Announcement

Collapse

Welcome to Moorcock's Miscellany

Dear reader,

Many people have given their valuable time to create a website for the pleasure of posing questions to Michael Moorcock, meeting people from around the world, and mining the site for information. Please follow one of the links above to learn more about the site.

Thank you,
Reinart der Fuchs
See more
See less

Can you say hypocrisy? I knew you could!

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 14
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 14 template Next
  • #1

    Can you say hypocrisy? I knew you could!

    So Edward Schrock, outspoken and unapologetic homophobe, is outta the House... and why?

    He suddenly up and quit after...

    "A Web log recently published claims that he solicited sex with another man on a gay phone dating service.

    "Schrock, an outspoken foe of gays in the military and supporter of a constitutional amendment to ban same-sex marriages, did not address the allegation in a five-paragraph statement announcing his decision Monday. He said he would not comment further."

    http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...919EDT0814.DTL

    Politicians are all pretty much slime, we all know this. But what I think I love most is when their corruption reveals unmitigated hypocrisy. It's all about the irony, so I started a "hypocrite politician" thread...

    Not that these threads ever stay on topic. It's just not in their nature. :roll:
    "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
    --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Dang! And I thought "The Colonel" character
    in American Beauty was a gross exaggeration of reality!

    It goes to show: NEVER SAY NEVER!
    \"Bush\'s army of barmy bigots is the worst thing that\'s happened to the US in some years...\"
    Michael Moorcock - 3am Magazine Interview

    Comment

    • #3
      Word up!

      Comment

      • #4
        Hypocrisy at the RNC

        Hypocrisy at the Republican National Convention

        Okay, so wolf-in-sheep's-clothing Zell Miller had things to say at the RNC, but had some things to leave out, as well:

        WHAT HE SAID:

        "The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed... The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed... The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed... The Apache helicopter, that Senator Kerry opposed..."

        WHAT HE LEFT OUT:
        (emphasis mine)

        "The Secretary of defense recommended these cuts after consultation with the joint chiefs of staff. And I make them with confidence. But do not misunderstand me: The reductions I have approved will save us an additional $50 billion over the next five years. By 1997 we will have cut defense by 30 percent since I took office."
        -- George HW Bush, State of the Union Address, 1992

        And we all know who GHW Bush's Secretary of Defense was, right?

        According to the Boston Globe, in 1990, "Defense Secretary Richard Cheney announced a cutback... of nearly 45 percent in the administration's B-2 Stealth bomber program, from 132 airplanes to 75..." [Boston Globe, 4/27/90]

        In testimony before the Senate Appropriations Committee, Defense Subcommittee, Cheney said, "This is just a list of some of the programs that I've recommended termination: the V-22 Osprey, the F-14D, the Army Helicopter Improvement Program, Phoenix missile, F-15E, the Apache helicopter, the M1 tank, et cetera."

        In testimony before the House Armed Services Committee, Cheney said, "If you're going to have a smaller air force, you don't need as many F-16s...The F-16D we basically continue to buy and close it out because we're not going to have as big a force structure and we won't need as many F-16s."
        [Cheney testimony, House Armed Services Committee, 2/7/91; Boston Globe, 2/5/91]

        Can anyone give me a compelling reason -- other than blatant deception or dreadful ignorance -- why Zell would leave out these important facts?
        "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
        --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

        Comment

        • #5
          The same reson people on this board leave out important facts... the same reason Michael Moore leaves out important facts (or out right lies) When you are angry and you have point you want to get across you will present things that support your argument. And no, I'm not saying it's justified, I'm just answering an rehtorical question...

          Comment

          • #6
            So, blatant deception then. Cool. Thanks for the verification. Although, my question wasn't truly rhetorical. I seriously invite someone to give a reason other than the two I mentioned.

            By the way, this isn't a partisan thread. Feel free to post displays of hypocrisy from either side. No one-sidedness here, folks. Of course, the more facts presented, the better; let's not be hypocrites ourselves...
            "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
            --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

            Comment

            • #7
              Wel I think Zell is probably expressing what he thinks are the implications of what was said. If he had been deliberatly decieptive he probably wouldn't have gone on for as long as he did thus turning a powerful speach into a rant.

              Comment

              • #8
                Do you think, then, that he was simply ignorant that the bald-headed man sitting right behind him opposed the same things he was slamming Kerry about? The reason I ask is that if he was just "expressing what he thinks are the implications of what was said," then he must be ignorant because if he wasn't, he'd know his argument implicates Cheney just as much as Kerry, making his argument moot.

                And it was completely moot to anyone who knows the facts.
                "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
                --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

                Comment

                • #9
                  To be honest... I haven't heard the speach; I've heard what was said about the speach.

                  Comment

                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Kitsune
                    To be honest... I haven't heard the speach; I've heard what was said about the speach.
                    No problem, Kitsune. Here you go. Read up!

                    http://www.newsday.com/news/politics...tics-headlines
                    "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
                    --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

                    Comment

                    • #11
                      "Can anyone give me a compelling reason -- other than blatant deception or dreadful ignorance -- why Zell would leave out these important facts?"

                      Wait a second; there is more to this than just what is said and what is not said. John Kerry is explicitly and absolutely putting his military background and his support for the present day military as a campaign issue. Dick Cheney is not. In that context it is relevant - and not a lie, not a hypocrisy, not a blatent attempt to mislead - to point out those facts.

                      Psychic, you are a very smart man, and are very well-spoken, but on this one, I think you are letting your emotions run from you. Right or wrong, this is a contest. And John Kerry is trying - albeit somewhat ineptly - to win it. Are you a hockey fan? Kerry has pulled the goalie and is playing with an empty net. You can't really fault Bush/Cheney for dumping the puck into the net, even if that is not their game.

                      You keep talking about facts; the fact is, Kerry's Senate voting record does not, on its face, support the position he has placed himself in. Kerry has to deal with that.

                      Comment

                      • #12
                        Kerry puts his military record on the table with regard to displaying experience in battle. Face it, he knows what our soldiers are going through in Iraq far better than Dubya and Cheney do.

                        I honestly do not see how that has anything to do with his lack of support of the war after he returned from it, nor how it has anything to do with whether or not he supported military cutbacks a decade ago.

                        The point Zell was trying to make was that Kerry would oppose doing what he has to to defend this country. Read his speech (I provided the link above):

                        "The B-1 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, dropped 40 percent of the bombs in the first six months of Operation Enduring Freedom.

                        The B-2 bomber, that Senator Kerry opposed, delivered air strikes against the Taliban in Afghanistan and Hussein's command post in Iraq.

                        The F-14A Tomcats, that Senator Kerry opposed, shot down Khadifi's Libyan MIGs..."

                        That set of sentences has NOTHING to do with Kerry's military record or his touting of it and has EVERYTHING to do with making him out to be a pussy, which he most certainly is not.

                        Originally posted by Bill
                        Psychic, you are a very smart man, and are very well-spoken...
                        Why, thank you. Yourself as well. And it wouldn't be the first time my emotions forced me to take leave of logic... if that's what I did. But I don't think I did that. I think Kerry reminding people he knows first-hand what war is like (where Bush doesn't have a clue about such matters) is a valid point and has nothing to do with what Zell was yapping about.
                        "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
                        --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

                        Comment

                        • #13
                          "I think Kerry reminding people he knows first-hand what war is like (where Bush doesn't have a clue about such matters) is a valid point and has nothing to do with what Zell was yapping about."

                          I don't think you can separate the two; and even if you can, that doesn't make for a compelling argument: "I know what it is like, and you don't need proper weapons and armor and support materiel"?

                          Hey, maybe it isn't possible for a Democrat to win a big election like this. I don't know. But that doesn't bode well for our country.

                          Comment

                          • #14
                            Do people honestly believe Kerry will just allow Al Qaeda to march in and bitch-slap us? What the hell? I think that kind of insinuation is every bit as insulting as any of the stuff Jerico was saying about Republicans vs. Michael Moore the other day.
                            "Wounds are all I'm made of. Did I hear you say that this is victory?"
                            --Michael Moorcock, Veteran of the Psychic Wars

                            Comment

                            • #15
                              Originally posted by PsychicWarVeteran
                              Do people honestly believe Kerry will just allow Al Qaeda to march in and bitch-slap us? What the hell? I think that kind of insinuation is every bit as insulting as any of the stuff Jerico was saying about Republicans vs. Michael Moore the other day.
                              For some people, I think it is a matter of who they think will be most likely to keep the bitch-slap from happening. It's interesting, however, that no one is saying they can keep us safe; Bush is winning this point because he says he can keep us safer, which is something very different, as it leaves in the element of fear. People are already very afraid, and some candidates choose to play on the fear and exploit it, even to the point of generating more.

                              The irony is, of course, that terrorism is supposed to generate fear in its action. This election has proven that terrorism generates fear in its threat. Maybe we're already losing the "war on terror(ism)."

                              Comment

                              Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 14 template Next
                              Working...
                              X