The parallels between 1932 and 2008 are not trifling.
Hoover won the nomination with 98% of the delegates, but it would be nearly 20 years before republicans regained the WH and 60 years before the House was regained.
Start rebuilding now, all ye of conservative hope.Comment Posted By Semanticleo On 5.02.2008 @ 21:16
"Democrats â€œunderstandâ€ national security issues better than Republicans but the catâ€™s got their tongue when trying to explain why?"
They seek sound bytes a little more discerning than 'Kill 'em all, let God sort 'em out" which seems to give Republican candidates the edge.
BTW; Which republican candidate is talking about the success of the surge, or Afghanistan?Comment Posted By Semanticleo On 3.02.2008 @ 16:06
Love the graphic of the guy with hands and mouth covered by repressive hands accompanying the PJ media 'speaking truth to power' piece
on the Sgt's removal from the forum.
Hilariously projective. But then, it worksComment Posted By Semanticleo On 5.08.2007 @ 18:40
"Cleanse" may not be the correct phrase, but based upon the loose bowels of the Senate and House Dems caving to "The Fear" of threats about their desire to protect the nation, it seems appropriate.
'We are the middle' has no meaning when you examine the chasm between the two sides. Just as shifting wealth is erasing the notion of a 'middle class', so too, the divisive exacerbations of polemics takes the equatorComment Posted By Semanticleo On 5.08.2007 @ 10:48
off the map of North/South, East/West will never meet.
I remember when our leaders had vision.
Kennedy set a goal and the nation rallied around the noble objective. The threat of
Soviet domination of space was part of what drove us, but it was also a collective sense of wonder at what the future holds. Now we just want to survive life on earth.
How about a National drive for energy independence? Or a new "Manhattan Project"?
What can we agree on? Find those acorns andComment Posted By Semanticleo On 21.07.2007 @ 14:10
cultivate into unanimous agreement. Chance of that happening? I give it the same chance as Kerry getting a blowjob from Laura.
"there seems to be a consensus on the left that if only we hadnâ€™t gone into Iraq, the terrorist threat wouldnâ€™t be what it is today."
Oh no, it's only because we went into Iraq that it isn't worse, rather than the same.
Anyhew, the response to Cherthoff is the function of credibility. 'We're fighting them over there, so we don't have to fight them here"
The Boy Who Cried Wolf, comes to mind.Comment Posted By Semanticleo On 14.07.2007 @ 15:32
Who's fault is that?
His integrity, or lack of it is not the point.
You do understand protected speech, don't you?Comment Posted By Semanticleo On 13.07.2007 @ 09:40
"So whatâ€™s the point?"
Only speech you and I agree with is, 'protected speech'?
You must love the conservatives of SCROTUS.Comment Posted By Semanticleo On 13.07.2007 @ 09:12
"It is his own sanctimony, his own shtick as Champion of the First Amendment."
He lives his credo, the hypocrites do not.
It is hardly sanctimony, but self-derogation that he espouses. But you seek to level the playing field for all the good hypocrites who haven't been caught yet. You attack him for
saying what is true. Don't be upset with the messenger.
"He deliberately abuses that freedom not in order to express himself but to bully and browbeat his ideological foes while lowering the bar of acceptable political combat to unheard of and unimagined levels."
Abuse of freedom? Now THAT's hypocrisy.Comment Posted By Semanticleo On 13.07.2007 @ 08:46
"Ad hominen would be without merit. Your stupidity deserves worse."
Suddenly you become tolerant of opposing viewpoints?
hypocrisy has everything to do with those who espouse a public POV, then practice their viceComment Posted By Semanticleo On 12.07.2007 @ 20:01
under cover. Is that simple enough?