The Anger Of The Left

[Birdzeye]

No at all

My opinion is based on the lunacy of liberalism and the arrogrance and hate the left shows on a daily basis

Care to provide some credible evidence to back up those claims?

 

[red states rule]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=48027

and

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/03/13/video-liberals-say-the-most-hateful-things/

 

[loosecannon]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/showthread.php?t=48027

and

http://hotair.com/archives/2007/03/13/video-liberals-say-the-most-hateful-things/

pretty lame evidence.

RSR, would you consider your daily diatribe of lib bashing as hate?

 

[Birdzeye]

pretty lame evidence.

RSR, would you consider your daily diatribe of lib bashing as hate?

I think it's a hoot that he provides a Hannity video about the hateful things liberals say, but is strangely silent about the hate speech against liberals spewed by Coulter and Limbaugh. Selective outrage, anyone?

 

[loosecannon]

I think it's a hoot that he provides a Hannity video about the hateful things liberals say, but is strangely silent about the hate speech against liberals spewed by Coulter and Limbaugh. Selective outrage, anyone?

selective memory too. Or maybe just a double standard about what constitutes hate.

Hating Muslims for example might be exempt, or hating commie fagot lefties (who hate amerka).

 

[mattskramer]

I think it's a hoot that he provides a Hannity video about the hateful things liberals say, but is strangely silent about the hate speech against liberals spewed by Coulter and Limbaugh. Selective outrage, anyone?

It is a simple activity that people like to participate in. They pick a side and vilify the other sides. They see their side as pure and the other side as totally evil. They will find websites that support their prejudice and ignore / downplay evidence to the contrary.

They will have a bias that says that their members are nice and the outsiders are full of hate. Then they will select web sites that show examples of hate speech spoke by their opponents. Yet, they will not provide examples of hate speech spoken by members of their own team. It is simple selection bias and people can play from either end since, for all practicality, each side is guilty of crass rhetoric.

 

[red states rule]

pretty lame evidence.

RSR, would you consider your daily diatribe of lib bashing as hate?

So you have no problem with the over taxed workers in MI to pay for Ipods for all school kids?

 

[red states rule]

I think it's a hoot that he provides a Hannity video about the hateful things liberals say, but is strangely silent about the hate speech against liberals spewed by Coulter and Limbaugh. Selective outrage, anyone?

Ann can be over the top at times, but what "hate" has Rush said on his program?

The truth about libs does not count

 

[red states rule]

selective memory too. Or maybe just a double standard about what constitutes hate.

Hating Muslims for example might be exempt, or hating commie fagot lefties (who hate amerka).

Unlike the left - I do not hate liberals

I see them as misguided, arrogrant, and hot tempered

Those are not reasons to hate them however

 

[Birdzeye]

So you have no problem with the over taxed workers in MI to pay for Ipods for all school kids?

You didn't answer the question.

 

[red states rule]

You didn't answer the question.

Since truth to a liberal is hate speech - why bother?

I guess libs do want the taxpayers to pay for the Ipods

 

[mattskramer]

Ann can be over the top at times, but what "hate" has Rush said on his program?

The truth about libs does not count

Yes, even Rush is guilty of fallacious or downright false accusations in addition to hateful comments.

See http://www.rushlimbaughonline.com/refutingrush/2004apr14a.htm

Insisting that "liberals hate Bush more than the terrorists" is absurd and an insult to thinking people everywhere. Rush should not throw such venomous gibes unless he is prepared to provide names. And even IF he could name a single person who would assert such a thing, how could that mean all liberals hold such a view?

See http://mediamatters.org/issues_topics/people/rushlimbaugh

Limbaugh regularly feeds his audience a diet of falsehoods, misstatements, distortions, invective, and childish put-downs in service of the conservative movement. During his long reign over the airwaves, Limbaugh has called abortion rights activists "feminazis", told an African-American caller to "take that bone out of your nose," referred to prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib as "blow[ing] some steam off, " and declared that "what's good for Al Qaeda is good for the Democratic Party."

http://www.now.org/nnt/special-2001/hatespeech.html

Rush Limbaugh surprised just about everyone when he castigated Falwell and Robertson, telling his radio listeners he was "profoundly embarrassed and disappointed by their comments," and that "their words are indefensible." A day later, however, Limbaugh found a new (and particularly chilling) way to defend Falwell. He explained: "In order for me to believe that God was sending America a message, I would need to be shown that the people who died Tuesday were all members of the NOW gang, or abortionists, civil libertarians, et cetera." In other words, if only those who disagree had been killed – then it would be the work of the deity that Limbaugh, Falwell and Robertson believe in.

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=55182

On Aug. 23, 2006, Limbaugh commented on a season of CBS' reality TV program "Survivor" in which contestants were originally divided into competing "tribes" by ethnicity. Limbaugh said the contest was "not going to be fair if there's a lot of water events" and suggested that "blacks can't swim" – a reference to a statement that got former Los Angeles Dodgers General Manager Al Campanis fired in 1987…

On June 14, 2004, Limbaugh shared his "pet name" for the National Organization for Women: "National Association of Gals" (his acronym: "NAG").

http://www.americablog.com/search/label/rush limbaugh

"Barack, the Magic Negro" - a new song played on the Rush Limbaugh show…

Rush Limbaugh says Virginia Tech mass murderer 'had to be a liberal"

Gee. That was easy.

 

[Bern80]

Compete?

with who ?

The corporate whores like Limpballs or Cultwhore?

I can understand why you dont want the fairness doctrine back it makes it so people using the airwaves have to give all sides to a story instead of just the corporate propaganda.

Why would you want to 'make' anybody listen to anything? I guess you could legilate that there be equal time, but that's it. You can't make anyone listen to it.

The assumptions of those who are attempting to implement this would have to be many for it to make any sense:

- What reason is there for it unless you assume that because people listen to it they must agree with it?

- What reason is there for it unless you assume that people will actually listen to whatever time the government legislates for libs?

- What reason is there for it unless you assume that you are simply smarter than the people listening now and this is just for their own good?

 

[Bern80]

Care to provide some credible evidence to back up those claims?

I would say our very own Truthmatters is a shinning example of the arrogance part at least.

 

[Birdzeye]

I would say our very own Truthmatters is a shinning example of the arrogance part at least.

But nobody can hold a candle to RSR in the arrogance department.

 

[mattskramer]

But nobody can hold a candle to RSR in the arrogance department.

True but I can handle arrogance. What disappoints me is that he practically refuses to admit any “mea culpa” or back up stuff that he posts at any consistency.

 

[Truthmatters]

Why would you want to 'make' anybody listen to anything? I guess you could legilate that there be equal time, but that's it. You can't make anyone listen to it.

The assumptions of those who are attempting to implement this would have to be many for it to make any sense:

- What reason is there for it unless you assume that because people listen to it they must agree with it?

- What reason is there for it unless you assume that people will actually listen to whatever time the government legislates for libs?

- What reason is there for it unless you assume that you are simply smarter than the people listening now and this is just for their own good?

I see someone has never actually read the fairness doctrine

 

[Truthmatters]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fairness_Doctrine

 

[Truthmatters]

http://www.epic.org/free_speech/red_lion.html

here is the SC case about its upholding

 

[Bern80]

I see someone has never actually read the fairness doctrine

Nice dodge. What about my post has anything to do with the substance, or anything at all for that matter, of the fairness doctrine?

Your constant assuming of things is only digging your hold deeper.