Poll - Who are more hateful, Liberals or Conservatives?

[TenPercenter]

[scotnt73]

anyone person who are extreme in thier views tend to be close minded and hateful. look at Rush and Michael Moore. they dont debate they scream thier opinion louder and louder......not unlike many of our posters /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[Dynasty]

It depends on who is in power. Right now, it's the liberals because the Republican Party is in power. Back in the late '90's, it was conservatives because Clinton had regularly frustrated them.

[Cerril]

I didn't want to vote, because I think it just manifests itself differently. So maybe scrap my vote because I was weighting a more open hate or intolerance as greater than a more disguised sort. I still have my knee-jerk reaction but that's about all it is.

[John Cole]

Liberals. A hateful bunch if I ever did see one.

Seriously, you are asking the wrong question, and the fact that you would formulate this sort of question indicates how effectively somebody or something generates public opinion.

[jdl22]

I voted for conservatives in this poll because I hate Bush and the other conservatives he associates with.

[paland]

[ QUOTE ]
It depends on who is in power. Right now, it's the liberals because the Republican Party is in power. Back in the late '90's, it was conservatives because Clinton had regularly frustrated them.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is the real truth

[TenPercenter]

[ QUOTE ]
Liberals. A hateful bunch if I ever did see one.

Seriously, you are asking the wrong question, and the fact that you would formulate this sort of question indicates how effectively somebody or something generates public opinion.

[/ QUOTE ]

How can there be a wrong question? How would anyone know what question I meant to ask but me? I didn't formulate it, it's just four simple words.

Ten

[MMMMMM]

"Seriously, you are asking the wrong question,..."

Yep.

"... and the fact that you would formulate this sort of question indicates how effectively somebody or something generates public opinion."

My take is that it has more to do with how readily (or over-readily) the poster--or people in general--tend to view things without broader consideration. I don't attribute much cause to outside forces "generating" anything (although I might possibly be somewhat off here).

Perhaps because I consider myself largely inured to such outside influences of opinion, I give others similar credit for being able to think for themselves for the most part. Come to think of it, though, that might mean that I am significantly off, because many people do not seem to think for themselves greatly. However THAT I attribute to flaws in the perceptive and analytical processes of the individual, or to the habit of superficial thinking--not to the overriding strength of some outside force. After all, you weren't overly influenced in this case by that something or someone which you suggest generates public opinion--right;-)?

[MMMMMM]

"I voted for conservatives in this poll because I hate Bush and the other conservatives he associates with."

I vote that Armchair should throw a few wrinkles into this one then post it as a new Logic Problem.

[Cerril]

I was going to make a reply somewhere along these lines, that the results are somehow the opposite of what they end up being - and whether one should vote the other way for the sake of skewing the apparent results... or something
heh heh heh

[Rick Nebiolo]

John,

The question didn't specify the nature of what was meant by hateful. I do think many liberals tend to hate conservatives. Conservatives tend to think liberals are just plain wrong (or living in academia) and feel sorry for them rather than merely hate them /images/graemlins/grin.gif

~ Rick

[Toro]

Watergate(along with other assorted dirty tricks), Whitewater, Lewinsky bullshiit and now Swift boat.

Not a tough question.

[andyfox]

Deliver Us from Evil : Defeating Terrorism, Despotism, and Liberalism (Sean Hannity)

The Enemy Within: Saving America from the Liberal Assault on Our Schools, Faith, and Military (Michael Savage)

The Death of Right and Wrong: Exposing the Left's Assault on Our Culture and Values (Tammy Bruce)

Useful Idiots: How Liberals Got It Wrong in the Cold War and Still Blame America First (Mona Charen)

If It's Not Close, They Can't Cheat: Crushing the Democrats in Every Election and Why Your Life Depends on It (Hugh Hewitt)

Slander: Liberal Lies about the American Right (Ann Coulter)

Treason: Liberal treachery from the Cold War to the War on Terrorism (Coulter)

And, of course, Rush Limbaugh coined the term "feminazis."

So some of the most prominent conservatives consider their political opponents evil, cheating, lying, treacherous, treasonous, nazi-like idiots, as dangerous as terrorists and despots, assaulting the American way of life.

We never heard such language from prominent public commentators until Clinton became president.

[Patrick del Poker Grande]

[ QUOTE ]
We never heard such language from prominent public commentators until Clinton became president.

[/ QUOTE ]
It's coincidence that he became president when 24/7 news and opinion became wildly popular. Credit live coverage of the first Iraq war for spurring this. Credit one-upsmanship for the rest.

[nothumb]

Well said, Andy.

Historically it is easy to see where the most venomous rhetoric in mainstream American politics has come from, and it ain't the left.

Someone said that liberals tend to hate conservatives, while conservatives just think liberals are hopelessly wrong and view them with something that might even be sympathy. FWIW I think a lot of liberals feel the same way about your everyday conservative. Their vitriol is directed at those conservatives at the very top more so than the average Republican voiter.

My feeling about run-of-the-mill liberalism is that it is driven more by self-centeredness than hate. Not even just self-centeredness, because all American politics are like that - it's more of a presumptuous self-importance and sense of entitlement.

I think there is a lot of hate in the religious/social agenda of the right these days. I don't see a similar example coming from the left.

I think it's important to draw a line between an agenda that hates a person (like attacking Bush) and an agenda that hates a class of people, or an idea, or people of a certain mindset.

NT

[Gamblor]

Liberals are filled with resentment, Conservatives are filled with disdain.

Right now, I'm filled with McDonald's apple pie.

[Zeno]

Most of the books you listed I have never heard of. I did pick up and glance through one of Anne Coulter’s books at Borders once. Mainly because of reading some posts on this forum. The rhetoric was mainly bombast with a trudging style of prose that was too shrill in delivery and too strident in tone. I thought the book would be a waste of my time.


As to the point of hate this is too broad a subject to cover. But hate has been a perennial given in all human endeavors- it simply is more easliy inflamed and passionate when deeply held beliefs and views or public policy issues are debated. Thus, Religion and Politics in general engender or foster a great deal of hatred in a large majority of people - More so than any other human institutions and this is especially true within the debate of their application to human affairs. But this is certainly not true of everyone.

As to the ‘hate rhetoric’ all parties are responsible, in my opinion. And this is nothing new or even unusual in American, or anywhere else for that matter. I point to the Adams-Jefferson presidential election and confrontation as an American example, perhaps the most vile and bitter election every held in American political history.

There is nothing new under the sun an old Hebrew wrote long ago. I find it hard, most of the time, to argue with this simple statement when it comes to human affairs.

-Zeno

[andyfox]

If you listen to tapes of the Carter/Reagan debates, they treat each other with respect. Reagan did shake his head and say "there you go again," but concluded with "Mr. President." By the end of the Bush/Clinton campaing, Mr. Read-my-lips was saying that his dog knew more about foreign policy than "those guys" (Clinton and Gore).

Then again, listening to what John Adams and Thomas Jefferson said about each other would make us blush.

[Cerril]

Yeah, I think that's the definitive response here. I think you've got the worse of it though.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
Then again, listening to what John Adams and Thomas Jefferson said about each other would make us blush.

[/ QUOTE ]

But they died on the same day as friends /images/graemlins/smirk.gif

~ Rick

[jcx]

Liberals in a landslide. Conservatives pretty much desire to be left alone to live their lives and pursue their own interests. Liberals, while claiming to be tolerant, are not content to live and let live and therefore seek to ram their agenda down everyone else's throat. Those who do not wish to accept this are called racists, bigots, homophobes, (Insert appropriate pejorative term for whatever the issue is).

As an example, I can assure you the majority of conservatives could care less if 2 men want to boink each other's lights out in the privacy of their own homes. But this is not enough for liberals - They wish to force the general public to openly sanction their lifestyle choice, even if they personally disagree with it. And that's when the name calling starts.

I actually find Michael Savage and Ann Coulter to be a breath of fresh air. For years the only places conservative voices were heard was through stodgy sources like The Wall Street Journal Opinion page and the occasional William F Buckley appearance on one of the network sunday morning roundtables (I respect Mr Buckley, but let's face it, he's no Mr. Personality). Now, thanks to the internet & talk radio liberals no longer control all news sources and they HATE that other opinions are heard.

[jdl22]

[ QUOTE ]
As an example, I can assure you the majority of conservatives could care less if 2 men want to boink each other's lights out in the privacy of their own homes.

[/ QUOTE ]

That conservatives could care less is the problem.

[andyfox]

Indeed. On July 4, 1826. What are the odds?

[jdl22]

Not as bad as you would expect.

Suppose you were one of those two guys and knew you were dying soon. If it was a few days before the fourth I'm sure you would fight like hell to make it until that day and on the fourth you would be at peace with dying.

[TenPercenter]

[ QUOTE ]
... a lot of liberals feel the same way about your everyday conservative. Their vitriol is directed at those conservatives at the very top more so than the average Republican voiter.

[/ QUOTE ]

Honestly, this board does not refleft this statement at all. I have seen the liberal viewed posters here throw insults to conservative posters without abandon, and I have not seen this degree of venom from the conservative posters. I understand that liberals outnumber the conservatives here but that's not an excuse.

Ten

[nothumb]

Hi Ten,

Ahh, the curse of small sample size.

I see both liberals and conservatives attack each other more or less mindlessly here all the time. There are probably a few more liberals, but it comes from both ends.

If we go by the evidence on this board, we could guess that a large portion of Americans are degenerate gamblers as well. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

NT

[nothumb]

jcx,

I agree that there is a faction of liberalism that butts its head into affairs that are not necessarily its own so self-righteously as to be offensive to good taste and common sense. However I don't think your summary accurately reflects the motives of the majority of liberals any more than claiming 'conservatives want to be left alone' reflects the ideals of the right.

I find it interesting that both of the authors you cite as sources of 'fresh air' do not, in fact, believe that homosexuals should be left to fornicate in peace. They believe that allowing penises to bump heads is a direct assault on the Christian principles of our nation. Coulter and Savage are not your typical isolationist, libertarian conservatives. They are kill-their-leaders-and-convert-them-to-Christianity conservative attack dogs who favor giving the government more power so long as it coincides with their own views of the world. I think your archetypal conservative is an endangered species in American politics, largely thanks to the neo-conservatives and Moral Majority in the last 20 years or so.

NT

[John Cole]

Rick,

I took "hateful" to reflect a sort of general world view, and I don't think either liberals or conservatives are hateful--although the conservatives at Fox News seem to hate liberals for some reason. But, then again, I think the conservatives at Fox News are really spending most of their time selling their books and boosting their websites.

A better question: how and why has this reductionist attitude been manufactured? I'm assuming Ten Percenter meant "hateful" in the way I stated above. Of course, that doesn't make for a good poll question.


John

[Cyrus]

"I understand that liberals outnumber the conservatives here."

IMHO, conservatives outnumber liberals here (both types broadly defined), but liberals hold their own in both number of posts and tenor. Which is perceived as unduly disproportionate by the opposite camp.

"I have seen the liberal viewed posters here throw insults to conservative posters without abandon."

Thank you. We do try to restrain ourselves! /images/graemlins/cool.gif

[adios]

The Lies of George W. Bush: Mastering the Politics of Deception
by David Corn

House of Bush, House of Saud: The Secret Relationship Between the World's Two Most Powerful Dynastys
by Craig Unger

"Big Lies: The Right-Wing Propaganda Machine and How It Distorts the Truth" by Joe Conason

"Bushwhacked" by Molly Ivins and Lou Dubose.

"Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right" by Al Franken.


"Cronies: Oil, the Bushes, and the Rise of Texas, Americas's Superstate
by Robert Bryce

American Dynasty: Aristocracy, Fortune, and the Politics of Deceit in the House of Bush
by Kevin Phillips

The I Hate Republicans Reader: Why the GOP is Wrong About Everything
by Clint Willis

The I Hate George W. Bush Reader: Why Dubya is Wrong About Absolutely Everything
by Clint Willis

I Hate Bush and So Do You
by Jason Johnson

The I Hate Dick Cheney, John Ashcroft, Donald Rumsfeld, Condi Rice...Reader: Behind the Bush Cabal's War on America
by Clint Willis

Dreaming War: Blood for Oil and the Cheney-Bush Junta
by Gore Vidal

Generalissimo El Busho: Essays & Cartoons on the Bush Years
by Ted Rall

How Much Are You Making on the War Daddy? A Quick and Dirty Guide to War Profiteering in the Bush Administration
by William D. Hartung



Bush's Brain: How Karl Rove Made George W. Bush Presidential
by James Moore, Wayne Slater, James C. Moore, Wayne Slater


The Bush - Haters Handbook: A Guide to the Most Appalling Presidency of the Past 100 Years
by Jack Huberman

The Buying of the President 2004 : Who's Really Bankrolling Bush and His Democratic Challengers--and What They Expect in Return (Buying of the President)
by Charles Lewis

The Official Handbook of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy -- by Mark W. Smith

The Great Limbaugh Con: And Other Right-Wing Assaults on Common Sense
by Charles M. Kelly

The Republican Noise Machine : Right Wing Media and How it Corrupts Democracy (Random House Large Print) [LARGE PRINT]
by DAVID BROCK (Hardcover )

Right-Wing Populism in America: Too Close for Comfort
by Chip Berlet, Matthew N. Lyons

Right Wing Justice: The Conservative Campaign Take Over the Courts
by Herman Schwartz

Idiocy! Taking Conservatives Behind the Woodshed: A Parody of Ann Coulter's Books and Right-Wing Ideology
by Katherine Black

Banana Republicans: How the Right Wing Is Turning America into a One-Party State
by Sheldon Rampton, John Stauber

The War on Choice : The Right-Wing Attack on Women's Rights and How to Fight Back
by Gloria Feldt

The Coming American Fascism (Studies in Right Wing Ideology)
by L. Dennis

You and I both know that there are liberals and conservatives that "go over the top." The big difference IMO between coservatives and liberals is that the political statements that you cite represent a fringe element of conservatism while the list I cite represents more the mainstream of liberalism. One has to go no further than comparable statemenst by Democratic party leaders and Republican party leader to see this. Yeah this is simply my opinion and open to debate but I would state just look at what the party leaders say about the opposite party and their leaders. For those who compare the Republicans treatment of Clinton to the Democrats treatment of Bush, Clinton did lie to a grand jury and whether or not that was an impeachable offense is open to debate but the arguments for impeachment at least had some merit. Remember I've gone on the record and stated that I have problems with a special prosecuter questioning a President about his sex life in front of a grand jury in the first place.

[John Cole]

You gotta be joking--"the mainstrream of Liberalism." C'mon, Gore Vidal. Adios, I have much more confidence in you, and you are citing titles, often chosen by publishers to sell the damn things. Ya need to look at what in 'em, I think.

Also, I would imagine you might be aghast if I called Ann Coulter the mainstream of conservativism. Gee, don't all conservatives think Joe McCarthy was a great American hero?

[andyfox]

I believe John Adams' last words were "Thomas Jefferson lives." There may be something in what you say.

[andyfox]

The authors/commentators I cited are among the most prominent conservative commentators in America. Al Franken and Gore Vidal are the only two famous people who are authors of the books you cit. Franken's title has comedic intentions. And Vidal is not taken seriously by very many people (as a political commentator).

I don't see accusations of treason or comparisons of conservatives with terrorists. And the assault on Clinton preceeded his grand jury testimony.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
Indeed. On July 4, 1826. What are the odds?

[/ QUOTE ]

Assuming history is accurate, than it WAS a certainty since that is the way it is with unusual events looked at after the fact. OTOH, jdl22 had a point that if they were aware they were dying and it was close to July 4th they would both try to hang on until that day, this may tilt the before the fact odds a bit.

I read the David McCullough book on John Adams and enjoyed it. I know you aren't a fan of Jefferson but if you were to recommend one book that is both good and balanced regarding his life and impact on history which one would you chose?

~ Rick

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
The authors/commentators I cited are among the most prominent conservative commentators in America. Al Franken and Gore Vidal are the only two famous people who are authors of the books you cit. Franken's title has comedic intentions. And Vidal is not taken seriously by very many people (as a political commentator).

I don't see accusations of treason or comparisons of conservatives with terrorists. And the assault on Clinton preceeded his grand jury testimony.

[/ QUOTE ]

BUsh has been compared to or even called Hitler numerous times. And actually, I have seen many articles etc. that say conservatives are the real terrorists.

[adios]

[ QUOTE ]
The authors/commentators I cited are among the most prominent conservative commentators in America.

[/ QUOTE ]

A subjective and self-serving viewpoint.

[andyfox]

Understanding Thomas Jefferson, by E. M. Halliday. [One other good one: Jerrsonian Legacies, edited by Peter S. Onuf]

My distaste for Jefferson, I think, has a lot to do with disappointment: a man with such a great mind should have had the courage to be a better man in practice. In the same way I'm disappointed, say, when Kobe scores only nine points, but not when Vlade Divac does, I'm disappointed when Jefferson's actions came up short of his ideals in a way I probably wouldn't be when a lesser man failed.

[andyfox]

What prominent liberal has called Bush Hitler? Liberals are regularly called liar and and dangerous idiots all the time by Limbaugh, by Hannity, by O'Reilly, by Prager, by Elder, by Medved, by Savage, by Ingraham . . .

[andyfox]

Self-serving, yes. Subjective, no: check out their book sales and their ratings on TV and radio.

[Rick Nebiolo]

I added both those books to my wish list on Amazon. I load up on most books during Christmas, ginve books make a much better gift for me than clothes or kitchen appliances - although a new car would be nice).

Anyway, I also added American Sphinx: The Character of Thomas Jefferson by Joseph Ellis and will end up with at least one of those three.

~ Rick

[MMMMMM]

How can "conservative " itself not be a subjective term?

The palette is not fixed in space, it floats in front of each individual's mind's eye; and so too does the scale.

[TenPercenter]

[ QUOTE ]
What prominent liberal has called Bush Hitler?

[/ QUOTE ]

Two advertisements by MoveOn.org compared our President Bush to Adolph Hitler. One said "A nation warped by lies. Lies fuel fear. Fear fuels aggression. Invasion. Occupation. What were war crimes in 1945 is foreign policy in 2003"

They tried to buy air time for the ads during the Superbowl but were luckily refused. MoveOn.org tried to act like they never knew about the ads (not true, why would they try to buy airtime?) and said that they will never be aired (not true, you can find them all over the net because they released them along with 150+ other anti-Bush ads).

Among the judges tied to this stunt are:
<ul type="square">
Jack Black
Actor, writer, comedian, and musician

Benny Boom
Director/Gorilla Flix, Inc.

Donna Brazile
Political strategist

James Carville
Political strategist and commentator

Margaret Cho
Comedian

Hector Elizondo
Actor

Al Franken
Comedian, author and commentator

Janeane Garofalo
Comedian, actor and commentator

Stan Greenberg
Pollster/Author

Ted Hope
Producer/Partner/Founder This is that corp.

Michael Mann
Producer, Director, Writer

Moby
Musician

Michael Moore
Filmmaker, propogandist and author

Mark Pellington
Filmmaker

Tony Shalhoub
Actor/Producer

Russell Simmons
Chairman, CEO Rush Communications

Michael Stipe
Musician/Film Producer

Gus Van Sant
Director, Author

Katrina Vanden Heuvel
Editor, The Nation

Eddie Vedder
Musician, Activist [/list]

[ QUOTE ]
Liberals are regularly called liar and and dangerous idiots all the time by Limbaugh

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the above is example enough of liberal lies and those who support the lies, if not actually tell them. I do agree that there is a general dishonesty among prominant liberals at the very least. I understand that it's hard to see when you're on that side.

I CHALLENGE ANYBODY HERE TO DEFEND THE STATEMENT THAT BUSH IS LIKE HITLER.

Ten

[Al_Capone_Junior]

the answer is conservatives and it's not even close. try living in the "bible belt" sometime and you'll learn the meaning of hateful and let's not forget judgemental.

al

[jdl22]

You are wrong.

moveon.org ran a competition where anybody could make a 30 second or 1 minute advertisement (can't remember which) against the Bush administration. They attempted to buy airtime for the ad which won the competition. They posted these advertisements on their website. Out of all the ads they received, two compared Bush to Hitler. These ads didn't come close to winning the contest and were pulled from the website. As such how can you say they intended to air them?
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
I CHALLENGE ANYBODY HERE TO DEFEND THE STATEMENT THAT BUSH IS LIKE HITLER.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is how Bush is like Hitler:
- male
- caucasian
- anticommunist
- did not have majority of electorate in key election putting him in power
- leader of country with a strong military force
- leader of country that many think is misusing its military force
- claimed after invading a sovereign nation and overthrowing its government to have liberated that country.

To be fair these are ways Bush is not like Hitler
- Hitler served his country honorably in the military by fighting, not avoiding it in the war (note that this is how Kerry is like Hitler)
- Hitler had a mustache
- Hitler ran a government which imprisoned and executed millions of people
- Hitler spent virtually all of his political life unmarried, only marrying just before committing suicide
- Hitler was so good at public speaking that he could win over a room and eventually the whole country despite what he was actually saying. Even those that like Bush and agree with what he says admit that at best he is a mediocre speaker.
- Bush was educated at the finest schools money could buy and has never been poor in his life.

So what's my point? Well Hitler, despite his actions, was a human being. As such there are ways in which anybody you choose is like him. That includes politicians and people like you and me. For example I am like Hitler in the first three ways listed for Bush, and I think a majority of posters here are as well. There is nothing wrong with saying Bush (or anybody else) is like Hitler.

The problem comes when people compare actions taken by Bush to the infamous and horrific deeds done by Hitler. While I don't think the war in Iraq is just it clearly is not at the same level of say the Nazis invading France. Similarly I don't think the imprisonment of people in Guantanomo Bay and elsewhere indefinately with no access to counsel is appropriate in a representative, republican government. While many agree with me, including the Supreme Court, this is also clearly not on the same level as what the German police did with political prisoners not to mention the concentration camps.

So I think the problem is that the people claiming Bush is like Hitler in the advertisements don't understand the difference of scale. He is like Hitler in some ways. The problem is that either the things he has in common are not those that Hitler is infamous for or the scale is so drastically different that it makes any discussion of similarity pointless and tangental to the conversation at hand.

[TenPercenter]

[ QUOTE ]
Here is how Bush is like Hitler:
- male
- caucasian
- anticommunist
- did not have majority of electorate in key election putting him in power
- leader of country with a strong military force
- leader of country that many think is misusing its military force
...
There is nothing wrong with saying Bush (or anybody else) is like Hitler.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a cheap, juvenile, asinine way to slander a President or anybody for that matter. Hitler has come to beome the EMBODIMENT OF EVIL on this Earth. Whether or not he was male is not the issue, and you making public statements that "Bush is like Hitler" and then in the background saying that what you meant was that both were male is a load of crap and I KNOW that you know it.

If that's all you meant, why didn't you say "Bush is like Clinton," or "Bush is like George Washington?" Why? Because your goal is to make people think that Bush is evil by repeatedly associating him with a name that "means evil" to most people on this earth. This is purely a liberal thing to do and it's despicable . That's something Terry McAuliffe or James Carville would do.

Ten

[jdl22]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
That is a cheap, juvenile, asinine way to slander a President or anybody for that matter.

[/ QUOTE ]

How is it slander if what I said is true. I made statements that you agree with that the two have in common and said that in these regards they are alike. Again, how is that slander.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
Hitler has come to beome the EMBODIMENT OF EVIL on this Earth. Whether or not he was male is not the issue, and you making public statements that "Bush is like Hitler" and then in the background saying that what you meant was that both were male is a load of crap and I KNOW that you know it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes. Not only that but I know that you know that I know it. Probably you even know that I know that you know that I know it. As I clearly wrote below the statements you quoted, the problem isn't saying that Bush is like Hitler. He is and so are you and me. The problem is that there is no comparison in scale between the atrocities committed by the Hitler regime and the misdeeds of the Bush administration. Incidentally I was only making the comparisons in reference to your statement about how people can defend the comparisons. Other than in that thread I have never referred to Bush as Hitler, being Hitler like or anything in that regard both in everyday life and in this forum. Again, comparing people that are in some ways alike and in some ways different is not a problem.

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
If that's all you meant, why didn't you say "Bush is like Clinton," or "Bush is like George Washington?" Why? Because your goal is to make people think that Bush is evil by repeatedly associating him with a name that "means evil" to most people on this earth. This is purely a liberal thing to do and it's despicable . That's something Terry McAuliffe or James Carville would do.

[/ QUOTE ]

You didn't ask for someone to defend comparisons between Bush and anyone else. I was simply responding by defending comparisons between Bush and Hitler. Again, comparing two people is a valid thing to do, the problem that you seem to have is that when I list how they are alike and say they are alike for the reasons listed that implies that they are alike in ways I haven't listed (in fact ways I listed for them being dissimilar). If you really want I could come up with a short list of ways in which Bush is like Clinton, George Washington or anyone else you name assuming I'm at least somewhat familiar with that person.

Because it is pretty clear you don't understand my point, let me summarize it, hopefully in a more clear fashion. There is nothing wrong with comparing any two individuals, indeed any two objects. Undoubtedly (sp?) these individuals will be alike in some ways and different in others. To say these individuals are alike is a true statement. To say they are different is also a true statement. Saying they are alike does not imply that they are alike in every way. Saying they are different does not imply that they are in all ways different. Finally, two individuals being alike is not necesarily a good nor a bad thing. If they are alike in positive or neutral qualities and not negative ones that tends to be good while if they are alike in neutral qualities or negative ones and not in positive aspects that tends to be bad.

[vulturesrow]

Wow what an amazing example of arguing semantics. Allow me to respond. When you compare two things, you are generally doing so to point out that X has some quality that it is well known for that is also present in Y. When people compare an individual to Hitler, it usually isnt because both individuals were male , etc. Its because Hitler's name is synonymous with evil. So there is a problem when saying X is like Y, because if you dont clarify , people are going to think you are making that comparison because Y has some quality/attribute/characteristic etc. that X is well known for..

[jdl22]

Fair enough.

A problem I have in communicating with people is that a large part of my time as an undergrad was spent engaged in conversations such as this one with my friends. We were all math majors and so the general way conversations went was for someone to at one point slip up and say something false and for others to jump all over them to point out why it was false. When I say false I mean false using the mathematical definition, which is to say it could be true in 99% of the possible cases but 1 counterexample makes it false. The point of this paragraph is to say that my friends and I tended to argue semantics a whole lot.

edit: just wanted to add that a lot of our discussions would involve someone saying something they don't really believe in. For example we were having a gun control discussion and I made the argument that it should be legal for people to have nuclear weapons. This was simply a constitutional argument, I personally don't think people should be allowed to have fully automatic rifles or very powerful sniper rifles much level weapons of mass destruction. I think a similar thing happened here. The OP made a statement that was technically true and challenged people to argue in favor of it and I obliged. Clearly it is true that Bush is like Hitler, but not in any sense that is relevant to any political discussion.

So let me attempt this again in a more sensible way in order to explain myself better.

Tenpercenter said:
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
I CHALLENGE ANYBODY HERE TO DEFEND THE STATEMENT THAT BUSH IS LIKE HITLER.

[/ QUOTE ]

Bush is like Hitler in that they have a reasonable number of things in common. Hence the statement is fine. If you change the statement to "Bush is as evil as Hitler" then obviously this statement is clearly false. So we agree that it would be irresponsible for a political group to claim this.

However, you seem to think that a lot of liberals believe this to be true. I don't think that's the case. I studied as an undergrad at the University of Oregon. It is a very liberal school. In fact, last election the college Republicans arranged for Dick Cheney to speak but they had to have the talk in a small nearby town because they knew that he would not be allowed to be heard due to protests on campus. I don't agree with yelling down speakers, I'm simply pointing this out as an example of the liberal tendencies of the student body. All but a few of my friends are liberal as am I. In all the discussions I have had with my friends and discussions I've heard or been involved in around campus exactly zero of these discussions have included anybody putting forth the idea that Bush is as evil as Hitler. People have said that Bush is evil but I have never heard it implied that he is that evil.

Also I would like to clarify that I haven't heard people say "Bush is like Hitler" or anything to that effect. I too have not said it other than in this thread where I was basically making a semantic argument. I apologise for starting that argument as it has derailed the original theme of the discussion.

[Taxman]

In addition to jdl22's excellent points, you seem to have chosen to ignore an integral part of his first post in that the ads that supposedly represent a common liberal view, in fact were largely ignored and did not seem to have anything to do with the famous people who allegedly backed them. You would think an idea with that many powerful personalities behind it would have made more of a splash than a petty debate on a poker forum. If it did, I would be happy to read supporting articles, preferably not by a well known neocon spin artist.

[Taxman]

I dunno, I find that the majority of liberals I have met are in fact quite filled with disdaid for the right.

[Taxman]

[ QUOTE ]
I actually find Michael Savage and Ann Coulter to be a breath of fresh air.

[/ QUOTE ]

Excuse me......I just have to swallow back some bile.... At least pick some of the neocons who are less inclined to outright lie if you're going to make such a statement. Ann Coulter must have no respect for her reader's intelligence considering the way she writes. Given the love affair many seem to have with her, her attitudes appear to be well founded. Keep this in mind the next time you hear Coulter blathering on (for the 12th time that week) that conservatives don't get enough time on the air. I find the liberal media myth to be quite amusing. I'm not saying the media is conservative, but it sure as hell ain't an exclusively liberal gated community.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
you seem to have chosen to ignore an integral part of his first post

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
I voted for conservatives in this poll because I hate Bush and the other conservatives he associates with.



[/ QUOTE ]

This is his first post and yes I did ignore it. See, conservatives can argue semantics too.

[TenPercenter]

[ QUOTE ]
the famous people who allegedly backed them.

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.bushin30seconds.org/judges.html

Now you don't need the word "allegedly" anymore. Too bad I had to give traffic to this website in order to prove my honesty.

Ten

[Taxman]

Just because those people are in the judging panel does not mean that they believe Bush is like Hitler. I actually did not even realize that you had named them as judges initially because the tone of your post indicated that you believed they held that view. Just because some citizenes chose to exercise their right of free speach does not mean that these prominent liberals agree with them on that point.

[Taxman]

Damn it, I said "disdaid." There goes my credibility.

[jdl22]

Again, these people judged the competition. There were a couple of videos that people sent in as per the contest that compared Bush and Hitler. These videos DID NOT WIN the competition. What that means is that the judges must have watched the videos and found them not to be good, or at least not the best.

How does 2 people making a homemade movie comparing Bush to Hitler mean that many liberals in feel this way?

Incidentally how do you feel about this (http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=17253):
</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
Hitler, Stalin ... and Clinton?
Newspaper poll ranks president second among most evil

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


© 1999 WorldNetDaily.com

A New York Post survey of readers sampling nearly 20,000 people ranks Bill Clinton second to Adolf Hitler as the most evil person of the millennium.

Hitler received 8.67 percent, or 1,664 votes, and Clinton received 8.47 percent, or 1,625, placing him well above mass-murdering Soviet leader Josef Stalin, who got 6.69 percent, or 1,284 votes.

What makes the president's appearance on the survey more astonishing is respondents had to write his name in, while Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Dr. Josef Mengele and others were listed on the survey. First lady Hillary Clinton came in sixth on the survey, with 3.99 percent and 765 votes -- all write-ins.

Others on the list included Saddam Hussein, Charles Manson, Idi Amin, Genghis Khan, Jeffrey Dahmer, Benito Mussolini, Ayatollah Khomeini, Ted Bundy, John Wayne Gacy, Ivan the Terrible, Fidel Castro, Vlad the Impaler, Timothy McVeigh and Marquis de Sade.


[/ QUOTE ]

Funny, 8.47% of people in a poll were so filled with hatred toward Clinton that they wrote him in instead of choosing Hitler, Stalin, Saddam, and others.

Also how do you feel about "Hitlery" generating 6,350 hits on Google including the first (http://www.freeworldalliance.com/hitlery.htm). Is it not with hatred that Hannity has referred to a US senator using this "pet name?"

[Gamblor]

No no, i know exactly what you are talking about.

It seems every time I take out a girl I end up thinking that "Disdaid was so disappointing"