Hypocrisy on steroids: What liberals said then vs. what liberals say now

View Comments (32)

• I liked the line from one of the Wisconsin Democrat legislators who, when asked where they were staying, said "we're in a secure location." Secure location? Why do you need to be in a "secure location?" So you don't have to vote on a bill? So you can thumb your nose at your constituents and not have to explain why, when the going got tough, you left town? Quit acting like a little kid, stop holding your breath, put on your "big boy" or "big girl" underwear and GET BACK TO WORK. Losers.

• A lady in the video say Hitler abolished unions in 1933. In fact he did not. Prior to 1933 there were competing unions, some pro-Nazi, others not. Hitler forced the non-Nazi unions to merge into the pro-Nazi unions and they became compulsory. This was exactly the same model used by Lenin.

  In other words the unions became controlled by one party who used them to further their aims.

• The president of the biggest auto union used to live in my condominium back in the day and all I can tell you is that unions must do a lot of business on the golf course. A day did not go by when I did not see this schmuck in the elevator with his golf clubs by his side. Then crying woe is me whenever there was a union negotiation. How can public service workers have higher wages then the average wage of their private sector equivalent? It means that the workers actually driving the economy and creating value are losing money into growing debt to pay those who are supposed to be providing services to them so they can create more wealth. It makes no sense what-so-ever, hypothetically if there was a 50-50 split betweek private and public sector jobs then we would never get out of debt. Public sector wages and benefits should be tied to the average of what the private sector makes in an equivalent job-period.

• I bought a gallon of milk this evening and there was a picture of the Wisconsin legislators on it.

• Liberals: I am special, I don't deserve your judgement, but when I am ready to (mis)judge you, you better take it and not give it right back at me because then I will accuse you of being a racist meanie.

  Liberals wanting to live in a world of their own. I say let's them go back to their home planet Stupid World.

• Checking in from the frontline. Was at the tea party rally today. Comforting when living close to ultra liberal, home of progressive-ism to be among so many like-minded people that simply get it and don't resort to dictator, hitler signs (there were a lot of them there amongst the union crowd). I really don't get the dictator bit - do they not even understand that the union bosses have been dictating to them all along? They are entitled to their ignorance, I guess (they LOVE entitlements, this group, so I'll give them that one).

  All in all, pretty peaceful. A few shouters/haters from the pro-union, make the rich pay more crowd.

  My sign was a "MIA" with a pic of "my" missing Senator. What a derelict.

  • Don't suppose you took any photos you'd like to share with us?

  • Prediction

    Your mug is going to show up on MSNBC with the caption: "Teabagger threatens Senator with violent war rhetoric: You will be Missing In Action!"

• You can't get two liberals together without them accusing their opponents of being "fascists", "nazis", etc.; I think it's in their book of rules. Two years ago it was Bush who equalled Hitler, now it's democratically elected governor Scott Walker who has assumed the Hitlerian moustace.

  Living here in Wisconsin I've been keeping track of the liberals' over the top signs and rhetoric. Walker has been compared to Mubarek, Mussolini, Stalin, Hitler and "a cold war Eastern European dictator" (coming from a liberal this might actually be a compliment); still, no one has compared him to Pol Pot---yet. Bottom line: the abundance of liberals carrying "Hitler" signs only emphasizes the poverty of their ideas.

  Eventually agressive rhetoric and violent imagry can lead to agressive and violent action. And Madison, with its population of 60s radicals, left wing undergraduates, anarchists and street crazies just might go that way.

• I've already heard a couple liberal responses to this video:

  1. "We had to start using more expressive language in order to combat the hate and violent imagery coming from the right."

  2. "Our language is figurative. The crazies on the right mean what they say literally." (This argument only comes from the few liberals smart enough to know what 'figurative' and 'literal' mean.)

  I present the arguments here so when the trolls come along, I've already stolen their thunder.

  • LOL... And these fruits refer to the GOP as the 'Party of No'...

    Well then, I guess that makes the DNC the 'Party of In Today's Madlib's No Means Yes, Yes Means No, Next Week No Means No, and the Week After that It's Anybody's Guess.'

• Sure am glad Bill Maher made it into this video. He tries to sneak around and call himself a libertarian, but he's certainly not.

  • Surely Maher isn't still trying to convince people that he's a libertarian. He said the other day that he thinks Stalin and Lenin were too far to the right.

    • Bill Maher is as much a libertarian as a pedophile is a friend to children.

      • I AM a Libertarian. Trust me, Maher is NOT a Libertarian. He makes me ill. Not just as a person, although he is a sickening little weasel. But his politics make me ill. The Libertarian Party wouldn't let him shine their shoes.

  • You're right! He is a blatant liar, radical left wing liberal dog.

• To quote from 'The Foundry' --"Government workers, however, don’t generate profits. They merely negotiate for more tax money. When government unions strike, they strike against taxpayers. FDR considered this “unthinkable and intolerable. -- Union contracts make it next to impossible to reward excellent teachers or fire failing ones. Union contracts give government employees gold-plated benefits – at the cost of higher taxes and less spending on other priorities." HANG TOUGH, GOVERNOR WALKER! You have lots of supporters
  across the country!

  • Further, when unions in the private sector demand too much, they bankrupt the company and they end up unemployed (unless Obama bails them out).

    But when public sector unions demand too much, the Dems just sign off, and the taxpayers get hosed. I think they believe governments and taxpayers are an endless revenue stream that can't go broke.