While I have no examples, I dare say that the right uses the same tactic, just not as much or as glaringly so.

The amazing thing is that the left gets away with it when one needs only a limited amount of knowledge to see their sleights of hand. I guess that goes to prove one sees what they want to see.

Understanding this to be the fact, though, how can I trust what I think I see? U-P, I think there's a deeper truth to this article than first meets the eye!

"Flooded with information" would be flooded by choice, theres still no way they can stop you from not-listening.

And U-P I really dislike that avatar of yours.

When the Right tries to justify itself intellectually it really only appears more ignorant.I will go further and say that any party of doctrine fails by never moving adequatley enough with the times.

The Doctrine of the American Right is "Dog eat Dog"in no modern society would this be acceptable but in the US the myth of the American dream cast a long shadow that obscures the backward nature of US policies.
The American dream,everyone can aspire.Aspiring is one thing but achieving is another.Men are not born equal and men do not have equal opportunities to allow them to become equal.Only the most Ruthless and opportunistic manage to lift themselves from the Ghettos,slums,and trailer parks and as consolation to those not ruthless enough,there is the right to aspire.

Hardly surprising then that for many aspiring to the American Dream means first aspiring to be ruthless.Nor is it surprising that the uneducated do not understand why laws(set by those that aspired successfully and wished to protect what they had achieved)are there to be broken.

The American dream and the paradox's that have arisen from it has mean't that only ruthless crooks have the money to buy their election and why would they spend their investment on tackling social problems.Far better to term them "unsolvable" and spend the money lining their own pockets.

This will always get lost in the impossibility of deciding what "left" and "right" are, U-P: and, for that matter, deciding exactly what commission and omission are.
Suffice it to say that, on balance, all modern governments will use all means at their disposal to deceive.

Would Nixon not be a good example of someone "on the right" doing just what this thread title suggests?

Am I really saupposed to take this seriously?

"How the Left works" by Conservative Truth.org,

The piece is just about as obviously biased as anything gets. As TC says boths sides do it, politicians and political parties are liars. This is not even a serious study but a piece of right-winged propagandist nonsense. The bias and arrogance are almost overwhelming.

"Bruce Walker has been a dyed in the wool conservative since, as a sixth grader, he campaigned door to door for Barry Goldwater"

Very mature and respectable I`m sure but you have to wonder if its a good idea getting your politics so set in stone so young.

Both sides wanna poison your mind.

American policies maybe backwards, but I shudder at what others considered "modern and enlightened".

America is pretty screwed up, sure. So? So is the whole world. And people are relatively happy with our state.

The great divide between the differing schools of thought is even more reason for isolation of America.

Good ol Monroe doctrine: You stay on your side of the Atlantic, well stay on ours. Whats so wrong with that?

Where is my post ? It has been removed.

If one pic was offensive, it wasn't necessary to remove all the post.Removing the pic was enough.

I got a good example relating to this topic just a couple of days ago. I watched an interview with former Clinton advisor Dick Morris who is out of the political business now and told some good stories about their strategies. Mr. Morris is credited unofficially with winning the second term for Bill Clinton and now writes news articles I believe from what I got from the interview. One thing I found suprising was his evaluation of the Bush administration's strategies. I see many many people on here making comments on the President's supposed lack of political sense but Mr. Morris painted a different picture altogether. He eluded to the current tax cut just signed in as a way the Bush has brought this domestic issue and linked it to the economy to the forfront of domestic issues for the 04' election. It is Mr. Morris' opinion that by doing this, it will force Dems to campaign on the platform of raising taxes when this program expires. There's little doubt by Mr. Morris that the economy is beginning to come back on its own and this tax cut will only add to its gain in momentum thereby forcing the Dems into a corner on their stance of raising taxes and flipping effectively the issue of economic growth to a positive for Bush. Mr. Morris, who doesn't advocate the GOP ( hardly) merely gives his opinion of the political strategy involved, looks at the lack of faith in the president's intellect as a real underestmation of his party and fears it may lead to their defeat in the 04' election.