Tuesday, June 16, 2015

Guess what they almost all have in common


30 comments:

Fredd said...

Oooooh, oooooh, I know this one, Mr. Kotter, oooh oooh, me, me!!! (while waving my hand furiously).

That would be my best attempt at a Horshack imitation.

The answer: they are all people that your loyal leftist, Marxist followers like Sue Hanes, XO, Ducky and their ilk love, adore, honor and respect. How did I do, Joe?

Joe said...

Fredd: You got it. You were the first one. You win the prize! It will arrive at your front door in December of 2030.

sue hanes said...

Joe - Please tell me - I can't guess.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I posted this on FB yesterday. Great laugh.

Dave Miller said...

Inherent in this Joe, and Fredd's comment, is that the left would be hard pressed to come up with a similar graphic which would include the heartthrobs of many on the right.

Since we know that to be untrue, what's the point of the post?

Surely you don't think all virtue resides in conservative circles.

Fredd, Sue Hanes has never expressed an affinity for Marx, or called you, or anyone else, to my knowledge a name. Why did you do so towards her? That speaks volumes about your character or lack thereof.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dave, you miss the point. These people are all frauds claiming to be what they aren't. It's a common thing with the LEFT, but rare with the RIGHT.

Joe said...

DM: "...the left would be hard pressed to come up with a similar graphic which would include the heartthrobs of many on the right."

Go for it.

GEC: The left always misses the point, usually on purpose. They don't get the point of having a point.

Fredd said...

Joe, are you going to let that leftist above besmirch my character and get away with it?

Dave Miller said...

Well Fredd, you besmirched Sue Hanes character... why don't you go first... tell why you chose to do so?

I know it is favorite tactic of many of your online friends to call people names instead of addressing them by their given, or screen names, but with Sue, it just seems as if you went over the line.

Has she ever attacked you? Ever called you a name? Ever challenged a position you've taken?

Be against her positions, but civil people don't call others names.

Dave Miller said...

Glenn, seriously? The right, the party that preaches family values and character is not fraudulent in this regard?

GOP Gov. Mark Sanborn, cheated on his wife and then lied about it.

GOP Rep Dennis Hastert, had sex with underage children and then ran the impeachment hearing against Bill Clinton for consensual oral sex.

GOP Rep Newt Gingrich, was in the middle of an affair when he served his wife with divorce papers as she came to after surgery. He also was a leader in the impeach Clinton group.

GOP Senator John Ensign, Senator who resigned after an affair with the wife of his Chief of Staff.

GOP Senator David Vitter, used the services of a prostitute.

GOP Rep Mark Foley, sexting underage boys.

GOP Senator Larry Craig, soliciting sex in a public restroom.

Now, I'm not gonna be Mr Morality here. These guys can do whatever they want, it's between them and God. But all of them are from a party that bills itself as the party of family values. is it too much to expect these folks, some of whom were party leaders to exemplify their party's standards?

Please Glenn, and maybe even Joe, tell me why these folks are not as fraudulent as the group you put forward?

And then tell me why you typically act as if, or just choose to ignore the fact that the GOP is just as guilty of the charges you sling at the left.

Joe said...

Fredd: "Joe, are you going to let that leftist above besmirch my character and get away with it?"

No.

DM: Exactly what name did Fredd call SH? Is acknowledging someone's political affinity considered name calling? You are a Marxist liberal...have I just called you a name? How much PC is too much?

DM: Oh yeah. In the liberal mind, two wrongs make a right.

Ducky's here said...

Let's see.

First of all, why do you assume Bruce Jenner is a progressive, Glenn?

Let's see, Ann Coulter - Journalist
Jim Inhofe - Scientist
Pat Robertson - Reverend
George Bush - Presidential
Chris Christie - Honest
Larry Craig - Straight

Pointless exercise.

Fredd said...

Joe; thanks, appreciate you pointing out the obvious to some of the more obtuse commenters here. And since this is your site, may I humbly suggest that you tell others that picking fights with each other and squabbling over politics and semantics on your thread is not the purpose of each post.

Ducky's here said...

Does Donald Trump -- Presidential, count.

Only in right wing world.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dave,

You compare apples with oranges. If you want to get into sexual immorality, the Demokrats win the immorality race hands down.

Georgie Bush said...

And they Call Donald Trump a Clown?

Georgie Bush said...

Lies and Hypocrisy Are Essential Components of Liberalism/Progressism.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

I just want to point out that Pat Robertson is not even a real Christian, and only the deceived on the "right" give him the time of day. No one on the "right" holds him up as anything.

Dave Miller said...

No Glenn, I am not talking about sexual morality. I am talking about a group of people that claim to speak for family values and character and then do otherwise in their personal lives.

Isn't that fraudulent on their part?

That. after all seemed to be the point of Joe's post, that a certain group of politicians and people, from the left, were not as they had represented.

Each of the people I referenced are also not what they have represented.

Dave Miller said...

Fredd, it is not picking fights and squabbling over semantics. You used terms in a derogatory way towards some of us who comment here. I felt, especially in the case of Sue, it was in bad taste.

You and Joe do not seem to think using terms that are clearly meant as derogatory qualify as calling someone names. I just disagree.

What many in the blogosphere do not seem to understand is that calling others commenters names is pointless and not part of civil discourse.

If that is obtuse, I own it.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Look at the meme. People are claiming to be what they aren't. That isn't the same as hypocritically acting against professed beliefs. Is it really that difficult to understand?

Fredd said...

Dave: you are a leftist. That's not derogatory, it's just a fact. So is Sue Hanes, I have been reading her comments for years and years. That is a fact, too. One of the nicer leftists and Marxists, but still, if the shoe fits.... If you have issues with me (as wrong headed as they are), please direct them to my site, and not on Joe's. Of course, I can choose to publish your argument, or not.

But please be civil. I don't know if you have it in you, though. Leftists like you tend to be pretty mean.

Dave Miller said...

Fredd, have I ever written anything nasty about you? I questioned your character for attacking Sue, but that's it. It used to be, in public, we kept opinions to ourselves about folks if they could be perceived as derogatory, especially in regards to women. Apparently, not so anymore.

Glenn, you do not think people claiming the mantle of family values people, who abuse kids and cheat on their wives, claim to be something they are not? That is only possible in a world where some are unable to accept anything that challenges their world view.

If you hypocritically act against your professed beliefs, how can you claim to be that which you profess?

If a Christian chooses to hypocritically act against his, or her, professed belief, can he still be called a Christian?

The Welfare Queen said...

Anything this "Dave Miller" says, I'm against.

Fredd said...

Dave: I asked you to address this on my site, but you insist on spewing your nonsense on Joe's site. These comments are for Joe's material, and not for you to pick fights.

I'm done with you.

Fredd said...

Welfare Queen: you sound like you have quite a bit going for you. And if you oppose the left, on whose behalf this guy spews his talking points yet seems oblivious to any form of rebuttal, you will be heading in the right direction.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Dave,

Rachel is not black, she is white and pretending to be black. This is a physical, genetic thing.
Warren is not Indian, she is white claiming to be an Indian. This is a physical, genetic thing.
Bruce Jenner is not a woman, he is a man claiming to be a woman. This is a physical, genetic thing.
Sharpton is not a "reverend"in the Biblical definition of a pastor, he is a fraud pretending to be one. This is a job title thing.
Algore pretends to be a scientist; again, this is a job title with training. Pretending to be a skilled person when he isn't.
I don't recognize the journalist, but I'm assuming he's liberal. Apparently he doesn't hold to the standards of the job.
These have nothing to do with professed philosophical beliefs.

Hillary would be more of a case of being a hypocrite, sort of like all the claims you made about the various Republicans, but she's there more as joke.
Obama never behaves presidential, and is an embarrassment to the office.

Ducky's here said...

Glenn,you are aware that race is a social construct and not genetic.
At least that's a reputable construct. I'm sure you don't accept it but you aren't the final authority.

Now Rachel Donezal has a bit of the con artist in her but the question of her structuring her
identity as black is a valid issue.

As far as Bruce Jenner, are you talking about sex or gender. One is more a mental than physical
construct. (S)He too has a bit of the con in her but that doesn't invalidate the issue.

Jim Inhofe holding a snowball in the Senate chamber to demonstrate the falsity of global warming is a good deal more a pretender than Gore.
Glenn, why are evangelicals almost always climate change deniers? The idea really threatens. Or is it the idea of intervention.

The "journalist" is George Stephanopoulos. He's a hack like Chris Wallace or Megyn Kelly or other conservative talking head presenters. There are very few journalists left.

Joe said...

Ducky: Why are liberals almost always climate change proponents? The deniers really threaten. Could it be the idea of intervention?

Your comment is meaningless.

"...sex or gender. One is more a mental than physical
construct."

Actually, gender is a grammaticalterm. Sex is a physical term. But liberals have decided that gender means sex. It does not, but no matter. If they say it does, it does, just because they say so.

"The "journalist" is George Stephanopoulos. He's a hack..."

I would not elevate him to that level.

You know, it would be good if you would just get a real education.

Glenn E. Chatfield said...

Ducky,
Race is a social construct as it divides people by culture and skin color. There is only one human race. In the past, prior to Darwin, the word race mean people groups, such as the "Irish race." However, we are using "race" in the context of current social standards. Therefore, it IS a genetic issue. Rachel has no black genes, and is only wanting to be black. Of course this changes for her depending on what she wants. She's a fake, but you still see the emperor's new clothes.

Sex/gender is the same as current context. Gender actually is a grammatical structure. You cannot change the sex/gender you were born as. Mutilating the body doesn't alter what you are. He can think he's a monkey, but we'd send him to the mental ward for that. But because he thinks he's a woman, the whole sexual perversion philosophy of the LEFT (i.e.your ilk) praises it. Again, you see the emperor's new clothes.

Climate change deniers? You are so foolish. No one disagrees that the climates changes. Study a wee bit of history and you will see changes back and forth from hot to cold, including the "Little Ice Age." But MAN does not cause it, and there is no evidence to say MAN does cause it. The evidence of fraud with the current groups receiving government money to claim climate change is caused by man has demonstrated the whole issue is just to give the government more control over our lives.
I can snow you with the evidence.

You LEFTISTS delude yourself as you deny objective truth.