Media screenshots of Eric Cantor's (R-VA-07) primary loss

[JimBowie1958]

Conservatives are sick of the double talk, saying one thing, then working with the crony capitalist behind the scenes. Cantor lost because he forgot who put him there, and he was arrogant about it.. "Extreme right"?...You're clueless with that description. nothing new with you there.

Ok, [MENTION=25505]Jroc[/MENTION] -

explain to me what you think extreme Right means.

There is no negative connotation in the adjective "extreme".

I also use it for the extreme Left. Both parties have their extremes and thier centers. This is totally normal in politics.

So, please, instead of bellyaching about semantics, tell me what you think. Or do you think it is possible for Conservatives to never be too extreme? Really?

hmmmm....

[MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION]

People who want smaller government and individual liberty are extreme to people like you. the founding fathers were extreme, the Constitution is extreme in the minds of you leftists. Conservatives are generally not extreme. Libertarians can be, liberals absolutely can be, as we see with our current president.

That puts it pretty much in a nut shell.

 

[edthecynic]

2) Cruz caused no shut down, hell, he isn't in the leadership of the GOP, and he is in the SENATE not the House, and it was the House that defunded various items in the budget, not the Senate. Cruz simply challenged the GOP in the House to do their fucking jobs and they still have not done it, and that is to effectively oppose Obama.

Cruz would disagree with you!

Cruz: GOP leads in 2014 because of shutdown

NEW ORLEANS -- Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) argued Saturday that his efforts during the two-week government shutdown in October contributed directly to the GOP's advantage in the 2014 elections, and he urged GOP "graybeards" to recognize that fact.

Cruz suggested GOP "graybeards" are failing to give credit where credit is due.

 

[JimBowie1958]

2) Cruz caused no shut down, hell, he isn't in the leadership of the GOP, and he is in the SENATE not the House, and it was the House that defunded various items in the budget, not the Senate. Cruz simply challenged the GOP in the House to do their fucking jobs and they still have not done it, and that is to effectively oppose Obama.

Cruz would disagree with you!

No, he wouldn't. Cruz has absolutely ZERO power in the House, dude, all he could do was to challenge the House to demand a rollback on Obama and he got it, but he had not authority to get anything.

What he did was purely persuasive leadership, and that is my point and I am sure he would agree.

 

[edthecynic]

2) Cruz caused no shut down, hell, he isn't in the leadership of the GOP, and he is in the SENATE not the House, and it was the House that defunded various items in the budget, not the Senate. Cruz simply challenged the GOP in the House to do their fucking jobs and they still have not done it, and that is to effectively oppose Obama.

Cruz would disagree with you!

Cruz: GOP leads in 2014 because of shutdown

NEW ORLEANS -- Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) argued Saturday that his efforts during the two-week government shutdown in October contributed directly to the GOP's advantage in the 2014 elections, and he urged GOP "graybeards" to recognize that fact.

Cruz suggested GOP "graybeards" are failing to give credit where credit is due.

2) Cruz caused no shut down, hell, he isn't in the leadership of the GOP, and he is in the SENATE not the House, and it was the House that defunded various items in the budget, not the Senate. Cruz simply challenged the GOP in the House to do their fucking jobs and they still have not done it, and that is to effectively oppose Obama.

Cruz would disagree with you!

No, he wouldn't. Cruz has absolutely ZERO power in the House, dude, all he could do was to challenge the House to demand a rollback on Obama and he got it, but he had not authority to get anything.

What he did was purely persuasive leadership, and that is my point and I am sure he would agree.

Actually, he did, but you dishonestly edited it out.
No surprise there!

 

[Statistikhengst]

Conservatives are sick of the double talk, saying one thing, then working with the crony capitalist behind the scenes. Cantor lost because he forgot who put him there, and he was arrogant about it.. "Extreme right"?...You're clueless with that description. nothing new with you there.

Ok, [MENTION=25505]Jroc[/MENTION] -

explain to me what you think extreme Right means.

There is no negative connotation in the adjective "extreme".

I also use it for the extreme Left. Both parties have their extremes and thier centers. This is totally normal in politics.

So, please, instead of bellyaching about semantics, tell me what you think. Or do you think it is possible for Conservatives to never be too extreme? Really?

hmmmm....

[MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION]

People who want smaller government and individual liberty are extreme to people like you. the founding fathers were extreme, the Constitution is extreme in the minds of you leftists. Conservatives are generally not extreme. Libertarians can be, liberals absolutely can be, as we see with our current president.

Well, I certainly don't agree with you at all. I am absolutely for individual liberty, have never said I was against it. That is nothing more than a red herring that Cons throw out there to make themselves feel better.

And I don't find the Constitution to be extreme at all. I am not like Righties who suddenly think the 17th amendment should be repealed. Unlike them, I find it to be a pretty good document.

And what about smaller government? Hmmmm...

Ronald Reagan CLAIMED to be for smaller government. Instead on his watch, the debt TRIPLED and he added government agencies.

Nixon, who CLAIMED to be for smaller government, added the now hated-by-cons EPA.

Bush 43 added the DHS and the TSA.

So, come again about smaller government? That is just plain old bullshit, because history proves that those "small government" Conservatives were anything but "small government.

So, I ask again, what does "extreme" Right mean to you?

Unlike you, I openly admit that there is an extreme Left. Every party has it's extremes. Sure seems to me like you are not willing to admit that your own party has it's extremes as well.

Of course, there is always hope that one day, you will be less butthurt about everything and maybe a little more factual. Hope springs eternal.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Stupid thread with the usual suspects trying to outdo each others ignorant comments. Color me surprised.

And yet, you are here, commenting...

Well, actually, I do these kind of screenshot threads about 10 times a year. For instance, when two popes were declared saints on the same day about 1 month ago or so, I made a thread very similar to this one. Surely on election night 2014, I will make a similar type of thread.

The advantage of this is that sometimes, news servers shunt their old front pages off to other links and they are hard to find years later, but screenshots preserve things for a long, long time, and you get to see the headlines from competing news sources next to each other.

It was all pretty well explained in the OP. I would think it would take a totally ignorant asswipe to not be able to understand something this elementary. And I notice that a hard-core conservative (@JimBowey1958) thanked me for the OP - he got the point: you didn't.

But it is your 1st amendment right to bitch and moan, even when there is nothing to bitch and moan about. Carry on.

This isn't a public venue, Slick. It's private, first amendment rights don't apply.

No, I don't see the point. It's all over the news. The world doesn't need you to document anything, it won't go away.

Of course it's a public venue. This part of USMB is open for anyone to see, and all news that is published for people to click on and read is public domain. Therefore, on both sides of the equation, it is quite public. You really are more stupid than you even appear, slick. Mebbe you want to go see a doc about that cerebral misfucktion, which probably explains why you don't see the point.

I mean, the thread is about as innocuous as a thread can get:

Media screenshots of Eric Cantor's (R-VA-07) primary loss

and still, you act like you are mortally wounded or eternally butthurt, or perhaps both.

If you don't like seeing what I document for posterity, there is nothing to keep your fat little fingers from closing the tab and looking at something else. It's really that simple, little weasel.

 

[Jroc]

Ok, [MENTION=25505]Jroc[/MENTION] -

explain to me what you think extreme Right means.

There is no negative connotation in the adjective "extreme".

I also use it for the extreme Left. Both parties have their extremes and thier centers. This is totally normal in politics.

So, please, instead of bellyaching about semantics, tell me what you think. Or do you think it is possible for Conservatives to never be too extreme? Really?

hmmmm....

[MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION]

People who want smaller government and individual liberty are extreme to people like you. the founding fathers were extreme, the Constitution is extreme in the minds of you leftists. Conservatives are generally not extreme. Libertarians can be, liberals absolutely can be, as we see with our current president.

Well, I certainly don't agree with you at all. I am absolutely for individual liberty, have never said I was against it. That is nothing more than a red herring that Cons throw out there to make themselves feel better.

And I don't find the Constitution to be extreme at all. I am not like Righties who suddenly think the 17th amendment should be repealed. Unlike them, I find it to be a pretty good document.

And what about smaller government? Hmmmm...

Ronald Reagan CLAIMED to be for smaller government. Instead on his watch, the debt TRIPLED and he added government agencies.

Nixon, who CLAIMED to be for smaller government, added the now hated-by-cons EPA.

Bush 43 added the DHS and the TSA.

So, come again about smaller government? That is just plain old bullshit, because history proves that those "small government" Conservatives were anything but "small government.

So, I ask again, what does "extreme" Right mean to you?

Unlike you, I openly admit that there is an extreme Left. Every party has it's extremes. Sure seems to me like you are not willing to admit that your own party has it's extremes as well.

Of course, there is always hope that one day, you will be less butthurt about everything and maybe a little more factual. Hope springs eternal.

ummm.. Regan never held both houses of congress, he tried to roll back and make deals to cut more government, congress blocked him, Democrats and some Republicans. Republican doesn't mean conservative, as Cantor the pseudo conservative found out, and no one ever said Bush was a true conservative or Nixon. You support individual liberty? Really? as you cheer Obamacare? from a reunited Germany (thank you Reagan) What are your principles ? You're pro-life? Really? as you say you'd vote again for the most radical abortion promoting president in American history? please you're a partisan hack who gets outraged when your called on it

 

[edthecynic]

[MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION]

People who want smaller government and individual liberty are extreme to people like you. the founding fathers were extreme, the Constitution is extreme in the minds of you leftists. Conservatives are generally not extreme. Libertarians can be, liberals absolutely can be, as we see with our current president.

Well, I certainly don't agree with you at all. I am absolutely for individual liberty, have never said I was against it. That is nothing more than a red herring that Cons throw out there to make themselves feel better.

And I don't find the Constitution to be extreme at all. I am not like Righties who suddenly think the 17th amendment should be repealed. Unlike them, I find it to be a pretty good document.

And what about smaller government? Hmmmm...

Ronald Reagan CLAIMED to be for smaller government. Instead on his watch, the debt TRIPLED and he added government agencies.

Nixon, who CLAIMED to be for smaller government, added the now hated-by-cons EPA.

Bush 43 added the DHS and the TSA.

So, come again about smaller government? That is just plain old bullshit, because history proves that those "small government" Conservatives were anything but "small government.

So, I ask again, what does "extreme" Right mean to you?

Unlike you, I openly admit that there is an extreme Left. Every party has it's extremes. Sure seems to me like you are not willing to admit that your own party has it's extremes as well.

Of course, there is always hope that one day, you will be less butthurt about everything and maybe a little more factual. Hope springs eternal.

ummm.. Regan never held both houses of congress, he tried to roll back and make deals to cut more government, congress blocked him, Democrats and some Republicans. Republican doesn't mean conservative, as Cantor the pseudo conservative found out, and no one ever said Bush was a true conservative or Nixon. You support individual liberty? Really? as you cheer Obamacare? from a reunited Germany (thank you Reagan) What are your principles ? You're pro-life? Really? as you say you'd vote again for the most radical abortion promoting president in American history? please you're a partisan hack who gets outraged when your called on it

That's the typical revisionist history in the Reagan myth, the truth is the exact opposite. Congress made a bi-partisan deal to cut spending and Reagan killed it because he did not want to cut his Star Wars pork boondoggle.

 

[sameech]

The general concensus that I am reading is that Cantor's stance on immigration reform did him in.

Already, news reports are speculating that immigration reform is dead this year.

Now, whether or not that is good for the GOP in the long run could be fun to talk about, but one thing is clear: the Tea Party is far from dead in 2014. McDaniel is very likely to win the MS Senatorial runoff on June 24th, so it appears to me that the GOP field for 2014 will indeed be tacking hard to the right.

I was thinking that Cantor could lose, but was surprised at the margin. When the final canvasses are in, I will compare the vote to the 2010 primaries to see how voter turnout shaped up, but in VA-07, it sure doesn't look like a low turnout got him. It looks a lot more like the hard-core extreme Right of his party came out in droves and voted him out, which is their good right.

I would say we have seen the first real surprise of 2014!

BTW, I would have also included a screenshot from redstatereport - but absolutely nothing was reported there.

It is why Boehner wants to do immigration reform piecemeal--amnesty is a non-starter with the right. He wants to dance around the subject by "securing the borders" first (as if that could ever happen).

 

[Statistikhengst]

[MENTION=46168]Statistikhengst[/MENTION]

People who want smaller government and individual liberty are extreme to people like you. the founding fathers were extreme, the Constitution is extreme in the minds of you leftists. Conservatives are generally not extreme. Libertarians can be, liberals absolutely can be, as we see with our current president.

Well, I certainly don't agree with you at all. I am absolutely for individual liberty, have never said I was against it. That is nothing more than a red herring that Cons throw out there to make themselves feel better.

And I don't find the Constitution to be extreme at all. I am not like Righties who suddenly think the 17th amendment should be repealed. Unlike them, I find it to be a pretty good document.

And what about smaller government? Hmmmm...

Ronald Reagan CLAIMED to be for smaller government. Instead on his watch, the debt TRIPLED and he added government agencies.

Nixon, who CLAIMED to be for smaller government, added the now hated-by-cons EPA.

Bush 43 added the DHS and the TSA.

So, come again about smaller government? That is just plain old bullshit, because history proves that those "small government" Conservatives were anything but "small government.

So, I ask again, what does "extreme" Right mean to you?

Unlike you, I openly admit that there is an extreme Left. Every party has it's extremes. Sure seems to me like you are not willing to admit that your own party has it's extremes as well.

Of course, there is always hope that one day, you will be less butthurt about everything and maybe a little more factual. Hope springs eternal.

ummm.. Regan never held both houses of congress, he tried to roll back and make deals to cut more government, congress blocked him, Democrats and some Republicans. Republican doesn't mean conservative, as Cantor the pseudo conservative found out, and no one ever said Bush was a true conservative or Nixon. You support individual liberty? Really? as you cheer Obamacare? from a reunited Germany (thank you Reagan) What are your principles ? You're pro-life? Really? as you say you'd vote again for the most radical abortion promoting president in American history? please you're a partisan hack who gets outraged when your called on it

I'm a person who gets totally amused when I see you get so personal instead of sticking with the ideas?

So, the new government agencies that were created by Ronald Reagan were not his doing, you say? And he was not a Conservative?



Oh, I am enjoying this indeed.

I assume you voted for both Bushes, which means, if you voted for GHWB in 1988 and 1992, you voted for a Jew-Hater, right? Cuz Baker, his then campaign chief, told Bush 41 "fuck the Jews, they won't vote for you, anyway".

So, what was that about hack, again??



Too easy, like fish in a barrel...

 

[JimBowie1958]

2) Cruz caused no shut down, hell, he isn't in the leadership of the GOP, and he is in the SENATE not the House, and it was the House that defunded various items in the budget, not the Senate. Cruz simply challenged the GOP in the House to do their fucking jobs and they still have not done it, and that is to effectively oppose Obama.

Cruz would disagree with you!

Cruz: GOP leads in 2014 because of shutdown

NEW ORLEANS -- Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) argued Saturday that his efforts during the two-week government shutdown in October contributed directly to the GOP's advantage in the 2014 elections, and he urged GOP "graybeards" to recognize that fact.

Cruz suggested GOP "graybeards" are failing to give credit where credit is due.

Cruz would disagree with you!

No, he wouldn't. Cruz has absolutely ZERO power in the House, dude, all he could do was to challenge the House to demand a rollback on Obama and he got it, but he had not authority to get anything.

What he did was purely persuasive leadership, and that is my point and I am sure he would agree.

Actually, he did, but you dishonestly edited it out.
No surprise there!

You are a true dullard if you cant grasp the difference between " contributed directly" and "caused". Cruz admits that he contributed, via leadership, to the GOP resolve to resist Obama, but he did it by leadership, not legislative machinations which is what a "cause" in this case would be..

 

[JimBowie1958]

The general concensus that I am reading is that Cantor's stance on immigration reform did him in.

Already, news reports are speculating that immigration reform is dead this year.

Now, whether or not that is good for the GOP in the long run could be fun to talk about, but one thing is clear: the Tea Party is far from dead in 2014. McDaniel is very likely to win the MS Senatorial runoff on June 24th, so it appears to me that the GOP field for 2014 will indeed be tacking hard to the right.

I was thinking that Cantor could lose, but was surprised at the margin. When the final canvasses are in, I will compare the vote to the 2010 primaries to see how voter turnout shaped up, but in VA-07, it sure doesn't look like a low turnout got him. It looks a lot more like the hard-core extreme Right of his party came out in droves and voted him out, which is their good right.

I would say we have seen the first real surprise of 2014!

BTW, I would have also included a screenshot from redstatereport - but absolutely nothing was reported there.

It is why Boehner wants to do immigration reform piecemeal--amnesty is a non-starter with the right. He wants to dance around the subject by "securing the borders" first (as if that could ever happen).

The borders can be secured, the Chicoms have done it along their very long border with Russia, for example.

But it wont happen because we have a current political elite that want to engage in corporate cronyism rather than lead our nation in pursuit of the nations best interests.

 

[sameech]

The general concensus that I am reading is that Cantor's stance on immigration reform did him in.

Already, news reports are speculating that immigration reform is dead this year.

Now, whether or not that is good for the GOP in the long run could be fun to talk about, but one thing is clear: the Tea Party is far from dead in 2014. McDaniel is very likely to win the MS Senatorial runoff on June 24th, so it appears to me that the GOP field for 2014 will indeed be tacking hard to the right.

I was thinking that Cantor could lose, but was surprised at the margin. When the final canvasses are in, I will compare the vote to the 2010 primaries to see how voter turnout shaped up, but in VA-07, it sure doesn't look like a low turnout got him. It looks a lot more like the hard-core extreme Right of his party came out in droves and voted him out, which is their good right.

I would say we have seen the first real surprise of 2014!

BTW, I would have also included a screenshot from redstatereport - but absolutely nothing was reported there.

It is why Boehner wants to do immigration reform piecemeal--amnesty is a non-starter with the right. He wants to dance around the subject by "securing the borders" first (as if that could ever happen).

The borders can be secured, the Chicoms have done it along their very long border with Russia, for example.

But it wont happen because we have a current political elite that want to engage in corporate cronyism rather than lead our nation in pursuit of the nations best interests.

We wouldn't need to build a wall stretching between the center of the earth and the moon if we had a more practical immigration system that made it easier for guest workers to come and go.

 

[mamooth]

It wasn't immigration that did Cantor in. Or redistricting himself into a more conservative district, or crossover Democrats voting for Brat.

In my opinion, it was 2 things.

1. The constant drumbeat from all conservatives of how "Being more conservative is always better!". Guess what, the conservative base listened. The propaganda is coming back to bite the mainsteam GOP.

2. Cantor is a jackass. That's the impression everyone who meets him gets. He's out posturing on the national stage and trying to become Speaker, while completely ignoring his own district. Just taking it for granted. He'd pissed off so many people on the way up, the number of people who wanted him gone reached critical mass.

 

[Jroc]

Well, I certainly don't agree with you at all. I am absolutely for individual liberty, have never said I was against it. That is nothing more than a red herring that Cons throw out there to make themselves feel better.

And I don't find the Constitution to be extreme at all. I am not like Righties who suddenly think the 17th amendment should be repealed. Unlike them, I find it to be a pretty good document.

And what about smaller government? Hmmmm...

Ronald Reagan CLAIMED to be for smaller government. Instead on his watch, the debt TRIPLED and he added government agencies.

Nixon, who CLAIMED to be for smaller government, added the now hated-by-cons EPA.

Bush 43 added the DHS and the TSA.

So, come again about smaller government? That is just plain old bullshit, because history proves that those "small government" Conservatives were anything but "small government.

So, I ask again, what does "extreme" Right mean to you?

Unlike you, I openly admit that there is an extreme Left. Every party has it's extremes. Sure seems to me like you are not willing to admit that your own party has it's extremes as well.

Of course, there is always hope that one day, you will be less butthurt about everything and maybe a little more factual. Hope springs eternal.

ummm.. Regan never held both houses of congress, he tried to roll back and make deals to cut more government, congress blocked him, Democrats and some Republicans. Republican doesn't mean conservative, as Cantor the pseudo conservative found out, and no one ever said Bush was a true conservative or Nixon. You support individual liberty? Really? as you cheer Obamacare? from a reunited Germany (thank you Reagan) What are your principles ? You're pro-life? Really? as you say you'd vote again for the most radical abortion promoting president in American history? please you're a partisan hack who gets outraged when your called on it

I'm a person who gets totally amused when I see you get so personal instead of sticking with the ideas?

So, the new government agencies that were created by Ronald Reagan were not his doing, you say? And he was not a Conservative?



Oh, I am enjoying this indeed.

I assume you voted for both Bushes, which means, if you voted for GHWB in 1988 and 1992, you voted for a Jew-Hater, right? Cuz Baker, his then campaign chief, told Bush 41 "fuck the Jews, they won't vote for you, anyway".

So, what was that about hack, again??



Too easy, like fish in a barrel...

Well that was a brainless post..Almost like some of these idiots we have here. I considered you a little smarter then them even though you're a lib...Flaming doesn't work with me, I'm not into it. Keep it serious or don't bother,this is not a silliness or smart ass competition

 

[Statistikhengst]

ummm.. Regan never held both houses of congress, he tried to roll back and make deals to cut more government, congress blocked him, Democrats and some Republicans. Republican doesn't mean conservative, as Cantor the pseudo conservative found out, and no one ever said Bush was a true conservative or Nixon. You support individual liberty? Really? as you cheer Obamacare? from a reunited Germany (thank you Reagan) What are your principles ? You're pro-life? Really? as you say you'd vote again for the most radical abortion promoting president in American history? please you're a partisan hack who gets outraged when your called on it

I'm a person who gets totally amused when I see you get so personal instead of sticking with the ideas?

So, the new government agencies that were created by Ronald Reagan were not his doing, you say? And he was not a Conservative?



Oh, I am enjoying this indeed.

I assume you voted for both Bushes, which means, if you voted for GHWB in 1988 and 1992, you voted for a Jew-Hater, right? Cuz Baker, his then campaign chief, told Bush 41 "fuck the Jews, they won't vote for you, anyway".

So, what was that about hack, again??



Too easy, like fish in a barrel...

Well that was a brainless post..Almost like some of these idiots we have here. I considered you a little smarter then them even though you're a lib...Flaming doesn't work with me, I'm not into it. Keep it serious or don't bother,this is not a silliness or smart ass competition

Pot, meet kettle. Now you know how it feels, bud. Remember that for the next time around.

 

[Statistikhengst]

Should there be any other really major upsets, I will likely make a screenshot thread for that as well.

 

[Statistikhengst]

It wasn't immigration that did Cantor in. Or redistricting himself into a more conservative district, or crossover Democrats voting for Brat.

In my opinion, it was 2 things.

1. The constant drumbeat from all conservatives of how "Being more conservative is always better!". Guess what, the conservative base listened. The propaganda is coming back to bite the mainsteam GOP.

2. Cantor is a jackass. That's the impression everyone who meets him gets. He's out posturing on the national stage and trying to become Speaker, while completely ignoring his own district. Just taking it for granted. He'd pissed off so many people on the way up, the number of people who wanted him gone reached critical mass.

Oh, I do think that immigration reform and Cantor's stance on said reform played a very large role, here.

 

[Iceweasel]

It wasn't immigration that did Cantor in. Or redistricting himself into a more conservative district, or crossover Democrats voting for Brat.

In my opinion, it was 2 things.

1. The constant drumbeat from all conservatives of how "Being more conservative is always better!". Guess what, the conservative base listened. The propaganda is coming back to bite the mainsteam GOP.

Yes, because being a liberal Republican is the only sane option for a Republican. When are they going to totally abandon conservativism since liberal policies have proven to be so effective anyway?

 

[Iceweasel]

Should there be any other really major upsets, I will likely make a screenshot thread for that as well.

Golly, the internets thank you. Mankind would be lost without your dedication to documenting events. Or we could use a search engine, but that takes a couple of seconds.....