The SECOND definition is:
a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings
Who would have thought the Neocons define hypocrisy in two separate and distinct ways? This is a very amazing find.
2006-11-28 19:35:59 · 17 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Lets just rename Neocons as "Hypocritecons" because it really just sums them up completely, doesn't it?
2006-11-28 19:37:15 · update #1
Perhaps this definition was modified recently by scheming liberals? Its just TOO coincidental.
2006-11-28 19:38:24 · update #2
To be factual, democrats cast meaningless votes to overthrow Saddam on a bill that ALSO invaded Afghanistan, a bill drawn up by Republicans (as is controlled by the majority). Saddam's overthrow was accomplished in a month and cheered by Bush in the famous "Mission Accomplished!" photo op.
The details of Bush's planned decade-long occupation, $500 Billion occupation had yet to be revealed. Along with the total ineptness with which the commander-in-chief carried out literally every phase of the war, and ignored every substantial piece of advice on how to go about it properly.
2006-11-28 19:45:28 · update #3
And to which Bush campaigned straight to the people to make the war overwhelmingly popular by making unsubstantiated claims that Saddam masterminded 9/11 and that the US had absolute 100% proof of WMDs in Iraq, to which they testified in front of the entire UN on a nationally televised broadcast. Oops.
2006-11-28 19:47:23 · update #4
The question that you asked is actually the true definition of hypocrisy. The "second" definition implies the first one, it is only expressed in more plain English.
2006-11-28 19:46:10 · answer #1 · answered by OC 7 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Just living human kind like you and me at loss with lost sense of direction in planet of apes.
Until someone reach out and enlighten the errors.
So now is just to correct the blunders and slip-ups with human errors created back in the past being expose with time by little children in planet of apes.
2006-11-28 20:41:54 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Say more. I'm not sure I understand what's amazing about your find. Neocon hypocrisy always seemed glaringly obvious to me. Of course, if we look close enough, I'm sure we'll find that we're all hypocrites in some way or another.
2006-11-28 19:38:02 · answer #3 · answered by halitobro 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Funny how democrats voted for the war, and then when they found out it wasn't 'popular', they started all of this 'hypocrisy' of how wrong it is and how everybody except them lied about it.
2006-11-28 19:39:01 · answer #4 · answered by kitty fresh & hissin' crew 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hit the nail on the head with these Iibs.
2006-11-28 19:44:24 · answer #5 · answered by josh m 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes, that is the definition but the photo next to it is ted Kennedy.
you have made no suggestion as to how it might relate to any republican. i cant imagine how either.
2006-11-28 20:11:38 · answer #6 · answered by karl k 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I am surprised that anybody is surprised that Neocons are two-faced.
2006-11-28 19:37:53 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Can someone get drunk off of vitriol?? Or was it the beer?
2006-11-28 20:20:09 · answer #8 · answered by Mark P 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Of couse, who do you think Jesus was referring to?
2006-11-28 19:40:06 · answer #9 · answered by mary57whalen 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I'm having trouble sleeping. Maybe if I read more of your idiot questions I will doze off. Thanks for the help!
2006-11-28 19:38:51 · answer #10 · answered by Nunya B 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋