Does pointing out CON HYPOCRISY actually hurt them?

[booley]

This is my 1000 post so to mark the occasion, here' s a question that has been bugging me.

Ok the question is the title so I'll just move on to my rant. There's a point in here somewhere.

That republican and CONservative(especially Kristian CONservative) has become synonamous with Hyppocrite is NOT a revelation to any of you, I am sure.

The Schiavo case is but the latest example of the rank and self serving hypocrasy.

They Support the Troops..by treating them like a cheap Tampons, spend as little on them as possible and then throw them away once they are used up.

They are Pro-Life..and by Pro-Life I mean they make sure that death and suffering are never in short supply.

They Liberate a country... by killing large numbers of it's people and ignoring how that country's gov became oppressive in the first place.

They confuse Jesus with the Pharasees, They are elected officials who scorn the public they represent, cry victim becuase they can't victimize people who are different then they, are pro-war as long as somebody else is fighting it...
You get my point. Any look at the Con idiots for this week or any week will give you a score of hypocrasies.

But you knew that, didn't you? Hell, I have lost count of CON hypocrisy. Every new one pushes those before further back into my subconscience.

Here's my point..

What if, to a Con, Hyppocrisy is it's own Reward?

How can one shame the shameless? How can you expect any embaresment from people who see reality, facts and GOD as merely a way of justifying what they plan on doing anyway? What good is proof against people who simply choose to beleive only what they want to believe? How can you accuse people of being unethical and make it stick when they change what is ethical and what is not to suit whatever they need at that moment?

When you're a pathological lier, then you can say or do anything bucause they are just words. They have no meaning. I actually agreed with a lot of the ideals mentioned by Shrub in his last state of the Union address. Why wouldn't I? They were designed to sway those of us that have yet to drink the Kool-aid. Why wouldn't Shrub say them? It's not like he beleives them. It's not like he is going to be held accountable for them. when has Shrub EVER been held accountable for what he has said or did in the past? Same with his cronies. How else to explain how Rice could feel her integrity was being unfairly questioned..by having her OWN WORDS repeated back to her. (Who you gonna beleive? Condi Rice or Condi Rice?) and then we have delay and frist...OY VAY!! nuff said.

Cons are now even using thier hypocrisy as a way to market thier policies. Clean skies means dirty air, healthy forests means clearcutting,, ect ect. Gods help us if the Cons ever come up with a CUTE CUDDLY KITTEN Bill.

And then you have the favorite CON smear tactic..projection. a con gets caught lying? He accuses his critics of LYING! A Con get's caught being unethical or playing politics? He accuses his critics of being unethical and playing politics! Obvioulsy we Libs are racist homophobic bigots! Why? Becuase we are always pointing out that a lot of CONS are racist homophobic Bigots! (how can one argue with logic like that?)
Look at any CON criticism and 9 out 10, you will find that very Con guilty of what he accuses others of.

That thier followers are no better is delving into the painfully obviouse. The Lies from the Shrubbery have gotton so bad it's as if they aren't even trying. They couldn't get away with this if thier supporters didn't let them. We have freepers who can list every supposed evil that Clinton, Kennedy, or Jane Fonda ever did..names, places, dates and conspiratorial connections that would boggle Oliver Stone. Yet thier fantastic recall becomes sadly lacking when it comes to linking what the shrubbery says to what they do to what they said again to justify what they just did to what they're now doing. Like in Orwell's book, the present official history is what is true, even when it contradicts what just happened.

All those militias that were certain Clinton was going to tear up the constitution and form a police state? Where are they now that the Shrubbery actually IS tearing up the constitution and slowly but surely forming a police state? Apparently a police state was not their problem.. Thier problem was whether their side was controlling it.

Indeed, the shrubbery's CON base are sympatico with the CONs in office. Why shouldn't Joe Six pack CONservative vote for CONservative politicos? They are essentially kindred spirits.

And I think their hypocrisy is even working on us to make us accept some Cons that we shouldn't. Remember how so many of us liked McCain before 2004? I liked McCain. Certainly if I had to choose between him and Shrub, I would have picked McCain. and I now think I know WHY so many of us really liked McCain for a good while.

Part of it was becuase the Right hated him (probably becuase he wasn't playing thier game and was getting in their way), part of it was many of us felt horrible at the way he was smeared as a traitor by a rich frat boy too chickenshit to go to a war he supported but too spoiled to finish the cop out his daddy gave him to keep him out of that same war. But I think the big part of why we liked McCain was that he simply did not seem to be a reeking Hyppocrate. He actually seemed to have principals he wouldn't sell out. if you compared him to your standerd Con, of course McCain was going to look saintly by contrast. Hell , NIXON looks good compared to Delay.

But McCain IS a CON. And when 2004 rolled around we all got so upset that McCain apparently was willing to sell out. But that was silly on our part. First, his ideology is pretty much opposed to ours. Just becuase he would make a marginally better pres then the Shrub doesn't mean we would want him as prez. Second, McCain is just as prone to peer pressure and temptation as any human and he's surrounded by Hyppocrites. The same goes for any CON that has ever broken from the fold. Sooner of later they get drawn back in and play the hyppocrate game. Or they get exiled from the CON club.

(Remember when Pundits from Judicial Watch were always on the TV when they were going after Clinton? Notice how they DID NOT get that same kind of air time when they tried to subpeona Shrub and the Dick?)

Not to say that Dems and Libs don't have thier share of Hyppocrites and idealogues and liers. But at least with Dems , you can generally shame them on it. I think most dems are embarressed when they lose sight of thier principals. We at least seem to understand hyppocrisy is always wrong as are numerouse other things, even if you claim it's for "God" or "National Security".

Not so Cons who seem to have no principals that last beyond the needs of the moment. I guess becuase they figure if they are enforcing God's rules, it's ok to break a lot of those rules to do so. (how convenient God doesn't speak up to correct anybody) Or maybe they just find it convenient. Who knows?

So to sum up... is it possible that all of our attempts to point out CON HYPOCRASY doesn't work? Is Hypocrasy, in fact, just another clever Political strategy by the (Not) Right to garner power?

Or does hammering the point home that CONS are hypocrites work at thwarting them? Are we getting through that cons can't be trusted? and if so, can you give examples?

And this is NOT a flame or meaning to be a downer. If pointing out CON hyppocrasy works then GREAT! If it doesn't, then we should think of other ways to frame our arguements. what would work?

[alcibiades_mystery]

1. I tried very hard, but I couldn't resist

It's spelled "hypocrisy."

Hopefully, more intelligent members will provide substantive comments about your excellent post.

[booley]

2. thanks

and yes, my typing does teh suk.

I guess being embarressed at making a mistake proves what a Liberal I am.

;-)

l'll try do better next time.

[Cary]

3. I'm not sure we really affect public opinion all that much.

This is all incredibly complicated behavior, multiplied by 100 million variations. Any attempt to generalize yields a mostly irrelevant abstraction.

Despite the fact that the pukes proclaim that they have the new ideas, they don't. They've been chewing on these ideas for decades, and yet their margin of victory is truly very small.

What amazes me most about the Schiavo issue is that so many of their apologists are coming down squarely against their position and are even denouncing the misinformation and disinformation campaigns. Yet they still steadfastly refuse to see that these strategies are simply an extension of GOP strategies on other issues.

I think the bottom line, in terms of hypocrisy, is that we stay the course and stay true to ourselves. We must work hard in our communities to spread the truth.

Isn't it encouraging that the truth is playing so well in the Schiavo case?

[The Devils Advocate]

4. Pointing out hypocrisy will not work

I frame the situation as a debate between two mutually exclusive mind-sets.

The "CONS" are faith-based. Their dogma is perfect, and the execution of their agenda is reward enough. They are not concerned about means or ends. They are concerned about their dogma.

When a "CON" argues with a reason-based person, there can be no winner. To the "CON", rational arguments do not represent truth, they represent a test of faith. The better the rational argument, the greater the victory when one rejects it in favor of faith.

All the rational arguments in the world will not a shake the belief of a faith-based person. Pointing out hypocrisy, analyzing results, ends justifying means, these are not important to "CONS". What is important, is that they hold fast to their faith-based dogma in spite of any and all rationality.

[etherealtruth]

5. It is true that conservatism does attract the 'religiously insane"...

... and they sure as hell aren't bothered by hypocrisy; there is a group of conservatives that aren't "religiously insane" and I think the hypocrisy IS wearing on them----as well as the fiscal irresponsibility and the government intrusion into private matters.

[Cary]

6. I think it is true that they will over reach.

It is a matter of time.

[booley]

7. kick

Oh and if you guys post, please make sure to vote int he poll.

i really am interested in how it turns out...

[booley]

8. kick one more time

eom