What Liberals REALLY think about us Conservatives

[edthecynic]

On another thread, a member is discussing the President's recent description of those who oppose his policies as 'the enemy'. Earlier today, my opposition to his policies was described as 'obnoxious'.

What do liberals really think about conservatives? Do you conservatives care? Does being described as an 'enemy of the state' or a 'child throwing a temper tantrum' or 'not grasping reality' make you more introspective or inspired to rethink your opinions or attitudes? How about being called names or described in other unflattering terms?

Discuss.

More here:
It?s Not Only the Economy, Stupid | BernardGoldberg.com

Bernard Goldberg?

Please.

No one will ever accuse him of relying (primarily) on anything as inconvenient as the facts.

He's never been the same, since he had to (actually) start competing with women & minorities , in his lil' world o' journalism.

Man Up, Bernie ol' boy!!​

Well you know what? I trust Goldberg to stick to the facts a hell of lot more than I trust Media Matters. Or for that matter those who look to Media Matters for their facts.

And that's exactly why you are always wrong! You are incapable or unwilling to tell who is lying to you. Goldberg lies to you and you swallow it whole and you condemn and mistrust anyone who exposes his lies to you.

You pretend to care about context, but when Goldberg takes a quote out of context, and then goes even farther and switches the order of his out of context quotes to make it look like his out of context quote is a reply to another quote, you mistrust anyone who might show you the transcript with the quotes in context and in their proper order.

For example:
From the liar's book, "A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (And Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media," the pathological CON$ervative liar gives this "quote"

ROSE: What do we know about the heroes of Barack Obama?

BROKAW: There's a lot about him we don't know.

The liar makes it look like Brokaw is talking about Obama, he wasn't! Brokaw was talking about what CON$ say about Obama. And it looks like Brokaw was answering Rose's question, he wasn't. Brokaw stated the quote about CON$ BEFORE Rose's question.

Here is the transcript of the show with the liar Goldberg's quotes in red:

ROSE: Exactly, two of them, two books. What do you make of him? Tell me what you see there, because I was talking to a friend of mine, and he said, I see someone who is clearly aspirational, someone who is clearly bright, someone who is clearly ambitious in the best sense of that, but who is clearly cautious. And in the end, he may very well be a man of the center.

BROKAW: He is a very interesting figure in American politics. He has made very few false steps along the way, when you think about this long, difficult road that he has been on --- against the Clinton machine first, and the appearances he has made all over the country.

Sure, he has hit some speed bumps, and there are conservative commentators who say there is a lot about him we don't know because we haven't asked enough tough questions --- the Bill Ayers relationship --- even those who say we've got to go back and explore what his drug use was.

[...]

ROSE: All right. We know people sometimes by the books that they read, heroes they have. We know John McCain, for example, enormously admires Teddy Roosevelt, probably more than anyone else
in a political sense, and really wanted to run a campaign, you know, in which Teddy would be his model --- Teddy Roosevelt.

What do we know about the heroes of Barack Obama --

BROKAW: He likes Justice --

ROSE: --- the books?

BROKAW: Well, he --- Thurgood Marshall is a big hero of his. He has got a picture of him in his office.

ROSE: Now was that because of his central role in arguing Brown versus Board of Education?

BROKAW: Well, I think that --- remember Barack Obama went to Harvard Law School and taught at the University of Chicago, and there was no greater legal figure in the African-American community or in those times when America was changing than Thurgood Marshall. So, that makes perfect sense.

You see, unlike you and your fellow travelers, I show what the correct context is when I say "out of context,"

 

[Foxfyre]

And Lord give me strength to not feed the trolls, not argue with idiots, and not engage in exercises in futility.

And I have found it futile to argue with those who use hate sites for sources, who take almost everything out of context and use it dishonestly over and over and over and in huge type at that. I have learned not to waste my time . Thank you for understanding.

 

[Two Thumbs]

Had George Bush used that 'enemies' line, he would still be crucified for it.

Obviously you are pretending to have missed this below which was posted earlier:

Government Targets American Bloggers As Enemy Propagandists

Military, Homeland Security, Bush White House strategy sharpen knives against anyone critical of the "war on terror"

Recent scientific polls that show around 84% don't believe the government's explanation behind 9/11 and others confirming the fact that support for the war in Iraq is at an all time low have led the Bush administration to sharpen their knives against the new breed of perceived "enemy propagandists," bloggers, journalists and online activists who dissent against the "war on terror."

The White House has made it perfectly clear that it will target American citizens for propagating information harmful to the interests of the U.S. government and classify them as enemy combatants. This is codified in sub-section 27 of section 950v. of the Military Commissions Act of 2006.​

Bush's own strategy document for "winning the war on terror" identifies "conspiracy theorists," meaning anyone who exposes government corruption and lies about major domestic and world events, as "terrorists recruiters," and vows to eliminate their influence in society.​

In a speech given Monday, Homeland Security director Michael Chertoff identified the web as a "terror training camp," through which "disaffected people living in the United States" are developing "radical ideologies and potentially violent skills."​

Chertoff has pledged to dispatch Homeland Security agents to local police departments in order to aid in the apprehension of domestic terrorists who use the Internet as a political tool.



​

The Bush administration's media mouthpieces have also been mobilized to stereotype any kind of critical thinking as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy," a recent case in point beingFox News' Bill O'Reilly calling for the FBI to investigate the 9/11 Scholars organization for possible ties to terrorist organizations.

I tried to read that word for word, but bullshit hurts my eyes.

No where on there did it state the Bush declared any group of people as enemies. Would you copy and paste with links to a non-partisan rhettoric site that show that Bush said any American is an Enemy. And not broken quotes either, that's all bullshit and lies.

 

[edthecynic]

Bernard Goldberg?

Please.

No one will ever accuse him of relying (primarily) on anything as inconvenient as the facts.

He's never been the same, since he had to (actually) start competing with women & minorities , in his lil' world o' journalism.

Man Up, Bernie ol' boy!!​

Well you know what? I trust Goldberg to stick to the facts a hell of lot more than I trust Media Matters. Or for that matter those who look to Media Matters for their facts.

And that's exactly why you are always wrong! You are incapable or unwilling to tell who is lying to you. Goldberg lies to you and you swallow it whole and you condemn and mistrust anyone who exposes his lies to you.

You pretend to care about context, but when Goldberg takes a quote out of context, and then goes even farther and switches the order of his out of context quotes to make it look like his out of context quote is a reply to another quote, you mistrust anyone who might show you the transcript with the quotes in context and in their proper order.

For example:
From the liar's book, "A Slobbering Love Affair: The True (And Pathetic) Story of the Torrid Romance Between Barack Obama and the Mainstream Media," the pathological CON$ervative liar gives this "quote"

ROSE: What do we know about the heroes of Barack Obama?

BROKAW: There's a lot about him we don't know.

The liar makes it look like Brokaw is talking about Obama, he wasn't! Brokaw was talking about what CON$ say about Obama. And it looks like Brokaw was answering Rose's question, he wasn't. Brokaw stated the quote about CON$ BEFORE Rose's question.

Here is the transcript of the show with the liar Goldberg's quotes in red:

ROSE: Exactly, two of them, two books. What do you make of him? Tell me what you see there, because I was talking to a friend of mine, and he said, I see someone who is clearly aspirational, someone who is clearly bright, someone who is clearly ambitious in the best sense of that, but who is clearly cautious. And in the end, he may very well be a man of the center.

BROKAW: He is a very interesting figure in American politics. He has made very few false steps along the way, when you think about this long, difficult road that he has been on --- against the Clinton machine first, and the appearances he has made all over the country.

Sure, he has hit some speed bumps, and there are conservative commentators who say there is a lot about him we don't know because we haven't asked enough tough questions --- the Bill Ayers relationship --- even those who say we've got to go back and explore what his drug use was.

[...]

ROSE: All right. We know people sometimes by the books that they read, heroes they have. We know John McCain, for example, enormously admires Teddy Roosevelt, probably more than anyone else
in a political sense, and really wanted to run a campaign, you know, in which Teddy would be his model --- Teddy Roosevelt.

What do we know about the heroes of Barack Obama --

BROKAW: He likes Justice --

ROSE: --- the books?

BROKAW: Well, he --- Thurgood Marshall is a big hero of his. He has got a picture of him in his office.

ROSE: Now was that because of his central role in arguing Brown versus Board of Education?

BROKAW: Well, I think that --- remember Barack Obama went to Harvard Law School and taught at the University of Chicago, and there was no greater legal figure in the African-American community or in those times when America was changing than Thurgood Marshall. So, that makes perfect sense.

You see, unlike you and your fellow travelers, I show what the correct context is when I say "out of context,"

And Lord give me strength to not feed the trolls, not argue with idiots, and not engage in exercises in futility.

And I have found it futile to argue with those who use hate sites for sources, who take almost everything out of context and use it dishonestly over and over and over and in huge type at that. I have learned not to waste my time . Thank you for understanding.

Thank you for the bump.

Your post is a perfect example of projection as indicated in the first quote in my sig. You used Goldberg's hate site as a source, who as I proved "takes almost everything out of context and uses it dishonestly," and you call the actual TRANSCRIPT from the Charlie Rose Show "out of context" and from a "hate site."

 

[edthecynic]

Had George Bush used that 'enemies' line, he would still be crucified for it.

Obviously you are pretending to have missed this below which was posted earlier:

Government Targets American Bloggers As Enemy Propagandists

Military, Homeland Security, Bush White House strategy sharpen knives against anyone critical of the "war on terror"

Recent scientific polls that show around 84% don't believe the government's explanation behind 9/11 and others confirming the fact that support for the war in Iraq is at an all time low have led the Bush administration to sharpen their knives against the new breed of perceived "enemy propagandists," bloggers, journalists and online activists who dissent against the "war on terror."

The White House has made it perfectly clear that it will target American citizens for propagating information harmful to the interests of the U.S. government and classify them as enemy combatants. This is codified in sub-section 27 of section 950v. of the Military Commissions Act of 2006.​

Bush's own strategy document for "winning the war on terror" identifies "conspiracy theorists," meaning anyone who exposes government corruption and lies about major domestic and world events, as "terrorists recruiters," and vows to eliminate their influence in society.​

In a speech given Monday, Homeland Security director Michael Chertoff identified the web as a "terror training camp," through which "disaffected people living in the United States" are developing "radical ideologies and potentially violent skills."​

Chertoff has pledged to dispatch Homeland Security agents to local police departments in order to aid in the apprehension of domestic terrorists who use the Internet as a political tool.



​

The Bush administration's media mouthpieces have also been mobilized to stereotype any kind of critical thinking as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy," a recent case in point beingFox News' Bill O'Reilly calling for the FBI to investigate the 9/11 Scholars organization for possible ties to terrorist organizations.

I tried to read that word for word, but bullshit hurts my eyes.

No where on there did it state the Bush declared any group of people as enemies. Would you copy and paste with links to a non-partisan rhettoric site that show that Bush said any American is an Enemy. And not broken quotes either, that's all bullshit and lies.

TRY HARDER!!!!

It says Bush CODIFIED targeting American citizens as enemy combatants.

 

[sangha]

And Lord give me strength to not feed the trolls, not argue with idiots, and not engage in exercises in futility.

And I have found it futile to argue with those who use hate sites for sources, who take almost everything out of context and use it dishonestly over and over and over and in huge type at that. I have learned not to waste my time . Thank you for understanding.

That explains why people here are ignoring you

BTW, did you ever find that post where Obama calls someone the "enemy" or were you hoping I'd forget that you ran away from the question the last time I asked it?

 

[sangha]

Obviously you are pretending to have missed this below which was posted earlier:

Government Targets American Bloggers As Enemy Propagandists

Military, Homeland Security, Bush White House strategy sharpen knives against anyone critical of the "war on terror"

Recent scientific polls that show around 84% don't believe the government's explanation behind 9/11 and others confirming the fact that support for the war in Iraq is at an all time low have led the Bush administration to sharpen their knives against the new breed of perceived "enemy propagandists," bloggers, journalists and online activists who dissent against the "war on terror."

The White House has made it perfectly clear that it will target American citizens for propagating information harmful to the interests of the U.S. government and classify them as enemy combatants. This is codified in sub-section 27 of section 950v. of the Military Commissions Act of 2006.​

Bush's own strategy document for "winning the war on terror" identifies "conspiracy theorists," meaning anyone who exposes government corruption and lies about major domestic and world events, as "terrorists recruiters," and vows to eliminate their influence in society.​

In a speech given Monday, Homeland Security director Michael Chertoff identified the web as a "terror training camp," through which "disaffected people living in the United States" are developing "radical ideologies and potentially violent skills."​

Chertoff has pledged to dispatch Homeland Security agents to local police departments in order to aid in the apprehension of domestic terrorists who use the Internet as a political tool.



​

The Bush administration's media mouthpieces have also been mobilized to stereotype any kind of critical thinking as "giving aid and comfort to the enemy," a recent case in point beingFox News' Bill O'Reilly calling for the FBI to investigate the 9/11 Scholars organization for possible ties to terrorist organizations.

I tried to read that word for word, but bullshit hurts my eyes.

No where on there did it state the Bush declared any group of people as enemies. Would you copy and paste with links to a non-partisan rhettoric site that show that Bush said any American is an Enemy. And not broken quotes either, that's all bullshit and lies.

TRY HARDER!!!!

It says Bush CODIFIED targeting American citizens as enemy combatants.

Just because he called american citizens "enemy combatants" and targeted them for assisination, that doesn't mean that he called an american an "enemy"

signed
a wingnut

 

[razorback]

The essence of liberalism is the belief that the average American is a rather stupid child who doesn't know what's good for him, and that the government (meaning liberals) need to tell him what to do and what to think. I, for one, resent the attitude held by liberals that I am such an idiot that I shouldn't be allowed to think for myself. I doubt that I am the only one who feels this way.

 

[edthecynic]

The essence of liberalism is the belief that the average American is a rather stupid child who doesn't know what's good for him, and that the government (meaning liberals) need to tell him what to do and what to think. I, for one, resent the attitude held by liberals that I am such an idiot that I shouldn't be allowed to think for myself. I doubt that I am the only one who feels this way.

The essence of CON$ervatism is to lie about Liberalism, and everything else for that matter.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

And Lord give me strength to not feed the trolls, not argue with idiots, and not engage in exercises in futility.

And I have found it futile to argue with those who use hate sites for sources, who take almost everything out of context and use it dishonestly over and over and over and in huge type at that. I have learned not to waste my time . Thank you for understanding.

That explains why people here are ignoring you

BTW, did you ever find that post where Obama calls someone the "enemy" or were you hoping I'd forget that you ran away from the question the last time I asked it?

Obama Calls His Critics "Enemies"

 

[edthecynic]

And Lord give me strength to not feed the trolls, not argue with idiots, and not engage in exercises in futility.

And I have found it futile to argue with those who use hate sites for sources, who take almost everything out of context and use it dishonestly over and over and over and in huge type at that. I have learned not to waste my time . Thank you for understanding.

That explains why people here are ignoring you

BTW, did you ever find that post where Obama calls someone the "enemy" or were you hoping I'd forget that you ran away from the question the last time I asked it?

Obama Calls His Critics "Enemies"

No he didn't. He called the GOP the enemy of Latinos.

 

[rikules]

On another thread, a member is discussing the President's recent description of those who oppose his policies as 'the enemy'. Earlier today, my opposition to his policies was described as 'obnoxious'.

What do liberals really think about conservatives? Do you conservatives care? Does being described as an 'enemy of the state' or a 'child throwing a temper tantrum' or 'not grasping reality' make you more introspective or inspired to rethink your opinions or attitudes? How about being called names or described in other unflattering terms?

Discuss.

The problem, my friends, is US!

Let’s start with the brilliant analysis of Eugene Robinson, the Pulitzer Prize winner who writes a column for the Washington Post. In a piece that runs under the charming headline "The Spoiled-Brat American Electorate”, Robinson writes that, “According to polls, Americans are in a mood to hold their breath until they turn blue. Voters appear to be so fed up with the Democrats that they’re ready to toss them out in favor of the Republicans — for whom, according to those same polls, the nation has even greater contempt. This isn’t an ‘electoral wave,’ it’s a temper tantrum.”

Who knew that Eugene Robinson wasn’t merely a brilliant journalist, but a brilliant psychoanalyst too. The voters are reverting to their childhood. They are scared and in desperate need of a security blanket, which they have sadly found in the Republican Party. “In the punditry business,” Mr. Robinson writes, “it’s considered bad form to question the essential wisdom of the American people. But at this point, it’s impossible to ignore the obvious: The American people are acting like a bunch of spoiled brats.”

Funny how those very same American people weren’t spoiled brats at all when they voted for Eugene Robison’s candidate in the 2008 presidential election. As long as the voters were slobbering over Barrack Obama, everything was just fine. But once the swooning ended, once the voters came back down to Earth, well, that’s when they morphed into spoiled brats throwing a tantrum.

Eugene Robinson didn’t come up with this idea all by himself. Peter Jennings made precisely the same point in 1994 after the Republicans won control of both Houses of Congress for the first time since the 1950s. “Some thoughts on those angry voters,” Jennings said in a radio commentary. “Ask parents of any two-year-old and they can tell you about those temper tantrums: the stomping feet, the rolling eyes, the screaming. It’s clear that the anger controls the child and not the other way around. It’s the job of the parent to teach the child to control the anger and channel it in a positive way. Imagine a nation full of uncontrolled two-year-old rage. The voters had a temper tantrum last week. …Parenting and governing don’t have to be dirty words: the nation can’t be run by an angry two-year-old.”Ah, but Eugene Robinson and Peter Jennings are hardly alone. There are other brilliant pundits who have been examining the sad little mind of the American voter. In the New York Times, Maureen Dowd came to realize that what was ailing America was … Americans. Obama, in this view, was the wise grownup stuck with the unenviable task of governing a nation filled with fearful, mental defects. “The dispute over the Islamic center has tripped some deep national lunacy,” she wrote. “Obama is the head of the dysfunctional family of America, a rational man running a most irrational nation, a high-minded man in a low-minded age. The country is having some weird mass nervous breakdown.”

And in Newsweek, another liberal, columnist Jonathan Alter, concluded that the American people simply do not know what’s good for them. They “aren’t rationally aligning belief and action; they’re tempted to lose their spleens in the polling place without fully grasping the consequences,” he wrote.

Still another liberal elite, Jacob Weisberg of Slate, the on-line magazine, wrote that “The biggest culprit in our current predicament,” he wrote, is the “childishness, ignorance, and growing incoherence of the public at large.” He is referring to the tendency of some voters to want it both ways: give us more stuff but cut our taxes; we want government to fix our problems at the same time we want government to shrink. Let’s be fair: there is something to his argument.

Still, the view is taking over among the liberal media elite that the voters – yes, that means you! — are acting out. And yes, the voters – you again! — are throwing a tantrum. You are children — and not too smart children at that. Of course, there’s a pretty good chance that you would get well in the proverbial New York minute if only you went back into your trance and fell in love with Obama and the Democrats all over again. And did you notice? The pundits didn’t write columns about voter temper tantrums and the like when they sent the Republicans packing in 2006 and 2008. I guess they’re only tantrums worth writing about when the voters turn on their fellow liberal Democrats.

More here:
It?s Not Only the Economy, Stupid | BernardGoldberg.com

"What do liberals really think about conservatives? Do you conservatives care? Does being described as an 'enemy of the state' or a 'child throwing a temper tantrum' or 'not grasping reality' make you more introspective or inspired to rethink your opinions or attitudes? How about being called names or described in other unflattering terms?"


I'd consider this more of an actual issue if it weren't for the FACT that conservatives think and say the same things (or worse) about liberals.


liberals are the ENEMY
liberals are TRAITORS
liberals are MINDLESS, STUPID, MORONS
liberals hate GOD, FREEDOM, the TRUTH, AMERICA
liberals are SCUM, SLIME.....
democrats are DEMONcRATS


when cons stop mocking, ridiculing and insulting (name calling) liberals THEN you can whine about liberals doing it


---------------------


apparently in the conservative culture war on all things NOT conservative it's perfectly ok for cons to insult, mock and ridicule liberals (which is ALWAYS spun as "opinion" and "free speech")

but when liberals voice THEIR "opinions" and "free speech" it is ALWAYS spun as "personal attacks and insults"

personally I wish BOTH sides would behave better.

 

[rikules]

On another thread, a member is discussing the President's recent description of those who oppose his policies as 'the enemy'. Earlier today, my opposition to his policies was described as 'obnoxious'.

What do liberals really think about conservatives? Do you conservatives care? Does being described as an 'enemy of the state' or a 'child throwing a temper tantrum' or 'not grasping reality' make you more introspective or inspired to rethink your opinions or attitudes? How about being called names or described in other unflattering terms?

Discuss.

The problem, my friends, is US!

Let’s start with the brilliant analysis of Eugene Robinson, the Pulitzer Prize winner who writes a column for the Washington Post. In a piece that runs under the charming headline "The Spoiled-Brat American Electorate”, Robinson writes that, “According to polls, Americans are in a mood to hold their breath until they turn blue. Voters appear to be so fed up with the Democrats that they’re ready to toss them out in favor of the Republicans — for whom, according to those same polls, the nation has even greater contempt. This isn’t an ‘electoral wave,’ it’s a temper tantrum.”

Who knew that Eugene Robinson wasn’t merely a brilliant journalist, but a brilliant psychoanalyst too. The voters are reverting to their childhood. They are scared and in desperate need of a security blanket, which they have sadly found in the Republican Party. “In the punditry business,” Mr. Robinson writes, “it’s considered bad form to question the essential wisdom of the American people. But at this point, it’s impossible to ignore the obvious: The American people are acting like a bunch of spoiled brats.”

Funny how those very same American people weren’t spoiled brats at all when they voted for Eugene Robison’s candidate in the 2008 presidential election. As long as the voters were slobbering over Barrack Obama, everything was just fine. But once the swooning ended, once the voters came back down to Earth, well, that’s when they morphed into spoiled brats throwing a tantrum.

Eugene Robinson didn’t come up with this idea all by himself. Peter Jennings made precisely the same point in 1994 after the Republicans won control of both Houses of Congress for the first time since the 1950s. “Some thoughts on those angry voters,” Jennings said in a radio commentary. “Ask parents of any two-year-old and they can tell you about those temper tantrums: the stomping feet, the rolling eyes, the screaming. It’s clear that the anger controls the child and not the other way around. It’s the job of the parent to teach the child to control the anger and channel it in a positive way. Imagine a nation full of uncontrolled two-year-old rage. The voters had a temper tantrum last week. …Parenting and governing don’t have to be dirty words: the nation can’t be run by an angry two-year-old.”Ah, but Eugene Robinson and Peter Jennings are hardly alone. There are other brilliant pundits who have been examining the sad little mind of the American voter. In the New York Times, Maureen Dowd came to realize that what was ailing America was … Americans. Obama, in this view, was the wise grownup stuck with the unenviable task of governing a nation filled with fearful, mental defects. “The dispute over the Islamic center has tripped some deep national lunacy,” she wrote. “Obama is the head of the dysfunctional family of America, a rational man running a most irrational nation, a high-minded man in a low-minded age. The country is having some weird mass nervous breakdown.”

And in Newsweek, another liberal, columnist Jonathan Alter, concluded that the American people simply do not know what’s good for them. They “aren’t rationally aligning belief and action; they’re tempted to lose their spleens in the polling place without fully grasping the consequences,” he wrote.

Still another liberal elite, Jacob Weisberg of Slate, the on-line magazine, wrote that “The biggest culprit in our current predicament,” he wrote, is the “childishness, ignorance, and growing incoherence of the public at large.” He is referring to the tendency of some voters to want it both ways: give us more stuff but cut our taxes; we want government to fix our problems at the same time we want government to shrink. Let’s be fair: there is something to his argument.

Still, the view is taking over among the liberal media elite that the voters – yes, that means you! — are acting out. And yes, the voters – you again! — are throwing a tantrum. You are children — and not too smart children at that. Of course, there’s a pretty good chance that you would get well in the proverbial New York minute if only you went back into your trance and fell in love with Obama and the Democrats all over again. And did you notice? The pundits didn’t write columns about voter temper tantrums and the like when they sent the Republicans packing in 2006 and 2008. I guess they’re only tantrums worth writing about when the voters turn on their fellow liberal Democrats.

More here:
It?s Not Only the Economy, Stupid | BernardGoldberg.com

#
Urban Dictionary: Liberal Scum
Feb 28, 2007 ... The definition of a flip-flopping, hypocritical politian who would rather prove conservatives wrong then take care of the nation's problems.
Urban Dictionary: Liberal Scum - Cached - Similar
#
Images for liberal scum
- Report imagesThank you for the feedback. Report another imagePlease report the offensive image. CancelDone
#
Politik Ditto: Liberal Scum Respond To FOX News
What else would you expect from the so-called "tolerant" crowd? Posted by Mr. Grey Ghost at 7:48 PM. Labels: FOX News, Liberal Scum ...
www.politikditto.com/2008/.../liberal-scum-respond-to-fox-news.html - Cached
#
Streetsblog New York City » Ungrateful Liberal Scum, “We Do Not ...
Mar 28, 2007 ... I put my life on the line for the ungreatful liberal scum of this city and this is how they repay us. Screw you and you whining. ...
Streetsblog New York City Ungrateful Liberal Scum, “We Do Not Summons Our Own.” - Cached - Similar
#
Cynic - The Truth Hurts: LEFT-WING LIBERAL SCUM
Jun 4, 2007 ... LEFT-WING LIBERAL SCUM. I've just finished reading a “Review” of “The Great Betrayal” by Ian Smith on the Amazon website. ...
theafricanstrugglemyth.blogspot.com/.../left-wing-liberal-scum.html - Cached - Similar
#
Videos for liberal scum
O'Reilly Factor - Laura Ingraham Exposing ...
10 min - May 2, 2009


"Liberal Scum!"
5 min - Dec 8, 2008
Uploaded by ArcanusMemoria
youtube.com
#
Ft. Hard Knox − Right Videos: Liberal Scum; I Only Sleep With ...
Right Videos: Liberal Scum; I Only Sleep With Democrats. Posted June 27th, 2008 by Orlando. These right videos include: 1) Liberal Scumbags Boo and Raise ...
forthardknox.com/.../right-videos-liberal-scum-i-only-sleep-with-democrats/ - Cached - Similar
#
EXPOSING LIBERAL SCUM
paulrevere.blogtownhall.com/ - Similar
#
Die Liberal Scum Bumper Sticker from Zazzle.com
Aug 31, 2007 ... 24 Hour Shipping on most orders. Die Liberal Scum Bumper Sticker created by nascrugger. Order this design as is, or customize it to your ...
Die Liberal Scum Bumper Sticker from Zazzle.com - Cached - Similar
#
Sound Politics: "Liberal Scum"
Oct 7, 2004 ... UPDATE: Comments Adam points out that it would be more correct to interpret the "liberal scum" comment as referring to Brodeur herself: ...
Sound Politics: "Liberal Scum" - Cached - Similar


#
Liberal traitors
Aug 23, 2007 ... Liberals are traitors – at least the self-conscious ones are. And it is not because they hate Bush or disagree with the Iraq war. ...
Liberal traitors - Cached
#
No joke: Tell me why liberal traitors LOVE the 9/11 terrorist attacks
Dec 23, 2009 ... PLEASE READ BEFORE YOU REPLY *** It was a Tuesday that I will not forget. Seeing those majestic Twin Towers that reached for the sky, ...
www.sodahead.com/united...liberal-traitors.../question-788827/ - Cached
#
Daily Pundit » Cabal of Liberal Traitors
Cabal of Liberal Traitors. April 26th 2006 Uncategorized · OpinionJournal - Featured Article. We're as curious as anyone to see how Ms. McCarthy's case ...
dailypundit.com/?p=7608 - Cached
#
Great Quote from Lincoln on Liberal Traitors
12 posts - Last post: Dec 9, 2005
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Media/Homepage/lincoln.gif.
www.myopenforum.com/.../showthread.php?2306...Liberal-Traitors - Cached
Get more discussion results
#
Videos for liberal traitors
Liberal Hollywood Traitors Make Terrorist ...
2 min - Nov 6, 2007
Uploaded by HollywoodHarm
youtube.com

sick of liberal traitors and terrorists
1 min - Sep 20, 2010
Uploaded by GlocKittyXe
youtube.com
#
Blasts at liberal 'traitors' win US book war | World news | The ...
Jul 27, 2003 ... Big publishers cash in as right-wing polemics sell in their thousands.
Blasts at liberal 'traitors' win US book war | World news | The Observer - Cached
#
Conservatives for American Values: Liberal Traitors: Stop Burning ...
Jul 3, 2006 ... Liberal Traitors: Stop Burning American Flags. by Michael Gregory Steele and Herman B. Hayes. As anyone who actually loves America knows, ...
cfav.blogspot.com/.../liberal-traitors-stop-burning-american.html - Cached - Similar
#
Re: Blackwater exonerated. Liberal traitors in tears
Jan 1, 2010 ... Re: Blackwater exonerated. Liberal traitors in tears. From: Sueki Tartridge. Re: Blackwater exonerated. Liberal traitors in tears ...
newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Alt/alt.politics/.../msg00067.html - Cached
#
My ltte on 'Liberal Traitors' - Democratic Underground
6 posts - 5 authors - Last post: Dec 11
Karl Rove, President Bush's political advisor, said that liberals were traitors because “…they want to see the troops harmed. ...
Democratic Underground... - Cached
Get more discussion results
#
Are these Liberal traitors in favour of allowing everyone to come ...
Sep 2, 2007 ... These same soft Liberals that care nothing for The British family of ... Yes, aswell as and angry, and more determined then ever to go out and ...
uk.answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid... - United Kingdom - Cached

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

Why the hell would/should I care what the oblivious opposition thinks of me?

 

[WillowTree]

on another thread, a member is discussing the president's recent description of those who oppose his policies as 'the enemy'. Earlier today, my opposition to his policies was described as 'obnoxious'.

What do liberals really think about conservatives? Do you conservatives care? Does being described as an 'enemy of the state' or a 'child throwing a temper tantrum' or 'not grasping reality' make you more introspective or inspired to rethink your opinions or attitudes? How about being called names or described in other unflattering terms?

Discuss.

the problem, my friends, is us!

Let’s start with the brilliant analysis of eugene robinson, the pulitzer prize winner who writes a column for the washington post. In a piece that runs under the charming headline "the spoiled-brat american electorate”, robinson writes that, “according to polls, americans are in a mood to hold their breath until they turn blue. Voters appear to be so fed up with the democrats that they’re ready to toss them out in favor of the republicans — for whom, according to those same polls, the nation has even greater contempt. This isn’t an ‘electoral wave,’ it’s a temper tantrum.”

who knew that eugene robinson wasn’t merely a brilliant journalist, but a brilliant psychoanalyst too. The voters are reverting to their childhood. They are scared and in desperate need of a security blanket, which they have sadly found in the republican party. “in the punditry business,” mr. Robinson writes, “it’s considered bad form to question the essential wisdom of the american people. But at this point, it’s impossible to ignore the obvious: The american people are acting like a bunch of spoiled brats.”

funny how those very same american people weren’t spoiled brats at all when they voted for eugene robison’s candidate in the 2008 presidential election. as long as the voters were slobbering over barrack obama, everything was just fine. But once the swooning ended, once the voters came back down to earth, well, that’s when they morphed into spoiled brats throwing a tantrum.

eugene robinson didn’t come up with this idea all by himself. Peter jennings made precisely the same point in 1994 after the republicans won control of both houses of congress for the first time since the 1950s. “some thoughts on those angry voters,” jennings said in a radio commentary. “ask parents of any two-year-old and they can tell you about those temper tantrums: The stomping feet, the rolling eyes, the screaming. It’s clear that the anger controls the child and not the other way around. It’s the job of the parent to teach the child to control the anger and channel it in a positive way. Imagine a nation full of uncontrolled two-year-old rage. The voters had a temper tantrum last week. …parenting and governing don’t have to be dirty words: The nation can’t be run by an angry two-year-old.”ah, but eugene robinson and peter jennings are hardly alone. There are other brilliant pundits who have been examining the sad little mind of the american voter. In the new york times, maureen dowd came to realize that what was ailing america was … americans. Obama, in this view, was the wise grownup stuck with the unenviable task of governing a nation filled with fearful, mental defects. “the dispute over the islamic center has tripped some deep national lunacy,” she wrote. “obama is the head of the dysfunctional family of america, a rational man running a most irrational nation, a high-minded man in a low-minded age. The country is having some weird mass nervous breakdown.”

and in newsweek, another liberal, columnist jonathan alter, concluded that the american people simply do not know what’s good for them. They “aren’t rationally aligning belief and action; they’re tempted to lose their spleens in the polling place without fully grasping the consequences,” he wrote.

Still another liberal elite, jacob weisberg of slate, the on-line magazine, wrote that “the biggest culprit in our current predicament,” he wrote, is the “childishness, ignorance, and growing incoherence of the public at large.” he is referring to the tendency of some voters to want it both ways: Give us more stuff but cut our taxes; we want government to fix our problems at the same time we want government to shrink. Let’s be fair: There is something to his argument.

Still, the view is taking over among the liberal media elite that the voters – yes, that means you! — are acting out. And yes, the voters – you again! — are throwing a tantrum. You are children — and not too smart children at that. Of course, there’s a pretty good chance that you would get well in the proverbial new york minute if only you went back into your trance and fell in love with obama and the democrats all over again. And did you notice? the pundits didn’t write columns about voter temper tantrums and the like when they sent the republicans packing in 2006 and 2008. I guess they’re only tantrums worth writing about when the voters turn on their fellow liberal democrats.

more here:
it?s not only the economy, stupid | bernardgoldberg.com

"what do liberals really think about conservatives? Do you conservatives care? Does being described as an 'enemy of the state' or a 'child throwing a temper tantrum' or 'not grasping reality' make you more introspective or inspired to rethink your opinions or attitudes? How about being called names or described in other unflattering terms?"


i'd consider this more of an actual issue if it weren't for the fact that conservatives think and say the same things (or worse) about liberals.


Liberals are the enemy
liberals are traitors
liberals are mindless, stupid, morons
liberals hate god, freedom, the truth, america
liberals are scum, slime.....
Democrats are demoncrats


when cons stop mocking, ridiculing and insulting (name calling) liberals then you can whine about liberals doing it


---------------------


apparently in the conservative culture war on all things not conservative it's perfectly ok for cons to insult, mock and ridicule liberals (which is always spun as "opinion" and "free speech")

but when liberals voice their "opinions" and "free speech" it is always spun as "personal attacks and insults"

personally i wish both sides would behave better.

we can whine anytime we want bobzo you ain't quite established yer dictatorship yet. Not yet.

 

[rikules]

on another thread, a member is discussing the president's recent description of those who oppose his policies as 'the enemy'. Earlier today, my opposition to his policies was described as 'obnoxious'.

What do liberals really think about conservatives? Do you conservatives care? Does being described as an 'enemy of the state' or a 'child throwing a temper tantrum' or 'not grasping reality' make you more introspective or inspired to rethink your opinions or attitudes? How about being called names or described in other unflattering terms?

Discuss.

"what do liberals really think about conservatives? Do you conservatives care? Does being described as an 'enemy of the state' or a 'child throwing a temper tantrum' or 'not grasping reality' make you more introspective or inspired to rethink your opinions or attitudes? How about being called names or described in other unflattering terms?"


i'd consider this more of an actual issue if it weren't for the fact that conservatives think and say the same things (or worse) about liberals.


Liberals are the enemy
liberals are traitors
liberals are mindless, stupid, morons
liberals hate god, freedom, the truth, america
liberals are scum, slime.....
Democrats are demoncrats


when cons stop mocking, ridiculing and insulting (name calling) liberals then you can whine about liberals doing it


---------------------


apparently in the conservative culture war on all things not conservative it's perfectly ok for cons to insult, mock and ridicule liberals (which is always spun as "opinion" and "free speech")

but when liberals voice their "opinions" and "free speech" it is always spun as "personal attacks and insults"

personally i wish both sides would behave better.

we can whine anytime we want bobzo you ain't quite established yer dictatorship yet. Not yet.

but...

don't you understand that rational people can detect your hypocrisy?


when YOU mock and ridicule and insult liberals

and then WHINE about liberals locking, ridiculing and insulting conservatives

it makes YOU look like a hypocrite (and worse)

is this a case of "cons can dish it out but they can't take it"?

 

[Vanquish]

Here's what I think about conservatives. I lean liberal, but have many conservative views myself.

1. Conservatives tend towards simpler answers, rather than detailed answers

2. Conservatives tend towards self-responsibility

3. Conservatives think things were better in the past

4. Conservatives would rather act than discuss

5. Conservatives tend towards finding problems with others, rather than themselves

6. Conservatives don't listen very well

7. Conservatives are freaky sexually. (Sorry just had to throw that in there)

 

[(R)IGHTeous 1]

Vanquish wrote:

1. Conservatives tend towards simpler answers, rather than detailed answers

Usually cuz it's a simple question, or we're just that smart.

2. Conservatives tend towards self-responsibility

Damn right.

3. Conservatives think things were better in the past

Both nationally.....and personally, damn right.

4. Conservatives would rather act than discuss

Damn right again. Talk is usually cheap.

5. Conservatives tend towards finding problems with others, rather than themselves

False, I'm very able to see both.

6. Conservatives don't listen very well

Also false.

7. Conservatives are freaky sexually. (Sorry just had to throw that in there)

Guilty as charged lol.

 

[BlindBoo]

Approx. 70% oppose Obamacare. Approx. 70% oppose the mosque at Ground Zero. Approx. 70% feel the country is headed in the wrong direction. Approx. 70% agree with Juan Williams...

Approx. 70% of this country is a bunch of racist, Islamophobic, red neck teabaggers who are too stupid to understand the utopian concept of socialism and refuse to believe in unicorns.

Unfortunately for the left, most of that 70% is picking up the tab. Don't shit where you eat Dems.

And 70% of American believed that Saddam was behind the 9-11 attack in March 2003. Just before we invaded. Why? Because the MSM told them so......

Funny number that 70%

Do you believe polls tell you how to feel?

 

[rdean]

Approx. 70% oppose Obamacare. Approx. 70% oppose the mosque at Ground Zero. Approx. 70% feel the country is headed in the wrong direction. Approx. 70% agree with Juan Williams...

Approx. 70% of this country is a bunch of racist, Islamophobic, red neck teabaggers who are too stupid to understand the utopian concept of socialism and refuse to believe in unicorns.

Unfortunately for the left, most of that 70% is picking up the tab. Don't shit where you eat Dems.

Wow, all those "facts" and not a single link to back up even one.

We know that 70% of America wanted the Public Option. The "Filibuster" Party stopped that from happening.

Medicare Part D, which Republicans passed through that darn "reconciliation" they said they never use cost 7 trillion, that's 1,2,3,4,5,6,7 TIMES MORE than Obamacare. 7x. Seven times.

Then of course, 70%, or was it 85% of Americans did NOT want tax cuts for millionaires and billionaires. IN FACT, even millionaires and billionaires didn't want tax cuts, yet the Republican leadership held millions of middle class hostage to give money to 1.7% of their base. And Obama caved. Yea, for some weird reason, Republicans will NEVER understand, Obama saw keeping millions of Americans from being thrown out into the street just before Christmas as a "good" thing, something Republicans simply don't understand.