Welcome to PatsFans.com

Why are liberals such hypocrites?

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by ELOrocks17, Jan 17, 2006.

  1. ELOrocks17

    ELOrocks17 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    I am so sick and tired of these jerkoff libs in congress sittin up there with thier snooty nose in the air thinking they are better than everyone else...yet they are such friggin hypocrytes! Look at that King size embarrasment Ted Kennedy sitting there grilling Alito over ALLEGEDLY belonging to a club that was exclusionary while he himself was just caught in such a club. Will that fat bastar d apologize to Alito, his constituents, or the American people???? HELL NO HE WONT!!!! He will no doubt blame the "Vast right wing conspiracy"


    Also, we have that Demo-crap loser Al Gore *****in about Bush illegally wiretapping. THATS THE SAME SH*T HE AND CLINTON DID DURING THEYRE RIEGN OF TERROR.


    There are hundreds of other examples. Why in the hell do these dem losers think they can get away with this???
  2. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,253
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    You have your facts wrong, ELOrocks. Clinton worked through FISA to get wiretaps. I haven't seen any evidence otherwise. Have you? As far as Kennedy goes, yes, he should not have belonged, but what I've read is that he now quit and it was a social club, as opposed to one that had a political agenda like CAP. But, again, if there is evidence that Clinton authorized wiretaps without going to court, then I would say that he was wrong, too. That said, I did realize a legal analysis saying that in the days following 9/11, a case could be made for wiretaps, but the real issue involves those taps made after the Patriot and Homeland Security acts were passed. It will be interesting to see how this pans out, and whether people like you will continue to cling to the questionable two wrongs make a right argument.
  3. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Ok, but by the same token, "conservative" Republicans are also full of sh!t.

    Fiscally responsible? Nope.

    Compassionate? Nope.

    Against Nation Building? Nope.

    Moral High Ground? Nope.

    Defenders of the Constitution? Nope.

    States Rights? Nope.

    Individual Liberties? Nope.


    If Gore illegally wiretapped thousands of americans, I'd love to see this. C'mon, give us the scoop.
  4. Turd Furguson

    Turd Furguson Rookie

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2004
    Messages:
    1,245
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Ah, Rule #2 of the liberal playbook; When called out on something, instead of either denying it or defending it, resort to trying to find a remote instance when "the other side" did wrong.

    Because as we all know, 2 wrongs make right.
  5. ELOrocks17

    ELOrocks17 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0



    HAAHAHAHAHAH!!! LOL You understand the liberal playbook well! Maybe we should start a thread about the rules of the liberal playbook...
  6. ELOrocks17

    ELOrocks17 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0


    http://www.breitbart.com/news/2006/01/17/D8F6GR08O.html


    quote--

    McClellan said the Clinton-Gore administration had engaged in warrantless physical searches, and he cited an FBI search of the home of CIA turncoat Aldrich Ames without permission from a judge. He said Clinton's deputy attorney general, Jamie Gorelick, had testified before Congress that the president had the inherent authority to engage in physical searches without warrants.



    Well...I await your next alleged discrepancy...
  7. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    Well, in the same token, the original poster was only attacking liberals when he knows both sides are equally guilty.

    To answer the original question: all politicians, regardless of political stripes, are hypocrites. Go look at our congress. 535 hypocrites. Happy?
  8. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    37,502
    Likes Received:
    24
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -5

    Having Uncle Teddy, Lahey and Biden on that commitee of Idiots that were going after Alito was the best thing that ever happend for the Republicans, those Democrat Clowns made complete fools of themselves in front of the whole world.

    Can you Imagine a "Swine" like Kennedy questioning someone elses "Ethics and Integrity", it was like something right out of Saturday Night Live.

    Instead of destroying Alito Kennedy made him an American Hero. :singing:
    Last edited: Jan 17, 2006
  9. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Oh now I see the comparison. You are comparing the investigation of a single traitor to the broad sweeping illegal evesdropping on thousands of unsuspecting citizens.

    Wow. I'm impressed. It was even a statement made by reliable source Scott "Gannons My Man" McClellan. Thats very reliable.
  10. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,253
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    LOL, Turd, you really don't get it. ELOrocks argument seems to be that since Clinton authorized warrantless wiretaps, it's okay that Bush did it too. So, you are right, two wrongs don't make a right. If Clinton broke the law (and I don't believe he did), he's absolutely as wrong as Bush. It's people like you who are using Clinton to defend Bush's illegal actions. Since neither you nor ELOrocks have obviously read about the issue, here's a good nonbiased article to help get you up to speed:

    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/19/AR2005121901884.html

    "The issue here is this," said Jamie Gorelick, who served as deputy attorney general under President Bill Clinton and as a member of the Sept. 11 commission. "If you're John McCain and you just got Congress to agree to limits on interrogation techniques, why would you think that limits anything if the executive branch can ignore it by asserting its inherent authority?"
  11. PatsFanInMaine

    PatsFanInMaine Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    648
    Likes Received:
    3
    Ratings:
    +3 / 0 / -0

    Paging Mrs. Gorelick......


    The Washington Post Archives | August 5, 1994 | Jamie Gorelick, Dpy. Atty. General



    The Post's editorial asserts that warrantless searches to gather intelligence on the activities of foreign powers or their agents in the United States are "sharply at odds with the Fourth Amendment.



    The federal courts of appeal have recognized that such searches, carried out since the earliest days of our republic, are a valid exercise of the president's constitutional responsibilities to conduct foreign affairs and protect national security and fall within an exception to the Fourth Amendment's warrant requirement.

    Electronic surveillance and physical searches of property provide critical information about the conduct of foreign powers that threaten our national security. They were instrumental in stopping Aldrich Ames and the Walker spy ring. They have frustrated terrorist plots to strike targets within the United States. It is critical to the success of such operations that the hostile power remain unaware that its activities have been discovered. Criminal warrant requirements would negate the purpose of the search. In addition, these searches often must be conducted before the government has enough information about the activities under investigation to specify precisely what would be found in the premises to be searched -- which is a requirement for a criminal warrant.
  12. pats-blue

    pats-blue Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    961
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    OK Patters, since you are using Clintons Deputy Atty Gen as someone you would use to bolster your point how is this article. The whole article deals with the FISA and wiretaps and such and the conduct of MANY Presidents.

    Anyway here is the quote from Jamie Gorelick...

    "Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms. Under President Clinton, deputy Atty. Gen. Jamie Gorelick testified that "the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

    link to very interesting article...http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...3632.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed

    Well how about a response to that Patters?
  13. pats-blue

    pats-blue Rookie

    Joined:
    Sep 14, 2004
    Messages:
    961
    Likes Received:
    2
    Ratings:
    +2 / 0 / -0

    OK Patters, since you are using Clintons Deputy Atty Gen as someone you would use to bolster your point how is this article. The whole article deals with the FISA and wiretaps and such and the conduct of MANY Presidents.

    Anyway here is the quote from Jamie Gorelick in this article...

    Every president since FISA's passage has asserted that he retained inherent power to go beyond the act's terms. Under President Clinton, deputy Atty. Gen. Jamie Gorelick testified that "the Department of Justice believes, and the case law supports, that the president has inherent authority to conduct warrantless physical searches for foreign intelligence purposes."

    link to very interesting article...http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...3632.story?coll=chi-newsopinioncommentary-hed

    Well how about a response to that Patters?
  14. Patters

    Patters Moderator Staff Member PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    17,253
    Likes Received:
    21
    Ratings:
    +23 / 0 / -0

    JLC, Political parties are alway simplifying the issue. What Bush did is not as clearcut as what Nixon did, for instance, but it raises important Constitutional questions.

    As I understand it, FISA includes provisions that allow a President to ask for more authority and flexibility. The President simply chose to circumvent FISA and the Congress. The danger here is that if the president is allowed to do whatever he wants based on his perception of a situation, then where are the checks and balances? Congress negotiated and gave him his Patriot Act and Homeland Security Act, but why should they bother if the President can simply ignore their intentions? The President has ignored the courts and ignored Congress. What is to stop him from going out and ordering that people be shot? Don't you think there needs to be some checks and balances?

    As far as the column, what I've read is that many experts feel the President had a strong case in the days after 9/11, when the apparatus was simply not set up to deal with such a terrorist strike. But, once the legislation was passed, the President had no legal right to ignore the intent of Congress. He, in effect, acted like a dictator would. And now there's evidence that he was engaged in wiretapping before 9/11 as well, but I haven't seen anything definitive yet.

    JLC, I oppose the President on many issues, but this is by far the most serious issue, because he's threatening our rights and our freedom, and trying to usurp too much power. There's no guarantee that power won't be abused unless checks and balances are in place. It's true that Clinton too argued for more power, but basically gave in. He worked through the system, lost, and agreed to checks and balances. That's the marvel of the American system of government ... up until Bush came along.
  15. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    The difference as I see it is simply foreign vs. domestic spying. FISA established greater leniency for foreign surveillance- no question. The illegality comes with domestic eavesdropping, which is currently being argued as an extension of foreign eavesdropping. Pats-blues quote specifically refers to foreign intel.
  16. ELOrocks17

    ELOrocks17 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Well, its quite clear that the liberals on this board want to make absolutly sure that we get hit again. Why else would they complain about EVERY EFFORT TO STOP TERRORISM??????

    They whine about the patriot act
    they whine about Wiretapping
    they whine about securing our border
    they whine about the war on terrorism


    WTF??? Get with the freekin program.

    Oh, and by the way, NEM keeps on harping about "clinton handing bin laden to Bush. THAT IS TOTAL BULLSH*T!!!! CLINTON HAD 3 CHANCES TO GET BIN LADEN, BUT HE WAS TOO BUSY GETTING THAT "BLOWJOB"
  17. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    "You're either with us or you're with the terrorists" is utterly moronic. I don't think there's one person on this board, from NEM to Harry Boy, who doesn't want what they think is best for America. You're not scoring any points or discrediting anyone by accusing them of wanting America to be attacked, you're just showing ignorance of the fact that reasonable people can reasonably disagree.
  18. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    ELo, do you think Bob Barr is a liberal?
  19. PatsFanInEaglesLand

    PatsFanInEaglesLand Rookie

    Joined:
    Oct 12, 2004
    Messages:
    3,716
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    I find it funny that you throw that name out of the air that is against wire tapping. How about you read his book "The meaning of Is" since you are such a Clinton rump sucker.
  20. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    This only proves AAB's point. Bob Barr is by no means a liberal and even he's concerned and outraged over President Bush, a member of his own party, spying on Americans.
  21. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

  22. All_Around_Brown

    All_Around_Brown Rookie

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2005
    Messages:
    3,098
    Likes Received:
    1
    Ratings:
    +1 / 0 / -0

    Really? I already know where Barr is coming from in that book having followed him for some time.

    Do you have a point you are trying to make, or do you prefer to just shill for Bush without any independant thought whatsoever?


    oooooohhhhmmmm...Bush Gooooooooooood
  23. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    The same stuff flies in both directions.

    "People like them are a disgrace to the United States" is equally insensitive if you're basing it on them feeling differently from you and me about what's best for America.
  24. ELOrocks17

    ELOrocks17 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0



    Tell me NEM--how do you come to the conclusion that it is an "illegal" war??
    Congress voted and approved war. How is that illegal? Because a few corrupt members of the UN didnt want to go--that makes it illegal???

    Well lets see...since 9-11 there have been NO TERRORIST ATTACKS ON US SOIL!!!! That is because there is a President with a f*ckin backbone in the White House!
  25. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    You're right on the war itself not being illegal. Some tactics like prisoner abuse and domestic wiretapping without court order may or may not be illegal.

    The "since 9/11 there have been no terrorist attacks on US soil" is hilarious. And before 9/11, there were no terrorist attacks on US soil in how many years? I guess that makes Clinton a freeking genius in your eyes!
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2006
  26. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    37,502
    Likes Received:
    24
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -5

    There was a terrorist attack on US Soil in 1993, NYC-WTC, when captured the Old Blind Muslim Pig that was responsible told the news camera's "we will be back to finish the job" they planned all through the nineties right here in America for 9/11, they took lessons on how to fly a plane but not land it right down in Florida, during the nineties they were free to do as they wished, nobody wanted to violate their civil liberties, they were dark skinned bearded middle eastern looking men the goofy liberals (clinton gang) didn't want to offend them. The old blind Muslim Pig made good on his threat, he killed 3000 in two hours and destroyed the World Trade Center. The Clinton administration allowed him to plan and train for it, right in America.

    This President we have today, GW Bush is doing his best to make sure that never happens again, the slimey liberal democrats are fighting him every inch of the way, he just grins and brushes them aside, they are in a state of complete meltdown, you saw it in the Alito hearings.

    Bush Is Evesdropping On OUr Enemy. GOOD FOR HIM.

    After the first bombing of the WTC in 1993, Billy Blue Dress didn't even bother to visit NYC, instead that summer he went to Martha's Vineyard and Fu cked Carly Simon.
    Last edited: Jan 18, 2006
  27. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    The last terrorist attack on US soil prior to 9/11, The Oklahoma City Bombing, occured in April, 1995. But I guess if it's not done by Muslims it doesn't count?

    In any case, and whatever we think of Bush and Clinton notwithstanding, I was just pointing out how crazy it is to argue that Bush is doing a good job based on us not having had a terrorist attack since 9/11.. It hasn't been 5 years!
  28. Harry Boy

    Harry Boy Look Up, It's Amazing PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Nov 10, 2005
    Messages:
    37,502
    Likes Received:
    24
    Ratings:
    +29 / 0 / -5

    Yes the Oklahoma attack by Terrorist White Christian Mother F uckers Counts, and we caught him and we KILLED him which is as it should be. The White Bas tard is dead, his death was to gentle he just went to sleep what we should have done was put a stick of dynamite up his a ss with a ten foot wick and let him watch it come.

    Five years and we haven't been attacked, somebody is doing something right.

    Bush is no bargain but I will take him any day over that tribe of Democrat Jellyfish that are out there now.
    Pelosi/Kennedy/Reid/Kerry/Lahey/Rangel/Biden they should all be Impeached.

    My gripe with Bush is "Illegal Aliens"
  29. ELOrocks17

    ELOrocks17 Guest

    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Remember all the liberals out in the street demanding this guy be killed immediatly? These are the same libs who protested Tookie Williams execution and sit there and call Saddam the "duly elected leader" of Iraq, defending him.
  30. Pujo

    Pujo Rookie

    Joined:
    Dec 15, 2005
    Messages:
    6,572
    Likes Received:
    4
    Ratings:
    +4 / 0 / -0

    The libs you're describing don't exist, at least not that I know of. Anyone really against the death penalty (like me, even though I don't consider myself liberal) is against it in all cases, McVeigh included. Hey, and if Bush and Rummy ever go on trial for war crimes years from now when political winds have changed, I wouldn't support the death penalty for them, either.

Share This Page