quote:
Originally posted by whomod:

My question is:

Do Conservative Republican Bush fans hate "liberals"?

It certainly seems so because that word as I said is used loosely and always derisevely in order to portray anyone opposed to Bush as somehow being in some dangerous lunatic fringe that is dangerous to the country.
Well, gee, let's see:
Liberals blindly oppose U.S. military action under Bush, blindly side with France, Germany Russia and the U.N., blindly ignore that MOST OF THE DEMOCRATS IN WASHINGTON including Hilary Clinton, John Kerry and others, acknowledged the threat of Saddam's Iraq, that THE U.N. ITSELF has acknowledged the threat of Saddam's Iraq, in numerous resolutions, as well as the intelligence of said European nations. Liberals in the U.S. hold this stance, even as a vast part of the rest of the world (i.e., a coalition of the willing) ENDORSES U.S. invasion of Iraq.

These are the liberals who --through half truth, and obsessive focus on smaller setbacks in Iraq-- paint a picture that we didn't have justification to enter Iraq (even though we clearly did, Iraq was in breach of U.N. contract for 12 years). And Democrats paint the illusion of "another Vietnam" and "losing the war", despite the fact that Iraq is rapidly rebuilding economically, and that attacks are limited to the so-called "Sunni Triangle"
(i.e., the 15% of the population that, like Saddam, is Sunni Muslim, that brutally oppressed the other 85%, and murdered about 1 million of Iraq's remaining 24 million citizens from 1979 until Saddam's overthrow in April 2003. And that many of the attacks are by terrorists from OUTSIDE Iraq, and not a popular uprising against U.S. forces by the people of Iraq, as the Bush-hating liberal left likes to deceitfully project.)

In short, a liberal/Democrat Bush-hating left, that deceitfully misrepresents the facts to slanderously make an emotional case against the President, gleefully leaps on every slight mis-statement or misfortune of the Bush Administration, and every misfortune of our soldiers on the ground, to BLINDLY TAKE THE SIDE OF OUR ENEMY, to the point that the enemy themselves call the liberal/Democrats "useful idiots".

And again, there ARE Republicans, and some Democrats (including Sen. Joseph Lieberman) who constructively criticize the Bush Administration, to push for change in areas that appear to need re-adjustment in how Iraq is being handled, SHORT of misrepresentative scorched-Earth rhetoric such as "miserable failure" and "another Vietnam."

This knee-jerk impulse to side with the enemy is why I constantly use the term "liberal" derisively.

To me liberal translates to:
blind opposition to the best interests of our country, and to that end during Bush's term, viciously propagandizing a fabricated case of half-truths against the Bush Administration.

And historically --from liberals and the liberal media, for the last 20 years-- the same misrepresentative propaganda and fabricated allegation against Republican congressional leaders and presidents, since Reagan's presidency.

To me, liberals ARE dangerous to the interests of our country, and they don't care how deceitful or manipulative their Democrat leaders are, as long as they push through their beloved liberal agenda.

Well-intentioned, perhaps, but still dangerous to our country.

quote:
Originally posted by whomod:


As was posted above, we endured 8 years of incessant and constant Clinton-HATING by conservatives of all walks of life. To now portray those 8 years of venom as just honest investigation and debate and try to drive anyone who opposes Bush and his policies to the defensive is just another game that i'd rather not play.
It wasn't Clinton-hating, it was deepening frustration that Clinton was protected by Democrats and the media, and that serious criminal actions by Clinton were treated dismissively by Democrats and the liberal media, despite clear evidence that Clinton DID break the law in various ways...

  • Whitewater, where Bill and Hilary Clinton, while he was governor, propped up a failing savings and loan to protect their own real estate investment in the Whitewater real estate development, that caused the eventual later collapse of that S & L to cost a billion federal taxpayer dollars, to bail it out and pay off the losses.
  • The suspicious death of White House attorney and longtime Clinton friend Vince Foster, and the fact that at the time his body was found in a park, the Clintons were already clearing the files out of Foster's office. Files which they bent over backwards to hide from investigators.
  • Filegate, where an official in the Clinton administration was using FBI files to investigate key Republican leaders, to scrape up any dirt that could be found on them, to intimidate Republican leaders into cooperation and/or silence. This is every bit as serious as Watergate was under Nixon. But the liberal press and Democrat leaders were remarkably dismissive of its seriousness.
  • The same dismissiveness with which the liberal press and Democrats in Washington treated Clinton's perjury regarding Monica Lewinsky, lying in testimony to a grand jury --perjury-- and Democrats defended Clinton, even after Lewinsky produced a semen-stained dress that UNQUESTIONABLY proved that Clinton was lying and guilty of perjury.
    But Democrats --unlike Republicans under Nixon who sided with Democrats for impeachment of Nixon in 1974-- put party loyalty above justice.
  • Plus various other investigations that went on under an independent prosecutor. Not out of vindictiveness, but because they KNEW Clinton was guilty and had such a difficult time proving it. And even when the semen-stained dress provided a smoking gun, the seriousness of Clinton's crimes was downplayed by Democrats and a complicit liberal media. Not out of justice, but out of self-serving liberal partisanship.

It wasn't venom on the part of Republicans over the 8 years of Clinton's presidency, it was deep frustration that even when a crime was proven, Clinton and the Democrats remained remorseless, evasive and defiant.

I never heard many of these labels listed by Matter-eater man, so-called Republican labels of Clinton. They were certainly not used in the same widespread way as "Bushies", "The Shrub", and "The Puppet".

But then, the labels against Clinton, although not my choice of words, were proven to be valid.
Clinton WAS a criminal, a proven perjuror.

Clinton WAS a scumbag, in the context that he was a lecher who cheated on his wife for decades, and bagged women left and right, and many respectable women came forward during the Paula Jones case to say that Clinton had made unwanted and humiliating advances on each of them as well.
So once again, I might not choose the term "scumbag", but instead say "womanizer, "cheater", or "adulterer". But a rose by any other name is still a proven charge.
I believe miscreant and some of the other terms are also used in the correct and proven context as well, and not as malicious insults.

The current liberal venom against George W. Bush is unfounded, and unproven. It is not based on facts, but on relentlessly repeated innuendo.

Again, I think it is wrongheaded to passively say that "both parties do this". One party attacks Republicans, and viciously misrepresents them, and forces Republicans to respond with justifiable outrage, and Republicans/conservatives struggle to get equal time within a liberal-biased media, to set the record straight.