|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6 |
Writing in the New Republic, writer Jonathan Chait argues that he and many of his fellow liberals don't just think Bush policies are wrong but are actually consumed with hatred for the President: quote:
I hate President George W. Bush. There, I said it. I think his policies rank him among the worst presidents in U.S. history. And, while I'm tempted to leave it at that, the truth is that I hate him for less substantive reasons, too.
He reminds me of a certain type I knew in high school--the kid who was given a fancy sports car for his sixteenth birthday and believed that he had somehow earned it. I hate the way he walks...I hate the way he talks...I even hate the things that everybody seems to like about him....And, while most people who meet Bush claim to like him, I suspect that, if I got to know him personally, I would hate him even more.
There seem to be quite a few of us Bush haters. I have friends who have a viscerally hostile reaction to the sound of his voice or describe his existence as a constant oppressive force in their daily psyche. Nor is this phenomenon limited to my personal experience: Pollster Geoff Garin, speaking to The New York Times, called Bush hatred "as strong as anything I've experienced in 25 years now of polling." Columnist Robert Novak described it as a "hatred ... that I have never seen in 44 years of campaign watching.
So there you have it. A writer for the number one self-avowed mainstream liberal magazine in the nation admits that he and many of his fellows actually hate the President. Not just disagree with him, but hate him.
And Chait's not alone.
The despicable Ted Rall (who mocked the widows of terror victims of 9-11 and murdered Wall St Journal reporter Danny Pearl) offered this screed:
quote:
WHY WE HATE BUSH
Democrats loathe Dubya with greater intensity than any Republican standard-bearer in modern political history [and view him as] a simian-faced idiot unqualified to mow his own lawn, much less lead the free world, (who)isn't smart enough to know that's he's stupid...His presence in the White House is an affront to everything that this country stands for.
There's also "journalist" Molly Ivins, who argues that There are reasons to be a Bush hater
How widespread among the left is hatred of the President (as opposed to disagreement)?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
|
|
Peacock Teaser 3000+ posts
Joined: Dec 2002
Posts: 3,342 |
Well I think we are just hearing from the 'loud' left. It's silly to think a hugh population can hate someone. I mean, yeah, when I was thirteen Clinton was 'jackass'. But then again, I was still watching after-school cartoons, so it wasn't like I was mature or anything. I don't 'hate' liberals, so why would all liberals 'hate' a conservative.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6 |
That would have been my first thought, also, Jack, except for the part where Chiat admits that: quote:
Pollster Geoff Garin, speaking to The New York Times, called Bush hatred "as strong as anything I've experienced in 25 years now of polling."
If it's being picked up by pollsters, that would seem to indicate that scientific sampling is occurring, and that the sampling is showing "strong" hatred on the left...more than just a few "loud" voices on the extreme.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 18,080
He tastes of America 15000+ posts
|
|
He tastes of America 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 18,080 |
I can understand how some people can be mad at him... the "lost" ballots... lack of environmental policy... his stance on genetics and fetal tissue research... lost jobs being sent overseas... the daily casualty list from Iraq...
But I don't hate the man. I don't like his time in office. Speaking of Iraq, if we're gonna go to war, don't declare it over after two months. He sholda known that Afghanis and Iraqis are very experienced in matters of warfare. Just because the main forces are "eliminated" doesn't mean the fight's over.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,350 Likes: 38
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,350 Likes: 38 |
I disagree with that. The post-war attacks on U.S./coalition, U.N., Red Cross, etc., are harassment, but nothing more than that. It's about as much a threat to the infrastructure, re-construction and sovereignty of Iraq as the Mafia is to the U.S. federal government. Eventually, once Iraq has an election or two, it will disappear.
And regarding the 2000 ballot, there were THREE re-counts in front of the world media, and a number of major newspapers (New York Times, Washington Post, Miami Herald, Atlanta Constitution Journal, all fairly liberal papers, none of which I would consider tools of Republican propaganda) found in their independent post-election recounts that if the Supreme Court had not stopped a fourth re-count, Bush would have won by an even LARGER margin.
The Democrats base their sour grapes on conspiracy theories and wild speculation, not on facts. I find the bitterness of Democrats on this issue to be pointlessly divisive.
Regarding G-man's initial question:
Yes, I find the hatred among Democrats for Bush to be very widespread. Not just liberal pundits in print and broadcast news, but also many liberals I talk politics with personally.
I objected to Clinton's policies, and found his many blatant lies infuriating, but neither I or any other Republican I observed gave him any pet names of contempt such as "The Shrub", "Bushies", "The Puppet", etc. There is a level of emotion and contempt that I find unequalled in politics in the 30 years or so I've been old enough to follow the news.
The closest for Clinton was "Slick Willie", which was actually dubbed on him during his period as Governor of Arkansas, and re-surfaced in the press during his presidential campaign, after the "didn't inhale", draft-evasion in Vietnam, and Gennifer Flowers affair stories emerged in early 1992.
As I've said, I didn't vote for Bush, but even so, I accept him as the legitimately elected President, and if Democrats had been less venomous and slanderous in their attacks over the last three years, I would be far less prone to defend Bush.
It's not just the name-calling that offends me, but the level of propaganda and complete disregard for the facts, in Democrats' hell-bent drive to discredit Bush's presidency, slanderously turn public opinion against him, and render him unable to function as President.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949 |
quote:
Originally posted by the G-man:
If it's being picked up by pollsters, that would seem to indicate that scientific sampling is occurring, and that the sampling is showing "strong" hatred on the left...more than just a few "loud" voices on the extreme.
Not necessarily. I took a course on Mass Media Research, and I learned that polls are very unreliable because they're so easy to rig or fake. Anybody who wants to make any claim can make up numbers or find a way to rig the poll to get the answer they want. Anybody can pull random facts and use them to make any claim they want (which is what inspired my "how do you know who to trust" rant not long ago) - and many of us around here have done so many times (including myself, I'll admit it).
I rarely see polls that get more than a couple thousand responses. It's difficult to believe that a couple thousand can accurately represent a group of millions. And there are all sorts of ways to rig a question so that somebody ends up disagreeing with something they don't even disagree with.
Bottom line - You can't always believe pollsters (if ever), or to the few who claim to speak for the many.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 194
100+ posts
|
|
100+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 194 |
I dounb that most liberals think he's worth that much effort: hating the nameless pondlife who's hands are up his arse working him like a glove puppet would make a lot more sense.
[heavy irony]I mean, it isn't like the American right really hated Clinton or Carter, is it?[/heavy irony]
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1
We already are 15000+ posts
|
|
We already are 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1 |
quote:
Originally posted by Darknight613:
quote:
Originally posted by the G-man:
If it's being picked up by pollsters, that would seem to indicate that scientific sampling is occurring, and that the sampling is showing "strong" hatred on the left...more than just a few "loud" voices on the extreme.
Not necessarily. I took a course on Mass Media Research, and I learned that polls are very unreliable because they're so easy to rig or fake. Anybody who wants to make any claim can make up numbers or find a way to rig the poll to get the answer they want. Anybody can pull random facts and use them to make any claim they want (which is what inspired my "how do you know who to trust" rant not long ago) - and many of us around here have done so many times (including myself, I'll admit it).
I rarely see polls that get more than a couple thousand responses. It's difficult to believe that a couple thousand can accurately represent a group of millions. And there are all sorts of ways to rig a question so that somebody ends up disagreeing with something they don't even disagree with.
Bottom line - You can't always believe pollsters (if ever), or to the few who claim to speak for the many.
I agree 100%..... polls are garbage.......the scary thing is......is that Clinton and Gore rarely made any decisions without consulting them first. Wheteher you hate Bush or not you have to give him credit for following his convictions and making tough and sometimes unpopular decisions for the greater good.......even though the polls would tell him not to.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949 |
quote:
Originally posted by PJP:
I agree 100%..... polls are garbage.......the scary thing is......is that Clinton and Gore rarely made any decisions without consulting them first. Wheteher you hate Bush or not you have to give him credit for following his convictions and making tough and sometimes unpopular decisions for the greater good.......even though the polls would tell him not to.
After what hapened when we crossed swords over a Bush joke, I never expected us to agree 100% on a politically related debate. I make no apologies for not being a "Bush supporter," but I will give him kudos for not listening to polls. I'd like to think the will of the people counts for something, and any president should be sensitive and responsive to their concerns, but the polls don't represent the will of the people.
(However, if you'll indulge me, there are other sources of information besides polls that Bush might have done well to listen to, but that's a debate for a different time, and one that in all honesty is out of my area of expertise.)
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
I hate Bush Jr.... as President. Always have and it would take a heckuva lot to change that.
My opinion, however, isn't shared by all liberals or even most. Most of the liberals I know simply dislike his policies and would never vote for him again.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1
We already are 15000+ posts
|
|
We already are 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 32,001 Likes: 1 |
quote:
Originally posted by Darknight613:
quote:
Originally posted by PJP:
I agree 100%..... polls are garbage.......the scary thing is......is that Clinton and Gore rarely made any decisions without consulting them first. Wheteher you hate Bush or not you have to give him credit for following his convictions and making tough and sometimes unpopular decisions for the greater good.......even though the polls would tell him not to.
After what hapened when we crossed swords over a Bush joke, I never expected us to agree 100% on a politically related debate. I make no apologies for not being a "Bush supporter," but I will give him kudos for not listening to polls. I'd like to think the will of the people counts for something, and any president should be sensitive and responsive to their concerns, but the polls don't represent the will of the people.
(However, if you'll indulge me, there are other sources of information besides polls that Bush might have done well to listen to, but that's a debate for a different time, and one that in all honesty is out of my area of expertise.)
You're right.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447 |
 ![[wink]](images/icons/wink.gif) No, I honestly don't hate the president. I just don't think he's being honest about the war. In fact, I'd prefer him to Gore.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,201 Likes: 80
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,201 Likes: 80 |
Concerning Clinton's treatment during his term in office, he was called "Scumbag by Representative Dan Burton to the Washington Post, sociopath by Craig Shirley in the Washington Times, perpetual preener, rapist, unserious all by George Will in his syndicated column & craven miscreant by Michelle Malkin in the Washington Post. (courtesy of Al Franken in his most recent best seller) Rush Limbaugh compared Clinton's daughter to a dog. Reverand Jerry Falwell cofinanced, publicized & distributed the Clinton Chronicles linking Clinton to various murders and the cover ups. (again Al Franken's book Lies & the Lying Liars Who Tell Them)
It's a case of the shoe fitting both feet IMHO.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: Nov 2000
Posts: 2,447 |
Absolutely. The left disliking (or hating) Bush is just like the right disliking (or hating) Clinton. It's all a bunch of party politics.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
|
|
some RKMB'ers are Obsessed with Black People Hmmm? 5000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 5,958 |
Do moderates hate the President?
Do Democrats hate the President?
Do centrists hate the President?
Do Libertarians hate the President?
Do socialists hate the President?
Do the Krishnas hate the President?
Do the left handed hate the President
Does the Harper Valley PTA hate the President?
I'm just wondering what criteria you have to fit in nowadays to be labeled a "liberal" or "the left". I hear that word get bandied around freely and loosely nowadays by AM radio, conservative columnists and other assorted Bush fans that i'm starting to think "liberals" and "the left" is anyone opposed to the President and his policies.
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.
Frankly it sucks and i'm tired of it.
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949 |
I'm seeing a lot of interesting points raised here, and I'm glad to see people treating this like a real discussion. But I'd like to hear from G-Man on some of the points raised. Surely he's willing to listen to some of the responses to his original question. (Maybe I should insult him or something to get his attention. It works on everybody else ![[mwah hwah haa]](graemlins/devil.gif) )
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,080
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,080 |
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'?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,846 Likes: 1
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,846 Likes: 1 |
can't we all just hate each other?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
|
|
Your death will make me king! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jan 2003
Posts: 22,618 |
quote:
Originally posted by whomod:
Do the left handed hate the President
Only on Fridays and every other Tuesday.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6 |
In reviewing points raised that might be considered "opposition" to my initial post, there are number of points being raised here, which seem to fall into four main--and, at times, overlapping--catagories: - Only extreme liberals hate the President/polls are garbage
- Lots of people hate the president, not just liberals
- Yes, liberals hate the President, but conservatives hated Clinton
- Liberals hate the President for good reason
Looking at each one individually:
Liberals hate the President for good reason
This is basically liberals admitting that they hate the president and trying to rationalize it by ideology.
Yes, liberals hate the President, but conservatives hated Clinton
This is basically another admission that liberals hate the president, coupled with an argument that two wrongs somehow now make a right.
This, however, also raises an interesting point. DID conservatives hate Clinton as much as liberals hate Bush? Sure there were extreme right wingers, but was there ever a poll that showed the extreme level of hatred for Clinton that is showed for Bush?
Sure, there is the argument that "poll are garbage." However, what's interesting about the pollster quoted is that he is a democrat pollster.
Why would a democrat pollster want to falsely portray his own party as motivated, not by policy, but by hate? By emotion instead of reason? By venom instead of compassion?
It just doesn't make sense for a democrat to do that unless he legitimately believed it to be true.
Lots of people hate the president, not just liberals
I think this is whomod's point (other than a recitation of the previously discussed 'two wrongs make a right' theory)
whomod never actually said whether or not he hated the President--or whether he believed that liberals hate the president. Instead he dove into a rant about "what constitutes a liberal."
Of course, whomod probably thinks that Michael Moore, Noam Chomsky and/or the Symbonise Liberation Army is/are moderates.
Only extreme liberals hate the President/polls are garbage
We discussed the polling question above. While I agree that "push polling" is possible, if not common, I noted that I question why a democrat pollster would have pushed liberals to admit they hated the President.
There's also the question of why, if it is only the extreme left, are so many liberals--some of whom cannot hardly be said to be extremists--are admitting their--and their fellows--hatred.
Case in point:
Recently, Slate's Michael Kinsley, admitted that "liberals don’t just disagree with President Bush’s policies but seem to dislike him personally" in an essay entitled "A better reason to hate Bush."
Then, there's Molly Ivins, the journalist credited (?) with coining the nickname "the Shrub" who wrote an essay entitled "
There are reasons to be a Bush hater."
EvenDoonsbury cartoonist Garry Trudeau was forced to admit the rise of anti-Bush "hate sites."
Then, there's this point.
Salon's Michelle Goldberg, who is highly sympathetic to the antiwar cause, covers last weekend's anti-war rallies, and notes that some of the protesters "just hate Bush."
And, lest you think that this is limited to protesters, and not elected officials, she also has this telling quote:
quote:
Rep. Adam Smith, D-Wash.,[says] that his colleagues' Iraq stances are driven by blind rage. "In trying to pin them down, I say, 'At the end of the day, we have to have a policy to cope with what to do now,' " he told Crowley. "And they say, 'Well, we're just pi$$ed off.' They don't really even attempt to argue the policy of it."
So... 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...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,846 Likes: 1
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,846 Likes: 1 |
to offer a perspective, i was (and have said often) not a fan of president clinton. however, said almost as often, i think he'd be great to hang out with. he seems like a cool guy. plus, we'd be in with the ladies!
also, as said before, im not the biggest W fan in the world, but i think the guy is a good president. i can't imagine wanting to hang out with him, other than to say "hey, i'm with the president."
it does seem that, with the great polarization felt in the US since the 2000 election, that many who dislike president dubya, actually dislike dubya, himself. i'd find it impossible to believe whomod, for example, if he said he didn't hate the guy.
this isn't to say that all people who dislike the president dislike the guy. i'm not even making an argument that such feelings or opinions are wrong to have, which i don't think they are. however, i'd say its almost common enough to seem obvious that many who are currently speaking out against certain actions or policies of the white house specifically dislike bush.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,350 Likes: 38
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,350 Likes: 38 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,080
2000+ posts
|
|
2000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2001
Posts: 2,080 |
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949 |
quote:
Originally posted by TheTimeTrust:
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6 |
quote:
Originally posted by TheTimeTrust:
Who cares?!?....pointless question.
In politics...in questions of self-governance and public policy, is ANY question truly "pointless."
I think we can agree that we aspire to an ideal: that our leaders, our elected officials, regardless of party, act in what they perceive as the best interest of the citizenry.
I think we like to think we recognize that reasonable people can disagree over what that best interest also.
However...
What if the people who disagree are not acting in what they perceive as our best interest?
What if they are acting out of spite...or pique...or hatred (as one Congressman alleges of some of his fellow democrats)?
Shouldn't we be aware of, and discuss, what that means to us as a country?
Shouldn't we care enough to even ask the question?
Apparently, two posters here think not.
Is that maturity or cynicism?
Something to ponder.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6 |
quote:
Originally posted by Darknight613 09:24 AM:
I'd like to hear from G-Man on some of the points raised.
quote:
Originally posted by Darknight61308:34 PM:
I couldn't have said it better myself [that] Who cares?!? [and that] This thread is so petty
If you don't care, why did you--less than eight hours before--ask for me to respond to some of the points raised on this "petty" thread?
As noted to the other poster, is any question about how our government is being operated ever pointless?
If you are not interested in the discussion, you neither have to participate nor read.
I hope, however, you will choose to reconsider and contribute some more points to ponder.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,201 Likes: 80
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
|
|
Fair Play! 15000+ posts
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 16,201 Likes: 80 |
Damn antipartisans! Just a couple of bits in response to Dave the Wonder Boy Most of the Republicans on the Judiciary Comittee voted no on the 3 articles of impeachment, almost 2/3 according to this http://www.vw.cc.va.us/vwhansd/HIS122/Nixon_ImpeachVote.htmlWhitewater & all those lil fill-in-the-blank gates were all dropped due to lack of evidence. Kenneth Starr looked into Vince Foster's suicide & cleared Clinton of that too. So actually there was much frustration that was needless. And again we had Rush comparing 12 yr old Chelsea to a dog. Apparently he thought it would amuse his large conservative audience.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 18,080
He tastes of America 15000+ posts
|
|
He tastes of America 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 18,080 |
quote:
Originally posted by the G-man:
As noted to the other poster, is any question about how our government is being operated ever pointless?
This thread isn't about our government... it's about Liberals hating Bush and vice versa. This is more on the terms of a gang war fought under the veil of politics.
The entire "battle" between the parties is just a long-running pissing contest. It seems we will never advance as a country with all this time wasted bickering. All while smugglers continue to sell "misplaced" Russian weapons, Africans continue to die by the thousands each week from warfare and disease, and North Korea experiments in nuclear science and long-range weapons.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949 |
quote:
Originally posted by the G-man:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Darknight613 09:24 AM:
[qb]I'd like to hear from G-Man on some of the points raised.
quote:
Originally posted by Darknight61308:34 PM:
I couldn't have said it better myself [that] Who cares?!? [and that] This thread is so petty
If you don't care, why did you--less than eight hours before--ask for me to respond to some of the points raised on this "petty" thread?
To be honest, mere curiosity. You made a point, several people made valid challenges, and I wanted to see how you would respond when people disputed your claims. Everybody reacts differently, and I wanted to know how you would. Also, it was kinda nice to see that for a while discussion was civil, and it kept my interest. But once the "slamming the other side" begins and discussion comes to an end, I lose interest. And it may not have been at that point yet, but I had the feeling it was going to, and I was annoyed, ebause I thought we had a real debate going here. I was willing to get involved to the degree of sharing insights on public opinion on how the media works in regards to polls and that sort of thing (because I work in the media - check out my webpage and see for yourself), but I have no interest in another "liberal vs. conservative" debate. It's gotten old, and when neither side is listening to the other, which often happens in political debates, what's the point?
I've come across these types of debates elsewhere, and besides getting sick of this feeling of divisiveness that many of my fellow Americans insiston, I'm tired of people presenting valid points that get snubbed just because of what side they're on.
As noted to the other poster, is any question about how our government is being operated ever pointless?
Not in the least. But slamming somebody for their support, or lack thereof, of a certain ideaology is if you're not willing to hear them out. And in many "lib vs. con" feuds, most people aren't willing to hear the other guys out. They have their stance, they won't change it, and how are you supposed to debate with someone who won't listen to what you're saying?
DISCLAIMER: This is the general "you," not G-Man or anyone else here
If you are not interested in the discussion, you neither have to participate nor read.
I'm interested in discussion. I just don't want to get sucked into a "liberal vs. conservative" deadlock. I've been sucked into too many, or hastily dived into them as a response to a comment I didn't agree with, and I've gotten tired of it.
I hope, however, you will choose to reconsider and contribute some more points to ponder.
If people are willing to listen, I'm willing to speak (and even sometimes when they're not willing).
The most annoying thing about partisanship is the fact that a lot of it is based on stereotyping and generalizations (without qualifiers like "most.") Look at any stereotype ever made about liberals or conservatives, and you will find a decent number of exceptions. In any race, nationality, gender, religion, political party, there are good people and bad people, and to only focus on one or the other isn't right.
It's like what Abraham tells G-d in the Bible when he's told of the destruction of Soddom and Gemorrah - "will you sweep away the innocent with the guilty?" There are many conservatives I don't like, but I don't hate conservatives period. There are many liberals I admire, but I don't admire them all. I just think people need to be careful with broad generalizations, because there will always be exceptions.
For example:
I was listening to "The Schnitt Show" yesterday on my way home from work, and they were talking about the possibility of the draft. Some caller made a remark that "liberals and Democrats don't want to serve in the military." Schnitt said he agreed, and he said that he really wondered if liberals and Democrats would be willing to answer the call to serve their country if they were needed.
In 1968, my dad, who describes himself as a liberal Democrat (I'm more moderate than my parents are), enlisted in the United States Air Force during a war he did not believe in under a president he did not support. He served this country proudly and honorably, as have many other liberals and Democrats. When people make broad generalizations that say "liberals or Democrats don't want to serve in the military," they are dismissing my dad like he didn't matter.
Granted this was loyalty and defense of a parent that was on my mind (they stick up for me, I stick up for them), rather than politics, but I was annoyed with Schnitt's comments, because my dad is an exception to that claim. I've heard Schnitt play the Devil's Advocate in a lot of situations. He's a smart guy, and surely he must know there are exceptions to his claim. But because the caller was taking a shot at liberals, he didn't object. As far as I'm concerned, people can slam liberals all they want if they really feel the need, but my dad served this country when it needed him, and nobody has the right to say his service didn't count just because of his political ideaologies.
This is the problem with partisanship. When you lash out blindly at a certain group, people get hurt like this.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6 |
Darknight613, I can't say I disagree in principle with much of what you wrote.
However, I would respectfully submit that your condemnation of this thread was more broad than need be. I think there has been a fair amount of civility here so far.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,350 Likes: 38
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,350 Likes: 38 |
quote:
Originally posted by Darkknight613:
It's like what Abraham tells G-d in the Bible when he's told of the destruction of Soddom and Gemorrah - "will you sweep away the innocent with the guilty?" There are many conservatives I don't like, but I don't hate conservatives period. There are many liberals I admire, but I don't admire them all. I just think people need to be careful with broad generalizations, because there will always be exceptions.
Again you lay out your liberal-leaning credentials, and then condescend to us as if you were an impartial observer.
Regarding your point about generalizations, I find that a loaded argument. I think I've made it clear in my posts that my statements are about general tactics and attitudes of a majority of Democrats/liberals, and especially in long posts, I find it difficult to include a disclaimer of "some Democrats" in every statement.
If there are 50 examples, is it safe to say "most"? If there are 8 million examples, is it then safe to say "most"? If there are 70 million examples, is it then safe to say "most"? You can always argue that there are a trace amount that buck the trend. But that belies the point that these ARE the tactics of the party itself, despite a few honorable individuals.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,846 Likes: 1
cobra kai 15000+ posts
|
|
cobra kai 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 45,846 Likes: 1 |
i'd like to, if i may (and i may) specify a note that i responded with before: quote:
Originally posted by Rob Kamphausen:
this isn't to say that all people who dislike the president dislike the guy. i'm not even making an argument that such feelings or opinions are wrong to have, which i don't think they are.
we could go back and forth about who hates the president, who really hates the president, and who really really hates the president, all with lots of fanfare and 'yadda.'
however, i'm curious here...
is it wrong to dislike a president's standing (or president elect or mayor or super intendent, etc) because you don't like the person?
i tend to think no.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 18,080
He tastes of America 15000+ posts
|
|
He tastes of America 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 18,080 |
....
Don't you ever post about anything else other than politics, Dave?!
Liberals this! Liberals that! Liberals hate the President! Liberals eat babies! Liberals have a tornado machine! Liberals drain my life force while I sleep!
Here's a normal question: What I wanna know is, what do you as Conservative want for this country? As you answer this, don't include Bush, Clinton, Gore, Iraq, Afghanistan, Liberals, Arnuld, or Star Jones.
...We all know it's the Masons that run everything anyways!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
|
|
Officially "too old for this shit" 15000+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 43,958 Likes: 6 |
quote:
Originally posted by Rob Kamphausen:
is it wrong to dislike a president's standing (or president elect or mayor or super intendent, etc) because you don't like the person? i tend to think no.
On the other hand, consider this:
As noted before we want, or even expect, our elected officials to act on the basis of what is (or what they perceive is) good for the people.
We do not approve of politicians who act out of base motives, such as greed or racism, recognizing that those motives, at the very least, cloud their judgement.
Doesn't hatred also cloud judgement? If so, then shouldn't we take issue with someone who bases their views on hatred, just as we do with those who base their views on greed or racism?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,350 Likes: 38
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,350 Likes: 38 |
Quote:
originally posted by TK-069:
Don't you ever post about anything else other than politics, Dave?!
Liberals this! Liberals that! Liberals hate the President! Liberals eat babies! Liberals have a tornado machine! Liberals drain my life force while I sleep!
Here's a normal question: What I wanna know is, what do you as Conservative want for this country? As you answer this, don't include Bush, Clinton, Gore, Iraq, Afghanistan, Liberals, Arnuld, or Star Jones.
I already did answer that, a long time ago, in this topic:
"important decision"
http://www.rkmbs.com/showflat.php?Cat=&Number=208546&page=14&view=collapsed&sb=5&o=&fpart=1
What you say to me is a one-sided argument, that I "bring politics into everything", since I'm clearly RESPONDING to the partisanship of Whomod and others. If not for their venom, I wouldn't give a counter-response.
I ignore it as much as I can, and as I said the sheer volume of liberal rants posted here allows it to often go unchallenged. But lately I've been responding to it. (and relative to the topic, what I often feel obligated to respond to is Bush-hating rhetoric.)
But as usual, liberals are outraged that a conservative gives a response to their half-baked allegations.
"Neutrality" to liberals seems to mean that they get the first and last word. And if conservatives respond, then it's labelled as "hate".
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 18,080
He tastes of America 15000+ posts
|
|
He tastes of America 15000+ posts
Joined: Oct 2002
Posts: 18,080 |
I never said you "bring politics into everything". I said "Don't you post anything else other than politics"? I never see you elsewhere on these boards. No Women forum. No Comics forum.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,350 Likes: 38
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,350 Likes: 38 |
My apologies for not seeing what you meant in your first statement.
I do occasionally post on the comics and media forums. There's only so many free hours in the day, and my responses on this board take a lot of that time.
While I disagree with Whomod on many issues, I'm amazed at the volume and links he posts. I don't know when the poor guy sleeps !
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949 |
quote:
Originally posted by Dave the Wonder Boy:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Darkknight613:
It's like what Abraham tells G-d in the Bible when he's told of the destruction of Soddom and Gemorrah - "will you sweep away the innocent with the guilty?" There are many conservatives I don't like, but I don't hate conservatives period. There are many liberals I admire, but I don't admire them all. I just think people need to be careful with broad generalizations, because there will always be exceptions.
Again you lay out your liberal-leaning credentials, and then condescend to us as if you were an impartial observer.
Oh for G-d's sake...Dave, you're reading way too much into this. My using the words "conservatives" and "liberals" where I did was mere coincidence, and nothing more. Honestly. Stop trying to label me as something I'm not!
This is another reason why I don't like partisan debates! Because people keep twisting my words around to make them mean something they don't!
quote:
Regarding your point about generalizations, I find that a loaded argument. I think I've made it clear in my posts that my statements are about general tactics and attitudes of a majority of Democrats/liberals, and especially in long posts, I find it difficult to include a disclaimer of "some Democrats" in every statement.
If there are 50 examples, is it safe to say "most"? If there are 8 million examples, is it then safe to say "most"? If there are 70 million examples, is it then safe to say "most"? You can always argue that there are a trace amount that buck the trend. But that belies the point that these ARE the tactics of the party itself, despite a few honorable individuals.
Based on your post, I can't help assuming that you seem to think I was targeting you with my comments. I wasn't. I wasn't targeting anybody. I wasn't even talking about political parties. I'm talking about generalizations in general, adn I'm sure there are exceptions to that.
As for the loaded argument, I can't help feeling that you're trying to justify your generalizations and that they're under attack, because you're being very over-defensive. All I'm saying is there are exceptions to every sterotype out there, and we should consider that fact before we rely on sterotypes to make our point.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949
2500+ posts
|
|
2500+ posts
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 2,949 |
quote:
Originally posted by the G-man:
However, I would respectfully submit that your condemnation of this thread was more broad than need be. I think there has been a fair amount of civility here so far.
I wasn't condemning the thread. I said it myself that things were pretty civil. I thought that it looked like things might be headed towards a partisan debate, and I wanted out before it did.
Sorry if you misunderstood.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,350 Likes: 38
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
|
|
brutally Kamphausened 15000+ posts
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 26,350 Likes: 38 |
quote:
originally posted by Darknight613:
As for the loaded argument, I can't help feeling that you're trying to justify your generalizations and that they're under attack, because you're being very over-defensive. All I'm saying is there are exceptions to every sterotype out there, and we should consider that fact before we rely on sterotypes to make our point.
First, you're accusing me of generalizing.
And you're also accusing me of being "overly defensive" of my generalizations.
And you accuse me of trying to justify my generalizations.
The only part of this that's true is that there are exceptions to every stereotype. Which has nothing to do with what I said.
My point is that anyone can make statements of "all" of a group, and that's a stereotype. But even qualifying statements (such as "most" or "a majority"), can be shot down by the opposition as generalizing saying (without statistics) "But there are many who oppose it too." So my point is, for example, no matter what percentage of Muslims in other countries are Al Qaida terrorists, or openly endorse Al Qaida terrorists, or are sympathetic to terrorism in general, or who boycott American goods and businesses since September 11th, it can be spun to say "not all Muslims feel that way".
Which may technically be true, but belies the fact that a majority of Muslims are hostile to the United States.
|
|
|
|
|
