Hypocrites (968 hits)
Category: Politics -> RepublicansRating: 0.04 on 38 reviews (Rate this item) (V)
Submitted by Judoka (View user info) at 2005-09-29 15:02:59 EDT
The following commitment was made in the 1994 Republican Contract with America:
A balanced budget/tax limitation amendment and a legislative line-item veto to restore fiscal responsibility to an out- of-control Congress, requiring them to live under the same budget constraints as families and businesses.
The few, the proud, the morally bankrupt.
User Reviews
Submitted by cleanfornow (user info) at 2005-09-30 13:15:51 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Loki,
You have way too much time to spend on this site for me to possibly win an arguement with you. Regardless, I will point out to you, again, that you seem to take great pleasure when anything goes wrong, as long as your narrow mind can twist it into being a Republican's fault. You seem to enjoy when something negative is said about the US, if it can be blamed in some round about way on a Republican.
Even I will admit that things really have gone to shit. The spending is ridiculas. But, to say Newt Gingrich lied in 1994, and thus Bush is a Hypocrite (and that was the point of this clever little post that the... gag... author has dumped here and run away from), goes so far beyond the realm of complete stupidity and assholism into an area of head-up-the-assness as to require the inventing of new words to decribe how fucking idiotic it is.
I think it is down-right dumb to bulldoze houses, decontaminate, and rebuild on a swamp at the cost of $200,000,000,000 in defecit spending. But, think for a minute, why is Bush caving-in on this? Who is he trying to please? What was it the Media was spouting off about that pushed the president into this bad decision? And if you think it is a ploy to enrich Halliburtan, then I truly feel sorry for you and promise not to pick on the retards anymore.
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2005-09-30 12:26:29 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
What is all this crap? I'm not wading through all these responses.
I would just like to add that the Republicans made their bed and they can go fuck themselves in it.
Submitted by cleanfornow (user info) at 2005-09-30 12:00:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
For Loki
Submitted by cleanfornow (user info) at 2005-09-30 11:58:25 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You're the Hypocrite. I say that assuming you were happy to see Newt smeared and harrassed into resigning. Point being is that those were Newt's words and if he were not pushed-out of office by the threats FUCKING LIBERAL DEMOCRATIC ASSHOLES like you made against his FAMILY, then he could have continued to keep his promise.
Judoka, nothing personal, but, damn! you and your kind make me sick. I want to puke because I can't help but to picture your skinny hairy hunched-over body. Your big hawk nose on your bespecked bearded face. The self rightously indignant snear of a smile you have when you read your only sorce of information: the NY Times.
I know your type. You are the very cause of what is fucked-up in this counrty. I lived in NY for many years. Grew-up there. I am of Jewish ancestry. I know how your sick, twisted, hateful, self-loathing, guilt-ridden mind works. I know nothing can make you see through the bullshit you read unless it diasagrees with you narrow minded opinion.
You're the Hypocrite. Rally behind the media that pushes the president into pouring money into helping hurricane victims, then critisize him for spending too much money. Then, use the words of someone you despise in a pathetic attempt to justify your blind hatred.
The difference between you and I is that you revel in the fuck-ups if they are what you predicted or show Republicans in a bad light. I, on the otherhand, hope for the best regardless of what I fear or which party is in control.
Fuck you Judonka, and shut the fuck up!
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2005-09-30 11:08:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Well, really there wasn't much worth debating in the original post anyway.
As for whether or not the U.S. was ready for the chore of rebuilding Iraq, I think you are right. I think we aren't ready for it, but I think we should have been. But that ties in with the power vacuum thing.
At the outset of the "War on Terror" Bush said that it would be a very long and very unconventional war. What he meant was that we weren't just going to try to find Osama in Afghanistan or take out Saddam in Iraq, but that we were going to attempt to "encourage" a reformation in fundamentalist Islam. Because the root cause of the trouble between Western Democracy and radical Islam is NOT (or not solely) the foreign trade practices of the U.S. but rather the incompatability of democracy and Shahira law. Once upon a time, the same might have been said about Christianity, but in that war democracy won, and Christianity was forced to temper itself and become more accepting of other (read: corrupt)ways of life. Bitch all you want about the tyranny of the Christian Right, but it is today, FAR from what it would have been once. The Protestant Revolution, Martin Luther and all that, helped this along.
There has been no such reformation in Islam, and until there is, there will not be peace between racidal Muslim fundamentalists and Western Democracy. THIS is what Iraq is designed to foster. Once a democratic and (God willing) PEACEFUL democracy is set up in Iraq, the standard of living in that area is going to improve. The people there are going to see their situations improve and they will have HOPE for a peaceful future where they will be able to acheive whatever they can acheive by their own means.
Once that happens, people in Iran, Jordan or Saudi Arabia (which is where this vision breaks down, they're already filthy rich) will see what the people Iraq have been able to do by and for themselves and they will strive to acheive the same for themselves (or, potentially, destroy what has been created in Iraq in favor of theocracies).
If it works, it will bring peace to the most enduring and intense source of hatred in the world today. If not, at least we can say we tried. But it IS going to take a LONG time, and I'm afraid that people today just don't have the attention span (read: cojones) for it.
Submitted by wookie (user info) at 2005-09-30 10:19:49 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I guess that's sort of part of my point though... I don't think we were prepared for it this time around either. I was no supporter of Bush I, but I think he was at least a very intelligent man, and understood the huge undertaking involved.
I'm no poly-sci major, but even I was able to recognize the huge power vacuum that would result from Saddam's removal, and what that would mean for the stability of the region. I mean, that's why we helped install Saddam in the first place, to stabilize that area of the Middle East.
But, in kind, maybe I'm just spouting liberal left-wing rhetoric.
Hmmm, Judoka is conspicuosly absent from his own post. I wonder how he feels about its hijacking (no pun intended), and the fact that none of this has anything to do with the real point of his post.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2005-09-30 10:08:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Prescient, but not necessarily relevant in the context of Gulf II. It all stemmed from the U.N. mandate that let the U.S. go into Kuwait in the first place, and the scope to which all those dire predictions would have exceeded the scope of that U.N. mandate.
What those predictions say is that going into Iraq and taking out Saddam would be a HUGE undertaking. The U.S. wasn't ready to face those burdens AT THAT TIME, and in hindsight, I still see that as a mistake.
Submitted by wookie (user info) at 2005-09-30 10:03:00 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
And remember, most of the 9/11 terrorists were Saudis, not Iraqis.
Despite repeated attempts by the administration to tie Saddam to Al Qaida and Osama Bin Laden, there is no link. Even the 9/11 Commission came to that conclusion.
So I think 9/11 WOULD have happened, regardless of whether Bush I had forced a ground occupation and Saddam's surrender.
Submitted by wookie (user info) at 2005-09-30 09:58:22 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
The article is legit. It disappeared from Time's website because the publishers of Bush and Scowcroft's book, from which it is excerpted, claim it was a violation of copyright to have it posted on Time's website. But I own the book.
And while I understand it was written about the first Gulf war, here are the parts that I think are particularly relevant today:
"President Bush (I) repeatedly declared that the fate of Saddam Hussein was up to the Iraqi people. Occasionally, he indicated that removal of Saddam would be welcome, but for very practical reasons there was never a promise to aid an uprising. While we hoped that popular revolt or coup would topple Saddam, neither the U.S. nor the countries of the region wished to see the breakup of the Iraqi state. We were concerned about the long-term balance of power at the head of the Gulf."
"Trying to eliminate Saddam...would have incurred incalculable human and political costs."
"We would have been forced to occupy Baghdad and, in effect, rule Iraq. The coalition would instantly have collapsed, the Arabs deserting it in anger and other allies pulling out as well.
Had we gone the invasion route, the U.S. could conceivably still be an occupying power in a bitterly hostile land. It would have been a dramatically different--and perhaps barren--outcome."
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2005-09-30 09:48:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Wookie -
You realize that article was written about the first Gulf War, right? I'm not disagreeing with what it says (although the fact that the post states that the article has miraculously disappeared is a little disconcerting), but even if the article is legit, you have to keep in mind the time and context in which it was written. It deals solely with why the U.S. did not move into Iraq after successfully beating Saddam back from the Kuwaiti border in the FIRST Gulf War.
Frankly, looking at it now, I see this as a mistake on the part of the first President Bush. Had he pushed for a humiliating "U.S.S. Missouri" surrender by Saddam back then, would there have been a 9/11? Would there have been a "Blackhawk Down" in Somalia? This could have been the start of the notion that the United States is only interested in an initial show of force, but has no interest in following through on the part of hostile arabs.
Ah, but maybe I'm just mindlessly spouting right-wing rhetoric again.
Submitted by wookie (user info) at 2005-09-30 09:23:10 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Gotta disagree with you Teeph. At the time the WMD argument was being made, the intelligence was already being drawn into question. It's just that the people in the intelligence community (underlings and superiors alike) who were questioning it were being told to shut their yaps. It was a shaky assertion at best from the get go.
I won't get into the whole revisionist history thing, but definitely not everyone thought that were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.
And Bush I made the best argument for leaving Saddam in power:
http://www.ubersite.com/m/30537
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2005-09-30 09:05:01 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Ok, I get it...adulterous blowjobs sully the presidency, but lieing to the whole citizenry, sending our armies to invade another soverign nation and depose its government, and using these lies as a basis to spend $200 billion in another country with the profits going to friends of the administration, and also using these lies to get 2000 American Soldiers killed in a foreign land...now that doesn't sully the presidency?!?!
Teeph, man you are a real piece of work if you believe that one. For awhile you had be believing that you actually thought, insted of just brainlessly firing off right-wing rhetoric. Guess I was wrong.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Cuberat - See, here's the deal. If you somehow think that revisionist history is valid, then I can't argue with you. The "lies" that Bush told in order to send our armies to invade another soveregn nation and depose its government were the SAME "lies" that John F. Kerry was telling people in the run-up to the '04 election. See, EVERYONE thought that there WERE weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. The best intelligence we had at the time said so. Now it turns out that the best intelligence we had at the time was incorrect. Oops. Our bad. Sorry. Now, we can't bring anyone back to life, but we probably COULD put Saddam back in charge in Iraq, if you think that would help make things all better.
Submitted by LiquidPaper (user info) at 2005-09-29 22:37:17 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
No Comment
Submitted by polyamorousaj (user info) at 2005-09-29 20:49:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
hahaha
I used to be a Republican when I thought they were fiscally conservative.
Thank you, President Bush, for showing me the error of my ways.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-09-29 18:35:27 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
bankrupt.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-09-29 18:35:07 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
just remember this when I start quoting democrats.
THEY ARE ALL MORALLY BACKRUPT HYPOCRITES.
else they wouldn't be politicians.
Submitted by rad1101 (user info) at 2005-09-29 18:33:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
you got us there, smart guy.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2005-09-29 18:29:31 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Good enough explanation for me Stabs.
Submitted by hairycoo (user info) at 2005-09-29 18:00:11 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
good luck with that
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2005-09-29 17:50:38 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Loki, you do know Clinton was accused of the "monica missiles" that hit Sudan's baby formula plant and locations in Afghanistan (some landed in Pakistan on accident I believe)...
http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/SUDAN/sudan.html
So his BJ probably cost someone their lives, but they just weren't American. So who cares about them, I guess.
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2005-09-29 17:44:36 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2005-09-29 15:53:52 (#)
Ranking: 0
"and the democrats think that taxing people to pay for it is the way to fix it...and that's fucking RIDICULOUS"
Not to start a flamewar, but if we're deficit spending and interest is increasing the debt....how else are we supposed to pay something off if we don't take more money in? Just reducing spending can't do the trick alone, can it? I mean, before the sun explodes?
Don't jump down my throat on this, Stabby-san. I freely admit I don't understand the finer points of government spending, but to say that raising taxes at all is ridiculous doesn't make sense from a standpoint of "If we ain't got it, how we gonna pay it off?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I should have said: "at this point, it would be ridiculous" because raising taxes to pay for some of the debt can be done when the economy is strong...especially on signs of inflation in that scenario. Economics is complicated, it really is a system of checks and balances on its own self.
I'm sure you've heard alot of people crying about the giant deficit and how "our children are going to pay for this!" etc... Well, are you mad at your grandfather for making you pay for his debt? Because the debt to income (GDP) ratio of the USA was staggering back at the end of WW II.
You increase taxes mildly when the economy is strong, and do not wildly spend (deficit spending) when the economy is strong. Even during Clinton's presidency the national debt increase by 1.5 Trillion bucks....it just grew at a slower rate as well it should with a 9% growth rates in the economy. He had only ONE quarter where the national debt was not increased, by the way. I hope you didn't believe the stuff spread around how the "national debt was under control by Clinton". He had a good economy, and Bush took over with a slump on the way (lets not argue specifics into who caused it as it was neither of them...and sept 11th sure didn't help). That will shoot down any plans to pay off the national debt because you can't do that in a recession lest you see further decline.
Economics is complicated and I would not admit to knowing too terribly much other than some basics... I do believe there should be some kind of limits on spending in good times, but in bad..you can let it slip. Reagan proved that, and every President followed afterwards. Only bad thing is...nobody is trying to fix things when we are having "good times". Clinton was damn close though...
Submitted by FATMANTPK (user info) at 2005-09-29 17:44:04 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
loki for President - 2008
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2005-09-29 17:27:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
I can't remember...now let me see, how many people died because Clinton got a hummer?
It seems like it was about the same number as the number of weapons of mass destruction found in Iraq.
Submitted by cuberat (user info) at 2005-09-29 17:00:16 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2005-09-29 16:12:45 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2005-09-29 16:03:54 (#)
Ranking: 2
Wasn't there something about bringing integrity back to the Whitehouse?
----------------------------
Yeah, but so far there haven't been any adulterous blowjobs in the oval office (that we know of), so they're still technically okay there.
Whitehouse = okay
Congress = maybe not so much
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ok, I get it...adulterous blowjobs sully the presidency, but lieing to the whole citizenry, sending our armies to invade another soverign nation and depose its government, and using these lies as a basis to spend $200 billion in another country with the profits going to friends of the administration, and also using these lies to get 2000 American Soldiers killed in a foreign land...now that doesn't sully the presidency?!?!
Teeph, man you are a real piece of work if you believe that one. For awhile you had be believing that you actually thought, insted of just brainlessly firing off right-wing rhetoric. Guess I was wrong.
Submitted by zakalwe (user info) at 2005-09-29 16:38:40 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
I'd be more surprised if you found a major election promise of this sort kept by any politician.
Submitted by Teephphah (user info) at 2005-09-29 16:12:45 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2005-09-29 16:03:54 (#)
Ranking: 2
Wasn't there something about bringing integrity back to the Whitehouse?
----------------------------
Yeah, but so far there haven't been any adulterous blowjobs in the oval office (that we know of), so they're still technically okay there.
Whitehouse = okay
Congress = maybe not so much
Judoka- this post really kind of sucked. You're smarter than this. Were you just pressed for time or something?
Submitted by loki (user info) at 2005-09-29 16:03:54 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Wasn't there something about bringing integrity back to the Whitehouse?
Submitted by wookie (user info) at 2005-09-29 16:02:39 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
HadToBeDone:
The truth is the truth is the truth.
I doubt Twit and Twat even know what the Contract with America was or could say who was Speaker of the House in 1994 with out doing a Google search.
At least StabKill has an educated opinion, even if I don't necessarily agree with him.
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2005-09-29 15:53:52 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
"and the democrats think that taxing people to pay for it is the way to fix it...and that's fucking RIDICULOUS"
Not to start a flamewar, but if we're deficit spending and interest is increasing the debt....how else are we supposed to pay something off if we don't take more money in? Just reducing spending can't do the trick alone, can it? I mean, before the sun explodes?
Don't jump down my throat on this, Stabby-san. I freely admit I don't understand the finer points of government spending, but to say that raising taxes at all is ridiculous doesn't make sense from a standpoint of "If we ain't got it, how we gonna pay it off?"
Submitted by HadToBeDone (user info) at 2005-09-29 15:50:26 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by wookie (user info) at 2005-09-29 15:14:14 (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by TigerLilly (user info) at 2005-09-29 15:07:55 (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by nitty34 (user info) at 2005-09-29 15:04:15 (#)
Ranking: -2
You should visit this site:
www.iwanttolickcindysheehanslabia.com
You might learn something.
=================================================================
Great. Uber's newest siamese twins.
Be careful, I was called a jerk for pointing that out a few days ago....
Submitted by fluff (user info) at 2005-09-29 15:47:21 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by Stabkill (user info) at 2005-09-29 15:34:53 EDT (#)
Ranking: -1
meh... Deficit spending can be OK to get out of a recession (along with lowering the fed interest rate). And nailing people with taxes is only needed when inflation starts to an unacceptable level...
But, who fights the "balanced budget" type of amendments? Democrats do, believe it or not. It is sad how things how kind of flip-flopped and you got democrats crying for fiscal conservation and republicans (well... Ok, BUSH) spending like there is no tomrrow.
There is no doubt this will bite us in our ass at one point if we do not cut government spending and start paying off some of this substantial debt...it gives us room to breathe the next recession... But if we are hit with a big depression along with skyrocketing inflation (sparked by fuel prices probably...not the same kind of inflation as the 'normal' kind), there is going to be major trouble.
Still....the post is meh... what the hell can be done about it? You got the republicans believing Ronald Reagan proved debt doesn't matter (well, it doesn't...to an extent we've gone well past unfortunately) and the democrats think that taxing people to pay for it is the way to fix it...and that's fucking RIDICULOUS. That will spark a god damn recession faster than anything...
Cut spending you mother fuckers.
Submitted by FATMANTPK (user info) at 2005-09-29 15:24:47 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Submitted by johnhutch (user info) at 2005-09-29 15:13:34 (#)
Ranking: 2
Why the hell is everyone -2ing a guy who is merely posting a TRUE QUOTE. It's not his fault the republican party lied to the american people.
-----
NEWSFLASH - All politicians lie
Submitted by wookie (user info) at 2005-09-29 15:14:14 EDT (#)
Ranking: 0
Submitted by TigerLilly (user info) at 2005-09-29 15:07:55 (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submitted by nitty34 (user info) at 2005-09-29 15:04:15 (#)
Ranking: -2
You should visit this site:
www.iwanttolickcindysheehanslabia.com
You might learn something.
=================================================================
Great. Uber's newest siamese twins.
Submitted by johnhutch (user info) at 2005-09-29 15:13:34 EDT (#)
Ranking: 2
Why the hell is everyone -2ing a guy who is merely posting a TRUE QUOTE. It's not his fault the republican party lied to the american people.
Submitted by TigerLilly (user info) at 2005-09-29 15:07:55 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
No Comment
Submitted by nitty34 (user info) at 2005-09-29 15:04:15 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
You should visit this site:
www.iwanttolickcindysheehanslabia.com
You might learn something.
Submitted by BLITZKREIG_BOB (user info) at 2005-09-29 15:04:09 EDT (#)
Ranking: -2
Bizzaro BrianTheTruthSpeaker.