To disagree is healthy; to mud-sling and promote hate makes no sense.
Here are some examples:
Ann Coulter: "All Liberals are Godless." Al Gore is a "Total F*g". The widows of 9-11 victims are "Happy their husbands are dead."
David Horowitz: Called Jimmy Carter, Nobel Peace Prize winner, a "Moral Disgrace".
John Savage: Cindy Sheehan is a "Tragedy Pimp".
Can't the left and the right agree to disagree without promoting hate?
2006-08-04 02:58:40 · 13 answers · asked by Hemingway 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It is a response to their own fears of losing power in our government. The right has became mainstream by strategically demonizing the left over the last couple decades. For example, turning the political term "liberal" into a negatively connotated word.... creating the perception that disagreement between members of the Democratic party is a weakness... creating misconceptions about a lawsuit crisis and then pinning that to the left, etc...
Outrageous verbal attacks by far-right commentators is merely a sign that mainstream America no longer sustains the more subtle attacks and those commentators feel threatened by the idea that mainstream America is looking past the misperceptions that the right have worked so hard to plant in our heads.
2006-08-04 03:21:01 · answer #1 · answered by Sperry 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Every one of your examples have put themselves in the public eye, they are public figures, Cindy Sheehan, the Jersey girls just because they lost somebody doesn't give them a carte blanche to attack the ones we believe are making the right choices.
As far as Jimmy Carter if he would have dobne something about the Hostages in Iran or would have helped the Shaw out at the time we wouldn't have the trouble were in now.
Anyone with ten thousand dollars can nominate themselves for a peace prize......Arafat got one too!
Ann Coulter is right Al Gore is a Total F@G, watch his conveient lie......
2006-08-04 10:13:48 · answer #2 · answered by battle-ax 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Honestly, I see Ann Coulter as the epitome of a stupid blonde. Whenever you see her, she's in this tight little dress, going off in this awkwardly deep voice. Her "Godess" bookcover looks like a diet/yoga book--no wonder it's a bestseller. People just mistake it for a diet book. If Al Gore is a "Total F*g," she's a total d*ke.
Liberals aren't even half as offensive as conservatives. At least liberals still have their dignity and integrity intact after making their points. Since when has it been okay for a rich anorexic snob to call widows happy about the death of their spouse, the father of their children?
Some liberals may be "Godless," but conservatives like her are heartless.
That's all.
2006-08-05 19:30:05 · answer #3 · answered by stephenjwalk 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The answer to your first question is that conservatives attack liberals in much the same manner that conservatives are attacked by liberals.
The answer to your second question as to whether they can "agree to disagree" is negative as well.
The current democratic systems in place in the western world are based on an adversarial method of truth finding. This model can be seen at work in the legal system as well.
Unfortunately you have touched upon what is now de riguer in politics, the ad hominum attack. Policy could be more easily set if the issues were debated and not the personalities.
2006-08-04 10:19:00 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
The Conservative commentators have an audience. They are speaking for a fraction of the US population that exists to hate and be negative. The commentators AND their audience are profoundly unhappy people and it ticks them off to see anyone else happy, productive and 'good'. Anyone who can attack Jimmy Carter for being an excellent example of a true Christian and a superior man is just 'sick'.
2006-08-04 10:05:53 · answer #5 · answered by a_delphic_oracle 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Probably for the same reason high profile left wingers hate and attack conservatives and republicans, it's their job I guess.
2006-08-04 10:14:21 · answer #6 · answered by Vincent Valentine 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Bringing up emotional arguments rather than rational ones creates more confusion among the masses.
2006-08-04 10:02:37 · answer #7 · answered by Jared H 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
1. easy targets
2. cindy sheehan is a tragedy pimp, she abandoned casey to be a professional activist and only returned after his death.
2006-08-04 10:08:23 · answer #8 · answered by mason x 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
These people make a living by getting their name in the papers. Of course they are going to be controversial, it sells.
2006-08-04 10:10:22 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
why do you see simply telling the truth about these people as attacks on them? Everything you listed is the truth about them, UNsugar coated, yes, but the truth still the same
2006-08-04 10:04:57 · answer #10 · answered by sealss3006 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋