On Oct 10, 9:17*am, David LaCourse wrote:
On 2009-10-10 09:11:07 -0400, Family-Outdoors said:



On Oct 10, 6:19*am, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:
Jon wrote:
"Tim J." wrote:
Ooooooo, another nomination. This one is for the most ironic post of t
he
century.

Not a bad nomination, but it's a little early on in the process,
no? *:-)

Okay, somebody explain the "irony" because I don't get it.

If you're trying to point out that some folks on the left
thought Shrub could do nothing right so it's now "ironic"
to hear those folks complain about the same behavior from
the right, you're being simple-minded, shallow and stupid.

But that can't be what you guys mean, right ? I mean you guys
wouldn't be so clueless as to compare being upset with a
president who lies to the country so as to lead it into unnecessary
war with being upset with a president who was awarded the Nobel
Peace Prize. Would you ?

--
Ken Fortenberry

There is a method of operation that permeates the efforts of the
whacko right. They denigrate ideas of those who are not in their
club. *It is in my opinion, vital to understand that they are not
exclusively taking shots at ideas or positions, but people.

Duh. *Change whacko right to whacko left and you might get a clue. *Why
do you think Tim used the word "irony?" *He should have used the word
hypocricy.

*I do not
believe all who oppose Obama do so because of his color, but I believe
it does affect many who do not even know that it does.

Zzzzzzzzzz

The habituated
method of operation of the right as taught by Rove and others is to
viciously oppose people that are not in the club.

Change Rove to Pelosi or Reid or Kennedy or Murther or et al.

*(BTW how damn
ridiculous is it to trot out one of the few black conservative
columnists or commentators whenever it is convenient to do so?
Obama's election has certainly benefited them.)

Obama's election has benefited NO ONE yet. *He hasn't done anything. *
He's still campaigning.



Proof that Obama's ideas are not the target are revealed in areas like
the "death panels." *The idea of end of life counseling being covered
by medicare was originally floated by conservatives. *When it became
part of healthcare reform, Palin and others wrapped it in a different
package and pounced. *Many of Obama's positions are consistent with
portions of what the right desires. *But he isn't in the club. *Sounds
a little childish.

Yes, you do.



Winning the Nobel Prize is like throwing meat to the lions. *When you
hear them say, "We just can't figure out what he won it for," *what it
really means to many of them is that they just need a little time to
formulate a smear campaign based on this new dynamic. *What it means
to the rest, is they are SO small minded, they honestly are incapable
of realizing... a)how much damage Bush did to our country domestically
and abroad, destroying a large portion of the respected status we
had. *He also failed miserably to capitalize on the genuine sympathy
availed to us after 9-11...b) Why an international organization would
send a message (as it clearly is) saying congratulations on replacing
an abject foreign policy failure with a man who at the very least is
communicating the ideas that will promote peace.

In other words, the Nobel folks have an anti-conservative agenda. *Correct.



I will remain a sidelined conservative until the leaders of
conservatism turn from these tactics and the morons of the
conservative media are taken down.

And what of the morons of the liberal media, too numerous to even
consider listing on this page?

Dave



Wrong on all counts. Pelosi, Reid, et al are highly ineffectual and
rather lacking in any form of intelligence. What they also lack is a
truly well thought out plan to destroy their opponents. This may in
fact be largely due to their not being smart enough to do so, as
opposed to being above doing so. The bottom line is they do not
employ tactics like Rove did vs. McCain in S. Carolina when he was
running vs. Bush. What I am saying is I am sick and tired of this
strategy that the right wing talkers have taken up as it seems that it
is all conservatives know how to do now.

There are a few conservatives, mostly in the Senate, who understand
that in the long run the methodology being employed will never be a
winner. Their voices are muted and they truthfully are afraid to make
too strong a stand. They may appear and speak at a Kennedy memorial
or state at a Town Hall that it is wrong to question Obama's
patriotism or belief in the Constitution, but they know well that to
be too vociferous in their protest gets them a RINO label and puts a
target on their chest.

If the Nobel organization is liberal in its leanings, and I don't know
enough to dispute this, wouldn't the proper protest be to say that
Obama deserves the prize because he is a liberal (of course he is)?
Wouldn't it be ridiculous then for Rush and Hannity to protest that
Obama should not have won it if Reagan didn't even win it? Would it
not serve your purpose better to assert it is the very policies he
promotes, yet perhaps has not yet achieved, that earned him the
prize? Then it comes down to a debate over whether we would want a
President to promote policies that would get him on the "right" side
of a liberal organization.

Perhaps I am overusing the term ironic, but I do find it ironic that
you use the retort "Yes, you do" to answer my charge of childish
behavior by the right. Seriously? If you have a coherent response,
I'd like to know what it might be. That certainly does not qualify.

Finally, liberal bias in the media is a passe charge. When Fox News
kicks the crap out of every cable news outlet in the US and nobody
watches network news and Limbaugh makes more money than Bill Gates,
how can anyone with an ounce of sense think people don't have access
to the message of the right?

Respectfully (for now),
Paul