[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

[IronJack]

I think the Left's broadsides just SEEM more vitriolic, since we, or our heroes, are usually the targets. I remember numerous people suggesting, in all seriousness, that the Antichrist predicted in Revelation had come to Earth, and that his name was Bill Clinton. While metaphorically I could agree with them, these people meant it literally!

I think the Left hates George Bush just as much. And yes, I'd like to think the Right's condemnation of their enemies takes a decidedly more rational tone, but I'm reluctant to put on any airs. Nor do I think we need to. If the Left wants a street fight, I say let's give 'em one!