|
Hyrule19189 Posts
On September 18 2010 01:37 Adila wrote:
Also, when is America going to get over this whole evolution-denial thing? The world is laughing at you, guys. If someone denies evolution, they're to be taken as seriously as someone who denies gravity. Why isn't that common knowledge in America?
The tests that they put -- that they use to support gravity do not have consistent results. Now too many people are blindly accepting gravity as fact. But when you get down to the hard evidence, it's merely a theory.
Instead, I prefer to believe that the weight of sins keeps us stuck to the Earth, far away from Heaven.
|
What kind of dumb school accepted her into political sciences? A community college perhaps? Did she even legitimately graduate?
|
On September 18 2010 02:19 Sumsi wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2010 02:09 Hawk wrote:On September 18 2010 02:07 Sumsi wrote:On September 18 2010 01:48 Hawk wrote:On September 18 2010 01:21 vGl-CoW wrote:
if you are of the opinion that people can simultaneously support creationism and not be complete retards, we probably don't have a whole lot to discuss Truuuuuth. Someone who poo-poo's science for an unfounded belief shouldn't be in power, ever. Why not? If I had the option between a free-market, limited-government oriented creationist and a rational socialist my pick would not be that hard. The worst danger for the people and their liberty have always been politicians with a rational plan. Because if you just arbitrarily decide to cherry pick science when it supports you and ignore it when it doesn't, why should that person have any credibility?? You dont get the point. I dont care about the opinion of a politician in terms of science as long as he supports liberty. Seems not to be the case with O'Donnell either since she wants creationism to be taught in public schools.
I'm not asking about your political priorities though. That has absolutely nothing with what I'm talking about. And liberty, (at least in the states, dunno about Germany) means freedom of and from religion, and seperation of church and state.
I'm talking about the dangers of giving power to someone that randomly decides to believe in science only when it's beneficial to their view point. You can't just decide to believe in science and math when citing polls in a debate, but then years of reserach and data goes right out the window when you're talking about evolution. What stops that person from saying 'fuck roe vs wade, GOD SAID ABORTION IS BAD, EVEN IN RAPE!' or just deciding that God doesn't want us doing business with the heathens in the middle east??
|
This is great - People are finally getting tired of all the BS thrown at them.
|
She is crazy, but it's nice to see a popular choice defeating the party's choice for once. That said, I wouldn't vote for her in a million years and I think most swing voters in DE feel the same.
|
On September 18 2010 01:06 TheToast wrote:
She is a small government, anti-tax, anti-washington conservative who believes in traditional christian values. This is why she won the primary and this is why the tea party people like her. Yes she has said some stupid things as all politician have, but many republicans were willing to over-look her gaffes because she was the only conservative republican in the primary. Mike Castle was seen as a middle of the road moderate, the type of which the tea party views as having sold out conservatives during the Bush era. I'm not here to defend her, but I will take exception to a group of people being called ignorant "tards" because of where the lie on the political spectrum.
When you define wanting to deny people human rights as a minor character flaw, reason goes right out the window. People support her because she's going to lower taxes a little bit.
|
Holy crap!
"American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains."
...
"will be a strong voice in fighting ongoing efforts by anti-gun politicians to dismantle the Second Amendment"
...
O'Donnell advocated the teaching of creationism in public schools and argued for a literal interpretation of The Bible's Book of Genesis
...
O'Donnell has said that she will never vote to increase taxes.
...
O'Donnell has contended that "America is now a socialist economy"
I feel for you USA.
On September 18 2010 02:37 Chairman Ray wrote:
What kind of dumb school accepted her into political sciences? A community college perhaps? Did she even legitimately graduate?
From wikipedia: In earlier years, there had been a discrepancy regarding her university graduation. Her 2006 Senate campaign website identified her as a Fairleigh Dickinson University graduate. However, she did not receive a degree from there until September 2010.
|
Forget how batshit insane this lady is, I still can't believe that morons still fall for the old 'I won't ever raise taxes' routine.
It never fails, no matter what level of government you're dealing with, and that's the first thing that politicans do when they get in.
|
On September 18 2010 02:54 Hawk wrote:
Forget how batshit insane this lady is, I still can't believe that morons still fall for the old 'I won't ever raise taxes' routine.
It never fails, no matter what level of government you're dealing with, and that's the first thing that politicans do when they get in.
What's even more hilarious are the people who say now's not the time to raise taxes. We all know there's never a "good time" to raise taxes for these people.
|
On September 18 2010 02:57 Adila wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2010 02:54 Hawk wrote:
Forget how batshit insane this lady is, I still can't believe that morons still fall for the old 'I won't ever raise taxes' routine.
It never fails, no matter what level of government you're dealing with, and that's the first thing that politicans do when they get in. What's even more hilarious are the people who say now's not the time to raise taxes. We all know there's never a "good time" to raise taxes for these people.
ye but nows a really good time isn't it?
|
On September 18 2010 00:40 TheToast wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2010 23:10 MadVillain wrote:
Nooo America NOOOOOOO!!!! Honestly who are these tards who voted for her, like seriously it boggles my mind that people could put such responsibility in someone so utterly unqualified. Barely a college graduate (a liar at that), completely and utterly ignorant of what science is and just stupid.
Wow America just WOW. Show nested quote +On September 17 2010 23:10 ArbAttack wrote:
Seriously during my next vacation I'm going to drive to a state holding one of these rallies/elections and just talk to their supporters to figure out first-hand why they are the ignorant dumbfucks they are. Why are comments like this considered appropriate on TL? This thread is filled with hateful comments like this and I think it is unacceptable. Just because someone believes different things than you it's not okay to spread this kind of hate. If someone who did not believe in racial equality for Islam came on this forum and expressed themselves the way ArbAttack and many others in this thread have, they would be instantly banned.I'm not saying that I agree with everything she says (I do believe in evolution) but I agree with her on most points. While I do not agree with liberals and liberal politics, I do not go around posting hateful comments about Obama on TL. I have never referred to a liberal as a "tard" and I have never said anything disrespectful about anyone based on their religion. I accept that there are people in this world with different opinions than myself, and if I choose to disagree I do so in a respectful and logical manner. I know that the response to this is going to be "well republicans spread hate!!!". If that is what you believe fine, (I would take exception with that) but there is no reason to spread it here as well.
You're equating my utter abhorrence of a politician (and a good portion of her/the party's supporters) who's a complete fucking retard and liar, to the hate of a racist towards Islam?
There's a world of difference there.
Religious, social and moral beliefs aside (creationist, opposes abortion in the case of rape and incest), this joke of a woman knows NOTHING about economics.
Quoting wiki here (checked the references from major news sites, credible in my eyes):
O'Donnell has said that she will never vote to increase taxes. Since the summer of 2010, O'Donnell has contended that "America is now a socialist economy", defining a "socialist economy" as one in which "50% or more your economy is dependent on the federal government."
Are you fucking kidding me? Seriously? Anyone who's taken a first-year economics course will laugh their ass off at this igorant redneck.
|
I just don't understand what's going on with the whole Tea Party movement. From what I get, they think that the GOP aren't "strong" enough conservatives. That doesn't make ANY sense though, since American conservatives are much further right on the spectrum than Canadian conservatives, for example.
That being said, the foundations of American democracy say nothing about the current "two party system" that it is entrenched in. One part of me is happy that another party is gathering some popular support in America, but the rest is disgusted that it's these dough-heads.
|
On September 18 2010 02:50 Manit0u wrote:Holy crap! Show nested quote +
"American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains."
...
"will be a strong voice in fighting ongoing efforts by anti-gun politicians to dismantle the Second Amendment"
...
O'Donnell advocated the teaching of creationism in public schools and argued for a literal interpretation of The Bible's Book of Genesis
...
O'Donnell has said that she will never vote to increase taxes.
...
O'Donnell has contended that "America is now a socialist economy"
I feel for you USA. Show nested quote +On September 18 2010 02:37 Chairman Ray wrote:
What kind of dumb school accepted her into political sciences? A community college perhaps? Did she even legitimately graduate? In earlier years, there had been a discrepancy regarding her university graduation. Her 2006 Senate campaign website identified her as a Fairleigh Dickinson University graduate. However, she did not receive a degree from there until September 2010.
I have no problems with points 2 and 4. Point 5 is debatable. Point 1 is...an....odd belief and Point 3 will never happen even if she gets elected thanks to the other 99 Senators.
I really don't understand what the point of this thread is other than to bash the Tea Party Candidate. When are you going to agree with everything a candidate represents? Obviously the people of Delaware don't support some of her more crazy notions but they didn't want another corrupt Republican who is only motivated by which lobbyists gave him the most money. The senate doesn't need another life-time political insider.
All she has won so far is a primary. Even so, I doubt the republican party will offer her any support. If she wins, it won't be because the people of Delaware are enamored with her religious values, but because they think she offers them a better political future.
|
On September 18 2010 02:24 animus123 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2010 02:13 WilbertK wrote:On September 18 2010 02:07 Sumsi wrote:On September 18 2010 01:48 Hawk wrote:On September 18 2010 01:21 vGl-CoW wrote:
if you are of the opinion that people can simultaneously support creationism and not be complete retards, we probably don't have a whole lot to discuss Truuuuuth. Someone who poo-poo's science for an unfounded belief shouldn't be in power, ever. Why not? If I had the option between a free-market, limited-government oriented creationist and a rational socialist my pick would not be that hard. The worst danger for the people and their liberty have always been politicians with a rational plan. This is dishonest. It's not like Hawk is saying anything is better than a creationism (although he may think so, I don't know for sure). He just said anyone in power should respect science. Dishonest? How silly. He is just saying that he isn't worried about the Christian letting her religious beliefs interfere with her political and economic policies. The fact that she believes in creationism is secondary to how she will vote on actual political issues.
Are you serious? In what universe does believing in creationism NOT have a huge impact on the way a politician votes on certain issues? I agree that there are issues in which it doesn't play a role, but there's quite a lot of relevant issues in which it DOES play a huge role.
But that's all besides the point. You say her belief in creationism is secondary to how she will vote in actual issues. I agree. The way she'll vote is more important. But that doesn't mean that her belief in creationism is all of a sudden NOT important.
Let look at this hypothetical (kind of) example. I say you shouldn't vote for an insane person. Someone else states 'it's much more important to vote for someone whose views you share'. Is it not perfectly reasonable to want to vote for a person who is both sane and who shares your views? Even if we agree that it's important that you share the views of the person you vote for, that doesn't mean that voting for an insane person is somehow a good thing.
To take this back to the discussion. Yes, the way she will vote on actual political issues is more important than how she makes her decisions. But that doesn't make it a good thing that she denounces science.
|
On September 18 2010 02:57 Adila wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2010 02:54 Hawk wrote:
Forget how batshit insane this lady is, I still can't believe that morons still fall for the old 'I won't ever raise taxes' routine.
It never fails, no matter what level of government you're dealing with, and that's the first thing that politicans do when they get in. What's even more hilarious are the people who say now's not the time to raise taxes. We all know there's never a "good time" to raise taxes for these people.
When we get a fair tax system maybe we can talk about there being a 'right time' to increase taxes.
|
On September 18 2010 03:02 animus123 wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2010 02:50 Manit0u wrote:Holy crap!
"American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains."
...
"will be a strong voice in fighting ongoing efforts by anti-gun politicians to dismantle the Second Amendment"
...
O'Donnell advocated the teaching of creationism in public schools and argued for a literal interpretation of The Bible's Book of Genesis
...
O'Donnell has said that she will never vote to increase taxes.
...
O'Donnell has contended that "America is now a socialist economy"
I feel for you USA. On September 18 2010 02:37 Chairman Ray wrote:
What kind of dumb school accepted her into political sciences? A community college perhaps? Did she even legitimately graduate? In earlier years, there had been a discrepancy regarding her university graduation. Her 2006 Senate campaign website identified her as a Fairleigh Dickinson University graduate. However, she did not receive a degree from there until September 2010. I have no problems with points 2 and 4. Point 5 is debatable. Point 1 is...an....odd belief and Point 3 will never happen even if she gets elected thanks to the other 99 Senators. I really don't understand what the point of this thread is other than to bash the Tea Party Candidate. When are you going to agree with everything a candidate represents? Obviously the people of Delaware don't support some of her more crazy notions but they didn't want another corrupt Republican who is only motivated by which lobbyists gave him the most money. The senate doesn't need another life-time political insider. All she has won so far is a primary. Even so, I doubt the republican party will offer her any support. If she wins, it won't be because the people of Delaware are enamored with her religious values, but because they think she offers them a better political future.
So they eschewed the allegedly corrupt but definitely experienced candidate for one that has absolutely no experience, and has proven herself to be a moron to boot. Who is to say that she's not going to launch a political career that lasts until she dies, or that a year from now, it will be exposed that she was blowing corporate hotshots for funding??
And this is political progress in America, folks!!
|
On September 18 2010 03:04 WilbertK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2010 02:24 animus123 wrote:On September 18 2010 02:13 WilbertK wrote:On September 18 2010 02:07 Sumsi wrote:On September 18 2010 01:48 Hawk wrote:On September 18 2010 01:21 vGl-CoW wrote:
if you are of the opinion that people can simultaneously support creationism and not be complete retards, we probably don't have a whole lot to discuss Truuuuuth. Someone who poo-poo's science for an unfounded belief shouldn't be in power, ever. Why not? If I had the option between a free-market, limited-government oriented creationist and a rational socialist my pick would not be that hard. The worst danger for the people and their liberty have always been politicians with a rational plan. This is dishonest. It's not like Hawk is saying anything is better than a creationism (although he may think so, I don't know for sure). He just said anyone in power should respect science. Dishonest? How silly. He is just saying that he isn't worried about the Christian letting her religious beliefs interfere with her political and economic policies. The fact that she believes in creationism is secondary to how she will vote on actual political issues. Are you serious? In what universe does believing in creationism NOT have a huge impact on the way a politician votes on certain issues? I agree that there are issues in which it doesn't play a role, but there's quite a lot of relevant issues in which it DOES play a huge role. But that's all besides the point. You say her belief in creationism is secondary to how she will vote in actual issues. I agree. The way she'll vote is more important. But that doesn't mean that her belief in creationism is all of a sudden NOT important. Let look at this hypothetical (kind of) example. I say you shouldn't vote for an insane person. Someone else states 'it's much more important to vote for someone whose views you share'. Is it not perfectly reasonable to want to vote for a person who is both sane and who shares your views? Even if we agree that it's important that you share the views of the person you vote for, that doesn't mean that voting for an insane person is somehow a good thing. To take this back to the discussion. Yes, the way she will vote on actual political issues is more important than how she makes her decisions. But that doesn't make it a good thing that she denounces science.
It comes down to voting for the lesser of two evils in pretty much every election these days. I mean McCain being the best things the republicans can come up with? sigh....
|
On September 17 2010 11:11 FindingPride wrote:Show nested quote +On September 17 2010 10:12 ghrur wrote:
Sigh... if she wins the Senate seat...
Oh god, how the hell does this country even run itself then? opposed to the people running it now? lmao I don't agree on her policy for abortion but i can see why she might feel the way she does about it. Against spending is a huge +++ Believes in the constitution and will fight the anti-gun law fanatics. huge +++ dont agree 100% with getting rid of the healthcare plan as I think it helps alot of people ESPECIALLY young people like me in my situation where im basically fucked in the ass cause of my medical history. overall id vote her in. id give her a 7/10 in terms of my approval.. but you guys can keep voting fucking dems in who keep increasing taxes and making more government programs. the fuck? do you know the % of Money earned going to taxes? its disgusting. and imo unconstitutional. (Infringing on pursuit of happiness) in this extreme situation. and whats with all the tea party band wagon hate?
Are you serious on the taxes? You pay up what, 10%? I have to give away 18%, and that's even before taking all other stuff into account (social insurance, retirement plan and stuff like that, which is all obligatory), totaling to 32.5% which turns my 2000 income into 1350 I receive to my account.
So please don't tell me you have it bad.
|
This is democracy, folks. See it at its worst and at its finest. Learn it... embrace it...
+ Show Spoiler +
|
On September 18 2010 03:02 animus123 wrote:
I really don't understand what the point of this thread is other than to bash the Tea Party Candidate.
Well, you hit it on the head there. She's a complete moron and a lying swindler to boot.
I guess that makes her a "successful politician", huh?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
