It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

You Might Be A Hypocrite If...

page: 1
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 31 2005 @ 11:54 PM
link   
You might be a hypocrite if...

You support the death penalty but are against abortions.

You believe next-of-kin induced euthanasia should be legal because someones lived a full life but don't believe a Red Wood should be cut down because it's so old.

You're pro-choice but anti-death penalty.

You think environmental laws should be loosened but don't think medications should come from Canada because they haven't gone through the safety procedures of the FDA.

You call yourself a Christian but hate homosexuals

You want to see Karl Rove hung for giving out Valarie Plame's name as a CIA operative but want the news to stop reporting on who leaked the NSA wiretapping information and get back to the fact that George Bush allowed the NSA to wiretap without a warrant.

You think Al Gore is an idiot for saying he created the Internet but think George Bush's "mis-underestimated" statement was genius

You think George Bush should be hung for lying about causes for going into Iraq, but think that Bill Clinton shouldn't have been impeached.

You think Harry Reid was way out of place calling George Bush a loser in front of school kids, but think people need to lay off Dan Quayle for teaching America to spell potato with an "e".

You see Coca-cola selling soda in Iraq as an example of American Imperialism, but didn't have a problem with Pepsi products being sold under Saddam.

You [ab]use alcohol, OTC pills or prescriptions but think the government needs to crack down on those losers doing illegal drugs.

You complain about video games frying kid's brains while watching Oprah

You believe kids should be treated as little adults, introduced to sexuality in school, allowed to dress as an insecure college freshman girl (those of you who've been to college know what I'm talking about
), able to have an abortion without any parental notification, and get condoms from the school nurse, but don't think they're mature enough to be presented with ideas about God in school.

You read this and laughed at all those poking fun at your opposing political party's stance, but didn't when they talked about your party's stance.

-- Remember folks, they can all be reversed


Have a problem with any of these? Believe as I pointed out but don't think you're a hypocrite (also known in political circles as a party hack)? This thread ain't closed, try to justify supporting one while rejecting the other. Hence placement in the slug-fest.


Happy 2006, too!




posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 12:38 AM
link   
lol...good thread!

one more for you jake:

if you attack the bible as worthless crap, but quote revelations to support your theories about the end of the world.



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 01:16 AM
link   
A few more because they're fun


You have a problem with McDonald's making people fat and want them to have smaller sizes, but think the New York Times should be allowed to publish classified information.

You think the woman who spilled coffee on her lap and sued was just out for money, but think Paula Jones' lawsuit was fully justified.

You believe Michael Moore breeds only hate whose lies need to be silenced, but you enjoy Pat Robertson .
You wonder why anyone cares what an actor[ess] thinks about politics, but you have watched Biography.

You think those people in the UFO forum are crazy going going gone nuts, as you post your end times theories in the religion forum.

You think court that let off the LA cops who beat Rodney King was corrupt, but think justice was served in the O.J. case.

You think Condi Rice is an Uncle Tom, but Barack Obama is representing African-Americans.

You cared more about the verdict in the Scott Peterson case than you did the unsolved double murder that took place somewhere else in the nation that day.

You want all races to be equal, but want legal benefits for some races.

You think stealing a car is a worse crime than embezzling millions of dollars.

You hate that factories, cars and the like are polluting the air lowering your health, but you smoke.

You hate racism, but consider all Americans with dark skin to be from Africa.



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 01:22 PM
link   

You think George Bush should be hung for lying about causes for going into Iraq, but think that Bill Clinton shouldn't have been impeached.


the only one i disagree with, one involved adultery and the other got over 30,000 people killed. we shouldn't hold the president accountable for his personal life unless it actually affects the american people.

good list jj



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

You think George Bush should be hung for lying about causes for going into Iraq, but think that Bill Clinton shouldn't have been impeached.


the only one i disagree with, one involved adultery and the other got over 30,000 people killed. we shouldn't hold the president accountable for his personal life unless it actually affects the american people.



All right, I'm not too busy this morning...

Clinton wasn't impeached for "adultery." He was impeached because, in response to a question (which question was wholly legitimate according to rules of evidence signed into law BY Bill Clinton) asked in pursuit of a Supreme Court sanctioned sexual harassment suit, while under oath, he LIED. Lying under oath, REGARDLESS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, is a felony, and the commission of a felony is a legitimate basis for impeachment.

Would you rather, blinded by your own partisanship, live in a world in which the PotUS could lie UNDER OATH with no consequences? Or are you defending Clinton's lie simply because of your own partisan leanings? If the latter, then I might refer you to the original topic of this thread.


[edit on 1-1-2006 by Bob LaoTse]



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 03:40 PM
link   
You might be a hypocrite if you believe the Bible is the literal word of God and then translate some of it as "symbolism" or allegory or an representation.



posted on Jan, 1 2006 @ 05:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by whaaa
You might be a hypocrite if you believe the Bible is the literal word of God and then translate some of it as "symbolism" or allegory or an representation.


Ahh, one I can chime in against
I'll do so with a counter might be:

you might be a hypocrite if you attack a fundamental Christian for taking the Bible literally but translating some of it as symbolism when it is made clear in the Bible itself that that passage is symbolic (i.e. vision, parable, etc.)



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 04:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Bob LaoTse

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

You think George Bush should be hung for lying about causes for going into Iraq, but think that Bill Clinton shouldn't have been impeached.


the only one i disagree with, one involved adultery and the other got over 30,000 people killed. we shouldn't hold the president accountable for his personal life unless it actually affects the american people.



All right, I'm not too busy this morning...

Clinton wasn't impeached for "adultery." He was impeached because, in response to a question (which question was wholly legitimate according to rules of evidence signed into law BY Bill Clinton) asked in pursuit of a Supreme Court sanctioned sexual harassment suit, while under oath, he LIED. Lying under oath, REGARDLESS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, is a felony, and the commission of a felony is a legitimate basis for impeachment.

Would you rather, blinded by your own partisanship, live in a world in which the PotUS could lie UNDER OATH with no consequences? Or are you defending Clinton's lie simply because of your own partisan leanings? If the latter, then I might refer you to the original topic of this thread.


[edit on 1-1-2006 by Bob LaoTse]


just defending peoples right to not have what goes on in their sex life questioned. i think clinton would be fun to hang out with, was a decent president, not the best husband, but no clue on whether or not he's a good person. it just seemed like another politically motivated twisting of the law to make someone look bad.

politically i'm not neutral, i'm not on the politcal spectrum, because i hate the spectrum. i'm below or above the spectrum, maybe even parallel to it. i just vote for who i think would do the best job. i have no party affiliation anymore, though i was at one point a socialist.

bottom line, i hate the current political system because it relies on loyalty and politicing than qualifications. it's become a giant popularity contest.



posted on Jan, 3 2006 @ 05:12 PM
link   
If you want the factory to protect their employees by banning smoking, but chose to ignore the other toxic substances they require the employees to work with for you to enjoy their product!



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 08:36 AM
link   
1. You want peace, but voted for Bush!
2. Claim to be Pro-Life but support the death penility. (the statment Pro-life doesn't come with a list of circumstanses.)



Tim



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghost
1. You want peace, but voted for Bush!


do you really think that the democrats would have pulled out of iraq? kerry all but said he would stay the course, and hillary has been quoted the same.



2. Claim to be Pro-Life but support the death penility. (the statment Pro-life doesn't come with a list of circumstanses.)


already covered....check the first post.



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 11:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700

Originally posted by ghost
1. You want peace, but voted for Bush!


do you really think that the democrats would have pulled out of iraq? kerry all but said he would stay the course, and hillary has been quoted the same.


My point is that Bush choose to START the war in Iraq! How can you get peace, by starting a war. Kerry might have hung around to finish what was started, but I doubt that he would have choosen to start the war if he knew what Bush knew in 2002!

You will never get peace if you have a leader who is trigger happy and looking to start a war! Also, I remember Kerry saying that he wanted to develop a workable exit strategy to get us out at some point. Bush built the war on lies, and now he wants to press on with a failed strategy, reguarless of the consiquences. Kerry isn't perfect, but he's smarter than that!

Tim



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 11:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bob LaoTse

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul

You think George Bush should be hung for lying about causes for going into Iraq, but think that Bill Clinton shouldn't have been impeached.


the only one i disagree with, one involved adultery and the other got over 30,000 people killed. we shouldn't hold the president accountable for his personal life unless it actually affects the american people.



All right, I'm not too busy this morning...

Clinton wasn't impeached for "adultery." He was impeached because, in response to a question (which question was wholly legitimate according to rules of evidence signed into law BY Bill Clinton) asked in pursuit of a Supreme Court sanctioned sexual harassment suit, while under oath, he LIED. Lying under oath, REGARDLESS OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES, is a felony, and the commission of a felony is a legitimate basis for impeachment.


Was Clinton Wrong for lying! YES! WITHOUT ANY DOUBT!

My Only complaint about that is that congress had Absolutly NO RIGHT to invade the president's Private life! That case should never have been investigated.

Now, while we're on the subject of illegal activity, when were the fallowing leagalized:

1. Starting a war for personal reasons.
2. Falsifing intellegence.
3. Violating The Fourth Amendment, which protects people against unreasonable search and seizure, a safeguard only recently extended to the states.
4. Revealing Classified information.

George W.Bush has done ALL of thee Above So, when is His Impeachment trial going to begin?

Tim



posted on Jan, 5 2006 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by ghost

My point is that Bush choose to START the war in Iraq! How can you get peace, by starting a war. Kerry might have hung around to finish what was started, but I doubt that he would have choosen to start the war if he knew what Bush knew in 2002!


funny, because i was under the impression that everyone had the same data and were in agreement:



TEXT FROM THE SPEECH JOHN KERRY MADE ON THE SENATE FLOOR
October 9, 2002
It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. He has as much as promised it. He has already created a stunning track record of miscalculation. He miscalculated an 8-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's responses to it. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending Scuds into Israel. He miscalculated his own military might. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his plight. He miscalculated in attempting an assassination of a former President of the United States. And he is miscalculating now America's judgments about his miscalculations.

All those miscalculations are compounded by the rest of history. A brutal, oppressive dictator, guilty of personally murdering and condoning murder and torture, grotesque violence against women, execution of political opponents, a war criminal who used chemical weapons against another nation and, of course, as we know, against his own people, the Kurds. He has diverted funds from the Oil-for-Food program, intended by the international community to go to his own people. He has supported and harbored terrorist groups, particularly radical Palestinian groups such as Abu Nidal, and he has given money to families of suicide murderers in Israel.

I mention these not because they are a cause to go to war in and of themselves, as the President previously suggested, but because they tell a lot about the threat of the weapons of mass destruction and the nature of this man. We should not go to war because these things are in his past, but we should be prepared to go to war because of what they tell us about the future. It is the total of all of these acts that provided the foundation for the world's determination in 1991 at the end of the gulf war that Saddam Hussein must: unconditionally accept the destruction, removal, or rendering harmless underinternational supervision of his chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missile delivery systems... [and] unconditionally agree not to acquire or develop nuclear weapons or nuclear weapon-usable material. (full text from a pro-kerry site)


emphasis added by me.



You will never get peace if you have a leader who is trigger happy and looking to start a war! Also, I remember Kerry saying that he wanted to develop a workable exit strategy to get us out at some point. Bush built the war on lies, and now he wants to press on with a failed strategy, reguarless of the consiquences. Kerry isn't perfect, but he's smarter than that!


yeah, i also remember that he changed his story about 5 different times. the man couldnt make a decision if his life depended upon it, which is the only reason i didnt vote for him. "smarter than that?" he's a complete idiot. the election was his for the taking, all he had to do was make a decision about his stance on iraq and stick with it. why do you think he lost the military vote? because they saw him as i saw him. incompetent.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 06:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by snafu7700

funny, because i was under the impression that everyone had the same data and were in agreement:



TEXT FROM THE SPEECH JOHN KERRY MADE ON THE SENATE FLOOR
October 9, 2002
It would be naive to the point of grave danger not to believe that, left to his own devices, Saddam Hussein will provoke, misjudge, or stumble into a future, more dangerous confrontation with the civilized world. He has as much as promised it. He has already created a stunning track record of miscalculation. He miscalculated an 8-year war with Iran. He miscalculated the invasion of Kuwait. He miscalculated America's responses to it. He miscalculated the result of setting oil rigs on fire. He miscalculated the impact of sending Scuds into Israel. He miscalculated his own military might. He miscalculated the Arab world's response to his plight. He miscalculated in attempting an assassination of a former President of the United States. And he is miscalculating now America's judgments about his miscalculations.


AH! That is one of the most common myths of our government. Not everyone sees the exact same information. Remember, we are talking about Intelligence Reports! Intelligence information is classified. What you get access to is determined by two factors: Clearance Level, and Need to Know.

Unless you can prove the Kerry and Bush have the exact same clearance and Need to Know, you have nothing more then a rumor to base you assumption on.

Do you have a copy of the CIA intelligence reports that were handed to John Kerry, and the ones that were given to President Bush? If not, you have no real proof of your claim!

Tim


[edit on 6-1-2006 by ghost]



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 08:05 AM
link   
You're a Hypocrite if you call yourself a Christian and voted for Bush twice

Really no inverse to that equation or "might be" ambiguity, tbh.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 09:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by ghost

Do you have a copy of the CIA intelligence reports that were handed to John Kerry, and the ones that were given to President Bush? If not, you have no real proof of your claim!


sorry tim, but that argument goes both ways....do you have a copy of the report and can you prove he didnt have the same info?



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 09:51 AM
link   
Ghost, the president's lies about sexual relations were investigated because he obstructed justice, failing to give Paula Jones her right to a fair trial. That was why there was an investigation. If you don't believe sexual harrassment court cases should be permissable, then I can understand why you would think the president shouldn't be investigated. However, if you think that sexual harrassment cases are legitimate, and the victims of the should get due process, but think that Clinton's privacy shouldn't have been intruded on, you might be a....

On the intelligence reports, you're correct, not everyone in the senate or congress gets the same intelligence. However, the Senate Intelligence Committee does. That is typically a non-partisan group of senators who recognize that intelligence isn't something to politicize as it is paramount to our nation's security. I believe there were 6 democrats and 7 republicans on the committee at the time the decision to invade Iraq was made. They had the same information Bush did.

However, it is also coming out that the CIA may have geared its reports to Bush to be what they thought he wanted to hear. In an investigation, the reports were compared between those given congress and those given the executive, and those given the executive used far stronger language and made the threat appear more grave. The JJ has a big problem with that, and has been following that story as best I can, though there is very little information about it.

Bout: Ooookaaay....Where in scripture is that?



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 10:00 AM
link   
You might be a hipocrite if you believe in the bible and preach the teachings on sunday, yet practice sodomy in the church basement which goes against bible teachings.

You might be a hipocrite if you believe that everyone should empty their pockets to help the degenerates of society yet you barely empty your own for the cause you so believe in.

You might be hipocrite if you believe in enviromental protection, yet drive an old car with your muffler blown out and throw your cigarette butts out the window everyday.

You might also be a hipocrite if you degrade women for being female, yet go home at night and put women's panties on and sing at the top of your lungs like barbara streisand.



posted on Jan, 6 2006 @ 10:54 AM
link   
You might be a hypocrite if you say you are for democracy but don’t want a third or forth political party.

You might be a hypocrite if you want low cost oil but don’t want china to have low oil cost.

You might be a hypocrite if you are for freedom but support Pakistan

You might be a hypocrite if say you want secular schools but see only Christian and Jewish holidays.

You might be a hypocrite if you scream about human rights but get caught disregarding them.

You might be a hypocrite if want peace but support it by war.

You might be a hypocrite if you want to live free but will not allow other cultures to do the same.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join