Democrats & Liberals Archives

Conservatives have to stop accusing us of "hate"

For the past few years, anyone who criticized the President or conservative politicians has routinely been accused of “hate”, a very loaded word clearly intended to evoke the idea of a hate crime. It is a popular tactic on this very website. Considering what passes for discourse in the right-wing media, that is pretty rich. But I usually let it go. As Hyman Rother would say, blogging is the business we have chosen.

But as of today I have had enough.

My revelation is based on this blog post by Jules Crittenden, an editor and columnist for the Boston Herald.

This last point can't be emphasized enough. Conservatives sometimes like to use anonymous quotes on the Internet to illustrate how hate-filled the left is. The obvious problem there is that the person they are quoting may be trying to discredit the group they ostensibly belong to. In this case, we are talking about an identifiable person with real credentials.

So now that we've established that, here is the key quote:

I’m starting to enjoy Elizabeth Edwards’ stab at shock pol tactics, though I don’t think she’s all the way there yet.

Gets cancer, says screw it and that family thing, takes the cancer and the kids on the road, stays out there for John, who apparently we need running our country that bad.

Crittenden is at least weirdly consistent in the fact that he lets other conservatives spew hate-filled (it applies here) rhetoric, too.

Now she’s duking it out with Ann Coulter, who said the other day if she is going to say anything about John Edwards in future, “I’ll just wish he was killed in a terrorist assassination plot.” She also famously called Elizabeth Edward’s husband a “faggot.” This turned out to be highly divisive language, as of course it was intended to be. John Edwards is, however, indisputably a wienie, and hardly likely to be a terrorism target. He’d be too valuable to them in the off chance he actually became president.

Ha ha ha, Al Qaeda would never assassinate Edwards because he is too valuable. Stop, you're killing me! (Get it, you're "killing" me!) It takes a true comic genius like Crittenden to find humor in cancer and assassination.

Now, some are going to argue that since Elizabeth Edwards criticized Coulter (in, it must be said, a completely civil manner) she is "fair game". But I don't think that extends to her cancerous breast tissue. I guess I should say: pick on her cancer all you want, but don't expect people to overlook the fact that you are a prick.

Now on the "hate" business, I'm not proposing to censor anyone. When I say I have had enough, I simply mean that I am going to point out how full of crap people are when they say this in response to a substantive point. Criticizing conservative politicians (within the bounds of decency) doesn't make you a hater. It makes you a citizen.

Posted by Woody Mena at June 28, 2007 6:58 AM
Comments
Comment #224262

Woody

You and I are civil people. You know from what I write that I do not engage in hate. Yet from the left I have been called evil, ignorant, dishonest and worse. There were several posts last year debating whether I was stupid or evil.

Posters regularly call our president a chimp or a moron. There are many people who hate him and make no secret of it.

I am not a fan or Ann Coulter. If you go left from Coulter, however, you find about equal distant from the center people like Michael Moore or Al Franken, who give their share of hate.

The left just assumes it has the right to criticize the right, but that any counter attacks are hateful. Most entertainers are left wing. They regularly sprew all sort of terrible things (think Rosie). Liberals laugh and if anybody says anything they dismiss it by saying that they are only entertainers. That is the same case with Coulter. Sometimes people like Coulter, Franken, or Moore say things that are funny. Sometimes what they say is true, but over the top. Sometimes just silly.

But hate is firmly in the liberal sphere too. Imagine the person who really thinks that the president started a war in Iraq so he could let oil firms get the roughly $25 billion a year in oil revenue. Or the significant percentage who think the president knew about or even planned 9/11. I know people will say this is just ignorance, but it requires a great deal of hate to allow yourself to believe these things.

Posted by: Jack at June 28, 2007 8:09 AM
Comment #224266
Imagine the person who really thinks that the president started a war in Iraq so he could let oil firms get the roughly $25 billion a year in oil revenue. Or the significant percentage who think the president knew about or even planned 9/11. I know people will say this is just ignorance, but it requires a great deal of hate to allow yourself to believe these things.

You are drawing an inference there. Basically you are saying that these ideas are really stupid and you have to be a hater to believe them.* People believe all sorts of things. If you think an idea is silly, just say so. Calling the person a hater in this case is just name-calling.

The idea that Bush “knew about” 9/11 is pretty ambiguous. I don’t want to reignite an old debate, but one interpretation would be that he was given fair warning and didn’t act. That was Michael Moore’s premise — incompetence, not malice.

Speaking of Michael Moore and Al Franken, if these guys talked about assassination as much as Coulter they would have been shunned long ago.

*By the way, thanks to Judicial Watch we know for a fact that Cheney and his buddies on the energy task force were discussing how to divide up the oil in Iraq.

Posted by: Woody Mena at June 28, 2007 8:24 AM
Comment #224270

Woody

I do think those ideas are so silly that anybody who believes them must have some sort of problem.

Think about oil in Iraq. How much revenue does/did Iraq get from its oil? Around 20 billion a year. That is not profit; that is revenue. This is big money to me or you, but it is small potatoes to the USG. The expected cost of the war (even that first 83 billion that Kerry voted for and against) is much greater than the expected profit. Presumably, if these guys were so smart and nefarious, they could have figured out ways to get this money more directly. There just is no way the U.S. could have profited from war in Iraq and anybody who can count could have figured it out. The best way for oil firms to make money would have been to buy the oil that Saddam was more than willing to sell at the bargain rates he was offering. Making money cannot have been the motivation for the war because making money overall is impossible. The only way you can believe in this conspiracy theory is to see it as an elaborte way for Dick Cheney to rip off the Federal treasury to enrich his friends. If you believe he is that evil AND Dems in the Senate are that stupid to go along, AND the military leaders cannot figure it out AND Cheney cannot figure out an easier way to get that money…

Posted by: Jack at June 28, 2007 8:41 AM
Comment #224271
anybody who believes them must have some sort of problem

For the oil thing, you are assuming that people are informed and capable of quantitative reasoning.

For the 9/11 thing, it depends on which idea you mean. I think you have to be pretty crazy to think that Bush would intentionally kill thousands of civilians. Let’s call that the Evil Bush Theory. But there is also the Incompetent Bush Theory…

Posted by: Woody Mena at June 28, 2007 8:53 AM
Comment #224277

Frankly, I’m sick of the preponderance of what I’d term unethical discourse across the political spectrum. The hysterical, factually incorrect or distorted rants from all sides do not serve our country: they lower the quality of discourse; they polarize. Typically, such rants elicit cheers from one side and condemnation from other other. Very few seem to challenge the inherent “ends justify the means” assumption.

What I’d love to see is each side police itself. I’m not talking censorship; I’m talking about employing our right to dissent against unethical discourse. In the red column I rarely see conservatives take serious issue with the shrill rhetoric some article writers spew; and the same is also true on the blue side.

Unless we are hypocrites, we cannot condemn distorted or abusive discourse from our opponents unless we do the same from our allies.

Democracy is a means of living together despite our differences. Democratic deliberation is an alternative to physical violence. It is predicated on the assumption that it’s possible to disagree agreeably, that it’s better to laugh than cry, that one can vigorously contest the positions of one’s adversary without questioning his or her personal integrity or motivation, and that parties to a debate are entitled to the presumption that their views are legitimate if not correct. —Thomas Mann
Posted by: Gerrold at June 28, 2007 10:11 AM
Comment #224278

Here’s a vote for the “Incompetent Bush Theory”. :) Does this mean I am a hater of Bush? Hardly…actually I like the guy. He seems more like a regular guy than any president we’ve had since Harry Truman. If he drank, I’d love to toss back a few cold ones with him. But while I like him as a person, I strongly disagree with his policies, and often think he is not competent enough to be president. Lots of reason why I think that, not the topic of this thread though. Point is, we as a country are morphing into 2 armed camps politically. Each side has their fair share of “radicals” who want to destroy the other side. Until those of us who do not share that view of destruction are able to lead the debate effectively, this will continue. My choice is clear: I do not listen to wackos on EITHER side, and I do not give them any credence. It seems to me that these folks only live for confrontation, they do not really car about the issues or anything, but their own ratings and popularity. And the more far out things they say, the more they get more of both. In a way it is very sad.

I can’t believe this is what the Founder’s intended when they put “Freedom of Speech” into the Bill of Rights.

Posted by: Steve K at June 28, 2007 10:21 AM
Comment #224283

When you have nothing of substance to defend the action and the policies of the bush/cheney crime family, you must use another method to throw up a smokescreen or get people to lighten up on them, by telling people “you must hate bush/cheney”.
How can you not hate the drunken bar room bully approach they use to accomplish their dastardly deeds. Let’s not sugar coat what has gone on with this bunch of morally bankrupt crooks. You can not for a moment believe that this is not a wartime profiteering situation we have going on in Iraq at this moment. No one in their right mind would write a blank check (no bid contract) to Halliburton, KBR, Titan or Black Water from your own personal check book. Why would I expect anything less from our government???? Cheney has ties to Halliburton for god sake wake up!!!! So don’t give your “I hate bush/cheney smokescreen crap I don’t buy it.

Posted by: Outraged at June 28, 2007 11:03 AM
Comment #224288

Gerrold,

I agree.

By the way, my complaint extends to our own side, too. There are certainly people on both sides who push the “hate” button too quickly. I don’t agree with the idea of trying to police talk radio, for example.

On our own side, the fashionable thing these days is to complain about “swiftboating”. Why we would want to remind anyone of that sorry affair is beyond me…

Posted by: Woody Mena at June 28, 2007 12:18 PM
Comment #224290

woody,

Perhaps I didn’t read your post carefully enough but where is the example of conservatives calling liberals ‘hateful’? I’m not seeing it.

Certainly on this blog alone I have literally been called ‘hateful’ more times than I could count. Usually this is in response to criticism of ‘all liberals’ — apparently the logic is that in painting with a broad brush it’s “hate.”

But it doesn’t take much for a conservative to literally be called hateful, woody.

Opposing welfare: hating the poor.
Opposing affirmative action: hating minorities.
Opposing unions: hating workers.

You get the picture.

Posted by: eric simonson at June 28, 2007 12:44 PM
Comment #224292

Woody,

Something for you to think about… What do we make of the constant refrain about “conservative fearmongering”? Isn’t this the same exact thing you are decrying?

Saying that conservative arguments aren’t substantive and are meant only to instill irrational fear in order to control and manipulate— isn’t that another way to sidestep an actual debate by invalidating any substance of our arguments?

Because the GOP has already mastered the dark art of psych-ops—of pushing the right buttons in people’s brains to win their vote. ~msnbc.msn.com
Posted by: eric simonson at June 28, 2007 12:53 PM
Comment #224295

I think we are on the edge of a “Do Nothing” dem congress.

No fix for Social Security.

No Fix for Medicare.

No balanced Budget.

No Immigration bill.

No End to corruption.

No End to Ear marks.

No security Fence (3 miles built).

No National Health Care.

No acknowledgment that radical Islam is at war with us.

No Cheap Gas.

And they passed an Ethanol bill in the Senate that will drive our food prices through the roof and make our air worse to breath. Food prices are already rising and we may see five dollar a gallon milk by this fall. It’s an add on bill….a part of the increased mileage standard for cars.

So far, it seems to me that the corrupt Harry Reid is in danger of having another “do nothing” and corrupt congress.

Posted by: Stephenl at June 28, 2007 1:30 PM
Comment #224296

Stephenl,

Yes I agree with you 100% about the do nothing congress.
When the democrats have majority control and no obstructionist president to veto anything that could be a benefit to all the people of this country, not just the corporations then they can get something beneficial to all of us done. So lets work on that. The republicans had there shot at it and blew it. Now give the job to some one else.

Posted by: Outraged at June 28, 2007 1:43 PM
Comment #224298

Stephen1,

That is relevant how?
Most people here dislike (dare I say hate?) the immigration bill, so they should be happy it just went down in flames.

Eric,

Since you asked, here are some example of the “h-word” from the Red column:

So to the Bush haters I say this. Be proud today of your country and your president. You can go back to your characteristic churlish resentment tomorrow.
Let me anticipate the Bush hater mantra…
Democrats define themselves by what they ain’t and who they hate.
(So 40% of the population define themselves by who they hate?)

I searched for “Bush hater” and these are the first three posts that came up. All three are from Jack, but he can’t be the only one.

Re “conservative fearmongering”: Sometimes the shoe fits. But in general, sure, any generic talking point that avoids the substance of the issues is bad.

Posted by: Woody Mena at June 28, 2007 1:46 PM
Comment #224299

Outraged, Your comments seem dishonest you are well aware that the president is not keeping democrats from building the fence, fixing social security, fixing medicare, etc In fact the president is for fixing most of these things.

As I told you folks BEFORE the democrats took control, they would not really fix these issues. I’ve noticed that you folks don’t seem to care much these days to talk about balanced budgets or fixing any of these major issues.

Now you are into cover up mode and blaming Republicans because your majority democrats are fixing nothing, and not even TRYING to fix things.

Reid should have a balanced budget on the table NOW. Reid should have a bi-paritisan social security group meeting to fix social security now. same with Medicare. Once they fix those, move on to national health care.

a few months in you folks were saying…give them time, they need to “warm up their chairs”. With congress polling down in the MUD….now democrats who control congress are crying that it’s really the republicans fault they don’t do anything.

It doesn’t wash. It doesn’t float. When will Reid and Pelosi eliminate ear marks? When will they close the loopholes they created for the lobbyists? When will they work on the fixes for our major social safety net? when will they balance the budget. Why are they spending more than the republicans? Why all the pork that they told us was so evil?

The majority cannot hide behind the minority.

Reid and Pelosi also promised us Bi-Partisanship instead of hate….and all they have given us is hate. The far left is in charge, it’s mean, it’s vindictive, and it’s a failure.

Posted by: Stephenl at June 28, 2007 1:53 PM
Comment #224301

Jack does often label Bush opponents as Bush haters, but in general I think he is rather civil in his articles and comments. (And you too, Woody.) Because of his civility, it is sometimes possible to find points of agreement. The rhetoric of some other article writers tends to preclude that.

Posted by: Gerrold at June 28, 2007 2:02 PM
Comment #224303

Can i hate NASCAR fans,dudes who monster trucks,and guys with gun racks on their trucks,and people with those ass bag yellow stickers that say (Pray for Our Troops).They need to go over there and fight,and bring Paris Hilton with you.

Posted by: the libertine at June 28, 2007 2:12 PM
Comment #224304

When I express my views on giving the worker a break or when I criticize corporations for the way they try to keep the worker powerless, I immediately hear:

“Communist”
“Socialist”
“Atheist”

and other pretty words about the so-called “left.”

No discussion. Just hate-filled words.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at June 28, 2007 2:24 PM
Comment #224305

Stephenl,

I don’t try to be dishonest about my point of view. I may not be in agreement with you in everything I write. One thing I would like to say is that I have a lot of hope for all of us. As in (we the people) not (we the corporations). We all must have a say in our government. I just want the best for all of us. Not just for some of us. So good luck to all.

Posted by: Outraged at June 28, 2007 2:28 PM
Comment #224306
Reid and Pelosi also promised us Bi-Partisanship instead of hate….and all they have given us is hate.

Ask RR would say, there you go again… At least they helped him with his unpopular immigration bill.

Bush and the Democrats, as well the Republicans in the Senate, now share responsibility for enacting legislation. (The House Republicans are off the hook.) You can’t blame either party 100%.

Posted by: Woody Mena at June 28, 2007 2:29 PM
Comment #224315

Remember folks, don’t be a clown hater.

Posted by: Woody Mena at June 28, 2007 3:52 PM
Comment #224321

kctim….thanks for providing a current example of what is being said on here:

Paris equals ratings
Fatass, lying angry liberal doesn’t.
Doesn’t really get any simplier than that.


Posted by: kctim at June 28, 2007 03:23 P

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at June 28, 2007 4:34 PM
Comment #224322

Both sides can be hateful, but I guess the difference is that the Republicans are willing to take the fight all the way to the point of destruction.

In fact, it’s part of why I became a Democrat. I felt that my former party was far too comfortable with employing truly vicious rhetoric against its opponents. I mean, it’s one thing to take issue with a person’s political stands, but it seems Republicans just got too comfortable with making the fight personal.

That we had a president impeached over dishonesty in a civil case pushed by Republican party operatives, conjoined to an investigation that had nothing to do with the Presidents actions in office, is indicative of this. Even now, Clinton is the punching bag for Republicans who want to claim that Bush is suffering the hangovers from Clinton’s policies, rather than screwing up on his own.

And honestly, which party threatens more to destroy the other? Look at Sean Hannity’s book, the one that lists Liberalism as an evil to be destroyed with terrorism and fascism. Which party treats the other part not merely as wrong or misguided, but actively evil, active traitors to their own country. We give our reasons for disliking Bush and the War he got us into, and despite that, we’re told we dislike Bush because we consider him more the enemy than the terrorists themselves.

The greatest measure could be that for political purposes, they felt outing an undercover CIA agent was justifiable. When such a reckless, insane act can be justified in the name of politics, a party has gone too far in its hatred of the other side.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 28, 2007 5:14 PM
Comment #224326

And that would be in the Green column under the “THAT IS LIKE SO NOT HOT!” post.

A few things though.
1. My quote is true.
- Paris does equal ratings and a “news” station would be foolish to pass up on high ratings.
- moore IS a fatass.
- moore DOES lie and also distorts information.
- moore IS angry because he does not like the Republican President, Bush.
- moore IS a liberal.

I did not say he hated anyone or that it was not his right to say whatever he wants. I simply stated five facts.

Ah, but Woody says Conservatives have to stop accusing you all of “hate.”
Does that mean I cannot state facts if they are negative and insult the left? Or are you saying I quoted those facts in an offensive way and it was hateful?
Sorry, but I call it as I see it and I am not a part of the PC religion.

2. One could easily go through the archives and see things much worse that has been written about Conservatives.
I am not a “Conservative” so it doesn’t really bother me. But, I have to admit that it is funny to see somebody calling Republicans facists, religious nuts, racists etc… in one place and then seeing them complain about how mean and hateful the right is for calling them socialists.

Posted by: kctim at June 28, 2007 5:44 PM
Comment #224327

Jack

The reason for the invasion was not for the sale of oil but for control of it.Part of some great geopolitical game concocted by the neo-cons.The only big winners in that conflict have been the oil companies. Much more that 25 billion a year.

Posted by: BillS at June 28, 2007 5:46 PM
Comment #224333

I do not concede the arguing point that there are people on the left as hate filled as Coulter, Lindbaugh, oreilly, the other Fux propagandists, and the socalled religious right. 99.99 per cent of the unethical discourse comes from the right. Michael Moore and Al Franken are not in any way in the same category. Michael Moore was critical of Clinton for putting mothers to work making fudge and cocktails in suburban malls.

Every president has been accused by some faction of using his office for his own interest rather than those of the nation, but we are supposed to feel bad that GWBush gets the same treatment. We must all remember how nobody ever criticized or hated William Jefferson Clinton, 42nd President of The United States. My own congressman at the time said he should have to wear a scarlet letter.

Are the balanced budget comments above intended as a joke? The budget was in surplus when Bush came in. It needs to be balanced by his base, the haves and the have mores.

I saw Elizabeth Edwards this morning on the Today show, and I also disagree with her that there is anything comparable to Coulter coming from the liberals, or the Left.

Posted by: ohrealy at June 28, 2007 6:24 PM
Comment #224355

“Now on the “hate” business, I’m not proposing to censor anyone.”

Woody,

Nor would I! But I would write to advertisers voicing my displeasure with the quality of the programming they choose as a venue to represent their product.

I may be a voice of “ONE”, but it’s better than no voice at all. The argument against your editorial is totally lame. If anyone on the left had used the same words that Queen Ann used they’d probably be in Gitmo right now!

The answer is simple! Either embrace Ann’s words or denounce them! I’m waiting………….

And a call to violence is not protected speech! Just try it.

Posted by: KansasDem at June 28, 2007 10:13 PM
Comment #224356

“I am not a “Conservative””

KCTim,

You could’ve fooled me :-/

Posted by: KansasDem at June 28, 2007 10:17 PM
Comment #224361

Conservatives have to stop accusing us of “hate”

Pot, meet Kettle…

Both sides accuse each other of “hating” this or that on a regular basis.
Just look through the archives…

Posted by: TheTraveler at June 28, 2007 10:59 PM
Comment #224369

kctim-
Does Paris equal ratings? Everybody acts as if these people know it all about what could get good ratings, but as Screenwriter William Goldman puts it, Nobody Knows Anything.

I’m inclined to think that it’s as important how you handle a story and how you present it, as it is what you got in the first place. People don’t always know what they might find interesting, and we certainly don’t always know what it is we need to know. Let Entertainment Tonight worry about Paris Hilton.

As for the rest?

Moore is overweight, but so are many Americans. He’s endeavored to eat healthier as of late, and has lost about thirty pounds. Of course this is only tangentially relevant to his message, which was about the healthcare industry.

As for Moore lying and distorting information? Give examples. Not to say that Moore is an absolute saint on that issue, but a lot of the so called lies Republicans come up with are themselves rather subjective assessments. Some would say he’s lying if he’s making a political statement they don’t agree with. So, if we’re going to discuss the different sides of the issue, it helps if we’re not being vague about the information. One example that my Radio/TV/Film background helps me explain is that time he walked out of a bank with a gun. Conservatives complained that they presented the two hour wait as if it was almost instant, that they staged the shot.

Well, the whole sequence was probably planned out to some degree, and just photographing him coming out Cinema Verite Style is a choice. Staging a shot is entirely up to him, since he really isn’t trying to cover events as they unfold. That’s when it really becomes questionable.

As for the time the sequence takes? I recently edited a video of a big sculpture being moved. I got about and hour and change worth of footage, and I ended up doing a rough cut of ten minutes and a current edit of about four minutes. And why? Because most of what I shot wasn’t interesting. I kept the highlights, the meaningful parts, and threw away the rest.

This is part of communication. Moore did not have bore his audience with minutes worth of waiting or seeing him wait to indicate he waited. Only thing he needed to do was to get in a few shots indicating his waiting, which he did.

As for being angry because he does not like President Bush? I think you got things backwards. Moore has plenty of substantive reasons not to like Bush It’s insulting for right-wingers to put the cart before the horse and insist that we dislike Bush for purely political reasons.

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at June 29, 2007 12:55 AM
Comment #224381
Pot, meet Kettle… Both sides accuse each other of “hating” this or that on a regular basis. Just look through the archives…

Am I the pot, Traveler? Have I made any sweeping generalizations about conservatives being defined by what they hate, etc.? This is not entirely a rhetorical question. If you have the goods on me let me know.

Also you may have missed this:

By the way, my complaint extends to our own side, too. There are certainly people on both sides who push the “hate” button too quickly. I don’t agree with the idea of trying to police talk radio, for example.

You have used another tiresome, overused argument by the way. “Both sides” do it. So what, a lot of people commit armed robbery, too. Tell it to the judge.

Posted by: Woody Mena at June 29, 2007 8:03 AM
Comment #224389

KDem
“You could’ve fooled me :-/”

Know alot of pro-choice, pro gay marriage, no drug laws Conservative atheists do you?

Stephen
CNN believed Paris Hiltons first interview since being released from jail would get more ratings than moores propaganda or they would not have cut him short.
People may not know “what they might find interesting,” but companies in the biz sure as hell know what will intice people enough to tune in and give it a try.

“Moore is overweight, but so are many Americans”

And we are fatasses. Use “overweight” to describe us if you want, it fits. But so does my description.

Google michael moore lies and you will find them.
Watch his movies and you will see the distortions.
IF, you want too.

But, its not moore that I have a problem with. I do not know him, he is a film maker and he can make whatever movie he wants.
Its the people that you guys don’t believe exist that really piss me off. The ones who take his words and movies as gospel and try to use them as facts. The ones who say you just hate moore for “purely political reasons.” The ones who just a few months ago had their panties all in a bunch because some dumb TV station was airing a show about 9-11. They weren’t upset because it showed Bushs’ failings, they were upset because it actually had the nerve to also show clinton failings.

“I kept the highlights, the meaningful parts, and threw away the rest”

Did you have an agenda? Did you state that moving such a sculpture would only take 4 minutes and then made a movie “proving” you were right?

Again, I have no problem with moore making propaganda films. As long as tax money is not used, he can make whatever he wants, IMO.

“It’s insulting for right-wingers to put the cart before the horse and insist that we dislike Bush for purely political reasons”

You apparently did not live through the same 2000 campaign the rest of us did. Most on the left considered him some sort of dictator before he won in 2000 and before he did anything when sworn in.
Not all of the left mind you. But a very large number believed that way.

BTW, its also insulting when lefty’s say that everybody who does not agree with them, does so for political reasons.

Woody
Tiresome and overused? yes. But also very very true.
Many people believe civility always wins in the end. If you want Conservatives to stop accusing the left of hate, you first must stop accusing them of hate.

Posted by: kctim at June 29, 2007 9:58 AM
Comment #224391

It’s also “very very true” that rapists, murderers, and thieves can point to other rapists, murderers, and thieves.

I can’t vow never to accuse someone of hate, because it sometimes applies. But I don’t do it promiscuously. If I’m not a pot I can call the kettle black.

Posted by: Woody Mena at June 29, 2007 10:08 AM
Comment #224393
Most on the left considered him some sort of dictator before he won in 2000 and before he did anything when sworn in.

Some people are fast learners. :)

Posted by: Woody Mena at June 29, 2007 10:13 AM
Comment #224394

Woody,

What do you expect them to do? They are simply following the example of their beloved GWB. Look back on all his politicking (if you have the stomach—I don’t. I reach for the remote anytime I think he is going to say something). If Bush can’t justify his policies he resorts to polarizing and, in most cases, wholly false criticisms and characterizations of his dissenters. This is what propagandists do when their administration, “policy”, and in this case their very “presidency” fails.

It comes as absolutely no surprise to me anymore that this type of evasive and obtuse strategy is employed here as well.

For reasons that have NEVER been clear to me, conservatives think the GWB should be bullet proof and not subject to strident criticism or rhetoric (even though GWB himself uses it quite frequently—remember his conversation with Tony Blair that was caught on tape—the epithets flew from his lips). The hysterical part of this whole situation is that despite the conservative instinct to “protect” GWB from the big bad hating left, they NEVER seem able to offer up any objective reasons why those of us who know full well that Bush is a moronic terrorist bastard should temper our views. This “hater” is still, after all these months, waiting for that explanation.

Posted by: Kim-Sue at June 29, 2007 10:17 AM
Comment #224401

“Some people are fast learners. :)”

Good one Woody.

Kim-Sue
“they NEVER seem able to offer up any objective reasons why those of us who know full well that Bush is a moronic terrorist bastard should temper our views”

And we NEVER seem able to get FACTS that show just how you know “full well” that Bush is or has done, EVERYTHING you say.

This “apologist,” after all these years, is still willing to believe FACTS over OPINIONS.
Give it a try.

Posted by: kctim at June 29, 2007 11:25 AM
Comment #224417

kctim,
I’m borrowing a friend’s computer, but I just had to reply to you regading your last post.

And we NEVER seem able to get FACTS that show just how you know “full well” that Bush is or has done, EVERYTHING you say.

This “apologist,” after all these years, is still willing to believe FACTS over OPINIONS. Give it a try.

I think most of the people here would be happy to actually have FACTS. Unfortunately most of us are left to our own spectulations because this administration has been very ‘tight-lipped’ when it comes to giving out information. It has also, tended, to only give out information ‘after the fact’ (ie. wiretaps), and has been known to give out false information (WMD).

As for the topic, I don’t hate anyone. Not our President, Coulter, Limbaugh, Moore,Franken, et.al
I don’t trust any of them to actually completely give me the truth, and some I don’t like to listen too, because I disagree with their ideas.

However as far as Mr. Bush is concerned, I have never met the man, and as far as I know he may be a wonderful person. I don’t like, and may even go so far as to say I ‘hate’ many of his policies. I don’t trust him, becaue of the above lack of communication he has established between the public and his administration.

There is however, a difference between ‘hating’ what someone does, and ‘hating’ them. There have been times times when I truly ‘hated’ the choices and things my children did, but I never quit loving them. Trust on the other hand was a bit harder to come by, although now that they a grown, I trust them all.

Seems to me we need to reconize the differnce.

Posted by: Linda H. at June 29, 2007 1:10 PM
Comment #224421

kctim,

Give me some FACTS to consider—positive ones mind you I already know that Bush is a liar (and can’t forget—an idiot as well), the head of arguable the most corrupt administration in US history he is responsible for the deaths of more Americans than all Al-Qaeda attacks on US soil, etc, etc.

What do you have to offer that could possible indicate that this “president” has been any use to the American people at all. Let’s hear it. I am willing to give credit were credit is due, but in his case it is awful hard. So instead of focusing on my rhetoric, give me the facts (that is, of course, if you have any!)

Posted by: Kim-Sue at June 29, 2007 1:46 PM
Comment #224430

Linda
“Unfortunately most of us are left to our own spectulations”

That is my point, too many people treat these “speculations” as facts and get irrate with others who believe it is facts, not speculation, which proves guilt.

“There is however, a difference between ‘hating’ what someone does, and ‘hating’ them”

I totally agree ma’am, your post and the post from Kim-Sue being next to each other shows that difference beyond a doubt.

Kim-Sue
What “facts” are you looking for? If I have made a claim about Bush that you would like facts on, please refresh my memory.

Your OPINION is that Bush is a liar. Your OPINION does not make it a fact.

Your OPINION is that this is the most corrupt administration in US history. Your OPINION does not make it a fact.

“he is responsible for the deaths of more Americans than all Al-Qaeda attacks on US soil, etc, etc.”

I prefer to blame those with whom OUR country is at war with. I realize that, in your mind, Bush is the enemy and we are at war with some type of Republican takeover of the world, but I am talking about OUR countries real enemies.

“What do you have to offer that could possible indicate that this “president” has been any use to the American people at all.”

And where did I say he has been? As far as I remember, I have only asked for you to provide facts to back up what you say you know is true.
Did I say I know for a fact that you are wrong in your beliefs or did I ask you for facts?

As Linda just showed, you do not have to believe in conspiracy theories, spew silly comments like Bush is the real terrorist or a murderer, in order to show you disagree with his policies.

Also, people are not apologists or blind followers or Bushies, just because we are not willing to jump on your “Bush and the Republicans are evil” bandwagon.
In fact, aside from you hard lefties who take everything negative about Bush as fact, we are the easiest people for you to convince. All you have to do is backup your claims.

“Let’s hear it. I am willing to give credit were credit is due, but in his case it is awful hard. So instead of focusing on my rhetoric, give me the facts (that is, of course, if you have any!)”

Are you wanting me to supply facts to prove that your opinions and assumptions are wrong? Why? I’m not trying to prove you are wrong, I am trying to get you to prove that you are right.

Posted by: kctim at June 29, 2007 3:07 PM
Comment #224446

Woody,

Am I the pot, Traveler? Have I made any sweeping generalizations about conservatives being defined by what they hate, etc.? This is not entirely a rhetorical question. If you have the goods on me let me know.

“GOP Racism and Nativism on Display”
“When Conservatives Hated Lieberman”

Posted by: TheTraveler at June 29, 2007 4:42 PM
Comment #224457


Kim-Sue A helping for you, President Bush said

he would fire any one leaking information. Carl,

Richard, Dick, Scooter. What do you think. Getem Girl!

Posted by: -DAVID- at June 29, 2007 8:26 PM
Comment #224458


-
The biggest one might be {Mission Completed}
-

Posted by: -DAVID- at June 29, 2007 8:32 PM
Comment #224460

————Mission Accomplished———-Sorry

Posted by: -DAVID- at June 29, 2007 8:53 PM
Comment #224461

David,

Which among the Presidents since Eisenhower, have been pure as the driven snow?

The answer is none.

Mr. Bush’s primary failing, besides the obvious, has been his undying loyalty to those around him that are more incompetent than he is.

Posted by: Rocky at June 29, 2007 9:18 PM
Comment #224462


Rocky- The best statement I have read all day!

Posted by: -DAVID- at June 29, 2007 9:41 PM
Comment #224485

Traveller,

I plead guilty on the one about Lieberman. The people I quote are harsh and critical (they call him a “partisan pit-bull”), but you could dispute whether they hate him. So you have ONE example.

The one about George Allen — we need the freedom to call someone a bigot when it is apropos.

Posted by: Woody Mena at June 30, 2007 9:17 AM
Comment #224513

I like this article, but I’m not really very concerned whether I’m accused of being a hater or not at this late stage of the Neocon take over of the country. Maybe because I’m truthful enough to admit that I do hate these Neocons — and for very good and well founded reasons.

They’ve lied to the American population repeatedly — even about the need for war. They have been shredding our Constitution and violating both our laws and international laws that we signed on to acknowledge and uphold. They’re corrupt from top to bottom, and are transparently only interested in representing the desires and wishes of corporations and wealthy elites.

They’ve got a whole gang of loud-mouth pundits who have no decency or manners, but who have unlimited airtime like Coulter, and Hannity, and O’Reilly, and Malkin, and Limpbaugh etc. demonizing liberals, shouting us down, lying everytime they open their mouths, and saying the rudest and most despicable things they can think up on a daily basis.

They’ve got Karl Rove saying things like: “Conservatives saw the savagery of 9/11 in the attacks and prepared for war; liberals saw the savagery of the 9/11 attacks and wanted to prepare indictments and offer therapy and understanding for our attackers,”
and:
“Let me just put this in fairly simple terms: Al Jazeera now broadcasts the words of Senator Durbin to the Mideast, certainly putting our troops in greater danger. No more needs to be said about the motives of liberals.”

They’ve had Cheney claiming that if America voted for Kerry that “we’ll get hit again.”

They’ve got Rudy mimicking that despicable comment now with these kinds of comments:
“They [Democrats] will wave the white flag on Iraq. We will cut back on the Patriot Act, electronic surveillance, interrogation and we will be back to our pre-Sept. 11 attitude of defense rather than offense”
and:
“The Democrats do not understand the full nature and scope of the terrorist war against us”
and:
“America will be safer with a Republican president.”

Who gives a flying crap if they now call us haters because they’ve demonstrated their hatred of us in every way they can possibly think of for years on end? They’re only reaping what they’ve intentionally sown.

I say good for Elizabeth Edwards for attempting to take on that Coultergeist who called her husband a “faggot”, who mocked the fact that her son is dead, and who now says she wishes that Edwards husband would die in a terrorist attack. Unfortunately, you can never win with an over-the-top bully by politely asking them to stop doing what they are intentionally doing. No, the sad truth is, unless you’re willing to get just as down and dirty in attacking them as they attack you, and show your disdain and disgust for them as openly as they show it to you, you don’t have much a chance of getting any satisfaction in an exchange with them.

This is why Elizabeth Edwards shouldn’t have addressed her comments to Coulter at all. Because Coulter is a totally enraged, wacked-in-the-head hater of liberals who doesn’t have a decent, polite, or gracious bone in her body. Instead, Edwards should have addressed all of her comments directly to Chris Matthews. She might have politely asked him why he was having a woman on his show who had said such things about her husband and family, and extreme, violent, and hate-filled things to a very long list of other people, because what Coulter does isn’t political punditry at all — it’s just blatant, unmitigated nuttiness and zealotry.
And if Coulter tried to interupt, or shout her down, Edwards could have told Matthews to ask his guest to put a sock in it for once in her life, because she’s not going to stoop to having a the well-established, standardized shouting-match with the likes of the ill-mannered Coulter.

This is the way you deal with such trailer trash — by treating them exactly as what they are.

Posted by: Adrienne at June 30, 2007 7:00 PM
Comment #224521

…….and who thinks we are the weaker sex??? I’m just glad we’re on the same side, Adrienne!
Well said.

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at June 30, 2007 9:55 PM
Comment #224529

Thanks, Sandra! :^)

Posted by: Adrienne at June 30, 2007 11:05 PM
Comment #224535

“They are possibly the dumbest people on the planet,” he told the anti-American British tabloid the Mirror . “We Americans suffer from an enforced ignorance. We don’t know about anything that’s happening outside our country. Our stupidity is embarrassing.”
( A quote from Michael Moore about the American people)

“I would like to apologize for referring to George W. Bush as a “deserter.” What I meant to say is that George W. Bush is a deserter, an election thief, a drunk driver, a WMD liar and a functional illiterate. And he poops his pants.”
(A quote from a typical Michael Moore letter on Michael Moore.com)

“I worry that some people are entertained by the idea of this war. They don’t know anything about the Iraqis, but they’re angry and frustrated in their own lives. It’s like Germany, before Hitler took over. The economy was bad and people felt kicked around. They looked for a scapegoat. Now we’ve got a new bunch of Hitlers.”
(Linda Ronstadt in USA Today)

“The Vice President holds himself accountable to no one. He ordered the Secret Service to destroy visitors logs, and we have learned in the Washington Post recently, that the Vice President circumvented every check and balance inside the White House to force through his own agenda, to {spy on Americans through illegal wire taps}, creating the {gulag}at Guantanamo, and subverting civil liberties and free speech at every turn.”
(Rep. Jim McDermott on the House Floor)

This, I believe, is the same Jim McDermott who passed illegal tapes of Newt Gingrich and John Boehner phone conversations to the NYT for which he was convicted. Yet, the convicted Democrat continues to “preach” about privacy rights in the House of Representatives with no accountability toward himself.

“I hate Republicans and everything they stand for.”
(Quote from Howard Dean on ABC News)

“George Bush is our Bull Connor,” the congressman said to an appreciative audience, referring to the Birmingham, Ala., police commissioner who in 1963 turned fire hoses and attack dogs on blacks demonstrating in favor of equal rights.”
(Rep. Charles Rangel’s comparison of President Bush to an infamous Southern segregationist, The New York Sun)

“When asked for clarification about whether Dr. Dean endorsed Mr. Rangel’s metaphor, a spokeswoman for the DNC, Amaya Smith, said in a statement: “The real issue here is this is how people in the African American community feel, and that is what we should be talking about.”
(New York Sun)

Obviously, the spokesperson for the DNC has no problem with Rangel using hate speech to inflame certain groups of people.

“We didn’t put you in power to work with the people that have been murdering hundreds of thousands of people since they have been in power,” Sheehan said. “We put you in power to be opposition to them…”
(Cindy Sheehan yelling at Democratic Representatives as protestors interrupted a Democratic Press Conference, Jan. 2007)

“I implore you, while you are enjoying your potato salad and fireworks on the 4th to reflect on what the star-spangled banner means to you. If our flag symbolizes the same thing to you as it does to the neocons, then by all means, enlist and go to Iraq to let some of our soldiers come home that are tired of suffering and committing war crimes for Halliburton, Dick and Donny.”
(A Posting on Cindy Sheehan.com)

“George Bush and John Howard and Tony Blair are illegal combatants. There’s nothing about this war on terror that is legal. These people perpetuate the torture and the killing and they’re still allowed to run free and live in society.”
(A Posting on Cindy Sheehan.com toward the people of Australia)

“But I believe what we are seeing with regard to New Orleans and the surrounding area is a policy frankly of ethnic cleansing by inaction.”
(Rep. Barney Frank accusing Bush of ethnic cleansing in New Orleans on Hardball with Chris Matthews)


Hate Speech? You bet!!!!!

JD


Posted by: JD at July 1, 2007 2:17 AM
Comment #224543

kctim,

Again I am borowing a computer. Please bare with me regarding grammar and spelling errors.

I love how you pick and choose which portions of a post to quote. (see quote below)

Had you actually quoted me properly, instead of out of context, you would have seen that I am basically against the Bush administration, BECAUSE IT MAKES US HAVE to SPECULATE on the few facts we have. If you are going to quote my message, I’d appreciate it if you would give the entire point. I’d rather you didn’t try to use it as a method to try to back-up your own opinion. Please use your own.

Speaking of your own, just what are the FACTS you, and other Republicians keep referring to? That’s part of the major problem between Republicians and Democrats. Democrats like to check out the bottom before they dive into a lake or pool. Unfortunately factual and truthful knownledge has been hard to come by with this particular Administration.

I also mentioned several discrepives, also in the quote you chose to take out of context. Please explain those, if you have the FACTS to do so.

I think most of the people here would be happy to actually have FACTS. Unfortunately most of us are left to our own spectulations because this administration has been very ‘tight-lipped’ when it comes to giving out information. It has also, tended, to only give out information ‘after the fact’ (ie. wiretaps), and has been known to give out false information (WMD).

I’d like to add that Bush’s Administration seems to enjoy taking credit (economy) when none is due. We had a healthy, NO DEFICET economy before he came into office. Why Bush now seems to feel that our ‘so-called’ healthy economy (with a HUGE debt)is somthing to be proud of, I do not understand.

Posted by: Linda H. at July 1, 2007 11:00 AM
Comment #224545

JD-

Let’s take this one by one:

Michael Moore - Call him a hater if you want.

Linda Ronstadt - Who?

Jim McDermott - Think what you will, he is at least attacking Bush for his conduct as President. No hate speech there.

Rangel - I don’t see how comparing one specific person to another specific person is “hate speech”. Reject the analogy if you want, but it’s not beyond the pale to make it.

Cindy Sheehan - sorry, not seeing the hate speech. Notice she is picking on Democrats!

Anonymous comments aren’t worth my time.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 1, 2007 11:22 AM
Comment #224556

JD, I was going to reply to your list, but Woody already nailed it. Nicely done, Woody.
All I will add here is that the quotes I put up came directly from the mouths of people currently serving in the executive branch, and from Rudy, who is presently the front runner for the GOP.
Blatant hatred for liberals coming from those who are wielding ultimate power naturally packs a much harder punch.
The executive branch is supposed to represent the entire country, not just the people who support their political party, but the actions and attitudes of the Bush Administration has served as a perfect example of what happens when complete disrespect, rabid partisanship, and the hate-filled desire to exclude the opposition in every way possible, divides our people, and dumps poison into our political discourse.
The screaming hordes of loud-mouth GOP pundits are only a bit more shameless and vocal about displaying their hatred toward liberals, but that doesn’t mean that those on the left haven’t realized that all of it has actually been coming straight from the top for a very long time.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 1, 2007 3:36 PM
Comment #224570

This just looked like an okay place to stick this in….
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/linda-milazzo/bush-provokes-britains-t_b_54542.html
How much more harm, how many more people and nations can this fool antagonize?
Is there an impeachment countdown running anywhere?!?!?!?

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at July 1, 2007 11:03 PM
Comment #224574

Woody,

The folks and the quotes I mentioned were from some of the highest ranking Democrats in the House of Representatives, a former Democratic Presidential candidate and director of the DNC, and the most vocal persons who are pro-Democrat in TV / Movie / Entertainment, etc. whom Democrats have whole-heartedly embraced.
In each example given, there is unquestionable evidence of these people calling or comparing;

1 the President,
2 the Republicans,
3 the American people,
or 4 the United States military,

to:

1 Hitler,
2 Nazis,
3 racists or ethnic cleansers
4 murderers
5 illegal combatants or terrorists
6 war criminals
7 or expressing outright personal hatred for one of the four


But, it is typical that liberals would see no hate in that. I simply call it the blind leading the blind!

JD

Posted by: JD at July 2, 2007 12:31 AM
Comment #224579

Linda
Ok Linda, since you seem to think I pick and choose which of your comments to use, lets look at your comment and just what I said.

“Unfortunately most of us are left to our own spectulations because this administration has been very ‘tight-lipped’ when it comes to giving out information”

“BECAUSE IT MAKES US HAVE to SPECULATE on the few facts we have”

I did not question how “tight lipped” this administration has been. I simply used your own words to describe what is going on.
You say you have to use your own speculations because of “tight lips,” but it is still speculation.

I know you are against the Bush administration and that is fine. I was just complimenting you on being rational about it. I have yet to see you call him a murderer, terrorist or facist.

Didn’t mean to get you all riled up there. Use my own words? Ok.
Nobody has yet produced the facts needed to prove most of the lefts charges. Instead, the left relies on the people stupidity in their hopes that the people will accept their OPINIONS, HUNCHES and ASSUMPTIONS as facts.

“Speaking of your own, just what are the FACTS you, and other Republicians keep referring to?”

ANYTHING that can stand up in court and show that the lefts charges are valid.

“Unfortunately factual and truthful knownledge has been hard to come by with this particular Administration.”

Does that mean the presumption of guilty until proven innocent is valid? Never used to in the US.

“I also mentioned several discrepives, also in the quote you chose to take out of context. Please explain those, if you have the FACTS to do so.”

This admin is to secretive? I agree.
Wiretapping issue? I agree with you.
What descriptives are you referring to? Seems other than me basing my final judgment on facts, we pretty much agree about things.

“I’d like to add that Bush’s Administration seems to enjoy taking credit (economy) when none is due.”

I agree. It takes credit when it benefits the party and blames when it does not. Just like ALL administrations.

“We had a healthy, NO DEFICET economy before he came into office.”

We also did not have a war going on either. But, even still, he has done a very poor job with the deficit. He should have been cutting ridiculous spending for the past 8 years, like many who vote for him would like.
Too bad I haven’t seen D.A.N. here for a while, he has great numbers showing just how rosy everything REALLY was before Bush.

“Why Bush now seems to feel that our ‘so-called’ healthy economy (with a HUGE debt)is somthing to be proud of, I do not understand”

I don’t understand it either. But then again, I didn’t understand it throughout the 90s.

Posted by: kctim at July 2, 2007 10:43 AM
Comment #224582

Sandra, yup, that’s just more “bring it on.”

JD:
“The folks and the quotes I mentioned were from some of the highest ranking Democrats in the House of Representatives,”

Rangel was speaking of Bush alone. Frank is right, since they’ve abandoned the victims of Katrina, and everybody knows this.

“a former Democratic Presidential candidate and director of the DNC,”

Who was demonized during his entire candidacy by the right. All national chairmen of the two major political parties are hired to be bulldogs for their party. Since it’s part of their job to sound like a partisan, you really shouldn’t act surprised.

“and the most vocal persons who are pro-Democrat in TV / Movie / Entertainment, etc.”

Yet the fact is, neither Moore or Sheehan are Democrats. While Sheehan has been complaining about the Dems for a long time, she only left the party in an offical sense recently — right after the Democratic majority in Congress helped pass the bill authorizing continued funding for the war in Iraq.

Posted by: Adrienne at July 2, 2007 12:25 PM
Comment #224597

Bullshit!!! I’m so sick of this fool…
http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070702/pl_nm/usa_crime_libby_bush_dc_4;_ylt=Agr16wIvX.lP_u2dL3zBpcUE1vAI

Posted by: Sandra Davidson at July 2, 2007 7:43 PM
Comment #224657

JD,

I don’t think we want to set the standard that accusing someone of being a racist is beyond the pale. Otherwise genuine racists would be immune from criticism.

Barney Frank should probably have avoided the phrase “ethnic cleansing”, because it confuses people. It simply refers to any systematic effort to change the ethnic composition of an area. It has been practiced in the US before. Unfortunately, people sometimes assumes it refers to something like the Nazi Holocaust, which would only be a very extreme example.

Posted by: Woody Mena at July 3, 2007 10:03 AM
Comment #224975

So, Woody,

OK, using your definition of what blabbering Barney was trying to say, do you stand by Frank’s remarks that the President is trying to force African Americans out of New Orleans because he thinks it would then be a better place? Is that what you think he is doing, too? And how does that definition of what he accused the President of doing make it any prettier than the first?

JD

Posted by: JD at July 5, 2007 11:03 PM
Comment #224996

JD- Big oil Co. says it’s a good place for oil.
Just a thought.

Posted by: -DAVID- at July 6, 2007 2:10 AM
Comment #225263

DAVID,

Maybe if Big Oil Co. had been allowed to do more business in New Orleans in the first place, more people would have had jobs, (and their own transportation out of New Orleans), instead of demanding that their existence and their transportation all be provided for them by Big City Government, Big State Government, and Big Federal Government? Hmm? Just a thought!

JD

Posted by: JD at July 7, 2007 11:59 PM
Comment #225280

JD - Frankly speaking, I find no difference between
what the Democrats say an what Republicans do.
I know very little about New Orleans, so I can’t
comment.

Posted by: -DAVID- at July 8, 2007 4:23 AM
Comment #228793

I guess we liberals are full of hate just because we want jobs, education, healthcare, security, and bin Laden brought to justice.
The conservatives (actually fascists) consider themselves to be the TRUE Americans who love the United States strictly on the basis that they oppose jobs, education, healthcare, security, and bin Laden brought to justice. Someone should beat hell out of Coulter, Limbaugh, Hannity, and Boortz for what they have done to destroy us.
The fact is, TRUE Americans are questioning why this moron president let those who attacked us get away, with the support of those right wing commentators.They should be tried for treason.

Posted by: Richard Cook at August 8, 2007 8:55 PM
Post a comment