Politics

If a liberal politician had Cheney's "track record", you'd be screaming for his blood, but since Cheney's one of your boys, you'll ignore those "inconvenient" facts.

Somehow, I don't think that any of you will recognize the hypocrisy in your own party.

Quote from William T Brooks

I am Sorry that You Think We Are Hypocrites For Having Conservative Views !

It was OK for me that Bill Clinton was a Draft Dodger I just wanted Him out of Office !!

And as Far As Being a Straight Shooter I am Pretty Damn Good, and try to Shoot Almost Every Week !!!
:teeth_smile:
And as Duke Would Say, What Is Your Party ?

Chilibill

Display More

Chilibill, I'm not saying you're hypocrites for having conservative views, you're hypocrites for not holding members of your own ideology to the same scrutiny you'd apply to liberals! I could have had this same argument with liberals, and gotten the same response. You all dodged the question and made counteraccusations, but never once did any of you answer the question.

I thought this was pretty good


Welcome Back, Carter
by Ann Coulter

06/10/2009

Well, I'm glad that's over! Now that our silver-tongued president has gone to Cairo to soothe Muslims' hurt feelings, they love us again! Muslims in Pakistan expressed their appreciation for President Barack Obama's speech by bombing a fancy hotel in Peshawar this week.

Operating on the liberal premise that what Arabs really respect is weakness, Obama listed, incorrectly, Muslims' historical contributions to mankind, such as algebra (actually that was the ancient Babylonians), the compass (that was the Chinese), pens (the Chinese again) and medical discoveries (huh?).

But why be picky? All these inventions came in mighty handy on Sept. 11, 2001! Thanks, Muslims!!

Obama bravely told the Cairo audience that 9/11 was a very nasty thing for Muslims to do to us, but on the other hand, they are victims of colonization.

Except we didn't colonize them. The French and the British did. So why are Arabs flying planes into our buildings and not the Arc de Triomphe? (And gosh, haven't the Arabs done a lot with the Middle East since the French and the British left!)

In another sharks-to-kittens comparison, Obama said, "Now let me be clear, issues of women's equality are by no means simply an issue for Islam." No, he said, "the struggle for women's equality continues in many aspects of American life."

So on one hand, 12-year-old girls are stoned to death for the crime of being raped in Muslim countries. But on the other hand, we still don't have enough female firefighters here in America.

Delusionally, Obama bragged about his multiculti worldview, saying, "I reject the view of some in the West that a woman who chooses to cover her hair is somehow less equal." In Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan and other Muslim countries, women "choose" to cover their heads on pain of losing them.

Obama rolled out the crucial liberal talking point against America's invasion of Iraq, saying Iraq was a "war of convenience," while Afghanistan was a "war of necessity." Liberals cling to this nonsense doggerel as a shield against their hypocrisy on Iraq. Either both wars were wars of necessity or both wars were wars of choice.

Neither Iraq nor Afghanistan -- nor any country -- attacked us on 9/11. Both Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as many other Muslim countries, were sheltering those associated with the terrorists who did attack us on 9/11 -- and who hoped to attack us again.

The truth is, all wars are wars of choice, including the Revolutionary War, the Civil War, both World Wars, the Korean and Vietnam Wars, the Gulf War, and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. OK, maybe the war on teen obesity is a war of convenience, but that's the only one I can think of.

The modern Democrat Party chooses -- really chooses, not like Saudi women "choosing" to wear hijabs -- to fight no wars. But the Democrats couldn't say that immediately after 9/11, so they pretended to support the war in Afghanistan and then had to spend the next 7 1/2 years trying to come up with a distinction between Afghanistan and Iraq.

Maybe next they can tell us why fighting Hitler -- who never invaded the U.S. and had no plans to do so -- was a "necessity" in a way that fighting Saddam wasn't. (Obama on Hitler: "Nazi ideology sought to subjugate, humiliate and exterminate. It perpetrated murder on a massive scale." Whereas Saddam Hussein was just messing with the Kuwaitis, Kurds and Shiites.)

Meanwhile, Muslims throughout the Middle East are yearning for their own Saddam Husseins to be taken out by U.S. invaders so they can be liberated, too. (Then we'll see how many women -- outside of an American college campus -- "choose" to wear hijabs.) The war-of-choice/war-of-necessity point must be as mystifying to a Muslim audience as a discussion of gay marriage.

Arabs aren't afraid of us; they're afraid of Iran. But our aspiring Jimmy Carter had no tough words for Iran. To the contrary, in Cairo, Obama endorsed Iran's quest for nuclear "power," while attacking -- brace yourself -- America for helping remove Iranian loon Mohammad Mossadegh.

The CIA's taking out Mossadegh was probably the greatest thing that agency ever did. This was back in 1953, before it became a collection of lawyers and paper-pushers.

Mossadegh was as crazy as a March hare (which is really saying something when your competition is Moammar Gadhafi, Ayatollah Ruhollah Khomeini and Saddam Hussein). He gave interviews lying in bed in pink pajamas. He wept, he fainted, and he set his nation on a path of permanent impoverishment by "nationalizing" the oil wells, where they sat idle after the British companies that knew how to operate them pulled out.

But he was earthy and hated the British, so left-wing academics adored Mossadegh. The New York Times compared him to Thomas Jefferson.

True, Mossadegh had been "elected" by the Iranian parliament -- but only in the chaos following the assassination of the sitting prime minister.

In short order, the shah dismissed this clown, but Mossadegh refused to step down, so the CIA forcibly removed him and allowed the shah's choice to assume the office. This "coup," as liberal academics term it, was approved by liberals' favorite Republican president, Dwight Eisenhower, and supported by such ponderous liberal blowhards as John Foster Dulles.

For Obama to be apologizing for one of the CIA's greatest accomplishments isn't just crazy, it's Ramsey Clark crazy.

Obama also said that it was unfair that "some countries have weapons that others do not" and proclaimed that "any nation -- including Iran -- should have the right to access peaceful nuclear power if it complies with its responsibilities under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty."

Wait -- how about us? If a fanatical holocaust denier with messianic delusions can have nuclear power, can't the U.S. at least build one nuclear power plant every 30 years?

I'm sure Iran's compliance will be policed as well as North Korea's was. Clinton struck a much-heralded "peace deal" with North Korea in 1994, giving them $4 billion to construct nuclear facilities and 500,000 tons of fuel oil in return for a promise that they wouldn't build nuclear weapons. The ink wasn't dry before the North Koreans began feverishly building nukes.

But back to Iran, what precisely do Iranians need nuclear power for, again? They're not exactly a manufacturing powerhouse. Iran is a primitive nation in the middle of a desert that happens to sit on top of a large percentage of the world's oil and gas reserves. That's not enough oil and gas to run household fans?

Obama's "I'm OK, You're OK" speech would be hilarious, if it weren't so terrifying.

Hey Cole,

I get what your saying, there is just one flaw in your argument. That is, that everyone is flawed, some are just more flawed than others. We all look to people that shape our beliefs and that also support our point of view. It is human nature to bash on the side that has opposing views to yours, this does not make you a "Hypocrite" per say. I would tend to be much more lenient towards something Rush Limbaugh would say than something Howard Stern would say. This does not make me a hypocrite, just means I will support someone that shares my point of view more than someone that does not. Now with that said, that does not mean that I don't respect others opinions and that I am not willing to listen to them.

One of the things that this country has lost sight of is that it is ok to disagree. It is now believed that if you do not believe like I do then you are wrong. It's sad really, that we have forgotten to agree to disagree.

Quote from erthomp143

Hey Cole,

I get what your saying, there is just one flaw in your argument. That is, that everyone is flawed, some are just more flawed than others. We all look to people that shape our beliefs and that also support our point of view. It is human nature to bash on the side that has opposing views to yours, this does not make you a "Hypocrite" per say. I would tend to be much more lenient towards something Rush Limbaugh would say than something Howard Stern would say. This does not make me a hypocrite, just means I will support someone that shares my point of view more than someone that does not. Now with that said, that does not mean that I don't respect others opinions and that I am not willing to listen to them.

One of the things that this country has lost sight of is that it is ok to disagree. It is now believed that if you do not believe like I do then you are wrong. It's sad really, that we have forgotten to agree to disagree.

Well said about civility,and for what it's worth, I admire Bill and Stumpy's service to our country; I also respect their conservatism--I happen to agree with a lot of what they say-- even if they probably despise me.

However, when people conveniently overlook the same faults of their own ideologues yet apply a different standard to their political opponents, it goes beyond mere "lenience" towatds one's party; it's that "checking one's brain at the door" I keep on harping about. When people employ hypocrisy--and that's exactly what it is--they have absolutely no credibility on that issue, as far as I'm concerned. The fact that the conservatives on this thread lack the courage to admit that Dick Cheney--"one of their own"--was a draft-dodging coward and opportunist is proof enough of the old FDR line about Nicaragua dictator Somoza (the elder): "He's an S.O.B., but he's our S.O.B.!" But that's a politician talking; not a person with solid, unwavering beliefs. It's one thing to be opposed to war and to hate its very existence and not serve; it's quite another to scream for someone's blood while hiding behind the couch at home. As our (for anyone who says "He wasn't my President"; I'm disgusted when I hear people say that) 43rd President used to say, "Walk the walk."

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It is the month of August, on the shores of the Black Sea. It is raining, and the little town looks totally deserted. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]It is tough times, everybody is in debt, and everybody lives on credit. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]Suddenly, a rich tourist comes to town. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]He enters the only hotel, lays a 100 Euro note on the reception counter, and goes to inspect the rooms upstairs in order to pick one. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The hotel proprietor takes the 100 Euro note and runs to pay his debt to the butcher. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The Butcher takes the 100 Euro note, and runs to pay his debt to the pig grower. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The pig grower takes the 100 Euro note, and runs to pay his debt to the supplier of his feed and fuel. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The supplier of feed and fuel takes the 100 Euro note and runs to pay his debt to the town's prostitute that in these hard times, gave her "services" on credit. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The hooker runs to the hotel, and pays off her debt with the 100 Euro note to the hotel proprietor to pay for the rooms that she rented when she brought her clients there. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]The hotel proprietor then lays the 100 Euro note back on the counter so that the rich tourist will not suspect anything. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]At that moment, the rich tourist comes down after inspecting the rooms, and takes his 100 Euro note, after saying that he did not like any of the rooms, and leaves town. [/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]No one earned anything. However, the whole town is now without debt, and looks to the future with a lot of optimism.[/FONT]
[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]And that, ladies and gentlemen, is how the United States Government is doing business today. [/FONT]

How true...

Sad, but true.

I have stated this before. It is mostly about greed. And it starts at the top......Look at all these corporations that are declaring bankruptcy(I just read that Six Flags Amusement parks declared over the weekend) and usually it's after a number of years of record profits. Obviously none of them were saving for a rainy day and they were thinking the gravy train was never going to stop.

What get's my goat is the tapxayers in America, well the one's that still have jobs, are the one's that will be footing the bill for this mess because none of the spineless politicians will do what is right. They just do whatever so that they can get re-elected by the sheep in this country.

Quote from SXViper

What get's my goat is the tapxayers in America, well the one's that still have jobs, are the one's that will be footing the bill for this mess because none of the spineless politicians will do what is right.

Sadly I'm not sure we can still "foot the bill" as they say, we are in the process of creating more money out of thin air, in a short period of time, than all the last three or four admin's put together. Does Weimar Republic ring a bell?
I think the resulting inflation is going to take us down.
Good to be socking away as much food and water as you can, as much ammo as you can, and try to relocate to a very low population farming area, and learn as much about growing and preserving food as you can.

How's that for faith in our Government's ability to solve our problems?

Chester

Quote from Cole Thornton

There's so much more to it than a mere message board post can say, but offhand I'd call myself a "Reagan Democrat"! My grandfather, whom I idolized, was a Democrat but his hero was Barry Goldwater ("Conscience of a Conservative" was always by his side)! Gramps (God rest his soul) never voted democratic except when he had to in the primaries.

When I registered at eighteen, I registered deomocrat, but only in imitation of my grandfather (hey, I was a kid!). I'm more a conservative than anything else, and loved McCain until he was "Bushwhacked" and he--as well as the Republicans--lost sight of who they were. The GOP is a shameful, piss-poor imitation of what it once was. The democrats are way too leftist for my tastes. I think that both parties need to play to the middle so there isn't so much acrimony. Remember those tales of Tip O'Neill and President Reagan chatting after work? We need that in Washington again.

Do you find it odd that I love Ronald Reagan, Bush 41 (until the tax pledge lie) yet also respect FDR, Truman, and JFK in terms of their political ability? For what it's worth, I think Teddy Roosevelt was the best president of the twentieth century.

Having said that, I judge the man in office not by his political affiliation or within the framework of political biases, as those too often make sheep of us all. I don't need FOX or the New York Times to tell me how to think.

Display More

Howdy All: I couldn't resist! I consider myself an independent and vote for whom I think will do the best job in office, whatever he or she is running for. I am definitely conservative and really get "riled up" with what is going on in this country today. I wonder what Duke would think of it all!

My thought for years has been to limit all political office holders to two terms and then "go get a real job"!!!!!!!!!!!! Too much control by too few people in this country. Special interests run things now. The majority doesn't seem to have any say. I say if there is something major to decide let the people vote and decide. Whatever the majority says should rule. I thought that was what this country was about in part.

Enough said--I don't want anybody riled up here.

This country needs to get back to its' fundamental principles on which it was founded---PERIOD!

Coach3

Quote from coach3

howdy all: I couldn't resist! I consider myself an independent and vote for whom i think will do the best job in office, whatever he or she is running for. I am definitely conservative and really get "riled up" with what is going on in this country today. I wonder what duke would think of it all!

My thought for years has been to limit all political office holders to two terms and then "go get a real job"!!!!!!!!!!!! Too much control by too few people in this country. Special interests run things now. The majority doesn't seem to have any say. I say if there is something major to decide let the people vote and decide. Whatever the majority says should rule. I thought that was what this country was about in part.

Enough said--i don't want anybody riled up here.

This country needs to get back to its' fundamental principles on which it was founded---period!

Coach3

Display More

amen!!