the poor intelligence and unconvincing other reasons, was the case for war in Iraq deceitful?
--Mtur 20:32, 25 April 2007 (EDT)
The conspiracy theory relates specifically to anti-Semitism, i.e. conspiracy theories that state flatly a cabal of Jewish conspirators like Wolfowotz, Perle, et al, have suckered the United States into fighting Israel's wars for them. And the conspiracies do not stop there -- they even say these same conspirators blew the World Trade Center up themselves to get the American people involved in the War on Terror. These same conspirators invented lies like WMD to justify their actions. This specifically is the question Tannenhaus asked, and this specifically is the answer Wolfowitz gave with "I think it's pretty obvious and I think it's pretty disgraceful" and refused to comment further. And these conspiracies are rampant in Europe and the Arab world, and I'm sorry, the bogus cover about oil companies, etc. to sanitize this Ameerican brand of anti-Semitism will not fly here.
The 9/11 Commission Report infact cites a link between Saddam and al-Qeade, which is the reference given above. The US had been supporting Kurds in northern Iraq since the Gulf War, and the Kurds were fighting both Saddam and al-Qeada, as the Commission Report stated.
As to WMD, this interview doesn't reveal anything new. And there is no reason to speculate that simply because the US Government has not publicly announced much information on this subject, that news organizations accounts are definitive or authoritive.
Ultimately, again, the cited objective of the war was regime change; WMD was cited as one of several reasons for regime change, but the specific objective was regime change, not discovering WMD stockpiles for TV cameras to take pictures of. My appologies again for giving a quick answer on this, because it does warrant more discussion, but I'm a little rushed for time at the moment, and we can go into more detail later on the WMD business. But I'm not certain this is the correct page for what may be an extensive discussion of the matter. RobS 22:12, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

(Move indent) Ok, so Wolfowitz says,"There have always been three fundamental concerns.

  • One is weapons of mass destruction,
  • the second is support for terrorism,
  • the third is the criminal treatment of the Iraqi people."

And Wolfowitz also says, " for reasons that have a lot to do with the U.S. government bureaucracy we settled on the one issue that everyone could agree on which was weapons of mass destruction"

Now we will cite another well established and influencial decisionmaker in the U.S. governement bureacracy. This decision maker, in her own words, had been deeply involved in the subject for a decade. And we will study of the three reasons that the bureaucracy, which includes Wolfowitz and our source, cited as the reason to go to war, in what order do these reasons match Wolfowitz's. Further, the 9/11 Report infact documents several Saddam - al Qeada contacts for several years prior, but Wolfowitz here only refers to "support for terrorism". Here's our cite

"There is a very easy way for to prevent anyone from being put into harms way and that is for Saddam Hussein to disarm. And I have absolutely no belief that he will. I have to say that this is something that I have followed for a decade. If he were serious about disarming, he would have been much more forthcoming. There may be progress, we may be destroying his missiles, there is no accounting for the chemical and biological stocks. I just have to respectfully disagree what the proximate cause of any action that might be taken is. [4] RobS 16:49, 28 April 2007 (EDT)

Jack Abramoff

Jack Abramoff pleaded guilty to fraud, tax evasion and conspiracy to bribe public officials. A bit more digging beyond the guilty plea should identify a signficant amount of deceit in his dealings as a lobbyist. --Mtur 22:29, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

These look like better examples of deceit than those listed in the article. Jrssr5 10:41, 23 April 2007 (EDT)

Pentagon regarding Pat Tillman

There is growing evidence[5] to a cover up and use of the death of Pat Tillman as pro war propoganda by making Pat Tillman a hero rather than someone who got killed in a friendly fire incident. --Mtur 21:58, 24 April 2007 (EDT)


Can deceit be conservative?

I think so, but this page wasn't representing that. If all sides are to have a say, then there should be a kind of balance. At least, if we are to have a bias, we should acknowledge opposing views. Flippin 22:07, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

My 2 cents, again

What a ridiculous concept! That conservatives and liberals (whatever those terms may actually mean) have different views on deceit. I will avoid the whole topic of morality not being dependent on religion. Most people in most cultures disapprove of deceit. It has nothing to do with political affiliations. People are inherently flawed in many ways (see, e.g. Genesis). One doesn't need to be at Liberty U or Eagle Forum or the Vatican to think deceit is wrong; most people know it is wrong, and most practice it, as we are imperfect beings. This entire article is offensive on its face.--PalMDtalk 22:26, 20 April 2007 (EDT)

My viewpoint

Wherever there is power to be got, certain people will practise deceit. The Bible does not make distinction between "Liberal" or "Conservative" deceit, it condemns deceit regardless of who practises it.

Andy...?!

You can't delete fact! That's a legitimate footnote from the case! How is it opinion? Surely it's one judge's opinion, but similarly, all judgments of deceit are someone's opinion!-AmesGyo! 01:12, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Ames, I've explained at least a half-dozen times that opinions are not facts. I'm not going to waste more time on this. This is a warning that your account will be blocked if you continue to waste my time or the time of others on this.
Judge Jones' opinion is nothing more than an opinion. It is not a fact. There was no judgment on the issue you cite here; there was no appeal allowed; and the opinion is not neutral. Do not waste any more of my time.--Aschlafly 01:16, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Whether or not it was "neutral" is not at issue - it's what a judge said, and that's how I described it in the article. Do you need directions to my refutations of your arguments? They're in your archives, #16, when you choose to answer them. I realize you don't like this case, and that you don't like a lot of case law in America at the moment (Goodridge, hint hint?) but that doesn't mean it's not legal fact with binding authority, in the first case we clashed over, or a Republican judge's reasoned decision, in the last one. You can't make facts go away by shouting "Bias!"-AmesGyo! 01:18, 21 April 2007 (EDT)

Freud

Most great scientists have their theories disproved. Newton was wrong, Pasteur has been subject ot a great deal of correction. Part of the reason they are great is that they can buildmodels, hypotheses that are open to question. It is easy to make assertions that are opinion or simple observation. To create a model that fits evidence and is later open to testing, particuarly in a field where this has not been the case, is the mark of a great scientist. User:stevendavy (PhD, since you ask)

A few questions, mr. Schlafly: Are you a practicing psychologist? Can you say with absolute certainty that Freud's methods are useless? Do you have sources that can make this a verifiable fact? Or that can support your claim that Freud lied about his research? AKjeldsen 17:36, 22 April 2007 (EDT)

I'd mark it as unsourced , but of course the page is blocked? Czolgolz 13:31, 30 April 2007 (EDT)

If you tell that some lies, you should give some reference which gives arguments what is incorrect. --Aulis Eskola 06:43, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
This has to be removed within few days, if no sources found. (Prope correction is not to only remove need for ref.) --Aulis Eskola 16:39, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
I would also like to see a source for the claim that "liberals continue to teach that Freud was a great scientist." In my experience Freud is routinely studied in intro psych classes because he and his ideas are an important element of the history of the field, but the point is typically made that there is no scientific basis for his theories. And while his theories are useless, research has shown that some of his therapeutic methods are indeed useful (some, not all). Murray 16:49, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

TK, please, discuss and do not censor things as _you_ want them to be. (Or if you want to only censor, please change rules.) --Aulis Eskola 07:52, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Thanks! Ref from scientist found :) That I was simply asking for... --Aulis Eskola 11:46, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

And, of course, the page is locked.

Good thing, too, or some horrible America-Hater might quote Richard Nixon. --Gulik2 22:49, 24 April 2007 (EDT)

or George Bush. ish. This is really vulgar abuse sometimes. If only we had a sysop who would listen to reason.... Flippin 15:46, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Hey, Flippin! Wouldn't you listen to reason? Gee golly, I wish you were a sysop :-). Or me...-AmesGyo! 15:50, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Why is this locked?! Is this someones "own" encyclopedia? --Aulis Eskola 22:53, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes, it belongs to Andrew Schlafly. He owns the site. It is is his blog, and the sysops are his co-bloggers. The rest of us are just along for the ride. He is a young earth creationist and passionate liberal-hater. People wanted to broaden some of the page to include a bit more reality. Check out what's been happening over at astronomy this evening for more of the same... Human
Pages are locked after there is a pattern of violations of rules on them. I will unlocked [deceit] per ythe requests here, but if there are rule violations, then it will be locke again.
Human, I suggest you apologize and promise not to attack editors personally here, or your account will be blocked. Also, you seem to violate the 90/10 rule as independent grounds for blocking.--Aschlafly 23:13, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
His count here [6] shows that of his 1175 edits 466 have been to actual articles (that’s about 40% actual editing). --Reginod 23:32, 3 May 2007 (EDT)
This kind of rule should not be used for warnings especially when information at background is not correct. --Aulis Eskola 14:02, 4 May 2007 (EDT)

References

  1. U.S. Department of Defense - News Transcript

Reference 2 in the article is wrongly attributed, to should read Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. The writer of the article referenced is "Jonah Goldberg is editor at large of National Review Online." Perhaps the cite should be from NRO?

-- Rob Pommertalk 02:10, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
Is it available online? RobS 15:50, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

As long as we're listing lies....

How about The Pat Tillman and Jessica Lynch frauds? Ah, but I forget myself. Those are PRO-WAR lies, and therefore are a-ok. --Gulik2 22:42, 25 April 2007 (EDT)

And that sentence about morality comes to mind. wait... I think I threw up a little in my mouth there. Flippin 15:54, 26 April 2007 (EDT)

Perhaps we could add Ted Haggard. At least he admitted he was a deceiver. Auld Nick 10:43, 27 April 2007 (EDT)
Yes and no; in the Haggard article, Haggard says, "I am a deceiver and a liar", whereas by contrast, Alger Hiss denied to his dying day at the age of 92 the evidence against him. And his appologists, despite more evidence piled up since his death, continue deceiving themselves. RobS 11:38, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Since Haggard admits his deceit, he should probably be included in the "article" :-P unless you have some objection other than the truth of the allegations.-AmesGyo! 11:52, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Yes but Haggard is a confessed deceiver, and evidently nolonger deceiving himself. There is a path of redemption and rehabilitation. Hiss by contrast, set up a foundation to institutionalize the lies. Books have been written, Haynes & Klehr's In Denial for example, about the absurd contortions supposed intellectuals twisted themselves in to, in an effort that many of themselves don't even beleive anymore. The late Molly Ivans said even after KGB Archives were corroborated by Venona evidence,
"The other curious thing about the Hiss case is the psychology of believing that Hiss was a spy, which requires abandoning much of what we know about rational thought. [7]
There is no comparison. RobS 12:34, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Confession vitiates the sin but not the fact. Put him in the "article" as a "former" deceiver if you want, but it's deceit that harmed others, nonetheless.-AmesGyo! 12:43, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

John Lott & the Mary Rosh brouhaha would make another good example. His "If national surveys are correct, 98 percent of the time that people use guns defensively, they merely have to brandish a weapon to break off an attack" statement isn't as clear cut, but might also be an example; the situation there is oddly similar to the Bellisiles situation, with mysteriously lost/destroyed records of supposed research. --Jtl 15:19, 27 April 2007 (EDT)

Not that anyone asked

But this ought to be up here if we are going to make an "encyclopedic" entry for deceit. Downing Street Memo Flippin 12:05, 1 May 2007 (EDT)

Scooter

We're forgetting Scooter Libby, convicted of deceit...--WJThomas 23:36, 3 May 2007 (EDT)

But, you forget, he's a Republican, right? As in, right wing, can do no wrong. Did he Profit!?!?! NO! There's no money to be made in lying for the conservative cause. Hence, no "deceit". QED. Human 00:27, 6 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Rarely have I read such petty comments, such mean-spirited comments, gentlemen. In Washington, D.C., people of intellect and good manners of both parties, decried his conviction and persecution. Left holding the bag, it is called. I wonder if either of you would hold up being questioned by a Grand Jury about all your activities for the past year? Shame on both of you for not furthering good will and a higher plane of discourse here. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 07:25, 7 May 2007 (EDT)
  • If by "left holding the bag" you mean "others in the administration should have been put on trial for endangering lives and national security in furtherance of petty political payback", then I agree heartily. And if you want to further good will and a higher plane of discourse, you could start by recommending this article for deletion...--WJThomas 09:57, 7 May 2007 (EDT)


Reply to the above

It's common for the military to deny friendly fire as a cause. That denial has nothing to do with being a conservative, and there is no evidence the denial in Tillman's case was by a conservative. FDR's Administration denied it also during World War II when a hero was killed by friendly fire.

Abramoff was no conservative.

Freud is taught to high school and college students without any admission of his deceit.--Aschlafly 21:17, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

Then why not add the friendly fire deceit example, and the Abramoff example? While pointing out that the deceivers were not representative of Conservatism as defined or interpreted by this site (which is its right to do)? And show the harm each case caused? Human 21:48, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
  • A.S., all due respect--Abramoff was a director of the National Center for Public Policy Research (a conservative think tank); he was College Republican National Committee National Chairman; he has longstanding ties to Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed, among others; he was a member of Citizens for America, a pro-Reagan group that helped Oliver North build support for the Nicaraguan contras; when Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds LLP,a lobbying firm, needed a "conservative, Christian Coalition Republican with strong ties to...Republican leadership", they hired Abramoff; he was a member of GWB's transition team in 2001. And so forth. Sounds like a conservative to me...--WJThomas 21:57, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

(<--) Yah, right. [8][9] Abramoff contributions to individual Democrats 1990-2006; need contribs to Democratic oraginizations, too?

  • Patty Murray (D-Wash) - $40,980
  • Charles B. Rangel (D-NY) - $32,000
  • Patrick J. Kennedy (D-RI) - $31,000
  • Harry Reid (D-Nev) - $30,500
  • Byron L. Dorgan (D-ND) - $28,000
  • Tom Daschle (D-SD) - $26,500
  • Brad R. Carson (D-Okla) - $18,300
  • Chris John (D-La) - $15,000
  • Tom Harkin (D-Iowa) - $14,500
  • John Breaux (D-La) - $13,750
  • Mary L. Landrieu (D-La) - $11,500
  • Steny H. Hoyer (D-Md) - $11,000
  • Dale E. Kildee (D-Mich) - $10,500
  • Barney Frank (D-Mass) - $9,000
  • Richard A. Gephardt (D-Mo) - $9,000
  • Max Baucus (D-Mont) - $9,000
  • Peter Deutsch (D-Fla) - $8,500
  • Dick Durbin (D-Ill) - $8,000
  • Frank Pallone, Jr (D-NJ) - $6,000
  • Nick Rahall (D-WVa) - $6,000
  • Jon S. Corzine (D-NJ) - $5,000
  • Fritz Hollings (D-SC) - $5,000
  • Barbara A. Mikulski (D-Md) - $5,000
  • Daniel K. Inouye (D-Hawaii) - $5,000
  • Deborah Ann Stabenow (D-Mich) - $5,000
  • Xavier Becerra (D-Calif) - $4,523
  • Tim Johnson (D-SD) - $4,250
  • Kent Conrad (D-ND) - $4,000
  • Maria Cantwell (D-Wash) - $3,000
  • Kalyn Cherie Free (D-Okla) - $3,000
  • Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif) - $3,000
  • Richard M. Romero (D-NM) - $3,000
  • Ed Pastor (D-Ariz) - $3,000
  • John B. Larson (D-Conn) - $3,000
  • James L. Oberstar (D-Minn) - $3,000
  • Brad Sherman (D-Calif) - $3,000
  • Earl Pomeroy (D-ND) - $2,500
  • Max Cleland (D-Ga) - $2,500
  • Gene Taylor (D-Miss) - $2,250
  • Doug Dodd (D-Okla) - $2,000
  • Jay Inslee (D-Wash) - $2,000
  • John D. Dingell (D-Mich) - $2,000
  • Joe Baca (D-Calif) - $2,000
  • Carl Levin (D-Mich) - $2,000
  • C. L. "Butch" Otter (R-Idaho) - $2,000
  • Blanche Lincoln (D-Ark) - $2,000
  • Bennie G. Thompson (D-Miss) - $2,000
  • Robert Menendez (D-NJ) - $2,000
  • Robert T. Matsui (D-Calif) - $2,000
  • Rodney Alexander (D-La) - $2,000
  • Sander Levin (D-Mich) - $2,000
  • Ron Kind (D-Wis) - $2,000
  • Ronnie Shows (D-Miss) - $2,000
  • Rosa L. DeLauro (D-Conn) - $2,000
  • Willie Landry Mount (D-La) - $2,000
  • Tom Carper (D-Del) - $2,000
  • Thomas P. Keefe Jr. (D-Wash) - $2,000
  • Nita M. Lowey (D-NY) - $2,000
  • Maxine Waters (D-Calif) - $2,000
  • Ned Doucet (D-La) - $2,000
  • John Neely Kennedy (D-La) - $2,000
  • Lane Evans (D-Ill) - $2,000
  • Norm Dicks (D-Wash) - $1,500
  • Rick Weiland (D-SD) - $1,000
  • Ron Wyden (D-Ore) - $1,000
  • Tim Holden (D-Pa) - $1,000
  • William J. Jefferson (D-La) - $1,000
  • Patrick Leahy (D-Vt) - $1,000
  • Paul Wellstone (D-Minn) - $1,000
  • Pete Stark (D-Calif) - $1,000
  • Peter DeFazio (D-Ore) - $1,000
  • Mike Thompson (D-Calif) - $1,000
  • David Phelps (D-Ill) - $1,000
  • Derrick B. Watchman (D-Ariz) - $1,000
  • Charles S. Robb (D-Va) - $1,000
  • Bill Luther (D-Minn) - $1,000
  • Barbara Boxer (D-Calif) - $1,000
  • Brian David Schweitzer (D-Mont) - $1,000
  • Charles J. Melancon (D-La) - $1,000
  • Eliot L. Engel (D-NY) - $1,000
  • Dianne Feinstein (D-Calif) - $1,000
  • Gloria Tristani (D-NM) - $1,000
  • Grace Napolitano (D-Calif) - $1,000
  • Joe Lieberman (D-Conn) - $1,000
  • Henry A. Waxman (D-Calif) - $1,000
  • Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) - $1,000
  • Henry Cuellar (D-Texas) - $500
  • John Kerry (D-Mass) - $500
  • Loretta Sanchez (D-Calif) - $500
  • Shelley Berkley (D-Nev) - $500

RobS 23:16, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

...can you give us the Republican list :-) ? -Speaker 23:50, 10 May 2007 (EDT)
  • Ah, deceit...Yes, Abramoff's clients gave money to Democrats, but Jack personally gave only to Republicans or Republican PACs. And, while Abramoff's clients gave to Dems, they gave far more to Republicans (which was his clients' opposite pattern from their pre-Abramoff donations, strongly suggesting that Abramoff steered money away from Dems and toward Republicans). --WJThomas 23:54, 10 May 2007 (EDT)

That would be incorrect. Jack never gave his "own" money, any more than I do. As George Wallace said long ago, in one of the few honest and correct statements he ever made: "In Washington, there isn't a dimes worth of difference between Republicans and Democrats". --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 00:00, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Try here: http://www.opensecrets.org/indivs/search.asp?key=HK6HE&txtName=Abramoff,%20Jack&txtState=(all%20states)&txtAll=Y&Order=N

--WJThomas 00:13, 11 May 2007 (EDT)


Unfortunately, that link likely won't work very long -- the 'key' bit is a captcha.
Nice job - though, is there any chance the list below can be sorted by amount, rather than alphabetically, like the list above? Human 13:34, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

A summary:

  • Abraham, Spencer: $2000
  • Aderholt, Robert: $250
  • Alby, Barbara: $1000
  • Allen, George: $1000
  • American Liberty PAC: $2500
  • Americans for a Republican Majority: $22500
  • Armey, Dick: $500
  • Ashcroft, John: $1000
  • Battle Born PAC: $1000
  • Bond, Christopher S 'Kit': $1500
  • Bordonaro, Molly H: $500
  • Bordonaro, Tom: $2000
  • Brooks, Susan: $1000
  • Brownback, Sam: $500
  • Bunning, Jim: $1000
  • Burton, Dan: $4000
  • Bush, George W: $3000
  • Cannon, Chris: $2000
  • Cantor, Eric: $5000
  • Chambliss, Saxby: $1000
  • Chenoweth, Helen: $2000
  • Christensen, Jon: $250
  • Chrysler, Dick: $250
  • Coburn, Tom: $250
  • Cochran, Thad: $1000
  • Cornyn, John: $1000
  • Cox, Christopher: $250
  • Crane, Philip M: $2000
  • Cremeans, Frank A: $250
  • Cubin, Barbara: $250
  • Davis, Tom: $500
  • DeLay, Tom: $10000
  • Dole, Elizabeth: $1000
  • Doolittle, John T: $4000
  • Dunn, Jennifer: $1000
  • Ehrlich, Bob: $500
  • Emerson, Mark: $500
  • English, Phil: $1000
  • Ensign, John: $4000
  • Enzi, Mike: $1000
  • Faircloth, Lauch: $1500
  • Ferguson, Mike: $1000
  • First Freedoms Fund: $5000
  • Flotron, Francis E: $1000
  • Forbes, J Randy: $1000
  • Friends of the Big Sky: $5000
  • Fund for a Free Market America: $2500
  • Funderburk, David: $1000
  • Gerow, Charles R: $500
  • Gingrey, Phil: $500
  • Gormley, William L: $1000
  • Gramm, Phil: $1000
  • Grant, Carolyn W: $1000
  • Grassley, Chuck: $2000
  • Gutknecht, Gil: $250
  • Hastings, Richard "Doc": $500
  • Hawkeye PAC: $5000
  • Hayworth, J D: $1250
  • Hill, Rick: $250
  • Hilleary, Van: $1750
  • Hofmeister, Gary A: $1000
  • Hutchinson, Tim: $2000
  • Hutchison, Claude B Jr: $1000
  • Inhofe, James M: $1000
  • Isakson, Johnny: $2000
  • Istook, Ernest J: $1000
  • Janklow, Bill: $250
  • Jones, Walter B Jr: $1250
  • Kaloi, Kimo: $1000
  • Keep Our Majority PAC: $2500
  • Keller, Ric: $1000
  • Kingston, Jack: $1000
  • Largent, Steve: $250
  • Latham, Tom: $1000
  • Lazio, Rick A: $250
  • Leadership PAC 2004: $2000
  • Lefever, Tim: $500
  • LoBiondo, Frank A: $1000
  • McCollum, Bill: $1000
  • Metcalf, Jack: $250
  • Mitnick, John: $250
  • Monday Morning PAC: $2000
  • Morella, Connie: $1000
  • Nethercutt, George: $500
  • Nethercutt, George R Jr: $1000
  • New Jersey Republican State Cmte: $5000
  • Ney, Bob: $2250
  • North Carolina Republican Executive Cmte: $5000
  • North, Oliver: $1000
  • Ose, Doug: $1000
  • Otter, C L 'Butch': $1000
  • Paul, Ron: $250
  • Perry, Brent: $250
  • Phillips, Howard: $500
  • Pickering, Charles "Chip" Jr: $3500
  • Pirozzi, Elia Vincent: $1000
  • Pitts, Joe: $894
  • Pombo, Richard: $2000
  • Pombo, Richard W: $500
  • Preston, Gates et al: $5500
  • Regula, Ralph: $1000
  • Rehberg, Denny: $2000
  • Rely on Your Beliefs: $8500
  • Republican Majority Fund: $5000
  • Rich PAC: $5000
  • Riley, Bob: $1000
  • Rohrabacher, Dana: $7500
  • Royce, Ed: $500
  • Ryan, Paul: $949
  • Ryun, Jim: $250
  • Saxton, Jim: $0
  • Scarborough, Joe: $1000
  • Senate Victory Fund: $7000
  • Shelby, Richard C: $1000
  • Simmons, Rob: $1250
  • Simpson, Mike: $1000
  • Smith, Bob: $4920
  • Smith, Gordon: $250
  • Smith, Gordon H: $3000
  • Snowbarger, Vince: $250
  • Specter, Arlen: $2000
  • Stevens, Ted: $1000
  • Stockman, Steve: $500
  • Sununu, John E: $250
  • Susan B Anthony List: $1000
  • Talent, James M: $2000
  • Tate, Randy: $1000
  • Taylor, Charles H: $2250
  • Teague, Edward B: $250
  • Team PAC: $1000
  • Terrell, Suzanne: $3000
  • Thune, John: $1000
  • United States Family PAC: $3000
  • Watts, J C: $250
  • Weldon, Curt: $1000
  • Weller, Jerry: $500
  • Wicker, Roger: $250
  • Wilson, Heather: $1000
  • Wittig, Suzanne Dear: $250
  • Young Jewish Leadership PAC: $985
  • Young, Tom: $500

--Jtl 00:36, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Further Abramoff comments

So - it's agreed, everyone thinks Abramoff was a stinker, so why not put his deceit in the article? Human 00:34, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

Because you are going to have a difficult time assigning partisan motves to the man. RobS 00:41, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
Exactly so. One can ascribe political motives to him. Business motives. The press makes up the partisan deal, because everyone loves to embarass someone. Business has no politics other than making more $$. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 00:52, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
There's no need for a partisan motive. Just a description of his deceit and how it was "bad". Human 13:34, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
Hmm. You know, I think I'll agree with RobS here--Abramoff(& Co.) wasn't deceitful so much as corrupt/crooked, which is a different issue. --WJThomas 20:54, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
Is not that the point of the article? Corrupt/crooked, deceiving in order to gain? Human 21:17, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
Abramoff wasn't a conservative. Not at all. Also, I'm not sure how Abramoff was strikingly deceitful. Does anyone know to what crimes he pled guilty? Was fraud one of them?--Aschlafly 21:34, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
As a matter of fact, yes, it was. --Jtl 00:36, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
    • Please, Andy--regardless whether Abramoff was deceitful or just crooked, it's ridiculous to say that he was "not at all" a conservative. As I said above, he was a director of the National Center for Public Policy Research (a conservative think tank); he was College Republican National Committee National Chairman; he has longstanding ties to Grover Norquist and Ralph Reed, among others; he was a member of Citizens for America, a pro-Reagan group that helped Oliver North build support for the Nicaraguan contras; when Preston Gates Ellis & Rouvelas Meeds LLP,a lobbying firm, needed a "conservative, Christian Coalition Republican with strong ties to...Republican leadership", they hired Abramoff; he was a member of GWB's transition team in 2001. And so forth. If he wasn't a conservative, he certainly did a great job of pretending to be one.--WJThomas 19:39, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Nixon (Richard M.)

TK just deleted this addition wthout explanation:

November 17, 1973, Declaring that "I am not a crook," President Richard Nixon vigorously defended his record in the Watergate case and said he had never profited from his public service. "I have earned every cent. And in all of my years of public life I have never obstructed justice," Mr. Nixon said.[1]

Nixon almost destroyed the presidency with his deceit on this issue. And yet, a Larry King misquote, presented as a question, is still included? Human 20:53, 11 May 2007 (EDT)

  • Sorry! Must have been an edit conflict! Please don't be so suspicious, and try contacting a guy, okay? I haven't blocked a user for contacting me in at least a week! --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 23:27, 11 May 2007 (EDT)
Conservatives abandoned Nixon by late 1971, well before Watergate occurred, I think. Nixon's fall was just another example of a politician being brought down, for which there are hundreds of examples.--Aschlafly 21:37, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
So why not include him? This is not an exercise in conservative-bashing - it's more an attempt to show that not only avowed "liberals" practice deceit upon occasion. And, well, deservedly, get abandoned by conservatives? Anyway, Nixon, was, ironically, the last great liberal President anyway. Wage and price controls? No wonder Cons. abandoned him! EPA, oh, I forget he other big liberal thing he did right now. But you know. Human 22:34, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
Well, the other problem is that Nixon's crime was not really "deceit". It was a burglary and cover-up. That's not what most people mean by deceit, and it's not similar to other entries. If Nixon is to be added, then Ted Kennedy would be added first.--Aschlafly 23:25, 12 May 2007 (EDT)


So, add them both. I am as embarrassed by Chappaquidick as you must be by Watergate? Human 00:42, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
Um, Er, Well, "Cover-up" does tend to involve deceit. --Tim (CPAdmin1)talk 23:39, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
Well, yes, armed robbery by a masked gunman also involves deceit. So does terrorism, in fact. Will people be proposing that we list Bin Laden too? No, that's not what this entry is about. Neither is burglary and denial what this entry is about. The listed examples are what we have in mind here.--Aschlafly 23:43, 12 May 2007 (EDT)
Did Bin Laden engage in deceit? Or was he "honest" in his terrorist tactics/goals? Get real with this articvle, before Das Talk, or whatever, mocks it! Human 00:19, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

The "I am not a crook" quotation has absolutely nothing to do with Watergate. In fact, Wikipedia & Wikiquote actually have this correct (last time I looked). And it is only after a lengthy discussion & edit war with User:Will Beback did he finally admit my sourcing in this quote was accurate. RobS 21:03, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

TIME FOR A REALITY CHECK!!

Human, the crap by Nixon WAS RESTORED, by me, YESTERDAY! Right after you called my attention to the edit conflict. Jeeze....--Sysop-TK /MyTalk 22:55, 12 May 2007 (EDT)

Yes, I saw, and I think I said so, somewhere... Sorry if I didn't say so in the right place at the right time. Thank you, and duly noted, your honesty in this matter. Human 00:21, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
And then it was removed again, thus the renewed discussion. --Jtl 00:36, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
I deleted it. Clinton, who was impeached, along with many other politicians would need to inserted before Nixon. Nixon's offense was not really "deceit" any more than a masked bank robber's crime would be "deceit".--Aschlafly 00:40, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
Truth is, the misuse of the phrase "I am not a crook", to make Nixon say something he never said, is an example of the deceit of the liberal media. No one ever accused Nixon stealing anything in the Watergate affair. Yet that is what this quote implies. It refers to questions regarding Nixon's personal finances and tax returns--a subject which has nothing to do with Watergate. RobS 21:24, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

I intend to delete this article and start again

This article is a mess.

It ought to be a legal article and nothing more.

The concept of deceit outside of law is really just a matter for a dictionary definition. This is not a dictionary.

As for the examples, they appear to be mere excuses for people to push their own world-views.

Any objections to my deleting and starting again? --Horace 22:27, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Deceit doesn't exist in morality, the stuff parents teach their kids not to do? RobS 22:45, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
I have no problem with parents teaching their children not to deceive. I teach my own children that very lesson. But that is not a justification for retaining this poor quality article.
What particular aspects of the article do you say ought be retained? Or are you suggesting material for a new article? --Horace 22:56, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
The article states what it is and gives a few well known examples. What's wrong with that? RobS 23:03, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
As I explained above, the definition of deceit (other, perhaps than the legal definition) is a matter for a dictionary. Further, the examples are a mere excuse for people to push particular barrows. Examples of deceit are, by their very nature, contentious and have no place in an encyclopedia.
Do you suggest the retention of any particular parts of the article or have any suggestions for the new article? --Horace 23:12, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
I thought it covers the basic elements pretty good. Of course we could always use other good examples, too. RobS 23:40, 13 May 2007 (EDT)
Well, I'm sure you'll like the new version that I'm working on even better! --Horace 23:49, 13 May 2007 (EDT)

Ward Churchill

I'd be willing to find another source for it (it was widely reported in the news and that site was just the first thing I found), but I'm not sure how this doesn't fit in with the theme of the article. If not, that's fine, but I'm just asking. DanH 00:14, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I'm indifferent to this. If there are better cites that really prove the deceit, then let's consider it. My only concern is that the other listed items are deceits against the public, while this Churchill incident seems to be a private matter. Also, in most of the other cases people embraced the deceit even knowing it was a lie. I don't want to dilute the great examples we have with less significant examples. Thanks and Godspeed to your fine efforts, Dan.--Aschlafly 00:22, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
That's fine with me. I was just wondering.

I will work on the article on Churchill himself, as I know that he is very influential among the left (I noticed my roommate my freshman year, who is involved in liberal activism, had been reading him). DanH 00:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I take it Andy, from reading this thread that you have not noticed my post above. As you can see I have proposed deletion and replacement of the current article (for the reasons stated). I trust you will like the new version. Should be ready soon. --Horace 00:29, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
I read your comments, Horace. There is nothing about this entry that should be deleted. The examples are striking, factual, and highly informative. In most of the examples, there was public deceit followed by liberal support of the deceit. This is precisely the kind of information that Conservative is going to provide, without the censorship common on Wikipedia. Feel free to add similar examples of public deceit followed by support of the deceit. Godspeed.--Aschlafly 00:32, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
OK. Done. --Horace 00:42, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
Oop. You reverted the edit. Too controversial? I thought we didn't censor. --Horace 00:50, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
Horace, your "example" did not involve any admission of deceit, any charges of deceit, or any embrace of any deceit. Moreover, appeal of this opinion and the dictum was prevented, so it was never reviewed and tested independently. Your example is nothing like the other listed examples.--Aschlafly 00:54, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
Ho ho ho. Surely you jest! Example 2 contains no admission and no charges (I am not sure what an embrace is in this context - is it different to an admission?). Example 4 is the same (I also note that it is completely unsourced). What is more I regard it as quite astounding that you could assert that a matter which has been tested in court has not been "reviewed and tested independently". So much for the American judicial system!
My example was better than most of the current examples in the article. It had it all! Deceit (in the witness box no less) followed by cover up (by this very institution - what better way to demonstrate your non-bias then to report it?) and, to top it all, the matter had been subject to judicial assessment.
I guess that means you were right all along. My example was nothing like the other examples. --Horace 01:10, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
  • One day you will indeed go too far. You do know that, right? --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 01:24, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
I just call them as I see them Terrence. --Horace 01:27, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
Horace, the right to appeal is a basic due process right. The persons you accuse of deceit did not have that right. Moreover, the persons you accuse of deceit did obtain anything of value for their conduct either. Nor did anyone embrace the alleged deceit.--Aschlafly 01:30, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
  • A small amount of tact and civility go much further than doing that (calling them as you see them) 100% of the time, no? I just cannot get over the bitterness of some, I sense a real anger by some for being at a place voluntarily, that they knew was Conservative from the beginning. --Sysop-TK /MyTalk 01:33, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
Andrew, my point was that, unlike some of the examples actually in the article right now, the persons who were said to have committed the deceit in my example were adjudged to have done so by a court of law. They at least had the advantage of (what I had always assumed was) a fair hearing by a properly constituted court. What is the relevance of what they received for their lies? I imagine that they thought they would get their reward in heaven. They probably still do.
Terrence, I contain no bitterness. I just do not like to see conservatism or this site being sullied by unencyclopedic articles. --Horace 01:40, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
P.S. Andrew, I see you have now added to example 2. That's great but it doesn't really excuse your censoring of my example, does it? --Horace 01:45, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
I merely inserted material from our entry on the subject, which you seemed to deny. As to your claim of a court of law, there were no charges ever brought against the witnesses so your allusion to "a fair hearing" is inapplicable. Also, you continue to overlook that that no appeal was allowed of the opinion. Note also that the witnesses obtained no personal benefit from their alleged deceit.--Aschlafly 01:55, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
It still rather leaves Mr. Freud out in the cold, doesn't it?
Sorry, you'll have to explain what you mean when you say that no appeal was allowed. Do you mean that the court refused a leave application? If so, so what? It happens all the time.
I have already dealt with your point about personal benefit to the witnesses.
I never suggested that there were charges against the witnesses. The court just found that they lied. It's pretty simple. --Horace 02:18, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Freud Evidence

The following statement...

  • Sigmund Freud lied about his research[2] in order to make it falsely appear that his psychoanalysis had some benefit [3]. Yet liberals continue to teach in school that Freud was a great scientist.

...given the references cited, now seems itself to be a candidate for the article. SeanTheSheep

I don't follow your point here. Are you suggesting the addition of citations, or are you denying that Freud lied? Godspeed.--Aschlafly 09:45, 14 May 2007 (EDT)
I noted that a number of people had asked for citations for this, what seems to be quite contentious point. Please let me stress I know absolutely nothing about Psychoanalysis; hjowever, I have found what seems to be the reference that the original author (whoever it was, probably lost in the mists of time) did not supply, i.e. Coffi. From what I have read, Coffi contends that Freud did not so much deliberately lie as fabricate according to his mindset; in that way, it is a failing in Frued's psychoanalytic process, and the claims Freud made for it, and opens the process up to the accusations of being a pseudoscience and Freud to the accusation of being a quack. The second citation actually addresses this point of view and contends that this sort of result is inevitable from the psychoanalytic process, in that patient and analyist must necessarily come to a shared understanding, which must, by any dialogic process, be fabricated. In other words, whether or not the result of the analysis yields truths or not cannot be easily determined; it might be that an analyst is genuinely uncovering meaning, but on the other hand, he and the patient might be making it all up, and no-one, not even the participants can say for certain. My point in all this, is that given the quagmire that this seems to lay before us, to make a claim that Freud was lying, is at best oversimplistic, and at worst is simply untrue, as there is no evidence that Freud deliberately lied. This means that it does not actually belong in an article on deceit, and trying to claim that it does when there is no evidence to support it, could well itself be deceitful. --SeanTheSheep 10:00, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

This critics has been refered to many times in Finland: Richard Webster: Why Freud was Wrong. Sin, Science and Psychoanalysis. Harper Collins London 1996. I don't know about contents, but does it have good arguments? --Aulis Eskola 10:31, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

What about this: Robyn M. Dawes. 1994. House of Cards: Psychology and Psychotherapy Build on Myth, New York: The Free Press. Said to have proven psychoanalysis has no proven effect. --Aulis Eskola 11:10, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Freud was fraud?

Is it only "liberals" who are beleaving Freud was a great scientist (and psychoanalysis good science)? In Europe and Finland there seems to be also others beleaving to him. And now also scientific sceptics are starting to critisize Freud, not only conservatives. --Aulis Eskola 11:27, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

I am no advocate of Freud, and if you note above, I am the one who supplied the reference which is not being used selectively in the article to support the contention that Freud lied. The point is well made above that this may be oversimplistic, or itself a dishonest way of looking at the evidence. It appears (I have now done some more reading) that there is a recognised danger in psych. of the doctor starting off with preconceived notions and fitting the evidence to those theories. Unfortunately we ALL do this; it's a way of life, and it's part of the human condition. This is why there are heated debates on CP from both sides, intransigent - people as Paul Simon once remarked "... a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest". My point is this: it is so embedded in the human psyche to do this, that we cannot speak of it as deceit, or if it is, then we need to expand the article to discuss it more fully. From what I have read, I do not believe that Freud was deceitful. Misguided, a poor scientist, maybe, but deceitful, no. If you want to label him as a liar and a rogue who deliberately set out to devceive people, then I think that you ought to use the same criteria that you would need if he were still alive, i.e. that if you were to say these things, you had better have some good evidence to back your statements or have a damn good lawyer who could fend off the inevitable lawsuit which will follow. On the evidence that you have presented you could expect that Freud would slap a lawsuit for libel on you --SeanTheSheep 12:28, 14 May 2007 (EDT)

Cite error: <ref> tags exist, but no <references/> tag was found
Personal tools