GOP "Political Hate Speech" Spin = Will it Backfire?

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
Over the last two months, the Republican Party has begun a systematic effort to label attacks on President Bush by Democratic presidential candidates as "political hate speech," a new piece of political jargon intended to delegitimize criticism of Bush. It appears this strategy will expanded in the coming months -- a recent memo from Republican National Committee chairman Ed Gillespie urged party officials to adopt the term in their rhetoric.



Gillespie was very explicit in attacking the legitimacy of the Democrats' statements when he said "The kind of words we're hearing now from the Democratic candidates go beyond political debate." Yet he was intentionally vague about what attacks he is condemning. Democratic presidential candidate's statements are aggressive in the usual manner of partisan politics. (Needless to say, Republicans certainly did not pull their punches during President Clinton's term either.)



For op-ed philosophers, this eruption on the left seems unnatural, irrational and dangerous, like the sudden fury of Hitchcock?s bloodthirsty birds. They regard the "angry liberals" as a menace to the Republic and to themselves. Nicholas Kristof fretted, "Liberals have now become as intemperate as conservatives, and the result?everybody shouting at everybody else?corrodes the body politic and is counterproductive for Democrats themselves."



During the Clinton era, accusations of immorality, criminality and even treason became so commonplace in Republican discourse that hardly anyone bothered to protest. None of these worthies piped up. Where were the righteous critics when their pleas for civility might have mattered?



Mr. Kristof acknowledges this absurd hypocrisy, but nevertheless advises liberals to mind their manners. Otherwise, he warns, they may forfeit the good opinion of the religious right and the Confederate-flag contingent. He refrains from urging better behavior on Tom DeLay, Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh, and seems to believe that unilateral liberal disarmament will heal the nation?s wounds.



Did you know that it is quite possible not to hate someone and at the same time notice that their policies are disastrous for people in this country? Quite a thought, isn't it? Grown-ups can actually do that -- can think a policy is disastrous without hating the person behind it. Lyndon B. Johnson comes to mind -- a great president who was disastrously wrong about Vietnam.



So, my question is do you believe that the GOP's attempts to label anything and anyone who is critical of GWB as "political hate speech" a hypocrisy or a legitimate political tactic? Do you believe average American's are smart enough to look through the veneer? Or are American's really "dittoheads" who will buy anything marketed to them?



I don't know the answer. I believe the GOP marketing machine has already proven to be far more affective than anything come out of the DNC. But, I also believe liberal "rage", if you can call it that, is authentic and should not be underestimated.



Sources for my rant: Spinsanity, Molly Ivins, Joe Conason, Democrats, Eric Rolph, The Boston Globe, The Washington Times, The Weekly Standard
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 51
    chu_bakkachu_bakka Posts: 1,793member
    Considering 50% of the people in the U.S. are themselves critical of this adminstration and it's policies... calling criticism "political hate speech" probably will backfire.



    But who knows... the republican distraction of "stop gay marriage" will probably do the trick for them anyway.
  • Reply 2 of 51
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,660member
    Great topic and great job of laying out the issue.



    My genuine (as opposed to blindly partisan) concern is that the Republican party seems to be becoming an almost entirely tactical entity; that is, more interested in working out how to deligitimize opposition as a means of consolidating power than doing anything to better the lot of Americans.



    Yes and of course the answer is "no, that what the liberals do", but I don't see anything like the careful, cynical manipulation of discourse, as per the example you site, on the other side of the aisle. Things that frequently get mentioned as Democratic political liabilities-- fractiousness, lack of cohesiveness of message, circular firing squads-- start looking to me, in comparison, like evidence of actual interest in policy and governance.



    For a while now I've noticed (amongst pundits both national and here on these boards) a concerted effort to turn the rhetoric of liberal critiques of conservatism back on itself. Some might call that fair play, but since the particulars of liberalism and conservatism are, in fact, different, the result is a kind of rhetorical cognitive dissonance, so blithely inverted as to make coherent conversation almost impossible. It is as if the freedom marchers in Selma suddenly found themselves accused of being Nazis, or

    McCarthy began to accuse the people dragged before his committe of being fascist demagogues.



    Sometimes I get the feeling there was some big meeting of the right wing brain trust and the plan was laid out: we'll start saying of liberals everything they've ever said of us. That they're racist, intolerant, reactionary, religously hide-bound, anti-working class -- it doesn't matter if it makes any sense, the point is it will so devalue the terms that we will rob them of the language of critique.



    The problem being that when you're willing to completely disassociate language from content, and you do it systematically as a strategy to power, you devalue all discourse. You make it that much harder to talk about the problems that face us. It's not about winning the debate, it's about destroying the structure that makes debate possible. And I think, pace Ann Coulter, that really is a kind of treason.



    Will there be a backlash? If it begins to be discussed at all, won't the right just claim that left is looking into a mirror? Or some other confusing assertion designed to make the whole issue head-ache inducing enough that average person will decide it's all "just politics" and not worth thinking about?



    Of course people don't vote. And that's just how power likes it.
  • Reply 3 of 51
    chinneychinney Posts: 1,019member
    Another, older favourite of the Republicans is ?class warfare?. If you dare even suggest that government policy should benefit those a bit lower down on the pay scale, instead of a just a select few friends of the Administration, you can expect that this term will come out. It is used on these boards quite a bit. The ?political hate speech? term is a new one ? I had not heard it before - and potentially a better one for the Republicans, because it can be used to counter any criticism of the Administration, not just criticism based on income/poverty issues.



    ?Political hate speech? is similar to, but a refinement of, the term ?anti-Bush?. This term was not effective enough for Republicans, because it did not necessarily and unambiguously connote wickedness on the part of those who received this label: there is nothing wrong, per se, with being against a politician and his policies. I guess the implication that they tried to give with the use of the term was ?knee-jerk anti-Bush?, but this implication really did not go far enough for them. ?Political hate speech? is much better for the conservative strategists, as hatred is something that can be opposed as being generically bad. Any person angry, upset or even critical about Republican policies can be labelled as promoting hatred. My hat goes off to the conservative spinmeisters.
  • Reply 4 of 51
    tjmtjm Posts: 367member
    I find all this incredibly silly. Spend a few minutes looking into the political campaigns of the 19th century and how nasty they were, routinely. You were expected to say the worst things possible about your opponent. What passes for political campaigning nowadays is a mutual love-fest by comparison. I'm not saying I enjoy bad-mouthing, but political campaigning has always been a no-holds-barred proposition.



    As an example, when Democrat Grover Cleveland was running for his first stint as president in 1884, a rumor circulated that he had fathered an illegitimate child (Cleveland was a bachelor). One of the favorite Republican slogans of that campaign was: "Ma, Ma, Where's My Pa? He's Gone To The White House, Haw Haw Haw!" - and that was one of the milder slogans of the time.



    So all of this victimization stuff, "Gee, you hurt my feelings!" (from both sides) gets little sympathy from me. As Harry Truman put it, "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen!"
  • Reply 5 of 51
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,452member
    My opinion on it is two fold. One, I don't think the language used to criticize Bush today is any worse than it has historically been with regard to campaigning in the U.S.



    However I do think this type of criticism could backfire on the Democrats for two reasons.



    One, it doesn't appear to be used by Bush himself or those closest to him. Clinton always seemed to keep some throthing partisan attack dogs close to him. James Carvilles and the like that would wander off and start calling people trailer trash and things of that nature. Thus when they got it back in return, it was considered a similar response.



    Again I'm not saying there is anything wrong with the language used to criticize Bush or even that the Repubicans don't have partisan attack dogs. I'm just saying that those that go out and speak for Bush don't seem to have that image. People don't see Cheney, Powell and Rice and think, yep there's someone ready to do some serious name-calling. Justified or not, it gives the appearance (we all know appearances can be deceiving and that they aren't policy) of someone taking the high road on matters, and someone taking the low road with regard to how they deal with matters.



    Understand that we aren't talking about the day to day political junkies. We are talking about the great unwashed masses that finally tune into elections and how they will handle this level of rhetoric. (At least in my opinion)



    The second issue is having more than criticism. People can have all sorts of complaints about a Bush program or plan, but there just doesn't seem to be a clear response to what really should be done differently. The clearest I have heard that could be communicated to a lay person is a few Democrats would take away the tax cuts and use them for X spending program. (Universal Medical for example) On the Iraq side of things every one claims to hate how Bush has handled it, and that we went in under false pretenses. However when pressed as to how they would have done it differently, there really isn't a convincing answer. Meantime the Democrats still voted for the $87 billion and Lieberman hasn't said he would vote against the prescription drug plan for example.



    I've complimented Clinton quite a few times with regard to politics in these forums even though I didn't like his actual programs. The rhetoric may have been boiling but people knew he was a bare knuckled kind of guy. Plus he always had a 12 point plan to address almost any issue. He was the master of the "targeted tax cut" etc. For some reason Gore and others haven't been able to land anything in the same manner or communicate it. It mostly comes across as very heated complaining.



    Nick
  • Reply 6 of 51
    chinneychinney Posts: 1,019member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman





    [...]



    People can have all sorts of complaints about a Bush program or plan, but there just doesn't seem to be a clear response to what really should be done differently. The clearest I have heard that could be communicated to a lay person is a few Democrats would take away the tax cuts and use them for X spending program. (Universal Medical for example) On the Iraq side of things every one claims to hate how Bush has handled it, and that we went in under false pretenses. However when pressed as to how they would have done it differently, there really isn't a convincing answer. Meantime the Democrats still voted for the $87 billion and Lieberman hasn't said he would vote against the prescription drug plan for example.



    [...]



    [...] [Current Democratic rhetoric] mostly comes across as very heated complaining.



    Nick




    I actually agree with these aspects of your post. The Democrats have not had - or at least have not communicated - a clear alternative. Further, they have been backed into supporting - sometimes holding their noses, I suppose - a good deal of the Bush Administration's policies. The Republicans have been astute in this manoeuvring.



    Where the Republicans may lose, however, is with the potential failure of the policies themselves. It is now perceived that the war in Iraq is no longer going all that well, and could get worse. The tax cuts are producing huge deficits ? deficits that almost certainly will continue even in an economic recovery ? and it is not clear that the current beginnings of a recovery will be sustained. The prescription drug plan, once implemented, could be perceived as falling far short of providing adequate assistance.



    It is too early to tell on some of these issues, but if there is a policy failure I believe that it is the Republicans who will pay the political price, regardless of the Democrats? complicity. An astute Democrat strategy may be to say as little as possible on concrete policy issues while allowing the Republicans to try to run on their record.
  • Reply 7 of 51
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,452member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Chinney

    I actually agree with these aspects of your post. The Democrats have not had - or at least have not communicated - a clear alternative. Further, they have been backed into supporting - sometimes holding their noses, I suppose - a good deal of the Bush Administration's policies. The Republicans have been astute in this manoeuvring.



    Where the Republicans may lose, however, is with the potential failure of the policies themselves. It is now perceived that the war in Iraq is no longer going all that well, and could get worse. The tax cuts are producing huge deficits ? deficits that almost certainly will continue even in an economic recovery ? and it is not clear that the current beginnings of a recovery will be sustained. The prescription drug plan, once implemented, could be perceived as falling far short of providing adequate assistance.



    It is too early to tell on some of these issues, but if there is a policy failure I believe that it is the Republicans who will pay the political price, regardless of the Democrats? complicity. An astute Democrat strategy may be to say as little as possible on concrete policy issues while allowing the Republicans to try to run on their record.




    Chinney,



    Thanks and I think your first paragraph is absolutely dead on.



    The policy issues, well yes if policies are proven or even perceived to be failures, then re-election wouldn't be likely.



    However these is the muddy middle to consider which is where it seems we are right now. For example I read a truly fascinating article the other day on the ?Misery Index? which was a term I believe was coined by Reagan to describe the stagflation of the Carter years. It is unemployment + inflation. Bush, it was argued could be in trouble because his misery index is currently higher than Clinton?s was at the end of his term.



    However Cinton?s index in his final year was the lowest of any year since the early 1960?s. The Clinton example had inflation of 2.7% and unemployment of 4.8% for an index of like 7.5. The Bush score was 2.4% inflation, but higher unemployment. of 6 or 6.1% for a score of say 8.5. To give you an example, the Carter index was nearly 20 and the Reagan index was about 12.5 after the end of his first term where he was elected by a landslide.



    So the question is I suppose, is 1% more truly miserable enough for the general populace to toss the guy out? Is there a clearly enough articulated, plausable alternative to what could have been done with Al Queda and Iraq that people believe would have made them as safe or safer while likely being cheaper.



    A really compelling aspect to consider with this rherotic is how little harshness you have to use to describe something that is really and truly understood by all. I mean with Clinton and the sex stuff, you didn?t have to crank up words like adulterer, sexual addict, harasser, etc. The rhetoric was quite heated on the impeachment stuff because well that was so much harder to prove.



    So perhaps the rheotoric is so hot because it is still hard to prove, in the short term at least, how Bushes policies have done when discussing the population as a whole. Obviously most progressives and Democrats consider them failures.



    Nick
  • Reply 8 of 51
    addaboxaddabox Posts: 12,660member
    But "heatedness" and "harshness" aren't the point. If someone linked to an RNC memo that called for calling Dems "crybabies" and "losers" at every opportunity, I don't think it would even be mentioned.



    What's different, (and certainly different from the 19th century), is the effort to invert language so as to short circuit critique.



    Using a term like "hate-speech" to refer to people who criticize Republicans or Republican policy isn't just another slur, it's a calulated strategy for devaluing one of the great liberal success stories of the last 50 years-- the enfranchisment of previously excluded members of society.



    In effect, this technique makes the subliminal assertion that racist graffitti and saying that Bush is a piss poor president are the same thing. And it is done in full knowledge that even if people find that only mildly bewildering, it can only help Republicans.
  • Reply 9 of 51
    Here's Paul Krugman's editorial on this very issue...



    http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/25/opinion/25KRUG.html



    and it's spot on..



    THe Uncivil War



    "One of the problems with media coverage of this administration," wrote Eric Alterman in The Nation, "is that it requires bad manners."



    He's right. There's no nice way to explain how the administration uses cooked numbers to sell its tax cuts, or how its arrogance and gullibility led to the current mess in Iraq.



    So it was predictable that the administration and its allies, no longer very successful at claiming that questioning the president is unpatriotic, would use appeals to good manners as a way to silence critics. Not, mind you, that Emily Post has taken over the Republican Party: the same people who denounce liberal incivility continue to impugn the motives of their opponents...
  • Reply 10 of 51
    Quote:

    Using a term like "hate-speech" to refer to people who criticize Republicans or Republican policy isn't just another slur,



    lol, this is just an example of a double edged sword. who pulled the "hate speech" crap to begin with?



    bah, they're all a bunch of whiney bitches.



    too bad the only canidates who seem to realize this are now horribly losing.
  • Reply 11 of 51
    25 Rules For Being A Good Republican by Michael Holman



    1) Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime,_ unless you are millionaire conservative radio jock, which makes it an "illness" and needs our prayers for your "recovery".



    2) You have to believe that those privileged from birth__ achieve success all on their own.



    3) You have to believe that the US should get out of__ the UN, and that our highest national priority is enforcing UN resolutions against Iraq.



    4) You have to believe that government should stay out__ of people's lives but it needs to punish anyone caught having private sex with the "wrong" gender.



    5) You have to believe that pollution is ok, so long as it makes a profit.



    6) You have to believe in prayer in schools, as long as you don't pray to Allah or Buddha.



    7) "Standing Tall for America" means firing your workers and moving their jobs to India.



    8) You have to believe that a woman cannot be trusted with decisions about her own body, but that large multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind with no regulation whatsoever.



    9) You have to believe that you love Jesus and Jesus loves you, and that Jesus shares your hatred of AIDS victims, homosexuals, and Hillary Clinton.



    10) You hate the ALCU for representing convicted felons, but they owed it to the country to bail out Oliver North.



    11) You have to believe that the best way to encourage military morale is to praise the troops overseas while cutting their VA benefits.



    12) You believe that group sex and drug use are degenerate sins that can only be purged by running for governor of California as a Republican.



    13) You have to believe it is wise to keep condoms out of schools, because we all know if teenagers don't have condoms they won't have sex.



    14) You have to believe that the best way to fight terrorism is to alienate our allies and then demand their cooperation and money.



    15) You have to believe that government medicine is wrong and that HMO's and insurance companies only have your best interests at heart.



    16) You have to believe that providing health care to all Iraqis is sound government policy but providing health care to all Americans is socialism personified.



    17) You believe that tobacco's link to cancer and global warming are "junk science", but Creationism should be taught in schools.



    18) You have to believe that waging war with no exit strategy was wrong in Vietnam but right in Iraq.



    19) You have to believe that Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney was doing business with him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.



    20) You believe that government should restrict itself to just the powers named in the Constitution, which includes banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.



    21) You have to believe that the public has a right to know about the adulterous affairs of Democrats, while those of Republicans are a "private matter".



    22) You have to believe that the public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades but that Bush was right to censor those 28 pages from the Congressional 9/11 report because you just can't handle the truth.



    23) You support state rights, which means Ashcroft telling states what locally passed voter initiatives he will allow them to have.



    24) You have to believe that what Clinton did in the 1960's is of vital national interest but what Bush did decades later is "stale news" and "irrelevant".



    25) You have to believe that trade with Cuba is wrong because it is communist, but trading with China and Vietnam is just dandy.
  • Reply 12 of 51




  • Reply 13 of 51
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,452member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by addabox

    But "heatedness" and "harshness" aren't the point. If someone linked to an RNC memo that called for calling Dems "crybabies" and "losers" at every opportunity, I don't think it would even be mentioned.



    What's different, (and certainly different from the 19th century), is the effort to invert language so as to short circuit critique.



    Using a term like "hate-speech" to refer to people who criticize Republicans or Republican policy isn't just another slur, it's a calulated strategy for devaluing one of the great liberal success stories of the last 50 years-- the enfranchisment of previously excluded members of society.



    In effect, this technique makes the subliminal assertion that racist graffitti and saying that Bush is a piss poor president are the same thing. And it is done in full knowledge that even if people find that only mildly bewildering, it can only help Republicans.




    Adda, I mean this politely. When you use the language of mythos to describe the actions of one party, the other party isn?t just going to lie there and take it. I mean look at your own language there, ?great liberal success stories of the last fifty years.? Assuming the characterization of Democrats only standing for everyone and Republicans only standing for the few were true (which it isn?t but that is another thread) how can you reply to it but in the same language?



    So far Bush has only run one political ad and the Democrats have condemned it in the most shrill language and asked for it to not be run. How is that anything but attempting to short circuit critique?



    The language of calling others hateful has been with the Democrats for a long time. The associations are often unfounded and conspiratorial. The fact that Republicans are hitting back in that manner just means they are adopting the tools of their enemies. I remember not too long ago that there was a debate on AO about a DNC flash ad that was running on the DNC website. It showed Bush pushing an old woman in a wheel chair off a cliff basically to her death. This type of stuff has been dragged out over and over. A tax cut = kill the poor, the elderly, etc. In the last election the NAACP ran ads associating Bush with the dragging death of a black man.



    How are those anything but claims of hate leveled against Republicans? Are they seriously not supposed to reply in kind? The Democrats are obviously trying to make Iraq a campaign issue. They are employing what I call the impossibly raising bar of expectations. It is very hard to deliniate how you would have accomplished a better result than Bush in all areas that he currently receives criticism in. The Dems have basically contended that they could have gotten the same result either without a war, or with a war that cost less, had less human life cost, etc.



    One thing that cracks me up about the Franken book for example is about how when Republicans are wrong, it is a lie. When Democrats are wrong, it is that they were misspeaking. For example when Clinton and numerous other Democrats declared that Iraq had WOMD, they didn?t ?lie.? to the American people, they were mistaken. When there were claims of death tolls of around 100,000 soldiers, a quagmire, another Vietnam, those were ?mispoken.? They weren?t lies or scare tactics.



    Democrats use a very shrill tone while claiming that they would have performed perfectly. I don?t think it is going to continue to be effective for them. Likewise it is going to be very hard to make claims of censorship and limiting speech when they have made those claims already from the very first Bush ad.



    Nick
  • Reply 14 of 51
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,452member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by chu_bakka

    25 Rules For Being A Good Republican by Michael Holman



    1) Being a drug addict is a moral failing and a crime,_ unless you are millionaire conservative radio jock, which makes it an "illness" and needs our prayers for your "recovery".



    2) You have to believe that those privileged from birth__ achieve success all on their own.



    3) You have to believe that the US should get out of__ the UN, and that our highest national priority is enforcing UN resolutions against Iraq.



    4) You have to believe that government should stay out__ of people's lives but it needs to punish anyone caught having private sex with the "wrong" gender.



    5) You have to believe that pollution is ok, so long as it makes a profit.



    6) You have to believe in prayer in schools, as long as you don't pray to Allah or Buddha.



    7) "Standing Tall for America" means firing your workers and moving their jobs to India.



    8) You have to believe that a woman cannot be trusted with decisions about her own body, but that large multi-national corporations can make decisions affecting all mankind with no regulation whatsoever.



    9) You have to believe that you love Jesus and Jesus loves you, and that Jesus shares your hatred of AIDS victims, homosexuals, and Hillary Clinton.



    10) You hate the ALCU for representing convicted felons, but they owed it to the country to bail out Oliver North.



    11) You have to believe that the best way to encourage military morale is to praise the troops overseas while cutting their VA benefits.



    12) You believe that group sex and drug use are degenerate sins that can only be purged by running for governor of California as a Republican.



    13) You have to believe it is wise to keep condoms out of schools, because we all know if teenagers don't have condoms they won't have sex.



    14) You have to believe that the best way to fight terrorism is to alienate our allies and then demand their cooperation and money.



    15) You have to believe that government medicine is wrong and that HMO's and insurance companies only have your best interests at heart.



    16) You have to believe that providing health care to all Iraqis is sound government policy but providing health care to all Americans is socialism personified.



    17) You believe that tobacco's link to cancer and global warming are "junk science", but Creationism should be taught in schools.



    18) You have to believe that waging war with no exit strategy was wrong in Vietnam but right in Iraq.



    19) You have to believe that Saddam was a good guy when Reagan armed him, a bad guy when Bush's daddy made war on him, a good guy when Cheney was doing business with him, and a bad guy when Bush needed a "we can't find Bin Laden" diversion.



    20) You believe that government should restrict itself to just the powers named in the Constitution, which includes banning gay marriages and censoring the Internet.



    21) You have to believe that the public has a right to know about the adulterous affairs of Democrats, while those of Republicans are a "private matter".



    22) You have to believe that the public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades but that Bush was right to censor those 28 pages from the Congressional 9/11 report because you just can't handle the truth.



    23) You support state rights, which means Ashcroft telling states what locally passed voter initiatives he will allow them to have.



    24) You have to believe that what Clinton did in the 1960's is of vital national interest but what Bush did decades later is "stale news" and "irrelevant".



    25) You have to believe that trade with Cuba is wrong because it is communist, but trading with China and Vietnam is just dandy.




    Apparently you have to believe that creating and perpetuating caricatures and stereotypes about a group of people, isn't going to be called hateful just because you are a Democrat.



    Nick
  • Reply 15 of 51
    How was any of that hateful?



    Because it's true?
  • Reply 16 of 51
    ...heard that the Dumbo government has blocked restitution payments to the POW's from the previous Gulf War even after a judge decided to give it to them (reported tonight on Anderson's 360 degrees...couldn't find transcript or link) ...the Dumbos are taking that restitution (money from the Iraqi's taken by us in the first war) and putting it into the budget to rebuild Iraq. It's almost as if they are saying "Well, POW or not you didn't complete your mission. We did. Screw you."...what else more do you need to hate these assholes?



    They can all go to Hell. Play cards with Nixon.
  • Reply 17 of 51
    gilschgilsch Posts: 1,995member
    chu_bakka: So much truth in those 25 Rules that I don't find them funny. It's sad, very sad.

    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    Apparently you have to believe that creating and perpetuating caricatures and stereotypes about a group of people, isn't going to be called hateful just because you are a Democrat.





    Stop crying. Of course labelling opposition candidates homophobes was alright by you wasn't it?
  • Reply 18 of 51
    midwintermidwinter Posts: 10,060member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by trumptman

    So far Bush has only run one political ad and the Democrats have condemned it in the most shrill language and asked for it to not be run. How is that anything but attempting to short circuit critique?



    ...



    Democrats use a very shrill tone while claiming that they would have performed perfectly. I don?t think it is going to continue to be effective for them.



    I love that word "shrill" that's been a staple of the Republican response to criticism. High-pitched. Excitement. Thoughtless. Raw emotion. Hysterical.



    Feminine.



    Like a crazy woman.



    All with one word.



    Nice.



    Cheers

    Scott
  • Reply 19 of 51
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,452member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by Gilsch

    chu_bakka: So much truth in those 25 Rules that I don't find them funny. It's sad, very sad.



    Stop crying. Of course labelling opposition candidates homophobes was alright by you wasn't it?




    You obviously didn't catch the irony of that title. I said that the "homophobic" position of the Democratic candidates was my own position. I support civil unions. However since I am a Republican, they would feel free to fling around the word homophobe. However in reality the majority of the candidates on the Democratic side had the same position.



    Nick
  • Reply 20 of 51
    trumptmantrumptman Posts: 16,452member
    Quote:

    Originally posted by chu_bakka

    How was any of that hateful?



    Because it's true?




    2) You have to believe that those privileged from birth__ achieve success all on their own.



    6) You have to believe in prayer in schools, as long as you don't pray to Allah or Buddha.



    9) You have to believe that you love Jesus and Jesus loves you, and that Jesus shares your hatred of AIDS victims, homosexuals, and Hillary Clinton.



    13) You have to believe it is wise to keep condoms out of schools, because we all know if teenagers don't have condoms they won't have sex.



    14) You have to believe that the best way to fight terrorism is to alienate our allies and then demand their cooperation and money.



    17) You believe that tobacco's link to cancer and global warming are "junk science", but Creationism should be taught in schools.



    18) You have to believe that waging war with no exit strategy was wrong in Vietnam but right in Iraq.



    21) You have to believe that the public has a right to know about the adulterous affairs of Democrats, while those of Republicans are a "private matter".



    22) You have to believe that the public has a right to know about Hillary's cattle trades but that Bush was right to censor those 28 pages from the Congressional 9/11 report because you just can't handle the truth.



    First chu, don't play stupid. It doens't suit you.



    Now as for how are any of these "hateful." Oh I don't know may the word HATE in a few of them gives it away.



    The saddest thing about most of these is how they are just outright distortions. In fact they are the type of paraphrasing that Al Franken spends entire chapters of his book calling Ann Coulter a liar over.



    At least we now know that you don't think Ann Coulter is a liar Chu. You posted an entire series of her type of reasoning and all the liberals here think it quite humorous.



    Nick
Sign In or Register to comment.