BillsFan-4-Ever Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Do you really believe the Palins and Romneys are true to the original concept of the TEA Party? you are only fooling yourself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Do you really believe the Palins and Romneys are true to the original concept of the TEA Party? you are only fooling yourself. Who, or what, exactly, are you responding to? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted January 28, 2014 Author Share Posted January 28, 2014 Who, or what, exactly, are you responding to? He's incomprehensible. Sort of a poor man's Gatortard. He ventures down here when Mistress Nasty is away and he needs to get his ass whipped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Who, or what, exactly, are you responding to? Does it matter? Why not just answer the question? Did those people misrepresented themselves as TEA Party supporters? I know for damn sure Mitt is a moderate, so my answer is YES he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) Does it matter? Why not just answer the question? Did those people misrepresented themselves as TEA Party supporters? I know for damn sure Mitt is a moderate, so my answer is YES he did. You are looking at the situation 180 degrees out of whack. Mitt presented himself as he is (as a moderate) He asked the TEA party members for support...........some did, many didn't There was no "pretending" to be a TEA Party insider...................... You seem to be unduly influenced by the media that misrepresents all things conservative. but thats okay, most of us are used to that problem. . . Edited January 28, 2014 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Does it matter? Hillary, is that you? Why not just answer the question? Because it's not relevent to the thread. Did those people misrepresented themselves as TEA Party supporters? Palin worked to co-opt the movement to her campaign, Romney sought to make peace with it for his. Neither were very successful. I know for damn sure Mitt is a moderate, so my answer is YES he did. Which speaks to your poor understanding of actual events rather than the events themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) Palin worked to co-opt the movement to her campaign, Romney sought to make peace with it for his. Neither were very successful. Perhaps I am taking your words too literally TYTT, but what campaign is that ? Gov. Palin has not run for office since 2008 . . Edited January 28, 2014 by B-Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) Perhaps I am taking your words too literally TYTT, but what campaign is that ? Gov. Palin has not run for office since 2008 She's planning a Senatorial run. I misused tense in my post. Edited January 28, 2014 by TakeYouToTasker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boyst Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Why do we even need parties on the ballot? Let the parties do nothing more then endorse a candidate like teachers unions and the NRA do... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 You are looking at the situation 180 degrees out of whack. Mitt presented himself as he is (as a moderate) He asked the TEA party members for support...........some did, many didn't There was no "pretending" to be a TEA Party insider...................... You seem to be unduly influenced by the media that misrepresents all things conservative. but thats okay, most of us are used to that problem. . OMG. Mitt did almost EVERYTHING but paint himself as a moderate. HE pandered to the Republican wingers. Had he stuck to being a moderate he just might have won!!! If you consider me watching Mitt himself at speeches and debates as being unduly influenced by the media, then you might be right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
B-Man Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 OMG. Mitt did almost EVERYTHING but paint himself as a moderate. HE pandered to the Republican wingers. Had he stuck to being a moderate he just might have won!!! Again......................................180 degrees backward of what happened. . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 OMG. Mitt did almost EVERYTHING but paint himself as a moderate. HE pandered to the Republican wingers. Had he stuck to being a moderate he just might have won!!! If you consider me watching Mitt himself at speeches and debates as being unduly influenced by the media, then you might be right. Mitt Romney was too liberal a candidate, which is why president Obama won with a smaller turnout than he had in his first election. Mitt Romney could not command the conservative or libertarian vote. He garnered only the liberal, centerist, RINO, and old guard Republican votes. That is why he lost. The post election analysis have borne this out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 OMG. Mitt did almost EVERYTHING but paint himself as a moderate. HE pandered to the Republican wingers. Had he stuck to being a moderate he just might have won!!! If you consider me watching Mitt himself at speeches and debates as being unduly influenced by the media, then you might be right. But he never would have won the nomination. Plus, he was up against the perception of being an arch-conservative plutocrat, because he's rich. And the media's slavish devotion to Obama didn't help either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
drinkTHEkoolaid Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 Mitt Romney had a horse. He was rich. Rich people who are republican are racist. Hes racist therefore must be in the tea party Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted January 28, 2014 Share Posted January 28, 2014 (edited) So called "side-payments" have existed since the beginning of time, I am not sure the point you're trying to make- I have said time and time again to people who are worried about lines or rationing- make a large donation to a hospital, you walk to the front of the line to see providers other wait 6 months to see. the ACA hasn't changed that one bit. Most people don't know how to game the system or simple don't have the resources to do so, too bad for them. I don't think anyone said there would not be unintended conequences of the expansion of Medicaid. People with new coverage go to the ED when they get sick because it takes weeks and not months to get in with a PCP in many cases. the belief is once someone with Medicaid has established care with a Doctor, they will go back to that office/ call that office when they get sick. Time will tell if the predicted behavior comes to pass. You will also see more hospital operate urgent care clinics as they become more in demand. Oh I see....so all of the stated objectives that Obamacare is supposed to permanently solve....don't matter/were always going to happen/too bad for the people who don't throw you money? And, not only doesn't Obamacare solve the problem, when it makes it worse? You tell use that this was part of the plan all along? This is starting to get exactly like Global Warming: all evidence, even contradictory, is proof that Obamacare is working, and Obamacare can never be falsified. Look: again, like Global Warming, you never supported this because you think it will work. You BELIEVED it was going to work, largely because it had things in it that health care providers such as yourself have been bothered by for years. But, you didn't actually try to understand the thing. All you saw is "I get my stuff". Or, more likely, the Colorado Hospital State Association(whatever it's called) lawyers/lobbyists had a special seminar at their last trade show and told you: "look at what we got you!" The problem: you aren't going to get your stuff. They aren't actually going to deliver what you really want. Never. You want the problems to go away so badly you'll put anything on them, never mind that it doesn't cure/solve anything. Obamacare: your version of Robitusson. "Just throw some Tussin on it". Edited January 28, 2014 by OCinBuffalo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Mitt Romney had a horse. He was rich. Rich people who are republican are racist. Hes racist therefore must be in the tea party Don't forget misogynist...only a Tea Bagger would keep women imprisoned in binders. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BillsFan-4-Ever Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Obamacare? Don't you mean Romneycare 2.0? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Azalin Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Obamacare? Don't you mean Romneycare 2.0? there are significant differences between the two. for one, I don't recall hearing how Romney had to make post-passage changes to it via executive order to keep it from blowing up in his face. secondly (and much more importantly) it was implemented at the STATE LEVEL. he wasn't trying to force ideology on the whole country, and anyone who disagreed with the law enough could always move to another state in order to be free of it. I'm sure there are other here who could easily provide other/better distinctions between Obamacare and Romneycare. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Obamacare? Don't you mean Romneycare 2.0? A quick note to the folks who contemplate posting here now that the football season is essentially over. The post you see above is the post of a lazy mind...the post of a person who takes the words of others as gospel expressly because it somehow conforms to some odd ideology they are willing to support in lieu of individual thought. Try to avoid this type of lazy thinking. It's okay to mock and be sarcastic, but this is neither. It's typically lazy progressive posting, and more of it will only make PPP less attractive to the rest of you. Thanks for your time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TakeYouToTasker Posted January 29, 2014 Share Posted January 29, 2014 Obamacare? Don't you mean Romneycare 2.0? No. State's rights vs. Federal supremacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts