Hypocrisy Test
If you think that getting rid of Rick Wagoner is dangerous socialism and that Obama should have renegotiated the agreement with the UAW… you might be a hypocrite.
If you are pissed about people attacking Rush Limbaugh but called Michael Moore a traitor… you might be a hypocrite.
If you are call yourself anti-deficit and pro-tax cuts… you might be a hypocrite.
If you think the cost of American labor is too high but that company-provided healthcare is the best system… you might be a hypocrite.
If you think Keith Olbermann is a blowhard but Glenn Beck is a breath of fresh air… you might be a hypocrite. (and vice versa, to be fair)
If you are outraged by people defaulting on their mortgages but pointed to the housing market as a positive economic indicator two years ago… you might be a hypocrite.
If you bitched about the GM bailout while driving around in your Hummer/GMC truck… you might be a hypocrite.
If you are outraged by Bernie Madoff but still think Allen Stanford deserves a fair shake… you might be a hypocrite.
And just one to be fair, cause I’m sure this is total Beast bait at the very least…
If you complained of the iconic symbols and backdrops used by the Bush administration but love the idea of the stimulus logo (guilty)… you might be a hypocrite.
All this being said, political discourse is often nothing but hypocrisy in this country. The policy differences are all real, but the political battles are just two sides of a double-headed coin.
UPDATE: Mo’s mention of the “porkulus” bill made me remember another one:
If you want us to be energy independent but are against funding mass transit… you might be a hypocrite.
Posted on March 31, 2009, in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. 9 Comments.
The Sage
Steve
E the Wise
DFV the Scribe
hairybeast
Mo K.
Sting the Away
Rudy
Voice of Reason
Anthony Rogers
Vérité
Isaiah's Cry
danagall
Hal Jordan
The Rat
Aquinas Shrugged
jackcurtis
a west texas view
pino
Cultural Limits
Regalo Di Spine
Tokyo Tengu
Short Little Rebel
AWOL Civilization
SeePamBlog
rogueoperator
provider4many
jimmullen1
thomaspaine2nd
badoracle
ljponders
weeicemon
Daniella Nicole
plainansimple
Uh, no. A hypocrite is someone who sounds the man-made global warming alarm, tries to guilt others into “going green”, but lives in a mansion, drives a gas-guzzling vehicle, and has a private jet. That’s a hypocrite.
And it’s too bad that you don’t “get” Beck. One of the reasons he’s become so popular is that he speaks for so many of us, and that is a breath of fresh air. Not many people on TV have the guts he does to ask the hard-hitting questions that need to be asked. They’re wusses.
Jay and I saw this interview live yesterday, and both of us were blown away. But something tells me you will just see Beck as a mean ol’ bully.
Oh well.
Look, Beck is a wannabe comedian. His crying is one of the worst acting jobs I’ve ever seen. Even Shepard Smith made fun of him. On Morning Joe today, they put together a short montage of Beck crying, which made both Joe and Mike Barnicle laugh their asses off. He’s found a niche as the New York Post of Fox News, and good for him. But he stole his whole schtick from Howard Beale. You really don’t see that?
Regardless, he’s not speaking for “the people”, because a vast majority of “the people” not only disagree with his views, but also think people who share his views are hurting the country. And they actually are, because he’s spreading broad conspiracy theories to people already scared shitless.
But anyway… I would welcome a post on liberal hypocrisy! I said as much in the post. Al Gore would be a great place to start.
Wes, I don’t watch Beck because he cries. (But I do think he’s sincere in his belief in the 9 principles which are (horrors!) conservative, and 12 values.)
I watch him for what he says. Having read more and more of your comments over time, it sounds to me like you get hung-up on style over substance.
That’s a pretty common trait I see in Obama supporters. Also in G.W. Bush bashers– the way so many labeled him as an idiot just because he wasn’t the most articulate speaker. Much easier than critically thinking about and challenging his decisions.
I didn’t say Beck is speaking for “the people” in which said people are the majority of the country. I said he speaks for so many of us. And you want to talk fear-mongering? Please. Have you not listened to a word from Obama’s lips? He’s eased up slightly, but he’s been one of the biggest alarm-sounders, trying to scare people into believing his harebrained leftwing ideas because the situation “is so dire!”
What about the porkulus bill that HAD to be voted on immediately, no time to read it, because the sky was gonna fall? And then he takes his sweet time signing it.
If I thought there was substance to what Beck had to say, I’d have said so. The guy makes Bill O’Reilly look thoughtful. I don’t consider him substantive, nor do I consider anyone on television of much substance. If you want actual information, you still have to look at actual journalism. Besides that, I’ve spoken to people who wrote for his show when he was on Headline News. The guy’s not that bright.
And the economic situation IS dire. The one thing all economists agree with is that life in America will be getting worse before it gets better. The one thing nobody needed was another administration telling us it isn’t raining while we’re all soaking wet. Or did you forget that most conservatives said everything was just fine up until the last minute last year?
That bit with Obama WAS an excellent bit of hypocrisy, or at least a poor symbolic choice. But that wasn’t pork barrel spending.
I’m not in the least surprised about your view of Beck. He is a conservative/libertarian, after all.
Wes, do you even pretend to believe in the Constitution and our Founders’ principles?
What about at least some of these:
1. America is good. [Not perfect]
2. I believe in God and He is the Center of my Life. [If you're an atheist, just ignore this one. It's OK.]
3. I must always try to be a more honest person than I was yesterday.
4. The family is sacred. My spouse and I are the ultimate authority, not the government.
5. If you break the law you pay the penalty. Justice is blind and no one is above it.
6. I have a right to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness, but there is no guarantee of equal results.
7. I work hard for what I have and I will share it with who I want to. Government cannot force me to be charitable.
8. It is not un-American for me to disagree with authority or to share my personal opinion.
9. The government works for me. I do not answer to them, they answer to me.
The Twelve Values
1-Honesty
2-Reverence
3-Hope
4-Thrift
5-Humility
6-Charity
7-Sincerity
8-Moderation
9-Hard Work
10-Courage
11-Personal Responsibility
12-Gratitude
****
And the economic situation IS dire.
Once again, you’re missing my point. I’m not arguing that it isn’t. But rushing in carelessly, not giving due time for review (where’s that “transparency” I heard so much about?), growing government, spending more and more money that we don’t have, etc. is just intensifying what we saw during the previous administration and going to burden us and future generations even more.
What about tax cuts? What about cutting out some pork? That’s been proven to work. Get more $ back into the hands of the individuals.
And once again, I’m not defending Republicans. Please quit beating that drum (I’m addressing your comments from other threads). My focus has always been on basic principles of conservatism, not party affiliation. I don’t distinguish most Republicans in office very much from their Democrat counterparts. And I’m not alone. Why do you think the term RiNO became part of the American vernacular?
If you are against those basic ideals I listed above, then I don’t imagine we will ever have many amicable discussions except over funny cartoons, music, News of the Weird, etc.
First of all, the only time we’ve seen a reduction in the deficit since Reagan’s tax cuts is when we raised them under Clinton. Besides that, if you give tax breaks to anyone who doesn’t really need the money, they will just sit on it, and for good reason. Tax cuts won’t fix ANYTHING in the economy right now. With the slight exception of the tax cuts put into the stimulus that will go largely to people who will use the money now.
Not only that, but Reagan’s tax cuts took the tax rates from 70 to 50. We saw far less benefit from the Bush tax cuts. At a certain point, cutting prices (or interest rates, for that matter) doesn’t increase demand anymore.
I agree with most of your principles, but less so as the list goes on. I think if you live in a community, you are responsible for giving back to it. I think that we all benefit when more people have enough money to live on, but I don’t believe that we can expect that will happen naturally. I suppose I have a more pessimistic view of human nature. I think that if you give rich people more money, it is far less beneficial to society than if you gave it to people with very little money. I don’t consider that socialism, because I don’t think the government owns anyone. But I like my roads free of potholes, I like my schools well-staffed and built sturdily, and I like my firefighters to be close enough to reach my house in less than 20 minutes. Government does that. When we give government less money, they stop doing that. Unfortunately, the choice comes between getting a big percentage from people who don’t have enough to live on or distributing the tax code to maximize intake. That’s fairness to me.
I also have more faith in the government. You see a program not working and say it’s incurably broken, I say that it needs to be fixed and run properly. I also don’t think that private businesses should be given charge of relatively profitless things that sserve the public good.
Well, hallelujah, we do agree on some basics. C’mon, you make it sound like I’m a believer in anarchy. Of course government is necessary for tending to roads, and our basic infrastructure. When did I ever argue against that??
And, you may be surprised to know that conservatives on the whole are more giving (money-wise, at least) than liberals. What we object to is being told to whom we may donate, plus be taxed for it. Anyone can have hard times, and be down on his/her luck. THOSE are the people who deserve a helping hand until they can get back on their feet. People who are capable but prefer to get a handout rather than apply themselves, well… some of us resent our taxes being given to.
It’s the whole “teach them to fish” concept vs. throwing money at the problem. And I shouldn’t have to distinguish (but for some reason I feel I always must, lest I be labeled “mean”) between someone incapable (i.e. handicapped, injured, etc.) and someone who IS capable.
Where we differ is that when I see a problem that needs to be fixed, the government is the last place I look for a solution. They’ve failed too many times, and our liberty is chipped away in the process.
One last thing… “giving more money to rich people” is such a false argument. For one thing, it’s not about “giving more money to”. It’s about allowing them to prosper, and employ people, thereby increasing jobs. It’s fundamental to capitalism.
Plus, the wealthy pay so much more proportionately in taxes, except for the tax cheats– need I go there? There are more liberals who have been nailed for this, notwithstanding all the those “out to get” conservatives for it.
Nationalism, and nationalized health care in particular, is disastrous. Why not give people a listen-to who have seen it firsthand?
I’ve already posted a different link to him, but Daniel Hannan from the U.K. is someone all of us should pay attention to.
Oh, no, I’m well aware! Partly due to a higher concentration of the megarich, partly because missions work is such a vital tenet of the Evangelical faith. That’s actually one reason I would like Obama’s service program if it included religious organizations.
But it still isn’t enough. They don’t have the resources to do all the work that needs to be done, and they never will. My hope is that Obama understands that government can get more done if it works with existing social structures rather than trying to build new ones, but I might be very disappointed.
And I know it isn’t really giving more money to rich people, but it is still a real issue. Part of it is that the tax bracket suddenly decided it would cut off the rate at a few hundred thousand a year. We could get much better returns by making a slightly higher bracket starting at 5 million a year. That’s what John McCain said was rich, right? Most people who make that much money a year don’t get it by busting their asses, or at least not by producing tons of decent-paying jobs.
But we could discuss this till the cows come home and it wouldn’t change either of our minds. And Obama is going to prove one of us right in the long term anyway.
One thing I’ll reiterate, though, regarding national health insurance… If you don’t want it, conservatives need to get a workable plan FAST. Cobra will run out on thousands and thousands of people this year and make them realize exactly how unworkable private insurance is. At that point, you can be sure people won’t give a shit whether they’ll wait an extra day or not.