Watching Conservatives Destroy America
God, for some reason, that I'm not totally sure of, I really can't stand that woman. I guess it's a little surprising to me, that I can't stand her as much as I do.
Cons, help me out. Why do you love Palin so much?
You first: Why do you hate her so much?I'm no Palin fan, don't really care for her much, but your obsession with hating her borders on a mental condition.
"but your obsession with hating her borders on a mental condition."I agree Anon, why? I lived in Ak for 7 years in the USAF. I have killed and killed and killed up there. I have an Alaska Kodiak Brown Bear hide in my attic. It made Boone and Crockett. World record class. She had one in the govs office hanging on her couch, (lot smaller than mine). What does it mean anon? Help me. I am trying to help you all (the USA)... I am not lying about any of it.
Only you can answer the question of why you are consumed with hate for this individual.Well, maybe you and a psychiatrist.
"Only you can answer the question of why you are consumed with hate for this individual.Well, maybe you and a psychiatrist."Hmmm, "hate". Strong word. I try not to use it, but did I? I guess she is just so transparent. She is such a phony. She copy's [Raygun] at every turn, like W. It's pathetic, I suppose. And 40 percent of US nuts can't see it? What do you think anon?
Quote from NY Times:"Sarah once criticized Hillary for being a whiny presidential contender, arguing that women who want “to progress this country” should not complain about being under a “sharper microscope,” but instead should just work harder to prove themselves capable. Now Sarah is a whiny presidential contender, complaining about the sharper microscope that women wanting to progress this country are under and rejecting advice to work harder to prove herself capable."You cons were obsessed with Hillary. You dislike smart. You love dumb.http://www.nytimes.com/2009/07/29/opinion/29dowd.html
Well said, Anonymous. Amen.
OK, first off: You honestly think that W copied Reagan at every turn? LOL! I'm telling you, conservatives would really laugh at that remark. Once again: Don't confuse neocons with conservatives.And I'm sure that is why conservatives are drawn to Palin: she is a conservative. And she reminds them of Reagan. True, she ran with McCain, who is definitely not a conservative at all, but Palin is much more conservative than McCain. She stands up for the things that conservatives believe in. (And in the end, you and they support the people whose ideas are closest to your own belief system.)Where most of you lefties get off track, though, is that whenever you encounter a leader or broadcaster or even a blog poster whose ideas disagree with or are opposite your own, your inevitable reaction is to call them dumb. Dumb as a box of rocks. And all of their supporters are equally dumb.No they aren't. Their ideas just don't match yours. That's it.Oh, and one more thing? I hope you don't rely on the NYT and Maureen Dowd for all of your information, since they both exhibit the aforementioned affliction.
I'd rather rely on The New York Times than Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Fox News, and all their fellow Flat-Earthers.
Oh, I'm sure you would!! Liberal sources exclusively! Never venturing out of your own little liberal-spin-world.Or...you could do what I do and read sources on both sides of the issue and everywhere in between, never limiting myself to any one source or side of the argument.
"I'd rather rely on The New York Times than Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Glenn Beck, Fox News, and all their fellow Flat-Earthers."Yah cons, go count the Pulitzers NY Times has won versus Faux news. I know, I know, the libs hates Faux News and everyone knows the Pulitzer is liberal and communist.Here's the only thing I could find Faux news won.Fox News Wins The Pulitzer Prize for Best Farfetched Mystical Explanation For A Real-World TragedyBaaaaaaa Haaaaaaaa, Haaaaaaaaa, cough, cough. There I go again.
Obviously you either didn't read or didn't comprehend a word I said. Again.
"Obviously you either didn't read or didn't comprehend a word I said. Again."Go total all the Pulitzer's your sources have garnered. While your at it, count their Nobels. Then compare it to NY Times.Baaaaaaa Haaaaaaaa, Haaaaaaaaa, cough, cough. There I go again.
And here I go again:Obviously you either didn't read or didn't comprehend a word I said. Again. For the umpteenth time. Completely missing the point, once again.I said, read read sources on both sides of the issue and everywhere in between, and never limit yourself to any one source or side of the argument.Now tell me where, in that statement, did I imply that I do not read the NYT and only watch Fox News? (I've said before that I don't even GET Fox News. I don't have cable/satellite TV. I read. And no, I don't just read Fox News' website. And yes, I've already said all that previously and am again repeating it.Your narrow-minded, stereotypical labeling of people is not only shallow and petty, it reveals your own lack of attention and understanding. You try to put people into little pre-defined boxes and then ignore what they are saying to you. It just reveals your own lack of depth.
"You try to put people into little pre-defined boxes and then ignore what they are saying to you. It just reveals your own lack of depth."I am mostly ignoring your sources. Again, NY Times, compared to the sources you quote, is a travesty.
OK, I guess I would agree with that. The NYT is a travesty compared to my sources. Sounds about right to me.
oops,"The NYT is a travesty compared to my sources."Im getting a little snocked and typing fast.NY Times rules. Faux News sucks. Give me sources with the recognition of NY Times and I may listen.
"NY Times rules. Faux News sucks."And that's about as deep as you guys ever get, and as about as wide as you ever cast your nets in search of information.
We don't go out looking for lies, and we do know where the lies are coming from. Faux News is as good a source of lies as you can get.
Uh huh, and what have I said previously about Fox News? Anyone, anyone?You guys have serious reading comprehension problems.
Then I guess we all agree that Fox News is simply a Lie Manufacturing Factory. More and more Americans are starting to realize that.
They're all lie factories, to a large extent. CNN, MSNBC, CNBC, ABC, Fox, etc. etc.Honest investigative reporting is dead. Dead as a doornail. It's all just spin now. There is no difference between what these outlets call "news" and the Op-Ed section. No difference. Everything is a spoon-fed spin job. And spin is just another word for lie...or at best, half-truth.There is no "fair and balanced" anywhere. As much as you disparage Fox News, you have to recognize that the other stations are the same -- they're just more on your side of the argument, so you nod in agreement and don't notice the spin.But all it is is spin. Objectivity in reporting is largely dead. It is necessary to read between the lines and sift out the spin in nearly every story by any of these outlets.Sad but true.
"But all it is is spin."But comon Anon, on a spin scale of 1 to 10, Cnn is maybe 1 or 2 and Faux News is 10. Whats really sad is, CNN and others are trying to emulate Faux News. CNN had your hero Beck for awhile. They have a few other nuts now also. Same with NY Times. They hired Kristol, then fired him about a year later. He sucked.
Nah, it's just that you agree with those outlets, so you rate their spin scale lower, that's all.In reality, their level of editorializing their news reports is on par with the rest.Just a buncha talking heads spouting spin.
Evil, regarding "Just a buncha talking heads spouting spin." How about, just for giggles, we go to the "Fair and Balanced" site and find positive articles on Obama, then to the NY Times to find negative articles on Obama? We know the NY Times are commie, liberal, socialists, like Obama, and Faux News is that stalwart of freedom and democracy, the beacon of truth, the bastion of the anti liberals, so the results should be very predictable.
OK, sure, if you want to do that research.
Post a Comment