:popcorn:


[wrong posting]



VIDEO: Sarah Palin and CPAC crowd show how easy it is to beat the Occupiers (http://www.theblaze.com/blog/2012/02/11/video-sarah-palin-and-cpac-crowd-show-how-easy-it-is-to-beat-the-occupiers/)
Posted February 11, 2012 at 5:15 pm by Chris Field

Comments (2)

During Sarah Palin’s CPAC speech — during which she reminded attendees that the message of the Occupy Wall Street crowd must and can be beaten — those classy Occupiers decided to start yelling and chanting some sort of nonsense. The crowd reacted with overpowering chants of “USA! USA!“ and ”Sarah! Sarah!”

The Occupy folks were quickly taken down and removed from the room.

Sarah, with the best line of her speech, followed with an unscripted line: “See, you just won. See how easy it is.”

lOhLdmrXWTM

:popcorn:


.... Conservative suck because we are hypocrites .... that's because we have standards .... which we sometimes or frequently fail to live up to ..... but we have them ........ a Conservative Politician has an extra marital affair he is a hypocrite ..... Bill C has numerous extra marital affairs and he is Bill Clinton ..... here is the thing however, Conservatives never claim OUR own behavior is the standard, only that a Standard for GOOD behavior exists ....

[zing]

.... and that is the difference and that Sucks worse than anything ...

In November 2011, Sarah Palin wrote an op-ed, "How Congress Occupied Wall Street", in The Wall Street Journal. In the editorial, she expressed frustration about many of the things the Occupy DC folks are frustrated about.

Sarah Palin: How Congress Occupied Wall Street - WSJ.com (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204323904577040373463191222.html?mod=googlenews_wsj)

It's very easy for thousands of conservatives to shout over five liberals at a conservative venue, and it's easy to defeat opposing opinion by removing them from a room. But CPAC is not the entire electorate.

And if Sarah Palin thinks her message is that popular with 80% of Americans and it's easy for her to win a debate with Barack Obama, why didn't she run for President?

She also spoke about Obama being the captain of the ship and doing nothing but rearranging the chairs during a shipwreck. Let me put it this way, and I'm gonna sound like an ass with this, but Sarah Palin would up on to the first lifeboat if she was the captain of a sinking ship. She's done this time and time again.

She was selected as VP and, instead of being herself (a right-leaning moderate), she let the Republican party "groom" her and mold her in to what they wanted her to be. Between that and the unfair coverage she got from the media, the McCain/Palin ticket lost. Then she ran from the fight in Alaska and has done nothing to change the laws that allow any frivilous complaint to be filed.

Next, she signed a deal with FOX "News" as their official everything expert. At this point, the TEA Party was becoming popular and the message of ending all regulation became popular. Sarah Palin strayed from her record in Alaska of taking on conservatives and liberals, and taking on the oil companies, and quickly changed in to a puppet for the corporations. She pissed off multiple oil companies on multple occassions as governor. She taxed oil companies, denied permits and demanded oil companies take action to protect the environment. Now, she acts as a spokesperson for big oil -- even defending BP during the oil disaster in the Gulf.

Sarah Palin formed a Super PAC. Recently, she's complained about Super PACs and candidates hiding behind them.

Once the populist momentum shifts back to the center or to the left, "you betcha" :wink: Sarah Palin will move right along with it.

Wirelessly posted

Sarah is going to do what keeps Sarah relevant, even if it is only moderately so.

As for standards and hypocrisy,everybody has standards they just aren't the same. If you expect other to hold to a standard while you violate it that is hypocrisy. Clinton never told others they needed to hold to marital standards and he certainly didn't try to have anyone prosecuted for having an affair.

Do as I say not as I do shouldn't be the standard or acceptable from any politician.

I am sorry did Obvious Troll say something ............


This user is on your Ignore List.

Wirelessly posted

I am sorry did Obvious Troll say something ............


This user is on your Ignore List.

No surprise that you don't understand the idea if ignore considering you are the biggest troll of the board and you don't understand that term.

:killingme

Obvious Troll Responds AGAIN :jet:


knowing he is on ignore :evil:



This message is hidden because thatguy is on your ignore list.

Wirelessly posted

:killingme

Obvious Troll Responds AGAIN :jet:


knowing he is on ignore :evil:



This message is hidden because thatguy is on your ignore list.

Idiot ETC keeps replying because he can't figure out how to actually ignore.

No wonder he always starts a bunch of troll threads :yay:

:killingme

Obvious Troll Responds AGAIN :jet:

knowing he is on ignore :evil:



How do you know he is responding if he is on ignore? :twitch:

Wirelessly posted

:killingme

Obvious Troll Responds AGAIN :jet:

knowing he is on ignore :evil:



How do you know he is responding if he is on ignore? :twitch:

He doesnt know what ignore means apparently.

Here is a hint, directing posts to someone is not ignoring them. It's like that commercial where the girl calls her BF to tell him she is giving him the silent treatment.

Conservatives suck because we are always willing to give an inch to avoid giving two and we call that winning. And it's not. The left doesn't suck because they are always demanding two and willing to accept one. And, they call that winning. Because it is.

We pat ourselves on the back that we 'saved' an inch, we 'conserved' an inch. Why, it would be sooooo much worse had we not fought and stood on principle to save that inch. Then, we go about the process of finding which remaining inch is more important so we can decide which one to lose next time.

The left pats themselves on the back because they got something and have no intention of resting at that. Once they get that inch and the party is over, they go right back to work to demand the next two inches in order to get the one they didn't get last time.

Look at us. The nation is traumatized. Energy prices. The housing mess. Entitlements. Government cost, scope and power. Foreign policy. And what are we coalescing around? Birth control and gay marriage.

To make the argument "Well, we're hypocrites but, at least we have principles to be hypocritical about!" is to confuse effort with results. It is to attempt to make a virtue out of losing. Barack Obama was down and nearly out not once but, twice in the last three years and both times, we helped him back up.

The first time was the surge in Afghanistan. To not trust a leader over our dollars is all well and fine and good but, to then trust him with the lives of our troops is stupid. How is a dollar worth more than a life? Obama was on the ropes after the twin debacles of his failed stimulus and his health care brawl he was desperate to get the heat off so, he betrayed his side and chose, in December 2009, to throw out some red meat and get the dogs off of him and it worked like a charm, we Lemmings on the right saluting the flag and letting him off the hook instead of standing on principle; "We do NOT trust you with the economy. There is NO way we are going to trust you with the lives of our troops!"

The second time was the mid terms. Obama was done. House D's took an epic drubbing and then, what happened? We gave him more, not less, more spending in exchange for....nothing. Not more tax cuts but, simply maintaining existing rates.

Tax cuts are meaningless in the face of increased spending. Trusting a man with your kids life when you won't trust him with your wallet is sickening.

n both cases, two major points in time that the left could have been sent home, we gave an inch to preserve an inch.

The right sucks because all we ever do is play defense. And poorly at that. The left doesn't suck because they never stop playing offense while playing defense as a life and death struggle.

The left pats themselves on the back because they got something and have no intention of resting at that. Once they get that inch and the party is over, they go right back to work to demand the next two inches in order to get the one they didn't get last time.




Ayn Rands - Return to the Primitive (http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pagename=objectivism_nonfiction_return_of_the_primitive) bares this out in the opening chapter, discussing the 1st 'student' movements at Berkly in the mid 60's ....

had the school regents not blinked and started giving in to demands, the 1960s protest movement might have turned out completely different


so more concessions given more and more was demanded ........ more power gained, more demanded

Wirelessly posted

Conservatives suck because we are always willing to give an inch to avoid giving two and we call that winning. And it's not. The left doesn't suck because they are always demanding two and willing to accept one. And, they call that winning. Because it is.

We pat ourselves on the back that we 'saved' an inch, we 'conserved' an inch. Why, it would be sooooo much worse had we not fought and stood on principle to save that inch. Then, we go about the process of finding which remaining inch is more important so we can decide which one to lose next time.

The left pats themselves on the back because they got something and have no intention of resting at that. Once they get that inch and the party is over, they go right back to work to demand the next two inches in order to get the one they didn't get last time.

Look at us. The nation is traumatized. Energy prices. The housing mess. Entitlements. Government cost, scope and power. Foreign policy. And what are we coalescing around? Birth control and gay marriage.

To make the argument "Well, we're hypocrites but, at least we have principles to be hypocritical about!" is to confuse effort with results. It is to attempt to make a virtue out of losing. Barack Obama was down and nearly out not once but, twice in the last three years and both times, we helped him back up.

The first time was the surge in Afghanistan. To not trust a leader over our dollars is all well and fine and good but, to then trust him with the lives of our troops is stupid. How is a dollar worth more than a life? Obama was on the ropes after the twin debacles of his failed stimulus and his health care brawl he was desperate to get the heat off so, he betrayed his side and chose, in December 2009, to throw out some red meat and get the dogs off of him and it worked like a charm, we Lemmings on the right saluting the flag and letting him off the hook instead of standing on principle; "We do NOT trust you with the economy. There is NO way we are going to trust you with the lives of our troops!"

The second time was the mid terms. Obama was done. House D's took an epic drubbing and then, what happened? We gave him more, not less, more spending in exchange for....nothing. Not more tax cuts but, simply maintaining existing rates.

Tax cuts are meaningless in the face of increased spending. Trusting a man with your kids life when you won't trust him with your wallet is sickening.

n both cases, two major points in time that the left could have been sent home, we gave an inch to preserve an inch.

The right sucks because all we ever do is play defense. And poorly at that. The left doesn't suck because they never stop playing offense while playing defense as a life and death struggle.

I can't say that I agree with everything you say there, but it certainly speaks to the fact that the left has standards and values.

It also speaks to why so many like you and I are no longer identifying with the (R) anymore. I would prefer a guy in the middle that actually stands on his issues rather than making a stand and then giving in when the going get tough. Well thanand a guy that stays out of our personal choices.

I am sorry did Obvious Troll say something ............

He said he admires Sara Palin because she's not a hypocrite like Bill Clinton

Wirelessly posted

I am sorry did Obvious Troll say something ............

He said he admires Sara Palin because she's not a hypocrite like Bill Clinton

You are Still batting 1000 at being wrong I see :yay:

Now he's thanking me for being insightful.

Wirelessly posted



I can't say that I agree with everything you say there, but it certainly speaks to the fact that the left has standards and values.

It also speaks to why so many like you and I are no longer identifying with the (R) anymore. I would prefer a guy in the middle that actually stands on his issues rather than making a stand and then giving in when the going get tough. Well thanand a guy that stays out of our personal choices.

Au contraire. I can't help but reflexively identify with being a Republican. 've tried but, I can't give it up any more than I can let go of reflexively be a Redskins fan. My problem is that 'Republican' means to me someone who is for personal liberty and responsibility and freedom as well as economic liberty and responsibility and freedom and a government of, by and for those things, meaning of, by and for the people.

The problem I have is that the GOP has little to no interest in any of those things and is very much in every key area of policy a pro government party. We talk one thing and do another. It is much like the Redskins where, nowadays, we don't much do the things that made the Redskins great.

Vrai said it best; A RINO used to be someone like McCain, a pol that talked less government but was for more government, much more. That person is no longer a RINO. That person IS a Republican and it's people who are actually for the talk being policy that are the RINO's.

You could not have a better collection to represent that than Santorum, Ginrich and Romney. They are the new GOP.

Wirelessly posted

Wirelessly posted



I can't say that I agree with everything you say there, but it certainly speaks to the fact that the left has standards and values.

It also speaks to why so many like you and I are no longer identifying with the (R) anymore. I would prefer a guy in the middle that actually stands on his issues rather than making a stand and then giving in when the going get tough. Well thanand a guy that stays out of our personal choices.

Au contraire. I can't help but reflexively identify with being a Republican. 've tried but, I can't give it up any more than I can let go of reflexively be a Redskins fan. My problem is that 'Republican' means to me someone who is for personal liberty and responsibility and freedom as well as economic liberty and responsibility and freedom and a government of, by and for those things, meaning of, by and for the people.

The problem I have is that the GOP has little to no interest in any of those things and is very much in every key area of policy a pro government party. We talk one thing and do another. It is much like the Redskins where, nowadays, we don't much do the things that made the Redskins great.

Vrai said it best; A RINO used to be someone like McCain, a pol that talked less government but was for more government, much more. That person is no longer a RINO. That person IS a Republican and it's people who are actually for the talk being policy that are the RINO's.

You could not have a better collection to represent that than Santorum, Ginrich and Romney. They are the new GOP.

I agree there. I guess that's why I am still registered as a republican. In the back of my mind I still think of the personal freedom, small gov, and fiscal conservative trays that used to be hallmarks of republicans. Someone like Paul or Johnson would be ideal candidates in my mind. Instead the right is offering up a democrat, a social conservative, and a big government Washington insider, all of which are RINOs. That's why the R side lost me in the last election. I stood by my previous perception of McCain. Just because he was the candidate my party decided upon didn't change his RINO status.

Conservatives suck because we are always willing to give an inch to avoid giving two and we call that winning. And it's not. The left doesn't suck because they are always demanding two and willing to accept one. And, they call that winning. Because it is.

We pat ourselves on the back that we 'saved' an inch, we 'conserved' an inch. Why, it would be sooooo much worse had we not fought and stood on principle to save that inch. Then, we go about the process of finding which remaining inch is more important so we can decide which one to lose next time.

The left pats themselves on the back because they got something and have no intention of resting at that. Once they get that inch and the party is over, they go right back to work to demand the next two inches in order to get the one they didn't get last time.

Look at us. The nation is traumatized. Energy prices. The housing mess. Entitlements. Government cost, scope and power. Foreign policy. And what are we coalescing around? Birth control and gay marriage.

To make the argument "Well, we're hypocrites but, at least we have principles to be hypocritical about!" is to confuse effort with results. It is to attempt to make a virtue out of losing. Barack Obama was down and nearly out not once but, twice in the last three years and both times, we helped him back up.

The first time was the surge in Afghanistan. To not trust a leader over our dollars is all well and fine and good but, to then trust him with the lives of our troops is stupid. How is a dollar worth more than a life? Obama was on the ropes after the twin debacles of his failed stimulus and his health care brawl he was desperate to get the heat off so, he betrayed his side and chose, in December 2009, to throw out some red meat and get the dogs off of him and it worked like a charm, we Lemmings on the right saluting the flag and letting him off the hook instead of standing on principle; "We do NOT trust you with the economy. There is NO way we are going to trust you with the lives of our troops!"

The second time was the mid terms. Obama was done. House D's took an epic drubbing and then, what happened? We gave him more, not less, more spending in exchange for....nothing. Not more tax cuts but, simply maintaining existing rates.

Tax cuts are meaningless in the face of increased spending. Trusting a man with your kids life when you won't trust him with your wallet is sickening.

n both cases, two major points in time that the left could have been sent home, we gave an inch to preserve an inch.

The right sucks because all we ever do is play defense. And poorly at that. The left doesn't suck because they never stop playing offense while playing defense as a life and death struggle.

First: The main problem is that the social issues are what unite Republicans.

Second: It seems to me that Democrats are on defense far more than Republicans Even when the Republican is the incumbent, the Democrat's on defense.

Third: Democrats get upset when they give an inch. Obama will give two inches and accept one. I know some of my friends on the left were barking mad over the tax cut extension. I had to sit there and explain what the Democrats got out of that deal. But compromise is rare nowadays. Core Democrat voters get mad when Dems compromise and core Republican voters get mad when Republicans compromise.

Eric Cantor is one person I detest and I think he's doing more damage to your party than anything. There was a great Washington Post article a couple months ago about Cantor following the election. It was a 10 page read or so, but the vibe I got at the end was that this guy want more power so bad and he's working behind the scenes to divide the House GOP so Boehner appears incompetent and he can get the Speaker position.

The other reason I dislike Cantor is because of his AIG vote. I'll never forget watching him try to wiggle around in the frying pan Lawrence O'Donnell had him skewering in on Morning Joe. :killingme

The only budget the House passed was the Paul Ryan budget. And these "MSNBC talking points" come from conservative blogs and even from a Reublican Presidential candidate: The Paul Ryan plan does raise taxes on the middle class. The Paul Ryan plan is social engineering. The Paul Ryan plan does put Medicare on the private market.

The problem I have with the candidates in the GOP right now is that they blame Obama for #### Bush did. Yes, Obama is the President now. Obama was not the President in 2008. They can either act like Bush didn't exist and think everything's fine and dandy in their party (and lose the election) or they can say, "Bush was not the conservative America needed. Give our party another chance and we'll show that our principles can steer this country on the right path." But it's hard to do that when the destined nominee bragged, a few years ago, about being to the left of Obama on several core Conservative issues.

Au contraire. I can't help but reflexively identify with being a Republican. 've tried but, I can't give it up any more than I can let go of reflexively be a Redskins fan. My problem is that 'Republican' means to me someone who is for personal liberty and responsibility and freedom as well as economic liberty and responsibility and freedom and a government of, by and for those things, meaning of, by and for the people.

The problem I have is that the GOP has little to no interest in any of those things and is very much in every key area of policy a pro government party. We talk one thing and do another. It is much like the Redskins where, nowadays, we don't much do the things that made the Redskins great.

Vrai said it best; A RINO used to be someone like McCain, a pol that talked less government but was for more government, much more. That person is no longer a RINO. That person IS a Republican and it's people who are actually for the talk being policy that are the RINO's.

You could not have a better collection to represent that than Santorum, Ginrich and Romney. They are the new GOP.

I agree with this. But again, being anti-gay marriage and anti-contraception is the only way a Republican (especially someone like Romney) can unite the TEA Party with traditional Republicans.

Santorum? He's vying for a job at FOX "News" -- but he's probably gonna piss off Republicans in the long run because he's gonna be the main reason Romney wins the nomination and loses to Obama.

I agree with this. But again, being anti-gay marriage and anti-contraception is the only way a Republican (especially someone like Romney) can unite the TEA Party with traditional Republicans.

.

If that were true, the GOP would be united. Romney, at least this week, is against gays and abortion. Santorum has always been against both.

The GOP, due no credit for it, have at their disposal, over half the electorate if only they'd focus on the primary issues most people care about; health care, the economy, the wars, entitlements, housing, energy costs and immigration policy. You'll note that abortion and gay marriage have nothing to do with any of that.

Now, I'll grant you, the GOP may well be trying to seek some sort of unity behind social issues to avoid the larger issues because there is so little agreement within the party on what to do about the important stuff. However, social issues do not unite the party any more than what to do about health care, immigration, energy, the wars or entitlements.

The GOP is adrift and desire to place limits on others ain't gonna help.

Third: Democrats get upset when they give an inch. Obama will give two inches and accept one. I know some of my friends on the left were barking mad over the tax cut extension. I had to sit there and explain what the Democrats got out of that deal. But compromise is rare nowadays. Core Democrat voters get mad when Dems compromise and core Republican voters get mad when Republicans compromise. You friends can get man all they like but, at the end of the day, they did get something. All we do is lose.

Eric Cantor is one person I detest and I think he's doing more damage to your party than anything. There was a great Washington Post article a couple months ago about Cantor following the election. It was a 10 page read or so, but the vibe I got at the end was that this guy want more power so bad and he's working behind the scenes to divide the House GOP so Boehner appears incompetent and he can get the Speaker position. Cantor is representative of the new GOP; the party of expanding entitlements, TARP and war

The other reason I dislike Cantor is because of his AIG vote. I'll never forget watching him try to wiggle around in the frying pan Lawrence O'Donnell had him skewering in on Morning Joe. :killingme

The only budget the House passed was the Paul Ryan budget. And these "MSNBC talking points" come from conservative blogs and even from a Reublican Presidential candidate: The Paul Ryan plan does raise taxes on the middle class. The Paul Ryan plan is social engineering. The Paul Ryan plan does put Medicare on the private market.All true. What is really distressing is that Ryan is our leading fiscal conservative. Again, we don't even talk actual cuts anymore.

The problem I have with the candidates in the GOP right now is that they blame Obama for #### Bush did. Yes, Obama is the President now. Obama was not the President in 2008. They can either act like Bush didn't exist and think everything's fine and dandy in their party (and lose the election) or they can say, "Bush was not the conservative America needed. Give our party another chance and we'll show that our principles can steer this country on the right path." But it's hard to do that when the destined nominee bragged, a few years ago, about being to the left of Obama on several core Conservative issues.

I don't suppose you've ever heard of Ron Paul? He is a GOP candidate, if in name only.

The problem I have with the candidates in the GOP right now is that they blame Obama for #### Bush did. Yes, Obama is the President now. Obama was not the President in 2008.




and Libs complained THEN that Bush was doing things :cds:

Gitmo, Troop Surges etc ........ Your Guy Bamma gets into office and :faint:

gosh it is easier out on the Campaign Trail ......

If that were true, the GOP would be united. Romney, at least this week, is against gays and abortion. Santorum has always been against both.

The GOP, due no credit for it, have at their disposal, over half the electorate if only they'd focus on the primary issues most people care about; health care, the economy, the wars, entitlements, housing, energy costs and immigration policy. You'll note that abortion and gay marriage have nothing to do with any of that.

Now, I'll grant you, the GOP may well be trying to seek some sort of unity behind social issues to avoid the larger issues because there is so little agreement within the party on what to do about the important stuff. However, social issues do not unite the party any more than what to do about health care, immigration, energy, the wars or entitlements.

The GOP is adrift and desire to place limits on others ain't gonna help.

Look at 2010. Republicans did not support the TEA Party candidates until they got in to the social issues. In fact, it got to the point that some of the so-called libertarian types completely abandoned their entire platform and only talked about social issues. By the end of the 2010 cycle, look what people were talking about: abortion, contraception, gay marriage, Sharia Law, English as the official language.

The GOP isn't united now, but this is what they'll do to get the GOP united. Either that or they'll run Marco Rubio as VP.

Republicans have the winning message on the economy. While things are starting to improve, once gas prices skyrocket this summer, the recession will start back up. It's clear we can't take four more years of Obama... unless he can miracle a plan to keep the economy in recovery during the imminent gas price spike.

and Libs complained THEN that Bush was doing things :cds:

Gitmo, Troop Surges etc ........ Your Guy Bamma gets into office and :faint:

gosh it is easier out on the Campaign Trail ......

Liberals complain about #### Bush actually did.

Did Bush sign the Bush tax cuts in to law? Yes.

Did Bush sign the PATRIOT Act in to law? Yes.

Did Bush send our troops in to Iraq? Yes.

Did Bush sign the bailout in to law? Yes.

Look at 2010. Republicans did not support the TEA Party candidates until they got in to the social issues. In fact, it got to the point that some of the so-called libertarian types completely abandoned their entire platform and only talked about social issues. By the end of the 2010 cycle, look what people were talking about: abortion, contraception, gay marriage, Sharia Law, English as the official language.

The GOP isn't united now, but this is what they'll do to get the GOP united. Either that or they'll run Marco Rubio as VP.

Republicans have the winning message on the economy. While things are starting to improve, once gas prices skyrocket this summer, the recession will start back up. It's clear we can't take four more years of Obama... unless he can miracle a plan to keep the economy in recovery during the imminent gas price spike.

The TEA party is, well, was, a small government movement that exploded on the scene over Obama care. That was summer of '09. They won, big, in fall of 2010 and it had nothing to do with social issues. I will grant you that since then it has disappeared and been replaced by social issues.

The TEA party is, well, was, a small government movement that exploded on the scene over Obama care. That was summer of '09. They won, big, in fall of 2010 and it had nothing to do with social issues. I will grant you that since then it has disappeared and been replaced by social issues.

The TEA Party message disappeared during the 2010 campaign. Look at what Christine O'Donnell spent most of her campaign talking about. There are a few others who spent much of their campaign time talking about social issues and, to be honest, I'd honestly have to look them up. Once Obamacare passed and the outrage over that simmered (since Americans have the attention span of a gnat), the TEA Party really picked up on the culture wars.

The TEA Party message disappeared during 2002.

The TEA Party didn't exist in 2002. :confused:

Look at what Christine O'Donnell spent most of her campaign talking about. There are a few others who spent much of their campaign time talking about social issues and, to be honest, I'd honestly have to look them up. Once Obamacare passed and the outrage over that simmered (since Americans have the attention span of a gnat), the TEA Party really picked up on the culture wars.

She spent most of her time talking about that stuff because that's what the media asked her about and wouldn't let go of. That wasn't the focus of her platform.

She spent most of her time talking about that stuff because that's what the media asked her about and wouldn't let go of. That wasn't the focus of her platform.

Christine O'Donnell has spent most of her life crusading on social issues. So, yes, she got asked questions about it.

The TEA Party message disappeared during the 2010 campaign. Look at what Christine O'Donnell spent most of her campaign talking about. There are a few others who spent much of their campaign time talking about social issues and, to be honest, I'd honestly have to look them up. Once Obamacare passed and the outrage over that simmered (since Americans have the attention span of a gnat), the TEA Party really picked up on the culture wars.

If she won, I suppose you might have a point. Seeings how she didn't even come close and 61 some odd GOP'ers around the nation did win in the House, focusing on Obama-care and spending, you don't have a point.

It is only now, with the GOP field adrift, no direction, no purpose other than being the Not Obama, and now this contraception non sense animating the universe that social issues have come to the fore.

Did Bush sign the Bush tax cuts in to law? Yes.




Tax Cuts are a Good Thing ........ it is MY Money, Not YOURS

Tax Cuts are a Good Thing ........ it is MY Money, Not YOURS

What's that mean? We all pay taxes, not just YOU. I pay a 23% effective tax rate. I don't even like the flat tax but even a 23% "flat tax" cuts my effective rate down to 7%.

What's that mean? We all pay taxes, not just YOU. I pay a 23% effective tax rate. I don't even like the flat tax but even a 23% "flat tax" cuts my effective rate down to 7%.



Libs Treat my money as theirs

Libs Treat my money as theirs

And Conservatives don't? :rolleyes: Come on ETC, you know both sides are equally as bad on entitlements and spending. Bush and his Republican Congress spent money like drunken sailors. The only time your party cares about the deficit is when they don't occupy the Oval Office.

Look at 2010. Republicans did not support the TEA Party candidates until they got in to the social issues.
:confused: Taxed Enough Already is a social issue?
Liberals complain about #### Bush actually did.

Did Bush sign the Bush tax cuts in to law? Yes.

Did Bush sign the PATRIOT Act in to law? Yes.

Did Bush send our troops in to Iraq? Yes.

Did Bush sign the bailout in to law? Yes.

Not all by the same Bush

:confused: Taxed Enough Already is a social issue?

Evidently. They shifted from complaining about government spending to complaining about gays and contraception.