PDA

View Full Version : Tea Party ditches the ladies...



Soflasnapper
09-03-2011, 01:36 PM
I now register what is an unprecedented for me, a most unusual complaint on behalf of Michele Bachmann.

This woman has been at the forefront of the Tea Party move in Congress, forming the Tea Party caucus. Nobody out right-wings Rep. Bachmann. At least, in the normal Tea Party way (yes, Rep. Ron Paul has a fine record of voting 'no' on ALL SPENDING, but he is deficient in his social issues, relative to standard Tea Party principles, and is far too much anti-military for their taste).

But now, already, she is shunted to badly trailing Texas Gov. Rick Perry, the flavor of the week, dropping to 4th place and bare single digits in GOP polling in some states.

Perry, whose record of increasing Texas expenditures by double, and its debt by that or more, who has mainly 'created' jobs the old fashioned way (in government positions, the only place they've grown, while private sector jobs have declined), and whose many unconservative policies have angered conservatives in the past.

Here's what I think is going on. Heightism, and sexism. Unconsciously.

Both Rep. Bachmann and former Gov. Palin are small women. Gov. Perry is a taller man. Romney is a taller man. (Pawlenty, Santorum, Paul, Caine, Hunstman, are shorter men.)

Like Rep. Bachmann, former Gov. Palin is now yesterday's news, according to the current Fox News survey* (71% of Republicans say they don't want her to run).

Can't a short sister get a break?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">*The numbers are brutal for Palin, who was long regarded as a potential frontrunner for the 2012 nomination. Even among Tea Party-identifying Republicans she fares poorly: 68% say she shouldn't run versus only 28% who say she should. The numbers aren't that far off from the general electorate, 74% of whom don't want her to run versus 20% who do. Outside of Tea Partiers, more than 70% of every demographic broken out in the poll's crosstabs -- men, women, white voters, non-white voters, voters with college degrees, voters without college degrees -- are against a Palin run. </div></div>

So, where are those who USED TO CLAIM that the left attacked these women only because they knew they could win?

And make some popcorn and stay tuned, as first Rep. Bachmann's super-pac, and allegedly soon former Gov. Palin's planned speech, will begin to turn their attacks from President Obama, to... Gov. Rick Perry. Fascinating! (-- Mr. Spock)

Soflasnapper
09-03-2011, 01:57 PM
Information on heightism:

Statistical breakdown

For the 49 contested elections in which the heights of all the major-party candidates are known, the tallest candidate won 26 times (about 53 percent of the elections), a shorter candidate won 19 times (about 39 percent of the elections), and the winning candidate and tallest opponent were of the same height four times (about eight percent of the elections).

The tallest candidate has won 19 of 28 elections since 1900

Heights and the presidential election (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heights_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States_and_pre sidential_candidates)

LWW
09-03-2011, 05:40 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, where are those who USED TO CLAIM that the left attacked these women only because they knew they could win?</div></div>

1 - They were attacked because they were a political threat to dear leader.

2 - They are still a political threat to dear leader.

3 - Rick Perry is now being attacked because he is a political threat to dear leader.

4 - If Hillary runs she will be attacked because she would be a political threat to dear leader.

5 - If George Washington was resurrected by Jesus Christ, and then made his VPOTUS candidate, they would both be attacked because they wold be a political threat to dear leader.

What is your point ... other than to attack anyone who is seen as a political threat to dear leader?

Gayle in MD
09-03-2011, 06:16 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I now register what is an unprecedented for me, a most unusual complaint on behalf of Michele Bachmann.

This woman has been at the forefront of the Tea Party move in Congress, forming the Tea Party caucus. Nobody out right-wings Rep. Bachmann. At least, in the normal Tea Party way (yes, Rep. Ron Paul has a fine record of voting 'no' on ALL SPENDING, but he is deficient in his social issues, relative to standard Tea Party principles, and is far too much anti-military for their taste).

But now, already, she is shunted to badly trailing Texas Gov. Rick Perry, the flavor of the week, dropping to 4th place and bare single digits in GOP polling in some states.

Perry, whose record of increasing Texas expenditures by double, and its debt by that or more, who has mainly 'created' jobs the old fashioned way (in government positions, the only place they've grown, while private sector jobs have declined), and whose many unconservative policies have angered conservatives in the past.

Here's what I think is going on. Heightism, and sexism. Unconsciously.

Both Rep. Bachmann and former Gov. Palin are small women. Gov. Perry is a taller man. Romney is a taller man. (Pawlenty, Santorum, Paul, Caine, Hunstman, are shorter men.)

Like Rep. Bachmann, former Gov. Palin is now yesterday's news, according to the current Fox News survey* (71% of Republicans say they don't want her to run).

Can't a short sister get a break?

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">*The numbers are brutal for Palin, who was long regarded as a potential frontrunner for the 2012 nomination. Even among Tea Party-identifying Republicans she fares poorly: 68% say she shouldn't run versus only 28% who say she should. The numbers aren't that far off from the general electorate, 74% of whom don't want her to run versus 20% who do. Outside of Tea Partiers, more than 70% of every demographic broken out in the poll's crosstabs -- men, women, white voters, non-white voters, voters with college degrees, voters without college degrees -- are against a Palin run. </div></div>

So, where are those who USED TO CLAIM that the left attacked these women only because they knew they could win?

And make some popcorn and stay tuned, as first Rep. Bachmann's super-pac, and allegedly soon former Gov. Palin's planned speech, will begin to turn their attacks from President Obama, to... Gov. Rick Perry. Fascinating! (-- Mr. Spock)
</div></div>

Glad you wrote this, since I'm tired of the right constantly saying that the left, give a damn about Palin, or Bachmann, as far as any possibility of either of them having any chance of ever being a threat to President Obama. We don't have enough people in this country crazy enough to vote either of them into the Oval Office, YET!

The polls change constantly, during the run up to these elections, but one thing has been consistant, the Repig Party Leaders, have never been stupid enouogh to back Palin, OR Bachmann.

The right doesn't notice this because, well, as we on the left have always known, Like everything else, all of the in-fighting among Repiglicans, is ignored, so that they can blame all of the bad press their cartoon candidates are getting, on the Liberal Press, or should I say, the Non existant Liberal Press.

Bottom line, there isn't any Repiglican Candidate, at this time, that I think has any chance at all, of beating President Obama, in the election.

Additionally, I am expecting quite a rude awakening for the Repigs, given the polling data I am seeing as regards what Americans do and don't want.

Amazingly, after all of their BS about listening to the American People, and pretending to care about what the non millionaires and non billionaires, want, it has become obvious, Repigs don't give a rat's ass what the majority of Americans want, at all, which their current policies, prove, beyond a shadow of a doubt!

B-bye again Repigs.

Your Oinking was too loud for us miss hearing it while you were oinking it up at the trough!
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif
LMAO!

LWW
09-03-2011, 06:41 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">[quote=Soflasnapper]I now register what is an unprecedented for mbut on thing has been consistant, the Party Leaders, have never been for Palin, OR Bachmann.</div></div>

That is actually the truth.

<span style='font-size: 26pt'>BRAVO!</span>

That being said, it is true only because the party leadership is a group of RINO's and nothing more.

Soflasnapper
09-04-2011, 11:58 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">So, where are those who USED TO CLAIM that the left attacked these women only because they knew they could win?</div></div>

1 - They were attacked because they were a political threat to dear leader.

2 - They are still a political threat to dear leader.

3 - Rick Perry is now being attacked because he is a political threat to dear leader.

4 - If Hillary runs she will be attacked because she would be a political threat to dear leader.

5 - If George Washington was resurrected by Jesus Christ, and then made his VPOTUS candidate, they would both be attacked because they wold be a political threat to dear leader.

What is your point ... other than to attack anyone who is seen as a political threat to dear leader? </div></div>

That sounds as if you would claim that Palin and Bachmann attacking Perry is because they are secretly helping Obama with his main rival. Which I doubt you'd agree with.

But they ARE attacking him (I'd guess out of their own personal ambitions for the same office, nothing to do with trying to help Obama or being secretly in league with his campaign).

So is Karl Rove (an admitted long-time opponent of Perry's). Is ROVE attacking Perry to help Obama's chances? Again, I doubt that, but how about you?

LWW
09-04-2011, 12:10 PM
If you form a question in a sensible fashion, I will answer.

Soflasnapper
09-04-2011, 06:08 PM
Alrightee. Are the Republican attacks on the Republican candidates (by GOP pundits, and other candidates) motivated by a desire to help Obama? Perhaps to prevent the strongest candidate from facing him in the general election?

Gayle in MD
09-04-2011, 09:56 PM
/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

LWW
09-05-2011, 05:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Alrightee. Are the Republican attacks on the Republican candidates (by GOP pundits, and other candidates) motivated by a desire to help Obama? Perhaps to prevent the strongest candidate from facing him in the general election?

</div></div>

Certainly not.

They are designed to vette and/or promote candidates.

Now ... what was your point, if anything?

Qtec
09-05-2011, 05:52 AM
The anti regulation RW is all for regulations when it comes to abortion clinics.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">There are 22 facilities that provide first-trimester abortions in Virginia, and all of them may have to close their doors over the next two years if they can't meet the state government's <span style='font-size: 14pt'>rigorous new health clinic regulations.</span>

Virginia lawmakers passed legislation in the spring that required the Department of Health to release a set of "emergency" draft regulations for abortion clinics that were to go into effect by December 31.

The rules, released late on Friday, borrow a number of very specific physical plant requirements from a rulebook intended for the construction of new hospitals. For instance, a clinic must have 5-foot-wide hallways, 8-foot-wide areas outside of procedure rooms, specific numbers of toilets and types of sinks and all the latest requirements for air circulation flow and electrical wiring.

"On the first read, it seems hard to imagine that many facilities will be able to comply," Jordan Goldberg, state advocacy counsel for the Center for Reproductive Rights, told HuffPost. <span style='font-size: 14pt'>"We can fairly say that the regulations as drafted are the most severe, onerous and restrictive that have been proposed anywhere.</span> They're intended to apply to facilities that don't yet exist."

If the Board of Health passes the new standards on September 15, abortion clinics have until January to show the state a plan for the extensive and expensive renovations they'll have to undergo in order to meet the new requirements.

The Virginia League of Planned Parenthood said none of its five clinics are currently in compliance with the draft regulations. The renovations required to meet the new rules<span style='font-size: 14pt'> would cost millions of dollars,</span> and abortion clinics would have to foot the cost themselves and try to recoup the money in patient fees down the road.

<span style='font-size: 14pt'>"We recently spent $4.6 million on renovations for the building I'm in, and we still don't meet these requirements,"</span> said Paulette McElwain, president and CEO of VLPP. "I think it's highly likely that most facilities in Virginia that provide abortions wont be able to meet them either." </div></div>


Hypocrites.

Q.... link for LWW /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/08/29/virginia-abortion-clinics-new-rules_n_940975.html)

Gayle in MD
09-05-2011, 07:19 AM
The Republicans have consistantly destroyed the rights of many Americans. I really don't know how thhey have the nerve to even mention The Constitution.

Workers rights, women's rights, gay rights, human rights for access to decent health care, you name it, if it isn't something that gives the rich more power to committ fraud, and steal from everyone else, or pollute our environment, they are against it.

They think it's fine for Corporations to stealthly purchase Congressional seats, and redistrict the country to screw with elections to their benefit, but mention Middle Class Worker's rights, to decent pay and working conditions, and they are against it. They have even tried to remove a woman's right to be safe from being raped, or to make the rapist pay for his crime.

PIGS!

G.

LWW
09-05-2011, 07:52 AM
The Virginia House of Delegates is currently a (R) majority while the Virginia Senate is a (D) majority.

So, in reality, this was a bipartisan piece of legislation and your real complaint is that the abortion clinics are being forced to live up to the same standards as any other medical facility.

Hasn't one of the boiler plate arguments in favor of abortion been that women would seek them anyway, and without a legal outlet be forced into sub standard facilities to seek them? And now you are advocating that this is exactly what should happen?

Why?

And, FWIW, that was a rhetorical question ... the answer is self evident. You now believe this because the party told you that this is what you now believe and you are completely devoid of the human curiosity to see if you have been told the truth ... or if you have been ...
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
V
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_ne8uJrqxejc/TKv4CFMtBPI/AAAAAAAAKhA/cA7yft0_wp4/s1600/f_dlpunkd733xm_b62465e.jpg

Yet again.

You were.

Amazingly, you never learn.

OH DEAR! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virginia_legislature)

Soflasnapper
09-05-2011, 12:21 PM
The leg didn't write these rules. Their law put it over to the Board of Health to promulgate these rules, which remain in draft form and unpassed. The Board of Health is a creature of the governor, featuring his appointees.

These rules do not make the abortion clinics obey the same regulations as all other health care provider clinics. They make them almost immediately comply with regulations that apply only to NEW hospital construction. No other kind of health care provider clinic has to meet these arbitrary standards, such as the exact minimum size of even broom closets.

LWW
09-05-2011, 12:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <span style='font-size: 14pt'>NOW you should provide a link moron</span>!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Q </div></div>

Soflasnapper
09-05-2011, 04:30 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Abortion clinics currently are regulated in the state as out-patient clinics, such as cosmetic- and oral-surgery centers.</div></div>

These new rules will not be applied to other out-patient health care facilities.

See the Board of Health agenda to verify this. It is only a bill to regulate abortion clinics, not any other kind of outpatient center. (http://www.vdh.virginia.gov/Administration/meetings/documents/2011/pdf/Sept%2015%202011%20agenda%20and%20materials%20to%2 0be%20posted.pdf)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> Of the 14 members on the current Board of Health, eight were appointed by Mr. McDonnell, a Republican, while six were appointed or reappointed by his Democratic predecessor, Tim Kaine. One seat is vacant.</div></div>

Showing the Board of Health is appointed by the governor. 8, a majority of the current 15 member board, were appointed by the current governor.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Pro-choice advocates say that they hope draft regulations from the Virginia Department of Health that impose hospitallike standards on the state’s abortion clinics will not end up restricting access for women seeking abortions in the state. </div></div>

These rules are the product of the Board of Health.

from a Washington Times article on this issue. (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/aug/25/va-health-department-to-release-abortion-clinic-re/)

eg8r
09-05-2011, 07:52 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">in government positions, the only place they've grown, while private sector jobs have declined</div></div>Impossible. The lefty left side of the mouth says only government jobs created while the lefty's right side of the mouth says they have only created minimum wage jobs.

eg8r

eg8r
09-05-2011, 07:53 PM
No short sisters, they are too extreme. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r

Qtec
09-06-2011, 12:42 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: eg8r</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">in government positions, the only place they've grown, while private sector jobs have declined</div></div>Impossible. The lefty left side of the mouth says <span style='font-size: 14pt'>only</span> government jobs created while the lefty's right side of the mouth says they have <span style='font-size: 14pt'>only</span> created minimum wage jobs.

eg8r </div></div>

THIS IS YOU [ <u>A RIGHTY</u> ] TALKING OUT OF YOUR A$$.

Q

eg8r
09-06-2011, 09:49 AM
LOL, and this is a great example of you not actually researching anything but rather finding an article that you "thought" (we know that is an oxymoron for you) told you want you wanted to read. Move along schmuck.

eg8r

LWW
09-06-2011, 10:32 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The leg didn't write these rules. Their law put it over to the Board of Health to promulgate these rules, which remain in draft form and unpassed.</div></div>

A half truth ... according to your own link ... at best.

Gayle in MD
09-06-2011, 10:41 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: synchronous</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The joy of a ladies tea party, no matter what the theme, is that you can sit down with your guests and enjoy the event also. All preparations are done in advance, so there is no need for you to spend half your time in the kitchen. The only thing you may need to 'do' is make another pot of tea!

The idea of a Tea Party dates back to the Victorian Era when a lady of fashion, Catherine of Braganza, or Anna, the 7th Duchess of Bedford, (there is some debate on this issue),ordered tea and cakes to be brought up for her since she would be having dinner later in the evening. I think it was most likely Catherine, since she was used to drinking tea before she came to England. Then of course it became all the rage to hostess an afternoon tea.

Nowadays, you can serve almost anything you like at a ladies tea party, as long as it is easy to eat without a knife, and generally without a fork. (although not always, a high tea will need silverware) Doing so makes it easy for your guests to mingle around the room and not be too dependent on a table to eat from.

Any occasion is a great reason to have a tea party, let alone a special occasion! Take a look at all the ideas belo




</div></div>

Your post has nothing to do with the discussion, at all.

AND, there are no ladies below, in your post.

However, here is the European history of Tea, and High Tea.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">History of Tea Time
Prior to the introduction of tea into Britain, the English had two main meals, breakfast and dinner. Breakfast was ale, bread, and beef. During the middle of the eighteenth century, dinner for the upper and middle classes had shifted from noontime to an evening meal that was served at a fashionable late hour. Dinner was a long, massive meal at the end of the day.

17th Century

Afternoon tea may have been started by the French. According to the monthly newsletter called TeaMuse, in the writings of Madame de Sévigné (1626 to 1696), one of history's greatest letter writers on life in 17th Century France:

It's a little known fact, but after its introduction to Europe in the 17th century tea was tremendously popular in France. It first arrived in Paris in 1636 (22 years before it appeared in England!) and quickly became popular among the aristocracy. . . Tea was so popular in Paris that Madame de Sévigné, who chronicled the doings of the Sun King and his cronies in a famous series of gossipy letters to her daughter, often found herself mentioning tea. "Saw the Princesse de Tarente [de Sévigné wrote]... who takes 12 cups of tea every day... which, she says, cures all her ills. She assured me that Monsieur de Landgrave drank 40 cups every morning. 'But Madame, perhaps it is really only 30 or so.' 'No, 40. He was dying, and it brought him back to life before our eyes.' . . . Madame de Sévigné also reported that it was a Frenchwoman, the Marquise de la Sablière, who initiated the fashion of adding milk to tea. "Madame de la Sablière took her tea with milk, as she told me the other day, because it was to her taste." (By the way, the English delighted in this "French touch" and immediately adopted it.)

1600 - Queen Elizabeth l (1533-1603) granted permission for the charter of the British East India Company (1600-1858), also known as the John Company, on December 31, 1600 to establish trade routes, ports, and trading relationships with the Far East, Southeast Asia, and India. Trade in spices was its original focus, but later traded in cottons, silks, indigo, saltpeter, and tea. Due to political and other factors, the tea trade didn’t begin until the late 1670s.

1662 - King Charles II (1630-1685) while in exile, married the Portuguese Infanta Catherine de Braganza (1638–1705). Catherine's dowry was the largest ever registered in world history. Portugal gave to England two million golden crusados, Tangier and Morocco in North Africa, Bombay in India, and also permission for the British to use all the ports in the Portuguese colonies in Africa, Asia and the Americas, thus giving England their first direct trading rights to tea.

As Charles had grown up in the Dutch capital, both he and his Portuguese bride were confirmed tea drinkers. When the monarchy was re-established, they brought this foreign tea tradition to England with them. Her influence made tea more popular amongst the wealthier classes of society, as whatever the royals did, everyone else wanted to copy. Soon tea mania spread swept across England, and it became the beverage of choice in English high society, replacing ale as the national drink.

The reign of Charles II was crucial in laying the foundations for the growth of the British tea trade. The East India Company was highly favored by Charles II. Charles confirmed its monopoly, and also extended it to give the Company unprecedented powers to occupy by military force places with which they wished to trade (so long as the people there were not Christians).

1663 - The poet and politician Edmund Waller (1606-1687) wrote a poem in honor of Queen Catherine for her birthday crediting her with making tea a fashionable drink amongst courtiers:

Venus her Myrtle, Phoebus has his bays;
Tea both excels, which she vouchsafes to praise.
The best of Queens, the best of herbs, we owe
To that bold nation which the way did show
To the fair region where the sun doth rise,
Whose rich productions we so justly prize.
The Muse's friend, tea does our fancy aid,
Regress those vapours which the head invade,
And keep the palace of the soul serene,
Fit on her birthday to salute the Queen


18th Century

By 1700, tea was on sale by more than 500 coffee houses in London. Tea drinking became even more popular when Queen Anne (1665–1714) chose tea over ale as her regular breakfast drink. Anne's character was once portrayed as a tea-drinking, social nonentity with lesbian tendencies.

During the second half of the Victorian Period, known as the Industrial Revolution, working families would return home tired and exhausted. The table would be set with any manner of meats, bread, butter, pickles, cheese and of course tea. None of the dainty finger sandwiches, scones and pastries of afternoon tea would have been on the menu. Because it was eaten at a high, dining table rather than the low tea tables, it was termed "high" tea.


19th Century

According to legend, one of Queen Victoria's (1819-1901) ladies-in-waiting, Anna Maria Stanhope (1783-1857), known as the Duchess of Bedford, is credited as the creator of afternoon teatime. Because the noon meal had become skimpier, the Duchess suffered from "a sinking feeling" at about four o'clock in the afternoon.

At first the Duchess had her servants sneak her a pot of tea and a few breadstuffs. Adopting the European tea service format, she invited friends to join her for an additional afternoon meal at five o'clock in her rooms at Belvoir Castle. The menu centered around small cakes, bread and butter sandwiches, assorted sweets, and, of course, tea. This summer practice proved so popular, the Duchess continued it when she returned to London, sending cards to her friends asking them to join her for "tea and a walking the fields." The practice of inviting friends to come for tea in the afternoon was quickly picked up by other social hostesses.



</div></div>

http://whatscookingamerica.net/History/HighTeaHistory.htm

Gayle in MD
09-14-2011, 09:39 AM
We must destroy Repiglican Fascism before it's too late!