Political hypocrisy
 

Just another example of hypocrisy that I find around this place. It seems to me that all the people who were so overjoyed with the SCOTUS when they ruled on the ACA are the same people who are now saying how fucked up the SCOTUS is because of the Hobby Lobby case. It reminds me of Thomas Jefferson’s attempting to impeach Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase because Chase disagreed with his politics. If it wasn't for John Q. Adams defending Chase, disagreeing with the President could have become a precedent for impeachment. Jefferson actually tried to market political dissent under high crimes and misdemeanors. Kind of shows you what some of our forefathers really thought of their constitution.

This commie rat bastard lefty is goin' to watch the fireworks. I hope no one thinks I'm being a hypocrite. :rolleyes: Later.

So, the SCOTUS is a blind squirrel that manages to find a nut every now and again.
That's not hypocrisy, it's a fact.

Mind you the Hobby Lobby case was the result of a party line decision, the ACA decision was not.

P.s. Anybody who thinks the Founders "meant it" when they created the constitution is either ignorant or naïve. And, I'm pretty sure you've noticed that. Why do you think we still fight the powers that be to live up to it. A politician in 1776 is the same as a politician in 2014. Only a fairytale believer would think otherwise.

Dave

So why should this place be any different?

If your argument had merit (which I don't think it does), the converse would be equally true (i.e., the GOP disliked the first ruling and liked the second). In both cases, I don't think it's hypocritical but logically consistent.

I would also say that there are millions of poor people being denied health care because they did not uphold the Medicare expansion. The court is not getting universal acclaim for that decision, and the recent Hobby Lobby can be seen as a threat to the ACA.

And to be honest, all politics involves hypocrisy. We are human after all. There has never been a politician or President or person who has not spoken out of both sides of their mouths. FDR did it all the time.

You don't think the GOP liked the first ruling or disliked the second? I don't agree. Personally, I didn't like either ruling and will never praise them for either.

I think that the fatuous five displayed their hypocrisy in the Wheaton U ruling.

No, it didn't.

However, what it does demonstrate is that a government that continues to expand its reach almost always does so at the expense of individual rights. When folks here in this forum cheer on the expansion of something like the ACA, which seemingly extends its reach with each new reg written by HHS, it comes at a cost...which may seem minor today until its your freedoms being challenged.

Sotomayor said she was not calling into question the college's sincerity.

"I do not doubt that Wheaton genuinely believes that signing the self-certification form is contrary to its religious beliefs," she wrote. "But thinking one's religious beliefs are substantially burdened -- no matter how sincere or genuine that belief may be -- does not make it so."

That's why religious freedom was part of the very first amendment and written with clear language that "prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is not an option. What part of that does Sotomayor not understand? And why does she think its up to her to be the arbiter of what a religious belief might be?

Alito, while dining on Uncle Sugar his whole career after law school, has decided that he will use the United States as his lab rat upon which he can foist his conservative and libertarian injections without any limits thanks to the other four idiots. He is like Paul Ryan without any brakes.

People across the nation are carrying their AR-15s to Walmart and you whine about individual rights being taken away. Not only that they are taking their stupid little dogs to the grocery store too!!


Yeah all those people on Kentucky's exchange getting health care for the first time have the steel-booted heel of the big government boot on their backs:rolleyes:

Well here is religious freedom for you. In all the efforts to destroy ACA (which incidentally we did not sign up for) we have the freedom to pay $11,000 a year for health insurance* while watching as various religions try to say what we can or cannot do.

In Canada we would have equal or better health care for a maximum of $1,000 a year if that. As to freedoms the Canadian Bill of Rights is being used as a model by other countries.

*Since it does not cover preventative care it is really disease insurance paying only after you have caught summat.

Exactly what in the Hobby Lobby or Wheaton U decisions tells you personally what you can or can't do? Let me help you. NOTHING!

Well written my ex-patriot Ohioan brother.

Dave

I feel no less free than I ever have. In fact I come and go as I please, speak my mind as always, associate with whatever individuals or groups as I like, explore my spirituality as I please and choose my own path in life. If you feel imprisoned in any way I suggest you look inward and examine your own mind to find your jailer.

Have a Great Day and enjoy your holiday weekend, my Fellow Americans.

Dave

Perhaps I should have bolded the word 'try' that they so far have been unsuccessful but they are still insisting that the whole nation has to bow to their 'beliefs'.

We all of us have beliefs but which of us has demanded that the ACA or any other government function must accommodate those beliefs.

And if it is yet to dawn on you Mike I really don't need your 'help' as it is quite apparent that we have diametrically opposed views. I will happily admit that you are quite intelligent but from your posts it is apparent, to me at least, that you are completely lacking in compassion.

It says, you better stop having sex with your hubby after your first child. Your sex days are over. :D

Ah, the Chinese democracy. Clever. :)

I often wonder why the Catholic Hierarchy (mostly male) always assumes that Catholic women do not have the same hormones as Protestant women? As a matter of fact have been married to both (not at the same time) I found the reverse to be true.

Abstinence may be possible to some dried up old prune but it sure as hell does not work in people's 20s, or 30s, or 40s, or 50s, hell it plain does not work as long as you are breathing.:)

Interesting I was reading just earlier this week that researchers have found that hugging and kissing your significant other will prolong your life if done regularly. Apparently it releases some chemical in the brain that brings pleasure and reduces one that causes stress. At this rate we ought to make it to 115.;)

I get that! I do! Many people want sex but don't want the babies that come wit it after dey has already raised dey babies. Dey just want to retire enjoy dey self. Dats all!

This law will put a great big wedge in it for dey young. Dats a fact. If we deny contraception, abortions will follow. Dats also a fact dat does not require much thinkin if one has a propensity to think at all.

Someone said sumpin about hypocrisy. We's is all hypocritical at some point and especially the people that bitch the most on the subject. Dats a fact too! ;)

Are you fucken shitin me?

You right wingers have got the market cornered on every kind of hypocrisy there is.

Dude, not everyone who points out inconsistencies within the liberal point of view is a right-winger. If you look at the body of work by mpholland, you would see a significant tilt toward - balance.

Regards,

D-Ray

Balance does not necessarily mean good or positive.

I have observed generally reasonable positions, some of which I agree with and others I do not. My point is that there are positions other than liberal or right-winger.

Regards,

D-Ray

Yup, MP is a center right guy. While I see his choice of the word "hypocrisy" a bit hyperbolic, he's no rightwinger.

I interpret the word balance to mean compromise. Truth (understanding) is in the middle, not at the extremes. One side cannot be always right or wrong. So if there is no compromise, there is no progress as witnessed in the past few years of governance. So a sense of balance is always good.

Depends on what is being balanced. One could say that Stanley Baldiwn and Neville Chamberlain were more balanced in their approach to the growing German threat in Europe during the 1930s while Churchill was more extreme in his lonely opposition. However we know what happened.

American are balanced about guns for the most part, despite all of the rhetoric. Yet we know the next massacre is just around the corner.

To me being balanced can mean not standing up for the right cause when necessary.

Chamberlain attitude was not a balanced one. It was extreme weakness.

In general it reflected the pre-1939 Tory policy torward Germany before the Anschluss. I am sure many thought it was a balanced compromise before they were double crossed.



Currently in the USA the opposition to the administration is both extreme and unmoving in the House to the point that the country is suffering. To be balanced and compromising toward a party that desires nor can countenance either would be simply wrong.

What passes for left in the US is center right just about anywhere else in the world. So if MP is in the center by US standards he's a right winger.

If all right wingers were like mpholland, there would be no tea party.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2VCwBzGdPM&feature=kp :D

I would posit that the independent voter, those that split the ticket, (like I did in 1980 voting for Reagan and Pease, my powerful Democratic Rep from Northern Ohio), and those who "wait to pick the right guy" have diluted the power of the Democratic party,
is probably more responsible for the rise of the Republican dominance in the nation than the fringe Tea Party itself.

In other words the Reagan Democrats' chickens have come home to roost: BIG TIME.

What's your definition of compassion?

I would agree with that.

And today's so called centrists are more dangerous than the tea party as they project a "reasonable" appearance while helping advance the right wing agenda.

How's about you use your descriptors to describe your feelings, eh? Hypocrisy, fucked-up, praise...nice terms, your terms not mine.

I was happy about the ACA decision, and I'm pissed about the Hobby Lobby decision. That makes me a hypocrite? What If I told you how pissed I was with the Kelo v. City of New London decision in 2005 where the liberal wing of the court decided 5-4 that the government had the right to condemn somebody's private real property if it was in the "best interests" of the community.

So tell me...according to you, am I now not a hypocrite? I sure hope so.:rolleyes:

What I see in the OP is the use of a lot of terms to describe a pattern of behavior that has been attributed to every lefty on this forum. What I see is a steaming pile of horseshit. And I don't much give a fart in a wind storm for anybody's "body of work" when a silly-ass comment like this shows up.

Justification and rationalization to skirt accountability are tools of the politician.

I don't believe in ends justifying the means. The ACA being instituted isn't what I am against. It is the way it was implemented that gets me. The fact that it was deemed constitutional under taxation purposes was just another fleecing. That is where the hypocrisy I am talking about comes from. The court is wonderful when they scam through what one is wanting, but then they are evil when they find in favor of what you don't like.

So you don't believe in the ends justifying the means? Bully for you. But this isn't what your crabbing was about in your OP. You weren't talking about the implementation of the ACA...so why are you bringing that up now? You were crystal clear. I'm a hypocrite if I applaud the SCOTUS for their ACA decision and then turn around and say the SCOTUS is fucked up for their Hobby Lobby decision. It's crystal clear that your accusation of hypocrisy is based on this being flat-out liberal ideology having nothing to do with the actual facts of the case, the arguments and the structure of the decisions.

And I'm saying your suggestion that I'm a hypocrite is utter bullshit. Because I've been just as furious about decisions that were liberal wing decisions. The court isn't "wonderful" and the court isn't "evil". I like the decisions I like and I hate the decisions I hate. Excuse the shit outta me for having fucking preferences and opinions. The only way this can be hypocritical if it's based in political ideology. That's the only basis for your argument. There are liberal wing decisions that suck, and conservative wing decisions that I like. I don't know about anybody else on this forum but if you're talking to me, your accusation of hypocrisy is a load of crap.

Makes sense to me.

Dave