Praise McCain during the campaign then badmouth him after he won … that would be inconsistent IF it had happened, I suppose. But that’s not what happened was it? McCain lost.

I think there are even more inconsistencies that did not occur. We can even have some fun imagining inconsistencies that did not happen.

For instance praise Palin during the campaign and then badmouth her if she had won. Or … badmouth her during the campaign and then praise her if she had won. Or … badmouth Biden during the campaign and then be outraged at Palin if she had won. And so on …

I agree, all kinds of inconsistencies COULD have happen. Life itself is full of real inconsistencies and theoretically an infinite number of hypothetical inconsistencies.

However, the inconsistency that DID happen, that is part of reality, is that some conservative folks badmouthed McCain during his campaign but are now bewildered and confounded by Obama’s Marxist antics, even to the point, it seems, that they fear Obama will usher in an Obama dictatorship.

What did they expect would happen after Obama moved into the Whitehouse? Lower taxes? A stronger national defense? A more limited government?

I’d argue that the Right NEEDS to purge the ranks of ersatz RINOs.

Apparently one of the RINOs, Susan Collins of Maine, may keep the public option trigger from becoming law. Sometimes those pesky RINOs come in handy …

LOL. No, it would be inconsistent to praise mccain (or obama, for that matter) during the campaign for his ideas, THEN to badmouth him for those ideas when he put them into effect.

Badmouthing Obama for not doing pretty much anything he said he would is a good reason for badmouthing Obama (and, if you were against what Obama said before the election, then badmouthing him for doing that is also sensible).

P.S.: Don’t blame me — I voted for Bill & Opus

> Yes, let’s deal with the menace. I think we could win if the Right doesn’t continue to purge the ranks and alienate the voters.

I’d argue that the Right NEEDS to purge the ranks of ersatz RINOs. Sorry — ANY so-called “republican” who voted for that health-care abortion, the tax-and-scam bill, or any of the recent Dem agenda should be purged from the party — and preferably by taking them back out and shot.

(OK, OK, not shot, literally…. but the party should sue them for “fraud and misrepresentation leading to clear and obvious damages” — Anyone who voted for those bills — they aren’t Republicans by any meaning of the word, except, perhaps, for the libtard “Humpty Dumpty” version: “A word means exactly what I want it to mean at the moment, no more, no less”)

“The opposite of a correct statement is a false statement. But the opposite of a profound truth may well be another profound truth.”
– Niels Bohr –

I think the really ironic thing is that Coleridge’s observation even applies to the Boomers. There was a Truth which had been lost before they went looking for it, in that materialism, while a laudable goal, should not be the be-all-end-all of life. And there were other viewepoints besides the classical Greek one which had value (see Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance, which I cannot recommend highly enough)

Unfortunately, that Truth the Boomers found got enshrined and made holy, rather than being recognized as a mere part of the jigsaw puzzle which life assembles into (we all have our own arrangement, which is why individual freedom is important).

To most of us, that piece is of some import. To the libtards, that piece is of central import (well, as far as your OWN materialism — THEY have a reason for needing all of THEIR stuff — It’s YOU who need to give up things for them to do Their Good Works with…).

That piece has become one of the centerpieces to every life’s tapestry, and, if you don’t understand that, if you don’t go along with it completely, then you’re a redneck racist sub-neanderthal, and need external direction to Get Your Life Straight.

The more you grasp all this, the easier it is to deal with libtards, to undercut their “so-called” thinking processes, and to work against them where they stray from common sense (which is increasingly everywhere, I grant)

Hux — you must be referring to this:

I’m in the Marine Corps. I’m on guard at Quantico. Some American civilian nuts who have let their fantasies get the better of their mental processes are shooting at me. I don’t wait for “orders;” I blow the idiots away with a few well-placed bursts. We were warned to be on the lookout for these Birthers. Like shooting fish in a barrel …

Which was in response to this:

This is why, as I mentioned on another thread here, my husband wondered some months ago whether the American military would obey orders to fire on citizens. People on our side of the question may differ as to its answer; but it is not an idle question. I’m simply saying, and have been saying for some time, that we may have to fight—and I don’t mean only in voting booths and courts of law.

It was my fiction of what could happen if civilians begin to take up arms against the military.

grackle: I’m not a military guy. You said you were currently at Quantico Marine Base. From that I inferred that you were a Marine.

The commentor misses the point. Firstly, McCain was not my first choice either. And IMO McCain has been wrongheaded at some points in his Senate career — McCain-Feingold, which I consider to be an infraction of the First Amendment and a bad idea, is a case in point.

What the factionalists don’t realize is that no candidate is going to be the perfect candidate for many, or even most, in ether party. But once the primaries are over it is time to suck it up and look to the big picture. It should have been evident to all conservatives that Obama in the Whitehouse would be a worse thing than McCain in the Whitehouse.

Yet if Limbaugh does it its an unpardonable sin.

We’re mixing apples and oranges here. McCain is a Senator — Limbaugh is not. Nevertheless I’ll attempt a response.

It’s not like I don’t basically agree with Limbaugh’s viewpoint on many things. And I have to admit that Limbaugh has played a valuable role in calling attention to the idiocies and hypocrisies of the Progressives in the years leading up to last year’s election.

And Ann Coulter is funny and good at puncturing Progressive balloons. It’s when she slips into moralizing, which she seems to be doing more of lately, that she loses my attention. Comedy stops tickling my funnybone when it starts overtly preaching.

But when McCain won the nomination they should have swallowed their disappointment and enthusiastically campaigned for the Republican Party‘s chosen candidate, using the basic theme that McCain would be better than Obama as our President.

Neither would have had to invalidate their past objections to McCain, some of which I even agree with. It would have been enough to have simply buried the hatchet until after the election was over and then if McCain emerged as the winner to resume their criticisms – which could have had a positive effect on the new administration … or not — but at least Obama would not be in the Whitehouse.

And Sarah Palin would have been the VP and presumably ready to run when McCain left the Whitehouse. I think a Sarah Palin with 4 to 8 years on the inside track to bone up on issues would be an unbeatable opponent — our version of Margaret Thatcher.

I don’t see the consistency in your comments.

Speaking of consistency — how consistent is it to badmouth McCain throughout his campaign and then be outraged at Obama after the election?

Yet if Limbaugh does it its an unpardonable sin.

I don’t see the consistency in your comments.

My blogs name: “Aron Sperber” – dedicated to my teachers “Raymond Aron” and “Manes Sperber”