Skip to main content

NSA hypocrisy on both sides

Why is it that such a large majority of Republicans were in favor of NSA spying when President George W. Bush was in office, yet feel that current President Barack Obama should be impeached over it, and why were so many Democrats against NSA spying when Bush was president, yet are suddenly in favor of it now that Obama is the man in charge?

The only line of reasoning where this would make any sense to me is if we put impeachment off the table and just think about things from a trust and approval standpoint. Most Republicans trusted and approved of then President George W. Bush, so they weren't as paranoid about being spied upon as they are under Democratic President Barack Obama, and vice versa for most Democrats.

When we include the word impeachment, then that before-mentioned line of reasoning can be crumpled up and thrown in the trash.

Republicans

Before 2009: "Bush shouldn't be impeached for NSA spying."

2009-present: "Obama should be impeached for NSA spying."


Democrats

Before 2009: "Bush should be impeached for NSA spying."

2009-present: "Obama shouldn't be impeached for NSA spying."


It's all about consistency. If two men commit the same questionable act, should they not receive the same fate? What if these were heinous crimes? The two parties' (lack of) logic and hypocrisy would look like this:

Republicans

Rape occurring before 2009: "Let the guy go! She was wearing those sexy sweatpants and was asking for it!"

Rape occurring between 2009 and today: "Lock him up! For life! What the hell was his problem? She was wearing those nasty sweatpants!"


Democrats

Murder occurring before 2009: "Two words - fry 'em!"

Murder occurring between 2009 and today: "Well, he said he was sorry, that he's found Jesus, and seems to be a nice guy. Let's give him another chance. What would Jesus do?"
Labels:

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Boycotting jukeboxes because of TouchTunes

I love music and enjoy hitting the bar(s) over the weekend, so naturally, when the mood strikes me, I've never been coy about playing some songs on the jukebox. This past Thursday, a friend of mine turned 50, so several friends of her's, including myself, all met up to celebrate the occasion. At around 9:30, a friend of mine and I both chipped in $5 to play some songs on the jukebox. Four hours and 231 skips later, we gave up on hearing the songs we had selected, and went home knowing we had just wasted $5. This wasn't the first time such a thing had happened to me (and many others), and due to that, I'll be boycotting jukeboxes. Why? The scam known as TouchTunes. You see, here's how the plot typically breaks down. A person (or group of people) downloads the TouchTunes app on his/her phone, consumes one too many adult beverages, and due to this, has less care for spending extra money to hear the songs of their choosing right NOW. That's the thing with TouchTun
2 comments
Read more

The difference between "looking" and "checking out"

I may be way off with these numbers, but it's my approximation that at least 75% of individuals whom are involved in a serious relationship feel it's perfectly acceptable to "check out" members of the opposite sex they're not involved with. Meanwhile, approximately 25% either don't feel this is acceptable or aren't sure about the matter. I hadn't thought about this matter for a while, but since I've been dating a woman for about 8 months, the topic has been pondered about some. When reading or hearing others discuss this very issue, I often times hear comments similar to the following: "It's human nature to look." "There's nothing wrong with checking others out. I'm sure he/she does it too!" "It's fine to do it. Just don't tell your boyfriend/girlfriend about it or do it in front of them!" "It's natural to find people attractive." When observing the array of comments, I i
Post a Comment
Read more

The verdict is in. To no one's surprise, Jonathan Hoenig has been found guilty of being an idiot.

Just recently, when discussing the Michael Brown shooting and whether or not race had anything to do with it, Fox News contributor Jonathan Hoenig said, "You know who talks about race? Racists." One moment while I provide Mr. Hoenig with the well deserved slow-clap. :: slow-claps for two seconds :: So, that was quite the line by Mr. Hoenig, wasn't it? "You know who talks about race? Racists." Well, wasn't he just talking about race? So, by his own words, I guess that makes him a racist. Also, if he wants to be consistent, does this mean that people whom talk about gender are sexists and people whom talk about sexual orientation are homophobes? With that line of thinking, Hoenig would engage in the following back-and-forths: Hoenig: "So, who are you voting for?" A woman: "The Democratic candidate, because he's been adamant about his support for equal rights for women." Hoenig: "You sexist feminist nazi!"
Post a Comment
Read more