• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

Democratic Presidential candidates show hypocrisy in their criticism

tcsenter

Lifer
Sep 7, 2001
17,848
24
81
Its their job as politicians to be against [insert political opponent's positions here] even if they have to engage in bold acts of hypocrisy. Them's politics.
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
All of the Democratic candidates except for Kicini(whatever his name is) , Dean, and I think Graham are a bunch of fuc*ing hypocrites. They voted for the war, the patriot act, etc. in order to not be seen as "unpatriotic" and now they kind of pretend they were against it all along. Try again a$$holes.
 
Jan 12, 2003
3,498
0
0
When you have nothing to pony up, no ideas, no solutions, no policies (aside from making the elderly work until 70 before they collect Social Security), this is what they have to do...hard to fill up an hour debate with 3 minutes of substance.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,543
3
0
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
All of the Democratic candidates except for Kicini(whatever his name is) , Dean, and I think Graham are a bunch of fuc*ing hypocrites. They voted for the war, the patriot act, etc. in order to not be seen as "unpatriotic" and now they kind of pretend they were against it all along. Try again a$$holes.
Well at least they came to their senses. I wish Bush would.
 

tnitsuj

Diamond Member
May 22, 2003
5,446
0
76
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
All of the Democratic candidates except for Kicini(whatever his name is) , Dean, and I think Graham are a bunch of fuc*ing hypocrites. They voted for the war, the patriot act, etc. in order to not be seen as "unpatriotic" and now they kind of pretend they were against it all along. Try again a$$holes.
Well at least they came to their senses. I wish Bush would.
Or maybe they are the real axis of weasels who lack the backbone to take a stand when it may be politically non-expedient, and are now shifting tunes as the body count and costs increase in Iraq.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
These guys had to see the writing on the wall . . . and like typical politicians they crumpled. Kerry gets a pass b/c he's seen war up close. I believe he's always made the argument that intervention was necessary but the administration should act through a UN-backed coalition if at all possible. The others had to notice how Max Cleland . . . arguably one the most decent men in the Senate . . . and undoubtedly the epitome of sacrifice for the country . . . was run out of Georgia b/c he wasn't patriotic enough.
 

Red Dawn

Elite Member
Jun 4, 2001
57,543
3
0
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
All of the Democratic candidates except for Kicini(whatever his name is) , Dean, and I think Graham are a bunch of fuc*ing hypocrites. They voted for the war, the patriot act, etc. in order to not be seen as "unpatriotic" and now they kind of pretend they were against it all along. Try again a$$holes.
Well at least they came to their senses. I wish Bush would.
Or maybe they are the real axis of weasels who lack the backbone to take a stand when it may be politically non-expedient, and are now shifting tunes as the body count and costs increase in Iraq.
Or maybe the came the correct conclusion that the Bush posse lied to them about the imminent threat posed by Hussien and his yet to be found WMD's. Hell I believed that BS and supported our invasion thinking that it was in our and the worlds best interest. Who knows, maybe I would have supported it without the lies but obviously Bush didn't trust the American Public to come to the same conclusion as him and his group of Neo Conss.
 

freegeeks

Diamond Member
May 7, 2001
5,460
1
71
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
All of the Democratic candidates except for Kicini(whatever his name is) , Dean, and I think Graham are a bunch of fuc*ing hypocrites. They voted for the war, the patriot act, etc. in order to not be seen as "unpatriotic" and now they kind of pretend they were against it all along. Try again a$$holes.
Well at least they came to their senses. I wish Bush would.
Or maybe they are the real axis of weasels who lack the backbone to take a stand when it may be politically non-expedient, and are now shifting tunes as the body count and costs increase in Iraq.
Or maybe the came the correct conclusion that the Bush posse lied to them about the imminent threat posed by Hussien and his yet to be found WMD's. Hell I believed that BS and supported our invasion thinking that it was in our and the worlds best interest. Who knows, maybe I would have supported it without the lies but obviously Bush didn't trust the American Public to come to the same conclusion as him and his group of Neo Conss.
Red

what I don't understand in this whole discussion is the fact that a majority of the american public still supports Bush on the Iraq thing. When you look at Great-Britain the public opinion has swung the other way completely. There was strong support for Bush and Blair before the war began and now a majority of the Brits is convinced that they have been lied to.

why doesn't that happen in the USA??? Why is the american public opinion not so critical about the Iraq thing??? I don't say you have to become a Bush basher all of the sudden but a bit of critical view on this whole thing is the least you can do (like you do)...

 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,910
46
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: freegeeks
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
All of the Democratic candidates except for Kicini(whatever his name is) , Dean, and I think Graham are a bunch of fuc*ing hypocrites. They voted for the war, the patriot act, etc. in order to not be seen as "unpatriotic" and now they kind of pretend they were against it all along. Try again a$$holes.
Well at least they came to their senses. I wish Bush would.
Or maybe they are the real axis of weasels who lack the backbone to take a stand when it may be politically non-expedient, and are now shifting tunes as the body count and costs increase in Iraq.
Or maybe the came the correct conclusion that the Bush posse lied to them about the imminent threat posed by Hussien and his yet to be found WMD's. Hell I believed that BS and supported our invasion thinking that it was in our and the worlds best interest. Who knows, maybe I would have supported it without the lies but obviously Bush didn't trust the American Public to come to the same conclusion as him and his group of Neo Conss.
Red

what I don't understand in this whole discussion is the fact that a majority of the american public still supports Bush on the Iraq thing. When you look at Great-Britain the public opinion has swung the other way completely. There was strong support for Bush and Blair before the war began and now a majority of the Brits is convinced that they have been lied to.

why doesn't that happen in the USA??? Why is the american public opinion not so critical about the Iraq thing??? I don't say you have to become a Bush basher all of the sudden but a bit of critical view on this whole thing is the least you can do (like you do)...
I'm not in Britian and never have been there or off this rock. The whole Britian Nation is rebelling against Blair? I didn't hear about that on the News. Any Brits in here, please chime in...


 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
All of the Democratic candidates except for Kicini(whatever his name is) , Dean, and I think Graham are a bunch of fuc*ing hypocrites. They voted for the war, the patriot act, etc. in order to not be seen as "unpatriotic" and now they kind of pretend they were against it all along. Try again a$$holes.
Well at least they came to their senses. I wish Bush would.
Or maybe they are the real axis of weasels who lack the backbone to take a stand when it may be politically non-expedient, and are now shifting tunes as the body count and costs increase in Iraq.
Or maybe the came the correct conclusion that the Bush posse lied to them about the imminent threat posed by Hussien and his yet to be found WMD's. Hell I believed that BS and supported our invasion thinking that it was in our and the worlds best interest. Who knows, maybe I would have supported it without the lies but obviously Bush didn't trust the American Public to come to the same conclusion as him and his group of Neo Conss.
When has a president ever trusted the public? That's the whole reason why we elect people to make our decisions for us, because we can't possibly be informed enough on all the topics to make an intelligent decision.

BTW: There were no lies. There was only information and a decision based on that information. A lie is when someone knows for a fact that something is false, yet they proclaim it as true (ex: I did not have sexual relations...). Making a decision based on faulty evidence is not lying. Besides, there were many reasons to assume Saddam had weapons. Remember how we could never inspect their buildings? We had to wait 4 - 6 months before we could look in some of them? Oh how convenient that we forget all that stuff after the fact.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,157
3,852
126
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
All of the Democratic candidates except for Kicini(whatever his name is) , Dean, and I think Graham are a bunch of fuc*ing hypocrites. They voted for the war, the patriot act, etc. in order to not be seen as "unpatriotic" and now they kind of pretend they were against it all along. Try again a$$holes.
Well at least they came to their senses. I wish Bush would.
I don't think they came to their senses. I think there just what tnitsuj called them. They're a bunch of gutless, fingers in he wind, what's popular today, centerless assholes. The horrible rub is that there's a bigger asshole in the other party that can win. Dean at least is leading, but who knows when he'll chicken out. Signs are he already is starting to. Why can't we have a contest between the moron and a more progressive truth, even if the truth doesn't win. At least there was the chance. I'm tired of Mr. Suck and Mr. Suckmore.
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
Oh there were lies alright, lies aplenty. It's just a question of who originated them, who fell for them and who's getting called on it.

There are other forms of lying than the simplist definition you listed. Consider a lie of omission -- purposefully withholding vital information in order to persuade or manipulate. I believe that form of deceit is rampant in the Bush administration and it's amazing to see people go the extra mile to turn their cheek to these lies.
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
Beamer, indeed. I watched the last D "debate" and pretty much concluded the same. The only candidate that showed any sincerity and real fire was Sharpton but he's akin to Perot in that he's myopically focused on his pet issues and nothing more.
 

sandorski

No Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
68,260
3,334
126
The Senators seemed to use the Spears Method when it comes to what comes out of the mouth of the President. They quickly found out that those words were untrustworthy and now they reject the Spears Method, at least some of the Leaders are not morons.
 

Mill

Lifer
Oct 10, 1999
28,558
3
81
Originally posted by: sandorski
The Senators seemed to use the Spears Method when it comes to what comes out of the mouth of the President. They quickly found out that those words were untrustworthy and now they reject the Spears Method, at least some of the Leaders are not morons.
*Spin* *Spin* *Spin* *Spin* *Spin* *Spin*
 

Miramonti

Lifer
Aug 26, 2000
28,649
97
91
I wouldn't say those votes were hypocritical but it was certainly spineless to line up like lemmings and support the patriot act the way they all did. Claiming "a different political climate" is just an example of their cowardly decisions. The criticism shouldn't stop at just the democrats running for president, nor just the democrats as a whole.

However the vote to authorize war didn't justify the isolationist hurried approach that the bush administration took when declaring it. He got support which put a backbone to his threats, but the decision for war shouldn't have been excercized before it was absolutely necessary, which it definitely wasn't at that point and may never have been, and it showed a major lack of judgement and integrity on the administrations part imo.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
When has a president ever trusted the public? That's the whole reason why we elect people to make our decisions for us, because we can't possibly be informed enough on all the topics to make an intelligent decision.
The Founders used your logic for the creation of a represenative democracy (Electoral College) but by no means do most intelligent Americans believe as such today. Do you really think most Americans voted for Bush b/c he can make intelligent decisions? The man choked on a pretzel . . .

BTW: There were no lies. There was only information and a decision based on that information. A lie is when someone knows for a fact that something is false, yet they proclaim it as true (ex: I did not have sexual relations...). Making a decision based on faulty evidence is not lying. Besides, there were many reasons to assume Saddam had weapons. Remember how we could never inspect their buildings? We had to wait 4 - 6 months before we could look in some of them? Oh how convenient that we forget all that stuff after the fact.
So when you have some information which agrees with your perspective (DOD, NSA) and some information which disagrees (State, CIA). What do you call it when you use only part of the information . . . selective truth telling?

There are many reasons to assume Bush is an idiot but that doesn't make him an idiot . . . it just raises strong suspicions. Before we commit him to remedial education maybe we should get some achievement testing.

In bold is the only reasonable part of your post, why is it so many people have forgotten that much of the war opposition viewpoints have been proven accurate . . .
1) Saddam not an imminent threat.
2) WMD not abundant or ready for use.
3) WMD infrastructure is likely limited.
4) Resistance will be significant in the aftermath.
5) Conflict/reconstruction will be expensive.
6) Iraqi oil revenues will not pay for it.
. . . . which means significant aspects of the pro-war camp were wrong.
 

BaliBabyDoc

Lifer
Jan 20, 2001
10,737
0
0
The one point that everyone agreed upon before the war was the Saddam was a despotic POS. I believe we still agree on that one.
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
Originally posted by: JellyBaby
Oh there were lies alright, lies aplenty. It's just a question of who originated them, who fell for them and who's getting called on it.

There are other forms of lying than the simplist definition you listed. Consider a lie of omission -- purposefully withholding vital information in order to persuade or manipulate. I believe that form of deceit is rampant in the Bush administration and it's amazing to see people go the extra mile to turn their cheek to these lies.
If you think selective truth telling is lying, then why aren't you going nuts over the fact that CNN, FOX, MSNBC, NBC, every newspaper, etc... all lie their faces off every day?

When you are a leader, you have to be selective in what you tell the people below you. If you were in the army, in enemy territory and your leader said, "crap, we've been traveling 20 miles in the wrong direction into a field of landmines because I've been holding the map upside down", you would freeze with terror and hate the guy. However, if he said, "It will take a bit longer than I anticipated. Be careful because we're going through a field of landmines", you would still have high spirits about your mission. Both said the same thing, but one ommitted some information. Was the leader right or wrong?
 

Gaard

Diamond Member
Feb 17, 2002
8,911
0
0
Is it possible Bush was holding his "How to Wage War" handbook upside down?
 

JellyBaby

Diamond Member
Apr 21, 2000
9,159
1
81
XZeroII, our mainstream TV news media often fail to report on stories that should not only be told but told until all truth concerning them revealed. And in stories they do report, I believe they often omit information, particularly context, background and history. I don't go "nuts" over that, instead I chose not to watch. Print media is far better.

In your analogy, the commander holding the map upside was an honest mistake. If I, as a grunt, became aware of that fact I might snicker but so long as the salient information (being in trouble in a mine field) was passed along to me, there is no deceit, no intention to mislead and thus no morale problem.

We've come to the point where our expected standards of conduct from our federal government is so low that we too easily give them a pass, the benefit of the doubt and buy the old line "data withheld due to national security interests" so very, very quicky. Some of us see this but when we demand better our fellow countrymen ridicule and demonize us. I'm tired of being on someone's side for all the wrong reasons and I'm hopefully in Nov. 2004 people side with the truth.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY