Hypocrisy - everyone hates it. The news in general and the political arena in particular are overflowing with hypocritical statements and actions. Any examples that especially make your head want to explode? Here's a starter.
Pretty much anytime a politicians talks about Israel Palestine. American politicians are so removed from the reality that takes place in Israel because their Jewish constituent would vote them out. Even look at the whole Iran deal. These people keep saying we shouldn't do this deal because then Iran will get millions. Nonetheless even if America doesn't commit pretty much all the other countries will still get the money and then we won't have any inspections in place. There is very little benefit to the U.S. Denying the deal, but politicians pretend like they want to strike it down. I think most the repubs and even dems like Schumer who are opposed know that they can't override a veto. Essentially they are gonna vote knowing that it will pass anyway. That way they can secretly pass it and then sit around and blame dems if anything bad ever happens/ satisfy their Jewish/neocrat constituency.
http://www.snopes.com/politics/politicians/warren.asp She's definitely a hypocrite, but this meme is extremely misleading. It's basically a Scott Brown attack ad.
The topic is hypocrisy. All you stated was your favor of the Iran deal and your blaming of anyone that sees it otherwise as simply under the influence of Jews and/or being able to say "I told ya so" to political opponents if (or when) thing go to shit. Out of curiosity, have you studied the details of "the whole Iran deal" ? First off, Iran will receive over 100 billion dollars, not mere millions. But regardless, it's their money, having been frozen in foreign accounts as part of the international sanctions. Second, the objection to the deal isn't merely over them getting the money, though I'm sure Israel isn't going to like all the new rockets and terrorist endeavors some of the billions will no doubt fund. But there are a substantial number of reasons to object to the deal - potential Jewish conspiracies notwithstanding. Most of those who are in opposition that I've heard speak have a much higher motivation for their opposition - like limiting Iran's capabilities for creating major mayhem in the region - than some quaint desire to tell Democrats "I told ya so" when Tel Aviv is billowing up in smoke in 2025. When a deal can drive the Saudis (of all people) to align with the Israelis (of all people) and desire their own nukes to counter the Iranian nuclear ambitions, it may indicate that our State Dept has miscalculated the possibility of starting a nuclear arms race and actually hastening the inevitable necessity for a pre-emptive strike on Iran and the subsequent war that will produce. Not trusting the State Dept or the Obama administration is hardly hypocrisy. After all, the same State Dept geniuses that crafted the Iran deal, recently worked out a trade of 5 Taliban commanders for one US army deserter - and they called THAT a good deal, too.
Memes! lol $5.4 million was an upper range she entered on some tax form. Using that figure and calling her home a "mansion" was an exaggeration for sure. Garnering $350000 for one class while bitching about the high costs of education and therefore the hypocrisy stands. PolitiFacts - Critics say Elizabeth Warren 'lives in a $5.4 million mansion' "A final note: Warren is wealthy by national standards, but so are a lot of other senators. In the most recent Roll Callsurvey of congressional net worth, Warren ranks 24th among senators with an estimated net worth of $3.66 million, and 76th among the 535 members of the House and Senate combined. So her net worth is well above average, but it's nowhere near the congressional or senatorial top 1 percent." The best they can say - she's not a member of the 1% of congress and senate. lol No matter, though. The fact remains, wealthy elitist politicians, regardless of party affiliation, that pretend they aren't so they can bitch about privilege in order to appear like peon voters so as to get their votes and have something politically correct to whine about are sleazy hypocrites, imo.
I'm not familiar enough with her campaigns to know he she's advertised herself. I don't think she is someone who uses class welfare solely as a political tool like a Hilary Clinton. I think Warren honestly believes that there are major issues which can be solved by the gov, and is pretty consistent politically. I can't guarantee that she's 100 percent honest but she seems much more straightforward than a lot of other people. That being said like all politicians I've seen her make her misleading statements and overhype things but there's basically not a single politician who doesn't do that. "Garnering $350000 for one class while bitching about the high costs of education and therefore the hypocrisy stands." http://mobile.nytimes.com/2012/09/26/us/politics/in-massachusetts-brown-attacks-warrens-character.html?referrer= Read the article. I will agree that it's probably hypocritical when she made 280 k for reaching one course and contributing to one book, but it seems that was before she started to commit full time to politics. Next year her salary reduces dramatically to 80,000 when she was teaching one course and then stopped working altogether . Keep in mind too it's Harvard not like a state university. In the end a little hypocritical and she did make good money, but it seems to me that it was more like a paid sabbatical. I know a professor at a private university who recently moved to NY for a year to take sabbatical and was paid a full salary. I agree it's pretty elitist, I'm just saying you should present context on the issue and not just memes which are generally misleading/exaggerated.
I said it in a poor way so hopefully I can clarify. I'm not saying that you can't be opposed to the deal for reasonable reasons. Basically every political argument has legitimate reasons for and against. What I'm saying is that there has been a very interesting brand of hypocrisy going on. People (especially Israel) say things like we need to make sure they don't get a nuke. Then those same people say if we do nothing Iran will get a nuke in the next year or two. Then when a deal comes out that may have a chance at slowing down their nuclear development, it's not good enough so what is the alternative option. Well the alternative option is basically only a couple things. One, you can try to negotiate for a better deal but UN sanctions will most likely be lifted anyway in the long run regardless of what congrats does and the billions will flow in anyway. This negotiation will take a huge amount of time and you will lose all leverage because a lot of other countries are done with the sanctions. So in that time we'll have no means to monitor the Iranians. The people who are pushing for this route are the same people claiming that Iran is within a couple years of making a nuke. Then there's the second option. Use some kind of force or military intervention to prevent them from obtaining nuclear weapons if we don't attempt to monitor them diplomatically since economic warfare really won't be a viable option with a lot of other countries breaking rank. I think there's good reason to be skeptical of this deal, I just find it funny that the same people who say Iran is so close to nuke are the same people who want to extend the process and try to negotiate a new deal that will 100 percent take longer than the time tables they claim Iran will get a nuke in.
Iran says they're not going to build a bomb but Kerry who is making the agreement must believe they are, why else make an agreement? So if he believes Iran is lying when it says it doesn't want a bomb why would he believe Iran is not lying when they sign the agreement to not build a bomb? There must be some hypocrisy in there somewhere.
"We're spreading democracy in the middle east!" --> saudi arabian allies rock it with a king like it's yr 1206
Everyone realizes it's always a possibility for them to be doing secretive shit. In this day in age it's very hard to stop an independent country from obtaining nuclear arms if they are determined enough, just look at North Korea. The idea is that if we have some check places like taking out uranium, centrifuges, and putting some inspections in place even if they aren't perfect that we will be in a better position to stop them than we currently are. Without a deal they will continue to enrich uranium unabated, which is why I don't see any decent alternatives to this deal. Let's be clear about this, everyone knows that Iran may not honor its agreements like the U.S. and other sovereign nations do all the time. The thing is Kerry believes that restrictions like the removal of uranium/centrifuges and inspections will be followed and if not they can always go back to sanctions/other restrictions if the rules are clearly violated. This deal in my opinion is giving the Iranians a deadline to comply and if not we can consider economic/military action if need be.
Hillary bitches about college being too expensive and then charges said college 250k to speak for 60 min. Our government forced obummer care down our throat and now they don't even have to participate in it because they know it's sooooo bad.
Hillary bitches about women's equal pay all while paying her female staffers less then the men. And the libs would die for the women. Too funny
You have made good counterpoints and I concede that the meme is a partisan exaggeration that I should've researched further. Good work. You haven't eliminated the hipocrisy but have tempered it in a rational manner which I find quite refreshing.
Imo, the biggest hypocrisy of either political persuasion that I've witnessed yet is the Left's strange ability to look the other way when Muslims are tossing gays off of buildings and sawing off Christian womens' heads and selling their daughters into sex slavery while trying to appear as champions of gays and women (and religious freedoms - unless we're talking Christianity)..
Check out this site for a great, in depth analysis of the specifics of the deal on the question of centrifuges. Pay parrticular attention to the Natanz and Fordow production facilities' restrictions. The article is by Harold Feiveson, recently retired as Senior Research Scientist at the Princeton University Program on Science and Global Security, which he had co-directed for 30 years. He is co-author of Unmaking the Bomb: A Fissile Material Approach to Nuclear Disarmament and Nonproliferation, published by MIT Press in 2014. Interesting stuff!
well, usuley the rule of thumb is whoever is accusing someone of doing something, the accuser is the one doing wrong. When they are feeling threaten, they will attack the other persons credibility It's all part of the politician game That's why people liked Obama, he claimed to not be a politician, led everyone to believe he is a common folk lmfao It's why trump is ahead. Everyone is tired of all the bullshit, scandals, lies, deals, treaties, passing laws no one wants, It's why sanders is beating Hillary. Hillary is like the plague, all this shit behind her, everything she touches gets fucked up, she believes that its her turn to be president. She is so full of shit. Yet people are going to vote for her. People complain about hypocrisy, yet they still support and vote for the kind of people who are hypocrites Stop voting for shit
Well, it's not exactly hypocrisy, but I keep seeing social media posts by people saying that they're going to pray for the victims, and their families, in the horrible explosion in Tianjin, Peoples Republic of China. Are they not aware that this country is officially Atheist, and that this not only means nothing to them, it's a waste of time that could be better spent on something productive?
The thing is I don't think you should let this represent the dems as a whole the same way I don't think crazy evangelicals like Huckabee represent all conservatives. I do agree however it's very ridiculous that our president doesn't want to say Islamic terrorists. However, I will say that I think both sides of this argument are being a little silly. Obama should clearly just call them Islamist extremists which they pretty clearly are and is pussy footing. On the other side you have people like Ted Cruz saying retarded shit like "In order to stop ISIS the president needs to say the world radical Islamic terrorism." Both sides are completely fallacious. The president saying they are Islamic extremists is not going to stop ISIS in any way, but it's also not going to hurt anyone. Obamas being stupid on this one because he could accomplish what he wants in a better manner. He clearly doesn't like saying Islamic terrorism because he believes it will cause negative associations to Islam, which to a certain extent is probably true. what he needs to do is say look there are Islamic extremists and they need to be stopped, but the simple fact is that most Muslims aren't like this. This sends the message that we shouldn't assume Muslims are terrorists but recognizes the reality of extremism in the Middle East. Either way I agree with you, Obamas being overly diplomatic/hypocritical m and I think people would respect his message more if he was straightforward about it.
There is some weird political correctness among left leaning people (me)!in regard to Muslims, which I totally don't get. It's OK for lefties to bash Christian evangelist nut jobs, and rightly so, but if they make any remark defending Israel against Hamas terrorist Palestinians, they will be crushed by the opposite of islamaphobes, the old "not all Muslims are terrorists" and "Israel bombs innocent babies" wing of the far left. Of course not all Muslims are terrorists just as not all Christians are homophobes, but Hamas IS a terrorist organization and neither side has the moral high ground in that endless conflict. It's Hatfields vs McCoys, revenge for revenge for revenge, who started it has been lost in the dustbin of history, and there is much blood on everyone's hands by this point. But that is not PC; PC defends Muslim freedom of religion but not Christian ( baking cakes for gay weddings anyone?). So it's Israel: bad; Palestine: good. And not enough is ever said about the insane evil of ISIS or the Taliban or any of those asshats. Pamela Geller smokes some domestic terrorists out, with the Mohammed cartoon thing; but even when she is successful drawing out jihadists, the left says she's intolerant of Islam and an Islamaphobe. So the message of the left, seems to be, that refusing to bake cakes for gays, is not a religious freedom issue, it's solely a discrimination issue. Yet drawing cartoons of the so called Prophet is not a freedom of speech issue, it's a religious freedom issue. Sorry, I do support gay marriage, but lighten up on the fanatics who do not. Who really gives a crap that some hill billy doesn't want to bake a cake for people he views as sinful. At the same time, anyone who says drawing a cartoons of Mohammed is disrespectful of religion, but ignores the insanity of killing people for simply drawing, is missing a HUGE point. People who don't want to bake cakes may be homophobic, but they are otherwise harmless. People who kill for cartoons OTOH are a threat to civilized society. Their nutty religion should be called to task it enables the crazy minority to do what they do Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk