Just because we were against it when Bush did it, does NOT mean we are hypocrites now

[graham4anything]

Bush is NOT Gore
Bush is NOT Kerry
Bush is NOT President Obama
(sorry Ralph both sides are NOT the same, SCOTUS for one).

it is a fake analogy

Just because a bad president may abuse the system, it does not hold that that we are called hypocrites today

A good president doesn't abuse the system
A bad president abuses the system

Sick and tired of seeing comments online, or in the media that well, you were this way when Bush was in office so one is a hypocrite

BULLSHIT

imho

[graham4anything]

1. A word to Affleck and Damon

and I would say Affleck and Damon should either get in the arena, or shut up.
Affleck could have run for Kerry's senate seat if he really wanted to.
Let him actually get in the game and see how hard it is.

He whines, but makes millions and is going for an Oscar, making a movie that the rightwing didn't object to coming out before the election(even though its a feel good happy ending, it reminded people of Iran/Hostages/guns deal).Which the repubs hoped would hurt us.
Yet the BinLaden movie was delayed by repub uproar.

And I do like their movies and will continue to see their movies, along with any movie I wish to see(though because of the NRA and guns, who knows if some awipe with a gun will take away my constituttional amendment rights to assemble peacefully anywhere I damn choose to assemble (including in a movie theatre)

[xiamiam]

94. exact reason we have continued wars..drones..corporate whoring. dumbest thing I've read on du

and that is saying a lot given the message managing on all liberal sites since obama became pres

[dballance]

2. Well, yes I think it does mean we're hypocrites now

If we were against Bush and Cheney abusing FISA to spy on people then and if we're not still against it now that Obama is President then I think that pretty well defines us as hypocrites.

If we were against Bush and Cheney water boarding and torturing prisoners back then and if we're not against Obama having a secret kill list now which includes US citizens not tried in any court and which labels any male of a certain age who happens to get killed by our drones as a terrorist then I think we're hypocrites.

Can you shed some light on how we're not hypocrites in light of these realities?

[msongs]

5. bush did it = bad, but obama does it = good. got that? nt

[dballance]

9. Damn it's hard to be consistent isn't it?

I appreciate your sarcasm. Although it often pains me I try my best to be consistent and equally critical of actions by either party's administration I feel are unfair and unconstitutional. Yes, I did vote for Obama twice. That does not mean I feel he has a total free reign to do whatever he wishes.

[villager]

84. "wait - I used to like the 4th amendment when Bush was President!?"

"Damn, what was I thinking!?"

[Octafish]

86. + 1 channeling Cheney

Thank you, dballance. Something very important that many seem to have missed from Michael Klare and TomDispatch.com:

Is Barack Obama Morphing Into Dick Cheney?

Four Ways the President Is Pursuing Cheney’s Geopolitics of Global Energy

By Michael T. Klare
TomDispatch.com
June 21, 2012

EXCERPT...

For Cheney, the geopolitics of oil lay at the core of international relations, largely determining the rise and fall of nations. From this, it followed that any steps, including war and environmental devastation, were justified so long as they enhanced America’s power at the expense of its rivals.

Cheney’s World

Through his speeches, Congressional testimony, and actions in office, it is possible to reconstruct the geopolitical blueprint that Cheney followed in his career as a top White House strategist -- a blueprint that President Obama, eerily enough, now appears to be implementing, despite the many risks involved.

That blueprint consists of four key features:

1. Promote domestic oil and gas production at any cost to reduce America’s dependence on unfriendly foreign suppliers, thereby increasing Washington's freedom of action.

2. Keep control over the oil flow from the Persian Gulf (even if the U.S. gets an ever-diminishing share of its own oil supplies from the region) in order to retain an “economic stranglehold” over other major oil importers.

3. Dominate the sea lanes of Asia, so as to control the flow of oil and other raw materials to America’s potential economic rivals, China and Japan.

4. Promote energy “diversification” in Europe, especially through increased reliance on oil and natural gas supplies from the former Soviet republics of the Caspian Sea basin, in order to reduce Europe’s heavy dependence on Russian oil and gas, along with the political influence this brings Moscow.

CONTINUED...

http://www.tomdispatch.com/archive/175560/

We the People don't pledge allegiance to an empire.

[Fumesucker]

3. ...

[SammyWinstonJack]

70. heheheh

[Solly Mack]

4. Speaking of humble...

I made the best ricotta pie last week. If I do say so myself.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

22. I love ricotta pie! Tell me more!

[Solly Mack]

24. Not much to tell. It was good.

Just the right balance of sweet. Homemade crust - nice and flaky. Amaretto/apricots to top.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

26. One of my SILs is Italian, and every Xmas she makes two things that I love:

Yelllow Stuffing and ricotta pie.


Well, everything she makes is great, but those are my favs.

[Solly Mack]

27. Sounds yummy. I bet she has a great recipe for it.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

28. That sounds too delicious to describe!

[Solly Mack]

30. lol. It was. :)

I culled from several recipes and was just lucky it came out so well. It was my first attempt.

[Sekhmets Daughter]

31. That's great.

I like to experiment as well. I think I shall try my hand at Ricotta Pie...a treat for the New Year.

Happy New Year!

[Siwsan]

81. I've never heard of ricotta pie. I am intrigued. I am off to 'google'

[Solly Mack]

91. You won't be sorry. It's good stuff.

[Bonobo]

6. Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!

Yes, that is EXACTLY what it means.

Oh my god, thanks for the belly laugh!

[OnyxCollie]

8. Hypocrites and apologists.

The President's most ardent followers always have trouble with those definitions.

[hfojvt]

7. we are,, many of us, apparently fools

we will get riled up against the Bush tax cuts if our party says we should be riled up because they favor the rich

but if a majority of those tax cuts get extended - by our own party, we cannot understand the math and will still believe it is a tax increase if tax cuts are extended. If somebody tries and tries and tries to tell us that the extension favors the rich, we will not believe it, because, apparently, we cannot understand it.

I am also sick of this "run for office or shut up" nonsense.

Uhm, yeah, the 1st Amendment does not work that way.

Then again, for some reason, Franken is silent about this awful deal, and from his books he should be able to understand it, but apparently is being a team player or something. So I am not sure what to make of that. But he seemed to be a big fan of Clinton too, so he was perhaps never all THAT progressive.

[graham4anything]

17. Franken games the system. When 60 is needed, he votes as should. When it's not he votes his way

It helps each of them win reelection

Bernie and Kucinich and all these people know they aren't going anywhere but their present job (dennis soon will be out of his).

They follow the line in the Kristofferson song
Freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose

nothing to lose means they aren't going further

It's like RFK wiretapping MLK because he wanted to
It's like both JFK and RFK being adored by everyone, though Teddy actually was the best of the three, though most don't say that
It's easy to love an ideal
It's harder to achieve what those want 100% of the time.

10% is enough.

So learn to accept that which cannot be changed
change that which can be changed
and be adult and know the difference.

it makes for a better disposition

after all, getting nothing at all, and the bad stuff is worse than having some bad stuff, but all the good included in it

and those that keep yapping about the constitution are not getting it, much like the comedians jokes about those that talk about sex.

and I like Al Franken. Like the way he used to argue with himself on tv.
Is he still wearing the satelitte set on his head?(that's a joke, I like Al. He is drone funny)

[cherokeeprogressive]

29. Some of the strangest, most disjointed shit I've ever read. Regularly.

[RainDog]

45. I know we disagree on various things

but on this point we are in total agreement.

this person's posts are a cornucopia of "huh?"

- at least the ones that I've seen.

[sendero]

69. a series...

.. of non-sequitur fragments with a nebulous point. beats me.

[tradecenter]

76. And he says it with a straight face.

Thats what cracks me up.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

89. That just needed to be said. nt

[tavalon]

58. Thank you

This was well written.

[hay rick]

10. BULLSHIT means :sarcasm:?

Awesome post, dude.

[sabrina 1]

11. You're kidding right?

A bad president spying on the American people is a bad thing.

A good president spying on the American people is a good thing.

A bad president cutting SS is a bad thing.

But if a good president cuts SS, wait, how does this work?

Btw did you know that Bush supporters felt exactly the same way, they thought that if Bush did it, because he was such a good guy, it wasn't the same as if say, Clinton did, because to them, Clinton was a bad president.

Doesn't this get very complicated?

Here's a simple way to deal with all of it for you:

If spying on the American people is bad, it's bad no matter who does it! See, simple, not complex, you never have to try to explain yourself, or 'get sick' of people saying you are hypocrite. You just stick to what is right and what is wrong.

This OP is funny. I think it's meant to be funny.

[Rex]

53. Wonderland closed yesterday but seems there are still

a few people walking around the park.

I cannot tell if the OP is funny, sarcasm or other.

However - when Big Brother gets to be doubleplusgood with ALL the political types, then we need to worry.

Easy stuff.

[truebluegreen]

12. If you are sick and tired of being called a hypocrite

don't be one.

Edited to add: the cult of personality is strong in this one...

[DirkGently]

13. So it's less important what one does, than who one IS when doing it?

"Democratic exceptionalism?" That's an oddly Republican argument supposedly supporting Democrats.

[liberal_at_heart]

54. doesn't make any sense to me either

[datasuspect]

14. i'm ready for my milk and cookies and coloring books

when will the comet hit this fucking planet so we can start over?

[JaneyVee]

15. What are you talking about? Policy? Legislation? More specifics.

[OneTenthofOnePercent]

16. Yes. Yes, you would certainly be hypocrites now.

At the end of the day, a politician is still a dirty politician. Like diapers, they need changed often.
And policies tend to carry over... Obama/dems won't have the whitehouse forever.

This hypocritical exceptionalism you seem to argue for; tell me more...

[Blanks]

85. The president, regardless of party, has to be careful...

When it comes to eliminating programs.

I don't like the spying either, but in the world of politics; if you eliminate a program and even one bad thing happens as a result of eliminating that program: say goodbye to your political career.

It is in no way shape or form hypocritical to be critical of the president for not eliminating a program that he opposed in the first place.

Picture another attack on any government building after the president didn't sign the law reauthorizing the PATRIOT Act. The talking points go like this:

This disaster could have been prevented if he had signed that law.

The point is that it is reasonable to be critical of the president that first signed the restrictions into law; and not be critical of the president who didn't eliminate the program.

Perfectly reasonable; not hypocritical at all. It isn't a good system, but until every American smartens up; it's the system we've got.

[TheKentuckian]

18. That is exactly what it means. It doesn't mean that two people are the same person.

It is about actions. If two people do the exact same thing and you oppose one then you are a sure as shit hypocrite when you support the other one.

[Igel]

19. Two options.

You decide what's right and what's wrong. You develope a moral and ethical center, and judge actions against it.

If an action is wrong, it's wrong. You may shade it and say, "Well, doing that was wrong, but in the end it was for a good cause." But you should have the honesty to say, "Yes, doing that was wrong" and not make it into some kind of virtue.

Bush does X, it's wrong. Obama does X, it's still wrong. To have different standards based on some non-ethical, non-moral principle is, well, hypocrisy. It's moral if I do it, immoral if you don't.

It's being Pharisaical, the original hypocrites. You make laws for others that you're not willing to bear. It's one thing to falter under the weight of them, but that would inculpate yourself with them, instead of exculpating yourself while inculpating them.


Then there's the politically expedient option. There is no morality, there is just power. This is its own principle. If it gets power for me and my side, it's good because, well, getting power for one's team is good. If they get power, it's bad--even if they save lives and make things better, it's evil because it doesn't get us power. A lot of extreme parties are like that. It's rather like the Crusaders versus the Muslims--your side is right because it's your side, and how dare anybody say God isn't in your pocket where you put him?

Actions are weighted first and foremost against self-interest. "Does it help me? If so, it's good." This gives rise to false flag operations--kill you own, but if it gets you additional power and support, lets the laws be ignored in your favor, then it's a worthy human sacrifice. Because power is its own cause, and the only bad gain of power is the opponent's.

This isn't precisely amoral. It's more like substituting lust for control and self-worship for anything like a set of standard morals. That was, I guess, something like Nietsche's point: A Superman rises above human morality with his will to power.

Look where it got the Nazis. (Not an example of Godwin's law, BTW, because it actually does proceed as a logical part of the argument and not gratuitous name calling. This was a large part of their reasoning. And this kind of reasoning was precisely why Orwell decided to produce the semantically well-formed, if anomalous appearing, 'liberal fascism.' It was a will to power, a denial of morality in the interests of pure power to be imposed on the masses 'for their own good,' but instead of it being a fascist world-view it would be a Progressive world view.)

So it comes down to, as I see it, a horrible choice. Perhaps it's a false choice and there are other options--weakness of logic and thought (otherwise known as 'stupidity'), or an unwillingness to accept human inadequacy and inability to adhere to a moral standard and with it an unwillingness to call a spade a spade because it might dishonor an idol with clay feet, perhaps something else. None are good options, and they're not really much better than "hypocrisy." Certainly better than being called a liberal fascist.

[patrice]

43. "You develope a moral and ethical center, and judge actions against it."

To the extent that that center is an absolute, it will likely develop it's own hypocrisies in the real world, e.g. 3-strikes and you're out laws, or the protection of parental rights of dysfunctional or even abusive parents, or Israel's right to statehood and the oppression of Palestine, 10 year olds having babies . . . . Reality is not as consistent as your "ethical center". Which absolute moral center shall we use? Does the moral means justify the ends?

This is why moral relativism is based upon the principle that those things that make something right or wrong inher in the traits of the situation under consideration, relative to an identifiable set of values. To a moral relativist, morality is not external as you portray it. It is internal to the specific conditions and people involved in a given situation and the values manifest in those conditions. This is how it is possible for it to be wrong from me to engage in LGBTQ sex, but not wrong for someone who IS LGBTQ. Why it would be wrong for some people to choose abortion, but not wrong for others.

Moral relativism is a useful perspective to try to reduce the tendency toward "the means justifies the ends" and also reduces the inclination toward "the ends justifies the means", because abstractions do not take precedence over the facts of a situation. Or they are abstract only to the extent that they are either unknown or under someone else's control, other than that the means and the ends inhere there concretely in the detailed facts, not arbitrary ideologies imposed by others.

To have different standards based on some non-ethical, non-moral principle is, well, hypocrisy. It's moral if I do it, immoral if you don't.

Just because I/you/we don't know enough to perceive whether something is ethical or moral or not, does not necessarily mean that it is not. Based upon the principles and processes of moral relativism, I am willing to admit that I don't know enough to say that the situation we are talking about IS ethical/moral. Are you really claiming to know enough about all of the different people involved, other factors/means and ends/possible outcomes to say that it absolutely isn't?

[patrice]

50. And it may be a bit of a mystery to those who don't know anything about moral relativism, let

alone understand it, how it is that for at least some of us, moral relativism's being grounded in situational factors instead of arbitrary moral absolutes is what makes it MORE possible to honor values for peace and non-violence, than just ignoring all of that situational stuff, and pretending that those moral centers you talk about are real and anything that doesn't meet that abstracted standard needs only to be judged for im-morality or for being non-ethical, so nothing else, such as the actual nuts and bolts of ethics and morality inherent in the conditions that people are experiencing, matter.

Moral relativism is a more authentic moral effort/process than bullshit judgements about moral centers, based upon little of nothing in the way of the actual facts of a situation, let alone the most significantly salient facts.

[ronnie624]

75. Perhaps one's 'moral center' can be flexible enough to allow for a certain amount of relativism.

Likewise, perhaps there are certain things that are absolutely wrong, under any and all circumstances; aggressive war or genocide, as examples.

Sometimes, I think moral relativism is used to rationalize hypocrisy.

[R. Daneel Olivaw]

20. You have struck comedy gold, my friend. Gold!

You should go on the road with this. You'll make bank.

[patrice]

21. Honest inquiry here: How do we write perfect laws for everything that needs to be done, so that no

Last edited Sun Dec 30, 2012, 02:19 AM - Edit history (1)

one's sensibilities are offended?

We can't.

Even if we could, that kind of world might not be good for people.

So, we MUST do our best to put the most trustworthy doers into positions of power, accept our active responsibilities for supervising them and then let them do the jobs they were hired to do.

Yes? or No?

If "No", then I need someone to tell me why what you're proposing FOR EVERYONE, without everyone's consent btw, doesn't amount to TTE " Better dead than _______________________________ " either for a client state that may or may not have authentically sought our help or for u.S.

I respectfully request your thoughts please.

[graham4anything]

23. If the rabid mob got everything they wanted, they would burn each other down after that

you need to work in stages

(and the whole world is a stage as GBS said)

You will never in your lives again have as great a president as one you have now
(assuming most here are the same age).

It took 50 years to go from the 60s to now.
It took 100 years from Lincoln to LBJ signing the acts
and yet people want instant gratificaiton

speaking of WW2
FDR was smart enough to know that one couldn't go to war to save some(and I am Jewish)
Jewish people.
Which is why it took so long to find an excuse to get us there

as someone above brought Hitler up, had we had drones now, who wouldn't have been for dropping one on him PRIOR to his killing 20 million people inc. 6 million Jews worldwide?
Even if 10 or 20 collateral were with him, it would have saved 19million 999,990 people
(assuming the 10 to 20 collateral didn't die at some point in the war anyhow)

[Go Vols]

39. I

would prefer the LBJ days if I had a choice of a point in my life.

[Zax2me]

25. Yea, it kinda does.

In fact, fits the definition of hypocrite perfectly.
Affleck and Damon have good points. Not saying they are 100% right or should give up, but they know of what they speak.

[Chisox08]

32. That is definition of a hypocrite

Just because you like Obama doesn't make his actions any less wrong then Bush's. I was against the Bush tax cuts when he passed them and I'm still against them now. I was against illegal wiretapping when it was bush doing it and I'm still against it now. See I have principles, that doesn't change just because I like the person in charge. If I would have wanted the continuation of some of the worst of Bush's policies, such as his tax cuts and his stupid wars which is costing us billions, I would have voted for Gramps and Insane in 08 or The Least Interesting Man in the World and Eddie Munster in November.

[graham4anything]

44. Do you like Liz Warren? Gay Marriage? 2 liberal women on the US Supreme Court?

Do you like that more people are insured this year than last year, and in 2014 many more will be?

If you like these and a thousand other things, and think that John McCain or Mitt or Jeb Bush also gave you this, well, then I don't want what you are having, becuase it
100% ain't true.

Alot of people hated LBJ for signing those acts. Most of them were 3rd party favorite George Wallace groupies at that time.

But if not for President Obama, you wouldn't have Liz Warren in office, you wouldn't have 2 liberal woman on the court(Bush gave us Alito and Roberts) and you wouldn't have all the other things Obama gave us(including single handedly saving the auto industry).

And Bush did not get out of 2 wars, but for all intents and purposes Obama has gotten the ball rolling.

Who started the ball rolling on immigration reform, and hopefully soon 100% amnesty and citizenship(though I know for whatever ulterior motive, some don't want that).

and on and on and on

[Chisox08]

47. It seems like you missed my point entirely.

Look if wouldn't like it if both Bush or Obama punched me in the face. Just because Obama is a Democrat doesn't make the punch any less wrong. On top of that I never said Obama didn't do anything I agree with, but I'm not going to look the other way when he does something i don't agree with. I'm going to raise all type of hell there are any cuts to Social Security, chained CPI is a cut to Social Security, just because it's Obama doing the cutting doesn't make it right.

[Arcanetrance]

33. Yes it's the very definition of hypocrisy

Furthermore extending fisa and the ndaa and allowing torture because oh there's one of our guys there is shortsighted and idiotic remember every 4 years there's an election for President and there's always a chance the guy with the D or the good president as you put it doesn't win

[Luminous Animal]

34. Hahahahahaha!!!!! If the "good President" is doing the same thing that the "evil President" did...

means that the "good President" is doing evil.

[UnrepentantLiberal]

35. .

[tavalon]

60. Great fucking video

I'm with Jonathan on this!

[Octafish]

87. LOLOLOLOL!!!!!!!

"I like turtles."

Me, too, Thomas.

[forestpath]

36. ROFL...this post is the very definition of protesting too much.

[frylock]

37. hey man whatever it takes for you to get to sleep at night

[HiPointDem]

38. funniest post of the night

[RetroLounge]

40. Uhm, yes, that's EXACTLY what it means

RL

[Blue_In_AK]

41. I'm biting my tongue until it's bloody.

You just go on with your non-hypocritical self.

[sarisataka]

42. I can only say

[BlueCaliDem]

46. You're pissing off the Obama Haters, graham4anything.

Don't you know that Obama is as evil as Bush and Cheney because he's not acting like the dictator some around here demand that he be? Don't you know no one short of Dennis Kucinich or Ralph Nader or anyone from the Occupy Movement will ever be good enough for the Occupy Mob here infiltrating this community? I mean, when DK voted against the health care reform bill, it's not hypocritical or unhelpful. It was heroic! The bill wasn't pure enough, perfect enough, so we don't do anything until we have everything. We burn down the village to save it, get it?

[Union Scribe]

48. "the Occupy Mob here infiltrating this community"

[patrice]

49. Pardon me, where are you getting that? People would do well to have

understood, imperfect though it was, what the Occupy was about, which comments upthread show that at least a few people don't have a clue what it is.

[Union Scribe]

55. Agreed.

I was quoting BlueCaliDem, whose comment astonished me. It is jaw-dropping that people compare Occupy to the teabaggers here. It's a mindset I just cannot comprehend.

[BlueCaliDem]

52. Yep. And a few Republican sympathizers as well. eom

[tavalon]

61. Actually,

He isn't pissing anyone off because none of us understand his haikus.

[sabrina 1]

63. Did you wander onto the wrong forum by any chance?

the Occupy Mob here infiltrating this community?

And Dennis Kucinich too? Or maybe your comment is meant to be snark considering this OP which I am convinced has to be comedy.

[BlueCaliDem]

97. Nope. I'm on the correct forum. I've read your posts and I'm wondering exactly

that about you.

As for snark? Yes and No.

[SammyWinstonJack]

72. Honestly.

[Lady Freedom Returns]

77. Obama Haters???

I voted for the man twice. I like what he has done, but we need more. I will not take some little victories and fly a "Mission Accomplished" banner and say that's that. We need more to be done and we need it now. I, for one, will keep yelling and screaming till it is.

[BlueCaliDem]

98. Sure you did.

As a matter of fact, every single DUer who constantly attacks President Obama over every tiny, insignificant thing, all swear that they have canvassed, collected donations, donated, registered voters, and voted for him even though they are deeply, deeply, deeply disappointed in him and come to DU to whine, cry, wail, and howl their criticism of him. Can you imagine why any person with more than half a working brain doesn't believe them?

[patrice]

51. Here's a little emo of my own, though not so prog 'cause I just never have been part of the IN crowd

I'm sick to death of these morally superior types who won't admit that maybe, just fucking maybe, they don't know everything they might need to know in order to come to the conclusions they come to.

The same people who support abortion on demand, will not yield that PO, could have legitimate reasons for what he is doing. He is NOT an evil person. He is not immoral. And he just differs with them about what to do about this situation. AND that difference is a matter of INFORMATION that he has that they don't have.

It's as though these moral emo progs don't think that FACTS matter, or maybe it's only the facts that they have that matter and NO ONE ELSE'S facts matter, so anyone who disagrees with them is immoral.

FUCK. THAT. SHIT.

People assuming that position ARE FACISTS and that includes Matt Damon and Ben Afleck too.

[TheKentuckian]

64. By all means share these other facts so that all might be enlightened

You don't get to withhold the key data and at the exact same time complain about folks being ignorant of the facts.

I think you can shove the lame ass abortion comparison too. This ain't just Obama's body he is deciding on is it? The consequences will be actually felt far more by who and the answer is not the millionaire President that went to Harvard.
I think it is kinda fucked up to compare politics to a woman being in control of her OWN body. How is she answerable to me or anyone about that? Who's council but her own is crucial?

What is it that would allow you to conflate individual integrity and self determination with governing any form of democracy?

Can you break down your logic any? Seems like apples and kayaks to me.

[Progressive dog]

68. I don't understand

Is this comedy?
Why am I replying?
Do you have facts that prove I'm as fascist too? I'd really like to know.

[Jackpine Radical]

104. Facists?

Like maybe in contrast to Ass-ists? Footists?

I campaigned for, voted for, and contributed money to Obama despite the fact that he's a long way to the right of where I wish our party was.

That was the first part of my civic duty.

The second part is to hold his feet to the fire, to make my views known, and to promulgate progressive policies. I can't very damn well do that without being critical of him. If people like me shut up, the only voices heard in Washington will be centrist sycophants and critics from the right.

[Rex]

56. You can either have pie or cake

you cannot have both.

[graham4anything]

59. actually that is not true I can have my pie and cake and Edith too

I can go into the diner in Twin Peaks and have a damn good piece of Cherry Pie and go into my Diner here in NJ and have a damn good piece of Blue Velvet Cake (as my diner serves both Blue Velvet and Red Velvet cake.) They also serve pie.

Therefore I can have my cake and pie, and also, on AntennaTV, I can still watch All in the Family.
Therefore I can have my pie and cake and Edith too.

enjoy a piece of Blue Velvet cake, while listening to Lana Del Rey from my favorite album of the year doing a version of the isabella Rossellini version of the song Blue Velvet from
David Lynch's Blue Velvet

cake
[img][/img]
meet pie
[img]pg[/img]

or perhaps I can have the above pie and cake and this Edith too
the legendary Edith Piaf, who if alive now, would be a welcome guest at this White House
and like her, since President Obama took office, I too have NO REGRETS
[img]

[/img]

[tavalon]

57. It may be your honest opinion but it makes no sense

If the Obama Administration does the same thing we condemned in the Bush Administration and we do not condemn our own for doing THE SAME THING, then we are, by definition hypocrites.

There are many places where that is true.

You may have your own opinions, you aren't entitled to your own facts.

[graham4anything]

62. you mess up the order though

Bush did BAD things with what was presented to him
We condemmed the BAD things Bush did when Richard Clarke told him the memo in the weeks prior
and what followed that in 2001.

If we LIKED what Richard Clarke said then, well recently Richard Clarke said in an op-ed piece which I put on this very board a few weeks ago, that DRONES are the most humane way in wars one can think of, and that collateral damage is so many times LESS than any other method.
I.E. drones are good thing compared to hand to hand war.

So just because Bush did 100% bad, does not equate to the same thing.

What I think you are saying would be akin to saying
let's go to the top of the Empire State building
and Johnny and Jim go to the top of the Empire State Building
Johnny jumps off.
Jim does not jump off.
Both have the same thing- a most wonderful view of NYC in all directions.
Johnny and Jim had the same thing. But what they did on top of the Empire State building
that was different.

Some people went to see the Dark Knight movie last year, myself included.
One person took a gun or more and went to see the Dark Knight movie last year
Same path, same movie
Yet the one person took away the consittutional rights to a free and peaceful assembly because of the one person's 2nd amendment right to bring a gun into the streets
So again, everyone went to that movie.
two different motives.


And they don't call Poppy Bush Poppy for nothing.

[TheKentuckian]

65. Nobody was against going to the Empire State building or the movie

It is the jumping off and shooting that is objected to and when you object to the jumping off and shooting for one guy then you are a stone cold hypocrite if you cheer for the next guy to do the same shit.

[graham4anything]

66. The vast majority of congress just voted for the 3rd time to reaffirm the patriot act

therefore it is legal.
end of story.
it is not against the constitution, it has congressional approval.

change the congress, don't blame the president.
vote out 100% from office all republicans and 3rd party people who do not caucus with the democrats, and never let another republican/3rd party who won't caucus with the dems,
espcially people like republican peter king, then the dems can do as they choose

Long as the others like King are in office one can't.

Remember, Eric Holder wanted to try KSM in federal court in lower manhattan
the outcry by the public against it made it impossible

[RetroLounge]

73. "it is not against the constitution, it has congressional approval. "

Really, you've heard the rumor that there are 3 branches of government, right?



RL

[graham4anything]

82. Congress funds everything.

a president if he has 60 votes can veto, but the democrats don't have 60 and never did
except for a few special times

[RetroLounge]

92. Maybe you want to replace your comma with a period.

Else, you are saying the first half is because of the second half.

RL

[socialist_n_TN]

80. ...therefore it is legal."....

Slavery was legal too. As were Jim Crow laws, as was the imperialist war in SE Asia, as was any number of things that I've protested against along with a lot of other people. And those laws don't get changed by legislators alone. In fact, if we relied on legislators alone to change things, things would NEVER GET CHANGED. They're comfortable with the way things are, it got them their cushy jobs lording it over everybody else. Things only get changed when you make the legislators UNcomfortable.

[graham4anything]

96. Took both parties to get the 13th amendment, then 100 years to get the Civil rights acts...then

50 more to get a Black President.

and there was a big war in the Civil War days and Lincoln did what a President needs to do
and the people reelected him.

But when they want change, they change the congress.

Which means voting out the republicantealibertarians and only voting for Democrats forever.

Long as everything is a political issue, like taxes, one cannot raise the money needed for social issues and jobs and long as foreign issues are political, one can't easily lose the political advantage by looking weak.

Losing is losing and does no good.
It is not like American Idol where the 4th place finisher can become a bigger star than the winner.
Doesn't work that way in our electoral college system.

[TheKentuckian]

95. Still a hypocrite though.

[Bonobo]

67. I think I get it now. This is like a Zen koan, right?

Like "What is the sound of one hand clapping?"

Am I right?

[DisgustipatedinCA]

83. I have always been, and will always be here, all week...be sure to tip your waitress

[freedom fighter jh]

71. How do you establish who's a good president and who's a bad one?

I defended myself against charges of Bush bashing by pointing out that my objections were to Bush's policies, not to the man himself.

It sounds like your logic is: Obama is a good president -> A good president doesn't abuse the system -> It must be that Obama isn't abusing the system. Is there room in there for evidence based on Obama's actions? Or once you have decided that Obama is a good president, can that judgment never change?

[alarimer]

74. Yes, it does mean you are a hypocrite if Obama is doing the same thing.

His foreign policy is at least as bad as Bush's and probably worse. Illegal drone strikes, indefinitely detention, murdering American citizens without trial or arrest. Etc., etc. If Bush had done those things (and he did some of them), you'd rightfully be screaming bloody murder. Obama is doing it, so you refuse to criticize.

No, actually, he had taken advantage of the Bush expansion of Presidential powers, rather than reigning them in as promised.

I expect better from Democrats in office but I am ALWAYS disappointed and angered, which is why I am no longer a registered Democrat and refuse to vote in lockstep with party-line idiots.

[Enrique]

78. Talk to your doctor about CD

Cognitive Dissonance.

[Autumn]

79. BULLSHIT indeed.

Your post is full of bullshit . How do you know that Obama won't abuse the "system?
How do you know the next President won't abuse the "system"? Got a crystal ball? If so better dig out the Windex, it's hard to see through dirty glass.

That old, I was against it before I was for it is exactly what a hypocrite is. That and the one where the other guy does it is bad but it's our guy doing it so it's all good. A hypocrite is just a hypocrite.

[GObamaGO]

88. If an action is not okay when a Republican does it...

it is the definition of hypocrisy for us to say it is okay when a Democrat does it.

BZZZZT Thanks for playing.

[Guy Whitey Corngood]

90. .

&sns=em

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

93. When Obama kills people with drones it doesn't hurt as much as when Bush kills people with driones,

They're being dismembered or fried is humane and for they're own good.

I got it.

[Bad_Ronald]

99. Yes, it does. "BULLSHIT"...You should've stopped there, because it sums up your OP rather succinctly

[Lydia Leftcoast]

100. No, if a policy was wrong when Bush instituted it, it's still wrong if Obama continues it

It's the POLICY, not the person that we object to.

To say that a policy that you criticized under Bush is fine when Obama continues it DOES make you a hypocrite. Sorry.

You're the mirror image of the Republicanites who thought deficits were just fine when Bush was in the White House and are now a grave emergency with Obama in the White House.

[Recursion]

101. If we're talking about Presidential powers, you should always assume a bad President

Like I used to say to my conservative friends who defended the PATRIOT act, "how would you feel about President Hillary Clinton having those powers?"

Whenever you talk about Presidential powers, you should always imagine the worst possible President using them.

[JoePhilly]

102. What if you knew it wasn't going away once it was put in place?

That's where I am. I was against it before it was put in place because I knew once implemented, it was never going away, at least not for a long time, regardless of who was President.

[tblue]

103. Wait. What? Are we at war with Eastasia or not?

Oh I am so confused. Please tell me what to think and say because normal rules do not apply I guess.