Although it can be presented as humor.
Showing posts with label liberal hypocrisy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label liberal hypocrisy. Show all posts
July 21, 2025
March 15, 2018
Democrat hypocrisy effectively reduced to a single picture
N.Y. governor Andrew Cuomo takes part in an anti-gun "die-in" protest, while surrounded by armed guards. Two-faced hypocrisy. Duplicitous, nanny-state paternalism.
Just, wow.
Gov Cuomo joins students in die-in after they walked out of school in Lower Manhattan. Students chant "enough is enough" about gun violence and school shootings. @wcbs880 pic.twitter.com/Wj7jn2lbzJ— Peter Haskell (@peterhaskell880) March 14, 2018
UPDATE: Gateway Pundit has more.
Labels:
Andrew Cuomo,
Democrat hypocrisy,
Guns,
hypocrisy,
liberal hypocrisy
October 20, 2016
Joe Scarborough nails liberals on hypocrisy on electoral outcome
Joe Scarborough calls the liberal media out with 100% accuracy.
Meanwhile Pat Caddell, Democrat pollster argues that Democrats and liberals have selective memories. Via Breitbart (hear the whole clip there):
“Selective memory is exactly the point” when it comes to the mainstream media’s reaction to Republican nominee Donald Trump suggesting he would wait and see before accepting the election results on November 8.“All he said was, ‘I’ll wait and see what the results are,’ which is a reasonable position, I suppose,” said Caddell, also pointing out that Democrats challenged the results of the presidential elections in 2000 and 2004.
The media wanted Donald Trump to concede after that question. He didn't so they took his answer and made that the issue.
July 19, 2009
Modern liberalism is simply identity politics
The Conservative Mama points out another instance of liberal identity politics on prominent display by Senator Barbara Boxer. And of course there's the current issue of the nomination to the Supreme Court of Justice Sotomayor, who appears to have a penchant for reverse discrimination (i.e. discrimination) also pointing out the same set of ideals or game plans.
So why are liberals this deeply involved in identity politics? Is it because they truly think that they are helping the downtrodden or is it a matter of political calculation? That's a chicken and egg discussion, but there's no denying that it's something liberal-leaning politicians attempt to use to their advantage - either by suggesting that those who disagree are socially wrong (a la Boxer) or just calculating the number of special interest groups that they need to cobble together for political victory.
The sad reality is that after 50 years of a welfare experiment, in the wealthiest country in the history of the world, there are still millions at or below the poverty line. What does that say to liberals? We need more - we haven't done enough. What it says to rational people is that maybe the method being applied isn't working. Maybe it doesn't work. Maybe there's a different approach we should consider?
In the coming weeks I'm going to be taking a look at the Law of Unintended Consequences - this is one area that liberal socialists need to take a long hard look in the mirror and start to face the reality of their actions. Otherwise we might be forced to come to the conclusion that they already know that their policies don't work. They might already know that their policies in some cases, in fact work in quite the opposite direction of their stated goals. And if they know that already, then maybe the liberal democrats, backed by an oddly high percentage of the wealthy, are the ones who are really against equality, opportunity and freedom and are actually interested in preserving the status quo.
Something to think about.
So why are liberals this deeply involved in identity politics? Is it because they truly think that they are helping the downtrodden or is it a matter of political calculation? That's a chicken and egg discussion, but there's no denying that it's something liberal-leaning politicians attempt to use to their advantage - either by suggesting that those who disagree are socially wrong (a la Boxer) or just calculating the number of special interest groups that they need to cobble together for political victory.
The sad reality is that after 50 years of a welfare experiment, in the wealthiest country in the history of the world, there are still millions at or below the poverty line. What does that say to liberals? We need more - we haven't done enough. What it says to rational people is that maybe the method being applied isn't working. Maybe it doesn't work. Maybe there's a different approach we should consider?
In the coming weeks I'm going to be taking a look at the Law of Unintended Consequences - this is one area that liberal socialists need to take a long hard look in the mirror and start to face the reality of their actions. Otherwise we might be forced to come to the conclusion that they already know that their policies don't work. They might already know that their policies in some cases, in fact work in quite the opposite direction of their stated goals. And if they know that already, then maybe the liberal democrats, backed by an oddly high percentage of the wealthy, are the ones who are really against equality, opportunity and freedom and are actually interested in preserving the status quo.
Something to think about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
