Is actually, a woman??? WTF?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/35094.html

trogdor! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Is actually, a woman??? WTF?
>
> http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/35094.ht
> ml


Because "crazy" doesn't discriminate by gender.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://bible.cc/1_corinthians/13-11.htm

Not crazy..intellectually lazy...racist...selfish.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

She was a great mother and a great governor, so why not exploit her credentials?

The Face of the coffee party is female so why should this surprise anyone?

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Not crazy..intellectually lazy...racist...selfish.

So that's why you're terrified of them?

Vince can you provide an example of her racist speech or actions?

While I do not care much for either party I think the word racist is thrown around to discredit anothers point of view. While you may disagree with her you seem to lack an example to support your statement.

Pretty cool:

Since Democratic candidates traditionally attract the majority of women’s votes, the emergence of an energized group of female conservatives is something the Republicans who have assiduously courted them will pay off this November.

“If, in fact, the tea party movement were to bring women into the Republican ranks who were not otherwise affiliated with the process before, or were former Democrats, that would certainly be good for the Republicans,” said Quinnipiac’s Brown.

Oh, Vince. STFU. I'm betting you didn't even read the article. If you did, here is a link for you: http://www.rif.org/

Sarah Palin, who was the main attraction at a Tea Party rally Saturday in Nevada, has become a force in the Republican Party but the overall public sees her negatively by a 55 percent to 37 percent margin, with 7 percent undecided, according to a Washington Post poll conducted March 23-26.

Forty-one percent fall into the camp of those who "strongly" see her unfavorably while 17 percent "strongly" regard her in a positive light.

Further highlighting her standing as what the Post called "a political lightening rod," 66 percent of Republicans see her favorably compared to 61 percent of Democrats who see her unfavorably. (Thirty-five percent of the Republicans say they "strongly" see her favorably). When it's broken down to self-described Republican conservatives and Democrat liberals, 71 percent of the conservatives regard her favorably and 74 percent of the liberals see her unfavorably.

Palin has a 60 percent favorable rating among those who also view the Tea Party movement favorably.
Get the new
PD toolbar!

Independents see her unfavorably by 55 percent to 38 percent.

As for the Tea Party movement itself, 41 percent regard it favorably and 39 percent unfavorably, with 20 percent having no opinion, according to the poll. Forty-six percent say they agree with the movement's positions based on what they know about them while 40 percent do not, with 14 percent having no opinion.

Thirty-eight percent of all those surveyed say the movement is exerting the right amount of influence on the Republican Party, 24 percent say too little and 23 percent say too much. Among Republicans, 45 percent say the movement's influence is the right amount, 31 percent say too little and 10 percent say too much.

The Post's findings differ from a Quinnipiac University poll conducted March 16-21 which said 28 percent of registered voters (The Post measured all adults) saw the Tea Party favorably, 23 percent saw it unfavorably while 49 percent said they hadn't heard enough about it to express an opinion. Forty-seven percent of Republicans saw it favorably, 7 percent did not and 45 percent didn't have an opinion. Democrats saw the movement unfavorably by 40 percent to 5 percent with 54 percent not having an opinion, while independents saw it favorably by 33 percent to 19 percent with 47 percent expressing no opinion.

Quinnipiac had a closer result to the Post on Palin with 53 percent seeing her unfavorably, 32 percent favorably and 14 percent expressing no opinion.

In the Quinnipiac poll, 13 percent of those surveyed said they considered themselves party of the Tea Party movement.

A Bloomberg poll conducted March 19-22 showed 33 percent viewing the Tea Party favorably, 31 percent seeing it unfavorably with 36 percent undecided.

Twenty six percent said they supporters the movement, 53 percent did not and 21 percent were not sure.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.

ferfux Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Face of the coffee party is female so why
> should this surprise anyone?


I think the coffee party has (1) more member than the smoothie party.

Yep...

Most Say Tea Party Has Better Understanding of Issues than Congress
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/march_2010/most_say_tea_party_has_better_understanding_of_issues_than_congress

Quote

...
As you would expect, there is a wide divide between the Political Class and Mainstream Americans on these questions. Seventy-five percent (75%) of those in the Political Class say that members of Congress are better informed on the issues. Among Mainstream Americans, 68% have the opposite view, and only 16% believe Congress is better informed.

By a 62% to 12% margin, Mainstream Americans say the Tea Party is closer to their views. By a 90% to one percent (1%) margin, the Political Class feels closer to Congress.
...

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Pat Buchanan is not someone I normally follow - but this article he wrote is a good breakdown of how stupid the Democrats are today and who the real anti-Americans are.

The real anti-Americans
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=133893

Quote

...
Not since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made "some Americans run off the rails," said Rich, have we seen anything like this.

Was Rich awake in 1964? Because it wasn't the right that went off the rails. The really big riot in 1964 was in Harlem, lasting five days, with 500 injured and as many arrested. The Watts riot in 1965, Detroit and Newark in 1967, Washington, D.C., and 100 other cities in 1968, all bringing troops into American cities, were not the work of George Wallace populists or Barry Goldwater conservatives. They were the work of folks who went "all the way with LBJ."

Nor was it Young Americans for Freedom that burned ROTC buildings, vandalized professors' offices, toted the guns at Cornell or took over Columbia in 1968. And it was not the Birchers who set off that 1970 explosion in the Greenwich Village townhouse that killed three radicals and aborted the terrorist bombing of the NCO club at Fort Dix.

No, this was not the New Right. This was the New Left, and it was Obama not John Boehner who used to "pal around" with one of the boys who did the Pentagon and Capitol Hill bombings.

As for calling Barney Frank a naughty name, that is not nice. But one wonders what Rich thought of the students marching under Viet Cong flags chanting, about the man who signed that Civil Rights Act, "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you kill today?" and, "Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, the NLF is going to win," when American boys were dying in the hundreds every week fighting the communist NLF?

The 1967 attack on the Pentagon, where thousands tried to break through military police to get into the building, was the work of left-wing radicals. Did the tea-party folks who chanted, "Kill the bill," outside the House behave worse than that?

Some of us recall the anarchy of May Day 1971, when 15,000 leftists tried to shut down Washington on a Monday morning by rolling logs onto Canal Road, smashing car windows, blocking traffic circles and wilding in Georgetown. Most wound up behind a chain-link fence at the Armory.

How many were arrested on Capitol Hill Sunday a week ago?

Not one tea partier, man or woman.
...

There is nothing today you can compare the past to other than McVeigh - and that was one man with an accomplice. But hey, history is meaningless right?

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Registered Voter Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Pat Buchanan is not someone I normally follow -
> but this article he wrote is a good breakdown of
> how stupid the Democrats are today and who the
> real anti-Americans are.
>
> The real anti-Americans
> http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=1
> 33893
>
> ...
> Not since the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made "some
> Americans run off the rails," said Rich, have we
> seen anything like this.
>
> Was Rich awake in 1964? Because it wasn't the
> right that went off the rails. The really big riot
> in 1964 was in Harlem, lasting five days, with 500
> injured and as many arrested. The Watts riot in
> 1965, Detroit and Newark in 1967, Washington,
> D.C., and 100 other cities in 1968, all bringing
> troops into American cities, were not the work of
> George Wallace populists or Barry Goldwater
> conservatives. They were the work of folks who
> went "all the way with LBJ."
>
> Nor was it Young Americans for Freedom that burned
> ROTC buildings, vandalized professors' offices,
> toted the guns at Cornell or took over Columbia in
> 1968. And it was not the Birchers who set off that
> 1970 explosion in the Greenwich Village townhouse
> that killed three radicals and aborted the
> terrorist bombing of the NCO club at Fort Dix.
>
> No, this was not the New Right. This was the New
> Left, and it was Obama not John Boehner who used
> to "pal around" with one of the boys who did the
> Pentagon and Capitol Hill bombings.
>
> As for calling Barney Frank a naughty name, that
> is not nice. But one wonders what Rich thought of
> the students marching under Viet Cong flags
> chanting, about the man who signed that Civil
> Rights Act, "Hey, hey, LBJ, how many kids did you
> kill today?" and, "Ho, Ho, Ho Chi Minh, the NLF is
> going to win," when American boys were dying in
> the hundreds every week fighting the communist
> NLF?
>
> The 1967 attack on the Pentagon, where thousands
> tried to break through military police to get into
> the building, was the work of left-wing radicals.
> Did the tea-party folks who chanted, "Kill the
> bill," outside the House behave worse than that?
>
> Some of us recall the anarchy of May Day 1971,
> when 15,000 leftists tried to shut down Washington
> on a Monday morning by rolling logs onto Canal
> Road, smashing car windows, blocking traffic
> circles and wilding in Georgetown. Most wound up
> behind a chain-link fence at the Armory.
>
> How many were arrested on Capitol Hill Sunday a
> week ago?
>
> Not one tea partier, man or woman.
> ...
>
>
> There is nothing today you can compare the past to
> other than McVeigh - and that was one man with an
> accomplice. But hey, history is meaningless right?


Those were attacks against institutions..not individuals. They were designed to capture media attention...to draw public attention and support against an immmoral war. WHich they did..no one who protested has anything to be ashamed about. You like Pat Buchanan are just upset about being on the wrong side of history...again.

Registered Voter...a Big talking coward..big man on FFXU...little man in life.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/30/2010 01:47PM by Vince(1).

Oh yeah - sure, that makes it okay when Obama's friend Ayers acted with others to bomb and kill people at the US Capitol. I mean - he was attacking an institution so fuck those stupid people that got in the way of their "righteous" attacks.

The point is, the left is full of violence on their side. So to have people try to portray Democrats and lefties as peace loving "normal" people, with no lunatic fringe willing to take violence to their own people is utterly moronic. Lately, again, the majority of the current violence in our country has been perpetrated by folks with leanings decidedly to the left. The folks in the Michigan militia had not acted on anything, they had just made a lot of noise and were arrested for their stupidity. They were just a "group" right? Unlike the guy who flew his plane into the IRS in Texas, or Major Hassan who decided to shoot up his fellow soldiers on the base, etc.

Let's not condone violence though, eh Vinceypoo?

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Did you just say Vinceypoo?

Wow. Just wow.

Vince wants you to slap his nuts.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=22yFoVyFva4

The bogeyman comes forth again...


Lovelock: 'We can't save the planet'

Professor James Lovelock, the scientist who developed Gaia theory, has said it is too late to try and save the planet.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8594000/8594561.stm

Quote

The man who achieved global fame for his theory that the whole earth is a single organism now believes that we can only hope that the earth will take care of itself in the face of completely unpredictable climate change.
...

*punt*

I guess that's it - time to pull a Jim Jones and drink the koolaid huh?

If you can’t model the past, where you know the answer pretty well, how can you model the future? - William Happer Cyrus Fogg Brackett Professor of Physics Princeton University

Vince(1) Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
..no one
> who protested has anything to be ashamed about.

I disagree. The punks spitting on troops and calling them baby killers should be ashamed. Real ashamed.