What has happened to the concept of appropriate discourse in this country? After 8 years of Bush Derangement Syndrome, we were promised that once Barack Hussein Obama was elected President, the country would begin the process of "healing." No more were we to have to endure such a vulgar level of partisan bickering coming mainly from the liberal side of the aisle. Oh sure, there are conservatives who had engaged in hateful, hurtful speech, but it was the liberals who took it to a new level of distortion, demonization and pure outright hatred. The election of Obama was supposed to change that - once their anointed prince was in power, the nation could come together and put and end to the gutter speech that was so prevalent.

But it seems not to be so. The derogatory diatribes do not come so much from conservatives, who are now in the position of coveting a candidate that can hold the highest office in the land, but remains the province of the liberals, as it has been during the Bush years. When liberals were the underdogs, they viciously attacked, smeared and tried to destroy the reputation of any who did not drink the liberal kool-aid and agree with their talking points. Now that the shoe is on the other foot and it is the conservatives who are the underdogs, one might be tempted to presume the conservatives to be the vile attack dogs, spewing hate against those with whom they disagree. But it is not so.

Take for example the hate speech of Wanda Sykes at the White House Correspondent's Association Dinner:

"(Rush Limbaugh) hopes our country fails... I hope his kidneys fail..."

Oh sure, she's a comedian, but what a hateful thing to say. And how tawdry and inappropriate that the current President of the United States actually had the audacity to laugh at such a statement. Of course, she totally mis-characterized Limbaugh's statement, where he actually said that he hopes Obama's socialist agenda fails, not that he hopes our country fails. But that's what some liberals do. As Frank Zappa once said "You can't even speak your own (expletive deleted) language." Here's a note to Wanda Sykes: it doesn't matter what you think he said, it only matters what he actually said. But she's so blinded by her own ideology that she can't discern the subtle difference. Maybe she watched too many Seinfeld episodes, where George Costanza once famously remarked "it's not a lie if you believe it."

Or take for example the recent hateful comments of Janeane "I'll do anything for a job" Garafalo. When remarking on the Tax Day Tea Party protesters, she called them all racists. That's a true representation of bigotry if there ever was one, as she tarred many good people with her broad brush. When confronted by Fox News' Griff Jenkins for an apology, she picked out a few people with racist signs among the thousands of well-meaning protesters and ascribed the bigotry of a few to all who attended. Can you say irony?

These are but a few examples among the many we have seen in Obama's first 100 or so days. There was Perez Hilton spewing forth a spate vulgar statements against Miss California because the latter happened to disagree with his stance on gay marriage. There are the numerous vulgar statements issued about Sarah Palin because she has the audacity not to follow the traditional liberal feminist agenda. There are continued misogynist attacks on Michelle Malkin, once again because she does not toe to the liberal agenda.

These are but a few of so many examples of liberal hate speech that display the liberal ideological mentality - a mentality that is more akin to Nazi brown-shirts than to modern American citizens. And I see no sign that it is letting up.

We conservatives need to stay above that type of behavior. We have our own hateful commentators, but they are rightly marginalized to the corners of the Internet, where the little men with mice in their hands talk tough from the safety of their darkened computer dens. But what of the afore-mentioned Limbaugh? Surely, he is as hateful as any. I say, not so. Limbaugh, however much one might disagree with him, takes the time to make meaningful observations and puts forth coherent arguments. One might disagree with him, but if one debates on his level, it would be a thoughtful meaningful debate where hate is not evident but merely a difference in viewpoints.

These particular hateful liberals cannot debate on that level. Their tactic is to demonize the messenger rather than engage the argument. They distort and demean their detractors and never take the time to address the statements that are actually made. In some sort of Orweillian double-speak, they can call someone hateful or a racist while making much more hateful and bigoted staetments with the same breath. To them, it is not a lie, because they believe it.

And thus, the hate speech continues, unabated.