Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Help me find a hypocrite!
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 10 of 160 (395774)
04-17-2007 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by Hyroglyphx
04-17-2007 10:11 AM


Re: Hypocrites from the Left, Right, and Middle
you haven't met the objective, as those who replied to you have pointed out.
anyhow, nice to see you back (and as you can clearly tell, I'm back too . . .but . . .)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Hyroglyphx, posted 04-17-2007 10:11 AM Hyroglyphx has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 51 of 160 (396857)
04-22-2007 7:36 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by Minnemooseus
04-21-2007 10:47 PM


Re: The "tax and spend liberal" charge by neo-conservatives
hm. let's see here.
we have Abraham Lincoln. Father of the GOP. Massive increase in Federal Power.
Then we have FDR. Father of the New Deal. Massive increase in Federal Power.
Then we have Dubbya. The Son of the Father. A very large increase in Federal Power.
LBJ and Reagan can be included in this list.
In all actuality, every president has increased federal power to some degree. Some just in very big ways.
The traditional conservative position has been to have smaller government. However, the GOP was founded on furthering federal power at the expense of state government (vast over simplification here, mind you).
My area actually isn't US History. I'm studying Western Europe (and have just started on that road, really).
ABE:
I should add this. The Cold War was the witness of continual expansion of federal power at a rate never seen in US history before. Seems like an ever present threat is the perfect excuse to expand your power. So every president beginning with WWII has increased federal power.
My personal bet is that the GWOT will have the same thing, and we're well on our way too.
Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by Minnemooseus, posted 04-21-2007 10:47 PM Minnemooseus has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 53 of 160 (396865)
04-23-2007 12:30 AM
Reply to: Message 52 by Nuggin
04-22-2007 9:34 PM


Re: Conservative monopoly on hypocracy
do you consider Mao to be conservative? If not, then his program of opening up, letting new ideas come forward, is hypocrisy on a very deadly scale. He said--we welcome criticism and new ideas--and then killed the people who came forward. So much for the welcome mat.
pre-ABE:
second sentence is written badly. That "opening up" is hypocrisy regardless of Mao's political inclination. If he's a "liberal", then you have a liberal example of hypocrisy on a very deadly scale.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by Nuggin, posted 04-22-2007 9:34 PM Nuggin has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 54 by Nuggin, posted 04-23-2007 1:26 AM kuresu has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 137 of 160 (416149)
08-14-2007 7:20 AM
Reply to: Message 135 by riVeRraT
08-14-2007 6:59 AM


Re: Hillary Clinton
um, nooo.
And think about this. If they are giving her money, maybe they support her position? If not, why give the money?
If Joe Blo is campaigning against mob influence, and he gets money from the mob, is he a part of the mob? No. Is it possible that the mob wants to influence him? Yes. But should he continue to campaign against mob influence, little good the money did there, right?
You give money to politicians for one of three reasons--you are trying to influence their vote, your support their position, or (only in the case of campaigns) you spread the money out between various candidates to hedge your bet.
But you know, the link you gave if about her getting money from a hi-hop music producer. Now tell me, does Timbaland support world-wide prostitution? What is his motivation for holding a fundraiser dinner for Sen. Clinton? Is he possibly writing music for a specific market?
Mind finding the answers to these questions? Because, quite frankly, you asserted that Sen. Clinton got money from someone who supports world wide prostitution:
That's on the heels of her making a plea to stop world wide prostitution. She gets her money from people who glorify the things she denounces.
So it's up to you to find out if Timbaland supports world-wide prostitution. If he even supports prostitution at all. It's up to you to find out what his reason for holding the fundraiser dinner was. Because all that is part of figuring out whether your evidence actually is evidence. So far, I only see a music producer who writes hip-hop and/or rap music with words I wouldn't use helping her raise money. I don't see the head of a brothel or world-wide prostitution ring giving her money (hint--you need to supply that evidence since you're making the assertion). And even so, that doesn't mean she's a part of it. It's the tricky business of motivation.
Your evidence, so far, ain't up to snuff.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by riVeRraT, posted 08-14-2007 6:59 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by riVeRraT, posted 08-14-2007 1:04 PM kuresu has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 138 of 160 (416151)
08-14-2007 7:26 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by riVeRraT
08-14-2007 7:01 AM


Re: Here's Another.
Here is a question (and it is not loaded taz), would certain plants benefit more from and increase of CO2 than others, and then create an imbalance in our eco system?
Trouble is, CO2 is not the limiting factor of plant growth. You need to eliminate other limiting factors (such as water and minerals available). It doesn't matter if there's ten times or one hundred times the CO2 needed if there's very little water.
I should add, in nature CO2 is not the limiting factor. In Omni's friend's case, where you can specifically eliminate limiting factors on growth, then pumping in CO2 will make sense (because in the kind of environment I'm assuming those plants were in little CO2, if any, is produced).
Not sure if this answered your question, but then, I'm not sure if your question makes sense yet.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by riVeRraT, posted 08-14-2007 7:01 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 143 of 160 (416212)
08-14-2007 4:00 PM
Reply to: Message 141 by riVeRraT
08-14-2007 1:04 PM


Re: Hillary Clinton
The one link you provided to show how Hillary was a hypocrite has lyrics written (or produced) by Timbaland.
Now then, if I write something like this:
Everything's going to burn, burn, burn
All the world's a joke, pass me the coke
Everything's gone to smoke cause of some f****r
So damnit ho, pass me the coke.
Obviously I'm for drug use, and since I used "ho", I must either be for prostitution and/or degrading of women, right? Wrong. You failed to answer the question of what TImbaland's motive is in giving money to Hillary. I'll give you a new question, might be easier. What's his motive for writing those lyrics? Could it possibly be just business?
You're evidence still ain't up to snuff. How does Timbaland support prostitution? You know, you're original claim that Hillary denounces world-wide prostitution and then accepting money from Timbaland means she's a hypocrite on the issue of prostitution. That would require Timbaland being in support of prostitution. Can you show that he is?
They did not want to be associated with him, in fear that they would be accused of supporting what he said.
Oh, the irony. Hear your saying, in effect, that you can give money to a person without being connected to that person. But they're scared because people might make false conclusions--which is precisely what you're doing.
Oh, that and on one hand you're saying accepting money from someone means you agree with that person's position and on the other that just because you accept the money you don't support their position.
Hillary may damn well be a hypocrite, but not in this case.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by riVeRraT, posted 08-14-2007 1:04 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by riVeRraT, posted 08-14-2007 10:34 PM kuresu has replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 149 of 160 (416263)
08-14-2007 11:24 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by riVeRraT
08-14-2007 10:34 PM


Re: Hillary Clinton
This article was written by WorldNetDaily.com editor Joseph Farah. It was published Wednesday October 20, 1999 and is copyrighted by WND.
Mind finding something recent? And given that it's coming from worldnetdaily, I'm a little loath to accept this article at face value. Is she still buddying up to Ng Lap seng?
Unfortunately, I can't seem to find any article that I can access that actually gives the evidence for Ng Lap seng involvement in organized crime, etc. So far I find assertions everywhere.
Please keep in mind, I'm not defending Hillary per se. I'm trying to get you to examine your shabby evidence. Your first link is to a music producer who has nothing to do with prostitution (except he uses the word 'ho' in his music), your second is to an article that is 8 years old. I cannot find anything linking Sen. Clinton and Lap seng after her time as first lady.
All your link means is that she once was a hypocrite (if the evidence of Lap seng's activities can be found).
Try again, rat.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by riVeRraT, posted 08-14-2007 10:34 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by riVeRraT, posted 08-14-2007 11:34 PM kuresu has not replied

  
kuresu
Member (Idle past 2512 days)
Posts: 2544
From: boulder, colorado
Joined: 03-24-2006


Message 153 of 160 (416285)
08-15-2007 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 151 by riVeRraT
08-14-2007 11:41 PM


Re: Hillary Clinton
Then dig. I'm doing some.
Forbidden
This one is about how she said she would never vote against funding the war while troops are in danger, or vote for a specific withdrawal date. This article claims she has now done both. Whether this is real hypocrisy is a little difficult to tell. It's easy to see this being an oppurtunistic vote. It's also possible she's had a change of heart.
All the other stuff I'm finding about the hypocrisy of Sen. Clinton is built off of inuendo and a lack of understanding about how politics work.
I don't doubt that somewhere Sen. Clinton is a hypocrite. We all are, somewhere. The trouble is, all the supposed cases that I see are piss poor. None approach the quality of hypocrisy (or the solidness of the case) of people like Ted Haggard or the florida representative that helped start this thread.
The reason it might be so difficult to find solid cases of hypocrisy in the news online is because most who report the hypocrisy don't like Sen. Clinton to begin with (such as worldnetdaily), or they like her and don't want to tarnish her image.
Unlike science, politics is notorious at not removing bias.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 151 by riVeRraT, posted 08-14-2007 11:41 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 157 by riVeRraT, posted 08-15-2007 9:40 AM kuresu has not replied
 Message 159 by Jaderis, posted 08-15-2007 11:21 AM kuresu has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024