Hatred on the Left: Strategy or Neurosis?
Last night, I joined our reader Leah to hear Andrew Breitbart address the Republican Jewish Coalition in Santa Monica. On the drive home, as I pondered points that each made, the title of this post came to mind.
Breitbart contended that the left’s bullying of people like Carrie Prejean is a strategy to intimidate and discredit such adversaries. Leah pointed out that even after the Democrats swept to power last fall and have taken office this past January, their supporters on the blogs (and in the comments sections to conservative blogs) and sometimes even in the corridors of Congress and halls of the White House have become even more mean-spirited, more antagonistic, more vindictive than they were when they were out of power.
They do seem to have this “need” to hate, to attack conservatives. In victory, they have shown no magnanimity.
So, I’m wondering, is this hatred a strategy to discredit us and more easily maintain their power or a neurosis, a psychological “need” to attack others so they feel better about themselves?
28 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
Dan, I vote for neurosis. See Exhibit A – the “Palinization” of Carrie Prejean by Ms. Perez Hilton (aka The Bitter Queen):
http://www.tmz.com/2009/05/07/carrie-prejean-miss-california-gay-marriage/
As Michael Savage points out, liberalism is a mental disorder. And I think we see enough trolls on this board to verify that hypothesis.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 7, 2009 @ 2:28 pm - May 7, 2009
Breitbart contended that the left’s bullying of people like Carrie Prejean is a strategy to intimidate and discredit such adversaries. Leah pointed out that even after the Democrats swept to power last fall and have taken office this past January, their supporters on the blogs (and in the comments sections to conservative blogs) and sometimes even in the corridors of Congress and halls of the White House have become even more mean-spirited, more antagonistic, more vindictive than they were when they were out of power.
You’re delusional. The types of things you consider ‘mean-spirited,’ like Obama saying that there were people ‘waving tea bags around,’ falls so far outside any reasonable definition of mean-spirited-ness that there’s quite clearly nothing he could do or say that you wouldn’t consider mean-spirited. For all the talk that goes on around here about how thin-skinned and defensive Obama and liberals are, any objective jury would undoubtedly come to the conclusion that if you’re complaining about Obama saying ‘waving tea bags around’ is mean-spirited, you’re about as thin-skinned and defensive as it gets.
Look at the rest of the accusations hurled at Obama on this blog and in conservative circles; he’s directly responsible for casualties in Iraq, he’s responsible for pirates in Somalia, he subjugated himself to the King of Saudi Arabia, he paraded around the world blaming America for everyone’s problems, he’s an extremist, he’s a communist, he’s a fascist, he’s a Marxist, he’s a racist, he pals around with terrorists, he wasn’t born in this country, and on and on and on. And you’re going to walk around pretending like you’re the ones being bullied? Please.
So, I’m wondering, is this hatred a strategy to discredit us
You’ve asked this question a hundred different ways and I’ve tried to answer it a couple of times. Here it is again; it’s impossible to discredit someone that has no credibility. Liberals, progressives, and Democrats don’t need to discredit the conservative movement, it has discredited itself, and it continues to do so. It’s not like you guys didn’t just have a chance to implement whatever policies and ideas you wanted to – you had an unprecedented opportunity to do so in the wake of 9-11 with broad public support, almost total control of the government, and a compliant minority and press corps. And you failed, spectacularly, and in the most hypocritical fashion imaginable.
Now that you’ve been resoundingly rejected, you’re in denial, conjuring up conspiracy theories and talking nonsense about teleprompters. How does this not make sense to you?
Comment by Levi — May 7, 2009 @ 4:35 pm - May 7, 2009
Although I don’t see whay it can’t be both, there is a greater issue involved. The democratic party is a consortium of loosely connected special interest groups. When left to their own devices, they “eat their own” as we have seen on numerous occasions.
As with the Ayatollah Khomeni in the late 1970′s a common enemy, a “Great Satan,” gives these groups an external target other than members within their own party. They’re going to attack someone, far better, from their own point of view, that they attack an external enemy ratherthan acoalition member of the same party.
It leads to another thought. we occasionally see liberals salivate at the hoped-for demise of the republican party. Can you imagine how they would implode if that were to happen? Who would they attack then?
Comment by T — May 7, 2009 @ 4:38 pm - May 7, 2009
Levi,
I don’t recall either Dan or myself accusing Obama of the mean spirited attacks. Though now you mention it, a president in his 100 day speech- , says: people who listen to that news station that hate me and wave around tea bags.
That may not be as mean and vicious as some of the newer commenters here, but it is very, very think skinned. In all the 8 years Bush was in the White House he was hated, demeanded and called vicious names. He never repsonded. That is because he is a gentleman.
Meanwhile, aside from obama, the anger, the hate, the name calling from the left has gotten so much worse since November. I was hoping that one benefit of the other side winning would be that I could slide beneath the rader, but no – the attacks have only intensified.
I actually think that Brietbart has a point, it’s not insecurity, it is about a Marxist need to completely annihilate the enemy. And the enemy isn’t Al Quaida, it’s conservatives in America.
Comment by Leah — May 7, 2009 @ 4:51 pm - May 7, 2009
#2 – Hypothesis proven; liberalism is indeed a mental disorder.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 7, 2009 @ 4:56 pm - May 7, 2009
#3 – “Can you imagine how they would implode if that were to happen? Who would they attack then?”
If the former Soviet Union’s history is any example, the Dhimmicrats would then start turning on themselves – starting with the far-left nutroots at the DailyKos, NBC, NYT and HuffPo. They would immediately try to “purify” their party by getting rid of those who do not accept their worldview.
In fact, you can actually see it happening now – just look at PMSNBC’s evening lineup. Not a single conservative commentator in the lot.
Also, remember if you will China’s “Great Leap Forward” strategy in the 1960s and 1970s. The Red Guard was out in full force trying to purge the ChiCom party of those who did not properly conform to Maoism.
Unfortunately for the Dhimmicrats, conservatives will never go away. Not while we have our rugged individualism and patriotic spirit to succor us. Bank on it.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 7, 2009 @ 5:01 pm - May 7, 2009
Levi, somehow I knew that as soon as our blog was back to running normally, you’d be up with a criticism turning it back on Republicans.
If you don’t believe me about the hate on your side, I could I forward you e-mail I’ve received, relate conversations I’ve had, supply links to left-wing blogs. But, it won’t matter to you, Levi, you see because, as you’ve said, your memory serves you better than facts.
And no, Levi, I never called Obama “mean-spirited” for his tea-bag comment; I did call him thin-skinned because it was a most defensive means of addressing a genuine grassroots phenomenon. Nor did I call him the things you list. Yes, other conservatives may have, but you’re commenting to my post. And you’re ignoring my points.
The second part of your answer has almost no relation to reality whatsoever, nor to the issue addressed. And the reason I say almost is that you’re on to something when you say that the GOP did have “an unprecedented opportunity” to implement its policies. My party did and failed to do so. But, no, we never had a compliant press corps. That’s a fiction invented by the far left and propagated by the MSM.
But, you never once have shown how conservatives ideas have been discredited, rejected at the ballot box or how we’re in denial. Not once. Nor have you addressed the points of our post, especially here.
The issue here in the nastiness on the left. And you won’t even acknowledge that, instead turning everything onto the GOP. Yep, I’ve acknowledged there’s some nastiness on the right as well. But you won’t address the mean-spiritednesss of your side nor your own blindness to conservatives and our ideas, even those expressed in posts to which you attach your comments. You see us exactly as you saw us when you started becoming obsessed with this blog. You are as clueless about conservatives as you have always been, repeating the same mantras repeated on left-wing blogs.
Basically, Levi, your comment just makes my point. Just look at how you begin yoru post, not with an observation, but with an accusation. Instead of addressing the faults of your side, your continue to level allegations at Republicans and conservatives.
Yeah, we conservatives have faults. And if you read conservative blogs, you’ll see that we’re taking stock of them. Now, it’s your turn, Levi, address the hate on your side of the aisle. It’s real. And it’s growing. And we’re all wondering why.
So, stop lambasting conservsatives for a change and instead look at your own faults. The more you attack us, the more you confirm the point of this post.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — May 7, 2009 @ 5:05 pm - May 7, 2009
GPW -
You said that Obama was slandering the Teaparties. (when he was not)
You did so because you are trying to use anger, hatred and victomhood to rally support for your party.
Now you accuse dems of doing the same thing.
Go inward my friend!!! Stop blameing and projecting!
Comment by gillie — May 7, 2009 @ 5:33 pm - May 7, 2009
The issue here in the nastiness on the left. And you won’t even acknowledge that, instead turning everything onto the GOP.
What haven’t I acknowledged? I’ve said dozens of times at this point that Perez Hilton is a deuchebag. And to hear conservatives complaining about nastiness is just laughable – you’re a hypocrite selectively remembering history. Republicans certainly don’t practice some dignified brand of politics devoid of all personal attacks, and you don’t hold them to such a standard, but you’ll hold the Democrats to it?
You are as clueless about conservatives as you have always been, repeating the same mantras repeated on left-wing blogs.
At this point, I’m getting pretty bored with going over the same things over and over again. But this is interesting – this idea that I don’t understand anything about conservatives. On the contrary, I get you completely. I could flip a switch and I would be indistinguishable from the likes of you or any other conservative commenter. Conservatism as conservatives describe it isn’t complicated in any way and there’s no shortage of people in the media explaining and arguing for it. You’ve staked out the extreme ends of positions and have constructed elaborate alternate histories and conspiracy theories to deal with inconvenient truths – this is not something that would be hard to ape.
Yeah, we conservatives have faults. And if you read conservative blogs, you’ll see that we’re taking stock of them. Now, it’s your turn, Levi, address the hate on your side of the aisle. It’s real. And it’s growing. And we’re all wondering why.
I do read conservative blogs – and taking stock of your problems you most certainly are not. But what can I say to you that I haven’t set already? You guys have obviously been thrown for a loop now that the permanent Republican majority has been shattered and are clearly in the Denial and Anger stages of the grieving process. Whatever you are, you aren’t an enigma. You aren’t under-represented.
Comment by Levi — May 7, 2009 @ 5:48 pm - May 7, 2009
#6 Peter H.
Young man, you beat me to it again.
I was heading along the same course. Only going back to the 1930s (ie: germany and Italy) and bringing it up to the current crop such as Venezuela. They need to use hate. In germany it was used against Jews but also toward Gays (the Brown Shirts were mainly gay and they were wiped out) amoung other groups. I have no idea if the moden day school system teach history therefore I will only note that the Sturmabteilung (the Brown Shirts) was the strong arm of the Nazi Party in the 1920s and 1930s. They played a major role in the rise of Hitler.
With respect to Venezuela, you hear from Chavez, the evil America.
May I suggest that some of the leftist study History.
Comment by The Old Man — May 7, 2009 @ 5:59 pm - May 7, 2009
If the former Soviet Union’s history is any example, the Dhimmicrats would then start turning on themselves – starting with the far-left nutroots at the DailyKos, NBC, NYT and HuffPo. They would immediately try to “purify” their party by getting rid of those who do not accept their worldview.
Oh, the irony. How are you able to type those sentences without recognizing that what you’re describing is exactly what is happening to your party?
Comment by Levi — May 7, 2009 @ 6:20 pm - May 7, 2009
#10 – Old Man, you are correct about the SA (Brownshirts) in the early days of the Third Reich. They not only provided bully-boy squads to protect Der Fuerher and silence opposition (you know, like ACORN does today), but they were also rampantly, overtly homosexual.
In fact, SA leader Ernst Rohm was so popular that both Hitler and SS leader Heinrich Himmler recognized the threat to their own existence. As the historians have noted, the SA was systematically purged (usually with a bullet to the head of a Brownshirt after a night of “bier unt Mann”) and Rohm was summarily executed.
After all this, by 1938 the SA had ceased being useful to Hitler and had degenerated slowly into a “ceremonial” organization. By then, the real power had shifted to the SS and Himmler was Hitler’s second-in-command.
But then again, you will never see a leftist pick up a book unless it’s written by Marx, Engel, Alinsky, Mao or some other totalitarian.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 7, 2009 @ 6:21 pm - May 7, 2009
#11 – “How are you able to type those sentences without recognizing that what you’re describing is exactly what is happening to your party?”
Levite, you are really, REALLY ignorant, aren’t you?
Party-purging by those in command of the party (Politburo, Supreme Soviet, Chinese Party or – in our example – NBC and General Electric) is a way of wiping out those who do not follow lock-step in the party’s direction when that party IS IN CONTROL of that goverment.
The GOP is not “purging” itself per se, but the actual grassroots members of this party – which is NOT in power (yet!) are redefining the party’s platforms from the ground up – NOT the other way around.
Here is $1. Go buy a clue.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 7, 2009 @ 6:24 pm - May 7, 2009
And notice how Levi the screaming hypocrite fails to respond to the news that his Obama Party not only knew about, but fully endorsed what it screamed was “torture” — in 2002.
Notice what a lying, shrieking harpy Levi’s Pelosi is. Does Levi intend to hold her responsible for her lies? Does he intend to demand she resign and be prosecuted for abetting “torture”?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — May 7, 2009 @ 7:04 pm - May 7, 2009
Levi, you’re getting bored with going over the same things over and over again? LOL.
You’re the one who comes to my blog. You’re the one who repeatedly attacks conservatives. You’re the one who repeatedly misrepresents the viewpoints of the blog you follow more regularly it seems than two some of its bloggers. You’re the one who levels the same attack over and over and over again
As to the rest of what you say, it’s just fancy words to dress up your obsession with conservatives.
So, you’ve called Perez Hilton a deuchebag (whatever that is)? Have you attacked the DailyKos or other left-wing blogs, acknowledged the slights conservatives endure everyday when we “come out” at their workplaces in urban areas like New York and Los Angeles? Have you faulted Barney Frank for calling Republicans racist and for his nasty attacks on anyone who dares criticize him?
In short, you don’t even acknowledge the point of this post, that the anti-conservative rhetoric is increasing in the wake of Obama’s inauguration. If you even hint that it might by a little bit, the tiniest, its bitiest piece mean-spirited, you go and blame that on use for being in denial or some such.
Don’t you even see that each time you label us “delusional,” you help make our point. Criticizing Perez Hilton is fine and dandy, but he’s just one among many on your side who use slander as a means of disagreement and criticism.
So, keep it up, Levi, if you like, the more you repeat your points, the more you confirm mine.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — May 7, 2009 @ 8:32 pm - May 7, 2009
Hmm, where have I heard that before? Oh yeah! Me! Last week:
Clinton started it with his War Room and the politics of personal destruction, and Obama has ratcheted up the tactic.
For the leftist rank and file, however, it is a neurosis. The two minutes hate has become more like the 24/7 hate.
Comment by American Elephant — May 7, 2009 @ 9:04 pm - May 7, 2009
Levi,
Naturally you aren’t aware of this being a boorish, uncouth liberal, but an American president is expected to exhibit a sense of class and grace, not mock, bully and threaten people who disagree with him.
So yes, when Obama dismisses 500,000 Americans protesting their government and his policies as just people “waving tea bags around” he is being divisive and mean spirited.
Which is why Gallup polls show Obama is THE most divisive president so far since that organization began polling the issue more than 40 years ago.
Comment by American Elephant — May 7, 2009 @ 9:22 pm - May 7, 2009
So, you’ve called Perez Hilton a deuchebag (whatever that is)? Have you attacked the DailyKos or other left-wing blogs, acknowledged the slights conservatives endure everyday when we “come out” at their workplaces in urban areas like New York and Los Angeles? Have you faulted Barney Frank for calling Republicans racist and for his nasty attacks on anyone who dares criticize him?
I don’t see anything on the DaillyKos or other left-wing blogs to criticize. Have you been pointing anything out as of late? Lately all you’ve been doing is complaining about this Carrie Prejean story and pretending like it says something in general about ‘the left.’ How often do you even visit the DailyKos? The left-wing blogs I read have been focusing on the media, economic issues, and torture.
That link? Boo-hoo. I’ve worked jobs where conservatives outnumbered liberals and I was individually called out for what my religious and political beliefs by people that were above me. I dealt with it, I continued to get along with and enjoy working with those people, and I didn’t need to rush off to the internet to complain about being oppressed or silenced or intimidated.
As for Barney Frank, I’ll let him answer for that. I know better than to get into an argument with conservatives about racism in America.
In short, you don’t even acknowledge the point of this post, that the anti-conservative rhetoric is increasing in the wake of Obama’s inauguration. If you even hint that it might by a little bit, the tiniest, its bitiest piece mean-spirited, you go and blame that on use for being in denial or some such.
That’s not true, I directly answered the question that you put to your readers. I can’t acknowledge increasing anti-conservative rhetoric because it just isn’t happening – you’ve totally misinterpreted ridicule and mockery for anger and bitterness. To be sure, we’re still very angry at conservatives, but at this point, we’re mostly just enjoying you guys self-destruct.
Comment by Levi — May 7, 2009 @ 9:28 pm - May 7, 2009
So yes, when Obama dismisses 500,000 Americans protesting their government and his policies as just people “waving tea bags around” he is being divisive and mean spirited.
Dude, there were people waving tea bags around. Ain’t that something? You spend weeks hyping some ridiculous protest with tea bags as the centerpiece, and when someone describes this event as such, all of a sudden they’re divisive and mean-spirited. What a joke.
Comment by Levi — May 7, 2009 @ 9:32 pm - May 7, 2009
“So, I’m wondering, is this hatred a strategy to discredit us and more easily maintain their power or a neurosis, ….”
When the White House decided to start their week-long hate-Rush campaign, that was clearly strategy: they examined polls and picked a target. However, that appears to me to be an exception: most of the left/liberal hatred that I see shows no evidence of being planned or having a goal, leaving neurosis as the better explanation.
Comment by John — May 7, 2009 @ 10:09 pm - May 7, 2009
I’ve decided that I’m no longer going to be afraid of words. I can’t tell you how unbelievably liberating it is. Why hadn’t I thought of that before? It’s so simple! Just no longer concern yourself about labels and ridiciulous name calling. I never cared if anyone called me a fag, so why should I care if someone calls me a racist for disagreeing with Obama or affirmative action. The media only has as much power over us as we allow it. Once we no longer fear their vitriol, we can go on with our lives unencumbered. It’s truly a great feeling! Take it from this racist, child-hating, sexist faggot!!
Comment by Mark — May 8, 2009 @ 12:11 am - May 8, 2009
Levi, Levi, Levi, thanks for providing me with some sport on a day when I had little blogging energy. Go check the site alternet, that’s not ridicule and mockery, that’s insult and innuendo. And it’s not even funny.
If you can’t see, well, you’re just plain blind. And given how frequently you’ve seen conservatives not as we are, but as you imagine them to be, this blindness seems your way of perceiving the political world.
As to the “tea bag” term, he’s the President of the United States, not a left-wing blogger. It’s the term they used to deride the protests. He should at least acknowledge the sincerity of his critics.
So, here’s my assignment for you, Levi, please find an example of then-President George W. Bush, in the first six months he was in office, using the term of right-wing pundits (there were few bloggers then) to deride those who claimed he stole the 2000 election. Then, when you’re done with that task, please identify all the times he derided those protesting the war in Iraq with terms cooked up by the then-growing crop of right-wing bloggers.
Mark, love your comment, thanks for chiming in.
Levi, I think you fear opening your mind because if you did, you’d find yourself parting company from your current ideological soul mates. You have this resistance to conservatism. Reminds me of how I was when I tried to deny that my feelings for men made me different from my straight peers.
And thank you for another thing. On a day when I don’t feel much like blogging, you did make me realize that I still the energy and ability to write.
While the generations may be reversed, I kind of feel like I’m Luke Skywalker to your Darth Vader in The Return of the Jedi. I know there is good in you.
We can save you from the dark side.
Comment by GayPatriotWest — May 8, 2009 @ 3:12 am - May 8, 2009
Soooo…..you have no idea what “credibility” means, but yet you want us to believe that you’re the smartest person here. Honestly, I wonder who has the job of preventing you from drowning in your own saliva.
Given that you don’t seem to have any idea that there’s a difference between Conservatives and Republicans, it would be easier to pick you out over professional astroturfers.
That and the fact that you’d have to provide answers and back up your claims, which you demonstrate over and over again that you lack the grapes to do.
Comment by ThatGayConservative — May 8, 2009 @ 4:02 am - May 8, 2009
Levi,
I didn’t expect any intellectual honesty out of you, so I was not disappointed when you didn’t respond with any.
Any moderately intelligent and even somewhat honest person, however, would recognize dismissing half a million people protesting the biggest spending increases in the history of the country as nothing more than people “waving tea bags around”, is dismissive, insulting and divisive.
Even the Huffington Post recognizes Obama was insulting the demonstrators in a piece they titled “Obama Takes Swipe At Fox News, ‘Tea Baggers’”:
The Politico understands it was an insult:
Think Progress recognized the obvious insult:
As did Talking Points Memo:
…as did alternet, Democratic Underground, The Daily Kos and many others.
So, I’m just curious, which are you?
1) Stupid
2) a Liar
3) both?
Comment by American Elephant — May 8, 2009 @ 4:56 am - May 8, 2009
AE,
Worse, he’s an idealist.
Comment by The Livewire — May 8, 2009 @ 6:57 am - May 8, 2009
#18 – Levi vomits:
“I don’t see anything on the DaillyKos or other left-wing blogs to criticize.”
So in other words, you implicitly agree with them. So you are being a hypocrite when you troll on this board and throw out talking points dressed up as “facts.”
Go to your room and leave the grown-ups alone.
Regards,
Peter H.
Comment by Peter Hughes — May 8, 2009 @ 11:00 am - May 8, 2009
Levi, Levi, Levi, thanks for providing me with some sport on a day when I had little blogging energy. Go check the site alternet, that’s not ridicule and mockery, that’s insult and innuendo. And it’s not even funny.
If you can’t see, well, you’re just plain blind. And given how frequently you’ve seen conservatives not as we are, but as you imagine them to be, this blindness seems your way of perceiving the political world.
I guess I’m blind, because I didn’t see anything insulting after a quick scan of the front page.
As to the “tea bag” term, he’s the President of the United States, not a left-wing blogger. It’s the term they used to deride the protests. He should at least acknowledge the sincerity of his critics.
For the millionth time, why should someone acknowledge your sincerity if they don’t believe that you’re being sincere? Also for the millionth time, people were waving tea bags around.
So, here’s my assignment for you, Levi, please find an example of then-President George W. Bush, in the first six months he was in office, using the term of right-wing pundits (there were few bloggers then) to deride those who claimed he stole the 2000 election. Then, when you’re done with that task, please identify all the times he derided those protesting the war in Iraq with terms cooked up by the then-growing crop of right-wing bloggers.
That’s absurdly narrow, so I’ll pass. Like you said, blogging practically didn’t exist back then, and I don’t have a Lexis Nexis account. But the Bush administration and its defenders routinely impugned the patriotism and deflected or diminished his critics whether you’d like to admit or not. Anytime that a conservative said that liberals don’t support the troops, or that it’s wrong to criticize the President during a time of war, or that Democrats want to coddle the terrorists, or that we supported cutting and running instead of staying the course, they were painting their opposition as cowardly weaklings that weren’t really all that bothered with 9-11.
Bush participated in these taunts, the conservative movement relied on them almost exclusively to respond to critics of their war policy. What was the primary line of attack against John Kerry during the 2004 campaign? That he was a lying baby-killer that did all he could to undermine American war efforts in Vietnam, right? What was the line of attack against Obama used during the campaign and actively flogged on this blog and elsewhere? That he’s some sort of subversive going around blaming America for all the world’s problems and who is so weak that terrorists and pirates are coming out of the woodwork, right?
So spare us the lectures about what is and isn’t appropriate for the President to say. Obama has been far more gracious to your side than you guys were when you had power, and you should be grateful that isn’t worse (or, you know, bad at all.)
Levi, I think you fear opening your mind because if you did, you’d find yourself parting company from your current ideological soul mates. You have this resistance to conservatism. Reminds me of how I was when I tried to deny that my feelings for men made me different from my straight peers.
Why would you think this? I’m plenty open-minded – I come here and talk to you, don’t I? I have a resistance to conservatism because in the entire time that I’ve been following politics, conservatism has only been associated with total failure. And it’s not getting any better. I know a real conservative when I see one; his name is Ron Paul, war opposition and all. He makes sense, he’s obviously principled, and he was marginalized by your party. There’s nothing in the conservative movement that I identify with or can even follow logically as sound reasoning.
And thank you for another thing. On a day when I don’t feel much like blogging, you did make me realize that I still the energy and ability to write.
While the generations may be reversed, I kind of feel like I’m Luke Skywalker to your Darth Vader in The Return of the Jedi. I know there is good in you.
We can save you from the dark side.
Ah yes, the dark side is the one that opposes senseless, inhumane invasions. That’s how I remember Star Wars, too.
Comment by Levi — May 8, 2009 @ 2:45 pm - May 8, 2009
And again Levi makes accusations w.o links to back it up.
Please Levi, Provide some documentation to back up what you say.
As to 2004, it was John Kerry’s own fellow soldiers who came out to protest his history, including one man who served on his boat. Kerry’s magic hat and trip into Cambodia that were ‘seared’ into his memory were tore apart. Not by President Bush, but by Kerry’s fellow swift boaters.
The only one who accused John Kerry of atrocities was… John Kerry! In Senate testimony no less. Amusing how Levi’s not calling for his imprisonment. After all he testified to the things that Levi accuses President Bush of.
Congratulations Dan, Bruce. In Levi’s world apparently you work directly for the Bush Administration, since he sites this blog as evidence of the Bush Administration opposing Obama.
Obama’s bashing of America isn’t some Rovian plot. Nor is his embracing of terrorist regimes. Only in Levi land is Karl Rove a renegade Time Lord. Mr. Saxon gone back to hypnotize the democrats two years before the election of President Bush to make regime change in Iraq the official policy of the US.
Comment by The Livewire — May 8, 2009 @ 3:02 pm - May 8, 2009