.

(function() { (function(){function c(a){this.t={};this.tick=function(a,c,b){var d=void 0!=b?b:(new Date).getTime();this.t[a]=[d,c];if(void 0==b)try{window.console.timeStamp("CSI/"+a)}catch(l){}};this.tick("start",null,a)}var a;if(window.performance)var e=(a=window.performance.timing)&&a.responseStart;var h=0=b&&(window.jstiming.srt=e-b)}if(a){var d=window.jstiming.load;0=b&&(d.tick("_wtsrt",void 0,b),d.tick("wtsrt_","_wtsrt", e),d.tick("tbsd_","wtsrt_"))}try{a=null,window.chrome&&window.chrome.csi&&(a=Math.floor(window.chrome.csi().pageT),d&&0=c&&window.jstiming.load.tick("aft")};var f=!1;function g(){f||(f=!0,window.jstiming.load.tick("firstScrollTime"))}window.addEventListener?window.addEventListener("scroll",g,!1):window.attachEvent("onscroll",g); })();

Tuesday, January 16, 2007

















It's not like many of us conservatives think McCain is worth a damn either. He tries to play both sides of the fence at the expense of the country.

That being said, the left ADORED him when he rolled over for them. Now that he disagrees with them he is the bad guy again.

What strikes as humorous about this HuffPo headline is that McCain is labled as 'trying to be a radical right candidate' simply for trying to establish a line of dialogue with Falwell.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't the libtardos the ones who are always screaming for dialogue with the enemy?

So, it stands to reason that Democrats Are Trying To Be America Hating Radicals By Wanting To Establish Dialogue With The Enemy.

Can't have it both ways, moonbats.
Though you do try.....you do try

3 Comments:

Blogger joe said...

I don't know anyone who "loved" this guy, libtard or not, though I'm sure plenty of folks bought into the MSM "Straight Talk" meme, despite the fact that this guy changes his mind whenever the wind blows, yet always seems to suck up to those in power. Pretty common politically I suppose.

But here's McCain in 1990:

If you get involved in a major ground war in the Saudi desert, I think support will erode significantly. Nor should it be supported. We cannot even contemplate, in my view, trading American blood for Iraqi blood. [New York Times Aug 19, 1990]

Unlike the other John accused of "flip flopping" who simply voted for one version of a resolution and voted against another which he disagreed with, This John actually did oppose a ground war in the middle east.

I wonder where you get
"That being said, the left ADORED him when he rolled over for them. Now that he disagrees with them he is the bad guy again."
You mean the way he rolled over on torture? or when he rolled over on domestic spying? (which Bush will not now reauthorize since it was plainly illegal)
I guess I don't ever remember McCain rolling over for anything espoused by the left, sure he spouts some platitudes and makes a few statements in support of things like democracy and the rule of law, but all he (along with serial enabler Specter) ever does is complain a bit and then bend right over to power, proving he has no business with any himself.

The bit about him talking to the enemy is pretty telling I think, since when is another American the "enemy"? even if it is a radical hate monger like Pat Robertson? He's still an American, he's still entitled to his beliefs and opinions. Who are you talking to that pits Americans against one another so much that you could consider one of us your enemy?
Maybe that last bit was phrased badly, it's clear you are trying to make it look like some liberals think he is the enemy. What you fail to recognize is that most liberals don't think in black and white terms like you do, most of us realize that most people disagree on issues for specific reasons rather than knee jerk emotional responses. Of course there is always that 25-30 percent who only recognize emotional content, but folks who cannot separate their rationality from their belief systems used to be ignored by the press and politicians, (except during campaigns). I think we can blame Jerry Springer for giving those folks more of a public voice. Though I could wish for folks like that not to be able to influence policy, it is their right to do so. Just as it is your right to spew unfounded epithets (such as placing this at the feet of libtards, none of whom you bother listing)against those you disagree with while ignoring any actual arguments made.
While this is how most neo-cons and "conservative" pundits spread their lies, it is quite obvious, and it is as morally bankrupt as the neo-cons and their supporters themselves.

What I dont get is how it is that all the folks that were right about this disaster in Iraq are ignored while almost everyone that was wrong now has constant air time on news channels, mostly cable, which then get faithfully reported by broadcast media. I really just don't understand it. We've really got to do something about all this corruption.

4:37 PM  
Blogger Senor said...

I should have been more clear.
When I said the Left wants a dialogue with the enemy, I meant the TERRORISTS.

"If only we had talked to them and tried to understand how this was our fault. We need a dialogue, not bombs."

I think we've all heard that drivel more than once.

6:35 PM  
Blogger joe said...

uh, okay, then how is it that your post makes any sense?

12:06 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home