A Democrat Lies This Republican Doesn't Die

Corbis Images

The Democrat's favorite word is 'Liar'. I think it is about time we explain to them what the word actually means. To 'lie' is to know that a claim is false and then to assert it anyway. It is not there, as the Democrats seem to believe, to be applied at any given opportunity simply because their opponents' opinion differs.

Unfortunately, we have all become far too used to the one-liner rhetoric all too familiar on sites like Atrios and Daily Kos and somehow in the process become desensitized to the deeply insulting nature of the word. In previous centuries men fought duels over that very insult and countries fought battles to defend the honor of the Truth.

Today, these scurrilous claims are brandished by the Democrats in the MSM headlines, by Democratic Bloggers and their Readers alike at every turn: "Bush lied, people died", which managed to backfire; "The covert-ops lie"; "The WMD lie"; "Saddam not linked to al-Qaeda lie".

The Democrat favorite, and the singularly most important word in their vocabulary. Let's examine in the real world what effect calling somebody a liar actually has: It damages the opponents reputation and unilaterally discredits their statements.

But here is what it does in the political world: The attraction for the Democrats spewing out this simple accusation is, that it requires no argument, no facts and no efforts of persuasion whatsoever. It simply requires one word that says it all. “I am a Democrat and you are a Liar.”

Michelle Malkin has been urging the President to refute the "Bush lied" accusations for well over a year, and when she heard that he was going to "push back" against the accusations she was glad, but afraid it might be too little too late (today's small success could be a start...). PoliPundit agrees.

Michelle has also been voicing against sweeping assertions in the MSM about the content, nature, effectiveness, and media penetration of partisan blogs, and especially conservative blogs who seem to be accused of "[marching] in lockstep with the GOP leadership to "provide maximum benefit for their issues and candidates.""

And she is right, we have to stand up against this outrageous habit of calling The President and all who lean to the right liars by definition and association. We cannot allow this to continue, and whilst The President may well have taken a whole year to wake up to this fact, we have to do it ourselves, at the time and every time, taking the zero tolerance attitude, is the only way to let anyone know we stand firm and do not under any circumstances allow it. It is the ultimate insult within a country that supposedly stands up for truth and liberty.

Personally, I have never in my entire life been called a liar, well, not until confronting our fellow Democrat contestant. But you can spend your entire lifetime with something never happening to you, and then suddenly within a few days it happens to you twice.

Case in point: I wrote an article a couple of days ago, pointing out the unsportsmanlike behavior of one Democrat contestant in the 'Best New Blog' category of the Weblog Awards. From the outset and repeatedly thereafter he set out to insult every single other participating Blogger, reserving his worst for the right. He craftily mixed insults against the Bloggers and the Organizers with partisan hype. All of course carefully orchestrated to illicit votes from his Democratic readers at the expense of all of his fellow contestants. My article was as sarcastic as I could possibly make it and clearly my own opinion. But my message was loud and clear: Kevin Aylward and his team, make huge efforts to organize these Awards and Bloggers in turn are excited to be part of it. If one does not wish to be a part of it, then one should simply bow out gracefully and leave it at that, as The Anchoress agrees, instead of lashing out at fellow contestants for the sake of drumming up votes on the back of carefully shored up partisan hype.

I promptly got an email in response from the Democratic Blogger accusing me of being... wait... you guessed it... a liar. Against my better judgment , I responded and there I thought the matter would end, especially as he titled his email: "This is the last email you will ever get from me".

Having spent the night crying into my pillow as I would not hear from my Democrat friend again, and having just finally got over it, I received the next blow. A commenter appeared by the name of “Colt”, again accusing me of being... yes you guessed it... a liar. I still politely responded to him, but upon catching him on the Jesus General site brandishing the story around and calling me a “lying little bitch", I told him that he was no longer welcome. And guess what. It turned out to have been, as clearly shown by the IP address, the very Blogger in person, Bob Geiger, from the ‘Yellow Dog Blog’, and I told him so.

And now for the best part, I get a response and guess what, I am being called a liar again. Why? Because I should have divined that this was a 'relative' of Bob Geiger's, who uses a very complicated technical procedure, and I quote from his email: "I sometimes do an SSH tunnel through Bob's network so that my traffic is encrypted and my employer can't see that I'm wasting time writing to people like you." He further goes on to say, that I "..have now lied about him [meaning Bob]." and that he doesn't "... expect better from a Bush person."

However ludicrous this may sound, it perfectly illustrates how this Democrat will call anyone a Liar whose opinion differs, even if telling what he purports to be the Truth involves the art of divining or telepathy.

The level of hatred and disrespect and blinkered vision to the point of utter unreasonability can only be described as hysterical. But not until we start taking actual serious offence to being called a Liar is it going to take another turn. If the President of the United States, whether he be a Democrat or Republican, can be blatantly called a Liar in blazing headlines, to be seen all over the world, what chance do we stand as a society to become civilized again?

I suggest that politics has taken us too far down the road of utter degradation.

UPDATE: Michelle Malkin has just pointed me to a great quote over at Gates of Vienna:

The American soldier cannot be defeated on the field of battle, only by the failure of the political class to stomach the hardships of combat. 

LATEST UPDATE MONDAY DEC.19TH : More venom from the gracious winner of The Weblog Best New Blog Award (who pignantly waited for the announcement) Bob Geiger aka The Yellow Dog HERE AND HERE. And my response I am Famous In The Liberal Blogosphere

RELATED POSTS:   Blogging The Weblog Awards The Weblog Awards 2005

Comments

[RC]

Chrishna, emotions are very stupid.

[Chrishna]

Bill Frist's video diagnosis of Terri Schiavo (a medical first, surely) was my inspiration for this 'blog diagnosis':

Republicanism-Conservativism:
a disease manifesting itself in the brain's social cortex; also known as 'ideological autism' whereby selfish, anti-social tendencies
prevail despite all external facts or realities. Particularly prone to unrefined individuals of poor or inadequate education or limited 'life experience'.

Common symptoms of Republicanism-Conservativism include an inability
to participate in coherent debate, an inability to evaluate facts without employing narrow ideologically-based social filters, a
fondness for easy or highly generalized answers to complex issues regardless of research or statistical support, and generally talking wildly out your arse.

Bottom line: Conservatives are about as useful as a salt lick on a duck farm. Michael Brown, Jack Abramoff, Duke Cunningham, Tom DeLay, Dr. 'Frankenstein' Frist...just how many more crooked cronies are you going to foist on the American people? Roman Republicans...like Nero, all 'on the fiddle' while the country burns.

[jess1dering]

Hi all, just want to register my complete agreement with Kenny Pierce. I know a woman who is absolutely obsessed with worry that people want to steal from her. She loads her pockets with sugar and creamers at every restaurant and mini-mart she visits. She asks people to pick her up something from the store saying that she'll pay them when they give it to her and then thanks them for the 'gift' when they arrive. She's a piece of work, but I for one believe that this is the dynamic we're observing in politics , on blogs, etc. Alexandra, they are telling you about themselves. Listen carefully and remember.Do not let them hurt you. Deliberate liars are a dangerous group to have ANY association with. They are confounding and contaminating. They operate deliberately and without conscience to achieve the results they desire. I know as sure as I know my own name that this nation and it's leaders and YOU, Alexandra need prayer like never before. I think the only way to shed light on the real truth and banish the lies is through Divine intervention. I'll be praying. I hope others will join me.

[North by Northwest]

I'm fascinated by this thread. This could be a good test; kind of separating the wheat from the chaff junction.

The analogy that springs to mind is that of playing soccer against someone who moves the goalpost and then denies it steadfastly. That reduces all and any subsequent debate to: You did; No, I didn't; Yes you did; No, I didn't; Yes you did;.....

Since you seem to dislike the name calling so much. I challenge you to not link to sites where these types of names are being used, and try to avoid yourself using blanket terms when referring to democrats

You see Jim R, what you are really saying is: "...unless you can do that, you do not have the moral high ground to complain.." And Alexandra is replying to that part of your comment all too clearly. Moving the goalpost in this case would be if your retort were something like this: "...but I didn't attack; I said: "you're not a liar" as well as "...you are the person to start it [take the high road]". Nice, complimentary, but ultimately without diminishing the core of your statement. Alexandra was astute and sensitive enough to pick that up and dealt with it. That ought to be a compliment, no?

but there seems to be little or no discussion about the real debate over definitions of certain 'buzz' words

In this instance, Semanticleo also intuitively or deliberately reduces the issue to 'semantics'. You do that in this context, and it is tantamount to saying, "...tsk tsk tks, now now.." And it is that pattern, that I frequently observe. Belittle where you can't argue in good conscience yet where you detect a score which you will regret if left standing. That's moving the goalpost. But Alexandra takes it head on and deals with it. The result:

I am sorry you often seem so angry you often cannot address my comments directly or correctly.

What a shot below the belt. Now Semanticleo you are being disingenuous. Your whole comment is laced with sarcasm, innuendo and anger. Alexandra's reply was in fact not; just stern and to the point, which is what you should have expected given the nature of your original comment. So, as strike one didn't work, in strike two you are moving the goalpost by questioning her emotional stability and the rest, all the while avoiding the issue at hand. I wish you'd respond in detail to Alexandra's response instead of opting out when it's getting meaningful. I think we have established that we all respect one and another here -- irrespective the political persuasion.

[Darrell]

"Watch what we do, not what we say..."

An intellectually honest person would know that there is an implied "just" before "what we say," and they would know that it's just another version of "actions speak louder than words." As Martha would say, that's a good thing! Seems to me that words were pretty cheap in the previous Administration. And I really do "feel your pain" if you take offense at that comment.

Funny that those military battle defeats all occurred when a Dem was sitting as CinC. You might as well add Mogadishu to that list, and the restrictions in place on those who went on that mission. That's what happens when political types get a say in mission prep---just think of the difference a few AC-130 gunships would have made there. And yes, they were in-theater and available for use. There were annual Tet offensives, so I won't play that game. You can get transcripts of Nightline to see that the military planners were constrained by the politicians there, as well. The politicals demanded that most troops be free to be seen celebrating the Holidays, watching the USO shows. When you execute on the order of 5% of your plans, things happen. And I'll let the past Dems off-the hook now as well. "Things" can happen no matter who's in place.

And I don't think Hollywood and the MSM could pick up the slack in hiring. Do you, Eric? I know from friends that they have to keep their political views well-hidden now.

[antimedia]

Joseph Marshall writes

Any soldier can be defeated in battle. No victory is sure. Anyone who doesn't think this should talk to somebody who was in Italy in World War II, at the Chinese invasion of North Korea, the Tet offensive in 'Nam, or flying F4's against Mig 17's over the Gulf of Tonkin.

Let's see...we kicked ass in Italy in WWII, we held our own against a decisively numerically superior force in Korea, Tet was a stunning military victory (the VC lost almost 40,000 men, we lost slightly more than 1500) and we won most of the air battles in Vietnam as well.

So where's your "defeat"?

There was also a certain Republican back when I was young named John Mitchell. He was the Attorney General of the United States. Once, when asked about the actions of his Administration, he was tremendously, and perhaps foolishly, candid: "Watch what we do, not what we say."

I, at least, have found this rule of thumb to be very valuable in evaluating Republican government all the way up to the present day. And I have listened very carefully to what the current Adminstration has said from January 20, 2001 forward.

Interesting that you don't find it valuable in evaluating Democratic governments.

If you do not use this rule, there is only one other reasonable conclusion you can come to. They are dunces who actually believe what they say.

25 million freed in Afghanistan. 25 million more in Iraq. No attack on American soil since 9/11. Al Qaeda in disarray. Bin Laden nowhere to be found. Zawahiri in hiding somewhere in Pakistan. One major "military" disaster, almost bankrupting the airline industry, three major hurricanes costing billions and billions of dollars and yet a booming economy. The highest tax receipts in our history. Low unemployment. Booming housing market for over five years.

Yep. An administration full of dunces. I wish a lot more people were watching what they do.

[jeff stiles]

Semanticleo,

Not that Alexandra needs me to defend her, but as she already told you, she preemptively answered your request for a definition of a "lie" in her original post on this thread:

"To 'lie' is to know that a claim is false and then to assert it anyway."

By the way, to accuse someone of being "angry" without any evidence of them expressing that emotion causes you to lose a little bit of credibility . . .

[Semanticleo]

Alexandra;

I seem to have hit a wall in my attempt to discuss matters of importance with you. I remember someone saying 'bring it on' as I cautioned there may be divergent and disagreeable impasses in the debate. I am sorry you often seem so angy you often cannot address my comments directly or correctly. You were right about one thing. I have noticed the discussions here are more civilized than at most blogs. Kenny and North by Northwest are always on topic and often enlightening. Somewhere I have angered you, and again, I apologize if I have somehow failed to read you correctly.

[jeff stiles]

Very well put, Kenny. There are a number of homosexual trolls (I'm using that word correctly this time, Alexandra) on the WorldMagBlog who are constantly accusing the evangelicals on those threads of lying about everything.

To reason rationally with these people has proven pointless, because they are one-issue posters who refuse to even allow for any form of compromise -- even when things are said in love. We admit to them often that we too are sinners in need of a Savior, but then they just turn around and accuse us of glossing over our hatred. Then they call us liers.

Sad, sad, sad.

[Kenny Pierce]

Alexandra,

I learned many things from my very wise father. One of the most useful over the years has simply been this:

If you want to know what somebody's worst besetting sins are, just listen to what he accuses other people of.

The fact is, we humans tend to assume in general that other people are like us, and we tend to assume in particular that other people are not morally superior to us. An honest man knows that liars exist but he also knows that honest men exist, and so he is hesitant to accuse people of lying without good evidence; a liar typically believes that everybody else lies as well and so he hurls the liar term around freely. A person who thinks well of others and refuses to gossip about them knows that malicious rumer-mongerers exist, but he also knows that there are such things as civilized people who do not engage in gossip; the confirmed gossip usually assumes that everybody else is just as much of a malicious back-stabbing bastard as he is.

I've seen this very clearly in the undergraduate debate -- very loosely so called -- over homosexuality. Over and over I have heard gay activists say, "It's impossible to hate the sin and yet love the sinner." Now this tells you nothing at all about whether it's actually true that hating sin and loving sinners are mutually exclusive activities. But it does tell you, beyond any possible doubts, that the gay activist uttering that sentence hates every conservative Christian who thinks that homosexuality is a sin -- because it's a stone cold guarantee that the activist thinks that "homophobia" is evil. And you have his solemn word on it that anybody who engages in activity he hates, is somebody whom he hates.

Thus the general principle: most of the time, accusations tossed around are more likely to be true of the accuser than they are of the accused. I have been paying attention to that rule for three decades now and have found it to be quite remarkably reliable.

All of which is just to say, don't let the lyin' bastards get to you.

[Alexandra]

Semanticleo

"Anyone care to define a 'lie'?"

I did in the first paragraph of the article above.

"Until we reach a consensus on how to define our view of what we truly represent, we risk devolving into a minor version of the politico/religious chaos of Iraq"

I don't think anyone has a problem with defining our view, but I suggest that as long as there are people who feel using the word ‘liar’ to describe someone is put down to semantics, the degradation into desensitization of the language we use will more likely be the contribution of the chaos experienced in Iraq.

The written or spoken word is how we, as a civilized race communicate, and communication in turn is how we create or solve problems. It is therefore of the utmost importance.

I was taught very early in life to “Say what you mean and mean what you say”, and I still think it is one of the most valuable lessons we can teach our children. It’s right up there with promises not to be broken......

Whilst you think that Iraq is the most important, I suggest that a few basic foundations need to be established back home, and the first would be that in a civilized society insults are not merely semantics.

[HollywoodNeoCon]

"How long do you think that parents will pay $40k/yr+ for a degree that will only get you in the door in Hollywood and the MSM?"

Hey now! I know I live and work in the land of fruits and nuts, but someone has to keep some semblance of sanity here! :)

Eric in Hollywood

[Screejay]

"Any soldier can be defeated in battle. No victory is sure. Anyone who doesn't think this should talk to somebody who was in Italy in World War II, at the Chinese invasion of North Korea, the Tet offensive in 'Nam, or flying F4's against Mig 17's over the Gulf of Tonkin."

Joseph Marshall

Good points, put what was the political background of these examples and what constraints had the civilian leadership (political class) put on the military?
American soldiers were in Italy to appease Stalin in opening a second front against the Germans, and to attack what Churchill had called "the soft underbelly of Europe". FDR had made his decision based on politically perceived alliances. Of which our troops paid the price trying to dislodge well emplaced German troops in the mountains of northern Italy.
US forces facing a surprise invasion of Chinese in Korea. Political restraint had prevented the use of force against Chinese massing at the border, bombing bridges on the border, or chasing MIG's that crossed into the safety of China. That was a political decision because the president was worried about drawing the Soviet Union into the conflict.
The Tet offensive? Besides Walter Cronkite lamenting on national news that he did "not think the war could be won", directly affecting public opinion and political will, the Tet offensive resulted in an incredible defeat for the North, and the almost complete destruction of the Viet Cong.
Flying F4's against Mig-17's over the Gulf of Tonkin. Due to the Rules of Engagement (ROE), F-4 pilots had to wait until they had visually ID'ed the opposing planes before firing. Because of this, the pilots were unable to use their radar guided missiles first (which the Mig-17's did not have), which could have been shot under Beyond Visual rules (BVR). The result of the required merge of aircraft would be a knife fight in a phone booth, where the gun and maneuverability of the Mig had an advantage.
Yes, you can be defeated in conflict, and yes we have historic examples. To not take into account the political restrictions placed on the troops, the effect of ROE, and the political and moral support at home eliminates one of the possible causes of defeat.
To address the topic of "Liar". If I watch the evening news and the weather man predicts that it will rain the next day, I can reasonably assume it will. I tell my child to take a rain coat to school. When it does not rain, can my child call me a "liar"? I have made my decision based on good faith and the well being of my child, yet I was wrong. Yes, I know I am simplifying a grander argument, and before others start to scream about peoples lives being lost, I want the term Liar to be addressed under the example I have given.
Until it has been proved that President Bush has lied (or misled, or cherry picked etc...), I feel the use of the word by the left and some Democrats has a direct impact on the current conflict and is therefore harmful to the efforts of our troops.

[Semanticleo]

I hear a lot of "Brava!" and "Huzzahs!" to the condemnation of those referring to this administration as a nest of 'liars' but there seems to be little or no discussion about the real debate over definitions of certain 'buzz' words that send alternating rants between left and right.

Anyone care to define a 'lie'? How about 'traitor'? Then there is the ubiquitous "torture"

It ironic that as the Iraqi's struggle to define their concept of nationhood, we continue to argue over my favorite word 'semantics'.

Until we reach a consensus on how to define our view of what we truly represent, we risk devolving into a minor version of the politico/religious chaos of Iraq.

[jeff stiles]

Sure there can be personal defeats, Joseph, but even though we may lose some battles we have confidence that we will win the war.

[Joseph Marshall]

The American soldier cannot be defeated on the field of battle, only by the failure of the political class to stomach the hardships of combat.

Any soldier can be defeated in battle. No victory is sure. Anyone who doesn't think this should talk to somebody who was in Italy in World War II, at the Chinese invasion of North Korea, the Tet offensive in 'Nam, or flying F4's against Mig 17's over the Gulf of Tonkin.

Mr. David Balavia [to give the quote a name] has never personally known defeat, though he has known battle, and so he assumes that it does not exist.

There was also a certain Republican back when I was young named John Mitchell. He was the Attorney General of the United States. Once, when asked about the actions of his Administration, he was tremendously, and perhaps foolishly, candid: "Watch what we do, not what we say."

I, at least, have found this rule of thumb to be very valuable in evaluating Republican government all the way up to the present day. And I have listened very carefully to what the current Adminstration has said from January 20, 2001 forward.

If you do not use this rule, there is only one other reasonable conclusion you can come to. They are dunces who actually believe what they say.

[Alexandra]

Liquid,
Good link I used it in the main text. Thank you.

[Alexandra]

Jim R,

In this particular post I have dealt with one specific accusation which is the one liner blanket favorite of the moment, and one which we seem to have repeatedly named the President of The United States. I have not included many other insults which are brandished around or used regularly, therefore you mentioning other words such as "defeatocrat, treasonous, America hater, etc." is not relevant in this instance simply because I have not added any others to the Democrat's insult 'liar'.
And yes I have singled out the one word and wrote about it, if you would like to deal with all the others on both sides, please do.
"Since you seem to dislike the name calling so much. I challenge you to not link to sites where these types of names are being used, and try to avoid yourself using blanket terms when referring to democrats (defeatocrat, treasonous, America hater, etc.) Someone here in the overall blogosphere needs to take the high road. I think you are the person to start it."

Now let me deal with your sarcastic comment that if "I seem to dislike" (I presume by that, that you like), "you challenge me not to link...and try to avoid myself". Don't bother, because I don't rise to your challenge nor accept is as a path I wish to take.

I stand by every single thing I have said on this blog, and will continue to do so, until I stop blogging. I do not use words which I cannot substantiate, and will normally do it within the article if it is available to link to immediately, but certainly in either my updates, which can go on for days, or another post following shortly thereafter.

I do believe that the democrats are defeatists, and in channeling Chamberlain will find themselves waking up one morning with an AK 47 stuck in their face, by the very people they have been appeasing. If I did not believe it, I would not have said it; I do not believe that Democrats are treasonous or America haters, and have never said it. As to linking to other sites I have no wish to deprive my readers of other opinions, and if someone has a good article I will show it. I do not believe in censorship of any kind, other than leading to a post full of profanities. I have also linked many times to a differing opinion from the left, which no one else does unless it is accompanied by a derogatory comment.

I do however not link to sites like Atrios or Daily Kos, who constantly have titles such as "Wanker of the Day", that is where I draw the line, as this is not an opinion it is a simple vulgar profanity, and both the sites but especially Atrios are full of it. It seems to turn the Democratic readers on, as the profanities escalate in the one liner comments sections. I mention those two as they are the biggest and have the biggest readership, therefore must represent the majority of your fellow Democrat blog readers, in fact in the millions according to their stats.

I must say the 'moonbat' analogy or 'defeatocrats' pale into insignificance when you read some of the profanities there.

My post did not propose to deal with any of those nor does it profess to. Comments section here or your own blog is always a good place to start if you would like to carry it further.

NxN

See above.

[antimedia]

Alexandra, when thinking about the "liar, liar" crowd, I remember something from my youth - A skunk always smells its own smell first.

[Darrell]

"I sometimes do an SSH tunnel through Bob's network so that my traffic is encrypted and my employer can't see that I'm wasting time writing to people like you."

Why are people still hiring Leftists? Why do you want people who don't believe in capitalism working for you? If you don't like the idea of university teaching staffs being 95% Leftist, wouldn't this be a good way to let them know? How long do you think that parents will pay $40k/yr+ for a degree that will only get you in the door in Hollywood and the MSM?

P.S. David, me too!

[David]

"I sometimes do an SSH tunnel through Bob's network so that my traffic is encrypted and my employer can't see that I'm wasting time writing to people like you."

OK, let's parse this lil revelation: he takes special care to decieve his employer (so he can use time his employer is paying him for to use for his own purposes, which is theft) and then calls you a liar because you took his efforts to decieve at face value and reported only what he gave you to see (his lie to his employer).

Hmmm... who's the liar here?

Typical.

BTW, I routinely label folks who are habitual liars as demonic because the word "diabolos" (whence we get our word "devil" in transliteration) literally means 'false witness". When a person _typically_ lies (even when the truth would serve them better, as in the case above), then that behavior _is_ demonic.

Hence my fav term for fake "liberals" in the leftoid party: Demoncrats.

Just a lil etymology/theology blurb for the mix.

[Scribe]

Very nicely put Jim R.

[North by Northwest]

Jim R - "defeatocrat, treasonous, America hater". Touchée!

[sigmund, carl and alfred]

I just read a bit of his blog.

He's liar- and a lightweight, to boot. He doesn't have the stones to ever say, 'I was wrong', or anything of that sort. He runs on the WMD issue as if Clinton era intel didn't exist.

He's a pipsqueak.

[Huan]

once the term liberal meant respect for all freedoms, not just ones in agreement. it is a shame really.

btw, there is a huge difference between being a liar and being a traitor.

[Jim R]

Alexandra,

There are a lot of things I would call you, liar isn't one of them.

It is easy to say someone lied when they were wrong. Bush seems wrong about WMD in Iraq. Lie? Bad intel?

Rumsfeld did seem to not tell the truth when he said "We know Saddam has weapons of mass destruction, and we know where they are." If I had the time to find the reference I would post it. Lie? Bad intel?

Personally, I think most politicos do not tell the truth. Some even do overtly lie. I think it is important to call it out when it happens. I also think it is important to show the evidence that it is the truth when it is.

On another view point, I have to react to. Conservatives seem OK to call people who disagree with them treasonous, America Haters, and cowards. (Rep. John Murtha, case in point) To some this is as bad as calling someone a liar.

Since you seem to dislike the name calling so much. I challenge you to not link to sites where these types of names are being used, and try to avoid yourself using blanket terms when referring to democrats (defeatocrat, treasonous, America hater, etc.) Someone here in the overall blogosphere needs to take the high road. I think you are the person to start it.

[jeff stiles]

The liberals were so angry when Bush won presidential election the first time, saying that he stole the election.

Then, after four years of watching Bush's policies at work, when the American people overwhelmingly reelected him, the liberals became embarrassed and filled with hate.

I have good liberals friends who live near me who don't even talk to me these days because they are so upset about Kerry's defeat last year and that they have to endure Bush in the White House for the next three years.

The only thing left in the liberal toolbox now is to call their opponents liars. It's so childish, really, because it really does shut down debate.

[Liquid]

Alexandra,
Please take the time to read "Bush Lied, Logic Died" by Bob Godwin over at His Blog
You won't regret it!