Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

General Discussion

Bluenorthwest

(45,319 posts)

3. That's just hypocrisy, nothing more. And I understand it.

Reply to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Tue Jul 24, 2012, 09:26 AM

Jul 2012

But it is hypocrisy. You feel one thing should apply to you, another standard for others.That is not at all complicated, it is simple as can be. One set of rules for you, another for others.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

37 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

I am opposed to DHS (TSA, mostly). How can I be in favor of gun control? [View all] Stinky The Clown Jul 2012 OP

At least you're honest about the hypocrisy. - nt badtoworse Jul 2012 #1

I look at that this way. I can only carry so many rounds of 3 oz. bottles snappyturtle Jul 2012 #2

yeah, but it's an absurd restriction... it does notng to actually stop determined terrorists. OneTenthofOnePercent Jul 2012 #32

That's just hypocrisy, nothing more. And I understand it. Bluenorthwest Jul 2012 #3

Do you or did you have to piss in a jar to get or keep a job? Fumesucker Jul 2012 #4

That is something you want to encourage and perpetuate? TheKentuckian Jul 2012 #6

There doesn't seem to be any social movement against workplace drug testing.. Fumesucker Jul 2012 #7

And that's a damn shame. Lizzie Poppet Jul 2012 #11

+1 Go Vols Jul 2012 #31

I'm pretty fiercely against either invasion but the urine being substituted, diluted, or artificial TheKentuckian Jul 2012 #20

So what? HuckleB Jul 2012 #15

From the OP.. Fumesucker Jul 2012 #17

Context. HuckleB Jul 2012 #28

My reply was to the OP, not you.. Fumesucker Jul 2012 #29

I'm all for airport security frazzled Jul 2012 #5

That's because you travel and don't own (or want to own) guns. Edweird Jul 2012 #8

What's different is the level of actual public safety concern. HuckleB Jul 2012 #14

>Implying DHS/TSA is anything more than police state theatrics. Edweird Jul 2012 #18

So you can't answer. HuckleB Jul 2012 #27

The TSA has no reason. Gun control does - there are reasonable limits. HopeHoops Jul 2012 #9

I concur. Surprised? Lizzie Poppet Jul 2012 #12

I still think restrictions on clip sizes would go a long way. Nobody needs 100 rounds. HopeHoops Jul 2012 #16

I don't honestly think it would make much difference. Lizzie Poppet Jul 2012 #21

IMO, the higher the limit the more support you will get. aikoaiko Jul 2012 #37

It is a similar them not me attitude that "small government" types have TheKentuckian Jul 2012 #10

There is nothing inherently at odds here. HuckleB Jul 2012 #13

No, he is at fundamental odds. He'd authorize house to house searches of the general population TheKentuckian Jul 2012 #22

Thanks for posting a whole lot of nothing. HuckleB Jul 2012 #24

Please elaborate. I'm not aware of any logical fallacies presented in the post. TheKentuckian Jul 2012 #30

Seems there was a underwear bomber and a shoe bomber. Remmah2 Jul 2012 #19

Who cares? HuckleB Jul 2012 #25

Cognitive Dissonance Lasher Jul 2012 #23

There's no dissonance. HuckleB Jul 2012 #26

Well, you can either choose to live with the hypocricy, or not. OneTenthofOnePercent Jul 2012 #33

Me and the TSA Jeff In Milwaukee Jul 2012 #34

You drive a car. You want the other people on the road to know what they are doing. IdaBriggs Jul 2012 #35

Generally it's easier to agree to strip others of their rights 4th law of robotics Jul 2012 #36