Bush asks for sacrifice he doesn't ask of himself

[vulturesrow]

Just curious, what is your definition of hypocrisy? How does your def. jive with what one can find in dictionaries online?

[jaxmike]

[ QUOTE ]
If this reasoning is correct, and 9/11 et al. was all the fault of Clinton and Bush was not culpable in the slightest bit, then how do you account for the fact that Bush slashed counterterrorism funding in favor of building NMD?

[/ QUOTE ]

How long was Bush in office before 9/11? Do you think a budget passed in the spring/early summer has anything whatsoever to do with an attack like the one in late summer?

[ QUOTE ]
Sandy Berger (I know he is kinda a pos, but bracket that off) and others warned the new administration officials about terrorism, and those threats were more or less brushed off. Is it really fair to place none of the blame with this administration?

[/ QUOTE ]

I wonder if any of this information was in the documents he STOLE from the national archive.

[ QUOTE ]
Also, you accuse Clinton of not capturing Bin Laden when he had an opportunity. Are you suggesting that there weren't any missed opportunities for Bush to have captured BL?

[/ QUOTE ]

None like the ones Clinton had. None that I have seen documented anywhere.

Read Dereliction of Duty by Col. Patterson.

[MMMMMM]

...or be a hypocrite?

[ QUOTE ]
2) If the police were in dire need of more policemen, and you refused to become policemen, yet claimed to support crime fighting, you're just as hypocritical as someone who supports the war but refuses to fight.

[/ QUOTE ]

(excerpt)"By Mimi Hall, USA TODAY
CLEVELAND — Mayor Jane Campbell calls police and firefighters part of the nation's "domestic army" — the troops who will be called upon to respond to the next terrorist attack. But in Cleveland and many other financially troubled cities, the ranks of those first responders are thinning.
Staffing problems in police and fire departments could leave citizens unprotected during a terrorist attack, officials say.
AP file

At least two-thirds of the nation's fire departments are understaffed, according to the National Fire Protection Association (NFPA), which sets firefighting codes and standards. The shortage is worst in rural volunteer departments that have trouble recruiting new members. But many big and medium-size cities that are more likely to be terrorist targets are also short-handed.

Some, including New York, have had to close fire stations; others, such as Houston, have had temporary closures. In many cities, response times are slower, and trucks go out with too few firefighters.

That can have a real impact. Investigators cited many factors that contributed to the deaths of 100 people in a West Warwick, R.I., nightclub fire last year. But a report commissioned by the state noted that the five firetrucks at the scene arrived with only two firefighters each — half the number recommended by the NFPA — and video showed delays in getting hoses turned on.

"While staffing companies to nationally recognized standards is desirable," the report said, "it is beyond the reach of many financially strapped communities."

Many big-city police departments such as Cleveland also are bleeding officers. Nationally, the number of police has remained stagnant in recent years, despite federal help from the Clinton-era COPS community-policing program, which spent $9 billion to help put 118,000 more officers on the streets. The Bush administration, which has emphasized training and says staffing levels should be largely a local responsibility, is phasing out the program.

Staffing problems are being felt coast to coast. New York City, with 23,000 police officers, has lost 1,000 a year for the past three years. Minneapolis cut 38 positions from its police force last year. The Oregon State Police laid off 129 troopers from its 600-member force. "It's almost completely budget-driven," says Gene Voegtlin of the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

There also are staffing problems at 911 emergency centers. National figures are not available for 911 call-takers and dispatchers, sometimes called the first of the first responders.

But Steve Souder, director of the Montgomery County, Md., 911 Emergency Communications Center, says staff shortages are at a crisis point nationwide. In his county, 25% of 911 jobs turn over each year as employees burn out from the stress and hectic schedule and take better-paying jobs with private companies." (end excerpt)

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/...es-cover_x.htm

[Wes ManTooth]

for the record what about "ass clown"?

[DVaut1]

MMMMMM,

I like my comfortable life.

I'll be a hypocrite.

Sorry Cleveland, I just could honestly care less.

[MMMMMM]

Not just Cleveland but nationwide.

[MMMMMM]

All posters should refrain from name-calling. This will make the forum better.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]
Not just Cleveland but nationwide.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, my story doesn't really change.

I feel pretty safe at home. My wife is fine. My car is fine. My internet connection is fine (you better believe Comcast hears about it when it's not). My cat is fine.

In other words, sorry world, but I'm interested enough in your problems to read and post on 2+2 about them - but not quite enough to actually act on them.

I'm not quite sure I'm alone on this, either.

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
MMMMMM,

I like my comfortable life.

I'll be a hypocrite.

[/ QUOTE ]

So by your definition, nearly all able-bodied Americans are hypocrites if the don't:

A) join the war in Iraq, or

B) become firefighters or policemen

Come to think of it, I believe there's an acute nursing shortage as well which is predicted to get worse. There also happens to be an EMT shortage. These are all essential services.

So, what's the point of singling out able-bodied men for hypocrisy for not joining the Iraq war, if nearly all able-bodied men in the country are hypocrites anyway for not becoming police or firefighters when there is a shortage and a dire need for their services?

Methinks I know exactly what the point is. The point is to cast unfair aspersions on those of different political stripe, and to try to marginalize their opinions. But as can be seen, nearly all able-bodied men in this country are hypocrites in other equally valid ways--at least according to your definition of hypocrite. Therefore, your point is moot.

[DVaut1]

[ QUOTE ]

So by your definition, nearly all able-bodied Americans are hypocrites if the don't:

A) join the war in Iraq, or

B) become firefighters or policemen

[/ QUOTE ]

If they're capable of doing such, but don't - then yes, they're all hypocrites. I think I've admitted this no less than 10 times now.

[ QUOTE ]
Come to think of it, I believe there's an acute nursing shortage as well which is predicted to get worse. There also happens to be an EMT shortage. These are all essential services.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll take your word for it. And that stinks. Hope it's not me or someone I care about that needs an ambulance some day, but they're all tied up. Past that, if I really cared, I'd go help the cause. Obviously, I don't care that much.

[ QUOTE ]
So, what's the point of singling out able-bodied men for hypocrisy for not joining the Iraq war, if nearly all able-bodied men in the country are hypocrites anyway for not becoming police or firefighters when there is a shortage and a dire need for their services?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I've singled anyone out. Iraq war supporters are the topic at hand. If you'd like to start a post decrying leftists who make bold statements about their support for human rights but do absolutely nothing to ease the plight of others, I'll be there to come call them hypocrites too, and I said as much in a reply to Reardan (?) in some thread within the last day or so - it may have even been this thread.

[ QUOTE ]
Methinks I know exactly what the point is. The point is to cast unfair aspersions on those of different political stripe, and to try to marginalize their opinions.

[/ QUOTE ]

1) I don't think it's unfair. Why is it unfair? We should be willing to act on what we support, or stop claiming we support it.
2) Sure, I'm trying to marginalize what I see are hypocritical opinions - that is, "I support the war but I'm not willing to fight in it."

[ QUOTE ]
Therefore, your point is moot.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think it's quite relevant.