Personal attacks

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Sept. 23, 2013 12:58 p.m.

    Tulip, seriously you don't think someone can read through sarcasm to your point that despite all the facts you still think Obama is the problem and Benghazi is a shinning example. Dislike the President if you will but you would serve yourself well to do so for legitimate reasons. Benghazi isn't one of them. Nor is the IRS, episode, or the untruths about the ACA, or an ever increasing fiscal debt, or any other of a litany, of claims of socialism.

  • RFLASH Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 23, 2013 11:25 a.m.

    To me, it seems like hate coming from many people. You want your conversation to get heated up really fast, just announce that you are a democrat. My uncle was in a priesthood meeting when a man mentioned that he was a democrat. That was a big mistake. They should have kept politics for some other time, but they didn't. They ended up running the man out of the building, it got so heated up!
    I think people are fanatic and very self righteous. They have it in their head that the President shouldn't be there and they will bash him until everyone agrees with them! It wouldn't matter what the President does, it would be wrong! There is still an erroneous idea that to be a good Mormon or christian, you have to be a republican! You know what that means to those of us who don't agree. We are on the devils side! Give me a break.

  • Tulip West Jordan, UT
    Sept. 23, 2013 8:08 a.m.

    Pragmatist, you're right again. My "hypocrisy" is the problem.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Sept. 23, 2013 7:39 a.m.

    Tulip, "This isn't intended to say it's Bush's fault, it simply is a fact. Embassies, and consulates are dangerous places and come under attack frequently.". It's not Bush I'm criticizing it's your hypocrisy.

  • Ranch Here, UT
    Sept. 23, 2013 7:13 a.m.


    You seem to be missing the point.

    Why did conservatives have absolutely nothing to say about the embassy attacks during the Bush administration? Because there's a black man in the White House?

  • Tulip West Jordan, UT
    Sept. 22, 2013 8:59 p.m.

    Pragmatist, you're right. Let's just excoriate Bush.

  • 1aggie SALT LAKE CITY, UT
    Sept. 22, 2013 5:10 p.m.

    One thing I've never heard discussed about Benghazi is why Ambassador Stevens chose to travel there at the time he did--anniversary of 9/11, major protests/attacks against other embassies--if the security in Benghazi was poor?

    I remember well conservatives calling liberals "unpatriotic/un-American because they dared criticize the Iraq War.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Sept. 22, 2013 5:01 p.m.

    Tulip, what the heck do you mean should be held accountable for it. He didn't attack the embassy. Reinforcements were sent in 6 in all. They arrived in time to help lock down the retreat. Seriously who cares what he called it while it was happening or a day later. What he called it had no material effect on the happenings or the outcome. Help was sent arrived, and assisted in the securing of the remaining personnel.

    "Bush should be accountable for what happened on his watch". That's kind of the point. He wasn't excoriated for one much less any of the twelve. My word twelve compared to one. 52 dead compared to 4. I would think you would have been screaming for his impeachment. But alas only Obama can commit that kind of crime.

  • Tulip West Jordan, UT
    Sept. 22, 2013 3:10 p.m.


    It is simply a fact (your words not mine)...Benghazi has been lied about since the beginning...not something I (and many others) care to "get over". Bush should be accountable for what happened on his watch and O'Bama should be accountable for what happens on his. I was commenting on a post alluding to Benghazi...whether it's a "minor misstep" compared to others or not...O'Bama should answer for it...truthfully.

  • LDS Liberal Farmington, UT
    Sept. 22, 2013 11:32 a.m.

    @2 bits
    Cottonwood Heights, UT

    The people trashing Bush were not religious posters.
    5:47 p.m. Sept. 21, 2013


    1. True, I was not trashing Bush per se, but I was trashing his trampling of the Constitution.
    2. I a VERY religious [LDS] person.
    3. This "only Republicans can be good Latter-Day Saints" garbage has got to stop!

  • UtahBlueDevil Durham, NC
    Sept. 22, 2013 9:17 a.m.

    @mike richars.... you said

    "Isn't it just like Obama's supporters to vilify religion instead of holding Obama accountable for what he has done as President?

    Does any religion tell us to covet the possessions of some "rich guy"?"

    I find these comments most pious and arrogant. What make Mr. Richards think those who support Obama are welfare recipients? What makes him think I covet anything he has.... or that he has something I don't. What makes him think he is more spiritual, or a better member of the church than I am?

    This idea of moral a spiritual superiority is the mantra of a large group of these like minded people. They portray an image that somehow we all lust after the riches that people like Mike Richards has. I find this level of arrogance blindly aimed at this nameless crowd most frustrating. It is attitudes like this that kept a otherwise good many like Mitt Romney from becoming president. It is arrogance, and disdain for neighbor, that has shut down lines of communication, the ability to reason out problems, the capacity to move this country forward. It is a stain on our nation.

  • pragmatistferlife salt lake city, utah
    Sept. 22, 2013 7:57 a.m.

    Tulip, Benghazi isn't even a misstep, it's simply one of 13 attacks since 2000, and the four killed are four of 52. The ambassador killed the second. The first killed under Bush, the first twelve attacks all under Bush. This isn't intended to say it's Bush's fault, it simply is a fact. Embassies, and consulates are dangerous places and come under attack frequently. So Benghazi isn't that unusual. What is unusual is that it's the first for Obama.

  • Tulip West Jordan, UT
    Sept. 21, 2013 11:09 p.m.

    Get over Benghazii? A minor misstep...? Wow!

  • one vote Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 21, 2013 10:23 p.m.

    Haters hate.

  • 2 bits Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Sept. 21, 2013 5:47 p.m.

    You must be a recent comer to these pages, or are intentionally blind to the past. The gang of liberal posters on here were WAY more disrespectful of President Bush his whole two terms than anything I've seen written about President Obama.

    So I think there's a little pay-back in it for some today.

    I agree it's not cool... but it happens. What goes around eventually comes around. And it's not just a religious thing. The people trashing Bush were not religious posters.

  • Nonconlib Happy Valley, UT
    Sept. 21, 2013 5:20 p.m.


    I am an Obama supporter, but I don't vilify religion. I support it.

    I don't covet the possessions of "rich guys." But I do question how many of them acquired their riches and are suppressing the wages of those who actually create their profit.

    Actually, the LDS Church, in its past, has given lip-service to the Constitution but has refused to uphold it (setting up a theocracy, practicing polygamy, etc.)

    Get over Benghazi. It was a minor misstep compared to the whoppers we've seen in the not-too-distant past (Iraq, for instance).

    If I'm not mistaken, the Patriot Act came during a Republican administration.

    Religions don't tell the IRS to harass conservatives. But neither did Obama.

    I haven't really noticed that Obama is blaming religions for all our problems. Does Rush say so?

    Finally, just wondering if you really believe all the stuff you write in these comments. It's one thing to disagree with someone, but to spew this kind of vitriol repeatedly, every day? You must be the most unhappy person on earth.

  • dave Park City, UT
    Sept. 21, 2013 4:58 p.m.

    Mike, That was one of the most off-topic, red herring posts I have ever seen.

  • Cincinnatus Kearns, UT
    Sept. 21, 2013 1:20 p.m.

    The letter writer has a good point. The problem has become that it's easier to make personal attacks on the President (and his family), racist or not (the same goes for Congress, governors, legislatures, bureaucrats, or your fellow man, etc.), and call that an argument.

    The fact that some of the responses to THIS letter include, "He did it first!," name calling, and lists of reasons to justify themselves for making personal attacks, is a great example of the problem.

    I think one of the biggest problems in this country is that we've forgotten how to have an argument. Too many people have forgotten how to use logic, reason, and facts and resort to attacking the person and name calling. I'll readily admit, I've occasionally done the same.

    The problems in this country aren't going to be solved if all we do is criticize the person, yell across the aisle, calling names, and making snide comments about the person.

    We all need to relearn how to argue "the point" using intelligence and reason rather than ad hominem attacks. If we all tried to rise above this a little more, maybe things would actually get done.

  • Mike Richards South Jordan, Utah
    Sept. 21, 2013 10:53 a.m.

    Isn't it just like Obama's supporters to vilify religion instead of holding Obama accountable for what he has done as President?

    Does any religion tell us to covet the possessions of some "rich guy"?

    Does any religion tell us to provide guns to Mexican gangs?

    Does any religion tell us to make an oath to uphold the Constitution and then to refuse to uphold the Constitution?

    Does any religion tell us to wear the hat of Commander In Chief and then blame the destruction of four Americans and a Consulate on a film?

    Does any religion tell us to reject the 4th Amendment and evesdrop on private conversations without a warrant?

    Does any religion tell us to use the IRS to harass conservatives?

    How long a list do you need to see that Obama has brought his own problems upon himself and that blaming religion for his self-imposed problems is as wrong as his other actions?

  • Nonconlib Happy Valley, UT
    Sept. 21, 2013 10:31 a.m.

    Excellent letter. Very nicely written too.

    And Truthseeker, I too have noticed that the DN comment moderators are very inconsistent in how they apply their rules. I've had comments censored for reasons I can't quite figure out, while seeing comments posted online that are in blatant violation of one or more of the rules. Name calling, abusive language, personal attacks, all caps. You name it. It appears. But mostly when the comment is in line with the DN's conservative preferences.

    For sheer entertainment value, though, I prefer the comments at the Trib's website. Yes, it's a free-for-all, but some of the comments are truly hilarious. Not much humor at the DN. It must be against the rules.

  • KJB1 Eugene, OR
    Sept. 21, 2013 10:05 a.m.

    Really, KDave? I don't recall anybody insisting Bush wasn't born in America or demanding to see his birth certificate. I don't remember anybody screaming "YOU LIE!!!" at him during a State of the Union Address. Were there armed protesters standing around outside his speeches? Trust me, I was around for them both and my memory's just fine...

  • Gof kaysville,, UT
    Sept. 21, 2013 10:04 a.m.

    What is called extreme by the far left socialists trolls is what most of this country has believed for most of this countries existence. Now that the far left has taken over the media, they are attempting to rewrite history as usually just like they brothers did in the old USSR and call us extremists. The simple fact is this administration are attempting to destroy everything that makes America exceptional and twist the country into a socialist dictatorship. So excuse us if we don't want to give up the flag for the new hammer and sickle emblem just yet.

  • Truthseeker SLO, CA
    Sept. 21, 2013 9:54 a.m.

    DN guidelines for why comments may be rejected:

    "Most comments that are on-topic and not abusive will be posted. We hold those who submit comments to the similar standards you've come to expect from a news organization - where we accept a wide variety of points of view that add value to a reader's experience. Comments allowed in mature, civil discussion may not include personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including symbol-replaced words), commercial promotion, incoherence, name-calling, epithets or racial slurs,.."

    I often see name-calling comments posted by DN moderators. A few times I have been the target. Yesterday somebody referred to Obama as Obummer.

    Grow up people.

  • Iron Rod Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 21, 2013 9:53 a.m.

    I believe that the Deseret News should be a little more even handed with their editorial comments and especially their choice of letters to the editor to be printed.

    Many people look to the Deseret News for enlightment but what is given I believe is right wing idiology.

    To me the constant negative slant for anything to do with President Obama is tireing.

    Not all active mormons are right wing conservatives.

    It is doubtful that this will make it past the censors but now you know my feelings

  • george of the jungle goshen, UT
    Sept. 21, 2013 8:38 a.m.

    Truth is relativity, only what I can relate it to. I can't relate to B.O.

  • SEY Sandy, UT
    Sept. 21, 2013 8:31 a.m.

    I have a vague memory of some particularly vicious things being said on these comment boards about the previous president by the very people who appear bewildered at Obama criticism. I, on the other hand, have been an equal opportunity critic: I think both presidents have been unmitigated disasters.

  • Happy Valley Heretic Orem, UT
    Sept. 21, 2013 8:09 a.m.

    Completely agree with the letter writer.

    The latent racism is disturbing also, I've been shunned by a few rabid conservative friends for correcting their racist joke as not political, not about policy, just ignorant racist jokes. It's sad how you think you know some people, only to learn that this latent racism is just below the surface fueling their hate. Theirs even the occasional "the church was wrong back in 78." Evolve people, we are a society, try and act like one.

  • KDave Moab, UT
    Sept. 21, 2013 7:38 a.m.

    Evidently you were AWOL during the Bush regime. Pres. Obama has it pretty easy.

  • Midvaliean MIDVALE, UT
    Sept. 21, 2013 7:10 a.m.

    The letter writer is correct. Unfortunate that the trait she described is really difficult to see in yourself.

  • Hutterite American Fork, UT
    Sept. 21, 2013 1:05 a.m.

    By virtue of being correct, you will be ridiculed.

  • anti-liar Salt Lake City, UT
    Sept. 21, 2013 12:49 a.m.

    The fanaticism, inauthenticity, irrationality, disrespect, extremism, and lack of proper foundation for thoughts, words, and actions, actually lay with those who set aside the principle of right and wrong (even when their religion teaches it) in their determination to deny a lack of regard for such on the part of oneself or others, Barrack Hussein Obama arguably being a notable example.

    In other words, to those who actually care about right and wrong, there is nothing really "unfamiliar" about that which is wrong, when revealed or discovered.

    Neither do they misidentify the enemy.

  • Owen Heber City, UT
    Sept. 21, 2013 12:47 a.m.

    Amen. Related to this phenomenon is revering the Constitution as divinely inspired, and believing in honoring and obeying the law of the land, but working outside the legislative process to overturn the will of the people expressed as law.

  • Mark B Eureka, CA
    Sept. 21, 2013 12:32 a.m.

    Andrew has a point. How can we take the religious convictions of a person seriously when the same people have no problem saying vicious things about our own president? Sure, it's "free speech", but just because we CAN say something doesn't mean we SHOULD.