The real hypocrites
Brett A. Pasternack
hypocrites because, um, they first opposed one thing called a "nuclear
option" and then supported something quite different that some people
tried to refer to as a "nuclear option", and because they first opposed
eliminating the filibuster and then some of them said they would like to
change the rules for the filibuster, I'd like to pass along this article
detailing many, many instances of Republican and conservative hypocrisy.
This was written by Russell King and is available at:
The version on the Web has embedded links to support all of its claims,
and also has additional sections about conservative hyperbole and
hatred. Now, I must acknowledge that some of these items are specific to
particular conservatives, sometimes including minor elected officials or
non-elected commentators (including the Rush Limbaughs and Glenn Becks).
Nonetheless, there's an awful lot here that applies very broadly.
An open letter to conservatives
March 22, 2010, 3:16PM
Dear Conservative Americans,
The years have not been kind to you. I grew up in a profoundly
Republican home, so I can remember when you wore a very different face
than the one we see now. You've lost me and you've lost most of
America. Because I believe having responsible choices is important to
democracy, I'd like to give you some advice and an invitation.
First, the invitation: Come back to us.
Now the advice. You're going to have to come up with a platform that
isn't built on a foundation of cowardice: fear of people with colors,
religions, cultures and sex lives that differ from your own; fear of
reform in banking, health care, energy; fantasy fears of America being
transformed into an Islamic nation, into social/commun/fasc-ism, into
a disarmed populace put in internment camps; and more. But you have
work to do even before you take on that task.
Your party -- the GOP -- and the conservative end of the American
political spectrum have become irresponsible and irrational. Worse,
it's tolerating, promoting and celebrating prejudice and hatred. Let
me provide some examples -- by no means an exhaustive list -- of where
the Right as gotten itself stuck in a swamp of hypocrisy, hyperbole,
historical inaccuracy and hatred.
If you're going to regain your stature as a party of rational,
responsible people, you'll have to start by draining this swamp:
Hypocrisy
You can't flip out -- and threaten impeachment - when Dems use a
parliamentary procedure (deem and pass) that you used repeatedly (more
than 35 times in just one session and more than 100 times in all!),
that's centuries old and which the courts have supported. Especially
when your leaders admit it all.
You can't vote and scream against the stimulus package and then take
credit for the good it's done in your own district (happily handing
out enormous checks representing money that you voted against, is
especially ugly) -- 114 of you (at last count) did just that -- and
it's even worse when you secretly beg for more.
You can't fight against your own ideas just because the Dem president
endorses your proposal.
You can't call for a pay-as-you-go policy, and then vote against your
own ideas.
Are they "unlawful enemy combatants" or are they "prisoners of war" at
Gitmo? You can't have it both ways.
You can't carry on about the evils of government spending when your
family has accepted more than a quarter-million dollars in government
handouts.
You can't refuse to go to a scheduled meeting, to which you were
invited, and then blame the Dems because they didn't meet with you.
You can't rail against using teleprompters while using teleprompters.
Repeatedly.
You can't rail against the bank bailouts when you supported them as
they were happening.
You can't be for immigration reform, then against it .
You can't enjoy socialized medicine while condemning it.
You can't flip out when the black president puts his feet on the
presidential desk when you were silent about white presidents doing
the same. Bush. Ford.
You can't complain that the president hasn't closed Gitmo yet when
you've campaigned to keep Gitmo open.
You can't flip out when the black president bows to foreign
dignitaries, as appropriate for their culture, when you were silent
when the white presidents did the same. Bush. Nixon. Ike. You didn't
even make a peep when Bush held hands and kissed (on the mouth)
leaders of countries that are not on "kissing terms" with the US.
You can't complain that the undies bomber was read his Miranda rights
under Obama when the shoe bomber was read his Miranda rights under
Bush and you remained silent. (And, no, Newt -- the shoe bomber was
not a US citizen either, so there is no difference.)
You can't attack the Dem president for not personally* publicly
condemning a terrorist event for 72 hours when you said nothing about
the Rep president waiting 6 days in an eerily similar incident (and,
even then, he didn't issue any condemnation). *Obama administration
did the day of the event.
You can't throw a hissy fit, sound alarms and cry that Obama freed
Gitmo prisoners who later helped plan the Christmas Day undie bombing,
when -- in fact -- only one former Gitmo detainee, released by Dick
Cheney and George W. Bush, helped to plan the failed attack.
You can't condemn blaming the Republican president for an attempted
terror attack on his watch, then blame the Dem president for an
attempted terror attack on his.
You can't mount a boycott against singers who say they're ashamed of
the president for starting a war, but remain silent when another
singer says he's ashamed of the president and falsely calls him a
Maoist who makes him want to throw up and says he ought to be in jail.
You can't cry that the health care bill is too long, then cry that
it's too short.
You can't support the individual mandate for health insurance, then
call it unconstitutional when Dems propose it and campaign against
your own ideas.
You can't demand television coverage, then whine about it when you get
it. Repeatedly.
You can't praise criminal trials in US courts for terror suspects
under a Rep president, then call it "treasonous" under a Dem
president.
You can't propose ideas to create jobs, and then work against them
when the Dems put your ideas in a bill.
You can't be both pro-choice and anti-choice.
You can't damn someone for failing to pay $900 in taxes when you've
paid nearly $20,000 in IRS fines.
You can't condemn criticizing the president when US troops are in
harms way, then attack the president when US troops are in harms way ,
the only difference being the president's party affiliation (and, by
the way, armed conflict does NOT remove our right and our duty as
Americans to speak up).
You can't be both for cap-and-trade policy and against it.
You can't vote to block debate on a bill, then bemoan the lack of
'open debate'.
If you push anti-gay legislation and make anti-gay speeches, you
should probably take a pass on having gay sex, regardless of whether
it's 2004 or 2010. This is true, too, if you're taking GOP money and
giving anti-gay rants on CNN. Taking right-wing money and GOP favors
to write anti-gay stories for news sites while working as a gay
prostitute, doubles down on both the hypocrisy and the prostitution.
This is especially true if you claim your anti-gay stand is God's
stand, too.
When you chair the House Caucus on Missing and Exploited Children, you
can't send sexy emails to 16-year-old boys (illegal anyway, but you
made it hypocritical as well).
You can't criticize Dems for not doing something you didn't do while
you held power over the past 16 years, especially when the Dems have
done more in one year than you did in 16.
You can't decry "name calling" when you've been the most consistent
and outrageous at it. And the most vile.
You can't spend more than 40 years hating, cutting and trying to kill
Medicare, and then pretend to be the defenders of Medicare
You can't praise the Congressional Budget Office when it's analysis
produces numbers that fit your political agenda, then claim it's
unreliable when it comes up with numbers that don't.
You can't vote for X under a Republican president, then vote against X
under a Democratic president. Either you support X or you don't. And
it makes it worse when you change your position merely for the sake
obstructionism.
You can't call a reconciliation out of bounds when you used it
repeatedly.
You can't spend taxpayer money on ads against spending taxpayer money.
You can't condemn individual health insurance mandates in a Dem bill,
when the mandates were your idea.
You can't demand everyone listen to the generals when they say what
fits your agenda, and then ignore them when they don't.
You can't whine that it's unfair when people accuse you of exploiting
racism for political gain, when your party's former leader admits
you've been doing it for decades.
You can't portray yourself as fighting terrorists when you openly and
passionately support terrorists.
You can't complain about a lack of bipartisanship when you've
routinely obstructed for the sake of political gain -- threatening to
filibuster at least 100 pieces of legislation in one session, far more
than any other since the procedural tactic was invented -- and
admitted it. Some admissions are unintentional, others are made
proudly. This is especially true when the bill is the result of
decades of compromise between the two parties and is filled with your
own ideas.
You can't question the loyalty of Department of Justice lawyers when
you didn't object when your own Republican president appointed them.
You can't preach and try to legislate "Family Values" when you: take
nude hot tub dips with teenagers (and pay them hush money); cheat on
your wife with a secret lover and lie about it to the world; cheat
with a staffer's wife (and pay them off with a new job); pay hookers
for sex while wearing a diaper and cheating on your wife; or just
enjoying an old fashioned non-kinky cheating on your wife; try to have
gay sex in a public toilet; authorize the rape of children in Iraqi
prisons to coerce their parents into providing information; seek, look
at or have sex with children; replace a guy who cheats on his wife
with a guy who cheats on his pregnant wife with his wife's mother.
Thanatos
"Brett A. Pasternack" <bret...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In light of the recent post about how Democrats are supposedly
> hypocrites because, um, they first opposed one thing called a "nuclear
> option"
That's not the only reason they're hypocrites.
"One such surprise is found on page 158 of the legislation,
which creates a carve-out for senior staff members in the
leadership offices and on congressional committees, essentially
exempting those senior Democrat staffers who wrote the bill
from being forced to purchase health care plans in the same
way as all other Americans."
One rule of thumb that never fails is that if the guys who write a law
see the need to exempt themselves from its effects, you can be sure it's
a bad law.
But seriously, if this health care bill is so wonderful, why is it that
people who wrote it don't think it's good enough for them and their
families?
John Edwards was right < there are two Americas. The one the Democratic
legislators live in and the one they're foisting on the rest of us.
Brett A. Pasternack
Hey, no source. What a surprise. Let me, once again, do your work for
you...ah, here it is.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/03/23/opinion/main6324480.shtml
You appear to be wrong. It doesn't exempt the staff members of the
committees and leadership offices from the requirements the rest of us
have. It exempts them only from the requirements that are specific to
Congress members and their staffs.
But even if what you said were true, it's hardly much of a response to
the long list of hypocritical stances listed in the piece I posted. Here
we have conservatives who went nuts when people criticized Bush who seem
to have nothing to say about a wave of vandalism and death threats
against Democratic lawmakers. (Forget that they said nothing about Ted
Nugent saying he was ashamed of the President, in London, which is
exactly what they blacklisted the Dixie Chicks for; I'm more interested
in the people who are actually making threats and carrying out
violence.)
Between the racial slurs hurled by DC protestors, the bricks being
thrown through windows of Congress members, and the Republican Senators
peevishly shutting down important (and non-partisan) committee business,
the Republican party is starting to look like Jim is in charge.
Thanatos
So there's requirements that are specific to Congress but Congress is
exempt from them. Not sure how that makes your case any better.
> But even if what you said were true, it's hardly much of a response to
> the long list of hypocritical stances listed in the piece I posted.
That's only because I don't have the time or desire to sit down and put
together a similar list. You didn't do your list yourself. Someone else
did it for you and you just copied it over. Yet you seem to think I
should take hours out of my day to research and formulate a similar
response? Not likely.
They're all politicians. Hypocrisy is practically job requirement. If
you honestly believe there's no hypocrisy among the ranks of Dem
politicians, you're living in a delusional fantasy world.
> Here we have conservatives who went nuts when people criticized
> Bush who seem to have nothing to say about a wave of vandalism
> and death threats against Democratic lawmakers.
And we have Nancy Pelosi who was publicly thrilled with dissent when
Bush was in office ("the more dissent the better" was her actual quote)
but now hallucinates swastikas at tea party protests and calls them
dangerous extremists, while decrying the very dissent of which she was
so enamored mere months earlier.
They cry about "Obama-as-Hitler" signs, as if this is something new,
saying it's a dangerous brand of racism,. (How exactly is comparing
Obama to Hitler racists, anyway?) Where were all these hysterical
leftists for eight years when this was going on:
http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=612
And there's something extremely disingenuous of the majority to
go out of their way to bait people-- after all, what was that Sunday
grand march from the congressional offices to the Capitol (right through
the protesters, led by Pelosi with her huge gavel and crazy smile
plastered across her face, when it's both easier, safer, and more
traditional to use the tunnels) if not a huge symbolic middle finger to
everyone who opposed them? It was a gleeful "up yours" designed to
provoke a response, which they didn't get. Yes, there's reports of
epithets being shouted and someone being spit upon, but not one shred of
video has been produced to bolster those claims, despite the dozens of
cameras present. Jesse Jackson, Jr. was filming the whole thing for
precisely that reason. You'd think if these things had happened, he'd
have released the proof by now.
No, I think they were disappointed their little ruse backfired and when
they didn't get what they wanted, they started making things up. And
even if it *did* happen, that hardly means the rest of America that
opposes the Dem agenda is complicit in it, as they have intimated. For
eight years, I worked Bush events where protesters would hold up signs
that said things like "We'll only support our troops when they shoot
their commander-in-chief." Signs with the actual swastikas that Pelosi
only imagined she saw on tea party signs. Signs portraying Bush as
Hitler and/or a Nazi in dozens of different ways.
And that was considered "patriotic dissent". We were told that over and
over ad nauseum by likes of Keith Olbermann, who now froths at mouth
every night over the outrageousness of citizens who dare to protest
Obama. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, the EXACT SAME TACTICS
suddenly become "dangerous extremism that has no place in our democracy".
What was it you were saying about hypocrisy?
> I'm more interested in the people who are actually making threats
> and carrying out violence.
It's not just happening to Dems:
Gunshots Fired at Eric Cantor's Office
So, which side is more violent? Will the mainstream media
report this non-stop for the next three weeks? Probably not.
FOX has learned that the Richmond, VA campaign office of
House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) was shot at overnight.
Cantor, is the highest-elected Jewish official in the country
and the only Jewish Republican in the House.
As a member of the House leadership, U.S. Capitol Police
provide Cantor with a security detail around the clock. But
FOX has learned that Cantor was one of about ten lawmakers
Thursday who asked for enhanced protection after a spate of
threats were. Most of the threats were directed at House
Democrats who voted in favor of the health care reform bill
over the weekend.
The Department of Homeland Security is involved in the Cantor
case because he is a member of the House leadership.
Rep. Jean Schmidt, another Republican, has also received threats
of violence.
So I guess the Dems are responsible for the threats and violence
directed toward these Republicans? I mean if you want to be consistent
and not be hypocrite, you'd have to agree that they are.
Brett A. Pasternack
No. There are requirements that are specific to Congress that also apply
to some staff members (those who work directly for individual members),
but other staff members (those who work for the committees) are exempt
from them.
And either way, it helps my case because your claim was that the
Democrats were exempting themselves from the requirements that everyone
else has under the bill, and that's not true.
> > But even if what you said were true, it's hardly much of a response to
> > the long list of hypocritical stances listed in the piece I posted.
>
> That's only because I don't have the time or desire to sit down and put
> together a similar list. You didn't do your list yourself. Someone else
> did it for you and you just copied it over. Yet you seem to think I
> should take hours out of my day to research and formulate a similar
> response? Not likely.
I don't particularly want you to respond at all. Better that you spend
the time reading the article and learning something from it. I'm just
saying that when there's detailed information about systemic hypocrisy
in the Republican party, giving one example of Democratic hypocrisy
doesn't do much to undercut the point--particularly when the example
turns out to be false.
> They're all politicians. Hypocrisy is practically job requirement. If
> you honestly believe there's no hypocrisy among the ranks of Dem
> politicians, you're living in a delusional fantasy world.
Um, then why were you going on about the "Slaughter solution", the
supposed change of heart on "the nuclear option", Obama's position on
lobbyists in his Administration, etc.?
Of course hypocrisy turns up in all political corners, but what's going
on with the Republicans is taking it to a whole new level. When, for
example, they oppose elements of the health care plan that they
themselves proposed, and then turn around and claim that the other side
is unwilling to be bipartisan, it's beyond the pale.
> > Here we have conservatives who went nuts when people criticized
> > Bush who seem to have nothing to say about a wave of vandalism
> > and death threats against Democratic lawmakers.
>
> And we have Nancy Pelosi who was publicly thrilled with dissent when
> Bush was in office ("the more dissent the better" was her actual quote)
> but now hallucinates swastikas at tea party protests and calls them
> dangerous extremists, while decrying the very dissent of which she was
> so enamored mere months earlier.
Dissent is not the same thing as violence and death threats.
> They cry about "Obama-as-Hitler" signs, as if this is something new,
> saying it's a dangerous brand of racism,. (How exactly is comparing
> Obama to Hitler racists, anyway?)
Who said it was?
> And there's something extremely disingenuous of the majority to
> go out of their way to bait people-- after all, what was that Sunday
> grand march from the congressional offices to the Capitol (right through
> the protesters, led by Pelosi with her huge gavel and crazy smile
> plastered across her face, when it's both easier, safer, and more
> traditional to use the tunnels) if not a huge symbolic middle finger to
> everyone who opposed them? It was a gleeful "up yours" designed to
> provoke a response, which they didn't get. Yes, there's reports of
> epithets being shouted and someone being spit upon, but not one shred of
> video has been produced to bolster those claims, despite the dozens of
> cameras present. Jesse Jackson, Jr. was filming the whole thing for
> precisely that reason. You'd think if these things had happened, he'd
> have released the proof by now.
>
> No, I think they were disappointed their little ruse backfired and when
> they didn't get what they wanted, they started making things up.
And it doesn't affect your thought processes on the matter that the
march to the Capitol occured AFTER the alleged incidents? You think they
made it up because a tactic that hadn't happened yet failed? They walked
to the Capitol precisely because they wanted to show that they were not
intimidated by the namecalling incidents.
But the whole notion that walking in public constitutes baiting people
and "a symbolic middle finger" is pretty hard to take.
> And
> even if it *did* happen, that hardly means the rest of America that
> opposes the Dem agenda is complicit in it, as they have intimated.
Fair enough. But the response of mainstream Republicans often seems to
amount to "well, the people have reason to be angry."
> For
> eight years, I worked Bush events where protesters would hold up signs
> that said things like "We'll only support our troops when they shoot
> their commander-in-chief." Signs with the actual swastikas that Pelosi
> only imagined she saw on tea party signs. Signs portraying Bush as
> Hitler and/or a Nazi in dozens of different ways.
>
> And that was considered "patriotic dissent". We were told that over and
> over ad nauseum by likes of Keith Olbermann, who now froths at mouth
> every night over the outrageousness of citizens who dare to protest
> Obama. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, the EXACT SAME TACTICS
> suddenly become "dangerous extremism that has no place in our democracy".
Give me cites that Olbermann ever said that using Nazi imagery or
comparisons was "patriotic dissent".
> > I'm more interested in the people who are actually making threats
> > and carrying out violence.
>
> It's not just happening to Dems:
>
> Gunshots Fired at Eric Cantor's Office
>
> So, which side is more violent? Will the mainstream media
> report this non-stop for the next three weeks? Probably not.
>
> FOX has learned that the Richmond, VA campaign office of
> House Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-VA) was shot at overnight.
> Cantor, is the highest-elected Jewish official in the country
> and the only Jewish Republican in the House.
Local police have in fact determined that the shots in question were
fired some distance away and were not aimed at Cantor's office.
Thanatos
"Brett A. Pasternack" <bret...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Thanatos wrote:
> > > But even if what you said were true, it's hardly much of a response to
> > > the long list of hypocritical stances listed in the piece I posted.
> >
> > That's only because I don't have the time or desire to sit down and put
> > together a similar list. You didn't do your list yourself. Someone else
> > did it for you and you just copied it over. Yet you seem to think I
> > should take hours out of my day to research and formulate a similar
> > response? Not likely.
>
> I don't particularly want you to respond at all.
You sure have a funny way of showing it.
> Better that you spend the time reading the article and learning
> something from it.
Why? Are you accusing me of the same hypocrisy? If not, then what
exactly do I need to learn?
> I'm just saying that when there's detailed information about
> systemic hypocrisy in the Republican party
Okay... considering the fact that I'm not a Republican, I'm not sure why
you think that article has some kind of bearing on me, such that I need
to "learn" from it.
> giving one example of Democratic hypocrisy doesn't do much to
> undercut the point--particularly when the example turns out to be
> false.
Well, hey, if you want more examples, I'll just point you to Thursday's
"Daily Show" in which Jon Stewart ran a lengthy segment exposing the
ridiculous hypocrisy of both parties and those who are currently leading
them. Since Stewart can hardly be accused of being a water-carrier for
conservatives, perhaps you'll be more likely to acknowledge the
hypocrisy of the Dems when it comes from him.
> > They're all politicians. Hypocrisy is practically job requirement. If
> > you honestly believe there's no hypocrisy among the ranks of Dem
> > politicians, you're living in a delusional fantasy world.
>
> Um, then why were you going on about the "Slaughter solution", the
> supposed change of heart on "the nuclear option", Obama's position on
> lobbyists in his Administration, etc.?
That question has no relationship to the statement I made. I said
hypocrisy is practically a job requirement for politicians and you ask
me why I was talking about the Slaughter Solution? What does one have to
do with the other?
> Of course hypocrisy turns up in all political corners, but what's going
> on with the Republicans is taking it to a whole new level.
Not really. You just personally get more peeved when those with whom you
disagree engage in it. Hypocrisy is always more palatable when it's done
by those with whom one agrees in the name of causes that one supports.
> > > Here we have conservatives who went nuts when people criticized
> > > Bush who seem to have nothing to say about a wave of vandalism
> > > and death threats against Democratic lawmakers.
> >
> > And we have Nancy Pelosi who was publicly thrilled with dissent when
> > Bush was in office ("the more dissent the better" was her actual quote)
> > but now hallucinates swastikas at tea party protests and calls them
> > dangerous extremists, while decrying the very dissent of which she was
> > so enamored mere months earlier.
>
> Dissent is not the same thing as violence and death threats.
Members of Congress of both parties, as well as the president (all
presidents) are *always* getting death threats. The president gets
thousands per year (and no, they haven't gone up since Obama was
elected, despite what the media would have you believe). Capitol Police
(which investigates threats against Congress) will tell you that the
number of threats received totals over ten thousand every year.
But now suddenly the majority runs crying to the cameras about the
threats they're receiving (as if it's anything new) and pretending
they're suddenly spooked and scared by it when the reality is they've
been living with threats like that since they took office.
It's nothing but show theater to rally people like you to their side and
make them appear as sympathetic victims of those evil subversive
conservatives.
> > They cry about "Obama-as-Hitler" signs, as if this is something new,
> > saying it's a dangerous brand of racism,. (How exactly is comparing
> > Obama to Hitler racists, anyway?)
>
> Who said it was?
Donna Brazile, for one. She was all over CNN last year during those town
hall meetings, saying specifically that comparing Obama to Hitler is
racist.
Then there's all the other folks out there on the leftists blogs and
media that were saying the same thing. I'm not going to detail them all
for you. A few examples should suffice. Here's a nice little screed
which goes to great length to show how anyone who holds up a Hitler sign
in a protest is a racist:
In the tradition of Ronald Reagan's fictional welfare queens
and Willie Horton, the Obama/Hitler comparison is race-baiting
masquerading as politics. The absurdity of the argument that a
liberal Democrat is analogous to a right-wing dictator underscores
its subconscious agenda. That it has emerged from the right
at the nadir of their power, when for the first time in history
the President is not white, should come as little surprise.
Of course the author of the piece ignores (intentionally, one assumes)
the uncomfortable fact that the Left had just spent eight years parading
around swastikas and Hitler signs and other Nazi imagery at Bush
protests. Presumably that would have required the author (and others
like him) to invoke the famed Liberal Double Standard in all its naked
glory and that's something to be avoided whenever possible.
And they did the same thing when someone did up that caricature of Obama
as the Joker. Suddenly that was "racist" somehow, despite the fact that
there's nothing racist whatsoever about it (unless "rude" is now
equivalent to "racist"), and in fact a similar caricature of Bush as the
Joker in Vanity Fair was celebrated a few years earlier on leftist blogs
everywhere. (How's that for hypocrisy? Let me guess... that's
"different".)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/08/05/AR2009080
503876.html?hpid=artslot
http://www.mrc.org/biasalert/2009/20090806111816.aspx
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2008/07/bush-as-joker.html
The underlying message is that *any* criticism or caricature of Obama is
de facto racist, even if there is no racial aspect to it whatsoever,
because the only way you could possibly disagree with the man is if you
hate black people.
It's a wonderful way of shutting down debate without having to actually
formulate any kind of argument. The Left knows that Americans have been
conditioned to fear being called racist above all else (whether it's
true or not) and by yelling "Racism!" at every turn they can muzzle the
opposition without having to actually take them on in any meaningful way.
> > And there's something extremely disingenuous of the majority to
> > go out of their way to bait people-- after all, what was that Sunday
> > grand march from the congressional offices to the Capitol (right through
> > the protesters, led by Pelosi with her huge gavel and crazy smile
> > plastered across her face, when it's both easier, safer, and more
> > traditional to use the tunnels) if not a huge symbolic middle finger to
> > everyone who opposed them? It was a gleeful "up yours" designed to
> > provoke a response, which they didn't get. Yes, there's reports of
> > epithets being shouted and someone being spit upon, but not one shred of
> > video has been produced to bolster those claims, despite the dozens of
> > cameras present. Jesse Jackson, Jr. was filming the whole thing for
> > precisely that reason. You'd think if these things had happened, he'd
> > have released the proof by now.
> >
> > No, I think they were disappointed their little ruse backfired and when
> > they didn't get what they wanted, they started making things up.
>
> And it doesn't affect your thought processes on the matter that the
> march to the Capitol occured AFTER the alleged incidents? You think they
> made it up because a tactic that hadn't happened yet failed? They walked
> to the Capitol precisely because they wanted to show that they were not
> intimidated by the namecalling incidents.
Baloney. They walked to a building (not the actual Capitol, one of the
annexes) in which most of them didn't even work precisely so they could
dive through the protesters, hoping for exactly the sort of thing that
they claimed happened, but for which no one can provide even the
slimmest shred of proof actually did happen.
> > For
> > eight years, I worked Bush events where protesters would hold up signs
> > that said things like "We'll only support our troops when they shoot
> > their commander-in-chief." Signs with the actual swastikas that Pelosi
> > only imagined she saw on tea party signs. Signs portraying Bush as
> > Hitler and/or a Nazi in dozens of different ways.
> >
> > And that was considered "patriotic dissent". We were told that over and
> > over ad nauseum by likes of Keith Olbermann, who now froths at mouth
> > every night over the outrageousness of citizens who dare to protest
> > Obama. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, the EXACT SAME TACTICS
> > suddenly become "dangerous extremism that has no place in our democracy".
>
> Give me cites that Olbermann ever said that using Nazi imagery or
> comparisons was "patriotic dissent".
He never denounced the leftists that were doing it, and according to the
standard announced this past week by the majority, if you don't
affirmatively denounce it, that means you're complicit in it.
Or is this is another one of those situations where "that's different".
Brett A. Pasternack
> "Brett A. Pasternack" <bret...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Thanatos wrote:
>
> > > > But even if what you said were true, it's hardly much of a response to
> > > > the long list of hypocritical stances listed in the piece I posted.
> > >
> > > That's only because I don't have the time or desire to sit down and put
> > > together a similar list. You didn't do your list yourself. Someone else
> > > did it for you and you just copied it over. Yet you seem to think I
> > > should take hours out of my day to research and formulate a similar
> > > response? Not likely.
> >
> > I don't particularly want you to respond at all.
>
> You sure have a funny way of showing it.
How so?
> > Better that you spend the time reading the article and learning
> > something from it.
>
> Why? Are you accusing me of the same hypocrisy? If not, then what
> exactly do I need to learn?
>
> > I'm just saying that when there's detailed information about
> > systemic hypocrisy in the Republican party
>
> Okay... considering the fact that I'm not a Republican, I'm not sure why
> you think that article has some kind of bearing on me, such that I need
> to "learn" from it.
Your posts are almost without exception critical of liberals and
Democrats, when in fact conservatives and Republicans are far worse in
terms of hypocrisy, among other things.
> > giving one example of Democratic hypocrisy doesn't do much to
> > undercut the point--particularly when the example turns out to be
> > false.
>
> Well, hey, if you want more examples, I'll just point you to Thursday's
> "Daily Show" in which Jon Stewart ran a lengthy segment exposing the
> ridiculous hypocrisy of both parties and those who are currently leading
> them. Since Stewart can hardly be accused of being a water-carrier for
> conservatives, perhaps you'll be more likely to acknowledge the
> hypocrisy of the Dems when it comes from him.
Perhaps. Feel free to give specifics.
> > > They're all politicians. Hypocrisy is practically job requirement. If
> > > you honestly believe there's no hypocrisy among the ranks of Dem
> > > politicians, you're living in a delusional fantasy world.
> >
> > Um, then why were you going on about the "Slaughter solution", the
> > supposed change of heart on "the nuclear option", Obama's position on
> > lobbyists in his Administration, etc.?
>
> That question has no relationship to the statement I made. I said
> hypocrisy is practically a job requirement for politicians and you ask
> me why I was talking about the Slaughter Solution? What does one have to
> do with the other?
The context of the previous thread seemed to be about hypocrisy. Perhaps
you weren't including the Slaughter Solution in that--if so, I
misunderstood. The main point still stands, though. (And I should point
out that the Slaughter Solution has been used by Republicans in the
past, and you never said anything about that...but, then again, I can't
blame you for that, since the "liberal media" never said anything about
it, so few of us had any idea it was happening.)
> > Of course hypocrisy turns up in all political corners, but what's going
> > on with the Republicans is taking it to a whole new level.
>
> Not really. You just personally get more peeved when those with whom you
> disagree engage in it. Hypocrisy is always more palatable when it's done
> by those with whom one agrees in the name of causes that one supports.
There's truth to that, but in fact, yes, the Republicans are currently
being way more hypocritical than the Democrats have been. There's
nothing the Democrats have done that can compare to the Republicans
making a big deal about the use of reconciliation when they've used it
frequently before, for example. This isn't just another case of
optimistic campaign promises running into reality. This is one side
actively manufacturing an issue out of something that they routinely
did.
> Members of Congress of both parties, as well as the president (all
> presidents) are *always* getting death threats. The president gets
> thousands per year (and no, they haven't gone up since Obama was
> elected, despite what the media would have you believe). Capitol Police
> (which investigates threats against Congress) will tell you that the
> number of threats received totals over ten thousand every year.
>
> But now suddenly the majority runs crying to the cameras about the
> threats they're receiving (as if it's anything new) and pretending
> they're suddenly spooked and scared by it when the reality is they've
> been living with threats like that since they took office.
Or maybe they're suddenly spooked and scared because bricks have been
flying through their windows and one's brother had his gas line cut.
> > > They cry about "Obama-as-Hitler" signs, as if this is something new,
> > > saying it's a dangerous brand of racism,. (How exactly is comparing
> > > Obama to Hitler racists, anyway?)
> >
> > Who said it was?
>
> Donna Brazile, for one. She was all over CNN last year during those town
> hall meetings, saying specifically that comparing Obama to Hitler is
> racist.
Not having any luck finding that on Google.
So you say. But even if we assume for the moment that that were true,
it's still not possible that they made up the accusations afterward,
since the accusations were made before. Which was really the core of my
point.
I think if they wanted to bait the protestors into committing more such
acts, they would have sent just a couple of people and an inconspicuous
camera out there--they wouldn't have sent a whole large group and made a
big show of it.
> > > For
> > > eight years, I worked Bush events where protesters would hold up signs
> > > that said things like "We'll only support our troops when they shoot
> > > their commander-in-chief." Signs with the actual swastikas that Pelosi
> > > only imagined she saw on tea party signs. Signs portraying Bush as
> > > Hitler and/or a Nazi in dozens of different ways.
> > >
> > > And that was considered "patriotic dissent". We were told that over and
> > > over ad nauseum by likes of Keith Olbermann, who now froths at mouth
> > > every night over the outrageousness of citizens who dare to protest
> > > Obama. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, the EXACT SAME TACTICS
> > > suddenly become "dangerous extremism that has no place in our democracy".
> >
> > Give me cites that Olbermann ever said that using Nazi imagery or
> > comparisons was "patriotic dissent".
>
> He never denounced the leftists that were doing it, and according to the
> standard announced this past week by the majority, if you don't
> affirmatively denounce it, that means you're complicit in it.
You claimed he told us, over and over, that is was patriotic. I ask you
to support that, and you say, well, he never denounced it. Enough said.
Thanatos
Even if true, which I don't concede, being a conservative is not the
same as being a Republican. I can't stand much of what the Republicans
are doing and have done under Bush, so telling me that I need to "learn"
from some article about Republicans is both condescending and ridiculous.
> > > giving one example of Democratic hypocrisy doesn't do much to
> > > undercut the point--particularly when the example turns out to be
> > > false.
> >
> > Well, hey, if you want more examples, I'll just point you to Thursday's
> > "Daily Show" in which Jon Stewart ran a lengthy segment exposing the
> > ridiculous hypocrisy of both parties and those who are currently leading
> > them. Since Stewart can hardly be accused of being a water-carrier for
> > conservatives, perhaps you'll be more likely to acknowledge the
> > hypocrisy of the Dems when it comes from him.
>
> Perhaps. Feel free to give specifics.
I gave you specifics: last Thursday's "Daily Show". Go watch it yourself
if you're interested. I'm not going to transcribe the whole thing out
for you. The segment had the word "Fatcat" in the title. Can't remember
the whole thing.
> > > > They're all politicians. Hypocrisy is practically job requirement. If
> > > > you honestly believe there's no hypocrisy among the ranks of Dem
> > > > politicians, you're living in a delusional fantasy world.
> > >
> > > Um, then why were you going on about the "Slaughter solution", the
> > > supposed change of heart on "the nuclear option", Obama's position on
> > > lobbyists in his Administration, etc.?
> >
> > That question has no relationship to the statement I made. I said
> > hypocrisy is practically a job requirement for politicians and you ask
> > me why I was talking about the Slaughter Solution? What does one have to
> > do with the other?
>
> The context of the previous thread seemed to be about hypocrisy. Perhaps
> you weren't including the Slaughter Solution in that--if so, I
> misunderstood. The main point still stands, though. (And I should point
> out that the Slaughter Solution has been used by Republicans in the
> past,
It was used to pass parliamentary rules and minor bill fixes. It has
*never* been used to pass a 2000+ page bill which affects 1/6th of the
US economy and fundamentally changes the relationship between the
citizenry and the government.
> > > Of course hypocrisy turns up in all political corners, but what's going
> > > on with the Republicans is taking it to a whole new level.
> >
> > Not really. You just personally get more peeved when those with whom you
> > disagree engage in it. Hypocrisy is always more palatable when it's done
> > by those with whom one agrees in the name of causes that one supports.
>
> There's truth to that, but in fact, yes, the Republicans are currently
> being way more hypocritical than the Democrats have been.
I wasn't aware there was some objective measure of hypocrisy and some
objective group tallying up both sides. Feel free to direct me to it.
> There's nothing the Democrats have done that can compare to the
> Republicans making a big deal about the use of reconciliation when
> they've used it frequently before, for example.
Of course there is. I gave you one in this very thread: during the town
halls last year, Pelosi running to every camera she could find decrying
the tactics of the protesters (when she never did that when leftist
protesters disrupted everything from Congressional hearings to
presidential addresses) and claiming that dissent is harmful to
democracy after being on record during the Bush years saying she loves
dissent and the more dissent the better.
That's easily as hypocritical as complaining about a rules process in
Congress.
> > Members of Congress of both parties, as well as the president (all
> > presidents) are *always* getting death threats. The president gets
> > thousands per year (and no, they haven't gone up since Obama was
> > elected, despite what the media would have you believe). Capitol Police
> > (which investigates threats against Congress) will tell you that the
> > number of threats received totals over ten thousand every year.
> >
> > But now suddenly the majority runs crying to the cameras about the
> > threats they're receiving (as if it's anything new) and pretending
> > they're suddenly spooked and scared by it when the reality is they've
> > been living with threats like that since they took office.
>
> Or maybe they're suddenly spooked and scared because bricks have been
> flying through their windows and one's brother had his gas line cut.
Which also happens every year. Congressional offices routinely suffer
minor vandalism. Happens all the time. Difference is that the members
usually don't run crying to the cameras pretending to be terrified of
those evil conservatives. The police investigate, usually lock someone
up, and that's that.
> > > > They cry about "Obama-as-Hitler" signs, as if this is something new,
> > > > saying it's a dangerous brand of racism,. (How exactly is comparing
> > > > Obama to Hitler racists, anyway?)
> > >
> > > Who said it was?
> >
> > Donna Brazile, for one. She was all over CNN last year during those town
> > hall meetings, saying specifically that comparing Obama to Hitler is
> > racist.
>
> Not having any luck finding that on Google.
I can't find my dog on Google, either. Doesn't mean he doesn't exist.
Nevertheless, I provided you several other examples as well (along with
some additional examples of the liberal hypocrisy which you seem to
think is in such short supply), which you seem to have snipped in their
entirety.
No one ever said they were competent. This *is* Congress, after all.
> > > > For
> > > > eight years, I worked Bush events where protesters would hold up signs
> > > > that said things like "We'll only support our troops when they shoot
> > > > their commander-in-chief." Signs with the actual swastikas that Pelosi
> > > > only imagined she saw on tea party signs. Signs portraying Bush as
> > > > Hitler and/or a Nazi in dozens of different ways.
> > > >
> > > > And that was considered "patriotic dissent". We were told that over and
> > > > over ad nauseum by likes of Keith Olbermann, who now froths at mouth
> > > > every night over the outrageousness of citizens who dare to protest
> > > > Obama. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, the EXACT SAME TACTICS
> > > > suddenly become "dangerous extremism that has no place in our
> > > > democracy".
> > >
> > > Give me cites that Olbermann ever said that using Nazi imagery or
> > > comparisons was "patriotic dissent".
> >
> > He never denounced the leftists that were doing it, and according to the
> > standard announced this past week by the majority, if you don't
> > affirmatively denounce it, that means you're complicit in it.
>
> You claimed he told us, over and over, that is was patriotic. I ask you
> to support that, and you say, well, he never denounced it. Enough said.
No, he did say that the disruptive anti-war protests, among whom were
people holding up Bush-as-Hitler signs, was patriotic dissent. However,
it doesn't matter whether I can comb through the MSNBC archives and find
a specific clip from three years ago or not. It's indisputable that he
never denounced them doing it, which, according to the majority's new
standard is as good as endorsing it.
Hell, I don't remember *you* ever specifically denouncing the use of
Nazi imagery by leftist protesters. According to the majority, that
means you're complicit in it as well.
Brett A. Pasternack
> > > "Brett A. Pasternack" <bret...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > > Thanatos wrote:
> > > Okay... considering the fact that I'm not a Republican, I'm not sure why
> > > you think that article has some kind of bearing on me, such that I need
> > > to "learn" from it.
> >
> > Your posts are almost without exception critical of liberals and
> > Democrats, when in fact conservatives and Republicans are far worse in
> > terms of hypocrisy, among other things.
>
> Even if true, which I don't concede, being a conservative is not the
> same as being a Republican. I can't stand much of what the Republicans
> are doing and have done under Bush, so telling me that I need to "learn"
> from some article about Republicans is both condescending and ridiculous.
It may be true that you can't stand what they're doing, but I can't
remember ever seeing you post to complain about what they're doing.
You'll acknowledge it, sometimes, but I don't see you bringing it up.
> > The context of the previous thread seemed to be about hypocrisy. Perhaps
> > you weren't including the Slaughter Solution in that--if so, I
> > misunderstood. The main point still stands, though. (And I should point
> > out that the Slaughter Solution has been used by Republicans in the
> > past,
>
> It was used to pass parliamentary rules and minor bill fixes. It has
> *never* been used to pass a 2000+ page bill which affects 1/6th of the
> US economy and fundamentally changes the relationship between the
> citizenry and the government.
They had already passed the bill. They were considering using it for,
well, fixes. Perhaps they were less minor than in other cases, but
that's a rather small difference, and Republicans were making it sound
as if this were completely unprecedented.
> > > > Of course hypocrisy turns up in all political corners, but what's going
> > > > on with the Republicans is taking it to a whole new level.
> > >
> > > Not really. You just personally get more peeved when those with whom you
> > > disagree engage in it. Hypocrisy is always more palatable when it's done
> > > by those with whom one agrees in the name of causes that one supports.
> >
> > There's truth to that, but in fact, yes, the Republicans are currently
> > being way more hypocritical than the Democrats have been.
>
> I wasn't aware there was some objective measure of hypocrisy and some
> objective group tallying up both sides. Feel free to direct me to it.
Who said there was an objective measure? Surely you're not saying that
if something can't be quantified, that we can't find any difference
between the two parties on it, right?
> > There's nothing the Democrats have done that can compare to the
> > Republicans making a big deal about the use of reconciliation when
> > they've used it frequently before, for example.
>
> Of course there is. I gave you one in this very thread: during the town
> halls last year, Pelosi running to every camera she could find decrying
> the tactics of the protesters (when she never did that when leftist
> protesters disrupted everything from Congressional hearings to
> presidential addresses) and claiming that dissent is harmful to
> democracy after being on record during the Bush years saying she loves
> dissent and the more dissent the better.
>
> That's easily as hypocritical as complaining about a rules process in
> Congress.
Show me where she said dissent is harmful to democracy, and I'll believe
you.
Although something said by one member of Congress, even such a high
ranking one, isn't the same as something that's a strategy across the
party.
> > > > > They cry about "Obama-as-Hitler" signs, as if this is something new,
> > > > > saying it's a dangerous brand of racism,. (How exactly is comparing
> > > > > Obama to Hitler racists, anyway?)
> > > >
> > > > Who said it was?
> > >
> > > Donna Brazile, for one. She was all over CNN last year during those town
> > > hall meetings, saying specifically that comparing Obama to Hitler is
> > > racist.
> >
> > Not having any luck finding that on Google.
>
> I can't find my dog on Google, either. Doesn't mean he doesn't exist.
No, but I would think that a prominent political figure saying something
of that nature would be a lot more likely to turn up online than your
dog.
> Nevertheless, I provided you several other examples as well (along with
> some additional examples of the liberal hypocrisy which you seem to
> think is in such short supply), which you seem to have snipped in their
> entirety.
You gave me some other examples of images used by someone on the left to
criticize Bush that were similar to images that someone on the left
complained about when they were used against Obama. And without much in
the way of specifics. Not on the same level.
> > I think if they wanted to bait the protestors into committing more such
> > acts, they would have sent just a couple of people and an inconspicuous
> > camera out there--they wouldn't have sent a whole large group and made a
> > big show of it.
>
> No one ever said they were competent. This *is* Congress, after all.
So, then, what's your evidence? You're interpreting their actions as
having a certain goal, yet you concede that they aren't well-designed to
acheive that goal. So how do you draw that conclusion? I think this is
yet another example of you leaping to unsupported conclusions, and then
getting upset when the media doesn't make the same leap.
Fine, but that's not what you said.
> Hell, I don't remember *you* ever specifically denouncing the use of
> Nazi imagery by leftist protesters. According to the majority, that
> means you're complicit in it as well.
No one ever asked me to. Until now. I categorically denounce the use of
Nazi imagery against Bush.