Typical Batshit: Mallard presents a false propaganda premise while playing innocent; straw-liberal Mr. Jewsworthy goes off like a cannon, "proving" Batshit's premise--liberals are intolerant...because they tell the truth about Batshit.
Let's clarify something, Batshit: no one in their right mind, regardless of political leaning, automatically equates either "liberal" or "conservative" with any of your collection of buzzwords.
YOU, on the other hand, have NEVER been conservative. You paint yourself up as a "libertarian" when it suits you--which is funny, given this little strip--but defined by your actions and beliefs you're a neocon. And a neocon wouldn't know a genuine conservative value if it bit him on the balls.
Every neocon I've heard painted with such an epithet (or has been painted by me) has earned it. You included.
You cannot truthfully say the same about liberals.
Let's look at the homepages of a few prominent GOP candidates' campaign sites, to see if Mallard is actually right that they "proudly" use the term "conservative":
http://www.megwhitman.com/ : no
http://christine2010.com/home/ : no
http://www.brownback.com/ : no
http://lisamurkowski.com/main/ : no
http://sharronangle.com/ : no
http://www.marcorubio.com/ : yes, indirectly (republished news items include cristicism of independent candidate Crist for not being conservative enough)
http://paladinoforthepeople.com/ : no (Facebook feed entry about Lazio and the NY Conservative Party doesn't count)
I have to conclude that Mallard is talking out his cloaca again. Which is situation: normal.
Ooh, see what you did there, Brucie? You confused the long-term political strategy of demonizing a word with the practice of simple name-calling. But you do get half a point for admitting (however indirectly) that conservatives have demonized the word "liberal".
Mallard's not entirely wrong. See, seeing the word "conservative" does not immediately create a visceral reaction in the left, and thus one might be able to attract the more moderate left with fiscal conservatism claims in this day and age.
However, no one on the left is going to use the word "liberal" in a campaign ad because 1) they usually aren't liberal anyways and 2) among a certain section of the voting base you can find people who would agree with some of the more liberal policies but have labeled themselves conservative, and have the knee-jerk reaction to "dirty hippies".
However, that's just with the older people. Most people love younger liberals, whether they realize it or not, because the alternatives are just creepy or weird (O'Keefe, O'Donnell)
Tog, that lying little dweeb has finally gone too far for his patron. Breitbart is taking a "well, I didn't really knoew him that well..." tack. (Just a half step from "Actually, I thought he came in with you!")
12 comments:
So he's saying Democrats have demonized racists, homophobes, and Islamophobes?
I'd call hypocrisy, but honestly Mallard is pretty consistent about how he's okay with being a racist homophobic Islamophobe.
Sure, Mallard may be evil, fascist, racist, sexist, homophobic and islamophobic... but why must people demonize those words?!
Typical Batshit: Mallard presents a false propaganda premise while playing innocent; straw-liberal Mr. Jewsworthy goes off like a cannon, "proving" Batshit's premise--liberals are intolerant...because they tell the truth about Batshit.
Let's clarify something, Batshit: no one in their right mind, regardless of political leaning, automatically equates either "liberal" or "conservative" with any of your collection of buzzwords.
YOU, on the other hand, have NEVER been conservative. You paint yourself up as a "libertarian" when it suits you--which is funny, given this little strip--but defined by your actions and beliefs you're a neocon. And a neocon wouldn't know a genuine conservative value if it bit him on the balls.
Every neocon I've heard painted with such an epithet (or has been painted by me) has earned it. You included.
You cannot truthfully say the same about liberals.
Davey, that two-bullet list is a perfect summary of our current disastrous political state. Well said.
WV: cless. Mallard is so clueless, he's reached cless (even the adjective to describe him is "clue"-less).
No, really, Tinshley. Keep this string of Neener Neener strips coming. It beats working, or sobering up.
Let's look at the homepages of a few prominent GOP candidates' campaign sites, to see if Mallard is actually right that they "proudly" use the term "conservative":
http://www.megwhitman.com/ : no
http://christine2010.com/home/ : no
http://www.brownback.com/ : no
http://lisamurkowski.com/main/ : no
http://sharronangle.com/ : no
http://www.marcorubio.com/ : yes, indirectly (republished news items include cristicism of independent candidate Crist for not being conservative enough)
http://paladinoforthepeople.com/ : no (Facebook feed entry about Lazio and the NY Conservative Party doesn't count)
I have to conclude that Mallard is talking out his cloaca again. Which is situation: normal.
Ooh, see what you did there, Brucie? You confused the long-term political strategy of demonizing a word with the practice of simple name-calling. But you do get half a point for admitting (however indirectly) that conservatives have demonized the word "liberal".
Mallard's not entirely wrong. See, seeing the word "conservative" does not immediately create a visceral reaction in the left, and thus one might be able to attract the more moderate left with fiscal conservatism claims in this day and age.
However, no one on the left is going to use the word "liberal" in a campaign ad because 1) they usually aren't liberal anyways and 2) among a certain section of the voting base you can find people who would agree with some of the more liberal policies but have labeled themselves conservative, and have the knee-jerk reaction to "dirty hippies".
However, that's just with the older people. Most people love younger liberals, whether they realize it or not, because the alternatives are just creepy or weird (O'Keefe, O'Donnell)
Rootbeer seems to have uncovered more facts by 8:50AM than Mallard did with his 80-90 hours of research.
Cheap whiskey loses to rootbeer!
I Are Praudly Consurbatib: Oh, I can not wait for Batshit's upside-down take on this little wacko shenanigan...
Ha! You want crazy? That ain't nothin'.
Our Rethug/Conservatard candidate for governor in NY wants to punch out a reporter for asking questions about Paladino's bastard daughter.
He's even too crazy for St. Rudy of 9/11.
Tog, that lying little dweeb has finally gone too far for his patron. Breitbart is taking a "well, I didn't really knoew him that well..." tack. (Just a half step from "Actually, I thought he came in with you!")
Post a Comment