Democrats’ favorite Republican

Advertisements

13 thoughts on “Democrats’ favorite Republican

  1. Did you check out this?

    http://americanandproud.net/?p=643

    McCain’s problem with AIDS.

    Well right now just one aide.

    One of his aides has been quoted at saying that he wants all Hispanics in America (including US citizens) to think MEXICO FIRST!

    If that is who he would appoint as a campaign aide just think who he will appoint to cabinet!

  2. By the way I am about to the point of endorsing Hillary.

    Think I am joking?

    A liberal in the White House will do great harm to this country.

    McCain, Hucklebee, Romney, all liberals.

    Yeah so is Hillary and Obama obviously.

    So if any of these people are elected great harm will happen to this country.

    Well, if great harm is going to happen to this country I would rather it happens by Democrats than Republicans

    And of course there is this Frog in the Boiling water thing.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_frog

    The “Frog” jumped out after Carter. It Jumped out after Clinton, perhaps, just perhaps it will jump out again.

  3. Also a liberal Republican in the White House would use his influence to purge Conservative influences from the Republican Party.

    Neither Obama or Clinton would have such power. Most likely conservatives would be strengthen in the Republican party during either of those two’s Reign.

  4. Also I would love sticking it to all those “great Republicans” in Washington State who supported Mike Lowry over Ken Eikenberry.

  5. By the way, I know about 60 percent of the conservatives hate Hillary so much that they would vote for Stalin over her.

    But the lost of 40 percent of the conservative movement still spells defeat for the R’s.

    The biggest loser this year (besides the country as a whole because we don’t have a real choice) will be talk radio.

    After all even those conservatives who are bitting their tongues off and voting for the Leftist Republican nominee will not want to be reminded that they will have to do it day after day on talk radio.

    I believe a whole generation of “conservative” talk show hosts will see themselves fade away this year. Not Rush perhaps but most of the rest.

    And if Hillary does some “fairness act” thing with radio then i believe the new generation of talk show people who will arise will go to satellite radio which since it doesn’t go over the airwaves are not controlled by the FCC. With more and more people going to satellite radio, AM and probably FM radio will probably be a thing of the past within a few years.

  6. Dang it Doug….. can’t you understand irony, humor, etc? Kevin’s responses strike me as meandering, some validity, but overall very strange.

    Come on man, you must admit it is a bit of a stretch to say the lack of true conservatives in this election will lead to a mass migration to satellite radio! Come to think of it, how is pointing out someone’s strange writings , name calling?

  7. “Come on man, you must admit it is a bit of a stretch to say the lack of true conservatives in this election will lead to a mass migration to satellite radio!”

    It may be strange but I think it could be true.

    In any event most of the talk radio hosts are going to see a steep decline this year in their ratings Sure many conservatives will hold their noses and vote for the Leftist Republican. But they don’t want to be reminded day in and day out about the ugly choice they are being forced to make.

    If it’s mostly going to be election talk this year most conservatives will turn the radio off.

  8. RBN (at 8),
    There is no irony or humor at simply calling someone “nutty.” You say Kevin’s responses struck you as “strange,” so they could be called “nutty.” This is very much like a Democrat who, when his positions are exposed as foolish and counterproductive, calls his Republican opponent “mean-spirited.” Just because an idea with which you disagree, (or worse yet, simply don’t understand) feels “strange” doesn’t mean there’s something wrong with the idea; the problem could be your point of view or your lack of knowledge. The designation “nutty” does nothing to clarify whether it is the idea or you that is at fault. It is not engaging in reason. It is simply someone choosing a derogatory term and applying it to an opponent in an argument. That’s name-calling. What you need to do is engage in the discipline that requires you to identify the source of that “feeling” you got while reading Kevin’s posts. You need to tell us that his ideas are based on some error in facts and correct them, or some error in principle and articulate your contradictory position, or some error in logic and illuminate Kevin’s distortion by your superior analysis.

    Or you could just tell a joke. “You is nutty” is not a joke. Perhaps it was meant that way, but it could never have been taken that way. Perhaps, in your everyday life, the unbearable tedium of your job, the chaotic dysfunction of your personal life (public nudity, etc.), you say such things and they are taken as a joke, but I think you’ll find that it is because you have been able to signal your humorous intentions by a gesture or an inflection of voice or, perhaps, wearing one of those arrow-through-the-head novelty items. Those just don’t translate well on blog posts.

    “You is nutty,” coming from a blog poster, has the same problem as “You’re under arrest,” coming from a uniformed police officer. It doesn’t make sense to treat either one as a joke.

  9. Point taken, but I have noticed throughout this blogs history, quite a few occurrences by yourself, and others who use what appears to be glib comments, and the assumption was these comments were meant to provide humor, relief from the enormity of it all, etc. You seem to take a special pleasure taking the exact opposite approach on my comments, accusing me of lack of knowledge, employing democrat tactics, etc. , which is absurd. Folks who do not agree with all your arguments, or have a different way of looking at an issue, are not necessarily democrats, or liberal- which you seem to throw around quite a bit. Not all true conservatives are immune from using faulty argument, and styles, and not all liberals are guilty of deceit in their arguments.

    With respect to Kevin’s comments, I still find the thought process as meandering, and non sensical- that is the theory that talk radio is migrating to satellite radio.

  10. Good points, RBN.
    But… you say, “…not all liberals are guilty of deceit in their arguments.” I agreee that may liberals are sincere, but that does not exempt them from “deceit.” If I assure you that the moon landing was staged… or that (one of my own, and favorite) Lyndon LaRouche and Henry Kissinger are the same person, I could conceivably believe it, but I would be repeating a falshood with the intent to convince people of its truth. That is deceit even if I’m doing it because I have, in turn, been deceived. I am responsible for public statements.
    Truth is discernable. Liberalism, all of it, is based on falsehoods. If you don’t know the truth, don’t pretend that you do and you’ll be Okay, but if you publically assert something to be true based on anything other than knowledge of the truth, you are responsible for deceit if it isn’t true.
    All over America, largely through public education, people are being told that there is no such thing as philosophical or political truth and that morality is subjective. That all ideas, all religions, all cultures are equally “valid.” They are encouraged to find “their own truth,” their own “god.” They are essentially taught to believe that “spiritual” is a synonym for “imanginary.” This is poisonous hogwash. But, deep inside, people know it’s hogwash. Honest people can’t feel right accepting that tripe, but shady people see its possiblilities: it inspires and “liberates” them. They can believe whatever they want! They can indulge their darkest desires and condemn the guilt as “social programming.” They can adopt political ideas because they just like the sound of them, or they see a personal advantage to them. They can cheat on a spouse or seduce someone with lies or kill their unwanted children or re-distribute someone else’s wealth, “sincerely.” All they think they have to do is be “honest” about their feelings.

  11. “…that is the theory that talk radio is migrating to satellite radio.”

    I didn’t say they were. Not right now. But what do you think they will do if a new “fairness doctrine” comes into effect?

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 )

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s