Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
09 22, 24, 12:50:25:AM

Login with username and password

Trump knows who the BAD GUYS are.
Thats why they want him gone.

Search:     Advanced search
2706976 Posts in 303062 Topics by 310 Members
Latest Member: Final_Boss
* Website Home Help Login Register
 |  All Boards  |  Current Events  |  Topic: Are Republicans really against attacking Syria? 0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Pages: 1  Print
Author Topic: Are Republicans really against attacking Syria?  (Read 24 times)
chuck_curtis
Contributor
Sr. Member

Posts: 71239

Let's go Brandon!


« on: 09 15, 13, 02:53:40:AM » Reply

or just "black-tracking"?

Bill Maher not only got a laugh out of Republican flip-flopping during President Barack Obama’s administration on Friday, but he shared a new word for it with his Real Time panelists.

“It should be in the dictionary: ‘Black-track,’” Maher explained, defining it as, “The act of changing one’s mind because President Obama has agreed with you. See also: ‘Pulling a one-hatey,’ or the ‘Kenyan boomerang.’”

That led Maher to ask the panel whether Republicans really are opposed to a U.S. attack against Syria, or is it just a case of “black-tracking,” which would be corrected the next time a white president is elected.

“The ‘black-tracking’ part I don’t know about,” former Republican National Committee chair Michael Steele answered. “But I do know that there is — appropriately and rightly — that libertarian voice that has always been in the background like this that [is] now beginning to assert itself.”

Steele pointed out that there were also Republicans who grew disillusioned with Obama’s predecessor, George W. bush, in 2006 and 2007.

“I remember Ron Paul at debates, saying the kinds of things that I’m hearing out of mainstream Republicans now, and getting booed off the stage,” Maher noted.

The problem for the “mainstream Republicans,” Rolling Stone correspondent Matt Taibbi interjected, was that the party fell on its face after the 2008 election, forcing it to search for a new identity.

“The Ron Paul ideology was kind of there to be appropriated,” Taibbi argued, to which Steele reponded by saying that voice was always there, only to be “supplanted by a neo-con ideology.”

“That was the aberration, right?” Taibbi asked sarcastically.

But now, Steele continued, Republicans were more likely to examine the consequences of military actions.

“So you don’t think it has anything to do with Obama — ,” Maher said, not directly mentioning the president’s race.

“I don’t. To be honest, I don’t,” Steele answered. “There are some idiots who do apply to that.”

“I am one of those idiots,” Maher offered.


http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/09/13/maher-mocks-republicans-are-they-really-against-attacking-syria-or-are-they-just-black-tracking/
keno
Sr. Member

Posts: 37652


« Reply #1 on: 09 15, 13, 08:12:42:AM » Reply

“I am one of those idiots,” Maher offered.


Well, he's right for once.
Pages: 1  Print 
 |  All Boards  |  Current Events  |  Topic: Are Republicans really against attacking Syria?
Jump to:  

AesopsRetreat Links


AesopsRetreat
YouTube Channel



Rules For Radicals.



2nd Amendment Source



5 minute Education




Join Me at KIVA
My Kiva Stats





Truth About
Slaves and Indians




r/K Theory




White Privilege




Conservatives:
What Do We Believe


Part 1:
Small Govt & Free Enterprise

Part 2:

The Problem with Elitism

Part 3:
Wealth Creation

Part 4:
Natural Law



Global Warming Scam


Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP © AesopsRetreat
Powered by SMF 1.1.11 | SMF © 2006-2009, Simple Machines LLC
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!
Page created in 1.197 seconds with 28 queries.