#3 – Read something that doesn’t parrot your own talking points?
That would be very un-Republican behavior and would be grounds for being expelled from their political party.
Remember, in order to be a Republican, you cannot disagree with more than one subject from their talking point. More than one difference means you think for yourself, and that will disqualify you from their thought-police requirements.
I see that he reads Redstate. I wonder how he feels about their opinion, posted yesterday, that the 3 hostages rescued yesterday didn’t deserve being saved because of their views about the war in Iraq?
Actually, the views on the war as posted by Redstate were those of the organization the hostages were representing, not directly from the hostages themselves. Redstate, however, left that little tidbit out of the heading of their main post.
(May have been corrected since then…I don’t know…I haven’t been back…the comments there from most folks made me want to vomit).
He must have gotten the idea from bush, “In the beginning ‘I’ created the heavens and the earth”
March 24th, 2006 at 10:09 amGlad to know he’s hearing some sense.
March 24th, 2006 at 10:13 amWhy isn’t he reading Think Progress???
March 24th, 2006 at 10:14 am#3 why does Tricky DIck II: Buckshot only watch fox with no shadows lurking?
reality is scarry to these pansies (self-censored)
March 24th, 2006 at 10:18 am#3 – Read something that doesn’t parrot your own talking points?
That would be very un-Republican behavior and would be grounds for being expelled from their political party.
Remember, in order to be a Republican, you cannot disagree with more than one subject from their talking point. More than one difference means you think for yourself, and that will disqualify you from their thought-police requirements.
March 24th, 2006 at 11:14 amWhat? No Pandagon? ;)
March 24th, 2006 at 11:26 amI see that he reads Redstate. I wonder how he feels about their opinion, posted yesterday, that the 3 hostages rescued yesterday didn’t deserve being saved because of their views about the war in Iraq?
March 24th, 2006 at 11:29 am#7
Addendum…
Actually, the views on the war as posted by Redstate were those of the organization the hostages were representing, not directly from the hostages themselves. Redstate, however, left that little tidbit out of the heading of their main post.
(May have been corrected since then…I don’t know…I haven’t been back…the comments there from most folks made me want to vomit).
March 24th, 2006 at 11:33 amCan I submit EWM Ricky? It’s right up your alley.
“Canine Conspriracy” has a reference to dog on man sex (on Hannity and Colmes no less!)
And there’s even one devoted to my favorite Junior Senator:
March 24th, 2006 at 1:15 pm“I Feel a Foul and Frigid Wind (Every time Rick Santorum Opens His Mouth).”