As long as we're defining "carrying water..."

Flame » in reply to let's come up with a working definition for "carrying water"

TB — 9/12/2012 8:52:10 PM (archived)

I would also include "blind acceptance and support of any position your party and its backers takes, regardless of its accuracy or rationality."

Do you have any idea how much outright bullshit I've just plain ignored in the past few weeks? I need to work harder on doing that.

The whole thread (14 posts)

Is knee-jerk hate driving the Romney agitprop machine? - ER - 9/12/2012 1:26:05 PM
- What a response worthy of a presidential candidate look like from John McCain - BuckGalaxy - 9/12/2012 10:40:47 PM
- Yeah, I'm watching the media circling the wagons around their hero today. - TB - 9/12/2012 4:12:52 PM
  - Obviously the 9/11 timing was not a cooincidence. - alcaray - 9/12/2012 5:00:55 PM
  - Of course the attacks were inspired by Islamic terrorists. - ER - 9/12/2012 4:46:10 PM
    - Look around. I'm not the one doing the "spinning" here. - TB - 9/12/2012 5:01:55 PM
      - If Romney didn't want to be attacked, - ER - 9/12/2012 5:29:07 PM
        
        "Carrying water?" - TB - 9/12/2012 7:35:25 PM
        
        This is the dawning of the Age of Aquarius, Age of Aquarius , ahhhh... - ER - 9/12/2012 8:39:56 PM
        
        let's come up with a working definition for "carrying water" - alcaray - 9/12/2012 7:54:00 PM
        
        As long as we're defining "carrying water..." - TB - 9/12/2012 8:52:10 PM
        
        I'm inclined to agree with your proposal... - alcaray - 9/12/2012 10:55:00 PM
      - On inspection, that does not seem to be true - alcaray - 9/12/2012 5:27:23 PM
- Romney doubles down on his campaign's remarks. - ER - 9/12/2012 3:10:50 PM

Recent posts

On this day in Flame

The whole thread (14 posts)

Related discussions