Hypocrisy

[Nautiknight]

When it comes to power the sword of hypocrisy is often sharp and used often by all in Washington, DC, but the left is a master of it.

When we go to church, synagogue or what ever Muslims do, and the clergyman preaches about sin, cheating on your spouse or porn or what ever, then goes out on Monday and does those very same things, well they are hypocrites. At the end of the day, I can chose to attend the church or not and ultimately the hypocrisy of the preacher actually doesn't harm my well being.

When a politician advances the ideas of tax increases, gun regulations, climate change policies , getting rid of school choice and on and on, unless I am very wealthy I am forced to live under those policies and those policies impact my life directly. They impose tyranny.

Politicians often find ways to exempt themselves from many of the laws and regulations they impose on everyone else. Those that advocate taxes and soaking the rich, do everything they can to avoid paying taxes, like when John Kerry registers his $40 million dollar yacht in Rhode Island to avoid his state's yacht taxes.

You have all those climate change advocates like Jane Fonda or Al Gore or Obama who don't live modest lives, drive electric vehicles or anything on their own to reduce their carbon footprint , yet they advocate policies which would significantly cause economic harm to the middle and lower classes. They don't lead by example at all. You know and I know if beef production is curtailed due to climate policies that none of these people are giving up filet mignon. If Obama truly believes sea levels are going to rise why did he buy a $15 million estate on an island?

When it comes to schools, do you ever notice the very people who are against school choice for you and I , that they themselves send their kids to the best private schools? Why is it nobody asks them if public schools are so damn good, why don't they send their kids too? Why do they get choice and then want to force the rest of us into public schools?

I see a lot of posts here on hypocrisy pointing out the moral failings of the right. Guess what, you are correct. Humans suck at telling everyone how to live and what to do. Religious leaders are terrible when it comes to morality themselves at times. Again, I have a choice here in listening to them and their moral failings do not impact me. When it is really bad though is when government is run this way. When our leaders advocate for laws and policies that often just harm the electorate while they the leaders are not impacted by their decisions.

Gun control and border walls? Ever notice one side is against walls and private gun ownership , yet they themselves live in compounds protected by walls and have armed security protecting their lives and property with guns? Nancy Pelosi, tear down your compound walls and surrender your armed guards.

Socialism is for the masses not for the socialists who wants to impose it on the masses. You can bet your last dollar that if MFA came into existence, that Nancy Pelosi, Warren, Sanders and every other proponent of this bull crap will never be subject to long wait times, reduced care and ultimately they will use private medicine at the best hospitals to get their treatment. They want to deny us the same level of care in the disguised effort of we want to care for all. This is nothing more than a ruse to control people, to gain power and wield their sword of hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy is power in DC and it's truly tyranny on us.

 

[Boosted87]

Socialism is for the masses not for the socialists who wants to impose it on the masses. You can bet your last dollar that if MFA came into existence, that Nancy Pelosi, Warren, Sanders and every other proponent of this bull crap will never be subject to long wait times, reduced care and ultimately they will use private medicine at the best hospitals to get their treatment. They want to deny us the same level of care in the disguised effort of we want to care for all. This is nothing more than a ruse to control people, to gain power and wield their sword of hypocrisy.

Generally speaking, I agree with your point that we're all biased and hypocritical in our own ways.

But I'm going to challenge you on "socialism". The right is trying hard to make left-leaning-economic policies = socialism on a selective basis. Where is the angst for Fire Departments, Police, roads, bridges, garbage collection, public schools, sewer and power, the US Military, Medicare as it exists today, etc? These are all things generally provided for via tax revenue at different levels of government, while all dependent on private businesses to meet various needs. Government generates demand that the private sector then has to meet. MFA would do exactly the same thing (private doctors, hospitals, drug companies etc all meeting demand driven by government payments).

We all agree that Police Departments should exist right? No one is going to argue we abolish Public police departments in exchange for a for-profit private system where individuals purchase insurance contracts for protection? Right? Sure, if you have enough money you can build walls around your house and hire private security. But that doesn't make you a hypocrite because you still fundamentally believe public security (police) should exist.

The reality is that - except for the most extreme libertarians among us - we agree it makes sense for the government at different levels to fund certain services through tax revenue. The debate is over WHAT we should and shouldn't fund. And that's a good debate. But it's intellectually dishonest to pick-and-choose the things we dislike and label them "socialist" while pretending a bunch of things we do like are inherently different.

 

[Crazyhole]

I love it when the best argument in favor of socialism is "the fire department". For 99% of people, they will never have any interaction with the fire department but they know that whether its the billionaire next door or the lower class guy down the street, the fire department will serve them equally in their time of need.

Then it's the police. This is where things get entertaining. The same people who tout the police department as being a form of socialism are the same people who rant about how the police treat white rich people differently than poor black people. We are literally 2 steps into socialism and already see how it's a two-tiered system where the haves are treated better than the have-nots.

 

[btbones]

When it comes to power the sword of hypocrisy is often sharp and used often by all in Washington, DC, but the left is a master of it.

When we go to church, synagogue or what ever Muslims do, and the clergyman preaches about sin, cheating on your spouse or porn or what ever, then goes out on Monday and does those very same things, well they are hypocrites. At the end of the day, I can chose to attend the church or not and ultimately the hypocrisy of the preacher actually doesn't harm my well being.

When a politician advances the ideas of tax increases, gun regulations, climate change policies , getting rid of school choice and on and on, unless I am very wealthy I am forced to live under those policies and those policies impact my life directly. They impose tyranny.

Politicians often find ways to exempt themselves from many of the laws and regulations they impose on everyone else. Those that advocate taxes and soaking the rich, do everything they can to avoid paying taxes, like when John Kerry registers his $40 million dollar yacht in Rhode Island to avoid his state's yacht taxes.

You have all those climate change advocates like Jane Fonda or Al Gore or Obama who don't live modest lives, drive electric vehicles or anything on their own to reduce their carbon footprint , yet they advocate policies which would significantly cause economic harm to the middle and lower classes. They don't lead by example at all. You know and I know if beef production is curtailed due to climate policies that none of these people are giving up filet mignon. If Obama truly believes sea levels are going to rise why did he buy a $15 million estate on an island?

When it comes to schools, do you ever notice the very people who are against school choice for you and I , that they themselves send their kids to the best private schools? Why is it nobody asks them if public schools are so damn good, why don't they send their kids too? Why do they get choice and then want to force the rest of us into public schools?

I see a lot of posts here on hypocrisy pointing out the moral failings of the right. Guess what, you are correct. Humans suck at telling everyone how to live and what to do. Religious leaders are terrible when it comes to morality themselves at times. Again, I have a choice here in listening to them and their moral failings do not impact me. When it is really bad though is when government is run this way. When our leaders advocate for laws and policies that often just harm the electorate while they the leaders are not impacted by their decisions.

Gun control and border walls? Ever notice one side is against walls and private gun ownership , yet they themselves live in compounds protected by walls and have armed security protecting their lives and property with guns? Nancy Pelosi, tear down your compound walls and surrender your armed guards.

Socialism is for the masses not for the socialists who wants to impose it on the masses. You can bet your last dollar that if MFA came into existence, that Nancy Pelosi, Warren, Sanders and every other proponent of this bull crap will never be subject to long wait times, reduced care and ultimately they will use private medicine at the best hospitals to get their treatment. They want to deny us the same level of care in the disguised effort of we want to care for all. This is nothing more than a ruse to control people, to gain power and wield their sword of hypocrisy.

Hypocrisy is power in DC and it's truly tyranny on us.

Best Post I have read in this forum ever

 

[Boosted87]

I love it when the best argument in favor of socialism is "the fire department". For 99% of people, they will never have any interaction with the fire department but they know that whether its the billionaire next door or the lower class guy down the street, the fire department will serve them equally in their time of need.

Then it's the police. This is where things get entertaining. The same people who tout the police department as being a form of socialism are the same people who rant about how the police treat white rich people differently than poor black people. We are literally 2 steps into socialism and already see how it's a two-tiered system where the haves are treated better than the have-nots.

This isn't an argument in favor of socialism and no one is ranting about police misconduct (you can't rationalize away reasonable discussion because unreasonable people on the left exist). You are correct in pointing out that anyone who justifies full-blown socialism by using police/fire as an example is off their rocker. But that misses the point entirely.

My entire point was that MFA is not inherently "more socialist" than a myriad of other things that we fund directly through the government. And when that government funding leads directly to contracts with private companies who derive private profit, I don't see how you can say that's anywhere close to pure socialism (isn't private profit literally the opposite of socialism?).

So I agree that something like single payer is a notch to the left on the spectrum, but it's well within the bounds of how our economic-political system operates. Privatization isn't always inherently a better choice. That's the analogy to fire / police/ military / schools / etc. You can argue the merits on any particular topic, and you can certainly point out the shortcoming of MFA, but you can't broadly brush something away "because socialism" - that's an ideological crutch that let's you completely skip over any sort of real analysis.

 

[NinjaKnight]

Lmao found the fox news watcher. Jesus Christ the first two paragraphs were down right cringe worthy to read, glad I didn't wast any more time with the rest of it.

Please nauti, for the sake of our country, educate yourself a little before voting again.

 

[firm_bizzle]

Humans are hypocrites. Newsflash.

 

[Crazyhole]

This isn't an argument in favor of socialism and no one is ranting about police misconduct (you can't rationalize away reasonable discussion because unreasonable people on the left exist). You are correct in pointing out that anyone who justifies full-blown socialism by using police/fire as an example is off their rocker. But that misses the point entirely.

My entire point was that MFA is not inherently "more socialist" than a myriad of other things that we fund directly through the government. And when that government funding leads directly to contracts with private companies who derive private profit, I don't see how you can say that's anywhere close to pure socialism (isn't private profit literally the opposite of socialism?).

So I agree that something like single payer is a notch to the left on the spectrum, but it's well within the bounds of how our economic-political system operates. Privatization isn't always inherently a better choice. That's the analogy to fire / police/ military / schools / etc. You can argue the merits on any particular topic, and you can certainly point out the shortcoming of MFA, but you can't broadly brush something away "because socialism" - that's an ideological crutch that let's you completely skip over any sort of real analysis.

I understand your argument and quite honestly it is valid. My point, which I didn't allude to in the earlier post, is that people have a tendency to misunderstand the fact that socialism is not a political ideology, it's an economic one. The fire department for example, is not a form of socialism in any way whatsoever. It is a product of government that the people deem worthy of investment in. The same can be said for police or the justice system. Socialism is the use of wealth redistribution to create (in theory) equality regardless of effort, talent, or input. The reason we don't place a value on policing is because it is a natural byproduct of civilized society wanting to maintain some level of order. We place a value on things like healthcare because it inherently does not benefit all people equally. Need / access = value. Generally speaking, the vast majority of people will never "need" the fire department but they have access to it, and that is a byproduct of having a civilized society. All people will at some point have a "need" for healthcare but at different levels. Its ludicrous to say that we can possibly create some form of equalization on a scale large enough to address such varying degrees of need, and the natural byproduct of trying to do so is the creation of a two-tiered system.

If I perpetually set my house on fire, at some point shouldnt the fire department say that they can no longer continue to serve my needs because I continually make poor choices and demand their service because I am unduly placing a burden on society as a whole? With healthcare, why should we expect that society as a whole should pay for my cancer treatment if I smoke 3 packs of cigarettes a day, drink a handle of vodka, and eat McDonalds 3 times a day? There is a tipping point between personal responsibility and the greater good, and unless you can control human behavior those 2 will diverge in the worst way possible.

 

[chemmie]

 

[cnsaguy]

Best Post I have read in this forum ever

Did you not read the stand/sit wiping thread?

 

[btbones]

Did you not read the stand/sit wiping thread?

I’ll amend it to best post in the shitty era of the cooler .

 

[UCFWayne]

I’ll amend it to best post in the shitty era of the cooler .

i suspect the wc will return to greatness once trump finally leaves office in 2024 and those who suffer from tds get a much needed relief.

 

[Boosted87]

I understand your argument and quite honestly it is valid. My point, which I didn't allude to in the earlier post, is that people have a tendency to misunderstand the fact that socialism is not a political ideology, it's an economic one. The fire department for example, is not a form of socialism in any way whatsoever. It is a product of government that the people deem worthy of investment in. The same can be said for police or the justice system. Socialism is the use of wealth redistribution to create (in theory) equality regardless of effort, talent, or input. The reason we don't place a value on policing is because it is a natural byproduct of civilized society wanting to maintain some level of order. We place a value on things like healthcare because it inherently does not benefit all people equally. Need / access = value. Generally speaking, the vast majority of people will never "need" the fire department but they have access to it, and that is a byproduct of having a civilized society. All people will at some point have a "need" for healthcare but at different levels. Its ludicrous to say that we can possibly create some form of equalization on a scale large enough to address such varying degrees of need, and the natural byproduct of trying to do so is the creation of a two-tiered system.

If I perpetually set my house on fire, at some point shouldnt the fire department say that they can no longer continue to serve my needs because I continually make poor choices and demand their service because I am unduly placing a burden on society as a whole? With healthcare, why should we expect that society as a whole should pay for my cancer treatment if I smoke 3 packs of cigarettes a day, drink a handle of vodka, and eat McDonalds 3 times a day? There is a tipping point between personal responsibility and the greater good, and unless you can control human behavior those 2 will diverge in the worst way possible.

I think we mostly agree in principle but the devil is in the details. I think we both are accepting of a sliding scale or value analysis. Society decides the value in police/fire/postal service/roads/infrastructure/etc is sufficient such that providing it as a government service funded via tax revenue is rational. But by that definition, is it not possible that at some point society values access to healthcare in some capacity, in a similar manner?

The problem I see in your analysis is that you're implying healthcare is unique because it's impossible to provide equal access, and that is somehow unique from these other services. I don't see that at all. While we all have access to public education, the quality of the schools we have access to varies dramatically based on local conditions, socio-economic situation, etc. The same logic applies to the public safety we get from Police as some areas are much safer than others.

And look, there's plenty of room on the healthcare debate. For example, I don't think anyone should go bankrupt because they get cancer. I've seen numbers as high as 2/3 of personal bankruptcies being directly related to medical issues. Personally, I'd love to see an analysis of a system where the Govt backstops insurers and covers any costs over $XX,XXX per year per individual. As taxpayers, let's share the extreme events in one huge insurance pool. Then the costs of individual plans that cover you up to that amount come way down and can be tied to personal risk factors.

The problem is that the ONLY big ideas we have right now are MFA or Marketplace+Public Option. Republicans had 8 years to come up with an alternative, including 2 years with complete control of Washington. There is no competing idea from the right. A few minor regulatory changes are not enough to deal with the issues we have.

 

[Cubs79]

I think we mostly agree in principle but the devil is in the details. I think we both are accepting of a sliding scale or value analysis. Society decides the value in police/fire/postal service/roads/infrastructure/etc is sufficient such that providing it as a government service funded via tax revenue is rational. But by that definition, is it not possible that at some point society values access to healthcare in some capacity, in a similar manner?

The problem I see in your analysis is that you're implying healthcare is unique because it's impossible to provide equal access, and that is somehow unique from these other services. I don't see that at all. While we all have access to public education, the quality of the schools we have access to varies dramatically based on local conditions, socio-economic situation, etc. The same logic applies to the public safety we get from Police as some areas are much safer than others.

And look, there's plenty of room on the healthcare debate. For example, I don't think anyone should go bankrupt because they get cancer. I've seen numbers as high as 2/3 of personal bankruptcies being directly related to medical issues. Personally, I'd love to see an analysis of a system where the Govt backstops insurers and covers any costs over $XX,XXX per year per individual. As taxpayers, let's share the extreme events in one huge insurance pool. Then the costs of individual plans that cover you up to that amount come way down and can be tied to personal risk factors.

The problem is that the ONLY big ideas we have right now are MFA or Marketplace+Public Option. Republicans had 8 years to come up with an alternative, including 2 years with complete control of Washington. There is no competing idea from the right. A few minor regulatory changes are not enough to deal with the issues we have.

Yep, modern day Republicans tend to be more about blaming things on the Democrats as opposed to actually governing and finding solutions to things themselves.

 

[sk8knight]

Yep, modern day politicians tend to be more about blaming things on the Other side as opposed to actually governing and finding solutions to things themselves.

FIFY

 

[ucfversusbcs]

Lmao found the fox news watcher. Jesus Christ the first two paragraphs were down right cringe worthy to read, glad I didn't wast any more time with the rest of it.

Please nauti, for the sake of our country, educate yourself a little before voting again.

Isn't there an AOC/Pelosi rift in the first place? The right has won the hearts and minds of the American public for generations, to the point that left is far left and right is left. The right are running ads comparing AOC to Pol Pot already geez .

 

[Ucfmikes]

Did you not read the stand/sit wiping thread?

For real? Can someone post that. I’m wanting a good laugh

 

[DaShuckster]

The right has won the hearts and minds of the American public for generations, to the point that left is far left and right is left.

Huh??!? What the hell is this BS??!?!?

The American public has shown for generations that it's can't stomach either political party for too long before switching.

 

[ucfversusbcs]

Huh??!? What the hell is this BS??!?!?

The American public has shown for generations that it's can't stomach either political party for too long before switching.

Buddying up with the right-wingers on this board isn't gonna help you.

 

[ucflee]

Local / county governments run the majority of fire and police departments*

 

[cnsaguy]

For real? Can someone post that. I’m wanting a good laugh

I think it was too far back to search. But the gist of it was that a bunch of maniacs actually stand up to wipe.

 

[DaShuckster]

Buddying up with the right-wingers on this board isn't gonna help you.

WTF is THAT about???!?

Since, in your World, 'the right' has won the hearts and minds of the people 'for generations', please explain that in our modern history...

• Why 'those lefties' have been in the White House 44 years compared to 42 for 'the right'? And why is it a Democrat has won the WH sixteen of the last twenty-six years?
• Why the House been majority Democrat for 66 years and the Republicans 18 years?
• Why has it been 56 years of majority rule for the Democrats compared to 26 years (with 2 ties) in the Senate?

 

[ucfversusbcs]

WTF is THAT about???!?

Since, in your World, 'the right' has won the hearts and minds of the people 'for generations', please explain that in our modern history...

• Why 'those lefties' have been in the White House 44 years compared to 42 for 'the right'? And why is it a Democrat has won the WH sixteen of the last twenty-six years?
• Why the House been majority Democrat for 66 years and the Republicans 18 years?
• Why has it been 56 years of majority rule for the Democrats compared to 26 years (with 2 ties) in the Senate?

GTFO with your establishment Bs.

 

[NinjaKnight]

The Trump era GOP is the absolute unequivocal king of hypocrisy.

 

[UCFKnight85]

Yep, modern day Republicans tend to be more about blaming things on the Democrats as opposed to actually governing and finding solutions to things themselves.

lol what have the Democrats passed since taking over in January? Oh yea- they’re too busy obsessing over Impeachment and trying to coerce witnesses to sink SC nominees

 

[NinjaKnight]

Just because the irony of this thread is too much to handle.

If you think Trump is anything other than a lying reality TV star you are an actual idiot.

 

[Ucfmikes]

Just because the irony of this thread is too much to handle.

If you think Trump is anything other than a lying reality TV star you are an actual idiot.

The Ninja TDS meltdown

 

[DaShuckster]

GTFO with your establishment Bs.

Establishment BS? Yet another name for The Facts.

 

[Cubs79]

lol what have the Democrats passed since taking over in January? Oh yea- they’re too busy obsessing over Impeachment and trying to coerce witnesses to sink SC nominees

As of 4 weeks ago the house had passed 395 bills since January.

https://shareblue.com/donald-trump-impeachment-inquiry-house-democrats-mitch-mcconnell-congress/

 

[UCFKnight85]

As of 4 weeks ago the house had passed 395 bills since January.

https://shareblue.com/donald-trump-impeachment-inquiry-house-democrats-mitch-mcconnell-congress/

your own hyper partisan left wing rag admits that the majority of these are procedural and inconsequential

 

[Cubs79]

your own hyper partisan left wing rag admits that the majority of these are procedural and inconsequential

It says "many" not "majority". But you asked a question and I answered it. But let me ask you, what would be the appropriate # in your view? Or what specifically should they have passed that they didnt?

 

[Boosted87]

your own hyper partisan left wing rag admits that the majority of these are procedural and inconsequential

You're the one that said they aren't getting anything passed. Why not provide a source that shows their lack of productivity with respect to other terms of congress? Reality is that the Democrats have passed a ton of bills around what they campaigned on that aren't getting votes in the Senate.

 

[NinjaKnight]

Lmao 85 is getting a train run on him

 

[DaShuckster]

Lmao 85 is getting a train run on him

How will 85 be able to work Hunter Biden into his response to Cubs?

 

[UCFBS]

The Church of Popularism and Blind Faith in Candidates and Leaders of 'their party' needs no religion, just the Blind Faith.

The left comes off far more hypocritical because of the sheer US Media bias. I remember getting tired of Fox News during the Obama administration ... only to watch the mainstream US Media now do the same during the Trump administration.

Americans aren't dump, over 90% cannot stand the Politically Correct culture, and that's why the US Media bias actually hurts the Democratic Party with a supermajority of voters, ironically enough. That and ... Trump is great for the US Media's business.

But yes, it's funny to see the 'rage' against Trump for various things we all know have been going on for a long, long time, from both parties. The hypocrisy is absolutely thick.

 

[NinjaKnight]

https://www.npr.org/2019/10/23/7726...nt-inquiry-delaying-testimony-from-pentagon-a

Republicans Disrupt House Impeachment Inquiry, Delaying Testimony From Pentagon Aide

The area is designated as secure — classified materials and witness testimony is discussed there and only lawmakers and a small number of staff are allowed entry.

Rep. Ted Lieu, a Democrat, said that Republican lawmakers tried to enter with their cellphones, which is a violation of the rules for the secure information facility. Lieu said that the Republican effort to enter the secure area without authorization was an "attack on the investigation."

But keep telling me how democrats are the problem, I need another laugh.

 

[DaShuckster]

Lieu said that the Republican effort to enter the secure area without authorization was an "attack on the investigation."

But keep telling me how democrats are the problem, I need another laugh.

Anyone want to bet me whether Trump knew about, and blessed, this stupid delay stunt?