[IronJack]

"... pathetic little parakeet males ..."
"grim, quivering angry women ... hoping to be chosen as that day's purveyor of hate."
"[liberals'] arguments are premised on lies."
"lies of Holocaust-denial proportions."

From the first three pages of Ann Coulter's Slander.

Don't get me wrong. I think we need MORE of this kind of bare-fisted rhetoric. God knows, we've let the weenies on the Left cuff us around forever. But let's not pretend to any moral high ground to which we have no legitimate claim. More bludgeon, less dudgeon.

[Qwinn]

Heheh... those are pretty good, I'll admit ;) And while they are certainly words of contempt, I really think there is a difference between that and calling someone "human filth" and "chimp". None of the words that Ann said actively dehumanize their targets. I guess that is what is the big difference to me. Republicans will certainly show contempt, but they don't dehumanize their opponents. Democrats make a living out of dehumanizing Republicans, of presenting us in the light that we are not worthy of living.

Not one of those comes close to this (from Bernard Goldberg's Bias):

On January 15, 1999 - Martin Luther King's birthday - the Los Angeles Times published an op-ed by "frequent contributor" Karen Grisby Bates who spewed the following:

"It is a totally visceral reaction, but whenever I hear [Republican Senate majority leader] Trent Lott speak, I immediately think of nooses decorating trees. Big trees, with black bodies swinging from the business end of the nooses."

"This is vile."

I agree. I don't even like Trent Lott, but this is far beyond bare-fisted rhetoric. Nothing Ann said even approaches this. They -dehumanize- us. They make caricature monstrosities out of us. See my point?

Qwinn




Qwinn