Wednesday, January 2, 2013

Total hypocrisy! GOPers, fiscal conservatives, Chris Christie, Michael Grimm, Peter King, cry when they don't get their money from the Fed's government

This trio--N.J. Governor Chris Christie, Representative Peter King (R-NY) and Representative Michael Grimm (R-NY)--take the prize when it comes to hypocrisy.

They're all staunch fiscal conservatives, who run around saying the government is broke, we're out of money and we need to see drastic spending cuts to ensure our national "solvency," yet they cry when they don't get THEIR money from the Federal government.

Christie gutted education, health care, police, fire, unions, I had a conversation with Grimm when I was still at Fox News where he hit all the conservative talking points about out of control spending, national solvency, etc and King as well, but now they're incensed that the government is not bailing out their states and constituents. This is a shameful display of hypocrisy. These guys are the worst of the worst.

33 comments:

JK said...

Agreed, Mike. This is what I think…

These people are not anti-government per se. They are just selfish. When government benefits them, or when government is useful toward their interests, well then government is just fine.

So why do they complain all day every day about government? Because they don't like government helping OTHER PEOPLE. If it helps other people, which it always seems to be doing, then government is terrible…. but not when it helps me-Me-ME!!!

This is pure selfishness. (SELF-ish)

Tom Hickey said...

There is a difference between 1) true conservatives and libertarians, who want to keep government limited on principle, chiefly because historically govt has been the principle threat to freedom, and 2) neoliberal plutocrats and their minions that what to use govt for their own advantage.

Bob Roddis said...

Yes, we can all agree that Republicans and conservatives really do not care at all about government spending per se and will kill you if you try to touch one of their beloved programs or a program they need to get re-elected. And with their support of the surveillance state and endless war, they are not really concerned about having "small government".

Matt Franko said...

Mike,

It continues to amaze me that these people cant self-analyze and be able to see their own hypocrisy in this situation... and then figure out that they must have it all wrong and begin a personal investigation... true hypocrites... rsp,

Matt Franko said...

Tom,

Can "tyranny" or "tyrannical rule" be imposed by a republican form of govt? ... ie is a "tyrant" required for their to be technically "tyranny"?

rsp,

Matt Franko said...

did the word "tyranny" precede a "tyrant"? or did the general form precede the individual form of the word?

ie was there first "tyrants" and then the term was broadened to include more than just the rule of a singular tyrant? rsp,

Matt Franko said...

The guy who killed Lincoln was reported to have said "death to tyrants" but Lincoln was the only one trying to preserve the last republic on earth... rsp,

JK said...

Tom,

How many "true conservatives and libertarians" do you think actually exist? I sense a bunch of pretenders. When disaster strikes, most of them will be more than happy to accept government assistance.

Kind of like Ayn Rand in her later years using SS/Medicare.

They seem to be about ME. Selfishness.

Even Roddis… who is supposedly a true conservative libertarian... I'd be shocked if he turned away government help in a time of need.

Aren't old people, sick people, poor people, … are living in a time of need?

Tom Hickey said...

Yes, we can all agree that Republicans and conservatives really do not care at all about government spending per se and will kill you if you try to touch one of their beloved programs or a program they need to get re-elected. And with their support of the surveillance state and endless war, they are not really concerned about having "small government".

AT least we agree on something. I guess that's progress.

Tom Hickey said...

Historically, republics have end in tyrannies of one sort or another, usually the man on a white horse aka Caesarism, Catos notwithstanding. Caesar never forgave Cato for opposing him.

Unknown said...

Knob Jobbis the self-righteous simpleton is back. Oh joy.

Tom Hickey said...

was there first "tyrants" and then the term was broadened to include more than just the rule of a singular tyrant?

Yes.

Tom Hickey said...

Tyrants as "men on white horses" often act "to save the republic."

Tom Hickey said...

Kind of like Ayn Rand in her later years using SS/Medicare

That's the classica example. How many can actually walk the talk when the rubber hits the road. We only find out when the rubber hits the road.

David said...

Any time the Republicans want to go economic populist is fine by me. You'd think they'd have noticed by now how wide open the field is for that sort of a move. I'd welcome it because I'm really sick of the useless, spineless, plutocratic Democrats with their ever inspiring message of "Hey, where ya gonna go, chump?"

Tom Hickey said...

Any time the Republicans want to go economic populist is fine by me.

But then they'd forego their financing by the plutocracy. :o

Matt Franko said...

But Tom, the Kochs fund Cato which is heavy on the libertarian side... so it must be a 'libertarian plutocracy' so to speak... and then the Randian pin-up boy Ryan was even put on the latest ticket...

ie the GOP is heavily funded by right libertarians currently in my view... they have taken over...

Can plutocracy be libertarian too? I guess perhaps...

rsp,

Tom Hickey said...

Just because Cato Inst is using Cato's name means that they are actually republicans.

But the recent kerfuufle over there does suggest that the republic faction and the tyrannical faction (Koch) are locking horns.

David said...



Tom, are you saying we have a self-perpetuating duopoly? Say it ain't so.

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Matt Franko said...

Tom,

Have you seen the recent report where Dick Armey allegedly showed up with a guy with a gun to fire some people at his so-called "Freedom Works" PAC?

LOL! The GOP civil war almost went "hot" looks like... long way to go in this 'war' still looks like..

But this thing with Christie "naming names" wrt Boehner is taking it up a notch imo... and sad but looks like no progress evident wrt the reality of fiscal policy.... I have to agree w/ JK that it only looks like short term reactionary selfishness at work... rsp

Unknown said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Unknown said...

Right-wing so-called "libertarianism" is just a figleaf for a power-grab.

Hint: those grabbing power won't be likes of Roddis, though people like him always serve a purpose as useful fools.

Their stupid mock-outrage and nonsense ideology serves as the perfect backdrop.

Their stupid services to Koch Industries are much appreciated.

Matt Franko said...

y,

I dont know those people seem like they seek not to be subject to anything... monopolistic practices? no problem! environmental regs? "You're crampin' my style bro!"... etc...

At core, libertarianism (small 'L') works for them....

I dont know where all of this libertarianism has come from... Tom has said it may have come from France...

I can see abhorrence for tyanny (ie the rule of a tyrant) but I dont see libertarianism as required to prevent the rule of a singular tyrant... then it goes too far and these people end up seeking not to be subject to anything.... dark!

rsp,

JK said...

Can someone explain to me what people mean when they make a point to distinguish between uncapitalized first letter and capitalized first letter?

e.g. "democracy with a small d"

What's the difference between democracy with a small d (democracy) and democracy with a large d (Democracy). Same goes for Libertarianism and libertarianism. etc.

David said...

What's the difference between democracy with a small d (democracy) and democracy with a large d (Democracy). Same goes for Libertarianism and libertarianism. etc.

small d=democrat in principle as opposed to
big D=member or supporter of Democratic party

Tom Hickey said...

The term "Libertarianism" denotes a brand, so to speak, and it is the name of a US political party. The term "libertarianism" is a classification that has a several uses. In general, libertarians of the right are proprietarian, and libertarians of the left are consensualists opposed to hierarchical government.

Tom Hickey said...

The term Democrat generally refers to a member of the US Democratic Party The term "democrat" denotes a person that advocates popular political choice and direct decision-making by the people rather than political choice by elected representatives, which is called republicanism.

Matt Franko said...

JK,

Libertarians are libertarians that take it too far... like Bob Roddis here perhaps... or the Rothbard type folks, etc..

seems like it (libertarianism) came out of France and to over here in the US via the Statue of Liberty in NY harbor or something in the late 1800s and has been running wild ever since...

It's to the point we are at now where even those occupying the positions of authority in our civil govt deny the authority of the positions they occupy: "we're out of money!", we have to borrow from China!", etc..

It looks to me (FD: authoritarian) that it is out of control and has led to all of the current chaos now after 100 years... in the forms of Randian and Rothbardian Libertarianism...

Looks like libertarianism has been a slippery slope into current anarchy/corruption/lawlessness here in the US just like authoritarianism has been a slippery slope into tyrannical rule in other places at other times... as usual the human finds it hard to find the "happy medium"... rsp,

JK said...

So in a nuthsell…

The Capitalized first letters refers to a grouping, or association, whereas an uncapitalized first letter refers more to the actual meaning of the word.

e.g.

Jim is a Libertarian because he believes in libertarian principles.

Tom Hickey said...

Jim is a Libertarian because he believes in libertarian principles along with propertarianism.

Matt Franko said...

This is interesting:

"The origin of the Statue of Liberty project is sometimes traced to a comment made by French law professor and politician Édouard RenĂ© de Laboulaye in mid-1865. In after-dinner conversation at his home near Versailles, Laboulaye, an ardent supporter of the Union in the American Civil War, is supposed to have said: "If a monument should rise in the United States, as a memorial to their independence, I should think it only natural if it were built by united effort—a common work of both our nations."

This is interesting as the guy who thought of all of this "Liberty" thing supported the Union... yet the guy who shoots the Union President supposed to have shouted "death to tyrants"... Whaaaaatttt????

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statue_of_Liberty

This is ALL screwed up... rsp,

JK said...

Add this to the pile of evidence: http://thehill.com/blogs/healthwatch/medicaid/275291-sen-kirk-says-stroke-changed-perspective-on-medicaid

Just another selfish "conservative" who, when disaster strikes home, then all of a sudden government assistance isn't so bad.