[normajean777]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

"This tax break isn't signifigant" is "hatred"?!?

He has a small point there... The NYT ran a piece that featured an excited lady who takes a calculator out to see how much taxes she saves from the cuts, and its zero. So sad. But it neglected to say she didn't pay any taxes to begin with because her income was to low!!! lol

[nolidad]

I don't see how either is "demonizing". You seem to be changing subjects.

Well if by demonizing you mean the more formal actuall charge of making someone out to be demonic- I agree with you the left didn't demonize Bush.

If however you mean it in the more colloqial sense of just making Bush out to be evil-- then the left far more demonized Bush than the right has to Obama. So the question is which definition are you using?

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Well if by demonizing you mean the more formal actuall charge of making someone out to be demonic- I agree with you the left didn't demonize Bush.

If however you mean it in the more colloqial sense of just making Bush out to be evil-- then the left far more demonized Bush than the right has to Obama. So the question is which definition are you using?

I would except "beleiving he was worse than Stalin" or some such hyperbole.

A specific and potentially legetimate complaint however, would not fit the bill.

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

I would except "beleiving he was worse than Stalin" or some such hyperbole.

A specific and potentially legetimate complaint however, would not fit the bill.

Well a Potential legitimate is very amorphous and meaningless until it becomes a legitimate complaint.

Specific is in the eye of the beholder as well. Just depends on your worldview as to whether you agree or not with specific complaints.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Well a Potential legitimate is very amorphous and meaningless until it becomes a legitimate complaint.

Specific is in the eye of the beholder as well. Just depends on your worldview as to whether you agree or not with specific complaints.

No. It's not amorphous nor meaningless no matter how often you say it.

Calling someone a demon is demonizing by definition. Accusing someone of doing something you think they actually did is not demonizing. No signifigant group called Bush inhuman in either the literal or metaphoric sense.

Also: the republicans, again, have hypocritically called the disruptors who did it at democrat town-halls "concerned citizens" and the same type of people at a Rove book signing simply disruptive and with no interest in dialogue.

[nolidad]

Originally Posted by JerryLove

No. It's not amorphous nor meaningless no matter how often you say it.

Calling someone a demon is demonizing by definition. Accusing someone of doing something you think they actually did is not demonizing. No signifigant group called Bush inhuman in either the literal or metaphoric sense.

Also: the republicans, again, have hypocritically called the disruptors who did it at democrat town-halls "concerned citizens" and the same type of people at a Rove book signing simply disruptive and with no interest in dialogue.

Well potentially legitimate is amorphous cuz it aint legitimate till it is legitimate.

Yes calling someone the antichrist is demonizing by definition. But once again you have yet to substantiate your assertion with any links to evidence so it is just that unitl evidence is given- you ropinion.

Accusing someone of something you think is wrong- does not make it wrong- it just makes you think it is wrong. I never saw a senior republican politician go on national television saying he could go to the white house and kill Obama as the dems did either.

As to teh disrupters/ vs. concerned citizen argument-- the worm has turned. When th edems stop calling tea partiers, violent, terrorists, inciting mobs to violence then and when you agree that the dems are just as culpable in their denouncing their opponents then I will know you are equitable.

Both parties seek to marginalize the biggest threat to ther chances of maintaining power. Now th edems are trying to marginalize the tea parties. Next round it will probably be the GOP with one of the liberal groups--

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Well potentially legitimate is amorphous cuz it aint legitimate till it is legitimate.

"President Bob's wiretapping is illegal" is potentially legitemate.

"President Jeff's the anti-Christ who is part of a vast Muslim conspiracy to brainwash fetuses" is not.

Yes calling someone the antichrist is demonizing by definition. But once again you have yet to substantiate your assertion with any links to evidence so it is just that unitl evidence is given- you ropinion.

Huh? What opinion are you blathering about?

Accusing someone of something you think is wrong- does not make it wrong- it just makes you think it is wrong. I never saw a senior republican politician go on national television saying he could go to the white house and kill Obama as the dems did either.

Which senior democratic legislator did that? Not that it's techincally "demonizing".

As to teh disrupters/ vs. concerned citizen argument-- the worm has turned. When th edems stop calling tea partiers, violent, terrorists, inciting mobs to violence then and when you agree that the dems are just as culpable in their denouncing their opponents then I will know you are equitable.

I didn't call the tea partiers violent terrorists (as a group anyway). I did not object to their airing of their "generally false" beliefs: like the one they founded their name on (that they are taxed but not represented).

You are accusing the left of doing what, in fact, your beloved FOX likes to do.

Nor have I defended the actions of the protesters at Rove's booksigning. I haven't seen anyone else do it either. But anyone who defended the nigh-identical disruptions at town-hall meetings (most of the right) should defend them. That's the point of this thread.

Both parties seek to marginalize the biggest threat to ther chances of maintaining power. Now th edems are trying to marginalize the tea parties. Next round it will probably be the GOP with one of the liberal groups--

The tea party is one of the biggest boons to DP power. You are out of touch with reality if you think the tea party is doing anything but dividing the right's base while alienating the moderates.

[nolidad]

Huh? What opinion are you blathering about?

Why your opinion of Course! You claimed 25% of conservatives think that Obama MAY be the antichrist but have yet to produce any evidence to substantiate your claim.

But it wouldn't surprise me if it is true.

Many conservative thought BUSH MAY be the antichrist.
" " " " Clinton MAY be the antichrist
" " " " Bush I MAY be the antichrist
" " " " REagan MAY be the antichrist
" " " " Carter MAY be the antichrist.
" " " " Kissinger MAY be the antichrist
" " " " Sadat MAY be the antichrist
" " " " Kennedy MAY be teh antichrist
" " " " FDR MAY be the antichrist
" " " " teh varied heads of the UN MAY be the antichrist
" " " " various Popes MAY be the antichrist

So I would say Obama is just one of many candidates that have been nominated for the job. I personally dont believe he is-- but he MAY be--time will tell.

"President Jeff's the anti-Christ who is part of a vast Muslim conspiracy to brainwash fetuses" is not.

Unless it is potentially legitimate then it is.

Which senior democratic legislator did that? Not that it's techincally "demonizing".

REid, Pelosi, Kerry ,Kennedy, Durban, Rangle--Probably alot more, but these are the ones who attacked the President as a person (not for his policies) either in print or on tV that I have links to.

I didn't call the tea partiers violent terrorists (as a group anyway). I did not object to their airing of their "generally false" beliefs: like the one they founded their name on (that they are taxed but not represented).

Even in feigned defense you attack them. Millions believe that they are not truyly being represented. But you believe most of their objections are false- your use of the plural shows you think them silly.

Well I believe in teh right to free speech both from the leftr and the right. But I do know that teh left is actively involved in trying to silence th eright. Soros through moveon.org and SEIU are funding a mass mailing to seek to threaten advertisers unless they stop advertisaing on Fox and especially Beck. This is wrong. Just like the rights trying to silence speech they do not like (and i am not talking obvscenity and slander and speech that is not protected).

The tea party is one of the biggest boons to DP power. You are out of touch with reality if you think the tea party is doing anything but dividing the right's base while alienating the moderates

.

Maybe-- we will find out for sure in November.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by nolidad

Why your opinion of Course! You claimed 25% of conservatives think that Obama MAY be the antichrist but have yet to produce any evidence to substantiate your claim.

But it wouldn't surprise me if it is true.

So you are aruging "you haven't substantiated" for no particular reason but to be adversarial.

Many conservative thought BUSH MAY be the antichrist.

Let me know when there's a statistic for that.

Originally Posted by nolidad

I never saw a senior republican politician go on national television saying he could go to the white house and kill Obama as the dems did either.

Originally Posted by JerryLove

Which senior democratic legislator did that?

Originally Posted by nolidad

REid, Pelosi, Kerry ,Kennedy, Durban, Rangle

I say you are lying. Please provide support that a single one, much less all, saying they were going to / should go to the Whitehouse and kill the president.

[nolidad]

So you are aruging "you haven't substantiated" for no particular reason but to be adversarial.

nope

Let me know when there's a statistic for that.

Well don't know how many- just some websites

I say you are lying. Please provide support that a single one, much less all, saying they were going to / should go to the Whitehouse and kill the president.

Marooned In Marin: John Kerry Jokes About Assassinating Bush--Where's The Secret Service?

I di dmake one mistake here. I incorrectly lumped all thiose others with your request of who said they could go kill Bush. Only Kerry did thaton Maher but the rest of them have all gone on Television and publicily insulted a sitting president. NOt his policies but the man.

[JerryLove]

Originally Posted by nolidad

I di dmake one mistake here. I incorrectly lumped all thiose others with your request of who said they could go kill Bush. Only Kerry did thaton Maher but the rest of them have all gone on Television and publicily insulted a sitting president. NOt his policies but the man.

Though I don't see Kerry as advocating (he's in past tense among other things), it was an entirely inappropriate remark... a terrible and offensive joke. It does little to mitigate your defamation of everyone else you listed.

Now you appear to be trying to start an off-topic conversation about who has or has not "personally insulted" a sitting president. If you want to talk about that: feel free to start a thread. That is not what this thread is on.

This thread is on the hypocracy of those who defended the deliberate disruption of the town-hall process by protestors... unless they also defended those who showed up at Rove's book signing.