Am I Wrong To Stretch The Truth?

[ThomWV]

I live in West Virginia. At least in this rural area I am certain that the major perception causing so very many of these good Democrats to have voted for the chimp in 2000 was that 'Gore wants to take our guns'. It was on everyone's lips in the runup to the election. It was utter nonsense of course, but it was the perception

I have begun telling people this, and maybe its wrong of me to have done it, and maybe I should quit, but here it is: I tell them that one of Bush's senior advisors, Richard Pearle, is promoting a National ID card for all Americans, one that will have your name and your home address on it but what with the computers these days one that is also linked to the FBI center right down the road in Clarksburg, WV. I tell them further that there is a firearms database at that FBI center and that card they are going to have to carry (they will be jailed if they are caught without it) tells the Bush's Government right where to go to get their guns, to know every detail about their finances, including the purchase of ammunition, and that it is the first step in making slaves of them.

Who am I to say that its not true? Pearle has recommended the card, and in fact a review of his latest book I heard said it also includes the suggestion of the revocation of citizenship for native-born Americans who offend the powers that be.

So, am I dead wrong in doing this? How about just a little bit wrong? How about right on the money and I should keep on doing it? What do you think?

Thom

[ima_sinnic]

1. I feel it is all right

first of all, subtlety is wasted on many ordinary people.
but mainly, though the details you provide may not be exactly fulfilled, the general spirit of what you describe is deadly accurate. you are in effect making a parable.

another fact you might want to add, without the slightest guilt, is that under a second go-round of BushCo they can expect a military draft to be enacted.

[Imajika]

2. Well...

...if you get caught stretching the truth you liable to lose your credibility amongst the people you talk to.

Why do you need to exaggerate? There are plenty of talking points against Bush. One days reading of DU and you should be fully armed with anti-Bush arguments.

I would only make statements that you can back up. If you can't back the one your making up with facts, I wouldn't use it. But that is just me.

Imajika

[ThomWV]

3. I Hate To Have To Say This

I understand your point when you say "Why do you need to exaggerate? There are plenty of talking points against Bush. One days reading ..." but I have to tell you something. For the last 10 years I've been doing the taxes for many of my neighbors. I am trusted, its true. The reason I do their taxes is that they can not read well enough to get through so much as the EZ forms. I had to teach the next neighbor up the road how to write his name without printing - - - I am not kidding. He can't read, his wife can not read, his two daughters are barely literate (one graduated from high school last year and has never read a book in her life).

So the idea that the folks I am talking to will come here and read for a day is just not viable. God bless them all and I wish that it were otherwise but these good people aren't going to be enlightened by public discorse.

Thom

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[sendero]

4. Wouldn't it be possible....

... to just say that once the ID card is in place, it is a simple matter to do these other things and that government has a history of doing them?

Acting as though is has been planned or proposed is dishonest. I'm all about getting tougher with rhetoric, but think we should draw the line at dishonesty.

Even in this case, the truth is bad enough :)

[Dogmudgeon]

6. Who's stretching?

What you're describing in your worst-case scenario is entirely legal under both USAPATRIOT I and II. In fact, if anything, you've left out a good bit of the scary details.

I don't know how you got the idea that you're doing something unethical. Describing worst cases is a time-honored, completely ethical strategy to make your points.

Bush has promoted legislation to deprive us of that freedom. It's on ink and paper. Your task (self-inflicted :)) is to convince people about this who may think Bush is Jesus' best buddy and hunting partner.

--bkl

[EstimatedProphet]

7. I think it's fine, and likely isn't a stretch of the truth

One of the things that many people in the Democratic party just don't seem to understand for some reason is how much the urban gun control stand hurts them in the Midwest. For a great many people that live in the country, that's not just the most important issue, it's the only issue. Nothing else even factors into the equation; if they have guns, they're free, but if they don't, they're not.
We desperately need to combat the polarization that the NRA has given to the gun issue. Also, the Democratic party needs to understand that a gun control model based on inner city New York isn't going to play in Fulton MO, and people that try to argue for one will not be considered credible.
I think the connections you are making with the FBI database are valid, and it's not really even a stretch of the truth, given this administration, to see gun confiscation a couple of years down the road "in the interest of public safety and the War on Terror". So, if the people you discuss this with say that the Democrats just want to take away guns, tell them what I have always said: the Republicans just want to take away guns too, but they want to wait until they've taken away everything else, because they know that that way the pro-gun crowd won't suspect their rights are being stripped. That should give them pause to think.