More hypocrisy from the left.

[I B Hankering]

This week, WaPo writes:

‘Declaration of war’: European officials offer brutal responses to Trump tariffs

(WaPo)

However, a few years ago, that same hypocritical, lib-retarded propaganda outlet that advocates the destruction of Civil War Memorials ran this article:

Five myths about why the South seceded

2. Secession was about tariffs and taxes Tariffs were not an issue in 1860

(WaPo)

Tariffs are either a source of political conflict or they are not. WaPo cannot honestly -- nor credibly -- argue both sides.

[Why_Yes_I_Do]

You say: 'More hypocrisy from the left' as if less hypocrisy from those as*hats is even possible. They only run one way, typically in circles.

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

This week, WaPo writes:



However, a few years ago, that same hypocritical, lib-retarded propaganda outlet that advocates the destruction of Civil War Memorials ran this article:



Tariffs are either a source of political conflict or they are not. WaPo cannot honestly -- nor credibly -- argue both sides.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

This week, WaPo writes:
They reported the news.
Where did they say tariffs were good or bad? Where is the hypocrisy by the left?


However, a few years ago, that same hypocritical, lib-retarded propaganda outlet that advocates the destruction of Civil War Memorials ran this article:
Here is the rest of the the tariff not an issue info. The article this was in was saying that tariffs were not a reason for the southern states to secede.

"Tariffs were not an issue in 1860 (for seceding from the union), and Southern states said nothing about them. Why would they? Southerners had written the tariff of 1857, under which the nation was functioning. Its rates were lower than at any point since 1816."


Tariffs are either a source of political conflict or they are not. WaPo cannot honestly -- nor credibly -- argue both sides.

They aren't arguing either side.
Your thread title is not supported by any info in the OP.
The 1st Post article reports the European response to tariffs trump announced. The 2nd article has nothing that demonstrates any hypocrisy about tariffs. It points out tariffs weren't a reason for the south seceding.
Neither article makes a judgment call whether tariffs are good or bad.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

They aren't arguing either side.
Your thread title is not supported by any info in the OP.
The 1st Post article reports the European response to tariffs trump announced. The 2nd article has nothing that demonstrates any hypocrisy about tariffs. It points out tariffs weren't a reason for the south seceding.
Neither article makes a judgment call whether tariffs are good or bad.

In one article WaPo says imposing tariffs constitutes "war", masterdickmuncher, and in the other article WaPo's argument is that tariffs were of no import in causing war, you disingenuous POS.

[bambino]

The left ignores their hypocrisy. The media never holds them too it. Because they’re complicent.

[IIFFOFRDB]

A great conversation by two former leftists...

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

This week, WaPo writes:



However, a few years ago, that same hypocritical, lib-retarded propaganda outlet that advocates the destruction of Civil War Memorials ran this article:



Tariffs are either a source of political conflict or they are not. WaPo cannot honestly -- nor credibly -- argue both sides.

They didn't argue any side tranny fucker. They reported what was said.

"In one article WaPo says imposing tariffs constitutes "war", Wrong. The WP quoted someone saying that. They "reported", they didn't editorialize the statement.
Do you have a link?



"WaPo's argument is that tariffs were of no import in causing war,"

Of no import causing the Civil War, not any war. It's not saying tariffs can't cause a war. It says tariffs didn't start that war.
So in other words in an apple to apple comparison, you could say tariffs caused one but not the other and still not be hypocritical.
Simple statements of fact. The tariffs were written by the southern states. They were the lowest they had been since 1816.
In what way is reporting a statement made by a person quoted in a story and making a statement of fact hypocritical? It's not.
Reporting isn't endorsing.
Editorials can be hypocritical. Straight reporting can cover a subject that's hypocritical. But straight, factual "reporting" isn't hypocritical
You just wanted to get a stupid shot in and you got caught.
If anyone on here can figure out a way to turn that dick in your mouth into a cigar it's you. But I'm not going to stick around to see how you do it. You watch too much fox.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by bambino

The left ignores their hypocrisy. The media never holds them too it. Because they’re complicent.

This post is hypocritical.
The right wing media doesn't hold jones, hannity, etc, etc to anything, no matter how outlandish.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Munchmasterman

They didn't argue any side tranny fucker. They reported what was said.

Wrong. The WP quoted someone saying that. They "reported", they didn't editorialize the statement.
Do you have a link?

Of no import causing the Civil War, not any war. It's not saying tariffs can't cause a war. It says tariffs didn't start that war.

So in other words in an apple to apple comparison, you could say tariffs caused one but not the other and still not be hypocritical.

Simple statements of fact. The tariffs were written by the southern states. They were the lowest they had been since 1816.
In what way is reporting a statement made by a person quoted in a story and making a statement of fact hypocritical? It's not.
Reporting isn't endorsing.

Editorials can be hypocritical. Straight reporting can cover a subject that's hypocritical. But straight, factual "reporting" isn't hypocritical

You just wanted to get a stupid shot in and you got caught.
If anyone on here can figure out a way to turn that dick in your mouth into a cigar it's you. But I'm not going to stick around to see how you do it. You watch too much fox.

You're lying again, masterdickmuncher. You're the tranny fucker, masterdickmuncher, and WaPo did editorialize, you lying SOB. Calling an 18% to 25% tax on manufactured goods from Europe "low" is as disingenuous as you are stupid and queer, masterdickmuncher. Especially since there weren't tariffs on most raw materials; which again benefited the North's industrial need for raw material while hurting, by way of direct competition, the agricultural based (raw material) economy of the South. And saying it was "low" at 18% to 25% doesn't even begin to reflect the friction the South endured in Congress trying to get it there and keep it there, masterdickmuncher. The first thing Congress did when the South seceded was raise the tariff to 40% where Northerners had agitated to push it in the decades before the Civil War, masterdickmuncher.

[bamscram]

Not all agree with the Donald.

https://www.rollcall.com/news/politi...rious-negative

http://www.euronews.com/2018/03/02/i...rump-s-tariffs

[garhkal]

Well, i see all sorts of hypocristy.

Such as Friday. Was at our library checking some movies out, and spoke to the guy who's the security guard there. His brother runs a construction co, and got sued for advertising 4 of 18 jobs he had, as 'for strong able men'. Cause it 'was discriminatory' to women.
YET i spent 2 hrs online later, looking at indeed, and saw almost 60 different jobs being advertised for kindergarden teachers.. MANY said "women only"..

So how is that not also discriminatory??