Republicans Are Such Frightened Pussies

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.

cjhsa wrote:

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.

I support her and I'm not emasculated. I work for a living... damn hard.... and make a good one... I fear no one, and I've had more women than you've jerked off to on the internet or National Geographic

I'm not afraid to work my whole life and I'd rather fund a social program than an idiotic war or suck the big corporate cock like repubs and their leaders.

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

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. [..]

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? [..]

Word is that Reading Books, Having Written a Book, Living in a Big City, Having Donated to a Non-Religious Charity and Speaking Any Foreign Language are next up on the list of foolproof evidence that somebody's deeply harbored ambition is a Global Socialist World Dictatorship.

woiyo wrote:

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. [..]

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? [..]

Well, questioner and respondent seem to be in full agreement here.

Travelling a lot: Highly suspicious.

Having a "global view": Bad.

Speaking at the UN women's conference: Very bad.

Being "active" in human rights conferences: Insidious.

A Convention on the Rights of the Child: Outright dangerous.

A Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women: Traitors! Traitors! Global dictatorship is upon us!

Word is that Reading Books, Having Written a Book, Living in a Big City, Having Donated to a Non-Religious Charity and Speaking Any Foreign Language are next up on the list of foolproof evidence that somebody's deeply harbored ambition is a Global Socialist World Dictatorship.

nimh wrote:

Word is that Reading Books, Having Written a Book, Living in a Big City, Having Donated to a Non-Religious Charity and Speaking Any Foreign Language are next up on the list of foolproof evidence that somebody's deeply harbored ambition is a Global Socialist World Dictatorship.

Hitler read books, wrote a book, lived in a big city, donated to non-religious charities and spoke a foreign language... so yeah, fool proof evidence.

Back to the topic in question: isn't it kind of funny that the entire Republican platform revolves around fear?

Fear of Terrorism.

Fear of Gays.

Fear of Government.

Fear of, most of all, HILLARY.

They say 'vote for us, or bad things will happen.' That's it. That was Bush's message in 2004 and it is the Republican candidate's message now.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Back to the topic in question: isn't it kind of funny that the entire Republican platform revolves around fear?

Fear of Terrorism.

Fear of Gays.

Fear of Government.

Fear of, most of all, HILLARY.

They say 'vote for us, or bad things will happen.' That's it. That was Bush's message in 2004 and it is the Republican candidate's message now.

Cycloptichorn

The uneducated and ill-informed have stated exactly what you are saying.

The objective, honest people see it very differently.

woiyo wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Back to the topic in question: isn't it kind of funny that the entire Republican platform revolves around fear?

Fear of Terrorism.

Fear of Gays.

Fear of Government.

Fear of, most of all, HILLARY.

They say 'vote for us, or bad things will happen.' That's it. That was Bush's message in 2004 and it is the Republican candidate's message now.

Cycloptichorn

The uneducated and ill-informed have stated exactly what you are saying.

The objective, honest people see it very differently.

How do the 'objective, honest' people see it? Please be specific, and also work in an explanation - from an objective, honest viewpoint - as to why Hillary's name came up 40+ times in the last Republican debate, and OBL's, zero.

Cycloptichorn

Cycloptichorn wrote:

woiyo wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Back to the topic in question: isn't it kind of funny that the entire Republican platform revolves around fear?

Fear of Terrorism.

Fear of Gays.

Fear of Government.

Fear of, most of all, HILLARY.

They say 'vote for us, or bad things will happen.' That's it. That was Bush's message in 2004 and it is the Republican candidate's message now.

Cycloptichorn

The uneducated and ill-informed have stated exactly what you are saying.

The objective, honest people see it very differently.

How do the 'objective, honest' people see it? Please be specific, and also work in an explanation - from an objective, honest viewpoint - as to why Hillary's name came up 40+ times in the last Republican debate, and OBL's, zero.

Cycloptichorn

Don't know why her name came up 40+ times since I did not watch the debacle....err....debate.

An honest and objective person will step back from both parties and listen to both sides and form an opinion without prejudice.

You are neither objective, willing to step back from your "Organization", and have already pre-judged anyone from the Republican Party.

You are a hard core democrat and you have admitted that. Be proud!

woiyo wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

woiyo wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Back to the topic in question: isn't it kind of funny that the entire Republican platform revolves around fear?

Fear of Terrorism.

Fear of Gays.

Fear of Government.

Fear of, most of all, HILLARY.

They say 'vote for us, or bad things will happen.' That's it. That was Bush's message in 2004 and it is the Republican candidate's message now.

Cycloptichorn

The uneducated and ill-informed have stated exactly what you are saying.

The objective, honest people see it very differently.

How do the 'objective, honest' people see it? Please be specific, and also work in an explanation - from an objective, honest viewpoint - as to why Hillary's name came up 40+ times in the last Republican debate, and OBL's, zero.

Cycloptichorn

Don't know why her name came up 40+ times since I did not watch the debacle....err....debate.

An honest and objective person will step back from both parties and listen to both sides and form an opinion without prejudice.

You are neither objective, willing to step back from your "Organization", and have already pre-judged anyone from the Republican Party.

You are a hard core democrat and you have admitted that. Be proud!

My status as a Dem doesn't preclude me from making objective judgments about candidates. For example, I don't really like Hillary, and I do like McCain.

The name came up 40+ times, b/c the candidates use it to scare people into voting Republican. 'Vote for one of us, or Hillary will win!' She's a bogeyman for the right-wing.

Fear is all that the Republicans can sell. Fear of socialization. Fear of higher taxes. Fear of terrorists. There's very little positive message coming from the Republican party these days.

Cycloptichorn

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

NY Post...

Washington Post still has a reputation for being a first class newspaper.