Talk:Liberal hypocrisy

From Conservapedia

Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

This should be merged

Someone should move the actors "hypocrisy" to after the politicians. While the use of guns in a movie does illustrate their hypocrisy by the implication that they condone such behavior by playing a part. There are better "real life" arguments to be made, and a person reading this may see this comparison as follish and not read on.

Shouldn't this article really just be titled "hypocrisy" with a note that liberals often engage in this type of behavior? It could be its own category - blended together with deceit, the occult, etc. --LiteratiChamp 19:07, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Too early for that. Let the articles develop separately first; we can always generalize later. --Ed Poor Talk 19:22, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Isn't calling someone a hypocrite for the actions of the characters they play a bit of a stretch? I mean, is that the best you can do? There are surely much better examples than that. It just seems desperate. Are we going to see an article saying that Anthony Hopkins is a hypocrite because he does not believe in genocide, but in The Bunker he played Hitler, a man who is one of history's greatest perpertrators of genocide? PortlyMort 09:04, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

It depends on what they say and do after they leave the set. Anthony Hopkins isn't going around saying Hitler was a kind man while he was a dictator. You see, I don't like PETA screaming that dolphins are dying in tuna nets while not saying anything about the tuna. I don't it when Al Gore demands we stop polluting the atmosphere, yet it's OK for him to drive huge gas-guzzlers and giant jumbo jets. Get the picture? Karajou 22:27, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

This all started for me when I had an on-line conversation some years ago in one of the Dalnet channels. A man appeared and wanted to talk about the environment, specifically oil production and how he can get people against it. He revealed himself as a member of Greenpeace. When I badgered him as to what car he drove, he told the other members of the group it was a Honda, one of those gas-miser cars. Then I said something that got that hypocrite to voluntarily get out of the channel:

"So, you can protest all the oil companies you want, yet you have the gall to put their products in your own car?"

That is the kind of hypocrisy I don't like. Karajou 22:38, 21 July 2007 (EDT)

It seems that stuff like that belongs in this article more than what characters they play do. Though one should be hesitant to classify as a hypocrite anyone who is critical of reliance on oil and who drives a car. It is very difficult for most people to get by without some sort of car, and impossible for them not to consume oil in some form. Owning a car while being an advocate for alternative energy isn't really hypocritical unless the car is a Hummer or some other such gas-guzzler. As for PETA, their anti-meat stance is pretty well documented. They stressed the dolphins because people are much more sympathetic to the plight of dolphins than to the tuna they put in their sandwiches. And it sort of worked, there were tuna boycotts, at least for a time. PortlyMort 14:56, 22 July 2007 (EDT)
The point of this is to illustrate the fact that many of these people refuse to practice what they preach. I've never accepted the passes these people give themselves to justify what they do while condemning others for the same things. If, for example, the man who drives the gas miser protests the man driving the gas guzzler, by what pass does the man in the gas miser get? He's still polluting; it may be less pollution, but it's still pollution. And PETA cannot pick and choose which animals to save and which to kill; they picked dolphins (which are cute) over tuna (which are tasty); both are still animals. Karajou 07:39, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
I'm not buying this argument. By merely existing one is going to contribute some pollution to the environment. I suppose the most ecological sound action a person can take is to kill himself and take as many people as possible with him, in an environmentally friendly manner (ie no nuking). Are we to believe that the only people who have a right to take a stand against pollution are mass murderer/suicides? Anyone who takes a stand against pollution and makes a conserted effort to meaningfully reduce the pollution he causes is not a hypocrite (note I say reduce, not eliminate, which would be impossible). Now, whether Al Gore really does as much as he should is somewhat doubtful. Is a person critical of loss of American jobs to China and such countries a hypcrite if they at some point in their life buy a good made in China (and it must be nearly impossible not to these days)? Is a conservative critical of Disney's "gay friendly" policies a hypocrite if at some point in their lives they spend $1 on something made by one of Disney's many subsidiaries? You also say "PETA cannot pick and choose which animals to save and which to kill", but PETA has never endorsed the killing of tuna. I'd bet you can find some hypocracy within the organiztion (and certainly among some of its members), but that's not an example. They made an issue of the dolphins because they knew it was an issue that registered with people. And since their drive to make everyone a vegetarian is doomed to failure, they picked a battle they thought they could win. Is a Christian charity that helps victims of poverty in India hypocritical for not doing the same for people in Namibia? Are they "picking and choosing" which people to save and which to let die? There are plenty of hypocrites out there, why use such bad examples? PortlyMort 15:43, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Shouldn't there be an article on conservative hypocrisy to keep it fair? --9820 14:34, 22 July 2007 (EDT)

I agree. There have been conservatives who have behaved in a hypocritical manner, much to the dismay of the country. I can give two examples of US Congressman, both of which are charged with making (and obeying) the laws on the books, and both of which broke those laws. One, Duke Cunningham of San Diego, was sent to the slammer for bribery, and the other (I forgot his name), a South Dakota representative, was given ten years for manslaughter because he felt he could speed on the highway when he ran down someone on a motorcycle. Karajou 07:38, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

I removed the movie quotes. They just plain were not relevent. It's a stupid as saying "Cloony supports stealing cause he wsa in oceans 11". Tesfan 11:51, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

I also removed the following, because if you do not count the silly movie quotes, then there is no hypocrisy:

The quotes were put back. Karajou 12:26, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
Why? Tesfan 12:27, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
The answer to "why" is clearly listed above. Karajou 12:28, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Al Gore and Carbon Offsetting

Karajou, I was drafting a short edit when you protected the page; It's intellectually dishonest to claim Al Gore is hypocrtical in his energy use if you fail to mention his practicing carbon offsetting. Suggesting that he's hypocritical for attacking Big Oil and promoting fighting global warming while he still uses jets and has a large house is simply a strawman. If you'd really like, I will gladly enumerate some reasons why. However, in the meantime, I strongly advise you re-draft the criticism of Al Gore to mention his carbon offsetting. You can disagree that this practice is of the same value as the pollution he creates with his activity, but you can't simply dismiss it entirely. Stryker 12:34, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Explain carbon offsetting Karajou 12:37, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
Carbon offsetting is the principle that you can augment behavior that pollutes the atmosphere by adopting and expressly practicing behaviors that reduce pollution. For instance, growing up, my family would plant trees and help rebuild forested areas, and many other people will do this because each tree will statistically reduce a certain amount of CO2 in the air over a period of time. Many wealthier people will also help fund the development of renewable energy sources such as wind farms and solar farms, which also help offset the carbon dioxide emissions they produce.
Simply put, celebrities such as Gore simply cannot avoid some of the emissiosn they produce. He is obligated to speak at certain forums, and there is no way he can make those speeches if he doesn't fly. To my knowledge, however, he doesn't usually use commercial airliners, preferring smaller, cleaner private jets. As for his house, the statistics on its energy usage are usually derived from stock figures on how much it costs to heat, cool, and light a house of the size. To my knowledge, again, he offsets these by not heating/cooling the entire building, using newer LED and other light teechnologies to reduce that energy usage, and also supplements the energy with renewable sources such as photovoltaic cells. This is all in addition to buying Carbon Credits, funding re-forestation, and funding the development of renewable energy sources. Stryker 12:45, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
I figured carbon offsetting would be just another pass. Man drives a car 10 hours a day, feels bad he's polluting, gets a tree, plants it in the ground. Does he reduce his driving to five hours a day, thereby reducing the pollution, or is he going to rely on that tree to "off-set" the carbon he continues to generate? Give us all a break, Stryker. If you really and seriously don't want to pollute, toss away your car keys and never drive again. Tell Gore to stay off the plane. Tell your next-door neighbor to toss his cigarette butts in the garbage can and not on the street. Karajou 12:56, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
Just a side note to add: contrary to popular conception, planting a tree does not actually reduce the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. A material balance over the life and death of a tree shows that the net change in CO2 must be 0, otherwise conservation of mass is violated. I now return you to your regularly scheduled debate :) Jazzman831 13:22, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
So you're just going to denigrate him like that? Listen to yourself and think about what you're saying. Some pollution is unavoidable; if you're in the position that Gore is in, that's especially so. I highly doubt he could reduce his carbon emissions any moreso than he's done already. Tell Gore to stay off the plane? I could tell you to turn off the computer to reduce the energy that you're consuming. Obviously, it's an unavoidable energy and carbon expense.
I'm at a loss why my fellow Conservatives are so vehmently opposed towards the environmental movement. Is it because it was fathered during the Progressive Movement? If so, then that's a pretty cruddy reason. With the exception of groups that take it WAY too far (I would never support those groups that encourage people to become vegans or BS like that; it accomplishes nothing), the environmental movement benefits everyone. Cleaner air improves health; anyone who lived in LA and has moved elsewhere in the country can attest to that. Investing in energy efficient lightbulbs and appliances helps save money; my monthly electrical bills over the past two years can attest to that.
Carbon Crediting and Offsetting is something that was established under the Kyoto Protocol as a means to curb global greenhouse gas emissions while attempting to cut back on the economic impact that those limits would impose on industrial nations. It's obviously not perfect, but it's by far the best system that's been devised to date. Just because you don't see the sense in it doesn't mean it isn't a good idea; this decade's insane ENSO conditions and odd climate anomalies should speak for themselves.
If you don't want to participate in curbing greenhouse gas emissions, then fine; the rest of us won't mind doing a bit extra to cover your expenses. But don't assassinate those who are trying to come up with practical ways to solve this problem. We don't need to fear Gore - he's not running for President! Stryker 13:08, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
Thanks for bringing up Kyoto, and the obligations of the signatory countries, specifically Spain. Just a few very short years ago, an oil tanker sent a mayday, yet Spain, a member of Kyoto, refused to tow the ship into port. Why? They didn't want to pollute their harbor with a little oil. So they let the ship sink at sea, which sent a lot of oil on their beaches. That's an example of hypocrisy their: stating they won't pollute, yet refusing to stop pollution when they had the chance. Thanks for reminding me to include it in the article! Karajou 13:14, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
Again, that's a straw man. No where was I advocating Kyoto. Rather, the principles behind Kyoto. Kyoto is deeply flawed, but at least it tries to combat the problem of greenhouse gas emissions rather than let it all go to heck. Thank god that we've got a great generation of atmospheric scientists coming up who might be able o solve the catastrophe being left to them. Stryker 08:30, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
Your global warming inuendo is a straw man, as these same scientists, like every like-minded scientist in the decade before, will talk about every excuse under the sun that causes global warming except the sun itself. And by the way, Stryker...your edits prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that, despite what you said about yourself above, you are not a conservative by any means possible. Karajou 08:59, 24 July 2007 (EDT)
Your animosity towards scientists is blinding you from what is actually being said about global climate change. It's obvious that you've never read a scholarly paper on the topic, because if you had done so, then you'd know that the decently-well understood mechanism of solar energy fluctuation is almost always used as a baseline in calculate relative energy levels in the atmosphere. The sun's contribution is already well understood, with the exception of some funky stuff with the solar wind and the VA belts. I urge you to get out of the political editorials about the topic and pick up a copy of Natural or the journal of the AMS before you continue to spread misinformation on the global climate change debate (which, I should add, is over debate-wise; it's more than corroborated that global climate change is occuring, and the only 'debate' left is to the extent that human industrialization has catalyzed the process).
I'd like to see how my edits prove I'm not conservative. One can be an environmentalist and still be a conservative. Was no one here ever a boy scout when they were younger? If someone was, don't you cherish your memories of the outdoors? Conservation should be a hallmark of Conservatism; it would please me very much if we could take it back. I think that there is a misconception that conservation is something that necessitates expanded government; really, it just requires education about the environment, which I've found will almost always spur people to take personal action to protect it, negating government intervention. As for defending Gore, he's been instrumental in bringing attention to the environment. I may sharply disagree with his political philosophy, but the man is accomplishing very important things - I daresay greater things than either I or you will ever accomplish in our lives. The man deserves respect. Being vile towards the opposition just out of contempt is a liberal characteristic, not a conservative one. Stryker 10:21, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

<--

  • "It's obvious that you've never read a scholarly paper on the topic"
  • It's obvious you never read the granddaddy of climatology scholars who says this alleged "scholarship" is a bunch of huey,
There is a lot of money to be made in this....If you want to be an eminent scientist you have to have a lot of grad students and a lot of grants. You can't get grants unless you say, 'Oh global warming, yes, yes, carbon dioxide.'
That's a strawman., and a terrible one as that. Reid Bryson isn't the "father of climatology;" he's really not even that famous. Sure, he's published some articles and some books (I've read Climate of Hunger), but he hasn't published any new work in two decades. Once again, if we'd please stop reading internet blogs to get our science, we'd be well aware that the father of modern climatology is Alexander Humboldt, one of the most famous oceanographers of all time. Reid Bryson is not an authoritative source on the global warming debate. Stryker 11:31, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
Right; he's just a senile old man outside of progressive thought. Typical response. Can't refute scholarship, so attack the source. RobS 11:37, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
The source is not credible and doesn't refute the initial data albeit for bald, unsupported assertions. On Edit: I'd like to point out that I've yet to make a change to the actual article pending the resolution of this argument. Stryker 11:40, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
So you say the source is not credible. Big deal. Who are you? Just an anonymous internet crusader with a point of view to peddle, whom the evidence now shows, is willing to denigrate and impugn the established reputation of a scholarly source. What is the motive? Dr. Bryson gives us the motive, based upon his many years of experience in the academic sphere, in addition to debunking the so-called "scholarship" and science.
So, if you haven't noticed by now, this is not DailyKos, or any other site where anonymous crusaders invent and perpetrate legends to impugn and discredit people the don't like or disagree with. Thus far, you've offered nothing to further this discussion, or improve the mainspace article.
Basically what I am saying amounts to this: liberal pap can amount to trolling, once it's been established the purpose or point of it to waste Sysop's time. RobS 11:57, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
Right now, I may be just an anonymous internet crusader, but then what role do you play? I'm content to remain anonymous and have my credentials questioned; I could care less whether my credentials are respected on an internet site as long as they're respected in the real world.
The simple matter of fact is that Bryson is just regurgitating the same anti-GW talking points; the fact that he used to be a source of authority doesn't in any way bolster the argument. I've heard the exact same talking points in nearly the same wording from a wide variety of non-scientific sources. If anything, it undermines the argument, because a professional is unable to even put a tiny bit of scientific spin on them. I laugh at any argument that tries to introduce motive; kids don't grow up to be scientists in the hopes that they'll make a fortune.
I'm not going to even touch the mainspace here until this argument is resolved because I already know I'll be banned for it; the 'motive' is apparent. However, I can't sit by without at least contesting this issue. My principles don't allow it. Stryker 12:17, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
In carrying forward this reductio ad absurdum, let's examine this claim,
  • kids don't grow up to be scientists in the hopes that they'll make a fortune
Very interesting premise. Ok, so they do not want to get rich. They must be driven by ideology then, huh? Hmmm, what ideology? Since "scientifically," there is no God, and they are not motived by money, what ideology drives these kids? Hmmm, is it to prove God wrong? Maybe scientists are smarter than God, huh? Maybe that is what drives them to be scientists since the are not motivated by money, to prove God wrong and to prove that to the rest of us, that they are smarter than God, huh? Very interesting premise. RobS 12:43, 26 July 2007 (EDT)
RobS, I chose to be a scientist because I wanted to understand the world around me in a finer detail. I knew I would not make a "ton of money" (Scientific PhDs are the most underpaid for the amount of education than any other grad degree). I did not have a motive against god like you guessed in your paragraph above, in fact I attend a Presbyterian church like many of my colleagues at the NIH do. Perhaps this will shed some light on Stryker's response. Just to note, Bryson is a researcher who has been out of mainstream science discoveries in a decade to say the least. To put this in perspective perhaps you should look at what has been discovered in the past decade to see how that affects his creditability. Another point to make is the number of scientists who show evidence of climate change and causes, this is very important in the scientific community as well as any mathematician could explain the statistical relevance. Just because someone is not looking does not mean it is not there, this is the case of Bryson. He has yet to offer any scientifically viable evidence contrary to what modern climatologists have observed. As for Gore, it amazes me the number of people who complain about a man who is trying to make a change but are not willing to support the idea of the change. I have a son, I would like for him to enjoy the world as I have. I will do what I can to prevent the negative impact of my actions on the enviroment.--TimS 15:45, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Regarding the sun's influence on global warming - there was recently a study published on this. The paper can be found at http://www.pubs.royalsoc.ac.uk/media/proceedings_a/rspa20071880.pdf --Rutm 13:18, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

Couple of points/comments

I certainly agree that liberals can be hypocrites (and just as much so as any other person) but I have to say that some of these examples are weak. There are good examples of liberal hypocrites (like rich Senator Kennedy who campaigns for raising the minimum wage for the poor while guiltlessly taking money from those same people in the form of a government salary) but we need to be very careful about those examples we choose to highlight. People view these sorts of pages with an extra critical eye and use them as evidence against us if they aren't good enough.

  • Currently, the examples of George Cloony and Mark Wahlburg don't actually show any hypocracy. There must be two actions to show hypocracy and both of those examples show one action. If you think they are hypocrites because of the movies they are in (and this is a very, very weak argument) at least show an example of a movie where they endorsed guns.
  • The O'Donnel, Brady, and Gore examples are excellent. And frightening. But they clearly demonstrate how those individuals are being hypocritical.
  • If something "speaks for itself" then it shouldn't be very hard to just say it on the article. Without investing time into analyzing the links myself, I have no idea how Kerry is being hypocritical. And if I wanted to do my own research, I wouldn't be looking it up in an encyclopedia!
  • Finally, a suggestion: could Greenpeace's insistance on safe, clean, domestic fuel, while at the same time railing against our cleanest, safest and most energy efficient fuel source (nuclear energy) be considered hypocritical?
In Greenpeace's case, it is their specific protest against oil drilling by sailing their vessels to oil drilling platforms at sea. The vessels they use are powered by the same oil and/or gas being produced by those platforms. Think about it. Do you go to the corner gas station and protest them, yet still expect to fill your tank up while your there? Karajou 13:10, 23 July 2007 (EDT)
No no, I agree with the picture, and I find it rather funny. I was just saying that I additionally find it hypocritical of them to boycott the only practical solution to their problem. Jazzman831 13:15, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

"Do As I Say (Not As I Do)"

National Review had an article on Peter Schewizer's book, "Do As I Say( Not As I Do)", which documents hypocrisy by liberals. He shows alot of liberal hyprocrisy in this article. For instance, on Nancy Pelosi's union policy, he states:

"Nancy Pelosi bashes everyone who doesn't allow unions to call the shots. Everyone that is except herself. It's takes an amazing amount of gall to accept the Cesar Chavez Award from the United Farmworkers Unions while using non-UFW workers on your Napa Valley Vineyard. It takes the same to praise the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union and take massive sums of money from them all the while keeping them out of your Hotel and chain of restaurants. But again, I think Pelosi correctly assumes that no one in the media will challenge her on this."

He also shows hypocrisy in a lot of other liberals like Michael Moore, Hillery Clinton, Al Franken, Ted Kennedy, etc. You might want to check out this article. Hope this helps, --Tash 13:18, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Oh, it does help. I also have Al Franken's assitance via a book titled Pants on Fire. Feel free to add in! Karajou 13:24, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

More on Clooney and Wahlberg

The following information should be added to the sections on George Clooney and Mark Wahlberg. Clooney says that he is against war, but starred in the movie Three Kings where he played a soldier fighting in the Gulf War. Anti-gun zealot Mark Wahlberg also starred in this same film.--Conservateur 15:16, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

Movies aren't real. *sigh* --Bucklesman 20:18, 23 July 2007 (EDT)

The whole Cloony point is absolutely ridicilous and retarded. For Gods sake, he was in a film - Films are not reality! Whoever wrote that piece deserves the death penalty. Denzo 10:03, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

I thought liberals opposed the death penalty. I guess you liberals only want the death penalty for conservatives.--Conservateur 17:19, 26 July 2007 (EDT)

I'd keep the Clooney and Wahlberg criticism in this list, because it make instantly clear that this list is just for entertainment, and not to be taken seriously. Conservatives can also be funny. User:Order 27 July

Yesserie, films are not reality, but real people play parts in those films, and that real-person Clooney could have had a stroke of reality on the set with the gun in his hands and simply lived up to his own word, and dropped the gun on the floor! But obviously he didn't. As to Denzo and his little rant, he proved his own hypocrisy regarding freedom of speech, specifically who he thinks should have it, and who should not. Karajou 11:17, 30 July 2007 (EDT)

Interesting then that you blocked him right before you posted your reply, so that, even if he wanted, he will not be able to reply in kind. If actor's roles had much to do with their true natures and the substance of their beings then they wouldn't be such great actors; neither would a certain actor wind up as POTUS. U2 11:25, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
Interesting that you did not read what he said which led to the block. I don't think anyone has the right or the authority to state that someone "deserves the death penalty" for writing a piece that he disagrees with. Karajou 12:39, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
Am I to take it you've not heard of hyperbole? While it can be difficult to "hear" humor in the written word one should note the context, which, in this case, was, "films are not reality" (another thing in the same "not in reality category"), "Whoever wrote that piece deserves the death penalty." The over-the-top measure (death) to deal with the complaint (shaky writing), should have indicated that the complainant was having a bit of fun at the expense of the writer. U2 12:53, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
If you can successfully prove that it was hyperbole, then I'll take you at your word. But then again, every time a lib always engages in such talk and gets caught, he's got to have a pass for it, an excuse, a loophole. They always come up with something like "Oh, it was just a slip of the tounge, didn't mean it, or maybe it was poor hyperbole" or something similar to that. Karajou 13:03, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
"Every time a lib always engages"? Kinda sounds like hyperbole :) Jazzman831 14:39, 30 July 2007 (EDT)
Hyperbole is talking about a bomb with a smile. Hyperbole gone bad is talking about the bomb with a smile at the airport. :) Karajou 08:14, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Please!

I have to go...someone please archive this page! --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 08:17, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

Kyoto and Spain

The entry on the oil tanker prestige contains nonsense. First, the Kyoto has nothing to do with leaking oil tankers, and second, the Prime minister of Spain at that time was Aznar. I leave it as an exercise to the reader to figure if he was liberal or not. User:Order

  • Mr. Literal? Isn't nonsense at all, if you look at it as another example of hypocrisy, in thinking. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 10:08, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
Hypocrisy by whom? Aznar? The Kyoto protocol? In thinking what? User:Order

Since nobody was able to explain what the 'hypocrisy', nor why it concerns a Liberal, I removed the the corresponding bit. User:Order 2 August, 18:15

Why is the article blocked? User:Order 3 august. :30 (AET)

So you couldn't remove the corresponding bit. Karajou 13:50, 4 August 2007 (EDT)

No, I couldn't. It doesn't matter too much, because the quality of most entries isn't that great either. An entry on something that backfired isn't hypocrisy, and if it then done a conservative government, it isn't exactly liberal either, but as I said somewhere else, this entire list is for entertainment only. Sure, a real encyclopedia would include such poor work, but I guess it is for the sysops to decide if they want to be foremost entertaining. User:Order 6 august 9:50 (AET)

If it's for entertainment only, why are you and others so desperate to change it? Could it be that you can't stand it when liberal hypocrisy is exposed, and you instead palm it off as mere entertainment? Karajou 20:12, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
I am not desperate to change it. I would however advise to have everybody sign their fun fact on liberal hypocrisy. I think, but call me picky, that it looks incompetent to call an action that backfired on a conservative prime minister, a liberal hypocrisy. I would suggest that each editor sign his fun fact, such that it would be at least obvious that the incompetence doesn't lie with CP in general, but with a particular editor. User:Order 6 august 9:50 (AET)
Such as yourself, for instance? Karajou 21:11, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
For example. I don't want people to think that I read the entry, and didn't notice what it is obviously wrong. User:Order 6 august 11:22 (AET)
In your opinion, of course. What you have obviously overlooked is the fact that libs love the Kyoto Treaty, and didn't raise much of a fuss here in this country when that ship was refused entry into harbor by Spain (a Kyoto signatory), to sink in the deep ocean whereby it spilled its entire cargo of oil to foul all the Atlantic coastal beaches on the Iberian Penninsula.
I personaly seen libs rant and whine about pollution and how we need to clean up our act, and these same libs don't seem to mind much when they pollute themselves with their cars, their cigarette butts, their chewing gum wrappers, their foul mouths, and I bet you're one of them. Don't come here and start correcting us for what we write when you do it yourself. Karajou 22:18, 5 August 2007 (EDT)
No, not in my opinion. It is most peoples opinion that Aznar was conservative politician, and in addition the Prime Minister of Spain, and not some Liberal. And the Kyoto treaty still doesn't have anything to do with oil pollution. And comments on my personal hygiene doesn't make your position stronger. But I guess you did it in the heat of the moment, and wouldn't mind to apologize for this verbal slip. User:Order 6 August, 14:30
Personal hygene means you have a problem with showering, clean clothes, and an overall smell about your person, something which I didn't cite and have no need to apologize for. The others I mentioned are personal habits which you may have at least one of...and even then I have no reason to apologize. Have a nice day. Karajou 03:52, 6 August 2007 (EDT)
No need to be all defensive, a simple apology would have been sufficient. User:Order 6 August, 20:55
Excuse me, Mr Order. You came to this site knowing it was a conservative site, and have every intention of pushing your liberal views on it. It is you who needs to apologize for that, and you will. Karajou 07:01, 6 August 2007 (EDT)
What liberal views? Sorry for pointing out that an action by the Aznar government that backfired on his government isn't a liberal hypocrisy. Pointing this out isn't liberal. And your insistence to stick to this story isn't conservative either. It isn't even advancing the conservative cause, to the contrary. Nor are personal insults. But, since you changed your tone, I will take it as an apology. User:Order 6 August, 22:25

Increasing the taxes can increase tax revenue

The entry in taxes on cigarettes in Tennessee contains nonsense. Increasing the price of a product, can increase the revenue even if the number of sold items decreases. The entry suggest otherwise. User:Order

What you just said is nonsense. The Tennessee state government and anti-tobacco coalitions fully expected people to continue smoking; raise the price without hurting sales and the state gets that increase in revenue, which is exactly what's happening now. I've seen people walk into my store complaining about the high prices, but not once did these same people cut down their smoking as a result. The people who raised the taxes on cigarettes knew it too. Karajou 11:15, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

What I said is not nonsense. To paraphrase Andy, this is just basic economics. You can increase prices, leading to a decrease in demand, and still make a profit. Happens all the time. User:Order

To add a bit of math to this argument. If you increase prices by 7%, demand can drop up to 6.5% and you still make a profit. User:Order

We're not talking about economics in this particular article; we're talking about people who say one thing and do another. With regard to smoking-related taxation, there are people who demanded the tax, both in state government and in anti-smoking organizations, and these same people expected to make a windfall in revenue as soon as taxes were raised, while at the same time telling the public they expect people would reduce or quit smoking as a result of the higher rates. The only way that the state can collect those higher rates is for people to be smoking; the state cannot collect the taxes from cigarette sales if nobody is lighting up. Karajou 12:27, 31 July 2007 (EDT)
A possible explanation is that the proponents of anti-smoking legislation wish to acquire it because it will reduce smoking (provding the political and social impetus for the change), while at the same time, attempt to rationalize with opponents of the move by re-assuring them that it would not have a severely detrimental effect. It sounds like politics, not hypocrisy. Stryker 12:35, 31 July 2007 (EDT)

What basic economics tells you is that both is possible. You can raise the taxes by 7%, and then make a windfall and have consumption drop by up to 6.5%. What is so difficult to understand about that. User:Order

Seems like I can make mistakes too. According to Chart the tax was increased by 7ct (not percent). Sorry for this mistake. It is currently 20ct in Tennessee. So, lets then assume that it was 13ct before the tax increase, and 20 ct after. This means an increase in tax of about 53%, which means that you make a windfall if consumption drops up to 35%. User:Order

Ted Kennedy and his opposition to wind farms in Mass.

I think something should be added to the article about global warmist Ted Kennedy's opposition to putting wind farms off the coast of Martha's Vineyard. Even though it's one of the best sites for wind generation on the entire east coast, he opposes it because it might affect the view from his mansion. Total liberal hypocrisy. He only supports renewable energy if he doesn't have to see it.--Conservateur 11:28, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

"Ted Kennedy" is not someone who comes to mind when one thinks of Global Warming activists or promoters. He may lean left on environmental issues, but he is definitely not a majro leader in the movement. ΨtrykeЯ eh?> 11:35, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
Try again. [1]--Conservateur 11:53, 1 August 2007 (EDT)
It's a little weak. I don't think NIMBY is really an example of hypocrisy, it's an example of self interest overriding community interest. As I said before (which seems to have been largely ignored :/) there are many examples of liberal hipocrisy, but you need to pick strong ones or you set yourself up for failure. Jazzman831 18:56, 1 August 2007 (EDT)

Clooney is an actor... erm, "actor" is the operative term.

I have to take issue with the statement "Clooney stared in the film The Peacemaker, in which he played an American military man defending the country from a nuclear attack; scenes in the film showed him using a gun to defend himself and others."

I took the time to look up "acting" on Merriam-Webster online, and came across the definition "the art or practice of representing a character on a stage or before cameras". So I'm somewhat confused as to why Clooney is being criticized as a person for a character (who is not real) that he portrayed. Seems a bit hypocritical. --Ħøĵímαζĥŏήğθαλκ 03:22, 11 August 2007 (EDT)

Yeah, I was wondering about that myself. In fact, that's the only reason I looked at this page. Seems really... Well, it seems like somebody's been grasping at straws. Edit: Same thing for Wahlberg. Kazumaru 21:54, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
Yes, it does seem hypocritical that someone who plays a cop in the movies can go around condemning them in real life; it does seem hypocritical that someone who plays a soldier in the movies can spit on them in real life; it does seem hypocritical that the anti-gun nut who thinks the average law-abiding American citizen shouldn't be owning a gun to defend himself from a criminal, yet the same anti-gun nut thinks it's ok for himself to play that law-abiding gun-owning American in a movie defending himself from a criminal. Sound's like you're upset that this bit of liberal hypocrisy is broadcast for the world to see. Karajou 22:11, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
1. Deleting other people's comments is not cool.
2. How? Is it also hypocritical for someone who plays a mad scientist bent on destroying the world in a movie to condemn that sort of thing in reality? They're freaking ACTORS! They don't have to agree with what their characters do, they just have to make them do it! Kazumaru 22:18, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
Yes, they are actors in a movie, they play parts in a movies, but just as I refuse to accept medical advice from an actor who plays a doctor on TV, I will never listen to the anti-gun Clooneys or Wahlbergs as they try to take my guns away from me while they play the hero with them on film. Get it through your head. Karajou 22:23, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
Oh, and pushing your own liberalness on this website is not cool. You will respect CP. Karajou 22:25, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
I never claimed that you should take medical advice from, let's say, Hugh Laurie, but you seem to be slamming the use of guns to heroic ends if the person portraying that character does not believe that the average citizen should be "packing heat." If they played a character who didn't use guns, would you support their opinion more then? Kazumaru 22:27, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
And I'm fine with your disagreement of my personal beliefs, but you're acting awfully hostile about the whole issue... And I sincerely hope that by CP, you mean conservapedia. Kazumaru 22:28, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
You are the one who's hostile to this subject and this website. If you do not like conservapedia or conservatism or Christianity, then you should leave. This discussion between you and me is closed. Karajou 22:31, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
I have never, on this website, claimed to be hostile to any of these things. I'd appreciate it, sir or madam, if you'd not attempt to misrepresent me. Kazumaru 22:33, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
But you can misrepresent me as you did above? Last warning. Karajou 08:04, 13 August 2007 (EDT)
Alright, let me rephrase what I said. In my non-expert opinion you seem to be acting rather hostile towards me on this issue. I'm sorry if my comments were misinterpreted. Kazumaru 20:37, 13 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Kazmaru, since you (falsely) claimed on your user page I had blocked you, I have protected your honor and turned your public lie into truth. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 22:48, 12 August 2007 (EDT)
  • Kazmaru, I apologize! The block log showed no previous block for you! I have removed your block, and restored your pages. --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 00:06, 13 August 2007 (EDT)
    • No hard feelings, TK. We're all only human. Kazumaru 00:12, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

Hoji said

  • I'm somewhat confused as to why Clooney is being criticized as a person for a character (who is not real) that he portrayed. Seems a bit hypocritical, and quoted
  • "scenes in the film showed him using a gun to defend himself and others."

Ok, so Clooney is a capitalist pig who exploited America's love affair with the Second Amendment for personal profit and then criticizes our God-given freedoms to pursue happiness and own a gun. That's not hypocritical? Rob Smith 11:04, 13 August 2007 (EDT)

  • To be fair, Rob, it is no more hypocritical than Michael Moore owning Haliburton stock, and keeping his money off-shore to avoid paying a rich man's taxes that would go to help all those without medical care! :p --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 03:10, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

John Travolta is a heterosexual male Scientologist. In the movie Hairspray he plays the mother of an hedonistic teenage girl. Another straw to grasp at? JohnMalin 12:37, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

Couric

I already mentioned this once elsewhere, but now that the idiocy has premeated to other pages I feel I should mention it again. The Couric quote is ridiculous. First of all, while Couric may be liberal, I don't see how commenting on how gas prices are at historic highs is a liberal comment. Nor do I really see any hypocrisy. As for the "I need a loan," is it possible, just possible that she might have been exaggerating? Leaving that quote there just might it seem like CP is full of idiots who can't comprehend that not every statement is meant to be taken literally. It's grasping at straws. If someone says "I exercise all the time", maybe that should be included too, as clearly all humans must sleep, therefore that person clearly exercises less than 100% of the time, making that person deceitful, and, I suppose, a hypocrite. There are a few good examples on this page (the O'Donnell one, for example), but far too many poor ones. And the Couric one has to be the worst. PortlyMort 09:22, 14 August 2007 (EDT)

I agree. My first time reading it, it seems obvious it was a joke. Startoman24
Right. She's just one of the boys, nevermind she gets $15,000,000 to spew marxist garbage. Rob Smith 15:56, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

George Clooney and Charlton Heston

I looked at the citation dropped for the premise that Clooney said that Heston deserves Alzheimers... but the real quote says nothing like it! Clooney says that Heston deserves what others "say" about him, not that he deserves a disease, and the link to the quote provides the quote wholly without context. As much as I hate Clooney, isn't it a little dishonest to supply an out-of-context quote, and then provide your own context?-Baruch 12:10, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

Cooney's quote appears to more directed at criticizing NRA support for candadites that oppose gun control, than the issue of the Second Amendment itself. Rob Smith 12:28, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

So you agree that the quote doesn't stand for the cited proposition. Shouldn't it be removed, then? Say what you will about Clooney, but he doesn't appear to have rejoiced at Heston's alzheimer's as you claim.-Baruch 12:38, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

It's an actual quote by Clooney in response to hearing Heston had Alzheimer's. Karajou 12:49, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
Here's a CNN Transcript where Clooney admits joking about Heston's Alzheimers was in poor taste. [2] Whatever the merits, there is a story here. Rob Smith 13:15, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
I think we ought to begin a page on Liberal hate speech; we got the anti-feminist example of Edwards calling a succesful woman a "she-devil" because of her recognized abilities to compete with men in the marketplace; we got at least three examples of liberal hate speech directed at handicapped persons, Clooney "joking" about Heston's Alzheimers, jokes about Reagan in diddies, and Rush Limbaugh is multi-handicapped, we have numerous disparaging comments about his deafness, his drug addiction (yes, drug addiction is defined as a handicap by the American's with Disabilities Act) after Limbaugh's back surgery. If somebody wants to start it, I just have to prioritize about 10 trillion more examples. We can throw in what was said about Clarence Thomas, or Thomas Sowell. Rob Smith 13:31, 18 August 2007 (EDT)
Since we already have a relatively short hate speech article, I would suggest adding a section on liberal hate speech with the items you just mentioned, instead of making a new article. When that section gets too large, we can create the new page and provide a summary/link to the new article. --Crocoite 13:48, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

--şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 13:57, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

Thanks for the links, Karajou, and Rob. Since you provided them so quickly, perhaps they should be in the article, too?

And yeah, this seems to be something more like hate speech than hypocrisy. I don't see his nasty comments about Heston as hypocrisy at all, just major jerkitude!-Baruch 14:02, 18 August 2007 (EDT)

The fact that he admitted it was in poor taste, yet insisted it was still funny and showed no remorse for doing so makes it hypocricy [sic]. Rob Smith 15:51, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

I looked up hypocrisy, and it means, "a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not; especially : the false assumption of an appearance of virtue or religion." He nowhere says that what he did was nice, while pretending it wasn't; nor does he say that what he said was funny, but believes it wasn't. He was an a--, and a real jerk, but not a hypocrite. Conflating various bad traits isn't a very appealing trait, yourself.-Baruch 16:04, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

KURTZ: Was that in poor taste in retrospect?
CLOONEY: Yes, oh, yes. It was in poor taste. It was a funny joke. .... And it was just a funny joke.
Seems unrepentant to me. He says above it was both in poor taste and funny. Nowhere does he say he shouldn't have made the joke.
'Hypo', in Greek means 'below' or 'underneath' (as in 'hypodermic', beneath the skin), and 'kritikos' means 'making judgements'. So it means below or beneath making judgements. 'Hypocritic' was an actual word Greeks used for stage characters, or 'actors', someone pretending to be someone who they were not. This meaning has survived in its literal sense in English.
The subtle difference between a hypocrite and your average run-of-the-mill liar is that when the hypocritical behavior is exposed the hypocrite generally has no idea that they have been engaging in behavior that is hypocritical. That is the whole point to being a hypocrite; being blind to one's own misdeeds, or contradictory behavior. Samwell 16:40, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
Doesn't seem to me that Clooney did either. He said his joke was in poor taste, but still funny. I think it was neither, but that's not a hypocritical statement, just a jerky one.-Baruch 16:43, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

Rob, I respect you for your work on the site, which has become apparent to me only in a few days here. But your reply is still nonsensical. Hypocrisy is distinct from a lack of contrition. Is this not obvious to you?-Baruch 16:56, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

Hypocrisy is pretending to stand for liberalism, reason, civility, the betterment of the human condition, and all things good, and not being willing to admit you made a mistake with a vicious and offensive partisan smear in what you consider to be a 'joke' among your enlightened friends. Rob Smith 17:51, 19 August 2007 (EDT)
  • I really don't believe they teach one how to avoid being that way at NYU, Rob.  ;-) --şŷŝôρ-₮KṢρёаќǃ 18:07, 19 August 2007 (EDT)

There is no article called Conservative hipocricy

Why? This is quite a bias of your 'pedia.--Ardwingore 22:46, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

That might be because of the spelling. Bohdan 22:47, 31 August 2007 (EDT)
LOL. You beat me to it Bohdan. :) I feel bad for you Ardwingore. I know how it feels to believe I had a point... --◄ Ďāʋĭđ Ŕ ► 22:54, 31 August 2007 (EDT)

In my opinion, this article is rather silly. If there is a "Liberal hypocrisy" article, then there should be a "Conservative Hypocrisy" or "Reform Hypocrisy" and a hypocrisy article for every school of thought. To have all of these pointless Liberal topics makes Conservapedia look tawdry. Many people take a look at the Breaking News section and see another example of "liberal deceit" or something (since when is an example of bias in Wikipedia "breaking news"?). You cannot fix a liberal bias by replacing it with a conservative one.

There should definitely be an article about conservative hypocrisy, as it is at least as prolific as the liberal version, if not more so. We are all human and subject to the limitations that it implies. By having such an extensive liberal hypocrisy page and not a single murmur on conservative hypocrisy is essentially admitting the already profound bias found in every single article in this pedia. The idea that this pedia isn't ultra-biased is a horrific joke at best

Absolutely. As a tentative first step I shall create an essay with this title. RaymondZ 11:02, 6 January 2013 (EST)

Edwards again

Presidential candidate John Edwards told a group of supporters that the Americans should stop using their sports utility vehicles (SUV). However, a photo of his mansion showed that he house with several sports utility vehicles parked. Check out this story.--Tash 20:27, 1 September 2007 (EDT)

Cigarettes

I'm sorry, but it takes a massive leap in logic to deduct that Tennessee created a cigarette tax solely to increase their revenues. One, the revenues are a nice side effect of the tax; two, the tax reduces the number of people smoking, as can be seen in Europe; and three, Using Tennessee as an example of Liberal Hypocrisy, or whatever the hell the point of this article is supposed to be, is just insane. I mean, its almost like a parody to choose a state from the Bible Belt as an example of Liberal Hypocrisy! Graham 20:18, 22 September 2007 (EDT)

Conservative Hypocrisy

By the way, that article (now deleted) was actually written in the essay space. Nobody was claiming it was fact (as is effectively claimed in this article, I might point out), it was just an editor's opinion on the topic. Why was it deleted? Feebasfactor 11:37, 26 January 2008 (EST)

Because it was not a popular opinion. Heck, Andy decided to post comments on the essay page itself, that should be good enough to disqualify the essay status. Barikada 18:35, 31 January 2008 (EST)

Politics

A common liberal theme in '08 is point fingers and say "You don't support Obama? That's because you are a racist!" Then in the next breath, discriminate against somebody because he is old. "What you support that geriatric diaper wearer, old man McCain?" --jp 23:02, 17 June 2008 (EDT)


Hmmmmm I have never heard that one before. AdenJ 23:04, 17 June 2008 (EDT)

Fast food

  • How is this hypocritical? He's not promoting the eating of fast food; he's just eating a burger. (Usual disclaimers apply)-CSGuy 16:44, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
I suppose if he had cigarette breaks during his tobacco industry trials, that wouldn't be hypocritical either? He's just smoking a cigarette, not promoting it... Sorry for the sarcasm, but it's very hypocritical for someone who, in one breath, proclaims far and wide that a product is terrible for a person's health and should be banned/restricted and, in the other breath, inhales the very product he's demonizing. Next thing you know, you'll be defending the Democrats who claim that liberal sex education doesn't lead to loose sexual morals, as they anonymously solicit casual sex during their national convention. Since when do personal actions not reveal the hypocrites? -Foxtrot 16:57, 11 March 2009 (EDT)
Personal tools