Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2005/11/3/101806.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.newsmax.com/archive s/ic/2005/11/3/101806.shtml</a> >>After two years of research into liberal hypocrisy, Schweizer described his revelations as "stunning." That may be understatement. For example, Air America radio host Al Franken says conservatives are racist because they lack diversity and oppose affirmative action. But fewer than 1 percent of the people he has hired over the past 15 years have been African-American. It gets worse. Ted Kennedy has fought for the estate tax and spoken out against tax shelters. But he has repeatedly benefited from an intricate web of trusts and private foundations that have shielded most of his family's fortune from the IRS. One Kennedy family trust wasn't even set up in the U.S., but in Fiji. Similarly, Bill and Hillary Clinton have spoken in favor of the estate tax, and in 2000 Bill vetoed a bill seeking to end it. But the Clintons have set up a contract trust that allows them to substantially reduce the amount of inheritance tax their estate will pay when they die. Hillary, for her part, has written and spoken extensively about the right of children to make major decisions regarding their own lives, such as having an abortion without parental consent. But she barred 13-year-old daughter Chelsea from getting her ears pierced and forbade her to watch MTV or HBO. And then there's Hollywood hypocrisy. Barbra Streisand has talked about the necessity of unions to protect a "living wage." But she prefers to do her filming and postproduction work in Canada, where she can pay less than American union wages. As for other liberals who like to offshore things, there's billionaire Bush-basher George Soros. Soros says the wealthy should pay higher, more progressive tax rates. But he holds the bulk of his money in tax-free overseas accounts in Curacao, Bermuda and the Cayman Islands. Schweizer sums up his book this way: "The reality is that liberals like to preach in moral platitudes. They like to condemn ordinary Americans and Republicans for a whole host of things - racism, lack of concern for the poor, polluting the environment, and greed. But when it comes to applying those same standards to themselves, liberals are found to be shockingly guilty of hypocrisy. "The media and the American people need to hold them accountable." <<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.postchronicle.com/news/entertainment/article_2121115.shtml" target="_blank">http://www.postchronicle.com/n ews/entertainment/article_2121115.shtml</a> >>Moore is right. He doesn't own a single share of any of the companies in his cross-hairs. He owns tens of thousands of shares - including nearly 2,000 shares of Boeing, nearly 1,000 of Sonoco, more than 4,000 of Best Foods, more than 3,000 of Eli Lilly, more than 8,000 of Bank One and more than 2,000 of Halliburton, according to World Net Daily. If you want to see the hypocrite Moore's own signed Schedule D declaring his capital gains and losses where his stock ownership is listed, it's emblazoned on the cover of Peter's new book.<<
Originally Posted By Darkbeer <a href="http://www.freemarketnews.com/WorldNews.asp?nid=1745" target="_blank">http://www.freemarketnews.com/ WorldNews.asp?nid=1745</a> >>Michael Moore is heavily invested in Halliburton. Ralph Nader lives in luxury houses and condos owned by his relatives. Noam Chomsky makes most of his income from the U.S. military. Rep. Nancy Pelosi is co-owner of several strictly non-union businesses. … And more gun control advocates than can easily be counted either own guns or hire armed bodyguards. Peter Schweizer's new book, "Do As I Say (Not As I Do): Profiles in Liberal Hypocrisy," reveals all this and more. The vignettes may be worth the price of admission. According to a story on World Net Daily Schweizer follows up his previous exposes of Republican misdoings ("Reagan's War" and "The Bushes") with a scathing analysis of those on the Democrat-left side of the debate. But this latest work is not just a book of "gotcha" journalism. According to Schweizer, the examples of "liberal hypocrisy are of central importance in evaluating the validity and usefulness of liberal ideas." .... And he continues, "Those who are strong proponents of affirmative action rarely practiced it themselves, and some had abysmal records when it came to hiring minorities. Those who proclaim themselves champions of civil liberties when it comes to criminal or terrorist cases went to extraordinary lengths to curtail the civil liberties of others when they felt threatened or just inconvenienced. Advocates of gun control had no problem making sure that an arsenal of weapons was available to protect them from dangerous criminals." <<
Originally Posted By tiggertoo <<I thought he must be getting a newsletter w/all of these links and stories.>> There has mustb e a website out there somewhere that compiles conservative news links like conservativenews.com or vastrightwingconspiracy.net, something along those lines. Otherwise, I'd have to postualate that Darkbeer has WAY to much time on his hands.
Originally Posted By itsme <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0394800133/103-3420073-0619867?v=glance" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obi dos/tg/detail/-/0394800133/103-3420073-0619867?v=glance</a> I found this to be quite interesting- "Did you ever fly a kite in bed? Did you ever walk with ten cats on your head?" Such are the profound, philosophical queries posed in this well-loved classic" Could this be? <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1886947279/qid=1131142698/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-3420073-0619867?v=glance&s=books" target="_blank">http://www.amazon.com/exec/obi dos/tg/detail/-/1886947279/qid=1131142698/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/103-3420073-0619867?v=glance&s=books</a> "Masters of the Links is a simply stunning collection of essays; most are lyrically crafted and as varied and intriguing as an afternoon stroll on a tough 18"
Originally Posted By Disneyman55 Hey guys, comment on the issues not the person posting the issues. Does this information make these liberal activists look hypocritical or not? Is the information valid? Does this hypocrisy lead you to question motives? Not oooooh, eevil Darkbeer.
Originally Posted By TomSawyer The guy writing the book looks at a few celebrities and concludes that all liberals are hypocrites. The book is spanking material for conservatives, nothing more.
Originally Posted By itsme Ok, The top 3 from a quick search- <a href="http://www.danieldrezner.com/archives/001397.html" target="_blank">http://www.danieldrezner.com/a rchives/001397.html</a> <a href="http://www.theregister.co.uk/2000/11/15/vodafone_a_big_fat_hypocrite/" target="_blank">http://www.theregister.co.uk/2 000/11/15/vodafone_a_big_fat_hypocrite/</a> <a href="http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archives/001144.html" target="_blank">http://www.gnxp.com/MT2/archiv es/001144.html</a>
Originally Posted By itsme >>Hey guys, comment on the issues not the person posting the issues. -------- <a href="http://www.seussville.com/titles/greeneggs/recipes.html" target="_blank">http://www.seussville.com/titl es/greeneggs/recipes.html</a>
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <Is the information valid?> It's hard to say. To pick out a few of the "exposes" here... <Noam Chomsky makes most of his income from the U.S. military.> I'm not sure what this means. Details? <Rep. Nancy Pelosi is co-owner of several strictly non-union businesses.> If she co-owns several businesses, they are quite likely small businesses. And if I, say, start a business that employs me and two part-time assistants, does that make it a "strictly non-union business?" What are the criteria here? <And more gun control advocates than can easily be counted either own guns or hire armed bodyguards.> This presupposes that gun control advocates all say that no one should own guns, but that's usually not true. Most gun control advocates call for things like requiring a license to own one (which in most states is not required), closing loopholes for background checks at gun shows, things like that. So it's not "hypocritical" to own a gun and advocate for those things. Sounds like there could be a lot of overheated examples in that book, along with perhaps some legit ones.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Thanks. I feel the same way about your responses on the "college Bible study" thread.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <It's hard to say. To pick out a few of the "exposes" here... I'm not sure what this means. Details?> Guess you'll have to read the book.
Originally Posted By woody From first page, "I DON'T get paid for googling, but I can google the phrase "conservative hypocrisy" too" Why does Liberal hypocrisy matter? Because conservative hypocrisy is the main argument against any traditional values. <a href="http://www.nationalreview.com/goldberg/goldberg200510280721.asp" target="_blank">http://www.nationalreview.com/ goldberg/goldberg200510280721.asp</a> "I will use whatever position I have in order to root out hypocrisy," declared a steel-jawed Democratic National Committee Chair Howard Dean not too long ago on Meet the Press. This was the culmination of a mounting obsession on the Left with hypocrisy. Now, of course, objections to hypocrisy go back to the bible and a good bit further back than that. And the Left in particular has been upset about hypocrisy since the Freudian Marxists of the Frankfurt School convinced an entire generation of intellectuals that internal contradictions were a sign of bourgeois something-or-other. .............. Now, I've written thousands of words on why I don't think hypocrisy is the worst sin imaginable. There's not a good parent in the world who hasn't felt like a hypocrite at one point or another with their kids. Telling your kids not to do certain bad or unwise things you did when you were a kid may feel hypocritical, but telling your children it's O.K. to do wrong out of some craving to be hip or to assuage your own conscience is the most asinine form of vanity I can imagine. Similarly, it's certainly wrong to do drugs, but does giving in to your addiction mean you should also advocate doing drugs for everybody? During the run-up to the Iraq war, how many times did we hear that it was hypocritical for the United States to topple Saddam since we'd worked with him in the 1980s? The upshot seemed to be that it is better to do wrong consistently than do right inconsistently. END EXERPT
Originally Posted By StillThePassHolder woody, you can't be serious. YOUR hypocrisy is better than THEIR hypocrisy? That's one of the most inane things I've ever read.
Originally Posted By woody "woody, you can't be serious. YOUR hypocrisy is better than THEIR hypocrisy? That's one of the most inane things I've ever read." That wasn't the point. Liberals are using hypocrisy as an argument rather than arguing the value that they disagree with. The more the liberals argue hypocrisy, they more they expose themselves to their hypocrisy. Funny how you didn't notice that. And the more the liberals argue hypocrisy, the more the public, especially the conservative voters, don't thick they have any traditional values, WHICH IS FINE WITH ME.
