Its very true that Democrat's check to see which way the wind is blowing before they make any day to day decisions. President Clinton certainly did that and did everything he could to not make any waves.
But as far as hypocrisy goes, I would have to say that both sides are guilty of that and it depends on which way a person leans as to what is more hypocritical.
You have to remember that Democrats generally believe that money, violence and personal responsibility are bad in most any situation, so they go to any length to keep people from having to deal with those issues. (Raise taxes so the government can take care of the money issue for them, refuse to let people have the right to defend there home against intruders, and believe that freedom of speech, abortion, loosing your job, being a minority, or being born liking the same sex is a free ticket to do and say what you want without worrying about the repercussions it has on the traditional family, children or the moral strength of our society in general.)
Republicans are very hypocritical when it comes to religion, freedom of speech and other issues - I just can't think of any other than those two right now, but am sure that the libs on here will be glad to help me out with that.
2007-05-03 06:59:57
·
answer #1
·
answered by Jimmie K 2
·
1⤊
1⤋
1992: Saddam became right into a greater possibility in 1992 than in 2003. He became into contained in 2003. 2003: maximum individuals believed what they have been informed with regard to the intelligence. That intelligence became into fake and already decrease than attack by using human beings reporting to the administration. They have been ignored and their comments have been if truth be told silenced till too late. That blanketed many in Congress. We could are transforming into rid of Saddam, yet we greater suitable the diploma of militancy and terrorism int he area and gave Iran an commencing to being the main nicely known voice interior the midsection East. Israel: i've got faith they are our maximum stable best pal interior the area . . . yet I even have faith that the do themselves no favors with a number of their activities: settlements, sanctions that create humanitarian crises, etc. I additionally think of that, as long as militants cover at the back of civilians on a similar time as firing rockets into Israel, assaults into the occupied territories will proceed. the two aspects habit themselves in procedures that make peace a a great way distant possibility.
2016-10-14 10:56:17
·
answer #2
·
answered by eidemiller 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
Well first of all, the statement "All they do is change to whatever is popular now" is somewhat true. But the fact is, what is popular is the Democratic position, and it has been. Democrats haven't changed their position or anything like that... "wrong or right he dont let others run the country," our country was set up so that Congress runs the country as well. Its a thing called checks and balances, look it up. A bicameral system was set up so we could prevent absolute rule. Are you in favor of absolute rule? I thought not.
So where exactly does it stop?
Number of physicians in the US = 700,000
Accidental deaths caused by physicians per year = 120,000
Accidental deaths per physician = 0.171 (Source: U.S. Dept. of Health & Human Services)
Number of gun owners in the US = 80,000,000
Number of accidental gun deaths per year (all age groups) = 1,500
Accidental deaths per gun owner = 0.0000188 (Source: U.S. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco & Firearms)
Therefore, doctors are approximately 9,000 times more dangerous than gun owners.
Should we get rid of doctors too? My point being that its not accurate to compare abortion death to gun deaths. Its not even comparable.
What makes it ok to be hypocritical only if your a Republican? Many Rebuplicans are hypocritical as well. And don't deny it. I know the temptation to deny it is strong, but fight it!
Nancy Pelosi goes to Syria to, OH MY GOD, have DIALOG with a country that has influence in Iraq. That dialog could possibly help settle down Iraq. It certainly couldn't hurt. She is labeled as the "strongest ally" of the terrorists, and guess what? Condoleezza Rice is in Syria today! So apparently the Bush administration is also the terrorists strongest ally as well. Why is it ok for Rice to go but not Pelosi!?
A little off topic, but it is fair to bring it up when you bring up the comparison of abortion deaths and gun deaths
2007-05-03 05:44:19
·
answer #3
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
you sound a little confused. it isn't so simple as to broadly categorize or stereotype all Democrats by saying they want to take away our guns. i don't think that's it, maybe gun control is an issue but very few people would actually want to ban all guns.
the President has done a dismal job so why would you continue to support him? Democrats supported him in the beginning because he is our leader, but he failed in too many ways to even list here, so now he has much less support than he did at one time, what's wrong with that?
2007-05-03 05:12:22
·
answer #4
·
answered by Diggy 5
·
2⤊
2⤋
Standing firm with a failed policy is not a wise course. And Bush doesn't get to run the country single-handedly. The ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLe get a say, Constitutionally.
As for guns, too many people have shown they can't be trusted with the responsibility. Of course, YOU probably think 11,000 gun daeths a year (most of wchic are preventable) is a acceptable price to pay so YOU don't feel nervous.
2007-05-03 05:07:48
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
3⤋
"Abortion kills more humans than guns"
Watch the news lately? Virgina tech shooting, kansas mall shooting, NASA shooting, and this...2 auxillary cops killed. Please dont give me that bullsht "guns dont kill people, people kill people"
Gun = instrument of death = guilty as charge in the murder/crime.
http://www.gothamist.com/2007/03/15/cop_shot_on_hou.php
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,213097,00.html
" They bash Bush for the patriot act yet want to take away our guns "
Again, watch the news lately? Unless you want the US to turn into a dictatorship by using the patriot act.
http://www.aclu.org/safefree/resources/17343res20031114.html
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/03/09/AR2007030902356.html
" At least our President has stood firm with his desision "
Yes, lets stay the course, Mission Accomplished.
2007-05-03 05:32:31
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
2⤋
So standing by your beliefs, even if they are wrong, is an admirable trait? I would say that it is not, in fact admirable.
As for abortion, life doesn't begin at conception. Life never stops. Life only comes from life. Gametes are alive. Skin cells are alive. Are gametes to be protected by law? At what point is there too little organization to qualify as human? At what point after birth is it okay to not care anymore about the child?
2007-05-03 05:09:47
·
answer #7
·
answered by Schmorgen 6
·
4⤊
3⤋
Yeah...changing your mind is stupid...smart people keep doing the same thing that doesn't work over and over and over again expecting a different result each time.
The Abortion thing is getting old...I know you people hate women and all but get over it. It's a ball of cells not a person. Don't scratch any misquito bites if you don't like killing cells...those cells have potential dammit. They could one day be a unique human.
2007-05-03 05:07:31
·
answer #8
·
answered by Franklin 7
·
6⤊
3⤋
Progress scares me, but then again I'm a white male that's not poor. That's why I do what Fox News tells me to
2007-05-03 05:11:01
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
Hatred blinds them to rational thinking.
2007-05-03 05:08:51
·
answer #10
·
answered by Cherie 6
·
3⤊
5⤋