19 Responses to “Fun With Hatemail”

1. #1 |  AD |  January 16th, 2003 at 6:40 pm

   To love our neighbor…Such consequences does a man face for speaking boldly and what criticism does he face for speaking freely…

2. #2 |  Dave |  January 16th, 2003 at 6:53 pm

   They still haven’t gotten over the last election when they got handed their own asses. It’s sad that the closest this whole blog came to an actual argument was “God Bless Barbara Steisand”- and that could probably start a war…

   …And to please MWO, I’d join.

3. #3 |  Ben |  January 16th, 2003 at 9:28 pm

   Hilarious!

4. #4 |  Richard |  January 16th, 2003 at 9:42 pm

   I wish I got hate mail!

5. #5 |  Jim M |  January 17th, 2003 at 12:09 am

   Richard,

   I hate you. Good enough?

6. #6 |  Frank N |  January 17th, 2003 at 3:26 am

   “Sir,
   What is the weather like up your rectum?”

   Now THAT is funny.

7. #7 |  chris |  January 17th, 2003 at 8:32 am

   Ever notice how liberals just call names and spew hate rather than present actual facts?

   This continues to amaze me.

8. #8 |  Jill |  January 17th, 2003 at 9:40 am

   Your momma ought to slap you.

   There’s nothing better than intelligent, well-thought discussion between educated adults. Why is it that the lefties can only call names?

9. #9 |  Jason Nelms |  January 17th, 2003 at 10:28 am

   While none of the leftists actually offered any true argument or facts, it was entertaining to see some of the creative insults they came up with.

10. #10 |  alina |  January 17th, 2003 at 10:28 am

    I love it, Radley! I’m with Richard– I wish I got this kind of stuff. It would make waking up in the morning so much easier.

11. #11 |  Anonymous |  January 17th, 2003 at 12:06 pm

    hahaha

    I’m sure the irony is lost on the posters, but I love it when people say things like “Why do leftists always call people names?”

12. #12 |  Julie |  January 17th, 2003 at 12:17 pm

    I love posts like this, where it’s the Us against Them thing. We’re right, they’re wrong and don’t see the wrongness in their views, coming from all sides. Applicable not only to politics, but to religion and anything else that is an opinion and not an absolute.

13. #13 |  Shotwell |  January 17th, 2003 at 12:52 pm

    Dear Julie, Thats one the great things about America. All of us get to voice an opinion. As for “Absolute”, Is that a beverage of some kind?

14. #14 |  Jill |  January 17th, 2003 at 1:22 pm

    ha ha ha

    irony not lost in the least bit. stupid.

15. #15 |  Rich Casebolt |  January 17th, 2003 at 1:35 pm

    Julie — sometimes, it IS us against them.

    Declaring the existence of absolute truths that apply to human interaction has become a dividing line between Left and Right. In this division, the Left’s embrace of moral relativism (even as they attempt to jam their wealthist morality down our throats) compromises the credibility of much of their social commentary.

    Human society works best when we all recognize that:

    1> Each individual recognizes that he/she has the authority AND responsibility to DETERMINE right and wrong for themselves.

    2> This authority must NOT BE SUBORDINATED to any human leader — political/religious/social or otherwise — or else (as we are seeing today) errors are perpetuated instead of corrected. (I think that if the Islamic world adopted this principle, the Osamas of the world would not be the threat they are today!)

    3> Despite what the moral relavitists say, individuals do NOT have the authority to DEFINE right and wrong as they wish; instead, they must analyze/evaluate/observe how our moral choices can affect human interactions, and act upon that information in ways that provide a long-term improvement of our existence.

    There are absolute truths that pertain to human interaction, that are as immutable as the law of gravity — and the refusal to acknowledge and act in accordance with those truths places both individual and society at risk.

    Simply throwing up our hands and saying “it’s just their opinion” doesn’t cut it. We must make the choices, and act upon them.

16. #16 |  Julie |  January 17th, 2003 at 3:07 pm

    Rich, my whole point was your #3 observation. Individuals do NOT have the authority to define right and wrong, although they try to, they merely have the right/obligation to either act or observe. As a fully functioning society we decide as a majority what is right or wrong, and turn morals/opionins into laws, political debates, discussions, arguments, etc. I was merely stating that regardless the political, religious, etc, topic that is put forth, there will always be an opposing party, and that I enjoy watching the debate, and sometimes mudslinging. I am not ‘throwing up my hands’ by saying this, sorry that is what you inferred.

17. #17 |  Phillip Winn |  January 17th, 2003 at 4:36 pm

    I’m very interested in learning how the Washington Times determined that “the richest 1 percent of Americans give disproportionately more to Democrats than to Republicans.” I’m not denying it, though I note that the Washington Times is not above a little partisan rhetoric now and again. It would be nice to have some way of validating that information against some official sources, though.

    Thanks!

18. #18 |  Bryan |  January 19th, 2003 at 1:25 pm

    I’m with Julie on this one. Sorry Rich but the “right” and “left” continually take this us vs. them mentality: “Why does the left always…” “I love it when the right…”

    While you may be right both in theory and even in the actual underlying reality, both parties get a lot of thing wrong and fail to see the hypocrisy in many of their stated positions. To then generalize negative characteristics on the entire opposing party is, simply put, stupid.

    Life is not an Ayn Rand novel in the sense that people who disagree with you are not really fundamentally evil, and, I hate to say it, they are not wrong all of the time.

    The name calling and generalizing that people on both sides of the aisle do is counter-productive and only highlights the main reason that so many people decide not to pick a side.

19. #19 |  Rich Casebolt |  January 21st, 2003 at 7:52 am

    Bryan:

    When it comes to name-calling on a personal basis, I tend to avoid that, as can be seen in my posts. I concur with the fictional Khan Singh that “revenge is a dish best served cold” — with cold, fact-based logic, that is.

    However, when whole segments of society persist in their attempts to IMPLEMENT flawed policies — and keep using the same flawed logic and prejudices to justify those policies, even after they are shown the flaws — they not only invite generalization, they must be vigorously opposed for the good of our society.

    I agree that such opposition should be performed as respectfully as possible — but there comes a time when people become so mule-headed that a well-cut rhetorical 2X4 is the only way to get their attention.

    Even when I and other conservatives have been respectful in our criticism, we have been countered with charges of “intolerance” and “jamming our morality down peoples’ throats” — SIMPLY FOR SUCH OPPOSITON, even if it is delivered with high levels of respect. This is a derivative of one of the major divisions between Left and Right — the Left’s embrace of the shaky foundation of moral relativism, which breaks the feedback loop of constructive criticism by declaring it irrelevant and hurtful.

    I do not consider the vast majority of those who make up the Left evil — but I do consider them prejudiced against personal success, and illogical in their persistent assertions that “fairness” equates to restraining everyone to the pace of the slowest among us. They paint with a broad brush that penalizes successful living, whether that success is legitimate or illegitimate, and ignore how that success spills over to enhance other areas of society.

    I agree the Right has its faults, too — but I also know that they are not homogeneous across the conservative body politic. The flawed assumptions about personal success, on the other hand, are much more homogeneous across the political Left.

---