|Back to Home > Bulletin Board > Current Events > Topic: Republicans Actually Have to Take a Class for This|
Republicans Actually Have to Take a Class for This
Posted - 12/7/2013 5:18:11 PM | show profile | flag this post
I have no idea what you're talking about regarding "michelle malkin/sarah palin rape/murder jokes are hee-larious"...perhaps you can tell me what you're talking about.
And after you've done that maybe you can tell me how many Democratic politicians are telling them. Because really, that's what we're talking about. That, of the two major parties, one has to tell its members precisely how to not piss off women at large.
Go ahead; floor's yours.
Posted - 12/7/2013 6:53:39 PM | show profile | flag this post
Don't you left wing radicals ever get tired
of taking the Drew Pearson approach?
Posted - 12/7/2013 7:16:27 PM | show profile | flag this post
Can you believe this nonsense..
"But we are sick and tired of the left wing fringe dishonestly invoking the racism label every time a well-deserved criticism is directed toward Obama."
It's only racist when it's racist. When it's a TEA Party float at a rally with an Obama character dressed as a pimp or hanged in effigy as a civil rights lynching "statement" or depicted in a variety of genuinely racist attacks.
Disagree with the man on principle. State your disagreements with his policies. Quit disagreeing with him simply because he's not white.
This is cruzo's and con's and the right as a whole's biggest problem -- they don't know WHEN they're being racist or sexist.
They have to address that awareness first, come into the 20th Century -- then step up to the 21st.
Until then, the GOP isn't going to reach beyond the ever narrowing base of old, white, rich males.
Posted - 12/8/2013 11:39:56 AM | show profile | flag this post
You there Con?
I asked you for details. Got any, or is this another baseless piece of "quintessentially" stupid stuff?
Posted - 12/8/2013 12:58:08 PM | show profile | flag this post
"Quit disagreeing with him simply because he's not white"
I don't know if you're being dishonest or just plain stupid.
While there are small vestiges of racial animus on the right, there CERTAINLY are more than vestiges on the left...mainly directed toward the hated "older white male."
Conservatives...in the main...do not regard the hue of Obama's skin at all. The left wing fringe has used that as a diversion to focus attention away from the disaster that characterizes the Obama presidency.
We conservatives simply vehemently disagree with Obama's narcissistic attitude, his oppressive policies, his habit of going around the congress, his obvious disdain for and disregard of the Constitution and his penchant for perpetual campaigning instead of doing the job he was elected to do...although I personally find the shirking of his duties desirable on some levels because he is uniquely unqualified to do them.
Posted - 12/8/2013 3:09:46 PM | show profile | flag this post
I have to agree with that...to a point.
"Conservatives...in the main...do not regard the hue of Obama's skin at all". I believe that to be true.
But I'd remind you that even prominent Republicans running for the office of president have been 'Birthers' if they thought it would help--and that's about as racist as it gets. I'd also say even you agree that there is a large element out there that does take his skin color into consideration, and while that's obviously wrong--it's no better or no worse than implying (or saying outright) 'Whatever this guy does...he's a Marxist Commie Socialist...' without anything to back that up.
You for example. "Obama's narcissistic attitude" Example please? This is the first POTUS to have an ego?? Really?? "his oppressive policies" Example please?? Signing laws passed by Congress are automatically oppressive?? "his habit of going around the congress," Yea. Bush (and others) never ever did signing statements or Executive orders. All that's a brand new thing, right?
"penchant for perpetual campaigning". Again. Obama's the first president EVER to give speeches, or go somewhere on Air Force One, or hold a press conference, or do a weekly address. Thanks for educating us on that one. And here's the best: "obvious disdain for and disregard of the Constitution". PLEASE give me your examples...and where are those articles of impeachment if they are true?
"uniquely unqualified". By whose yardstick? Yours?? Graduate of Columbia University and Harvard Law School, where he was president of the Harvard Law Review. Community organizer before earning his law degree. Civil rights attorney. Taught constitutional law at the University of Chicago Law School from 1992 to 2004. He served three terms representing the 13th District in the Illinois Senate. US Senator. This guy has forgotten more about the Constitution than you've ever known. Elected President twice by huge margins. But he's "uniquely unqualified"....in cruiseworld.
I'm reminded of a great line in the "American President"; "Lewis, we've had presidents who were beloved, who couldn't find a coherent sentence with two hands and a flashlight". Now that, (IMO was Reagan and Dubya among others). You can criticize Obama for many many things (Afghanistan for example) but..."unqualified" aint one of them.
Posted - 12/8/2013 6:50:32 PM | show profile | flag this post
"but...'unqualified' aint one of them"
Oh but it is, pal. It most certainly is.
I don't care if he has a dozen PhDs and a signed letter from Jesus Christ. The man is flat unqualified.
Some of our greatest presidents had little more than Bachelor's degrees and one had virtually NO formal schooling. All of the bullsh*t piled higher and deeper you cited doesn't do ANYthing for Obama's qualifications to be president.
If you fail to understand that I question your qualifications to be a journalist.
Posted - 12/8/2013 7:19:27 PM | show profile | flag this post
"The man is flat unqualified" cruiser
George W. Bush--he was qualified.
And anyone who's reading these words is LOL'ing right now. Except of course cruiser.
Posted - 12/8/2013 7:41:12 PM | show profile | flag this post
I'm not going to respond
to the juvenile "Oh yeah? Says you!" posts by the left wing fringe. If you have something substantive to say, we can discuss it. If not...
Posted - 12/8/2013 8:56:32 PM | show profile | flag this post
That was quite serious
1. Obama's utterly unqualified.
2. Bush was qualified.
What else needs to be said? After that statement your credibility, such as it was, shut off as quickly as Rush Limbaugh's Oxycontin supply once he fired his maid.
Posted - 12/8/2013 9:46:51 PM | show profile | flag this post
You're a bald-faced liar
I made no mention of Bush at all.
Not that your lie was substantive in any way but a lie needs to be exposed and corrected.
Posted - 12/9/2013 8:11:00 AM | show profile | flag this post
Your omitting Bush from the unqualified category seemed clear enough, but no--you didn't say so. You have that opportunity now.
Your ruling then on GW Bush is what?
Posted - 12/9/2013 8:32:27 AM | show profile | flag this post
The topic is not Bush
When the left wing fringe is boxed into a corner with no way to breach the confines of that box, their recourse is always to try to change the subject...often to Bush, whom they hate with a deep and abiding passion.
The topic, however, is Obama's unique absence of qualifications for the task for which he was elected.
Posted - 12/9/2013 8:58:41 AM | show profile | flag this post
Love how cruzo spun this:
"While there are small vestiges of racial animus on the right, there CERTAINLY are more than vestiges on the left...mainly directed toward the hated 'older white male.'"
It is the GOP that has an obsession with the "older white male." That has become the prime demographic they target -- while ignoring all others.
Our pointing that out is not racism. But the failure of the GOP to reach out in productive ways to other demographic groups, whether women, minorities, gays or young people -- shows a degree of sexism, racism, agism and elitism on the part of the right.
Posted - 12/9/2013 9:25:02 AM | show profile | flag this post
Saul Alinsky's Rule 5 states:
"Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon."
As eveidenced daily...even hourly...on here, this is what the left wing fringe (all Alinsky disciples) is all about. And it's a big part of the reason they cannot discuss anything rationally. They don't dare permit the rest of us to make the case for the conservative point of view. They know it is logical and would resonate with the groups they're trying to keep in their womb to tomb care fold with government largesse...which, by the way, adds daily to the deficit.
We on the right must ignore the dishonest attempts at ridicule and stop trying to defend against strawmen that only exist in the rhetoric of the left wing fringe.
Posted - 12/9/2013 9:35:37 AM | show profile | flag this post
By the way, the "Drew Pearson approach"...
to which I alluded earlier in this thread...refers to a journalist whom most of you will not remember due to your youth and inexperience.
The "Drew Pearson approach" refers to his well-known modus operandi of "making mountains out of molehills," i.e., the use of exaggeration and hypervbole.
That, of course, is what the left wing fringe does and it is part of their daily drumbeat of attempted ridicule of conservatives.
Posted - 12/9/2013 9:38:50 AM | show profile | flag this post
Drew Pearson Approach...
as defined by cruzo as "his well-known modus operandi of "making mountains out of molehills," i.e., the use of exaggeration and hypervbole."
Today, we call that the Republican Platform. From Benghazi to the IRS nonsense to "Death Panels" -- it describes the GOP perfectly.
Now, back on topic. It's still unbelievable that Republicans have to learn how to talk to women -- instead of talking down to them, insulting them or marginalizing them.
Like I said. The rest of us learned how to do that growing up.
Posted - 12/9/2013 10:14:03 AM | show profile | flag this post
Like I said
the left wing fringe relies on dishonest ridicule, exaggeration and hyperbole.
Posted - 12/9/2013 11:15:48 AM | show profile | flag this post
but you sure seem to be terrified of the real issue here -- that GOP candidates have to be trained in how to speak to women without insulting their intelligence.
Heckuva party you hang with, cruzo.
Posted - 12/9/2013 12:20:47 PM | show profile | flag this post
He just can't restrain himself
More dishonest ridicule, exaggeration and hyperbole.
Posted - 12/9/2013 2:20:51 PM | show profile | flag this post
psychological projection from cruzo, too.
Once again he projects his greatest weaknesses onto others to make himself feel better.
But back on topic.
Why do Republicans have to have a class on how to avoid insulting women?
Since cruzo is afraid to answer, I'll do it for him: The GOP -- in it's race to the far right -- is firmly anti-women. That's why women have been leaning to Democrats in increasingly wide margins in recent elections.
The 2012 election has the largest gender gap in history -- 20 points with Obama winning women by 12 points.
More recently, in Virginia, women leaned toward Terry MacAullife by a nine-point margin.
The problem the GOP has with women voters is that remarks like "legitimate rape" and that women have a way of "shutting down" a pregnancy from rape are not just sexist, they are a reflection of the actual policies Republican leaders support.
The GOP class is more of the Republican Party's notion that it is the way they deliver their message -- rather than the message itself -- that fails to connect with women, minorities, the young and others who have fled the party.
Posted - 12/9/2013 7:27:59 PM | show profile | flag this post
YOU: "The topic, however, is Obama's unique absence of qualifications for the task for which he was elected."
ME: Go to the head of this thread. Its title is this: "Republicans Actually Have to Take a Class for This" In other words, the topic is NOT what you're claiming.
You've been unable to deal with that as a subject of this thread so you keep trying to change the subject. Which, of course, is your most common claim about liberals.
So that makes two things you're not answering in this column:
--How do you explain your party of choice has to train its members to behave with women?
--In lieu of not answering that one, and if you stomp your feet and claim that the subject is a President's qualifications for office, then answer the question about GW Bush.
If you can do neither there's one thing you can do: kiss my ass.
Posted - 12/9/2013 11:19:54 PM | show profile | flag this post
your obsession with my every post
ahhhh, that's cute!
You thinkerate someone is obsessed.
That must make you feel so special!!!
Posted - 12/9/2013 11:54:00 PM | show profile | flag this post
you just can't help yourself......
getting angry cruster?
is that it? no one ever told you that you were special? you poor thang. stop fighting your friends and family, cruster. let them help you.
what will you do if i ever decide to stop posting here cruster?
pretenderate i'm other posters? oh wait.....
how petty your life must be.
Posted - 12/10/2013 12:16:59 AM | show profile | flag this post
Tex, you'd be humorous if you weren't so pathetically dumb
YOU tried to change the subject, pal...to Bush. Then typical thread drift took it elsewhere and when I last posted the topic was exactly as I stated.
Try to keep up.