Hypocrisy

Discussion in 'Politics' started by tconway2, Mar 28, 2011.

  1. tconway2
    Offline

    tconway2 Rookie

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2011
    Messages:
    1
    Thanks Received:
    1
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1
    So, looking back on a few hypocritical things done by Obama, how do liberals even defend this?
    -Obama promises to shut down GTMO, only to resume it, with harsher enforcement
    -Obama bashes Bush for raising Debt ceiling, then raises the debt ceiling,
    -Obama says; "it is unconstitutional for the US to go to war when there is no imminent threat to the US"...then, he proceeds with Libya......

    As a conservative libertarian, I wonder how these few examples of the many hypocrisies of the Obama administration are defendable.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  2. SgtMeowenstein
    Offline

    SgtMeowenstein BANNED

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2011
    Messages:
    627
    Thanks Received:
    67
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +67
    1. Not closing GITMO because of congressional obstacles is not hypocrisy.

    2. Obama cannot raise the debt ceiling. Congress can. As of yet, as far as I know, the debt ceiling has not been raised.

    3. *shrugs* I guess it's a lot different being POTUS. At least he got UN and NATO support. And at least he made sure it was a conflict worth getting into (unlike Iraq).
     
  3. Neotrotsky
    Offline

    Neotrotsky Council to Supreme Soviet

    Joined:
    Dec 12, 2009
    Messages:
    10,397
    Thanks Received:
    1,251
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Location:
    People's Republic
    Ratings:
    +2,343


    The Left crowd can say to cover their hypocrisy...

    "hey at least we killed less Arabs than Bush"
    :eusa_whistle:
     
  4. Sheldon
    Offline

    Sheldon Senior Member

    Joined:
    Apr 2, 2010
    Messages:
    5,215
    Thanks Received:
    1,328
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +1,330
    What is a conservative libertarian? :confused:


    But yeah, there's plenty of conflict between candidate Obama and President Obama. I wouldn't automatically label it hypocrisy though; that's treating similar situations differently at the same time.

    If you come to a different conclusion over time using new information, and apply that new standard equally, that's called making an informed decision. I used to feel one way about Afghanistan, but now I feel differently as things have changed. :dunno:

    I have to point out that saying these things aren't necessarily hypocritical doesn't make them less shitty of policy moves.

    Regardless, Obama has been a disappointment to many liberals, will never satisfy the swathes on the right so I don't even know why he tried, and isn't different enough from Bush II to satisfy us indies. He set his bar very high during the campaign.
     
  5. The Rabbi
    Offline

    The Rabbi Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2009
    Messages:
    67,619
    Thanks Received:
    7,821
    Trophy Points:
    1,840
    Location:
    Nashville
    Ratings:
    +18,214
    When did Obama ever try to satisfy anyone on the Right?

    He never did.
    I wouldn't label his flip flops hypocrisy so much as the reality of governing dawning on him once he got into office. It shows his inexperience and poor judgment. Which are the hallmarks of his administration.
     
  6. Charles_Main
    Offline

    Charles_Main AR15 Owner

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2008
    Messages:
    16,692
    Thanks Received:
    2,238
    Trophy Points:
    88
    Location:
    Michigan, USA
    Ratings:
    +2,251
    Wait so you are going to ignore than he had near super majorities in both houses for 2 Years and blame congressional Obstacles? Really? LOL

    Not yet but it will be, Thanks to obama and the Dems Glutenous spending.

    What? How is Libya any more worth it than Iraq? (Saddam killed 25 million people in 25 years). Bush had more Nations in his coalition than Obama does, and BUSH got congressional Approval.

    No wonder you shrugged, you got nothing. Face it your hero President is an 2 faced lying sack of inexperienced shit.
     
  7. Seawytch
    Offline

    Seawytch Information isnt Advocacy

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    28,998
    Thanks Received:
    3,962
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Peaking out from the redwoods
    Ratings:
    +7,043
    Ah the "super majority" meme again. It's a LIE. Democrats never had a super majority. By the time Al Franken was sworn in, Kennedy was already "out of it". You could hardly consider Lieberman on the Democrats "side" when it came to much of the legislation. I know it makes the righties feel better to claim a Democratic super majority, but they are just blowing more smoke to cover the GnOP obstructionism (which we know was at unprecedented and historic levels).

    I really don't understand the conservative need to constantly conflate Iraq and Libya as though they are the same. False equivalences is all the right has these days and it is only to cover their own hypocrisy of not supporting President Obama's actions in Libya when they were beating their meat...er, I mean chests, for Bush's actual invasion of Iraq.
     
  8. Dr.Drock
    Offline

    Dr.Drock Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2009
    Messages:
    9,680
    Thanks Received:
    940
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +940
    For the same reasons democrats shouldn't like him I wonder why republicans haven't changed opinion and started to like him more.

    1.) Left beloved Gitmo open
    2.) Wildly enhanced the warmongering in Afghanistan
    3.) Attacked yet another muslim arab country.

    These things were great when Bush did them, why not when Obama does them?
     
  9. washamericom
    Offline

    washamericom Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 19, 2010
    Messages:
    9,377
    Thanks Received:
    734
    Trophy Points:
    205
    Ratings:
    +2,694
    i have so enjoyed watching the lib on the street backpeddle in a hypocritcal flux, trying to justify their ethics and values as they finally erode away. (what war?)
     
  10. SgtMeowenstein
    Offline

    SgtMeowenstein BANNED

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2011
    Messages:
    627
    Thanks Received:
    67
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +67
    A super majority? Yeah, ok. Why do you always ignore the obvious? In order for anything in the Senate to get through Republican filibusters (or the threat of a filibuster), Democrats had to get 60 votes. That's right. In the Senate, 51 is not a majority. Only 60 counts. But you want to ignore that little fact, right?

    Anyway, opposition to closing GITMO is a bipartisan effort. Many Democrats and Republicans are fighting its closing. Without congressional support, GITMO can't close. You understand how that works, right?

    So, you don't support raising the debt ceiling? Why am I not surprised? By failing to raise the debt ceiling, the US would default on loans; the result of which would be terrible for financial markets and the US economy. And you're okay with that? More likely, you're just parroting what the far right is saying without considering the consequences.

    Iraq wasn't a threat to the US. And it wasn't sold as a humanitarian mission. Bush said that Saddam had WMDs. That was the reasoning behind the attack. Famously, no WMDs were ever found. And you want to brag about Bush's coalition? :lol::lol::lol: Ok. The UK contributed 46,000 troops to the invasion; Australia - 2,000 troops; Poland - 200 troops. Then he had a bunch of small nations that came in after the invasion.

    Libya is a humanitarian mission. The US is taking on a limited role, letting UN and NATO nations do a lot of the work. Two totally different scenarios.

    Face it, you're a clueless partisan hack grasping at straws.
     
    Last edited: Mar 29, 2011

Share This Page