Liberal-bashing is the new black

[Reager]

Sorry this post is a bit of a ramble, 3 hours of sleep will do that. But this has been on my mind for a while.

I'm wondering if anyone has some thoughts on the liberal-bashing mini-industry that has emerged recently. Of course far right commentators have never been kind to liberals. It's no secret that Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, etc. are conservatives through and through. But now there is a class of pundit that engages in blind liberal-bashing 24/7. It's like they're on a quest. Nothing is wrong that isn't the fault of feminists or the New York Times. Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity come to mind (or, as I like to call them, the "haters"). Did they simply wake up one day and vow to rid the world of anything liberal?

The funny thing is, it's not like liberalism is such a powerful political force that it warrants such unceasing attacks. Coulter and her ilk have already turned "liberal" into a dirty word. Now they want to equate being a liberal with being traitorously anti-American. So I'm really puzzled by their efforts. Are they like True Believers of paranormal phenomena, and their hatred of the left is beyond rational thought and reasoned judgment?

Incidentally, are there any analogous commentators on the "left" who are so vociferous and unswerving (and just plain ol' mean) in their condemnation of anything to the right of center? Sure, there are many left-wing pundits out there, but none seem to have the constant, rabid-hatred for the political opposition exhibited by Coulter, et al.

Any thoughts?

Mike

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by mfeldman
Sorry this post is a bit of a ramble, 3 hours of sleep will do that. But this has been on my mind for a while.

I'm wondering if anyone has some thoughts on the liberal-bashing mini-industry that has emerged recently. Of course far right commentators have never been kind to liberals. It's no secret that Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly, etc. are conservatives through and through. But now there is a class of pundit that engages in blind liberal-bashing 24/7. It's like they're on a quest. Nothing is wrong that isn't the fault of feminists or the New York Times. Ann Coulter and Sean Hannity come to mind (or, as I like to call them, the "haters"). Did they simply wake up one day and vow to rid the world of anything liberal?

The funny thing is, it's not like liberalism is such a powerful political force that it warrants such unceasing attacks. Coulter and her ilk have already turned "liberal" into a dirty word. Now they want to equate being a liberal with being traitorously anti-American. So I'm really puzzled by their efforts. Are they like True Believers of paranormal phenomena, and their hatred of the left is beyond rational thought and reasoned judgment?

Incidentally, are there any analogous commentators on the "left" who are so vociferous and unswerving (and just plain ol' mean) in their condemnation of anything to the right of center? Sure, there are many left-wing pundits out there, but none seem to have the constant, rabid-hatred for the political opposition exhibited by Coulter, et al.

Any thoughts?

Mike

Ann Coulter (one sexy conservative), emerged because of the ongoing stench of leftist lies perpetrated against unsuspecting Americans in the 1980's and 1990's.

People like Coulter just didn't appear in a vacuum. They appeared because of the sheer level of stench from leftist lies and the attempt to turn the United States into a perversionist leftist nation-state.

Coulter should get a Presidential Medal of Freedom for her work in saving America using the literary trade.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Mfeldman said: Liberal-bashing is the new black

...and leftists made all "conservatives" in America the new Jew class. If leftists could get away with gassing conservatives, they would do it.

JK

[Lurker]

Personally, I think there are a market on both sides of the fence for bashing demaguguery. But the market for conservatives to blindly bash liberals seems to be larger. I do not know why that is but have some guesses that might offend some folk:

1. The audience which likes Coulter see most things as black and white and do not consider the more complex way of looking at things. Many liberals see concepts as more than just two sides.

2. This same audience does not like to hear opposing points of view. They are already convinced they are right.

3. This same audience enjoys ridicule as a means to feel superior.

These are just some ideas. And I am sure there are some on the left that feel the same way, I do not mean to imply in any way that liberals have the moral high ground. I just notice that the shrill politico books are most popular when written by a conservative.

Lurker (and THAT gets me to 50!)

[headscratcher4]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Mfeldman said: Liberal-bashing is the new black

...and leftists made all "conservatives" in America the new Jew class. If leftists could get away with gassing conservatives, they would do it.

JK

This from a man who wants to try everyone "left" of Pinko John Ashcroft as a traitor....;)

[Charles Livingston]

I think there is bashing on both sides, and I wouldnt wager which one bashes the other more, who really cares? Liberals complain that the right bashes them unfairly and conservatives claim that the left bashes them unfairly. I mean cmon, if you say you are conservative you are deemed by most liberals to be an ultra right wing christian, which is likely not the majority of republicans. On the other side, many liberals are accused of being socialist or communist, which is likely not the majority of democrats. What I believe I have noticed on this board, however, is that with the exception of a few hard core conservative types, there seems to be much more conservative bashing then liberal bashing (mabe that is at least partially a function of the fact that this board is international).

As for lurkers comments above, I think you are unfairly painting conservatives as the 'bad arguers'. I know you qualified the statement at the end, but the qualification kind of contradicts the rest of your post. I would venture that you could apply all of your points EQUALLY to both sides, ie, I disagree that liberal bashing by conservatives has a 'larger market' than vice versa. Particularly, to say that mostly conservatives (at least the ones bashing liberals) only see in black and white but liberals see the gray areas is ridiculous, both sides do and dont do that as it suits their arguments.

As for Ann Coulter, her book is filled with just as many misrepresentations, lies, and exxagerations as Micheal Moore's work, and similar to moore's, probably has some core truth to it. I dont have much respect for either of them.

[Doubt]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Mfeldman said: Liberal-bashing is the new black

...and leftists made all "conservatives" in America the new Jew class. If leftists could get away with gassing conservatives, they would do it.

JK

Note the JK has started to recycle his arguments.

He used to say that Atheists would gas Christians.

Maybe it is time for a greatest hits thread for empty rhetoric.

[BillyTK]

To use admittedly broad brushstrokes, it's cyclical: Blacks were the old Black, then with the "end" of racism, white conservatives were the new Black, and now with the conservative star in ascendancy, liberals are the new Black.

Plus ca change &c...

[corplinx]

Originally posted by mfeldman
Bill O'Reilly, etc. are conservatives through and through.

O'Reilly? I think this sort of white/black view of consertiave/liberal is the same reason why Hannity has an audience.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Doubt


Note the JK has started to recycle his arguments.

He used to say that Atheists would gas Christians.

Maybe it is time for a greatest hits thread for empty rhetoric.
Empty and hate filled.

"I will drop in from time to time but will no longer contribute to the forum. I am off to pursue a forum where there is less hate and hopefully more people who share my views and beliefs.

Jedi "There is a God" Knight 11-12-02

Atheists invited me back. JK 11-26-02

The entire women's movement is a scam and an extortionist shakedown against men. There are no "battered" women in America, only men.
JK 3-26-03"

[Lurker]

As for lurkers comments above, I think you are unfairly painting conservatives as the 'bad arguers'. I know you qualified the statement at the end, but the qualification kind of contradicts the rest of your post. I would venture that you could apply all of your points EQUALLY to both sides, ie, I disagree that liberal bashing by conservatives has a 'larger market' than vice versa. Particularly, to say that mostly conservatives (at least the ones bashing liberals) only see in black and white but liberals see the gray areas is ridiculous, both sides do and dont do that as it suits their arguments.

[/B][/QUOTE]

No, I don't think Con are the bad arguers. My apologies if that came across. As to the larger market, I base that on two areas of observation:

1. My perusal of talk radio shows there are far more conservative hosts than liberal. And many of these conservative hosts, such as Savage, Hannity, Limbaugh, and Beck all seem to toe the conservative line more than I hear liberals toe the liberal line. They are also shriller in their attacks on liberals than what I hear from the liberal side.

2. Look at the history of the top 100 books over the last few years. It is replete with books by conservative writers. Again, that by itself means nothing except that many of those books are really just poorly researched screeds against liberalism (Slander, Savage Nation, etc). Everything becomes the fault of liberals. With the exception of Moore, I don't see the same sort of efforts from the liberal side of the fence.

I would like to reiterate that most conservatives are intelligent and reasonable people. I just feel that there is a larger audience for the thougthless drivel and blaming books and radio hosts for the right than there is for the left.

Lurker

[Lurker]

Originally posted by corplinx


O'Reilly? I think this sort of white/black view of consertiave/liberal is the same reason why Hannity has an audience.

You don't think O'Reilly is, for the most part conservative? You do realize he writes for conservative magaziens and websites? That until recently he was a member of the Republican party and quit because media was about to expose him? That he has given speeches at conservative events?

Other than capital punishment (which I think he opposes) I am at a loss to see where he takes the liberal position.

I don't care whether he is liberal or conservative but he shouldn't try and paint himself as independent when 99% of his output carries the flag for conservative causes. I guess he is just reciting the false mantra of FoxNews - "Fair and Balanced"

Lurker

[Advocate]

Here is the problem as I see it:

It is in the interests of both conservatives and liberals to portray their cases as black and white, good vs. evil, and to use techniques that create a gut reaction of hate toward their opponents. The more people who hate conservatives reflexively, the better things are for the liberals, and vice versa. The problem is that we end up with what we have now - an extremely polarized public, where almost half the people absolutely hate anyone and anything associated with conservatism or the Republicans, and about the same number who hate anyone and anything associated with liberalism or the Democrats. I have heard it described as a war by both sides and IMHO it really is a war, and one with no resolution in sight. I suspect we are moving toward the day when what both Moore and Savage are publishing now will be considered moderate compared to what is to come.

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Advocate
I suspect we are moving toward the day when what both Moore and Savage are publishing now will be considered moderate compared to what is to come.

Ugh, you may be right, but I don't have to like it and I am not going to fiddle while it occurs.

Lurker

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Lurker


You don't think O'Reilly is, for the most part conservative?

Not really. I think he is Bill O'Reilly. My wife watches the guy and sometimes I catch his show. He seems to be:

anti-ashcroft
for agressive border enforcement
anti-govt waste
pro social spending (including homeless programs)
anti-aclu
critical of the Bushes
critical of the Clintons

He seems to be an equal opportunity destroyer when it comes down it. He is out for big ratings by finding problems and then harping on them. He doesnt strike me as particularly conservative unless you are thinking a conservative democrat.

[Fade]

Ann Coulter

It's hard to understand her, what with her chewing the flesh of newborn babies.

[Lurker]

Originally posted by corplinx


Not really. I think he is Bill O'Reilly. My wife watches the guy and sometimes I catch his show. He seems to be:

anti-ashcroft
for agressive border enforcement
anti-govt waste
pro social spending (including homeless programs)
anti-aclu
critical of the Bushes
critical of the Clintons

He seems to be an equal opportunity destroyer when it comes down it. He is out for big ratings by finding problems and then harping on them. He doesnt strike me as particularly conservative unless you are thinking a conservative democrat.

I don't know much about his stance on Ashcroft. Can you enlighten me? Also, when was he for social spending? And critical of the Bushes? Must have been before I watched. Please tell me more details. Whenever I watch it seems like he is pretty darn conservative. I must be missing the 'liberal O'Reilly' days.

Lurker

[Tony]

Originally posted by corplinx


Not really. I think he is Bill O'Reilly. My wife watches the guy and sometimes I catch his show. He seems to be:

anti-ashcroft
for agressive border enforcement
anti-govt waste
pro social spending (including homeless programs)
anti-aclu
critical of the Bushes
critical of the Clintons

He seems to be an equal opportunity destroyer when it comes down it. He is out for big ratings by finding problems and then harping on them. He doesnt strike me as particularly conservative unless you are thinking a conservative democrat.

O'reilly also supports gay rights and gay adoption.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Lurker


Whenever I watch it seems like he is pretty darn conservative. I must be missing the 'liberal O'Reilly' days.

Lurker

Could it also be preconceived notions affecting your view of him? Did you perchance hear he was a bigtime conservatie before you first watched him?

I maybe see his show once a week but I remember him tearing up Jeb Bush for the Florida child services scandal, Ashcroft over INS/FBI stuff, Dubya for the same, Falwell (to his face) about his exclusive beliefs, San Francisco for their non-working homeless programs, and other things. Like most people, he has his own beliefs and crusades but unlike other newscasters at least he reveals his bias.

Yes, he gives the ACLU, the Clintons, and other targets what-for also.

I'm not a big fan, but I do think his show opened my eyes about three different people. George W. Bush, Al Sharpton, and Johnny Cochran. After their segments on his show, I felt like I knew more about them than I had ever seen elsewhere in the media. When he cut off Dubya, and made him answer questions without rhetoric I discovered the man behind the campaign promises. I also saw sides of Cochran and Sharpton that I never saw before in the white dominated media (good sides to boot).

If O'Reilly is a bigtime conservative hound, I would say he is doing a piss-poor job of supporting the vast right-wing conspiracy.

[a_unique_person]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Mfeldman said: Liberal-bashing is the new black

...and leftists made all "conservatives" in America the new Jew class. If leftists could get away with gassing conservatives, they would do it.

JK

JK, I don't think you should just sit back and wait for threats to you like to happen. You should be out there, preventing those gassings, right now.

[clk]

O'Reilly may not be super-conservative, but he is not a moderate either. He has been mostly soft on Bush. I remember how he kept talking about Clinton even though he had been out of office for many months. It's as if he's completely obsessed with him. An example: I don't remember O'Reilly saying anything about Bush's ties with Enron, but I do remember when he did a segment on Clinton getting $200K for a speech he did. I mean, who cares how much Clinton makes for a speech? And then there's his treatment of Hillary Clinton. He hates her even more. He makes it sound like she avoids Fox News like the plague, because he's the beacon of truth, and he'll expose her for the fraud she is, but I remember when Hillary appeared on Hannity and Colmes one time. But did O'Reilly even mention that? Nope.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by clk
An example: I don't remember O'Reilly saying anything about Bush's ties with Enron, but I do remember when he did a segment on Clinton getting $200K for a speech he did.

He did talk about Bush and enron. Guess you weren't watching.

[clk]

Originally posted by corplinx


He did talk about Bush and enron. Guess you weren't watching.

I guess I did. What did he say about it? Did he call for an investigation? I wish he were more serious about it. I'm guessing that if he were really serious about it, he would talk about it on every episode, just like he did with the 9/11 charity issue, and with the Clintons, but that's just me.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by clk


I guess I did. What did he say about it? Did he call for an investigation? I wish he were more serious about it. I'm guessing that if he were really serious about it, he would talk about it on every episode, just like he did with the 9/11 charity issue, and with the Clintons, but that's just me.

The 9-11 charity thing was his scoop. It was all him. Of course he was going to harp on it. The vaporous Enron ties were all over the media so I'm guessing he would talk about it less (its called product differentiation). He did call for an investigation iirc. As for talking about Hillary, I don't doubt he drones on about her. After all, she is his senator. :)

[Ace_of_Sevens]

Look at the history of the top 100 books over the last few years. It is replete with books by conservative writers. Again, that by itself means nothing except that many of those books are really just poorly researched screeds against liberalism (Slander, Savage Nation, etc). Everything becomes the fault of liberals. With the exception of Moore, I don't see the same sort of efforts from the liberal side of the fence.

Try reading The Beauty myth, for instance. Liberal tactics often include twisting study results for the conclusion they (somethign which conservatives have caught on to now) and character assassanation. The tactic of demonizing one's opponent seems to still be mostly the domain of liberals. For instance, i don't recall anyone saying things about Clinton nearly as strong as what was said about Bush, even before the war started. Nor can I recall anyone levelling false or irrelevant accusations against any liberals on the order of what's been done to Wendy McElroy, Christina Hoff Sommers and Andrew Sullivan.

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Ace_of_Sevens


Try reading The Beauty myth, for instance. Liberal tactics often include twisting study results for the conclusion they (somethign which conservatives have caught on to now) and character assassanation. The tactic of demonizing one's opponent seems to still be mostly the domain of liberals. For instance, i don't recall anyone saying things about Clinton nearly as strong as what was said about Bush, even before the war started. Nor can I recall anyone levelling false or irrelevant accusations against any liberals on the order of what's been done to Wendy McElroy, Christina Hoff Sommers and Andrew Sullivan.

Ace, have you heard of the recent books, "Slander", or "Savage Nation"? Have you read pretty much ANY column by Ann Coulter? That is all she and Savage do is demonize liberals. After you have read those two, who were both on the best sellers list recently, then you come back here and say what you said above.

Good luck,

Lurker

[Victor Danilchenko]

Ace,

Character assassination? Presidential csmpaign of 2000 was one huge character assassination of Gore! Most of the bizarre things ascribed to him, were either blatantly misinterpreted, or he never did them altogether (e.g. he never claimed ot have invented the internet).

PUH-LEEZE.

[Lurker]

Ace:

No, I have not read The Beauty Myth. If you would like to give me a capsule review I would appreciate it.

I would also ask for some evidence for your claim that most of the demonizing comes from liberals. Show me the liberal equivalent of these quotes, all coutesy of Ann Coulter:

1. "[Clinton] masturbates in the sinks."
2. The "backbone of the Democratic Party" is a "typical fat, implacable welfare recipient"
3. To a disabled Vietnam vet: "People like you caused us to lose that war."
4. "Women like Pamela Harriman and Patricia Duff are basically Anna Nicole Smith from the waist down. Let's just call it for what it is. They're whores."
5. "If you don't hate Clinton and the people who labored to keep him in office, you don't love your country."
6. "We're now at the point that it's beyond whether or not this guy is a horny hick. I really think it's a question of his mental stability. He really could be a lunatic. I think it is a rational question for Americans to ask whether their president is insane."
7. "It's enough [to be impeached] for the president to be a pervert."
8. "Clinton is in love with the erect penis."
9. "The thing I like about Bush is I think he hates liberals."

Or this one from Michael Savage:

"Liberalism is a virus," Savage says. "It's like leukemia." Liberals are "degenerate slimebags."

So, find me the liberal quotes that mirror these. Since you claim liberals do it more often they should be wasy to find, correct? I am actually interested in hearing your side.

Lurker

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Ace,

Character assassination? Presidential csmpaign of 2000 was one huge character assassination of Gore! Most of the bizarre things ascribed to him, were either blatantly misinterpreted, or he never did them altogether (e.g. he never claimed ot have invented the internet).

PUH-LEEZE.

You got that right, Victor.

Conservative lies about Gore:

1. Willie Horton
2. Love Story
3. "I Invented the Internet"
4. Naomi Wolf
5. his supposed lies about his father...

I could go on and on about lies spun about Gore...Many told by the "liberal" press.

Lurker

[Gregor]

Gore hurt himself.

There was no need to make up lies about Gore. Having read a few accounts, he was so unlikeable that the media assigned to his campaign trail disliked him.

[Mel]

I don't think there was any possible way for the feeding frenzy over Clinton to suddenly STOP and I don't think it was at all possible for the media to ever separate Clinton from Gore.

Gore was a victim of Clinton, IMO.

[Lurker]

Well, when the press is actually making things up about Gore, I can understand why he lost. The question is why did the press have it in for Gore? I agree with Mel, it was tarring Gore with the Clinton brush.

Lurker

[dingler44]

"Other than capital punishment (which I think he opposes) I am at a loss to see where he takes the liberal position." -- Lurker

"Please tell me more details. Whenever I watch it seems like he is pretty darn conservative. I must be missing the 'liberal O'Reilly' days." -- Lurker

It seems, ironically that you are looking at things in black and white here. Nobody said O'Reilly was liberal, they said they weren't sure if he would fit the conservative label. Not being conservative, of course, does not imply being liberal.

Whether or not he is conservative is completely irrelevant to my point, though.

You are using the black/white view of the liberal/conservative issue to score points... while at the same time criticizing radical conservatives for using that same black/white view.

[Lurker]

Originally posted by dingler44
"Other than capital punishment (which I think he opposes) I am at a loss to see where he takes the liberal position." -- Lurker

"Please tell me more details. Whenever I watch it seems like he is pretty darn conservative. I must be missing the 'liberal O'Reilly' days." -- Lurker

It seems, ironically that you are looking at things in black and white here. Nobody said O'Reilly was liberal, they said they weren't sure if he would fit the conservative label. Not being conservative, of course, does not imply being liberal.

Whether or not he is conservative is completely irrelevant to my point, though.

You are using the black/white view of the liberal/conservative issue to score points... while at the same time criticizing radical conservatives for using that same black/white view.

But I was not applying labels, I asked when he took the liberal POSITION. I believe he supports the conservative POSITION some 90% of the time. There is nothing wrong with that. But to then make some claim of neutrality and no spin on his part is absurd.

As to your claim that I am using black/white labels while decrying it the difference is FoxNews and O'Reilly make the claim of being "Fair and Balanced" when they are not. I have no problem with someone being a liberal. I have no problem with someone being a conservative. When they are clearly far more supportive of one side than another and try to hide that bias and claim they are not biased I have a problem with that. What about you?

Lurker

[Lurker]

Originally posted by corplinx


Could it also be preconceived notions affecting your view of him? Did you perchance hear he was a bigtime conservatie before you first watched him?

(...)

If O'Reilly is a bigtime conservative hound, I would say he is doing a piss-poor job of supporting the vast right-wing conspiracy.

Actually, I knew nothing about him when I first saw him. Had never even heard of him.

I should amend my comments somewhat. O'Reilly is not some ultra right wing conservative. I think he is conservative but has many facets to him that show he is not as conservative as say, Coulter, Savage, or Hannity. I respect that he seems somewhat open to nonconservative viewpoints and for that I give him credit. I am not a fan of his attitude or how he conducts his show. Overall he seems ok though.

Lurker

[Baker]

Its always-amusing hearing liberals complaining about conservative commentators when that’s all they are just conservative commentators among a sea of the liberal media.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Victor Danilchenko
Ace,

Character assassination? Presidential csmpaign of 2000 was one huge character assassination of Gore! Most of the bizarre things ascribed to him, were either blatantly misinterpreted, or he never did them altogether (e.g. he never claimed ot have invented the internet).

PUH-LEEZE.

Here is your tinfoil hat. You realize that conservatives are convinced that the same is true except that Bush is the person who was attacked?

Honestly, the only president I remember getting an easy time with the press was Clinton. However, the reason wasnt as much liberal bias as I think it was media relations. Watch "The War Room", his people were out there schmoozing with the newsmakers bigtime.

If Gore failed at getting that same friendly press, it was most likely because he distanced himself from the good parts of the Clinton era (their friendliness and sometimes recruitment of the press corp).

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Lurker


Actually, I knew nothing about him when I first saw him. Had never even heard of him.

I should amend my comments somewhat. O'Reilly is not some ultra right wing conservative. I think he is conservative but has many facets to him that show he is not as conservative as say, Coulter, Savage, or Hannity. I respect that he seems somewhat open to nonconservative viewpoints and for that I give him credit. I am not a fan of his attitude or how he conducts his show. Overall he seems ok though.

Lurker

O'Reilly is a sell-out. He gained his fame using conservative news outlets and once he hit Fox News he caved and spun to the left to appease noisy leftist groups that threatened to boycott his show. It is like appeasing Nazis.

Michael Savage is the only conservative person right now with the guts to say what he wants and not care who bitches about it.

JK

[Richard G]

You can be an idiot all you want in private, or even publicly. But when said idiot (liberal) seeks power as an elected official, they must be exposed for the idiots that they are. All of their conclusions and ideologies are emotion based, or socialistic. Facts, reason, and logic are unknown to these creatures. They have more regard for our enemies than their own countrymen.

They also have no regard for the Constitution.

[Reager]

Originally posted by Baker
Its always-amusing hearing liberals complaining about conservative commentators when that’s all they are just conservative commentators among a sea of the liberal media.


I should point out that my original post was not to complain about conservative commentators per se, but rather the hateful "crusade" against liberals that particular conservatives seem to engage in 24/7, and the distinct lack of corresponding liberal commentators doing the same to conservatives.

As for the "liberal bias in media," I haven't studied the issue well enough to give more than a subjective opinion. But I will say that I don't think the "sea" of liberal media is as overwhelming as you seem to believe. Talk radio is practically all conservative, Fox News is the number one cable news channel, conservative books consistently top the bestseller lists, and it's not like there is a shortage of conservative commentators and columnists.

Side note, re Ann Coulter. A few weeks ago on Realtime with Bill Maher she stated that every Democrat who did not stand during Bush's state of the Union Address to applaud a missile defense shield was a traitor. I'm beginning to think that maybe her deal is not so much that she's a rabid liberal-hater, perhaps she's just certifiably insane (unless there's some rational argument that can be made to support such a ludicrous position...she certainly didn't put one forward).

Mike

[Lurker]

Corplinx:

Feel free to support your contention that media lied about Bush during the campaign. I am eagerly waiting to see our list. Please note that I was happy to provide a small smaple of the lies spun about Gore. Again, if it was so prevalent, they should be easy to find, right? ;)

I also am still waiting for all the examples of liberals using similar phrases as Coulter and Savage.

Lurker

[Baker]

Originally posted by mfeldman



I should point out that my original post was not to complain about conservative commentators per se, but rather the hateful "crusade" against liberals that particular conservatives seem to engage in 24/7, and the distinct lack of corresponding liberal commentators doing the same to conservatives.

There might be hateful "crusade" against liberal views I'm not sure what you mean about hateful "crusade" against liberal's.

Can you give me an example of the hateful crusade against liberal's?
Conservatives have been ridiculed for years now a few conservative commentators come along and there are complaints of liberal bashing.

The problem comes from the fact that liberalism is all about emotions conservatives is based on logic.


Talk radio is practically all conservative, Fox News is the number one cable news channel, conservative books consistently top the bestseller lists


That should tell what we really want to hear.
Besides Fox News, there isn’t much on TV for conservatism.

[corplinx]

Originally posted by Lurker

Feel free to support your contention that media lied about Bush during the campaign.

I only meant there are tinfoil hat conservatives who think they were against him. Much like there are tinfoil hat Gore supporters who are convinced he didn't get a fair shake in the press (while the tinfoil-hat conservatives are still convinced Al Gore got a cakewalk).

However, there are tinfoil-hat conservatives who believe that even FoxNews was in on the conspiracy of portraying Bush as a ex-cokehead, ex-dui fiend, moron, silver-spoon panty-waste, empty suit, retard murderer.

As for your list of "lies", most of those never made it on a primetime newscast except for maybe the "al gore invented the internet" one.

[Reager]

Originally posted by Baker


There might be hateful "crusade" against liberal views I'm not sure what you mean about hateful "crusade" against liberal's.

Can you give me an example of the hateful crusade against liberal's?


Sure, here's one that's hot off the press. It's from Ann Coulter's March 20 column entitled KISSING COUSINS: NEW YORK LITERATI AND NAZIS:

"...[Nazi sympathizer] Hamsun hated America for all the reasons liberals hate America. To the delight of New York sophisticates, Hamsun once sneered at pathetic Americans marching in veterans' parades, "with tiny flags in their hats and brass medals on their chests marching in step to the hundreds of penny whistles they are blowing." America's little patriotic parades apparently compared unfavorably to a stirring Nazi war rally.

This is the essence of liberal admiration for Europeans and their pompous cultural snobbery. For proof that Americans are immature hicks in an ugly jingoistic mood, they cite a Nazi."

According to Ms. Coulter, it seems that all liberals (not "liberal views") hate America and have a soft spot for Nazis. Now why would she make such an obviously false and incendiary statement, if not to fan the flames of hatred against liberals?


Conservatives have been ridiculed for years now a few conservative commentators come along and there are complaints of liberal bashing.

So two wrongs make a right?


The problem comes from the fact that liberalism is all about emotions conservatives is based on logic.


Err..right. I see we're engaging in a little liberal-bashing of our own, aren't we? You're either a hypocrite, or simply ignorant. I'll reserve judgment till I see your response.

Mike

[gnome]

Originally posted by mfeldman
Side note, re Ann Coulter. A few weeks ago on Realtime with Bill Maher she stated that every Democrat who did not stand during Bush's state of the Union Address to applaud a missile defense shield was a traitor. I'm beginning to think that maybe her deal is not so much that she's a rabid liberal-hater, perhaps she's just certifiably insane (unless there's some rational argument that can be made to support such a ludicrous position...she certainly didn't put one forward).

Well, it's obvious, isn't it. If you're against a missle defense shield, you obviously are in favor of Americans being nuked. :rolleyes:

[Ace_of_Sevens]

I put a little thought into what i said and mainstream liberals aren't much worse with the ad hominem attacks than conservatives. Every example i couldn't see coming from a far-right whacko was from an ultra-feminst. They have a record of going all out against women who break ranks.

Here's an example (http://www.nationalreview.com/contributors/kurtz120501.shtml). I can look up more if needed.

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by Lurker
Corplinx:

Feel free to support your contention that media lied about Bush during the campaign. I am eagerly waiting to see our list. Please note that I was happy to provide a small smaple of the lies spun about Gore. Again, if it was so prevalent, they should be easy to find, right? ;)

I also am still waiting for all the examples of liberals using similar phrases as Coulter and Savage.

Lurker


Ha, what were you living in a cave during the elections?

What about how the press had to constantly say "hey Bush is an idiot", or "lookit how the hick can't talk straight", or when they brought up his DUI record?

You wan tto talk about spinning lies, go back and check those speech records, Bush didn't make a mistake. The god-damned liberal media edited the tapes to make it look like Bush was making enunciation mistakes. Go read the official transcripts of those speeches! Then try to get some liberal communist ruled media outlet to give you a copy of one of Bush's speeches. Hey, WTF is going on? They don't match.

God damned atheists have to paint Bush with a "he's a stupid hick" strokes and then try to claim that the "conservatives" lie? Ha.

[Smalso]

What about how the press had to constantly say "hey Bush is an idiot", or "lookit how the hick can't talk straight", or when they brought up his DUI record?

The point of bringing up his DUI record was that he LIED about it. But, of course, that's not news.

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by Smalso


The point of bringing up his DUI record was that he LIED about it. But, of course, that's not news.

Bullsh*t. The liberal media edited the videos to make it look like he lied. Bush wouldn't lie, he's the president. What American would accuse the president of lying? You should be shot.

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Rusty_the_boy_robot


Bullsh*t. The liberal media edited the videos to make it look like he lied. Bush wouldn't lie, he's the president. What American would accuse the president of lying? You should be shot.

Yeah, right. I can see that you are open to a dialogue. Why don't you look up the record first. you will find that Bush was point blank asked if he had ever been arrested. He said no. Much later it came out that he had been arrested for DUI. Simply put, he lied, just like Clinton.

Lurker

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

Originally posted by Lurker


Yeah, right. I can see that you are open to a dialogue. Why don't you look up the record first. you will find that Bush was point blank asked if he had ever been arrested. He said no. Much later it came out that he had been arrested for DUI. Simply put, he lied, just like Clinton.

Lurker

Yeah right. Presidents don't lie. Clinton wasn't really the president either, he should have been impeached in any god-fearing country. It's like this:

1. Presidents wont lie.

Therefore it follows that everything Bush says is true.

But Clinton wasn't really the president because he was impeached or at least he would have been if we had the ten commandments instead of the ten ammendments!

So therefore it follows that everything Clint-ton said was a lie.

[Lurker]

Originally posted by Rusty_the_boy_robot


Yeah right. Presidents don't lie. Clinton wasn't really the president either, he should have been impeached in any god-fearing country. It's like this:

1. Presidents wont lie.

Therefore it follows that everything Bush says is true.

But Clinton wasn't really the president because he was impeached or at least he would have been if we had the ten commandments instead of the ten ammendments!

So therefore it follows that everything Clint-ton said was a lie.

Good one, Rusty. You have a good sense of humor. I can play along. So everything Clinton said BEFORE he was impeached was the truth cause presidents won't lie.

hehe, heh.

Lurker:cool:

[Rusty_the_boy_robot]

;)

SOrry sometimes I can't help it. I see some of these posters around here (won't name names again) who are just too funny. They can't be serious. I mean, JK stands for JUST KIDDING.

I don't like to put that at the end of my posts, I just hope that others will realize no one is that stupid.

[Victor Danilchenko]

corplinx

Here is your tinfoil hat.Oh, please. That's like a newager saying that he is equally "skeptical" of science and religion.

There is a big differewnce between Gore's and Bush's media treatment in 2000. The bad stuff said about bush -- ex-DUI, moron, etc. -- were largely true, or a matter of interpretation. the crap said about Gore was, for the large part, outright false.

And Bush still says "nucular"...

[Smalso]

FYI, Clinton was impeached, but not convicted. Besides, Clinton is not the president and hasn't been since January of 2001.

[Lurker]

Sorry, Rusty. I am used to jousting with people who do say what you said with a straight face.

My apoplectic rage was misplaced. :)

Lurker