I find your comments to be twisted. There is no shortage of liberals and Democrats who truly "hate" George W. Bush, for example. There is no shortage of screaming vitrolic attacks on the President and his party. It was liberals who coined the term "hate radio" as I recall.
I generally don't consider liberals hateful. However, look around at the number of times conservatives are called racists, sexists, gay-haters, etc. There is little basis for these comparisons in today's world, yet they are made.
This in itself is hateful.
There has been a lot of debate about being unpatriotic. The Left claims that when it disagrees with the party in power, they are labeled as unpatriotic. This is nor true. I label one unpatriotic when he screams that the President betrayed the country during a time of war, or when he accuses him (on the Senate floor) of lying. That's unpatriotic.
Ah! But maybe it was the president betraying the country with his nonexistant reasoning for this war. Maybe he was lying. There certainly seems to be enough circumstancial evidence to support that theory.
Also I seem to remember no shortage of rightious indignation concerning Clinton's cheating on his wife ( and please the indignation started before he denied it ).
Is it me or am I the only one who lived through the '90s.
You know the thing that amazes me is that "the right" set the standard for attacking a president. And now they're shaking their heads when the same standard is applied to their president. Wow.
The double-standard is ... well ... simply amazing.
The left is making things up again. That is not my page nor am I in any way affiliated with it. I just find it a good source of information. From now on I will cut and paste here.
July 02, 2004, 07:30 AM
New left-wing novel to discuss killing President Bush
By Owen Courrèges
Every time I think that the left has gotten as crazy as it's going to get, something else like this comes along and proves to me that there are new depths that it can sink to (from KPRC):
Get ready for a new anti-Bush book this summer. Only this time, it's fiction. And this time, the subject is murder.
?Checkpoint? by Nicholson Baker, the author of the best-selling ?Vox,? imagines a conversation between two old high school friends. One of them is so angry about the war in Iraq that he wants to kill President George W. Bush. His friend tries to talks him out of it.
?I wrote 'Checkpoint' because a lot of people felt a kind of powerless seething fury when President Bush took the country to war,? Baker said in a statement Thursday.
?I wanted to capture the specificity of that rage. How do you react to something that you think is hideously wrong? How do you keep it from driving you nuts??
If anyone believes that it's reasonable to have a ?seething fury? against the president that rises to the level of homicidal rage, then they've obviously gone past politically disagreement and delved into the realm of fanaticism. I don't doubt that fanaticism is an interesting subject for a book, mind you, but I get the impression that Baker won't be handling it that way.
Baker was quoted in Roll Call in February of last year as saying that ?Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Powell, and Bush? are ?foolish, small-minded, cowardly men who will not hesitate to order the bombing of civilians from several miles in the air in order to squash a dictator that they helped bring to power.? Suffice to say there's no doubt about his viewpoint. He sounds a bit fanatical himself.
I suppose the conservative equivalent would be if a pro-lifer wrote about a would-be clinic bomber, and then tried to speak of the subject antiseptically. It's more than a little bit disturbing, and that's why people
Ah, it must be hate! Give me a link or something of what you're talking about. You supplied a link on the same subject, but from Gephardt-- not an ad (which your entire post talked about. loopy, i know)
Actually my gave quotes and ads. However the premise of the thread is linking to hate. If you no longer hold Spinsanity in any sort of regard that is your problem.
Is it me or am I the only one who lived through the '90s.
You know the thing that amazes me is that "the right" set the standard for attacking a president. And now they're shaking their heads when the same standard is applied to their president. Wow.
The double-standard is ... well ... simply amazing.
I so agree. I mean darn it, don't those darn Republican's know that personal business is personal business. Popping a president because he is bopping an intern, I mean what is next, telling someone they can't be on the Supreme Court because they smoked a joint...... oh wait....
Speaking of portraying others in a hateful manner. I think adda is part of a secret Republican conspiracy. Look what just popped up.
Quote:
July 2, 2004 -- A SHOCKING image of a blood-spattered President Bush devouring a headless child is causing an uproar. The drawing by sculptor Richard Serra, based on a painting by Goya, is being used to promote pleasevote.com, billed as "a call to vote the Bush administration out of office." It appears on the back cover of The Nation's July 5 issue. Ironically, Serra, a past recipient of NEA grants, was once praised by First Lady Laura Bush in a White House press release about one of his pieces at a Texas museum. His "Tilted Arc" once graced (or defaced) Federal Plaza in lower Manhattan until it was destroyed in 1989. Pundit Andrew Sullivan labeled the Bush image "an obscenity" and "simple demonization."
But I mean come on... Bush eating the head of children just calls attention to... well... anyone?
The left is making things up again. That is not my page nor am I in any way affiliated with it. I just find it a good source of information. From now on I will cut and paste here.
July 02, 2004, 07:30 AM
New left-wing novel to discuss killing President Bush
By Owen Courrèges
Every time I think that the left has gotten as crazy as it's going to get, something else like this comes along and proves to me that there are new depths that it can sink to (from KPRC):
Get ready for a new anti-Bush book this summer. Only this time, it's fiction. And this time, the subject is murder.
?Checkpoint? by Nicholson Baker, the author of the best-selling ?Vox,? imagines a conversation between two old high school friends. One of them is so angry about the war in Iraq that he wants to kill President George W. Bush. His friend tries to talks him out of it.
?I wrote 'Checkpoint' because a lot of people felt a kind of powerless seething fury when President Bush took the country to war,? Baker said in a statement Thursday.
?I wanted to capture the specificity of that rage. How do you react to something that you think is hideously wrong? How do you keep it from driving you nuts??
If anyone believes that it's reasonable to have a ?seething fury? against the president that rises to the level of homicidal rage, then they've obviously gone past politically disagreement and delved into the realm of fanaticism. I don't doubt that fanaticism is an interesting subject for a book, mind you, but I get the impression that Baker won't be handling it that way.
Baker was quoted in Roll Call in February of last year as saying that ?Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Powell, and Bush? are ?foolish, small-minded, cowardly men who will not hesitate to order the bombing of civilians from several miles in the air in order to squash a dictator that they helped bring to power.? Suffice to say there's no doubt about his viewpoint. He sounds a bit fanatical himself.
I suppose the conservative equivalent would be if a pro-lifer wrote about a would-be clinic bomber, and then tried to speak of the subject antiseptically. It's more than a little bit disturbing, and that's why people
I can guarantee that the book is about 'talking him out of his rage' . . . its about the difficulties in NOT becoming a fanatic, full of hate, when your president seems to be a hateful and terrible president.
Also, I think that people are missing the point of this thread: the point was whether the "left", as people like to say, hate America.
I hate many things about this world, I hate many things about this country . . . trumptman probably most , but I certainly don't hate America . . . to leave it being run by a corrupt incompetent ideological stooge without voicing criticism -that might be a sign of hating America, but thank goodness, I will voice my criticism and am still free to do so.
The left is making things up again. That is not my page nor am I in any way affiliated with it. I just find it a good source of information. From now on I will cut and paste here.
July 02, 2004, 07:30 AM
New left-wing novel to discuss killing President Bush
By Owen Courrèges
Every time I think that the left has gotten as crazy as it's going to get, something else like this comes along and proves to me that there are new depths that it can sink to (from KPRC):
Get ready for a new anti-Bush book this summer. Only this time, it's fiction. And this time, the subject is murder.
?Checkpoint? by Nicholson Baker, the author of the best-selling ?Vox,? imagines a conversation between two old high school friends. One of them is so angry about the war in Iraq that he wants to kill President George W. Bush. His friend tries to talks him out of it.
?I wrote 'Checkpoint' because a lot of people felt a kind of powerless seething fury when President Bush took the country to war,? Baker said in a statement Thursday.
?I wanted to capture the specificity of that rage. How do you react to something that you think is hideously wrong? How do you keep it from driving you nuts??
If anyone believes that it's reasonable to have a ?seething fury? against the president that rises to the level of homicidal rage, then they've obviously gone past politically disagreement and delved into the realm of fanaticism. I don't doubt that fanaticism is an interesting subject for a book, mind you, but I get the impression that Baker won't be handling it that way.
Baker was quoted in Roll Call in February of last year as saying that ?Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Powell, and Bush? are ?foolish, small-minded, cowardly men who will not hesitate to order the bombing of civilians from several miles in the air in order to squash a dictator that they helped bring to power.? Suffice to say there's no doubt about his viewpoint. He sounds a bit fanatical himself.
I suppose the conservative equivalent would be if a pro-lifer wrote about a would-be clinic bomber, and then tried to speak of the subject antiseptically. It's more than a little bit disturbing, and that's why people
This is really desperate. It's a work of fiction for christ's sake!
I suppose you'll want to start burning books now also.
Not about "hatefulness"! Stop citing examples of "liberal hatefulness" as if it was a response to the thread! You're just making my point! It's like some kind of horrible wind-up doll that can never say anything new!
Again! The thread is about smearing the left with the notion that they hate America! That they are filled with irrational hate! That they wish America ill! Because of all the hate!
Finding intemperate remarks by a filmmaker or a novel that has a scary premise or a drawing that is savage DOES NOT PROVE THE LEFT IS HATE FILLED!!! IT JUST MAKES MY POINT! CHRIST!!!
I mean, ever hear of Goya? Savage depictions of war and suffering? Whose work is the taking off point for the drawing? Famous artist?
NOT HATE FILLED!!! INDIGNATION FILLED!!! HORROR FILLED! APPALLED MORALITY FILLED!
Oh, fuck it. The fucking child fucking right it is.
So did you hear about Cheney's little outburst? On account of his fierce sexual attraction to 8 year olds. Not that that is anything unusual in republican circles, it's just sad when they lose it in public like that.
Hopefully, we'll soon come our senses in this country and give Cheney and his infant fucking brethren what they deserve!
I would be surprised if Nicholson Baker were not, in many ways, a conservative. At the very least, he strikes me as a nuanced liberal or possessing some kind of Wendell Berryian politics that defies categorization. Consider this: his two landmark essays are on a) the destruction of card catalogs by libraries across the country and b) the destruction of books in the microfiching/filming process.
If anyone's interested in his stuff, I recommend "The Size of Thoughts: Essays and other lumber," which can usually be had on the cheap.
Addabox, maybe we're straying off the topic because it's a manufactured one to begin with. Conservatives no more believe that all "liberals hate America" than liberals believe all conservatives are Rush, O'Reilly, and Coulter 'dittoheads.'
It's just a handful of loud people out there...in here.
Not about "hatefulness"! Stop citing examples of "liberal hatefulness" as if it was a response to the thread! You're just making my point! It's like some kind of horrible wind-up doll that can never say anything new!
Again! The thread is about smearing the left with the notion that they hate America! That they are filled with irrational hate! That they wish America ill! Because of all the hate!
Finding intemperate remarks by a filmmaker or a novel that has a scary premise or a drawing that is savage DOES NOT PROVE THE LEFT IS HATE FILLED!!! IT JUST MAKES MY POINT! CHRIST!!!
I mean, ever hear of Goya? Savage depictions of war and suffering? Whose work is the taking off point for the drawing? Famous artist?
NOT HATE FILLED!!! INDIGNATION FILLED!!! HORROR FILLED! APPALLED MORALITY FILLED!
Oh, fuck it. The fucking child fucking right it is.
So did you hear about Cheney's little outburst? On account of his fierce sexual attraction to 8 year olds. Not that that is anything unusual in republican circles, it's just sad when they lose it in public like that.
Hopefully, we'll soon come our senses in this country and give Cheney and his infant fucking brethren what they deserve!
It makes me ill just to think about it.
Adda, I went back and looked at what you said in the first post.
Quote:
Perhaps it would be OK if I started referring to Scott, A Greer, Commom Man, et al as child molesting republicans? It makes exactly as much sense as the "hateful" democrat label. How about if every liberal poster here did the same, and constantly, and attributed much of the strategies of the republican party and its champions on these boards to the working out of a pathological need to fuck children.
But gosh, that would so....ugly, don't you think? So how about we just agree that everybody here more or less thinks well of our country and wishes her to prosper and wants to see terrorists captured and imprisoned and does not wish to see his friends or neighbors killed by same, and that disliking the Bush administration is not the result of some character defect that compels one to hate indiscriminately.
Because that is very obviously true.
Right?
What I have tried to show you at least, is that there are many people who do attribute conservatism with a pathological/evil intent. They do consider it a good vs. evil type scenario. It is sort of a slight strawman, but I didn't really call you on it since it had good intent. You are setting up the weaker argument (leftist can't hate possible hate because if they really did, they would act in this terrible manner I describe. So let's all agree that they don't act this way with regard to country and nationalism)
The problem is that you were shown examples where conservatives are shown to desire doing things as bad as a pathological need for fucking children. I gave examples where Bush wanted to poison everyone, was a torturer, was pushing old people off cliffs, endorsed the dragging death of a black man, and now of course eats the head of children.
The point of the strawman is to present something easy to knock down. You presented a level of hate (wanting to fuck children) that you thought would be easy to knock down because it couldn't possible be found or matched. The reality though is that it was easily found and matched.
So that does lead to a bit of a problem with the second point. Since it was supported by the first. (at least in how you presented the argument)
Addabox, maybe we're straying off the topic because it's a manufactured one to begin with. Conservatives no more believe that all "liberals hate America" than liberals believe all conservatives are Rush, O'Reilly, and Coulter 'dittoheads.'
It's just a handful of loud people out there...in here.
Perhaps not, but the point is that the formulation has become something of a "meme", if you'll excuse the term. It's used so extensively that one might be excused for thinking "liberals who hate America" is one word.
It's used without any further explanation, implying that it is a term of obviousness to the point of tautology.
And Nick, so therefore, examples of Bush as a monster are not the reciprocal slander. You (or anyone) have yet to link to an example of the right being consistently (and consistently is the key, as in proffered to the point of hypnotic repetition), and en masse, being characterized as "x", where "x" is a fairly grave charge of moral collapse if not out right illegality.
Since you're going back and reading posts, read the one where I encourage one and all to have at particular politicians for particular actions.
And while we're at it, why is it always about finding counter examples? All I ask is that people here lay off this particular, slanderous, rhetoric.
Either that is a worthwhile thing or not, liberal screed notwithstanding.
Perhaps not, but the point is that the formulation has become something of a "meme", if you'll excuse the term. It's used so extensively that one might be excused for thinking "liberals who hate America" is one word.
It's used without any further explanation, implying that it is a term of obviousness to the point of tautology.
And Nick, so therefore, examples of Bush as a monster are not the reciprocal slander. You (or anyone) have yet to link to an example of the right being consistently (and consistently is the key, as in proffered to the point of hypnotic repetition), and en masse, being characterized as "x", where "x" is a fairly grave charge of moral collapse if not out right illegality.
Since you're going back and reading posts, read the one where I encourage one and all to have at particular politicians for particular actions.
And while we're at it, why is it always about finding counter examples? All I ask is that people here lay off this particular, slanderous, rhetoric.
Either that is a worthwhile thing or not, liberal screed notwithstanding.
So no one consistantly calls Republicans racist for example. Perhaps you don't consider that a grave or illegal charge, but I do.
Comments
Originally posted by Common Man
Talk about hate! My goodness look at this:
http://www.chronicallybiased.com/index.php?itemid=672
A novel about killing President Bush!
Oh good another link from the chronically biased. Go figure!!! "Click-me!!! Click-me!!!" Common man clamors while the click through revenue increases.
Originally posted by SDW2001
Addabox:
I find your comments to be twisted. There is no shortage of liberals and Democrats who truly "hate" George W. Bush, for example. There is no shortage of screaming vitrolic attacks on the President and his party. It was liberals who coined the term "hate radio" as I recall.
I generally don't consider liberals hateful. However, look around at the number of times conservatives are called racists, sexists, gay-haters, etc. There is little basis for these comparisons in today's world, yet they are made.
This in itself is hateful.
There has been a lot of debate about being unpatriotic. The Left claims that when it disagrees with the party in power, they are labeled as unpatriotic. This is nor true. I label one unpatriotic when he screams that the President betrayed the country during a time of war, or when he accuses him (on the Senate floor) of lying. That's unpatriotic.
Ah! But maybe it was the president betraying the country with his nonexistant reasoning for this war. Maybe he was lying. There certainly seems to be enough circumstancial evidence to support that theory.
Also I seem to remember no shortage of rightious indignation concerning Clinton's cheating on his wife ( and please the indignation started before he denied it ).
Originally posted by faust9
Oh good another link from the chronically biased. Go figure!!! "Click-me!!! Click-me!!!" Common man clamors while the click through revenue increases.
Do you mean it's his page????????
How cheesy!
Originally posted by stupider...likeafox
With pleasure. How about this hateful piece of anti-americanism from Moore:
Oh wait, that seems perfectly reasonable and innocuous because I left out the totally biased intro to the quote:
Look, Moore appears to suggesting that Israel is Evil!
Great article.
You mean that you forgot to add the editorializing by Brooks with a biased assumption of what Moore was 'considering'.
You know the thing that amazes me is that "the right" set the standard for attacking a president. And now they're shaking their heads when the same standard is applied to their president. Wow.
The double-standard is ... well ... simply amazing.
July 02, 2004, 07:30 AM
New left-wing novel to discuss killing President Bush
By Owen Courrèges
Every time I think that the left has gotten as crazy as it's going to get, something else like this comes along and proves to me that there are new depths that it can sink to (from KPRC):
Get ready for a new anti-Bush book this summer. Only this time, it's fiction. And this time, the subject is murder.
?Checkpoint? by Nicholson Baker, the author of the best-selling ?Vox,? imagines a conversation between two old high school friends. One of them is so angry about the war in Iraq that he wants to kill President George W. Bush. His friend tries to talks him out of it.
?I wrote 'Checkpoint' because a lot of people felt a kind of powerless seething fury when President Bush took the country to war,? Baker said in a statement Thursday.
?I wanted to capture the specificity of that rage. How do you react to something that you think is hideously wrong? How do you keep it from driving you nuts??
If anyone believes that it's reasonable to have a ?seething fury? against the president that rises to the level of homicidal rage, then they've obviously gone past politically disagreement and delved into the realm of fanaticism. I don't doubt that fanaticism is an interesting subject for a book, mind you, but I get the impression that Baker won't be handling it that way.
Baker was quoted in Roll Call in February of last year as saying that ?Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Powell, and Bush? are ?foolish, small-minded, cowardly men who will not hesitate to order the bombing of civilians from several miles in the air in order to squash a dictator that they helped bring to power.? Suffice to say there's no doubt about his viewpoint. He sounds a bit fanatical himself.
I suppose the conservative equivalent would be if a pro-lifer wrote about a would-be clinic bomber, and then tried to speak of the subject antiseptically. It's more than a little bit disturbing, and that's why people
Originally posted by ShawnJ
Ah, it must be hate!
Actually my gave quotes and ads. However the premise of the thread is linking to hate. If you no longer hold Spinsanity in any sort of regard that is your problem.
Nick
Originally posted by Northgate
Is it me or am I the only one who lived through the '90s.
You know the thing that amazes me is that "the right" set the standard for attacking a president. And now they're shaking their heads when the same standard is applied to their president. Wow.
The double-standard is ... well ... simply amazing.
I so agree. I mean darn it, don't those darn Republican's know that personal business is personal business. Popping a president because he is bopping an intern, I mean what is next, telling someone they can't be on the Supreme Court because they smoked a joint...... oh wait....
Pot, kettle, black... and that was in the 80's.
Nick
July 2, 2004 -- A SHOCKING image of a blood-spattered President Bush devouring a headless child is causing an uproar. The drawing by sculptor Richard Serra, based on a painting by Goya, is being used to promote pleasevote.com, billed as "a call to vote the Bush administration out of office." It appears on the back cover of The Nation's July 5 issue. Ironically, Serra, a past recipient of NEA grants, was once praised by First Lady Laura Bush in a White House press release about one of his pieces at a Texas museum. His "Tilted Arc" once graced (or defaced) Federal Plaza in lower Manhattan until it was destroyed in 1989. Pundit Andrew Sullivan labeled the Bush image "an obscenity" and "simple demonization."
But I mean come on... Bush eating the head of children just calls attention to... well... anyone?
Nick
Originally posted by Common Man
The left is making things up again. That is not my page nor am I in any way affiliated with it. I just find it a good source of information. From now on I will cut and paste here.
July 02, 2004, 07:30 AM
New left-wing novel to discuss killing President Bush
By Owen Courrèges
Every time I think that the left has gotten as crazy as it's going to get, something else like this comes along and proves to me that there are new depths that it can sink to (from KPRC):
Get ready for a new anti-Bush book this summer. Only this time, it's fiction. And this time, the subject is murder.
?Checkpoint? by Nicholson Baker, the author of the best-selling ?Vox,? imagines a conversation between two old high school friends. One of them is so angry about the war in Iraq that he wants to kill President George W. Bush. His friend tries to talks him out of it.
?I wrote 'Checkpoint' because a lot of people felt a kind of powerless seething fury when President Bush took the country to war,? Baker said in a statement Thursday.
?I wanted to capture the specificity of that rage. How do you react to something that you think is hideously wrong? How do you keep it from driving you nuts??
If anyone believes that it's reasonable to have a ?seething fury? against the president that rises to the level of homicidal rage, then they've obviously gone past politically disagreement and delved into the realm of fanaticism. I don't doubt that fanaticism is an interesting subject for a book, mind you, but I get the impression that Baker won't be handling it that way.
Baker was quoted in Roll Call in February of last year as saying that ?Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Powell, and Bush? are ?foolish, small-minded, cowardly men who will not hesitate to order the bombing of civilians from several miles in the air in order to squash a dictator that they helped bring to power.? Suffice to say there's no doubt about his viewpoint. He sounds a bit fanatical himself.
I suppose the conservative equivalent would be if a pro-lifer wrote about a would-be clinic bomber, and then tried to speak of the subject antiseptically. It's more than a little bit disturbing, and that's why people
I can guarantee that the book is about 'talking him out of his rage' . . . its about the difficulties in NOT becoming a fanatic, full of hate, when your president seems to be a hateful and terrible president.
Also, I think that people are missing the point of this thread: the point was whether the "left", as people like to say, hate America.
I hate many things about this world, I hate many things about this country . . . trumptman probably most
Originally posted by Common Man
The left is making things up again. That is not my page nor am I in any way affiliated with it. I just find it a good source of information. From now on I will cut and paste here.
July 02, 2004, 07:30 AM
New left-wing novel to discuss killing President Bush
By Owen Courrèges
Every time I think that the left has gotten as crazy as it's going to get, something else like this comes along and proves to me that there are new depths that it can sink to (from KPRC):
Get ready for a new anti-Bush book this summer. Only this time, it's fiction. And this time, the subject is murder.
?Checkpoint? by Nicholson Baker, the author of the best-selling ?Vox,? imagines a conversation between two old high school friends. One of them is so angry about the war in Iraq that he wants to kill President George W. Bush. His friend tries to talks him out of it.
?I wrote 'Checkpoint' because a lot of people felt a kind of powerless seething fury when President Bush took the country to war,? Baker said in a statement Thursday.
?I wanted to capture the specificity of that rage. How do you react to something that you think is hideously wrong? How do you keep it from driving you nuts??
If anyone believes that it's reasonable to have a ?seething fury? against the president that rises to the level of homicidal rage, then they've obviously gone past politically disagreement and delved into the realm of fanaticism. I don't doubt that fanaticism is an interesting subject for a book, mind you, but I get the impression that Baker won't be handling it that way.
Baker was quoted in Roll Call in February of last year as saying that ?Rumsfeld, Cheney, Wolfowitz, Powell, and Bush? are ?foolish, small-minded, cowardly men who will not hesitate to order the bombing of civilians from several miles in the air in order to squash a dictator that they helped bring to power.? Suffice to say there's no doubt about his viewpoint. He sounds a bit fanatical himself.
I suppose the conservative equivalent would be if a pro-lifer wrote about a would-be clinic bomber, and then tried to speak of the subject antiseptically. It's more than a little bit disturbing, and that's why people
This is really desperate. It's a work of fiction for christ's sake!
I suppose you'll want to start burning books now also.
and if he isn't serious then he is revealing the same thing through parody.
Not about "hatefulness"! Stop citing examples of "liberal hatefulness" as if it was a response to the thread! You're just making my point! It's like some kind of horrible wind-up doll that can never say anything new!
Again! The thread is about smearing the left with the notion that they hate America! That they are filled with irrational hate! That they wish America ill! Because of all the hate!
Finding intemperate remarks by a filmmaker or a novel that has a scary premise or a drawing that is savage DOES NOT PROVE THE LEFT IS HATE FILLED!!! IT JUST MAKES MY POINT! CHRIST!!!
I mean, ever hear of Goya? Savage depictions of war and suffering? Whose work is the taking off point for the drawing? Famous artist?
NOT HATE FILLED!!! INDIGNATION FILLED!!! HORROR FILLED! APPALLED MORALITY FILLED!
Oh, fuck it. The fucking child fucking right it is.
So did you hear about Cheney's little outburst? On account of his fierce sexual attraction to 8 year olds. Not that that is anything unusual in republican circles, it's just sad when they lose it in public like that.
Hopefully, we'll soon come our senses in this country and give Cheney and his infant fucking brethren what they deserve!
It makes me ill just to think about it.
If anyone's interested in his stuff, I recommend "The Size of Thoughts: Essays and other lumber," which can usually be had on the cheap.
It's just a handful of loud people out there...in here.
Originally posted by addabox
Ahhhhhh!!!!!
Not about "hatefulness"! Stop citing examples of "liberal hatefulness" as if it was a response to the thread! You're just making my point! It's like some kind of horrible wind-up doll that can never say anything new!
Again! The thread is about smearing the left with the notion that they hate America! That they are filled with irrational hate! That they wish America ill! Because of all the hate!
Finding intemperate remarks by a filmmaker or a novel that has a scary premise or a drawing that is savage DOES NOT PROVE THE LEFT IS HATE FILLED!!! IT JUST MAKES MY POINT! CHRIST!!!
I mean, ever hear of Goya? Savage depictions of war and suffering? Whose work is the taking off point for the drawing? Famous artist?
NOT HATE FILLED!!! INDIGNATION FILLED!!! HORROR FILLED! APPALLED MORALITY FILLED!
Oh, fuck it. The fucking child fucking right it is.
So did you hear about Cheney's little outburst? On account of his fierce sexual attraction to 8 year olds. Not that that is anything unusual in republican circles, it's just sad when they lose it in public like that.
Hopefully, we'll soon come our senses in this country and give Cheney and his infant fucking brethren what they deserve!
It makes me ill just to think about it.
Adda, I went back and looked at what you said in the first post.
Perhaps it would be OK if I started referring to Scott, A Greer, Commom Man, et al as child molesting republicans? It makes exactly as much sense as the "hateful" democrat label. How about if every liberal poster here did the same, and constantly, and attributed much of the strategies of the republican party and its champions on these boards to the working out of a pathological need to fuck children.
But gosh, that would so....ugly, don't you think? So how about we just agree that everybody here more or less thinks well of our country and wishes her to prosper and wants to see terrorists captured and imprisoned and does not wish to see his friends or neighbors killed by same, and that disliking the Bush administration is not the result of some character defect that compels one to hate indiscriminately.
Because that is very obviously true.
Right?
What I have tried to show you at least, is that there are many people who do attribute conservatism with a pathological/evil intent. They do consider it a good vs. evil type scenario. It is sort of a slight strawman, but I didn't really call you on it since it had good intent. You are setting up the weaker argument (leftist can't hate possible hate because if they really did, they would act in this terrible manner I describe. So let's all agree that they don't act this way with regard to country and nationalism)
The problem is that you were shown examples where conservatives are shown to desire doing things as bad as a pathological need for fucking children. I gave examples where Bush wanted to poison everyone, was a torturer, was pushing old people off cliffs, endorsed the dragging death of a black man, and now of course eats the head of children.
The point of the strawman is to present something easy to knock down. You presented a level of hate (wanting to fuck children) that you thought would be easy to knock down because it couldn't possible be found or matched. The reality though is that it was easily found and matched.
So that does lead to a bit of a problem with the second point. Since it was supported by the first. (at least in how you presented the argument)
Nick
Originally posted by Eugene
Addabox, maybe we're straying off the topic because it's a manufactured one to begin with. Conservatives no more believe that all "liberals hate America" than liberals believe all conservatives are Rush, O'Reilly, and Coulter 'dittoheads.'
It's just a handful of loud people out there...in here.
Perhaps not, but the point is that the formulation has become something of a "meme", if you'll excuse the term. It's used so extensively that one might be excused for thinking "liberals who hate America" is one word.
It's used without any further explanation, implying that it is a term of obviousness to the point of tautology.
And Nick, so therefore, examples of Bush as a monster are not the reciprocal slander. You (or anyone) have yet to link to an example of the right being consistently (and consistently is the key, as in proffered to the point of hypnotic repetition), and en masse, being characterized as "x", where "x" is a fairly grave charge of moral collapse if not out right illegality.
Since you're going back and reading posts, read the one where I encourage one and all to have at particular politicians for particular actions.
And while we're at it, why is it always about finding counter examples? All I ask is that people here lay off this particular, slanderous, rhetoric.
Either that is a worthwhile thing or not, liberal screed notwithstanding.
Originally posted by trumptman
What I have tried to show you at least, is that there are many people who do attribute conservatism with a pathological/evil intent.
This isn't true. Just the current administration, and most know they're far outside the normal conservative political spectrum.
Originally posted by addabox
Perhaps not, but the point is that the formulation has become something of a "meme", if you'll excuse the term. It's used so extensively that one might be excused for thinking "liberals who hate America" is one word.
It's used without any further explanation, implying that it is a term of obviousness to the point of tautology.
And Nick, so therefore, examples of Bush as a monster are not the reciprocal slander. You (or anyone) have yet to link to an example of the right being consistently (and consistently is the key, as in proffered to the point of hypnotic repetition), and en masse, being characterized as "x", where "x" is a fairly grave charge of moral collapse if not out right illegality.
Since you're going back and reading posts, read the one where I encourage one and all to have at particular politicians for particular actions.
And while we're at it, why is it always about finding counter examples? All I ask is that people here lay off this particular, slanderous, rhetoric.
Either that is a worthwhile thing or not, liberal screed notwithstanding.
So no one consistantly calls Republicans racist for example. Perhaps you don't consider that a grave or illegal charge, but I do.
Googe: Republican racist
Nick
Originally posted by bunge
This isn't true. Just the current administration, and most know they're far outside the normal conservative political spectrum.
Would you care to make note of any conservative administrations you feel aren't far outside the normal conservaitve political spectrum?
Nick