(01-07-2014 07:28 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 07:24 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 05:48 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  If you know much about her, you'd know that she was in the tank for Obama and got lots of grief from actual conservatives. She later penned a column admitting as much and that she (sort of) regretted it.

She was the 'token conservative' at the WaPo for quite a while, much like Joe Scarborough at MSNBC and the constant contact with libs rotted what was left of both their brains.

Why would she write about Hillary? She's a woman and as married guys know, they don't always (or usually) think logically. Emotion drives the day.

Pal, just because someone claims to be a conservative doesn't make it true.

A conservative would not write that kind of propaganda. She is a liberal woman and it's pretty evident.

No true Scotsman.

negative - it's almost a given.

Shall I bump the other thread you ducked out of last night?

(01-07-2014 07:24 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 05:48 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  If you know much about her, you'd know that she was in the tank for Obama and got lots of grief from actual conservatives. She later penned a column admitting as much and that she (sort of) regretted it.

She was the 'token conservative' at the WaPo for quite a while, much like Joe Scarborough at MSNBC and the constant contact with libs rotted what was left of both their brains.

Why would she write about Hillary? She's a woman and as married guys know, they don't always (or usually) think logically. Emotion drives the day.

Pal, just because someone claims to be a conservative doesn't make it true.

A conservative would not write that kind of propaganda. She is a liberal woman and it's pretty evident.

Propaganda? That some of the extreme Tea Party candidates can't win? That's not propaganda, that's the truth. The Republicans gave away at least two Senate seats because of wacko candidates.

(01-07-2014 07:33 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 07:28 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 07:24 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 05:48 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  If you know much about her, you'd know that she was in the tank for Obama and got lots of grief from actual conservatives. She later penned a column admitting as much and that she (sort of) regretted it.

She was the 'token conservative' at the WaPo for quite a while, much like Joe Scarborough at MSNBC and the constant contact with libs rotted what was left of both their brains.

Why would she write about Hillary? She's a woman and as married guys know, they don't always (or usually) think logically. Emotion drives the day.

Pal, just because someone claims to be a conservative doesn't make it true.

A conservative would not write that kind of propaganda. She is a liberal woman and it's pretty evident.

No true Scotsman.

negative - it's almost a given.

Shall I bump the other thread you ducked out of last night?

Sometimes I have better things to do.

(01-07-2014 10:02 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 07:24 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 05:48 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  If you know much about her, you'd know that she was in the tank for Obama and got lots of grief from actual conservatives. She later penned a column admitting as much and that she (sort of) regretted it.

She was the 'token conservative' at the WaPo for quite a while, much like Joe Scarborough at MSNBC and the constant contact with libs rotted what was left of both their brains.

Why would she write about Hillary? She's a woman and as married guys know, they don't always (or usually) think logically. Emotion drives the day.

Pal, just because someone claims to be a conservative doesn't make it true.

A conservative would not write that kind of propaganda. She is a liberal woman and it's pretty evident.

Propaganda? That some of the extreme Tea Party candidates can't win? That's not propaganda, that's the truth. The Republicans gave away at least two Senate seats because of wacko candidates.

Gave away? The election is 10 months from now. Obamacare is only going to get worse. It's time for liberals in the media to play "clean up."

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2...sy_8rSma9Q

Kathleen Parker started out as a clear-cut conservative in the 1990s. She has migrated in a leftish direction over the last few years, IMHO, but not quite to the point of actually being a liberal. She has clearly made a name for herself as a "conservative who makes snarky comments about other conservatives". Whether this development reflects some genuine change of outlook, or is just her attempt to get ahead in a profession that can be harsh on conservatives, I don't know.

Her column about Ted Cruz has some valid points. I happen to agree with Cruz's message and hope he succeeds with it, but there is no question that he has antagonized the majority of the Senate GOP caucus. In some ways that's a good thing.

(01-07-2014 07:24 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 05:48 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  If you know much about her, you'd know that she was in the tank for Obama and got lots of grief from actual conservatives. She later penned a column admitting as much and that she (sort of) regretted it.

She was the 'token conservative' at the WaPo for quite a while, much like Joe Scarborough at MSNBC and the constant contact with libs rotted what was left of both their brains.

Why would she write about Hillary? She's a woman and as married guys know, they don't always (or usually) think logically. Emotion drives the day.

Pal, just because someone claims to be a conservative doesn't make it true.

A conservative would not write that kind of propaganda. She is a liberal woman and it's pretty evident.

"Propaganda" suggests that she used this article as a means to influence large amounts of people. Propaganda also has to come from influential people.

Neither of these things happen in this article. It's an opinion article and she's as influential as Job's turkey.

(01-07-2014 11:15 PM)Native Georgian Wrote:  Her column about Ted Cruz has some valid points. I happen to agree with Cruz's message and hope he succeeds with it, but there is no question that he has antagonized the majority of the Senate GOP caucus. In some ways that's a good thing.

That's the thing... not in "some ways".. but in EVERY way.

You know the phrase, the squeaky wheel gets the grease? Cruz's comments and actions, along with Lee and Sessions (and to a lesser extent, Rubio and Paul) have woken the conservatives to the fact that the Karl Rove's of the world don't give a damn about conservatism and smaller govt.

If it takes scaring the hell out of Democrats and Republicans... then that's ALWAYS a good thing.

As for Kathleen Parker... here's two more words for you... "Megan McCain". She was brought in a "conservative" and she trashes conservatives every chance she got. Or "Joe Scarborough" or "Karl Rove"... "John McCain".

do we really need to keep naming "media conservatives" who aren't?

(01-07-2014 10:02 PM)QuestionSocratic Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 07:24 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 05:48 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  If you know much about her, you'd know that she was in the tank for Obama and got lots of grief from actual conservatives. She later penned a column admitting as much and that she (sort of) regretted it.

She was the 'token conservative' at the WaPo for quite a while, much like Joe Scarborough at MSNBC and the constant contact with libs rotted what was left of both their brains.

Why would she write about Hillary? She's a woman and as married guys know, they don't always (or usually) think logically. Emotion drives the day.

Pal, just because someone claims to be a conservative doesn't make it true.

A conservative would not write that kind of propaganda. She is a liberal woman and it's pretty evident.

Propaganda? That some of the extreme Tea Party candidates can't win? That's not propaganda, that's the truth. The Republicans gave away at least two Senate seats because of wacko candidates.

I'd say Sharon Angle wasn't a "wacko" candidate. She was trashed by the DNC and RNC.

Todd Akin, wasn't the Tea Party candidate. TP'ers wanted someone else in the Primary, but didn't win, because of the McCaskill machine

Christine O'Donnell... That's probably the one "wacko" candidate you could probably say got through the TP filters

(01-08-2014 07:47 AM)DaSaintFan Wrote:  I'd say Sharon Angle wasn't a "wacko" candidate. She was trashed by the DNC and RNC.

Todd Akin, wasn't the Tea Party candidate. TP'ers wanted someone else in the Primary, but didn't win, because of the McCaskill machine

Christine O'Donnell... That's probably the one "wacko" candidate you could probably say got through the TP filters

Angle wasn't a wacko, but she did run a poor campaign. All she had to do was avoid self-inflicted mistakes and unforced errors, and she would've beaten Reid easily. She couldn't do it.

I doubt if the words "Tea Party" and "Todd Akin" had ever been used in the same sentence until he unloaded his inner-thoughts about "legitimate rape". Then, of course, the media eagerly lumped him in with the Tea Party in an effort to discredit the overall movement.

People forget, but even After he made his insane comments, Akin still had another ~2 weeks in which he was legally entitled to withdraw from the race and allow the Missouri GOP to put another candidate on the ballot at very little financial cost (<$500). His refusal to do that is a testament to his vanity, selfishness, and overall cluelessness to the world around him.

(01-08-2014 12:14 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 07:24 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 05:48 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  If you know much about her, you'd know that she was in the tank for Obama and got lots of grief from actual conservatives. She later penned a column admitting as much and that she (sort of) regretted it.

She was the 'token conservative' at the WaPo for quite a while, much like Joe Scarborough at MSNBC and the constant contact with libs rotted what was left of both their brains.

Why would she write about Hillary? She's a woman and as married guys know, they don't always (or usually) think logically. Emotion drives the day.

Pal, just because someone claims to be a conservative doesn't make it true.

A conservative would not write that kind of propaganda. She is a liberal woman and it's pretty evident.

"Propaganda" suggests that she used this article as a means to influence large amounts of people. Propaganda also has to come from influential people.

Neither of these things happen in this article. It's an opinion article and she's as influential as Job's turkey.

Don't try to lecture me on propaganda, son. I used to write for a paper.

This is indeed propaganda geared at creating a sense of belonging. If others are disenfranchised over the Tea Party, then I probably should be as well. It's a common tactic used in the media and about 80 percent of the people on this board alone fall for it at some point or another.

This whole thread should be retitled. Mr. Obvious has to tell us **** we already knew.

(01-08-2014 02:21 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  This whole thread should be retitled. Mr. Obvious has to tell us **** we already knew.

You seem to be the only one having the problem.

Mr.ObviousLittleDixie, my point is quite simple, even for you. Figure it out.

I don't have a problem. Your trying to paint me as somebody with a problem is almost as funny as this entire thread. Anybody who pays attention to current events and press pundits already knew this stuff. But perhaps everybody else is as dense as you seem to believe they are, or this is just not that important for others to weigh in on it.

(01-08-2014 10:07 AM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-08-2014 12:14 AM)nomad2u2001 Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 07:24 PM)oklalittledixie Wrote:  

(01-07-2014 05:48 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  If you know much about her, you'd know that she was in the tank for Obama and got lots of grief from actual conservatives. She later penned a column admitting as much and that she (sort of) regretted it.

She was the 'token conservative' at the WaPo for quite a while, much like Joe Scarborough at MSNBC and the constant contact with libs rotted what was left of both their brains.

Why would she write about Hillary? She's a woman and as married guys know, they don't always (or usually) think logically. Emotion drives the day.

Pal, just because someone claims to be a conservative doesn't make it true.

A conservative would not write that kind of propaganda. She is a liberal woman and it's pretty evident.

"Propaganda" suggests that she used this article as a means to influence large amounts of people. Propaganda also has to come from influential people.

Neither of these things happen in this article. It's an opinion article and she's as influential as Job's turkey.

Don't try to lecture me on propaganda, son. I used to write for a paper.

This is indeed propaganda geared at creating a sense of belonging. If others are disenfranchised over the Tea Party, then I probably should be as well. It's a common tactic used in the media and about 80 percent of the people on this board alone fall for it at some point or another.

If it is, it's piss poor because she's only has 29 shares. As MileHigh said, it's stuff that people already knew.

Kathleen Parker calling herself a conservative is comparable to some posters on the sports forum who call themselves a fan of a certain school (only to trash that school at every opportunity).