Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
Login | What's Hot
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons

Comment on: The Proud Liberal

Shame conservatives such flaming haters

71 Comments
Monday, October, 08, 2007 6:28 PM bone doc writes:

to the proud liberal

I dont know what if any formal education you have but reading the above it appears very limited. As I have attended two ivy schools and have a doctorate my conclusion is that you are either mentally disturbed or mentally deficient.
Any American that said what you said above truly has no understanding of our country or history.To support a national socialost who hates
our milatary, country and first amendment except when it suits her party will destroy our country.






to











EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, October, 08, 2007 7:01 PM Proud Liberal writes:

With your education

you should understand what self-referential means. As such, you are not credible.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, October, 08, 2007 8:07 PM Proud Liberal writes:

You say you have a doctorate

which I doubt, but I will treat you seriously.

Going back to self-referential and your claim that Hillary is a socialist.You make an error concerning reality. Someone is a socialist only if they, self-referentially, consider themselves to be socialists, either silently or vocally. An outside person cannot validly assign the label or category to another person. Let's look at some of the alternatives.

1. Someone could go to socialist meetings for the cookies or comraderie, but not really be interested in socialism.

2. A pragmatic or cynical person who doesn't believe in socialism could nevertheless work in a socialist government purely for personal gain.

Whether one is a socialist is not a black or white thing. There are a number of considerations. Some are objective and some subjective.

I always assume that conservatives who call someone like Hillary a conservative always know, deep in their heart, that their's is an emotional outpouring, not an objective truth.

But it is a weakness of character. People who taunt have weak characters. People who taunt knowing that what they say is not true are even weaker.Unfortunately this is the case with most conservatives.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, October, 08, 2007 8:21 PM Proud Liberal writes:

You say you have a doctorate II

The same holds true for the rest of your statement. Hillary does not hate the military, country and first amendment except when it suits her party. You've never heard her say any of this.

It is a weakness of character for you and other conservatives to take her positions or words and distort them into statements which will make you feel emotionally whole and pleasurable. Your claims about Hillary are self-serving and this is weakness of character on its face.

I hear these same attitudes from most conservatives, so I'm sure you receive pleasurable feelings by being cocooned with your fellow conservatives, not quite a weakness of character, but certain to give you a warm, fuzzy,accepted feeling of being on the inside. It's an easy way out. It says to me that you'd rather not think discriminatingly for yourself but prefer to clothe yourself in the political correctness of your group.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, October, 08, 2007 11:34 PM bone doc writes:

to uneducated person above

I not only have a doctorate as i am sure you dont I called her a national soc. Obviously you do not know what that means which confirms above.Telling me that I am conservative when I am actually a patriotic Democrat in the JFK mold shows your prejudice, close mindedness and to diagnose you a combination of my original blog
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, October, 08, 2007 11:51 PM bone doc writes:

to uneducated person above

I forgot to mention that your statement is incoherent,rambeling,and mindless.IF you want to get into a discussion of logical facts not emotions post your educational backround and I will post mine and then I will decide whether to continue this discussion as I will no longer converse with the ignorant and formally uneducated as it is unproductive for me and a waste of my time.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 09, 2007 11:38 AM Proud Liberal writes:

Your credentials

If you're a medical doctor I wouldn't want you treating me.

You keep throwing your supposed education at me, and now you say you're a patriotic democrat in the JFK mold. Well and good.

Yet write me again and tell me that Beck, Hannity, Coulter, Malkin, Limbaugh, etc. are not flaming haters. I listen to them. Do you?

And, in your mind, if Hillary is in fact a "national socialist" does that make them any less haters?

I post a blog about conservatives being haters and you reply and call me mentally deficient, don't understand American history without giving me specifics, and offer no defense of the conservative haters.

If this is an example of your scholarship the college that gave you your degree ought to be sued for fraud.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 09, 2007 8:29 PM bone doc writes:

to the communist idiot above

First of all I wouldnt treat you or operate on you because your intelligence level is to low to understand what is going on and what will be required in rehab as I have always rejected about 10 percent of candidates. IT is











obvious to me that whereever you went to school you couldnt compete with me or my collegues and therefore as you couldnt get into the schools I did I have very little respect for you and your ilk. This may sound elitist and rude but as you can I am not politically correct. I can assure you that I am very good at what I do and usually dont engage in convewsations with idiots, however in your case I made an ex ception as your insane blog had to be responded to brutally. I advise you to read H.clintons senior thesis in college and read the works of her socialist mentor. Also read It takes a village and if your opinion is unchanged as a professional I would recommend the following tests,homocystene,crp apoe4 genitic testing and most importantly a free amd total testosterone level . Get a life,get fixed, and try to be open to non communist ideas that are somewhat patriotic .
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 09, 2007 11:25 PM Proud Liberal writes:

Idiot?

I don't think I've called you an idiot although I may have been provoked to become a little negative with you. Yet throughout all your posts you have been disagreeable, calling names etc. Yes, you do seem to be someone who is rather full of himself and have a great need to put other people down so that you will feel superior.

And, you still haven't addressed the subject of my post. Why don't you tell me straight out that the conservative talk show hosts are not - in your estimation - haters.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, October, 10, 2007 9:20 AM bone doc writes:

to the proud liberal

Obviously you can not read or write. Post your educational creds and literary sources and i will post mine. I will no longer talk to someone that is not educated in historical facts so that a rational discussion can ensue. Once again my medical reommendations stand as I am now coming to believe you suffer from a supertentorial problemb. Ill be happy to prove to you in a logical Socratec type fashion that I am 100% correct in my assertations once I know you have the a-bility to assimilate this info. The subject of your post is not entirely clear hence my neurological concern. These people are not haters just concerned patriots and your stallinist fairness doctrine brain and national socialist candidate hate this in her case and in your case cant understand it. Once I know who I am talking to at least someone who has a similar undergraduate education in an equivalent instution and equiv grad degrees-- so that its fair for you and educational for me Ill participate in any forem you want. If you cant understand and address what I am saying my rec is to see DR. David Permutter in Naples Florida and excellent progressive neurolgist that can treat your disorder as well as dx it. As a huminist I hate to see anyone suffer even an unamerican,communist as yourself.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, October, 10, 2007 12:17 PM Proud Liberal writes:

Me an unamerican communist?

Last night I was 90% certain that you are a put on. Today it's climbed to 95%. And I actually enjoy your scatological riffs.

The other 5% is just the possibility that you have a curmudgeonly personality.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, October, 10, 2007 7:23 PM bone doc writes:

to the socialist

post your credentials,ill post mine, and Ill decide whether you have the education to converse with. Did you get your testosterne,Igf,Igfbp3, and Apoe4 testing yet. That might insight for your disability
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, October, 10, 2007 7:42 PM Flame writes:

Wrong

PL writes: "Hillary does not hate the military, country and first amendment except when it suits her party. You've never heard her say any of this."

You are mistaken (I am trying to be nice) in your statements here. Hillary has said numerous times that she hates the military. Tried to make them wear civilian attire in her presence because she couldn't stand them being around. That is just a few of the comments that have been made toward the military.

Although I can understand you trying to stand up for your fellow socialist, you really shouldn't use false statements as support.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, October, 10, 2007 7:53 PM bone doc writes:

to flame

You were way to nice to little Nikita. The officer you referred to carried the football and was a grad of Colo Springs and a B1 pilot, in fact a major. THIS idiot cant except facts and as alluded above something is neurologically wrong with him
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, October, 10, 2007 8:23 PM Proud Liberal writes:

To Flame

I guess I'll just have to google "Hillary Hates Military" and see what comes up. Do you suggest I also google Hillary for hating her country and the first amendment.

Please, Flame. Give me some quotes if you are going to make an assertion.

If Hillary hates the military the republican candidate will surely make the most of it. But a subject near and dear to my heart is the one party military. My advice to anyone in the military who cannot serve a liberal president with his whole heart is that he is in the wrong profession and needs to do the honorable thing and resign from the military.Same for people in the military who hate liberals. You're in the wrong profession and you are a fraud.

What was that from the Southern Senator when Clinton was president warning Clinton not to go to Virginia (or Carolina?). Didn't he make it seem that the military either would not defend Clinton or actually assassinate him themselves?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, October, 10, 2007 10:20 PM bone doc writes:

to the communist idiot above

Who said or wrote (paraphrasing):
1. I loath the military.
2. A young person who is not liberal is heartless...an older person who is not a conservative is brainless.
3. Let us cross the stream and lie down by the shade of the tree.
4.America loves a winner, and will not tolerate a loser, this is why America has never, and will never, lose a war
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, October, 10, 2007 10:23 PM bone doc writes:

clue for the idiot

One of the authors is not a patriot
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, October, 10, 2007 11:17 PM Proud Liberal writes:

I googled

I googled "Hillary Hates the Military." Lots of people expressing their opinion that Hillary hates the military, but no quotations from Hillary.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, October, 10, 2007 11:36 PM bone doc writes:

to comunist cretino (for the mexicans).

You cannot google culture and education. Good luck and good bye.E.r. Murrow
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 11, 2007 2:57 PM bone doc writes:

to uneducated person above

i love it when you people cant accecpt the fact that some people who actually attend Ivy League schools eg. U of P and columbia university have a docterate and six years of post doc education are not communist pseudo intellectuals such as yourself. I can easily prove the above including an undergraduate education in two majors biology and gen literature with romance languages. You freak out if someone with these degrees is not a left wing kook etc. Last night my business partner a college professor with a Phd. USC in economics read these blogs and agreed with me entirely. Now that Ive told you a little about me lets see your real bio. and publications as I believe you are a fraud,intelluctally bankrupt,and either a complete idiot or severly impared.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 11, 2007 8:07 PM Flame writes:

to PL

Aww, my misguided liberal friend. It is not hard to find quotes when you lived through them. I was also in ND during the flood and Bill's people wanted to move the evacuees out of their shelter so he could "feel their pain".

I served the Constitution and the CIC (President) honorably even when it was Carter and Clinton. However, there is no requirement to like, respect, or accept liberals (or conservatives, etc.) in the UCMJ. Therefore it is honorable to serve whether you agree with liberals or conservatives.

You seem to confuse the two issues which is expected of someone that denies the authority of controlling documents. I do find it amusing that you expect your opposition to accept your definition of documents which you admit have no authority over you or anyone else.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 11, 2007 8:12 PM Flame writes:

As to quotes

Don't you find it interesting that the Clintons have stifled a documentary release that included their mistakes leading up to 9/11? Or that Hillary uses Sandy (I destroyed classified documents) Berger? Or that they won't release the Hillary information from the Clinton Presidential Library?

I find it interesting that you might find any quote by Hillary that is not flattering.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, October, 12, 2007 11:42 AM Proud Liberal writes:

I didn't spend a lot of time

looking for quotes from Hillary in which she says she hates the military or hates America. The examples you give do not add up to such a quote. They are, in fact, evasive and off the subject.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, October, 12, 2007 11:55 AM Proud Liberal writes:

Honor versus politics

ND is North Dakota? The fact that Bill's people wanted to move the evacuees out of their shelters so he could feel their pain means only that if you had been president instead of bill you would have made a different decision.

Yes you can serve every administration honorably. My point is that conservatives, in my moral judgment, despicably try to politicize the military every chance they get. It is conservatives who attempt in every way to persuade people that the military is and ought to be conservative and supporters of the only real Americans, the conservatives. It is conservatives who take and manufacture every opportunity to divide America into real americans - the conservatives - and second rate Americans, everyone else. It is conservatives who lay the groundwork for the military to be politicized by second guessing both the policy directions and specific decisions of a democratic administration. The military should stay the hell out of second guessing any administration.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, October, 12, 2007 2:47 PM bone doc writes:

to the proud liberal

where are your credentials to say what you have said as Ive asked you several times?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, October, 12, 2007 2:50 PM bone doc writes:

to uneducated person above

Freedom is not free and niether is free speech. The price is written on a wall in D.C.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, October, 12, 2007 7:29 PM Flame writes:

PL

The problem with your thesis is that military people are mostly conservative or libertarian with very few liberals. Since I have the benefit of having served under both Democrat and Republican Presidents and seeing the actions of both liberal and conservatives in regards to the military, I would rebut your thesis by pointing out that liberals are the ones who attempt in every way to persuade people that the military is and ought to be liberal and supporters of the only real Americans, the liberals ever since a Democrat President led us into Vietnam. It is liberals who take and manufacture every opportunity to divide America into real Americans - the liberals - and second rate Americans, everyone else. It is liberals who lay the groundwork for the military to be politicized by second guessing both the policy directions and specific decisions of a republican administration. Finally, it is conservatives that are finally standing up and speaking out against the socialist ideology that liberals are attempting to foist on the American people.

I would also point out that trying to foist liberal policies on the military by a Democrat President should receive a response from the department (DoD) which is being targeted for the change. That is not second guessing.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, October, 12, 2007 7:34 PM Flame writes:

Regards Bill and ND

Yes, that is North Dakota, Grand Forks specifically. The Clinton administration had no thoughts for the people that were living in the shelters since their homes were under water. Instead they espoused the liberal ideology of "Me First" with no concern for the victims of that disaster. Talk about hypocrisy, the liberals whine about a republican administration that didn't immediately go to NO, yet they acted in a worse manner in this previous disaster from flooding.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, October, 12, 2007 7:52 PM Flame writes:

Interesting that

your column heading is about conservatives being "haters" yet you provide no proof while at the same time you will only accept direct quotes as proof that a liberal is a hater (of the military).

Typical liberal reaction: do as I say not as I do!

I will add for bone doc: I am a high school dropout, retired military (AF/CCT), BS Professional Aeronautics, working on MAR Theology.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, October, 12, 2007 9:22 PM Proud Liberal writes:

Hannity and Beck are haters

I've caught a few minutes of Glen Beck here and there, recently. He is a screaming hater these days. Hannity is a strident hater, as usual.

Listen to their programs, Flame.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, October, 12, 2007 11:02 PM bone doc writes:

to flame

thanks for your service
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, October, 13, 2007 10:00 AM Proud Liberal writes:

Thanks for your service?

I'm curious to know, Flame, did you enter the military so that people would feel gratitude toward you? I don't put that down as a motivation, because people have all kinds of motivation for taking jobs. I also have the impression that at least 50% of people end up in a career different than they initially were interested in. But I do think that joining the military is a personal choice and that some, if not many people, joining the military had the choice of going into business or onto a factory floor, becoming a clerk, or lawyer or accountant or fry cook. If someone has a motivation of joining the military to defend his country that is as laudable as someone who takes another career path motivated by a desire to "help people." We can admire the motivation of someone who gets into health care or social services to help people, but we usually don't feel gratitude that they made this particular career choice.

I do think that this Hannity and Hewitt "thank you for your service" is really anti-conservative principle. Conservatives emphasize "personal responsibility." This implies that people do things for their own reasons. They shouldn't need nor want our gratitude. What do you think?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, October, 13, 2007 2:25 PM bone doc writes:

to the communist idiot aboveI

I now have enough info to dx. you. I believe you suffer from some form of progressive super nuclear palsy. dementia,low IQ, but most importantly verbal diarrhea .
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, October, 13, 2007 3:47 PM Flame writes:

Hannity and Beck

If you use them as examples of haters then I should point out that NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC provide a forum to personnel that are far worse in their words and actions. According to the standard you are using then Dan Rather was a hater, people like Keith Olberman are haters. Oh and BTW, they are all liberals.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, October, 13, 2007 3:55 PM Flame writes:

Service

I appreciate the fact that some people acknowledge my time in service to my country but it was not a reason for my entering the military. It is however a conservative principle, that of showing gratitude for someone accepting a responsibility, no different than that expressed for a police officer, firefighter, EMT, etc. What is interesting is your aversion to the expression of thanx.

I entered the military because of wanting to serve my country, give back something to a country where I was free to express myself. My mother was a naturalized citizen and I saw many times how other countries deny the rights that we take for granted. I also entered into Special Operations (Combat Control) training when the opportunity was available.

I have been the recipient of those, non-existent to you, liberal values like being accused of killing children, being spit on, and several other interesting actions. While it appears that you are looking at the differences between liberals and conservatives from a philisophical, stand off position; I am looking at it from a reality based, practical position.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, October, 13, 2007 5:02 PM Proud Liberal writes:

MSM is professional and unbiased

Had an interesting example a few weeks ago. Bay Buchanan was a panelist along with some MSM journalists. The difference in professionalism, style, attitude couldn't have been more observable and distinct. In her choice of words, choice of subject, line of reasoning, tone of voice and attitude Buchanan was clearly unprofessional and biased when compared to the MSM people. And Buchanan was very mild when compared to Hannity and Beck. I believe that a great good would come of having Hannity, Beck and Hewitt as panelists on one of those Sunday morning shows along with more professional journalists. You'd see exactly the haters that they are.

It's hard for me to believe that you cannot distinguish the difference between Hannity, et. al. and the MSM professionals. It's totally clear.

And so you do want thanks. Sorry, I just don't see that your choice of profession makes you superior to anyone else. Do I thank my post man for delivering my mail? Or the clerk at the supermarket? I do so from the standpoint of politeness, as we do with people in the service industries. But I am amazed that you think you do deserve thanks for your own motivation of serving your country. That's your life, not mine.

I do my posting on Town Hall on the slim chance that I will affect someone for the better; that one or a few people will be persuaded of the truth of my words. Do you feel that you ought to thank me for this? I feel that in a small way I am serving my country in trying to bring rationalism to conservatives.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, October, 13, 2007 7:19 PM Flame writes:

Thanx, etc.

Nice try but I said it was nice not that I expected or desired it. Typical liberal twisting of facts to support their thesis.

Of course you don't thank anyone, that is a common liberal position. And yes, I thank the postwoman, the person checking me out at the store, etc. You have once again proven that liberals are the ones who cheapen the discourse in America while claiming it is conservatives that act that way. Typical projection as documented by the APA, although you can be helped with this affliction.

Again, nice try on the MSM. You write: "The difference in professionalism, style, attitude couldn't have been more observable and distinct." I happen to agree especially when one observes the non-professionalism, lack of style, and distinct liberal attitude presented by Dan Rather using false documents to support his hate speech and currently in vogue by several in the MSM. Have you ever stopped to wonder why the MSM and newspapers like the NYT are losing money, subscribers and viewers? One reason, the lack of professionalism, style, and attitude. Second reason, the lack of factual data in their reporting (i.e. support for Petraeus ad, support for attacks on Limbaugh, all occurring with no factual basis).

Actually, I thank you for posting here at TH. It is impossible to discuss with a liberal at any liberal site because the majority of conservative posts are deleted. As to bringing rationalism, perhaps you should base your rationalism on factual data instead of made up delusions and hypotheses. There are liberals that make sense to people unfortunately they are normally attacked by "rational" liberals (i.e. Joe Lieberman, Zell Miller)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, October, 13, 2007 7:44 PM bone doc writes:

to the communist idiot above

I cant believe a psychotic like yourself is mployed,married or has kids.You must be blogging from bellvue or another country.No way i believe you are actually an american
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, October, 13, 2007 7:52 PM bone doc writes:

to flame

please comment on the communist news network aka cnn covering for sandy burgler and now being an adviser to the great national socialist feminazi HC
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, October, 13, 2007 7:58 PM bone doc writes:

to uneducated person above

PLEASE LET ME KNOW IF YOU ARE MALE OR FEMALE
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, October, 14, 2007 12:52 PM Proud Liberal writes:

Could it all be subjective, Flame?

When I listen to Hannity, Hewitt, Laura I don't hear facts. I hear distortions and fictions they make up. When you listen to them you here facts. But when you read or TV the MSM you hear distortions and fictions; while when I read or TV the MSM I hear what facts they give, but also balanced and rational perspective and context.

Could you say with me that you and I are not dealing with actual objective facts and truth, but with our individual and different life long learning, our expectations and perceptions based on our individual and different experiences. We filter what we see and hear through the models or filters we already have wired into our brains.

What do you think?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, October, 14, 2007 3:24 PM bone doc writes:

to the proud liberal

The problemb you have is a medical neurological one most probably involving your thalmus and prefrontal cortex that interfears with your perceptive ability and your ability to understand reality. I would recommend a proton emission and mri scan.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, October, 14, 2007 5:22 PM Flame writes:

Facts

I understand the "relativism" that you are injecting into the conversation. The problem occurs when one is directly involved with some of the incidents that the MSM distorts. I have been involved in several incidents that were reported one way by the MSM which was inconsistent with the actual events taking place.

We have seen several similar incidents recently. While I understand the "dislike" of Rush Limbaugh, it still does not justify reporting a distortion of the conversation to fit the liberal view point. There is no filter when the actual conversation about "phony soldiers" is available for anyone to review especially in light of Rush's reference to one in particular that has been found guilty of being just that, a phony soldier.

The problem is that the MSM pushes their agenda day after day, often using lies and distortions. They even jump on their own people when they get off message, reference Katie Couric saying the surge appeared to be working. There comes a point that one can no longer trust what is being reported because the tide of lies and distortions becomes to great, hence my comment about the "boy who cried wolf too many times".
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, October, 14, 2007 7:24 PM Proud Liberal writes:

Counter examples

Perhaps a little more nuanced that yours, but not sure. From my perspective the democratic position about Iraq has much to recommend it, based on a variety of information, or if you like "facts" that we know. Ethnic cleansing in Baghdad, a million refugees in Iraq, a million already gone to Syria or Jordan, Shites fighting Shites, some Shites alligned with Iran for the past 20 years, no doubt that Iraq will end up under Sharia law, etc. So, yes it's a judgment call about what the outcome will be, but there is certainly both facts and reason enough to be pessimistic. Now I know of two possible distortions that conservatives put forth, without any caveats that an honest commentor would make. One distortion is that democrats have chosen defeat.This is a falsehood from a couple of different perspectives, and it is emotional language ( I can elaborate) calculated to smear people who want to get out of Iraq. Secondly, polls say that a majority of people in the U.S. want the U.S. to get out of Iraq. Conservatives have distorted this by claiming - as far as I know without any "facts" to back them up at all - that the majority of people actually disaprove of Bush's strategy, but that what they actually want is victory rather than to get out of Iraq. If you analyze that statement there are actually two falsehoods or distortions in what conservatives are saying. My viewpoint is that in both instances the conservative statements are fiction. They have made up these assertions.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, October, 14, 2007 7:51 PM Proud Liberal writes:

"Chosen defeat"

This is a vicious, cynical and cowardly statement that I have Hewitt repeat many times.

Let me take you though what I do. I look at the facts, compare, think and come up with my conclusion, which will be a prefence for a particular policy. I choose a policy which I think is best. I can't begin to tell you how much I feel that Hewitt is a slimy, sniveling cowardly toad for saying that I or any liberal has chosen "defeat." I demand respect for my opinion and have great anger that Hewitt "labels" my choice "defeat". This is a cowardly falsehood. It implies a number of things. One is that defeat embodies one and only one event and that outcome is chosen. It implies poor character. It implies weakness. And the coward Hewitt knows full well all the implications of his "labeling." Furthermore it implies a control of this situation that no one has, it implies the certainty of victory, which is certainly not guaranteed. Defeat or victory cannot be chosen by any individual. The worm Hewitt knows this full well. As I said, Hewitt's statement is a fiction, an invention, a deliberate and vicious smear with no "facts" but only cynical word play, using a simple negative word in place of a competent analysis of a complex situation. His intent is to smear and he will not let "facts" get in his way.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Monday, October, 15, 2007 9:52 PM bone doc writes:

to the communist idiot above

You sound like Stalin,talk like Goebbles.Why dont you bid on rushes letter only fifty thousand on ebay and support the corps that daily supports your right to expose the unamerican crap you do
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 16, 2007 10:19 AM Proud Liberal writes:

Flame

A clearer explanation of why Hewitt's fiction that liberals have embraced defeat has come to me.

You're no doubt aware that scurrilous things have been said about Jews, a lot of it concerning finance. The spirit and intent of the things people have said about Jews is to besmirch them as a race or religion. There were certainly some "facts" on which the besmirchers could point to. But the intent and spirit in citing these "facts" was to besmirch Jews as a group.

You remember when people were saying that blacks did not have the intelligence to be quarterbacks in the National Football League. There were also "facts" that people used to back up their statements, but the spirit and intent of the statements was to besmirch a race of people, a group of people.

Hewitt's statements are of the same spirit and intent. Whatever "facts" he may cite his underlying intent is to smear a whole group of people. I recognize this. I think it should be easy for you to recognize it as well.And its clear to me that this is cowardly.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 16, 2007 6:07 PM Proud Liberal writes:

Flame: Real time example

I'm listening to Hannity right now and he was just talking to a liberal about global warming. The liberal said he believes the majority of evidence (and scientists) believe that man is contributing to global warming.

Sean replied that "no" he has listed hundreds and hundreds of scientists who don't believe that man affects global warming and he cited one prominent meteorologist, Sean said he was one of the best in the world, who disputed the idea that man contributes to global warming.

I feel that this was a cynical and purposful distortion on Hannity's part. The only book I've read on the subject, "The next hundred years," paints a different and balanced picture, with some history, about man's part in global warming.

While I haven't followed it in detail, my perception is that the majority of scientists in related fields do feel that man has a part in global warming, and we may be talking THOUSANDS of scientists, many of them PROMINENT scientists.
In reality we may have thousands against hundreds.

One of my beefs with Hannity is that he presents this distorted picture to an audience that is ready to and wants to believe him because of their existing hostility to things they deem liberal. He purposely buttresses a biased view for a biased audience and his audience adopts an irrational belief: they readily accept the viewpoint of scientists who are greatly outnumbered by other scientists. And, Hannity and his audience then besmirch and smear the majority of scientists with the "label" liberal, which is short hand for evil, etc.

Very cynical, very vicious by Hannity.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Tuesday, October, 16, 2007 10:17 PM bone doc writes:

to the proud liberal

you dont have the scientific education, please prove me wrong,to understand or talk about global warming. This is one of the most complicated areas only surpassed by cosmology not readily amendable to testing by the scientific method.No intelligent scientist denies that c02 contributes to warming however when the same expert that predicted an ice age in72 now rants with gore you have changed the discussion from helioastrophysics,enviormental ecosystem biology,moleculargenetics and physics to democrat talking points.There is no factual proven opinion on this so dont talk about it if your not scientifically educated.People with different beliefs and similar IQs withsimilar university training can have intelligent meaningful discussions. Unfortunately,chief,you are excluded as alluded to in my previous remarks
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, October, 17, 2007 12:29 PM Flame writes:

PL and global warming

I would like to point out that one of the original personnel working on global warming has also stated that the presentation by Gore was not scientifically valid nor was the current solution viable. The problem being that man contributes minimally and that the world could bankrupt itself with minimal affect on the warming trend.

Scientific method requires only one falsification in a theory to make it invalid. There are several falsification in the global warming theory. Therefore they need to objectively evaluate the data and develop a better theory.

Remember while Einstein proved a great theory, he was unable to correlate his theory with quantum theory. So, yes it is useful but does not work for many situations therefore there needs to be better work accomplished before trying to objectively state it as fact.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, October, 17, 2007 12:38 PM Flame writes:

PL

Your discussion reference Hewitt fits perfectly with the liberal agenda. How many times have we seen the left denigrate people (not just conservatives but the poor, blacks, hispanics, etc.) in order to advance their agenda.

I would say the same for liberal leadership and defeat. They attempt to paint anyone that dares to question their motives with some "facts" on which the besmirchers could point to. But the intent and spirit in citing these "facts" was to besmirch conservatives as a group.

Consider the recent Congressional action about genocide in regards to Turkey and the Armenians. Where is the genocide condemnation of others, why Turkey which was already defeated and excoriated for their actions during the Ottoman Empire. Why now and why not include the rest of the countries that made up the Ottoman Empire? Why not include the Arab atrocities that occurred between WWI and WWI? Why not include the Germans for the atrocities of WWII and under the Soviet Union? That is the lack that is seen by people that understand history and why it appears to be a defeatist attitude. Attacking a democratic country while failing to attack socialist countries.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, October, 17, 2007 1:24 PM Proud Liberal writes:

Flame: Global Warming

I won't continue the discussion on "besmirching" since you and I are looking at different things. I will admit that liberals have besmirched conservatives for a long while, but maintain that there was a change after the Heritage Foundation began coming out with research tested aphorisms designed to discredit liberalism. Heritage has been very smart and effective in putting liberals on the defensive with simplistic and distored word bites.

But on to global warming. Can you tell me how global warming became labeled as a liberal lie? In "The next hundred years," which is a really good read by the way, the author recounts various events, talks to a lot of scientists in a number of disciplines that touch on weather, etc. Most scientists that he talked to at that time said that there was "no smoking gun," but that their gut instinct was that man was responsible for some of the global warming. It wasn't excessive or political, they recognized the contribution from cows, etc.

But years later now it appears that conservatives have labeled this a liberal lie and to my eyes and ears pretty much condemn scientists as dishonest rogues who lie to promote their liberal agenda - except for the couple of hundred scientists who agree with conservatives. It certainly bothers me that conservatives are up to their usual rhetoric of defaming and denigrating average, decent, hard working people such as scientists and bureaucrats.

But I am serious in wanting to know how this denigration came about, how a sense of scientists came to be called a liberal lie. Do you know the facts? Was there one person or group who first labeled this a liberal lie? How did this progress from, I presume, the original person or group who advanced this belief to the wide-spread belief now held by conservatives? I'd appreciate to learn what you know about this.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, October, 17, 2007 5:43 PM Flame writes:

PL Global Warming

Specifically I will have to research some more on the beginnings of this being labeled as a "liberal lie".

Generally, when liberals took the initiative to promote actions to "stop" global warming and things like Al Gore's movie which is not fact based but instead political in nature. These types of events led to global warming being a liberal issue. Things like the UN bureaucrats presenting a political finding instead of presenting the scientific facts which could be examined.

For me, when either side takes an issue and instead of dealing with facts currently known, that side presses the issue as a foregone conclusion then usually I identify the issue with that side, liberal or conservative. We are speaking generally here not individually. I work with primarily liberals yet we have no problems dealing with real issues involving work. That is because both sides deal in the facts and it is not an issue of left or right. Like you have stated, it was a sense of the scientific community that man was part of the problem but the problem was much more complex, yet this gets turned into science fact and global disaster is coming. It also sounded too much like the global cooling scare of the 70s and 80s.

Also add in the response of the scientific community to "peer review" of this hypothesis. Instead of keeping it scientific, the disagreeing reviewers were vilified. Yet several of the original group that was researching this issue determined that currently any available effort by man would not be effective. Then the issue went from scientific to political and became an issue of global catastrophe, sea levels rising 20-30 feet (not the predicted ~2-5 feet), all storms are the result of this warming, etc.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, October, 17, 2007 5:43 PM bone doc writes:

to the communist idiot above

Scientists and scientific method do not involve gut feelings. I have never read a scientific journal or a peer reviewed article claiming as evidence a gut feeling. This statement shows your utter lack of scientific knowledge and facts further proving my assesement of you
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, October, 17, 2007 5:54 PM Flame writes:

Besmirching - final thoughts

PL writes: "I won't continue the discussion on "besmirching" since you and I are looking at different things. I will admit that liberals have besmirched conservatives for a long while, but maintain that there was a change after the Heritage Foundation began coming out with research tested aphorisms designed to discredit liberalism. Heritage has been very smart and effective in putting liberals on the defensive with simplistic and distored word bites."

I agree we are looking at different things. I would also agree that there came a time when conservatives decided they had taken enough abuse and decided to respond in kind.

One final thought, when one says that we should compromise on an issue, it appears that the only one expected to compromise is the conservative. I have yet to see a compromise by the liberal side of an issue that the liberal in question is not immediately vilified by liberals for being off the reservation. (i.e. Lieberman, Miller, Couric)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Wednesday, October, 17, 2007 5:59 PM Flame writes:

bone doc

That is one of the major issues with global warming, the lack of peer review of the scientific hypothesis. Shoot it is not even a working theory yet as it has yet to clear the hypothesis stage. That and the amount of assumptions used which as anyone should know is the weakest part of theories. Even the atheist Isaac Asimov acknowledged that science takes the assumptions on faith not fact. :)
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Thursday, October, 18, 2007 9:39 PM bone doc writes:

to flame

when science becomes political eg. nazi germany jews are an inferior race promoted by anthropoligists you saw what happened.I dont think there is any difference between goebles and the communist democrat fascists of today
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, October, 19, 2007 11:56 AM Proud Liberal writes:

Are conservatives rigorous thinkers?

This could, perhaps, apply to anyone, but I have noticed a trend in your posts lately to be very loose intellectually.

To point out that science relies on assumptions and use this observation to nullify all of science gets to the heart of epistemology and ontology. Is there a real world out there and can man experience it or is everything just in our brains?

But to say that because this question is at the heart of human experience it therefore follows that global warming cannot be proven because nothing can be proven is unrigorous. Unfortunately I find this pattern of unrigorous thinking permeating conservative discourse.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, October, 19, 2007 7:31 PM Flame writes:

My bad

I cannot help it if you do not like the definition of the scientific method. Nor can I prevent you from reading into statements, thoughts that are not written. I even tried to use objective information from a world renowned scientist, Isaac Asimov. However I forgot that PL doesn't believe in any document as having control, whether the Constitution or the scientific method, aka relativism. I guess denying the existence of objective data is called rigorous thinking in the liberal world?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Friday, October, 19, 2007 11:16 PM bone doc writes:

to uneducated person above

you make no sense do not understand science and frankly your uneducated pseudo-intellectual talk leads me to believe you are from another country or planet. Who are you to demand i ntelluctial dialogue when your scientific decussions are idiotic and incipent?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, October, 20, 2007 10:29 AM Proud Liberal writes:

Flame

I just began reading the IPCC report on line this morning. I would call your attention to the way in which this report is constructed and the way in which Hannity seizes on articles written in the 1970s about global cooling and uses them to dismiss science in total. You might recall I contrasted the mind of Bay Buchannan with the mind of some MSM journalists a while back. The mind of Buchannan and Hannity is similar. They are both emotional and contradict the self-characterized claim that liberals are emotional and conservatives are rational.

Your last post actually turned things around. I am for the scientific method. What I argue is that conservatives are emotional. I think what we're seeing here in the global warming argument is a contest between "faith-based" perspective and scientific perspective. Conservatives realize in their gut that if they accept the scientific method in regard to climate change they are undercutting their faith based way of perceiving reality.

Once again. If you have not looked at the IPCC report I would urge you to do so.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, October, 20, 2007 6:05 PM Flame writes:

IPCC

Looked at it when it first came out. What is really needed for scientific purposes is the actual data not the politically produced report. That will eventually be available for peer review and I suspect that what happened for all the previous reports on global warming will once again occur. Too many scientists will review the data and find similar errors like the "hockey stick" point I made previously.

Once again, when you look at the IPCC report then you are looking at emotion in action. Once the underlying data is released then it will be possible to use the scientific method. It is not the scientific method with which I have a problem, it is the total faith in the assumptions without supporting evidence.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Saturday, October, 20, 2007 8:37 PM bone doc writes:

to the socialist

You can be a scientist and believe in God-Dr.Einstein. I was out to dinner last night with my progressive European neighbors who stated they hate Americans and the USA. They have lived here 20 years-reminds me of you.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, October, 21, 2007 9:58 AM Proud Liberal writes:

One of us is very confused, Flame

The citations in the IPCC report are of research that has been done by scientists, which has produced data, which has been published and peer reviewed. The underlying data is there, not something that needs to be released.

And, I have to chastise you severely about your comment that the IPCC report has been politically produced. The report is the work of many, many scientists around the world. You seem to start off with an assumption of some kind and rather than put words into your mouth I'll ask you what that assumption is. But it seems to me that there are two possibilities. One is that because the report reached a conclusion that is unpolitically correct from the conservative viewpoint that it must be politically motivated. Another possibility is that you think all scientists are liberals and simultaneously distort their scientific findings to support what liberals want to assert.

I will tell you that if you hold either one of these beliefs it is not worth my while to continue this dialogue, since I will concluded tht you are an irrevocable ideologue, i.e., someone who starts out with a belief and then cherry picks data to support his belief, rather than look at all the data with an open mind.

Plus, the idea that there is unreleased data underlying the IPCC report that hasn't been released shows me that you don't understand what the report is based on.

It's just not worth my while to continue with someone who is so far off base.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, October, 21, 2007 11:45 AM bone doc writes:

to the communist idiot above

I dont enjoy you denegrating a vet because you cant respond to my inquiries re your educational backround. You are a fraud, and a traitor. In your filthy socialist backround you have never read and cant understand a vetted peer reviewed scientifically reviewed article. I will no longer respond and you can take your social worker,womens study education somewhere else preferably another country although europe is becoming more like us and you and your ilk want to recreate the late great soviet union here. I wish you the worst I am not politically correct and pity your family, friends and employer as I have difficulty believing that only a governmental agency would put up with this crap. You will be shocked as the dems. aka american communist party loose another election I guarantee it re Namath. Please drop dead it would do us all good
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, October, 21, 2007 5:23 PM Flame writes:

Confusion

pl writes: "The citations in the IPCC report are of research that has been done by scientists, which has produced data, which has been published and peer reviewed. The underlying data is there, not something that needs to be released."

I would point out that the report preceded the release of any research for peer review. The only review provided prior to the report was done by the same researchers. I agree the underlying data was there, some of it was released after the report while some has yet to be released. I would also point out that data recorded for the report was found to be scientifically invalid. The temp sensors used to collect data were known to have a problem which was not resolved, also the placement of those sensors were primarily in urban, heat sink areas which invalidates the data also.

pl writes: "And, I have to chastise you severely about your comment that the IPCC report has been politically produced. The report is the work of many, many scientists around the world."

I accept chastisement when it is merited. However to claim that the report was not politically produced shows a distinct lack of knowledge concerning UN IPCC procedures. Normally a report would be submitted with the data, methods used, etc.; which allows the scientific method to be applied to the data for peer review. This is not the case of the IPCC. I would note that even Gore's movie, based on the IPCC report, has been found to have severe scientific problems.

Look, I am not disputing that there is climate warming, kinda hard since we warmed out of an ice age. What I do dispute is the unscientific conclusions drawn from the data.

I realize it is difficult to accept the truth when it totally opposes your view. However, it is better that I tried to inform you then to leave you to live with the distortions.
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, October, 28, 2007 8:53 AM nevets writes:

IPCC

Firstly, It IS fair to considr the source of any document, particularly a political document. The IPCC has an agenda beyond saving the EARTH from global warming. This can be supported by the acknowledgement that the IPCC is a part of the UN. What has the UN become? Everybodys OPINION will be debateable. BUT, I am not going to defer to a group of bureaucrats from, mostly, anti-american nations.

EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, October, 28, 2007 9:09 AM Proud Liberal writes:

Nevets

will you acknowledge that your own opinion is politically biased and not objective? You know, ultimately this gets to the question about how do you know when you are wrong. Most people will acknowledge that they can't be the only person in the world whose every opinion is the correct opinion. So most people will acknowledge that some of their opinions must be wrong and they would change their wrong opinions to the right opinion if only they knew which was which.

Or do you claim to me that every opinion you have is correct?
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, October, 28, 2007 11:50 AM bone doc writes:

to the socialist

I know one thing for sure-you are an un american demented idiot,a pseudointellectual fasist and most probably if american which I doubt, transgender
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, October, 28, 2007 11:58 AM bone doc writes:

to the communist idiot above

oh yes I to tellforgot to mention that you dont have the courage, yes you are a coward, to tell us where you went to school, your test scores,eg-sats and what you studied so we can ascertain whether there is any validity to anything you say -how dare you demand regereous intellectual discussion when you dont have credentials!
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive
Sunday, October, 28, 2007 12:02 PM bone doc writes:

to uneducated person above

by the way please exuse my typing-I use employees to do it for me but in your case I made an exception
EmailItEmail It | Print It Print It |  Flag as OffensiveFlag as Offensive