Re: Liberals are weird!

"Grizzlie Antagonist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 20:05:30 -0800, "JoettaB"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Grizzlie Antagonist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> On Mon, 1 Dec 2003 13:35:23 -0800, "JoettaB"
> >> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Hot Frog" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
> >> >news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> >> [EMAIL PROTECTED] (Grizzlie Antagonist) writes:
> >> >>
> >> >> > I can understand all of those things, but what I don't understand
is
> >> >> > the intense HATRED that he generates in liberal quarters -
visceral
> >> >> > intense physical HATRED.
> >> >> >
> >> >> > I don't understand that at all.  He seems to be a nice guy and a
> >> >> > genuine human being.  Political opposition is one thing, but what
is
> >> >> > there about him which would generate such intensively negative
> >> >> > PERSONAL feelings?
> >> >>
> >> >> The Democratic Party has always been dominated by hate mongers.
After
> >> >> all, they are the party that founded the Ku Klux Klan and murdered
> >little
> >> >> children in the name of segregation.  They hated Eisenhower too,
> >> >> particularly after he sent in the army to enforce integration in
> >southern
> >> >> schools.
> >> >>
> >> >> Even hate mongers have rights.  If they cross the line into
violence,
> >we
> >> >> can throw them in prison.  Until then, they have a right to say what
> >they
> >> >> want.
> >> >
> >> >Oh, yeah. We're such hate mongers that we voted Kennedy into office
> >>
> >>
> >> That's a PERFECT example of liberal hate-mongering!  The Kennedys take
> >> no prisoners.
> >>
> >Well, you have certainly proved that you are just another right-wing nut
> >that clips and snips away at responses to suit your devisious means. So
let
> >me repeat what I said, so that you can focus through more than the first
> >dozen or so words before you blat out your little right-wing response.
And,
> >before doing that, I will add that three Kennedy's have died trying to
serve
> >this country...
>
> Nonsense.  The Kennedys who have died in service have died trying to
> serve what they believe is the inevitable triumph of the Kennedy
> dynasty.


Yeah, I suppose that's why JFK refused his presidential salary. I'm sure
that act lent a lot to the overall dynasty. But, even if you go with that
theory, then why would you accept a Bush dynasty?


> I don't even know where you get a count of three.  As William F.
> Buckley said in 1965, "It's disgraceful the way this country makes the
> Kennedys fight for their throne".

John F. Kennedy's airplane crash. Wonder what William F. Buckley would have
to say about the Bush throne.

> > so I could scarcely say they and theirs were the ones that
> >"take no prisoners."
>
> I know that you scarcely could.  But they have a well-deserved
> reputation for ruthlessness.

And Bush doesn't? That's like the desert (HUGE) calling a grain of sand
(TINY) dry.

> >The only reason you're pissed at them right now is that
> >>old Teddy boy
>
> "I may never become president".

And... you point?

> > has been making your fellow Bush

> Well, as I said, he's really not my fellow Bush.  You're just driving
> him into my corner.

If you aren't, you sure sound like one of his patsies.

> > look like the utter idiot he
> >is.

> Are you aware of the contradiction inherent in your statement?

Okay, so you aren't making him look like an idiot. He already IS and
idiot... so help needed. Thanks for reminding me.

> >"Oh, yeah. We're such hate mongers that we voted Kennedy into office

> That's what I said.

Yep, now focus and you'll see that the above was only a sentence fragment.

> > and do
> >our best to police our own dirty laundry.

> How can you put a dirty shirt under arrest?

Surely you aren't so dense that you can't understand that old saying/phrase.

> > In June 1963, Alabama Gov. George
> >Wallace (Democrat turned Indepent) refused to allow two black students to
> >enter the University of Alabama. Kennedy called in the National Guard to
> >ensure the safety of the students

> As I remember there was far more bloodshed spilled in Alabama than
> when Eisenhower sent in troops to Arkansas.

And...so? A lot of bloodshed occurred over the issue of civil rights.

> > and, later a televised speech, was
> >followed a week later with a proposed Civil Rights Bill to Congress.
>
> It's pretty much acknowledged now that Kennedy had no passion for
> civil rights and did not move on this issue until his hand was forced.

He moved on it when it became apparent that civil rights was the will of the
people.

> But damn it; you are begging the issue that I originally raised.

LOL  Begging the issue? Hardly. You simply don't like the answers you're
getting.

>
> >BUT... let's just face it. Racists or bigots exist in every political
party
> >in some form or another; these issues are not a partisan matter."
> >