Well, let me get this straight. You are a politician/priest/busybody who is convinced that there is something wrong with society. However, you are guilty of this particular sin. Well then, fucknuts, don’t criticize the behavior. I know nothing is going to stop you from engaging in hypocrisy, but at least appoint someone to act as a Spokes-sock, rather then make the statement yourself. That way, we can actually point out the problems with your claims on their own merits, rather then point and laugh at what a hypocrite you are.
Hell, how many “family values” people have been caught in acts of blatant hypocrisy by now? Have we cleared a million? A few just off the top of my head:
-Jimmy Swaggart (repeatedly caught with cheap whores)
The Three Witches from the Clinton Impeachment who wailed about the evils of adultery- -Henry Hyde, Bob Barr and Rena Chenoweth- all exposed as adulterers and worse by Sleaze Fuhrer Larry Flynt. (There was also the militant pro-Life activist who was a patroness of Paula Jones who it turns out had had two abortions, one after she became an activist.)
-Jim Bakker
-Ronald Reagan (the great champion of family values was also the first divorced president, and a deadbeat dad and married his second wife when she was already pregnant)
-Bill Cosby (proven adulterer and accused of worse)
-William Bennett (the “Bookie of Virtues”)
-NJ Governor, Spokane Mayor and Virginia Congressman all involved in gay scandals
It’s not even difficult to get a good list of 100 going.
And hardly new. John Atherton (1598-1640) was a 17th century Anglican clergyman who labored hard to get sodomy made punishable by death in England and Ireland, and of course guess who one of the first people to receive capital punishment for sodomy was.
And generally speaking, the more rigid the values promoted, the kinkier the scandal. If Rick Santorum or James Dobson ever fall it’ll probably be a scandal that makes leather S&M fetishists around the country say “now that’s fuckin’ weird!”
I don’t agree that Mr. Bennet deserves inclusion on this list. So far as I’m aware, he never condemned gambling prior to the revelationt hat he was a hard-core gambler.
I agree with your main point, and am familiar with most of your examples. But RR as a deadbeat dad? (I understand that he didn’t give much attention to his kids, and maybe that’s all you meant, but “deadbeat dad” connotes, at least to me, that he refused/failed to pay child support. Did he?)
He most definitely deserves to be on Sampiro’s list. Stolen from someone else: “A hypocrite loves to deny to others what he himself indulges in.” His hypocrisy is not in condemning gambling (Even though he does that by virtue of being a Christian), but in condemning vices, but actually having never mastered his own, or having admitted he had a problem. Perhaps if he admitted his problem in the context of the book he would not be a hypocrite, but instead it was about how he is so freakin’ perfect, and you can be to, if you just buy his book.
Just out of interest, i was aware that the Spokane mayor and the Virgina congressman had previously sopken out against homosexuality. Was this also the case with the New Jersey governor?
Dunno, Random. Reagan was ordered to pay $500/month child support to Jane Wyman after their divorce in 1948, but I can’t find anything which says whether he paid it or not.
I’m not sure how good Reagan was at paying child support, but “deadbeat dad” can also refer to dads who generally ignore their kids after the divorce. According to his kids (even his daughter with Nancy), Reagan qualifies as this one.
Cite for the proposition that “by virtue of being a Christian” he condemns gambling?
There may well be some sects of Christianity that condemn gambling, but it is certainly not a tenet of Christianity to eschew gambling… and a good thing too, as my hosts in Atlantic City would undoubtedly agree with every time I arrive.
And your idea (or whatever you have in your head in place of normal peoples’ ideas) with regards to hypocrisy and vice is absurd. Bennet did not condemn “all vice;” he inveighed against specific vices. If he is shown to have those vices, then he is a hypocrite. If he indulges in other vices, he may be unwise, but he is no hypocrite. By your own ridiculous defintion: “A hypocrite loves to deny to others what he himself indulges in.” He never denied gambling to others; he never denied “all vices” to others. What, specifically, did he “deny to others” and yet indulge in himself?
True, true. But all that serves is to clarify that even when he tries to make a cogent point, his failure is not due to grammatical or spelling-based misunderstandings.
Perhaps I shouldn’t be so harsh. His postings are improving – dramatically. But the sine qua non of playing here is having - and defending - an actual point. I’m pleased to see his improvement in presentation; thus far, however, it simply highlights the lack of substance contained within.
