12 Points of American Liberal Hypocrisy

[emprworm]

note:  these 12 points are in regards to the American liberal political parties (mainly democrats).

1.  They love Kerry's 'war hero' status, and criticize Bush for his military service.  Yet they never cared that Clinton fled the country to avoid military service.  They even made excuses for Clinton.  If a 'war hero' is an important characteristic for a president, then why did they defend a draft dodger?  Answer:  Hypocrisy.

2. They are furious that George Bush used a single image from 9/11 where 3000 US Citizens died.  Yet applaud Kerry's exploitation of Vietnam for political gain like a Barnum & Bailey circus.  Kerry frequently showing photos of him during Vietnam where 55,000 US Citizens died.  3000 dead at 9/11.  55,000 dead at Vietnam.  And they criticize Bush?  LOL.  unbelievable hypocrisy.

3.  They claim to hate war and always talk about "peace" yet endorse a man who fought a war and killed women.  They criticize Bush for sending troops to war, but embrace Kerry who pulled the trigger.  And they are peace-lovers?  rofl.  I'd call them habitual two-faced liars?

4.  They talk about the wonderful "clinton" economy, but never talk about that it was an inflated internet bubble economy wrought with Enron-style corporate fraud and scandal, and falling on its face by the time Clinton left office.  Of course, they blame Bush for it.  (Gore invented the internet, remember?)

5.  They criticize bush for going to war with Iraq, but never cared that Clinton did the same.  Operation Desert Fox, under Bill Clinton, where 450 smart bombs were blasted on Bagdah.  Where Clinton bombed a pharmaceutical plant thinking it was a terrorist cell, killing many innocent civillians.  Liberals didn't care about that.  (They respond by saying that 'well Clinton didn't send in troops, he just dropped bombs and killed innocent civillians'.  ROFL.)

6.  They criticize bush for not getting UN approval for Iraq.  Yet Bush at least WENT before the UN and got congressional approval.  During operation Desert Fox, the Clinton bombing of bagdad, CLINTON not so much as even ASKED Congress, and completely IGNORED the UN when he killed thousands of Iraqi citizens.  If it was so important for Bush to beg before the Almighty UN to get approval for attacking Bagdhad, why did slick willy get a free pass?  Liberals didn't mind then, but they mind now?  lol!  What bigots!

7.  They criticize Bush because we lost 550 soldiers in Iraq.  They claim to 'care' about human lives.  Yet they dont give a rat that Hussein has killed 500,000 people according to the UN.  They would rather Hussein still be in power killing en masse.  They defend Hussein over Bush.  If liberals were in charge during WWII, they would have let Hitler finish the holocaust.  Liberals in 1942:  "GIVE PEACE A CHANCE!  STOP THE WAR AGAInST HITLER!  LEAVE HIM ALONE!  LETS TRY TO UNDERSTAND HIM, YOU WARMONGERS!"  I have seen no evidence that they care about human lives.  They  They say that Iraq is worse now, yet completely ignore that Iraqi's themselves say they are better off.  Iraq is on the verge of creating a democratic constitution.  A dictatorship of 25 million oppressed people is being changed into a democracy- a landmark event, and liberals completely ignore it saying the people were better off under ruthless dictatorship.  They claim that because 3-4 people die everyday in Iraq due to 'terrorism' (out of 25 million people.  How many people die everyday in California due to crime?) that equates to the people wishing they were under Hussein again.  Utter lies.  Utter spin.  Utter bigotry.  Iraqi people are MuCh HAPPIER now than they were before.  But liberals dont care about them.  They hate Bush, and nothing will stand in their way of hating Bush.  Even if it means sentencing 25 million Iraqi's back to dictatorship rule. 

8.  They claim to be the party of "tolerance", "diversity", and "peace" yet they attack, attack, hate, hate, hate.  Liberals rejoice that Ashcroft is suffering pain.  many liberals in socialist forums actually hope Ashcroft dies slowly and painfully.  I read posts like this all over Yahoo.  It was quite shocking, actually.  They smile with great joy, their hearts filled with gladness at the thought of another human being suffering simply because he is a conservative.  Wow, what tolerance.

9.  They claim that conservatives are the party of the rich, when the wealthiest people in Congress are democrats. they preach re-distribution of wealth, but they practice quite another.  Bill Clinton makes $200,000.00 a speech.  When Clinton speaks, it cost $1,000.00 on average, for each single dinner plate.  Who pays these extravagant prices to hear Clinton?  Rich, elitist democrat liberals of course!!  More billionares worldwide  are liberals that profess socialism.  George Sorros, Warren Buffet...both Bush haters, both billionaries.  Both profess socialism, yet both are....uhh...billionares.  (and there are dozens more like them)

10.  They think only the poor pay taxes, when according to the IRS website, the top 50% of all wage earners pay 93% of all income taxes.  They criticize Bush for tax relief when they themselves benefit from it.  If they hate the tax refunds, then why dont they just re-donate it back to the US government to pay down the debt?  If every Dem would just donate back their tax refunds, then they could reduce the debt significantly.  but no, they keep it like the hypocrites they are. 

11.  They defend Clinton as a man who kept the US safe.  Yet Osama bin Laden hit the U.S. 4 times under clinton (first WTC bombing, Mogudishu, USS Cole, South African Embassy). 

Under Clinton, Bin Laden attacks us 4 times.  Under Bush, only once.  Had clinton zipped up his pants and responded to Bin Laden like Bush did, the WTC would still be standing today.

12.  when new jobs are created under Bush, this is BAD NEWS for liberals.  They actually *want* more families to get laid off.  They actually *want* the economy to tank.  They actually *want* things to be horrible....just to ensure Bush is not re-elected.    If, next month, America lost 300,000 jobs, Liberals would seize that as wonderful news (because it would be bad for Bush).  If, over the next 4 months, 1 million new jobs are created, Liberals would consider this news of the worst kind.  A liberal would gladly and with great joy sacrifice your own family simply for the sake of removing Bush from office.

[Dante]

12.

[GUNWOUNDS]

yeeehaa  fresh empworm to go with my Honey Bunches of Oats.  Finally stuff worth reading again.

[Wolf]

Yeah, I have to agree with Dust. Right-wingers are allowed to not like Bush, too. Can't imagine why they would, though.

[Caid Ivik]

Welcome back emp  ;D  But it could be worse, imagine Dean against Bush...

[Dante]

Yeah, I have to agree with Dust. Right-wingers are allowed to not like Bush, too. Can't imagine why they would, though.

Because he's an idiot. Because he threw out the Kyoto agreement. I could go on but with those two points I've pretty much put forward my primary reasons.

[Digital Guerrilla]

Bush did what any American President would have done when America has been attacked directly. Emprworm kindly get off your soap box but please continue speaking.

[VigilVirus]

Most of those points, emp, are completely nonsensical arguments.

"2. They are furious that George Bush used a single image from 9/11 where 3000 US Citizens died.  Yet applaud Kerry's exploitation of Vietnam for political gain like a Barnum & Bailey circus.  Kerry frequently showing photos of him during Vietnam where 55,000 US Citizens died.  3000 dead at 9/11.  55,000 dead at Vietnam.  And they criticize Bush?  LOL.  unbelievable hypocrisy."

You are quite stupid if you think it's the same to kill when you follow command and to command someone to kill.

"7.  They criticize Bush because we lost 550 soldiers in Iraq.  They claim to 'care' about human lives.  Yet they dont give a rat that Hussein has killed 500,000 people according to the UN.  They would rather Hussein still be in power killing en masse."

Hussein was a dictator of a FOREIGN country, none of US business frankly. Bush is our own embarrasment.

"8.  They claim to be the party of "tolerance", "diversity", and "peace" yet they attack, attack, hate, hate, hate.  Liberals rejoice that Ashcroft is suffering pain.  "

That's just opinions of a few. How do you know that's the popular viewpoint?

"Under Clinton, Bin Laden attacks us 4 times.  Under Bush, only once"

Oh, of course, an attack that kills 20 people in an embassy and one that kills 3,000 on your own soil are equivalent.

" when new jobs are created under Bush, this is BAD NEWS for liberals.  They actually *want* more families to get laid off.  They actually *want* the economy to tank. "

As would the republicans if they weren't in power.

I can deny every single one of your points. It's quite sad that you actually see logic in them.

[emprworm]

"Hussein was a dictator of a FOREIGN country, none of US business frankly. Bush is our own embarrasment. "

put in power by US using OUR weapons.  So it was our business, after all.

"You are quite stupid if you think it's the same to kill when you follow command and to command someone to kill."

you are quite stupid if you think that just because someone orders you to kill, and you kill, that makes you someone who has never killed.  that was the Nazi argument at Nuremburg.  Thats pretty sad when you start using the defense of the Nazis.

"Oh, of course, an attack that kills 20 people in an embassy and one that kills 3,000 on your own soil are equivalent."

I never said 'equivalent' i simply said Clinton didn't do anything about it, hence the continuation.

"I can deny every single one of your points. It's quite sad that you actually see logic in them. "

well of course you can deny them.  You just cant do so logically.

[Dante]

It's good to see Devil's Advocate back and posting  :)

*Implies agreement with his arguments*

[VigilVirus]

You are the one who lacks logic. I never said that killing by someone's order justifies it. I did however say it's not a valid to compare Hitler (someone who commands to kill, aka Bush) and a Nazi soldier (someone who follows command, aka Kerry)

Oh, and just because US messed with Iraq once and made a mistake doesn't mean they have to mess with it again to make more mistakes to "correct" the previous one.

[emprworm]

You are the one who lacks logic. I never said that killing by someone's order justifies it. I did however say it's not a valid to compare Hitler (someone who commands to kill, aka Bush) and a Nazi soldier (someone who follows command, aka Kerry)

You need some correction.  Kerry was an officer.  He was someone who ordered subordinates to kill. 

Oh, and just because US messed with Iraq once and made a mistake doesn't mean they have to mess with it again to make more mistakes to "correct" the previous one.

nice to see you backtrack.  so now that you agree that it indeed WAS our business, who are you to call it a mistake?  IRAQ doesn't.  If the IRaqi majority population says it was NOT a mistake to remove Hussein, what right do you have to say it was?  Who made you God of the Iraqi people?  You dont live there.  you have no right to impose on them.

[Dante]

Oh, and just because US messed with Iraq once and made a mistake doesn't mean they have to mess with it again to make more mistakes to "correct" the previous one.

I tried that one. Good point though.

[emprworm]

same response.

QUESTION:

1.  Who is more of an authority to determine what IS and what ISNT a mistake governing the internal affairs of IRAQ?

A.  a bush-hating American

B.  a bush-hating European

C.  a bush-hating Canadian

D.  The Iraqi People

if you answer "D" then removing Hussein wasn't a mistake.

[VigilVirus]

An officer is still a subordinate. A president is less of one, simply someone kept in check - no one actually /commands/ him what to do.

How the hell do you know what Iraqis want? How about if France didn't like their president-  does that mean you come in and take it over?

[emprworm]

How the hell do you know what Iraqis want? How about if France didn't like their president-

[VigilVirus]

Oh yes, and who has the authority to correct a mistake in the government of Iraq?

A. Americans

B. EU

C. EU and Americans

D. Iraqi people?

[emprworm]

Year Later, Most Iraqis Happier Without Saddam 

2 hours, 57 minutes ago  Add World - Reuters to My Yahoo!

By Luke Baker

BAGHDAD (Reuters) - A year after U.S. and British troops invaded Iraq (news - web sites) to overthrow Saddam Hussein (news - web sites), the majority of Iraqis say life is better than it was under the former dictator, according to results of an extensive poll released Tuesday.

Oh yes, and who has the authority to correct a mistake in the government of Iraq?

A. Americans

B. EU

C. EU and Americans

D. Iraqi people?

Answer:  D.  Iraqi people, who choose the coalition to correct the mistake.

Iraqis generally appear to want occupation forces to stay at least until security is restored and an Iraqi government is in place. Only 15 percent say they should leave now.

checkmate.

again.

[VigilVirus]

Your Bush-lovin' is getting the best of you.

Why do you think that it's his right to get into the business of other countries? Even if US has done that before, it HAD NO RIGHT TO DO IT THEN EITHER.

[emprworm]

Iraqis generally appear to want occupation forces to stay at least until security is restored and an Iraqi government is in place. Only 15 percent say they should leave now.

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20040316/wl_nm/iraq_poll_dc_2

checkmate.

again.

when will you finally admit that you do not speak for Iraq, but simply for yourself, and your own bush-hatred?

[Dante]

Who cares what they want, we have no business helping or hindering them.

[GUNWOUNDS]

Who cares what they want, we have no business helping or hindering them.

who says we have no business helping or hindering them ?? we are a global community... what one country does affects its neighbor...

[TMA_1]

yeah but conservatives are just as bad.

Liberals and conservitive politicians always make double standards. For example when bill clinton did bad stuff in his personal life, the liberals said "dont judge him on his outside life, if he does a good job in office then that is all that matters."

then when bush makes a controversy, like he got out of nam by going into the national guard and because of his dad he was able to get out of the war. many liberals said we shouldnt have somebody in office who is a bad person in their personal life, and wont fight for their country. The conservitives said the same things the liberals did with bill clinton and his supposed draft dodging! Politicians always make double standards. It is one of the reasons why liberals and conservatives are just two sides of the same coin.

[Dante]

who says we have no business helping or hindering them ?? we are a global community... what one country does affects its neighbor...

And your point is? One country affects another. And?

[emprworm]

Who cares what they want, we have no business helping or hindering them.

thats what your moral views say.  but soceities moral views say we have buisness helping them.

since when do you see that you should be championing the cause for having greater society adapt your amoral views?  Since the greater society granted prudence and relevancy to the IRAQ mission, why do you attempt to change the views of society?  How do you rationally defend trumping societies morals with your own?