Printable View
Get real. You can bash anyone for a number of things.
I could sit here and say Democrats leave injured women after car crashes and let them drown, or cite one of the many examples of a Democrat being unfaithful. I'm fairly certain Democrats don't stand for those things but I wouldn't say "Democrats are hypocrites" due to the transgressions of a few.
But that's different, right?
OK, I read the wiki ...still don't see what the big deal is.Quote:
Originally Posted by Skiz
Or perhaps you'd like to see the same information on a neutral site?Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Jones#Early_activism
Surely, Beck's discovery of communist art in Rockefeller Plaza trumps this.
Oh and did you know...our tax dollars are going to a UNESCO program that tells kids that masturbation won't make them blind.
Holy crap! Bring on the outrage!
No the definition of conservative is aspiration, a word with which you have no acquaintance, nodding or otherwise.Quote:
Originally Posted by lamuller
We get our own sorted sooner or later - we don't habitually excuse poor behavior, as you have done for years (and years) with the like of Barney Frank, you see.
So, conservatives occupy the moral high ground, eh?
"Don't habitually excuse poor behavior"?
Seems to me that conservatives will excuse any sort of behavior if it appears to forward their agenda.
Clearly, out and out lying doesn't bother conservatives...see: "Death Panels" and "Birthers" for two recent examples.
Or, let's take the egregious politicization of even the most mundane...say, Obama's upcoming speech to schoolchildren.
The President prepares to urge kids to apply themselves and take advantage of whatever educational opportunities still exist and the right goes nuts.
When Reagan did the very same thing (and used the occasion to push his low tax agenda), apparently that was fine.
Seems to me that the current definition of conservative is "against anything Obama is for", regardless of the consequence.
Then your perception is misleading you.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
Conservatives condemn poor behavior, but hypocrisy is a human trait, one liberals only abide in other liberals.
As a conservative, I (for example) condemn Mark Sanford, and call for his ouster.
As a liberal, you sanction Barney Frank's gay basement brothel, and defend him to the death.
As a liberal, you excuse Charles Rangel's financial shenanigans, and likewise Nancy Pelosi's overlooking of the facts.
As a liberal, you don't mind Chris Dodd, et.al., receiving sweetheart deals on loans.
I could go on, but I have yet to witness your denunciation of any liberal trespass, as you prefer to reserve your outrage for "hypocritical" republicans.
Your "standards" (insofar as you can be said to possess any) are only selectively applied, you see?
I thought liberals were for fairness and equality.
"Death panels"?Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
"Birthers"?
Are those like "Truthers"?
That's odd.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Among all the Fox News drivel you post I have yet to see you "condemn" Sanford.
Maybe you were whispering.
Again, very odd.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Perhaps you can repost the thread where I defended Barney Frank (and my subsequent death, apparently).
And your shots from the moral high ground aimed at Conservatives/repubs?Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I recall one fairly tepid comment about Bush but only after he'd already wreaked havoc for eight years.
Seems it took you a long time to decide he wasn't a "true" conservative after all.
I'd say my standards are about on par with yours.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Whether either of us have any is debatable, of course.
By conservative standards, apparently, yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4"Death panels"?Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
"Birthers"?
Are those like "Truthers"?
I did it when I posted just then, didn't I?Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
Do you require reproduction of an historical document in order for it to be true?
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
I can't let you get away with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
You have attempted on other occasions to defend Barney Frank (the Fannie/Freddie thread leaps to mind), who exercises his "I'm queer and thus protected - what's it to you" personna when "lecturing" anyone who questions him about anything at all.
This trait is somehow interpreted by liberals as evidence of incredible intelligence.
The pure fact is Mr. Frank's intelligence is unexceptional; he's just gay...and therefore beyond reproach.
You totally miss my point, which is as follows:Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
You have never (never, never at all) roused yourself to criticize a democrat/liberal/progressive anywhere on the board, at any time, yet you expend all sorts of effort to roundly criticize even those who criticize liberals, all the while giving it to every republican who walks by as well.
I, on the other hand, have started and participated in several long-running threads wherein I criticized many on both sides.
You missed alot, didn't you?Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4
Correct form dictates I grant this small (tiny, really) point.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
Quote:
Originally Posted by j2k4"Death panels"?Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
"Birthers"?
Are those like "Truthers"?
If it all really just comes down to that, you could ring down the entire thread merely by publishing the least complaint about a liberal...but then, nothing is ever quite that easy, is it.Quote:
Originally Posted by clocker
So, I'm a partisan fanboi and you- much like Fox News- are "fair and balanced".
Pardon me while I chuckle into my bourbon.
Bourbon.
You, sir, have changed the subject.
I am a liberal, so it's allowed.
Same as drinking bourbon at 9 AM...it's in the U.S.S. Constitution.