Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas, Rush Limbaugh, Karl Rove, Sean Hannity, John Ashcroft, Newt Gingrich, George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, Fred Thompson (and his trophy? wife), Rudy Guiliani, Mitt Romney, Dan Quayle, Joseph Alito, John Engler, Ward Connerly, Joe Lieberman, etc.
All of these people (and more) are hated by the left. Oh, there is no denying they hate them. After all, they have been trying to perfect the politics of personal destruction on these people. And before you on the left mention Bill Clinton, I will mention that Bork, Quayle and Thomas were long before Clinton.
And then the left has decided that trying to uphold the Constitution is hatred? How did those people who spew against the above people get to decide what hatred is?
2007-10-04 13:07:42 · 12 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
They have their willing accomplices in the press to further their lies. Did the press go after Clinton's admitted sexcapades with as much gusto as they did Thomas' alleged ones? No. Did they support Juanita Broderick like they did Anita Hill? No.
How about the recent Bush veto. Has the press been fair? No. The President said the bill was too broad, so he used his veto powers. What did the press write? Bush vetoes health insurance for children.
You know what Republicans want? They want people to learn to help themselves. What do Democrats want? They want a permanent class of people to depend on the government, because those people will vote Democratic to keep the spigot turned on. A whole class of people kept poor, and they say the Republicans hate. What a crock!
2007-10-04 13:25:16 · answer #1 · answered by KDCCPA 5 · 11⤊ 1⤋
I have one of these bumper stickers on my car. What it means is that when women have control over their reproductive choices, this is beneficial for children and families. If you find this slogan contradictory, perhaps it's because you are assuming that pro-choice = "pro-abortion." This is a fallacy. Pro-choice means exactly what it says: allowing women to have a CHOICE about what we do with our bodies. I know plenty of pro-choice people who are actually "anti-abortion," in that they feel that abortion is an unpleasant and undesirable choice that should only be used as a last resort. The key word there (again) is "choice." Being pro-choice for some people means saying, "I may not be crazy about the idea of abortion, I may even be skeeved out by it, I may feel it's something I'd never do myself. But I still believe that women should be allowed to make their own choices (there's that word again!) about their pregnancies. I am not comfortable making such an important choice for someone else, and I'm definitely not comfortable about the government making it." Let's be real: there are also pro-choice folks who don't have a problem identifying themselves as "pro-abortion." If that's how they feel, that's fine with me. I don't have to feel that way to support a woman's right to choose. I suspect pro-choicers are somewhere in between these two extremes. (I know I am.) Regardless of where we fall on that continuum, we are all pro-choice because we believe that women should be able to choose for themselves. Pro-choice is "pro-child," because all children should be wanted children. No child should have to come into this world because somebody forced a woman to give birth to it against her will. Making it a top priority to care for the children who are already here and making sure their needs are met is also "pro-child." Pro-choice is "pro-family," because giving woman the power to control their own reproductive choices is beneficial for family stability—economic or otherwise—and for society as a whole. Those of us who call ourselves pro-choice believe that whatever choice a woman makes about her pregnancy should be supported. If a woman chooses to carry the pregnancy to term and give birth, that choice should be supported. If she wants to raise the child herself, that choice should be supported. If she wants to place it with adoptive parents, that choice should be supported. If on the other hand, she chooses not to continue the pregnancy, we believe that choice should be supported as well. The key word here is CHOICE.
2016-05-21 02:02:29 · answer #2 · answered by ? 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
It's a favorite tactic of the left to attack someone PERSONALLY rather than discuss issues. The reason is because their positions on many issues are too indefensible. Open borders, gay marriage, amnesty for illegal immigrants, tax-and-spend economics, cradle-to-grave entitlements, social experiments and advancement of big government are only a few. Faced with the liability of having to justify these specious ideas, they resort to the only defense they can muster up - criticism of a person's life which doesn't matter in the big picture but distracts with the complicity of the liberal media.
2007-10-04 13:36:03 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 1⤋
This is an attempt to politicize and control free speech.
You'll note that there is no allegation of illegal activity.
The fact that you don't support someone else's views is immediately called hate speech.
You are not allowed to disagree with Abortionists, African Americans, Homosexuals, Global "Warmists", or any other Liberal views.
They, however, are allowed to "hate" anyone that disagrees with their position.
Don't buy it. When a liberal says "Hate", he is using the equivalent of the "N" word. It is meant to create an issue.
2007-10-04 13:29:52 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 1⤋
As long as there are at least a few people with IQs above 100, they won't get to decide what hatred is.
2007-10-04 13:11:53 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 9⤊ 3⤋
It is just a hypocritical bumper sticker from leftists that hate everyone and everything that doesnt fit into their narrow world view. I think it references those who oppose gay marriage who according to the left are homophobes and full of hatred but that is because they cannot tolerate that some people feel differently than they do.
2007-10-04 13:14:23 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 10⤊ 5⤋
It means that the far right political-Christians, who want to legislate "Family Values" by spewing hatred toward immigrants and gays and liberals and womens rights - are wrong.
You must be born yesterday to not recognize who that slogan belongs to.
2007-10-04 13:32:39 · answer #7 · answered by oohhbother 7 · 0⤊ 9⤋
I agree with that sticker 100%. That's why I chose not to be a liberal.
2007-10-04 13:11:58 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 10⤊ 5⤋
the sticker as nothing to do with your long-winded nonsensical rant. it means "family values" should be positive and hatred should not be considered a goal to achieve.
2007-10-04 13:17:19 · answer #9 · answered by truthrules 3 · 2⤊ 8⤋
The left is trying to make sure they uphold the Constitution and that my friend is not hatred, that is democracy. You said, "spew."
2007-10-04 13:16:31 · answer #10 · answered by MadLibs 6 · 2⤊ 12⤋