Angry Rich Liberals......

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,081
136
http://www.washingtontimes.com...eat=article_top10_read

Scolding Americans for our various sins is proving popular among an elite group of self-appointed moralists.

Take well-meaning environmentalists who warn us that our plush lifestyles heat up and pollute the planet. To listen to former Vice President Al Gore or New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, we must immediately curtail our carbon emissions -- or face planetary destruction.

Yet these influential prophets of doom do not have lives remotely similar to the lesser folk they lecture. From time to time, Mr. Gore hops on a private jet - and purchases "carbon offsets" penances for the privilege. His mansion not long ago consumed more energy in a month than the average American home does in a year. Mr. Friedman lives on a sprawling estate reminiscent of those of the grandees of the 18th-century English countryside.

The rest of us would find these environmental scolds more convincing if they chose to live modestly in average tract homes. That way, they could limit their energy consumption and provide living proof to us of how smaller is better for an endangered planet Earth.

Critics in the business of racial grievance offer the same contradictions.

Recently, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. got into a spat with a white policeman who arrested him in his own home for disorderly conduct. Mr. Gates immediately cried racism. He argued that his plight was emblematic of the burdens the black underclass endures daily from a racist white America.

However, Mr. Gates is one of the highest-paid humanities professors in the United States. And Mr. Gates - not the middle-class Cambridge, Mass., white cop -- engaged in shouting and brought up race. Within hours, the black mayor of Cambridge, the black governor of Massachusetts and the black president of the United States all rallied to their chum's side.

Yet this well-connected, well-paid man apparently wants us to believe in melodramatic fashion that he is living in something like the United States of decades ago.

Indeed, citing racial grievance at times proves a valuable asset for wealthy celebrities. Michael Jackson and O.J. Simpson posed as victims of various racial oppressions when they found themselves in their own self-created legal problems. Race-baiter the Rev. Jeremiah Wright simply retreats to his three-story mansion on a golf course after his day job of denouncing whites as exploiters.

We have more of the rich on the barricades railing about the economic inequality of America. Former Democratic Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina preached about "two Americas," one poor and abandoned, one wealthy and connected. Mr. Edwards should know because he built himself a gargantuan multimillion-dollar mansion in which he might better contemplate the underprivileged outside his compound.

Sen. Christopher Dodd, Connecticut Democrat, sermonizes about corporate greed and credit card companies' near-extortion. Nonetheless, Mr. Dodd managed to squeeze out of the corporate world a low-interest loan, a sweetheart deal for a vacation home in Ireland, and thousands in campaign donations.

Former senator and Cabinet nominee Tom Daschle of South Dakota was a big proponent of raising taxes to nationalize our health care system. The problem was that the populist Mr. Daschle both hated paying taxes and loved limousines -- and so avoided the former but welcomed the latter.

In the old days, critics of what we called the "system" were at least for the most part blue-collar workers, underpaid teachers or grass-roots politicians whose rather modest lives matched their angry populist rhetoric. Now the most vehement critics of America's purported sins are among the upper classes. These critics' parlor game has confused Americans about why they are being called polluters, racists and exploiters by those who have fared best in America.

Do the wealthy and the powerful lecture us about our wrongs because they know their own insider status ensures that they are exempt from the harsh medicine they advocate for others? Mr. Gore, a millionaire, is not much affected by higher taxes for his cap-and-trade crusade.

Or does the hypocrisy grow out of a sort of class snobbery? Do elites hector the crass middle class because its members lack their own taste, rare insight and privileged style? Judging from the police report, Mr. Gates seemed flabbergasted that the white Cambridge cop did not know who he was "messing" with.

Or is the new hypocrisy an eerie sort of psychological compensation at work? Perhaps the more Mr. Gore rails about carbon emissions, the more he can without guilt enjoy what emits them. The more Mr. Gates can cite racism, the more he himself is paid to spot it. And the more Tom Daschle wants to tax and spend for health care, the less bad he feels about his own chauffeur and tax avoidance.

Here's a little advice for all of America's wealthy critics: a little less hypocrisy, a little more appreciation of your good lives -- and then maybe the rest of us will listen to you a little more.

My opinion?
Telling hypocrites they need to change doesn?t work. Mostly because they won?t admit they're doing something wrong. If they were capable of admitting their faults they wouldn?t be hypocrites. Sorta like alcoholism, the first step is admitting you have a problem. After that it?s a pretty straightforward process.

Also, I'd like to point out that neither this article nor I am saying all liberals are hypocrites. In fact it seems to me that its staunch Republican conservatives who have the worst problems with hypocrisy. Which is a shame because I tend to lean towards the conservative side on most issues, and many folks automatically assume I am a hypocrite before a good discussion can take place.

Back to the article, I should note that a common definition of a liberal is: "A person whos interests aren't at stake at the moment."
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
The Washington Times is a propaganda rag, created by the Rev. Moon to serve the Republican party with whom he successfully ingratiated himself.

This article has a lot of pablum, framing the issue perversely by taking the people who are trying to make things better and attacking them, since they hurt the greedy interests.

It's the same basic nonsense as the 1970's Lewis Powell memo in which he noted that they right was constantly losing in the public debate because the issues were the 'good guy' liberals making the world a better place against the big bad greedy corporate interests. His solution, of course, was how to lie better basically - to create a phony appearance of the right being the 'good guy populists', and his memo was directly influential in the creation of the current right-wing proapganda think tanks and the media system like Fox.

There are fools who will fall for that nonsense, and let the greedy trick them into attacking the people who are on the public's side, with phony populist appeals.

Much the way people like Ronald Reagan would take a grandfatherly tone as he represented the biggest corporations to do evil, and things like murderous Central American policies, bloodying the American flag in ruthless policies that killed thousands of innocent people and oppressed millions.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
37
91
What is even worse than rich angry liberals are the angry libs that still live in mom's basement.
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
Originally posted by: OCguy
What is even worse than rich angry liberals are the angry libs that still live in mom's basement.

Did Craig want the whole board knowing where he lives?
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,081
136
Originally posted by: Craig234
The Washington Times is a propaganda rag, created by the Rev. Moon to serve the Republican party with whom he successfully ingratiated himself.

This article has a lot of pablum, framing the issue perversely by taking the people who are trying to make things better and attacking them, since they hurt the greedy interests.

It's the same basic nonsense as the 1970's Lewis Powell memo in which he noted that they right was constantly losing in the public debate because the issues were the 'good guy' liberals making the world a better place against the big bad greedy corporate interests. His solution, of course, was how to lie better basically - to create a phony appearance of the right being the 'good guy populists', and his memo was directly influential in the creation of the current right-wing proapganda think tanks and the media system like Fox.

There are fools who will fall for that nonsense, and let the greedy trick them into attacking the people who are on the public's side, with phony populist appeals.

Much the way people like Ronald Reagan would take a grandfatherly tone as he represented the biggest corporations to do evil, and things like murderous Central American policies, bloodying the American flag in ruthless policies that killed thousands of innocent people and oppressed millions.
Wow!

I totally did not see any of that in the article. You must have special powers or something.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Wait... I thought all liberals were supposed to be poor welfare queens? :confused: ;)

But no, seriously, I have to agree with Craig for once. The Washington Times is a money losing rag that the Rev Moon keeps going solely to be his propaganda mouthpiece. Taking it seriously is not recommended.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
The Washington Times is a propaganda rag, created by the Rev. Moon to serve the Republican party with whom he successfully ingratiated himself.

This article has a lot of pablum, framing the issue perversely by taking the people who are trying to make things better and attacking them, since they hurt the greedy interests.

It's the same basic nonsense as the 1970's Lewis Powell memo in which he noted that they right was constantly losing in the public debate because the issues were the 'good guy' liberals making the world a better place against the big bad greedy corporate interests. His solution, of course, was how to lie better basically - to create a phony appearance of the right being the 'good guy populists', and his memo was directly influential in the creation of the current right-wing proapganda think tanks and the media system like Fox.

There are fools who will fall for that nonsense, and let the greedy trick them into attacking the people who are on the public's side, with phony populist appeals.

Much the way people like Ronald Reagan would take a grandfatherly tone as he represented the biggest corporations to do evil, and things like murderous Central American policies, bloodying the American flag in ruthless policies that killed thousands of innocent people and oppressed millions.
I don't think people are saying that Gore is doing more damage to the environment than them so his message that we're doing damage is wrong, I think they're merely saying that he's a pretty sh*ty champion for change when he burns through magnitudes more of the planet than the average person he's preaching to. And he is.

Have you ever been told "Do as I say, not as I do?" If so, you knew it was bullsh*t. That's what Gore does. You know this. His lifestyle is indefensible in light of what he preaches.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
37
91
Originally posted by: Vic
Wait... I thought all liberals were supposed to be poor welfare queens? :confused: ;)

But no, seriously, I have to agree with Craig for once. The Washington Times is a money losing rag that the Rev Moon keeps going solely to be his propaganda mouthpiece. Taking it seriously is not recommended.

So money making is the standard? How are NYT and LAT doing right now?
 

DaveSimmons

Elite Member
Aug 12, 2001
40,730
670
126
Al Gore doesn't practice what he preaches, but this is also a form of ad hominem -- "Al Gore pollutes too much therefore no one needs to worry about the Texas-sized island of garbage floating in the ocean."
 

ebaycj

Diamond Member
Mar 9, 2002
5,418
0
0
Originally posted by: OCguy
What is even worse than rich angry liberals are the angry libs that still live in mom's basement.

Funny how that same statement works just as well for republicans.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: OCguy
Originally posted by: Vic
Wait... I thought all liberals were supposed to be poor welfare queens? :confused: ;)

But no, seriously, I have to agree with Craig for once. The Washington Times is a money losing rag that the Rev Moon keeps going solely to be his propaganda mouthpiece. Taking it seriously is not recommended.

So money making is the standard? How are NYT and LAT doing right now?

At least the NYT and the LAT used to make money. The Washington Times has never made money. Plus, the Rev Moon is a cult-leading kook.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I don't think people are saying that Gore is doing more damage to the environment than them so his message that we're doing damage is wrong, I think they're merely saying that he's a pretty sh*ty champion for change when he burns through magnitudes more of the planet than the average person he's preaching to. And he is.

Have you ever been told "Do as I say, not as I do?" If so, you knew it was bullsh*t. That's what Gore does. You know this. His lifestyle is indefensible in light of what he preaches.

There are different answers to that, but for the sake of discussion, let's say you're right.

If people could say what you said, and also say 'but what matters is the global issue, not whether Gore is a hypocrite', that'd be fine.

But they don't. The argument they make is usually some form of 'because Al Gore uses a lot of energy personally, the issue he champions is wrong'. And that's very wrong.
 

shortylickens

No Lifer
Jul 15, 2003
80,287
17,081
136
Originally posted by: Craig234
But they don't. The argument they make is usually some form of 'because Al Gore uses a lot of energy personally, the issue he champions is wrong'. And that's very wrong.
While you are correct, lets be honest here.
Its very difficult to take someone seriously when they repeatedly prove themselves a liar or an idiot, or both.
Look at Bush.
And I wouldnt be suprised if Obama comes out the same way in four years.

That was the whole point of me posting this article. Politicians and public figures should not expect blind loyalty 100% of the time. Sooner or later someone is going to question them, especially when the hypocracy is obvious. I think Bush had it relatively easy because there were too many people following him blindly for 8 years.
 

Ozoned

Diamond Member
Mar 22, 2004
5,578
0
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I don't think people are saying that Gore is doing more damage to the environment than them so his message that we're doing damage is wrong, I think they're merely saying that he's a pretty sh*ty champion for change when he burns through magnitudes more of the planet than the average person he's preaching to. And he is.

Have you ever been told "Do as I say, not as I do?" If so, you knew it was bullsh*t. That's what Gore does. You know this. His lifestyle is indefensible in light of what he preaches.

There are different answers to that, but for the sake of discussion, let's say you're right.

If people could say what you said, and also say 'but what matters is the global issue, not whether Gore is a hypocrite', that'd be fine.

But they don't. The argument they make is usually some form of 'because Al Gore uses a lot of energy personally, the issue he champions is wrong'. And that's very wrong.
.....or perhaps people just realize that good ole Al doesn't really believe the bullshit that he spews.
 

Craig234

Lifer
May 1, 2006
38,548
350
126
Originally posted by: Ozoned
.....or perhaps people just realize that good ole Al doesn't really believe the bullshit that he spews.

Fools, perhaps, because his issue is about the *massive* issue of global warming, and if every attack of hypocrisy is correct, his waste isn't a drop in the bucket on the issue.
 

OCGuy

Lifer
Jul 12, 2000
27,224
37
91
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Ozoned
.....or perhaps people just realize that good ole Al doesn't really believe the bullshit that he spews.

Fools, perhaps, because his issue is about the *massive* issue of global warming, and if every attack of hypocrisy is correct, his waste isn't a drop in the bucket on the issue.



Are you sure it is global warming instead of global cooling? How about a generic "climate change" so you can always be correct?



"July 2009 was officially the coldest July on record in six U.S. states, according to the National Climatic Data Center. Specifically, Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Ohio, West Virginia and Pennsylvania.

Not one of the coldest, mind you, but the absolute, rock-bottom, chilliest on record. Records go back to 1895. Meanwhile, four others ? Michigan, Wisconsin, Missouri and Kentucky ? had their 2nd-coldest July ever recorded. "

http://www.usatoday.com/weathe...te-report_N.htm?csp=34




Call the DNC and get your terms correct, or the funding for the "studies" might dry up.
 

xj0hnx

Diamond Member
Dec 18, 2007
9,262
3
76
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Ozoned
.....or perhaps people just realize that good ole Al doesn't really believe the bullshit that he spews.

Fools, perhaps, because his issue is about the *massive* issue of global warming, and if every attack of hypocrisy is correct, his waste isn't a drop in the bucket on the issue.

Global warming? Or was it cooling? I forgot, let's just call it "Climate change" this week. It's sad seeing people buy into Al Gores heaping pile of bullshit, much less try defending his flagrant hypocrisy.
 

Darwin333

Lifer
Dec 11, 2006
19,946
2,329
126
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Ozoned
.....or perhaps people just realize that good ole Al doesn't really believe the bullshit that he spews.

Fools, perhaps, because his issue is about the *massive* issue of global warming, and if every attack of hypocrisy is correct, his waste isn't a drop in the bucket on the issue.

If his waste isn't a drop in the bucket then mine is less than a fraction of a drop. As is my neighbors and his neighbors and their neighbors etc... See my point?

I don't know if Gore really cares about the environment or not nor do I really care. Rich liberals, for the most part, are interested in the exact same thing as other rich folk are.
 

StageLeft

No Lifer
Sep 29, 2000
70,150
5
0
Originally posted by: Craig234
Originally posted by: Skoorb
I don't think people are saying that Gore is doing more damage to the environment than them so his message that we're doing damage is wrong, I think they're merely saying that he's a pretty sh*ty champion for change when he burns through magnitudes more of the planet than the average person he's preaching to. And he is.

Have you ever been told "Do as I say, not as I do?" If so, you knew it was bullsh*t. That's what Gore does. You know this. His lifestyle is indefensible in light of what he preaches.

There are different answers to that, but for the sake of discussion, let's say you're right.

If people could say what you said, and also say 'but what matters is the global issue, not whether Gore is a hypocrite', that'd be fine.

But they don't. The argument they make is usually some form of 'because Al Gore uses a lot of energy personally, the issue he champions is wrong'. And that's very wrong.
It's actually partly wrong. There is some merit to the argument and it's not all ad hominem. If Gore is telling us to do something and isn't doing it himself, why is this? Is he weak or does he simply not even believe what he's telling us? The message is less convincing if its proponent doesn't even believe it himself.

 

umbrella39

Lifer
Jun 11, 2004
13,816
1,126
126
Originally posted by: shortylickens
http://www.washingtontimes.com...eat=article_top10_read

Scolding Americans for our various sins is proving popular among an elite group of self-appointed moralists.

Take well-meaning environmentalists who warn us that our plush lifestyles heat up and pollute the planet. To listen to former Vice President Al Gore or New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, we must immediately curtail our carbon emissions -- or face planetary destruction.

Yet these influential prophets of doom do not have lives remotely similar to the lesser folk they lecture. From time to time, Mr. Gore hops on a private jet - and purchases "carbon offsets" penances for the privilege. His mansion not long ago consumed more energy in a month than the average American home does in a year. Mr. Friedman lives on a sprawling estate reminiscent of those of the grandees of the 18th-century English countryside.

The rest of us would find these environmental scolds more convincing if they chose to live modestly in average tract homes. That way, they could limit their energy consumption and provide living proof to us of how smaller is better for an endangered planet Earth.

Critics in the business of racial grievance offer the same contradictions.

Recently, Harvard professor Henry Louis Gates Jr. got into a spat with a white policeman who arrested him in his own home for disorderly conduct. Mr. Gates immediately cried racism. He argued that his plight was emblematic of the burdens the black underclass endures daily from a racist white America.

However, Mr. Gates is one of the highest-paid humanities professors in the United States. And Mr. Gates - not the middle-class Cambridge, Mass., white cop -- engaged in shouting and brought up race. Within hours, the black mayor of Cambridge, the black governor of Massachusetts and the black president of the United States all rallied to their chum's side.

Yet this well-connected, well-paid man apparently wants us to believe in melodramatic fashion that he is living in something like the United States of decades ago.

Indeed, citing racial grievance at times proves a valuable asset for wealthy celebrities. Michael Jackson and O.J. Simpson posed as victims of various racial oppressions when they found themselves in their own self-created legal problems. Race-baiter the Rev. Jeremiah Wright simply retreats to his three-story mansion on a golf course after his day job of denouncing whites as exploiters.

We have more of the rich on the barricades railing about the economic inequality of America. Former Democratic Sen. John Edwards of North Carolina preached about "two Americas," one poor and abandoned, one wealthy and connected. Mr. Edwards should know because he built himself a gargantuan multimillion-dollar mansion in which he might better contemplate the underprivileged outside his compound.

Sen. Christopher Dodd, Connecticut Democrat, sermonizes about corporate greed and credit card companies' near-extortion. Nonetheless, Mr. Dodd managed to squeeze out of the corporate world a low-interest loan, a sweetheart deal for a vacation home in Ireland, and thousands in campaign donations.

Former senator and Cabinet nominee Tom Daschle of South Dakota was a big proponent of raising taxes to nationalize our health care system. The problem was that the populist Mr. Daschle both hated paying taxes and loved limousines -- and so avoided the former but welcomed the latter.

In the old days, critics of what we called the "system" were at least for the most part blue-collar workers, underpaid teachers or grass-roots politicians whose rather modest lives matched their angry populist rhetoric. Now the most vehement critics of America's purported sins are among the upper classes. These critics' parlor game has confused Americans about why they are being called polluters, racists and exploiters by those who have fared best in America.

Do the wealthy and the powerful lecture us about our wrongs because they know their own insider status ensures that they are exempt from the harsh medicine they advocate for others? Mr. Gore, a millionaire, is not much affected by higher taxes for his cap-and-trade crusade.

Or does the hypocrisy grow out of a sort of class snobbery? Do elites hector the crass middle class because its members lack their own taste, rare insight and privileged style? Judging from the police report, Mr. Gates seemed flabbergasted that the white Cambridge cop did not know who he was "messing" with.

Or is the new hypocrisy an eerie sort of psychological compensation at work? Perhaps the more Mr. Gore rails about carbon emissions, the more he can without guilt enjoy what emits them. The more Mr. Gates can cite racism, the more he himself is paid to spot it. And the more Tom Daschle wants to tax and spend for health care, the less bad he feels about his own chauffeur and tax avoidance.

Here's a little advice for all of America's wealthy critics: a little less hypocrisy, a little more appreciation of your good lives -- and then maybe the rest of us will listen to you a little more.

My opinion?
Telling hypocrites they need to change doesn?t work. Mostly because they won?t admit they're doing something wrong. If they were capable of admitting their faults they wouldn?t be hypocrites. Sorta like alcoholism, the first step is admitting you have a problem. After that it?s a pretty straightforward process.

Also, I'd like to point out that neither this article nor I am saying all liberals are hypocrites. In fact it seems to me that its staunch Republican conservatives who have the worst problems with hypocrisy. Which is a shame because I tend to lean towards the conservative side on most issues, and many folks automatically assume I am a hypocrite before a good discussion can take place.

Back to the article, I should note that a common definition of a liberal is: "A person whos interests aren't at stake at the moment."

When I read your commentary quickly before reading what the OP was about, I would have sworn you were talking about post Bush era conservatives. 100% honesty here. I was especially going to give you props for likening it to an addiction/disease. So... I am not optimistic both sides can come to an accord on anything anymore if we see the other side as they see us. Maybe it's time to realize we are what we hate, we are just dressed differently.

I am afraid that the past 8 years have polarized the country so much there may be no making things right again any time soon. Say what you will about Clinton but people didn't hate each other back in the 90's. Say what you will about Reagan, but people didn't hate each other in the 80's. What the hell happened? Bush? Obama? Gore? How the hell did this get politicized again?

Perhaps it's time the boisterous fringe on both sides to saunter back into obscurity so that middle earth can be at peace again?
 

DAPUNISHER

Super Moderator CPU Forum Mod and Elite Member
Super Moderator
Aug 22, 2001
31,779
31,790
146
Originally posted by: DaveSimmons
Al Gore doesn't practice what he preaches, but this is also a form of ad hominem -- "Al Gore pollutes too much therefore no one needs to worry about the Texas-sized island of garbage floating in the ocean."
A far too well reasoned post, to be here. It serves no ones political agenda, is based on logic, and provides no opportunity for pom pom shaking.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
Originally posted by: TheSkinsFan
wait, there are rich liberals?! :Q

That's craziness!!

Stop kidding around.

Ever heard of Warren Buffet? And conservatives also like to rail against George Soros.