|
Good Citizen posted:I was having lunch with a friend and some people she knew last week and one of them was up in arms about Obama going back on his promise not to raise the taxes on her paycheck. Not that it'll change their minds, but anyone who bitches about this just send them this article from October, pretty much showing a President Mitt Romney (and the GOP at large) had zero interest in keeping the payroll tax cut.
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 21:01
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:10 |
|
|
ShadowCatboy posted:Just found a pretty stunning article regarding how much of a piece of poo poo Andrew Sullivan is. I never realized he took on Brietbart levels of dishonesty. Some of his articles can be rather good, or at least informative. He started off as a conservative hatchet man but changed. If it wasn't for the Iraq War turning into a debacle, and that many Republicans said one thing in private to him about gay issues and another in public to get votes (GOP is actually the Gay Old Party on The Hill) he'd probably still be carrying water for the GOP. He's become vastly less political, but he's still carrying water for tax reform. If you think Sully is bad you should have seen some the crap Hitchen's used to put at the start of the Iraq War and during the Clinton era. He was openly advocate killing Muslims just because Islam is a lovely religion. His book about the Clinton's was "No One Left to Lie To".
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 21:05
|
|
|
SilentD posted:Some of his articles can be rather good, or at least informative. He started off as a conservative hatchet man but changed. If it wasn't for the Iraq War turning into a debacle, and that many Republicans said one thing in private to him about gay issues and another in public to get votes (GOP is actually the Gay Old Party on The Hill) he'd probably still be carrying water for the GOP. He's become vastly less political, but he's still carrying water for tax reform. Sully does have a decent amount of editor's insight as to what is an interesting subject people will want to read about. And sometimes not so much, as shown by his fixation on foreskins and Trig's parentage. He's still an opportunistic social climber and clings fiercely to many blatant untruths and dishonesties. It can also be argued that his turnabout on the Iraq War (after being one of the most vocifeverous 'moderates to call the anti-war side a bunch of traitors) was less a crysis of conscience and more knowing to leave a sinking ship; the war was stalling, body counts piling up and he didn't have the stomach to lie as baldly as the other hawks. There was a new establishment shaping up and there was a chance to get on board and ride it higher on the totem pole. What was he risking, anyway? Gay british expats have a harder time farming the lunatic base for cash like Beck and Armey do. I think that may be why he was so terrified and freaked out after Obama crashed and burned in the first debate last year. "Will I have to switch sides again? Where did I put my copy of Atlas Shrugged? I think 7 months into the Romney administration is a good enough time to have another moment of clarity..."
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 21:37
|
|
|
Ballz posted:Not really. Neither side wanted it. It was originally only meant to last a year (2011) but then got a one-year extension in 2012. The payroll tax rate is back to what it was just a couple of years ago and while it sucks, it's not something anyone should be surprised over. Funny how people shouldn't be surprised their payroll taxes went up, and how they also shouldn't be surprised that the Bush tax cuts stayed largely in place for the wealthy.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 21:45
|
|
|
quote:Sully does have a decent amount of editor's insight as to what is an interesting subject people will want to read about. And sometimes not so much, as shown by his fixation on foreskins and Trig's parentage. He's still an opportunistic social climber and clings fiercely to many blatant untruths and dishonesties. Add pot and beards to that. quote:It can also be argued that his turnabout on the Iraq War (after being one of the most vocifeverous 'moderates to call the anti-war side a bunch of traitors) was less a crysis of conscience and more knowing to leave a sinking ship; the war was stalling, body counts piling up and he didn't have the stomach to lie as baldly as the other hawks. I forget which one of his numerous blog posts it was but it wasn't just losing the war. It was that many high level conservatives including Rumsfeld who were very pro gay rights in private (often directly to him and to the Gay Old Party types in DC) were bashing gays in public, and he took it personally. Combined with the fact that he's a devout Catholic and it turned out all the stuff they said in public about loving religion went out the window in private and they were laughing at Christian suckers. quote:There was a new establishment shaping up and there was a chance to get on board and ride it higher on the totem pole. What was he risking, anyway? Gay british expats have a harder time farming the lunatic base for cash like Beck and Armey do. I don't think that was ever really his market. Sullivan sells to the more educated and cosmopolitan types in New York and DC and parrots the conventional centrist wisdom at the moment and then claims that's how conservatism actually works. He's repeatedly made the argument that gay marriage is a conservative issue, and see how wonderful those conservatives on the cocktail circuit are so he must be right. Whenever he gets called on this he promptly claims that the Republican base/Tea Party isn't really conservative blah blah blah. quote:I think that may be why he was so terrified and freaked out after Obama crashed and burned in the first debate last year. "Will I have to switch sides again? Where did I put my copy of Atlas Shrugged? I think 7 months into the Romney administration is a good enough time to have another moment of clarity..." Maybe, I have no idea, but it was interesting to watch that meltdown.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 21:53
|
|
|
Didn't he also get in trouble for having or looking for unprotected sex and he is HIV+?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 22:02
|
|
|
SilentD posted:He's repeatedly made the argument that gay marriage is a conservative issue, and see how wonderful those conservatives on the cocktail circuit are so he must be right. Whenever he gets called on this he promptly claims that the Republican base/Tea Party isn't really conservative blah blah blah. From the evidence presented it has been made clear to me how how terrible Sullivan is but this isn't really something you can pin as a character flaw- more of a credible ideological viewpoint. Same Sex marriage in my view definitely is philosophically conservative and is increasingly recognised as such (you can look to David Cameron's comments on the matter as some evident as well as the views/positions of much strong Queer activist groups/movements that view same sex marriage as a method of acquiring social privilege and heteronormativity. bobkatt013 posted:Didn't he also get in trouble for having or looking for unprotected sex and he is HIV+? Are you thinking about Foucault ?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2013 23:56
|
|
|
bobkatt013 posted:Didn't he also get in trouble for having or looking for unprotected sex and he is HIV+? He is HIV+ and only alive because he's rich while railing against universal healthcare for others and the evils of the British system compared to ours... though he's all for HIV drugs being cheaper and made free to people. He keeps pointing to the damage it does to the gay community but outside of that he's all for private healthcare and thinks the UKs national healthcare is loving horrible because it's not privatized. But his advocacy of "free healthcare" is limited to HIV related for the most part. He went on a rather long rant about the hyper sexuality of gay culture compared to others and how it's not a great thing, the drug use involved, the rampant shallowness based on physical traits, and other items. All of which are legitimate concerns. Except it turned out while he was doing this, and while he was positive, he was trolling gay websites for anonymous bareback and unprotected hook-ups. He was (rightly IMHO) savaged for being a hypocrite on this. He's bragged about how low his viral load is before and how its just like not having it and he can't really transmit it, he's declared the AIDS crisis over multiple times as well. He's also advocated steroid use because of the body it gives you and how straight guys should do it as well because women love abs. He explained how straight guys should do all the performance drugs gay men do because gay men look better and that's how you look hot and women are starting to have the same high standards about the male body as gay men do. That was entertaining as well. He published more than a few letters from his female readers about how they'd dump a man who didn't look like that.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 00:19
|
|
|
SilentD posted:He is HIV+ and only alive because he's rich while railing against universal healthcare for others and the evils of the British system compared to ours... though he's all for HIV drugs being cheaper and made free to people. He keeps pointing to the damage it does to the gay community but outside of that he's all for private healthcare and thinks the UKs national healthcare is loving horrible because it's not privatized. But his advocacy of "free healthcare" is limited to HIV related for the most part. The only things I knew about him before any of this was that whole panic attack he had after Obama's first debate performance and that he was a Thatcherite brought in to shake up the New Republic. After reading this and that article posted earlier, wow, talk about a terrible human being.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 00:33
|
|
|
I might be wrong and this may come down to states rights/laws, but isn't knowingly attempting to transmit HIV/AIDS without telling the other party a felony?
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 01:50
|
|
|
ShadowCatboy posted:Just found a pretty stunning article regarding how much of a piece of poo poo Andrew Sullivan is. I never realized he took on Brietbart levels of dishonesty. That ranks right up there with the huge hitpiece on McCain that came out a little before the election as "greatest hitpieces of all time".
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 01:53
|
|
|
SilentD posted:He went on a rather long rant about the hyper sexuality of gay culture compared to others and how it's not a great thing, the drug use involved, the rampant shallowness based on physical traits, and other items. All of which are legitimate concerns. Except it turned out while he was doing this, and while he was positive, he was trolling gay websites for anonymous bareback and unprotected hook-ups. He was (rightly IMHO) savaged for being a hypocrite on this. He's bragged about how low his viral load is before and how its just like not having it and he can't really transmit it, he's declared the AIDS crisis over multiple times as well. It was gay clone culture at the time that coincided with deadly results with HIV spreading globally. There's nothing intrinsic to "gay culture" being hypersexual.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 02:53
|
|
|
All these kooky gun nut videos had me thinking there's probably gonna be some big second amendment rally if any sort of gun control legislation makes it to the floor. Could someone steal a gun from some open-carry schmuck and get away with it by dressing up in a very silly Obama costume and literally grabbing their gun and running away with it? The bystanders won't shoot you because they'd probably think it's some hilarious satire and by the time they realize it wasn't a joke you'd be long gone. Maybe if you carried a big sack you could dupe multiple people.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 04:05
|
|
|
Republicans posted:All these kooky gun nut videos had me thinking there's probably gonna be some big second amendment rally if any sort of gun control legislation makes it to the floor. Could someone steal a gun from some open-carry schmuck and get away with it by dressing up in a very silly Obama costume and literally grabbing their gun and running away with it? The bystanders won't shoot you because they'd probably think it's some hilarious satire and by the time they realize it wasn't a joke you'd be long gone. Maybe if you carried a big sack you could dupe multiple people. Only if you're tired of either life or life on the outside. OTOH, it would be a fun time to trot out the faked UN kidnapping maybe. Plant a friend at the back of the crowd, put on your powder blue berets, roll up in a nondescript car and drag him in then speed off.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 04:15
|
|
|
I've got no beef with responsible gun owners - but a gun is a tool, not a toy. The gun nuts that rant and rave about apocolyptic dystopian scenarios when people propose reasonable firearm regulation are treating guns like party favors for some fantasyland version of reality. One where they'd magically need lots of firearms to fend off the zombama FEMA hordes or some poo poo. It's like they think they're playing a big cops and robbers game from childhood but with real guns. The responsible gun owners are all for dialogue and working towards better gun regulation - but you can't argue with the gun nuts that are living in their own crazed fiction world, spurred on by immersion with their favorite "toys."
Spacedad fucked around with this message at 06:38 on Jan 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 04:41
|
|
|
SilentD posted:He went on a rather long rant about the hyper sexuality of gay culture compared to others and how it's not a great thing, the drug use involved, the rampant shallowness based on physical traits, and other items. All of which are legitimate concerns. Except it turned out while he was doing this, and while he was positive, he was trolling gay websites for anonymous bareback and unprotected hook-ups. He was (rightly IMHO) savaged for being a hypocrite on this. He's bragged about how low his viral load is before and how its just like not having it and he can't really transmit it, he's declared the AIDS crisis over multiple times as well. Ya I remember reading about that and caused me to hate him no matter what his opinions are since doing this is just so retarded/dangerous.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 04:45
|
|
|
Peven Stan posted:It was gay clone culture at the time that coincided with deadly results with HIV spreading globally. There's nothing intrinsic to "gay culture" being hypersexual. You're shooting the messenger here, that's Sully's crusade and attitude. However do keep in mind that Sully's US home was Washington DC. Which had the highest AIDS rate at the time, still do, the meth problem in the gay community hasn't gone away either. Rock Creek Park is still full of random anon bareback hookups, and the bath houses and meat bars are still around. Everything Sully was saying was things other gay community leaders were saying at the time, it wasn't and still isn't controversial. What was and still remains so is Sully's habit of chastising people and groups for things he himself is engaged in privately. If you want to pick bones with Sully stupidity, his branding of gay culture as purely the Dupont/Castro party culture of anon sex without protection, drug use, and mostly naked pride parades doesn't even rate. His repeated insistence that the AIDS crisis is over, viral loads are too low to transmit, and not using condoms is totally OK is a better place to start. He's was still arguing that all through his time in DC while the AIDS rate was soaring. As someone who lost several friends to AIDS and still gets to watch others deal with it today, that's what bothers me the most. quote:Ya I remember reading about that and caused me to hate him no matter what his opinions are since doing this is just so retarded/dangerous. Oh he's still at it! It's just that after the debacle in 2007 when he openly endorsed unprotected sex between HIV positive members as helping drive down the AIDS rate top rate places like the New York times don't carry it as articles. I have no idea what broke, but I'm guessing the backlash from both the gay community and the medical community might have something to do with it. But he will trot it out on his blog or in other media off and on. SilentD fucked around with this message at 05:01 on Jan 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 04:55
|
|
|
BanjoFish posted:Today Michael Savage called for the formation of a "Nationalist" third party built on the foundation of the Tea Party organization. I don't know tons about Savage, but I understand he's pretty influential. It's unlikely, but If the tea party really split, it would be my ultimate dream, and the firwworks would be fantastic. Sorry to bring it up again, but apparently Drudge has decided to turn this into a thing, alongside Hannity making a veiled call for Civil War 2.0. quote:[Savage] criticized the Tea Party for lacking a "charismatic leader," saying it needs restructuring and calling it the "rudiment" of the new Nationalist Party. Savage added that the word "nationalism" needs to be redefined after previously being associated with Hitler and the National Socialist Party, the Nazis, of 1930s Germany. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 08:27
|
|
|
So they've just given up on Sarah Palin, then? Who will be the next Tea Party Messiah? I think it's a coinflip between Marco Rubio and Ted Cruz. I hope it's Rubio because he is neck-deep in corruption from his days as a Florida state senator.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 08:54
|
|
|
Spacedad posted:One where they'd magically need lots of firearms to fend off the zombama FEMA hordes or some poo poo. It's like they think they're playing a big cops and robbers game from childhood but with real guns. Whipping out your assault rifle and taking down a bad guy is the ultimate hero fantasy for these gun nuts. As childish and creepy as it is, I can sort of understand why. I'm more worried about the ones who beat their chests, daring Obama's G-Men to come knocking with a search warrant, just so they can stage another Waco. I think Bill Maher touched on this tough guy fantasy in that cops and soldiers need to be conditioned for months to shoot humans. It Bert from Mississippi thought he was witnessing a home invasion, he'd probably choke, poo poo his pants, panic then shoot an innocent person.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 09:12
|
|
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M9INFJ-PTw Literally what republicans think home invasions are like.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 10:55
|
|
|
Except the robbers aren't white.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 12:24
|
|
|
watt par posted:Except the robbers aren't white. I just realized - He shoots one of the few black guys in that movie during that scene. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 16:40
|
|
|
Spacedad posted:I just realized - He shoots one of the few black guys in that movie during that scene. the only Black guy
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 17:05
|
|
|
Kiwi Bigtree posted:the only Black guy There were two black robbers.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 17:14
|
|
|
Jesus, I found a lengthy and pretty mind-boggling article on the lack of black actors in Christmas Story: http://wearerespectablenegroes.blogspot.com/2009/12/hole-in-soul-tragic-lives-of-african.html The guy who gets shot and falls on the ground from the fence - he's in prison now. quote:"You see, the role didn't involve any speaking. Nothing at all. I was supposed to jump over this fence and get shot. Man it hurt so bad. They were slave drivers on the set. 3 days became 10 days became 15 days, on and on and on. I didn't know that the contract said they could do this. Of course, they threw me a little more money. But, I was internalizing the pain, you know what I mean? That little white kid kept shooting me with that BB gun. I kept dying over and over again. To add to the humiliation I was the first member of the gang shot. How humiliating. It hurt my soul." Also - Suddenly in the context of 50's "black people in their place" revivalism in the 80s, Christmas Story has a sinister tone it didn't before. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 18:11
|
|
|
Spacedad posted:Also - Suddenly in the context of 50's "black people in their place" revivalism in the 80s, Christmas Story has a sinister tone it didn't before. I dunno, that movie has been getting progressively harder to watch for me the more I realize the mother has an incredibly horrible life.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 18:29
|
|
|
Kiwi Bigtree posted:I dunno, that movie has been getting progressively harder to watch for me the more I realize the mother has an incredibly horrible life. Yeah, I noticed that too, but I thought that was a subtext joke on purpose. Now I'm starting to think the film is just part of the 80's "ITS TIME TO BE AN rear end in a top hat AGAIN" anti-civil-rights-era mentality. Mom's going to divorce and then join a women's lib movement in the 60's I'm sure. Also, they're remaking this movie...who wants to bet that black people will be nonextant or tokened in? Edit: Good lord, this is starting to look like the basis for an episode of Black Dynamite. The other black actors invisibly in xmas story had it even worse than Percy. Spacedad fucked around with this message at 18:37 on Jan 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 18:32
|
|
|
Spacedad posted:Yeah, I noticed that too, but I thought that was a subtext joke on purpose. Now I'm starting to think the film is just part of the 80's "ITS TIME TO BE AN rear end in a top hat AGAIN" anti-civil-rights-era mentality. Jean Sheppard was incredibly sarcastic as a writer so I imagine at least in the writing it was meant to be a little critical of the gender roles at the time. The movie though? Who knows. EDIT: Of course, I cannot believe any of us are surprised that a movie with this scene https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTq20prt0K8 might be kind of "problematic"
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 18:37
|
|
|
Spacedad posted:Jesus, I found a lengthy and pretty mind-boggling article on the lack of black actors in Christmas Story: http://wearerespectablenegroes.blogspot.com/2009/12/hole-in-soul-tragic-lives-of-african.html  That's... that's a fake article, right? 15 days to shoot the Black Bart sequence? Prostitutes and groupies kept on set? Going on a crime spree with a sawed-off Red Ryder BB gun? What the hell, man.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 18:50
|
|
|
Ballz posted:
It actually may not be real. Other than the blog, I can't find any information at all about this supposed 'urban legend' of him going on a crime spree after the film. Something like that would get novelty attention. Spacedad fucked around with this message at 19:11 on Jan 12, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2013 19:08
|
|
|
Sorry I ruined a christmas story guys 
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 00:34
|
|
|
Warchicken posted:Sorry I ruined a christmas story guys Surprisingly I'd never heard of this film before the last year or two (although it was after my time; Home Alone was more my Christmas movie forte).
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 05:13
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Surprisingly I'd never heard of this film before the last year or two (although it was after my time; Home Alone was more my Christmas movie forte). You never turned to TBS on Christmas Day?
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 06:11
|
|
|
Lemonus posted:Same Sex marriage in my view definitely is philosophically conservative and is increasingly recognised as such (you can look to David Cameron's comments on the matter as some evident as well as the views/positions of much strong Queer activist groups/movements that view same sex marriage as a method of acquiring social privilege and heteronormativity. Just as a curiosity, why do you say this? This seems like a detached, sophistic position to take. Same-sex marriage is advocated for within a system that grants tangible economic benefits to legally recognized unions. This is in addition to the psychological benefit provided by having society acknowledge your relationship as legitimate after years of being treated as the other. Calling Same-sex marriage support conservative strikes me as something that could only come from someone with some utopic vision of a anti-homosexual bigotry free society, and who is more concerned with quixotically chasing it than in actually helping the people affected by the decision. On top of which, long-term pair bonding has existed in pretty much every society on earth, and I doubt there will ever be a time when that won't be the case. The legal responsibilities that go along with it are always going to be necessary (makes decisions in the case of medical emergencies, for instance), so I don't see how advocating for people to have the right to choose who will be granted those responsibilities regardless of gender should be a conservative position, especially given the history of this issue.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 19:00
|
|
|
computer parts posted:Surprisingly I'd never heard of this film before the last year or two (although it was after my time; Home Alone was more my Christmas movie forte). It's a Wonderful Life, Christmas Vacation, and Die Hard are the only Christmas movies worth watching any way so get away from Home Alone and watch those.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 19:07
|
|
|
Cordyceps Headache posted:Just as a curiosity, why do you say this? This seems like a detached, sophistic position to take. Same-sex marriage is advocated for within a system that grants tangible economic benefits to legally recognized unions. This is in addition to the psychological benefit provided by having society acknowledge your relationship as legitimate after years of being treated as the other. Calling Same-sex marriage support conservative strikes me as something that could only come from someone with some utopic vision of a anti-homosexual bigotry free society, and who is more concerned with quixotically chasing it than in actually helping the people affected by the decision. I think same sex marriage is a good/necessary thing for all the benefits you allude to but I don't think it is sophistic at all and it not just me saying this. In fact it is a very well discussed/debated concept and contentious topic mostly among Queer people. (For what it is worth I am bisexual myself and I have a large social circle of LGBT people/been involved in various LGBT activism to get same sex marriage passed) Here is a recent book that has some essays/resources/critiques on this topic from a more radical perspective: http://www.againstequality.org/stuff/against-equality-queer-critiques-of-gay-marriage/ http://www.againstequality.org/about/marriage/ As for proponents here is Andrew Sullivans well noted 1989 Essay arguing same sex marriage is essentially Conservative : http://www.slate.com/articles/news_...y_making_a.html As for very much real world advocates here is "The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage" by Theodore Olson (one of the lawyers who helped win the momentous Perry v Brown decision overturning Proposition 8 in California). http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2010/01/08/the-conservative-case-for-gay-marriage.html TLDR; If you can imagine a world where bigotry and theocratic impulses were not such an integral part of 'American Conservatism' it makes perfect sense that they would be for supporting/strengthening social bonds/commitment and such.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 20:53
|
|
|
The problem with taking Sullivan's word on gay marriage being conservative is that Sullivan himself isn't an honest conservative at all. He trots out boiler plate and even far right ideology and fights to the hilt for it, unless that ideology impacts him directly. He's all for the Church messing with abortion and that's Christian, but the Church not being OK with gays is not Christian. UHC is an abomination and private healthcare is freedom, but HIV drugs should be free! Discrimination against gays is horrible, but dragging up the bell curve and how black people are dumber than other races is brave and noble and the people who object to it are the real problem. He'll also twist what is and isn't conservative to give it a veneer of sophistication and success. Bush was conservative and his policies were correct, right up till it all came crashing down and then it wasn't conservative. Conviently Obama was then the conservative and next Reagan and the policies of his that were working were doing so because they were conservative. Anything that Sullivan likes, helps him personally, or works for other people is conservative. Anything that hurts him or ends in disaster is not. He openly supports discrimination against women, minorities, and the poor and finds nothing wrong with these policies. His civil rights concerns are only things that relate to gay people and drug users, odd that he just happens to be both of those. He loves to claim that various people only got their positions as affirmative action hires because of their sex and race while glossing over that the only reason he got anywhere was because people wanted a gay conservative. None of this is to say his blog isn't entertaining and interesting, it is. But he shouldn't be taken as any sort of authority on what is and isn't conservative.
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 21:46
|
|
|
Example #583893834792 why Obama is the weirdest socialist dictator in history:quote:Former Senator Jim DeMint, the new president of the conservative Heritage Foundation, has decried Obamacare as “a cancer” that is “is fundamentally inconsistent with liberty.” During the Senate Obamacare fight, DeMint famously declared “If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.”
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 22:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 15, 2024 02:10 |
|
|
Lemonus posted:
That is defining things too broadly, however. Under the same rationale you could say that single payer health care is a conservative idea: think of how ot levels the playing field and makes for happy families while freeing private enterprise to do what it wants to focus on instead of doubling as HMOs! Or shorter work weeks for the same pay. Means more time with your family, which is good for family values and raising kids, or even to start your own project like a true entrepreneur. Obviously a conservative opus!
|
|
#
?
Jan 13, 2013 22:13
|
|