In another thread, starinvestor wrote:
I reject and rebut the notion that our side's attacks are comparable to your side's.
Have we been critical of the present administration? Absolutely, and with good reasons. But our criticism has largely been tied to the actual political decisions and actions of the administration: condemnation of torture, of cronyism, of the abuse of executive privilege and of signing statements, etc.
There have been some exceptions -- criticisms that aren't political in nature, but personal: the occasional link to the site that had pictures of Bush and similarly-posed pictures of chimpanzees, and more recently, the attacks on Sarah Palin's wardrobe, beauty pageant background, and other characteristics that weren't directly related to her level of preparation for national office.
Contrast this with these attacks on Democrats that don't relate to actual political decisions and actions:
as well as individually (I'm choosing not to link to these specific examples.)
I anticipate that someone will take me on with a counter-rebuttal and a litany of the attacks on Republicans -- including some of my own -- that mirror these. I don't anticipate that anyone will be able to show a quantitative equivalence between the two sides.
Perhaps in a later thread, I'll also rebut the claim that there are only a "handful" of conservatives around here...
In fact, I would be a teensy bit more congratulatory regarding these picks if it not for some of the ridiculous, abrasive and downright nasty condemnations of the present administration that is being force-fed to the handful of conservatives that haven't been banned yet from the Politics forum!!!
I reject and rebut the notion that our side's attacks are comparable to your side's.
Have we been critical of the present administration? Absolutely, and with good reasons. But our criticism has largely been tied to the actual political decisions and actions of the administration: condemnation of torture, of cronyism, of the abuse of executive privilege and of signing statements, etc.
There have been some exceptions -- criticisms that aren't political in nature, but personal: the occasional link to the site that had pictures of Bush and similarly-posed pictures of chimpanzees, and more recently, the attacks on Sarah Palin's wardrobe, beauty pageant background, and other characteristics that weren't directly related to her level of preparation for national office.
Contrast this with these attacks on Democrats that don't relate to actual political decisions and actions:
- Al Gore is fat.
- Obama's aunt overstayed her visa.
- Hillary Clinton looks like Adolf Hitler.
- Rachel Maddow looks like a guy.
- Obama got financial aid to attend Harvard.
- He's a Muslim (and he smokes!).
- and of course: He wasn't really born in Hawaii!
- Obama becomes: "Barry", "NObama", "Messiah"
- his supporters: "Obamabots", "libtards", "Kool-aid drinkers", "neolibs"
- Joe Biden: "Lunchpail Joe"
- Hillary Clinton: "Billary" (her supporters: "Clintonistas")
- Nancy Pelosi: "retard"
- Harry Reid: "LOON"
- Pelosi and Reid: "commrades"
- Barney Frank: "I suck a lot of cocks"
- Al Gore: "dipshit", "fat"
- Matt Damon: "blithering idiot", "eternal fool"
- Colin Powell (after endorsing Obama): "Colon Powell"
- Tim Robbins: "jackass"
as well as individually (I'm choosing not to link to these specific examples.)
I anticipate that someone will take me on with a counter-rebuttal and a litany of the attacks on Republicans -- including some of my own -- that mirror these. I don't anticipate that anyone will be able to show a quantitative equivalence between the two sides.
Perhaps in a later thread, I'll also rebut the claim that there are only a "handful" of conservatives around here...