Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,329 posts, read 54,373,658 times
Reputation: 40736
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by workingclasshero
no that's not hypocrisy
the fact that her HUSBANDS medical CLINIC accepts medicare/ciad has nothing to do with her OPINION of the abusive and fraudilant medicare/ciad systems
Not to worry, she's already confirmed her hypocrisy by whining about government interference while at the same time praising the Secretary of Agriculture for direct government purchase of pork products.
The problem with everything is that there isn't isn't a black/white clear answer to a lot of things... there are a lot of gray areas in many things.... for instance, they steal my money and I don't like how they are using it but I have no right to collect what they already took from me? Oh.... by the way, OP, you find me ONE person who says that they are not a hypocrite, I will find you a person who is lying right in front of your face...
Years ago I had a neighbour. Rodger was an Amish immigrant from Ohio. He worked a farm right next door to me. Now Rodger was as poor as a church mouse. He lacked just about everything and worked like a dog on his farm. He milked about 25 cows and I used to go to his place every other day to pick up a couple of gallons. Well one day while I was there there was cheque for $1800 sitting on the table. I watched as Rodger threw that cheque into the stove. He explained to me that he got that cheque every month as a milk subsidy from the milk marketing board. He did not believe in government handouts and so he would not accept that money. Rodger was a lot of things but he was not a hypocrite.
By the way that was 30 years ago and now Rodger is a very successful farmer with loads of children and grandchildren that do most of the work now.
That is how folks who disagree with government programmes should be. If they are opposed to something and then accept money from it they are worse than hypocrites. It means they have no character, no integrity and their words condemn and convict them of being liars and cheats. Anything they might say from that point on is of no account because their words have proved to be worthless.
I'm presently waiting for an operation. I asked the hospital how much that operation is worth and without a second hesitation they tols me $80,000.
I wondered how they would know because nobody pays with our universal medical coverage. They told me that they have had a few Mennonites that have had the surgery and even though they are covered in law they will not accept that and pay the $80,000 out of their pocket.
It gets me so riled up when members of the Tea party who's entire political philosophy is that of not relying on the government and who are opposed to subsidies and handouts, then accept the $ that is going around. You know, in reality that is lower than an earthworm's belly and anything they might say from that point on is moote. By their actions they have proven who they are and that they can not be trusted. Their words are nothing more than selfserving crap and what they really mean is "I'm opposed to government handouts for other people but as for me I'm OK with taking whatever is going around."
Bachmann is the worst of the worst in this respect.
Say if former Mayor Daley from Chicago, who is hardcore anti gun, buys a handgun, is he a hypocrite? Or if a Black Panther who constantly rails about racist brutal cops calls 911 at the drop of a hat to report noisy neighbors?
I'm not asking if people have the legal or moral right to do it, but rather if they are hypocrites for condemning something they freely participate in?
There's an old book (2005):
"Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy" that covers some of it.
A good example would be Michelle Bachmann being so critical of Medicaid while her husband's clinic accepts Medicaid as payment for services. That's hypocrisy.
Do you realize that most health care providers LOSE MONEY on Medicaid patients? Wow, that is the single DUMBEST post I've seen on CD in a very long time.
Years ago I had a neighbour. Rodger was an Amish immigrant from Ohio. He worked a farm right next door to me. Now Rodger was as poor as a church mouse. He lacked just about everything and worked like a dog on his farm. He milked about 25 cows and I used to go to his place every other day to pick up a couple of gallons. Well one day while I was there there was cheque for $1800 sitting on the table. I watched as Rodger threw that cheque into the stove. He explained to me that he got that cheque every month as a milk subsidy from the milk marketing board. He did not believe in government handouts and so he would not accept that money. Rodger was a lot of things but he was not a hypocrite.
By the way that was 30 years ago and now Rodger is a very successful farmer with loads of children and grandchildren that do most of the work now.
That is how folks who disagree with government programmes should be. If they are opposed to something and then accept money from it they are worse than hypocrites. It means they have no character, no integrity and their words condemn and convict them of being liars and cheats. Anything they might say from that point on is of no account because their words have proved to be worthless.
I'm presently waiting for an operation. I asked the hospital how much that operation is worth and without a second hesitation they tols me $80,000.
I wondered how they would know because nobody pays with our universal medical coverage. They told me that they have had a few Mennonites that have had the surgery and even though they are covered in law they will not accept that and pay the $80,000 out of their pocket.
It gets me so riled up when members of the Tea party who's entire political philosophy is that of not relying on the government and who are opposed to subsidies and handouts, then accept the $ that is going around. You know, in reality that is lower than an earthworm's belly and anything they might say from that point on is moote. By their actions they have proven who they are and that they can not be trusted. Their words are nothing more than selfserving crap and what they really mean is "I'm opposed to government handouts for other people but as for me I'm OK with taking whatever is going around."
Bachmann is the worst of the worst in this respect.
Why would you be a total fool? If you don't agree with the subsidies, then don't accept the subsidies.
I qualified for WIC when my child was born because I dropped out of the workforce that year. While I don't disagree with WIC in general, I didn't accept it because I didn't need it. You don't have to take every benefit you qualify for, and I would definitely say that if you are adamantly opposed to a program and you participate in it when you will not be destitute if you don't, then you are indeed being hypocritical.
Why should it be ok for you to take advantage, when all the while you are against it being available?
It's OK for me to take advantage of every legal benefit my government or my employer provides whether that be solar panel subsidies, tax deductions or company provided health benefits. I would be foolish not to accept benefits that I have worked for or paid taxes to support. I will always take advantage of every benefit, deduction or subsidy that is available to me.
Which programs I choose to support politically has no relation to the above, and I will continue to urge my elected officials to drastically downsize our nanny state because I believe that is a far superior economic environment to the one we have today.
That is how folks who disagree with government programmes should be. If they are opposed to something and then accept money from it they are worse than hypocrites. It means they have no character, no integrity and their words condemn and convict them of being liars and cheats. Anything they might say from that point on is of no account because their words have proved to be worthless.
You are entitled to your opinion. Thankfully, you don't make the rules about who is a liar, cheat or hypocrite.
Years ago I had a neighbour. Rodger was an Amish immigrant from Ohio. He worked a farm right next door to me. Now Rodger was as poor as a church mouse. He lacked just about everything and worked like a dog on his farm. He milked about 25 cows and I used to go to his place every other day to pick up a couple of gallons. Well one day while I was there there was cheque for $1800 sitting on the table. I watched as Rodger threw that cheque into the stove. He explained to me that he got that cheque every month as a milk subsidy from the milk marketing board. He did not believe in government handouts and so he would not accept that money. Rodger was a lot of things but he was not a hypocrite.
By the way that was 30 years ago and now Rodger is a very successful farmer with loads of children and grandchildren that do most of the work now.
That is how folks who disagree with government programmes should be. If they are opposed to something and then accept money from it they are worse than hypocrites. It means they have no character, no integrity and their words condemn and convict them of being liars and cheats. Anything they might say from that point on is of no account because their words have proved to be worthless.
I'm presently waiting for an operation. I asked the hospital how much that operation is worth and without a second hesitation they tols me $80,000.
I wondered how they would know because nobody pays with our universal medical coverage. They told me that they have had a few Mennonites that have had the surgery and even though they are covered in law they will not accept that and pay the $80,000 out of their pocket.
It gets me so riled up when members of the Tea party who's entire political philosophy is that of not relying on the government and who are opposed to subsidies and handouts, then accept the $ that is going around. You know, in reality that is lower than an earthworm's belly and anything they might say from that point on is moote. By their actions they have proven who they are and that they can not be trusted. Their words are nothing more than selfserving crap and what they really mean is "I'm opposed to government handouts for other people but as for me I'm OK with taking whatever is going around."
Bachmann is the worst of the worst in this respect.
So you are basing your opinion on how everyone should act based upon one person... you know what, you are a hypocrite by showing a hypocrite and then saying he isn't a hypocrite... You know Rodger, but you don't know everything about Rodger, Rodger may have done what you said but that is one incident in a sea of millions of incidents... there are no people out there that 100% of the time will say/do everything in their lives... NONE... so you are a hypocrite for using an obvious hypocrite to try to make everyone be something that is CLEARLY impossible... Rodger may throw out that check but what about the other issues... its nice that you admire someone throwing out a subsidy that they didn't pay for and asking other people to give up something that they DID pay for...but then hypocrites will be hypocrites...
It's OK for me to take advantage of every legal benefit my government or my employer provides whether that be solar panel subsidies, tax deductions or company provided health benefits. I would be foolish not to accept benefits that I have worked for or paid taxes to support. I will always take advantage of every benefit, deduction or subsidy that is available to me.
Which programs I choose to support politically has no relation to the above, and I will continue to urge my elected officials to drastically downsize our nanny state because I believe that is a far superior economic environment to the one we have today.
We aren't discussing employer benefits. Those are part of your employee compensation package, and are completely irrelevant to this discussion.
If you, and all the others who take benefits from programs that they are entitled to but don't need, ceased to do so, would that not downsize the nanny state and lead to a far superior economic environment to the one we have today?
Would that not potentially lead to less government bureaucracy and less waste of tax dollars? It would seem that if you unabashedly take what you can get, then you are part of the problem. It would seem that that puts you on the same level as welfare cheats, who take money they don't need for purposes other than that for which the money was intended.
If people ceased to take the subsidies, and benefits to which they are entitled but don't need, would the government cease to offer them?
I realize this is an idealistic scenario, but if you despise people that take government hand outs, yet take them yourself, then you are no better than they, no matter how you justify it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
