Go Back  HuntingNet.com Forums > Non Hunting > Politics
 The Party of 'No' Becomes the Party of Hate >

The Party of 'No' Becomes the Party of Hate

Politics Nothing goes with politics quite like crying and complaining, and we're a perfect example of that.

The Party of 'No' Becomes the Party of Hate

Old 02-05-2005, 04:28 PM
  #1  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: High Sierra, Nevada
Posts: 626
Default The Party of 'No' Becomes the Party of Hate

Good read

The Party of 'No' Becomes the Party of Hate

Commentary on the News
Friday, February 04, 2005
Jack Kinsella - Omega Letter Editor

The State of the Union, according to the President, is 'confident and strong'. The state of the Democrats, on the other hand, is anything but.


Since 2001, their entire platform has been one of obstruction, opposition and nay saying, regardless of the issue or whether or not it might be good for America. Because anything that turns out good for America is bad for them. They have become the Party of No, as Tom Delay described them in a post-speech interview.

Their hatred for George Bush and the GOP has begun to consume them as a political force. They are morphing from the Party of No that they have been for the last four years, into the Party of Hate. Openly and, evidently, unashamedly.

Howard Dean, who is a shoo-in to win the February 12 election as the new chairman of the Democratic Party, said in New York last week; "I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for -- but I admire their discipline and their organization."

Noted Jeff Jacoby in the Boston Globe;

"I hate the Republicans and everything they stand for. Not "I oppose the Republicans and everything they stand for." Not "I'm determined to beat the Republicans." Not "I reject the Republican message." No -- Dean wants it understood that he hates the Republicans and all their works. That is the banner under which he is marching as a candidate to lead his party."

What makes this a different animal is the application of the word, 'hate' to the platform of the Democratic Party of Howard Dean. Politics at the national level is always intense and both sides practice the science with a cold, calculated ruthlessness.

The opposition is supposed to play hardball against the majority. That is what the Founders intended as part of the built-in 'checks and balances' system that keeps the country balanced.

Hatred is not cold, and usually, it lacks calculation. Unchecked, in its most extreme, it led Americans into civil war, and Jews into ghettos, concentration camps and finally, ovens.

Hatred, in the political sense, is what one feels for the enemies of one's country. War is the ultimate expression political hatred.

When expressed against one's fellow citizens, hatred is a CRIME so heinous that it has been judicially excluded from 1st amendment guarantees of freedom of speech!

The use, therefore, of the word to describe his view of a rival political party by the presumptive chairman of the Democratic Party is not merely eye-opening, its shocking.
Scanr1 is offline  
Old 02-05-2005, 05:27 PM
  #2  
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: The socialist state of Massachusetts
Posts: 1,146
Default RE: The Party of 'No' Becomes the Party of Hate

I am a registered Republican. I am extremely conservative in some respects and a moderate in others. I am, by no means, a liberal. All that said, I am also a pragmatist.
The hate that the Democrats are feeling for George Bush right now...is no different than the hate that Republicans felt for Bill Clinton. The old saying is true: what comes around goes around.

Maybe it's time for all of us to act differently.
To do that, however, we will have to learn how to lay aside some of our selfishness, greed, obstinacy, and pet agendas. I don't know if we're ready yet.

Clint
Clint. is offline  
Old 02-05-2005, 05:28 PM
  #3  
Nontypical Buck
 
JoeA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Waipahu HI USA
Posts: 2,912
Default RE: The Party of 'No' Becomes the Party of Hate

"Because anything that turns out good for America is bad for them. "

Is a sweeping statement and incongruous with the fact that Sandy Berger (Clinton's national security advisor) warned Condi Rice and the Bush administration that al Qaeda represented a serious threat to the US. The warnings were ignored. After 9-11, the Bush administration intimated that it was the fault of the outgoing Clinton administration for not warning them of the severity of the threat.

So, does that mean that a Democratic administration was trying to do good for themselves & bad for America in that instance?

Hating is a bad thing, but so is lying.
JoeA is offline  
Old 02-05-2005, 05:43 PM
  #4  
Giant Nontypical
 
etothepii's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Central Ohio
Posts: 8,561
Default RE: The Party of 'No' Becomes the Party of Hate

Sandy Berger
I hear he has "magic socks..."
etothepii is offline  
Old 02-05-2005, 08:21 PM
  #5  
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location:
Posts: 4,895
Default RE: The Party of 'No' Becomes the Party of Hate

I hear he has "magic socks..."
BWA AHAHAHAHAHAHHA

Oh lordy, thats a gooder.

And he was awarded, and he lost 9 billion dollars.


"auntie emm take me home"....
tardfarmer is offline  
Old 02-05-2005, 10:24 PM
  #6  
Nontypical Buck
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Slower Lower Delaware 1st State
Posts: 1,776
Default RE: The Party of 'No' Becomes the Party of Hate

That was a very good read Ain't it the truth!

IMO there isn't any correlation between what republicans thought of Clinton and the absolute sheer hatred the Dems feel for Bush. History will clearly show Clinton got everything he deserved from the republican side during his 2 terms.
AJ52 is offline  
Old 02-06-2005, 12:58 AM
  #7  
Super Moderator
 
CalHunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Northern California
Posts: 18,158
Default RE: The Party of 'No' Becomes the Party of Hate

I am a registered Republican. I am extremely conservative in some respects and a moderate in others. I am, by no means, a liberal. All that said, I am also a pragmatist.
The hate that the Democrats are feeling for George Bush right now...is no different than the hate that Republicans felt for Bill Clinton. The old saying is true: what comes around goes around.
Speak for yourself. I don't think you can automatically lump everyone in this single group.
CalHunter is offline  
Old 02-06-2005, 07:09 AM
  #8  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: High Sierra, Nevada
Posts: 626
Default RE: The Party of 'No' Becomes the Party of Hate

ORIGINAL: Clint.

I am a registered Republican. I am extremely conservative in some respects and a moderate in others. I am, by no means, a liberal. All that said, I am also a pragmatist.
The hate that the Democrats are feeling for George Bush right now...is no different than the hate that Republicans felt for Bill Clinton. The old saying is true: what comes around goes around.

Maybe it's time for all of us to act differently.
To do that, however, we will have to learn how to lay aside some of our selfishness, greed, obstinacy, and pet agendas. I don't know if we're ready yet.

Clint

Clint, we may have hated Bill Clinton, but we did not hate every democrat. I have allways said that I would vote for a southern democrat over a northeastern Republican most of the time. Most noreasters are RINOs. We came up with welfare reform, Bill Clinton stole the issue and took credit for it, but we got it passed. It's all about what's best for the country, not what's best for the party at the expence of the country.
Scanr1 is offline  
Old 02-06-2005, 08:01 AM
  #9  
Giant Nontypical
 
vc1111's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Land of Oz
Posts: 9,626
Default RE: The Party of 'No' Becomes the Party of Hate

We came up with welfare reform, Bill Clinton stole the issue and took credit for it, but we got it passed.
Who is this "we" you keep referring to? The LOD? You are still an "officer" aren't you?
vc1111 is offline  
Old 02-06-2005, 10:18 AM
  #10  
Giant Nontypical
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location:
Posts: 6,332
Default RE: The Party of 'No' Becomes the Party of Hate

Intimating is a pretty vague and indefinite action. You're not suggesting it is definite enough to rise to the level of a lie, are you? If Sandy Berger warned the Bush administration about al Qaeda, maybe the Bush administration didn't take it seriously because the Clinton administration didn't take it seriously enough, themselves, to take action to diminish the threat -- other than to lob some cruise missiles at some unoccupied al Qaeda training camps in Afghanistan.

Back to the topic of hate. I confess to having strong negative feelings for Bill Clinton and his tribe. I felt he was nailed on purjury and felt bitter that he was not held accountable, other than being disbarred by from practicing law in the State of Arkansas. That seemed a little light on equal treatment before the law. On the other hand, I didn't accuse him of being the worst US president, just ineffectual and not noteworthy. I didn't accuse him of being Hitler, though there might be more justification for this accusation (remember Ruby Ridge and Waco?). I didn't threaten to move to Canada or some other foreign country if Clinton were re-elected. Republicans didn't cook up evidence of Clinton dodging the draft or smoking reefer (I didn't inhale), but maybe Republicans can't claim credit for self-control in these matters since the news media was not in their hip pocket as they were for the Democrats.

I don't think for a minute it is time for the Republicans to act differently. To the extent Republicans spin reality excessively (have to allow a little, in my opinion, this always happens), change their position every time a new poll comes out, and act as demagogues they should correct these faults. On the other hand, to the extent the Republicans have a principled position -- such as on how to reduce our vulnerability to terror, such as on matters of gun control, such as on matters of tax relief -- stick with it! Then again, if they are defending a "pet project" (to my mind a project good for you or your constituents but in great measure bad for the country as a whole), they should look more to the good of the whole. If they are taking positions just to make democrats look bad and score points, again they should stop this. The objective is the good of the whole country not the reelection of specific individuals, be they Democrat or be they Republican.

Despite all the shrill yammering in the news media, there are real and substantive differences between Democrats and Republicans. I feel Republicans tend to favor limited government (government's business is not "Problem Solving 'R Us", is not providing a fix for every problem under the sun but is rather to perform those actions stipulated for it to do in the constitution, and it has its fingers in a lot of things it has no business getting involved in, in my opinion, for example funding the arts or funding the humanities [I have written poetry in the past, I enjoy the visual arts, I'm a member of the Fort Worth Kimbell Art Museum, I have a degree in English -- hence literature -- and a minor in Philosophy -- more humanities stuff -- I am not against either the arts or the humanities, just the role of government as a sponsor of these things]) while Democrats want to expand the role of government. Republicans want to have a strong military and to deal with foreign threats forcibly. The Democrats do not want to spend money on the military because (1) they do not believe there are substantive foreign threats (people are basically nice, can't we all just get along!) and (2) they know that $1 B spent on a fighter jet is $1 B they can't spend on a social program. To the extent this broad generalization holds water, I don't think it is time for the Republicans to snuggle up to the Democrat position on these matters. Not a bit. If the Democrats want to join in this work -- maintaining a strong military, dispatching our enemies abroad, and reigning in government -- I'll shake their hands and welcome them to the task, but I'm not holding my breath. And I include in this the protection and nurturing of the second amendment as an individual right to own and to use guns. All of these guys -- executive branch, legislative branch, and judicial branch -- swear an oath to uphold the constitution. Lord help anyone interfere with some artist's right to use federal money to display nude pictures of himself with a bullwhip up his ar$e, that would interfere with his first amendment rights. Or, heaven help it if we search a known terrorists computer for imminent attack plans, that might interfere with their fourth amendment rights. But let an honest, law abiding citizen exercise his second amendment rights?
Alsatian is offline  

Quick Reply: The Party of 'No' Becomes the Party of Hate


Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright © 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.