Z, > But why should I care about that? At best, you're making an ad hominem argument.
When you think about the nature of their socialistic philosophies, you'll find that liberal elitists are already putting themselves in a class of their own, i.e. the decision-makers.
Sure, they say care about the poor and middle class, and some might actually be genuine in their beliefs, but many of their policies will ensure that they will remain in a class of their own. I don't believe most liberals are like that, but when the hypocrisy is so blatant and unapologetic, I tend to suspect ulterior motives among the elitists.
And these aren't just cases of failing to meet one's own high standards. These aren't momentary lapses in judgement or weaknesses in character. These are cases where they have built intellectual arguments defending their own hypocrisies. Such as supporting campaign finance reform, i.e. "get the money out of politics," then immediately contributing millions to a 527 through a loophole. Or holding stock in oil and profitting from it while denouncing oil profiteers. (At least no one will bother to defend Edwards living in a 28K ft2 house.)
Hence I'm not making an ad hominem attack. Instead, I'm attacking the windy, twisty, unapologetic arguments they've made just to cover themselves and condemn anyone whom they disagree with.
Like I said, the rules will never apply to them. And that's by design.
Tenchusatsu |
