Double Standards, Hypocrisy, and Power

One of the more infuriating things about libs these days is that you can’t have a discussion with them.  At all.  If you mention how much the healthcare takeover will cost, they respond with, well, you didn’t mind that when we spent billions on the war in Iraq (and actually, I did).  If you mention that you don’t want the government growing at this alarming rate, seeping into the private sector like the blob and consuming our capitalist system, they say you must watch Fox News and believe in God (like these are bad things?).  If what the left has on offer is so great, then defend it.  Provide a logical, coherent defense of it.  You know, explain it clearly without standing on logical fallacies like ad hominem attacks and red herrings, or relying on pathos.

It’s one thing to have an ideological stance, to hold a set of principles, but it’s quite another to be completely unable to verbalize them.  The left runs on some vague notion that they’re on the moral high ground and that this somehow exempts them from fiscal, social, or political responsibility.  Go figure.  So they scream “fascist” in response to the Patriot Act, but sit mute while BO and his thugs seek to silence dissent; they call President Bush every name under the book and call it “free speech,” but they can’t hear a word against their Messiah figure because that’s “unpatriotic.” 

There’s enough hypocrisy and double standards to go around, though.  Look at the stir about BO’s “boys’ club” at the WH.  Geez, so what?  I really could care less if he’s playing basketball with a bunch of guys; it’s good for him to clear his head and get a bit of male bonding time in.  Nothing wrong with that.  There is something to be said for the argument that he presented himself as a feminist (or whatever, as if anyone can believe that after he “sweetie’d” that female reporter so dismissively), but again, I have to ask, so what?  I’m a feminist, but I don’t want boys coming shopping with me (unless they’re into it) and I don’t want boys hanging out on “girls night.”  This crazy PC mania is completely out of control, and I’m fed up with it.  Completely and totally fed up with it.  If he wants to hang with the boys, again I ask, so what?

People on the right are complaining that BO is playing too many games of golf, and I really don’t see the problem with that, either.  This one, I think, is a direct reaction to us having to listen to the left whine for years about President Bush spending time at his ranch and on the golf course (until he was finally compelled to give up playing golf!), so I’m not even sure it’s a double standard in this case.  More of a tit for tat thing.  I don’t care how much vacation time a president takes; he’s a grown-up (well, you know, in theory), and he knows what’s on his plate.  He has a zillion aides keeping him informed and making appointments for him, etc., so I’m okay with him (be he a dem or rep) taking some down time.  Hell, we all need that, right?

And then there’s Date Night Gate.  This one, I don’t think is as cut and dried.  Married people need to work to keep their marriage going along happily, and date nights are much-needed reprieves from the kids, from their parent roles, and allows couples to get back in touch with their romantic side.  Yay, I say.  The problem I have with it is only kind of a problem.  It cost a huge amount of money to fly in on Air Force One, shut down NYC, but then again, how’s he supposed to travel?  It’s not like the case of Massachusetts former lieutenant governor who used tax payer money to fly out to western Mass to hang with her family (or our current governor, who also takes liberties with the tax payer funded state police helicopters, who’s apparently quite loosely defining “state business”).  She wasn’t the president of the country and could safely travel by all other means.  It was, for her, convenient and a perk of office (only it wasn’t, of course, it was a misuse of Commonwealth resources, and her career ended, in part, because of it.).  Sure, sure, war time and financial crisis, not the wisest, most savvy move, but hardly a scandal.  Let it go, I say (only, he can’t.  He’s such a grudge-holding, whiny baby that he’s still whining about it, too.  Ugh, I really can’t stand him as a person, you know?  But the date night thing . . . not a big deal to me.).

The ones that get me, though, are the false claims that many liberals sling around.  They claim that we didn’t mind all the spending on the Iraq War, that we didn’t object when it was Bush who was signing stimulus plans, that we didn’t care about TARP, or any of a number of things that President Bush did and that BO is also doing.  That’s patently false.  Plenty of people objected to Bush’s spending, and that’s why his final numbers were so low.  Remember?  While President George W. Bush at one time enjoyed among the highest approval numbers in our history (at 90%, compare to BO’s high so far of 69%), by the time he left office, he was down to among the lowest (at 25%, compare to BO’s low so far of around 50%).  That’s not all liberals, right?

I didn’t mind any former president speaking to schoolkids, but then again, no former president engaged the Department of Education to send out lesson plans to teachers having students write about how they’d “help” BO.  You can’t tell me that the speech he intended to give and the speech he actually gave weren’t completely and substantively different.  The speech he finally gave was fine, very conservative in its message and values.  But (and here’s the rub) there was absolutely nothing in that speech that a teacher could use in a classroom to prompt a discussion, much less an essay, about what they can do to help BO.  So, we have to wonder just what he intended to say, and we have to question an administration that starts handing out course materials to schools across the nation.  So I don’t see the hypocrisy or double standard here.

Then there’s BO’s attack on Fox News.  Granted a few people, including Campbell Brown, have pointed out that MSNBC is not only an extension of the White House but has actual, traceable financial ties via GE.  Fox, however, has no such ties to the Republican party and does not act as an extension of them.  Though, frankly, so what if they did?  With the alphabet media all essentially “reporting” the same high praises of every move BO makes, no one would have any idea what is really going on without Fox.  I find it rather amusing that the WH can’t point to any specific “lie” or “distortion” that Fox has aired, so they lump in the opinion shows (Glenn Beck is not a reporter, he’s not a newsman, and he says so often; ditto Hannity and O’Reilly). with the “straight” news reporting and along with that all of the viewers of Fox who are, presumably, guilty by association.  If you watch Fox News, according to the lunatic fringe on the left, you must be a drooling imbecile redneck (yep, that’s me, I’m about to go get in my pick-up truck to go moose hunting right after I finish bleaching my sheet and hood, then it’s off to church before square dancing.  uh huh.).  I find this “guilt by association” approach particularly rich given that the left didn’t think it at all worthy of note that BO sat in Reverend Wright’s racist, anti-American church for 20 years or hobnobbed with Bill Ayers or packed his shadow cabinet and WH with a scary assortment of radical freaks ranging from weirdos who want to give dogs the right to sue humans to those who want to force sterilization to those who idolize the most evil people the earth has ever seen (Chairman Mao, Castro, Chavez, et al.).

The left does, however, have a point about our double standard regarding respect for the president.  I don’t, not one iota.  I see him as a dangerous, loathsome, petty, radical loon.  But I did, very often, get upset with the left for attacking President Bush and not being supportive of our troops (that whiny crap about how they support our troops is just so much . . . whiny crap.  You can’t support our troops and not their mission; you can’t support our troops and not approve funds to ensure that they have the armor, supplies, and support they need to do their job).  But I would never ever boo the president of this country.  That sort of thing makes me cringe, it absolutely broke my heart for President Bush, but to the left, it’s just “free speech” not mean-spirited hate.  But then, I was very upset when fans booed Johnny Damon when he came back to Fenway in stripes and was even offended by how Saddam Hussein was treated in the minutes before his execution.  Such things are undignified, disrespectful, and downright rude.  I honestly can’t imagine the 912’ers, the Tea Party attendees, or any other group of conservative citizens booing BO (though I guess Congress does and will, just as they always do on both sides of the aisle).  And even if they all do, I wouldn’t.

I do, I know, get heated about BO and complain freely and frequently about him, but when it comes to certain things, things that I was okay with President Bush, I really think it’s important to be okay with them with BO.  The only exception I make to this is when it involves granting further power to the executive branch.  I was naive in supporting the Patriot Act (and of course factors such as outrage, patriotism, and trust in that president factored in), but I see now the dangers of granting power to one man who sits in the oval office.  Every power one president gains is automatically granted to those who follow.  That is totally unacceptable to me now, and it should be to BO supporters, too.  A republican will again sit in that office, and he or she will have every power that this president acquires, and just as BO didn’t give up any of the additional (and constitutionally shaky) powers that President Bush 43 amassed for the executive branch, no future president will, either.


20 thoughts on “Double Standards, Hypocrisy, and Power

  1. I agree about the hypocrisy on the right as well. I think I'm like you in that I could care less if he went out for burgers. However, regarding your “hanging out with the boys” thing: the act does not bug me. Its the fact that he's trying to sell us his image of “Mr. Equality”, Champion of Diversity, etc. etc. So I have no problems with using Alinsky tactics on him, and “hold him to his own standards”. That's one of the rules – attack them with their own values and force them to live them.

  2. Hmmm, gee, when you put it like that, Candle, I don't really mind it, either. But I have to admit that I don't think I'm cut out to be an Alinsky radical. It feels wrong to attack him for not sticking to his own rules when I don't really care about the rule in the first place. But yes, it's definitely fair in this case, given how hard he plays Alinsky. What goes around, comes around.

  3. I don't care if he hangs with the boys, golfs, or shoots hoops. I do care that he seems to spend an awful lot of time just hanging, and traveling around the world, and focusing on stupid things like Fox News, while Rome is burning. Does he ever actually work?

    As far as power concentrated in the Executive Office, that's why we need a balance of power in Congress, so that no president gets the idea he's God.

  4. Here, here for balance of power in Congress.

    Fuzzy, great rant. You spared nobody. Which is fair and appreciated. Although, since nobody believes the exact same thing, you will probably offend everybody who reads it, lol. I'm not offended, just pulling your leg. I think the golf criticism is part of the Alinsky-make them follow their own rules. If the left wants to criticize golf, fine. What goes around comes around. Personally, I don't care if he swings metal clubs at white balls. What bothers me is that he does not appear to put in much real work. It could just be that the work happens behind closed doors. But the stuff I see makes him look like a wanna-be monarch.

  5. Our congress does not want the responsibility that comes with it's constitutional powers. That is why they no longer declare war. They want to place all the blame on whoever the President is. If congress would have done it's job and declared war after 9-11 they would not have been able to use the war for political gain the way they have.

  6. Hey Chick, I have to agree that it does seem that he's gallivanting around a great deal (the same was said of President Bush while it was simultaneously being said that he never took time to think and made rash decisions–that made no sense to me at the time. Or now.). He's stated clearly and often that he won't make certain decisions (ahem, Afghanistan) and pretty much ducked any direct involvement in “his” healthcare overhaul. If this latest version gets through (and it's the same, from what I can tell, as HR 3200), the blame will go to Pelosi-Reid. But so will the “triumph” of the far left socialists, so I'm not sure what the point of his hiding out is.

    I think, too, that people are sick of all his fund-raising. The stats on that are jaw-dropping. He's been to more party fund-raisers in 9 months than President Bush attended in 4 years (and President Bush raised more money). It's bizarre to me.

    This president not only has the idea he's God, but has internalized it to the point that he seems to believe it. As do all his freakish acolytes on Capitol Hill (not to mention the creeps and weirdos who are actually PRAYING to him across the nation). It's all very unsettling.

  7. Hey Opus and lmao. I was a bit hesitant about writing this one, but it's what I think, so I couldn't *not* write it. I certainly don't intend to insult anyone (except BO and his radical wing nuts). Having written this and then thought more fully about Candle's point (and now yours) about Alinsky, I'm kind of torn. On the one hand, I do think that it's totally fair to use Alinsky against him; it works, he's clearly gotten to where he was by following Alinsky to the T, and turn about's fair play. On the other hand, it seems silly to whinge about something I don't care about. We'll see, though, how it plays out.

    I also have some reservations about saying he's not doing anything. He is. A great deal, if you stop and think about it. He's taken over almost half of our economy in 8 months, and if this healthcare goes through, it WILL be half. With its passing, we are no longer a capitalist nation . . . we have capitalist values, but if the government controls half our economy, our businesses, then that's not capitalist.

    He's been a busy little bee. Look at his radical appointments, the grasp for green power that is also being realized in the U. N. “global government” resolution that just came out. We're in complete danger, and this facade of “distraction” is exactly what we can't fall for. The machinations are in place. He may not be moving fast on gay issues or on Afghanistan, but he's moving along at a fine clip to strip us of our voice, our Constitution, and our basic human rights.

  8. Hey Trestin, I agree completely that Congress wants to take as little responsibility as possible. That's one of the drawbacks of a democratic system (they're always running for re-election), but it's *also* and more importantly, the only “check” we have on executive power. It's a double-edged sword, but it's far preferable to some loon wielding total and absolute control as is apparently going to happen with BO in short order.

    On a post-9/11 declaration of war by Congress, that would have been near-impossible. The problems inherent in fighting terrorists are also those that make a formal declaration of war impossible (or at least unprecedented). Al-Quada has no borders, no government, no recognized “country” on whom to declare a formal war. President Bush did the right thing in going after their money supplies and communications, and he did the right thing in condemning any government that DOES support terror, but there wasn't much more that we could officially do given the fluid and dynamic nature of this enemy.

    That's why none of the comparisons ever work for me; the war on terror is not like any other because there is not nation to fight, no government to sanction, no country or leader to defeat (including bin Laden, even though killing him will do wonders for my sense of justice, al Quada won't crumble without him,and the terrorists won't stop. It won't be a “victory” in the classic sense that killing a Hitler was.).

  9. I think the president should live in the lap of luxury. The experience should be so orgasmic, that he lives in fear of being voted out of office after the first 4.

    Aside from that, all I have are cliches I guess.
    You can't converse rationally with those who are not rational.

    If liberals could think they wouldn't be liberals.

    Liberals accuse the Conservatives of lying and being hypocritical because this is the natural state of life for a liberal. They can't relate beyond what they know and how they act themselves.

    Liberals are one trick ponies – Insult and Complain are their only tactic. Though I hate saying tactic as that implies intelligence.

    The liberals pre-accuse what they intend to do themselves. Mis-direction is their mainstay.
    What were they accusing Bush of? Nazi? Censor? Chip away at personal privacy by listening to calls to Pakistan, being stupid, can't speak – ever see BO without a teleprompter.. etc.

    Anwyay, the kids I talk to about “health care reform” tell me “Well, I can't afford it now, something has to be done.” When I tell them it will be more expensive if the government gets involved they clearly don't believe me.

    That if and when – it will become active when the repubs take over, and the kids will sit and listen to msnbc and how the red team screwed it up and they'll believe it. The beat goes on and on and on and on. It's been like this 80 years. It will never stop. Especially when they have control of the education system.

  10. Wow, Kid, I think that there's a lot of truth in what you say, but it seems so fatalistic to just shrug and say that's how it is and has been. If we Americans know nothing else from our own relatively short history, it's that we can make a difference, that it's not a done deal until we just sit back and shrug and let it happen. I know you're not doing that at all, but plenty of people who share your (and my) view do. We've lost touch with what makes this country great; we are not at the mercy of the government here. Not yet. And it's not a done deal that we will be; it doesn't have to be.

    We need to take our schools back, as well as Washington. I think it's time to put a screeching halt to our being PC'd into a silence.

  11. Fuzzy,

    We'll see in about a year. I'm an optimist by nature, like a volleyball being held under water, so I don't expect to be a downer much. I'll make the best of what comes.

    And I could be over-reacting. But, I sure talk to a lot of confused people these days. People, who in short, think the government can do better than private industry. Which I attribute to the state run media demonizing private industry for a decade or so now. The kids are eating it up.

    As far as 'that's how it's been for 80 years', I was mainly thinking of how the blacks have let the 'racist' Dems play them for fools the whole time.

    And they're a lot more powerful now from a propaganda standpoint.

  12. Kid, that's the thing that completely confuses me. How can anyone possibly think that the government does anything better than private industry? We all know that every damn thing they touch is a red-tape nightmare, that there is no legal recourse against them, that there are no protections, that they are grossly incompetent and inefficient. There is no motivation whatsoever for the government to be competitive (where else do you go for a driver's license, to mail a first-class letter, etc.?), and there is no profit-motive there, either, they are simply interested in cutting costs . . . when they aren't interested in fostering gross “fraud and abuse” throughout the system. It's laughable that they can run our entire healthcare system when they can't even manage to get vaccines for H1N1 out to people. If this were President Bush, we'd be hearing a cacophony of libs shouting about how President Bush hates babies and pregnant ladies (those who are most vulnerable and who are dying by the hundreds while they wait on this incompetent government to send out needed vaccines–PRISONS got them before schoolkids, for Christ's sake. It's an outrage. But no one is outraged because it's the Messiah screwing up, and not President Bush).

    Oops, sorry, got off on a rant there. But you are right, kids are already victims of the liberal indoctrination that has been allowed to grow unfettered in our public school system for at least a decade, and for far longer in many districts. They think that the government is the answer to everything, that no individual should be held accountable or should have to earn a living, ensure that they and their families are cared for, or that they should even be responsible for their own poor decisions. It's ridiculous. And scary as heck.

  13. It IS insanity. We were out with some socialist friends last night. 'He' thinks government should take over everything; that a health insurance Co. CEO making 12.5 is 'obscene' but doesn't have an answer to my query about how he feels about Pelosi and crew raking in millions or Boxer raking in 1.5 mln just from Illegal Alien groups…

    He admits that the government has bankrupted Medicare, Social Security and offered himself that they've bankrupted the entire country but doesn't have a clear answer to my query of why he would want to put more things under their control.

    He says that it's urban legend that “Canadians have to wait 12-14 hours to see a doctor if they don't have private health insurance plans” when I tell him that I talked to an executive with a major food and drug distribution company headquartered in Vancouver just a few days ago, who lives there and sees it day after day and Does have private insurance that he pays for out of his own pocket – After paying the taxes, the VAT and all the rest which is supposed to 'fund' the health care industry of Canada. I respond that I have to go with the man that lives there and has no reason to lie about it….


    It's a mental disease. A total inability for critical thought. A panic grip on a fantasy.

  14. Agreed, Kid. It's amazing how thoroughly illogical liberals are and how incredibly unable they are to think critically and for themselves. They just lap up the propaganda without question or without putting together the pieces of their own knowledge (most agree with the points you made to your friend) with the lies and smoke. It's really sad. But it's not surprising. It's always easier to hand over control and responsibility than to take it oneself. I think that is at the root of the problem; they've made “individuality” and “independence” into negatives, so now no one wants to have either. So so much easier to let the government be our surrogate parent, dictating every aspect of our lives. That way, they have someone to blame (President Bush won't be the straw man forever).

  15. Agreed. I've often thought and commented that 'they' have been voting to turn the country into one big day care center for a good while now. Giving up liberty for a false security.

    Have you seen the interview with the defected KGB Video ?

    There are a number of them on youtube. This one gets right to it.

What say you?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s