Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
It took a long, long, time but I finally figure it out.

---

Quote:

---

The RWAs here really don't think. They really DO haver compartmentalized minds. If the Dems put up candidates anything like O'Donnell or Angle, they'd be all over them, laughing their asses off and ridiculing their history, their absurd stances, etc.

---

Quote:

---

Yet these are Tea Party candidates. So none of that matters. No matter HOW out in "right" field they go, no matter how bad their past--I mean like not having a JOB???--it's unimportant, it's ignored.

---

Quote:

---

Yet this woman comes along, having lived off the dole, college loans, contributions to campaigns she lost, and it means absolutely nothing. Absolutely nothing! Phenomenal. I understood the "compartmentalized thinking", but never realized it was true to such an amazing extent.

---

Quote:

---

Notice that not a SINGLE negative thing has ever been said here by the RWAs against any of the new, extremely extreme, candidates by them, as far as I can tell. Not one. Yet those on the left have freely admitted many, many things wrong with candidates on the left, with Obama, etc., etc. That speaks volumes.

---

Quote:

---

Their past misdeeds can't even be ACKNOWLEDGED; their kooky statements and stances can't be defended or even MENTIONED.

---

Quote:

---

If they've got "R" after their name or belong to the Tea Party, they quite literally can say or do nothing wrong in the eyes of RWAs. It took these people coming to the fore, and the realization of what they would say about them if they were democrats, to finally make me understand. It saddens me deeply, but I get it now.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
Thus speaketh, the Lord and Lady.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Riverlove:
CIA,
I hope your women folk aren't

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

And replyath NOT to my other post have YOU.
Sorry, didn't mean to nail you so good as to be...uncomfortable.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by chrisisall:

And replyath NOT to my other post have YOU.
Sorry, didn't mean to nail you so good as to be...uncomfortable.

---

Seems you have me confused w/ another. Perhaps one who cares ?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Niki2:
How long did it take? Until I put up this post--I haven't kept track. It was watching the extreme, religious-minded candidates who the Tea Party nominated this midterms made me realize the dichotomy; that if it's done by a Republican, it's okay, no matter what; if it's done by a Democrat, it's a big deal and horrible; if the contradiction is pointed out, the response is "yeah, but the DEMOCRATS..." That's how long. I thought it was just ideology previously, but never dreamed it was deliberate blindness to SUCH an extreme extent.

They want religion in your LIVES, in the GOVERNMENT; they want to...ach, why bother.

As to billionaire politicians, we've been there--there are at least as many of them on the right as the left, and until there is some kind of reform of the campaign system, there always will be.

Yeah, Grayson's a nut...I think he's put out there as a sacrificial lamb, to say all the things the Dems don't have the guts to say. But listen to some of what these candidates are saying; it doesn't hold a CANDLE to what Gayson's little show does!

I just do NOT understand why, after eight years of truly horrific things happening to the country at the hands of the Bush administration (and I certainly don't blame HIM exclusively, at all), 20 months is viewed as so earth-shatteringly horrific.

Obama's done NOTHING that comes close to what happened then. The deficit was horrific coming in, all he's done is make it worse. Actually, that's all he's done about much of anything; continue Bush's policies. So where was the sky falling under Bush, when it started?

He's tried to do health care; which ever President talked about a lot and, except for Clinton, never even TRIED. Yeah, I'm displeased with it too, but it's not the end of the world, it's not leading us to socialism, and hopefully it's only a first step. Something HAD to be done, and I'm still convinced if the Republicans had been willing to work with them, something better would have been passed. Even if they'd only supported the parts they originally proposed (before Obama) or supported, I think it'd have been a massively better bill.

I just don't get the visceral, intense hatred. I didn't like Bush, and some of what he did made me truly scared for this country--and now I'm scared for a different reason, because the hate mongering and fear stoking is defeating us better than anything Al Qaeda could ever have done.

Same thing with scandals. I shouldn't even have to MAKE that argument, after all the prosecutions, investigations, adultery, etc., that goes on by politicians on the right. Again; it happens on both sides, why no recognition of that?

Because someone is running against Reid, you'd vote for them no matter what. That's an insane statement; what if a Muslim were running, or an avowed Communist, or someone straight out of the looney bin? There HAVE to be some criteria besides "they're not rich or Ivy League" or "if they'll defeat Reid", don't there?

And no, I've been quite up front about the people I think are idjits and "villains", and had a few choice things to say about Rangle and others. I'm glad to see you have questions about Angle, bu now you'll support her no matter how crazy she is; I'd NEVER have supported Rangle no matter WHO his opponent was.

I'm ashamed of Greene, and I don't know how he won. I'd never vote for him, either, he's a joke at best. But you'll vote for anyone, as long as they're Republican...why IS that?

The crack about womenfolk, like all the crowing and predictions of tears, are weird. If the crazies get in office, I'll be shaking my head and very sad--for America--but I don't think ANYONE here will be wailing or crying.

The over-the-top statements I guess don't need responding to, we've already been there/done that. It's the extremism and joyous willingness to embrace people who are so obviously unqalified for office that blows me away. Bush put inept people in office via cronyism; it's been proven over and over and the country suffered for it. Yet you'd do exactly as he did, just to defeat Democrats, and for no better reason.

I understand, but it will always mystify me how people who might otherwise be sensible believe, say and act the way they do when it comes to politics. That's all.

Okay, I bothered to respond. Given what I've learned, it wasn't even necessary, as some of the things claimed were already obvious, such as rich Republican politicians; scandals on right and left both; "Ivy League" Republicans existing right alongside Democrats; the wrongness of putting unqalified people in office just to "send a message". It'll get nowhere, just bring the same over-the-top sneers and snarls, so I quit. It was just an observation.

---