The Essence of the Left: Hypocrisy

[Google]

I've said a million times, not quite but I'm not going through all of my posts, that the hallmark of a hopeless leftist is being able to hold two contradictory ideas within their mind effortlessly and harmoniously. The left did not actually care about the issues they exploited under Bush. They sounded like Ron Paul libertarians under Bush, it was all bullshit. Now they justify the politicizing of the IRS and Justice Dept. I can't wait to see how the leftist rags justify this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/opinion/president-obamas-dragnet.html

Hypocrits to the core, it is the essence of liberalism.

10 Questions Warrantless Wiretaps - YouTube

 

[Black_Label]

If it wasn't for W and the GOP pieces of shit, we never would have had any of this. Thanks patriot act!

 

[Google]

If it wasn't for W and the GOP pieces of shit, we never would have had any of this. Thanks patriot act!

You can't possibly be this naive and ignorant. A Democrat-dominated congress and White House voted to renew the patriot act. Cling desperately to your narrative.

 

[Mr. H.]

U.S. Democrats, and the U.N., have sent us into more wars than any other faction.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Yes oh wise one only the left has hypocrites and the right is made up of devoutly principled heroes

 

[Saigon]

U.S. Democrats, and the U.N., have sent us into more wars than any other faction.

The UN has NEVER sent the US into any conflict. Not one.

Honestly....how can you not know this stuff?

 

[Mr. H.]

U.S. Democrats, and the U.N., have sent us into more wars than any other faction.

The UN has NEVER sent the US into any conflict. Not one.

Honestly....how can you not know this stuff?

How can you be so ignorant?

 

[Saigon]

Mr H -

By all means enlighten us on all of these conflicts the UN "sent" the US into.

You won't find any.

 

[Londoner]

U

I've said a million times, not quite but I'm not going through all of my posts, that the hallmark of a hopeless leftist is being able to hold two contradictory ideas within their mind effortlessly and harmoniously. The left did not actually care about the issues they exploited under Bush. They sounded like Ron Paul libertarians under Bush, it was all bullshit. Now they justify the politicizing of the IRS and Justice Dept. I can't wait to see how the leftist rags justify this.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/07/opinion/president-obamas-dragnet.html

Hypocrits to the core, it is the essence of liberalism.

10 Questions Warrantless Wiretaps - YouTube

1) The New York Times, - the heart of Leftist intelligentsia - was in possession of W's illegal wiretapping story prior to the 2004 election. They actively suppressed the story, releasing it only after the election had been decided. Meaning: the left at its core was actually helping Bush, despite fashionable protests by ineffectual college professors and wealthy hippie kids (two groups that have about as much gravitas as a fart in a stiff wind).

2) I support taking action against the current administration if as part of the agreement we are allowed to prosecute the Bush administration for starting the program prior to having any legal clearance. As Lindsey Graham said today, the current NSA program has been approved by Congress. Bush did not have this approval, so we should be able to trace this cancer to its Source - otherwise the Republican Party will never be fully cleansed of their role in making this possible in the first place

3) I grew up under the auspices of the Reagan and Thatcher revolutions. These right-wing movements convinced the world that government wasn't competent enough to run a laundromat. The Republican brand was crystal clear: they didn't trust government to do BIG things. Then, I watched as the GOP concocted a plan that gave government more money and power than LBJ ever dreamed. I'm talking about the plan to rebuild the Arab world in our democratic image. An earlier generation of Republicans – by earlier I mean the Republican Party before Cold War anti-communism brought them out of their isolationist shell - would have laughed at such a utopian scheme. The old Republican Party didn't think Washington had enough competence or information to end evil, fight poverty, or change the weather. I couldn't believe that nobody in the Republican voting bloc even winced when W created such a grand Wilsonian scheme of world improvement. Never before had I seen such a large contradiction swallowed by so many unwitting morons. The fact that you don't see what I'm talking about suggest sthat you have been bitten by the very bug about which you are so enraged.

4) Having said all that my friend, I agree with your post. I think the left should pressure Obama to put an end to the Patriot Act and the expanded surveillance powers it gives to the federal government.

But let's be clear: We all know that if he unwinds the Bush surveillance state, the rightwing talk radio machine will crucify him for it. Dick Chaney will appear on Fox news, then he will go on Glenn Beck's radio show, then he will go to Rush Limbaugh... and he will accuse the president of being soft on terrorism. But I don't care. It's time that Barack Obama kept his promise to curb the concentrated power that the Republicans gave to big government.

 

[Black_Label]

If it wasn't for W and the GOP pieces of shit, we never would have had any of this. Thanks patriot act!

You can't possibly be this naive and ignorant. A Democrat-dominated congress and White House voted to renew the patriot act. Cling desperately to your narrative.

You can't be this stupid. Only about a 1/3 of the democrats supported renewing the patriot act, virtually all of the GOP and "pro constitution!" teabaggers did as well.

If it wasn't for them, it never would have been renewed, let alone created in the first place.

 

[Pete7469]

U.S. Democrats, and the U.N., have sent us into more wars than any other faction.

The UN has NEVER sent the US into any conflict. Not one.

Honestly....how can you not know this stuff?

Soooo.... Korea was just some shit Truman got us into because he wanted to control some rice farms?

The UN had no vested interest in Desert Storm? Meh, you might have some arguments, but NO ONE profited from the outcome more than UN contractor thugs and bureaucrats.

Un "peacekeepers" failure in Somalia didn't lead to us being there either of course, nor did their "humanitarian" concerns in the Balkans right?

Yeah, you're an idiot.... Not that everyone isn't aware of that.

 

[Saigon]

Londoner -

1) The New York Times, - the heart of Leftist intelligentsia - was in possession of W's illegal wiretapping story prior to the 2004 election. They actively suppressed the story, releasing it only after the election had been decided. Meaning: the left at its core was actually helping Bush, despite fashionable protests by ineffectual college professors and wealthy hippie kids

A more intelligent reading of events is that the NYT decided to remain impartial, and not run such an inflammatory story weeks before an election.

Despite what your fantasies tell you, most decent media are not any near as partisan as you imagine.

 

[Pete7469]

U.S. Democrats, and the U.N., have sent us into more wars than any other faction.

The UN has NEVER sent the US into any conflict. Not one.

Honestly....how can you not know this stuff?

How can you be so ignorant?

Liberalism is founded on ignorance, You really had to ask?

 

[Saigon]

U.S. Democrats, and the U.N., have sent us into more wars than any other faction.

The UN has NEVER sent the US into any conflict. Not one.

Honestly....how can you not know this stuff?

Soooo.... Korea was just some shit Truman got us into because he wanted to control some rice farms?

The UN had no vested interest in Desert Storm? Meh, you might have some arguments, but NO ONE profited from the outcome more than UN contractor thugs and bureaucrats.

Un "peacekeepers" failure in Somalia didn't lead to us being there either of course, nor did their "humanitarian" concerns in the Balkans right?

Yeah, you're an idiot.... Not that everyone isn't aware of that.

And which of those conflicts did the UN send US troops into?

None of them. Not one.

In each case the US made its own decision to send troops, based on its own wishes.

 

[Pete7469]

Londoner -

1) The New York Times, - the heart of Leftist intelligentsia - was in possession of W's illegal wiretapping story prior to the 2004 election. They actively suppressed the story, releasing it only after the election had been decided. Meaning: the left at its core was actually helping Bush, despite fashionable protests by ineffectual college professors and wealthy hippie kids

A more intelligent reading of events is that the NYT decided to remain impartial, and not run such an inflammatory story weeks before an election.

Despite what your fantasies tell you, most decent media are not any near as partisan as you imagine.

OH yeah!!! The NYT was impartial.... That's happened a lot.... You can believe it!!!

 

[Mr. H.]

Mr H -

By all means enlighten us on all of these conflicts the UN "sent" the US into.

You won't find any.

United Nations and Afghanistan

The U.N. drove the U.S. into the Afghan conflict.

 

[Saigon]

Mr H -

By all means enlighten us on all of these conflicts the UN "sent" the US into.

You won't find any.

United Nations and Afghanistan

The U.N. drove the U.S. into the Afghan conflict.

No, not at all.

The UN actually has no power or authority to order any country or send any troops anywhere.

They might ask countries to send troops (on rare occasions), but each government has full and complete decision-making authority. Generally, countries volunteer troops for missions that they consider useful.

The US has often declined to send troops in the past (e.g. Rwanda) when asked to do so, as is its right.

I have to say - I am geniunely surprised people don't know this.

 

[Mr. H.]

...each government has full and complete decision-making authority. Generally, countries volunteer troops for missions that they consider useful.

Under the directive of...

 

[Londoner]

OH yeah!!! The NYT was impartial.... That's happened a lot.... You can believe it!!!

By impartial, I think he meant that if the situation was reversed, Fox News would never have attacked a sitting Republican president the way the New York Times attacked Obama today. If you look at the way the New York Times attacked Obama, you realize that the left doesn't really have a Fox news. Having said that, I do think it is one of the last bastions of liberal enlightenment. (By liberalism, I don't 17th century variety of say an Immanuel Kant. I mean the New Deal liberalism established under FDR. Unlike 50 years ago, the liberalism Established by the old American left no longer has enough financial support to control American opinion)

 

[Saigon]

...each government has full and complete decision-making authority. Generally, countries volunteer troops for missions that they consider useful.

Under the directive of...

their own government.

Again - the UN has NO AUTHORITY to send troops from any country into any conflict. None.