“Hypocrite” is a word I think is overused, abused and employed too loosely on this board. The three quotations above should serve as a springboard for this thread.

Human beings quite often have conflicting thoughts and feelings and their actions reflect this.

Here are a couple of historical examples.

I recently finished University of Texas professor, H. W. Brand’s, Andrew Jackson: His Life and Times. The thing that just jumped out at me - the number of contardictions within Jackson.

1. Jackson was an advocate of 10th Amendment states rights, but a man I think would have taken action every bit as strong as Lincoln’s to preserve the union, if South Carolina had seceded over the nullification controversy.

2. Jackson was not only a slave owner, but slave trader, who – at least in his own mind – was a "benevolent" master. He tried to avoid breaking up slave families, but turned his head at cruelties committed by plantation overseers.

3. Jackson was a brawler – duels, gunfights, Indian massacres, hanging of English citizens in territory then owned by Spain. On the other hand, he was gentle [Brands uses the term “tender”] with women and children. He adopted two Indian children orphaned by his massacres.

Was Andrew Jackson a hypocrite?

In the introduction to volume one his definitive seven volume biography of George Wasahington, Douglas Southall Freeman writes:



Did "complicated character" make Washington a hypocrite?

Questions for debate:

1. How do you define hypocrisy?

2. Where do you draw the line between hypocrisy and conflicts of character or personality?

3. In looking at moif’s quote above, is hypocrisy primarily an individual or group or characteristic?

4. Where does one best begin the search for hypocrisy, by staring in the bathroom mirror or pointing the finger at others?

1. How do you define hypocrisy?

Hyprocrisy is saying one thing and doing another. None of the examples you have given demonstrate hypocrisy. They do demonstrate complexity of personality, but it depends on how the individual justifies their actions. Did Jackson ever say that killing is always wrong? 10th Amendment advocacy does not mean that the Union should be dumped lightly. Owning slaves was virtually irrelevant to the actions that Lincoln took.

Hypocrisy is a form of lying. Although virtually everyone lies at some point, not everyone is a hypocrite, although at some point most people are. This happens when they are not internally consistent in their viewpoint.

2. Where do you draw the line between hypocrisy and conflicts of character or personality?

Asked and answered.

3. In looking at moif’s quote above, is hypocrisy primarily an individual or group or characteristic?

It is an individual action although it may be projected through a government. If the government says that killing is morally wrong in all cases and then allows the death penalty, it is being hypocritical. Since the government is simply the collective will of the elected representatives (in our case), then it is the representatives who are being hypocritical.

4. Where does one best begin the search for hypocrisy, by staring in the bathroom mirror or pointing the finger at others?
Observation. However, searching for hypocrisy is not a fun hobby.

I think hypocrisy is acting contrary to own espoused principles.

Jackson was no hypocrite, just a murderous racist.

He believed in natural rights, just not for non-whites.

We should not call all wrong-doing hypocrisy.

I would argue in response to the last question that if we are to look for hypocrisy it only makes sense to look for it everywhere.

This is a society and what others believe and do affects all of us.

1. How do you define hypocrisy?

Failure to practice what one preaches.
Holding oneself to a lower standard than one holds others.
Moralization without humility.

2. Where do you draw the line between hypocrisy and conflicts of character or personality?

If you haven't demanded that others behave a certain way, then taking action one week that contradicts actions you took a week ago is merely part of the process of searching. Once one crosses the line from searching to preaching, only a healthy dose of humilty can spare one from charges of hypocrisy when ones deeds contradict ones words. There's a big difference between sharing wisdom from the valley and preaching from a "high horse".

3. In looking at moif’s quote above, is hypocrisy primarily an individual or group or characteristic?

Both. Groups frequently make group statements, and occasionally they contradict themselves, or exhibit behavior that fails to live up to the group's stated ideals. They often don't hold themselves to as high a standard as they hold others. For example, if a political party's platform is "just say no to drugs", then they take over Congress and illegalize drugs while getting high together every week, they're being hypocritical as a group-- individuals in that group might only be hypocritical if they personally preached the antidrug message without humility, and partook of drugs themselves. Members of that same group who never experimented with drugs might also not be hypocritical on the drug issue itself, but if they have any other character flaws, they'd be wise to approach the matter with a little humility.

Quite frequently, advocacy groups demand their own rights be respected while refusing to respect the rights of others. I once heard a very famous Constitutional lawyer defending a particular political cause in a debate by saying "I demand that you respect my right to say what I believe, and I would die defending your right to do the same-- but you have no right to stand there and tell me what you think I should or should not do..." to a chorus of cheers from his supporters, none of whom seemed to see any inherent contradictions in the statement. Groups, like individuals, frequently want to "have their cake and eat it, too".

Now, in the context of moif's quote, two people from the same country disagreeing with one another hardly makes the entire nation hypocritical; merely diverse.

4. Where does one best begin the search for hypocrisy, by staring in the bathroom mirror or pointing the finger at others?

Pointing the finger at others, of course. I'm absolutely perfect and beyond reproach. I never contradict myself-- ever. The only way anyone could even consider me remotely hypocritical is if they are too dull to comprehend nuance, or if they are part of the vast conspiracy to overthrow me from my well-deserved position of power, which I execute flawlessly. Muahahahahah!

Seriously, though, hypocrisy and self-deception, like so many other unsavory characteristics, are as much a part of the human condition as death and taxes. The guy in my bathroom mirror is no different from anyone else when it comes to wanting more from others than he's often willing to give of himself.

That guy is starting to annoy me, and I really wish he'd get out of my bathroom, or I'll have to start charging him rent.

I Like the Wikipedia article on hypocrisy, especially this bit:



Emphasis mine.

2. Where do you draw the line between hypocrisy and conflicts of character or personality?

It's the deception - the lying - that's key, here. (Of course, it can be self-deception). If I say that any man over 30 years old who travels by bus is a failure (as Margaret Thatcher once did; one reason she removed bus travel from local authority control), and then travel by bus myself, I am not a hypocrite. I am, perhaps, a failure, but I'm not a hypocrit.

If I were to phrase it differently to imply that I am not a failure, but people who use buses are, and then I travel by bus - then I would be a hypocrit, because I am now behaving in a way I said I don't (or wouldn't).

3. In looking at moif’s quote above, is hypocrisy primarily an individual or group or characteristic?

I'd say it can be either.

Example: America isn't being hypocritical on climate change. Boneheaded, wilfully ignorant in the face of the facts (it could be argued), perhaps. But not hypocritical.

Britain isn't either - it is genuinely trying to meet the obligations it placed on itself by signing up to the Kyoto agreement, but it is failing.

What would be hypocritical would be to tell everyone that climate change is an imminent disaster and they should all sign up to Kyoto and were morally failed countires if they didn't do so, sign up to Kyoto yourself, and then carry on merrily burning fossil fuels without taking any steps to change behaviour.

On an individual level? Ooh, how about David Cameron (leader of the British Conservative Party) who talked about how important it was to use greener, sustainable transport, and took every opportunity to be photographed cycling into work at the House of Commons, while being followed by his chauffer-driven car which was carrying his papers for the day? Heard of saddlebags, Dave? How about a rucksack?

Compare that to John "Two Jags" Prescott (deputy leader of the British Labour party), who famously used his ministerial Jaguar car to drive a couple of hundred metres along the seafront at a party conference a few years ago. Lazy? Possibly. Thoughtless? Maybe. Hypocritical? Unless you can show Prescott telling everyone that unnecessary driving is the scourge of modern Britain, no.

4. Where does one best begin the search for hypocrisy, by staring in the bathroom mirror or pointing the finger at others?



It would be best to search ourselves for hypocrisy, but as Burns points out, we just aren't nearly as good at doing this as we are at pointing fingers.

And let's not forget, if the finger-pointing is legitimate, it needs to be done, and it can be a useful lesson for other people with the same or similar behaviour.

Since the thread on Al Gore's oscar win is closed I can post here as well because I called him a hypocrite in that thread.

To me a hypocrite is how Amlord said it, saying one thing and doing another.

I watched Gore's documentary last night and even more so call him a hypocrite. His documentary made some pretty strong points, assuming the data is accurate. I assume this thread came to be in part because of my accusations that Al Gore is a hypocrite because his home consumes so much more power than the average US home.

Another recent example of hypocrisy is Mark Foley. He sponsored legislation with harsher penalties for those who would commit crimes against minors and turns out he was attempting to solicit minors. I am completely justified in calling him a hypocrite.

I'm gonna go out on a limb here, Sleeper, and assume that you don't watch Countdown with Keith Olbermann. On a recent broadcast Olbermann addressed the subject of Al Gore and the supposedly non-partisan think tank that originated the story that Gore was wasting so much energy. You can watch the video report here:

http://video.msn.com/v/us/msnbc.htm?f=00&a...036677/&fg=

Before you go too far in pointing the finger at him, you might want some additional information regarding the energy usage at Al Gore's residences, and who insisted on telling just part of the story to portray him in the most unfavorable light possible.

As far as BoF's questions go, my answers would be much the same as those of other posters. The fact is that everyone who breathes air for a time on this planet and is able to speak and do has some inconsistencies and personal foibles. One becomes "hypocritical" in direct relation to the degree that each person's behavior does not reflect his or her expressed beliefs and values.

I do know that calling someone a hypocrite does not serve to encourage further discussion or a meeting of the minds. Labeling undoubtedly brings some satisfaction to the labeler, but it serves as a shorthand for others of like mind to dismiss the ideas and opinion of the poster(s) in question.

Will the GOP religious conservatives be rightly labeled hypocritical if they end up endorsing Rudy Giuliani with his positions of pro-choice, pro-gay rights, and his failed first marriage to someone who turned out to be his second cousin? The most recent polls (which are, in my opinion, far too early) suggest that these religious conservatives prefer him over Senator McCain. (You can hear about it on the video link I provided at the beginning of this post.)

Is it reasonable that those who are most willing to call others hypocrites will be more prone to be called hypocrites themselves when they operate outside of their own stated moral parameters? You betcha.

1. How do you define hypocrisy?

Lacking integrity.

2. Where do you draw the line between hypocrisy and conflicts of character or personality?

Extreme situations, such as a pacifist having to use force. Being I doubt a pacifist would not pull the trigger in a situation where if not many people would die.

Situational positions aside, hypocrisy is easy to see in the realm of politics, its one of the plentiful resources such has to offer.

3. In looking at moif’s quote above, is hypocrisy primarily an individual or group or characteristic?

I would still say its lacking integrity, of course I am one of those people that buy into the idea of objective fact, more so that such is not only real but it can be used in real life.

4. Where does one best begin the search for hypocrisy, by staring in the bathroom mirror or pointing the finger at others?

Both, if you have no integrity, or honesty its either a product of ignorance, agendas, personal desires, and so fourth that might not have anything to do with objectivity, fact, honesty, truth, etc... Such as claiming someone a hypocrite because they might belong to group A, but declining to use such a word against the same actions on a person because they belong to group B, and you favor group B.

1. How do you define hypocrisy?

I agree with Sleeper, the definition Amlord gave is as good as any. I think it is worth repeating at this point.



The more difficult problem is how and when to apply that definition?

2. Where do you draw the line between hypocrisy and conflicts of character or personality?

This in my opinion is a much more difficult question.



The Gore energy story was promoted by the Tennessee Center for Policy Research - a group the Fort Worth Star Telegram calls conservative leaning.

http://www.tennesseepolicy.org/main/articl...?article_id=367

Like most stories, there are at least two sides. To add to what PE linked above, here are some quotations from this morning’s Star Telegram.



The use of the word "hypocrisy" on this board reminds me of a skit Bill Cosby did – back in the days when he was a comedian, not a social critic.



From Bill Cosby, To Russell My Brother, Whom I Slept With, recorded live January 27, 1968, Cleveland, Ohio.

Perhaps Gore deserves the benefit of the doubt. He may have some conflicts, but I think hypocrisy is a bit harsh.

3. In looking at moif’s quote above, is hypocrisy primarily an individual or group or characteristic?

I personally think hypocrisy is more of an individual rather than a group characteristic, but could have group rmifications.

4. Where does one best begin the search for hypocrisy, by staring in the bathroom mirror or pointing the finger at others?

Since I asked this question, I will start with a little self-examination.

I’ll do that with an answer to this post by Sleeper from a while back:



http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=205411

I believe that people who molest children should be punished severely. Although entrapment may be involved, I can only shake my head at the number of men, age 20 up who prowl the internet for victims as young as twelve or the early teens. I am as disgusted as you are with those guys that get caught in Dateline NBC’s and Chris Hanson’s web. I also find it unsettling that an “advocate” for children, like Bill O’Reilly would take the position he did on Shawn Hornbeck. Is O’Reilly, a darling of the right, a hypocrite or a person with conflicting viewpoints? I’ll let you decide.

On the other hand, without going into great detail, I am a firm supporter of due process.

These two elements are a conflict – not hypocrisy.

Sleeper, the self-appointed “big hypocrisy sheriff of ,” it is your turn to face the bathroom mirror. I give you the benefit of the doubt in advance. I think you will find a measure of conflict in your thinking, but not a lot of hypocrisy.

1. How do you define hypocrisy?

It's tied to projection, where one condemns another while in actuality being the same. For example, preaching that homosexuals are sinners while being a homosexual in the closet is hypocrisy. I don't think that being for green energy while using electricity fits the bill, as most of us have no control over how electricity is generated.

Some states are pushing for green energy, and in Colorado we have voted on how much electricity will be generated through green means. So there's some control.

The attack on Gore was a lame attempt and has easily been shown to not have substance. That's not hypocrisy but desperation.

2. Where do you draw the line between hypocrisy and conflicts of character or personality?

We are often walking contradictions, as the song lyric goes. hypocrisy involves a type of personality conflict, but not all types. For example, one might have experience with horses but not with hurricanes. There's a conflict where one is over one's head (yeesh), but it's not hypocrisy, simply a chance to be incompetent. Or not, it's a challenge in life, and going in over one's head is how one learns.

3. In looking at moif’s quote above, is hypocrisy primarily an individual or group or characteristic?

Either or. Preachers defending slavery in the 19th century was a group characteristic. Claiming to be fair and balanced while being opinionated and warped, that's an individual.

4. Where does one best begin the search for hypocrisy, by staring in the bathroom mirror or pointing the finger at others?

The bathroom mirror works wonders. Pointed fingers might get bitten. Pointing out might work if one is careful about source materials, such as their existence.

Sure O'reilly was a hypocrite for his accusations that Hornbeck could have run but chose to stay with his captor because it was the 'easy life', it wasn't very well thought out and rather callous in my opinion. But by your and PE's own excuse making for Gore, O'reilly offsets his hypocrisy by all the good he does for child victims right? I mean he is after every state to get Jessica's law on the books and is always on Judges who give light or no sentencing.

Let me try to understand the liberal thinking here(shudders)...

Let's say I am an advocate against... Let's pick something silly... say tearing labels off of mattresses? I make speeches and tour the nation telling people don't do this, it's not good for our way of life. But in secret I go around to every matress I see ripping them off. But I also donate time and money to a company that places labels back on the mattresses that had been ripped off. So in the end I have 'off-set' my hypocrisy, and my previous hypocritic actions are now moot.

Anyone who has high standards of personal behavior, aspirational standards as opposed to minimal standards, is a hypocrite. If you are not, then I'd suggest to you your standards are way, way too low.

For example, if you believe you are to treat others the way you wish to be treated, you will, over and over, fail, and at that point could justifiably be called a hypocrite. But, it is a fine standard--it is just too high to be more than aspirational, but in no way should we not continue to try to attain the unattainable.

The most reprehensible hypocrisy, that which is truly hard to forgive, is when someone adopts a "public" morality of the lowest common denominator variety, like "molesting children is a terrible thing", and then in private engages in this self-same behavior. That kind of person, and that kind of behvior, is very difficult to accept.

1. How do you define hypocrisy?
Hypocrisy is the willful maintenance of different standards for me and thee.

2. Where do you draw the line between hypocrisy and conflicts of character or personality?
The line is drawn when the potential hypocrite maintains that doing X is right for them and wrong for everybody else. If the PH, after having been caught doing X, admits that doing X is still wrong for him, then you're in the realm of "conflicts of character" or more accurately, personal failings. Advocating a standard and failing it does not make a hypocrite, advocating different standards makes a hypocrite.

3. In looking at moif’s quote above, is hypocrisy primarily an individual or group or characteristic?
Silly question as worded, I'm going to assume that the second "or" is superfluous. Its not an either/or. Individuals can be hypocrites, groups can be hypocritical, not surprising, since groups are made of of individuals.

Silly question as it poses an illogical dichotomy. Groups are composed of individuals, and as such can have all the characteristics of individuals. We are more apt to become aware of the hypocrisy of individuals associated with groups, because the standards of a group are generally more apparent than the standards of an individual.

4. Where does one best begin the search for hypocrisy, by staring in the bathroom mirror or pointing the finger at others?
It is best not to search for hypocrisy. There's plenty enough in the world as it is that there's no need to search it out, it'll find you all on its own bringing woe.

It should be noted that the best way to avoid ever being accused of being a hypocrite is to have no standards.

edited to satisfy BoF's snarkiness in response to my snark.

3. In looking at moif’s quote above, is hypocrisy primarily an individual or group [color=red][edited to remove extraneous “or” to make Bikerdad feel better.] characteristic?

.

You are the first person to a problem with the question. Perhaps it's a reading problem.

Ah, a classic case of the old thing about glass houses.

On a serious note.

Let's look closer at this. Individual "A" is a hypocrite. Individual "B" is a hypocrite. Both of them are a member of the same group. Does it follow that individuals "C" and "D," who belong to the same group, are hypocrites? What percentage of a group's membership has to be hypocrites before that becomes a characteristic of the group?

All the individuals in the group could be hypocrits without the group being hypocritical. The group could be hypocritical without a significant number of its members being hypocrits. Group hypocrisy is based on the group's collective actions, not the sum of its members' individual hypocrisies.

Let's call it the collectivist theory of synergistic hypocrisy (because all worthy thoughts must have pretentious names and excessively abstract wording) : if a collective "C" issues an official statement "H" that tries to hold others to a higher standard than C is willing to apply to it itself, C is engaging in hypocrisy. Individual members "m" of C who disagree with H may not themselves be hypocrits-- only the ms who agree with H are guilty of its hypocrisy, while other ms who choose to remain in C may be tainted by association with C's hypocrisy if their membership in C is sufficiently optional and they freely choose to do nothing to oppose H.

Glad we got that cleared up.

Can hypocrisy be a group issue or a group dynamic? In refinement can a group, lets say A, be called hypocritical, or actions within it, or individuals. Words themselves are not hypocrites, people make them, its people that are hypocrites.

Lets say person A decides from a personal view that person A2 is a hypocrite for some reason. Is this decision made on persons A2 actions, or persons A2's actions because he belongs to group B232, and person A despises for lack of better words group B232? Yet person A belongs to group Q21 and such actions of hypocrisy also occur by individuals of group Q21 yet persons A neglects to raise such a flag. That to me would be hypocrisy.

Do as I say and not as I do, would that not be a good marker? that might be situational dependent though. Such as a person who want to war might teach people that you don’t want to go to war, could you call that hypocrisy, or fallacy based on ignorance? Or personal subjective thought changing?

Speaking of which is it possible to rule hypocrisy out of subjective though? Is that a paradox or simply a accepted error prone system of logic?

Double standards, is that another form of hypocrisy? What would double standards come from?

Trying to use reductionism in short with hypocrisy leads me to think overall that its a product of ignorance, which would lead to integrity and honesty with action and behavior.

Such as people that are devout Christians that join military organizations, even though its spelled out though shall not kill.

Or how about religion being about peace when in most part the return of Christ would signal a holocaust for a majority of the planets population, yet people desire such. I wonder what future such logic could bring to life in peoples mind?

Hypocrisy in itself is a product. Its not a stand alone complex, moreover its a group dynamic conducted by individuals within the context of a social setting. One could only wonder what a long individual would do with there lives if they were truly the only person or alone, we cant really see such though.

Hypocrisy wont be defeated anytime soon also.

Just more icing to the Al Gore hypocrisy cake.

The so called carbon offsets he buys... Is from a company chaired by none other than, Drum Roll please

AL GORE!!!

Generation Investment Management

Generation Investment Management's business is not to itself remove carbon from the air, but, it says, to "buy high quality companies at attractive prices that will deliver superior long-term investment returns.

Al Gore, my friends, is the ultimate example of hypocrisy.

Generation is an investment company, not a power producer. Would you expect Janus or Vanguard to produce electricity? No, but they would most likely invest in one or several companies. These would show up as part of the prospectus for each of their funds.

If indeed Al Gore buys power from Generation Investment Management and that firm owns power stocks, that does not make Gore a hypocrite.

From Minneapolis/St. Paul StarTribune





More from the StarTribune



http://www.startribune.com/357/story/1031848.html

Registration may be necessary

Yes, it seems “the big hypocrisy sheriff of “ bulldozes on.

I don’t usually agree with Bikerdad, but I think he put it well yesterday.



If the driving force in your life is to ferret out all hypocrisy good luck. I’m sure you’ll find some or at least some approximation.

Until we augment our use of dogs – seeing-eye-dogs, tracking dogs, cadaver dogs, etc., with a hypocrisy sniffing dog, I guess we’ll muddle along as usual, pointing fingers at each other.

Excuse his actions all you want BoF.

The fact is he makes statements on his documentary and in speeches that we to conserve energy by reducing electricity consumption at home makes him a hypocrite. The idea of offsetting your bad actions is laughable.


I am going to speak out about how dangerous second hand smoke is, but I will smoke around as many people as I can. But then I will donate money to ventures that protect people from the harmful effects of second hand smoke. No hypocrisy there.

In the time before the civil war, a man speaks out about the atrocities of owning slaves, while secretly having slaves himself. To 'offset' his hypocrisy he goes to another plantation and works with others to set slaves free owned by another man. This offsetting stuff rocks!!!

I think I need to get into this offsetting business...

How about this everybody.. If you are overweight and don't want to diet and exercise. Send me a check and I will eat right and exercise daily for you(since I do this anyway it's no big deal for me). There you go, now you don't have to feel guilty about being fat.

Oh and looking back, your analogy on Bill O'reilley being a hypocrite is not accurate. He was a buffoon for the remarks he made but that did not make him a hypocrite. Now if Billy O was going out at night and molesting children, that would make him a hypocrite(and a criminal).

Whoa, I did not call O’Reilly a hypocrite. What was I thinking? No right-winger could possibly be a hypocrite. Seriously though I, left it up for people to decide whether O’Reilly is a hypocrite or just a person with conflicting thoughts. I probably dislike O’Reilly as much a you do Gore, but I did give him the benefit of the doubt.

.

[quote name='Sleeper' date='Mar 1 2007, 08:39 AM' post='208923']Let me try to understand the liberal thinking here(shudders)...[quote]

The way I phrased the O’Reilly line Sleeper is one key to liberal thinking – less emphasis on absolute thinking. Asking if O'Reilly is a hypocrite or faced with conflicting thought is not absolutist. Calling him a hypocrite would be absolutist. Within liberal thought is room for different possibilities.

But what the heck! If the hypocrisy soap-box is your thing, then by all means stay up there a while longer. It’s a free world, it’s your right, do your thing. There might not even be room for the box in the garage.

How about address my arguments about offsetting? Do you truly believe one can offset their hypocrisy by way of the ludicrous examples I provided?

You just seem to take exception to somebody pointing out hypocrisy.

More than anyone on the board Sleeper, you have harped on hypocrisy. That's your right. With the offsets, Gore is doing something. Do you want him to move into a two room shack?

Like much that comes from right-wing land, the Gore issue is about nothing. Your continued harping on the hypocrisy of others is about nothing. For the sake of argument let's agree, "that horrible Al Gore is a hypocrite and he probably needs to trim his nose hairs" How important is Gore's house and power consumption compared to the war in Iraq and the curent ills of Wall Street?

BTW: In your haste to point a boney finger at others you have not addressesd the introspection question. That was No. 4. The ball is still in your court on that one.

As expected the war in Iraq has found itself into a topic it has nothing to do with. This is getting as bad as those who bring Clinton/Monica into arguments where they don't belong.

Hypocrisy does not start in the mirror at all. Unless you are the one being a hypocrite.

I don't understand your thinking. Do you think it is wrong to point out hypocrisy?

Nor do I understand yours.

Point out all the hypocrisy you wish. That seems to be your mission. Don't be surprised, however, if others disagree with you.

Jimmy Swaggart's whoring in the French Quarter would be my classic case of hypocrisy.

The beauty of that is that Swaggart's hypocrisy has nothing to do with anything remotely important to me. Right now I'm more concerned about my tax-sheltered annuity than I am Swaggart, Gore or anyone else at whom we can point the finger.

This is another diversion - a political mud bath. If you, as the saying goes, throw enough of it against the wall, some of it may stick.

Sorry I can't drum up the enthisiasm to join you, but feel free to wallow in the mud with this as much as you please.

The reason for my emphasis on Mark Foley was that he championed the same thing I did. Child protection against those who would commit crimes against children and it turned out he was a waste of flesh just like the people he supposedly was trying to protect children from.

Al Gore is trying to push the 'theory' that global warming is mostly to blame on human activity. This, in turn, could cost us billions if not trillions of dollars to attempt to fix. I am not saying Gore needs to live in a 2 bed room shack(it's funny how people try to put those words into my stance).

I will continue to point out hypocrisy where ever it may lie. Whether it be from a conservative or a liberal.

This is not about slinging mud. This is about truth.

Again Sleeper that's your choice. What you must realize is that not everyone will agree with your applying your definiton of hypocrisy.

Please excuse those of us who refuse to jump on your bandwagon.

4. Where does one best begin the search for hypocrisy, by staring in the bathroom mirror or pointing the finger at others?



Although Sleeper dismissed question No. 4, it appears Newt Gingrich did some soul searching and decided to unburden himself to James Dobson. I don’t know why anyone would want Dobson for a confessor. Another person who gave Dobson an interview of this type was the infamous Ted Bundy.

That doesn’t put Gingrich in stellar company.

A comparison between Bill Clinton and Newt Gingrich is underway in the other thread started by Nebraska.

After all, Gingrich admitted violating his own standards – saying one thing and doing another .If we give Gingrich a pass, shouldn’t Gore be given the benefit of the doubt as well? After looking at all the harping Sleeper did about Al Gore, how do you compare Gingrich and Gore. Personally I think the stench of Gingrich makes Gore smell like a rose.




http://www.abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?i...7633&page=1

Would you like us to associate Newt with Ted Bundy now BoF?
Seems so.

Well at least Gingrich has admitted to violating to his own standards and exposing his own hypocrisy.

He could have done like Al Gore and bought adultery offsets.

I have a hunch Newt Gingrich exposed himself before someone else did. Smart choice, maybe.

The Ted Bundy remark was more about how James Dobson chooses candidates to moan and groan to him, but if you check the other thread, Gingrich did lump Democrats in with child killer Susan Smith. What goes 'round comes 'round. To your credit Sleeper, you did denounce Gingrich for the Smith episode.

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...st&p=209730

How would one go about buying an "adultury offset"? Are they something like Papal indulgences? Do they sell them at 7/11?

Bundy was also a member of a young republicans group at the University of Washington studying were he was studying law, you know that immutable system that we use.

This is politics, pure and simple. The right would spend so much money, taxpayer money I assume to get rid of a political rival, based on what was it? sex that’s right. Now with different political corruption going on, and all kinds of it at many different levels the right is just so nice and quiet and everything is ok. Hypocrisy is something the government is loaded with, it oozes fourth from its political pores actually.

1. How do you define hypocrisy?
I've always defined hypocrisy as saying one thing and doing another, but in reviewing the definition on Dictionary.com I find that the true definition lies in the conviction of the messenger. So for example, Stephen Colbert is a hypocrite; Borat is a hypocrite. But there are two types of hypocrites, one that is ashamed of their hypocrisy, like a Ted Haggard, and those that are unashamed, like Stephen Colbert.

2. Where do you draw the line between hypocrisy and conflicts of character or personality?
I draw the line when the scope of the subject changes from the general to the specific. Or from impersonal to personal. Do I believe in the death penalty? No. Would I want someone killed if they murdered my daughter or wife? Yes. Do I believe that we should help the poor? Yes. Do I give money to homeless people that ask me for change? Rarely and reluctantly.

3. In looking at moif’s quote above, is hypocrisy primarily an individual or group or characteristic?
I don't understand the context of the quote, so I will abstain from commenting.

4. Where does one best begin the search for hypocrisy, by staring in the bathroom mirror or pointing the finger at others?
Hypocrisy manifests itself, it does not need to be searched for. A person who is being hypocritical can accuse someone of hypocrisy and be correct in their analysis without detracting (theoretically) from the substance of their message. Newt Gingrich's recent admission of infidelity is a perfect example. Clinton lied to a grand jury, in order to prove that, it needed to be proven that Clinton knew Monica Lewinsky. Does Gingrich's affair mean that Clinton did not lie to a Grand Jury? It most certainly does not. Clinton did lie, and nothing Gingrich did can change that.