They don't make Republican consevatives like they used to

[toxicmedia]

Indeed they would. However, the problem with extremist positions is they do not work and eventually the people pushing those positions show up as failures. McArthy was once one of the most powerful men in the country but he crashed and burned because his entire purpose was to push ideology rather than results. The party will come back to a rational position once the ideologues demonstrate their utter inability to deliver on any of their promises.

That is my hope.

Right now the GOP is like the nagging back seat driver on a long cross country road tip. And those folks always make wrong turns of their own when they're behind the wheel. Fox News and Reince Preibus's boys must be busy gearing up for their inevitable shift from government opposition to propaganda ministry for the regime.

I for one can't wait.

You misread the tea leaves. Since time immemorial when extreme political movements have gained control of government policy, they have generally failed and blamed it on the "counter-revolutionaries". The Stalinist language for this is more colorful, but the right-wing juntas have done the same thing.

The first target will be the Democratic minority in the Senate. They will be blamed for obstruction, which will no longer be a bulwark of liberty against the tyranny of a majority, as it was when Democrats controlled the Senate, but an impediment to implementing the righteous will of the people. The key debate here will be whether to change the rules of the Senate to allow for more legislation to be subject to simple majority vote on closure.

The second target will be the president. The veto will be thwarting the will of the people. The idea of amending the Constitution to lower the supermajority needed to override a veto may be floated. And of course, no appointments can be approved because no "suitable" nominations are being made.

The key is that the real battle will not be between Republicans and Democrats, but between defenders of the institution (which I am pretty sure will include the Speaker and the Senate Majority leader) and the ideological firebrands. It will make for good theater for those with a sense of irony.

Everything posted here is a Harry Reid tactic.

You do realize that he will be out of power soon, right?

Not following your point...where you talking to me? or both of us? or just him?

What is so hard to understand? Everything he posted is exactly what the Democrats have been doing for the past 6 years.

He now thinks that the Republicans are going to do this and that means its bad, while ignoring the behavior of the Democrats.

Following a conversation isn't all that difficult to do.

Your position is unworthy of mention if it's the simple statement that both sides do it.

 

[toxicmedia]

Jeff Flake isnt a conservative? Scott Walker isnt a conservative? Ted Cruz isnt a conservative? I dont think the word means what you think it means.

Liberal Dictionary:
==============================================
True conservative - liberal
Moderate - liberal
Mainstream - liberal
Pragmatic - liberal

Ugh......it's simple

Republicans = Tea Partiers and white evangelicals

Democrats = white wine liberals, and minorities.

Simple definitions for simple minds.

Obviously my point went right over your head.

You're a moron.

The words "conservative" and "liberal" have dictionary definitions, and Tea Partiers or evangelical Republicans don't fit that definition. Nor do they bear any resemblance to conservatives or neoconservatives

Then you're the idiot. The T.E.A. party stands for limited governmen spending. The very definition of conservative.

The Tea Party doesn't stand for limited government spending, it stands for no government spending on anything Democrats want.

 

[toxicmedia]

Jeff Flake isnt a conservative? Scott Walker isnt a conservative? Ted Cruz isnt a conservative? I dont think the word means what you think it means.

Liberal Dictionary:
==============================================
True conservative - liberal
Moderate - liberal
Mainstream - liberal
Pragmatic - liberal

Ugh......it's simple

Republicans = Tea Partiers and white evangelicals

Democrats = white wine liberals, and minorities.

Simple definitions for simple minds.

Obviously my point went right over your head.

You're a moron.

The words "conservative" and "liberal" have dictionary definitions, and Tea Partiers or evangelical Republicans don't fit that definition. Nor do they bear any resemblance to conservatives or neoconservatives

Liberals have their own dictionary. You're naive if you believe they apply the same meanings to words that normal people use. The point of liberal speech is to deceive, not communicate.

So the Oxford dictionary is liberal? It's the English dictionary compiled by the English, whom I might add, invented the language

 

[toxicmedia]

If Democrats were scared, they would have showed up to vote, Latinos included, and it was too much for the average low information lefties to show up. But...the 2016 presidential race is the GOP's to lose.

If the GOP indulges low information righties, and spends the next two years sending Obama inflammatory legislation that doesn't create middle class jobs, or attempts to repeal Obamacare, they will pave the way for Hillary.

On the other hand...if the GOP sends productive legislation to the white house, and Obama signs it, and it produces positive results before November 2016...that will help the Democrats as much as it does Republicans.

What will likely happen, is that Republicans will ONLY send legislation to Obama that they know he won't sign, or they know it won't produce anything positive, since positive results will be a "wash" for the GOP in 2016. That way they can still accuse Obama of obstructionism, while appearing to start doing their jobs.

The GOP won't allow anything good to happen until they win back the presidency.

The "war on women" is only an issue if the Republicans do anything to legitimize it. Women voters don't vote Democratic if they perceive the GOP candidate to be a chauvinist, as much as they vote against the Republican in question. If the GOP makes an issue with gay marriage/abortion/contraception, this time around, Hillary will win.

Young people want jobs, but the GOP can't afford those jobs being created before 2016 for electioneering purposes, and they won't create legislation that will cause them to be.

I'm sorry, Toxic but I think your "take" on what the GOP faces is way off base!

The GOP won this last election in a landslide only because the American electorate has grown tired of our Government being dysfunctional for the past four years. It's FINALLY become impossible to ignore that the major cause of that disfunction was a US Senate controlled by Democrats and overseen by Harry Reid that wouldn't even bring House bills to the floor for debate let alone passage. Nothing was getting done to improve the economy because you had a Senate Majority Leader who was incapable of compromise. So the Democrats in the Senate have been voted out of office and Republicans have been voted in. What that MEANS is that the American voter wants to see legislation passed by Congress to address the economy and jobs. They voted for GOP control of the House and now they have voted for GOP control of the Senate. The message is painfully clear.

Which brings us to Barack Obama...

What you're seeing right now from the President with his announcment that he's going to go ahead with an Executive Action to essentially grant amnesty to millions of illegals, is a declaration that he is deliberately going to make the country suffer through another two years of political dysfunction, with him vetoing the bulk of legislation sent to him by the Congress and using Executive Actions to press forward with a liberal agenda that the voters have expressed no interest in. Not only is he willing to take us that way...he's DELIBERATELY CHOSEN to do so!

The GOP led Congress has no choice but to pass comprehensive immigration reform before 2016 or they will have no chance of taking the Oval Office. They understand that. So does Barack Obama. He understands that if the GOP DOES pass immigration reform and that issue is taken off the books for 2016 that the Democrats won't have the Hispanic voting block locked up. So he's rushing to do an Executive Action NOW on an issue that the GOP would have to address once they take control of the Senate...an issue that he and his fellow Democrats failed to address when they controlled the House, the Senate and the White House! So if it was an issue that could be put on the "back burner" then...if it was an issue that could be delayed until after the midterm elections this year...why is it suddenly something that has to be done IMMEDIATELY?

The answer to that is obvious...Barack Obama has made a political calculation that it is better for Democrats to blow up our government for the next two years than it is to let Republicans pass legislation that either fixes things...or forces him to veto what they send him. Barack Obama is doing what he's doing because he WANTS the GOP to waste their time either trying to impeach him or waste their time shutting down the government.

In the meantime...the millions of Americans who have suffered through the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression will continue to suffer.

What I take away from your post, is an affirmation that the GOP's current strategy is working on you, and anyone else who believes what your media of choice has told you.

I'm not trying to delegitimize your opinion, and the GOP holds focus groups and tests groups to see what is important to you, and then they tell you THAT.

The spin comes in when GOP politicians and pundits tell you they're going to to THAT, get elected, and don't do THAT, and blame the previous administration, or the party out of power, for keeping them from doing THAT.

It works the same on both sides, only now MSNBC and Fox are in the tank for their side, and too many people get their opinions confirmed by those networks, without any well presented opposition arguments.

With all due respect, Toxic...I listen to the President on this issue and can only shake my head. Why the rush to do this now? If it was that crucial then why wasn't this done when Democrats controlled everything? Why wasn't it done with EA by Obama three years ago? Why not last year? Why not this Fall?

Forgive me while I back track a bit here.

I don't think the GOP will produce legislation to address the economy and jobs. I don't thin they can afford any of that to happen before they take back the white house in 2016. To complicate that even more...I'm not sure the congress or the white house even has a way to create jobs using legislation. People like Bill Gates and the Koch Brothers create jobs. Granted they can push the economy around + or - 10% or so depending on how smart, or stupid, their plans are.

And that burnout case Obama...my understanding is that his executive orders are rumored to NOT include amnesty. But let's think about that...amnesty or not, it won't affect how many illegals remain in the US. I think that is another example of a political football. Obama gets to woo Latinos with it, and Republicans get to characterize Obama as a tyrant who's shredding the constitution. But nothing really changes in the US either way, except how people vote.

I cannot imagine the GOP producing any immigration reform before 2016, because, while it might help them in 2016 with Latinos, would infuriate an already fractured base. Far righties (Tea Partiers) would splinter off with all manner of vote killing 3rd party candidates. I'll be amazed if it happens.

As I said...the GOP will not send anything that improves the economy to Obama before he's out. They will not send anything to Hillary either if she wins. That's why I'm voting Republican in 2016 no matter who it is.

I think you've completely misjudged what the GOP has to do in the next two years, Toxic. They appear to finally understand that the electorate sees them in only a SLIGHTLY better light than the Democrats when it comes to the economy and jobs but only because the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party was so absolutely abysmal at stimulating the economy or at creating jobs. This is the GOP's shot to prove to the voters that THEY are the answer to putting people back to work and putting more money in the average American's pockets. If they come through on those things then they will be tough for even a Hillary Clinton to beat. If they don't then they will start to bleed seats back to the Democrats.

What you're seeing from Obama is a deliberate political calculation that essentially blowing up the government rather than letting the GOP have their opportunity to turn things around is better for the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

I stand on my opinion that the GOP can't afford to let good things get done before Obama is out of the picture, and a Republican president is in the white house, or the Dems will claim Bush left a wrecked economy behind, and a Dem president presided over an administration that fixed it.

 

[toxicmedia]

Liberals have their own dictionary. You're naive if you believe they apply the same meanings to words that normal people use. The point of liberal speech is to deceive, not communicate.

Liberals lying has spiraled out of control, they really have reached the creepy stage.

Pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Oldstyle]

I'm sorry, Toxic but I think your "take" on what the GOP faces is way off base!

The GOP won this last election in a landslide only because the American electorate has grown tired of our Government being dysfunctional for the past four years. It's FINALLY become impossible to ignore that the major cause of that disfunction was a US Senate controlled by Democrats and overseen by Harry Reid that wouldn't even bring House bills to the floor for debate let alone passage. Nothing was getting done to improve the economy because you had a Senate Majority Leader who was incapable of compromise. So the Democrats in the Senate have been voted out of office and Republicans have been voted in. What that MEANS is that the American voter wants to see legislation passed by Congress to address the economy and jobs. They voted for GOP control of the House and now they have voted for GOP control of the Senate. The message is painfully clear.

Which brings us to Barack Obama...

What you're seeing right now from the President with his announcment that he's going to go ahead with an Executive Action to essentially grant amnesty to millions of illegals, is a declaration that he is deliberately going to make the country suffer through another two years of political dysfunction, with him vetoing the bulk of legislation sent to him by the Congress and using Executive Actions to press forward with a liberal agenda that the voters have expressed no interest in. Not only is he willing to take us that way...he's DELIBERATELY CHOSEN to do so!

The GOP led Congress has no choice but to pass comprehensive immigration reform before 2016 or they will have no chance of taking the Oval Office. They understand that. So does Barack Obama. He understands that if the GOP DOES pass immigration reform and that issue is taken off the books for 2016 that the Democrats won't have the Hispanic voting block locked up. So he's rushing to do an Executive Action NOW on an issue that the GOP would have to address once they take control of the Senate...an issue that he and his fellow Democrats failed to address when they controlled the House, the Senate and the White House! So if it was an issue that could be put on the "back burner" then...if it was an issue that could be delayed until after the midterm elections this year...why is it suddenly something that has to be done IMMEDIATELY?

The answer to that is obvious...Barack Obama has made a political calculation that it is better for Democrats to blow up our government for the next two years than it is to let Republicans pass legislation that either fixes things...or forces him to veto what they send him. Barack Obama is doing what he's doing because he WANTS the GOP to waste their time either trying to impeach him or waste their time shutting down the government.

In the meantime...the millions of Americans who have suffered through the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression will continue to suffer.

What I take away from your post, is an affirmation that the GOP's current strategy is working on you, and anyone else who believes what your media of choice has told you.

I'm not trying to delegitimize your opinion, and the GOP holds focus groups and tests groups to see what is important to you, and then they tell you THAT.

The spin comes in when GOP politicians and pundits tell you they're going to to THAT, get elected, and don't do THAT, and blame the previous administration, or the party out of power, for keeping them from doing THAT.

It works the same on both sides, only now MSNBC and Fox are in the tank for their side, and too many people get their opinions confirmed by those networks, without any well presented opposition arguments.

With all due respect, Toxic...I listen to the President on this issue and can only shake my head. Why the rush to do this now? If it was that crucial then why wasn't this done when Democrats controlled everything? Why wasn't it done with EA by Obama three years ago? Why not last year? Why not this Fall?

Forgive me while I back track a bit here.

I don't think the GOP will produce legislation to address the economy and jobs. I don't thin they can afford any of that to happen before they take back the white house in 2016. To complicate that even more...I'm not sure the congress or the white house even has a way to create jobs using legislation. People like Bill Gates and the Koch Brothers create jobs. Granted they can push the economy around + or - 10% or so depending on how smart, or stupid, their plans are.

And that burnout case Obama...my understanding is that his executive orders are rumored to NOT include amnesty. But let's think about that...amnesty or not, it won't affect how many illegals remain in the US. I think that is another example of a political football. Obama gets to woo Latinos with it, and Republicans get to characterize Obama as a tyrant who's shredding the constitution. But nothing really changes in the US either way, except how people vote.

I cannot imagine the GOP producing any immigration reform before 2016, because, while it might help them in 2016 with Latinos, would infuriate an already fractured base. Far righties (Tea Partiers) would splinter off with all manner of vote killing 3rd party candidates. I'll be amazed if it happens.

As I said...the GOP will not send anything that improves the economy to Obama before he's out. They will not send anything to Hillary either if she wins. That's why I'm voting Republican in 2016 no matter who it is.

I think you've completely misjudged what the GOP has to do in the next two years, Toxic. They appear to finally understand that the electorate sees them in only a SLIGHTLY better light than the Democrats when it comes to the economy and jobs but only because the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party was so absolutely abysmal at stimulating the economy or at creating jobs. This is the GOP's shot to prove to the voters that THEY are the answer to putting people back to work and putting more money in the average American's pockets. If they come through on those things then they will be tough for even a Hillary Clinton to beat. If they don't then they will start to bleed seats back to the Democrats.

What you're seeing from Obama is a deliberate political calculation that essentially blowing up the government rather than letting the GOP have their opportunity to turn things around is better for the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

I stand on my opinion that the GOP can't afford to let good things get done before Obama is out of the picture, and a Republican president is in the white house, or the Dems will claim Bush left a wrecked economy behind, and a Dem president presided over an administration that fixed it.

I think at this point it's pretty obvious to the electorate that Barry didn't have a clue how to "fix" anything, Toxic. I don't see him getting any credit for GOP generated bills that do fix things from here on out because the public at this point realizes that he's never had any plan to fix the economy or create jobs. He would simply be the lame duck President who signed into law the things that the other party came up with (or if he stays true to form the President who vetoes most of the things the other party comes up with to fix things!).

Do I think he (and his true believers) would try to claim any gains that did take place as "his"? Without question. We've seen him do exactly that with the increase in production of oil and natural gas in the US over the past six years when the only place that has occurred has been on lands that he hasn't had control over. However I don't think anyone is buying what he's selling at this point on things like that except his most ardent supporters.

 

[toxicmedia]

What I take away from your post, is an affirmation that the GOP's current strategy is working on you, and anyone else who believes what your media of choice has told you.

I'm not trying to delegitimize your opinion, and the GOP holds focus groups and tests groups to see what is important to you, and then they tell you THAT.

The spin comes in when GOP politicians and pundits tell you they're going to to THAT, get elected, and don't do THAT, and blame the previous administration, or the party out of power, for keeping them from doing THAT.

It works the same on both sides, only now MSNBC and Fox are in the tank for their side, and too many people get their opinions confirmed by those networks, without any well presented opposition arguments.

With all due respect, Toxic...I listen to the President on this issue and can only shake my head. Why the rush to do this now? If it was that crucial then why wasn't this done when Democrats controlled everything? Why wasn't it done with EA by Obama three years ago? Why not last year? Why not this Fall?

Forgive me while I back track a bit here.

I don't think the GOP will produce legislation to address the economy and jobs. I don't thin they can afford any of that to happen before they take back the white house in 2016. To complicate that even more...I'm not sure the congress or the white house even has a way to create jobs using legislation. People like Bill Gates and the Koch Brothers create jobs. Granted they can push the economy around + or - 10% or so depending on how smart, or stupid, their plans are.

And that burnout case Obama...my understanding is that his executive orders are rumored to NOT include amnesty. But let's think about that...amnesty or not, it won't affect how many illegals remain in the US. I think that is another example of a political football. Obama gets to woo Latinos with it, and Republicans get to characterize Obama as a tyrant who's shredding the constitution. But nothing really changes in the US either way, except how people vote.

I cannot imagine the GOP producing any immigration reform before 2016, because, while it might help them in 2016 with Latinos, would infuriate an already fractured base. Far righties (Tea Partiers) would splinter off with all manner of vote killing 3rd party candidates. I'll be amazed if it happens.

As I said...the GOP will not send anything that improves the economy to Obama before he's out. They will not send anything to Hillary either if she wins. That's why I'm voting Republican in 2016 no matter who it is.

I think you've completely misjudged what the GOP has to do in the next two years, Toxic. They appear to finally understand that the electorate sees them in only a SLIGHTLY better light than the Democrats when it comes to the economy and jobs but only because the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party was so absolutely abysmal at stimulating the economy or at creating jobs. This is the GOP's shot to prove to the voters that THEY are the answer to putting people back to work and putting more money in the average American's pockets. If they come through on those things then they will be tough for even a Hillary Clinton to beat. If they don't then they will start to bleed seats back to the Democrats.

What you're seeing from Obama is a deliberate political calculation that essentially blowing up the government rather than letting the GOP have their opportunity to turn things around is better for the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

I stand on my opinion that the GOP can't afford to let good things get done before Obama is out of the picture, and a Republican president is in the white house, or the Dems will claim Bush left a wrecked economy behind, and a Dem president presided over an administration that fixed it.

I think at this point it's pretty obvious to the electorate that Barry didn't have a clue how to "fix" anything, Toxic. I don't see him getting any credit for GOP generated bills that do fix things from here on out because the public at this point realizes that he's never had any plan to fix the economy or create jobs. He would simply be the lame duck President who signed into law the things that the other party came up with (or if he stays true to form the President who vetoes most of the things the other party comes up with to fix things!).

Do I think he (and his true believers) would try to claim any gains that did take place as "his"? Without question. We've seen him do exactly that with the increase in production of oil and natural gas in the US over the past six years when the only place that has occurred has been on lands that he hasn't had control over. However I don't think anyone is buying what he's selling at this point on things like that except his most ardent supporters.

I think you're overestimating 95% of American voters. They don't watch Fox or MSNBC. Fox averages about 3 million viewers at night, and that's about 3% of the voting population. MSNBC gets about 1% of the voting population.

The vast majority of American voters decide who to vote on based on what family/friends/neighbors/social media tell them. That is very simple. They are told by trusted friends whether or not things suck, or not. Whomever is in charge, will get the credit, or the blame. Worse yet, extreme low information voters just pick a Republican or Democrat because that's what they are. It's a huge uphill climb to think 95% of American voters will consider the mid term congressional shift as the reason for why things suck, or are better, in 2016.

More likely, most voters will have two different mental images when they punch their ballots in 2016. An image of George Bush vis a vis Jeb Bush, and Hillary sitting in the white house from the 90's.

 

[bripat9643]

Liberal Dictionary:
==============================================
True conservative - liberal
Moderate - liberal
Mainstream - liberal
Pragmatic - liberal

Ugh......it's simple

Republicans = Tea Partiers and white evangelicals

Democrats = white wine liberals, and minorities.

Simple definitions for simple minds.

Obviously my point went right over your head.

You're a moron.

The words "conservative" and "liberal" have dictionary definitions, and Tea Partiers or evangelical Republicans don't fit that definition. Nor do they bear any resemblance to conservatives or neoconservatives

Then you're the idiot. The T.E.A. party stands for limited governmen spending. The very definition of conservative.

The Tea Party doesn't stand for limited government spending, it stands for no government spending on anything Democrats want.

What's the difference between those two things?

 

[bripat9643]

Liberal Dictionary:
==============================================
True conservative - liberal
Moderate - liberal
Mainstream - liberal
Pragmatic - liberal

Ugh......it's simple

Republicans = Tea Partiers and white evangelicals

Democrats = white wine liberals, and minorities.

Simple definitions for simple minds.

Obviously my point went right over your head.

You're a moron.

The words "conservative" and "liberal" have dictionary definitions, and Tea Partiers or evangelical Republicans don't fit that definition. Nor do they bear any resemblance to conservatives or neoconservatives

Liberals have their own dictionary. You're naive if you believe they apply the same meanings to words that normal people use. The point of liberal speech is to deceive, not communicate.

So the Oxford dictionary is liberal? It's the English dictionary compiled by the English, whom I might add, invented the language

Where did I say anything about any traditional dictionary?

 

[toxicmedia]

Ugh......it's simple

Republicans = Tea Partiers and white evangelicals

Democrats = white wine liberals, and minorities.

Simple definitions for simple minds.

Obviously my point went right over your head.

You're a moron.

The words "conservative" and "liberal" have dictionary definitions, and Tea Partiers or evangelical Republicans don't fit that definition. Nor do they bear any resemblance to conservatives or neoconservatives

Then you're the idiot. The T.E.A. party stands for limited governmen spending. The very definition of conservative.

The Tea Party doesn't stand for limited government spending, it stands for no government spending on anything Democrats want.

What's the difference between those two things?

Tea Partiers are all for increases in military spending, with a nearly unlimited budget. Tea Partiers want government to regulate social/sexual behavior. They don't want to spend less, just not spend any money on things Democrats want.

The Tea Party was just a place for Republicans to hang out while they waited out the shame of having voted for George Bush and his badly ending presidency. They're simply people who vote Republican. Republicans may be socially conservative, but not fiscally. Neither party are fiscally conservative

 

[toxicmedia]

Ugh......it's simple

Republicans = Tea Partiers and white evangelicals

Democrats = white wine liberals, and minorities.

Simple definitions for simple minds.

Obviously my point went right over your head.

You're a moron.

The words "conservative" and "liberal" have dictionary definitions, and Tea Partiers or evangelical Republicans don't fit that definition. Nor do they bear any resemblance to conservatives or neoconservatives

Liberals have their own dictionary. You're naive if you believe they apply the same meanings to words that normal people use. The point of liberal speech is to deceive, not communicate.

So the Oxford dictionary is liberal? It's the English dictionary compiled by the English, whom I might add, invented the language

Where did I say anything about any traditional dictionary?

Ummm...dictionaries are these things that tell you what words mean. After you read the definition of a word in the dictionary, you should then use that word to describe what you mean. If not, people will be confused, and so will you, by their reactions to your poor use of it.

To simplify...conservatives tend to embrace tradition, and liberals tend to embrace change.

But the 60's revolution has become the establishment, and going back to pre-hippie America would represent change.

Don't look now, but you're a liberal.

So was Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan

 

[Darkwind]

Simple definitions for simple minds.

Obviously my point went right over your head.

You're a moron.

The words "conservative" and "liberal" have dictionary definitions, and Tea Partiers or evangelical Republicans don't fit that definition. Nor do they bear any resemblance to conservatives or neoconservatives

Then you're the idiot. The T.E.A. party stands for limited governmen spending. The very definition of conservative.

The Tea Party doesn't stand for limited government spending, it stands for no government spending on anything Democrats want.

What's the difference between those two things?

Tea Partiers are all for increases in military spending, with a nearly unlimited budget. Tea Partiers want government to regulate social/sexual behavior. They don't want to spend less, just not spend any money on things Democrats want.

The Tea Party was just a place for Republicans to hang out while they waited out the shame of having voted for George Bush and his badly ending presidency. They're simply people who vote Republican. Republicans may be socially conservative, but not fiscally. Neither party are fiscally conservative

You don't have a clue what the T.E.A. party is for, that much is obvious. Those are lies and talking points by the progressive wing of the Democrat party. In other words, meaningless.

 

[Darkwind]

Liberal Dictionary:
==============================================
True conservative - liberal
Moderate - liberal
Mainstream - liberal
Pragmatic - liberal

Ugh......it's simple

Republicans = Tea Partiers and white evangelicals

Democrats = white wine liberals, and minorities.

Simple definitions for simple minds.

Obviously my point went right over your head.

You're a moron.

The words "conservative" and "liberal" have dictionary definitions, and Tea Partiers or evangelical Republicans don't fit that definition. Nor do they bear any resemblance to conservatives or neoconservatives

Then you're the idiot. The T.E.A. party stands for limited governmen spending. The very definition of conservative.

The Tea Party doesn't stand for limited government spending, it stands for no government spending on anything Democrats want.

No, it does not. Until you can join the rest of us here in reality, save yourself some embarrassment.

 

[bripat9643]

Simple definitions for simple minds.

Obviously my point went right over your head.

You're a moron.

The words "conservative" and "liberal" have dictionary definitions, and Tea Partiers or evangelical Republicans don't fit that definition. Nor do they bear any resemblance to conservatives or neoconservatives

Liberals have their own dictionary. You're naive if you believe they apply the same meanings to words that normal people use. The point of liberal speech is to deceive, not communicate.

So the Oxford dictionary is liberal? It's the English dictionary compiled by the English, whom I might add, invented the language

Where did I say anything about any traditional dictionary?

Ummm...dictionaries are these things that tell you what words mean. After you read the definition of a word in the dictionary, you should then use that word to describe what you mean. If not, people will be confused, and so will you, by their reactions to your poor use of it.

To simplify...conservatives tend to embrace tradition, and liberals tend to embrace change.

But the 60's revolution has become the establishment, and going back to pre-hippie America would represent change.

Don't look now, but you're a liberal.

So was Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan

As I explained before, liberals have their own special dictionary. They don't use the one that the rest of us use. Furthermore, your dictionary definition of "conservative" and "liberal" are the definitions that liberals want us to believe. They aren't the actual definitions when you look at how the words are used.

A liberal is indistinguishable from a Stalinist, so I'm not a liberal. However, you are.

 

[bripat9643]

Simple definitions for simple minds.

Obviously my point went right over your head.

You're a moron.

The words "conservative" and "liberal" have dictionary definitions, and Tea Partiers or evangelical Republicans don't fit that definition. Nor do they bear any resemblance to conservatives or neoconservatives

Then you're the idiot. The T.E.A. party stands for limited governmen spending. The very definition of conservative.

The Tea Party doesn't stand for limited government spending, it stands for no government spending on anything Democrats want.

What's the difference between those two things?

Tea Partiers are all for increases in military spending, with a nearly unlimited budget. Tea Partiers want government to regulate social/sexual behavior. They don't want to spend less, just not spend any money on things Democrats want.

That's a pack of lies. TEA partiers may want more military spending than Obama and Harry Reid, but they do not want unlimited spending on the military. They do not want to regulate sexual behaviour. They just don't want to pay the cost of your sexual behaviour. The claim that they don't want to spend less is bullshit. All you have to do is look who supported the sequester to know that.

The Tea Party was just a place for Republicans to hang out while they waited out the shame of having voted for George Bush and his badly ending presidency. They're simply people who vote Republican. Republicans may be socially conservative, but not fiscally. Neither party are fiscally conservative

You're obviously just another brainwashed liberal drone.

 

[Oldstyle]

With all due respect, Toxic...I listen to the President on this issue and can only shake my head. Why the rush to do this now? If it was that crucial then why wasn't this done when Democrats controlled everything? Why wasn't it done with EA by Obama three years ago? Why not last year? Why not this Fall?

Forgive me while I back track a bit here.

I don't think the GOP will produce legislation to address the economy and jobs. I don't thin they can afford any of that to happen before they take back the white house in 2016. To complicate that even more...I'm not sure the congress or the white house even has a way to create jobs using legislation. People like Bill Gates and the Koch Brothers create jobs. Granted they can push the economy around + or - 10% or so depending on how smart, or stupid, their plans are.

And that burnout case Obama...my understanding is that his executive orders are rumored to NOT include amnesty. But let's think about that...amnesty or not, it won't affect how many illegals remain in the US. I think that is another example of a political football. Obama gets to woo Latinos with it, and Republicans get to characterize Obama as a tyrant who's shredding the constitution. But nothing really changes in the US either way, except how people vote.

I cannot imagine the GOP producing any immigration reform before 2016, because, while it might help them in 2016 with Latinos, would infuriate an already fractured base. Far righties (Tea Partiers) would splinter off with all manner of vote killing 3rd party candidates. I'll be amazed if it happens.

As I said...the GOP will not send anything that improves the economy to Obama before he's out. They will not send anything to Hillary either if she wins. That's why I'm voting Republican in 2016 no matter who it is.

I think you've completely misjudged what the GOP has to do in the next two years, Toxic. They appear to finally understand that the electorate sees them in only a SLIGHTLY better light than the Democrats when it comes to the economy and jobs but only because the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party was so absolutely abysmal at stimulating the economy or at creating jobs. This is the GOP's shot to prove to the voters that THEY are the answer to putting people back to work and putting more money in the average American's pockets. If they come through on those things then they will be tough for even a Hillary Clinton to beat. If they don't then they will start to bleed seats back to the Democrats.

What you're seeing from Obama is a deliberate political calculation that essentially blowing up the government rather than letting the GOP have their opportunity to turn things around is better for the liberal wing of the Democratic Party.

I stand on my opinion that the GOP can't afford to let good things get done before Obama is out of the picture, and a Republican president is in the white house, or the Dems will claim Bush left a wrecked economy behind, and a Dem president presided over an administration that fixed it.

I think at this point it's pretty obvious to the electorate that Barry didn't have a clue how to "fix" anything, Toxic. I don't see him getting any credit for GOP generated bills that do fix things from here on out because the public at this point realizes that he's never had any plan to fix the economy or create jobs. He would simply be the lame duck President who signed into law the things that the other party came up with (or if he stays true to form the President who vetoes most of the things the other party comes up with to fix things!).

Do I think he (and his true believers) would try to claim any gains that did take place as "his"? Without question. We've seen him do exactly that with the increase in production of oil and natural gas in the US over the past six years when the only place that has occurred has been on lands that he hasn't had control over. However I don't think anyone is buying what he's selling at this point on things like that except his most ardent supporters.

I think you're overestimating 95% of American voters. They don't watch Fox or MSNBC. Fox averages about 3 million viewers at night, and that's about 3% of the voting population. MSNBC gets about 1% of the voting population.

The vast majority of American voters decide who to vote on based on what family/friends/neighbors/social media tell them. That is very simple. They are told by trusted friends whether or not things suck, or not. Whomever is in charge, will get the credit, or the blame. Worse yet, extreme low information voters just pick a Republican or Democrat because that's what they are. It's a huge uphill climb to think 95% of American voters will consider the mid term congressional shift as the reason for why things suck, or are better, in 2016.

More likely, most voters will have two different mental images when they punch their ballots in 2016. An image of George Bush vis a vis Jeb Bush, and Hillary sitting in the white house from the 90's.

I think that most Americans decide who to vote for based on how they perceive their own personal economic outlook. They've just had six plus years of Progressives telling them how they are there for the Middle Class, Toxic but Middle Class paychecks kept shrinking and the cost of goods kept going up. Let's face it, the Main Stream Media didn't suddenly stop being liberally biased this year...they were still trying to put a good face on the Obama Administration's policies...but a whole lot of voters simply stopped believing what they were hearing from both this Administration and from the Main Stream Media.

As for who is in the White House in 2016? I don't think it matters, quite frankly. Nobody is going to be as clueless about the economy as Barack Obama and his crew have been. Hillary Clinton certainly wouldn't be. Coupled with a Republican Congress to keep her from spending too much, she would probably be fine.

 

[Oldstyle]

Simple definitions for simple minds.

Obviously my point went right over your head.

You're a moron.

The words "conservative" and "liberal" have dictionary definitions, and Tea Partiers or evangelical Republicans don't fit that definition. Nor do they bear any resemblance to conservatives or neoconservatives

Then you're the idiot. The T.E.A. party stands for limited governmen spending. The very definition of conservative.

The Tea Party doesn't stand for limited government spending, it stands for no government spending on anything Democrats want.

What's the difference between those two things?

Tea Partiers are all for increases in military spending, with a nearly unlimited budget. Tea Partiers want government to regulate social/sexual behavior. They don't want to spend less, just not spend any money on things Democrats want.

The Tea Party was just a place for Republicans to hang out while they waited out the shame of having voted for George Bush and his badly ending presidency. They're simply people who vote Republican. Republicans may be socially conservative, but not fiscally. Neither party are fiscally conservative

Where are you getting your views about the Tea Party? It's never been an organized party with set goals. It's always been a large number of small grass roots organizations that on many issues had totally different goals. The one thing that was commonplace with most of them was a desire for a smaller, more efficient, Federal Government with more control being passed back to the States, Counties and individual cities and towns. The Tea Party groups are as fiscally conservative as we have in this nation. It's why both liberal and conservative establishment politicians were scared to death of them.

 

[bripat9643]

You're a moron.

The words "conservative" and "liberal" have dictionary definitions, and Tea Partiers or evangelical Republicans don't fit that definition. Nor do they bear any resemblance to conservatives or neoconservatives

Then you're the idiot. The T.E.A. party stands for limited governmen spending. The very definition of conservative.

The Tea Party doesn't stand for limited government spending, it stands for no government spending on anything Democrats want.

What's the difference between those two things?

Tea Partiers are all for increases in military spending, with a nearly unlimited budget. Tea Partiers want government to regulate social/sexual behavior. They don't want to spend less, just not spend any money on things Democrats want.

The Tea Party was just a place for Republicans to hang out while they waited out the shame of having voted for George Bush and his badly ending presidency. They're simply people who vote Republican. Republicans may be socially conservative, but not fiscally. Neither party are fiscally conservative

Where are you getting your views about the Tea Party? It's never been an organized party with set goals. It's always been a large number of small grass roots organizations that on many issues had totally different goals. The one thing that was commonplace with most of them was a desire for a smaller, more efficient, Federal Government with more control being passed back to the States, Counties and individual cities and towns. The Tea Party groups are as fiscally conservative as we have in this nation. It's why both liberal and conservative establishment politicians were scared to death of them.

He's obviously getting his views about the TEA party from the incessant spew of communist propaganda he consumes.

 

[toxicmedia]

You're a moron.

The words "conservative" and "liberal" have dictionary definitions, and Tea Partiers or evangelical Republicans don't fit that definition. Nor do they bear any resemblance to conservatives or neoconservatives

Then you're the idiot. The T.E.A. party stands for limited governmen spending. The very definition of conservative.

The Tea Party doesn't stand for limited government spending, it stands for no government spending on anything Democrats want.

What's the difference between those two things?

Tea Partiers are all for increases in military spending, with a nearly unlimited budget. Tea Partiers want government to regulate social/sexual behavior. They don't want to spend less, just not spend any money on things Democrats want.

That's a pack of lies. TEA partiers may want more military spending than Obama and Harry Reid, but they do not want unlimited spending on the military. They do not want to regulate sexual behaviour. They just don't want to pay the cost of your sexual behaviour. The claim that they don't want to spend less is bullshit. All you have to do is look who supported the sequester to know that.

The Tea Party was just a place for Republicans to hang out while they waited out the shame of having voted for George Bush and his badly ending presidency. They're simply people who vote Republican. Republicans may be socially conservative, but not fiscally. Neither party are fiscally conservative

You're obviously just another brainwashed liberal drone.

You really don't know what the Oxford English Dictionary is...do you.....

 

[bripat9643]

Then you're the idiot. The T.E.A. party stands for limited governmen spending. The very definition of conservative.

The Tea Party doesn't stand for limited government spending, it stands for no government spending on anything Democrats want.

What's the difference between those two things?

Tea Partiers are all for increases in military spending, with a nearly unlimited budget. Tea Partiers want government to regulate social/sexual behavior. They don't want to spend less, just not spend any money on things Democrats want.

That's a pack of lies. TEA partiers may want more military spending than Obama and Harry Reid, but they do not want unlimited spending on the military. They do not want to regulate sexual behaviour. They just don't want to pay the cost of your sexual behaviour. The claim that they don't want to spend less is bullshit. All you have to do is look who supported the sequester to know that.

The Tea Party was just a place for Republicans to hang out while they waited out the shame of having voted for George Bush and his badly ending presidency. They're simply people who vote Republican. Republicans may be socially conservative, but not fiscally. Neither party are fiscally conservative

You're obviously just another brainwashed liberal drone.

You really don't know what the Oxford English Dictionary is...do you.....

Sure I do. I've used it many times. I used to have a copy on CD-ROM.