Why liberals are not hyprocrits - by Ann Coulter

[Fitz]

Originally posted by Drogue

You can care for others and want to help people while still doing other non-selfless things.

Of course you can. Don't take my post as serious. It's very very hard to be serious when dealing with a topic like Ann Coulter. Unless you pretend that she was just joking when she wrote it (similar to the vein of my first post), you can only conclude that she spent too much time with her mouth on an exaust pipe sucking it up.

[Dinner]

It is of course a generalization but it is impossible to compare large groups without making generalizations. That said I think she could have made her point much more strongly if she had backed up her opinions with concrete examples. Without evidience everything is just piss in the wind.

[blackice]

The first time you piss into the wind, is the first evidence you have that pissing into the wind can make you regret it.

You can also generalize that when others do it they too will get wet.

Therefore you can form the opinion that concretely if you piss into the wind you get wet.

Bottom line where thier is wind and piss something is amiss.

[Berzerker]

Okay, I apologise to Rush for claiming he made comments about drug users during the time he has been using drugs. A quick search on google for recent comments from Rush turns up nothing and it appears the quote someone offered in this thread from a year ago is actually older. But Ned, that doesn't relieve Rush of the charge of hypocrisy. If today I say murder is immoral and people should not commit murder, and a year from now I commit murder, I am still a hypocrite. I'd have to do a 180 to be exempt from the charge of hypocrisy and I'd have to make that U-turn before I considered committing murder... So, did Rush make amends for his years of smearing drug users before he began using drugs? Not that I know of...

[Drake Tungsten]

If today I say murder is immoral and people should not commit murder, and a year from now I commit murder, I am still a hypocrite.

This wouldn't make you a hypocrite; it would mean you were immoral by your own standards. If you claimed that murder was moral in your case only, however, then you would be a hypocrite.

I don't think Rush has said his drug abuse was not immoral and stupid, so I fail to see the hypocrisy.

[Ned]

Bezerker, you make a lot of good points concerning the war on drugs. What you did not address is that some illegal drugs are highly addictive and can destroy lives, both of the victim and their families. Rush is said to have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on pills. He is enormously wealthy and could afford it. But still he suffered. He lost his hearing because of the pills. But still he could not stop.

I am of two minds on this issue. I recognize that we could go a long way towards ending crime and corruption of the police by legalizing drugs. But the this is not to say that drug use should be considered legitimate.

Both my parents ended their lives as alcoholics. During their last years, I hated going home or having them over. They were not there. It was bad.

I was a juror at a trial where a father-in-law was accused of molesting. As the trial went on, it came out that both the mother and the father-in-law were heroin addicts. The amount of drug-induced abuse of the kids in that family by both the mother and father was apalling.

It is not true, therefor, that the only argument against drugs is the potential for causing harm to others. Harm is almost inevitable when drugs are involved because drugs always involve getting high. This might be acceptable only for singles in the privacy of their own home. It is not acceptable where kids are involved, or where someone has the lives of others in their charge, like doctors, pilots, train conductors, police, etc., etc., etc. Could you accept, for example, a president of the United States with a drug habit for example?

But, again, the war on drugs does involve a significant lowering our our constitutional rights, and this is wrong. It does make a lot of criminals who deal drugs. It does make illegal activity that is harmless when conducted in private by singles.

To me, the jury is still out on this issue. I really would like to hear what Rush has to say in three weeks.

Also, I do appreciate you confirming that Rush Limbaugh has not been hammering the drug issue in recent years. Obviously, he would be a hypocrite if he did. But he did not. So, when we hear from the media that he was an apostle in the war on drugs in recent years, you are hearing a false charge.

Rush is a victim, just as are all who become addicted. I agree with you that we should not punish victims, but should treat them.

[Rufus T. Firefly]

Re: Why liberals are not hyprocrites - by Ann Coulter

Originally posted by Ned
"The reason any conservative's failing is always major news is that it allows liberals to engage in their very favorite taunt: Hypocrisy! Hypocrisy is the only sin that really inflames them. Inasmuch as liberals have no morals, they can sit back and criticize other people for failing to meet the standards that liberals simply renounce. It's an intriguing strategy. By openly admitting to being philanderers, draft dodgers, liars, weasels and cowards, liberals avoid ever being hypocrites."

Is this a profound insight? Or is there another reason why philadering, draft dodging, lying, weasingly, appeasing liberals are not hypocrites?

Where Coulter's right: liberals don't present themselves as priggish pillars of moral rectitude, nor do they tend to make moral rectitude their yardstick for judging others. That's actually central to liberal political philosophy. So yes, when conservatives try to shove their morality down everyone else's throat, and then are forced to admit that they can't live by the rules they expect everyone else to obey, liberals take a certain delight in yelling "hypocrite."

Where Coulter's wrong (not surprisingly, this will be a longer list):

1) Hypocrisy isn't the only, or even primary, sin that liberals care about. Martin Luther King didn't crusade against hypocricy, nor did Eleanor Roosevelt, Hubert Humphrey, or Paul Wellstone. Liberals care about racism. Libreals care about the violence of poverty. Liberals care about social justice. The problem here is probably one of semantics: for Coulter, I supect, "draft dodging" is a sin, but racism and social injustice aren't. Interesting, no?

2) Liberals are subject to charges of hypocrisy, just as conservatives are. A liberal who belongs to an all-white country club is subject to that charge. A liberal who not only takes donations from big business, but then fights against pro-labor legislation on their behalf, is subject to that charge. Robert Byrd is still being tagged as a hypocrite for having once belonged to the Klan. But Coulter apparently doesn't notice this, probably because she sees nothing wrong with racial exclusion, union busting, or wearing a white sheet from time to time.

3) All politician lie, all politicians are weasels, all polticians defend themselves and their bretehren when charged with lying and weaseling. I'd challenge Coulter or anyone to find evidence that liberals defend lying and weaseling as acts (as opposed to defending liars and weasels, which is a bi-partisan activity). That's just solipsism, and a smear.

In the end, what Coulter and other conservatives just don't get is that people delight in seeing smug self-righteousness punished -- and smug self-righteousness is a core trait of conservatives (you can also find it in liberals, but it's almost always balanced by paralyzing self-doubt and fuzzy relativism).

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
Ann Coulter is the most insane person I've ever heard of that did not use religion to back up their insanity (which excludes Falwell, Robertson, etc).

I assume you have never heard of Larouche?

Jon Miller

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Kirnwaffen
Ned: Anyone with a high school education should be able to understand the gross fallacy of that piece. It is probably the worst overgeneralization that I have ever read.

OK, Mr. High-School-Or-Better Education, please show how her specific cases of false accusations against conservatives, character assassinations against Limbaugh, and pandering to the womanizers and unindicted criminals on the left are generalizations, much less "the worst overgeneralization you have ever read."

If anything, Coulter was restrained by lack of space for enumerating all the examples of liberalism's moral slackness towards their compatriots' hypocrisies and disproportionate or false accusations of hypocrisy against conservatives. As Berz said, she didn't bring up liberal hypocrisy at tolerating Jesse Jackson or their empty accusations against Bill Bennett.

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
If you call us evil for taking drugs, but you are secretly taknig drugs yourself, you're a hypocrite. What's so hard to understand.

If you can cite one example where Rush criticized people who got addicted to post-op painkillers for you would have a point. There have been numerous cases of celebrities going into rehab or even dieing from prescription painkillers, but Rush didn't blast them or hold them as comparable to users of illegal narcotics or pot.

You guys can only keep repeating one quote, from 8 years ago, out of 15 years of broadcasting.

You're wrong, get used to it.

Originally posted by Berzerker
But I'd ask Ann what sin Jesus condemned the most often... Answer? Hypocrisy. Is Jesus a liberal now?

The hypocrites that Jesus condemned were those who take the name of God yet strive against God by their actions. Maybe you should reread those passages instead of assuming Jesus was using "hypocrite" as a generalization and condemning all touched with that broad brush.

So when Christians condemn Swaggart, they are acting righteously because he is a hypocrite of that calibre. If the Christian community had not held Swaggart accountable they'd be as bad as the liberals. But they did condemn him; QED.

If liberals don't condemn these behaviors, they are by definition, not hypocrites. But that raises a set of different accusations regarding ther character...

Isn't that Coulter's whole point? But apparently you are more interested in attacking Coulter than reading what she has written. Or maybe you just find it distasteful that Coulter is right, by your own inadvertant admission.

[Berzerker]

Drake -

This wouldn't make you a hypocrite; it would mean you were immoral by your own standards. If you claimed that murder was moral in your case only, however, then you would be a hypocrite.

I don't think Rush has said his drug abuse was not immoral and stupid, so I fail to see the hypocrisy.

But immoral by my standard is "do as I say, not as I do". You can't say murder is immoral and that murderers should be punished only to take a different position when you become the murderer. Is Rush demanding he be punished now? No, he appears to be taking steps to avoid punishment. Murder is inherently hypocritical... As for Rush, he hasn't come out with proclamations of what a scumbag he is. I've heard how he has referred to drug users and we don't see him applying that standard to himself now that he's in the same boat as the people he's been defaming.

Ned -

What you did not address is that some illegal drugs are highly addictive and can destroy lives, both of the victim and their families.

That was a list of reasons to oppose the drug war, not a list of reasons to support it. Furthermore, what you describe is happening now and drugs are illegal. Using the results of a drug war to argue in favor of that drug war is illogical. However, what you describe will happen regardless of whether or not drugs are legal. The main question, for those who view the world in "utilitarian" terms and not moral terms, remains - how does the legality or illegality of drugs affect consumption rates. If consumption would skyrocket under legalisation, then obviously proponents of the drug war have a somewhat (utilitarian) valid argument. If consumption remains comparable or even goes down, then drug war proponents don't have even their speculative argument. And if they don't even have that, they have nothing...

Rush is said to have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars on pills. He is enormously wealthy and could afford it. But still he suffered. He lost his hearing because of the pills. But still he could not stop.

If he knew there was a connection between hearing loss and Oxycontin abuse, he may have stopped. We don't know for sure... Some people just lack the discipline to stop addiction, that doesn't mean the substance is uncontrollably addictive. I've used all sorts of drugs in my life and nothing compared with tobacco wrt addictiveness.

I am of two minds on this issue. I recognize that we could go a long way towards ending crime and corruption of the police by legalizing drugs. But the this is not to say that drug use should be considered legitimate.

If illegitimacy translates into illegality, we'll still have the problems resulting from the drug war. If you're saying drug use should be condemned, but legal, that would be the moral position if drug use deserves to be condemned. It doesn't deserve to be condemned though, just what some people do under the influence.

Both my parents ended their lives as alcoholics. During their last years, I hated going home or having them over. They were not there. It was bad.

Sorry to hear that, my dad was an alcohlic and a violent one at that, albeit a functional one.

I was a juror at a trial where a father-in-law was accused of molesting. As the trial went on, it came out that both the mother and the father-in-law were heroin addicts. The amount of drug-induced abuse of the kids in that family by both the mother and father was apalling.

I reject the cause and effect you've drawn. Using a drug doesn't turn a non-molestor into a molestor. That's like saying porn turns men into rapists, it just doesn't work that way. Sexual "determination", sexuality stems from deep rooted desires that are either inborn or developed very young. We know a very large percentage of child molestors were themselves molested when they were young. There are no studies showing that heroin use induces pedophilism...

It is not true, therefor, that the only argument against drugs is the potential for causing harm to others. Harm is almost inevitable when drugs are involved because drugs always involve getting high.

It is not "inevitable" and "getting high" does not automatically translate into harming others. Tens of millions of Americans have used illegal drugs without hurting others, so you're still harming millions of people for the actions of others.

This might be acceptable only for singles in the privacy of their own home. It is not acceptable where kids are involved, or where someone has the lives of others in their charge, like doctors, pilots, train conductors, police, etc., etc., etc. Could you accept, for example, a president of the United States with a drug habit for example?

So people should be jailed for smoking tobacco or drinking booze in front of their kids? Yes, I could accept a President with a drug habit, we've had several I imagine. JFK was one and I suspect there were a few back in the 1700-1800's. Even Bush senior and FDR were on some drugs for their condition... As for doctors, etc., the drug war doesn't prevent all these people from using drugs. That's the problem with your arguments, you point to what will happen if drugs are legalised and ignore that it's already happening. Legalisation doesn't mean people get to work at their jobs under the influence.

But, again, the war on drugs does involve a significant lowering our our constitutional rights, and this is wrong. It does make a lot of criminals who deal drugs. It does make illegal activity that is harmless when conducted in private by singles.

And that is immoral.

To me, the jury is still out on this issue. I really would like to hear what Rush has to say in three weeks.

Me too, but I quoted him from a Playboy interview and he was asked if he should have been punished for using pot and he said, "no, because I was a conservative who was experimenting". That interview was from the mid 1990's so even then he was making up excuses for why his previous behavior was somehow special. And his attempt to save his butt now, that "I will fully co-operate with the authorities in any investigation" bit just turned my stomach. If he was telling the truth, then he's a rat. I would have never turned on people who sold me drugs, it's a matter of honor.

Also, I do appreciate you confirming that Rush Limbaugh has not been hammering the drug issue in recent years. Obviously, he would be a hypocrite if he did. But he did not. So, when we hear from the media that he was an apostle in the war on drugs in recent years, you are hearing a false charge.

We disagree on what constitutes hypocrisy. You don't spend years smearing people and advocating harm towards them and get an exemption when you turn out to be one of those people.

Rush is a victim, just as all who become addicted. I agree with you that we should not punish victims, but should treat them.

Not against their will. And Rush said he is NOT a victim. Normally I'd applaud him for saying that but he has spent years railing against liberals for making more and more people into "victims" so he may have said that for a reason other than personal responsibility.

[Straybow]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Limbaugh became addicted to illegal drugs.

It almost worked, missed this one the first reading. Do you really not know, or have you deluded yourself that falsifying your premise will go unnoticed if you hide it in enough verbiage?

The drugs Limbaugh was taking were 100% legal and FDA approved. They were obtained and used without prescription, which is an illegal action. The difference between illegal drugs and abuse of legal drugs is quantified in law.

Your statement is either uninformed or deliberately twisted to "make your point." If you're going to get on a high horse, make sure your saddle strap is tight or you'll fall off on your face.

Typical leftie.

[Drake Tungsten]

But immoral by my standard is "do as I say, not as I do".

Since when are your moral standards the ones other people should go by?

Is Rush demanding he be punished now? No, he appears to be taking steps to avoid punishment.

He doesn't need to in order to avoid hypocrisy. I doubt he ever said that drug addicts should not use the legal system to try and avoid going to jail. He urged the authorities to place them in jail, which is a different argument.

Murder is inherently hypocritical...

No, it isn't. You can think that murder is immoral, **** up and kill somebody and still think that your act and murder in general are immoral afterwards. There's no hypocrisy there.

As for Rush, he hasn't come out with proclamations of what a scumbag he is. I've heard how he has referred to drug users and we don't see him applying that standard to himself now that he's in the same boat as the people he's been defaming.

Again, he isn't a hypocrite just because he doesn't go on national TV to call himself a piece of **** addict and beg for prison time. He would be a hypocrite if he attacked the authorities for prosecuting his alleged crimes, since he has urged them to do the same to others in the past, but I haven't seen him do this.

[Berzerker]

Straybow -

Originally posted by Straybow

If you can cite one example where Rush criticized people who got addicted to post-op painkillers for you would have a point.

Rush has said people who use illegal drugs should be jailed. He used illegal drugs. In fact, what he did is a felony. I'm not sure pot is a felony...but who knows given the jackasses in Washington

There have been numerous cases of celebrities going into rehab or even dieing from prescription painkillers, but Rush didn't blast them or hold them as comparable to users of illegal narcotics or pot.

Rush's drugs weren't prescribed, they were from the black market. And let's deal with moral reality and not interject the subjectiveness of what is legal or illegal, drugs are drugs; and while they aren't identical, certainly it is hypocritical for someone who uses "hillbilly heroin" to gripe about pot smokers.
Now, Ned thinks the possible fact he stopped griping about pot smokers exempts him from charges of hypocrisy. I don't agree, he had to apologise - he had to do a 180 - and he hasn't. He had to come out and apologise to those people before he began using illegal prescription drugs. In fact, it doesn't matter if he was using legal or illegal prescription drugs.

The hypocrites that Jesus condemned were those who take the name of God yet strive against God by their actions. Maybe you should reread those passages instead of assuming Jesus was using "hypocrite" as a generalization and condemning all touched with that broad brush.

In that passage, Jesus was talking to people who judge others while being sinners themselves. Before trying to remove the speck from your brother's eye, first remove the plank from your own eye (notice the distinction between specks and planks?). Rush claims to be a Christian and he has judged others for doing what he has been doing for the past 5-6 years - using illegal drugs.

So when Christians condemn Swaggart, they are acting righteously because he is a hypocrite of that calibre. If the Christian community had not held Swaggart accountable they'd be as bad as the liberals. But they did condemn him; QED.

Yes, and will they now condemn Rush? Some will, some will find a way to exempt him with rationalisations about "pain", etc...

Isn't that Coulter's whole point? But apparently you are more interested in attacking Coulter than reading what she has written. Or maybe you just find it distasteful that Coulter is right, by your own inadvertant admission.

You really think my "admission" was inadvertant? Trust me, I knew what I was saying. Maybe you were so intent on attacking me you felt the need to ascribe to me ignorance of my own words...

If one condones or endorses adultery, they are not a hypocrite for "failing" to condemn adulterers. But while they are not guilty of hypocrisy, they do suffer from a different character flaw - an inability to understand right and wrong wrt adultery.

Btw Straybow, I didn't "attack" Coulter, I "attacked" her logic. If you want "attacks" on Coulter, read some of the other posts. There's no shortage of ad hominems in this thread but none from me.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

Let me sum up the conservative spirit in a similar way. Here's a lift from the biographical section of a conservative blog I just read. It's three comments from "100 things about me".

4) I'm a conservative with a strong libertarian streak. Here's my political statement

20) The best car I've ever had was a Nissan Maxima. I hydroplaned into a truck driven by non-English speaking illegal immigrants. My car was totalled

24) I like to speed. Unfortunately, that means I've gotten several speeding tickets.

[Bugs ****ing Bunny]

I love it when strong opinions are coupled with a total lack of self-awareness.