Which Is It?

Anyone that reads these blogs for more than a week knows I’m a consistency freak. I don’t believe you can change your mind with the blowing of the wind. Ideas and thoughts mean things, and you need to be true to your feelings, and I really don’t care what those feelings are. That’s the thing that grinds me about liberals. They are anything BUT consistent. Need an example? Sure.

Hillary Clinton has been on the campaign trail for about 10 months now, swearing that she backs Barack Obama in not all, but most of his agenda. Yes, there are some things that she’d do different, but overall, she likes the direction he’s taken the country. OK, that’s fair. I don’t agree with it, but it’s fair. So why then is Bill Clinton on the campaign trail in Washington State on Monday telling the crowd, “If you believe we’ve finally come to the point where we can put the awful legacy of the last eight years behind us.”? Awful legacy? Really? Gee, Bill…you’re sounding more like you belong on the other side of the fence!

And this is the inconsistency you get with these two. Bill is out there, speaking his mind, Hillary is out there playing politician, afraid to say anything that might lose her a vote or two…well, except for the often-heard gaffe (like telling people in Appalachia that she’s going to shut down every coal company in America?). And that is exactly what bugs me about liberals. They are fluid as the day is long when it comes to their policies and their thoughts. The constitution? It’s a “living, breathing document”. Right. When was the last time you saw the constitution breathing? The reason they say that is because they don’t agree with it and want to do away with it slowly, over time. It doesn’t fit their changing mood.

You can pick pretty much any issue out there and I can show you where these folks are off the rails when it comes to being consistent. Now, I’ll be the first to admit the GOP isn’t much better, and I’ve said this type of thing before. You can reduce the abortion debate and the capital punishment debate to its basic element which is the taking of a life. I will agree that one is of an innocent babe, yet to be born and the other is of someone that has either taken a life themselves or has committed some heinous crime that deserves severe punishment, but it is still the taking of a life. So ask yourself, if it is wrong to take a life, then why are we doing it in one instance and not the other?

Neither side is 100% pure on this, I realize, but I also know that liberals are all over the board. This gaffe by Bill Clinton (was it really a gaffe or is he telling the truth?) is just the latest example where people of the same campaign, in fact people that are married to each other don’t sing the same tune in public. I get that they may have differing views on issues, but when Hillary has tied herself so tightly to the president, and Bill is out there saying the legacy we’ve had over the past eight years is awful, that’s not just a difference of opinion, that’s a huge chasm.

And people wonder about Donald Trump and his treatment of women? Really?

Carry on world…you’re dismissed!


7 thoughts on “Which Is It?

  1. Well Desert, I am for consistency also along with doing research (those darn history majors/bond underwriters) and you did not do yours on this post, or maybe you did but chose to ignore facts.

    The awful legacy that the Clinton’s referred to was the obstructionism and blatant racism of the Republicans since the day Obama took office. This has been reported in several news sources.

    Mitch McConnell and his band of merry reactionaries has obstructed every program that Obama has submitted, because god forbid, he should have any sort of victory. Remember Mitch’s we want to make Obama a one term president? The country is going through the worst financial crisis since the Great Depression and this is the Republicans grand plan to help the country? Then there was John of Orange’s famous quote of No! No! Hell No! as a response to help the United States during the financial crisis. Then we have Mitch’s plan for Supreme Court nominee Merritt Garland which consists of a precedent that he basically pulled out of his ass with a tag line let the people decide. This is the bunch that wants to control Congress and the White House? I would not trust this bunch with a super soaker.

    You also never seem to miss an opportunity for the capital punishment/abortion life thing. Capital punishment, we could have a long discussion on that, but not here, not now. Abortion, you still miss the privacy argument and always bring the “baby” mental visual. But let me pose this question to you and you have heard it from me privately before, how many of these unwanted babies have you adopted and I do not mean from some foreign country? No, the ones that the pro-life crowd tries to save outside clinics. None, zip, nada. Consequently, if you do not do this, you are simply pro birth and really do not care what happens after they are born. Basically the whole pro life crowd is sticking their noses where they do not belong, up other women’s vaginas. You may find that statement crude, but it does sum up the facts.

    Coal, been dying for the past forty years and it is not coming back.

    When are you going to do a blog on the nutball proposed policies of the two front runners of the Republicans. We are looking at unprecedented upward wealth distribution, unconstitutional policies regarding immigration and just plain idiotic ideas. You seem to like to beat up liberal, how about the other side, trickle down economics, supply side economics, job creators, essentially S squared, D squared.

    Just asking.

    • Geez Snark…you’re really reaching for straws here. Billy’s comment on the terrible legacy of the last eight years, then saying it was the Republicans was an obvious walk back. I think I need to school you in the fundamentals of basic media awareness. I know what he said afterward. Hillary also said she never had any classified information on her server too. So why don’t I believe her now?

      Hang on a sec for McConnell. Could it be he’s not the only “reactionary” in Congress? What about your vaunted white knight from Searchlight? You know…the guy that didn’t pass a budget in six years? The guy that stonewalled everything that came to the Senate over his term as Majority Leader so Obama wouldn’t have to spend his days off the golf course, and would actually have to veto something? Let’s be realistic here, shall we? Has McConnell not warmed to socialism as you’d like him to? Absolutely. That’s why the American public elected the GOP as the majority party in the senate. Your guys screwed up and had to pay for it. As for not moving forward with the Garland nomination, it’s their right. Just as it is Harry Reid’s right to enforce the nuclear option when he did… and there is NOTHING in the constitution that says anything differently and you know it. The president has a right to nominate anyone he wants to fill a Supreme Court vacancy, and the Senate has the right to confirm or not confirm that individual. The constitution doesn’t say how they have to do that. If the Senate decides to not confirm him by not voting or holding hearings, are they not still deciding on him? And yes, it’s political…just like Chuck Schumer’s comments when GW Bush was president….or Joe Biden’s comments…or Barack Obama’s comments. It IS political because it IS politics. Or is it just politics when the right chooses to do something like this. When the left does it, it’s common sense? Doesn’t fly.

      As far as beating up the other side, I have done that several times, and it’s available for you to read…you just have to look. I don’t always agree with the GOP. It just so happens they are a hell of a lot more normal than the Democrats who are full of emotion and not so full of logic when it comes to their ideas. Kinda like someone we know that currently sits on a board we both know!

  2. Not opinion, it is history or tell me in my post which is which. Facts are not biased

  3. Good read, Desert. Regarding a few points in Snarky’s rebuttal……….One of the very few, I admit it, sane things McConnell has ever said is that we wanted to make Barry a one-termer. (God forbid O should have any sort of victory?) When it’s victory for the sake of victory – just like let’s elect a black prez because it’s historic or let’s elect a woman prez because she has a vagina and it would be historic, just for the sake of being historic? FUCK NO!!

    The reason Desert and I and others on the Right gave the R’s majorities was to act as a roadblock to O’s policies. We’re pissed because our idiot leaders, including the retired orange one, have let him skate way too many times. That’s why you have Trump out there. Crazy as he is, our regular politicians haven’t been getting the job done. Your party sucks big time, but ours has pretty much caught up to you now.

    And on the abortion/capital punishment issue……my take is that the babies have done nothing to deserve their fate in an abortion. But a grown man, who has had a chance to learn right from wrong and develop the ability to use common sense and judgment, still makes the choice to kill someone else, then yeah, they need to go. If they’re mentally ill, then keep them in jail. If they’re just an evil person who hates the world then they’re no better than a rabid dog that needs to be put down.

    And one last thing on the abortion issue, using the privacy excuse is a cop out because it completely takes the woman’s poor decisions and accountability off the table, like that played no part in the woman ending up in the doc’s office seeking an abortion in the first place. And I know there are exceptions, just like in the previous argument. By the way, if your side hadn’t killed so many babies since the mid 70’s, Dems wouldn’t be having to import so many voters these days from around the world through illegal immigration.

  4. So E, what you are saying is that the Fourth Amendment is a cop out on abortion, yet medical records, hence decisions other than abortion are sacrosanct and not for the prying eyes or public discussion, of course unless you are Terry Schiavo and you get El Jebe to pass a law interfering with a husband’s decision. Isn’t that discrimination, isn’t that illogical, isn’t that contrary to the Right’s getting government out of lives? The abortion thing on the Right is based on you using your religion as public policy. The term baby is a dog whistle that projects an image of a full grown fetus when a majority of abortions do not involve a full grown fetus. Zygotes are not babies and first trimester fetus’ are not babies.

    While you had a decent post, why did you denigrate yourself into the absurd with that really stupid statement about abortions in the 70’s causing Democrats importing immigrants for voters through illegal immigration. I thought you would use the argument that abortions in the 70’s caused a drop in the crime rate in the 90’s.

    The other points on blocking the president’s policies, like jobs for instance. When has the Republican majority put forth a job program that does not involve a tax cut? Tax cuts are always the answer and they have never worked. Check out Kansas and their idiot governor.

Comments are closed.