Lucy Flores: “She’s perfect: Young, dynamic, Hispanic.” At 16 she got an abortion.

[TemplarKormac]

I've stated that I'm not a Democrat, and I've stated I'm not (and never have been) an Obama supporter.

I've never said I wasn't a liberal, though.

Then you are a liberal... with no party. I'm working off of the assumption that you aren't a Republican either. So are you a left leaning Independent?

Not the terminology that I would use to describe myself, but it fits, I guess.

I generally don't think to describe my views by voter registration.

Interesting. You are enigmatic then.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Then you are a liberal... with no party. I'm working off of the assumption that you aren't a Republican either. So are you a left leaning Independent?

Not the terminology that I would use to describe myself, but it fits, I guess.

I generally don't think to describe my views by voter registration.

Interesting. You are enigmatic then.

Not enigmatic. I just don't like rigid ideologies, my views on everything are in constant flux.

I don't like to pin myself down, but I lean decidedly "left".

I would describe myself as a liberal rather than a Liberal.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Not the terminology that I would use to describe myself, but it fits, I guess.

I generally don't think to describe my views by voter registration.

Interesting. You are enigmatic then.

Not enigmatic. I just don't like rigid ideologies, my views on everything are in constant flux.

I don't like to pin myself down, but I lean decidedly "left".

I would describe myself as a liberal rather than a Liberal.

Oh, I see what you did there. I get it.

 

[Pete7469]

Interesting. You are enigmatic then.

Not enigmatic. I just don't like rigid ideologies, my views on everything are in constant flux.

I don't like to pin myself down, but I lean decidedly "left".

I would describe myself as a liberal rather than a Liberal.

Oh, I see what you did there. I get it.

Bottom line is:


He's a bed wetter.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Not enigmatic. I just don't like rigid ideologies, my views on everything are in constant flux.

I don't like to pin myself down, but I lean decidedly "left".

I would describe myself as a liberal rather than a Liberal.

Oh, I see what you did there. I get it.

Bottom line is:


He's a bed wetter.

No... I don't think that's what he meant. I, like him, have views that constantly change. I, however, lean decidedly "right."

A liberal (lowercase "l") is today's modern breed, closer to the tenets of socialism and progressivism.

Liberal (capital "L") is of the classical variety, along the lines of John Locke. Is one who encompasses various ideologies and not a set ideology.

 

[Pete7469]

Oh, I see what you did there. I get it.

Bottom line is:


He's a bed wetter.

No... I don't think that's what he meant. I, like him, have views that constantly change. I, however, lean decidedly "right."

A liberal (lowercase "l") is today's modern breed, closer to the tenets of socialism and progressivism.

Liberal (capital "L") is of the classical variety, along the lines of John Locke. Is one who encompasses various ideologies and not a set ideology.

I can deal with the "Liberalism" of Locke. My limited understanding of his philosophies was that he promoted individual rights.

Modern "liberals" like "the doc" are bed wetters who abhor individual rights that don't fit in with the leftist agenda.

You can suck cocks at the bus stop, and the family with kids have no business forcing their religion down your otherwise busy throat by asking you to do it in private.

You can smoke dope anywhere you like, but you can't smoke cigarettes anywhere but under a blanket in your basement.

You need to be limited to 12 oz. of coke at McDonalds, 5 rounds in your magazine (if they haven't outlawed guns entirely) and don't you dare spank your children.

Go ahead and snort all the coke you want, if your a gangbanger thug they'll make excuses for your barbaric behavior, and NAMBLA is defended by the ACLU.

That's a "(l) liberal, and they disgust me more than any other form of vermin.

 

[theDoctorisIn]

Oh, I see what you did there. I get it.

Bottom line is:


He's a bed wetter.

No... I don't think that's what he meant. I, like him, have views that constantly change. I, however, lean decidedly "right."

A liberal (lowercase "l") is today's modern breed, closer to the tenets of socialism and progressivism.

Liberal (capital "L") is of the classical variety, along the lines of John Locke. Is one who encompasses various ideologies and not a set ideology.

No, that's not it at all. I'm probably closer to Locke than I am the average modern "Liberal" - and "classical" Liberalism (ala Locke) is most certainly an ideology.

The small "l" refers to a tendency towards rather than a strict and rigid ideology.

(BTW - in a modern context, the term "Progressive" is meaningless. It's synonymous with "Liberal" in the modern context. There's no distinction)

 

[JoeB131]

What’s sad about this is that instead of considering her a “rising star” based on her character, competence and accomplishments, that assessment is based on her gender, ethnicity, and checkered past (and willingness to share it for political expediency). Stealing beer and having an abortion are not the bases for hiring someone for any job, much less lieutenant governor of a state. If she isn’t elected, though, I’m sure there’s a spot for her on the Jerry Springer show.

We used to expect more from our candidates for public office.

You are correct, we used to nominate who we thought were the best for the job.
Today, with the liberals it comes down to who's turn is it.
They nominated a black man because he was black and not because of his experience. He wasn't vetted by the press and the low information voters were duped.
Now it's a womans turn to be nominated, the only thing she knows is her way around the white house. Because, she's riding on the coat tails of her husband.
As in the great words of Robert Zimmerman (Bob Dylan for the low information voters),
"The times they are a changing."

You did? When?

Let's look at the record for you clowns.

You nominated George W. Bush for no other reason than his father once had the job.

You nominated Ronald Reagan because he used to be an actor.

You nominated Sarah Palin because she was a woman.

You nominated Romney because it was "the Mormon Moment".

You guys are just as capable of nominating people for bad reasons. The problem is, when you do it, the results are usually pretty ******* disastrous.

 

[The Rabbi]

What’s sad about this is that instead of considering her a “rising star” based on her character, competence and accomplishments, that assessment is based on her gender, ethnicity, and checkered past (and willingness to share it for political expediency). Stealing beer and having an abortion are not the bases for hiring someone for any job, much less lieutenant governor of a state. If she isn’t elected, though, I’m sure there’s a spot for her on the Jerry Springer show.

We used to expect more from our candidates for public office.

You are correct, we used to nominate who we thought were the best for the job.
Today, with the liberals it comes down to who's turn is it.
They nominated a black man because he was black and not because of his experience. He wasn't vetted by the press and the low information voters were duped.
Now it's a womans turn to be nominated, the only thing she knows is her way around the white house. Because, she's riding on the coat tails of her husband.
As in the great words of Robert Zimmerman (Bob Dylan for the low information voters),
"The times they are a changing."

You did? When?

Let's look at the record for you clowns.

You nominated George W. Bush for no other reason than his father once had the job.

You nominated Ronald Reagan because he used to be an actor.

You nominated Sarah Palin because she was a woman.

You nominated Romney because it was "the Mormon Moment".

You guys are just as capable of nominating people for bad reasons. The problem is, when you do it, the results are usually pretty ******* disastrous.

Proving that Ignore is the best place for Joe.

Bush was a successful governor of Texas
Reagan was a successful of California
Palin was a successful governor of Alaska
Romney was a successful governor of Massachusetts

 

[JoeB131]

You are correct, we used to nominate who we thought were the best for the job.
Today, with the liberals it comes down to who's turn is it.
They nominated a black man because he was black and not because of his experience. He wasn't vetted by the press and the low information voters were duped.
Now it's a womans turn to be nominated, the only thing she knows is her way around the white house. Because, she's riding on the coat tails of her husband.
As in the great words of Robert Zimmerman (Bob Dylan for the low information voters),
"The times they are a changing."

You did? When?

Let's look at the record for you clowns.

You nominated George W. Bush for no other reason than his father once had the job.

You nominated Ronald Reagan because he used to be an actor.

You nominated Sarah Palin because she was a woman.

You nominated Romney because it was "the Mormon Moment".

You guys are just as capable of nominating people for bad reasons. The problem is, when you do it, the results are usually pretty ******* disastrous.

Proving that Ignore is the best place for Joe.

Bush was a successful governor of Texas
Reagan was a successful of California
Palin was a successful governor of Alaska
Romney was a successful governor of Massachusetts

Obama was a successful Senator from IL
Hillary was a successful senator from NY and Secretary of State.

Point is, neither party nominated the most experienced guy they have. They nominate the one they think will be most appealing.

 

[The Rabbi]

You did? When?

Let's look at the record for you clowns.

You nominated George W. Bush for no other reason than his father once had the job.

You nominated Ronald Reagan because he used to be an actor.

You nominated Sarah Palin because she was a woman.

You nominated Romney because it was "the Mormon Moment".

You guys are just as capable of nominating people for bad reasons. The problem is, when you do it, the results are usually pretty ******* disastrous.

Proving that Ignore is the best place for Joe.

Bush was a successful governor of Texas
Reagan was a successful of California
Palin was a successful governor of Alaska
Romney was a successful governor of Massachusetts

Obama was a successful Senator from IL
Hillary was a successful senator from NY and Secretary of State.

Point is, neither party nominated the most experienced guy they have. They nominate the one they think will be most appealing.

Obama was a failed senator from Illinois, not even having completed one term.
Hillary had no achievements anyone could name. Even her.
Obama was elected because he was black.
Hillary hopes to be elected because she's a woman.

Political parties want to win. Surprise. But the GOP nominates people with strong resumes. The Democrats nominate people with "star power".

 

[JoeB131]

[

Obama was a failed senator from Illinois, not even having completed one term.

The same could be said of Palin. Except Palin didn't complete her term because she won a higher office. Palin quit because she was hip deep in allegations of corruption and she thought it would be more fun to be on the channel with the midgets and the sextuplets.

[
Hillary had no achievements anyone could name. Even her.
Obama was elected because he was black.
Hillary hopes to be elected because she's a woman.

Political parties want to win. Surprise. But the GOP nominates people with strong resumes. The Democrats nominate people with "star power".

Really? Frankly, the only guys with strong resumes you've nominated are ones your rank and file hated. - McCain, Dole, Bush Sr.

Romney's resume as governor was so weak, he didn't even want to talk about it. He wanted to talk about what he did as a businessman instead. Oh, wait. All those people he fired started showing up. Ooops.

Bush only got elected to because of his name. Other than that, the guy's record was start businesses, fail miserable and wait for Daddy's friends to bail him out.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Mark my words. America is going to take to Lucy Flores much like America did to Barack Obama. It's in the book, it is written and it is Gods will and all that jazz. Welcome Lucy Flores to American politics... you are another breath of fresh air indeed!





Is Lucy Flores the Latina star Democrats have been waiting for? | MSNBC

‘Demographically, she’s perfect’

As a young Latina, a single woman and an urban professional, Flores embodies – perhaps more than any politician in the country – the electoral coalition Democrats are relying on to carry them into the 21st century.

I think it's a shame she wasn't aborted herself.

So you wish for those with whom you disagree to be dead.

Very telling.

 

[The Rabbi]

Mark my words. America is going to take to Lucy Flores much like America did to Barack Obama. It's in the book, it is written and it is Gods will and all that jazz. Welcome Lucy Flores to American politics... you are another breath of fresh air indeed!





Is Lucy Flores the Latina star Democrats have been waiting for? | MSNBC

I think it's a shame she wasn't aborted herself.

So you wish for those with whom you disagree to be dead.

Very telling.

Yeah, he might have outed himself as a progressive.

 

[Meister]

You did? When?

Let's look at the record for you clowns.

You nominated George W. Bush for no other reason than his father once had the job.

You nominated Ronald Reagan because he used to be an actor.

You nominated Sarah Palin because she was a woman.

You nominated Romney because it was "the Mormon Moment".

You guys are just as capable of nominating people for bad reasons. The problem is, when you do it, the results are usually pretty ******* disastrous.

Proving that Ignore is the best place for Joe.

Bush was a successful governor of Texas
Reagan was a successful of California
Palin was a successful governor of Alaska
Romney was a successful governor of Massachusetts

Obama was a successful Senator from IL
Hillary was a successful senator from NY and Secretary of State.

Point is, neither party nominated the most experienced guy they have. They nominate the one they think will be most appealing.

Obama WHEN in Illinois voted "present" as to conceal what he was all about. At the federal level he spent half his term fundraising to become president.

What was so special about Hillary's term as senator in NY? Oh yeah, somehow she made a lot of money in the cattle futures.
Successful as secretary of state? Really, what did she do that was successful?

Neither knew how or had to balance a budget and get the bills paid.

As I said...one was a black man and one was a woman, you libbies just think it's their turn.

Those republicans you mentioned all had a state to run paying the bills.

Joe , Joe, Joe

 

[Pete7469]

I think it's a shame she wasn't aborted herself.

So you wish for those with whom you disagree to be dead.

Very telling.

Yeah, he might have outed himself as a progressive.

That's insulting Rabbi, what have I ever done to you?

What's funny is that it's a bed wetter who takes issue with me "wanting people I disagree with dead".

History has proven that leftists are the most savage butchers ever seen, and their servile drones have operated the mechanism of mass murder.

I'm not waiting for the shoe to drop. I want these mindless, soulless, God-less pathological fucktards dead before they achieve the sort of power. Authority that allows them to create yet another nightmarish existence of government jackboots dragging people off into the night. Never to be seen again for declaring their distaste for their messiah's incompetence, or merely putting the wrong sort of paper in the wrong recycling container.

That's the end game of the leftist agenda, the mindless bed wetting obozo sycophants on this forum can ridicule history all they like. Statist authortarian despotic regimes are not isolated incidents, they're the halmark of marxist policies. The desperation the democrooks have in disarming the population makes it more than clear to me what their intentions are.

 

[The Rabbi]

No offense meant, Pete.

 

[JoeB131]

[

Obama WHEN in Illinois voted "present" as to conceal what he was all about. At the federal level he spent half his term fundraising to become president.

Guy, you are displaying your ignorance. Obama voted "present" in less than 3% of all roll calls he was involved in during a 10 year legislative career in the IL Senate. Voting Present is a common tactic on preliminary votes on legislation to show that you might be amenable to voting for if changes are made.

[
What was so special about Hillary's term as senator in NY? Oh yeah, somehow she made a lot of money in the cattle futures.

You see, you are getting your Hillary Hate list confused already guy. The supposed Cattle Futures thing was when she was First Lady of Arkansas.

[
Successful as secretary of state? Really, what did she do that was successful?

Patched up relations with all the allies Bush managed to piss off, to start with.

[
Neither knew how or had to balance a budget and get the bills paid.

As I said...one was a black man and one was a woman, you libbies just think it's their turn.

Um, no. Actually, Obama won because the Republicans are batshit insane and they fucked up everything. But you'll win some midterms in some states with barely any people in them and think everything is right with the world.

[
Those republicans you mentioned all had a state to run paying the bills.

Joe , Joe, Joe

Frankly, most of those guys who used be governors failed as President because they thought it would be the same and it wasn't.

The ones we were dumb enough to elect, anyway.