HOME | DD
Conservatoons — Me a Hypocrite?
Published: 2007-07-28 17:00:17 +0000 UTC; Views: 1577; Favourites: 19; Downloads: 5
Redirect to original
Description
*Related content
Comments: 40
It's worse when you catch out your teacher topping up a thermos flask with silvertop gin
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Much of the conservative media is just like this.
Complete hypocrites.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
I sure am~
You should try it sometime, you might learn something.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
"American dictionary corporation of America?"
So the liberal is a hypocrite, but the conservative is redundant?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
It's a comic. Get in the game.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Well..no duh. But the word "America" being in there twice implies that the conservative is redundant.
Maybe you should pay better attention to detail? I mean, comics and messages could be interpreted in many more ways than one.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
see my above comment
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
good one and its true libs for the most part are hypocrates@@ its frustrating especially when they want them to 'do as i say not as i do'
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yeah, case in point: Hollywood lefties. Professional phonies being phony. Whooda thunk?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Yes of course! All liberals are hypocrites! It's not like the country's being run by one of the biggest ones ever, or the vice-president is so much of one , he supports his daughter, but votes against giving her rights, no, no, no!
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Homosexuals have the same rights as everyone else. We do not need special laws for bedroom behavior. And yeah, liberals are hypocrites. 1. Pro-Abortion but anti death penalty. 2. NOW was silent during all the Clinton Zipper-gate scandals. 3. Filty rich Hollywood mistrels lecture the masses about their "carbon footprint" while leaving a "carbon crater" themselves. 4. liberals give less to charity than conservatives. 5. To liberals: government is always the problem - Their solution is more taxes and bigger government. ??? Is it the problem or the answer? - it depends on their mood. I could fill volumes. please grow up. think before you whine. Have a nice day.
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
And being pro-death penalty but anti-abortion isn't being a hypocrite? It goes both ways pal. You kill full grown human beings but you want to protect insentient clumps of cells. I fail to see how that makes liberals the hypocrites but not you. (by the way, I'm both pro-death penalty AND pro-choice.)
You claim to want little government involvement, but you think gay people and women shouldn't be able to do what they want with their own bodies and private lives. ??? That doesn't make any more sense either.
Face it: Both parties are subject to hypocrisy, not just the one that opposes your beliefs.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
1. an adult has Free Will, a baby does not.
2. Gov't should not be in the bedroom at all. It certainly should not endorse behavior that is not good for society.
3. Libs epitomize hypocracy: carbon credits, rich libs railing about the rich, accusations of intolerance when they shout down conservative speakers, hollywood phonies who make a living being hypocrites are all libs, etc. etc.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
1. That's because adults are sentient, fetuses are not. They can't even feel pain until about 6 weeks into the pregnancy, due to lack of a functioning nervous system and all.
2. Of course the government shouldn't be in the bedroom, though I don't see what you mean by not "endorsing" it. I don't think the government "endorses" any sort of sex. What sort of relationships and families they value or discriminate against is another story however.
3. It seems to be you're only wailing on rich liberals. I never really cared about many celebrities in general regardless of their politics, and I certainly wouldn't go as far as to say ALL Hollywood phonies are liberal. The majority of liberals however are not top celebrities, nor are the majority of people in general.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
And you too, sir/madam.
And by the way, I'm not a liberal, just to let you know. and I'm sure that you do not care, but I'd like to pass that bit o' info along.
But I would have to argue about gays having the same rights. When was the last time you heard of a gay couple getting married in a majourity of the states?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Their civil unions have all the same rights as married couples. And in a country where they can simply live together in the same house, why would they need marriage? Giving homosexuals the right to marry would only lead the total redefining of marriage itself; not to mention that pedophiles, zoophiles, and necrophiles would want in on that action as well. We'd enter a slippery slope that would eventually destroy marriage as a whole.
So, if they get their way, marriage gets turned into a Frankenstein's monster of sexual preferences; and if they don't get their way, they whine about it. As mentioned previously, they can have all the gay sex they want and live together and all that, so really, what's the point of giving them marriage? You'll be weirded out to hear that some gays really don't approve of the idea of gay marriage. (And those guys are the ones GLAD and its supporters call "heretics." So why do they support straights who support gay marriage? Aren't they "heretics" too? That's what we call "hypocrisy", son.)
As far as other gay rights go, they are protected by "hate speech" and "hate crime" laws that are actually unConstitutional in nature, but succeed in giving gays benefits like:
*always being able to land a job. If the place they want to work decides not to hire them or fires them for doing a bad job, they can sue for "hate crime" because they can only assume that they didn't get the job because of their sexuality.
*they can imprison people who disagree with them on an almost-rampage scale. They throw grandmas in prison for lifting a sign that says "The Truth is Hate to Those Who Hate the Truth"; they imprison teenagers for trying to win gays to Christ; they imprison almost anybody for representing the "Just Say No" crowd who would DARE suggest their lifestyle is wrong, and that gays have the free will to turn back on that lifestyle. (But for some freaky reason, Fred Phelps stays free, and he's an extremist. More hypocrisy from the left.)
*They have kids as young as first-grade learn about their sexual ideology (Most notably, this occurs without parental notification). When a parent finds out his kids are being taught from a young age that sexual confusion is a "right", and tries to confront the school, you know what happens? The school claims that the parents are "getting in the way of higher education." My parents taught me not to steal, rape, murder, lie, cheat, commit adultery, and act violently, among other things. How do parents get in the way of education, especially when teaching little kids anal sex between two men isn't educational? Maybe you'd like to explain THAT to me.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it say men have the right to marry one another. (As a matter of fact, nowhere in the Constitution does it say men have the right to anally sodomize one another.) To wit: the "right" to gay "marriage" is imaginary. Fictional. Nonexistent. Or as we call it, a "lie."
I like how you claim Conservatoons is a hypocrite, yet don't detail why. I also like how you claim the President and Vice-President are hypocrites, despite that neither of them are really all that conservative anyway. Maybe you ought to take Conservatoon's advice and think this over.
👍: 0 ⏩: 4
well in the origional constitution, women weren't alloud to vote and white men could own african Americans. Its called the elastic cause.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
There's no logical or even biological reason why marriage should be restricted based on gender. Sexual organs and hormones in no way effect one's ability to love or raise kids, etc.
The thing with zoophillia and pedophillia is that they involve a signifigant MENTAL difference, meaning one can take advantage of the other, thus create a victim. Children and pets will often do whatever their caretakers want them to do regardless of whether or not they really feel comfortable doing it. (Dog fighting is a prime example of this) The same is not true for homosexual adult couples.
I would say the REASON I'd want gays to have the right to marry is so they have more incentive to stay in a committed relationship rather than continue a life of anonymous and empty sex. I mean, if you're not allowed to legally marry, adopt kids or raise a family, then why bother looking for one special person? (I'm not saying they would all think this way, but some certainly would) I don't know about you, but I'd rather have gay people with stable families than gay people who live in night clubs.
And you know, marriage isn't all about sex, not even for gay people. (gasp) Gay people want marriage so they can have the legal stability they need for a family, especially those who want to adopt children or have children by other means. Because, trust me, you don't have to be married to "have all the gay sex you want," and gay people are fully aware of this just as straight people are. Even gay people who don't want to get married generally at least want the option OPEN to them so they don't feel like second-class citizens.
Funny how the people against gay marriage tend to talk about gay sex more often than the people who are FOR gay marriage, isn't it?
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
BRAVO! Well said!
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Well said, .
Also, as the daughter of a teacher, I'd like to take you up on that bit about it being wrong to teach children about homosexuality in first grade? In my mother's school they show a video, explaining all the different kinds of families there are (gay parents, lesbian parents, and straight parents), and explaining to kids why it's OK. They most definatly DO NOT teach kids that "sexual confusion" is a right, but that if your parents are gay it's nothing to be ashamed of, and if you decide that's the way you are, then that's fine too, and society should be able to accept you. Tolerance, man.
If you think people are teaching children how gay men go about having sex, you need to do a little more research at youe local elementary.
And yes, I'm sure your parents taught you all those lovely things, as all good parents should. Those are just rules of society. Not to steal, not to rape a person, that should be common sense. But did your parents also teach you that there is only one sexuality to be had? That if, God forbid, you should find yourself sexually attracted to someone of your gender, you're going to go to Hell? What kind of parent would you be if you didn't support that kind of decision from your own kid? That just ain't right.
By the way, I'm not a liberal either. ;]
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Okay, first thing, if civil unions and marriages are so similar, then why not just let them marry? There are more benefits in being married.
And there is no slippery slope issue. To get married, you have to A)be the legal age to marry, so already pedephiles (and most zoophiles) are excluded, and B) you have to sign papers, which, other than humans, animals can not do. Nor can a dead body. So your fears are unfounded.
And it isn't about having "all the gay sex they want". In these days, marrige is more about finances than anything.
And, while I'm sure bad workers have claimed to have in some cases claimed they were fired because of sexual preference, things like this are brought to court, and dealt with there. It's not like saying "They fired me because I'm gay!" is all it takes to get them back their job.
And... okay, so much of what you're saying just absurd, I don't know if I want to take the time to comment on all of this, but this really stood out... um "Nowhere in the Constitution does it say men have the right to marry one another. (As a matter of fact, nowhere in the Constitution does it say men have the right to anally sodomize one another.)". Yeah, and no where does it say a man has the right to have vaginal sex with a woman! The government should not have the right to tell anyone what to do with their sexual organs. Thats just fucking creepy. So what you said was just completely irrelevant. And the constittution HAS been changed in the past to better suit the needs of a this changing world!
But hey, you know what? Think what you want. We'll win eventually. I mean women and blacks got their rights. And people like you just make it more fun.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Not to mention amendment 9 which states that things don't have to be in the constitution in order to be rights that people should have.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Yes, of course there is always that, that you.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
THANK*
Damn typos...
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
Wow, I nearly had a heart attack at this one. This is how they always solve the problem isn't it? "Hey, let's change the name of the problem so that the problem itself follows suit!" They did the same damn thing with illegal aliens: "Undocumented citizens", "undocumented Americans", etc.
To this end, we shall not call murderers "murderers". They are "population compromise officials." Thieves are now "valuable belonging relocators." White supremecists are now "supporters of advanced species." Sharks are now "fluffy bunnies."
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
much agreed. In my state, every time the Agency which protects kids get in trouble (i.e. a kid gets killed by some whackjob) it changes its name. 3 or 4 times in last 10 years. Its hard to remember the name.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
This is like sex-ed teachers who I know for a fact are sleeping with minors... One of my friends had his kinder teacher die of jaundice caused by alcoholic liver disease right in front of him. Why do people smoke dope at all?
👍: 0 ⏩: 2
I hear ya. And the same dope smokers are anti tobacco smoking? go figure.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
From what I know, they smoke dope only because they feel that it is necessary for them to do so. That's how one guy explained it. He was all "Don't you ever wonder how that shit feels?" (His words.) I'm all, "So are you admitting you have an addiction?" He replies, "Dude, pot's not an addictive substance." I reply, "Are you even listening to yourself? You're talking about marijuana as if it's somekind of spiritually-uplifting experience. You sound like a creepy zealot. You're addicted."
That's the funny part: pro-drug groups will constantly claim that it's not addictive, but they'll smoke it on a daily basis. Hm.
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
Haha... people like that are reasons why we should change the definition of "Murder".
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
No, they're not "murderers." They're "population compromisers."
👍: 0 ⏩: 0
I had a teacher like this who teaches us not to do stupid things, except thankfully he quit using drugs and getting drunk a long time ago. I believe that this Teacher's Union needed to be fixed so that they hire actual teachers who want children to succeed in life rather than dopers who don't give a rat's ass.
👍: 0 ⏩: 1
