Republican Anti-Obama Propaganda

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 5:07 pm

DeMint's comments weren't that outlandish; the rest we've discussed before. I don't pretend to like the focus of conservatives...but to suggest that it is dangerous to discuss "taking to the streets" in order to fight an oppressive or unconstitutional regime is ludicrous. IMO, every American has a fundamental obligation to speak up in every way possible against ANY and EVERY unconstitutional act of the government. And there are plenty of them.

I thought Dems were all about protecting civil liberties? Freedom of speech is pretty high up that list, wouldn't you say? Laughable.

bluegrassg8r · Post by **bluegrassg8r** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 6:14 pm

Seriously? You consider Olbermann a valid source? Does that mean I can quote World Net Daily with impunity? The only difference between them is that the WND crew were never talking heads at ESPN.

UFGirlluvr · Post by **UFGirlluvr** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 8:29 pm

So I guess because Olbermann was a talking head at ESPN he has no clue about anything but sports, I guess Reagan should have just stuck with acting.

bluegrassg8r · Post by **bluegrassg8r** » Sat Feb 28, 2009 11:53 pm

Whatever, Joey- you're late to the party on this one. It's a question about sourcing, which regularly brings Slider near a thrombosis when any article is posted that isn't from one of his "approved" sites.
And your argument is a bit tepid given that any number of people in politics and commentary began their career elsewhere. Based on your logic, nearly everyone would be invalidated under such scrutiny. That would make for thin ranks among the politicos.

UFGirlluvr · Post by **UFGirlluvr** » Sun Mar 01, 2009 10:03 am

I'm just quoting your logic when it comes to Olbermann, good lord you are insane. Look at the post above mine,read what you typed.

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Sun Mar 01, 2009 5:06 pm

Seriously? You consider Olbermann a valid source? Does that mean I can quote World Net Daily with impunity? The only difference between them is that the WND crew were never talking heads at ESPN.

Do you disagree that the Republicans at CPAC have said stupid things? Did they or did they not say those things? Rush, your party chairman, even reiterated his hopes for Obama's failure. I don't give a shit if you like him or not - the fact of the matter is that Olbermann was right in his comments. If you choose not to accept that, then it is your problem.

BTW - Peggy Noonan, Reagans' former speechwriter, took Rush to task for his calling for Obama's failure. Guess she can either think, or she isn't getting the CPAC memos.

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Sun Mar 01, 2009 5:07 pm

slider - referencing olbermann is no different than a pubber here referencing rush limbaugh...what gives?

Listen to what he says in his comments and tell me what you think. He is dead on with them.

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Sun Mar 01, 2009 7:41 pm

^^^ you're a fucking funny guy you know that?

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Sun Mar 01, 2009 9:56 pm

Maybe - but I am right. 8)

Here is some more commentary from RNC Chairman Limbaugh

http://www.dailykostv.com/thumbs/000929.php?x=659&y=340&t=default&c=0&f=50&w=42

radbag · Post by **radbag** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 12:02 am

Maybe - but I am right left. 8)

Here is some more commentary from RNC Chairman Limbaugh

http://www.dailykostv.com/thumbs/000929.php?x=659&y=340&t=default&c=0&f=50&w=42

fixed it for you.

IHateUGAlyDawgs · Post by **IHateUGAlyDawgs** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 8:32 am

I'm just quoting your logic when it comes to Olbermann, good lord you are insane. Look at the post above mine,read what you typed.

He wasn't discrediting Olbermann because he's been on ESPN. He was simply saying that is the only difference between him and the employees of World Net Daily. Olbermann has prior exposure...and they don't.

bluegrassg8r · Post by **bluegrassg8r** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 9:33 am

Correct, IHate...and with regard to Olbie, his massive ego made him a parody of a sportscaster ( a constant problem at ESPN) and translated well to his blowhard, hate filled invective that is not only hard core left but narcissistic beyond belief. He's a monumentally self centered douchebag who is the left's answer to Rush, but less popular.

MinGator · Post by **MinGator** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 1:30 pm

Who also gets free pub at halftime of MNF.

G8rMom7 · Post by **G8rMom7** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 2:43 pm

^^^Make that Sunday Night Football.

MinGator · Post by **MinGator** » Mon Mar 02, 2009 4:56 pm

oops that's right SNF, my bad.

slideman67 · Post by **slideman67** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 10:41 am

Correct, IHate...and with regard to Olbie, his massive ego made him a parody of a sportscaster ( a constant problem at ESPN) and translated well to his blowhard, hate filled invective that is not only hard core left but narcissistic beyond belief. He's a monumentally self centered douchebag who is the left's answer to Rush, but less popular.

I would disagree with that. Have you seen the negative ratings of Republican Party Chief Limbaugh lately?

Blowhard, hate filled invective and self center douchbag are perfect terms to define Rush though.

IHateUGAlyDawgs · Post by **IHateUGAlyDawgs** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 1:07 pm

of course you disagree, slider...Olbermann is on your side.

UFGirlluvr · Post by **UFGirlluvr** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 1:28 pm

Honestly the way people say " he is on our side" or " he is on your side" is what is fucking wrong with American politics. We aren't playing kickball here folks. I am over it

annarborgator · Post by **annarborgator** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 2:06 pm

The whole "us vs. them" mentality is manufactured--there's no real difference between the parties. They are both run by the corporations, IMO. The big companies pay for their campaigns and lobby incessantly on both sides....it's the one constituency that actually gets heard, because money talks.

bluegrassg8r · Post by **bluegrassg8r** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 4:45 pm

Wow, Joey, way to see it from the middle.
Anyway, moving on. Slider, every time you defend your Hairdo, you edge further beyond partisan and into obeisance. It's fucking bizarre that you defend literally everything associated with liberals.
I cannot fathom how one particular ideology (and all its devotees) can be correct all the time. But congratulations, you're officially a parody of a liberal, which is difficult to achieve.
For a smart guy whose degree is predicated on empirical evidence, you just do not vary in your posture. I don't understand it. When did dogmatic obedience become the norm for liberals? I thought you were the party of nuanced intellect who questioned everything?
Apparently not.

UFGirlluvr · Post by **UFGirlluvr** » Wed Mar 04, 2009 7:29 pm

I consider myself a democrat but there are things the republicans do that I can agree with. All this has just proved the more things change the more they stay the same.