Once again ideological bigotry has reared its ugly left wing hydra-head.
For those not clear, being a liberal does not make one an ideological bigot. I know plenty of decent and thoughtful liberals.
Unfortunately, I know too many more disgusting ones. The decent ones do not denounce the vile ones. Silence is acquiescence.
Several days ago a left wing hate site decided to attack my column. I had never heard of the site, and curiosity got the better of me.
(I have decided not to post the link since I have no desire to increase their traffic. If they want to increase my traffic, they have to abide by the rules of normal civilized people.)
I believe in civilized and respectful discussion. My blog bans hate speech, personal attacks, and profanity. If something slips through, I certainly try to improve on this front. My blog is my home, and friendly guests of all stripes are welcome.
When I went on this left wing site, I was very friendly, as is my nature. My genial approach was met with verbal abuse. I even mentioned that my girlfriend is a liberal and an Obama supporter.
I was not shocked by the comments, but I still fail to grasp why the left simply refuses to drop the hatred. My lord, they won the election and they are still miserable.
I brought up the point that many liberals have more rage towards President Bush than they do towards Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden. They initially tried to dispute this as an attack on their patriotism. So I asked them that if this statement was wrong, why were they so vocal in their criticism of President Bush in comparison?
They pointed out that they pay his salary, and since Osama is not an American employee, they are less vocal. This flimsy argument does not change the fact that a little outrage towards bloodthirsty murderers would be appropriate. They then point out that President Bush and Vice President Cheney are bloodthirsty murderers.
Where does the world find these people? How many illegal drugs did their parents take in combination to produce such amalgamations of rage, frothing, and indifference, all at the wrong time?
Before getting to President Bush and Governor Palin, below are some rantings I received.
“So I think one may note, without fear of a Godwin violation, that people like Tygrrrr are like the cheerers-on of the Spanish fascist insurrection, thrilling from a safe distance behind the front (or from another country altogether) to their heroes’ acts of mass murder, rape, torture and expropriation — or, as the franquistas and their priestly enablers liked to call it, redención cristiana.”
Actually Saddam Hussein was the one who raped and tortured people. I was against Saddam. Bill Clinton and Ted Kennedy have been accused of rape. George W. Bush has not.
“‘I don’t hate anybody,’ Eric said, as he advocated the genocide of more than a million people.
Eric, nobody gives a (redacted) about your imaginary ‘contest’ with liberals. Face it: you’re a featherweight. You’re being cited by Roy because of your chilling naivete and as I pointed out above, your brutish callousness.
Thank you, come again, you moron.
Chris Vosburg”
I redacted the curse words myself. I have no right to tell them act with dignity on their own blog, but that does not mean I have to devalue mine.
I researched this Chris Vosburg fellow, and found a career left wing agitator. Mr. Vosburg even expressed to me how proud he was to take on the police given that he was against the war.
When the police defend themselves, I will sleep easily. After all, the police are less threatening to a decent society than this fellow. Why would a man hurl curses and insults at a total stranger? I just do not see this as something good human beings do.
“Let’s be fair, Tigger has a point. I spend hours every day talking (redacted) about George W. Bush, but I can’t even remember the last time I bothered to remind someone that Osama Bin Laden is one evil (redacted). What is wrong with me?”
I would say virtually everything. Here is a priceless gem.
“Again, like most people who aren’t right-wing bloggers or talk-radio hosts, I try not to hold on to anger unless I can channel it in some productive direction.”
Productive direction? What the heck would left wing basket cases know about productive channeling of anger?
Let me say this again. The democrats won the election. George W. Bush is leaving office. Leftists are still angry. When Obama, Pelosi, Frank, and Reid tear each other to bits, the left will still blame George W. Bush. They remain angry at everybody except terrorists. It’s all Bush’s fault.
These leftists repeatedly referred to me as “Tigger,” because when one has no grasp of facts, insults come in the form of childish mockery. Making fun of my screen name is what they call “rebuttals.” They had other nicknames for me, but my mother reads my blog.
“Do me a favor, in lieu of writing further about the rat’s maze you call your ‘thoughts:’ Go to Iraq. Visit a graveyard. Lean down close to any or all of the fresh graves dug there, so the dead can reach up and punch you in the nose. Thanks!”
These are liberals. Their parents must be proud.
Yet the worst comment was when I mentioned that my girlfriend, a liberal Obama supporter, was on a plane that day that had “concerns.” I was worried for her safety. The response was telling.
“It isn’t called a girlfriend when you pay her $50 per hour.”
These are liberals.
I have every right to link all liberals to this type of behavior because the “decent” ones don’t condemn it. When I say condemn it, I do not mean telling me it bothers them. That is easy. I mean telling other leftists to their face that they should stop. Stopping should not be because it is “unhelpful,” but because it does nothing to do help the world. It is wrong.
This is not about Chris Vosburg. Society has already weeded him out. What concerns me is what happens when words take the next step. The next step is violence.
Preisdent Bush recently had a pair of shoes thrown at him in Iraq. Forgetting that the left would cry racism if this was done to Obama, this shoe throwing incident is no joke.
What if it was not shoes? What if it was a smoke bomb or a cherry bomb?
Do liberals not see how far things can go when people do not say “enough”?
Does anybody think throwing things is a reasonable form of protest?
Where do liberals think this Iraqi learned such behavior? He certainly would never have thrown shoes at Saddam!
The shoe throwing incident justifies the invasion of Iraq. We gave them freedom. Now they need to learn limits. Perhaps if leftists acted civilized, the President would not have to duck and cover. They did not have to throw the shoe. They are just cheering the hooliganism at full insane strength.
The President could be murdered by a deranged political agitator. At what point are those on the left going to say that venom has gone too far?
The left is not stopping with words. Words foment violence. Just ask Sarah Palin.
Her church just got burned down. Now if this was a black Church in Chicago, such as Obama’s church, the entire world would be singing “We shall overcome.”
Why is the burning of Sarah Palin’s church not evoking the same sympathy?
Read the left wing blogs to find out why violence directed at sending a message to Sarah Palin is acceptable.
There are only two solutions. Either liberals reign in their lunatic fringe…or the other option…conservatives get into the gutter with them.
Do conservatives have to take these leftists and savagely beat them within an inch of their lives to get them to shut up? There is no constitutional right to incite riots, whether gay, black, Arab, or any other “aggrieved” group.
This is not about freedom of speech anymore. It is about the right to be safe without fear of being terrorized. If a leftist thinks they can key my car or try to do me physical harm, you’re d@mn right that is not going to go unpunished.
I hate comparing liberals to terrorists, but they both believe that kindness is weakness. Dialogue does not work with many of them. They seek and destroy.
How many republicans are throwing objects at liberals, or cheering when somebody does it? How many conservatives throw pies at liberal speakers? How many liberal speakers get shouted down? How many liberals have their property torched?
Freedom of speech is not absolute. At some point, people get tired of being bullied. If liberals do not cease fomenting violence, they may find themselves the victim of fiercer violence.
Just to clarify, this is not about the left wing hate site that went after me. Those are words.
When the President is being assaulted…yes assaulted…and the Governor of Alaska is being sent a “message,” as left wing blogs cheer and celebrate…something has gone terribly wrong.
The violence against conservatives for existing and breathing air needs to stop.
Otherwise, when enraged conservatives strike back with fury, I will sit back and do nothing.
Actually such violence would not happen. We are better than that.
The evidence speaks for itself. It is the only thing that ever causes liberals to be silent.
eric
Great Post…You said it best
Qui tacet consentire videtur. Most if not all liberals are guilty of this.
“I brought up the point that many liberals have more rage towards President Bush than they do towards Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden.”
That’s “friendly” and “genial?” What? If you say something insulting in a pleasant tone does that make it praising? How would you like it if I suggested that you have more rage towards Jesse Jackson than you do towards Saddam Hussein or Osama Bin Laden? Would you consider that “friendly” and “genial?” No. You, like I, would consider it a cheap shot. Because that is what it is – a cheap shot. And a cheap shot is a cheap shot no matter how friendly or genially it is presented.
As for “tigger” and the churlish nature of some bloggers (including myself on my blog) – anyone who thinks it’s a problem only of the left or only of the right is truly one naive individual. The churlishness abounds equally everywhere. I’ve had some conservative bloggers (especially that lowly coward “The Confederate Yankee”) do some pretty appalling things to me. I talking sticks and stones here, not names. I find conservative blogs, for the most part, to be less open to debate, more often requiring registration, more ready to ban and dedact, and so forth. But that’s just me. I don’t know if it’s truly endemic. Even this blog, as much as I love it, the most open conservative blog I know of, edits posts without so much as a notation, which is highly unethical.
As for “the shoes” incident, hey, I laughed so hard I almost busted a hernia. I mean, Bush wasn’t hurt, and all it was meant to be was an insult. Yet the man was making a serious point. For an Arab to throw his shoes at you is about the most pointed show of disrespect and disgust in his culture. It is not meant to physically hurt anyone, but simply to show complete contempt and disregard. It is the panultimate gentleman’s shaming. It’s like the ol’ ‘slap in the face with the white glove’ of yore. An Arab throws his shoes at someone who has broken a promise or a contract, has abused a inter-family member, has stolen a sentimental possession, or commited slander or libel. This poor shmuck is facing 15 years in prison for what he did, and he must’ve known that when he did it – so you know he really meant it and was willing to do the time for the crime. That took a lot of guts. Bush handled it very well himself, and should continue with his good form and advise the Iraqi courts to be lenient on this poor, angry soul. That would be the good Christian thing to do.
JMJ
“They pointed out that they pay his salary, ”
Does that mean they’ll stop raggin on him after he’s out of office ?
I seriously doubt it.
““It isn’t called a girlfriend when you pay her $50 per hour.”
WOW, I can be a first class foul mouthed A-hole but I’ve never even said anything like that over at Jerseys blog.
Don’t they see the irony ?
This A-hole is throwing a shoe at a man who instilled a system of government there that allows him to do what he did without being shot outside in the parking lot, or hauled of to one of Saddams pleasure dens.
If it were not for the freedom of the press that Iraqis now have this never would of happened.
Second of all. All wars have innocents that get hurt accidentally or collaterally, its unfortunate in every way.
But no, these ungrateful pricks cant pull their heads out of their a$$ They fail to compare present day Iraq to what Saddam was doing to thousands if not millions of Iraqis before the invasion.
Decades of oppression, murder, starvation, torture.
If they succeed in pulling their heads out and keeping it that way Iraq will never have to worry again about someone like Saddam brutalizing its people again.
The comparison to Obama is validated by the way I’ve seen this reported on different stations.
CNN, MSNBC, NBC have all put the emphasis on how this was a result of the disgruntled Iraqi public and how the us has been there too long and bla bla Bush lied and bla bla bla.
Come to find out that in that circle of reporters that Al Zaidi was with have known him for quite a while to be a nut.
His middle name ?
Had this happened to Obama the liberal press and the moonbat population would be all lit up and infuriated.
Whereas with Bush it would of all been his fault and this moron Al Zaidi would be a hero.
Obama should voice outrage over this incident mainly so it doesn’t happen to him one day.
As the up and coming president he should be trying to set an example and a standard for the conduct we have towards our leaders regardless of whether or not we agree with them.
He should let his following know that radical and violent protest will only set them back and not do anything to further their cause.
Since Obama has said many times he believes that Bush is a decent man the least he could do is set an example of that sentiment by saying such behavior should not be tolerated.
By Obama being quiet the lunatic left could well see it or construe it as endorsement of such behavior.
JMJ;
“That’s “friendly” and “genial?”
Yea .
It also happens to be as true as it gets !
JMJ;
“blog I know of, edits posts without so much as a notation, which is highly unethical. ”
Where are these ethics located ?
People have come to me on my blog and b*tched about you and I squabbling.
I told em if they didnt like it leave because its up to the blog owner, not me.
His blog.
His ethics
“It is not meant to physically hurt anyone, ”
That’s right, moonbats are all about perceived intention.
Well, it could of blinded him in one eye for life if anything so stop the minimizing sh*t already.
Betchera$$ it was meant to hurt somebody. They were both thrown directly at his head and would of hit their target if Bush wasn’t on the ball
Micky, just a couple points…
First: It was not for us to “give” the Iraqis anything. We don’t belong there and we never did. It was not our problem. I understand the contempt that man felt for Bush. Personally, I wouldn’t stand in the same room with the president. I’d just up and walk out. I wouldn’t throw my shoes at him, though. He’s not worth the statement. But to that Iraqi, apparently it was worth it. If you knew anything about Middle Eastern culture, you’d understand what the throwing of shoes means, and it’s not about physically hurting anyone.
Second; ethics are ethics, they are not arbitrary and subjective morays or personal rules. But if you’re going to follow rules, the Golden Rule, subjective though it may be, is a good place to start. I don’t think our good host would like his words changed for posterity without so much as a notation.
JMJ
“First: It was not for us to “give” the Iraqis anything. We don’t belong there and we never did. It was not our problem.”
Says who ? You ?
That’ll go a long way, but only in a court of opinion.
The fact is that it was our problem in many ways other than WMD’s.
The bleeding hearts cried to Clinton over the Kurds being gassed and he did nothing. If he did, it would of been the old cliche` that liberals start wars out of peace and the right only starts them out of selfish greed.
Had Clinton done something about it you would of been in the same situation we are in now, but under Clinton you would of said that its the intentions that justified it.
With liberals, intentions are all that counts.
You guys cant have it both ways. Acts against humanity are just that, no matter where they are.
Iraq was perceived, and rightly so, to be a future threat and had already been deemed a threat after shooting at our pilots and sending homicide bombers our way.
Parts of South Africa are not our problem but the bleeding hearts are asking why we don’t make it our problem. Neither was Indonesia during the earth quakes.
Jersey, take your condescending more knowledgeable than thou crap and shove it.
It just makes you look like a pompous a$$.
Many people know more about middle eastern culture than you think, we just don’t use it as a tool of arrogant display in order to question the validity of ones argument.
Most people are aware of the meaning behind the Arab use of shoes now only because of the little boy that was seen during the initial invasion repeatedly slapping the toppled statue of Saddam in the face with his slippers.
O.K ? You are not as enlightened as you would like to have us all believe.
The shoes represent one of the filthiest elements in an Arabs life which is why they also carry the same tradition as many Asian cultures do and we do here in Hawaii. That would be to take your shoes off before entering yours or any other house.
I grew up knowing this before you were even born as I’ve had to explain the tradition and its roots to many visitors.
Whether its about physically hurting someone or culture is irrelevant.
Please, try to pay attention.
Regardless of the cultural aspects the shoe STILL COULD OF INJURED BUSH !!!!
Get it ?
This lame a$$ justification of yours where you excuse the action by placing the cultural aspect up front only proves what I said up above.
And that is that intentions are the only thing that matter with liberals, not the means or the outcome.
Our good host would not ask a man to do something with his property that he did not want to do.
Ill go out on a limb and bet money that Eric would just leave if he thought he were being treated unfairly in the name of someone else’s posterity.
I know I would. Sure, you can ask them to change but have no right to b*tch if they say no..
And then you try to justify yourself with blatant hypocrisy.
You say ethics are ethics and they are not arbitrary and subjective morays or personal rules.
Yet right behind that you say the golden rule “IS” subjective.
You cannot and never ever will be able to legislate morals or ethics.
Liberals have tried this repeatedly by dictating what morals and ethics should apply simply according to what their perspective is of moral and ethical behavior are.
You cant make people think the way you think they’re supposed to think.
It would be highly immoral and unethical if someone were to come along and tell Eric how he must cater to his readers based on one mans interpretation of ethics.
Eric
Have you seen these photos circulated before? By GAWKER? Time Man of the Year a real Trend Setter. Well he does have a big following among the Pot Smokers..I don’t know if they remember to vote though.
Oh No, how is this going to help Michelle’s children?
http://chickaboomer.blogspot.com/2008/12/obamas-panama-gold-time-one-toke-over.html
Jersey,
As a Desert Storm Vet i can honestly tell you we needed to go into Iraq. When we left Desert Storm and came back home, I told everyone I knew that we would be back in ten years. I was wrong it was 12. We should have finished the job when we where there the first time.
Invading Iraq was not a mistake, but in the early planning of the war mistakes were made. This has since turned around with a better battle plan. Conditions are getting better on the ground and for the Iraqi People.
I would also like to say thank you to all my military Brothers and Sisters for a job well done and to keep up the good work. I wish i could be there with you, but i was injured in 97 and was med boarded out.
Semper Fidelis
USMC 89-95 Army 96-98
And a big thanks to you also bro
Thanks, Smaugger. We can never repay you sufficiently.
J-
“We are better than that.”
Says it all, Eric. While providing little solace, we conduct ourselves accordingly, as the Left embraces “fairness”, we embrace “liberty”. I don’t recall “fairness” in the founding documents, but, then again, I’m not on a Federal Bench.
Defense of conservatism a duty …
Hi Eric been reading your blog on liberal blogs and violence, either
you are a more patient man than me or have a lot thicker skin,as I have
never tried to reason with those of rabid tongue and mind in their own
pits. About your assertion that we……
[…] Eric been reading your blog on liberal blogs and violence, either you are a more patient man than me or have a lot thicker skin,as I have never tried to […]
Hi Eric been reading your blog on liberal blogs and violence, either you are a more patient man than me or have a lot thicker skin,as I have never tried to reason with those of rabid tongue and mind in their own pits. About your assertion that we will not, as conservatives, retaliate as in a tooth for a tooth, I am not so sure. The problem is a matter of our survival. As long as conservatives could feel that this too shall pass, People of the Book type morality allowed the turning of the other cheek. God would avenge your wrongs and all that. However, we are entering a period of history where the liberal left is unhinged enough to try exterminating conservative thought ( and any conservative not willing to change affiliation) quicker than you can say “burn’em!” Von Clausewitz stated that the only way to defeat an enemy is to be willing to use the same tactics against them that they employ ( or worse), because to deny your forces a tactic out of moral qualms may well lead to the annihilation of your nation. Machiavelli stated that it is better to be feared than loved, and conservatives have gotten where they are because they would rather be loved than be in power. We are in a war for the soul and destiny of our nation, and liberals (even though a lot of them do not believe in souls, bless their grinchy hearts) know this truth and act on it. Conservatives really cannot comprehend the depravity and depth of hatred liberals have for them, but viewed through the lens of an eternal warfare between good and evil, it makes perfect sense why they hate us so much. Lucifer, the son of the morning, was cast out of heaven for wanting the glory of the Father. His pride caused his fall, and now he wishes nothing more than to damn those who did not follow him and were deprived of a mortal experience. We got bodies and eventual resurrection, he and his followers do not. He hates righteousness, and all that is good (of God). Liberals are cut from the same cloth, because when you get right down to it, they either have deluded themselves about what they really believe in (IE they are conservatives but do not realize it yet, which is what I hope is the case with your girlfriend:-)), or they are actively fighting against God, because basic liberal tenets like abortion, gay rights, moral relativism, etc, cannot be squared with a God of laws and justice. Liberalism and God are diametrically opposed, when both are properly understood. Both Old and New Testaments talk about those who shall be sheep in wolves clothing, speaking the words of life but murdering men’s souls. Now, what I want to make clear is that even though I am speaking from a scriptural standpoint, God works on the ground, so to speak. I am speaking of realpolitik, a pragmatic assessment of what the path ahead is. The scriptures tell what will happen, I try to understand and be prepared, so I and my family may not fear,but I guess that what I am trying to say is too many religious people are so blinded by this idea of turning the other cheek they forget the war history of the Jews under a wrathful God, the moneychangers in the Temple, the Sodom’s of the world, and yes, even the Flood. It is not only just to act in defense of right, it is eventually required of all those who honor God. The imagery in Isaiah of Israel going through as a young lion among the wicked, sparing none, is not a pacifistic one, nor of mercy either. Either we beat the liberals brutally and convincingly now in the law, the ballot box, and the court of public opinion, or we will be forced to do it later in the streets. Evil cannot co-exist with good, it can only be restrained and chained down to where it does the least harm: But let loose unrestrained on a supine and ungodly citizenry as we now have, the destruction of good is the sure result. Liberals have through the Prop 8 fiasco shown themselves incapable of being governed by law (and as you noted, not one liberal is willing to call the gay activists down and discipline them), so the more their will is thwarted, the more violent they will become, until they either achieve their designs or they are met with sufficient pain to be persuaded of their folly. They are bullies, and spoiled fools whose bad manners have been tolerated far too long. Truly the Word is: Spare the rod, spoil the child (and ruin the nation). Take care, Brian