No Leftist Haters May Read This!

[Meister]

Lib Talk


Libtalker Ed Schultz Has Another Unhinged Meltdown With Caller - Bing Videos

 

[Coyote]

I just looked up "Bush Attacks Democrats", not much there, Coyote. I saw where he attacked dems for allowing the tax cuts having a sunset, and the spending....but nothing like what we have seen with Barry.

What has Obama done that is demonizing? (not counting campaign stuff).

Health Care:
The repoublicans only want the status quo

This was not true. They offered a variety of ideas for healthcare. Obama did not want to go with them. That is fine. That is the way it is. He won. But why did he need to demonize them by saying that ONLY want the status quo?

Demonizing or politics? Honestly, that is the sort of rhetoric that goes on all the time when trying to pass contentious legislation.

Why is it "demonizing" when Obama does that, but not when the right labels "Obamacare" as Marxist, and makes false claims about death panels?

Economy:
The repubnlicans want to let the rich keep their Bush Tax Cuts.

This was demonizing. The republicans wnat the JOB CREATORS to keep their tax cuts during this recession. Yes, the job creators are the wealthier Americans....but it is not thier wealth the republicans are trying to salvage...it is their ability to creqat jobs they are trying to salvage. (whether right or wrong is not the issue).

There are tweo VERY OBVIOUS examples off the top of my head.

Again - demonizing or politics? Is this any different than what has gone on before? I tend not to think so. Democrats are the party of "tax and spend", Democrats want to spend YOUR money, Democrats are Marxists and Socialists.

What about this?
Demonizing: Bush claiming that Sen. Obama and the Democrats favor policy of appeasement toward terrorists and comparing them to “other U.S. leaders back in the run-up to World War II who appeased the Nazis.”

 

[NYcarbineer]

Prager is a textbook example of a rightwing hate monger, and he's up on the high horse attacking leftwing hatred?

Nice irony.

 

[NYcarbineer]

it is awesome here in socialist commie euro weenie land.

want youse some immigrants? there will be plenty in about six months or so. that's what our left does when they lose elections whine, come to think of it it's what they do when they win too, whine, it's been non stop whining for going on ten years now.

send us your best and brightest. and no fatties.

Willow can stay. She bought two tickets.

 

[Jarhead]

What has Obama done that is demonizing? (not counting campaign stuff).

Demonizing or politics? Honestly, that is the sort of rhetoric that goes on all the time when trying to pass contentious legislation.

Why is it "demonizing" when Obama does that, but not when the right labels "Obamacare" as Marxist, and makes false claims about death panels?

Economy:
The repubnlicans want to let the rich keep their Bush Tax Cuts.

This was demonizing. The republicans wnat the JOB CREATORS to keep their tax cuts during this recession. Yes, the job creators are the wealthier Americans....but it is not thier wealth the republicans are trying to salvage...it is their ability to creqat jobs they are trying to salvage. (whether right or wrong is not the issue).

There are tweo VERY OBVIOUS examples off the top of my head.

Again - demonizing or politics? Is this any different than what has gone on before? I tend not to think so. Democrats are the party of "tax and spend", Democrats want to spend YOUR money, Democrats are Marxists and Socialists.

What about this?
Demonizing: Bush claiming that Sen. Obama and the Democrats favor policy of appeasement toward terrorists and comparing them to “other U.S. leaders back in the run-up to World War II who appeased the Nazis.”

I believe you unintentionally went off topic.
We are not debating the typical ploys of politics.
We are talking about the President.
Yes, the pundits, the comlumnists, the law makers...all play that game.

My question was when was the last time the PRESIDENT played that game (other than during a campaign).

This is the first President I can recall that lied to the public about the intentions and actions of the opposition. He not only lies, but he does it in an effort to demonize them.....as per my examples.....

 

[WillowTree]

want youse some immigrants? there will be plenty in about six months or so. that's what our left does when they lose elections whine, come to think of it it's what they do when they win too, whine, it's been non stop whining for going on ten years now.

send us your best and brightest. and no fatties.

Willow can stay. She bought two tickets.

we only deporting leftists DUMbazz.

 

[Coyote]

Bush: Obama and Democrats want to appease Terrorists

Demonizing? Yes.



"If you listen closely to some of the leaders of the Democratic Party," the President said at another fundraiser Monday in Nevada, "it sounds like they think the best way to protect the American people is -- wait until we're attacked again."

Demonizing? Yes, in much the same way Obama is accused of.

Bush accuses Democrats of caring more about the feelings of liberal activists than the US military.

Demonizing? Yes. Again, much like Obama.

Your first example had this as the second paragraph:

The president did not name Obama or any other Democrat, but White House aides privately acknowledged the remarks were aimed at the presidential candidate and others in his party. Former President Jimmy Carter has called for talks with Hamas.

Now, is that demonizing? Obama himself said he believed appeasing them is a better direction to go. ANd comparing the situation to Hitler hgas nothing to do with Hitler. The truth is, it was believed it best to appease Hitler than antagonize him...who was it...I forgot his name.....dam, I am getting old...or my mother was right when she said "trhem there drugs is gonna killl your brain cells and affect your memory when you get older"

Where did he say that?

Comparing any modern situation or politician to Hitler is demonization no matter how slice and dice it....I don't think you can get around that. hehehe....yer Mom must be right....but that's ok. we can be old farts together

 

[Jarhead]

Coyote...

This line from your earlier post:

Demonizing: Bush claiming that Sen. Obama and the Democrats favor policy of appeasement toward terrorists and comparing them to “other U.S. leaders back in the run-up to World War II who appeased the Nazis.”

Obama and the democrats DO favor the appeasement toward terrorists over aggressive action against them. They admit to it and it is very much like what happened right before WW2.

 

[Jarhead]

Bush: Obama and Democrats want to appease Terrorists

Demonizing? Yes.



"If you listen closely to some of the leaders of the Democratic Party," the President said at another fundraiser Monday in Nevada, "it sounds like they think the best way to protect the American people is -- wait until we're attacked again."

Demonizing? Yes, in much the same way Obama is accused of.

Bush accuses Democrats of caring more about the feelings of liberal activists than the US military.

Demonizing? Yes. Again, much like Obama.

Your first example had this as the second paragraph:

The president did not name Obama or any other Democrat, but White House aides privately acknowledged the remarks were aimed at the presidential candidate and others in his party. Former President Jimmy Carter has called for talks with Hamas.

Now, is that demonizing? Obama himself said he believed appeasing them is a better direction to go. ANd comparing the situation to Hitler hgas nothing to do with Hitler. The truth is, it was believed it best to appease Hitler than antagonize him...who was it...I forgot his name.....dam, I am getting old...or my mother was right when she said "trhem there drugs is gonna killl your brain cells and affect your memory when you get older"

Where did he say that?

Comparing any modern situation or politician to Hitler is demonization no matter how slice and dice it....I don't think you can get around that. hehehe....yer Mom must be right....but that's ok. we can be old farts together

I disagree. There were some great lessons learned by the rise and fall of Hitler....and we should never be afraid to compare our present actions to it...and it has nothing to do with Hitler being a murderer. ANd by no means is Obama a Hitler. But there is one great comparison. They both took power based striclty on Charisma and not based on previous experiences...and by no means based on ideology.

Hitler was an ideologue. He campaigned with charisma and took power due to his charisma. His adversaries let their guard down as his charisma was overwhelming. They learned to regret it.

I wonder where the people of Venezuela would be today iof the opponents of Chavez were smart enough to use the example of Hitler as he was camapaigning.

But I digress.

 

[Coyote]

Demonizing or politics? Honestly, that is the sort of rhetoric that goes on all the time when trying to pass contentious legislation.

Why is it "demonizing" when Obama does that, but not when the right labels "Obamacare" as Marxist, and makes false claims about death panels?



Again - demonizing or politics? Is this any different than what has gone on before? I tend not to think so. Democrats are the party of "tax and spend", Democrats want to spend YOUR money, Democrats are Marxists and Socialists.

What about this?
Demonizing: Bush claiming that Sen. Obama and the Democrats favor policy of appeasement toward terrorists and comparing them to “other U.S. leaders back in the run-up to World War II who appeased the Nazis.”

I believe you unintentionally went off topic.
We are not debating the typical ploys of politics.
We are talking about the President.
Yes, the pundits, the comlumnists, the law makers...all play that game.

My question was when was the last time the PRESIDENT played that game (other than during a campaign).

This is the first President I can recall that lied to the public about the intentions and actions of the opposition. He not only lies, but he does it in an effort to demonize them.....as per my examples.....

No, I'm not trying to go off topic - I think a lot of what you call demonization is the typical sort of politics that go on when legislation is contentious and one or the other parties is acting in an obstructionist way.

Here's another example: Bush attacked the democrats over their unwillingness to go along with tax cuts and social security reform for example. He also called them "the party of cut and run".

Bush: The stakes in this war are high, and so are the stakes this November. Americans face the choice between two parties with two different attitudes on this war on terror. Five years after 9-11, the worst attack on American homeland in our history, the Democrats offer nothing but criticism and obstruction, and endless second-guessing. The party of FDR and the party of Harry Truman has become the party of cut and run.​

That is not exactly true - they've offered other ideas, in much the same way as the Republicans today have done in the healthcare debate. Both that, and the appeasement accusations are, like Obama's - not outright lies maybe, but grossly inaccurate and they came directly from the President.

I see comparisons to Hitler as "demonizing" - they are inflammatory, misleading, and draw implied comparisons to one of the worst mass murderers in modern history- I see most of the rest as normal politics between president and congress.

 

[edthecynic]

Criticizing an ideology based on the credibility of ideas is BY NO MEANS the same as criticizing an ideology based on the character of the people WITH that ideology.

To call a conservative a racist becuase we do not believe in tax payer dollars going to healthcare is not the same as saying that conserrvative thinking is wrong as we all need to help one another.

Is it useful to keep the game going or can we turn our attention to the issues?

We just throw labels at each other and it shuts down the discussion.

I agree...but I am confused.

Conservatives seem to get the racist label quite often. We seem to get the "why do you hate the poor so much" quite often. Exactly how is the right labelling the left?

There's that patented CON$ervative dumb act!

Did the Left coin the word "FemmiNAZI?"

 

[Jarhead]

I believe you unintentionally went off topic.
We are not debating the typical ploys of politics.
We are talking about the President.
Yes, the pundits, the comlumnists, the law makers...all play that game.

My question was when was the last time the PRESIDENT played that game (other than during a campaign).

This is the first President I can recall that lied to the public about the intentions and actions of the opposition. He not only lies, but he does it in an effort to demonize them.....as per my examples.....

No, I'm not trying to go off topic - I think a lot of what you call demonization is the typical sort of politics that go on when legislation is contentious and one or the other parties is acting in an obstructionist way.

Here's another example: Bush attacked the democrats over their unwillingness to go along with tax cuts and social security reform for example. He also called them "the party of cut and run".

Bush: The stakes in this war are high, and so are the stakes this November. Americans face the choice between two parties with two different attitudes on this war on terror. Five years after 9-11, the worst attack on American homeland in our history, the Democrats offer nothing but criticism and obstruction, and endless second-guessing. The party of FDR and the party of Harry Truman has become the party of cut and run.​

That is not exactly true - they've offered other ideas, in much the same way as the Republicans today have done in the healthcare debate. Both that, and the appeasement accusations are, like Obama's - not outright lies maybe, but grossly inaccurate and they came directly from the President.

I see comparisons to Hitler as "demonizing" - they are inflammatory, misleading, and draw implied comparisons to one of the worst mass murderers in modern history- I see most of the rest as normal politics between president and congress.

I trust you noticed that I said UNINENTIonally went off topic. I was not accusing you of going off topic by design..

I do not agree with you that the Hitler comparison is demonizing in itself as I said in an earlier post....I see the comparsion as two leaders chosen based on Charisma......just as Kennedy won as well. But Kennedy was one that panned out well for America and Hitler was one that most certainly didnot pan out well for anyone....well....except historians....

As for the war analogy....Dems voted for the war. When it was not going well, they wanted their names off the "I voted for it" list. There was no debate...they simply wanted to pull out of it.

WHat other ideas were there?

 

[Coyote]

Your first example had this as the second paragraph:

The president did not name Obama or any other Democrat, but White House aides privately acknowledged the remarks were aimed at the presidential candidate and others in his party. Former President Jimmy Carter has called for talks with Hamas.

Now, is that demonizing? Obama himself said he believed appeasing them is a better direction to go. ANd comparing the situation to Hitler hgas nothing to do with Hitler. The truth is, it was believed it best to appease Hitler than antagonize him...who was it...I forgot his name.....dam, I am getting old...or my mother was right when she said "trhem there drugs is gonna killl your brain cells and affect your memory when you get older"

Where did he say that?

Comparing any modern situation or politician to Hitler is demonization no matter how slice and dice it....I don't think you can get around that. hehehe....yer Mom must be right....but that's ok. we can be old farts together

I disagree. There were some great lessons learned by the rise and fall of Hitler....and we should never be afraid to compare our present actions to it...and it has nothing to do with Hitler being a murderer. ANd by no means is Obama a Hitler. But there is one great comparison. They both took power based striclty on Charisma and not based on previous experiences...and by no means based on ideology.

Hitler was an ideologue. He campaigned with charisma and took power due to his charisma. His adversaries let their guard down as his charisma was overwhelming. They learned to regret it.

I wonder where the people of Venezuela would be today iof the opponents of Chavez were smart enough to use the example of Hitler as he was camapaigning.

But I digress.

Yes, there are lessons to be learned - but that is often not the point of comparison when Hitler (or Stalin's) name is invoked. The world situation, the political situation, the cultural situation is very different now, in America, then it was in Germany and Europe between the two wars. If comparisons should be made - they should be done so with an understanding to the context and history involved. Could another Hitler rise again? Human nature being what it is, yes. Is it likely to happen in this country in our life time? Is there any modern figure in this country comparable to Hitler? Despite exagerated claims of "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" - I doubt it. Despite the shrillness of their detractors, despite their personal popularity and charisma amongst their own - neither Bush nor Obama have anything in common with Hitler.

 

[Jarhead]

Is it useful to keep the game going or can we turn our attention to the issues?

We just throw labels at each other and it shuts down the discussion.

I agree...but I am confused.

Conservatives seem to get the racist label quite often. We seem to get the "why do you hate the poor so much" quite often. Exactly how is the right labelling the left?

There's that patented CON$ervative dumb act!

Did the Left coin the word "FemmiNAZI?"

True...and the "unAMerican label as well.

You could have made the same point by simply refuting what I said with the exmaple.

But I guess you feel the need to throw the insult as well....maybe to make you feel superior?

Whatever works for you.

 

[Coyote]

No, I'm not trying to go off topic - I think a lot of what you call demonization is the typical sort of politics that go on when legislation is contentious and one or the other parties is acting in an obstructionist way.

Here's another example: Bush attacked the democrats over their unwillingness to go along with tax cuts and social security reform for example. He also called them "the party of cut and run".

Bush: The stakes in this war are high, and so are the stakes this November. Americans face the choice between two parties with two different attitudes on this war on terror. Five years after 9-11, the worst attack on American homeland in our history, the Democrats offer nothing but criticism and obstruction, and endless second-guessing. The party of FDR and the party of Harry Truman has become the party of cut and run.​

That is not exactly true - they've offered other ideas, in much the same way as the Republicans today have done in the healthcare debate. Both that, and the appeasement accusations are, like Obama's - not outright lies maybe, but grossly inaccurate and they came directly from the President.

I see comparisons to Hitler as "demonizing" - they are inflammatory, misleading, and draw implied comparisons to one of the worst mass murderers in modern history- I see most of the rest as normal politics between president and congress.

I trust you noticed that I said UNINENTIonally went off topic. I was not accusing you of going off topic by design..

Ooops....my brain read "intentionally" and my mouth just ran on

I do not agree with you that the Hitler comparison is demonizing in itself as I said in an earlier post....I see the comparsion as two leaders chosen based on Charisma......just as Kennedy won as well. But Kennedy was one that panned out well for America and Hitler was one that most certainly didnot pan out well for anyone....well....except historians....

As for the war analogy....Dems voted for the war. When it was not going well, they wanted their names off the "I voted for it" list. There was no debate...they simply wanted to pull out of it.[/
WHat other ideas were there?

Not entirely true - they wanted some sort of time line set - goal posts. They were never entirely comfortable with the war, and even more so when it was shown that the intelligence was misleading. Here again, it is little different then the Republicans on the healthcare bill - in both instances, the objections were more complex then simply being obstructionist.

I do see the point you are making on Hitler, but I disagree on it's use in the example I gave. When politicians use a comparison of Hitler against their opponents, they must be aware of the darker implications they are also invoking.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Coyote...

This line from your earlier post:

Demonizing: Bush claiming that Sen. Obama and the Democrats favor policy of appeasement toward terrorists and comparing them to “other U.S. leaders back in the run-up to World War II who appeased the Nazis.”

Obama and the democrats DO favor the appeasement toward terrorists over aggressive action against them. They admit to it and it is very much like what happened right before WW2.

The alternative to 'appeasing' Hitler was attacking him.

Who should we be launching an attack against that we aren't already?

 

[NYcarbineer]

What's wrong with hating a guy like Rush Limbaugh?

 

[Jarhead]

Where did he say that?

Comparing any modern situation or politician to Hitler is demonization no matter how slice and dice it....I don't think you can get around that. hehehe....yer Mom must be right....but that's ok. we can be old farts together

I disagree. There were some great lessons learned by the rise and fall of Hitler....and we should never be afraid to compare our present actions to it...and it has nothing to do with Hitler being a murderer. ANd by no means is Obama a Hitler. But there is one great comparison. They both took power based striclty on Charisma and not based on previous experiences...and by no means based on ideology.

Hitler was an ideologue. He campaigned with charisma and took power due to his charisma. His adversaries let their guard down as his charisma was overwhelming. They learned to regret it.

I wonder where the people of Venezuela would be today iof the opponents of Chavez were smart enough to use the example of Hitler as he was camapaigning.

But I digress.

Yes, there are lessons to be learned - but that is often not the point of comparison when Hitler (or Stalin's) name is invoked. The world situation, the political situation, the cultural situation is very different now, in America, then it was in Germany and Europe between the two wars. If comparisons should be made - they should be done so with an understanding to the context and history involved. Could another Hitler rise again? Human nature being what it is, yes. Is it likely to happen in this country in our life time? Is there any modern figure in this country comparable to Hitler? Despite exagerated claims of "the sky is falling, the sky is falling" - I doubt it. Despite the shrillness of their detractors, despite their personal popularity and charisma amongst their own - neither Bush nor Obama have anything in common with Hitler.

One thing Obama has in common with Hitler that Bush does not have in common with either.....

Obama rose to power based strictly on words and not previous experiences. Only a partisan fool would say that Obama's expoerience is what earned him the election.

He was elected into power based on his charisma.....he had many marks against him that were completely overlooked and ignored by the masses...marks that would have been the downfall of ANY OTHER CANDIDATE.

He made a real estate deal with a convicted felon. That was not so bad alone, but it would have been the downfall of anyone running.

He was found to have lied about his true relationship with Bill Ayers. The lie itself (I did not know the man) would have been the downfall for anyone else. The relationship is another thing all together....and that too would have been the downfall of ANY other candidate.

He admitted to not knowing anything about the personality of the man he referred to as his mentor despite kniwing him for 20 years. This lack of such character reading ability would have been the downfall of ANY other candidate. The lack of credibility of this explanation would have also been the downfall of ANY other candidate.

So why do I say allof this?

Dont be so sure about what may happen in our lifetime. We, as Americans have proven that will we vote for President the same way and with the same amount of thought that we will vote for Americvan Idol.

They did that in Venezuela. DO you think that, 20 years ago, many in that country believed they would be where they are today?

This is not an attack on Obama. To me, he is an ideologue with a vision and likely a two term president ...

Mine is an attack on the thought process of our electorate.

 

[edthecynic]

I always say "there ain't no low that's too low for a demonRat to go but the Tony Snow death came vewy close. they were disgustingly rabid that time.

That must be a loving term of endearment because CON$ are incapable of hate.

 

[edthecynic]

The right criticizes the left for the grandiose ideas......for their thought process.

The left tends to criticize the CHARACTER of the right....not the thinking of the right.

There is a difference. A BIG difference.

There is no difference. The left criticises the right and vice versa.

Criticizing an ideology based on the credibility of ideas is BY NO MEANS the same as criticizing an ideology based on the character of the people WITH that ideology.

To call a conservative a racist becuase we do not believe in tax payer dollars going to healthcare is not the same as saying that conserrvative thinking is wrong as we all need to help one another.

Thursday Quotes: A Lovable Little Fuzzball
October 9, 2008
"I call Obama a squirrel. What's a squirrel? Nothing but a rat with better PR."