Originally Posted By HyperTyper Yet again, we have a liberal accusing conservatives of "hatred." This time it's Elizabeth Edwards, who is trying to install horns on conservatives with an empty accusation: "I want to be perfectly clear: I do not think the hatred against Hillary Clinton is justified ... I don't know where it comes from. I don't begin to understand it. But you can't pretend it doesn't exist, and it will energize the Republican base. Their nominee won't energize them, Bush won't, but Hillary as the nominee will. It's hard for John to talk about, but it's the reality." Can we just take a closer look at this? Liberals have been crying "hate" for decades. The evidence of this hatred is apparently anything a conservative says that questions or criticizes liberal thought or action. Because most conservatives don't support homosexuality, they are accused of "hatred." Conservatives question the details of a school lunch program, and right away conservatives are accused of hating and wanting to kill children. Doubt about affirmative action plans is portrayed as racism and hatred for blacks and other minorities. Let me make this one thing clear: I live in a very conservative area, and am constantly surrounded by people who can't stand Hillary Clinton, or her husband. And yet I can't remember once, even ONCE, any one of them expressing hatred for her, or wishing harm on her. It is one thing to express frustration, annoyance, or disgust. It is another to show hatred to someone. Even from the likes of Rush Limbaugh, I just don't hear conservatives going around harping about their Hillary hatred. There will be some, of course, but it isn't what Elizabeth Edwards wants everyone to think it is. Contrast that with the left, who have been very clear about their contempt for conservatives. When Dr. Laura Schlessinger was feeling the wrath of the gay movement for her calm, reasoned criticism of some of what they were doing, "hate" was one of the nicer words they used. Even a popular sitcom on a major network had characters openly joking about their "hatred" for Dr. Laura. Democrats have as their leader Howard Dean, who has been quite open about his own hatred. He has gone so far as to call Republicans "evil." Vile things have been said by other prominent "progressives," and they never go challenged by liberals except perhaps by the likes of the good Sen. Joseph Lieberman. While there are some on the left who keep their discourse civil (Bill Clinton and Sen. Pelosi among them), these same people say nothing when extreme invective comes from their peers. So let's be honest: Hatred is not a conservative value. It is an ugly human flaw, and the left exercises it regularly. No political side is immune. Hillary Clinton is no victim. She has been brutal in her treatment of other people (particularly her husband's female targets), and pointing attention to the facts of her behavior and character is not hatred. It's criticism and it's justified. Make no mistake: Conservatives would almost universally loathe another Clinton presidency. That doesn't mean we wish her harm, or hate her. There is more joking about the death of President Bush coming from the prominent left than you'll ever hear about the Clintons coming from the right. Sometimes I get embarrassed by my fellow conservatives (ANN COULTER), so I've been keeping score. Elizabeth Edwards' judgment of right-wingers is nothing short of pure hypocrisy. She might want to take a closer look at the ugly words coming from her 'friends' on the left before she demonizes those on the right.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Elizabeth Edwards' judgment of right-wingers is nothing short of pure hypocrisy. She might want to take a closer look at the ugly words coming from her 'friends' on the left before she demonizes those on the right." I'm sorry, you can write as many paragraphs as you want, but I call total bullsh-- on this one. All anyone has to do is turn on Talk Radio or google Karl Rove and Clinton to encounter the obsession that the far right has with anything Clinton. THAT'S where Edwards is coming from on this, and as long as the far right remains the loudest voice (and they undeniably are) then unless more Republicans distance themselves from yahoos such as Limbaugh, Hannity and Coulter, then perception is going to become reality. Better yet, if people such as yourself would create as groundswell that ends up getting their sorry carcasses permanently away from all manner of microphone and media, then come back and talk to us. All the left has to work with are bad comedians such as Franken and the yutzes on what's left of Air America. The Three Stooges (Limbaugh, Hannity and Coulter) dominate the media, and are still being pandered to by a vast majority of Republican candidates for 2008. Until YOU do something about THEM, live with people like Elizabeth Edwards.
Originally Posted By HyperTyper >>> Better yet, if people such as yourself would create as groundswell that ends up getting their sorry carcasses permanently away from all manner of microphone and media, then come back and talk to us. I think plenty of conservatives have denounced Coulter's excessive language. Limbaugh and Hannity, however, are popular because they make logical arguments, and have a little fun on the side, at the Dems expense. They've never advanced hatred ONCE against liberals. Mockery, sure. Hatred, no. >>> All the left has to work with are bad comedians such as Franken and the yutzes on what's left of Air America. The Three Stooges (Limbaugh, Hannity and Coulter) dominate the media, and are still being pandered to by a vast majority of Republican candidates for 2008. Until YOU do something about THEM, live with people like Elizabeth Edwards. So, anyone who teases Democratic political figures should have their mikes unplugged? We ought to take Leno and Letterman off the air then? We already are living with Mrs. Edwards, and when her criticisms are based on policy and fact, I've got no problem with her. But when she accuses conservatives of widespread "hatred," she's shamelessly, irresponsibly and falsely dramatizing things to elicit sympathy for the left and revulsion against the right. She can rightfully label a few bloggers as "hateful," but neither she, nor Howard Dean, nor Bill Maher have any justification for accusing Rove, or Cheney, or Bush or rank-and-file conservatives of hatred, bigotry, mean-spiritedness or evil. What baloney. What has Karl Rove said that's so terrible about Hillary? The man has said he hopes Hillary wins the nomination, because that would help Republicans win in the general election. Ooohhh ... what a wicked, wicked man! *Ha* What's hateful about that? I think he's right. Karl Rove has been the left's punching bag because he's been the brains behind Bush's political success, not because he's said or done anything hurtful or evil. As the architect of Bush's campaign, what hateful spewings did he launch? George Bush has had nothing but polite and kind things to say about Hillary Clinton, and he's gotten nothing but derision from her in return. The swiftboat thing? The left wants to blame Karl Rove on that. Even if they could, there is nothing "hateful" about exploring John Kerry's questionable military record. Liberals have been portraying themselves as victims and conservatives as monsters for decades. I don't expect it will stop anytime soon. Just pointing out how wrong they are, and that I'm not buying it ... nor should you. So Hillary thinks Rove and conservatives are obsessed with her. That's so like the Clintons ... it's always all about them.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "Limbaugh and Hannity, however, are popular because they make logical arguments, and have a little fun on the side, at the Dems expense. They've never advanced hatred ONCE against liberals. Mockery, sure. Hatred, no." Oh no you don't. I can't let this one go. Did you listen to ol' Sean the other day? Mr. Talking Point spent an inordinate amount of time on his radio show trying to exonerate Larry Craig. That, my friend, as he would say, is as transparent as hell. At one point, he though he heard the police officer use the word "liberal". OH MY GOD! THERE'S THE SMOKING GUN! Turns out Hannity was wrong, as usual. Anyone, and I mean anyone, who would waste time trying to prove people are just out to get creeps like Craig (and as it turns out, they should be), has an agenda that does more than just "mock".
Originally Posted By DlandDug So Hypertyper, are you saying that if a conservative came on these boards and offered a statement contrary to the liberal view, he would be greeted with mockery, derision and, uh, hatred? Is that what you're saying? 'Cause that's really harsh, dude.
Originally Posted By JeffG >> "But when she accuses conservatives of widespread "hatred," she's shamelessly, irresponsibly and falsely dramatizing things to elicit sympathy for the left and revulsion against the right." << HyperTyper, can you even see at all that you are doing in this thread >precisely< what you are accusing Mrs. Edwards doing? All you have to do is switch the uses of the words "left" and "right" in the above quote and it is a perfect description of your posts in this thread. When I first saw the topic of this thread and read your first paragraph with the Edwards quote that you were addressing, I actually thought I would potentially be right there with you in your argument. I completely agree that the word "hate" is thrown around way too often in order to over-dramatize what is really just a disagreement in policy or philosophy. Where I couldn't disagree with you more strenuously is with your bizarre claim that this type of thing is common on the left and essentially unheard of on the right. Other than the Edwards quote (which is mild, at best), you don't even provide any hard evidence to back up your claim. Right now, I will go right ahead and acknowledge with pretty high certainty that you could find plenty of examples of those on the left expressing something resembling hatred towards those on the right as well as plenty of examples of those on the left wrongly characterizing as hatred simple disagreements from those on the right. I can also promise you, though, that it wouldn't take any significant effort to find plenty of examples of those on the right doing the same things. Your claim that Limbaugh and Hannity don't engage in this kind of thing is particularly laughable. Do you really want to stick by that claim long enough for people to start trotting out example after example of direct quotes from both of them that will blow your theory out of the water? -Jeff
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <When Dr. Laura Schlessinger was feeling the wrath of the gay movement for her calm, reasoned criticism of some of what they were doing, "hate" was one of the nicer words they used.> You reveal yourself with that one. Dr. Laura referred to gay people as inherently "disordered," and as a "biological mistake." Calm and reasoned? In your view of things, apparently. But that's what's so revealing.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "So Hypertyper, are you saying that if a conservative came on these boards and offered a statement contrary to the liberal view, he would be greeted with mockery, derision and, uh, hatred? Is that what you're saying? 'Cause that's really harsh, dude." Smarmy hit and run retorts will likely be greeted that way. LIBERALS SUCK MWHAHAHA will as well. Lies and distortions too. But people here are perfectly capable of constructive debate.
Originally Posted By DlandDug >>But people here are perfectly capable of constructive debate.<< Ah. "Constructive debate" like this, you mean?: >>Said the dittohead. 'Nuff said.<<
Originally Posted By ecdc Wait, I thought we were only supposed to talk about the issues, not personalities. I must've missed the memo.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder Ah. "Constructive debate" like this, you mean?: >>Said the dittohead. 'Nuff said.<< Exactly. It got what it deserved.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder No. Yet again, Dug will deign to appear in WE, pronouce a few judgments, then claim to be above it all. It gets old.
Originally Posted By ecdc BTW, hyper's post is pretty typical of him and definitely fits SPPs characterization of "hit and run" as well. We get lengthy screeds about how awful the big bad liberals are, with faulty logic at best or pure fantasy at worst. Numerous people reply (often liberals themselves - but why listen to what people say to describe themselves when it's easier to demonize them?) and then Hyper disappears, only to surface a few weels later with yet a another "liberals bad, conservatives good" thought-povoking post. Of course, previous posts like Jeff's are treated as if they don't exist and it's as if no one has shown Hyper's one-sided aguments for what they really are. I'm starting to think that to be a neocon, you have to completely reject how people define themselves and just invent your own descriptions to explain why they aren't like (and therefore are not as good as) you. Poor and homeless people are lazy, entitlement-fed ne'er do wells; gay people are perverts who choose to be that way; pro-choicers hate babies; Iraq war critics want us to lose and don't support the troops; advocates of social programs don't want personal responsibility; the Clinton's marriage is one of convenience; evolutionists don't believe in God (at least not the right god); and liberals are all of the above. Like I've said, if liberals were the way Republicans thought they were, I'd be a Repulican too. It's all a fantasy land, where Bush is a hero and Kerry's a traitor, where Democrats lost the Iaq war and Saddam was in on 9/11. You can't make this stuff up, folks.
Originally Posted By Darkbeer Interesting on how Barney Frank and Larry Craig are treated differently. Barney Frank was reprimanded for having sex with a male prostitute, and Larry Craig admitted he attempted to get someone to give him oral sex at a restroom. (and I hated how he tried to claim he shouldn't have plead guilty in front of the judge, once you did it, don't try and take it back!) Larry Craig is dragged thru the news and has resigned (and IMHO the correct thing to do), but Barney Frank is still in congress. I think both sides should be treated the same, and that Barney Frank should resign. Of course, the left is treated differently than the right.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Well... can't let that mischaracterization go unaddressed. Larry Craig has NOT admitted he was soliciting sex in the men's room. He continues to deny it, unless he issued a statement in the past couple of hours I haven't heard. Frank admitted to sex with a prostitute, as has current (gasp! Republican!) senator Vitter. Vitter has admitted it, and apologized, and may yet be reprimanded officially as Frank was, but he is not resigning, and it seems the voters of his state will decide his fate. Just like Frank. They are, in fact, being treated the same. Someone opined on msnbc today, and I think there's something to this, that people will often forgive you if you admit to a mistake. In fact, she compared Craig to Vitter specifically and pointed out that if you continue to deny it, you give people no chance to forgive you. Put on top of that Craig's votes against gay marriage, against gays serving in the military, against even outlawing discrimination in hiring against gay people... and you have the hypocrisy rap too.
Originally Posted By ecdc Well said, Dabob. Frank is openly gay, so finding out he had sex with another man is no shock (though the prostitute issue is...unfortunate). Where Republicans get themselves in trouble is for setting themselves up as the party of God and morality. Right or wrong (probably wrong, though I'm guilty myself) it's only natural for the media, comedians, and the public to revel in their sex scandals more. It reminds me of Mitt Romney's hypocrisy. He puts himself out there as the righteous conservative by flip-flopping on gay rights, abortion, stem-cells, etc., then acts put out when people ask him about Mormonism. He says he's not running for Pastor-in-Chief, and he's right. But he can't act like he is when it's convenient, then caim otherwise when it's not. Republicans wouldn't find themselves under as much scrutiny if they left religion and sex out of the political equation.
Originally Posted By gadzuux I'm confused. First you say ... >> "I want to be perfectly clear: I do not think the hatred against Hillary Clinton is justified ... I don't know where it comes from. I don't begin to understand it. But you can't pretend it doesn't exist. << And then go on to parse the difference between "hate" and "mocking" and that conservatives don't engage in hate. But who do you think it is that's fueling this polarization about hillary? You contradict yourself here. >> Because most conservatives don't support homosexuality, they are accused of "hatred." << It's not a question of "don't support", rather a history of their actions to suppress basic civil rights. What do you think the motivation for that is - mocking? >> And yet I can't remember once, even ONCE, any one of them expressing hatred for her, or wishing harm on her. It is one thing to express frustration, annoyance, or disgust. It is another to show hatred to someone. << Did you hear about the recent statements by ted nugent about hillary and obama? The ones sean hannity won't denounce? There's conservative punditry at it's finest hour. >> Democrats have as their leader Howard Dean, who has been quite open about his own hatred. << The right has been somewhat successful in making a boogeyman out of dean. I don't understnad it. >> So let's be honest: Hatred is not a conservative value. << Except, apparently, when it comes to hillary. >> Hillary Clinton is no victim. She has been brutal in her treatment of other people << Victim; no - brute; yes. Check. >> Elizabeth Edwards' judgment of right-wingers is nothing short of pure hypocrisy. << I wouldn't attempt to justify elizabeth edwards' recent comments. They do raise some eyebrows. I'm wondering if she's feeling a bit liberated and even "thrill-seeking" given her recent cancer diagnosis. She seems to be acting rather free-wheeling and 'go for broke' recently. But neither will I criticize her - at least not yet. These are still the early days of the campaign and the edwards campaign has been an interesting one to watch so far.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> ... and then Hyper disappears, only to surface a few weels later with yet a another "liberals bad, conservatives good" thought-povoking post. << Actually, I'd encourage you to hang around and join in on a few other threads. The fact that you hold such diametric viewpoints to mine, and can right them down makes you a valuable contributor. You may have notice that your side of the aisle needs some shoring up.
