GOP: The Party of Hate - The Harvey Global Post

GOP: The Party of Hate




10 thoughts on “GOP: The Party of Hate

  1. Josh

    My parents are Christians and Republicans.

    Whoever created this and whoever agrees with this seems to have as much hatred for Christian Republicans as they claim Christian Republicans have for that list.

    Shit would give me an ulcer.

    Reply
  2. harvejbn Post author

    The post is certainly not directed to each and every Christian GOP, the post is directed to the Christian GOP movement. The Christian conservative movement (currently GOP, yesterday Democratic southern Dixiecrats) has a history of being on the wrong sides of the following:

    "They got/get it wrong on slavery, Civil War, anti-lynching legislation, women's rights, Native American genocide, labor union rights, children labor laws, Social Security, Jim Crow segregation, Universal Health Care, Voters Right Act, Stand your ground laws, common sense gun control, Job Act legislation, Immigration and the list goes on and on."

    Just last week, while I was enjoying the World Cup soccer competition, I came across another hateful diatribe by a self-proclaimed spokeswoman (bestselling author) for the Christian GOP movement, Ann Coulter:

    "But enough is enough. Any growing interest in soccer can only be a sign of the nation's moral decay.

    Liberal moms like soccer because it's a sport in which athletic talent finds so little expression that girls can play with boys. No serious sport is co-ed, even at the kindergarten level.

    If more "Americans" are watching soccer today, it's only because of the demographic switch effected by Teddy Kennedy's 1965 immigration law.

    I promise you: No American whose great-grandfather was born here is watching soccer. One can only hope that, in addition to learning English, these new Americans will drop their soccer fetish with time."

    Her book titles:

    Never trust a liberal; Liberals or demonic; Liberals are godless etc.

    Ann Coulter is not outside of the norm: read conservative books by Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Rush Limbaugh, Rick Santorum, Bill O'Reilly etc.

    And not to mention all the hateful diatribes we have heard from the likes of Donald Trump, Birthers, Tea Baggers, Ted Nugent, Clive Bundy, Tea Party house members etc for the last six years.

    My god, enough to give anyone ulcers — I agree.

    Reply
  3. greg gee

    @Josh…I read an article in which the author stated his take on a popular GOP mantra. "Liberals are intolerant of my right to be intolerant" If you can understand the twisted irony of this statement you can understand who the true hater is.

    A few more Republicans on record.

    MY DOG
    I went down this morning to sign up my Dog for welfare.

    At first the lady said, "Dogs are not eligible to draw welfare".

    So I explained to her that my Dog is black, unemployed, lazy, can't speak
    English and has no frigging clue who his Daddy is.

    So she looked in her policy book to see what it takes to qualify…

    My Dog gets his first check Friday.

    Is this is a great country or what?

    — Virginia Beach (Va.) Republican
    Committee Chairman
    David Bartholomew

    "[T]here is no equality. You cannot guarantee that any two people will end up the same. And you can't legislate it, and you can't make it happen. You can try, under the guise of fairness and so forth, but some people are self-starters, and some people are born lazy. Some people are born victims. Some people are just born to be slaves."
    — Rush Limbaugh

    "[Barack Obama] has no place in any station of government, and we need to realize that he's an enemy of humanity."
    — Arizona Republican Rep.
    Trent Franks

    Reply
  4. harvejbn Post author

    @Gee Great comment: "Liberals are intolerant of my right to be intolerant" Very dead on point.

    I have another Republican Party darling Joe the Plumber who stated to a grieving father after his son was killed by a deranged young man with WMD (weapons of mass destruction).

    To paraphrase Joe: My gun (right) is more important than your son's life.

    @Josh To reiterate my first comment: The accusation of using hate speech is not directed to the rank-in-file individual Christian Republican. It is directed to many of the leadership of the Christian Conservative movement.

    There is no denying that by using The Southern Strategy (ding ding former GOP chairman admitted and apologize for using this hateful strategy) the leadership plays to many of the fears, prejudices and latent anger of the rank-in-file.

    And not to mention how Newt Gingrich taught other GOP members to purposely use hate speech to their advantage:

    And, Gingrich’s use of such language is not just a slip of the tongue by an over-eager candidate. It is a calculated strategy, honed over decades, to attach grotesque language to an opponent, marking the person as someone unworthy of living or at least living inside “normal” society. Gingrich talk also has become the common language of right-wing talk radio and Fox News.

    But it’s entirely okay for Gingrich and his allies to say whatever ugly thing comes into their minds about their opponents. Indeed, ugly words are part of the strategy, as was explained in a pamphlet entitled “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control,” produced by GOPAC, Gingrich’s political action arm.

    In 1990, GOPAC was teaching Republicans to “speak like Newt” by describing Democrats with words like sick, pathetic, lie, destructive, self-serving, welfare, bizarre, decay, traitors, radical, destroy, pathetic, corrupt, steal and shame. Demonizing Democrats was a key factor in Gingrich’s political rise.

    Don't hate the messenger!!!

    Reply
  5. harvejbn Post author

    I reread my post and want to properly give credit for the following quotes to http://consortiumnews.com/2012/01/30/the-ugly-words-of-newt-gingrich/

    "And, Gingrich’s use of such language is not just a slip of the tongue by an over-eager candidate. It is a calculated strategy, honed over decades, to attach grotesque language to an opponent, marking the person as someone unworthy of living or at least living inside “normal” society. Gingrich talk also has become the common language of right-wing talk radio and Fox News.

    But it’s entirely okay for Gingrich and his allies to say whatever ugly thing comes into their minds about their opponents. Indeed, ugly words are part of the strategy, as was explained in a pamphlet entitled “Language: A Key Mechanism of Control,” produced by GOPAC, Gingrich’s political action arm.

    In 1990, GOPAC was teaching Republicans to “speak like Newt” by describing Democrats with words like sick, pathetic, lie, destructive, self-serving, welfare, bizarre, decay, traitors, radical, destroy, pathetic, corrupt, steal and shame. Demonizing Democrats was a key factor in Gingrich’s political rise."

    Reply
  6. Josh

    @ greg gee

    I suppose that Limbaugh quote made it there due to the word "slaves," making it read as racist, since Americans have this habit of viewing slavery as only an American phenomenon and not a worldwide travesty that has been going on, at the least, since the beginning of recorded history, and most likely long before then.

    Though taking just that comment in its context, unavoidable inequality in life is a belief shared by many in this world, not just right-wing Christians (if there's a greater context that you feel aims it at a specific race, or makes it seem like typical right-wing hate, then you can list it to clarify).

    The idea that equal outcomes can be manufactured or should be manufactured or given is a narrative that, throughout history, is used by centralizing forces to seize power, and espoused by academics who manufacture their versions of utopia across the board before inserting an unrealistic principle in a make-believe background. Nowhere but in storybooks does "equality" actually work like that.

    I went and found the full context of Rush's quote, and I disagree with Rush in the sense that he's linking it to his deity's supposed design. So I don't buy the destiny angle. I'm fully aware of what people do when they view things as their destiny given to them by their god.

    Practically speaking, however, taking world history into account, taking 7 billion people into account, 200 countries, etc — some people are going to be unequal. Some people are not as physically strong as others. Some people are not as smart as others. Some people are not as driven as others. Some people are always going to be born into better or worse situations than others. And there's not a thing that we'll ever be able to do about it as it pertains to society.

    Equal opportunity is the only worthwhile thing to strive for. Equal outcomes are illogical. And in the strive for equal opportunity, every able individual has to pull his or her own weight.

    Sounds like a dastardly right-wing plot against the poor, no doubt.

    Reply
  7. harvejbn Post author

    @josh…You can take or leave the Rush comment…the fact still remains, there was a mountain of supporting evidence presented that justified the original statement: GOP: The Party of Hate

    Additionally, after the 2012 election, there were calls from the RNC and GOP governors imploring fellow Republicans to stop being the party of stupid; to stop being the party against all things instead be a party of ideas…unfortunately this did not take root.

    Reply
  8. Josh

    And I see that "evidence," and couldn't really care less, if I'm honest. I mean, it's not as if I can't go around and find liberals and Democrats who say whacky stuff about their opponents. I can remember a ton, such as calling them terrorists; the left's Rush Limbaugh, Mr. Ed Schultz and his repeat offender status; Democratic Congresspeople likening their colleagues to the KKK and suggesting they want to see them hanging from trees; Hoffa telling his members to take the SOBS out; a Dem Representative saying they ought to line a Republican up against the wall and shoot him; and on and on. These are all off the top. This is without even having to hit Google up.

    Even people bawling about how poorly Obama's treated, and people protesting and in the Tea Party supposedly only being so tough on him because he's black — it just all stands as political nonsense in my eyes. Bush was maligned at every turn and his life was repeatedly threatened in friggin' public. John Kerry even "joked" about killing him on live cable television.

    Even taking literally about 5 seconds to type into Google, the first YouTube video I pull up on the subject is absolutely rife with hateful people degrading Bush, and even threatening his life. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LKdS0bF5Rqo

    But, I mean, come on. We all know how it is. Don't we? Republicans are somehow worse than Democrats at being vile and hateful and one-sided and illogical in their attacks?

    I picked out the Rush comment because I wasn't sure what greg gee saw in that to make it stand out. For the rest….hell, it's a game I'll come back and play when I get a day off if you want. We can spam the place up on who said what, whose speech is worse, etc.

    Reply
  9. harvejbn Post author

    The toxic and widespread hatred is very real — we do have a very hard working secret service — and it is poisoning the politics of our country as well as the world.

    People in politics can not have vigorous political discussions without demonizing their opponents. The party outside of the executive power yells the loudest. And their is no doubt, the Tea Party has ramped up the volume in a scorched the earth group think and mob fever pitch.

    The far right has become so radicalized that Eric Cantor — a card carrying member of the I hate Obama club — was fired by his voters because, he did hate Obama enough.

    Furthermore, I thought I would never see the day in which, Fox News, the GOP propaganda machine, would be attacked by Tea Party folks as being not conservative enough.

    Are you kidding me? Fox being soft on liberalism?

    And just this past week, former VP Dick Cheney aka Darth Vader (by the way he loves that nickname) stated not only would he start the Iraq war all over again, he regrets not attacking Iran.

    And when listening to the noise from the right, their wish list for foreign invasions and attacks over the last 4 years include: Syria, North Korea, Ukraine, Egypt, Libya, Iran and the list grows.

    To keep us safe?

    Domestically speaking, and without consulting Google, I can absolutely state, the venom from the right is not from fringe or irrelevant voices. This hate is very much spewed by mainstream figures.

    I don't do the boo hoo woe is us — not quite the contrary — I take the pen to paper and call them like I see it….

    Reply
  10. Josh

    It's not that I'm disagreeing with what you're saying about the right (except that you're trying to say they're worse); it's just that I don't really see a difference from how the left acted when Bush was in office.

    I'm in a different position. In my early years, I wasn't really into politics whatsoever. I started paying more attention after 911, but I still wasn't on a side per se. When I did get into politics, around Bush's second term, it was more of a spiteful way to disassociate myself from all the other people in my age group who I thought were just out-of-their-mind whack-jobs. (And they are, IMO, even minus their politics, with their Feng Shui and healing crystals and organic myths, etc, pretending their Voodoo is better than other people's, but that's another topic entirely.)

    I gravitated more toward people who spoke against government, not for MORE government to do something about the current government. Holy crap, that scares me so much! But then I realized just how similar they were, and that Republicans/conservatives, by and large, wanted their own version of big, controlling government.

    Now, for the last, oh, six years or so, I've been gravitating more toward the skeptic community and out of a political leaning one way or the other. Being skeptical and attempting to look at reason and logic propels me more toward a libertarian viewpoint. But my memory isn't shot.

    I remember all those different groups that arose claiming to be anti-war. And I remember how many were unabashed socialist groups just using anti-war to get through their message of total government control. (Groups like ANSWER.) I vividly remember a new "Kill Bush" sign or slogan or song popping off regularly. I remember the effigy hangings, the claims of terrorist, the election-thief stuff, the pure disrespect for the office, and even movies made about assassinating Bush. I remember how polarizing everything was and how supposed rallies for peace would turn into rallies calling for people to die or to be overthrown.

    So I don't see things as more ramped up now at all. I just see them as reversed. And mainstream figures on the left were every bit as rowdy as figures on the right.

    For the life of me, I can't see how one's supposed to be worse than the other. The only thing I consistently see is Republicans downplaying Republicans and Democrats downplaying Democrats. Each claim the other is worse. And of course they do. I imagine a bizarro world with only two NFL teams, and a world where we have 32 legitimate, contending political parties. As is stands, there are only two mainstream options if someone wants to align their views with a letter. Just from a logical perspective, how different could one truly be from the other when a "party" is a liquid concept shaped by its members? People aren't different enough to create that much separation with two options. Just look at the big religions. But we are narcissistic and shallow enough to pretend we're that different–that much better–than an opponent. Just look at the big religions.

    Some people want a better country for their children that offers more equality in terms of final outcome. Some want less debt for the future of their children. Some want better schools, better laws, better morals, and a thousand other things. To be honest, all I really want for future generations at this point in my life (subject to change) is more options politically. Neither major party is worried about anything other than the expansion of its power and reach. 99% of the time, you have to be an R or a D to get elected, and that R or D is beholden to a base, lobbyists, donors, and everybody but the average people.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *