Posted on 02/04/2008 10:53:49 AM PST by TinaJeannes
The prospect of John McCain as the likely Republican presidential nominee has produced a squall of anger on the right. Normally reserved columnists and usually ebullient talk-radio hosts vie to express their disgust with McCain, and their disdain for the Republicans who are about to nominate him. The conservative movement as a whole appears disgruntled and dyspeptic.
Now I have nothing against a certain amount of disgruntlement and dyspepsia. The ways of the world, and the decisions of our fellow Americans, occasionally warrant such a reaction.
But American politics tends to be unkind to movements that dwell in anger and relish their unhappiness. In the era from Franklin D. Roosevelt to John F. Kennedy, liberals tended to be happy warriors — and that helped their cause. The original civil rights movement succeeded in part because it worked hard to transcend a justifiable bitterness. Liberalism faltered when it became endlessly aggrieved and visibly churlish.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Which would explain the constant use of "u" for "you" and "ur" for both "you are" and "your" - an office kid who's more used to texting than to writing.
I’d like to show you churlishness, you little weasel. You’d know dyspepsia. And judging by your grating nasal voice, you could also benefit from a re-deviated septum.
I hadn’t read enough it it’s posts to see those but, yes, that’s a dead give away. No telling how many volunteers sitting around the boiler room are using each account made.
If it comes down to McCain versus Clinton, many here have stated that they will not vote for McCain. It’s is their right and their perogative. But make no mistake, that is equivalent to supporting Hillary.
Primary battles are supposed to be emotional and hard-fought. I understand that and appreciate that. But this election has always been about Hillary and the goal SHOULD be to do whatever is necessary to keep her from gaining office. That is unless you want GUARANTEED tax increases, national healthcare, SC judges in the mold of Ginsburg/Breyer, withdrawal from Iraq, etc. The differences between ANY Republican and Hillary are REAL. Let’s keep some perspective and keep our eye on the ball.
No supporting Democrats in 2008. Period.
TigersEye: We should probably having been pinging “the user calling itself TinaJeannes” - we’ve both been here long enough to know better.
TinaJeannes: Tell your supervisor your cover’s blown and you need a new user name.
Horse puckey! That is getting to be the most overused convoluted logic around here.
Why withhold your support then if you didn’t feel it was hurting McCain?
If the choice is Hillary or McCain, the differences are real either not supporting McCain or voting for Hillary helps Hillary’s chances. It is equivalent to supporting her.
I explained previously. New York Times corrected typo. I didnt notice it *L* William Krystol
same oh stuff just updated or moved web sites
You know what they say; if you don't stand for something you will fall for anything.
They were brand new articles. Like McCain you’re a liar.
I know I will definetly not support a dem no way no how.
Nope not a liar
your pretty exclusive arent u? You will need at times in the future the support of many americans to get republicans back in office.
Btw the weather is supposed to get nasty tomorrow in many southern states tornadoes etc. might hurt the turnout big time
Because McCain isn't worthy of support regardless of who opposes him.
By your logic; I should give my permission to be dosed with poison to my mother because it would be disloyal to her to let the bully down the block win the privilege of dosing me with poison.
One or the other is going to be my executioner and I won't give my seal of approval to either.
That's right. I don't vote for liberals, liars or psychopaths and in McCain's case he's all three.
well hillary is shedding tears again . are you going to vote for her ? *L* she must have used that a lot. turn on the tears then they feel sorry for you and you get thier votes
We have a long standing tradition here at FR that you may not be aware of. If you claim that information is wrong or wrongly represented then it is up to you to provide sourced substantiation in the form of a link etc. to prove it. Or STFU. Where is your proof that those five articles dated well after 2000 are recycled material?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.