The Tea Party is dead - again

The Tea Party is dead - again

There are 1305 comments on the Washington Times story from Oct 20, 2013, titled The Tea Party is dead - again. In it, Washington Times reports that:

Following the GOP surrender last week, the meme has been that the GOP suffered a huge defeat and that the Tea Party is dead.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Washington Times.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#761 Nov 1, 2013
Lawrence Wolf wrote:
<quoted text>Lincoln evolved. You haven't.
you better study up on Lincoln and realize he was assainated before he could really evolve and implement the changes him and Karl Marxs wanted which you have evolved into a communist is what you are getting at and you are right I want nothing to do with communism.

An Unfinished Revolution: Karl Marx and Abraham Lincoln

by Robin Blackburn, Abraham Lincoln, and Karl Marx

http://www.versobooks.com/books/954-an-unfini...
drinK the hivE

New York, NY

#762 Nov 1, 2013
I'm So Far 2 The Right I Make Only Right Hand Turn' When I Drive....

http://www.lobshots.com/wp-content/uploads/20...

http://www.gifbin.com/bin/072009/1248715399_a...
Sterkfontein Swartkrans

Doylestown, PA

#763 Nov 1, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>you better study up on Lincoln and realize he was assainated before he could really evolve and implement the changes him and Karl Marxs wanted which you have evolved into a communist is what you are getting at and you are right I want nothing to do with communism.
An Unfinished Revolution: Karl Marx and Abraham Lincoln
by Robin Blackburn, Abraham Lincoln, and Karl Marx
http://www.versobooks.com/books/954-an-unfini...
You are right. Hell Richard Nixon would be considered a socialist by today's teabagger vermin!!

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#764 Nov 1, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>you better study up on Lincoln and realize he was assainated before he could really evolve and implement the changes him and Karl Marxs wanted which you have evolved into a communist is what you are getting at and you are right I want nothing to do with communism.
An Unfinished Revolution: Karl Marx and Abraham Lincoln
by Robin Blackburn, Abraham Lincoln, and Karl Marx
http://www.versobooks.com/books/954-an-unfini...
still can[t figure out how to use punctuation and you think you can understand concepts like communism? you've shown clearly you cannot handle any of these concepts...
4 posts removed

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#769 Nov 1, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>You mean like typos and non capitalization. I think your training wheels need to stay on sparky.
no, very different things. my posts are clear and readable.( and factual and sane...but that is another issue...)

Since: Oct 13

Albany, GA

#770 Nov 1, 2013
Sterkfontein Swartkrans wrote:
<quoted text>
You are right. Hell Richard Nixon would be considered a socialist by today's teabagger vermin!!
I do think that Richard Nixon was a RINO also.
We have had few true conservatives in the last 60 years.
1 post removed

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#772 Nov 1, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>still can[t figure out how to use punctuation and you think you can understand concepts like communism? you've shown clearly you cannot handle any of these concepts...
we know you cant which you just proved again in your above post.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#773 Nov 1, 2013
Le Jimbo wrote:
<quoted text>Really, projection at this late date. Pshaw.
no projection that is US history and no one can change it.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#774 Nov 1, 2013
Sterkfontein Swartkrans wrote:
<quoted text>
You are right. Hell Richard Nixon would be considered a socialist by today's teabagger vermin!!
Exactly and Politically Nixon was & operated just like a Modern Liberal.

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#775 Nov 1, 2013
Scotty Searan wrote:
<quoted text>
I do think that Richard Nixon was a RINO also.
We have had few true conservatives in the last 60 years.
Right, Nixon would be considered a RINO in todays Political Climate but back then they were considered Rockefeller Republicans.

Rockefeller Republican

Rockefeller Republican (often termed "moderate Republican") refers to a faction of the United States Republican Party who hold moderate to liberal views on some issues similar to those of Nelson Rockefeller. The term largely fell out of use by the end of the twentieth century, and has been replaced by the terms "moderate Republican" and, pejoratively, "RINO" (Republican In Name Only). Modern Rockefeller Republicans are typically center-right, reject far-right policies, and are often, but not necessarily, culturally liberal.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_Repu...

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#776 Nov 1, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Right, Nixon would be considered a RINO in todays Political Climate but back then they were considered Rockefeller Republicans.
Rockefeller Republican
Rockefeller Republican (often termed "moderate Republican") refers to a faction of the United States Republican Party who hold moderate to liberal views on some issues similar to those of Nelson Rockefeller. The term largely fell out of use by the end of the twentieth century, and has been replaced by the terms "moderate Republican" and, pejoratively, "RINO" (Republican In Name Only). Modern Rockefeller Republicans are typically center-right, reject far-right policies, and are often, but not necessarily, culturally liberal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_Repu...
We can tell when you cut and paste because there is proper punctuation in those parts...

never made it past third grade?

Since: Aug 11

Location hidden

#777 Nov 1, 2013
woodtick57 wrote:
<quoted text>We can tell when you cut and paste because there is proper punctuation in those parts...
never made it past third grade?
We can tell you lack intelligence too and don't like facts being posted either which is typical in your childish rants.
Eric Gustafson

Virginia Beach, VA

#778 Nov 1, 2013
Which nation in the World recognized Texas as an independent Nation?

Those settlers in Texas or Northern Mexico was there because Mexico allowed them to be there initially so long as they swore among other thing to convert to catholicism. Texas or the settlers trying to claim a break away nation that didn't work and they were not recognized by any other nation although they tried. America came to the rescue eventually beating Mexico in a war.

Eventually a compromised was reached with Mexico, it was the Gadsden Purchase that settle Texas and the Southwest territory with Mexico. The vision was to run a railroad through Texas and the Southwest Territory to the Pacific Ocean in expanding the Nation from the Atlantic Ocean.
Teaman wrote:
<quoted text>
How do you figure that? Texas was already an independent republic in 1836. The lands you speak of were negotiated with Texas and were surrendered to the US in 1850 in exchange for taking on Texas' debt.

Since: Sep 07

Location hidden

#779 Nov 1, 2013
Eric Gustafson wrote:
Which nation in the World recognized Texas as an independent Nation?
Those settlers in Texas or Northern Mexico was there because Mexico allowed them to be there initially so long as they swore among other thing to convert to catholicism. Texas or the settlers trying to claim a break away nation that didn't work and they were not recognized by any other nation although they tried. America came to the rescue eventually beating Mexico in a war.
Eventually a compromised was reached with Mexico, it was the Gadsden Purchase that settle Texas and the Southwest territory with Mexico. The vision was to run a railroad through Texas and the Southwest Territory to the Pacific Ocean in expanding the Nation from the Atlantic Ocean.
<quoted text>
actually, from what I read, it wasn't the mexicans that the texans interacted with. it was the spanish.

the story goes...

the spanish entered what is now considered the southwestern states and laid claim to the land there. they saw the indigenous population who lived there at the time as being savages, and incapable of sovereignty.

that being the case, they laid claim to the land. and proceeded to exterminate any and all who opposed their rule there.

interestingly enough, the indians who lived there saw it differently. they would not accept the claim made by the spanish. and went to war with them.

for 300 years, the spanish could not live in these lands in texas which they had so long ago laid claim to because the indians pretty much exterminated ANY spanish who attempted to colonize THEIR land.

after 300+ YEARS of being unsuccessful in claiming the land, they offered to share the land they claimed in texas if anybody was successful in assisting them in removing the indians.

the texans were successful. and for a matter of a few years, the texans and the spanish shared ruling the land that they took from the indians. they colonized the land. built forts. etc.

then, the mexicans declared independence from spain. and refused to honor the agreements that the texans had made with spain.

then, we had the alamo.

the true story of the times.

Since: Oct 12

Location hidden

#780 Nov 2, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>you better study up on Lincoln and realize he was assainated before he could really evolve and implement the changes him and Karl Marxs wanted which you have evolved into a communist is what you are getting at and you are right I want nothing to do with communism.
An Unfinished Revolution: Karl Marx and Abraham Lincoln
by Robin Blackburn, Abraham Lincoln, and Karl Marx
http://www.versobooks.com/books/954-an-unfini...
Beyond silly....so many great biographies of Abraham Lincoln.....who on earth, would give a flying f*ck about trying to tie him into any early communism?.....
Eric Gustafson

Virginia Beach, VA

#781 Nov 2, 2013
You'll need to begin your research with the Spanish conquistadors and their introduction to the Indians of America in Mexico to understand the growth of what is presently considered the Mexicans.

That relationship began approx 1507 with the Spanish pursuit for Silver and Gold in America beginning in or around Mexico City
Asian Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
actually, from what I read, it wasn't the mexicans that the texans interacted with. it was the spanish.
the story goes...
the spanish entered what is now considered the southwestern states and laid claim to the land there. they saw the indigenous population who lived there at the time as being savages, and incapable of sovereignty.
that being the case, they laid claim to the land. and proceeded to exterminate any and all who opposed their rule there.
interestingly enough, the indians who lived there saw it differently. they would not accept the claim made by the spanish. and went to war with them.
for 300 years, the spanish could not live in these lands in texas which they had so long ago laid claim to because the indians pretty much exterminated ANY spanish who attempted to colonize THEIR land.
after 300+ YEARS of being unsuccessful in claiming the land, they offered to share the land they claimed in texas if anybody was successful in assisting them in removing the indians.
the texans were successful. and for a matter of a few years, the texans and the spanish shared ruling the land that they took from the indians. they colonized the land. built forts. etc.
then, the mexicans declared independence from spain. and refused to honor the agreements that the texans had made with spain.
then, we had the alamo.
the true story of the times.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#782 Nov 2, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Radical Liberal which Lincoln was
Radical Liberal which Lincoln was Pseudo Liberal Democrats blah blah blah Pseudo Progressives Liberal Democrats blah blah blah Progressives blah blah blah Pseudo Liberal Democrats blah blah blah Chairman Mao blah blah blah blah blah blah Pseudo Liberal Democrats blah blah blah Radical Liberal which Lincoln was blah blah blah Pseudo Liberal Democrats blah blah blah Pseudo Liberal Democrats blah blah blah Lenin blah blah blah Pseudo Liberal Democrats blah blah blah Chairman Mao blah Radical Liberal which Lincoln was blah blah Progressives blah blah Progressives blah Pseudo Liberal Democrats blah blah blah blah blah blah Pseudo Liberal Democrats blah Hitler blah blah Chairman Mao blah blah blah blah blah blah Pseudo Liberal Democrats blah blah blah blah blah blah Pseudo Liberal Democrats blah Hitler blah blah Pseudo Liberal Democrats...

SQUALK!

AnalOriface wanna cracker?

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#783 Nov 2, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>you better study up on Lincoln and realize he was assainated before he could really evolve and implement the changes him and Karl Marxs
...tin foil hat time...

Since: Oct 13

Albany, GA

#784 Nov 2, 2013
Anonymous of Indy wrote:
<quoted text>Right, Nixon would be considered a RINO in todays Political Climate but back then they were considered Rockefeller Republicans.
Rockefeller Republican
Rockefeller Republican (often termed "moderate Republican") refers to a faction of the United States Republican Party who hold moderate to liberal views on some issues similar to those of Nelson Rockefeller. The term largely fell out of use by the end of the twentieth century, and has been replaced by the terms "moderate Republican" and, pejoratively, "RINO" (Republican In Name Only). Modern Rockefeller Republicans are typically center-right, reject far-right policies, and are often, but not necessarily, culturally liberal.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rockefeller_Repu...
Rockefeller Republicans are part of the Progressive Republicans that has taken over the party.
Democrats make it look like the Republicans are for the rich and business people, when all the time it is the Republican businessman that keeps Americans working. Most Republicans in the government are businessmen.
Whereas, most Democrats are lawyers trying to take away the assets of the businessman. The lawyers are like leaches on a shark, sucking the blood out on a freeride.

Since: Mar 11

St. Croix valley

#785 Nov 2, 2013
Scotty Searan wrote:
<quoted text>
Rockefeller Republicans are part of the Progressive Republicans that has taken over the party.
Democrats make it look like the Republicans are for the rich and business people, when all the time it is the Republican businessman that keeps Americans working. Most Republicans in the government are businessmen.
Whereas, most Democrats are lawyers trying to take away the assets of the businessman. The lawyers are like leaches on a shark, sucking the blood out on a freeride.
where did you get these unrealistic ideas about republicans and democrats in government? it would seem you just pulled them out of your ass...

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

US Politics Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News BARACK OBAMA BIRTH CERTIFICATE: Suit contesting... (Jan '09) 4 min tuffet 239,580
News Barack Obama, our next President (Nov '08) 4 min Cheech the Conser... 1,509,819
Election 'Fox News Sunday' to Host Kentucky Senate Debate (Oct '10) 10 min AMERICAN SUNSHINE 262,578
News Trump takes aim at Obama's efforts to curb glob... 11 min Fcvk tRump 42
News O'Reilly says he's distracted by congresswoman'... 16 min Cordwainer Trout 11
News GOP failure in Congress boosts Medicaid effort ... 20 min Fcvk tRump 1
News Trump's repeated claim that he won a 'landslide... 21 min TRUMP IS EVIL 7,622
News Collapse of Obamacare repeal plan puts Freedom ... 51 min Retribution 212
More from around the web