Is this the height of lefty hypocrisy...or is there a better example?

[Dino]

I'm having trouble thinking of any more hypocritical moment for the Democrat left in this country beyond the scope of the ongoing Rudy Giuliani commentary...

http://www.inquisitr.com/1864138/if...or-giuliani-to-say-obama-doesnt-love-america/

If It’s OK For Obama To Say Bush Was ‘Unpatriotic,’ Why Isn’t It OK For Giuliani To Say Obama ‘Doesn’t Love America’?

Conservative pundits are accusing liberals of double standards for expressing outrage after former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani questioned President Obama’s love for America. They are pointing out that in 2008, then-Senator Obama also called President Bush “unpatriotic” for adding trillions to the national debt.

According to the Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft, “You certainly didn’t hear any reporters lecturing Obama for his uncivil rhetoric after that outrageous attack.”

Fox News also also called “the left” out over “double standards,” saying that “no one no seemed to remember in 2008, when then-Senator Obama similarly questioned President Bush’s patriotism.”
On July 3, 2008, during a speech delivered in Fargo, North Dakota, then-Senator Obama questioned President George W. Bush’s management of the national debt, describing it as “unpatriotic.”

Obama accused Bush of “taking out a credit card from China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt.”
“… we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible, it’s unpatriotic.”

At the White House press briefing on Friday, Ed Henry, Fox News White House correspondent, pointed out to White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest the fact that during his campaign in 2008, Obama also described Bush as “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic.”
“Josh, given your sorrow for Rudy Giuliani do you think the president has any regrets about saying President Bush was unpatriotic for adding $4 trillion to the debt?” Henry reportedly asked.
“I haven’t seen the actual comments. I don’t know if you have it there in front of you,” Earnest responded.

“He [Obama] said that the president [Bush], I’m paraphrasing this part, had added about $4 trillion to the debt and then he said, quote, ‘that’s irresponsible, that’s unpatriotic,'” Henry said.
Earnest responded, saying that Obama never questioned Bush’s personal love for his country and that at the time he made the statement, he was addressing a specific issue of the Bush administration’s policy and action in contrast with Giuliani’s comment, which was a generalized accusation against Obama that he does not love his country.

 

[Barbella]

I'm having trouble thinking of any more hypocritical moment for the Democrat left in this country beyond the scope of the ongoing Rudy Giuliani commentary...

http://www.inquisitr.com/1864138/if...or-giuliani-to-say-obama-doesnt-love-america/

If It’s OK For Obama To Say Bush Was ‘Unpatriotic,’ Why Isn’t It OK For Giuliani To Say Obama ‘Doesn’t Love America’?

Conservative pundits are accusing liberals of double standards for expressing outrage after former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani questioned President Obama’s love for America. They are pointing out that in 2008, then-Senator Obama also called President Bush “unpatriotic” for adding trillions to the national debt.

According to the Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft, “You certainly didn’t hear any reporters lecturing Obama for his uncivil rhetoric after that outrageous attack.”

Fox News also also called “the left” out over “double standards,” saying that “no one no seemed to remember in 2008, when then-Senator Obama similarly questioned President Bush’s patriotism.”
On July 3, 2008, during a speech delivered in Fargo, North Dakota, then-Senator Obama questioned President George W. Bush’s management of the national debt, describing it as “unpatriotic.”

Obama accused Bush of “taking out a credit card from China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt.”
“… we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible, it’s unpatriotic.”

At the White House press briefing on Friday, Ed Henry, Fox News White House correspondent, pointed out to White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest the fact that during his campaign in 2008, Obama also described Bush as “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic.”
“Josh, given your sorrow for Rudy Giuliani do you think the president has any regrets about saying President Bush was unpatriotic for adding $4 trillion to the debt?” Henry reportedly asked.
“I haven’t seen the actual comments. I don’t know if you have it there in front of you,” Earnest responded.

“He [Obama] said that the president [Bush], I’m paraphrasing this part, had added about $4 trillion to the debt and then he said, quote, ‘that’s irresponsible, that’s unpatriotic,'” Henry said.
Earnest responded, saying that Obama never questioned Bush’s personal love for his country and that at the time he made the statement, he was addressing a specific issue of the Bush administration’s policy and action in contrast with Giuliani’s comment, which was a generalized accusation against Obama that he does not love his country.

Once again, that's "DIFFERENT".

Liberals hypocrisy is so inborn and inbred, so much a part of their psychotic personalities, that it's impossible for them to recognize, and much less acknowledge it.

 

[as seen on tv]

i know you're simply being facetious.

as david axelrod immediately reminded us last week, anyone who says ANYTHING negative about obama and his policies is a racist.

that's why they can make cartoons showing bush as a "chimp", but for 6 years SNL was scared shitless to lampoon Obama in way whatsoever.

 

[Dino]

i know you're simply being facetious.

as david axelrod immediately reminded us last week, anyone who says ANYTHING negative about obama and his policies is a racist.

that's why they can make cartoons showing bush as a "chimp", but for 6 years SNL was scared shitless to lampoon Obama in way whatsoever.

I like that Axelrod insists that Obama agrees with that too. He seems rather astute at recognizing "racism".... wonder how he does with this blatant hypocrisy though?

 

[Arkady]

I'm having trouble thinking of any more hypocritical moment for the Democrat left in this country beyond the scope of the ongoing Rudy Giuliani commentary...

http://www.inquisitr.com/1864138/if...or-giuliani-to-say-obama-doesnt-love-america/

If It’s OK For Obama To Say Bush Was ‘Unpatriotic,’ Why Isn’t It OK For Giuliani To Say Obama ‘Doesn’t Love America’?

Conservative pundits are accusing liberals of double standards for expressing outrage after former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani questioned President Obama’s love for America. They are pointing out that in 2008, then-Senator Obama also called President Bush “unpatriotic” for adding trillions to the national debt.

According to the Gateway Pundit’s Jim Hoft, “You certainly didn’t hear any reporters lecturing Obama for his uncivil rhetoric after that outrageous attack.”

Fox News also also called “the left” out over “double standards,” saying that “no one no seemed to remember in 2008, when then-Senator Obama similarly questioned President Bush’s patriotism.”
On July 3, 2008, during a speech delivered in Fargo, North Dakota, then-Senator Obama questioned President George W. Bush’s management of the national debt, describing it as “unpatriotic.”

Obama accused Bush of “taking out a credit card from China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt.”
“… we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back — $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That’s irresponsible, it’s unpatriotic.”

At the White House press briefing on Friday, Ed Henry, Fox News White House correspondent, pointed out to White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest the fact that during his campaign in 2008, Obama also described Bush as “irresponsible” and “unpatriotic.”
“Josh, given your sorrow for Rudy Giuliani do you think the president has any regrets about saying President Bush was unpatriotic for adding $4 trillion to the debt?” Henry reportedly asked.
“I haven’t seen the actual comments. I don’t know if you have it there in front of you,” Earnest responded.

“He [Obama] said that the president [Bush], I’m paraphrasing this part, had added about $4 trillion to the debt and then he said, quote, ‘that’s irresponsible, that’s unpatriotic,'” Henry said.
Earnest responded, saying that Obama never questioned Bush’s personal love for his country and that at the time he made the statement, he was addressing a specific issue of the Bush administration’s policy and action in contrast with Giuliani’s comment, which was a generalized accusation against Obama that he does not love his country.

If Obama said Bush was unpatriotic, or Giuliani had said some action of Obama's was unpatriotic, we'd have equivalent phrases. But that's simply not the case. One man was criticizing a particular policy choice, the other was ascribing a mindset to a person. It's a false equivalence.

 

[Dino]

If Obama said Bush was unpatriotic, or Giuliani had said some action of Obama's was unpatriotic, we'd have equivalent phrases. But that's simply not the case. One man was criticizing a particular policy choice, the other was ascribing a mindset to a person. It's a false equivalence.

Not true. Not a false equivalence whatsoever.

On July 3, 2008 -- the day before Independence Day -- Barack Obama said that adding $4 trillion in debt was irresponsible and "unpatriotic."

Obama: "The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents - #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back -- $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic."

That is the direct quote. It mentions Bush by name specifically, and then he emphasizes it by calling him "#43. This is certainly personal, and a direct personal attack. Not even to mention just how incredibly hypocritical this criticism was- Obama adding more to the debt than Bush did.

Not a chance of a false equivalence...just a pisspoor attempt at spin by a lefty hypocrite.

Nice try, but you don't even come close to hitting the mark.

 

[Arkady]

Obama: "The problem is, is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents - #43 added $4 trillion by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt that we are going to have to pay back -- $30,000 for every man, woman and child. That's irresponsible. It's unpatriotic."

You've made my point well. It was a false equivalence. One man was attacking a particular policy as unpatriotic, the other was questioning whether a person loves his country.

If not for your political stake in this, I'm sure you'd recognize the difference. For example, I'm sure you'd see that if I showed you a picture of Michael Phelps smoking pot and told you that's unhealthy, that's not the same as saying that Michael Phelps is unhealthy -- I'd be commenting on the particular action, not characterizing the person who took it. I can say that is was a dumb move for Churchill to throw so many troops at Gallipoli during WWI, but that isn't the same as saying that Churchill was a dumb man. Obviously, his dumb move notwithstanding, he was very smart. And Obama can call running up debt "unpatriotic," without intimating that Bush doesn't love his country.

There's a key distinction there, and deep down you know it. If you can find an example of Obama saying he didn't think Bush loved his country -- or, really, ANY major Democratic politician saying that about ANY major Republican politician -- we'll have a similar situation. But this isn't it. What Giuliani did was waaaaaay out of the ordinary.

 

[Lukey]

You've made my point well. It was a false equivalence. One man was attacking a particular policy as unpatriotic, the other was questioning whether a person loves his country.

If not for your political stake in this, I'm sure you'd recognize the difference. For example, I'm sure you'd see that if I showed you a picture of Michael Phelps smoking pot and told you that's unhealthy, that's not the same as saying that Michael Phelps is unhealthy -- I'd be commenting on the particular action, not characterizing the person who took it. I can say that is was a dumb move for Churchill to throw so many troops at Gallipoli during WWI, but that isn't the same as saying that Churchill was a dumb man. Obviously, his dumb move notwithstanding, he was very smart. And Obama can call running up debt "unpatriotic," without intimating that Bush doesn't love his country.

There's a key distinction there, and deep down you know it. If you can find an example of Obama saying he didn't think Bush loved his country -- or, really, ANY major Democratic politician saying that about ANY major Republican politician -- we'll have a similar situation. But this isn't it. What Giuliani did was waaaaaay out of the ordinary.

Giuliani suggested that President Obama was brought up with Marxist influences. That is a fact.

http://spectator.org/articles/61849/here’s-guy-rudy-talking-about-frank-marshall-davis-communist-party-no-47544

Barack Obama himself has written in his book that he sought out "Marxist" professors in college:

And he has mentioned on numerous occasions his desire to redistribute wealth:

And he chose a career in community organizing, a favorite job of Marxists the world over:

https://books.google.com/books?id=wmWhAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA201&lpg=PA201&dq=community organization Marxism&source=bl&ots=-b51q9a3EQ&sig=JRxkadj0eFOTorEQWq_vlkZLTaA&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5YzrVPSjOsOIsQTrt4LgDQ&ved=0CDQQ6AEwBDgo#v=onepage&q=community organization Marxism&f=false

So, it can all be documented. The real question is, why won't his critics discuss the documentation and instead rely only on an attack the messenger defense of Obama?

 

[Arkady]

Giuliani suggested that President Obama was brought up with Marxist influences.

Let's try to stay on topic. Giuliani was questioning whether Obama loved America. Why the weird non sequitur? Changing the topic to whether or not Obama had Marxist influences is as meaningless for that topic as changing it to whether or not he had Christian influences.

 

[Lukey]

Let's try to stay on topic. Giuliani was questioning whether Obama loved America. Why the weird non sequitur? Changing the topic to whether or not Obama had Marxist influences is as meaningless for that topic as changing it to whether or not he had Christian influences.

His basis for that "topic" was that Obama was brought up with Marxist influences:

http://nypost.com/2015/02/21/giuliani-obama-influenced-by-communists-since-youth/

I know it is hard for the left to argue using actual facts, but that is the actual fact. You can discuss it or ignore it but it doesn't change the fact that it is, you know, the fact behind Rudy's opinion that Obama "doesn't love America" like capitalists do.

 

[Dino]

His basis for that "topic" was that Obama was brought up with Marxist influences:

http://nypost.com/2015/02/21/giuliani-obama-influenced-by-communists-since-youth/

I know it is hard for the left to argue using actual facts, but that is the actual fact. You can discuss it or ignore it but it doesn't change the fact that it is, you know, the fact behind Rudy's opinion that Obama "doesn't love America" like capitalists do.

That's a good point you're making. The only question should be whether Rudy can justify where his opinion originates.
There should be no debate as to whether he should offer an opinion like this, is allowed to hold it, or if we've heard a strongly held opinion such as this before.
After hearing the GOP are terrorists, racists, the "Taliban" and that Bush is "unpatriotic" it hardly seems the stuff scandal is made of.

 

[Lukey]

That's a good point you're making. The only question should be whether Rudy can justify where his opinion originates.
There should be no debate as to whether he should offer an opinion like this, is allowed to hold it, or if we've heard a strongly held opinion such as this before.
After hearing the GOP are terrorists, racists, the "Taliban" and that Bush is "unpatriotic" it hardly seems the stuff scandal is made of.

That's why the left is attacking the messenger - the message is unassailable. So unless they can discredit Giuliani, they fear it will take hold, and all the advances they have made toward US socialism become threatened.

 

[Craig]

That's why the left is attacking the messenger - the message is unassailable. So unless they can discredit Giuliani, they fear it will take hold, and all the advances they have made toward US socialism become threatened.

The message is assailable. Where in the world did the idea originate that there is but one allowable path in this country? Rudy's father was a crook. His family failed to serve in the military. But Rudy...Rudy is the arbiter of all things patriotic. Sorry....no.

You'd slam Teddy Roosevelt...because he didn't allow unbridled capitalism.

 

[Dino]

The message is assailable. Where in the world did the idea originate that there is but one allowable path in this country? Rudy's father was a crook. His family failed to serve in the military. But Rudy...Rudy is the arbiter of all things patriotic. Sorry....no.

You'd slam Teddy Roosevelt...because he didn't allow unbridled capitalism.

Funny how I thought I just heard "the left is attacking the messenger"... and Craig goes "Oh yeah, I'm ALL IN on that one!"

 

[Craig]

Funny how I thought I just heard "the left is attacking the messenger"... and Craig goes "Oh yeah, I'm ALL IN on that one!"

And you are all in on attacking the President...Ho hum.

Lukey said the message was unassailable. Obviously, the message is assailable, and the message is being assailed.

 

[Dino]

And you are all in on attacking the President...Ho hum.

Lukey said the message was unassailable. Obviously, the message is assailable, and the message is being assailed.

But it's not. There's just too much backing Rudy on it. That's why you attacked the messenger.

 

[Craig]

But it's not. There's just too much backing Rudy on it. That's why you attacked the messenger.

That's your outlook.

I "attacked" the messenger...(You attack the President)...because no one was "raised" like Rudy...except Rudy. He failed to serve...his father, the crook, failed to serve, yet I am supposed to embrace Rudy as arbiter of all things good and patriotic in this land.

Ain't happening. Wouldn't be prudent...

 

[Lukey]

The message is assailable. Where in the world did the idea originate that there is but one allowable path in this country? Rudy's father was a crook. His family failed to serve in the military. But Rudy...Rudy is the arbiter of all things patriotic. Sorry....no.

You'd slam Teddy Roosevelt...because he didn't allow unbridled capitalism.

So you assail the message by...assailing the messenger? Sheesh!

There is not "one allowable path" in America. People are free to be Marxists, or to hold Marxist principles. Are you at least agreeing that it's not outrageous to point to Obama's background that entails an awful lot of evidence of Marxist philosophy and suggest that there may be some Marxist tendencies in his philosophical DNA?

 

[Craig]

So you assail the message by...assailing the messenger? Sheesh!

There is not "one allowable path" in America. People are free to be Marxists, or to hold Marxist principles. Are you at least agreeing that it's not outrageous to point to Obama's background that entails an awful lot of evidence of Marxist philosophy and suggest that there may be some Marxist tendencies in his philosophical DNA?

How else does one assail the message?

Marxist DNA??? Please...

The messenger has no clothes...

 

[Lukey]

And you are all in on attacking the President...Ho hum.

Lukey said the message was unassailable. Obviously, the message is assailable, and the message is being assailed.

By attacking Giuliani! Tell me why it isn't reasonable to look at the Marxist influences in Obama's background (Frank Marshall Davis, the Marxist professors, Saul Alinsky, Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright) and suggest he might harbor Marxist tendencies?