a hateful bunch

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Just what is that gives the liberal element a Daily Kos mentality and produces a protesting karma?

Guilt by Association

Two members of the Seattle Seahawks football team are getting unpleasant feedback after appearing with President Bush at a political fundraiser last week.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports quarterback Matt Hasselbeck and fullback Mack Strong have received nasty voice mails, e-mails and text messages. Seattle is a heavily Democratic area and one person told Hasselbeck: "I hate you. I'll never wear your jersey. I'll never like the Seahawks again."

Hasselbeck says this gave him a brief glimpse of how mean and dirty politics can be. He says he's used to being booed, but that this was "a whole new level. I was very surprised how mean (they were)."

--and on a diff tangent more on liberals stance on solving illegal immigration

San Francisco's city supervisor wants to provide illegal immigrants with an official identification card, to be used to obtain city services. The San Francisco Chronicle reports the cards may also be used to open accounts at financial institutions.

San Francisco would be the first major U.S. city to adopt such a policy

 

[WhatsHisNuts]

This represents all liberals in the same way that Ted Haggard, Larry Craig, and Dick Cheney represent all conservatives.

 

[IntenseOperator]

--and on a diff tangent more on liberals stance on solving illegal immigration

San Francisco's city supervisor wants to provide illegal immigrants with an official identification card, to be used to obtain city services. The San Francisco Chronicle reports the cards may also be used to open accounts at financial institutions.

San Francisco would be the first major U.S. city to adopt such a policy

When is the Big One coming.

 

[djv]

Why were they there?? Bush not running for anything, or is he? If they didn't know about Bush's low approval numbers they should have. Or at least got paid with a free lunch or 20 bucks and a bus ride.

 

[smurphy]

Just what is that gives the liberal element a Daily Kos mentality and produces a protesting karma?

Guilt by Association

Two members of the Seattle Seahawks football team are getting unpleasant feedback after appearing with President Bush at a political fundraiser last week.

The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reports quarterback Matt Hasselbeck and fullback Mack Strong have received nasty voice mails, e-mails and text messages. Seattle is a heavily Democratic area and one person told Hasselbeck: "I hate you. I'll never wear your jersey. I'll never like the Seahawks again."

Hasselbeck says this gave him a brief glimpse of how mean and dirty politics can be. He says he's used to being booed, but that this was "a whole new level. I was very surprised how mean (they were)."

Dogs, how is this any different than the public resentment and nasty treatment many gave the Dixie Chicks? They were banned by entire stations and received thousands of nasty letters. Here you are bitching over a few oddballs and a Seahawk jersey and calling an entire "element" (what is it with you and that word?) nasty. ...And the elements that banned the Dixie Chicks? Were they nasty, or just expressing freedom of choice? I believe both sides are doing just that - expressing freedom of choice and speech. You can't bitch about that on one side but completely ignore it on the other.

 

[ImFeklhr]

When is the Big One coming.

:wall:

Isn't an even bigger one due to hit that fault line around St. Louis?

You guys in middle america built your houses to withstand earthquakes, right?

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Dogs, how is this any different than the public resentment and nasty treatment many gave the Dixie Chicks? They were banned by entire stations and received thousands of nasty letters. Here you are bitching over a few oddballs and a Seahawk jersey and calling an entire "element" (what is it with you and that word?) nasty. ...And the elements that banned the Dixie Chicks? Were they nasty, or just expressing freedom of choice? I believe both sides are doing just that - expressing freedom of choice and speech. You can't bitch about that on one side but completely ignore it on the other.

Its tough coveying to a liberal Smurph but let me give you the diff in the most simplistic form.

in reading--remember tread topic--the" hateful bunch"

The Dixie Chicks were dissed because of their "hateful" diatribe--had they went on stage and supported a candidate--no one would have said squat.


The athletes went on stage to support candidate--not give hateful bs on anyone.

--but I think you for your comment as believe it proved my point

 

[Cie]

Dogs, how is this any different than the public resentment and nasty treatment many gave the Dixie Chicks? They were banned by entire stations and received thousands of nasty letters. Here you are bitching over a few oddballs and a Seahawk jersey and calling an entire "element" (what is it with you and that word?) nasty. ...And the elements that banned the Dixie Chicks? Were they nasty, or just expressing freedom of choice? I believe both sides are doing just that - expressing freedom of choice and speech. You can't bitch about that on one side but completely ignore it on the other.

you know theseare two completely different situations. Dix Chicks were hating on Bush and the USA publicly. The Seahawks were simply showing support.

 

[djv]

What candidate were they supporting. Bush? The only reason they got booed is because Bush was there. It was he the crowd dislikes. No Bush no problem. Sad but true. Hey bush caused his problems.

 

[smurphy]

you know theseare two completely different situations. Dix Chicks were hating on Bush and the USA publicly. The Seahawks were simply showing support.

They were not hating on the USA. How is publicly stating your viewpoint about our leadership "hating on the USA"? Criticism of Bush's incompetence and poor decisions is not hating on the USA.

I guess when everyone was publicly going after Clinton, they were hating on the USA.

 

[bjfinste]

They were not hating on the USA. How is publicly stating your viewpoint about our leadership "hating on the USA"? Criticism of Bush's incompetence and poor decisions is not hating on the USA.

I guess when everyone was publicly going after Clinton, they were hating on the USA.

No shit. How is saying they are ashamed Bush is from Texas "hating" on the US? Hell, as an American, I am embarrassed and ashamed that he was elected. Does that mean I'm hating on the USA, as well?

 

[buddy]

...as an American, I am embarrassed and ashamed that he was elected. Does that mean I'm hating on the USA, as well?

No.





However, it does imply you hate freedom.

 

[Chadman]

So what is it that gives the conservative element a racist mentality when they disapprove of Barack Obama because he is black? As always, does one fringe, outlandish element represent an entire group of millions?

Of course not, but some feel the need to make that connection.:shrug:

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Been watching his talk this afternoon--thought I'd put up a pic of Edward and Spy wives being escorted out of hearing.
http://www.breitbart.tv/html/5420.html

note the woman behind them with the phone camera-I smell a lawsuit setup.

also saw where Moveon put a full page ad in -where else- NYT entitle general betrayus--before they even heard the speech--

 

[Jabberwocky]

Researching right wing hate speech is a waste of time, so I will skip it. Anne Coulter calls Edwards a fag, but the left is the party of hate? Comical.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

Whats sad Jabbers is you can't distinquish the diff between one person and an organization that told the dem party--
"
Liberal powerhouse MoveOn has a message for the "professional election losers" who run the Democratic Party: "We bought it, we own it, we're going to take it back."

Doubt GW is too interested in Coulters opinion--
Yet is amusing to watch the Dem nominiees jump like puppets at KOS and Move.ons every whim.

 

[Chadman]

Whats sad Jabbers is you can't distinquish the diff between one person and an organization that told the dem party--
"
Liberal powerhouse MoveOn has a message for the "professional election losers" who run the Democratic Party: "We bought it, we own it, we're going to take it back."

Doubt GW is too interested in Coulters opinion--
Yet is amusing to watch the Dem nominiees jump like puppets at KOS and Move.ons every whim.

But of course the rep nominees won't cater to the right wing religious zealots and big business connections that have had such a profound effect on the current administration and policy, right?

 

[Chadman]

Here is the text from the Move-On ad in the NYT. I maintain I do not agree with some of the positions taken by Move-On, I had a hard time coming up with a problem with what they are asserting in the ad. Perhaps those critical of Move-On in this particular situation can address the commentary and show what is not factual or incorrect? By the way, Move-On linked all of these comments and referenced their viewpoints on the Website. Have not clicked the links, but I don't find a lot that hard to believe from these assertions. Interesting to note that John Kerry is out front in criticizing this ad. I'd imagine other dems will as well.

 

[Chadman]

Sorry, something fouled up when trying to copy/paste...here it is>

General Petraeus or General Betray Us?

Cooking the books for the White House

General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts. In 2004, just before the election, he said there was ?tangible progress? in Iraq and that ?Iraqi leaders are stepping forward.? And last week Petraeus, the architect of the escalation of troops in Iraq , said ?We say we have achieved progress, and we are obviously going to do everything we can to build on that progress.?

Every independent report on the ground situation in Iraq shows that the surge strategy has failed. Yet the General claims a reduction in violence. That?s because, according to the New York Times, the Pentagon has adopted a bizarre formula for keeping tabs on violence. For example, deaths by car bombs don?t count. The Washington Post reported that assassinations only count if you're shot in the back of the head -- not the front. According to news reports, there have been more civilian deaths and more American soldier deaths in the past three months than in any other summer we?ve been there. We'll hear of neighborhoods where violence has decreased. But we won't hear that those neighborhoods have been ethnically cleansed.

Most importantly, General Petraeus will not admit what everyone knows; Iraq is mired in an unwinnable religious civil war. We may hear of a plan to withdraw a few thousand American troops. But we won?t hear what Americans are desperate to hear: a timetable for withdrawing all our troops. General Petraeus has actually said American troops will need to stay in Iraq for as long as ten years.

Today before Congress and before the American people, General Petraeus is likely to become General Betray Us.

 

[DOGS THAT BARK]

But of course the rep nominees won't cater to the right wing religious zealots and big business connections that have had such a profound effect on the current administration and policy, right?

Maybe you could give us some examples of the hate the two examples above are speading. :shrug:

other than abortion which has religious entities on both sides--I can't seem to come with any.

How about this--Let those concerned about big business (economy and jobs) religion (family values) to themselves and back our miltary leaders

---and the other side can promte their hate--and have the code pink militia ready to protect them and don their little pink statue of liberty hats as in vidoe above and show their us how brave they are and what courage and honor are about.

and additional note on Jabbers comparison--Don't know who viewed it but Ron Paul was on factor last night and got trapped by O'reilly in similiar comparison--He was ranting on saudi issue and after Bill let him talk and trap himself--he asked him one question-yes or no-- Do you think Saudi is more of a threat than Iran--ron was too far in to back pedal and was forced from prior rant to say yes.

O'reilly smiled and replied something to this effect----if you are saying a country that has had a few radical elements from within- is more dangerous than a State that promotes terrorism at all levels--publically says it wants to wipe out another country--and at same time on verge of going nuclear--then you sir are living in the land of oz.

Poor Ron locked up and couldn't seem to utter a word--luckily the interview was at its end..