Do liberals HATE the President?

If there was anything constructive to say about the chimp, people would say it. As things stand, he didn't actually win the election, he's thoroughly pissed off the rest of the G8 club (apart from his mindless sex toy Blair), and he's pissed away insane amounts of money on this foolishness in Iraq while cutting government spending on everything else to fund it. The only good thing about all this stupid nonsense is that it's stopped him winding up the Chinese for no good reason.
The fuckwit couldn't run a piss up in a brewery and has no business trying to run a country. That leading to spite is inevitable.
I love the way that the American left has come to mean "anybody who doesn't support everything the president comes out with" recently as well. Very left leaning country at trhe moment, America.

Here's a peice from last weeks paper, written from a conservative perspective.

quote:
November 14, 2003
COMMENTARY
Hate Is Everywhere and Gets Us Nowhere

By Douglas MacKinnon, Douglas MacKinnon was press secretary to former Sen. Bob Dole. He is also a former White House and Pentagon official. His memoir will be published in the summer of 2004.

"Hate her!" So said liberal activist and actress Susan Sarandon when asked recently about liberal Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.

"Hate her!" — two words that open a window into the unfortunate mind-set of many on the left and right.

A well-known self-described liberal Democrat in Hollywood once said that the thing that bothered him most about some of his fellow liberals was their "hate." It's not enough, he said, "that they disagree with Republicans and conservatives, but they have to hate them and hate everything they stand for."

A number of liberal activists have stated that they hate President Bush. Just hate him and hate all of his policies. On hardcover nonfiction best-seller lists, there are four books that spew varying degrees of outright hatred for Bush and conservatives. Hate is something that not only sells, but can now be packaged and marketed.

"Hate" is a strong, obscene and destructive word, and yet it is being uttered with more and more frequency by many on the left and by many who should know better. The crass and childish name-calling directed at Bush by candidates for the Democratic presidential nomination not only creates more hate and anger but should bring shame to those in that party who would choose statesmanship and honor over insults and partisanship.

To be fair, hate was the fuel that energized many on the right during their diatribes against former President Clinton. And hate clouds the judgment of a number of Republicans today. Hatred of the left can also be found in a number of best-selling volumes by conservative authors.

On the left and on the right, hate is a powerful corrosive that is eating away at the foundation of our republic.

How quickly we seem to have forgotten that hate attacked our nation on Sept. 11, 2001. Extremists blinded by hate and ignorance murdered nearly 3,000 human beings on that day, and the same forces are responsible for the deaths of thousands more around the world. Hate spawns evil, irrational thoughts and deeds, unimaginable loss and nothing more.

Those who enter the political arena, as elected officials or as self-styled activists, must not hate. The American people cannot afford the luxury of such anger. Our nation is at risk as never before and we need all of our efforts, all of our energies focused on solutions. Solutions that ultimately will only be found by those willing to forget hatred and reach across party lines and ideologies to work together.

Hate is not only a threat to civility, it is a threat to our national security.

Get over it … for all of our sakes.

http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/california/la-oe-mackinnon14nov14,1,6711510.story?coll=la-headlines-pe-california

So glad to see conservatives in this country have finally seen the light about hate. This is a refrain I've heard increasingly in recent months from commentators on the right.

It's funny how hate never seemed to bother them when it was coming from their own side. Whether it was Lee Atwater's infamous Willie Horton ads or Rush Limbaugh's decade-long campaign of ridicule and character assassination against the Clintons, why use logic and reason when scare-mongering and name-calling are so much more effective?

From my perspective, the left in this country has finally gotten tired of being kicked around and has taken a page from the Republican playbook — and it's getting them some traction, which is perhaps why McKinnon and his ilk have cried foul. But the right need not worry, their side still has all the best pit bulls. Just compare Al Franken's book to Ann Coulter's. He may call you a liar, but she'll call you a traitor. I know which accusation I prefer.

And speaking of "hate"

quote:

Limbaugh Returns to Airwaves After Rehab

NEW YORK (Reuters) - Conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh returned to his radio show on Monday after being treated for addiction to painkillers and assured listeners his therapy had not turned him into a "linguine-spined liberal."

quote:
Originally posted by whomod:
Lee Atwater's infamous Willie Horton ads [/QB]

Let's not forgot what Willie Horton did, and how he did it:

Horton was a convicted murderer, let out of prison on an unguarded forty-eight hour furlough, under a program that Governor Dukakis loudly and publicly supported.

He didn't come back. Instead, Horton, while at large, raped and/or tortured two people in their own home.

And Horton wasn't the only felon to escape under this program. Approximately eighty other convicted felons vanished while out and about unsupervised.

And, despite all that, Dukakis continued to defend the program, only ending it when he realized that public outcry was damaging (to say the least) his presidential chances.

Now, most people, people with common sense, would think that supporting this type of failed program would say a lot about the type of leadership that a candidate would provide and how he or she would govern and, therefore, of course, it should be brought to light as part of that candidate's "record."

But not liberals. They'd rather act like this was racism. That Dukakis was libeled. That Willie Horton wasn't a murderer and a rapist at large because of Michael Dukakis.

The fact that they care more about Mike Dukakis and Willie Horton's feelings than about the victims of these and other crimes says a great deal about these members of the left, and none of it is a bit good.

I wish I had as much free time as all of you do. [yuh huh]

quote:
November 19, 2003
from nme.com
===============
RADIOHEAD’s THOM YORKE is spearheading a growing chorus of protest
aimed at US President GEORGE BUSH’s visit to the UK – branding him and TONY
BLAIR "liars".

Bush and a massive entourage came to London this week (November 18) for
a rare state visit. Even before he arrived the trip provoked fury, with
reports that US security officials wanted to create a three mile
‘exclusion zone’ around him, effectively shutting down central London and
stopping legitimate protesters from getting anywhere near the President.

Angry at what he sees as using the "threat of terrorism to suppress
whatever they choose", Thom Yorke e-mailed NME last week, urging people to
protest against the visit.

When asked why he’d chosen to speak out, Thom told NME: "To make Blair
squirm over his decision to take us into a illegitimate war (In Iraq)
and follow this religious lunatic (Bush) toward a dangerous future for
the whole planet.

"Both of these men are liars. We have right to call them such, they are
putting our children’s future in jeopardy. They are not controlling the
terrorist threat, they are escalating it. Blair will not be allowed off
the hook by his pathetic pleading for us to ‘move on’, neither shall
Bush."

Thom continued: "(The visit) will be heavily staged I think. I expect
they will use the threat of terrorism to suppress whatever they choose,
intimidate and arrest whoever they wish. The majority of British people
were against this war, and Bush's visit will just taint Blair even
further."

While in the UK Bush will be staying in Buckingham Palace. Yorke urged
the Royal Family to "do something useful" and protest too. He
continued: "This is a royal invitation isn't it? How about one of the little
heirs to throne doing something useful with their lives and speaking out?
Refusing to shake hands for example? As we are still awaiting the
results of the Hutton Inquiry I think now is a good time to remind Blair
that he's on very very very very very very very very thin ice."

Anti-war protesters Damon Albarn and Robert '3-D' Del Naja have also
spoken out. 3-D told NME.COM: "The state visit of George Bush is an
insult to the entire nation. The daily death and chaos in Iraq is
escalating. This visit divides our people and our communities. The war on terror
has only created more anger, more frustration and more militants. And
the country continues to evolve into a future target for extremists."

Albarn added: "We are still at war. We are still good at watching war.
What does watching war tell us about ourselves? How does war lead to
peace? How does watching war lead to peace? Two million people asked a
question on February 15 - Why War? We haven't had an answer yet."

Travis singer Fran Healy also contacted NME.COM. He said: "Terrible
timing from our government. WHY NOW? How insensitive is this? Nothing
surprises me any more. The whole thing stinks. A three-mile bubble.
Impressive. And the great thing is- we pay for it. We pay for all of it and
we'll keep paying in money and in lives for a long time to come. I wonder
if Bush realises he's the most unpopular man in the world. That is some
feat. How does that feel? I am interested to see what happens. The
police are gonna have their jobs cut out for them."

CND are helping organise a protest march in London, which assembles
tomorrow (November 20) at 2pm on Malet St. The march will go on to
Trafalgar Square.

http://www.nme.com/news/106798.htm

Thank God Radiohead is on the case. Now, thanks to the insightful commentary of the guys who wrote "Fake Plastic Trees" and "Subterranean Homesick Alien," we all know what to think about Bush. [yuh huh]

If having rock singers against them was any real threat to Republican Presidents, we wouldn't have had one in the last thirty years.

Bush I'st on Clinton during the '91 election campaign. (U2's Bono had been prank calling the White House and asking to speak to Bush all thru the campaign)

. " I'll be consulting with John Major. He can consult with Boy Georrrrrge".

Rockin the Vote, eh?

Don't arrogantly dismiss people who can influence young voters to turn out. Bush learned that the hard way.

Please.

Bono had nothing to do with Bush 41's loss to Clinton. Look that voter turnout and how many young people vote.

I remember Michael Stipe in '88 taking out full page ads (and this was at the height of REM's popularity you might recall) urging people to vote for Dukakis. I remember Springsteen four years before that (again, at the height of HIS popularity) attacking Reagan.

Neither did their candidate a damn bit of good.

And look at all the H'Wood lefties and rockers who were against the GOP in the last congressional elections. Despite the influence of these luminaries we retook the Senate and consolidated gains in the House.

Celebrity supporters might be good for some photo ops and fund-raising, but that's about it.

"I remember Michael Stipe in '88 taking out full page ads (and this was at the height of REM's popularity you might recall) urging people to vote for Dukakis. I remember Springsteen four years before that (again, at the height of HIS popularity) attacking Reagan.

Neither did their candidate a damn bit of good."

Thankfully, this is still America. Stipe and the Boss are fully permitted to express their views. And since money talks in this country, they're within their rights to spend some of their bank accounts on ads supporting their guy.

But why should I suspect any other attitude from a guy who's got G. Gordon Liddy as his avatar. The guy's a convict for crying out loud...Oh well. This is still America. You can pick your own hero.

Jim

On to speak on topic...I don't know if all Liberals hate this President. My wife certainly does. But she is more Left than I am. I do not hate this President, but I do find him myopic, vengeful, and deluded. I think he and his cronies feel they're operating as God's agents. That's a scary thought. He makes his dad look like a political genius...

--Jim

At no time did I express an opinion that Stipe or Springsteen had no right to express their opinions.

I simply noted that neither seemed very successful in swaying public opinion.

It's interesting that so many liberals--on this board and elsewhere--take disagreement, whether polite or not, as an attempt to censor. It's almost as if they hope to stifle disagreement with them through an attempt to accuse someone of censorship or similar egregious behavior.

What potential irony: stifling dissent by accusing the other side of stifling dissent.

You insinuated that Stipe et al. wasted their money, as it didn't do their candidate a damn bit of good. I said it was their right to "waste" their money regardless.

And I never said a word about anybody censoring anything...

Jim

I don't hate Dubya, I just don't get the impression of intelligence that I expect in the leader of the free world. I've never seen a picture of him that didn't look like it needed a comedy caption.

Y'know, maybe Bush deserves that, and maybe he doesn't.

I'd be more inclined to agree with the "Bush is an idiot" crowd, if pretty much the same identical thing weren't consistently said about Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr., and Quayle.

Interesting how it's only Republicans over the last 30 years who are consistently portrayed as idiots. It seems like a consistent payback against any Republican who dares to get elected.

And also interesting that the press that paints this idiot portrayal is over 80% liberal/Democrat.

Coincidence?

The press portrayed Carter as a fool, too. Clinton, a Rhodes scholar, is clearly no fool.

quote:
Originally posted by D. McDonagh:
If there was anything constructive to say about the chimp, people would say it. As things stand, he didn't actually win the election, he's thoroughly pissed off the rest of the G8 club (apart from his mindless sex toy Blair), and he's pissed away insane amounts of money on this foolishness in Iraq while cutting government spending on everything else to fund it. The only good thing about all this stupid nonsense is that it's stopped him winding up the Chinese for no good reason.
The fuckwit couldn't run a piss up in a brewery and has no business trying to run a country. That leading to spite is inevitable.
I love the way that the American left has come to mean "anybody who doesn't support everything the president comes out with" recently as well. Very left leaning country at trhe moment, America.

Yeah. This is pretty much the way everyone feels about him down here, too.

Love the tariffs being slapped around at the moment, protecting American industry before an election.

If the man who controls our governments' foreign policy was able to be voted for by people in our countries, he might be a wee bit more multilateral. There are no direct elections for those of us in the hegemony.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Y'know, maybe Bush deserves that, and maybe he doesn't.

I'd be more inclined to agree with the "Bush is an idiot" crowd, if pretty much the same identical thing weren't consistently said about Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr., and Quayle.

Interesting how it's only Republicans over the last 30 years who are consistently portrayed as idiots. It seems like a consistent payback against any Republican who dares to get elected.

And also interesting that the press that paints this idiot portrayal is over 80% liberal/Democrat.

Coincidence?

Actually, thinking about this a bit more, over the past 30 years you've had Nixon, Reagan, Ford, Bush Snr and Bush jr as GOP presidents, and only Carter and Clinton as Dem presidents. 5:2. Clinton was a Rhodes scholar and beyond reproach for being a dummy.

So 6 presidents are open to being painted as dumb arses, and 5 of them were/are Republicans.

So, no, no coincidence, but not through any liberal press conspiracy.

quote:
I've never seen a picture of him that didn't look like it needed a comedy caption.

Interesting, because there are so maney good professional pictures of him, and yet publishers seem to print the bad ones.

Actually, the reason that republican presidents are perceived as stupid is because there is a tendency among liberals, including those in the media, to assume that people who don't share their beliefs are either evil, stupid or both.

As an Ithaca College Professor noted earlier this year about anti-war protesters:

quote:
they most frequently rely on what I like to call the "Dupes or Dopes" theory - that is, the conviction that everyone who disagrees with them is either a dupe (brainwashed by the Corporate Media, an evil conspiracy that includes everyone in America who goes near a word processor, microphone or television camera, with the sole exception of Amy Goodman), or a dope, which is to say, too stupid to recognize the clear and obvious truth [and that] "Bush is an idiot/Bush is evil"

quote:
Originally posted by the G-man:
Actually, the reason that republican presidents are perceived as stupid is because there is a tendency among liberals, including those in the media, to assume that people who don't share their beliefs are either evil, stupid or both.

As an Ithaca College Professor noted earlier this year about anti-war protesters:

quote:
they most frequently rely on what I like to call the "Dupes or Dopes" theory - that is, the conviction that everyone who disagrees with them is either a dupe (brainwashed by the Corporate Media, an evil conspiracy that includes everyone in America who goes near a word processor, microphone or television camera, with the sole exception of Amy Goodman), or a dope, which is to say, too stupid to recognize the clear and obvious truth [and that] "Bush is an idiot/Bush is evil"

None of this apologist doublespeak negates my crystal clear chain of logic:

1. Most Presidents in the past 30 years have been Republicans.

2. In the past thirty years only one - a Democrat - has been a Rhodes scholar, therefore almost all of the rest of them can be open to attack as stupid.

2. Therefore, all Republican presidents plus Carter in the past 30 years can be open to attack as being stupid.

So let me ask those of you who are Conservative and/or back our current President's approaches and policies...do you really think he's going to end terrorism?

Kris Kristofferson--that formerly burned out singer/songwriter who starred in "A Star is Born," "Convey" and numerous bad made for TV westerns was also a Rhodes Scholar. If being a Rhodes Scholar automatically equals brilliance, why the hell did he make those movies?

Seriously, however, it's difficult to have a rational discussion about this with someone who seems to think that the only measure of intelligence is a Rhodes Scholarship and, implicityly that every other President is subject to being called stupid for not having one.

Using that kind of highly specious logic, Thomas Jefferson--widely considered the most intelligent president to date--is subject to being called stupid because he wasn't a Rhodes Scholar.

You can be a Rhodes Scholar in different fields, G.

Kris studied Literature. Clinton, Government/Political Sci. It think his outweighs Kristofferson's.

quote:
Originally posted by the G-man:
Kris Kristofferson--that formerly burned out singer/songwriter who starred in "A Star is Born," "Convey" and numerous bad made for TV westerns was also a Rhodes Scholar. If being a Rhodes Scholar automatically equals brilliance, why the hell did he make those movies?

Probably because he needed the money.

Just because someone's smart enough to know a bad script when they see one, doesn't mean they can afford not to do the movie. If an actor has to choose between losing a paycheck and being in a bad movie, there are times they can't afford to turn down the paycheck.

Sigh...

did anyone here not notice that, immediately after my comment about Kris Kristofferson and his choice of film roles, I followed up with a paragraph that began "Seriously..."? [izzat so?]

As in "Okay, I was kidding before, however..."

Do I have to surround every facetious comment with graemlins to get a point across here? [wink]

Oh, and not to put too fine a point on what was a joke to begin with, but if Kristofferson is so damn smart, then why did he need to make bad movies, including "Heaven's Gate," to make money? The guy wrote "Me and Bobby McGee," "Sunday Morning Coming Down," "Help Me Make it Through the Night," and "For the Good Times," for cryin' out loud. Shouldn't the royalties on those songs alone keep him living comfortably for life?

Note: [wink]

quote:
Originally posted by the G-man:
Sigh... did anyone here not notice that, immediately after my comment about Kris Kristofferson and his choice of film roles, I followed up with a paragraph that began "Seriously..."?

As in "Okay, I was kidding before, however..."

Do I have to surround every facetious comment with graemlins to get a point across here?

Oh, and not to put too fine a point on what was a joke to begin with, but if Kristofferson is so damn smart, then why did he need to make bad movies, including "Heaven's Gate," to make money? The guy wrote "Me and Bobby McGee," "Sunday Morning Coming Down," "Help Me Make it Through the Night," and "For the Good Times," for cryin' out loud. Shouldn't the royalties on those songs alone keep him living comfortably for life?

Note:

I was being sarcastic too with the "he needed the money" comment (maybe you're right - maybe we should use smileys for everything! [nyah hah]

) I just jotted down that last bit because it just popped into my head, and for some reason, I had a feeling I might have had to say it later anyway, so why not say it now?

Generally, it is a little hard to tell on an MB if someone's being sarcastic or not at times.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
Y'know, maybe Bush deserves that, and maybe he doesn't.

I'd be more inclined to agree with the "Bush is an idiot" crowd, if pretty much the same identical thing weren't consistently said about Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr., and Quayle.

Interesting how it's only Republicans over the last 30 years who are consistently portrayed as idiots. It seems like a consistent payback against any Republican who dares to get elected.

And also interesting that the press that paints this idiot portrayal is over 80% liberal/Democrat.

Coincidence?

So none of these pearls of wisdom emanating from Bush's lips has anything to do with Bush being perceived as an idiot, eh? It's all the "liberal media's" fault. You don't even take into account that the so called "liberal media" rarely if at all ever calls him on his twisting and skewering of the facts and of the english language. Again, a desire to blame it all on some evil wicked liberal conspiracy that controls ALL MEDIA [yuh huh]

rather than actually holding Bush himself accountable for all the stupidity he speaks incessantly. Leave that paranoia for the Mr. Liddy avatar.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/blbushisms.htm

quote:
"See, free nations are peaceful nations. Free nations don't attack each other. Free nations don't develop weapons of mass destruction." —George W. Bush, Milwaukee, Wis., Oct. 3, 2003

What the Mod one said!

Bush demonstrates his C student intelligence when he speaks. I don't need Dan Rather or Al Franken to tell me that.

The standard liberal argument on Bush's intelligence is that his verbal misstatements indicate a lack of intelligence.

However, there are, of course, different types of intelligence. This is why, for example, standardized tests often test verbal and mathmatical skill separately.

A person can be possessed of a great verbal dexterity and woefully incapable of analytical thinking. A person can have the soul of a poet and be completely ignorant of, for example, basic economic theory.

In fact, some theorize that the two types of intelligences rarely go hand in hand.

So this is hardly a proper gauge of Bush's intelligence.

And Bush is hardly the only public officer to make verbal gaffes. For example, in one interview, Howard Dean meant to say, in connection with how to govern a postwar Iraq, "the problem now is how to govern, and that's where the real rubber is underneath the road." instead of "that's where the rubber meets the road." You don't see jokes about that everyday, or Dean's "enemies" using it as sigs on message boards.

No, it boils down to what was pointed out earlier: if you don't agree with the elitists on the left, you can't simply have a difference of opinion. You have to be either evil or stupid.

Quote:

Originally posted by whomod:

Quote:

Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:

Y'know, maybe Bush deserves that, and maybe he doesn't.

I'd be more inclined to agree with the "Bush is an idiot" crowd, if pretty much the same identical thing weren't consistently said about Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr., and Quayle.

Interesting how it's only Republicans over the last 30 years who are consistently portrayed as idiots. It seems like a consistent payback against any Republican who dares to get elected.

And also interesting that the press that paints this idiot portrayal is over 80% liberal/Democrat.

Coincidence?

So none of these pearls of wisdom emanating from Bush's lips has anything to do with Bush being perceived as an idiot, eh? It's all the "liberal media's" fault. You don't even take into account that the so called "liberal media" rarely if at all ever calls him on his twisting and skewering of the facts and of the english language. Again, a desire to blame it all on some evil wicked liberal conspiracy that controls ALL MEDIA

I believe I said clearly "about 80%" of the media, and I believe that clearly states something very different from "ALL the media" as you allege that I said. And slapped on the "paranoid" label while you were at it. More liberal namecalling, a consistent liberal tactic, to caricature and discredit through underhanded labels, rather than the facts.

I believe I've established liberal media bias --as has G-Man-- in the
"Liberal Media" topic...
http://www.rkmbs.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=217045&page=7&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

...among many other links, on other topics. There is no shortage of numbers and documentation of liberal distortion of the news.

Currently, I'm reading the book Bias by former 28-year CBS correspondent Bernard Goldberg, deconstructing the manufacture of the news by the media elite.
Explaining how sympathetic/crusading/partisan liberal reporting distorts the true facts of issues such as homelessness and AIDS, reporting unchallenged the data given by special interest advocates, while simultaneously giving extreme skepticism to any perspectives that fall outside their oh-so-enlightened superior liberal beliefs of the causes and solutions to these issues.

And anyone who disagrees is labelled a racist, or narrow minded or backwards, or heartless. Well, maybe they're just right !
And I don't mean just politically Right.

Interesting how "homelessness" began as an issue the split second Reagan took office in 1981, and was heavily reported under Bush Sr. as well. But lo and behold, as soon as Clinton was elected, reporting of homelessness virtually ceased to exist.

AIDS [liberal spin: ] was caused by Reagan's heartless lack of funding, not by promiscuous gays, I.V. drug users and prostitutes.
And cases where AIDS was transmitted to heterosexuals through secretly bisexual partners, secretly I.V.-drug-using partners, and secretly prostitute-using partners, are distortedly categorized as "heterosexual transmission" cases, thus vastly exaggerating the true number of heterosexual cases, and manufacturing a vastly large number of "heterosexually transmitted" cases.

And of course, as a consistent theme, the ultimate conclusion of liberal reporting is to simply blame it all on the Republicans.

~

As I've said ad infinitum, I didn't vote for G.W.Bush, he wasn't my choice. But while he's President I support him. I would have supported Gore as President even though I didn't vote for him either. (Once again, I voted for Ralph Nader. )

I supported the 1994 war in Haiti as in our interest (and even more so, Haiti's), I similarly supported intervention in Bosnia, Kosovo, and Somalia ( all wars on Clinton's watch). And I was furious Clinton, motivated by polls and self-serving cowardice, pulled out of Somalia, instead of following through and doing the job right.

Regarding G.W. Bush's quotes --as I've said several times here on the boards-- Gore, Clinton and other Democrats have similarly said some absurdly stupid things, that Rush Limbaugh and others have pointed out. When the cameras are on you every moment you step outside, no one is is eloquent every moment of every day. And in those circumstances, everyone has said one stupid thing or another.

But even saying that, I have no problem agreeing G.W. Bush is certainly not the most articulate president we've ever had.

You need to remember, Dave, that, to whomod, any deviation from his own extreme leftism seems conservative by comparison.

In fact, I hear he next plans to picket Mother Jones and Utne Reader as pawns of the vast right wing media conspiracy. [wink]

quote:
Originally posted by the G-man:
Sigh... did anyone here not notice that, immediately after my comment about Kris Kristofferson and his choice of film roles, I followed up with a paragraph that began "Seriously..."?

As in "Okay, I was kidding before, however..."

Do I have to surround every facetious comment with graemlins to get a point across here?

Oh, and not to put too fine a point on what was a joke to begin with, but if Kristofferson is so damn smart, then why did he need to make bad movies, including "Heaven's Gate," to make money? The guy wrote "Me and Bobby McGee," "Sunday Morning Coming Down," "Help Me Make it Through the Night," and "For the Good Times," for cryin' out loud. Shouldn't the royalties on those songs alone keep him living comfortably for life?

Note:

What? You don't like Kristofferson's movies?

On the issue of Rhosdes scholarhips.... I know two Rhodes scolars (one is my brother in law's brother). They're both academics, and very bright. But, like Kristofferson, they might never achieve commerical success, which is the standard you're using. They will never however be labelled as "dumb".

quote:
Originally posted by the G-man:
You need to remember, Dave, that, to whomod, any deviation from his own extreme leftism seems conservative by comparison.

That's actually what Bernard Goldberg's Bias book explains: that in New York city, where the major news networks are based, and the New York Times, the area is a Mecca of liberalism. They believe that anyone who supports pro-life, or opposes gun control, or any restraint to gay rights doesn't just have an opposing view, but is an ignorant, mentally deficient neanderthal. And that they are the Great Enlighteners who force the "primatives" outside the East Coast to accept their self-proclaimed version of "modernity" and "enlightenment".

Goldberg explains that it's not even consciously that the news media elite do this. To them, their liberal/leftist views are "the mainstream", because everyone in their urban/metropolitan cultural bubble believes the same thing they believe. And anyone even slightly to the right of that self-proclaimed "center of America" is regarded as "right wing extremist". But despite the liberal media believing that their left-leaning views are "the mainstream", most of the vast region between New York City and L.A. is considerably to the right of that news media "center".
THAT's the real "center of America".

There was a Republican map of the U.S. right after the 2000 election with the caption: "BUSH COUNTRY !", that showed voting results by county across the entire United States, the Bush areas in red and the Gore areas in blue, and the nation was overwhelmingly red (i.e., voted for Bush) Except for a few heavily populated urban centers that voted for Gore. And that's what the electoral college was set up for: to allow proportionate representation of all the states, instead of just a few key population centers across the country.

Much of what Goldberg says is what I half consciously already knew. Like the way Republican and conservative pundits are always labelled as such, to clearly mark their separation from the mainstream. While extreme liberals like Senator Ted Kennedy or Tom Daschle or celebrities like Barbara Streisand are simply identified as Senators, law professors, university scholars and actors, as if their views are objective and credible, instead of the partisan opposite extreme of the political spectrum.
The net effect is that liberals are insideously presented as representing the mainstream. Whereas portrayal of conservatives quietly projects their views as outside the mainstream, as opposed to the status quo that conservatives clearly are: the very definition of the mainstream, a mainstream that conservatives are struggling to preserve.

quote:
Actually, the reason that republican presidents are perceived as stupid is because there is a tendency among liberals, including those in the media, to assume that people who don't share their beliefs are either evil, stupid or both.

As an Ithaca College Professor noted earlier this year about anti-war protesters:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
they most frequently rely on what I like to call the "Dupes or Dopes" theory - that is, the conviction that everyone who disagrees with them is either a dupe (brainwashed by the Corporate Media, an evil conspiracy that includes everyone in America who goes near a word processor, microphone or television camera, with the sole exception of Amy Goodman), or a dope, which is to say, too stupid to recognize the clear and obvious truth [and that] "Bush is an idiot/Bush is evil"
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And clearly you were brainwashed into believing that...

That sounds very like the crap spouted by some of the conservatives round here that there is a huge Liberal conspiracy. Elements of both sides have their stupid generalisations about the other.

I think Clinton was a bit of prat, yet I am, certainly by America's more to the right than Britain's standards, a liberal. I though he was guilty of perjury and should have been punished accordingly.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:

quote:
Originally posted by the G-man:
You need to remember, Dave, that, to whomod, any deviation from his own extreme leftism seems conservative by comparison.

That's actually what Bernard Goldberg's Bias book explains: that in New York city, where the major news networks are based, and the New York Times, the area is a Mecca of liberalism. They believe that anyone who supports pro-life, or opposes gun control, or any restraint to gay rights doesn't just have an opposing view, but is ignorant, deficient, neanderthal. And that they are the Great Enlighteners who force the "primatives" outside the East Coast to accept their self-proclaimed version of "modernity" and "enlightenment".

Goldberg explains that it's not even consciously that the news media elite do this. To them, their liberal/leftist views are "the mainstream", because everyone in their urban/metropolitan cultural bubble believes the same thing they believe. And anyone even slightly to the right of that self-proclaimed "center" is regarded as "right wing extremist". But despite the liberal media believing that their left-leaning views are "the mainstream", most of the vast region between New York City and L.A. is considerably to the right of that news media "center". THAT's the real "center of America".

There was a Republican map of the U.S. right after the 2000 election with the caption: "BUSH COUNTRY !", that showed voting results by county across the entire United States, the Bush areas in red and the Gore areas in blue, and the nation was overwhelmingly red (i.e., voted for Bush) Except for a few heavily populated urban centers that voted for Gore. And that's what the electoral college was set up for: to allow proportionate representation of all the states, instead of just a few key population centers across the country.

Much of what Goldberg says is what I half consciously already knew. Like the way Republican and conservative pundits are always labelled as such, to clearly mark their separation from the mainstream. While extreme liberals like Senator Ted Kennedy or Tom Daschle or Barbara Streisand are simply identified as Senators, law professors, university scholars and actors, as if their views are objective and credible, instead of the partisan opposite extreme of the political spectrum. The net effect is that liberals are insideously presented as representing the mainstream. Whereas portrayal of conservatives quietly projects their views as outside the mainstream, as opposed to the status quo that conservatives clearly are: the very definition of the mainstream, that conservatives are struggling to preserve.

Dave. Give me some time to reply to Goldberg's "bias" book. There is a funny incident where Goldberg was made to look like a total fool on live TV for a quote he used in his book that "proved "liberal bias" without actually putting the quote into greater context and without he himself actually knowing what that context was. All that mattered to him was the out of context quote to prove his point regardless of whether there was actually a point there or not. But seeing as it is Thanksgiving, I don't have time to type the whole incident out right now.

Could it be that Republicans are impressed by Bush's wit and intelligence because the majority of Republicans are themselves thicker than pigshit?

i think that post proved the "hating" debate....

The press is right on the status quo. But it can be a little sensational (Michael Jackson). There is no "vast far-left bias."

quote:
You need to remember, Dave, that, to whomod, any deviation from his own extreme leftism seems conservative by comparison.

In fact, I hear he next plans to picket Mother Jones and Utne Reader as pawns of the vast right wing media conspiracy.

If you replace left with right, the same can be said about you.

I'd like to hear an example of the those 'darned liberals' in the media altering the facts for their own agenda. You guys talk alot about polls that show that the majority of journalists are liberals. What does that show? Sure, it supports your claim, but you need a LOT more to prove some sort of 'vast left-wing bias.'

Yes, but they won't actually provide any specific examples. They don't need to bother because all liberals are evil sorts who want to take conservatives' guns away and have their wives raped by niggers. Therefore, anything liberals say cannot be trusted and is probably a fib.

quote:
Originally posted by D. McDonagh:
Yes, but they won't actually provide any specific examples. They don't need to bother because all liberals are evil sorts who want to take conservatives' guns away and have their wives raped by niggers. Therefore, anything liberals say cannot be trusted and is probably a fib.

:lol: lol youve really got it bad dontcha?

Based on JQ's post, it appears that it is being conceded that the media is, by and large, liberal.

The new tack appears to be, based on the same post, "yes, they are liberal but they don't actually color the news."

Coincidentally, "Coloring the News," is the name of a recently published book by William McGowan, which details actual examples of the American news media distorting the news to promote "diversity" and/or "political correctness":

Deleting the race of a rape and sodomy suspect, who was still at large, from a news story so as not to encourage stereotyping in the minds of the readers
Approving the continued use of inaccurate data regarding partial-birth abortions after it had been shown to be false
Determining that photos of five black police officers arrested for narcotics trafficking should not be published because it would be devastating to the "commanding need" for black role models in the community
Requiring that reporters meet specific numerical goals for the number of women and minorities quoted in stories and used as sources, and paying editors in part based on meeting these quotas
He uncovers stories of newsroom petitions circulated by reporters trying to get colleagues fired for not towing this or that party line.
reporting on issues like Washington's Initiative 200, a measure to ban race preferences, as being so ludicrously one-sided that it would be funny if it weren't so irresponsible.
making politically incorrect stories vanish entirely, such as the black anti-Semitism in Brooklyn's Crown Heights riots of 1991

After reviewing the specific incidents he uncovers McGowan concludes:

quote:
An ideological press whose reporting and analysis is distorted by double standards, intellectual dishonesty and fashionable cant favoring certain groups over others only poisons the national well...the diversity ethos has dumbed it down, blunting the public's faculties for reasoned argument just when the edge has never had to be sharper.

Clearly, a lot of people on both sides of the "liberal vs. conservative" debate are unhappy with the way things are regarding how their side is portrayed, or how the other side is portrayed. Some of you have cited problems with the media that you feel need fixing. Do any of you have any plans to do something about it? Do any of you have a kind of job that would allow you spread public awareness about the issues, facts, and opinions you express here (like, do any of you work in media or marketing, or do any of you write letters or newspaper columns for your local papers?) Because considering the amount of effort some of you put into this debate, you obviously feel very strongly about it and would like to see something done.

I'm not being sarcastic, or taking shots at anyone's postion, or even the debate itself anymore. It's just that with all the energy and passion that goes into the "libs vs. cons" debate around here, I can't help wondering if any of you have any other outlets for these ideas, especially ones that might raise public awareness about facts you feel the public currently doesn't know. Surely these boards aren't the only place you guys discuss this sort of thing.

So do any of you guys try to get the ideas you express here out into the open, or do any of you plan to do so at some point?

quote:
Originally posted by Darknight613:
Clearly, a lot of people on both sides of the "liberal vs. conservative" debate are unhappy with the way things are regarding how their side is portrayed, or how the other side is portrayed. Some of you have cited problems with the media that you feel need fixing. Do any of you have any plans to do something about it? Do any of you have a kind of job that would allow you spread public awareness about the issues, facts, and opinions you express here (like, do any of you work in media or marketing, or do any of you write letters or newspaper columns for your local papers?) Because considering the amount of effort some of you put into this debate, you obviously feel very strongly about it and would like to see something done.

I'm not being sarcastic, or taking shots at anyone's postion, or even the debate itself anymore. It's just that with all the energy and passion that goes into the "libs vs. cons" debate around here, I can't help wondering if any of you have any other outlets for these ideas, especially ones that might raise public awareness about facts you feel the public currently doesn't know. Surely these boards aren't the only place you guys discuss this sort of thing.

So do any of you guys try to get the ideas you express here out into the open, or do any of you plan to do so at some point?

Forgot to mention - if you hadn't considered doing this, maybe some of you should. You never know what kind of difference you could make.

quote:
I Bitch-slap Bernie Goldberg

In January of 2003, I was asked to appear on the MSNBC show Donahue with Bernard Goldberg, the former CBS correspondent whose best seller, Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How The Media Distorts the News, purports to take on the liberal media bias. Slander and Bias are the right's one-two punch against the effete lefty elite.

The Donahue Show was going to be taped live in front of a studio audience at Rockefeller Center in New York. I was in San Francisco making big money with one of my halarious and well received corporarte speeches, and I hate appearing on these shows via satellite. It puts you at a disadvantage. Still, I had read Bernie's book a few months earlier, and I had a few problems with it. So I said yes.

A couple of weeks after I did the show, i was stopped by a TV news producer (not from CBS) who said " Man, you really bitch-slapped Bernie Goldberg."
Yeah, I did. But I have to admit, I did it a little unfairly. I ambushed Bernie. With His own book.

I asked him about something from his chapter, "Liberal Hate Speech". (Coulteresque, huh?) In the chapter, he cites twelve examples of "liberal hate speech" from the past twelve years. Goldberg admits he got them from the Media Research Center, a right-wing media-watch group which sends out a newsletter chock-full of "outrageous" quotes from the liberal media. Now considering the hundreds of thousands of hours of mainstream media coverage over that period, you'd thik Goldberg would have some pretty choice examples to pick from, right?

One of the twelve examples was a quote from John Chancellor, the late, revered NBC anchor and commentator. Here's how it appeared in Bias

It's short of soap, so there are lice in the hospitals. It's short of pantyhose, so womens legs go bare. It's short of snowsuits so babies stay home in winter. Sometimes it's short of cigarettes, so millions of people stop smoking involuntarily. It drives everyone crazy. The problem isn't communism. No one even talked about communism this week. The problem is shortages. - NBCNightly News commentator John Chancellor on the Soviet Union, August 21, 1991

After presenting the quote, Goldberg tears Chancellor a new one for " his absurd observation that the problems in the old Soviet Union wasn't communism but shortages".

Hmm. The quote was from August 1991. So on Donahue, i read the quote, then asked, " Do you know what happened that day in the Soviet Union, Bernie?"
He Froze. Then came back with a good one: "Why don't you tell me?"
I had learned how to handle that trick in the schoolyard back in Minnesota. "No, I said,"why don't you tell me?"
Clearly the man had no idea. I persisted, "What happened in the Soviet Union that day?"
Bernie went white. Finally, "Well, I don't know what happened that day."
So I told him. Let's go to the videotape:

Franken: That was the collapse of the coup, the hard-liner coup at the Parliment.
Goldberg: And?
Franken: And that was huge. Do you know that perestroika had been in effect for six years at that point? The point here is Bernie, you regurgitated a quote that you got from some right-wing media-watch group. And you did not care to look into the context of it. Listen to how Tom Brokaw opened that evenings news.

Good evening. Wednesday, August 21, 1991. This is a day for bold print in history to be remebered and savored as the day when the power of the people in the Soviet Union proved to be greater than the power of the gray and cold-blooded men who thought they could return that country to the darkness of state oppression."

Boy, it sounds like a real pro-communist bias on NBC, doesn't it? But you know what Bernie? You didn't even bother to find out what the context of John Chancellor--who, by the way, is dead, and couldn't defend himself. You had no interest in finding out the context of what he was saying.

I was talking into a camera in San Francisco, so I couldn't see Bernie. But when I watched the tape later, I have to admit I got a real kick out of watching Bernie sitting there silently stewing. He knew he looked like a fool, because I was right. He had thrown something in his book without checking it. Frankly, when I had first read the quote in Goldberg's book, I hadn't known the context either. I'm a comedian. But I had a sneaky suspicion that John Chancellor had never been a Stalinist.

So, I the comedian, bothered to look it up and get the transcript for the August 21,1991 NBC Nightly News broadcast. Brokaw had asked Chancellor about Gorbachev's next move. And what Chancellor was saying was that Gorbachev couldn't use communism as an excuse because, by that point, he had completely dismantled communism in the Soviet Union.

Alan Greenspan would have agreed with what Chancellor was saying. And yet Goldberg had accused John Chancellor of "liberal hate speech".
Now I'm on the satellite, asking Goldberg to respond. And he can't. So Phil turns to another guest, a right-wing radio talk show host named Jeff Whittaker, "Now Mr. Whittaker, you wanted to say briefly?"
As many examples as Al can pull out, I can pull out a lot of leads into the nightly news." (sounds like a familar retort to me- whomod ) What the hell does that mean? I was talking about Goldberg's book.
And that's when I started yelling from San Francisco, " I want to hear Bernie. This is about accountability."

But nothing from Bernie. And as Phil goes to commercial, I'm still shouting, Phil, why are you letting Bernie off?" When I watched the tape a few days later, I realized I may have appeared just a bit aggressive.
A little later in the show, Donahue took a caller.

Donahue: Billy from Tennesse. You waited. I thank you for your patience. What did you want to say?
caller: Phil, thank you. I think the main thing I wanted to say is I'm sad the conservatives you have on tonight have done a poor job of articulating our conservative argument, which I think is another bias of the press is that you always pick very smart, astute liberals, like Al Franken, who are very articulate, and then you have conservatives who scratch their heads and can't come back with something.
Donahue Oh, well...
(laughter)

Still later, Donahue turned to Bernie and said, "you know, i think you've been wounded tonight, kid."
He had been wounded. But unfortunately, because I was three thousand miles away, I wasn't able to shake hands with him after the show and take him out for a drink. If i'd been there, that's exactly what I would have done. And sipping my sake bomb, I would have explained to him what a travesty his book is.
It really should have been called Bias: A CBS Insider Exposes How CBS didn't give him the Career He wanted. On 72 of the books 232 pages, Goldberg settles scores with is old boss Dan Rather. A representative sample: " If CBS News were a prison instead of a journalistic enterprise, three quarters of the producers and 100 percent of the vice presidents would be [Rather's] bitches."
Besides settling scores, Goldberg draws upon his twenty-eight years of broadcast journalism experience to relate a few telling anectdotes in which people in the newsroom said something liberal-sounding. Apparently at 12:36 P.M. on April 14, 1999 during a routine CBS Weekend News conference call, producer Roxanne Russell had the temerity to jokingly refer to Gary Bauer as a "little nut from the Christian group" (Full disclosure--Gary's a freind of mine, is small, a christian, and not a nut.) That was unfair. Thank God CBS didn't broadcast the conference call bacause that would have been very biased.
I'll admit that, from among the hundreds of thousands of hours of broadcast news over three decades, Bernie is able to cobble together a few instances of liberally slanted reporting. But even when Goldberg seems to have a point, it still feels just the teensiest bit selective. It's like accusing a library of having a murder mystery bias after only going to the murder mystery shelf. They're all murder mysteries!
Worse, most of his examples are as well researched as the John Chancellor quote.
Why Bernie asks, if CBS identifies the Heritage Foundation as a "conservative" think tank, does it not identify the Brookings institution as a "liberal" think tank?
I don't know. Bias? Or could it be because the Heritage Foundation's website says their mission is to "promote conservative public policies" while the Brookings website says it's committed to "independent, factual and nonpartisan research"?
Why, Bernie wants to know, is Phyllis Schafly always labeled as a "conservative"? Maybe because the official biography on her Eagle Forum website calls her a "national leader of the conservative movement."
Why Bernie asks on page 57, is Rush Limbaugh referred to as a "conserevative" talk show host, but Rosie O'Donell is not always labelled a "liberal" talk show host? At first, I thought that one was a misfire. Rush spends three hours a day delivering his patented brand of right-wing folderol. But when I remebered a Rosie show where she interviewed Haley Joel Osment. The kid was supposed to be promoting The Sixth Sense, but he just wouldn't shut up about the Earned Income Tax Credit.

Bernie has a chapter called "The Most Important Story you Never Saw on TV". It's about latchkey kids and working moms. And it is an important story. But if you haven't seen it on TV, it's because you haven't been watching CNN (11 stories), CBS (11),NBC (3), or ABC (10). When I see something only thirty-five times, i know the liberal media is trying to keep a lid on it.

You know, if there's one thing I associate with liberalism, it's anti-semitism. And what else could explain the shocking media cover-up of the fact that many Arabs dislike Isreal? Goldberg has the goods on this one. His smoking gun:" I learned much more about the atmosphere that breeds suicide bombers from one short article in Commentary Magazine than I have from watching twenty years of network television news." The Commentary article discusses a hit song in Cairo, Damascus, and the West Bank, entitled " I hate Isreal".
"Why didn't I know this?" Bernie writes indignantly. A computer check soon answered my question. On television only CNN reported the " I hate Isreal " story. On radio, NPR did a peice. So did The Christian Science Monitor and The Chicago Tribune. The Los Angeles Times ran a short news Wire service story.
So in other words, except for CNN, NPR, the Chicago Tribune, the Los Angeles Times, and the wire services, not one of the liberal media outlets let us know about this important story-not FOX, not the Wall Street Journal, not the Washington Times, not even the National Review? Where are you, William F. Buckley Jr., you liberal anti-semite? (Actually, a Nexis search reveals that the story was also mentioned in the Washington Post, Boston Globe, Chicago Sun Times, Buffalo News, Miwaulkee Journal Sentinel, Pittsburg Post Gazette, Baltimore Sun, Philadelphia Inquirer, Atlanta Journal and Constitution, etc. But still, William Buckley's silence on 'I hate Isreal' speaks volumes)

As I said, one of Bias's biggest problems is selectivity. The book came out in December 2001. Now maybe Bernie doesn't follow politics, but there was a big election the previous year. looking at the coverage of a presidential election might be a good way to test theories of media bias, don't you think? Say the media was liberal. Which canidate would it be nicer to? The Republican George W. Bush or the Democrat, Albert Gore?
There's not one word in Bias about the 2000 Presidential election, in my next chapter, I wil ltry to fill in this gaping hole with a scientific analysys of just how liberal--or, perhaps, how conservative--that coverage was.

You know, one of the joys of appearing on TV is going through the e-mail you get when you bitch-slap a Bernie Goldberg or a Bill O'Reily. And boy, I got a lot of great e-mail from that Donahue appearance. Most of the comments were of the "way to get him" or " i liked your tie" variety, but quite a few were, shall we say, slightly negative.
One of my favorites:

Saw you on Donahue with your liberal shit. Blow it out your ass dickhead

I've composed a standard response to e-mail like that:

Thank you for your kind e-mail regarding my appearance on Donahue. As you can imagine, I've received so many poisitive responses that I cannot possibly answer them all personally. But once again, thank you for your kind remarks.

The idea is to frustrate them. It's especially gratifying when they respond to my response. Like the "blow-it-out-your-ass" guy did:

Hey asshole. I know you read my e-mail because you mentioned Donahue. Blow me.

So I e-mailed him back again.

Thank you for your kind e-mail regarding my appearance on Donahue. As you can imagine, I've received so many poisitive responses that I cannot possibly answer them all personally. But once again, thank you for your kind remarks.

Sure enough, a few hours later, another e-mail from my new freind.

Franken, you're a joke

So I e-mailed him back:

Thank you for your kind e-mail regarding my appearance on Donahue. As you can imagine, I've received so many poisitive responses that I cannot possibly answer them all personally. But once again, thank you for your kind remarks.

Unfortunately, that was the last of our little correspondense.

From chapter 6 of Al Franken's book "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them

"

Hopefully, this book is next on your list after you're done gleaning insight from "Bias". After all, It would be the kind of balanced reading list I'd expect from someone who voted for the Green party. Sorry though, but that one is a bit hard to swallow considering the
Greens are slightly to the left of Timothy Leary. And not one post or opinion i've ever read would lead me to picture you voting Green.

By the by, I wouldn't be content unless G-Man appears soon to sidestep the actual points and FACTS brought up by Franken and instead attack Franken and Donahue for being part of the "liberal" conspiracy and then crack wise about how this proves nothing and that if that's the best the left can muster then blah blah blah blah... ad naseum.

Darknight>> As you can imagine, i try to raise awareness of news that most of my peers are completely oblivious to. I try to present the facts and let people think for themselves afterwards, although sometimes it just gets tedious when some of the dimmer bulbs don't even know who the
Attorney General is or even what an Attorney General is. So in circumstances like that when they ask me "what are we?" I simply say "Democrats" and move on. [wink]

For most people though, i try to get them out to vote on Tuesday by trying to make it into something that is actually "cool" to do and try to explain the issues and the stakes involved. You'd be surprised at the amount of people who don't vote because they think it doesn't matter or that voting is 'dorky'. That's why you get this vocal minority deciding the fate of women's bodies, minority opportunity, and of gays. I've written a few letters to columnists and to the letters page of the Times in the past as well. I've been in one protest march and I hope to help out if the Clark/Dean or even Kerrey (if worse comes to worse) ticket comes to fruition. Otherwise it'll just be pure Bush derailment.

I would heavily recommend Franken's book. He does a lot to dispel some of the common myths being perpetuated by the extreme right such as Clinton not doing anything about terrorism while Bush actually is the one who started the wheels in motion with an actual timelines and quotes from both sides of the fence (he uses a lot of sources such as TIME, that i've mentioned before), he dispels some of the attacks on Gore inventing the internet and being a habitual liar buy presenting those stories' origins and the actual facts behind them. You're being duped hardcore by some pretty damn nasty people on the right, folks. Even I beleived some of those Gore stories initially. He dissects "Treason" and other Lies and liars. Well worth the few bucks you'll spend. And finally, i would like to thank FOX and Bill O'Reily for bringing this book to the forefront with their publicity. Thanks guys! [biiiig grin]

By the way, contrary to what Bill O'Reily claimed often, Inside Edition never won a Peabody award. :lol: And yes, he DID in fact claim this despite what he now says. LIAR.

quote:
Originally posted by JQ:
I'd like to hear an example of the those 'darned liberals' in the media altering the facts for their own agenda. You guys talk alot about polls that show that the majority of journalists are liberals. What does that show? Sure, it supports your claim, but you need a LOT more to prove some sort of 'vast left-wing bias.'

quote:
Point/Betterpoint

I think Goldberg's most valid point is that reporters tend to have more liberal views than the public on social issues. In one case Goldberg cites an eigteen year-old Los Angeles Times survey of three thousand journalists nationwide showing that they have more liberal views than the the general public on things like gun control (78 percent of journalists favored tougher control eitheen years ago, while only half the public did), prayer in public school (74 percent of the public said yes eighteen years ago; 75 percent of journalists said no), and the death penalty (eighteen years ago, 75 percent of the public supported it, versus only 47 percent of journalists)
He fails however, to explain that editors and publishers --who have the final say over what goes out--tend to be conservative. According to a study made in this century byEditor and Publisher Magazine, more than twice as many newspapers endorsed Bush as endorsed Gore. Bush endorsing papers accounted for 58 percent of all national circulation.

From chapter 6 of Al Franken's book "Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them"

quote:
Originally posted by the G-man:
The standard liberal argument on Bush's intelligence is that his verbal misstatements indicate a lack of intelligence.

However, there are, of course, different types of intelligence. This is why, for example, standardized tests often test verbal and mathmatical skill separately.

A person can be possessed of a great verbal dexterity and woefully incapable of analytical thinking. A person can have the soul of a poet and be completely ignorant of, for example, basic economic theory.

In fact, some theorize that the two types of intelligences rarely go hand in hand.

So this is hardly a proper gauge of Bush's intelligence.

And Bush is hardly the only public officer to make verbal gaffes. For example, in one interview, Howard Dean meant to say, in connection with how to govern a postwar Iraq, "the problem now is how to govern, and that's where the real rubber is underneath the road." instead of "that's where the rubber meets the road." You don't see jokes about that everyday, or Dean's "enemies" using it as sigs on message boards.

No, it boils down to what was pointed out earlier: if you don't agree with the elitists on the left, you can't simply have a difference of opinion. You have to be either evil or stupid.

Howard Dean, I don't think has made enough verbal gaffes to fill 3 editions of Deanisms. In fact I don't think even Dan Quayle was that bad.

quote:
"I glance at the headlines just to kind of get a flavor for what's moving. I rarely read the stories, and get briefed by people who are probably read the news themselves." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Sept. 21, 2003

quote:
"This very week in 1989, there were protests in East Berlin and in Leipzig. By the end of that year, every communist dictatorship in Central America had collapsed." —George W. Bush, Washington, D.C., Nov. 6, 2003

To paraphrase Treebeard. " A President should know better".

Heh.

He does come out with some corkers.

I read about half of Goldbeg's book "bias" a year or two ago. He did nothing but smear Dan Rather and point out how they used to be great friends. I'll have to read Franken's book; it seems funny and informative.

quote:
Originally posted by JQ:
I'll have to read Franken's book; it seems funny and informative.

Something just occured to me. Is it my imagination, or do there seem to be more liberal humorists than conservative humorists?

I can't vouch for one side being more accurate than the other, but the liberals have Al Franken and Michael Moore. Whether they're accurate or not, I can't really say, but they are funny (or at least they try to be.) I can't think of a single conservative with a reputation as being funny. The only exception I can think of is Truman what's-his-name from "Crossfire," (they guy who wears the bowtie - I heard him speak, and he was pretty funny) and Bob Dole's appearance on SNL and that credit card commercial where he's asked to show his ID.

This is not a value judgment or anything. Just an observation. Are there any conservative comedians or humorists out there? (And by that I mean people who actually try to be funny, not people that are considered ridiculous and an object of mockery).

I think you're right. The right does have Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter though.

quote:
Originally posted by Darknight613:
Are there any conservative comedians or humorists out there? (And by that I mean people who actually try to be funny, not people that are considered ridiculous and an object of mockery).

Well, Dennis Miller is a comedian and he's pretty right-wing nowadays.

Of course though, judging from his Real Time with Bill Maher appearances, he's more smarmy arrogance now than sly clever wit.

Dennis Leary always strikes me as leaning a bit to the right, and there's Andrew Dice Clay as well. That said, neither of them is all that funny.

there's no accounting for a lack of sense of humor.....

quote:
Originally posted by JQ:
I think you're right. The right does have Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter though.

Limbaugh and Coulter are humorists???

I would equate Limbaugh to Franken, they both warp the facts and try to wrap it in comedy that only appeals to either the far left or far right.

quote:
Originally posted by Darknight613:

quote:
Originally posted by JQ:
I'll have to read Franken's book; it seems funny and informative.
Something just occured to me. Is it my imagination, or do there seem to be more liberal humorists than conservative humorists?

I can't vouch for one side being more accurate than the other, but the liberals have Al Franken and Michael Moore. Whether they're accurate or not, I can't really say, but they are funny (or at least they try to be.) I can't think of a single conservative with a reputation as being funny. The only exception I can think of is Truman what's-his-name from "Crossfire," (they guy who wears the bowtie - I heard him speak, and he was pretty funny) and Bob Dole's appearance on SNL and that credit card commercial where he's asked to show his ID.

This is not a value judgment or anything. Just an observation. Are there any conservative comedians or humorists out there? (And by that I mean people who actually try to be funny, not people that are considered ridiculous and an object of mockery).

P J O'Rourke. He's brilliantly funny, and a self-described "Republican Party Reptile". I own all of his books.

quote:
Originally posted by JQ:
I'd like to hear an example of the those 'darned liberals' in the media altering the facts for their own agenda. You guys talk alot about polls that show that the majority of journalists are liberals. What does that show? Sure, it supports your claim, but you need a LOT more to prove some sort of 'vast left-wing bias.'

I'm reluctant to waste time typing a long response to this, because I feel I've already cited sources you could explore on your own, if you truly wanted PROOF of liberal bias.

But it seems to me that you're content to write off any documentation, no matter how much I list, as a "right-wing fabrication".

Again, I refer you to the RKMB "The Liberal Media" topic I linked a few posts above, that has extensive sources listed.
And in Bernard Goldberg's Bias book, chapter 8 (titled "How About a Media that Reflects America?") describing how either an 80%-plus majority of journalists, whether (as it exists) overwhelmingly Democrat/liberal, or (he projects hypothetically) if it were 80%-plus conservative/Republican.
Either a conservative or liberal extreme majoity INHERENTLY influences what stories are intuitively selected and covered as important and newsworthy, no matter WHICH side has that kind of an overwhelming majority.

As well as chapter 5 (discussing with specific example the distortion of "homelessness" by the liberal media, beginning in the 1980's).

And chapter 6 (focusing on the deliberate misrepresentation of who is at risk of AIDS, the media created the appearance of a heterosexual epidemic, that never actually existed, through a selective omission of the widely documented facts of who is at risk for AIDS. And Goldberg also discusses the gay activist/liberal-media holy war and harassment of anyone who dares to publish books or news that contradicts the politicaly correct misrepresentation that projects AIDS/HIV victims are increasingly heterosexual. People who publish the statistical truth that AIDS is truly a gay, I.V. drug use and prostitute disease, and the unfortunate sex partners of these people, are endlessly discredited, trashed and ignored by the liberal media.)

I've already posted so much evidence, I really can't justify manually typing 5 or 10 pages of text, just so you can flip it off as "conservative propaganda."

Goldberg makes clear the impartial research groups who gathered the documentation, through multiple studies of media coverage, from various perspectives, over a 30-plus year period.

One point I agree with you, Goldberg DOES take a lot of personal shots at Dan Rather (and other CBS news producers). Which I do think personalizes his comments a bit too much and detracts from the factual objectivity of the book. But the points he makes otherwise are very valid.
Goldberg worked for CBS for 28 years, beginning in 1972. For much of that time he was a TV correspondent for CBS, appearing on the CBS nightly news broadcast, 48 Hours, 60 Minutes and other news specials.
Goldberg describes how he appealed to producers and Rather for years behind-the-scenes at CBS, and in early 1996, he finally wrote an opinion editorial in the Wall Street Journal because of a specific story on CBS News, which he deconstructed in his editorial.
And for this, Goldberg was instantly taken off the air, and his career virtually ended. He says he was allowed to keep his job for a few years, but it was clear that if he encouraged anyone to praise his editorial, and despite the televised comments on various TV news interview programs by Dan Rather, and various CBS News reporters and producers attacking Goldberg as being partisan and lacking integrity, he would have been fired if he further defended his media criticism or his own integrity.
His partisanship was nonexistent and never questioned for his entire career, until he criticized the objectivity and blatant liberal partisanship of ALL the networks, not just CBS, in his February 1996 Wall Street Journal editorial. (He declares himself a liberal, and lays out his liberal credentials in chapter 4).

He is not advocating or endorsing conservative views, he is just critical of the exclusion of balance given to the conservative perspective.
And he objects to liberal agenda-pushing (which he says has largely replaced any attempt at objective non-partisan reporting) on a variety of liberal cause issues, such as minority image/stereotypes (even when blacks and other minorities commit crimes, while at the same time the media gleefully parades footage of white, wealthy criminals), gay rights, AIDS (hiding the fact that AIDS was and remains primarily a gay/I.V.-drug/prostitute disease in the U.S.), and the homeless (making the homeless look a lot less scary than they truly are, and of course, blaming their largely self-imposed homelessness on the Republicans, and wilfully exaggerating the numbers... up until Clinton took office).

And simultaneously ignoring or showing contempt for, or outright ridiculing, conservative views on issues like abortion, Christianity, conservative legislation and ideas like the Republican 1994 "Contract with America" and 1996 presidential candidate Forbes' tax-restructuring plan.

Goldberg's introduction and opening two chapters of Bias, it's clear to me, are the cathartic release of years of Goldberg's biting his tongue to save his job, and finally having a place to say all the things he couldn't say from 1996-2002, while he was struggling to salvage his career at CBS.

It's all in the book.

~

Regarding Whomod's earlier point that a bunch of reporters roasted Goldberg on a misquote Goldberg made in an article, I think that's (in a consistently liberal tactic) an attempt bypass the larger thesis to find one error and discredit him.

If Goldberg were an incompetent hack of a reporter who couldn't get his facts straight, he never would have remained on network news for his entire career.
Any journalist or investigator can look at ANY reporter's entire career of work and find a few mistakes. Anyone. It's also possible to mock and sneer to give the IMPRESSION of factual error, without actually proving error.

I know from my own brief period as a reporter in the early 1990's that no matter how valiantly you try to cover all sides, you will always miss the exact facet of some aspect of the story. I see that grilling of Goldberg as an attempt to dismiss his larger point unfoundedly, by obessing on a small factual error. Especially frustrating for me was covering a story from every angle I could, having it edited for space by someone else, and then getting blasted in letters to the editor for not covering an angle I did cover, but were omitted.

Goldberg's larger point of liberal dominance, and liberal bias, and defiant slanting of the news by an overwhelmingly liberal media, that as Goldberg says (concluding his point from pages 129-133, quoting statistics about reporters' beliefs, political perspective and lifestyle, as statistically contrasted to the average American) :

quote:
page 133:

"It's not just that so many journalists are so different from mainstream America. It's that some are downright hostile to what many Americans hold sacred."

quote:
Originally posted by britneyspearsatemyshorts:
I would equate Limbaugh to Franken, they both warp the facts and try to wrap it in comedy that only appeals to either the far left or far right.

Exactly!

Dave the Wonder Boy: I'll have to read Goldberg's book again. Only this time, I'm skipping over all the chapters he spends bitching about Dan Rather and his old job. I felt sorry for the poor guy.

Fair enough, JQ.

Reading the opening chapters, and later portions throughout, I couldn't help wondering why an editor didn't ask him to tone down his personal remarks, which would only have made it a more solid work.
I mean, they ARE personal comments, and clearly he thinks Dan Rather (or "The Dan", as he says everyone calls him at CBS behind the scenes) is egotistical and vindictive, but those are comments that are irrelevant to dominant liberalism in the media, and how it colors the news.

quote:
posted by Whomod, 11-27-2003 11:47

Hopefully, this book is next on your list after you're done gleaning insight from "Bias". After all, It would be the kind of balanced reading list I'd expect from someone who voted for the Green party. Sorry though, but that one is a bit hard to swallow considering the
Greens are slightly to the left of Timothy Leary.

And not one post or opinion i've ever read would lead me to picture you voting Green.

I noticed you slipped this little slanderous nugget in, when I went back and re-read your lengthy Al Franken quote on page 4 of the topic.

First of all it's slanderous of you to second-guess and speculate without the slightest evidence that I DIDN'T vote for Ralph Nader. I've been plainly stating that fact since the day of the election (first on the DC boards, then here), and have made clear the REASONS that I voted for Nader.

What arrogant snottiness that you call me a liar without the slightest evidence.

I made clear in my many posts that Gore was too closely aligned with Clinton, too liberal and too militarily weak, too aligned with U.N. interests over American interests, and I considered his rhetoric to be too typically liberal, in its bitterness and venom directed at Republicans, and in the programs he advocated.
As I ALSO made clear in prior comments, I had wanted McCain as the candidate, and felt cheated of a good choice of candidate when McCain was usurped by G.W. Bush. I've made clear that I didn't like Bush's tax plan, and otherwise was distrustful of the huge campaign funds he accumulated that eclipsed all other candidates. His positions on a variety of issues made clear that he was bought and paid for by corporate interests.

AS I'VE MADE CLEAR MANY TIMES PRIOR, what attracted me to Nader as a presidential candidate was his core issue, of campaign finance reform. His best quote was "The major difference between the Democrat and Republican parties is the speed at which their knees hit the floor when corporate campaign donors come knocking on their door".

As I've ALSO made clear in prior posts, Ralph Nader also advocated re-negotiation of free trade agreements to protect high-paying American jobs, and to put barriers in place to prevent American workers from competing with the wages of third-world labor.

And as I've ALSO further made clear in prior posts, Ralph Nader has a 40 year history of standing up to corporations as a philantropist lawyer, defending the best interests of the American worker. We have Nader to thank for seat belts in our cars, and bumpers on cars that can resist damage at speeds up to 20 miles per hour. Among other things.

I've previously made clear that Nader has demonstrated 40 years of selfless public service, and that he has the most character and integrity of the 2000 candidates. Nader has demonstrated himself as a man who can't be bought. And I believe that he is a Mr.-Smith-Goes-To-Washington who has decades of experience and is intimately familiar with Washington, and is experienced enough to get things done.

I made clear that I voted Perot in 1996, because the Republicans gave us Bob Dole instead of the more likely candidate of Phil Gramm, even though Gramm had the larger campaign funds and was somehow passed over. Gramm's core issue was eliminating the deficit, and was co-author of a previous Gramm-Rudman bill to do so in the mid-1980's.

And I also made clear, I voted in 1992 the first time for Perot, because he addressed the real issue of campaign finance reform and the danger of free trade agreements that would take jobs overseas. Perot forced into the mainstream the issues that neither party would discuss, and parties were evading in favor of non-issues and personal attacks. Perot had an energy in 1992 that was depleted by 1996, though, and I wouldn't vote for him again.

But anyway, that's how I voted, that's how I have consistently documented my voting, and your presumptuously calling me a liar on how I clearly voted just further convinces me of the fallacious logic of liberals, and of their tendency toward personal attacks, slander, venom, and general spitefulness and maliciousness, in debate tactics.

I might add, Al Franken's logic is unclear in what you quoted. The stuff Franken quoted from Goldberg's Bias book, and then grilled Goldberg with on the Donahue show, and how he repeatedly and gleefully discusses making Goldberg uncomfortable with a comment that Franken himself discusses as an "ambush".
If someone asked me at random about an article I wrote two years ago, or even 6 months ago, I would have trouble detailing the exact context of it as well. Goldberg wasn't necessarily wrong, he just was ambushed and unprepared.

And EVEN WITH WHAT FRANKEN DETAILED IN THE QUOTED CHAPTER OF HIS BOOK, Chancellor's editorial (which Goldberg quoted in Bias, page 186 ) is muddy as hell in its actual and/or perceived meaning.

As you quoted it:

quote:
It's short of soap, so there are lice in the hospitals. It's short of pantyhose, so women's legs go bare. It's short of snowsuits so babies stay home in winter. Sometimes it's short of cigarettes, so millions of people stop smoking involuntarily. It drives everyone crazy. The problem isn't communism. No one even talked about communism this week. The problem is shortages.
-- NBC Nightly News commentator John Chancellor on the Soviet Union, August 21, 1991

After presenting the quote, Goldberg tears Chancellor a new one for "his absurd observation that the problems in the old Soviet Union wasn't communism but shortages".

Hmm. The quote was from August 1991. So on Donahue, I [Al Franken] read the quote, then asked, "Do you know what happened that day in the Soviet Union, Bernie?"
He Froze. Then came back with a good one: "Why don't you tell me?"
I had learned how to handle that trick in the schoolyard back in Minnesota. "No," I said, "why don't you tell me?"
Clearly the man had no idea. I persisted, "What happened in the Soviet Union that day?"
Bernie went white. Finally, "Well, I don't know what happened that day."
So I told him. Let's go to the videotape:

Franken: That was the collapse of the coup, the hard-liner coup at the Parliament.
Goldberg: And?
Franken: And that was huge. Do you know that perestroika had been in effect for six years at that point? The point here is, Bernie, you regurgitated a quote that you got from some right-wing media-watch group. And you did not care to look into the context of it. Listen to how Tom Brokaw opened that evenings news.

"Good evening. Wednesday, August 21, 1991. This is a day for bold print in history to be remembered and savored as the day when the power of the people in the Soviet Union proved to be greater than the power of the gray and cold-blooded men who thought they could return that country to the darkness of state oppression."

Again, looking at Franken's "facts" that allegedly "bitch-slapped" Bernard Goldberg, I still have no idea WHAT John Chancellor's editorial means. Even with Franken's explanation.

I mean, how can a political coup on Moscow's democratic government by former Communist hardliners be said by Chancellor to NOT be a problem caused by Communism? Communism is exactly what tried to re-seize power in Russia from the existing democratic government.

Franken repeatedly voices his malicious glee at making Goldberg squirm. That is the driving point that is clear in your (Whomod's) quoted chapter of Franken's book.

Once again proving the liberal hate that drives their rhetoric.

Franken's other points are equally skewed and hate-driven, and laden with half-truths.
A year or so ago, I saw Bill O'Reilly answer the one about his allegedly lying about receiving a Peabody Award. He clarified that it was either an award he shared with others, or where he mindlessly meant to say another award and mistakenly said Peabody. Similar to how I once said in a topic that Art Spiegelman won a Nobel Prize, and then corrected myself later to say Pulitzer Prize (Spiegelman not having made any recent breakthroughs in mathematics or physics).

I've seen Franken interviewed, and on another occasion saw Franken debating O'Reilly at a conference, and it only solidified my lack of respect for the man. I find him highly partisan, opinionated, deliberately misrepresentative, and outright malicious. Since he left his 20-year career writing comedy for Saturday Night Live he's devoted his life to bitterly lashing out at Republicans at every opportunity. Franken is in the hysterical Michael Moore category. Someone so incredibly partisan I can't imagine him ever honestly exploring the facts. And not someone whose writing I would ever trust to give me the facts.

I can see why you like him so much [biiiig grin]

Based on the turn this thread has taken lately, into the question of media bias, am I to assume that the liberals here have largely conceded that they hate the president and wish to change the subject?

quote:
Originally posted at:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2003-11-30-liberals-usat_x.htm

Rep. Robert Matsui, a California Democrat who has been traveling the country to raise money and recruit candidates for House races, says feelings against the president are running at near-vitriolic levels.

"I've had really intelligent people say, 'As soon as he gets on TV, I turn it off. I just can't stand him,' " Matsui says. "It's kind of stunning."

quote:
But anyway, that's how I voted, that's how I have consistently documented my voting, and your presumptuously calling me a liar on how I clearly voted just further convinces me of the fallacious logic of liberals, and of their tendency toward personal attacks, slander, venom, and general spitefulness and maliciousness, in debate tactics.

Right. One liberal can't be bothered wading through everything you've ever posted to double check how you claim to have voted, so therefore all liberals are liars who make false accusations. Presumably anything with four legs is a table as well.

This is from Drudge, so take it for what it is worth, but it looks like even prominent Hollywood liberals are starting to admit they actually hate the President:

quote:
HOLLYWOOD DEMS GATHER FOR 'HATE BUSH' MEETING AT HILTON

Top Hollywood activists and intellectuals are planning to gather this week in Beverly Hills for an event billed as 'Hate Bush,' the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

Laurie David [wife of SEINFELD creator Larry David] has sent out invites to the planned Tuesday evening meeting at the Hilton with the bold heading: 'Hate Bush 12/2 - Event'

quote:
Originally posted by D. McDonagh:

quote:
But anyway, that's how I voted, that's how I have consistently documented my voting, and your presumptuously calling me a liar on how I clearly voted just further convinces me of the fallacious logic of liberals, and of their tendency toward personal attacks, slander, venom, and general spitefulness and maliciousness, in debate tactics.
Right. One liberal can't be bothered wading through everything you've ever posted to double check how you claim to have voted, so therefore all liberals are liars who make false accusations. Presumably anything with four legs is a table as well.

NOT just this one occasion, a consistent tendency toward slander and personal attacks, demonstrated on these boards and elsewhere.

Your own insulting posts are also confirmation of that.
Case in point:

quote:
Originally posted by D. McDonagh:
Could it be that Republicans are impressed by Bush's wit and intelligence because the majority of Republicans are themselves thicker than pigshit?

~

G-Man, the liberal hate you describe liberals having of Bush is painfully obvious, but your giving examples from media sources and politically active liberals and Democrats only adds more confirmation to the obvious.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
And he objects to liberal agenda-pushing (which he says has largely replaced any attempt at objective non-partisan reporting) on a variety of liberal cause issues, such as minority image/stereotypes (even when blacks and other minorities commit crimes, while at the same time the media gleefully parades footage of white, wealthy criminals), gay rights, AIDS (hiding the fact that AIDS was and remains primarily a gay/I.V.-drug/prostitute disease in the U.S.), and the homeless (making the homeless look a lot less scary than they truly are, and of course, blaming their largely self-imposed homelessness on the Republicans, and wilfully exaggerating the numbers... up until Clinton took office).

"It's not just that so many journalists are so different from mainstream America. It's that some are downright hostile to what many Americans hold sacred."

Happy World AIDS Day to you too.

It's just austounding how you labor to turn things around to the "liberals" being so full of hate when you show the typical lack of compassion that you accuse "liberals" of portraying conservatives as. Seeing as how it is World AIDS Day, i have to ask, would AIDS be any less important if it only struck gay, black homeless, drug addicted liberal people? As one of my favourite Republicans, Richard Riordan, former Mayor of Los Angeles once said regarding illegal immigrants and attempts by *ahem* some to dehumanize them by referring to them simply as "illegals" (unworthy of even basic humanity, much less health care), "these are HUMAN BEINGS!" Amen.

And it's mind boggling how you managed to turn around SEVERAL instances of bullshit in "Bias" into just one instance of forgetting the facts.

Give me another few minutes to give a detailed accounting and timeline of Bill O'Reiley's "peabody" LIE.

But of course It's Franken and not O'Reiley as well who are irrational hate mongers, eh?? 'Hate mongering' I guess is newspeak for researching lies and propaganda.

As for your status as a Green. Yes, I do beleive you are lying. You cited reasons for voting Green. Guess what? Bush embodies NONE of those reasons. It'd be like me being a Jew put off by the way the Isreali's treat the Palestinians so I decide to renounce Judaism and become a Nazi. And the reasons you give for being a Bush supporter? Because you're put off by the left's 'hatred' of him?? LOL!

It's the old right-wing ploy of declaring yourself something other than Republican in order to present yourself as impartial while all the time shilling for the far right wing. Larry Elder does it all the time all the while declaring himself an imaprtial Libertarian.

So from now on, i'm no longer a Democrat. From here on in, i'm a Whig.

quote:
G-Man, the liberal hate you describe liberals having of Bush is painfully obvious, but your giving examples from media sources and politically active liberals and Democrats only adds more confirmation to the obvious.

I'll concede that there is a small liberal bias when it comes to social and domestic issues such as affirmative action, abortion, the death penalty, etc. But this could also be explained as the media serving the status quo. Most of these biases are also the opinion of the majority of Americans.

I fail to see any of the "attempts to slander Bush" in the mainstream media. They rallied behind him for the war, and then stuck with every party line given.

Quote:

Originally posted by whomod:

Give me another few minutes to give a detailed accounting and timeline of Bill O'Reiley's "peabody" LIE.

O'Reilly is someone I don't watch. Whatever I've heard of his rhetoric, it's been when he's appeared on other programs than his own. I like some of what he says, but (like yourself, Whomod) he comes across as overly angry and inflammatory, and that makes it difficult to take his side. Among friends who are Republican, Democrat or politically somewhere in between, I've described the guy as "a bulldog".

Quote:

Originally posted by whomod:

But of course It's Franken and not O'Reiley as well who are irrational hate mongers, eh??

You can't box categorize me with Bill O'Reilly. Like I said, he's not someone I listen to.

Quote:

Originally posted by whomod:

As for your status as a Green. Yes, I do beleive you are lying. You cited reasons for voting Green. Guess what? Bush embodies NONE of those reasons. It'd be like me being a Jew put off by the way the Israelis treat the Palestinians so I decide to renounce Judaism and become a Nazi. And the reasons you give for being a Bush supporter? Because you're put off by the left's 'hatred' of him?? LOL!

It's the old right-wing ploy of declaring yourself something other than Republican in order to present yourself as impartial while all the time shilling for the far right wing. Larry Elder does it all the time all the while declaring himself an impartial Libertarian.

Whomod, that's the single most bitter and slanderous thing you've ever said to me on these boards.

Your "logic" of my alleged inconsistency with how I can be a moderate-to-conservative Republican and still vote for Nader is your own vicious, speculative and antagonistic opinion.

As I said, I voted for Nader, not the Green Party. Nader's four decades of integrity, and focus on the real issues in 2000, compelled me to vote for him over the opposition. And I voted for the alternative Perot offered in the two elections before him, although with decreasing enthusiasm in 1996. (as I said at more length above.)

Maybe my decision to vote for Nader doesn't make sense to you, but it certainly did and does to me, and I've explained my decision at length. I was voting for addressing of the real issues.

Your calling me a liar is out of line, and goes beyond respectful debate, and into the realm of dementia.
And that is a VERY restrained response on my part, to your absurd and deeply personal attack on me. And unfounded attack, I might add.

And for the 1 billionth time, I didn't vote for Bush. I disagree with him on any number of issues, especially tax cuts and North Korea.
And if the liberal Bush-bashers could more respectfully stick to the visible things Bush has done wrong (as opposed to making wild and slanderous conspiracy theories, and stating them as if they were fact), I'd be more inclined to agree with Bush's critics.

But the blatant attempts to slander Bush and his administration with all kinds of bitter accusations and wild conspiracies...

blaming a bad economy an ongoing recession that Bush , in fact, inherited, from Clinton, a recession that had been going on for a year before Bush even took office.
the "blood for oil" nonsense,
the "fighting the war for his father" nonsense (never mind that he never looked twice at Iraq before 9-11 and was elected and maintained a policy till 9-11 that bordered on isolationism).
And when I really began to turn to Bush's side was when liberals said Bush knew in advance about 9-11 and let it happen.
Let the center of U.S. commerce crash to the ground, taking 1/6th of the U.S. economy, and plunging a struggling economy into recession?!?
God, it's infuriating, and as slanderous and unpatriotic as it gets.
Plus the mocking and ridiculing of Bush as an idiot from the day he took office (the same ridicule the liberal media poured on Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr., and Quayle, only far more bitter).
This was the first bit of character assassination I saw as unfair from the day he took office, and when I began defending Bush against unfair allegations.

... just makes clear liberals' white-hot hatred of Bush, their abandonment of logic, and libers' eagerness to believe anything negative said about Bush, without evidence. And drives myself and millions of other more moderate Republicans to Bush's side, when if the criticism were more fair, we might side with Bush's critics.

There are issues where I oppose Bush's policy, as I just said in my post above, and more briefly here in this post( regarding North Korea, tax cuts, etc.).
But I certainly side with Bush against these slanderous allegations.

I don't want news that favors Bush. I just want news that isn't part of the Democrat propaganda front.
So that when the news media criticize Bush for something, I can BELIEVE it, instead of seeing it as another blatant, misrepresentative and partisan attack on Bush.

I don't think wanting FACTS, instead of slantedly sympathetic liberal propaganda, that while sympathetic in its slant to gays and the homeless, simultaneously and maliciously has a focus on demonizing Republicans, blaming THEM for the problems facing AIDS victims and the homeless, when in truth (despite liberal reporting that demonizes Republicans) no amount of Republican spending would keep drug addicts from snorting their rent money, and no amount of AIDS benefit spending will prevent gays and prostitutes from having promiscuous and unprotected sex, and spreading it to their partners.
(Again, in Bias, Goldberg gives detailed examples, in the "homeless" and "AIDS" chapters of his book regarding slanted republican-bashing liberal reporting).

All your venom and slander just makes the point that the liberal hatred of Bush is based in emotion and venom, and not facts.

quote:
Originally posted by JQ:

I fail to see any of the "attempts to slander Bush" in the mainstream media. They rallied behind him for the war, and then stuck with every party line given.

JQ, I do think there is a tendency to downplay the case for war in Iraq, in media coverage.

I also think that there is an overemphasis on what is going wrong in Iraq, and a downplay of what's going right.
From the beginning of the war, there was speculation constantly in the opening days of the war that we were taking heavier losses, and walking into a trap.

I loved Rumsfeld's response to a question in this vein, where a reporter questioned if we were walking into a trap, and Rumsfeld said: "I don't know of a strategy where you allow 75% of your men to be killed, and then launch a counter-attack with what's left." Or words to that effect.

I think at every stage, there was a network news attempt to say: There, see, things are going bad. We TOLD you we shouldn't have invaded Iraq. And each time, that turned out to be wild speculation.

The missing WMD's are overplayed, the evidence of an ongoing WMD program is downplayed.
The 10 U.N. resolutions against Iraq over the previous 12 years --Bush's main stated reason for invasion-- is downplayed.
The rhetoric of Democrats (including Hilary Clinton) stating a clear danger of WMD's, and the need to act quickly in Iraq, right on up to March 2003 is downplayed.
The 240 mass graves found in Iraq since March --an estimated 1 million executed, mostly still bound and blindfolded Iraqi corpses-- are downplayed.

I might think that kind of coverage is as much liberal bias as it is sensationalism that gives a greater sense of drama, and pulls in viewers.

Except that the dramatic footage that would justify Bush's invasion, footage that would make great television, is ignored. Which makes me lean toward liberal bias as an explanation.

quote:
Originally posted by whomod:

quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
And he objects to liberal agenda-pushing (which he says has largely replaced any attempt at objective non-partisan reporting) on a variety of liberal cause issues, such as minority image/stereotypes (even when blacks and other minorities commit crimes, while at the same time the media gleefully parades footage of white, wealthy criminals), gay rights, AIDS (hiding the fact that AIDS was and remains primarily a gay/I.V.-drug/prostitute disease in the U.S.), and the homeless (making the homeless look a lot less scary than they truly are, and of course, blaming their largely self-imposed homelessness on the Republicans, and wilfully exaggerating the numbers... up until Clinton took office).

"It's not just that so many journalists are so different from mainstream America. It's that some are downright hostile to what many Americans hold sacred."
Happy World AIDS Day to you too.

Yep. I began to recognise Dave as a bigot when he judged homosexuals as spurned by God, even if they believed Christ died for their sins, evidenced by God's sentence of AIDS: my dislike consolidated when he judged Islam as inherently inferior to Christianity.

Irrespective of whether you're left wing or right wing, tolerance is a hallmark of a member of a civilised and free society. Dave does not tolerate: he attacks.

So why is it less acceptable for left leaning people to dislike the chimp than it is for the right to spend Clinton's whole presidency whining about him and making personal attacks?
If someone can explain that, it might be possible to take this thread as anything other than mardarsed wailing because there's people working in the America media who don't like the current President.

"Whomod, that's the single most bitter and slanderous thing you've ever said to me on these boards."

Given that it's written not spoken, it would be "libelous."

A lot of us more liberal types are bitter. We only need look to the White House and our bitterness worsens...

quote:
Originally posted by D. McDonagh:
So why is it less acceptable for left leaning people to dislike the chimp than it is for the right to spend Clinton's whole presidency whining about him and making personal attacks?
If someone can explain that, it might be possible to take this thread as anything other than mardarsed wailing because there's people working in the America media who don't like the current President.

A rabbi once told me that if the human mind is given enough time, it can find a way to justify anything.

Generally, it seems to be human nature to disregard or justify any wrongdoing that you or people you support have made, and only focus on the wrong "the other guys" make. This isn't limited to politics, although it certainly doesn't exclude it. It's so hard for people these days to admit "gee, I made a mistake," let alone "I was wrong."

quote:
Originally posted by Darknight613:

quote:
Originally posted by D. McDonagh:
So why is it less acceptable for left leaning people to dislike the chimp than it is for the right to spend Clinton's whole presidency whining about him and making personal attacks?
If someone can explain that, it might be possible to take this thread as anything other than mardarsed wailing because there's people working in the America media who don't like the current President.
A rabbi once told me that if the human mind is given enough time, it can find a way to justify anything.

Generally, it seems to be human nature to disregard or justify any wrongdoing that you or people you support have made, and only focus on the wrong "the other guys" make. This isn't limited to politics, although it certainly doesn't exclude it. It's so hard for people these days to admit "gee, I made a mistake," let alone "I was wrong."

Just to clarify, I didn't mean you specifically, McDonaugh. I meant the royal "you."

quote:
Originally posted by whomod:
Howard Dean, I don't think has made enough verbal gaffes to fill 3 editions of Deanisms. In fact I don't think even Dan Quayle was that bad.

Don't worry. Dean is working overtime to catch up. [wink]

On yesterday's "Hardball," Dean was asked by Joseph Nye, dean of Harvard's Kennedy School of Government, what he would do about Iran. Here's what he said:

quote:

[*]The key, I believe, to Iran, is pressure through the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union is supplying much of the equipment that Iran I believe mostly likely is using to set itself along the path of developing nuclear weapons. We need to use that leverage with the Soviet Union, and it may require us buying the equipment the Soviet Union was ultimately going to sell to Iran, to prevent Iran from developing nuclear weapons.

That's four times Dean mentioned the Soviet Union--a country that hasn't existed for almost 12 years. [yuh huh]

Can anyone imagine how the left (and the media) would act if Bush had done that? They'd be going on and on about what an "idiot" he was, how this proved he had no ability to handle foreign policy, etc.

quote:
Just to clarify, I didn't mean you specifically, McDonaugh. I meant the royal "you."

Fair enough. Thanks for clearing that up.

quote:
Originally posted by Dave:
Yep. I began to recognise Dave as a bigot when he judged homosexuals as spurned by God, even if they believed Christ died for their sins, evidenced by God's sentence of AIDS: my dislike consolidated when he judged Islam as inherently inferior to Christianity.

Irrespective of whether you're left wing or right wing, tolerance is a hallmark of a member of a civilised and free society. Dave does not tolerate: he attacks.

I attack ?!?

One of us is slapping labels on the other, Dave, and it's not me who's doing the labelling (i.e. the attacking).

Opinions vary, Dave. You apparently are not intellectual and "civilized" enough to realize that.

The mark of ignorance is when you have to put labels on people who don't agree with you, and then dare to call yourself "tolerant".

You also have a slanderous tendency to paraphrase me and put words in my mouth, to make me appear to be the hatemonger you would like me to be.

I NEVER said about homosexuals what you allege I said. God loves and wants the best for every single person, if each would obey the laws He established for our own good.
But He does say there are certain things we shouldn't do, including murder, false idols, stealing, and adultery. Homosexuality is ONE form of adultery.

And as I've said repeatedly, and you then slanderously paraphrase to dodge the point and label me a hatemonger: God offers forgivenes and salvation to anyone who asks forgiveness, turns away from disobedience, and follows the teachings of Christ. INCLUDING HOMOSEXUALS.

I don't know what pathological need compels you to twist what I say and label me in one of your box categories.

And whether you like it or not, Islam is and has always been more violent and oppressive than Christianity. Beating of women. "Honor killing". Female circumcision. Killing of those who turn from Islam. Brutal repression of other religions. Suicide bombings.
Muslim Imams preach killing in the name of Allah.
Christian clergy do not. And neither do Christians.
Even in the middle ages, as I documented, it was Islamic invasion of Europe that initiated a Christian defensive response, that emboldened Christians to take back the "Holy Land" of Israel.

And whether you like it or not, AIDS is spread overwhelmingly through homosexuality, prostitution, and I.V. drug use. That doesn't mean I think these people don't deserve treatment, but hatemongers like yourself like to just blame everything on the Republicans. If people are hell-bent on having illicit sex, prostitution, and using I.V. drugs, then no amount of benevolent government spending will fix it, despite what misguided liberals like yourself want to believe.

I NEVER called AIDS "God's judgement", another phrase you've slanderously paraphrased me to say.
However, I do think that many AIDS/HIV victims are suffering as a result of their own actions, from a disease they themselves could have prevented.

I'll save my sympathies for the wife or girfriend who gets AIDS from their bisexual or prostitute-using, or I.V. drug-using husband/boyfriend.
Or the hemophiliac who gets it from a transfusion.
Or the child born with AIDS because his mother was addicted to crack, and whoring herself to feed her habit.
I have little sympathy for the gay man who has back-alley sex with countless partners, and then says it's Ronald Reagan's or George Bush's fault he has AIDS.
Give me a break.

Dave TWB said: "I NEVER called AIDS "God's judgement", another phrase you've slanderously paraphrased"

Geez, man, can't you get ONE thing right...it's not slanderously, it's "libelously." This forum is a written one, not a spoken one.

Criminey, you should at least get that one small thing right in all your palaver...

Jim

Dave TWB said: "I NEVER said about homosexuals what you allege I said. God loves and wants the best for every single person, if each would obey the laws He established for our own good.
But He does say there are certain things we shouldn't do, including murder, false idols, stealing, and adultery. Homosexuality is ONE form of adultery."

Yeah, cause you right wingers won't let gays marry.

:lol:

I would respond in kind to your obnoxiousness, Jim, but then I'd just be accused of being "uncivil".

Never mind that you're just posting pure antagonism with no facts.

Regarding marriage, I have already said, ENDLESSLY ( but falling on deaf liberal ears ) that I support civil "gay union", which allows gay benefits and a secular equivalent of Christian marriage. But I think to have a Christian gay marriage is an oxymoron, and to quote the Bible, "an abomination" and blasphemy against God (see Exodus, and Leviticus).

Some verses you can check at your leisure that affirm this:

Genesis 13: verse 13
Genesis, chapters 18 and 19 (Sodom and Gommorah)
Leviticus 7: verse 21, 18:verse 22, 20: verse 13
Romans 1: verses 18-32
1 Corinthians 5: verses 9-11
1 Corinthians 6: verses 9-11
2 Peter 2: verses 1-22
Jude , verses 5-10

The Bible is crystal clear on homosexuality. I already printed out many of these in the Canada allows same-sex marriage" topic:
http://www.rkmbs.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=201555&page=1&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1
I think I began posting them at the top of page 5 of the topic.

And printed them repeatedly. Again, to eyes and ears of deaf and blind liberals.

Gay marriage in a secular setting is fine, but gay marriage in a Christian setting violates the Bible, and Bible-believing Christians' rights.
And the rights of God.

I can accept a secular standard of gay marriage for those who don't share my Biblical beliefs in a democratic society.
But so-called Christian "gay marriage" stomps on my rights, and millions of others who believe in following the Christian manual, and that God's commands haven't suddenly become obsolete.

Especially in light of the chaos in human society that has followed rejection of that Biblical standard.

I agree with you DtWB.

Jim's just pissed his idol is a child molester.....

I appreciate that, JQ.

Re-reading my own post above, I wish to acknowledge my overly general use of the word liberal, in the heat of the moment. After a heated exchange with Darknight613 a few weeks ago, I really have intended to be more specific in my responses, and not inadvertantly or carelessly use generalizations.

And while I think my context in making remarks about liberals is clearly at a specific branch of liberals, and I've said that clearly on many occasions across many topics, and the praise I've voiced for more moderate liberals like Joseph Lieberman and Joseph Biden as productively criticizing the Bush administration, as opposed to scorched-earth rhetoric that blindly condemns the President by the likes of Kennedy, Dean, and Gephardt, often condemning Bush for (the primary example) invading Iraq.
When in contradiction to the criticism unfairly aimed at Bush regarding Iraq, Hilary Clinton and many other Democrats were stating the need to invade and eliminate Iraq's threat until March 2003. And as soon as WMD's were not found, Democrats began attacking the President for what they themselves advocated until March 2003.
It's frustrating to see the press, which is statistically overwhelmingly liberal, not give Democrats shouting this rhetoric of "miserable failure" and "another Vietnam" and "Where are the WMD's" the same scrutiny as what the Bush Administration says, where every slightest inconsistency of Bush is page one material.
And you really have to dig to find ANY news-source that reports the inconsistency of Bush's Democrat attackers. Equal accountability would be nice.
Or equal weight given to the vastly under-reported evidence that supports Bush's case for war.
It's frustrating to observe all this, as a Republican, and not get a bit annoyed at the one-sidedness of it.

Particularly when the opposition here on these boards ratchets up the rhetoric and mockery.

But I really am making a renewed effort not to respond in kind. And I realized today that I kind of fell away from that goal I set a few weeks ago, and I'm re-committing not escalating things here.

DtWB's trying !

Clearly, not ALL liberals use hate rhetoric, although I do see it frequently. But clearly not all, or perhaps not even MOST.
I admit to being a bit less sensitive to the potential overheatedness of conservative rhetoric I read, both on these boards, and in conservative news and editorials. Again, precisely because I see it as usually retaliatory, and equal time given to a viciously misrepresented and under-reported perspective.

But what I see as a measured response (of what I see in other conservatives, but more specifically speaking of MY OWN responses), is perhaps not appreciated as "equal time" and equal intensity by Democrats and liberals who read it, and ultimately is just contributing to an ongoing thermonuclear pissing contest.

And when I have a chance to step way from it for a day or two, I can see that harshness in my own comments more clearly LATER, than in the heat of the moment when I've just written those comments.

So in light of that, although I said already to Darknight613 on an earlier topic...

"Partisanship" topic:
http://www.rkmbs.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=217045&page=7&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

( And continued on the
"DO racists have lower I.Q's..."topic:
http://www.rkmbs.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=205705&page=6&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

And then came to a conclusion between us on the first two pages of this topic. )

...that I'd try to be less general when I'm typing long responses, I do tend to shorthand it as "liberal", instead of the "some liberals", or some longer and less sweeping use of the term. But I'm trying to be more conscious of it, and do it less, or ideally, not at all.

Obviously not all liberals agree on every point, and not all conservatives agree on every point. But the loudest and most inflammatory on both sides --whether in Washington, or on the message boards-- tend to be the ones who get the most noticed, and stir the most reaction.

My apologies for my contribution to that escalation. I'll do my best not to in the future, and not to respond in kind (or in escalating harshness) to inflammatory remarks.

It's hard not to respond personally to personal remarks, but hopefully I'll get better at being part of the solution, instead of part of the problem.

( I believe a row of Homers is appropriate. )

Well, for the record, I think I posted something somewhere (perhaps on the Canada to Allow Same-sex marriage" thread) that also agreed with Dave's opinion. It's just a more realistic and pragmatic solution than to expect some churches to change their mindsets. Plus it answers all the questions of social unfairness and inequality.

"Jim's just pissed his idol is a child molester....."

That is a libelous remark...wonder if somebody should forward any of these pages to Townshend and his attorneys?

Dave TWB...The Bible is just a book, written by men. Divinely inspired? Well, we know it's just a book. Whether it's the word of God is a matter of faith. I'd prefer to operate on the physical plane when dealing with fellow human beings. There's already been enough evil done in the name of God, religion, etc.

Jim

Who mentioned Pete? Jim go to your room!

You know, DaveTWB, I am soooo tempted to get into an ongoing debate with you over all your palaver about "the rights of God" (WTF does that mean anyway), but you know what...you're simply not worth it.

You go on believing the way that you want to, and I'll go on thinking you're wrong and you can go on and think I'm doomed to hell and obnoxious and any other thing you want. You, sir, simply are not worth trying to convince you otherwise.

Bury your head in the Bible and get out your crying towell that the United States isn't a theocracy.

Jim

"Who mentioned Pete? Jim go to your room!"

You did, by implication.

Doesn't work Jim you made a several page argument that implication does not mean guilt. Therefore since I did not type Pete Townsend it cannot be implied otherwise. But go ahead and forward this, watsonwil will take my case pro bono!

Well, thanks for finally agreeing with me! [biiiig grin]

But I see no need to forward. I doubt that Pete himself would get worked up over what you've had to say.

Jim

....tho im sure if i posted pics of me in kindergarten taking a bath he might get worked up.....

That line is a classic!
A true work of genius,I cant follow that!

They're probably better than nude shots of you now...

no wonder your a Pete Townsend fan!

don't flatter yourself so...

at least the reasons for you defense of him came out!

Not even close. OK, how about you not go down that path, OK? It's revolting.

quote:
Originally posted by Jim Jackson:
They're probably better than nude shots of you now...

it...was...a...joke.

Babes Against Bush

Check out the Independent Media Center. It's a nice little network of America-haters. Their DC "indymedia" site has a wonderful gallery of images, including this depiction of the Time Magazine Person of the Year cover, doctored up nicely with Swastika armbands on U.S. soldiers.

There's also a link through that DC Indymedia site to the "Iraqi Resistace Solidarity Network:For a Principled Stance in the US!!!".

That "principled stance" seems to include urging death upon "US imperialism" and the assassination of President Bush. (I wonder if the Secret Service is aware of this?)

And what must be a wonderful holiday message from the proprietors of the site: "Bye, Bye, GI!!! In Iraq you'll surely DIE!!!" and "Bring the Troops Home...IN A BODY BAG!!!"

Ad Comparing Bush to Hitler Gets Heat

Quote:

Lies fuel fear. Fear fuels aggression. Invasion. Occupation.

The dark side of the Force are they...

There was an excellent Face the Nation discussion two Sundays ago that explored partisanship, the rise of Dean by exploiting that partisanship, and a discussion of the www.moveon.org commercial depicting Republicans as Nazis, and the fact that it's a bitter charicature that slanders Bush without a shred of evidence to support the idea that Bush's administration is in any way behaving like Nazis.

The panel expanded in a wider discussion about how Republicans and Democrats increasingly go to different sources for their information, the great polarization that has occurred in American culture, and how that is reflected in the present Presidential election campaign.
It annoyed me how balanced they tried to be about it, when I think they initially rightly demonstrated by example that the extreme partisan venom is from the Democrat side (but of course, the panel was clearly made up of primarily Democrats, so they could only go so far with the criticism).

Bush tried very hard in 2000 to run a clean campaign, steering away from personal attacks on Gore, despite attacks on Bush from the other side. That much I admire Bush for.

But the Democrats chose to step it up, particularly after the 2000 election dispute.

And despite the crap thrown at Republicans (Howard Dean and other Democrats accusing Bush of knowing in advance of the 9-11-2001 attack is just infuriatingly slanderous and bitter, without a shred of proof) Republicans have largely not responded to the rhetoric.
The closest thing to Republicans reciprocating with a similar angry attack is when Democrats' bitter slander of Bush began after 9-11 (Democrats alleging he knew in advance of the attack), and Republicans called Democrats attack of Bush unpatriotic, and working against the safety, integrity, and best interests of the United States.
Which I think, far from a partisan Republican attack, is demonstrably true.

Just as much of the partisan "venom" comes from the Republicans.

Yeah, who can forget all the TV ads the Republicans did portraying Clinton as a Nazi?

Oh, wait, that's right. There werent' any.

Oh what do you do when your party is pretty much in complete control of the country and the greatness that was invisioned hasn't become reallity? Why you bitch & whine about anything remotely resembling the other party. The Dems need not make comparisons between Pres. Bush & Hitler. All they need to do is focus on the issues & remind the people that things were better 4 yrs ago.

G-Man, DTWB:

I'm just curious about something. The sites that you recently mentioned: did you bring them up just because they were slamming Bush, or did you bring them up because you thought they were liberal or Democrat? Because I don't see anything on MoveOn.org's website to hint that they're Democrat or liberal - just anti-Bush (which isn't the same thing). The site about the Iraqi resistance movement looks like the work of some really twisted people, but I don't see anything about them that shows any alliegence to an American political party (and if there was, I'd be in shock, because these psychos are so passionately anti-America, they wouldn't show their support for any American, even if he or she was against Bush). I only ask because you brought them up in this particular thread, and I didn't see a connection between these guys and liberals or Democrats.

Also, just a random thoughts to the anger at MoveOn.org over the ad comparing Bush to Hitler - it was sent in as part of a contest, and people who hold contests can't really be held responsible for the submissions of others. The person who submitted the ad is the one they should be mad at.

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
There was an excellent Face the Nation discussion two Sundays ago that explored partisanship, the rise of Dean by exploiting that partisanship, and a discussion of the www.moveon.org commercial depicting Republicans as Nazis, and the fact that it's a bitter charicature that slanders Bush without a shred of evidence to support the idea that Bush's administration is in any way behaving like Nazis.

I think when people compare Bush to Hitler, they are thinking of the Hitler of 1935, rather than the Hitler of 1945.

Its the potential for where Bush is going that alarms people. Not what he has done.

The reaction to comparisons of Bush and Hitler or the charge that he is a Nazi - or even a fascist - is often as hyperbolic as the metaphor itself is described. Please: is there a single person posting to this board who believes that someone comparing Bush to Hitler means that they think Bush is responsible for the murder of six million Jews - or six million Muslims - or even six million inmates on Texas' death row? That interpretation would be just plain silly - and about as intellectually disciplined as the person who would color anyone s/he dislikes as a "Nazi". To assume that Hitler or Nazism can only be understood in the context of the Final Solution is not only ill-educated and/or lazy, it is dangerous.

Let's not forget that in his homeland (and many other places, the US of A included), Hitler was extremely popular throughout much of his career - and there was a helluva lot more to the National Socialist Party than genocide - which was, in fact, a fairly minor point of their agenda. The demonization of Hitler is an act of political hindsight. Those who see early warning signs of fascism in the Bush regime are attempting to exercise political foresight. I suspect that, if pushed to account for their charge, they would echo Hegel's sentiment that "we learn from history that we don't learn from history".

I have made connections between Bush's agenda and that of historical fascists here on these boards in the past. As this point is specifically about Hitler and the Nazis, I'll spare the board my thoughts on Mussolini's brand of "corporatism" (his term for fascism) and Franco's Spain. Those who would make comparisons between the President and der Feuhrer do so, I believe, because they fear that Bush is attempting to substantially alter our constitution, our government, and our laws. I believe many of those fears are justified. It may be a bit self-defeating to use Hitler as a specific reference, but it is not unjustified. Let's look at some of the more obvious parallels.

First, neither leader was elected by a majority of the people (both were appointed - one by Hindenberg, the other by the Supreme Court), casting doubt on their legitimacy from the outset and requiring major catastrophic events to bolster their national position. In each case, a major public atrocity was used to unite a majority, subdue remaining minority (however substantial), and stifle dissent. Following the Reichstag fire of 1933, a Decree of the Reich President for the Protection of the People and State abrogated a number of German constitutional protections, including free expression of opinion, freedom of the press, the right of assembly and association, the right to privacy of postal and electronic communications, protection against unlawful searches and seizures, individual property rights, and states' right of self-government. A supplemental decree created the SA and SS Federal police agencies. Following the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon of 2001, the USA Patriot Act abrogated a number of American constitutional protections, including free expression of opinion, freedom of the press, the right of assembly and association, the right to privacy of postal and electronic communications, protection against unlawful searches and seizures, and individual property rights. Subsequent Presidential decrees Presidential decrees have made it possible for military forces to be used to monitor and control the civilian population, in abrogation of posse comitatus.

Both advertised themselves early on as being "uniters, not dividers" (from Hitler's first address a Chancellor: "I pledge to revive in the nation the spirit of unity and cooperation" - sound familiar?). Both proved to be heinous liars in this regard.

Both worked toward isolating their countries from the rest of the world. One of Hitler's first actions after assuming power was to withdraw from the League of Nations. It took a little longer for Bush to declare the UN "irrelevant", but he was withdrawing from the Kyoto protocol and international treaties within days of his inaugural; refusal to endorse the ICC was not long in following.

Both are/were fervent Christians who courted the conservative clergy from the start, with the church's first role being to fuel anti-liberalism. Hitler also managed to throw in a lot of Aryan mythology and fringe Christian legend (like the grail mythos and other stuff popularized by Wagnerian operas), - Bush is a Methodist convert from Episcopalianism (with a Catholic brother) who believes in The Rapture. Pat Robertson, leader of the religious right organization "The Christian Coalition" has assured us all of Bush's re-election based on visions from God himself. Bush beleives that God himself placed him in office.

Hitler made public dissent all but impossible at first, and later made it illegal. Whenever groups tried to voice a protest during a public speech, he would have storm troopers clear the dissenters from the hall and made sure that the media did not provide the public with any coverage of public protests. It is now illegal to protest in the presence of George W Bush - demonstrators are not only forbidden within a hall where the President is speaking, they are not even allowed to assemble anywhere within sight of the route of his arriving or departing motorcade - nor anywhere that the press covering his appearances might catch a glimpse of them. This was the case before September 11, 2001, by the way - and has nothing to do with the "security" of the President.

Hitler was very fond of photo ops. He believed they were his best form of PR and pounced on them at every opportunity. The files abound with shots of Hitler with bright-faced Germany families and he especially liked being photographed with school children (though whether he was familiar with "The Very Hungry Caterpillar" or not is a fact which has been lost to history). He also actively promoted "family values" and high moral standards. Does any of this sound familiar?

As a result of the Homeland Security Act, Bush has almost complete dictatorial powers, as Hitler did (initially through the Enabling Act): the ability to make any decision he wishes without judicial or legislative restraint and carry on its meetings in secret, without scrutiny from the press or the people. Homeland security agents can now intrude in any part of a citizen's life. The Cyber Security Enhancement Act slipped into the Homeland Security bill at the last moment allows police to conduct Internet or telephone eavesdropping with no court order required, allows internet surveillance to gather telephone numbers, IP addresses, and URLs or e-mail information, where an "immediate threat to a national security interest" is suspected, permits ISPs to hand users' records over to law enforcement authorities, overturning current legislation that outlaws such behavior. Also, up to 850,000 jobs will be privatized, knocking out union and civil service oversight. Hitler eventually outlawed labor unions altogether. We'll see...

There are many more parallels along these lines which could be drawn, but I am not really intent on defending the comparison. I think it is more important to be aware of what has happened in the past and keep very close watch on what is happening right now, regardless of analogies. For those who are interested in pursuing the Nazi parallel, there's a web site here which has all kinds of Bush-Hitler links.

More important than drawing parallels between the two men, though, is for us to know what fascism is (apart from "a political system established to exterminate six million of something") - and to watch for every sign of its possible emergence in the administration of our country. Sadly, frighteningly, one does not have to watch too closely...

Bush may be "no Hitler" so far, but that doesn't mean he wouldn't want to be.

Quote:

Darknight613 said:

Also, just a random thoughts to the anger at MoveOn.org over the ad comparing Bush to Hitler - it was sent in as part of a contest, and people who hold contests can't really be held responsible for the submissions of others. The person who submitted the ad is the one they should be mad at.

THANK YOU!

I was going to make that important point myself. Obviously that ad would be considered too shrill and controversial to actually be considered for actual TV airtime, much less to actually win. Still, it makes good fodder for conservative talk radio. Emotion will always trump reasoned discourse and reasoned and intellecually sound comparisons in that kind of forum (and many many other forums).

"Fascism is more appropriately termed corporatism, for it is the ultimate merger of state and corporate interests,"
Benito Mussolini

Dear MoveOn member,
As the New Year begins, we'd rather be talking about positive things, and there are plenty of good things happening. But MoveOn.org has come under attack from the Republican National Committee (RNC), which has launched a campaign of malicious misinformation to divert attention from the creativity and power of the Bush in 30 Seconds contest. We need your help to make sure the media don't fall for it.

RNC Chairman Ed Gillespie launched the attack on "Fox News Sunday," and the RNC followed it with press releases and calls to reporters. The charges centered on two ads posted on the Bush in 30 Seconds website which compared President Bush's tactis with those of Adolf Hitler. Mr. Gillespie repeatedly referred to the ads as 'the MoveOn ad' or 'MoveOn's ad,' implying that we had sponsored or perhaps even commissioned the ad. And he also claimed that we might spend $7 million to run it on TV.

This is a lie. MoveOn.org hasn't sponsored such an ad, and we never would -- we regret the appearance of these ads on the Bush In 30 Seconds site. The two ads in question are from more than a thousand posted by members of the public, and they were voted on by MoveOn members through December 31st. Obviously the few hundred of you who viewed these ads agreed that they were not worthy of further broadcast or recognition, because they got low ratings. Yesterday we announced the 15 finalists -- all good, hard-hitting and fair appraisals of the Bush record, in the judgment of the members and others who rated them. The two offending ads can only be found one place now -- on the RNC website!

When we've explained this to journalists, most have understood that this is a game of gotcha politics, not news. But even our statement for the press below, which goes through the entire process in detail, hasn't stopped the right wing from working this angle as hard as they can.

That's why we're asking you to please watch for stories on this as they appear, and let us know. Call the news outlet yourself and give them hell for falling victim to such political baloney. I've attached our statement, which fully explains the situation, below. Then please let us know so we can contact the outlets directly.

You can help us track inaccurate reporting on this story at:
http://moveon.org/smear/?id=2234-3121065-ySbQCgwmjVQggpcw40dZkA

Second, we need you to get the press back on the right track. After you've corrected the negative accounts, write an upbeat letter to your local paper about the exciting and positive aspects of the contest and the finalists. These ads reflect the courage, hope, and deep patriotism of our membership. They're creative, passionate, and totally unlike most of the political ads that are out there. And perhaps most importantly, they were picked in a democratic way. Now that's a story.

The finalists are online at:
http://www.bushin30seconds.org/

By sharing that URL with your friends, family, and colleagues, you can help to make sure that the RNC isn't successful in stealing our finalists' glory.

Not only is the RNC campaign deceptive, it's also totally disingenuous. Yesterday, the New York Post ran a long opinion column focusing exclusively on how much Presidential Candidate Howard Dean resembles Hitler, even calling him "Herr Howie." Of course, the RNC hasn't issued a condemnation of that. When close RNC ally Grover Norquist repeatedly compared taxing the wealthy with the Holocaust in an interview on NPR, the RNC was muted. And in 2002, the RNC and its allies were silent when supporters of President Bush actually aired TV ads morphing the face of Senator Max Cleland, a triple amputee as a result of wounds sustained in Vietnam, into Osama bin Laden. Given such a transparently partisan track record, the RNC's moral outrage doesn't mean a whole lot.

Obviously, MoveOn.org and its 1.7 million members are now on the right-wing radar. They are going to do everything they can do to silence us, and we simply won't let it happen. Smear tactics and campaigns of misinformation have no place in American democracy.

Sincerely,
--Adam, Carrie, Eli, James, Joan, Noah, Peter, Wes, and Zack
The MoveOn.org Team
January 6th, 2003

P.S. Here's the statement we released to the press yesterday, which explains the whole situation.

Quote:

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Monday, Jan. 5, 2004

ADS ATTACKED BY RNC CHAIRMAN
ARE NOT MOVEON.ORG VOTER FUND ADS
MoveOn.org Voter Fund Regrets Screening Process Allowed Ads to Slip Through

Statement by Wes Boyd, Founder of MoveOn.org Voter Fund:

The Republican National Committee and its chairman have falsely accused MoveOn.org of sponsoring ads on its website which compare President Bush to Adolf Hitler. The claim is deliberately and maliciously misleading.

During December the MoveOn.org Voter Fund invited members of the public to submit ads that purported to tell the truth about the President and his policies. More than 1,500 submissions from ordinary Americans came in and were posted on a web site, bushin30seconds.org, for the public to review.

None of these was our ad, nor did their appearance constitute endorsement or sponsorship by MoveOn.org Voter Fund. They will not appear on TV. We do not support the sentiment expressed in the two Hitler submissions. They were voted down by our members and the public, who reviewed the ads and submitted nearly 3 million critiques in the process of choosing the 15 finalist entries.

We agree that the two ads in question were in poor taste and deeply regret that they slipped through our screening process. In the future, if we publish or broadcast raw material, we will create a more effective filtering system.

Contrast this with the behavior of the RNC and its allies when supporters of President Bush used TV ads morphing the face of Sen. Max Cleland (D-GA) into that of Osama Bin Laden during the 2002 Senate race.

MoveOn.org and the MoveOn.org Voter Fund exist to bring the public into the political process and produce a more fact-based election process. We regret that the RNC doesn’t seem to embrace the same goals.

http://moveonvoterfund.org/smear/release.html

I guess there's nothing else to do but to wait until G-man comes over to accuse me of supporting Hitler by totally misenterpreting everything posted above.

Quote:

Darknight613 said:
I don't see anything on MoveOn.org's website to hint that they're Democrat or liberal - just anti-Bush (which isn't the same thing).

MoveOn.Org admits to only supporting what they refer to as "moderate to progressive (i.e., liberal) principles."

They link at their site, approvingly, to numerous press clippings that refer to them as a "liberal" group.

Quote:

the G-man said:
Quote:

Darknight613 said:
I don't see anything on MoveOn.org's website to hint that they're Democrat or liberal - just anti-Bush (which isn't the same thing).

MoveOn.Org admits to only supporting what they refer to as "moderate to progressive (i.e., liberal) principles."

They link at their site, approvingly, to numerous press clippings that refer to them as a "liberal" group.

Moderate means moderate. There's a difference between being a moderate and being a liberal. Based on my observations, most liberals see things in black and white, as do most conservatives (they just disagree on what's black and white). Not all liberals or conservatives are like this, obviously, but a significant amount. Moderates seem to see almost everything in shades of gray. "Progressive" is open to interpretation, but doesn't have to mean liberal. It can, but it might mean other things as well. Or it could be meant to be taken literally.

Also, these guys seem very proud of who they are, and I doubt that if they were genuine liberals that they would deny it. Liberals are proud of their affiliation, just like conservatives are. And there are moderates who can see the middle ground who are just as proud of that affiliation.

Liberals can be just as extreme as conservatives, and these people probably realize it just as well as I do. Extremists shouldn't be politicians, no matter what political party they come from. We need politicians who are able and willing to see issues from both sides and make choices that benefit everybody, not just their personal moral code. We also need politicians who are able to compromise.

I'm still reading through the links page you pointed me to, so I'll get back to you on that.

Let's review...

MoveOn admits to being "moderate to liberal," and proudly links to numerous articles where they are described as out and out liberal.

They support liberal/democrat candidates (Clinton, Grey Davis, etc.) and oppose conservative/republican candidates (Bush).

I think we can all safely conclude where they stand politically.

http://www.cc.org/

http://www.rlcnet.org/

http://www.conservative.org/

http://www.eagleforum.org/psr/

http://www.conservativeusa.org/

http://www.yaf.org/

http://www.conservativesunite.org/

http://www.atr.org/

http://www.clubforgrowth.org/

and most amusingly

MoveRight.org

There. 2 minutes of research yeilded all this.

Plus all the myraid Ultra-right wing radio talk shows who are soley devoted to unbalanced far right propaganda and incessant smear of moderate/liberal canidates.

G-Man talks as if having some balance or couterpoint to all this is somehow bad. Which is rather amusing, I think.

I dunno. Are we all just supposed to yeild and accept his political slant without a response of ANY kind? I don't get what his problem is with MoveOn.org.

I was flipping thru the newstand when I read this peice. Hence the title change on the top of this post.

Quote:

The House of Bush

Rep. strategist Kevin Phillips on the Bush family's hunger for power

By Eric Bates

Listening to Kevin Phillips talk about politics, it's easy to mistake him for a populist firebrand from the 1890s. He rails against the growing inequality of wealth in America. He bemoans the unprecedented influence that private corporations hold over public institutions. He attacks the "smug conservatism" of George W. Bush and accuses the president of attempting to establish a family dynasty better suited to royalist England than to democratic America.
But Phillips is no left-wing demagogue. He's not only a lifelong Republican, he's also the guy who literally wrote the book that became the blueprint for the party's dominance of presidential politics. Phillips served as the chief political strategist for Richard Nixon in 1968, and, in The Emerging Republican Majority, he formulated the "Southern Strategy" that helped hand the White House to the GOP for a generation.

In his new book American Dynasty, Phillips lays out his almost visceral distaste for what he calls "the politics of deceit in the House of Bush," accusing the administration of dishonesty and secrecy that would make Tricky Dick blush..........

I'm not going to post the article in it's entirety, just the 1st paragraph or so to let you decide if you want to read further. It's amusing that the left isn't the only side releasing best-selling books about Bush's lies.

So, to recap: we've gone from denying MoveOn is liberal to admitting that it is while arguing that this is okay because there are also conservative groups out there.

None is which is relevant to the central question of this thread, which is whether liberals hate the president.

Quote:

the G-man said:
None is which is relevant to the central question of this thread, which is whether liberals hate the president.

Well, obviously some do, I won't deny that. And there are some that don't. I don't know any percenatges, but I know for a fact that not all liberals hate the president. They might not agree with him and his policies, but that's not the same as actually hating George W. Bush as a person.

Call it a cop-out answer if you will, but anybody who knows me well should remember that I try to avoid blanket statements and stereotyping. So I'm not going to go around denouncing everybody from a certain group just because I don't like a select few. I've given up on trying to encourage others to think along these lines because it always gets ugly when I do, so I'll just "lead by example" (for lack of a better term).

So the answer is some liberals do hate the president, and some liberals don't.

And to be honest, it's their right to hate him if they want to. Just as we have the right to hate anybody we feel like hating. I understand it's tough when someone knocks someone you root for or look up to - I hate it when people diss my favorte actors or writers or whatever - but that's the nature of being a politician, or even a public figure in general. You make yourself a target, and if you do or say something that people don't agree with, they don't like you for it.

Apparently, some liberals don't just hate the President, they hate his supporters....

This "Guest Columnist" for the ironically named Seattle Post Intelligencer argues that Bush supporters (which may mean approximately fifty percent of the country at any given time) aren't just people with different political views, but are actually just plain stupid:

Amazing how many "compassionate" and "tolerant" liberals are perfectly willing to treat opposing viewpoints with scorn, condescension and venom.

Don't let yourself get worked up by all this. There are millions of people in the US, all of which have different oppinions. Someone putting up a picture like that (the time satire), while offensive, isn't the end of the world. It's not like it's on Howard Dean's website! You could find millions of pictures like that.

[qoute]Amazing how many "compassionate" and "tolerant" liberals are perfectly willing to treat opposing viewpoints with scorn, condescension and venom.

Most Republicans/conservatives are the same way!

Quote:

the G-man said:

Amazing how many "compassionate" and "tolerant" liberals are perfectly willing to treat opposing viewpoints with scorn, condescension and venom.

I dunno. Why is it you don't have any problem when the right wing ridicules and denounces "liberals"? A word I might add that you seem to treat as if it should be a cause for embarasssment and avoidance and ultimately rejection by the person "accused" of being one.

There are countless far right sites, articles AND RADIO SHOWS that do the same kinds of smear tactics that you are so worked up about right now with all your "proofs". Funny how you don't get worked up about the politics of destruction when it's being done by "your side". But hell, let anyone on "the left" attempt something similar and suddenly there's all this righteous indignation by you. Suddenly, everyone, especially the so called "comapssionate" and tolerant" liberals must adhere to higher standards.

I just think you have an issue with free speech.

Quote:

whomod said:
I just think you have an issue with free speech.

Ah, the old "if criticize my views you are a censor" ploy. A popular ploy among-ahem-certain liberals, and quickly gaining ground on the top tactic, the old "you're a racist/sexist/homophobe" gambit.

Quote:

the G-man said:
Quote:

whomod said:
I just think you have an issue with free speech.

Ah, the old "if criticize my views you are a censor" ploy. A popular ploy among-ahem-certain liberals, and quickly gaining ground on the top tactic, the old "you're a racist/sexist/homophobe" gambit.

OK, you don't have a problem against free speech. You just have a problem with anti-Bush speech.

Hey, it was YOU who brought up all your indignation at people *GASP* daring to critisize Bush.

Au contraire, my venom-filled friend.

I recognize that you have the First Amendment right to criticize the President.

I am simply questioning whether you and your fellow liberals are criticizing him for legitimate, logical, policy reasons, or because you irrationally hate him as a person.

I am not attacking your rights, simply questioning your motives.

Y'know, maybe it's because I'm a Republican, but it just seems to me that the absolute worst of Republican rhetoric doesn't even approach the level of venom and distortion spewed almost daily from the Democrat side.

Some examples I've consistently given include how Democrats and liberal reporters constantly project the illusion that Bush "ruined" the economy and started the recession that we're hopefully finally emerging from now.
When the truth is that the recession began under Cinton, AN ENTIRE YEAR before Bush took office. That "Bush caused it" is a blantant lie on the part of Democrats.

To say nothing of the fact that we were beginning to emerge from the recession when 9-11 occurred, an event which almost instantly obliterated one-sixth of the annual U.S. economy, plunging us back into recession.
And the deficit spending that Bush is vilified by Democrats for is almost entirely due to homeland security spending. Which would have occurred no matter who was President.

And the consistent bitter charicatures of Ford, Reagan, Bush Sr., Quayle and G.W. Bush (again as I've pointed out before) portraying them as idiots and incompetents, while simultaneously portraying their Democrat counterparts (Carter, Mondale, Ferraro, Dukakis, Clinton and Gore) as brilliant geniuses and visionaries.
So this isn't something new and exclusive to G.W. Bush. This is a consistent malicious portrayal of any Republican who dares to be elected.

And even when incredible things happened in the world under these past Republicans, like the collapse of Soviet-bloc Eastern Europe and collapse of the Soviet Union itself, these monumental events are portrayed as "dumb luck", despite it being clear that Reagan's plan to negotiate from a position of strength worked, and the Russians negotiated peace because they couldn't compete militarily, and were compelled to negotiate.

Democrats may not like the Republican attack on Dukakis during the 1988 presidential election, using Willie Horton as a poster-boy for Dukakis. But it is not distortion of the facts by Republicans, it is absolute fact that Dukakis enacted the policy that allowed convicted murderer Willie Horton out on a weekend furlough, which enabled Horton to murder another person.
And it was emblematic of Dukakis' misguided liberal sympathies on a wide range of issues, from crime and punishment, to foreign policy, to military spending.

G-man's point throughout this topic is that Democrat/liberal hatred of Bush is bitter and maliciously misrepresentative of the facts, and I see nothing here to dispute that.

The best counterpoint I've heard is the half-hearted "Well, Republicans do it to Democrats too..."

Well, as I've said repeatedly, Republican rhetoric is almost always backlash against deliberate misrepresentation by Democrats, and even then it rarely matches the venom of what Democrats have said. So from that perspective, Republicans DON'T "do it too".

Howard Dean's allegations that Bush knew in advance of 9-11 is the bitterest and most infuriating thing I've heard from Democrats in the recent past. Alleged without a shred of evidence, no less. If that's not unpatriotic and pointlessly divisive (exactly what Republicans have called Dean's remarks), then I don't know what else could possibly be considered unpatriotic.

And equally unpatriotic and malicious, the photomanipulations of Bush and his cabinet into Nazis wearing swastika armbands. And the TIME magazine cover above, distorted to show U.S. soldiers as nazis. Again, from baseless suggestion that there is a similarity between Bush and Nazis, without a shred of proof.

So yes, liberals hate the President, and no, they haven't got a shred of evidence to back it up. And because liberals hate Bush, they believe every half-baked allegation against Bush, no matter how preposterous.

I've yet to see any evidence that Iraq is about "blood for oil". It will be at least a decade before the U.S. sees a dime of profit from Iraq, if we ever see any profit at all from the invasion and reconstruction of Iraq. When you consider the cost of the war, the cost of reconstruction, and the forgiven debt Iraq owed the U.S., it will be a long time before we can even hope to break even, let alone a "blood for oil" brand of profit, as liberals have baselessly alleged.

I've yet to see that Halliburton was picked for any other reason than its extensive past experience in reconstruction of other nations. Despite what liberals bitterly allege.

I've yet to see that Saddam Hussein was anything but evil, or any evidence that Saddam had NOT been consistently pursuing WMD's, and the fact that they have not been found means absolutely nothing. The WMD's are no doubt buried in the desert somewhere, just like fighter jets that have already been found buried in the sand dunes of Iraq. Despite liberals' bitter allegations that there was no evidence, and that there was no provocation for the U.S. to invade.
There definitely was a WMD program, that even Hilary Clinton, John Kerry and many other key Democrats acknowledged, until March 2003, when it became ruthlessly convenient to exploit that WMD's were not immediately found, despite the overwhelming evidence that Saddam had a massive WMD program, according to U.N. findings, according to the intelligence of every nation that investigated Iraq, and also according to high-level Iraqi military defectors, beginning in 1995.

The U.N. records, sourced from Saddam Hussein's own military inventory records, clearly show that there are thousands of missing WMD's, documented but unaccounted for. The liberal-bashing of Bush's invasion of Iraq defies logic, and relies on misrepresentative technicalites to make it appear that Bush made war with Iraq for motives of selfishness and greed, rather than the true situation, that it was in the long term interests of the U.S., Iraq, the entire Middle East, and the entire world.

Liberals distort that France, Germany and Russia had motives and political ties to Iraq (violating U.N. sanctions, which is what caused 12 years of sanctions not to bring about Saddam's collapse, as would have occurred if these three nations had not broken sanctions). Liberals distort that, if not for France and Germany, a security council vote would have supported invasion of Iraq.
And liberals distort that EVEN WITHOUT a U.N. vote, about 50 nations supported the invasion of Iraq. Probably a lot more nations would have joined that "coalition of the willing" if not for France and Germany's obstructionism.
And liberals distort that even though there was not a new U.N. vote to support invasion of Iraq in early 2003, there were ten U.N. resolutions over the previous 12 years, noting the danger Iraq posed, and calling for Iraq to disarm, or face "serious consequences" (implying U.N. authorized military action to enforce disarmament). The most recent U.N. resolution prior to invasion was in September 2002, just six months prior to the March 2003 invasion. But we are to assume, based on liberal distortion of the facts, that the threat Iraq posed for 12 years, that inspired 10 resolutions calling for Iraq's disarmament, just suddenly evaporated and that Iraq suddenly ceased to be a threat just prior to the March 2003 invasion of Iraq.

Liberals talk about legality of the Iraq invasion, but what about the illegality of Saddam's extermination of an estimated 1 million of Iraq's surviving 25 million people, whose mass graves are being unearthed all over Iraq?

Liberals bemoan the lack of solid evidence of a Saddam/Al Qaida connection, but that link can now be proven, (the New York Post article that first reported that has been posted repeatedly on these boards, and bitter Bush-hating liberals continue to ignore it).
But even if a Saddam/Al Qaida link weren't proveable, the globally publicized fact that Saddam gave 15,000 dollar checks to the families of every suicide bomber in Palestine, in very public ceremonies, in this and other ways demonstrating that Saddam was a major supporter of Palestinian terrorism, and that pushing Saddam out is a major blow against Palestinian terror, is another fact that anti-Bush liberals choose to ignore and gloss over, amid their Bush-bashing.

On so many issues, liberals make a legalistic case for "illegality" while ignoring the evil of what we are fighting, and the necessity of fighting it.

We should have invaded Iraq in 1995, when high-level Iraqi military officers first revealed Saddam was definitely violating the 1991 U.N. peace provisions, and was pursuing a large and secret WMD program.

We should have invaded in 1998, when Hussein threw out U.N. weapons inspectors.

We should have invaded North Korea (as Sen. John McCain has said) in 1994, instead of promising North Korea close to a billion dollars a year in cheap feul for 10 years, with no verification required from them, that allowed North Korea to take Clinton's nuclear blackmail payments, while simultaneously violating the agreement and continuing to develop nuclear weapons.
While Bush is vilified by liberals for not dealing with North Korea now, liberals distortedly ignore that it was Clinton who made the agreement with no nuclear verification required that made the present North Korean nukes possible, and that Clinton had 8 years to take care of the problem that Bush inherited.

On and on, all the situations where liberals bemoan legalistic technicalities, while ignoring and outright lying about the greater truth of these events.

Because they hate Bush.

And God forbid they should acknowledge Clinton's responsibility for North Korea's nukes, Clinton's responsibility for Saddam's ability to stay in power and commit genocide and build WMD's (which Bush Sr. also shares blame for), Clinton's responsibility for the economic recession that G.W. Bush inherited, and the many lost opportunities by Clinton to militarily deal with the building threat of Al Qaida.

Liberal hatred for Bush makes them blindly hate Bush, and blindly oppose what is best for our nation, and the world.
Liberals would rather hate Bush, and blame Bush for everything, utilizing distortion and wild conspiracies, than acknowledge there are real and proven threats to our country, and work to resolve them.

Hating Bush has become a one-stop scapegoat for liberals, whether Bush is to blame or not. And it seems to me that liberals are eager to believe the worst about Bush, no matter how unproven and wild the accusation.

And I wish I could modify that evaluation to say "some liberals" or "most liberals". But it really seems to me that Bush-hating is the practice of ALL liberals. Whether in conversation with liberals I meet person, or with liberals on these boards, or liberal pundits in the media, I don't see liberals ever say at any point: "Well geez, this particular accusation against Bush is unfair..."

There is no balance among liberals, Bush-hating seems universal among liberals. So in this particular case, based on observation, I'd have to say "ALL liberals".

--------------------

"This Man, This Wonder Boy..."

Hell of a good post Dave.

Yep. Thanks Dave.

Columnist Robert Samuelson makes some points that are similar to Dave's:

Quote:

the G-man said:

More than the language is being butchered. Once disagreement turns into self-proclaimed hate, it becomes blinding. You can see only one all-encompassing truth, which is your villain's deceit or stupidity. That was true of Clinton haters, and it increasingly is true of Bush haters.

[/LIST]

Probably the fairest thing posted all week!

if you guys are gunna agree on something im leaving!

Quote:

Originally posted by PJP :
Hell of a good post Dave.

Quote:

Originally posted by G-man:
Yep. Thanks Dave.

Thanks for the positive feedback, guys.

I thought I'd post some Bush we can ALL look on favorably:

--------------------

Quote:

( from the "It's not about oil or Iraq..." topic, page 24: )
Mister JLA said:
.
That doesn't change the fact that blahblahblah neocons this, neocons that, conspiracy...Haliberton...Cheney, where was Bush on 9/11...? he duped the American public...lies, lies, lies, the average American doesn't question things like I do, since I care more and am smarter...here in California...blahblahblah.

Signed,

whomod.

"The Whomod Technique"
http://www.robkamphausen.com/Number=258330

Fine...I'll find eleven other girls and make a 'Babes for Bush' calendar...

Just some more of my two cents:

We get a lot of our information from the far right and the far left, be it moveon.org or newsmax.com (which is only useful for the late-night jokes anyways). These people see it as 'their way or the highway'. To them, a liberal must be a pro-choice, atheist, communist. A conservative must be a Bible-thumpering, anti-envorimental, facists.

Now really, do any of us fit into to either of those catergories? No. I don't. Most Americans do not follow their 'traditional' party line. What would your political impression of me be if you asked what I thought about homosexual unions and drug legalization? On the other side of the coin, what would happen if you asked me about abortion or taxes? The thing is, I might disagree with those wacky far-right people, but I feel like I represent the GOP, not them. I think I understand what the GOP stands for. But does my version of a conservative get media coverage? Nope. And the same thing happens on the liberal side. I'm sure the liberals not hogging the spotlight have souls.

That all being said, those same loudmouths on each extreme side hate each other. They always will. Now I may disagree with Bush (like this new thing cooking up about the immigration), but I like him. I find him likable. Clinton? He's tolerable. I'll admit he did a few good things, I'm sure he's great at parties, but I wouldn't go near the man. Like I've said before, maybe if I were a man, this wouldn't be an issue. I don't feel malicious towards any of the democratic candidates.

Hate becomes a problem when it forces you to discredit everything a person does. I think both sides have done it, however, I take no part in it.

Great post Wonder Boy (your nice long one on this page that is). Course I just hopped in here and read this page, but I think it pretty much sums up the rest of the thread. But Wonder Boy's post reminded me of something, a clear example of that, that happened last year. I don't know how many of you, if any, knew about this/saw it, but March 31at of last year (only reason I know the date is because I saved the chat and posted it to my journal the next day) LD and I were instant messaging and despite my repeated reminders that I didn't want to argue the war (in his jounral, my journal and on AIM) yet again he ignored that and dragged me into an argument I had no desire for. Now the thing about this is whenever we chatted, we'd start at midnight CST (my time), which is 10pm his time, so by that time I'm not thinking, tired, and ready to climb into bed soon. So needlsess to say I'm no where near awake enough to talk/argue politics.

Anyway, follow the link to my journal. If you're really adventurous (need more proof of Liberal crap) then you should check out the posts around that time on his journal. Oh and check out the one before that one on mine, from the same day, don't just read my posts, but read the comments that was left by all as well.

I would never accuse all conservatives or liberals of sharing the same ideals, as I think that's insulting and unfair. Nobody deserves to be generalized simply because of a meaningless classification. I, personally, will never accept a branding of "liberal" or "conservative"(and certainly not Republican or Democrat), because, frankly, I hate both words. They're nothing more than a facist tool used to confuse us and divide our country(one supposedly founded on the basis of unity, hence it's name), blindly pitting one group against the other. It's a shield, an excuse, a copout.

I don't hate the President. I do hate many of the things President Bush has done. I do like to argue against those things that I don't agree with, it would be wrong not to. It's a free country still so if you want to dismiss different opinions as hate filled rhetoric that's your prerogative but also your loss.

The way i see it, I think partisanship goes beyond mere policies and actions. For example:

Ex US-Treasury Chief: Saw No Evidence of Iraq WMDs

Now that's a pretty damning article by any account. BUUUT predictably, the moderate/liberals or the left/liberals" will see this article as vindication of everything they're critiquing the President on. The Pro-Bush camp however will totally ignore the article and call it sour grapes or anything to deflect attention to what it says. Just as any pro-Bush article would be equally ignored and deflected by the "left".

I think partisanahip has more to do with people's idea of what the "image" of their side and the "other side" is. To people, the stereotypes of what "liberals' and conservatives" stand for trumps any policy descisions they may make. I get that impression usually after people ridicule California/San Francisco when deriding liberals. As if whatever San Francisco represents in their eyes is indicative of the perceived threat to their way of life which includes sexual freedom, reproductive choice, gay equality, dissent, and questioning authority.

I'm guessing judging from a recent anti-Dean ad that had an elderly couple railing against peircings, latte drinking and a host of other threats to them, that conservatives see democrats as somehow threatening their old fashioned, religious,pro-family, pro-law enforcement/military way of life with what can only be described as cosmopolitian "big city" values. Which since they usually pick SF as opposed to L.A., I'm guessing is also a way to spotlight the gay debate. The Paris Hilton TV show I think crystallizes and caricatures this clash of ideas.

Liberals on the other hand also have their ideas of conservatism. Which usually boils down to repression, conformity, the deep south and all it it's own stereotypes, stay at home wives, innate racism and sexism, a desire for their own ideological and religious views to override everything including the Constitution, kowtowing to big business and the authoritarian ask-no-questions status quo. Basically a return to the 50's. And the GOP as the party of angry white men no longer assured entitlement is also a powerful impression.

So basically regardless of whatever triumphs or losses EITHER side may acheive, this ideological divide is what drives people above and beyond anything factual and above and beyond anything that may actually represent actual liberals or conservatives.

We truly are defined by the worst of us. A "conservative" is no more Strom Thrurmond than a "liberal" is Ed Begely Jr.

Me, I live in L.A., a place I'm sure totally alien to someone from the midwest. I like it that way. Just like I'm sure New Yorkers like their own idiosyncracies. What I resent is people who think EVERYTHING should be like their own slice of America and their own worldview and everything not like it is somehow evil in biblical proportions. You live in the midwest because you like small town values? Good. Stay there. Just don't tell me how to live my life. Thank you very much. It's all just chaos VS order to use a comic book reference. Too much of either can't be good.

Now back to the article linked. That is the 2nd article I've recently posted that shows not the frothing at the mouth "liberals" out to "get" GWB out of some partisan hatred but REPUBLICANS, criticizing Bush. This one from his very cabinet. A guy who sat in the National Security Council saying THE-EXACT-SAME-THINGS the so called spiteful hate filled Democrats have been saying. Only he has about 19,000 documents backing up his statements. Here is the earlier conservative anti-Bush article again since some of you may have missed it.

Quote:

The House of Bush

Rep. strategist Kevin Phillips on the Bush family's hunger for power

By Eric Bates

Listening to Kevin Phillips talk about politics, it's easy to mistake him for a populist firebrand from the 1890s. He rails against the growing inequality of wealth in America. He bemoans the unprecedented influence that private corporations hold over public institutions. He attacks the "smug conservatism" of George W. Bush and accuses the president of attempting to establish a family dynasty better suited to royalist England than to democratic America.
But Phillips is no left-wing demagogue. He's not only a lifelong Republican, he's also the guy who literally wrote the book that became the blueprint for the party's dominance of presidential politics. Phillips served as the chief political strategist for Richard Nixon in 1968, and, in The Emerging Republican Majority, he formulated the "Southern Strategy" that helped hand the White House to the GOP for a generation.
In his new book American Dynasty, Phillips lays out his almost visceral distaste for what he calls "the politics of deceit in the House of Bush," accusing the administration of dishonesty and secrecy that would make Tricky Dick blush..........

Now what I would expect say if I had posted ..i dunno, ANYTHING from CNN or ABC News or The whatever Times is for some to just wave it away as the biased utterances of the "liberal media". That is indicative of the kind of dismissal I expect from some on the the right. Just dismiss any alleged corruption and secrecy and deceit as nothing more than the ramblings of people who "don't like Bush" or "partisan politics" or "hate speech" or anything that may actually encourage someone to pay attention. In another thread, i even posted CBS News' expose that the Texas education miracle was all smoke and mirrors. No response. No care.

When even staunch Republicans start saying the same things I've been saying about Bush, can we stop pretending it's not about blind devotion to whatever you think Bush represents to you and damn any thing that talks disparingly about him, true or otherwise. The perceived idea of what he represents to you sociologically as an (R) is more important than the reality of whatever he may or may not do.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2002/0523/p11s01-coop.html

http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline/main/essaytheytriedtowarnus.html

http://amsterdam.nettime.org/Lists-Archives/nettime-l-0205/msg00138.html

Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
I don't hate the President. I do hate many of the things President Bush has done. I do like to argue against those things that I don't agree with, it would be wrong not to. It's a free country still so if you want to dismiss different opinions as hate filled rhetoric that's your prerogative but also your loss.

Amen.

From MoveOn.org

Quote:

Senate Republicans Hack Democratic Computer Files

Dear whomod,

Sometimes we come across a news story so shocking that it serves to remind us that Bush's Republicans will cross any line in their pursuit of full control over the government.

You have already heard how President Bush bypassed the Senate confirmation process and appointed Charles Pickering -- who authored the GOP anti-abortion plank and argued for lenience for a convicted cross-burner -- to a lifetime seat on the federal bench just hours after laying a wreath at the grave of Martin Luther King, Jr.

But they're not done.

This week, the Boston Globe reported that Republican staffers on the Senate Judiciary Committee repeatedly accessed computer files belonging to Democratic members over the course of the year, stealing strategic memos and leaking them to conservative media outlets.

Republicans immediately jumped on the defensive, blaming the computer glitch that allowed them to access the files. That's like a burglar blaming an unlocked door when he robs your house! You couldn't make up a better story to demonstrate the excesses and lengths that they'll go to in pursuit of their agenda. Their tactics illustrate their willful abuse of democratic rules as they attempt to pack our courts with right-wing extremists.

They will do anything to increase their power through President Bush's right-wing extremist judicial nominees -- even illegal and unethical computer hacking.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/01/22/infiltration_of_files_seen_as_extensive?mode=PF

Watergate anyone??

OOOOOHH But no, "liberals" unreasonably "hate" the Republicans.

It's pretty apparent to any fool that the exreme right wing of the Republican Party is at war with any opposition to their vision of 1 party rule. And it shows what i've been saying about some people thinking the ends justify the means. No matter how much it slaps in the face, democracy itself. I now know I can't wait for electronic voting machines!

The new Right, same as the old.

Quote:

President Bush bypassed the Senate confirmation process and appointed Charles Pickering

President Bush made a recess appointment of Judge Pickering. This is allowed by the Constitution. It is, therefore, incrediably disingenuous of MoveOn (which might as well call itself "HateBush.Org") to suggest that an impropriety occurred.

Furthermore, had Senate Democrats discharged their duty to actually vote on Pickering, instead of letting his nomination languish in a procedural limbo, the issue would not have even come up.

Quote:

Republican staffers on the Senate Judiciary Committee repeatedly accessed computer files belonging to Democratic members over the course of the year, stealing strategic memos and leaking them to conservative media outlets

We now come to the moment where we examine that persistent liberal double standard. A Democrat who had done this would be a "heroic whistle blower."

Furthermore, from what I've read, these memos were "stolen" when Democrat staffers stored them on publicly accessible networks, even though they should have known, and were informed, that these networks were viewable by the Republicans.

It would be pretty difficult, I would expect, to prosecute someone for "hacking" simply for gaining access to documents by clicking on a publicly accessible folder on one's own computer. If that's "hacking," I guess we're all "hacking" Rob's board right now.

So why the strum and drang?

In fact, this whole hue and crew over the accessed memos is simply an attempt by Democrats to draw attention from what the memos said.

The real scandal is not about who got what memos how, but their content. They demonstrated clearly that Judiciary Democrats were the pawns of special interest groups. FOr example, the memo held that Sixth Circuit judges needed to be delayed to aid the case for racial quotas at the University of Michigan.

They also demonstrated that Democrats were attacking people because of their race: According to the memos, Miguel Estrada was a target because "he is Latino." Can you imagine anyone seriously complaining about how the memos were obtained if it was Republican memo discussing a minority candidate in this manner?

The failure, of MoveOn and their acolytes, to recognize or acknowledge this is hardly evidence that liberals don't hate the President, but may be evidence that they do.

There. I've listed the only people there who aern't fucktards.

And here's the fucktards.

1)Mr.JLA
2)Dave TWB
3)Pariah
4)The G-Man

Everyone else there falls in between the 2 poles.

Rob tries to keep it cool so I respect that. Still, I don't think he's all that removed from the latter list though.

You're welcome.

A political cartoon by Pat Oliphant:

And an appropriate response, from the letters/Opinion section of today's Fort Lauderdale News Sun-Sentinel:

Quote:

Who's the idiot?
.
Rex Jeffery McMullan
Pompano Beach
Posted March 14 2004
.
.
In liberating both Afghanistan and Iraq, President Bush has lost less than 600 troops. He has taken less than a year.
.
By comparison, the USA (JFK, LBJ, Nixon) lost Vietnam, lost 58,000 troops, and took 10 years to accomplish this feat. In addition, the USA (Truman) lost half of Korea, also lost 50,000 troops, and we still have 38,000 troops there after 50-plus years.
.
According to The New York Times and The Washington Post, President Bush's tax cuts (Conservatives know these to be the GOP House's tax cuts) have spurred a stable Dow (currently 10,500), been a catalyst for upwardly mobile retail sales and housing starts in the USA.
Neither The Times or The Post are known as bastions of conservatism.
.
So I see where the author of the March 1 cartoon has (in essence) called President Bush an "idiot."
Since one epithet deserves another, based on the foregoing, the cartoonist is the "idiot."
.
Furthermore, what does this say of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel Editorial Board?

--------------------

"This Man, This Wonder Boy..."

I actually sent a couple letters like that myself.

I was heart broken when I got no response.

ZOD finds the "comedy" from the left full of hate and lacking of wit. Anymore it's direct and obsurd, such as the one above. ZOD is sure Jefferson considered the possiblity of same sex marriage when writing the Constitution and was for it. Please...

I have a very strong dislike for liberals and their hateful ways.

Then don't fuck the. Duh!

Think PJP! Think!

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
A political cartoon by Pat Oliphant:

And an appropriate response, from the letters/Opinion section of today's Fort Lauderdale News Sun-Sentinel:

--------------------

"This Man, This Wonder Boy..."

I just want to ask, what does a cartoon about the folly of amending the Constitution to prevent a group of people equal rights have to do with the war in Iraq??

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
And an appropriate response, from the letters/Opinion section of today's Fort Lauderdale News Sun-Sentinel:

Quote:

Who's the idiot?
.
Rex Jeffery McMullan
Pompano Beach
Posted March 14 2004
.
.
In liberating both Afghanistan and Iraq, President Bush has lost less than 600 troops. He has taken less than a year.
.
By comparison, the USA (JFK, LBJ, Nixon) lost Vietnam, lost 58,000 troops, and took 10 years to accomplish this feat. In addition, the USA (Truman) lost half of Korea, also lost 50,000 troops, and we still have 38,000 troops there after 50-plus years.
.
According to The New York Times and The Washington Post, President Bush's tax cuts (Conservatives know these to be the GOP House's tax cuts) have spurred a stable Dow (currently 10,500), been a catalyst for upwardly mobile retail sales and housing starts in the USA.
Neither The Times or The Post are known as bastions of conservatism.
.
So I see where the author of the March 1 cartoon has (in essence) called President Bush an "idiot."
Since one epithet deserves another, based on the foregoing, the cartoonist is the "idiot."
.
Furthermore, what does this say of the South Florida Sun-Sentinel Editorial Board?

What do you think you're doing bringing logic and facts into this?!?

Kill President Bush dot Com:

Your_User_Name_Here@KillPresidentBush.com

www.killpresidentbush.com

By the way...

Is anyone else on that list as tickled as I am that the best whomod can come up with is to call us "fucktards"?

I'm actually quite honored. Any sort of insult from Whomod I'd take as a complement.

Quote:

whomod said:
Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
A political cartoon by Pat Oliphant:

.
.
.
.

I just want to ask, what does a cartoon about the folly of amending the Constitution to prevent a group of people equal rights have to do with the war in Iraq??

Well, whomod, the Oliphant cartoon isn't about "gay marriage" or the Iraq war.
It's just a political statement devoid of logic, lashing out bitterly at President Bush and, without any lucid point, calling him an idiot.

A baseless illogical assumption that slanderously ad-libs Jefferson an opinion that is in complete opposition to his writings.
As I said in the "islamic ignorance" topic...

http://www.rkmbs.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=206064&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1

... the founding fathers clearly believed that teaching of the Bible, and biblical principles, was essential to the survival of a democracy, and the Bible's absence from prior attempts at Democracy is what doomed those attempts to failure.
Homosexuality, and specifically "gay marriage" (an oxymoron that combines biblical and ANTI-biblical concepts) is a farce that clearly has emerged from the abandonment of the Biblical pillar the founding fathers unquestionably saw as essential to an enduring healthy Democracy.

~

Quote:

Captain Sammitch said:
What do you think you're doing bringing logic and facts into this?!?

So true. Clearly falling on deaf liberal ears.

Quote:

Zod said:
ZOD finds the "comedy" from the left full of hate and lacking of wit. Anymore it's direct and absurd, such as the one above. ZOD is sure Jefferson considered the possiblity of same sex marriage when writing the Constitution and was for it. Please...

Methinks that Zod has a gift for wit as well as wisdom.
Let all bend knee in submission to the wisdom of Zod !

~

It's also clear that Democrats' bitterness and hate is not reserved for Bush alone:

The same venom directed at Bush is being directed at Ralph Nader.

I've heard the guy vilified by pundits on the weekend news review shows for weeks, simply for running again as a Presidential candidate. They don't even examine his reasons for running, they just viciously discredit him as "on an ego trip" and other slander, aimed at thoroughly discrediting him from consideration by voters.

Liberals will viciously attack anyone who goes against their oh-so-enlightened vision and ideology of what is best for the country. Apparently that includes trashing Nader, who is arguably one of their own.

--------------------

"This Man, This Wonder Boy..."

Dave, the 2nd panel of your little cartoon CLEARLY mentions gay marriage. What do you mean the cartoon has nothing to do with gay marriage???

What the cartoon doesn't specifically mention is (P)resident Bush. That inference is yours. But hey if the boot fits..

Quote:

Pariah said:
I'm actually quite honored. Any sort of insult from Whomod I'd take as a complement.

Well actually, that quote that a clearly unhinged MrJLA posted repeatedly was for your benefit and I beleive you actually were the 1st to post it here just as I knew you would when I posted it over at those boards. I had noticed you were running around that whole week carrying your little grudges back and forth between boards and just wanted to fuck with you that day.

"Fucktard" is not the best I could come up with. It was just a convenient word I borrowed from that board as they already had you guys well pegged.

always the bridesmaid. never the fucktard.

The level of venom being directed at Nader is actually a corrollary of the intense hatred of Bush.

Years ago, Nader was a Democrat's god. His work, allegedly on behalf of consumers and the environment, was universally cited by the Democrats as what good government or good lawyering was all about. He was every bit as much their hero as Martin Luther King or John Lennon.

But now, judging from that cartoon they are so fixated on "getting" the President that, almost overnight, Nader has gone in their eyes from shining hero of the "little guy" to the moral equivalent of a terrorist bomber...and all because he might get in the way of the man they consider their real enemy.

It almost makes you wonder what will they stop it to get Bush?

Quote:

whomod said:
Dave, the 2nd panel of your little cartoon CLEARLY mentions gay marriage. What do you mean the cartoon has nothing to do with gay marriage???

What the cartoon doesn't specifically mention is (P)resident Bush. That inference is yours. But hey if the boot fits..

i don't think there's any doubt in anyone's mind that it's aimed at Bush.

As I already said, the Oliphant cartoon assumes with no facts to support it that Jefferson would have approved of gay marriage.
Asked and answered.

Therefore, there is no factual argument that it makes.
It just slanders Jefferson by putting words in his mouth (that directly contradict Jefferson and other founding fathers' words of the importance of biblical principles and teaching the Bible in a democracy, which homosexuality (and specifically, "gay marriage") are in flagrant opposition of, to mock Bush and call him an idiot, without a factual basis.

There is no reasoned point made, the cartoon is just a fabricated excuse to call Bush an idiot, that follows no logical path of evidence.
While ostensibly commenting on the gay marriage issue, the Oliphant cartoon manufactures Jefferson's approval out of thin air, not from historical evidence, and therefore only exists to insult Bush and misrepresent the issue.

--------------------

"This Man, This Wonder Boy..."

--------------------

Quote:

( from the "It's not about oil or Iraq..." topic, page 24: )
Mister JLA said:
.
That doesn't change the fact that blahblahblah neocons this, neocons that, conspiracy...Haliberton...Cheney, where was Bush on 9/11...? he duped the American public...lies, lies, lies, the average American doesn't question things like I do, since I care more and am smarter...here in California...blahblahblah.

Signed,

whomod.

"The Whomod Technique"
http://www.rkmbs.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=258330&page=0&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=&vc=1&PHPSESSID=

Quote:

Rob Kamphausen said:
always the bridesmaid. never the fucktard.

You're welcome.

I wipe my own ass.

The current Chairman of the Democratic National Committee is Terry McAuliffe. I think we can all agree that makes him as mainstream as a liberal can get.

USA Today reports that McAuliffe's office has a doormat with a picture of the President for people to wipe their feet on.

But I'm sure that's okay...protected by the First Amendment...legitimate attack on failed policies...yeah, but what about Clinton and the special prosecutor....blah...blah...whine...whine....etc.

Not at all hateful, I'm sure.

Do Liberals hate the President?

Well, not just liberals now apparently....

Quote:

Poll Says Bush Is Losing Support on Iraq

Mon Apr 5,11:13 PM ET

By WILL LESTER, Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON - Public approval of President Bush (news - web sites)'s handling of Iraq (news - web sites) has slipped to a new low — alongside his overall job rating — after last week's grisly deaths of four contractors in Fallujah, a poll says.

Still, a majority supports his decision to use military force in Iraq, says the poll released Monday.

Four in 10, or 40 percent, approve of the way Bush is handling Iraq, while 53 percent disapprove. That's down from six in 10 who approved in mid-January, according to the poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.

Bush's overall job approval is at 43 percent, a low point for his presidency, down from 56 percent in mid-January. In the new poll, 47 percent disapproved of Bush's job performance. Bush's job approval soared to 90 percent after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and remained in the 70s for almost a year after that.

Public support for the decision to use military force in Iraq has not changed. The poll found that 57 percent think the United States made the right decision to use military force — about the same as in early February.

"People are sticking to their guns on whether this was the right decision, but they're beginning to feel a little more wary about how long our troops are exposed to these dangers," said Andrew Kohut, director of the Pew Research Center. "While they think this was the right thing to do, they don't think Bush is handling it very well."

Kohut suggested the drop in Bush's overall approval rating may be caused by a combination of domestic and overseas concerns. Public interest in high gas prices rose to 58 percent who said they were following the story very closely, compared with 47 percent who felt that way in mid- March.

"He's got bad news out of Iraq, interest in gasoline prices is soaring," Kohut said. He added that the effect of last Friday's report of more than 300,000 new jobs may not be evident in polls yet.

The poll of 790 adults was taken Thursday through Sunday and has a margin of sampling error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.

Half of those polled, 50 percent, said the United States should keep troops in Iraq until a stable government is formed there, while 44 percent said the U.S. should bring troops home as soon as possible. In January, 63 percent said the United States should keep troops in Iraq until there is a stable government.

Opinion polls.

These discount the painfully obvious reality that the vast majority of Americans haven't a damned clue how the country should be run.

I find it ironic that in the same breath people can talk about how poorly educated we Americans are compared to the rest of the world, and then accept without question the uninformed opinions of those same Americans.

Quote:

whomod said:
Do Liberals hate the President?

Well, not just liberals now apparently....

Four in 10, or 40 percent, approve of the way Bush is handling Iraq, while 53 percent disapprove. That's down from six in 10 who approved in mid-January, according to the poll by the Pew Research Center for the People & the Press.

Bush's overall job approval is at 43 percent, a low point for his presidency, down from 56 percent in mid-January. In the new poll, 47 percent disapproved of Bush's job performance. Bush's job approval soared to 90 percent after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and remained in the 70s for almost a year after that.

Apparently, Whomod thinks that disapproval of policy equals "hate."

Anything to justify his own hatred, I guess.

Quote:

Captain Sammitch said:
Opinion polls. These discount the painfully obvious reality that the vast majority of Americans haven't a damned clue how the country should be run. I find it ironic that in the same breath people can talk about how poorly educated we Americans are compared to the rest of the world, and then accept without question the uninformed opinions of those same Americans.

No offense, but I don't recall you using that argument when the results of opinion polls were drastically in Bush's favor, as they had been for a good part of the last few years(don't tell that to Michael Moore, though).

Now, I do agree that there are a great number of people who are either completely clueless or just indifferent when it comes to politics. However, I think that fact should make it our agenda to educate the public, not disregard them(which is really why they're indifferent in the first place).

Oh. That was just comic relief. I wasn't totally serious the other times either. But I know what you're getting at. I rarely waste what few aggressive tendencies I have on less-than-urgent issues.

In an Asia Times book review, writer John Parker offers an interesting analysis of anti-Americanism/anti-Bushism that seems so prevalent among liberals today:

the religion has a hell (America), and a devil (George W Bush)

So are we equating Bush and America, now? If you're against one, you're against the other, too?

I definitely think Michael Moore is anti-Bush...but anti-American is quite a strong statement. I think self-critical is more like it.

Could you possibly show me some examples of these liberals that "hate" America? Ho Chi Minh and the Hussein family hardly count. They're anything but liberal, and I can't recall anyone annointing them sainthood(metaphorically or literally) outside of that article.

Quote:

Animalman said:
Could you possibly show me some examples of these liberals that "hate" America?

Some scenes from the U.S. anti-war movement:

Also :

And from liberal Washington Post columnist Richard Cohen:

tendency to blame America for the moral shortcomings of others unfortunately permeates the left and the Democratic Party

Below the surface of this reasoning seethes a perplexing animosity toward the United States -- not the people but the government and the economic system

Quote:

the G-man said:

Yikes, that's pretty out there.

Let me ask you, though, do you think these opinions are representive of most liberals? I don't. Hell, I don't even think they're representative of most war-protestors, just as I don't think seeing signs encouraging the bombing of clinics is representative of most anti-abortionists(not that I would compare the circumstances, just the people).

Quote:

Below the surface of this reasoning seethes a perplexing animosity toward the United States -- not the people but the government and the economic system.

This is a distinction that perhaps isn't as clear as one might think. It begs the question, what is America? Is it the people, the history, the ideals on which the country was founded? Or is it the government, the "system", the laws and policies that dictate how it should be run?

Sometimes it seems like we(both liberals and conservatives) equate the two, when we really shouldn't.

You asked for "examples," remember?

As for the "but what about anti-abortionists?" argument, I think that is a bit of miscomparison.

The really radical anti-abortionists (the ones who might be seen as the right wing versio of these clowns) have been roundly condemned by the mainstream GOP. Even John Ashcroft, who is probably second only to Bush himself as the left's bete noir, ordered protection of the abortion clinics and investigation and prosecution of radical anti-abortionists.

In contrast, whenever anyone brings up the shamelss antics of a big chunk of the anti-war movement, we get people like John Kerry attacking us for questioning the protestors "patriotism."

So, unless and until the left condems people like this to the same degree the right has condemned the radical anti-abortionists then I have at least suspect they are more representative than the left wants to admit.

Quote:

the G-man said:
You asked for "examples," remember?

Yes, and you provided them. I'm acknowledging that.

Quote:

The really radical anti-abortionists (the ones who might be seen as the right wing versio of these clowns) have been roundly condemned by the mainstream GOP. Even John Ashcroft, who is probably second only to Bush himself as the left's bete noir, ordered protection of the abortion clinics and investigation and prosecution of radical anti-abortionists.

I'm not sure I'd say the "really radical anti-abortionists" are necessarily the right wing versions of the aforementioned war-protestors, because to me the really radical anti-abortionists are the one's that kill doctors and bomb clinics. To my knowledge(and at least not in the pictures), the war protestors aren't physically attacking soldiers or captains, they're just holding up extremely radical signs.

I can't say I've heard any prominent Republican condemn the pro-life protesters that hold up radical signs like "God hates abortion doctors". I do know that Bush supports anti-abortionists.

Offhand, the closest thing I can think of to a general condemnation of war-protesters is a proposed bill in Oregon(one of the more liberal states, as touched on in the Hippie thread), which doesn't have much of a chance of being passed.

As this editorial touches on, I think part of the reason war-protesters are so blasted by the war-supporting public is due to memories of tactics used by Vietnam protesters in the 70's, which, were, to say the least, not always terribly well thought out.

War Protesters are pussies........kind of like you.

Quote:

Animalman said:
To my knowledge...war protestors aren't physically attacking soldiers or captains, they're just holding up extremely radical signs.

The Chicago Tribune printed a letter from the wife of a Marine in which she describes the "peaceful" actions of our "principled" and "pacifist" anti-war crowd:

Then there were the "pacifists" who threw stones at National Guardsmen:

Maybe it's time for new thread: Liberals hate America?

Anyway, getting back to the question of whether liberals hate President Bush (as opposed to America in general).

Another charming sign from the principled and pacifist anti-war movement:

Quote:

the G-man said:
Quote:

Animalman said:
To my knowledge...war protestors aren't physically attacking soldiers or captains, they're just holding up extremely radical signs.

The Chicago Tribune printed a letter from the wife of a Marine in which she describes the "peaceful" actions of our "principled" and "pacifist" anti-war crowd:

Several of my fellow Marine wives...have experienced verbal and physical abuse in the past few weeks from so-called "peace protesters."

One woman was told from another car at a stoplight that her husband was a baby killer, and that they hoped he would die.

Another, and her young son, were yelled at and manhandled by a group of protesters as they were passing through the area.

Why did this happen? Because the wives either had a Marine Corps sticker on the car or a Marine Corps shirt on.

Then there were the "pacifists" who threw stones at National Guardsmen:

MONTPELIER, Vt. — A group of Vermont teen-agers threw rocks at a uniformed female Vermont National Guard sergeant last week, in the latest example of a service member facing hostility in the United States.

National Guard spokesman Capt. Jeff Roosevelt said the woman was not injured in Friday's incident, which took place in Plainfield, but said the woman had decided she would no longer wear her uniform outside of work.

"We are a very tolerant state and people in the military also expect to be treated with the same courtesy and respect that we show to others," Lt. Col. Scott Stirewalt, director of security at the Vermont National Guard, told WCAX news.

The teens blocked the sergeant as she went into a store and again on the way out, yelling obscenities at her along the way, Roosevelt said. The group also threw small stones at her car as she drove away, he added.

The sergeant said she believed the protesters had taken part in an anti-war demonstration in Montpelier that day. National Guard troops are often deployed to such events to help keep the peace.

"There were various profanities directed in her direction, along the line of '[expletive] murderer, [expletive] baby killer,'" Stirewalt said. "It culminated with some of the individuals throwing rocks at her, and as testament to her disciplined professionalism, she got in her car and left the area."

Roosevelt called it an "isolated incident."

"For every one that takes place there are hundreds of good deeds being done for Guard members," he said.

But Friday's incident isn't the only case of a Guard facing harassment in the Green Mountain State.

"A car drove up alongside and honked his horn and stuck his hand out the window and gave us the old proverbial, 'hey, you're No. 1 finger,'" Guardsman Brian Tomblee told WCAX news, referring to an obscene gesture. "I just waved back and said, 'Hey thanks for the support,' and drove on."

Maybe it's time for new thread: Liberals hate America?

Eh, this is semantics, but that isn't bombings or killings. Confrontations between everyday people over quasi-political issues is something that happens all the time, even before the war on Iraq was a twinkle in the eye of our President.

I think it's terrible, but I have a hard time attributing this to "war protesting" rather than just stupid criminal activity.

Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
All the protests I've seen have been ...with signs more along the lines of this:
****
Asses of Evil (With pictures of Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld)
Buck Fush *
Buck Fush!
Bush + Dick = Fucked
Bush is a Fatal Error
Bush is proof that empty warheads can be dangerous.
Bush is the True Threat
Bushes are for pissing on.
Fuck Bush and His Oil War *
Hey Dick! Your Monkey's Out Of Control!
I love my country but I hate this government.
****

So, given your statement that these slogans are representative of the anti-war movement, isn't it fair to say you admit that liberals hate the president?

Quote:

whomod said:

I guess whomod is admitting that liberals hate the President?

I cower in fear from the power of your accusation.

I classify myself as politically apathetic. I'll vote for the candidate whose views and stances I agree with the most, regardless of party. But this makes me want to vote against Bush, regardless of stance. 'Cause she makes my pee-pee tickle in that good way.

That is all. Just bringing some humor to a forum that is essentially one big flamewar.

Carry on...

She is quite persuasive.....

This question doesn't really bother me one way or another.

People have a right to hate whomever they want, and constitutionally-protected freedoms (to a point) to express their hatred (so long as it's not against whatever protected group is in vogue this week

), and I can accept that.

Because I have every right to ignore them, and every right (again, to a point) to express my own opinions.

It's a lovely country we've got here. It really is.

But seriously, if you've got an opinion I don't agree with, you still must've come to it through some form of thought process, and nobody else made you believe it. I'm not gonna deny you your right to an opinion. From time to time I've learned some valuable things from people with different opinions, after all. But if I personally feel your reasoning is flawed or your argument is otherwise half-assed, expect me to exercise my right to let you know.

fuck off pinko!

Another example of "mainstream" liberal hate:

The St. Petersburg Democratic Club has taken out in a local weekly newspaper, with these "nice, clean comments" about Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld:

and pull the trigger.

If that's what they want to do to the President's Secretary of Defense, you have to wonder what they are planning for the President.

Granted, after the Drudge Report picked up on the ad, the Club Vice President Edna McCall claimed they didn't mean it literally. But how much do you have to hate a President to not immediately realize what "pull the trigger" means?

(BTW, suppose a local Republican club placed a newspaper ad soliciting donations for President Bush and urging the assassination of a prominent Democratic official. Wouldn't it be national news?)

It's all part of the liberal haters evil plan! Ha Ha Ha Ha!

http://www.basetree.com/articles/dubyas-doodles-the-uncensored-911-memo.html

Quote:

the G-man said:
Another example of "mainstream" liberal hate:

The St. Petersburg Democratic Club has taken out in a local weekly newspaper, with these "nice, clean comments" about Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld:

We should put this S.O.B. up against a wall ...and pull the trigger.

If that's what they want to do to the President's Secretary of Defense, you have to wonder what they are planning for the President.

Granted, after the Drudge Report picked up on the ad, the Club Vice President Edna McCall claimed they didn't mean it literally. But how much do you have to hate a President to not immediately realize what "pull the trigger" means?

(BTW, suppose a local Republican club placed a newspaper ad soliciting donations for President Bush and urging the assassination of a prominent Democratic official. Wouldn't it be national news?)

Maybe because this did make the national news? If you check out the CNN link you actually get more of the story too.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/13/dem.ad/index.html

No one from the club could be reached for comment, but the ad was condemned by other Democrats, including the presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry.

"We are calling the Pinellas County Democratic Party chair about this ad and demand that it be retracted," Kerry campaign spokesman Stephanie Cutter told CNN. "John Kerry does not condone this type of advertising and believes that it is wrong."

Pinellas County Democratic Party Chairman Kevin Jensen told CNN that he, too, was outraged by the ad, and said party officials "don't condone this type of stupidity."

The club, listed on the Pinellas County Democratic Party's Web site as one of its "officially chartered" clubs, does not speak for the county party, he said.

Quote:

insaneliberal said:

It's all part of the liberal haters evil plan! Ha Ha Ha Ha!

i like u.

Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
Quote:

the G-man said:
Another example of "mainstream" liberal hate:

The St. Petersburg Democratic Club has taken out in a local weekly newspaper, with these "nice, clean comments" about Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld:

We should put this S.O.B. up against a wall ...and pull the trigger.

If that's what they want to do to the President's Secretary of Defense, you have to wonder what they are planning for the President.

Granted, after the Drudge Report picked up on the ad, the Club Vice President Edna McCall claimed they didn't mean it literally. But how much do you have to hate a President to not immediately realize what "pull the trigger" means?

(BTW, suppose a local Republican club placed a newspaper ad soliciting donations for President Bush and urging the assassination of a prominent Democratic official. Wouldn't it be national news?)

Maybe because this did make the national news? If you check out the CNN link you actually get more of the story too.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/04/13/dem.ad/index.html

No one from the club could be reached for comment, but the ad was condemned by other Democrats, including the presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry.

"We are calling the Pinellas County Democratic Party chair about this ad and demand that it be retracted," Kerry campaign spokesman Stephanie Cutter told CNN. "John Kerry does not condone this type of advertising and believes that it is wrong."

Pinellas County Democratic Party Chairman Kevin Jensen told CNN that he, too, was outraged by the ad, and said party officials "don't condone this type of stupidity."

The club, listed on the Pinellas County Democratic Party's Web site as one of its "officially chartered" clubs, does not speak for the county party, he said.

Liberals frequently make these kind of un-American statements and gestures, and then backtrack later when they are exposed on camera or in written articles.
Yourself included, Matter eater Man, over the last two pages of this topic (which is more or less an extension of this one: )

Do liberals HATE America?
HERE
You give a list of protest slogans you endorse, and then backtrack to say you don't, when called on your blatant anti-Americanism.

But the truth is:
How different is this call to put Ashcroft "up against the wall", from the DAILY bitter rhetoric unleashed by Democrats against Bush and his administration?

They call Ashcroft "Asscroft".

They call Bush "The Puppet", "The Chimp", "The Shrub", and a dozen other names I can't remember.

As the signs in the above photos demonstrate (which Whomod click-and-dragged across several topics) this "put Ashcroft up against the wall" venom is absolutely no different from what liberals/Democrats are chanting constantly --and I don't mean radical fringe liberals, I mean visible mainstream liberals who are out there every day, spewing "Bush is an idiot" and other statements that are similarly objective in reviewing the facts.

Is Ted Kennedy not a "mainstream" liberal ?
Is Howard Dean (who alleges Bush knew in advance of 9-11, without evidence) not a mainstream liberal ?
Is Al Gore not a mainstream liberal ?
Is John Kerry not a mainstream liberal (who without evidence expressed off camera --he thought !!-- that Bush and his cabinet are "the worst bunch of crooks I've ever seen". )
Is Tom Daschle ?
Nancy Pelosi ?
If these are not "mainstream" liberals, then who the hell is ?

Liberals and Democrats call Bush a "draft evader", alleging --without evidence-- that Bush went A.W.O.L. for a short period while he was in the National Guard.

And yet these same liberals turn a blind eye to the fact that Bill Clinton unquestionably IS a draft evader. Proven by many witnesses, and a letter in Clinton's own handwriting.
Bush served in the National Guard, and yet liberals regard him as worse than a true draft evader.

And if Republicans bring up the fact that Clinton is unquestionably a draft evader, then liberals/Democrats regard that as "picking on" Clinton.
Nice double-standard.
And par for the course with virtually all liberals.

I ask you: Which side makes up the conspiracies and allegations to suit their hate, and ignores the true facts?

Clearly, it is Democrats.

Bitter, angry, slanderous allegations toward Bush and his administration.
No evidence against Bush.

Democrats undermine our military, divide our nation, sneer at a proven Islamic terror threat, sneer at a Republicvan administration for acting against a threat "without evidence", and accusing Bush of "blood for oil", "war profiteering" , BLA BLA BLA.
All this, despite that the U.N. weapons inspection reports, and the intelligence of every other nation involved with Iraq, saw the same threat that Bush is allegedly making up.

And these liberals disgrace America before the world with their bitter unfounded allegations. For what?

To promote their own vicious agenda, by whatever illicit means available.
The level of hate in Democrats --and I mean many, a visible majority, not just a select few-- I wouldn't put assasination of Republican leaders out of the realm of their liberal fanaticism.

Again: What Democrats/liberals are doing is so far removed from any possible illusion of productive discourse, or respectful civil disobedience. It is not "democracy". It is disgrace.

It is an angry, bitter slander campaign, a vicious weekly exercise in character assasination and erosion of our institutions.

Against factual charges, Bush could more easily defend himself.

But how does Bush defend himself against liberal innuendo, rumor, half-truth, deliberate distortion, slander, conspiracy theories, and pure unrelenting liberal hate?

The allegations affect public perception by sheer quantity of allegations, not based on any evidence. The American public hears the allegations so often, they feel after a while there must be some truth to the charges.
But it's liberal smoke. That's all there is.

~

Bush gave a great statement and press conference tonight. And as much candor as he was able to give. You could see the piranha in the press room, waiting to tear off a piece of him.
It must be very difficult for him to be patient and sincere, when he is attacked so bitterly and baselessly every single day.

Quote:

Matter Eater Man said:
No one from the club could be reached for comment, but the ad was condemned by other Democrats, including the presidential campaign of Sen. John Kerry.

This would be the same John Kerry who made an obligatory press statement about what a good thing it was that Saddam Hussein was captured?
And then, hours later, made bitter accusations about how incompetent the Bush administration is, and how if anyone else was President, Saddam would have been captured months earlier?
Lying, divisive piece of crap liberal.

~

Bush's speech tonight was outstanding. It cut to the bone of what the conflict in Iraq is all about: bringing democracy, freedom and hope to the Middle East through a seed planted in Iraq, knowing that war is costly, but that we have to stay the course, and do the job right.

Despite enemies, within and without.

A full transcript of Bush's press conference tonight
is available at:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2004/04/20040413-20.html

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:

... text removed for sake of brevity...
~

Bush's speech tonight was outstanding. It cut to the bone of what the conflict in Iraq is all about.

www.whitehouse.gov

My, that was long hard slog...

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Despite enemies, within and without.

That would be you, Whomod/insaneliberal.

(And who do you think you're kidding with this new user-name?
However, the name is appropriate. You're clearly demented, and too consumed with hatred for Bush, and conservatives in general, to ever be reached by the facts.)

--------------------

Quote:

( from the "It's not about oil or Iraq..." topic, page 24: )
Mister JLA said:
.
That doesn't change the fact that blahblahblah neocons this, neocons that, conspiracy...Haliberton...Cheney, where was Bush on 9/11...? he duped the American public...lies, lies, lies, the average American doesn't question things like I do, since I care more and am smarter...here in California...blahblahblah.

Signed,

whomod.

"The Whomod Technique"
HERE

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:

That would be you, Whomod/insaneliberal.

(And who do you think you're kidding with this new user-name?
However, the name is appropriate. You're clearly demented, and too consumed with hatred for Bush, and conservatives in general, to ever be reached by the facts.)

OK, that's the 2nd time I read this accusation.

I just have to laugh.

and shake my head.

and then add something about people making assertions not grounded in any sort of reality. Something i'm quite used to from you guys so it's no big deal actually.

You mean like the way you accused me of lying about voting for Ralph Nader?

Maybe I should just edit out my accusation, the way you edited out your prediction that Saddam Hussein would never be captured (the night before he was captured, no less)

It's not about oil or Iraq" topic, page 17:
HERE

As I've said exhaustively, I think it's legitimate to question the actions of any President.

My only problem is how you and the other Whomods of the world make such bitter, angry and mocking accusations, not based on facts, and without the slightest interest in civility, respect for institutions, and respectful debate of the facts.

Your goal, and of those like you, is just to create as much division, vindictiveness, misrepresentation, and damage to our culture as possible.

To create as much distortion and anger as you can. Anything that will cause torment for people you don't like, anything to stick it to conservatives.
Even when you joke, it's malicious humor, attempted at someone's expense.

And when you're joking about dead U.S. soldiers, and Iraqis, and you're showing graphics of Conan O'Brien and saying "woooo bring it on! ", man, that is vicious. When like 70 soldiers have died in the last two weeks, and about 600 Iraqi fighters, and who knows how many Iraqi civilians have died, and those who died before them over the last year.

To mock that these people are dying.
And that makes you happy, because in your malicious glee, you think that somehow makes your point.

And then you have the audacity to pretend you care about our country or our troops. Or the Iraqis.

I can't help thinking that the world would be a better place without you.

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
Liberals frequently make these kind of un-American statements and gestures, and then backtrack later when they are exposed on camera or in written articles, yourself included, Matter eater Man, over the last two pages. You give a list of protest slogans you endorse, and then backtrack to say you don't, when called on your blatant anti-Americanism.

Where did I endorse all those signs? I didn't. What I did do was give a very large representation of different signs you might see in my neck of the woods. At no point did I endorse them, to say so is just plain lying! This was in response to some signs G-man had posted as examples. These examples were simply not representative of signs I've seen. Please stick to what I've said.

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:

And these liberals disgrace America before the world with their bitter unfounded allegations. For what?

the audacity! trying to do the president's job for him

Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
I can't help thinking that the world would be a better place without you.

Because of some posts on a message board?

Quote:

Darknight613 said:
Quote:

Dave the Wonder Boy said:
I can't help thinking that the world would be a better place without you.

Because of some posts on a message board?

Second!

that was uncalled for I think....

anyway, I'm not an american, so what do I know!?!

Quote:

Originally posted by JQ:

Thay hate Bush, not America.

Another vote that liberals do, in fact, hate the President.

Somebody sent this to me a couple of days ago.

http://www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html

It doesn't really have much to do directly with Bush, actually. It's more about Katherine Harris. Also, at the end of the flash video, there's a link to an investigative journalist's report.

I don't know about the veracity of the report, but if it's on the level, this may give some insight on why some people are upset at Bush. Whether aiming their anger at Bush himself is justified or not...I imagine there are going to be different opinions on that.

Self-proclaimed liberal David Shaw points out that the hosts of Air America, the new, already-failed (?), liberal radio network, seem to be Bush haters:

Quote:

...during the 17 hours I listened... President Bush was [called] "an idiot," "a liar," a "lazy sack of crap," "a fake Christian," "a murdering scumbag" and — amid a discussion of Janet Jackson and the Super Bowl — "the biggest boob of all."

And, before, any of you pipe up in your reedy voices "Rush Limbaugh," Shaw also notes:

Quote:

But Limbaugh does his name-calling so creatively and hilariously that it usually winds up being entertaining.

Not satire.
Not policy discussion
Just hate.

I have no problem with radio hosts who hate a man who deserves to be hated.

I listened to Rush Limbaugh every day during the war. He was a headache inducing jackass. He was occasionaly funny, but he's no less of a jackass than Al Franken.

I never found Limbaugh funny. Occasionally he said something I agreed with, but even that was a rarity. He was even more of a jackass in his brief stint on ESPN(I didn't think his comments on black athletes were racist as some accused him of being, however).

What I've read of Franken has been entirely satire. Sometimes he'll even make fun of himself making fun of republicans. I never listened to his radio station, though.

i thougth Limbaugh was funny years ago at the beginning of the Clinton era but his schtick soon got old and repetitive, Franken is funny in the same way whomod is, it funny to see how they throw all logic out the window to support their whacko conspiracies....

Quote:

I have no problem with radio hosts who hate a man who deserves to be hated.

The discussion is not SHOULD liberals hate the President. It's DO liberals hate the President.

Apparently, you think they do.

Some really dislike him. Some don't. I thought that was established early on.

If the whole "Liberals hate the President" thing had any real basis in truth I think you would have seen Howard Dean garner more support in the primaries.

I dunno what G-Man is trying to prove.

So some liberals HATE the President.

Big hairy deal.

It's as if he's accusing people of being commies or something.

Quote:

whomod said:

It's as if he's accusing people of being commies or something.

I think the theme this time around is traitors.

Quote:

Bush campaign used Enron, Halliburton jets, records show

WASHINGTON -- During the 2000 presidential election recount battle, George W. Bush's campaign used jets owned by several large corporations, including Enron Corp. and Halliburton Co., that are now under federal investigation, according to Internal Revenue Service records and officials. .............

"The Bush administration literally flew into power on Enron's and Halliburton's private jets," said Bill Buck, a spokesman for the Democratic National Committee. .

Yeah. I hate the fucker. I however pity the deluded fools who think these guys are out to better anyone but themselves.

As noted, back in November:

If both unelected AND elected liberals are basing their views on imporant issues on nothing more than "blind rage," how should we evaluate their views?

Should we evaluate liberal viewpoints the way we would reasoned, well-meaning, arguments? Or should we treat them as biased ravings of the enraged?

Something to ponder...

Quote:

the G-man said:
As noted, back in November:

If both unelected AND elected liberals are basing their views on imporant issues on nothing more than "blind rage," how should we evaluate their views?

Should we evaluate liberal viewpoints the way we would reasoned, well-meaning, arguments? Or should we treat them as biased ravings of the enraged?

Something to ponder...

I'd think that's something to take on a case-by-case basis. There are some liberals whose criticisms can probably be taken as well-meaning arguments, and some liberals who are probably just biased and angry. So I think it depends on who's making the criticisms.

But what happens when any criticism, no matter how supported by facts and no matter how many contradictions and outright falsehoods are found out about the people being criticized, is dismissed as nothing but "blind rage"? Waving it all away as the angry ravings of some partisan fringe really does a diservice to those who don't share your POV on things.

At least this guy here agrees.

Quote:

the G-man said:
As noted, back in November:

If both unelected AND elected liberals are basing their views on imporant issues on nothing more than "blind rage," how should we evaluate their views?

Should we evaluate liberal viewpoints the way we would reasoned, well-meaning, arguments? Or should we treat them as biased ravings of the enraged?

Something to ponder...

Why shouldn't people be enraged?

A President with no mandate 1. takes your country to war 2. on the back of a non-existent threat 3. by which his friends get rich. 4.

I'd be mad if I was an American.

Blind Republican partisan loyalty is one approach, but being healthily skeptical and right wing is another. You can question your President and be a good citizen.... and a good Republican.

Footnotes:
1. Setting aside the election outcome, any president who wins with no real majority does not have a mandate for any major policy initiatives, including war. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate

2. At the US taxpayer's considerable expense, and with 702 Americans killed thus far.

3. Day 391 since invasion, and day 349 of the occupation, and still no WMDs.

4. http://money.cnn.com/2003/03/25/news/companies/war_contracts/

and

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/inves_admin/admin_contracts.htm

Quote:

the G-man said:
As noted, back in November:

If both unelected AND elected liberals are basing their views on imporant issues on nothing more than "blind rage," how should we evaluate their views?

Should we evaluate liberal viewpoints the way we would reasoned, well-meaning, arguments? Or should we treat them as biased ravings of the enraged?

Something to ponder...

Quote:

the G-man said:
Quote:

The discussion is not SHOULD liberals hate the President. It's DO liberals hate the President.

Apparently, you think they do.

Actually, from what I can follow of the drivel you and your associates are talking, the discussion is "Why liberals shouldn't be allowed to hate the President, and why Michael Moore should be locked up".
So I tell you what: name me twenty Republican pundits who were all for Bill Clinton (or Jimmy Carter if you can remember that far back) and you can claim to have won the argument.
Otherwise, you can shut up. The party in power will always be subjected to sniping from the opposition. If you have a problem with this, you should probably ignore any kind of political debate in favour of assuming that all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds.

This one today was too good to pass up. It's funny in so many different ways.

Quote:

April 23, 2004

THE NATION

Presidential Insult in the Bag, Literally

From Associated Press

SEATTLE — Clothes can make a statement. Urban-bag designer Tom Bihn has discovered that labels can too.

Bihn's sales have doubled since a French-language presidential insult mysteriously made its way onto the bilingual washing instructions for hundreds of his laptop bags and backpacks.

The labels read: "Nous sommes desoles que notre president soit un idiot. Nous n'avons pas vote pour lui."

Translated into English: "We are sorry that our president is an idiot. We didn't vote for him."

Bihn's self-titled company has drawn national attention and sparked Internet chatter since a Seattle customer spotted the insult and posted a photo of his bag's label on his Web log.

Bihn is careful to note that the tag doesn't specify who "our president" refers to.

"I'm going with the idea that it's a joke about me, the president of the company," Bihn said Thursday, but "clearly when you use the word 'idiot' and 'president' in the same sentence, people jump to other conclusions."

Bihn, 43, said he knew nothing of the tag until calls and e-mails started coming in from people around the country asking for "the bag with the label."

Bihn figures about 2,000 labels were printed and hundreds had been sewn into his bags.

About 500 labels remain, and Bihn continues to use them. He also has given them to customers who want just the label.

The company also has rolled out a line of "French Label" T-shirts with the enlarged label silkscreened onto the front. The company says all profits from the shirts are donated to the Seattle Veterans Center.

Bihn, who has a Seattle store and a Port Angeles factory outlet, said he has gotten some complaints, but most people who call him say the labels are funny.

None of Bihn's 10 employees has taken responsibility for the tags.

whomod-

Please click on the link, and click the different colors.

Thanks!

http://www.limmy.com/playthings/xylophone/

Quote:

MisterJLA said:
whomod-

Please click on the link, and click the different colors.

Thanks!

http://www.limmy.com/playthings/xylophone/

um....

How does NO work for you?

you know ya did......

Quote:

D. McDonagh said:
The party in power will always be subjected to sniping from the opposition. If you have a problem with this, you should probably ignore any kind of political debate in favour of assuming that all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds.

Sure there is always sniping.

However, the question here is whether or not the level of opposition to the President from the other side has gone from respectful disagreement, or even disrespectful disagreement, into outright loathing, and whether the level of political discourse from the left has gone from "this is why the President is wrong" to "we HATE him, nuff said."

No one here has advocated that Michael Moore be incarcerated, or even that the left "shut up."

Ironically, however, you (and some of your fellows) seem all to eager to order people to cease a discourse you find uncomfortable.

Quote:

whomod said:
Quote:

MisterJLA said:
whomod-

Please click on the link, and click the different colors.

Thanks!

http://www.limmy.com/playthings/xylophone/

um....

How does NO work for you?

That's OK...I'm sure you hear the site's message on an average of twenty times a day...

Quote:

MisterJLA said:
whomod-

Please click on the link, and click the different colors.

Thanks!

http://www.limmy.com/playthings/xylophone/

You are a fucking cunt!

Maybe he is and maybe he isn't, but he's unarguably entertaining!

Where's your sense of humor?

Don't dish it out if you can't take it!

From the New York Post

You don't get much more "mainstream democrat" than the head of the Democratic National Committee.

The current frontrunner for that position is former Presidential candidate Howard Dean.

The New York Daily News quotes Dean as saying, at a DNC gathering over the weekend, "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for..."

That's an incomplete quote. You really shouldn't punctuate it as such.

Anywho, how is that any different from the stuff that gets said by Republican, including many of the people here?

Here's the complete article, for those who are interested.

Quote:

HOWARD DEAN, THE favorite to be the next head of the Democratic National Committee, made his case in midtown yesterday, promising to make his party operate more like the GOP - at least when it comes to elections.

"I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for, but I admire their discipline and their organization," the failed presidential hopeful told the crowd at the Roosevelt Hotel, where he and six other candidates spoke at the final DNC forum before the Feb. 12 vote for chairman.

But Dean said the Democrats should not change their beliefs to be "Republican lite."

"We can talk about our faith, but we cannot change our faith," he said, echoing themes he sounded in his presidential bid. "We need to be people of conviction."

Later, he said that what "95% of Americans are really concerned about" is national security. But he said Americans also do not want to sacrifice the nation's values. "They want America to be the moral leader of the world again," he said.

Dean came into the event riding a fresh wave of momentum. A day earlier, he was endorsed for the top Democratic spot by Clinton ally Harold Ickes amid speculation over whether Bill and Hillary Clinton would try to block Dean.

Ickes, who briefly considered running for the DNC chairmanship himself, said he was not speaking for the Clintons, but it was a sign the former First Couple won't oppose Dean, who would be chairman for any run Hillary makes at the White House.

Also vying for the seat are grass-roots activist Donnie Fowler, former Texas Rep. Martin Frost, 9/11 commission member Tim Roemer, Simon Rosenberg, former Denver Mayor Wellington Webb and lawyer David Leland.

Steve Merryman observes:

You've gotta love it when a political standpoint is compared to pornography. Plus, he separates liberals from "the American people". Now THAT'S the bile that is destroying America!

I think I'm in love.

His comparison to porn is specious.

Quote:

the G-man said:
Steve Merryman observes:

Bush-Hatred is like porn for Liberals.

Merryman actually starts off criticizing an anti-Bush editorial, calling it a "putrid stinking excuse for a column," which leads into his tirade.

The column in question, by James Carroll of the Boston Globe can be found here: http://www.boston.com/news/globe/editori...of_an_election/

Quote:

Train wreck of an election

By James Carroll | February 1, 2005

IN THINKING about the election in Iraq, my mind keeps jumping back to last week's train wreck in California. A deranged man, intending suicide, drove his Jeep Cherokee onto the railroad tracks, where it got stuck. The onrushing train drew near. The man suddenly left his vehicle and leapt out of the way. He watched as the train crashed into his SUV, derailed, jackknifed, and hit another train. Railroad cars crumbled. Eleven people were killed and nearly 200 were injured, some gravely. The deranged man was arrested. Whatever troubles had made him suicidal in the first place paled in comparison to the trouble he had now.

Iraq is a train wreck. The man who caused it is not in trouble. Tomorrow night he will give his State of the Union speech, and the Washington establishment will applaud him. Tens of thousands of Iraqis are dead. More than 1,400 Americans are dead. An Arab nation is humiliated. Islamic hatred of the West is ignited. The American military is emasculated. Lies define the foreign policy of the United States. On all sides of Operation Iraqi Freedom, there is wreckage. In the center, there are the dead, the maimed, the displaced -- those who will be the ghosts of this war for the rest of their days. All for what?

Tomorrow night, like a boy in a bubble, George W. Bush will tell the world it was for "freedom." He will claim the Iraqi election as a stamp of legitimacy for his policy, and many people will affirm it as such. Even critics of the war will mute their objections in response to the image of millions of Iraqis going to polling places, as if that act undoes the Bush catastrophe.

There is only one way in which the grand claims made by Washington for the weekend voting will be true -- and that is if the elections empower an Iraqi government that moves quickly to repudiate Washington. The only meaning "freedom" can have in Iraq right now is freedom from the US occupation, which is the ground of disorder. But such an outcome of the elections is not likely. The chaos of a destroyed society leaves every new instrument of governance dependent on the American force, even as the American force shows itself incapable of defending against, much less defeating, the suicide legions. The irony is exquisite. The worse the violence gets, the longer the Americans will claim the right to stay. In that way, the ever more emboldened -- and brutal -- "insurgents" do Bush's work for him by making it extremely difficult for an authentic Iraqi source of order to emerge. Likewise the elections, which, as universally predicted, have now ratified the country's deadly factionalism.

Full blown civil war, if it comes to that, will serve Bush's purpose, too. All the better if Syria and Iran leap into the fray. In such extremity, America's occupation of Iraq will be declared legitimate. America's city-smashing tactics, already displayed in Fallujah, will seem necessary. Further "regime change" will follow. America's ad hoc Middle East bases, meanwhile, will have become permanent. Iraq will have become America's client state in the world's great oil preserve. Bush's disastrous and immoral war policy will have "succeeded," even though no war will have been won. The region's war will be eternal, forever justifying America's presence. Bush's callow hubris will be celebrated as genius. Congress will give the military machine everything it needs to roll on to more "elections." These outcomes, of course, presume the ongoing deaths of tens of thousands more men, women, and children. And American soldiers.

Something else about that California train wreck strikes me. As news reports suggested, so many passengers were killed and injured because the locomotive was pushing the train from behind, which put the lightweight passenger coaches vulnerably in front. If, instead, the heavy, track-clearing locomotive had been leading and had hit the Jeep, it could have pushed the vehicle aside. The jack-knifing and derailment would not have occurred. The American war machine is like a train running in "push-mode," with the engineer safely back away from danger. In the train wreck of Iraq, it is passengers who have borne the brunt. The man with his hand on the throttle couldn't be more securely removed from the terrible consequences of his locomotion. Thus, Bush is like the man who caused the wreck, and like the man who was protected from it. Deranged. Detached. Alive and well in the bubble he calls "freedom," receiving applause.

Rather melodramatic, but some valid points are made, such as the potential for the cycle of violence in Iraq to perpetuate.

Yes, and by the same token, Merryman's rather melodramatic tirade about "liberal porn" still makes the valid point that, for some on the left, at least, they are so used to being against Bush ("Bush MUST GO") on everything that they risk being unable to engage in serious debate or articulate a serious basis for their beliefs.

Quote:

the G-man said:
Yes, and by the same token, Merryman's rather melodramatic tirade about "liberal porn" still makes the valid point that, for some on the left, at least, they are so used to being against Bush ("Bush MUST GO") on everything that they risk being unable to engage in serious debate or articulate a serious basis for their beliefs.

YES! It's finally happened! You've finally conceded that not all liberals behave the same way!

You are but the first convert of many...soon, all those on the RKMBs will renounce blind, sweeping geralizations of liberals and conservatives, rational political debate and discussion will become the norm...and we moderates shall ascend to forge a NEW ORDER! MUAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

One down, three to go (not including alt IDs)

DK, you will note I said "at least" some on the left, leaving open the continuing possiblity that it's every single one of you.

Quote:

the G-man said:
DK, you will note I said "at least" some on the left, leaving open the continuing possiblity that it's every single one of you.

Every single one of us? I'm not a liberal. I'm a moderate.

Just because I stick up for liberals sometimes doesn't make me one.

Yeah, sure... I see that Hillary Clinton is calling herself a "moderate" these days too.

So because Hillary Clinton claims to be a moderate, that means that other moderates are either incognito liberals or conservatives?

Why is it so hard to accept that there are Americans outside the liberal/conservative categories? Not everybody fits into those extreme labels. I'm liberal about some issues, conservative on others, and dividied on the rest.

Sheesh.

I'm sure there are many, many moderates out there, DK.

But based on your posts I just don't think you're one of them.

Well, I am.

My RKMB posts don't represent the entirety of my political ideals. If you knew me in real life and interacted with me on a more regular basis, you'd get a more complete picture.

If you don't believe me, I guess there's nothing I can do about that.

Perspective comes into play here. G-man might consider Zell Miller a moderate democrat. Anything a hair over is grouped in with the radicals.

I can't speak for G-man or whatever his perspectives are. I can only speak for myself.

Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
Perspective comes into play here.

To the extent that I think most people want to view themselves as moderate, whether or not they are, in fact, moderate, I would agree.

Quote:

the G-man said:
Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
Perspective comes into play here.

To the extent that I think most people want to view themselves as moderate, whether or not they are, in fact, moderate, I would agree.

How can anyone tell whether a person is a real moderate (or anything else) better than that actual person? How can anybody claim to know what's really inside somebody else's head?

So guys, please don't try and assume that I'm a liberal when I'm really a moderate, or try and assume anything else about me. I know where I stand and what I believe in better than any of you. If you don't believe me, fine. But I'd rather not be accused of hiding my true "alliegence," if you don't mind. Fair enough?

(BTW, the reason I'm making such a big deal out of this is that one of my biggest pet peeves is people making assumptions about me that aren't true and slapping me with labels that don't apply.)

Quote:

Darknight613 said:
How can anyone tell whether a person is a real moderate (or anything else) better than that actual person?

Impartiality.

Quote:

How can anybody claim to know what's really inside somebody else's head?

Past history: previous statements, actions, etc.

Quote:

the G-man said:
Quote:

Darknight613 said:
How can anyone tell whether a person is a real moderate (or anything else) better than that actual person?

Impartiality.

Okay, but how do you define impartiality?

I don't see impartiality as a refusal to take sides, but rather choosing sides based on rational, carefully though out decisions decisions instead of blind loyalty to a political party or ideaology. This is what I see as one of the appealing traits of being a moderate.

These are some other observations I've had about moderates that appeal to me more than liberal or conservative ideaology.

Moderates seem less likely to simplify certain issues than liberals or conservatives. We see the world in shades of gray rather than in black and white. Liberals or conservatives can be very narrow-minded, refusing to see the world in any way other than their own image of it. Moderates try to see things as they really are.

Moderates seem more willing to compromise, which is sometimes necessary, especially where politics are concerned. Extremists and idealogues often don't like to compromise and will stick to their guns in the name of the cause at the cost of letting problems get worse, rather than compromise for the sake of fixing problems for the good of all. (This is why I'd rather see moderates in power than liberals or conservatives, and why I see liberal-conservative hostility as a danger to this country.)

Also, I've already mentioned that I'm liberal on some issues, conservative on others, and divided on the rest. I'm not pulled in any one direction more than another, so I don't identify myself as being wither liberal or conservative. I'm not at one extreme or another, so that means I'm in the middle. I really don't fit anywhere else.

As for the politicians I support, it has nothing to do with their political party. I support them because of where they stand on issues I consider important, and who I think is right for the job.

So to sum up, impartiality and being a moderate isn't about not being on anybody's side. It's about choosing sides based on rational decisions instead of blind loyalty (or blind hate), and trying to make things work for everybody rather than one particular ideaology. Please note that these are merely my observations and opinions based on personal experiences.

On a separate note: when I stick up for liberals around here, I do so for the following reasons...

First of all, my parents are liberals, as are several of my close friends. When someone makes comments about liberals that I know don't apply to my parents or other liberals I know, I feel it to be my responsibility to step in and say not all liberals apply to whatever criticism is being made. It's about sticking up for family rather than personal politics.

When people make any kind of comments that I know to be inaccurate, unfair, or outright false, I say so with the intent of correcting misapprehensions. I don't feel the need to do that for comments aimed at conservatives, because you guys do an excellent job of doing it yourselves. There's nothing for me to contribute.

The rest of the time, I'm either cautioning people in general against stereotyping, a concept I'm passionately against, or smacking sense into people who I think are making a big deal out of nothing. I do this to everybody.

As for the times I've dismissed the liberal media theory, I've simply seen too much evidence that contradicts that theory. That's all there is to it. I can't judge what I haven't seen.

Hopefully this gives you guys a better understanding of where I'm coming from.

You misunderstood my point about impartiality.

I wasn't saying that being a moderate required impartiality.

I was saying that you are most likely not impartial when you judge yourself. Since your opinion of yourself is not impartial, it is most likely not the most accurate gauge of whether or not you are actually moderate.

On the other hand, another person, judging your words and actions impartially, may be better able to determine whather or not you are a moderate, meaning that he or she "can tell better than...the actual person."

This thread would have been funny if Kerry has won.

Quote:

rex said:
This thread would have been funny if Kerry has won.

I dunno, going back and reading some of the posts, especially the ones over a year ago about how a resurgent "youth vote" was going to sweep Kerry to victory, I think the thread's pretty funny as is.

Quote:

the G-man said:
You misunderstood my point about impartiality.

I wasn't saying that being a moderate required impartiality.

Ah, I see. That wasn't really made clear.

Quote:

I was saying that you are most likely not impartial when you judge yourself. Since your opinion of yourself is not impartial, it is most likely not the most accurate gauge of whether or not you are actually moderate.

On the other hand, another person, judging your words and actions impartially, may be better able to determine whather or not you are a moderate, meaning that he or she "can tell better than...the actual person."

You have a point there. I'll admit it's possible. But how do you know other people are indeed reading you accurately or impartially?

I've been victimized by unfair or inaccurate labelling before (I'd rather not get into details), so I resent any attempts to label me as anything I really don't see myself as, and why I don't always consider other people's perceptions of me as accurate. I see such misapprehensions as genuinely harmful to a person. That's why I hate labelling and sweeping generalizations of people.

Does this make sense at all?

As much as Jumby saying "Mecca lecca hi, mecca hiney ho!"

Quote:

the G-man said:
Yes, and by the same token, Merryman's rather melodramatic tirade about "liberal porn" still makes the valid point that, for some on the left, at least, they are so used to being against Bush ("Bush MUST GO") on everything that they risk being unable to engage in serious debate or articulate a serious basis for their beliefs.

This could have just a few words changed and be true about conservatives.

Quote:

the G-man said:
You misunderstood my point about impartiality.

I wasn't saying that being a moderate required impartiality.

I was saying that you are most likely not impartial when you judge yourself. Since your opinion of yourself is not impartial, it is most likely not the most accurate gauge of whether or not you are actually moderate.

On the other hand, another person, judging your words and actions impartially, may be better able to determine whather or not you are a moderate, meaning that he or she "can tell better than...the actual person."

I don't think that anyone with a political standpoint can look at another person's political standpoint with true impartiality.

Or, to put it another way, I think MEM had a point.

Quote:

Darknight613 said:
Quote:

the G-man said:
Yes, and by the same token, Merryman's rather melodramatic tirade about "liberal porn" still makes the valid point that, for some on the left, at least, they are so used to being against Bush ("Bush MUST GO") on everything that they risk being unable to engage in serious debate or articulate a serious basis for their beliefs.

YES! It's finally happened! You've finally conceded that not all liberals behave the same way!

You are but the first convert of many...soon, all those on the RKMBs will renounce blind, sweeping geralizations of liberals and conservatives, rational political debate and discussion will become the norm...and we moderates shall ascend to forge a NEW ORDER! MUAH HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

One down, three to go (not including alt IDs)

Who's left?

From Star Newspapers - Chicago ^ | Sunday, March 13, 2005 | Michael Bowers, Star columnist

Interesting statistic: according to poll conducted of members of the "anti-war" movement by Rasmussen Reports, "The single most distinguishing characteristic of the anti-War movement is a dislike of President Bush."

Quote:

the G-man said:
Interesting statistic: according to poll conducted of members of the "anti-war" movement by Rasmussen Reports, "The single most distinguishing characteristic of the anti-War movement is a dislike of President Bush."

well he did start the war

Are you saying they liked him before that?

Quote:

the G-man said:
Are you saying they liked him before that?

I've hated him since he became a public figure. I do admire his draft avoidance (smart or rich kids didn't do Vietnam) and probably would have enjoyed partying with him back in the day. I hate to admit it but Republican parties are usually more fun than Demo parties. At least the Country Club R's were. No earnestness with my drugs, sex and alcohol please.

Molotov cocktail flies at anti-Bush rally in San Francisco

Quote:

the G-man said:
Constantine was not injured.

Quote:

the G-man said:

too far

Quote:

the G-man said:
in San Francisco

Glad to see you made bail, Ray.

Ray's all talk. (all type?)

If people wanna try a Soviet-bloc-style protest, we could always quell riots the way they did.

Another example of how the hatred towards Bush is coming from the mainstream of the Democratic party:

To the guy's credit, he apologized almost immediately after saying it. However, what does it say when the chief fiscal officer for one of the largest states in the nation can so casually joke about shooting the president?

Furthermore, Hevesi admits that he was saying that Schumer would shoot Bush as a way to compliment Schumer. Is the democratic party, at least in New York, so out of the mainstream that they now think wanting to assassinate a president is a GOOD thing?

THAT TIME OF THE MONTH

GERMS IN THE WHITE HOUSE

I know you can't threaten the president, and God knows I would never do that. That would be stupid and crazy and of course, morally wrong, not to mention legally wrong. No one should ever threaten the president.

I think it might also be illegal to say that you merely wish him some sort of terrible harm. Some forms of harm, of course, being more illegal to wish than others. You could never, for instance, mention guns or bullets. That would be not only be illegal, it would be wrong and dangerous.

And if you did such a foolish thing, I believe 'they' (the men with no expressions on their faces) would come to your house and pay you a visit just to check you out thoroughly and make sure that, even though you wished the president some harm, you wouldnít actually go about causing it yourself. Wishing is fine, doing is not. Especially wishing out loud.

And I certainly would never wish a president any sort of harm out loud. It's not in my heart to do such a thing to any human being. I wish all people only the best at all times out loud. Especially the president. Because even though I disagree with his policies, and think he is a dangerous imbecile, he is, after all, the President of all of us, and he is a fellow human being, deserving of respect. (That was hard to say, but I wanted to keep the record straight.)

But I want to say that I do enjoy it when other people create mischief. I like to read about mischief. I especially like those terrorist fellows in the Middle East who run around blowing themselves up along with other people; they strike me as interesting guys. And pretty soon they'll graduate from simple explosives to more interesting and sophisticated things like germs and chemicals. That will really be fun. Especially for a guy like me who enjoys chaos and disorder.

Do you think the men with no expression on their faces would come to my house if I merely said that it would be fun to read that an Iraqi terrorist (trying to get even for something or other that he imagines might have happened in the 90s) left a big bag of anthrax germs in the White House? You know, just some guy on the White House tour leaving a big bag of germs on a table? Metal detectors have a hard time detecting bags of germs, don't they? Would it be illegal to say that? Would the expressionless men come to my house if I said that? I guess I'll find out.

George Carlin

Quote:

Darknight613 said:
Quote:

TheTimeTrust said:
Who cares?!?

This thread is so petty it isn't even funny in a detached amusing way. It just makes me sad to think that anyone would care enough to argue about such a pointless question. All it serves to do is to stir things up for no good reason, and it makes those of you arguing on both sides sound like whiny little boys arguing about whose dad could beat up the other's. For God's sake, act your age.

I couldn't have said it better myself (although I have tried in the past).

And I thought I was the only anti-partisan round here.

I never realized it before, but 613 is a douche.

Quote:

Darknight613 said:
Every single one of us? I'm not a liberal. I'm a moderate.

Just because I stick up for liberals sometimes doesn't make me one.

Seriously.

Stop the US-Israeli War Rally, San Francisco, August 12, 2006

Quote:

the G-man said:
Stop the US-Israeli War Rally, San Francisco, August 12, 2006

well Bush has spoken of being "chosen by god."

Quote:

Prescott Bush, look it up.

Quote:

so?

Quote:

I don't know. He went to an Ivy League school with a long history of Skull and Bones members.

Star of David = Swastika?

Where do these Muslims learn their history again?

Oh, that's right.

Has anyone considered capping a few of the more irksome clerics over there yet?

I was torn on whether to post this here, or in the Do Liberals hate America? topic.

Portraying genocidal Iraq insurgents in the same template as our founding fathers, and the United States under Bush as the empire of King George III, when we are in fact, wanted in Iraq by a polled majority there, to prevent the bloodbath in Iraq from increasing exponentially, is quite a reach, and pretty damned anti-American.

Yeah, something needs to be done about that pesky first amendment thing.

I'm not sure why you think WB is saying the cartoonist didn't have the right to draw/write the cartoon in question.

It seems clear that WB was simply pointing out the flaws in the cartoonist's comparisons.

blow them up..all of them.....the liberals too...

Quote:

Wonder Boy said:

I was torn on whether to post this here, or in the Do Liberals hate America? topic.

Portraying genocidal Iraq insurgents in the same template as our founding fathers, and the United States under Bush as the empire of King George III, when we are in fact, wanted in Iraq by a polled majority there, to prevent the bloodbath in Iraq from increasing exponentially, is quite a reach, and pretty damned anti-American.

I've read a poll where most in Iraq think it's OK to fire upon US troops. Could the poll your referring too, have been earlier?

Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
I've read a poll where most in Iraq think it's OK to fire upon US troops...

Then shoot their asses too.

Praise Allah for PJP!

Quote:

rex said:
Yeah, something needs to be done about that pesky first amendment thing.

Quote:

the G-man said:
I'm not sure why you think WB is saying the cartoonist didn't have the right to draw/write the cartoon in question.

It seems clear that WB was simply pointing out the flaws in the cartoonist's comparisons.

Exactly. I fully defend the right of these liberal jerks to incriminate themselves with half-baked partisanly anti-american remarks.

It's quite easy to expose the liberal distortions of such remarks, and the flawed anti-American rationalizations they are based on.

Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
I've read a poll where most in Iraq think it's OK to fire upon US troops. Could the poll your referring too, have been earlier?

The poll I mention, of Iraqis across all ethnic groups, was taken in the last three months, since death squads and high body counts broke out across Iraq.

The poll you mention about "where most in Iraq think it's OK to fire upon US troops" was before the current situation, a poll of Sunnis (about 15 to 20% of Iraq's population, the former ruling pro-Saddam minority, mostly in the Baghdad area), and the Sunnis have now expressed a greater appreciation for the presence of U.S. troops in the area, since U.S. forces are what's protecting them from full-scale slaughter by death squads of the 60% Shi'ite majority in Iraq, seeking payback for their years of slaughter by Saddam Hussein's government.

Quote:

TheTimeTrust said:
My liberal friends call me a conservative.
My conservative friends call me a liberal.
I don't know what to do,
I'm caught in the middle.

Could it possibly be,
That we're using a false dichotomy?
Could the real world be,
Far more complex than 'L' and 'C'?

OMG!1Fa6!!

Since, TTT, is Canadian, and Canada is overall more liberal than the U.S., wouldn't it be fair to say that, even if TTT is a Canadian moderate, that makes him a liberal by our standards?

Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:
Video: Sh*t and awe.

“An outdoor news conference in perfect spring weather, with birds chirping loudly in the magnolia trees, is not without its hazards. As President Bush took a question Thursday in the White House Rose Garden about scandals involving his Attorney General, he remarked, ‘I’ve got confidence in Al Gonzales doin’ the job.’ Simultaneously, a sparrow flew overhead and left a splash on the President’s sleeve, which Bush tried several times to wipe off.”

Think Progress

Its stuff like this that goes a long way to demonstrating that liberals simply hate for hate's sake.

Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:Think Progress

More from ThinkProgress.org, which just happens to be an offshoot of Hillary's Media Matters. This week, the progressives are praying for George Bush and Dick Cheney.... to die:

I pray for Bush every single night.

I pray for him to choke on a pretzel and die.

Comment by rf7777 — October 5, 2007 @ 4:53 pm
#5 yes, you are more precise — impeached, convicted, tried at the Hague, convicted, execu . . . . Oh, someone’s at my door, just a minute.

Comment by NoMoreBush — October 5, 2007 @ 4:54 pm
Kkkkkkkkkkkkkkk (with hand in front of mouth like cute little Asian girl).

Comment by margaret — October 5, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
You better believe I pray that a grave mental illness strikes.....Oh that has happened already...see prayers are answered.

Comment by texaslady — October 5, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
I pray for Bush, and Cheney too. I pray that both die suddenly to free us from their neo-Nazi rule.

Comment by Uncle Ho — October 5, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
Do you pray for Bush?

No, but I do have Bush doll I stick pins and nails into.
Doesn’t work as well as i’d like.
=D

Comment by Wayne — October 5, 2007 @ 4:59 pm

Your just the conservative version of people like that though G-man. You use your anonymity to say anything to strike at a liberal target. If you think what those liberal message posters are doing is wrong then maybe you should be behaving yourself?

It's sad to see just how far people go when they can get away with it

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Your just the conservative version of people like that though G-man. You use your anonymity to say anything to strike at a liberal target.

a good point. unlike us liberals here, no one knows G-man's name (not even his first name), email, etc. Same with wondy.

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

When have I ever wished any liberal, including you, dead?

There's a difference between criticism or teasing and wishing someone physical harm.

You really need to stop being so sensitive and, given your nasty personal attacks on people like Rudy Guiliani, hypocritical.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

So anything besides wishing me dead is fair game?

I've been honest about Rudy. Sorry that your candidate has flaws & that they get discussed. You might want to recheck the posts you've made on the various democratic presidential candidates. You've engaged in angry emotional displays on the Hillary thread and even used the portal page to accuse her of being guilty of child abuse.

BTW, don't worry about me being so sensitive, I'm not & will be here for a very long time to demonstrate that to you

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Your just the conservative version of people like that though G-man. You use your anonymity to say anything to strike at a liberal target.

a good point. unlike us liberals here, no one knows G-man's name (not even his first name), email, etc. Same with wondy.

WB used to but changed his screen name. Can't say that I blame him. When G-man first titled something with my real name saying I cheated on my boyfriend, I'll admit it shocked me more than if he had just used my screen name. So I can understand not using your real name. Plus there are folks like G-man who on the other hand uses his anonymity to be malicous.

well it just makes G-man a hypocrite and an asshole. I know what you mean, how many "Adler" threads are there?

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

well it just makes G-man a hypocrite and an asshole. I know what you mean, how many "Adler" threads are there?

Because G-Man routinely punctuates his efforts to demonstrate how far he'll go by expressing his willingness to go farther than anyone else on the boards.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Quote:

Matter-eater Man said:Think Progress

More from ThinkProgress.org, which just happens to be an offshoot of Hillary's Media Matters. This week, the progressives are praying for George Bush and Dick Cheney.... to die:

I pray for Bush every single night.

I pray for him to choke on a pretzel and die.

Comment by rf7777 — October 5, 2007 @ 4:53 pm
#5 yes, you are more precise — impeached, convicted, tried at the Hague, convicted, execu . . . . Oh, someone’s at my door, just a minute.

Comment by NoMoreBush — October 5, 2007 @ 4:54 pm
Kkkkkkkkkkkkkkk (with hand in front of mouth like cute little Asian girl).

Comment by margaret — October 5, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
You better believe I pray that a grave mental illness strikes.....Oh that has happened already...see prayers are answered.

Comment by texaslady — October 5, 2007 @ 4:56 pm
I pray for Bush, and Cheney too. I pray that both die suddenly to free us from their neo-Nazi rule.

Comment by Uncle Ho — October 5, 2007 @ 4:58 pm
Do you pray for Bush?

No, but I do have Bush doll I stick pins and nails into.
Doesn’t work as well as i’d like.
=D

Comment by Wayne — October 5, 2007 @ 4:59 pm

G-Man by chance are you really Bill O'Reilley?

Because he tried to smear the Daily Kos as being a "hate" site not too long ago using the same logic you're using.

Remember when Yahoo News had message boards? On them you'd easily and routinely find literally hundreds of thousands if not millions of the most offensive hate filled posts from all sides of the political spectrum. It was the online equivalent of a food fight. And if the story pertained to race. Whooooooaaahhh! It would really get ugly.

Now no one in their right mind would call Yahoo a "hate" site the way the right wing seems to single out the left wing blogosphere because a few of their more virulent posters.

And if I recall, to answer the charges, dumb as they were, they Daily Kos managed ot easily find the same kind of "hate" that O'Reilley was criticizing Kos for on O'Reilley's own message boards.

These are just dumb arguments. If you want to discredit a site, go for something more substantial than message board postings. I think all of us here are a bit more sophisticated than to actually believe this is some aberration limited to irrationally hateful liberal sites.

Originally Posted By: whomod

Bill O'Reilley....tried to smear the Daily Kos as being a "hate" site not too long ago using the same logic you're using.

These are just dumb arguments. If you want to discredit a site, go for something more substantial than message board postings. I think all of us here are a bit more sophisticated than to actually believe this is some aberration limited to irrationally hateful liberal sites.

My comment was not directed at ThinkProgress as a whole. I was just pointing out that there is a strain of liberals that seem to hate the President to the point of actively wishing him dead.

Originally Posted By: whomod

you forgot this one..

Bush Hate Can Make Liberals Do Some Really Crazy Things:

A man heckling First Lady Laura Bush and daughter Jenna outside the 92nd Street Y was arrested after he punched a wheelchair-bound girl whose parents had told him to shut up, authorities said yesterday. German Talis, 22, was shouting obscenities at the Bushes, who were leaving the building Tuesday, when he crossed paths with Wendy and John Lovetro and their daughter Maureen, 18, who has cerebral palsy.

They had been in the audience to hear the Bushes talk about their children's book, "Read All About It."

"He began yelling about Iraq and Iran at Jenna Bush. She was waving at the crowd. I told the guy, 'What are you doing? Shut up. This is about a child and books,' " said John Lovetro. "He was unperturbed. I said, 'Get out of here! You're being a moron!' "

The next thing he knew, Talis was allegedly punching Maureen - a fan of the first lady since meeting her in 2004.

"I heard my daughter hysterical yelling, 'He's hitting me!' " said Wendy Lovetro.

"My husband pushed the wheelchair away from him and he reached beyond my husband and began pounding my daughter in the thigh."

The two men fought as the president's family drove off. Cops broke them up and busted Talis on charges of assault and resisting arrest.

Maureen was not seriously injured.

Oh Whomod.

Originally Posted By: the G-man

Bush Hate Can Make Liberals Do Some Really Crazy Things:

A man heckling First Lady Laura Bush and daughter Jenna outside the 92nd Street Y was arrested after he punched a wheelchair-bound girl whose parents had told him to shut up, authorities said yesterday. German Talis, 22, was shouting obscenities at the Bushes, who were leaving the building Tuesday, when he crossed paths with Wendy and John Lovetro and their daughter Maureen, 18, who has cerebral palsy.

They had been in the audience to hear the Bushes talk about their children's book, "Read All About It."

"He began yelling about Iraq and Iran at Jenna Bush. She was waving at the crowd. I told the guy, 'What are you doing? Shut up. This is about a child and books,' " said John Lovetro. "He was unperturbed. I said, 'Get out of here! You're being a moron!' "

The next thing he knew, Talis was allegedly punching Maureen - a fan of the first lady since meeting her in 2004.

"I heard my daughter hysterical yelling, 'He's hitting me!' " said Wendy Lovetro.

"My husband pushed the wheelchair away from him and he reached beyond my husband and began pounding my daughter in the thigh."

The two men fought as the president's family drove off. Cops broke them up and busted Talis on charges of assault and resisting arrest.

Maureen was not seriously injured.

It sure can. Would you believe there are some liberals who DON'T want to rule the world?

Originally Posted By: Friendly Neighborhood Ray-man

Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man

Your just the conservative version of people like that though G-man. You use your anonymity to say anything to strike at a liberal target.

a good point. unlike us liberals here, no one knows G-man's name (not even his first name), email, etc. Same with wondy.

Look at how and when he uses people real names. It's always when he's talking down to them, like some fucking parent or something.

Real names are just more ammo for him and he likes the advantage.