# The true RINO's are the TPM



## BDBoop (Oct 29, 2013)

They aren't Republicans. They've just stolen the party. The R's could actually win some elections if they took their party back, because there are a lot more of them than there are TPM.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Oct 30, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> They aren't Republicans. They've just stolen the party. The R's could actually win some elections if they took their party back, because there are a lot more of them than there are TPM.



Why do liberals, who are for the most part brainless, try to tell Republicans how to run their party?


Republicans do win elections and only an idiot with their head up their ass would be blind to it.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 30, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> They aren't Republicans. They've just stolen the party. The R's could actually win some elections if they took their party back, because there are a lot more of them than there are TPM.



So the republicans would be far more republican if they just acted like democrats?

Ok there.


----------



## birddog (Oct 30, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> They aren't Republicans. They've just stolen the party. The R's could actually win some elections if they took their party back, because there are a lot more of them than there are TPM.



You don't know what you are talking about!  You are just plain wrong, but that's typical.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 30, 2013)

The TeaTards days are numbered......

They played their hand and lost big time. Running as a TeaTard outside of crazyville will mean certain defeat


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Oct 30, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> The TeaTards days are numbered......
> 
> They played their hand and lost big time. Running as a TeaTard outside of crazyville will mean certain defeat



Keep wishing.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 30, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The TeaTards days are numbered......
> ...



Feel the Love....

Tea Party?s Image Turns More Negative | Pew Research Center for the People and the Press


----------



## Stephanie (Oct 30, 2013)

Yeah, you notice they never find ANYTHING wrong with their party or elected idiots or themselves

they are perfect human beings


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Oct 30, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Keep your faith in the polls and we'll see what happens in 2014.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 30, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> The TeaTards days are numbered......
> 
> They played their hand and lost big time. Running as a TeaTard outside of crazyville will mean certain defeat



lol.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 30, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Why don't you tell us about oversampling again?

Worked so well in 2012


----------



## BDBoop (Oct 30, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Didn't it just?

And I love the new revisionist history. "Oh, Mittens had NO INTENTION of winning."

Well, Ann did! She was a broken woman on election night.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 30, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> They aren't Republicans. They've just stolen the party. The R's could actually win some elections if they took their party back, because there are a lot more of them than there are TPM.



Lemme see:

GOP Moderates ran in 2008, lost

Tea Party ran 2010, shellacked Obama & Dems

GOP Moderates ran in 2012, lost again by a bigger margin.

So that's why Starkey and his Democrat friends hate the Tea Party


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 30, 2013)

Anyone willing to bet whether Rand Paul and Ted Cruz run as TeaTards in 2016?


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Oct 30, 2013)

LOLberals sure do know a lot about republicans. Do they know anything about their own party? Nope! Thats why they call Iraq Bush war and no child left behind a Bush policy. 

It's really that they are morons of the highest order.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 30, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > They aren't Republicans. They've just stolen the party. The R's could actually win some elections if they took their party back, because there are a lot more of them than there are TPM.
> ...



GOP Conservatives ran in 2008 and 2012 and got their asses handed to them.  Couldn't even win the GOP primaries let alone a national election


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 30, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > They aren't Republicans. They've just stolen the party. The R's could actually win some elections if they took their party back, because there are a lot more of them than there are TPM.
> ...



Notice that we Republicans are not letting the weirdo TPM tell us how to run the party.

Way to go Boehner, McConnell, McCain, King, Rove, Will, and so forth.


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Oct 30, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



You're not a Republican. Not matter how many times you claim you are no one will ever believe you.


The people you mentioned need to step aside and let the real conservatives take over. All of them are the true RINO's


----------



## Mojo2 (Oct 30, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> They aren't Republicans. They've just stolen the party. The R's could actually win some elections if they took their party back, because there are a lot more of them than there are TPM.



Cite just ONE example of an outstanding Moderate in American history.

John McCain praised Obama and Hillary yet called Ted Cruz a kookoo bird.

You'd have him be our nominee for the next 80 years if you could.

Why?

Because you know that if the GOP keeps doing what it's been doing since 2008 America will never elect another Republican POTUS. That's what you want, to give the damaging Progressive agenda enough time to spread it's roots a little deeper and a little wider into our society and infect the minds of our most impressionable members.

You are being lied to by your favorite media sources.


----------



## Rebelitarian (Oct 30, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> They aren't Republicans. They've just stolen the party. The R's could actually win some elections if they took their party back, because there are a lot more of them than there are TPM.



The Globalists are phasing out the Republican Party with all this craziness so they can have a 1 party Democrat rule like they did with the Nazis, Communists, Chi-Communists, and the Stasi.

If Americans were smart they would see the 2 parties in power as the Globalist puppet parties they are and would elect members from the Constitution Party.







Constitution Party > Home  The Official Website

Constitution Party Promotional Video

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_SobkISNrY]Constitution Party Promotional Video - YouTube[/ame]


Why do you Americans love to keep getting fooled time and time again ?

Will it take martial law and FEMA Camps before you finally wake up ?


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 30, 2013)

Rebelitarian said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > They aren't Republicans. They've just stolen the party. The R's could actually win some elections if they took their party back, because there are a lot more of them than there are TPM.
> ...



Have you signed up for a FEMA camp yet?

We are holding a bed for you


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Oct 30, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



McCain is a Conservative only in the Starkey is a Republican sense of it


----------



## Euroconservativ (Oct 31, 2013)

Which party loses more moderates?

113th Congress:

Republican Main Street Partnership: 50 (47 Representatives and 3 Senators)
Liberty Caucus: 17

New Democrats: 50 (43 Representatives and 7 Senators)
Blue Dogs: 14 (from 54 in the 111th Congress)


In 2012 centrist GOP incumbents like Robert Dold, Judy Biggert, Roscoe Bartlett, Scott Brown or Charlie Bass were defeated in a general election, NOT in a primary.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Oct 31, 2013)

Mojo2 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > They aren't Republicans. They've just stolen the party. The R's could actually win some elections if they took their party back, because there are a lot more of them than there are TPM.
> ...



Reagan and WJC spring to mind. Both of them compromised and accomplished a lot and had good economic results.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 31, 2013)

CrusaderFrank said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > CrusaderFrank said:
> ...



As a moderate, McCain was able to win the GOP primaries in a landslide. Conservatives can't win a primary let alone a general election


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 31, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



You are a reactionary RINO, not mainstream Republican, and you are not going to tell the what party what to do from now own.  The vote in Congress proved that.

We don't care what you RINOs say, your time is over.


----------



## TakeAStepBack (Oct 31, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...





Drunk already this morning, Dilbert?


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Oct 31, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



I'm to the right of Rush Limbaugh, that's how conservative I am. You on the other hand are as liberal as Rdean.

Now go defend Obama!


----------



## Derideo_Te (Oct 31, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



So the antibiotics didn't work?


----------



## JakeStarkey (Oct 31, 2013)

Lonestar_logic said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Lonestar_logic said:
> ...



Then you are not Republican and that's the end of it.


----------



## martybegan (Oct 31, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Considering you dont get to decide who is in the republican party, you can go pound sand. 

And before you try to to quo que my comments, your position is obviously far left of mainstream republicanism, thus placing your firmly in the democratic camp. 

Thanks for playing, drive on through.


----------



## rightwinger (Oct 31, 2013)

Mojo2 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > They aren't Republicans. They've just stolen the party. The R's could actually win some elections if they took their party back, because there are a lot more of them than there are TPM.
> ...



Dwight Eisenhower


----------



## Lonestar_logic (Oct 31, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Lonestar_logic said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



More proof that liberals cannot face the facts.


----------



## Trajan (Oct 31, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



yes that is true, but please don't pretend that Reagan was the representative of the establishment Rockefeller gop.......

Clintons more centrist reality based democratic governing style, is not in great  evidence  in todays dem party....and what little comparisons can be made, todays dems pretend doesn't exist ala huge sppt. from wall st, big biz etc. 

as far as the WH, the dems held the house uninterrupted for 46 years, while a preponderance  of presidents were rep's, that may flip, or not...but its not like we may be in uncharted territory.


----------



## Trajan (Oct 31, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...





what made him a moderate- exactly, list 5 examples please;


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Oct 31, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> They aren't Republicans. They've just stolen the party. The R's could actually win some elections if they took their party back, because there are a lot more of them than there are TPM.


No what has happen liberals have taken control of the Republican party just like they took control of the democratic party years ago. 

NEWS FLASH WE'RE TAKING IT BACK.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Oct 31, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> BDBoop said:
> 
> 
> > They aren't Republicans. They've just stolen the party. The R's could actually win some elections if they took their party back, because there are a lot more of them than there are TPM.
> ...



Well, we will be here to help you with the hard stuff.


----------



## Zander (Oct 31, 2013)

Republicans control 30 governorships and have control of both legislatures in 23 states. 
 Is this is the "fault" of the tea party? 

2014 is not too far away, and it looks like the GOP has a very good chance of winning 7 seats!  When and if the GOP takes back the Senate will that be the "fault" of the tea party too?


----------



## Amelia (Oct 31, 2013)

Zander said:


> Republicans control 30 governorships and have control of both legislatures in 23 states.
> Is this is the "fault" of the tea party?
> 
> 2014 is not too far away, and it looks like the GOP has a very good chance of winning 7 seats!  When and if the GOP takes back the Senate will that be the "fault" of the tea party too?





Yes, it's the fault of the tea party.  Bad tea party.  



The tea party had amazing success in 2010.  They overplayed their hand in a couple of places like Nevada and stuck us with Harry Reid when he was so beatable. 

But they've been a net positive.  

And 2014 is looking good.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 1, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Just wondering are you drunk?


----------



## Mojo2 (Nov 1, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> They aren't Republicans. They've just stolen the party. The R's could actually win some elections if they took their party back, because there are a lot more of them than there are TPM.



I'm going to tell you something which I hope you'll reflect upon over the next few days and weeks until it begins to make sense to you. I know you may dismiss it out of hand right now. You can't control the urges which compel you to react in a knee jerk fashion to new ideas. Especially when they're from Conservatives and especially those which challenge your pre-existing beliefs.

The Mainstream Media is primarily left leaning. This you already know.

But what you may not know is that the media practices a form of programming to enable them to grow and build their audience, called market segmentation.

By offering news and features of special interest to the potential viewers in certain demographic segments of the total market the Network or channel can attract more viewers, let's say, who are between the ages of 18 and 34. These folks are desirable to advertisers because they have more disposable income than older segments and are more likely to spend money on iPhones or Scion automobiles, for example, than older people might.

And if the network can show advertisers they can deliver larger numbers of these kinds of viewers to an advertiser than a competing network it stands to reason they will be able to grab more ad dollars from sponsors than their competitor's network.

All of this is generalized and simplified for the sake of brevity and clarity.

Make sense so far?

Okay.

What if all the networks were trying to attract the same demographic segment of the audience?

Then the networks would have to devise a way to convince all those 18 - 34 year olds to watch THEIR network instead of the OTHER network if they hoped to get the lion's share of the total advertising dollars available.

So how does a news network like CNN for example, try to compete with a network like Fox News for limited numbers of potential viewers?

Ill get to that in the next post.

I don't want to scare off readers with another long assed post like the one from yesterday.

So, I'll close this one for now.


----------



## idb (Nov 1, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



Get a brain, Moran!


----------



## Mojo2 (Nov 1, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> > BDBoop said:
> ...



I should ask Rush about Ike.

LOLOL

I might have fallen victim to a very infrequent Limbaugh brain fart.

Or maybe there's something about Rush's statement I didn't understand.

Maybe he used a qualifier I failed to hear or maybe I was off making a cuppa coffee.

I dunno.

But just as I was taking his statement to be true based on face value, I'll take the same risk to my reputation as a reliable poster of some repute, to accept that Ike may be a fitting example of an outstanding American political moderate. 

I wonder how my statement will fare after some due diligence.

Thanks for enlightening me.



You've helped make me a better poster.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 1, 2013)

Trajan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Mojo2 said:
> ...



Damn...Its Friday, I didn't know there was going to be a pop quiz

OK lets go...

Eisenhower, much like todays moderate Republicans faced a rebellion from his right. This time it was the Red Scare led by Joseph McCarthy. In the face of extremist anti-Communist rhetoric and attacks, Ike kept a moderating position and held back on the Witch Hunts

Civil rights was hitting big. Ike enforced desegregation of the schools. He proposed the Civil Rights Act of 1957 and 1960

Ike founded the Dept of Health, Education and Welfare

Ike strongly supported the UN

Then there is this quote from Old Ike himself.......... "I have just one purpose ... and that is to build up a strong progressive Republican Party in this country. If the right wing wants a fight, they are going to get it ... before I end up, either this Republican Party will reflect progressivism or I won't be with them anymore

Dwight D. Eisenhower - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 1, 2013)

A for the moderate Republicans and F for the TeaPs


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 1, 2013)

Zander said:


> Republicans control 30 governorships and have control of both legislatures in 23 states.
> Is this is the "fault" of the tea party?
> 
> 2014 is not too far away, and it looks like the GOP has a very good chance of winning 7 seats!  When and if the GOP takes back the Senate will that be the "fault" of the tea party too?



The balance of power for Republicans has shifted to the State level. They wisely chose to focus on winning state legislatures because they realized they could no longer win on a national stage


----------



## martybegan (Nov 1, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Zander said:
> 
> 
> > Republicans control 30 governorships and have control of both legislatures in 23 states.
> ...



So basically they are winning where the power is closer to the people, and the large mass of democratic payee's can't tsunami thier way into more governmental goodies?

Terrible...


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 1, 2013)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...



liberals like rightwinger can't see the big picture, because he's out of tune with what the people want.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 1, 2013)

martybegan said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Zander said:
> ...



Very true

Republicans have become a local powerhouse instead of a national one


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 1, 2013)

The GOP is "winning where" they can gerrymander to their benefit and voter suppress their political opponents. 

Let's be honest, Marty Begone.

As the states blue with the aging of the younger generations, the increasing frustrations of women, and the growing power of Hispanics, this will change.


----------



## HUGGY (Nov 1, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> They aren't Republicans. They've just stolen the party. The R's could actually win some elections if they took their party back, because there are a lot more of them than there are TPM.



Just like the Christian Fundamentalists that infiltrated the republican party before them..   A classic case of a brand name sold out and ruined by the new management.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 1, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> The GOP is "winning where" they can gerrymander to their benefit and voter suppress their political opponents.
> 
> Let's be honest, Marty Begone.
> 
> As the states blue with the aging of the younger generations, the increasing frustrations of women, and the growing power of Hispanics, this will change.



Little noticed at the time, it was a wise political move for Republicans to focus their power at the local level. It has enabled them to:

1. Gerrymander themselves a House majority
2. Set local election laws restricting voter access
3. Attempt to change the allocation of Electoral Votes in Blue States from winner take all to district allocation
4. Spearhead movements to repeal the 17th amendment and move selection of Senator from the voters to Statehouse backrooms


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 1, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> The GOP is "winning where" they can gerrymander to their benefit and voter suppress their political opponents.
> 
> Let's be honest, Marty Begone.
> 
> As the states blue with the aging of the younger generations, the increasing frustrations of women, and the growing power of Hispanics, this will change.



An example of^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 1, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The GOP is "winning where" they can gerrymander to their benefit and voter suppress their political opponents.
> ...



Interesting...

In your view, what should republicans do with RINOs?

Drive them from the party and have them vote with the Democrats?


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 1, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


I think they should be shot on sight.


----------



## Amelia (Nov 1, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> The GOP is "winning where" they can gerrymander to their benefit and voter suppress their political opponents.
> 
> Let's be honest, Marty Begone.
> 
> As the states blue with the aging of the younger generations, the increasing frustrations of women, and the growing power of Hispanics, this will change.





As the states blue with the generation Obama lied to coming into their political maturity?

Hmmmm .... yeah ....


----------



## Mojo2 (Nov 1, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Damn solid post!


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 1, 2013)

Trajan said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Mojo2 said:
> ...



I was most definitely not pretending that Reagan was anything but a moderate. He was downright liberal when it came to nukes and he was big on compromising in order to pass his legislative agenda. 

Ditto with Clinton. He understood that he had to deal with Republicans so he opted for a policy of moderation and compromise. 

Neither of those two presidents should be considered to be representative of their party positions in my opinion. Granted this is hindsight and at the time both were the leaders of their respective parties. But what they said and how they behaved was not always the same thing. They were both pragmatists and knew how politics worked.

Trying to go with a pure ideologue strikes me as a losing proposition. The successful presidents have always found a way to work across the aisle. There is simply too much in the way of "checks and balances" for a purist liberal or conservative to impose their will on this nation. 

This is why I believe that a Huntsman or Christie would make a far better potus than a Cruz or a Paul.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 1, 2013)

Amelia said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The GOP is "winning where" they can gerrymander to their benefit and voter suppress their political opponents.
> ...



The younger generations may not idolize BHO but they fear the far reactionary right to their bones.


----------



## Mojo2 (Nov 1, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> martybegan said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



One of my earliest lessons in the ad biz (never more than 20 +/- very small local clients, but the advertising principles don't change much between local and national/international agencies, from what I understand) was to avoid something called, "self referencing".

Self referencing was the act of making assumptions about consumers based on one's own likes, dislikes, points of view and opinions.

When you make self referencing a regular practice you are going to be wrong more often than you are right. And you ain't in the guessing game. You are in the business of moving product, generating visitors, making the phones ring. If you do it right you'll increase your chances of a loyal clientele. If you do it wrong too often and you go out of business.

That's why agencies make heavy use of focus groups, surveys and polls.

C'est tout.


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 1, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > The GOP is "winning where" they can gerrymander to their benefit and voter suppress their political opponents.
> ...



The far right reactionaries are the RINOs and being targeted as such.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 1, 2013)

Anything right of reid is far right to you. you want to be like the democrats by a fucking means join them.
We're taking our party back


----------



## Mojo2 (Nov 1, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> Amelia said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



I believe this may be true, Jake.

Why do you think that is so?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 1, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Anything right of reid is far right to you. you want to be like the democrats by a fucking means join them.
> *We're taking our party back*



That assumes that it has been taken over. Back in the 1980's the "moral/silent majority" claimed to be the core of the Republican party but it was big enough to include "Reagan Democrats" too. That coalition was very successful as I recall. Did a lot of good things too although I don't count the fiscally irresponsible spending binge that started the whole defict ball rolling to be one of them.

Then the 1990's came along and the Republicans managed to "clean House" and get rid of the corrupt Dems and promised that they would govern with values. But instead they sold out to the highest bidder amongst the lobbyists and went on a politically motivated crotch sniffing witch hunt. The good intentions were obviously not sufficient to keep them from becoming every bit as corrupt as the Dems had been.

Then along came the new century and the Republicans seized control of both the Executive and both houses of Congress. Should have been the ideal opportunity to turn America into the conservative paradise that the voters were expecting. Instead we got warmongering and fearmongering and even greater corruption than ever before. 

So please explain exactly what party you are "taking back" again because I would like to know beforehand so that I can prepare myself. Thank you.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 1, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Anything right of reid is far right to you. you want to be like the democrats by a fucking means join them.
> ...



The GOP started moving left in the mid 90's 
We're taking it back.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Nov 1, 2013)

BDBoop said:


> They aren't Republicans. They've just stolen the party. The R's could actually win some elections if they took their party back, because there are a lot more of them than there are TPM.



I enjoy when lolberals pontificate on who are "true" conservatives or "true" Republicans.  

Back here in reality, however, Boop is entirely wrong.

The Tea Party members are more likely the truest of Republicans.

The Republican Party left THEM (and other rational folks) long ago.

There are more conservatives in the GOP than there are liberals, but sadly the libs still hold sway and they end up selecting the eventual losers to be their standard bearers.  The GOP brain trust consists mostly of Schmucks.


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Nov 1, 2013)

If you want strong (conclusive, really) evidence of how wrong Boopie is, just take note of the fact that the classic fraud, Fakey, shares her "view."


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 1, 2013)

JakeStarkey said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...


They are not real Republicans in the sense of Republicans who used to do something


----------



## Mertex (Nov 1, 2013)

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Anything right of reid is far right to you. you want to be like the democrats by a fucking means join them.
> *We're taking our party back*




Correction........*Backward!*


----------



## Mertex (Nov 1, 2013)

Mojo2 said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > Amelia said:
> ...



Maybe because the reactionary right reminisces the 50's (and beyond) - and young people know the 50's were not that great!


----------



## BDBoop (Nov 1, 2013)

Mertex said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Threads like this make me want to watch Pleasantville again.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 1, 2013)

Mertex said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



Unless you were a white, straight, Christian male


----------



## BDBoop (Nov 1, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Mojo2 said:
> ...



There is that.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 1, 2013)

Mertex said:


> bigrebnc1775 said:
> 
> 
> > Anything right of reid is far right to you. you want to be like the democrats by a fucking means join them.
> ...



total bull shit. why do you hate America.


----------



## Mojo2 (Nov 1, 2013)

Mertex said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> > JakeStarkey said:
> ...



I was watching the 11/01/13 Rachel Maddow show and, I gotta tell ya, after a half hour I was hatin on the Tea Party my DAMN self...and I'm a Ted Cruz Fan Club member! (I'm not, but I would!)

I regularly watch the Big 3 evening news programs but I haven't watched MSNBC in a while, so I gave her a try.

Man oh man.

In a way she reminds me of...well, ME!

Snarky. Matter of factual.

She can be devastating the way she demonizes people.

She employs false assumptions quite a bit...stating a falsehood or a questioned fact as though it was well established fact.

She questions the accuracy of a reporter who describes Reublican Mitch McConnell as a "knife fighter" I think he said.

And even though it would have helped her argument in favor of preventing Ted Cruz and the New Kids from trying to oust seven different old guard, RINO politicians, she indicated she was interested in the truth rather than winning her argument noi matter what.

But every so often she would say something which insinuated the Tea Party was racist and that Ted Cruz was doing things that any reasonable person might conclude were in support of racism.

And I felt the urge to play Tit 4 Tat!

To point out where Dems had done similar things and even worse.

That's when I realized this Tit 4 Tat tactic might have experienced it's spiritual rebirth  on HER show!

Bottom line...

No wonder younger Libs might not view the Right clearly.

She does a good job of demonizing the Right.

Righties, go to her site and watch today's show and you will be amazed, I think.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 1, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> JakeStarkey said:
> 
> 
> > bigrebnc1775 said:
> ...



liberal democrats are only lying to themselves. I really wished conservative democrats would find the balls to take out their garbage.


----------



## Mertex (Nov 1, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > Mojo2 said:
> ...



Don't matter, you'd still have black and white TV, no air conditioning, segregation and Ike for President!


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 1, 2013)

Mertex said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



And a commie hiding behind every bush........gotta love the 50s


----------



## Mertex (Nov 1, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...




Hey, that sounds so much like today (the commie part).....


----------



## JakeStarkey (Nov 1, 2013)

The reactionaries of the far right are as stupid today as during the 1950s.

The John Birch freaks claimed they were the true Pubs back then.


----------



## bigrebnc1775 (Nov 1, 2013)

The only people that some are impressing in this thread are lefty whackos.


----------



## Mojo2 (Nov 1, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...





> _MOJO Note: If I mischaracterize you as a Commie or a bastard or a Commie bastard, please pardon my gaffe and disregard any references to you, personally or posterally.
> _



Yeah, but whatever other effects it had it sure put the fear of GOD into you miserable misguided America hating Commie 'basterds'.



And it's been all of about 50 years and during that period we haven't had many of your kind of vermin to worry about.

McCarthyism worked.

Maybe we should look into ways of replicating the systemic cleansing effects of McCarthyism in the near future.

So, you may wonder why am I so anti-Communism and Communist? What do I have against Commies?

I think most reasonable people will find this information illuminating, if not persuasive.



> Communism has been the greatest social engineering experiment we have ever seen. It failed utterly and in doing so it killed over 100,000,000 men, women, and children, not to mention the near 30,000,000 of its subjects that died in its often aggressive wars and the rebellions it provoked. But there is a larger lesson to be learned from this horrendous sacrifice to one ideology. That is that no one can be trusted with power. The more power the center has to impose the beliefs of an ideological or religious elite or impose the whims of a dictator, the more likely human lives are to be sacrificed. This is but one reason, but perhaps the most important one, for fostering liberal democracy.



MURDER BY COMMUNISM


And here's a real condensed version of our generalized view of Communism.



> The United Sates proactive foreign policy known as "containment" was declared by Harry Truman as the Truman Doctrine on March 12, 1947.
> 
> For the next 30 years this doctrine was more successful than not. In 1949 the Communist Chinese won the long-term civil war in China and created the People's Republic of China. In 1953 the Viet Minh succeeded in taking control of North Vietnam. In 1959 Fidel Castro came out of the closet and admitted his little banana revolution in Cuba was a front for a Communist takeover.
> 
> ...



United States war against communism? - Yahoo! Answers

Commies behind ANY bush was treated sorta like a single cockaroach scurrying across the kitchen floor when you turn on the light.

You do whatever you can to eliminate them as quickly and as thoroughly as you can.

If you see ONE of either you KNOW there are dozens more you DON'T see which are hiding from view.

And after reading about the lethality of Communism tell me why anyone would persist in promoting it???

It doesn't work. It kills and enslaves people. It stomps on the human spirit. It makes all of US subjects and a small number of people in the Government our masters.

It's easy to scoff at the way America viewed Communism in the 1950's.

It's ONLY in hindsight that you are able to sit there and pretend you are Judge Joe Brown or Simon Cowell and pass judgement on those who were made of sterner stuff than the majority of today's Americans.

They knew what a threat Communism was because they read the papers and listened to the radio and tv reports about the dangerous spread of Communism.

EDIT: And the Soviet Reds had enough nuclear missiles pointed our way at the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis that it made one little boy piss his pants coming home from school he was so frightened that the World was going to end.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 2, 2013)

Mojo2 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...


Ever notice how those commies had Jewish sounding names?


----------



## HUGGY (Nov 2, 2013)

Mojo2 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



*"McCarthyism worked."*

No ...it did not.

No doubt certain elements thruout the globe including some communists were and are and will be enemies of the U S A.  The best way to ferret out infiltraitors and spies is with good old fashioned police methods.  How these moles are dealt with should not be a public circus.  They just need to "dissappear".  That is how many spies have been found out and disposed of in our history.  

Giving criminals advanced warning is always a bad idea.  

McCarthy was a drunkard and a self promoting fool whom did more harm than good.

Christian Fascists have always been loud mouths and counter productive to any serious problems we as a country have faced.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 2, 2013)

Mojo2 said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



Speaking about a personal experience of yours?


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 2, 2013)

HUGGY said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



There wasn't much in the way of a difference between the show trials in the USSR and the McCarthy hearings. In essence he kept on claiming that he had a list of names that he was going to reveal but he never did. One of the oldest political tricks in the book to slander your "enemies" without having any actual evidence against them.


----------



## Mertex (Nov 2, 2013)

mojo2 said:


> one little boy piss his pants coming home from school he was so frightened that the world was going to end.



tldr..........


----------



## Mojo2 (Nov 2, 2013)

Mertex said:


> mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> > one little boy piss his pants coming home from school he was so frightened that the world was going to end.
> ...



Too bad. That partially explain why Libs are seldom able to prevail in debate without resorting to personal attacks and snide remarks.

The foundation of what MIGHT have been the key to their winning the debate, or deciding to better fight another battle with better odds, or even shifting one's allegiance to the "strong horse,' as the Arabs might say, if ONLY they'd bothered to read a little bit more. Have a little more curiosity.

Oh well.

Pretty is nice, too.


----------



## Mojo2 (Nov 2, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> HUGGY said:
> 
> 
> > Mojo2 said:
> ...



You Commie lovers and McCarthy haters are proof that McCarthyism worked.

You wouldn't have dared reveal yourselves this brazenly before now.

What we need is a new, slightly revised 21st Century version of a Communist housecleaning to send you guys scurrying back to hiding under the kitchen stove.

Except this Commie housecleaning would be more PC...just the way Libs like it.


----------



## Mojo2 (Nov 2, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Yup. Thought I'd throw you a bone. And I'm glad to see you fetched it.


----------



## Mojo2 (Nov 2, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Nope, can't say I ever did.

But I HAVE noticed that Muslim plants and non-violent pseudo-Stealthy Jihadists often adopt the identities and nicks and avatars of traditional American cultural icons.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 3, 2013)

Mojo2 said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > mojo2 said:
> ...



Seems to be a bipartisan problem from my own experience. But ironic that you found it necessary to resort to "personal attacks and snide remarks" on "liberals" because you weren't able to make your own point succinctly enough.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 3, 2013)

Mojo2 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > HUGGY said:
> ...



So your immediate response is to resort to "personal attacks and snide remarks" because you are incapable of defending McCarthyism? 



Looks like you just took a self inflicted hit to the credibility region.


----------



## Mojo2 (Nov 3, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> > Mertex said:
> ...



You are like my one most devoted 'dog' (I love my dogs, btw) who never fails to fetch the bone when I throw it or to bring me the decoys I left lying along the path.

Who's a good boy? Who's a good boy?!?!! Derideo_Te


----------



## Mojo2 (Nov 3, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Hmmm, no. More like a slap to the face of a prize fighter. 



I'll play ball with ya.

Why did it take several years before Ed Murrow (Of all people! Where were the political 'leaders'? Why didn't THEY stop him???) took him down?

Part of it probably was due to the way he intimidated folks. And some of the other tactics he used were absolutely wrong as well.

But part of the answer to why he wasn't stopped earlier is that people KNEW what he was doing was a dirty but necessary job they were thankful someone would and could do at all!

See? The people in the 1950's understood that the health of this country affects every one of US. Because they loved this country and were committed to keeping our republic in good repair and as close to original operating specs and blueprints as possible, the American public gave McCarthy the 'wink' (figuratively...with their tacit assent) to do what he did.

They understood better than you do, it appears, that Communism is bad for freedom loving people who also oppose the government turning it's powers and it's guns on the citizens.

A majority of even the most brain dead liberals of that generation were smart enough to know not to support Communism.

And they weren't able to access anywhere near as much information as you can. Yet, they were able to understand what was good and what was bad for them.

Survival was understood to be a matter that CAN be in doubt.

Most of you have grown up with the 'assumption of invulnerability' all your life. 

No World War One. No Influenza Pandemic of 1918. No Great Depression. No World War Two. No Cold War. Nothing in your direct personal experience has ever happened to make you actually consider this country's existential vulnerabilities.

You all, (well mostly, anyway...) have no idea what Obama is preparing this country for.

You have no idea of how vulnerable we are or aren't to events or conditions or situations or domestic plots or aggressive acts by foreign powers sufficiently precise enough or incredibly 'lucky' enough (from their POV) to cause a meltdown in any numbers of areas all at once or in concert. Over load of our utilities infrastructure, of our entitlements system, disablement of our economy, making Americans completely dependent on the Government for our health care and using that lever to push us around the way they want and on and on and on.

You can't discount ANY possibility with this guy. He might do ANYTHING to get the power over the people of this great land.

Anyway, Communism MIGHT be part of Obama's plan for US.

After all, his Daddy WAS a Marxist (among other things as well) and Barack DID take his father's dreams to be his own.

So, Communism?

Sure!

Why not? He might ask.

But that's also why we should need no other reason to say NO to it.

If HE likes it, it MUST be bad for America!

General rule of thumb.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 3, 2013)

Mojo2 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Mojo2 said:
> ...


I can understand why you feel the need to flatter yourself. 


> I'll play ball with ya.
> 
> Why did it take several years before Ed Murrow (Of all people! Where were the political 'leaders'? Why didn't THEY stop him???) took him down?
> 
> ...


They were more susceptible to government propaganda because they lacked much in the way of alternative independent sources of information.





> Survival was understood to be a matter that CAN be in doubt.
> 
> Most of you have grown up with the 'assumption of invulnerability' all your life.
> 
> ...



That's it? That's all you got? Your own paranoia fed by extreme right wing disinformation?


----------



## Mojo2 (Nov 3, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...





> MOJO NOTE: I was trying out a slightly different strategy in dealing with a pesty poster. I wanted to demonstrate to my fellow Righties what happens when you try to be civil and polite and respectful, especially to someone like our fellow poster, "Manti teo." Of course the exchanges have been rough and crude but we're all consenting adults, right?
> 
> Anyway, I wanted to show you what happens when you allow your opponent to think he stands a chance with you. He will gain confidence and courage and will feel inspired and become an even greater pest. Until the only thing left to you to do is to overwhelm him with a massive SOMETHING. Whatever tool or technique, pour it on and hope he won't keep coming at you.
> 
> ...






> Joe McCarthy, Rovere concluded, had never actually believed in the monstrous crusade he had set in motion; anticommunism, patriotism, the Catholic church, were all tools for self-promotion, never sacred causes. "To McCarthy, everything was profane." He had some decent instincts &#8212; "who doesn't?" Rovere had to add &#8212; but "in the mirror, McCarthy must have seen and recognized a fraud."



Joseph McCarthy

Just ONE of the lessons that might be learned from this article is that many of McCarthy's worst qualities and characteristics are now recognized (ESPECIALLY BY LIBERALS THEMSELVES) as identifiably Liberal descriptors.

That partly explains the venom he inspired from the fangs of the Libs and Dems and Progs and Leftists and Socialists and Marxists and Communists at the time as well as today more than 50 years later!

He looks like a composite of all the worst aspects of Libs and  Conservative liberals all in one guy.

He sounds like he could have been Barack Obama's role model!

I swear you could read some of the things said about him and it could have been written this morning about Obama! 

Anyway, when Libs look at him and who he was they see a lot of themselves and they don't like it. And they can't help recognizing and being reminded of it.

So, whenever they can they let the arrows fly at even the mention of his name.

If only America's moderate Muslim population was as sincerely outraged at the fundamentalist and violent and non-violent Jihadi who they resemble (hell, it's impossible to know one from the next!) as today's Liberal Americans are outraged at ol' "Tailgunner Joe", we'd be that much better off!

And I haven't even finished reading this article yet! I want to wait until I can spend the time enjoying the ride with such an interesting and competent writer telling a compelling and very revealing story.  



> BTW, is Derideo_Te an Australian term? What, if I might 'aks', does it mean? Is it anything close to being the utterance of a heavily accented Ozzie toddler or a drunk doing an imitation of Eddie Murphy's SNL era, "Buh Weat".
> 
> What I imagine he might have been saying is, "...the radio! [O]'tay?"
> 
> But, I digress...



McCarthy is made out to be the absolute worst villain in history after Hitler or Stalin. But in reality he was just another guy who'd made his way to the Senate. And he was a human being just like anyone else who had his share of good and bad qualities.

As a public servant Joe McCarthy was little different in the service he performed for this country than your weekly Refuse Collectors or street cleaners or snow plow drivers or cops or EMT and Fire responders or the members of our military to our elected leaders on the local, statewide and national levels, all of whom sometimes have to perform really difficult and really dirty jobs.

These servants of the people may cheat on their wives, gamble away their weekly paycheck, do a little pot on weekends, might accidentally shoot their friends in the face or maybe even bow to Saudi leaders who are kith n kin to bin Laden himself.   

What I'm getting at is that no matter what his personal faults and flaws were or are, as a PUBLIC SERVANT McCarthy saw his job to be, at least in part, to expose Commies and others in our Govt. 

Even without full conviction in his own anti-Communist effort McCarthy performed at least this aspect of his job very successfully, no matter his original intent.

Sen. McCarthy may have been the perfect teacher for you Libs. He may not look like Obama, but many of their actions and tactics are similar.

As for other lessons you ibs might learn from this story, if you succeed in keeping your emotions out of your job, whatever your job might be, you will often be rewarded with a totally new way of seeing and maybe appreciating whatever the thing, subject, topic, person, philosophy, reality of life or whatever...might be

This article, I hope, will conclude by saying McCarthy may have had his faults as a person and a politician and he may have just 'happened' upon the cause of ridding America of Reds, but there is no question he performed this country a great service.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 3, 2013)

Mojo2 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Mojo2 said:
> ...



Preaching to the rightwing choir again? You dredge up something written by a conservative with an anti-liberal agenda and it provides you with exactly the mindless fodder that you wanted. It takes all of the egregious faults of the conservative McCarthy and conveniently labels them as "liberal". It could have been written by Ann Coulter or any of the other rightwing hacks that churn out this endless stream of "red meat" to feed the fragile egos of the extreme right. 

But thanks for conceding the point that your paranoia is being constantly fed by rightwing disinformation. 

Oh, and if you want a hint, try Latin!


----------



## Mojo2 (Nov 3, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...




_(Is this guy s'pposed to be Michael Flatley or somethin???)_

Oh yeah???

Well, this here's for you.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 3, 2013)

Mojo2 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Mojo2 said:
> ...



Your inability to provide even a remote facsimile of a reasonable response means that you have not only conceded your position entirely but you have managed to expose everything in your "note" as being utter nonsense.


----------



## Mojo2 (Nov 3, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



I must apologize for neglecting to point out yet another one of your typically liberal tendencies.

You hear what your critics accuse you of so often that the only defense left to you with which to shield your idealistic, naive, cynical and yet out-of-control "control freak" little hearts from suffering permanent damage is to parrot back to them everything you heard them say to you! 

Very typical Lib tactic, but surprisingly effective.


----------



## Mojo2 (Nov 3, 2013)

Derideo_Te said:


> Mojo2 said:
> 
> 
> > Derideo_Te said:
> ...



Chalk it up to a case of, "Let's don't, but say we did."

Or, I'm becoming distracted by other demands and things this Pleasant Valley Sunday, and I just jettisoned the plan.



> Pleasant Valley Sunday - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



Or, I'm leading you to wonder exactly what my real plan is. Like Obama does.

I was just recently reminded that you may be a woman. So, I might be trying to soften you up by appealing to your basic nature on a real subtle level. My feminine wiring to your feminine wiring.

We all have some of both wirings. The differences are in the degrees and who controls whom. Do we allow ourselves to be victims of our own uncontrolled emotions and impulses?

Lots of prisoners do.

Most. I'd guess.

Or do we strive and learn to control ourselves.

Which reminds me of a song by the inimitable Levi Stubbs and the fabulous Four Tops.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6zjDdnE1qhY]The Four Tops-Bernadette (With lyrics) - YouTube[/ame]



> Bernadette, they want you because of the pride that gives,
> But Bernadette, I want you because I need you to live.
> But while I live only to hold you,
> *Some other men, they long to control you.
> ...


----------



## Mertex (Nov 3, 2013)

Mojo2 said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> > mojo2 said:
> ...


You either turn a blind eye or are extremely partisan because I see a lot of right wingers hurling a lot of personal attack and snide remarks.



> The foundation of what MIGHT have been the key to their winning the debate, or deciding to better fight another battle with better odds, or even shifting one's allegiance to the "strong horse,' as the Arabs might say, if ONLY they'd bothered to read a little bit more. Have a little more curiosity.


Oh, you misunderstood my comment.  Just because I didn't bother to read your partisan gibberish doesn't mean that I don't read anything.  I just don't waste my time on the same old same old that is being regurgitated day in and day out.....it's the same crap over and over.



> Oh well.
> 
> Pretty is nice, too.


Let's see how long you can keep from hurling attacks and snide remarks and disclose your true self.


----------



## Mertex (Nov 3, 2013)

Mojo2 said:


> Yeah, but whatever other effects it had it sure put the fear of GOD into you miserable misguided America hating Commie 'basterds'.
> 
> 
> 
> And it's been all of about 50 years and during that period we haven't had many of your kind of vermin to worry about.




*Well, what do you know.....I guess I spoke too soon.  Weren't you claiming liberals resorted to personal attacks and snide remarks?

Bwahahahaha........eat some crow.
*


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 3, 2013)

Mojo2 said:


> Derideo_Te said:
> 
> 
> > Mojo2 said:
> ...



At this point it has come down to the basics.

1. What substances are you abusing, and;

2 Why aren't you sharing?



Have a nice day!


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 4, 2013)

The TeaTards have cost the GOP the Senate in the last two elections.  Lets see if they can lose the House


----------



## IlarMeilyr (Nov 4, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> The TeaTards have cost the GOP the Senate in the last two elections.  Lets see if they can lose the House



The loberal RETARDS have won the Senate in the last two Dejections.  Let's see if we can stop them from ruining the Republic.


----------



## Derideo_Te (Nov 4, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> The TeaTards have cost the GOP the Senate in the last two elections.  Lets see if they can lose the House



Given that they haven't learned the lesson of the shutdown it certainly looks like they could well do so. The TV ads won't be able to keep up with them after they start campaigning in their districts bragging about how they almost destroyed the entire economy over Obamacare.


----------



## Luddly Neddite (Nov 4, 2013)

I haven't seen any indications that the t-potties have learned learned that being rabidly anti-Americans is a turn-off for MOST voters. All they seem to care about is screwing over the working class and taking rights away from women, gays and people of color.


----------



## rightwinger (Nov 4, 2013)

IlarMeilyr said:


> rightwinger said:
> 
> 
> > The TeaTards have cost the GOP the Senate in the last two elections.  Lets see if they can lose the House
> ...



Yea......like shutting down the government


----------



## emilynghiem (Nov 4, 2013)

Luddly Neddite said:


> I haven't seen any indications that the t-potties have learned learned that being rabidly anti-Americans is a turn-off for MOST voters. All they seem to care about is screwing over the working class and taking rights away from women, gays and people of color.



Hi Luddly Neddite and CC: Rightwinger:

Given that you are still namecalling, using terms like "t-potties" or "tea tards"
(and that other post using "nutters" where I pointed out this was like calling people "*******")

Luddly where you are "fighting for equal rights and against bigotry and hatred,
yet you CANNOT make the simple EFFORT to stop using hate-charged words,
such as the above,

HOW do you expect to see "any indications" of "learning" on any BIGGER scale?
HOW can you expect to see bigger changes if you cannot make small ones you can control?

If you can't even take these little EASY steps to tone down the "rabid" hatred?

Rightwinger: If Luddly does not get this point, can you please explain it better?
Thank you, Gentlemen


----------



## Sawbriars (Nov 10, 2013)

rightwinger said:


> IlarMeilyr said:
> 
> 
> > rightwinger said:
> ...



Tea Party candidates must get creative...must understand that the tired old mantra of smaller government and lower taxes is not a winning strategy.  In a nutshell they must understand who the electorate is and how they can devise a strategy to appeal to the largest group of voters who have the numbers and possible motivation to vote for a conservative if they can be convinced the conservative truly has their best interests at heart.

Unfortunately....there is a huge stumbling block in the conservative movement and it is known as the mainstsream republican party or liberal/moderate republican or fat cat republicans or elitist republicans...all of whom have a death grip on the republican party and if not curtailed will allow another democrat to sneak into the offal office....tea partiers and other true conservatives must organize and recruit...otherwise the so called mainstream republicans will enable another huge disaster...I do no think America can absorb many more disasters like Obama.

UPDATE: White Republicans Wins 'Long Shot' Election After Leading Voters To Believe He's Black...


----------

