I need a name for these kind of people

[Narmer]

Individually, the men and women listed below may lie on the fringe of our society, albeit still accepted despite the reservations of others. What makes them special is the conflict they have within to publicly say one thing and do another. Does it tear them up inside? Are they content with their own lives? What sort of complex do they have?

BTW, seeing that there are so many of these types of people in the conservative movement, I may start to second guess who they really are.


Ted Haggard

Mary Cheney

David Vitter

Bob Allen

Mark Foley

Special Case #1
George Bush

Special Case#2
Poor people who continually vote Republican/Conservative

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally posted by: Narmer
Topic Title: I need a name for these kind of people

Individually, the men and women listed below may lie on the fringe of our society, albeit still accepted despite the reservations of others.

What makes them special is the conflict they have within to publicly say one thing and do another.


BTW, seeing that there are so many of these types of people in the conservative movement, I may start to second guess who they really are.


Ted Haggard

Mary Cheney

David Vitter

Bob Allen

Mark Foley

Special Case #1
George Bush

Special Case#2
Poor people who continually vote Republican/Conservative

According to Hannity they are "Great Americans".

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

It is in the nature of humans to have an ideal standard. That does not automatically mean they themselves can meet it. It is also a fact that people will espouse a position in public to gain power or wealth. This applies to liberals as well as conservatives. If the word you are looking for is hypocrite add Ted Kennedy to it. My particular beef is that the current crop of politicians in the Rep party do indeed claim to not just espouse a higher standard, but meet is. Not so. They are just as corrupt as the Dems who by no means deserve praise.

Regarding special case #2- People who are poor sometimes have other considerations than their income. Sometimes they have belief contrary to a particular party or philosophy. Not everyone agrees that a fetus is just tissue. If they believe that abortion is morally wrong and feel strongly so, then they aren't going to vote for people who espouse that idea. To be sure some swallow the bait regarding terrorism etc, however to paint with too broad a brush would be a mistake. Sometimes it isnt just about money.

 

[Mursilis]

"Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue."
? François duc de la Rochefoucauld, French epigrammatist (1613-1680)

 

[Isla]

I call them Lost Souls.

 

[Mursilis]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
Regarding special case #2- People who are poor sometimes have other considerations than their income. Sometimes they have belief contrary to a particular party or philosophy. Not everyone agrees that a fetus is just tissue. If they believe that abortion is morally wrong and feel strongly so, then they aren't going to vote for people who espouse that idea. To be sure some swallow the bait regarding terrorism etc, however to paint with too broad a brush would be a mistake. Sometimes it isnt just about money.

Well put.
To the OP, maybe some poor who vote GOP are actually looking beyond self-interest, towards what they consider to be in the best interest of the nation as a whole? Is that too shocking to believe? I think people voting *only* in their self-interest is what brought us to our current point.
I'm reminded of a time I lived in the Newport News, VA, area in the early 1990's, when the military was downsizing, closing bases and scaling back future purchases. One of the primary employers in that region is Newport News Shipbuilders, and their main customer was the US Navy. The shipyard was facing a loss of ship orders from the Navy canceling orders, and there were many calls for the region's Congressional delegation to press the Navy to order new ships at the old, Cold War-era rate, a rate the Navy already determined it did not need to maintain. It was a classic case of self-interest vs. national interest; many of the locals wanted the Navy to continue to order ships it did not want or need (and who can blame someone for wanting to keep their job?), but how was that good for the nation, who would have to foot the bill?

 

[CaptnKirk]

What all of them have in common is that they are Rebublicans.
Republicans already have a word that they use to describe people with those personal behavior defects - it's 'Predators'.

 

[Bumrush99]

Hypocrites of the highest magnitude.

Degenerates that seek redemption by punishing and talking down to people that they view as degenerate in order to boost their flawed sense of morality.

 

[Bumrush99]

Jim Bakker

A real sick f*cker- Swaggert

Look an entire list

 

[JD50]

Sorry to break up your retarded partisan rant, but maybe you should include the poor inner city dwellers that still vote for Democrats, even though cities are still in horrible shape. Why would you keep voting for the party that has turned your city to shit?

Baltimore City for example, something like a 30 percent drop out rate, murders are up higher than ever, Dems have controlled the city for decades, but they just keep on voting them in. Pretty dumb don't ya think? Or do they not count since its not Republicans/conservatives?

 

[Infohawk]

Originally posted by: Mursilis
"Hypocrisy is the homage vice pays to virtue."
? François duc de la Rochefoucauld, French epigrammatist (1613-1680)

:thumbsup:

 

[CaptnKirk]

Another term that comes to mind for those type of people is 'Assholes'.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: JD50
Sorry to break up your retarded partisan rant, but maybe you should include the poor inner city dwellers that still vote for Democrats, even though cities are still in horrible shape. Why would you keep voting for the party that has turned your city to shit?

Baltimore City for example, something like a 30 percent drop out rate, murders are up higher than ever, Dems have controlled the city for decades, but they just keep on voting them in. Pretty dumb don't ya think? Or do they not count since its not Republicans/conservatives?

Don't forget Detroit: The Incredible Disappearing City!
And those folks STILL vote for the same idiots/criminals every time...

OP... Good work. You managed to find six very public cases out of millions of good people and then proceed to not so subtly paint the right with them all.

Are they content with their own lives? What sort of complex do they have?

I'm sure, with the possible exception of Mary Cheney, the short list of people you posted are deeply flawed individuals with serious identity issues that they need to work out. Most of them have lived a life of conflict for a long time and now that their secret is out they need to deal with the issue of such private things becoming public as well as with their identity issues. Are they happy? Hard to say. You'd have to ask them.

BTW... You conveniently forgot someone on your list... James McGreevey

 

[Narmer]

To Mursilis, JD, and Whoozyerdaddy, my point about the poor is that the Republican Party is against things that would help the poor tremendously. Things like higher wages; healthcare; education; and fixing the tax code that gives massive breaks to the rich while saddling the poor and middle class with the tax burden. You can criticize blacks, but at least they vote for a party that seeks to help them. Before the 1940s it was the Republican Party, now it is the Democratic Party that actively supports the black community.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: JD50
Sorry to break up your retarded partisan rant, but maybe you should include the poor inner city dwellers that still vote for Democrats, even though cities are still in horrible shape. Why would you keep voting for the party that has turned your city to shit?

Baltimore City for example, something like a 30 percent drop out rate, murders are up higher than ever, Dems have controlled the city for decades, but they just keep on voting them in. Pretty dumb don't ya think? Or do they not count since its not Republicans/conservatives?

Don't forget Detroit: The Incredible Disappearing City!
And those folks STILL vote for the same idiots/criminals every time...

OP... Good work. You managed to find six very public cases out of millions of good people and then proceed to not so subtly paint the right with them all.

Are they content with their own lives? What sort of complex do they have?

I'm sure, with the possible exception of Mary Cheney, the short list of people you posted are deeply flawed individuals with serious identity issues that they need to work out. Most of them have lived a life of conflict for a long time and now that their secret is out they need to deal with the issue of such private things becoming public as well as with their identity issues. Are they happy? Hard to say. You'd have to ask them.

BTW... You conveniently forgot someone on your list... James McGreevey

Last time I checked, Mr McGreevy wasn't actively trying to inhibit the rights of homosexuals.

EDIT: Oh, and those cases were the ones that just came to my mind. I'm sure there are countless others.

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: Narmer
To Mursilis, JD, and Whoozyerdaddy, my point about the poor is that the Republican Party is against things that would help the poor tremendously. Things like higher wages; healthcare; education; and fixing the tax code that gives massive breaks to the rich while saddling the poor and middle class with the tax burden. You can criticize blacks, but at least they vote for a party that seeks to help them. Before the 1940s it was the Republican Party, now it is the Democratic Party that actively supports the black community.

Democrats have controlled inner cities for decades have achieved NOTHING.
Didn?t Obama go to New Orleans recently and talk about NO was bad before Katrina? He seems to forget that fellow Democrats run the city and have for years.

And yet people like you blame the problems of these cities on Republicans?

Look at New York, ran by Democrats for years and was falling apart. A Republican mayor takes over and the city turns around. Hmmmm.

 

[BoberFett]

Originally posted by: Narmer
To Mursilis, JD, and Whoozyerdaddy, my point about the poor is that the Republican Party is against things that would help the poor tremendously. Things like higher wages; healthcare; education; and fixing the tax code that gives massive breaks to the rich while saddling the poor and middle class with the tax burden. You can criticize blacks, but at least they vote for a party that seeks to help them. Before the 1940s it was the Republican Party, now it is the Democratic Party that actively supports the black community.

What have the Democrats done for the middle class lately?

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: Narmer
To Mursilis, JD, and Whoozyerdaddy, my point about the poor is that the Republican Party is against things that would help the poor tremendously. Things like higher wages; healthcare; education; and fixing the tax code that gives massive breaks to the rich while saddling the poor and middle class with the tax burden. You can criticize blacks, but at least they vote for a party that seeks to help them. Before the 1940s it was the Republican Party, now it is the Democratic Party that actively supports the black community.

Democrats have controlled inner cities for decades have achieved NOTHING.
Didn?t Obama go to New Orleans recently and talk about NO was bad before Katrina? He seems to forget that fellow Democrats run the city and have for years.

And yet people like you blame the problems of these cities on Republicans?

Look at New York, ran by Democrats for years and was falling apart. A Republican mayor takes over and the city turns around. Hmmmm.

Achieved nothing? So I guess all the improvements in the inner city are either non-existant or they exist because of Republicans, right? Oh, before you jump on NYC, Perhaps I should re-direct your eyes to the mighty south, some of the poorest places in this country (and in the Americas). Those have been ran by Republicans.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: BoberFett

Originally posted by: Narmer
To Mursilis, JD, and Whoozyerdaddy, my point about the poor is that the Republican Party is against things that would help the poor tremendously. Things like higher wages; healthcare; education; and fixing the tax code that gives massive breaks to the rich while saddling the poor and middle class with the tax burden. You can criticize blacks, but at least they vote for a party that seeks to help them. Before the 1940s it was the Republican Party, now it is the Democratic Party that actively supports the black community.

What have the Democrats done for the middle class lately?

They just got back in power after years of being in the wilderness because of America's intoxication with the GWOT. But you can check out the Clinton years for improvements for the poor and middle class.

 

[IEC]

Originally posted by: Hayabusa Rider
It is in the nature of humans to have an ideal standard. That does not automatically mean they themselves can meet it. It is also a fact that people will espouse a position in public to gain power or wealth. This applies to liberals as well as conservatives. If the word you are looking for is hypocrite add Ted Kennedy to it. My particular beef is that the current crop of politicians in the Rep party do indeed claim to not just espouse a higher standard, but meet is. Not so. They are just as corrupt as the Dems who by no means deserve praise.

Regarding special case #2- People who are poor sometimes have other considerations than their income. Sometimes they have belief contrary to a particular party or philosophy. Not everyone agrees that a fetus is just tissue. If they believe that abortion is morally wrong and feel strongly so, then they aren't going to vote for people who espouse that idea. To be sure some swallow the bait regarding terrorism etc, however to paint with too broad a brush would be a mistake. Sometimes it isnt just about money.

Agreed, many times a strongly-held belief can be the motivating factor. However, I would argue that some educated "poor people" (I still consider myself well-off compared to people in many other countries) such as myself realize that true conservatism (read: classical conservatism, not the neo-conservatism radical Republicans are preaching today) believes in limited government, limited spending and less taxes. That would be very helpful to a working-class citizen who currently has almost 1/3 of his/her paycheck taken away by the government to pay for hopelessly broken programs (think Social Security).

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Narmer
To Mursilis, JD, and Whoozyerdaddy, my point about the poor is that the Republican Party is against things that would help the poor tremendously. Things like higher wages; healthcare; education; and fixing the tax code that gives massive breaks to the rich while saddling the poor and middle class with the tax burden. You can criticize blacks, but at least they vote for a party that seeks to help them. Before the 1940s it was the Republican Party, now it is the Democratic Party that actively supports the black community.

Wow, saying that Republicians are against higher wages, healthcare and education is pretty damn ignorant. Republicans, well, conservatives, just believe that it shouldn't be the government to take care of all of these things, saying that they are against them is just dumb.

BTW, I'm not cirticizing blacks, I'm criticizing poor inner city folks which happen to be mostly black, it has nothing to do with race. Sorry, Democrats own the problems in the inner city and they have done an absolutely horrible job, you can't deny that, so don't you think its pretty dumb to keep voting the people into office that have been screwing up the cities for decades? Or maybe could it be that these people are quite happy living off of government hand outs? Could it have anything to do with Dems offering to take care of these people without any personal responsibility? Nahhh....couldn't be that....

Just curious, but which party do you think benefits from people staying poor and in the city?

 

[Hacp]

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Narmer
To Mursilis, JD, and Whoozyerdaddy, my point about the poor is that the Republican Party is against things that would help the poor tremendously. Things like higher wages; healthcare; education; and fixing the tax code that gives massive breaks to the rich while saddling the poor and middle class with the tax burden. You can criticize blacks, but at least they vote for a party that seeks to help them. Before the 1940s it was the Republican Party, now it is the Democratic Party that actively supports the black community.

Wow, saying that Republicians are against higher wages, healthcare and education is pretty damn ignorant. Republicans, well, conservatives, just believe that it shouldn't be the government to take care of all of these things, saying that they are against them is just dumb.

BTW, I'm not cirticizing blacks, I'm criticizing poor inner city folks which happen to be mostly black, it has nothing to do with race. Sorry, Democrats own the problems in the inner city and they have done an absolutely horrible job, you can't deny that, so don't you think its pretty dumb to keep voting the people into office that have been screwing up the cities for decades? Or maybe could it be that these people are quite happy living off of government hand outs? Could it have anything to do with Dems offering to take care of these people without any personal responsibility? Nahhh....couldn't be that....

Just curious, but which party do you think benefits from people staying poor and in the city?

I'm guessing the private sector will be providing everyone education and higher wages, along with the 70 hour work week and dissapearing lunch breaks.

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: Hacp

Originally posted by: JD50

Originally posted by: Narmer
To Mursilis, JD, and Whoozyerdaddy, my point about the poor is that the Republican Party is against things that would help the poor tremendously. Things like higher wages; healthcare; education; and fixing the tax code that gives massive breaks to the rich while saddling the poor and middle class with the tax burden. You can criticize blacks, but at least they vote for a party that seeks to help them. Before the 1940s it was the Republican Party, now it is the Democratic Party that actively supports the black community.

Wow, saying that Republicians are against higher wages, healthcare and education is pretty damn ignorant. Republicans, well, conservatives, just believe that it shouldn't be the government to take care of all of these things, saying that they are against them is just dumb.

BTW, I'm not cirticizing blacks, I'm criticizing poor inner city folks which happen to be mostly black, it has nothing to do with race. Sorry, Democrats own the problems in the inner city and they have done an absolutely horrible job, you can't deny that, so don't you think its pretty dumb to keep voting the people into office that have been screwing up the cities for decades? Or maybe could it be that these people are quite happy living off of government hand outs? Could it have anything to do with Dems offering to take care of these people without any personal responsibility? Nahhh....couldn't be that....

Just curious, but which party do you think benefits from people staying poor and in the city?

I'm guessing the private sector will be providing everyone education and higher wages, along with the 70 hour work week and dissapearing lunch breaks.

Aren't most jobs in the private sector right now? I don't know anyone that has 70 hour work weeks and no lunch breaks....But hey, maybe you're right, the government could force all employers to pay everyone $50 an hour, then we can get rid of those pesky low wage jobs and everyone will be able to afford to live in a nice, crime free area, with a big house and two cars. Wait, but then everyone would be rich and turn into evil Republicans. So much for that plan.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but our public schools have been ruled by Democrats for quite some time now, you know, those public schools that have been getting worse and worse...

Edit - BTW, I'm not blaming all of this bad stuff on Democrats, some of you people just act as if Democrats are our saviours and can solve everything, which is obviously not the case.

 

[Whoozyerdaddy]

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: JD50
Sorry to break up your retarded partisan rant, but maybe you should include the poor inner city dwellers that still vote for Democrats, even though cities are still in horrible shape. Why would you keep voting for the party that has turned your city to shit?

Baltimore City for example, something like a 30 percent drop out rate, murders are up higher than ever, Dems have controlled the city for decades, but they just keep on voting them in. Pretty dumb don't ya think? Or do they not count since its not Republicans/conservatives?

Don't forget Detroit: The Incredible Disappearing City!
And those folks STILL vote for the same idiots/criminals every time...

OP... Good work. You managed to find six very public cases out of millions of good people and then proceed to not so subtly paint the right with them all.

Are they content with their own lives? What sort of complex do they have?

I'm sure, with the possible exception of Mary Cheney, the short list of people you posted are deeply flawed individuals with serious identity issues that they need to work out. Most of them have lived a life of conflict for a long time and now that their secret is out they need to deal with the issue of such private things becoming public as well as with their identity issues. Are they happy? Hard to say. You'd have to ask them.

BTW... You conveniently forgot someone on your list... James McGreevey

Last time I checked, Mr McGreevy wasn't actively trying to inhibit the rights of homosexuals.

EDIT: Oh, and those cases were the ones that just came to my mind. I'm sure there are countless others.

No... that wasn't your question. Your question was...

What makes them special is the conflict they have within to publicly say one thing and do another. Does it tear them up inside? Are they content with their own lives? What sort of complex do they have?

Certainly Mary Cheney hasn't actively campaigned against gays. Or was she doing that while tring to have a baby with her lover?

McGreevy fits perfectly into that mold. His public persona was as a loyal husband and father. All the while he was handing out BJs to random guys at truck stops and rest areas. Are you really trying to say that he had no inner conflict with that? Good lord...

He's a perfect fit for your list. But, since he's not a Republican, and therefore throws your troll off its intended target, you chose to ignore him and continue to do so.

If you have an ounce of intellectual honesty you'll put him on your list.

 

[Narmer]

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: Narmer

Originally posted by: Whoozyerdaddy

Originally posted by: JD50
Sorry to break up your retarded partisan rant, but maybe you should include the poor inner city dwellers that still vote for Democrats, even though cities are still in horrible shape. Why would you keep voting for the party that has turned your city to shit?

Baltimore City for example, something like a 30 percent drop out rate, murders are up higher than ever, Dems have controlled the city for decades, but they just keep on voting them in. Pretty dumb don't ya think? Or do they not count since its not Republicans/conservatives?

Don't forget Detroit: The Incredible Disappearing City!
And those folks STILL vote for the same idiots/criminals every time...

OP... Good work. You managed to find six very public cases out of millions of good people and then proceed to not so subtly paint the right with them all.

Are they content with their own lives? What sort of complex do they have?

I'm sure, with the possible exception of Mary Cheney, the short list of people you posted are deeply flawed individuals with serious identity issues that they need to work out. Most of them have lived a life of conflict for a long time and now that their secret is out they need to deal with the issue of such private things becoming public as well as with their identity issues. Are they happy? Hard to say. You'd have to ask them.

BTW... You conveniently forgot someone on your list... James McGreevey

Last time I checked, Mr McGreevy wasn't actively trying to inhibit the rights of homosexuals.

EDIT: Oh, and those cases were the ones that just came to my mind. I'm sure there are countless others.

No... that wasn't your question. Your question was...

What makes them special is the conflict they have within to publicly say one thing and do another. Does it tear them up inside? Are they content with their own lives? What sort of complex do they have?

Certainly Mary Cheney hasn't actively campaigned against gays. Or was she doing that while tring to have a baby with her lover?

McGreevy fits perfectly into that mold. His public persona was as a loyal husband and father. All the while he was handing out BJs to random guys at truck stops and rest areas. Are you really trying to say that he had no inner conflict with that? Good lord...

He's a perfect fit for your list. But, since he's not a Republican, and therefore throws your troll off its intended target, you chose to ignore him and continue to do so.

If you have an ounce of intellectual honesty you'll put him on your list.

Like I said, these people may be on the fringe of society (and nmay have other conflicts), but the ones I mentioned specifically are those that are publicly AGAINST the actions they do in private. Again, Mc.Greevy was never anti-gay. Besides, there are quite a few men that have wives but sexually attracted to other men. If they were actively suppressing the rights of homosexuals, they would be on my list.