Who Are the Real Haters?

When Governor Gavin Newsom disappeared for a few weeks after receiving a COVID shot, the public worried: was he alive?  His wife did not like this curiosity.  You might think citizens have a right to know where their leaders are.  Nope.  She viewed the nosy public as haters.

Mrs. Newsom posted: “When someone cancels something, maybe they’re just in the office working; maybe in their free time they’re at home with their family, at their kids’ sports matches, or dining out with their wife. Please stop hating and get a life.”

Hating?  Who was hating?


read more: https://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2022/03/who_are_the_real_haters.html

60 thoughts on “Who Are the Real Haters?

  1. Gavin Newsom – young, handsome, charismatic, successful Governor of our largest agricultural, industrial, and intellectual property state, and someone who has already faced down one billionaire-funded attempt to drag him down.

    Gee, I wonder why “conservative” media is writing hit pieces already. Worried about 2024? And over something his wife tweeted in response to hate messages she got sick of seeing. Is that really the best they can do? Obviously, it is.

    Liked by 1 person

      1. Sure California has problems almost all of which have to do with its success and its attractiveness as a place of opportunity for migrants from inside and outside of the country.

        I will stand by my comment. Gavin Newsom is someone the billionaire class fears so we are going to be treated to more of these kinds of hit pieces of little or no substance.

        Liked by 1 person

  2. Many people do not understand the nature of love and hate. To love is to desire the happiness of another even if by showing it, they hate you. Likewise hatred is to desire the destruction of another, even if they adore you while they are being destroyed.

    It is not the person who feeds an addict’s addiction who loves them, it is the one who cuts them off and endures their anger. That is what the left, and the SPLC, do not understand.

    They bask in the love of those they maintain in dependency and call those who require them to stand on their own two feet haters. But if you go by results, the progressives of the Great Society have harmed to poor far more than the Robber Barons of the 19th century. By result, those captains of industry were the lovers of the poor as they raised them to the middle class. And the progressives, the villains who have mired them in dependency.


    1. Nice words from the people whose only path to power for 40 years has been to exacerbate existing divisions and to fan the fires of hatred. Your opponents are not just wrong, they are “corrupt.”

      As for your take on LBJ vs Robber Barons and the rest of your “analysis, self-serving, insulting and laughable.

      The middle class was not created by Robber Barons. Look it up. It was created by the government through the GI Bill of Rights which made education and home ownership undreamed of realities for huge parts of the WHITE population. And by the union movement which was in its heyday in the 1950s.

      The combination of the Democrats’ Great Society and Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s marked a major turning point in the economic prospects of ordinary people of all races. A turn for the better. The percentage of people living in poverty in 1960 – a time of prosperity – was 22%. By 1973 it had dropped below 12% about the level we are still dealing with today.

      Your talk of “dependency” is insulting bullshit. NOBODY works harder than the working poor who need the economic assistance you call “theft” to stay in their homes and feed their children. And you pontificate about love and hate. Did I mention laughable?

      Liked by 1 person

      1. Results matter.

        The middle class had risen long before the GI bill.

        In those horrible days of 1960, did 25% of young Black men have prison record? Were they killing each other by the hundreds, along with innocent bystanders? Were 70% of births out-of-wedlock?

        The KKK in its wildest fantasy could not have harmed poor Blacks as much as the Great Society, not to mention the harm to the poor of other races.

        American Thinker on Thomas Sowell


        1. In 1960, and earlier, “everyone knew their place”. And heaven help those who breached the “rules”.

          The church was strong in Black communities, just as it was for centuries.

          I think the tipping point was post WW2, when the middle class was rising for everyone but the minorities.

          So I guess we should go back and start over? Maybe accepting the ex-slaves and their descendants for generation after generation as equals might have been much better. Instead we “encouraged” isolation and limited access to justice, wealth, jobs, housing, etc.

          Then when we slipped the chains for real, we expected subservience, just less obvious.

          PS: The incarceration rate in 1960 was 5 time greater the Blacks than Whites. In 2010 it was 6 times. Yes, a small increase, but still way skewed. Why?


          This is not to say we don’t have a problem in the large urban areas, but incarceration rates have always been way higher for Blacks.

          Liked by 2 people

          1. Yes, we know discrimination was harmful.

            But prior to the Great Society Black families were intact and overcoming those challenges, heroically. Marriage was higher among poor Blacks than poor whites. But the Great Society destroyed that. The strong family that sustained Blacks through Jim Crow was wiped put by setting teenage girls free from their parent’s control with an alternative to marriage and home.

            Read Sowell’s statistics.

            Good intentions don’t offset catastrophic results.


          2. So if Jim Crow was so good, why change it?

            The Great Migration was also instrumental in tearing apart the Black community. Families split up to never return.

            How long should we have allowed, and depended upon, a Black subservient class, in order to “keep the peace”? Oh, and while imprisoning the fathers at a rate 5 times the ruling classes.

            Face it, we screwed up. Not by The Great Society as a stand alone issue, but needing it in the first place.

            Once minorities gained a voice without fearing death or beatings, they naturally flexed some political muscle. Just as you would have had the situation been reversed. And yet, the nation’s wealth bypassed minorities for decades, and still does.

            So we have racial problems. What a shock! Never solved them fully…yet. We will, it just takes time and patience along with less hatred.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. No one said Jim Crow was acceptable, much less great. But the right replacement was truly equal opportunity.

            Replacing it with free money with no responsibility attached was worse than Jim Crow in result, if not intent.

            Regarding the 5X incarceration rate, do you happen to have numbers on what part of the total population by race was incarcerated?

            I’m going to guess that prior to the Great Society the overall rate of incarceration for all races was much lower.


          4. “Regarding the 5X incarceration rate, do you happen to have numbers on what part of the total population by race was incarcerated?”

            My link had it by rate. So the math is doable.

            What is the issue with rate versus totals?

            Liked by 2 people

          5. The rates are per 100,000.

            Per my link:

            “In 2010, the incarceration rate for white men under local, state and federal jurisdiction was 678 inmates per 100,000 white U.S. residents; for black men, it was 4,347. According to the Bureau of Justice Statistics, black men were more than six times as likely as white men to be incarcerated in 2010.

            In 1960, the white male incarceration rate was 262 per 100,000 white U.S. residents, and the black male rate was 1,313, meaning that black men were five times as likely as white men to be incarcerated.”

            So it is much more in line with your 1% v 5% scenario.

            Liked by 1 person

        2. “The middle class had risen long before the GI bill.”

          Of course, there has always been a middle class of some sort, but the middle class being a large portion of the population did not occur until after World War 2 and the GI Bill. That is a historical fact. Your assertion is true in only the most trivial of ways.

          Liked by 1 person

        3. I know you have found a black friend who shares your views. You trot him out every time you make this laughable claim.

          We were discussing poverty, not the impact on black families of the “War on Drugs,” the Great Migration, and the egregious inequities in the justice system none of which are part of the Great Society.

          You have no answer for the measurable and significant success of the Great Society in reducing poverty, so you change the subject.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Raising people from technical poverty by giving them someone else’s money does not necessarily improve their lot.

            Providing unwed mothers with apartments and a stipend so their sones can murder each other on the streets is not doing them a favor.


          2. I am not sure what “technical poverty” means, but it is good to have food to eat and a place to live. Clothes are good too.

            So, making an apartment possible for that unwed mother who can’t pay the rent and her children is not doing her or them any favors, so what do you propose?

            Liked by 1 person

          3. Do what the Irish did. Take the child and put him or her in a orphanage/workhouse and send mothers to a nunnery/workhouse.

            Make sure to outlaw birth control and abortion so the supply of workers is steady.

            Liked by 2 people

        1. Hypocrisy?

          Apples and oranges, the two events were in no way similar, and when Sanford was found out, no one alleged that criticism of him was based on hate.

          Newsom’s wife accused those who asked where he was of hatred.


          1. “Newsom’s wife accused those who asked where he was of hatred.”

            That is not what happened. They were not asking about where he was. There was a lot of nonsense from a lot of shitheads to the effect the vaccination he had taken publicly had made him ill or even killed him. And that there was a cover-up going on.

            His wife got exasperated and posted the tweet she did. It was a mistake to get down in the mud with such people, so she deleted it. But too late. Right-wing media had it to blow out of all proportion, so they did. This trivial event happened last year and here we are talking about it today. Absurd.

            Liked by 1 person

      1. “How is that in any way relevant?”

        The link is the unexplained disappearance from public view of a governor. Newsom to spend time with his family, Sanford to sneak off to Brazil to be with his mistress.

        Liked by 1 person

    1. I think there is a lot of muddying the water between resistance and hate. But call it hate if you want. It’s not all the same.

      If I “hate” someone because they are constantly trying to plunder my just earnings, that’s not the same thing as them ‘hating” me because I don’t meekly let them.

      “Hate” is a reasonable response to being robbed, it is not a reasonable response to keeping my car and house locked to make it harder.


      1. The perennial victim. My condolences.

        You are just excusing hate so long as it fits your definition. You did say you “deplored Democrats”, so at least you are consistent.

        Yet, therein lies what passes for modern political thought in America today. Toss in “stand by…”, and you have the “best” of both worlds. Not just hate, but back it up with violence. Gotta use those AR-15’s you know.

        You don’t agree, but I will award the trophy of introducing “enemy” and the concept of political hatred to our current politics to Newt Gingrich.

        Liked by 2 people

          1. So a logical question is this: why do you bother to stay here if our government is stealing from you.

            200 other countries or principalities and you stay in the one that a) steals your money and b) you hate the majority of people.

            I don’t mean this as a “love it or leave it” insult that is a favorite of right wingers. I mean why do you put yourself through the misery, the oppression, the persecution and general malaise? A country where you feel the need to arm yourself to go grocery shopping. Where you feel it necessary to match weaponry with our own military.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. Why should I run away instead of using persuasion to change it?

            This is my country, and it was just fine before Democrats messed it up, and when it becomes clear their promises can’t be kept. it will return to the Constitution.


          3. …”it was just fine before Democrats messed it up, “….

            Was that when they supported slavery back in the 1800’s? How many times is it brought up that Dems supported slavery but now it is the GOP, following Nixon’s Southern Strategy, who are looking to take us back to the pre-Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act days.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. Come on. You specifically wrote that you “deplored” Democrats, and they are the majority party.

            Capitalism’s best friend is a secure, healthy and well educated workforce. Including protections against the investors’ proclivity to drive our economies into the ground on a rotating basis.

            I call it the cost of doing business in a country that is stable, secure, safe, just and follows the Rule of Law. Not hard to understand, just hard to get some folks to realize that not every penny income has no expense side of the ledger not just for vendors and capital goods but for the expenses of a peaceful society.

            Liked by 2 people

          5. “I call it the cost of doing business in a country that is stable, secure, safe, just and follows the Rule of Law. ”

            I call it protection racketeering.


          6. Well educated and healthy workforce is protection racketeering. Sure.

            Goldman Sachs being bailed out 100% is protection racketeering.

            Billionaires threatening to move companies or teams unless they are paid millions is protection racketeering.

            Oil companies refusing to ramp up production when oil is now at $110bbl because they are making huge profits is protection racketeering. They call it pleasing investors. I call it extortion.

            Union busting is protection racketeering.

            How on earth are education, healthcare and decent unemployment benefits extortion by allowing investors to play around without dragging millions of people down when risks go south. Since Reagan, banks have rewritten the rules so much that “extortion” is their middle name. “To big to fail” is exactly that. You may say screw them, let them fail and buyers will sweep in. Meanwhile millions of average workers are shafted into taking low wage work for years. Extortion with a capital “E”.

            Big multinational companies have pitted wage earners here against those in the Third World for decades. Extortion.

            I could go on, but you get the idea. The average American is at the whim of major corporations. Look how your party is excoriating and attacking Big Tech because they control too much. And you say our workers are extorting our nation.

            Liked by 2 people

          7. No, the inherent threat that unless there is redistribution there will be no peace or Rule of Law is racketeering.

            It’s a threat you make here constantly.

            And oil companies are not holding back production.

            A new offshore drilling rig costs between $250miilion and a $Billion depending on the depth it can drill.

            Where are you going to get financing to increase the number of drilling rigs when it is administration policy to bankrupt the industry within his first term?

            Even maintenance of existing rigs is problematic. Would you change the oil in a car you knew was going to be repossessed?

            The inability to ramp up production is the result of Biden policy


          8. I make threats constantly?

            You are full of sh*t, and I mean that in the nicest way. (And I don’t say that often or lightly, but sometime you have to call it as it is.)

            Where do get you the idea that I threaten anyone?

            I would ask for a retraction, but it would be wasted effort.

            Look, the oil companies are not reopening existing wells that they shut down when below $70bbl or thereabouts. We are not even talking about new off shore rigs.

            A sizable number of oil executives said so, but what do they know.

            You really need to get out of your silo once in a while. Nobody I know or even read about is proposing violence unless we have decent healthcare, education and safety nets. We haven’t attacked the Capitol or run into the woods playing war games. We didn’t threaten to kidnap governors. Or the lives of election officials. We don’t show up at a state capital armed to the teeth as “support for gun rights”. Uh,huh. Talk about real and implied threats.

            Liked by 2 people

          9. As I said it is always the implied threat, that if people don’t get their plunder there will be violence, that peace is contingent on redistribution.

            Go back and look at what you wrote, and you have written the same thing scores of times.

            Redistribution by charity, BTW, I have no problem with.


          10. You have to give me links to my support for violence if we don’t get affordable healthcare.

            I am sure you can find them since you are so sure.

            Liked by 2 people

          11. “The inability to ramp up production is the result of Biden policy”

            The inability to ramp up production is the results of oil companies refusing to increase output or to survey the leases they already have. Gotta protect those billion dollar quarterly profits.

            Liked by 1 person

          12. They damn sure do have to protect profits, If they didn’t their shareholders would have then jailed.

            But Biden doesn’t get off that easy. He had no duty to tell the industry he would bankrupt them and cut off their capital.

            He had no duty to delay pipeline approvals for an average of 40 weeks. You can drill the hell out of a formation, but if you can’t get the pipeline to get it to the refinery, there’s no point in drilling

            The list of policy and regulatory barriers Biden has put up is long, and he did it for the purpose of creating a shortage of petroleum and natural gas. Now its costing him in the polls and he wants to pretend this shortage was not his plan all along.


          13. “They damn sure do have to protect profits, If they didn’t their shareholders would have then jailed.”

            No, they would understand that it is the risk of doing business. With the subsidies and tax breaks these companies receive, there is the theft you often claim taxes to be. They are stealing from us.

            So the fact that he approved more leases in his first 6 months that Trump did in 4 years means nothing.

            “You can drill the hell out of a formation, but if you can’t get the pipeline to get it to the refinery, there’s no point in drilling”

            But I thought they couldn’t drill because of Biden? They are not drilling because they LOVE the profits they are making off of our need for their product, economy be damned.

            You lie about Biden regularly and try to blame him for things that he has nothing to do with. NO president is responsible for what your blessed free market does wrt oil. Yet here you are throwing blame at him. And you won’t give him the credit when the prices come down.

            Keystone pipeline was to move shale gas and oil from Canada to Louisiana. Environment be damned.

            As far as anything else goes, based on the fact you claim not to hate many people, except for the 80 million or so voters who voted for Biden, I question a lot more of what you have to say these days.

            Liked by 1 person

          14. I didn’t mention Keystone.

            The average wait for all pipeline permits is 40 weeks, and you don’t drill until you have the permits. Opening a well when you don’t know when or if you will be able to move the product is wasteful and dangerous. Remember that the BP spill was an exploratory well with no pipeline to connect to.


          15. …,”I really don’t hate that many people.”

            If you think 80 million plus people is not “that many”, I am concerned about any rational use of statistics by you. 😇

            Liked by 1 person

  3. I am so tired of of the phony liberal use of “hater” to demean those they disagree with. It’s typically childish liberal schoolyard behavior that has become one of their go to words when confronted with facts they don’t want to admit to or uncomfortable situations. It fits neatly with their phony bigot, racist, etc name calling they think is making them look like a steward of the high ground while in reality it exposes their weaknesses for being lowlifes. Stumped? Just call em a hater, works every time….not.


    1. “Just call em a hater, works every time….not.”

      Your blind-as-a-bat comment shows how you miss it when it is done by the Right. At least when the left does it, I cringe (if it is cringe worthy), admit it was stupid (in in fact it was), and move on.

      And there is NOTHING phony about your hatred for others. You display it on a regular basis.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. “Enemies of the people”, aside from historic origins among dictators like Stalin, Mao, etc., is a favorite tag by Republicans as applied the liberals, Democrats and media not conservative enough.

      Perhaps a more bipartisan approach to politics would be better, but hard to work with the “enemy”.

      So I suppose some are also tired of the word “enemy”.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. Since I rarely if ever hear “enemy” being used except to describe Russia, throwing around “hater” like Adam does every day is a far worse problem. It’s beyond stupid really but you have to consider the source.


        1. You spew hate for the “other” on a regular basis. If they don’t live, love, pray or look the way YOU expect them to, you spew your hate filled vitriol and offer nothing meaningful to any conversation.

          Yes. You are a bigoted hater, and I stand by that assertion based on your own words posted here so many times.

          Liked by 1 person

  4. The pull quote from this article is the one by Orwell. Simply by watching Communist organizations 75 years ago he deduced that hate could be used for “social engineering.” Seems to me that most of the comments here are intended to distract.


    1. Threads wander a bit, no doubt.

      Your assertion that hate is the exclusive modus operandi of the left is disingenuous. Your man spread “enemy” pixie dust on just about anyone not screaming his name in adulation. Just getting his rally folks to tacitly threaten the press pools behind a corral as “enemies” is hate as a campaign tool. Substitute immigrants, minorities, Muslims, and even arch conservatives who don’t peddle the Big Lie and you get the idea.

      Actually, you probably don’t get the idea. IMO

      Liked by 2 people

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s