Topic: Is Bernard Nuts?

[ttomm46]

I don't trust this guy as far as I can throw him!!!

""I was part of a panel a few days ago on politics, culture and the media.  And the first question put to us was right to the point:  “Can Barack Obama win re-election?”

Political guru Dick Morris, Tea Party unofficial leader Dick Armey, a scholar from the Heritage Foundation all said no.  It’s tough to argue with that.  President Obama’s approval ratings are not good and most Americans think we’re on the wrong track.  He’s lost support from his key constituents, including Jewish voters and African-Americans.  Worst of all for the president, independents who supported him in 2008 have jumped ship in big numbers."""

http://www.bernardgoldberg.com/can-obama-win-re-election/

[Pandora]

Oy.  Alright, now I want a definition, because I am so.sick. of hearing about "purity", exactly what their definition of purity is.

[charlesoakwood]

He's not the odd man out. He and Armey are saying the same thing.

But the Tea Party also brought us Sharon Angle and Christine O’Connell – two horrible candidates who lost in states that Republicans would almost certainly have won if the Tea Party had thrown its support behind more moderate – more electable — candidates.

This is off the rails for all reasons previously discussed at IAL.

His arguments are inconsistent within themselves, he's babbling from the first quote on.  Yeah, he's nuts or maybe he's celebrating the weekend a little early.

[John Florida]

Oy.  Alright, now I want a definition, because I am so.sick. of hearing about "purity", exactly what their definition of purity is.

 There is no standard defenition it's just a slur.

[Janny]

He's not the odd man out. He and Armey are saying the same thing.

But the Tea Party also brought us Sharon Angle and Christine O’Connell – two horrible candidates who lost in states that Republicans would almost certainly have won if the Tea Party had thrown its support behind more moderate – more electable — candidates.

This is off the rails for all reasons previously discussed at IAL.

His arguments are inconsistent within themselves, he's babbling from the first quote on.  Yeah, he's nuts or maybe he's celebrating the weekend a little early.

I am glad I am not the only one that thought this. I couldn't even get through the whole article.

[Alphabet Soup]

I am almost the diametric opposite of Bernard's POV. I want to win too, but diluting our ideology down in a feeble attempt at consensus gathering and phony coalition-building will only give us a pale (no particular pun intended) version of Øbozo.

I might be inclined to elect a "cruise speed to doom" president (rather than our current "Sprint to oblivion" one) only if I were applying the finishing touches to my ark and was only interested in buying just a little more time. I want a president who will pull us back from the brink.

I want a president whose idea of a "Pathway to citizenship" for illegals means repatriation with their home countries - and the promise of long-term hard time for repeat invaders. I want a president who believes that "Good fences make good neighbors".

I want a president who promises to return us to "living within our means" - and means it. I want a president who isn't stupid enough to believe that one can spend their way to prosperity. A president who respects me enough to keep his damned hands out of my pockets!

I want a president who believes that government should be seen but not heard. A government that's responsive, not repressive. A government run by citizens, not celebrities.

I want a president who doesn't call me "heartless" just because I dare to speak out in defense of my country.

I want a president who understands the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.

I don't know if any of that represents "purity" but I do know that it serves to thin the ranks substantially.

[ttomm46]

He's not the odd man out. He and Armey are saying the same thing.

But the Tea Party also brought us Sharon Angle and Christine O’Connell – two horrible candidates who lost in states that Republicans would almost certainly have won if the Tea Party had thrown its support behind more moderate – more electable — candidates.

This is off the rails for all reasons previously discussed at IAL.
why is his site even have conservative on it?
His arguments are inconsistent within themselves, he's babbling from the first quote on.  Yeah, he's nuts or maybe he's celebrating the weekend a little early.

I am glad I am not the only one that thought this. I couldn't even get through the whole article.

why does his site even say conservative?

[Janny]

I am almost the diametric opposite of Bernard's POV. I want to win too, but diluting our ideology down in a feeble attempt at consensus gathering and phony coalition-building will only give us a pale (no particular pun intended) version of Øbozo.

I might be inclined to elect a "cruise speed to doom" president (rather than our current "Sprint to oblivion" one) only if I were applying the finishing touches to my ark and was only interested in buying just a little more time. I want a president who will pull us back from the brink.

I want a president whose idea of a "Pathway to citizenship" for illegals means repatriation with their home countries - and the promise of long-term hard time for repeat invaders. I want a president who believes that "Good fences make good neighbors".

I want a president who promises to return us to "living within our means" - and means it. I want a president who isn't stupid enough to believe that one can spend their way to prosperity. A president who respects me enough to keep his damned hands out of my pockets!

I want a president who believes that government should be seen but not heard. A government that's responsive, not repressive. A government run by citizens, not celebrities.

I want a president who doesn't call me "heartless" just because I dare to speak out in defense of my country.

I want a president who understands the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.

I don't know if any of that represents "purity" but I do know that it serves to thin the ranks substantially.

Excellent post.

[AlanS]

I am almost the diametric opposite of Bernard's POV. I want to win too, but diluting our ideology down in a feeble attempt at consensus gathering and phony coalition-building will only give us a pale (no particular pun intended) version of Øbozo.

I might be inclined to elect a "cruise speed to doom" president (rather than our current "Sprint to oblivion" one) only if I were applying the finishing touches to my ark and was only interested in buying just a little more time. I want a president who will pull us back from the brink.

I want a president whose idea of a "Pathway to citizenship" for illegals means repatriation with their home countries - and the promise of long-term hard time for repeat invaders. I want a president who believes that "Good fences make good neighbors".

I want a president who promises to return us to "living within our means" - and means it. I want a president who isn't stupid enough to believe that one can spend their way to prosperity. A president who respects me enough to keep his damned hands out of my pockets!

I want a president who believes that government should be seen but not heard. A government that's responsive, not repressive. A government run by citizens, not celebrities.

I want a president who doesn't call me "heartless" just because I dare to speak out in defense of my country.

I want a president who understands the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.

I don't know if any of that represents "purity" but I do know that it serves to thin the ranks substantially.

Excellent post.

Best I've read in a while.

[John Florida]

I am almost the diametric opposite of Bernard's POV. I want to win too, but diluting our ideology down in a feeble attempt at consensus gathering and phony coalition-building will only give us a pale (no particular pun intended) version of Øbozo.

I might be inclined to elect a "cruise speed to doom" president (rather than our current "Sprint to oblivion" one) only if I were applying the finishing touches to my ark and was only interested in buying just a little more time. I want a president who will pull us back from the brink.

I want a president whose idea of a "Pathway to citizenship" for illegals means repatriation with their home countries - and the promise of long-term hard time for repeat invaders. I want a president who believes that "Good fences make good neighbors".

I want a president who promises to return us to "living within our means" - and means it. I want a president who isn't stupid enough to believe that one can spend their way to prosperity. A president who respects me enough to keep his damned hands out of my pockets!

I want a president who believes that government should be seen but not heard. A government that's responsive, not repressive. A government run by citizens, not celebrities.

I want a president who doesn't call me "heartless" just because I dare to speak out in defense of my country.

I want a president who understands the difference between equality of opportunity and equality of outcome.

I don't know if any of that represents "purity" but I do know that it serves to thin the ranks substantially.