Done with Palin and the Tea Party

I cannot believe it. These morons probably just cost Republicans the Senate.

In the past I have defended and even supported the Tea Party and its public face Sarah Palin. Sure they are the 'rough edge' of the conservative movement, people who align more with Glen Beck than William Kristol. Hell, they probably don't even know who Irving Kristol was, much less William F. Buckley, Jr. But their small government, small tax rate message worked well on a macropolitical level and their enthusiasm and populist appeal could be leveraged into greater turnout for Republicans.

However, apparently this beast cannot be controlled, and is perfectly willing to cut off its nose to spite its face. For the sake of ideological purity, the Tea Partiers have probably squandered the best chance conservatives have of curtailing the mess that has become the Obama Administration. Sure Mike Castle wasn't 100% Right on the issues, but these Tea Party people don't seem to understand how important majorities are. They come with committee chairmanships - they real source of congressional power. Without majorities, greater Republican numbers in Congress mean nothing.

This is not the way Ronald Reagan would have handled things. He wasn't as politically dense. Intellectual conservatives need to stand up and take back control of the party before 2012. Sarah Palin's Facebook page is a funny foil to the Left, but she cannot be the face of the Republican party.

A very similar thought, well-expressed:

Republicans Reap The Whirlwind

The conservative movement has spent the last 20 months sowing hysteria about President Obama's agenda. The most respectable Republicans call the president a socialist, a radical, a threat to freedom. The less respectable Republicans, many of them highly influential, call him an alien, a sympathizer of radical Islam, a conscious enemy of the United States who is trying to wreck the economy. Obama is a dangerous figure, he cannot be compromised with, and the fight against him is a twilight struggle to save the last vestiges of the Republic.

And so it has been amusing to watch Republicans as they desperately attempted to persuade Republican voters in Delaware to support moderate Mike Castle over Christine O'Donnell. The political logic is obvious: Castle would have been a near shoo-in to win, while O'Donnell is a near shoo-in to lose. [...]

Republican voters have luxuriated in the belief that they represent the true majority of the American people. Obama may have won by fooling the voters, or possibly by stealing the election with Acorn, but the enduring majority of the public is staunchly conservative. Indeed, Republicans only lost because they strayed from the true faith.

Now, most elite Republicans understand that the red meat fed to the base isn't exactly right. It's useful to scare the daylights out of the activists, but writers for the Standard and the Journal editorial page understand that "freedom," as most people understand the term, is not really at risk. They understand as well that politics is a little more complicated than "if Republicans stay true to conservatism, they cannot lose."

But the conservative base is not in on the joke. And so Republican elites found themselves with just a few frantic days to undo the toxic and intoxicating effects of 20 months of relentless propaganda. Vote for the man who compromised with evil! The true conservative can't always win! They couldn't do it.

You shouldn't give your voters the right to elect your candidates for elections. You should learn from the UK, make the process highly centralised so that only party insiders can get to the top of the party. If your lucky you can be parachuted into a safe seat and before you know it, your in the cabinet.

In all seriousness though the way I see it, the GOP has a problem on its hands. There's a big difference in what the GOP members and would-be GOP voters want. Actually, there's even a division between what some GOP hard-liners want and what more moderate GOP members. The main problem then is that the party lacks a set unified and collective plan of action or policy. I get that the US system of politics is more fractured and that unlike most other political systems a central party theme is given a lot less significance due to geography, political structure and so on so forth. Even though this is the case, the Republican Party really needs to find its feet. The previous theme was compassionate conservatism but since 2008, it seems there has been no theme other than anti-Obama. It isn't even so much of a problem that the Tea Party ideals are bad ones, it's just the ideas are presented by those who tend to be branded as intellectually light weight and incompetent.

The US Republican party needs to take a long look at itself then and either make the message more moderate and appealing to the masses or get themselves some new public figures. In regards to Palin, I don't believe she has the intellectual capacity or political skills to bring the party back to the White House in 2012. No matter how much prep she gets. the fact remains, she's pretty thick. As far as I'm aware she's about as far away from being a Washington insider as one could be, has little knowledge of how Washington politics would work and would be even worse in handling politics on an international scale. To be honest a member of a student debating society could probably debate her under the table and if she runs for president (apparently increasingly likely) and wins the nomination, the debates leading up to any election would provide classic comedy material.

I'm happy with the more conservative bent of many of these candidates. I believe that we need to have a more clearly "conservative" party in U.S. politics. A number of these nominations do this. Will conservative nominees be less likely to win in "liberal" states? Probably so. However, electing a "liberal" GOPer would make any real difference in the long run anyway -- the vote would still be cast on the "wrong" side of the issue.

Tib is quite correct though. If the party loathes candidates coming out of primaries, then it needs to return the nominaton to the proverbial "smoke filled room" -- or accept the verdict of the voters they themselves empowered with the decision power.

Cums in handy heh http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/1114...en_fappen.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

This is not the way Ronald Reagan would have handled things.

---

No, he raised taxes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Cums in handy heh http://www.dumpert.nl/mediabase/1114...en_fappen.html

---

@Frag Ik denk dat ik me op haar ga aftrekken, gewoon, als straf ;)

Ze is wel een balletje heren-enkel waard, +1 voor opgekropte geilheid van vokomen mesjogge griffomutsjes prrrrr

heer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Ze is wel een balletje heren-enkel waard, +1 voor opgekropte geilheid van vokomen mesjogge griffomutsjes prrrrr

heer

---

Als iedereen haar raad zou opvolgen zou misdaad exponentieel toenemen.
But enough for dutch...for now

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

A very similar thought, well-expressed:

Republicans Reap The Whirlwind

The conservative movement has spent the last 20 months sowing hysteria about President Obama's agenda. The most respectable Republicans call the president a socialist, a radical, a threat to freedom. The less respectable Republicans, many of them highly influential, call him an alien, a sympathizer of radical Islam, a conscious enemy of the United States who is trying to wreck the economy. Obama is a dangerous figure, he cannot be compromised with, and the fight against him is a twilight struggle to save the last vestiges of the Republic.

And so it has been amusing to watch Republicans as they desperately attempted to persuade Republican voters in Delaware to support moderate Mike Castle over Christine O'Donnell. The political logic is obvious: Castle would have been a near shoo-in to win, while O'Donnell is a near shoo-in to lose. [...]

Republican voters have luxuriated in the belief that they represent the true majority of the American people. Obama may have won by fooling the voters, or possibly by stealing the election with Acorn, but the enduring majority of the public is staunchly conservative. Indeed, Republicans only lost because they strayed from the true faith.

Now, most elite Republicans understand that the red meat fed to the base isn't exactly right. It's useful to scare the daylights out of the activists, but writers for the Standard and the Journal editorial page understand that "freedom," as most people understand the term, is not really at risk. They understand as well that politics is a little more complicated than "if Republicans stay true to conservatism, they cannot lose."

But the conservative base is not in on the joke. And so Republican elites found themselves with just a few frantic days to undo the toxic and intoxicating effects of 20 months of relentless propaganda. Vote for the man who compromised with evil! The true conservative can't always win! They couldn't do it.

---

Well Obama is a Scoialist, and you guys need to get over it.

If it's wrong to masturbate yourself, is it ok to get someone else to do it for you?

Just askin' like. :inquisitive:

Enquiring minds and all that.....:laugh4:

Who cares she's probably a beast with all that accumulating sexual frustration. I want to be a fly on the wall when christian chicks accidently misplace their showerhead, that guilty look as she slowly builds up the desecration of her holiness oh god oh jezus

Palin served a limited specific electoral purpose, based on specific demographic and strategic considerations in the political constellation of fall 2008.

I am still quite baffled that both she herself and a fairly large base of the GOP electorate do not understand the purpose she was supposed to fulfill*. She is not, and was never meant to be, a serious candidate.
You are not meant to walk out of a cinema and believe the force is real. Similarly, you are not meant to walk out of tense elections and believe that all that stuff was real either.


*Palin still doesn't understand. She is aware she was used as a poster girl, with a specific text. The exact purpose of it all still eludes her. What Palin in her book describes as 'They (the GOP campaign) used me. They forced me to act a specific way. I was not allowed to speak freely, but was forced to stick to a specific script'.
Well duh.
Amazing that somewhere in the chemistry between her and her audience both the actress and the audience became convinced it was all real, leaving the director and scriptwriter puzzled and bemused.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by InsaneApache

If it's wrong to masturbate yourself, is it ok to get someone else to do it for you?

Just askin' like. :inquisitive:

Enquiring minds and all that.....:laugh4:

---

Still wrong. The voice of Satan working in your head. :no:

However, I think it is not wrong to masturbate if the goods are then used for insemination.

Which makes me think: ever since the invention of fridges, it has been possible to store sperm for decades. Which can then be inseminated. This process is far more likely to create a pregnancy than a blind shot in the dark.
Which means that a man's entire sex life ought to be limited to one masturbation in a sperm bank. All other sexual acts are a sin, because they do not serve procreation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Who cares she's probably a beast with all that accumulating sexual frustration. I want to be a fly on the wall when christian chicks accidently misplace their showerhead, that guilty look as she slowly builds up the desecration of her holiness oh god oh jezus

---

You need to write porn books. I'm turned on now...

:laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

In the past I have defended and even supported the Tea Party and its public face Sarah Palin. Sure they are the 'rough edge' of the conservative movement, people who align more with Glen Beck than William Kristol. Hell, they probably don't even know who Irving Kristol was, much less William F. Buckley, Jr. But their small government, small tax rate message worked well on a macropolitical level and their enthusiasm and populist appeal could be leveraged into greater turnout for Republicans.

---

I don´t think that is what is REALLY at the bottom of the tea party.
more like "there's a 'darkie' in the white house and we can´t handle it".

useful idiots they were indeed for the GOP, but the republican party overplayed it's hand and put too much emphasys on them, forgetting that they are...well...idiots and wouldn´t necessarily do the right thing with all that political clout.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Well Obama is a Scoialist, and you guys need to get over it.

---

David Cameron could be Karl Marx then, if Obama is a Socialist.

Though more seriously, the Tea Party should actually do their own political party.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Who cares she's probably a beast with all that accumulating sexual frustration. I want to be a fly on the wall when christian chicks accidently misplace their showerhead, that guilty look as she slowly builds up the desecration of her holiness oh god oh jezus

---

Flies have poor vision and poor hearing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

However, I think it is not wrong to masturbate if the goods are then used for insemination.

Which makes me think: ever since the invention of fridges, it has been possible to store sperm for decades. Which can then be inseminated. This process is far more likely to create a pregnancy than a blind shot in the dark.
Which means that a man's entire sex life ought to be limited to one masturbation in a sperm bank. All other sexual acts are a sin, because they do not serve procreation.

---

Not a fridge. A liquid Nitrogen Freezer.

Most sexual acts are a sin as there are few days in the menstrul cycle when women can get pregnant.
And let's not forget all sex after the menopause is also a sin, as is sex when knowing one has primary or secondary infertility.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

I don´t think that is what is REALLY at the bottom of the tea party.
more like "there's a 'darkie' in the white house and we can´t handle it".

useful idiots they were indeed for the GOP, but the republican party overplayed it's hand and put too much emphasys on them, forgetting that they are...well...idiots and wouldn´t necessarily do the right thing with all that political clout.

---

i have a lot of sympathy for the view expressed here:
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/to...the-tea-party/

Quote:

---

Official Washington is in near meltdown over Christine O’Donnell’s victory in the Delaware Republican primary. Senior Republicans are apoplectic that they will (in their view) fail to gain the Delaware seat and therefore cannot win control of the Senate (which was a long shot in any case).

There’s a glut of commentary and assumptions about the Tea Party and much of it is wrong. Here are some common mistakes:

1. The Tea Party will fade away. Christine O’Donnell’s victory confirms that it is a major electoral force. Many of those involved have not voted before. The movement is growing, not shrinking.

2. It will damage the Republican party. If the Republican party can harness its power, the electoral benefits could be huge. So far, the party hierarchy is being condescending and dismissive. But even if this continues, Republicans will benefit in November from the energy and excitement that the Tea Party is generating.

3. The Tea Party is racist. This charge is based on little more than a few signs that have appeared at some rallies (How many offensive signs are there an anti-war rallies? Many more than you can see at a Tea Party event) and some overheated statements by individuals. It’s essentially a Left-wing smear against the movement and it has failed.

4. Tea Party nominees are too extreme and will be defeated by Democrats in November. In isolated cases – including O’Donnell’s – this might be true. But Democrats are delusional is they think that a split on the right will save them in the mid-terms. For every Democrat who survives in this way, three or four will be swept away. And look at the polls in places like Kentucky and Florida where Rand Paul and Marco Rubio – until recently branded as unelectable – look like they’re on course for comfortable victories.

5. The Tea Party is part of the Republican party. It’s not. Tea partiers are conservatives but they have little interest in simply achieving a Republican Congress. Its ambitions are much bigger than that.

6. The Tea Party cannot elect a President. Until very recently, this seemed like a given. It now seems there is every chance that a Tea Party candidate – Sarah Palin? – can win the GOP nomination in 2012. And with the state the country’s in and the sinking popularity of President Barack Obama, theres every possibility that whoever the Republicans nominate will win.

7. The Tea Party can be told what to do. Republican leaders are finding out that this is simply not the case.

8. The Tea Party is full of loonies who believe masturbation is evil and dinosaur bones are fake. We’ll see a lot of citations of the “nutty” (K.Rove) opinions of Tea partiers – especially, for the next few days at least, by O’Donnell. But the broader Tea Party has little concern about social issues. It is primarily a low-tax, small-government movement.

9. The rise of the Tea Party shows that America is disintegrating. That’s certainly what you might think if you read all the liberal commentary about the Tea Party. But all this really illustrates is how the American elites have failed to grasp what is happening.

10. The Tea Party is an angry reaction to Obama’s 2008 victory, which was a true realignment of US politics. There was no political realignment in 2008. Obama won because he was anti-Bush and the country was in the mood for a complete change. It was not a mandate for increasing the national debt and growing government. While the Tea Party opposes Obama and all he stands for, it is not especially focussed on him personally. In fact, Congress – Democrats and Republicans – seems more unpopular than Obama among Tea partiers.

---

to write them off as a bunch of nutball racists is lazy and flawed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Flies have poor vision and poor hearing.

---

But they got exceptional smell. There is a lot about flies we don't understand, it still baffles me how they manage to land upside down on the ceiling for example.

Flies do that using small hooks on their feet. Far more interesting are ghekos that use Wan der Waals forces to do a similar trick.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

But they got exceptional smell. There is a lot about flies we don't understand, it still baffles me how they manage to land upside down on the ceiling for example.

---

How so? The hairs on their legs stick to the surface and keep them there, like spiders.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

How so? The hairs on their legs stick to the surface and keep them there, like spiders.

---

Yes but how do they get upside down, a salto mid-air? I feel it's important to ask such questions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fragony

Yes but how do they get upside down, a salto mid-air? I feel it's important to ask such questions.

---

They do a backwards somersault. They go to the ceiling, put their forward feet out to grab the ceiling, then use the momentum to pulls its body towards it, and thus land.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Flies do that using small hooks on their feet. Far more interesting are ghekos that use Wan der Waals forces to do a similar trick.

~:smoking:

---

Agreed were only beginning to realise the potential of trying to mimic the Gecko the engineerning applications of Wan der Waals forces are waaaay more interesting than debating with silly Tea Baggers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

They do a backwards somersault. They go to the ceiling, put their forward feet out to grab the ceiling, then use the momentum to pulls its body towards it, and thus land.

---

Yeah, that's how I do it too when I parkour my way up a tall building. Which I do daily. I haven't had a use for elevators for years. :book:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

They do a backwards somersault. They go to the ceiling, put their forward feet out to grab the ceiling, then use the momentum to pulls its body towards it, and thus land.

---

Whatever. Why would you try such a thing in the first place hmmm? What design would allow such stunting? Isn't like a fly thinks YES WE CAN. And does it. Truly mysterious creatures.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Yeah, that's how I do it too when I parkour my way up a tall building. Which I do daily. I haven't had a use for elevators for years. :book:

---

I never knew you was Alain Robert

Funniest comment I have seen:

The Tea Partiers were created by Republicans.

They devolved.

They rebelled.

They look and feel like Republicans.

There are many copies.

And they have a plan. (Maybe)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Funniest comment I have seen:

The Tea Partiers were created by Republicans.

They devolved.

They rebelled.

They look and feel like Republicans.

There are many copies.

And they have a plan. (Maybe)

---

Sarah Palin in a "Red Dress" I suppose it could work plus they already believe in a "One True God"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

You need to write porn books. I'm turned on now...

:laugh4:

---

Too bad you can't do anything about it. See your previous post for details. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaelic cowboy

Sarah Palin in a "Red Dress"

---

If that means the same as it does here, should have some change I can believe in somwhere. Palin = gilf

Yeah, I was thinking that they may lose this seat but overall it bodes well for them. We'll see though, I haven't looked at any polling.

since when did spam become acceptable here?:inquisitive:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

since when did spam become acceptable here?:inquisitive:

---

Since the thread title says Palin?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

than a blind shot in the dark.

---

Fortunately, norwegian women are quite hot, so I can leave the lights on...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

Well Obama is a Scoialist, and you guys need to get over it.

---

Due to a year of "Obama is a socialist babyeating terroristcommie", I am no longer able to tell whether such statements are actaully serious or just jokes...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Due to a year of "Obama is a socialist babyeating terroristcommie", I am no longer able to tell whether such statements are actaully serious or just jokes...

---

He obviously is a socialist though, even if he's on the Right in Europe he's the closest thing america has had to a real Socialist in about 30 years or so, it seems.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Yeah, I was thinking that they may lose this seat but overall it bodes well for them. We'll see though, I haven't looked at any polling.

---

42-53. :shame:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

He obviously is a socialist though, even if he's on the Right in Europe he's the closest thing america has had to a real Socialist in about 30 years or so, it seems.

---

By the loose-to-nonexistant definition of "socialist" in the current dialogue, Nixon would have been Chairman Mao (see Title IX, China, etc.) and Maggie Thatcher would be Lenin (NHS, etc.). But let's not the actual, you know, meaning of words get in our way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

By the loose-to-nonexistant definition of "socialist" in the current dialogue, Nixon would have been Chairman Mao (see Title IX, China, etc.) and Maggie Thatcher would be Lenin (NHS, etc.). But let's not the actual, you know, meaning of words get in our way.

---

All modern Europeans (exluding the absolute Fringe) believe in some form of state-socialism, even if it only extends to point-od-access healthcare and preventing children from dieing of poverty. Obama believes in these things, many in America don't.

America is far to the Right of Europe, to the extent that Obama has more in common with our David Cameron than David Milliband.

Well, I still find it curious (to the point of absurdity) when people fling the term "socialist" at anyone to the left of Genghis Khan. There's a little point about collective ownership and nationalization of profitable businesses that somehow gets left out of the conversation. To reach an equivalent level of sloppiness and dull thinking, let's make sure to label anyone to the right of Abbie Hoffman a "fascist." I mean, really. Do words mean anything anymore? I can live with "liberal" and "conservative" being used to describe the opposite of their definitions, but this thing with "socialist" just takes the cake.

Going slightly back on-topic, here's a report on O'Donnell's operation. One-sided, but still worth a gander.

And surprising absolutely no-one, a staffer who helper her go on and on about the evils of gays just came out. For a good length of time this young man was her only aide. His story is also worth a read.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

42-53. :shame:

---

Delaware is a blue state though, right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Well, I still find it curious (to the point of absurdity) when people fling the term "socialist" at anyone to the left of Genghis Khan. There's a little point about collective ownership and nationalization of profitable businesses that somehow gets left out of the conversation. To reach an equivalent level of sloppiness and dull thinking, let's make sure to label anyone to the right of Abbie Hoffman a "fascist." I mean, really. Do words mean anything anymore? I can live with "liberal" and "conservative" being used to describe the opposite of their definitions, but this thing with "socialist" just takes the cake.

---

I have spoken to Lemur before on this and I completely agree with him, as I have said earlier, which you brought up, he has far more with the right and our conservatives, than he is to socialism in any regard. America would be a far better place if Obama was actually a socialist, he would challenge the corporations and perhaps rescue America from them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla

He obviously is a socialist though, even if he's on the Right in Europe he's the closest thing america has had to a real Socialist in about 30 years or so, it seems.

---

Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha.....

*ahem*



Ahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha

Best. Summation. EVAR. (Contains exactly one f-bomb toward the end.)

Silly VB software won't let me embed this hilarious video. Why does it hate freedom?

Quote:

---

"The reason that you don't tell [people] that masturbation is the answer to AIDS and all these other problems that come with sex outside of marriage is because again, it is not addressing the issue," she said. "You're just gonna create somebody who is, I was gonna say, 'toying with his sexuality.' Pardon the pun."

---

So you're telling me it's this or closet muslims who want to make us commies?

I liked it better when politicians were just lying sex hounds.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

And they have a plan. (Maybe)

---

As much of a plan as the cyclons did at any rate.

Anyways, while this woman does not seem like a good candidate, the GOP establishment did need to get beaten around the head for all their mistakes. My hope is that the platitudes about small government and small budgets will be more than lip service in the future.

CR

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

America would be a far better place if Obama was actually a socialist, he would challenge the corporations and perhaps rescue America from them.

---

that is a judgement for the american people to make.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

that is a judgement for the american people to make.

---

No, no, it works.

*clears throat*

The UK would be a far better place if Cameron was actually a right-wing conservative; he would challenge the nanny state and prehaps rescue the British from it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

The UK would be a far better place if Cameron was actually a right-wing conservative; he would challenge the nanny state and prehaps rescue the British from it.

---

Only question would be "What is a true right-wing conservative?" but I have no problems with you saying your comment. :yes:

It does make you think, given the blandness of our MPs, that Common Purpose might have a point.

Christine O'Donnell on human mice, lying to Nazis, and the women of Middle Earth

Quote:

---

O'REILLY: Everybody knows that scientists have enough knowledge to clone a human being if they wanted to.

O'DONNELL: Right.

O'REILLY: But they're not, at least not that we know of. And now they're in the monkey realm. And I don't understand, if that's the possibility that people might be cured, why the objection. Because I never buy the slippery slope....

O'DONNELL: By their own admission these groups admitted that the report that said, "Hey, yay, we cloned a monkey. Now we're using this to start cloning humans." We have to...

O'REILLY: Let them admit anything they want. But they won't do that here in the United States unless all craziness is going on.

O'DONNELL: They are -- they are doing that here in the United States. American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains. So they're already into this experiment.

---

Is this real :beam: does she really think there cloning mice with fully functioning human brains. :laugh:

Methinks she and the republican voters of her state have misplaced there own brains somewhere.

My favorite is this quote

Quote:

---

O'DONNELL: A lie, whether it be a lie or an exaggeration, is disrespect to whoever you're exaggerating or lying to, because it's not respecting reality.

MAHER: Quite the opposite, it can be respect.

COMEDIAN EDDIE IZZARD: What if someone comes to you in the middle of the Second World War and says, 'do you have any Jewish people in your house?' and you do have them. That would be a lie. That would be disrespectful to Hitler....

O'DONNELL: I believe if I were in that situation, God would provide a way to do the right thing righteously. I believe that!

MAHER: God is not there. Hitler's there and you're there.

O'DONNELL: You never have to practice deception. God always provides a way out.

---

That sound we can all here from Delaware is the bottom of the barrel being scraped :laugh: it's priceless seriously is this the best Tea party candidate in the whole state surely not

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Vladimir

No, no, it works.

*clears throat*

The UK would be a far better place if Cameron was actually a right-wing conservative; he would challenge the nanny state and prehaps rescue the British from it.

---

The best part of our democracies, is that the existance of socialists makes the conservatives more able to govern, and the existance of conservatives makes the socialists more able to govern.

If they also alternate power every now and then, it becomes even better.

The Demopublicans will underestimate the tea party movement at their peril, same as the Republicrats have in the primaries. Both parties have more in common than their supposed differences suggest, but at least the tax & spend Dems are true to their ideology. The GOP talks the talk but doesn't walk the walk when in power, and are just as incapable/incompetent in governing as the Dems.
Most current pols of both parties are only concerned with keeping & increasing their own power & influence, lavishing patronage on friends & family, securing a fat pension and/or lobbying position after the political career is over. The political elite isn't so much afraid of the tea party candidates as individuals, but they do fear the awakening of the electorate that supports them. The establishment are the ones out of touch with the voters. People are pissed off to the highest level of passivity about this economy, and no incumbent from either party better take his reelection for granted. Go Carl Paladino!

Quote:

---

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win.

---

Agreed. This was a dumb move. Castle was no RINO, just a moderate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

The best part of our democracies, is that the existance of socialists makes the conservatives more able to govern, and the existance of conservatives makes the socialists more able to govern.

If they also alternate power every now and then, it becomes even better.

---

I'll have to agree with you there, I'd hate to have a single political force in perpetual power or worse being the only option.

I also hope that this Tea Party thing becomes a regular party, that way it can siphon away the ultra conservatives that I can't stand (the Christian version Wahibism etc). If it leaves a Republican Party that is intellectual and moderate then let the fringe go, the polarization of both parties is ridiculous at best and destructive at worst.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

The best part of our democracies, is that the existance of socialists makes the conservatives more able to govern, and the existance of conservatives makes the socialists more able to govern.

If they also alternate power every now and then, it becomes even better.

---

agreed, but it is a matter of degrees............ ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by spmetla

I'll have to agree with you there, I'd hate to have a single political force in perpetual power or worse being the only option.

I also hope that this Tea Party thing becomes a regular party, that way it can siphon away the ultra conservatives that I can't stand (the Christian version Wahibism etc). If it leaves a Republican Party that is intellectual and moderate then let the fringe go, the polarization of both parties is ridiculous at best and destructive at worst.

---

Indeed. McCain was too good a man to be associated with the rabble of the tea partiers, people like him do not deserve to be associated with him.

And when I say "they", I mean people like the retards who ruined the speech he made when he acknowledged defeat. That act was beyond criticism, they should all have been hanged, I say!

So many rich sub-themes.....good thread.


1. Rory: I cannot speak for the Protestant churches, but the Catholic Church has held the view that sex within a consecrated marriage is not soley for procreation but is an expression of the couples' love for one another and, by extension, an expression of God's love. The narrow view -- menopause ends sex etc. -- has been discarded for some time now.

2. Delaware IS a "blue" state and ANY Republican has an uphill battle for a win there. GOP leadership, by taking the stance they did in the primaries, provided the grass roots conservatives of that state with a LOT of motivation to support O'Donnell. That motivation will carry into November and she will have a strong turnout of her supporters. Nor, despite the hopes of some of the leftie pundits, will there be a lot of GOP deserters voting for the Dems. The question was, is, and will be: Can the Democrats get enough of their core voters motivated to show up at the Delaware polls? If they do, then they win -- their core constituency has the numbers (and that was true for Castle as well). If they do NOT turn out that vote, then a motivated minority could achieve a plurality and she could win.

GOP hierarchy rationale pretty much ends up being: DE is liberal, so if we run a reasonably popular moderate/lib Republican the Dem core voters won't be too jazzed one way or the other and our superior organization and funding will let us win. They believe a conservative will polarize things, turn out the Dem core, and generate a defeat. By contrast, the Tea Party wing is looking at things from a different perspective. They truly believe that electing a moderate runs counter to their goals because many GOP moderates vote with the GOP on procedural issues and vote frequently with the Dems on substantive issues. The Tea Partyers view committee chairs etc. as less important than being able to filibuster without the filibuster being broken OR being able to stop an opposing filibuster.

3. Lemur: I have to agree that the USA tends to use different defs on a lot of these political labels than are actually in a dictionary. The problem is that people vote with their tongues and change meanings to suit themselves. "Humongous" is now a word and "slut" has apparently become a compliment...go figure. What you are decrying is no more than normal here in the USA -- we like our labels nicely black and white and don't want to bother with all of the manifold shades of gray in between as it takes too long for a soundbite.

4. Masturbation quotations. In my opinion, this is just one more bit of proof that politics has changed forever in the electronic world. You wil always be held accountable for everything you have ever said ever to anyone anywhere because it has been recorded and some person will gleefully post it and use it to make you look like a rectal sphincter the moment you go into politics. Therefore, we will have an even greater trend toward candidates without baggage -- which they will achieve by never having said, done, or thought anything that wasn't pablum. We are self-selecting our politicians of the future in such a manner that virtually ANYBODY of substance will avoid political office as readily as they would avoid eating a smallpox-laden petri dish Jello dessert.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh

What you are decrying is no more than normal here in the USA -- we like our labels nicely black and white and don't want to bother with all of the manifold shades of gray in between as it takes too long for a soundbite.

---

I understand what you're saying, and I love the flexibility and organic growth of the English language, but ... there's more at work here. There's something downright Orwellian in the perversion of political labels, the deliberate stripping of all meaning from language in politics. "Socialist" is a great example. 90% of the people who call this politician or that policy "socialist" don't appear to know what the word means, or ever meant. The other 10% are like yourself, content to let the malapropism slide for personal, philosophical or political reasons. But perverting language is a nasty game, and it comes at a cost.

Example: I have a relative who is a very smart lady. Wildly successful business consultant, self-made fortune, reads almost as much as I do, etc. She's come under the Tea Party's spell, I'm afraid to say. And this very smart woman, whom I respect deeply, told me less than a week ago that my home state, Wisconsin, is "socialist." She was not being ironic, she was not being humorous, she was as serious as a heart attack. Somehow the birthplace of the Republican party, the #2 dairy state, the manufacturing powerhouse that is Wisconsin is "socialist."

I didn't bother arguing with her. It's as if someone tells you with a straight face that reindeer are a negro-Freemason conspiracy. It's so off-the-wall-loony that there's just no point in going into it.

But because "socialist" has been strip-mined of any meaning, this otherwise intelligent woman feels perfectly at ease using it to describe anything. Since language has stopped being a tool for communication and become a sort of political-positioning moose call, I might describe my grapefruit as "socialist" and be exactly as correct as this woman or Phillipvs. That's not the organic growth of the English language; that's forced devolution. That's the willful act of discarding meaning. That's exactly the sort of linguistic postmodernism that you would find disgusting were it used for any other purpose than scoring points for the home team.

Well I know of another word that's thoroughly post-modern by now: gay.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro

Delaware is a blue state though, right?

---

Castle, the moderate Republican that O'Donnell defeated, was polling much higher than his Democratic opponent, Chris Coons. Deleware shifted from an easy Republican pick up to an easy Democratic one, and with it went the Republican chances for the Senate.

I thought we - the Right - were all working towards the same common goal, but these Tea Party rednecks seem to be operating on their own agenda. They're more interested in their own personal power instead of cleaning up the fiscal disaster the current officeholder has wrought.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

I thought we - the Right - were all working towards the same common goal, but these Tea Party rednecks seem to be operating on their own agenda. They're more interested in their own personal power instead of cleaning up the fiscal disaster the current President has wrought.

---

You mean the one Bush caused and Obama is attempting to clear up, since the whole Credit crunch happened before Obama was even elected?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

You mean the one Bush caused and Obama is attempting to clear up, since the whole Credit crunch happened before Obama was even elected?

---

possibly even clinton could take the credit since he encouraged fannie and freddie to pursue 'social' lending...............?

Yeah but you got to admit that Bush sort of pushed the American economy a few flights of stairs further to the abyss of a 3rd world economy (dominated by its debts to the point it cannot even pay the interest on the debt). He might've done it for a noble cause or just 'cause he liked being photographed in front of military kit; but it sure cost the American taxpayer a lot of dollars.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

You mean the one Bush caused and Obama is attempting to clear up, since the whole Credit crunch happened before Obama was even elected?

---

No.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

possibly even clinton could take the credit since he encouraged fannie and freddie to pursue 'social' lending...............?

---

Well actually the big Tea Party issue is the federal deficit which Bush, a Republican, allowed to balloon under his presidency. Don't tell the Republicans that though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tibilicus

Well actually the big Tea Party issue is the federal deficit which Bush, a Republican, allowed to balloon under his presidency. Don't tell the Republicans that though.

---

This thread is about how the Tea Partiers are fed up with the republicans letting the deficit balloon.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

No.

---

Yes, because Obama was elected right at the start of it and was there during the full swing. So you are misrepresenting the facts, because you are only focused on one source of data, not the context.

The 'bailout' and 'stimulus' while highly unfavorable were necessary, the Republicans would have done the same, or have experienced an armed revolution if they didn't due to mass employment and the complete collapse of the economy.

Also, that graph is entirely wrong, it is not even the year 2019 so they are just claims just attempting to make him look bad. I think the Labour and the Republicans have lot in common, ex-political parties who were causes to a crisis and attacking the current governments for the mess they themselves created.

It's a good thing Republicans never passed massive, deficit-tripling unfunded entitlements for old people. Or passed massive tax cuts of dubious economic value, thus ballooning the deficit even further. Oh, wait, they did all of that. Along with two wars China funded, for which my kids will receive the bill.

Please. "Republican" and "fiscal responsibility" have been mutually exclusive terms for my entire lifetime. The nice thing about having Dems in power for a little while is watching the Republicans experience a second (third? fourth?) virginity about deficits; once they're in power again they'll spread their legs for massive entitlements and unpaid-for everything again.

Unless, of course, the Tea Party can have a lasting impact beyond being the militia of Beckistan. If they can roll past the race-baiting, the social issues, and actually focus on deficits they might scare the Republican leadership into paying attention to the concept of fiscal responsibility. That's a whole lot of variables that need to line up, but it could happen. Maybe. Possibly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

It's a good thing Republicans never passed massive, deficit-tripling unfunded entitlements for old people. Or passed massive tax cuts of dubious economic value, thus ballooning the deficit even further. Oh, wait, they did all of that. Along with two wars China funded, for which my kids will receive the bill.

Please. "Republican" and "fiscal responsibility" have been mutually exclusive terms for my entire lifetime. The nice thing about having Dems in power for a little while is watching the Republicans experience a second (third? fourth?) virginity about deficits; once they're in power again they'll spread their legs for massive entitlements and unpaid-for everything again.

Unless, of course, the Tea Party can have a lasting impact beyond being the militia of Beckistan. If they can roll past the race-baiting, the social issues, and actually focus on deficits they might scare the Republican leadership into paying attention to the concept of fiscal responsibility. That's a whole lot of variables that need to line up, but it could happen. Maybe. Possibly.

---

I don't really know much about the other T.E.A. *Taxed Enough Already* party candidates. The problem with depending on the mainstream media for info is that they do the established party's bidding, so their reporting is skewed and mostly negative. I'm more concerned with my state, New York, this election. The man I want representing me for Governor, Carl Paladino. There's no such thing as an ideal candidate, but I'll take Carl over the anointed one, Prince Andrew Cuomo, any day. I suggest my fellow New Yorkers do the same, unless they like the status quo that Prince Andrew represents...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Beskar

Yes, because Obama was elected right at the start of it and was there during the full swing. So you are misrepresenting the facts, because you are only focused on one source of data, not the context.

---

Which facts am I misrepresenting?

Quote:

---

The 'bailout' and 'stimulus' while highly unfavorable were necessary, the Republicans would have done the same, or have experienced an armed revolution if they didn't due to mass employment and the complete collapse of the economy.

---

Whether the bailouts were necessary or not is debatable on a case by case basis. The stimulus was not at all necessary (or effective), nor was the 600 billion borrowed to kick off the health care overhaul or the litany of other spending orgies this administration has embarked on. You seem to be under the impression it all has to do with Obama's failed Keynesian efforts.

Quote:

---

Also, that graph is entirely wrong, it is not even the year 2019 so they are just claims just attempting to make him look bad..

---

Hehe. Guess whose numbers those are?

Some people seem to be confused. Maybe a trip on the debt highway will help?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5yx...layer_embedded

You know what I don't understand is this whole fascination with Small Government how is that gonna work?? Are they just give all that power away

Things like healthcare and the military are things probably tea party people have most contact with and thats the biggest part of government

As a Pennsylvanian, I'd rather have a have a Democrat win a senate seat than end up with another Arlen Specter. The math for the GOP taking the senate was a bit dubious anyway, and Delaware doesn't make much difference. :shrug:

Honestly, I (and obviously many other primary voters) are sick of the 'support the team over policy' mentality that much of the GOP leadership still seems to have. After they screwed up their majorities in the Bush years, they tell us- don't give up on the GOP, you can still change it from withing. Well guess what? That's what they're doing.

On the "socialism" tangent... What's happening in the US is, in my opinion, worse than socialism- crony capitalism, corporate welfare, government over regulation, ect. In most cases, the government doesn't actually own the means of production, but it's still playing favorites and picking winners and losers. Legislators passing regulations that funnel money to their pet causes or eliminate their competition may not be socialism in the literal sense, but I don't get my panties in a bunch if some people use it as shorthand for the phenomena. However, if it were real socialism, it might be a little less corrupt.... maybe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Which facts am I misrepresenting?

Whether the bailouts were necessary or not is debatable on a case by case basis. The stimulus was not at all necessary (or effective), nor was the 600 billion borrowed to kick off the health care overhaul or the litany of other spending orgies this administration has embarked on. You seem to be under the impression it all has to do with Obama's failed Keynesian efforts.

---

That's the big problem. Obama is mainly simply pushing through the policies he was elected on, at a very poor moment of time. The thing is that McCain wouldn't be that much better because neither had the mandate for debt decrease at the election.

And that's the really bad part, since a budget fixer would be raising taxes and cutting/reforming down expenses. Does anybody feel that there's room for such a politician in the US atm? It's needed from either Obama or his opposition in the next election.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Unless, of course, the Tea Party can have a lasting impact beyond being the militia of Beckistan. If they can roll past the race-baiting, the social issues, and actually focus on deficits they might scare the Republican leadership into paying attention to the concept of fiscal responsibility. That's a whole lot of variables that need to line up, but it could happen. Maybe. Possibly.

---

Should the Tea Party movement take power atm, we would see a big tax cuts (since it will "obviously" create a bigger pie by default) and massive inconsiderate slashes in the budget. So the problem with the Tea Party is if they're content with fiscal responsibility or their extremely limited version of "fiscal responsibility". If it's the second, then it's a really biiig mess.

And simply because I found this. Appearently a large reason on why the budget is going even more out of control is because of massive tax cuts under Socialist Obama (tm). :wall:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

On the "socialism" tangent... What's happening in the US is, in my opinion, worse than socialism- crony capitalism, corporate welfare, government over regulation, ect. In most cases, the government doesn't actually own the means of production, but it's still playing favorites and picking winners and losers. Legislators passing regulations that funnel money to their pet causes or eliminate their competition may not be socialism in the literal sense, but I don't get my panties in a bunch if some people use it as shorthand for the phenomena. However, if it were real socialism, it might be a little less corrupt.... maybe

---

Well the simplest boon of having a goverment owned company is that if they screw you over to get more money to their stockholders, you're one of the stockholders in the first place. Easier to keep them in line with good media and transperent goverment as well.

In another note, as a free-marketeer, why should a rich comapany in a oligopolic market (that occurs in the late age of a capital investive market) play by the rules? It is inhibitive to profits after all.

FiveThirtyEight runs the numbers and agrees almost entirely with Panzer:

A comeback by Ms. O’Donnell is not impossible, the forecasting model gives it only a 6 percent likelihood of happening — and has established Mr. Coons, therefore, as a 94 percent favorite. Had Republican voters selected Mr. Castle instead, the numbers would be exactly the opposite: Mr. Castle would be the 94 percent favorite to win the seat, leaving Mr. Coons with just a 6 percent chance of an upset.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

FiveThirtyEight runs the numbers and agrees almost entirely with Panzer:

A comeback by Ms. O’Donnell is not impossible, the forecasting model gives it only a 6 percent likelihood of happening — and has established Mr. Coons, therefore, as a 94 percent favorite. Had Republican voters selected Mr. Castle instead, the numbers would be exactly the opposite: Mr. Castle would be the 94 percent favorite to win the seat, leaving Mr. Coons with just a 6 percent chance of an upset.

---

What does it say about people in Delaware and more specifically the Tea Party in Delaware that they vote for a career politician with a string of bad debt who believes people hide in her garden and that mad scientists are cloning mice with human brains.

If she wins or loses it reflects bad on the State

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I don't get my panties in a bunch if some people use [socialism] as shorthand for the phenomena.

---

I suspect that's because you agree with their position; were equivalent sloppiness/laziness used by those whom you oppose, you would object. As I said previously, instead of using language to describe or communicate, you're accepting it as political-stance moose call.

Your description of what's troubling about the current admin is much more on the mark. Why settle for (utterly inaccurate) tub thumping?

I am reminded of Pindar, who would dissect the language of those whom he opposed in the most picayune, lawyerly manner, and then respond to a right-wing rant of utter incoherence with approbation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

I suspect that's because you agree with their position; were equivalent sloppiness/laziness used by those whom you oppose, you would object. As I said previously, instead of using language to describe or communicate, you're accepting it as political-stance moose call.

---

Agreed with Lemur. Why not call it "Failings of the Free Market" or simply "The Free Market" ? Same thing, isn't it, as Corporate Cronyism and Corruption owns your government.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Furunculus

to write them off as a bunch of nutball racists is lazy and flawed.

---

I am not saying they are the KKK...they are not openly racist, some of the individual's involved would even claim not to have racist views at all if directly asked.
but if you ask some questions, proble a little deeper, it's there deep down in some, a lot closer to the surface in others.....it's no coincidence this movement flared up as soon as it became apparent that Obama could win the presidency.

these people are enamored with a view of the 'good ol' days' and freaked out that it's being taken away from them....even if it was never as they remembered it anyway.
back in the good ol days when certain people knew their place and taxes were low.....don´t mention to them that their 'saint' Reagan actually raised taxes.

I wonder how is it gonna fly that their new darling Christine o'Donnell (A.K.A. - Palin 2.0) used to be a practicing witch....that should be fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PanzerJaeger

Some people seem to be confused. Maybe a trip on the debt highway will help?

---

Doesn't account for the facts and context (again), namely, the partial economic collapse which is responsible for the debt, as the government is trying to bail-out the economy and save it from ruin.

Now you have an economy in the middle of the boom years (Bush) going into debt massively, now there is the partial collapse of the American economy which significantly decreases tax revenue and the forking out of money attempting to save it. No wonder the "mph" is higher, it is logical.

A better model would be this:

You have a careering businessman (Bush jr) who has his own business, receiving a higher and higher income over the years. Instead of investing this money, he spends it out, going into debt, on the logic of "I will get more and pay it off on the never ever"

His company ends up having accounting problems and ends up going heading into administration (Obama takes over). The businessman's only solution to save the company is invest money into it. Unfortunately, during the boom years, the increasing the debt is a cause of concern. Due to the economic cut backs, he is also receiving far less income as customers don't have as much money. Which means the debt is ending up accelerated.




Though Ron Paul if he got elected would have been an interesting choice...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ronin

I am not saying they are the KKK...they are not openly racist, some of the individual's involved would even claim not to have racist views at all if directly asked.
but if you ask some questions, proble a little deeper, it's there deep down in some, a lot closer to the surface in others.....it's no coincidence this movement flared up as soon as it became apparent that Obama could win the presidency.

these people are enamored with a view of the 'good ol' days' and freaked out that it's being taken away from them....even if it was never as they remembered it anyway.
back in the good ol days when certain people knew their place and taxes were low.....don´t mention to them that their 'saint' Reagan actually raised taxes.

I wonder how is it gonna fly that their new darling Christine o'Donnell (A.K.A. - Palin 2.0) used to be a practicing witch....that should be fun.

---

I'm a US conservative and find myself in sympathy with much of the TEA party agenda. I think you are seriously overstating the racism component. Most of us are happy that a person of African parentage got into the White House -- but we'd have rather had it be J.C. Watts instead. Obama's breaking of that color barrier was one of the things I like most about his Presidency.