Stiring the Hate Pot

January 14, 2005

I can name a few on the Right that, in my opinion, like to stir up the hate-pot: Sean Hanity, Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter. There are also others that try to be quite fair like Micheal Reagon and Bill O-Reilly.

Can any of our liberal-leaning friends recognize any on the Left that do a little dabbling with the hate-pot?

January 14, 2005

I dislike the term 'hate' in this context, as I've said, but I do think both Michael Moore and Salon go over the lining in terms of bias, baiting and over-stating the case. Not sure who else, 'cos I actually don't read that much stuff on the left. Maybe Arianna Huffington, but I mostly read her on Salon anyway.

January 14, 2005

Rush Limbaugh speaks the truth, he usually doesn't sound hateful to me. What about Michael Savage? He's also on talk radio. He'll really open your eyes.

How about Howard Stern? I think he's kinda liberal, but usually truthful...even though he is trashy.

Kim

January 15, 2005

Sister Kimberly,

You certainly are entitled to your opinion but I would disagree with your assesment. Rush Limbaugh does come off as refined and compassionate. Yet he sterotypes a lot. I listen to him a few minutes each week and have listened to him since 1992. He plays the "us" verses "them" game. I don't like the politics of division. I think that is a form of hate mongering. Rush also uses the term "liberal" as if it is a bad word. Not all liberals are evil. Some are but so are some conservatives.

Unlike Brother Bravus, I have no problem with the word hate. The Bible uses it and even tells us there is a time to hate. I am very cautious when listening or reading the news because of the hateful bias that exists. A poll released today shows Americans distrust the media more than they distrust the government!!!

January 15, 2005

I applaud you, Brother Bravus, for being able to see some of the bias among some that you tend to agree with.

How about this little bit of ANTI-BUSH news. I never saw any such anti-Clinton wristbands. Talk about a group of people that cannot accept the election and move on with life. Let's not even suggest these people are not trying to stir the hate-pot. Anti-Bush Bracelets Say, 'Count Me Blue'

January 15, 2005

Americans distrust the media because they always present a biased slant, unless you watch Fox news channel. They're honest.

Kim

January 16, 2005

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No offense Sister Kimberly but if you really think Fox News is honest and unbiased, I have some oceanfront real estate in the Mojave I'd like to sell you!! You'll make MILLION$$$, trust me!!!

January 16, 2005

I don't think Salon is all left-leaning. Haven't you ever read their "right hook" section? They have some pretty powerful right-wing writing going on over there as well ... at least to me it looks solid ... or would this be the leftist version of "Colmes" a la Hannity & Colmes -- that is, a weak substitute pretending to pander to the "other guys" for purposes of pretending to be "fair and balanced"?

January 16, 2005

Quote:

Americans distrust the media because they always present a biased slant, unless you watch Fox news channel. They're honest.

Kim

Heh, this is tongue in cheek rite?

Communists had Pravda, Republicans have Fox.

January 16, 2005

The Left hates FOXNews because it does not lean left like the traditional networks have for years. FOXNews presents both sides, does not try to hide bias and consequently is the highest rated cable news network. FOXNews is conservative in the sense that it is to the right of the traditional networks. However we must keep in mind that moderates are also to the right of such networks.

January 16, 2005

Those that try to stir up the hate pot do so through division. This is true of those on the Right and those on the Left. In order to suck you into their hatred they must first make you feel like you are one of "them". Then they can play the "us" verses "them" game of hatred.

These hate-mongers don't grasp what democracy really is about. Democracy makes this "our" country, not "my" country. Democracy is a "we" not an "I". In a democracy things are done "our" way not "my" way.

The individual has a voice in a democracy but accepts the result of elections when they don't go his or her way becuase s/he is just a small part of the whole. That is exactly what the hate mongers do not want to happen. Hate-mongers cannot stir the pot when the country is united.

The Right will talk about the Left as if the Left is actually set on evil and the Left will talk of the Right the same way. In actuallity the Right and the Left agree on most of their goals. And those goals are noble. They disagree on the means to achieve the goals. Yet only a handful of reporters and commentators do not try to demonize those that disagree with them.

January 16, 2005

You can watch your news channel, I'll watch mine.

)

Kim

January 16, 2005

Quote:

The Left hates FOXNews because it does not lean left like the traditional networks have for years. FOXNews presents both sides, does not try to hide bias and consequently is the highest rated cable news network.

Ermmmm ... no Shane, sorry, you are still confused on this point.

Thinking people laugh at Fox news because it claims to be "fair and balanced" when it is anything but; it is clearly right-wing slanted, all the while claiming otherwise. Fox News does NOT present both sides; it merely puts up an appearance of so doing in a very similar fashion to how the talk show circuit worked this (e.g. by favoring one party to a debate, pretending to open the show to airing both sides but actually stifling and drowning out the commentary of the unfavored side using spin, shoutdowns, put-downs, prefabricated judgments, and encouraging the audience to participate in this process as well).

A truly "fair and balanced" news outlet would not merely "not try to hide bias". Rather they would seek to avoid bias in the first place. They would not merely try to pretend and put up a false front of "presenting both sides" but would indeed give equal time to both with equal strength of presentation and equal division of commentary as well as challenge/rebuttal.

Fox News does not fit any of this criteria. They are nothing but GOP/right-wing/Bushie shills. If you ask me, Fox does its own share of stirring the hate pot by playing these games, duping millions and creating the very divisiveness you spoke of in another post. If you want to call my saying so "stirring the hate pot" go right ahead. I call it telling the truth.

January 16, 2005

Quote:

How about this little bit of ANTI-BUSH news. I never saw any such anti-Clinton wristbands. Talk about a group of people that cannot accept the election and move on with life. Let's not even suggest these people are not trying to stir the hate-pot.

Anti-Bush Bracelets Say, 'Count Me Blue'

Don't try to social engineer this thread, Shane. Let's suggest it precisely because you say "let's not," even if for no other reason, because I question that right away. Why the refusal to even consider it? Why the total inability to see that what is going on here is that people want to reach out as citizens of a much bigger thing -- the planet, human civilization, not just the USA -- and share our solidarity with the world? We are ALL living under very similar circumstances. Regardless of labels and politics, most of us are everyday workingclass stiffs trying to raise families and make a living, who have our lives continually at the fingertips of intrusion by the murderous jackbooted warmongering thugs in our midst -- whose once valid role in human society has run rampant with abuse until they are the biggest threat we ALL face collectively AND "individually" as citizen-nations of this planet. Yeah you know who I'm talking about -- the ones who presume to push everyone else around and enforce it at the business end of a gun, rifle or tank presuming to place others' LIVES at stake if they don't happen to be possessed of the same delusions, namely the delusion that said clowns and jokers have any right or place in this universe to be doing what they do, the delusion that wielding a weapon makes you wiser or more worthy to be followed than a drooling idiot on a street corner, the delusion that "might makes right," particularly when it cannot be backed up by any valid natural might any longer but is pure falsehood and disease, bred by exclusive access to weapons of mass destruction (real ones this time).

I will feel perfectly free to suggest you have no right tagging this as "stirring the hate pot". It is stirring the Global Solidarity pot, and if you can't tell the difference, well, that's telling on you ... not them.

January 16, 2005

Quote:

Those that try to stir up the hate pot do so through division.

How can you say this in one breath, and in the next, condemn those who engage in efforts of solidarity? How can you say this in one breath but in the next denounce conflict resolution as compromising with evil? Is division wrong or isn't it? Or is it FINE whenever YOU decide that to NOT be divisive would constitute a "compromise with evil"???

Quote:

This is true of those on the Right and those on the Left. In order to suck you into their hatred they must first make you feel like you are one of "them". Then they can play the "us" verses "them" game of hatred.

Solved the first half of the equation ... left the second unattacked ...

Quote:

These hate-mongers don't grasp what democracy really is about. Democracy makes this "our" country, not "my" country. Democracy is a "we" not an "I". In a democracy things are done "our" way not "my" way.

Tell that to those who spent 8 years trying to tar and feather Clinton. Until you apply it to your own favored ilk, I'm not listening. I mean it. Those who could not SHOW me with their actions have nothing to say to me, and their false and hypocritical characterizations mean NOTHING to me.

Quote:

The individual has a voice in a democracy but accepts the result of elections when they don't go his or her way becuase s/he is just a small part of the whole. That is exactly what the hate mongers do not want to happen. Hate-mongers cannot stir the pot when the country is united.

Shane, stop it. Just stop it. First of all, you do not define what a democracy is and is not based on YOUR wishful thinking. Second, it is very transparently obvious you are just USING this thread as a long-winded and very assinine way of calling ME a "hatemonger" simply because I challenged you on this very point elsewhere. I am not a hatemonger and I will not accept your long-winded round-the-mulberry-bush way of trying to subtly get people to think that of me by playing these games.

Quote:

The Right will talk about the Left as if the Left is actually set on evil and the Left will talk of the Right the same way. In actuallity the Right and the Left agree on most of their goals. And those goals are noble. They disagree on the means to achieve the goals.

No, I don't think so. I don't think the same goals are shared at all. I don't think everything the Left does is pristine or perfect, make no mistake about it, but I definitely think the so-called "right" (which is really Wrong) is, as a matter of fact, set on evil. I'm not talking about all the simple folk they brainwash into supporting them; I'm just talking about its chief engineers and architects. However, I have to say that anyone who would fall for something so ridiculously pandering to selfish prejudice as that flyer circulating in areas targeted precisely because it is known folk there are less educated (WV for one) -- which claimed a vote for Kerry would have resulted in banning the Bible while legalizing gay marriage -- well, if you're that flipping stupid, you get what kind of jackbooted ignoramus you want to fall down and worship for a leader. Just kindly go form your OWN nation somewhere ELSE to do it in, rather than inflict it on the rest of us ... OK???

January 16, 2005

{pedantic}It's 'hatemonger', rather than 'hatemongerer'.{/pedant}

January 16, 2005

LOL

While we're spell/grammar checking ... let's rework the thread topic line to read "Stirring" instead of "Stiring" ...

January 16, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

Thinking people laugh at Fox news

Quite the insult to all those that disagree with you.

FOXNews is simply to the right of where you are but that does not make them conservative. It would be immpossible to be completely objective. So FOXNews tries to gives both sides which is why they call themselves "Fair and Balanced". They have the highest ratings and as a result other networks are becoming more fair and balanced themselves.

I don't watch FOXNews too often because I don't have cable. I do surf their website and often times when I am in a fast-food resturant (like Burger King) they have FOXNews on in the dining area. I like their approach. I use to work out in the morning and my health club had FOX & Friends on and I loved it.

January 16, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

I will feel perfectly free to suggest you have no right tagging this as "stirring the hate pot". It is stirring the Global Solidarity pot, and if you can't tell the difference

Now that I think about it, I was wrong. After Clinton was elected the College Republicans sold t-shirts that said, "Don't Blame Me, I Voted Republican". I still have one. This was stirring up the hate pot. It was a way to divide. Of course at the time my eyes were not open to see it that way. These anti-Bush wristbands are the same way.

There is no such thing as Global Solidarity. That only exists (you know) in lala land. However there really is such a thing as the United States of America. The key word in our nation's name is "united".

We can disagree with our elected leaders without questioning their compassion, patriotism and the faith. Yet those that disagree with Bush question all three plus they question his motives! As I mentioned before, most Americans hold the same goals and our motives are good. We disagree about the means to achieve those goals.

January 16, 2005

Shane, I don't think that slogans like "Don't blame me, I voted Republican," or "Don't blame me, I voted Democrat" are particularly hateful. They're just partisan witticisms designed to imply that the opposite party is doing a poor job.

If someone were to say that Bill Clinton was a liar, that is not necessarily hateful, because it is a proven fact that he did blatantly lie about various things. If we go beyond that and assert that Clinton was a pathologically dishonest person about everything, then we cross the line into hatefulness. Now, we can even speculate that this might be so without crossing the line, but to claim it is fact and condemn him on the basis of what is really subjective opinion is over the line. Same with Bush by the Bush detractors. They cannot prove conclusively that Bush did deliberately lie about anything. They may suggest it, but going beyond that to assert something as true merely because of their partisan doctrine, is going over the line.

Too many people though seem unable to separate their partisan doctrinal beliefs from actual facts that are really established as such.

January 17, 2005

Quote:

There is no such thing as Global Solidarity. That only exists (you know) in lala land.

Among jackbooted thugs that wield tanks and guns on behalf of corrupted corporate mammon-[censored] and government shills? Of course not. You're right -- that WOULD be la-la land. But among those of us who share in common the simple fact of being totally FED UP with enduring these dimwits, who amount to somewhere between 1-5% of the entire population, running everything just because they have the guns and tanks and bombs and "money-muscle"? You better believe there is a Global Solidarity.

What do you think www.sorryeverybody.com and http://www.apologiesaccepted.com/ were about? I know, you probably think it was only about "Bush hate", but if that's all you can see in it, you've clearly missed the point.

What on earth do you think Armageddon -- the real one -- is going to be about? We're talking world-wide civil war, where the borders and boundarylines between nations will no longer matter because there will be only one dividing line: the one dividing God's people from the rest, dividing the True of heart from the slaves and minions of the Beast.

That, my friend, isn't "la la land". It's prophecy.

Quote:

However there really is such a thing as the United States of America. The key word in our nation's name is "united".

That doesn't mean anything to the right-wingers or the conservatives -- look how they behaved while Clinton was in office. Sounds like a case of "be not deceived; God is not mocked" -- (e.g. by their claim to be the moral compass for our nation, the chosen ones of God) -- for "whatsoever a man soweth, that also shall he reap."

Quote:

We can disagree with our elected leaders without questioning their compassion, patriotism and the faith. Yet those that disagree with Bush question all three plus they question his motives!

Not if those ARE the matters upon which we are disagreeing. Particularly when they are the matters held up by the questionably elected persons as justification and rationale for involving not just ourselves but our children and future generations financially and historically in an imperialistic pre-emptive military action and tremendous assaults upon the very foundation of our own constitution as a nation, among other things.

I honestly don't see how their actions can be questioned and/or critiqued without bringing up these matters, especially when it is considered that THEY bring up said matters first as a means to positively propagandize for their policies and positions as well as to justify and rationalize their decisions. Shane you have said yourself that motive goes to the heart of any question of lying -- how can anyone plumb that kind of a matter without looking into motive? If motive makes all the difference between telling a lie versus making a mistake, how can that even begin to be addressed unless the matter of motive is invoked and analyzed?

Quote:

As I mentioned before, most Americans hold the same goals and our motives are good. We disagree about the means to achieve those goals.

And as I said before, I disagree with this assumption. While yes, we disagree on the means to achieve our goals, the primary reason for this is that we disagree upon the goals themselves. The past 4 years have shown this disagreement quite starkly in a number of areas. Of course given the numbers from the last two elections, if by "most Americans" you simply mean the narrow margin voting Bush over first Gore, then Kerry, well, all I have to say is I would not put it past one of that number to pretend to speak about all when they are only referring to themselves, and I would not be surprised then to read such statements like you have made above. But if you include any not in that narrow margin majority, then no way are the goals the same, nor the motives. Not even remotely.

January 17, 2005

The extreamists do disagree over the goals. However mainstream conservatives, moderates and mainstream liberals agree on the goals and only disagree on the means.

Here are some examples of goals: clean air, clean water, productive agriculture, control of rest fires, educate our children, increase home ownership, control inflaction, decrease foriegn oil dependence, defend the nation against terrorism, create/maintain a healthy economy, healthcare for all citizens, reduce crime and reduce drug/alcohol addiction.

According to the vision in Daniel chapter 2 there will never be Global Solidarity. The iron does not mix with the clay. There will always be evil men and women that cannot be compromised with. Nations will fight with each other. Wars and rumors of wars are in fact a sign of the end.

There were obviously some people that were hate-mongers in regard to Clinton. Yet Clinton turned out to be his own worse enemy. Clinton did to himself what his enemies would have never been able to. He proved that my mama is right. The lie will often get you into more trouble than the original bad behavior would have. If the Republicans in the Senate would have been as impassioned by hate that many accused them of, they would have convicted him for what everyone knew he was guilty for - obstruction of justice.

January 17, 2005

Quote:

According to the vision in Daniel chapter 2 there will never be Global Solidarity. The iron does not mix with the clay ... Nations will fight with each other.

Like I said -- the jackbooted thugs, corporate mammon-[censored] and government shills are not going to join hands in a happy solidarity circle. I already told you I was not talking about this. You weren't listening.

Quote:

...Clinton turned out to be his own worse enemy. Clinton did to himself what his enemies would have never been able to.

Bullocks.

January 17, 2005

Quote:

According to the vision in Daniel chapter 2 there will never be Global Solidarity. The iron does not mix with the clay. There will always be evil men and women that cannot be compromised with. Nations will fight with each other. Wars and rumors of wars are in fact a sign of the end.

And yet, in Revelation, the merchants of the earth mourn over the city of Babylon because in her jurisdiction, they can grow rich from the luxuarys available to them. Kings also grow rich under her power....Surely, there is a universal agreement that transends nationalities and boundarys, Shane. There is a united front that affects God's people....

Quote:

The lie will often get you into more trouble than the original bad behavior would have. If the Republicans in the Senate would have been as impassioned by hate that many accused them of, they would have convicted him for what everyone knew he was guilty for - obstruction of justice.

As if other presidents haven't been guilty of the same thing. Such pitity is nothing more than hypocracy when you turn a blind eye to it. The reason the repulbican went as far as they did was because he did the will of the people. He made laws for the people, not special interest groups. That is why the republicans went after him, because they wanted to smear him. He kept showing them up as they wouldn't do what they were elected to do, work for the people.

January 18, 2005

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

He made laws for the people, not special interest groups. That is why the republicans went after him, because they wanted to smear him.

Perhaps in the paranoid world of Micheal Moore that is true. In the real world Clinton's last 6 years represented what we get from divided government - which for the most part is good.

<blockquote>Quote:<hr />

As if other presidents haven't been guilty of the same thing.

I am not aware of another President that has obstructed justice by destroying evidence, misusing the CIA, soliciting purgery and themselves purgering. Although I know some Presidents have done worse.

Sign In

Stiring the Hate Pot

Recommended Posts

Dr. Shane

Bravus

Kimberly

Dr. Shane

Dr. Shane

Kimberly

Nicodema

Nicodema

Pockey

Dr. Shane

Dr. Shane

Kimberly

Nicodema

Nicodema

Nicodema

Bravus

Nicodema

Dr. Shane

Dr. Shane

Ron Lambert

Nicodema

Dr. Shane

Nicodema

Neil D

Dr. Shane

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity