Hypocrite in chief?

Eric_8

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2010
Posts
3,559
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
73
Location
San Diego
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Remember when President Obama supported the sequester cuts? - YouTube

A better man might see the validity in this comparative clip. However, all I can see is hypocrisy. Might somebody enlighten me?

Necessary disclaimer: this does NOT paint Obama as a political outlier. I'm under no delusions that slimy hypocrisy isn't necessary in today's political climate. Also, this is not meant to posit the President against GW/Romney/whoever Republican opponent you might choose.
 

Eric_8

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2010
Posts
3,559
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
73
Location
San Diego
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Something both sides seem to be forgetting here is that this sequestration was designed to be so horrible that it would force law makers to cross partisan lines and do their jobs instead of these constant stalling tactics.


Paul Ryan on Sequestration - YouTube

Nobody's forgetting that, at least they shouldn't be.

Again, the post wasn't trying to prove who can be the biggest bullshitter.

Is the President being hypocritical or not? Well, perhaps the better phrase would be flip-flopping.
 

Bardox

Loved Member
Joined
Jul 1, 2009
Posts
2,234
Media
38
Likes
551
Points
198
Location
U.S.
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
No... the whole point of the sequester is that it is so bad that no one would allow it to take effect and they would focus on doing their job instead of making sound bites for their next primary. Both Obama and Boehner were never for the cuts taking place. They were for the threat of these cuts.

Paul Ryan on the other hand has been pushing for these cuts for years now. Who is being hypocritical?
 

Eric_8

Experimental Member
Joined
Aug 13, 2010
Posts
3,559
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
73
Location
San Diego
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Obama: "I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic cuts, [both] domestic and defense spending."

First clip Obama says these cuts will take place, and he will veto any attempt to stop them. Second clip Obama says these cuts cannot be allowed to take place.

Again, how is this not BS hypocrisy?
 

hypoc8

Experimental Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2007
Posts
717
Media
0
Likes
14
Points
238
Location
SC
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Obama: "I will veto any effort to get rid of those automatic cuts, [both] domestic and defense spending."

First clip Obama says these cuts will take place, and he will veto any attempt to stop them. Second clip Obama says these cuts cannot be allowed to take place.

Again, how is this not BS hypocrisy?

Because he is THE OBAMA!

He doeth no wrong!
 

slurper_la

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Posts
5,860
Media
9
Likes
3,687
Points
333
Location
Los Angeles (California, United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
In the first portion of the video (11/21) the president is not supporting sequestration, he's arguing that the scope of sequestration should be broad and impactful as part of the original bill advanced by republicans as a means of allowing increasing the debt limit so that lawmakers would be forced to take future budget negotiations seriously. The thought being no one, not even the republicans who proposed the plan, would allow deep, dangerous cuts to defense et al.

That video is skillfully edited to omit the significant part of the speech in the first section.
 
Last edited:

Dakota Kid

Admired Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Posts
359
Media
9
Likes
829
Points
373
Location
Cavorting between fresh and salt water peninsulas.
Verification
View
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
The thought being no one, not even the republicans who proposed the plan, would allow deep, dangerous cuts to defense et al.
Gotta get your facts straght. The squestor idea and it's details came from the White House.
 

Mr. Big Stuff

Experimental Member
Joined
May 18, 2004
Posts
64
Media
6
Likes
15
Points
228
Location
New Mexico
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Actually, this is a classic case of selective memory.

Obama's team did come up with the sequester. However, you are missing some glaring (and extremely important facts).

1. The whole idea came from republicans holding the debt ceiling hostage, a manufactured "crisis" that has never been done in history. And

2. It passes with support from BOTH parties. The idea was that the cuts would be so terrible that it would force both parties to work together.

So, I don't think either the president or congress actually wants this to happen. Not sure how he is being hypocritical.

Make sure you are reading EVERYTHING first before you cast a stone. Both parties "own" this mess.
 

Dakota Kid

Admired Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Mar 5, 2009
Posts
359
Media
9
Likes
829
Points
373
Location
Cavorting between fresh and salt water peninsulas.
Verification
View
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
I'm all for the sequestration. It'll be the only cuts we see this administration make in the next 4 yrs. One of the few ideas Obama's White House came up with that I agree with.

Everyone's got their panties in a twist over this. It's just another pre-meditated catastrophe that Washington DC is sooooo good at. Even with this sequestration, we (our gov't) are going to spend more this year than last :rolleyes:

About damn time we made some cuts......even if they are pretty miniscule.

.
 

ColoradoGuy

Legendary Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Dec 21, 2009
Posts
1,170
Media
35
Likes
1,467
Points
308
Location
Denver (Colorado, United States)
Verification
View
Gender
Male
I'm all for the sequestration. It'll be the only cuts we see this administration make in the next 4 yrs. One of the few ideas Obama's White House came up with that I agree with.

Everyone's got their panties in a twist over this. It's just another pre-meditated catastrophe that Washington DC is sooooo good at. Even with this sequestration, we (our gov't) are going to spend more this year than last :rolleyes:

About damn time we made some cuts......even if they are pretty miniscule.

.

There are a lot of people probably 'all for sequestration' until they figure out that it affects them personally. There's nothing wrong with protecting self-interest -- but I doubt most folks have thought how sequestration could present itself in their lives.

Leaving that aside, I sort of liken your attitude with the so-called Tea Partiers who were rallying during the spring and summer of 2012. If you were to scan the crowds captured in those videos, you'd see a largely white, largely older group of Americans -- some of whom were likely receiving their monthly Social Security checks without thinking about how the idea of receiving government support pretty much flies in the face of true laissez-faire capitalist (Tea Party) philosophy.

While I think you're wrong when you claim that the only cuts you'll see from the Obama administration are the sequestration cuts, I'm not sure that either one of us will have a chance to be proven right because partisanship seems to have the rule of law today. A 'good' Republican idea ceases to be a good Republican idea when the Democrats want to embrace it. I'll give you two examples:

1) The Republican candidate for President supported health care reform in every Presidential election since Eisenhower. However, when President Clinton decided to rally with it, it was the dumbest idea ever conceived. Ditto for President Obama... until the will of the American people prevailed.

2) Some of the tightest gun controls since the Firearms Act of 1934 were introduced by President Reagan. President George H.W. Bush banned the import and sale of assault weapons. Yet, President Obama seeks to essentially reinstate the Bush-era laws and he's a villain?

I'm confident there are plenty of examples on both sides of the aisle, but the point is this: partisanship is the enemy. It is strangling the American will, stymieing public policy, and ultimately, it will harm the economy in ways that no one has yet bothered to imagine.

As to the OP, I think every President has been called a hypocrite as some point in their tenancy of the White House -- it's an unfortunate byproduct of having to find compromise while shouldering sole responsibility for the nation's welfare.
 

Mr. Big Stuff

Experimental Member
Joined
May 18, 2004
Posts
64
Media
6
Likes
15
Points
228
Location
New Mexico
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Well said, ColoradoGuy. Well said.

I particularly like how Obamacare is now socialism... when 15 years ago it was the prevalent republican "plan" to fix healthcare.

But don't tell them that. They are too busy making sure Obama doesn't take their freedoms.
 

slurper_la

Superior Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2008
Posts
5,860
Media
9
Likes
3,687
Points
333
Location
Los Angeles (California, United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Where's the plan? Boehner keeps accusing the president f not leading, not offering a plan to avoid sequestration. Really?

How about $1.4 trillion in savings?

https://www.google.com/search?q=white+house+sequester+plan&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari

Anyone remember when Boehner bragged about getting what he wanted in the deal?

Boehner: I got

It’s the ‘Obama Sequester’–according to Boehner

Boehner got ’98 percent’ of what he wanted in debt deal

.
 

dude_007

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 28, 2010
Posts
4,846
Media
0
Likes
116
Points
133
Location
California
Sexuality
No Response
Gender
Male
There are a lot of people probably 'all for sequestration' until they figure out that it affects them personally. There's nothing wrong with protecting self-interest -- but I doubt most folks have thought how sequestration could present itself in their lives.

Leaving that aside, I sort of liken your attitude with the so-called Tea Partiers who were rallying during the spring and summer of 2012. If you were to scan the crowds captured in those videos, you'd see a largely white, largely older group of Americans -- some of whom were likely receiving their monthly Social Security checks without thinking about how the idea of receiving government support pretty much flies in the face of true laissez-faire capitalist (Tea Party) philosophy.

While I think you're wrong when you claim that the only cuts you'll see from the Obama administration are the sequestration cuts, I'm not sure that either one of us will have a chance to be proven right because partisanship seems to have the rule of law today. A 'good' Republican idea ceases to be a good Republican idea when the Democrats want to embrace it. I'll give you two examples:

1) The Republican candidate for President supported health care reform in every Presidential election since Eisenhower. However, when President Clinton decided to rally with it, it was the dumbest idea ever conceived. Ditto for President Obama... until the will of the American people prevailed.

2) Some of the tightest gun controls since the Firearms Act of 1934 were introduced by President Reagan. President George H.W. Bush banned the import and sale of assault weapons. Yet, President Obama seeks to essentially reinstate the Bush-era laws and he's a villain?

I'm confident there are plenty of examples on both sides of the aisle, but the point is this: partisanship is the enemy. It is strangling the American will, stymieing public policy, and ultimately, it will harm the economy in ways that no one has yet bothered to imagine.

As to the OP, I think every President has been called a hypocrite as some point in their tenancy of the White House -- it's an unfortunate byproduct of having to find compromise while shouldering sole responsibility for the nation's welfare.

Yeah pretty much...

That and when it comes to the subject of hypocrisy in Washington, I can think of many others who deserve to be called chief.
 
Last edited: