If you want to keep up the equivalency, you can go to Democratic Underground; never been there but I hear it is similar.
Remeber, on the internet, anyone can say anything at any time largely annoynomously, which leads to a lot of people responding while angry with off-the-cuff ad-homs.
As for Bush hate, take on the perspective for a moment. As an example, I believe the evidence indicates that Bush willfully manipulated post-9/11 sentiment and all-but manufactured evidence to launch America into a costly and gratituous war that he then handled with unparalled uncompetance. In 2004, he was re-elected on a platform of homophobia and national defense. I am not a Christian and have homosexual friends and family members, so I consider the former position evil. I never bought the second, and felt sadly vindicated when Katrina showed the administration to have neither foresight nor ability in regards to protecting America. Yet, even though I sometimes deplore our willingness to be duped, I love America--the people, the culture, the land itself. From this perspective, being very, very, very angry at Bush is entirely legitimate. Not to defend your hate mailers--they shouldn't indulge in writing pointless e-mails while pissed off and they should realize that their rage will never be taken seriously unless it is kept civil and directed to appropriate avenues.
But the rage itself? Entirely justified.Comment Posted By will lentz On 24.06.2006 @ 15:31
DEagle and richard needed to read tano's post; its thesis is something all of us, left and right, need to take to heart. For example, taken from my gut point of view your points seem like near-intentional satire; I've never heard a right-wing personality come out against her, she gets tons of face time on GOPTV, and College Republicans across the country pay tens of thousands to have her come and publically mangle democracy. However, then I remember that I pay relatively little attention to right-wing intra-party politics and therefore could easily miss right-wing criticisms of people like Hannity and Counter--and, I remember that you are coming from the exact same place on the opposite side; plus, you are far more poised and vigilant for the shortcomings in the left than I, and the opposite is probably equally true.
Too long, didn't read version: intellegent people, of which there are many on both sides, can and do criticise the hateful extremists on their own sides. The "yeah we have bastards but WE police them and THEY don't" meme is common on both sides of the spectrum, and on both sides it is generally born of ignorance of said self-policing on the other rather than facts. The author's piece on Coulter quotes here is a great example of the kind of excellent rightist self-policing most leftists will never see (even with the tired old Michael Moore equivalency cliche).
re: richard: You would undoubtably have received exactly the same kind of hateful and juvenile responces if you had been on the left working for Clinton as you did on the right working for Bush/Reagan/whoever; I imagine the the only major difference would be the replacement of arrogance with anti-intellectualism.
The writer of this blog seems unusually reasonable and intellegent for a rightist. Godspeed against all the mouthbreathers on your side--leftists who love this country like myself would much rather have competent opponents than bunch of bumbling and wrongheaded fools like the you-know-who administration. I'll do my best on ours, although I fear it may be only slightly less impossible to do so...
completely off topic: I use google for spellcheck, and the first hit for "extremists" was a hitlist, with pictures, of anti-scientology activists. I don't know what people in these parts think of Scientology, but I laughed.Comment Posted By will lentz On 22.06.2006 @ 20:40
Pages (1) :