crazy Prof. from u of colorado

[Nick Douglas]

Freisz,

That doesn't qualify as hypocrisy. Denouncing something and then engaging in it is the most common form of hypocrisy.

You might be talking about something called, "lying." That is different from hypocrisy. I could be wrong about the comments, though. I didn't see your other thread, so I'd appreciate if you could paste them into this thread or post a link.

 

[dr. freeze]

that is why most of us in the midwest and south do not like you liberals

you think you should think for everyone else

and you think you know everyone's intentions and motives

and you want to control how we think, act, and feel

it is very irritating

 

[Nick Douglas]

You're having trouble with the term, "hypocrisy."

Let me ask you this, Freisz: Did you expect death threats when he posted the email address on his site? I did. O'Reilly did, too. He even said, "THE UNIVERSITY SHOULD HAVE EXPECTED DEATH THREATS." Well, if O'Reilly is the person providing the conduit to the largest volume of emailers, then isn't he enabling those who are sending death threats.

 

[dr. freeze]

more examples of liberal hypocrisy:

1. recent outcry about the federal deficit/debt
(i agree with the outcry, but find it hypocritical coming from a liberal)

2. recent outcry about not caring enough for the children when they want to burden them with so much debt after claiming things like medicare does not go far enough, etc. etc

3. all the votes cast authorizing the war and now blasting it over and over again --- now people like Boxer lying about the bill so her minions in califiornia, who are too ignorant to read the bill itself (which authorized the war), will cheer her on

 

[Nick Douglas]

No liberals want to control how you act and think. We want you to be tolerant and help those who need help EVEN IF THEY DON'T ALWAYS DESERVE IT.

As far as knowing the other side's intentions and motives, in my experience conservatives engage in that at least as often as liberals. Look at the way conservatives react to news stories. It's always, 'here's the item, and here's what the liberals are REALLY trying to do.' I mean, this story is a classic example. The story is ostensibly about a semi-nutjob speaking on a college campus, but it's more about exposing some alleged anti-American agenda on campus.

Hell, the whole "Anti-American" agenda is another great example. Conservatives often repeat that liberals, "hate America," when we criticize it. Not true. We just believe that America should be better than it is and we are pointing out why with harsh (admittedly sometimes too harsh) criticism.

 

[dr. freeze]

of course i expected it

none of them are legitimate

dont you think that some of your leftist wacko organizations do the same thing?

do you see me getting all worked up about it?

there are plenty of people with screws loose

i have learned, through dealing with many of them i might add in my training, you can't do anything about them

but to ask for respectful letters sent to the president CAN bring about change. this is how we keep people accountable

luckily we have a media now which outs such activities

if you hear of a Christian fanatic like Falwell talking about spongebob it is all over the news and you can bet he gets death threats about thigns like that

now finally we have an outlet to cover things like this nut which the mainstream will not cover because they are liberal

and for some reason liberals like you do not like it

 

[Nick Douglas]

I can't comment on Boxer's comments because I haven't read the bill you're referencing.

Liberals want the rich taxed more. Period. Both of your first two points fit EXACTLY into that agenda.

 

[Nick Douglas]

Don't mischaracterize my opinion of Fox News. I love it. I believe that liberals are too harsh on it. Among conservatives I've met traveling the country for my job, to a man they all realize that Fox News is strongly conservative. They just watch because outlets like CNN and the LA Times are very left wing.

 

[dr. freeze]

liberals spend way too much period. they have spent way too much disregarding our budget throughout history.

now they have an outcry because bush is spending like them

the "rich" are taxed almost half their income

taxing them anymore takes away jobs and decreases the amount of money in play....any economist will tell you this is foolish -- well those just right of Marx will

that is ridiculous...the poor hardly pay anything and some of them get free money back for doing nothing

horrible ideals....

 

[dr. freeze]

boxer said that they voted on the resolution only because of WMD's to authorize the way

1. she is hypocritical because she voted against it anyway. why is she talking about being misled when she voted against it anyway -- apparantly she was not (in her own mind)

read the following blog:
Rewriting History
Senator Boxer grilled Secretary of State nominee Condoleezza Rice during Rice's confirmation hearings. Having already embarrassed herself over the tin-foil hatted theories of vote fraud in Ohio, Senator Boxer now embarrasses the entire Congress by forgetting just what it was they passed, only a little more than two years ago. Boxer, trying to refute Rice's claim that it wasn't just WMDs that drove the US to invade, told Rice that the bill (Public Law 107-243) was "WMD, Period."

"Let's not rewrite history, its too soon for that," she (Boxer) said.

Unfortunately, Rice needs to hold back a bit when attacked, if she plans on getting approved as Secretary of State. Otherwise, she really could have torn into the good Senator for her lack of knowledge about the very bill authorizing the use of force against Iraq. In that bill, of the 23 reasons cited by Congress for taking action against Iraq, only one comes even close to stating that it is because of WMDs being stockpiled in Iraq. That one even starts out with the statement "Whereas in Public Law 105-235 (August 14, 1998) Congress concluded that Iraq's continuing weapons of mass destruction programs threatened vital United States interests and international peace and security...."

So, during President Clinton's term, Congress concluded something about Iraq's WMDs, and chose to put in into the bill authorizing use of force by President Bush, and now Senator Boxer is claiming the bill was about "WMDs, period." So who's the one trying to rewrite history? Either Senator Boxer is doing her best to rewrite what is clearly written into Public Law, or she never even read a bill she voted against.

It is quite possible that the Senator voted against a bill that she didn't really understand. It is, after all, about four and a half pages in length. And it is quite possible that the Senator voted against a bill that she understood to be something it clearly is not.

But in the end, it's simply more likely that the Senator is trying to rewrite the Senate's own history. And I agree, it's far too soon for that.

 

[Nick Douglas]

By the way, I think many conservatives think that liberals have some irrational animus towards the wealthy, and that's where the desire for higher tax rates comes from. The rationale for higher taxes at higher income levels is that most public institutions benefit the wealthy. There is a legitimate argument that the military, police and many other examples of public infrastructure exist in large part to protect those with established wealth. I am not as extreme in those views but I do dislike it when tax reforms are proposed that would result in THE REVERSE with less financially affluent Americans sharing a greater piece of the burdon (Fair Tax being the most egregious example).

 

[dr. freeze]

another blantant criticism of the liberals:

they blame Bush for creating such a wide political divide in this country

-- I have never seen a president try to do more to reach out than Bush. and look at the way he is treated.

as a conservative, i think he governs way too far left, but he is attacked personally day in and day out

have you ever heard GWB attack anyone? other than Kerry in his campaign?

 

[dr. freeze]

one more liberal hypocrisy for the night

the filibuster:

"The filibuster rule ... is, in its way, inconsistent with the Constitution...." --Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT)

"I really believe that the filibuster rules are unconstitutional." --Senator Tom Harkin (D-IA)

"The Constitution is straightforward about the few instances in which more than a majority of the Congress must vote.... Every other action by the Congress is taken by majority vote. Democracy means majority rule, not minority gridlock." --Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD)

"Now, every Senator can vote against any nominee.... But it is the responsibility of the US Senate to at least bring them to a vote." "Vote them up or down." --Senator Patrick Leahy (D-VT)

"I find it simply baffling that a senator would vote against even voting on a judicial nomination." "Hispanic or non-Hispanic, African American or non-African American, woman or man, it is wrong not to have a vote on the Senate floor." --Senator Tom Daschle (D-SD)

"Vote the person up or down." --Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL)

"It is true that some Senators have voiced concerns about these nominations. But that should not prevent a roll call vote which gives every Senator the opportunity to vote 'yes' or 'no'.... Parties with cases, waiting to be heard by the federal courts deserve a decision by the Senate." --Senator Ted Kennedy (D-MA)

 

[Nick Douglas]

Again, Freisz, you are bringing up an instance of Boxers being disingenuous, but not hypocrisy.

As far as liberal spending, you are being unfair. From what I have seen, liberals have been very specific in their criticism of Bush's spending. They decry tax cuts and some criticize spending on the war. That is in line with liberal thinking.

Whatever the argument there, you are being too broad in your example, anyway. Try to find specific examples of liberal hypocrisy. They surely exist, the problem is you're just going to have a much easier time finding conservative examples of the same because they happen so darn often.

 

[dr. freeze]

(these were all quotes before Senator Daschle and co. made the filibuster almost commonplace routine in the Senate)

 

[dr. freeze]

aw got one more on my mind before i go to bed

liberals crying about costs of healthcare and doing nothing to prevent trial lawyers from sabotaging the system

 

[Nick Douglas]

Again, you have to give context to your example. I don't have the first clue when any of those quotes were made or if the people you quoted followed up those quotes with actions that would contradict them.

You have to be fair if you are looking for hypocrisy. In that spirit, it's time for me to be fair to conservatives:

One could certainly use the term, "standing for something," as a synonym for, "intolerance." I think everyone would agree that when liberals criticize conservatives for intolerance, many times they are just taking issue with someone who strongly stands for something (anti-gay marriage, anti-abortion, etc.).

When you strongly stand for something, it opens up far more opportunities for your enemies to point out hypocrisy. When you don't stand for anything, how can you ever be hypocritical? I applaud people who stand strong with reason and I try to be careful not to criticize them too much for hypocrisy. That said, tonight's O'Reilly controversy ticked me off and that's why I played the "H" card.

 

[Nick Douglas]

Freisz, you have to be more specific in citing your quotes. I can't say for certain whether you are taking them out of context, but without properly citing them that could be misconstrued as propaganda.

It is your opinion that lawyers are responsible for health care costs. And even if that were true, that is, again, too broad an example.

 

[Nick Douglas]

I finally finished watching Churchill's comments and I must say that I side with him in this dispute. He said that 9/11 was an inevitability. He specifically said, "you cannot justify an inevitability. It is inevitable." The greatest criticism of his comments has been that he said the 9/11 attacks were, 'justified.' He also said that people are using his comments for political gain and that is clearly true.

Now I want to make it clear that I am siding with him in this dispute only. I AM NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE WAY HE CHARACTERIZED WORLD TRADE CENTER VICTIMS. In my opinion he takes a myopic view of U.S. policy and chooses to focus too strongly on the negative ramifications of it. In fact, I find it astounding that someone who dislikes the term, "terrorist," when describing enemies of the United States would ham-handedly brand the, "technocratic corps at the very heart of America's global financial empire," (his words for WTC victims) "little Eichmanns." That's f*cked up.

A person who doesn't believe in the word, "terrorist," but criticizes workers in the financial services industry is flatly wrong. I mean, how in God's name is greed worse than murder? I'm not going to expound upon that but I think this guy lets his zealotry get the best of him.

 

[Englishman]

Why am I not surprised that you side with this cunt, Nick? You are so typical of the whole University of Spoilt Children bullshit. Hey, if you can't stand America why just you just **** off to France.

Oh yes, here is one for your private school butt-buddies: once it's happend, EVERYTHING was inevitable.