Hypocrisy Liberal Style

Main discussion area is here. Reply to a message to continue a discussion thread, or create your own new Topics.
User avatar
Coondog
Posts: 1514
Joined: 2008 Jul 08 15:14

End of Winter Rant

Postby Coondog » 2014 Mar 30 16:22

All you people seem to have illustrated is the fact that politicians are hypocrites and politicians are corrupt and some of them get hammered and some of them get off relatively lightly and some of them are republicans and some of them are democrats.

The media? Fox news is not going to report on anything negative about any republican. They're too busy bad mouthing Obama. MSNBC is not going to talk negative about democrats because they're too busy reporting on republicans bad mouthing Obama.
CNN is not going to report on anything but missing airplanes for the next ten years. CSPAN is a reality show about hypocritical and corrupt democrats and republicans.

So, there you have it! You have solved the mystery of politics and the media!

The social issues and economic issues that keep the two sides of what amounts to two rugby teams and their fans riveted is merely a distraction from the serious question of whether this nation is going to be controlled by a representative government (pathetic as they are) or a few filthy rich billionaires who use their pocket change to sway votes with as many lies as they can conceive of in any given day.

A prime example is what republicans have happening in Las Vegas at this very moment.........and what democrats will inevitably have to do to influence their own "Uncle Sugars*" to try to balance the scales. (credits to M Huckabee*)

So, lets be consistent about it. If democrats fail to live up to the integrity required to hold office, boot them out. Same with republicans. The only thing that makes the Bridgegate episode so interesting is not whether Christi knew anything, but the political culture in New Jersey. Well, that's just New Jersey, you might say. Wrong! We have our own ex-Governor situation and whatever the other 48 are up to that hasn't yet become scandalous yet as well.

It all boils down to the same thing. Money and power. Money gets you power and power gets you money and those not in the loop get hosed....just like in the old days. The only thing left to the individual is one person, one vote. And, even that is being corrupted by the influence of money on the political front.

Are corporations people, my friend? Hobby Lobby will tell the tale of whether the great democratic experiment will remain as an example to the world of what they should become or what to avoid becoming at any cost.

Theological corporate dominion! Now there's something to aspire to. Works for Iran! Sponsored by Koch Industries and your friends at Citizens United.

Coondog :thumdwn:

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 2920
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

3:50 "Your cache' diminishes..."

Postby Crux » 2014 Mar 30 18:59

Paternalistic, erudite, assumptive, inappropriately guilt ridden, knee jerk partisan white liberals could learn a thing or two from these two black men, Arsenio and Stephen A. Smith, discussing recent comments by a third black man in popular culture, K. Bryant... Interesting 5 minute clip revolving around T. Martin.

Fascinating to crux as he got EVERYTHING right about the G. Zimmerman/T. Martin incident here on the Forum, in real time, and the silly white so-called liberals on the Forum seemed to get EVERYTHING wrong! I tell you a reckoning will always come. I am ahead of the curve is all, and some here will never get it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uPijRqYOYg#t=252

User avatar
Cannoneer
Posts: 365
Joined: 2012 Dec 02 22:19

Re: Hypocrisy Liberal Style

Postby Cannoneer » 2014 Mar 31 07:55

An interestring artical on yahoo this morning stating that the party of the rich is the Democrat Party.
I'm not a bit surprised.

User avatar
Wise One
Posts: 1817
Joined: 2007 Nov 02 09:33

Re: Hypocrisy Liberal Style

Postby Wise One » 2014 Mar 31 09:35

Nor am I. Nor am I surprised that you have no clue what "party of the rich" means in all its different, and nuanced, definitions. It could mean any of these:
  • Elected officials are more often rich when they are Democrats?
  • The per capita incomes in electoral districts of elected Democrats are higher than in others?
  • There are more wealthy people, say annual incomes over $200,000, in districts with Democratic representation than in others?
  • Policies and legislation of elected officials more often favor the rich at the expense of the poor when they are Democrats?
It is very clear that the last, and most important, of these propositions is resoundingly false. This is really the only one that counts, because smart people try to elect officials to promulgate policies and laws that serve the complete body of the American people, most of whom are not rich. Republicans are the opposite, so this last proposition is true for them.

The other three propositions are plausible. Smart and skilled people are tend to make more money than others. They are also more likely to be Democrats and, if they run for office in districts with a smart electorate, to be electable. Electoral districts with a population that is smart and educated and skilled is more likely to have higher than average income.

Persons with small horizons and limited talents tend to become, and vote for, Republicans. It is mostly in the American South, where you have the poor educational attainment, low average incomes, and the worst public health care performance, can you find an electorate gullible enough to swallow the Republican swindle.

:coffee:

For completeness, the reference you omitted.
"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like Donald Trump."

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 2920
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

geeez

Postby Crux » 2014 Mar 31 11:11

Wise One wrote: (support for republicans) It is mostly in the American South...


2012 electoral map.png
2012 electoral map.png (99.05 KiB) Viewed 831 times


2012 county by county election map. (hardly)

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 2920
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

Classic Hate and Delusion? No...

Postby Crux » 2014 Mar 31 11:27

Wise One wrote:
Persons with small horizons and limited talents tend to become, and vote for, Republicans. It is mostly in the American South, where you have the poor educational attainment, low average incomes, and the worst public health care performance, can you find an electorate gullible enough to swallow the Republican swindle.



I like this quote. It is overblown and demonstrably silly. I know folks like the so-called liberal lightweights here LOVE it.
I know too you don't BELIEVE it. AO, you are a smart man. Paternalistic. Elitist. A means justifies the ends kind of guy.

Smart does not mean correct, or persuasive, or WISE... The DAMAGE you do is great my friend. Never doubt it.

User avatar
Coondog
Posts: 1514
Joined: 2008 Jul 08 15:14

Nice, meaningless election map

Postby Coondog » 2014 Mar 31 12:33

One presumes that is a Presidential Election map. You know......the Presidency. The one nationally elected office that money, voter suppression, doublespeak, Carl Rove and electoral shenaneghans haven't been able to wrest from the tentative grasp of the populace for the past several elections. (2000 being the exception)

What we can discern from such a map relies on what we also know. Besides regional demographics.......we know that at least 50% of the population lives within 50 miles of a coastline. Now, a look at the map reveals that, except in the deep south, coastlines are overwhelmingly blue.

We can learn much of what we need to know about the deep south by watching the movie Deliverance.

It is the peculiar way in which representation is allocated in congress that allows a minority to thwart the desires of the majority which leads us to the present state of disfunction.

There is an old adage in Dawgdom that dictates that it is more difficult to sell a bag of dog excrement to an educated person than to a bumpkin. But a politician without discernment will buy it with no questions asked.

And we all know that there is more integrity in Dawgdom than in the entire realm of party politics.

We also know that that big red blotch in the center of the map is populated by mainly prairie dogs (who are not dawgs at all) who can be bought for the price of a gumball and worship George Zimmerman as a man of high moral standards and, although they're not too keen on the proliferation of varmint rifles, still support the NRA.

We should at least acknowledge the difference between the Party OF the Rich (democrats) and the Party FOR the Rich (republicans).

Coondog :tiphat:

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 2920
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

Nice, meaningful election map

Postby Crux » 2014 Mar 31 13:12

First of the map counters AO's RIDICULOUS assertion. It is not "meaningless". It shows WIDESPREAD republican support.

Coondog wrote:One presumes that is a Presidential Election map. You know......the Presidency. The one nationally elected office that money, voter suppression, doublespeak, Carl Rove and electoral shenaneghans haven't been able to wrest from the tentative grasp of the populace for the past several elections. (2000 being the exception)

DOT DOT DOT (because everything in the middle is fluff)

We should at least acknowledge the difference between the Party OF the Rich (democrats) and the Party FOR the Rich (republicans).


Now the first part is little better than fluff. No recognition of House victories every two years,
or National victories all across the Country in 2010! The second part is just pure clowndog JUNK.


2014 elections coming. Any predictions CLOWN?

Here's mine. The American Electorate will not reward Obama and the Democrats. Republicans hold the House,
and add seats. The Senate goes Republican. Obama is FURTHER marginalized by just about everyone... :beer:

It will be a Tea Party like 2010, much to the chagrin of the Republican Party Establishment.
crux identifies with American Principles. Personal Liberty, Respect and Limited government.
He is a classic liberal, a libertarian at heart, and a conservative in the classical sense...

User avatar
Coondog
Posts: 1514
Joined: 2008 Jul 08 15:14

My point, exactly!

Postby Coondog » 2014 Mar 31 14:20

The potentiality for a takeover of government by a petty, mean spirited 14% who owe their very existence to ignorance and fat billionaires is a prospective that ought to scare the hell out of any rational being.

One can see why you're so elated about it............ Prairie Dog!

Coondog :confused:

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 2920
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

Right on time.

Postby Crux » 2014 Mar 31 16:30

http://bigstory.ap.org/article/party-ri ... -democrats

WASHINGTON (AP) — Republicans are the party of the rich, right? It's a label that has stuck for decades, and you're hearing it again as Democrats complain about GOP opposition to raising the minimum wage and extending unemployment benefits.

But in Congress, the wealthiest among us are more likely to be represented by a Democrat than a Republican. Of the 10 richest House districts, only two have Republican congressmen. Democrats claim the top six, sprinkled along the East and West coasts. Most are in overwhelmingly Democratic states like New York and California.


Who is petty and mean spirited about what??? Should the election not go well for DEMOCRATS, is that not COMMON FOLKS voting against the power of ENTRENCHED WEALTH and FAILURE? DOG, what is your prediction? Will your ideology in all it's goodness and wisdom, supported by a powerful Democrat party machine and the news media prevail???

User avatar
Cannoneer
Posts: 365
Joined: 2012 Dec 02 22:19

Re: Hypocrisy Liberal Style

Postby Cannoneer » 2014 Mar 31 21:50

wiseguy,
It's you who do not have a clue.
The Democrat party is the one that caters to the rich.
And has the most cheats and crooks.
And most of the Democrat votes come from those supported by the Government.
Receiving government handouts in exchange for votes.

User avatar
Kevsky
Posts: 103
Joined: 2013 Sep 24 07:32

Re: Hypocrisy Liberal Style

Postby Kevsky » 2014 Apr 01 08:16

Wiseone States
- Elected officials are more often rich when they are Democrats?
- The per capita incomes in electoral districts of elected Democrats are higher than in others?
- There are more wealthy people, say annual incomes over $200,000, in districts with Democratic representation than in others?
- Policies and legislation of elected officials more often favor the rich at the expense of the poor when they are Democrats?

Wiseone States
The other three propositions are plausible. Smart and skilled people are tend to make more money than others. They are also more likely to be Democrats and, if they run for office in districts with a smart electorate, to be electable. Electoral districts with a population that is smart and educated and skilled is more likely to have higher than average income.

Persons with small horizons and limited talents tend to become, and vote for, Republicans. It is mostly in the American South, where you have the poor educational attainment, low average incomes, and the worst public health care performance, can you find an electorate gullible enough to swallow the Republican swindle.

Actually, a more plausible explanation for propositions 1-3 are with regards to the cost of living variations throughout the United States.

The richest: New York's 12th Congressional District, which includes Manhattan's Upper East Side, as well as parts of Queens and Brooklyn. Democrat Carolyn Maloney is in her 11th term representing the district.

Per capita income in Maloney's district is $75,479. That's more than $75,000 a year for every man, woman and child. The next highest income district, which runs along the southern California coast, comes in at $61,273. Democrat Henry Waxman is in his 20th term representing the Los Angeles-area district.

House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi's San Francisco district comes in at No. 8.

The Democrat Districts tend to be in highly urban areas and in areas with extremely high costs of living (New York City, Los Angeles, The California Bay Area). Therefore, it would necessitate that per capita income would be higher in these districts. A pizza delivery boy in New York City may make $40,000 a year and live in a rat-infested 600 square foot apartment while a licensed electrician may live in Alabama making $39,000 a year and live in a 2000 square foot home in the suburbs. I doubt you would call the pizza delivery boy in New York smarter, more educated or more skilled than the electrician from Alabama (notwithstanding, the pizza delivery boy probably does vote Democrat).

This is why we see the migration from the "Blue" areas of the U.S. to the "Red" areas of the U.S.

U.S. Migration Trends

Yes, the migration in the United States tends to be from the high-tax, highly government regulated, high cost of living blue areas of the U.S. You know, the "Socialist Utopias". And the migration destination tends to be heavily to the low-tax, low-government regulated, low cost of living red areas of the U.S.. of which the main area tends to be the South, called by many on this website "The Hellhole". That's right. Many people are voluntarily leaving the "Socialist Utopias" to live in the Southern "Hellhole". Go figure.

Wiseone states
There are more wealthy people, say annual incomes over $200,000, in districts with Democratic representation than in others?

And the reason?
The financial industry on the East Coast and tech industry on the West Coast frequently have deep ties with the federal government and don’t mind seeing increased state power, which could offer an incentive to vote Democrat, said Ian Murray, vice president for strategy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute.

“Often, a husband and wife are both making money from the government, directly and indirectly,” said Murray, who is the author of “Stealing You Blind: How Government Fatcats are Getting Rich off of You.”

He added that people become wealthy by advising Wall Street on compliance, thus expansive government regulations can be lucrative.

“The financial industry, Wall Street, is a very heavily regulated industry,” Murray said. “So these firms not only pay top dollar to the wealth creators, but they pay high salaries to lawyers to deal with compliance.”
The AP reported that Democrats say the “party of the rich” label is more about policies than constituents.

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/03/31/guess-which-party-represents-most-of-the-10-richest-congressional-districts

But go ahead and stick with your Neanderthal logic "Republicans dumb, Democrats smart, Southerners dumb, me smart". If your bigotry and stereotyping keep you warm at night than who am I to bring reason to the argument?

User avatar
Wise One
Posts: 1817
Joined: 2007 Nov 02 09:33

Re: Hypocrisy Liberal Style

Postby Wise One » 2014 Apr 01 14:38

Kevsky wrote:Actually, a more plausible explanation for propositions 1-3 are with regards to the cost of living variations throughout the United States.
Yes, of course cost of living and wealth are entangled. But you should regard it as the classic chicken-and-egg problem. Most often you can't really have one without the other.

For example, Alaska and Hawaii have an intrinsic property, distance from suppliers, that elevates living costs somewhat. But that is a small effect compared to wealth as a CAUSE of elevated living costs. In Hawaii you have boatloads of super-wealthy people, including many Asians, running around bidding up prices. In Alaska, you have a spigot of oil revenues not only wiping out any need to tax, but actually putting additional money in every resident's pocket.

Where money is abundant, prices get bid up. Basic economics.

Only in a place like Antarctica do intrinsic factors (climate, distance) cause astronomical living costs that are not primarily driven by the mere existence of wealth. In places like Paris, Tokyo, Dubai, New York City, it is the existence of abundant wealth itself that drives the cost of living.

It most places it is median attainment levels of education, health delivery, how smart and capable people and their institutions are, etc. that provide the basis for wealth. Outliers like Dubai have high living cost ONLY because they have lots of money and not much of the other things (apart from their oil windfall) that generate wealth.

:coffee:
"If your only tool is a hammer, every problem looks like Donald Trump."

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 2920
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

A tale of two car companies...

Postby Crux » 2014 Apr 03 07:40

Toyota and GM. Dangerous sticking accelerators? Ring a bell? Except in the case of Toyota it was proven to be false. Still Holder and Obama played a little shakedown to the tune of 1.2 Billion Dollars in fines. Now we have GM. Government Motors. This would all be funny Karma except there may be 13 REAL people DEAD! What's the difference? Toyota is the competition. UNION competition...

http://thefederalist.com/2014/04/02/the ... you-think/

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 2920
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

Bundy v. Sterling

Postby Crux » 2014 Apr 27 16:05

http://www.tmz.com/2014/04/26/donald-st ... c-johnson/

It is so interesting. How the Left has jumped on in-artful comments made by Rancher Cliven Bundy. They called him, predictably a "racist" and deemed his comments "racist". So shallow... Now on his heels, we have blatant and outright bigoted words issued by L.A. Clippers owner Donald Sterling. Why is that interesting? Because his words were not merely in-artful. Mr. Sterling is by the way a Democrat, and is scheduled to get an NAACP award... Too funny.

Sterling rails on Stiviano -- who ironically is black and Mexican -- for putting herself out in public with a black person (she has since taken the pic down). But it doesn't end there. You have to listen to the audio to fully grasp the magnitude of Sterling's racist worldview. Among the comments:

-- "It bothers me a lot that you want to broadcast that you’re associating with black people. Do you have to?" (3:30)

-- "You can sleep with [black people]. You can bring them in, you can do whatever you want. The little I ask you is not to promote it on that ... and not to bring them to my games." (5:15)

-- "I’m just saying, in your lousy f******* Instagrams, you don’t have to have yourself with, walking with black people." (7:45)

-- "...Don't put him [Magic] on an Instagram for the world to have to see so they have to call me. And don't bring him to my games." (9:13)

Sterling has a documented history of allegedly racist behavior -- he's been sued twice by the federal government for allegedly refusing to rent apartments to Blacks and Latinos.


Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2014/04/26/donald-st ... z307RVD3Ny

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 2920
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

This is what Democracy looks like?

Postby Crux » 2014 May 17 18:14

Obama. The Federal Government under Democrats. The Democratic Party and that means YOU the majority on this fine little forum.

Your Democrat Party controlled Federal Government and Administration is seeking to militarize the Federal Government. Now we see the Department of Agriculture is getting into the act. YOU FIGURE IT OUT. Too many Democrats and so called Liberals want to crack down on the Americal Citizen and Individual rights via "gun control". One one hand they don't uphold the right of self defense and the right to keep and bear arms and on the other, they will continuously empower the force and might of the GOVERNMENT. You look at this solicitation and YO(U FIGURE IT OUT.

https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity ... e&_cview=0

Will these .40 caliber sub machine guns, with 30 round magazines, capable of "two round (automatic) bursts" be available for private sale???

You figure it out...

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 2920
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

MORE democracy?

Postby Crux » 2014 May 20 17:46

This time COLORADO where legal pot is weak balm for these citizens. Look at this story and see if you don't agree that the power of the State was FORCEFULLY exercised against common law abiding folks going about their business. This is an amazing story. Reminds me of Boston. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/05 ... violation/


User avatar
Neck-aint-red
Posts: 326
Joined: 2008 Apr 08 14:08

Re: MORE democracy?

Postby Neck-aint-red » 2014 Jun 10 00:09

Crux wrote:Look at this story and see if you don't agree that the power of the State was FORCEFULLY exercised against common law abiding folks going about their business. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/05 ... violation/

Thanks for pointing this unforgivable and unconstitutional abuse of power. It was 2 years ago ... I'd love to know the outcome of the lawsuit.

Why you posted it under this topic is a mystery. No Liberal would approve of or defend such an abuse of police power.

User avatar
Crux
Posts: 2920
Joined: 2010 Dec 16 19:44

Transparency

Postby Crux » 2014 Jun 14 08:13

Once again, upstaging Nixon BIG TIME, the Obama Administration pulls a fast one. TWO YEARS of IRS/Lois Lerner emails have been "lost".
Sure the IRS pledged quite publicly they would be turned over to Congress.... This Administration is a constant assault on Liberty and Justice.


Return to “MAIN FORUM”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest