[mccookgazette.com] Fair ~ 98°F  
Feels like: 102°F
Thursday, July 24, 2014

Hearts and Flowers

Posted Sunday, November 27, 2011, at 12:48 AM

(Photo)
Many voters realize that any of the current candidates running for this nation's highest office would make a better President than Barack Obama.

Truly, it would be hard for any human being to do a worse job than Obama. But simply being "better" than Obama can not be the measuring stick when choosing a nominee. We must be honest with ourselves, and confront the Liberal Democrats and the mess they have created in almost every area.

The next President, must not try and manage the disease of Liberalism. That will do nothing to cure the devastating effects of the left on life and liberty here in America. The next President will have to push the Congress to roll back as much Liberalism as possible.

I know there are some of you that do not want to hear this.

You want hearts and flowers.

You want to hear how the Republicans and Democrats will sit down, and holding hands and proclaiming "love of country", they will sing Kumbaya and then compromise and do the right thing.

Unfortunately, there are some things you must not compromise on. Where exactly do you compromise on slavery for example? Didn't we try that once?

No my friends, Liberalism, as it applies to our government and our culture, must be taken on, and defeated.

Our next President must be steadfast on reducing government, serious about tax reform and reducing government regulations. He/She must be willing to take on the public employee unions. If our Republic is to survive, the next President will have to harness the Trial Lawyers, and the racists and race baiters in the Democrat Party. Let us not forget that the eco Fascists need to be run out of Washington.

The next President will have to do this in the face of the hysterical leftist media, and every poor soul they drag forward to support their dreams of serfdom for all. It will not be easy.

To save the Republic, there will no time for hearts and flowers.

Do you think that Mitt Romney will close the border?

Well, do you? Do you really think Romney will repeal the evil that is Obamacare? Do you think Romney will reform the tax code? Do you think Romney will cut one single Federal Employee from the taxpayer payroll?

Those are honest questions. You see, if Romney tries to better manage the mess that Liberals have created, he will wilt the first time the leftist media machine makes slanderous assaults on any plan to reduce government. Would Romney stand up to that?

I don't think so, and while it could be argued that Romney would not bow to foreign dictators, or apologize for Americans, or work to kill small businesses, he still would have done nothing to cut-out or remove the Liberal policies. Nothing will be done to rid the producers in this country of the bureaucratic parasites that Liberal Democrats have hung around their necks.

In Massachusetts, Romney embraced many of the things he says he is against now. That is weird. How serious will he be to repeal the health care takeover bill, when it is his plan the Socialists copied to give us the chains of Obamacare?

Will Newt stand up to the left as President. He might, for a while, but, correct me if I am wrong, Newt had a chance once to stand up for fiscal sanity, and he let Bill Clinton and the leftist media get the best of him. Remember how Clinton and the parasite/Democrats worked to shut down the government and blame Newt for it? Newt should have held his ground, but he buckled, didn't he? Did Newt, or the 94 Congress rid us of one single useless and expensive government agency?

In the end, with Newt, we simply got Republicans trying to manage the mess Democrats made, and that will not work.

Oh Newt would make a better President for sure, but that is not enough. If the cancer that is Liberalism, is not removed from our government, the country will not heal. The propoganda media will see to it that nothing gets done, and things will not improve.

Then, in four years, with conservatives fed up, and the Democrat sheep programed to respond, we will end up with someone worse than Obama, and our country will still be in peril.

Perhaps Rick Perry would have the stones to eradicate allot of Liberalism, but he has performed so poorly in the one hundred and eighty four debates (slight exaggeration) the Republicans have put forth, what would he do against the Marxist programed and indoctrinated Obama in a debate? Perry had a chance as Gov. of Texas to close the border in his state, did he do it?

Perry needs to stop trying to look good and sound good and take Obama on, HEAD ON. I mean to tell you, Perry needs to call out Obama for his Marxism and destructive policies, and his race baiting.

The leftist media will scream and holler, and thus they will continue to tell another of the great Liberal lies. That lie is this: If you call out Democrats for their Socialism and anti-Americanism, the Independents will get mad, and rush to vote for the Socialists and Marxists.

What the Independents want is a true Conservative, not someone like GW Bush, who claimed to be a Conservative, but then expanded government and increased spending. The Independents are waiting for someone who will step up and fix the damage Liberal Democrats have done. They do not want a bunch of promises, they want action.

The media will try and convince you that only hearts and flowers will win the Independents. That is insulting to Independents, and simply not true. True conservatism wins almost every single time.

If you will but open your eyes, you will see that Democrats engage in the most vile tactics, (like they did with Herman Cain and Sarah Palin) while demanding hearts and flowers from their opponents. It gets old folks.

So far, I see that Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum would have the character to take on Liberalism. They would not fold the first time that the then former President Obama, and his Occupy Wall Street parasites, take to the streets to complain about sanity in goverment.

Would I vote for Mitt Romney? I don't know. Why should I? I know, Romney is not a Socialist, nor does he hate America like our current President, but will he take on Liberalism, and this Leviathan of a government? If not, nothing will get fixed, and we continue to push ourselves over the cliff of Socialism.

I sometimes think that there are too many establishment Republicans, in the mold of Bob Dole, who want a big government, just as long as they control the spending. That will not work, and did not the nomination of John McCain prove that?

I use to say back in the days of Clinton, that Clinton could have announced that every Christian in America would be thrown over a five hundred foot cliff into a huge pit inhabited by hundreds of lions; only to have Bob Dole rush to a microphone and say that Clinton was all wrong. We only need a two hundred foot cliff and several dozen lions.

That style of Republicanism has got to stop, and it is the reason I am no longer a Republican. This is not the time for hearts and flowers.

Liberalism must be defeated. The country must turn back from the cliffs of Liberalism, or we will drown in debt, and all but the oligarchy will be forever in serfdom.

The Republicans must nominate someone who is capable of taking on and defeating the left, the unions, the lawyers, the Marxists professors, the Hollywood left, and most of all, they must stand up to the leftist media, and call them out on their lies.

Newt has shown the ability to stand up to the media lately: will we see more of it, or in the end, will Newt break out the hearts and flowers?

If the Republicans choose Romney as the nominee, I fear all we will end up with is Mitt for brains, if you get my drift. We will not get any rollback of leftist chains.

The country does not need hearts and flowers from the Republican nominee. We need a backbone, and a sincere desire to help the country recover from the devastation that is Liberalism.

What say you?


Comments
Showing most recent comments first
[Show in chronological order instead]

If people were more willing to accept there is right and wrong on either side of the party line, more would be accomplished and we could go about the discussion accordingly.

It seems though that most would rather side step the discussion and attempt to demean those that are participating.

I'm willing to lower standards and participate in their comments, but it seems they either lose interest or run out of things to fuel their argument. Then back to square one without ever having accomplished or debated anything of importance.

-- Posted by bberry on Sun, Dec 4, 2011, at 5:43 PM

Yeah I guess ignorant political participation is preferable to no political participation...and I hear ignorance is bliss. Life must be pretty sweet indeed for many of these folks.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Sun, Dec 4, 2011, at 5:27 PM

Well you have to hand it to them Ben, at least they try.

-- Posted by bberry on Sun, Dec 4, 2011, at 2:09 PM

still not the right bait

-- Posted by boojum666 on Sun, Dec 4, 2011, at 1:48 PM

I know bberry...boojum's is a fine and robust vintage of ignorance.

Typical of the conservative ilk on this board.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Sun, Dec 4, 2011, at 1:44 PM

Oh the irony.

-- Posted by bberry on Sun, Dec 4, 2011, at 1:35 PM

Nah, just sport with the self important internet dweebs. ;)

-- Posted by boojum666 on Sun, Dec 4, 2011, at 1:26 PM

Forgot to include, the rest of us seen the topic as youtube links and Cain oberservations.

-- Posted by bberry on Sun, Dec 4, 2011, at 12:26 PM

Then enter the pivot man.

Given you pointed out what you thought was a circle jerk, it was reasonable enough to assume you are versed in these. We could go on to believe since you are, you played a "pivotal role" before.

The suggestive wink following the the comment led it to be more of a proposition than a statement.

-- Posted by bberry on Sun, Dec 4, 2011, at 12:25 PM

what insult? I thought it was a truthful statement about the self serving pats on the back your circle was handing out.

-- Posted by boojum666 on Sun, Dec 4, 2011, at 12:11 PM

With Gingrich rising in polls, you think he'll absorb the Cain supporters?

-- Posted by bberry on Sun, Dec 4, 2011, at 12:01 PM

I like how boojum shows up with an anonymous insult and then scolds bberry for anonymous insults.

Slaps own forehead.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Sun, Dec 4, 2011, at 11:39 AM

Ok.

-- Posted by bberry on Sun, Dec 4, 2011, at 11:33 AM

wrong bait

-- Posted by boojum666 on Sun, Dec 4, 2011, at 11:29 AM

wrong bait

-- Posted by boojum666 on Sun, Dec 4, 2011, at 11:29 AM

Bberry - Brian Berry

No longer anonymous.

-- Posted by bberry on Sun, Dec 4, 2011, at 11:25 AM

tch tch anonymous insults

grins and glee

-- Posted by boojum666 on Sun, Dec 4, 2011, at 11:23 AM

Boojum, there is little thought to be had in finding a functional pivot man. But with your experience, I'm sure you'll do fine.

-- Posted by bberry on Sun, Dec 4, 2011, at 10:54 AM

bbbberry, don't go over thinking the importance of your posts.

-- Posted by boojum666 on Sun, Dec 4, 2011, at 9:52 AM

carlsonl,

I guess that might explain what happened to Michael huh?

-- Posted by SWNebr Transplant on Sun, Dec 4, 2011, at 9:30 AM

Boojum is here now, it looks like we have founnd the pivot man.

-- Posted by bberry on Sun, Dec 4, 2011, at 7:01 AM

you gotta admit it would be awsome to see him walk out at the convention to that song

-- Posted by president obama on Sat, Dec 3, 2011, at 11:04 PM

circle jerk. ;)

-- Posted by boojum666 on Sat, Dec 3, 2011, at 10:59 PM

I did see that Cain dropped out.

But what the you-know-what does "suspending my campaign" mean? I wonder if the scum sucker is still trying to raise campaign money since he hasn't legally ended his bid for the nomination.

I read that if he had actually said he is ending his run he could only raise money to recoup campaign debts...by "suspending" his campaign he can still profit from the race.

Any good capitalist would do the same.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Sat, Dec 3, 2011, at 9:12 PM

I hate to admit but I laughed at that also dawg.

-- Posted by bberry on Sat, Dec 3, 2011, at 6:38 PM

LMAO bigdawg. You are right Ben that usually happens. Usually the person leaving have realized that they have lost the arguement due to the fact they ran out of arguements or realize they are wrong and are not ready to admit it.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Sat, Dec 3, 2011, at 6:05 PM

"here i am, rock you like a herman cain"

scorpions

-- Posted by president obama on Sat, Dec 3, 2011, at 4:58 PM

Seems like a fairly accurate description Ben. You notice that Cain officially suspended his compaign today?

-- Posted by bberry on Sat, Dec 3, 2011, at 3:17 PM

The calm around here is kind of nice...

...have you every been to a get-together where a really heated argument broke out and a couple people started yelling and screaming and insulting each other...and then one of the people doing the yelling leaves in anger, and the whole party gets very quiet, and everyone kind of looks at each other in stunned silence until somebody cracks a joke and lightens the mood?

That is what it's like here.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Sat, Dec 3, 2011, at 2:47 PM

Wow I hadn't heard that one. So in other words officially Sarah Palin 2.0.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Sat, Dec 3, 2011, at 7:08 AM

Since it seems we have lost our far right friend, allow me to fill in.

NO, Obama is! he is a liberal and spent all of our money trying to turn the United States into a marxist society.

Ok, your turn.

-- Posted by bberry on Sat, Dec 3, 2011, at 7:08 AM

Yeah, it was the HPV vaccination deal. The Republicans were criticizing Perry for making the shots mandatory in Texas...government mandated injections and all that. Not a terrible idea really, but Bachmann's counter-argument about "mental retardation" placed her squarely in the 'stupidest people in America' category.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Dec 2, 2011, at 10:13 PM

Yeah I actually read about that when she was talking about the HPV shot if I remember right. That and she also said the shot heard around the world was in New Hampshire.

-- Posted by bberry on Fri, Dec 2, 2011, at 7:54 PM

I gotta admit, Bachmann's scared me....I couldn't tell the difference between BLR Bachmann and the actual woman...

"She told me that her little daughter took that vaccine, that injection, and she suffered from mental retardation thereafter." Michelle Bachmann

That's for real.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Dec 2, 2011, at 6:54 PM

After I watched the first one had to watch them all. I think I laughed the hardest about Bachmanns.

-- Posted by bberry on Fri, Dec 2, 2011, at 2:56 PM

"Ah...uhm...breathe...biscuits ain't for jam..." Herman Cain

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uE5xZKszX...

-- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Dec 2, 2011, at 2:45 PM

All I have to say Is:

SAVE A PRETZEL FOR THE GAS JETS!!!

-- Posted by Wildhorse on Fri, Dec 2, 2011, at 1:42 PM

Hmmmmmm Wonder I figured most repubs would rather Bachmann just shut up. I believe you may be the first person I have seen support her.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Fri, Dec 2, 2011, at 9:27 AM

Army vets...pshh...what do they know?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Fpm0ZbKR...

-- Posted by Benevolus on Fri, Dec 2, 2011, at 1:41 AM

Wait Mitt you can't leave the party until Bachmann closes our embassy in Iran.

-- Posted by goarmy67 on Thu, Dec 1, 2011, at 7:55 PM

Yeah, whoever came up with that idea is pretty clever. Very funny.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Thu, Dec 1, 2011, at 1:01 PM

LMAO Bene. Those were great. I don't see how you couldn't laugh no matter you political stance.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Thu, Dec 1, 2011, at 11:50 AM

Here is another good one...

"I'm a gremlin, I'm leaving the party, and I want everyone to stuff the ice chest." Mitt Romney

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9L9A1IMT...

-- Posted by Benevolus on Thu, Dec 1, 2011, at 9:09 AM

For a laugh...

"What's good is to get these goats for our computer industry." Rick Perry

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhDhDRvHa...

-- Posted by Benevolus on Tue, Nov 29, 2011, at 11:30 PM

But then again.....

Perry Confuses Voting Age:

http://www.kktv.com/elections/headlines/...

-- Posted by bberry on Tue, Nov 29, 2011, at 3:47 PM

Paul id probably the best they have to offer. Just don't think he will get the nomination due to the lack of coverage. Anymore the media determines who runs more then anything.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Tue, Nov 29, 2011, at 1:18 PM

Yeah, Huntsman is a good guess. Santorum might be next as well. He is only slightly more relevant than Huntsman.

I actually like Huntsman. It's funny that the two best GOP candidates in my opinion (Paul and Huntsman) are basically non-factors in the race (at least if you watch Fox News). I guess marginalization is what you get for stepping outside GOP party lines.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Tue, Nov 29, 2011, at 1:13 PM

I think I will submit my ticket for the 2020 republican nomination. Can't be to hard to beat what they have been able to put out there the last 20 years.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Tue, Nov 29, 2011, at 12:16 PM

I was thinking bachmann but she probably fits in the same category as Perry.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Tue, Nov 29, 2011, at 12:11 PM

I figured Perry, but I believe he still thinks he has enough of a chance to stay in the game. Possibly moreso now that Cain is dropping.

My next guess was Huntsman.

-- Posted by bberry on Tue, Nov 29, 2011, at 12:01 PM

I'd say Perry...though he may be too dumb to quit.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Tue, Nov 29, 2011, at 11:50 AM

I was thinking the same thing Ben. I'm pretty sure it put the final nail into the coffin.

Makes you wonder who'll drop next.

-- Posted by bberry on Tue, Nov 29, 2011, at 11:43 AM

Down goes Cain

http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/29/politics/c...

-- Posted by Benevolus on Tue, Nov 29, 2011, at 11:39 AM

She ran out of things to fuel her argument Carlson. She even went as far as looking back on older comments I made to try and find something to discredit me. However it speaks volumes that I had to explain her own posts to her.

-- Posted by bberry on Tue, Nov 29, 2011, at 7:18 AM

again grandma you pull the parts of what I say out to fit your your argument. Try to read things as they are not what you want them to be. The way you stumble over facts and fail to comprehend the simplest of things, it might be best if you hang out with Sarah Palin and Bachmann. You could all live in your delusional views of the world. I am sure you would get along.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Tue, Nov 29, 2011, at 7:06 AM

I certainly point it out as I see it Grandmajo.

-- Posted by bberry on Tue, Nov 29, 2011, at 6:32 AM

"Why would one say that I accused them of "talking like crap" when I clearly stated "Like you, I can just talk crap...."? It seems that twisting words is quite fun, as I also stated when I again clearly stated 'this is fun!'"

That was my error I misread what you wrote but the point is still the same. I was not talking crap, I was quoting you and providing an analysis of your comments.

It is interesting you would argue against what you wrote instead of simply admitting you were wrong.

Ignoring the rest of my comments and simply focusing on a small excerpts such as "talking crap" doesn't really provide much of an argument.

I am unsure which is worse at this point, your lack of comprehension or your denial.

But then again, I'm sure there will be some excuse for this also.

-- Posted by bberry on Mon, Nov 28, 2011, at 11:28 PM

grandmajo I love how you took a comment from a different article/blog to try and make a point here. Nevermind my remark had nothing to do with views but was in reference to the political leadership in washington. I suppose if I wanted to take the time to scim through the comments on this site I could come up with quotes of yours, and make it appear you in someway contradict yourself (oh wait you did it in this comment section all by yourself).

-- Posted by carlsonl on Mon, Nov 28, 2011, at 10:45 PM

Self-righteous? Nope. Just pointing out the obvious to the oblivious.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Nov 28, 2011, at 9:42 PM

Just for the record, I have tried to explain, with to no avail, that when mike wrote his blog "done" he was talking about how he was done with HIS blog. Mike no longer has a blog site on here. For some reason grandmajo cant understand that. For the people trying to explain anything to grandmajo I would stop because she just dosent get it.

In fact, even after explaing it to him/her, he/she still makes a remark on this thread about it.

-- Posted by president obama on Mon, Nov 28, 2011, at 8:51 PM

^ is

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Nov 28, 2011, at 8:46 PM

I already said what you wrote, so your pointing it out was redundant and unnecessary. I would recommend googling the meaning of the words "judicious" and "scrutiny", then read the sentence again and get back to me.

As far as my political orientation, everyone if to the left of an extremist.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Nov 28, 2011, at 8:45 PM

"Of course, any of these suggestions comes with a good measure of judiciousness. Every case requires scrutiny where a decision of government involvement is concerned."

I see what those posters above were talking about regarding your not paying attention to what is written.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Nov 28, 2011, at 8:33 PM

Boomer,

(1) Obama has done as much as anyone to expand charter school law and resources. The way I understand the issue, liberals don't oppose private school innovation, they oppose the undermining of a free and public education.

(2) The "innovation" you are talking about is the reduction of worker rights. There is nothing innovative about how the Chinese and Indians treat their laborers; nor was there anything innovative about the way US companies used to treat workers. Not speaking for liberals, but for myself, unions aren't necessary where people are treated and compensated fairly. I think that is what you are seeing. Unions are absolutely vital where wages and benefits are inequitable.

(3) The US has nothing resembling a "free-market" for a long time. When the US was doing the best financially, it was during (and as a result of) a highly regulated market. Laissez faire economics is not sustainable, in particular if you are at all interested in morality.

(4) This doesn't make any sense. More history and facts are needed to respond adequately. I will say that bank bailouts began under Bush. Not exactly a liberal.

(5) I haven't heard about this, so I cannot comment.

(6) Many states have a fairly lousy track record of self-governance. History gives you Jim Crow laws, unethical anti-immigrant laws, and many many other incredibly unethical and unconstitutional legislation, not least of which is the utter destruction and unchecked pollution of important habitats like the Chesapeake Bay. The only thing that can contain the egregious activities of local and state lawmakers is a strong federal government.

Of course, any of these suggestions comes with a good measure of judiciousness. Every case requires scrutiny where a decision of government involvement is concerned. I know for sure that government = bad in all cases is dumb/deaf/blind.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Mon, Nov 28, 2011, at 8:02 PM

"Well then, using your rationale, all liberals want to increase spending and run up some more debt! Liberals, especially the OWS'ers, want everybody to get a subsidy! No matter that there is no money, we can just print more! Forgive our student loans! Give everybody a job (even those that don't really want one)! Get the women back in the damn kitchen! See how this works? Like you, I can just talk crap and don't care what it sounds like! This is fun! Let's do some more before I have to go clean house and do laundry (keep the woman in her place, you know)!"

Wrong again, I made no generalizations nor imply anything about liberals driving up debt. Unless you are implying convservatives do not want to cut spending, in which case you are still wrong.

The prior rationality was used based on your generalization of:

"In addition to being a liberal are you also a sexist? Kind of a contradiction, don't you think?"

But now I talk like crap?

You see grandmajo, simply because you say I'm wrong, doesn't mean I am. You offer no refutal nor give any reasoning to disprove what I'm saying.

I didn't really suspect you had anything reasonable to support your argument though.

Then you still further imply that I am sexist by stating:

"(keep the woman in her place, you know)!"

Yet there is no where that I give you reason to believe I support chauvanism.

This will most likely be followed by some sort of attempt to say I am both wrong and sexist along with some sort of twist of rationality although the entire argument was based of your lack of rationality. You can even through the liberal comment in if you'd like because at this point in comparison to you, I am starting to favor it.

-- Posted by bberry on Mon, Nov 28, 2011, at 7:48 PM

"You know, there are some things I do agree with in your broad-minded approach! For instance, #3 above. Let's stop subsidizing farming, along with big oil! After all, farmers are making record incomes, and so is big oil! If we cut subsidies to both, we can really save money, and both groups' income will come back down to reasonable levels. Utopia is sounding better all the time, don't ya think?"

Here we continue your lack of comprehension, as Carlson made no implication of stopping any subsidies but backed them.

"3. There is nothing wrong with subsidies in the pursuit of something better. Big Oil is still subsidized."

I am interested in how cutting subsidies is Utopia since conservatives, especially in the Tea Party, are wanting to cut spending.

-- Posted by bberry on Mon, Nov 28, 2011, at 6:34 PM

Also to agree with liberalism as open mindedness which does not equate as sexism would make carlson either not a liberal or not sexist. (This contradicts some of your latter posts by saying carlson is a liberal sexist.) And going by the original statement you made further disproves your latter comments.

"In addition to being a liberal are you also a sexist? Kind of a contradiction, don't you think?"

-- Posted by bberry on Mon, Nov 28, 2011, at 6:15 PM

Speaking of greed. The bible thumpers on the right need to work on that deadly sin. Wouldn't that be a contradiction as you like to say.

Note: I am not without what you christians would call sin. Just thought I would throw that observation out there.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Mon, Nov 28, 2011, at 6:14 PM

There will never be a Utopia as long as greed exists.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Mon, Nov 28, 2011, at 6:12 PM

"Nice straw man approach, typically flawed as most straw man arguments are. Of course, whenever a liberal uses a straw man, it is perfectly OK. And for the record, I did not accuse you of being a sexist, I asked (emphasis asked) if you approved and agreed with the sexist remark, and went on to question if all of the opened-minded liberals were really closet sexists. You see, open-mindedness and sexism would be, by nature, a contradiction, but then that just might be me thinking that?"

Your question was more rhetorical, as you assumed you already knew the answer. This was implied in the second sentence of your reply, "Maybe all Liberals are closet sexists? Oh and ageists, too! What else is in the liberal closet?" If it were a true question it would have not been reasonable to jump to the extreme conclusions in the latter sentence.

So we go back to your comment in question. "In addition to being a liberal are you also a sexist? Kind of a contradiction, don't you think?"

I made no reference in agreement but a question whether you believed your implied response.

Again lack of comprehension plays a role, so my drawing your comment into question should have no bearing on the rhetorical question you in turn asked me.

"Oh, then you approve and agree with the sexist remark? Maybe it isn't a contradiction? Maybe all Liberals are closet sexists? Oh and ageists, too! What else is in the liberal closet?"

We then continue on with your comments that if you agree that liberalism equates to open mindedness then it would be contradictory to be sexist. This further backs your original statement drawn into question. So again, you would imply conservatives are sexist.

If that's just you thinking, I think I would stop.

-- Posted by bberry on Mon, Nov 28, 2011, at 6:09 PM

LOL whoops

( not quite 1950's level but somewhere between the current and now)

should be- not quite 1950's levels but somewhere between then and now.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Mon, Nov 28, 2011, at 6:05 PM

Well if you are asking if I am sexist. The answer is no.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Mon, Nov 28, 2011, at 6:01 PM

On another note take a look back at the era when regulation was lower along with government spending. Take a look at those corperate taxes. What happened is we tried to do the extremes of both in the last 50 years. We went to the far end of social programs along with some extreme regulation and we also went to the far end of tax breaks and loopholes. Basically we need to cut spending (some social, some regulation, alot military) and up our revenue ( not quite 1950's level but somewhere between the current and now)

-- Posted by carlsonl on Mon, Nov 28, 2011, at 5:58 PM

So in other words. If we go back to true conservative ways. We would take away your voice in the house and in public. We would also take you out of the work force other then cleaning lady and waitress.

Conservatives tend to have this idea of a past era of when men left the house each day to work and the woman stayed home and took care of the house and kids. Then on sunday they all dress in their sunday best and go to church. That is what I was referring to in my comments.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Mon, Nov 28, 2011, at 5:53 PM

Wow.

I am guessing you are a conservative grandmajo. In that case I grant you wish and will go back to the past ways. Now that we have you no longer have a voice that matters, so no need to respond. You also need to get off the internet and go bake and clean. Also, now you don't have to take the time to vote or go to work (if you still do).

The last three sentences in that paragraph where in reference to the first two.

How you fail to see that is beyond me.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Mon, Nov 28, 2011, at 5:48 PM

"Oh, then you approve and agree with the sexist remark? Maybe it isn't a contradiction? Maybe all Liberals are closet sexists? Oh and ageists, too! What else is in the liberal closet?"

This is where we examine the lack of comprehension.

First your remarks indicates that it is a contradiction for a liberal to be sexist. This implies that that liberals are not sexist, and to make it a contradiction also implies conservatives are sexist.

Then you go back to accuse me of questioning this and go on to that I am both a liberal and a sexist.

But the fact that you are questioning this still implies you hold your first statement to be true, in which case conversatives are sexist.

We can continue this analysis and reasonably assume since you believe conservatives to be sexist, that carlson's examination of conversatives would hold true. In which this implies chauvanism is acceptable.

However in this case it is not, but we can reasonably assume there are sexist in both parties.

However, I am not.

-- Posted by bberry on Mon, Nov 28, 2011, at 5:47 PM

Grandmajo. My examples of what you should be doing was to show you that going back to the way things used to be (conservative agenda) is not all good. Also, I was pointing out that the freedoms women have gained over the last 100 years or so was do to liberal movements not conservative ones. You apparently did not understand my point. Also I may have went the wrong direction with the age comment. It was more based on how long they have been in congress due to the lack of term limits. With the length of time they have been in there most would fit in the age bracket I suggested.

Let me redo it. Anyone that has held a seat in congress for more then 8 years needs removed.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Mon, Nov 28, 2011, at 5:36 PM

1. I can't answer that one because my view point is to make both availible.

2. I am not union but am not against them in the private sector. I am against them in government.

3. There is nothing wrong with subsidies in the pursuit of something better. Big Oil is still subsidized.

4.Both conservatives and liberals supports bailsouts and both opposed so this point is a wash.

5. Can't answer due to the fact I haven't done any research on boeing.

6. This one depends on the regulations you reduce. Also are you referring to corps as the citizens?

The liberalism you refer to are the extreme members kinda like the extreme conservatives(tea party). There are still true liberals out there. :)

-- Posted by carlsonl on Mon, Nov 28, 2011, at 5:31 PM

That is a quote from you, so if you think that holds true Grandmajo, then I'd reevaluate your position.

-- Posted by bberry on Mon, Nov 28, 2011, at 5:30 PM

"In addition to being a liberal are you also a sexist? Kind of a contradiction, don't you think?"

I probably wouldn't answer me either after this comment.

-- Posted by bberry on Mon, Nov 28, 2011, at 5:26 PM

I agree bberry. Not sure how else to explain it too her. Apparently age has taken over.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Mon, Nov 28, 2011, at 5:20 PM

If liberals are open to innovation and progressive thinking, why then do they:

(1) oppose the innovation of private schools as opposed to public schools.

(2) oppose the innovative trends away from labor unions--unions have been in decline for decades, for some very important reasons.

(3) oppose the innovation of the free marketplace; instead insisting on using government subsidies to promote "green energy" efforts which have a 50-year track record of complete failure.

(4) oppose letting the "creative destruction" of the marketplace break the banks and others who bet wrong on real estate loans; spending trillions in taxpayer bailouts instead of letting nature take its course.

(5) oppose allowing Boeing the freedom to add a plant in North Carolina; instead clinging to the dead ideas of unions and states of the past.

(6) oppose reducing regulations and giving more freedom to US citizens.

The true, classical liberal movement was co-opted by the current false liberals decades ago. The current liberal pretends to love freedom and innovation while opposing both in reality.

-- Posted by Boomer62 on Mon, Nov 28, 2011, at 5:20 PM

The lack of comprehension is astounding.

-- Posted by bberry on Mon, Nov 28, 2011, at 5:20 PM

No I meant voted out.

Also I was not saying that women should be doing those things, and those things only. I was simply pointing out that conservatives tend to like to keep things the way they are or used to be. It was an example not a point of view. But, judging by your reaction I think you might be more in favor of liberals then you actually think. I would also like to note that you basically called conservatives sexist.

With that thought. I can't believe the McCook gazette would publish a sexist blogger such as Sam. Shame on you MG.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Mon, Nov 28, 2011, at 5:16 PM

I would imagine that depends on if you think this is true:

"In addition to being a liberal are you also a sexist? Kind of a contradiction, don't you think?"

Then you already have your answer.

-- Posted by bberry on Mon, Nov 28, 2011, at 5:15 PM

"In addition to being a liberal are you also a sexist? Kind of a contradiction, don't you think?"

Are you implying conservatives are sexist? I'll give you some time to think about this.

-- Posted by bberry on Mon, Nov 28, 2011, at 5:12 PM

Um no. What I am saying is this conservative movement seems intent on turning back that clock. I was also pointing out that is was liberal movements, not a conservative one, that worked for the rights women currently have. Apparently you didn't read my whole comment.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Mon, Nov 28, 2011, at 5:11 PM

I am guessing you are a conservative grandmajo. In that case I grant you wish and will go back to the past ways. Now that we have you no longer have a voice that matters, so no need to respond. You also need to get off the internet and go bake and clean. Also, now you don't have to take the time to vote or go to work (if you still do).

I am willing to bet you like these rights that liberal movements have made for you.

BTW I am a liberal leaning independent. I like to think I am opened minded about most things. I do not like the extremes of any point of view because it usually leads to a dead end.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Mon, Nov 28, 2011, at 4:53 PM

I find it funny how well #7 defines most tea party members and so called conservatives.

conservative (kənˈsɜːvətɪv)

-- adj

1. favouring the preservation of established customs, values, etc, and opposing innovation

2. of, characteristic of, or relating to conservatism

3. tending to be moderate or cautious: a conservative estimate

4. conventional in style or type: a conservative suit

5. med Compare radical (of treatment) designed to alleviate symptoms

6. physics a field of force, system, etc, in which the work done moving a body from one point to another is independent of the path taken between them: electrostatic fields of force are conservative

-- n

7. a person who is reluctant to change or consider new ideas; conformist

8. a supporter or advocate of conservatism

-- adj , -- n

9. a less common word for preservative

con'servatively

-- adv

con'servativeness

-- n

-- Posted by carlsonl on Mon, Nov 28, 2011, at 4:25 PM

Sam you like to slam liberalism. But, I don't think you actually know the meaning. So I took the time. Hope it helps your narrow minded views.

lib·er·al·ism /ˈlɪbərəˌlɪzəm, ˈlɪbrə-/ Show Spelled[lib-er-uh-liz-uhm, lib-ruh-] Show IPA

noun

1. the quality or state of being liberal, as in behavior or attitude.

2. a political or social philosophy advocating the freedom of the individual, parliamentary systems of government, nonviolent modification of political, social, or economic institutions to assure unrestricted development in all spheres of human endeavor, and governmental guarantees of individual rights and civil liberties.

3. ( sometimes initial capital letter ) the principles and practices of a liberal party in politics.

4. a movement in modern Protestantism that emphasizes freedom from tradition and authority, the adjustment of religious beliefs to scientific conceptions, and the development of spiritual capacities.

So in the future please don't lump liberalism with socialism.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Mon, Nov 28, 2011, at 4:19 PM

I think the best thing for this country to do is get rid of the older generation politicians(45 on up). Turn it over to the youth (25-44). We are the ones that have to pay off the debt the older generations made so we should get to decide what policies to put into place to make it happen. You guys had your chance and screwed the pooch big time.

-- Posted by carlsonl on Mon, Nov 28, 2011, at 3:46 PM

Well thats disturbing. Think that secured my vote for Ron.

-- Posted by bberry on Mon, Nov 28, 2011, at 12:56 PM

A very disturbing report was put out by Bloomberg News today that provides further details of the Federal Funds utilzed to bail out the financial industry - and very few were aware of it. $7.7 trillion dollars.

It is definitely worth reading regardless of your political views.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28...

-- Posted by Geezer on Mon, Nov 28, 2011, at 11:38 AM

Seems to me if you want less taxes and less government then Ron Paul is your guy. Although I'm interested in hearing what federal assets he would intend on selling. And would being reducing the budget to 2006FY levels be feasible?

If I were to make a decision for the Republican nomination today it would probably be Paul despite him being libertarian.

-- Posted by bberry on Mon, Nov 28, 2011, at 8:30 AM

Wallis

You are either lucky or a savy investor - which one is it?

What are your thoughts on Fracking - do you see any long term environmental problems resulting from this practice?

As always, you honest opinion is appreciated.

-- Posted by Geezer on Mon, Nov 28, 2011, at 8:28 AM

http://bismarcktribune.com/news/state-an...

This would have an interesting outcome. The economies of Texas, Louisiana, Oklahoma and North Dakota would collapse.

Oil prices will go to $168.

I don't need to frac a single well I have.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Mon, Nov 28, 2011, at 6:23 AM

Not to mention your personal lap dogs who will wag their tail to anything you say. This is an entertaining group.

Reading comments from people that have no idea of what liberalism actually is act like they know what they are talking about.

I honestly think you would pass out if you actually cracked open a history book and found out that the ultimate Conservative, Ronald Reagan, signed bailouts into law (something that Obama hasn't done, but I always forget that you don't let silly little things like facts get in your way for a real good hate fest with your people), raised taxes on the rich several times throughout his presidency, etc.

I would love to live in your mind where facts could be made up on the go and you could practice all out hatred while claiming to be a "God-fearing man".

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Nov 28, 2011, at 12:23 AM

Another great column, Sam. I especially love the race baiting meme you employ so often. I remember a few months ago that you said that it would be a certainty that Obama's team would strike first in pulling out the racism card. It turned out that it was Herman Cain team that did it first (oh if you didn't know he is a Republican ... oops).

I especially love this line of yours: "Many voters realize that any of the current candidates running for this nation's highest office would make a better President than Barack Obama."

I guess that would explain why not a single one of the current candidates is ahead of Obama in any national poll. Face it, Sam. The current crop of Republicans running for President is weak at worst, comedic fodder at best. If they could stop from stepping on each others toes for two seconds one of them might actually take the lead and keep the lead. I don't expect that to happen.

But then you follow up with this gem:

"So far, I see that Herman Cain, Michelle Bachmann, Ron Paul and Rick Santorum would have the character to take on Liberalism. They would not fold the first time that the then former President Obama, and his Occupy Wall Street parasites, take to the streets to complain about sanity in goverment.(It's government by the way)"

Wasn't it Herman Cain who introduced the 9-9-9 plan as the best tax plan possible and then under scrutiny almost immediately change the plan? That doesn't sound like not folding, in fact it sounds exactly like folding. Bachmann can't keep her facts straight long enough to even stay relevant in the race (Of course I'm sure at this point you will scream sexism. Then again you are the same person who routinely makes sexist remarks against non-conservative women so you should be all good with this bit of criticism). All Paul has shown that he can do is win meaningless straw polls. Has he ever won a state primary in any of the presidential primaries that he has run in?

Which brings me to this. You consider yourself a Christian man but you are so filled with hate that you routinely call anyone who considers themselves as Liberal as diseased. This does not sound like something a truly Christian person would say. But I digress. I can't wait for your next truly hilarious, other-worldly, detached from reality blog post.

Seriously it's the only thing that keeps me coming back to this site.

-- Posted by MichaelHendricks on Mon, Nov 28, 2011, at 12:15 AM

In 2008, Obama raised around $778 million for his presidential bid.

Obama had a nearly two to one campaign contribution advantage over John McCain.

In 2004, candidates with the most money won 98% of the House and 88% of the Senate. In 2006, 94% of House races and 73% of Senate races went to the biggest spender.

Going through historical data reveals that the presidential candidate that raises the most money wins in almost every case dating back nearly 200 years.

So you see, in big time American politics, money talk. And there's a strong chance Obama will break $1 billion in 2012.

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/n...

For the same reason, electing a Republican candidate not named Mitt Romney is an incredible long shot. If the correlation between money and elections holds true for 2012, the only candidate that can raise the kinds of cash Obama can is Romney. And we all know Romney is no conservative.

That isn't a critique on conservative policies, or the other candidates, just a lesson in history and statistics.

-- Posted by Benevolus on Sun, Nov 27, 2011, at 7:58 PM

What has Michelle Bachmann ever done to convince anyone she would make a good President of the United States?

She and Sarah Palin are head scratchers for me.

A Congressman from Minnesota and a Governor of Alaska just aren't enough for me.

With Rick Perry doing a 180 of where I thought he was going to go there isn't a single Republican that I am happy with - yet.

Wallis

-- Posted by wallismarsh on Sun, Nov 27, 2011, at 4:15 PM

Sam

I think Ron Paul has always been seperate from the pack. To me he is the true fiscal conservative of the whole bunch.

Where he will encounter problems is in his positions on military involvement and the legalization of marijuana. Although both issues will benefit his campaign he will undoubtably be subject to attack ads by the military industrial complex which benefit from lucrative contracts.

Buddy Roemer is a likeable and knowledgeable guy but he may not lean far enough to the right for some folks. He doesn't want to tear the government apart, instead opting to fix what's broken. About 70% of the country feel that way so he does have the potential to attract voters from all political views. He is one of the few candidates that can actually say that he has spent time talking to the Occupy Movement and understands their position.

I believe Cain, Perry, and Gingrich have too much baggage to get on this flight, maybe next time around.

Romney represents big business and the corporate end of the spectrum. Of all candidates he probably has the greatest ability to raise the funds necessary to counter Obama. This does come with strings attached - backdoor earmarks, preferential treatment, etc., etc. Everybody is tired of that routine.

Rick Santorum is just starting to get into the debate so he will be one to watch. Not a real exciting character but starting to go toe to toe with the rest of the bunch.

Michelle Bachmann leans too far to the right in my opinion. She has her followers but I think she is fighting an uphill battle and in the end there will not be enough support to push her to the top. For her to pick up enough of the latino and independent vote to secure a win she will have to move a little to left. I am not sure if she capable or willing to do that.

That is how I see the Republican Candidates - just my humble opinion.

-- Posted by Geezer on Sun, Nov 27, 2011, at 3:57 PM

when you see a video like the link below, it restores faith that our country can still recover from the depths of Liberalism. Enjoy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjPmmCtHm...

-- Posted by sameldridge on Sun, Nov 27, 2011, at 1:41 PM

I did forget to mention Buddy Roemer. I guess I have been focused on how the establishment Republicans were stacking to deck to get Romney. Roemer is interesting, and it would be nice to here more from him. You know, perhaps one of the so-called news reporters would interview Buddy rather than tells us all about Michael Jackson's doctor.

Geez - do you think Ron Paul can get the nomination? What would he have to do to separate himself from the pack.

Also Geez, or Keda, or any one else who would like to comment, why hasn't Michelle Bachmann done better so far? She is brilliant, conservative, principled, dedicated and God fearing, in other words - she is the anti-Obama. You'd think she would do better.

-- Posted by sameldridge on Sun, Nov 27, 2011, at 12:33 PM

Sam,

You forgot one candidate.

How about a Buddy Roemer/Ron Paul ticket?

-- Posted by Geezer on Sun, Nov 27, 2011, at 6:44 AM

Sam, Sam, Sam, when the libs read this tomorrow morning their going to have skidmarks all over their chonies. Your talking about getting rid of their sacred cow. Talk about a total meltdown. My god man, have you no dignity.

-- Posted by Keda46 on Sun, Nov 27, 2011, at 1:52 AM


Respond to this blog

Posting a comment requires free registration. If you already have an account, enter your username and password below. Otherwise, click here to register.

Username:

Password:  (Forgot your password?)

Your comments:
Please be respectful of others and try to stay on topic.


Hot topics
Eric Holder Draws The Race Card, Again
(3 ~ 10:47 AM, Jul 22)

The Savage Truth
(2 ~ 10:30 AM, Jul 22)

Holder to Investigate an Outhouse
(1 ~ 10:06 AM, Jul 22)

How Lucky is the IRS?
(3 ~ 10:01 AM, Jul 22)

And Senator Johann Made A Speech
(2 ~ 9:59 AM, Jul 22)