Conservative Talk Radio Hits A New Low

"Can you guess why?"

Though you're tempted, it's unsafe to drive while you cover your ears and close your eyes and kick your feet up and down -- that's why.

Joe - Please use your new satellite radio to listen to some good music. Any news about Obama the Kenyan, muslim, nazi, (by analogy) child molester, socialist, pray-for-his-death, whatever, whatever, will be waiting for you as you arrive at each destination. No need risking dangerous levels of agitation while operating a vehicle.

Haven't you realized it yet, Joe?

There IS no limit to which this ilk of person will not stoop. There is no amount of shaming, or finger wagging that will make them stop. They spend all day lobbing verbal s**t bombs to and fro, and are well compensated for it. And those who share their views, admire and laud them for it. No matter how it poisons the public well, the right wing fringe will find a way to justify it.

Usually, the apologists state something along the lines of "Dems did it first" or "it's just entertainment" or "racist--me?". It's virtually impossible to combat the hatred, because they refuse to see it for what it is: flat-out despicable behavior that would not be tolerated by a school child.

I'll say it again: ignorance + racism + hatred = these assclowns.

Perhaps some colorful language was used but the analogy is correct and the same analogy could have been used when Mr. Bush was President. Would it have been as inflamatory if Neal had simply tweeted, 'it's like having the wolf guard the hen house'? Of course it wouldn't, and it wouldn't have gotten Neal very much attention.

Very similar to the days when I used to refer to Mr. Obama as 'Bigger Thomas', your knee-jerk racism prevented you from understanding the depth of the comparison. In this case, I believe the same to be true.

Obama is a war time president. We have troops in harms way. We have Osama Bin Laden sending out hate filled messages in the aftermath of the anniversary of 9/11, trying to undermine the presidents efforts. We have right wing radio helping Osama Bin Laden by doing their best to undermine the authority of the president. Reasoned dissent is one thing. Comparing the president to a child molester isn't reasoned dissent. These are people working, like the terrorists, to bring down the president and this country. I don't know how they can sleep at night, much less have the unmitigated gall to call themselves patriots.

I wouldn't exactly call this a "new low." To be fair, he didn't compare Obama to a child molester as many have alleged, as in "Obama is like a child molester because..." or "Obama is as bad as a child molester because..." He just used the analogy to express the point that he believes Obama cannot fix a problem of which he is one of the causes. Yes, it was in poor taste. And yes, it was a stupid point to make in my opinion. But these radio show hosts love to use language like this BECAUSE it gets people worked up, and you people are doing exactly that.

But...BUT...Joe...Dems did it, too...etc, etc.

Those of us rational people on the right and left have got to stop thinking we are dealing with people that are rational, or persuadable, or reasoned with their beliefs. Neurologically, the fringe groups are NOT people that are capable of discussion or civil discourse. They are displaying reptilian-brain behavior, based on the flight or fear response. There is little to no higher brain activity going on there. Their brains are literally "broke".

What DLL said, best to leave these fools to their listeners and not give them the national stage where they become political martyrs or increase their ratings. Horrible things were said about GWB and they never got much attention and it was the right thing to do. Only problem I have is GWB wasn't seriously heckled until after his first few years, Obama has been heckled with such horrible disrespect since before he became President (and GWB got off light, no crowds forming calling for his death or the death of his family.) These people are going to really stressed out once they realize that we still have at the least 3 years of Obama and the Dems controlling congress and that the US will amazingly still be fine after that time has passed. The hypocrisy coming from the right after the conduct of the 8 years of the Cheney administration is still good entertainment though. The last person I want lecturing me about fiscal responsibility is a Bush voter.

Well, the "heckling" GWB received was earned over time, whereas the Obama heckling started on day one. Therein lies the major difference. As for the subject at hand? Talk-right-hate radio stopped caring about the difference between truth and lies long ago. It even stopped caring about the difference between decency and filth long ago. You might say it stopped caring about America long ago. The real puzzle is why hasn't America stopped listening to talk-right-hate radio? The obvious one word answer is, "ignorance", but even that falls short when trying to describe a willingness to wallow in toxic mush.

Well, the "heckling" GWB received was earned over time, whereas the Obama heckling started on day one.

People keep repeating this, but if you recall things were very contentious from day one with GWB. He took office immediately after all the Bush/Gore brouhaha, and the "selected, not elected" stuff began even before Bush was sworn in. I don't remember a significant amount of time Democrats spoke kindly of Bush with the exception of immediately after 9/11.

Just a remark : fortunately, Obama is the President of the USA. These people on the radio, aren't. They aren't so important, If Obama wants, he could totally ignore them (without acting against the law or Democraty).
(hope I'm writing clearly, it's late here)

Good try, but not even close. DaGost, you can attempt, ATTEMPT to make comparisons between the opposition's treatment of this administration and the last, but there is no comparison. NO ONE was showing up at Bush's carefully crowd selected events with loaded guns. There was NOT an uptick of 400% in death threats with Bush's inauguration (8 DTBD for Bush, 30 for Obama). There was not a network of flamethrowing, thrice divorced, oxycontin abusing talk show hosts and their minions, determined to destroy any and all initiatives from Bush.

There is no moral relativism in this case. Just because Bush had opposition, does not make it morally equivalent to the hateful, scorched earth policies of today's right wing. These people are despicable, deserving nothing more than contempt from reasonable Americans. If you throw your lot in with them, you are as soulless, corrupt and yes, ignorant, as the rest.

dear Joe

as you can see, many self-identified conservatives are conditioned to blindly defend any attack on President Obama, and to assert that "There is some truth to comparing Obama to a child molester..." That is essentially what DLL is doing above.

The Moderate Voice needs to be the inspiration for a thousand popular blogs with big readerships. I thank you for existing. President Bush is an honorable man, as was his father, as was Ronald Reagan. I did not like many of their policies, but so what? I was able to vote for President Clinton and for President Obama.

Since resident Obama does not share President Clinton's moral weaknesses, the Right has lost ts mind attacking him. It is sad for them and for our nation we all love.

Some of the Right commenters who defend or rationalize this kind of filth are just like child pornographers who defend their right to take and trade photos because they're "feel close" to their subjects.

Hey DLL83 - I think you're right. This IS the way to make a political comment while associating someone with despicable acts.

Aficionadaa -

You are correct that Obama can ignore those who say these things. But, there is a concern that such hateful things being said could lead to violence and even to an attempt on the President's life. VeratheGun refers to the increased threats against Obama in that comment.

Question for you. Do you have this level of disrespect and violent speech about your political leaders in France? I read your earlier comment on demeaning remarks about some of your politicians, but do not recall you saying anything about people carrying guns in protest marches or members of the clergy telling their parishioners that they prayed for a politician's death as they do here about Obama.

As Americans, some of us put this in the context of a population with many guns and a history of political assassination. Your perspective would be appreciated.

There is no response one can make to the above except to say that you are part of the problem. No decent or reasonable person is going to take you seriously as long as you think comparing Barack Obama to a child molester is an appropriate way to get any point across.

That's actually true, but as you perhaps unintentionally suggest, there is a valid reason for it.

"There is some truth to comparing Obama to a child molester..."

tomjoyce:

Here's a quick tip for you. You can't put quotation marks around stuff that no one actually said. That would be misleading.

Now as to my actual point, I apologize if I was unclear. Let me try again.

I know nothing about this commentator who made the remark. I suspect that, judging by what he does for a living and what I know about how he does it, he's even less worthy of my respect than the likes of Rush Limbaugh, whose show I despise. I say this just so there's no confusion about my sympathy for conservative commentators.

Now for the offensive remark he made. First of all, I have a hard time believing that anyone here actually thinks this is a new low. Were any of you really shocked that a conservative commentator would say something like this? I highly doubt it, considering that you probably have a top 5 list of so-called shocking statements that conservative talk show hosts have made, all of which are on par with this one. We shouldn't be shocked when they use this type of language. It merely accomplishes one of the purposes for which they say shocking things in the first place.

My point about the analogy itself was not a defense of its use. I merely pointed out that he did not actually compare Obama to a child molester. He did not place Obama side-by-side with a child molester and proceed to list things they have in common, then argue that Obama is like a child molester because of these commonalities. The comparison he made was that of the ACT of sending Obama to speak to Wall Street with the ACT of sending a child molester to speak to a kindergarten class, both of which ACTS he thinks would be equally foolish.

I'm just trying to be fair to everyone. I don't like it when people twist my words, and I don't like it when they twist other people's words, even if I disagree with them.

I hope that was more clear than my first post.

dear Joe perhaps you can find Charlie Daniels on satellite radio. . .

"The devil went down to Georgia, he was looking for a soul to steal.
He was in a bind 'cos he was way behind: he was willin' to make a deal.
When he came across this young man sawin' on a fiddle and playin' it hot.
And the devil jumped upon a hickory stump and said: "Boy let me tell you what:
"I bet you didn't know it, but I'm a fiddle player too.
"And if you'd care to take a dare, I'll make a bet with you.
"Now you play a pretty good fiddle, boy, but give the devil his due:
"I bet a fiddle of gold against your soul, 'cos I think I'm better than you."
The boy said: "My name's Johnny and it might be a sin,
"But I'll take your bet, your gonna regret, 'cos I'm the best that's ever been."

Then flip over to talk radio. . . . .it won't take long to find all the ones that could not out fiddle the devil . . .and they are still grasping for gold. . .

Here's an idea for a new television show. Instead of "America's Got Talent", it would be called "America's Got Anger". Hosted by Jerry Springer, celebrity judges Rush Limbaugh and Keith Olberman would run off at the mouth while people vote via text message on the crudest and most vulgar contestant insults, as the host attempts to instigate fist fights. Contestants with only mild invective to offer would be booed off the stage while a progression of the vulgar, obscene and rude would be winnowed down over 13 weeks of mind numbingly irresistible television to the "finalists" who would duke it out, bare knuckled, in a ring at the MGM Hotel/Casino. The winner would be appointed to an open seat in Congress as the grand prize.

z of c

Just a note on child molesters: The reality. Children brought to hospital ER, their anus' and vaginas literally torn open with ragged 'tear' lacerations many inches long, continuing to where flesh on the body was torn away raggedly where thigh meets torso, included. The force of the adult, often piercing through the intestinal wall, battering the head of the cervix black or leaving the small intestine black and bleeding and shredded with deep tears.

Also, lateral tears to the corners of the lips of the face and bruising to the vault of the mouth and throat. Significant hematomas of the limbs. Often, so much damage to the tender parts of these little ones, beignning with infants and proceeding to latency age children, that micro surgeons have to be called in to even begin to address the repairs to these little bodies. Shall we add also re child molesters infecting little children via tears in mouth, anus, vagina, bladder, with syphillus and HIV...

child molester to kindergardeners... The shorthand attempt to hurl such an insult at anyone, --and even more egregiously-- to use the very real suffering of the young to fan the 'hurler's' ego for gain of money, to tempt others into laughing at what is not even slightly laughable-- the harm done to little ones... this tells me the one who literally and figuratively 'hurls,' does not live in the real world, has never lived in the real world, was carried through life in a plastic baggie, has never suffered unto death, and... does not care for humanity, not even a little except as it serves their desire to be king of the dung hill.

That he thinks all the rest of us would just smile and nod and forget what a child molester really is, is inhumane itself.

just my .02

dr.e.

I don't find Bootz's remark to be particularly offensive, just over exaggerated hyperbole. Considering what Obama is doing to the economy and private business though its not hard to see what Boortz is referring to. Now if Boortz had been an elected leader it would be different, but he's not. He's a talk radio host. If John Stewart had said it, it likely wouldn't have raised an eyebow.



Anyhow, as for talk radio, the dial is easy enough to switch if you don't like what you hear. I routinely turn off blow hards like Limbaugh and whinners like Olbermann. I do like Neil Boorts though, he can be crude but he goes at things with a more common sense approach than most. One thing I always liked about libertarians like Boortz. they tend to be straight and to the point and don't sissy prance around the issues.

Dr. e:

Your description of the inhumanity and montrosity that is a child molester and what child molesters do to our children made me feel physcically ill---honestly.

Just as I feel physically and mentally nauseated by those who continue to claim that accusing the president of being such a monster, or "like" such a monster, or that "there is some truth to comparing Obama to a child molester...", or that "he did not actually compare Obama to a child molester, or those who or make light of it, or say that it just "an analogy," or overexaggerated hyperbole, or that the Dems "did it to GWB," or not paticularly offensive, or whatever other lame excuse and rationalization, I just wish that they would read and re-read ad read again your description---and that they, PLEASE!, would think twice in the future before making such comments.

Thank you

Thank you Dr. E. for speaking this truth. . .
much like the hate talk using Hilter as a symbol. . .to use this kind of analogy for political/commercial jocking is to minimize the atrocity of the actual. . .
Thanks for the strength of your voice and an example of true protest. . .

Leonidas, "Considering what Obama is doing to the economy and private business.... "

I'm not sure what you mean. The stock market is up approximately 19% in the eight months Obama has been in office. While BUsh was in office the stock market lost nearly 25% of its value.

Businesses are recovering. Since you don't like the way the economy and business recovery is picking up, and since you believe that Boortz feels the same way.... and considering the Republicans did their best while they were in office to balloon the national debt to $11 TRILLION dollars, wreck the economy, take us to two wars (one of which was optional) and throw millions into unemployment.... AND given the fact that the GOP wants Obama (and the country) to fail.... are you saying that the values of the Republican Party is to ruin America? Because that's sure what it looks like from here.

dr. e. Thanks.

I sincerely apologize if my earlier comments offended any of you. I suppose I can understand how my insistence on taking the man's words at their literal meaning bothered you. I have read and reread what I wrote, and I'm not sure how you got the idea that I think it's okay to compare the President to a child molester, or that child molesters really aren't that bad, or that I even agree with the stupid analogy or was trying to excuse or rationalize it. The fact is, I agree with you that it was a tasteless comment and I stated so at the outset. The frustrating thing for me here is not that you completely missed my point, but in doing so, you got the idea that I am some kind of heartless person who isn't bothered by abuse of children. But I'll take responsibility for that, since I'm the one who wrote what I wrote. Anyway, I am sorry, and I hope there's no hard feelings.

With regards to "the other side did it first" comments: So? If the other side jumped over a cliff, would you jump over with them? It's a stupid argument and it make the person with that excuse seem childish. There's no substitute for responsible adult behavior, something sorely lacking today.

With regards to heckling Bush and Obama: at least when Bush was president and faced a national crisis (9/11) the entire country united behind our president, put our best foot forward, and worked together on a solution. Now that we are in the midst of another national crisis (the economy- and while it's improving it's not even as good as it was when Bush took office) and this national crises is even worse then the 9/11 attacks, the Republicans are heckling Obama and hopes he fails.

There are good reasons to criticize both Bush and Obama. But it is the Democrats who came through for Bush when this country was facing a crisis. Today it's the Republicans who act like spoiled children and put up one road block after another in their attempt to bring down Obama and harm this country.

Many people voted for Obama because they thought they were getting rid of the Republicans. Unfortunately the Republicans are acting even more self-centered than they did under Bush. And we ALL pay for the Republicans' ineptitude and "holier than thou" attitudes which seek to divide the country, instead of bringing us all together as the Dems (and Bush) did under Bush after 9/11.

So for the Republicans to claim that "the Dems did it first" is reprehensible and forgetful of the fact that the Dems can at least get it together and stop partisan bickering when the future of the country is it stake.

I don't find Bootz's remark to be particularly offensive - Leonidas

I hope that's because you haven't been paying attention, because if you have, the comment says something rather unpleasant about your own standards. Words here are important, both in reading and the typing. It's all we have here to judge meaning and intent by. No facial expressions, no voice inflection, no charged pauses, etc. Only words.

I'm not sure what you mean. The stock market is up approximately 19% in the eight months Obama has been in office. While BUsh was in office the stock market lost nearly 25% of its value

http://www.google.com/finance?client=ob&q=INDEX...

We only had a drop at the end of the Bush term.

Also don't forget that Bush and McCain pushed for greater regulation of Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae but were resisted by the Democrats who stopped their reform efforts back in 2003 and 2005 because they wanted to provide "affordable housing" to folks it turned out couldn't afford it after all. Now Obama comes in and starts taking over chunks of the private sector instead of allowing the free market to correct itself, unemployment has shot up further, the deficit is growing to unheard of levels, even when compared to George W. Bush's Spendocrat policies. Guess Obama didn't like a Republican being more free spending and irresponsible than a democrats so he quickly went about making sure that the Democrats would remain the party of irresponsible spending despite serious republican attempts to seize that moniker.

The only question left is how many generations of Americans can the federal government can bury in debt.

This looks bad

http://images.chron.com/blogs/txpotomac/budget_...

This looks worse

http://www.roanoketeaparty.com/wp-content/uploa...

Thank you Obama, and the Democratic congress that opened the purse strings.

For many of us around the country the drop happened in 2001 and the floor never came back, still hasn't and probably never will. Those on Wall Street were doin pretty good right up until the end though, that I would agree with.

"but if you recall things were very contentious from day one with GWB. He took office immediately after all the Bush/Gore brouhaha, and the "selected, not elected" stuff began even before Bush was sworn in."

That's right DaGoat the Left-wing fringe did start it before in Nov/Dec of 2000. That still doesn't excuse Right-wing fringe. PLUS, nothing that was said about GWB was anywhere near as divisive as what has been said about Obama.

That's right DaGoat the Left-wing fringe did start it before in Nov/Dec of 2000. That still doesn't excuse Right-wing fringe.

I agree 100%. I didn't mention it to defend right-wing fringe, I mentioned it to correct the commenters who apparently feel Bush got a free ride from Democrats early in his first term.

On Boortz's remark, I don't see it as much different than comparing a bunch of anti-abortion kooks to the Taliban, something some of the commenters in here felt was appropriate. If anything the Taliban comment is worse because it's drawing a direct correlation while Boortz's comment does not compare Obama directly to a child molester. Both comments are however in poor taste and inaccurate.

Leonidas

Americas median family income is less now than it was in 1999.

"It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt. --Mark Twain

VeratheGun - I accidentally bumped the "Like" button on your remark, it was a mistake... I do not like your comment.

I a) apologize to Rambie; b) I've always liked the Twain quote but it never ceases to amaze me how some can bastardize it; c) It's too bad that Disqus does not have a 'whoops' button so we could "unLike" accidents; and d) You're mistaken... Rambie made a valid point.

ditto of what Steve expressed. . . sorry Rambie. . .i too thought the comment was about the spew of comparing Obama to a child molester. . .

So..... Bush couldn't even eek out gains in the stock markets after eight years of his policies and your defense is "We only had a drop at the end of the Bush term."?

I think I'm missing something... Why is it fine that the stock market lost 25% of its value under the last 13% of Bush's term?

As far as the "The Federal Housing Enterprise Regulatory Reform Act of 2005" which the Republicans did sponsor and which does have some regulations....

From FactCheck on the bill: "But saying that Democrats killed the 2005 bill "while Mr. Obama was notably silent" oversimplifies things considerably. The bill made it out of committee in the Senate but was never brought up for consideration. At that time, Republicans had a majority in the Senate and controlled the agenda. Democrats never got the chance to vote against it or to mount a filibuster to block it."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27266607/

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=...

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20081006/sumner

To me, right wing radio has always been hate radio. From Limbaugh to Hannity, Savage and others, it's nothing but vile crap. What gets me is that so many people are being brainwashed into thinking that anything coming out of these people's mouths is true.

As far as the increasing debt under Obama.... If you ignore the problems of a leaky roof it will collapse one day and then it's very expensive to fix it. Of course Obama has to spend money... to clean up Bush's messes.

By the way.... the $700 billion that was released by the Bush administration at the end of his term.... with the last half of it released in 2009.... I believe the full $700 billion is reflected in the 2009 budget figures as it was released after the 2008 fiscal year. So the graph showing the large figure in Obama's first year in office... a large chunk of that is from Bush.

PLUS, nothing that was said about GWB was anywhere near as divisive as what has been said about Obama.

I would not say that. "War Criminal" comes to mind. Bush burned in effigy does as well, as does Bush-Hitler comparisons, and Progressives throwing shoes at someone dressed in a Bush mascot style outfit in prision stripes comes to mind as well.

Lets face it, both sides have participated in this type of behavior. Being honest and recognizing it is the first step to ending this type of thing, as long as criticism is directed only one way it isn't going to stop.

Americas median family income is less now than it was in 1999.

Pretty much to be expected when a bubble collapses, when the economy is artificially propped up it will eventually suffer a market correction no matter what government tries to do. The market is stronger than big government. If market forces had been unopposed we would not have had nearly the shock. Instead government tried to make housing "affordable" to folks who couldn't afford it, government tried to keep inefficient industry going, labor unions were protected despite unreasonable demands, etc. One day you have to pay the piper. Not saying other factors were not in pay as well, exploitation by certain corporate players was certainly a factor, as was the rest of the industrialized world catching up to us after the tech bubble inflated. Increased globalization and technology resulted in less need for blue collar workers with higher paying jobs, etc.. There were quite a lot of factors involved. To try to pin this all one one President seems a bit too much. Certainly he had some responsibility, but then again so did Democrats, after all they shot down the efforts in 2003 and 2005 to more closely regulate Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. The fact that Bush failed to keep spending under control is another thing that can't be dismissed, but the democrats aren't exactly stellar in that regard either. Its all a rather big and complex equation and I don't think it can be placed on Bush, nor Obama alone.

To be clear I do not blame Obama for the bad situation he inherited, but I blame him for the bad policies that he has enacted since becoming President on the economic front. He needs to realize more government is not the solution for everything and that if he tries to directly oppose market forces he might buy a slight reprieve, but it will come crashing down again, and we may experience a double dip recession, just like we did under FDR.

Too early to say yet but there is some concern among economists
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dcb0d30c-a18e-11de-a8...

Dear Tidbits,
I do not wanted to minimize the danger or the violence.
But trying to find "a positive " thing, like, you know the "half of the glass" full of water. Fortunately these people (on the radio) are not elected, just imagine if they were. It 's possible to fight them (I mean politically), as there is still freedom of speech in America. As they try to underline the lack of power of Obama, I wanted to say, he can fight them, he has means.
I agree with you, about the violence that happens these days. The sign about "Obamacare" made me think about Extreme right wings leaders, and about John F. Kennedy, (even about violence against Black people in the 20th century (by the tone), but I'm not sure about it).
Today, there is not such disrespect in France from politicians to others politicians, but we allways have to be vigilant (?) (the past has showed that we are able to collaborate with the nazis).
Like your post, thanks

Hope that my comment wasn't interpretated like "forget it". I'm sick too, about what is said.
I'm working with children, and my best friend is working in international police : watching videos or photos all day long, to find the children and arrest child molesters.
Aren't they laws about these kinds of comments (racists or call to heinous acts...) ? Here they exists and they are applied.

Republicans have no Honor.

The Right Honorable President of the United States Barack Obama is my President, of whom I am well pleased.

Republicans have no Honor.

The same might be said of those who paint with a broad brush of stereotyping.

"Lets face it, both sides have participated in this type of behavior. Being honest and recognizing it is the first step to ending this type of thing, as long as criticism is directed only one way it isn't going to stop."

Yes and yes.

However, it is my suspicion---and I could be totally wrong---that when some incessantly and invariably bring up "counter-examples" of similar vile behavior by others, they may be just trying to extenuate, mitigate, or just plain excuse behavior that has absolutely no justiification, on either side.

However, it is my suspicion---and I could be totally wrong---that when some incessantly and invariably bring up "counter-examples" of similar vile behavior by others, they may be just trying to extenuate, mitigate, or just plain excuse behavior that has absolutely no justiification, on either side.

DE I think you're right, and I've often seen people trying to use the "two wrongs make a right" argument. There is sort of a corollary argument though, that it seems like many people are not bothered so much by the ugliness, but that it was ugliness directed against their "side". There are certain contributors here that consistently complain only about comments directed against the party they are sympathetic to, and ignore or defend the rest. I don't know the best way to respond to that.

DG: "There are certain contributors here that consistently complain only about comments directed against the party they are sympathetic to, and ignore or defend the rest. I don't know the best way to respond to that."

You are right, DG, it is very difficult to repond to it, except to try to put their aquiescence ("equivalence"), at times even support of such diatribe in perspective, as dr e. has so effectively done with her description of child molestation.

As you bring up the "two wrongs make a right" argument, the thought comes to mind when some keep bringing up the vile things that were said against George W. Bush as an "explanantion" for the vile things that are being said of Obama: I bet you anything that Democrats were bringing up the insults Republicans launched against Clinton ("you did it, too"), whenever Republicans complained about the insults hurled at GWB, and so on, and so on.

I guess what I am trying to say, yes, both sides "do it," but who is going to be the first not to use that as an excuse to continue this madness ad infinitum....



kluiewscience

VeratheGun, what I said was truth. I didn't vote for GWB in either election (I went 3rd party if you really want to know), but it's true that comments about the election being stolen, etc were made prior to GWB taking office.

However, none of the comments were anywhere near as divisive as what has been said about Obama (who I did vote for).

In fact, I think that was the first time I ever agreed with DaGoat on anything.

DaGoat: "On Boortz's remark, I don't see it as much different than comparing a bunch of anti-abortion kooks to the Taliban, something some of the commenters in here felt was appropriate."

Let's see, perhaps because the anti-abortion kooks and the Taliban have both killed people they don't agree with?

NOTHING President Obama has done has come anywhere near the same galaxy as molestation so there is no excuse to for the reference.


DaGoat: "Both comments are however in poor taste and inaccurate."

I'll agree with you on that.

SteveK and Ordinarysparrow - Thanks guys and no problem.

Leonidas: "would not say that. "War Criminal" comes to mind. Bush burned in effigy does as well, as does Bush-Hitler comparisons, and Progressives throwing shoes at someone dressed in a Bush mascot style outfit in prision stripes comes to mind as well."

NONE of which occurred in the first 9 months of GWB presidency. Again, this doesn't excuse the Right-fringe of it anymore than it does the Left-fringe.

The "They did it first" excuse gets very old after age 5 don't you think?

Let's see, perhaps because the anti-abortion kooks and the Taliban have both killed people they don't agree with?

Could you point me to where Personhood Florida has killed people? Thanks.

There is a difference between Pro-Life people/groups and the kooks (I think that was your term) that aided, abetted, or even cheered-on those who have killed abortion doctors. Don't pretend that didn't happen a few months ago when the last abortion doctor was killed.

SteveK--I also made a mistake when I sent that comment to Rambie. I meant to use it in reply to someone (don't even remember who now) who was implying that being compared to a child molester is not a big deal. *Sigh*--gotta watch that drinking and posting habit of mine.

Sorry, Rambie. I actually replied to your post in error. Like I said earlier, it was an unofrtunate result of one too many therapeutic gin and tonics.

and I could be totally wrong

If your referring to me, you are. But don't take my word for it, just read what I post with preconceived notions and I think you will get it after you take a wider and unpredjudiced look at my posts over time. You don't seem like an ideologue, although each of us has some boas. I got mine, and you have yours but that doesn't mean we don't apply our standards to our own preferred side.

You are right, DG, it is very difficult to repond to it, except to try to put their aquiescence ("equivalence"), at times even support of such diatribe in perspective, as dr e. has so effectively done with her description of child molestation.

As you bring up the "two wrongs make a right" argument, the thought comes to mind when some keep bringing up the vile things that were said against George W. Bush as an "explanantion" for the vile things that are being said of Obama: I bet you anything that Democrats were bringing up the insults Republicans launched against Clinton ("you did it, too"), whenever Republicans complained about the insults hurled at GWB, and so on, and so on.

I guess what I am trying to say, yes, both sides "do it," but who is going to be the first not to use that as an excuse to continue this madness ad infinitum....

Actually, I think its not hard to respond to. You use facts, and you use examples of the other side doing it and ask them to face their hypocrisy while at the same time condemning hypocrisy when your own side presents it. Maybe I just see things this way because I despised Bush in many areas and don't have a high opinion of Obama thus far either, for many of the same reasons. I disliked the way Tom Delay ran Congress and I dislike the fact that Nancy Pelosi is running things the same way. As long as you keep your standards the same no matter who is in power, its really not that hard. That does not mean giving up your own views.

For example I can say Joe Wilson's remarks were inappropriate (I have done so because they were) point out that others have made similar remarks and note that those were not being brought up because it was more an effort to demonize one political party for the partisan agenda of some than to discredit such behavior by all, and still assert that dispite this churlish behavior by Wilson, that it did get the positive result (In my view) of having Obama add in an inclusion of nationality verification in his plan. This is not saying 1 wrongs make a right, this is saying that there are 2 wrongs not just one, face the facts.