Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since when does hate equal disagreeing with Obamas policies? I guess Democrats can butcher the definition of words just to fit their adgendas.
If you hate the idea of your children and grandchildren having to pay off a huge US debt, created by politicians in Washington, then you are filled with "hate."
If you think it is as wrong as it can be for the federal government to own GM and Chrysler, and have controlling interest in AIG and CitiGroup, then you too are filled with "hate."
If you do not want the president to sign a $2 trillion dollar federal health care system, then you are filled with "hate."
If you do not believe that the world's climate is warming in an alarming fashion, due to man-induced CO2, then you are filled with "hate."
If you do not want federal carbon cap & trade legislation signed into law, because you believe it will raise the cost of living, kill jobs, "cause electricity rates to necessarily skyrocket", and increase taxes and raise the cost of goods and services, then you are filled with "hate."
If you do not acquiesce to the desires of the left, then you are filled with "hate."
Wow, talk about generalizations. You really think all Democrats, or those on the left of the political spectrum really feel that way?
If you listen to the democratic leadership, what else could you possibly assume? They were, after all, elected by democrats, and I do not hear a collective outcry against the democratic leadership from the Democratic electorate.
If you listen to the democratic leadership, what else could you possibly assume? They were, after all, elected by democrats, and I do not hear a collective outcry against the democratic leadership from the Democratic electorate.
This, I think, is tunnel vision. The Democratic leadership is attempting various strategies to address the multitude of problems in this country today. While the Democratic electorate may not be supportive of each and every strategy, they can still continue to support the leaders because they support most of policies of this administration or at least more of the policies than those of the alternative.
You bring your perspective to the political spectrum. And it's important that you share that perspective, because our system depends on people being able to say what they think, what they want, what they hate about the government. Hatred of certain policies doesn't mean hatred of the policy-makers. That's a dead end. Hate the policies enough to put together a solid argument against those policies. Persuade the policy-makers that it's a bad idea. Convince us all. Tell us about a better way to resolve our problems. For the past eight years those liberals have been trying to convince moderates that they had better ideas. And they convinced some of the people because they won this time around. Every election, it's another opportunity to make your case. Even in 2010, when we'll be changing around the balance of power in the legislature, an opportunity. Hate and making demeaning remarks isn't going to be persuasive.
Nice revision of history, but pure liberal fantasy nonetheless. In the 2000 election, for the first time in US history, Democrats challenge the General Election in the courts. Their shrill ignorant voices scream about stealing an election and having an illegitimate President, even to this day. Bush was hated and reviled by liberals before he was even inaugurated. There was no fictitious "grace period."
When Democrats gained control of the Senate in June 2001 they opposed absolutely everything Bush proposed or nominated and ultimately blocked 88 of Bush's judicial appointees, not caring whether or not they were good for the nation, but opposed it merely because Bush proposed it or nominated them. So nobody buys your blatant lie about "we gave Bush the respect due him" nonsense. The criticism of Bush's administration by the liberals and their media lackeys began on day one of Bush's first term.
In March 2003, as the attack of Iraq began, Bush had an 86% approval rating and it drove you anti-American liberal freaks crazy. So you manufactured more lies about being misinformed and attributed them to Bush, and now you believe your own lies. Well, nobody ever accused Democrats of being particularly bright.
Americans are indeed watching, and we see who is doing the burning of the nation - liberal freaks. For the first time in US history, Democrats put into power someone who truly hates the very nation he is suppose to lead.
My blatant lie? Unlike you, my source puts it at 90%. Nothing else that you wrote merits a response; it's filled with nothing but false machismo, false GOP "talking points" and personal attacks. That might work with some women, but it simply marks you as an uninformed and shallow debater to me. Bully-boys are always the biggest cowards.
Remember "Jumpin" Jim Jeffords? Democrats controlled the Senate from June 2001 through December 2002. If you have a problem with federal spending, your beef is with Congress, not the President.
Poli Sci 101 - The President proposes and Congress disposes.
It might help if you actually took the time to read the US Constitution and learned a little bit about how your own government functions.
To liberals, the definition of "hate" is believing in anything that they oppose. Things such as morality, God, the traditional family, the free market, etc.
This is exactly what Neiwert's book is about. You are turning your opponents into a group that is immoral, anti-God, anti-family, and so on ...
And you get surprised when one of the unstable members of your side of the spectrum acts on the hatred that you are spreading?
Wake up - you are part of the problem.
(Notice also that the commenter is in the process of projecting this hatred onto the group that he/she is demonizing - he/she is claiming that it is the left that is practicing hate speech, while dehumanizing them at the same time. This is what The Eliminationists is all about.)
This is exactly what Neiwert's book is about. You are turning your opponents into a group that is immoral, anti-God, anti-family, and so on ...
And you get surprised when one of the unstable members of your side of the spectrum acts on the hatred that you are spreading?
Wake up - you are part of the problem.
(Notice also that the commenter is in the process of projecting this hatred onto the group that he/she is demonizing - he/she is claiming that it is the left that is practicing hate speech, while dehumanizing them at the same time. This is what The Eliminationists is all about.)
So identifying people for what they truly are is now considered hate, eh? Ever consider that they would not be opponents if they did not hate America and seek its destruction at every opportunity? No, I didn't think you did. I will sit around the campfire and sing "kumbaya" with al Qaeda long before I consider liberal freaks to be working to better the US. Since the inception of the Democrat Party in 1828 they have worked toward the destruction of the US and nothing else. Even creating the Civil War to further their aims. There is no terrorist group or national army on this planet that is a greater threat to the US than liberal freaks.
This is exactly what Neiwert's book is about. You are turning your opponents into a group that is immoral, anti-God, anti-family, and so on ...
And you get surprised when one of the unstable members of your side of the spectrum acts on the hatred that you are spreading?
Wake up - you are part of the problem.
(Notice also that the commenter is in the process of projecting this hatred onto the group that he/she is demonizing - he/she is claiming that it is the left that is practicing hate speech, while dehumanizing them at the same time. This is what The Eliminationists is all about.)
************************************************** ********
Excellent post, Idahogie, and thanks for the tip on the book; clearly, the author has identified the tactics being used to foster divisiveness and even
rebellion in the U.S. Some people are so consumed with bitterness and anger that they are unable to see the utter absence of logic shown when they attack the left as "bleeding heart liberals" while also claiming that liberals are "hate-filled." One or the other...you can't have it both ways. Do they not comprehend that the "bleeding heart" label was taken from the icons and paintings of Jesus that depict his own bleeding heart?
The projection could not be more apparent than it is on this forum, and it is gratifying to see GOP posters begin to distance themselves from those who participate so blindly in such practices. How sad and ironic that Christ is so often used to justify ideologies that are the diametric opposite of his
teachings. Happily, the "ignore" option exists to allow posters to block such negative energy from their lives. And you're quite right: you're either part of the problem or part of the solution. One cannot practice sedition or push for secession while claiming to love America.
Hmm I dont recall to many riots caused by Republicans lately.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
