Hypocrite: A person who feigns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose private life, opinions, or statements contradict his or her public statements.
Serial hypocrites, flip-floppers and fakes. No, I’m not just talking about three of the four Republican candidates that we all know but also the leading conservative voices in America that we’ve all come to love and trust. Who are some of them? Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, just to name a few. How dare you, some of you may ask who have not dared to go out on a limb and even question their sincerity. What proof do you have? I appeal to common sense, not the book Common Sense by Thomas Payne, but literal common sense.
Listen to these talk show hosts profess heart-felt desire for, and description of a true candidate they claim they wish was in the race for president — a consistent man of faith with indisputable private and public virtue, with backbone to stand up to the Washington insiders and establishment, never wavering on principles of the Constitution and the founding principles of true human freedom. They even say they want someone who is serious about balancing the budget and has a plan to do it. Maybe even someone willing to take on the feds, and all the unconstitutional federal departments. Maybe even a 30-year record to back up his rhetoric. They want a Reaganesque-type leader who can inspire a generation to the cause of liberty, and even who can bring new voters and true enthusiasm to the GOP.
If they didn’t name their candidate, you would automatically know they were talking about the only one who meets all of their criteria; that is Ron Paul. But no, they end their rant by saying they support Gingrich, or Santorum, or Romney. What? You just made the case against all three of them. How can you support one of them? And to add to their hypocrisy, they condemn and ridicule Ron Paul. They even go so far as to lie about him and twist the truth about the one excuse they do have for which not to vote for him which is his foreign policy. They lie and say he is an isolationist when it is themselves who are the actual neo-con isolationists of mandates, sanctions, refusal to trade, desire for pre-emptive war, etc., with countries of any differing points of view. These talk show hosts even condemn all enemies of Israel while supporting our public funds going to these very enemy countries in the name of foreign aid. Whose side are they really on? What are they really? Serial hypocrites, flip-floppers and fakes, just like the candidates they support.
Rusdon Ray
Gilbert
Slabside posted at 2:13 pm on Sun, Mar 11, 2012.
Yawn. Another Liberal tool doing his slim best to bash the Right. Move along folks, nothing to see here. [sleeping]
Grant Hubbard posted at 4:31 pm on Sun, Mar 11, 2012.
Slabside couldn't be more wrong. "Liberal" sounds like "Libertarian" but their philsophies are very different. The eloquent defense of Ron Paul is hardly a liberal rant.
Philosophically, Ron Paul is a life long Libertarian, though he registered as a Republican some years ago. I think Paul's Libertarianism is too idealistic for the modern world, but I have great respect for Ron Paul and Libertarians generally. Ron Paul is the only one of the remaining Republicans who is the same Ron Paul he has always been. Some may regard him as naive or overly idealistic. But Ron Paul is a decent man and a man of integrity -- an attribute neither Romney nor Santorum nor Gingrich can honestly claim.
Slabside posted at 4:39 pm on Sun, Mar 11, 2012.
No, slabside is quite right.
Slabside posted at 5:43 pm on Sun, Mar 11, 2012.
Grant Hubbard reads like another one of Dale's alias'.
Rational Human posted at 5:43 pm on Sun, Mar 11, 2012.
Yes Slab you nailed this dull nail on the head.
Dale Whiting posted at 7:07 pm on Sun, Mar 11, 2012.
Dale has no aliases. Nor has he any screwball pseudonyms like "Slabside or "Rational Human." And where Grant appears to be a Ron Paul supporter, Dale supports Ron only among the remaining conservative candidates. Rather he's in favor of giving the President another term to finish what was started. Knowing that no one else has any better ideas, changing horses mid stream does not appear to be the wise thing to do.
Dale is in favor of removing from office the numerous Mitch McConnells who can think of nothing constructive to do and only have one theme, making our President a one term man. Hopefully McConnell's current term to be his last. We need to work together, not appart! That truely would be a "change" to believe in!
Slabside posted at 8:01 pm on Sun, Mar 11, 2012.
Wrong again Dale. I have vetted you on at least 2 alias monickers. They posted your lunacy word for word. They have never posted here since.
Masterrogue666 posted at 9:38 pm on Sun, Mar 11, 2012.
I use to watch Geraldo Rivera when I was much younger. Then I became aware that if Geraldo Rivera doesn't agree with YOUR viewpoint, he'd give INORDINATE time to people that shared HIS viewpoint, but not give EQUAL time to those that he did not agree with. When the word hypocrite was mentioned, his is one name (of many) that jumps to mind.
Rusdon: There are certain KEY ISSUES to me that Ron Paul doesn't agree with. Ergo, he doesn't represent my needs/desires. Why WOULD I vote for him?
wdgnas posted at 6:29 am on Mon, Mar 12, 2012.
slabside and dale: referring to yourselves in the 3rd person...
Arizona Willie posted at 7:40 am on Mon, Mar 12, 2012.
This lifelong LIBERAL with a capital L voted for Ron Paul.
Because he was the ONLY candidate on the right side of illegal immigration. ALL the rest were for some form of allowing illegals to stay.
As a LIBERAL I was happy to see Obama get elected but don't believe he deserves re-election because he was actually a Republican in disguise.
He did NOT give us single payer health care -- he caved in to the Republicans and gave us a law that requires people to BUY PRIVATE FOR PROFIT MEDICAL INSURANCE.
He did not keep his promises to organized labor.
About the only promise he kept was to the queers to let them stay in the Armed Forces.
He enacted Republican policies at almost every step.
He is NOT a Democrat. He's a DINO.
Arizona Willie posted at 7:43 am on Mon, Mar 12, 2012.
Some might say " Wait a minute ... he's a liberal but against illegals? "
Correct.
Because I believe my taxes for social programs should go to CITIZENS and LEGAL residents ... not to people who invade and steal them.
And American jobs belong to Americans and legal residents NOT to people who invade and commit more crimes such as identity theft in order to take American jobs.
sockratties posted at 8:13 am on Mon, Mar 12, 2012.
I don't think even Ron Paul thinks he could be elected but he will stay the course so his ideals will at least be part of the discussion when the GOP makes its final selection. Paul registered as a Republican because he couldn't be heard as a Libertarian. Very little press is given to alternative party candidates.
Ron Paul is best described as a “Constitutionalist,” believing that if the U. S. Constitution doesn't spell out a function or right of congress or the executive branch of government then that function or right belongs to the states or the people. He considers the constitution to be a limiting, rather than empowering document. That's a hard argument to disagree with.
Paul has consistently voted his ideals, has well defined reasons for every vote he casts, resists special interest influence, tells the truth and doesn't pander to the media. How could a man like that ever get elected?
chatmandu002 posted at 11:36 am on Mon, Mar 12, 2012.
Rusdon, We all are flip-floppers and yes hypocrites now an then. Politics has a nature of flip-flop. Times change and so does the world we live in. Many years ago we did not allow lots of things that happen today. So we had to "flip-flop" our of laws and our attitudes. Even Ron Paul has done some flip-flop along the way. Nothing is perfect and no one is perfect as is that nothing stays the same forever. Yet we fight for control of a speck of something that means nothing throughout the millenniums of time. I have become a fatalist and believe that our democratic republic will succumb to a progressive socialism that will eventually fall also. Should we continue the good fight that the founders of our Republic sacrificed for or allow the progressivism to continue to devour us? My instinct is to fight but my heart tells me the fight is lost and that my grand-children and great grand-children will become economic slaves to this new socialism.
Oh, I have found a new respect for some of AZ Willie's ideas on illegals.