(reads OP)
Dude, he’s just wanting to socialize his debts and doesn’t want to accept the socialization of anyone else’s. He’s like the poster boy for the GOPBaggers.
-Joe
So, here’s something I’ll never understand. Not paying child support is a bad thing. So, assuming Joe didn’t pay child support he owes, that’s enough reason to not like the guy.
So why stretch to make the argument that he’s a hypocrite? According to the OP, he seems to be (I) saying that the country shouldn’t cause other people (ie, our children) to pay for stuff we want now and (ii) incurring debt himself. There’s no hypocrisy there. If he were somehow causing his kids to incur debt, then he’d be a hypocrite.
People do this all the time with lying as well (ie, manufacturing some terrible argument that a politician they don’t like lied). I think the reason for both of these is that for some reason many people are not happy simply having an opinion (ie, Joe Walsh is a bad person) so they have to dress it up into an argument that he’s objectively a bad person (ie, Joe Walsh is a hypocrite). It’s very bizarre to me.
I don’t like many of Obama’s policies, and I can make policy arguments for why many of his policies would be a bad thing for society, but I would never manufacture some terrible argument that he lied or is a hypocrite–I’m simply happy with my opinion and don’t feel the need to try and elevate it into some objective determination.
I agree that the word hypocrisy is tossed around too frequently here with regard to politicians. However, it’s being used appropriately with regard to Walsh.
He’s saying we shouldn’t cause other people to pay for stuff we want now, and making other people (the custodial parents of his children) pay for stuff he wants now, like a house and a car and a seat in Congress.
Actually if your basic sympathy for his right wingness wasn’t blinding you, you wouldn’t be attempting stupidly fine distinctions to try to come up with some way he wasn’t a hypocrite.
He is a hypocrite because he is making an emotive argument about saddling children with debt (ie the message is "I’m a guy who cares deeply about children and their financial wellbeing) and at the same time he is massively late on paying his own children what he should (ie “I’m a guy who puts my children behind my personal financial priorities”.
It isn’t hard unless you are desperate not to see.
Well, that’s not what the OP is saying Joe Walsh is saying. All I’m saying is the OP’s argument that Joe Walsh is a hypocrite fails. Your argument doesn’t.
-
I already said I don’t like the fact that the guy owes back child support (assuming he in fact does and it is not otherwise excusable (i.e., he didn’t know he owed it or something)).
-
You are making the same mistake as the OP (and countless other people on this board) of assuming I’m defending the guy just because I’m pointing out that the OP’s argument doesn’t work.
-
Your last paragraph doesn’t work as an argument that Joe Walsh is a hypocrite–not paying back child support does not make his children owe anyone anything.
shrug So the OP doesn’t understand how child support works. Doesn’t negate the underlying point, which I’m sure you understood perfectly well before I explained it.
shrug I’m talking about a different point than the underlying point.
You’re not getting it. Go back and read more carefully. I know you aren’t defending the guy as such, you are just missing what would be totally obvious if you weren’t blinded by your predilictions.
The fundamental you are missing is that one doesn’t have to do or say something that exactly the mirror opposite of what you have previously said to be a hypocrite. Anyone but a dumbass or an idealogically blinded fool can see that Walsh is both saying a financial stressor should not be placed on children while placing a financial stressor on his children. If you can’t see why that is hypocritical you are stupider than is generally assumed around here.
Princhester, is there any physical pain associated with being as stupid as you are? Seems like there would be at that level.
People like different things, but in the James Gang Walsh did some fine playing. Didn’t go over the top, lotta tasteful stuff.
Some quotes from a Rolling Stone article:
[INDENT]Ask Jimmy Page about Joe, and he will say, “He has a tremendous feel for the instrument. I’ve loved his style since the early James Gang.” Or Eric Clapton: “He’s one of the best guitarists to surface in some time. I don’t listen to many records, but I listen to his.” Or Pete Townshend: “Joe Walsh is a fluid and intelligent player. There’re not many like that around.”[/INDENT]
And if you don’t like Walk Away or don’t think Life’s Been Good is funny, then we disagree. I think his music doesn’t suck shit, so it’s disappointing to see him get sucked into bullshit politics as described in the OP.
(insert smilie)
He agrees with Rand Rover, so he’s clearly not a hypocrite.
A hypocrite would be a person who benefits from an obscure tax code, who makes a fortune finding loopholes for people wishing to evade taxes, while at the same time arguing for a simple flat tax.
He’s decided after the fact that he doesn’t want to pay for obligations he has already incurred. It’s pretty slimy, but in what way is this inconsistent with his party’s stated political principles?
Eh? That’s not a hypocritical position. One can deplore a situation and still take advantage of it as long as it exists. For instance, I think the minimal US estate tax is stupid and that people who advocate its complete repeal are even stupider, but if I was old I’d probably still structure my assets to allow my heirs to benefit from it.
Yeah.
News flash
Another politician is a lying hypocritical scumbag.
Film at eleven.
"Well, he’s tellin’ us this, and he’s tellin’ us that.
Changes it every day.
Says it doesn’t matter.
Bases are loaded and Casey’s at bat.
Playin’ it play by play.
Time to change the batter."