Democrats & Liberals Archives

The Hypocrisy of "Family Values Republicans" is Hilarious

Last week, Alabama’s “Family Values Conservative” Republican governor Robert Bentley was caught having an affair with his top aide. As Republicans call for Mr. Bentley to resign, Mr. Bentley stubbornly refuses to step down, just like every other elected official in Alabama currently facing scandal and indictment. The hilarity of it is that every single one of these scandals involved Christian conservatives who seek to force their religion on the general public at large that won’t practice what they preach.

The saga began last week when Gov. Bentley fired the state's top law enforcement official, Spencer Collier, after he inadvertently saw a text on Gov. Bentley's phone from Senior Political Advisor Rebekah Caldwell Mason. Bentley pre-emptively fired Collier, who hours later called a press conference in which he released a recording of a sexually explicit phone conversation between Mason and the Governor. This coming from the man who wrote an op-ed piece that called same-sex marriage a "social experiment," and taught Sunday school in his Baptist church.

This sort of thing isn't just limited to the Governor in Alabama. Mike Hubbard, the Speaker of the Alabama House of Representatives, issued a statement the day Alabama's ban on same-sex marriage was struck down that stated, "It is outrageous when a single unelected and unaccountable federal judge can overturn the will of millions of Alabamians who stand in firm support of the Sanctity of Marriage Amendment. The Legislature will encourage a vigorous appeals process, and we will continue defending the Christian conservative values that make Alabama a special place to live. This was shortly after Mr. Hubbard was indicted on 23 felony counts of abusing his power as Speaker to further his own gain, as well as taking bribes from lobbyists.

Let's not forget Larry "Wide Stance" Craig from Idaho and his bathroom cruising at Minneapolis/Saint Paul International Airport in 2007. Senator Craig had run on "family values" his entire career, opposing abortion and gay rights, even supporting expulsion from the house for Barney Frank over a prostitution scandal, and the impeachment of Bill Clinton during the Monica Lewinsky matter when he had been using cocaine and having illicit affairs with men going back to his early days in the House of Representatives.

The truth is, you get what you vote for. As Josh Moon of the Montgomery Advertiser writes of the current state of affairs (no pun intended) in Alabama,

"The people of this state do not deserve better. The people of this state are getting exactly what they deserve, because the people of this state have, time and again, ignored reasonable, smart candidates - both Republican and Democratic - to vote for pandering, ignorant Neanderthals who profess loudly their morally superior character and promise wholly unconstitutional and un-American intentions.

"The people of this state have elected men and women who ignorantly turn down billions of dollars in health care for the poorest citizens, who routinely set up deals that provide tax riches to those who need it least at the expense of those who need it most, and who have thumbed their noses at the idea of a separation of church and state - unless that church is non-Christian, of course.

"And where has that all gotten us?

"You have a family values governor who has the worst phone sex tape ever recorded and is on the verge of being forced out of office.

"The Speaker of the House is indicted on 23 felony counts, and while a court decision awaits, it would seem impossible that he can avoid a guilty verdict on at least two of those charges.

"The state's attorney general's office is in shambles, having fired people left and right over the last two years because they tried to secretly aid the Speaker in his defense and the tactics of the prosecutor in the case have come under serious question.

"The state's supreme court is a joke, with a chief justice who routinely seeks to violate the U.S. Constitution and another justice who gave a radio interview about a case the court was considering."

I may be a meat-and-potatoes, moderate-to-conservative Democrat, but this is pretty high up there on the list of reasons why I'm not and never will be a Republican.

Posted by TreyL at March 28, 2016 7:13 PM
Comments
Comment #403982

Now Trey, it would unfair to single out Republicans on this issue. Democrats have been guilty of some pretty outrageous stuff over the years just the same. Neither party stands on a moral high ground here.

Posted by: Warren Dean Porter at March 28, 2016 10:34 PM
Comment #403984

If your a politician then a moral high ground is the least of your priorities and a little scandal is often good for business. Go back and see how the Governor of South Carolina was elected with planted stories of affairs that she could easily deny. Her Lexis Nexis hits skyrocketed and she went from 4th place to 1st in two weeks time.

Watch Ted Kennedy’s 1969 Chappaquiddick Speech or Bill Clinton on 60 Minutes talking about Flowers and you will see the masters at work.

Posted by: George in SC at March 29, 2016 9:28 AM
Comment #403985

Politician with high morals is an oxymoron isn’t it? The real issue here is the “family values” crowd running for office on their supposedly high morals then getting caught acting like those they tell us have no morals. Use to be the politicians private life was their private life and not up for politics. But then along came the conservative revolution with their false superiority and wanted the private lives of people open for target practice. To bad they can’t run on their record or ideas perhaps they wouldn’t be so quick to condemn.

George while we are talking Masters JFK was quite active but to me the masters of deception and low morals would have to be Gingrich and the crew who called for the resignation of Clinton over the Lewinsky scandal. Which ones? Well it seems most of those who demanded he resign… Which IMHO makes them a lower form of life than Clinton, definitely more of a “master” than Clinton.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States

Posted by: j2t2 at March 29, 2016 12:23 PM
Comment #403986

J2t2, rewriting history is the favorite pastime of many…

Clinton was impeached and lost his law license because he lied under oath during a sexual harassment trial against him. Not because he had an affair.

Posted by: Rhinehold at March 29, 2016 1:27 PM
Comment #403987

Politicians behaving badly. It has been going on from the very beginning, and scandalous behavior is not limited to one party or the other.

What makes the bad behavior of Republicans over the past few decades is the sheer hypocrisy of it all. It is not that they are necessarily doing anything worse, or different, or new. It is the posturing, of pretending they are morally superior, and demanding others behave the same way in the name of religion, and even passing laws to ensure it- all the while behaving in a matter just as vile as can be imagined.

I would agree that the Gingrich crowd of the late 90’s was the worst, and that is really saying something, considering the long history of scandalous behavior and hypocrisy. Btw, thanks for the link, j2t2. Good one.

But let’s not underestimate the current crowd. Cruz may take it to a whole new level, and Trump is just the guy to give him that little extra lift. I find it very hard to imagine Cruz had five mistresses. The man is repulsive. Yet he is just the type, wearing religion on his sleeve and pushing his wife and children front and center to demonstrate his family values. The story about him originally came from the Rubio camp, not Trump, but that hardly excuses Trump. And anything published in the National Enquirer has to be taken with a salt. Then again, we all remember Edwards. So we’ll see where the Cruz story goes.

The funny thing is that Trump has a long and very public history of misbehaving. Everyone takes it for granted. But unlike Cruz, Trump doesn’t pretend to possess some sort of religiously inspired moral superiority.

Posted by: phx8 at March 29, 2016 1:40 PM
Comment #403990

Will the person here who claims to have moral values that he/she never violates please raise their hand.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 29, 2016 3:51 PM
Comment #403993

Where’s Lyin’ Ted when you need him?

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 29, 2016 9:11 PM
Comment #403994
J2t2, rewriting history is the favorite pastime of many…

Evidently Rhinehold so is rewriting what I have said. I didn’t mention impeachment I referred to those that said Clinton should resign. That being said, according to the wiki link in my previous comment it was about an affair with Lewinsky so why are you rewriting history?
“Newt Gingrich, Representative (R-GA) and leader of the Republican Revolution of 1994,[70] resigned from the House after admitting in 1998 to having had an affair with his intern while he was married to his second wife, and at the same time he was leading the impeachment of Bill Clinton for perjury regarding an affair with his intern Monica Lewinsky. (1998)[71][72]”

Posted by: j2t2 at March 30, 2016 1:05 AM
Comment #403996

I think you are confusing hypocrisy with the politics of pandering phx8. Republicans talk about family values because they pander to a group of voters who care about family values. In my GINT 101 class (Government and International Studies) it was explained that the first job of any newly elected official is to start working on getting re-elected. That they are not “fighting for you” is the real hypocrisy of a politician.

From an academic perspective I think Trump and Sanders are the most interesting candidates I’ve seen in a long time. Trump is selling “Make America Great Again” to the guy in the alien episode of Southpark who yells, “they took our jobs.” It truly is a one issue voter who is willing to completely ignore the fact that the guy is one of the people who actually did take their job. Trump makes most politicians look foolish that they can’t do what he can do. And Bernie is everything to young people like my daughter who thinks he’s going to give her all the SWAG she could ever want. Never mind he’s a 74 year old career politician who is running his last grand campaign.

Posted by: George in SC at March 30, 2016 10:21 AM
Comment #403998

George in SC,
Politicians pander all the time, no doubt, but it is not the same as being hypocritical. A bit of trivia- the word ‘pander’ comes from the name of a literary character, Panderus, who was basically a pimp. Pandering is indulging or gratifying an immoral desire. For a politician like Ted Cruz, it might mean pushing deregulation for financial corporations like Goldman Sachs and Citi, in exchange for favors past and present, such as hiring his wife to work for Goldman Sachs, or taking a large loan from Goldman Sachs and Citicorp to finance his Senate campaign, all of which happened. Hypocrisy would be when Ted Cruz pretends that such financial deregulation is meant to help small businesses and the little guy, or that the regulation of the financial industry through the Dodd Frank regulation harms the economy, which is obviously not true. Lying would be denying he is doing it in the first place.

Lying Ted is good for that kind of trifecta on a number of issues. He panders. He is a hypocrite. He lies. He panders to the base with his statements about Obamacare, he rushes out to buy it for himself at the first opportunity, then lies about being forced to do it. (Where Cruz currently stands with his own insurance is a mystery. Apparently he did not go through with the purchase when he was called on it by his supporters. He says he is uninsured today, but others say that is false as well. Hard to know with Lying Ted!)

Posted by: phx8 at March 30, 2016 12:05 PM
Comment #404007

Let’s take a look at just a smattering of lies told by our president. And, these lies only take us thru the year 2013.

– “Today I’m pledging to cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term in office.” Instead, the national debt increased $5 trillion on his watch.

– “As soon as we’re out of this recession, we’ve got to get serious about starting to live within our means.” Huh?

– “We agree on reforms that will reduce the costs of health care. Families will save on their premiums.”

– “We’ve got shovel-ready projects all across the country.” Later, Obama admitted his own lie, saying, “There’s no such thing as shovel-ready projects.”

– “We reject the use of national security … to spy on citizens who are not suspected of a crime.”

– We “will ensure that federal contracts over $25,000 are competitively bid.”

– We “will eliminate all income taxation of seniors making less than $50,000 per year.”

– “We are going to work with you to lower your [health care] premiums by $2,500,” and we’ll “do it by the end of my first term as president.”

– “I don’t take a dime of their [lobbyists’] money, and when I am president, they won’t find a job in my White House.” In fact, Obama granted waivers at will, and more than a dozen lobbyists got jobs in the Obama administration.

– “I pledge to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution.” But Obama has ignored the constitutional amendment granting powers not enumerated in the Constitution to the states.

– “If you’ve got a business — you didn’t build that. Somebody else made that happen.”

– “The sequester is not something that I’ve proposed. It is something that Congress has proposed.” The truth is that the White House proposed an “automatic sequester” on July 12, 2011.

– “I didn’t set a red line [in Syria].” And yet, at a prior news conference, using unscripted language in a statement, he said, “a red line for us is we start seeing a whole bunch of chemical weapons moving around.”

– “It’s here that companies like Solyndra are leading the way toward a brighter and more prosperous future.” After Obama’s administration gave the company $535 million, Solyndra and its solar panels went belly up.

– To Israel, “We have not only made sure that they [Iran] have to stop adding additional centrifuges, we’ve also said that they’ve got to roll back their 20 percent advanced enrichment … down to zero.” In fact, the deal allows Iran uranium enrichment of 5 percent.

– “Eighty percent of Americans support including higher taxes as part of the [debt ceiling] deal.” However, that same week, a poll by Rasmussen showed only 34 percent supported a tax hike as part of the deal.

– In 2006: “America has a debt problem and a failure of leadership. Americans deserve better. I, therefore, intend to oppose the effort to increase America’s debt limit.” But as president, Obama has led the charge each year to increase America’s debt.

http://www.bizpacreview.com/2013/12/18/pinocchio-obamas-top-20-presidential-lies-89096

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 30, 2016 3:26 PM
Comment #404008

Judicial Watch: State Department Asked Hillary Clinton to Delete Copies of Classified Benghazi Emails Four Months Ago

http://www.judicialwatch.org/press-room/press-releases/judicial-watch-state-department-asked-hillary-clinton-to-delete-copies-of-classified-benghazi-emails-four-months-ago/?utm_source=EmailDirect.com&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Media+Advisory+3-31-16+Campaign

Federal Court Hearing Scheduled for Thursday, March 31 in Judicial Watch FOIA Case on Benghazi, Clinton Emails

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 30, 2016 3:45 PM
Comment #404009

RF, Obama is not running for President. Since he was elected and then re-elected he is prevented from being elected again for a third term by law. This is rather unfortunate since he has led this country out of a deep recession and has helped us maintain a leadership role in the world today. You can disagree with that statement, as I am certain you will, however the progress he has made is evident.

That this evidence is not apparent to most conservatives and Republicans is part of the problems they experience today. A lack of truthful leadership from individuals that are able to face facts and live with the truth. This group of people have convinced themselves of so many, many lies that they are unable to now see what they have become. A vengeful bunch of louts who are unable to even field a reputable candidate, although I take no comfort in their plight, I experience some discomfort in their inability to recognize a dearth of reputable leaders that can guide them away from this, their last gasp of political ability. As I have said before it is unfortunate that the Republican party so forcefully supports a rather meager 25% of the populations whims, it is even more unfortunate that they do not understand the significance of their miscalculation. But is not as concerning as their inability to understand simple mathematics.

Posted by: Speak4all at March 30, 2016 3:50 PM
Comment #404013

“RF, Obama is not running for President.”

Thank God.

I am pleased Speak, that you didn’t try to downplay the sampling of lies I posted that Obama told so far.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 30, 2016 5:09 PM
Comment #404014

RF, I never try to refute fiction.

How about some comments from you regarding your estimation of the Republican “family values” types that TreyL wrote about? I know, you only like to cast stones at Obama and Hillary and any other liberal, now don’t you? What was that you said in an earlier comment about:
“Will the person here who claims to have moral values that he/she never violates please raise their hand.”

Hypocrisy?

Posted by: Speak4all at March 30, 2016 5:16 PM
Comment #404018

“Fiction” Speaks?

Perhaps you can enlighten us all and point out Obama’s fictitious lies. Many are direct quotes from Bama-man.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 30, 2016 6:46 PM
Comment #404019

By the way Speakers, no one raided their hands.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 30, 2016 6:48 PM
Comment #404020

“raised”

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 30, 2016 6:49 PM
Comment #404021

RF,
I stopped reading your post about Obama after the first one, and for good reason. Here is what you wrote:

“– “Today I’m pledging to cut the deficit in half by the end of my first term in office.” Instead, the national debt increased $5 trillion on his watch.”

The national debt is NOT the same as the deficit. Obama did, in fact, reduce the deficit more than any other president in history, by @ $1 trillion. It went from $1.4 trillion to $439 billion.

You should not call Obama a liar and then make it obvious you have no idea what you are talking about.

Posted by: phx8 at March 30, 2016 7:34 PM
Comment #404022

phx8 is wrong. Apparently he can’t refute the other lies so ignores them. No surprise here.

“Obama took office in the middle of fiscal year 2009. At the time of his initial pledge, the president said his administration inherited a $1.3 trillion deficit, but the deficit for that fiscal year ultimately reached about $1.4 trillion.

In fiscal years 2010 and 2011, the annual deficits were roughly $1.3 trillion.

For fiscal year 2012, which ended Sept. 30, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has estimated an annual deficit of about $1.1 trillion. That is the last full fiscal year during Obama’s first term.

So, the annual deficit has dropped during Obama’s time in office, but not by half.

In a February 2012 interview on Atlanta’s WAGA-TV, Obama said he wasn’t able to keep that promise because “this recession turned out to be a lot deeper than any of us realized.”

Obama added, “So, the die had been cast, but a lot of us didn’t understand at that point how bad it was going to get. That increases the deficit because less tax revenues come in, and it means that more people are getting unemployment insurance, we’re helping states more so they don’t lay off teachers, etc.

“The key, though, is we’re setting ourselves on a path where we can get our debt under control. The most important thing we can do, though, to reduce our debt is to make sure that we continue growing this economy.”

http://www.politifact.com/new-jersey/statements/2012/oct/21/leonard-lance/barack-obama-broke-promise-cut-annual-deficit-half/

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 30, 2016 7:58 PM
Comment #404023

RF,

Give me a break. You completely abandoned Lyin’ Ted in middle column, yet you have the audacity to fling the word “liar” at truthful politicians. While Obama might be a fallible man who sometimes fails to meet the goals he lays out for himself, your candidate regularly characterizes the current state of affairs.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 30, 2016 8:14 PM
Comment #404024

The federal deficit was cut in half in 2013, one year later than stated in Obama’s campaign promise. This represented a reduction of @ $700 billion in five years, the largest and fastest reduction in American history. And you have the audacity to call Obama a liar on that basis?

WP, RF gets very quiet when it comes to Lying Ted.

And congratulations to Obama on the latest approval number, 53%. His approval rating is higher than Reagan’s in March of his last term.

Posted by: phx8 at March 30, 2016 8:23 PM
Comment #404025

Might be worth a look.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2016/mar/15/presidential-scorecards-so-far-march-15-2016/

Posted by: Rich at March 30, 2016 10:05 PM
Comment #404026

Worth a read, this confirms my earlier sentiment that Clinton’s fatal flaw is not dishonesty but rather poor judgement. It is that very judgement that leads to decisions like the arrogant belief that the Clintons play by special rules. For instance, her campaign is as opague as ever before and it is hurting her dearly. Only Americans’ dislike of Trump keeps her general election hopes alive.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 30, 2016 10:20 PM
Comment #404027

Hmmmmmm
Individual preaches about the importance of family, then has an affair. Hypocrisy.

Individual preaches about redistributing personal property to help the poor, but spends their time and money to condemn others who do not spend their time and money helping the poor. Hypocrisy.

Individual preaches about freedom of choice, but supports stripping away the choice of others in order to pay for it. Hypocrisy.

Individual preaches about the wrongness of lying, but intentionally dismiss facts to embrace some who do lie, simply because of their politics. Hypocrisy.

Individual preaches about love of country, but openly works to transform it into something completely different. Hypocrisy.

I’ll take the hypocrisy of the individual getting some on the side any day.

Posted by: kctim at March 31, 2016 9:35 AM
Comment #404028

It seems we have no sense of proportion here. A campaign pledge mostly fulfilled is now considered to be the equivalent of having an affair while impeaching someone else for having an affair! Is there no upper level of hypocrisy conservatives will aspire to in order to defend their make government small politicians? Why do conservatives let their own off the hook so easily when caught buggering little boys and having sexual affairs while attacking others for having sexual affairs?

Instead of deflecting as Royal has done with the campaign pledges nonsense why won’t Royal denounce the actions of Gingrich, Hastert, Livingston, Chenowith-Hage and Barr for their abuses of power? Instead of the false equivalents kctim why not a simple “they were wrong it was an abuse of power” instead? Reminds me of the famous conservative “it’s not Fascism when we do it” ideology.

Wanting a small government while growing government, debt and deficits is hypocrisy IMHO. Putting those in office that abuse the power of the office for political gain and then defending them is hypocrisy. Yet you guys continue to use campaign pledges to justify this type of hypocrisy.

Take a look at how since the days of JFK our government has been corrupted during the repub administrations, compared to dem administrations. Then tell me about hypocrisy conservatives-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_scandals_in_the_United_States


But please no prattle, no silly justifications, false equivalents about campaign promises guys it really is beneath even you guys.

Posted by: j2t2 at March 31, 2016 11:15 AM
Comment #404029

Well I might be slow but I eventually catch up Royal. Although this article was written about some Alabama conservatives it very well could have been about your boy Lying Ted Cruz. He of course deflected, when it comes to answering questions about his affairs, by engaging Trump in slut shaming each others wives. Worked for a bit but now it seems he just refuses to answer which means, in his mind, he cannot be a liar when the truth comes out.

SO I understand why you as a family values voter deflect, make excuses and refuse to acknowledge the lack of integrity of the Clinton era repubs. The same repubs that were engaged in their own affairs while working to impeach Clinton. It would affect your ability to vote for Cruz, am I right?

Wow… how long do you guys defend Cruz knowing he is just another hypocrite leading you guys on?

Posted by: j2t2 at March 31, 2016 11:40 AM
Comment #404030

Everyone jumped on Trump yesterday over a comment about punishing a woman for having an abortion. But if one grants the premise of the pro-lifers, that an unborn child has rights and that abortion is murder, then why would a woman not be liable and subject to punishment? The doctor is not solely responsible.

Posted by: phx8 at March 31, 2016 12:26 PM
Comment #404031

J2

“Instead of the false equivalents kctim why not a simple “they were wrong it was an abuse of power” instead?”

Not quite sure how having an affair is an abuse of power, but am I not pointing out that it is wrong, when I call it hypocrisy?

- Individual preaches about the importance of family, then has an affair. Hypocrisy.

And your refusal to acknowledge those other verifiable examples of hypocrisy in no way makes them some kind of false equivalence on my part. I was merely pointing out how absurd it is for a leftist to scream hypocrisy.

Your wiki list only points out two things:
1 - Warren was absolutely correct when he stated Republicans and democrats are guilty.
2 - The unethical behavior of our representatives has grown as our governments size and control has increased.

You shouldn’t use that list to make weak-a$$ ‘the other side is worse’ assumptions, you should be using it to point out that the endless increase of government power over the people leads to the endless increase of abuse.


And for God’s sake man, Clinton wasn’t impeached for having an affair, he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice for lying under oath.

Posted by: kctim at March 31, 2016 1:37 PM
Comment #404032
The unethical behavior of our representatives has grown as our governments size and control has increased.

I dispute this claim. Unethical behavior has existed since the dawn of time. The only thing that has changed is the frequency at which it is reported, which is a consequence of new technologies and not a consequence of the size of government or the level of its control.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 31, 2016 1:50 PM
Comment #404033

“Unethical behavior has existed since the dawn of time.”

Of course it has.

“The only thing that has changed is the frequency at which it is reported, which is a consequence of new technologies and not a consequence of the size of government or the level of its control”

So why didn’t Washington, Lincoln, Grant etc… suffer from scandals involving the IRS, HUD, EPA, welfare, FCC, FEMA, the House Bank, NSA, CIA, GSA?

Why does J2s list get shorter the farther back in time you go?

Posted by: kctim at March 31, 2016 2:21 PM
Comment #404034

J2T2 is either ignorant of, or doesn’t care about, the impeachment of Bill Clinton. It was about lying under oath.

It really pleases me to have my lib/soc friends on WB continue to write nonsense about Ted Cruz. He is a big obstacle to their winning in November.

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 31, 2016 3:35 PM
Comment #404035

The lies Obama repeatedly told and spun about his health care program harmed millions of working Americans. Yet, my lib/soc friends don’t really give a damn.

Another of America’s major insurers is sounding the alarm about ObamaCare, warning the program could soon go bankrupt.

“We continue to have serious concerns about the sustainability of the public exchanges,” says Aetna CEO Mark Bertolini. “We remain concerned about the overall stability of the risk pool.”

“United Health has said that it will probably take about $1 billion in losses on ObamaCare plans when 2015 and 2016 results are combined. The company has said that it should have stayed out of the market longer, and that it may quit the program in 2017,” Bloomberg News reports.

Both Aetna and United have been losing money on ObamaCare, and could soon refuse to cover enrollees altogether.

Even the architect of ObamaCare admits it won’t work.

“We’ve been very clear with the administration about the serious challenges facing consumers and health plans in this exchange market,” said United Chief Executive Marilyn Tavenner last November.

Before taking over United, she was one of the top Obama officials in charge of implanting ObamaCare.

“Most recently, nearly 800,000 Americans have faced coverage disruptions as a result of the significant and unexpected shortfall with the risk corridors program,” Tavenner warned.

http://www.americanpatriotdaily.com/latest/obamacare-just-took-another-massive-hit-is-total-bankruptcy-near/

Posted by: Royal Flush at March 31, 2016 3:44 PM
Comment #404036

The twisting and squirming done by conservatives, in an attempt to obviate their “family values” hypocritical politician’s actions could be, as TreyL has pointed out, hilarious. I expect no less from people who are in denial about so much in their lives. Although the word hilarious is probably not the best adjective because it is down right scary and very unscrupulous behavior that we are witnessing.

Posted by: Speak4all at March 31, 2016 4:09 PM
Comment #404037

Speaks, who has denied or defended the actions of Bentley, Hubbard, or Craig?

Warren, who is not a conservative, stated “Neither party stands on a moral high ground here.” George basically stated that the ‘moral high ground’ might not be an issue for either party any more.

Then we get conspiracy theory, opinion and lies proclaiming Conservatives are worse and today’s Republican candidates are the worst of all. Naturally, the hypocrisy of those screaming hypocrisy the loudest, is going to get called out.

Facts may be scary to some, but it is never dishonest or unfair to bring them up.

Posted by: kctim at March 31, 2016 4:56 PM
Comment #404038

“I’ll take the hypocrisy of the individual getting some on the side any day.”

This implicit suggestion is both gross in it’s description and weak in it’s comparison. I expect no less.

Posted by: Speak4all at March 31, 2016 5:17 PM
Comment #404039

Speaks, those actions are a personal failing and have no direct impact on me or my life. Democrats used to agree.

The other examples I provided do affect me and my life, so such hypocrisy deserves to be held in contempt.

The comparison had nothing to do with trying to absolve the personal failing.

Posted by: kctim at March 31, 2016 5:53 PM
Comment #404040
So why didn’t Washington, Lincoln, Grant etc… suffer from scandals involving the IRS, HUD, EPA, welfare, FCC, FEMA, the House Bank, NSA, CIA, GSA?

They suffered scandals within the agencies and the bureaucracies that were in place at the time. Just because there are more agencies today does not mean the level of corruption is any greater.

For instance, patronage was commonplace with the spoils system that dominated politics for much of the 19th century. James Garfield even lost his life due to this. Likewise, consider the numerous scandals that plagued Grant’s administration.

Posted by: Warren Porter at March 31, 2016 8:53 PM
Comment #404043
Not quite sure how having an affair is an abuse of power, but am I not pointing out that it is wrong, when I call it hypocrisy?

Having an affair isn’t necessarily an abuse of power kctim, Using an affair as the repubs used the Clinton Lewinsky affair is an abuse of power. The hypocrisy of those repubs that led the charge is appalling as they were involved in affairs at the time they were prosecuting Clinton for simply having an affair. Remember the repubs ran on “family values”.


Individual preaches about the importance of family, then has an affair. Hypocrisy.

Agreed kctim, the relevance today is of course Lying Ted Cruz running on family values and refusing to comment on whether the rumored affairs are true or not.

And your refusal to acknowledge those other verifiable examples of hypocrisy in no way makes them some kind of false equivalence on my part. I was merely pointing out how absurd it is for a leftist to scream hypocrisy.

What you are doing is using the “well they do it to” argument kctim. This is done to deflect the criticism from the specific issue at hand. ON the table is the question of how conservatives can still fall for the “family values” candidates despite the soiled history of these candidates, It is relevant today , once again, because of Lying Ted Cruz.

Your wiki list only points out two things: 1 - Warren was absolutely correct when he stated Republicans and democrats are guilty.

Well it seems we agree once again kctim. Well kinda…. anyway, as I said earlier it seems we have no sense of proportion.

2 - The unethical behavior of our representatives has grown as our governments size and control has increased.

Sorry kctim wishing doesn’t make it so. Remember what you said about the private lives of those in government were once private, well until the conservatives and the “family values” crowd decided to start a culture war.


You shouldn’t use that list to make weak-a$$ ‘the other side is worse’ assumptions, you should be using it to point out that the endless increase of government power over the people leads to the endless increase of abuse.

Sure the “I’m a hammer so everything is a nail” small government mantra. The fact is that since the conservative revolution the repub administrations have been more corrupt than the dem administrations kctim, Reagan being the most corrupt administration since that of Grants. It is just as logical to say family values causes corruption kctim as it is to use your standard libertarian answer for everything.


And for God’s sake man, Clinton wasn’t impeached for having an affair, he was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice for lying under oath.

Oh come on kctim, had the repubs not insisted upon going after Clintons private life their would have been no reason to testify hence no perjury no lying under oath.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 1, 2016 1:43 AM
Comment #404045

Warren,

“They suffered scandals within the agencies and the bureaucracies that were in place at the time.”

The number of scandals and abuses has grown as the number of ‘agencies and bureaucracies’ has grown, and it is a fact that those scandals and abuses would not be possible if those ‘agencies and bureaucracies’ did not exist.

Silly proportionality arguments do not change that very simple fact.

Posted by: kctim at April 1, 2016 9:24 AM
Comment #404046

Corruption was far worse during the administrations of Grant and Harding. The fact that nearly all of it was concentrated in fewer organizations does not obviate its magnitude.

Posted by: Warren Porter at April 1, 2016 9:53 AM
Comment #404047

J2,

For myself, the whole Clinton affair thing was about nothing other than his lying to the American people and the perjury.
While the others deserve to be called out on their hypocrisy, it does not absolve Clinton of those wrongdoings.

As far as them abusing their power, I can actually see both sides of it. On one hand, it is kind of scary having people use their position to hunt down affairs on their political opponents, but then again, it is their job to protect the integrity of the office.

“Cruz running on family values and refusing to comment on whether the rumored affairs are true or not.”

Does “vast right-wing conspiracy” sound familiar? Commenting on rumors is dangerous, especially when running for office.

“ON the table is the question of how conservatives can still fall for the “family values” candidates despite the soiled history of these candidates”

There was no deflection, J2. Warren and George pretty much nailed it in the first two responses and the comparisons didn’t start until you guys started with the ‘holier than thou’ BS.
Those guilty of hypocrisy are the last one’s who should be screaming hypocrisy.

The simple fact is that Conservatives ‘still fall’ for their candidates for the same reason liberals ‘still fall’ for their candidates: politics.

“It is just as logical to say family values causes corruption kctim as it is to use your standard libertarian answer for everything.”

Not even close, J2. Access makes corruption possible and no group can cause corruption with it.

“had the repubs not insisted upon going after Clintons private life their would have been no reason to testify hence no perjury no lying under oath.”

You have got to be freaking kidding. That is about the silliest thing I think I have ever seen you put on WatchBlog.

Posted by: kctim at April 1, 2016 10:23 AM
Comment #404048

kctim,
Perhaps you are unaware of what happened with Bill Clinton.

The House introduced 50 articles of impeachment. The Special Prosecutor refused to use them because there was no evidence. Instead, the House introduced the case of Paula Jones, a he-said she-said accusation of harassment from many years earlier. The point was never to find Clinton guilty of anything having to do with her. The point was to put a sitting president under oath and go on what lawyers call a ‘fishing expedition,’ and ask Clinton about every possible rumor of his **x life, including consensual affairs.

That is what happened. Clinton did lie about a consensual affair under oath. He should have been censured. Instead, the House Republicans impeached him on a party line vote, and the Senate voted it down.

Many of the Republicans who pushed the sordid tactic of putting a sitting president on the witness stand in order to ask him about all aspects of his **x life were subsequently voted out of office. The Speaker, Newt Gingrich, lost his job.

The GOP was clearly out of control at this point with its excessive use and abuse of the powers of the Special Prosecutor. As a result, legislation reigned it in considerably. The GOP did not want to see a Republican president subjected to the same.

The entire affair turned into a huge embarrassment for conservatives. At the time, they insisted on the importance of ‘character’ in a president. Today, they never raise it, and no rational person would think it is a good idea to put a president under oath in order to ask him about all aspects of his **x life. The abuse of the Special Prosecutor powers was stopped, and no one thinks it is a good idea to return to the abuses of those days.

Posted by: phx8 at April 1, 2016 10:40 AM
Comment #404049
Does “vast right-wing conspiracy” sound familiar? Commenting on rumors is dangerous, especially when running for office.

Of course it sounds familiar, we’re living with it and it’s results, mass hypnosis of the poorly educated.

This is old news, and I don’t expect to persuade any member of the VRWConspiracy, but the Clinton impeachment was promulgated by a bunch of crooks, one of whom ran for the Senate from Florida in 2000. His supporters literally stuffed ballot boxes, by filling out absentee ballots for Rpblcns and throwing out Dmcrt absentee ballots, in courthouses in Martin and Seminole counties. Not hundreds, not thousands, but tens of thousands. IIRC, about 10000 in Martin county and over 20000 in Seminole county, stealing the election of the POTUS and sticking us with W.

Without W, there would be no Trump.

Posted by: ohrealy at April 1, 2016 11:10 AM
Comment #404062
There was no deflection, J2.

Sure there was kctim, dubious issues were presented as proof of hypocrisy by you and Royal. Examples? sure…”Individual preaches about love of country, but openly works to transform it into something completely different. Hypocrisy.” More examples? sure…”Let’s take a look at just a smattering of lies told by our president.”


Warren and George pretty much nailed it in the first two responses and the comparisons didn’t start until you guys started with the ‘holier than thou’ BS.

Well except I didn’t do that kctim. I simply asked repubs/conservatives to acknowledge the hypocrisy of many of the “family values” candidates. I also provided an interesting list of s*x scandals, from both parties BTW, for consideration. You choose to politicize this list with making government small theories.


Those guilty of hypocrisy are the last one’s who should be screaming hypocrisy.

Well except those, like yourself, that defend the hypocrisy. You see kctim, you have deflected from the s*x scandals into supposed ideological hypocrisy to defend your guys. Royal tries to bring in campaign pledges as supposed “lies” to justify the family values candidates s*x scandals. Of course none of this is relevant to the issue. IMHO unless you are using the family values as a wedge issue to seduce the truly gullible conservative voters, as Cruz does, you should denounce the tactic as not worthy of the American people.

But you don’t, nor does Royal. Instead of answering the questions I raised I get deflection from you two. Even Royals latest foolish comment was regurgitated tripe from conservative talking points. Parroted from your comment as well. Clinton lied and perjured himself! That should be the icing on the hypocrisy cake.

Real hypocrisy IMHO is letting Cruz get away with raising the false flag of “family values” after the way it was abused in recent elections. If voters want change why do family values voters insist upon falling for the same old line and expect change?

Posted by: j2t2 at April 2, 2016 3:56 PM
Comment #404066

Phx8,
I am well aware of how the whole thing played out with President Clinton and no matter where one stands on it, the fact is that he abused his power, he intentionally lied under oath, and he intentionally lied to the American people.

ohrealy,
Half of our leftists are supporting a self avowed socialist running on unconstitutional and anti American rhetoric, and the other half are blindly supporting a female version of Trump that makes the original Trump look like a saint. Proof positive that the ‘vast right-wing conspiracy’ nonsense has resulted in the mass hypnosis of the poorly educated.

Posted by: kctim at April 4, 2016 9:24 AM
Comment #404067

“…and the other half are blindly supporting a female version of Trump that makes the original Trump look like a saint.”

Nope, no hyperbole there, right Tim?

The real trouble with the right is that they ladle so much bullshit into their comments that if they ever spoke the truth no one could recognize the difference.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at April 4, 2016 10:05 AM
Comment #404069

J2,

I did acknowledge the hypocrisy of those individuals who were guilty of it.

“you have deflected from the $*x scandals into supposed ideological hypocrisy to defend your guys.”

Actually, I stated that $*x scandals were personal failings that have no affect on my life, and that I would choose that kind of hypocrisy over the kind that does have an affect on my life.

“Well except those, like yourself, that defend the hypocrisy.”

Defended it? Where?

“Of course none of this is relevant to the issue.”

LOL!
Of course you don’t see it as relevant, all you want to do is to point out the hypocrisy of those evil ‘family values’ folk, not the blatant hypocrisy of those you agree with politically and defend with your own hypocrisy.

“Instead of answering the questions I raised I get deflection from you two.”

Sigh.
I am not a Republican or a Conservative so I can only speak for myself. I have no problem pointing out hypocrisy, but I am more concerned with hypocrisy that actually impacts my life. That is not justifying the hypocrisy of your evil ‘family values’ crowd.

“Why do conservatives let their own off the hook so easily when caught buggering little boys and having s*xual affairs while attacking others for having s*xual affairs?”

For the same reason liberals let their own off the hook so easily when caught abusing their positions of power for financial gain, s*x and to rape women: Because promoting such nonsense helps forward the agenda you support.
Why hold the guilty individual responsible for their moral failings when you can declare all guilty by association. Pitiful.

Posted by: kctim at April 4, 2016 10:21 AM
Comment #404070
I did acknowledge the hypocrisy of those individuals who were guilty of it.

No you didn’t kctim, you changed the subject. Look at the title of this thread and the post by Trey. Kinda specific isn’t it? Yet you deflect. What you are doing is using the “well they do it to” argument kctim. This is done to deflect the criticism from the specific issue at hand. ON the table is the question of how conservatives can still fall for the “family values” candidates despite the soiled history of these candidates, It is relevant today , once again, because of Lying Ted Cruz.

Actually, I stated that $*x scandals were personal failings that have no affect on my life, and that I would choose that kind of hypocrisy over the kind that does have an affect on my life.

Oh so you minimize the s*x scandals of the “family values” crowd when it is a serious issue to “family values” voters. Using exaggerated ideologue propaganda to take the place of the issue at hand only clouds the issue. You tell us “look over there not here”. Me me me. It doesn’t affect me, their lack of character, of integrity doesn’t affect me. But it does kctim when these people are in power and write laws for all of us. These “family values” politicians tell us one thing then do another, while witch hunting an opposition politician and it doesn’t affect us!

Defended it? Where?

Well for starters “Actually, I stated that $*x scandals were personal failings that have no affect on my life,…”.

Of course you don’t see it as relevant, all you want to do is to point out the hypocrisy of those evil ‘family values’ folk, not the blatant hypocrisy of those you agree with politically and defend with your own hypocrisy.

Boy kctim, the lengths you go to. Look at the title of this thread. Look at the content of the post by Trey. Kinda specific isn’t it? Yet you go off on a tangent to make it sound as if it is just fine with you because other scandals have a bigger impact on your life. Yet while Clinton was president it was necessary for repubs/conservative in Congress to spend millions to get Clinton to lie under oath about his s*x scandal. Yet these same people in Congress were having affairs of their own at the time. Shouldn’t family values voters be aware of this? Shouldn’t Lying Ted Cruz be made to answer the question of his values if he is running on those values? Yet family values voters don’t seem to be demanding an answer from him on his alleged affairs.

I have no problem pointing out hypocrisy, but I am more concerned with hypocrisy that actually impacts my life.

I can understand this yet you pick the family values hypocrisy thread to do so. You deflect from the issue under discussion with your “they do it too” argument. Going off on this tangent detracts from the discussion. “Look over here” ..” a squirrel” type of arguments just mollify the voters most impacted by the diversion IMHO.

For the same reason liberals let their own off the hook so easily when caught abusing their positions of power for financial gain, s*x and to rape women

Oh boy some more of the “well they do it too” argument. Are you sure you can actually provide a realistic answer kctim? After all you claim not to be a repub/conservative yet you answer with the “they do it too” line for them. I suggest you are projecting your thoughts instead of theirs. Which is ok I guess but it doesn’t answer the question. It in fact deflects from the discussion.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 4, 2016 12:15 PM
Comment #404072

J2,
So, this post should only be about pointing out the hypocrisy of ONLY the evil Conservatives and Republicans, and not about something constructive like pointing out the hypocrisy of today’s politicians in general? LOL. OK man.

“ON the table is the question of how conservatives can still fall for the “family values” candidates despite the soiled history of these candidates,”

IMO, they don’t. They understand that the moral failings of one individual does not “soil” the entire group and values they support.

“Oh so you minimize the s*x scandals of the “family values” crowd when it is a serious issue to “family values” voters.”

I minimize such scandals for ALL crowds, as long as it involves consenting adults. I just each ‘scandal’ on its merits, not on the persons politics.

“Defended it? Where?
Well for starters “Actually, I stated that $*x scandals were personal failings that have no affect on my life”

Sigh. Before that, I clearly stated that it was hypocrisy and that the lack of care I give to such failings was not an attempt to justify them. That’s NOT defending their hypocrisy, it’s simply me not agreeing with your opinion of its importance.

“Shouldn’t family values voters be aware of this?”

According to Phx8: ‘Many of the Republicans who pushed the sordid tactic of putting a sitting president on the witness stand in order to ask him about all aspects of his **x life were subsequently voted out of office.

Kind of sounds like they were quite aware of it.

“Shouldn’t Lying Ted Cruz be made to answer the question of his values if he is running on those values?”

He denied the rumors of having an affair that was ‘reported’ by the (LOL) National Enquirer.

“Yet family values voters don’t seem to be demanding an answer from him on his alleged affairs.”

He denied the rumors of having an affair. What kind of other answer should they be demanding?

“I can understand this yet you pick the family values hypocrisy thread to do so.”

The desired pile-on of the ‘family values’ crowd didn’t materialize from the beginning of the thread. In fact, the thread didn’t do anything until it was pointed out just how absurd it is for the left to scream hypocrisy about anything.

“You deflect from the issue under discussion with your “they do it too” argument.”

I have a feeling it’s more about your unwillingness to accept the truth, but hey, if you want nothing but the typical left-wing talking points, I can oblige.
Reps bad, dems good. Bush stole the election. Bush allowed 9-11. Hillary is honest. Bernie rulz. #Feelthebern. He11, I’ll even throw in a ‘repubs and cons’ are fascist, for you.

“After all you claim not to be a repub/conservative yet you answer with the “they do it too” line for them.”

Wouldn’t somebody NOT bound by a Party be someone to point out both sides of it?

Posted by: kctim at April 4, 2016 3:00 PM
Comment #404073

Rocky,
IF one is being honest, they would see that there really isn’t all that great of difference between the two. In fact, it is quite common now to hear Sanders supporters claiming the same thing.
They both are extremely wealthy. They both have connections to Wall Street. They both have changed positions they once boasted having. They both pander to certain groups for their votes.

Trump and the real Hillary are pretty much moderate democrats, but with her trying to out progressive Bernie on everything, now attacking the 2nd Amendment, her constant lying and scandals, she looks worse and is helping to fill Trumps rallies.

Hyperbole? Guess that all depends on just how bad somebody wants a President based on gender.

Posted by: kctim at April 4, 2016 3:25 PM
Comment #404075

kctim

“IF one is being honest, they would see that there really isn’t all that great of difference between the two.”

Actually, if one is being honest one would see that there is a vast difference between the two, and it has nothing to do with Hillary being a woman.
Trump is a know nothing blowhard who is incapable of speaking in complete sentences. He has received an unbelievable amount of free press during this campaign simply because he doesn’t have a circumspect bone in his body. He has no filter, and will say anything, to anybody, to get his face on the news.

I could go on and on.

Look, I am not a Hillary supporter, but it doesn’t take a rocket surgeon to see the differences between the two, and to even suggest that there might be any similarities is just ludicrous.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at April 5, 2016 8:02 AM
Comment #404077

Rocky, You have a Blowhard and a liar at the top spots of each party. There is no difference between the two. What’s ludicrous is being blind to that FACT!

Posted by: Rich KAPitan at April 5, 2016 12:02 PM
Comment #404079
IMO, they don’t. They understand that the moral failings of one individual does not “soil” the entire group and values they support.

SO once again we need proportion and reason kctim. As we look at the list of scandals and s*x scandals we seem to see the “family values” politicians are leading the pack in these scandals. In other words those that purport to be a family values candidate, that tell the voters they are a family values candidate do not walk the walk more often than those that don’t claim to be a family values politician.

Why should family values voters give them any more consideration than other politicians when they can see the results are so disappointing to them? Doing the same thing over and over and getting the wrong result is kinda stupid isn’t it? When do these voters tell theses liar they are mad as hell and they aren’t gonna take it anymore?

Seems to me you guys , yes I know you aren’t a repub/conservative you defend them though, would figure out you are being manipulated, played by these politicians. Seems to me you guys would realize this after all this time. Unless the hypocrisy is just to good to pass up. You like to accuse me of not seeing your version of the “truth” yet you defend these value voters as if they can see the truth. I think you give up the right to accuse me kctim when you cannot see the truth yourself.

Wouldn’t somebody NOT bound by a Party be someone to point out both sides of it?

Kctim, I am not bound by a party. Anyone using the illogical “they did it too” argument whether they are a dem repub or independent should realize it doesn’t answer the questions. It is just an excuse. It only obfuscates the issue it doesn’t clarify the reasoning used by the values voter for continuing to vote for “family value” politicians when they are as morally weak as those they seek to gain the moral highground on.

Since you seem to want to defend these politicians by deflecting the question I’m not sure you want the answers to why these people continue to allow their politicians to let them down so regularly.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 5, 2016 1:27 PM
Comment #404080

Rocky,
What’s ‘ludicrous’ is using their speaking styles to state some kind of vast difference between the two. Do you seriously think Trump not speaking in complete sentences using a NE accent, and Clinton speaking in circles using the accent of wherever she is that day, are differences anybody cares about?

Trump supports legal immigration. Clinton used to, but has moved away from it to pander for votes. Trump now claims to be pro 2nd Amendment. Clinton used to, but has moved away from it to pander for votes. Clinton is pro-abortion. Trump used to be, but now claims to be pro life.

On issue after issue, they have, or still do share the same views.

Clinton was deemed the automatic replacement to Obama simply because of her gender and her claims of being some kind of super progressive, and has received an unbelievable amount of free press during this campaign.

I am no Trump supporter, but all it takes is a little honesty to see just how similar they are on the things that actually matter.

Posted by: kctim at April 5, 2016 2:17 PM
Comment #404081
I am no Trump supporter, but all it takes is a little honesty to see just how similar they are on the things that actually matter.

On the things that actually matter! As we continue to sink into economic inequality and corruption? As capitalism eats its young! As education and healthcare costs continue to spiral out of control! Immigration, Guns and abortion really! You forgot the third “G” gay oh ye that would seek to obfuscate.

I would suggest the TPP, jobs and income inequality are the issues that matter. Why do you think the establishment candidates aren’t mentioning these issues in this corporate media driven primary cycle?

Posted by: j2t2 at April 5, 2016 2:28 PM
Comment #404082

J2,
Again, YES! there are some so-called family values politicians who do not walk the walk they preach. I have not stated otherwise.

“Why should family values voters give them any more consideration than other politicians when they can see the results are so disappointing to them?”

Again, because they are the lesser of two evils.
An adulterer preaching against adultery just doesn’t seem as important as having a multi-millionaire trying to take money out of your wallet and give it to somebody else.
An adulterer preaching against adultery just doesn’t seem as important as the politician doing everything they can to infringe on your individual rights.

“Doing the same thing over and over and getting the wrong result is kinda stupid isn’t it?”

The right or wrong result depends entirely on what one is fighting for. One of the biggest problems with the left is that they refuse to acknowledge that not everybody basis results on materialism.

“When do these voters tell theses liar they are mad as hell and they aren’t gonna take it anymore?”

IMO, when democrats start running candidates that don’t promote taking away individual rights.

“would figure out you are being manipulated, played by these politicians.”

Which right-wing politician has ran on supporting the 2nd Amendment, low taxes, limited government, freedom of religion etc…, reneged on that support and then is re-elected over and over? That would be hypocrisy those voters would not look past.

“Anyone using the illogical “they did it too” argument whether they are a dem repub or independent should realize it doesn’t answer the questions.”

The freakin questions were already answered, J2. As long as the politician supports a person’s pet issues, they really don’t care much about the hypocrisy. To many, hypocrisy just isn’t that big of a priority any more.

“Since you seem to want to defend these politicians by deflecting the question I’m not sure you want the answers to why these people continue to allow their politicians to let them down so regularly.”

As long as it’s not more of the 1%, covert GOP takeover of the country conspiracy BS, and you’re not going to scream the racist and bigotry nonsense, I would love to hear your partisan opinions on the issue.

Posted by: kctim at April 5, 2016 2:45 PM
Comment #404083

J2,
They are both super wealthy, so I would be willing to bet that Trump and Clinton have more in common with each other than they do with your opinions about economic inequality, corruption and capitalism.

They both support student loan relief. Hillary is promising the free community college BS to appease the Bernie bots.

They both support government healthcare for the needy and they both have politician type answers to curb spending. Trump wants to use HSA’s and Clinton wants to use higher taxes. Both believe Medicare-for-all is not economically feasible.

They are different when it comes to immigration. Trump supports legal immigration, Clinton does not.

They were close, but now a little different when it comes to the 2nd Amendment. Hillary has moved way far nut left on the issue.

They both support abortion for rape, incest and mothers health.

Trump holds the same domestic partnership benefits position that Hillary, Bill and most democrats once held.

“I would suggest the TPP, jobs and income inequality are the issues that matter. Why do you think the establishment candidates aren’t mentioning these issues in this corporate media driven primary cycle?”

Because most people have no clue or care about TPP.
Because Obama says the jobs issue is great.
Because the people who buy into the lefts ‘income inequality’ rhetoric are following Sanders and his promises of freebies, not Clinton.

Posted by: kctim at April 5, 2016 3:26 PM
Comment #404087

kctim,

“Do you seriously think Trump not speaking in complete sentences using a NE…”

I have worked in the NE, and perhaps, contrary to popular belief the people I have worked with spoke like they actually had more than a 6th grade education.
Admittedly I haven’t been paying much attention to Clinton, but what I have heard come out of Trump’s mouth has disgusted me, and as far as I am concerned only a blithering idiot would accept him as their candidate for president.
Trump is the embodiment of everything that is the meaning of the “ugly American”.
For a country who has had statesmen like Lincoln, and Jefferson and Kennedy, this current crop of candidates leaves much to be desired.

Oh, and BTW, nobody is against legal immigration except Trump and his statements about halting Muslims from entering the country.
Hell, even Dick Cheney thought that was a dumb idea.

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at April 6, 2016 6:43 AM
Comment #404088

Rocky, the point is that it is what the candidates say that is what is important, not how they say it.

I don’t support Trump either, but it is because I disagree with his positions. This faux outrage and disgust, based on what people think he ‘really’ means, is silly.

“Oh, and BTW, nobody is against legal immigration”

Anybody who supports forgiving, enabling or rewarding the actions of illegal aliens, is against legal immigration.

As you stated that you have not been paying attention to Hillary, here are some of her positions on the issue of illegal aliens:

- Introduce a path to earn citizenship in the first 100 days. (Feb 2008)
- Consider halting certain raids on illegal immigrant families. (Feb 2008)
- Don’t turn local police into immigration enforcers. (Feb 2008)
- Deporting all illegal immigrants is unrealistic. (Jan 2008)
- Sanctuary cities ok; local police can’t enforce immigration. (Sep 2007)
- Voted YES on continuing federal funds for declared “sanctuary cities”. (Mar 2008)
- Voted YES on allowing illegal aliens to participate in Social Security. (May 2006)
- Sponsored bill funding social services for noncitizens. (May 2006)
- Rated 8% by USBC, indicating an open-border stance. (Dec 2006)

Because she changes positions for votes like she changes underwear, it is only fair to mention that she used to support some common sense reform.

- Voted YES on building a fence along the Mexican border. (Sep 2006)
- Adamantly against illegal immigrants. (Sep 2005)

In all honesty Rocky, before Hillary became anti second amendment, and started trying to out progressive Bernie, I would have voted for her over Trump.

Posted by: kctim at April 6, 2016 9:44 AM
Comment #404089
Again, YES! there are some so-called family values politicians who do not walk the walk they preach. I have not stated otherwise.

Yes we both have kctim, and we have went around in circles over the “they do it to” and “hey look over there” logic. But we haven’t really figured out why anyone would give credence to those politicians who would use “family values” as if they had the moral highground. You have tried but since you aren’t repub/conservative the answers you have managed to wedge in between the obfuscation seem to only skim the surface of the issue.

Again, because they are the lesser of two evils

The deceiver is less evil than the non-deceiver! OK… Is this some two wrongs make a right thing? I mean lying and hypocrisy are the characteristics involved here and “family value” voters, according to you, prefer these over truth and honesty. Are you sure about that kctim?

An adulterer preaching against adultery just doesn’t seem as important as having a multi-millionaire trying to take money out of your wallet and give it to somebody else.

Oh so the principles involved are better a lying hypocrite that cuts taxes because lower taxes is more important than family values? I thought integrity and character were important family values but what you seem to be saying is they are but they are quite far down the list of important issues because … well … money, which leads us to greed. Greed isn’t a family value that I am aware of.

An adulterer preaching against adultery just doesn’t seem as important as the politician doing everything they can to infringe on your individual rights.


So once again a lying hypocrite is better because truth integrity and character are just buzz words to the family values crowd? I mean what politician doesn’t want to infringe on individual rights, some just use religion to do so and some just want to infringe on others individual rights.
Of course one has to wonder if your opinion was valid why would family values voters want to impeach/resign, as is the case with the Gov of Ala, over lying or having affairs whilst claiming to be a family values politician… right?

I guess I could go on with the rest of this stuff in this comment but this is pretty weak kctim and you seem to be saying family values are so far down the list that they really don’t count. Yet many people think they do. I am beginning to think you may not have a grasp on family values voters after all. The way you denigrate them is sad.

Posted by: j2t2 at April 6, 2016 11:48 AM
Comment #404092

J2,
You are talking yourself in circles, arguing with yourself about points not made, and starting to make yourself look silly. I answered your questions without any “they do it to,” as you requested.

“we haven’t really figured out why anyone would give credence to those politicians who would use “family values” as if they had the moral highground.”

Yet again, it is my opinion that it has a lot to do with what Warren and George said at the very start of the thread: Both sides are guilty and such hypocrisy is no longer a big priority to some people because of that.

“I mean lying and hypocrisy are the characteristics involved here and “family value” voters, according to you, prefer these over truth and honesty.”

Sigh, no. What I said was that they probably prefer the hypocrisy of the politician who supports their pet issues, over the hypocrisy of the politician who does not.
To suggest that they “prefer these over truth and honesty” coming from the other side is laughable.

“Oh so the principles involved are better a lying hypocrite that cuts taxes because lower taxes is more important than family values?”

The principles involved are, better a lying hypocrite that cuts taxes than a lying hypocrite that raises taxes.

“I thought integrity and character were important family values”

They are, but when your only two choices lack them, you go with the one who will do the least harm.

“Of course one has to wonder if your opinion was valid why would family values voters want to impeach/resign, as is the case with the Gov of Ala”

Because, as I have told you a million times, people are individuals, not some monolithic group where the actions of one define all the others.

The sooner you understand that, the sooner you will realize why you wrong most of the time.

Posted by: kctim at April 6, 2016 2:33 PM
Comment #404098

kctim,

“Rocky, the point is that it is what the candidates say that is what is important, not how they say it.”

And I would suggest that Trump is putting forth ideas that would appeal to a typical sixth grader.

“This faux outrage and disgust, based on what people think he ‘really’ means, is silly.”

Seriously, you’re going there?
Perhaps if one merely listens to the words Trump uses and accepts them as the facts of his positions they would truly see that Trump is an idiot, a rich idiot, but an idiot none the less, and all that “faux outrage, and disgust” actually is true outrage and disgust at his positions.

I truly don’t have to “think” of what he really means, I merely have taken him at his word.

“Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player

That struts and frets his hour upon the stage

And then is heard no more. It is a tale

Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,

Signifying nothing.”

Macbeth act 5, scene 5

Rocky

Posted by: Rocky Marks at April 7, 2016 7:20 PM
Comment #404104
You are talking yourself in circles, arguing with yourself about points not made, and starting to make yourself look silly. I answered your questions without any “they do it to,” as you requested.

So your answer was ” it is my opinion that it has a lot to do with what Warren and George said at the very start of the thread: Both sides are guilty and such hypocrisy is no longer a big priority to some people because of that” which is “they do it to” and I am going in circles and am silly!

What I said was that they probably prefer the hypocrisy of the politician who supports their pet issues, over the hypocrisy of the politician who does not.

So we have to believe the “they do it to” reasoning which is what your comment is saying. We have to call the other side hypocrites despite the other side not running on “family values”? Yet I am the silly one! You do realize “Hypocrite” means preaching one thing and doing another. So you see why I so far haven’t found your reasoning to be worthy of merit. “They do it to” reasoning IMHO.


The problem I have kctim is you base this upon “pet issues” yet family values seems to be a “pet issue”. Not only that you base it upon the other side being hypocrites on the “family values” issue which is just wrong as they don’t preach family values then do the other. They just do the other.

They are, but when your only two choices lack them, you go with the one who will do the least harm.

Ahh so the reasoning here is based upon another myth. The myth conservatives/repubs are all about individual rights while the liberals/dems are not. Well as we know those who believe this have fallen for another hypocritical candidate. Well… unless they believe the 2nd amendment is the only individual right we have. Here is an example for you of repubs/conservatives “protecting the constitution”. Once again hypocrisy is preaching one thing and doing another.


Because, as I have told you a million times, people are individuals, not some monolithic group where the actions of one define all the others.

Yes you have but this explanation conflicts with other “reasoning” you have put forth to explain why family values voters tolerate such a lack of character and integrity in their politicians. Specifically if it is true that FV voters except such a low level of integrity from their hypocritical politicians because of other issues these same politicians also seem to be hypocritical on wouldn’t these voters soon realize the error in their thinking rather than to continue to vote for the hypocritical politician? Yet… Ted Cruz!

Posted by: j2t2 at April 8, 2016 11:09 AM
Post a comment