Like a used car salesman perhaps? So two wrongs make a right all of a sudden? You don't deny your poor behavior. You just point out other perceived bad behavior to make it ok. Odd. If it makes you feel better to assume that then be my guest. I disagree with the conservatives on a number of issues. It isn't like I am an arch conservative, defending them to the death. But you just continue to prove my point.
nice strawman, or perhaps i'm being snotty by using that term no, you're the one who first point out bad behavior, so I'm pointing out your hypocrisy, i couldn't care less. and you prove mine. you have done nothing but call me snotty.
Nope. However, you said you wanted your politicians polished. Would game show host be better? Actually, I never singled you out until you hopped all over my original post and started being...well...really snotty.
I don't want my politicians polished. I just, after eight years of Bush's failed policies, want them to be informed and somewhat, slightly, just a little articulate. But I will settle for informed. After eight years of all this my standards have never been lower. I know you're a Republican, so who are you supporting? I spent some minutes running down my issues with the guys that are leading the pack on that side. Since you're probably going to vote that way, maybe you could give me a hint as to how you're leaning and we could have an actual talk about it. I'm not trying to be snotty. I just don't understand how an actual Republican could get behind one of these guys. Maybe you're with Huckabee and then we're done talking. You get my applause. Not because I agree with him or would ever vote for him but just because he's not a horrible candidate. Otherwise, I'd love to know who you're supporting so we could just, you know, debate and discuss it. If I disagree with you in the face of that it's not because I'm snotty. It's just because we disagree. But we could disagree and talk about it. And even if I was snarky maybe you wouldn't call me snotty and cut off communication because us non-Republicans have endured much of the same over the last several years and we're still here. In the last several years it's been amazing how the right could simultaneously throw out accusations that those that disagreed with Bush were traitors to this nation and could simultaneously go shrinking violet on any criticism whatsoever of their own failed policies. When you call someone a traitor for disagreeing with you.... Maybe it's just me, but I feel like you give up the right to go apesh*t over "snotty" language. I'd love it if you'd tell me who we were arguing over in terms of 08. But even more I'd love it you'd explain rules of engagement that were acceptable to you. Because your side has thrown the nastiest punches in history and cried foul the loudest when receiving them back. Tell me what's fair game so we can have a fair debate. Karl Rove's gone now. We could actually do this.
I have never been more disappointed in a politician I voted for in my life. So...to that extent, I gotta agree. I certainly lean to the right, but I have never been a straight ticket voter. Hell, I voted for Kinky Friedman for governor. As to who I am supporting...right now I don't like any of the likely candidates. I would like to see the Republican party have some nads and put a moderate conservative up for the nomination, but how likely is that? Not very. I sure would love to hear from him where he stands on the issues. If he's a decent candidate, he has my ear. This is why I have always enjoyed talking politics with you Batman. We disagree on a good many things, but you always debate the issues with great thought. You seldom, if ever, immediately resort to ridicule or insult. Even when you are a tad snarky, you generally back it up with analysis of the issues. You have never insinuated that I was stupid, ignorant, lacking insight, a bigot, sexist, or homophobe simply because we disagree politically. I think you enjoy the intellectual debate and bantor. That isn't snotty. Snotty is a one line jab at the mention of a candidate, specifically due to their perceived lack of speaking prowess, intelligence, or weight. (ie Geez Limbaugh...nice quote fatso.) Whoa....not me, man. If somebody disagrees with me, we disagree. If I think the other party has what they feel is best for the country in their heart (as most I believe do), then nothing seditious about that. Keep on doing what you do Batman. We're cool (at least I hope so). I generally shy away from these threads. Regardless of how ardently we may disagree, you do so in a manner in which I never leave the computer pissed off. I hope that is mutual. Thank God. I do not believe that Bush, Cheney, or Rove have been good for the country in the last few years.
Nope...being snyde in every comment you make without any earnest debate of the issues makes you snotty...but I digress....
i hope the little irishman sharted all over himself. i'm glad one candidate stood up to the religious right. it's not exactly enough to get me to vote for thompson, but from what i've been reading, some of my leanings agree with his.... though as pointed out, he is out of touch. if this were 1987 rather than 2007 he might actually fit in better. for the record, ron paul is still my #1 choice.
what debate, some guy trying to talk tough. this isn't even a debate. what do you think about thompson's comments. they're just immature. you're the party that voted the guy in because his daddy was president and he's rich, so he was supposedly going to bring back integrity to the white house. repubs calling liberals snotty is a joke beyond belief.
This is the great right hope? Anyone see Thompson's debate debut last night? If on one wants to talk about it, that's okay. I can understand.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5iMkWpPCRRB9JXjnwCHzKRAa6uP1wD8S5VLH02 Bartlett Calls Thompson `a Dud' By JENNIFER LOVEN – 14 hours ago WASHINGTON (AP) — Dan Bartlett used to speak for President Bush, one of his most trusted and ubiquitous aides for 14 years. Now, Bartlett is speaking for himself, and handicapping the Republican presidential field with uncommon candor and surprising conclusions. His vote for all-around "best candidate?" Mike Huckabee, the former Arkansas governor considered a long-shot to break into the top tier in the crowded race. "Biggest dud?" Fred Thompson, the actor-politician who raised hopes he could be the GOP's next Ronald Reagan until his campaign began stumbling. As for the front-runner, former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani, Bartlett gives him points for "best message" but otherwise said little. He complimented Giuliani for turning attention away from his more liberal positions on guns, gays, abortion and other social issues that could offend Republican primary voters. "I can't believe that more Republicans during this primary process have not focused more on contrasting themselves, not with each other but with the Democrats," Bartlett said Sept. 13 at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. "Rudy has done that the best." Bartlett's speech was his first since his July departure from the White House, where he held the title of counselor after working for Bush since 1993. It was a joint appearance with Terry McAuliffe, the former Democratic Party boss who is chairman of Democratic Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign. Among Bartlett's topics advertised by the Leading Authorities Speakers Bureau, which books him for $10,000-$30,000 per speech, is "a hard look at the upcoming presidential elections." Bartlett remains in touch with former White House colleagues. But he said Tuesday that "the speech reflects my views and in no way, shape, or form channels the thinking of the president." In the speech, he had some praise for each of the main Republican candidates, but more criticism. Mitt Romney, for example, won kudos for "best strategy and organization." But Bartlett went on to skewer the former Massachusetts governor for letting the story line harden that he flip-flops on issues. "When you see a narrative develop, you better make sure it's one you like. Because if it's not, they are very difficult to change," Bartlett said. "He's getting a narrative in the national media as someone who is too much trying to position himself, trying to hedge himself, almost too mechanical about the issues. Right now, that's their biggest danger," Bartlett said Tuesday. But not the only one, according to Bartlett. Romney's Mormon faith "is a real problem in the South, it's a problem in other parts of the country." Bartlett said voters won't admit that's why they won't support him, so "what they're going to say is, `He's a flip-flopper.'" Bartlett called Arizona Sen. John McCain the "biggest wild card." "The boom-and-bust cycle of his campaign has been well-documented," he said. "But he is now where he does his best: He's lean, he's mean, he's out there, he's fighting in New Hampshire. The problem is going to be that it always comes down to money, money, money and he doesn't have it." Huckabee won Bartlett's greatest enthusiasm for being "the most articulate, visionary candidate of anybody in the field" and the one who most reminds him of the president. But Bartlett said Huckabee will likely fall short, in part because his last name sounds funny and he's from Bill Clinton's hometown. "Politics can be fickle like that. I mean, you're trying to get somebody's attention for the first time. ... 'Huckabee? You've got to be kidding me! Hope, Arkansas? Here we go again,'" Bartlett said. He was harshest about Thompson and his late-but-criticized entry into the race. "The biggest liability was whether he had the fire in the belly to run for office in the first place and be president," Bartlett said. "So what does he do? He waits four months, fires a bunch of staff, has a big staff turnover, has a lot of backbiting, comes out with this big campaign launch and gives a very incoherent and not very concise stump speech for why he's running for president." Bartlett said Thompson peaked in the spring before he became an official candidate and has little chance now to become the nominee. But when it came to predicting who does, Bartlett demurred. He didn't rule out Romney, but seemed to lean toward either Giuliani or McCain. "Republicans, I believe, are terrified about losing the presidency after losing Congress," he said. "I think this is going to be the season of the pragmatic Republican voter. That bodes well for Rudy and it gives McCain a shot. McCain could go toe-to-toe with Hillary in the general election."
no you don't get it. republicans play the part of the party of the red states, when their values have nothing to do with red state values. they've run a scam. and you've fallen for it. because they're "straight talkin" edit: good book on the what's the matter with kansas Against this backdrop, Frank describes the rise of conservatism and the so-called "far right" in the social and political landscape of Kansas. He finds extraordinary irony in working-class Kansans' overwhelming support for Republican politicians, despite the fact that, in his view, the laissez faire economic policies of the Republican party are wreaking havoc on their communities and livelihoods for the benefit of the "extremely wealthy". Meanwhile, he says, the party fails to deliver on the "moral" issues (such as abortion and gay rights) which brought the support of cultural conservatives in the first place -- deepening a cycle of frustration aimed at cultural liberalism.
