PDA

View Full Version : General Politics Why are Convervative Commentators Such D-Bags?


Cave Johnson
08-25-2008, 04:35 PM
I give you exhibits A and B.

"...perhaps there’s no mystery at all, and Obama’s problems are the same problems Democrats always have at the presidential level: He’s an elitist. Oh, I know. Upon reading that, some liberal spluttered herbal chai tea from her nose at the injustice of this whole elitist canard, and the earnest Ivy League interns at some liberal magazine have burst into laughter, offering the appropriate bons mots from Balzac at the preposterousness of such a suggestion, saying: 'Don’t you conservatives understand? Democrats care about the little guy. They’re on the side of the proletariat — I mean workers — and as Obama has so eloquently put it, if the workers would only stop clinging to their silly sky god and guns, they’d understand that,'" Jonah Goldberg, NRO.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=YTRjNjQ1ZDAyNTY1MzA2Mjc1YjIxMzgyZDQ5OTRjZmI=

In America, "elitist," "snobbish," and "aristocratic" have become largely synonymous. That's a shame. "Elite" derives from the Latin for "elect," though not necessarily in the democratic "electoral" sense. It means those who — through efforts and talent — self-select themselves as qualified to lead, and teach, by example.

We talk of elite athletes, elite scientists, elite craftsmen, or elite soldiers, and everyone understands that these people are simply better, more expert at what they do than the rest of us. It is only when we get closer to those realms where experts have decided to bend every fact and twist every standard — in an effort to mend the bruised egos of backward nations and boutique domestic victim groups — that "elite" becomes pejorative. This is a tragedy, because conservatism will become meaningless if, in an effort to displace the current elite from its perch, we embrace the notion that nobody has a right to that perch.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=MjZiOGI4NDliNjg5YTI3ZmNiMzM4MTAwNGU5NjhmMjQ=

And...

http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/2008/08/kristol_the_democrats_glass_ce.asp

vs.

"Thank you, Senator Obama. You’ve defeated Senator Clinton in Iowa. It looks as if you’re about to beat her in New Hampshire. There will be no Clinton Restoration. A nation turns its grateful eyes to you,"

http://www.nytimes.com/glogin?URI=http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/07/opinion/07kristol.html&OQ=_rQ3D3Q26exQ3D1357448400Q26enQ3D5f62fd589977747eQ26eiQ3D5088Q26partnerQ3DrssnytQ26emcQ3DrssQ26ore fQ3DloginQ26orefQ3Dslogin&OP=78f5bfcfQ2FQ26Q7ET!Q26aQ3AzbhQ3AQ3AFQ7BQ26Q7B11nQ261YQ261eQ26Q3AX(x(Q3AxQ261eVh(bFQ3ARQ20pFkR

***SPRAYER
08-25-2008, 04:50 PM
Dirtbags? Just call them raythithts, like all the other moonbats do.

morphius
08-25-2008, 04:57 PM
Same reason that bleeding heart, we should all just get along, liberals seem more than ready to judge and label everyone.

***SPRAYER
08-25-2008, 05:06 PM
Sean Hannity is in the Koo Klukth Klan. He's a raythitht.

BucEyedPea
08-25-2008, 05:34 PM
That would be Shammity, not Hannity.

Pittsie what elitist means to a conservative is one that claims to know what's right for all the people instead letting the people get on with things the way they want. Too many individuals, too much variety in our country to let one man select our choices for us. An intellectual paternalistic snobbery. Anyhow, that's more the sense of what conservatives mean by elitist.

So Barack being from Harvard and an intellectual, when he says things about religion, guns and immigration he comes across as looking down at the choices of those folks that feel like that.

banyon
08-25-2008, 06:30 PM
That would be Shammity, not Hannity.

Pittsie what elitist means to a conservative is one that claims to know what's right for all the people instead letting the people get on with things the way they want. Too many individuals, too much variety in our country to let one man select our choices for us. An intellectual paternalistic snobbery. Anyhow, that's more the sense of what conservatives mean by elitist.

So Barack being from Harvard and an intellectual, when he says things about religion, guns and immigration he comes across as looking down at the choices of those folks that feel like that.

I like "Pawn Vanity" also.

penchief
08-25-2008, 06:36 PM
Same reason that bleeding heart, we should all just get along, liberals seem more than ready to judge and label everyone.

Yeah, right. That's exactly what's been happening. Just who has been getting judged and labeled? Let's look at the score. Liberal is a dirty word. Gore, Kerry, Clinton, Carter, etc. are all liars, exaggerators, terrorist sympathizers, moral abominations, unpatriotic snobs, etc. Obama is a radical black muslim with a secret agenda and who hates America and hates the troops.

Meanwhile, those pillars of morality and patriotism known as republicans have been responsible for the most corrupt government of our lifetime and for selling off America and it's people as if it were some commodity to be sold on the stock market.

Yet democrats have never resorted to the judging and labeling that republicans have turned into a public relations art form. All you have to do is look at this campaign and you can see the stark difference in how each party behaves. I'd like to call a timeout for a reality check, please.

***SPRAYER
08-25-2008, 06:39 PM
Yeah, right. That's exactly what's been happening. Just who has been getting judged and labeled? Let's look at the score. Liberal is a dirty word. Gore, Kerry, Clinton, Carter, etc. are all liars, exaggerators, terrorist sympathizers, moral abominations, unpatriotic snobs, etc. Obama is a radical black muslim with a secret agenda and who hates America and hates the troops.

Meanwhile, those pillars of morality and patriotism known as republicans have been responsible for the most corrupt government of our lifetime and for selling off America and it's people as if it were some commodity to be sold on the stock market.

Yet democrats have never resorted to the judging and labeling that republicans have turned into a public relations art form. All you have to do is look at this campaign and you can see the stark difference in how each party behaves. I'd like to call a timeout for a reality check, please.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/R6dm9rN6oTs&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/R6dm9rN6oTs&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

morphius
08-25-2008, 10:25 PM
Yeah, right. That's exactly what's been happening. Just who has been getting judged and labeled? Let's look at the score. Liberal is a dirty word. Gore, Kerry, Clinton, Carter, etc. are all liars, exaggerators, terrorist sympathizers, moral abominations, unpatriotic snobs, etc. Obama is a radical black muslim with a secret agenda and who hates America and hates the troops.

Meanwhile, those pillars of morality and patriotism known as republicans have been responsible for the most corrupt government of our lifetime and for selling off America and it's people as if it were some commodity to be sold on the stock market.

Yet democrats have never resorted to the judging and labeling that republicans have turned into a public relations art form. All you have to do is look at this campaign and you can see the stark difference in how each party behaves. I'd like to call a timeout for a reality check, please.
The dems have made it an art form, if you haven't noticed that you haven't been paying any attention and have for decades. none, nada, nill...

Seriously, you don't think Bill was a liar? Really?

Mr. Kotter
08-25-2008, 11:14 PM
Like it or not, the term "elite"....as it has been defined in modern politics, has become a pejorative. Like it, or not...it's true.

"Elite" has come to mean arrogant, condescending, self-righteous and judgemental political types....who consider themselves more knowledgeable, more expert, and more "in-tune" to the reality of the issues and the candidates.

It may be true. Yet it matters not.

In the egalitarian, power-to-the-people, majority rule...."republic" they have demanded and created, ironically....their own "expertise" becomes a liability in our grand experiment of modern "Jacksonian Democracy."

What's the saying? "Be careful what you ask for...."

It's the biggest reason, that I for one, consider "democracy" in this sense....to be WWWwwAAAAAaaa-----aaaAAAyyyYYYY" over-rated.

JMHO. :shrug:

Mr. Kotter
08-25-2008, 11:16 PM
Yeah, right. That's exactly what's been happening. Just who has been getting judged and labeled? Let's look at the score. Liberal is a dirty word. Gore, Kerry, Clinton, Carter, etc. are all liars, exaggerators, terrorist sympathizers, moral abominations, unpatriotic snobs, etc. Obama is a radical black muslim with a secret agenda and who hates America and hates the troops.

Meanwhile, those pillars of morality and patriotism known as republicans have been responsible for the most corrupt government of our lifetime and for selling off America and it's people as if it were some commodity to be sold on the stock market.

Yet democrats have never resorted to the judging and labeling that republicans have turned into a public relations art form. All you have to do is look at this campaign and you can see the stark difference in how each party behaves. I'd like to call a timeout for a reality check, please.


Holy shit....not only are you delusional. You are entirely full of shit....FULL of it. :shake:

EDIT: LMAO....

SHTSPRAYER nailed it..... LMAO

Guru
08-25-2008, 11:17 PM
Yeah, right. That's exactly what's been happening. Just who has been getting judged and labeled? Let's look at the score. Liberal is a dirty word. Gore, Kerry, Clinton, Carter, etc. are all liars, exaggerators, terrorist sympathizers, moral abominations, unpatriotic snobs, etc. Obama is a radical black muslim with a secret agenda and who hates America and hates the troops.

Meanwhile, those pillars of morality and patriotism known as republicans have been responsible for the most corrupt government of our lifetime and for selling off America and it's people as if it were some commodity to be sold on the stock market.

Yet democrats have never resorted to the judging and labeling that republicans have turned into a public relations art form. All you have to do is look at this campaign and you can see the stark difference in how each party behaves. I'd like to call a timeout for a reality check, please.

Change Liberal to conservative and republicans to democrats. There is really no difference between the two in that statement. And both sides are easily capable of saying it.

Tiger's Fan
08-26-2008, 03:45 AM
Yeah, right. That's exactly what's been happening. Just who has been getting judged and labeled? Let's look at the score. Liberal is a dirty word. Gore, Kerry, Clinton, Carter, etc. are all liars, exaggerators, terrorist sympathizers, moral abominations, unpatriotic snobs, etc. Obama is a radical black muslim with a secret agenda and who hates America and hates the troops.

Meanwhile, those pillars of morality and patriotism known as republicans have been responsible for the most corrupt government of our lifetime and for selling off America and it's people as if it were some commodity to be sold on the stock market.

Yet democrats have never resorted to the judging and labeling that republicans have turned into a public relations art form. All you have to do is look at this campaign and you can see the stark difference in how each party behaves. I'd like to call a timeout for a reality check, please.

LOL@you for thinking theres a difference in the two. Go buy a clue. Or have the government provide one for you in the event that you can't afford to do such.

penchief
08-26-2008, 06:44 AM
LOL@you for thinking theres a difference in the two. Go buy a clue. Or have the government provide one for you in the event that you can't afford to do such.

There is clearly a difference in the two.

The only reason anyone suggests that the level of contempt and derision exhibited by both sides is the same is because playing on people's innate sense of fairness will naturally illicit some degree of compromise or agreement.

Yes, all politics resorts to negativity and attacks at times. In fact, if you watch the reviews from last night's convention the biggest complaint against the democrats is that they haven't been negative enough. In fact, they are being urged to go negative in order to avoid the mistakes of the Kerry campaign, which many feel lost in 2004 because it did not go negative.

That said, there is a difference between being negative when pointing out the failures of a party or a policy and attacking the personal character of a candidate and half the population, as a whole.

The republican party has mastered contempt and derision. They are the ones who have been completely dismissive (i.e. arrogant and elitist) of points of view that our not in lockstep with their own narrow ideology. The last 30 years has provided way to much evidence of that for people to deny a difference in the degree to which each side has resorted to smears and attacks.

Mecca
08-26-2008, 07:01 AM
We live in a country where being smart and qualified for your job and knowing what you're talking about is actually a bad thing. Then you become some elitest snob because OMG you're smart.

This country elected a moron to 2 terms cause "well he seems like a cool guy to have a beer with" think about all the morons you come in contact with every single day then realize alot of them vote, it's why retarded strategy works, dumb people are easily baited.

People get offended with a smart guy talks because he's smarter than they are, so then he's an elitest snob..it's mind boggling I'd hope the President of the country is smarter than me and most of the population for that matter.

Radar Chief
08-26-2008, 07:10 AM
This country elected a moron to 2 terms cause "well he seems like a cool guy to have a beer with"

The “moron” won twice because the Dems couldn’t (wouldn’t? :hmmm: ) come up with a better candidate.

Mecca
08-26-2008, 07:12 AM
The “moron” won twice because the Dems couldn’t (wouldn’t? :hmmm: ) come up with a better candidate.

It doesn't help that people would rather vote for someone they'd like to have a beer with than someone making a logical decision.

Radar Chief
08-26-2008, 07:14 AM
There is clearly a difference in the two.

The only reason anyone suggests that the level of contempt and derision exhibited by both sides is the same is because playing on people's innate sense of fairness will naturally illicit some degree of compromise or agreement.

Yes, all politics resorts to negativity and attacks at times. In fact, if you watch the reviews from last night's convention the biggest complaint against the democrats is that they haven't been negative enough. In fact, they are being urged to go negative in order to avoid the mistakes of the Kerry campaign, which many feel lost in 2004 because it did not go negative.

That said, there is a difference between being negative when pointing out the failures of a party or a policy and attacking the personal character of a candidate and half the population, as a whole.

The republican party has mastered contempt and derision. They are the ones who have been completely dismissive (i.e. arrogant and elitist) of points of view that our not in lockstep with their own narrow ideology. The last 30 years has provided way to much evidence of that for people to deny a difference in the degree to which each side has resorted to smears and attacks.

Uh, penchief. A prime example of this is the first two sentences of your post. Are you a republican?

tiptap
08-26-2008, 07:14 AM
I don't think they were less of a candidate, but I do think less as an electioneer.

Radar Chief
08-26-2008, 07:21 AM
It doesn't help that people would rather vote for someone they'd like to have a beer with than someone making a logical decision.

Aside from the fact you’re taking a small percentage of the population and over generalizing it to mean everyone, why wouldn’t that have helped? The dems want to consider themselves for the people, why can’t they come up with a candidate capable of being personable?

penchief
08-26-2008, 07:21 AM
Uh, penchief. A prime example of this is the first two sentences of your post. Are you a republican?

When the act of appealing to someone's sense of fairness is being used in order to avoid shining a light on the reality of a situation, it is nothing more than a tactic.

I'm pointing out the hypocricy of republicans trying to brand democrats as elitist when it is obvious which party has been more dismissive and derisive. The proof is in the pudding.

It's a cop out to just say that everybody does it and they are all the same.

Radar Chief
08-26-2008, 07:25 AM
When appealing to someone's sense of fairness is being used in order to avoid shining a light on the reality of a situation, it is nothing more than a tactic.

"Completely dismissive of points of view not in lock step with your narrow ideology." :hmmm:
That’s only how you see it. Buster obviously sees it differently but you’re in too much of a hurry to be completely dismissive.

Mecca
08-26-2008, 07:26 AM
Maybe that's why I like dems then because if I think someone is a retard I will absolutely dismiss them, I guess that makes me an elitest too.

Radar Chief
08-26-2008, 07:27 AM
Maybe that's why I like dems then because if I think someone is a retard I will absolutely dismiss them, I guess that makes me an elitest too.

A “retard” dismissing retards. Go for it, I guess. ROFL

Mecca
08-26-2008, 07:28 AM
I venture into the DC forum rarely and I'm the retard uh huh...seeing who dominates this side of the board...

penchief
08-26-2008, 07:38 AM
"Completely dismissive of points of view not in lock step with your narrow ideology." :hmmm:
That’s only how you see it. Buster obviously sees it differently but you’re in too much of a hurry to be completely dismissive.

I'm not being dismissive at all. If you've noticed, for the most part I don't generate attacks. I don't start threads attacking the opposition candidate or those whom I don't agree with politically. I usually respond to assertions or attacks by others by pointing out the hypocricy of those attacks or the reality that contradicts thier assertions. In this case, the assertion that liberals are elitist doesn't fly in the face of the last 30 years. In fact, the opposite is true.

Too many people believe that liberals are elitist for the same reason they believe that liberals hate the troops, want to turn America into France, and are all a bunch of gay-loving commies. It's that way because the republican party operates under the premise that to win elections you have to employ a negative PR campaign that uses the corporate media to attack and define the enemy before they can define themselves.

patteeu
08-26-2008, 07:39 AM
Pittsie what elitist means to a conservative is one that claims to know what's right for all the people instead letting the people get on with things the way they want. Too many individuals, too much variety in our country to let one man select our choices for us. An intellectual paternalistic snobbery. Anyhow, that's more the sense of what conservatives mean by elitist.

So Barack being from Harvard and an intellectual, when he says things about religion, guns and immigration he comes across as looking down at the choices of those folks that feel like that.

I agree with you on this point.

A person is an "elitist" not because he is rich or because he is powerful or because he has several homes, he's an "elitist" because he thinks he's better than the average person and he thinks he knows better how those average people should live their lives.

I didn't really understand the concept of this thread, but I did find the Jonah Goldberg quote in the OP to be pretty funny.

Radar Chief
08-26-2008, 07:40 AM
I venture into the DC forum rarely and I'm the retard uh huh...seeing who dominates this side of the board...

When you have to over generalize at least half the population to make a rather weak point, that’s looking pretty retarded. Sorry, guess I didn’t realize this would be earth shattering news to you.

Radar Chief
08-26-2008, 07:41 AM
I'm not being dismissive at all.

I’m sure you want to believe that.

Garcia Bronco
08-26-2008, 07:45 AM
This one area where I agree and it's not just conservative commentators. It's all of them and people need to start taking them to the hoop on their law breaking slandering ways.

dirk digler
08-26-2008, 07:46 AM
I venture into the DC forum rarely and I'm the retard uh huh...seeing who dominates this side of the board...

Don't worry about it Mecca alot of the people who post over here are cowards who rarely show their face in the Lounge because they would absolutely get owned talking football.

penchief
08-26-2008, 07:54 AM
I agree with you on this point.

A person is an "elitist" not because he is rich or because he is powerful or because he has several homes, he's an "elitist" because he thinks he's better than the average person and he thinks he knows better how those average people should live their lives.

I didn't really understand the concept of this thread, but I did find the Jonah Goldberg quote in the OP to be pretty funny.

Elitism could also mean that one feels more entitled or more deserving than others. It could also mean that one feels that other people's concerns are easily dismissed in favor of their own desires and needs. That what is good for them is not good for others.

It can also mean that a person feels they are above the law or should not be held to the same standard as everyone else. And it could also mean that they feel it's okay to advance themself at the expense of others.

It could mean that one feels other people are expendable and that their condition in life is of no concern to them. That others can be used as pawns in pursuit of their personal or political agenda.

Being elitist can mean a lot of things. But for one to be truly elitist he or she must behave in a manner that manifests itself in real ways that are detrimental to the ideals of fairness and social justice.

Someone is not an elitist just because somebody else accuses them of it. They have to actually generate a result that perpetuates elitist ideology.

penchief
08-26-2008, 08:22 AM
I’m sure you want to believe that.

Believe me when I tell you that I don't dismiss the elitism of the republican party. It's contributed too much to the erosion of liberty and justice for all. And I don't dismiss their derisive tactics simply because those tactics have been way too effective in paving the way for business crooks and war profiteers to usurp the people's government.

Radar Chief
08-26-2008, 08:36 AM
Believe me when I tell you that I don't dismiss the elitism of the republican party.

Oh, I know you don’t. You just dismiss the “elitism” of the dem party apparently because it’s not in lock step with your narrow ideology.

penchief
08-26-2008, 08:54 AM
Oh, I know you don’t. You just dismiss the “elitism” of the dem party apparently because it’s not in lock step with your narrow ideology.

Yet it is the republican party that has resorted to personal character attacks and smear campaigns as standard operating procedure. It is the republican party that at the very highest levels resorts to mockery of its opposition and brands those who disagree with them as unpatriotic and untrustworthy.

It takes a lot of arrogance for a person or a political party to exhibit as much disrespect as the repubulican party has shown toward its opposition. And it takes a lot of arrogance to routinely employ derision and contempt as a tactic to undermine the character and integrity of those who disagree. To me, that kind of arrogance is a sign of elitism.

BigChiefFan
08-26-2008, 08:55 AM
Because they are such Christians.

Radar Chief
08-26-2008, 09:00 AM
Yet it is the republican party that has resorted to personal character attacks and smear campaigns as standard operating procedure. It is the republican party that at the very highest levels resorts to mockery of its opposition and brands those who disagree with them as unpatriotic and untrustworthy.

It takes a lot of arrogance for a person or a political party to exhibit as much disrespect as the repubulican party has shown toward its opposition. And it takes a lot of arrogance to routinely employ derision and contempt as a tactic to undermine the character and integrity of those who disagree. To me, that kind of arrogance is a sign of elitism.

Like comparing the POTUS to Hitler? Claiming that republicans will force the elderly to eat dog food? “Clinging to guns and religion”? Playing the race card? That kind of “arrogance and elitism”?
But that doesn’t count and your not being dismissive by discounting it.

patteeu
08-26-2008, 09:03 AM
Because they are such Christians.

:doh!: :LOL:

Both Jonah Goldberg and Bill Kristol are Jewish.

MGRS13
08-26-2008, 09:05 AM
Because they are such Christians.

This brings a great point. I would like to ask the cons on this site why they continue to poke the elite stick at dems but never point out the christian elite side of their party. If they stick with their definition of "elite" wouldn't this explain the GOP's trademark on christianity? I'm constantly told by the conservative media how much better they are then me because of their faith and how much better this country would be if it was governed by the bible.

MGRS13
08-26-2008, 09:32 AM
I sorta assumed there would be no response to this. Anytime I bring up the christian elite cons tend to quiet down.

patteeu
08-26-2008, 09:38 AM
I sorta assumed there would be no response to this. Anytime I bring up the christian elite cons tend to quiet down.

I think there *are* elitists in the Republican party. Many of them are christians who believe they know what's best for the country from a spiritual pov. John McCain isn't one of them. OTOH, Barack Obama is one of the elitists I was talking about earlier, who wants to tell us how to live our lives and who wants to shift many of the things that are currently a part of our private lives (e.g. healthcare) into the public sector where he and like-minded socialists can manage them.

Happy now?

irishjayhawk
08-26-2008, 09:42 AM
Like it or not, the term "elite"....as it has been defined in modern politics, has become a pejorative. Like it, or not...it's true.

"Elite" has come to mean arrogant, condescending, self-righteous and judgemental political types....who consider themselves more knowledgeable, more expert, and more "in-tune" to the reality of the issues and the candidates.

It may be true. Yet it matters not.

In the egalitarian, power-to-the-people, majority rule...."republic" they have demanded and created, ironically....their own "expertise" becomes a liability in our grand experiment of modern "Jacksonian Democracy."

What's the saying? "Be careful what you ask for...."

It's the biggest reason, that I for one, consider "democracy" in this sense....to be WWWwwAAAAAaaa-----aaaAAAyyyYYYY" over-rated.

JMHO. :shrug:

We live in a country where being smart and qualified for your job and knowing what you're talking about is actually a bad thing. Then you become some elitest snob because OMG you're smart.

This country elected a moron to 2 terms cause "well he seems like a cool guy to have a beer with" think about all the morons you come in contact with every single day then realize alot of them vote, it's why retarded strategy works, dumb people are easily baited.

People get offended with a smart guy talks because he's smarter than they are, so then he's an elitest snob..it's mind boggling I'd hope the President of the country is smarter than me and most of the population for that matter.

Agree with both.

MGRS13
08-26-2008, 09:47 AM
I think there *are* elitists in the Republican party. Many of them are christians who believe they know what's best for the country from a spiritual pov. John McCain isn't one of them. OTOH, Barack Obama is one of the elitists I was talking about earlier, who wants to tell us how to live our lives and who wants to shift many of the things that are currently a part of our private lives (e.g. healthcare) into the public sector where he and like-minded socialists can manage them.

Happy now?

No i'm not happy now and here is why. The GOP is running for president not John McCain. They allowed McCain to get the nod as long as they can wright the platform, and that platform includes the christian elite and the standered GOP wedge issues. I challenge you to listen to hannity and rush and the rest of the GOP trough and tell me how they don't continually ram the christian agenda down the throats of their listeners. And where McCain used to not be "that guy" he is morfing into this for his allowed run.

BigCatDaddy
08-26-2008, 09:53 AM
No i'm not happy now and here is why. The GOP is running for president not John McCain. They allowed McCain to get the nod as long as they can wright the platform, and that platform includes the christian elite and the standered GOP wedge issues. I challenge you to listen to hannity and rush and the rest of the GOP trough and tell me how they don't continually ram the christian agenda down the throats of their listeners. And where McCain used to not be "that guy" he is morfing into this for his allowed run.

What is the Christian agenda and how has it been rammed down one's throat?

patteeu
08-26-2008, 10:03 AM
No i'm not happy now and here is why. The GOP is running for president not John McCain. They allowed McCain to get the nod as long as they can wright the platform, and that platform includes the christian elite and the standered GOP wedge issues. I challenge you to listen to hannity and rush and the rest of the GOP trough and tell me how they don't continually ram the christian agenda down the throats of their listeners. And where McCain used to not be "that guy" he is morfing into this for his allowed run.

I'm not a religious person. I listen to at least a part of Rush's show several times a week and I sometimes hear Hannity but I can't say that I feel like I'm having a christian agenda rammed down my throat. I think this is really more your problem than it is a problem of Rush, Hannity, or the GOP.

And it's ludicrous to say that McCain isn't running for President or that he's a puppet of the GOP. The platform is completely irrelevant as anything but an expression of what the most active members of the party hold dear. It has no bearing on what the future President ends up doing afaict.

My fear is the opposite of yours. My fear is what a President McCain would do to the GOP rather than what the GOP would do to a President McCain.

MGRS13
08-26-2008, 10:49 AM
I'm not a religious person. I listen to at least a part of Rush's show several times a week and I sometimes hear Hannity but I can't say that I feel like I'm having a christian agenda rammed down my throat. I think this is really more your problem than it is a problem of Rush, Hannity, or the GOP.
Hannity "Your a great american god bless you"
Rush "Talent on loan from god"
Both daily bring one argument or another back to if we had more god in everyday life we would be better off as a country.
And it's ludicrous to say that McCain isn't running for President or that he's a puppet of the GOP. The platform is completely irrelevant as anything but an expression of what the most active members of the party hold dear. It has no bearing on what the future President ends up doing afaict.
He's all ready "flipped flopped" on many of his views to match the gop platform
My fear is the opposite of yours. My fear is what a President McCain would do to the GOP rather than what the GOP would do to a President McCain.
What you think he can destroy the party any more then Bush/Cheny?

Radar Chief
08-26-2008, 10:55 AM
I sorta assumed there would be no response to this. Anytime I bring up the christian elite cons tend to quiet down.

Who are the “cons” you were expecting to hear from?