No, and I didn’t say he was. However, Joe the Plumber clearly shows that the Republicans are perfectly happy to adopt a muppet if he’s getting face time, no matter how retarded.
So who IS the face of the Republican Party?
(shrug)
I think most people can figure out how media attention may result in people who are not necessarily representative of a group to become de facto faces of that group in the popular mind.
Anyway, I’m pretty sure everyone gets your objection. If you want to keep banging on about it for another three or four pages, be my guest.
IMO, the answer is “nobody” because it’s a meaningless concept.
Ron Headrest?
Whoever the Limbaugh/Beck/Hannity Axis of Anal says it is.
They are Legion?
That, and he gets paid the same for a cleaning, no matter how many teeth the patient has.
Why? Because Republicans are all so different? Look, I get there is diversity within any party, but to pretend that party leaders and spokespeople cannot be identified because you’re all individuals is a pretty fatuous position. Political parties are self-selecting consortia of like-minded individuals who make common cause to advance their mutual political objectives and, furthermore, do so by instituting a party hierarchy whose responsibility is to coordinate the activities of party members for maximal effect. Every party has a “face” because parties form for that very reason, to create a “nerve center” that will advance members’ political interests. To go further and call it a “meaningless concept” betrays a woeful ignorance of the political process.
Equipping someone with a set of dentures so they can eat regular food and have a better chance of being gainfully employed is more personally fulfilling than spending the same amount of time making some soccer mom’s teeth as white as fucking Chicklets. Of course this bleeding heart actually uses his vacations to travel to Mexico and repair cleft palates and give children born with this condition the opportunity of a normal life.
Chill, guy. It was a joke.
That’s awfully nice of you re the cleft palate thing, though.
Rand Rover means that no one should be able to retire unless they’re independently wealthy. He wants to restore the world to the place in time when laborers slaved away in quiet misery until they died at work.
Either that, or he doesn’t realize that Social Security is a retirement program.
Say, RR, you know you can move right now to a country where the government provides nothing for poor people, and laborers can never retire with government assistance, don’t you? You know your vision of a beautiful fantasy world where you get to keep all your capital can be realized right now by moving to one of those libertarian paradises, such as Haiti? Or, would the Congo suit you better? God knows that those wonderful countries–which don’t have the awful socialist nightmare of Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security that we face in the U.S.–must be far nicer places to live, right?
I mean, where would you rather live, a place where government spending on disadvantaged people is virtually nil, such as Myanmar or East Timor, or a socialist hellhole such as Sweden?
The problem is that none of those places would allow him to pursue his vocation- that of helping the rich avoid paying taxes. And if he had to take a lesser job, he wouldn’t be of as much “value” to society.
I was listening to the radio this morning and heard a talk show host bemoaning Woodstock, the dirty hippies, and the downfall of American civilization that Woodstock caused.
Friends, Starving Artist is Laura Ingraham.
Then why didn’t you argue that starting on page 1 instead of the line of nonsense you’ve been on about for 3 pages now?
That would explain a lot.
Some interesting reading for those who insist that the Town Hall protesters are all Republican wingnuts.
Lot of wingnuts in Pennsylvania it would seem.
I was being facetious, dumbass. I knew I should have inserted a smilie so dolts like you would be sure to understand that, but my sense of esthetics was offended at the thought of two smilies in a two-line post. So here: :D:cool:
That’s funny. I recall no such objection when Yookeroo blandly asserted that it was popular. Why did you not suggest he post cites to back that up? Hmmm?
Could it be because you seek to obfuscate the issue? Or could it be that you just unthinkingly accept that whatever leftie viewpoint exists should automatically be considered the correct one and is contestable only by cite?
No, actually he’s Ayn Rand. (0:35) 
(The comment the audience member made that triggered her comment can be found at the end of the preceeding clip or reiterated by Ayn herself at approx. 3:25. Imagine my glee to find that no less a light than Ayn Rand agrees with my observations, obvious as they may be.)
Why do you keep doing that?
Bait.