Right Thinking From The Left Coast
Chance favors the prepared mind - Louis Pasteur

You Reap What You Sow
by Lee

To all those Limbaugh/Hewitt drones who voted for Hillary in the open primaries, the idea being that McCain could beat Hillary but not Obama.  I ask, are you out of your fucking minds?  Have the last 16 years not taught you anything?  When you have a chance to kill a beast you take it, lest the beast rise up and slash out your throat.

You cannot count on the Clintons losing anything, ever.  They are the sleaziest, most disgusting family in the history of American politics.  We had a chance to be rid of Hillary once and for all, and when she is elected president, you fucking right-wing talk show morons will have nobody to blame but yourselves.

Posted by Lee on 03/05/08 at 02:29 AM (Discuss this in the forums)

Comments


Posted by Hal_10000 on 03/05/08 at 03:28 AM from United States

Lee, my man, I couldn’t have put it any better. Amen! I want to call up Rush Limbaugh tomorrow and scream, “You fucking half wit drug addict! What the hell is wrong with you!”

The good news is that her gain in delegates may not be very large. DKos (yeah, I know, I know) is guessing Hillary gained less than 10 delegates tonight.

Posted by on 03/05/08 at 03:33 AM from United States

Oh, come on - they’re just looking out for their own best interest.  What’s going to give them more fuel for their fire for the next four years more?  McCain or Clinton?  These guys want Clinton to be the next President because it means they’ll continue to be relevant.

Posted by Hal_10000 on 03/05/08 at 03:38 AM from United States

CinaJ, I think you hit the nail on the head.  Boortz, at least, was honest about this.  He’s wanted to go after Hillary for a LOOONG time.

Posted by Manwhore on 03/05/08 at 03:48 AM from United States

Lee, my man, I couldn’t have put it any better. Amen! I want to call up Rush Limbaugh tomorrow and scream, “You fucking half wit drug addict! What the hell is wrong with you!”

The good news is that her gain in delegates may not be very large. DKos (yeah, I know, I know) is guessing Hillary gained less than 10 delegates tonight.

Monumental amount of pouting from someone who just claimed the Hillary campaign was inept.

Now wht? The Hillary campaign rocked better than anticipated, or is this all Rush’s fault?

Or is it....GASP? Democracy?

Or was I right? Guess we’ll have to stay tuned while the press irons out Hillary’s victory for her. One good thing about your Golden Boy, Hal. He has the support of the press, and you know they never turn on you.

Posted by HARLEY on 03/05/08 at 03:56 AM from United States

I honestly dont think the numbers of Rep’s, voting for Hillery were all that large.
so just keep your panties on.

Posted by Hal_10000 on 03/05/08 at 04:11 AM from United States

He has the support of the press, and you know they never turn on you.

McCain is learning the hard way that this is not true.  By November, they will have painted him as a doddering old fool.

Posted by Manwhore on 03/05/08 at 04:16 AM from United States

McCain is learning the hard way that this is not true.  By November, they will have painted him as a doddering old fool.

And how long do you think a graze on the ‘Teflon’ cantidate will yeild a few questions?

Man, it’s almost as if all that blustering and failure we picked up on from the Hillary campaign almost seems to have worked in her favor in retrospect?

maybe plan b needs to be dusted off and thought about because Obama’s on the last drag of his fag, and no I don’t mean sully in a dress.

Posted by West Virginia Rebel on 03/05/08 at 04:20 AM from United States

One thing’s for certain: If she’s the nominee this will be one of the nastiest campaigns in recent memory. Rush Limbaugh must be peeing in his Depends.

Posted by InsipiD on 03/05/08 at 05:50 AM from United States

There are two beasts.  She is the more reviled and less liberal of the two.  I see no way that Obama won’t be running for many years.

Posted by Lee on 03/05/08 at 06:44 AM from China

She is the more reviled and less liberal of the two.

I think that like everything else about Hillary Clinton her “less liberal” posturing has been nothing but a means to get her elected to the presidency.  Bush ran for governor in Texas solely as a means to get to the White House, and in an identical manner Hillary ran for senator.  The only reason her husband was moderately liberal was because he had the Newt Gingrich Republicans to keep him in check.

The Clintons still taste that bitterness, the knowledge that the eeeeevil Republicans thwarted their dreams to remake America into a Michael Moore-style socialist paradise.  And I think the second Hillary takes power in Washington, especially if she’d backed by a Democratic Congress, she’s going to take a rapid turn to the left.

This is why, of the two, I *far* prefer Obama.  He might be a liberal, but at least he’s not a fucking Clinton.

Posted by Thrill on 03/05/08 at 11:17 AM from United States

I guess we forgot that “True Conservatives” are only supposed to support liberal Democrats in the general election like Andrew Sullivan in 2004.

Posted by Lee on 03/05/08 at 11:30 AM from China

Andrew Sullivan endorsed Bush and wrote copiously on his support for the man.  Then, when the real Bush emerged, he wrote “the endorsement I thought I’d never have to write,” and went with Kerry, mostly because he was the only other option.

If the Hildebeast gets it and goes against McCain, his support will most assuredly be with McCain.  If Obama gets it, he’s going to have a fun time deciding who he likes more.

Andy is a conservative who understands what conservatism is supposed to be about.  And unfortunately, for those of us who don’t believe keeping brain-dead Florida vegetables alive through legislative fiat is conservative, most conservatives don’t understand the movement they claim to support.

Posted by on 03/05/08 at 03:13 PM from United States

Andy is a conservative who understands what conservatism is supposed to be about.  And unfortunately, for those of us who don’t believe keeping brain-dead Florida vegetables alive through legislative fiat is conservative, most conservatives don’t understand the movement they claim to support.

No he is a conservative that follows your viewpoints. For that reason you speak of yourself and him as “true conservatives”. Plenty of people have different versions of conservatism.  That you would call your version “true,” is mind numbingly arrogant.

Conservatives are far less afraid of Hillary because she would have less popular appeal than Obama. I am sure they are both equally liberal, but Obama could definately push more liberal legislation through.  Republicans in congress would be steadfast against Hillary...I am not so certain against Obama.

Posted by Lee on 03/05/08 at 07:13 PM from China

No he is a conservative that follows your viewpoints. For that reason you speak of yourself and him as “true conservatives”. Plenty of people have different versions of conservatism.  That you would call your version “true,” is mind numbingly arrogant.

Bullshit.  It’s like the phrase “classical liberal.” I consider myself a classical liberal—free markets, individual rights, limiting the power of church and state, etc.  However, I have to use the qualifier “classical” because the word “liberal” has been hijacked to mean “American socialist.”

In an identical manner, the word “conservative” has been hijacked to mean “fundamentalist Christians who believe in using the power of the state to enact government programs that reinforce their social agenda.” There is NOT ONE FUCKING THING about today’s GOP that could in any way be considered conservative in the classical sense.

It used to mean that “conservative” meant “classical liberal.” Now I guess we’ll have to resort to calling ourselves “classical conservatives,” since the recent crop of shitbags has taken over and redefined that once honorable institution.

Words mean things.  Read Orwell’s “Politics an the English Language” sometime.  This is how we went from “torture” meaning “torture” to using the phrase “enhanced interrogation techniques” to use torture.  The torture is the same, only we’ve convenient redefined it into something more palatable.

Posted by Lee on 03/05/08 at 07:15 PM from China

I guess now, in your line of thinking, a conservative is someone who institutes the greatest increase in social welfare spending since LBJ, the man who envisioned the “Great Society.” You know, since conservative has no definition, except for that which we give it at any point in time.

Posted by on 03/05/08 at 09:26 PM from United States

I guess now, in your line of thinking, a conservative is someone who institutes the greatest increase in social welfare spending since LBJ, the man who envisioned the “Great Society.” You know, since conservative has no definition, except for that which we give it at any point in time.

No, but its nice of you to guess my stance on issues i’ve never even mentioned.
I simply think there are more than two kinds of conservatives. You branch all conservatives as classical and true, or simple right wing fundies(scared of brown terrists). That is just ridiculus.

Posted by Lee on 03/05/08 at 09:45 PM from Australia

No, but its nice of you to guess my stance on issues i’ve never even mentioned.

I simply think there are more than two kinds of conservatives. You branch all conservatives as classical and true, or simple right wing fundies(scared of brown terrists). That is just ridiculus.

Conservatism is an ideology, an -ism, just like communism or nazism or socialism or anything else.  Thus, as an ideology, it has a definition.  The definition can change over time, of course.  But when conservatism becomes virtually indistinguishable from liberalism, then it’s not conservatism any more.

William F. Buckley defined conservatism as “Standing athwart history, yelling Stop!” Well, there is nobody yelling “stop” any more.  The conservative movement is just as big a believer in the transformationalist ideal of government, that it exists to “help people” and “better their lives” and so on.  It used to be that the Democrats wanted to get into your wallet, and the GOP wanted to get into your bedroom.  Now the GOP wants to do both.

So, is it that there are more than one kind of conservative?  Or that conservatism as an ideology has been redefined into irrelevance?

Posted by on 03/05/08 at 09:54 PM from United States

So, is it that there are more than one kind of conservative?  Or that conservatism as an ideology has been redefined into irrelevance?

I always thought their were different kinds of conservatives. Haven’t their always been. I am certain there were plenty of “conservatives,” that were totally supportive or Reagan’s foreign policy and not his social domestic policy.  Just like the constitution party which is conservative in domestic policies and isolationist in foreign policies.

There are fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, classic conservatives. This website is a good example of type of conservatism. However, just because somebody disagrees with you socially, maybe on the war on drugs or tax policy doesn’t mean they aren’t conservatives also.

Posted by on 03/05/08 at 09:55 PM from United States

btw why does your flag change from aussie to chinese?

Posted by on 03/05/08 at 10:07 PM from United States

But when conservatism becomes virtually indistinguishable from liberalism, then it’s not conservatism any more.

You really must love that bear trap you keep falling in. As its been pointed out before, even by you, Bush is not a conservative, his budget busting antics is not conservative like, nor is his accomplices in the congress. His attitudes of authoratarian power, a disregard for the separations of power, and spending habits are ALL the antithesis of “true conservatism”, so why oh why do you keeping confusing the two?

Conservatism hasn’t changed, only the people masquerading as conservatives has.

Since conservative bashing is your new cause celeb, you should have no problem giving McCain a tumble since the real conservatives out there tag him as anything but. Your conscience can now be assuaged.
BTW, all the dust ups we had in the past about the religious right highjacking the Republican party, well, the guy least religious of all of them won, so much for that theory. I have heard your annointed talk more about his religion and his being a christian (don’t you just hate when these candidates blur that line?)way more than McCain.

Next entry: Rush Limbaugh's Wet Dream

Previous entry: Hillary's Mo Joe

<< Back to main