Ethics DELAYed

[SuperJerk 0]

And the USSR would have collapsed WITHOUT Reagan pressing them. Yes sir.

 

Of course it would have.

 

Reagan's policies only helped accelerate what would have occurred later. The metaphor I'm used to hearing from conservatives is that the Soviet Union was on the edge, and Reagan gave it the final push. Soviet Communism was destroying itself long before Reagan came onto the scene.

 

Reagan, the Pope, Thatcher, and Gorbachev all had roles in the Soviet Union's final collapse.

 

When you consider that pathetic minority opinion that liberalism is --- yes.

 

If go you on an issue-by-issue basis, liberalism is alive and well. The movement lacks any strong leaders that make it a politically viable alternative, however.

 

Conservatives are also a minority, just a more vocal and more organized one. If you conducted a poll to see who identifies themselves as "liberal", "conservative", or "moderate," you'd find none of them reaches close to 50% or more of the general public.

 

Many conservatives look to Bush's electoral win as proof of their dominace, but the reality is that so-called red states only contain 51% of the total US population.

[Guest MikeSC]

And the USSR would have collapsed WITHOUT Reagan pressing them. Yes sir.

 

Of course it would have.

The ironic thing is that, before Reagan, the USSR was viewed as being permanent and something we should be willing to work with since they'd NEVER go away.

 

If, say, Carter was in charge instead of Reagan --- no, the USSR would have never gone away.

Reagan's policies only helped accelerate what would have occurred later.  The metaphor I'm used to hearing from conservatives is that the Soviet Union was on the edge, and Reagan gave it the final push.  Soviet Communism was destroying itself long before Reagan came onto the scene.

 

Reagan, the Pope, Thatcher, and Gorbachev all had roles in the Soviet Union's final collapse.

Go ahead and strike Gorby off that list. His goal was to save Communism and the Soviet Empire and he simply failed in the process.

When you consider that pathetic minority opinion that liberalism is --- yes.

If go you on an issue-by-issue basis, liberalism is alive and well. The movement lacks any strong leaders that make it a politically viable alternative, however.

 

Conservatives are also a minority, just a more vocal and more organized one. If you conducted a poll to see who identifies themselves as "liberal", "conservative", or "moderate," you'd find none of them reaches close to 50% or more of the general public.

 

Many conservatives look to Bush's electoral win as proof of their dominace, but the reality is that so-called red states only contain 51% of the total US population.

Actually, we point to the most popular and beloved Democratic President in damned near half a century never polling 50% as a problem for the Dems.

-=Mike

[Guest Cerebus]

Ok kiddos, break it up.

 

Michael Cottle has a great piece at TNR (which is fast becoming my fav political magazine despite the fact that it is center-left):

 

Tom Foolery

by Michelle Cottle

 

As the liberal offspring of conservative parents, I rarely find anything political over which to bond with my red-state family. I was therefore pleasantly surprised this week to learn that Tom DeLay's theatrics during the Terri Schiavo tragedy have, in addition to earning him a public slap from Dick Cheney, cost him the vote of my staunchly Republican father, a resident of the majority leader's suburban-Houston district. It seems Dad is so disgusted with DeLay's hysterical ranting about holding judges accountable for Schiavo's death that he's written his congressman off as "absurd," pronouncing, "I think he's lost it."

 

Sadly, I suspect DeLay's Schiavo shenanigans won't do him serious political damage, or at least not enough to matter in his deep-red district. Still, I regard his alienation of even a few GOP loyalists like my dad to be yet another delightful case of the majority leader's bad behavior coming back to bite him on the backside in recent months. With a political powerhouse like the Hammer, it generally takes several drops of blood in the water before the other sharks have a prayer of taking you down. So at this point, every high-profile bit of rank arrogance or stupidity on DeLay's part gives potential aid and comfort to all those who'd love to see the reptilian congressman involuntarily privatized.

 

That said, when I picked up The New York Times on Wednesday to see a breathless, above-the-fold front-pager about how DeLay's wife and daughter have been paid piles of cash by DeLay's political organizations, only one thought ran through my mind: What on God's green earth was the Times thinking?

 

POLITICAL GROUPS PAID 2 RELATIVES OF HOUSE LEADER screamed the headline (in all caps, naturally), as the subheds piled on: OVER $500,000 SINCE 2001; DeLay Wife and Daughter Got Money for Work Tied to Campaigns. So seductive was the scent of scandal that AOL featured the story on its opening screen, complete with a sour headshot of the beleaguered majority leader.

 

But titillated readers anticipating details of a gross ethical--possibly even legal!--breach by DeLay were in for disappointment. As it turns out, there is nothing shady about the payments to the congressman's kin. Daughter Dani and wife Christine have long been actively involved in DeLay's political career--planning events, raising money, organizing schedules, helping manage the occasional campaign. Were the two women out of line for demanding money for their services? Presumably not, since even the Times acknowledged (though not until well into the piece) that DeLay is far from the only lawmaker who has allowed relatives to cash in on his political career; others include Democrats such as Senator Barbara Boxer and Representative Howard Berman. (Hell, if political nepotism were a crime, half the Bush and Cheney clans would be in jail by now.)

 

It's hardly surprising that DeLay's colleagues have declined to take a poke at him over this ostensible outrage. Even the typically overwrought public interest groups have remained relatively subdued. The most the Times could get anyone to complain about was that the amount paid to DeLay's wife and daughter was "unusually generous" and may bear examination. Wow. Talk about a whole lot of ink wasted on nothing.

 

Now I'm all for kicking a goon when he's down--especially an arrogant, power-mad goon like DeLay. But the Times' push to turn a mole hill into page-one material isn't just a case of questionable journalism--though that, of course, is what the paper of record should be fretting about. In crass political terms--say, from the standpoint of the countless Dems quietly relishing the additional bad press for their nemesis--the piece also has the potential to be actively counterproductive, steering the conversation away from DeLay's actual misdeeds, while lending credence to the congressman's eternal protestations that he is being unfairly targeted by his ideological enemies.

 

Wednesday's Times had barely hit the stands when DeLay went on CNN to denounce "another seedy attempt by the liberal media to embarrass me" (an interview recapped in the next day's papers). Ordinarily, I ignore such bluster from the lib-baiting DeLay. But when he groused that his wife and daughter had been "singled out" for a perfectly legal, run-of-the-mill practice, I had to (grudgingly) concede his point. While the Times may not have been operating with a liberal bias, its desperation to advance a sexy storyline was clear.

 

But as tempting as it is to cheer journalistic overkill when its target is a character as noxious as DeLay, do the congressman's foes really want to risk having the spotlight diverted to a "culture of Washington" issue that who knows how many lawmakers would have to answer for? (And will, if the spotlight stays there for long.) Wouldn't it be better--for everyone except DeLay, that is--to keep all eyes on the Hammer's more serious problems?

 

Each week seems to bring fresh news of some big-ticket junket DeLay took, utterly clueless that some mysterious interest group or lobbyist or foreign agent was paying for it in violation of congressional rules. What the gentleman from Texas knew and when he knew it remains a point of hot debate as yet; but as the troublesome infractions pile up, DeLay's willful ignorance begins to feel less and less exculpatory.

 

Then, of course, there's still the possibility DeLay will wind up in legal trouble as a result of the ongoing civil and criminal probes into just how many laws the folks who ran his state PAC violated in helping him secure a Republican majority in the Texas legislature. Right now, the man who--arguably more than any other--amassed congressional power by ruthlessly, obsessively, tirelessly perfecting the art of political extortion (oops, make that fundraising) is asking everyone to believe that his Texans for a Republican Majority PAC cronies were engaged in creatively financing DeLay's pet project without even his knowledge, much less his oversight or participation. It's a side-splitting defense when you think about it: poor, hapless, out-of-touch DeLay, Capitol Hill's version of Bernie Ebbers. (Gawsh, folks, I didn't know nothin' 'bout nothin'. I just let my underlings handle it all.) Just look how well Ebbers's dumb act worked for him.

 

With the Hammer under fire for so many (alleged) real sins, why risk manufacturing any dirt? If the Dan Rather episode taught the media anything (besides the value of confirming source material), it should have been the danger of over-hyping a scandal to the point that we wind up transforming the subject of an investigation into a media martyr. These are treacherous times for DeLay, but the man is crafty. And journalists must take care not to give him even an inch of wiggle room to make the story about anything other than his own misconduct.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

TNR is also one of my favorite mags. Cerebus, you are being drawn to the light side.

 

And speaking of political magazines, I found these two covers coming out on the same week to be quite hilarious (I work at a bookstore and read all this stuff).

 

 

[Guest Cerebus]

TNR is run by a center guy (Peter Beinart) with a whole crap load of center to center-left writers but has a historical reputation of being THE premier liberal magazine in the country. Go figure. Also, the views of Weekly Standard, but the writing just isn't as good as it used to be.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Yet he became national before Clinton took office. Odd.

 

Rush has always said he experieced the most growth when Bush I was in office. Please don't even try to debate this one point.

 

Oh, and although I don't read TNR that much, I think they're center-left and the most objective out of TNR, NR and The Disgrace-ation...

[SuperJerk 0]

QUOTE (Tom Foolery by Michelle Cottle)

Daughter Dani and wife Christine have long been actively involved in DeLay's political career--planning events, raising money, organizing schedules, helping manage the occasional campaign. Were the two women out of line for demanding money for their services? Presumably not, since even the Times acknowledged (though not until well into the piece) that DeLay is far from the only lawmaker who has allowed relatives to cash in on his political career; others include Democrats such as Senator Barbara Boxer and Representative Howard Berman. (Hell, if political nepotism were a crime, half the Bush and Cheney clans would be in jail by now.) YES, it is wrong for them to expect money for their services to DeLay's campaign if the money wasn't coming from the campaign itself. That's not the same as what Bush and Cheney have done.   Also, the defense "its okay because everyone else is doing it" seldom works.     If' date=' say, Carter was in charge instead of Reagan --- no, the USSR would have never gone away.[/quote']   Yes, because the Soviet government was so stable.   Go ahead and strike Gorby off that list. His goal was to save Communism and the Soviet Empire and he simply failed in the process.   The implementation of perestroika enabled pro-capitalist and pro-democracy forces within the Soviet Union to strengthen. Gorbachev was the architect of perestroika, and thus is partially responsible for the Soviet system's collapse.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Update:

 

Congressman Chris Shays (R-Connecticut) came out calling Delay "an embarassment to me and the Republican Party." Rick Santorum also came out with some critical remarks.

 

I propose a death match between Santorum and Delay for the title of "biggest rightwing nut in Congress".

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

Shays is a RINO and Santorum is trying to appear somewhat moderate because he's probably going to get a Bob Casey beatdown come November. The more and more Big Meida get on this case, the more and more I want Delay to say "fuck off."

 

Guess since Martha Burke didn't go to Augusta this year, the NY Times need to occupy their time with something...

[Ted the Poster 0]

"RINO"?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Shays is a RINO

Oh no you diiiii-n't!

 

Well, okay, he may be, I know nothing about his voting record, but his bit about the Party of Lincoln becoming the Party of Theocracy made him my hero for the week, if nothing else. 'Bout time some Republicans started noticing the neoconservatives grip on their party and started bitching about it. It was getting pretty stupid when you have DEMOCRATS supporting the most conservative, non-interventionist ideas.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

"RINO"?

I think he means "Republican in Name Only".

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Shays is a RINO

 

 

'Bout time some Republicans started noticing the neoconservatives grip on their party

I don't think Delay and the like are neo-cons. Neocons are the Wolfowitz-Weekly Standard-Bill Kristol set who want the US to play world messiah. Delay is just a regular old radical conservative, or radcon.

 

Or how about a "theocon"? I like the sound of that.

 

To me, the neocons are somehow more likeable than the radcons--I guess because they're ostensibly idealists like me.

 

In TSM terms, I think of MikeSC as a radcon and Cerebus as a neocon.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Actually, we point to the most popular and beloved Democratic President in damned near half a century never polling 50% as a problem for the Dems.

-=Mike

Kinda like how Bush has the lowest approval rating of any president ever at this point in his second term?

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Apr11.html

[Guest MikeSC]

Actually, we point to the most popular and beloved Democratic President in damned near half a century never polling 50% as a problem for the Dems.

    -=Mike

Kinda like how Bush has the lowest approval rating of any president ever at this point in his second term?

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Apr11.html

Too bad he polled over 50% in the only poll that matters.

Yes, because the Soviet government was so stable.

Considering that Carter was actively pursuing detente --- they would have never had to spend themselves into oblivion.

The implementation of perestroika enabled pro-capitalist and pro-democracy forces within the Soviet Union to strengthen. Gorbachev was the architect of perestroika, and thus is partially responsible for the Soviet system's collapse.

Giving Gorby credit for the break-up of the USSR is like blaming Hoover for the Great Depression.

Congressman Chris Shays (R-Connecticut) came out calling Delay "an embarassment to me and the Republican Party." Rick Santorum also came out with some critical remarks.

Shays criticizing a Republican?

 

I'm STUNNED.

 

Really, stunned!

Well, okay, he may be, I know nothing about his voting record, but his bit about the Party of Lincoln becoming the Party of Theocracy made him my hero for the week, if nothing else. 'Bout time some Republicans started noticing the neoconservatives grip on their party and started bitching about it. It was getting pretty stupid when you have DEMOCRATS supporting the most conservative, non-interventionist ideas.

Yet when Zell Miller comments on the Dems and national security, you seem to think he doesn't represent Democrats. Odd how that double standard works.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Kinda like how Bush has the lowest approval rating of any president ever at this point in his second term?

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Apr11.html

Too bad he polled over 50% in the only poll that matters.

I know this is a baseless prediction, but I suspect that if we were here in 1997, you'd make similar jabs at Clinton.

 

Giving Gorby credit for the break-up of the USSR is like blaming Hoover for the Great Depression.

 

Kind of a bad thing to say, since Hoover DID turn a recession into a depression by reducing the amount of money available instead of increasing it. He didn't cause the whole thing, but he turned a down spot that could have been resolved into a fuckup of epic proportions. That and the Smoot-Hawley tarriffs, which didn't help anything. But I think we've gone over this before, haven't we?

 

Yet when Zell Miller comments on the Dems and national security, you seem to think he doesn't represent Democrats. Odd how that double standard works.

-=Mike

 

In case you didn't read, and it would look like you didn't, I said I wasn't familiar with Shays' voting record. I am familiar with Miller's, and how it basically aligned with the White House almost 100% of the time.

 

Also, those comments were sort of in jest, since I know kkk is a big Zell Miller fan even after I've listed my 1001 reasons why I think Zell is icky to be around.

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Yet when Zell Miller comments on the Dems and national security, you seem to think he doesn't represent Democrats. Odd how that double standard works.

-=Mike

When Zell Miller challenges people to duels, he doesn't represent anybody.

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

Congressman Chris Shays (R-Connecticut) came out calling Delay "an embarassment to me and the Republican Party." Rick Santorum also came out with some critical remarks.

 

Shays criticizing a Republican?

 

I'm STUNNED.

The stunner is Santorum criticizing him. When Santorum says you're going too far right, you may want to stop & check yourself.

[Guest MikeSC]

Kinda like how Bush has the lowest approval rating of any president ever at this point in his second term?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/artic...-2005Apr11.html

Too bad he polled over 50% in the only poll that matters.

I know this is a baseless prediction, but I suspect that if we were here in 1997, you'd make similar jabs at Clinton.

He didn't cause the whole thing, but he turned a down spot that could have been resolved into a fuckup of epic proportions. That and the Smoot-Hawley tarriffs, which didn't help anything. But I think we've gone over this before, haven't we?

And they'd be stunningly accurate. For all of his "popularity", he never could get even half of the country to vote for him.

Giving Gorby credit for the break-up of the USSR is like blaming Hoover for the Great Depression.

Kind of a bad thing to say, since Hoover DID turn a recession into a depression by reducing the amount of money available instead of increasing it.

No, Hoover was given an economy that was going to collapse no matter what he did (it was in VERY bad shape, no matter how good the stock market was doing). He just managed to be inept enough to make it much, much worse than it would have otherwise been (though, in his defense, FDR didn't exactly make things much better).

 

Ditto Gorby. He was given a country with problems and he managed to be inept enough to make them kill the empire. It's a gift that he had, I suppose, to kill the whole country.

Yet when Zell Miller comments on the Dems and national security, you seem to think he doesn't represent Democrats. Odd how that double standard works.

-=Mike

In case you didn't read, and it would look like you didn't, I said I wasn't familiar with Shays' voting record. I am familiar with Miller's, and how it basically aligned with the White House almost 100% of the time.

If you are unaware of Shays' anti-Republican voting record, you have worked hard to remain ignorant of it.

The stunner is Santorum criticizing him. When Santorum says you're going too far right, you may want to stop & check yourself.

Santorum asked him to answer questions, which is legitimate and which I think he should do.

When Zell Miller challenges people to duels, he doesn't represent anybody.

When Shays calls the GOP the party of theology, neither does he.

-=Mike

...Why Shays doesn't just pull a Jeffords and become a useless Dem so he can be more effectively marginalized is beyond me...

[SuperJerk 0]

Yes, because the Soviet government was so stable.

Considering that Carter was actively pursuing detente --- they would have never had to spend themselves into oblivion.

The implementation of perestroika enabled pro-capitalist and pro-democracy forces within the Soviet Union to strengthen. Gorbachev was the architect of perestroika, and thus is partially responsible for the Soviet system's collapse.

Giving Gorby credit for the break-up of the USSR is like blaming Hoover for the Great Depression.

I like the way you feel the need to drag Carter or Clinton into every argument.

 

Giving Gorbachev PARTIAL credit for accelerating the collapse of the Soviet Union is nothing like blaming Hoover for the Great Depression. Especially when I can point to actual programs that accelerated the collapse, which you completely no-sold with your typical invincible ignorance.

 

Rather that explaining why perestroika shouldn't be given part of the credit, you just make your typical ignorant remark about how there's no way that could be true. Congratulations on being a narrow-minded shithead.

[Guest MikeSC]

Yes, because the Soviet government was so stable.

Considering that Carter was actively pursuing detente --- they would have never had to spend themselves into oblivion.

The implementation of perestroika enabled pro-capitalist and pro-democracy forces within the Soviet Union to strengthen. Gorbachev was the architect of perestroika, and thus is partially responsible for the Soviet system's collapse.

Giving Gorby credit for the break-up of the USSR is like blaming Hoover for the Great Depression.

I like the way you feel the need to drag Carter or Clinton into every argument.

Considering it was stated that the USSR would have collapsed without Reagan --- I was simply pointing out that, before Reagan, detente had been the official policy.

 

And detente wasn't going to generate anything. If detente was the policy, they would have NEVER collapsed. God knows NOBODY saw it happening in 1980. NOBODY thought they'd die in 1980.

 

Well, except for one man --- who just so happened to be the greatest President of that century.

Giving Gorbachev PARTIAL credit for accelerating the collapse of the Soviet Union is nothing like blaming Hoover for the Great Depression.  Especially when I can point to actual programs that accelerated the collapse, which you completely no-sold with your typical invincible ignorance. 

Gorbachev wasn't TRYING to end the USSR. That's what you don't seem to get. He didn't WANT the empire to collapse. He simply proposed policies to try and keep the empire together after Reagan forced them to spend themselves into oblivion.

 

You're acting as if Gorbachev was TRYING to end the Soviet Union when he, no matter how you look at it, was not. He was trying to SAVE the Soviet Union and was such a bumbler that he made their problems worse.

Rather that explaining why perestroika shouldn't be given part of the credit, you just make your typical ignorant remark about how there's no way that could be true.  Congratulations on being a narrow-minded shithead.

How about you learn the difference between the DESIGNED goal of a policy and its ACTUAL result.

 

Do you think the toppling of Mossadegh was INTENDED to cause a rise in Iranian Islamofascism many years later?

 

Nope, but that is what, ultimately, happened.

 

Because the policy was inept. Not because of any intentional goal on the part of the policy-makers.

 

Now, feel free to continue missing the point...

-=Mike

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

When Zell Miller challenges people to duels, he doesn't represent anybody.

When Shays calls the GOP the party of theology, neither does he.

A lot of people think the GOP is too theocratic. A lot of people don't like duels. Bad comparison.

[Guest MikeSC]

When Zell Miller challenges people to duels, he doesn't represent anybody.

When Shays calls the GOP the party of theology, neither does he.

A lot of people think the GOP is too theocratic. A lot of people don't like duels. Bad comparison.

No sane person thinks the GOP is "theocratic". But have fun.

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

God knows NOBODY saw it happening in 1980. NOBODY thought they'd die in 1980.

 

Well, except for one man --- who just so happened to be the greatest President of that century.

Oh, gag. First of all, Reagan was more or less elected on the premise that he would make them die, as everybody was sick and tired of pussyfooting around and Reagan would ensure that either they die or we die, and at least the whole damn thing would be over.

 

I would say the Pope had a good deal to do with the fall of Communism as well, as his trips inspired people to want to be free of the Oppression.

 

No sane person thinks the GOP is "theocratic". But have fun.

        -=Mike

 

Gee, you'd almost think they didn't hold a group prayer at the end of every day of their flashy convention.

[Guest MikeSC]

God knows NOBODY saw it happening in 1980. NOBODY thought they'd die in 1980.

 

Well, except for one man --- who just so happened to be the greatest President of that century.

Oh, gag. First of all, Reagan was more or less elected on the premise that he would make them die, as everybody was sick and tired of pussyfooting around and Reagan would ensure that either they die or we die, and at least the whole damn thing would be over.

 

And Reagan was opposed, almost every single step of the way, by the left in this country. His greatness was that he didn't allow the vocal minority of whiners dictate American policy as Presidents since Eisenhower had done.

I would say the Pope had a good deal to do with the fall of Communism as well, as his trips inspired people to want to be free of the Oppression.

And nobody says he didn't.

 

But Reagan was the driving force behind it.

No sane person thinks the GOP is "theocratic". But have fun.

        -=Mike

Gee, you'd almost think they didn't hold a group prayer at the end of every day of their flashy convention.

Damned near as bad as having virtual campaign rallies in black churches every 4 years, huh?

-=Mike

[Jobber of the Week 0]

And Reagan was opposed, almost every single step of the way, by the left in this country.

Reagan had created a whole faction of Democratic crossover voters. What are you going on about?

 

And nobody says he didn't.

 

But Reagan was the driving force behind it.

 

Well, I'd say that Reagan successfully bankrupted the Soviet Union, but the Pope did more to close the lid on Communism as it became plentifully obvious to the rest of the world through his trips and the media following it just what kind of squalor the people he was visiting were living in, and how all these people wanted so badly to live in a free state.

 

Damned near as bad as having virtual campaign rallies in black churches every 4 years, huh?

            -=Mike

I guess in the end it depends on what they're saying. The Republicans, to me, say a lot of things that feel like religious rhetoric. The Democrats have done it before, too, but the Republicans do it more often. Saying something absurd like "marraige is a sacred institution."

[Guest MikeSC]

And Reagan was opposed, almost every single step of the way, by the left in this country.

Reagan had created a whole faction of Democratic crossover voters. What are you going on about?

Jesus fucking Christ, did you MISS the entire 1980's? Did you miss the Democratic Congress trying to block every single foreign policy Reagan wanted? Did you miss the entire nuclear freeze movement?

 

The "Reagan Democrats" were former Democrats who were sick of the Democrats refusing to combat the Communists.

And nobody says he didn't.

 

But Reagan was the driving force behind it.

Well, I'd say that Reagan successfully bankrupted the Soviet Union, but the Pope did more to close the lid on Communism as it became plentifully obvious to the rest of the world through his trips and the media following it just what kind of squalor the people he was visiting were living in, and how all these people wanted so badly to live in a free state.

BWA HA HA HA!

 

That's CLEARLY bullshit now, considering how often the press fellates Fidel Castro to this very day. The press has few problems with murderous Communist dictators and never did.

I guess in the end it depends on what they're saying. The Republicans, to me, say a lot of things that feel like religious rhetoric. The Democrats have done it before, too, but the Republicans do it more often. Saying something absurd like "marraige is a sacred institution."

Well, better than "A vote for Republicans is a vote for church burning"...

-=Mike

[BUTT 0]

Shays is a RINO

I guess that means he's going to break a flower pot and get fired from Congress.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Jesus fucking Christ, did you MISS the entire 1980's? Did you miss the Democratic Congress trying to block every single foreign policy Reagan wanted? Did you miss the entire nuclear freeze movement?

 

The "Reagan Democrats" were former Democrats who were sick of the Democrats refusing to combat the Communists.

Okay, you're talking about Democratic leadership. I thought you were talking about a majority of the nation's Dems on the whole. Misunderstanding, that's all.

 

BWA HA HA HA!

 

That's CLEARLY bullshit now, considering how often the press fellates Fidel Castro to this very day. The press has few problems with murderous Communist dictators and never did.

 

I wasn't saying the Media did anything about it. I'm just saying that by trailing the Pope along on everything like they do, they sent those images around the world of people desperate to leave Communism.

 

Well, better than "A vote for Republicans is a vote for church burning"...

          -=Mike

 

Yeah, that's pretty bad. Who said that?

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

NAACP radio ads. And they actually said that, complete with audio of a burning structure in the background.

 

I guess that means he's going to break a flower pot and get fired from Congress.

 

RINO's are pussies. He won't break no flower pot. He'll just whine about how hurt his feelings are...