• RSS
  • Facebook
  • Twitter
AdLib On June - 10 - 2014

reagantalibankf6

Many in the liberal media (you puppy-hating, Muslim-loving, gay illegal immigrants know who you are!) have tried to criticize Republicans for voicing 100% support the military, vowing that we should leave no soldier behind and initially supporting doing whatever it took to bring U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl back home from captivity…then after he was brought back home, attacking President Obama for actually practicing all of those values.

Well, though those in the GameStream Bleedia may light up their legal joints in celebration at declaring that Republicans are suddenly being hypocrites on this but let me tell you something…there is no “suddenly” about it!

Throughout American history, Republicans have always stood for supporting the goals they speak up for…then attacking any Democrats who accomplishes them!

Since those in the FlameBeam Creedia attack faith (which is all we base our economic policies and political appeal on), as proof of this I have listed two excerpts below from the official Republican Encyclopedia of Hindsight Deals to prove that Republicans have always been consistent in their complete inconsistency on the principles they stand by…conditionally.

THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE

In 1989, the conservative think tank, The Heritage Foundation, opposed the Clinton Administration’s efforts on providing universal health care and proposed an individual mandate for health insurance. Though it failed to pass then, Republican Governor Mitt Romney included it in his Romneycare health insurance legislation in Massachusetts in 2006. This approach represented the free market and individual responsibility principles of the Republican Party…until President Obama had to double dip his chip in it. Then of course, who wants to keep eating that dip?

Republicans stood firm against their own program that this Constitution-hating, anti-colonialist President dared to try an enact into law, calling it “socialism”, “a government takeover of health care”, “creating Death Panels” and “full o’ cooties”.

Thanks to a traitorous Supreme Court (at least on that one ruling), Republicans were unable to completely destroy the law that they believed was truly faithful to Republican values.

In recognition of this somber occasion, on the date that the Individual Mandate for personal responsibility over insuring oneself was condoned by the Supreme Court, Republicans refuse to take any personal responsibility for anything (NOTE: For many Republicans, this is a year round tradition).

Then there is this famous moment in Republican Hindsight history:

ENTERING WWII AFTER THE ATTACK ON PEARL HARBOR

On December 7, 1941, The Imperial Japanese Navy attacked Pearl Harbor, Hawaii, to cripple the Pacific force of the U.S.. In response to this shocking attack, Democratic President Franklin Delano Roosevelt called on Congress to declare war upon Japan and thus began the U.S. entry into World War II.

However, in 2014, Republicans have reconsidered the data and discovered that although 60 million people were killed throughout World War II, the real tragedy was that Americans were killed too, lives that actually mattered. Republicans may have supported that Democrat war then but looking at it now, how could The President trade 300,000 lives for not living under global Nazi tyranny? Of course, Republicans oppose living under such a brutal fascist dictatorship but not at such a cost.

Republicans believe that looking back, America should have explained to the Japanese that they were not only going to lose the war but they would have karaoke and McDonalds hamburgers in their future so they should just surrender now and move forward quicker to a fun and higher cholesteroled tomorrow. Republicans are convinced this would have ended the war almost immediately and led to Americans driving flying cars over streets paved with gold…if only not for that war mongering FDR leading us into a war Republicans only supported at that time.

Lastly, at the end of the war, Roosevelt negotiated surrender with global terrorists. As House Republican Leader John Boehner declared in a speech at this year’s Republican Principles Retreat and Politician Auction, “Republicans stand firmly against Democrats ever negotiating with terrorists, that’s our job!” (see: Iran Contra and George W. Bush’s Paying of Ransom to Al-Qaeda linked Abu Sayyef in the Philipines in 2002 ).

Republicans have a long history of short memories and an overriding moral stance that what’s right is right…unless a Democrat does it.

Written by AdLib

My motto is, "It is better to have blogged and lost hours of your day, than never to have blogged at all."

43 Responses so far.

Click here to leave a comment
  1. gyp46 says:

    Without using foreign examples with your ‘republican buddies’ why not just use some simple examples closer to home. 1. ask if they have ever used their ‘unemployment benefits’ (a communist plot of the 30’s) 2. Ask if they have ever been hurt on the job and used their ‘workers comp’ insurance, ( another communist plot ), or 3. if old enough do they ‘take’ their SS, (socialist security), or their medicare, (socialized medicine). Ya gotta love that two sided stance.

  2. Misterbadexample says:

    seriously? We ‘Muricans don’t do hind-sight. Could we all have a call-in the next time some bloviator spouts off about Iran’s hatred of the US and point out to said individual the history going back to Mossadegh?

    And as for Iraq, we built the Ba’athist party and used Saddam (a CIA asset) in the late 1950’s to try and depose Qasim, a leader who had the gall to ask for a bigger share of the oil money out of Iraq.
    http://brooklynculturejammers.com/2014/06/14/back-to-the-future-in-iraq/

    The Republican attack on history that I particularly despise was the Amity Schlaes book THE FORGOTTEN MAN, which played serious disinfo games with the jobless figures of the Depression to call FDR’s new deal a mistake. Schlaes keeps getting jobs and face-time (on MSNBC awhile ago) to argue policy.
    We are always at war with Eastasia.

  3. JumpingJackFlash says:

    The quote “These gentlemen are the moral equivalent of the founding fathers.” does not go with this photo. Reagan was not talking about the Taliban when he said this. The photo was taken in 1983 and the quote is from 1985.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/reagan-freedom-fighters-taliban-foreign-policy-2013-2

    • Nirek says:

      Jack, Reagan made deals with bad guys from all over the place. The picture shows him paling with the Taliban and the quote shows him friendly with the Contras and he dealt with Iran , some hero he was, huh?

      • JumpingJackFlash says:

        In 1983 the Taliban was a resistance group fighting the Soviet’s. They didn’t become a terrorist group until Bin Laden came along. Reagan wasn’t dealing with the same Taliban we have today and we had a common enemy.

        • gyp46 says:

          sorry, but the Taliban is not a terrorist organization, even today. Sure they fight our troops, but that does not make them ‘terrorists’. They have never exported their ‘war’ to the world as has others, they are, in their eyes, fighting an invader of ‘their’ country, just as we citizens of America would do if an invader came here. Just labeling someone a terrorists does not make them terrorists.

        • AdLib says:

          Reagan financed the Mujahideen as opposition to the USSR in Afghanistan which did indeed include Bin Laden and the Taliban:

          Under Operation Cyclone from 1979 to 1989, the United States provided financial aid and weapons to the Mujahideen through Pakistan’s ISI. Bin Laden met and built relations with Hamid Gul, who was a three-star general in the Pakistani army and head of the ISI agency. Although the United States provided the money and weapons, the training of militant groups was entirely done by the Pakistani Armed Forces and the ISI.

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Osama_bin_Laden#Mujahideen_in_Afghanistan

    • escribacat says:

      Interesting. Apparently his quote was referring to the “Contras” in Nicaragua. They weren’t much better than the Taliban though, were accused of many human rights abuses. They weren’t good guys — unless you believe that a “communist” regime such as the Sandinistas should be eliminated by any means necessary.

      Forgot to add this link:
      http://www.brown.edu/Research/Understanding_the_Iran_Contra_Affair/n-contras.php

  4. S-Man says:

    Conservatives always end up on the wrong side of history, it’s their job and they do it very well.

  5. SearingTruth says:

    “Truth is defined by the weakest of us who must suffer through it.”
    SearingTruth

    A Future of the Brave

  6. phoenixdoglover says:

    How about the psychological interpretation? There is a growing body of evidence to indicate differences between the personality traits of conservatives and progressives. In some respects, people gravitate toward a political pole because their brain is wired that way.

    Conservatives then, by their nature, resist change, and cannot play the part of “change agent”. Even if they see the merit of a proposal, they are subject to their in-built preference to reject the idea. Thus they are frequently playing either the loyal opposition or something much less noble, depending on how much change is in the offing.

    So vigorous debate is good; the best ideas are forged from red hot steel, etc. If the idea works, despite the conservative foot-dragging, they feel entitled to take credit, as they were part of the necessary adversarial process. Or so goes the Monday morning rationalization.

    Now let’s turn this thing around a bit. Do you think the Tea Party wing of the GOP is conservative? Don’t they seem more like a strange blend of Christo/fundamental/libertarian/anarchists? Don’t they want a lot of change? And might you be riled about about them (contemptuous, mocking, whatever) because you are a “conservative progressive”?

    • MurphTheSurf3 says:

      I am a conservative….I am also a progressive. In my mind Teddy Roosevelt, FDR, IKE and Clinton were also progressive conservatives. Your excellent discussion is, in my mind, about those I refer to as regressive conservatives.

      Here is the key word….

      Zealotry…

      “It is the certainty that they possess the truth that makes men cruel.”
      ― Anatole France

      “Fundamentalism isn’t about religion, it’s about power.”
      ― Salman Rushdie

      “Every reform movement has a lunatic fringe.”
      ― Theodore Roosevelt

      “The dangerous man is the one who has only one idea, because then he’ll fight and die for it.”
      ― Francis Crick

      I think of the Tea Party, the Dominionists, the Militia and how they have infected the GOP

      Cantor’s loss yesterday spreads the infection.

      • RSGmusic says:

        HI murph,

        Cantors lose shows the USA how bad the GOP is.

        YOU being conservative? progressive? Yes you are both and can debate either side. Although you do seem to lean toward progressive. This is a good thing.

        Yes the presidents you listed are what you say.
        conservative is a way to retire to. You make your money last for the yrs of retirement. IN youth and politics it means spend as much as you can until you reach your income, then says not too. Conservatives do most of their spending on the discretionary budget that creates debt by the billions.
        Conservatives believe the mandatory budget is spending.
        really it is income which each individual makes money off the SS taxes for husband and wife.

        IN music classical structure is conservative.
        Rock, Jazz and blues are progressive.

        SO you fuse them and get your presidents that you listed.

        OK where is Obama?

        Long life!!

    • AdLib says:

      Hi phoenixdoglover, welcome to The Planet!

      I remember reading that study you describe and it does shed light on what thoroughly confuses and frustrates many non-Repubs, why do they vote against their own interests and aggressively oppose the programs that they personally rely on to get by? Why are they so closed to facts and history and why must they believe in their party based on blind faith and pronouncements of “fact” by their party’s authority figures?

      Because that’s how many of them have their brains wired.

      Anyone know a good electrician who could create some short circuits?

      As to asking if the TP is conservative, political views can be similar to a clock, when you go too far into day or night, you end up in the opposite one. The TP has gone so far in pursuit of being conservative that you’re right, they are now radicals who pursue enormous changes…just the opposite of the definition of being “conservative”.

      I agree, they are anarchists, many are in Congress solely to sabotage the workings of our government.

      There is another word for that and it ain’t “patriot”, in fact, just the opposite.

    • kesmarn says:

      Nice to meet you, phoenixdoglover! I agree. I see much more in the line of religious fundamentalist anarchy in the Tea Party than I do of plain old-fashioned conservatism.

      It’s too bad Boehner & Co. didn’t have the courage to stand up to these extremists earlier. Now the tail really is wagging the dog. And it’s going to be quite a ride for the few GOPers who used to be considered somewhat sane.

      Time to pop the popcorn and settle in for the show.

  7. MurphTheSurf3 says:

    Eric Canto’s loss last night illustrates your point rather nicely.

    Cantor was on the record, and a sponsor of, very limited reform of our immigration law. In this he was joined by a number of the GOP.

    Cantor put out a half dozen adds in the last five days making it clear that he was JUST AS CONSERVATIVE, JUST AS OUTRAGED, JUST AS OPPOSED TO AMNESTY AS HIS OPPONENT, MR. BRAT.

    Of course, he wasn’t.

    In the past, Cantor came out in support for legalization of undocumented immigrants brought to the country as children. He also recently stated that he supported allowing some undocumented immigrants to enlist in the military “in principle,” but voted against allowing them to serve. He has expressed doubts about an enforcement-only approach especially in regard to the concept of creating a really effective physical barrier such as the wall between Mexico and the U.S. He has pointed to two reasons why a stream of undocumented immigrants will continue to flow into the U.S. -- the willingness of employers to hire them as cheap, very hard working, and undemanding labor and the lack of really effective worker id.

    Cantor is criticized for failing to craft legislation reflecting all of this but Cantor understood that he had to have a coalition of GOP House members in place before launching such an initiative. He cobbled together 30 or so members as a base for such an effort.

    BUT, Mr. Brat, having pasted the label of Amnesty Promoter on Cantor, pushed Cantor to deny EVERYTHING he ever said about immigration reform and Brat’s victory means that every GOPer will do the same.

    In the GOP group-think and 1984ish revising of the record is so commonplace that most of us have come to accept it as normal but it is not.

    It is fundamentally dishonest and a major impediment to progress.

    My dad used to say: If it’s right it’s right and you stand by it. Not if you are a Republican.

    • Nirek says:

      Murph, the only good thing about Cantor losing is whoever wins his seat will not be as powerful as he has been. Junior congressmen have little power.

      • MurphTheSurf3 says:

        I agree. Another will step into his place, likely McCarthy who is a CA GOP and is more closely aligned with Boehner.

        David Brat’s candidacy is going to be interesting. I think he ran as token opposition- a one issue candidate opposed to “amnesty” for the undocumented. His win stunned him as much as it did Candtor.

        His AM interviews today showed him to be spectacularly unready to answer almost every question. He seems bright. He does had a PH.D. in economics from American University. He is also a theological conservative, a Catholic evangelical.

        His opponent Jack Trammell is a political scientist and historian who does a lot of writing (much of it about vampires!) Trammel, also meant to be a token candidate opposed to Cantor, is a classic liberal. Trammell’s platform focuses on the need for educational reform, including special education and greater access to college, student loan relief, job creation, accountability in massive public private projects like the expansion of U.S. Route 460, and basic healthcare for every American.

    • AdLib says:

      Murph, I suppose that the long view is that with such hateful extremists being periodically energized in the GOP, they will never regain the Latino vote and will continue to lose national and local elections because of it. So it’s kind of like Superman tying a chunk of kryptonite around his neck, he’d be doing it to himself, only taking away his own power.

      As Latinos make up more of the voting public, even in red states, their opposition to the racism of the GOP will eventually hand over many now-red states over to the Dems.

      So though I hate hearing the cheering on of racism, the more exposed it is, the dimmer the future of the Tea Party GOP looks and that’s a good thing.

      • MurphTheSurf3 says:

        Ad Lib…Correcto-Mundo!

        Cantor’s loss is going to further spook those few GOP who were willing to even discuss the issue and my expectation is that the GOP will take an even harder line on AMNESTY FOR UNDOCUMENTED ILLEGAL ALIENS

        Build more walls, putting in stricter rules, send the wetbacks packing…I wonder if they will ever get around to addressing all of the other undocumented persons who are not from South of the Border

        The response to Cantor’s loss will be the adoption of Kryptonite as the official Gemstone of the GOP.

  8. Kalima says:

    In German we would say, “Aus der Reihe tanzen”. It means to dance out of line.

    It never fails to amaze me that people will repeat failures time and time again thinking that the general public won’t remember or at least not notice. Every word they speak is recorded by someone, and now even more so with all of our advanced technology. It’s either on tape and video, or written down on somebody’s notepad.

    Whether this is selective memory, selective amnesia, or just plain old fashioned lying and deceit is up for grabs, but watching the last 5 years of Obama’s presidency, I’d have to go with the latter, and they have developed it to an art form.

    For most of us, lying in public with a straight face can prove to be very difficult. For those without a moral compass and lack of conscience, with nothing but revenge and yes hate in their hearts, it’s a piece of cake. What makes it even more disagreeable is that while knocking down the President’s initiatives, they offer none of their own. Except of course the ones that will lead millions more into poverty and desperation for those already on the bottom line while protecting the rich who line their pockets hoping for a plutarchy.

    I have both an advantage and a disadvantage watching this from afar, but at least I get to see the bigger picture. The one for a fairer future for Americans that your President envisioned when he took on this thankless job.

    All this because you have a black president? You bet it is. Those who claim it isn’t true, either have missed most of the stories about it, or have been residing on Pluto since 2008. All the lame excuses in the world won’t change that fact.

    Thanks for the graphic AdLib, you always know how to make me laugh out loud. :lol:

    See you in my morning.

    • AdLib says:

      Kalima, what the Repubs are practicing as a party is one agenda. The Big Lie, just repeat big lies over and over and eventually, just because of their familiarity, some people will believe them.

      Such a corrupt mindset acknowledges that what they’re saying may be the opposite of what they’ve said in the past, absurd or just plain lies but that’s irrelevant. Most people don’t remember who they first heard say the propaganda once it’s coming from all directions, some people will believe anything if they hear it enough (Death Panels anyone?).

      Glad you liked the graphic, I didn’t create this one but whoever did really hit the bulls eye.

  9. Beatlex says:

    Yes AdLib,the R’s are congenital liars who’s only interest is to enrich their benefactors,and themselves of course.They have no core beliefs anymore,if they ever did.It seems they are imploding.Where will it all lead?

    • AdLib says:

      Beatlex -- Eventually, after the next census, I hope this all leads to a long period of the GOP as a minority party that is out of power for decades. If not for gerrymandering and a rigged SCOTUS, they would have scant power nationally today.

  10. SearingTruth says:

    “They believed that every life must profit them.

    When life was profit itself.”
    SearingTruth

    A Future of the Brave

  11. kesmarn says:

    AdLib, this little “habit” of the GOP really does go waaaay back, doesn’t it?

    Every GOPTP senior citizen I know of has NO intention whatsoever of declining Social Security or Medicare. (“That’s MY money and I’m entitled to it,” they say. Even though just one hospitalization is likely to consume every dollar they ever personally paid into the system. And after that they’re on the public dime.) You’d think the Republican Party invented SS and Medicare — to hear them talk.

    And yet, this was typical of most GOP comments back in 1935, when Social Security was born:

    Never in the history of the world has any measure been brought in here so insidiously designed so as to prevent business recovery, to enslave workers, and to prevent any possibility of the employers providing work for the people.

    -Representative John Taber (R-NY)

    Not exactly the words of a proud papa.

    And then we have Medicare. TeaPartiers were famous for carrying misspelled signs that warned politicians to: “Keep You’re Goverment Hands Off My MeddiCare!!” in 2009.

    But back in 1965, when socialist LBJ was initiating the program? This is what we heard:

    The Wall Street Journal’s editorial page predicts that the legislation will lead to “deteriorating service.” Business groups warn that Washington bureaucrats will invade “the privacy of the examination room,” that we are on the road to rationed care and that patients will lose the “freedom to choose their own doctor.”

    Looks like the GOP just doesn’t want to take ownership of anything.

    Not until after it has a 50 year track record of success, at least…

    • AdLib says:

      Kes, you’ve actually identified the reverse of this situation which is just as common, being against “it” before they became “always for” it.

      As you point out, Repubs originally opposed SS, Medicare and now the ACA. As they became taken for granted as an inarguable good to most Americans, the Repubs changed their tunes to, “We’ve always supported SS and Medicare (and one day, the ACA), we just want to make sure it’s there for future generations…which is why we originally tried to keep them from ever existing.”

      If the elderly, ill and poor who support Repubs doesn’t expose that politics is now faith-based in the rural and conservative areas, as opposed to being based on people wanting what’s in their best interests, I don’t know what would.

  12. MilesLong says:

    Since 1980 not a single policy proposed or advocated by the Republican Party has benefited the majority of Americans.

    That is why nothing a Conservative can say has much merit these days, and I tell them so…

    Miles “Unabashedly Correct” Long

    • AdLib says:

      Miles, their way to address the awareness that they are only representing the interests of the 1% is to just demonize the party that represents the 99%. It’s not about there ever being a good reason to vote for Republicans because of how they will help Americans, it’s only about getting Americans to vote against the Democrats.

      It works to a degree but not enough now to win a national election.

  13. monicaangela says:

    An article apropos for these days, these times, a great reminder of what the population of this country has to deal with while we continue to have to live under the completely dishonest ideology of the members of the republican party, and some DINO’s as well.

    I give you the following when it comes to hypocrisy on the part of the right wing. Remember this:


    There was no republican outcry after this, as a matter of fact, they applauded the effort, an effort that was completely against the law and the Constitution of this nation.

    Five individuals that were connected to the Taliban more than twelve years ago and who would have been released soon, or what Reagan and his administration did during the Iran Contra Affair. Which in your opinion is worse?

    • AdLib says:

      monicaangela, no question which was worse, Iran-Contra which was a violation of the Constitution, illegally used taxpayer money, used deception to hide the outrageous act from the public and directly armed our enemies.

      And what about the reference of the photo above, Reagan armed and provided money and resources to the Taliban!!! Reagan financed what would become Al Qaeda, hell, he was one of the de facto founders of Al Qaeda.

      As with any “outrage” from Republicans, it is just a truckload of phony shock and genuine hypocrisy dumped in the MSM for political gain. There is no shred of honesty left in the GOP, everything that comes from their mouths is blatant propaganda only intended to help their gaining power.


Leave your Comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.


Back to top
PlanetPOV Tweets
Sponsors
Features