Republicans Eating Boogers

[txradioguy]

No Karl Rove clone here. I was Tea Party 20 years before there was a Tea Party. In politics you play to win, not play to feel good (eating boogers). Presidency + Senate beats Congress alone. As events proved, nothing could have been done to change it.  Next round, let´s not pick a fight we can´t win.

Ummm yeah...sure you were TEA party. 

Presidency+ Senate means jack shit of we continue to elect the same kind of establishment GOP types that want to waive the white flag the minute Harry reid gives them a mean look.

Again...thank you for the eatablishement Karl Rove POV.

[Big Dog]

Next round, let´s not pick a fight we can´t win.

Roll over and stick your ass in the air. Reach back and spread your cheeks for 'em. That's the fiddling ant way!

No compromise.
No retreat.
No surrender.

If that confuses you, click here.

[Bad Dog]

No Karl Rove clone here. I was Tea Party 20 years before there was a Tea Party. In politics you play to win, not play to feel good (eating boogers). Presidency + Senate beats Congress alone. As events proved, nothing could have been done to change it.  Next round, let´s not pick a fight we can´t win.

Is that you Jeb?  Keep your powder dry right?

[FiddlingAnt]

Roll over and stick your ass in the air. Reach back and spread your cheeks for 'em. That's the fiddling ant way!

No compromise.
No retreat.
No surrender.

If that confuses you, click here.

I am noticing a trend in many of the replies. If you can´t argue facts, resort to name calling and ad hominems. That´s just more booger eating - you feel good posting your¨witty¨ remarks, but you totally ignore the argument and you don´t advance the Tea Party values.

I don´t want to see the Tea Party end up marginalized like the Libertarian Party and Constitution Party.  Tea Party candidates have actually won elections. The trick to continued success is to get more states and districts to elect more Tea Party candidates and for this you need more than 50% of the votes. You don´t attract more voters by ticking them off.

In politics its about winning, not feeling good about useless actions that damage future goals.

[txradioguy]

I am noticing a trend in many of the replies. If you can´t argue facts, resort to name calling and ad hominems.

Speaking of facts...figured out the difference between deficit and debt yet?

[Dori]

What's going on here?  I hope not what we see at the DUmp.

Many here say opposing viewpoints are welcome and that we don't walk in lock step like they do.

Which is it and why all the nastiness? 

[Freeper]

What's going on here?  I hope not what we see at the DUmp.

Many here say opposing viewpoints are welcome and that we don't walk in lock step like they do.

Which is it and why all the nastiness?

Opposing viewpoints are allowed, doesn't mean that the opposition has to be nice to each other.

[FiddlingAnt]

Speaking of facts...figured out the difference between deficit and debt yet?

More ad hominem (sigh). The usage of the term you refer to from a prior post was adequately explained to anyone not limited to the narrowest of definitions.

[obumazombie]

What this last shutdown was, was round 1. What it did was smoke out conservative impostors.
What it affords is the ability to rehearse for another round in about 3 to 4 months.
When that day comes, rodeowebuma will be a lot more pliable than "Surrender and I will negotiate".

[Big Dog]

I am noticing a trend in many of the replies. If you can´t argue facts, resort to name calling and ad hominems. That´s just more booger eating - you feel good posting your¨witty¨ remarks, but you totally ignore the argument and you don´t advance the Tea Party values.

It's much simpler than that.

I don't take you seriously, I have no interest in your opinion, and I enjoy taunting you.

I won't speak for anyone else.

[DefiantSix]

What's going on here?  I hope not what we see at the DUmp.

Many here say opposing viewpoints are welcome and that we don't walk in lock step like they do.

Which is it and why all the nastiness? 

Opposing viewpoints are welcome here. When your opposing viewpoint stands in clear opposition to established fact however, the holder of the viewpoint has no right to expect others to give him a pass for the sake of "go along, get along".

This is a debating forum, not a kind of place.

[Dori]

Opposing viewpoints are welcome here. When your opposing viewpoint stands in clear opposition to established fact however, the holder of the viewpoint has no right to expect others to give him a pass for the sake of "go along, get along".

This is a debating forum, not a kind of place.

Disagreeing with someone is fine, but is using disgusting sexual descriptions to denigrate the member your disagreeing with really necessary? 

[Big Dog]

Disagreeing with someone is fine, but is using disgusting sexual descriptions to denigrate the member your disagreeing with really necessary? 

Writing only that which is necessary would be very, very boring.

[FiddlingAnt]

It's much simpler than that.

I don't take you seriously, I have no interest in your opinion, and I enjoy taunting you.

I won't speak for anyone else.

Thanks for the clarification. I am glad I am able to bring you so much joy.

Go Tea Party! Win one for the Gipper.

[dutch508]

Opposing viewpoints are welcome here. When your opposing viewpoint stands in clear opposition to established fact however, the holder of the viewpoint has no right to expect others to give him a pass for the sake of "go along, get along".

This is a debating forum, not a kind of place.

[obumazombie]

Writing only that which is necessary would be very, very boring.

Not boring enough. Try again.

[txradioguy]

More ad hominem (sigh). The usage of the term you refer to from a prior post was adequately explained to anyone not limited to the narrowest of definitions.

No that was a direct question.  

We've had someone here before that kept incorrectly using the term ad hominem to avoid answering questions.

No it wasn't adequately explained if you go back and read the responses. You were wrong then and you're wrong now about the GOP.

You're just parroting the Rove/RNC/RINO talking point.

It's always "pick your fights wisely" or "this is the wrong issue".

The problem with that cowardly strategy is that there ends up NEVER being a good fight and NEVER the right issue.  

And pretty soon if we keep up this run and hide strategy there won't be a GOP.

[FiddlingAnt]

No that was a direct question.  

We've had someone here before that kept incorrectly using the term ad hominem to avoid answering questions.

No it wasn't adequately explained if you go back and read the responses. You were wrong then and you're wrong now about the GOP.

You're just parroting the Rove/RNC/RINO talking point.

It's always "pick your fights wisely" or "this is the wrong issue".

The problem with that cowardly strategy is that there ends up NEVER being a good fight and NEVER the right issue.  

And pretty soon if we keep up this run and hide strategy there won't be a GOP.

I need to thank txradioguy for revisiting a topic of a previous post. He is bothered that I refer to a $200 trillion deficit in projected future Social Security and Medicare revenue less projected expenses. It seems he would prefer that the term deficit only be used for the annual shortfall in general government revenue less expenses. It is also referred to as a fiscal gap, but rather than being caught up in the terminology, the more important issue is making this the most important political problem to solve. If you think 17 trillion is a scary number, we have a bigger problem that is six time larger that Washington chooses to ignore. This is the fight we need to take on and wijavascript:swapOptions();n.

[biersmythe]

I need to thank txradioguy for revisiting a topic of a previous post. He is bothered that I refer to a $200 trillion deficit in projected future Social Security and Medicare revenue less projected expenses. It seems he would prefer that the term deficit only be used for the annual shortfall in general government revenue less expenses. It is also referred to as a fiscal gap, but rather than being caught up in the terminology, the more important issue is making this the most important political problem to solve. If you think 17 trillion is a scary number, we have a bigger problem that is six time larger that Washington chooses to ignore. This is the fight we need to take on and wijavascript:swapOptions();n.

LINK from google for swapOption
switch - JavaScript | MDN
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/.../switch‎
Apr 27, 2013 - Implemented in, JavaScript 1.2 ... When break is encountered, the program breaks out of switch and executes the statement following switch .

Now how does this apply to the conversation? 

[txradioguy]

LINK from google for swapOption
switch - JavaScript | MDN
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/JavaScript/.../switch‎
Apr 27, 2013 - Implemented in, JavaScript 1.2 ... When break is encountered, the program breaks out of switch and executes the statement following switch .

Now how does this apply to the conversation?

 

The link is as broken as his argument?