Conservative Actor Bids Adieu To GOP

Just because he is an actor doesn't make him an expert on politics, he maybe an expert on acting and dancing but not politics.

 

Ridiculous, and contrary to this definition: "Parasitism is a non-mutual symbiotic relationship between species, where one species, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the other, the host."

Most notably in pagan and atheist cultures.

It is absolutely true, note the left saying someone who doesn't toe the liberal party line isn't a real __________ (fill in the ethnic group member).

I'm not a hypocrite, I don't have a brother living in a dump for $5 a week.

As to what the welfare state has done to the black family, see http://online.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424052748704881304576094221050061598

"During Reconstruction and up until the 1940s, 75% to 85% of black children lived in two-parent families. Today, more than 70% of black children are born to single women. "The welfare state has done to black Americans what slavery couldn't do, what Jim Crow couldn't do, what the harshest racism couldn't do," Mr. Williams says. "And that is to destroy the black family."

No doubt you think Mr. Williams isn't a real black person.

It has done a pretty good job of keeping the black community dependent on government. Note Obama gutting welfare reform work requirements which began under Clinton.

 

Just curious. I assume you were a Republican in part because of fiscal issues. If so, how do you justify pulling the lever for someone who supports higher taxes, higher spending, and increased regulation?

- - - Updated - - -

Just curious. I assume you were a Republican in part because of fiscal issues. If so, how do you justify pulling the lever for someone who supports higher taxes, higher spending, and increased regulation?

 

OK, so I assume you oppose all of the above being financially involved in politics? I don't believe in taking away free speech rights from wealthy people.

Me either. Here are some truly vile photo shopped images of Bush, threatening his life, by leftists with Bush Derangement Syndrome: http://michellemalkin.com/2013/08/1...t-were-far-worse-than-a-harmless-rodeo-clown/

Apparently he was neither, as those WMDs have been found and are possibly being used by ISIS. I have no personal animosity towards Obama, he is a likeable person. In a way he is like Reagan, an articulate and likeable guy who is probably more liberal (conservative in Reagan's case) than the general public.

According to Reuters, right now Americans view Bush as more competent than Obama.

Pot, meet kettle.

I'm sure there is truth in that book, dedicated to Satan. William F. Buckley called Alinsky an organizational genius. Its just interesting you call any conservative a radical when you're side idolize a self-proclaimed radical. I don't think his ideas such as this one improve the political climate: RULE 12: “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions

No, I introduced my physician father in law who lives in Spain. I wish we had Spain's abortion laws, and those of the UK. What you posted was a violation of Spain's laws if they were doing late-term abortions.

Very, very few abortions are due to rape and the health of the mother. Many are birth control for lazy promiscuous women, with some have five and six abortions.

 

Libertarians aren't for higher taxes, higher spending and increased regulation. Quite the opposite.

You should stop listening the RWNJ news network and read more for yourself.
Try this for starters: http://www.lp.org/platform

 

I don't agree. There are people who are conservative on social issues but vote Democratic because they are Progressive.

 

Do you vote R or D in a general? Or do you sit it out?

 

He's just an indicator of the general trend of above average intelligence Republicans with big followings turning leftish. Nobody claimed he was anything more than that. And, nobody's asking you to give a (*)(*)(*)(*) what the guy says or thinks.

 

There are more choices than R and D, but smart people know this. Texas is having an election for governor in a few weeks. I'm not voting R or D there either, but I'm voting. Think about that for a minute, but not too hard. I'd hate for you to strain something.

Do you always vote a straight R ticket like a good drone, sit it out or do you vote for the best candidate in each position?

 

Nor do I. Whether they can bankroll politicians that will do their bidding without restraint is one concern, whether they should be allowed to hide while doing it is quite another. I see no reason that free speech should be furtive, and those who exploit it to further their interests should not be allowed to hide in anonymity whilst doing it.

And you need not have to resort to such an extremist right-wing entertainment outlet to dredge them up. Some may support such depictions as freedom of speech, but I think the Bush's record record speaks eloquently for itself. If you are attempting to demonstrate that unprincipled extremists can be found at both ends of the political spectrum, I have never doubted it, nor have I ever endorsed either.

That strikes me as particularly outlandish uber-partisan claptrap. The Bush himself had finally admitted openly ("...the main reason we went into Iraq at the time was that we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't..." 8/21/2006 White House Press Conference) that there were none, and there is no evidence whatsoever that ISIL has ever deployed such chemical and/or biological weaponry.


Obama is a president that inherited a nation immersed in costly nation-building fiascos and monumental economic collapse after eight years of his predecessor's policies. Whilst a largely obstructionist Congress has not made his onerous task any easier, he has not distinguished himself or fulfilled the high hopes of Americans who twice elected him. He's been a rather average POTUS. He's several points better that the Bush at comparable stages of their tenures, but we'll have to see how he is regarded after he has been out of office for years like the Bush. Most have their figures improve over time.

 

You know nothing about me or how I vote. I was very respectful in asking you a question and in my reply. You proceed to insult me 4 or 5 times. So go (*)(*)(*)(*) yourself and shove those talking points that were written for you up your ass.

 

Robert Duvall is hardly Kirk Cameron.

The handful of Christians left in Hollywood are very liberal: Denzel Washington (Obama lover), Martin Sheen (father of Hollywood's worst pagan, Charlie) and a very few others.

Conservative Christians are banned from having any big roles at the big liberal production companies and studios in Hollywood/New York.

Can any Lib-Coms here name a single Hollywood Star that has condemed homosexuality as sinful behavior in the last few years?

Just one? Anyone?

 

Its a liberal version of McCarthyism.

 

Should votes be furtive?

Ad hominem, do you deny those were actual pictures of Bush haters?

Bad as it was, it was better than Obama's.

I'm not making that moral equivilancy argument, I'm saying there's no hate like leftist hate. You can't compare investigations into Obama's ahem, unique origins with photos of guns aimed at Bush's head.

Not true, http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2014/06/saddam_era_wmds_captured_in_iraq_by_isiswaitwhat.html

Here's documentation that ISIS is using chemical weapons against the Kurds: http://kurdistantribune.com/2014/doctors-confirm-isis-use-of-chemical-weapon-kobane/

Do you think they brought them with them to Iraq?

What kind of a guy says 'whilst'?

What are you talking about? Obama's party had complete control of both houses of Congress the first two years.

 

Sorry, not that simple. Duvall is a BIG name in Hollywood, and has made his cash. He's very clear that it's the GOP who has "sold out" and not him.

 

No Democrat will publicly disagree with the Democratic platform on social issues. Are you kidding?

 

The reason that I support transparency in the bankrolling of campaigns is that I feel the public should be able to follow the money, and consider Cui bono?
E.g., might gifting large sums suggest motive, and might it be helpful to know when a politician accepts a significant amount of money from someone with ties to a criminal enterprise or otherwise dubious agenda that could benefit from buying such influence? Why should such information be kept hidden from the American electorate?

Knowledge is good. Disclosure is good.

As a political moderate, I had noted that radicals on both extremes of the political spectrum are given to such hateful indulgences, but I would certainly not suggest that either is representative of most voters of either inclination. Attempting to portray a fringe as indicative of the whole is a tired and futile ploy, be it left or right.

Hyper-partisan nonsense. Obama has not contrived any multi-trillion dollar nation-building fiascos, or overseen a repeat of the greatest financial collapse since the Great Depression. You are welcome to your bias, but it needs to be reality-based to be taken seriously.

That certainly sounds like the raving of a rightist. You may be able to pronounce the several assassination attempts and alleged plots against Obama frivolous, and those against his predecessor serious. I honeslty feel that such an ultra-partisan preference is wacky. It's of grave concern for all Americans when the life of the leader they elect is threatened,

Sorry, I'll take Bush's final word on the subject over the boilerplate of a rightist internet source. If he were ever to be vindicated, I'm sure his cronies would be shouting it to the heavens. As of now, it's just another article of faith for the true believers who feed off a constant diet of this sort of slop.

If true, why do you need to pretend they must have come from the Saddam's non-existent stash? Were chemical weapons recently deployed in Syria? Is it not known that ISIL seized weaponry in Syria? If you wish to fantasize they they were lying around in Iraq all these years intil ISIL bothered to pick them up, and that the painstaking searches of the teams of Hans Blix, David Kay, and Charles Duelfer all failed to notice them, you really are a terribly imaginative bloke.

A guy that speaks English.

 

I consider what you propose an invasion of privacy, that clause the left invokes when useful to them.

Really, you seem about as moderate as Barney Frank.

Show me those on the right who wished Obama dead, and marched with posters with a gun to his head.

He's foisted an unpopular Obama care on us, and wasted $800B on a phoney stimulous that mostly went to his political cronies, and hasn't a clue about foreign policy. You might try a dose of reality yourself, what do you think his lousy poll numbers are about?

I agree on that, but you are clueless if you don't realize the left was far more viscous to Bush. Take a look at the Malkin photos, and show my right wing equivalents to Obama. You may be confuses since a lot of the opposition to Barry is wrongly described as racist.

If you don't really know that Iraq had WMDs, all I can say is wow. Even the New York Times admitted that.

Because it wan't non-existent, except to the uninformed. As I said, even the NYT admits that: http://conservativetribune.com/nyt-wmds-in-iraq/

 

Bull(*)(*)(*)(*). You know it's as rude to ask another American how they voted as it is to ask them how many times they (*)(*)(*)(*) their wives. Your response is the response of a guilty and dishonest person:

 

You clearly have a problem with that naughty "left" that fester is your noggin, but if you think you can justify allowing corrupt criminal kingpins to secretly bankroll politicians who will perform on their behalf, then we differ, and it's not an ideological matter. The public should know who is trying to hide whilst conspiring to manipulate public elections.

A brilliant, witty pragmatist that gave radical nutjobs the heebie-jeebies.

He worked very well with Republicans in Congress, a skill egregiously lacking nowadays.

You can fixate on graphics or easily access news reports of actual assassination threats, but the cogent point is that loonies on the fringe are not representative of the American mainstream, whether they tilt right or left.

Yes, he nationalized RomneyCare with what Willard called its "ultimate conservatism" individual mandate that TP honcho Jim DeMint had recommended: "Well, that's something that I think we should do for the whole country!"

The rest of your rant is just stale entertainment radio boilerplate bushwa. Were you really in a tizzy over the Economic Stimulus Act of 2008 signed into law by Bush when the US economy collapsed after seven years of his policies? (Not to mention his monumental foreign-policy disasters.)

As more and more Republican governors buy into it, you should be able to accept that all the GOP will do about the Affordable Care Act is whine, because they know what the public reaction would be if they actually tried to repeal it again after 55 such vapid stunts. I certainly hope they try in the 114th Congress, but I've reconciled with the reality that they won't do more than bluster to keep their fans wee we'd up.

I hope the US will progress to a more efficient and far less expensive system such as exists in advanced nations, but, like Social Security and Medicare, it'll be generally accepted and the GOP's initial and inevitable caterwauling will exhibiy a marked and welcomed diminuendo.

You may consider Emily's List far more bloodthirsty than Aryan Nation, but that nebulous boogie man, your dreaded "left" is of no more consequence that someone else's fixation on their extremist right. Neither is remotely representative of the American populace, or the preponderance of either Party's registered voters.

You must have expressed far greater shock when the Bush unambiguously admitted, after millions had been squandered in the meticulous searches headed by Blix, Kay, and Duelfer that "... the main reason we went into Iraq was we thought he had weapons of mass destruction. It turns out he didn't ..."

 

Being a leftist, no doubt you have no problem with teacher's unions giving $80,000,000 to democrats every year. Your hypocrisy is noted.

So much for your pretensions of being a moderate. Frank WAS a radical nutjob. This creep had a string of ethical problems, including having sex with a male prostitute in the House gym and that pesky little episode of a prostitution ring being run out of his apartment, which he knew nothing about supposedly. http://www.aim.org/aim-column/media-whitewash-barney-frank’s-scandalous-legacy/

Your dodge is noted, I'll try again, show me similar right wing depictions of Obama with a gun to his head and calling for his death, as the nut left routinely did with Bush.

It collapsed after liberal schemes to extend housing loans to people who had no business doing so, out of 'fairness'. Barney Frank was a big part of the problem, and should be in jail.

Fully supported by your presumptive nominee. I don't support nation-building either, we can't even get civilization on the South Side of Chicago.

I repeat, most Americans don't want Obamacare. Obama used to say such important legislation should have bipartisan support, as Medicare did. The only thing bipartisan about Obamacare was the opposition to it. The Supreme Court isn't done yet with this monstrosity, there's another case making its way through the courts that may sink it. Here's hoping.

Can you give me a cite and date for that? Did you miss the New York Times article I posted admitting there are WMDs in Iraq, and the photos of burned Kurdish victims of ISIS' use of said weapons?

 

Your desperate, unwarranted presumption is noted. You clearly prefer to falsify what I think rather than know what I think but, nonetheless, I'll clue you in:

Should Americans, even extremely wealthy ones, be free to contribute to candidates they support?

Of course.

Should any such individual be allowed to hide his identity when he bankrolls a politician that will do his bidding?

No, I think he should have the courage to put his mouth where his money is if he wishes to use his vast wealth to manipulate elections to serve his agenda, and that the public has a right to know who is pulling the politician's strings.

A radical nutjob might certainly believe so. Yet, despite the cartoon version the rightwing entertainment media contrived to service their true believers, the reality is that he worked with Republicans, earned their respect, and there were normal Republicans who praised him, even former opponents:

As I tried to explain to you, whilst you may be attracted to the fringes, I'm a mainstream sort of American, and keep them in perspective.

Should I follow your example and pretend that this sort of sign outside a crazy Texan's gun shop is somehow indicative of the depravity of most conservatives?

​

.

​

Cherry-picking the most degenerate manifestations of offensive extremism says nothing about anyone beyond those (fortunately) extremely rare extremists at both extremes. I refuse to make believe otherwise to make a cheap partisan point that is so painfully feeble.

Then, the 114th Congress, with apologies to Romney, should repeal it. I certainly hope they try to appease the wacko birds and alienate more normal Americans by attempting such a stunt. It would be fun to watch!

When Bush admitted that no wmd were found in Iraq? He conceded that such had been the case in a White House press conference on February 8, 2008, and later, on the threshold of campaign quarantine, expressed his regret to Charlie Gibson of ABC in December, 2008: "A lot of people put their reputations on the line and said the weapons of mass destruction is a reason to remove Saddam Hussein" ... "I wish the intelligence had been different, I guess." When pressed by Gibson, Bush declined to "speculate" on whether he would still have gone to war if he knew Saddam didn't have weapons of mass destruction. "That is a do-over that I can't do," Bush said.

The msm news outlet you cite has been dismissed by rightists as "Liberal!" whereas I quote, directly, the primary source himself.

Quite frankly your insistence that the Bush, after conducting multiple, painstaking, expensive searches and having enjoyed unimpeded access to the entire nation during the years of occupation, either lied or was mistaken, and that Saddam's old naughty bits were still lying around when ISIL happened along - having deigned not to bother with the ones recently deployed in Syria from whence they had just come - is quite amusing.

If you actually wish to insist that Bush, through his gross incompetence, ended up supplying ISIL with biological and chemical weapons, keep doing so, but I really think that's nutty.

 

A right to know and limiting speech are two different things.

Never heard of Mr. McCormick. I'm sure I can find Democrats saying nice things in their periodic lucid moments about the conservatives you like to demonize.

The sign isn't saying they wish Obama's family members would be beheaded, it is asking is that what it would take for Obama to put down his golf clubs and get serious about ISIS. In now way is this comparable to the many moonbat signs calling for Bush's death and showing a gun to his head.

First Obama would have to acknowledge ISIS is a major problem, which kind of goes against his Nobel Peace Prize (can those be rescinded?) winning narrative that Muslims were going to all like us now that he is POTUS. It also explains why he lied about Benghazi. I swear, Richard Nixon would blush at all the lies this character comes out with.

Ahem, 'normal' is in the minority if you mean those who like Obamacare, making them by definition abnormal.

OK, will you believe a conservative source?

As I suspected, that quote is six year old, and is contradicted by recent discoveries. Bush made the mistake of believing a liberal. Hilary and every other big name Democrat thought there were WMDs there, and it turns out they were right.

 

I know of no constitutional statute that guarantees an American the right to hide when he exercises his "right to speak" in attempting to influence elections. You seem to approve of concealing the identity of a criminal kingpin secretly bankrolling a politician that will further his interests, whereas I feel the public has a right to know about it.

That's your pathetic quibble when I try to explain to you that the majority of Americans are not responsible for this sort of depravity from the fringes?

Unless far right nutters "make a wish," their publicly raising the issue of Obama's family members being beheaded is okay?

Wow.

You can't even disavow this sort of degeneracy even after I have unambiguously condemned all such scurrilous behaviour from the non-representative fringes.





- and if you want to insist that Bush lied or was only pretending when he admitted that no wmd stockpiles were found in Iraq, or that his various search teams' reports were all fraudulent, and that the forces he had deployed just ignored them throughout years of occupation, and that he just left them about for ISIL to find and use against Kurds, please go right ahead.

I honestly think it's nuts, but that's just my personal opinion.

 

Who exactly is the criminal? Interesting the left invents a right to privacy when it comes to a 'mother' killing her child, but not in this area.

I'm still waiting for you to man up and admit this kind of degeneracy is much more frequent on the left. If that little sign is all you've got, I rest my case. Here's some more from the left, http://www.zombietime.com/zomblog/?p=621 I keep waiting for conservative ones like this aimed at Barry, but all I get are crickets chirping. BTW, legally, this is assault. Really, scroll down to the bottom. Here's a sample, including one from John Kerry:

"The picture above shows John Kerry as he was being interviewed by Bill Maher in October of 2006 on the HBO show Real Time. As can be seen in this video exclusively on the ongoodmove blog, starting at about one minute into the clip Kerry says what can only be interpreted as a threat to kill Bush:

Maher: You could have went to New Hampshire and killed two birds with one stone.

Kerry: Or, I could have gone to 1600 Pennsylvania and killed the real bird with one stone.

Full transcript of the interview here.

Was John Kerry ever questioned or investigated for making a threat against Bush? No.

On July 11, 2007, Nobel Peace Prize laureate Betty Williams gave the keynote speech to the International Women’s Peace Conference in Dallas, Texas, and said (to laughter and applause from the audience):

“I mean right now, I could kill George Bush, no problem. No, I don’t mean that. I mean — how could you nonviolently kill somebody? I would love to be able to do that.”

So hypocrite, what GOP figure of Kerry's stature has made little jokes about killing Obama?

The Bush lied line is yours, I believe, how about you fess up and admit your cherished myth is dead, and that there were WMDs in Iraq?