Nice work Jay.

Demon-rats - the pinnicle of hypocrasy....

The only explanation is the obvious one, the Dems. are chronically hypocritical.

That's why they haven't been winning elections for the last 12 years. Or is that because of Diebold? I don't know, I get so confused with their changing talking points.

No, you've pretty much got it right there. The trick to becoming a liberal is accepting that all of those items are 1) true and 2) not in conflict with one another. Try this meditation for starters:

The statement below is false.

The statement above is true.

Just for my own curiosity, does this mean that no one could not come up with a similiar list of hyporcritcal staements and stances made by Republicans in the last 30 years?

The explanation is John Kerry has an evil twin, under the control of Karl Rove.

Well suhnami, what's stopping you?

Honestly... You know the facts are not relevant. What is relevant is how he felt about those statements when he made them

They are easier to understand if you are drunk, stoned, or lobotomized. Hmmm, I guess that would make you a democrat.

Jay: Very well done.

There's gotta be some kind of explanation for this.

There is. You cherry-picked all the items that would make for a good piece for you to write. You could easily have written a similar piece about the Republicans. You, a self-proclaimed... ahem... moderate... cough cough... independent... uh huh... simply chose not to. At least you could admit that much.

suhnami,

Conservatives aren't tossed by political waves... They have a moral character based on truth. Some would call that stubborn but I call it steadfast and true.

...and THAT is why it is SO funny when a liberal (like Kerry) let's the truth of his convictions and opinions slip out.

Yes, Falze. The universe is circular.

The trick to becoming a conservative is knowing that if collapse the circle down to a point, you get mushed. Moron.

Democratic hypocracy, pure and simple. Say what you will but the Democrats are the masters of it.

To call Democrats hypocritical and Republicans unflappable is kinda funny. Let's get tough on drug abusers, but let's give Rush Limbaugh a pass because he was really in pain and needed illegal meds. Or go on a full front Clinton attack for smoking dope while willfully blinding an eye about Bush's drunk driving and cocaine use. I also won't even get into the Foley thing, because Republicans have a moral superiority and would have immediately reported him when they found out... a few years later when the story broke.

I'm simply saying hypocricy is everywhere, and I'm not arguing Jay's thoughts. How Kennedy escaped prison and still holds power belwiders and disgusts me. What Kerry said was awful. But to think the examples above can only be found for Dems is a dillusional attack, which is why I posted the simple question. No one really answered it because this is a conservative blog that doesn't want to know or expose mistakes. I also don't know what's worse, being hypocrital or being wrong and not doing anything to correct it. Since we're in a war for finding WMDs, freeing iraq, shock and awe, figthing them there so not here, that was supposed to doubtfully last six months whilst greeted as liberators against an insurgency in its last throes and the war would pay for itself while continuing to stay the course, but it was never about stay the course... hmmm..... I'm a little dizzy too.

No surprise in this. The Democrats are very often for something before they're against it. In fact, I think I heard one of their presidential candidates say something like that.

Kerry was only early on the leaarning curve "Stay the course is constantly changing"..Bush Oct. 2006

As a Black man, the Byrd incident is what turned me off from the Democratic party. I just knew someone was going to set him straight for saying he "know some white niggers" twice in the same interview. But then nothing.

The truth of the matter is, Republicans are held to higher standard by their electorate. When the MSM writes a story unfavorable to Republicans, it is aimed at their base to reject them. Democrats have the luxury of being held to a lesser standard becasue they "care for the poor and the working class". But talk moral absolutes, and you are a "right wing extremist".

This how James Dobson, head of Focus on the Family is vilified as some un-hinged right winger, but Al (pimp suit and hairdo) and Jesse (illegitimate child and shady business dealings in tow) are moral piilars of the community. Because they care for the poor. (Translated: Whore the plight of the poor for political leverage, as they shill for unions, pro-abortionists, and the white liberal establishment)

Let us know when you learn to put together a coherent thought, davenport...

Hulk mad! Hulk smash!

Does that pretty much summarize your abilities? It probably sounded all cool in your head before you tried to articulate anything, though, huh? Buck up, little camper, there's always night school.

Falze, I left out a word. Here it is stated a little better.

The universe is circular.
The trick to becoming a conservative is knowing that if we collapse the circle down to a point, we all get mushed.

I will be happy to elaborate if you still think this is stupid. Moron.

suhnami, your examples are ridiculous. Bush's DUI from 35 years ago is now distinctly not who he is. He's sober, and clean for years now.

The difference: he took responsibility for his problems, and fixed it. Unlike the Dems. on the other side of the false comparison you conjure up.

Rush Limbaugh is not a politician last time I checked. But he, too, took responsibility and cleaned up his act.

I'm not aware of any Republican politician that holds office after killing a woman, are you? Now theres the difference even you can see, I assume.

And many of those positions, if not all, were taken by Dems, not Republicans. We didn't stake out positions on these matters in high dugeon, only to say later things the exact reverse.

So, sport, see if you can really come up with the same hypocrisy, and when you find a murderer in our midst, let us know.

Chris is Bliss, God Bless. It is so refreshing to read your post after all the posts from "Field Negro" and "Justice58," whatever that is.

I think we're more likely to see a black repub. pres. before a black dem. I hope we do it first. At its best, the Repub. Party is the hope of a free and tolerant society, not the Dims.

Looking forward to reading more of your posts.

Brian said:

You cherry-picked all the items that would make for a good piece for you to write. You could easily have written a similar piece about the Republicans.

Actually, Brian, I don't think I could have. I just don't see the raging contradictions and hypocrisies over on the Republican side of things. I see things and people I don't like, but for the most part it's nowhere near as bad as it is over on the Democratic side.

Could you care to cite a few counterexamples? I'm sure you have at least half a dozen screamingly obvious ones at hand...

J.

Gee Jay, I think what you uncovered is a variety of opinions from many individuals. Wow, what a find, front page news. Imagine that, a world where people of the same political party actually have different perspectives and opinions that vary over the years.
Whats your next big scoop? Hey why aren't you working for some major paper? Oh yeah, in NH there are no major papers. LOL!

Hmm, glaring contradictions from President Bush.
Contradictions such as: 1.Freedom is on the march/warrentless wiretaps 2.Securing the nation/doing nothing about the Mexican border problem. {6 years as Pres and so far only talk} 3. Cutting taxes to stimulate economic growth/allowing the wholsale exportation of jobs to China and India. 4. Claiming the economy is healthy/inflating the National Debt to 9 Trillion dollars. 5.The end of major hostilities in Iraq/current mess. Military operations to make the world more secure from terrorism/totally dropping the ball with North Korea. On and on it goes. As time passes, it only gets worse. Bush: The King of Contradiction.

Except when they are going after little boys! LOL!!
Steak, you are talking Principal, not Practice.
R.Burns

suhnami,
Conservatives aren't tossed by political waves... They have a moral character based on truth. Some would call that stubborn but I call it steadfast and true.
Posted by: steak111111 at October 31, 2006 06:33 PM

Burns: No contradictions really if you think a bit.

How is wiretapping terrorists hurting my freedom? I think it actually enhances it, as I am not dead of a terrorist attack. Isn't murder the ultimate lack of freedom, dip shit?

The Dems. have been worse on the border issue than Bush, but at least now he has signed a bill for a border fence; so, your assertion that her is "doing nothing" is indefensible. Remember his ordering National Guard troops there? Weak, shit wit.

He has done nothing to "wholesale export jobs" anywhere. It's called the free market, and lower taxes make it work. No contradiction there.

The economy is healthy, and the national debt was not enhanced beyond our ability to pay for it--it's all relative to the wealth of the country. Or, hadn't you noticed we have the strongest economy of the industrialized nations? Do you think the Dems. will improve the debt? Wishful thinking, nut shit.

How is the action of terrorists in N. Korea and Iraq Bush's "contradiction?" You really veered off there. The "major hostilities" were over in week 1 due to the collapse of the Iraqi Army. What's happening now is terrorist and sectarian violence--car bombs, not artillery. Witless shit.

God, did you even finish High School? How depressing to debate a feeble mind like yours.

You must have been an infantryman in Mr. Kerry's Army.

Note to Jay: I originally posted this with corroboration, but your filter rejected it as having too many links. You can approve that post when you get to it, but here it is without links.

Could you care to cite a few counterexamples? I'm sure you have at least half a dozen screamingly obvious ones at hand...

Oh boy, at least!

1) Pot smoking 30 years ago makes you a drug addict. (1992)

2) Cocaine use 10 years ago is a youthful indiscretion. (2000)

3) A president who openly professes his faith while never attending church is to be revered. (2000, 2004)

4) A president who keeps his faith private but attends church regularly is a secular atheist to be scorned. (1992, 1996)

5) Accepting money from gay porn producers is good. (2004, 2005)

6) Accepting money from straight porn producers is bad. (2006)

7) Associating with porn stars is good (2005)

8) Associating with Hugh Hefner is bad. (2006)

9) A senator who gains $1.8 million from a land deal that he used legislation to make more valuable is a shrewd investor. (2005)

10) A senator who gains $700 thousand from a land deal is corrupt. (2006)

11) Wanting to fight terrorism at the law enforcement level makes you unfit to set policy. (2004)

12) Fighting terrorism at the law enforcement level is the right policy. (2006)

13) Warrentless phone taps "violate our constitutional liberties". (1996)

14) Warrentless phone taps are perfectly legal and necessary. (2006)

15) Cutting the defense budget is good. (1992)

16) Cutting the defense budget is bad. (1995)

>You could easily have written a similar piece about the Republicans.
Actually, Brian, I don't think I could have.

Jay, regardless of your incorrect and dangerous world views, you are a highly capable researcher and writer. I don't believe your above statement for one second. And neither do you.

Brian, this is hack-level stuff you wrote.

The first 8 or so are garbage. No one is claiming drug use is good, and Mr. Bush is sober after lo these many years. You've got a little case of "cognitive dissonance" going on here.

The latter set of your "contradictions" are policy, and you overstate/mis-state most of those to "create" a contradiction that doesn't exist.

13 and 14 are off the wall.

You never did find a dead woman killed by a Republican, I don't think, or was it hidden in the crap you just posted? Can't tell, it's too goofy.

Don't Repubs. want to fight terrorism by all means possible, including law enforcement???

Brian, you ain't right, big boy. Back to the drawing board. Do us a favor and check in to reality once and a while to keep some sanity, okey dokey?

Mitchell, thank you for not at all refuting anything I wrote. But feel free to continue your substance-free hand-waving.

But I'm not here to refute or be refuted. I could refute most of what Jay cited, and I'm sure he would claim to be able to refute most of what I cited. The point is the disingenuous delusion of claiming Dems have a lock on hypocrisy.

As for "hack-level stuff", I believe I match Jay pretty well: you got the sex item, the substance abuse item, the war policy item, the religious item, the congressional hypocrisy item... yep, pretty on par.

(By the way, if my citations had posted, you would see #13 quoted from the mouths of... Republicans!)

Richard Burns - i said "conservatives" NOT Republicans. There IS a difference.

Foley was NO conservative.

btw, neither is Snow, Specter and a few others in the upper NE.

Jay Tea wrote:
I just don't see the raging contradictions and hypocrisies over on the Republican side of things.

So Jay Tea, do you need your eyes examined or head examined?
How could you not see the hypocrisies?
How about Cheney's company doing business w/ Saddam/ Iraq during the 90s (post Gulf War I), but those who question the Iraq War are accused by Cheney of wanting our enemies to win?

I know. Cheney is just the Republican VP, which can't compete with REAL Democrats like Richard Belzer or Babs Streisand--but maybe you can humor me.

Your choice: blind or stupid?

Mitchell,

Why would you wiretap someone who has been found guilty of being a terrorist?

Oh yeah. You wouldn't. That's just another strawman arguement you built (Republicans practically never do that all the time. I did write practically).

See. It's not about wiretapping terrorists without a warrant. It's about wiretapping those who you allege are terrorists without a warrant.

Can you see the difference?

I can allege you are a terrorist. Would it be okay to wiretap you without a warrant?
How about putting you in jail for life without you having the ability to defend yourself against the charges?

Still good with that?

If not, Republicans feel you OBVIOUSLY LOVE Saddam and Osama bin Laden, hate America, and want the terrorists to win.

Now, do you want to be serious?

The majority of these comments may be less hypocritical if you actually read them in the context they were originally spoked instead of comparing two sentences, discussing two separate events, side-by-side.

And yes, do this for president bush and I'm sure you'll be more confused.