Post 2, jim_trent repurposes to persecuting him.
How long until they apply this to guns owners, gun dealers, gun manufacturers, etc.bigtoona is experiencing some cognitive dissonance.
I don’t understand why they would attack the porn industry. That occupation is a pillar of progressivism. Pornography is promoted and glorified on TV and in our schools constantly. It is the main tool of political correctness and cultural Marxism to destroy families and religion.Flick Lives explains that anytime liberals seem to be attacking liberals, it's just blackmail!
I don’t understand why they would attack the porn industry. That occupation is a pillar of progressivism.areukiddingme1 thinks this is cause of Obama's Muslimness.
You're thinking logically. ;-) Think like a progressive; where everything is based on political pull and not financial rationale. This is just the Regime signaling that they'd like a political donation. Following that, I'm sure this problem would magically disappear. That, and of course appointing a few important ex politicians to the boards of director for some of these companies. If you want to know how the Dems operate, just think mafia. It's really not much different, except the mafia has more honor.
Okay, not a supporter of the porn industry - My choice, but a) I do support freedom and b) Is this badork odumbo’s way of enforcing his “muslim faith.”Hugin also manages to integrate liberals loving porn and yet super-liberal Obama targeting it:
Muslim men are not allowed to view porn, right?
This is counter productive towards reaching that goal.GrootheWanderer explains that pornography is full of Republicans
True. But logical consistency has never been the hallmark of big government. You have lots of different people pushing different agendas.
No joke, but most of the porn people that I have read about being involved in politics were either Republicans or Libertarians. I recall a few years ago it came out that a GOP county officer in Nevada was a porn star. and going back to the Bush administration I remember it was a big scandal when it was revealed that one of his California donors was a former porn star. And one of the free LA weeklies looked up the political donations of porn execs and found they skewed to the Republicans and Libertarian Party.Not unbelievable, except for the idea that Obama is targeting porn for partisan reasons.
jsanders2001 knows liberals are all porn addicts:
I can see good coming out of this. Liberals HAVE to have their porn to feed their depravity. They won’t like this one bit. Between being forced to pay for Obamacare and the porn industry being impacted they will switch teams and begin to hate the man. I see a bad moon arisin’....Welp, gotta go porn it up! Be back once I feed my depravity! SampleMan thinks be beast is porn? Or banking?
Unless you have the Beast’s name or number on your person, you cannot buy or sell.Lockbox heard something about depravity, which means it's time to remember how gay Obama is!
Of course if it was my business I would just call it a Gay Bath House, provide a free membership to Obama and Rahm and explain to the bank that our members also like to make Porno Films.unixfox is sure this porn war has begun:
Keep pushing fellas. CWII is just around the corner.skinkinthegrass....?
It's just NOT their porn..(Queer) Lenin AND (Queer) Stalin pole-dancing
to "a beat", Mao-tse (Drums) and Pol-Pot (Tambourine) in trashy cross-
dress clothing in high heels, no less.
Can't you hear "the Beat" from Washington?
It's just part of their narrative of Obama as "other," and how America is lost because it votes for "other." Like the meme that he's gay (so what if he is?) or dumb (like other Harvard Law Review editors) or secretly Indonesian (huh?). He's just not a "real" American and if you voted for him or support anything he ever said, neither are you.
ReplyDeleteI'm actually a Republican and work on moderate "RINO" (as they'd call it) campaigns. You're right. We absolutely HATED these types of people because they'd always cause embarrassment when canvassing and making voter contact. They become a liability because their silly narrative about the president. They never understood that you don't run contrary to your opponent but stand on your own candidate's value. During Romney, the second I'd hear someone talk about Obama as Muslim, I'd shut that shit down megaquick! No sense in helping remind people how different Romney's voters are.
ReplyDeleteI know exactly what you mean, Unknown. In 2004, Democrats ran against Bush instead of for Kerry and that's why Kerry was defeated. When I saw the same thing happening in 2012, I knew that Romney was toast in the general. I was able to predict as far back as January that Obama would win a second term.
ReplyDeleteFWIW (basically nothing) Euph, who did you want in 2004? I was all about Dean at the time.
ReplyDeleteStill am, really.
Well, at the time I actually wanted John Edwards. He had the whole southern charm going for him, just like Bill Clinton, and he seemed like the best bet to win. I was still pretty much a political novice and didn't know that he was basically an empty suit. If I knew then what I know now, I probably would have favored Howard Dean, too. Even after the scream.
ReplyDeleteThat's fair.
ReplyDeleteMy family, to let you know from whence I come, were all Kucinich.
Wow. Okay, he's good as an activist, but way too uncompromising to be a good president. I found that out when the Dems were trying to get Obamacare passed.
ReplyDelete"You have lots of different people pushing different agendas."
ReplyDeleteIt's almost like Hugin has realized he's living in a pluralistic democracy. Can we get him some Isaiah Berlin somehow? He may not be a list cause.
Ozy, I think your evenhanded ness is making you overstate the radicalism of the Democratic Party in 1968. Who was the nominee? What were his positions, and how'd he do at gathering votes?
ReplyDeleteI think we tend to overrate the influence of radical anti-centrism because it's so damn fascinating. But the Yippie/whatever faction in 1968 can't have been that much more influential than the FR anybody-but-Mitt faction in 2012.
Could be. I wasn't alive then, so I can't be sure. I was thinking of the 1968 Chicago convention riot.
ReplyDeleteBut Fear and Loathing on The Campaign Trail '72 inspired me into doing some research. The Democratic party of the time was something that could not exist nowadays at all - I'm not sure if you can categorize it as radical or moderate.
It had Dixicrats alongside Communists and everyone in between. It also was split between old-style political machines and new-style populists.
Both the GOP now and the Dems in 1968 had a loud radical wing that they could not control. But I will allow that the electoral clout Freepers have is much greater than back then.
Maybe the Know-Nothings of 1850?
Ozzy - check out this awesome thread insulting the Pope for calling for economic fairness
ReplyDeletehttp://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3154055/posts#comment
Do they ever read the full text of his pronouncements, or do they just read the FR soundbite and then jerk their collective knees? I think I know the answer to that.
DeleteJust once, I'd love to hear them criticize their weird little prosperity-gospel mega-preachers in the same tone. Not gonna happen. I picture them all waddling off to their flare-side pickup trucks on Saturdays to load up the back with useless bullshit from Sam's Club and WalMart going "Yup, I deserve it. Fuck everybody else."
DeleteOzy, I think you'd be surprised at how many Republicans are moderate. I started working with Romney in April of 2011 when he was the only Republican that wasn't considered Conservative. In fact, that's in large part why he won over people like Perry, Cain, Santorum, etc. Most Republicans are moderate. Only about 20-30% are Conservative, but these are the ones who make it difficult for the rest of us. It's also why we'll likely always lose elections.
ReplyDeleteI take a bunch of political classes in DC, so I meet moderate Republicans all the time.
ReplyDeleteIn fact, I'm getting a beer with one next Tuesday to drink and talk about markets.
One thing I've recently found interesting about this blog is the number of Republicans that read it and comment - as a moderate liberal, I cannot stand reading the left fringe.
Of course, some on the left cannot stand reading the extreme opposition - I don't think it's generalizable along partisan lines, just different sorts of people liking different sorts of things.
Ozy, you've probably seen this before:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.politisink.com/2010/08/the-not-so-secret-history-of-freerepublic-com/
If not, the comments are mostly estranged ex-FReepers.
In my view, the biggest problem with politics in 2014 is that DC is a bigger scaled, non-sports version of ESPN's First Take.
I only cottoned to it about a year ago. Yeah, it's pretty great.
ReplyDeleteThough Mestamachine's blog right now is really giving a minute-by-minute examination of the site's admins running it into the ground.
Though we'll see if there is ever a comeuppance - gullibility of the American public and all.