A ********** controlled country

Exactly...and that is why it scares the left so very much. The only folk who see them as extreme are a far smaller minority much further out of the mainstream.

 

I thought the great purge of 2006/2008/ and 2010 at the polls pretty much removed those old country club RINO's from consideration....I am also confused how a group supported by 1/3 of the country can be a minority of a party far smaller.

 

Yes, it is scary for the left when an elderly group of well dressed folk chant anti leftist slogans...

 

yeah um, I could continue this discussion now but last night kinda got..out of hand.

 

Anyone that believes any one system of govt is "the best" is foolish, at best. History has proven, over and over and over and over again, that no single form of govt that man has developed, last long. From my limited memory, I seem to recall that Republics and Autocracies seem to hold the records for longevity, But, I could be wrong. What we pitifully stupid humans must do, is work within all the known forms and pick and choose. Currently, America is doing just that, with some forms of autocracy, some republicanism, some democracy, some socialism and some of many other things. As long as we stay away from theocracy, I believe we will be ok. Our founding fathers knew this, that is why they created a nation as a republic with bits and pieces from many times and places and a tiny bit of original thought. As long as America can continue on its way, trying this and that, looking towards the future of ALL, not just a few, this nation will continue.

But, when fools, try to force ONE way on us, we will end up as all other nations in the past have ended up--HISTORY!!!

Without the socialistic method of taxing YOU to create an armed force to defend ALL, this nation would NOT exist. So, get off your foolish high horse of rants and raves and try addressing issues, not emotion. Please--You could add a lot, if you would choose to.

 

I recall a million idiots (and I mean that in a nice way, since I was one of them)at Woodstock, let me know when the idiots of the tea party gather enough fools to equal that event.

 

Who says they're a minority of the party?
Actually the beauty of it is that they're large enough to dominate a party... but not the nation.
Basically by showing up to primaries (like most voting Americans, sadly, don't), they launched an attack on establishment GOP.
Congrats.
You killed the folks who made it possible for anything to get done.
You hunted down the RINOs that enable the GOP to appear a center-right party rather than a far-right party.

Do the math.
Unless this is reversed, that 1/3 of the population will be all that's left of the Republican Party.
The RINOs will simply look for greener pastures. And their constituents will follow.

 

I have been to 6 tea party "events". At all of these, I have personally known many that were there. Nearly all of the ones have never changed their minds on anything, they were indoctrinated by their parents and grandparents and gave up thinking long ago and they have no idea what compromise means. I knew this about them decades before the tea party came to be. I worked side by side with them and listened to their rants and raves for more than 50 years. They will not change, they will not listen. It is amazing how they lack the ability to listen. At my place of employment, our company often got us together to explain things - like new policies, new insurance plans, new benefits, wage increases and on and on. After leaving these meetings and going back to the locker rooms or work, it was amazing to listen to them expound on what they HEARD. Notone in twenty could give even a half-accurate version of what was said in the meetings. After a few years, more than a couple began coming to me after the meetings to9 get me to explain. If these people cannot understand such simple things as go on in a business every day, it is unreasonable to think they might understand govt.

 

we cannot even get back to the moon today, in fact we can no longer even put a man in orbit, we have to beg rides to earth orbit with the Russians and you talk of going to other planets.. Explain how you could move billions to say, mars, which will not even support human life. Have you got a pocket, faster than light device that will take us to thousands of other solar systems in the hope we might find another earth-like planet? What are you going to do, bring oil back from Venus, with a surface temperature of over 800 degrees, to use on the earth? Please explain how other planets will help us, when we run out of oil?

 

Then you still have a long way to go. Get the number of kids down to 1.3, then the population growth MIGHT begin to look better.

 

Yep to both, and if you want to bring the budget to a balanced situation, with all debts paid up, then the logical thing is to reduce the income of all to the same level. Allow everyone a 10 percent disposable income and take the rest to balance the budget. The rich would still come out way ahead, since 10 percent of 200,000 is 20,000, while ten percent of 50 thousand is only 5 thousand. But, in a short time, the bills would be paid, the budget balanced and wow, we cut cut taxes to the bone, or better yet, go to the FAIR TAX plan.

 

Focus on the immediate, forget tomorrow, in other words-[---
DON'T WORRY, BE HAPPY!!!

 

ROFLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLLOLOLOLOLOLLOLO

ROFLMFAOff lolololololololololollolololololollolo.

 

Whewww, I thought you were another nut wanting to base money on gold or silver or sand or lice or some such nonsense.

 

I refuse to watch media NEWS--which is designed to get ratings. I am old fashioned in a modern way, I subscribe to 23 online news papers from around the world, to get different news on the same happenings.

 

Since I worked for Lipton Tea for a number of years, I have no problem with the term TEA BAG. And locally, here is this town with a tea bag plant, I have heard the TEA PARTY, referred to as the TEA BAG PARTY over and over and over. so, Since I dont listen to media rants and raves, I took the name from what it is commonly called around here. I would think that since the TEA party was about tea taxes and the new party is named after it, but more modern that the TEA BAG party would be appropriate, since tea bags are more modern.

 

What...in tarnations...are you talking about?

 

Ya well...personally I think most of them are about as dull as a bread knife...but I thought it would be a good idea to try to get along with these bread knives to see if any sort of cooperative spirit can be achieved.

Your president wants to try this...so I thought we could try it too...as an experiment.

You know...I quit pointing out how dull you are...and you try real hard to be civil and stick to the facts as they are, and not as you would want them to be.

So far I have top admit...it hasn't been going "swimmingly"...lol

 

YES!

Let's face it...multi-tasking is certainly not one of their strong suites...
Hell crossing the street without a map is not one of their strong suites...but like I said...this is an experiment...let's try to not poison it by making insulting remarks...like the ones I'm making in this post...LOL

 

But they are larger by a good bit than the left, which dominates the country.

What we did was remove folk just itching to make a name for themselves enabling democrats and voting as THEY desire (for the love of the media) and not as the folk who elected them desire. I once had Susan Collins tell me to my face how she was going to vote on an issue and then, less than week later, she voted the other way.

While we cannot get rid of them all, we CAN and will reduce their numbers to the point that back stabbing the party will not lead to gains for the dems.

If they had any serious number of voters, they would not have been purged.

 

There you have it kiddies.
The T-Baggers are actively trying to take over the GOP.

NOW you can be scared!

 

I'm sure this has been mentioned but just in case you might have missed it...

THE TEA PARTY ISN'T AN ACTUAL POLITICAL PARTY. They are a group of ideological people who are concerned not only with the democrats radical spending, but the lose canons of the right as well. We don’t have a label to assign. There have been Democrats supported as well as Republicans supported. It isn’t about the labels with this grass roots movement. Hell, you could have CC (for Circus clown) behind you name and as long as you show your wanting to bring back civility of this country and stop the socialist movement to the left, you’d have my vote.

 

The left does not dominate the country.
I've been paying attention long enough to note the nutty way the right characterizes this.

First they define "far left" as anything that doesn't match their ideals. Currently "Third Way" Democrats, the centrists of the '90s, are defined as "the far left" and put in the same boat as Kucinich, Sanders, Karl Marx, etc. Rockefeller Republicans are hunted as RINOs, considered part of the "left" if not the "far left".

Then, when discussing the population, they consider everyone who is against the actual far left (or, to be honest, a strawman version of the far left) is considered to be part of the conservative big tent... or at least anti-left. The very Rockefeller Republicans and triangulationists they demonize when discussing ideology, they consider part of their coalition when talking politically.

So when center-to-center-left policies dominate, The Left dominates!
Then conservatives use an us-or-them frame to win over less attentive centrists to the frame that the Left is dominating.
Meanwhile policy moves more and more to the right, but somehow balance is never achieved! And when someone inches a little to the left, it's a (*)(*)(*)(*)ing commie revolution!

Save it. You're not going to sell me that BS, so I sincerely hope you're not directing it to me.

It's called politics.
"RINOs" tend to dominate in center-to-center-left districts. Just like Blue Dogs dominate in center-to-center-right districts. They are the most vulnerable to losses in the general elections. Primary threats basically make it impossible for these politicians to exist at all, and yet they win for a reason! Despite the Tea Party's assumption that they represent the masses everywhere except San Francisco, moderates win in moderate districts because they represent the people there!
All you're doing is making it impossible for them to win as Republicans. Eventually they'll give up trying and run as Democrats or Independents. Eventually the public will catch on to where their preferred candidates are (if Democrats still lose to Tea Partiers in these districts, party leaders will GLADLY bring in RINOs as Democrats and foster their primary wins) and the Republican Party will die in those districts.

You mean if they had voters who show up at partisan primaries?
Most moderates don't have such a following. They represent the so-called "silent majority" that is convinced the parties are both too extreme.
In my state, it's possible to show up for the other party's primary if you give up on your own, but in others people have to register as part of a party.
And in general only the politically active partisans attend primaries. I wish it wasn't that way, but it is.

But when extremists win the primary it decreases the chances of the candidate winning the general.
Eventually you guys will learn.

My question is why you guys don't just move to more conservative districts? After all that's the argument you guys use for extreme states' rights positions.
Tea Partiers are too delusional for that. They think they rule everywhere.

Meanwhile their approval rating has dropped to < 30%. In other words, now ONLY THE TEA PARTY HAS A POSITIVE OPINION OF THE TEA PARTY!

 

I've noticed this too. Richard Nixon created the EPA, the CBO, and had a plan for universal insurance coverage with a mandate. But today he would be called a socialist. Isn't that ironic?

Anyway, Reagan also raised taxes after he cut them,he did not want to privatize social security, and wanted to try terrorists in civilian courts, "Another important measure we have developed in our overall strategy is applying the rule of law to terrorists. Terrorists are criminals. They commit criminal actions like murder, kidnapping, and arson, and countries have laws to punish criminals. So a major element of our strategy has been to delegitimize terrorists, to get society to see them for what they are -- criminals -- and to use democracy's most potent tool, the rule of law against them." (http://www.disam.dsca.mil/pubs/Vol 10-2/Bremer.pdf)

What bout nuclear weapons? Well Reagan wanted to eliminate them! http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1986/50786c.htm and http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/speeches/1986/072986e.htm.

"We do not seek the Strategic Defense Initiative to enable us to be safe from their weapons while we still have our offensive weapons to shoot at them -- not in any way. We look at the Strategic Defense Initiative -- if our research develops that there is such a practical system, then we look at that as the means of getting everybody in the world, including ourselves, to get rid of their nuclear missiles. And we're doing our share. We've responded constructively. We've made clear our serious desire for a better relationship with the Soviet Union. But now the ball is in the Soviet court. As I said in Glassboro, if both sides genuinely want progress, then this could represent a turning point in the effort to make ours a safer and more peaceful world."

And then there is of course Reagan granting amnesty to illegal immigrants. Most of the right already knows this one, they just like to pretend it didn't happen.

So Reagan would DEFINITELY not be welcome in the Tea Party or the current Republican Party. But those two sides still like to claim he is their idol. It's tough when facts get in the way of a good story!

 

All of this is so unavoidably obvious... maybe pity is in order for the deluded...