Barney Frank isn't a Senator ... he's a Congressman.

 

Chris Dodd? Mitch McConnell? You or I may not like them, but what makes then nutjobs?

 

To me a nutjob is someone who cannot differentiate the truth from a lie, and those two have that down to a science. You can tell they are off their rocker when their lips are moving.

I don't know why, but as I read about O'Donnell the name Annie Wilkes keeps coming to mind.

To me a nutjob is someone who cannot differentiate the truth from a lie, and those two have that down to a science. You can tell they are off their rocker when their lips are moving.

What have they lied about?

That they are public servants and are protecting America and her families.

That they are public servants and are protecting America and her families.

Explain ...

Glenn Beck sure seems to be going out of his way to marry the religious right to the tea party. From reading some of the reactions to his "revival" on this board, it sounds like it may have been pretty successful.

 

So because Glenn Beck is trying to tie the tea party and religious people together, ALL people of the tea party are....religious fanatics and all they do is "throw bibles at problems?

 

One point of my previous post was that the initial agenda of the tea party was to restore individual rights. The other point is that you don't have to be a religious fanatic to support them or be apart of them.

So because Glenn Beck is trying to tie the tea party and religious people together, ALL people of the tea party are....religious fanatics and all they do is "throw bibles at problems?

 

One point of my previous post was that the initial agenda of the tea party was to restore individual rights. The other point is that you don't have to be a religious fanatic to support them or be apart of them.

 

That's all fine and dandy, but the fact is for Republicans to avoid something ugly happening over the next few election cycles -- i.e., not being able to capitalize on Obama's polarizing presence -- they need to marry the two camps, since two groups of fringe whackos have a lot more electoral voice than just one.

 

As far as your first statement, that is in no way, shape or form what I said. I said that Beck is trying to marry the two groups together, and that his recent "revival" rolls right along with the prevailing idea of hardcore social conservatives that throwing bibles at problems is the only solution, kind of like those folks who long for "simpler times" and "the good 'ol days" when women, blacks, gays, Hispanics and other minorities "knew their place."

What have they lied about?

 

That they are public servants and are protecting America and her families.

 

Explain ...

 

I don't know as much about Chris Dodd, but I do know McConnell all too well. And facts are facts, his actions are only in the best interests of his party, and not Kentuckians or Americans as a whole.

I don't know as much about Chris Dodd, but I do know McConnell all too well. And facts are facts, his actions are only in the best interests of his party, and not Kentuckians or Americans as a whole.

I agree with you on McConnell ...

The Tea Party is a fascinating thing...to see how it all plays out. Is it a flash in the pan for one election period? Will it be absorbed into the Republican Party in some way? Or will it continue to gain traction moving forward and possibly change politics in America?

 

I could see any of the three happening.

 

Good points. These are the questions I think are being overlooked in the back and forth over whether we agree with or like the tea party. It’s no surprise there is an anti-incumbency fervor due to the prolonged state of a very bad economy, seemingly with no end in sight. What is interesting is that the rightward shift has even taken hold within the Republican party, creating some intraparty turmoil. This isn’t like 1994 or 2006. Without knowing how these “tea-party” candidates will do in the fall or the state of the economy during the next election cycle, my estimation is that this will be a one-time occurrence. Once in government, I’m not sure how these candidates will fare. They will be faced with the tradeoff of voting along the Republican line and participating in policymaking, thus being associated with the establishment, or voting along their ideology and be marginalized. In either instance they severely worsen their electability and popularity for the next cycle – they lose their luster with general voters, establishment type Republicans can say “see, we told you so,” and tea-party candidates lose their viability. Scott Brown was swept in as a tea-party backed conservative, but has thus far voted more closely to a Northeastern Republican. He has lost the support of the tea-party, but he’s making himself more electable to Massachusetts voters next cycle. So, in answer to 5wide’s question, I see this movement as a flash in the pan. I think the economy will have to suffer more while tea-partiers will have to keep distance from the Republican establishment for it to endure.

Yeah, but most of them don't have their party's nomination to the U.S. Senate ...

 

Sure they do.

Sure they do.

Who?

That's all fine and dandy, but the fact is for Republicans to avoid something ugly happening over the next few election cycles -- i.e., not being able to capitalize on Obama's polarizing presence -- they need to marry the two camps, since two groups of fringe whackos have a lot more electoral voice than just one.

 

As far as your first statement, that is in no way, shape or form what I said. I said that Beck is trying to marry the two groups together, and that his recent "revival" rolls right along with the prevailing idea of hardcore social conservatives that throwing bibles at problems is the only solution, kind of like those folks who long for "simpler times" and "the good 'ol days" when women, blacks, gays, Hispanics and other minorities "knew their place."

 

Yes, I can see where you can compare the hardcore social conservatives with the folks in the "simple times".

 

"that his recent "revival" rolls right along with the prevailing idea of hardcore social conservatives that throwing bibles at problems is the only solution, kind of like those folks who long for "simpler times" and "the good 'ol days" when women, blacks, gays, Hispanics and other minorities "knew their place.[/b]"

 

That maybe the most ridiculous statement I have read. How do you even compare the two? I seriously have to question ones intelligence when someone posts this type of garbage on here.

 

The irony is that the tea party stands for the exact opposite. Like I said in my previous post. They stand for individualism. They don't care about race, color, or any other minorities. They're about less government. Less taxes, less spending.

As far as your first statement, that is in no way, shape or form what I said. I said that Beck is trying to marry the two groups together, and that his recent "revival" rolls right along with the prevailing idea of hardcore social conservatives that throwing bibles at problems is the only solution, kind of like those folks who long for "simpler times" and "the good 'ol days" when women, blacks, gays, Hispanics and other minorities "knew their place."

Oh, you mean Democrats. :lol:

Oh, you mean Democrats. :lol:

 

Yup. Most of whom flocked to the GOP after the Civil Rights Act passed.