On Election Eve the Repub Congressional Candidate for Montana's Only House Seat "BodySlams" Reporter
-
Your desperate generalizations are approaching panic level. Dreamer Tourish
But Sean and Rush are entertainers. They lack true conviction in their views... they blow wherever the winds of their following, take them. This year it was to Trump. To Sean's credit, he saw the trend much earlier than Rush did.
****************************************************************
yep. liberals see the world emotionally - reality doesn't set in - they don't think.
I've been listening to Rush and Hannity, etc.. for years. Never once have I figured they didn't believe what
they were saying.
That's old liberal slant silliness. "Oh, those who oppose us aren't sincere, and they secretly know our feelings
are exact, they are just posturing and..."
anything to discredit real opinions that make liberal emoting look worse than "out there"
-
ugh.... AND I QUOTE
This is objectively false. I posted a video where Beck refers to himself as a journalist.
Will you admit that you were incorrect?
LOL Woody I was correct and incorrect. None of those guys are journalists but it looks like Beck at one time claimed to be one (and at other times claimed he wasn't) when by definition he is not. BTW - nobody I saw was buying that Beck was a journalist either.
By definition of what journalists are you can see with the biased reporting today there are few real journalists out there. Real journalists don't take sides or report 90 percent negative stories about Trump because they don't like him.
LOL Woody I was correct and incorrect. None of those guys are journalists but it looks like Beck at one time claimed to be one (and at other times claimed he wasn't) when by definition he is not. BTW - nobody I saw was buying that Beck was a journalist either.
By definition of what journalists are you can see with the biased reporting today there are few real journalists out there. Real journalists don't take sides or report 90 percent negative stories about Trump because they don't like him.
Actually was ready to take your side for once... and Beck's...
... but now I'm not sure what your stance is... 
Beck in his FNC hay-day did research his topics. While I might question his sources... and his conclusions... he did do research, both through reading "literature" (of a sort) and conducting interviews, and those are journalistic traits.
"When you have a shared vision it is a lot easier to make unpopular decisions." - Paul DePodesta "When you win, say nothing. When you lose, say less." - Paul Brown Complete 2017 Browns Board Mock: http://thebrownsboard.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=46196 -
LOL Woody I was correct and incorrect. None of those guys are journalists but it looks like Beck at one time claimed to be one (and at other times claimed he wasn't) when by definition he is not. BTW - nobody I saw was buying that Beck was a journalist either.
By definition of what journalists are you can see with the biased reporting today there are few real journalists out there. Real journalists don't take sides or report 90 percent negative stories about Trump because they don't like him.
Actually was ready to take your side for once... and Beck's...
... but now I'm not sure what your stance is... Beck in his FNC hay-day did research his topics. While I might question his sources... and his conclusions... he did do research, both through reading "literature" (of a sort) and conducting interviews, and those are journalistic traits.
Actually was ready to take your side for once... and Beck's...
... but now I'm not sure what your stance is... Beck in his FNC hay-day did research his topics. While I might question his sources... and his conclusions... he did do research, both through reading "literature" (of a sort) and conducting interviews, and those are journalistic traits.
Beck has claimed at times not to be a journalist and at other times claims to be a journalist. I never considered him to be journalist as much a well informed commentator.
-
Beck in his FNC hay-day did research his topics. While I might question his sources... and his conclusions... he did do research, both through reading "literature" (of a sort) and conducting interviews, and those are journalistic traits. Tour
****************************************
Use to listen to Glenn Beck a lot. His research was really deep - his conclusions were alarming, but there was
all that evidence.
Then, he changed. True - research went out the window, apparently, and he started changing subjects from
where he says we are headed, to more less hard hitting subjects that seemed to be nonsense. I don't listen
to him anymore - way, way too much comical? jibber jabber, and superficial appraisals that are boring...
I bought his "Agenda 21" book...because agenda 21 does exist. But his book was a piece of futuristic garbage that
completely misses the point of watching agenda 21 moves by the UN. Just really, really stupid. So I threw it away.
Didn't even put it in the garage sale for a nickle. That's a ***stupid*** book.
-
It is very clear though, regardless what they claim, they're viewed as a news source. Not an opinion source.
-
Paul ryan doesnt "fight" for anything? Wut? He fought obama evem on shit thst made sense, for 8 years. So giuliani is more of a republican because he gets on tv and says rash, bombastic statements.....now that he's unencumbered by office and the necessity to compromise...this makes him more of a republican than a guy who in effect has to navigate through a primate enclosure within his own party to even attempt to get shit done.
You've utterly lost it obf
-
I'm glad this older congressman kicked this mellinial's ass. Shows what pussies they are. Faggots.
-
Cal, so if a person differs just on one thing they are a liberal? Even if they are for small government, fiscal conservatism, pro 2nd Am. etc.? Logic would be that then means any person who identifies as liberal but is pro-life would be a conservative.
Am I missing something or are you just fishing to get one on Tia?
Cal, so if a person differs just on one thing they are a liberal? Even if they are for small government, fiscal conservatism, pro 2nd Am. etc.? Logic would be that then means any person who identifies as liberal but is pro-life would be a conservative.
Am I missing something or are you just fishing to get one on Tia?
no, no, no. it isn't one thing, it's a general trend, relating to issues based on emotion, most all the time. "social liberal conservative"
is worse than an oxymoron. Nobody always agrees on issues; liberals are consistently flipping their stances
as soon as flipping gets them what they want.
obamao was pro 2nd Amendment...pro-Real Marriage, etc etc etc. He emotionally vented...and or... LIED out his wazoo.
it is whatever gives them an advantage, then that is their take.
Like the dems warning reps to not use the nuclear option. What to the dems do? They use the nuclear option,
of course.
Then, when the reps control Congress, they demand that the reps not use the nuclear option.
and on and on it goes. Freedom of Speech - is REALLY IMPORTANT when they want it.
When conservatives want it... nope. Then there should be censorship. and consequences.
the msm and liberals everywhere went apecrap over Rush saying he hoped Obamao failed to transform
America.
all liberal hell broke loose - about how dare somebody hope America fails ,...etc etc etc etc etc.
yet, NOW...they are actively insisting/legislating/maneuvering/threatening/"investigating/obstructing
Trump, to make his agenda fail.
That trend of emotionally flipping on advantage (hypocrisy in action), is truly what makes a liberal.
Emotionally, they see nothing wrong with it, because that's how they feel. Principle gone out the window.
-
So....nothing. You've got nothing.
Again, the phrase "socially liberal" really means ' none of my fucking business'. The queers can be queer, the stoners can smoke, the gun owners keep their guns, etc etc. Everybody is happy.
I enjoy freedom, I guess that's just a crazy concept?
-
So....nothing. You've got nothing.
Again, the phrase "socially liberal" really means ' none of my fucking business'. The queers can be queer, the stoners can smoke, the gun owners keep their guns, etc etc. Everybody is happy.
I enjoy freedom, I guess that's just a crazy concept?
I enjoy freedom, I guess that's just a crazy concept?
Freedom to cal is doing what him and his kind wants and we havebto abide. But they feel perfectly ok picking and choosing freedoms based on their own beleif structure. Thetes nothing american about them. It was people like him that drove people out of europe in droves centuries ago to come here
-
So....nothing. You've got nothing.
Again, the phrase "socially liberal" really means ' none of my fucking business'. The queers can be queer, the stoners can smoke, the gun owners keep their guns, etc etc. Everybody is happy.
I enjoy freedom, I guess that's just a crazy concept?
So....nothing. You've got nothing.
Again, the phrase "socially liberal" really means ' none of my fucking business'. The queers can be queer, the stoners can smoke, the gun owners keep their guns, etc etc. Everybody is happy.
I enjoy freedom, I guess that's just a crazy concept?
that is stupid, but you liberals emotionally use words incorrectly - it's the only way to justify your emotions. Nothing liberal
about being left alone to exercise your rights. Liberals don't leave people alone. They want to tax them over guns, "mmgw" farce,
tell them to lower their thermostats, they had the IRS harrass conservative groups, the liberal president smarted off
about gun owners, our Constitution, and Christians with their Bibles. (you think peaceful Muslims don't cling to their Korans?),
Being liberal is all about minding other peoples' business, fighting perverted Quixote windmill fights.
Being liberal is flipping what you think, anytime flipping is to your emotional advantage. Liberal is fighting to
get rid of capital punishment, because all life matters, and at the same damn time, fighting for the right to murder
unborn and born children. Being liberal is living on false narratives.
Liberals don't get it. They don't FEEL like it.
-
So in summary: My way or the highway > live and let live? So much for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...
What is the current count of "traditional marriages" destroyed by "gay marriage"? There must be data by now...
So in summary: My way or the highway > live and let live? So much for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...
What is the current count of "traditional marriages" destroyed by "gay marriage"? There must be data by now...
see? what happened to your determination to do the period thing? I didn't know a man could have them.
See, you emotionally have it backwards -
people have a right to define Real Marriage, but the liberals used the liberal courts to force the redefinition that is false.
What happened to live and let live, eh?
Why wasn't civil unions good enough? ANSWER: because liberals couldn't screw over all those Americans who know
that Real Marriage is between a man and a woman.
Liberal contradicktions are glaring, and that is how liberals exist.
-
Amazing how decades later conservatives have convinced themselves they were finevwith civil unions, when they fought even that tooth and nail
-
Ur diseased coatse
-
So....nothing. You've got nothing.
Again, the phrase "socially liberal" really means ' none of my fucking business'. The queers can be queer, the stoners can smoke, the gun owners keep their guns, etc etc. Everybody is happy.
I enjoy freedom, I guess that's just a crazy concept?
that is stupid, but you liberals emotionally use words incorrectly - it's the only way to justify your emotions. Nothing liberal
about being left alone to exercise your rights. Liberals don't leave people alone. They want to tax them over guns, "mmgw" farce,
tell them to lower their thermostats, they had the IRS harrass conservative groups, the liberal president smarted off
about gun owners, our Constitution, and Christians with their Bibles. (you think peaceful Muslims don't cling to their Korans?),
Being liberal is all about minding other peoples' business, fighting perverted Quixote windmill fights.
Being liberal is flipping what you think, anytime flipping is to your emotional advantage. Liberal is fighting to
get rid of capital punishment, because all life matters, and at the same damn time, fighting for the right to murder
unborn and born children. Being liberal is living on false narratives.
Liberals don't get it. They don't FEEL like it.
-
So in summary: My way or the highway > live and let live? So much for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...
What is the current count of "traditional marriages" destroyed by "gay marriage"? There must be data by now...
see? what happened to your determination to do the period thing? I didn't know a man could have them.
See, you emotionally have it backwards -
people have a right to define Real Marriage, but the liberals used the liberal courts to force the redefinition that is false.
What happened to live and let live, eh?
Why wasn't civil unions good enough? ANSWER: because liberals couldn't screw over all those Americans who know
that Real Marriage is between a man and a woman.
Liberal contradicktions are glaring, and that is how liberals exist.
people have a right to define Real Marriage
force the redefinition that is false.
These two things are a complete contradiction.
If people have the right to define 'real marriage' and the bulk of people in this country don't give a shit about gays getting married... then what, I ask, is false?
Seriously, I'm out after this shit. While I might not agree with Woody or Cleve on a lot, at least they don't cause people to bash heads into walls.
All you do is spout off about "kneejerks" and "emotions" then say shit that is so completely self defeating that no it's no wonder you thrive on the kid gloves that is the sanctuary of this board.
You're a 4chan troll, you have to be. I've gone down the list of things and there's no fucking way a guy in his golden years is capable of these types of logical absurdities.
-
Amazing how decades later conservatives have convinced themselves they were finevwith civil unions, when they fought even that tooth and nail
Amazing how decades later conservatives have convinced themselves they were finevwith civil unions, when they fought even that tooth and nail
I would plead guilty to that. At one time I didn't even like the idea of civil unions but hindsight being 20/20 that was the right compromise IMO. One of the reasons I was against civil unions though was that I was positive that would not have permanently satisfied the gay community and just be opening the door to gay marriage.
-
Amazing how decades later conservatives have convinced themselves they were finevwith civil unions, when they fought even that tooth and nail
I would plead guilty to that. At one time I didn't even like the idea of civil unions but hindsight being 20/20 that was the right compromise IMO. One of the reasons I was against civil unions though was that I was positive that would not have permanently satisfied the gay community and just be opening the door to gay marriage.
I would plead guilty to that. At one time I didn't even like the idea of civil unions but hindsight being 20/20 that was the right compromise IMO. One of the reasons I was against civil unions though was that I was positive that would not have permanently satisfied the gay community and just be opening the door to gay marriage.
Facepalm. Just facepalm.
-
Amazing how decades later conservatives have convinced themselves they were finevwith civil unions, when they fought even that tooth and nail
I would plead guilty to that. At one time I didn't even like the idea of civil unions but hindsight being 20/20 that was the right compromise IMO. One of the reasons I was against civil unions though was that I was positive that would not have permanently satisfied the gay community and just be opening the door to gay marriage.
I would plead guilty to that. At one time I didn't even like the idea of civil unions but hindsight being 20/20 that was the right compromise IMO. One of the reasons I was against civil unions though was that I was positive that would not have permanently satisfied the gay community and just be opening the door to gay marriage.
Government shouldn't be involved in a religious ceremony. I wish everyone just got civil unions and then leave marriage ceremonies up to individuals.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login