Double Standards?
Posted By: TT on 2008-09-14
In Reply to:
Obama interview:
How does it feel to break a glass ceiling?
How does it feel to “win”?
How does your family feel about your “winning” breaking a glass ceiling?
Who will be your VP?
Should you choose Hillary Clinton as VP?
Will you accept public finance?
What issues is your campaign about?
Will you visit Iraq?
Will you debate McCain at a town hall?
What did you think of your competitor’s [Clinton] speech?
Palin interview:
Do you have enough qualifications for the job you’re seeking? Specifically have you visited foreign countries and met foreign leaders?
Aren’t you conceited to be seeking this high level job?
Questions about foreign policy
-territorial integrity of Georgia
-allowing Georgia and Ukraine to be members of NATO
-NATO treaty
-Iranian nuclear threat
-what to do if Israel attacks Iran
-Al Qaeda motivations
-the Bush Doctrine
-attacking terrorists harbored by Pakistan
Is America fighting a holy war? [misquoted Palin]
There’s no doubt the Charles Gibson interviews showed extreme prejudice against Palin and extreme favoritism towards Obama…He constantly questioned her ability to lead but never questioned Obama’s ability to lead, all the more amazing considering that Palin was the only one with executive experience and the presidency is the highest level executive job in politics.
There's much more at The Anchoress, so head over there to see the full report.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
if it weren't for double standards, liberals wouldn't have any standards at all!
nm
Again double standards it looks like
Palin was trashed for running for office when she had kids and who will be taking care of the kids, she'll leave them just so she can campaign, blah, blah, blah. But it's okay for Michelle and Obama to leave their kids?
Now that's what I call double standards.
Double standards?...(sm)
Palin is currently paying back her state for misappropriated funds, Sanford is going to have to pay back money for his Argentina trip, and Ensign used pub party money to pay off his mistress et al, and you're worried about a party at the White House?
I think I would much rather pay for an event that not only collects money for charities but also provides a pick-me-up for those invited (congress and the media) than I would for yet another republican sordid affair.
I am seeing double standards flying
all over the place. yes, it bothers me, including on this board. A lot of this stuff is said so viciously it is amazing. I don't think either candidate has a leg to stand on talking about anybody's housing arrangements. Let's face it, none of them know what kind of lives we are living out here. They all sound like they come from everyday people and can identify with us poor slobs. Nobody anymore is going to set down their axe and get on a wagon to washington. Those days are long gone. Drug crimes are ruining this country, we have so lost any attempt at a grip on this, it is unreal; I know - let's go rip somebody for smoking. They probably aren't armed like a 14 year old might be. I wish both sides would tell the whole truth and not just whatever one liners they choose to take out on exhibit. And I think some of the comments safely said incognito are quite brave in their anonymous attacks, right down to picking on someone's clothing or hair. This is totally unnecessary and really juvenile, like a bunch of high school girls beating up on some poor slob nobody likes. No wonder our kids are doing this, they are learning it from their parents. I guess I am just too old now for all this stuff, all I can think is my daddy would have killed me for picking on someone. Too dog pack for me. I can sense you don't like McCain, well I like him better than Obama because I have yet to hear something more substantial than wanting change. Hitler and Castro said exactly the same thing and the people went for it and got what they wanted. And yes, you think it can't possibly happen again, but it can and does. All of American still harping about slavery, but we don't do anything about the slavery still alive and well in Africa and other places, including USA brought over here by other countries who buy kids to do their housework. Obama says charity begins at home, but not apparently for his half-brother who lives in Nairobi on $12 a year. There seem to be new standards in this country and I just can't agree with all of them. He is a perfect candidate for poster child for pro-life. His mother easily could have aborted him and that child would never have grown up to run for President. I used to think I was pro-choice, but after raising children and now enjoying my grandchildren and looking at the partial abortion diagrams, I have had to rethink this. I know some argue life does not begin until later, but every 6th grader is taught life begins with a cells, whether in a plant or animal or human. If a stranger ran up to a pregnant woman and managed to stab her baby in the back of the head with a pair of scissors, he would be arrested, tried and convicted. It is no wonder so many of our youngsters are confused. We are leaving them a huge mess, and I am not happy with anybody running in this election. I may just vote for Paris Hilton, at least she does not pretend to be anything but what she is.
Double standards abound
If someone (i.e. a non-Democrat) said this about Hilary, you guys would be all over it like white on rice. This was just a rude thing to say and he got his digs in. And to think he is an "eloquent" speaker? Surely a Harvard-educated man would have a better choice of words than that? NOT.
It is the party of double standards....
they really should add it to their platform. Be honest. What a concept.
Double standards? Here's what McCain said
http://www.mercurynews.com/breakingnews/ci_10786968
"The use of campaign funds for items which most Americans would consider to be strictly personal reasons, in my view, erodes public confidence and erodes it significantly," he said on the Senate floor in May 1993.
Her's another:
The 2002 campaign finance law that bears McCain's name specifically barred any funds that "are donated for the purpose of supporting the activities of a federal or state office holder" from being used for personal expenses INCLUDING CLOTHING.
More double standards ...go figure (sm)
*when has government ever solved a problem.*
*They actually believe that is their government's job, to make all their laws and tell them how to live.*
How about remembering that you said this when it comes to abortion and same sex marriage.
Talk about double standards!
There were posters on this very forum who wanted their mortgages to be paid so they could buy a big-screen television for their bedroom or put a new deck on their house? Their mouths were watering dreaming about what they could buy if the government would just pay off their mortgages. Some live on farms that most likely receive government subsidies, yet they complain about the threat of Socialism. Double standards abound!
Double standards is what they live by
The liberal nazi media also fails to mention that Rush actually said he wanted the socialist plans of Obama's to fail. He said if Obama is going to push a socialist/communist economic plan through why in the world would anyone want that to succeed.
But of course they never tell you that they said they wanted Bush to fail. They act quite the innocent routine - luckily the non-kool-aid drinkers know better.
That's what I talk about double standards
They blame 911 on Bush (and he was only in their for 8 months), not the previous administration.
But anything bad happens during this administration they blame the previous administration.
So their future will be anything bad, it was the previous presidents fault, anything good they'll credit the O.
As for the previous president, anything bad it was his fault but anything good that happened was a result of Clinton.
Talk about twisted minds.
Double standards my friend...that is all
it is. They will crush Depass because he compared Michelle Obama to a gorilla which will have the race card flying high. Not only was Depass a conservative making a joke about a democrat but he was joking about a black democrat. In regards to the Letterman vs. Palin saga....Palin is a conservative white woman and therefore Letterman's comments about Palin being a slutty looking flight attendant didn't upset the masses because she is a conservative white woman. As for the joke about her daughter, regardless of which daughter he claims to have been joking about, it was in poor taste but Letterman will see no punishment for it because he is an outspoken liberal and he was bashing on a white conservative woman. Same reason why no woman's activists have EVER stood up for Palin even when that one guy hung an effigy of Palin for Halloween. If that same man had hung an effigy of Barrack Obama for Halloween......there would have been riots and the race card would have been thrown out. Double standards! Plain and simple.
The old double standards. Libs hate it. sm
no way PR is on the WH staff, but just keep on talking. You just look more foolish all the time. Chavez has been accusing the US of trying to off him for a long time. PR was just echoing that, but who really cares.
Gotta love those double standards, eh?
,
Carville vs. Limbaugh..more double standards
Flashback: Carville Wanted Bush to Fail
The press never reported that Democratic strategist James Carville said he wanted President Bush to fail before the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. But a feeding frenzy ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail.
By Bill Sammon
Wednesday, March 11, 2009
On the morning of Sept. 11, 2001, just minutes before learning of the terrorist attacks on America, Democratic strategist James Carville was hoping for President Bush to fail, telling a group of Washington reporters: "I certainly hope he doesn’t succeed."
Carville was joined by Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg, who seemed encouraged by a survey he had just completed that revealed public misgivings about the newly minted president.
"We rush into these focus groups with these doubts that people have about him, and I’m wanting them to turn against him," Greenberg admitted.
The pollster added with a chuckle of disbelief: "They don’t want him to fail. I mean, they think it matters if the president of the United States fails."
Minutes later, as news of the terrorist attacks reached the hotel conference room where the Democrats were having breakfast with the reporters, Carville announced: "Disregard everything we just said! This changes everything!"
The press followed Carville’s orders, never reporting his or Greenberg’s desire for Bush to fail. The omission was understandable at first, as reporters were consumed with chronicling the new war on terror. But months and even years later, the mainstream media chose to never resurrect those controversial sentiments, voiced by the Democratic Party’s top strategists, that Bush should fail.
That omission stands in stark contrast to the feeding frenzy that ensued when radio host Rush Limbaugh recently said he wanted President Obama to fail. The press devoted wall-to-wall coverage to the remark, suggesting that Limbaugh and, by extension, conservative Republicans, were unpatriotic.
Gotta love the double standards in politics.
Double standards....How about Hillary's pantsuits and Michelle's Valentino's....
Sarah Palin’s Shopping Spree: A Political Double Standard?
The mainstream media and liberals everywhere are aghast at how much the McCain camp spent on an apparent fashion overhaul for Sarah Palin.
The spending on so-called “campaign accessories” included bills totaling roughly $150,000.
An anchor at a prominent network (not FOX News) rudely sniffed that for the amount of money the campaign spent Palin should look better. (For the record I’m fairly certain this anchor does not shop at K-Mart.)
This is not taxpayer money. If the McCain camp wants to blow funds on some designer duds, that’s their prerogative. Might not be the most brilliant idea when you trail in fundraising, but it’s their decision as long as they haven’t violated any election laws.
Women traditionally endure exponentially more scrutiny than men. Hillary has been under the fashion microscope for almost two decades. That’s simply a fact, but it’s hardly fair.
The Los Angeles Times reported that Hillary’s jackets cost about $3,000, her shirts run to $1,350 and her pants hover around the $2,000 mark. Let’s do the math.
That’s over $6,000 a suit. And Hillary owns a lot of pants suits! And she looks great. If she didn’t, she’d be vilified for looking frumpy and lacking style-savvy the way she was in the 1990’s.
There is no question excessive primping and preening by presidential candidates is riddled with risk. John Edwards was lambasted over his $400 hair cuts in 2007 as was John McCain over his $520 Ferragamo shoes. We expect our candidates to look good, but not too good. We like a put together politician but have adverse reaction when we hear the price tag. For a newcomer like Palin, it’s par for the course that she’s stepped up her look. Imagine if she didn’t? She’d be the subject of more ridicule than she is now.
It’s not just Palin who realizes the benefits of being sharp dressed on the stump:
The San Francisco Chronicle reported that friends of Obama say the biggest change in him since his recent success on the national political scene is that he’s dressing better and shopping at the ultra-fashionable Barney’s because, for the first time in his life, he can afford to. Apparently “the fierce urgency of now” includes killer threads.
And how about Michelle Obama? The New York Times Style section published an entire article praising her new, and likely very pricey, sense of style. The purple Maria Pinto sheath she wore at a campaign rally retails for $900, and as the New York Times put it is: “not the kind of garment most working-class voters can reasonably aspire to.”
The current issue of Harper’s Bazaar notes that the Democratic presidential candiate’s wife wears Valentino, among others. Looks like when the Obamas say “spread the wealth around,” they mean at top shelf department stores.
I’m not outraged at this. The pressure of being in the public eye is understandable. What’s disturbing is the double standard. Michelle Obama gets hailed by the fashionistas while Palin gets crucified and mocked by the fashion police.
These same liberals who are now appalled at the Palin shopping spree are the same ones that thought it shallow and superficial to discuss Newsweek’s obvious recent cheap shot cover of Sarah Palin because we have more important fish to fry. Where are these people now to shout that this issue is trivial? And how do they manage to get so fired up about Palin’s appearance all of sudden?
I’m waiting for the left to condemn the insignificance of this story and I’m not holding my breath.
fair by whose standards?
Not fair by my standards. Who is making the rules about fair and unfair?
It's painfully obvious she has a set of standards for herself
Don't waste your breath. People that closed minded are typically beyond enlightenment.
I guess he is awesome if your standards are
Personally, I think he is a traitor and I hope he gets fired!
Agree, JTBB. Dems keep their own standards low
nm
double ack.
fire & brimstone yadda yadda.
yawn.
Sorry for the double post (nm)
not on my familiar computer.
No, actually I don't have a double standard...sm
But there is one, especially since Bush and Co. made such a big deal about flip flopping in '04. I remember the exact words from the debate about Kerry. *Kerry was for it [the war] before he was against it.*
I guess the same applies to Bush on the immigration bill that he was for. Again, just sayin'.
double ditto!
He is so right on this. It is a big mystery why no one is signing up any longer and recruiters are chomping at the bit to get people in right now? The military has never been treated very well (father was in the AF for 24 years and hubby for 20 years). We lived in housing with roofs that leaked, put up with being told when and how to mow our lawns, and did not really get paid all that well until the last 5 years of my husband's career. We are now constantly fighting to preserve the benefits that were promised to us as part of a total retirement package. That is to say nothing of all the people signing up to fight for a war no one supports and doing it because they believe in making America better and safer, so WE can sit here and reap the benefits. Yep, I say the elected officials need to get out of their limos and into the trenches...
I got double-digits.
su
Double standard, indeed.
It all depends on whose ox is being gored.
No double standard
We're not forcing your children to pray or even attend church. Our children are being forced to have homosexual teachers teach them this crap and even have "Days of Silence" to "honor" a perverted practice. Our children can't even mutter the word "God" without getting expelled. Double standard--my asscream.
No double standard here. I am not a
religionist. I practice no religion. Christianity is not a religion. It is a relationship with Jesus Christ. Put down religion all you want. I'll agree with you.
Want to tackle Catholicsm? Islam? Hindu? Buddhism? Scientology? Global warming? Emergent church? Contemplative spirituality? Any other of the myriad religions?
Sorry for double post - weird
x
Okay...let's talk about the double standard...
on both sides of the aisle. Let's talk about Teddy Kennedy. Let's talk about several members of the Kennedy family where influence peddling got them out of more severe cases than you are describing here. He is still in the senate and will be until the day he dies, probably. It is funny to me how people can see the splinter in the other guy's eye but not the timber in their own.
What about the Clinton double standard? What about the Obama double standard of dealing with a slum lord (and knowing it) and at the same time castigating other slum lords in Chicago? That seems pretty hypocritical to me, but I avoided it until the tear up Cindy McCain stuff started. You guys act as if the McCains invented using wealth to get out of legal problems. I refer you again to the Kennedys...
Good grief, people.
I see the double standard is alive and well....
I see.
I was just illustrating the double standard....
which is glaring. Obama's pastor doesn't matter but hers does...and try to justify it by saying Republicans are in the spotlight this week. Good grief....do you hear yourself? lol
There's that pesky double standard again.....nm
nm
Why don't you ask the double digit lead
nm
Nothing except a double-digit lead.
xxxxxxx
well, in that case, you're about to get a double
nm
You're right, it is a double standard.
They should ALL have term limits.
JTBB is all about the double standard
In JTBB's world, a conservative has no rights!
Doesn't the double standard bother you?
It's not her addiction that bothers me it's the stealing and the double standard by her husband. McCain puts other people in jail and rips apart families for drug crimes. I bet there are at least 100 infants in foster care in AZ right now because their mom tested +.
Must be not. Double standard applies. Crickets.
/
I don't think I understand the double standard here for Palin...
Palin says Obama is "just" a community organizer and unqualified for the job, but we aren't supposed to say anything about her unbelievable lack of knowledge. She showed that all by herself w/o the help of the campaign.
She tried to tie Obama to terrorists and says he's a socialist, marxist, and I don't even know what all else. And yet she should not have any scrutiny when she has video out there of her with the witch doctor.
Fox News can take a video of a fist bump between PRESIDENT-ELECT Obama and his wife and call it some kind of terroist signal, and MSNBC is not supposed to point out just how ridiculous this is?
Fox News, yet again strikes and plasters a bottom of the screen banner over video of Michelle Obama calling her a "baby mama," and we aren't supposed to question Palin's fifth child that was soooo questionable.
If you want to be mad at somebody about talking about Sarah Palin, try the republican party. They are the ones who ruined her. They are the ones talking about how much her clothes were. They are the ones talking about the show up at the door in a towel incident.
I didn't hear any of you complaining when there was a joke about Obama....what's up with that?
Hospitals/facilities double dipping....
x
the double whammy just paid 65% of my COBRA.....yee haa! nm
x
Double standard is right... and loves to call other
nm
More Double-0 Bush spying, this time on our computers
NSA Web Site Places 'Cookies' on Computers
By ANICK JESDANUN, AP Internet WriterThu Dec
29, 7:24 AM ET
The National Security Agency's Internet site has been placing files on
visitors' computers that can track their Web surfing activity despite strict
federal rules banning most of them.
These files, known as cookies, disappeared after a privacy activist
complained and The Associated Press made inquiries this week, and agency
officials acknowledged Wednesday they had made a mistake. Nonetheless, the issue
raises questions about privacy at a spy agency already on the defensive amid
reports of a secretive eavesdropping program in the United States.
Considering the surveillance power the NSA has, cookies are not exactly a
major concern, said Ari Schwartz, associate director at the Center for Democracy
and Technology, a privacy advocacy group in Washington, D.C. But it does show a
general lack of understanding about privacy rules when they are not even
following the government's very basic rules for Web privacy.
Until Tuesday, the NSA site created two cookie files that do not expire until
2035 — likely beyond the life of any computer in use today.
Don Weber, an NSA spokesman, said in a statement Wednesday that the cookie
use resulted from a recent software upgrade. Normally, the site uses temporary,
permissible cookies that are automatically deleted when users close their Web
browsers, he said, but the software in use shipped with persistent cookies
already on.
After being tipped to the issue, we immediately disabled the cookies, he
said.
Cookies are widely used at commercial Web sites and can make Internet
browsing more convenient by letting sites remember user preferences. For
instance, visitors would not have to repeatedly enter passwords at sites that
require them.
But privacy advocates complain that cookies can also track Web surfing, even
if no personal information is actually collected.
In a 2003 memo, the White House's Office of Management and Budget prohibits
federal agencies from using persistent cookies — those that aren't automatically
deleted right away — unless there is a compelling need.
A senior official must sign off on any such use, and an agency that uses them
must disclose and detail their use in its privacy policy.
Peter Swire, a Clinton administration official who had drafted an earlier
version of the cookie guidelines, said clear notice is a must, and `vague
assertions of national security, such as exist in the NSA policy, are not
sufficient.
Daniel Brandt, a privacy activist who discovered the NSA cookies, said
mistakes happen, but in any case, it's illegal. The (guideline) doesn't say
anything about doing it accidentally.
The Bush administration has come under fire recently over reports it
authorized NSA to secretly spy on e-mail and phone calls without court
orders.
Since The New York Times disclosed the domestic spying program earlier this
month, President Bush has stressed that his executive order allowing the
eavesdropping was limited to people with known links to al-Qaida.
But on its Web site Friday, the Times reported that the NSA, with help from
American telecommunications companies, obtained broader access to streams of
domestic and international communications.
The NSA's cookie use is unrelated, and Weber said it was strictly to improve
the surfing experience and not to collect personal user data.
Richard M. Smith, a security consultant in Cambridge, Mass., questions
whether persistent cookies would even be of much use to the NSA. They are great
for news and other sites with repeat visitors, he said, but the NSA's site does
not appear to have enough fresh content to warrant more than occasional
visits.
The government first issued strict rules on cookies in 2000 after disclosures
that the White House drug policy office had used the technology to track
computer users viewing its online anti-drug advertising. Even a year later, a
congressional study found 300 cookies still on the Web sites of 23 agencies.
In 2002, the CIA removed cookies it had inadvertently placed at one of its
sites after Brandt called it to the agency's attention.
Nope, and I realize trying to point out the double standard...
to a Democrat is an exercise in futility but I thought I would give it a shot....
Yeah, the double standard is pretty amazing. nm
nm
Double standard doesn't cover Obama
@@
please ignore double post......server not cooperating
x
Sorry, but Palin has been preaching about CUTTING SPENDING, what a double talker she is, she's a
mnnn
|
