But it's good to know that you base your vote on the important stuff.

tailgater wrote:

What a troll.

It is absolutely fair for me to criticize a man directly, and to label him a hypocrite, without being one myself.

I never said my beliefs can't be criticized. Nor are the actions defined above even within my own faith or beliefs.

So how, pray tell, is that being a hypocrite?

And while it's on my mind, this board could use a little less of the sophomoric "I know you are, but what am I?" defense mechanism that you've embraced in your post above.
What's next? The "I'm rubber and you're glue" routine?
Or how about just saying "Oh yeah?"

I'd say you must be a hoot at parties, but I'm thinking you're not allowed to hang around with the adults any more.

tailgater wrote:

Whoa Mr. High and Mighty!
Who put you in charge of deciding whether a individual's factors in deciding who to vote for are valid?

rfenst wrote:

The country is in a financial mess and people are going to place their vote based on whether the candidate agrees with abortion?

I spread my disdain for this approach towards both sides of the coin, as I find it short sighted and in the end detrimental.
As I stated previously, Roe v wade ain't going nowhere.
Choosing a president based on thier view on this matter is akin to choosing the candidate based on his skin color.

Oh, sorry.
Never mind.

tailgater wrote:

Sure, you can criticize anyone and anything you want. But when you complain that Rick 'blasts the religious right' while you hypothosize that he's over 'medicated' and complain of hypocricy is preposterous.

What Rick did was not actually hypocritical as I didn't see him complain that you were 'blasting' him and his beliefs while he was 'blasting' yours. You did that and that's what hypocricy is. Being unsympathetic to someone else's personal beliefs after having grown up the way he did is not hypocritical, it maybe lacks empathy, but that's something conservatives have no right complaining about.

'I know you are, but what am I'? I didn't even say anything about me or glue. I think you may be projecting here.

FuzzNJ wrote:

Do you really believe that whoever is the next President will truly have much, if anything, to do with this country coming out of this recession?

rfenst wrote:

I wish I could use pictures so you'd understand.
I'll try using small words.
And I'll type real slow.


Rick was being hypocritical because his angst is based on the persons religious and/or faith based actions. Actions which hurt no one, but draw out his ire simply because they are different than his own.
Over the years, Rick has been justified in standing up for the little guy (no pun intended) and has made mention of both his religion and his upbringing to make his point on many occassions.
He has thwarted many a conservative viewpoint towards "other" religions by referencing said upbringing and from speaking first hand.

So when he attacks a person for their own religious beliefs, beliefs that harm no one and shouldn't merit a second look, then yes. He is being hypocritical.

I find the religious right disgusting. Talk about hypocrits!
But yet you somehow think I'm being a hypocrite simply because I call someone out?

You truly have no clue.
About me. About this subject. Nor apparently about the meaning of words used in your replies.

OK, I lied.
I didn't type slowly.

tailgater wrote:

Your condescending tone notwithstanding, watching you complain about Rick's lack of empathy is like watching Trump complain about Newt's ego.

FuzzNJ wrote:

Bloody must have changed his mind 'cause his post dissapeared.

FuzzNJ wrote:

Condescending, yes.
That is what happens when you make false accusations and then play dumb.

And you still don't get it.

I never claimed to have any empathy. Rick has.
I am not repulsed by his comments, but rather by the source.

Hence the "hypocrite" label.

Dude, if you need a dictionary I can set you up.
But this is getting ridiculous.
English.
Learn it.

Your welcome.

tailgater wrote:

Fuzz, I laughed at your funny post & then wanted to say a word or two about my friend Rick, but thought why bother?
I've got better things to do than get into an argument with keyboard warriors.#-o 🍺

bloody spaniard wrote:

Ok. Let's wrap this up.

You have no empathy, you are intolerant of 'liberals' and frequently call them names.

You believe Rick thinks he has empathy, but since he disagrees with you and frequently calls 'conservatives' names, that's out of bounds and hypocritical.

Yet you don't think that calling a 'liberal' a name while complaining about them calling 'conservatives' bad names is not hypocritical.

Brilliant.

FuzzNJ wrote:

I know, I saw it. Your reason why is what I suspected and I was dissapointed to see you think you need to erase a post because you actually laughed at something I said knowing you would get grief. Gave into the bullies. :(

FuzzNJ wrote:

Nice try, but no cigar.
I'm not calling Rick a hypocrite because he called a "conservative" a name.

tailgater wrote:

Yet he routinely blasts the religious right and in this instance he is poking his 4 ft high nose into a man's personal grief and core beliefs.

He's a hypocrite.

tailgater wrote:

Rick was being hypocritical because his angst is based on the persons religious and/or faith based actions. Actions which hurt no one, but draw out his ire simply because they are different than his own.
Over the years, Rick has been justified in standing up for the little guy (no pun intended) and has made mention of both his religion and his upbringing to make his point on many occassions.
He has thwarted many a conservative viewpoint towards "other" religions by referencing said upbringing and from speaking first hand.

So when he attacks a person for their own religious beliefs, beliefs that harm no one and shouldn't merit a second look, then yes. He is being hypocritical.

tailgater wrote:

I never claimed to have any empathy. Rick has.
I am not repulsed by his comments, but rather by the source.

Hence the "hypocrite" label.

tailgater wrote:

Labels mean little to me these days. I've been lied to & politically used as a water carrier by the best.

bloody spaniard wrote:

^ F A G

teedubbya wrote: