A blog reader emailed me a link to his post where he offered some insights into the left’s attacks on Rush. He contends that “emotionally, leftists are stuck in middle school.“ I’m not sure that I agree with this hypothesis, but believe he may well be onto something.
I grant there is this adolescent nature to their attacks, focusing on Rush’s physical attributes and personal failings rather than the quality and content of his argument. To this reader, Rush’s critics are like the popular kids picking on the outsider.
Perhaps, I link the post because it called to mind a theory I’d been toying around with about why the left, particularly those who considered themselves intellectuals, so hated (and still continue to hate) the immediate past President of the United States, George W. Bush.
The people who, in that blogger’s parlance, now pick on Rush were themselves not the popular kids. They were more likely to be the geeky kids whom the popular kids (the cool crowd) picked on. And they so hated George W. Bush because he reminded them of the guys who seemed to glide through high school socially while they struggled. And as such guys glided, they taunted those less popular.
Their anger, their wishing failure, humiliation, impeachment and imprisonment on W was for them, a sort of revenge of the nerds.
Again, I’m just throwing this out there, as much for discussion as anything else.  My reader makes a point that, I believe, is definitely worth consideration. Given the nature of the rage of the left against any outspoken conservative who gains a foothold in American politics or popular culture, I am convinced that their animus has a strong psychological component.
And whether my hypothesis or that of this reader has any merit may well be better left to those more versed in the study of human psychology.
But, do consider this, how would you evaluate someone who refuses to address the ideas of any intellectual adversary and instead resorts repeatedly to personal attacks and petty insults? I certainly know how many of our critics (and usually with cause) judge those who regularly badmouth gay people. Shouldn’t we apply a similar standard to those who vilify conservatives?
I think the explanations for Bush/Rush hatred are more directly connected to culture and politics.
1) They’re both white, male, strongly pro-American and pro-military, and at least somewhat pro-Christian.
2) They both tell truths that left-liberals don’t want to hear. (Not that they’re right about everything. But if they’re right 50-60% of the time, that adds up to a lot of truth-telling on lefties, whose percentages are generally lower.)
3) Personal demonization is the number one political tactic in the leftie playbook.
Also, note how easily “Rush” substitutes for “Bush” if you are a kindergartner learning to spell, or a left-liberal. (Oops, sorry for the redundancy. 😉 )
I think certain commentors like that already know how I evaluate them. (ILC ducks 😉 )
Yes. Unfortunately, “conservaphobia”, while real, is less euphonous than “homophobia”. I don’t know… “dextrophobia”? No, sounds like an irrational fear of alternate forms of sugar.
Type ‘michael moore fat’ in google and you’ll come up with all sorts of petty bullshit that makes fun of his weight without paying attention to his ideological arguements. I don’t think this means that every moore-hater is an emotionally stunted boob, more that it is a very easy, socially permissible insult to make against someone you don’t like. I’m sure there are (some) reasonably philosophical differences underpinning it.
As an international observer who reached adulthood during the second term of the Bush administration, I can certainly say that there was initially an adolescent quality to the nature of disliking bush, that is to say, everyone else was doing it. There were also my own discrete reasons, namely the fallout of the iraq war on british politics, an albatross that Tony Blair has yet to shrug off in the eyes of the british public.
As an adult, my dislike remains, though it is certainly more nuanced, and prehaps my early socialization into a bush-hating society was part and parcel of it. I’d like to think, however, that if I was 18 when the administration came to power and was competant in my ability to research and analyze policy and opinion of the time and beyond, i would reach reasonably similar conclusions. Maybe Bush’s work in Africa would get a greater look-in, but it’s still not too hot a picture.
For understanding the psychology of the left, I cannot recommend Dr. Sanity highly enough! Her insight into the far left’s underlying mental health issues is always illuminating. Reading her posts gives me such a shock of recognition, it has been like she read my mind during my many years “community organizing.”
http://drsanity.blogspot.com/
The State Agitprop’s Kulak-ization of Rush is nothing more than a distraction from the bumbling idiocy of the Chairman Obama administration.
Seriously, I can’t stop laughing when you try to make it appear as if people who don’t agree with your political views suffer from a mental disorder. Real or not, this whole Rush thing is shaping up to be another indication of how adrift and un-connected from what is going on in America right now.
Bumbling idiocy? You keep confusing this administration with the last one…..
Seriously, I can’t stop laughing when you try to make it appear as if people who don’t agree with your political views suffer from a mental disorder. Real or not, this whole Rush thing is shaping up to be another indication of how adrift and un-connected from what is going on in America right now.
Bumbling idiocy? You keep confusing this administration with the last one…..
Spare me the psych evaluation. Ad hominum attacks are a timeless form of argumentation when reason is lacking. This doesn’t make them okay. It is a logical fallacy, and a political tactic, a rhetorical ploy…
I see. It’s all clear now. When people on the left question President Bush or Republican/Conservative leaders like Rush Limbaugh it’s “Bush hating” or adolescent. But when those on the right question President Obama, no matter how derogatory their comments or ridiculous their hypothesis, it’s “patriotic.”
Message understood gentlemen. Completely understood.
We all in our private moments resort to lowbrow attacks. I consider comments to a blog to be something of a private conversation.
The left has shouted it’s hate and derision from the highest places of power and the most esteemed institutions of our nation. Be it The universities or our mass media.
Our lovely lefty commentors hold these people in great esteem, but when one of us criticizes the president or this administration – suddenly we are the height of evil.
As usual their inability to differentiate between degrees of criticism comes through.
It’s like being told that stealing office supplies is the same as murder – since both are sins.
The Democrat establishment (politicians + media) spent eight years hammering Bush for every gaffe or perceived error (even when Bush was acting on prior Clinton doctrine) – regardless of the facts or the potential threat to national security (Murtha accusing troops war crimes or the NY Times revealing secret operations to track terrorist funding).
Now the Dems are in power and need a smoke screen to cover up what they’re up to. So operatives like Carville conduct surveys to see what the public thinks of Rush (I wonder if they qualify the respondents: have you ever listened?). Can anyone imagine the reaction if Bush operatives surveyed the public to gather opinion on Tom Brokaw?
Kevin, gillie, &c: Rush Limbaugh is a private citizen who hosts a one-man radio show. It’s an opinion show and he’s never claimed to be running a news operation.
To paraphrase Rush: he cannot raise your taxes, send you to war, talk the markets down 3000 points, add trillions to our already gargantuan debt, force you into a government-run health system, deny you medical treatment because you’re too old/young. He can’t determine what kids are taught in school, impose laws to put you in jail, admit millions of low-wage immigrants to compete with workers here legally, give $900 million to Palestinian terrorists, sell our allies down the river, censor the media. And he can’t permit/deny abortions nor can he define marriage. All he can do is talk about these issues and make arguments pro and con. No one makes anyone (dis)agree with any of it.
Politicians and their minions (judges and the bureaucracy) can do all of these things. Obama/Reid/Pelosi are moving fast to do a lot of things that will damage the nation.
You guys are the ones who need to get a grip.
Filtered. Eek.
george,
dissent is the highest form of patriotism after all.
The fact that the assault on Rush comes from the White House cannot be denied. http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/03/09/america/09axelrod.php
I know the old saying seems to be true. Conservatives think Liberals are misguided. Liberals think Conservatives are evil.
Erik, please give some examples of ‘bumbling idiocy’ in the Bush Administration. in 8 years I’m sure you can find something to match pissing off our second closest ally (Sorry GB, AU is first) losing our airbase access to Afganistan, flopped jokes to the Russians, telling Eastern Europe that we’ll throw them to the wolves and now negotiating with our enemies. I won’t even limit you to the first two months of the Bush Administration.
Bugger, filter.
Ha! Limbaugh loves to make fun of people’s manner of speaking, physical attributes etc. He’s a clown. That’s what he does. It’s a little odd for his fans to balk when his critics make fun of his obesity, drug use, or current off the deep end lunacy. But frankly the only thing he really is these days is irrelevant. If Limbaugh had any real clout in the GOP then McCain could never have gotten the nomination. It’s a whole lot of nothing. All this does is inflate his own persecution complex. *yawn*
Ehhhh… Not to contradict you there TL, but I kinda think left-liberals are evil. The hard-core ones, mainly. A lot of people go along simply because left-liberalism is all they’ve ever been steeped in. They’re not hard-core, not evil. Plus, it makes them feel good. But to be a life-long, hard-core left-liberal takes, I think, a certain kind of malice: a deep desire for power over others. Which I consider to be the root of much evil. Plus, all the lying (intellectual dishonesty) such people get into.
But wait, I just remembered – I’m not a conservative. (More of a classical liberal / law-and-order libertarian.) So I can’t speak for conservatives. So, your saying could be true, for all I would know.
Yeah. Books and movies about killing the president are just as natural as breathing. Very telling.
What?????
Nope. Bush knows how many states there are and can speak without a teleprompter. Not to mention, I don’t think Bush ever saw dead people at an appearance.
Didn’t someone here at Gaypatriot blog about this issue (or something very much like it, about Bush as the hated frat boy type) before? I seem to recall have left a comment about it at the time, but I don’t remember what it was. 🙁
Anyway, I think this is quite true. It certainly seems to describe the pathology of many of the Bush haters I know. Even one of my friends (who is no intellectual) once admitted (in a rare moment of candor about the subject) that he couldn’t stand Bush because Bush was the hated frat boy type.
For one thing, Moore is still fat whereas Rush is not. That matters not to those detatched from reality.
For anothe, much attention has been paid to Moore’s “arguements” and the deceit he uses to make them. On the flip side, all the liberals have is “Rush is fat!”.
You won’t see any analysis on Rush’s arguements except at MediaMorons which is funded by George Soros,run by hack wannabes who can’t seem to grasp context or facts. Well, they do grasp the facts that they make up as they go along, but that doesn’t count.
I see your point on the Democrats wanting Bush to fail, but if we go down to their level, then what does that make us? If we want to make a statement for America, does it make sense to do the exact same thing, just for the sake of evening the score.
I say, let’s make America better, or we will all look like bickering children.
if you have a chance. . .see comment 31 at
http://www.gaypatriot.net/2009/03/08/fat-disgusting-piggish-earmarks/trackback/
ciao
And my response:
Actually, rusty, science and research proceeded quite nicely. Indeed, deprived of the easy way out of simply killing children to harvest for cells, researchers took another look at adult stem cells and found out, lo and behold, they seemingly work just as well, have far less potential for rejection, and are much better at not turning into tumors.
But of course, abortion pushers like yourself and Obama wouldn’t be interested in that, because adult stem cells a) don’t involve killing babies and b) don’t give you an opportunity to bash Bush.
#15: “But frankly the only thing he really is these days is irrelevant. If Limbaugh had any real clout in the GOP then McCain could never have gotten the nomination. It’s a whole lot of nothing. All this does is inflate his own persecution complex. *yawn*”
Houndentenor, if Rush is so irrelevant these days and is suffering from a persecution “complex,” then why did the New York Times report that the White House attacks on him were “explicitly authorized” by Obama’s senior adviser David Axelrod?
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/09/us/politics/09axelrod.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss
Next time the libs start in on Rush, we should ask how drawing attention to Rush helps to feed one hungry child, pay one teacher [insert usual liberal cliches].
It’s unsettling to think that while the economy continues to deteriorate at an alarming rate, the Chinese are testing the Navy (our options being limited since we need them to buy our debt), the Norks are threatening war, the Iranians are working on their own Manhattan Project, the Russians are up to their old tricks, Mexico is on the brink of failure… the immense brains in the West Wing spend an awful lot of time targeting the irrelevant (tm Houndentenor) Limbaugh and Jim Cramer, (erstwhile?) Obama supporter.
You Dems need to realize something: you don’t need Rush or any other conservative to advance your agenda. The left doesn’t want Toto pulling back the curtain.
Just to let everyone know, two gay Obama Party legislators just introduced legislation to strip the Roman Catholic Church of its power to manage its own business affairs.
Again, isn’t it amazing how gay liberals can conjure any right from a constitution — except the ones that are actually written in it?
Still a damn sight better than the liberal douchebags who want, desperately, us to believe that opposing Chairman Obama will result in the downfall of Western Civilisation. The truth is that support of Chairman Obama is what will contribute to it.
You don’t have to say so directly. I agree. The Yankees suck.
This isn’t about “evening the score.” This is about opposing a president who wants to nationalize our health care system, wants to weaken our economy through misguided, regulation, and cap and trade schemes, who wants to undermine individual rights in favor of collective rights, who wants to make America a poorer, weaker country because that would be “fairer.”
The Democrat Left did what it did because they hated Bush. We fight Obama because we love free markets, we support individual rights and freedom, and we believe the USA really is a better country than the rest of the world. That’s a Huge difference between us and them.
Actually, ILC, I did address your asinine ideas, backed you into a corner where you were forced to admit that you were “technically” wrong (in this case “technically” apparently means insisting words have meaning) and yet you still had to keep arguing to try and turn your loss into a win.
You are not an intellectual adversary, you are an intellectually dishonest adversary and you’ve just proven it again.
I’m glad you keep dropping hints about how little you regard you have for me, long after I told you I had lost all regard for you and your utterly dishonest and sleazy tactics.
You are nothing but one of the trolls we were all warned about who have to “win” an argument at all costs and absolutely have to have the last word.
Fine. Have the last word again.
I’ve dropped this issue about 20 times now, and you keep bringing it up over and over again. F*cking get a life outside the internet, move out of your grandmothers basement, and drop it already. Then man up and learn how to admit when you’re wrong without being forced into it.
Filtered 🙁
TGC,
Rush unfortunately looks to have put all the weight back on and then some, but you’ve got everything else right.
As direct payback for opposing gay marriage. I was hoping this blog would take this topic up, it really goes to show just how radical the left is; willing to tear down the very founding principles of this country to get what they want.
One thing occurs, the truly pathetic on the left will latch onto Rush, Coulter, Bush etc. so people will actually give a shit about what they write.
Consider the Frank Schaeffer piece pointed out in another thread. He clearly has some sort of issues with himself and his father. However, to get people’s attention, he has to go after Republicans, Bush, Rush, Coulter etc. He has a book, clearly, nobody has read and goes on a show nobody’s heard of to plug it. Nobody would give a damn what he said unless he included the usual villains of the liberals. The same sad story, I think, applies to McClellan.
Consider George’s “clever” comment in response to Colorado Patriot’s post on earmarks. He wants to make sure everybody sees how “clever” he is, so he pulls a slam of Rush out of his ass. To make doubly sure folks read it, he comments on it in another thread. How fucking sad is that?
There are definitely sad, miserable people who have to ride on the right’s coattails to be noticed and to make some money so they can buy lunch next week. I truly feel sorry for these poor bastards.
Maybe Chairman Obama can start an entitlement funneling millions of dollars to the Poor, Pathetic, Liberal Bastards Who Need Attention & Lunch Money Fund.
“A sorry assed douchebag is a terrible thing to waste!”.
chew on this NDT:
“I’m very grateful that President Obama has lifted the restrictions on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research,” the former first lady said in a statement. “These new rule will now make it possible for scientists to move forward.”
“Countless people, suffering from many different diseases, stand to benefit from the answers stem cell research can provide,” said Reagan, who has long been at odds with other conservative Republicans over the stem cell issue.
“We owe it to ourselves and to our children to do everything in our power to find cures for these diseases — and soon.”
NANCY REAGAN.
Once again, Rusty, we’re not a bunch of dumb culties who base our opinions on what other people say. If we were, we’d be Democrats. We are capable of forming our own moral, practical, scientific, and economic decisions about embryonic stem cell exploitation.
“Thee Democrat establishment (politicians + media) spent eight years hammering Bush for every gaffe or perceived error”
And so you have to do the same despite the fact that “conservatives” claim to be so superior.
No V, there is NO difference between you pitiful Obama attackers and the pitiful Bush haters.
AE, the bill is disgusting and will never get through. But save the whine about gay marriage. There is no relation, the bill was introduced because of financial misdeeds. I think it’s too bad they singled out the Roman church because it just adds fuel to the “poor Roman church, so victimized” nonsense. In this case I have to agree though.
filtered
#30, in your arrogance you are unable to understand that most liberals and Dems are also capable of the same thing. If you stand by your claim about Dems then it’s equally as valid that you are controlled by your church and have no independent thoughts.
People with Alzheimer’s show a range of responses to their own behavior and condition:
*Denial (in the early stages)
*Blame others for making them “look ridiculousâ€
*Complete self-awareness (“I’m sorry, I have Alzheimer’sâ€)
*Frustration, agitation, rage
*Vacant despair, with no apparent recognition that they were once a different person
By the middle stage of Alzheimer’s, most victims no longer are aware that they don’t remember things or aren’t communicating coherently. This is fortunate for them. In a safe environment with good care and social contact, most Alzheimer’s patients seem relatively free of suffering. For their friends and relatives it’s a different story: the long steady decline of their loved one is painful to watch. The demands of Alzheimer’s care also take a toll, over the many years before inevitable death. Depression is more common among the caregivers of Alzheimer’s patients than it is among the patients themselves.
V thanks for moving me up from the lowercase Lefty to an Upper CASE person.
oh, you could also replace REPUBLICAN with Alzheimer’s in your case
People who vote Republican show a range of responses to their own behavior and condition:
*Denial (in the early stages)
*Blame others for making them “look ridiculousâ€
*Complete self-awareness (“I’m sorry, I’m Republicanâ€)
*Frustration, agitation, rage
*Vacant despair, with no apparent recognition that they were once a different person
By the middle stage of voting Republican, most victims no longer are aware that they don’t remember things or aren’t communicating coherently. This is fortunate for them. In a safe environment with good care and social contact, most Republican’s seem relatively free of suffering. For their friends and relatives it’s a different story: the long steady decline of their loved one is painful to watch. The demands of Republican’s care also take a toll, over the many years before inevitable death. Depression is more common among the caregivers of REPUBLICANS than it is among the patients themselves.
Sorry for the sarcasm, but just couldn’t resist.
rusty,
Read Blackfive and some of the accounts of President Bush meeting the families of troops privately, away from the cameras. That man, was well aware of the pain and heartache that his decisions caused. And was well aware of the consequences of doing nothing.
It is the current administration that seems to be doing things without thought to consequences or even caring.
To use your example for Democrats…
*Denial (JFK was perfect, Camelot)
*Blame others for making them “look ridiculous†(Jimmy Carter was cool, Reagan was a has been actor who made him look stupid)
*Complete self-awareness (“I will raise your taxes†– Walter Mondale)
*Frustration, agitation, rage (BDS)
*Vacant despair, with no apparent recognition that they were once a different person (Things aren’t going to get better. We didn’t vote for the legilsation… The current status of the party)
OK. Your next move: ask his explanation of why he can’t stand Sarah Palin. Will it be… misogyny? (She surely isn’t the ‘hated frat boy type’… is she the ‘hated non-Democratic woman type’? The ‘hated mother of 5 type’?)
#3: “Type ‘michael moore fat’ in google and you’ll come up with all sorts of petty bullshit that makes fun of his weight without paying attention to his ideological arguements.”
Just, for the love of God, make sure you type it in the google web-search page, not the images page.
Conservatives are good at mixing facts, reason, and yes, well-deserved insults, into debates. Yeah, Michael Moore is fat… and his films have also been documented to be dishonest, he treats his employees deplorably, and he is lauded by the Democrat left. 1 accurate insult + 3 documented topical facts.
Lefties pretty much stick to talking points and insults. “Rush Limbaugh is a fat, racist, idiot drug addict.” That’s 1 accurate insult + 3 crude smears whose veracity is dubious at best. Who ought to win that argument?
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with insults, per se, unless that’s all you got.
#31: “in your arrogance you are unable to understand that most liberals and Dems are also capable of the same thing. If you stand by your claim about Dems then it’s equally as valid that you are controlled by your church and have no independent thoughts.”
Not really, Kevin, you included. I considered embryonic stem cell research, particularly the federally-funded variety, a vile practice yesterday. And after reading the quotes from Mrs. Reagan you provided, I still think it’s a vile practice and Mrs. Reagan is just wrong.
You, on the other hand, consider California voters who voted for Prop. 8 (thereby giving gays the message that they will only have domestic partnerships), to be evil, fundamentalist, hate-mongering bigots. But when John Kerry and Obama state that they believe marriage is between and man and a woman, you fall all over yourself praising their “pro-gay” stance. As you have proven time and again on this blog, your opinion on any particular issue depends not on the message, but the messenger.
Kevin is not responsible for #31, I am, and your third paragraph is dead wrong about me.
True, adDave conceeded some time ago he’s not been deined any rights by DOMAs being passed.
There’s more than one way (and reason) to hate George Bush. It’s true he’s one of the worst leaders we’ve had, and you can lay the deaths of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis at his feet. It’s also true that he’s dumber than your average high-school student, and while there’s there’s hours and hours of videotape that proves that fact over and over again, at least he never said there were 57 states! To top it all off, he’s an insufferable deuchebag who I’ve seen make jokes about not finding WMDs in Iraq and assert that one way to show solidarity with a grieving mother is by giving up golf.
By the way, I was one of the popular kids. So why do I hate George Bush?
Levi is a Sterling Scholar in the theory of intuitive relevance:
Levi is the giver of truth. What’s to argue?
Only if the all volunteer military had no concept of what they were being trained for and it can be conclusively shown that Congress was totally without a clue when George Bush “hoodwinked” them..
Which makes the Congress and his Democrat opponents dumber than your average libtard poster.
The relative comparison of douche bags is not an area of my expertise. I am unable, for instance, to place Obama on the douche bag scale. However, I understand “insufferable” and that implies that a sane person would put the person out of mind rather than to dwell on him. Since President Bush is privately and quietly gone from the Oval Office, it seems passing strange that Levi would fixate on one he also finds insufferable. Perhaps Levi has a personality enablement disorder which requires him to suffer the pain of past hatreds.
Levi claims President Bush asserted that giving up golf would show solidarity with a grieving mother. Is there any context missing here? And Levi has seen Bush make jokes about WMD’s. Is there any context missing here?
Whew, a mind is a terrible thing to waste. Levi, take heed. Don’t ride your trike unless your mommy swathes you in bubble wrap.
and you can lay the deaths of thousands of Americans and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis at his feet.
If you cared about “hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis”, Levi, you and your Obama Party would have supported the removal of Saddam Hussein, who was responsible for the death of MILLIONS of innocent Iraqis, instead of working to protect him and supporting the corrupt UN and European bureaucracies that were taking billions from him in bribes.
Facts:
– Bush’s GPA at Yale was higher than John Kerry’s. Yes. Higher.
– Bush is a Harvard MBA. And in an era when Harvard was famous for nailing scions of the well-to-do, if there was any way they nail them.
But don’t let me confuse you with facts, Levi. Just consider that I addressed the comment to others. I know how facts trouble you.
Sorry, bad editing. “And he got the MBA in an era when Harvard was famous for nailing scions of the well-to-do, if there was any way they could nail them.”
Facts:
– Bush’s GPA at Yale was higher than John Kerry’s. Yes. Higher.
– Bush is a Harvard MBA. And in an era when Harvard was famous for nailing scions of the well-to-do, if there was any way they nail them.
But don’t let me confuse you with facts, Levi. Just consider that I addressed the comment to others. I know how facts trouble you.
Ah yes, Bush is smart because he went to college! Never mind the fact that his presidency was an unmitigated disaster on every imaginable front, and that every instance of him speaking publicly became a national embarrassment. Gee, I thought I could tell a complete moron when I saw one, but apparently the only important measure of someone’s intellect is which college he attended!
Levi claims President Bush asserted that giving up golf would show solidarity with a grieving mother. Is there any context missing here? And Levi has seen Bush make jokes about WMD’s. Is there any context missing here?
Rest of your post is pretty ignorable, but I found this bit interesting. I’d like to know what you think an appropriate context would be for a sitting President to be joking about the war he started for apparently no reason. There’s a context for that? Similarly, what would be an appropriate context for the President (or anyone else for that matter) saying that they’re showing solidarity with grieving mothers by giving up golf? There’s a situation where that isn’t insulting and patronizing?
Only if the all volunteer military had no concept of what they were being trained for and it can be conclusively shown that Congress was totally without a clue when George Bush “hoodwinked†them..
I’ve seen this sentiment expressed before and it literally makes my skin crawl. So because it’s an all volunteer military, the President isn’t at all responsible when a bunch of soldiers get killed for no reason in service of some incoherent, hopeless mission? Ugh.
By the way, this blog seems particularly focused as of late on criticizing liberals and Democrats that allegedly only engage in personal attacks and completely ignore their opponents substantive political arguments. Isn’t attempting to psycho-analyze all liberals and concluding that we’re just a bunch of nerdy losers exactly the kind of behavior you so frequently condemn?
Consistency!
Never mind the fact that his presidency was an unmitigated disaster on every imaginable front, and that every instance of him speaking publicly became a national embarrassment.
What you continue to make obvious, Levi, is that you are a bigot. You are so hopelessly prejudiced against Bush that, no matter what he does, no matter what he says, you will condemn it and state publicly that he is wrong.
In that case, why bother responding to you? You obviously are beyond coherent thought or intelligence.
By the way, this blog seems particularly focused as of late on criticizing liberals and Democrats that allegedly only engage in personal attacks and completely ignore their opponents substantive political arguments.
Mainly because, Levi, you seem to be commenting a lot lately.
What you keep demonstrating is that you can’t make a substantive argument. Only a bigot would believe that everything George Bush ever did was completely wrong, as you did. Bigotry of the degree you have, in which you are completely incapable of acknowledging that George Bush ever did something right, is a psychological condition.
#53 “You are so hopelessly prejudiced against Bush that, no matter what he does, no matter what he says, you will condemn it and state publicly that he is wrong.”
An attitude mirrored against Obama by some on here since before the primaries.
I’m not doing well with numbers today 🙂
The thing is, it’s entirely possible to criticize Bush substantively without going off into tinfoil hatville. Levi, however, can not stop himself.
Obama, on the other hand, is such a walking, talking joke that merely listing his failures sounds overly harsh because it’s hard to believe one man could have bungled so much in such a short period of time. He appoints tax cheats to key positions in his administration. He quadruples the deficit with promises of more spending to come. He can’t form a coherent sentence without a teleprompter. He manages to insult America’s allies while trying to cozy up to the “moderate” Taliban… which, BTW, there isn’t one.
And while he does all this, his glassy-eyed cult of supporters stand in awe with drool coming out of their mouths and pooling on the floor, unable not only to make any criticism of him, but unable to tolerate anyone else’s criticisms of him.
Here’s a clue, guys. Obama isn’t Jesus. Jesus could put a cabinet together.
#23 hey NDLively, you lied yet again. The CT legislators who introduced that ridiculous bill are NOT gay. And as I said in a comment that disappeared, it will go nowhere. It’s been pulled.
There really are no boundaries to your hatred of gay folk.
my apologies NDT, you are 1/2 correct McDonald is gay
oops, and Lawlor. Well, you must have lied about something 🙂
American Elephant offers: “Actually, ILC, I did address your asinine ideas, backed you into a corner where you were forced to admit that you were “technically†wrong (in this case “technically†apparently means insisting words have meaning) and yet you still had to keep arguing to try and turn your loss into a win.
You are not an intellectual adversary, you are an intellectually dishonest adversary and you’ve just proven it again.
I’m glad you keep dropping hints about how little you regard you have for me, long after I told you I had lost all regard for you and your utterly dishonest and sleazy tactics.
You are nothing but one of the trolls we were all warned about who have to “win†an argument at all costs and absolutely have to have the last word.
Fine. Have the last word again.
I’ve dropped this issue about 20 times now, and you keep bringing it up over and over again. F*cking get a life outside the internet, move out of your grandmothers basement, and drop it already. Then man up and learn how to admit when you’re wrong without being forced into it.”
Congratualtions AE, it looks like it worked! There is an opportunity for some here to redeem themselves.
V the K, #57. Your last line is priceless:
Here’s a clue, guys. Obama isn’t Jesus. Jesus could put a cabinet together.
AMEN to that, brother!
And to answer the general theme of the post.
Yes, it is a revenge of the leftard nerds!
And, it is very telling that the pro-Obamiacs expose themselves to their dishonesty. Clearly, it is A-OK to bash FORMER President Bush no matter what, but we dare not expose President Obama and his shortcomings. Such as putting a cabinet together.
And, many of us who are CONSERVATIVES spent a lot more time in giving FORMER President Bush an earful. When one of our own is wrong, we call them on it. What about you Obamots? UGH! It is already a long two-months under the Reign of The One and it feels like two YEARS. Imagine FOUR real years of this?! Unreal.
Sure am glad rusty finds Alzheimer’s so humerous.
Sounds like Levi is projecting again:
1) Bush successfully protected the nation after 9-11, including his successful policy of establishing a democracy in the heart of the Arab world.
2) Meanwhile, Obama so far as been a disaster on every imaginable front. (h/t V)
3) And Obama cannot speak without a Teleprompter. Every instance of Obama speaking at length without a prompter is a disaster.
No, AE. In the discussions in question, you only told bald-faced, shameful and unchristian lies about me. But it’s interesting that you assumed my comment #2 was about you; I actually had MM in mind 😉
AE and MM: as for your typical personal attacks on me, illustrating my point… well, “filtered”.
Yeesh! Levi’s bigotry and hatred of the military makes my skin crawl.
(Just for the record, at #2 I mainly had the site’s nastiest shrieking leftists in mind – the same people GPW meant)
Wow, MM! You mean you’ve finally repented of your misconduct? (You know… Your longstanding misbehaviors that even forced the blog owners to threaten you with a ban, at one point.)
#50 Levi asks:
Did I miss something? Levi has demonstrated that soldiers in Iraq were killed in some incoherent, hopeless mission?
Really? Why would Congress fund such a thing? Why would Congress continue to extend the War Powers Resolution Act terms every six months? Levi, your understanding of the separation of powers is, well, …. wanting.
Congress has been controlled by the Democrats since 2006. Even a Republican Congress would not have stood up for a Lyndon Johnson style of Oval Office mirco managing a war. Sorry, Levi, but you are just an angry partisan who can not see past your own self-stoking rage. Why don’t you try yoga and suck lemon drops?
Google is amazing! With trivial effort, I just discovered this after dinner:
http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/31620.html
Looks like GayPatriot is not the only blog where MM has made trouble before. It is worth noting that, while indegayforum.org is to the left of GayPatriot, it is not “leftist”. It is sort of a left-center-slightly-right conglomeration that houses some important friends of GayPatriot, that occasionally quotes GayPatriot in approving terms, and that, like GayPatriot, is frequently vilified by its left-wing commentors.
For grins, I also just googled “ILoveCapitalism banned”. And this turned up:
http://www.gamespot.com/pages/profile/index.php?user=ilovecapitalism
That cracks me up 🙂 Because I’ve never played on GameSpot in my life. A couple months ago, my nephews had to explain to me what a Wii is and what Grand Theft Auto is. I guess I’m not the first to think of my handle. Deflates me a little; I’m less original than I thought.
Filtered
I imagine it’s just as well.
Curses! Filtered again!
And I would’ve had a great comment, too, if it wasn’t for the filter and those meddling kids!!!
Yeesh! Levi’s bigotry and hatred of the military makes my skin crawl.
Oh please, I’d love to hear more about this. I hate the military, do I? How so? And am I a bigot because I hate the military, or because I don’t like George Bush?
You guys are really bringing it.
Am I a bigot because I hate the military, or because I don’t like George Bush?
Someone is confusing cause and effect, I think.
Someone who practices bigotry on a regular basis shouldn’t be advising ANYone about cause & effect, V. No?
This is another one of those stalemates that be explained by our obtuse, pedestrian black/white view of right and wrong, versus Levi’s far more nuanced and sophisticated “hazy shade of gray” worldview. Military casualties under Clinton and Obama, “good.” Military casualties under Bush, “bad.” Of course, this all could have been avoided if Bush weren’t such a blithering, drooling idiot, but what can you expect from a man that attended “bad Harvard.” If only, like Obama, he had been educated at the “good Harvard.”
Why is it that when GWB was president and over 60% of the Democrats wanted him to fail, nobody (particularly Democrats) was upset? Why when radical leftist bloggers wished that VP Cheney would die, again, nobody from the left thought it a cruel thing to say? Jack Cafferty on CNN has made a career out of dissing conservatives and nobody wants to shut him up. Fairness? When MSNBC has a commentator like Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh then I´ll believe the Fairness Doctrine is for real.
Aha! I found the earlier post that I was thinking of when I responded above (#18). Here it is.
I agree with your theory. I say that politics would be more peaceful if democratic males had actually gotten laid in high school. The Michael Moores and Bill Mahers couldn’t buy sex in high school and have been taking it out on the world ever since. And yes, most politicians were the hall monitors or band members in high school and are still PISSED that the school only cared about football / basketball games. They’re still whining cause nobody is interested in their tedious concerns. The nerds are out for revenge. And while they bog us down with their stupid regulations, it only reminds us why we couldn’t stand them in high school.
Obama and his camp cannot sustain this. But because so many Americans made the mistake of emotionally investing so much of themselves in a politician, it will make it harder for them to see the reality of the situation until it hits them square in the face. And believe me it will.
Voting with one’s heart rather than one’s head seldom ever ends well. This honeymoon phase/sugar high/euphoria will fade as soon as the reality of what he’s doing starts hitting citizens in the wallet en masse. It isn’t too dissimilar to how one feels after making a huge, indulgent purchase with their credit card. It’s all fun and games until the bill arrives and then the notices in the mail arrive, and then the harassing phone calls.
It’s upsetting but not surprising that Obama is doing exactly what citizens did that got us in this mess in the first place: spending tons of money we don’t have on things we don’t need.
You’re a bigot because you support the sonsofbitches who voted to cut off funding INCLUDING better weapons & armor so they could advance their own political agenda. You’re a bigot because you support an ignorant bastard in the WH who will gladly throw trillions of dollars that we don’t have around, but promissed not to spend a single dime on better defense equipment. You’re a bigot because you arrogantly believe in bullshit bumper sticker slogans about how much you supposedly care more than anybody else, yet you cheerlead for those who would FUCK US OVER in order to obtain the power they crave.
And yes, you are a bigot when you spin lies about Bush AND the military hoping that we’ll bend over and munch on your gash like the KOSholes.
Well let’s see, we have guests at Club Gitmo issuing statements
TGC, I caught on BBCA this morning that a Guantanamo release person is now heading up a branch of the Taliban in Afganistan.
I definately believe in treating them under the Geneva conventions.
You’re a bigot because you support the sonsofbitches who voted to cut off funding INCLUDING better weapons & armor so they could advance their own political agenda. You’re a bigot because you support an ignorant bastard in the WH who will gladly throw trillions of dollars that we don’t have around, but promissed not to spend a single dime on better defense equipment. You’re a bigot because you arrogantly believe in bullshit bumper sticker slogans about how much you supposedly care more than anybody else, yet you cheerlead for those who would FUCK US OVER in order to obtain the power they crave.
Oh boy…
The Michael Moores and Bill Mahers couldn’t buy sex in high school and have been taking it out on the world ever since.
?????
I’m pretty sure Bill Maher has had more sex than everybody that has ever posted a comment on this website combined.
We’re talking about sex that doesn’t require a cash transaction, Levi.
BTW, since you love the soldiers so much (I believe you said) when they’re properly equipped, why didn’t they have everything they needed back in the 1990s? Also, how are they going to be properly equipped in the near future now that Chairman Obama refuses to fund new weapons?
In the past 16 years, we’ve only had 1 out of 3 presidents pay to equip our soldiers and he wasn’t a liberal.
We’re talking about sex that doesn’t require a cash transaction, Levi.
Okay, sure, sure. The Republicans were the cool kids, yeah that’s the way I remember it.
BTW, since you love the soldiers so much (I believe you said) when they’re properly equipped, why didn’t they have everything they needed back in the 1990s? Also, how are they going to be properly equipped in the near future now that Chairman Obama refuses to fund new weapons?
What did they need and not have in the 1990s? What are these vague ‘new weapons’ that you insist Obama isn’t spending money on?
In the past 16 years, we’ve only had 1 out of 3 presidents pay to equip our soldiers and he wasn’t a liberal.
Are you talking about George Bush here? Talk about doublethink. He’s been specifically criticized for poorly equipping the troops for the mission through the Middle East that even he didn’t understand or think through, but oooooh, it’s actually Bill Clinton and Barack Obama that have done bad by the military. 2+2=5!
#89: “Are you talking about George Bush here? Talk about doublethink. He’s been specifically criticized for poorly equipping the troops for the mission through the Middle East…”
Oh, well, if George W. Bush was “specifically criticized” for it, that changes everything, Kevin. Why didn’t you say so?