A Fearsome Anger
January 27th, 2008 at 05:39am Mark Noonan
Imagine your anger to be a kind of wild beast, because it has ferocious teeth and claws, and if you don’t tame it, it will devastate all things even corrupting the soul.
– St. John Chrysostom
There was a story which went around a few years ago about how Bill and Hillary Clinton were visiting Washington, DC back when Reagan was President and little Chelsea expressed a desire to see the White House. As the story goes, Hillary told Chelsea that they would visit the White House when someone decent lived there. This story may or may not be true, but it does capture the essence of Hillary Clinton - a fearsome anger.
As to what it might have been which initially set off anger in this daughter of America’s upper-middle class, I don’t know - but we can surmise what has fueled it since that time: envy over the wealth of others, resentment over her husband’s affairs, dismay that anyone dare question her motives. This anger has built up, and Barack Obama got a strong taste of it this past week as Hillary dug deep in the dirt to try and stop Obama in South Carolina. Hillary’s crushing loss will have the effect of either making her rethink the way she views the world (unlikely, but possible if she turns to God), or it will just make her even angrier and apt to lash out even more. Time will tell on this. But Hillary isn’t the only angry person out there.
Some conservatives are that angry, but in the land of the left, a far higher proportion exhibit hatred than those on the right. Not too long ago, one lefty commenter advised me that he hoped to meet me one day so that he could physcially harm me. This is not the first time someone on the left has expressed a desire to do violence to me. The curious thing about such anger-generated hatred is that the object of the hatred is just this average, middle class guy who works for a living, pays his bills (almost always on time), tries to love his wife as much as he can, and looks after his old man - the only difference between myself and 50 million others out there is that I like to express opinions and am further willing to actually expose these opinions in the public square. To be angry enough to hate me is to work yourself into a towering rage with your random neighbor whom you know a bit about, but are yet very distant from anything like an intimate friendship. And yet I am hated.
Short of surrendering my beliefs, I don’t think there’s anything I can do to end the hatred - and even a surrender by me would likely only lead those who hate me to find someone else to hate instead. While calming the storm is beyond my ability, I’ll try to be nice. I’ll try to be kind. I’ll try to use gentle remonstrance. I’ll fail at this from time to time as I am a human being, and thus certain to fail at least to some extent. But I also worry - this anger and resultant hatred is still mostly bottled up inside those who have it. If we ever uncork that hatred, then some really horrible things could happen. Before such a thing does happen, I hope that those who hate will avail themselves of the opportunity to think things through…because that is usually the reason for any incorrect opinion or action, a failure to think the matter all the way through. The truth is not only out there, it is also pretty easy to find if you’re willing to go find it. We shall see if the haters ever go find it, or whether they stew in own poison until they explode amongst us.
Entry Filed under: Kook Left
75 Comments
1. extramedium | January 27th, 2008 at 7:17 am
“Some conservatives are that angry, but in the land of the left, a far higher proportion exhibit hatred than those on the right”.
Please…not from where I sit. You gauge left wing anger from comments on your blog? I’m sure we could have some fun searching (although it would be a waste of time), but the comments here from the right are far more angry and violent.
“The curious thing about such anger-generated hatred is that the object of the hatred is just this average, middle class guy who works for a living, pays his bills…”
It’s not your “average guy” self that generates all the rage. It’s your highly vocal, opinionated, self-righteous, judgmental, know-it-all self that generates all the rage. Like it or not, this “self” invokes the same ugly feelings that Michael Moore and Keith Oberman do for a conservative. And based on a fairly recent post about a hateful colleague, it sounds like you are charming them at work too. Critics make enemies, plain and simple. If this surprises you, you need to work on your self-awareness.
“If we ever uncork that hatred, then some really horrible things could happen.”
Still waiting for that civil war? Are we to believe the pacifist hippies are going to go buy assault rifles and start a war with the righties? Come on. Is anybody else here losing sleep over the big, bad left-wing revolutionaries simmering out there in America? Anybody know if, of all the militias running around in the woods on weekends, any of them are “liberal” militias? Sounds like some wacky paranoia to me.
2. plainjane | January 27th, 2008 at 7:41 am
January 27th, 2008 at 05:39am Mark Noonan
Yes Mark the 1990s were a simple love fest for President Clinton and his administration. Simply the thought of the out pouring of support by the conservatives and AM talk radio back then to help President Clinton make our country stronger still makes me wail up with tears.
In the past Mark, you have shown your support for the Ann Coutlers, O’Reillys, Rush Limbaughs and Hannitys. To us it is they that perpetuate and encourage the hatred and divide in this country, but not for love of country but for simple greed. They have platforms supported by the likes of the Roger Ailes in which they have the capacity to stir the hate in the minds of millions day in and day out.
3. neocon | January 27th, 2008 at 8:33 am
Jane,
You obviously don’t listen to O’reilly, Hannity or Limbaugh. They simply speak to factual, topical issues through the conservative POV. Never once have I heard them promote hatred or violence. Coulter has a sharp tongue and sometimes pushes the envelope, howeever I have never heard her promote any violence neither.
So what you are saying is that promoting the conservative agenda is in fact promoting hatred in your opinion. Which makes sense, considering your disdain for those who disagree with you.
Hannity and Limbaugh have those platforms because millions and millions of people tune in daily. It’s called a free market place and again, I know how much you abhor that, considering AirAmerica is now bankrupt.
The emotionally driven left are pushed towards their hatred by the masters that feed them the propaganda they regurgitate daily, never once taking the time to critically think through the issue.
It’s simple, really. You’re all liberalbots.
4. steveGA | January 27th, 2008 at 8:45 am
“This story may or may not be true, but it does capture the essence of Hillary Clinton - a fearsome anger.”
So potentially made up stories are now the basis for psychoanalysis, huh? Well, let me try…
I heard a story that Mark Noonan had his brain replaced with a toaster oven. This story may or may not be true, but it does capture the essence of Mark Noonan - a total lack of intelligence.
Wow, that was easy!
5. Sorta Blogless Sun&hellip | January 27th, 2008 at 9:07 am
[...] Blogs For Victory discusses a fearsome anger [...]
6. Magnum Serpentine | January 27th, 2008 at 9:20 am
I would not worry about this tall tale until someone discovers whether or not its true.
7. neocon | January 27th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Yes, with or without this tall tale, we all know what sweetheart Hillary is. Just ask Stephanopolous and Dee Dee Meyers.
8. Mark Noonan | January 27th, 2008 at 9:35 am
extra,
With all the insults you and Steve just hurled at me, you believe you have nothing to think over?
9. Almiranta | January 27th, 2008 at 10:12 am
Mark, I am glad you have addressed this. I keep hearing from the resident Lefties here about all the hatred and anger they perceive from the Right, yet as a strong conservative who knows many other strong conservatives, who corresponds with some I have met through political blogs (thereby prequalifying them as conservatives with a voice) and who has read probably thosands of conservative blog opinions, I simply do not see this alleged hate and anger.
I have two brothers who, when you pin down their actual positions, are conservative, yet they listen constantly to Air America and are so filled with RAGE against what they are told are the horrible sins and corruptions of the Right, they actually vote against their own self-interest because they have not only been swayed emotionally they have been poisoned by the constant outpouring of near-violent loathing and anger they to which they have exposed themselves.
Janie makes one of the primary Lefty points—-that the Dems were absolutely BRILLIANT in their strategy to portray any criticism of Bill Clinton as a personal attack. We saw how effective that was then, and we see it now in the bleatings of the radical Left as they continue the mantra that observations about Clinton’s malfeasance was really based in HATRED and MALICE and so on.
She did not proceed to Step 2 of that strategy, which was to then build on that lie, and claim that any and all malice, loathing, and lie-based slander and libel directed at George W. Bush, or any other conservative, is only “fair” —-based on the fallacy that identifying problems with Clinton was really just HATING him. And more, that it called for retribution.
Rational people understand that it is beyond foolish to try to excuse one character defect with another—-to say that they are justified in hating one group because of their belief that that group hated one of their own. But they do it.
I was a Dem when Clinton was elected. I never hated him, not for one moment. I didn’t trust him, but I never came close to hatred. When I did develop some strong dislike, it was for his psuedo-feminist supporters who so quickly and easily discarded every tenet on which they had based their movement—and which had attracted me—-and proceeded to engage in the politics of personal destruction with such glee and energy when their guy was accused of sexual misdeeds.
Aside from a few media cartoons about Bill (which still fell far far FAR short of tallying his true misdeeds and which are par for the course for any president) I never saw emotion-based attacks on the man. Or his wife. And his daughter was off limits. (Yes, I know that one or two times an individual made a comment about Chelsea….I am talking about the difference between the way she was treated and the shameful attacks made on Barbara and Jenna Bush.)
I have often commented that the far Left has decided to focus on, develop, nurture, and then utilize as much hatred as they can dig up, foment, and encourage. I can only think of one reason to focus so strongly on this tactic, and that is an awareness that if people vote on real issues they don’t have much to bring to the table, so they have to generate a lot of rage to muddy the waters.
This is called demagoguery. It’s creeping into the Republican campaign to the dismay of purists who want to concentrate solely on the issues, but it is pretty much the only arrow in the quiver of the leading Dems.
Hillary is trying, herself and through her co-candidate for co-president, Bill, to generate all sorts of emotional negativity toward Barack, primarly based on distrust among races. Barack, while a passionate and powerful orator, is trying to work up a frenzy of fear and distrust, and promising emotionally reassuring platitudes of “hope” and “change” to protect people from those bogus fears.
As usual, the Dem strategy seems to be to demonize “them” and then run on a platform of “we’re not them”. Even the tax raises proposed by the Dems are not based on economic priniciples but on a promise of “we’ll GET them”…and a lot of the support for tax raises, if not all, is based deep down on anger and resentment toward those who have more and glee at the thought of being able to take ‘more’ away from them.
Steve and extra and jainie are just typical voices of Leftist rage and nastiness, and the point to be taken away from their posts here is that they are so convinced that they are correct in their negativity that they completely miss the point that they are proving you right.
Many many MANY years ago, a boyfriend told me I was being childish, and I said “I am NOT” and kicked him in the shin. The difference between me and our resident Libs is that I immediately realized I had made his point for him. But then it was that ability to see through emotion to fact that eventuall led me out of the negative morass of Liberalism.
10. liberalT | January 27th, 2008 at 10:37 am
sigh - its pretty funny that your example of the “fearsome anger” is a probably untrue story about how Clinton called Reagan ‘ not decent’. Wow - thats a lot of anger. And further its not even (most likely) true.
Now we have on the other hand:
(1) Ann Coulter on the wives of firemen who died on 9/11 “I’ve never seen people enjoying their husbands’ deaths so much.”
(2) Jerry Fallwell on AIDS - “AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals. To oppose it would be like an Israelite jumping in the Red Sea to save one of Pharoah’s chariotters.”
(3)Rush - “Feminism was established to allow unattractive women easier access to the mainstream of society.”
(4)Micheal Savage - “Oh, you’re one of the sodomites. You should only get AIDS and die, you pig. How’s that? Why don’t you see if you can sue me, you pig. You got nothing better than to put me down, you piece of garbage. You have got nothing to do today, go eat a sausage and choke on it.”*
(5) Pat Robertson -
“You say you’re supposed to be nice to the Episcopalians and the Presbyterians and the Methodists and this, that, and the other thing. Nonsense, I don’t have to be nice to the spirit of the Antichrist.”
and these are all actual quotes - not stories.. Not to mention the numerous horrible hate filled comments you get her from Jerry and keefer on a daily basis calling people a ‘failed abortion’ and worse. All the time you allowing it but removing comments even the tiniest bit critical of anything you hold sacred.
Hmm - guess that you are again, sadly, wrong
11. Canadian Observer | January 27th, 2008 at 10:43 am
Coulter has a sharp tongue and sometimes pushes the envelope, howeever(sic) I have never heard her promote any violence neither.
neocon | January 27th, 2008 at 8:33 am
FYI, neocon, a few non-violent comments from Ann Coulter; a person who does not promote violence:-
“We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity. We weren’t punctilious about locating and punishing only Hitler and his top officers. We carpet-bombed German cities; we killed civilians. That’s war. And this is war”—
NRO 09/13/01
“If those kids had been carrying guns they would have gunned down this one [child] gunman. … Don’t pray. Learn to use guns.”—Politically Incorrect, 12/18/97
“I have to say I’m all for public flogging. One type of criminal that a public humiliation might work particularly well with are the juvenile delinquents, a lot of whom consider it a badge of honor to be sent to juvenile detention. And it might not be such a cool thing in the ‘hood to be flogged publicly.”—MSNBC 3/22/97
On Rep. Christopher Shays (d-CT) in deciding whether to run against him as a Libertarian candidate: “I really want to hurt him. I want him to feel pain.”—Hartford Courant 6/25/99
12. FmrMarine | January 27th, 2008 at 11:04 am
lib
“comments, and commentary are NOT hate!
90% of all the quotes are based in FACT with an OPINION attached.
Hate is a word that has been hijacked by you marxist’s to stifle debate. It is the white “race card”.
Hitler, stalin, mao, fidel, all the lefts heroes spewed hate.
arafart, faracan, hugo leftists spew hate they all call for the destruction of America. I see no threats or violence coming from the right.
PS my arm is bruised from a day of shooting my new AK47 yesterday.
13. NeoClown | January 27th, 2008 at 11:54 am
It was Arnold Schwarzenegger in “Terminator 3” who said:
“Anger is more useful than despair.”
When one views the mess created by conservatives, one can feel despair and do nothing, or one can feel anger and get to work doing what needs to be done.
One only needs to look at the number of democrats that have voted in the past two weeks to know the voters are angry, they demand change, and it is a bad time to be a republican.
14. liberalT | January 27th, 2008 at 11:57 am
FmrMarine - explain to me why Clintion (supposedly) telling her daughter that Reagan isn’t decent is hate but comments saying that gays deserve aids, that 9/11 widows are enjoying their husbands deaths, and how feminism is just spiteful ugly women are” 90% of all the quotes are based in FACT with an OPINION attached.”
(1) i see no fact
(2) I see a lot of hate
explain yourself
15. Jonathan | January 27th, 2008 at 11:59 am
FmrMarine,
What were the facts when Coulter vilified the Jersey Girls? How about when Falwell claimed that AIDS was God’s wrath against gays? Or Michael Savage’s facts when he told a gay caller that they should get AIDS and die?
Where were the facts there, FmrMarine?
16. John Ryan | January 27th, 2008 at 12:01 pm
We often point out those faults in others, that we have to try hardest to conceal in ourselves.
17. RodneyAllen | January 27th, 2008 at 12:24 pm
(Ed. Note: Deleted - obvious lie)
18. Mark Noonan | January 27th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
liberalT,
Rush was making a joke - along the lines of Chesterton pointing out, 100 years ago, that feminism is at war with the feminine.
Savage is a bully, and mainstream conservatives don’t listen to him…you won’t, for instance, see him invited to sit with a former GOP President at the GOP convention…like the lying bully Moore was by Jimmy Carter in 2004.
Falwell apologised for that - and if you can’t accept an apology, then the problem lies with you, not with the repentant sinner.
Robertson is also fringe these days - for a moment he was ok, back in the mid-80’s, but he went into kookery and now mainstream conservatives pay him no mind…a far cry from the way Democrats fawn over hate-mongering “reverends” like Jackson and Sharpton.
The difference, you see, is that hatred is marginalised on the right, it is central to the left.
19. Mark Noonan | January 27th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
NeoClown,
It is you on the left who despair - despair that people can be just; despair that people can make correct decisions…it is you who are become servile, and looking for masters who will take care of everything for you.
We on the right are the people with hope - we were talking about it in Church this morning; that no matter how dark the skies, the dawn is always coming.
20. RodneyAllen | January 27th, 2008 at 12:34 pm
And yet, the Clinton story is true.
Verifiabley true (Ed. Note: Nope, didn’t say that at all…you lefties really want to start paying attention)
21. Jeremiah | January 27th, 2008 at 12:35 pm
I think there is a difference in hatred and anger.
On the left, we see hatred, and it’s not your ordinary hatred, it’s an uncanny hatred, with evil desires behind it, and much, if not most of it is directed at President Bush, such as two or three fellows who made a video of alleged atrocities. I posted it on my blog. You can see it here.
These sorts of things would make anyone angry, and naturally so, because of the violence and rage that these creeps encourage through their words and actions that tarnish America’s image around the world. When no such things were ever committed. It’s all deliberate lies.
As far as the reasoning for the lefties hatred? There’s no reason for it, they’ve just allowed Satan to plant those thoughts in their head, and Satan, he’s really good at deceiving people with if they let him. That’s what makes them such miserable people.
Until these people find the Lord, and accept Jesus Christ into their heart and life, then they will continue to miserable even after hearing the truth. Sometimes, they even snap, just like the guy last year at the Virginia Tech university.
That’s just how I see them. May be different than others here, but there’s only one place hatred of that nature can come from, Satan himself, and he’s constant, and will be until the end, when the Lord puts an end to his games of evil.
Just keep on your watchguard, and stay in constant prayer. That the Lord will deliver us from the evil one.
–Jeremiah–
22. Casper | January 27th, 2008 at 12:39 pm
What is truly sad is how the haters on both sides only see the hate from those they disagree with. There is very little difference between the comments by some of the conservatives here and comments by the liberals on the Daily Kos, other than who they are directing their anger at. There is also little difference between hate radio on the right and hate radio on the left and I’ve listened to both.
I really hope that neither Hillary or Rudy make it as president as I fear it will lead to four more years of extreme nastiness.
23. liberalT | January 27th, 2008 at 12:43 pm
sigh - no Mark all of those people are mainstream conservatives. There is no marginalization of Rush, Ann, or Pat. Just more lies on your part to justify your ideas. The same thing as your repeated assertion that corruption is mainstream in the democratic party and marginalized within the Republican party. Simply no evidence exists of either of these assertions…
24. RodneyAllen | January 27th, 2008 at 12:44 pm
I wrote a post about the story with Bush denigrating the United States Constitution.
Mark deleted my post stating it was: “an obvious lie”
And yet he has the gall to write this:
You make me laugh. In sad irony.
25. Jonathan | January 27th, 2008 at 1:24 pm
As far as the reasoning for the lefties hatred? There’s no reason for it, they’ve just allowed Satan to plant those thoughts in their head, and Satan, he’s really good at deceiving people with if they let him. That’s what makes them such miserable people.
Satan is controlling the thoughts of liberals?
Please.
Until these people find the Lord, and accept Jesus Christ into their heart and life, then they will continue to miserable even after hearing the truth.
So just because we’re pissed off about the direction our country is going in, we need to allow Christ in our lives?
26. ThomasEdison | January 27th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
“Rush was making a joke”
“Savage is a bully”
“Falwell apologised for that - and if you can’t accept an apology, then the problem lies with you, not with the repentant sinner.” (Bbbhwaaahaaaahhhaaahha)
“Robertson is also fringe”
You see…those don’t count.
Keep moving along.
27. Jeremiah | January 27th, 2008 at 1:46 pm
Satan is controlling the thoughts of liberals?
Only because they’ve allowed him too. Remember–NO ONE makes you believe anything.
Please.
Please what? What do you want me to do? If you want to believe lies, and repeat them, that’s your choice.
So just because we’re pissed off about the direction our country is going in, we need to allow Christ in our lives?
Think about the direction of your country. It’s because of people who harbor hate in their hearts for people who have, and want to do the right thing.
We want abortion, same-sex marriage and pornography ended. All those things which destroy America. Yet, you people mount an offense of hate and lies in support of those things that destroy America, in an attempt to hinder us from doing the right thing. You use the ACLU to your advantage, and likewise, the ACLU uses Congress for their evil agenda.
Everything that’s wrong with America, Liberals and the ACLU fight for it, instead of against. Only Satan could control the minds of people who want to fight for evil like that.
–Jeremiah–
28. ThomasEdison | January 27th, 2008 at 1:54 pm
The American Civil Liberties Union has an EVIL agenda?
You need help. Here’s some advice:
Focus on finding you a good Christian woman and start begattin’ little “warriors” for Christ. Build you an army of “peace” and smite the heathen.
Yeah, that’s the ticket to heaven.
29. liberalT | January 27th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
yeah - i really like that one. Fallwell makes the most horrible hateful comments ever in his role as a religious leader. Then he apologizes (half heartedly I may add due to the fact that he has made comments like that since his apology) and some how the problem lies with me…
So If I told you that all catholics bishops were gay child molesters who regularly committed acts of felacio on priests during Mass. Then it would be your fault if you didn’t except my half hearted apology? Pulease
30. Jeremiah | January 27th, 2008 at 2:00 pm
The American Civil Liberties Union has an EVIL agenda?
They sure are! Them and Planned Parenthood are two of the most evil organizations in the world. Thy should have a big Swastikas painted on their buildings where everyone can see them.
–Jeremiah–
31. Mortimer | January 27th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Oh spare me these phony little anecdotal stories about Hillary’s anger and hate. They are as meaningless as they are dishonest and hypocritical. Of course, if you like a woman, then she is tough and feisty, but if you hate her, then she is a miserable, spiteful beetch. To call your post anti-intelletual and petty would be an understatement.
32. Nate | January 27th, 2008 at 2:17 pm
well, mark moved from “fearsome anger” to hate. not sure how that happened — anger fuels plenty of good and not so good things, but it’s not necessarily hate.
then there’s ann — already somewhat dismissed above — but nevertheless from her website:
“If I’m going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.”
very pro-life of her
33. Jeremiah | January 27th, 2008 at 2:26 pm
Mortimer,
Read this and see if you find it interesting.
You can still be nice and kind to people and they will still hate you. For the simple fact that they have not asked Jesus Christ into their heart and life.
Mark was just being honest, pointing out the hatefulness of Hillary and how envious she is. I mean, you can’t help but notice her hateful rhetoric.
I think you’ll find that to be true in the link a provided for you.
–Jeremiah–
34. ThomasEdison | January 27th, 2008 at 2:33 pm
Yeesh. Nothing on this blog surprises me.
Hate? How about hypocrisy.
May you find peace my brother.
35. Jeremiah | January 27th, 2008 at 2:39 pm
How about hypocrisy.
No hypocrisy. Only truth.
–Jeremiah–
36. Mortimer | January 27th, 2008 at 2:46 pm
Sorry Jeremiah,
I don’t like Hillary, but the hate and malevolence directed at Hillary from the right is pretty impressive. Look at all the books and websites dedicated to trashing her. This whole anecdote sounds like BS to me; that you accept it as gospel truth shows me how gullible you are. As far as the love you claim in your heart from Jesus Christ, spare me your hypocritical Sunday school pablum. Hating Hillary is an industry. All you are doing is projecting your hate on her and feigning love, forgiveness and magnaminity
37. Jeremiah | January 27th, 2008 at 2:52 pm
Mortimer,
Well, if that’s how you feel about it, then that’s the way you will feel. Whether or not you accept the truth, is left up to you.
Frankly, I find your posts to be of a loathing nature, much the same as Hillary does her opponents.
–Jeremiah–
38. Dr.VinnyBoomBonce | January 27th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Ann Coulter saying flat out, no ambiguity that rat poison should be put in Justice Stevens creme brulee. Ann Coulter saying flat out, no amibiguity that Timothy McVey bombed the wrong building. BillO saying that AQ should bomb San Fransisco. Melanie Morgan saying, flat out that the editor of the NYTimes should be hanged for reporting the nefarious actions of the Bush administration.
(Ed. Note: over-caffinated part of comment deleted)
39. Canadian Observer | January 27th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
(Ed. Note - deleted, off topic, hate-filled, rather blasphemous, too…)
40. Dr.VinnyBoomBonce | January 27th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
(Ed. Note: Deleted - try again, this time without so much caffine)
41. Jeremiah | January 27th, 2008 at 3:52 pm
C. Observer,
There’s no reason for me to be ashamed of the truth, and I won’t be. That’s one of the main problems that so many people have today - Bringing the truth.
Be not ashamed of the truth…as in the words of the Apostle Paul to his son Timothy–
1 Timothy 1:3-8
The Word was made for the correction of those whom deny the truth. For in truth, is the only place we can find freedom, through the renewing of our minds what Christ taught.
The Truth is harsh. Why? Because it exposes sin. One thing Jesus did not tolerate.
–Jeremiah–
42. Jeremiah | January 27th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
Dr. VinnyBoomBonce,
I didn’t say you should jump in front of a bus. But that you talked like you weren’t afraid of Nuclear weaponry. The same kind of stupidity. If you aren’t afraid of mad people using them, then you possess a high level of confidence that would put America at great risk.
–Jeremiah–
43. Jeremiah | January 27th, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Who is Jeremiah?
Just an every day citizen of America, concerned for it’s well-being, and trying to save it from the destruction of Liberals.
–Jeremiah–
44. Mark Noonan | January 27th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
I wonder if I’m going to have to talk it over with Matt and make a new comment rule: If your lack of reading comprehension skills shines through in your comments, they will be deleted.
Look, I don’t mind being attacked, but attack me for what I say, not what you wished I had said…
For crying out loud…
45. FmrMarine | January 27th, 2008 at 4:20 pm
Jer
The madness and insanity of the left is here in full bloom today.
Light and darkness can not exist in the same place at the same time. The loony marxist’s and depraved homosexuals who love to spew their garbage here will never accept the truth.
It is amazing how they trash everything Christian, but seem to embrace the very cult - islam which would behead THEM FIRST in the public square.
Christian principles made this country great, marxist- athiest sodomites may well take her into the abyss. Led by the vilest duo the klintoons.
46. liberalT | January 27th, 2008 at 4:31 pm
(Ed. Note - deleted, off topic)
47. bongoman | January 27th, 2008 at 4:34 pm
(Ed. Note - deleted, off topic)
48. Mark Noonan | January 27th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Mortimer,
A sample of some titles about President Bush:
“The I Hate George W. Bush Reader: Why Dubya Is Wrong About Absolutely Everything”; “The Lies of George W. Bush”; “The Madness of George W. Bush: : A Reflection of Our Collective Psychosis”; “A Divider, Not a Uniter: George W. Bush and the American People”; “The Book on Bush : How George W. (Mis)leads America”; “The Case for Impeachment: The Legal Argument for Removing President George W. Bush from Office”; “George W. Bush and the War on Women: Turning Back the Clock on Progress”; “The George W. Bush Voodoo Kit: Stick It to Him Like He’s Been Sticking It to You!”; “Follow the Money: How George W. Bush and the Texas Republicans Hog-Tied America”; “Hail to the CEO: The Failure of George W. Bush and the Cult of Moral Leadership”; “George W. Bush Versus the U.S. Constitution: The Downing Street Memos and Deception, Manipulation, Torture, Retribution, Coverups in the Iraq War and Illegal Domestic Spying”; “The Impeachment of George W. Bush: A Practical Guide for Concerned Citizens”; “The Dirty Truth, The Oil and Chemical Dependency of George W. Bush”; “Big Bush Lies: The 20 Most Telling Lies of President George W. Bush”; “The Bush - Haters Handbook: A Guide to the Most Appalling Presidency of the Past 100 Years”; “Bush on the Couch: Inside the Mind of the President”; “Clueless George Goes to War”; “The Business of Assassination”; “Imprison George Bush”…
And that is just a small sampling…the level of hatred on the left is astounding, and the only reason lefties can’t see it is because people who are consumed by hatred always have a hard time noticing it…
49. Casper | January 27th, 2008 at 4:45 pm
“I wonder if I’m going to have to talk it over with Matt and make a new comment rule: If your lack of reading comprehension skills shines through in your comments, they will be deleted.”
That’s great Mark. But will you apply it to everyone equally?
Here’s a different suggestion. Why don’t you just ban personal attacks and apply it to everyone.
This blog might be more interesting if people were forced to attack a person’s position rather than the person himself. It might ev en make some people think.
50. Casper | January 27th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
“And that is just a small sampling…the level of hatred on the left is astounding, and the only reason lefties can’t see it is because people who are consumed by hatred always have a hard time noticing it…”
You are correct. So tell me how your list is that different from say a list of books by Ann Colter and some of the other right wing haters. I bet we could come up with a list just as long and just as nasty.
51. Mark Noonan | January 27th, 2008 at 5:04 pm
Casper,
I think you’d lose that argument - as an author of a conservative book, I keep tabs on these things…and the number of books rolling out hateful towards President Bush, the Republican Party, Christianity and conservatism is just astounding. That list I’ve got up there is just the quick search for books which hate President Bush…doesn’t even get into the reams of books hating his Administration staffers.
Sure, there are books on the right which are hateful in their comments - and I wish that they had been written differently, as there is a cogent argument to make for our side which is devastating to the left and doesn’t require polemics like that. But people, also, do get angry…and there is also a difference…the people on the right who hate (which, by the way, doesn’t include Rush…and it can’t include O’Reilly as he’s not a conservative…he’s a genuine moderate) are not given places of power and influence….if Ann Coulter is similar to Sharpton, then the difference will be that Romney won’t seek her endorsement, but whomever the Democrats nominate will court Sharpton…
52. plainjane | January 27th, 2008 at 5:08 pm
Mark Noonan | January 27th, 2008 at 4:42 pm
Your list reflects policy differences. However I will have to question “The Business of Assassination.” If a Democrat would be advocating Ann Coulter type assassinations of a President this would be illegal and should be reported. What is this about or are you just swift-boating us as you did with “….This story may or may not be true…” statement in your opening.
53. liberalT | January 27th, 2008 at 5:09 pm
Rush and O’Reilly aren’t conservatives. And we can’t count Ann, and we can’t count Pat Robertson because they are all ‘marginalized’ . So basically what you are saying is anyone that we have evidence of saying hateful things you discount or disavow. So I guess you will also disavow all the horrible things that are said by posters to this blog who agree with you - keefer and FmrMarine. Saying that I am a ‘failed abortion’ isn’t hateful?
Mark - that is just simply stupid. Go ahead and delete this comment to and run away from the truth..
54. Mark Noonan | January 27th, 2008 at 5:11 pm
Casper,
And it would be nice if the personal attacks ceased but it is hard to police that - subjective judgements, and all. Anything really egregious brought to my attention does get removed (and while you might not have seen them, so really nasty comments have been removed from time to time).
I think, though, that I’m going to be much more rigid about keeping on-topic. Putting off topic insults tends to pull the argument away from what is written and into a pissing match, which turns people off.
55. Mark Noonan | January 27th, 2008 at 5:13 pm
plain,
There are people out there who advocate the assasination of the President. Books have been written and movies made on that very subject…
As the opening comment is just an illustrative story - it might well be apocryphal, and I note that. What the heck is wrong with you guys on the left?
56. Mark Noonan | January 27th, 2008 at 5:14 pm
liberalT,
Your reading comprehension skills are still below par - I said O’Reilly isn’t a conservative; Rush isn’t a hater.
Until you start reading what I write, coming to an understanding of what I say, and then thinking carefully about your response, I’m afraid you and I will have little to discuss.
57. liberalT | January 27th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
yes - i got that Mark. My point is that it is complete BS. O’Reilly IS a conservative - in fact he is a self proclaimed conservative not a moderate. If you don’t believe that then perhaps the fact that
the Daily Telegraph ranked O’Reilly 82nd on its list of the “100 most influential conservatives in America” would disagree with you..
So Rush has never said anything hateful? That is your argument?
Funny how you ignore Ann Coulter, Pat Robertson , and Pat Buchanan (oh except to claim that they are on the margin) dear lord they are main stream conservative commentators
sigh…
58. FmrMarine | January 27th, 2008 at 5:38 pm
libt
I NEVER said to you or any poster here were
“a failed abortion”
so that makes you a LIAR,
is that hateful? or merely the TRUTH!
The “HATE” word is a tool devised by the marxist left to shut down debate. It doesnt fly here.
59. liberalT | January 27th, 2008 at 5:51 pm
no you didn’t keefer does that on a daily basis though. though you have said a number of other things that are not so nice
60. Casper | January 27th, 2008 at 5:52 pm
“And it would be nice if the personal attacks ceased but it is hard to police that - subjective judgements, and all.”
It might not be as difficult as you think Mark.
If I say you are mistaken about something, that isn’t an insult. If I call you a liar, it is an insult. It I claim you are being hypocritical about something, I am attacking your position. If I call you a hypocrite I am attacking you personally. My sixth graders understand the difference, I think most of he posters here would also.
Of course, a big part of it is how you and Matt set the tone. Look at the way you started different posts today.
“Question: does gaining the endorsement of a bloated, old-line liberal help or hinder Obama?”
As opposed to;
“Yeah, its not like he’s a governor or something, but I’ve met Captain Ed and he’s a good guy, and a sharp commentator:”
If you truly want to improve the tone of this blog, you might want to think about how you introduce the posts.
61. Canadian Observer | January 27th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
39. Canadian Observer | January 27th, 2008 at 3:16 pm
(Ed. Note - deleted, off topic, hate-filled, rather blasphemous, too…)
?????
62. neocon | January 27th, 2008 at 6:20 pm
libT,
The “sigh”s are really juvenile. Just so you know. And the most creepy was one the other day:
“sigh, sadly sigh.”
And what’s wrong with hate? It’s a valid emotion, either rational or irrational. Liberal hate is usually unhinged and irrational, much like that of a child.
63. Xango Annie | January 27th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
as usual ,our little plainjane has it wrong…swiftboating doesn’t mean what she thinks it does…trust the libs to turn around it’s real meaning….
64. Almiranta | January 27th, 2008 at 7:10 pm
I don’t read all of Ann Coulter’s columns or follow her closely. I think she is extremely funny but sometimes goes too far, though she is more interested in getting a rise out of libs than in promoting an actual position. And it works.
However, from reading the quotes from her in this thread, and knowing one of them because I read the entire article when it came out, I have to wonder if all of them were taken as far out of context as this:
““If I’m going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot.”
(By the way, anyone reading this can easily see that it would be clearer if she had said ““If I’m going to say anything about John Edwards in the future, I’ll just (SAY I ) wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot…..” (instead of what she did say, which got Elizabeth all wound up.)
The source of this (and no, I’m not going to take the time to dig out the article, quote it directly, or link to it…) was a comment from Elizabeth Edwards attacking Ann for something she said, while comments about someone being killed in a terrorist assassination plot were not considered to be hateful.
Ann’s tongue in cheek comment was that, therefore, according to the reactions of Elizabeth herself, if Ann had only said (about Edwards..) “..I’ll just wish he had been killed in a terrorist assassination plot….” then Elizabeth would have no problem with THAT.
It was not, definitely NOT, a hateful comment, but merely (and very clearly..) a comment on the hypocrisy of some, who are only too eager to claim that anything said by one side is hateful and nothing said by the other side is offensive.
As I said, I don’t know the context of the other comments, but when I read the article about the Edwards and Elizabeth’s comments I knew, and said at the time, that some dishonest radical Lefties would jump on that sentence and use it, standing alone, to claim that Ann wanted John killed in a terrorist attack.
I will never forget the time I tuned in to Air America just to see what they were saying on the other side, just in time to hear that hatebag Ranty Rhodes spout one rapid-fire string of bile, a sentence that called Bush a stupid monkey coke addict puppet psuedo-Christian. And ever since then, I have found similar commentary to be accepted, on the radical Left, as perfectly proper political discourse.
When you radicals whine about the “far Right” the only two examples I can think of are Michael Savage and Pat Robertson.
They are not mainstream conservatives, they are not nice people, and they spout a lot of hateful nonsense. Quoting them to “prove” that conservatives in general are hate-filled and hate-motivated is absurd. But it does fit into a certain agenda, so it is resurrected when necessary, as it has been here.
Who do we look at? Well, there is Bill Maher. Keith Olbermann, the entire Air America crew, all of MSNBC, Chris Matthews, their favorite guests, Marc Cubin, Alan Colmes….there is an exensive list of prime time people alone who routinely indulge in the nastiest of personal attacks and lies and hate-mongering. Daily. Hourly.
But good for you—-you managed to dredge up a few quotes which have come from over the past half dozen years or so, at least one of which is totally out of context and therefore totally false.
While I remember things like the psuedo-journalistic report on some meeting in which a pseudo-journalist said, of Cheney, that he “stood by looking like he was looking for a pet to euthanize”. (Paraphrasing….can’t be bothered to look up such garbage.) But that kind of thing is just vile, is totally uncalled-for, and is typical of what we have come to expect from a certain element on the Left—much of which posts here.
65. Sunny | January 28th, 2008 at 1:30 pm
This story may or may not be true, but it does capture the essence of Hillary Clinton - a fearsome anger.
Mark
The story may or may not be true, but you chose to repeat it with no verification. I am not a Hillary Clinton fan by a long shot, however, I cannot imagine her making such a statement to her daughter. You would love it if it were true, and hope by writing this that everyone reading it will believe it to be true. I just do not understand such a hatred of a person that you would make up such a story without knowing whether or not there was truth to it. Shame on you Mark.
66. Diana Powe | January 28th, 2008 at 4:35 pm
Once again we see conservatives unconvincingly playing at being St. Sebastian. Mark goes for a trifecta with his Just So Story featuring Hillary Clinton being an angry woman who insults the holy of holies, President Ronald Reagan. Then, he contemplates the question of how many angry leftys can dance on the head of a pin while trying to adjudge how much of “the Left” is “more angry” than some other vague angry part of “the Right”. However, as he takes another sip from his cup of sorrow, he can at least assure us all that there’s hope for the, presumably lefty, “haters” because “the truth is out there.” Please.
67. SteaM | January 28th, 2008 at 4:51 pm
Yes Mark. I agree with Sunny, not to mention your hatred for Senator Hillary Clinton is not very christian of you.
68. Mark Noonan | January 28th, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Uh, dummies - the story captures the essence of Hillary…do any of you read English? Am I going to have to start drawing pictures for you? Please tell me you are all drop outs from the second grade…I’d hate to think you graduate from high school…
69. Diana Powe | January 28th, 2008 at 8:01 pm
Uh, Mark - the story “captures the essence of Hillary” in your mind. To effectively assert that a story captures the “essence” of someone, one should choose a story that is either a) known to be true, or b) everyone is willing to accept as true. Anything is else is clumsy writing, at best, or clumsier propaganda, at worst.
70. liberalT | January 28th, 2008 at 9:08 pm
Uh, dummies - the story captures the essence of Hillary…do any of you read English?
–
uh Dummy - you have no proof that the story is true! Most likely it is made up by neocons out to slander her. You do understand the difference between what is ACTUALLY true and what you want to be true
71. Tractatus | January 28th, 2008 at 9:44 pm
Uh, Mark - the story “captures the essence of Hillary” in your mind.
Don’t force Mark to differentiate between that paranoid mess in his mind and the actual real world–if you take away his truthiness, what has he got left? Projection? Carefully protected intentional ignorance? Trying to impugn the education level of people who know better than him?
72. Mark Noonan | January 28th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
Geesh, it really is like talking to a brick wall. I guess I won’t fault you - you are probably the result of public schools plus, God help you, some sort of modern, liberal arts education. Anyways, I’ll help you out:
Some samples of this sort of writing:
And…
You see, the stories may or may not be true, but they illustrate a truth…eg, that Olivier was a great actor, while Hoffman is a great performer; that Chou was a man who took the long term view of things…get it? Will you liberal numbskulls now at least try to think a bit?
73. Connecting News, Commenta&hellip | February 3rd, 2008 at 2:21 am
[...] … where’s the outrage? - Last Updated - Monday January 28 Request a Trackback A Fearsome Anger Imagine your anger to be a kind of wild beast, because it has ferocious teeth and claws, and if [...]
74. Payday Advance Loans&hellip | March 24th, 2008 at 2:20 pm
Payday Advance Loans
75. Michael Jackson Pet Monke&hellip | May 29th, 2008 at 5:32 am
Michael Jackson Pet Monkey
Reading this once already puts me onto the right track.