Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Create Account now to join.
  • Login:

Welcome to the Online Debate Network.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed.

Page 1 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 257

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,856
    Post Thanks / Like

    Republican Hypocracies

    Will a Trump presidency be any different? Was he really voted in as an "anti-establishment" candidate?

    The following four Washington insider, mulit-year lobbyists have been tagged to help with transition:

    Michael Torrey - asked to help put together the new department of agriculture - lobbyist for the soda and dairy industry

    Jeff Eisenbach - lobbyist for Verizon and other telecom giants - tapped to put together the new FCC

    Michael Catanzaro - oil and gas lobbyist will help with energy issues

    Mike Ference - lobbyist for Halliburton and Koch industries will also help with energy.


    So much for "draining the swamp"

    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  2. #2
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Louisiana
    Posts
    8,151
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Is there anyone in any industry that knows what is going on, but isn't connected to the industry?

    So far trump doesn't owe anything to any lobbyist.

    Of course I'm all ears to better candidates, or if there is an obvious choice over looked.
    Other than that your tears taste wonderful. *j*
    I apologize to anyone waiting on a response from me. I am experiencing a time warp, suddenly their are not enough hours in a day. As soon as I find a replacement part to my flux capacitor regulator, time should resume it's normal flow.

  3. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Posts
    4
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Well aren't you just the greatest moderator on here? First of all, aren't moderators supposed to be MODERATE? Cause if not, then this website may just be illegitament. Second of all, if you want to voice your opinion logically, feel free to do so. But if you must mock the other opinion at some point, that just makes you look bad and this website as a whole since you are supposed to be a moderator. Whats the point of a debate website if only one side is backed by the mods? Another thing, I see you have what looks like your daughter in your profile picture. Would she be looking at a good example if she saw you mocking another opinion online with strangers? Could she maybe take that to school and cause trouble? ALSO, given that you are from Louisiana, one of the least educated states in America that constantly relies on federal help for many things, do you especially have the right to mock others for a different opinion? Nobody should be MOCKING other opinions whether from Louisiana or not, but paticularly this seems rather peculiar as you may have a low education standern personally and yet are mocking people like they are dumber. You should be rather DEBATING them. There is a difference. I will ask other mods to see what should be done about your rude comment. It's very bad to see this if a website is to be promoted. Please work on how you approach this. And once it's fixed, I'll be more than happy to add my two cents on the topic

    ---------- Post added at 11:27 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:35 PM ----------

    Now for my personal opinion, I truly do believe Republicans are in fact hypocrites. In order to prove this, look what republican synonyms are. One in particular is Conservative. Now, conservative means more cautious about things. This can be just certain aspects of politics, or socially too. Easily, it can be agreed most conservatives are in fact more religious than liberals. Religion, mind you, i supposed to be a particular standard in which one lives life. What does not seem to be clear to many is that one religion is not international law. It is possibly hard to comprehend this when taught that religion rules life from childhood to adulthood, but it's a fact that can't be denied. Another big thing about religion is that it is usually used to teach morals and principles on how to live one's life. However, these morals can often become very corrupted based on what topic it's on. And the world doesn't have patience usually for petty religious demands that only a select amount of people want. Most things are decided by majority. But not one opinion of a viewpoint is always going to be EXACT as another. The best strategy to this is negotiation. Religion sometimes does not have room for negotiation and this is often where trouble starts. There's often little that can be done to negotiate something to make everyone 100% happy, but instead of being partially happy on both sides, religious people sometimes tend to hog that 100% greed. In America in particular, it can be agreed most have some sort of monotheistic Judeo-Christian religion. The common beliefs in this most certainly include the ten commandments among other things. It can also be said that within the common morals the main religions hold, it includes respect of one neighbor and love for the enemy. Beginning with "love thy enemy", it can be seen that there is HUGE hypocrisy. People that are that into religion shouldn't pick and choose which parts to believe at least when it comes down to human vs human. It should be noted before I continue, human vs human should be regarded as the more important aspect as it it affects reality where as parts involving between one self and a god for example, should be put second if one wants to be able to fit into society. Greed comes in this area as often being between one and a god is WAY easier than between one and a random stranger. This is because relationship with a god or idol is often based more personally than between a human and human interaction. In a human and human interaction, full 100% happiness that may be achieved when obeying commandments of an idol or god is often harder and requires more learning, compassion, and understanding. That all being said, it is VERY sad to see conservatives as they are today. They often pick on liberals putting them really far down the drain and just inject so much fear and hatred about them rather than sitting down and talking it out to find common ground. And these same conservatives often claim to believe in a JUST God. If that is true, God wouldn't want liberals or conservatives constantly insulted with death wished upon another. Especially on the conservative side since they are seen to be "more godly" they should technically be the friendlier and more loving ones if their god or what they believe in is so good. Maybe it is good, but not for EVERYBODY but just for the SELVES. But right there, that's hypocrisy again, as I'm sure god doesn't approve of that much selfishness. It can also be noted that a very praised person and philosopher among conservatives is Ayn Rand. She was an ATHEIST and felt things like greed above all, rich above poor, etc. Now I'm pretty sure that does NOT allign with most Judeo-Christian beleifs, but these same Judeo-Christian beleivers often LOVE Ayn Rand. What does that say? Maybe exactly what she emphasized. Greed and selfishness, exactly as I said earlier with the example of the relationship of a person and god. Maybe it's not a belief in god at all. Rather, a belief in ONESELF as a god or similarly a God in ones own image. Not what the actual God had intended I think, but I believe it makes perfect sense. I actually find it peculiar that people that believe so much in a just loving God are so conservative and greedy and selfish and rude. I call it FAKE. I call it HYPOCRISY. Cause notice that organizations associated with HUMANISISM, SOCIAL RIGHTS, and FREE THOUGHT are all more secular in thought. Ayn Rand also MOCKED religion. So we have lots of opposites taking place. I will try to type more later.

  4. #4
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    I think it's one of those promises (like the wall silliness) that he just can't make good on.

    You cannot really find experts on both politics and policy in an area without choosing some kind of lobbyist. You can get folks familiar with the industry but not politics, but they won't know how to run a government agency. And you could get people who know government but not the industry, but they would be bumbling fools on policy. So you pick the lobyest that is closest to what you want or whom you owe a favor.

    Not that it is impossible, just really darned difficult and a lot riskier that pulling form the lobiest set.

    It's hypocracy, though I'm not sure you can lay it squarely on Republicans... since Trump really is a RINO in many respects. He's not really part and parcel of the party, he forced his way in. Trump had plenty of support from a good number of lobbyists. Mostly they worked on 501Cs and pacs on his behalf.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  5. #5
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,479
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Draining the swamp doesnt mean that he completely ignores everyone with any ties whatsoever to government and only brings in people that have no connection of any sort to all parts of his administration.

    I find this particular sob story from the left very ineffective and reeking of desperation.

    President-elect Trump won. Get over it.

  6. #6
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    I find this particular sob story from the left very ineffective and reeking of desperation.
    It's a rather simple critique. He said he would fight the power and influence of lobbyists but he has immediately utilized them in key roles. Its like saying you will go on a diet and eating a box of doughnuts with extra frosting.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  7. #7
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,479
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    It's a rather simple critique. He said he would fight the power and influence of lobbyists but he has immediately utilized them in key roles. Its like saying you will go on a diet and eating a box of doughnuts with extra frosting.
    If he doesn't appoint some experienced people to key roles , then you liberals cry about the government being ran by people who don't know what they're doing. If he does, then you call him a hypocritic. No wonder no one takes the left serious and you keep getting crushed in elections

    The guy, last I checked, made exactly 2 appointments. CoS and Chief Strategist. The former never has held public office, though has ran the GOP and has the knowledge, respect and connections to be effective. It's a good pick. The latter is in the same boat. No government experience at all, methinks, but has the experience outside of the swamp to be effective.

    The rest of this "hypocritical" nonsense comes from the news. The same news agencies who called the election for Killary 12 months ago. Not an opinion I hold in regard.

    No one cares what liberals think on any subject. So, calling him hypocritical isn't going to influence anyone in anyway

  8. #8
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    If he doesn't appoint some experienced people to key roles , then you liberals cry about the government being ran by people who don't know what they're doing. If he does, then you call him a hypocritic. No wonder no one takes the left serious and you keep getting crushed in elections.
    No one forced him to say he was going to drain the swamp and attack the power of lobyists. Saying he is going to do something unrealistic is his own damned fault. I will also mock him for not building a wall and not making Mexico pay for it as he so often claimed he would. Instead he will at best put up some meager fences and try to use tariffs to pay back the money it costs.

    No one cares what liberals think on any subject. So, calling him hypocritical isn't going to influence anyone in anyway
    Apparently you care or you wouldn't be here discussing it.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  9. #9
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,856
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Backpeddlin' and 'splainin' away - nerve touched, my work is done until the next hypocritical thing come up...oh, wait, he's going to keep parts of Obamacare

    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  10. #10
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,479
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    As I've said, it's reassuring to me that you libs don't seem to understand why you keep losing. It would seem you are more blinded by your hate and ideology than even I thought. This is a good thing. The sooner liberalism dies, the better.

  11. #11
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,856
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    As I've said, it's reassuring to me that you libs don't seem to understand why you keep losing. It would seem you are more blinded by your hate and ideology than even I thought. This is a good thing. The sooner liberalism dies, the better.
    Seeing that we won the popular vote (with voter turnout at a 20 year low) and won ballot initiatives like the minimum wage and marijuana in the face of the conservative war on drugs I'd say liberalism isn't going anywhere soon, but by all means keep holding your breath.

    ----------

    Back to the hypocrisies:

    Mike Pence is going to court over his emails

    "Hillary Clinton lost the presidential election, but an email controversy may still end up plaguing the White House. Turns out, Vice President-elect Mike Pence is also being dogged by a case over alleged "email secrecy," the Indianapolis Star reported Monday.

    On Nov. 21, the Indiana Court of Appeals will hear oral arguments over whether Pence should be forced to release redacted portions of documents, including email communications between Pence and Daniel Hodge, the chief of staff of Texas Gov. Greg Abbott (R). The documents in question pertain to Pence's decision to hire outside counsel in a lawsuit Republican governors brought against President Obama for his 2014 executive action on immigration. Democratic labor lawyer William Groth requested the documents because he suspected Pence's hiring of an external law firm was a "waste of taxpayer dollars." [T]he people have the right to know how much of their money was spent,” Groth said.

    Though Pence responded to Groth with 57 pages of information, the documents reportedly had "substantial redaction" and a political "white paper" was apparently not attached, Indy Star reported. Groth brought the matter to the Indiana Superior Court, which ruled "the issue was not a matter for the courts to decide."

    Groth appealed that decision in June, resulting in the Nov. 21 court date. Experts argue that if the courts rule in favor of Pence, "'that would severely limit the Access to Public Records Act,'" a former Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law professor told Indy Star. Another law professor said: "It comes down to this — the court is giving up its ability to check another branch of government, and that should worry people.""

    emphasis mine...*snicker*
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  12. #12
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    72
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    As I've said, it's reassuring to me that you libs don't seem to understand why you keep losing. It would seem you are more blinded by your hate and ideology than even I thought. This is a good thing. The sooner liberalism dies, the better.
    it is good to see that hypocrisy does not die just because of victory. Here is a great example of the conservatives showing that very hate by wishing a quick death on liberals.

    So basically what your saying is that you would wish a one party state run country much similar to what lenin set up in russia. I am curious to see if you would also advocate a an ice pick through the back of the head of any who stand a chance of taking away your new found boss.

    And that is not only what you got but what has been promised. Someone who does not fulfill the mandates of the people but one who admits he will tell everyone what to do. You did not elect a president you hired a boss to tell you how to live. Americans = sheeple.

  13. #13
    Super Moderator

    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    West / East Coast
    Posts
    3,350
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    As I've said, it's reassuring to me that you libs don't seem to understand why you keep losing.
    The last time I checked SG, the Democrats have won the last two out of three Presidential election cycles. A minor detail, but two out of three does not classify as "keep losing." In that within those three presidential election cycles (years), they have lost more state and local races to Republicans, the fact that they have held on to the Executive Branch for eight years is not a "keep losing" reality -- though I suppose it could be in a parallel universe.. Now with that said, and considering the recent election in 2016 with the massive sweep of so many local state offices and counties across the country voting red, this could imply that there was somewhat of a large rejection by Americans of many of the last eight years of policies coming from the Executive branch. But that doesn't mean liberals keep losing. In fact one could argue that their wins is what propelled Trump to win.
    Close your eyes. Fall in love. Stay there.
    Rumi

    [Eye4magic]
    Super Moderator
    ODN Rules

  14. #14
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    1,479
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    The last time I checked SG, the Democrats have won the last two out of three Presidential election cycles. A minor detail, but two out of three does not classify as "keep losing." In that within those three presidential election cycles (years), they have lost more state and local races to Republicans, the fact that they have held on to the Executive Branch for eight years is not a "keep losing" reality -- though I suppose it could be in a parallel universe.. Now with that said, and considering the recent election in 2016 with the massive sweep of so many local state offices and counties across the country voting red, this could imply that there was somewhat of a large rejection by Americans of many of the last eight years of policies coming from the Executive branch. But that doesn't mean liberals keep losing. In fact one could argue that their wins is what propelled Trump to win.
    I was referring to the 1000+ state legislator seats, 12 Senate seats, 50-70ish HoR seats and the 10 or so governorships that they've lost since Obama took office.

    *note: I don't have the exact numbers for the losses, I'll look them up later and edit the figured I posted

  15. #15
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,856
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by eye4magic View Post
    The last time I checked SG, the Democrats have won the last two out of three Presidential election cycles. A minor detail, but two out of three does not classify as "keep losing." In that within those three presidential election cycles (years), they have lost more state and local races to Republicans, the fact that they have held on to the Executive Branch for eight years is not a "keep losing" reality -- though I suppose it could be in a parallel universe.. Now with that said, and considering the recent election in 2016 with the massive sweep of so many local state offices and counties across the country voting red, this could imply that there was somewhat of a large rejection by Americans of many of the last eight years of policies coming from the Executive branch. But that doesn't mean liberals keep losing. In fact one could argue that their wins is what propelled Trump to win.
    The "libs" also won the popular vote for president, minimum wage ballot initiatives in 4 out of 4 states, and marijuana legalization in a number of states as well.

    ---------- Post added at 11:19 PM ---------- Previous post was at 09:37 PM ----------

    hmmm...no call for an investigation from republicans?


    Ivanka Trump’s Presence at Meeting With Japan’s Leader Raises Questions


    "WASHINGTON — The potential for conflicts of interest between President-elect Donald J. Trump and his family’s business ventures emerged again Thursday evening, when a photograph was distributed that showed his daughter Ivanka at a meeting between Mr. Trump and the prime minister of Japan.

    News reporters were not allowed to attend the session, Mr. Trump’s first with a foreign head of state, and no summary was provided about what was discussed. A separate photograph was distributed — press photographers were not allowed to cover the event — showing that Jared Kushner, Ms. Trump’s husband, was present for at least part of the gathering.

    Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan said after the meeting that he had a “very candid discussion” with Mr. Trump. He did not discuss who else attended the gathering or elaborate on the topics discussed.

    Ms. Trump will be among the members of the president-elect’s family who will be placed in charge of Mr. Trump’s business enterprises, which include an international chain of hotels with operations in Latin America, Europe and North America.

    She serves as vice president for development and acquisitions at the Trump Organization, and the company’s website says one of her “primary focuses has been to bring the Trump Hotel brand to global markets.”

    Danielle Brian of the Project on Government Oversight said that regardless of what was discussed at the meeting, it was inappropriate for Ms. Trump to be present at a private meeting among such a small group of people given that she is an executive at a corporation involved in international business development.

    These early episodes demonstrate, Ms. Brian said, why Mr. Trump must put his assets into a blind trust, in which an independent party manages them, instead of turning them over to his children to manage, as Mr. Trump has proposed.

    “You can’t have people with financial conflicts of interest mixing with White House business,” Ms. Brian said.

    The Wall Street Journal, in an editorial on Friday, went so far as to urge Mr. Trump to sell off all his hotels, golf courses and other assets, and then take that cash and turn it over to a blind trust, as that would be the only way to avoid all possible conflicts."
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  16. #16
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,856
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Illegal Payments Scandal Rocks Trump Henchman Bannon As He Takes White House Job

    "Donald Trump’s aide and former campaign chairman, Stephen F. Bannon, is at the center of an illegal payments allegation, less than 24 hours after his position in the Trump White House was announced.

    Bannon is set to serve as Trump’s “chief strategist and senior counselor.”

    Per The Daily Beast, Bannon received multiple payments from a pro-Trump super PAC just days before election day. Make America Number 1 paid $187,500 to Glittering Steel, Bannon’s film production company.

    The Daily Beast notes that “sources familiar with the company” say that it is “essentially a front for Bannon.”

    The Campaign Legal Center alleges in a complaint filed with the Federal Elections Commission that the super PAC paid Bannon so that the official Trump campaign would not have to pay for his expenses, an arrangement that if true would break federal campaign laws.

    Make America Number 1 PAC was put together by billionaire Robert Mercer, a hedge fund manager, and his daughter Rebekah Mercer. The two have emerged as one of the major funders of the right wing cause and its politicians."

    Lock Him Up,
    Lock Him Up,
    Lock Him Up!


    er, or maybe just ignore it.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

  17. #17
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by CowboyX View Post
    er, or maybe just ignore it.
    Well, if they can prove it in court, they can meet out whatever punishment the law calls for. Campaign financing and payments are one of those areas that is hard to nail someone on.

    ---------- Post added at 09:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:45 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by SoylentGreen View Post
    it is good to see that hypocrisy does not die just because of victory. Here is a great example of the conservatives showing that very hate by wishing a quick death on liberals.
    He did say liberalism, not liberals. An important distinction. I'm sure many liberals would also like to see the death of racism, classism, and perhaps conservatism. As ideologies. I know I'd be happy for at least racism to die a quick and unceremonious death. Clasism might be nice but I'm not sure. Concervitism I think we need. And Someguy might actually like certain aspects of Liberalism if we pressed him, at least in the classical sense, not in the demonized version he holds as modern western liberalism.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  18. #18
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2013
    Posts
    72
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Well, if they can prove it in court, they can meet out whatever punishment the law calls for. Campaign financing and payments are one of those areas that is hard to nail someone on.

    ---------- Post added at 09:48 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:45 AM ----------



    He did say liberalism, not liberals. An important distinction. I'm sure many liberals would also like to see the death of racism, classism, and perhaps conservatism. As ideologies. I know I'd be happy for at least racism to die a quick and unceremonious death. Clasism might be nice but I'm not sure. Concervitism I think we need. And Someguy might actually like certain aspects of Liberalism if we pressed him, at least in the classical sense, not in the demonized version he holds as modern western liberalism.
    In what way is it an important difference? To wish the death of liberalism would have to be the death of liberals as one goes with the other. Even so, it still does not change the charge i made against him. Wishing the death of one horse in what in america can only be called a two horse race still would give him his dictatorship of a single party just as lenin designed it.

  19. #19
    ODN Community Regular

    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Seattle, Washington USA
    Posts
    7,068
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by SoylentGreen View Post
    In what way is it an important difference? To wish the death of liberalism would have to be the death of liberals as one goes with the other. Even so, it still does not change the charge i made against him. Wishing the death of one horse in what in america can only be called a two horse race still would give him his dictatorship of a single party just as lenin designed it.
    Because one is about violence or strongly implies it, while the other is about changing your mind which I think is a perfectly nice thing to do once in a while.

    I don't think the demise of american liberalism would lead to a single party. It would simply divide whatever party remained into a couple of different factions that divide about equally among the american electorate. That's how these things tend to work provided you maintain a democracy. We've always had splits, but they have not always been along the current idological divide.

    ---------- Post added at 02:51 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:46 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    As the members of ODN well know (and I believe it was GoldPhoenix who argued this position best a few years ago) classic Liberalism is essentially what Libertarianism is today. It is nothing like the modern progressive liberalism that has infected this country and the world over. Im a huge fan of classic Liberalism and strongly hold several of the positions that comprise it as my own. However, this neoliberal fascism that has highjacked the Democrat party is something that needs to die a swift death and be purged from the world.
    It's roots are still there if you know where to look and what to look at. Civil rights is very much a struggle of classic liberalism, as is democracy in general. So to is the idea of being open to change and progress rather than rooted in the traditions of the past. The democrats don't perfectly embody these ideas, but there are strong threads within the liberal side of american politics. As where the republicans are very often classically conservative in their approach to culture and tradition. They are always calling us to go back to what used to be great and what our fathers said and so forth.

    Mind you, yes, libertarians are the best embodyment of the idea politically speaking.

    ---------- Post added at 03:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:51 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Someguy View Post
    I find it interesting that the "Super pro-all-things - gay" ultra, mega defenders of man on man sexual intercourse love to "Gay shame" and call people out of the closet whenever they are of different political beliefs.
    I've only seen it done when they are gay shaming someone who publicly attacks gay people. I think that is fair enough. If you publich go on the record condemning something you do in private, getting called out on it is a very just punishment for your hypocracy.

    Mind you the article above is not especially convincing as to the positive identity of the photographs and I think if you don't have proof you should not make such accusations.
    Feed me some debate pellets!

  20. #20
    Registered User

    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    1,856
    Post Thanks / Like

    Re: Republican Hypocracies

    Quote Originally Posted by Sigfried View Post
    Well, if they can prove it in court, they can meet out whatever punishment the law calls for. Campaign financing and payments are one of those areas that is hard to nail someone on.[COLOR="Silver"]
    Yet "pay for play" through the Clinton Foundation is a foregone conclusion when you listen to the corporate media.
    "Real Boys Kiss Boys" -M.L.

 

 
Page 1 of 10 1 2 3 4 5 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Republican Fratracide?
    By manise in forum Politics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: February 3rd, 2008, 10:54 AM
  2. What is a democrat? A Republican?
    By Jamie678 in forum Politics
    Replies: 35
    Last Post: January 8th, 2008, 03:12 PM
  3. What it means to be a Republican
    By Booger in forum Politics
    Replies: 14
    Last Post: March 2nd, 2006, 03:27 AM
  4. Republican Floundering
    By Fyshhed in forum Politics
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: October 5th, 2004, 07:48 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •