In response to:

The Lies that Blind

mpaone Wrote: Oct 18, 2012 2:49 PM
So I wouldn't say anything is relative really. But moral discussions tend to rely on trying to reach agreement and resonance, since they can't really be proven empirically. That's why they are beliefs. You can say someone else has a more flexible worldview if you hold a more rigid one, but that doesn't mean theirs doesn't have a different logic. Alinskys worldview for instance was based on balancing power in society--in other words social justice. He was not relative by any standard. He just had a more spacious/dynamic value system. He wrote passionatley against dogma from any side, which he called the enemy of human freedom and which darkens the light of the world.

As Tuesday's presidential debate showed, the Obama administration’s pack of lies surrounding the murderous 9/11 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi is an increasingly heavy albatross. The pattern of deception is so complete, obvious and shocking that if America had a real “mainstream” media, the election would be over.

Mr. Obama used faux outrage on Tuesday to counter-punch as Mr. Romney confronted him on Benghazi. It took moderator Candy Crowley of CNN, acting as protector, to pull Mr. Obama into a corner before the inquiries turned into a knockout. She threw pixie dust into the mix by “fact-checking”...