CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › The Republican Party Going Forward
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Republican Party Going Forward - Page 3

post #101 of 1753
2/26/09 at 4:09pm
I heard that interview. The kid definitely personifies the adolescent mentality that's embraced by neocons.
Reply
post #102 of 1753
2/26/09 at 4:18pm
Horrifying. Not to mention that that Define Conservatism website is a one-stop retard warehouse. Way to put your eggs in that basket early on, kid.
Reply
post #103 of 1753
2/27/09 at 1:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Michael Steele interviewed by Curtis Sliwa for ABC radio

Curtis Sliwa: Now, using a little bit of that street terminology, are you giving him any Slum love, Michael?
Michael Steele: (laughter)
Curtis Sliwa: Because he is -- when guys look at him and young women look at him -- they say oh, that's the slumdog millionaire, governor. So, give me some slum love.
Michael Steele: I love it. (inaudible)...some slum love out to my buddy, gov. Bobby Jindal is doing a friggin' awesome job in his state. He's really turned around on some core principles -- like hey, government ought not be corrupt. The good stuff...the easy stuff.

Curtis Sliwa: When you used the hip-hop vernacular, man, Barack Obama has bling bling in this stimulus package, you got people's attention.
Michael Steele: Absolutely. There's a lot of bling bling -- the bling bling's got bling bling in this package. That's how bad it is.

Curtis Sliwa: You ain't ever gonna get Mitt Romney in a room with Ludacris high fiving over the RNC.
Michael Steele: Watch him, watch me. Look, I'll never forget when I got Russell Simmons and former chairman Ed Gillespie in the same room in 2004. It can happen and it will happen. This party has got to take it's head out of it's you know what and recognize that America doesn't look like America in 1952. That America now is something very different, very beautiful -- that has a lot of strips and strains to it. But, it's real and we've got to get in the real.

Curtis Sliwa: I believe Michael Steele you gotta multitask because it's a lot of money. So, what I would do is -- because he comes from Chi-town, Chicago which is now the murder capital of America, unfortunately -- the homicide capital. But, where we're talking to - Baltimore, DC -- they've had enormous problems. I would be handing out bullet proof body condoms so that a person could actually slip into this bullet proof body condom -- don't have to worry about STDs, drive-by's bullets lead poisoning.
Michael Steele: It bounces right off of them -- they keep on going.

Curtis Sliwa: It was interesting -- this was before he went off the hook -- DMX -- he was on the Fly Girls show on BET -- and he gets up and he says you will not believe how much blankety-blank money George W. Bush took out of my check -- 50 percent. And I'm saying to myself hey man, wake up. When Barack Obama kicks out the Bush tax cuts in 2010, it's going to be a lot more than that.

Michael Steele: Oh hell, DMX hasn't seen anything yet. He should understand -- it ain't George Bush who's taking it out of his paycheck. George Bush, in fact, tried to keep as much of it in there as possible.

On Meghan McCain (John McCain's daughter) saying Michael Steele's "hip-hop" strategy won't work

Michael Steele: I would think that she would understand what i meant when i used the term hip-hop. I wasn't talking literally the music industry -- Ludacris or Snoop Dog becoming Republicans. Look -- I'm not stupid I was born in DC on 8th Street. I know what's up. I know what time it is. I used to hang out in Brooklyn and in the Bronx as a teenager. I know what the real world is like.

On hip-hop strategy: Curtis tries to get Michael Steele "in the mood"

Curtis Sliwa: I gotta call for a little Jay-Z play to give you a little hand here -- so that you can go out with that (Jay-Z music playing).

Michael Steele: There you go, playa.
1) I think Steele needs to realize that the more he attempts to flaunt some ghetto street cred, the more pathetic he appears.

2) By now I'm half expecting him to admit to us that he's really just Rex Linn in blackface.
Reply
post #104 of 1753
2/27/09 at 1:56am
Thread Starter 
Is blackface that far behind?
Reply
post #105 of 1753
2/27/09 at 1:59am
Slum love?
Reply
post #106 of 1753
2/27/09 at 2:19am
Thread Starter 
Michelle Bachman's racial sensitivity training is paying off like a motherfucker



Quote:
After a long day at the Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, Republican National Committee chairman Michael Steele gave a speech asserting that the party is "alive and well."

Although he emphasized that the conservative movement must become a revolution and transform America, he conceded that the party had made mistakes: "We know the past, we know we did wrong. My bad. But we go forward in appreciation of the values that brought us to this point."

According to CNN, Steele was then praised by Minnesota Congresswoman Michele Bachmann.

As Steele concluded his remarks, Minnesota Rep. Michelle Bachmann -- the event's moderator -- told Steele he was "da man."


"Michael Steele! You be da man! You be da man," she said.
To be fair, Steele is probably the first black person she's ever met.
Reply
post #107 of 1753
2/27/09 at 2:29am
Thread Starter 
Can't wait til one of the white Republicans tries to call Steele "My Nigga". It seems possible.
Reply
post #108 of 1753
2/27/09 at 3:38am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamotv View Post
Can't wait til one of the white Republicans tries to call Steele "My Nigga". It seems possible.
Will you settle for "You be da man!"?
Reply
post #109 of 1753
2/27/09 at 3:55am
Thread Starter 
Linked to it a few posts up. It's still worth repeating. I will give the GOP credit. They're really trying to relate to black folks.
Reply
post #110 of 1753
2/27/09 at 4:11am
doh!
Reply
post #111 of 1753
2/27/09 at 10:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamotv View Post
Linked to it a few posts up. It's still worth repeating. I will give the GOP credit. They're really trying to relate to black folks.
Unfortunately, the way they do it sounds like a plantation owner coming to the servant quarters and asking them to join him in singing a negro spiritual.
Reply
post #112 of 1753
2/27/09 at 11:21am
Carville on the Jindal led GOP "March of Folly"

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/...ans/index.html
Reply
post #113 of 1753
2/27/09 at 4:19pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by C.Swicegood View Post
Carville on the Jindal led GOP "March of Folly"

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/02/...ans/index.html
Par for the course for a partisan hack like Carville: chock-full of unfair generalizations, cherry-picking his facts, and claiming consensus where there is none. Jindal and the Republicans are committing a folly on par with Vietnam and the Trojan War by turning down a sliver of the $800 billion spending plan that would expand, but only partially fund, unemployment benefits? Any mention of Jindal's well-articulated reason for turning down the funds? Any mention that Tennessee's Democratic Governor is considering the same action? Nope. Just root for the home team.

Mark Zandi is his supposed (and sole) proof that "economists from all political ideologies concluded that extending the length of time that workers can collect unemployment insurance benefits would be one of the most effective stimulus measures." Because, as Carville points out, Zandi was an adviser to McCain. Must be a Republican right? Even a Senator or two has claimed as much on the floor of the Senate or in the press. Never mind that the Washington Post debunked that over 3 weeks ago:

Quote:
"I'm a registered Democrat," he acknowledged.

He signed up with McCain when Douglas Holtz-Eakin, the candidate's chief economic aide and a longtime friend, asked him to join the campaign's diverse economic advisory team. "My policy is I will help any policymaker who asks, whether they be a Republican or a Democrat," Zandi said.
Any actual conservative or Republican economists to quote on this Keynesian consensus? Not to be found in this article. Any acknowledgment that there may be a differing viewpoint out there? Nope. Not Carville's style to acknowledge that his party might not have a monopoly on good policy, pure motives, and virtue.

"Rush Limbaugh-led Republican Party?" This is what the Democrats want voters to believe, even though they know it's not true. Is Carville not aware that his "Team" deals daily with Boehner, Cantor, and McConnell on the Hill? That Michael Steele and a handful of very intelligent and articulate governors are arguing the Republican cause on all the news and political shows? Carville's statement is the very definition of a talking point.

Santelli is the Right's new hero? Based on what? Never mind that conservative columnist David Brooks took him to task in his New York Time's article last week. And scoffing that America does not need to hear from a derivatives trader? Blame them for their part in this. But insulting, marginalizing, and penalizing those whose investment money we so desperately need to get the private sector moving again doesn't seem like the hottest idea to me. Go Team.
Reply
post #114 of 1753
2/27/09 at 4:35pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvc View Post
"Rush Limbaugh-led Republican Party?" This is what the Democrats want voters to believe, even though they know it's not true.
Tom Delay at CPAC today:

Quote:
ThinkProgress: Do you agree with Rush Limbaugh that we shouldn’t hope for President Obama to succeed?

DELAY:Well, exactly right. I don’t want this for our nation. That’s for sure.

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, also today at CPAC:

Quote:
I mean, let’s be honest. Who wants to hang out with guys like Paul Krugman and Robert Reich, when you can be with Rush Limbaugh!

Yeah, it's us Democrats keepin' that meme a-floatin', allright.
Reply
post #115 of 1753
2/27/09 at 4:40pm
Leave it alone, Jacob. It's just about "ideological differences".

Who cares if they'd rather see the country crash and burn when it might send the frightened masses back to their loving steel grip.

Tell me what the GOP plan is on getting the country back on track and back to work and I might listen. All I hear now is their "plan to take power".

Fuck them.


By the way, jvc, I agree that Carville is a partisan hack. Everyone knows this. But he's right. The GOP is on the wrong side of wrong once more.
Reply
post #116 of 1753
2/27/09 at 5:23pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer View Post
Tom Delay at CPAC today:

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, also today at CPAC:

Yeah, it's us Democrats keepin' that meme a-floatin', allright.
A former House Majority Leader expresses agreement on a point with Rush Limbaugh. The current Senate Minority Leader makes a joke putting Limbaugh on par with a journalists on the left like Krugman. At CPAC, mind you. And it's the Republicans somehow saying Limbaugh is the leader of the party? Sanford all but called Limbaugh an idiot for his comment that he hopes Obama fails.

Of course Rush has suggested he is the unofficial leader. The ego thing is part of what he does. But never mind the Commander in Chief telling Republicans to stop listening to Limbaugh if they want to get things done. Or the DCCC starting a petition against Limbaugh. Or Chris Matthews and so many other left-leaning commentators raising the question to keep it alive. Or Carville stating early and often. It's a Democratic talking point meant to make Limbaugh the face of the Republican Party knowing it would turn off the moderates.
Reply
post #117 of 1753
2/27/09 at 5:33pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by C.Swicegood View Post
Leave it alone, Jacob. It's just about "ideological differences".

Who cares if they'd rather see the country crash and burn when it might send the frightened masses back to their loving steel grip.

Tell me what the GOP plan is on getting the country back on track and back to work and I might listen. All I hear now is their "plan to take power".

Fuck them.


By the way, jvc, I agree that Carville is a partisan hack. Everyone knows this. But he's right. The GOP is on the wrong side of wrong once more.
I guess you missed the fact that the GOP put forth its own plan. A summary of the House GOP's version is here. It would have not only targeted tax cuts to spur the private sector, it would expand unemployment benefits as well. Whether it goes far enough or is even advisable is up for debate. But the GOP had a plan. Not that it was reported much. Too bad Pelosi and Obey completely locked them out of the bill-writing process. By the way, people like Jindal have expressed support for infrastructure spending. The Senate GOP wanted more of it in the Stimulus Bill.

And Obama does not equal the country. Wanting Obama's policies to fail does not mean wanting the country to fail. When so many of you wanted Bush's policies to fail over the last 8 years, was it the same as rooting for this country's failure? You can hope a particular plan does not pay off as advertised in order to prevent a continuation of a policy you feel will be ultimately harmful. That is what Limbaugh should have said. But, Limbaugh can be an idiot. He says things in a controversial way to get press. It worked here. But he specifically said he wanted Obama's policies to fail because he believes the policies would be a bad thing for this country. A movement to European-style socialism is not what he wants to see and that is not what Obama promised on the campaign trail. Yet, that is what we are clearly headed towards with the Bailout, Stimulus, Omnibus Spending Bill, and his budget outline. If you think that's a great thing, fine. A lot of us don't want to see that. It doesn't mean we are rooting for an even bigger collapse of the system with people starving in the streets.
Reply
post #118 of 1753
2/27/09 at 5:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvc View Post
It's a Democratic talking point meant to make Limbaugh the face of the Republican Party knowing it would turn off the moderates.
If you honestly think the post-election Democrats are responsible for Limbaugh's notoriety then I don't know what to say.

Plus, you can't have it both ways. If Rush is just some powerless blowhard with no power or influence in Republican politics, then why would demonizing him pay any dividends for Democrats? Are these "moderates" you speak of so easily influenced? They're unfamiliar with Limbaugh's rhetoric but are gonna buy bogus talking points that he's the face of the Republican party?

I guess congressman Phil Gingrey hastily apologized to Rush because he's just an outlier:

Quote:
"I apologize for putting my foot in my mouth like that," he said. “Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Newt Gingrich, and other conservative giants are the voices of the conservative movement’s conscience. Everyday, millions and millions of Americans—myself included—turn on their radios and televisions to listen to what they have to say, and we are inspired by their words and by their determination,”
Reply
post #119 of 1753
2/27/09 at 5:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvc View Post
When so many of you wanted Bush's policies to fail over the last 8 years
I'm hard-pressed remembering anyone wanting that. It was more a case of watching that.
Reply
post #120 of 1753
2/27/09 at 5:59pm
I remember calling many of his policies mistakes, and thinking that the Iraq invasion was illegal, and championing the (barely there) opposition, but not once do I remember actually rooting for failure. Of course, merely disagreeing with Bush AT A TIME OF WAR was considered treason by many on the right.
Reply
post #121 of 1753
2/27/09 at 6:01pm
Gonna have to agree with Jacob on this one. No one wanted Bush to fail. Bush and his team pretty much did that job themselves.
Reply
post #122 of 1753
2/27/09 at 6:04pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer View Post
If you honestly think the post-election Democrats are responsible for Limbaugh's notoriety then I don't know what to say.

Plus, you can't have it both ways. If Rush is just some powerless blowhard with no power or influence in Republican politics, then why would demonizing him pay any dividends for Democrats? Are these "moderates" you speak of so easily influenced? They're unfamiliar with Limbaugh's rhetoric but are gonna buy bogus talking points that he's the face of the Republican party?

I guess congressman Phil Gingrey hastily apologized to Rush because he's just an outlier:
Obama singling him out probably did more to raise his profile than anything else Rush has done in his career. Rush is not powerless. Olbermann, Maddow, Krugman, and Matthews aren't powerless either. They all have influence through the powerful platform of their national audience. None is the leader of a particular political party and it's ridiculous to imply that they are. But what Rush is undoubtedly is a blowhard. He makes controversial statements that are sometimes impossible to defend and are offensive to Middle America. He does it to get ratings, which maintains his audience and his power. I don't think attacking Limbaugh is particularly effective as a political tool. You'll have to ask Obama how it worked last fall when he tried to use Limbaugh's statements against McCain in a very dishonest Spanish-language ad. For better or worse, it's an old political strategy to try to define your opponent (or his/her party) by what you feel will turn off the voters most. You can also ask all those former GOP House members who tried to focus their campaigns against Pelosi rather than their moderate/conservative Democratic opponents in 2006 and 2008 how that worked out for them.
Reply
post #123 of 1753
2/27/09 at 6:06pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer View Post
Of course, merely disagreeing with Bush AT A TIME OF WAR was considered treason by many on the right.
I can tell you an interesting story about a friend of mine who was very nearly brought before a court-martial, because he vocally disagreed with then-President Bush's policies...

Not his war policies, mind you... but policies in general.
Reply
post #124 of 1753
2/27/09 at 6:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer View Post
I remember calling many of his policies mistakes, and thinking that the Iraq invasion was illegal, and championing the (barely there) opposition, but not once do I remember actually rooting for failure. Of course, merely disagreeing with Bush AT A TIME OF WAR was considered treason by many on the right.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EdHocken View Post
Gonna have to agree with Jacob on this one. No one wanted Bush to fail. Bush and his team pretty much did that job themselves.
Sorry if I was unfair on that. To be clear, I don't remember any American poster stating that they wanted Bush to fail. I remember a lot of people stating that Bush's policies would fail. More often than not, Bush proved you right. There's a difference there and you were right to point it out. I'm hoping Obama succeeds in his goal of helping the economy to recover. But I disagree with a lot of his methods. I hope he and Congress do not succeed in passing bills that I believe will be harmful in the long-term. But once those bills become law, I pray they work as advertised. Good enough?
Reply
post #125 of 1753
2/27/09 at 6:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lima Oscar Lima View Post
Not his war policies, mind you... but policies in general.

I can only imagine. I was in the service under Reagan, and though I was hardly ever vocal about my politics, I got grief from superiors all the time for being a Democrat, and that was during peacetime.
Reply
post #126 of 1753
2/27/09 at 6:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvc View Post
I'm hoping Obama succeeds in his goal of helping the economy to recover. But I disagree with a lot of his methods. I hope he and Congress do not succeed in passing bills that I believe will be harmful in the long-term. But once those bills become law, I pray they work as advertised. Good enough?
Well said.
Reply
post #127 of 1753
2/27/09 at 6:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer View Post
I can only imagine. I was in the service under Reagan, and though I was hardly ever vocal about my politics, I got grief from superiors all the time for being a Democrat, and that was during peacetime.
Reagan was God to the military in the '80s. You may as well have been an atheist. Good thing you weren't an atheist too, huh, Jacob?
Reply
post #128 of 1753
2/27/09 at 6:19pm
Limbaugh isn't the face the GOP necessarily wants, but it's the face they've got right now.
Reply
post #129 of 1753
2/27/09 at 6:21pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by jvc View Post
Reagan was God to the military in the '80s. You may as well have been an atheist. Good thing you weren't an atheist too, huh, Jacob?
Hehe. Yeah, I got more grief for that, actually, but mostly just from other sailors. And Reagan did give us a big ol' raise while I was in, so I felt just a little shitty every time I went to the bursar's office.
Reply
post #130 of 1753
2/27/09 at 6:24pm
And this Limbaugh thing looks sorta semi official:

Quote:
Top Democratic operatives are planning a stepped up campaign to promote Rush Limbaugh as the public face of the GOP — an effort that will include recruiting Dem governors to make this case on talk shows, getting elected officials to pen Op eds arguing it, and running more ads pushing it, a senior Democratic operative says.

Key leadership staff in the House and Senate, and in all the political committees, have been encouraged by senior Dem operatives to push this message wherever possible, the operative says.

“I’m encouraging everybody to go out and say this,” Paul Begala, the well-known Dem strategist, just told me by phone. “I’m hot for this. Let’s get this out every way we can.”
Reply
post #131 of 1753
2/27/09 at 6:29pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jacob Singer View Post
Tom Delay at CPAC today:

Quote:
ThinkProgress: Do you agree with Rush Limbaugh that we shouldn’t hope for President Obama to succeed?

DELAY:Well, exactly right. I don’t want this for our nation. That’s for sure.
ps. why isn't Tom Delay in jail? Why is anyone asking him his opinion on anything?
Reply
post #132 of 1753
2/27/09 at 8:01pm
Quote:
ps. why isn't Tom Delay in jail? Why is anyone asking him his opinion on anything?
And yet people continue to defend conservatism while conservatives are represented by convicted effing criminals! Gah. Gaaaah.

Quick Fox News, give tom delay and grover norquist their own shows! It'll be a good idea, I swear!

Why would people spend their time defending this trainwreck? What's the point anymore when they make it soooooooooo hard?
Reply
post #133 of 1753
2/27/09 at 8:03pm
Thread Starter 
Rush Limbaugh is that douchebag boyfriend you pick up after a long term relationship. In other words, Rush is the defacto leader of the Republican Party because the conservatives are pissed and on the rebound.

There's also the fact that Rush dominates AM talk radio so its in the GOP's best interest to keep him happy. Hence the grovelling and ass kissing. Between Michael Steele's "Yo! RNC Raps", the watermelon patch cartoon, Michelle Bachman's jive talking, and Jindal's bedtime stories, the GOP is in a dark fucking period right now. It's not pretty to watch.
Reply
post #134 of 1753
2/27/09 at 8:20pm
Yes it is. Times like this, I wish I could cut the Republicans out and put them in a scrapbook so I can pull it out and enjoy then when I'm old.
Reply
post #135 of 1753
2/27/09 at 9:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by In Tyler we Trust View Post
Quick Fox News, give tom delay and grover norquist their own shows! It'll be a good idea, I swear!
Careful... they might actually do it.

"Fox News... we instruct, YOU OBEY!"
Reply
post #136 of 1753
2/27/09 at 11:24pm
Thread Starter 
This pretty much sums up the GOP right now.....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/paul-j..._b_170378.html
Reply
post #137 of 1753
2/28/09 at 12:21am
And this link from the comments section is even scarier:

http://www.cpac.org/agenda_20708.html


My favorite part:

Al Franken and ACORN: How Liberals are Destroying the American Election System
Ambassador Ballroom
Hans von Spakovsky, The Heritage Foundation
Heather Heidelbaugh, Republican National Lawyers Association
Mark Braden, former RNC chief counsel

Moderator: Cleta Mitchell, American Conservative Union Foundation
Reply
post #138 of 1753
2/28/09 at 12:48am
Wanna read something really scary? click here.
Reply
post #139 of 1753
2/28/09 at 2:39am
Thread Starter 
Just saw that 2 minute speech by that 13 year old kid. Who would have thought the smartest guy at that convention would be a guy like him? It wouldn't surprise me if he's called on to be the GOP's pick for the Republican response in a few weeks on the State of the Union.
Reply
post #140 of 1753
2/28/09 at 11:30am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cylon Baby View Post
And this link from the comments section is even scarier:

http://www.cpac.org/agenda_20708.html


My favorite part:

Al Franken and ACORN: How Liberals are Destroying the American Election System
Ambassador Ballroom
Hans von Spakovsky, The Heritage Foundation
Heather Heidelbaugh, Republican National Lawyers Association
Mark Braden, former RNC chief counsel

Moderator: Cleta Mitchell, American Conservative Union Foundation
What's to moderate? It's a bunch of mutual dicksucking, then a few seig heils and it's off to lunch!
Reply
post #141 of 1753
2/28/09 at 11:55am
Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamotv View Post
Just saw that 2 minute speech by that 13 year old kid. Who would have thought the smartest guy at that convention would be a guy like him? It wouldn't surprise me if he's called on to be the GOP's pick for the Republican response in a few weeks on the State of the Union.
He wasn't smart. As a conservative with different viewpoints than 90% of the people in that room, I can call bullshit. That kid was spouting off nonsense... it sounded like a lame community college student paper. If that's the best CPAC can do... they really are in trouble.

What they need is loyal opposition to the viewpoints of the party. They need someone to challenge the notions they've been holding onto; not some little twirp telling us what "he" thinks conservatism really is. I guarantee anyone on this board... just like the Bush administration and this current Republican Party, he has NO IDEA what conservatism entails.
Reply
post #142 of 1753
2/28/09 at 4:25pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Muharulz View Post
He wasn't smart. As a conservative with different viewpoints than 90% of the people in that room, I can call bullshit. That kid was spouting off nonsense... it sounded like a lame community college student paper.
Agreed. I mean, the kid is pretty talented at stringing sentences together but there's no depth there. He's not actually saying anything about anything. The book must be a riot.
Reply
post #143 of 1753
2/28/09 at 4:54pm
No 13 year old has enough life experience or knowledge of the world talk with depth about any sorts of those issues. He can parrot things he's heard and seems to be a decent talker for his age, but that's as deep as it gets.
Reply
post #144 of 1753
2/28/09 at 8:16pm
I don't know anything about this kid, but I applaud any 13 year olds in the US that are actively participating in the political process. At 13 I was already very political in my own country, and joined the "Cruzadas Civilistas" movement during the time of our military dictatorship.

Did I have enough life experiences, probably not. But I wasn't sitting in the sidelines ignoring the world around me.
Reply
post #145 of 1753
2/28/09 at 8:23pm
There is a difference to being involved and writing a book defining the movement.
Reply
post #146 of 1753
2/28/09 at 9:22pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElCapitanAmerica View Post
I don't know anything about this kid, but I applaud any 13 year olds in the US that are actively participating in the political process. At 13 I was already very political in my own country, and joined the "Cruzadas Civilistas" movement during the time of our military dictatorship.

Did I have enough life experiences, probably not. But I wasn't sitting in the sidelines ignoring the world around me.
If this kid joined an organization I really wouldn't care. But that's not what he's done. He's written a book that seeks to define the direction of a major political party.

No 13 year old is equipped to do that. They do not have the knowledge, experience, or wisdom to do it. Most adults aren't equipped to do it either. This whole thing is a joke.
Reply
post #147 of 1753
2/28/09 at 9:34pm
If you look at the kid's site, he's a child actor. And child actor to me implies stage parents. I think what's going on with him right now will be psychologically damaging to him later on in life. It's way too much to put on a kid.
Reply
post #148 of 1753
3/2/09 at 5:18pm
Thread Starter 
Rham Emanuel, you magnificent bastard you.....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_171135.html
Reply
post #149 of 1753
3/2/09 at 5:48pm
Is it me? Or has Limbaugh porked up recently? I remember him being somewhat thinner? Either way, him getting into a pissing contest with Steele is hilarious.
Reply
post #150 of 1753
3/2/09 at 6:55pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by dynamotv View Post
Rham Emanuel, you magnificent bastard you.....

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/0..._n_171135.html
Wow. I had no idea Rham's comments would've caused such a shitstorm, but I bet he did. Obama and his boys play politics at an incredibly high level.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Political Discourse
CHUD.com Community › Forums › POLITICS & RELIGION › Political Discourse › The Republican Party Going Forward