View Full Version : Liberal Hypocrites
I've come across this book: "Do As I Say (Not As I Do)" by Peter Shweizer.
Noam Chomsky opposes the very concept of private property and calls the Pentagon “the worst institution in human history,” yet he and his wife have made millions of dollars in contract work for the Department of Defense and own two luxurious homes.
http://www.newsmaxstore.com/nms/showdetl.cfm?&DID=6&Product_ID=1998&CATID=1&GroupID=1
I'm not surprised that these liberal dolts are doing this, but its nice to read about some one putting all the evidence together.:cool:
Alchemist
06-02-2006, 10:46
Choose:
No, no, you've got it all wrong. This isn't hypocrisy at all. The more money Chomsky takes from the DoD, the less it has left to oppress the world.
Incidentally, back in 2002 or so, some fool on a discussion show said that Chomsky was as brave as Solzhenitsyn or Sakharov. This prompted the excellent Canadian blogger Damian Penny (http://www.damianpenny.com) (sorry I don't have a direct link to the post, Blogger archives being what they are) to come up with the following point-by-point comparison:
Solzhenitsyn: spent years being tortured in slave labour camps.
Sakharov: spent years under house arrest in obscure provincial cities.
Chomsky: spent years as a highly-paid, tenured professor of linguistics at MIT and drives a snazzy red Audi A4.
Solzhenitsyn: had his writings banned by the state.
Sakharov: had his writings banned by the state.
Chomsky: has his writings available on Amazon.com. (Buy before May 27 and save!)
Solzhenitsyn: was barred from leaving the country.
Sakharov: was barred from leaving the country.
Chomsky: jets around the world to tell the masses about the Great Satan.
Solzhenitsyn: ignored and/or demonized by the Western "peace movement".
Sakharov: ignored and/or demonized by the Western "peace movement".
Chomsky: worshipped by the Western "peace movement".
Chomsky: spent years as a highly-paid, tenured professor of linguistics at MIT and drives a snazzy red Audi A4.
I believe the actual color of Chomsky's Audi is Khmer Rouge.
And as a guy who aligns himself to the political right (albeit in a different faction from social conservatives) I must point out that we have our own share of hypocrites. Rush has had 3 divorces and an addiction to pain killers, Bill O’Reilly settled a sexual harassment suit in the millions of dollars, and Bill Bennett was a gambling addict for years. And dare we examine current President Bush’s fiscal restraint (IMHO the hallmark of a conservative)?
I think hypocrisy is the rule rather then the exception in politics today.
Fiscal restraint? In what aspect, paying New York and victims for 9/11, supplementing State spending for anti-terrorism spending, paying Katrina States and victims, disaster spending for the nations affected by the tsunami, spending for the WOT, Afghanistan, Iraq, Africa, border control and illegal smuggling spending… or just the normal fiscal spending?
Fiscal restraint? In what aspect, paying New York and victims for 9/11, supplementing State spending for anti-terrorism spending, paying Katrina States and victims, disaster spending for the nations affected by the tsunami, spending for the WOT, Afghanistan, Iraq, Africa, border control and illegal smuggling spending… or just the normal fiscal spending?
Necessary wartime costs, yes.
Let us not forget other financial profligacy, like the prescription drug benefit: more than half a trillion dollars over the next ten years just to head off the Democrats politically over the health care issue.
President Bush may be socially conservative, but unfortunately, that's as far as he goes.
Necessary wartime costs, yes.
Let us not forget other financial profligacy, like the prescription drug benefit: more than half a trillion dollars over the next ten years just to head off the Democrats politically over the health care issue.
President Bush may be socially conservative, but unfortunately, that's as far as he goes.
Well said, btw, why do you think the illegal immigration debate has been brought to the front-burner (directly, yes, b/c pendind legislation)? How about to further polarize social and economic conservatives from each other? The Dems may be getting their act together.
sf11b_p -
You are correct in that President Bush has a ton to deal with. But the question is how to go about dealing w/ it. It has to be paid for somehow.
- President Bush has increased spending, yet cut taxes, this has led to deficits and an increase in the size of government.
- Domesticly speaking this makes him little more then Democrat that is socialy conservative.
Well said, btw, why do you think the illegal immigration debate has been brought to the front-burner (directly, yes, b/c pendind legislation)? How about to further polarize social and economic conservatives from each other? The Dems may be getting their act together.
Honestly, and as someone who has lived near the border for most of his life, I think it's a purely political maneuver. The Republicans have seized upon the Mexican border as an issue that can distract people from the other issues the Democrats are hammering them with, an issue that plays really well with the Republican base. (Who can argue to middle America that illegal immigrants should be coddled? Exactly.)
Yes, there are issues with border security. Yes, our current policies should be overhauled. However, having to listen to the hysteria every day, it just isn't worth the breathlessness; the Republicans are using the issue to get votes first, and to actually do something a distant second.
There is a fault line on the issue for the GOP. The Tancredo camp of the party are going to the mattresses over the Amnesty issue, why would the GOP do this to itself for votes?
Necessary wartime costs, yes.
Let us not forget other financial profligacy, like the prescription drug benefit: more than half a trillion dollars over the next ten years just to head off the Democrats politically over the health care issue.
President Bush may be socially conservative, but unfortunately, that's as far as he goes.
Well said, btw, why do you think the illegal immigration debate has been brought to the front-burner (directly, yes, b/c pendind legislation)? How about to further polarize social and economic conservatives from each other? The Dems may be getting their act together.
sf11b_p -
You are correct in that President Bush has a ton to deal with. But the question is how to go about dealing w/ it. It has to be paid for somehow.
- President Bush has increased spending, yet cut taxes, this has led to deficits and an increase in the size of government.
- Domesticly speaking this makes him little more then Democrat that is socialy conservative.
I know I’m correct with what is being dealt with and know that bills have to be paid. I was curious what current fiscal spending you were making a point of and you’ve come up with a medical prescription law passed in 2003.
I don’t agree that increased spending has led to an increased size in government I’d believe that was the other way around. Increased government has led to increased spending, but it doesn’t account for all spending. That points been made.
Honestly, and as someone who has lived near the border for most of his life, I think it's a purely political maneuver. The Republicans have seized upon the Mexican border as an issue that can distract people from the other issues the Democrats are hammering them with, an issue that plays really well with the Republican base. (Who can argue to middle America that illegal immigrants should be coddled? Exactly.)
Yes, there are issues with border security. Yes, our current policies should be overhauled. However, having to listen to the hysteria every day, it just isn't worth the breathlessness; the Republicans are using the issue to get votes first, and to actually do something a distant second.
There is a fault line on the issue for the GOP. The Tancredo camp of the party are going to the mattresses over the Amnesty issue, why would the GOP do this to itself for votes?
I don’t see immigration as primarily a Republican issue, other than they are the administration and majority party and they should be taking the lead. I’m not sure which party pressed the issue first. Republicans or Democrats I’ve heard enough shrill rants from Hillary Clinton and other Democrats on border security and port security to believe it’s more than Republicans on point.
Issues with border security, yeah guess so. With found tunnels crossing the border one with lighting and another coming up in a San Diego parking lot, yes. With 10 to 11 million illegally within the U.S. it does seem there’s a problem. Hysteria, media yes but mine is more concern than hysteria. I see both parties using it as a voting issue and neither has done anything until recently.
Mainstream America and media attention has finally been drawn to immigration, by national security, border incidents, trafficking, and demands from illegal immigrants and supporters. But I’ve been reading personal opinions and stories from BP officers, border residents and news articles on trafficking, border incidents and criminal immigrant incidents and activities for years. It’s an issue now I believe, because it's been forced on Washington but from past policy from both parties I don’t see it as having been sought.
So I've read your criticisms, what are your solutions?
I know I’m correct with what is being dealt with and know that bills have to be paid. I was curious what current fiscal spending you were making a point of and you’ve come up with a medical prescription law passed in 2003.
I don’t agree that increased spending has led to an increased size in government I’d believe that was the other way around. Increased government has led to increased spending, but it doesn’t account for all spending. That points been made.
- It's not what but how. President Bush has cut taxes and increased spending. This creates deficits.
- This only only makes government look cheaper then it actualy is. Pretend for a second the fed budget is $1 trillion, then pretend taxes are cut by $200 billion w/o reducing spending. This results in two things: a $200 bil deficit, and voters paying for only 80% of what the government costs. Think of this as a 20% discount on govt. When things are on sale people buy more of it right? So tax cuts w/o spending cuts logically increase the demand for govt instead of reducing the supply (size of govt). Or some of each.
- Deficits have proven to never constrain spending, in fact tax cuts w/o spending cuts, increases spending and the size of gov't.
- President Bush long ago hitched his wagon to the anti-tax movement. This movement has had much success in the conservative ranks, and has turned the conservative movement from a limited-government movement to a anti-tax movement. Cutting taxes has not decreased the size of government or government spending.
I don’t see immigration as primarily a Republican issue, other than they are the administration and majority party and they should be taking the lead. I’m not sure which party pressed the issue first. Republicans or Democrats I’ve heard enough shrill rants from Hillary Clinton and other Democrats on border security and port security to believe it’s more than Republicans on point.
- It is a dividing issue in the Republican Party there is there no firm consensus. The Dems are more then happy to let factions in the GOP tear at each other, and at times I think are aggitating it more.
- IMHO illegal immigration is being used as a convenient boogeyman on issues like Education and Health Care among others.
So I've read your criticisms, what are your solutions?
- Run a anti-deficit package of raising taxes and cutting spending. Absolutely a political loser, but its the only fiscally conservative thing to do (what spawned this conversation), and responsible thing to do.
- Re: immigration, first thing I would do is take a deep breath. I have written alot about it in another post. It's such a complex problem with no good solutions.
There is an interesting review by a guy with a book coming out called In Defense of Hypocrisy. (http://www.reason.com/0604/cr.jl.im.shtml)
The best parts:
Schweizer claims throughout the book that while accusations of hypocrisy are routinely leveled at conservatives, liberals tend to get a free pass. One can only wonder, Has the man ever listened to talk radio?...........squawkers all over the dial long ago incorporated criticism of liberal hypocrisy into their normal routines. .....
There is a practical reason why conservatives have picked up the “you’re a hypocrite” hammer: If your opponent is defending his integrity instead of his ideas, you’re winning the debate. ........
But it used to be a common conservative belief that you could work within a system and still speak out against elements of the system. Logically, one could live in a rent-controlled apartment but still oppose rent control. This was the basic rationale for right-wing political activism—the golden mean between the Scylla of pietism and the Charybdis of more violent, revolutionary impulses. That the right would now criticize the left for the same approach is troubling.
Indeed, many conservatives, from Benjamin Disraeli to William F. Buckley Jr., have professed an appreciation for the moderating influence of hypocrisy. It’s the homage that vice pays to virtue, they would explain, quoting the 17th-century French noble Francois de La Rochefoucauld. There’s certainly a case to be made that liberal hypocrisy helps to restrain some fairly troublesome impulses by turning would-be revolutionaries into poseurs, clowns, and petty manipulators.
I know I’m correct with what is being dealt with and know that bills have to be paid. I was curious what current fiscal spending you were making a point of and you’ve come up with a medical prescription law passed in 2003.
It might be just "a medical prescription law" from 2003, but three years is not a long time; to speak of it is hardly obsolete. I notice that you mention "paying New York and victims for 9/11" as the first example you use in a previous post; is 2003 further in the past than 2001? Obviously, such events still have relevancy, especially in regards to the fact that it was the same administration (who, mind you, I voted for twice; I am a Republican myself).
That bill that you so blithely dismiss typifies precisely the sort of fiscal irresponsibility that our current president is known for. It's easy to dismiss numbers, but $500 billion for a new welfare program is a tremendously large amount of money. For perspective, with that $500 billion of taxpayer money, we could build 100 Nimitz-class aircraft carriers or 1,500 F-22s, or for that matter, a mansion for every single military service member.
I don’t see immigration as primarily a Republican issue, other than they are the administration and majority party and they should be taking the lead. I’m not sure which party pressed the issue first. Republicans or Democrats I’ve heard enough shrill rants from Hillary Clinton and other Democrats on border security and port security to believe it’s more than Republicans on point.
I do agree that the Republicans should be taking point on the issue. Both in a moral sense and as the party in power. The shrill rants you've heard from the other side (especially from Hillary) are nothing more than the weaker party trying to co-opt an issue that they know has a lot of resonance with middle-of-the-road American voters (what? Hillary Clinton changing her position with the wind, trying to out-Republican the Republicans so she can get elected? say it ain't so! :D). Unfortunately for them, it won't work; while the Republican party has a bit of dissent on the border issue, the Democrats have it in spades. Just look at the Democrat reactions to the May 1 demonstrations. All across the spectrum, from sane to kooksville.
So I've read your criticisms, what are your solutions?
Across the board: reduce spending and quit inventing new give-away programs. And we're not talking about the military here: analysis of the federal budget shows that every year, the government spends more than 4x as much on domestic social programs as it does on national defense. And of that, just Social Security alone outspends national defense; Medicare comes awfully close by itself, as do unemployment insurance handouts.
As for immigration, a good start would be to simultaneously strengthen enforcement while opening the availability of legal immigration. It's a cop-out to say, as so many do, that all of the illegals should just come in legally; if that were a realistic option, women and kids wouldn't be dying of dehydration trying to walk the Arizona desert. Just ask NDD how easy it is to try and bring someone into the US legally.
The point is, when talking about immigration, you have to remember where we are and what our nation is based on. The vast majority of immigrants, legal and illegal, struggling to come into the United States are trying to do exactly what my forefathers and yours did years ago: come to the most wonderful nation on Earth to make a better life for themselves and their children.