• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Megan McCain "Am I Not Worthy Of Being A Member of Republican Party?" -In A Word, NO!

leftysergeant said:
The fact that Grampy got his head handed to him by a man the Republicans consider to be left of Gorbachev should tell the Limbots how ready America is to ever again elect another conservative Republican president.

His moderation did not lose him the election. It probably saved him from the utter humiliation of seeing Texas flip and turn blue.

He lost for two reasons:

1. He was running as a conservative at a time when the country was coming to realize that conservatives have no idea how to run a country, and that the right wing is totally wrong on ecconomic issues.

2. People expect a candidate to bring his best game to the campaign trail and, for a military man, that should include actual organizational skills. McCain got no game.
Click to expand...

1992 called. They want their partisan gloating back.



leftysergeant said:
Meghan strikes me as an airhead, but she always seems more in touch with human values than the Coulter critter ever has been.

She is still too self-centered.

Yeah, she belongs in the Limbaugh Party.
Click to expand...

In other words... she's a younger, prettier Nancy Pelosi.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
1992 called. They want their partisan gloating back.
Click to expand...

Pssh, last time Reagan/Bush I only ran up a record breaking deficit and left office with a sluggish economy.

Bush II left us with a new, record breaking deficit (broke Reagan's record in real dollars, flat dollars, whatever scale you wish to use) and left us with an economy knee deep in water and sinking fast.

We'll see how Obama does at fixing Republican problems, Clinton didn't do a bad job.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
Look at that again and tell me if you see what I see?
Click to expand...

A long list of Bush failures that made him a good contender for the worst president in the last century?

Yeah, you're right. So many messes to clean up, my list was far too short. Clinton had it much easier.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
1992 called. They want their partisan gloating back.





In other words... she's a younger, prettier Nancy Pelosi.
Click to expand...

Say what? Meagan is younger and prettier than Pelosi, but so what? She doesn't really turn me on that much because, at my age, I expect something between the ears as well.

Were the human population reduced to me and the Coulter critter, I would have to go looking for the Rushblob's stash to keep the species going...nah. Not worth it.

Coulter critter lacks what most separates us from the pongids.
 
leftysergeant said:
Say what? Meagan is younger and prettier than Pelosi, but so what? She doesn't really turn me on that much because, at my age, I expect something between the ears as well.

Were the human population reduced to me and the Coulter critter, I would have to go looking for the Rushblob's stash to keep the species going...nah. Not worth it.

Coulter critter lacks what most separates us from the pongids.
Click to expand...

I'm sorry... could you repeat that again in english?
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
Look at that again and tell me if you see what I see?
Click to expand...

I see a person commenting on the sorry state to which the departed excuse for a Chief Excutive brought this country, and what a truckload of cats President Obama now has to round up as a result of the Shrub's dismal failures as a leader.
 
Sword_Of_Truth said:
I'm sorry... could you repeat that again in english?
Click to expand...

On a scale of one to ten, ten being smoking hot, I would actually give Pelosi, as she looks today, about the same score as Meghan.

The Coulter critter would probably fall off the bottom of the chart if a bonobo entered the race.
 
UnrepentantSinner said:
I did. Your polemic skreeds override it though.



Apart from the weird fixation (in addition to your other weird fixations) that fmw noted, she actually started a salient thread about skepticism, offered her thoughts without emotional baggage or histrionics and solicited thoughts from fellow forumites intstead of trying to pick a fight. Silly girl, what was she thinking. :rolleyes:

And I don't get your logic* on "libs" and how many responses a thread gets. Some of the longest threads here are about bigfoot. Are you suggesting we could conclude something about Sasquatch politics based on that fact?

* Of course there's no logic, it's another one of Cic's weird fixations.
Click to expand...

Do you get bonus miles for saying 'weird fixation(s)?"
 
GreyICE said:
We'll see how Obama does at fixing Republican problems, Clinton didn't do a bad job.
Click to expand...
PSST. Clinton had the advantage of a Republican Congress. Until the blowjob silliness, they did a nifty job of enforcing the balance of powers, and driving home the leadership he lacked in the balanced budget fight. He very intelligently figured out "hey, not a bad idea, I'll get on board with that" and the long hard road to fiscally semi responsibilty was walked upon.

In a setback, the bridge over the Arroyo Bushicomos got washed out in a goosedrowner of a warstorm, -- have a war but pay for it on credit -- and thus the eventual collective course reversal and heading back to deficit land.

Can bama man turn this horse around?

Well, he has shown no propensity for turning in that direction, the direction of fiscal responsiblity, yet. He also has not got an adversarial Congress to force his hand.

Let's see what the future brings. My eight ball is showing a lot of dark clouds, may need to shake it and ask again.

DR
 
Dr Adequate said:
* sighs, drums fingers on desk *

Don't you ever read the newspapers? Or teh intertubes?

The reason I say that Democrats are trying to portray Limbaugh as the face of the Republican party is because Democratic strategists keep telling journalists that that is exactly what they are trying to do. They brag about it. They took a poll that showed that nearly everyone has heard of Limbaugh, but only 11% regard him favorably. They decided to make that the basis of their strategy. They said so. Rahm Emanuel goes around calling Limbaugh "the voice and the intellectual force and energy behind the Republican party", thus becoming the only person ever to use the words "Limbaugh" and "intellectual" in the same sentence. When I say that Democrats are trying to equate conservatism with Limbaugh, this is not some abstruse deduction I've made. This is blatantly and overtly what the Democrats are trying to do. Then they boast about how clever they're being by so doing and they giggle. This is not a "conspiracy theory".

As for it being "black belt political jui jitsu", it's every bit as subtle as kicking someone in the head. Here's conservative columnist David Frum to explain it to you:

On the one side, the president of the United States: soft-spoken and conciliatory, never angry, always invoking the recession and its victims. This president invokes the language of "responsibility," and in his own life seems to epitomize that ideal: He is physically honed and disciplined, his worst vice an occasional cigarette. He is at the same time an apparently devoted husband and father. Unsurprisingly, women voters trust and admire him.

And for the leader of the Republicans? A man who is aggressive and bombastic, cutting and sarcastic, who dismisses the concerned citizens in network news focus groups as "losers." With his private plane and his cigars, his history of drug dependency and his personal bulk, not to mention his tangled marital history, Rush is a walking stereotype of self-indulgence—exactly the image that Barack Obama most wants to affix to our philosophy and our party. And we're cooperating!​

He's nailed it there. So long as the Democrats can frame the debate as Barack Obama versus the loathsome insane lump of lard, they win. And this is exactly what they are trying to do: and this is not a "conspiracy theory".
Click to expand...


"Voters have long associated Democrats with corrupt urban machines, Republicans with personal integrity and fiscal responsibility. Even ultraliberal states like Massachusetts would elect Republican governors like Frank Sargent, Leverett Saltonstall, William Weld and Mitt Romney precisely to keep an austere eye on the depredations of Democratic legislators.

Two months into 2009, President Obama and the Democratic Congress have already enacted into law the most ambitious liberal program since the mid-1960s. More, much more is to come. Through this burst of activism, the Republican Party has been flat on its back.

Decisions that will haunt American taxpayers for generations have been made with hardly a debate. The federal government will pay more of the cost for Medicaid, it will expand the SCHIP program for young children, it will borrow trillions of dollars to expand the national debt to levels unseen since WWII. To stem this onrush of disastrous improvisations, conservatives need every resource of mind and heart, every good argument, every creative alternative and every bit of compassionate sympathy for the distress that is pushing Americans in the wrong direction."

Frum really nailed it there. So since you seem to be relying on Frum for his insight on why President Obama said "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," which was supposed to be a rehearsed slogan central to the DNC master plan to win in 2013, why not congratulate Frum on his insight into what the President's Administration is all about?
 
Last edited:
leftysergeant said:
The fact that Grampy got his head handed to him by a man the Republicans consider to be left of Gorbachev should tell the Limbots how ready America is to ever again elect another conservative Republican president.

His moderation did not lose him the election. It probably saved him from the utter humiliation of seeing Texas flip and turn blue.

He lost for two reasons:

1. He was running as a conservative at a time when the country was coming to realize that conservatives have no idea how to run a country, and that the right wing is totally wrong on ecconomic issues.

2. People expect a candidate to bring his best game to the campaign trail and, for a military man, that should include actual organizational skills. McCain got no game.



Meghan strikes me as an airhead, but she always seems more in touch with human values than the Coulter critter ever has been.

She is still too self-centered.

Yeah, she belongs in the Limbaugh Party.
Click to expand...

Disagree. No, she doesn't belong in the Limbaugh Party, and if anything, if she'd start using that brain matter, she might actually be able to help turn the party around.

Limbaugh is correct when he says that when the Republicans stand for something, they do well. The problem is half the time, they are so busy listening to one another, trying to "out-Right" one another, they aren't listening to the people who matter, the VOTERS.

OTOH, your earlier two points: Dead on. Kudos.
 
Cicero said:
"Voters have long associated Democrats with corrupt urban machines, Republicans with personal integrity and fiscal responsibility. Even ultraliberal states like Massachusetts would elect Republican governors like Frank Sargent, Leverett Saltonstall, William Weld and Mitt Romney precisely to keep an austere eye on the depredations of Democratic legislators.

Two months into 2009, President Obama and the Democratic Congress have already enacted into law the most ambitious liberal program since the mid-1960s. More, much more is to come. Through this burst of activism, the Republican Party has been flat on its back.

Decisions that will haunt American taxpayers for generations have been made with hardly a debate. The federal government will pay more of the cost for Medicaid, it will expand the SCHIP program for young children, it will borrow trillions of dollars to expand the national debt to levels unseen since WWII. To stem this onrush of disastrous improvisations, conservatives need every resource of mind and heart, every good argument, every creative alternative and every bit of compassionate sympathy for the distress that is pushing Americans in the wrong direction."

Frum really nailed it there. So since you seem to be relying on Frum for his insight on why President Obama said "You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," which was supposed to be a rehearsed slogan central to the DNC master plan to win in 2013, why not congratulate Frum on his insight into what the President's Administration is all about?
Click to expand...
Because I have a functioning brain.

We now return you to the topic.
 
Cicero said:
"Voters have long associated Democrats with corrupt urban machines, Republicans with personal integrity and fiscal responsibility.
Click to expand...


And now thjey do not have that because the people have come to see that the GOP has no real morals, but has adopted the utterly amoral mindset of a corporation, existing only to maximize the profits of investors, and claiming that this is for the good of the nation.

Fiscal responsibility? My toes laugh. The Shrub and his lot have deliberately thrown all the funding for social programs down the rat hole in hopes that the Democrats will not be able to figure out how to fund any further social or infrastructure projects. I am convinced, as are many of the left-leaning commentators, that the GOP intended to bankrupt, thus to disable, government.

The federal government will pay more of the cost for Medicaid, it will expand the SCHIP program for young children, it will borrow trillions of dollars to expand the national debt to levels unseen since WWII.
Click to expand...

The Shrub already brought us a deficit greater than WWII, but did it without creating the industrial infrastructurethat made the difference between victory and defeat and allowed the USA to emerge as a su8per-power after the defeat of the Axis. What the Shrub spent on the war is gone forever. The social programs will at least help ordinary people survive until we can find a way to take back the wealth that the GOP since the days of old jelly-brained Reagan have fed to their rich supporters.

Sorry, Frum, you are not going to convince us that your wrecking crew didn't actually mean to rape us.
 
leftysergeant said:
And now thjey do not have that because the people have come to see that the GOP has no real morals, but has adopted the utterly amoral mindset of a corporation, existing only to maximize the profits of investors, and claiming that this is for the good of the nation.

Fiscal responsibility? My toes laugh. The Shrub and his lot have deliberately thrown all the funding for social programs down the rat hole in hopes that the Democrats will not be able to figure out how to fund any further social or infrastructure projects. I am convinced, as are many of the left-leaning commentators, that the GOP intended to bankrupt, thus to disable, government.



The Shrub already brought us a deficit greater than WWII, but did it without creating the industrial infrastructurethat made the difference between victory and defeat and allowed the USA to emerge as a su8per-power after the defeat of the Axis. What the Shrub spent on the war is gone forever. The social programs will at least help ordinary people survive until we can find a way to take back the wealth that the GOP since the days of old jelly-brained Reagan have fed to their rich supporters.

Sorry, Frum, you are not going to convince us that your wrecking crew didn't actually mean to rape us.
Click to expand...

In all fairness, this isn't a one-sided situation. Neither Democrats nor Republicans gave a damn about "fiscal responsibility," and have demonstrated it over the years. The only real difference between them is who got first crack at looting the Treasury, and who got rich from it.

It also bears mentioning that neither party had bulletproof majorities over the past 16 years, so there had to be some cooperation in order to get their hands on the loot. Sorry, but neither party is innocent in this mess.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom