http://www.lakewoodobserver.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=9139
http://www.lakewoodobserver.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=9138
http://www.lakewoodobserver.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=38&t=9137
Hypocracy anyone?
Moderator: Jim O'Bryan
-
Roy Pitchford
- Posts: 686
- Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 8:38 pm
-
Heather Ramsey
- Posts: 126
- Joined: Thu Jan 24, 2008 2:50 pm
Re: Hypocracy anyone?
Am I supposed to read the entirety of all three of those threads to know what you're trying to say? Can't you just put in some quotes or...say it?
-
sharon kinsella
- Posts: 1490
- Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 7:54 am
- Contact:
Re: Hypocracy anyone?
Heather, he's just so happy that Exxon and other companies that belong to the system he loves, PAID NO TAXES.
"When I dare to be powerful -- to use my strength in the service of my vision, then it becomes less and less important whether I am afraid." - Audre Lorde
-
Grace O'Malley
- Posts: 680
- Joined: Thu Apr 14, 2005 8:31 pm
Re: Hypocracy anyone?
HYPOCRISY
-
Roy Pitchford
- Posts: 686
- Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 8:38 pm
Re: Hypocracy anyone?
sharon kinsella wrote:Heather, he's just so happy that Exxon and other companies that belong to the system he loves, PAID NO TAXES.
Wow, that's so incorrect and unrelated, I thought for a second Ryan Costa wrote it, though I'll admit he's gotten better (as of late) at staying on topic.
If I need to spell it out:
- Al Gore's a hypocrite not believing his own stuff (buying a coastal villa when he claims there will be a 20-foot sea level surge).
- Obama's a hypocrite for speaking about some people having "made enough money", yet obviously $5.5 million isn't too much for himself.
- Socialized health care supporters are hypocrites if they are against the new AZ immigration law.
-
Jim DeVito
- Posts: 946
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:11 am
- Location: Lakewood, Ohio
Re: Hypocracy anyone?
Welcome to america Roy!! 
-
J Hrlec
- Posts: 480
- Joined: Thu Aug 24, 2006 7:17 pm
Re: Hypocracy anyone?
I assumed everyone has been a hypocrite during their lifetime...and if you think you have not, then you're definitely a hypocrite. Cheers!
-
Jim DeVito
- Posts: 946
- Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2007 7:11 am
- Location: Lakewood, Ohio
Re: Hypocracy anyone?
Let me restate.
Welcome to america Roy!! This place is all about hypocracy!!.
religious folks think the ten commands are sweet... but they still go to war and kill people. they still cheat on there wives, and their priests still rape kids.
politicians say they are for the people.... yet they still get all there money from big business
oil company's say they care about the environment... yet they skimp on safety equipment because due to lobbying they get away with it.
coal company's claim the care about the environment.... yet they blow the tops off mountion's and toss all the crap in the rivers.
it goes on and on. Welcome to the sham.
Welcome to america Roy!! This place is all about hypocracy!!.
religious folks think the ten commands are sweet... but they still go to war and kill people. they still cheat on there wives, and their priests still rape kids.
politicians say they are for the people.... yet they still get all there money from big business
oil company's say they care about the environment... yet they skimp on safety equipment because due to lobbying they get away with it.
coal company's claim the care about the environment.... yet they blow the tops off mountion's and toss all the crap in the rivers.
it goes on and on. Welcome to the sham.
-
Brian Pedaci
- Posts: 496
- Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2006 1:17 am
Re: Hypocracy anyone?
It's rather apt that you misspelled hypocrisy to look more like democracy, as our country is ruled by whomever's got the most convincing and/or attractive lie at the moment.
-
Stephen Eisel
- Posts: 3281
- Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:36 pm
Re: Hypocracy anyone?
Grace O'Malley wrote:HYPOCRISY
He was making a point..
-
Stephen Eisel
- Posts: 3281
- Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 9:36 pm
Re: Hypocracy anyone?
Brian Pedaci wrote:It's rather apt that you misspelled hypocrisy to look more like democracy, as our country is ruled by whomever's got the most convincing and/or attractive lie at the moment.
They (the government) definitely do not represent the best interest of "We the People"
-
Danielle Masters
- Posts: 1139
- Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2005 12:39 am
- Location: Lakewood, OH
Re: Hypocracy anyone?
Yep the government totally sucks. Anarchy is the only way to go, we don't need the stinking government, they don't do crap for us.
I need to remember to stay out of GD, it makes my head hurt.
I need to remember to stay out of GD, it makes my head hurt.
-
Roy Pitchford
- Posts: 686
- Joined: Sat Jun 14, 2008 8:38 pm
Re: Hypocracy anyone?
Danielle Masters wrote:Yep the government totally sucks. Anarchy is the only way to go, we don't need the stinking government, they don't do crap for us.
I need to remember to stay out of GD, it makes my head hurt.
This government does suck. It has for some time. Anarchy is not the answer, but a small government, perched just out of reach of anarchy, is what the Founding Fathers gave us.
As for they don't do crap for us...give it time. Maybe there's a provision hidden away in health care for everyone in the US to get a colostomy bag. They're trying to do everything else for us.
-
sharon kinsella
- Posts: 1490
- Joined: Fri May 18, 2007 7:54 am
- Contact:
Re: Hypocracy anyone?
There were 13 colonies and how many people then Roy?
The GDP was what? Level of access to educations and technology was what?
The GDP was what? Level of access to educations and technology was what?
"When I dare to be powerful -- to use my strength in the service of my vision, then it becomes less and less important whether I am afraid." - Audre Lorde
-
Sean Wheeler
- Posts: 184
- Joined: Wed Sep 20, 2006 8:02 am
- Location: Mars Ave
Re: Hypocracy anyone?
Sometimes it's helpful to look a b it beyond our political founding fathers and take a close look at our philosophical ones. I am speaking of people like Henry David Thoreau and Ralph Waldo Emerson.
Here's Emerson on the whole idea of hypocrisy and consistency;
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood." from "Self Reliance" (1841)
And of course, Thoreau was a huge advocate of small government. Go back and reread "Civil Disobedience". I don't think you could find someone more in line with the current Tea-Party idea of the proper place of government. Here's some of what he said;
" But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.
After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule, is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience? — in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience. Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice." from "Civil Disobedience" (1849)
At issue, really, is the whole concept that we are part of a continual experiment in democracy. We cannot ONLY hold to the language of 1776, though anyone would be pressed to find a better foundation for a nation. We also have to consider the progress, and antithetically, the lack of progress that has occurred since then. This current insistence that we stick fundamentally to the original founding documents denies the whole purpose of the documents themselves. America is an ongoing project and one that shouldn't be called into question every time we don't like the results of an election. During the Bush administration, I couldn't wait until the next election cycle so that I could cast my vote towards someone representative of my views. In the current administration, I can understand that others share my previous feeling. But a loss at the polls doesn't mean that a tyranny exists, it means that democracy worked. And I'd rather see hypocrisy than dogged fundamentalism any day.
Here's Emerson on the whole idea of hypocrisy and consistency;
"A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds, adored by little statesmen and philosophers and divines. With consistency a great soul has simply nothing to do. He may as well concern himself with his shadow on the wall. Speak what you think now in hard words, and to-morrow speak what to-morrow thinks in hard words again, though it contradict every thing you said to-day. — 'Ah, so you shall be sure to be misunderstood.' — Is it so bad, then, to be misunderstood? Pythagoras was misunderstood, and Socrates, and Jesus, and Luther, and Copernicus, and Galileo, and Newton, and every pure and wise spirit that ever took flesh. To be great is to be misunderstood." from "Self Reliance" (1841)
And of course, Thoreau was a huge advocate of small government. Go back and reread "Civil Disobedience". I don't think you could find someone more in line with the current Tea-Party idea of the proper place of government. Here's some of what he said;
" But, to speak practically and as a citizen, unlike those who call themselves no-government men, I ask for, not at once no government, but at once a better government. Let every man make known what kind of government would command his respect, and that will be one step toward obtaining it.
After all, the practical reason why, when the power is once in the hands of the people, a majority are permitted, and for a long period continue, to rule, is not because they are most likely to be in the right, nor because this seems fairest to the minority, but because they are physically the strongest. But a government in which the majority rule in all cases cannot be based on justice, even as far as men understand it. Can there not be a government in which majorities do not virtually decide right and wrong, but conscience? — in which majorities decide only those questions to which the rule of expediency is applicable? Must the citizen ever for a moment, or in the least degree, resign his conscience to the legislator? Why has every man a conscience, then? I think that we should be men first, and subjects afterward. It is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right. It is truly enough said that a corporation has no conscience; but a corporation of conscientious men is a corporation with a conscience. Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice." from "Civil Disobedience" (1849)
At issue, really, is the whole concept that we are part of a continual experiment in democracy. We cannot ONLY hold to the language of 1776, though anyone would be pressed to find a better foundation for a nation. We also have to consider the progress, and antithetically, the lack of progress that has occurred since then. This current insistence that we stick fundamentally to the original founding documents denies the whole purpose of the documents themselves. America is an ongoing project and one that shouldn't be called into question every time we don't like the results of an election. During the Bush administration, I couldn't wait until the next election cycle so that I could cast my vote towards someone representative of my views. In the current administration, I can understand that others share my previous feeling. But a loss at the polls doesn't mean that a tyranny exists, it means that democracy worked. And I'd rather see hypocrisy than dogged fundamentalism any day.