On Fri, Oct 29, 2010 at 10:54 AM, Francis Drouillard <[email protected]>wrote:
> Not sure if we're talking about Australian cougars or the composition and > wants of the Tea Partiers. > > If it's the latter, then this recent TNR editorial by John Ludis destroys > some of the myths perpetuated here and elsewhere: > > < > http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/78718/four-myths-about-the-tea-party?page=0,1 > > > > There's also this new Rasmussen poll that suggests Tea Partiers aren't that > infatuated with the Republican Party (scroll down a bit): > < > http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/october_2010/65_favor_getting_rid_of_entire_congress_and_starting_over > > > > Anyone that has seen an "Instant Response" focus group by Dr. Frank Luntz > knows that voters of all stripes are extremely angry with Obama and are > casting protest votes against him. They're not voting for the Republican > Party. That was especially evident in a recent focus group done in > Cleveland, OH. > > The man ran as a bipartisan moderate but is governing as an arrogant > socialist. No wonder folks are pissed. > lmfao...no wonder they believe they're pissed off... they are behaving exactly as they're being told. > > > > On Oct 26, 2010, at 11:17 AM, Michael Luscombe wrote: > > Wow, from crappy primetime news to feminism in one easy step. > > As horrifying as that all sounds, at the end of the day, if you're already > pretty, it's easier to read off a teleprompter than become an engineer. It > pays well, and you get lots of attention. Who doesn't want to be paid well > for looking good and doing almost nothing? > > Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. > > Michael > > > On 2010-10-23, at 5:18 AM, mex sara wrote: > > On Sat, Oct 23, 2010 at 1:06 PM, M Christol <[email protected]> wrote: > > You tell me that I don't know who these dumbasses are & I give you > examples. > > Then you tell me I don't gt the "larger movement". > > I have no idea why you keep bringing up the female aspect of this. > > > the reason why the female aspect is bought up is that the stereotypical > conservative woman/lady/girl [girls even when they are 60 ] > > with her connection to family community and church > > > [there is a reason they are called motherhood issues] > > > is non threatening to the good ole boys .... > > > throw on a string of pearls a power suit and a feisty attitude those same > g o bs find it dead sexy > > > especially if they[ the women/ladies/girls] are technically single [ or > have a husband that never shows his face] and between 40 and 55 though in > the older range they have to have forestalled menopause with face lifts and > HRT > > > they get to be the face of the organisation ... and they will get to be > the scapegoats if it all falls on its ass > > > so that's why they are bought up as examples > > > a. they represent all that is good motherhood community and church > > > b. to the white older conservative guy they are f..kable in their dreams > > > so classic Madonna / Whore psychopathic thing > > > why the women get drawn into it is a bit beyond my ken .... if i ever get > the chance i will ask > > > i think it is like high school ... it is two things one is a naivety about > being the most popular > > > the other is an ability to manipulate to become the most popular > > > with a classic misunderstanding that it is about their worth when just as > in high school > > > if your skirt is too short and you are drinking with the boys and get raped > it was all your own fault > > > that is my view > > > oh also if you got to marry them because you kept yourself 'nice' they > will play away with the the 'bad girls' > > > that is why the female aspect is highlighted > > > there is more but i have to go through my notes for that > > > I guess I will never get it, will I? > > whatsthefuckinpoint? > > > On 10/22/10 8:37 PM, Francis Drouillard wrote: > > You obviously aren't paying attention to the larger Tea Party movement. > They're conservatives, not Republicans. Just ask Barrett, Bennett, Murkowski > and Castle (to name a few). The Tea Partiers are predominantly women, too, > and they're going to change the Republican Party. And hopefully, Washington > as well. > > > I suspect they'll end up having an effect on the Democratic Party, too. > > > > On Oct 22, 2010, at 4:12 PM, M Christol wrote: > > > On 10/21/10 12:46 PM, Francis Drouillard wrote: > > I don't think you understand who the Tea Partiers are or what they want. > > > Most haven't been involved in politics before, and most want a smaller > federal government with limited powers. There are pretenders, such as the > third party candidate for US Senate in Nevada. (Actual Tea Partiers back > Angle, the Republican candidate.) > > > One I know personally wanted to run for a low level office, precinct > captain, as soon as she heard that such a position existed. She was about > 48. If you are into politics and an adult you should at lest know what the > various positions are. Her complete ignorance, in my mind, made her > ineligible for the job. > > > Another guy, who actually organized the Cincinnati Tea Party - his first > event was to gather on the Cincinnati town square& yell& holler& then > march on city hall. > > He didn't live in Cincinnati, tho. He didn't live in Hamilton county. And > the majority of the supporters didn't either. It's just where the TV > stations were. > > He is in a race now for an Ohio legislature seat. > > He might have an associates degree. He has an MCSE. He has been employed by > a few companies. The Dem incumbent got her bachelors degree, spent 10 years > in the military doing IT work, got a law degree after that& set up a > practice, raised a family& served on local civic councils along the way. > The Tea bagger wsn't even in the PTA. > > While he hasn't done so directly, his supporters have attacked the Dem's > military record. > > Ignorant& lame. > > I know what they are. They are Republicans. I know what they want - > Republican domination in the government. > > They just don't waant to say so. > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "StrataList-OT" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/stratalist-ot?hl=en. > > > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "StrataList-OT" group. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]<stratalist-ot%[email protected]> > . > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/stratalist-ot?hl=en. > -- "doubts are the only certainties i have left." m. feldman -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "StrataList-OT" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/stratalist-ot?hl=en.
