If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Politico)   David Brock to wealthy liberals: So what if you're called a hypocrite? F*ck em   (politico.com) divider line 291
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

1756 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Jun 2014 at 9:51 AM (9 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



291 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-06-24 08:42:37 AM
There is no inherent hypocrisy in being a wealthy liberal.  The vast majority of liberals are not against inequity of outcome, they are against inequity of opportunity.
 
2014-06-24 08:57:35 AM

EvilEgg: There is no inherent hypocrisy in being a wealthy liberal.  The vast majority of liberals are not against inequity of outcome, they are against inequity of opportunity.


www.reactionimage.org
 
2014-06-24 09:06:50 AM
You cannot care for the poor unless you've given up all your belongings and wealth and have donned sackcloth.

Just the same as you cannot continually rattle your sabers for war if you sneaked by and avoided military service.
 
2014-06-24 09:07:12 AM
Wealthy liberals are not using their money to actively destroy opportunity.
 
2014-06-24 09:33:57 AM
"You're not in this room today trying to figure out how to rig the game so you can be free to make money poisoning little kids, and neither am I," Brock told donors this month at a conference in Santa Fe... "Subscribing to a false moral equivalence is giving the Kochs exactly what they want."

If anyone can listen to this without the cognitive dissonance causing massive brain trauma, it's a liberal.
 
2014-06-24 09:38:22 AM
Someone just got farkied as "jumped the derp."  Amazing it took me this long.
 
2014-06-24 09:52:58 AM

Lucky LaRue: "You're not in this room today trying to figure out how to rig the game so you can be free to make money poisoning little kids, and neither am I," Brock told donors this month at a conference in Santa Fe... "Subscribing to a false moral equivalence is giving the Kochs exactly what they want."

If anyone can listen to this without the cognitive dissonance causing massive brain trauma, it's a liberal.


Please, deconstruct this sentence to explain why you think it's "cognitive dissonance" to believe that it's not the money that counts, it's how you use it.
 
2014-06-24 09:53:47 AM
People are still listening to David Brooks? Like, ironically?
 
2014-06-24 09:53:56 AM

Lucky LaRue: "You're not in this room today trying to figure out how to rig the game so you can be free to make money poisoning little kids, and neither am I," Brock told donors this month at a conference in Santa Fe... "Subscribing to a false moral equivalence is giving the Kochs exactly what they want."

If anyone can listen to this without the cognitive dissonance causing massive brain trauma, it's a liberal.


Look, we already know you don't understand what a false equivalence is, but you're not making the point you think you are.
 
2014-06-24 09:54:12 AM

Diogenes: You cannot care for the poor unless you've given up all your belongings and wealth and have donned sackcloth.

Just the same as you cannot continually rattle your sabers for war if you sneaked by and avoided military service.


Exactly. This is why anthropogenic global warming is false: because Al Gore lives in a big house and flies in a plane a lot.
 
2014-06-24 09:54:27 AM

EyeballKid: People are still listening to David Brooks? Like, ironically?


(reads article)


OHHHHHHHHH....carry on.
 
2014-06-24 09:54:48 AM

EyeballKid: People are still listening to David Brooks? Like, ironically?


David  Brock. Not David  Brooks.
 
2014-06-24 09:56:07 AM

Rincewind53: Lucky LaRue: "You're not in this room today trying to figure out how to rig the game so you can be free to make money poisoning little kids, and neither am I," Brock told donors this month at a conference in Santa Fe... "Subscribing to a false moral equivalence is giving the Kochs exactly what they want."

If anyone can listen to this without the cognitive dissonance causing massive brain trauma, it's a liberal.

Please, deconstruct this sentence to explain why you think it's "cognitive dissonance" to believe that it's not the money that counts, it's how you use it.


ikanreed: Lucky LaRue: "You're not in this room today trying to figure out how to rig the game so you can be free to make money poisoning little kids, and neither am I," Brock told donors this month at a conference in Santa Fe... "Subscribing to a false moral equivalence is giving the Kochs exactly what they want."

If anyone can listen to this without the cognitive dissonance causing massive brain trauma, it's a liberal.

Look, we already know you don't understand what a false equivalence is, but you're not making the point you think you are.


How does this kid get so many bites all the time?
 
2014-06-24 09:57:14 AM
He's right. I said it in a thread yesterday. It's ok to play by the rules while simultaneously complaining about them. It would be foolish to give your political enemies a financial advantage out of some sort of moral dilemma about doing the same thing. Don't like so much money in politics? Use your money and influence to change the rules to get the money out. That's not hypocritical.
 
2014-06-24 09:57:34 AM

Rincewind53: Lucky LaRue: "You're not in this room today trying to figure out how to rig the game so you can be free to make money poisoning little kids, and neither am I," Brock told donors this month at a conference in Santa Fe... "Subscribing to a false moral equivalence is giving the Kochs exactly what they want."

If anyone can listen to this without the cognitive dissonance causing massive brain trauma, it's a liberal.

Please, deconstruct this sentence to explain why you think it's "cognitive dissonance" to believe that it's not the money that counts, it's how you use it.


Really?  Well, ok.. first this guy say that the liberals that have come to hear him speak are not there to "make money poisoning little kids" - the implication being that is how conservatives make their money, and liberal morality would never accept that.  Then he goes on to tell them how wrong/bad conservatives are for making false moral equivalencies..

That seems pretty clear-cut to me.
 
2014-06-24 09:58:05 AM

EvilEgg: There is no inherent hypocrisy in being a wealthy liberal.  The vast majority of liberals are not against inequity of outcome, they are against inequity of opportunity.


This.

Saborlas: Wealthy liberals are not using their money to actively destroy opportunity.


That.
 
2014-06-24 09:59:00 AM

EyeballKid: EyeballKid: People are still listening to David Brooks? Like, ironically?

(reads article)


OHHHHHHHHH....carry on.


When I first scanned the article, I wondered why the HELL David Brooks was wearing that wig.

// Then I wondered who let a "top big-money operative" out of the house with that hairdo.
 
2014-06-24 09:59:44 AM

Lucky LaRue: Rincewind53: Lucky LaRue: "You're not in this room today trying to figure out how to rig the game so you can be free to make money poisoning little kids, and neither am I," Brock told donors this month at a conference in Santa Fe... "Subscribing to a false moral equivalence is giving the Kochs exactly what they want."

If anyone can listen to this without the cognitive dissonance causing massive brain trauma, it's a liberal.

Please, deconstruct this sentence to explain why you think it's "cognitive dissonance" to believe that it's not the money that counts, it's how you use it.

Really?  Well, ok.. first this guy say that the liberals that have come to hear him speak are not there to "make money poisoning little kids" - the implication being that is how conservatives make their money, and liberal morality would never accept that.  Then he goes on to tell them how wrong/bad conservatives are for making false moral equivalencies..

That seems pretty clear-cut to me.


Are you having a stroke? Should we call 911?
 
2014-06-24 09:59:59 AM

EvilEgg: There is no inherent hypocrisy in being a wealthy liberal.  The vast majority of liberals are not against inequity of outcome, they are against inequity of opportunity.


Even if they were against inequality of outcome / income, they could be using their wealth to achieve better outcomes for lower-class Americans. There's no shame in taking advantage of an unfair system and then using the power it gave you to change it for the better.
 
2014-06-24 10:01:24 AM

Lucky LaRue: "You're not in this room today trying to figure out how to rig the game so you can be free to make money poisoning little kids, and neither am I," Brock told donors this month at a conference in Santa Fe... "Subscribing to a false moral equivalence is giving the Kochs exactly what they want."

If anyone can listen to this without the cognitive dissonance causing massive brain trauma, it's a liberal.


Oh bless your heart.
 
2014-06-24 10:01:25 AM
For a mere $1000 per month per hypocrite, I'll be happy to tell rich people they're not hypocrites. Payment in advance is expected. No, I'm not working for that hypocrite David Brock. His check bounced.
 
2014-06-24 10:01:32 AM
Hillary Clinton is a terrible candidate. Every time she speaks I just dread the idea of having to vote for her.
 
2014-06-24 10:02:08 AM
Sorry for the change in person, for any grammarians in the thread.
 
2014-06-24 10:02:46 AM
For anyone whose level of political sophistication can be summarized as "successful people are conservative; liberals are poor failures"... it is perfectly reasonable to assume that a liberal who is wealthy is also being hypocritical and/or wrong.

For people over the age of four, not so much.
 
2014-06-24 10:05:12 AM

Mr_Fabulous: For anyone whose level of political sophistication can be summarized as "successful people are conservative; liberals are poor failures"... it is perfectly reasonable to assume that a liberal who is wealthy is also being hypocritical and/or wrong.

For people over the age of four, not so much.


And, yet, the caricature of the conservative as poor, white, Southern trash has been abused by herbal teabaggers so much over the years, that liberals have internalized it as part of their core beliefs.
 
2014-06-24 10:06:13 AM

Lucky LaRue: Really?  Well, ok.. first this guy say that the liberals that have come to hear him speak are not there to "make money poisoning little kids" - the implication being that is how conservatives make their money, and liberal morality would never accept that.  Then he goes on to tell them how wrong/bad conservatives are for making false moral equivalencies..

That seems pretty clear-cut to me.


.... the point apparently went  entirely above your head. He's not talking about generalized badness of making false moral equivalencies, he's talking specifically about liberal concerns about using wealth.

David Brock was saying that liberals should not be afraid to use their money to support causes, because unlike conservatives, they are using their money to help  people, rather than using their money to help  business (evil businesses, which is where the "poisoning little kids" thing came into play).The false equivalency he was talking about, if you read the entire article, is the idea that liberals are hypocrites for spending in similar fashions to the Koch Brothers and the Sheldon Adelsons of the world. To expand even further, he's saying that if a liberal donates to a SuperPAC and a conservative donates to a SuperPAC, both are not equally morally culpable for injecting money into politics, because by his estimation, liberals intend to use the money/power to help the less fortunate, and conservatives intend to use the money/power to help the already fortunate.

Now do you see why you're getting piled on?
 
2014-06-24 10:06:22 AM
You want to talk hypocrisy? How about the rich bastards who claim to follow the teachings of somebody who repeatedly told people to give up their possessions and flat-out said that rich people are pretty much damned already?
 
2014-06-24 10:08:15 AM
Sure, there a Liberal hypocrites.  but let us do some 'math'.

most/all big companies are Conservative by their very nature. if you refute that, you haven't been around big business.  most of the dollars for political contributions come from big business or those who own big business (wealthy)

therefore, it would be very reasonable to assume that most of the dollars for political contributions come from Conservative sources.


ta dah!!

your math lesson for the day.
 
2014-06-24 10:08:18 AM

Lucky LaRue: And, yet, the caricature of the conservative as poor, white, Southern trash has been abused by herbal teabaggers so much over the years, that liberals have internalized it as part of their core beliefs.


Actually, no. What you described is the caricature of the  Tea Party, not the caricature of conservatives in general. The caricature of  conservatives is that they old, rich, and white.
 
2014-06-24 10:08:25 AM
David Brock to wealthy liberals: So what if you're called a hypocrite? F*ck em

FTFY Subby

Also, Liberal Politician and  Hypocrite are synonymous/redundant
 
2014-06-24 10:08:32 AM

EvilEgg: There is no inherent hypocrisy in being a wealthy liberal.  The vast majority of liberals are not against inequity of outcome, they are against inequity of opportunity.


Exactly.

Stacking the deck so that millions don't have that opportunity is bad, m'kay?
 
2014-06-24 10:09:23 AM

Diogenes: Someone just got farkied as "jumped the derp."  Amazing it took me this long.


hahahah remember what you were saying about him just the other day? I do.
 
2014-06-24 10:09:47 AM

EvilEgg: There is no inherent hypocrisy in being a wealthy liberal.  The vast majority of liberals are not against inequity of outcome, they are against inequity of opportunity.



you have to explain it to our CONservative friends.   they're a bit slow minded.
 
2014-06-24 10:10:28 AM
Rush was bloviatiing about this yesterday. To have his ilk consider me a hypocrite would be a compliment.

/but I'm not wealthy, so nobody cares
 
2014-06-24 10:10:35 AM

Saborlas: Wealthy liberals are not using their money to actively destroy opportunity.



Bingo!   you won.
 
2014-06-24 10:11:24 AM

Rincewind53: Lucky LaRue: Really?  Well, ok.. first this guy say that the liberals that have come to hear him speak are not there to "make money poisoning little kids" - the implication being that is how conservatives make their money, and liberal morality would never accept that.  Then he goes on to tell them how wrong/bad conservatives are for making false moral equivalencies..

That seems pretty clear-cut to me.

.... the point apparently went  entirely above your head. He's not talking about generalized badness of making false moral equivalencies, he's talking specifically about liberal concerns about using wealth.

David Brock was saying that liberals should not be afraid to use their money to support causes, because unlike conservatives, they are using their money to help  people, rather than using their money to help  business (evil businesses, which is where the "poisoning little kids" thing came into play).The false equivalency he was talking about, if you read the entire article, is the idea that liberals are hypocrites for spending in similar fashions to the Koch Brothers and the Sheldon Adelsons of the world. To expand even further, he's saying that if a liberal donates to a SuperPAC and a conservative donates to a SuperPAC, both are not equally morally culpable for injecting money into politics, because by his estimation, liberals intend to use the money/power to help the less fortunate, and conservatives intend to use the money/power to help the already fortunate.

Now do you see why you're getting piled on?


Although a bit naive, that is the most amazing rationalization I've seen in a while.  I give you kudos, though.  Most of the liberals that post in these threads don't (or are incapable) of even the convoluted reasoning you provide and, instead, make themselves content with immature knuckle-dragging and (as you say) "piling on".
 
2014-06-24 10:11:43 AM
FACT: Liberals want to poison kids with arugula and broccoli while republicans simply want to feed them pizza, which is a vegetable, in for profit prisons made of asbestos. BSABSVR
 
2014-06-24 10:11:54 AM

meat0918: EvilEgg: There is no inherent hypocrisy in being a wealthy liberal.  The vast majority of liberals are not against inequity of outcome, they are against inequity of opportunity.

Exactly.

Stacking the deck so that millions don't have that opportunity is bad, m'kay?



Giggle....snort.

Too funny...
 
2014-06-24 10:12:01 AM

theknuckler_33: He's right. I said it in a thread yesterday. It's ok to play by the rules while simultaneously complaining about them. It would be foolish to give your political enemies a financial advantage out of some sort of moral dilemma about doing the same thing. Don't like so much money in politics? Use your money and influence to change the rules to get the money out. That's not hypocritical.



That is called common sense and looking ahead.
 
2014-06-24 10:13:09 AM

Chilkoot Charlie: Rush was bloviatiing about this yesterday. To have his ilk consider me a hypocrite would be a compliment.

/but I'm not wealthy, so nobody cares



the irony.   you only count in 'murica if you can afford to count.   they call it 'democracy' or something like that.
 
2014-06-24 10:13:16 AM

EvilEgg: There is no inherent hypocrisy in being a wealthy liberal.  The vast majority of liberals are not against inequity of outcome, they are against inequity of opportunity.


"Equality of opportunity" is a meaningless, empty phrase. Apart from the fact that money buys you privileged and advantage in every stage of your life (otherwise what good would it be?), "opportunity" is essentially unmeasurable. You can never show whether or not a poor kid really had the same "opportunities" throughout his life as his rich counterpart. The only thing that's measurable, and therefore the only thing that's meaningful is equality of outcome.

That said, there's nothing hypocritical about being a wealthy liberal or even a wealthy communist. It's perfectly reasonable to be critical of a social system even while benefiting from that system.
 
2014-06-24 10:14:35 AM

Jackson Herring: Diogenes: Someone just got farkied as "jumped the derp."  Amazing it took me this long.

hahahah remember what you were saying about him just the other day? I do.

Yeah

.  *blushes*

Wonder what took me so long to wake up.  I thought he was like another - OK up until the blah man's victory.  Then he went from conservative (but fair and honest) to off the rails.  He's now farkied as "Lost Cause."
 
2014-06-24 10:16:10 AM

Brick-House: David Brock to wealthy liberals: So what if you're called a hypocrite? F*ck em

FTFY Subby

Also, Liberal Politician and  Hypocrite are synonymous/redundant


Your posts always bring such value to a thread!  I don't know how you can pack such wisdom and thought into such tiny little packets of win!

/barf
 
2014-06-24 10:17:04 AM
Yeah, anyway back to the article, we are talking about elections now, not someone's personal masochistic fetish at the moment, and the POINT is that rich Liberals, who would like to see less influence from the rich in politics, are faced with a situation where if they stick to their beliefs that rich should not use their money to influence politics, then they are effectively ceding the battlefield to rich conservatives who have no such beliefs and using that position to make it easier for the rich to use their money to affect elections.  Conservatives would love to see rich Democrats stay above the fray because it means more power for them, so they try to use biatch-slap politics to label the rich Democrats as hypocrites hoping this is enough to shame them.  But rich Democrats should not feel any shame, given that the people trying to shame them into inaction are a bunch of shameless, power hungry, cons.

Now, back to the show of trying to educate the uneducatable.
 
2014-06-24 10:17:15 AM
Many people who are wealthy liberals made their money in ways that requires middle class and poor people with discretionary spending, like technology or entertainment. The conservative war on the middle class and poor cuts off their customer base at the knees.
 
2014-06-24 10:17:53 AM

Diogenes: Wonder what took me so long to wake up.  I thought he was like another - OK up until the blah man's victory.  Then he went from conservative (but fair and honest) to off the rails.  He's now farkied as "Lost Cause."


welcome to roughly four or five years ago

31.media.tumblr.com
 
2014-06-24 10:17:56 AM
Capitalism and it's Choir had better get its sh*t together if it wants to stay around.  as long as citizens see that the game is rigged, Capitalism and its preachers are going bye bye.  this Nation left England to get away from Aristocracy and inherited wealth that plagued most of Europe.  Nobility will get you no where fast in a Nation of citizens armed to the Teeth.


heads up,  Blue Bloods.  the clock is ticking...................
 
2014-06-24 10:18:26 AM
I don't hate wealthy Republicans or Democrats. So, I'm on board with half of what he says.
 
2014-06-24 10:19:05 AM
i199.photobucket.com

My hair is a shore-break wave.


/your argument is invalid

 
2014-06-24 10:19:05 AM

HeartBurnKid: You want to talk hypocrisy? How about the rich bastards who claim to follow the teachings of somebody who repeatedly told people to give up their possessions and flat-out said that rich people are pretty much damned already?


Having money is not the issue. Using that money to further your own interests at the expense of others is seen by many as a despicable act. Bill Gates is one of the wealthiest people on this planet and dedicates so much money to helping eradicate diseases like malaria and working on education in third world countries, nothing wrong with that. Using your money to spread questionable or false information to garner support for your attacks on environmental laws so you further pollute public lands and waterways is farking evil.
 
Displayed 50 of 291 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report