Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The only LOSERS if obama wins will be the American public...because 4 more years of his misguided leadership will end with a projected $24 TRLLION in debt. Just what do you believe the value of the dollar will be by then??
you *******s supporting total failure is what is going to sink this country if obama wins 4 more years.
I won't TOS you about turning a thread about Santorum and Coulter into one about hate on Obama. You are part of the problem with Santorum and Coulter.
There are a considerable amount of former republicans who are now registered democrats that you call *******. There are also indie parties, many of them, standing outside the doors of their fathers house. It's been happening since Goldwater and then again with Perot... and you don't want to believe why.
You need to deeply soul search as a party because the longer you point fingers away from yourselves as you vomit up and lap up again think tank propaganda preying on our nation... you're drunken. You're incompetent to lead. You're dangerous to children. You're reckless and selfish. You've made a zombie of yourselves and I don't see how your soul can be saved when you aren't willing to take responsibility for yourselves as men. As adults. Not the narcissistic rambling Brietbart. Not the whining wh*re monger Rush. These are not men. They're 4F unfit for service. Unfit for their very citizenship.
It's all from whatever perspective you come from. Laura Ingraham is a hypocrite and a shill imo. Ann Coulter isn't afraid to step outside what plays to the viewing/listening audience like most of the others...Hannity, Ingraham, Levin, Limbaugh. They are in it for ratings and money and could care less what the outcome is for the country.
I once took an opinion piece that Coulter wrote during the general election and deconstructed it, primarily because it was headlined as being founded on the book, Dreams From My Father, a book which I own and have read. Coulter would take an incident from the book, but use only the parts of the text that allowed her to proceed to distort it. One example: The story about President Obama's grandmother and her being a "typical white person." The reality was that she once told his grandfather that she'd crossed the street to avoid a black man. She was extremely upset, because she loved her grandson very much and it hurt her to think that, inevitably, he would have to deal with such a reaction from a white person. Coulter totally changed the narrative by including only a description of the first half of the story, then either ignoring additional information or blatantly writing false representations. That was bad enough, but for her to refuse to apologize to a dying Elizabeth Edwards for saying that John Edwards was "using his wife to get a sympathy vote" simply goes beyond the pale. In short, she's not a reliable source.
and just because Anne is on the side of Romney, you don't think she fits into the same catagory as most of the others. ?They all care about money, it is the same with most of us. This does not mean they do not care about our country. Saying they only care about money when Romney is the wealthiest candidate running is a little hypicritical in itself and I don't really think you are a hypicrit, I just think you support anyone who like Romney and distest anyone who does not.
Nita
That would be human nature. It certainly makes Ann more favorable right now for Mitt Romney supporters because we have so few that will stand up in the public eye on the ultra conservative side and speak out. I realize you do not like Mitt Romney and that is your perogative, nobody is trying to convince you otherwise.
I once took an opinion piece that Coulter wrote during the general election and deconstructed it, primarily because it was headlined as being founded on the book, Dreams From My Father, a book which I own and have read. Coulter would take an incident from the book, but use only the parts of the text that allowed her to proceed to distort it. One example: The story about President Obama's grandmother and her being a "typical white person." The reality was that she once told his grandfather that she'd crossed the street to avoid a black man. She was extremely upset, because she loved her grandson very much and it hurt her to think that, inevitably, he would have to deal with such a reaction from a white person. Coulter totally changed the narrative by including only a description of the first half of the story, then either ignoring additional information or blatantly writing false representations. That was bad enough, but for her to refuse to apologize to a dying Elizabeth Edwards for saying that John Edwards was "using his wife to get a sympathy vote" simply goes beyond the pale. In short, she's not a reliable source.
I haven't agreed with her on everything she has ever said or written, but I can't say I have agreed with most people 100% of the time. I will say she has been very supportive of Mitt Romney and has taken a lot of backlash for it from her circle of 'friends' in the right wing media. She is not being asked to come on their shows much anymore because she isnt' saying what they want to hear.
I once took an opinion piece that Coulter wrote during the general election and deconstructed it, primarily because it was headlined as being founded on the book, Dreams From My Father, a book which I own and have read. Coulter would take an incident from the book, but use only the parts of the text that allowed her to proceed to distort it. One example: The story about President Obama's grandmother and her being a "typical white person." The reality was that she once told his grandfather that she'd crossed the street to avoid a black man. She was extremely upset, because she loved her grandson very much and it hurt her to think that, inevitably, he would have to deal with such a reaction from a white person. Coulter totally changed the narrative by including only a description of the first half of the story, then either ignoring additional information or blatantly writing false representations. That was bad enough, but for her to refuse to apologize to a dying Elizabeth Edwards for saying that John Edwards was "using his wife to get a sympathy vote" simply goes beyond the pale. In short, she's not a reliable source.
This surprises you? This is partisan politics 101. Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh will distort, take out of context, exaggerate, outright lie sometimes, misreport and do all manner of things for the Republicans. Chris Matthews and Rachel Maddow will in turn do exactly the same thing for the Democrats. Both sides are equally dishonest, but people like the person on the TV screen to reinforce their own political views and tell them that they're 100% right. That's why bias rules the day in the mainstream media. It surely does make it damned near impossible to get an accurate accounting of the news on any given day though.
I haven't agreed with her on everything she has ever said or written, but I can't say I have agreed with most people 100% of the time. I will say she has been very supportive of Mitt Romney and has taken a lot of backlash for it from her circle of 'friends' in the right wing media. She is not being asked to come on their shows much anymore because she isnt' saying what they want to hear.
Thanks for that info; I wondered why I wasn't seeing her as often. But I'm confused...I thought that Romney was the RNC choice? Is it Santorum that they're backing? The very idea of Santorum near the nuclear button will give me nightmares when I log out and hit the bed.
Thanks for that info; I wondered why I wasn't seeing her as often. But I'm confused...I thought that Romney was the RNC choice? Is it Santorum that they're backing? The very idea of Santorum near the nuclear button will give me nightmares when I log out and hit the bed.
Fox News has two priorities this election cycle and they go in this order
1.) Do Not Let Ron Paul Get the Nomination.
2.) Make a point of backing any Not-Romney candidate and telling the world how wonderful they are -- at least until you start to look stupid doing it.
Mostly I find myself changing the channel in disgust over the under-reporting or misreporting or outright lying about Ron Paul. But there's been a few times that it's been because of the anti-Romney bias in the reporting. It's tiresome feeling like you're being herded toward supporting the "right" candidate.
Fox News has two priorities this election cycle and they go in this order
1.) Do Not Let Ron Paul Get the Nomination.
2.) Make a point of backing any Not-Romney candidate and telling the world how wonderful they are -- at least until you start to look stupid doing it.
Mostly I find myself changing the channel in disgust over the under-reporting or misreporting or outright lying about Ron Paul. But there's been a few times that it's been because of the anti-Romney bias in the reporting. It's tiresome feeling like you're being herded toward supporting the "right" candidate.
So who does Murdoch want as a candidate? I watched Paul on the Piers Morgan Show, and thought he did well; he truly has been given short shrift by the GOP journalists and pundits. Romney has made several serious gaffes, and journalists have to cover them; it's not fair to let one candidate go without scrutiny, so you can hardly blame the messenger
when Romney presents himself as so very unaware of what life is like outside the walls of one of his five mansions. I understand your final point, as I felt the same about John Kerry. I didn't want a second Bush term, but Kerry just seemed as though he'd served his time and it was his turn to run. Hard to work up any enthusiasm in such a case. Santorum is truly frightening as he sees himself as a Catholic crusader, and quite capable of a modern day Inquisition.
The only LOSERS if obama wins will be the American public...because 4 more years of his misguided leadership will end with a projected $24 TRLLION in debt. Just what do you believe the value of the dollar will be by then??
you *******s supporting total failure is what is going to sink this country if obama wins 4 more years.
Blaming obama is the wrong thing to do?? He's been in office for 3 + years....2 of which he had control of both houses...meaning he had carte blanche. With all of that, he shoved obamacare down the throats of a public who didn't want it by a 65% against and 35% for margin. he bailed out banks and ended up allowing them to use a great deal of the $$ to pay corporate officers BONUSES. He has blocked every effort at the state level to do SOMETHING about the illegal immigration problem, while doing NOTHING about it himself other than hint at an amnesty program in his 2nd term. He has done everything he can to divide this country instead of unite it. He has tried to align himself with the occupy wallstreeters...inciting them to rise against the 1% and that he is 'with them'....and even that A**hole Nancy pelosi invoked the name of GOD when blessing them.
Gas prices are rising...claims of the economy gaining ground are erroneous. I don't see it..and I believe damn few do. Unemployment figures are flawed because the government stops counting people whio run out of benefits....doesn't mean they have found gainful employment...it means their claim has run OUT.
In short, you don't have a clue what you are talking about. It IS obama's fault. In his own words....'If the economy isn't straightened out after 3 years, then I don't deserve a 2nd term.' ...I AGREE.
He is the leader of this country...things are not better since he took office...they are worse. The nation is more divided than ever..there are fewer and fewer jobs. I can attest to that FACT....I go for job interviews....even though I am working now. (I work in the computer industry) Whenever I go for a job interview, I am told that I am among the final 6 or 8 out of what is always more than 100 applications. That is just a small sampling of the market out there, and that is in a medium sized city. The economy is getting better?? B**SH*T
So feel free to cheer your boy on...if anything THAT would be like YOU are standing on the deck of the rescue ship CHEERING as Titanic sinks below the waves.
You'd have people believe the economy was robust and growing during the Bush years and Obama put it in the bathtub and drowned it? The housing bubble popped and the banks all failed before Obama became president. Not being bright enough to see cause and effect, I shall explain to you. Bush was president from 2001-2009, The GOP held the House & Senate from 1995-2007 with only brief interruption. Him bailing out GM actually WORKED and Michigan didn't turn into a third world country. Why is doing something successfully a bad thing?
Being a conservative, shouldn't you believe that the government should stay out of the economy yet you whine and bluster about Obama not doing ENOUGH? You are being ignorant and partisan. You're not being not hired because the economy is bad but just most employers don't go for insane delusional people with a chip on their shoulder.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
