The Hate Was Of Bush And The Right

Link fixed.

There is no point in trying to honestly debate "hate" with a columnist who wraps himself in a movement that spent the last eight years hating so much that they had to celebrate an assassination of Bush flick to validate it, especially one who now professes to pass judgment on some Right wing hate he has manufactured from his own bizarre designs. And Bush was simply the figurehead of all things Republican, or somewhat conservative in America.

If anything, the column is a perpetuation of Krugman's own hate for the political Right in America. It's really just part of the still on going effort of the now far Left Democrat Party and Left leaning media to eradicate everything that is from the Center to the Right in our nation's polity.

Krugman would have us believe that the vast number of well documented incidents and rhetorical outbursts demonstrating the Left's hatred over the past decade have somehow now all disappeared. They have not. But there's no benefit in pointing them all out for him. Obviously his own mind can't see anything like, or of himself as being bad, or wrong. And he is just as obviously incapable of viewing his political opposition as anything but evil and full of hate.

One or even a few lone gunmen who are generally all over the map politically due to their derangement is terrible but it is nothing to fear on a national front. A mindset like Krugman's is, most especially if it turns out to be the dominating mindset within a political party in control of all but the entirety of our Federal Government.

Comments

[Zaugg]

There is a storm coming and it isn't a few lone gunmen. It will be my neighbor, my friends and myself standing up to the tyranny of the Obama Government. It may be peaceful it may be not, but that storm is coming.

[wally sadaber]

Riehl. You have linked to the same Krugman column twice.

Most of your post is simply a complaint that progressives believe it is more clear that Republican politics is more and more controlled by far right conservatives. Which, of course, is true. I am not sure why you think the progressives "hate" the conservatives for eliminating the moderates in the Repubican Party but I personally don't hate the far right conservatives for that power grab. For most of progressives, in fact, it is welcome as it means more years of Democratic party political power. I think LImbaugh does spew hate, but I don't hate him for it. He strengthens the Democratic party.

But this sentence of yours deserves a response: "One or even a few lone gunmen who are generally all over the map politically due to their derangement is terrible but it is nothing to fear on a national front."

Right wing murderers, like most politically oriented murderers normally do not indict their inspirational sources, so it is tough to disprove your theory. However, your theory does rely on the assumption that where political leaders demonize the precise issue, e.g. abortion, immigration, or the President's citizenship status, that violent extremists interested in those issues won't be encouraged to violence by such demonizing. But this is a pretty shaky assumption.

Riehl, if the journalists and political leaders have no sway over the people that read their work, why are you worried about the words of Krugman, Howard Dean, Olberman or other progressive journalists? Well, clearly, because you think they influence people. And if the words of extremist commenters on religious topics are not important, why are you so concerned about the statements of Rev. Wright or Zawahiri? Well, of course, because journalists that are political leaders, like Krugman and O'Reilly, and political leaders that criticize others in the name of religion like, Zawahiri, Wright, Beck and LImbaugh, have fervent followers. And it is pretty logical that violent followers will act on the words of hate of the leaders. The difference is that no one has killed anyone following Krugman and Wright. But those following and influenced by Zawahiri, O'Reilly and Dobbs have indeed killed people. I tnink the families of the murdered Holocaust museum guard and Dr. Tiller, and the 300 people killed in Oklahoma City would disagree with you that there is "nothing to fear on a national front."

[Bob]

Oh really, Zaugg? What makes a democratically elected president like Obama, in your view, any more tyrannical than, say, George W. Bush, other than that you apparently don't like Obama? You can't even claim that Obama is going against the general wishes of the citizenry, can you? He has sky-high approval ratings at this very moment, and most people who've been polled approve of what he's doing. So how on earth is that tyrannical? Or does "tyrannical" mean anything that you don't approve of?

[mark l.]

"Right wing murderers"...
this is your perception?

you can pair the actions of individuals to a larger group becuase they have areas upon which they agree?

is is the intellectual equivalent of typing "murderous blacks".

[mark l.]

"You can't even claim that Obama is going against the general wishes of the citizenry, can you?"

I can make that claim.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/auto_industry/just_21_favor_gm_bailout_plan_67_oppose

does it make him evil? if we ran this country by polls, then we would no longer need a president. the nature of the job is to make decisons inconsitent with public wishes, but there is a limit...

bush did not violate the limit sufficient to lose the 04 election. obama has his chance to test our patience.

he would be wise to consider the sentiments of the voters...not the ones who elected him, so much as the ones he needs to be reelected.

[Bob]

"he would be wise to consider the sentiments of the voters...not the ones who elected him, so much as the ones he needs to be reelected."

Fair enough. Let the best candidate win. I just object to the kind of talk that one hears from some on the right wing that Obama's presidency is somehow illegitimate, or that there might be a just cause for vague threats of armed rebellion. I think that using words like "tyranny" is really beyond the pale.

[mark l.]

... that Obama's presidency is somehow illegitimate, or that there might be a just cause for vague threats of armed rebellion"

forgive the illegitmacy part, they had to listen to the argument for about...8 years. it is a recycling of a lib standard. live with it, it isn't a quarter as vociferous as the left was over florida 2000.

as for zaugg?
i thought it was carefully worded. there is an ominous quality about our economic uncertainty that is permeating the sub rosa. I lived thru the 60's and 70's...I sincerely doubt that the conservatives will behave as the liberal democrats did in the sixties. it was national embarassment, that they sought to justify under the tyranny argument.

[Ragspierre]

"What makes a democratically elected president like Obama, in your view, any more tyrannical than, say, George W. Bush"

Ummm...his actions, policies, mindset, world-view...

Krugman did not fail to just lie about factual assertions he made, including the canard about Beck and the concentration camps.

[Ragspierre]

"...most people who've been polled approve of what he's doing..."

That, also is simply false. Do you read polling data? Try it some time. Obama's personal numbers are OK...middling, in fact. But STRONG majorities are against his policies.

[gus]

Debating with the left is useless. Beating them is necessity. Liberals are not honest. They hold Conservatives to standards and morals, but have no standards or morals themselves.
To ignore who and what Obama is, is silly. He's a dishonest, lying, Marxist, narcissist. But he's their lying bag of crap and they love socialism. So they deny what Obama is and pretend the isn't Marxist.
Libs suck.

[RogerCfromSD]

I, too, see a storm on the horizon. And, when the storm comes, I'll be standing by your side.

If Bob willfully closes his eyes to Obama's unconstitutional excesses, that's his choice. I can't generate enough energy to care if such talk harms his delicate sensibilities.

[mark l.]

the pot is bubbling...

[wally sadaber]

Mark, So, lemme get your viewpoint straight. A neo Nazi who kills a guard at a ... Jewish museum, is doing it what, because he could not get a discount ticket? And Roeder killed Tiller because his daughter could not get an appt. for an abortion? Well, of course those two right wing guys murdered their victims due to their right wing politics. They said so! What part about that is not clear?

[PA]

P.R.O.J.E.C.T.I.O.N.

[mark l.]

wally-

can you make distinction between the departed neo-nazi and Bill Ayers?

i'm sure you would offer, bill ayers never killed anyone. but please, what distinction should i draw beyond that meaegr point...

at time individuals are justified in blowing up police stations, federal buildings, and military bases?

what would you have me make of his association with obama?

in my book, both are domestic terrorists. I'd actually rather defend the right's association(?) with little hitler, than obama and ayer's association.

you wouldn't want me to judge obama, but you want me to judge everyone you consider "right-wing"?

[Dan Riehl]

"bill ayers never killed anyone"

A San Fran cop was killed, they just never got enough to convict anyone. Ayres has blood on his hands, make no mistake.

[lala]

von Brunn seems to be a follower of Darwin, according to his writings.

Ayers said something like - guilty as sin, free as a bird -

[No_Civil_War]

Appropriately titled blog.

Only in the riehl world does a whiny hypocrite misrepresent a Nobel prize laureate who writes for the nation's premier newspaper. The hate, misinformation, and distortions of you and your blog-lodytes ("the usual gang of idiots," I wonder?) takes farce into the absurd. Up is down, war is peace, Bush was a good (white Christian) president while Obama is a bad (black muslim) president. Give yourself a smug pat on the back, riehlly, for having the chutzpah to "honestly debate" a column written by a guy who neither knows nor probably cares you exist before determining "there is no point."

And yeah, I'm angry. I'm angry that Real Clear Politics not only links to your blog under the horrifying misnomer 'best of the blogs,' but they'll probably do it again and I'll accidentally stumble into the stupid-pit again. (At least I can tell my wife that I finally read an insane religio-fascist blog without spelling or apparent grammar errors.)

[mark l.]

"Only in the riehl world does a whiny hypocrite misrepresent a Nobel prize laureate who writes for the nation's premier newspaper."

let's go with the premise that paul krugman is the most brilliant economist ever...

what passage, if not just a sentence, is related to his economic prowess?

what's up krugman's ass? the fallout from his the opening of his monday op-ed.

"What would have happened if hanging chads and the Supreme Court hadn’t denied Al Gore the White House in 2000? Many things would clearly have been different over the next eight years.

But one thing would probably have been the same: There would have been a huge housing bubble and a financial crisis when the bubble burst. And if Democrats had been in power when the bad news arrived, they would have taken the blame..."

so, according to the gospel of st paul, bush is absolved from causing the financial crisis.

but then I have the advantage over you, of not taking krugamn seriously, much like the former public editor, bill keller(?). as it stands the relationship between krugman and the nyt is a parasitic one. the nyt in its dwindling readership, does more for his crediblity, than he contributes in return.

[North Dallas Thirty]

"Only in the riehl world does a whiny hypocrite misrepresent a Nobel prize laureate who writes for the nation's premier newspaper."

Every time someone quotes "Nobel Prize", I am reminded of the fact that Yasser Arafat went to his grave with one of them for "Peace".

The only qualification for a Nobel Prize these days is to be an anti-American and anti-Bush idiot, and Krugman fits the bill nicely.

And as for the nation's premier newspaper, that would explain why it's hemorrhaging money and sinking like a stone. I guess Krugman's masturbatory economic theories aren't keeping it solvent.

[mark l.]

sorry, not bill keller...

daniel okrent-

In 2005, Times ombudsman Daniel Okrent wrote, "Op-Ed columnist Paul Krugman has the disturbing habit of shaping, slicing and selectively citing numbers in a fashion that pleases his acolytes but leaves him open to substantive assaults." Krugman says that Okrent "caved" to the criticism of conservative ideologues who were out to get him. ("I tried to be an honest broker," says Okrent. "But when someone challenged Krugman on the facts, he tended to question the motivation and ignore the substance.") It's true that during the Bush era Krugman was the target of cranks and kooks, but it is also true that in areas outside his expertise he sometimes gets his facts wrong (his record has improved lately). Krugman is unrepentant about his Bush bashing. "I was more right in 2001 than anyone in the pundit class," he says.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/191393/page/3

[FZ]

Von Brunn was a National Socialist, who hated everyone, believed in 9/11 inside job theories and many things freak'n Joy Blowhard that witch on that show 'The View' says every day. Tiller was killed by another lone gunman, who has no global support like say the creature who killed the soldier and expouses the 'religion of peace' philosophy we hear coming from Comrade Obama. The lefty's on here make no secret they see no islamic enemy, only Bush supporters and those they defeated with this empty suit who is going around the world apologising for those who tried stopping Communists and now these beasts.

[Bob]

You just have to wonder if the conservative movement accepts responsibility for anything at all. I've been well aware of the kinds of things people say in blogs and posting on comments boards like this one, and while liberals never hid their dislike of Bush, the biggest question among liberals was whether Bush should be impeached or not. And it seemed to be about 50/50, with a good half of all liberals probably thinking that impeachment was neither politically feasible nor strategically desirable. Among the remainder, impeachment was the most extreme remedy that was ever discussed. I never saw the extent of ominous threats being made like I see on comment boards like this one, with all of the talk about "storms" and "bubbling pots" and such. No liberals were hinting at armed insurrection with phrases like, "It may be peaceful it may be not, but that storm is coming."

I remember on this blog, perhaps the first post where Riehl raised the Dreher/Levin kerfuffle, one commenter, a woman, referred to liberals as "filthy, lying scum." Nobody, certainly not Riehl or Levin, bothered to disagree with her. After all, it's so easy when all you have to do is say, "well the liberals were mean to Bush too!" and never again have to take responsibility for anything your side says or does.

[mark l.]

"You just have to wonder if the conservative movement accepts responsibility for anything at all."

so...the implication you make is that the dems own up to their mistakes.

got anything you'd like to get off the democrats chest?

[Brandon]

You have to be an idiot if you cannot tell that Obama, who unconstitutionally takes-over private companies and forces executive compensation through dictation is not the very definition of DICTATORSHIP.

Let us examine the Latin root of Dictator, to dictate...to make law by word of mouth.

Obama has been inventing the law as he goes along, whatever he can get away with.

Hitler was elected too...but like Obama, he also was a Dictator.

[jaime]

It is obviously true fact that 8 million conservatives have been rounded up and gassed in death camps.

[Progressive at crime and inequality]

Calling Liberals progressive , what a Joke.Lets not forget that its libaral states where crime , poverty and inequality are all at there highest.

[Dr. Jon]

The good news: Libtards hate guns almost as much as they hate Rush Limbaugh. This is a sign of their mental disorder, but when the fit hits the shan, they will be defenseless as well as useless. In a dream world, all these nuts would post signs on their property declaring it a "Gun Free Zone", and wear buttons saying same. That ought to attract only our finest citizens /s

You have to be rational, sane and a critical thinker to recognize what Obama and his thugs are doing...liberals possess none of the required thought processes. They all need to be smacked upside the head with a "clue by four". It might not work, but it sure would be fun.

[Dr. Jon]

PS I have a sign on my property. It reads:

"YOU ARE NOW WITHIN RANGE"

[JohnR]

Paul Krugman falls into the same category as Karl Rove, Cynthia Tucker, Rush Limbaugh, and many other talking heads. Krugman is a party-line hack who uses his tag of "economist" as a fig leaf for pushing a radical Left agenda. I've seen Krugman on TV many times in the last 10 years and he supported EVERY position of the Left, no matter how absurd...and trashed EVERY position on the Right, no matter how moderate.

Why anyone would listen to any of his advice on economics is beyond me. Christ, he's actually saying that Obama needs to borrow/spend MUCH more than he already is. The bottom line is that every word out of Krugman's mouth is designed to push a socialist agenda...and he couldn't care less about the consequences. As long as socialim is instituted, he's OK with letting someone else clean up the mess.

[mark l.]

"and he couldn't care less about the consequences"

the one thing that really gets me is that he hates equities, and loves bonds. no economist gets more bitter when equities are doing well. the pro-govt, anti-business positions he takes are absurd.

[Bob]

"so...the implication you make is that the dems own up to their mistakes.

got anything you'd like to get off the democrats chest?"

Like what, mark? Like I said, liberals may have disliked -- or even hated in some extreme cases, I suppose -- George W. Bush, but nobody was hinting about violently overthrowing him. Most liberals were far more concerned that the administration itself should follow the laws, and that when they didn't, it should be brought to light by investigations and maybe even prosecuted. And even then, Democrats in Congress refused to go after Bush the way the Republicans had gone after Bill Clinton, even though they had plenty of justification to have done so. During Bush's entire term, there was nothing on the left to match those acts of right-wing terror that occurred during Clinton's term or those that have happened since Obama's rise to winning the presidency. The right has to answer for Oklahoma City and for the murders that have been done by right wingers over the past year. Liberals have nothing comparable to apologize for.

Meanwhile, here's another example of the rhetoric now emanating from your side, mark:

"The good news: Libtards hate guns almost as much as they hate Rush Limbaugh. This is a sign of their mental disorder, but when the fit hits the shan, they will be defenseless as well as useless."

I take this to mean that this individual fantasizes -- perhaps even hopes -- for a day when liberals can be killed for their beliefs, and that the job will be all the easier if they're unarmed. And you saw it right here at Riehl World News in this very thread.

[Dan Riehl]

"(At least I can tell my wife that I finally read an insane religio-fascist blog without spelling or apparent grammar errors.)"

LOL You should visit more often, you'd at least know that a "religio-fascist" is the last thing I am. Unfortunately, if you read more often, you might be forced to drop the absurd to the point of being silly rhetoric, and realize you can't debate me on the merits. So pathetic attacks are all you got. But I do appreciate the compliment from a deranged liberal. I get them occasionally and they're always appreciated.

[mark l.]

you said the conservative movement doesn't own up to it's mistake.
i simply asked what mistakes the liberal movement has made that they have owned up to.

it is almost as if you typed-

that tiger eats meat.

the inference, if one doesn't know what a tiger is, is that other tigers DON'T eat meat.

[Bob]

mark, I'm not sure what tangent you're off on. Riehl says, and you seem to be reinforcing the notion, that liberals can't criticize the right for their overly hateful rhetoric and these acts of politically motivated violence because the left was supposedly mean to George W. Bush. I asked why it seems to be that right wingers like Riehl can't simply acknowledge and own up to their own extremists rather than always -- always -- trying to claim that the liberals are just as bad.

The point I'm trying to make is that liberals are NOT just as bad. There's a difference in both the rhetoric and the action. Liberals -- as much as they disliked Bush -- always argued that he should be responded to within the bounds of legal and civil courses of action: elections, investigations of criminal wrongdoing, with something like criminal prosecution or impeachment as the utmost extreme remedy. Right wingers, in contrast, are threatening armed insurrection, denying even the legitimacy of Obama's citizenship or his free and fair election, calling him a traitor, a tyrant and a communist, openly fantasizing about murdering more liberals and refusing to simply condemn acts of political terror without always implying that somehow "they" deserve it. It's all about how Obama is asking for it, or how Tiller reaped what he sowed and so forth. It's making excuses for violent acts committed in the name of their political movement.

Again, if the liberals had been stalking or shooting at gun shop owners or NRA officers, blowing up federal buildings, flying planes into the White House, shooting at the White House or going on murderous rampages against conservatives it would be different. But they didn't. So when the subject of right wing extremism and terrorism comes up, it's a cheap cop-out to immediately try to claim that the left is just as bad. It's not. There's no comparison, and right wingers should own up to that fact.

Again, a commenter in this very thread is saying that he thinks it's great that liberals might make easy targets for politically motivated gun violence because they may not be armed themselves. And neither you nor Riehl has anything at all to say about it. I rest my case.

[JSF]

In the begining of 2008, I wrote a post that showed how Liberals joked about asssinating Bush (Book and movie), on the Huffington Post came the idea of wishing for a Coup D'etat, and there were a hell of a lot of books talking about "Hating" republicans, bush, etc. et. al.

After 8 years of throwing feces in our direction, why do you expect us to treat your candidates and people thebn you treated ours?

The Left talked of ASSASINATNG a sitting President, and no one stood up (on the Left) and said it was wrong.

http://valley-of-the-shadow.blogspot.com/2008/01/two-minute-hate-as-perfected-by.html

Show us how you folks dissented without going persoanl, without getting obscene?

Hint: It cannot be found. The Left has been wanting a hanging party since 12/12/00, and their rhetoric, even in Victory, remains the same.

So much for Post-partisanship! Hah!

[Bob]

JSF, your examples of hateful liberals are exaggerated and misleading. In fact, after your melodramatic introduction, the mildness of these examples is almost hilarious. Take one case, where you say, "a lonely Professor (with two cats) dreams of an America without Republicans. And it is then called a satire." The person you cite was writing about how the sea level rise caused by global warming will likely inundate many "Red State" areas first, forcing residents to flee to higher ground. He says:

"The important thing is that we, on the higher ground both actually and figuratively, need to remember that, when they begin their historic migration from their doomed regions, we not give them the keys to the city. They certainly should be offered assistance in their time of need, but we need to keep a firm grip on our political systems, making sure that these guilty throngs who allowed the world to go to hell are gerrymandered into political impotence in their new homes."

How horrible! After saying that the Republican refugees should be "offered assistance in their time of need," he's actually calling for Republicans to be . . . GERRYMANDERED! That brutal fiend!

Or how about one of the other books you cite, "The Bush Haters Handbook," by Jack Huberman (published in 2003). In his introduction (you can read part of it on Amazon), he says,

"Finally, as it may seem odd at first, I should note that I wrote the book entirely in the past tense, or what might be called the "past hopeful," in the ardent hope that the Bush administration will in fact have passed into the past tense while this book is still being read. If not, then perhaps it will help conjure up the day when Bush & Co. are, indeed, history."

That's right, published as it was in 2003, the book is advocating -- if you can believe the gall of it -- that Bush might be voted out of office in the 2004 elections and then be "history." God, the hatred and brutality of these liberals is simply unspeakable!

One of the other books you cite, "The I Hate George W. Bush Reader" by Clint Willis, is simply a compilation of regular liberal commentators like Michael Moore and Eric Alterman. Had any of those commentators ever called for violence to be committed against Republican leaders, we certainly would have heard about it, wouldn't we?

One of the other books, "Checkpoint," by Nicholas Baker, does actually seem to be a rather nasty affair. But what did the liberals at the filthy liberal web site Salon.com say about it? Here's an excerpt from their review by Charles Taylor:

"I'm not saying that Baker would have written a better book had he advocated the murder of George W. Bush. I don't believe killing Bush would make the world a better place, and I don't believe Baker does either. But he's written a book that toys with the idea of killing Bush, and that toys with ideas about the Americans and Iraqis who have already been killed, without ever confronting the moral seriousness of either."

Here's what the "liberal" New York Times said about "Checkpoint":

"THIS scummy little book treats the question of whether the problems that now beset our cherished and anxious country may be solved by the shooting of its president. Nicholson Baker's novel does not advocate the assassination of George W. Bush, to be sure. It is more cunning. 'Checkpoint' comes armored in ambiguity about its own character."

I end with examples where liberal media outlets did not make excuses for or deny speech or writing that they considered beyond the pale. They simply confronted it and said they didn't approve. Conservatives should just quit with the sniveling excuses and face up to the extremists in their midst. You have people on this very thread wishing for armed insurrection and fantasizing about killing liberals. There was never the extremity nor the frequency of such rhetoric from liberals. And they didn't kill anyone for Bush's entire eight years, in dramatic contrast to what right wing extremists have done during Clinton's and Obama's terms.

[mark l.]

a touch of willful blindness there bob?

let's try this tact:

"Right wingers, in contrast, are threatening armed insurrection, denying even the legitimacy of Obama's citizenship or his free and fair election, calling him a traitor, a tyrant and a communist, openly fantasizing about murdering more liberals and refusing to simply condemn acts of political terror without always implying that somehow "they" deserve it. It's all about how Obama is asking for it, or how Tiller reaped what he sowed and so forth. It's making excuses for violent acts committed in the name of their political movement."

you would have me judge a group based on the acts of insane individuals?

how do reconcile the 9/11 hijackers with the rest of the muslim world under this belief?

[Bob]

"you would have me judge a group based on the acts of insane individuals?

how do reconcile the 9/11 hijackers with the rest of the muslim world under this belief?"

There's a distinction between peaceful muslims and those who are part of organizations that support and excuse terrorism. Members of al Qaeda or Hamas bear responsibility for suicide bombers and the violent political unrest in places like Afghanistan, Lebanon and Gaza. Anybody who advocates or incites violence or gives support to organizations that commit violence are distinct from those who don't.

Of course, most Americans of any political stripe don't advocate or approve of violence. But among certain extremist conservatives, they say it themselves: the "pot is boiling," the "storm is coming," "the liberals are defenseless." Those are not poetic metaphors; they're threats and code words for violent acts. And what's troubling is that the more mainstream part of the Republican Party is inciting hatred in these people through their mouthpieces like O'Reilly, Coulter, Hannity and Limbaugh. Some mainstream conservative organizations and spokespersons are helping to create a climate in which violence is more likely to occur.

And if it were simply a matter of certain people being insane, then how do you explain the fact that leftists were not committing murders during Bush's eight years, while right-wing extremists have committed several murders, almost all during the terms of Democratic presidents? Doesn't that difference beg some kind of explanation other than a shrug of the shoulders accompanied by a statement like "shit happens?" Do insane people tend to gravitate to right wing politics, or what?

[Todd]

Just perusing the blog this morning, it reminds me of why I gave up reading this blog. You simply can't have a civil dialogue with most Republicans to the right of moderate views. All you get is an endless spewing of hate lines like "liberals suck", " liberals are all lying scum of the earth", "The good news: Libtards hate guns almost as much as they hate Rush Limbaugh. This is a sign of their mental disorder, but when the fit hits the shan, they will be defenseless as well as useless". All the while decrying the Bush-hating while never, ever acknowledging their own venomous hatred.

As for those of you voicing your support or participation in the bubbling pot that will eventually erupt into violence across the U.S. against Obama, I will remind you that actions have consequences. Spending 25 years to life in prison.

[mark l.]

"As for those of you voicing your support or participation in the bubbling pot that will eventually erupt into violence across the U.S. against Obama"

sound like the case is being made for a preemptive strike into redneckistan.

i hear they are even getting their kids to chant-

fired up, and ready to go.

[carl hungus]

Bob, you really can't believe any of that ridiculous bs that you wrote. Not after 8 years of hatred, lies, and treason from the left. You people did your level best to bring this country low, to encourage our enemies and put the lives of all Americans at risk. That you can even pretend to offer some shred of objective commentary is ridiculous.
You are disgusting.

[Bob]

"You people did your level best to bring this country low, to encourage our enemies and put the lives of all Americans at risk."

Even if I disagreed, an intelligent response would deserve a serious and respectful reply. But to be honest, carl, you sound like an idiot. Even a little emotional maturity and intellectual honesty would go a long way in your case.

[mirror]

Feel the love and support of our Troops the Democratic elected leaders have shown just like the love they show for anyone who doesn't agree with their political and social agenda's.
What happened to the MSM's and blogging worlds famous "Iraq US Soldier death count" that the left was so proud of why has it disappeared since BO became CIC? What kind of love was that list showing again? Why would this list disappear once BO is sworn in? Does the left wing only protest and count soldiers death when a Republican is in office?
Barack Obama US Senator D
Enough troop that we are just not "Air Raiding Villages and Killing Civilians" causing problems there.President Obama CIC
EXCLUSIVE VIDEO: Air Raid Victim Tells Obama to Leave Afghanistan
Posted by ZP Heller, Brave New Foundation at 3:25 PM on June 9, 2009.
Sobering footage speaks to the dire situation on the ground in the wake of last month's US airstrikes
---
Harry Reid US Senator D
"I believe myself that the secretary of state, secretary of defense and - you have to make your own decisions as to what the president knows - (know) this war is lost and the surge is not accomplishing anything as indicated by the extreme violence in Iraq yesterday," said Reid, D-Nev.
--
Nancy Pelosi US Senator D
Pelosi calls Iraq a 'failure'
---
John Murtha US Senator D
Murtha: Marine Murder in Iraq?
Congressman Says Haditha 'Worse Than Abu Ghraib,' War Crimes 'In Cold Blood'
Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., told "This Week with George Stephanopoulos" in an exclusive appearance that reports a group of U.S. Marines may have killed 24 Iraqi civilians following an IED explosion in Haditha, Iraq, was "worse than Abu Ghraib," calling their actions war crimes committed "in cold blood."
--
Haditha Marine found not guilty on all counts
Early in the investigations, based upon unknown evidence, Democratic Rep. John Murtha (PA) stated that "there was no firefight, there was no IED that killed these innocent people. Our troops overreacted because of the pressure on them, and they killed innocent civilians in cold blood."
Barack Obama, asked about Murtha's charge by Alan Colmes in June of 2006, stated, "I would never second guess John Murtha... I think he's somebody who knows of which he speaks."
Murtha's "in cold blood" statement and the Democratic Presidential nominee's unquestioning acceptance came seven months before the military charged eight Marines with various offenses in December of 2006. Charges against five of the eight Marines have since be dropped for lack of evidence, and in the first of three scheduled trials, Grayson has been acquitted. It remains to be seen if Rep. Murtha or Senator Obama will offer Lt. Grayson an apology, cold-blooded, or otherwise.
----
Obama Job Approval Slips to 58% for First Time