1
   

Republicans Are Such Frightened Pussies

 
 
snood
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 11:14 am
I didn't know this had all been effectively explained and dealt with already back in 2001. This is definitely just another rightwing hackjob.

They really are some scared wussies, I guess.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 11:16 am
woiyo wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
woiyo wrote:
blatham wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
I didn't realize the Times Online was a Republican news source. Good to know.


Quote:
The Times is published by Times Newspapers Limited, a subsidiary of News International, itself wholly owned by the News Corporation group, headed by Rupert Murdoch.
source: wikipedia

Of course, one might have the notion that Murdoch's media operations exist in order to further the prospects of the Democratic party.


Such ignorance! Rolling Eyes

Yep, The Paper of Record, the New York Post. Real conservative paper!

http://www.nypost.com/


Um, the NY post is a conservative paper.

Are you being secretly sarcastic?

Cycloptichorn


Be real for a change. I can just see the Christian Conservative lining up just to read "PAGE 6"!!! Rolling Eyes


Just to be clear - you are alledging that the Post isn't a Conservative paper?

The editorial board clearly and consistently slants Conservative - openly. You don't know much about the Post, apparently - it was created specifically to counter-balance the Liberal NYT.

And, in fact, it is Conservatives who like the sexual stuff the most. The highest states for adultery and divorce are all Red states. The highest ratings for the 'sexy' shows on TV all come from Red states. The so-called prurience of the Republicans is a sham...

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 11:17 am
Chelsea Clinton handed me a flyer once on Michigan Avenue in Chicago and it literally scared the **** out of me. At least I think it was her.

So, where is PETA and HSUS weighing in on this? God forbid their pro-animal anti-gun anti-hunt anti-human candidate gave away her cat!!!
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 11:23 am
cyclo

NY Post as "the paper of record". Best let the fellow be. Lamp-posts and walls will be walked into unerringly.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 11:29 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
woiyo wrote:
Cycloptichorn wrote:
woiyo wrote:
blatham wrote:
McGentrix wrote:
I didn't realize the Times Online was a Republican news source. Good to know.


Quote:
The Times is published by Times Newspapers Limited, a subsidiary of News International, itself wholly owned by the News Corporation group, headed by Rupert Murdoch.
source: wikipedia

Of course, one might have the notion that Murdoch's media operations exist in order to further the prospects of the Democratic party.


Such ignorance! Rolling Eyes

Yep, The Paper of Record, the New York Post. Real conservative paper!

http://www.nypost.com/


Um, the NY post is a conservative paper.

Are you being secretly sarcastic?

Cycloptichorn


Be real for a change. I can just see the Christian Conservative lining up just to read "PAGE 6"!!! Rolling Eyes


Just to be clear - you are alledging that the Post isn't a Conservative paper?

The editorial board clearly and consistently slants Conservative - openly. You don't know much about the Post, apparently - it was created specifically to counter-balance the Liberal NYT.

And, in fact, it is Conservatives who like the sexual stuff the most. The highest states for adultery and divorce are all Red states. The highest ratings for the 'sexy' shows on TV all come from Red states. The so-called prurience of the Republicans is a sham...

Cycloptichorn


Really? Conservatives "like the sexual stuff"? So all the porn shops are owned by and visited by Conservatives too? Wow, maybe Bill Clinton really IS a conservative.

First of all, the NY POST was creeated WAY before the NY TIMES even existed. I am not sure you would classify Alexander Hamilton as a Conservative, but maybe in your little mind you could catagorize anything to suit whatever point it is you are trying to make.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 11:29 am
I think the chief is on the firewater again...
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 11:32 am
From Wikipedia:

Quote:
The Murdoch years

While in the past the newspaper had been a long-established politically liberal stalwart, in recent years the paper has adopted a conservative slant, reflecting Murdoch's politics.


Murdoch imported the sensationalist "tabloid journalism" style of his British tabloid papers such as The Sun, typified by the Post's famous April 15, 1983 headline: HEADLESS BODY IN TOPLESS BAR. The Post also recycled The Sun's famous GOTCHA headline, this time in reference to the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, instead of the sinking of the ARA General Belgrano during the Falklands War.

Because of the institution of federal regulations limiting media cross-ownership, Murdoch was forced to sell the paper for $37.6 million in 1988 to Peter S. Kalikow, a real estate magnate with no news experience.[26] When Kalikow declared bankruptcy in 1993,[27]the paper was temporarily managed by Steven Hoffenberg,[28] a financier who later pled guilty to securities fraud;[29] and, for two weeks, by Abe Hirschfeld,[30] who made his fortune building parking garages. The Post was repurchased in 1993 by Murdoch's News Corporation, after numerous political officials, including Democratic New York Governor Mario Cuomo, persuaded the Federal Communications Commission to grant Murdoch a permanent waiver from the cross-ownership rules that had forced him to sell the paper five years earlier.[31] Under Murdoch's renewed direction, the paper continued its conservative editorial viewpoint.


The 'modern' NY Post is a decidedly Conservative rag.

And yes, I am alleging that Conservatives are into sexual deviancy. At least as much as Liberals are.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 11:37 am
Cycloptichorn wrote:
From Wikipedia:

Quote:
The Murdoch years

While in the past the newspaper had been a long-established politically liberal stalwart, in recent years the paper has adopted a conservative slant, reflecting Murdoch's politics.


Murdoch imported the sensationalist "tabloid journalism" style of his British tabloid papers such as The Sun, typified by the Post's famous April 15, 1983 headline: HEADLESS BODY IN TOPLESS BAR. The Post also recycled The Sun's famous GOTCHA headline, this time in reference to the death of Abu Musab al-Zarqawi, instead of the sinking of the ARA General Belgrano during the Falklands War.

Because of the institution of federal regulations limiting media cross-ownership, Murdoch was forced to sell the paper for $37.6 million in 1988 to Peter S. Kalikow, a real estate magnate with no news experience.[26] When Kalikow declared bankruptcy in 1993,[27]the paper was temporarily managed by Steven Hoffenberg,[28] a financier who later pled guilty to securities fraud;[29] and, for two weeks, by Abe Hirschfeld,[30] who made his fortune building parking garages. The Post was repurchased in 1993 by Murdoch's News Corporation, after numerous political officials, including Democratic New York Governor Mario Cuomo, persuaded the Federal Communications Commission to grant Murdoch a permanent waiver from the cross-ownership rules that had forced him to sell the paper five years earlier.[31] Under Murdoch's renewed direction, the paper continued its conservative editorial viewpoint.


The 'modern' NY Post is a decidedly Conservative rag.

And yes, I am alleging that Conservatives are into sexual deviancy. At least as much as Liberals are.

Cycloptichorn


Sure it is. Whatever fits into your little catagories. Everyting is black or white with you and your "ilk". I'll bet you read it every day just to look at the pictures.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 11:42 am
One thing for sure.. The cat story was quickly lost in all the other personal attacks.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 11:46 am
scared to death of Hillary all these tough real americans are..... I love it...
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 12:03 pm
Because she's a communist, and we don't want to allow the stupid to elect one.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 12:10 pm
ronald reagan would turn over in his grave if he heard you say you were afraid of a communist you candy ass.

assuming that in heaven he got his memory back.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 12:10 pm
Barbara Olson, author of Hell to Pay. The Unfolding Story of Hillary Rodham Clinton (Regnery Publishing, Inc. 1999), is a prominent Washington attorney who served as a congressional investigator and as a general counsel in the United States Senate. She was interviewed by Cliff Kincaid, president of America's Survival, on December 8, 2000. What follows is an edited transcript of that interview.



Q: Do you believe that Hillary Rodham Clinton is a Marxist?

A: I believe she has a political ideology that has its roots in Marxism. In her formative years, Marxism was a very important part of her ideology...But when you look at her ideas on health and education, you see more government and less individual control. You see very little regard for families...



Q: Do you see Hillary as in favor of Socialist-style thinking at the global level?

A: We saw that with her activities as First Lady. She traveled more than any other First Lady. She had a global view. She spoke at the Beijing conference on women. She was very active in organizations and conferences that seem to be concerned about human rights but which are also directed toward a centralized governmental view. That is, one world. I looked at her travels and saw what she was doing. I always assumed Hillary was going to run for president. And I assumed that these international travels and her work with the Beijing women's conference and the U.N. were going to be her way into the White House; that she was going to have a foreign policy platform that not many women have...



Q: So you do believe that she will run for president?

A: I do. She believes her ideology to the core. She's worked for it behind Bill Clinton for years. I have thought that Hillary was going to run for the White House since 1993 when I started investigating the Clintons. She doesn't compromise. She doesn't come to the center. She believes in a true leftist, Socialist kind of government.



Q: She portrays her causes such as children's rights and women's rights in such an attractive manner. She has put conservatives on the defensive once again.

A: She has. That's the central focus of her public relations campaign...But her ideas about health care and education have very little to do with women and children. They are the lever she uses to bring the government into the family.



Q: She's been pushing treaties such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Isn't she promoting global government?

A: Yes.We all know about her book, It Takes a Village. She says the future is not family but the larger village of teachers, pediatricians and social workers. She talks about raising children as less of a parental task than a social one...You have the destruction of the family unit. That's very basic when you study Socialism and Marxism. (30)

http://www.usasurvival.org/ck061903.shtml
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 12:14 pm
It takes a village bitch.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 12:24 pm
You know how you feel about Bush? I feel that way towards Hillary.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 12:28 pm
McGentrix wrote:
You know how you feel about Bush? I feel that way towards Hillary.


With the obvious difference being, Bush has had ample opportunity to absolutely f*ck up everything he has ever touched - thereby probing himself to be incompetent and worthy of ridicule.

Hillary, on the other hand, has politics you disagree with - but no track record of failure. So there's no real comparison between the two.

Also, as much as you may dislike her (and I'm not far from you on that one, believe me), there's no question that she's much more intelligent. Comparisons between the two really fail to describe the differences, unless you're prepared to trash bush completely.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 12:36 pm
and if you think you dislike her so what? I'm not interested in whether I want to go out for beer and wings and on family picnics with my president... I'm interested in one that can do the f*cking job they're elected to do with a degree of efficiency....
0 Replies
 
cjhsa
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 12:52 pm
I think she will very efficiently emasculate every red blooded American male. Those of us that work for a living will also be forced to work until we die to pay for all her social programs.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 12:54 pm
See, I don't think she is capable of the job of President. I am sure Putin will look at her and only see the weak woman incapable of keeping her man's pants around his waist except in their own bedroom. A woman that likes to have 2 opposite opinions on every subject based on the group giving her money. A woman with absolutely no executive experience, no leadership skills, no experience working beyond her own ambition.

The only positive of her becoming President is that it gets her the hell out of my state. Which, by the way, she is Senator of only because her handlers knew she could get elected here to further her ambitions.

She is a Democrat and not Bush. Beyond that, I see no reason why anyone would consider voting for her. Especially with the other candidates in the field. Based on experience, Biden should be the Dem nominee.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Mon 22 Oct, 2007 12:56 pm
Regnery Publishing... "the publishing company of record", I suppose.


Democrats have moved, since the fifties, so far to the radical left that they are no longer even recognizable. Their support for welfare state programs is socialism or communism, plain and simple. They believe many false things because they don't know the past. Here's how Ike put it...
Quote:
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H.L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
(letter to his brother Edgar, 1954)
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2025 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 04/30/2025 at 06:47:01