O'Donnell Intends to Make You All Convert to her Religion

page: 2
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 01:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Alora

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by pirhanna
 


O'DONNELL IS A CLOWN!!!


I am a Tea Partier. I am a Conservative. And, I do not endorse, support, condone, or otherwise even admit that O'Donnell is a viable candidate for anything other than homecoming queen at a catholic school!

This chick is crazy, and she is not representative of the current movement where regular people are trying to get involved and wrestle back some sort of control over the government.

THIS IS A TRICK!!

TPTB will put a pretty face and a lot of TV time on somebody and declare them as a representative of YOUR ideas, and then they will either put them into power as a puppet, or they will DEMONIZE them and destroy your whole movement.

I repeat.

O'Donnell, Palin, Beck, Tea Party Express.....they are tricks! Slights of hand. More of the same. They are not representative of small town America, or the Conservative movement, or even the Tea Party movement as it exists on your local level.


I applaud you!

A lot more Tea Partiers need to come forth and say this, because those that you mentioned "O'Donnell, Palin, Beck, Tea Party Express" are all making the Tea Party look like a giant joke, where the punchline is equal parts frightening and hilarious.

Again, a lot more TP's need to start speaking out against the crazies of your party because you are all being clumped together. O'Donnell, Palin, Beck, etc are getting the publicity and we see you all as one in the same. I was relieved to read your post. I wish there were more people like you so that your voices can be heard over the batsh#@ crazy talk.


Where I think you might be missing the point is that Palins tea party express is not the same tea party of the common people. Palin and her crew have tried to usurp the tea party message,and the MSM has pushed it to the limit. The grass roots tea parties are endorsing fresh,virgin candidates into politics that don't owe the political machine anything. In essence usurping the Republican party for a more Constitutionally founded party.




posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 01:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
She is a one woman wrecking crew! How the hell is she staying a viable candidate?


She's not a viable candidate, she's just the Republican (I mean Tea Party) candidate. She doesn't stand a snowball's chance. BUT, the Republican ticket has to dance with the one they brought.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 01:19 PM
link   
reply to post by daddyroo45
 


EXACTLY!!


Libertarians, Constitutional Party, and of course Independents are really the candidates of choice, especially if they are not experienced politicians, but more representative of each locality as business owners, teachers, public servants, etc.

Unfortunately, a lot of decent candidates still identify with the Republican party, and even more unfortunately a lot of Republican politicians are trying to identify with the Tea Party!



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 01:20 PM
link   
reply to post by daddyroo45
 


I am curious who the real Tea Party endorses as opposed to the fake Tea Party?
I am also curious how a non-Tea Party person can tell the difference?
I am even more curious if this means all the people that were at the Glenn Beck rally are now fake Tea Party people?

As far as someone like me can tell out here, O'Donnell is the Tea Part candidate in that race. How would someone like me know when it is a real Tea Party candidate and fake Tea Party candidate?



edit on 10/19/10 by Curiousisall because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


I thought the Republican party was originally backing someone else, and then jumped on her bandwagon when she won the primary because of Tea Party backing?

Or am I thinking of a different race where they refused to endorse the Tea Party candidate until AFTER they won the primary?



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


I think you are thinking of how Rove tricked the Tea Party into supporting Christine in the primary by calling her "nutty." There were more than a few posts on ATS pushing the idea that she must be a real threat to the establishment if Rove would say that. They seemed to forget his job is to manipulate people with words. The Tea Party jumped behind her all while her platform stayed steadily Republican in nature. So yes, I think you are right, sort of.
edit on 10/19/10 by Curiousisall because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 01:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by getreadyalready
reply to post by Aggie Man
 


I thought the Republican party was originally backing someone else, and then jumped on her bandwagon when she won the primary because of Tea Party backing?


I believe that is the case. Either way, she is on the ticket as a Republican, no?

Honestly, I don't see a whole lot of R's backing her on election day. They either won't show up to vote...or they jump ship and go for the lesser of 2 evils.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 01:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by Curiousisall
reply to post by daddyroo45
 


How would someone like me know when it is a real Tea Party candidate and fake Tea Party candidate?

If Glen Beck and Sarah Palin are for them; everyone should be against them.

Frankly, anyone shown as Tea Party-backed by the media is probably fake.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 01:31 PM
link   
reply to post by Curiousisall
 


Exactly the problem!!

There is no single "Tea Party." There is no national convention, and no overseeing national body. In fact, the candidates that my Tea Party here in Tallahassee endorse could be different than a candidate endorsed in Cali or Wisc or NY.

The "real" Tea Party is a loose collection of semi-conservative normal folks that want to see less Federal intrusion, smaller government, return to better work ethics, more accountability for government as well as personal actions of people. We are concerned with things like Healthcare, Education, and the Economy, but we don't see the solution as more legislation, more taxes, and bigger government, we see the solution as one that needs to happen case by case on a state and local level.

In general, "hopefully," we endorse candidates with a little political experience, but lots of life experience. Candidates that won't read the polls or listen to a campaign advisor, but will instead listen to trusted confidants with facts and reason and make decisions based on their own experience and critical thinking instead of polling all the possible political outcomes before they decide.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

The second problem.....it is impossible to know who a "real" tea party is endorsing compared to what you see on the MSM. The only way to be sure is to become active in your local area, or at least contact somebody and see what they are up to. There is also no requirement that you agree with the politics or opinions of the Tea Party or the endorsed candidate.

What is more important is that you trust the integrity and motivations of the candidate that you choose to vote for!

Are they acting on good faith, with good integrity, on behalf of their constituents? Are they acting for the good of their established party, political goodwill, pandering, and special interests with a long-term political career in mind?



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


So it is just really a cute label different people use for their particular Republican to avoid admitting they are voting Republican? Thanks. That is kind of what it looked like.
edit on 10/19/10 by Curiousisall because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 01:44 PM
link   
reply to post by Curiousisall
 


Not at all.

I can only think of two Republican that I plan to vote for in this election.

I will probably vote for Marco Rubio. Charlie Crist is the "independent" on that ticket, but he is really a Republican that supported everything Obama told him to support if that makes any sense? Anyhow, Rubio has a pretty good platform, his main detriment is his association with established Republicans.

I will also probably vote for Rick Scott for Governor. He is a Republican, but he is not an "entrenched" politician. He is a businessman from Florida with no political background.

Other than that, everyone I am voting for is Independent, Libertarian, non-affiliated (a judge), and maybe 1 Whig!

I"m not denying that a lot of Republicans fit the bill more than other parties, but the biggest strike against them is that they are "republican." Take Rubio for instance, I am torn up about voting for him, but if he were an Independent I would have less hang-ups about it. The idea here is that we vote for people that we actually have some idea of their backgrounds, integrity, and moral code, instead of just a political campaign.

My favorite candidate is a homegrown guy named Paul McKain! He was one of the first candidates that we actually approached and worked with to run with Tea Party support. At the time, nobody was taking the Tea Party serious, now politicians are clamoring over one another begging for our support. I don't know about all towns, but in Tallahassee it will be basically impossible to win this election without the support of the local Tea Party!



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   
Are all of you mad?
O'Donnell is correct in her statement. The 1st Amendment says nothing about the seperation of church and state. That is only a incorrect interpretation. Anyone with any ounce of comprehension skills can read the Amendment and it clearly states that the government cannot establish a specific religion. It says nothing about the seperation of church and state. Some of you should really do your own research instead of spewing hogwash.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by eNumbra
 


I see a PTB scheme here. One more way to divide & conquor. Getting the population to go rabid on each other.

example:

(lizard Overlord 1): I see our plan to thwart any real new blood to the 2 party system is working out better than we anticipated.

(lizard Overlord 2): I agree. Keep the secret slush fund working. Since they don't have to tell anyone where they get there $$$ from for funding will be able to stear the cattle into anyway WE want them to go.

(Lizard OverLord 3): And what of the original tea party cattle that actually had rather good ideas on changing stuff and making goverment more transparent, geting folks back to work, fixing all the broken bridges, roads, infrastructure?

(Lizard OverLord 2) :Cackles evily: Forget them, the fake crazy tea party folks have taken over the orginal party and have been geting funding from US. They will do what WE TELL them to do. The original ones will just follow along with the hurd, because no one is listening to them.

(Lizard Overlord 3): I get it, so in effect all these fake tea party folks that have hijacked the original theme are in our pockets. Are we still funding the current president or have we switched sides?

(Lizard Overlord 1) We fund all sides, this way we keep the cattle fighting among themsleves, then they won't ever figure out who is really pulling there strings.::more evil laughter from the group::

(Lizard OverLord 3): Beautiful Plan. I comend you on your grand design...

(lizard OverLord 1): Lets take a break, I'm hungry. ::they all start eating some yummy fired human parts and laugh evily::

maybe..maybe not?






posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Sorry but that makes no sense to me. If there is no cohesive Tea Party, then there is no Tea Party. If, as you say, Tea Party members will all vote individually based on their personal views, then it is just a title. That is no different than how I vote. I do not know anyone that votes for the person the least agree with. Either there is a Tea Party and they have a clear plan or it is just a cute title.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 01:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory
Are all of you mad?
O'Donnell is correct in her statement. The 1st Amendment says nothing about the seperation of church and state. That is only a incorrect interpretation. Anyone with any ounce of comprehension skills can read the Amendment and it clearly states that the government cannot establish a specific religion. It says nothing about the seperation of church and state. Some of you should really do your own research instead of spewing hogwash.



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion





posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 01:55 PM
link   
reply to post by Eye of Horus
 





We fund all sides,


Far too accurate to be funny!


I can't find the stats right now, but the major players in the last presidential campaign gave hundreds of thousands of dollars to both candidates? Why would they do that? To be sure that no matter who won, there would be expectations of political favoritism!



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 02:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by Curiousisall

What are you confused about?

I hope you are not saying that means the seperation of church and state.



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by Curiousisall

What are you confused about?

I hope you are not saying that means the seperation of church and state.


I know you have a really hard time reading my posts and I will give you that was pretty subtle.

YES, THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I AM SAYING. What do you think it means?



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 02:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by Curiousisall
reply to post by getreadyalready
 


Sorry but that makes no sense to me. If there is no cohesive Tea Party, then there is no Tea Party. If, as you say, Tea Party members will all vote individually based on their personal views, then it is just a title. That is no different than how I vote. I do not know anyone that votes for the person the least agree with. Either there is a Tea Party and they have a clear plan or it is just a cute title.


Now you get it!!


There was never a plan to have a "Tea Party." After the 2008 election, simultaneously, all across the nation, hundreds or thousands of groups formed. They were all independent, and they had no name, no theme, no affiliation with one another or anybody else. They were simply concerned citizens like yourself that had a specific view point and concerns for their community.

Those first few months, things continued that way with growing support in communities all across the nation. There were similar concerns all across the nation, and there was a similar discontent with the political establishment. I know for me personally, it was the addition of Palin to the McCain ticket that got me pissed off and forced my vote to Obama.

Anyhow, the name really came from 3 areas simultaneously, and everyone liked it and grabbed on. Ron Paul had used it, a blogger and moderator on a stock-market forum used it, and best of all Dave Ramsey went on "Fox and Friends" and said "It's time for a Tea Party" as he was criticizing Geithner and TARP.

Many people point to a protest in Florida as the "first" Tea Party Protest. Charlie Crist was really buddying up to Obama and losing all of his conservative support in the state. Our Tea Party here in Tallahassee really started with 3 or 4 people on a Saturday morning and within weeks we numbered in the 100's and then 1000's! The "September 12" protest at the Capital was about 4 times larger than expected and it was largely ignored by the local press until Charlie Crist divebombed in polling. Before the Tea Party, Charlie Crist was a shoe-in for the Senate seat and a Presidential contender! After the Sept 12 protest, Charlie Crist lost his Republican endorsement and was forced to run as an independent! Shortly thereafter we began recruiting a few people to campaign for, and soon enough politicians were beating down our door begging for endorsements, which we largely denied. Since then, we have had more public events and more success at the polls!

Still, we are but "one" of many Tea Parties across the nation!!



posted on Oct, 19 2010 @ 02:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by Curiousisall
What do you think it means?

That you are incorrect in your interpretation.





new topics
 
28
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join