Comments Posted By Nate
Displaying 1 To 9 Of 9 Comments
WHY CONSERVATISM SUCKS RIGHT NOW
"Positing the idea that we are unfree or living under some kind of authoritarian regime is so far beyond the pale of rationality one wonders if this guy sits in the dark, cradling his gun, waiting for the secret police to bust down his door."
Soft tyranny always precedes hard tyranny.
Obama calls for civilian paramilitary force
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHmecy94z-M
Comment Posted By Nate On 19.07.2009 @ 12:10
"Constant caterwauling about every little thing an Obama Administration does will get us nowhere."
This is exactly what the dems did to Bush and it got them into power. They politiczed Katrina and ignored the Posse Comitatus Act. They politicized OIF and ignored their own proclamations of the dangers Saddam posed before the 1998 removal of inspectors. They politicized 9/11 by trying to place all the blame on Bush while ignoring Sandy Berger lifting classified documents from the National Archives - Condi simply said we were not a war footing. they tried to politicize the crooked CEO's by ignoring the fact that the corruption occured under Clinton's admin and exploded early in Bush's. Everything they could politicize they did and it worked.
Comment Posted By nate On 6.11.2008 @ 09:24
REZKO SINGING: OBAMA SWEATING?
You don't need Rezko to sing anymore. Check out this article. Proof positive! They coordinated the transactions.
http://jtgaltomega.wordpress.com/
Comment Posted By nate On 27.10.2008 @ 20:47
OBAMA'S FULL COURT PRESS AGAINST FREE SPEECH
Obama's desperate times call for desperate measures.
Comment Posted By nate On 28.08.2008 @ 11:31
McCAIN IS TOO OLD TO BE PRESIDENT
Hopefully other baby-boomers will realize how much the Supreme Court (SC) has changed the Country they fought for and then realize what an Obama Presidency and a democrat majority would further do to the SC.
Personally, I won't be voting FOR McCain the geriatric, but AGAINST Obama the naive.
Comment Posted By Nate On 23.07.2008 @ 08:29
To headhunt23:
I agree it is hard to imagine anyone with a brain willfully associating with the Clintons, but I don't understand then why Obama is out in front of the cameras so early. If he's smart enough not to lie down with dogs, he should also be smart enough not to peak too early, or to run for President at all before he's got the credentials. The only way his actions make sense to me is that (perhaps surprised by his own popularity) he's making an opportunistic bid for the VP slot. I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt that he's not fool enough to run for president without any credentials.
Anyway, I hope I'm wrong. The resulting MSM fawning frenzy over that pair would be sickening to witness.
Comment Posted By Nate On 12.12.2006 @ 18:07
My hunch is that Obama and Hillary have already made their deal, and that we'll see him running as Hillary's VP.
That way he gets access to her money and campaign organization, sidesteps the caveats about his foreign policy inexperience, and lines himself up nicely to run for president later on. She benefits by getting the Democratic rock star on her ticket, and by creating an MSM feeding frenzy over a progressive dream team - the first woman president and the first black vice president. That's why he's out in front of the cameras so early.
Comment Posted By Nate On 12.12.2006 @ 16:25
ANN COULTER: CONSERVATIVE LOUT
For the record, Zel Miller wasn't right when he attacked Chris Matthews, he misheard the question. I find it laughable that one would compare Ann's "rightness" to an incident, a filmed incident, that was clearly and unquestionably wrong.
Comment Posted By Nate On 7.06.2006 @ 16:23
Rick,
Excellent post, unfortunately you are wrong about the major point of it. She does speak for conservatives, or rather for republicans who call themselves conservatives. As obvious as the points you made were look at the comments you got back. Ann Coulter is not a fringe republican.
Comment Posted By Nate On 7.06.2006 @ 12:15
