The hypocrisy is astounding--but not unexpected.

Promoting this video and sending it back into the queue for one more try; last queued Monday, October 17th, 2011 9:06pm PDT - promote requested by Boise_Lib.

Hello, are you in office currently? You will not get my vote.

The hypocrisy shown in this video is actually astounding to me. To have right wing candidates becoming emphatic of this movement is bizarre. One must ask them self: what is their true motive?

i think to a great extent politicians only follow and respond to social movements, eventually trying to co-opt them as their own.

The current mindset, however, seems refreshingly united: the politicians can stick it.

Unfortunately, the memories of roughly half of voting America have proven to be exceptionally short and conveniently selective. Bush got elected twice. The same people who voted for him view Reagan as some sort of conservative Messiah, instead of what he really was... the greatest tax-and-spend "liberal" of the last half century. They're extremely mallable when it comes to the daily perturbations in party dogma. Thinking is hard.

>> ^Fletch:

Unfortunately, the memories of roughly half of voting America have proven to be exceptionally short and conveniently selective. Bush got elected twice. The same people who voted for him view Reagan as some sort of conservative Messiah, instead of what he really was... the greatest tax-and-spend "liberal" of the last half century. They're extremely mallable when it comes to the daily perturbations in party dogma. Thinking is hard.


Reagan wasn't a liberal though...the last liberal president was Nixon. Yeah not exactly better.

>> ^Yogi:


Reagan wasn't a liberal though...the last liberal president was Nixon. Yeah not exactly better.
That's why liberal was in quotes. Neocons can't say tax-and-spend without the "liberal", as if they're one and the same. What I'm saying is that when he spent money, he paid for it through taxes instead of just borrowing and spending like repugs do nowadays.

>> ^Fletch:

>> ^Yogi:

Reagan wasn't a liberal though...the last liberal president was Nixon. Yeah not exactly better.
That's why liberal was in quotes. Neocons can't say tax-and-spend without the "liberal", as if they're one and the same. What I'm saying is that when he spent money, he paid for it through taxes instead of just borrowing and spending like repugs do nowadays.


No YOU shut up!

...wait what?

I think their motivation is quite obvious. They suddenly realized: "Wait... those people are protesting against the current state of the economy, and lack of regulation. Well, Obama is in power, so if we can convince them this is all his fault, we can get some votes". Good Luck GOP. these people are not as easy to manipulate as the Tea Party.




>> ^shagen454:

The hypocrisy shown in this video is actually astounding to me. To have right wing candidates becoming emphatic of this movement is bizarre. One must ask them self: what is their true motive?

*lies, and the lying liars who tell them

Adding video to channels (Lies) - requested by SlipperyPete.

>> ^deathcow:

Hello, are you in office currently? You will not get my vote.


I believe the only people running for president that's not in office currently are Herman Cain and Newt Gengrich.

Wanna rethink that with those options available to you?

Wow, they flip flop almost as often as an unregulated free market!

If things go lucky, you might actually go back to the separation of the financing/investment and private banking sectors like before Nixon (he abolished that to "thwart" a recession post NAM - though it had been watered down by lobbyists before).

The big problem is that partisan media hasn't even started working on this movement (marginalize->politicize->obfuscate) yet and the larger it becomes, the higher the danger that whatever bill/governmental process comes out of it will be just another paper-doll with a big head-line (99%, yo) and lots of fine-print.

lol more examples of how utter full of bullshit polaticains are , they don't give a shit about making things better. To them its just some shitty popularity contest to vindicate there ego that's why vast majority of polititions are shallow tossers .

>> ^westy:

lol more examples of how utter full of bullshit polaticains are , they don't give a shit about making things better. To them its just some shitty popularity contest to vindicate there ego that's why vast majority of polititions are shallow tossers .


Name one society or historical epoch where this is not the case. Popularity = votes. No exceptions.

Bush v Gore

Besides, we don't have a popular vote. We have the electoral college.
>> ^Payback:

>> ^westy:
lol more examples of how utter full of bullshit polaticains are , they don't give a shit about making things better. To them its just some shitty popularity contest to vindicate there ego that's why vast majority of polititions are shallow tossers .

Name one society or historical epoch where this is not the case. Popularity = votes. No exceptions.

you took a part of what I said out of context to then make your point ( I'm not quite sure what your point is ).
to me it comes across as you stating that popular politicians get voted , which is self explanatory and not a counter argument to what I said.

My point didn't dispute that it has always been about getting the most votes. but rather one would hope its about getting the most votes by being good and doing the right thing (ie things that benefit the people that vote the person in) . not by being the person that can best lie and manipulate the system for personal gain.



>> ^Payback:

>> ^westy:
lol more examples of how utter full of bullshit polaticains are , they don't give a shit about making things better. To them its just some shitty popularity contest to vindicate there ego that's why vast majority of polititions are shallow tossers .

Name one society or historical epoch where this is not the case. Popularity = votes. No exceptions.