Ways Each Party is Hypocritical

[AstroProdigy]

I'll start. The way Republican's claim to be the Christian Party, but always favor Muslims over Christians. They favor Israel over Palestine, but Israel is much more economically beneficial to us. That and the United States citizens surprisingly has a strong support for Israel.

[»D1st0rt]

always favor Muslims over Christians.

uhh citation please

 

Just because you claim to be a "Christian Party" doesn't mean you are not allowed to support non-Christians. Jesus loved everybody.

[LearJett+]

What are you talking about??? How do they support Muslims in any way? If anything I expected you to call them racist and Muslim-haters.

 

 

 

Just to kick off the list:

 

Liberals don't want to put to death heinous murderers but don't mind killing innocent fetuses. (or is it feti?)

[AstroProdigy]

It's definetely a matter of conveniance in who gives us a greater economic/military advantage. That's why the Armenian genocide is denied recognition and the continued economic stranglehold Azerbaijan and Turkey hold over Armenia is ignored because Turkey provides us greater economic support and Azerbaijan can allow for pipeline access to Caspean Sea oil. The US also stood idly by while Turkey invaded the country of Cyprus not caring what they did. !@#$%^&*yrians are ignored because they have less of an impact than Kurds. True we favor Russia over Chechnya, but that's because Russia is much more economically beneficial. I guess it's a cost/benefit analysis which is great for a secular society, but for the group that claims to be "good" Christians they sure do seem to make all their decisions based on money.

 

Fetuses are exactly what you said; fetuses. Heinous muderers are people. Although they should not be allowed to hurt people again, they're still people, whereas fetuses have almost no brain functions and cannot possibly even miss their existence in a non instinctual way. I agree that late term abortions should not be free choice, but when it threatens the life of the mother then it becomes necessary.

 

Let me try a different addition to the list:

 

Republicans came to power calling for smaller government and less government controls, but in the end only made government and it's control on freedom larger.

[L.C.]

Ways Each Party is Hypocritical, Either Republican or Democrat

Both party's were made to confuse people. And both party's are on the same team, just made to purposefully appear to be against each other. You've got major people from both sides in the Skull and Bones / Bohemian Grove. Kerry and Bush never denied it in their interviews on TV.

[Aileron]

Um, the reason why neither ever denied that "alllegation" is because it was never made, and the reason it was never made was because its ludicrus.

 

The notion of secret societies is just a fantasy created by losers who are trying to create an explaination for their failure.

 

Example: Adam and Bob work the same job at the same company. Adam gets promoted. Bob is jealous. Bob, not willing to admit that Adam just might happen to be more qualified, creates a notion in his head that Adam and the bosses of his company are members of some secret society. Bob meats Charles, who also had a coworker promoted. Bob and Charles then come to the conclusion that said society controlls both their companies. Enough of these people get together, and soon there is a notion that said society runs the country.

 

Truth be told, things aren't alway granted by merit. Sometimes its the case where Adam might have a friend or relative in the high-ups, but that is the result of a normal list of contacts, not some vast national conspiracy.

 

Bush got elected because there are 150 million people in the country who supported him in 2004. Its simple as that. Not everyone else in the world thinks as you do.

 

 

Astro, I guess that just proves that Reagan and the Bushes are not imperialistic...if they were they would've helped Saddam invade Kuwait. Mostly though the reason why we support Turkey and Saudi Arabia is because it would be far more difficult to do otherwise. If it helps, think of it as trying to change their minds with economics and politics rather than direct attack and military force.

 

For example, if we withdrew our support for Saudi Arabia for all the things they do, the fundimentalists would take over where we withdrew. That would cause the country to go even further fundimentalist and would make the situation worse.

 

Really all that's going on is that we are treating different situations with different tactics, which is adaptability, not contradictory.

 

 

The political parties also don't contradict themselves. Occasionally the politicians do. Really though, power corrupts, and while our federalist system with balance of power drastically limits to amount of raw political power a politician can acquire, no system will do so completely.

 

There is a solution in the future. I do think there will be a kind of revolution about a century from now. Robotics is beginning to bring about the Second Industrial Revolution, and the Service Revolution is not too far off. Following this there will likely be a political revolution where republics are replaced by actual democracies, where Congresses and Parliaments will be dissolved in favor of overall votes by the entire populace, though executive and judicial branches will still exist. It will likely occur not too soon after the technology to count such a vote quickly and reliably is perfected, and said revolution will likely be quiet, non-violent, and not too glorious.

 

I know I should avoid pretending to have a crystal ball, but it just seems like such a logical next step I can practically see it.

 

I guess that's why I hate communists so much, because their ideas have no part in the true changes that are to take place.

[NBVegita]

I know many many republicans, I am one, and none of them are christian. I don't believe that republicans as a whole consider themselves the christian party, as stated, maybe certain politicians do. I feel that is a terrible stereotype. Same as saying that if you're republican you are conservative, and if you're democrat you're libral.

 

Case in point: I am a non-religious, moderate Republican.

 

And as stated, all politicians contradict themselves. If you go through the compaign records for every politician, you will find hypocracy.

[AstroProdigy]

NBVegita:

I know there are lots of Republicans who are not Christian, but the base of the party is and that's who they've been catering to recently. There are people who think of you as a fake Republican because you're not a conservative Christian. How many non conservative Christian Republicans are in Congress really? The president is definetely a conservative christian by any rational standard.

 

L.C.:

There's no evidence of your proposed conspiracy.

 

Aileron:

Incase you haven't noticed, 150 million people didn't even vote in the 2004 presidential election. Bush won by scaring his base into thinking gays could marry if they didn't go and vote for him while at the same time disenchanting Democrats by attacking John Kerry's war record and calling him a flip flopper even though congressional records would call pretty much all people in Congress flip floppers.

 

Kuwait was a credible ally and Saddam was a dangerous and unpredictable dictator that we used to fight Iran with.

 

Think of it as rewarding countries for their !@#$%^&*ets regardless of their actions and teaching the world to help us financially so they could do whatever they want.

 

I never mentioned Saudi Arabia as an example. Saudi Arabia has little hope of change to a less extreme nation. We might as well get the oil we need from them if the alternative is worse. There are also no indigenous Christian groups left in Saudi Arabia that we could protect.

 

Communism is the end result of Marx's theories of society. If it were possible to truly achieve Marx's communism then great, but it's impossible because of human nature. Real Communism means no government is required. Communism in practice such as in the Soviet Union is actually more like fascism.

 

What if a master hacker hacks into the system and changes the whole interconnected system to gain his own rise to power? The problem with electronic voting is that it can be hacked and significant effects on the election can be achieved by a single person.

 

Republicans hoped for the best with Bush and when they didn't get it they decided to close their eyes and ears and hope he'd fix his mess. Too bad that was just a fantasy.

[SeVeR]

I'll start. The way Republican's claim to be the Christian Party, but always favor Muslims over Christians.

They do more than claim, but you're right in a way. At home they do almost anything the Christian's want as long as they can get away with it. The reason is to get votes. Republicans appeal to Christians and Patriots to achieve power because they're easy to please and traditionally dumb!@#$%^&*es.

 

Internationally, you're right, but is Armenia ever likely to reach the news? If it got enough attention the Republicans would change their tactics accordingly. The political move made would be something through the UN, some sort of peace/trade accord. But its not gonna happen unless the media gets the word out to the blind Christians who have little interest about anything that goes on outside their church.

 

As for the Kurds, well they're also Muslim; they're just a dominated tribe and would be doing the same thing to the Sunnis, Shias and Turks if they had the chance.

[AstroProdigy]

That doesn't make them not hypocrits.

[LearJett+]

NBVegita:

I know there are lots of Republicans who are not Christian, but the base of the party is and that's who they've been catering to recently. There are people who think of you as a fake Republican because you're not a conservative Christian. How many non conservative Christian Republicans are in Congress really? The president is definetely a conservative christian by any rational standard.

 

 

 

Aileron:

Incase you haven't noticed, 150 million people didn't even vote in the 2004 presidential election. Bush won by scaring his base into thinking gays could marry if they didn't go and vote for him while at the same time disenchanting Democrats by attacking John Kerry's war record and calling him a flip flopper even though congressional records would call pretty much all people in Congress flip floppers.

 

 

Republicans hoped for the best with Bush and when they didn't get it they decided to close their eyes and ears and hope he'd fix his mess. Too bad that was just a fantasy.

 

Oh, God. This is why I was AWOL for a while.

 

Republicans are distancing themselves from Bush because of his negative (and not necessarily credible) publicity with the war, etc. They are trying to beat the stereotype of Bible-thumpers that you pound so hard on these God !@#$%^&* forums. For every hyper-Christian Senator or Congressman, I'll give you a moderate one. Even the hyper-Christians are reflections of their cons!@#$%^&*uency... which is how Congress was meant to be.

 

Please... stop being to blatantly ignorant.

[AstroProdigy]

Republicans took a long time to distance themselves. They didn't do it when they saw some of the terrible things he was doing until enough moderates got fed up with it.

 

"For every hyper-Christian Senator or Congressman, I'll give you a moderate one."

 

Yeah it's called most of the Democrats and a small percentage of Republicans, most of which fall in line with the conservative agenda.

[LearJett+]

"For every hyper-Christian Senator or Congressman, I'll give you a moderate one."

 

Yeah it's called most of the Democrats and a small percentage of Republicans, most of which fall in line with the conservative agenda.

 

Sorry, I did mean to say Republican Senator or Congressman.

 

Astro, you keep focusing on social issues and your so-called "conservative agendas" whereas most Republicans lean to the Right because of economic reasons. You keep parroting "conservative agendas" and you have just as much of a reason to say Republicans have that as I do to say you liberals have "anarchist, atheistic, anti-Patriotic agendas." Name calling gets you nowhere.

[Aileron]

BTW, I meant to include "smarter than the hackers" as part of what makes a "reliable" vote.

 

I know a lot of ppl don't vote...I knew I was making an error when I wrote that. I just didn't care because it doesn't mean anything to the overall arguement. The point is our leaders are elected by vote from a large number of people, not cabal.

 

I know you didn't mention Saudi Arabia, but it is such a good example. Turkey is similar. If we dropped them, that would only give that much more power to the nuts. I just know more about Saudi Arabia.

 

 

 

The Kurds are different than the Shi'ites and Sunnis, and that's not just naiveity. I'm currently studying a lot about the Arab world, and in many ways its part of the Shi'ites and Sunnis' doctrine to kill each other. I haven't learned anything extra about the Kurds, but they wouldn't "kill Shi'ites and Sunnis if they had the chance", because currently they do have that chance, and they aren't participating the violence! All they want is a chunk of territory where they could live as full citizens and stay the !@#$%^&* out of middle eastern politics.

 

To be rude and blunt, Sunnis are xenophobic traditionalists who believe in the Quar'an as written in the most literal fashion and Shi'ites are by tenent obligated to use violence to force others to convert to their beliefs. If the purpose of us being there wasn't to explicitly promote cultural change the violence in Iraq wouldn't matter to us. To them killing each other is like football is to the US or soccer is to Brazil. If technology wasn't increasing and globalization wasn't happening going in there and trying to stop violence would indeed be stupid. However, globalization is happening and sooner or later these nuts will get access to high-tech weapons. Basically, our choice is this: A: Stay the course for God knows how long as we make progress inch by inch with people who don't even value their own lives let alone each others or B: Let their problem continue to festor for a long time until one or both sides get really big guns that start to destroy the world.

 

Neither choice is good and there is no "C". And no, Bush didn't cause this problem, nor did Saddam "use tyranny to keep it under control". This problem started a thousand years ago with Al Ma'mun's death and Saddam was just Sunni, similar to the normal tribal chiefs only more important, and his use of Chemical Weapons explicitly shows what will happen centuries from now if we don't grin and bear the suffering now.

 

We don't like this, because A sucks and B sucks, so we like to blame the guy in charge for not providing a nice happy C.

 

 

To this I say there are three groups: Those who chose A, supported this war from the beginning and continue to support it, those who chose B and opposed the war from the beginning, and those who claim to be searching for the imaginary "C", who are hypocrites. I say "A" because the result of "B" will happen in which after a few million deaths our descendants will need to do "A" anyway, though I understand those who chose "B" as a type realist and non-hypocritical.

 

There are a few issues where its not hypocritical to take a side, but it is to be in the middle. The War in Iraq is one. Abortion is another. Either a fetus is a human and deserves the full rights of a human or the fetues is not and doesn't. Any opinion in the middle believes in letting a part-human suffer and is thus hypocritical.

 

Other varieties of hypocrites a "civil rights" people who promote weakness in their chosen minorities. For example, "pro-hispanic" people who want to spread the use of the spanish languge. Like it or not, if one needs a high paying job in the United States, one needs to learn English. In fact, English is fast becoming the international language of choice. That's not fair, that's just reality. Spreading Spanish only stunts the development of spanish-speaking families, and politicians who do this aren't helping hispanics, but spoiling them. Affirmative action is another such hypocrisy. By lowering the requirements for some group, one lowers the average performance of members of that group who made the cut. The average abilities of a doctor who got in by affirmative action will be less than the average abilities of a doctor who didn't. A wise patient would then refuse treatment from the affirmative action doctor if possible. Thus, affirmative action makes racism what it has never been before: logical, making the support of affirmative action a high hypocrisy.

 

 

 

As for the so-called "Christian agenda". Keep in mind that the First Amendment states that the government shall not impose any religion. Also keep in mind that there is no part of the Cons!@#$%^&*ution that states that "Church and State shall be seperate". Seperation between Church and State is only an interpretation of the First Amendment. Also Also keep in mind that Atheism is a religion too, and is just as illogical and has just as much potiential to damage the state if given too much power. There are many historical cases where government imposition of atheism caused a state sponsored inquisition against those of faith, except historians never have been truthfull enough to name such governments "atheist" and their practices as "inquisitions". This happened in most of the former Soviet Union members.

 

The matters that these arguements arise from need to be handled carefully. For there to be some place in which Church and State touch does not violate the cons!@#$%^&*ution, but it would violate the Cons!@#$%^&*ution for the state to impose Atheism on people. People have a right to practice their faith in public where it may offend people, because if you deny that right then you force everyone to practice their faith in secret. I don't need to mention all the problems that would cause. Thus it is actually un-cons!@#$%^&*utional to ban religious symbols on public property.

 

Those of us with a "Christian agenda" just happen to know what the Bill of Rights gives us and are interpreting it in the correct fashion rather than in the incorrect way the ACLU does.

[AstroProdigy]

Learjett:

Most Republicans use conservative issues to gain votes. There used to be a large moderate Republican group in Congress, but that's been continually dwindling.

 

The problem with your name calling is it's unfounded. Most Democrats are Christian, Patriotic, and definetely not anarchist since that directly conflicts in Democrat ideals.

 

Aileron:

Gotta get ready for class I'll read your post later.

[Greased_Lightning]

Political parties should be outlawed as a hindrance to real democracy and progress. Bring me the head of Teddy Roosevelt and I'll clone you a real president.

[MillenniumMan]

What are you talking about??? How do they support Muslims in any way? If anything I expected you to call them racist and Muslim-haters.

 

 

 

Just to kick off the list:

 

Liberals don't want to put to death heinous murderers but don't mind killing innocent fetuses. (or is it feti?)

 

 

three words. O I L... ok, more like three letters. Point is, it's mutualy beneficial. The Israelis only have a rich culture, they can't line anyones coffins. Err... coffers with gold. Ok, mabey their own, but I'm greedy too...

 

Just say no to the party system in these United States of America. I was never needed, and it has only caused more trouble than it was worth. I believe in the person, not the group. If I agree with someone's stand I'll vote for them. !@#$%^&*, I voted for a dead guy once as a write-in as opposed to the dipASSS who were running two years ago.

 

The senate, no need for two parties. There was a so-called independant swing vote for a while, but that fell to the wayside. If they can cooperate based on ideals rather than party affiliation, perhaps there would be more done to set !@#$%^&* right in the country.

 

In fact, over the past 90 years, if you wanted to vote in a Maryland state primary you had to be a member of a party, otherwise you had to wait for a national election. This is a political division, not unlike racism, singling out a minority to suit the needs of land developers, lifetime beauracrats and so forth. The system is set up in such a way as to not allow a change to these laws to be placed on a referendum for public vote. So the cycle of stupid continues.

 

This year, I was forced to be as a republican for the sake of voting in the primaries. When the november ballot came up, and I voted for comptroller, the man who should have been the democratic nominee wasn't there. So I wrote his name in. And of course, I can't stand either of the jack!@#$%^&*es who were running for governor. Ehrlich squashed the wal-mart bill and Martin O'Moron.... Err... O'malley is for eminent domain (seizure of private property for public works projects without just payment or due process)

Again, Schaffer, made a !@#$%^&* of a governor for this state, so as another political statement, I wrote his name in for governor.

 

Point is, the system sucks more wang than a chinese !@#$%^&* in bankok, but if you don't like it, make the effort to change it. One person isn't alot of clout. One-hundred is better, one thousand gets you on the local news, one million gets you on the Bush FBI terror watch list because you're a threat to his political base.