What does it cost to hate someone, or a group of someones? Terrorists hate America. Democrats hate the President. Americans hate each other... What price do we pay for our hatreds?
The NYT's hates the Bush Presidency. A strong majority of Democrats hate the Bush Presidency. And with but rare exception every American espousing the Liberal Democrat Ideology hates the Bush Presidency. The NYT's resorts to treason. Democrats resort to treason, and their sycophantic myrmidons forget who they are and follow suit... Repeating the very same treasons they've heard their gods utter.
Everyone on the Left, it seems, has forgotten 9/11. Oh, they'll bluster with indignation if you suggest it, but the fact remains, they actively seek to weaken our nation, and our ability to defend its people, for the sake of power. As long as the Bush Presidency is smeared, impeached, brought low, and ground to historical dust, all is fair in this new War on America the Left wages. The left has chosen sides, and their loyalties are not where they should be.
I found The Anchoress, and this post-- now intaglioed across my consciousness --at Kobayashi Maru. This is why what the New York Times did-- exposing the secret NSA wiretapping program --is the height of treason... Why they deserve to be tried, convicted, imprisoned [or worse] and put out of business. They, like Democrats and the democratic faithful, have forgotten 9/11. Sadly, much of the rest of America has forgotten as well.
The Anchoress' article is a must read. No excuses.
A short reminder as to why we are fighting this war...
[Excerpt]
"We have seen their kind before. They're the heirs of all the murderous ideologies of the 20th century. By sacrificing human life to serve their radical visions, by abandoning every value except the will to power, they follow in the path of fascism, Nazism and totalitarianism. And they will follow that path all the way to where it ends in history's unmarked grave of discarded lies. Americans are asking, "How will we fight and win this war?"
"We will direct every resource at our command - every means of diplomacy, every tool of intelligence, every instrument of law enforcement, every financial influence, and every necessary weapon of war -— to the destruction and to the defeat of the global terror network."
That was President George W. Bush in a speech to Congress on September 20th of 2001, which was televised live, nationwide. Do you remember this speech?
Seriously, read her full post. We have forgotten too much-- as she clearly illustrates. We have forgotten what should never be forgotten.
our president has ignored our constitution and the rules.
he needs to be impeached
br3n
You are, of course, correct-- Hate begets hate, violence... violence. Unless clearer heads prevail the disease runs its course, killing everything it touches. Is this what we want for our world?
Hypocrite.
As far as the treason bit, I'm sick of hearing that bullshit. Bush and the GOP are the treasonous ones, chipping away at our democracy, the Constitution, and everything that makes this a great country.
I won't call you a hypocrite, but I will stongly suggest you're more than a bit ignorant on this topic.
I don't recall Clinton trying to amend the constitution to take away the rights of U.S. citizens or anything comparing to the wholesale and far-reaching corruption of Delay, Abramoff, etc.
For the record, I am not a Democrat, and do not care to defend Democrats. Clinton's administration was certainly not perfect. But he was a moderate, while Bush is quite radical in his aims and methods.
Perhaps you haven't bothered to look too deeply into ClintonGore's past, but from my side of the fence Bush is a boy scout in comparison. How would you defend this nation against all enemies, foreign and domestic? What steps would you take? How many people would insist you broke the law? Subverted the constitution? That you were in fact a criminal for doing so? Don't believe everything the media tells you. Find out for yourself.
We could debate it for months, or years, but the fact remains... This is a scary time in which to live. Why do you think blogging has caught on so big? No one trusts media anymore. I certainly don't, and I work in media! People are desperate for the Truth, and they've discovered they have the means, near to hand, by which Truth can be found. Like all the rest, I'd rather read the news, and between its biased lines for myself... and come to my own conclusions. People are, after all, filled with their own beliefs about life, the universe and everything, [nod to Douglas Adams] and it taints every attitude and every product of the imagination... Even when we try to remain un-biased. It is futile, really-- There is no such thing as unbias.
You're tired of hearing the treason "bullshit"... too bad. I'm sick to death of the sycophantic media elites trying to make me believe Clinton was a great man. He wasn't. We are where we are today, because of his failures... because of his ideology. There is something fundamentally wrong with Liberalism and those who espouse its precepts. Clinton most certainly was not a moderate. Anyone who can condone partial-birth abortion is as far left as one can be... Some would even call such a man "Evil." Is partial-birth abortion any less evil than the crimes perpetrated by Nazi Germany in Auschwitz? Or any number of other such "camps"? Any less evil than our destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki... however necessary?
But you're entitled to your opinion. And however I disagree with it, I'll respect it... This is America, after all. Liberals haven't destroyed that much... Yet.
I say, "thank God for President Bush," especially his Supreme Court Nominees. And good riddance to Liberalism, couldn't have happened to a "nicer" philosophy...
I'll address one thing: why has the blogosphere taken off? One, it couldn't exactly take off before the Internet, could it? Two, lots of partisans on both the left and right that would rather be told what they already believe than get their information from sources that actually challenge them to think.
Three, lots of narcissists desperately in need of attention. And what did these self-important losers do before the blogosphere? Listed their neighbor's sins on their storefront blackboard (my great grandpa in Birmingham). Shouted from the street corner that everyone's going to hell. Wrote letters to the editor and fumed when their illiterate rants weren't printed. Put up billboards like "U.S. out of the U.N." Built compounds in northern Idaho. Blew up federal buildings.
The meeker just looked back on their their glory days in the drama club or on the yearbook committee. But now everyone can be important! Now everyone can be a published crackpot, complete with their own cute little username.
Welcome to the blogosphere. Have a safe, secure ego trip.
Love the "cute little username"
Have a nice day.
Read the whole thing.
His link is now "clickable"
If you had hoped to point out that Democrats have reason to hate Bush, for the War in Iraq specifically, your argument falls flat. There is no excuse for hatred, ever. From anyone.
What Dem's and Liberals are doing-- engaging in their own War on the President --is far more disgusting to me than the current state of affairs in Iraq. What I find truly disgusting is the blatant hypocrisy of the rank and file membership of today's Democratic Party-- to say nothing of the Mainstream Media.
There are lines that should never be crossed. And I'd venture to say Dem's and the Liberal Media have crossed their own Rubicon, and they'll pay a price for it.
And as another poster pointed out, your rejection of hatred is a bit out of step with your coziness with "liberal loather."
If I had the "Huffington Post", or "Talking Points Memo" [yes, I frequent these two liberal venues] linked here you'd probably still say I'm out of line for the Liberal Loather link.
Don't confuse my choice of links with an espousal of their individual philosophies.
And how you can compare the amount of vitriol expressed and flung at GW to Republican disdain for Clinton while he was in office, is beyond me. It's apples and oranges. It's the difference between Bitter and Tart. No comparison-- One's palatable, the other is not. Hatred of GW is not based-- or rather, does not find its origin in --an honest disagreement with his policy. The hatred of George W. Bush stems from his win over Gore in 2000. And last time I checked, Gore lost every recount. Despite a Democratic attempt to... appropriate... the election.
Liberals, and Democrats by extension, hate Bush because they see his presidency as illegitimate, plain and simple. This whole hatred of Bush and Republicans is nothing more than a tit for tat campaign... "You did this to our guy Bill, and by God, we're gonna do it to you!!!" Never mind the fact that Bill did it to himself by lying to a Federal Grand Jury. Never mind the fact that the so-called "culture of corruption" over-shadowed the Clinton White House for much of his 2 terms in office. That's why your guy Gore couldn't win against a bumble-mouthed idiot from Crawford Texas... Too many people remembered his Boss. If William Jefferson Clinton had been the man of integrity he told everyone he was, Gore would have won hands down. Instead, the one lasting impression of the Clinton Presidency is the president himself pointing his finger in anger and saying, "I did not have sex with that woman... Miss Lewinski."
Back to the Liberal Loather... I do in fact despise Liberal-ism, but I work with liberals, and they're actually quite nice... Your objection doesn't hold water.
Well, you're entitled to your opinion. But the sentiment above certainly does not describe my views, nor those of anyone with whom I discuss these issues.
That admission, however, doesn't invalidate my point... only that not everyone drinks Koolaid. But I should have known that, right?