The Radical Right-Wing Obama-Haters; Who AREN'T They and What DON'T They Know? Yes...You Read it Correctly!

the only member of Congress who is a former KKK, Obama himself

????????

Vet, he forgot to put a semi-colon. That would've been better instead of a comma. It confuses people.

Obama himself ... a debate whether or not he is a naturalized U.S. citizen,

*Smashes head into desk and shouts* DO NOT bring up that bullsh!t AGAIN!

Kennedy ... who got away with murdering Mary Jo,

It was a life-and-death situation for both of them in an unfortunate accident.

the only member of Congress who is a former KKK

Emphasis on FORMER.

Socialists like Hitler, Gays and Perverts ..

Did you ever take basic history? Hitler was a DICTATOR. And does it matter if there's gays in Congress? Homophobe much?

What about the wonky far right trolls who invade leftist threads. They react with all the vigor of middle school students. Highly emotional but hardly thoughtful. Of course there are wiser conservatives/Republicans. They are willing to discuss and I gratefully learn a thing or two.

Maybe they are middle school kids. How would we really know?

Maybe they are middle school kids. How would we really know?

That is true, they say you have to be 13 or older.

True I've asked if they were really thirteen. A couple disappeared.

Wrong Ain't Right wrote (in various places):

lets talk about the brain trust of the Dem and liberals...the only solution is for the Liberals/Democrats to become educated...debating Liberals/Democrats is like shooting fish in a barrel

OK, Wrong, let's do...

Liberal philosophy grew out of the Enlightenment thought of the seventeenth- and eighteenth-century philosophers. Men like John Locke, Montesquieu, Voltaire, David Hume, Rousseau, Immanuel Kant, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Paine and John Madison laid down the bedrock beliefs of personal freedom of thought, expression and action that form the basis of liberalism. The word has been applied to many things over the years, but only those ideals that honor what John Kenneth Galbraith called "the emancipation of belief" from the tyrannies of monarchy, religious hierarchy, and unquestioned obedience to a belief system (whether imposed by the Bible, the Koran, the dialectic of history, free-marketism, or what have you) really qualify...

Even Adam Smith, who most conservative free-marketers hold as a sort of patron saint, held liberal ideals. In The Wealth and Poverty of Nations he wrote:

No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the greater part of the members are poor and miserable. It is but equity, besides, that they who feed, cloath and lodge the whole body of the people, should have such a share of the produce of their own labour as to be themselves tolerably well fed, cloathed and lodged.

John Dewey wrote that liberalism

[denotes] a new spirit that grew and spread with the rise of democracy... [which] implied a new interest in the common man and a new sense that... the great masses of human beings... had possibilities that had been kept under, that had not been allowed to develop, because of institutional and political conditions... it aimed at enlarging the scope of free action on the part of those who for ages had had no part in public affairs and no lot in the benefits secured by this participation.

and built on Hobhouse's construction of "New Liberalism" (which argued that the individual liberty and prosperity of Classical Liberalism relied on the health and security of the community) by noting that liberty is not some theoretical principle but "the effective power to do specific things", and that

there is no such thing as the liberty or effective power of an individual, group, or class except in relation to the liberties, the effective powers, of other individuals, groups or classes.

FD Roosevelt set much of the modern shape of political liberalism, which is predicated (after Dewey) on the idea that commitment to these principles of liberty is insufficient if real-world forces, such as corporatism or racism, interfere with an individual's ability to realize them.

Perhaps the best definition for modern liberalism (in my opinion) comes from John F Kennedy:

...if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people-- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties-- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal", then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal".

I can add to the list Abraham Lincoln, Albert Einstein, Molly Irvins, Rachel Carson, Harriet Tubman, Thurgood Marshall, Charles Darwin, Tom Engelhardt, Todd Gitlin, Jane Addams, Thomas Frank, Henry Luce, Gary Nash, Arthur Schlesinger Jr, Richard Hofstadter, George Lakoff... and Jesus Christ.

This is the "brain trust" of liberalism. Whom, I wonder, will you put up on your side?

WmRAllen, great job. Often people who respond so impossibly ill informed are the reason we need a decent educational system that skills, information and socialization.

WmRAllen I loved your little bit with history and facts I voted it up.

Will you be my friend I want you in blue? :-)

AMAC 2 thumbs up! And to the ones who accuse the Republicans of being in middle school I resent that..... my 12 year old is smarter than that.

MUAH WmRAllen.

MUAH? Forgive my ignorance-please translate.

USAF Vet, the way I parse it, he means

"Robert Byrd ... the only member of Congress who is a former KKK"

I don't if it's true or not, but that seems to be what he's saying.

Yep, just checked it out. According to Wikipedia:

"Byrd joined the Ku Klux Klan when he was 24 in 1942. His local chapter unanimously elected him Exalted Cyclops.^"

You have to forgive WAR he's nothing but a troll. Pops up all over the place yells his brains out and leaves.

I wonder if it would be wrong to start a seed naming all the rwr/conservative trolls. You suppose that would be a violation of the CoH?

Probably.

Oh well.

Enjoy the Day.

예수와 가진 도보

What WmRAllen wrote.

Folks it is all spelled out in one congressman's statement.

"We will lose on legislation. But we will win the message war every day, and every week, until November 2010," said Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., an outspoken conservative who has participated on the GOP message teams. "Our goal is to bring down approval numbers for [Speaker Nancy] Pelosi and for House Democrats. That will take repetition. This is a marathon, not a sprint

Sounds like what the Democrats did with Bush and the Republicans.

"We will lose on legislation. But we will win the message war every day, and every week, until November 2010," said Rep. Patrick McHenry, R-N.C., an outspoken conservative who has participated on the GOP message teams. "Our goal is to bring down approval numbers for [Speaker Nancy] Pelosi and for House Democrats. That will take repetition. This is a marathon, not a sprint

Yeah - notice what he SAID here...

They'll win the war every day, every week, until November 2010...then once back in power, it'll be business as usual.

That's the cancer within the GOP. They only want to do things differently until they win whatever it is they're going for. Then it's back to the same old ways. The elephant is the wrong symbol for this new GOP...elephants have fantastic memories and are quite unlikely to repeat the past if it resulted in negative consequences.

I think they should switch their symbol to a Bull. Bulls are quite forgetful, very repetitive, have little compassion for the rest of the herd, push and push something until they get their way, use their horns and not so much their other talents to injure their opponents, and only do enough to survive today - ignoring their needs for tomorrow.

WmRAllen,

Excellent post. Ha! I guess I'm a liberal then. Funny how over time the "label" has become tarnished by right wing hate.

Too bad the repubs had to hijack the thread at the end.

MUAH? Forgive my ignorance-please translate.

I'm guessing Onomatopoeia for a kiss.

“
I shall never fight in the armed forces with a Negro by my side... Rather I should die a thousand times, and see Old Glory trampled in the dirt never to rise again, than to see this beloved land of ours become degraded by race mongrels, a throwback to the blackest specimen from the wilds.
”

— Robert C. Byrd, in a letter to Sen. Theodore Bilbo (D-MS), 1944

seems the Racist are on both side Mr Byrd was a kleagle , recruiter, and also an Exalted Cyclops, the leader of his own chapter.

*Smashes head into desk and shouts* DO NOT bring up that bullsh!t AGAIN!

Yeah, who cares if Teddy was responsible for killing a woman. Hell, you kill fetuses why not adults. Right? I still wonder if Mary Jo's parents are so quick to forget or to mention the fact that an alcoholic left their daughter to die and then blame it on his cousin.

* Smashes head into desk and shouts* DO NOT bring that bullsh*t about Iraq and GWB and oil AGAIN!

Muah!

I'm guessing Onomatopoeia for a kiss.

Thank you Justin. Maybe I should've put XOXO.

Muah!

I'm guessing Onomatopoeia for a kiss.

Thank you Justin. Maybe I should've put XOXO.

*Smashes head into desk and shouts* DO NOT bring up that bullsh!t AGAIN!

Yeah, who cares if Teddy was responsible for killing a woman. Hell, you kill fetuses why not adults. Right? I still wonder if Mary Jo's parents are so quick to forget or to mention the fact that an alcoholic left their daughter to die and then blame it on his cousin.

* Smashes head into desk and shouts* DO NOT bring that bullsh*t about Iraq and GWB and oil AGAIN!

You got your quote/commentary alignment wrong. Try again.

Nope. Just right.

Wow-- apparently I did something right... or something "left", at least. Thanks, everyone, for the comments and support (brkfstclblvr-- MUAH back at you!)...

About the onlly person I haven't heard from is Wrong Ain't Right.

BO/BS-- are you arguing for a moratorium on all the derogatory spin, or do you just want folks on the Left to stop dragging down your heroes, while you get a free pass to spin your own ad hominem attacks?

are you arguing for a moratorium on all the derogatory spin, or do you just want folks on the Left to stop dragging down your heroes, while you get a free pass to spin your own ad hominem attacks?

Dragging down my heroes? C'mon, that is pretty childish, don't you think? Of course it is. If the left wants to put on this garrish charade of how the right is bitter/angry, than the left better damn well own up to their volitile anger and hate of their own. Just calling it the way it is: For eight years the left were doing so much hate, there was little difference between the left's talking points and those of Al-Quaeda. So, if the left wants the mean-old right to stop criticizing BO than the left will own up to your own hate as well. God knows for eight years hate was the only requirement it took to be part of the left. That and not paying their taxes : )

So, what you're saying is, because you think they did it first, then it's OK for you to do it now?

This should make you happy-- yes, many on the Left were angry that Bush won, and many engaged in childish and hyperbolic attacks. Many of us also put forth valid criticisms of Bush and his tenure. The trick is to recognize which is which, and not see every criticism as an attack.

For example-- the Supreme Court decision that gave the election to Bush in 2000 contained language expressly forbidding it to ever be used as precedent. If the SCotUS itself realized that what they were doing was not good enough law to enter into the books and influence subsequent decisions, how are we supposed to accept that it was a valid decision?

The war in Iraq has been debated and debated ad nauseam, but when it comes down to brass tacks, there is plenty of evidence that intelligence information from within the administration itself stood in direct opposition to the stated reasons and goals of the action.

The rule of law in this country is not subject to the whims of the executive-- and yet memorada from the Bush-era Department of Justice give evidence that there was a search for reasons to abrogate the Constitution and allow the administration to act as if they were answerable to no one.

Privatization of regulatory and government agencies, ideological nepotism, and the de-funding of any program that the administration did not agree with exacerbated any local or state situations during the Katrina debacle, to say nothing of the economic crisis...

In terms of "Left hate", let's look at some of the right-wing rhetoric after 9-11. Jerry Falwell blamed 9-11 on abortion, pagans, feminists, gays, the ACLU, People for the American Way, &c &c-- basically saying that the attack was America's (specifically, groups of Americans usually seen as "on the Left") fault. Right-wing pundit Michael Savage said much the same, calling the attack "God's message" to Hollywood and New York, as does Dinesh D'Souza, who blames our culture (and specifically homosexuality) for prompting the attack. And yet, it is the Left whom you compare to al-Quaeda...

Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA) said of people who did not support rendition for torture: "I hope it's your family members who die"... Fred Barnes called Cindy Sheehan "a crackpot" and Glenn Beck called her "a pretty big prostitute"... he also said fo the Katrina victims "Scumbags... I didn't think I could hate victims faster than the 9/11 victims"... I don't have the time this morning to get into Coulter, Limbaugh or the rest, but their views are well known...

And yet, you say that it's a requirement of the Left to hate...

Hey you nailed that one right on the head! The reason their talking points were the same is because the left was pulling for Al-Queda to win the war in Iraq!

Ummm... wanting to pull out of an occupation (I fail to see it as a war anymore) because you don't want your soldiers to die, and you want to refrain from paying for a war that you feel was started unjustly does not constitute "cheering for Al-Qaeda".

So, what you're saying is, because you think they did it first, then it's OK for you to do it now?

No. What I am saying is that this harsh rhetoric on both sides is wrong; however, the left seems to have conveniently forgot all the hate and vitriol they displayed for the eight years GWB was the prez. Heck, to most on this vine they wanted me to cite where the left accused GWB of being a murderer and creating the war just for oil. Either they are not being truthful, are ignorant or just palin stupid. You can't say "please don't criticize the Annointed One" while doing that very thing for the last eight years and be taken seriously. It ain't honest.

wanting to pull out of an occupation (I fail to see it as a war anymore) because you don't want your soldiers to die, and you want to refrain from paying for a war that you feel was started unjustly does not constitute "cheering for Al-Qaeda".

And the left did this by saying the war is lost or our soldiers are burning villages down. This is the way the left conducts a war?? How about quelling all the hate, suck it up and act as a country united? The number one thing that I saw the terrorists learn to exploit was the left conducting themselves as more the enemy than a friend. THEY BOTH HAD THE SAME TALKING POINTS!!! By saying all those hateful things about our miltary do you think that boosted morale? If WWII happened in the age of the internet and the hateful left than the US would have lost our will to fight. I understand that it is American to disagree with anyone; however, if that disagreement leads to decrease in morale than you are a traitor, IMHO. Just as a sidenote, my step-brother served in Iraq in 2004-2005 and said that hearing all this crapola coming from the left made him feel like he was in Vietnam. Doesn't seem too patriotic to me.

And the left did this by saying the war is lost or our soldiers are burning villages down. This is the way the left conducts a war?? How about quelling all the hate, suck it up and act as a country united?

That's the thing. When people feel as though they've been lied to, and then told to "suck it up", we don't feel very united, now do we?

The number one thing that I saw the terrorists learn to exploit was the left conducting themselves as more the enemy than a friend.

That's the thing about insurgents and terrorists, they learn how to manipulate the system and exploit weaknesses.

THEY BOTH HAD THE SAME TALKING POINTS!!! By saying all those hateful things about our miltary do you think that boosted morale? If WWII happened in the age of the internet and the hateful left than the US would have lost our will to fight. I understand that it is American to disagree with anyone; however, if that disagreement leads to decrease in morale than you are a traitor, IMHO.

What does WWII have to do with anything? That was a completely different war, different culture, different way of fighting it, and the Axis is not al-Qaeda.

I'm sorry, are soldiers supposed to worry about public opinion? Yes, they are our sons and daughters, sisters and brothers, mothers and fathers. But i would think that they would be more interested at getting the job at hand done, then worrying about their reputations. They're trained to deal with all kinds of combat situations, but they can't take media hype? Since when has war been an ego booster? They should feel confident that the orders that they are given are right, and that they are accomplishing the goal. Let the politicians and other people deal with the media.

It makes me feel nice and warm inside when people start pointing and using terms like "traitor", "anti-American" and "non-patriotic". You need to point your anger somewhere else.

Just as a sidenote, my step-brother served in Iraq in 2004-2005 and said that hearing all this crapola coming from the left made him feel like he was in Vietnam. Doesn't seem too patriotic to me.

Just as a sidenote, I didn't want to go to war and send your step-brother over there where he could have been killed. But I trusted the Bush Administration when they said that Saddam was skirting the UN and creating weapons. I believed them when they said (and showed us) that the information was irrefutable. But I guess I can't believe everything I'm told, especially from people that tell you their cause is just and that they are moral upstanding people.

Oh, and contrary to popular belief, the soldiers this go around are getting much better treatment at home than the VietNam vets. Not calling you or your step-brother liars, just saying that it's different than everyone thinks.

That's the thing. When people feel as though they've been lied to, and then told to "suck it up", we don't feel very united, now do we?

Believe me, I do empathize with your plight. A lot that GWB did that led up to Iraq still puzzles me. However it may have been, a wise old infantryman told me that Americans can bicker back and forth as to the merits of starting a war, that is being American: however, when your country IS at war than all that bickering is useless and to use that energy to back up our soldiers and our country. America was at war with Al-Quaeda and the left gave comfort to our enemy that we are NOT a country united, therefore ripe for the picking.

That was a completely different war, different culture, different way of fighting it, and the Axis is not al-Qaeda.

But what was it during WWII that separated us from our enemy? It was our resolve to triumph over evil. Plain and simple. We were not the superpower we are now back 70 years ago. Japan, England and Germany were powerful nations. How can you not see the relationship between country unity and morale on the battlefield? Sure this is a different war with different enemies; however, without American resolve or any incentive to win, all could be lost. So, if the "greatest generation" were told that their war was unjust, they burned down villages or they're no better than Nazi's or FDR was a murderer do you really think our servicemen would have faired as well?

Believe me, I do empathize with your plight. A lot that GWB did that led up to Iraq still puzzles me. However it may have been, a wise old infantryman told me that Americans can bicker back and forth as to the merits of starting a war, that is being American: however, when your country IS at war than all that bickering is useless and to use that energy to back up our soldiers and our country. America was at war with Al-Quaeda and the left gave comfort to our enemy that we are NOT a country united, therefore ripe for the picking.

Going to war for the right reasons, and then finding out that those reasons were not the ones we thought they were, and then keeping quiet about it, just because "we're at war" gives too much validation to those in power, justifies our leaders' actions (whether they were wrong or not), and invalidates the idea of democracy. If I think the government is wrong, I should be able to tell the government that I think it's wrong, whether we're at war or not. Now, yes, extreme bias of the news media and the "burning down villages" reporting is way over the line. But you shouldn't sugar coat the news for everyone's benefit either. "Country is Mother, Country is Father" is what we're fighting against, and it's the whole reason we're not like other countries, remember? Everyone fears "Obama's dictatorship", but isn't that what telling people to "shut up and lock step" is all about, isn't it?

But what was it during WWII that separated us from our enemy? It was our resolve to triumph over evil. Plain and simple. We were not the superpower we are now back 70 years ago. Japan, England and Germany were powerful nations. How can you not see the relationship between country unity and morale on the battlefield? Sure this is a different war with different enemies; however, without American resolve or any incentive to win, all could be lost. So, if the "greatest generation" were told that their war was unjust, they burned down villages or they're no better than Nazi's or FDR was a murderer do you really think our servicemen would have faired as well?

An interesting theory, but you also have to realize that the war in Iraq started as one thing, and then transformed into so many directions that it was difficult to realize why we got in there in the first place. Hell, we're still arguing about it today. It's difficult to get everyone on the same track when the track keeps shifting out from under your feet.

Compare the Gulf War to Iraq, instead of WWII. We were all over that, because we were fighting the Evil Saddam(tm) and his money hungry regime. Many more people were onboard for that war, because we were asked to step in by the Kuwaiti people. The turmoil of the Iraqi people loving us, and then hating us, and then loving us again flavored public opinion as much as the biased reporting did.

The culture during WWII was very much different, the news media wouldn't have nearly gotten away with what they do now. And in some cases, they would not have even thought to do such reporting. Their main focus was to win the war. Today, news reporting is all about ratings, and manipulating public opinion for ratings, plain and simple. News programs report on certain stories just to get you to watch. Talk radio and commentary news manipulate information to get you to thinking a certain way. Hell, business news companies bias their reporting to get you to spend money on the stock market.

It's a wonder we're not already at each other's throats. We're mentally manipulated from the moment we get up till the moment we close our eyes at night.

If I think the government is wrong, I should be able to tell the government that I think it's wrong, whether we're at war or not

I agree wholeheartedly with that assertion; however, it is how this disagreement is argued. I would also argue that if the civil rights protests were like the left's anti-war protests (hurling insults and accusations) the 1964 Civil rights Amendment might never have been passed. Would white America embrace a protest that was mean spirited and hateful? Granted, there were a lot of screw ups and even lies told that angered many on the left and even some on the right. Instead of the hateful way the left handled themselves, AT LEAST THEY COULD HAVE GIVEN RESPECT TO OUR PRESIDENT!!! I guess, in a nutshell, it was the rude, arrogant and hateful way the left treated GWB. I heard members of the military on talk radio saying that Iraqis were convinced that GWB was a bad man because his own government says it's so. Couldn't the left protest the war, as is their right, while protecting the sanctity of the presidency, regardless of opinion?

The culture during WWII was very much different, the news media wouldn't have nearly gotten away with what they do now. And in some cases, they would not have even thought to do such reporting

That is what I am saying. It was a different culture with different values and different beliefs. It was their belief in America and its president that help carry the day. Some claim that if FDR was alive during the age of television or the internet he would have never been elected as Americans think of those in a wheelchair as weak (or something similar). Any way, all I am saying is that all this hate from the left would have had dire consequences for FDR's leadership of the war and the soldiers ability to fight the good fight. Would you want to be on the battlefield thinking "why I am I here to fight an unjust war"?

Granted, there were a lot of screw ups and even lies told that angered many on the left and even some on the right. Instead of the hateful way the left handled themselves, AT LEAST THEY COULD HAVE GIVEN RESPECT TO OUR PRESIDENT!!! I guess, in a nutshell, it was the rude, arrogant and hateful way the left treated GWB. I heard members of the military on talk radio saying that Iraqis were convinced that GWB was a bad man because his own government says it's so. Couldn't the left protest the war, as is their right, while protecting the sanctity of the presidency, regardless of opinion?

Sanctity of the presidency? The Iraqis didn't like us before we stepped on their soil, now your saying that they thought Bush was a bad man because WE said he was? Are you sure it wasn't Saddam Hussein, all their religious leaders, al-Qaeda, the insurgents, Iran, and al-Jazeera that were undermining President Bush? Are you sure? Just how many Iraqis get our media over there, watch western TV and get western newspapers before the war? They were obviously all watching MSNBC and reading the NY Times, and listening to Cindy Sheehan.

That is what I am saying. It was a different culture with different values and different beliefs. It was their belief in America and its president that help carry the day. Some claim that if FDR was alive during the age of television or the internet he would have never been elected as Americans think of those in a wheelchair as weak (or something similar).

Weak? Was Dick Cheney seen as weak when he was wheeled out to the 2009 Inauguration? Was David Patterson, the new governor of New York thought of as weak, since he is blind? We elect leaders from all walks of life, disabled, gay, minority, etc. If FDR had been thought of as weak during his time period, believe me, it would have shown in the newspapers and on radio, because it would have been reported.

Any way, all I am saying is that all this hate from the left would have had dire consequences for FDR's leadership of the war and the soldiers ability to fight the good fight. Would you want to be on the battlefield thinking "why I am I here to fight an unjust war"?

If we had attacked Switzerland because we believed that they were with the Nazis, and then found out that they weren't, the people would have been confused and angry, and sure, they would have probably revolted, just as that Axis machine was baring down on them. But the leaders of the day knew what was at stake and made the right choices.

WWII was a different animal. You can't compare it to the current situation. WWII was about world domination. Iraq was far from controlling the whole world. Hell, they weren't even one of the "Axis of Evil" nations!

WWII was a different animal. You can't compare it to the current situation. WWII was about world domination. Iraq was far from controlling the whole world. Hell, they weren't even one of the "Axis of Evil" nations! The Iraqis didn't like us before we stepped on their soil

I am not sure you are reading my posts. I am not comparing anything to any one. What I did was to show how hate can change any situation in any age because hate is a cancer. My use of WWII as a metaphor was to show how different the results could have been if the left was as hateful as they were and are during the entire prosecution of the Iraq war. Todays internet and 24/7 news cycle, along with the hateful left's defilement of the office of the POTUS and the military, would have demoralized that military, FDR's ability to wage the war and possibly reverse the outcome.

If you are going to cite WWII, it must be acknowledged that, after we were attacked by Japan at Pearl Harbor, we didn't start a preemptive war with, say...Mexico...

I agree. But on the other hand we went at Germany, who did nothing to us directly, certainly no direct attack. I don't know exactly how to classify the U.S. waging war with Germany but maybe a case can be made that we preemptively attacked Germany before they were to attack us after England. With that said, Iraq was a mistake and should never have happened. The focus should have been Afghanistan.

Uh BO Germany aligned itself with Japan, Italy as a triad. Since they aligned themselves with the ones that attack Pear Harbor they were deemed part of the Axis powers. And since we aligned ourselves with Britain and other Allied powers we went to war with Axis powers.

Do you understand? There is no correlation between WW 2 and Iraq #2.

I do agree that Iraq #2 was a mistake and Afghanistan should have always been the focus. That one you and I do agree on.

B.0. is B.S. I agree wholeheartedly with that assertion; however, it is how this disagreement is argued. I would also argue that if the civil rights protests were like the left's anti-war protests (hurling insults and accusations) the 1964 Civil rights Amendment might never have been passed. Would white America embrace a protest that was mean spirited and hateful? Granted, there were a lot of screw ups and even lies told that angered many on the left and even some on the right. Instead of the hateful way the left handled themselves, AT LEAST THEY COULD HAVE GIVEN RESPECT TO OUR PRESIDENT!!! I guess, in a nutshell, it was the rude, arrogant and hateful way the left treated GWB. I heard members of the military on talk radio saying that Iraqis were convinced that GWB was a bad man because his own government says it's so. Couldn't the left protest the war, as is their right, while protecting the sanctity of the presidency, regardless of opinion?

BOisBS,

By your own definition, then the GOP should be quiet and respect the sanctity of Obama's presidency. We are, of course, still at war. If you claim that all of the hate hurled at Bush should have been silenced and the left should have locked step with the Bush Administration during war time, then why should the rules be any different for the right-wing and their hate towards Obama's Administration. Claiming that "it's not the same war" and "Obama has closed that chapter on this war" won't jive as reasons. Neither will "Obama is a liar" as your handle would suggest.

Bias is bull@!$%#.

B.O. - somewhere way up above you gave the usual conservative either-you're-with-us-or-against-us rhetoric that simply never washes (partially because it only appears to apply during Republican administrations), but you also said something to the effect of "uniting" in times of war.

Maybe you are a little confused about what our country is really about - think about our history here. It's sort of like newsvine, you have to give other people their due respect while at the same time presenting your values and standards and using your wits and intelligence to try to sway others to - if not agree with you - at least, hear what you say and give it credence.

Blind faith in our leaders is not required. Joining together at the hip is not required. The voices of America - good and bad, pro and con, depending on your point of view - are what speak loudest about America to those outside our shores who suffer from persecution, lack of freedom, poverty, abuse and more. Presenting a unified front - we are right, you are wrong - is the absolute worst thing we could do. That truly is Un-American. The best thing about this country is right here, right now - the freedom to disagree without persecution. The freedom to move about without fear of authoritative interference. The freedom to discover truths in our own way and the freedom to make our way in the world. We haven't been perfect (slavery and racism, denying women the right to vote, McCarthyism, denying gays the right to marry, etc.) but we keep working on it. Because we can.

It confuses me, this warmongerng spirit of some conservatives, this fear of their fellow man, this rigid sticking to "rules" once you have found "rules" that make you comfortable, and the failure to understand that there is no genuine way to determine or prove right or wrong, there is only the need to give others what you yourself would have - the right to choose for yourself - as long as you do no harm. That is when others have the right to take up arms in self-defense or defense of our neighbors.

While I respect my President and appreciate his service, I will speak loudly and fight against any criminal actions, human rights abuses, Constitutional abuses, unfounded aggressions, etc. - BECAUSE - drum roll, please - if you would do such things to my neighbor, you would so such things to me.

you would so such things to me.

That's like breaking up with someone and then walking out the door and into the closet.

I meant, DO such things, not so such things. lol.

pjwrites

While I respect my President and appreciate his service, I will speak loudly and fight against any criminal actions, human rights abuses, Constitutional abuses, unfounded aggressions, etc. - BECAUSE - drum roll, please - if you would do such things to my neighbor, you would so such things to me.

Then do it without hate. What's the line? Love the man; hate the sin? When the left belittled and humiliated GWB it was done out of abject hatred and not protest. Sure there was honest protest over the legitimacy to go to war with a country some thought posed no real immediate threat. Compound that with the belief that this war was concocted on false evidence and the protests became more visceral. And then, the protesters, IMHO, lost all objectivity and went on an all out crusade to hurt and demonize GWB. Isn't GWB presumed innocent? If the left wants to throw out their chests and demand investigations into GWB's administration, should GWB be given the common courtesy of presumed innocent? Or is this only applicable on a case-by-case basis? C'mon, Dan Rather? Chris Mathews? Keith Overbite? Harry Reid? Dick Durbin? These guys weren't objectively criticizing their president, it was personal, it was hateful and it was embarrassing. Dan Rather is forced out of the business (thank God), Chris "BO sends thrills up my leg" Mathews and Keith Overbite get removed from their posts and it is obvious these knuckleads weren't too objective.

One can protest and not use hatred. Does that not make sense? The left thought GWB was a crook and a conspirator for starting an unjust war for oil. I get it. PROTEST THAT. Instead the protests were like "GWB lied our soldiers die" or they were protesting funerals and hurling insults when a family grieves for a loved one killed by our enemy. Our enemy saw this and gained strength knowing that they could take advantage of this "chink" in our armor. Now, when protests give aid and comfort to our enemy than I consider it, at worst, treason; at best, a treasonous protest.

One can protest and not use hatred. Does that not make sense?

Absolutely. I will be the first to admit that, in my desperation to make others see where GWB was obviously wrong - even though his heart may have been in the right place, which I am not convinced of - I may have resorted to words that you might consider "hating". I called him what I thought he was: criminal in his actions. His actions led me to believe that in many ways, he was working against the Constitution and therefore, against the people. He became the enemy.

The way I felt about it is this: Bush's actions helped to create a prolonged animosity from other "enemies" which endangered not only our soldiers in arms, but also our way of life. That's all. I couldn't approve of the war because we had been lied to and manipulated with regard to why we were in it. This war was used for profiteering at the cost of human lives.

Giving aid and comfort to our enemies is a very different thing than protecting our way of life. IMO, we have no right to declare the moral high ground or superior government when we don't hold to it ourselves, as would have been the case if we had shut our mouths and closed our eyes to the self-serving machinations of the men in power which led to death and destruction for others - not just our enemies, but our own men and women who serve for us.

That would have made us all hypocrites and cowards, wouldn't it?

P.S., B.O. I appreciate the civil debate and you do have some valid points, which is why I voted you up, but when you say:

Then do it without hate. What's the line? Love the man; hate the sin?

I believe it would carry more weight if you changed your moniker to something less disrepectful to our current President.

I also have nothing but contempt for those who would protest the soldiers and their families, rather the men in power who must take the responsibility.

I believe it would carry more weight if you changed your moniker to something less disrepectful to our current President.

That was the nicest request for a name change I have yet received. Originally, the moniker meant (B)arack (O)bama is (B)arry (S)oreto but then it just was too tempting to go with the most obvious meaning. And, in the spirit of bipartisanship I shall renounce BO is BS right here and now and accept Patriotic Dissenter.

I appreciate the civil debate

Me too.

timothy Linngard,

Spoken like a true National Socialist--"call the authorities". Just what Der Fuhrer and his henchmen did to the Jews, the gypsys, the negroes, the homosexuals, and anyone who wasn't a member of the ruling party. Once those unfortunates were disarmed, the rest of the slaughter and oppression was easy. Just like today's liberal icons--Dianne Feinstein, Rosie O'Donnell, Chucky Schumer, et al. It's okay for them to have the means to defend themselves, their neighbors, and their loved ones---but not the rest of us.

What sort of threat did you receive from Matthew Predmore? He was referring to A-Mac stating that we engage in socialism when we use government services, such as calling 911 when we want help. Mr. Predmore was demonstrating self-sufficiency by using hyperbole, not threatening anyone. Duh!

Some of us don't need to rely on people who call themselves "authorities", we can take care of ourselves. By the way--who is this "Dr. Ruth", your gynecologist? Grow a pair, and learn to be self sufficient like the pioneers who tamed the West, and the mountain men who lived by their skills and wits. By the way, I have over 100 firearms in my personal collection, plus many hundreds more for sale in my shop. Stop by, I'll even sell your girlfriend one so that she can protect you.

A-Mac, over 80% of accredited climatologists disagree with Algore's theory of manmade global warming. If he invented the internet, where is his patent? You somehow come to the conclusion that because a study is commissioned by a certain group, you can automatically discredit the results. If that is true, then all the studies that are commissioned by so-called enviromental groups, such as the solar panel industry, the windmill industry (T. Boone Pickens), and those who sell carbon credits (Algore) are also automatically discredited. This leads to an ongoing circular argument which gets none of us anywhere. By the way, you can split the $5.00 evenly between the NRA's Eddie Eagle program and the Second Amendment Foundation--those are my two favorite charities.

You still haven't refuted what I said about the fact that studies have to be paid for by someone, just like political polls have to be commissioned by someone. If no person or group can commission and pay for a study on a subject that pertains to their interests, then we can ignore all such data. I already do so with political polls, but not necessarily with science.

Gore might have won the popular vote in 2000, but we don't elect our presidents according to the popular vote---we use the electoral college. Al Gore lost the vote in the electoral college; and no amount of revisionist history will change that fact. Get over it and move on, if only for the sake of your own well-being.

Where did I supposedly attack you? Just because I disagree with your assertions, doesn't make my debate an attack. Stop being so sensitive.

I'll tell my brothers and sisters at the NRA and the Second Amendment Foundation to not hold their breath for your $5.00 donation. I take it from your comments that your challenge was facetious, not serious.

I appreciate the civil debate

I respect tho I do not always like any debate. I always want it presented it MY way.

How many people do I exclude in this?

Patriotic Dissenter,

Wow, you're pretty impressive. Good on you. You're a much bigger person than I originally gave you credit for - and just the kind of guy (or gal) I want to hear more from. Friend request on its way.

For goodness sake ass doesn't violate the CoH. Nuts, Dick even @!$%#.

A. Macarthur, If you have figured out a way to rectum then I will donate $5.00 to a charity of your choice.

jade-log, I beg to differ, I got censored for writing 'ass, cash or grass' on another article (maybe it was the grass part???)

I've said @!$%# several times and haven't been censored.

Teresa,

They are certainly causing my blood pressure to rise

I use the BP-based troll-o-meter all the time. If the troll-o-meter starts red-lining, I know its time to leave.

MalamuteMan, That is a good rule to live by, I will try to keep it under advisement. ;~)

I like a lively debate but it was funny when I convinced a poster that I was right and had the facts to back up my statements only to find them spewing the same rhetoric that I have shot down on another thread after they had agreed with me that their argument didn't hold water.

Yes, that annoys the hell out of me, too. When I am challenged on a point, I genuinely take it into consideration and many times adjust my thoughts. That just doesn't seem to be a quality they possess!

When I am challenged on a point, I genuinely take it into consideration and many times adjust my thoughts. That just doesn't seem to be a quality they possess!

I will read both sides of a debate and leave comments as long as it is done with respect to both sides of the issue.

I know that I'm left of almost every one, that I'm opinionated and I also come armed with facts (even thou facts do have a nasty tendency to have a liberal bias).

I try hard not to insult people but some times it is just like a sign that reads free samples I just can't resist the temptation.

Really it's so nice when you begin a dialogue and others join it. Civility makes a huge difference. Not that we don't joke or get sarcastic sometimes but we never really go to Limbaughland.

Really it's so nice when you begin a dialogue and others join it. Civility makes a huge difference.

I enjoy the learning aspect of it. I may not agree, but it can also make me rethink my position on different levels.

It's just like the founders they were often in disagreement but rarely ruds. Of course they could duel to to settle their differences.

I know that I'm left of almost every one, that I'm opinionated and I also come armed with facts (even thou facts do have a nasty tendency to have a liberal bias).

HA! Yeah, I heard a guy on Bill O'Reilly saying he thought the dictionary had a liberal bias. WTF?

Totally agree USAF. And P.S. I deeply appreciate your service to our country. =)

These are paid RNC trolls who log on here with multiple names so you can have 1000 in your ignore list and still get the same crap day to day. Other day there was a right wing seed on an MSNBC story that had 425 comments 80% were anti Obama. Then they all tick it up so it gets the main attention then they tick up their own comments with another name. Pelosi is the object as outlined in my earlier post because she is finally doing to them what they did to the democrats.....

I heard a guy on Bill O'Reilly saying he thought the dictionary had a liberal bias. WTF?

Makes me think of the Pol Pot/Khmer RougeKilling fields where everyone with glasses (meaning they were educated) were killed.

We need to watch our backs!

A. Mac that title is just TFF. I`,m leaving BBL. hahahahaha

Still lmao today A.Mac....the full depth of that title...wow.

"Straightalk Express"

As a friend of a friend of a friend of a neighbor to a gay man, the use of Straight Talk Express offends me. Are you implying there is such a thing as a Gay Talk express? Please rewrite that to something like "Honest Discourse" Express. I mean, you on the left are so shaken up at the faintest sign of bigotry. Now please, quit using obvious homophobic, bigoted phrases. I'm insulted.

I know you meant it as a joke. Except jokes are supposed to be funny.

*watches the tumbleweed pass by*

sigh.

How dare you Blizzy? Explain yourself or be put to the "Question" at once. Very rude!

Blizzy, you should immediately apologize to B.S..

Obviously, you offended his peeps!

B.O., no need to pull that old "friend of a friend" b.s.. It's totally cool.

Blizzy, you should immediately apologize to B.S..

I agree. She was wrong and I was right (right is right?). I bet she/he ain't got the guts to admit it though. Seems it is the way of the lib. I'm still waiting to hear that Blizzy was wrong and that I did indeed have the links. Waiting .....

Don't hate to say the truth.

Not to mention your temprature.

Uh oh - Jack Nicholson is a democrat!

He's also a lakers fan, but we won't hold THAT against him.

Please do.It'd be interesting to see a well thought-out counterpoint.

There is no counterpoint because his writings are pointless.

MAC, what have you shown but your OPINION? No facts, nothing but what you think.

"I'm boycotting the hater, racist, bigot right-wing Newsviners' columns. They're not setting me up nor turning every legitimate comment or response I make into an insult, a hate-fest or a disinformation diatribe."

Isn't this why you are on newsvine???? So, if someone doesn't agree with you, they are racists, bigots and haters????

Yeah...and if your grandmother had testicles she'd be your grandfather!

response I make into an insult,

SO your are no different than the republicans you speak of?

No threat, I made my OPINION below....

rz

I just love that little ( ! ) at the bottom right of each comment. I just used it 3 times of no value on your comments.

Another troll bites the cyber space dust.

They cannot debate they are clueless. They have no ideas and their posts are all misinformation about how bad the other guy is after the 8 year disaster they just hung around the necks of the American people. 70% of the national debt is because of three presidents Bush I and Bus II and Raygun Reagan. They all claimed to be fiscal conservatives. Yeah right.

They read Paul Krugman.

NEW YORK TIMES....need you say more?

They aren't physicians, or medical technicians or biochemists

Im a medical technician. And I'm sure there are other left of center's or liberals on here that do hold such degrees. While I will agree that the author commited a fallacy in his statements of the same, so have you and either way your both wrong. However, I agree with the general message of the author. Far too many rightwingers have come on here and spewed hate and misinformation, which is unfortunate because too many take them at their word, instead of thinking and researching for themselves.

ron, and they told me to shut up and enjoy it. Now after we have much needed change all they do is complain and obstruct.They have no idea's to solve the problems they created.

If I am correct I believe he also ran up a huge margin on the higher education voters also. But McCain got most of the votes from those who thought pro wrestling is real.

You are correct about the margin of educated voters.

Pro wrestling's not real???? Ahh-dang!

Val: I'm a White women and often will not even talk about anything political in certain settings as I feel you are correct, many white people are upset that a black man is in office. When I have said anything I have been questioned, the attempt always comes from the he's a liberal, however I have noted that this "veiled" attempt at covering true feelings of race issues exists. Problem is that until this really comes out in the open many people will continue to feel this way and use other excuses for disliking or opposing him. I think that as a white person the truth really needs to come out and it is sad that many people believe this way. Thank you for your post, I truly belive it is a big part of the difficulties many are having accepting Obama as our President.

Even though they will deny it everytime.

Suz thanks ofr the comment. NOw it is not everyone in the building, but I kind of learned who to talk to and who not to. I do joke about race a lot at work but I know who I can joke with and who I can't. What kills me is that folks got all upset about Sarah Palin and how she was picked on, and my point is, uh, they picked on Hillary, so don't use the woman excuse. And this from folks who talk about women bad.

What is scary to me is that I have a friend who is male and gay. He is in his 50's. He believes everything folks says. It is like he has gone back in the closet. When I talk to him he says things like, why are kids having sex (when we talk about a teen boy - 17 yo being arrested for having sex with a 14 yo girlfriend), they shouldn't, why don't you have to dress up for the airplane anymore (when we talked about Southwest plane incidents) and other stuff. We in Louisiana voted for Bobby Jindal and I kind of knew he was going to win years ago , but folks are pissed with him because he is never here. We have the first Vietnamese representative in Congress, so I would like to think folks are progressive. And what is bad, I have a niece who lives in north Louisiana and her daughter is one of two black kids in the school. When Obama won, the kids at her daughter's school said some negative stuff, and she said I know you are not saying that in front of me because I am black. The kids said, you are not black, and she said yes I am, and they said no you're not, and it went back and forth and finally the kids said, oh you have long hair, you can't be black. Okay she is not bright or light skinned, but because these kids thought she was white because of her hair is scary.

Not sure about your offices, but where I work 2 of my 3 very conservative employers voted for President Obama, partly because the alternative was unacceptable, and partly because he talked sense in a changing world. But now I see their choice being 'romanced' away from them by the ongoing battering of negatives coming from the financial industry & Wall Street, their chosen tv channels, and their party. It's quite a bombardment going on... sheesh!

Well I work in a professional type building, and as I stated the majority of folks voted for McCain. To be perfectly honest with you, I didn't have a problem with McCain until he got Palin and that is when he went downhill to me. He seemed like he became the mean old man overnight. I too have noticed the dooms day scenario that is played out every night on Fox News. Instead of arguing, why don't they try to do something positive or give a valid reason why something don't work. The sad thing is that I know so many folks in the building only watch Fox News as their source of the news.