I was responding to Mex's email, which was quoted after my reply. This email was sent three days ago, though, so it's hardly relevant to the discussion.
And no, I don't give a shit about the tea party. Michael On 2010-10-29, at 11:54 AM, Francis Drouillard 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. > > > > 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.
