"gofab.com" <***@aol.com> wrote in message
> On Tue, 2 Aug 2005 15:25:25 -0700, in article
> amos stated:
> >"gofab.com" <***@aol.com> wrote in message
> >> On Tue, 02 Aug 2005 17:45:16 GMT, in article
> >> <email@example.com>,
> >poisoned rose
> >> stated:
> >> >
> >> >***@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Dear Bibsbro,
> >> >>
> >> >> I agree with much of your posts. But I prefer not to label
> >> >> liberal or conservative or Republican or Democrat at a time of
> >> >> like this.
> >> >
> >> >I really find it repugnant, the way so many of Usenet's bombastic
> >> >right-wing bullies aim generalized character smears at the
> >> >opposition through makeshift "slur" words like "Dems" and "libs."
> >> >It reads to me just like reading "Spics," "Nips," "Micks," etc.
> >> >from someone else. The same sort of bigoted hatespeak.
> >> Implausible, but an amusing try, nonetheless.
> >Nothing implausible about it. It's a daily occurence, something you
> >unsurprisingly shut your eyes to.
> >Oh yes, it goes the other way too, no one is dull enough to pretend it
> You missed my point. You're right that the smears go on all the time.
> you're right that it goes the other way too. What I stated as being
> was the notion that the term "libs" or the like is "the same sort of
> hatespeak" as a racist term like "spics." That's utterly ridiculous, or
> really care to debate that point?
No. I did miss your point, although some like Jones and Iben are indeed
using the words left and liberal as curse words. Surely you see that?
> >But it's the very reason why was asked 9 months ago what in the hell the
> >right was so angry about...they won? They're still hurling inprecations.
> >Must be the limbaughzation of GOP politics.
> I'm sure there's anger on both sides, but the left were the ones with
> * Howard Dean
> * Al Sharpton and Al Gore
> * "Re-defeat Bush"
> * "Buck Fush"
> * moveon.org
> * Fahrenheit 9/11
> and other charming political rhetoric.
Oh come on. That is a raindrop in the ocean. I am not going to enumerate
all the right side of this love fest but this is an embarrasing paucity of
muckraking by neo-con standards.
> The Republican campaign had its angry moments, but at least the entire
> wasn't based on a negative, vituperative premise
Bullshit. Again, -very- selective in your sensory input.
(i.e., don't vote for Kerry
> because he's Kerry, vote for him because he's not Bush). I would go so
> say that it was the extreme negativity of the left that ultimately gave
> edge in '04 -- swing voters, I'd guess, ultimately are skeptical types who
> warm to having the President so nakedly and relentlessly bashed. Bush
He is. Oh, he is. And no, it was not left negativity that swung it for
> As for what the right is so angry about, we could start with blatant
> obstructionism in Congress. What can be more antidemocratic than using
> antiquated procedural rules to block the will of a majority of the
> elected representatives?
remember Newt Gingrich? Nuff said. How can you unashamedly claim that the
Demos are worse than the GOP when they both play by the same corrupt rules?
> The left, on the other hand, lost big, and so their continued anger needs
> further justification.
Anger mainly from disbelief that a known moron could waltz back into the
One would hope that they learn that anger and negativity
> is not the way to win, though.
No, apparently attacking is. Wherever GOP money doesn't work.
They seem to be heading toward nominating
> Hillary, the angriest woman in the world, having managed to find the one
> candidate who could be more divisive than W (and Democrats don't have the
> numbers to win by dividing).
Hilary is an idiot and should never, EVER run for President. Has nothing to
do with anger and everything to do with major polarization. She was hated
when her hubby was in office for cryin out loud. Why the hell would anyone
like her better now? (They don't.)