GOP poll: Tea party movement could cost Republicans in 2012

24 Jun 2011 18:43 #101 by Blazer Bob

WayneH wrote: [Here's what it means: I have commented several times that you are unlike any of my Jewish friends, or any Jewish people I have ever met and I think your confrontational, name-calling online persona, while playing the Jewish card, gives all Jews a bad name. None that I've ever met get involved in confrontations and name calling as you do.

Not only do you give the Tea Party a bad name as an in-your-face, name-calling twit, you give those in your faith a bad name, IMO.

That's not anti-Semitic. It's the truth.


I thought the left did not believe in profiling. :lol:

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

24 Jun 2011 18:55 #102 by CinnamonGirl

WayneH wrote: I'm pretty sure that was satire. I don't think she really believes he's in the KKK.

Even Grady was joking about the robes, but you didn't get offended then, did you?


Okay, I will let THIS ONE go.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

24 Jun 2011 21:08 #103 by Wayne Harrison

neptunechimney wrote:
I thought the left did not believe in profiling. :lol:


You need to look up the definition of profiling. But you're correct. It's the right that believes in profiling, not the left.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

25 Jun 2011 01:29 #104 by ScienceChic

Nmysys wrote: Now SC. Apparently you spoke to someone else in the Tea Party about posting in OUR forum,

No, I spoke to you too, and you provided input on how to open it up - I bought you lunch at that meeting that I requested when we discussed the Tea Party Forum and how to start making it useful, after I became owner and started addressing items that had been languishing.

and yes, you are the owner, but you are proving to me that because of your left leaning political bent, that you spin things the way you want them to be interpreted. I personally resent that.

Show me some concrete evidence of me "spinning" what was discussed in the Tea Party meetings. I resent your implication that I have an agenda and am using you for it. I sat in that meeting, and several others, writing/typing exactly what was said - I didn't change any words, nor did I attribute them to a specific individual, if I couldn't remember the details specifically. Up until now, absolutely no one has had any issues, except for a few minor clarifications, with what I wrote about the meetings, and you yourself praised me for my accuracy - so what's changed all of a sudden?

I also don't think that you should be taking sides in Political discussions. You have shown me that you are doing so.

You suggested this to me at that same lunch meeting I mentioned above, and you have yet to provide a rational explanation as to why I must just because I'm owner now. And why that rule should apply to me, but not to yourself.

What you see as me taking sides is me sticking up for my beliefs, but there are in no way shape or form cut-and-dried, march down the party line, liberal versus conservative. You see what you want to see and ignore the rest. I have demonstrated over and over that I hold dear values that are core to both ideologies, that I am open to differing viewpoints and will change my mind if it makes sense to do so, and that I cannot be placed into a box - you just keep putting me there because it's easier for you to do so and you seem to have trouble reconciling that people can be more complicated than black/white, liberal/conservative, yin/yang.

And frankly, what is wrong with taking sides in political discussions? Do you somehow think that it biases me as to how I treat other posters from an owner's point of view? If that's the case then I am extremely offended - I have spoken at length that I hold myself to the highest of ethical standards and integrity, that my opinions as a poster/individual are separate from how I operate my business, and that all members have the rules applied to them equally, absolutely no special favors/passes are granted to anyone, nor is anyone unfairly treated just because I don't agree with them politically or personally. Just because you don't like what someone else posts (eg LJ or VL) and their post doesn't get moderated for content, just the same as yours doesn't get moderated for content, that it means that I give them a pass? That's you trying to apply different standards to posters that you don't like - that may be how you operate but don't you dare assume that it's how I operate. We're not here to play Mommy and moderate to make sure y'all play nice with each other; this is an adult real-world forum. You speak to others how you'd like to be spoken to, and be prepared to accept the return if you don't - that's the whole point of there not being heavy-handed moderation here. You have to moderate yourself, or expect that others will call you out. We only make sure that members are protected from personal information being posted, threats being made, or racial or gender slurs being used against them and they all get called to fix it, regardless of beliefs, friendships, or position.

I'm sorry that you wish to interpret my words and actions the way you do, I had always thought we were actually friends, but I can see that means something different to you than it does to me.

Funny, but I assumed that stabbing someone in the back pretty much means that you aren't friends, but that's a separate matter for private discussion. We do agree, though, that your definition of friendship and mine absolutely do differ.

"Now, more than ever, the illusions of division threaten our very existence. We all know the truth: more connects us than separates us. But in times of crisis the wise build bridges, while the foolish build barriers. We must find a way to look after one another as if we were one single tribe.” -King T'Challa, Black Panther

The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it. ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is. ~Winston Churchill

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

26 Jun 2011 07:52 #105 by PrintSmith
The word you were looking for Neptune was stereotyping, and the regressives don't believe in it either - that is unless they are talking about the TEA Party, conservatives, religion, or any other group they wish to lump together into the stew of people who should be demonized and derided to provide a common enemy for the national scapegoat that will allow them to complete their 100 year efforts of consolidating all power of government, foreign and domestic, into a single, central entity.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

26 Jun 2011 08:11 #106 by Wayne Harrison
Posters from both sides stereotype. You just did it yourself.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

26 Jun 2011 09:12 #107 by lionshead2010
I actually agree with LJ on this one. All these third party candidates do is take conservative-leaning votes away from a viable Republican candidate. In essence, when you vote for some Tea Party candidate or whatever other flavor of conservatism you like, you are essentially voting for four more years with President Obama. You may as well just vote for President Obama.

I understand why folks want to vote for their guy or gal..but with this particular election, I think the future of our Nation is at stake. There is no way a third party candidate can win in this current political environment. I understand why you want to vote for the third party person...I want to also. But the best thing you can do is use your ONE silver bullet for good.

Folks should consider what the U.S. will look like in 2016 after four more years of "hope and change".

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

26 Jun 2011 09:21 #108 by Nobody that matters

lionshead2010 wrote: I actually agree with LJ on this one. All these third party candidates do is take conservative-leaning votes away from a viable Republican candidate. In essence, when you vote for some Tea Party candidate or whatever other flavor of conservatism you like, you are essentially voting for four more years with President Obama. You may as well just vote for President Obama.

I understand why folks want to vote for their guy or gal..but with this particular election, I think the future of our Nation is at stake. There is no way a third party candidate can win in this current political environment. I understand why you want to vote for the third party person...I want to also. But the best thing you can do is use your ONE silver bullet for good.

Folks should consider what the U.S. will look like in 2016 after four more years of "hope and change".


I'll vote for the most fiscally conservative candidate.

Let's make some bets on who comes up with that candidate... will it be the Democrats? :rofl rofllol

Will it be the mainstream republicans? :rofl rofllol

Will it be someone put up by the tea party on the republican ticket? Maybe

Will it be a libertarian? More than likely, but they'll have a snowball's chance in hell of being elected.

"Whatever you are, be a good one." ~ Abraham Lincoln

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

26 Jun 2011 09:27 #109 by lionshead2010
The only question you should have when you go to the polls in 2012 is whether or not you want Obama or ANYONE else running the country for the next four years.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

26 Jun 2011 09:30 #110 by lionshead2010
A vote for anyone other than the leading Republican candidate in the upcoming presidential election IS a vote for four more years of Obama. Period.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

Time to create page: 0.170 seconds
Powered by Kunena Forum
sponsors
© My Mountain Town (new)
Google+