cb989c081ea225a8ffb1…

The trouble with Maher is that he is a liberal and for some reason vocal liberals tend to be very profane.

Is there any doubt that Clinton suborned perjury, obstructed justice and committed high crimes and misdemeanors as president? I don’t think so, so “guilty” or “not guilty” is more legal semantics.

Jen the Neocon on February 23, 2007 at 10:01 AM

Legal semanitics? Well why bother with the protocol at all?
Impeached means to bring to trial, the underlying assumption therefore is that “guilt” has yet to be assigned.

Meanwhile, contemplate the fact that Clinton really was impeached and found guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, obstructing justice and suborning perjury, resulting in his (temporary) disbarment from the Supreme Court and in the State of Arkansas.

Jen the Neocon on February 22, 2007 at 6:31 PM

He was impeached. He was NOT found guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors. Impeached means brought to trial by the House, or charged; the Senate conducts the trial, i.e. determining guilt.

Stunning.

I had a conservative blog and I would post more, not less, comments and pictures highlighting the many evil characteristics of these scallawags and scoundrels even if they were to get elected to high office–God forbid!

Jen the Neocon on February 22, 2007 at 6:31 PM

Jen, I think you misunderstood my question. I wasn’t suggesting that conservatives would “stop” posting the mockery. I was suggesting exactly what you said you would do, which is to actually “increase” the attacks.

That was the point I was making. We can’t attack them for doing it, while doing the same thing ourselves. Now keep in mind that I’m not saying we shouldn’t do it. I’m saying that we should not “attack them” for doing it, because we’re doing the same thing.

The “same thing” being … “saying mean and nasty things about them.”

Grrr! I’m confusing myself even. I’m sorry. I’m very tired.

Look at my blogs. You can tell that I don’t have a problem attacking liberals, either with words or with Photoshopped pics. But you won’t find me ranting about it when someone posts Photoshopped pics of Bush either. I might get pissed if the article or photo is misleading or incorrect in it’s accusation, but I won’t attack them based on having dared to say “bad things about Bush.”

Gregor, Your comparing blog posters to national celebrities. That’s kind of a uneven comparison, is it not?

That’s a far cry from posting something on HotAir or other blogs. These people are using TV to spread their hatred and a lot of people see that every day.

RedinBlueCounty on February 22, 2007 at 6:17 PM

I agree with you 100%. Blogs are designed for two way conversation and debate. I think it’s totally improper for television personalities to go that far.

To be clear though, I wasn’t saying I supported the practice. I just think we need to be careful to not be hypocritical when it goes the other way. If we’re going to attack Maher for his attacks on Bush, we can’t allow ourselves to fall on the floor laughing when a person in his position does the same thing to a Democratic President.

Honestly, I don’t even think I’m being fair, because I’ve watched people like Hannity doing much the same thing and I find myself cheering him on. So I’m just as guilty.

I think we sometimes excuse it by saying “but we’re right and they are wrong.” We feel that it’s okay to call John Murtha a traitor scumbag deuchbag because “that’s what he really is” and then the same people label liberals as traitors for saying the same things about Bush.

I judge someone on what I see, not from what polls tell me. I use my own judgment as to how I rate a President, I don’t rely upon the opinion of others.

RedinBlueCounty on February 22, 2007 at 6:08 PM

That’s fair enough. I definitely don’t base my opinion of a person on poll numbers. But the poll numbers give you an indication that Bush is not well liked by either side, and that’s all I was saying. Our discussion wasn’t about what “you” think of the President. Our discussion was about his approval ratings with conservatives. My point had been simply that his numbers are low within the conservative crowd, and not just with liberals.

I was trying to point out that poll numbers have little meaning when applied to how many people actually support a President. You can say anything you want about Kerry, but Bush WAS reelected no matter what the polls were saying about his chances and/or his approval ratings. That tells me that the polls were wrong and people held a favorable opinion of Bush when they voted. You don’t vote for someone when you don’t hold a favorable opinion of them, I don’t care who the opponent is.

I would totally disagree with that. People are sometimes forced to vote for the better of two evils. For example, most conservatives can’t stand John McCain, but if McCain were to win the GOP nomination and run against Hillary, do you think conservatives would vote for Hillary? Not a chance. Would that somehow suggest that conservatives were more fond of McCain than initially thought? No. It just means they were not about to allow the other clown to win.

Bush won a second term because Americans knew that John Kerry was a complete joke. There was really no choice, and I would say that the fact that a man like Kerry came as close as he did to winning the Presidency is very indicative of Bush’s weakness. Even in the first election, what does it say about Bush that he could barely beat out Al Gore. OMG! What if Bill Clinton had been allowed to run continuously? Do you think Bush could have beat him? We’ll never know for sure, but I don’t think it would have been close, and that’s sad.

Gregor, just curious – what is equivalent in GW to “staining a certain blue dress”?

Entelechy on February 22, 2007 at 5:48 PM

Absolutely nothing. Bush is far worse. Bush is selling out the entire country on illegal immigration and open borders. I’d take a blue dress over that any day.

My point was not to compare the two actions. My point was to give the example that we would have been laughing our a$$es off if Maher had been humiliating Clinton as badly as he does Bush.

How many conservative blogs would suddenly stop posting the comical and mocking Photoshops of people like Hillary, Kerry, Gore, or Ted Kennedy if they were ever elected President?

How many of the conservative blogs would suddenly stop calling Murtha, Kerry, Gore, and Ted Kennedy morons, stupid, idiots, traitors, or whatever

?

I resent what you’re implying, that our Conservative values are only as valid as the last election which is very far from the truth.
Likewise, the venal natures of the Lib Dems you cited are rather intransigent, too.
I had a conservative blog and I would post more, not less, comments and pictures highlighting the many evil characteristics of these scallawags and scoundrels even if they were to get elected to high office–God forbid!
I don’t say things because they’re “in vogue” about my country and my president and our officials and I’d like to think that most commenters here don’t either–we feel genuinely convicted about all or at least most of the ideas we express here. I know I do.
We are dealing with very serious issues these days of life and death and peace and war and what we want our country (and the world) to look like today and tomorrow while still keeping faith with our ancestors and the Founding Fathers with what has gone before.
If we make fun or sport here from time to time, it’s what you call comic relief.
And some of the name-calling is deserved.
The difference between Clinton and Bush–Prove “Bush is stupid.”
We’ll wait. tap.tap.tap.
Meanwhile, contemplate the fact that Clinton really was impeached and found guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors, obstructing justice and suborning perjury, resulting in his (temporary) disbarment from the Supreme Court and in the State of Arkansas.

You said it yourself:

people like Maher use their national television shows to publicly bash the President of the U.S

That’s a far cry from posting something on HotAir or other blogs. These people are using TV to spread their hatred and a lot of people see that every day. How does that compare to the limited audience that blogs represent? Think about it, millions of TV viewers Vs. thousands of blog readers. Which venue has a bigger effect on public opinion?

If you’re not going to accept poll results, then what are you basing your opinion on?

I judge someone on what I see, not from what polls tell me. I use my own judgment as to how I rate a President, I don’t rely upon the opinion of others.

Personally, I like the President and support most of his policies. I don’t have to like every single policy to have a favorable opinion of him.

Against who exactly? John Friggin Kerry? Give me a break. Is that really saying much?

I was trying to point out that poll numbers have little meaning when applied to how many people actually support a President. You can say anything you want about Kerry, but Bush WAS reelected no matter what the polls were saying about his chances and/or his approval ratings. That tells me that the polls were wrong and people held a favorable opinion of Bush when they voted. You don’t vote for someone when you don’t hold a favorable opinion of them, I don’t care who the opponent is.

She nailed it by identifying the linkage between the left’s hatred and discussions of faith. If Bush had been Giuliani, but made all the same policy decisions, would the left have hated him as much? I say no, it’s the faith thing that fires up BDS, and Tammy provides a good argument to support same.

not many of us would have had a problem with it if they had showed the same enthusiasm for mocking Clinton when he was staining a certain blue dress.

Gregor, you make a valid point to an extent, and yes, that’s become the nature of partisan politics. I assert that the difference comes when scandal after scandal get swept under the rug, when lie after lie get ignored by the “watchdog” media, when one policy blunder after another are perpetrated on the public with only personal power-brokering as a goal. So when adultery in the Oval Office becomes public knowledge, you bet I’m up for mocking it.

…

How many conservative blogs would suddenly stop posting the comical and mocking Photoshops of people like Hillary, Kerry, Gore, or Ted Kennedy if they were ever elected President?

How many of the conservative blogs would suddenly stop calling Murtha, Kerry, Gore, and Ted Kennedy morons, stupid, idiots, traitors, or whatever?

I absolutely hate the fact that people like Maher use their national television shows to publicly bash the President of the U.S., but if we’re honest about it … not many of us would have had a problem with it if they had showed the same enthusiasm for mocking Clinton when he was staining a certain blue dress.

You sound just like the BDS sufferers.

RedinBlueCounty on February 22, 2007 at 3:48 PM

Wasn’t that my point? Didn’t I say that myself? My point is, that it’s not only liberals who are suffering from BDS anymore.

This is similar to his approval rating in 2004 when “Only 37 percent of those surveyed said they were satisfied with the way things are going in the United States ” according to CNN.

It’s not exactly accurate to compare those two questions. Asking someone if they’re happy with how things are going for the country, and asking them if they like the job the President is doing will sometimes get completely opposite answers.

During Clinton’s first four years, I would guess that there were probably many conservatives who wouldn’t have been in agony over how things were going, but if you had asked them about Clinton they would have vomited at your feet.

I guess his low approval numbers didn’t really count for much as he was reelected that same year.

Against who exactly? John Friggin Kerry? Give me a break. Is that really saying much? And I know you must realize that the reason he won was due to one thing, and that’s the fact that people were scared to death of Islamic extremism. Well, that and the fact that Kerry was a complete imbecile. If we hadn’t been at war … Kerry would have won that election by a landslide. Do you really doubt that?

Don’t put too much stock into poll results, they do not accurately reflect people’s opinion of Bush as President. If they did, Kerry would be President right now.

See above.

And you might take a look at the mid-term results. Do you not think that’s a sign of how conservatives are feeling?

Also of importance to note is that almost every pro-American, patriotic, and otherwise conservative website or group is consistently bashing Bush. The only people who seem to be supporting Bush are family members and those who seem to be willing to follow the man regardless of where he takes them. Ironic, being that these are mostly the same people who make a habit of accusing liberals of being sheep and being blind to Clinton’s actions.

My God! Excuse the pun, but even the Evangelicals are abandoning Bush.

If you’re not going to accept poll results, then what are you basing your opinion on?

I was referring to the fact that his “job approval ratings are in the low 30’s and falling

This is similar to his approval rating in 2004 when “Only 37 percent of those surveyed said they were satisfied with the way things are going in the United States ” according to CNN.
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/10/war.bush.kerry/index.html

I guess his low approval numbers didn’t really count for much as he was reelected that same year.

Don’t put too much stock into poll results, they do not accurately reflect people’s opinion of Bush as President. If they did, Kerry would be President right now.

Bush seems to live in his own little world and he has absolutely no concern for what Americans (of either party) want.

You sound just like the BDS sufferers. You don’t like some of his policies so you claim that he is “living in his own little world.” How is that any different from someone claiming that his is [insert appropriate insult here] like Maher is doing?

Maher’s moral compass is stuck on sociopathically stupid.

By his calculus Jeffrey Daumer, Ted Bundy and John Wayne Gacy were also “courageous”… because they showed the same ‘psychopathic ruthlessness and utter contempt for life (their own included) in order to methodically stalk and destroy innocent people with pleasure.

That he dressed up as a blood-soaked victim of a freakish accident (while the guy’s surviving young daughter could see his joke’) this past Halloween only reveals the smallness of his soul.

Criticizing anyone else is the last indulgence Bill can afford.

So what do you think explains the hatred of Bush? I’m sure you can think of someone you know who disagrees with you (and me) on Iraq, but can do so in a civil fashion. Yet if you mention Bush, that same person will suddenly become quite emotional and filled with contempt.

Anton on February 22, 2007 at 2:05 PM

Thanks for your clarification Anton…I feel better now!

Not sure I can explain the hatred of Bush. To be honest, among the people I know, I can either have a rational conversation about politics and Bush, or I can’t. At least in my experience, I haven’t found people who separate out like you’re describing.

On the one hand, it seems the rancor is worse now than it was 100 years ago, but then when you read about Grover Cleveland being attacked in his campaign for having an illegitimate child (he still won though), I’m not sure. My only theory is that things started getting especially bad with Clinton. My theory is that since Clinton, no President has really won with a mandate. In 1992, Perot played a big factor in Clinton winning, and also was a smaller factor in 1996. In 2000, that was obviously a very close election, as was 2004. Because it’s so tight, people are thinking, “if only…” And they have plenty of support in that regard.

My comments about this phenomena are certainly NOT gospel! I wish politicians could be more statesman-like again, but that doesn’t appear to be happening anytime soon.

I would never say Clinton was stupid (maybe made stupid decisons), nor say he was a dolt or incoherent or whatever people who hate him say.

right2bright on February 22, 2007 at 3:02 PM

Clinton is anything but stupid. The man is a genius. Unfortunately, he’s simply evil. I don’t believe Bush is stupid either. I think he knows exactly what he’s doing, and I think those of us who want to believe he has good intentions are being extremely naive.

Now Carter? That’s about as stupid as they come.

I don’t understand what poll your using to determine whether people like or dislike the President. The poll question your link provided asked “Do you approve or disapprove of the way George W. Bush is handling his job as president?” Where is the poll result asking whether you LIKE the President? Don’t confuse the two questions.

RedinBlueCounty on February 22, 2007 at 2:47 PM

Well, I guess I should have been more clear with my wording, but I think most people assume you’re discussing the man’s actions when you say “like” or “dislike” him. But yes, I was referring to the fact that his “job approval ratings are in the low 30′s and falling, and almost every poll shows that 85% of Americans do not want amnesty.

Bush seems to live in his own little world and he has absolutely no concern for what Americans (of either party) want. This actually validates many of the claims made by BDS sufferers. Obviously, the difference between liberal BDS sufferers and conservative victims is that liberals react much like the zombies in 28 Days Later, while conservatives sit at home and whine about it, while doing nothing.

As we continue to watch all of the issues that concern us be ignored … I’m really not sure which is worse at this point.