Tea party wins in northeastern primaries could bode well for Democrats

[Via_Dolorosa]

You made the assertion, so it’s your point to prove, IF YOU CAN.

I’ve noticed a pattern here. If one proves one’s point with ariticles, no one reads the articles. It’s just the same old same old. I have spent so much time proving my points with facts. This has had no affect on the arguement. I don’t want to waste my time anymore. Believe me or don’t believe me. I’m not going to keep wasting my time trying to convince those who do not wish to hear an opposing arguement.
Maybe there are a few at this board who really do want to hear something different that has been discussed on fox news. Let me know.

 

[Scott_Lafrance]

OK. I can live with it. It does seem to me to be an “in your face” graphicl. If you like it, who am I to criticize it.

This definition coincides with the picture to give you the total perspective.

What is a Curmudgeon anyway?

  A curmudgeon's reputation for malevolence is undeserved. They're neither warped nor evil at heart. They don't hate mankind, just mankind's absurdities. They're just as sensitive and soft-hearted as the next guy, but they hide their vulnerability beneath a crust of misanthropy. They ease the pain by turning hurt into humor.  . . . . .   They attack maudlinism because it devalues genuine sentiment.   . . . . .   Nature, having failed to equip them with a servicable denial mechanism, has endowed them with astute perception and sly wit. 

  Curmudgeons are mockers and debunkers whose bitterness is a symptom rather than a disease. They can't compromise their standards and can't manage the suspension of disbelief necessary for feigned cheerfulness. Their awareness is a curse. 

  Perhaps curmudgeons have gotten a bad rap in the same way that the messenger is blamed for the message: They have the temerity to comment on the human condition without apology. They not only refuse to applaud mediocrity, they howl it down with morose glee. Their versions of the truth unsettle us, and we hold it against them, even though they soften it with humor.

%between%

 

[Via_Dolorosa]

This definition coincides with the picture to give you the total perspective.

What is a Curmudgeon anyway?

A curmudgeon’s reputation for malevolence is undeserved. They’re neither warped nor evil at heart. They don’t hate mankind, just mankind’s absurdities. They’re just as sensitive and soft-hearted as the next guy, but they hide their vulnerability beneath a crust of misanthropy. They ease the pain by turning hurt into humor. . . . . . They attack maudlinism because it devalues genuine sentiment. . . . . . Nature, having failed to equip them with a servicable denial mechanism, has endowed them with astute perception and sly wit.

Curmudgeons are mockers and debunkers whose bitterness is a symptom rather than a disease. They can’t compromise their standards and can’t manage the suspension of disbelief necessary for feigned cheerfulness. Their awareness is a curse.

Perhaps curmudgeons have gotten a bad rap in the same way that the messenger is blamed for the message: They have the temerity to comment on the human condition without apology. They not only refuse to applaud mediocrity, they howl it down with morose glee. Their versions of the truth unsettle us, and we hold it against them, even though they soften it with humor.

Thanks for the clarification. I guess I’m a curmudgeon, too.

 

[NotCrazyDan]

I’ve noticed a pattern here. If one proves one’s point with ariticles, no one reads the articles. It’s just the same old same old. I have spent so much time proving my points with facts. This has had no affect on the arguement. I don’t want to waste my time anymore. Believe me or don’t believe me. I’m not going to keep wasting my time trying to convince those who do not wish to hear an opposing arguement.
Maybe there are a few at this board who really do want to hear something different that has been discussed on fox news. Let me know.

Then you simply expect people to take your assertion without any evidence whatsoever except ‘what you heard’, and we’re all unreasonable idiots for not simply agreeing with you.

 

[CMatt25]

Quite a brain trust you are touting. I wish you good luck in making them appear to be your everyday type of Americans.

Chris Matthews was discussing the 2012 Republican convention on his show tonight. His thoughts were the Tea Partiers will not be satisfied with a Romney for instance. They will demand a Tea Partier. So perhaps we’ll see how a greater number of everyday type Americans react to the TP in just 2 short yrs since greater numbers vote in Presidential yrs. I can just imagine it now. Sarah (Why do we call her Governor since she quit in term) opens the first debate with, “Oh golly gosh gee may I call you Barack?” While she’s touting being able to see Russia from her front porch. :yup:

 

[bbarrick8383]

Chris Matthews was discussing the 2012 Republican convention on his show tonight. His thoughts were the Tea Partiers will not be satisfied with a Romney for instance. They will demand a Tea Partier. So perhaps we’ll see how a greater number of everyday type Americans react to the TP in just 2 short yrs since greater numbers vote in Presidential yrs. I can just imagine it now. Sarah (Why do we call her Governor since she quit in term) opens the first debate with, “Oh golly gosh gee may I call you Barack?” While she’s touting being able to see Russia from her front porch. :yup:

Mathews is a joke and Palin never said that.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

You are making the arguement, not I.

So your “brain trust” comment was not meant to be sarcastic? Hmmmmmmmmmmm.

 

[CMatt25]

Mathews is a joke and Palin never said that.

Oh yeah that was Tina Fey. She did such a great impersonation, I sometimes mix the 2 up. The governor who quit is almost as funny though. But fair enough. Charlie Gibson asked her something about her insight into Russia and she said something about how you can see Russia from Alaska. Maybe just not exactly from her front porch.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Mathews is a joke and Palin never said that.

She must have something going on since “uneducated hicks” do not really get to become Governor of a State, run for Vice-President and influence a growing political movement.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

You made the assertion, so it’s your point to prove, IF YOU CAN.

:clapping::clapping::clapping::extrahappy::bounce:

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I’ve noticed a pattern here. If one proves one’s point with ariticles, no one reads the articles. It’s just the same old same old. I have spent so much time proving my points with facts. This has had no affect on the arguement. I don’t want to waste my time anymore. Believe me or don’t believe me. I’m not going to keep wasting my time trying to convince those who do not wish to hear an opposing arguement.
Maybe there are a few at this board who really do want to hear something different that has been discussed on fox news. Let me know.

How do you know that I really don’t want to know whether you asserted is true or not???

Believe it or not, I’m willing to have mind changed. I’m not totally part of the Borg Collective just YET.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Then you simply expect people to take your assertion without any evidence whatsoever except ‘what you heard’, and we’re all unreasonable idiots for not simply agreeing with you.

“Do as I say, not as I do.”

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Oh yeah that was Tina Fey. She did such a great impersonation, I sometimes mix the 2 up. The governor who quit is almost as funny though. But fair enough. Charlie Gibson asked her something about her insight into Russia and she said something about how you can see Russia from Alaska. Maybe just not exactly from her front porch.

Has anybody taken the trouble to ask whether one CAN see Russia from Alaska in certain places? Has anybody looked at a map of the world lately? The Bering Strait is pretty relatively narrow. If you climbed a great height and looked across to the west, who’s to say one could not see glimpses of mountains or other places in Russia?
Plus there’s the Aleutian Islands—which are also close to Russia. Is there somebody from Alaska here who can corroborate this?

The media basically took what it wanted to take from those remarks and twisted them to conform to their preset image of the woman.

Not surprising. And SNL is unabashedly liberal—they had a stake in ridiculing her character.

 

[NotCrazyDan]

“Do as I say, not as I do.”

Funny. Care to back it up? When I make a point I’m prepared to link a source when someone calls me on it. If not I clam up. I don’t just insist that people think as I do or they’re morons.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

I think I’m misunderstanding you, NotCrazydan. Are you posting against me??? I’m actually agreeing with you when you said since she would not divulge her sources, then we cannot take her seriously and that she is intimating that if we do not agree with her, we’re morons. This originally came about because I asked her where she got the information about the TP movement being “corporate-created.” She refused and told me to do my own research. “Because I would not believe her anyway.”

I was basically intimating that basically that IS her attitude------“you must agree with me because I tell you to do so.”

So, “Do as I SAY, not as I do.”

 

[NotCrazyDan]

I think I’m misunderstanding you, NotCrazydan. Are you posting against me??? I’m actually agreeing with you when you said since she would not divulge her sources, then we cannot take her seriously and that she is intimating that if we do not agree with her, we’re morons. This originally came about because I asked her where she got the information about the TP movement being “corporate-created.” She refused and told me to do my own research. “Because I would not believe her anyway.”

I was basically intimating that basically that IS her attitude------“you must agree with me because I tell you to do so.”

So, “Do as I SAY, not as I do.”

Oh sorry man. I totally misread you I apologize.

 

[OrdinaryMelkite]

Oh sorry man. I totally misread you I apologize.

No worries, man. I just wanted to clarify what I was saying. And by the way, thanks for calling her out on her cop-out answers.

Like I said in an earlier post—I’m willing to have my mind changed if given the source of any given opinion. I’m not part of the Borg Collective just yet.

Got to go to sleep now. Have a nice rest of the night.

 

[iamrefreshed]

I’ve noticed a pattern here. If one proves one’s point with ariticles, no one reads the articles. It’s just the same old same old. I have spent so much time proving my points with facts. This has had no affect on the arguement. I don’t want to waste my time anymore. Believe me or don’t believe me. I’m not going to keep wasting my time trying to convince those who do not wish to hear an opposing arguement.
Maybe there are a few at this board who really do want to hear something different that has been discussed on fox news. Let me know.

Take a look in the mirror.

 

[mary_bobo]

Please do your own research. If I do it for you , you won’t believe me anyway. They started out as corporate shills. All expenses paid, and some still are. Somewhere, along the line, they may have morphed into a legitimate grass roots movement…maybe. But because of their origin I have my doubts. I do not doubt they they believe they are a grass roots movement.

And your proof of this is…? I think many discount the Tea Party folks at their own peril. I guess some can’t understand just how angry much of the populace is. Look at the polls.

 

[estesbob]

Please do your own research. If I do it for you , you won’t believe me anyway. They started out as corporate shills. All expenses paid, and some still are. Somewhere, along the line, they may have morphed into a legitimate grass roots movement…maybe. But because of their origin I have my doubts. I do not doubt they they believe they are a grass roots movement.

I believe you are confusing the Tea Party with ACORN.