Why is it

[Oddball]

There's certainly a subset (and a large one) of self-proclaiming coservatives who are basically nothing but angry know-nothing partisans, I'll readily admit that.

I expect they're as much an embarassment to thinking conservatives as CODE PINK is to somebody like me.

Part of the problem there is that the (D)s have those angry know-nothing hyperpartisans in leadership roles.

Pelosi, Dean, Emmanuel....The list goes on and on.

 

[Dr Grump]

Part of the problem there is that the (D)s have those angry know-nothing hyperpartisans in leadership roles.

Pelosi, Dean, Emmanuel....The list goes on and on.

Maybe if you had stood up and got counted in 2000 and not chosen such a bonehead to contest the election (note I say chosen him to contest the election - ie, I'm talking GoP national convention, not Nov 20 of that year), you might have a leg to stand on. At the end of the day, choosing Bush has taken the bar so low in your national politics, it might take decades to recover....

 

[Oddball]

Part of the problem there is that the (D)s have those angry know-nothing hyperpartisans in leadership roles.

Pelosi, Dean, Emmanuel....The list goes on and on.

Maybe if you had stood up and got counted in 2000 and not chosen such a bonehead to contest the election (note I say chosen him to contest the election - ie, I'm talking GoP national convention, not Nov 20 of that year), you might have a leg to stand on. At the end of the day, choosing Bush has taken the bar so low in your national politics, it might take decades to recover....

I'm not a republican and haven't voted for one since '94, knucklehead.

And the dems still have some of their most strident angry hyperpartisans leading their party.

 

[AllieBaba]

that self-proclaimed conservatives always have the minds of children? They blame everything on "leftists and liberals and then, when you show their assertions to be false, respond only by attacking the speaker. Do they not realize every single achievement they attribute to conservatives was won by liberals, while the conservatives of the day fought tooth and nail to keep slavery legal, prevent the passing of child labor laws, and keep women and blacks out of the polling box? Does the fact the values they like to praise, like equality under the law, are actually classical liberal principles simply escape their underdeveloped minds?

Liberals freed the slaves, passed child labor laws and allowed women and blacks to vote? Wow. So why have modern American liberals turned their backs on the 'classical liberals' of yesteryear?

Besides which, liberals didn't do any of those things. Republicans, and WORSE, devout CHRISTIANS, did.

 

[Dr Grump]

I'm not a republican and haven't voted for one since '94, knucklehead.

And the dems still have some of their most strident angry hyperpartisans leading their party.

Kudos on the former...

...hhhmmm on the latter (thinking Buchanen, Hannity, Beck - although not official members of the GoP, are certainly the party's mouthpieces - yes, even Buchanan!)

 

[brewerboy]

Why is it this shit always seems to end up in the General Discussion thread?

Also....

Why is it you guys feed the troll?

 

[chanel]

Are you actually equating the power of the ACLU with the "power of David Duke"? Fail. Do we have to go through a pathetic list of card-carrying members like the Speaker of the House. Yawn. No one needs proof that the sky is blue.

The ACLU is hurting America. Esp. the children.

Remind me again where they stand on terrorism?

No, what I'm doing is asking you why you are marginalising a certain group of people because they belong to an organisation, whereby said organisation - or certain people in it - have gone too far in a certain direction, and somehow that is the credentials of the whole organisation? I think it is opportunism on a grand scale on your part. You seem to be one of those conservatives that is quite happy to label a group a certain thing, without delving into the group as a whole. Seems to be an American thing. Same with Acorn. I have no doubt both groups started out with the best intentions - and most within those groups still fall in that category - but you'll take the exceptions within both groups and try and treat them like the norm. I find that a typical conservative - especially neocon- tactic. Disingenuous to the max.

Did I think Bush was a total moron, and a few members of his inner circle cocksuckers (Wolfowitz, Pearle, Ashcroft, Rumsfeld)? Absolutely. Do I think most members of his cabinet and the GoP such? no., not really.

And no, Chanel, I don't know. Please give me the ACLU's official policy on terrorism. I await with baIted breath..........

The ACLU was pretty disappointed with the way things turned out yesterday. Michael W. Macleod-Ball, Chief Legislative and Policy Counsel for the ACLU's Washington office, seemed pessimistic about the possibility of more significant reforms to the PATRIOT act going forward. Referring to the Leahy-Feinstein compromise, Macleod-Ball said that the bill "includes a couple of relatively small reform measures in addition to the reauthorization, but it doesn’t go as far as the original Leahy bill, which didn’t go as far as the Feingold bill.” He added that “if you look at the votes that happened yesterday, it didn’t seem as though there are the votes there to incorporate progressive reform changes.”

Key to the watering down of both Feingold and Leahy's original proposals is the arrest of suspected terrorist Najibullah Zazi. If Wheeler's reading is right, Feinstein may have been concerned that the reforms might jeopardize the ongoing investigation of Zazi and his alleged co-conspirators.

TAPPED Archive | The American Prospect

We could discuss dozens of examples of how the ACLU is undermining the war on terror. But that's not what this thread is about.

Anyone who supports the ACLU supports pedophilia and the "rights" of terrorists. Is that everyone on the left? Prob. not. But the people in power right now do. Sorry. No respect from me.

 

[Oddball]

I'm not a republican and haven't voted for one since '94, knucklehead.

And the dems still have some of their most strident angry hyperpartisans leading their party.

Kudos on the former...

...hhhmmm on the latter (thinking Buchanen, Hannity, Beck - although not official members of the GoP, are certainly the party's mouthpieces - yes, even Buchanan!)

The bolded part is all that matters.

 

[Dr Grump]

I'm not a republican and haven't voted for one since '94, knucklehead.

And the dems still have some of their most strident angry hyperpartisans leading their party.

Kudos on the former...

...hhhmmm on the latter (thinking Buchanen, Hannity, Beck - although not official members of the GoP, are certainly the party's mouthpieces - yes, even Buchanan!)

The bolded part is all that matters.

I disagree. Perception and all........

 

[Oddball]

Of course you disagree....You just have to have a booger man to project your hyperpartisan bile upon.....And since the actual people in the actual Republican Party are such incompetent milquetoast dweebs, you have to blame the few opposition voices who have some balls, even though they're not party men or even in the arena where the action is.

 

[Dr Grump]

We could discuss dozens of examples of how the ACLU is undermining the war on terror. But that's not what this thread is about.

Anyone who supports the ACLU supports pedophilia and the "rights" of terrorists. Is that everyone on the left? Prob. not. But the people in power right now do. Sorry. No respect from me.

1) It's a blog
2) It even admits it's not too sure about hte outcome
3) How are they undermining the war on terror - ie, which part do you object to and why?
4) How does the ACLU support paedophilia - ie, be specific......

 

[Dr Grump]

Of course you disagree....You just have to have a booger man to project your hyperpartisan bile upon.....And since the actual people in the actual Republican Party are such incompetent milquetoast dweebs, you have to blame the few opposition voices who have some balls, even though they're not party men or even in the arena where the action is.

Do I actually have to post links of ACTUAL THREADS on this board started by ADMITTED GoP supporters spruiking the likes of Beck and hannity? Have you been outta town that long?

 

[Setarcos]

There's certainly a subset (and a large one) of self-proclaiming coservatives who are basically nothing but angry know-nothing partisans, I'll readily admit that.

I expect they're as much an embarassment to thinking conservatives as CODE PINK is to somebody like me.

Part of the problem there is that the (D)s have those angry know-nothing hyperpartisans in leadership roles.

Pelosi, Dean, Emmanuel....The list goes on and on.

Are you implying that the Democrats are even remotely liberal on the whole?

 

[Oddball]

Of course you disagree....You just have to have a booger man to project your hyperpartisan bile upon.....And since the actual people in the actual Republican Party are such incompetent milquetoast dweebs, you have to blame the few opposition voices who have some balls, even though they're not party men or even in the arena where the action is.

Do I actually have to post links of ACTUAL THREADS on this board started by ADMITTED GoP supporters spruiking the likes of Beck and hannity? Have you been outta town that long?

Doesn't change the fact that they are not party men, who have no say in party politics.

 

[Setarcos]

liberals didn't do any of those things. Republicans, and WORSE, devout CHRISTIANS, did.

Are you implying that "christian" and ":liberal" are mutually exclusive terms? Jesus himself was a liberal.

The conservatives fought to prevent everything I mentioned in the OP.

 

[Oddball]

There's certainly a subset (and a large one) of self-proclaiming coservatives who are basically nothing but angry know-nothing partisans, I'll readily admit that.

I expect they're as much an embarassment to thinking conservatives as CODE PINK is to somebody like me.

Part of the problem there is that the (D)s have those angry know-nothing hyperpartisans in leadership roles.

Pelosi, Dean, Emmanuel....The list goes on and on.

Are you implying that the Democrats are even remotely liberal on the whole?

I'm stating straight out that the OP is, yet again, projecting.

The current Democrat Party is, without a doubt, the most ILliberal bunch of hoodlums the nation has yet to witness.

 

[Setarcos]

that self-proclaimed conservatives always have the minds of children? They blame everything on "leftists and liberals and then, when you show their assertions to be false, respond only by attacking the speaker.

As they have proven in this very thread.

conservatives of the day fought tooth and nail to keep slavery legal, prevent the passing of child labor laws, and keep women and blacks out of the polling box?

Not a single one of these facts has been shown false.

 

[Si modo]

Kudos on the former...

...hhhmmm on the latter (thinking Buchanen, Hannity, Beck - although not official members of the GoP, are certainly the party's mouthpieces - yes, even Buchanan!)

The bolded part is all that matters.

I disagree. Perception and all........

My perception is that you are a hypocrite in this thread. You know, perception and all..........

 

[Liability]

Not one conservative here has proven any part of Setarcos' assertion to be false. You have attacked him, yes, but have not given any signficant counter evidence to his points.

Because you, in your typically self-serving way, buy into the silliness that is the mutterings of the OP does NOT require anybody else to "prove" that his silliness is silliness.

He made the glarlingly over-generalized assertion. He therefore assumes the burden of establishing it. He can't even make it out himself. So, what is there to "refute?"

Is his silly OP just a lot of over-generalized blather? Of course.
It is self-evident.

 

[Liability]

liberals didn't do any of those things. Republicans, and WORSE, devout CHRISTIANS, did.

Are you implying that "christian" and ":liberal" are mutually exclusive terms? Jesus himself was a liberal.

The conservatives fought to prevent everything I mentioned in the OP.

Jesus was heavily conservative, in fact.

You have no valid argument to make, and adding another layer of bullshit to your weak OP doesn't prop it up one bit.