"Hypocrisy", A Synonym For "Republican".
Harry Hope
http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/126268
October 29, 2009
"HYPOCRISY", A SYNONYM FOR "REPUBLICAN"
By Gary Ater
The party of "NO" continues its journey toward insignificance.
I continue to shake my head in how the Republicans are able to
continue amazing me with their blatant hypocrisy.
What I have realized is that hypocrisy is actually a foundational
issue for the GOP.
As an example, how can a party be called "Pro-Life" when they are
against health care for all, just as they were when they voted against
both Social Security and Medicare�.?
How can the people that are supposed to be "Pro-Life", be the most
adamant of America�s war mongers and also the staunchest supporters of
the death penalty�?
On further consideration, perhaps the party should just change their
motto and key talking-point from "Pro-Life" to "Pro-Baby".
Apparently, the GOP wants every fetus to live, even if it�s not a
healthy one, but afterwards, they apparently just want everyone to go
and die.
And, as Ronald Reagan once said, "Well, there you go again���."
Now, look at what they�ve gone and done�����
First, we agree that it has become common knowledge that the
Republican politicians receive the largest donations from big business
lobbyists, especially the banks, insurance, health care and
pharmaceutical companies.
According to the lobbyist�s financial records, Republicans in Congress
receive about 3-4 times as much of the donations from these
organizations as do the Democrats.
So what did the Republicans do this time?
Well, the AARP, yes the one that has a dual role as both an insurance
reform advocate and an insurance marketer, has now come under GOP
scrutiny from congressional Republicans.
These politicians have accused the AARP of having a conflict of
interest in taking sides in the fierce debate over health insurance.
Three House Republicans sent a letter to the AARP complaining that the
group was putting its "political self-interests ahead of seniors".
Yes, they are actually going after the AARP.
This organization, formerly known as the American Association of
Retired Persons, is not an insurance company, it�s a non-profit
advocacy and marketing company.
They are an organization that heavily markets insurance policies,
mainly for seniors, on its Web site, in mailings to its members and
through advertising targeted at seniors.
On the other hand, these Republican politicians are the same
individuals that have been taking millions from the "financial well"
of the insurance providers while continuing to vote against providing
any support for America�s seniors.
These GOP representatives are now complaining that the nation's
preeminent seniors group has put the weight of its 40 million members
behind health-care reform.
Ah yes, this is GOP hypocrisy at its finest.
__________________________________________________
Buncha goofballs, these RePIGs, eh?
Harry
Werner
>...
>
> These GOP representatives are now complaining that the nation's
> preeminent seniors group has put the weight of its 40 million members
> behind health-care reform.
>
> Ah yes, this is GOP hypocrisy at its finest.
>
> __________________________________________________
>
> Buncha goofballs, these RePIGs, eh?
>
> Harry
Harry, the AARP is a lobby organization. Some lobbies buy Republican
politicians and others buy Democrat politicians. The hypocrisy is
yours for not acknowledging this.
Governing has become a way to get privileges for some at the expense
of others.
http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/what.shtml
Clairbear
d3ef41...@e18g2000vbe.googlegroups.com:
Harry is not capable of seeing the truth about the left he lives in denial
He only sees that which is ideologically pro left and anti right
Of course the inverse can easily be said about many on the right
bvallely
> The party of "NO" continues its journey toward insignificance.
Next Tuesday is right around the corner.
zzpat
If the logic employed by the GOP is correct, that is that this health
care bill will lead to government run health care, the AARP will lose
all the money it makes from health insurance so in effect, it'd be
lobbying to destroy itself. That's the argument put out by the GOP.
Logic is not on the side of the GOP...but that's not your argument.
Your's is even more sinister.
Both parties receive money from lobbyists.
All lobbyists are bad.
Therefore, both parties are bad.
Besides being a fallacy (some lobbyists receive no money from the
government, while others beg for more), the cavalier dismissal of
facts and basic logic and replacing it with rhetoric is indefensible
(from an intellectual point of view).
Werner
> Werner wrote:
> > On Oct 31, 8:37 am, Harry Hope <riv...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > >...
>
> > > These GOP representatives are now complaining that the nation's
> > > preeminent seniors group has put the weight of its 40 million members
> > > behind health-care reform.
>
> > > Ah yes, this is GOP hypocrisy at its finest.
>
> > > __________________________________________________
>
> > > Buncha goofballs, these RePIGs, eh?
>
> > > Harry
>
> > Harry, the AARP is a lobby organization. Some lobbies buy Republican
> > politicians and others buy Democrat politicians. The hypocrisy is
> > yours for not acknowledging this.
>
> > Governing has become a way to get privileges for some at the expense
> > of others.
> > http://www.capitaldistrict-lp.org/what.shtml
>
> If the logic employed by the GOP is correct, that is that this health
> care bill will lead to government run health care, the AARP will lose
> all the money it makes from health insurance so in effect, it'd be
> lobbying to destroy itself. That's the argument put out by the GOP.
>
> Logic is not on the side of the GOP...but that's not your argument.
> Your's is even more sinister.
>
You should be more respectful of reality instead of logic. AMTRAK is
an example of the public option in transport. Public schools are a
public option in education. Social Security and Medicare are public
options.
if "we the people'' must pay for a "money pit'' we obviously don't
want, does that not make us accountable to government?
http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/Accountable.shtml
http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/Education.shtml
http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/PerformanceGap.shtml
http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/ReportCard.shtml
http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/Schools.shtml
despite the fact that the U.S. spends the largest amount of money per
pupil in the world, standardized international achievement tests
reveal that U.S. public schools achieve mediocre scores.. For
example,
according to the 2000 Program for International Student Assessment
(PISA) for 15-
year-old students, the U.S. ranked 15th in reading, 18th in
mathematics, and 14th in science literacy among 27 OECD countries
(U.S. DOE, 2001).
http://www.uwm.edu/~kim/papers/Accountability_Final.pdf
http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/SocialSecurity.shtml
http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/HealthCare.shtml
The 2008 Social Security and Medicare Trustees Reports show the
combined unfunded liability of these two programs has reached $101.7
trillion in today's dollars! That is more than seven times the size of
the U.S. economy and 10 times the size of the outstanding national
debt. The unfunded liability is the difference between the benefits
that have been promised to retirees and what will be collected in
dedicated taxes and Medicare premiums. Last year alone, the size of
the debt rose by $11.5 trillion. If no other reform is enacted, this
funding gap can only be closed in future years by substantial tax
increases, large benefit cuts or both.
http://retirementreform.org/socialsecurity/brief-analysis-616-social-security-and-medicare-projections-2008
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oDVn_S-Rrg&feature=related
> Both parties receive money from lobbyists.
> All lobbyists are bad.
> Therefore, both parties are bad.
>
> Besides being a fallacy (some lobbyists receive no money from the
> government, while others beg for more), the cavalier dismissal of
> facts and basic logic and replacing it with rhetoric is indefensible
> (from an intellectual point of view).
Who said lobbyists are bad? Who said both parties are bad? They are
good for the winning lobbies and bad for the losing ones. Both parties
are bankrupting the country. Is that good of bad? And for who?
liberal
Speaking of respecting reality: AMTRAK is not an example of a public
option. AMTRAK was created after railroad companies failed to maintain
track and rolling stock (which led to derailments) and simply walked
away from their tranportation hardware, telling the govenment: "You
want a railroad system in America, you run the railroads; we're outa'
here."
The US government had no choice.
> Public schools are a
> public option in education. Social Security and Medicare are public
> options.
>
> if "we the people'' must pay for a "money pit'' we obviously don't
> want, does that not make us accountable to government?http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/Accountable.shtml
>
>
> despite the fact that the U.S. spends the largest amount of money per
> pupil in the world, standardized international achievement tests
> reveal that U.S. public schools achieve mediocre scores.. For
> example,
> according to the 2000 Program for International Student Assessment
> (PISA) for 15-
> year-old students, the U.S. ranked 15th in reading, 18th in
> mathematics, and 14th in science literacy among 27 OECD countries
> (U.S. DOE, 2001).http://www.uwm.edu/~kim/papers/Accountability_Final.pdf
>
> http://capitaldistrict-lp.org/SocialSecurity.shtmlhttp://capitaldistrict-lp.org/HealthCare.shtml
> The 2008 Social Security and Medicare Trustees Reports show the
> combined unfunded liability of these two programs has reached $101.7
> trillion in today's dollars! That is more than seven times the size of
> the U.S. economy and 10 times the size of the outstanding national
> debt. The unfunded liability is the difference between the benefits
> that have been promised to retirees and what will be collected in
> dedicated taxes and Medicare premiums. Last year alone, the size of
> the debt rose by $11.5 trillion. If no other reform is enacted, this
> funding gap can only be closed in future years by substantial tax
> increases, large benefit cuts or both.http://retirementreform.org/socialsecurity/brief-analysis-616-social-...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-oDVn_S-Rrg&feature=related
Werner
Sure there was a choice -the choice of not going into the RR
business.