The Tea Party Needs To Kidnap Mittens!

D

Dixie - In Memoriam

New member
As I watch the process unfold in the GOP race, it has become clear to me, the candidate who can beat Obama and who the establishment is hell-bent on nominating, has no clue of what Reagan conservatism is all about, or what the typical Tea Party conservatives understand it to be. I think he may be worse than the Bush's at understanding conservative supply-side economics, and has already made several eyebrow-raising comments. Like the other day, when he announced everyone would get a tax cut, except those greedy 1%ers... he would make sure the rich paid their fair share! Now, maybe he thought that would appeal to 'moderates' or something, I don't know... but it certainly undermines the conservative argument that cutting tax rates for highest income earners generates increased prosperity. In fact, it's almost a white flag of surrender to the occupiers of Wall Street, if you ask me. It's things like this, which make me shake my head over Romney as our candidate.

This is why I think the Tea Party should kidnap Mittens. Take him to Dick Cheney's undisclosed bunker, and have someone read Atlas Shrugged and William F. Buckley to him, and make him listen to all of Ronald Reagan's archived speeches. We need to do something about his demeanor as well, he needs a shot of Alan West "can-do" confidence! Maybe someone could slap him with leather gloves every time he starts timidly trying to apologize for his conservatism? Or when he starts trying to retreat into a defensive posture. If we could just give him a backbone like Santorum and a brain like Newt, with a fiscal conservative mindset like Paul?.... He needs a profound rewiring on his thinking, when it comes to conservative political philosophy... other than that, he's a GREAT Republican candidate!
 
LOL, Dick Cheney, Ayn Rand, and Sanctimonious Santorum are your idols? What happened to Spermin' Herman?

The Teabaggers are defeated, leaderless and massively unpopular - just like your beloved Confederacy.
 
Dixie said:
As I watch the process unfold in the GOP race, it has become clear to me, the candidate who can beat Obama and who the establishment is hell-bent on nominating, has no clue of what Reagan conservatism is all about, or what the typical Tea Party conservatives understand it to be. I think he may be worse than the Bush's at understanding conservative supply-side economics, and has already made several eyebrow-raising comments. Like the other day, when he announced everyone would get a tax cut, except those greedy 1%ers... he would make sure the rich paid their fair share! Now, maybe he thought that would appeal to 'moderates' or something, I don't know... but it certainly undermines the conservative argument that cutting tax rates for highest income earners generates increased prosperity. In fact, it's almost a white flag of surrender to the occupiers of Wall Street, if you ask me. It's things like this, which make me shake my head over Romney as our candidate.

This is why I think the Tea Party should kidnap Mittens. Take him to Dick Cheney's undisclosed bunker, and have someone read Atlas Shrugged and William F. Buckley to him, and make him listen to all of Ronald Reagan's archived speeches. We need to do something about his demeanor as well, he needs a shot of Alan West "can-do" confidence! Maybe someone could slap him with leather gloves every time he starts timidly trying to apologize for his conservatism? Or when he starts trying to retreat into a defensive posture. If we could just give him a backbone like Santorum and a brain like Newt, with a fiscal conservative mindset like Paul?.... He needs a profound rewiring on his thinking, when it comes to conservative political philosophy... other than that, he's a GREAT Republican candidate!
Click to expand...

The trees are just the right height. Atlas shrugged, what a piece of garbage, especially since she ended up on Medicare and Social Security! She shrugged off her own ideology, big fake!
 
He is a moderate you retard, and likely that is the only reason he is doing well. He was the Governor of Mass for crying out loud.

Your beloved conservative principles have proven to be falshoods. Where is all the prosperity idiot?
 
Rune said:
He is a moderate you retard, and likely that is the only reason he is doing well. He was the Governor of Mass for crying out loud.

Your beloved conservative principles have proven to be falshoods. Where is all the prosperity idiot?
Click to expand...

He is playing ultra conservative to appeal to his party, but will return to moderate once the election is over.
 
Rune said:
He is a moderate you retard, and likely that is the only reason he is doing well. He was the Governor of Mass for crying out loud.

Your beloved conservative principles have proven to be falshoods. Where is all the prosperity idiot?
Click to expand...

let's see...dems controlled both houses and the presidency...where is all the prosperity idiot? lol
 
Bush blew the budget surplus on a war that accomplished nothing, a pill bill, and wasteful spending on "Homeland Security". When that cash ran out, he borrowed.
 
Dixie said:
As I watch the process unfold in the GOP race, it has become clear to me, the candidate who can beat Obama and who the establishment is hell-bent on nominating, has no clue of what Reagan conservatism is all about, or what the typical Tea Party conservatives understand it to be. I think he may be worse than the Bush's at understanding conservative supply-side economics, and has already made several eyebrow-raising comments. Like the other day, when he announced everyone would get a tax cut, except those greedy 1%ers... he would make sure the rich paid their fair share! Now, maybe he thought that would appeal to 'moderates' or something, I don't know... but it certainly undermines the conservative argument that cutting tax rates for highest income earners generates increased prosperity. In fact, it's almost a white flag of surrender to the occupiers of Wall Street, if you ask me. It's things like this, which make me shake my head over Romney as our candidate.

This is why I think the Tea Party should kidnap Mittens. Take him to Dick Cheney's undisclosed bunker, and have someone read Atlas Shrugged and William F. Buckley to him, and make him listen to all of Ronald Reagan's archived speeches. We need to do something about his demeanor as well, he needs a shot of Alan West "can-do" confidence! Maybe someone could slap him with leather gloves every time he starts timidly trying to apologize for his conservatism? Or when he starts trying to retreat into a defensive posture. If we could just give him a backbone like Santorum and a brain like Newt, with a fiscal conservative mindset like Paul?.... He needs a profound rewiring on his thinking, when it comes to conservative political philosophy... other than that, he's a GREAT Republican candidate!
Click to expand...
Right Dixie.....I read Atlas Shrugged and look what it did for me! :)
 
Rana said:
The trees are just the right height. Atlas shrugged, what a piece of garbage, especially since she ended up on Medicare and Social Security! She shrugged off her own ideology, big fake!
Click to expand...

The thing with S.S. and Medicare is you are forced to pay into it. An individual doesn't have a choice to say I won't contribue to S.S. and therefore I won't receive S.S. in my later years.
 
Yurt said:
let's see...dems controlled both houses and the presidency...where is all the prosperity idiot? lol
Click to expand...

It's been 11 years, wheres the prosperity? Tax cuts for the rich CLEARLY do not increase revenue or prosperity.

Dixie is an idiot to even try to use that as a selling point and it is time for all conservatives to look at what's working or not and get honest about it.
 
cawacko said:
The thing with S.S. and Medicare is you are forced to pay into it. An individual doesn't have a choice to say I won't contribue to S.S. and therefore I won't receive S.S. in my later years.
Click to expand...
and if we didn't do that society and families would be burdoned with vast numbers of seniors in dire poverty and failing health.
 
Derp Derp said:
and if we didn't do that society and families would be burdoned with vast numbers of seniors in dire poverty and failing health.
Click to expand...

Ok, but I was addressing Rana's comment. She's basically calling Ayn Rand a hypocrite for being on S.S. Thus the comment I made.
 
cawacko said:
The thing with S.S. and Medicare is you are forced to pay into it. An individual doesn't have a choice to say I won't contribue to S.S. and therefore I won't receive S.S. in my later years.
Click to expand...

It wasn't hers, it was her husbands and it still makes her a hypocrite. She rallied and preached against social safety nets and helping the poor and then because she herself needs it, she turns to those safety nets.
 
Rana said:
It wasn't hers, it was her husbands and it still makes her a hypocrite. She rallied and preached against social safety nets and helping the poor and then because she herself needs it, she turns to those safety nets.
Click to expand...

So how did she as an American citizen and worker avoid paying into and receiving S.S.? Where did she rally against helping the poor? Do you mean via government programs as opposed to private means? I've read a lot of her work and I don't remember her ever saying people shouldn't help the needy.

If her husband was forced to pay into S.S. why is she a hypocrite for using that money that he received? If he had the option to not join the program and decided to join then I could see the argument. I don't see it this way based on how the program is set up.
 
Dixie said:
As I watch the process unfold in the GOP race, it has become clear to me, the candidate who can beat Obama and who the establishment is hell-bent on nominating, has no clue of what Reagan conservatism is all about, or what the typical Tea Party conservatives understand it to be. I think he may be worse than the Bush's at understanding conservative supply-side economics, and has already made several eyebrow-raising comments. Like the other day, when he announced everyone would get a tax cut, except those greedy 1%ers... he would make sure the rich paid their fair share! Now, maybe he thought that would appeal to 'moderates' or something, I don't know... but it certainly undermines the conservative argument that cutting tax rates for highest income earners generates increased prosperity. In fact, it's almost a white flag of surrender to the occupiers of Wall Street, if you ask me. It's things like this, which make me shake my head over Romney as our candidate.

This is why I think the Tea Party should kidnap Mittens. Take him to Dick Cheney's undisclosed bunker, and have someone read Atlas Shrugged and William F. Buckley to him, and make him listen to all of Ronald Reagan's archived speeches. We need to do something about his demeanor as well, he needs a shot of Alan West "can-do" confidence! Maybe someone could slap him with leather gloves every time he starts timidly trying to apologize for his conservatism? Or when he starts trying to retreat into a defensive posture. If we could just give him a backbone like Santorum and a brain like Newt, with a fiscal conservative mindset like Paul?.... He needs a profound rewiring on his thinking, when it comes to conservative political philosophy... other than that, he's a GREAT Republican candidate!
Click to expand...

So instead of allowing the people to choose a candidate for their party, you want to make sure the candidate is what you want?

Interesting view of a free election.
 
cawacko said:
So how did she as an American citizen and worker avoid paying into and receiving S.S.? Where did she rally against helping the poor? Do you mean via government programs as opposed to private means? I've read a lot of her work and I don't remember her ever saying people shouldn't help the needy.

If her husband was forced to pay into S.S. why is she a hypocrite for using that money that he received? If he had the option to not join the program and decided to join then I could see the argument. I don't see it this way based on how the program is set up.
Click to expand...

Apparently you have not read her works. She had a great disdain for the poor and did not believe in helping the poor.

I will go find some of her better quotes.

I find it hypocritical to condemn something your whole adult life, but then when you are in a position to need it you use it, but you have condemned others people for doing so.
 
cawacko said:
So how did she as an American citizen and worker avoid paying into and receiving S.S.? Where did she rally against helping the poor? Do you mean via government programs as opposed to private means? I've read a lot of her work and I don't remember her ever saying people shouldn't help the needy.

If her husband was forced to pay into S.S. why is she a hypocrite for using that money that he received? If he had the option to not join the program and decided to join then I could see the argument. I don't see it this way based on how the program is set up.
Click to expand...


There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction.

She compromised and used the system she thought was immoral.
 
Rana said:
There can be no compromise on basic principles. There can be no compromise on moral issues. There can be no compromise on matters of knowledge, of truth, of rational conviction.

She compromised and used the system she thought was immoral.
Click to expand...

So your belief is if the government takes property (money) from you it is hypocritical to take it back. Yes I read the alternet article abour her and it is pretty weak. Again it does not address the topic of individual choice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top