‘Birther’ legislation introduced by Sorenson

Actually, I typically use it the same way as the tea party members do; as an easier term than ‘tea party members’. The fact that it coincidentally refers to a potentially quite ..ahem…distasteful act is hilarious and in some cases quite appropriate, as when the ISC justices were railroaded through a misinformation campaign funded with out of state money from religiously extreme groups, including some described as hate groups. Hence the lolcat, which nicely sums up my deep distaste for the hijacking of our retention system by out-of-staters while being thoroughly tongue in cheek.

Sorry, Wendy, I couldn’t let this one go. Intonation relates to musical patterns and melodies. I think you meant to say, “That statement carries quite a conotation.” Which is still problematic, however, conotation means the common understanding that a word or phrase carries in addition to the word’s explicit meeting. I don’t think i’d be asking to be dismissed from class, we could all use a few more lessons.

Sooo you really meant to say that “We are not distracted,” carries a pattern or melody of pitch changes in connected speech? Intonation relates to sound, ie pitch and melody, (Do you physically hear a difference? Because I thought this was a message board. Conotation relates to significance, and content and, like it or not, that’s what you were saying. The term, “We are not distracted,” has a conotation that democrats collectively agree on, and like to throw around when complaining about republicans.

Yes, one more question. Thank you for being so patient. Please identify the pattern and/or pitch change in “We are not distracted.”

Dick Cheney isn’t office, and neither is Sarah Palin, Rick Santourum, Mike Huckabee, Donald Trump, Newt Gingrich–but they’re still members of the Republican Party. One sect is traditional, the other is sending chain e-mails asking people to send $99 to Hawaii to receive a certified copy of Obama’s birth certificate. There is a huge, ideological split in the Republican party–but that’s what happens when a party can no longer sell it’s trickle-down theory of economics to the majority of American people. They’ve got to find new folks, who don’t want Obama to be president for _______ fill in the blank reasons. It’s really irrelevant.

What’s not irrelevant, however, is how fascinating their marketing, er, campaigning is. See, they know that people who identify themselves as Tea Partiers don’t do any real research. They watch the Fox Entertainment channel and base their opinions on whatever comes out of Beck’s, Hannity’s, or O’Reilley’s, mouths. They know that you won’t question it, because this ‘news” source also tells you that they’re the ONLY network that’s giving you the real story–doesn’t that ever seem strange Tea Party? That they’re constantly reminding you how little you can trust everyone else? Political Analysts find this all fascinating.

And, because I believe that no argument without evidence should be taken seriously, let me remind you: The Tea Party issued a separate response to the SOTU, John Boehner is on record as saying that the budget cuts sought by Tea Party freshman are both politically, and practically unacheivable. Tea Partiers were told they were voting on the cont. of the Patriot Act as they entered the hill. 8 members of the GA in Wisonsin are now under threat of repeal because of Scott Walker’s over reach.

The Tea Party got all fired up in 2010 like a high school football team, they had their pep rallies and borded their buses and got to the stadium and then realized, they had never played a game before. It would be sort of endearing, how ill-prepared, how excited the Tea Party is to “take the country back,’ if they weren’t currently attempting to grandstand and put forth meaningless legislation–from the national stage on down to poor Kent Sorenson, who won’t get reelected.

So again, Tea Party, keep it up. All of this is good for Democrats. Look into the 1995 election if you don’t believe it.

My point is, and you prove this quite efficiently:, ‘Bachman was citing statistics and giving evidence for her statement that Obama is running a gangster government…” But have you ever sought to verify those statistics? Or Evidence? Do you even understand how to go about finding the primary documents to support these claims? Or do you, as I assume, merely treat politics like you do “entertainment?” You flip from the O’Reilley Factor to The Biggest Loser without batting an eye. You invest nothing of yourself into the actual political process, and as evidenced by your complete lack of understanding about governance, you get nothing in return. It’s your responsibility to verify what your leaders say–even the ones you like. I do. My government is not a reality TV show.

Wow, you really have nothing to offer the conversation, except to call me out on the very crucial point that I made an error deciphering between 1995, and 1996, (So sorry) and in doing so have side-stepped my accusation: You do no research. You don’t know how. You want your leaders to pander to the very worst part of your personality because you’re too lazy to analyze your own prejudices. I’m done talking to you now. Enjoy the rest of your Sunday.

Inconceivable!