"...attack on Bush supporters" ?
What I did was reiterate what a poster posted. They have been embarassed enough not to respond, except to ventilate a meaningless diatribe.
That wasn't an "attack". That was analysis of the words spoken. Their meaning was apparent, and was embarassing to consider when seen in the light of reason, rather than heat of anger.
The words poster used are hateful and angry enough to appear that simply discussing the words themselves seems like an attack. Do you see the difference between reiterating a poster's words, and making an attack? Bush and co. don't. Simply asking questions is considered an attack on Bush credibility, so much so that they feel entitled not to answer any unscripted questions, and declare questioners to be disloyal and unpatriotic, rather like 18th century royalty, or the current dictatorship in North Korea. This, many people feel, is bad for the Republic.
apparent support of fundamental Bush haters and their wish of death on conservatives who hold differing opinions
?? You seem to have slipped some gears somewhere. I've never supported anyone's death, nor anyone's wish for someone else's death. You must be mistaking me for someone else, or making up some wishful thinking.
My careful observation has been the opposite -- Bush supporters tend to harbor those who wish, to use the previous poster's words, "misery and suffering" upon those who disagree with them.
Don't you think that's a bit unusual in a political discussion?
mis representation of what bbm wrote
Please, represent what bbm wrote in a way that more accurately represents what was said. I'd like to see how you can characterize the words otherwise. They, and the thoughts behind them, reiterated often in the past two years, seem absolutely self-evident. But perhaps you can figure out a better spin or interpretation.
many people understand the frustration on your part, and the descent folks among us are appalled by this representative of the left
Perhaps you mean "decent", rather than "descent" as in going downwards, in the above. "Frustration" isn't an issue -- simply reiterating words and phrases that people use is not frustrating, its pretty simple, and doesn't take a genius to figure out what people mean, and how they view others, and what they intend the gov't to do, in their stead, i.e., cause "pain and suffering"
You are speaking for others, apparently, in saying "descent folks" are "appalled". Perhaps you can clarify your being appalled. I think you'll find after examination that what you are appalled by is in the words and meaning used by your own poster. The wish for a gov't official to cause "misery and suffering" of political opponents has been with us forever, but is certainly appalling in itself, and I think is the crux of the matter. Perhaps you can show otherwise.
There is nothing amusing about this and it is your problem and it is a problem for all of us until we remove this vicious attack on people who don't march lock step in line with liberal doctrine
"Liberal" doctrine? You are certainly confused. The usual "liberal" label is for people who want gun control, unbalanced budgets, worldwide aggression, open borders. I'm against all those things. This isn't about me in any case, but the word "liberal" in the negative sense used by the tainted media, applies in spades to Bush & co. They are intent upon all of those things in legislation, yet speak the opposite in speeches.
Bush is no conservative. The administration is what is termed "Neoconservative", or "neocon" for short. That means they are what conservatives would be if they adopted other policies, which in most people's opinion completely contradict what classic conservativatism is, i.e., Constitutionalism.
I'm a Constitutionalist, strict constructionalist, fwiw.
I'd be happy to debate that issue if you wish.
narrow, bigoted, simple-minded, nasty
Again, I'm simply reiterating quotes by others, and, now, by you. I guess the old saw applies, "If the shoe fits, wear it"
Are you not yet embarrassed?
You have a larry flynt link, which I didn't open. You seem to be attempting to imply I'm a supporter somehow, for no apparent. I'm not a supporter of a pornographer, and try to avoid supporting hypocrits. The GOP of last term were both, with their constant publicizing of seamy escapades, for no reason other than personal and political gain, at the cost of decency in America, which still hasn't been recovered. |
