I am a Constitutionalist. I had an attorney once give me the gibberish about the Constitution being a fluid document. I replied to him that the only thing fluid about the Constitution was the ink with which is was written. He was unable to comment after that. But i now have a phrase to use whenever anyone has a problem with the Constitution: 'Hate on!'.

Well, from what I understand, Ayn Rand believed
that the right reaction to evil was contempt, not
hatred. (But if enough deep wrong is done to you,
who can help it?) But I don't remember ever hear-
ing the expression before. I have heard "Right on!"
which I think came from the late 60's or early
'70's; also, the "on" may be an adverb, such
as in "Go on," "Fight on," etc.

I am surprised to see it used on both sides of the political spectrum.

At it's core, what they are pushing is the rejection of the use of rational thinking on BOTH sides. On the one hand, those pushing the idea of "hate on" are saying that they refuse to listen to any counter-argument, automatically dismissing it as irrational! On the other side, it encourages people to get emotionally invested in their opinion - pushing them away from any kind of rational discourse as well!

To me, it isn't about pushing moral relativism as much as simply a divide and conquer strategy. When cool heads and positive outcomes are the most important things in a policy debate, it's pretty difficult to stray too far. When hot heads and "my-way-or-the-highway" are the most important, debate becomes a shouting match with battle lines and more energy spent blaming and name-calling than solution-finding.

An incorrect position defended with apparent facts and logic is best criticized with correct facts and logic.
Emotional responses can only be countered by emotion.
In the case described, counter not with logic and do not use the word 'I'. Instead throw an emotional reaction back such as -why are you pretending to like that slop?
The use of words such as 'haters' is an emotional response to try to evade proper discussion., something like pretending to be a victim.

Yes. His was Irrational hatred, to gain power. Ours is rational hatred, to maintain or regain freedoms.
And that concludes our daily lesson on the faces of hate. (Actually not sure he hated them...he used them horrifically. Power tools.) :(

Or at least understood that Hitler 'hated' them.

I prefer " I'm making a rational judgement call and hatred is appropriate." I wonder what would have happened if the Jews voiced and acted on hatred for Hitler. Passivity does nothing to stop evil.

I prefer 'abhor', 'detest', 'despise', 'don't think of'. I don't want any misunderstanding.

"Enemies"... don't you usually hate those?

Yay... you passed the test. :)

I think it is just another way to try and marginalize the speaker, and dismiss their comments with a label. It is right in their with the endlessly tiresome saying of a few years ago, ""Talk to the hand!" By using "hate" one immediately roadblocks any chance of reasoned discussion.

Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Radical Islamists, Obama, Kerry are all enemies and one cannot fight an enemy juiced up on an emotion. That emotion causes one to act irrationally and the outcome would be disastrous! Enemies need to be fought with truth, facts and a will to win.

Doesn't exist!!

The devil???

Maybe a really really strong dislike!! ;-)

Isn't "hate crimes" proof enough"?

Really, how about Mao or Hitler or Stalin or Rachel Carson?

I'm hearing 'haters gonna hate'. Coming from Ky fans, coming from liberals about Obama, they seem to want to use it in any situation where someone has a differing opinion. It dismisses anyone so they don't have to consider why anyone would have a differing opinion.

I don't hate anything or anyone but I do have a strong dislike for many things and many people. The phrase "hate on" and others are meant to put people of good intention on the defensive. It is the MO of the Liberal Progressive mindset. Just my opinion.

Just another stupid lefty phrase. It reminds me of an old joke for debaters. When the person you're arguing with has you nailed and there's no come-back that you can use, just look him in the eyes, put a scowl on your face, and say, "Oh, yeah!?!"

Thanks

You bet I am!

Quite enjoyed and agreed with everything you said. Your observations on SOX and IPOs was new to me and personally disturbing.