It's been like this for the last 3 years....why would you think it would change as we get closer to the election? I have never seen such irrational hatred as I have seen in conservatives hatred for Obama. And I don't believe for one minute it has anything to do with what he has, or hasn't, done as president. They started in in him before he ever took the oath of office and it has been unrelenting.
I don't hate Obama. I just think he isn't the right man for the job. I didn't hate Clinton, in fact, I liked him as a kind of lovable rogue with great political instincts and cunning, which Obama just hasn't shown.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
We are reaching a tipping point on 285, where the lies and venom are going to drive posters away. If the lies and distortions don't stop, this place going to only be inhabited by the most rabid and bitter of posters who feed on the decay.
When you plant ice you're going to harvest wind. - Robert Hunter
Kate wrote: Yes, it is bordering on the ridiculous. I don't think I can take 7 more months of this sh**. It's only going to get worse.
Then stop posting if it bothers you so much. Stop looking at the messages. You're a big girl (I assume). Whine, whine, whine... that's all liberals can do. They need someone to hold their little entitlement hands and sooth their wounded little sensibilities.
It's going to get really nasty... you better bug out now.
Joe wrote: Why is the word hate thrown around so much on here? Being critical of policy and actions is hate?
It's a dog whistle... just like using the word "racism." When liberal don't have the facts or ability to debate a subject, they try to stop the discussion cold by throwing in "fear" words. After the left has set up 50 years worth of political correctness and have set the markers as to what is correct speech or not, now they are able to "shame" someone, shut them down, simply by using key words like "hate" or "racism." Heck... you don't want to be accused of being hateful or a racist do you?
As George Orwell wrote in his "Politics and the English Language"... "Our civilization is decadent and our language -- so the argument runs -- must inevitably share in the general collapse. It follows that any struggle against the abuse of language is a sentimental archaism, like preferring candles to electric light or hansom cabs to aeroplanes. Underneath this lies the half-conscious belief that language is a natural growth and not an instrument which we shape for our own purposes."
Read the whole essay... you'll understand the answer to your question.