Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The immeasurable hypocrisy of the Democrat Party
News | 16 April 2018 | Mene Mene Tekel Upharsin

Posted on 04/16/2018 4:07:55 PM PDT by MeneMeneTekelUpharsin

The immeasurable hypocrisy of the Democrat Party is really coming to light. This is not an article to defend Donald Trump's alleged immorality. This article is about the news media's hypocrisy and not reporting the infidelity of Kennedy, Clinton and many other leaders. Morality only matters to Democrats when the opposing party has failed in that Arena.

The only purpose for dragging Cohen and Trump into court is to destroy the support from Trump's constituency. All of this is an attack on us, his supporters, not on Trump himself. It is not going to work. Funny how when Clinton was in office, a politician's personal life did not matter according to the media. It sure matters now as long as a Republican is involved. The number one enemy in the country has become the media with their propaganda. The number two enemy in the country are the federal agencies, who feed information to the media to fit their agenda.


TOPICS: Chit/Chat; Conspiracy; Education; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: clinton; kennedy; trump; women
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-31 last
To: kiryandil

I think its fair to remind fellow conservatives to be intellectually honest amongst ourselves and stay true to our principles.

What I objected to at first was the broad brush Fredpooll painted “us” conservatives with on a public forum. When we march into battle we should be united, put on our game faces, put aside our sibling rivalries and take pride in the knowledge that we are the good guys.


21 posted on 04/17/2018 9:23:47 AM PDT by enumerated
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: enumerated
I think its fair to remind fellow conservatives to be intellectually honest amongst ourselves and stay true to our principles.

Yes, I'm not going to knock YOU for giving some good advice.

I actually have only one principle as a conservative - total destruction of The Media Death Star.

Otherwise, we're just urinating into the hurricane.

Just look at what the Media Death Star has wrought over nearly two years of its main weapon turned on President Trump 24/7/365.

Until we destroy it, nothing we do makes any difference.

22 posted on 04/17/2018 9:38:33 AM PDT by kiryandil (Never pick a fight with an angry beehive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: kiryandil

Sure, Hillary would have been a disaster, so we made a deal with the devil. Maybe it was a good deal — we kept Hillary away from the levers of power. But if you’re trying to badger me into a making further deals with the devil, you’re doing a terrible job.

I’d be quite happy with President Pence. If that happens before 2024 because the devil takes his due, so be it. But leave me out of your “situational ethics.”


23 posted on 04/17/2018 10:22:57 AM PDT by Fredpooll
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: kiryandil

My “first principle” as a consevative is the small government. That one standard - if applied to the right extent - solves all the other problems:

Without the power to claim vast portions of the wealth in the name of “the collective”, the Left simply would not be able to afford their tyranny. They couldn’t afford own their MSM propaganda organ, they couldn’t afford to own their lobby funded deep state bureaucratic wealth redistribution machinery. They couldn’t own their Federal reserve Treasury fiat currency factory and their IRS wealth confiscation police force.

Finally, (and this is the one that gets me in trouble with other types of conservatives) - they couldn’t afford the awesome military might and intelligence gathering capabilities that essentially enforce all the other excessive powers, in the name of security. The US may be good at not acting like a police state, but it certainly has the power to be one at any time of its choosing, and as long as the potential is there, we are not free.

As a conservative I wanted security - but did I want it enough to trade away all my rights as an individual?

To me that’s what conservatism is all about.

It seems most people want something and the Left is clever at using whatever it is - whatever our sacred cow is - to get us to trade away our rights.

They use their MSM to play on our various fears - some people are afraid of climate change, giant corporations and white supremacists, others are afraid of Islamic terrorism, weak southern borders and drug trafficking. However legitimate those fears may or may not be, the Left will use them to justify more government power and control.

If the federal government was a 20th the size it is (as the founders evisioned it), - sure, we’d each have to give some things up - cross something off our wish list - but we’d be so much better off.


24 posted on 04/17/2018 11:23:23 AM PDT by enumerated
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: MeneMeneTekelUpharsin

Stormy,stormy, stormy is all that’s left of Russa, Russia, Russia. Please break klintoon’s index finger for pointing it at the US people. Klintoon is the scumbag! ...


25 posted on 04/17/2018 12:43:31 PM PDT by VRWC For Truth
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Fredpooll
Your post to me shows that you clearly don't understand the nature of the Media in our current politics.

It has NOTHING to do with "situational ethics".

Note that Roy Moore is slandered as a "pedophile" on Twitter [and other social media venues] any time his name comes up.

That is how thoroughly the Media Death Star destroyed him.

26 posted on 04/17/2018 4:18:20 PM PDT by kiryandil (Never pick a fight with an angry beehive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies]

To: enumerated
Finally, (and this is the one that gets me in trouble with other types of conservatives) - they couldn’t afford the awesome military might and intelligence gathering capabilities that essentially enforce all the other excessive powers, in the name of security. The US may be good at not acting like a police state, but it certainly has the power to be one at any time of its choosing, and as long as the potential is there, we are not free.

I heartily agree. I'm aware of the enormous amounts of data they have on all of us - and that we ourselves are considered to be "enemies of the State".

27 posted on 04/17/2018 4:20:31 PM PDT by kiryandil (Never pick a fight with an angry beehive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: enumerated
If the federal government was a 20th the size it is (as the founders evisioned it), - sure, we’d each have to give some things up - cross something off our wish list - but we’d be so much better off.

You ever read the Davy Crockett "sockdolager" article?

Not Yours To Give
1828
https://patriotpost.us/documents/69

28 posted on 04/17/2018 4:30:06 PM PDT by kiryandil (Never pick a fight with an angry beehive)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

To: Rembrandt

Eisenhower ended Korean War.

Nixon ended Viet Nam War.


29 posted on 04/17/2018 5:24:41 PM PDT by YogicCowboy ("I am not entirely on anyone's side, because no one is entirely on mine." - J. R. R. Tolkien)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: MeneMeneTekelUpharsin

“Eisenhower was a Republican, btw.”

Yes indeed, continuing the pattern of Democrats starting wars for whatever reason (distract, try to stoke a lethargic economy, because they’re bored, whatever) and Republicans are left to clean up the mess. The pattern still continues; the Zero was meddling in a lot of countries.


30 posted on 04/17/2018 7:59:42 PM PDT by Rembrandt (-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: kiryandil

I did read it a while back, but thank you for the link and the opportunity to read it again. Wouldn’t it be refreshing if some people in DC (besidesTrump) spoke in such a plain and honest way?

“It is a precedent fraught with danger to the country, for when Congress once begins to stretch its power beyond the limits of the Constitution, there is no limit to it, and no security for the people.”

Beautiful

That’s exactly why I chose my FR handle, ‘enumerated’. The founders thought it worth clarifyng (via the 9th amendnent) that the enumeration of certain rights in the Constitution “shall not be construed to deny or disparage other rights retained by the people”.

To me, that statement (the 9th amendment), is the very heart of the constitution, where the founders asserted limitations on the government - by stating that any rights not enumerated (specified) were by default retained by the people.

If that amendnent had been honored, according to Davy Crockett’s admonishments in “not yours to give”, we would not today be a socialist nation with upwards of 100 trillion in debts, entitlements and obligations.


31 posted on 04/18/2018 6:23:28 AM PDT by enumerated
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-31 last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
General/Chat
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson