The old double standards. Libs hate it. sm
Posted By: Yeah yeah on 2005-08-29
In Reply to: Beg to differ - Gadfly
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.
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
Double Standards?
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.
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.
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.
The libs hate Ann Coulter because.....
She is thin, blonde, wears fur, and has a brain to go with her good looks. No fool that woman.
You know how you hate it when conservatives paint libs with the same brush? sm
We don't like it either.
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!
English not so good. Sad for you. So much hate. Life too short hate.
x
Oh I see....you hate small town folks, you hate Christians...
and you hate the military...you are also coming into real clear view.
And, of course, the libs never do that to anyone do they? sm
Agree, JTBB. Dems keep their own standards low
nm
All libs, please read.
There are a number of trolls on here. The best thing to do is not give in to the temptation to feed them. If they are simply ignored, they will find somewhere else to go. Get it? I ask that you not respond to their posts. It is even helpful to do a google and get the real definition of an internet troll and how to best deal with them.
and we don't have to be *tolerant* of libs
pushing their ideals down our throat or down our children's throats in public school either....
Oh, that's right, the libs are NEVER belittling...
you have had too much kool aid.
That's right, the libs never say anything inflammatory about anyone...nm
//
Just out of curiosity, where do all you libs think (sm)
the GOP folks you think are dying away or leaving are going? Do you honestly think they're moving to the Democrat party? Really???? Don't you realize that over the course of history the GOP and Dems have always had course corrections in their parties? You do remember that MLK was a republican in the 60s, right?
I am proud to be a republican, but I know that my party is changing. We don't have a solid front-runner. Palin (while I personally liked her) needs more experience before taking that high of an office. Most of our most public figures are older white men.
Obama got elected on style. He's a smooth talker, acts cool, and was different. A slightly higher majority of Americans (and trust me, the election was not a landslide, only about 10% difference which ain't much) voted him in. I don't like him. He's obnoxiously arrogant, and I don't like him apologizing for our country. Yes, Bush was arrogant too, but it was a different kind of arrogance. He knew he was the leader of the most powerful nation in the world and I believed he did what he felt was best for our country. While you all hated his reasons, I trusted him.
Obama, on the other hand, his arrogance is that he thinks he's better than the rest of us. The attitude that comes across is one of we should just be happy to be in his presence. He's book smart. But his inexperience is obvious. He's a puppet. Just like you libs thought Chaney was pulling the strings, Obama is just the same. It's obviously not Biden (good Lord, what an imbicile), but there are plenty of others behind the scenes pulling those wires.
All I'm saying is that I'm just going to watch and wait. My party will rebound and the Dems will eventually implode as is going to happen because each party always does. You're partying now after your so-called 8 years of hell, but I'm just waiting.
Sheesh, you not only hate Bush, you hate PEOPLE!
x
I love it when the libs are wrong! NM
Libs cons. It's just an abbreviation. sm
We can help that their abbr. fits their party the best - cons. Nina may have convinced herself that she comes in peace just to debate, but there was no reason for her to blow up in response to your post here.
And the others are propaganda machines for libs...
to each his own, as you say.
Libs talking about themselves here, no doubt...sm
can you say....mud sling fest. all night long ????
Right, funny to you, but hurts the libs
nm
You libs are as predictable as the tides. LOL nm
xxx
Not in the real world of dems/libs who are
nm
Oh well. Looks like libs have fallen back into favor.
is how we stage our revolutions. This one is long overdue and while lamenting this cruel turn of events, you might want to ask yourself why all this is happening. Could it be that W, his cronies and right-wing fringers have overplayed their hand and the voters are fed up with lies, deception, misinformation, politics of fear, division and the culture war, and yet the McCain camp keeps right on keepin' on. When you do a poor job, you get fired. That's the way it works. Change is what they want and change is what they are going to get. We are getting ready to write a new chapter in our history that will move us far beyond that mentality and will thrust us onto the threshold of the post post-911 era. I can't wait to get started and thank God I have managed to live long enough to watch it all unfold.
That would explain why the libs were single-handedly
the rise of the Beat Generation, the counter-culture revolution of the 60s, the success of the civil right's movement and the VietNam, Gulf War and Iraq anti-war movements, not to mention the fact that they have been champions of all sorts of dissenting opinions/movements. Advocating for Palestinian statehood comes to mind.
Four libs against 1 conservative...wow....how biased can that show be...sm
...that show is a joke.
Do you know how silly the libs sound by blaming everything
that happened in the last eight years on Bush?
I predict, that Obama will not take responsibility for anything that happens in next two years at least, maybe four....it will all be Bush's fault in some way.
And those won't be my words. They will be Obama's words.
Wait and see.
How much confidence can you have in president who takes no personal responsibility, or a Congress that takes no personal responsibility in their own legislation, blaming Bush for their own bailout legislation that they wrote?
Dems always change the rules.
It's happening again, slowly and surely.
If you don't think libs hold the dems accountable
They are harsher in their criticisms than the conservatives.
Libs always attack messenger instead of message.
They forget that this is not Bush’s porkfest, it’s Obama’s, all trillion of it, and yes, there will be more.
They don’t want to be educated on the Bush tax cuts. Tax revenues increased between 2003-2007.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/87xx/doc8792/11-2007-MBR.htm
Go to the 'Receipts' table. This is a table showing how tax revenues increased between 2005-2007.
But I guess Democrats would say Dick Cheney sneaked into the CBO and changed the numbers.
How is it that Liberals claim to be able to read our minds? I would try to read a Liberal’s Mind, but I don’t like short stories, comic books, or things written in crayon. LMAO! HIC!"
Fox is the leader of the pack and it cheeses libs off.
CNN pays for ad time during O'Reilly's show. That just cracks me up.
Fox Rocks. Even CNN knows that. They're desperately trying to attract a few viewers by advertising during the Fox lineup.
Sounds like you libs....can hardly wait for Monday revelations....
.
Who put the libs on this board in charge of free speech?
Joe has the right of free speech too. He asked a simple question, which Obama freely answered outlining socialism 101, and what did Joe get for that? A background check! And you can hail free speech and be okay with that in the same breath? Your hypocrisy is showing...and showing...and showing.
And you keep trying, and unsucessfully, to deflect from the true point. Understandably, because your focus is the big "O", the truthgiver, the one who will save the world. LOL. Free speech indeed. You don't believe in free speech unless it benefits you and the big "O."
Nothing in my post said anything about free speech. It just tried (and in vain I understand)...to stay on point...Obama's ANSWER.
Never mind, the no name posts explain it. You're just here to take a DUMP on the libs...nm
x
I know it's hard a concept for the dems/libs, but Rush says what he means.
He doesn't sugar coat. He's got his problems, but he owns them. He doesn't dance around them, sweep them under the carpet, double talk his way out of it. I mean, we aren't going to wake up tomorrow and find out Rush has been hanging with terrorists, is a closet muslim, or the antichrist.
There's a certain honesty to Rush that some people like and others don't.
double ack.
fire & brimstone yadda yadda.
yawn.
|
