Discussion in 'Politics' started by CrimsonWhite, Nov 18, 2008.
I dont read WSJ since it became just another Ruppy rag. I do think that cons need to butt the fuck out when it comes to defining liberals... they cant get there ideology together ... what makes you think they will get libs right....
The opinion pieces of the WSJ are outright hooey, that anyone reads them is amazing. Consider that this is a financial paper that was pretty much clueless of the recent financial turmoil, maybe they should try to stick to what they think they know rather than idle speculation about their philosophical foes.
So do you agree that liberals should butt the fuck out when it comes to defining conservatives? Of course you don't.
Welcome to the liberal world, Crim. They're right. We're wrong. Period. Goodbye.
Nope.. way I see it.. when you cats finally figure it out, you'll let us know...
See.. are we left or right.. You cats are all over the place.. this highlights my point...
That was a really stupid post. If it was an attempt at humor, it failed. If it wasn't an attempt at humor, you fail.
These are confusing times indeed.
First, Obama was a radical marxist. Then his victory was a because of his center-right politics. There was no liberal mandate, because Obama ran as a reaganite. In 2006, I was told the only reason democrats took over congress, is because "so many" conservative democrats won. Hence, 2006 was a victory for conservatism of sorts.
Now, we're back to liberals having a stranglehold on power, and a massive mandate?
The DEMS better shit or get off the pot.
I quite agree with the WSJ that it's their game to win or lose.
The WSJ is a great paper, but the editorials= section isn't designed to appeal to liberals.
Separate names with a comma.