Foes of Tea Party movement to plan to infiltrate them

[Reality_Check]

If they had nominated a candidate more in line with the outgoing Republican Congressman, they wouldn't have had a 3rd Party candidate enter the race. Instead they nominated Scozzafava, who is more liberal than many Democrats.

I notice you have not mentioned the US Senate election in Massachusetts to replace the guy who killed Mary Jo Kapechne....

Why would I? He didn't force out another candidate who failed an ideological purity test. Which is what I'm discussing. I also didn't mention Ted Deutch (D) defeating Ed Lynch (R) to take over Robert Wexler's seat in Florida's 19th District. Lynch ran an anti-Obama campaign (anti-HCR, anti-stimulus). He was crushed by 26 points (62% to 36%). Oh wait, I guess I did mention it.

[1bad65]

The problem with this is that I don't trust you to leave and ban yourself. You don't have that capacity for admission of wrong.

You really want to go there? I can bring up many posts of mine where I admit I was mistaken.

I'll contact Gene, and reference the ban bet in my sig so all can see. And MK is a mod too, he can ban me in Novemember if the GOP doesn't win either chamber. I constantly speak of the rule of law, and being honest, no way I'd not honor my word. You're copping out.

One can see that by simply reading through any one of your hundreds of blinders on neo-con ditto head diatribes that you lay down wherever you go.

WTF is this supposed to mean?

[MasterKiller]

MK is a mod too, he can ban me in Novemember if the GOP doesn't win either chamber.

Only Gene can ban.

[1bad65]

Why would I? He didn't force out another candidate who failed an ideological purity test.

My point is the upcoming elections. When an unknown takes a Senate seat held by Democrats for like 50 years in friggin Massachusetts, you know it's gonna be ugly come November.

I also didn't mention Ted Deutch (D) defeating Ed Lynch (R) to take over Robert Wexler's seat in Florida's 19th District. Lynch ran an anti-Obama campaign (anti-HCR, anti-stimulus). He was crushed by 26 points (62% to 36%). Oh wait, I guess I did mention it.

That's a huge Democrat district. No one expected the GOP to win that one. But big name pollsters are predicting a huge win for the GOP in November. Just last week, Dick Morris predicted they would take both Houses of Congress. I'm almost certain they will win the House, the Senate will be closer. I believe they have to win 10 out of 11 Democrat held Senate seats up for grabs. They can do it, but it's no way guaranteed.

[1bad65]

Only Gene can ban.

I was wrong (Oh wait, I never admit that), but you're a mod who will see I put my account on the line.

You guys may not like me, but you know I'll honor my word. Plus, it's your chance to get rid of me.

[Reality_Check]

My point is the upcoming elections. When an unknown takes a Senate seat held by Democrats for like 50 years in friggin Massachusetts, you know it's gonna be ugly come November.

But a Democrat taking a House seat that's been held by the Republican's for over 100 years is not important? Alrighty then...

I'd also like to point out that, unlike you with NY's 23rd and FL's 19th, I haven't made any excuses for the loss by the Democrat in Massachusetts.

That's a huge Democrat district. No one expected the GOP to win that one. But big name pollsters are predicting a huge win for the GOP in November. Just last week, Dick Morris predicted they would take both Houses of Congress. I'm almost certain they will win the House, the Senate will be closer. I believe they have to win 10 out of 11 Democrat held Senate seats up for grabs. They can do it, but it's no way guaranteed.

No offense, Dick Morris is a partisan hack, not a pollster.

I usually follow Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com. He's usually pretty reliable.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/...d-average.html

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/...-possible.html

[1bad65]

But a Democrat taking a House seat that's been held by the Republican's for over 100 years is not important? Alrighty then...

I'd also like to point out that, unlike you with NY's 23rd and FL's 19th, I haven't made any excuses for the loss by the Democrat in Massachusetts.

It's not excuses, it's facts. The Republicans didn't even run a candidate in the New York race. She dropped out. And more votes were cast for her and Hoffman then for the Democrat. And that Florida race is in a dark blue district.

No offense, Dick Morris is a partisan hack, not a pollster.

For who? After all, he worked for Bill Clinton and now works for FoxNews. Sounds balanced to me.

And he has worked as a pollster and a campaign consultant.

I usually follow Nate Silver at fivethirtyeight.com. He's usually pretty reliable.

Then encourage him to bet me. If you guys get rid of me, you will have cut the number of conservatives on this site by about half.

[Reality_Check]

It's not excuses, it's facts. The Republicans didn't even run a candidate in the New York race. She dropped out. And more votes were cast for her and Hoffman then for the Democrat. And that Florida race is in a dark blue district.

LMAO!!!! She was forced out. Perhaps if all of those people who decided to back a third party candidate (instead of enforcing an ideological purity test) backed her, the Republicans would have retained the seat.

Wouldn't it have been better to have someone who supported some of your goals in office as opposed to someone who supports little to none of them?

And the fact that Hoffman ended up splitting the vote proves my point. Enforcing ideological purity cost them the seat.

[kfson]

"ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) - Opponents of the fiscally conservative tea party movement say they plan to infiltrate and dismantle the political group by trying to make its members appear to be racist, ****phobic and moronic.

It sounds like they will be using falsehoods?

[David Jamieson]

You really want to go there? I can bring up many posts of mine where I admit I was mistaken.

do it!

I'll contact Gene, and reference the ban bet in my sig so all can see. And MK is a mod too, he can ban me in Novemember if the GOP doesn't win either chamber. I constantly speak of the rule of law, and being honest, no way I'd not honor my word. You're copping out.

obeying your ridiculous challenge which really amounts to a control/ego issue with you as an individual isn't me copping out, it's you being weird. lol Huge difference!

WTF is this supposed to mean?

I think it's pretty straight forward.
But I could say it again. You come across as a neo-con ditto head who blathers out diatribes all over the place, chooses what to speak to, does not choose to answer for deliberate answers and often seems to hope that the more erroneous postings he makes sink to the bottom and get forgotten before he goes on another partisan tirade filled with bile and vitriol.

In other words, politically, I have no respect for your mind, or your position.
You may hold that opinion yourself of me. It matters not, BUt I'm really not interested in playing your chest puffing games of ban promises and other infantile gilry games on a freaking forum. lol so lame dude!

[1bad65]

LMAO!!!! She was forced out. Perhaps if all of those people who decided to back a third party candidate (instead of enforcing an ideological purity test) backed her, the Republicans would have retained the seat.

Forced out by who? She had every legal right to be on that ballot, she chose to drop out.

Wouldn't it have been better to have someone who supported some of your goals in office as opposed to someone who supports little to none of them?

That's one of my points. In many areas, the Democrat Owens was more conservative than the Republican Scozzafava.

And the fact that Hoffman ended up splitting the vote proves my point. Enforcing ideological purity cost them the seat.

They stood by their morals. That used to a trait we admired in people.

Again, had the Republicans nominated someone with similar beliefs as the Republican who vacated the seat, Hoffman wouldn't have ran. The people there did not want a lberal, yet the Republicans nominated one. Conservatives (unlike many Democrat demographics), do not go to the polls and just pull the lever simply due to the letter on it. We tend to vote on issues, not mainly along Party lines.

[1bad65]

do it!

Wil do. And I'll bet you don't admit you were wrong in saying I never admit I'm wrong.

obeying your ridiculous challenge which really amounts to a control/ego issue with you as an individual isn't me copping out, it's you being weird. lol Huge difference!

You just know will likely lose.


As to the 3rd area of your post, I do make up my own mind. I'm socially liberal, and very fiscally conservative. But since I don't make up my mind, I'll allow you to prove it. Simply find one my posts where I parrrot talking points, speeches, manifestos, etc and I do not credit the original author, speaker, etc. Just one example. I'll bet you cant.

[1bad65]

Fair enough, and I stand corrected on Grambling.

I stand corrected.

I stand corrected. You are indeed correct.

http://kungfuqigong.com/forum/showpo...8&postcount=31

I stand corrected.

I was unaware anyone died in the anthrax attacks. The intended targets were not killed, and that confused me. I stand corrected.

I stand corrected.

So, I have backed up my assertion. Now it's your turn....

[David Jamieson]

http://kungfuqigong.com/forum/showpo...8&postcount=31







So, I have backed up my assertion. Now it's your turn....

You've done nothing but copy and paste the phrase "i stand corrected"
also, I never made any assertions, so I don't have to back any up.



Not that it mattered, I just said "do it" as a lark.
I'm actually having a chuckle at your expense for going and digging around.
You actualy did it, you poor fool.

oh well.

[1bad65]

You've done nothing but copy and paste the phrase "i stand corrected"

Which shows I admit when I was incorrect.

also, I never made any assertions, so I don't have to back any up.

Screw you. You've repeatedly called me a racist, and called the Tea Party folks racists as well.

One more thing; Are you admitting to trolling?