Jump to content


Photo

The Insane Rationalizations, Bigotry And Hypocrisy Of The Right


  • Please log in to reply
1148 replies to this topic

#1 T19

T19

    Love Life, hate Taxes

  • Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 35,575 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ottawa
  • Interests:Tanks, computers, Military History

Posted 29 July 2013 - 0738 AM

OK, there must be instances of someone on the right saying something totally off the mark.

 

 



#2 Rocky Davis

Rocky Davis

    Old Broken Down Retired Tanker

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,980 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Arlington, Texas, USA
  • Interests:Squirrel-hunting
    Cooking
    Billiards

Posted 29 July 2013 - 0833 AM

I think that the worst thing a conservative can do is to not practice what he (or she) preaches.  That goes for politicians, clergy etc.  It hurts everybody so bad when it is discovered and paints even those that had nothing to do with it with the same broad-brush stroke of hypocrisy.

 

I could mention some names, if I had to sit here and try and list them all, it would take a week or so.  Of the hypocritical clergy it’s Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart and people of that ilk.  Then there are those politicians that paint themselves up to be role models while cheating on their income taxes or cheating on their spouses.

 

If you set yourself up to be a spokesperson for all that is right, good etc., then you had better be that way all of the time – because people will eventually find out your other side that makes a mockery of you, all you have done and everything associated with you forever.


  • 0

#3 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe

    Now is the winter of our discontent

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,409 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:deep in the heart of ... darkness, USA
  • Interests:military technology, military history, weapon systems, management/organizational design, early American history

Posted 29 July 2013 - 0959 AM

Well, there's this;

 

http://pjmedia.com/j...tate-elections/

 

Difficult to explain to a furriner, hard enough to explain to an American, but the selective oversight of state and local election organizations by the federal gov't originates from racial issues way back when. As seems to be typical for the feds, they insist on continuing rather domineering behavior, even though the world and the affected locales have changed dramatically. Think of it as being similar to the FAA maintaining a large and overly powerful zeppelin regulating agency.

 

And keep in mind that the affected locales are generally not areas where there has been persistent election fraud or vote tampering (of which the Federal Election Commission has proven to be blind, when the perpetrators are of the Democratic ilk).

 

Understandably, those locales affected would like to get the federal boot off their necks, and are suing to do so.

 

For what I assume is simply short-term political gain*, the RNC has been supporting the federal case to maintain the neck-boot, the fact of which the RNC chair claimed to be ignorant. So it appears that the RNC is calling off its dogs, rather late in the game. As you can imagine, this is another example of the RNC throwing party ethics out the window in hopes of gaining or retaining a few House seats.

 

* AIUI, the perceived gain is that pro-R gerrymandered districts are being protected from revision by the feds. As we've seen over the last 20 years, gerrymandering is a fleetingly temporary solution to a persistent problem.


  • 0

#4 Chris Werb

Chris Werb

    In Zod We Trust

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 23,302 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Orkney, Scotland, UK
  • Interests:But it's got electrolytes! They're what plants crave!

Posted 29 July 2013 - 1243 PM

One thing that always peeves me a little is referring to an otherwise military/law enforcement AR15 as a "Modern Sporting Rifle" as if that is entirely benign compared to an evil "assault" rifle. In most situations, you would probably kill more people with the rifle set to semi even if it was selective fire. I feel trying to paint semiauto military rifles as benign actually undermines the 2nd Amendment argument underwhich selective-fire rifles are actually more relevant than semis.


  • 0

#5 Der Zeitgeist

Der Zeitgeist

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 1,157 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Captive to Russia

Posted 29 July 2013 - 1300 PM

I found this recent interview on Fox News pretty striking...

 

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=Jt1cOnNrY5s


  • 0

#6 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe

    Now is the winter of our discontent

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,409 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:deep in the heart of ... darkness, USA
  • Interests:military technology, military history, weapon systems, management/organizational design, early American history

Posted 29 July 2013 - 1434 PM

I found this recent interview on Fox News pretty striking...
 
http://www.youtube.c...h?v=Jt1cOnNrY5s


That's pretty typical for American journalism, especially so on TV. Most authors complain that the interviewer hasn't read the book, and a lot of times they haven't even had an intern read the book, just the reviews.
  • 0

#7 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,980 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 29 July 2013 - 1538 PM

One thing that always peeves me a little is referring to an otherwise military/law enforcement AR15 as a "Modern Sporting Rifle" as if that is entirely benign compared to an evil "assault" rifle. In most situations, you would probably kill more people with the rifle set to semi even if it was selective fire. I feel trying to paint semiauto military rifles as benign actually undermines the 2nd Amendment argument underwhich selective-fire rifles are actually more relevant than semis.

The simple fact is that the populace has, for the last 90 years, been mis-educated about the 2nd amendment.  Somehow the underlying foundation of it has been watered down to it being about the need to hunt four legged game when nothing could be further from the truth.  So, if the Left wants to ignore the real reason for the 2nd amendment and chooses to accept a false premise, why should the Right attempt to disabuse the Left of its position when all that will do is undermine what it considers the constitutionally protected position?  Use subterfuge to protect liberty, use subterfuge to deny liberty.  Decisions decisions.


Edited by DKTanker, 29 July 2013 - 1755 PM.

  • 0

#8 Garth

Garth

    Charter Member, Rethuglican Underground (TankNet Chapter)

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11,449 posts

Posted 29 July 2013 - 1735 PM

One thing that always peeves me a little is referring to an otherwise military/law enforcement AR15 as a "Modern Sporting Rifle" as if that is entirely benign compared to an evil "assault" rifle. In most situations, you would probably kill more people with the rifle set to semi even if it was selective fire. I feel trying to paint semiauto military rifles as benign actually undermines the 2nd Amendment argument underwhich selective-fire rifles are actually more relevant than semis.

 

Maybe it's a matter of perspective, but I tend to find the opposite.  There's such a negative connotation for "assault rifle" (or "assault weapon") that redefining the term as applicable only to selective-fire weapons draws a nice contrast AND helps point out that for many "assault rifles" there are similar (if not more powerful/deadly) equivalents that look less threatening/more tolerable from an aesthetic perspective.


  • 0

#9 Brian Kennedy

Brian Kennedy

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 5,036 posts

Posted 29 July 2013 - 1847 PM

For me, at least (I'd describe myself as a middle of the road guy politically who thinks that both parties as a whole are evil, but don't mind certain candidates) it's about Republicans abandoning small-c-conservative beliefs. Subsidies are evil unless they involve farmers (who aren't John Mellencamp types, they're giant conglomerates), government spending is evil unless it involves military spending (which is so horrifying inefficient it would put Detroits government to shame, but it's for the troops!) etc.

That and the total failure to recognize that most twenty-something's have no problem at all with gay dudes or immigrants is gonna doom the republicans. Which is a shame, because there's a lot of republican virtues I really like - small government, doubt about social engineering, etc.

The other problem that I have about Republicans is Iraq. Yeah, Saddam was a horrible person. No, he didn't pose any threat to us.
  • 0

#10 DKTanker

DKTanker

    1strdhit

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 24,980 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas

Posted 29 July 2013 - 1905 PM

For me, at least (I'd describe myself as a middle of the road guy politically who thinks that both parties as a whole are evil, but don't mind certain candidates) it's about Republicans abandoning small-c-conservative beliefs. Subsidies are evil unless they involve farmers (who aren't John Mellencamp types, they're giant conglomerates), government spending is evil unless it involves military spending (which is so horrifying inefficient it would put Detroits government to shame, but it's for the troops!) etc.

 

 

The GOP does not subscribe to small c-conservatism.  There are those of the GOP that do, but the party does not.

 

That 20 something males now look at pssy as being equally vaginal or anal, female or male, shouts volumes about the emasculation of our society.  It wasn't me personally, but I'm not proud that my generation, and the one that proceeded it, decided that the male half of the species is inferior and should be derided as such.


  • 0

#11 Rick

Rick

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,419 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Muncie, Indiana

Posted 29 July 2013 - 2042 PM

Trust God, not man.


  • 0

#12 Ivanhoe

Ivanhoe

    Now is the winter of our discontent

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 31,409 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:deep in the heart of ... darkness, USA
  • Interests:military technology, military history, weapon systems, management/organizational design, early American history

Posted 29 July 2013 - 2054 PM

The GOP does not subscribe to small c-conservatism.  There are those of the GOP that do, but the party does not.


That is the problem in a nutshell. The RP has two cores, the voter core and the party core, and the Venn diagram shows just a sliver of overlap.

The party core is all about winning elections and power brokerage, to hell with principles and responsibility. The voter core still clings bitterly to archaic concepts like personal responsibility, limited government, rule of law, etc. The recent vote on the Amash amendment, and the internal party discipline apparently exercised by senior Rs in the House, demonstrates once again that when push comes to shove, the RNC machine's central belief is that being D-Lite is the path to success.
  • 0

#13 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,796 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 29 July 2013 - 2248 PM

Kevin Baker over at the Smallest Minority has a great image....


thelines.jpg


  • 0

#14 Mikel2

Mikel2

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 6,312 posts

Posted 30 July 2013 - 0631 AM

Kevin Baker over at the Smallest Minority has a great image....


thelines.jpg

 

 

Interesting and utterly dishartening at the same time.


  • 0

#15 BansheeOne

BansheeOne

    Bullshit filter overload, venting into civility charger

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 13,531 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Berlin

Posted 30 July 2013 - 0745 AM

I'm wondering about the definition of "modern" conservativism though; most of what's listed there was introduced in Germany by Bismarck, and the only way to call him a "modern" conservative would be to contrast him with Richelieu ... but then his conservatism was contemporary with classical liberalism.

 

Would also define "limited healthcare" as a basic safety net for everybody, with extras paid individually or by private insurance.


  • 0

#16 CT96

CT96

    Deputy Assistant Secretary to the Dragon Slayer Apprentice

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,624 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern Virginia
  • Interests:Miltary History, Geopolitics, Computers

Posted 30 July 2013 - 0819 AM

I put Emergency Services together where it says "Fire Protection": e.g. Fire/EMS/ER, but that really is a modern invetion (last 50 years or so it has become widespread and a mandatory civic service).


  • 0

#17 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,796 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 30 July 2013 - 0921 AM

Except we have plenty of emergency/fire services agencies that are largely volunteer and those work just fine in the lower population areas where people are generally more capable of fending for themselves. 

Banshee, be careful comparing US vs European Conservatives/Liberals. They don't necessarily map. A US Classical liberal is Thomas Jefferson. 

The other thing that map doesn't really properly explain is Federal vs State roles in the same items. This is where most Modern Conservatives fail, utterly. 


  • 0

#18 CT96

CT96

    Deputy Assistant Secretary to the Dragon Slayer Apprentice

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 3,624 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Northern Virginia
  • Interests:Miltary History, Geopolitics, Computers

Posted 30 July 2013 - 1107 AM

Except we have plenty of emergency/fire services agencies that are largely volunteer and those work just fine in the lower population areas where people are generally more capable of fending for themselves. 

Banshee, be careful comparing US vs European Conservatives/Liberals. They don't necessarily map. A US Classical liberal is Thomas Jefferson. 

The other thing that map doesn't really properly explain is Federal vs State roles in the same items. This is where most Modern Conservatives fail, utterly. 

 

I know of NO Fire/Rescue agency that is 100% volunteer funded. They ALL draw substantial funding from local/state gov't. The membership (payroll equiv.) may be volunteer, and they do indeed get donated funds, but they ALL draw *something* from the gov't.  (have you ever looked at the cost of an equipped Fire Truck or Ambulance?)


  • 0

#19 rmgill

rmgill

    Strap-hanger

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 22,796 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:33.8369/-84.2675
  • Interests:WWII Armor, Ferrets, Dingos, Humbers, etc...

Posted 30 July 2013 - 1135 AM

 

Except we have plenty of emergency/fire services agencies that are largely volunteer and those work just fine in the lower population areas where people are generally more capable of fending for themselves. 

Banshee, be careful comparing US vs European Conservatives/Liberals. They don't necessarily map. A US Classical liberal is Thomas Jefferson. 

The other thing that map doesn't really properly explain is Federal vs State roles in the same items. This is where most Modern Conservatives fail, utterly. 

 

I know of NO Fire/Rescue agency that is 100% volunteer funded. They ALL draw substantial funding from local/state gov't. The membership (payroll equiv.) may be volunteer, and they do indeed get donated funds, but they ALL draw *something* from the gov't.  (have you ever looked at the cost of an equipped Fire Truck or Ambulance?)

 

True, but it's not a full time agency and it's far more like a component of Militia service with pooling of local resources than a big government operation. Admittedly that is a matter of degrees. What's the difference between a bunch of guys who buy their own arms and stand to defend the locality, pooling resource to form an artillery company to go march to war for the country or pooling resources locally to build a covered bridge or pay for a bell for the town church? 

Couple of my Friends from Dragon Con who work the EMS side of things have their own Suburban that's kitted out for EMS work. They're Chief and Assistant Chief of the Oconee County SC Volunteer FD. I suspect their 'burban is almost entirely paid for themselves and they show up to Dragon Con with a lot of their own gear to help con goers who have too much party or folks who get hurt. 

Ultimately it's a matter of degrees between complete volunteer and everything handled by the Feds. 

The real problem is when the view creeps in that it can ONLY be handled by the Feds and that it's their job and only their job. The same can be said for state roles too. This is used as a bludgeon to say that we MUST have all powerful government (and associated tax cost and spending waste) to have these things at all. 

Legally speaking it's very easy to argue that MOST of those safety net issues need to be handled at the state and local level AND have no business being touched by the Federal Government. 


Edited by rmgill, 30 July 2013 - 1139 AM.

  • 0

#20 Kensuke

Kensuke

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 2,125 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Phoenix, AZ. USA

Posted 03 August 2013 - 0511 AM

1. Ann Coulter. I can not, for the life of me, figure out her appeal.

2. Michael Savage. Batshit insane.

3. Todd Akin. See #2.

4. Joe Barton. BP Apology was so bad even fellow GOPers had to tell him to STFU.

 

- John


Edited by Kensuke, 03 August 2013 - 0521 AM.

  • 0




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users