Why are Republicans such hypocrites?

hmm...interesting question.

Hypocrisy: Democrats supporting vouchers for food, vouchers for college, vouchers for housing, vouchers for transportation, vouchers for medicare, but opposing - with all their might - vouchers for K-12 schooling.

Hypocrisy: Democrats complaining about the number of people killed in the war, except when their guy is in the White House conducting the war.

Hypocrisy: Democrats requiring photo IDs to enter their own convention, but saying that a photo ID for voting is racist.

Hypocrisy: Democrats defending or excusing wrong-doing by elected officials in their own party while criticizing wrong-doing in the other.

Hypocrisy: Democrats pointing out the hypocrisy in the Republican Party while ignoring it in their own.

I don't like hypocrisy at all and have called Republicans and Democrats on it.

Hypocrisy has less to do with the political party and more to do with the individual.

If people in both parties realized that and called people on it when it happened, we'd have less of it - in politics and in the world in general.

Now the most important question to AC: can you admit that some Democrats have been hypocrites just like some Republicans? Or are you part of the problem?

"2012: Republicans nominate Mitt Romney, who is a rich white man, out of touch with the average American, who flip-flops and waffles on all his positions, and who was busy being a missionary in France instead of serving in 'Nam."

The Democrats had no problem with John Kerry and John Edwards being rich,but make it an issue about Mitt Romney being rich.

The Democrats had no problem with Bill Clinton not serving in Vietnam,but criticize Mitt Romney about not serving in the military during that time.Oh the Hypocrisy!!!

Hypocrisy is not foreign to either party.

You know anonymous coward, I am not a Mormon, (or a Republican for that matter) but I know quite a few. I have learned a lot about the LDS church, and LDS lifestyle. I have visited Temple Square in SLC on several occasions and have worked with member of the LDS in a professional capacity.

Your suggestion that Romney went on mission to avoid service in Vietnam is offensive, inaccurate and ignorant.

In 1966, for a 19 year old Romney, who had just completed his freshman year at Stanford, Paris was not a welcoming or fun place. His days consisted of a mix between seclusion in monastic style prayer, and the constant rejection of his religion and mission. While most 19 year olds in 1966 enjoyed a rather party filled environment, rich with drugs, booze, sex and rebellion, Romney was sober, alone, abstinent and focused. He led a simple and poor existence in France. He spent most of his time with the elderly, indigent and mentally ill. He had a repuation for working doggedly, and for never giving up.

A hotbed of atheism, anarchism, socialism, and communism was not a fun place for a clean cut kid handing out pamphlets about Joe Smith. The French would explain to him that if there WAS a god, they had no use for him. Can you imagine being a conservative going door to door in late 60s speaking with people who hated the US, hated God, and hated everything that Romney went over to represent.

Mission trips are a primary and fundamental process for young mormons to test and refine their faith. They don't only do it during wars. Every young adult does it. Romney began his mission work as a prankster adolescent and ended it as a leader.

As a person who likely never served in the armed forces OR in a mission unit, your comments are minimizing, hypocritical, ignorant, crass, and below contempt.
How dare you make the suggestion that his mission trip, planned many years before the start of the Vietnam war was somehow an attempt to avoid service is ridiculous. This is a man whose life has been a model of service, sobriety, honor, dignity and hard work.
From your posts and trolls, often profane and sometimes completely disgusting, I doubt that you have ever experienced ONE of those five.

Now I know why his anonymity is so critical.

You know, calling out the Democrats on hypocrisy is easy, but MaggieThurber did a really bad job with it.

"A hotbed of atheism, anarchism, socialism, and communism was not a fun place for a clean cut kid handing out pamphlets about Joe Smith"

MY AMERICA.

France in the 1960s was not even close to Vietnam in the 1960s. Completely insulting for you to even pretend that a 19 year old knocking on people’s doors was somehow a sacrifice even remotely close to those who were conscripted and sent off to Vietnam. What a complexly elitist attitude.

Researcher: The purpose of my post wasn't to call out Democrats on hypocrisy, but to provide a few examples and then call out AC on his position.

But please, since you think I did a "really bad job," feel free to list your own examples. I look forward to reading them. :)

SensorG - I don't see that justread compared Romney's time in his missionary work in France to what our soldiers went through in the Vietnam war. I read that he compares it to what other kids (not soldiers) were doing.

I thought he was saying that AC's claim that it was Romney's way to avoid war was offensive.

Did I completely miss something?

People read what they want to read. Thank you for wanting to read what I was actually writing.

Clearly as frustrated as I was, my point somehow came through. (for those willing to get that point)

Enlistment is a choice and a sacrifice.
That is what my father did in Korea.

Conscription is a compulsory obligation.
That's what most guys did in Vietnam.

There are enough Purple Hearts in my family from enough wars to know a little about the difference.

On topic, my point was that Romney's destiny as a 19 year old missionary was set in motion before the French ever heard of Dien Bien Phu and before the first US advisers arrived in 1960.

Speaking of Hypocrisy, AC would have been a conscientious objector anyway....

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/172731/mitt-romney-loved-vietnam-draft-he-purposefully-avoided/

LOOK, A CHICKENHAWK!

After his first year at Stanford, Romney qualified for 4-D deferment status as "a minister of religion or divinity student." It was a status he would hold from July 1966 until February 1969, a period he largely spent in France working as a Mormon missionary.

BAWK BAWK BAWK CHICKENHAWK

ONE OF THESE THINGS IS NOT LIKE THE OTHERS, ONE OF THESE THINGS JUST ISN'T THE SAME (a song never to be heard by kids again when Romney fires Big Bird)!

First off, the guy supporting vouchers for Medicare is ROMNEY, you dolt. Secondly, vouchers for everything else you listed (except Romney/Ryan Medicare) are situations where the government doesn't provide all those things directly itself (since we obviously have to pay for riding public transportation, community college, etc.). The difference is that school vouchers are "let's take all the money for this student out of the public system and let them go to a private school that can teach Creationism for all we care".

Disproven: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2012/10/05/1140827/-The-2000th-Afghanistan-death-hits-home-My-hometown
http://www.winwithoutwar.org/blog/entry/democratic-opposition-to-the-war-in-afghanistan-grows-louder/
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2010/07/democrats-obama-afghanistan-war-/1#.UICCF4Z5jyM

"Photo ID – this is required for participation at the National Convention

All participants to the Republican National Convention will be required to carry government-issued photo IDs at all times during the convention. Please bring this with you to the mandatory delegate and alternate meeting as well."
http://convention.texasgop.org/national-convention

STRAWMAN MUCH, MAGS? HAVING SOME RED HERRING FOR DINNER ARE WE?

This do for a start?
http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2012/05/01/474110/stewart-order/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/22/jon-stewart-mocks-democrats-hypocrisy-daily-show-video_n_1618651.html

I see all sorts of comments in "liberal" forums whereby many "liberals" are happy to point out where some Democrat was a hypocritical fuck-up. But when your party, Mags, has, for example, people on the goddamn CONGRESSIONAL SCIENCE COMMITTEES who stand up and call science pure bullshit, you have to admit the sheer magnitude of Republican hypocrisy dwarfs that of any on the Democrat side. You yourself were bit in the ass by a certain scandal where the state invested a ton of money where it probably shouldn't have been, and yet your very own party and its little followers are all over this board yelling SOLYNDRA! SOLYNDRA! etc. Welp, I haven't paid much attention to Solyndra et. al. but feel free to call me when we find out that the money was spent on Beanie Babies and NASCAR plates and illegal donations funneled via third parties to Obama, mmmkay? Let me know if they find that sort of thing and I'll be duly outraged.

Seriously, there's been a few times where I yelled at the TV or the computer after reading about a Dem/liberal fuck up, and even at #OWS fuckstick antics I heard about. What do you really want of me? To come on here and go off in a 300 word tirade?

From AnonymousCoward: What do you really want of me?

That question simply begs to be answered, but when it comes to vivid imagination I hold you in very high esteem, AC. I'll allow you to supply the answer to your own question.

After his first year at Stanford, Romney qualified for 4-D deferment status as "a minister of religion or divinity student." It was a status he would hold from July 1966 until February 1969, a period he largely spent in France working as a Mormon missionary.

Right you are, AC. The man who is very likely to become our next president chose to become a missionary, and as such was granted 4-D status.

If Romney did this because he wanted to avoid becoming involved in a war that was so completely wrong that George McGovern, Tip O'Neill and Robert F. Kennedy were against it, so much the better. I'd rather have a president who wants to avoid war.

From MaggieThurber: SensorG - I don't see that justread compared Romney's time in his missionary work in France...

That's what I got out of it as well.

Usually I don't agree with whatever SensorG writes and sometimes it's actually on principle, but in this case I think SensorG just read it wrong.

No, there is no comparison, but JustRead wasn't making one.

He demonstrated in favor of the war, then he ran away,
Brave Mitt Romney ran away, away.

No. I'd go. And I'd want you to be my CO...

Aw, thanks man.
I did not serve. The closest thing to a war that we had when I was about the right age was Grenada. There have been times I was thankful for that and times that I wished I served. I suppose that being raised by the Clint Eastwood character in Gran Torino had something to do with that.

And I was much too selfish and lazy to spend 3 of my prime party years doing that straight laced missionary stuff.

So in reality, rather than comparing military service and missionary service, I actually just value both.

AC - you completely miss the point, but that's common with you.

You are complaining that Republicans are hypocrites, but I said there are many hypocrisies coming from Democrats as well. I also said hypocrisy is not a 'party' thing, but a 'human' one...it's people who are hypocrites and if WE call people on it, we can stop it, regardless of who does it.

It was so easy. All you had to do was admit that hypocrisy knows no political boundary, which others readily acknowledge because it is a fact.

Instead, you (lamely and inaccurately) attacked my examples and said 'those aren't really hypocrisy' leaving me with no other conclusion but that YOU are part of the problem.

Are you so blindly partisan that you see bad in everything Republican and good in everything Democrat? Are you as angry in person as your written words seem to convey?

If so, that makes me very sad.

Just because you want A=B, doesn't make it so. Re-read your list of hypocrisies and then look up the word.

This is not a bad thing, but the only takeaway from your post was that you have a very romantic view of Romney, missionary work, and mormonism.

I simply felt that the poster's point deserved a counterpoint.

I have a realistic view of Romney, a skeptical view of the LDS church, and an appreciation of missionary work.
If you want to know what I am romantic about, it's capitalism and smaller government.

Romantic about capitalism and smaller government, eh?

And speaking of the subject of Republican hypocrisy:

Yes. I am not just romantic about capitalism and small government, I am downright nostalgic for it. I miss the days when all the new jobs weren't in the government, and the US was a place that attracted people of means rather than demonizing them and causing them to move to Chile to open wineries and horse farms.

"all the new jobs weren't in the government"

Pull your fucking head out of your ass.

What government jobs? Seriously! As you stupid Tea-fucks keep repeating the Republican talking points, no matter how untrue they are, it's amazing that ANYONE has any respect for you or even bothers to listen to the crap you spew.

Come on now and own up that you just spouted some bullshit that has no factual grounding.

Year Executive branch civilians (thousands) Uniformed military personnel (thousands) Legislative and judicial branch personnel (thousands) Total Federal personnel (thousands)
1962 2,485 2,840 30 5,354
1963 2 2,498 2,732 30 5,260
1964 2 2,470 2,719 31 5,220
1965 2,496 2,687 32 5,215
1966 2,726 3,129 33 5,888
1967 2,968 3,413 34 6,416
1968 3,020 3,584 35 6,639
1969 3 3,040 3,499 36 6,575
1970 4 2,944 3,104 38 6,085
1971 4 2,883 2,752 40 5,675
1972 2,823 2,360 42 5,225
1973 2,781 2,289 44 5,113
1974 2,847 2,198 46 5,091
1975 2,848 2,164 49 5,061
1976 2,833 2,119 50 5,002
1977 2,840 2,112 53 5,005
1978 2,875 2,099 55 5,028
1979 2,823 2,063 53 4,939
1980 4 2,821 2,090 55 4,965
1981 4 2,806 2,122 54 4,982
1982 2,770 2,147 55 4,972
1983 2,820 2,163 56 5,039
1984 2,854 2,178 56 5,088
1985 3,008 2,190 58 5,256
1986 2,966 2,206 55 5,228
1987 3,030 2,213 58 5,301
1988 3,054 2,176 59 5,289
1989 3,064 2,168 60 5,292
1990 4 3,067 2,106 61 5,234
1991 4 3,048 2,040 64 5,152
1992 3,017 1,848 66 4,931
1993 2,947 1,744 66 4,758
1994 2,908 1,648 63 4,620
1995 2,858 1,555 62 4,475
1996 2,786 1,507 61 4,354
1997 2,725 1,439 62 4,226
1998 2,727 1,407 62 4,196
1999 2,687 1,386 63 4,135
2000 4 2,639 1,426 63 4,129
2001 4 2,640 1,428 64 4,132
2002 2,630 1,456 66 4,152
2003 2,666 1,478 65 4,210
2004 2,650 1,473 64 4,187
2005 2,636 1,436 65 4,138
2006 2,637 1,432 63 4,133
2007 2,636 1,427 63 4,127
2008 2,692 1,450 64 4,206
2009 2,774 1,591 66 4,430
2010 4 2,776 1,602 64 4,443

Notes:

Data comes from agency 113 monthly submissions and covers total end-of-year civilian employment of full-time permanent, temporary, part-time, and intermittent employees. Executive branch includes the Postal Service, and, beginning in 1970, includes various disadvantaged youth and worker-trainee programs. Uniformed Military Personnel data comes from the Department of Defense.Return to text

Excludes 7,411 project employees in 1963 and 406 project employees in 1964 for the public works acceleration program.Return to Table

On Jan. 1, 1969, 42,000 civilian technicians of the Army and Air Force National Guard converted by law from State to Federal employment status. They are included in the Federal employment figures in this table starting with 1969.Return to Table

Includes temporary employees for the decennial census.Return to Table

PDF Help U.S. Office of Personnel Management 1900 E Street, NW, Washington, DC 20415 | (202) 606-1800 | TTY (202) 606-2532

2008 4,206,000 total
2009 4,430,000 total
2010 4,443,000 total

The official website don't seem to support your graph from moveon.org

http://www.opm.gov/feddata/HistoricalTables/TotalGovernmentSince1962.asp

Put all government jobs (you just did federal) and compare them to all private sector over time and get back with me.

Include GM employees with the federal government in the years that you would need to.

http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/09/government-employment/

Keep arguing with the numbers that don't agree with you.

http://mediamatters.org/research/2012/05/29/government-employment-drops-under-obama-but-med/181931

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?utm_source=research&utm_medium=website&utm_campaign=data-tools#

Argue with the data, be my guest!
Data source: All Employees: Government (USGOVT), Monthly, Seasonally Adjusted, 1939-01-01 to 2012-09-01

Your little table up there, LYING BASTARD LINEY, stops at 2010, when there was a CENSUS going on, with lots of temporary government workers.

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?&id=USGOVT&scale=Left&range=Custom&cosd=2001-01-20&coed=2012-09-01&line_color=%230000ff&link_values=false&line_style=Solid&mark_type=NONE&mw=4&lw=2&ost=-99999&oet=99999&mma=0&fml=a&fq=Monthly&fam=avg&fgst=lin&transformation=lin&vintage_date=2012-10-20&revision_date=2012-10-20

HERE LET ME MAKE THIS BIGGER FOR YOU!

Data set: All Employees: Government (USGOVT)
Period: Jan 20 2001 (Bush inaguration) through last report (Sept 1 2012).

Note that Obama's term started Jan 20 2009.

DO THE MATH, STUDY IT OUT.

Keep missing my point to try to win an internet argument.

It had nothing to do with Obama or partisan politics.

It had to do with past years (look at your own chart now, and remember that I said "nostalgic.")

This is kinda fun-2011 Public Employment and Payroll Data
State and Local Governments
United States Total

SOURCE: 2011 Annual Survey of Public Employment and Payroll. For information on sampling and
nonsampling errors and definitions, see http://www.census.gov/govs/apes/how_data_collected.html. Data users who create
their own estimates from these tables should cite the U.S. Census Bureau as the source of the original data only.

Detail may not sum to totals because of rounding.

Total
Full-time Part-time Full-Time March
Full-time pay Part-time pay Equivalent Pay
Government Function employees ($) employees ($) Employment ($)

Total 14,560,581 64,670,449,940 4,852,374 5,707,148,808 16,358,439 70,377,598,748
According to this chart there are over 70,377,598,747 state and local govt. employees. Govt sector jobs have grown when you include all of them not just the ones that agree with your narrative. For instance in Ohio if Issue 2 passes there will be a new panel of govt employees created which at this time has no fixed costs or source of revenue.

NY Times
Movon.org
Mediamatters

got any non-socialist sources?

Yeah, the data from the BLS via the Federal Reserve, which I posted TWICE, which your gaping blind spot towards facts ignored.

Oh wait, there's that "OMG SOCIALISM" red herring again.

Hey Mags, you mind telling your little lackey Liney what he's doing wrong here?

AC - since you asked, I decided to check out the data for you. It appears that whatever information your sources was using doesn't jibe with Census data.

First, BLS data is not as accurate as Census data, so in looking at employment by industry, government-federal/state/local, I probably wouldn't use BLS.

Here's why - this is what they say on their website (http://www.bls.gov/ces/) :

Each month the Current Employment Statistics (CES) program surveys about 141,000 businesses and government agencies, representing approximately 486,000 individual worksites, in order to provide detailed industry data on employment, hours, and earnings of workers on nonfarm payrolls.

This is a survey - and it's probably as accurate as the employment survey Manpower does.

Also, consider the size of the survey, which they then use to extrapolate data...

I prefer census data because it includes BLS data as well as a host of other sources, as well as the direct count, to come up with data sets.

Here's what the census says for federal civilian employment 2000-2010:

2000 2,879,000
2001 2,704,000
2002 2,699,000
2003 2,743,000
2004 2,714,000
2005 2,709,000
2006 2,700,000
2007 2,695,000
2008 2,730,000
2009 2,804,000
2010 2,841,000

Now, this is just civilian employment (no military) and the year 2000 includes a notation that temporary census employees were included in the amount - though there is no such notation for 2010.

Here is the source of the data so you can check it out yourself. It's not a chart someone else put together, it's the raw data.

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/federal_govt_finances_employment/federal_civilian_employment.html

Clearly, the number of federal workers has increased under Obama, though it doesn't address temporary census workers in 2010 nor does it include 2011 or 2012 numbers.

State and local employment only goes to 2009 (http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/state_local_govt_finances_employment/employment_and_payroll.html) but it shows a steady increase from 20,876,000 in 2000 to 22,632,000 in 2009.

Chart 602 on this page http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/cats/labor_force_employment_earnings.html shows employed civilians, though it is not clear if that also includes federal/state/local government workers.

It shows increasing numbers until 2007 (146,047,000 employed) and then the following:

2008: 145,362,000
2009: 139,877,000
2010: 139,064,000

So 685,000 less people employed by the end of 2008 when Bush's term ended and then 6,298,000 less employed by the end of the first two years of Obama's term, despite an increase in federal, state, local government employment.

I didn't research your charts, AC, to see where the discrepancies might lie, but perhaps military might account for some of the differences.

I think, in the end, the most telling data comes from the federal employment chart which shows federal employment as a percentage of total employed in the nation. Here are the percentages (remember that 2000 includes the temporary census worker):

2000 2.10
2001 1.97
2002 1.98
2003 1.99
2004 1.95
2005 1.91
2006 1.87
2007 1.85
2008 1.88
2009 2.00
2010 2.00

Note the decrease until 2007 and then the slight increase in 2008 and then the jump in 2009 and 2010. This indicates either a decreasing federal employment until 2007 or, more likely, an increasing private sector employment. The increasing private sector employment makes more sense as the percentage increased in 2008 when there was also a loss of private sector jobs, per the 2007-10 numbers just before this list.

With percentages, you always have to be careful what you are measuring, but with the percentage of federal workers growing to 2% of the total civilian workforce, you either had to have more federal workers or less non-federal workers for the percentage to rise.

Either way, it shows that the federal government employees represent more of the workforce under Obama than they did under Bush.

No matter what your charts show, A/C, the census data doesn't support your claim.

Apparently YOU are the one who is incorrect. Sorry.

http://www.blackgenocide.org/sanger.html

MAGS SAID:

Right

And then you say

Math is hard for you, isn't it?

And then you spew

Key point you ignored highlighted. And

From a dataset that only goes through 2010.

Let's go back here to this line:

And you are flat out making it out to be more federal workers. Which is an incorrect ASSUMPTION.

So the numbers you selectively cited only go to 2010 and ignore all changes in employment after that.

If the number of federal workers stays steady, or even drops, and the number of non-federal workers drops more than the rate of federal workers, then the percentage number you selectively chose to cite in order to make your wrongful case goes up. Or, to be a bigger nuisance to your manipulation of numbers, if the number of federal workers stays the same, and the total number of people in the workforce drops (say, all you Baby Boomers start to retire, people go back to school, stop looking for work, etc.) then your little percentage number goes up and you make out like the federal government EXPANDED. Hate to break it to you but all the people who disappeared from the workforce didn't spontaneously die off or leave the USA, they're still out there and the ratio of Federal employees to Americans utilizing goods and services from said employees didn't change in a way that makes the Federal employees excess to requirements.

You working for Fox News now, Mags? That's some damn good weaselling there.

Because you twisted the numbers in a meaningless way to paint Obama as big government while neatly ignoring one and three-quarter years of recovering private sector employment, the overall size of the workforce, and the fact that population hasn't DECREASED.

Hate to break this news to you, Mags, but let's assume the population of Toledo stays the same and a major Toledo employer shuts its doors for three months due to lack of demand. Suddenly, your little percentage of city employees to private workers jumps as those major Toledo employer's employees file unemployment as they wait to be called back and the unemployment rate spikes. That's not justification for firing a pile of city employees. You still have the same number of people in the city drinking water, using the toilet, driving on the streets, etc. etc. and the same number of parks and pools and traffic lights and whatever else that the city maintains. Demand for services is roughly the same, and there's a bare minimum number of employees you need to run the water and sewer plant, patch potholes, mow the parks, etc. Your argument that suddenly the city government GOT BIGGER OH MY GOD because the city employees represent more of the workforce in the city of Toledo holds no water. It's the same number of city workers serving the same number of people.

In the case of the Federal government, it's the same number of Federal workers serving an increasing number of citizens (unless the population clock at the Census that you love so much started running backward!)

Utah is the only state that defines an actual "shot" to be 1.5 fluid ounces, elsewhere in the USA it's between 1.25 and 1.5 fluid ounces.

1 US gallon is 128 fluid ounces.

Let's call the total workforce (public and private) 1 gallon of white paint.
Let's say the federal employees are 2% of the workforce.

2% of 128 fluid ounces is 2.56 fluid ounces, which is approximately a double shot glass. So pour out approximately a double shot of white paint. Replace it with an equal amount of red paint in a double shot glass and call that red paint in a double shot glass the federal employees.

You dump that red paint in the can of white paint (scraping every last bit of paint out of your double shot glass) and mix. You get a shade of pink. It's a full gallon of pink.

You get another gallon of white paint. You remove another approximately double shot of it and replace that with the same volume of red paint. Then you pour out a double shot of white paint as private workforce losses and wash that down the drain, and then you mix the double shot of red paint back in and paint the wall. What happens?

Your shade of pink is redder, because you have less white, and you no longer have a full gallon of paint.

The government did not get bigger. The population the entire workforce covers did not get bigger. You're arguing that the amount of red paint got bigger because the paint is redder, which is completely untrue.

Nice try. Got some more numbers you can twist and distort in best Fox News and Republican propaganda tradition to make your case? I've at least held to one set of stats.

I went for a Sunday drive along the river between Perrysburg and Weir Rapids yesterday. I saw a lot of Romney signs. I thought of this thread briefly, and wondered if Mitt Romney is elected, would it be possible for him to get some legislation passed that gave Lincoln Town Cars the right of way in all circumstances?

I'd like that.

Yup, notread is a typical ToledoTalk Teabagger, all right: wants his guy elected so he can get special treatment and tell everyone "I got mine, fuck you", as well as all against any and all government regulations except when passed under a Republican in a way that benefits him.

REPUBLICAN HYPOCRISY.

Sorry but what did the UAW do when the secured bond holders got screwed by Obama during its restructuring bankruptcy?

Dude, not even the food banks are taking your red herring any more.

Yes. That post should be taken seriously. It was not a comical poke at all. It was serious and I meant it. I want flags on my Town Car too. And I want to fill the washer fluid reservoir with the tears of the disenfranchised.

A friend of mine was a secured bond holder and did a couple of million dollars worth of work for GM. He did the work for GM, and then the Socialist In Chief came and changed the game. He never got paid, but the union did.

Commie bastards.

Could I just point out that if GM and Chrysler went under, you'd be bitching about how the unemployment rate is 15%, for starters?

Could I also point out that tens of thousands of people being unemployed in the auto industry would also have pretty much killed every other market too?

And if you're going to bitch about the auto bailouts, can I just point out that the auto industry went kablooie in part due to your friend the banks becoming unstable and then being unable to loan money to the auto industry (and a lot of other commercial credit tightened up at the same time!) In fact, if you look at the problems, if the banks went kablooie and were left to fail, the auto industry would have been next, and that secured bond would have been toilet paper along with any cash it might have gotten, since the bank collapse would have fried the value of the dollar.

They bailed them out and then they went through bankruptcy anyway, Bush wrote the first bailout checks, But besides the fact that 100 years of bankruptcy law Obama put the UAW at the front of secured bond holders for first dibs on money. I also honestly see the taxpayer getting back all the money that went into the 2 car companies, definately not from Chrysler since it got sold to Fiat and they have no obligation to, and not from GM because I highly doubt anyone would ever invest money in them again having been burned with the secure bonds.

The value of the dollar is already fried by the fed pumping out dollars like cans of coke from a bottling plant, actually they probably made more dollars than coke.

Pointing out that a single businessman was ripped-off by the action of the socialist in chief while the union got paid at 1:1 is not quite as simple as "bitching about the auto bailout."

The secured bond was toilet paper either way. And THAT is what keeps people with the ability to invest in business and jobs in this country from doing it. My friend has 300 employees. Obama didn't underwrite those 300 paychecks when the owner lost 2 million after doing the work.

Here, I will put it in terms that you might understand:
A guy (GM) ordered a pizza. The pizza company, founded by my friend, made GM the exact pizza that they ordered and delivered it on time. The pizza delivery guy was told at the door by the guy's dad (Obama) that they would indeed be keeping and eating the pizza, but they owed for video games so they were giving the pizza money to the video game people. Then the guy's dad called the thug who lives next door (Union) and gave them the pizza.

If you did that for a $20.00 pizza, you'd be arrested.
If you do it with a $2,000,000 invoice for work already completed, you are doing the only legal theft that I know, called communism.

When failing to pay for work completed is made legal by the government, no business is safe. Do you have any concept of the chilling effect of this type of government action? Do you know the difference between the chilling effect of a structured bankruptcy and the chilling effect of arbitrary government sponsored theft?

No.

If it has been established by the levy boosters than any and all resistance to levies can only be based on a selfish, greedy motivation, (which is bullshit, btw....)and that Republicans are by nature selfish greedy bastards.... then:

"I got mine, therefore screw you" is to Republican as
"You got yours, so give it to me" is to Democrat.

In his own words.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/obama-says-old-video-shows-hes-the-same-guy-as-10-12-years-ago-so-we-checked-and/

"A guy (GM) ordered a pizza. The pizza company, founded by my friend, made GM the exact pizza that they ordered and delivered it on time. The pizza delivery guy was told at the door by the guy's dad (Obama) that they would indeed be keeping and eating the pizza, but they owed for video games so they were giving the pizza money to the video game people. Then the guy's dad called the thug who lives next door (Union) and gave them the pizza. "

Why did your friend, knowing that GM wasn't exactly the most stable company, sell the pizza to GM on credit? Your friend accepted an IOU instead of cold hard cash, after all.

More fool you and your friend, I think.

Wow. More ignorant than annoying you after all, and I wasn't sure that anything could top the annoying after that whole chinese dildo analogy a while back.

I'm soooooooo sorry there, un-read, that I blew up your little analogy. Your friend chose to accept an IOU from an outfit that maybe he shouldn't have taken it from (which you admit in saying that it was TP from the start), and he got screwed. Isn't this "personal responsibility" thing a mainstay of the party you love so much? You make a bad investment selling to GM or buying a house, tough noogies to you, that's the free market.

GM was already shaky in 2006, when did your friend sell them that pizza on credit?

So GM isn't to be trusted to pay their debts, and that makes them a better candidate for taxpayer funding?

If I recall, Bush was all for giving them government loans.

Apparently the concept that a lifelong Detroiter who bought a small business with the money from selling a 1940 ford when he returned from the Army and built it into one of the largest companies in his niche with over 300 employees would take a chance on a big three automaker as part of his being a good corporate citizen and employer is outside of your limited business experience.

This man has a relationship with all of the automakers that goes back to old man Ford. Detroiters have had to make some tough choices in the past decade. One of them was to try to work together in the private sector to avoid government intrusion. That was the free market until the government interfered in a socialist style takeover.

It was free market until goverment manipulation lead to the unethical favoring of certain creditors.

A better analogy might be eminent domain.

Again, I don't love a party. You can keep making extrapolations that suggest that I do, but I am not a republican and I have never been one.

I am a capitalist. And frankly... a pretty good one. Good enough to support all kinds of nonproductive people that I will never meet.
You're welcome.

Btw Joe Scarborough Rips Obama's Tax Rate: 'Hypocrisy Was Mind-Boggling'

That's right Obama paid 18%, much less than those beloved "teachers" he through out on the campaign trail.

Nope he may not be a socialist, but he sure is a Marxist and so is most of our Representatives. Rules don't apply equally for the elected or the connected.

Huh? The TAX CODE says he pays 18%...the loopholes that Obama wants to close will affect him as well.

Why are Republicans such hypocrites?

See, to me, the very title of this thread is a dead-end. There are hypocrites on all sides. If you want to accuse one side of having the monopoly on hypocrisy, you're going to get shot down right away, because hypocrisy is found in every nook and cranny of human life. Especially in politics. Rather than a blanket accusation of hypocrisy leveled at one entire group or subset, it's better to look at it issue-by-issue.

Sohio that is all I was trying to point out.

Mitt Romney was demonized for lowering his tax rate through charitable contributions but Obama who donated almost a quarter of his income (very honorable btw) is painted to be a saint.

Oh the president’s tax rate rate is less than that of Warren Buffet’s campaign darling secretary too. If he believed he paid too little in taxes wouldn't it befit a leader to pay MORE to make it too the tax level he supports politically? Silly me tax laws are for the little people who can't afford Harvard educated tax attorneys.

If you vote for a D or R your part of the problem, it's a game and they won a long time ago. Chose the flavor of banking overlord you wish we will get the same result.

The tax code determines what Romney and Obama pay in taxes. Romney wasn’t criticized for his contributions, he was criticized for how little he pays on his capital gains (the bulk of his income).

He was also criticized for thinking his taxes were still too high. “Elect me so I can lower my taxes”… Obama just raised his own taxes; that’s not a hypocrite.

Lastly, Obama just gave back 5% of his pay back to the treasury.