We Tried To Warn You, Libs...

W had his faults.

He was, after all, far from a conservative.

Most conservatives can readily acknowledge that W had his faults -- even if they disagree with the fraudulent lib claims about what those faults were.

But, here's the thing.

It is a VERY very rare lib who can acknowledge what a huge disaster President Obama is.

When it comes to "conservatism" the "no true scotsman" talking point get's a little silly.

As for Obama, he's less than 1/2 way through his term. The jury is still out. I don't think he's lived up to the hype, but I think he's been far from a disaster.
 
"Warned not too"?

For fuck's sake, man, this is America. We are all entitled to our vote.

Give me a break. Even if we divorce the massive groundswell of support for Obama (mostly a reaction to the disaster that was Bush) and reduced it to Obama/Biden vs. McCain/Palin then it was an easy decision for most Americans.

Obviously.

When you warn someone not to vote for a certain person it is in no way telling them they can't vote for that person.

And we warned you not to vote for McPalin. Since they lost, we don't get to gloat about the matter after the fact I suppose.


No. You advised us not to vote for the better of the two contending teams. Not great, but still better.

And the decidedly worst contending team won.

Too bad you didn't heed the proper advice.
 
maybe some words from obama's cheerleading squad will
get through that thick Bush skull of yours;

Chris Matthews | NewsBusters.org

"On a special edition of Tuesday's Countdown show on MSNBC which aired after President Obama's address to the nation, the panel of Keith Olbermann, Chris Matthews and Howard Fineman were not impressed by*the President's speech, as the group complained*that it was not "specific"*enough and lacked details.

Matthews complained that in the Obama administration, "meritocracy is going too far," and asserted that it was "ludicrous" that the President had mentioned that the Secretary of Energy has a Nobel Prize. He also recalled promising to "barf" if the President brought up the Nobel Prize again. Matthews:

So maybe now you guys will quit whining about the "liberal" media being in the bag for Obama?

When are you all going to get that most of us don't give a damn what Chris Matthews thinks of the President?

Again, this is the disconnect were people think the punditry class is some sort of superior class that has a deeper grasp on issues than everyone else and whose words carry more weight than the average joe as opposed to the truth: They are just entertainers.

can you expect better from people whose leaders are rushbo and beck?

Not really. I wonder how pissed Hannity is now that Beck has squeezed him out of the market?
 
When you warn someone not to vote for a certain person it is in no way telling them they can't vote for that person.

And we warned you not to vote for McPalin. Since they lost, we don't get to gloat about the matter after the fact I suppose.


No. You advised us not to vote for the better of the two contending teams. Not great, but still better.

And the decidedly worst contending team won.

Too bad you didn't heed the proper advice.

LMFAO. Whatever. Like I said, after five years of watching you guys blank check Bush's fuck ups, you shouldn't be surprised that your "advice" was ignored.
 
Not really. I wonder how pissed Hannity is now that Beck has squeezed him out of the market?

i'm sure he's upset. maybe he needs to learn how to cry on cue??

He's going to be really screwed when Iraq winds down. Without that massive American flag to wrap himself in, Hannity has lost about 50% of his shtick.
 
When you warn someone not to vote for a certain person it is in no way telling them they can't vote for that person.

And we warned you not to vote for McPalin. Since they lost, we don't get to gloat about the matter after the fact I suppose.


No. You advised us not to vote for the better of the two contending teams. Not great, but still better.

And the decidedly worst contending team won.

Too bad you didn't heed the proper advice.

I stand corrected advised it is.
 
W had his faults.

He was, after all, far from a conservative.

Most conservatives can readily acknowledge that W had his faults -- even if they disagree with the fraudulent lib claims about what those faults were.

But, here's the thing.

It is a VERY very rare lib who can acknowledge what a huge disaster President Obama is.

When it comes to "conservatism" the "no true scotsman" talking point get's a little silly.

As for Obama, he's less than 1/2 way through his term. The jury is still out. I don't think he's lived up to the hype, but I think he's been far from a disaster.

When alleging a fallacy, it is useful if the fallacy is actually the argument being made. In this cae, your contention is simply false.

It is useful for you libbies to pretend that W was a conservative. It simply isn't true, however.

Despite that, he was closer to being a conservative than his opponents were. That much is true. He garnered support from many conservatives as a result. That too is true.

And President Obama is a very nearly unmitigated disaster.
 
Obama's an empty suit.. a nobody.. a mere shill for Soros and the progressives. WHich explains the deer in headlights look when things go off-cue. Your first mistake is assuming that he is really in charge of anything.
 
W had his faults.

He was, after all, far from a conservative.

Most conservatives can readily acknowledge that W had his faults -- even if they disagree with the fraudulent lib claims about what those faults were.

But, here's the thing.

It is a VERY very rare lib who can acknowledge what a huge disaster President Obama is.

When it comes to "conservatism" the "no true scotsman" talking point get's a little silly.

As for Obama, he's less than 1/2 way through his term. The jury is still out. I don't think he's lived up to the hype, but I think he's been far from a disaster.

When alleging a fallacy, it is useful if the fallacy is actually the argument being made. In this cae, your contention is simply false.

It is useful for you libbies to pretend that W was a conservative. It simply isn't true, however.

Despite that, he was closer to being a conservative than his opponents were. That much is true. He garnered support from many conservatives as a result. That too is true.

And President Obama is a very nearly unmitigated disaster.

Like I said, when it comes to the issue of conservatism the "no true scotsman" argument get's lame.

Or maybe you guys are just to wed to the concept of ideological purity to realize that our country works on compromise and no single candidate be it conservative or liberal is going to get their way 100% of the time.

At any rate, instead of supporting Bush for 8 years and then whining after he left office that he wasn't really a conservative, perhaps it would be more constructive to support someone who you thin truly is conservative.
 
Whatever would you do without George Bush comparisons? Alert, it's less than 2.5 years t the next election and GW been gone over a 18 months. His mistakes/lies/incompetencies do nothing to improve what a disaster Obama is.

When conservatives try to paint Obama as a disaster, I am always obligated to point out what a disaster Bush was and the fact that they blindly supported him for eight years of his disaster.

Fair enough. Still doesn't build Obama up, it's his record that he'll win or lose on. He's losing, you know it, thus trying to bring GW back. Problem is, GW is writing a book and not playing.
 
Whatever would you do without George Bush comparisons? Alert, it's less than 2.5 years t the next election and GW been gone over a 18 months. His mistakes/lies/incompetencies do nothing to improve what a disaster Obama is.

When conservatives try to paint Obama as a disaster, I am always obligated to point out what a disaster Bush was and the fact that they blindly supported him for eight years of his disaster.

Fair enough. Still doesn't build Obama up, it's his record that he'll win or lose on. He's losing, you know it, thus trying to bring GW back. Problem is, GW is writing a book and not playing.

Since the GOP is still getting political mileage out of Bill Clinton, I think I am well within the statute of limitations.

I am well aware that Bush isn't in a position of power anymore, thank you very much.

I disagree that Obama is "losing".
 
No. You advised us not to vote for the better of the two contending teams. Not great, but still better.

And the decidedly worst contending team won.

Too bad you didn't heed the proper advice.

the better of the two contending teams was elected. any team with palin on it had to be automatically disqualified.

the rabid religious right shouldn't have fussed about romney. he'd have been a better candidate.
 
And what is wrong with a nperson wrapping themself in the American flag?

It's a lame parlor trick that is cynically done by carnival barkers to amuse the most brain dead members of their audience.

OH would that be anything like HOPE and CHANGE theme that obama tryed to brainwash people with?

is that intended as a response.

there was hope for change.

and there was change.... the repubs are out of power.

should there be more change? yep... he should be telling the rightwingnuts where to stick it... get out of iraq and afghanistan and close gitmo.

and he should be appointing true liberal justices to the supreme court instead of the compromise candidates he's handed to the rightwingnuts. if y'all are going to whine and suffer from ODS no matter what, then he really should just ignore you all.

:thup:
 
Last edited:
And what is wrong with a nperson wrapping themself in the American flag?

It's a lame parlor trick that is cynically done by carnival barkers to amuse the most brain dead members of their audience.

OH would that be anything like HOPE and CHANGE theme that obama tryed to brainwash people with?

No. Obama is a politician. Politicians run on platforms and slogans. Remember "America First" or whatever McCain's banal slogan was?

Hannity is an entertainer. He makes money off of being a carnival barker and tricking his gullable audience members.
 
No. You advised us not to vote for the better of the two contending teams. Not great, but still better.

And the decidedly worst contending team won.

Too bad you didn't heed the proper advice.

the better of the two contending teams was elected. any team with palin on it had to be automatically disqualified.

the rabid religious right shouldn't have fussed about romney. he'd have been a better candidate.

Maybe if we would have had someone with excutive exprince in the white house we wouldn't be in this mess.
Palin was a mayor and Governor, both require the person in charge to be an excutive. But alas Palin wasn't running to be President was she.
 
It's a lame parlor trick that is cynically done by carnival barkers to amuse the most brain dead members of their audience.

OH would that be anything like HOPE and CHANGE theme that obama tryed to brainwash people with?

No. Obama is a politician. Politicians run on platforms and slogans. Remember "America First" or whatever McCain's banal slogan was?

Hannity is an entertainer. He makes money off of being a carnival barker and tricking his gullable audience members.

:eusa_boohoo::rofl:
 

Forum List

Back
Top