YES, there is a difference between hate and anger.

Much in the way I refer to Liberal talking points as stupid, uninformed lead paint related, thoughtless and idiotic, the left cannot disassociate anything that comes from the right as being anything but HATE.  “Those haters, the Republicans, the conservatives, they are so cold and carry such disregard for their fellow man.” continuing, they spout off, “They don’t like our candidate because he’s not like them, he is different, he is BLACK. ”

So, is that the way it is?  Are we equally vile in our assessments of each others opinions? Is it fair to assume in either direction the case being made?


Democrat, Liberal, “progressive” blogs are incredibly heavy with “hate hunters.”  These are people who cannot possibly have enough time in the day to feed their own kids, after spending the needed time to populate pages with demonstrations of the right wing hate machines.  Seemingly purpose driven with an intent to discourage active participation of conservative thought in the debate of our time;  That question of whether we are ready for a young senator, who while not even completing his full term in office and missing 45% of the votes cast is ready to be our head of state.

They certainly have the right to call us out for our “hatred” right? Well yes.  They have the moral authority to do so then, correct? ..Well NO.  Not unless they can truly read our minds.  Read them in a manner akin to the finest “Vulcan mind meld” (without the bad side effect of a failed attempt)  They have the right to speak their opinions as we all must, but to assume in the manner of fairness, that the liberal grasps at proclaiming our intent are equal to reasoned thinking and logical process is absurd.

There IS a difference in how well you can label speech or opinion with regard to the right or the left. This does not mean those who brand themselves conservative are unable, or even unlikely, to speak or write from an emotional level, but simply that more often the use of emotional based arguments is the province of the left.  It is hardly arguable.

Consider the primary method used to establish power bases for liberal leadership.  The following statement as an example, “we must do something about the unfairness, and the way large corporations treat the common worker.,” is typical of left speak.  It makes an assumption  the “large (presumably evil) corporations” take advantage of their workers.  It looks to draw upon the emotion and sympathy of the listener, reader etc..  Obama uses the tactic himself:

“what they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me,” Obama said. “You know, he’s not patriotic enough, he’s got a funny name, you know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on the dollar bills.”

Guess what Barack?  You are different.  And YES  don’t think you understand what patriotism truly is, as your opinion and life’s activities have shown disregard for the constitution.  Funny name?  Yeah, Ill mention it Barry Hussein Obama, because in the spirit of playing fair, ill bait too.  As for looking like them? they had great hairdos huh?  of course you dont look like them..  ..who cares?

I’d like to make you scared of him though. Do you know why? Can you guess what I am thinking?  Do you know what my motivations are?  I’ll be straight forward and unapologetic to get my point across, but i am not going to be able to determine the motivations FOR your actions other than that you do them.  This is a point where I like to separate myself from the left.

This comment from a recent posting inspired me to re look at my words to make sure I was not implying anything unintended:

“Scary post…not because I believe your drivel, but because of the deep seated hatred running just under your words.”

The commenter disregards his own postings which gleefully celebrate the possibility of Palin facing a panel to possibly get her CUT from the race.  Should I assume he is HATEFUL?  I wouldn’t think so, but using the same standards I might.

To determine anything but results from action, or to be able to suggest motive for speech or opinion without the ability that most people would find “above their pay grade” is a mistake.  And to turn an opinion driven by an anger that the herds of the voting public of this country are going to promote mediocrity to a position of great power is presumptive at best and <inserting motivation here> evil at worst.

My writings are driven by a love for my fellow man.  PROVE that as incorrect.  No one could..