Oh, there's not much that you have missed in my sarcasm...you've got that about right...that's about the only thing that you've hit the nail on the head about
I haven't found anything in your posts yet that have done anything to enlighten anyone to anything with substance. You are a total success at proving once again that attempting to re-frame the discussion, and distract by vapid accusations and innuendos is your accepted method of dissenting debate. And that success equals a total failure, ironically.
Yes, it did appear that while little George didn't get his way with his constant mantra of "I'm going to privatize Social Security and I'm going to get it done now"...even his own GOP turn against him and didn't support that insane #1 want list from his campaign promise and then after that they {GOP} seemed to just ROLL-OVER and go belly up on any and all things that Georgie did want to blow the budget on. What, were they afraid of him and Herr Chaney?
George Bush was on the right track looking to reform SS. It is, and has been for over 30 years, the 'third rail' of politics, however. And there are too many RINO's in Congress, afraid that they would be painted as hateful, greedy fear-mongers, wanting to throw Granny out on the street by a biased and overly ambitious media and the opposition. Spineless, and that is part of the fury of the voter base in both 2006 and 2008. In fact, that SS reform and partial privatization was probably the best domestic policy goal he had. It is too bad that he was forced into a compromise position by power greedy Democrats and spineless RINOs.
Bush, in total, proved much to progressive in views for most Conservatives. He is what should have made 'moderate' Democrats and Republicans alike very happy. They would have been if it hadn't been for the "R" after his name and his determination to restore our military and defense postures.
You claimed earlier to have voted for him. I find it very hard to believe. Unless you had your head under a rock somewhere, you surely had to see what he was like in 2004. Or is it that you are simply like so many of us - voting for him primarily out of a total conviction of doom if the alternative were realized, aka Kerry?
Derogatory...they {the people that started that campaign of over throw were the ones that chose the title {surely you haven't missed the cutesy pictures of those hats with all of the tea-bags hanging from their hats...looks like they were proud of their TITLE...yet you say it was derogatory and they seemed so proud...hmmm
Wrong yet again. The teabags hanging from the hats is only a symbolic act, referencing, since I seem to have to spell it out for you, the original Boston Tea Party preceding and heralding the American Revolution.
Another common mistake is to overlook the other purpose of the Boston Tea Party. It was only partially to protest taxation without representation. It was actually MORE about the intrusive government in England using unfair business practices to manipulate a commercial market in the Colonies. Their insight into an overweening government and it's unchecked intrusion as a danger in part set the stage for the greatest country the world has ever, or ever will, see.
Your talking now...I'm talking about 2008...What made the GOP just roll over and go belly up...why didn't they get out and VOTE?
And again, wrong. Did I forget to put the years referenced in the figures I presented? No? Oh, I didn't think so. The relatively small decrease, overall, in the Republican turnout is something that cannot be factually confirmed. There are pundits who speculate and postulate that it was so, but that cannot be proven. Not, at least, as long as we still have a 'secret' ballot. The decrease in Republican votes as tallied could very well be part of the increase of the Democrat votes as tallied. No one can know for certain, since party ties are not declared in the general election.
TO BAD...I don't have to toss my past voting record out here for anyone...I've voted for what ever candidate that I've felt would do their best and that's good enough for me...YOU DON'T KNOW ME so you don't know SQUAT
I could care less, so TOO (not to) bad yourself. YOU are the one who stated you voted for GWB in 2004, not me. I simply don't believe it. Or that if you did, you're incredibly naive, drastically changed in political views from that time, or ignorant.
The 'RIGHT WINGED NUT JOBS' know of whom I speak...don't want the label then don't be a RUSH LIMBAUGH/GLEN BECK TALKING HEADS PUPPET...doesn't seem to be a hard concept to understand...there are some excellent Republicans around this world and a small select few right here...unfortunately the 'RIGHT WINGED NUT JOBS' seem to take up the most space
Of course we know of whom you speak. You label, and think of, anyone as a right winged nut job who is anywhere right of you. And that leaves a huge percentage of people in this country. It is such a comfort to know that there are a few who meet your approval.
Our Founding Fathers wouldn't know what to make of the entire spectrum of the topics/issues/taxes that face our generation...they would most likely jump on the first ship and return to ENGLAND
You are actually so very right on this. They would absolutely be stunned and shocked to see what we have allowed to happen to the precious gift they left for us. Jump ship and run? I don't think so. They had more insight, courage, patriotism and willingness for self-sacrifice than anyone in DC these days.
Interesting...you stating that, yet the article clearly quoted some to the 'TEA BAGGERS' as telling the local GOP that there would be some serious changes coming if they didn't kneel to their pressure...so exactly how is that all going to be a good thing for the RNC.
That article did not say that, not once. Perhaps you are referring to this portion:
(From NYTimes.com) After the local party said it would stick to its custom of endorsing a candidate rather than holding an open primary, Tea Party groups decided to hold their own candidate forum where people could cast a ballot. If the party does not yield, the groups say they will host a debate, too.
“We kind of changed the rules,” said Anastasia Przybylski, one of the organizers.
If that is the case, and since you use words that don't exist in the article you leave me NO choice but to ASSume that you are, you are once again showing the tactic of taking something way out of context and twisting it's meaning to the point of being a lie. That is, if you KNOWINGLY said this untruth.
