Friday, March 23, 2007
|
|
Tony Snow
|
|
Posted by:
Dean Barnett at
2:15 PM
|
|
Some scary news. Wish him the best.
Naturally, the Huffington Post community weighs in with its own unique form of sympathy. A few samples:
- “Sure holding all that bulls**t in your gut would make anybody sick..!”
- “The growth in his abdomen is his head stuck up his a**. F**k him!! He is pure lying scum and should die ASAP!!”
- “You can only swallow so much............can you say karma.................”
Of course, some posters wished Snow well in that charming HuffPo way:
- “I’m sorry to hear about this for Tony, I hope it is all good news for the guy. Tony may be a BushCo whore but nobody deserves to have cancer, it’s a terrible desease that has caused far too much misery to my family and many, many more.”
What I’ve provided is a representative sample of the comments. I’ve frozen the screen shot if and when this thread disappears down Arianna’s memory hole. I swear – the depravity that dominates some outposts of the modern left never ceases to shock me.
Compliments? Complaints? Contact me at Soxblog@aol.com.
|
|
... with the vast volume of well-wishes sent in the Edwards' direction yesterday.
Gotta love those tolerant, compassionate Leftists, it makes me want to weep gushy Alan Alda tears to think about it... |
|
The same as I wished Elizbeth Edwards the best.
And HuffPost people--get some class. I did not see anybody wish Elizabeth Edwards anything but support, some questioned whether her husband should stay in the race, but the vast majority of commentators respected their decision. |
|
Yes, it is repulsive. He's a decent man.
However, it's sadly just as easy to find conservative sites that are equally as nasty. 70% of the comments on this very site were unrepentantly smug and vile when it came to Coulter - they self-righteously defended her, man of them 'Christians.'
The net brings out the worst in people, it's the anonymity, I think.\
I don't think the lefties are worse. Red staters can be pretty ugly, too. |
|
There is a difference - a MARKED difference - between Lefties wishing the worst possible fate on Tony Snow because they disapprove of the administration he works for, and conservatives defending a) Ann's right to say what she likes, b) the humor in Ann's comment, or c) the larger point that she was trying to make.
Now, if you want to compare the Lefties wishing painful death and Hell on Tony Snow to Ann herself, that might be more valid - though again, you run into problems because:
1. Ann is one person; these vile moonbats are legion.
2. Find me an instance of Ann WISHING painful death from cancer and burning in hell for all eternity on someone as a just punishment for their politics. You might find an example of her wishing death - as with the terrorists. Or you might find an example of her saying Hell is what awaits someone; she has a particularly rigid theology, after all. But I will be MIGHT darn surprised if you can find an actual equivalent statement that matches up 1:1.
And finally, you wrote:
"However, it's sadly just as easy to find conservative sites that are equally as nasty."
Find me JUST! ONE! SITE! where the comments from conservatives regarding Elizabeth Edwards are anywhere close to the comments from Lefties regarding Tony Snow.
Just.
One. |
|
Okay, we all know that these internet liberals are sad excuses for human beings.
Tell me something I don't know.
Prayers for Tony. Prayers for the liberals who made those vile comments. |
|
...to the ones cited:
"I am shocked at what I am reading here. Are the dems now shrinking to the level of the republicans? This is unacceptable. I am a democrat, but am ashamed at what I am reading. I just read a piece about Rush Limbaugh saying that Edwards is now going to use his wife's health as a means to try to get elected. I was appalled at that and I am equally appalled at most of these postings. Cancer is an ugly disease, and my prayers go out to whoever is battling cancer, including Tony Snow. Where is the compassion in this world? We are all God's children."
"I know that Snow has been through cancer before and worked his way through it. I hope this is nothing more than something benign. No matter what the politics everyone deserves a good and healthy life. My prayers are with him."
"Stop these mean-spirited and hypocritical posts . Just because you don't like his politics ( and I don't , either ) don't revel in this . It's inhuman and cruel . I'm not going to waste space to prove my liberal cred , just stop it !"
Just thought I should provide a bit of balance. Remember there were some unkind comments on Townhall as well, which did not represent the majority here either.
My response to the news about Snow is the same as it was to that about Elizabeth Edwards. All of my sympathy goes out to him and I will pray for his good health.
|
|
yes, there is a marked difference between Coulter and Snow's case, of course.
I just don't think the left is any worse, I really don't. I've read YEARS of glib, empty-headed hatred toward the left on site after site immediately calling lefties traitors, scum, actively wishing for the troops to be killed, blah blah blah. Pretty sickening stuff.
I also think much of the bile on the net on both sides is not really what people think deep down, if push came to shove.
I don't think many righties would want to start executing people who criticize Bush during war just like I don't think lefties want us to lose. it's too stupid. People shoot their mouths off. They're angry on both sides, and they handle it poorly.
At least grant the lefties the basic dignity of utter narcissism in wanting to preserve their own hides. Or do you think they are so monstrously drunk on rage that they'd rather go under the waves with Bush if only to see him go first?
Maybe you think that - I don't.
Someone cuts you off on the road and you flip them off - would you really attack them or are you venting a jet of anger at the moment? I don't know - many people have road rage.
To me it's the safety of the net - anonymity opens the vents to puerile tribalism on both sides, the costs of confrontation are zero and the cheap thrills of it are endless.
Much of the lefty anger toward the war is towards the relentless equation of dissent with contempt towards America itself.
Lefties don't see it that way - they don't equate Bush with America - so you can love America and despise its ruler's decisions. But I agree, much of the lefty rhetoric is laughable and pathetic.
But I see the right wing's enabling of Bush as equally dangerous - because Bush did not plan for this reconstruction, plain and simple. To not feel outrage toward him for this is to be less than a patriot.
It's one thing to root for your political team to win, it's quite another to support the leaders who absolutely failed us when we needed them most with 100% partisanship.
But it's a fool's errand to convince anyone of these kinds of arguments. I saw a study of media bias that showed that BOTH sides noticed bias against themselves rather than for their position. the lesson: that everyone is a victim, is quick to feel slighted. This was bias reported for the same broadcast!
I wonder if anyone has actually tried to measure venom statistically - because everyone 'knows' the other side is right. This debate is the very definition of wasted time, just like trying to explain to people that calling people a faggot is childish and despicable, yet the vast majority of the posts on this enlightened site steadfastly took the low ground and wore Dean down. It was pitiful to watch.
Anyway, whatever. No one is going to change their mind on this point, so I'll just drop it.
Cancer has struck in my own family, my twin sister was only 35 when she got it. Let me tell you, it was just ghastly, ghastly. Some things are surreal, yet they are too real in their effects.
Tony is a tough guy, I believe he already has a colostomy bag and now has a growth in his stomach. Holy cow. He's got a near-impossible job, trying to present a cogent and rational narrative of the Bush administration's actions. They aren't making it easy for him.
But we can all wish him a strong and steady recovery. Hang in there.
r |
|
|
Arianna has always been low class. I had enough of her in the 94 US Senate primary. It said volumes that none of the Dannemeyer people would work for her even if she paid them. |
|
I was happy when this woman took her silly act over to the Democrats, she always reminded me of Ava Gabor on Green Acres, except at least Gabor had a little bit of class.
How anyone can feel good about themselves, associating with the likes of a pompous, attention seeking, trophy wife like Ariana, is beyond me. |
|
Some years ago, Hugh Hewitt sat on a panel on Southern California PBS station KCRW with Robert Sheer (clearly a Lefty), Hugh Hewitt (Right naturally) and Arianna Huffington (a centrist??)
KCRW's seven-year effort was designed to provide balance and answer charges of bias on the part of PBS. Well, that really provided balance didn't it? Huffy's kids tell us all we need to know about Arianna's vitriolic left wing politics. |
|
|
I could cherry pick ugly comments from those posted about Elizabeth Edwards -- and, when there are anonymous comments, viciousness tends to be magnified. But what about Rush? He is not an anonymous poster -- he is a representative voice who is already impugning Edwards, asking how he will capitalize on his wife's illness. That strikes me as a far worse thing than any of the posts on HuffPost. |
|
"At least grant the lefties the basic dignity of utter narcissism in wanting to preserve their own hides. Or do you think they are so monstrously drunk on rage that they'd rather go under the waves with Bush if only to see him go first? "
I think it is central to Leftist ideology to value intentions more than consequences. I don't think the Lefties want to "go under the waves", as you put it - I just don't think they really think through the consequences. Intentions are all that matter to them, and in their own narcissistic little heads, their intentions, their motives, are superior to those of the evil, soulless, greedy, selfish, profit-motivated Right.
And thus, it really doesn't matter whether or not they would be happy to go under the waves, if they are too concerned with Bush-hatred to even notice that "under the waves" is exactly where their policies would take us.
Stupidity and blinkered pig-ignorance is no excuse.
"I wonder if anyone has actually tried to measure venom statistically"
Again, find me a website, ANY website, where you can demonstrate conservatives saying similar things about Elizabeth Edwards that we have on HuffPo with regards to Tony Snow... or Dick Cheney, for that matter.
I repeat: Just. One.
If you can do that, then I will concede some equivalence of venom. |
|
"I don't think many righties would want to start executing people who criticize Bush during war just like I don't think lefties want us to lose (the war)..."
Not only would 'righties' not want to execute 'lefties' for being critical of Bush during war, but that is actually why we righties support the war effort -- to PREVENT that type of system here and abroad. (Also, I don't hear many righties saying they want to execute people for being critical of Bush.)
This does not seem to equate with the idea of lefties not actually wanting us to lose the war, since so much that they would do actually would take us down the path of defeat, whatever their intent. In your ill-conceived equation, you've got righties executing people simply for being critical and lefties simply standing up for their beliefs. So, your comaprison stinks. Sorry to be blunt, but it's this type of rashly thought out drivel that drives wholesome debate of course. |
|
The utter depravity of some people.
But Dean you gracefully show the a total contrast between people like you and people like them in your response to the Edwards tragedy.
One of my favorite charities I contribute to annually is the Jimmy Fund. Anyone who would like to donate money in honor of Tony Snow or Mrs.Edwards, I encourage to visit this Dana Farber Clinic link and contribute today:
http://www.dana-farber.org/how/gifts/
God speed to Tony -- it may be extra cautious on his part, but better that than getting sick again. God bless him. |
|
Went to the Huffington site link -- all is sweetness and light. TRANSPARENT HYPOCRISY.
Bet they are going to clam it never happened.
Maybe a link or post to what you saved is in order.
|
|
|
Means Tony Snow's doing his job and doing it well. Enuf said. |
|
There is an old American challenge that applies to you r:
PUT UP OR SHUTUP
|
|
|
|
|
And I would not wish it anyone. Hopefully Tony Snow will recover. I wish him the best. As far as Edwards is concerned, I feel for what they are going through. No amount of money can make it ok. |
|
Fergus:
I wouldn't agree an intentionalist stance defines the essence of liberal politics. I don't know if you really want to get into the philosophies here, but consequentialist ethics have their own formidable problems.
I'll postpone that discussion.
But if you think them so narcisstic as to not think through the results of their policies - good god! Bush's entire administration is the result of not thinking through their policies!
Iraq alone is enough to capsize your whole point here. Bush et al refused to consider the State dept's and CIA's cultural pessimism, and look where we ended up? I'm stunned you actually would consider short-term thinking to be a Democratic flaw in the current political reality. Troops are dying, billions are flushed down the drain, American prestige is vastly diminished, and you call the Dems short-sighted? Whoa. If you can't concede this, I can see that us trying to discuss this stuff is certainly a lost cause.
America is sinking right NOW because of Bush's policies - we have lost our moral compass - torture, anyone? Where's the Christianity in that? It's incredible.
And by the way, who is more of an intentionalist than Bush - who routinely estimates others by what is in their "heart" and not the abilities they bring to an office, not their objective skills, not any conservative principle of 'merit.'
Bush believes in crony capitalism, tariffs, corporate subsidies - wants to assign Mier's to the supreme court - the cronyism is unreal, based solely upon personal loyalty to him. Bush even dismisses scientific data because of his feelings - and you accuse the Dems of being too subjective? That's rich.
As far as the repeated request to find a Tony Snow citation, I told you, I'm done with that part. The battle of the anecdotes is a lost cause.
And lastly, the blatant power grab of the Bush admin - its contempt for any constraints on the Imperial Presidency whatsoever - its self righteous moral promotion of torture as official US policy - I think those aspects of our gov't are pretty damn close to evil.
And guess what? I don't care what their 'intentions' are - it's a hideous stain on our national character. But I bet there are a lot of conservatives who'd defend it PRECISELY on the basis of our intentions being pure. (there'd be consequentialist defenses too, of course.)
---
another says:
Also, I don't hear many righties saying they want to execute people for being critical of Bush.)
To which I would say - what planet have you been on? What is the punishment for treason? for being a traitor? Any attempt in the heyday of the war - around mid 2003 - to criticize the move to war - and one was IMMEDIATELY a hater of America. Search through comments back then. Whooee!
As far as the comparison stinking, well, this is just cherry picking, and surprise! my argument becomes 'drivel.' Well, gee, I gave it a shot.
Except that I began the post with the obvious nod to moral sanity- that lefties praising Snow's growth are obviously more disgusting than Coulter calling someone a slur.
The point about treason stands on its own, I believe. That was an example of the heated rhetoric that righties engage in as well, which was part of my larger point that I don't believe lefties are worse than the right.
In terms of comments sections, I've been trying to state this: who cares? Anyone can play battle of the anecdotes, and pick some vile stuff on either side.
The real comparison would be between pundits on either side, and like I said, wrapping oneself in the flag was a routine maneuver in the early days of the war.
It still is, too, as if keeping the troops in to stop an emergent civil war is 'supporting' them.
But Iraq is beyond right and left at this point - it's so messed up there that pinheaded sloganeering that reduces one side to 'cut and run' as some irreedemable mantra and the other as 'support the troops' is so childish as to be a total waste of time. our options in Iraq are just plain awful, and 'victory' is not even remotely feasible - unless we get real and send over another 100,000 troops and keep them there for 15 years. I'd support that, but of course we wont' do it - no Repub or Dem will do it.
I tell you this - no way I'd let my son die to stall a civil war in a country that all sides want to go towards some version of Islamic theocracy.
But if you think like this: Dems = weak, Repubs = good, we've already wasted too much of our time.
r
|
|
Expect the lefties/Socialists to be vile persons, just consider what they call our president and the VP! So, why be surprised at their vile comments about anything.
My one great hope is that the lefties/Socialists find themselves experiencing the horrors they call down upon their political foes. Now that would be great karma! However, it would be satisfactory for them to become part of OBL's 72-whores upon his death; perhaps interchangeable with others of that ilk!
Until that end time, may peace be unto them that wish hatred and misery upon others!
|
|
You go into a whole lot of side issues, tangents, and non-sequiturs which are entirely relevant to the point of the thread, except in there you slip this one little concession:
"As far as the repeated request to find a Tony Snow citation, I told you, I'm done with that part. The battle of the anecdotes is a lost cause."
No, it's only a lost cause for you, in that you are entirely unable to support your starting thesis, which is the old saw that, as regards civility and decorum "both parties are equally bad." They're not.
That you would draw any sort of moral equivalence between wishing for Tony Snow a painful cancer death and eternity in Hell, and Rush pondering whether John Edwards will seek political gain from his wife's condition... speaks of a complete lack of any sort of moral bearings on your part. Nevermind the fact that you believe that Rush's example is, in fact, WORSE.
As for Bush: you are operating on the mistaken assumption that any conservative considers Bush a conservative. He isn't. And the rest is so far off the tread that it's not worth even going into. |
|
|
I said "entirely relevant," obviously I forgot the prefix "ir-", thus: "entirely IRRELEVANT." |
|
"what about Rush? He is not an anonymous poster -- he is a representative voice who is already impugning Edwards, asking how he will capitalize on his wife's illness. That strikes me as a far worse thing than any of the posts on HuffPost."
Assuming you're right about Mr. Limbaugh, which is a big if, you think that suggesting a politician will try to make political use of an illness in the family is the equivalent of wishing death on Tony Snow? I'm agog. Both are beyond the pale, but one is clearly worse than the other.
|
|
|
|
"That you would draw any sort of moral equivalence between wishing for Tony Snow a painful cancer death and eternity in Hell, and Rush pondering whether John Edwards will seek political gain from his wife's condition..."
What are you talking about? I never mentioned Rush. I searched the screen - you might be referring to the screenname "Manfred."
"...speaks of a complete lack of any sort of moral bearings on your part. Nevermind the fact that you believe that Rush's example is, in fact, WORSE."
Hm. I think you're actually rebutting Manfred. I only said that Coulter was bad, but Huffpo posters were worse.
"As for Bush: you are operating on the mistaken assumption that any conservative considers Bush a conservative. He isn't. And the rest is so far off the tread that it's not worth even going into."
Well, I agree with this, gladly. The form of my response to your intentinalist point was to try to say that Bush is an intentionalist, yet you (a presumed Bush supporter), are criticzing intentionalism.
If you don't, you're right, the argument is off. It was a reasonable but wrong assumption that people at this site would support him. If you don't, and you don't think him a conservative, that's fine by me - I consider him a Big Government/Big Religion Nanny state Republican. I didn't used to think that was a legit category, but it sure as heck is now.
So, I plainly say it: I was wrong - from your stated response, yeah, my argument doesn't work.
I assume you are criticizing intentionalism, period, not just when the Dems do it. I can go along with that. My argument was a test of consistency, and you were consistent.
As far as the Lost Cause, I believe it lost. But I disagree that the only valid content of a post is on a single issue, just one - I don't think so. Posts open up and expand all the time, on every site.
If the ONLY thing you want to bring up is whether I can find some citation as vile as whatever, nah - no thanks. It's meaningless, and I don't care how much you dare me or accuse me, a single fact is completely pointless. I don't care about your challenge.
A systematic, methodological comparison of pundits would interest me, not data mining for angry quotes. But neither you nor I are willing to do it. So like I said, I am indifferent to your challenge. It would prove nothing. "I dare you! I dare you! Just one example!" Someone else do it.
|
|
I give you the site of Emperor Misha I, the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiller.
One of the most unapologetically Right-of-Attilla-the-Hun websites on the blogosphere.
Check the difference - many make no bones about not liking John Edwards, but...
http://www.nicedoggie.net/2007/?p=353
- MuscleDaddy |
|
Why even bother dialoging with the halfwit.
They aren't worth your time -- the leftists you could have an intelligent dialog with, and there are many, would never subscribe to this decay of civility and scholarly pursuit.
This person is clearly low-class and ungracious. |
|
I will disagree with you that "suggesting a politician will try to make political use of an illness in the family" is beyond the pale.
If it were actually unthinkable that any politician would actually DO that, then yes, suggesting it would quite naturally be "beyond the pale." But the fact is that there are politicans who are exactly that venal, exactly that opportunistic, and exactly that grasping. So while it may be a bit gauche to suggest the possibility with regards to one specific politician, it certainly doesn't rise to the level of bile or malice that wishing a painful cancer death on someone amounts to.
And in addition, John Edwards' record as a trial lawyer raking in millions off of OB/GYB doctors with absurd claims of what basically amounts to necromancy on his own part, tends to suggest that if *any* politician is guilty of such venality, then he himself is a good bet. |
|
You are quite correct; I did conflate your post with manfred's. I offer my apology.
"Bush is an intentionalist, yet you (a presumed Bush supporter), are criticzing intentionalism..."
Well that is an assumption on your part. I am a Bush supporter insofar as a) he is better, if only marginally, than the alternatives we were offered in 2000 and 2004, and b) he IS the President of the United States, and as such he absolutely deserves my allegiance, even if I disagree. And I do disagree with him profoundly.
As to the War, I think to criticize him in an absolute sense for the fact that there have been failings is both a bit premature and a bit unfair; the Civil War was an absolute DISASTER for the North until Grant came along, and yet Lincoln is generally honored in this country. The fact is that many wars start off badly for the eventual victor, due to poor planning, but Necessity, that b*tch, demands invention which ultimately wins the day for the White Hats. And there is some evidence to suggest strongly the Surge *is* working. I am willing to wait it out and see what happens.
As to the other: I am just about to click on the link provided by MuscleDaddy, and if it serves to demonstrate conservative bile against Elizabeth Edwards, then I WILL in fact concede the point... |
|
... I misunderstood MuscleDaddy's point; the link he cited is actually another perfect example of conservatives behaving like gentlemen and ladies.
I'm sorry, r, but my point STILL stands. One example of a conservative unabashedly going after John and Elizabeth will full-on bile will be all I require to concede the point.
Anyone?
Anyone? |
|
My impression (not scientific, mind you) is that lefty sides -- even "mainstream" ones like A. Huff's -- do tend to have more mean people on them. (Most of whom probably have "Mean People Suck" bumper stickers on their bumpers.)
Why is that? Simple, really. I find that people are at their nastiest when they're defending the territory where their most cherished unexamined assumptions are located.
For conservatives (who are more likely to be religiously devout), their First Principles are rooted in religion. So it's in religious contexts that their nastiness tends to come out. See, e.g., all the "you Mormons are cultists" crap.
For (many or most) liberals, their First Principles are political. They tell themselves that they believe as they do out of pure reason, but you often find they haven't examined what they believe any more than a run-of-the-mill believer has questioned his religion's articles of faith. I can't count the times I've discussed a political issue with a liberal acquaintance, made an argument that was eminently reasonable, and gotten back not a counterargument, but something like "Oh, come ON!!!", in a distinctly agitated voice -- as if I were voicing blasphemy.
Ultimately, everyone has some unexamined First Principles upon which his entire moral worldview is based. Whether we think people ought to be decent to each other because they're created in the image of God, or because of Kantian principles, if we really analyze what we believe, there's ultimately a point where we treat something as given, or self-evident. People tend to get really upset when those "givens" are questioned -- which is why religious quarrels are nasty, and why people for whom politics is a substitute for religion are nasty, too. |
|
|
Well said!!! You were right on the money from beginning to end. Bravo! |
|
I think this is probably the equal of anything on Huff: "you know, most people when told a family member has been diagnosed with the kind of cancer Elizabeth Edwards has they turn to God. The Edwards turned to the campaign. Their religion is politics and the quest for the White House..."
So not only does that fat slob accuse Edwards of vulgar cynicism, he also impugns his faith -- charming.
Again, though, my point is that this is the guy that Republican politicians suck up to -- the guy people point to as a shaper of public opinion -- that position requires a certain amount of responsibility beyond the anonymous postings of some guy in his mother's basement. If ARIANNA had written something scandalous about Tony Snow, then I would see it as being the same -- but not imaloser2007 or whomever. Christ, if it really mattered, what would stop a bunch of people from going on townhall under some assumed moniker and writing dozens of posts saying they are glad Elizabeth Edwards is sick and hope her kids get cancer, too -- or any other horrible things -- simply to make the site look bad? |
|
You just don't get it. The two are not even in the same state, let alone the same league. Again, Edwards demonstrated time and again in his career as a Trial Lawyer that he will stoop to nearly any trick to win a case; why should he be any different as a politician.
And impugning motives or faith is not NEARLY the same as wishing upon someone a painful death by cancer, followed by an eternity in He11! It's just not, and the more you insist otherwise, the more you make clear just how lacking in any sort of moral compass you are. This is a no-brainer!
Put it this way, which would you take as the more venomous statement?
"Manfred, I think you're a phony and a huckster; I can see you selling Hurricane Insurance to little old ladies in Bismarck."
or
"Manfred, you are scum of the earth, and I hope you DIE in absolute agony, you and every member of your family! Rot in HE11, motherf***er!!!"
C'mon, seriously. This one is a no-brainer.
As for Rush's "responsibilities": Hornswoggle. He's an entertainer; his responsibilities are to bring in listeners so that his advertisers make money, and to writer entertaining books so that his publishers make money. He is responsible to his dependents, to provide them the best living her can.
If, in the process of honestly and diligently fulfilling those responsibilities, he becomes popular enough that politicians seek his imprimatur, then his only obligation is to speak honestly and deal ethically and legally with those politicians. THAT'S IT. Just because you don't like his message doesn't mean that you get to impose your own agenda on Rush. You want him to set an example? Fine, get your own show, drum up a comparable audience, and show him how it's done. Otherwise, shut up and let the man make a living. |
|
|
You're a phony! You act like this is the first vitriolic comments the Democrats have ever made. If you are still a Democrat after all the Democrats have done over the past few years, you are beyond hope and your comments are beyond believing. |
|
"I find that people are at their nastiest when they're defending the territory where their most cherished unexamined assumptions are located."
That may be so and I'd add that anonymity allows for the nastiness to keep spilling out. Anonymity in crowds and on Internet blogs unleash inter demons. Huffington can allow those unleashed demons to run loose only to a certain point, because the proprietress of that blog is well know. Eventually she has to sweep out the deamon splatter.
|
|
|
What good are the prayers of the Left if they aren't sure to whom they pray? Or if their praying to a tree or something? You know I just had to ask:) |
|
ProudDuck said:
"I find that people are at their nastiest when they're defending the territory where their most cherished unexamined assumptions are located."
That may be so and I'd add that anonymity allows for the nastiness to keep spilling out. Anonymity in crowds and on Internet blogs unleash inter demons, because there is little personal accountability.
Huffington can allow the unleashed demons to run loose only to a certain point, because the proprietress is well know. At some point even Huffington has to clean up the demon splatter.
|
|
|
There's a big difference between asking if Edwards will use his wifes unfortunate situation to his advantage in the campaign (I happen t think that that was wrong to do as well) and wishing a painful death on Tony Snow. Don't you even try to assign the same malevolence to conservatives as we saw at huff and puff over Snow's surgery. |
|
ProudDuck said:
"I find that people are at their nastiest when they're defending the territory where their most cherished unexamined assumptions are located."
That may be so and I'd add that anonymity allows for the nastiness to keep spilling out. Anonymity in crowds and on Internet blogs unleash inter demons, because there is little personal accountability.
Huffington can allow the unleashed demons to run loose only to a certain point, because the proprietress is well know. At some point even Huffington has to clean up the demon splatter.
|
|
Although I'm a passionate idealist with strong opinions, I'm a small fry in comparison to many commenters at TH who are considerably more knowledgeable than I will ever get to be.
I made a decision recently (not that I have ever been really insulting)to not make a comment that I wouldn't make directly looking in someone's eyes, i.e., not hiding behind the anonymity of the net.
Having said that, I enjoy the sparring between other posters! |
|
»I enjoy the sparring between other posters!«
A little Tracy-Hepburn/Doug-Carrie back'n'forth never hurt anybody. |
|
»What good are the prayers of the Left if they aren't sure to whom they pray? «
Those on the Left rely on Man. They believe Man can do it himself. They believe Man is in charge and that God is kinda on the sidelines as Man's Assistant, not the other way around.
God never told us to do it by ourselves.
Therefore, Libs are separated from God, and He doesn't listen to their prayers cuz they wanna be on their own. |
|
»he is a representative voice who is already impugning Edwards, asking how he will capitalize on his wife's illness. «
Actually, I e-mailed him with that suggestion, and I still feel that Edwards, while not openly asking for the sympathy vote, will not turn it back.
However, that is a far cry from the vile namecalling and ridicule that commonly comes from Libs. Just listen to Ray Taliafero some overnight on KGO, San Francisco. He calls the president a "murderer" and insults what he calls the "Christian Right." He is very rude to conservative callers and maipulates what they say, insulting them and carrying on so they can't adequately answer him. He routinely takes them off track so they forget the original challenge. Talliafero, the terrorists' best American friend, is a flaming Lib. |
|
I had hoped that this hateful nonsense would diminish once the Democrats took back control of Congress, that their insanity was due to the frustration of the 2000 election coupled with losing the next two national elections.
Now I'm wondering if it's a symptom of something more dangerous. Certainly, this kind rhetoric, especially in the public media seems to have been rewarded. What's particularly worrisome is the fact that so many who consider themselves conservative have gone over to the "Nuke them all - Tanks on the border" fringe and prefer to be right in their own minds than part of any coalition. |
|
I believe Rush calls people like you "Seminar Callers".
|
|
a)At least you've admitted to being a liberal
b)I would be considered a dittohead
c)I don't understand the Viagra question
|
|
With all your huffing and puffing about anything George W. Bush did, you'll be right at home with the Kos Kids. Never mind your frequent use of the F-word.
But, if you are an astronaut, you're certainly the Lisa Nowak type astronaut as opposed to the Frank Borman type astronaut.
|
|
|
...about being hysterical and swearing in every post you make. Definately childish and sophomoric, but certainly not conservative. |
|
|
...more prayers for Tony Snow, a resident of Mount Vernon and great father and husband. |
|
|
|