Christine O'Donnell, some random lady who is a member of the Tea Party, won the Republican primary in Delaware.
The conservative Tea Party movement has won several victories over mainstream US Republicans in primary contests ahead of November's mid-term elections.
In one of the biggest upsets, Tea Party-backed candidate Christine O'Donnell beat a veteran congressman for the Senate nomination in Delaware.
A Tea Party candidate also won the race to stand for New York governor.
Republican strategists fear these candidates will not appeal to the wider electorate in November mid-term polls.
Seven states and Washington DC voted for candidates, in what is seen as a test of the mood within the parties.
Republicans are hoping to benefit from anger over the US economy to win both houses of the US Congress in November.
The grassroots Tea Party movement - which favours tax and spending cuts - emerged as a force in American politics only last year.
But observers say it has had a powerful effect on the Republican Party's choice of candidates for November and is seriously challenging the party's establishment.
Somehow these victories by members of the Tea Party are becoming more and more common. Frankly, I think it's unbelievable that this movement is gaining any meaningful ground at all. I guess the popularity of the Tea Party is an indicator of the frustration and alienation felt by some Americans regarding the current system...or maybe it's just ignorance?
What are your thoughts on the issue? How should the GOP feel about all this? I have to imagine they are uneasy considering the majority of the population would likely see O'Donnell or other Teabaggers as radicals
... Who the hell is this broad? I've never heard of her before. Is the Tea Party trying to convince us that random bitches who crawl out of the woodwork to run for government spots are indeed somehow qualified for those positions?
At least Palin had some experience in governmental services. As far as I can tell, this O'Donnell person has... none. Hell, my mother had some experience in leadership with running the local PTA, but that doesn't mean she should run for a seat in the fuckin' Senate.
Try harder, Tea Partiers. Maybe if you keep wishing with all your heart, maybe you'll turn out to be slightly significant in the world. Until then, keep out of the big boys' politics.
/rant
EDIT: Okay, it seems this woman's been around for a while. Unfortunately, any experience she has gained during her years of activity is immediately and unequivocally rofl'd, thanks to Carnac's link. Again, try harder, sweetie.
It is just hilarious. Let's leave it at that. She has no tact, no clear platform except anti-change, and no real chance of winning Delaware.
Frankly, the more often this happens, the more hopeful I am that the right comes back to the center instead of the far right wing where they currently hang out.
At the very least, this probably means that the Democrats will regain control of the two houses 'cause the conservatives will be weakened and split by this Tea Party nonsense.
# ^ 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. See "Meet Christine O’Donnell". Politico. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0910/42209_Page2.html.
# ^ In the ISI suit, O'Donnell falsely claimed to have been accepted into a master's degree program at Princeton University; in actuality, she had not yet received a bachelor’s degree from Fairleigh Dickinson and had only attended one non-graduate course at Princeton. See McCormack, John (2010-09-12). "Citing 'Mental Anguish,' Christine O'Donnell Sought $6.95 Million in Gender Discrimination Lawsuit Against Conservative Group"]. The Weekly Standard. http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/citing-mental-anguish-christine-odonnell-sought-69-million-gender-discrimination-lawsuit-again. Retrieved 2010-09-12.
Dude... TheLastShadow and combat_ex got banned from TL for pulling less bullshit than this. Can one of the mods please IP ban this chick from the Senate? Y'all have that power right?
In a 1996 discussion on CNN, O'Donnell, advocated the teaching of creationism in public schools and argued a literal interpretation that the world had been created exactly as laid out in the book of Genesis. That view, by necessity, is at odds with Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which O'Donnell asserted had not met scientific criteria to be considered anything but a theory.
"There is not enough evidence, consistent evidence to make it as fact, and I say that because for theory to become a fact, it needs to consistently have the same results after it goes through a series of tests," O'Donnell told host Miles O'Brien. "The tests that they put -- that they use to support evolution do not have consistent results. Now too many people are blindly accepting evolution as fact. But when you get down to the hard evidence, it's merely a theory."
And fucking young-earth creationism is a fact?
Fiscal conservatism is one thing, but it's shit like this that makes it so hard to take the Tea Party seriously.
On September 17 2010 10:06 Sleight wrote: Dude... TheLastShadow and combat_ex got banned from TL for pulling less bullshit than this. Can one of the mods please IP ban this chick from the Senate? Y'all have that power right?
If they can summon flying monkeys, they better be able to pull this shit off.
Reading her wikipedia page is like taking a stroll down insane alley right next to batshit road.
Two years later, O'Donnell appeared as a SALT representative on Bill Maher's show Politically Incorrect, and argued that since America "took the Bible and prayer out of public schools" we were now "having weekly (school) shootings", and that the 1960s "sexual revolution" led to the AIDS epidemic.[19]
O'Donnell has rejected Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, asserting that it "had not met scientific criteria" and that "when you get down to the hard evidence, it's merely a theory."
Bwahahaha wtf? Nearly as dumb as the rest of em I guess.
The this is a loss fore the repbulicans. They had a good chance of getting a moderate republican elected to the senate, but now that they have such a far right winger they will never get the votes in such a blue state
The chairman of the Delaware Republican Party received a death threat last week over his support for Rep. Mike Castle (R-Del) over Tea Party challenger Christine O'Donnell in the state's upcoming Senate primary, a party official confirmed to the Huffington Post.
"She's not a viable candidate for any office in the state of Delaware. She couldn't be elected dog catcher" -Tom Ross
In a 1996 discussion on CNN, O'Donnell advocated the teaching of creationism in public schools and argued for a literal interpretation of The Bible's Book of Genesis.[17] O'Donnell has rejected Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, asserting that it "had not met scientific criteria" and that "when you get down to the hard evidence, it's merely a theory."[17]
It never fails to shock me and make me pause when I read things like this.
also:she moved to a Delaware townhouse, where she pays half the rent with campaign contributions because it doubles as her campaign headquarters for her 2010 senate run.[3] Her 2008 campaign ended with $23,000 in debt, and between 2007 and 2009 the Federal Election Commission cited her eight times for failing to supply contributions reports on time.[3] As of 2010, she owes payments to staffers, consultants, and volunteers from the 2008 campaign.[3][36]
This is hilarious, who voted for her? I feel bad for the republicans in Delaware that didn't vote for her, she's beyond crazy. Looks like ez pz win for the Democrats though.
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.
If I were to guess, I'd say America elects a bunch of Tea Party candidates this fall, the divided Congress gets nothing done, more Tea Party candidates are elected and Obama loses to Palin in 2012... and the Mayans end up being right after all. Well not quite, more like 20%+ unemployment followed by a rapid shift to the left a-la the 1930s.
On September 17 2010 10:31 Signet wrote: If I were to guess, I'd say America elects a bunch of Tea Party candidates this fall, the divided Congress gets nothing done, more Tea Party candidates are elected and Obama loses to Palin in 2012... and the Mayans end up being right after all. Well not quite, more like 20%+ unemployment followed by a rapid shift to the left a-la the 1930s.
Uh... crazy lady is still down in the polls 10-15% to the D nominee. Kaufman isn't running again, but this is a state that elected the other Democratic senator with 70%.
Your description isn't quite how Congress works... nothing may get done but that onus will be on the Democratic party.
The Tea Baggers might steal a few seats but the whole Mr. Smith Goes to Washington story is a myth. They'll get there and immediately get pushed around by the Leader/Chairs. You need clout to get things done, and they have none. They may have it with the public, but that doesn't count for much once you enter the chambers.
So if they take seats, they can enter Congress as Republicans which will throw all the moderate Rs for a loop. It'll then be much easier for Ds to court Republican votes. If they stay independent or whatever they want to call themselves, then they're basically a no show. They'll divide the right and make it easy for the left to pass things. That latter is really unlikely, however, because a third party just doesn't work in American politics. Maybe they'll do it for a term but the Ds will absolutely crush them in Congress if they do. Single voter district winner takes all elections = 2 parties.
Most likely, however, they won't be getting many seats. They can contest the regular GOP seats which will basically just give the seat up for Democrats for the above stated reason. If the GOP integrates the Tea Baggers, then they alienate the moderates which are really what direct things. If they don't, they stand to become a distant #2 party which is also a death spell. Their best hopes are to poach some Blue Dog Democrats or simply try and make the Tea Baggers go away.
Palin is reaaaally not the candidate the GOP wants to run. It's basically a guaranteed loss. Obama has stayed centrist enough to court enough moderate conservatives who are rightfully fearful of her, and she hasn't done anything to bolster her image. On top of that, I don't think anyone needs to be fearful of crushing her down anymore. Last time Obama and Biden showed a lot of restraint because they were fresh blood as well and didn't want to seem pithy. They don't have that problem anymore, so the gloves can come off. Same probably goes for the GOP primaries too.
On September 17 2010 10:54 Xog wrote: Anyone who will turn the country away from socialism is good enough for me.
Yep. Too bad it ain't her. 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."
On September 17 2010 10:54 Xog wrote: Anyone who will turn the country away from socialism is good enough for me.
Yeah. Fuck em. "Taxed enough already" is damn right. Getting taxed because of these socialist initiatives is so unfair. Who cares about two wars costing billions of dollars a day. 40% of Americans receiving no healthcare or under-insured? Who cares as long as we have our freedom. Our freedom to choose. That's the American way.
On September 17 2010 10:31 Signet wrote: If I were to guess, I'd say America elects a bunch of Tea Party candidates this fall, the divided Congress gets nothing done, more Tea Party candidates are elected and Obama loses to Palin in 2012... and the Mayans end up being right after all. Well not quite, more like 20%+ unemployment followed by a rapid shift to the left a-la the 1930s.
Uh... crazy lady is still down in the polls 10-15% to the D nominee. Kaufman isn't running again, but this is a state that elected the other Democratic senator with 70%.
Your description isn't quite how Congress works... nothing may get done but that onus will be on the Democratic party.
The Tea Baggers might steal a few seats but the whole Mr. Smith Goes to Washington story is a myth. They'll get there and immediately get pushed around by the Leader/Chairs. You need clout to get things done, and they have none. They may have it with the public, but that doesn't count for much once you enter the chambers.
So if they take seats, they can enter Congress as Republicans which will throw all the moderate Rs for a loop. It'll then be much easier for Ds to court Republican votes. If they stay independent or whatever they want to call themselves, then they're basically a no show. They'll divide the right and make it easy for the left to pass things. That latter is really unlikely, however, because a third party just doesn't work in American politics. Maybe they'll do it for a term but the Ds will absolutely crush them in Congress if they do. Single voter district winner takes all elections = 2 parties.
Most likely, however, they won't be getting many seats. They can contest the regular GOP seats which will basically just give the seat up for Democrats for the above stated reason. If the GOP integrates the Tea Baggers, then they alienate the moderates which are really what direct things. If they don't, they stand to become a distant #2 party which is also a death spell. Their best hopes are to poach some Blue Dog Democrats or simply try and make the Tea Baggers go away.
I'm a little confused - how was my description of Congress inaccurate? (not issues with predictions) I know that the "Tea Party" is not literally a separate party from the GOP, but that is just what these conservatives are calling themselves.
The onus being on the Democrats is exactly what could hurt them in 2012. Currently 538 is projecting a 53-47 Democratic edge in the Senate (net 6 R pickups) and a 225-210 Republican edge in the House. This includes a likely O'Donnell loss, however other Tea Party and establishment GOP candidates are faring well in polls. If Congress is split like this, I don't forsee Obama/Dems getting anything done. The GOP is content to stonewall and blame the president, which thus far has worked out for them even with only 41 senators.
On September 17 2010 09:56 Aeres wrote: ... Who the hell is this broad? I've never heard of her before. Is the Tea Party trying to convince us that random bitches who crawl out of the woodwork to run for government spots are indeed somehow qualified for those positions?
1. Hardcore ultra conservatives who want no taxes, but for us to go to war with all terrorist nations. Sarah Palin.
2. Libertarians who support low taxes, no military agression. Ron Paul.
I happen to belong in group 2. The majority of the initial party consisted of this, but since its inception, neo conservatives have invaded and ruined a true libertarian revolution.
Is this the one who called watching porn equal to adultery and is now trying to reverse positions saying "that was then, now is different?" Was on in the gym, but I wasn't really paying attention.
On September 17 2010 09:56 Aeres wrote: ... Who the hell is this broad? I've never heard of her before. Is the Tea Party trying to convince us that random bitches who crawl out of the woodwork to run for government spots are indeed somehow qualified for those positions?
On September 17 2010 10:54 Xog wrote: Anyone who will turn the country away from socialism is good enough for me.
This is hilarious. You have no idea what socialism is. The U.S. is becoming actually modern and people are convinced it is turning into Marx' wet dream. No other country Western country has a poor health care access, greater standard of living gap, or worse maternal or neonatal mortality and people think that fixing that is socialism. Live in a 'socialist' country for awhile, talk to me about it afterwards.
Been to Germany? I had to pay, as an American, 15 bucks for an emergency specialist visit while the planned visit I made in America cost over 20 times that. GOD SOCIALISM SUCKS I DIDN"T HAVE TO CHOOSE BETWEEN EATING AND HAVING CRITICAL MEDICAL CARE! RAWR!
It's amazing ALL OF EUROPE hasn't exploded in violent socialist revolution. I mean, socialism is the devil right? Wait...
Governments must steal in order to prevent stealing duh its not stealing! its taxes! when armed men come and by force take money from you its not stealing, its taxes!
Political annalists were actually predicting this sort of thing shortly after Obama was elected, specifically nominating wackos who are way to far to the right to be elected. They said the same thing happened to the Democrats in the 1980s after Regan got elected.
I was unaware that the Tea Party even counted as a party. I was under the impression that they were just the mainstream GOP these days as everything they've said lines up with 99% of the Republicans that I know.
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?
On September 17 2010 11:08 wswordsmen wrote: Political annalists were actually predicting this sort of thing shortly after Obama was elected, specifically nominating wackos who are way to far to the right to be elected. They said the same thing happened to the Democrats in the 1980s after Regan got elected.
It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion. I don't like where this is going. I envy the American's current government. I can't fathom why they would be upset with it.
On September 17 2010 11:10 overt wrote: I was unaware that the Tea Party even counted as a party. I was under the impression that they were just the mainstream GOP these days as everything they've said lines up with 99% of the Republicans that I know.
this entire thread makes me puke. and why not ban masturbation Really, Why not? Happy endings are already illegal in every state, including las vegas, nevada. I know I been there and the fucking sheriffs showed up saying no happy endings allowed because I didn't give the taxi cab driver his 60$ cut on the happy ending. So he calls up the law enforcement cause he ain't getting his cut. mother fuckers
just make everything illegal, seriously, hate this country. fucking nationalize fractional reserve banking, leeching off everybody like a big fucking samurai sword across the dick with no happy ending.
On September 17 2010 11:14 Tdelamay wrote: It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion. I don't like where this is going. I envy the American's current government. I can't fathom why they would be upset with it.
The current administration / congress looks pretty slimy as of late.They may not be singing of blood and thunder, charging into foreign countries in the name of freedom, but the way they went about this "health care" bill was just icky.
They pass an enormous bill that most of their members haven't even bothered to read, and the thing comes with a mandate that, regardless of what it aims to achieve, is blatantly unconstitutional.
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?
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.
According to the conservative Heritage Institute, 28%.
You might say that this is still "too high!" and you are entitled to your opinion. However, claiming that taxes have recently increased or that they are abnormally high is a contradiction of the facts, and you are not entitled to your own version of reality
I think the Tea Party is just a movement that's getting too much media coverage.
In all honesty, Tea Party members winning in GOP primaries is better for the Democratic party. You've got people like Christine O'Donnell who basically is too far right for any moderate of any stature to vote for her. She doesn't even have a platform. She just asked people to vote for her.
Then you've got people like Sharon Angle who believes in the full on elimination of Social Security forever. Is anybody going to really vote for someone like that?
I mean sure you have some people like Rand Paul who might have a chance, but the only thing that's going to go well for the Tea Party is that they're up against incumbents that have not generated good support from the American people.
On September 17 2010 11:10 overt wrote: I was unaware that the Tea Party even counted as a party. I was under the impression that they were just the mainstream GOP these days as everything they've said lines up with 99% of the Republicans that I know.
The "Tea Party" confuses everybody.
On the one hand, you have a lot of the libertarian, mind-our-own-business, limit bureaucracy/make it work right, crowd that followed Ron Paul two years ago.
On the other hand, you have a lot of the old Religious Right, who also tend to be small government but are on the whole more moralistic and militaristic.
On the other other hand, you've got a bunch of strict constructionists who would like a lot of the modern bureaucracies taken apart because they're not clearly constitutional.
On the other other hand, you have the crowd that pays too much attention to Beck and Rush without thinking about things.
Then, since all of these bits and pieces have tended to be part of the Republican party for the last twenty years or so (at least), you have all the Republicans who are piling on what they see as a bandwagon in order to get elected. I don't like this, partly because it's drowned the "original" Tea Party, and partly because you know these guys aren't actually going to make any effort to pass "Tea Party" legislation once they're elected - like the Democrats, the Republican party profits from the system the way it is. Republicans want higher moral standards, Democrats want more social focus, but the mainstream parties don't disagree about the structure and role of government that much.
Basically, the "Tea Party" never managed to get off the ground as a separate party; it started as a "movement" and no longer really exists, having devolved into a rallying cry for Republicans who just know it's "conservative".
On September 17 2010 11:14 Tdelamay wrote: It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion. I don't like where this is going. I envy the American's current government. I can't fathom why they would be upset with it.
The current administration / congress looks pretty slimy as of late.They may not be singing of blood and thunder, charging into foreign countries in the name of freedom, but the way they went about this "health care" bill was just icky.
They pass an enormous bill that most of their members haven't even bothered to read, and the thing comes with a mandate that, regardless of what it aims to achieve, is blatantly unconstitutional.
Okay, so for one, if they didn't read it, it is a) their fault because I certainly read through the vast majority of it and b) they passed it by voting, like EVERY OTHER BILL EVER.
And also, that isn't what unconstitutional means. Unconstitutional means it actually CONTRADICTS the Constitution. In fact, this is the very definition of an issue that the government has every right to decide. Because it does not impede on ANY constitutional right and falls clearly under the jurisdiction of the appropriate articles of the document you are referring to.
The government says kids can't just work all they want. They say health care has to meet a), b), and c) to be 'legal' and they sure as hell can say everyone needs to actually have a way of STAYING HEALTHY. What is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without the LIFE part? Based on traditional legal precedents, expanding that little ol' "life" bit to include right to HEALTHY life is well within the reasonable realm.
On September 17 2010 11:39 _Darwin_ wrote: Can people stop referencing "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" when talking about the constitution?
It's from the Declaration of Independence, not the US Constitution. Thanks.
never said it was IN the Constitution, just said the Constitution is in place to protect those things. A for effort, C- for reading comprehension.
On September 17 2010 11:39 _Darwin_ wrote: Can people stop referencing "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" when talking about the constitution?
It's from the Declaration of Independence, not the US Constitution. Thanks.
never said it was IN the Constitution, just said the Constitution is in place to protect those things. A for effort, C- for reading comprehension.
You really think people are going to read your posts when you use signatures such as "LEGALWNED" ?
On September 17 2010 11:39 _Darwin_ wrote: Can people stop referencing "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" when talking about the constitution?
It's from the Declaration of Independence, not the US Constitution. Thanks.
never said it was IN the Constitution, just said the Constitution is in place to protect those things. A for effort, C- for reading comprehension.
I was referring directly to this post (but it has been confused in others):
On September 17 2010 11:11 FindingPride wrote: its disgusting. and imo unconstitutional. (Infringing on pursuit of happiness) in this extreme situation. and whats with all the tea party band wagon hate?
She isn't elected. All this means is that the democrats will get an auto win. She just won a primary people, and only did so because she is just part of the backlash against the current government because people are like "like omg everything isn't fixed already? HORRIBLE CHANGE GOVERNMENT". She won't win the actual seat.
People like her can win pointless primaries like this all they want. The problem with their Party, and conservatives in general, is they can't compete in a national election.
Anyone conservative in this country is up shit creek thanks to the people representing them.
I really do sympathize with the true libertarians in the Tea Party. While I am more of a moderate liberal now, several years ago I was a libertarian and I can respect the ideology as internally consistent and based on values I can either agree with or at least can appreciate. Over time, I've come to doubt the viability of their economic policies (not that I think any party really gets economics), but then again that's why we have our differences
On the other hand, the "I'm a libertarian, except when they don't want to invade X country or when they take socially liberal positions" type is laughable. Just say you're a conservative Republican. Probably 40% of the country holds those views, it won't make you an outcast.
At this point, the majority of the "Tea Party" is simply the re-branding of conservatives who feel that the term "Republican" is tarnished by the fiasco that was the Bush presidency. It's an attempt to sell the same principles under a different name.
On September 17 2010 11:14 Tdelamay wrote: It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion. I don't like where this is going. I envy the American's current government. I can't fathom why they would be upset with it.
The current administration / congress looks pretty slimy as of late.They may not be singing of blood and thunder, charging into foreign countries in the name of freedom, but the way they went about this "health care" bill was just icky.
They pass an enormous bill that most of their members haven't even bothered to read, and the thing comes with a mandate that, regardless of what it aims to achieve, is blatantly unconstitutional.
Okay, so for one, if they didn't read it, it is a) their fault because I certainly read through the vast majority of it and b) they passed it by voting, like EVERY OTHER BILL EVER.
And also, that isn't what unconstitutional means. Unconstitutional means it actually CONTRADICTS the Constitution. In fact, this is the very definition of an issue that the government has every right to decide. Because it does not impede on ANY constitutional right and falls clearly under the jurisdiction of the appropriate articles of the document you are referring to.
The government says kids can't just work all they want. They say health care has to meet a), b), and c) to be 'legal' and they sure as hell can say everyone needs to actually have a way of STAYING HEALTHY. What is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without the LIFE part? Based on traditional legal precedents, expanding that little ol' "life" bit to include right to HEALTHY life is well within the reasonable realm.
LEGALWNED
No the government hasn't the right to decide. it quite clearly states in big letters, WE THE PEOPLE. It's us who keep the government in check. it is not there right. The amendments aren't to be weaved to support what one wants to do. they are in stone. and I really dont believe a mandatory payment from every citizen is constitutional in any way.
On September 17 2010 11:48 Signet wrote: I really do sympathize with the true libertarians in the Tea Party. While I am more of a moderate liberal now, several years ago I was a libertarian and I can respect the ideology as internally consistent and based on values I can either agree with or at least can appreciate. Over time, I've come to doubt the viability of their economic policies (not that I think any party really gets economics), but then again that's why we have our differences
On the other hand, the "I'm a libertarian, except when they don't want to invade X country or when they take socially liberal positions" type is laughable. Just say you're a conservative Republican. Probably 40% of the country holds those views, it won't make you an outcast.
At this point, the majority of the "Tea Party" is simply the re-branding of conservatives who feel that the term "Republican" is tarnished by the fiasco that was the Bush presidency. It's an attempt to sell the same principles under a different name.
Bush wasn't conservative lmao. Bush was just as bad as obama in these socialistic policies. patriot act anyone?
Religion-based positions In a 1996 discussion on CNN, O'Donnell advocated the teaching of creationism in public schools and argued for a literal interpretation of The Bible's Book of Genesis.[17] O'Donnell has rejected Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, asserting that it "had not met scientific criteria" and that "when you get down to the hard evidence, it's merely a theory."[17]
They voted for that?
I have never heard a Tea Party canidate say a rational or pragmatic thing regarding policy. They are all extremist and would turn this country into a theocracy if they could.
On September 17 2010 11:14 Tdelamay wrote: It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion. I don't like where this is going. I envy the American's current government. I can't fathom why they would be upset with it.
The current administration / congress looks pretty slimy as of late.They may not be singing of blood and thunder, charging into foreign countries in the name of freedom, but the way they went about this "health care" bill was just icky.
They pass an enormous bill that most of their members haven't even bothered to read, and the thing comes with a mandate that, regardless of what it aims to achieve, is blatantly unconstitutional.
Okay, so for one, if they didn't read it, it is a) their fault because I certainly read through the vast majority of it and b) they passed it by voting, like EVERY OTHER BILL EVER.
And also, that isn't what unconstitutional means. Unconstitutional means it actually CONTRADICTS the Constitution. In fact, this is the very definition of an issue that the government has every right to decide. Because it does not impede on ANY constitutional right and falls clearly under the jurisdiction of the appropriate articles of the document you are referring to.
The government says kids can't just work all they want. They say health care has to meet a), b), and c) to be 'legal' and they sure as hell can say everyone needs to actually have a way of STAYING HEALTHY. What is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without the LIFE part? Based on traditional legal precedents, expanding that little ol' "life" bit to include right to HEALTHY life is well within the reasonable realm.
LEGALWNED
No the government hasn't the right to decide. it quite clearly states in big letters, WE THE PEOPLE. It's us who keep the government in check. it is not there right. The amendments aren't to be weaved to support what one wants to do. they are in stone.
If you don't know what you're talking about you probably shouldn't attempt to contribute. To suggest you're lacking information on this subject would be a gross understatement. How you can type so few sentences and be incorrect that # of times is simply staggering.
On September 17 2010 11:51 On_Slaught wrote: Religion-based positions In a 1996 discussion on CNN, O'Donnell advocated the teaching of creationism in public schools and argued for a literal interpretation of The Bible's Book of Genesis.[17] O'Donnell has rejected Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, asserting that it "had not met scientific criteria" and that "when you get down to the hard evidence, it's merely a theory."[17]
They voted for that?
I have never heard a Tea Party canidate say a rational or pragmatic thing regarding policy. They are all extremist and would turn this country into a theocracy if they could.
The absolute biggest problem with the conservative movement today is it's trend of social conservatism becoming as or more important as economic conservatism. It's something that has always been the case, but now it has reached almost a fanatical level.
The Republican Party was hijacked by people who don't believe in evolution, and vehemently feel like sharing that, and it's paying the price for it now. The country isn't liking it.
Edit: they also have an open distrust of EDUCATION, or "smart people" which is just terrifying on so many levels. "Elite" is someone who went to a community college now.
On September 17 2010 11:34 Musoeun wrote: On the one hand, you have a lot of the libertarian, mind-our-own-business, limit bureaucracy/make it work right, crowd that followed Ron Paul two years ago.
On the other hand, you have a lot of the old Religious Right, who also tend to be small government but are on the whole more moralistic and militaristic.
The former group is being used as pawns for the latter group. The Tea Party at this point is made up of Christianists like Odonnell and Palin. They're the ones that control it now. Ron Paul isn't ever mentioned. This is now a part that wants three things, a fully Christian America, low taxes, and to continue to borrow money from China to fund the war machine indefinitely.
I love the fundamentals of the tea party movement. However, this woman is just under-qualified and is a Bible-pushing non-thinking conservative. I don't like conservatives like that, and that's NOT what this country needs. We need libertarian conservatives. I think people's anger at the current gov't is blinding their ability to make correct choices - once again. Happens all the time. Hell, it's the only reason Obama got elected in the first place.
Libertarians got a really bad wrap when Rand Paul said he wouldn't mind if black people weren't allowed to be served in restaurants ( or something along those lines)
Conservatives / Libertarians sure know how to advertise their parties well..
On September 17 2010 11:14 Tdelamay wrote: It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion. I don't like where this is going. I envy the American's current government. I can't fathom why they would be upset with it.
The current administration / congress looks pretty slimy as of late.They may not be singing of blood and thunder, charging into foreign countries in the name of freedom, but the way they went about this "health care" bill was just icky.
They pass an enormous bill that most of their members haven't even bothered to read, and the thing comes with a mandate that, regardless of what it aims to achieve, is blatantly unconstitutional.
Okay, so for one, if they didn't read it, it is a) their fault because I certainly read through the vast majority of it and b) they passed it by voting, like EVERY OTHER BILL EVER.
And also, that isn't what unconstitutional means. Unconstitutional means it actually CONTRADICTS the Constitution. In fact, this is the very definition of an issue that the government has every right to decide. Because it does not impede on ANY constitutional right and falls clearly under the jurisdiction of the appropriate articles of the document you are referring to.
The government says kids can't just work all they want. They say health care has to meet a), b), and c) to be 'legal' and they sure as hell can say everyone needs to actually have a way of STAYING HEALTHY. What is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without the LIFE part? Based on traditional legal precedents, expanding that little ol' "life" bit to include right to HEALTHY life is well within the reasonable realm.
LEGALWNED
No the government hasn't the right to decide. it quite clearly states in big letters, WE THE PEOPLE. It's us who keep the government in check. it is not there right. The amendments aren't to be weaved to support what one wants to do. they are in stone.
If you don't know what you're talking about you probably shouldn't attempt to contribute. To suggest you're lacking information on this subject would be a gross understatement. How you can type so few sentences and be incorrect that # of times is simply staggering.
since you didn't take the time to iterate why i can only assume you have no idea what your talking about. please, enlighten me
On September 17 2010 11:14 Tdelamay wrote: It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion. I don't like where this is going. I envy the American's current government. I can't fathom why they would be upset with it.
The current administration / congress looks pretty slimy as of late.They may not be singing of blood and thunder, charging into foreign countries in the name of freedom, but the way they went about this "health care" bill was just icky.
They pass an enormous bill that most of their members haven't even bothered to read, and the thing comes with a mandate that, regardless of what it aims to achieve, is blatantly unconstitutional.
Okay, so for one, if they didn't read it, it is a) their fault because I certainly read through the vast majority of it and b) they passed it by voting, like EVERY OTHER BILL EVER.
And also, that isn't what unconstitutional means. Unconstitutional means it actually CONTRADICTS the Constitution. In fact, this is the very definition of an issue that the government has every right to decide. Because it does not impede on ANY constitutional right and falls clearly under the jurisdiction of the appropriate articles of the document you are referring to.
The government says kids can't just work all they want. They say health care has to meet a), b), and c) to be 'legal' and they sure as hell can say everyone needs to actually have a way of STAYING HEALTHY. What is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without the LIFE part? Based on traditional legal precedents, expanding that little ol' "life" bit to include right to HEALTHY life is well within the reasonable realm.
LEGALWNED
No the government hasn't the right to decide. it quite clearly states in big letters, WE THE PEOPLE. It's us who keep the government in check. it is not there right. The amendments aren't to be weaved to support what one wants to do. they are in stone. and I really dont believe a mandatory payment from every citizen is constitutional in any way.
Hahahahahahah.... wait wait wait wait..... Haahahahaah. This was awesome. Here is a brief list of the amendments that have been changed/added/etc just in the Bill of Rights.
1: Does not cover all speech. 3: Guarantees right to privacy 5: Miranda rights included under this 6: Miranda rights included under this 9: says the list of rights is NOT ALL OF THEM
The 18th amendment was REPEALED, look it up. You'll know a new word.
Congrats at being horribly wrong and clearly not even an American, if there were a test of our nation's government and history.
EDIT: Realized this isn't clear enough for them... They are NOT in stone. By definition the Constitution is a Living, Breathing Document. Look that up, too.
On September 17 2010 11:48 Signet wrote: I really do sympathize with the true libertarians in the Tea Party. While I am more of a moderate liberal now, several years ago I was a libertarian and I can respect the ideology as internally consistent and based on values I can either agree with or at least can appreciate. Over time, I've come to doubt the viability of their economic policies (not that I think any party really gets economics), but then again that's why we have our differences
On the other hand, the "I'm a libertarian, except when they don't want to invade X country or when they take socially liberal positions" type is laughable. Just say you're a conservative Republican. Probably 40% of the country holds those views, it won't make you an outcast.
At this point, the majority of the "Tea Party" is simply the re-branding of conservatives who feel that the term "Republican" is tarnished by the fiasco that was the Bush presidency. It's an attempt to sell the same principles under a different name.
Bush wasn't conservative lmao. Bush was just as bad as obama in these socialistic policies. patriot act anyone?
The term conservative has many meanings, I was obviously using it in the "right of center" sense, not in terms of what it means to be conservative 100 years ago. But for what it's worth, if you made a statement like "Ron Paul is more of a true conservative than George W. Bush" then I would be in complete agreement.
Socialism doesn't mean placing regulations on the companies in a competitive market, or taxing people, or giving subsidies to the poor. It's when the government actually controls production. Think Cuba, not Canada.
On September 17 2010 11:48 Signet wrote: On the other hand, the "I'm a libertarian, except when they don't want to invade X country or when they take socially liberal positions" type is laughable. Just say you're a conservative Republican. Probably 40% of the country holds those views, it won't make you an outcast.
What if I'm a libertarian who thinks we should have invaded twice the number of countries we did, but is socially pretty liberal with about one exception?
On September 17 2010 11:14 Tdelamay wrote: It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion. I don't like where this is going. I envy the American's current government. I can't fathom why they would be upset with it.
The current administration / congress looks pretty slimy as of late.They may not be singing of blood and thunder, charging into foreign countries in the name of freedom, but the way they went about this "health care" bill was just icky.
They pass an enormous bill that most of their members haven't even bothered to read, and the thing comes with a mandate that, regardless of what it aims to achieve, is blatantly unconstitutional.
Okay, so for one, if they didn't read it, it is a) their fault because I certainly read through the vast majority of it and b) they passed it by voting, like EVERY OTHER BILL EVER.
And also, that isn't what unconstitutional means. Unconstitutional means it actually CONTRADICTS the Constitution. In fact, this is the very definition of an issue that the government has every right to decide. Because it does not impede on ANY constitutional right and falls clearly under the jurisdiction of the appropriate articles of the document you are referring to.
The government says kids can't just work all they want. They say health care has to meet a), b), and c) to be 'legal' and they sure as hell can say everyone needs to actually have a way of STAYING HEALTHY. What is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without the LIFE part? Based on traditional legal precedents, expanding that little ol' "life" bit to include right to HEALTHY life is well within the reasonable realm.
LEGALWNED
No the government hasn't the right to decide. it quite clearly states in big letters, WE THE PEOPLE. It's us who keep the government in check. it is not there right. The amendments aren't to be weaved to support what one wants to do. they are in stone.
If you don't know what you're talking about you probably shouldn't attempt to contribute. To suggest you're lacking information on this subject would be a gross understatement. How you can type so few sentences and be incorrect that # of times is simply staggering.
since you didn't take the time to iterate why i can only assume you have no idea what your talking about. please, enlighten me
The poster above me covered the fallacy of "are in stone". The second thing I'd tackle is the fact that, this is how government works. I'm not sure there's any other way to say it. We do not participate in a direct democracy and if you're attempting to suggest the government doesn't have the right to decide, ummm, things, then there really is nowhere to go with this discussion.
I hate having these discussions (I use that term extremely loosely...). The fact that health care reform is such a big issue in America makes me sick to my stomach when you review our budget on military spending or many of our problems that should take our attention. Next up, gay marriage, stem cells, or abortion.
On September 17 2010 11:48 Signet wrote: On the other hand, the "I'm a libertarian, except when they don't want to invade X country or when they take socially liberal positions" type is laughable. Just say you're a conservative Republican. Probably 40% of the country holds those views, it won't make you an outcast.
What if I'm a libertarian who thinks we should have invaded twice the number of countries we did, but is socially pretty liberal with about one exception?
On September 17 2010 11:14 Tdelamay wrote: It's like watching a train wreck in slow motion. I don't like where this is going. I envy the American's current government. I can't fathom why they would be upset with it.
The current administration / congress looks pretty slimy as of late.They may not be singing of blood and thunder, charging into foreign countries in the name of freedom, but the way they went about this "health care" bill was just icky.
They pass an enormous bill that most of their members haven't even bothered to read, and the thing comes with a mandate that, regardless of what it aims to achieve, is blatantly unconstitutional.
Okay, so for one, if they didn't read it, it is a) their fault because I certainly read through the vast majority of it and b) they passed it by voting, like EVERY OTHER BILL EVER.
And also, that isn't what unconstitutional means. Unconstitutional means it actually CONTRADICTS the Constitution. In fact, this is the very definition of an issue that the government has every right to decide. Because it does not impede on ANY constitutional right and falls clearly under the jurisdiction of the appropriate articles of the document you are referring to.
The government says kids can't just work all they want. They say health care has to meet a), b), and c) to be 'legal' and they sure as hell can say everyone needs to actually have a way of STAYING HEALTHY. What is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness without the LIFE part? Based on traditional legal precedents, expanding that little ol' "life" bit to include right to HEALTHY life is well within the reasonable realm.
LEGALWNED
No the government hasn't the right to decide. it quite clearly states in big letters, WE THE PEOPLE. It's us who keep the government in check. it is not there right. The amendments aren't to be weaved to support what one wants to do. they are in stone. and I really dont believe a mandatory payment from every citizen is constitutional in any way.
Hahahahahahah.... wait wait wait wait..... Haahahahaah. This was awesome. Here is a brief list of the amendments that have been changed/added/etc just in the Bill of Rights.
1: Does not cover all speech. 3: Guarantees right to privacy 5: Miranda rights included under this 6: Miranda rights included under this 9: says the list of rights is NOT ALL OF THEM
The 18th amendment was REPEALED, look it up. You'll know a new word.
Congrats at being horribly wrong and clearly not even an American, if there were a test of our nation's government and history.
EDIT: Realized this isn't clear enough for them... They are NOT in stone. By definition the Constitution is a Living, Breathing Document. Look that up, too.
i suppose I should have worded what i wanted to point out a bit better. and Also we dont have a right to privacy of location. and i'm sorry but healthcare doesn't follow under 9. I don't see it. point is that government is ALWAYS TRYING TO FIND WAYS to bypass these amendments.. when i say in STONE i mean they cant be interpreted in such gross ways. and the PEOPLE should not let that happen.
On September 17 2010 11:48 Signet wrote: On the other hand, the "I'm a libertarian, except when they don't want to invade X country or when they take socially liberal positions" type is laughable. Just say you're a conservative Republican. Probably 40% of the country holds those views, it won't make you an outcast.
What if I'm a libertarian who thinks we should have invaded twice the number of countries we did, but is socially pretty liberal with about one exception?
Mike Castle was basically a shoo-in for the seat. He had moderate views so democrats and republicans both liked him (very good for a republican candidate in a democratic state).
It seems only the crazy extremist republicans bothered to vote in the primary (and knocked out a much better candidate). There is no way she is going to win the seat in a democratic state.
On September 17 2010 11:48 Signet wrote: On the other hand, the "I'm a libertarian, except when they don't want to invade X country or when they take socially liberal positions" type is laughable. Just say you're a conservative Republican. Probably 40% of the country holds those views, it won't make you an outcast.
What if I'm a libertarian who thinks we should have invaded twice the number of countries we did, but is socially pretty liberal with about one exception?
Well... at this point I'd call myself liberal, but I don't believe in affirmative action, generally support gun rights, and am a big proponent of nuclear power and biotechnology. Few people are going to agree with an ideology 100% of the time, and even fewer will agree with a party 100% of the time.
But you know what I'm talking about with these people who call themselves libertarians but agree with the GOP basically 99% of the time, right?
On September 17 2010 11:51 FindingPride wrote: Bush wasn't conservative lmao. Bush was just as bad as obama in these socialistic policies. patriot act anyone?
The term conservative has many meanings, I was obviously using it in the "right of center" sense, not in terms of what it means to be conservative 100 years ago. But for what it's worth, if you made a statement like "Ron Paul is more of a true conservative than George W. Bush" then I would be in complete agreement.
Socialism doesn't mean placing regulations on the companies in a competitive market, or taxing people, or giving subsidies to the poor. It's when the government actually controls production. Think Cuba, not Canada.
To be fair, most people who use "socialism" - no matter what their political views - in the USA by now mean "European-style democratic socialism" (is there a better name for it?), which in turn they understand to mean that the state runs some stuff and redistributes other stuff.
(Except for the loonies who really do think that Obama is the second coming of Karl Marx (who of course only talked about socialism as an intermediate step, but the loonies don't remember that either), but I'm going to assume we can ignore them.)
Given that that's a common usage, I don't think it's unfair to characterize Obama, or Canada, or France, and many other "left-wing" (by American standards) politicians as "socialist". Inaccurate in the end, confusing, and not conducive to maintaining civil manners in debate, maybe, but not unfair. Of course, Bush wasn't particularly less socialist (in this inaccurate "Americanized") sense in kind, just in extent: he too signed Federal education bills and bailouts and stuff.
Basically, in the American political forum, "socialist" is a propaganda word. It's not used accurately, but there's a kernel of truth that keeps the scam going: regulation and taxation are forms of control, even if they come nowhere near real ownership. Of course, it goes both ways, as with accusations of "fascism" on the other side: almost no one would advocate real fascism, but again, regulations and limitations are control, so the illusion holds up (and the militarism, justified or not, doesn't help the image).
Back to the original point: After all that I've said, I'm really agreeing with you: yes, the Patriot Act was more fascist than socialist.
On September 17 2010 11:48 Signet wrote: On the other hand, the "I'm a libertarian, except when they don't want to invade X country or when they take socially liberal positions" type is laughable. Just say you're a conservative Republican. Probably 40% of the country holds those views, it won't make you an outcast.
What if I'm a libertarian who thinks we should have invaded twice the number of countries we did, but is socially pretty liberal with about one exception?
Well... at this point I'd call myself liberal, but I don't believe in affirmative action, generally support gun rights, and am a big proponent of nuclear power and biotechnology. Few people are going to agree with an ideology 100% of the time, and even fewer will agree with a party 100% of the time.
But you know what I'm talking about with these people who call themselves libertarians but agree with the GOP basically 99% of the time, right?
Absolutely, I was just genuinely curious if you thought the vaguely isolationist/pacifist stance was integral to being libertarian.
On September 17 2010 10:46 Jibba wrote: First of all, remember this is Delaware.
On September 17 2010 10:31 Signet wrote: If I were to guess, I'd say America elects a bunch of Tea Party candidates this fall, the divided Congress gets nothing done, more Tea Party candidates are elected and Obama loses to Palin in 2012... and the Mayans end up being right after all. Well not quite, more like 20%+ unemployment followed by a rapid shift to the left a-la the 1930s.
Uh... crazy lady is still down in the polls 10-15% to the D nominee. Kaufman isn't running again, but this is a state that elected the other Democratic senator with 70%.
Your description isn't quite how Congress works... nothing may get done but that onus will be on the Democratic party.
The Tea Baggers might steal a few seats but the whole Mr. Smith Goes to Washington story is a myth. They'll get there and immediately get pushed around by the Leader/Chairs. You need clout to get things done, and they have none. They may have it with the public, but that doesn't count for much once you enter the chambers.
So if they take seats, they can enter Congress as Republicans which will throw all the moderate Rs for a loop. It'll then be much easier for Ds to court Republican votes. If they stay independent or whatever they want to call themselves, then they're basically a no show. They'll divide the right and make it easy for the left to pass things. That latter is really unlikely, however, because a third party just doesn't work in American politics. Maybe they'll do it for a term but the Ds will absolutely crush them in Congress if they do. Single voter district winner takes all elections = 2 parties.
Most likely, however, they won't be getting many seats. They can contest the regular GOP seats which will basically just give the seat up for Democrats for the above stated reason. If the GOP integrates the Tea Baggers, then they alienate the moderates which are really what direct things. If they don't, they stand to become a distant #2 party which is also a death spell. Their best hopes are to poach some Blue Dog Democrats or simply try and make the Tea Baggers go away.
I'm a little confused - how was my description of Congress inaccurate? (not issues with predictions) I know that the "Tea Party" is not literally a separate party from the GOP, but that is just what these conservatives are calling themselves.
The onus being on the Democrats is exactly what could hurt them in 2012. Currently 538 is projecting a 53-47 Democratic edge in the Senate (net 6 R pickups) and a 225-210 Republican edge in the House. This includes a likely O'Donnell loss, however other Tea Party and establishment GOP candidates are faring well in polls. If Congress is split like this, I don't forsee Obama/Dems getting anything done. The GOP is content to stonewall and blame the president, which thus far has worked out for them even with only 41 senators.
Teabaggers are not taking seats from Dems. They're taking it from Republicans. If Republicans retake all their seats, they'll have greater strength to stonewall anything. If the Teabaggers contest in elections and contest in Congress, the Democrats will come out far ahead.
On September 17 2010 12:16 bumatlarge wrote: I guess I'm the only person on TL that likes her? Yay me *little flag* go radical christians!
I like the fact that she'll say what she thinks. I'm disturbed by some (many) of her positions (by which I mean, the only ones I agree with 100% are her position on abortion and probably her fiscal policy).
But even if I liked everything she stood for, I really think that no matter how she got elected in a primary it's a problem practically: she's unlikely to win a general election, is likely to splinter the party in the area (I wouldn't be surprised to see one of her primary opponents run, even as an independent if necessary), and if elected probably won't get anything done. If she does get anything done, it will most likely just be funding for some SIG study about the harms of masturbation or public education or Darwinism or something. I mean, it's a nice anti-Obama (I guess) symbolic vote, but I don't see how she can be effective.
On September 17 2010 12:16 bumatlarge wrote: I guess I'm the only person on TL that likes her? Yay me *little flag* go radical christians!
I like the fact that she'll say what she thinks.
Think back to highschool or college. Did you really like your classmates who spoke whatever was on their mind as soon as it was there? For me, most of the time the class was better off if they had never spoken at all.
On September 17 2010 12:16 bumatlarge wrote: I guess I'm the only person on TL that likes her? Yay me *little flag* go radical christians!
I like the fact that she'll say what she thinks. I'm disturbed by some (many) of her positions (by which I mean, the only ones I agree with 100% are her position on abortion and probably her fiscal policy).
But even if I liked everything she stood for, I really think that no matter how she got elected in a primary it's a problem practically: she's unlikely to win a general election, is likely to splinter the party in the area (I wouldn't be surprised to see one of her primary opponents run, even as an independent if necessary), and if elected probably won't get anything done. If she does get anything done, it will most likely just be funding for some SIG study about the harms of masturbation or public education or Darwinism or something. I mean, it's a nice anti-Obama (I guess) symbolic vote, but I don't see how she can be effective.
Oh yeah, I don't expect her to get anywhere, but some of her opinions about abortion and moral issues I personally feel are more important then others. All she is trying to accomplish is what every religious conservative is, not so much the economic aspects. That's why candidates like O'Donnell and Palin run for positions is to further Christian ideals, and in the process look a lot less educated then the liberal counterparts. They just have a mission.
On September 17 2010 12:16 bumatlarge wrote: I guess I'm the only person on TL that likes her? Yay me *little flag* go radical christians!
I like the fact that she'll say what she thinks.
Think back to highschool or college. Did you really like your classmates who spoke whatever was on their mind as soon as it was there? For me, most of the time the class was better off if they had never spoken at all.
Preach, brother. Freedom of speech includes the Freedom to SHUT UP. More people should exercise that right.
There are so many things wrong with this thread I don't even know where to start. most of them are based on prior misconceptions and false platforms, as well as being contextually inaccurate.
On September 17 2010 12:48 whiteguycash wrote: There are so many things wrong with this thread I don't even know where to start. most of them are based on prior misconceptions and false platforms, as well as being contextually inaccurate.
On September 17 2010 12:48 whiteguycash wrote: There are so many things wrong with this thread I don't even know where to start. most of them are based on prior misconceptions and false platforms, as well as being contextually inaccurate.
Her previous positions are real though. That's enough to go by at least.
On September 17 2010 12:48 whiteguycash wrote: There are so many things wrong with this thread I don't even know where to start. most of them are based on prior misconceptions and false platforms, as well as being contextually inaccurate.
Her previous positions are real though. That's enough to go by at least.
we've had senators involved with the KKK. i dont see how this is worse
On September 17 2010 12:48 whiteguycash wrote: There are so many things wrong with this thread I don't even know where to start. most of them are based on prior misconceptions and false platforms, as well as being contextually inaccurate.
Her previous positions are real though. That's enough to go by at least.
we've had senators involved with the KKK. i dont see how this is worse
Then go make a topic about them, lol.
We're here talking about the supposed Tea Party momentum leading up to November.
I love when people this absolutely unqualified and stupid get nominated for races. It's fun to watch their campaigns crumble miserably under waves of sheer incompetence, and then to see them get ROFLstomped in general elections by any candidate who can prove he has the intelligence to chew gum and walk at the same time
The fact that she won the primary in her state as the clear underdog really scares me. I don't even know what will happen with America anymore. I may be thinking negatively but the fact that the Tea Party is gaining movement can only mean that America is heading in a worse direction.
On September 17 2010 13:13 Number41 wrote: Anti-Masturbation: stupid policy
Pro-Government Health Care: stupid policy
If you are conservative or independent, you can ignore one of those stupid policies but not the other.
"I know this tea party woman can't put my **** back in my pants; but I know what Nancy Pelosi DID to my health insurance rates."
It's all in the mindset, and the lesser of two evils.
Yeah mandating health insurance for 32 million people is just like saying you will burn in hell for eternity if you touch your no-no parts. Lesser of two evils for sure!!!
On September 17 2010 13:04 [NyC]HoBbes wrote: I love when people this absolutely unqualified and stupid get nominated for races. It's fun to watch their campaigns crumble miserably under waves of sheer incompetence, and then to see them get ROFLstomped in general elections by any candidate who can prove he has the intelligence to chew gum and walk at the same time
So, how does one become qualified to become a senator? A governor? A president? Is there a school I can go to that teaches these things?
To me it sounds like you want a ruling class and not a government by the people, for the people.
On September 17 2010 11:51 FindingPride wrote: Bush wasn't conservative lmao. Bush was just as bad as obama in these socialistic policies. patriot act anyone?
The term conservative has many meanings, I was obviously using it in the "right of center" sense, not in terms of what it means to be conservative 100 years ago. But for what it's worth, if you made a statement like "Ron Paul is more of a true conservative than George W. Bush" then I would be in complete agreement.
Socialism doesn't mean placing regulations on the companies in a competitive market, or taxing people, or giving subsidies to the poor. It's when the government actually controls production. Think Cuba, not Canada.
To be fair, most people who use "socialism" - no matter what their political views - in the USA by now mean "European-style democratic socialism" (is there a better name for it?), which in turn they understand to mean that the state runs some stuff and redistributes other stuff.
(Except for the loonies who really do think that Obama is the second coming of Karl Marx (who of course only talked about socialism as an intermediate step, but the loonies don't remember that either), but I'm going to assume we can ignore them.)
Given that that's a common usage, I don't think it's unfair to characterize Obama, or Canada, or France, and many other "left-wing" (by American standards) politicians as "socialist". Inaccurate in the end, confusing, and not conducive to maintaining civil manners in debate, maybe, but not unfair. Of course, Bush wasn't particularly less socialist (in this inaccurate "Americanized") sense in kind, just in extent: he too signed Federal education bills and bailouts and stuff.
Basically, in the American political forum, "socialist" is a propaganda word. It's not used accurately, but there's a kernel of truth that keeps the scam going: regulation and taxation are forms of control, even if they come nowhere near real ownership. Of course, it goes both ways, as with accusations of "fascism" on the other side: almost no one would advocate real fascism, but again, regulations and limitations are control, so the illusion holds up (and the militarism, justified or not, doesn't help the image).
Back to the original point: After all that I've said, I'm really agreeing with you: yes, the Patriot Act was more fascist than socialist.
Even by this standard, Obama is not a socialist compared to a RADICAL MARXIST like Richard Nixon.
The tea party is split between two groups, social conservatives and libertarians. I happen to like the libertarian philosophy especially that of Ron Paul, but she seems more like a social conservative. What a shame.
On September 17 2010 13:13 Number41 wrote: Anti-Masturbation: stupid policy
Pro-Government Health Care: stupid policy
If you are conservative or independent, you can ignore one of those stupid policies but not the other.
"I know this tea party woman can't put my **** back in my pants; but I know what Nancy Pelosi DID to my health insurance rates."
It's all in the mindset, and the lesser of two evils.
Yeah mandating health insurance for 32 million people is just like saying you will burn in hell for eternity if you touch your no-no parts. Lesser of two evils for sure!!!
Exactly, I've touched my parts since she said that am I am better off. But putting me 2k behind in insurance adjustments sucks.
On September 17 2010 13:22 Jenbu wrote: The tea party is split between two groups, social conservatives and libertarians. I happen to like the libertarian philosophy especially that of Ron Paul, but she seems more like a social conservative. What a shame.
This.
I'm having a hard time understanding where the distaste of the Tea Party comes from. If the Tea Party was strongly against one side or another then I would understand. Seeing as the Tea Party has overthrown plenty of R's... I'm not getting it.
Is it a misunderstanding of what a libertarian is or are people typically against freedoms?
She did not grow up as a strict Catholic, but rather came to a turning point during college after she found herself drinking excessively and engaging in sexual relationships with men whom she lacked a strong emotional connection to.[4] (She would later say of this period, "I know what it's like to live a life without principle."[13]) She became increasingly interested in both politics and religion.[9] She became an evangelical Christian, began preaching sexual abstinence and joined the College Republicans.[4]
It seems her views on what the general public should do might just be an extreme reaction to her own, personal lifestyle of which she rebelled against during the years many of us manifest our idea of the world.
On September 17 2010 13:22 Jenbu wrote: The tea party is split between two groups, social conservatives and libertarians. I happen to like the libertarian philosophy especially that of Ron Paul, but she seems more like a social conservative. What a shame.
Agreed. I don't have much of a problem w/ the libertarians, but the social conservatives scare the sh#t out of me. $20 says she was in favor of the whole Qur'an burning thing too.
On September 17 2010 11:51 FindingPride wrote: Bush wasn't conservative lmao. Bush was just as bad as obama in these socialistic policies. patriot act anyone?
The term conservative has many meanings, I was obviously using it in the "right of center" sense, not in terms of what it means to be conservative 100 years ago. But for what it's worth, if you made a statement like "Ron Paul is more of a true conservative than George W. Bush" then I would be in complete agreement.
Socialism doesn't mean placing regulations on the companies in a competitive market, or taxing people, or giving subsidies to the poor. It's when the government actually controls production. Think Cuba, not Canada.
To be fair, most people who use "socialism" - no matter what their political views - in the USA by now mean "European-style democratic socialism" (is there a better name for it?), which in turn they understand to mean that the state runs some stuff and redistributes other stuff.
(Except for the loonies who really do think that Obama is the second coming of Karl Marx (who of course only talked about socialism as an intermediate step, but the loonies don't remember that either), but I'm going to assume we can ignore them.)
Given that that's a common usage, I don't think it's unfair to characterize Obama, or Canada, or France, and many other "left-wing" (by American standards) politicians as "socialist". Inaccurate in the end, confusing, and not conducive to maintaining civil manners in debate, maybe, but not unfair. Of course, Bush wasn't particularly less socialist (in this inaccurate "Americanized") sense in kind, just in extent: he too signed Federal education bills and bailouts and stuff.
Basically, in the American political forum, "socialist" is a propaganda word. It's not used accurately, but there's a kernel of truth that keeps the scam going: regulation and taxation are forms of control, even if they come nowhere near real ownership. Of course, it goes both ways, as with accusations of "fascism" on the other side: almost no one would advocate real fascism, but again, regulations and limitations are control, so the illusion holds up (and the militarism, justified or not, doesn't help the image).
Back to the original point: After all that I've said, I'm really agreeing with you: yes, the Patriot Act was more fascist than socialist.
Even by this standard, Obama is not a socialist compared to a RADICAL MARXIST like Richard Nixon.
This is the most accurate statement. Policies enacted under Nixon include and are not limited to:
Withdrawing from Vietnam (hippie!) Increase of Social Security and Medicare from 6.8% to 8.9% (socialist!) The Economic Stabiliziation Act, allowing the government to freeze and control any and ALL prices (socialist!) Elimination of the Gold Standard (fascist!) National Environmental Policy Act (hippe!) Clean Air Act (hippie!) OSHA (socialist hippie!) Equal Rights Amendment (uber hippie!) On February 6, 1974, he introduced the Comprehensive Health Insurance Act. Nixon's plan would have mandated employers to purchase health insurance for their employees, and in addition provided a federal health plan, similar to Medicaid, that any American could join by paying on a sliding scale based on income. WOAH WHAT A MARXIST!
Well-done Right Wingers! You have made it impossible for Obama to ever be as the flaming Nazi-fascist-socialist-Marxist that Nixon was!
I've always been extremely attracted to Jasmine Guy for some reason, something about her manner and personality. But yeah, those videos just confirm my belief that she's projecting her views to others because of her extreme upbringing.(one of six children. She and her four sisters shared one bedroom, and her father worked three jobs to support the family.[10]) Little to no father figure for advice on men+lost for attention in a cramped room etc...
Since when did like 50% of americans go completely insane? How can you even consider the modern-day republicans as an alternative? theyre all completely off the decent human being radar. And here they got to choose between dumber and dumbest.. they choose dumbest?!
On September 17 2010 11:51 FindingPride wrote: Bush wasn't conservative lmao. Bush was just as bad as obama in these socialistic policies. patriot act anyone?
The term conservative has many meanings, I was obviously using it in the "right of center" sense, not in terms of what it means to be conservative 100 years ago. But for what it's worth, if you made a statement like "Ron Paul is more of a true conservative than George W. Bush" then I would be in complete agreement.
Socialism doesn't mean placing regulations on the companies in a competitive market, or taxing people, or giving subsidies to the poor. It's when the government actually controls production. Think Cuba, not Canada.
To be fair, most people who use "socialism" - no matter what their political views - in the USA by now mean "European-style democratic socialism" (is there a better name for it?), which in turn they understand to mean that the state runs some stuff and redistributes other stuff.
(Except for the loonies who really do think that Obama is the second coming of Karl Marx (who of course only talked about socialism as an intermediate step, but the loonies don't remember that either), but I'm going to assume we can ignore them.)
Given that that's a common usage, I don't think it's unfair to characterize Obama, or Canada, or France, and many other "left-wing" (by American standards) politicians as "socialist". Inaccurate in the end, confusing, and not conducive to maintaining civil manners in debate, maybe, but not unfair. Of course, Bush wasn't particularly less socialist (in this inaccurate "Americanized") sense in kind, just in extent: he too signed Federal education bills and bailouts and stuff.
Basically, in the American political forum, "socialist" is a propaganda word. It's not used accurately, but there's a kernel of truth that keeps the scam going: regulation and taxation are forms of control, even if they come nowhere near real ownership. Of course, it goes both ways, as with accusations of "fascism" on the other side: almost no one would advocate real fascism, but again, regulations and limitations are control, so the illusion holds up (and the militarism, justified or not, doesn't help the image).
Back to the original point: After all that I've said, I'm really agreeing with you: yes, the Patriot Act was more fascist than socialist.
Even by this standard, Obama is not a socialist compared to a RADICAL MARXIST like Richard Nixon.
On February 6, 1974, he introduced the Comprehensive Health Insurance Act. Nixon's plan would have mandated employers to purchase health insurance for their employees, and in addition provided a federal health plan, similar to Medicaid, that any American could join by paying on a sliding scale based on income. WOAH WHAT A MARXIST!
You do mean WOAH WHAT A CORPORATIST
insurance companies make out like bandits on this law. forcing people to buy insurance even if they don't want it. It’s a big club and you ain't in it. You and I are not in The big club. By the way, it’s the same big club they use to beat you over the head with all day long when they tell you what to believe. All day long beating you over the head with their media telling you what to believe, what to think and what to buy. The table has tilted folks. The game is rigged and nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. Good honest hard-working people . . . white collar, blue collar it doesn’t matter what color shirt you have on. Good honest hard-working people continue, these are people of modest means . . . continue to elect these rich cocksuckers who don’t give a fuck about you. They don’t give a fuck about you . . . they don’t give a fuck about you. They don’t care about you at all . . . at all . . . at all, and nobody seems to notice. Nobody seems to care. That’s what the owners count on. The fact that Americans will probably remain willfully ignorant of the big red, white and blue dick that’s being jammed up their assholes everyday, because the owners of this country know the truth. It’s called the American Dream cause you have to be asleep to believe it . . .
On September 17 2010 14:20 nttea wrote: Since when did like 50% of americans go completely insane? How can you even consider the modern-day republicans as an alternative? theyre all completely off the decent human being radar. And here they got to choose between dumber and dumbest.. they choose dumbest?!
if you have to choose between having a dumber thief or a dumbest thief you choose the dumbest thief, its the smarter choice
The anti-masturbation campaign was funny. If I was Dem. going against her I would pull that up and then give facts how it reduces the chances of getting testicular and prostate cancer. That will be a good spin on things Tea party candidate for cancer.
On September 17 2010 13:22 Jenbu wrote: The tea party is split between two groups, social conservatives and libertarians. I happen to like the libertarian philosophy especially that of Ron Paul, but she seems more like a social conservative. What a shame.
This.
I'm having a hard time understanding where the distaste of the Tea Party comes from. If the Tea Party was strongly against one side or another then I would understand. Seeing as the Tea Party has overthrown plenty of R's... I'm not getting it.
Is it a misunderstanding of what a libertarian is or are people typically against freedoms?
Because while the Tea Party is composed of those two groups, it's trending more like 90% social conservatives, 10% libertarians. They're replacing Republicans with candidates who are further right-wing, not candidates who are more libertarian, though they tend to agree with libertarians on taxation and domestic spending.
For me at least, I'll also admit an element of cynicism related to past candidates with similar official platforms. I doubt candidates like O'Donnell would end oil subsidies or make significant cuts to our beefy defense budget, even though these are also antithetical to free market principles. I don't think the Tea Party would actually end up cutting spending as much as they would cut taxes, so I don't see them as helping to balance the budget.
Anecdotally, literally every single one of my friends and family who have joined the Tea Party were hardcore socially conservative Republicans before that. I think a slight majority could define GDP, maybe 10% might have heard of Milton Friedman, and ... uh, probably none know what Austrian economics is. Every one of them would make gay sex a federal offense in a heartbeat. Of course I am not saying this extends to ALL Tea Party members. However, polls indicate that this has become the dominant group within the movement. The candidates who are being nominated and the increased support/involvement of figures like Glenn Beck and Sarah Palin is further reason to believe it is no longer a libertarian-centric movement. The handful of libertarians I know are Independents or actually in the Libertarian Party.
On September 17 2010 12:01 Floophead_III wrote: I love the fundamentals of the tea party movement. However, this woman is just under-qualified and is a Bible-pushing non-thinking conservative. I don't like conservatives like that, and that's NOT what this country needs. We need libertarian conservatives. I think people's anger at the current gov't is blinding their ability to make correct choices - once again. Happens all the time. Hell, it's the only reason Obama got elected in the first place.
lol. "Tea-party fundamentals." That is just funny. I don't know how you can even be a part of something that believes O'Donnell is a proper candidate. It's just hilarious.
The tea-party is an outlet for the white people in bible belt to make even bigger fools of themselves. The only thing the Tea-party will ever succeed at is giving Dems another 4 years.
I didn't have too much of a problem regarding her political views (considering US standards these days -.-; ), but when I got to the "Religion-based Positions" section... that's outrageous
I don't know why any libertarian would still support the Tea Party anymore- look at this candidate she's a fundamentalist, evangelical social conservative and the Tea Party has been pretty much taken over by such people.
On September 17 2010 17:07 tomatriedes wrote: I don't know why any libertarian would still support the Tea Party anymore- look at this candidate she's a fundamentalist, evangelical social conservative and the Tea Party has been pretty much taken over by such people.
Because 90% of Libertarians have no idea what a Libertarian is. Anyone lately who doesn't like Republicans but thinks they are conservative just like to say they are Libertarian.
Lol just when you think americans can't do any thing more stupid, they really fuck up. I don't mean the TL community by this, because I see people in this thread actually realise how retarded this woman is.
In 2008, O’Donnell called then presidential candidate Barack Obama “anti-American” because “he did not vote for English as the (nation's) official language. What does that say?,“ she said.[76]
Really now? You are using the term anti-American if you speak a different language? Isn't this the same words that Bush used with the Patriot Act and McCarthy did against communists. I do not want this woman anywhere near Washington this is just a disgrace.
In a 1996 discussion on CNN, O'Donnell advocated the teaching of creationism in public schools and argued for a literal interpretation of The Bible's Book of Genesis.[17] O'Donnell has rejected Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, asserting that it "had not met scientific criteria" and that "when you get down to the hard evidence, it's merely a theory."[17]
Sigh so she supports the Bill of Rights and the Constitution but not separation of Church and State. Didn't we solve this problem 100 years ago?
Wow, for the rest of the world I hope she doesn't come any further. I cannot understand why it's so easy for such dumb people to come into positions of power somehow..
Lol american politics are crazy stuff. Yesterday the opposing swedish parties held their last debate before election and at the end there was a part where each of them had to compliment each other for 15 seconds and then they ended up shaking hands, laughing and hugging as the program was fading out. Everything politics here is so tame compared.
And Maher calling them Tea Baggers and no Tea Partiers. I wonder when old people are going to learn that tea bagginging is not a good thing lol.
On a serious note though this just makes me sick. I cant wait to finish school here and move to another country. Its not that the system might be better but at least i dont have to put up with these tea baggers and their ridiculous radical ideas and notions.
I don't know what's worse, an wealthy establishment suit or an unintelligent unrefined candidate.
The establishment has consistently failed the average citizen so one might view it as the people overthrowing the political elite. That the establishment lost is probably a good thing. But there is no guarantee of a high quality candidate. It's still better to clean house so that you get another shot at improvement in 6 years.
I think of Washington DC as the augean stables of American politics. We could probably diverge the Potomac through the city and the rest of the country would make a turn for the better.
It's interesting to see the anti-tea party sentiment, and anti conservative sentiment, and I'm deeply respectful of your opinions.
There's a couple of things that we should be aware of regarding the tea party though. First is that it doesn't really have an official "platform". And by that I don't mean a podium from which to speak, because it certainly has that. What I do mean is that each year at each party's political conventions they pull together a document that articulates where the party officially stands on issues. This is what is commonly referred to as the platform.
The tea party doesn't have one.
What the tea party does have is a lot of energized people who are very dis-satisfied with the current administration's march toward bigger and bigger government emulating European Socialism. No disrespect is intended here. The European system is working well for Europeans, and they have some wonderful things that the US doesn't have.
We're never going to come together if we don't understand each other.
Let's take health care. Nearly 60% of American's favor the repeal of that bill. It's a real Tea Party hot button. Now don't think that people in the tea party who are ticked about the methods, the lack of transparency, the cost, and the quality of the final product want people to die in the streets.
There was and is large scale agreement that the current system is unsustainable, and that was the going in position. In the end, we ended up with a bill that did nothing to bend the cost curve down.
Perhaps of more concern, there is no evidence that measures set forth in the bill will actually improve upon the care available now, and when Americans look to some countries that have socialized medicine, they are not impressed by the comparison to what we have now.
People who also self-affiliate with the tea party are also ticked about the big bailouts, many of which benefited big labor, a huge democrat contingency and source of cash.
Tea-party advocates are concerned about the adverse effects of illegal immigration in this country and its impact to local schools, and hospitals. When Arizona acted in response to the outbreak of kidnappings, home invasions, and other violent crime in the Phoenix area, the response of the administration was to sue Arizona. More than 60% of Americans would like to see a law simlar to Arizona's implemented in their own state.
People who self-affiliate with the Tea party are also ticked off at the Republican Party for squandering 6 years majority and spending money like drunken sailors during W. The federal deficit ballooned and fiscal conservatives were left with nowhere to turn.
The Tea party is an utter rejection of the establishment. Look at who the Republican leadership has endorsed in Primary races that have subsequently gone down in flames. Check out Florida, Colorado, Alaska, Kentucky, Nevada, Utah, Maine, ...
Fiscal conservatives are energized.
It's no surprise to me that a candidate that advocated a repeal of health care won against a candidate that said he would not repeal it.
Is she a fruit loop? Probably.
I think that we can agree that both sides use their own form of fear to motivate their base and try to sway independents. Fear that the right will try to legislate morality is a constant one used by the left. "She'll try to outlaw masturbation"...
If it is indeed true that the social conservatives want to do this, what success have they had in last 30 years? What socially conservative law have they managed to pass? Zero as far as I can see. Even when they had control. What are you worried about?
Regarding her opponent, Coons at one point in his life declared himself a Marxist, (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0510/36726.html).
I agree with Reagan. "Government is not the answer to our problems, Government is the problem."
So sadly, if I only get to choose between a fiscal conservative, whose social agenda (should she try to pursue it) would go nowhere, and a self-avowed Marxist in an era when I'm concerned that the cost of Government is out of control, and the corresponding size and intrusiveness of Government is way past my comfort level, my choice is sadly clear.
It's ignorance. Nothing but ignorance and hate. That's what the party thrives on. I've met far too many of these idiots. The local head of my tea party is some fuckin' douchebag that's been on disability for a decade because of his own fault, but is completely dead set against health care. Not just against it, but that anyone who is for it is unamerican or some horse shit.
That guy is probalby above average in terms of intellegence when compared with average party members.
All this is is a super radical sect of republicans. At least normal republicans have some ideals that aren't totally ridiculous. Hell, most of the tea party members dont share any similarities besides just being really fucking pissed and not having a clue as to why.
On September 17 2010 21:20 Jalle wrote: Being a libertarian and seeing what the Tea Party movement has turned into, there's really only one way for me to express my feelings:
Exactly. A lot of people try to describe it as libertarian but it's not even close to that at all.
The only thing that i'm happy about is that all these tea party wins will majorly fracture the GOP
On September 17 2010 21:47 lightrise wrote: "Fox news makes people stupider"
And Maher calling them Tea Baggers and no Tea Partiers. I wonder when old people are going to learn that tea bagginging is not a good thing lol.
On a serious note though this just makes me sick. I cant wait to finish school here and move to another country. Its not that the system might be better but at least i dont have to put up with these tea baggers and their ridiculous radical ideas and notions.
...And this is why I rage and refuse to vote for anyone. Literally, there is no one in the current political atmosphere that I would really want to entrust my fate to.
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.
I would be shocked if not for the fact that less than 60,000 votes were cast (or counted). Seriously, in a state of 12.4 million people, surely there are least a couple million republicans? Or even 1 million? Their fault -_-
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.
On September 18 2010 00:20 EtherealDeath wrote: I would be shocked if not for the fact that less than 60,000 votes were cast (or counted). Seriously, in a state of 12.4 million people, surely there are least a couple million republicans? Or even 1 million? Their fault -_-
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.
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.
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.
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.
Just like blacks can't be racist to whites, democrats can't be hateful to republicans. They're just educating the ignorant masses.
EDIT: The double standards in this country are rather saddening.
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.
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.
she's against masturbation, does not believe in evolution, supports creationism and believes that "American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains" - I don't care where she is on the political spectrum, she's completely retarded
I don't think you all understand what a Primary election is. The primary election is an internal election of a given party to determine who will run in the general election. In other words, America's "conservative" side (religious Republicans) have chosen the most contentious candidates possible to run (Teabaggers) against the liberal, rational candidates chosen by the Democrats.
This is very informative for you foreigners who don't understand the U.S. election system. As a moderate, I would almost always vote against a Teabagger on principle, as they seem to me to be uneducated or undereducated, and more motivated by their religious beliefs than by their rational faculties.
On September 17 2010 23:53 animus123 wrote: Seriously, how could those dirty Birther Teabaggers vote for someone with little to no experience in politics and crazy ideas.
Wait didn't democrats just do that last presidential election?
Just like blacks can't be racist to whites, democrats can't be hateful to republicans. They're just educating the ignorant masses.
EDIT: The double standards in this country are rather saddening.
There's no double standard, no one should say those kinds of things about anyone else regardless of anything.
On September 18 2010 00:49 vGl-CoW wrote: she's against masturbation, does not believe in evolution, supports creationism and believes that "American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains" - I don't care where she is on the political spectrum, she's completely retarded
Yes, I know that you read some things on wikipedia.
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.
I am a political science major, I can talk politics all day. But the conversation needs to remain logical and respectful.
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
It's a political discussion on the internet. By asking to keep that conversation logical and respectful, you're asking a lot. Political discussions on the internet will always result in death threats. As a political science major you should know that.
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?
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
I think it's just gotten to the point where conservatives are willing to support a whacko that's against the spend spend spend mentality rather than a 'normal' person who isn't doing anything about it.
On September 18 2010 01:28 WilbertK wrote: It's a political discussion on the internet. By asking to keep that conversation logical and respectful, you're asking a lot. Political discussions on the internet will always result in death threats. As a political science major you should know that.
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?
On September 18 2010 01:28 WilbertK wrote: It's a political discussion on the internet. By asking to keep that conversation logical and respectful, you're asking a lot. Political discussions on the internet will always result in death threats. As a political science major you should know that.
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?
On September 18 2010 01:28 WilbertK 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?
Some people believe that creationism is part of christian religious belief. They believe that because genesis says that God created the earth and the living things on it in seven days, that believing in evolution would be denying God and would be going against the bible.
I personally don't hold to this belief, but I have a friend who does not believe in evolution. I would never belittle him or anything for it, I just accept that he believes something different than me.
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.
I don't understand why so many republicans think this is good for their party... my buddy keeps reiterating this. This would be like the super left democrats, like the real socialists, picking up steam heading into an election. They are an offshoot of the main party, with radical views not viewed in a positive light by most of the main party, and pretty much hated by any moderates/independents who could be persuaded to vote red or blue...
No moderate or independent is gonna vote for this lady, and she probably won't have the entire backing of the main republican party.
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.
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 right about such statements not being all that constructive. You're completely wrong when you're asserting that such statements are merely the product of reasonable disagreement (in this case). Retards are people who are on some level not capable of performing basic intellectual tasks. If one is confronted with a band of people who reject reason, and seem to elevate ignorance to the level of ghospel , then the temptation is to equate them with people who are physically incapable of thinking logically. Some Tea Party participants are probably perfectly fine people, but the impression that the movement is mostly about far-right identity politics, greed and a random assortment of frustrations seems inescapable. I can identify with the frustration, but that's where the respectability of it ends. I've listened to quite a few interviews with tea party members/leaders and have yet to hear a sensible word about how and why (economic) policies should change. Nothing but dogmatic drivel... I hope that this doesn't sound too hateful. By the way, I hope that the Tea Party splits from the republican party (idle hope). That way, there might be a chance of American politics becoming slightly more meaningful for voters. That, and barring corporations from "buying access" during elections. Seriously, your system is so fucked and it never seems to get any better... Identity politics FTL
On September 18 2010 01:28 WilbertK 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?
Some people believe that creationism is part of christian religious belief. They believe that because genesis says that God created the earth and the living things on it in seven days, that believing in evolution would be denying God and would be going against the bible.
I personally don't hold to this belief, but I have a friend who does not believe in evolution. I would never belittle him or anything for it, I just accept that he believes something different than me.
I gotta say it's kind of weird to not believe in the overwhelming evidence of evolution. I wouldn't vote someone like that President (cough cough Palin), but I wouldn't have a problem voting a person who was pretty off-kilter to the senate, providing they are against spending and were at least a little fiscally responsible.
On September 18 2010 01:45 TheToast wrote: Some people believe that creationism is part of christian religious belief. They believe that because genesis says that God created the earth and the living things on it in seven days, that believing in evolution would be denying God and would be going against the bible.
I personally don't hold to this belief, but I have a friend who does not believe in evolution. I would never belittle him or anything for it, I just accept that he believes something different than me.
That's the whole thing. You portray evolution as if it's something you believe in. Like Jesus, or Santa. It's not. It's a scientific theory supported by evidence, and as such it's as factual as any scientific theory.
I'm not going to say you should disrespect or belittle your friend. You have friends based on whether people are nice to be around. And people who deny evolution, gravity, the holocaust, or the 9-11 attacks can undoubtedly be pleasant people, and therefore make good friends. That, however, does not mean you should take their opinions on those matters seriously.
If, on the other hand, you're going to vote for someone, I think you should always vote for people who make decisions based on sound knowledge. We might disagree on what's best, and end up reaching different conclusions based on personal preference and ideologies, but I would hope that we can agree that you should never deny the facts when making important decisions.
On September 18 2010 01:28 WilbertK 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?
Some people believe that creationism is part of christian religious belief. They believe that because genesis says that God created the earth and the living things on it in seven days, that believing in evolution would be denying God and would be going against the bible.
I personally don't hold to this belief, but I have a friend who does not believe in evolution. I would never belittle him or anything for it, I just accept that he believes something different than me.
Is your friend running for a major political office, which would potentially give him/her the power to shove his unfounded belief down the throats of others while pissing on the constitution??
there''s a monumental difference there. I can care less what my friends believe, because it doesn't effect me in any way. To each his own. When they run for office, start talking about how the problem with this country is that we pulled bibles from school and other horseshit, then it becomes an issue.
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.
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??
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.
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.
What ever happened to the separation of church and state?
Re: Creationism - if you want a good laugh I highly recommend a visit to the Creation Museum in northern Kentucky where you will gain insight in to how animals used dead logs as rafts to migrate between the continents. Nothing like a 3-4 month journey with no fresh water...
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.
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.
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??
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.
"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.
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 02:54 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 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.
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 02:37 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 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 02:54 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 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 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 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.
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.
"Fair" is relative. If you ask some one making $1,000,000/year they well have a completely different definition of what "fair" is compared to some one making minimum wage.
Honestly what I think is "fair" now is what ever is best for the economy. Rich families spend less money then many middle class families, thats why they are rich. And while I do belive these middle class families that are spending more then they are earning are very stuipid, at the moment we need these dumb consumers to be spending as much money as possible to get the unemployment level down.
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!!
Who's to say she isn't an alien scouting for the invasion? Who's to say Obama isn't a robot?
Everyone knew what they were getting with the other guy. He was like 99% of the other senators. Corrupt, disconnected with the public, with a strong belief in gravity. Isn't this why everyone voted for Obama? Because they wanted change? Why is only OK for the democratic candidates to run as candidate that vows to change current policies? I'd rather give someone new a chance than have the same person as always.
On September 18 2010 03:19 NukeTheBunnys wrote: Rich families spend less money then many middle class families, thats why they are rich.
WRONG
Rich families have goals to make more than they spend, and that's why they are rich. Middle-class families have goals to spend less than they make, and that's why they are middle-class.
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!!
Who's to say she isn't an alien scouting for the invasion? Who's to say Obama isn't a robot?
Everyone knew what they were getting with the other guy. He was like 99% of the other senators. Corrupt, disconnected with the public, with a strong belief in gravity. Isn't this why everyone voted for Obama? Because they wanted change? Why is only OK for the democratic candidates to run as candidate that vows to change current policies? I'd rather give someone new a chance than have the same person as always.
Obama's academic credentials are about 100x a tad bit more established, he's not tossing religion into everything, he at least had some--not tons--of experience, and he has a grasp of things work, ie., he isn't saying 'A socialist economy is one in which 50% youre dependent on the govt.' or some crap.
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!!
Who's to say she isn't an alien scouting for the invasion? Who's to say Obama isn't a robot?
Everyone knew what they were getting with the other guy. He was like 99% of the other senators. Corrupt, disconnected with the public, with a strong belief in gravity. Isn't this why everyone voted for Obama? Because they wanted change? Why is only OK for the democratic candidates to run as candidate that vows to change current policies? I'd rather give someone new a chance than have the same person as always.
Yeah let's go with the crazy lady who believes that scientists are making rats with human brains and that everyone should have guns while we teach the bible in schools.
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!!
Who's to say she isn't an alien scouting for the invasion? Who's to say Obama isn't a robot?
Everyone knew what they were getting with the other guy. He was like 99% of the other senators. Corrupt, disconnected with the public, with a strong belief in gravity. Isn't this why everyone voted for Obama? Because they wanted change? Why is only OK for the democratic candidates to run as candidate that vows to change current policies? I'd rather give someone new a chance than have the same person as always.
Someone new is fine. Someone new like O'Donnell is just asking for trouble.
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!!
Who's to say she isn't an alien scouting for the invasion? Who's to say Obama isn't a robot?
Everyone knew what they were getting with the other guy. He was like 99% of the other senators. Corrupt, disconnected with the public, with a strong belief in gravity. Isn't this why everyone voted for Obama? Because they wanted change? Why is only OK for the democratic candidates to run as candidate that vows to change current policies? I'd rather give someone new a chance than have the same person as always.
Obama's academic credentials are about 100x a tad bit more established, he's not tossing religion into everything, he at least had some--not tons--of experience, and he has a grasp of things work, ie., he isn't saying 'A socialist economy is one in which 50% youre dependent on the govt.' or some crap.
I really don't want to turn this into a debate about Obama, but his academic records are hardly more established when they have never actually been released and any attempt to look at them has been squashed. And it seems none of his classmates even remembers him.
I cannot defend the statement 'A socialist economy is one in which 50% youre dependent on the govt.'
On September 18 2010 03:39 animus123 wrote: I really don't want to turn this into a debate about Obama, but his academic records are hardly more established when they have never actually been released and any attempt to look at them has been squashed. And it seems none of his classmates even remembers him.
My father played basketball against him at Punahou when he was in high school. Also are you seriously comparing the president's academic credentials to the lady who got her bachelor's degree this month?
Like, seriously, OBAMA NEVER WENT 2 HIGH SKOOL!!!!
On September 18 2010 03:39 ggrrg wrote: "American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains."
All potical topics aside, what does this statement reveal about her intelligence?
Those mice are probably more intelligent than 95% of anyone who is affiliated with any "tea party".
I wonder how many things I could list that are blatantly hypocritical about their entire stupid worthless movement. They are too fixated on sucking on the teets of ole Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh to think for themselves for two seconds to see it.
On September 18 2010 03:22 animus123 wrote: Who's to say she isn't an alien scouting for the invasion? Who's to say Obama isn't a robot?
Everyone knew what they were getting with the other guy. He was like 99% of the other senators. Corrupt, disconnected with the public, with a strong belief in gravity.
So far she's got 1.6 mio $. Do you really think that none of this money comes from people/corporations/whatever that want her to make something "special" for them if she gets elected?
Isn't this why everyone voted for Obama? Because they wanted change? Why is only OK for the democratic candidates to run as candidate that vows to change current policies? I'd rather give someone new a chance than have the same person as always.
Because they tend to choose people who don't appear to be batshit crazy.
On September 18 2010 03:39 ggrrg wrote: "American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains."
All potical topics aside, what does this statement reveal about her intelligence?
On September 18 2010 03:39 animus123 wrote: I really don't want to turn this into a debate about Obama, but his academic records are hardly more established when they have never actually been released and any attempt to look at them has been squashed. And it seems none of his classmates even remembers him.
My father played basketball against him at Punahou when he was in high school. Also are you seriously comparing the president's academic credentials to the lady who got her bachelor's degree this month?
Like, seriously, OBAMA NEVER WENT 2 HIGH SKOOL!!!!
Perhaps I should have been more specific and said no records of his college experience have been released.
On September 18 2010 03:45 Adila wrote: Obama obviously had a body double do all the things he did in Harvard.... or it was just a liberal Harvard conspiracy!
Why is anyone that questions something about Obama's records always a racist drooling conspiracist? I was only pointing out a lack of documentation to support any claims that Obama really did anything in College. Anyway, this is not a debate about Obama and I do not want to go down this road.
Most of what I have posted has been in support of an uncorrupted conservative policy that actually represents its people. O'Donnell is obviously not the best candidate, but when all you have is a douchebag and a turd sandwich, you take what you can get.
On September 18 2010 03:57 animus123 wrote: Why is anyone that questions something about Obama's records always a racist drooling conspiracist? I was only pointing out a lack of documentation to support any claims that Obama really did anything in College. Anyway, this is not a debate about Obama and I do not want to go down this road.
What? So Harvard just made him an editor for the Harvard Law Review for the lawlz? They made him president of the Harvard Law Review because it was funny? He graduated magna cum laude because his professors felt sorry for him?
On September 18 2010 03:39 animus123 wrote: I really don't want to turn this into a debate about Obama, but his academic records are hardly more established when they have never actually been released and any attempt to look at them has been squashed. And it seems none of his classmates even remembers him.
My father played basketball against him at Punahou when he was in high school. Also are you seriously comparing the president's academic credentials to the lady who got her bachelor's degree this month?
Like, seriously, OBAMA NEVER WENT 2 HIGH SKOOL!!!!
Perhaps I should have been more specific and said no records of his college experience have been released.
On September 18 2010 03:45 Adila wrote: Obama obviously had a body double do all the things he did in Harvard.... or it was just a liberal Harvard conspiracy!
Why is anyone that questions something about Obama's records always a racist drooling conspiracist? I was only pointing out a lack of documentation to support any claims that Obama really did anything in College. Anyway, this is not a debate about Obama and I do not want to go down this road.
Most of what I have posted has been in support of an uncorrupted conservative policy that actually represents its people. O'Donnell is obviously not the best candidate, but when all you have is a douchebag and a turd sandwich, you take what you can get.
You're unbelievable. There is an actual posting about Obama becoming an editor for Harvard Law Review.
Take your conspiracy theories elsewhere. This is a serious discussion.
On September 18 2010 03:57 animus123 wrote: Perhaps I should have been more specific and said no records of his college experience have been released.
Where did you get this information from because it's pretty fucking easy to find records that he went to Harvard.
Here, I found a picture of him in Harvard in the New York Times after a google search for "obama harvard". It also has statements from his former professors and colleagues.
On September 18 2010 04:15 bumatlarge wrote: Do you guys want an honest christian PoV or are you just gonna label me as a retard and moron for not logically concluding evolution as 100% certain?
We're not going to label you as a retard and moron, because we respect your right to religion, but your views do reflect upon our views of the intelligence of an "honest christian".
On September 18 2010 04:15 bumatlarge wrote: Do you guys want an honest christian PoV or are you just gonna label me as a retard and moron for not logically concluding evolution as 100% certain?
Honest Christian PoV obviously.
Unless you're a young-earth Creationist. Then I, along with 95%+ of TL will just destroy whatever you have to say.
On September 17 2010 09:56 Aeres wrote: ... Who the hell is this broad? I've never heard of her before. Is the Tea Party trying to convince us that random bitches who crawl out of the woodwork to run for government spots are indeed somehow qualified for those positions?
Yes, by all means, choose sexism as the first way to argue against her. Is it really so hard to belittle her experience without insulting her gender?
On September 17 2010 09:56 Aeres wrote: ... Who the hell is this broad? I've never heard of her before. Is the Tea Party trying to convince us that random bitches who crawl out of the woodwork to run for government spots are indeed somehow qualified for those positions?
Yes, by all means, choose sexism as the first way to argue against her. Is it really so hard to belittle her experience without insulting her gender?
What are you talking about? Her gender's her only redeeming quality.
Very interesting when comparing responses toward O'Donnell with responses toward Alvin Greene.
Both are candidates with a sketchy history. The general jist of responses: Greene -----> Can't be worse than the current politicians. O'Donnell --> Insufficient credentials to hold office.
On September 18 2010 04:36 SilverLeagueElite wrote: Very interesting when comparing responses toward O'Donnell with responses toward Alvin Greene.
Both are candidates with a sketchy history. The general jist of responses: Greene -----> Can't be worse than the current politicians. O'Donnell --> Insufficient credentials to hold office.
On September 17 2010 09:56 Aeres wrote: ... Who the hell is this broad? I've never heard of her before. Is the Tea Party trying to convince us that random bitches who crawl out of the woodwork to run for government spots are indeed somehow qualified for those positions?
Yes, by all means, choose sexism as the first way to argue against her. Is it really so hard to belittle her experience without insulting her gender?
What are you talking about? Her gender's her only redeeming quality.
Its true.
By golly shucks, shes so gosh darn purty. Shes gon fix all them troubles away.
On September 18 2010 04:36 SilverLeagueElite wrote: Very interesting when comparing responses toward O'Donnell with responses toward Alvin Greene.
Both are candidates with a sketchy history. The general jist of responses: Greene -----> Can't be worse than the current politicians. O'Donnell --> Insufficient credentials to hold office.
Probably because Greene came out of nowhere, doesn't have a chance in hell, and is already a joke to everyone.
I think if you are secure in your beliefs you should say what you think and haters be damned, but if you happen to be one of the Christians that sucks Glenn Beck's teet constantly (see my above post), yea I might feel like calling you a retard.
On September 17 2010 09:56 Aeres wrote: ... Who the hell is this broad? I've never heard of her before. Is the Tea Party trying to convince us that random bitches who crawl out of the woodwork to run for government spots are indeed somehow qualified for those positions?
Yes, by all means, choose sexism as the first way to argue against her. Is it really so hard to belittle her experience without insulting her gender?
What are you talking about? Her gender's her only redeeming quality.
At least you aren't this guy:
On September 17 2010 10:33 zenMaster wrote: She sounds/looks/thinks like those bitches that should be on the street corner sucking dicks for money.
On September 18 2010 04:15 bumatlarge wrote: Do you guys want an honest christian PoV or are you just gonna label me as a retard and moron for not logically concluding evolution as 100% certain?
I wouldn't label you as a moron for not reaching that conclusion. It makes me wonder what research you did, and how you went about establishing the validity of evolutionary theory though.
And yeah, I DO want to hear your honest christian point of view.
On September 17 2010 09:56 Aeres wrote: ... Who the hell is this broad? I've never heard of her before. Is the Tea Party trying to convince us that random bitches who crawl out of the woodwork to run for government spots are indeed somehow qualified for those positions?
Yes, by all means, choose sexism as the first way to argue against her. Is it really so hard to belittle her experience without insulting her gender?
What are you talking about? Her gender's her only redeeming quality.
On September 18 2010 04:18 NormanBum wrote: Ignorance is bliss
If Palin wins in '12, I am either moving to Canada or giving up on humanity.
Happy to hear that. Really, I pity your land if those conservatives will gain any more influence. Actually I pity all of us in that case because it will be a huge thread to peace... more aggression less dialogue is the way to kill all of us by strengthening extremists like Al Qadia. Al Qaida is an idea, you can't bombard ideas.
I'ld specifically pity you US citizens under such a gouvernment as there will never be a good health insurance system with conservatives, no restrictions of stock market, no success in reducing crime, worse integration of immigrants, no better education and so on. Thank god there still are US citizens opposing the tea party.
By the way about US christians, gotta say I like some of them. Those opposing the conservatives in immigration politics by saying that theirs doesn't suit christian values at all for example. There really are some christian values worth to be treasured (I don't relate them to christianity specifically but if christians see them as their most important values I like that) Ok there are those beardy bible nerds telling about evolution, feminism, homosexuality, enlightenment and computers are made by the devil. Those really should urgently be institutionalised to save us from their dangerous backward ideologies and themselves from their narrow minds, they really need some humanistic education.
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.
What he is saying is that he would support anyone as long as that persons policies coincide with his believes. Even if that persons competence is highly doubtful... A madman who has the same political agenda you do, or a sane person who doesn't... tough choice ><
im am so fucking glad that there is no thing like FoX News and propaganda right wing radio in my country...
perhaps i don't see the full picture about the tea party but what i get from watching colbert and stewart and reading some new york times ... is frightening
On September 18 2010 05:12 Gaga wrote: im am so fucking glad that there is no thing like FoX News and propaganda right wing radio in my country...
perhaps i don't see the full picture about the tea party but what i get from watching colbert and stewart and reading some new york times ... is frightening
We got BILD and Focus, they're pretty much the same. But thank god most germans accept those as lower class media not worth beeing read. Also even our most backward and stupid popular parties (CDU/FDP) supported by bad media (Bild/Focus) are kinda moderate compared to US conservative wing. FDP down to 5% in polls by the way, yeah!
On September 18 2010 04:15 bumatlarge wrote: Do you guys want an honest christian PoV or are you just gonna label me as a retard and moron for not logically concluding evolution as 100% certain?
Honest Christian PoV obviously.
Unless you're a young-earth Creationist. Then I, along with 95%+ of TL will just destroy whatever you have to say.
Well, I'd say I'm more of a day-age creationist. I think there's too many variables to prove evolution in the span of a single century. Adaptation and hereditary complexity could easily account for what would appear to be evolutionary evidence. With so much gray area, I'm really not willing to embrace evolution, and for personal reasons I feel the most logical choice is deism. I could go into those personal reasons, but TL has a bad history involving these topics.
And the bible should not be taken literally... I believe it states the sun rises and sets? Then the whole book is loses any credibility. Not that anyone here thinks it has any credibility at all.
I completely agree with her position on abortion, rape and all. Guess I'm a horrible person?
On September 18 2010 04:15 bumatlarge wrote: Do you guys want an honest christian PoV or are you just gonna label me as a retard and moron for not logically concluding evolution as 100% certain?
Honest Christian PoV obviously.
Unless you're a young-earth Creationist. Then I, along with 95%+ of TL will just destroy whatever you have to say.
Well, I'd say I'm more of a day-age creationist. I think there's too many variables to prove evolution in the span of a single century. Adaptation and hereditary complexity could easily account for what would appear to be evolutionary evidence. With so much gray area, I'm really not willing to embrace evolution, and for personal reasons I feel the most logical choice is deism. I could go into those personal reasons, but TL has a bad history involving these topics.
And the bible should not be taken literally... I believe it states the sun rises and sets? Then the whole book is loses any credibility. Not that anyone here thinks it has any credibility at all.
I completely agree with her position on abortion, rape and all. Guess I'm a horrible person?
On September 18 2010 04:15 bumatlarge wrote: Do you guys want an honest christian PoV or are you just gonna label me as a retard and moron for not logically concluding evolution as 100% certain?
Honest Christian PoV obviously.
Unless you're a young-earth Creationist. Then I, along with 95%+ of TL will just destroy whatever you have to say.
Well, I'd say I'm more of a day-age creationist. I think there's too many variables to prove evolution in the span of a single century. Adaptation and hereditary complexity could easily account for what would appear to be evolutionary evidence. With so much gray area, I'm really not willing to embrace evolution, and for personal reasons I feel the most logical choice is deism. I could go into those personal reasons, but TL has a bad history involving these topics.
And the bible should not be taken literally... I believe it states the sun rises and sets? Then the whole book is loses any credibility. Not that anyone here thinks it has any credibility at all.
I completely agree with her position on abortion, rape and all. Guess I'm a horrible person?
Just a little hint: TL has the tendency to concur when people ask to be flamed/banned/nailed to crosses.
That means one thing and one thing only: you must be agnostic. I cannot prove God does not exist anymore then you can, truth is we humans know so little about this universe its astounding to me that anyone thinks they have it figured out. Agnostic. Thats what you are and thats what everyone else should be.
On September 18 2010 05:12 Gaga wrote: im am so fucking glad that there is no thing like FoX News and propaganda right wing radio in my country...
perhaps i don't see the full picture about the tea party but what i get from watching colbert and stewart and reading some new york times ... is frightening
We got BILD and Focus, they're pretty much the same. But thank god most germans accept those as lower class media not worth beeing read. Also even our most backward and stupid popular parties (CDU/FDP) supported by bad media (Bild/Focus) are kinda moderate compared to US conservative wing. FDP down to 5% in polls by the way, yeah!
watch a show of glenn beck, comparing obama to Hitler and Stalin at the same time ...
On September 18 2010 05:49 ArvickHero wrote: This is a loss for mankind and its progress...
No kidding, this is just plain disgusting. How can someone filled with so many stupid ideas possibly win over any people unless its the people that are stupid themselves. Which must be the case.
On September 18 2010 05:42 DamnCats wrote: You said it yourself, SO MUCH GREY AREA.
That means one thing and one thing only: you must be agnostic. I cannot prove God does not exist anymore then you can, truth is we humans know so little about this universe its astounding to me that anyone thinks they have it figured out. Agnostic. Thats what you are and thats what everyone else should be.
I said I have other reasons, mostly based around intellect, free will and emotions. I believe there is a clear difference in good and evil, which really has no purpose existing if there is no intelligent designer. I think my actions have consequences, and I'm going to leave it at that. Though I do hold immense respect for agnostics and people who are open-minded.
Here are my thoughts. I think America, and most countries these days are in a strange state. The population worldwide is growing, and it's common knowledge that stupider people have more children. This means that genetically, people will become more and more stupid. Since natural selection no longer exists for intelligence (stupid people have a high chance of reproducing), this state will continue. So in theory, the average IQ (if not normalized) should be decreasing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligence
But it isn't! The average IQ is rapidly getting smarter. I attribute this to a rapid improvement in the educational systems worldwide. This means that education is a bigger deal than genetics in determining how smart people are. (I'm aware IQ is not a great measurement of intelligence, but it is something to go by). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
What we're seeing today is the clash between the people who have taken greatly to the the improved educational systems (high tier universities) and become significantly smarter than people from previous generations, and the people who have not and seem really ignorant on just about every subject.
The difference is so great it's like homo sapiens is branching in evolution into homo smartius and homo stupidius, even though genetically, both are the same.
How does what I've been saying tie in with the Tea Party? Well in my opinion, the people voting for the Tea Party are members of the Homo Stupidus Species lol. Many of these non-thinking conservative, unreasonable (blind religion creationism in school, guns, no abortion, no stem cell research) voters probably just didn't get a good education, and the few that did, were probably raised in a way to think too conservatively from a young age.
I'd also like to note that the rapid expansion in information technology has caused people to become louder about their ideas. Stupid people can be misinformed and enraged more easily.
I'm aware that this was a jumble of ideas, but I hope you can connect what I am trying to say into these summarizing lines. The people voting for Conservatives are about as intelligent as people from previous generations. They only seem stupid because you are relatively smarter than them because you took advantage of an improved educational system.
I think I'll keep my post count like this for a few days.
Sorry I didn't bother to find better sources, and sorry for almost sounding nazi here. I don't advocate exterminating genetically less intelligent people; I probably am one.
Oh for heaven's sake, the melodrama of this forum is just as bad as the tea party. We all know that the tea party is not going to take Washington back, but we all know that no one will really move to Canada if they do.
Canada lacks the personality-driven politics which distinguishes American debate, and that is something everyone, including anti-populists, loves to indulge in.
Be legitimately afraid....of the collapse of the tl.net general forum should the tea party win and a northern exodus ensue.
I hate people who dont have open minds. And holy shit so funny she doesnt want to teach evolution because its not "scientifically proven" but she wants to teach creationism? When the fuck has that ever been scientifically proven? (No offense to any religious TL'ers, but religion shouldn't get taught in school)
On September 17 2010 10:54 Xog wrote: Anyone who will turn the country away from socialism is good enough for me.
Yeah. Fuck em. "Taxed enough already" is damn right. Getting taxed because of these socialist initiatives is so unfair. Who cares about two wars costing billions of dollars a day. 40% of Americans receiving no healthcare or under-insured? Who cares as long as we have our freedom. Our freedom to choose. That's the American way.
Hey while you wait a year for surgery because some fat bureaucrat decides it's not a good use of government money I can get it done the same day in America, where we have the best medical care in the world. "as long as we have our freedom"? Freedom is everything. The American way is seeing you're not as well off or make as much money as you would like and being able to change it with enough hard work and dedication, not sitting back and demanding more from the government. That's the American way.
On September 18 2010 05:58 MoltkeWarding wrote: Oh for heaven's sake, the melodrama of this forum is just as bad as the tea party. We all know that the tea party is not going to take Washington back, but we all know that no one will really move to Canada if they do.
Canada lacks the personality-driven politics which distinguishes American debate, and that is something everyone, including anti-populists, loves to indulge in.
Which is the whole reason for this thread? Americans can rage and the rest of the world can laugh about it. Win/win.
On September 18 2010 05:58 MoltkeWarding wrote: Oh for heaven's sake, the melodrama of this forum is just as bad as the tea party. We all know that the tea party is not going to take Washington back, but we all know that no one will really move to Canada if they do.
Canada lacks the personality-driven politics which distinguishes American debate, and that is something everyone, including anti-populists, loves to indulge in.
Be legitimately afraid....of the collapse of the tl.net general forum should the tea party win and a northern exodus ensue.
Canadian politics can be exciting.... Stockwell Day rode a jet-ski once!... and.. and... Jack Layton has a mustache! and Michael Ignatieff is... is... umm....
On September 18 2010 06:01 NotGood- wrote: religion shouldn't get taught in school)
I disagree. Religion should definitely be taught in school, as it is a big influence in the lives of people. It should not be taught as fact, however. But everybody should have a basic knowledge of the beliefs of the people around them. It's pretty hard to understand your fellow man if you don't understand his beliefs.
On September 17 2010 10:54 Xog wrote: Anyone who will turn the country away from socialism is good enough for me.
Yeah. Fuck em. "Taxed enough already" is damn right. Getting taxed because of these socialist initiatives is so unfair. Who cares about two wars costing billions of dollars a day. 40% of Americans receiving no healthcare or under-insured? Who cares as long as we have our freedom. Our freedom to choose. That's the American way.
in America, where we have the best medical care in the world.
On September 17 2010 10:54 Xog wrote: Anyone who will turn the country away from socialism is good enough for me.
Yeah. Fuck em. "Taxed enough already" is damn right. Getting taxed because of these socialist initiatives is so unfair. Who cares about two wars costing billions of dollars a day. 40% of Americans receiving no healthcare or under-insured? Who cares as long as we have our freedom. Our freedom to choose. That's the American way.
in America, where we have the best medical care in the world.
On September 18 2010 05:35 bumatlarge wrote: Adaptation and hereditary complexity could easily account for what would appear to be evolutionary evidence. With so much gray area, I'm really not willing to embrace evolution, and for personal reasons I feel the most logical choice is deism.
What 'appears' to be evidence for evolution is thus far explained only by evolution. I could go into more depth, but I don't feel like hijacking the thread. But I am bothered heavily by the way you oppose deism to evolution. Why could evolution not be the mechanism by which organisms came to be, after your deist god created the universe? Deism is strictly a position on the origin of the universe. Evolution is a theory about how life diversified AFTER it started. Those two have nothing to do with each other.
On September 17 2010 10:54 Xog wrote: Anyone who will turn the country away from socialism is good enough for me.
Yeah. Fuck em. "Taxed enough already" is damn right. Getting taxed because of these socialist initiatives is so unfair. Who cares about two wars costing billions of dollars a day. 40% of Americans receiving no healthcare or under-insured? Who cares as long as we have our freedom. Our freedom to choose. That's the American way.
in America, where we have the best medical care in the world.
On September 17 2010 10:54 Xog wrote: Anyone who will turn the country away from socialism is good enough for me.
Yeah. Fuck em. "Taxed enough already" is damn right. Getting taxed because of these socialist initiatives is so unfair. Who cares about two wars costing billions of dollars a day. 40% of Americans receiving no healthcare or under-insured? Who cares as long as we have our freedom. Our freedom to choose. That's the American way.
in America, where we have the best medical care in the world.
On September 17 2010 10:54 Xog wrote: Anyone who will turn the country away from socialism is good enough for me.
Yeah. Fuck em. "Taxed enough already" is damn right. Getting taxed because of these socialist initiatives is so unfair. Who cares about two wars costing billions of dollars a day. 40% of Americans receiving no healthcare or under-insured? Who cares as long as we have our freedom. Our freedom to choose. That's the American way.
in America, where we have the best medical care in the world.
On September 18 2010 05:35 bumatlarge wrote: Adaptation and hereditary complexity could easily account for what would appear to be evolutionary evidence. With so much gray area, I'm really not willing to embrace evolution, and for personal reasons I feel the most logical choice is deism.
What 'appears' to be evidence for evolution is thus far explained only by evolution. I could go into more depth, but I don't feel like hijacking the thread. But I am bothered heavily by the way you oppose deism to evolution. Why could evolution not be the mechanism by which organisms came to be, after your deist god created the universe? Deism is strictly a position on the origin of the universe. Evolution is a theory about how life diversified AFTER it started. Those two have nothing to do with each other.
Indeed. There are scientific understandings of the origin of the universe, but they're separable from scientific understandings of the origin of life. "God did it" is still a kooky explanation for the universe, but much less kooky than claiming that evolution didn't happen.
On September 18 2010 06:34 Severedevil wrote: Indeed. There are scientific understandings of the origin of the universe, but they're separable from scientific understandings of the origin of life. "God did it" is still a kooky explanation for the universe, but much less kooky than claiming that evolution didn't happen.
And even the origin of life is not covered by evolution, so I'm not sure why you bring that into the discussion. And it's not about what explanation is least 'kooky', but about what explanation best explains and predicts observable reality.
so i don't get it, is this just some different strain of republicanism getting the gig to lose in the actual election? who cares? now if it was some actual proper independent doing anything, i might be somewhat excited, but from what i can see it's basically some random just shoving themselves into the same old party politics that i despise
Speaking of medical care, I fucking love how the tea party wants to "keep the governments hands off my healthcare". When in reality, that would be a plus, because right now your healthcare is in the hands of a bunch of rich assholes in the health insurance industry who are only looking out for 1 thing and 1 thing only: profits. Congrats, you retards. Absolutely ridiculous. Not saying gov't run healthcare wouldn't be a complete clusterfuck also but I think almost anything is better then what we have now.
She made the comments about masturbation when she was young and had more religious zeal. But thankfully, we can rely on the MSM to take that out of context.
The Tea Party is a movement of people who are tired of our out of control government sending us into an oblivion of debt. It is concerned with losing freedoms and our status in the world. Does that make them crazy?
After 4 years of rampant liberalism, we can see how that worked out (complete failure). Bush's compassionate conservatism isn't the answer either as far as I'm concerned.
What we need is a strong economy and a revitalization of America. And if the Tea Party can do it, then I am all for it.
On September 18 2010 07:08 DamnCats wrote: Speaking of medical care, I fucking love how the tea party wants to "keep the governments hands off my healthcare". When in reality, that would be a plus, because right now your healthcare is in the hands of a bunch of rich assholes in the health insurance industry who are only looking out for 1 thing and 1 thing only: profits. Congrats, you retards. Absolutely ridiculous. Not saying gov't run healthcare wouldn't be a complete clusterfuck also but I think almost anything is better then what we have now.
It's better than that... they've tried, "Keep your government hands off my MEDICARE."
On September 17 2010 10:54 Xog wrote: Anyone who will turn the country away from socialism is good enough for me.
Yeah. Fuck em. "Taxed enough already" is damn right. Getting taxed because of these socialist initiatives is so unfair. Who cares about two wars costing billions of dollars a day. 40% of Americans receiving no healthcare or under-insured? Who cares as long as we have our freedom. Our freedom to choose. That's the American way.
in America, where we have the best medical care in the world.
Though I agree with the gist of where the US system falls relative to Europe/Canada, the WHO rankings are too nonsensical because they place so much emphasis on low spending. For two countries with modernized systems, that's a good separator - who spends less to get roughly similar results. When you're ranking Oman in the top 10 and Saudi Arabia and Colombia above Canada, that's a little silly.
On September 18 2010 07:33 Scruffy wrote: She made the comments about masturbation when she was young and had more religious zeal. But thankfully, we can rely on the MSM to take that out of context.
The Tea Party is a movement of people who are tired of our out of control government sending us into an oblivion of debt. It is concerned with losing freedoms and our status in the world.
Freedom of and from religion and the seperation of church/state apparently isn't a concern to her huh??
geese, what happend, america. i thought you guys were great, maybe a bit more weighty than other nations, but that was good. because you were nice, open minded guys. remember obama, he was great, the US' first black president. how awsome was that, most european countries never even had a black president. but then this, geese guys, just come'on ok. theese tea party arses are just.... dumb .
Hmm, I have considerable admiration for the tea party if only because they've made it this far. In most other countries you would have a few days of disorganized protests and maybe wasteful rioting.
Say what you want about Americans, but they don't like to simply lie down and shut up, and when they do thrash out in anger, they're capable of mass organization.
On September 18 2010 05:55 Hidden_MotiveS wrote: Wow, reading the wiki now.
Here are my thoughts. I think America, and most countries these days are in a strange state. The population worldwide is growing, and it's common knowledge that stupider people have more children. This means that genetically, people will become more and more stupid. Since natural selection no longer exists for intelligence (stupid people have a high chance of reproducing), this state will continue. So in theory, the average IQ (if not normalized) should be decreasing. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertility_and_intelligence
But it isn't! The average IQ is rapidly getting smarter. I attribute this to a rapid improvement in the educational systems worldwide. This means that education is a bigger deal than genetics in determining how smart people are. (I'm aware IQ is not a great measurement of intelligence, but it is something to go by). http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flynn_effect
What we're seeing today is the clash between the people who have taken greatly to the the improved educational systems (high tier universities) and become significantly smarter than people from previous generations, and the people who have not and seem really ignorant on just about every subject.
The difference is so great it's like homo sapiens is branching in evolution into homo smartius and homo stupidius, even though genetically, both are the same.
How does what I've been saying tie in with the Tea Party? Well in my opinion, the people voting for the Tea Party are members of the Homo Stupidus Species lol. Many of these non-thinking conservative, unreasonable (blind religion creationism in school, guns, no abortion, no stem cell research) voters probably just didn't get a good education, and the few that did, were probably raised in a way to think too conservatively from a young age.
I'd also like to note that the rapid expansion in information technology has caused people to become louder about their ideas. Stupid people can be misinformed and enraged more easily.
I'm aware that this was a jumble of ideas, but I hope you can connect what I am trying to say into these summarizing lines. The people voting for Conservatives are about as intelligent as people from previous generations. They only seem stupid because you are relatively smarter than them because you took advantage of an improved educational system.
I think I'll keep my post count like this for a few days.
Sorry I didn't bother to find better sources, and sorry for almost sounding nazi here. I don't advocate exterminating genetically less intelligent people; I probably am one.
There is a huge flaw with your initial argument, what you're describing isn't evolution. Think of it like this, if 2 parents get together who are muscular does that mean their kid will just pop out muscular? The obvious answer is no. The same goes for lower intelligence parents and offspring.
While this is quite sad, American political system will not allow 'radicals' like her from making any difference at all, even if she is elected. No reason to predict the end of the world imo.
On September 18 2010 07:33 Scruffy wrote: The Tea Party is a movement of people who are tired of our out of control government sending us into an oblivion of debt. It is concerned with losing freedoms and our status in the world. Does that make them crazy?
No it's not. The Tea Party is just a catch phrase for a radicalized religious group wanting to impose Iran style theocracy on the United States, You can claim to be about small government, but imposing adherence to religious dogma on the populace requires massive government spending and growth, and this is exactly what the tea party claims they want. You really believe a morality police and the bureaucracy to go along with it will be free? The tea party supports massive spending and increased debt, they just want to borrow money from China to pay for different things then those on the left. Controlling spending is nothing but hollow rhetoric though, you can't simultaneously support 2 costly foreign wars, the drug war and all that entails, and new religious based legislation and enforcement thereof, while reducing spending.
Spare me the small government rhetoric and constitutional arguments. You right wingers have your own interpretation of the constitution; but that does not make make your opinions correct; in fact, the majority of the framers would dispute your interpretation. Though there are some, like Hamilton, that would certainly support some of your ideals. But that's one of the big things with the whole constitutional argument. It completely ignores reality. The framers themselves couldn't agree on exactly what everything meant; there is no way to look back on it now and honestly claim you know the specificities of each clause. The constitution is written in common sense English, as such it follows common sense principles; stating flatly Congress does not have the right to regulate health care under the commerce or general wealfare clauses is pretty esoteric and narrow, but common sense dictates Congress surely does. Also I find it amusing you cons go off on these tangents about things like medicare and social security, but then completely ignore the drug laws. Have some intellectual coherency, stop flip flopping all over the place.
After 4 years of rampant liberalism, we can see how that worked out (complete failure). Bush's compassionate conservatism isn't the answer either as far as I'm concerned.
What, Bush is a liberal now? I just don't get it, how can you function with that much cognitive dissonance?
On September 18 2010 07:33 Scruffy wrote: The Tea Party is a movement of people who are tired of our out of control government sending us into an oblivion of debt. It is concerned with losing freedoms and our status in the world. Does that make them crazy?
Question: Where were those guys 2001-2008? I suppose they were all stewing in their juices all throughout the Bush years and Obama was merely a tipping point, right? Excuse us if we don't buy that
How serious are these self-proclaimed conservatives about cutting spending, anyway? Here's some interesting data.
The only one that has close to a simple majority is Foreign Aid, which is a fraction of the annual US budget. As a side note, of that small fraction that is US foreign aid, only 12.8% is humanitarian - the rest is military/economic/political/developmental.(Source)
On September 18 2010 07:33 Scruffy wrote: She made the comments about masturbation when she was young and had more religious zeal. But thankfully, we can rely on the MSM to take that out of context.
The Tea Party is a movement of people who are tired of our out of control government sending us into an oblivion of debt. It is concerned with losing freedoms and our status in the world. Does that make them crazy?
After 4 years of rampant liberalism, we can see how that worked out (complete failure). Bush's compassionate conservatism isn't the answer either as far as I'm concerned.
What we need is a strong economy and a revitalization of America. And if the Tea Party can do it, then I am all for it.
Yet there are tons of tea baggers who are anti abortion (like the smut who won in delaware)
On September 18 2010 07:33 Scruffy wrote: She made the comments about masturbation when she was young and had more religious zeal. But thankfully, we can rely on the MSM to take that out of context.
The Tea Party is a movement of people who are tired of our out of control government sending us into an oblivion of debt. It is concerned with losing freedoms and our status in the world. Does that make them crazy?
After 4 years of rampant liberalism, we can see how that worked out (complete failure). Bush's compassionate conservatism isn't the answer either as far as I'm concerned.
What we need is a strong economy and a revitalization of America. And if the Tea Party can do it, then I am all for it.
IF they can do it. Too bad a touch of common sense and a glance at Tea Party attitudes/policies show pretty clearly they can't. Also, there's pretty much zero link of "4 years of rampant liberalism" to complete failure. How was the subprime mortgage crisis a result of liberalism, again?
On September 18 2010 07:33 Scruffy wrote: She made the comments about masturbation when she was young and had more religious zeal. But thankfully, we can rely on the MSM to take that out of context.
The Tea Party is a movement of people who are tired of our out of control government sending us into an oblivion of debt. It is concerned with losing freedoms and our status in the world. Does that make them crazy?
After 4 years of rampant liberalism, we can see how that worked out (complete failure). Bush's compassionate conservatism isn't the answer either as far as I'm concerned.
What we need is a strong economy and a revitalization of America. And if the Tea Party can do it, then I am all for it.
It's a "grassroots movement" funded by some of the richest men in America. But I'm sure they're in it for your "lost freedoms" and not for their own agenda.
This just makes it easier for the Democrats to win the actual election.
On September 18 2010 07:56 MoltkeWarding wrote: Hmm, I have considerable admiration for the tea party if only because they've made it this far. In most other countries you would have a few days of disorganized protests and maybe wasteful rioting.
Say what you want about Americans, but they don't like to simply lie down and shut up, and when they do thrash out in anger, they're capable of mass organization.
On September 18 2010 11:32 foeffa wrote: Rofl wtf is it with these Tea Party retards getting elected? This would be f'ing hilarious if it wasn't so tragic. Huge facepalm. -_-
None of them have actually been elected as of now. This was just the primary and in Nov they have to go up against the Democrats in the general elections.
Thankfully, the tea baggers are so damn extreme that it will be near impossible to get moderate republicans, independents and most everyone else to actually vote for them.
In 2008, O'Donnell called then presidential candidate Barack Obama "anti-American" because "he did not vote for English as the (nation's) official language. What does that say?".
On September 18 2010 11:32 foeffa wrote: Rofl wtf is it with these Tea Party retards getting elected? This would be f'ing hilarious if it wasn't so tragic. Huge facepalm. -_-
None of them have actually been elected as of now. This was just the primary and in Nov they have to go up against the Democrats in the general elections.
Thankfully, the tea baggers are so damn extreme that it will be near impossible to get moderate republicans, independents and most everyone else to actually vote for them.
Never underestimate the power of idiocy in this country, just look at Sarah Palin has no idea what the Senate does, and if I remember correctly had to have the VP debates rules changed because she had no fucking clue at all in what to do. Yet all of this the Republicans/Conservatives of this country worship her.
On September 18 2010 05:35 bumatlarge wrote: Adaptation and hereditary complexity could easily account for what would appear to be evolutionary evidence. With so much gray area, I'm really not willing to embrace evolution, and for personal reasons I feel the most logical choice is deism.
What 'appears' to be evidence for evolution is thus far explained only by evolution. I could go into more depth, but I don't feel like hijacking the thread. But I am bothered heavily by the way you oppose deism to evolution. Why could evolution not be the mechanism by which organisms came to be, after your deist god created the universe? Deism is strictly a position on the origin of the universe. Evolution is a theory about how life diversified AFTER it started. Those two have nothing to do with each other.
I don't think it would make sense for a god to use evolution as a means to produce intelligent human beings. We are supposed to be modeled after his own image, and if that means any life at all, when there goes half the reasoning. Evolution being a fact completely disproves any christian sentiments and ideals from my perspective.
On September 18 2010 07:56 MoltkeWarding wrote: Hmm, I have considerable admiration for the tea party if only because they've made it this far. In most other countries you would have a few days of disorganized protests and maybe wasteful rioting.
Say what you want about Americans, but they don't like to simply lie down and shut up, and when they do thrash out in anger, they're capable of mass organization.
There is a difference between real conservatism and the Republicans we have in office now. I would prefer to not be in the Middle East right now, but who knows, it may have prevented an attack on our own soil.
But what do I know, I'm just a retarded teabagger.
On September 18 2010 05:35 bumatlarge wrote: Adaptation and hereditary complexity could easily account for what would appear to be evolutionary evidence. With so much gray area, I'm really not willing to embrace evolution, and for personal reasons I feel the most logical choice is deism.
What 'appears' to be evidence for evolution is thus far explained only by evolution. I could go into more depth, but I don't feel like hijacking the thread. But I am bothered heavily by the way you oppose deism to evolution. Why could evolution not be the mechanism by which organisms came to be, after your deist god created the universe? Deism is strictly a position on the origin of the universe. Evolution is a theory about how life diversified AFTER it started. Those two have nothing to do with each other.
I don't think it would make sense for a god to use evolution as a means to produce intelligent human beings. We are supposed to be modeled after his own image, and if that means any life at all, when there goes half the reasoning. Evolution being a fact completely disproves any christian sentiments and ideals from my perspective.
If you want to discuss further I suggest opening another thread.
On September 18 2010 05:35 bumatlarge wrote: Adaptation and hereditary complexity could easily account for what would appear to be evolutionary evidence. With so much gray area, I'm really not willing to embrace evolution, and for personal reasons I feel the most logical choice is deism.
What 'appears' to be evidence for evolution is thus far explained only by evolution. I could go into more depth, but I don't feel like hijacking the thread. But I am bothered heavily by the way you oppose deism to evolution. Why could evolution not be the mechanism by which organisms came to be, after your deist god created the universe? Deism is strictly a position on the origin of the universe. Evolution is a theory about how life diversified AFTER it started. Those two have nothing to do with each other.
I don't think it would make sense for a god to use evolution as a means to produce intelligent human beings. We are supposed to be modeled after his own image, and if that means any life at all, when there goes half the reasoning. Evolution being a fact completely disproves any christian sentiments and ideals from my perspective.
If you want to discuss further I suggest opening another thread.
On September 18 2010 06:01 NotGood- wrote: religion shouldn't get taught in school)
I disagree. Religion should definitely be taught in school, as it is a big influence in the lives of people. It should not be taught as fact, however. But everybody should have a basic knowledge of the beliefs of the people around them. It's pretty hard to understand your fellow man if you don't understand his beliefs.
Yeah absolutely right. Aim of religion in school should be to explain different believes but definitly not try to convince pupils of them. The solution in germany in regards of this isn't too bad I'ld guess but still not perfect. Creationism in school is the worst idea I've ever heard for a school reform. School has to be scientific and lead to the pupils understanding things on their own, while creationism is the worst kind of pseudo science there is. Arguing with wrong facts, based on believes instead of science, but trying to disguise them as science. Humanism should be the thing beeing teached... my school had a compromise by teaching us the techniques used to analyse texts etc., and mainly used humanistic texts as examples to do so. Also our teachers were open minded in general which helps alot even when they hold back their personal opinions.
On September 18 2010 06:01 NotGood- wrote: religion shouldn't get taught in school)
I disagree. Religion should definitely be taught in school, as it is a big influence in the lives of people. It should not be taught as fact, however. But everybody should have a basic knowledge of the beliefs of the people around them. It's pretty hard to understand your fellow man if you don't understand his beliefs.
Really? Are you sure that drawing the line there makes any sense?? I mean, why not start mandatory, state-directed courses in culture, economics and politics? On some level I agree that schools should be about more than just helping people to prepare for the job market, but singling out religion is giving it too much credit. The reality is that rifts in beliefs about what's right and what's wrong (morality, ethics,..) go way beyond religion, even for religious people. Who's going to decide which identity topics get covered and in what way? What current subjects are going to be downgraded in favor of these new ones? Don't get me wrong, I like your idea. It just strikes me as problematic on several levels. Also, religion isn't rocket science and as long as there's diversity in schools, kids will automatically learn a thing or two about the different beliefs.
People saying humans were modeled after God = LOL. That would only work if there were lots of Gods and all the A+ student Gods created worlds far the hell away from this one, while we got the "special" God who still uses crayons and has to have someone wipe the snot off his nose.
On September 18 2010 06:01 NotGood- wrote: religion shouldn't get taught in school)
I disagree. Religion should definitely be taught in school, as it is a big influence in the lives of people. It should not be taught as fact, however. But everybody should have a basic knowledge of the beliefs of the people around them. It's pretty hard to understand your fellow man if you don't understand his beliefs.
Really? Are you sure that drawing the line there makes any sense?? I mean, why not start mandatory, state-directed courses in culture, economics and politics? On some level I agree that schools should be about more than just helping people to prepare for the job market, but singling out religion is giving it too much credit. The reality is that rifts in beliefs about what's right and what's wrong (morality, ethics,..) go way beyond religion, even for religious people. Who's going to decide which identity topics get covered and in what way? What current subjects are going to be downgraded in favor of these new ones? Don't get me wrong, I like your idea. It just strikes me as problematic on several levels. Also, religion isn't rocket science and as long as there's diversity in schools, kids will automatically learn a thing or two about the different beliefs.
I'm not drawing the line there. I support the teaching of mandatory courses in culture, economics and politics as well. I just assumed that those were already mandatory, as they are in Holland. Now those mandatory courses are very basic, as I think they should be. It's good to make sure everybody has a basic understanding of all these subjects. But you can't devote years to all that, or you won't have time left to properly prepare students for the job market (which isn't unimportant either).
:EDIT:
You're right that as long as schools are diverse, kids will automatically get in touch with different beliefs. But in reality not all schools are divers (at least not in Holland). Forcing schools to be diverse is as least as much of a headache as supporting a basic course in religious studies.
But I agree, I'm talking about what I'd like to see. I'm not saying it's all easy to put in practice. I don't have all the answers.
On September 18 2010 07:56 MoltkeWarding wrote: Hmm, I have considerable admiration for the tea party if only because they've made it this far. In most other countries you would have a few days of disorganized protests and maybe wasteful rioting.
Say what you want about Americans, but they don't like to simply lie down and shut up, and when they do thrash out in anger, they're capable of mass organization.
If nothing else, it's a sign of vitality.
I'd say more a sign of American stupidity...
Stupidity, ignorance, and corporate sponsorship.
I think the very arguments provided in this thread disproves the corporate sponsorship argument. The vast majority of that money go to the opponents of the tea party. Those are the very back-room dealings which the tea party idealism is revolting against.
As for stupidity, let us not pretend that the broad revulsion we feel for the ideals of the tea party has anything to do with the passion of the intellect. For one thing, the members of this forum who are among the most eager to call other stupid, are themselves fond of reductionism when convenient to the limitations of their knowledge (I personally find the term "Occam's razor" to be so overused here, that it has become little better than an embarrassed excuse.)
In our application, the intellect is synonymous with belief in progress, and not much more. This idolatry of the intellect (rather than possession of it) transforms us into a queer cult of people.
It's this fundamental oversight which drags the entire validity of the argument down. What we detest is not what we claim we detest. We claim to detest the processes whereas what we really detest are the aims. We claim to detest the power of a class of people who have been given insufficient schooling and acquaintance with modern ideas, whereas what we really detest are people who make certain intellectual choices. Once our own choices are decided, the rest is group-think, really no different from the thought process of the other side.
The difference is not that we're smart and they're dumb. The difference is that we like masturbation.
This is excellent! I couldn't be happier for Americans. What your system has always lacked is diversity, and it seems that you are finally going to get some. I can only hope that now the Democrats also splinter off so that we can start to see some truly dynamic politics, with the people being properly represented.
On September 19 2010 01:58 Ramsing wrote: This is excellent! I couldn't be happier for Americans. What your system has always lacked is diversity, and it seems that you are finally going to get some. I can only hope that now the Democrats also splinter off so that we can start to see some truly dynamic politics, with the people being properly represented.
I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but this Christine O'Donnell character should really be running for the House of Reps and not the Senate. If you're really concerned about Congress being filled with inexperienced hicks while wanting to preserve the democratic principle, I suggest repealing the 17th amendment.
While I have actually been to Tea Party rallies unlike 99% of the people in this thread O'Donnell was a poor choice but lets compare her competition. Koons, lol, is a self avowed marxist. So lets see what the great state of Delaware has given itself as choices for senate. A completely far right bible excessive nut who would make absolutely stupid decisions on all social policy. Or a completely far left nut who would rubber stamp every single spending and taxing bill in his quest for a social utopia through socialism.
When will people understand that we need NORMAL people in powers of office and that the current system is so thoroughly broken that it needs to be replaced. Does anyone actually truly think that McCain would of not done almost the exact same things Obama has? If so you are blinded by political nonsense from people like Maher or Limbaugh for your respective side.
There is a reason congress's approval rating is 11% Dem's have been in power since 2006 and after getting presidency in 2008 had a total complete majority. They could have and still can literally ram any bill they want through the GOP might as well not even be there but they still get blamed for everything guess whats gonna happen if the GOP does sweep and gets both houses back, you guessed it THE SAME THING. Wake up people it's a game even if you don't agree with the Tea Party what they stand for you should. The majority of us right wing extremists are actually pretty normal and don't bible hump or spew that the end of the world is coming and just want the same old shit out of D.C. to end.
At LegendJRG - A well thought out arguement. It's true, we really do need normal people. The problem is normal people mostly can't bother with politics because the very nature of politics disgusts us. Those who CAN lead do not desire the power, they desire what is best for both us, the country and themselves (unless you are a saint or Mother Teresa or one of the rare few, then you are truly selfless and a person to be admired).
On a slightly humorless note, if the Americans on this thread ( I myself included) think that crime rates are bad, imagine a area where masturbation is not allowed.
Aahh humanity, you never cease to amaze me! I wonder if, just imagining for a second, how the rest of the world would react if people like this actually wound up to rule the most "powerfull" nation on the planet atm. I for one would cut every single tie to the U.S and just bunker up for the inevitable armageddon.
On September 19 2010 02:27 Reaper9 wrote: On a slightly humorless note, if the Americans on this thread ( I myself included) think that crime rates are bad, imagine a area where masturbation is not allowed.
This would be interesting. I wonder what would happen with an entire population of sexually frustrated males, what mayhem they could achieve!
On September 19 2010 02:27 Reaper9 wrote: On a slightly humorless note, if the Americans on this thread ( I myself included) think that crime rates are bad, imagine a area where masturbation is not allowed.
This would be interesting. I wonder what would happen with an entire population of sexually frustrated males, what mayhem they could achieve!
Just look at those poor, religious fundamentalist Muslims. There's a reason a bunch of virgins in heaven is so appealing! No offense intended! =P
On September 18 2010 07:56 MoltkeWarding wrote: Hmm, I have considerable admiration for the tea party if only because they've made it this far. In most other countries you would have a few days of disorganized protests and maybe wasteful rioting.
Say what you want about Americans, but they don't like to simply lie down and shut up, and when they do thrash out in anger, they're capable of mass organization.
If nothing else, it's a sign of vitality.
I'd say more a sign of American stupidity...
Stupidity, ignorance, and corporate sponsorship.
I think the very arguments provided in this thread disproves the corporate sponsorship argument. The vast majority of that money go to the opponents of the tea party. Those are the very back-room dealings which the tea party idealism is revolting against.
As for stupidity, let us not pretend that the broad revulsion we feel for the ideals of the tea party has anything to do with the passion of the intellect. For one thing, the members of this forum who are among the most eager to call other stupid, are themselves fond of reductionism when convenient to the limitations of their knowledge (I personally find the term "Occam's razor" to be so overused here, that it has become little better than an embarrassed excuse.)
In our application, the intellect is synonymous with belief in progress, and not much more. This idolatry of the intellect (rather than possession of it) transforms us into a queer cult of people.
It's this fundamental oversight which drags the entire validity of the argument down. What we detest is not what we claim we detest. We claim to detest the processes whereas what we really detest are the aims. We claim to detest the power of a class of people who have been given insufficient schooling and acquaintance with modern ideas, whereas what we really detest are people who make certain intellectual choices. Once our own choices are decided, the rest is group-think, really no different from the thought process of the other side.
The difference is not that we're smart and they're dumb. The difference is that we like masturbation.
No. What I find amusing (she's not likely to become my problem after all, so revulsion is a bit far fetched) is how anyone can be so dumb/ignorant/whatever to actually believe such drivel. (Equally amusing: that actually a majority of rep. voters give such a "moron" their vote.) I certainly don't think of people with different religious/political/social/ideological positions as idiots. However when someone can not find his own arse with both hands, or see the factual fallacities in humans riding on dinosaurs 4000 years ago. When someone thinks 2+2=5 I don't "detest the aim". I detest the stupidity that led him to this conclusion. (While evolution might no be as universally "proven" as math, it's pretty damn close.)
Edit: Also I'm aware that a big part of it is being able to feel superior to someone like her and her voters.
GOP should be terrified of this development. They are just starting to gain steam again after the debacle that was the mid-2000s; the last thing they need is a splintered faction of pissed and barely coherent Tea Party members wresting control from their cherished "Reagan Republican" base.
I thought this would be a perfect time for the "socially moderate / fiscally conservative" Republicans to reassert themselves. It would appear I gravely underestimated the power of fear, anger and the American sense of pissed-off entitlement.
I still believe that the Obama administration and the Dems need to be given some more time. You can't stick someone in office for 2 years and expect everything to be fine. Everything takes time. The economic recession didn't just develop overnight and cleaning the mess up will take time. Patience, patience........
On September 19 2010 02:21 LegendJRG wrote: While I have actually been to Tea Party rallies unlike 99% of the people in this thread O'Donnell was a poor choice but lets compare her competition. Koons, lol, is a self avowed marxist. So lets see what the great state of Delaware has given itself as choices for senate. A completely far right bible excessive nut who would make absolutely stupid decisions on all social policy. Or a completely far left nut who would rubber stamp every single spending and taxing bill in his quest for a social utopia through socialism.
When will people understand that we need NORMAL people in powers of office and that the current system is so thoroughly broken that it needs to be replaced. Does anyone actually truly think that McCain would of not done almost the exact same things Obama has? If so you are blinded by political nonsense from people like Maher or Limbaugh for your respective side.
There is a reason congress's approval rating is 11% Dem's have been in power since 2006 and after getting presidency in 2008 had a total complete majority. They could have and still can literally ram any bill they want through the GOP might as well not even be there but they still get blamed for everything guess whats gonna happen if the GOP does sweep and gets both houses back, you guessed it THE SAME THING. Wake up people it's a game even if you don't agree with the Tea Party what they stand for you should. The majority of us right wing extremists are actually pretty normal and don't bible hump or spew that the end of the world is coming and just want the same old shit out of D.C. to end.
Sorry, when I compare the tea party rally video with (the intentions for) Jon Stewards, who I suppose you'd call "a part of the left wing media" rally to restore sanity, I don't see the Tea Baggers as "normal". Sure, some seem nice and decent, but practically all are horribly ignorant and uninformed.
Why does everyone hate the Tea Party so much? They have no stated views. They aren't trying to achieve any particular goals as far as I can tell. They're just a group of individuals with relatively disparate views yelling incomprehensibly about a bunch of things (or maybe nothing, I can't really tell). The only points that they seem largely to agree on are small government and conservatism (however that's defined). Small government is what the republican party for years has advocated but never delivered. If anything, the Tea Party movement might actually influence republicans to stop spending ludicrous sums of money every time they get into office.
wow after viewing this thread i didnt realize there were many radical leftists in gaming. It does make sense though, the radical left does attract loser-types.
The tea party is a legitimate organization. 12 trillion is our national debt, and the democrats want to spend more. granted the republicans are just as stupid and will spend just as much.
this is why the tea party has emerged, because the american public is SMART enough to realize that both main parties are for all intents and purposes, the same. tea party supporters are not ignorant, as the OP suggested, rather they understand that they are being screwed in a hardcore fashion.
Not to mention the trade deficit which is i believe around 50 billion, which china supports us by buying our debt in the form of treasury bills.
Now americas problem are much more than just economic, but if you look @ just the economics you can see we have a huge problem. of course leftists will say oh just raise tax's. but the real solution that will help the average main streeter is to cut taxes and thats why the tea party has alot of support.
of course if you cut tax's, you have to cut spending, which neither main party is willing to do. the repub's dont want to cut on warfare spending, and the dem's dont want to cut welfare spending. BOTH have to cut, the tea party knows this,
On September 19 2010 11:22 911insidejob wrote: wow after viewing this thread i didnt realize there were many radical leftists in gaming. It does make sense though, the radical left does attract loser-types.
The tea party is a legitimate organization. 12 trillion is our national debt, and the democrats want to spend more. granted the republicans are just as stupid and will spend just as much.
this is why the tea party has emerged, because the american public is SMART enough to realize that both main parties are for all intents and purposes, the same. tea party supporters are not ignorant, as the OP suggested, rather they understand that they are being screwed in a hardcore fashion.
Not to mention the trade deficit which is i believe around 50 billion, which china supports us by buying our debt in the form of treasury bills.
Now americas problem are much more than just economic, but if you look @ just the economics you can see we have a huge problem. of course leftists will say oh just raise tax's. but the real solution that will help the average main streeter is to cut taxes and thats why the tea party has alot of support.
of course if you cut tax's, you have to cut spending, which neither main party is willing to do. the repub's dont want to cut on warfare spending, and the dem's dont want to cut welfare spending. BOTH have to cut, the tea party knows this,
RON PAUL 2012
I apologize then that the Tea Party has been over run by bigots and religious radicals.
On September 19 2010 11:22 911insidejob wrote: wow after viewing this thread i didnt realize there were many radical leftists in gaming. It does make sense though, the radical left does attract loser-types.
The tea party is a legitimate organization. 12 trillion is our national debt, and the democrats want to spend more. granted the republicans are just as stupid and will spend just as much.
this is why the tea party has emerged, because the american public is SMART enough to realize that both main parties are for all intents and purposes, the same. tea party supporters are not ignorant, as the OP suggested, rather they understand that they are being screwed in a hardcore fashion.
Not to mention the trade deficit which is i believe around 50 billion, which china supports us by buying our debt in the form of treasury bills.
Now americas problem are much more than just economic, but if you look @ just the economics you can see we have a huge problem. of course leftists will say oh just raise tax's. but the real solution that will help the average main streeter is to cut taxes and thats why the tea party has alot of support.
of course if you cut tax's, you have to cut spending, which neither main party is willing to do. the repub's dont want to cut on warfare spending, and the dem's dont want to cut welfare spending. BOTH have to cut, the tea party knows this,
RON PAUL 2012
I can't recall any Tea Party protesting Military spending.
On September 19 2010 11:22 911insidejob wrote: wow after viewing this thread i didnt realize there were many radical leftists in gaming. It does make sense though, the radical left does attract loser-types.
The tea party is a legitimate organization. 12 trillion is our national debt, and the democrats want to spend more. granted the republicans are just as stupid and will spend just as much.
this is why the tea party has emerged, because the american public is SMART enough to realize that both main parties are for all intents and purposes, the same. tea party supporters are not ignorant, as the OP suggested, rather they understand that they are being screwed in a hardcore fashion.
Not to mention the trade deficit which is i believe around 50 billion, which china supports us by buying our debt in the form of treasury bills.
Now americas problem are much more than just economic, but if you look @ just the economics you can see we have a huge problem. of course leftists will say oh just raise tax's. but the real solution that will help the average main streeter is to cut taxes and thats why the tea party has alot of support.
of course if you cut tax's, you have to cut spending, which neither main party is willing to do. the repub's dont want to cut on warfare spending, and the dem's dont want to cut welfare spending. BOTH have to cut, the tea party knows this,
RON PAUL 2012
The tea-party is bunch of delusional white people that want the impossible. Economics isn't magic, no matter how hard you pray.
It doesn't matter how many delusional lunatics you get into power, nothing is going to change that.
Whatever their "true" goals an ideas were, all that is left is another media laughing stock led by Beck, Palin and Limbaugh.
On September 19 2010 11:22 911insidejob wrote: wow after viewing this thread i didnt realize there were many radical leftists in gaming. It does make sense though, the radical left does attract loser-types.
The tea party is a legitimate organization. 12 trillion is our national debt, and the democrats want to spend more. granted the republicans are just as stupid and will spend just as much.
this is why the tea party has emerged, because the american public is SMART enough to realize that both main parties are for all intents and purposes, the same. tea party supporters are not ignorant, as the OP suggested, rather they understand that they are being screwed in a hardcore fashion.
Not to mention the trade deficit which is i believe around 50 billion, which china supports us by buying our debt in the form of treasury bills.
Now americas problem are much more than just economic, but if you look @ just the economics you can see we have a huge problem. of course leftists will say oh just raise tax's. but the real solution that will help the average main streeter is to cut taxes and thats why the tea party has alot of support.
of course if you cut tax's, you have to cut spending, which neither main party is willing to do. the repub's dont want to cut on warfare spending, and the dem's dont want to cut welfare spending. BOTH have to cut, the tea party knows this,
RON PAUL 2012
I can't recall any Tea Party protesting Military spending.
Yes your correct the tea party doesnt want to stop military spending that i know of. I know the Paul supporters do want to stop military spending.
as for the comments about religion etc i didnt mention religion.
as for the comments about economics being magic and the rest, typical comment from a leftist. yes the tea partiers are white, you said a bunch of nonsense that doesnt refute anything.
On September 19 2010 11:22 911insidejob wrote: wow after viewing this thread i didnt realize there were many radical leftists in gaming. It does make sense though, the radical left does attract loser-types.
Gaming is filled with young people, young people lean left. No news there.
The tea party is a legitimate organization. 12 trillion is our national debt, and the democrats want to spend more. granted the republicans are just as stupid and will spend just as much.
this is why the tea party has emerged, because the american public is SMART enough to realize that both main parties are for all intents and purposes, the same. tea party supporters are not ignorant, as the OP suggested, rather they understand that they are being screwed in a hardcore fashion.
Not to mention the trade deficit which is i believe around 50 billion, which china supports us by buying our debt in the form of treasury bills.
Now americas problem are much more than just economic, but if you look @ just the economics you can see we have a huge problem. of course leftists will say oh just raise tax's. but the real solution that will help the average main streeter is to cut taxes and thats why the tea party has alot of support.
of course if you cut tax's, you have to cut spending, which neither main party is willing to do. the repub's dont want to cut on warfare spending, and the dem's dont want to cut welfare spending. BOTH have to cut, the tea party knows this,
RON PAUL 2012
As a conservative republican and someone who has actually attended a tea party event; I appreciate what you are trying to say. However Ron Paul is not our answer, and I really can't make sense of half of what you are saying.
And IMO, anyone with the username "911insidejob" should be instantly banned from the internet.
On September 19 2010 11:22 911insidejob wrote: wow after viewing this thread i didnt realize there were many radical leftists in gaming. It does make sense though, the radical left does attract loser-types.
Gaming is filled with young people, young people lean left. No news there.
On September 19 2010 11:22 911insidejob wrote: wow after viewing this thread i didnt realize there were many radical leftists in gaming. It does make sense though, the radical left does attract loser-types.
Gaming is filled with young people, young people lean left. No news there.
The tea party is a legitimate organization. 12 trillion is our national debt, and the democrats want to spend more. granted the republicans are just as stupid and will spend just as much.
this is why the tea party has emerged, because the american public is SMART enough to realize that both main parties are for all intents and purposes, the same. tea party supporters are not ignorant, as the OP suggested, rather they understand that they are being screwed in a hardcore fashion.
Not to mention the trade deficit which is i believe around 50 billion, which china supports us by buying our debt in the form of treasury bills.
Now americas problem are much more than just economic, but if you look @ just the economics you can see we have a huge problem. of course leftists will say oh just raise tax's. but the real solution that will help the average main streeter is to cut taxes and thats why the tea party has alot of support.
of course if you cut tax's, you have to cut spending, which neither main party is willing to do. the repub's dont want to cut on warfare spending, and the dem's dont want to cut welfare spending. BOTH have to cut, the tea party knows this,
RON PAUL 2012
As a conservative republican and someone who has actually attended a tea party event; I appreciate what you are trying to say. However Ron Paul is not our answer, and I really can't make sense of half of what you are saying.
And IMO, anyone with the username "911insidejob" should be instantly banned from the internet.
I would also add that anyone who ends posts with "RON PAUL 2012" be disqualified from being able to post on the interweb for a week, along with a week of mandatory English classes for using tax's instead of taxes, etc.
I'm not sure it is possible to defend the Tea Party as any sort of intellectual player in politics.
This graph would also like to have a word with you about main problem facing small businesses. Hint: it is weak demand caused by a financial collapse and recession, not communists in the White House!
On September 18 2010 06:01 NotGood- wrote: religion shouldn't get taught in school)
I disagree. Religion should definitely be taught in school, as it is a big influence in the lives of people. It should not be taught as fact, however. But everybody should have a basic knowledge of the beliefs of the people around them. It's pretty hard to understand your fellow man if you don't understand his beliefs.
Really? Are you sure that drawing the line there makes any sense?? I mean, why not start mandatory, state-directed courses in culture, economics and politics? On some level I agree that schools should be about more than just helping people to prepare for the job market, but singling out religion is giving it too much credit. The reality is that rifts in beliefs about what's right and what's wrong (morality, ethics,..) go way beyond religion, even for religious people. Who's going to decide which identity topics get covered and in what way? What current subjects are going to be downgraded in favor of these new ones? Don't get me wrong, I like your idea. It just strikes me as problematic on several levels. Also, religion isn't rocket science and as long as there's diversity in schools, kids will automatically learn a thing or two about the different beliefs.
fwiw they did have courses (very basic of course) on culture (more in the sense of historical cultures), economics, and government in my high school. I'd totally support a "survey of world religions" course that teaches the facts of major religions - ie, what they actually believe, how they were founded, where they are most commonly practiced and how common they are in this country as well. So much fear, or even hate, is based around misconceptions.
Regardless of your stance regarding the role of the state, big or small, if you really have that low an opinion of your elected representatives, would it not be better if you elected smarter people next time, instead of dumber? You really get the politicians you deserve.
This woman has a blank look in her eyes, characteristic of an intense Christian. It is pathetic that people have any support for this person, but at least I have someone to hate.
On September 19 2010 21:52 aRod wrote: This woman has a blank look in her eyes, characteristic of an intense Christian. It is pathetic that people have any support for this person, but at least I have someone to hate.
This statement is vacuous, it's simply hollow spite.
I'm opposed to the tea party because they are using the rhetoric of "small government" and "controlling spending" to advance positions directly contrary to these stated goals (ie increased military interventionalism, and forced religious dogma on society by The State). But saying you feel good to hate someone because they have hollow looking eyes, and are "lol Christian" makes you worse in my eyes then those you oppose.
I think by the blank look in her eyes, he means that she appears to have all the logic center of a Pentium 486 and the comprehension of a baboon. He probably doesn't care how the eyes that evolution happened to give her appear.
She doesn't believe in evolution? That would be fascinating if she were a biologist. She doesn't like abortion? It doesn't bother me if she never has one. But it's not helpful to man, to the rest of us, when people fall into her dogmatic ignorance.
Regardless if you think an individual is qualified for public office, the principle of commoners being involved in our government is kind of....THE WAY THIS COUNTRY STARTED.
I, for one, think a lot of good would come from having less career politicians who are corrupt and live in their DC bubble. It is healthy to have average citizens be this involved, no matter their views.
If their views are spoonfed to them from some a-hole on television who is only in it for the money, then no, that's the least healthy thing I could possibly think of for this country.
On September 20 2010 01:04 0neder wrote: Regardless if you think an individual is qualified for public office, the principle of commoners being involved in our government is kind of....THE WAY THIS COUNTRY STARTED.
I, for one, think a lot of good would come from having less career politicians who are corrupt and live in their DC bubble. It is healthy to have average citizens be this involved, no matter their views.
You know the majority of the founding fathers are far from "commoners" right?
That said, they were at least intelligent and capable of some compromise.
On September 18 2010 09:09 Gann1 wrote: it's a shame because Castle would've made a good senator... he's done a good job for us in the House for a long time.
he can pull what Lieberman did back in 2006 and run as an independent lol
On September 20 2010 01:04 0neder wrote: Regardless if you think an individual is qualified for public office, the principle of commoners being involved in our government is kind of....THE WAY THIS COUNTRY STARTED.
I, for one, think a lot of good would come from having less career politicians who are corrupt and live in their DC bubble. It is healthy to have average citizens be this involved, no matter their views.
it's laughably inaccurate to insinuate that the founders of the country were anything but a group of elites
Well, now I can see why people would support her. Obviously everyone wants their leader to develop the nation into novel-like modern magical empire (or at least she managed to enchant people into believing above, which is just as equally as realistic).
After the Friday release of footage of Christine O’Donnell’s 1999 confession to dabbling in witchcraft in her teens, Republican nominee for the Delaware Senate seat has cancelled every scheduled appearance since. After the tape’s release by Bill Maher, the hosts of scheduled shows have received last-minute notices that she would be absent, but have never obtained any explanations. The nominee did appear on “Real Time with Bill Maher” in response to his request and solidified the confession in the aired interview.
I wonder... did those conservatives ever read the poem engraved in the statue of liberty? There might be an interpretation of it which could be a little contradictional to their immigration policy. Slightly. + Show Spoiler +
Not like the brazen giant of Greek fame With conquering limbs astride from land to land Here at our sea-washed, sunset gates shall stand A mighty woman with a torch, whose flame Is the imprisoned lightning, and her name Mother of Exiles. From her beacon-hand Glows world-wide welcome; her mild eyes command The air-bridged harbor that twin cities frame.
„Keep, ancient lands, your storied pomp!“ cries she With silent lips. „Give me your tired, your poor, Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free, The wretched refuse of your teeming shore. Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me: I lift my lamp beside the golden door.“
Christine O'Donnel... what a laughing stock. I can't believe what nonsense she talks. "In 2006, she told a newspaper that homosexuals have an "identity disorder" that is "adopted through societal factors."". Yeah great must be the reason why there is a remarkable amount of homosexual animals and why identical twins share one sexual orientation while unidentical twins don't.
As German Georg Schramm said (human rights in germany as a topic) "We've been progressed further once in enlightenment. The americans also. Now they're back to hunting the devil."
On September 25 2010 12:43 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Well Bill Maher just showed another clip this time her stating that Evolution is a myth and if it was true why were there still monkeys or w/e.
“We were a big noisy family with a lot of backyard skits and carnivals,” said Ms. O’Donnell, whose mother, Carole, called her Chrissy the Pooh and whose father, Daniel, worked a series of small television roles before scoring his signature gig — playing Bozo the Clown.
Ms. O’Donnell has faced charges this week that she lied about her educational record — a claim on two online business networking sites that she had attended Oxford University when in fact she participated in a summer program from the Phoenix Institute, which was housed at the elite British university. “I was never dishonest about my education,” she said. “Whether someone put it there to call me a liar, whatever.”
Ms. O’Donnell was joined Thursday by her oldest sister, Jennie, a lesbian who seems unbothered by Christine’s past statements about homosexuals (they have an “identity disorder,” she said in 2006) and has moved temporarily from Los Angeles to help on the campaign. “Blood is thicker than politics,” explained Jennie, a self-described expert in the “healing arts.”
It's funny that this stuff is coming from Bill Maher, since he doesn't believe in vaccines because he doesn't believe germs cause disease.
Tons more where that came from. Very ironic for him to poke fun at someone else for holding onto a few beliefs that run contrary to established scientific consensus when he obviously has several of his own.
On September 20 2010 01:04 0neder wrote: Regardless if you think an individual is qualified for public office, the principle of commoners being involved in our government is kind of....THE WAY THIS COUNTRY STARTED.
I, for one, think a lot of good would come from having less career politicians who are corrupt and live in their DC bubble. It is healthy to have average citizens be this involved, no matter their views.
You know the majority of the founding fathers are far from "commoners" right?
That said, they were at least intelligent and capable of some compromise.
If you narrow the group of founding fathers you're looking at to just the Framers of the Constitution, you will not find a single commoner among them.
On October 03 2010 08:29 Biochemist wrote: It's funny that this stuff is coming from Bill Maher, since he doesn't believe in vaccines because he doesn't believe germs cause disease.
Tons more where that came from. Very ironic for him to poke fun at someone else for holding onto a few beliefs that run contrary to established scientific consensus when he obviously has several of his own.
Yeah, as a comedian, I think Maher is hilarious, and many of his arguments are valid, but as a philosopher, he's kinda dropping the ball here.
Wow all this hate. This is America and its the will of the people. As long as she followed all the rules in a free election she deserves the nomination. It seems that people who disagree with whatever she stands for is calling her supporters morons and idiots and how she doesn't deserve the nomination. I am embarrassed by the ridicule she is receiving. Don't agree with her? Don't vote for her. No need to be disrespectful of the Delaware Republicans.
On October 03 2010 08:29 Biochemist wrote: It's funny that this stuff is coming from Bill Maher, since he doesn't believe in vaccines because he doesn't believe germs cause disease.
Tons more where that came from. Very ironic for him to poke fun at someone else for holding onto a few beliefs that run contrary to established scientific consensus when he obviously has several of his own.
No interest in watching that video as Maher is not running for office nor does he hold any interest for me, and discrediting Maher's scientific knowledge doesn't help O'Donnell's status as a moron, at all. I don't think many people care about Maher.
Does she believe in using fear? My parents are Republicans, and they always told me that if we elected Obama, that the government would control every aspect of our lives and that if we passed "Obamacare" that with all my medical problems, I'd die, because I'd have to wait six months to visit my doctor. Because any poor person could go to the hospital that I go to. And to justify it they tell me that that's how the universal health care in Canada works.
On October 03 2010 10:29 Ferrose wrote: Does she believe in using fear? My parents are Republicans, and they always told me that if we elected Obama, that the government would control every aspect of our lives and that if we passed "Obamacare" that with all my medical problems, I'd die, because I'd have to wait six months to visit my doctor. Because any poor person could go to the hospital that I go to. And to justify it they tell me that that's how the universal health care in Canada works.
well to be frank, you'll be glad when you move out and see the real world.
On October 03 2010 10:29 Ferrose wrote: I'd die, because I'd have to wait six months to visit my doctor. Because any poor person could go to the hospital that I go to.
Just as a question, what would they answer if you asked them if they were ok with poor people dying because they can't afford to pay the hospital.
... Who the hell is this broad? I've never heard of her before. Is the Tea Party trying to convince us that random bitches who crawl out of the woodwork to run for government spots are indeed somehow qualified for those positions?
The fact that I know nothing about her means I like her more than the politicians I know something about. Usually people who're "qualified" are just slimey.
On October 03 2010 10:29 Ferrose wrote: I'd die, because I'd have to wait six months to visit my doctor. Because any poor person could go to the hospital that I go to.
Just as a question, what would they answer if you asked them if they were ok with poor people dying because they can't afford to pay the hospital.
Honestly, I don't know. Probably something dumb though.
Most conservative Americans seem to think if there was a public option for healthcare in the US the sky will fall down. Don't they realize many other western countries have had public healthcare for decades and manage to provide decent healthcare at a lesser cost? Is it really such a bad thing to have an option? It's not like someone's going to hold a gun to your head and prevent you from using private health insurance if that's what you want.
... Who the hell is this broad? I've never heard of her before. Is the Tea Party trying to convince us that random bitches who crawl out of the woodwork to run for government spots are indeed somehow qualified for those positions?
The fact that I know nothing about her means I like her more than the politicians I know something about. Usually people who're "qualified" are just slimey.
The fact that you are uninformed on her views and ideals means you like her? What? Educate yourself on her opinions before you make an opinion of her. She's just as slimey as the more qualified leaders.
This woman has a blank look in her eyes, characteristic of an intense Christian. It is pathetic that people have any support for this person, but at least I have someone to hate.
...
How very enlightened of you. I'm convinced you'd be the guy lighting the torches, oiling the racks and pressurizing the gas chambers in another age, another time.
On October 03 2010 10:29 Ferrose wrote: Does she believe in using fear? My parents are Republicans, and they always told me that if we elected Obama, that the government would control every aspect of our lives and that if we passed "Obamacare" that with all my medical problems, I'd die, because I'd have to wait six months to visit my doctor. Because any poor person could go to the hospital that I go to. And to justify it they tell me that that's how the universal health care in Canada works.
Your parents are a perfect example of what Republican scare tactics do to good people. :\
On October 03 2010 10:29 Ferrose wrote: Does she believe in using fear? My parents are Republicans, and they always told me that if we elected Obama, that the government would control every aspect of our lives and that if we passed "Obamacare" that with all my medical problems, I'd die, because I'd have to wait six months to visit my doctor. Because any poor person could go to the hospital that I go to. And to justify it they tell me that that's how the universal health care in Canada works.
Your parents are a perfect example of what Republican scare tactics do to good people. :\
Yup. They always tell me to DVR Glenn Beck everyday too. -_-
And they've gone to a couple Tea Party protests on Tax Day.
On October 03 2010 13:50 thopol wrote: Hearing things like this make me never want to move back. You hear me USA? Clean up your act or you'll never get custody of thopol again.
is there really any good country in the world? O.o :\
On October 03 2010 08:29 Biochemist wrote: It's funny that this stuff is coming from Bill Maher, since he doesn't believe in vaccines because he doesn't believe germs cause disease.
Tons more where that came from. Very ironic for him to poke fun at someone else for holding onto a few beliefs that run contrary to established scientific consensus when he obviously has several of his own.
And they've gone to a couple Tea Party protests on Tax Day.
Another thing I hate about Tea Party Protesters. They have no fucking balls. You hate taxes? Be a baller like Henry David Thoreau and go to jail protesting. If even 10,000 people did this, something significant would happen in your favor.
And they've gone to a couple Tea Party protests on Tax Day.
Another thing I hate about Tea Party Protesters. They have no fucking balls. You hate taxes? Be a baller like Henry David Thoreau and go to jail protesting. If even 10,000 people did this, something significant would happen in your favor.
their taxes are going down though... they're an enigma i guess
On October 03 2010 13:50 thopol wrote: Hearing things like this make me never want to move back. You hear me USA? Clean up your act or you'll never get custody of thopol again.
is there really any good country in the world? O.o :\
Some are better or worse than others. That's kinda the idea.
I'm also ignorant to a lot of the problems in countries I'm less familiar with, which makes the political and cultural atmosphere much easier to deal with. I'm a former poli sci major that is quite interested in politics, including local ones, it's just that there is a language barrier. I also have never been involved in the political process since high school and I have never voted. My views are radical and I have never thought involvement in the democratic process to have impact or be morally demanded.
On October 03 2010 08:29 Biochemist wrote: It's funny that this stuff is coming from Bill Maher, since he doesn't believe in vaccines because he doesn't believe germs cause disease.
Tons more where that came from. Very ironic for him to poke fun at someone else for holding onto a few beliefs that run contrary to established scientific consensus when he obviously has several of his own.
Hypocritical, not ironic.
Also, "because" (or whatever proper alternative) instead of "since". The latter is associated with time.
And they've gone to a couple Tea Party protests on Tax Day.
Another thing I hate about Tea Party Protesters. They have no fucking balls. You hate taxes? Be a baller like Henry David Thoreau and go to jail protesting. If even 10,000 people did this, something significant would happen in your favor.
Walden is more badass than going to jail for protesting - especially when your reasons for protesting are so ignorant, regressive, barbaric, and ill-willed.
Bill Maher is really bad, guys. He is a smug, pompous, contrarian douchenozzle to the point where you almost don't want to agree with him on anything because it means you agree with him.
That said, most of this topic and the Tea Party in general just makes me want to go back to bed.
On October 03 2010 14:08 Masamune wrote: Well...we're cooler. In all senses of that word.
But what else am I gonna do after taking years and years of German in school?
And, another fear tactic with my parents: They told me that maybe I think liberally now, but that when I'm older and I've "learned how the world works," I'll realize that I should be conservative.
On October 03 2010 08:29 Biochemist wrote: It's funny that this stuff is coming from Bill Maher, since he doesn't believe in vaccines because he doesn't believe germs cause disease.
Tons more where that came from. Very ironic for him to poke fun at someone else for holding onto a few beliefs that run contrary to established scientific consensus when he obviously has several of his own.
Hypocritical, not ironic.
Also, "because" (or whatever proper alternative) instead of "since". The latter is associated with time.
1. The sarah palins of the republican party who advocate smaller government, a larger military force, and christian government ideals.
2. The ron pauls of the libertarian movement who advocate small government (and actually mean it), less military presence, and a more local government ideals.
That is the problem, half come from one camp, half from the other, and many are somewhere in between. Overall though, the tea party represents the idea that republicans are too similar to democrats on many issues, especially involving budget and economics, that they need to dissent. I'm not sure i would call myself a tea party person, i certainly believe in the ideals of liberty and freedom from government and call myself a "libertarian" for the most part.
Oh for reference, here is a sample of the type of people in the tea party.
Evolution Theory scientist in his lab Creationist Theory scientist in his lab Edit: Decided to make an actual post after reading the ny times article. Almost every single quote from a teabagger made me facepalm. They don't want tax money spent on helping the poor, but then state how they are worried about their family members losing their jobs, i.e. possibly becoming poor. You think this would make them more understanding of programs to help those not so well off as themselves, The quote that epitomizes the teabagger movement for me is “The only way they will stop the spending is to have a revolt on their hands,”. I do not believe any of these over 45 white males have the balls to be a part of a revolution, much less actually inspire one. They say they are angry, but do they really have any actual ire? Teabaggers, to me, act like a child who has had his request for a candy bar rebuffed at the checkout, and is now throwing a fit, punching the magazine racks and making everyone behind in line, feel uncomfortable and ashamed of children in general.
On October 03 2010 08:29 Biochemist wrote: It's funny that this stuff is coming from Bill Maher, since he doesn't believe in vaccines because he doesn't believe germs cause disease.
Tons more where that came from. Very ironic for him to poke fun at someone else for holding onto a few beliefs that run contrary to established scientific consensus when he obviously has several of his own.
What in the world?... Did you even watch the clip you linked?
He specifically says at 3:00 "Let me clear up some things that people have been saying and writing about me that are not true. I am not a germ theory denier, I understand that germs and viruses cause disease.."
This woman has a blank look in her eyes, characteristic of an intense Christian. It is pathetic that people have any support for this person, but at least I have someone to hate.
...
How very enlightened of you. I'm convinced you'd be the guy lighting the torches, oiling the racks and pressurizing the gas chambers in another age, another time.
Did you read the part where I said lots more where that came from? The guy is a total crackpot when it comes to modern medicine. Do some reading on your own.
On October 03 2010 08:29 Biochemist wrote: It's funny that this stuff is coming from Bill Maher, since he doesn't believe in vaccines because he doesn't believe germs cause disease.
Tons more where that came from. Very ironic for him to poke fun at someone else for holding onto a few beliefs that run contrary to established scientific consensus when he obviously has several of his own.
What in the world?... Did you even watch the clip you linked?
He specifically says at 3:00 "Let me clear up some things that people have been saying and writing about me that are not true. I am not a germ theory denier, I understand that germs and viruses cause disease.."
I hadn't watched this one specifically, but he's lying through his teeth when he says that to save face.
edit: more specifically, there are many shades of germ theory denialism. Just because he isn't totally off the deep end doesn't mean he isn't still a loon.
But I agree that his opinion matters less since he's not actually running for office. I only pointed it out because it struck me as a little funny.
Why? Ask Noam Chomsky. These people are protesting against the two-pronged business party government. They have all the wrong ideas but they are challenging power structures that are incredibly entrenched by "democratic" standards. Organized populist movements are exactly what us politics needs, although I agree it would be preferable if it came from the left, or at least was at all coherent.
WASHINGTON — Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell of Delaware said in a 2006 debate that China was plotting to take over America and claimed to have classified information about the country that she couldn't divulge.
O'Donnell's comments came as she and two other Republican candidates debated U.S. policy on China during Delaware's 2006 Senate primary, which O'Donnell ultimately lost.
She said China had a "carefully thought out and strategic plan to take over America" and accused one opponent of appeasement for suggesting that the two countries were economically dependent and should find a way to be allies.
WASHINGTON — Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell of Delaware said in a 2006 debate that China was plotting to take over America and claimed to have classified information about the country that she couldn't divulge.
O'Donnell's comments came as she and two other Republican candidates debated U.S. policy on China during Delaware's 2006 Senate primary, which O'Donnell ultimately lost.
She said China had a "carefully thought out and strategic plan to take over America" and accused one opponent of appeasement for suggesting that the two countries were economically dependent and should find a way to be allies.
The Tea Party movement is getting scary as shit now. Is the only reason O'Donnell is being supported is because she's a Protestant and she's a buffoon? Politicians should be the educated elite, not the common idiot.
On October 14 2010 11:08 Deathstar wrote: The Tea Party movement is getting scary as shit now. Is the only reason O'Donnell is being supported is because she's a Protestant and she's a buffoon? Politicians should be the educated elite, not the common idiot.
As democracy is perfected, the office represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. We move toward a lofty ideal. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last, and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.
On October 14 2010 11:08 Deathstar wrote: The Tea Party movement is getting scary as shit now. Is the only reason O'Donnell is being supported is because she's a Protestant and she's a buffoon? Politicians should be the educated elite, not the common idiot.
But the educated elite are all evil and want to control our lives and create a new world order!
WASHINGTON — Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell of Delaware said in a 2006 debate that China was plotting to take over America and claimed to have classified information about the country that she couldn't divulge.
O'Donnell's comments came as she and two other Republican candidates debated U.S. policy on China during Delaware's 2006 Senate primary, which O'Donnell ultimately lost.
She said China had a "carefully thought out and strategic plan to take over America" and accused one opponent of appeasement for suggesting that the two countries were economically dependent and should find a way to be allies.
your source is the huffington post. cmon. srsly? in all honesty. I hope she wins. I want something different in washington. Not some fuck head with strings attached to him.
WASHINGTON — Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell of Delaware said in a 2006 debate that China was plotting to take over America and claimed to have classified information about the country that she couldn't divulge.
O'Donnell's comments came as she and two other Republican candidates debated U.S. policy on China during Delaware's 2006 Senate primary, which O'Donnell ultimately lost.
She said China had a "carefully thought out and strategic plan to take over America" and accused one opponent of appeasement for suggesting that the two countries were economically dependent and should find a way to be allies.
your source is the huffington post. cmon. srsly? in all honesty. I hope she wins. I want something different in washington. Not some fuck head with strings attached to him.
I want competent people in Washington, not incompetents like her and Palin. I want people with real, concrete ideas and a plan, not empty slogans.
WASHINGTON — Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell of Delaware said in a 2006 debate that China was plotting to take over America and claimed to have classified information about the country that she couldn't divulge.
O'Donnell's comments came as she and two other Republican candidates debated U.S. policy on China during Delaware's 2006 Senate primary, which O'Donnell ultimately lost.
She said China had a "carefully thought out and strategic plan to take over America" and accused one opponent of appeasement for suggesting that the two countries were economically dependent and should find a way to be allies.
your source is the huffington post. cmon. srsly? in all honesty. I hope she wins. I want something different in washington. Not some fuck head with strings attached to him.
Shouldn't you cite some "real" information from your good ole pal Fox news? Haven't Glenn and Hannity told you what to say already?
WASHINGTON — Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell of Delaware said in a 2006 debate that China was plotting to take over America and claimed to have classified information about the country that she couldn't divulge.
O'Donnell's comments came as she and two other Republican candidates debated U.S. policy on China during Delaware's 2006 Senate primary, which O'Donnell ultimately lost.
She said China had a "carefully thought out and strategic plan to take over America" and accused one opponent of appeasement for suggesting that the two countries were economically dependent and should find a way to be allies.
your source is the huffington post. cmon. srsly? in all honesty. I hope she wins. I want something different in washington. Not some fuck head with strings attached to him.
I want competent people in Washington, not incompetents like her and Palin. I want people with real, concrete ideas and a plan, not empty slogans.
Shes not incompetent. She just said shit when she was young and got caught. Honestly, im sure if you met these people and actually had an honest talk with them you would realize they aren't so "retarded" as certain media posts like to show.
WASHINGTON — Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell of Delaware said in a 2006 debate that China was plotting to take over America and claimed to have classified information about the country that she couldn't divulge.
O'Donnell's comments came as she and two other Republican candidates debated U.S. policy on China during Delaware's 2006 Senate primary, which O'Donnell ultimately lost.
She said China had a "carefully thought out and strategic plan to take over America" and accused one opponent of appeasement for suggesting that the two countries were economically dependent and should find a way to be allies.
your source is the huffington post. cmon. srsly? in all honesty. I hope she wins. I want something different in washington. Not some fuck head with strings attached to him.
A fuck head with strings attached is what we have and will always get. That's how the damn system works. Sure it may not be cool, but what exactly does putting in a genuine STUPID person do to counter that? What can she "change"? All it does it make the people running our government dumber, and it's at dangerous levels as is.
WASHINGTON — Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell of Delaware said in a 2006 debate that China was plotting to take over America and claimed to have classified information about the country that she couldn't divulge.
O'Donnell's comments came as she and two other Republican candidates debated U.S. policy on China during Delaware's 2006 Senate primary, which O'Donnell ultimately lost.
She said China had a "carefully thought out and strategic plan to take over America" and accused one opponent of appeasement for suggesting that the two countries were economically dependent and should find a way to be allies.
your source is the huffington post. cmon. srsly? in all honesty. I hope she wins. I want something different in washington. Not some fuck head with strings attached to him.
I want competent people in Washington, not incompetents like her and Palin. I want people with real, concrete ideas and a plan, not empty slogans.
Shes not incompetent. She just said shit when she was young and got caught. Honestly, im sure if you met these people and actually had an honest talk with them you would realize they aren't so "retarded" as certain media posts like to show.
The woman was well into here 30's when she stated scientists were giving mice fully functioning human brains...
WASHINGTON — Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell of Delaware said in a 2006 debate that China was plotting to take over America and claimed to have classified information about the country that she couldn't divulge.
O'Donnell's comments came as she and two other Republican candidates debated U.S. policy on China during Delaware's 2006 Senate primary, which O'Donnell ultimately lost.
She said China had a "carefully thought out and strategic plan to take over America" and accused one opponent of appeasement for suggesting that the two countries were economically dependent and should find a way to be allies.
your source is the huffington post. cmon. srsly? in all honesty. I hope she wins. I want something different in washington. Not some fuck head with strings attached to him.
Okay here's another source, CNN:
The most serious problem for either candidate came when O'Donnell was asked to cite any specific recent Supreme Court rulings that she opposed.
"Oh gosh, give me a specific one," she said, and when told the question required her come up with cases, O'Donnell responded, "I'm sorry," and promised to put the information up later on her website.
WASHINGTON — Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell of Delaware said in a 2006 debate that China was plotting to take over America and claimed to have classified information about the country that she couldn't divulge.
O'Donnell's comments came as she and two other Republican candidates debated U.S. policy on China during Delaware's 2006 Senate primary, which O'Donnell ultimately lost.
She said China had a "carefully thought out and strategic plan to take over America" and accused one opponent of appeasement for suggesting that the two countries were economically dependent and should find a way to be allies.
your source is the huffington post. cmon. srsly? in all honesty. I hope she wins. I want something different in washington. Not some fuck head with strings attached to him.
I want competent people in Washington, not incompetents like her and Palin. I want people with real, concrete ideas and a plan, not empty slogans.
Shes not incompetent. She just said shit when she was young and got caught. Honestly, im sure if you met these people and actually had an honest talk with them you would realize they aren't so "retarded" as certain media posts like to show.
The woman was well into here 30's when she stated scientists were giving mice fully functioning human brains...
Critical thinking is one of the greatest gifts of the human mind to forgo its use kind of makes one retarded. So rather then blindly looking at the statement you should beable to come up with some sort of reasoning or theory on to why she would make such a statement. Surely a person who would believe such a crazy thing would be saying just as equally crazy things as well? or is it just this one thing? I think the reasoning as to why she said it and in what setting is of much more importance.
On October 03 2010 08:29 Biochemist wrote: It's funny that this stuff is coming from Bill Maher, since he doesn't believe in vaccines because he doesn't believe germs cause disease.
Tons more where that came from. Very ironic for him to poke fun at someone else for holding onto a few beliefs that run contrary to established scientific consensus when he obviously has several of his own.
What in the world?... Did you even watch the clip you linked?
He specifically says at 3:00 "Let me clear up some things that people have been saying and writing about me that are not true. I am not a germ theory denier, I understand that germs and viruses cause disease.."
I hadn't watched this one specifically, but he's lying through his teeth when he says that to save face.
edit: more specifically, there are many shades of germ theory denialism. Just because he isn't totally off the deep end doesn't mean he isn't still a loon.
But I agree that his opinion matters less since he's not actually running for office. I only pointed it out because it struck me as a little funny.
..I think people really should actually watch these clips and get FULL CONTEXT, instead of taking one quote and start accusing him of things that are not true.
What he is saying is you cannot say western medicine is perfectly proven as of yet, and we should discuss the implication and consequences of advance in western medicine instead of dismissing everything else and say "Current Western medicine is the only way we can fight diseases."
He is hardly a germ denialist. He seems to be against vaccine because although he understands the process of inoculation, (bolded for importance!!!!), science cannot claim to understand the long term consequences of injecting these things in the vaccine (mercury and other chemicals) in to your body. Yet people simply dismiss when he raises these points to discuss.
WASHINGTON — Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell of Delaware said in a 2006 debate that China was plotting to take over America and claimed to have classified information about the country that she couldn't divulge.
O'Donnell's comments came as she and two other Republican candidates debated U.S. policy on China during Delaware's 2006 Senate primary, which O'Donnell ultimately lost.
She said China had a "carefully thought out and strategic plan to take over America" and accused one opponent of appeasement for suggesting that the two countries were economically dependent and should find a way to be allies.
your source is the huffington post. cmon. srsly? in all honesty. I hope she wins. I want something different in washington. Not some fuck head with strings attached to him.
I want competent people in Washington, not incompetents like her and Palin. I want people with real, concrete ideas and a plan, not empty slogans.
Shes not incompetent. She just said shit when she was young and got caught. Honestly, im sure if you met these people and actually had an honest talk with them you would realize they aren't so "retarded" as certain media posts like to show.
She was 36-37 years old when she said that. Hardly "young". I can understand being an apologist but this is really just a hilarious defense that holds no ground. There really isn't any way I can say this without being derisive, but I just can't help but wonder where in your train of logic that went faulty to allow you to even attempt to use such a ridiculous excuse to justify this woman.
edit: oh wow, your last post pretty much just sums up about everything.
WASHINGTON — Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell of Delaware said in a 2006 debate that China was plotting to take over America and claimed to have classified information about the country that she couldn't divulge.
O'Donnell's comments came as she and two other Republican candidates debated U.S. policy on China during Delaware's 2006 Senate primary, which O'Donnell ultimately lost.
She said China had a "carefully thought out and strategic plan to take over America" and accused one opponent of appeasement for suggesting that the two countries were economically dependent and should find a way to be allies.
your source is the huffington post. cmon. srsly? in all honesty. I hope she wins. I want something different in washington. Not some fuck head with strings attached to him.
I want competent people in Washington, not incompetents like her and Palin. I want people with real, concrete ideas and a plan, not empty slogans.
Shes not incompetent. She just said shit when she was young and got caught. Honestly, im sure if you met these people and actually had an honest talk with them you would realize they aren't so "retarded" as certain media posts like to show.
The woman was well into here 30's when she stated scientists were giving mice fully functioning human brains...
Critical thinking is one of the greatest gifts of the human mind to forgo its use kind of makes one retarded. So rather then blindly looking at the statement you should beable to come up with some sort of reasoning or theory on to why she would make such a statement. Surely a person who would believe such a crazy thing would be saying just as equally crazy things as well? or is it just this one thing? I think the reasoning as to why she said it and in what setting is of much more importance.
Not going to lie, i have no idea what you just said right there. I must be dumb.
Almost as dumb as a person who on national TV says Stuart Little exists.
WASHINGTON — Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell of Delaware said in a 2006 debate that China was plotting to take over America and claimed to have classified information about the country that she couldn't divulge.
O'Donnell's comments came as she and two other Republican candidates debated U.S. policy on China during Delaware's 2006 Senate primary, which O'Donnell ultimately lost.
She said China had a "carefully thought out and strategic plan to take over America" and accused one opponent of appeasement for suggesting that the two countries were economically dependent and should find a way to be allies.
your source is the huffington post. cmon. srsly? in all honesty. I hope she wins. I want something different in washington. Not some fuck head with strings attached to him.
I want competent people in Washington, not incompetents like her and Palin. I want people with real, concrete ideas and a plan, not empty slogans.
Shes not incompetent. She just said shit when she was young and got caught. Honestly, im sure if you met these people and actually had an honest talk with them you would realize they aren't so "retarded" as certain media posts like to show.
The woman was well into here 30's when she stated scientists were giving mice fully functioning human brains...
Critical thinking is one of the greatest gifts of the human mind to forgo its use kind of makes one retarded. So rather then blindly looking at the statement you should beable to come up with some sort of reasoning or theory on to why she would make such a statement. Surely a person who would believe such a crazy thing would be saying just as equally crazy things as well? or is it just this one thing? I think the reasoning as to why she said it and in what setting is of much more importance.
Not going to lie, i have no idea what you just said right there. I must be dumb.
Almost as dumb as a person who on national TV says Stuart Little exists.
Well if she had 9 beers in her and a few shots of tequila and she makes the statement to a friend. Do you think that statement holds any value despite?
WASHINGTON — Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell of Delaware said in a 2006 debate that China was plotting to take over America and claimed to have classified information about the country that she couldn't divulge.
O'Donnell's comments came as she and two other Republican candidates debated U.S. policy on China during Delaware's 2006 Senate primary, which O'Donnell ultimately lost.
She said China had a "carefully thought out and strategic plan to take over America" and accused one opponent of appeasement for suggesting that the two countries were economically dependent and should find a way to be allies.
your source is the huffington post. cmon. srsly? in all honesty. I hope she wins. I want something different in washington. Not some fuck head with strings attached to him.
I want competent people in Washington, not incompetents like her and Palin. I want people with real, concrete ideas and a plan, not empty slogans.
Shes not incompetent. She just said shit when she was young and got caught. Honestly, im sure if you met these people and actually had an honest talk with them you would realize they aren't so "retarded" as certain media posts like to show.
The woman was well into here 30's when she stated scientists were giving mice fully functioning human brains...
Critical thinking is one of the greatest gifts of the human mind to forgo its use kind of makes one retarded. So rather then blindly looking at the statement you should beable to come up with some sort of reasoning or theory on to why she would make such a statement. Surely a person who would believe such a crazy thing would be saying just as equally crazy things as well? or is it just this one thing? I think the reasoning as to why she said it and in what setting is of much more importance.
Not going to lie, i have no idea what you just said right there. I must be dumb.
Almost as dumb as a person who on national TV says Stuart Little exists.
Well if she had 9 beers in her and a few shots of tequila and she makes the statement to a friend. Do you think that statement holds any value despite?
Except she was sober...and it was in 2007...and on fox news...with O'Reilly
WASHINGTON — Republican Senate nominee Christine O'Donnell of Delaware said in a 2006 debate that China was plotting to take over America and claimed to have classified information about the country that she couldn't divulge.
O'Donnell's comments came as she and two other Republican candidates debated U.S. policy on China during Delaware's 2006 Senate primary, which O'Donnell ultimately lost.
She said China had a "carefully thought out and strategic plan to take over America" and accused one opponent of appeasement for suggesting that the two countries were economically dependent and should find a way to be allies.
your source is the huffington post. cmon. srsly? in all honesty. I hope she wins. I want something different in washington. Not some fuck head with strings attached to him.
I want competent people in Washington, not incompetents like her and Palin. I want people with real, concrete ideas and a plan, not empty slogans.
Shes not incompetent. She just said shit when she was young and got caught. Honestly, im sure if you met these people and actually had an honest talk with them you would realize they aren't so "retarded" as certain media posts like to show.
The woman was well into here 30's when she stated scientists were giving mice fully functioning human brains...
Critical thinking is one of the greatest gifts of the human mind to forgo its use kind of makes one retarded. So rather then blindly looking at the statement you should beable to come up with some sort of reasoning or theory on to why she would make such a statement. Surely a person who would believe such a crazy thing would be saying just as equally crazy things as well? or is it just this one thing? I think the reasoning as to why she said it and in what setting is of much more importance.
Not going to lie, i have no idea what you just said right there. I must be dumb.
Almost as dumb as a person who on national TV says Stuart Little exists.
Well if she had 9 beers in her and a few shots of tequila and she makes the statement to a friend. Do you think that statement holds any value despite?
Except she was sober...and it was in 2007...and on fox news...with O'Reilly
your source is the huffington post. cmon. srsly? in all honesty. I hope she wins. I want something different in washington. Not some fuck head with strings attached to him.
I want competent people in Washington, not incompetents like her and Palin. I want people with real, concrete ideas and a plan, not empty slogans.
Shes not incompetent. She just said shit when she was young and got caught. Honestly, im sure if you met these people and actually had an honest talk with them you would realize they aren't so "retarded" as certain media posts like to show.
The woman was well into here 30's when she stated scientists were giving mice fully functioning human brains...
Critical thinking is one of the greatest gifts of the human mind to forgo its use kind of makes one retarded. So rather then blindly looking at the statement you should beable to come up with some sort of reasoning or theory on to why she would make such a statement. Surely a person who would believe such a crazy thing would be saying just as equally crazy things as well? or is it just this one thing? I think the reasoning as to why she said it and in what setting is of much more importance.
Not going to lie, i have no idea what you just said right there. I must be dumb.
Almost as dumb as a person who on national TV says Stuart Little exists.
Well if she had 9 beers in her and a few shots of tequila and she makes the statement to a friend. Do you think that statement holds any value despite?
Except she was sober...and it was in 2007...and on fox news...with O'Reilly
It was an example. Ok so we have O'Reilly having an interview with o'donnel and she made a claim Out of jokes on how her friend believes that rats have fully functional human brains. Big whoop. My sister ate her own poo once.
Uh, do you have any idea what we are talking about? Have you seen the video?
your source is the huffington post. cmon. srsly? in all honesty. I hope she wins. I want something different in washington. Not some fuck head with strings attached to him.
I want competent people in Washington, not incompetents like her and Palin. I want people with real, concrete ideas and a plan, not empty slogans.
Shes not incompetent. She just said shit when she was young and got caught. Honestly, im sure if you met these people and actually had an honest talk with them you would realize they aren't so "retarded" as certain media posts like to show.
The woman was well into here 30's when she stated scientists were giving mice fully functioning human brains...
Critical thinking is one of the greatest gifts of the human mind to forgo its use kind of makes one retarded. So rather then blindly looking at the statement you should beable to come up with some sort of reasoning or theory on to why she would make such a statement. Surely a person who would believe such a crazy thing would be saying just as equally crazy things as well? or is it just this one thing? I think the reasoning as to why she said it and in what setting is of much more importance.
Not going to lie, i have no idea what you just said right there. I must be dumb.
Almost as dumb as a person who on national TV says Stuart Little exists.
Well if she had 9 beers in her and a few shots of tequila and she makes the statement to a friend. Do you think that statement holds any value despite?
Except she was sober...and it was in 2007...and on fox news...with O'Reilly
It was an example. Ok so we have O'Reilly having an interview with o'donnel and she made a claim Out of jokes on how her friend believes that rats have fully functional human brains. Big whoop. My sister ate her own poo once.
And if your sister ran for Senate within three years of eating her own poo for fun I'd hope that people would take that into consideration when voting for her. But hey that's just me.
On October 14 2010 12:13 FindingPride wrote: [quote] your source is the huffington post. cmon. srsly? in all honesty. I hope she wins. I want something different in washington. Not some fuck head with strings attached to him.
I want competent people in Washington, not incompetents like her and Palin. I want people with real, concrete ideas and a plan, not empty slogans.
Shes not incompetent. She just said shit when she was young and got caught. Honestly, im sure if you met these people and actually had an honest talk with them you would realize they aren't so "retarded" as certain media posts like to show.
The woman was well into here 30's when she stated scientists were giving mice fully functioning human brains...
Critical thinking is one of the greatest gifts of the human mind to forgo its use kind of makes one retarded. So rather then blindly looking at the statement you should beable to come up with some sort of reasoning or theory on to why she would make such a statement. Surely a person who would believe such a crazy thing would be saying just as equally crazy things as well? or is it just this one thing? I think the reasoning as to why she said it and in what setting is of much more importance.
Not going to lie, i have no idea what you just said right there. I must be dumb.
Almost as dumb as a person who on national TV says Stuart Little exists.
Well if she had 9 beers in her and a few shots of tequila and she makes the statement to a friend. Do you think that statement holds any value despite?
Except she was sober...and it was in 2007...and on fox news...with O'Reilly
It was an example. Ok so we have O'Reilly having an interview with o'donnel and she made a claim Out of jokes on how her friend believes that rats have fully functional human brains. Big whoop. My sister ate her own poo once.
And if your sister ran for Senate within three years of eating her own poo for fun I'd hope that people would take that into consideration when voting for her. But hey that's just me.
If i told you she was forced to eat her own poo by a burglar that entered our home. Would you feel the same way?
I want competent people in Washington, not incompetents like her and Palin. I want people with real, concrete ideas and a plan, not empty slogans.
Shes not incompetent. She just said shit when she was young and got caught. Honestly, im sure if you met these people and actually had an honest talk with them you would realize they aren't so "retarded" as certain media posts like to show.
The woman was well into here 30's when she stated scientists were giving mice fully functioning human brains...
Critical thinking is one of the greatest gifts of the human mind to forgo its use kind of makes one retarded. So rather then blindly looking at the statement you should beable to come up with some sort of reasoning or theory on to why she would make such a statement. Surely a person who would believe such a crazy thing would be saying just as equally crazy things as well? or is it just this one thing? I think the reasoning as to why she said it and in what setting is of much more importance.
Not going to lie, i have no idea what you just said right there. I must be dumb.
Almost as dumb as a person who on national TV says Stuart Little exists.
Well if she had 9 beers in her and a few shots of tequila and she makes the statement to a friend. Do you think that statement holds any value despite?
Except she was sober...and it was in 2007...and on fox news...with O'Reilly
It was an example. Ok so we have O'Reilly having an interview with o'donnel and she made a claim Out of jokes on how her friend believes that rats have fully functional human brains. Big whoop. My sister ate her own poo once.
And if your sister ran for Senate within three years of eating her own poo for fun I'd hope that people would take that into consideration when voting for her. But hey that's just me.
If i told you she was forced to eat her own poo by a burglar that entered our home. Would you feel the same way?
Are you trying to say Christine O'Donnell was forced to say the stuff she has said?
I want competent people in Washington, not incompetents like her and Palin. I want people with real, concrete ideas and a plan, not empty slogans.
Shes not incompetent. She just said shit when she was young and got caught. Honestly, im sure if you met these people and actually had an honest talk with them you would realize they aren't so "retarded" as certain media posts like to show.
The woman was well into here 30's when she stated scientists were giving mice fully functioning human brains...
Critical thinking is one of the greatest gifts of the human mind to forgo its use kind of makes one retarded. So rather then blindly looking at the statement you should beable to come up with some sort of reasoning or theory on to why she would make such a statement. Surely a person who would believe such a crazy thing would be saying just as equally crazy things as well? or is it just this one thing? I think the reasoning as to why she said it and in what setting is of much more importance.
Not going to lie, i have no idea what you just said right there. I must be dumb.
Almost as dumb as a person who on national TV says Stuart Little exists.
Well if she had 9 beers in her and a few shots of tequila and she makes the statement to a friend. Do you think that statement holds any value despite?
Except she was sober...and it was in 2007...and on fox news...with O'Reilly
It was an example. Ok so we have O'Reilly having an interview with o'donnel and she made a claim Out of jokes on how her friend believes that rats have fully functional human brains. Big whoop. My sister ate her own poo once.
And if your sister ran for Senate within three years of eating her own poo for fun I'd hope that people would take that into consideration when voting for her. But hey that's just me.
If i told you she was forced to eat her own poo by a burglar that entered our home. Would you feel the same way?
Why don't you ever just state your point instead of throwing out hypotheticals?
I want competent people in Washington, not incompetents like her and Palin. I want people with real, concrete ideas and a plan, not empty slogans.
Shes not incompetent. She just said shit when she was young and got caught. Honestly, im sure if you met these people and actually had an honest talk with them you would realize they aren't so "retarded" as certain media posts like to show.
The woman was well into here 30's when she stated scientists were giving mice fully functioning human brains...
Critical thinking is one of the greatest gifts of the human mind to forgo its use kind of makes one retarded. So rather then blindly looking at the statement you should beable to come up with some sort of reasoning or theory on to why she would make such a statement. Surely a person who would believe such a crazy thing would be saying just as equally crazy things as well? or is it just this one thing? I think the reasoning as to why she said it and in what setting is of much more importance.
Not going to lie, i have no idea what you just said right there. I must be dumb.
Almost as dumb as a person who on national TV says Stuart Little exists.
Well if she had 9 beers in her and a few shots of tequila and she makes the statement to a friend. Do you think that statement holds any value despite?
Except she was sober...and it was in 2007...and on fox news...with O'Reilly
It was an example. Ok so we have O'Reilly having an interview with o'donnel and she made a claim Out of jokes on how her friend believes that rats have fully functional human brains. Big whoop. My sister ate her own poo once.
And if your sister ran for Senate within three years of eating her own poo for fun I'd hope that people would take that into consideration when voting for her. But hey that's just me.
If i told you she was forced to eat her own poo by a burglar that entered our home. Would you feel the same way?
Too bad this line of thought is irrelevant seeing as O'Donnell isn't coerced into saying stupid shit.
lol I think I've been trolled. Great job at pretending to be a moron in support of the Tea Party Candidate. You did fairly well.
On October 14 2010 12:20 FindingPride wrote: [quote] Shes not incompetent. She just said shit when she was young and got caught. Honestly, im sure if you met these people and actually had an honest talk with them you would realize they aren't so "retarded" as certain media posts like to show.
The woman was well into here 30's when she stated scientists were giving mice fully functioning human brains...
Critical thinking is one of the greatest gifts of the human mind to forgo its use kind of makes one retarded. So rather then blindly looking at the statement you should beable to come up with some sort of reasoning or theory on to why she would make such a statement. Surely a person who would believe such a crazy thing would be saying just as equally crazy things as well? or is it just this one thing? I think the reasoning as to why she said it and in what setting is of much more importance.
Not going to lie, i have no idea what you just said right there. I must be dumb.
Almost as dumb as a person who on national TV says Stuart Little exists.
Well if she had 9 beers in her and a few shots of tequila and she makes the statement to a friend. Do you think that statement holds any value despite?
Except she was sober...and it was in 2007...and on fox news...with O'Reilly
It was an example. Ok so we have O'Reilly having an interview with o'donnel and she made a claim Out of jokes on how her friend believes that rats have fully functional human brains. Big whoop. My sister ate her own poo once.
And if your sister ran for Senate within three years of eating her own poo for fun I'd hope that people would take that into consideration when voting for her. But hey that's just me.
If i told you she was forced to eat her own poo by a burglar that entered our home. Would you feel the same way?
Too bad this line of thought is irrelevant seeing as O'Donnell isn't coerced into saying stupid shit.
lol I think I've been trolled. Great job at pretending to be a moron in support of the Tea Party Candidate. You did fairly well.
Saying you support a conservative/republican Candidate is grounds for being labeled a moron lately
The woman was well into here 30's when she stated scientists were giving mice fully functioning human brains...
Critical thinking is one of the greatest gifts of the human mind to forgo its use kind of makes one retarded. So rather then blindly looking at the statement you should beable to come up with some sort of reasoning or theory on to why she would make such a statement. Surely a person who would believe such a crazy thing would be saying just as equally crazy things as well? or is it just this one thing? I think the reasoning as to why she said it and in what setting is of much more importance.
Not going to lie, i have no idea what you just said right there. I must be dumb.
Almost as dumb as a person who on national TV says Stuart Little exists.
Well if she had 9 beers in her and a few shots of tequila and she makes the statement to a friend. Do you think that statement holds any value despite?
Except she was sober...and it was in 2007...and on fox news...with O'Reilly
It was an example. Ok so we have O'Reilly having an interview with o'donnel and she made a claim Out of jokes on how her friend believes that rats have fully functional human brains. Big whoop. My sister ate her own poo once.
And if your sister ran for Senate within three years of eating her own poo for fun I'd hope that people would take that into consideration when voting for her. But hey that's just me.
If i told you she was forced to eat her own poo by a burglar that entered our home. Would you feel the same way?
Too bad this line of thought is irrelevant seeing as O'Donnell isn't coerced into saying stupid shit.
lol I think I've been trolled. Great job at pretending to be a moron in support of the Tea Party Candidate. You did fairly well.
Saying you support a conservative/republican Candidate is grounds for being labeled a moron lately
Give us a couple of your reasons why you support her over Coons.
And if you're voting on party lines, then don't talk reason to us.
When i read the fact that she opposes abortion and only allows it when the mother could die and even then letting the families decide which life to save i must say. She is certified insane.
On October 14 2010 14:24 FindingPride wrote: When i read the fact that she opposes abortion and only allows it when the mother could die and even then letting the families decide which life to save i must say. She is certified insane.
I'm glad you said this. She completely defies common sense and has no business being in a position of power.
The woman was well into here 30's when she stated scientists were giving mice fully functioning human brains...
Critical thinking is one of the greatest gifts of the human mind to forgo its use kind of makes one retarded. So rather then blindly looking at the statement you should beable to come up with some sort of reasoning or theory on to why she would make such a statement. Surely a person who would believe such a crazy thing would be saying just as equally crazy things as well? or is it just this one thing? I think the reasoning as to why she said it and in what setting is of much more importance.
Not going to lie, i have no idea what you just said right there. I must be dumb.
Almost as dumb as a person who on national TV says Stuart Little exists.
Well if she had 9 beers in her and a few shots of tequila and she makes the statement to a friend. Do you think that statement holds any value despite?
Except she was sober...and it was in 2007...and on fox news...with O'Reilly
It was an example. Ok so we have O'Reilly having an interview with o'donnel and she made a claim Out of jokes on how her friend believes that rats have fully functional human brains. Big whoop. My sister ate her own poo once.
And if your sister ran for Senate within three years of eating her own poo for fun I'd hope that people would take that into consideration when voting for her. But hey that's just me.
If i told you she was forced to eat her own poo by a burglar that entered our home. Would you feel the same way?
Too bad this line of thought is irrelevant seeing as O'Donnell isn't coerced into saying stupid shit.
lol I think I've been trolled. Great job at pretending to be a moron in support of the Tea Party Candidate. You did fairly well.
Saying you support a conservative/republican Candidate is grounds for being labeled a moron lately
She is not conservative, nor does she have much republican ideal other than being a christian, based on what she has said so far.
Her knowledge of the world/politic/economics or anything relevant to being a senator is minimal at best. Her platform is basically moral issues, which is not a reason to run an office, and why? because anybody can do this. I mean ANYBODY. If a candidate has no clear idea what they are going to do about relevant political issues other than moral issue, in my opinion, they deserved to be called a moron.
Now, this is going to sound a bit crazy, but bear with me here. I think Christine O'Donnell is the best thing to happen to American politics (not to mention the Democrats) in a long time. I previously thought the same of Sarah Palin, whose meteoric rise to fame can only be described as "made for primetime sitcom", but CO'D is like Palin on speedballs.
I forget who it was that first said this, but the Tea Party is a lot like the KKK (I'm referring specifically to the "second" KKK of the early 1900s), I mean before they went off the deep end and started lynching people. By that I mean they're a (very) diverse conglomerate of people with differing views and stances, loosely held together by a binding hatred and resentment, in this case of Obama and the "liberal elite" in Washington. Much like the Tea Party, the KKK was at one time a legitimate group of mostly normal people who worked for political and social reform with a mostly economic and anti-nonwhite stance, largely centered on the perceived moral decline of America and the perceived threat of educated elite in the government without the interest of the common people in mind, and it wasn't until the leaders and the more extreme members showed their true colors that the normal members started getting cold feet. It wasn't until after the KKK began collapsing that many of their views began getting associated with extremism and became socially unacceptable, and in a large way the collapse of the KKK and like-minded organizations led to massive social progress in the South and heartland.
Now since the 60s there's been a rise of a certain class of people in America, who are much like the people that made up most of the KKK, and they've sort of reached critical mass after 9/11, which for many people was justification for long decades of built-up paranoia fuel. I think it's not unfair to say these people then went on to become the basis for the Tea Party, and much like the KKK, they have a semblence of legitimacy and can actually pose a somewhat serious threat in the political arena, if not for the sheer lunacy of their leaders which will eventually lead to the collapse of the party and serve as a wake-up call to its former members that these ideals they champion are from an era long gone and no longer acceptable.
Christine O'Donnell is that wake-up call. I didn't think it was possible for anyone to be worse than Palin, but CO'D blew my mind and if there's anyone out there even worse than O'Donnell, I would gladly pay money to see that person rise to fame because this is better than most of the garbage on television nowadays. From her complete lack of any educational or political qualifications (including her various confirmed outright lies on her educational background), to her bafflingly archaic stance on moral issues (anti-masturbation, anti-pornography, anti-premarital sex, anti-abortion in just about every case), to her jaw-droppingly spectacular grasp of science (how come monkeys don't evolve overnight into perfectly formed adult humans?), Christine O'Donnell is the perfect, magnificent, complete package of Tea Party stupidity and her very existence lends credence to everyone not in the Tea Party.
Her entire campaign seems to be ran on "she's pretty and she's like, one of us, y'all" and it's a political phenomenon that she's as successful as she is. In 50 or 100 years she's going to have some very interesting passages in history textbooks. but right now it's like watching a train full of fireworks crash into a travelling circus - it's horrible and you can't look away, but at the same time it's also strangely fascinating and you're seeing wonders you would never see otherwise. When her monumentous moment of glory passes, it'll (hopefully) mark the beginning of an epoch where tons of Americans realize "hey, those ideas didn't sound so crazy before, but when you put it that way..." and lead to a new era of social and political progress in the US, not to mention a revitalization of the battered Republican party.
They say the Delaware Republican is loudly complaining about how they won't support her -- and they are not -- as a way to generate angry, send-them-a-message donations from her Tea Party base.
Specifically, according to two top GOP insiders, she said at a strategy meeting with DC types last week: "I've got Sean Hannity in my back pocket, and I can go on his show and raise money by attacking you guys."
And that was precisely what she was doing on the radio today. On Hannity's popular afternoon drive-time show, the Tea Party-inspired Senate contender acidly criticized the party, specifically the National Republican Senatorial Committee, for not funneling any serious cash (beyond a pro forma $43,000) into her race against Democrat Chris Coons.
On October 15 2010 02:37 Krigwin wrote: Now, this is going to sound a bit crazy, but bear with me here. I think Christine O'Donnell is the best thing to happen to American politics (not to mention the Democrats) in a long time. I previously thought the same of Sarah Palin, whose meteoric rise to fame can only be described as "made for primetime sitcom", but CO'D is like Palin on speedballs.
I forget who it was that first said this, but the Tea Party is a lot like the KKK (I'm referring specifically to the "second" KKK of the early 1900s), I mean before they went off the deep end and started lynching people. By that I mean they're a (very) diverse conglomerate of people with differing views and stances, loosely held together by a binding hatred and resentment, in this case of Obama and the "liberal elite" in Washington. Much like the Tea Party, the KKK was at one time a legitimate group of mostly normal people who worked for political and social reform with a mostly economic and anti-nonwhite stance, largely centered on the perceived moral decline of America and the perceived threat of educated elite in the government without the interest of the common people in mind, and it wasn't until the leaders and the more extreme members showed their true colors that the normal members started getting cold feet. It wasn't until after the KKK began collapsing that many of their views began getting associated with extremism and became socially unacceptable, and in a large way the collapse of the KKK and like-minded organizations led to massive social progress in the South and heartland.
Now since the 60s there's been a rise of a certain class of people in America, who are much like the people that made up most of the KKK, and they've sort of reached critical mass after 9/11, which for many people was justification for long decades of built-up paranoia fuel. I think it's not unfair to say these people then went on to become the basis for the Tea Party, and much like the KKK, they have a semblence of legitimacy and can actually pose a somewhat serious threat in the political arena, if not for the sheer lunacy of their leaders which will eventually lead to the collapse of the party and serve as a wake-up call to its former members that these ideals they champion are from an era long gone and no longer acceptable.
Christine O'Donnell is that wake-up call. I didn't think it was possible for anyone to be worse than Palin, but CO'D blew my mind and if there's anyone out there even worse than O'Donnell, I would gladly pay money to see that person rise to fame because this is better than most of the garbage on television nowadays. From her complete lack of any educational or political qualifications (including her various confirmed outright lies on her educational background), to her bafflingly archaic stance on moral issues (anti-masturbation, anti-pornography, anti-premarital sex, anti-abortion in just about every case), to her jaw-droppingly spectacular grasp of science (how come monkeys don't evolve overnight into perfectly formed adult humans?), Christine O'Donnell is the perfect, magnificent, complete package of Tea Party stupidity and her very existence lends credence to everyone not in the Tea Party.
Her entire campaign seems to be ran on "she's pretty and she's like, one of us, y'all" and it's a political phenomenon that she's as successful as she is. In 50 or 100 years she's going to have some very interesting passages in history textbooks. but right now it's like watching a train full of fireworks crash into a travelling circus - it's horrible and you can't look away, but at the same time it's also strangely fascinating and you're seeing wonders you would never see otherwise. When her monumentous moment of glory passes, it'll (hopefully) mark the beginning of an epoch where tons of Americans realize "hey, those ideas didn't sound so crazy before, but when you put it that way..." and lead to a new era of social and political progress in the US, not to mention a revitalization of the battered Republican party.
So to shorten up what you're saying, you believe that Democrats, after over 100 years of hatred of black men and women, trying to uphold slavery, creating the KKK, lynching black men and women at Democratic rallys, and constantly having the means to prosecute black men and women taken away from them by Republicans, decided to become Republicans.
On October 15 2010 15:22 bbq ftw wrote: House of Representatives: Republicans for: 152 Republicans against: 96 Democrats for: 138 Democrats against: 34
Vote count for the Civil Rights Act 1964
You're right, the Republicans clearly have the better record on civil rights...
As yes, the second civil rights bill. The first was killed (by democrats) after Lincoln won the Civil War, and gave the Democrats voting rights in the House and Senate to help bring about reunification.
To say that the entire Democratic party was rasict would be disingenuous. But if you were racist you were a Democrat (however there was one Republican around the 1960's that was an outspoken black man hater). When the racist democrats didn't want something passed, they would put in wording that Republicans hated and then would vote with the Republicans against the bill (and the same for the non racist part of the democratic party).
The Republican belief during the 1960's was that you can't litigate morality (something everyone learned about during prohibition). If people want to be racist, having the government try to chose which opinions you can hold is a very fine line to walk (this is the same argument that Rand Paul gave that landed him in hot water). In this case, we walked the line and didn't fall, the negatives were far outweighed by the positives.
What you're ignoring though, is things like the KKK's purpose wasn't about influencing Senate and House voting, it was about local elections (because the states had more power). Would you like me to find more votes (there are many mentioned in "When Affirmitive Action Was White")?
On October 15 2010 02:37 Krigwin wrote: Now, this is going to sound a bit crazy, but bear with me here. I think Christine O'Donnell is the best thing to happen to American politics (not to mention the Democrats) in a long time. I previously thought the same of Sarah Palin, whose meteoric rise to fame can only be described as "made for primetime sitcom", but CO'D is like Palin on speedballs.
I forget who it was that first said this, but the Tea Party is a lot like the KKK (I'm referring specifically to the "second" KKK of the early 1900s), I mean before they went off the deep end and started lynching people. By that I mean they're a (very) diverse conglomerate of people with differing views and stances, loosely held together by a binding hatred and resentment, in this case of Obama and the "liberal elite" in Washington. Much like the Tea Party, the KKK was at one time a legitimate group of mostly normal people who worked for political and social reform with a mostly economic and anti-nonwhite stance, largely centered on the perceived moral decline of America and the perceived threat of educated elite in the government without the interest of the common people in mind, and it wasn't until the leaders and the more extreme members showed their true colors that the normal members started getting cold feet. It wasn't until after the KKK began collapsing that many of their views began getting associated with extremism and became socially unacceptable, and in a large way the collapse of the KKK and like-minded organizations led to massive social progress in the South and heartland.
Now since the 60s there's been a rise of a certain class of people in America, who are much like the people that made up most of the KKK, and they've sort of reached critical mass after 9/11, which for many people was justification for long decades of built-up paranoia fuel. I think it's not unfair to say these people then went on to become the basis for the Tea Party, and much like the KKK, they have a semblence of legitimacy and can actually pose a somewhat serious threat in the political arena, if not for the sheer lunacy of their leaders which will eventually lead to the collapse of the party and serve as a wake-up call to its former members that these ideals they champion are from an era long gone and no longer acceptable.
Christine O'Donnell is that wake-up call. I didn't think it was possible for anyone to be worse than Palin, but CO'D blew my mind and if there's anyone out there even worse than O'Donnell, I would gladly pay money to see that person rise to fame because this is better than most of the garbage on television nowadays. From her complete lack of any educational or political qualifications (including her various confirmed outright lies on her educational background), to her bafflingly archaic stance on moral issues (anti-masturbation, anti-pornography, anti-premarital sex, anti-abortion in just about every case), to her jaw-droppingly spectacular grasp of science (how come monkeys don't evolve overnight into perfectly formed adult humans?), Christine O'Donnell is the perfect, magnificent, complete package of Tea Party stupidity and her very existence lends credence to everyone not in the Tea Party.
Her entire campaign seems to be ran on "she's pretty and she's like, one of us, y'all" and it's a political phenomenon that she's as successful as she is. In 50 or 100 years she's going to have some very interesting passages in history textbooks. but right now it's like watching a train full of fireworks crash into a travelling circus - it's horrible and you can't look away, but at the same time it's also strangely fascinating and you're seeing wonders you would never see otherwise. When her monumentous moment of glory passes, it'll (hopefully) mark the beginning of an epoch where tons of Americans realize "hey, those ideas didn't sound so crazy before, but when you put it that way..." and lead to a new era of social and political progress in the US, not to mention a revitalization of the battered Republican party.
So to shorten up what you're saying, you believe that Democrats, after over 100 years of hatred of black men and women, trying to uphold slavery, creating the KKK, lynching black men and women at Democratic rallys, and constantly having the means to prosecute black men and women taken away from them by Republicans, decided to become Republicans.
That makes sense.
I have no idea how you came to that conclusion because none of his post insinuates any of what you said. It's like you simply looked at his post instead of reading it and wrought a faulty dismissive response out of thin air.
On October 15 2010 15:22 bbq ftw wrote: House of Representatives: Republicans for: 152 Republicans against: 96 Democrats for: 138 Democrats against: 34
Vote count for the Civil Rights Act 1964
You're right, the Republicans clearly have the better record on civil rights...
As yes, the second civil rights bill. The first was killed (by democrats) after Lincoln won the Civil War, and gave the Democrats voting rights in the House and Senate to help bring about reunification.
Democrats had voting rights in the House and Senate throughout the war.
The Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875 were passed and signed into law btw.
On October 15 2010 02:37 Krigwin wrote: Now, this is going to sound a bit crazy, but bear with me here. I think Christine O'Donnell is the best thing to happen to American politics (not to mention the Democrats) in a long time. I previously thought the same of Sarah Palin, whose meteoric rise to fame can only be described as "made for primetime sitcom", but CO'D is like Palin on speedballs.
I forget who it was that first said this, but the Tea Party is a lot like the KKK (I'm referring specifically to the "second" KKK of the early 1900s), I mean before they went off the deep end and started lynching people. By that I mean they're a (very) diverse conglomerate of people with differing views and stances, loosely held together by a binding hatred and resentment, in this case of Obama and the "liberal elite" in Washington. Much like the Tea Party, the KKK was at one time a legitimate group of mostly normal people who worked for political and social reform with a mostly economic and anti-nonwhite stance, largely centered on the perceived moral decline of America and the perceived threat of educated elite in the government without the interest of the common people in mind, and it wasn't until the leaders and the more extreme members showed their true colors that the normal members started getting cold feet. It wasn't until after the KKK began collapsing that many of their views began getting associated with extremism and became socially unacceptable, and in a large way the collapse of the KKK and like-minded organizations led to massive social progress in the South and heartland.
Now since the 60s there's been a rise of a certain class of people in America, who are much like the people that made up most of the KKK, and they've sort of reached critical mass after 9/11, which for many people was justification for long decades of built-up paranoia fuel. I think it's not unfair to say these people then went on to become the basis for the Tea Party, and much like the KKK, they have a semblence of legitimacy and can actually pose a somewhat serious threat in the political arena, if not for the sheer lunacy of their leaders which will eventually lead to the collapse of the party and serve as a wake-up call to its former members that these ideals they champion are from an era long gone and no longer acceptable.
Christine O'Donnell is that wake-up call. I didn't think it was possible for anyone to be worse than Palin, but CO'D blew my mind and if there's anyone out there even worse than O'Donnell, I would gladly pay money to see that person rise to fame because this is better than most of the garbage on television nowadays. From her complete lack of any educational or political qualifications (including her various confirmed outright lies on her educational background), to her bafflingly archaic stance on moral issues (anti-masturbation, anti-pornography, anti-premarital sex, anti-abortion in just about every case), to her jaw-droppingly spectacular grasp of science (how come monkeys don't evolve overnight into perfectly formed adult humans?), Christine O'Donnell is the perfect, magnificent, complete package of Tea Party stupidity and her very existence lends credence to everyone not in the Tea Party.
Her entire campaign seems to be ran on "she's pretty and she's like, one of us, y'all" and it's a political phenomenon that she's as successful as she is. In 50 or 100 years she's going to have some very interesting passages in history textbooks. but right now it's like watching a train full of fireworks crash into a travelling circus - it's horrible and you can't look away, but at the same time it's also strangely fascinating and you're seeing wonders you would never see otherwise. When her monumentous moment of glory passes, it'll (hopefully) mark the beginning of an epoch where tons of Americans realize "hey, those ideas didn't sound so crazy before, but when you put it that way..." and lead to a new era of social and political progress in the US, not to mention a revitalization of the battered Republican party.
So to shorten up what you're saying, you believe that Democrats, after over 100 years of hatred of black men and women, trying to uphold slavery, creating the KKK, lynching black men and women at Democratic rallys, and constantly having the means to prosecute black men and women taken away from them by Republicans, decided to become Republicans.
That makes sense.
I have no idea how you came to that conclusion because none of his post insinuates any of what you said. It's like you simply looked at his post instead of reading it and wrought a faulty dismissive response out of thin air.
In all honesty, its not easy to respond to a post that boils down to: "anyone who believes in limited government/fiscal conservatism is retarded, doesn't believe in science, is fueled by paranoia and hate, is anti-nonwhite. Did I mention they're also stupid?
Oh, and they're just like the KKK."
Really, though, how would you respond? To do so seriously would concede the point: "oh, they're not as idiotic as you think..."
On October 15 2010 16:14 koreasilver wrote: I have no idea how you came to that conclusion because none of his post insinuates any of what you said. It's like you simply looked at his post instead of reading it and wrought a faulty dismissive response out of thin air.
Ok then, let me show just how random and ignorant his post is.
On October 15 2010 02:37 Krigwin wrote:
I forget who it was that first said this, but the Tea Party is a lot like the KKK (I'm referring specifically to the "second" KKK of the early 1900s), I mean before they went off the deep end and started lynching people. By that I mean they're a (very) diverse conglomerate of people with differing views and stances, loosely held together by a binding hatred and resentment, in this case of Obama and the "liberal elite" in Washington.
The tea party stands against taxes, increased federal spending, and increased government. It has nothing to do with president Obama (though his spending even more than Bush is what pushed the cart over the edge).
On October 15 2010 02:37 Krigwin wrote: Much like the Tea Party, the KKK was at one time a legitimate group of mostly normal people who worked for political and social reform with a mostly economic and anti-nonwhite stance, largely centered on the perceived moral decline of America and the perceived threat of educated elite in the government without the interest of the common people in mind, and it wasn't until the leaders and the more extreme members showed their true colors that the normal members started getting cold feet.
The KKK was specifically made because the government couldn't keep black men from voting, so they need to threaten their lives to keep them from voting. It had nothing to do with political or social reform, it was based on a hatred of black men, and belief that they are inferior to white men and shouldn't have any rights. Look at when anti-lynching laws were passed.
On October 15 2010 02:37 Krigwin wrote: It wasn't until after the KKK began collapsing that many of their views began getting associated with extremism and became socially unacceptable, and in a large way the collapse of the KKK and like-minded organizations led to massive social progress in the South and heartland.
I think you need to relook at American history in the south in the 1960's if you think that rasism was coming to a close.
On October 15 2010 02:37 Krigwin wrote: Now since the 60s there's been a rise of a certain class of people in America, who are much like the people that made up most of the KKK, and they've sort of reached critical mass after 9/11, which for many people was justification for long decades of built-up paranoia fuel. I think it's not unfair to say these people then went on to become the basis for the Tea Party, and much like the KKK, they have a semblence of legitimacy and can actually pose a somewhat serious threat in the political arena, if not for the sheer lunacy of their leaders which will eventually lead to the collapse of the party and serve as a wake-up call to its former members that these ideals they champion are from an era long gone and no longer acceptable.
Alright, name the leaders of the Tea party. You try to insinuate that anyone the tea party votes for is one of their leaders, which is completely asinine. You don't identify who their leaders are, but then try to draw the conclusion that anyone stupid or ignorant that they vote for is a direct representation of the people themselves. And that stupid or ignorant is the same as radical. Why did O'donnel beat the incumbent? Because they didn't like his RINO ass. That they replaced RINO with some crazy woman is more ignorance than extremism.
On October 15 2010 16:16 Mindcrime wrote: As yes, the second civil rights bill. The first was killed (by democrats) after Lincoln won the Civil War, and gave the Democrats voting rights in the House and Senate to help bring about reunification.
Democrats had voting rights in the House and Senate throughout the war.[/quote] That's nice, too bad I never mentioned Democrats voting during the civil war. Reading what I wrote: after Lincoln won the Civil War. Now why after? Because democrats were either expelled or withdrew with the secession.
On October 15 2010 16:16 Mindcrime wrote: The Civil Rights Acts of 1866 and 1875 were passed and signed into law btw.
While I didn't say that they were passed, I did believe that they weren't (which is entirely my misunderstanding). However I'm still correct as it was declared unconstitutional and was also unenforcable in the southern states.
On October 15 2010 16:06 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: Kind of weird since the Republicans and Democrats during Lincolns era are total opposites now...
Republicans have always believed that government should play the proper role in society to maintain the most freedoms possible for its citizens. Only the government could make the louisiana purchase to help with colonization of the Americas. With Teddy the government stopped monopolies from charging exhorbant amounts for anything and everything. Democrats have always believed in a government that will overrun any rights of the people in order to put into place their vision. That's why they wanted and empowered State and weak Federal government, so they could continue to brutalize black men and women, and keep slaves. Now they want a weak state and empowered Federal government to force people to buy anything they deem a "right". The means has changed, but the logic hasn't.
Republicans have always believed that government should play the proper role in society to maintain the most freedoms possible for its citizens. Only the government could make the louisiana purchase to help with colonization of the Americas. With Teddy the government stopped monopolies from charging exhorbant amounts for anything and everything. Democrats have always believed in a government that will overrun any rights of the people in order to put into place their vision. That's why they wanted and empowered State and weak Federal government, so they could continue to brutalize black men and women, and keep slaves. Now they want a weak state and empowered Federal government to force people to buy anything they deem a "right". The means has changed, but the logic hasn't.
I have read a lot of BS on TL before, but this is one the first times that I can't actually think of something to say because it is so stupid.
Democrats have always believed in a government that will overrun any rights of the people in order to put into place their vision. That's why they wanted and empowered State and weak Federal government, so they could continue to brutalize black men and women, and keep slaves.
You know, I want to agree with this, but damn there's a terrible self-contradiction in there....
While I do agree that today's Democrats trend toward larger role of government in all/most economic matters, that certainly hasn't always been the case, and to conflate that with slavery is just....bad.
Republicans have always believed that government should play the proper role in society to maintain the most freedoms possible for its citizens. Only the government could make the louisiana purchase to help with colonization of the Americas. With Teddy the government stopped monopolies from charging exhorbant amounts for anything and everything. Democrats have always believed in a government that will overrun any rights of the people in order to put into place their vision. That's why they wanted and empowered State and weak Federal government, so they could continue to brutalize black men and women, and keep slaves. Now they want a weak state and empowered Federal government to force people to buy anything they deem a "right". The means has changed, but the logic hasn't.
Democrats believe that the government should play a role in order to help out the poor and less wealthy in order to raise the median of standard of living in America. Only the government can bare the cost of such things as health care without the risk of moral hazard and adverse selection. With FDR the government introduced minimum wage preventing large businesses from exploiting the workers. Republicans always believed in government that support big businesses with minimal regulation in order to place their vision. That's why they want to empower corporations and no regulations, so they could continue to brutalize workers and the middle class, and keep making profits from these businesses by owning shares in said businesses. Now they want to fulfill corporation demands by drilling everywhere with no regards for the consequences and spreading misinformation about the health care bill.
In the 1990s, O'Donnell took a public stance against masturbation, calling it "sinful".[113] Some commentators have noted her comments are consistent with official Roman Catholic doctrine, which condemns masturbation and other forms of non-procreative sex.
from the wiki found on the link on the front page. wow~!
I believe I have a similar example. In Georgia the Republican candidate Nathan Deal not only did not disclose MILLIONs of dollars of debt, he tries to claim hes just a victim of the economic times when he made a bad investment. And that man is still leading in the polls....
This is so hilarious ... stuff like this always reminds me why i wouldn't move to america even if fuckin blizzard themselves would offer me a job. It's so funny that the same people who try to be very very christian ignore the fact that if the chruch did one thing right in the past it is that they ALWAYS cared for the poor, the ill and the weak (atleast on the lower hierachy levels ... not the pope himself ofc). Atleast here in europe since i don't know how this neo protestantism works over there ... flaggs besides jesus? i mean ... really?
I really really don't get why having a system where the unlucky people get help from the community by law is something communistic? I mean ... i guess it's that way in every single EU country (i think) ... are we communists or what? It's also common knowledge that the US health care system is probaly the weakest of all industrial nations. It's just that american way of life ... the velociraptor capitalism where all you care about is your money and your personal wellfare - which is SO alienating for many europeans like me. This whole "christian" thing is just a disguise for their egocentric mindset. Go on ... kill people, plunder the weak and destroy the environment. Your beloved jesus would turn in his grave if he would be witnessing this.
Don't get me wrong ... i know that there are atleast 50% democratic voters in the US so not all hope is lost. I just cannot understand how someone can vote such a person like Palin etc. and onto those people my hate is directed. I literally had tears in my eyes when i heard obamas first speech cause i for the first time had the feeling that there is a spark of hope for the world - and btw i haven't changed my oppinion just yet ... changes need time. He has probably achieved more than american's notice atm. It's always feels different if you see something from a neutral distance.
sry if i offended someone but when i read something like in the OP i always feel like "gosh, there is no hope for this world."
People just aren't informed. Most of the people who oppose the health care bill are just people who watch Fox and believe that shit. I bet that all these people like Palin and Glenn Beck know that what they say is huge BS, but the viewers are just scared. It's sad that people like Beck can make all this money by capitalizing on people's fear.
Also, I've met many people who say "ALL HOMELESS PEOPLE ARE HOMELESS BECAUSE THEY'RE LAZY AND THUS DON'T DESERVE GOVERNMENT HELP" Which we all know is BS. I mean, sure, there are people who are homeless because they're lazy. But saying that all homeless people are homeless for that reason is so ignorant. If we could get rid of thinking like that, we could actually make progress with social welfare.
And lol at the transcript.
O'Reilly: The doctor is saying that if we use animal embryos for stem cells, we don't need to use human embryos.
Democrats had voting rights in the House and Senate throughout the war.
That's nice, too bad I never mentioned Democrats voting during the civil war. Reading what I wrote: after Lincoln won the Civil War. Now why after? Because democrats were either expelled or withdrew with the secession.
?
...or they retained their position(s) and continued to vote just as they had before and during the war.
While I didn't say that they were passed, I did believe that they weren't (which is entirely my misunderstanding). However I'm still correct as it was declared unconstitutional and was also unenforcable in the southern states.
No, you were wrong. Feel free to declare victory and move on though.
On October 15 2010 15:17 SnK-Arcbound wrote: So to shorten up what you're saying, you believe that Democrats, after over 100 years of hatred of black men and women, trying to uphold slavery, creating the KKK, lynching black men and women at Democratic rallys, and constantly having the means to prosecute black men and women taken away from them by Republicans, decided to become Republicans.
That makes sense.
...I have no idea where you got this from especially as I deliberately went out of my way to avoid mentioning either party and the KKK's obviously racist slant. But I will say that this kind of thinking (constantly equating politicians of the present with past offenses and indiscriminate mudslinging regardless of the debate) is exactly what keeps obviously partisan people like you from being taken seriously.
On October 15 2010 16:25 bbq ftw wrote: In all honesty, its not easy to respond to a post that boils down to: "anyone who believes in limited government/fiscal conservatism is retarded, doesn't believe in science, is fueled by paranoia and hate, is anti-nonwhite. Did I mention they're also stupid?
Oh, and they're just like the KKK."
Really, though, how would you respond? To do so seriously would concede the point: "oh, they're not as idiotic as you think..."
It's amusing that you would conflate my entire post into such a hateful diatribe, as if you yourself were being attacked personally, when I was making a clearly bipartisan point. You completely misinterpret my post, which is unfortunate because if you weren't so busy being childishly offended you'd understand I was making the point that this is a good thing for both Tea Party members and conservatives.
To simplify for future reference, I made the comparison of the Tea Party to the KKK as I believe they're both populist organizations that, post their collapse, will lead to an almost cathartic moment of revelation for many Americans, which itself will lead to a new era of progress in the US.
On October 15 2010 23:58 Ferrose wrote: People just aren't informed. Most of the people who oppose the health care bill are just people who watch Fox and believe that shit. I bet that all these people like Palin and Glenn Beck know that what they say is huge BS, but the viewers are just scared. It's sad that people like Beck can make all this money by capitalizing on people's fear.
Hrm. I seem to recall opponents of the health care bill saying that premiums would increase greatly if the bill was passed. I also seem to recall opponents saying that the health care bill would further reduce services covered by insurance. I don't know whether you pay for your health insurance or see your bills, but I do and I'll tell you this: the opponents were right.
There's a reason why an overwhelming percentage of the population wants the health care bill repealed. It's a piece of garbage that wrecks far more than it fixes.
On October 15 2010 21:51 JoelB wrote: I literally had tears in my eyes when i heard obamas first speech cause i for the first time had the feeling that there is a spark of hope for the world - and btw i haven't changed my oppinion just yet ... changes need time. He has probably achieved more than american's notice atm. It's always feels different if you see something from a neutral distance.
So you were fooled just as badly as everyone who voted for Obama here in America? Compare Obama's pre-election rhetoric to his post-election behavior. There's a serious mismatch. The guy hasn't transcended politics in America at all. He's been hyper-partisan. Americans who voted for Obama are figuring out that they were sold a false bill of goods. There's a reason why his approval rating is plummeting.
Ok, no logical or rational human being would vote for her after her performance in the Delaware debate yesterday. I mean really, she has absolutely 0 knowledge it seems of the issues she claims to discuss, she dodges questions like a pro (she simply would not answer the question "Do you believe evolution is a myth?"), and everything she says revolves around ad hominem attacks on her opponent.
Was hilarious how she couldn't name any recent supreme court decisions yet she is sure that she disagrees with most of them. I mean the woman has zero critical thinking skills, I truly don't think she is capable of making rational, circumspect, decisions. What scares me the most is that she has a clear animosity towards science, yet claims to know what the best way to educate the U.S. about science and math is.
The standards for being a politician in this country are appallingly low. God help us if she gets elected, that will be a terrible day for the U.S.
And the "hyper-partisan" nature of things has nothing to do with republicans. It's not like they make shit up about him and then repeat it despite simple and abundant proof to the contrary. It's not like congress is unable to pass even universally appealing bills like health care for 9/11 rescue workers suffering due to the risks they took in helping people on 9/11. No, it's really all Obama's fault that the roads aren't yet paved with gold, because the president has complete and total power over the government.
On October 16 2010 03:51 phyren wrote: And the "hyper-partisan" nature of things has nothing to do with republicans. It's not like they make shit up about him and then repeat it despite simple and abundant proof to the contrary. It's not like congress is unable to pass even universally appealing bills like health care for 9/11 rescue workers suffering due to the risks they took in helping people on 9/11. No, it's really all Obama's fault that the roads aren't yet paved with gold, because the president has complete and total power over the government.
Correct, the hyper-partisanship has almost nothing to do with the republicans. Obama had a large majority in the House and a super-majority in the senate. He could have passed anything he wanted if he simply threw republicans a bone here and there in the bills. He refused to do that. Is it any surprise that he received no support from republicans? You don't get people to vote for things unless you offer some incentive. It's pretty simple.
On October 16 2010 03:51 phyren wrote: And the "hyper-partisan" nature of things has nothing to do with republicans. It's not like they make shit up about him and then repeat it despite simple and abundant proof to the contrary. It's not like congress is unable to pass even universally appealing bills like health care for 9/11 rescue workers suffering due to the risks they took in helping people on 9/11. No, it's really all Obama's fault that the roads aren't yet paved with gold, because the president has complete and total power over the government.
Correct, the hyper-partisanship has almost nothing to do with the republicans. Obama had a large majority in the House and a super-majority in the senate. He could have passed anything he wanted if he simply threw republicans a bone here and there in the bills. He refused to do that. Is it any surprise that he received no support from republicans? You don't get people to vote for things unless you offer some incentive. It's pretty simple.
Not throwing the Republicans a bone is pure bullshit. Republicans said NO to a whole bunch of crap that they were FOR.
Quite frankly, a lot of the legislation is terrible because of the compromises made to get 1 or 2 Republicans to sign on.
On October 16 2010 03:51 phyren wrote: And the "hyper-partisan" nature of things has nothing to do with republicans. It's not like they make shit up about him and then repeat it despite simple and abundant proof to the contrary. It's not like congress is unable to pass even universally appealing bills like health care for 9/11 rescue workers suffering due to the risks they took in helping people on 9/11. No, it's really all Obama's fault that the roads aren't yet paved with gold, because the president has complete and total power over the government.
Correct, the hyper-partisanship has almost nothing to do with the republicans. Obama had a large majority in the House and a super-majority in the senate. He could have passed anything he wanted if he simply threw republicans a bone here and there in the bills. He refused to do that. Is it any surprise that he received no support from republicans? You don't get people to vote for things unless you offer some incentive. It's pretty simple.
Not throwing the Republicans a bone is pure bullshit. Republicans said NO to a whole bunch of crap that they were FOR.
Quite frankly, a lot of the legislation is terrible because of the compromises made to get 1 or 2 Republicans to sign on.
That's also a myth. You generally don't vote for a 1000 page bill just because you like 10 pages of it. Obama needed to offer more, period. It's called "compromise," and every presidential administration has had to do it at one time or another.
In fact, Obama is the luckiest of all recent presidents becasue he had to compromise less due to the huge democratic majorities. However, he stupidly pissed away this once in a century opportunity through a combination of bad policy and partisanship.
Take the stimulus bill, for example. Obama and the democrats are getting politically murdered for passing it right now because they didn't offer republicans any meaningful incentive to support it. Thus, when it predictably failed, democrats bear 100% of the responsibility. That's bad politics. I don't know who advised him on that one, but it was the stupidest thing that he did so far in his presidency.
Take the stimulus bill, for example. Obama and the democrats are getting politically murdered for passing it right now because they didn't offer republicans any meaningful incentive to support it.
No, they are getting politically murdered because its a bad bill, and at some point, blaming the Republicans for running the economy into the ground becomes trite.
Take the stimulus bill, for example. Obama and the democrats are getting politically murdered for passing it right now because they didn't offer republicans any meaningful incentive to support it.
No, they are getting politically murdered because its a bad bill, and at some point, blaming the Republicans for running the economy into the ground becomes trite.
I'm not arguiing that it's a good bill. I can't think of a worse bill that was passed in the past twenty years.
The only point that I was making is that democrats would at least have some political cover if they had been able to coopt some of the dumber republicans into voting for it. Instead, republicans get to hammer democrats ruthlessly for passing that garbage.
EDIT: How could I forget about the healthcare bill? That one takes the cake as the worst bill passed in recent memory.
On October 16 2010 03:51 phyren wrote: And the "hyper-partisan" nature of things has nothing to do with republicans. It's not like they make shit up about him and then repeat it despite simple and abundant proof to the contrary. It's not like congress is unable to pass even universally appealing bills like health care for 9/11 rescue workers suffering due to the risks they took in helping people on 9/11. No, it's really all Obama's fault that the roads aren't yet paved with gold, because the president has complete and total power over the government.
Correct, the hyper-partisanship has almost nothing to do with the republicans. Obama had a large majority in the House and a super-majority in the senate. He could have passed anything he wanted if he simply threw republicans a bone here and there in the bills. He refused to do that. Is it any surprise that he received no support from republicans? You don't get people to vote for things unless you offer some incentive. It's pretty simple.
Obama said he was open to tort reform if republicans would be willing to be flexible on some issues and republicans laughed in his face.
xDaunt with his, 'oh my gosh my health insurance went up' as if it wasn't sky rocketing before the bill as well. Many of these rate hikes are being denied by state judges because they are unjustified. Health insurers are still making record profits and hiking their rates at the same time. Why? so they can fool morons like xDaunt into believing that its the fault of th ehealth care bill. The Chamber of Commerce, Fox News, and the Koch brothers will be the downfall of America.
On October 16 2010 03:51 phyren wrote: And the "hyper-partisan" nature of things has nothing to do with republicans. It's not like they make shit up about him and then repeat it despite simple and abundant proof to the contrary. It's not like congress is unable to pass even universally appealing bills like health care for 9/11 rescue workers suffering due to the risks they took in helping people on 9/11. No, it's really all Obama's fault that the roads aren't yet paved with gold, because the president has complete and total power over the government.
Correct, the hyper-partisanship has almost nothing to do with the republicans. Obama had a large majority in the House and a super-majority in the senate. He could have passed anything he wanted if he simply threw republicans a bone here and there in the bills. He refused to do that. Is it any surprise that he received no support from republicans? You don't get people to vote for things unless you offer some incentive. It's pretty simple.
Obama said he was open to tort reform if republicans would be willing to be flexible on some issues and republicans laughed in his face.
xDaunt with his, 'oh my gosh my health insurance went up' as if it wasn't sky rocketing before the bill as well. Many of these rate hikes are being denied by state judges because they are unjustified. Health insurers are still making record profits and hiking their rates at the same time. Why? so they can fool morons like xDaunt into believing that its the fault of th ehealth care bill. The Chamber of Commerce, Fox News, and the Koch brothers will be the downfall of America.
I call BS on the tort reform offer. No democrat will ever agree to tort reform. The trial lawyers own the democrats. I can't even begin to tell you how much money is at stake with tort reform. I know because I am a trial lawyer.
Have you missed all of the newstories about American companies applying for waivers to be exempt from the health care bill requirements next year? Did you not hear about what McDonald's said? There is no one who understands Obamacare that is saying that Obamacare will not cause increased prices and more limited access.
First of all, the president does not have control over details of congressional bills. He could not have "thrown the Republicans a bone" with regard to the health insurance bill. The Dems in congress actually made tremendous sacrifices to appease Republicans and conservative Dems. Republicans were never going to support it anyway. In the end we got a legislation that helps the most needy but fails to sufficiently punish greedy insurance companies and provide health care for the poor and lower middle class.
Obama's approval rating has fallen just like every other president's rating falls after being in office for a little while as the voters' hopes are crushed. Notice how dismal George W. Bush's ratings were. He saw a brief peak after Sept. 11, 2001, but he quickly squandered that support by making destructive policy decisions. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/presidential-approval-tracker.htm
The reason people like her win is not because people actually support everything she stands for. Its just that they are SO FARKING TIRED of the politicians these days that they just want to get all the old, greedy, useless farts and corporation bought spineless pinheads out, whatever the cost. I know, I kind of agree with them. I wouldn't vote for her just because she has no qualifications, but I'm glad to see someone stand up for what they think is right instead of this political bs where they really stand for nothing but a fatter wallet and support whoever makes it thicker.
On October 16 2010 04:40 Zealotdriver wrote: xDaunt is filling this thread with lies.
First of all, the president does not have control over details of congressional bills. He could not have "thrown the Republicans a bone" with regard to the health insurance bill. The Dems in congress actually made tremendous sacrifices to appease Republicans and conservative Dems. Republicans were never going to support it anyway. In the end we got a legislation that helps the most needy but fails to sufficiently punish greedy insurance companies and provide health care for the poor and lower middle class.
Obama's approval rating has fallen just like every other president's rating falls after being in office for a little while as the voters' hopes are crushed. Notice how dismal George W. Bush's ratings were. He saw a brief peak after Sept. 11, 2001, but he quickly squandered that support by making destructive policy decisions. http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/presidential-approval-tracker.htm
So what, you finished high school civics and now you think that you know how Washington works? Presidents write bills for congressional consideration and approval ALL OF THE TIME. In fact, Congress usually does not write the bills that it passes. Lobbyists do.
The democrats did not make any meaningful effort to get republican input on the health care bill. It was written behind closed doors by democrats (or democrat lobbyists). Republicans were not involved, period. Why weren't they involved? For one, Obama and the democrats didn't need them because of the large majorities that they had in congress. All of the "concessions" that were put into the bills were put in there for other democrats. Secondly, Republicans have completely different ideas for reforming health care, none of which the Democrats are particularly interested in.
On October 15 2010 23:58 Ferrose wrote: People just aren't informed. Most of the people who oppose the health care bill are just people who watch Fox and believe that shit. I bet that all these people like Palin and Glenn Beck know that what they say is huge BS, but the viewers are just scared. It's sad that people like Beck can make all this money by capitalizing on people's fear.
Hrm. I seem to recall opponents of the health care bill saying that premiums would increase greatly if the bill was passed. I also seem to recall opponents saying that the health care bill would further reduce services covered by insurance. I don't know whether you pay for your health insurance or see your bills, but I do and I'll tell you this: the opponents were right.
There's a reason why an overwhelming percentage of the population wants the health care bill repealed. It's a piece of garbage that wrecks far more than it fixes.
I've never heard those people. The only ones I've seen are the idiots who claim it calls for death panels and shit.
On October 15 2010 23:58 Ferrose wrote: People just aren't informed. Most of the people who oppose the health care bill are just people who watch Fox and believe that shit. I bet that all these people like Palin and Glenn Beck know that what they say is huge BS, but the viewers are just scared. It's sad that people like Beck can make all this money by capitalizing on people's fear.
Hrm. I seem to recall opponents of the health care bill saying that premiums would increase greatly if the bill was passed. I also seem to recall opponents saying that the health care bill would further reduce services covered by insurance. I don't know whether you pay for your health insurance or see your bills, but I do and I'll tell you this: the opponents were right.
There's a reason why an overwhelming percentage of the population wants the health care bill repealed. It's a piece of garbage that wrecks far more than it fixes.
I've never heard those people. The only ones I've seen are the idiots who claim it calls for death panels and shit.
And yeah, I don't pay for my insurance.
Hate to break it to you, but the provisions within the bill that concern rationing basically are the "death panels" that Palin referred to.
There is no one who understands Obamacare that is saying that Obamacare will not cause increased prices and more limited access.
You mean there are people who understand that 2000 page piece of legislation... I highly doubt this. Regardless, people need to stop freaking out about these political races. Moving to Canada is not a realistic option...unless you think that the world will end if the GOP or Dems control too much of government. Honestly, one candidate or another, unless you live in that state, you probably should chill out.
Furthermore, there are much more important aspects of party members than the issues many people have with the tea party candidates. Ask yourself, will there really be a bill passed restricting masturbation? Probably not, will there be a bill increasing taxes and government spending, defiantly.
Lots of people get hung up on personal views of candidates that seem extreme, but they never ask themselves, how will this affect the governing power of the candidate. The argument can be made that if person A believes B it is likely that person A will also believe C. But such assumptions are dangerous and often wrong.
Evaluate Candidates on their fundamentals, ie: role of government, Foreign policy, and responsibility of power, the rest is usually unimportant.
There is no one who understands Obamacare that is saying that Obamacare will not cause increased prices and more limited access.
You mean there are people who understand that 2000 page piece of legislation... I highly doubt this.
This is true to an extent. It's very difficult to predict precisely what Obamacare is going to do because most of its substance is going to be created administratively over the next few years. However, there really isn't any debate over whether it will increase prices and reduce access.
On October 16 2010 04:46 Sm3agol wrote: The reason people like her win is not because people actually support everything she stands for. Its just that they are SO FARKING TIRED of the politicians these days that they just want to get all the old, greedy, useless farts and corporation bought spineless pinheads out, whatever the cost. I know, I kind of agree with them. I wouldn't vote for her just because she has no qualifications, but I'm glad to see someone stand up for what they think is right instead of this political bs where they really stand for nothing but a fatter wallet and support whoever makes it thicker.
The dirty little secret is anyone capable of becoming a candidate for the big 2 parties is exactly the type of person you are SO FARKING TIRED of.
It is not possible for a true non-politician to get elected any more for a federal position unless they're an actor. (and yes, pro wrestling counts as acting)
just i question i'd like to ask since i really don't get everything what you are saying ... i'm reading that stuff very interested and try to get a glimpse of what is going on there but why are people so angry about that health care stuff? i mean ... or health care system is probably three times that expensive for the state but its the status quo for decades
I'd also like to state something that is concerning me in germany too. People recently seem to expect big changes within a few months. I mean if you want to live in china or something (which i doubt you are dreaming of) you have to face one thing: democracy means discussion and longer, slower decision and law making processes ... nothing can be done overnight not even by Obama. Quick changes are trademarks of authocratic regimes not democracies. I guess we ALL except a little to much from our governments.
I cannot really comment on every single decision he made since iam not reading american newspapers but ... the difference in america's perception over the world atleast in europe changed dramatically. I'll try to say this in a non-offending way but i know that american's usually give a shit of what other countries, even their allies, think of them BUT you really really should have felt that anti-american HATE that was going on here during the Bush administration especially with younger people. Was quiet concerned ... with Obama that changed practically over night. We got closer again, which i really liked. Seeing masses of germans attending and cheering for him on his first speech in germany kinda gave that Kennedy feeling back ... where we were actually allies and not fighting against each other over economic supremecy while china defeats us all ... Bush only was interested in Europe as a Slave ... not as a partner
Most people here also envy america for having Obama because especially in germany politicans are usually boring, ugly and completly without passion. Seeing that guy fighting with such a passion inflamed the demand for similar politicians in germany ... maybe thats why many still hold him like some sort of a messiah which of course is just unfair. The expectations were just FAR to high for a living person ...
On October 16 2010 05:43 JoelB wrote: Most people here also envy america for having Obama because especially in germany politicans are usually boring, ugly and completly without passion. Seeing that guy fighting with such a passion inflamed the demand for similar politicians in germany ... maybe thats why many still hold him like some sort of a messiah which of course is just unfair. The expectations were just FAR to high for a living person ...
Obama brought the unfair expectations upon himself. When you speak like a messiah and make promises like a messiah, you better damn well be the messiah when you enter office. Obama played his messianic status up and now he's failing to deliver. He had every advanage going for him when he entered office: a friendly media that wanted him to succeed, large congressional majorities, and tremendous good will from the American people. He has squandered all of it and may very well be remembered like Jimmy Carter: one of the worst presidents of all time.
Don't regret not having Obama in Germany. He's all talk, no substance.
How many parties are in the US ? besides the republican / democratics / tea party ?
if its only those 3 then it was freaking obvious that it would get some votes from people who are tired of being republicans or democratic.
Most of the countries have many parties, left, VERY left, center left, center, center right, VERY RIGHT, Green (sort of center), and independent parties. Being democratic or republican is just stupid...
Chris Rock already said it... you can't be only republican or only democratic.
On October 16 2010 06:10 Drakan wrote: How many parties are in the US ? besides the republican / democratics / tea party ?
if its only those 3 then it was freaking obvious that it would get some votes from people who are tired of being republicans or democratic.
Most of the countries have many parties, left, VERY left, center left, center, center right, VERY RIGHT, Green (sort of center), and independent parties. Being democratic or republican is just stupid...
Chris Rock already said it... you can't be only republican or only democratic.
I wouldn't call the Tea Party an official party. More like a movement. The vast movement of Americans call themselves "Independent", meaning that they vote both tickets instead of just one, and base their vote more along the individuals themselves. Libertarians are quite popular too, but not enough to become a third party. Libertarians tend to vote more for conservatives while the Green Party folks will vote for more liberal candidates.
On October 16 2010 06:10 Drakan wrote: How many parties are in the US ? besides the republican / democratics / tea party ?
if its only those 3 then it was freaking obvious that it would get some votes from people who are tired of being republicans or democratic.
Most of the countries have many parties, left, VERY left, center left, center, center right, VERY RIGHT, Green (sort of center), and independent parties. Being democratic or republican is just stupid...
Chris Rock already said it... you can't be only republican or only democratic.
There are a lot of parties, everything from libertertarians, to communists, to the green party. However, none of those parties are particularly influential. The only two parties that hold office (with some minor exceptions) are the republicans and democrats.
Within the democratic and republican parties are varying degrees of conservatives and liberals. The "tea party" is not a political party. Rather, it's a conservative political movement that is largely within the republican party (it includes a lot of independents as well).
seriously ... seeing this discussion in america about if health care is something good or bad for me feels like discussing if policemen are needed or not ... its so f***in obvious that it i still wonder how someone can argue against it but i still don't know how that law actually is constructed ... heared some stuff about in the news but they left out the important parts
On October 16 2010 06:10 Drakan wrote: How many parties are in the US ? besides the republican / democratics / tea party ?
if its only those 3 then it was freaking obvious that it would get some votes from people who are tired of being republicans or democratic.
Most of the countries have many parties, left, VERY left, center left, center, center right, VERY RIGHT, Green (sort of center), and independent parties. Being democratic or republican is just stupid...
Chris Rock already said it... you can't be only republican or only democratic.
I wouldn't call the Tea Party an official party. More like a movement. The vast movement of Americans call themselves "Independent", meaning that they vote both tickets instead of just one, and base their vote more along the individuals themselves. Libertarians are quite popular too, but not enough to become a third party. Libertarians tend to vote more for conservatives while the Green Party folks will vote for more liberal candidates.
Oh i see.. and when running for president, how many candidates are ?
Thanks for the answer! I only have a small ammount of knowledge about US Politics and I really disagree with it because as far as i know you guys don't count every single vote.
In chile a president can be elected because 1 single person... 50.333 to 50.334.
And i see that many of this parties tend to go for 1 common candidate instead of having their own candidate for president
I love all the douches bashing Obama. Its the same tired bullshit over and over again, a candidate says he's going to do all this crap (ITS ALWAYS more than they actually can, or that people deep down actually believe) and the bipartisan completely illogical nature of our politics makes it so he can't do anything.
This phenomenon is completely independent of parties, its the same for both democratic and republican candidates.
xDaunt says that Jimmy Carter is the worst president of all time.
I say George Bush was the worst president of all time.
Guess what? They're both equally valid statements. Because in politics nothing is based off logic or off of evidence, its based on people's opinions and self interest, and what they're parents told them. Honestly xDaunt how can you really say that the next presidential candidate is is going to be better? If he is republican all the republican's are going to say "This is who we needed the whole, time" If he is democratic all the republicans will say "This guys is a retard I'm not going to agree with anything he says." And vice versa. It's really simple.
It seems there is no rhyme or reason that people actually disagree with each other, if one side presents evidence the other side presents counter evidence (even if they are completely contradictory, which science tells us no pieces of evidence can be completely contradictory and both valid) and nothing gets done. Its really irritating.
Though if you want my opinion its this: I refuse to support any candidate who puts any baseless restrictions on scientific research. Oddly enough (not really) it's always republicans who fit this trend, thus I'm democratic. (Restricitng stem cell research?? Really!?! How fucking moronic are you?) Also republicans and there supporters tend to be religious nuts for some reason.
On October 16 2010 07:16 MadVillain wrote: I love all the douches bashing Obama. Its the same tired bullshit over and over again, a candidate says he's going to do all this crap (ITS ALWAYS more than they actually can, or that people deep down actually believe) and the bipartisan completely illogical nature of our politics makes it so he can't do anything.
Obama's problem isn't that he hasn't done anything. He has accomplished A LOT. His problem is that a majority of Americans do not like what he has done so far, and like even less what he is planning to do in the future. The issue is one of policy and substance.
On October 16 2010 07:16 MadVillain wrote: xDaunt says that Jimmy Carter is the worst president of all time.
I say George Bush was the worst president of all time.
Guess what? They're both equally valid statements. Because in politics nothing is based off logic or off of evidence, its based on people's opinions and self interest, and what they're parents told them. Honestly xDaunt how can you really say that the next presidential candidate is is going to be better? If he is republican all the republican's are going to say "This is who we needed the whole, time" If he is democratic all the republicans will say "This guys is a retard I'm not going to agree with anything he says." And vice versa. It's really simple.
Actually, I said that Jimmy Carter was "one of the worst presidents" -- not THE worst. I don't really know who deserves that title. In full disclosure, I'm not a fan of Bush either.
On October 16 2010 07:16 MadVillain wrote: Though if you want my opinion its this: I refuse to support any candidate who puts any baseless restrictions on scientific research. Oddly enough (not really) it's always republicans who fit this trend, thus I'm democratic. (Restricitng stem cell research?? Really!?! How fucking moronic are you?) Also republicans and there supporters tend to be religious nuts for some reason.
What, you don't see the ethical issues with stem cell research? More importantly, almost all of the arguments over research funding is whether the government (ie TAXPAYERS) are going to fund the research. Private enterprise is generally free to invest in whatever research it wants (with some very important exceptions).
No I don't see the ethical issues with stem cell research. How can one take themselves seriously when they consider a couple hundred cells arranged in a manner that is so far from human that anyone who wasn't a scientist wouldn't recognize it? The scientific benefits are simply too great for any baseless moral qualms to get in the way. Republicans attempt to hinder the killing of a lump of cells, yet have no problems engaging in combat that kills LIVING humans for literally 0 gain.
Republicans seem to think that scientific evidence has a liberal bias (see global warming, and almost every environmental issue) and actively move to restrict its propogation. It wrong. I mean I wonder how many of these republicans actually care about stem cells, abortion etc and those issues? Most just want to get into office.
Edit: restrictions on embryonic stem cell research has resulted in other ways to get stem cells which is a benefit, so i suppose we can thank them for that.
seriously ... seeing this discussion in america about if health care is something good or bad for me feels like discussing if policemen are needed or not ... its so f***in obvious that it i still wonder how someone can argue against it but i still don't know how that law actually is constructed ... heared some stuff about in the news but they left out the important parts
I don't really mind part of my medical insurance premium going to the profits of a company. Better than the same percentage going to the debt we don't have the money for. If our government did completely run healthcare, whos to say they won't do the same thing they did with Social Security? Pay off current debts with premiums, and print more money to pay claims. At least insurance companies are obligated to someone besides their own inflated egos.
What it boils down to is class warfare and jealousy. That video tells me that the narrator is jealous that the demonized "investor" gets rewarded for his or her prudence and thrift.
If a business is run poorly, they go bankrupt. If the government is run poorly, then they tax the hell out of all of us. Is this view so radical??
Edit: Also, entitlements are what is ruining America. I have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. My fellow Americans owe me NOTHING. If I choose not to work hard, then I might not have health insurance. Entirely my fault then. If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you are sure to have Paul's vote. The problem is when there are no more Peters left (no pun intended).
Did that video just say that government is efficient? sorry but.. lolololol efficient at what? How do you measure that? There's no gain or loss in the state, so there can't be a measure of success either. At most there's popularity contests and polls, which are reduced to hunches by the part of representatives and bureaucrats on what must be done. Every other measure is taken from the market, information which is formed voluntarily.
Speaking of polls, it is amazing that congress and the executive can go about their business as usual w\ ratings of <40%, <20%, etc. Customer satisfaction not guaranteed for sure.
seriously ... seeing this discussion in america about if health care is something good or bad for me feels like discussing if policemen are needed or not ... its so f***in obvious that it i still wonder how someone can argue against it but i still don't know how that law actually is constructed ... heared some stuff about in the news but they left out the important parts
I don't really mind part of my medical insurance premium going to the profits of a company. Better than the same percentage going to the debt we don't have the money for. If our government did completely run healthcare, whos to say they won't do the same thing they did with Social Security? Pay off current debts with premiums, and print more money to pay claims. At least insurance companies are obligated to someone besides their own inflated egos.
What it boils down to is class warfare and jealousy. That video tells me that the narrator is jealous that the demonized "investor" gets rewarded for his or her prudence and thrift.
If a business is run poorly, they go bankrupt. If the government is run poorly, then they tax the hell out of all of us. Is this view so radical??
Edit: Also, entitlements are what is ruining America. I have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. My fellow Americans owe me NOTHING. If I choose not to work hard, then I might not have health insurance. Entirely my fault then. If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you are sure to have Paul's vote. The problem is when there are no more Peters left (no pun intended).
guess what there are always people who would like to work hard and everything but then they get hit by cancer ... so, they deserve to die (or get poor) because of what? bad luck? Freedom is not an excuse for selfish behavior ... social liabilities of course hinder your personal welfare but increases the welfare of the society as a whole (which is worth more) ... is this communistic? Well then i'm a communist (and EVERYONE in europe is ... cuz we all have those systems and they work without printing money which is btw not a problem of your social dept but of your fed) ... i like to use a different definition for this: Freedom in Responsibility
On October 16 2010 05:43 JoelB wrote: Most people here also envy america for having Obama because especially in germany politicans are usually boring, ugly and completly without passion. Seeing that guy fighting with such a passion inflamed the demand for similar politicians in germany ... maybe thats why many still hold him like some sort of a messiah which of course is just unfair. The expectations were just FAR to high for a living person ...
Obama brought the unfair expectations upon himself. When you speak like a messiah and make promises like a messiah, you better damn well be the messiah when you enter office. Obama played his messianic status up and now he's failing to deliver. He had every advanage going for him when he entered office: a friendly media that wanted him to succeed, large congressional majorities, and tremendous good will from the American people. He has squandered all of it and may very well be remembered like Jimmy Carter: one of the worst presidents of all time.
Don't regret not having Obama in Germany. He's all talk, no substance.
Actually, Obama explicitly addressed this in the exact opposite manner, repeatedly noting that times would be hard. He also never spoke or made "promises like a Messiah" - the fact that you have not been able to bring up a specific speech where Obama made such a claim shows a lot. If anything, the nearest "messianic" claim he made is universal health care - which he did end up passing.
Every advantage going for him when he entered office? The US bogged down in two world wars. A global recession.
On October 16 2010 09:30 dcemuser wrote: "American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains."
Are you shitting me?!
How can ANYONE vote for somebody who actually says those words?!
What is this I don't even
Unfortunately, the majority of Americans simply believe things at face value. A lot of our populace has forgotten what it means to be questioning instead of submissive citizens.
Ironically, it's probably teenagers that are more questioning and facepalming at this tomfoolery. Our experience with Internet trolling probably allows us to think twice when we consider what people are telling us.
seriously ... seeing this discussion in america about if health care is something good or bad for me feels like discussing if policemen are needed or not ... its so f***in obvious that it i still wonder how someone can argue against it but i still don't know how that law actually is constructed ... heared some stuff about in the news but they left out the important parts
I don't really mind part of my medical insurance premium going to the profits of a company. Better than the same percentage going to the debt we don't have the money for. If our government did completely run healthcare, whos to say they won't do the same thing they did with Social Security? Pay off current debts with premiums, and print more money to pay claims. At least insurance companies are obligated to someone besides their own inflated egos.
What it boils down to is class warfare and jealousy. That video tells me that the narrator is jealous that the demonized "investor" gets rewarded for his or her prudence and thrift.
If a business is run poorly, they go bankrupt. If the government is run poorly, then they tax the hell out of all of us. Is this view so radical??
Edit: Also, entitlements are what is ruining America. I have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. My fellow Americans owe me NOTHING. If I choose not to work hard, then I might not have health insurance. Entirely my fault then. If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you are sure to have Paul's vote. The problem is when there are no more Peters left (no pun intended).
guess what there are always people who would like to work hard and everything but then they get hit by cancer ... so, they deserve to die (or get poor) because of what? bad luck? Freedom is not an excuse for selfish behavior ... social liabilities of course hinder your personal welfare but increases the welfare of the society as a whole (which is worth more) ... is this communistic? Well then i'm a communist (and EVERYONE in europe is ... cuz we all have those systems and they work without printing money which is btw not a problem of your social dept but of your fed) ... i like to use a different definition for this: Freedom in Responsibility
The difference is that in America, if you don't have the ability to pay, they will treat you (if they receive Federal funding). So yes, there are safety nets in place for people under bad circumstances. At least we don't have to die waiting for treatment like they do in Canada.
seriously ... seeing this discussion in america about if health care is something good or bad for me feels like discussing if policemen are needed or not ... its so f***in obvious that it i still wonder how someone can argue against it but i still don't know how that law actually is constructed ... heared some stuff about in the news but they left out the important parts
I don't really mind part of my medical insurance premium going to the profits of a company. Better than the same percentage going to the debt we don't have the money for. If our government did completely run healthcare, whos to say they won't do the same thing they did with Social Security? Pay off current debts with premiums, and print more money to pay claims. At least insurance companies are obligated to someone besides their own inflated egos.
What it boils down to is class warfare and jealousy. That video tells me that the narrator is jealous that the demonized "investor" gets rewarded for his or her prudence and thrift.
If a business is run poorly, they go bankrupt. If the government is run poorly, then they tax the hell out of all of us. Is this view so radical??
Edit: Also, entitlements are what is ruining America. I have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. My fellow Americans owe me NOTHING. If I choose not to work hard, then I might not have health insurance. Entirely my fault then. If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you are sure to have Paul's vote. The problem is when there are no more Peters left (no pun intended).
guess what there are always people who would like to work hard and everything but then they get hit by cancer ... so, they deserve to die (or get poor) because of what? bad luck? Freedom is not an excuse for selfish behavior ... social liabilities of course hinder your personal welfare but increases the welfare of the society as a whole (which is worth more) ... is this communistic? Well then i'm a communist (and EVERYONE in europe is ... cuz we all have those systems and they work without printing money which is btw not a problem of your social dept but of your fed) ... i like to use a different definition for this: Freedom in Responsibility
The difference is that in America, if you don't have the ability to pay, they will treat you (if they receive Federal funding). So yes, there are safety nets in place for people under bad circumstances. At least we don't have to die waiting for treatment like they do in Canada.
...IF they receive Federal funding. Note the big conditional. Also note how this is far more expensive because we end up treating late and advanced stages of injuries and illnesses for those who lack insurance but go get treatment because they have no choice. The alternative would offer insurance and treatment [which we already do since emergency rooms are required to treat all who come in anyways] except also offering the preventive care that should be given in the first place to prevent such higher costs (physically and economically).
seriously ... seeing this discussion in america about if health care is something good or bad for me feels like discussing if policemen are needed or not ... its so f***in obvious that it i still wonder how someone can argue against it but i still don't know how that law actually is constructed ... heared some stuff about in the news but they left out the important parts
I don't really mind part of my medical insurance premium going to the profits of a company. Better than the same percentage going to the debt we don't have the money for. If our government did completely run healthcare, whos to say they won't do the same thing they did with Social Security? Pay off current debts with premiums, and print more money to pay claims. At least insurance companies are obligated to someone besides their own inflated egos.
What it boils down to is class warfare and jealousy. That video tells me that the narrator is jealous that the demonized "investor" gets rewarded for his or her prudence and thrift.
If a business is run poorly, they go bankrupt. If the government is run poorly, then they tax the hell out of all of us. Is this view so radical??
Edit: Also, entitlements are what is ruining America. I have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. My fellow Americans owe me NOTHING. If I choose not to work hard, then I might not have health insurance. Entirely my fault then. If you rob Peter to pay Paul, you are sure to have Paul's vote. The problem is when there are no more Peters left (no pun intended).
guess what there are always people who would like to work hard and everything but then they get hit by cancer ... so, they deserve to die (or get poor) because of what? bad luck? Freedom is not an excuse for selfish behavior ... social liabilities of course hinder your personal welfare but increases the welfare of the society as a whole (which is worth more) ... is this communistic? Well then i'm a communist (and EVERYONE in europe is ... cuz we all have those systems and they work without printing money which is btw not a problem of your social dept but of your fed) ... i like to use a different definition for this: Freedom in Responsibility
The difference is that in America, if you don't have the ability to pay, they will treat you (if they receive Federal funding). So yes, there are safety nets in place for people under bad circumstances. At least we don't have to die waiting for treatment like they do in Canada.
So, if you are poor and unable to pay your treatment they will give it to you for nothing? Strange then why is getting sick still a poverty risk in the US? Or isn't it? Probably because when you are not poor but quiet short on money you have to pay all your money till the dept is covered so you are poor afterwards? This is no offense iam just trying to understand how this works
just in comparison ... our system works (simplified ... germans love making laws for everything) like this: we have two health care systems ... the official government system ... you have to pay for it depending on your income (with a social balance for low income people) and it is payed 50% by the worker and 50% by the employer (basically) ... or you can join a privat health care (basically like your system ... personalized fees, not everyone is excepted (depending on your income and health) but perfect treatment ... many people call this "two class medicine") ... they tried to fix and change the system every know and then since its quiet expensive because it is not accounting demographic change (more older people, people getting older, medicin gets better but also more expensive etc.) but still its somehow working ^^ ... the official health care is not paying for everything though ... atleast not for stuff they call "luxury"
One of the most hurtful things to this nation is the childish, self-defeating, absolutely retarded, 2 party BS system propped up by the lobbying corporatists. Of course Obama has hardly delivered anything remotely close to what he promised or the ideal of what he promised, no president or politician hardly ever does or hardly ever will. The 2 major parties have a monopoly on offices and 99% of the time they spend fighting each other, slandering each other, trying and succeeding to dupe the masses with pretty pictures and lies, slipping crap into legislation from bribes or self-interest or whatever, killing other legislation just to hurt the other side, the list of corruption, inefficiencies, and whatnot goes on forever.
Its a two way street, it takes two to tango, etc. This system was not meant to work with this global population in this day and age, or at the least it has obviously been degraded and corrupted to hell. Consumption is through the roof, spending what we dont have, billions and billions thrown around for RIDICULOUS crap with assurances that budgets will be cut!
One president alone could hardly make a dent in the mess we're in. People talking about how our situation is all Obamas fault, if only Obama did this and did that we would be in Utopia, BULLSHIT. Its the whole systems fault as well as the american peoples.
On October 16 2010 07:16 MadVillain wrote: xDaunt says that Jimmy Carter is the worst president of all time.
I say George Bush was the worst president of all time.
Guess what? They're both equally valid statements. Because in politics nothing is based off logic or off of evidence, its based on people's opinions and self interest, and what they're parents told them. Honestly xDaunt how can you really say that the next presidential candidate is is going to be better? If he is republican all the republican's are going to say "This is who we needed the whole, time" If he is democratic all the republicans will say "This guys is a retard I'm not going to agree with anything he says." And vice versa. It's really simple.
Actually, I said that Jimmy Carter was "one of the worst presidents" -- not THE worst. I don't really know who deserves that title. In full disclosure, I'm not a fan of Bush either.
In response to the quote that you quoted....actually, most historians agree on the idea that Warren G. Harding was the worst president. George Bush was bad.....but at least he wasn't one of the catalysts for the Great Depression.
On October 16 2010 08:56 Yurebis wrote: Did that video just say that government is efficient? sorry but.. lolololol efficient at what? How do you measure that? There's no gain or loss in the state, so there can't be a measure of success either. At most there's popularity contests and polls, which are reduced to hunches by the part of representatives and bureaucrats on what must be done. Every other measure is taken from the market, information which is formed voluntarily.
Speaking of polls, it is amazing that congress and the executive can go about their business as usual w\ ratings of <40%, <20%, etc. Customer satisfaction not guaranteed for sure.
On October 16 2010 08:56 Yurebis wrote: Did that video just say that government is efficient? sorry but.. lolololol efficient at what? How do you measure that? There's no gain or loss in the state, so there can't be a measure of success either. At most there's popularity contests and polls, which are reduced to hunches by the part of representatives and bureaucrats on what must be done. Every other measure is taken from the market, information which is formed voluntarily.
Speaking of polls, it is amazing that congress and the executive can go about their business as usual w\ ratings of <40%, <20%, etc. Customer satisfaction not guaranteed for sure.
They always have low numbers what is your point?
My point is that if the government was a voluntary, unprivileged business in the services it provides, it would go bankrupt all across the board with such ratings. The video author's chosen measure of efficiency doesn't relate anything to how satisfied the consumer is, nor is it even an objective measure of the quality/cost of the service itself. It's a useless ratio, perhaps appealing to the fixed pie fallacy a bit.
On October 16 2010 08:56 Yurebis wrote: Did that video just say that government is efficient? sorry but.. lolololol efficient at what? How do you measure that? There's no gain or loss in the state, so there can't be a measure of success either. At most there's popularity contests and polls, which are reduced to hunches by the part of representatives and bureaucrats on what must be done. Every other measure is taken from the market, information which is formed voluntarily.
Speaking of polls, it is amazing that congress and the executive can go about their business as usual w\ ratings of <40%, <20%, etc. Customer satisfaction not guaranteed for sure.
They always have low numbers what is your point?
My point is that if the government was a voluntary, unprivileged business in the services it provides, it would go bankrupt all across the board with such ratings. The video author's chosen measure of efficiency doesn't relate anything to how satisfied the consumer is, nor is it even an objective measure of the quality/cost of the service itself. It's a useless ratio, perhaps appealing to the fixed pie fallacy a bit.
K so what are you going to do about it. Ague against the state all you want I doubt you will ever see it perish. Also vote to fix the problem.
The tea party started out good, then it got hijaked by republicans and it's just the same old crap now.
I don't really have any opinion on this election but to all the fools who talk about qualifications, the whole idea our government was founded on was regular folks running the country. Career politicians are the problem with america, arrogent,greedy,dishonest, elitists who swear an oath to uphold and defend the constitution and then they use it for toilet paper. I think we need less "educated" buracrats in office and more regular people with common sense who know what it's like to be hungry, broke, and desperate. Many of the people running things were born with a silver spoon stuck in there ass and the fact that they got a free ride in life to goto college doesn't make them any smarter or moral than someone who's had to work for every little thing in there life and never had the money or oppurtunities of these traitors we have in office. 9 out of 10 Politicians in the US would burn your house down with your family in it, if the price were right. If you disagree, I'd have to say your pretty nieve view to how the world really works. I think a lot of tv and news gives this depiction of the average amercian as being stupid and lazy. We surely have a lot of people who fit this criterea but the media in this country is so slanted and skewed, I think it's intentional and purposefully done as well. As easy as it is to blame the government and media for everything really it's a grander social deterioration thats occuring and it's effects are showing up every where, our government,media,schools,and in our families. We have become a nation with no sense of itself, the amercian dream is dead.
no offense to many bright Americans out there but i think the statistics show the median American has high school education, spends 70% of their income on consumption and havnt paid off their credit card debts and divorced. i don't these are the kind of ppl you want in the legislative process. and from the interviews, O'Donnell fits my perception of the stereotypical blonde.
On October 19 2010 04:48 Reborn8u wrote: The tea party started out good, then it got hijaked by republicans and it's just the same old crap now.
I don't really have any opinion on this election but to all the fools who talk about qualifications, the whole idea our government was founded on was regular folks running the country. Career politicians are the problem with america, arrogent,greedy,dishonest, elitists who swear an oath to uphold and defend the constitution and then they use it for toilet paper. I think we need less "educated" buracrats in office and more regular people with common sense who know what it's like to be hungry, broke, and desperate. Many of the people running things were born with a silver spoon stuck in there ass and the fact that they got a free ride in life to goto college doesn't make them any smarter or moral than someone who's had to work for every little thing in there life and never had the money or oppurtunities of these traitors we have in office. 9 out of 10 Politicians in the US would burn your house down with your family in it, if the price were right. If you disagree, I'd have to say your pretty nieve view to how the world really works. I think a lot of tv and news gives this depiction of the average amercian as being stupid and lazy. We surely have a lot of people who fit this criterea but the media in this country is so slanted and skewed, I think it's intentional and purposefully done as well. As easy as it is to blame the government and media for everything really it's a grander social deterioration thats occuring and it's effects are showing up every where, our government,media,schools,and in our families. We have become a nation with no sense of itself, the amercian dream is dead.
On October 19 2010 04:48 Reborn8u wrote: The tea party started out good, then it got hijaked by republicans and it's just the same old crap now.
Bunch of anti-government stuff.
Tragic as it is, the government is actually GOOD for you. One of the biggest scams we've been fed over the years is the idea that the government is full of imbeciles and/or elites who care nothing for us.
For the most part, it's true, by the time they get to the upper echelons of office they are in debt to so many special interests they're paralyzed to really do anything - but on the other hand, it's the special interest groups we should be afraid of, those working behind the scenes getting their agendas promoted. These groups have heavy leverage in both federal parties, so they win no matter what party wins. The actual vote itself is a farce.
On October 19 2010 04:48 Reborn8u wrote: The tea party started out good, then it got hijaked by republicans and it's just the same old crap now.
Bunch of anti-government stuff.
Tragic as it is, the government is actually GOOD for you. One of the biggest scams we've been fed over the years is the idea that the government is full of imbeciles and/or elites who care nothing for us.
For the most part, it's true, by the time they get to the upper echelons of office they are in debt to so many special interests they're paralyzed to really do anything - but on the other hand, it's the special interest groups we should be afraid of, those working behind the scenes getting their agendas promoted. These groups have heavy leverage in both federal parties, so they win no matter what party wins. The actual vote itself is a farce.
The reason why special interest groups are dangerous is because they are able to co-opt the power of the federal government. The only way to prevent special interest groups from using the federal government for their own ends is to limit the power of the federal government.
On October 19 2010 06:22 Nightfall.589 wrote: Because special interests totally can't use state governments, amirite?
Slavery, anyone?
There's a big difference between co-opting the federal government and the state governments. The state governments don't have nearly the power that they used to before the Civil War.
On October 19 2010 06:22 Nightfall.589 wrote: Because special interests totally can't use state governments, amirite?
Slavery, anyone?
There's a big difference between co-opting the federal government and the state governments. The state governments don't have nearly the power that they used to before the Civil War.
They will if you weaken the feds. Power is a zero sum game.
On October 19 2010 06:22 Nightfall.589 wrote: Because special interests totally can't use state governments, amirite?
Slavery, anyone?
There's a big difference between co-opting the federal government and the state governments. The state governments don't have nearly the power that they used to before the Civil War.
They will if you weaken the feds. Power is a zero sum game.
Power may be a "zero sum game", but individuals, corporations, guilds, classes, 'churches' and other entities can also exercise power. Simply mauling federal government doesn't automatically empower any of the more local government power nodes. Sorry 'bout the nitpicking.
I dopnt get why your complaining now? 8 years of Bush and your all quite and now that the promised change is not coming as fast as you want your fucking with the goverment? In any other country it would have been the other way around but I guess Fox did well spreading the propaganda.
On October 19 2010 23:26 Adila wrote: In recent news, O'Donnell wasn't sure that the First Amendment bars Congress from making laws respecting the establishment of religion.
Lol When she said "You've just proven how little you know" I wanted someone to walk up there an hit her in the face with a book. Seriously you guys deserve much better then her.
Don't worry guys her opponent was mischaracterizing her words to make her sound like a dumbass. If you just go to her website you'll see that she has perfectly intelligible views on the matter.
:/ Tea party response to anything retarded they say. Or maybe that was Sharron Angle. Fucking...they're all the same.
Anyone who is for teaching ID in public schools needs to be discredited for any position of power to begin with IMO. If you can be conned by such a scam you are far to naive to deal with Politics and any type of power.....period.
Sadly though, the truly outstanding part is probably where Coons states evolution to be a scientific fact. He's never going to live that down, it's going to go right up next to the Marxist allegations in attack ads.
On October 20 2010 05:16 Sadist wrote: Anyone who is for teaching ID in public schools needs to be discredited for any position of power to begin with IMO. If you can be conned by such a scam you are far to naive to deal with Politics and any type of power.....period.
Not to mention that teaching ID in public schools would violate the Establishment Clause.
On October 20 2010 05:16 Sadist wrote: Anyone who is for teaching ID in public schools needs to be discredited for any position of power to begin with IMO. If you can be conned by such a scam you are far to naive to deal with Politics and any type of power.....period.
Despite how much I don't like the woman, that wasn't her point. It was more about the issue of Congress reaching into what was traditionally viewed to be within the power of the State. In our country's founding, the federal government was viewed to be pretty limited in what it could tell the State to do, but over the centuries that has changed quite a bit. Now the fed gov't is this huge thing that many people see as the governing entity in the USA. It wasn't originally supposed to be this way.
Her qualm with the "separation of church and state" not being in the First is really related to her initial point that the expansion of the power of the feds to infringe on choices that are traditionally held for the State was an incorrect expansion. That's why, I hope, she was making the point about why the separation of church and state isn't explicitly written in the First Amendment but (incorrectly) interpreted to be so...which goes against the original idea of Federalism which is a stance taken by the Tea Party.
But I don't think she understands the fundamental concepts of her party and just has a facial understanding of everything. That's why she generally comes off as a moron, and a reason why I don't like her as a candidate. :D
Edit: So for clarification. Her point wasn't that ID should be taught in schools but that it should be up to the State to determine what is taught to the kids. And the First Amendment "separation of church and state" should not be able to infringe upon this choice because the notion was incorrectly interpretted from the First. It's not that the schools have to teach ID but that it should be able to choose whether or not it wants to. That's not really a bad position; she's just retarded and can't articulate her party's viewpoints properly.
On October 20 2010 06:45 synapse wrote: "Where in the constitution is separation of church and state?"
I can't even hate her anymore, she's too funny xD
Well to be fair to her, that's not written in the Constitution.
However, the clause that government can't make laws respecting the establishment of religion is in the Constitution and she should know that very important fact.
That debate was just painful to watch. Regardless of whether the Tea Party's general political positions are good or not, this woman definitely should not be put in office. She was genuinely surprised when she found out that separation of church and state was in the Constitution.
On October 20 2010 07:07 Baby_Seal wrote: That debate was just painful to watch. Regardless of whether the Tea Party's general political positions are good or not, this woman definitely should not be put in office. She was genuinely surprised when she found out that separation of church and state was in the Constitution.
How is she gonna defend the Constitution when she doesn't even know what's in it? D:
On October 20 2010 05:16 Sadist wrote: Anyone who is for teaching ID in public schools needs to be discredited for any position of power to begin with IMO. If you can be conned by such a scam you are far to naive to deal with Politics and any type of power.....period.
Despite how much I don't like the woman, that wasn't her point. It was more about the issue of Congress reaching into what was traditionally viewed to be within the power of the State. In our country's founding, the federal government was viewed to be pretty limited in what it could tell the State to do, but over the centuries that has changed quite a bit. Now the fed gov't is this huge thing that many people see as the governing entity in the USA. It wasn't originally supposed to be this way.
Her qualm with the "separation of church and state" not being in the First is really related to her initial point that the expansion of the power of the feds to infringe on choices that are traditionally held for the State was an incorrect expansion. That's why, I hope, she was making the point about why the separation of church and state isn't explicitly written in the First Amendment but (incorrectly) interpreted to be so...which goes against the original idea of Federalism which is a stance taken by the Tea Party.
But I don't think she understands the fundamental concepts of her party and just has a facial understanding of everything. That's why she generally comes off as a moron, and a reason why I don't like her as a candidate. :D
Edit: So for clarification. Her point wasn't that ID should be taught in schools but that it should be up to the State to determine what is taught to the kids. And the First Amendment "separation of church and state" should not be able to infringe upon this choice because the notion was incorrectly interpretted from the First. It's not that the schools have to teach ID but that it should be able to choose whether or not it wants to. That's not really a bad position; she's just retarded and can't articulate her party's viewpoints properly.
she tried to differentiate ID from creationism. Im sure she supports teaching ID in public schools.
On October 20 2010 05:16 Sadist wrote: Anyone who is for teaching ID in public schools needs to be discredited for any position of power to begin with IMO. If you can be conned by such a scam you are far to naive to deal with Politics and any type of power.....period.
Despite how much I don't like the woman, that wasn't her point. It was more about the issue of Congress reaching into what was traditionally viewed to be within the power of the State. In our country's founding, the federal government was viewed to be pretty limited in what it could tell the State to do, but over the centuries that has changed quite a bit. Now the fed gov't is this huge thing that many people see as the governing entity in the USA. It wasn't originally supposed to be this way.
Her qualm with the "separation of church and state" not being in the First is really related to her initial point that the expansion of the power of the feds to infringe on choices that are traditionally held for the State was an incorrect expansion. That's why, I hope, she was making the point about why the separation of church and state isn't explicitly written in the First Amendment but (incorrectly) interpreted to be so...which goes against the original idea of Federalism which is a stance taken by the Tea Party.
But I don't think she understands the fundamental concepts of her party and just has a facial understanding of everything. That's why she generally comes off as a moron, and a reason why I don't like her as a candidate. :D
Edit: So for clarification. Her point wasn't that ID should be taught in schools but that it should be up to the State to determine what is taught to the kids. And the First Amendment "separation of church and state" should not be able to infringe upon this choice because the notion was incorrectly interpretted from the First. It's not that the schools have to teach ID but that it should be able to choose whether or not it wants to. That's not really a bad position; she's just retarded and can't articulate her party's viewpoints properly.
she tried to differentiate ID from creationism. Im sure she supports teaching ID in public schools.
On October 20 2010 06:04 lvatural wrote: Edit: So for clarification. Her point wasn't that ID should be taught in schools but that it should be up to the State to determine what is taught to the kids. And the First Amendment "separation of church and state" should not be able to infringe upon this choice because the notion was incorrectly interpretted from the First. It's not that the schools have to teach ID but that it should be able to choose whether or not it wants to. That's not really a bad position; she's just retarded and can't articulate her party's viewpoints properly.
Oh, I'll be devil's advocate here and disagree. I think it really is a bad position and I have a problem with people who have that position. It's just one of many viewpoints I disagree with the religious right on.
On October 20 2010 05:16 Sadist wrote: Anyone who is for teaching ID in public schools needs to be discredited for any position of power to begin with IMO. If you can be conned by such a scam you are far to naive to deal with Politics and any type of power.....period.
Despite how much I don't like the woman, that wasn't her point. It was more about the issue of Congress reaching into what was traditionally viewed to be within the power of the State. In our country's founding, the federal government was viewed to be pretty limited in what it could tell the State to do, but over the centuries that has changed quite a bit. Now the fed gov't is this huge thing that many people see as the governing entity in the USA. It wasn't originally supposed to be this way.
Her qualm with the "separation of church and state" not being in the First is really related to her initial point that the expansion of the power of the feds to infringe on choices that are traditionally held for the State was an incorrect expansion. That's why, I hope, she was making the point about why the separation of church and state isn't explicitly written in the First Amendment but (incorrectly) interpreted to be so...which goes against the original idea of Federalism which is a stance taken by the Tea Party.
But I don't think she understands the fundamental concepts of her party and just has a facial understanding of everything. That's why she generally comes off as a moron, and a reason why I don't like her as a candidate. :D
Edit: So for clarification. Her point wasn't that ID should be taught in schools but that it should be up to the State to determine what is taught to the kids. And the First Amendment "separation of church and state" should not be able to infringe upon this choice because the notion was incorrectly interpretted from the First. It's not that the schools have to teach ID but that it should be able to choose whether or not it wants to. That's not really a bad position; she's just retarded and can't articulate her party's viewpoints properly.
she tried to differentiate ID from creationism. Im sure she supports teaching ID in public schools.
I'm pretty sure that it said that on Wikipedia.
I'm sure she does, but I still don't think that's the point she was trying to make during the debate. The issue was state sovereignty over the federal government, and her idiocy just made it look like an ID vs evolution talk. She's a moron for going in that direction, and naturally you can see why since everyone now just talks about her being for ID instead of the underlying issue at hand.
Btw, I'm not a Tea Party supporter, but I still find it worthwhile to understand the actual stances of the Tea Party (not the random shit that O'Donnell and the like tend to say) just for the hell of it.
On October 20 2010 05:16 Sadist wrote: Anyone who is for teaching ID in public schools needs to be discredited for any position of power to begin with IMO. If you can be conned by such a scam you are far to naive to deal with Politics and any type of power.....period.
Despite how much I don't like the woman, that wasn't her point. It was more about the issue of Congress reaching into what was traditionally viewed to be within the power of the State. In our country's founding, the federal government was viewed to be pretty limited in what it could tell the State to do, but over the centuries that has changed quite a bit. Now the fed gov't is this huge thing that many people see as the governing entity in the USA. It wasn't originally supposed to be this way.
Her qualm with the "separation of church and state" not being in the First is really related to her initial point that the expansion of the power of the feds to infringe on choices that are traditionally held for the State was an incorrect expansion. That's why, I hope, she was making the point about why the separation of church and state isn't explicitly written in the First Amendment but (incorrectly) interpreted to be so...which goes against the original idea of Federalism which is a stance taken by the Tea Party.
But I don't think she understands the fundamental concepts of her party and just has a facial understanding of everything. That's why she generally comes off as a moron, and a reason why I don't like her as a candidate. :D
Edit: So for clarification. Her point wasn't that ID should be taught in schools but that it should be up to the State to determine what is taught to the kids. And the First Amendment "separation of church and state" should not be able to infringe upon this choice because the notion was incorrectly interpretted from the First. It's not that the schools have to teach ID but that it should be able to choose whether or not it wants to. That's not really a bad position; she's just retarded and can't articulate her party's viewpoints properly.
she tried to differentiate ID from creationism. Im sure she supports teaching ID in public schools.
I'm pretty sure that it said that on Wikipedia.
I'm sure she does, but I still don't think that's the point she was trying to make during the debate. The issue was state sovereignty over the federal government, and her idiocy just made it look like an ID vs evolution talk. She's a moron for going in that direction, and naturally you can see why since everyone now just talks about her being for ID instead of the underlying issue at hand.
Btw, I'm not a Tea Party supporter, but I still find it worthwhile to understand the actual stances of the Tea Party (not the random shit that O'Donnell and the like tend to say) just for the hell of it.
I buy that but shes a moron as you said :D Case in point
Insists on making the discussion about cloning humans
On October 20 2010 05:16 Sadist wrote: Anyone who is for teaching ID in public schools needs to be discredited for any position of power to begin with IMO. If you can be conned by such a scam you are far to naive to deal with Politics and any type of power.....period.
Despite how much I don't like the woman, that wasn't her point. It was more about the issue of Congress reaching into what was traditionally viewed to be within the power of the State. In our country's founding, the federal government was viewed to be pretty limited in what it could tell the State to do, but over the centuries that has changed quite a bit. Now the fed gov't is this huge thing that many people see as the governing entity in the USA. It wasn't originally supposed to be this way.
Her qualm with the "separation of church and state" not being in the First is really related to her initial point that the expansion of the power of the feds to infringe on choices that are traditionally held for the State was an incorrect expansion. That's why, I hope, she was making the point about why the separation of church and state isn't explicitly written in the First Amendment but (incorrectly) interpreted to be so...which goes against the original idea of Federalism which is a stance taken by the Tea Party.
But I don't think she understands the fundamental concepts of her party and just has a facial understanding of everything. That's why she generally comes off as a moron, and a reason why I don't like her as a candidate. :D
Edit: So for clarification. Her point wasn't that ID should be taught in schools but that it should be up to the State to determine what is taught to the kids. And the First Amendment "separation of church and state" should not be able to infringe upon this choice because the notion was incorrectly interpretted from the First. It's not that the schools have to teach ID but that it should be able to choose whether or not it wants to. That's not really a bad position; she's just retarded and can't articulate her party's viewpoints properly.
she tried to differentiate ID from creationism. Im sure she supports teaching ID in public schools.
I'm pretty sure that it said that on Wikipedia.
I'm sure she does, but I still don't think that's the point she was trying to make during the debate. The issue was state sovereignty over the federal government, and her idiocy just made it look like an ID vs evolution talk. She's a moron for going in that direction, and naturally you can see why since everyone now just talks about her being for ID instead of the underlying issue at hand.
Btw, I'm not a Tea Party supporter, but I still find it worthwhile to understand the actual stances of the Tea Party (not the random shit that O'Donnell and the like tend to say) just for the hell of it.
I buy that but shes a moron as you said :D Case in point
On October 20 2010 05:19 Krigwin wrote: Wow, my head almost exploded from that debate.
Sadly though, the truly outstanding part is probably where Coons states evolution to be a scientific fact. He's never going to live that down, it's going to go right up next to the Marxist allegations in attack ads.
On October 20 2010 05:19 Krigwin wrote: Wow, my head almost exploded from that debate.
Sadly though, the truly outstanding part is probably where Coons states evolution to be a scientific fact. He's never going to live that down, it's going to go right up next to the Marxist allegations in attack ads.
Evolution is a scientific fact....
He didn't say it isn't. He was saying that the Tea Party people are going to attack him for that.
Man, politics in America is just so crazy these days... ON BOTH SIDES If you are a republican, liberals say you are racist and ignorant If you are a democrat, republicans say you are stupid, corrupt, and power hungry
Can't anyone see that there are valid arguments on both sides? Both parties have crazy scandals, extremists, and fucked up secrets, but that doesn't make the true central issues of the party incorrect.
I like Republican market theory I like most Democratic human rights (sorry, but I had to put the "most" there)
ALSO: Macro-evolution is NOT a scientific fact. It is a theory will substantial evidence. But, theories are created to fit data, so view the evidence as you will. I do believe in evolution, but it would be very ignorant to think that another theory (maybe one not so far off from macro-evolution) is in fact the true origin of species. Science is constantly rewritten! In fact, it strives to prove itself wrong, but for some odd reason, people seem to be very aggressive in pushing evolution on other people. Let them believe what they would like to believe.
When the Protoss come down and tell us the truth, we'll all laugh at the crazy theories we've thought up over the years
The incredibly well-defended theory of evolution is the conclusion that ALL organisms that have ever lived can be traced back to a common ancestor. This is not the same as the observable fact of speciation, or the observable mechanisms of evolution (natural selection, genetic mutation, and genetic drift). Macro-evolution is just micro-evolution + time anyway; to say that micro-evolution occurs but macro-evolution doesn't is like saying that individual seconds can occur but entire minutes cannot.
Ok well I guess it is how you define it. I see (and I could be wrong in my definition) macro evolution as the "jump" from major classes of species (assuming that everything came from a common ancestry).
And it may be my own personal bias, but after the various "missing link" scandals between various species that took so long to come to light, I tend to hold out on believing in the theory of evolution 100%
On October 20 2010 11:45 Beef Noodles wrote: Man, politics in America is just so crazy these days... ON BOTH SIDES If you are a republican, liberals say you are racist and ignorant If you are a democrat, republicans say you are stupid, corrupt, and power hungry
Can't anyone see that there are valid arguments on both sides? Both parties have crazy scandals, extremists, and fucked up secrets, but that doesn't make the true central issues of the party incorrect.
I like Republican market theory I like most Democratic human rights (sorry, but I had to put the "most" there)
ALSO: Macro-evolution is NOT a scientific fact. It is a theory will substantial evidence. But, theories are created to fit data, so view the evidence as you will. I do believe in evolution, but it would be very ignorant to think that another theory (maybe one not so far off from macro-evolution) is in fact the true origin of species. Science is constantly rewritten! In fact, it strives to prove itself wrong, but for some odd reason, people seem to be very aggressive in pushing evolution on other people. Let them believe what they would like to believe.
When the Protoss come down and tell us the truth, we'll all laugh at the crazy theories we've thought up over the years
Youve been conned by the christian coalition for even calling it "macro" evolution. Evolution, gravity, electromagnetism are all essentially facts. Its the explanation for WHY they happen that occasionally gets a bit sketchy. If bigger animals reproduced on the order of bacteria youd see evolution everywhere but since they dont well its like trying to watch fingernails grow.
On October 20 2010 11:45 Beef Noodles wrote: Man, politics in America is just so crazy these days... ON BOTH SIDES If you are a republican, liberals say you are racist and ignorant If you are a democrat, republicans say you are stupid, corrupt, and power hungry
Can't anyone see that there are valid arguments on both sides? Both parties have crazy scandals, extremists, and fucked up secrets, but that doesn't make the true central issues of the party incorrect.
I like Republican market theory I like most Democratic human rights (sorry, but I had to put the "most" there)
ALSO: Macro-evolution is NOT a scientific fact. It is a theory will substantial evidence. But, theories are created to fit data, so view the evidence as you will. I do believe in evolution, but it would be very ignorant to think that another theory (maybe one not so far off from macro-evolution) is in fact the true origin of species. Science is constantly rewritten! In fact, it strives to prove itself wrong, but for some odd reason, people seem to be very aggressive in pushing evolution on other people. Let them believe what they would like to believe.
When the Protoss come down and tell us the truth, we'll all laugh at the crazy theories we've thought up over the years
Youve been conned by the christian coalition for even calling it "macro" evolution. Evolution, gravity, electromagnetism are all essentially facts. Its the explanation for WHY they happen that occasionally gets a bit sketchy. If bigger animals reproduced on the order of bacteria youd see evolution everywhere but since they dont well its like trying to watch fingernails grow.
It has nothing to do with Christians. What?
It has to do with a fundamental view of science. Theories are created to fit data. That data does SUPPORT the theory, but you can't use that data to PROVE the theory (or that would be circular reasoning). I believe in gravity, but I wouldn't call someone crazy for coming up with a different theory that also fit the data (gravity is an extreme example).
Due to the nature of arriving at theories, it is very hard to both prove/disprove an intelligent theory. That is my only point. So be nice to people with a differing opinion (and don't write them off as Christian fundamentalists or whatever).
On October 20 2010 11:45 Beef Noodles wrote: Man, politics in America is just so crazy these days... ON BOTH SIDES If you are a republican, liberals say you are racist and ignorant If you are a democrat, republicans say you are stupid, corrupt, and power hungry
Can't anyone see that there are valid arguments on both sides? Both parties have crazy scandals, extremists, and fucked up secrets, but that doesn't make the true central issues of the party incorrect.
I like Republican market theory I like most Democratic human rights (sorry, but I had to put the "most" there)
ALSO: Macro-evolution is NOT a scientific fact. It is a theory will substantial evidence. But, theories are created to fit data, so view the evidence as you will. I do believe in evolution, but it would be very ignorant to think that another theory (maybe one not so far off from macro-evolution) is in fact the true origin of species. Science is constantly rewritten! In fact, it strives to prove itself wrong, but for some odd reason, people seem to be very aggressive in pushing evolution on other people. Let them believe what they would like to believe.
When the Protoss come down and tell us the truth, we'll all laugh at the crazy theories we've thought up over the years
Youve been conned by the christian coalition for even calling it "macro" evolution. Evolution, gravity, electromagnetism are all essentially facts. Its the explanation for WHY they happen that occasionally gets a bit sketchy. If bigger animals reproduced on the order of bacteria youd see evolution everywhere but since they dont well its like trying to watch fingernails grow.
I think the issue at hand is that of the origin of the species, a theory that in no way can claim the same scientific credibility as that of the theory of gravity.
For any situation you can imagine involving bodies of mass and defined momentums and forces I can predict the movement of these bodies. I cannot count the times this has been done and subsequent trajectories have been observed to be in accordance with the prediction.
The origin of the species is an inherently historic hypothesis and hence it is NOT testable. Give me ANY example of ANY kind of being with limbs observed to evolve from a being without.
Speciation have been observed in the narrow and arbitrary genetic definition of species. No substantial morphological change has ever been observed to evolve.
On October 20 2010 11:45 Beef Noodles wrote: Man, politics in America is just so crazy these days... ON BOTH SIDES If you are a republican, liberals say you are racist and ignorant If you are a democrat, republicans say you are stupid, corrupt, and power hungry
Can't anyone see that there are valid arguments on both sides? Both parties have crazy scandals, extremists, and fucked up secrets, but that doesn't make the true central issues of the party incorrect.
I like Republican market theory I like most Democratic human rights (sorry, but I had to put the "most" there)
ALSO: Macro-evolution is NOT a scientific fact. It is a theory will substantial evidence. But, theories are created to fit data, so view the evidence as you will. I do believe in evolution, but it would be very ignorant to think that another theory (maybe one not so far off from macro-evolution) is in fact the true origin of species. Science is constantly rewritten! In fact, it strives to prove itself wrong, but for some odd reason, people seem to be very aggressive in pushing evolution on other people. Let them believe what they would like to believe.
When the Protoss come down and tell us the truth, we'll all laugh at the crazy theories we've thought up over the years
Youve been conned by the christian coalition for even calling it "macro" evolution. Evolution, gravity, electromagnetism are all essentially facts. Its the explanation for WHY they happen that occasionally gets a bit sketchy. If bigger animals reproduced on the order of bacteria youd see evolution everywhere but since they dont well its like trying to watch fingernails grow.
I think the issue at hand is that of the origin of the species, a theory that in no way can claim the same scientific credibility as that of the theory of gravity.
For any situation you can imagine involving bodies of mass and defined momentums and forces I can predict the movement of these bodies. I cannot count the times this has been done and subsequent trajectories have been observed to be in accordance with the prediction.
The origin of the species is an inherently historic hypothesis and hence it is NOT testable. Give me ANY example of ANY kind of being with limbs observed to evolve from a being without.
Speciation have been observed in the narrow and arbitrary genetic definition of species. No substantial morphological change has ever been observed to evolve.
This is incorrect. The theory of plate tectonics is "inherently historic," yet most would generally consider it as valid a scientific theory as gravity.
On October 20 2010 11:45 Beef Noodles wrote: Man, politics in America is just so crazy these days... ON BOTH SIDES If you are a republican, liberals say you are racist and ignorant If you are a democrat, republicans say you are stupid, corrupt, and power hungry
Can't anyone see that there are valid arguments on both sides? Both parties have crazy scandals, extremists, and fucked up secrets, but that doesn't make the true central issues of the party incorrect.
I like Republican market theory I like most Democratic human rights (sorry, but I had to put the "most" there)
ALSO: Macro-evolution is NOT a scientific fact. It is a theory will substantial evidence. But, theories are created to fit data, so view the evidence as you will. I do believe in evolution, but it would be very ignorant to think that another theory (maybe one not so far off from macro-evolution) is in fact the true origin of species. Science is constantly rewritten! In fact, it strives to prove itself wrong, but for some odd reason, people seem to be very aggressive in pushing evolution on other people. Let them believe what they would like to believe.
When the Protoss come down and tell us the truth, we'll all laugh at the crazy theories we've thought up over the years
Youve been conned by the christian coalition for even calling it "macro" evolution. Evolution, gravity, electromagnetism are all essentially facts. Its the explanation for WHY they happen that occasionally gets a bit sketchy. If bigger animals reproduced on the order of bacteria youd see evolution everywhere but since they dont well its like trying to watch fingernails grow.
The origin of the species is an inherently historic hypothesis and hence it is NOT testable. Give me ANY example of ANY kind of being with limbs observed to evolve from a being without.
Speciation have been observed in the narrow and arbitrary genetic definition of species. No substantial morphological change has ever been observed to evolve.
Speciation is evolution, and a continual progression will lead to dramatic differentiations between species. Your argument is flawed because you're expecting some sort of superficially dramatic and sudden change from one species to another which is not only absurd but also a misguided expectation that can only come from a severe misunderstanding of the theory. What you're asking for is really no different from the hilarious argument that creationists never get tired of: "Then why haven't we seen a monkey give birth to a human?!"
On October 20 2010 12:14 Beef Noodles wrote: It has nothing to do with Christians. What?
Oho, this should be good. Can you name many non-Christian politicians that have been against teaching evolution in schools? Or better yet, just give me a good non-religious reason to even be opposed to teaching evolution in schools. If you don't factor in creationism, it's the best theory we've got for the origin of species, I cannot see any logical reason you would be specifically opposed to it unless you already had a conflicting theory in mind.
Countless theories are taught in schools all over the place, yet I don't see people protesting germ theory or atomic theory, or demanding that other parallel "theories" like numerology or astrology or divination are taught alongside actual science in science classes. No, it's only evolution (and the big bang theory), and the only reason for that would be because it conflicts with creationism, or "intelligent design", the current pseudo-intellectual phrase invented to sneak stuff past the radar.
The real hilarious part is that creationism and evolution are not even opposing theories - evolution is only specifically opposed to the biblical creation stories, and if you're so religious you take every bible story literally, I think you've got bigger problems to worry about than what kids are being taught in public schools.
Look, I don't care if you're religious or just anti-science (and this is not to this poster specifically), but you don't get to pick and choose which parts of science you're going to question when all of science is governed by the same principles. That's just intellectually dishonest. There are lots of theories more questionable than evolution, but the controversy here is only concerning theories that basically state "No, it turns out God didn't breathe the cosmos and all life on Earth into existence in 6 days".
On October 20 2010 12:36 yups wrote: I think the issue at hand is that of the origin of the species, a theory that in no way can claim the same scientific credibility as that of the theory of gravity.
For any situation you can imagine involving bodies of mass and defined momentums and forces I can predict the movement of these bodies. I cannot count the times this has been done and subsequent trajectories have been observed to be in accordance with the prediction.
The origin of the species is an inherently historic hypothesis and hence it is NOT testable. Give me ANY example of ANY kind of being with limbs observed to evolve from a being without.
Speciation have been observed in the narrow and arbitrary genetic definition of species. No substantial morphological change has ever been observed to evolve.
Like, this is exactly what I'm talking about when I say intellectually dishonest.
Plate tectonics, stellar evolution, structure formation, giant impact hypothesis, hell even atomic theory can be considered a "historic" theory. Yet I don't see a big debate over any of these. We can't really test a giant cosmic body crashing into the Earth and observe what happens to all the resulting debris, so I guess that means we don't really have a "credible" idea of how the Moon was created. Maybe Ahura Mazda did it.
I also like how you kind of underhandedly threw in substantial there, because as I'm sure you know there are plenty of examples of rapid evolution resulting in morphological change being observed in nature, but if we're only talking about "substantial", as in a chimpanzee at the zoo morphing into a fully adult human in a matter of seconds, I guess you got me there, evolution is a myth after all.
The intellectual dishonesty is the part that really gets me. Seriously, people have a problem with the idea of humans and monkeys coming from a common ancestor, and yet have no problem with the idea that tiny invisible animals cause disease or the idea that tiny invisible balls of electricity are magically rearranged to form pictures in the magic box we call a TV.
On October 20 2010 12:14 Beef Noodles wrote: It has nothing to do with Christians. What?
Oho, this should be good. Can you name many non-Christian politicians that have been against teaching evolution in schools? Or better yet, just give me a good non-religious reason to even be opposed to teaching evolution in schools. If you don't factor in creationism, it's the best theory we've got for the origin of species, I cannot see any logical reason you would be specifically opposed to it unless you already had a conflicting theory in mind.
Countless theories are taught in schools all over the place, yet I don't see people protesting germ theory or atomic theory, or demanding that other parallel "theories" like numerology or astrology or divination are taught alongside actual science in science classes. No, it's only evolution (and the big bang theory), and the only reason for that would be because it conflicts with creationism, or "intelligent design", the current pseudo-intellectual phrase invented to sneak stuff past the radar.
The real hilarious part is that creationism and evolution are not even opposing theories - evolution is only specifically opposed to the biblical creation stories, and if you're so religious you take every bible story literally, I think you've got bigger problems to worry about than what kids are being taught in public schools.
Look, I don't care if you're religious or just anti-science (and this is not to this poster specifically), but you don't get to pick and choose which parts of science you're going to question when all of science is governed by the same principles. That's just intellectually dishonest. There are lots of theories more questionable than evolution, but the controversy here is only concerning theories that basically state "No, it turns out God didn't breathe the cosmos and all life on Earth into existence in 6 days".
Ok. This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. 1) I never once mentioned Christianity, creationism, or any other theory. 2) I only said that science (as a critical approach to understanding the universe) has to be a little more critical and open to new theories (and of course be highly critical of the new theories as well) 3) This poster get defensive against criticizing a theory! Don't you see the irony? If you stop criticizing and just start accepting theories before they have been ABSOLUTELY proven, it is no longer science and it indeed becomes a religion 4) My only point then and now: why not criticize and be open to new theories? That's how evolution came about anyway.
Oho, this should be good. Can you name many non-Christian politicians that have been against teaching evolution in schools? Or better yet, just give me a good non-religious reason to even be opposed to teaching evolution in schools. If you don't factor in creationism, it's the best theory we've got for the origin of species, I cannot see any logical reason you would be specifically opposed to it unless you already had a conflicting theory in mind.
Can you name any non-Christian politicians, period? Don't make the incorrect assumption that this is purely fundamentalist Christianity since you've only seen the context of this debate in the US, where a huge majority of the nation is Christian.
Ok. This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. 1) I never once mentioned Christianity, creationism, or any other theory. 2) I only said that science (as a critical approach to understanding the universe) has to be a little more critical and open to new theories (and of course be highly critical of the new theories as well) 3) This poster get defensive against criticizing a theory! Don't you see the irony? If you stop criticizing and just start accepting theories before they have been ABSOLUTELY proven, it is no longer science and it indeed becomes a religion 4) My only point then and now: why not criticize and be open to new theories? That's how evolution came about anyway.
Criticism is fine. The problem is that "NUH UH" is not valid criticism. Anything offered by creationists/ID-advocates falls miles short of being anywhere close to valid criticism. Furthermore, the "teach-both" advocacy that many people are upset with has nothing to do with valid criticism of a theory.
On October 20 2010 12:36 yups wrote: I think the issue at hand is that of the origin of the species, a theory that in no way can claim the same scientific credibility as that of the theory of gravity.
Our theories of gravity actually do a terrible job at the quantum level. As far as I know, no force carrier or other means of quantizing gravity have been experimentally confirmed. In fact just a year ago, there was a physics paper published that proposed that gravity could be an entropic phenomenon, rather than a fundamental force.
This theory only seems more complete because there is no political/religious pressure to teach "alternative" theories. If there was a biblical passage that could be interpreted in a way that contradicts gravity, I have little doubt that there would be groups dedicated to discrediting gravity and promoting intelligent falling.
The origin of the species is an inherently historic hypothesis and hence it is NOT testable. Give me ANY example of ANY kind of being with limbs observed to evolve from a being without.
Speciation have been observed in the narrow and arbitrary genetic definition of species. No substantial morphological change has ever been observed to evolve.
Similarly, we can neither test nor observe the hypothesis that American revolutionaries fought a war with England in 1776 which led to the establishment of this country, or that ancient Greece had an advanced civilization that practiced a form of democracy. We can only examine mountains of historical evidence indicating that it happened that way. But you never know, one day a new discovery could radically change our current understanding.
Should school districts be allowed to teach that America was founded in 1981 by Ronald Reagan, or that the first human civilization occurred in the year 800 when the Protoss got tired of watching us fling feces at the other monkeys and came down to teach us language and culture? There's about as much evidence for those alternative histories as there is for any of the alternatives to evolution.
fwiw, I could better tolerate an argument for schools being able to choose to simply not teach evolution. Granted, they might as well decide not to teach about valence electrons in chemistry or teach just skip the Civil War in US History. It would be a sup-par education, but the parts the students did learn would still be useful and true. But having schools teach things, like intelligent design, which have absolutely NO supporting evidence, is mind-boggling. It's literally asking "is it okay for our schools to teach things to students that we're all but 100% sure aren't true?"
Don't fuck this up US guys. Don't give the tea party too much credibility. They are playing with low-level fears and anxieties which is really bad stuff. You will become the laughing stock of at least Europe again if they get too much coverage or even manage to get into any significant offices.
On October 20 2010 12:14 Beef Noodles wrote: It has nothing to do with Christians. What?
Oho, this should be good. Can you name many non-Christian politicians that have been against teaching evolution in schools? Or better yet, just give me a good non-religious reason to even be opposed to teaching evolution in schools. If you don't factor in creationism, it's the best theory we've got for the origin of species, I cannot see any logical reason you would be specifically opposed to it unless you already had a conflicting theory in mind.
Countless theories are taught in schools all over the place, yet I don't see people protesting germ theory or atomic theory, or demanding that other parallel "theories" like numerology or astrology or divination are taught alongside actual science in science classes. No, it's only evolution (and the big bang theory), and the only reason for that would be because it conflicts with creationism, or "intelligent design", the current pseudo-intellectual phrase invented to sneak stuff past the radar.
The real hilarious part is that creationism and evolution are not even opposing theories - evolution is only specifically opposed to the biblical creation stories, and if you're so religious you take every bible story literally, I think you've got bigger problems to worry about than what kids are being taught in public schools.
Look, I don't care if you're religious or just anti-science (and this is not to this poster specifically), but you don't get to pick and choose which parts of science you're going to question when all of science is governed by the same principles. That's just intellectually dishonest. There are lots of theories more questionable than evolution, but the controversy here is only concerning theories that basically state "No, it turns out God didn't breathe the cosmos and all life on Earth into existence in 6 days".
Ok. This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. 1) I never once mentioned Christianity, creationism, or any other theory. 2) I only said that science (as a critical approach to understanding the universe) has to be a little more critical and open to new theories (and of course be highly critical of the new theories as well) 3) This poster get defensive against criticizing a theory! Don't you see the irony? If you stop criticizing and just start accepting theories before they have been ABSOLUTELY proven, it is no longer science and it indeed becomes a religion 4) My only point then and now: why not criticize and be open to new theories? That's how evolution came about anyway.
You seem to misunderstand the difference between fact and theory and also what theory actually means in scientific terms. The word "evolution" is used to refer to both: an observable fact (that allele frequencies change over time in a population), which obviously has been observed numerous times in the field and in the lab and can be replicated under controlled conditions, and a scientific theory which is supposed to explain those facts mainly by a combination of gene variation and natural selection.
The fact of evolution is not going to change in the sense that change in allele frequences is responsible for speciation and the biodiversity we see today. What will change are the details of the theory of evolution in light of new discoveries with regard to the mechanisms responsible the for propagation of allele frequency changes. Maybe it will even be overturned and replaced by a new theory even if this seems unlikely. But just like gravity will not cease to exist as soon as relativity theory will be replaced by a better theory (which seems just a matter of time), neither will the fact of evolution ever disappear again or be "disproven". It can't be. It's a fact.
A scientific theory is as close to sure knowledge as one can ever get, it is the highest form of scientific insight. That is also why one can see a clear trend that theories which are held today are never really invalidated in light of new insight (even though this would sure be possible) but rather refined in more and more details. Teaching and accepting the best theories mankind has developed thus far as the representation of the highest degree of knowledge in every field, is not being uncritical, but being rational.
As usual, creationists attack evolution using their own ignorance of science and terminology instead of having a real scientific argument (since they can't come up with one).
Evolution is a fact in that it is observed to occur. The theory of evolution is different because it explains the process of speciation by natural selection and genetic drift. To be a scientific theory 2 criteria must be met:
1. A theory must explain observed phenomena (creationism can fit this as well as magic or any imaginative story can) 2. A theory must predict future phenomena (creationism or any crappy story can NEVER fit this)
The Theory of Evolution explains the abundance of diverse species as a result of natural selection and genetic drift causing the genetic makeup of populations changing over time. Evidence for the Theory of Evolution includes similar species having similar genetics. Some species that are clearly separate may occasionally produce sterile offspring. This indicates that these species separated from each other a long time ago but haven't quite differentiated enough genetically to prevent mating. However, they have differentiated enough so that their offspring are non-viable and cannot merge the species.
The Theory Evolution would predict that bacteria will become resistant to antibiotics because antibiotics are a selection pressure. Antibiotics kill the vast majority of bacteria. However, the occasional bacterial cell may survive due to a random genetic mutation, perhaps in an enzyme, so that an enzyme normally used for something else can now break down the antibiotic. This bacteria can survive in environments with the antibiotic and becomes the dominant strain. This was predicted by the Theory of Evolution and then was observed to occur,
Just the existance of gavity is a fact, but we also have a Theory of Gravity that explains how it works and predicts how gravity will affect things, evolution is a fact and has an accompanying theory. Actually, the Theory of Evolution is actually more solid than the Theory of Gravity because we still haven't discovered the mythical "graviton" particle that exerts gravity, but we have identified DNA, the substance that imparts the characteristics of a species.
Religious fundamentalists try to confuse people by calling Creationism/Intelligent Design a theory even though it isn't strong enough to qualify for the term, which represents the highest level of understanding possible in science. In fact, Creationism / Intelligent Design isn't even worth enough to be a scientific hypothesis, because to be a hypothesis it must be possible to test, and it's impossible to test if a god created humans from dirt.
On October 20 2010 11:45 Beef Noodles wrote: Man, politics in America is just so crazy these days... ON BOTH SIDES If you are a republican, liberals say you are racist and ignorant If you are a democrat, republicans say you are stupid, corrupt, and power hungry
Can't anyone see that there are valid arguments on both sides? Both parties have crazy scandals, extremists, and fucked up secrets, but that doesn't make the true central issues of the party incorrect.
I like Republican market theory I like most Democratic human rights (sorry, but I had to put the "most" there)
ALSO: Macro-evolution is NOT a scientific fact. It is a theory will substantial evidence. But, theories are created to fit data, so view the evidence as you will. I do believe in evolution, but it would be very ignorant to think that another theory (maybe one not so far off from macro-evolution) is in fact the true origin of species. Science is constantly rewritten! In fact, it strives to prove itself wrong, but for some odd reason, people seem to be very aggressive in pushing evolution on other people. Let them believe what they would like to believe.
When the Protoss come down and tell us the truth, we'll all laugh at the crazy theories we've thought up over the years
Youve been conned by the christian coalition for even calling it "macro" evolution. Evolution, gravity, electromagnetism are all essentially facts. Its the explanation for WHY they happen that occasionally gets a bit sketchy. If bigger animals reproduced on the order of bacteria youd see evolution everywhere but since they dont well its like trying to watch fingernails grow.
It has nothing to do with Christians. What?
It has to do with a fundamental view of science. Theories are created to fit data. That data does SUPPORT the theory, but you can't use that data to PROVE the theory (or that would be circular reasoning). I believe in gravity, but I wouldn't call someone crazy for coming up with a different theory that also fit the data (gravity is an extreme example).
Due to the nature of arriving at theories, it is very hard to both prove/disprove an intelligent theory. That is my only point. So be nice to people with a differing opinion (and don't write them off as Christian fundamentalists or whatever).
On October 20 2010 15:34 jacen wrote: Don't fuck this up US guys. Don't give the tea party too much credibility. They are playing with low-level fears and anxieties which is really bad stuff. You will become the laughing stock of at least Europe again if they get too much coverage or even manage to get into any significant offices.
What is with all the left wingers on this website? America is already a laughing stock economically , i like the tea parties conservative economic policies. You can't keep spending at the rate Obama has been and not expect to wake up with a big hangover.
On October 20 2010 15:34 jacen wrote: Don't fuck this up US guys. Don't give the tea party too much credibility. They are playing with low-level fears and anxieties which is really bad stuff. You will become the laughing stock of at least Europe again if they get too much coverage or even manage to get into any significant offices.
What is with all the left wingers on this website? America is already a laughing stock economically , i like the tea parties conservative economic policies. You can't keep spending at the rate Obama has been and not expect to wake up with a big hangover.
calling people with brains left wingers? this woman is just incredibly dumb. she wants the us to be like iran in case u didn't know. she did not even know the separation of state and religion is in the first ammendment of the constitution. how can someone support the us becoming a christian religious state? let alone those dumb economic arguments of people still believing in wrong economic rules like government spendings (government spendings will be reinvested netting the government more taxes f.e.). but i won't comment this bs.
just some nice quotes of this lady:
Coons said that creationism, which he considers "a religious doctrine," should not be taught in public schools due to the Constitution's First Amendment. He argued that it explicitly enumerates the separation of church and state.
The First Amendment does?" O'Donnell asked. "Let me just clarify: You're telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?"
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," Coons responded, reciting from memory the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
"That's in the First Amendment...?" O'Donnell responded.
On October 20 2010 15:34 jacen wrote: Don't fuck this up US guys. Don't give the tea party too much credibility. They are playing with low-level fears and anxieties which is really bad stuff. You will become the laughing stock of at least Europe again if they get too much coverage or even manage to get into any significant offices.
What is with all the left wingers on this website? America is already a laughing stock economically , i like the tea parties conservative economic policies. You can't keep spending at the rate Obama has been and not expect to wake up with a big hangover.
I love the tea party's original goals. I think the biggest threat to US well-being and safety by FAR is the government.... reckless spending on an unbelievable level, the slow creep towards a police state (but no policing of huge financial entities that are literally robbing US citizens), and the insane desire to give the rich MORE tax cuts.
I hate what the tea party has become. Millions of retarded right-wingers joined the movement and soon far outnumbered the original tea partiers. Now it's all about Muslim fears and idiotic "take our country back" nonsense, fear-based politics, and people who just want all our problems magically fixed without paying for anything or cutting any costs.
In fact I'm pretty sure if the current tea party had their way, they'd cut no spending, increase tax cuts, and blow the deficit up into the stratosphere. It's the complete opposite of what they were supposed to be.
Christine O'Donnell and all the others hate the idea of government spending and really want the deficit gone, but can't come up with a single way to actually reduce the spending. Fortunately all of the followers are happy to cheer along with the talking points, and don't think far enough to realize that no solutions to the problems are being offered.
On October 20 2010 11:45 Beef Noodles wrote: Man, politics in America is just so crazy these days... ON BOTH SIDES If you are a republican, liberals say you are racist and ignorant If you are a democrat, republicans say you are stupid, corrupt, and power hungry
Can't anyone see that there are valid arguments on both sides? Both parties have crazy scandals, extremists, and fucked up secrets, but that doesn't make the true central issues of the party incorrect.
I like Republican market theory I like most Democratic human rights (sorry, but I had to put the "most" there)
ALSO: Macro-evolution is NOT a scientific fact. It is a theory will substantial evidence. But, theories are created to fit data, so view the evidence as you will. I do believe in evolution, but it would be very ignorant to think that another theory (maybe one not so far off from macro-evolution) is in fact the true origin of species. Science is constantly rewritten! In fact, it strives to prove itself wrong, but for some odd reason, people seem to be very aggressive in pushing evolution on other people. Let them believe what they would like to believe.
When the Protoss come down and tell us the truth, we'll all laugh at the crazy theories we've thought up over the years
Youve been conned by the christian coalition for even calling it "macro" evolution. Evolution, gravity, electromagnetism are all essentially facts. Its the explanation for WHY they happen that occasionally gets a bit sketchy. If bigger animals reproduced on the order of bacteria youd see evolution everywhere but since they dont well its like trying to watch fingernails grow.
It has nothing to do with Christians. What?
It has to do with a fundamental view of science. Theories are created to fit data. That data does SUPPORT the theory, but you can't use that data to PROVE the theory (or that would be circular reasoning). I believe in gravity, but I wouldn't call someone crazy for coming up with a different theory that also fit the data (gravity is an extreme example).
Due to the nature of arriving at theories, it is very hard to both prove/disprove an intelligent theory. That is my only point. So be nice to people with a differing opinion (and don't write them off as Christian fundamentalists or whatever).
But Christine O'Donnell=Christian fundamentalist
I dont know if this was a joke post or not but if people cant see that ID is simply codeword for creationism I dont think we can have any type of discussion because its pointless. Read up on the history of where "Intelligent design" came from and its plainly obvious that its creationism packaged to con people into thinking its real science. Its a tactic of trying to muddy up the waters like cigarette companies tried to use to say they arent harmful to your health.
Nowadays they are simply trying to get the "debate" taught, but there is no fucking debate so its just these people trying to confuse people and ruin them.
It's not surprising that she doesn't know that, after all if you ask the average joe on the street about the first amendment they'll tell you it's about freedom of speech which it is, but of course that's not the first sentence. I bet you couldn't get more then 5% (that's about 20 of 435)of the house to recite the first amendment word by word. Maybe people don't know that now because most people aren't worried about the President crowning himself pope and making us all tithe to the government, but back in 1780s that was sort of an issue.
That being said, she should totally know that if she's running for office. Odds are she's not going to get elected, but either way it's still a sad comment on our political system where the best candidates are still complete idiots.
btw people over use fundamentalist, Amish are fundamentalist, O'Donnel is just a stupid person.
Republicans are no better at fiscal responsibility than Democrats. The only difference is what they want to spend the money on. Democrats want to extend health care coverage and unemployment benefits, Republicans want to put more into military contractors and tax cuts for the rich (abolishing things like estate taxes that only affect multimillion dollar estates).
The Tea Party may have started off as a separate entity of concerned voters, but it's been wholely consumed by the Republican establishment.
On October 20 2010 14:29 Beef Noodles wrote: Ok. This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. 1) I never once mentioned Christianity, creationism, or any other theory. 2) I only said that science (as a critical approach to understanding the universe) has to be a little more critical and open to new theories (and of course be highly critical of the new theories as well) 3) This poster get defensive against criticizing a theory! Don't you see the irony? If you stop criticizing and just start accepting theories before they have been ABSOLUTELY proven, it is no longer science and it indeed becomes a religion 4) My only point then and now: why not criticize and be open to new theories? That's how evolution came about anyway.
1. You don't know what a scientific theory is. See preceding posts. 2. You made the bold claim of "It has nothing to do with Christianity". Your words, not mine. You make a badass blanket assertion like that, best be prepared to back it up. I am challenging that claim, so please, do go on. Nowhere did I say there was anything wrong with criticizing a theory, I merely made the observation that it appears the totality of the people doing the criticizing appear to be religious. If you can rebut this claim, by all means, go ahead.
On October 20 2010 14:51 LlamaNamedOsama wrote: Can you name any non-Christian politicians, period? Don't make the incorrect assumption that this is purely fundamentalist Christianity since you've only seen the context of this debate in the US, where a huge majority of the nation is Christian.
Whoa, how silly of me to make that obviously incorrect assumption in a clearly US-based thread about clearly American politicians in an American debate. Clearly I did not realize we were actually talking about things in a global context, my apologies.
So when is the Pope moving the Vatican do Washington ? You can have it. Many times i thought italian politics is so corrupt and bad, putting idiots in parliament, but it doesn't seem to be a local thing. At least they don't openly talk about a christian state, we had that for so long and had to siege the pope to end it some 150 years ago, so ok you can have him, the vatican and his castle.
On October 21 2010 04:23 Ganondorf wrote: So when is the Pope moving the Vatican do Washington ? You can have it. Many times i thought italian politics is so corrupt and bad, putting idiots in parliament, but it doesn't seem to be a local thing. At least they don't openly talk about a christian state, we had that for so long and had to siege the pope to end it some 150 years ago, so ok you can have him, the vatican and his castle.
On October 20 2010 14:29 Beef Noodles wrote: Ok. This is a perfect example of what I am talking about. 1) I never once mentioned Christianity, creationism, or any other theory. 2) I only said that science (as a critical approach to understanding the universe) has to be a little more critical and open to new theories (and of course be highly critical of the new theories as well) 3) This poster get defensive against criticizing a theory! Don't you see the irony? If you stop criticizing and just start accepting theories before they have been ABSOLUTELY proven, it is no longer science and it indeed becomes a religion 4) My only point then and now: why not criticize and be open to new theories? That's how evolution came about anyway.
1. You don't know what a scientific theory is. See preceding posts. 2. You made the bold claim of "It has nothing to do with Christianity". Your words, not mine. You make a badass blanket assertion like that, best be prepared to back it up. I am challenging that claim, so please, do go on. Nowhere did I say there was anything wrong with criticizing a theory, I merely made the observation that it appears the totality of the people doing the criticizing appear to be religious. If you can rebut this claim, by all means, go ahead.
On October 20 2010 14:51 LlamaNamedOsama wrote: Can you name any non-Christian politicians, period? Don't make the incorrect assumption that this is purely fundamentalist Christianity since you've only seen the context of this debate in the US, where a huge majority of the nation is Christian.
Whoa, how silly of me to make that obviously incorrect assumption in a clearly US-based thread about clearly American politicians in an American debate. Clearly I did not realize we were actually talking about things in a global context, my apologies.
I really don't like internet arguing. You're right. Everyone who disagrees with you just doesn't know what they are talking about. (Don't read this sarcastically -- I give up)
I didn't read all of earlier replies because there's 32 pages.
I'm from Finland, still I have been following this thing beginning 2008 when Ron Paul run for president. He didn't win the elections (duh) but he gained lot of momentum for his message for minimum goverment. This was not mentioned much in the mainstream media. The momentum has grown ever since thanks to active people and USA economy problems.
I don't live in USA so it's hard for me to say much about this subject tho I enjoy following this thing on the internet.
Go to campaignforliberty.com lots of related stuff there. don't believe everything you read tho
[QUOTE]On October 20 2010 20:15 Chocobo wrote: [QUOTE]On October 20 2010 17:35 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: [QUOTE]On October 20 2010 15:34 jacen wrote: Don't fuck this up US guys. Don't give the tea party too much credibility. They are playing with low-level fears and anxieties which is really bad stuff. You will become the laughing stock of at least Europe again if they get too much coverage or even manage to get into any significant offices.[/QUOTE]
In fact I'm pretty sure if the current tea party had their way, they'd cut no spending, increase tax cuts, and blow the deficit up into the stratosphere. It's the complete opposite of what they were supposed to be.
Christine O'Donnell and all the others hate the idea of government spending and really want the deficit gone, but can't come up with a single way to actually reduce the spending. Fortunately all of the followers are happy to cheer along with the talking points, and don't think far enough to realize that no solutions to the problems are being offered.[/QUOTE] Totally agreed with you till you started talking about Christine )`Donnell but all of this Tea Party crap is making me want to stop being a republican. I think out number one goal needs to get out of iraq. There`s nothing left we can do everybody is hiding in Iran.
I'm always amused by liberal publications that try to define and understand the tea party movement. They inevitably fail miserably. This article is no different. There's a reason why Newsweek (the organization) was recently sold for $1.
You can't distill the tea party movement to one person or one platform. If you really want to understand the tea party, you actually have to take the time to listen to people from the tea party.
Wow, thank you for posting that. That was the funniest thing I have read in a while.
I can't believe she actually thinks that the Constitution is a holy document. What a dumb fucking bitch xD
West Virginia Senate nominee John Raese declares that the minimum wage should “absolutely” be abolished
>.< That'd be like legalizing slavery...
Also, if the Tea Party wants minimal federal government, doesn't that approach Communism? The ultimate goal of Communism is to get rid of the government, so it seems that the Tea Party wants to get a lot closer to that than Obama ever will.
On October 22 2010 01:53 xDaunt wrote: I'm always amused by liberal publications that try to define and understand the tea party movement. They inevitably fail miserably. This article is no different. There's a reason why Newsweek (the organization) was recently sold for $1.
You can't distill the tea party movement to one person or one platform. If you really want to understand the tea party, you actually have to take the time to listen to people from the tea party.
Do you have any disarming insight as to why the article fails miserably or are you just here to make quips and dismiss others? I'm asking seriously here, I just got linked that article and thought it was interesting and don't really have any stake in the topic one way or the other.
Also, I don't know if you know this but this entire thread is basically people taking the time to listen to the Tea Party. In fact I'd say this whole "listening to people from the Tea Party" thing is the whole source of the controversy.
On October 22 2010 01:53 xDaunt wrote: I'm always amused by liberal publications that try to define and understand the tea party movement. They inevitably fail miserably. This article is no different. There's a reason why Newsweek (the organization) was recently sold for $1.
You can't distill the tea party movement to one person or one platform. If you really want to understand the tea party, you actually have to take the time to listen to people from the tea party.
Do you have any disarming insight as to why the article fails miserably or are you just here to make quips and dismiss others? I'm asking seriously here, I just got linked that article and thought it was interesting and don't really have any stake in the topic one way or the other.
Also, I don't know if you know this but this entire thread is basically people taking the time to listen to the Tea Party. In fact I'd say this whole "listening to people from the Tea Party" thing is the whole source of the controversy.
It's very simple why the article fails miserably; the article is written with an agenda in mind: discredit the tea-party movement. There's no attempt by the author to even look at the tea party movement objectively. Just look at how the article opens: a gratuitous attack on O'Donnell. Don't get me wrong, I don't particularly care for her, but those opening paragraphs might as well have been written by her political opponent. Attacking her like that is irrelevant to the purported main thrust of the article: understanding the tea party.
On October 22 2010 01:53 xDaunt wrote: I'm always amused by liberal publications that try to define and understand the tea party movement. They inevitably fail miserably. This article is no different. There's a reason why Newsweek (the organization) was recently sold for $1.
You can't distill the tea party movement to one person or one platform. If you really want to understand the tea party, you actually have to take the time to listen to people from the tea party.
Do you have any disarming insight as to why the article fails miserably or are you just here to make quips and dismiss others? I'm asking seriously here, I just got linked that article and thought it was interesting and don't really have any stake in the topic one way or the other.
Also, I don't know if you know this but this entire thread is basically people taking the time to listen to the Tea Party. In fact I'd say this whole "listening to people from the Tea Party" thing is the whole source of the controversy.
It's very simple why the article fails miserably; the article is written with an agenda in mind: discredit the tea-party movement. There's no attempt by the author to even look at the tea party movement objectively. Just look at how the article opens: a gratuitous attack on O'Donnell. Don't get me wrong, I don't particularly care for her, but those opening paragraphs might as well have been written by her political opponent. Attacking her like that is irrelevant to the purported main thrust of the article: understanding the tea party.
The problem with your argument is these people are the supposed Tea Party candidates. If they don't represent the Tea Party, then more Tea Party supporters should speak out against their ideas.
On October 22 2010 02:09 Ferrose wrote: I think that O'Donnell pretty much made herself look like an idiot in the first few paragraphs. I don't see how the article did anything.
I'm not denying that O'Donnell has done stupid things. The point is that the author of the article chose to talk about those stupid things in the context of attempting to describe the tea party movement. Editorial decisions like that betray the precise objectives and biases of authors. There pretty much is no politician out there who hasn't done or said something incredibly stupid -- left or right. That they have done/said something stupid doesn't necessarily mean that they everything that they purport to represent should be discredited.
On October 22 2010 01:53 xDaunt wrote: I'm always amused by liberal publications that try to define and understand the tea party movement. They inevitably fail miserably. This article is no different. There's a reason why Newsweek (the organization) was recently sold for $1.
You can't distill the tea party movement to one person or one platform. If you really want to understand the tea party, you actually have to take the time to listen to people from the tea party.
Do you have any disarming insight as to why the article fails miserably or are you just here to make quips and dismiss others? I'm asking seriously here, I just got linked that article and thought it was interesting and don't really have any stake in the topic one way or the other.
Also, I don't know if you know this but this entire thread is basically people taking the time to listen to the Tea Party. In fact I'd say this whole "listening to people from the Tea Party" thing is the whole source of the controversy.
It's very simple why the article fails miserably; the article is written with an agenda in mind: discredit the tea-party movement. There's no attempt by the author to even look at the tea party movement objectively. Just look at how the article opens: a gratuitous attack on O'Donnell. Don't get me wrong, I don't particularly care for her, but those opening paragraphs might as well have been written by her political opponent. Attacking her like that is irrelevant to the purported main thrust of the article: understanding the tea party.
The problem with your argument is these people are the supposed Tea Party candidates. If they don't represent the Tea Party, then more Tea Party supporters should speak out against their ideas.
That's like saying that the entire Democratic party should be discredited because of some of their walking gaffe-machines, like Harry Reid or Joe Biden. You can't understand a political movement as large as the tea party movement just by looking at one candidate or politician. O'Donnell is obviously one of the weaker links in the tea party movement. No one's going to deny that. The point is that the Newsweek author decided to focus upon her in an attempt to explain the tea party movement. Hrm, I wonder how that will turn out?
On October 22 2010 01:53 xDaunt wrote: I'm always amused by liberal publications that try to define and understand the tea party movement. They inevitably fail miserably. This article is no different. There's a reason why Newsweek (the organization) was recently sold for $1.
You can't distill the tea party movement to one person or one platform. If you really want to understand the tea party, you actually have to take the time to listen to people from the tea party.
Do you have any disarming insight as to why the article fails miserably or are you just here to make quips and dismiss others? I'm asking seriously here, I just got linked that article and thought it was interesting and don't really have any stake in the topic one way or the other.
Also, I don't know if you know this but this entire thread is basically people taking the time to listen to the Tea Party. In fact I'd say this whole "listening to people from the Tea Party" thing is the whole source of the controversy.
It's very simple why the article fails miserably; the article is written with an agenda in mind: discredit the tea-party movement. There's no attempt by the author to even look at the tea party movement objectively. Just look at how the article opens: a gratuitous attack on O'Donnell. Don't get me wrong, I don't particularly care for her, but those opening paragraphs might as well have been written by her political opponent. Attacking her like that is irrelevant to the purported main thrust of the article: understanding the tea party.
The problem with your argument is these people are the supposed Tea Party candidates. If they don't represent the Tea Party, then more Tea Party supporters should speak out against their ideas.
That's like saying that the entire Democratic party should be discredited because of some of their walking gaffe-machines, like Harry Reid or Joe Biden. You can't understand a political movement as large as the tea party movement just by looking at one candidate or politician. O'Donnell is obviously one of the weaker links in the tea party movement. No one's going to deny that. The point is that the Newsweek author decided to focus upon her in an attempt to explain the tea party movement. Hrm, I wonder how that will turn out?
So what about Palin, Miller, Angle, Bachmann, and other Tea Party supporting Congressmen that the article also mentions?
What about the discussion of "originalist" ideas of the Constitution?
O'Donnell is mostly used to illustrate the point that a lot of these people are cherry-picking how to interpret the Constitution instead of the "strict" interpretation they claim to have.
On October 22 2010 02:06 xDaunt wrote: It's very simple why the article fails miserably; the article is written with an agenda in mind: discredit the tea-party movement. There's no attempt by the author to even look at the tea party movement objectively. Just look at how the article opens: a gratuitous attack on O'Donnell. Don't get me wrong, I don't particularly care for her, but those opening paragraphs might as well have been written by her political opponent. Attacking her like that is irrelevant to the purported main thrust of the article: understanding the tea party.
The opening paragraphs are all direct quotes from O'Donnell as well as press recaps of her various scandals. Are you saying direct quotation and statement of facts constitutes an "attack"? It's not the "liberal media" or her political opponent who said these things, they were direct lines from O'Donnell's speech. The rest of the article is filled with direct lines from founding fathers and various members of the Tea Party, the author of the article did not make any of that up.
In fact, the only opinion part of the piece is equating the Tea Party with fundamentalism, and the author draws this (objective) comparison from direct quotes from the Tea Party as well as comparison to similar, if not identical, fundamentalist groups from the past. If you disagree, which is your right, that hardly constitutes the article as a "failure". Civil discourse cannot exist if we're going to degenerate into outright dismissal of dissenting opinions and accusations of "agendas".
As an aside, I have never met a member of the Tea Party who admitted to supporting O'Donnell, or Glenn Beck, or Palin, or Bush, or anyone else like that. In fact, the media crusades of such people and their opinions are downright dismissed by such "real" Tea Party members, who claim that they do not truly represent the Tea Party, or that they have somehow hijacked the image of the Tea Party. Well, all I can say is, there must be an enormous underclass of highly opinionated phantom people in the Tea Party that are somehow managing the Tea Party's finances as well as selecting candidates for the Tea Party to support, over the objections of "real" Tea Party members.
I'm still waiting for a creditable, or hell... SANE person to emerge from the Tea Party.
Granted, I don't follow their chaotic movement much, for all I do have some sympathies with their agenda. I have yet to see a creditable, competent, or consistent message with well founded logic, principals, or ideas.
Maybe the reason why nobody 'liberal' can identify the tea party is because they have no identity. They have some rough, highly biased positions with no real answers or solutions, and they make a lot of noise proclaiming them, but they don't really say anything in spite of it all.
On October 22 2010 02:41 Obsidian wrote: I'm still waiting for a creditable, or hell... SANE person to emerge from the Tea Party.
Granted, I don't follow their chaotic movement much, for all I do have some sympathies with their agenda. I have yet to see a creditable, competent, or consistent message with well founded logic, principals, or ideas.
Maybe the reason why nobody 'liberal' can identify the tea party is because they have no identity. They have some rough, highly biased positions with no real answers or solutions, and they make a lot of noise proclaiming them, but they don't really say anything in spite of it all.
I actually think Marco Rubio isn't all that bad. Then again, he doesn't identify himself as a Tea Partier even though he used them in the primaries.
On October 22 2010 02:06 xDaunt wrote: It's very simple why the article fails miserably; the article is written with an agenda in mind: discredit the tea-party movement. There's no attempt by the author to even look at the tea party movement objectively. Just look at how the article opens: a gratuitous attack on O'Donnell. Don't get me wrong, I don't particularly care for her, but those opening paragraphs might as well have been written by her political opponent. Attacking her like that is irrelevant to the purported main thrust of the article: understanding the tea party.
The opening paragraphs are all direct quotes from O'Donnell as well as press recaps of her various scandals. Are you saying direct quotation and statement of facts constitutes an "attack"? It's not the "liberal media" or her political opponent who said these things, they were direct lines from O'Donnell's speech. The rest of the article is filled with direct lines from founding fathers and various members of the Tea Party, the author of the article did not make any of that up.
In fact, the only opinion part of the piece is equating the Tea Party with fundamentalism, and the author draws this (objective) comparison from direct quotes from the Tea Party as well as comparison to similar, if not identical, fundamentalist groups from the past. If you disagree, which is your right, that hardly constitutes the article as a "failure". Civil discourse cannot exist if we're going to degenerate into outright dismissal of dissenting opinions and accusations of "agendas".
As an aside, I have never met a member of the Tea Party who admitted to supporting O'Donnell, or Glenn Beck, or Palin, or Bush, or anyone else like that. In fact, the media crusades of such people and their opinions are downright dismissed by such "real" Tea Party members, who claim that they do not truly represent the Tea Party, or that they have somehow hijacked the image of the Tea Party. Well, all I can say is, there must be an enormous underclass of highly opinionated phantom people in the Tea Party that are somehow managing the Tea Party's finances as well as selecting candidates for the Tea Party to support, over the objections of "real" Tea Party members.
The point is that the author is portraying the tea party through O'Donnell in an attempt to verify his main argument about the tea party: the tea party is a bunch of conservative lunatics looking to protect and promote their conservative social values and beliefs. That argument is simply incorrect.
Here's the meat of the article:
The Tea Partiers belong to a different tradition—a tradition of divisive fundamentalism. Like other fundamentalists, they seek refuge from the complexity and confusion of modern life in the comforting embrace of an authoritarian scripture and the imagined past it supposedly represents. Like other fundamentalists, they see in their good book only what they want to see: confirmation of their preexisting beliefs. Like other fundamentalists, they don’t sweat the details, and they ignore all ambiguities. And like other fundamentalists, they make enemies or evildoers of those who disagree with their doctrine.
Let me distill down what the author is saying: the tea party = the religious right in America. It's a load of garbage. The religious right has always been a prominent and vocal minority in the country. The religious right makes up only about 20% of the population. Just like the "liberal" 20% of the country, this minority by itself cannot drive elections. There has to be a broader appeal that attracts a broader voting base. Though it certainly is an element of the tea party, the religious right is not what is driving the tea party now. The tea party is much bigger than that.
The tea party is a grassroots reactionary movement to a federal government that a very large percentage of Americans see as, at best, disconnected and out of touch with the American people. Less charitably speaking, the tea party sees the federal government as being full of corrupt politicians that are answering to special interests and not the people. Watching Congress pass Obamacare, which was unpopular as a bill and is even less popular now, only serves as proof of the tea party's suspicions. A majority of people did not want Obamacare, they voiced that opposition, yet they got Obamacare anyway. Other bills, such as the stimulus bill, are further proof of this.
Just to be clear, the anger that has galvanized the tea party didn't start with the Obama administration. It started during the Bush administration when Bush and the republicans passed a bunch of bills that the people did not want. That's why so many incumbent republicans were slaughtered during the primaries.
This is the fundamental misunderstanding of the tea party.
The other thing that amazes me constantly is how the strength of the tea party movement has been consistently underestimated. It's been derided as "astroturf," "special interest driven," and "lacking staying power." There's going to be a grand reassessment following the elections in November.
Well, all the people who are running for office under the Tea Party name (or at least those mentioned n the article) are crazy people trying to promote their own selfish agenda. So that's all we hear about. The extremists.
And Congress doesn't give a damn if a majority of people don't want Obamacare. Something like 98% of Congressional incumbents get reelected. If the people aren't happy, they sure aren't showing it in the polls.
On October 22 2010 03:25 Ferrose wrote: Well, all the people who are running for office under the Tea Party name (or at least those mentioned n the article) are crazy people trying to promote their own selfish agenda. So that's all we hear about. The extremists.
The reason why there are so many misconceptions about the tea party is that most of the media intentionally misrepresents the tea party as a bunch of fringe lunatics. The Newsweek article was predictably guilty of it, and that's why I made fun of the article.
On October 22 2010 03:25 Ferrose wrote: And Congress doesn't give a damn if a majority of people don't want Obamacare. Something like 98% of Congressional incumbents get reelected. If the people aren't happy, they sure aren't showing it in the polls.
I don't know what polls you're looking at, but everyone who voted for Obamacare and the stimulus package, except those who are in the staunchest of blue/democratic districts, is in danger of being thrown out of office. Every poll shows the democrats getting epically slaughtered in this election.
On October 22 2010 03:25 Ferrose wrote: Well, all the people who are running for office under the Tea Party name (or at least those mentioned n the article) are crazy people trying to promote their own selfish agenda. So that's all we hear about. The extremists.
The reason why there are so many misconceptions about the tea party is that most of the media intentionally misrepresents the tea party as a bunch of fringe lunatics. The Newsweek article was predictably guilty of it, and that's why I made fun of the article.
On October 22 2010 03:25 Ferrose wrote: And Congress doesn't give a damn if a majority of people don't want Obamacare. Something like 98% of Congressional incumbents get reelected. If the people aren't happy, they sure aren't showing it in the polls.
I don't know what polls you're looking at, but everyone who voted for Obamacare and the stimulus package, except those who are in the staunchest of blue/democratic districts, is in danger of being thrown out of office. Every poll shows the democrats getting epically slaughtered in this election.
Well, then I guess we'll have to wait for the inevitable "The Democrats suck! Let's vote them out!" So we vote them out, and four years later the country is still shitty. "The Republicans suck! Let's vote them out!"
On October 22 2010 03:07 Zeridian wrote: this thread is funny, I don't even like this lady but it shows where the political lean of the OP and thread readers mostly is.
On October 22 2010 03:08 xDaunt wrote: The point is that the author is portraying the tea party through O'Donnell in an attempt to verify his main argument about the tea party: the tea party is a bunch of conservative lunatics looking to protect and promote their conservative social values and beliefs. That argument is simply incorrect.
Really? Simply incorrect? I must say, I'm quite impressed that you can gloss over the 10+ paragraphs substantiating this claim through televised quotes and direct comparisons and then outright dismiss it all as "simply incorrect".
Let me distill down what the author is saying: the tea party = the religious right in America. It's a load of garbage. The religious right has always been a prominent and vocal minority in the country. The religious right makes up only about 20% of the population. Just like the "liberal" 20% of the country, this minority by itself cannot drive elections. There has to be a broader appeal that attracts a broader voting base. Though it certainly is an element of the tea party, the religious right is not what is driving the tea party now. The tea party is much bigger than that.
No. The author is stating the tea party is similar to the religious right, and the reason why they are similar is not because they're religious but because they both have a fanatical devotion to a document and they have very similar modi operandi. The author then proceeds to elaborate on this dramatic comparison. If you disagree with that assessment, that's fine, but it certainly doesn't make the article "garbage" or means it "failed miserably".
And I thought I made this point clear but it's rather silly to have all of this anger over people underestimating or misunderstanding the Tea Party. These conceptions are not made up on the fly by the "liberal media", they are taken directly from what members and candidates of the Tea Party are saying - Paul, Angle, and indeed, O'Donnell. If you have a problem with the image of the Tea Party and think it is being fundamentally misrepresented, take it up with your own party and start selecting better candidates to represent you, don't direct your anger at the other side. I hear this "I'm not a fan of O'Donnell" trash everywhere and well, if no one's a fan of O'Donnell, where's the support coming from? Why did the Tea Party finance her campaign if she is not supported by the Tea Party? How did she get the votes to defeat Castle? Why does she continue to speak at Tea Party rallies?
You provide these elaborate explanations of what the Tea Party "really" is while right behind you Tea Party loudmouths, financed by the Tea Party, say the exact opposite of what you're claiming. And yet you place the blame of the misunderstanding of the Tea Party on liberals?
On October 22 2010 03:08 xDaunt wrote: The point is that the author is portraying the tea party through O'Donnell in an attempt to verify his main argument about the tea party: the tea party is a bunch of conservative lunatics looking to protect and promote their conservative social values and beliefs. That argument is simply incorrect.
Really? Simply incorrect? I must say, I'm quite impressed that you can gloss over the 10+ paragraphs substantiating this claim through televised quotes and direct comparisons and then outright dismiss it all as "simply incorrect".
Honestly, it isn't that hard to do.
On October 22 2010 04:38 Krigwin wrote: No. The author is stating the tea party is similar to the religious right, and the reason why they are similar is not because they're religious but because they both have a fanatical devotion to a document and they have very similar modi operandi. The author then proceeds to elaborate on this dramatic comparison. If you disagree with that assessment, that's fine, but it certainly doesn't make the article "garbage" or means it "failed miserably".
If it weren't for the fact that the author distills the tea party movement down to being about a "culture war," I might agree with you. This is why the author "failed miserably" to explain the tea party movement and why the article is "garbage."
On October 22 2010 04:38 Krigwin wrote: No. The author is stating the tea party is similar to the religious right, and the reason why they are And I thought I made this point clear but it's rather silly to have all of this anger over people underestimating or misunderstanding the Tea Party. These conceptions are not made up on the fly by the "liberal media", they are taken directly from what members and candidates of the Tea Party are saying - Paul, Angle, and indeed, O'Donnell. If you have a problem with the image of the Tea Party and think it is being fundamentally misrepresented, take it up with your own party and start selecting better candidates to represent you, don't direct your anger at the other side. I hear this "I'm not a fan of O'Donnell" trash everywhere and well, if no one's a fan of O'Donnell, where's the support coming from? Why did the Tea Party finance her campaign if she is not supported by the Tea Party? How did she get the votes to defeat Castle? Why does she continue to speak at Tea Party rallies?
You provide these elaborate explanations of what the Tea Party "really" is while right behind you Tea Party loudmouths, financed by the Tea Party, say the exact opposite of what you're claiming. And yet you place the blame of the misunderstanding of the Tea Party on liberals?
The tea party movement is not represented by any one group or individual. It's a completely amorphous, grassroots movement that lacks a leader. Many people forget that the tea party movement started with Rick Santelli ranting on the floor of a stock exchange while on CNBC. Yes, there are prominent figures within the tea party, but there is no standard bearer. There are many factions within the tea party movement. The only common thread is a shared distrust of the federal government. That's what motivates the tea party and creates the political majority that is getting "tea party" candidates elected.
My problem with the liberal media is that it intentionally ignores this obvious fact in its representations of the tea party because the liberal media is for the very things (and politicians) that the tea party opposes.
This is certainly not a simple issue. I view government as a necessary evil, so naturally I don't like big invasive government. The U.S. government has certainly grown larger than it should have ever grown, IMO. So I liked the idea of the Tea Parties, protesting is a great thing, it keeps pressure on government to stay honest. What I'm seeing now in the Tea Party just sucks. The Neo-Cons have moved right in and is taking it over. Fuck Palin, Gingrich and all other main-line republicans who sweep in and try to steer the movement.
O'Donnell seems to me as something different thought, I don't think she is controlled by the republican party, just an idiot. So I ask myself: would I rather have a person who just goes along with the party or a honest idiot? I think I would rather have the idiot. Although I could be wrong about her being honest.
In ending my quick little chime-in, I hate political parties. I say that we should do away with them and just have people with ideas. Having party system just ends up having to make the choice of which one is less evil. I am fucking tired of voting for the lesser of the two evils. I want to vote for someone that I like and not someone who I think will screw me less than the other guy.
I live in Canada so this doesn't really affect me but honestly it's weird that a party like this is gaining any momentum. Guess it just goes to show how unhappy Americans are with the current system. Can't wait for the next federal election though
On October 22 2010 05:03 xDaunt wrote: If it weren't for the fact that the author distills the tea party movement down to being about a "culture war," I might agree with you. This is why the author "failed miserably" to explain the tea party movement and why the article is "garbage."
I don't know about the entire movement being distilled part, but you don't think it, even if just in part, has to do with a culture war? I think we might be at the beginning of a fundamental culture shift here.
The tea party movement is not represented by any one group or individual. It's a completely amorphous, grassroots movement that lacks a leader. Many people forget that the tea party movement started with Rick Santelli ranting on the floor of a stock exchange while on CNBC. Yes, there are prominent figures within the tea party, but there is no standard bearer. There are many factions within the tea party movement. The only common thread is a shared distrust of the federal government. That's what motivates the tea party and creates the political majority that is getting "tea party" candidates elected.
My problem with the liberal media is that it intentionally ignores this obvious fact in its representations of the tea party because the liberal media is for the very things (and politicians) that the tea party opposes.
You do bring up a good point though here about the Tea Party. If the Tea Party is not represented by any one person or group, and it includes a large amount of differing factions, it logically raises the question of what exactly the Tea Party is for and what they plan to accomplish. Now of course, we all get the anti-federal government part and the cutting of spending part, but how exactly do they plan to accomplish any of that and who is going to be the ones to do it?
Right now it seems like the Tea Party movement is just largely against things, without many substantial ideas on improvement or leadership, and that's hardly constructive. Without a central base or leader or official representatives does the Tea Party have any plans beyond "vote against the Democrats", and how do they plan on carrying those plans out?
On October 22 2010 05:03 xDaunt wrote: If it weren't for the fact that the author distills the tea party movement down to being about a "culture war," I might agree with you. This is why the author "failed miserably" to explain the tea party movement and why the article is "garbage."
I don't know about the entire movement being distilled part, but you don't think it, even if just in part, has to do with a culture war? I think we might be at the beginning of a fundamental culture shift here.
There definitely is a component to the tea party movement that is all about culture war. Think about it this way: for the past 50 years, America has swung very far left culturally. There are a lot of people, particularly those who are religious, who look at the country and don't recognize it. They think that acceptance (not just tolerance) of promiscuity, homosexuality, and other behavior that they consider immoral has been rammed down their throats. The country may very well be on the verge of swinging the other way.
On October 22 2010 05:03 xDaunt wrote: The tea party movement is not represented by any one group or individual. It's a completely amorphous, grassroots movement that lacks a leader. Many people forget that the tea party movement started with Rick Santelli ranting on the floor of a stock exchange while on CNBC. Yes, there are prominent figures within the tea party, but there is no standard bearer. There are many factions within the tea party movement. The only common thread is a shared distrust of the federal government. That's what motivates the tea party and creates the political majority that is getting "tea party" candidates elected.
My problem with the liberal media is that it intentionally ignores this obvious fact in its representations of the tea party because the liberal media is for the very things (and politicians) that the tea party opposes.
You do bring up a good point though here about the Tea Party. If the Tea Party is not represented by any one person or group, and it includes a large amount of differing factions, it logically raises the question of what exactly the Tea Party is for and what they plan to accomplish. Now of course, we all get the anti-federal government part and the cutting of spending part, but how exactly do they plan to accomplish any of that and who is going to be the ones to do it?
Right now it seems like the Tea Party movement is just largely against things, without many substantial ideas on improvement or leadership, and that's hardly constructive. Without a central base or leader or official representatives does the Tea Party have any plans beyond "vote against the Democrats", and how do they plan on carrying those plans out?
This is the big question with the tea party. Where is it going? I don't think anyone knows yet. The next two years will be particularly interesting in this regard.
On October 22 2010 03:08 xDaunt wrote: The point is that the author is portraying the tea party through O'Donnell in an attempt to verify his main argument about the tea party: the tea party is a bunch of conservative lunatics looking to protect and promote their conservative social values and beliefs. That argument is simply incorrect.
Really? Simply incorrect? I must say, I'm quite impressed that you can gloss over the 10+ paragraphs substantiating this claim through televised quotes and direct comparisons and then outright dismiss it all as "simply incorrect".
Honestly, it isn't that hard to do.
You are exactly correct, it apparently is not very hard for you to just ignore all that evidence when you answer it with a mere sentence like the above...
The Tea "Party" movement is more than just one defined by distrust of politicians - an advocacy is not defined by mere nay-saying; rather, it's been summarily defined under libertarian leanings seen in nearly every single candidate it has backed, along with all of its prominent figures.
On October 22 2010 02:41 Obsidian wrote: I'm still waiting for a creditable, or hell... SANE person to emerge from the Tea Party.
Granted, I don't follow their chaotic movement much, for all I do have some sympathies with their agenda. I have yet to see a creditable, competent, or consistent message with well founded logic, principals, or ideas.
Maybe the reason why nobody 'liberal' can identify the tea party is because they have no identity. They have some rough, highly biased positions with no real answers or solutions, and they make a lot of noise proclaiming them, but they don't really say anything in spite of it all.
This is interesting to me because many liberal americans believe that it is a fluid movement with a concise leadership that is extremely powerful and very organized. lol, I don't see how anyone could think that, but every time any movement starts in the US it is immediately met with conspiracy theories.
BTW i like that odonnell looks so dumb, for some reason democrats want to focus on her hardcore even though she is surely going to lose. I don't understand all the funding and press for her, seems like a waste of resources.
The Tea party is almost impossible to identify with because there are so many idiots in it. BUT, I could say the same thing about the republican party, the libertarian party, and the democratic party. So many morons who have no idea what the position of their party is but just say shit they hear on msnbc, fox news, cnn, any of them.
I am an independent conservative with some socially liberal views, and I don't understand how anyone nowadays can say a blanket statement such as "Im a republican" when that encompasses so many conflicting ideas.
just say ur independent and the government is bad and people will think ur cool. Now people wont judge you based on ur political affiliation. Also tell them ur green so they wont start putting u into a stereotype.
This is interesting to me because many liberal americans believe that it is a fluid movement with a concise leadership that is extremely powerful and very organized. lol, I don't see how anyone could think that, but every time any movement starts in the US it is immediately met with conspiracy theories.
This is interesting to me because many liberal americans believe that it is a fluid movement with a concise leadership that is extremely powerful and very organized. lol, I don't see how anyone could think that, but every time any movement starts in the US it is immediately met with conspiracy theories.
Can you name any non-Christian politicians, period? Don't make the incorrect assumption that this is purely fundamentalist Christianity since you've only seen the context of this debate in the US, where a huge majority of the nation is Christian.
This is interesting to me because many liberal americans believe that it is a fluid movement with a concise leadership that is extremely powerful and very organized. lol, I don't see how anyone could think that, but every time any movement starts in the US it is immediately met with conspiracy theories.
This is interesting to me because many liberal americans believe that it is a fluid movement with a concise leadership that is extremely powerful and very organized. lol, I don't see how anyone could think that, but every time any movement starts in the US it is immediately met with conspiracy theories.
Because a concise leadearship that is extremely power and very organized financially support the movement.
so what does that say about george soros and npr?
Thumbs up on his "war" with Fox News?
way to miss the point. if getting funding from a powerful entity means you are controlled by it, there is no political organization or political commentary group that is not controlled by one of the parties.
This is interesting to me because many liberal americans believe that it is a fluid movement with a concise leadership that is extremely powerful and very organized. lol, I don't see how anyone could think that, but every time any movement starts in the US it is immediately met with conspiracy theories.
Because a concise leadearship that is extremely power and very organized financially support the movement.
so what does that say about george soros and npr?
Thumbs up on his "war" with Fox News?
way to miss the point. if getting funding from a powerful entity means you are controlled by it, there is no political organization or political commentary group that is not controlled by one of the parties.
The conservative talking heads throw the Soros line as evidence that NPR is a left-leaning organization. I was just using their own failed logic as a point of humor.
Can you name any non-Christian politicians, period? Don't make the incorrect assumption that this is purely fundamentalist Christianity since you've only seen the context of this debate in the US, where a huge majority of the nation is Christian.
That post was in the context of whether Christianity could be correctly pinpointed as the religious-cause of creationism/anti-evolution, not an issue of whether every politician is Christian.
On October 23 2010 17:17 AzureD wrote: WHAT???????????????????????
This person WON????????????????
This person used tens of thousands of dollars of campaign funding for personal use.
This person does not even know what is written in the constitution.
This person can not even hold a job.
I have lost faith in humanity. Well I had little faith to begin with but this is just. I don't know what to say.
She won the primary for Republican candidacy, not the actual election.
-Proudly walks forward, head held high, American flag in one hand, and a Bible in the other.- Yeah, I like O'Donnell. Yes, I am an Evangelical Christian. Yeah, I'm a Young Earth Creationist. I do not believe in global warming or evolution. I am a fiscal and social conservative. I am for capital punishment. I think waterboarding should be legal. I find affirmative action pathetic. I believe abortion is murder and that women should not be allowed on the frontlines of war. Government is supposed to have one purpose and one purpose alone: to protect its citizens from enemies, both foreign and domestic, not to protect its citizens from themselves.
I do not care who you make love to or what you do in your bedroom. I do not care if we choose to legalize marijuana. I don't care if homosexuals choose to adopt.
I watch Fox News. I watch Glenn Beck. I believe Jesus Christ is the one and only way to Heaven.
I've confessed who I am and what I believe. I decided to do it here and now. I say this because I want to see how many people automatically cast me out as a sane person or as a person who can be befriended. -Tips my hat.-
On O'Donnell. The masturbation thing, eh. So what if she finds it immoral? What can she do about it? Nothing. So what if she's a YEC? How does that affect you? That's right, it doesn't. Those are her beliefs. People in the Obama administration find eugenics okay. That's disgusting and racist, but no one dares talk about that, eh?
On October 25 2010 11:32 Alexhandr wrote: -Proudly walks forward, head held high, American flag in one hand, and a Bible in the other.- Yeah, I like O'Donnell. Yes, I am an Evangelical Christian. Yeah, I'm a Young Earth Creationist. I do not believe in global warming or evolution. I am a fiscal and social conservative. I am for capital punishment. I think waterboarding should be legal. I find affirmative action pathetic. I believe abortion is murder and that women should not be allowed on the frontlines of war. Government is supposed to have one purpose and one purpose alone: to protect its citizens from enemies, both foreign and domestic, not to protect its citizens from themselves.
I do not care who you make love to or what you do in your bedroom. I do not care if we choose to legalize marijuana. I don't care if homosexuals choose to adopt.
I watch Fox News. I watch Glenn Beck. I believe Jesus Christ is the one and only way to Heaven.
I've confessed who I am and what I believe. I decided to do it here and now. I say this because I want to see how many people automatically cast me out as a sane person or as a person who can be befriended. -Tips my hat.-
On O'Donnell. The masturbation thing, eh. So what if she finds it immoral? What can she do about it? Nothing. So what if she's a YEC? How does that affect you? That's right, it doesn't. Those are her beliefs. People in the Obama administration find eugenics okay. That's disgusting and racist, but no one dares talk about that, eh?
Proudly proclaiming yourself as a young earth creationist (as if the regular variety were not ridiculous enough) pretty much destroys any claim you have to rationality. The rest of your views are merely ancillary.
On October 25 2010 11:32 Alexhandr wrote: -Proudly walks forward, head held high, American flag in one hand, and a Bible in the other.- Yeah, I like O'Donnell. Yes, I am an Evangelical Christian. Yeah, I'm a Young Earth Creationist. I do not believe in global warming or evolution. I am a fiscal and social conservative. I am for capital punishment. I think waterboarding should be legal. I find affirmative action pathetic. I believe abortion is murder and that women should not be allowed on the frontlines of war. Government is supposed to have one purpose and one purpose alone: to protect its citizens from enemies, both foreign and domestic, not to protect its citizens from themselves.
I do not care who you make love to or what you do in your bedroom. I do not care if we choose to legalize marijuana. I don't care if homosexuals choose to adopt.
I watch Fox News. I watch Glenn Beck. I believe Jesus Christ is the one and only way to Heaven.
I've confessed who I am and what I believe. I decided to do it here and now. I say this because I want to see how many people automatically cast me out as a sane person or as a person who can be befriended. -Tips my hat.-
On O'Donnell. The masturbation thing, eh. So what if she finds it immoral? What can she do about it? Nothing. So what if she's a YEC? How does that affect you? That's right, it doesn't. Those are her beliefs. People in the Obama administration find eugenics okay. That's disgusting and racist, but no one dares talk about that, eh?
Proudly proclaiming yourself as a young earth creationist (as if the regular variety were not ridiculous enough) pretty much destroys any claim you have to rationality. The rest of your views are merely ancillary.
So you are saying I should be ashamed of my faith and my beliefs, and because my views are not your own, I am irrational? I find that to be closed minded.
On October 25 2010 11:32 Alexhandr wrote: -Proudly walks forward, head held high, American flag in one hand, and a Bible in the other.- Yeah, I like O'Donnell. Yes, I am an Evangelical Christian. Yeah, I'm a Young Earth Creationist. I do not believe in global warming or evolution. I am a fiscal and social conservative. I am for capital punishment. I think waterboarding should be legal. I find affirmative action pathetic. I believe abortion is murder and that women should not be allowed on the frontlines of war. Government is supposed to have one purpose and one purpose alone: to protect its citizens from enemies, both foreign and domestic, not to protect its citizens from themselves.
I do not care who you make love to or what you do in your bedroom. I do not care if we choose to legalize marijuana. I don't care if homosexuals choose to adopt.
I watch Fox News. I watch Glenn Beck. I believe Jesus Christ is the one and only way to Heaven.
I've confessed who I am and what I believe. I decided to do it here and now. I say this because I want to see how many people automatically cast me out as a sane person or as a person who can be befriended. -Tips my hat.-
On O'Donnell. The masturbation thing, eh. So what if she finds it immoral? What can she do about it? Nothing. So what if she's a YEC? How does that affect you? That's right, it doesn't. Those are her beliefs. People in the Obama administration find eugenics okay. That's disgusting and racist, but no one dares talk about that, eh?
Proudly proclaiming yourself as a young earth creationist (as if the regular variety were not ridiculous enough) pretty much destroys any claim you have to rationality. The rest of your views are merely ancillary.
So you are saying I should be ashamed of my faith and my beliefs, and because my views are not your own, I am irrational? I find that to be closed minded.
No, they are irrational because they deny centuries of documented and undeniable scientific fact.
On October 25 2010 11:32 Alexhandr wrote: -Proudly walks forward, head held high, American flag in one hand, and a Bible in the other.- Yeah, I like O'Donnell. Yes, I am an Evangelical Christian. Yeah, I'm a Young Earth Creationist. I do not believe in global warming or evolution. I am a fiscal and social conservative. I am for capital punishment. I think waterboarding should be legal. I find affirmative action pathetic. I believe abortion is murder and that women should not be allowed on the frontlines of war. Government is supposed to have one purpose and one purpose alone: to protect its citizens from enemies, both foreign and domestic, not to protect its citizens from themselves.
I do not care who you make love to or what you do in your bedroom. I do not care if we choose to legalize marijuana. I don't care if homosexuals choose to adopt.
I watch Fox News. I watch Glenn Beck. I believe Jesus Christ is the one and only way to Heaven.
I've confessed who I am and what I believe. I decided to do it here and now. I say this because I want to see how many people automatically cast me out as a sane person or as a person who can be befriended. -Tips my hat.-
On O'Donnell. The masturbation thing, eh. So what if she finds it immoral? What can she do about it? Nothing. So what if she's a YEC? How does that affect you? That's right, it doesn't. Those are her beliefs. People in the Obama administration find eugenics okay. That's disgusting and racist, but no one dares talk about that, eh?
Proudly proclaiming yourself as a young earth creationist (as if the regular variety were not ridiculous enough) pretty much destroys any claim you have to rationality. The rest of your views are merely ancillary.
So you are saying I should be ashamed of my faith and my beliefs, and because my views are not your own, I am irrational? I find that to be closed minded.
You are irrational; that is undeniable. Whether you should be ashamed or not is entirely up to you.
On October 25 2010 11:32 Alexhandr wrote: -Proudly walks forward, head held high, American flag in one hand, and a Bible in the other.- Yeah, I like O'Donnell. Yes, I am an Evangelical Christian. Yeah, I'm a Young Earth Creationist. I do not believe in global warming or evolution. I am a fiscal and social conservative. I am for capital punishment. I think waterboarding should be legal. I find affirmative action pathetic. I believe abortion is murder and that women should not be allowed on the frontlines of war. Government is supposed to have one purpose and one purpose alone: to protect its citizens from enemies, both foreign and domestic, not to protect its citizens from themselves.
I do not care who you make love to or what you do in your bedroom. I do not care if we choose to legalize marijuana. I don't care if homosexuals choose to adopt.
I watch Fox News. I watch Glenn Beck. I believe Jesus Christ is the one and only way to Heaven.
I've confessed who I am and what I believe. I decided to do it here and now. I say this because I want to see how many people automatically cast me out as a sane person or as a person who can be befriended. -Tips my hat.-
On O'Donnell. The masturbation thing, eh. So what if she finds it immoral? What can she do about it? Nothing. So what if she's a YEC? How does that affect you? That's right, it doesn't. Those are her beliefs. People in the Obama administration find eugenics okay. That's disgusting and racist, but no one dares talk about that, eh?
Proudly proclaiming yourself as a young earth creationist (as if the regular variety were not ridiculous enough) pretty much destroys any claim you have to rationality. The rest of your views are merely ancillary.
So you are saying I should be ashamed of my faith and my beliefs, and because my views are not your own, I am irrational? I find that to be closed minded.
You are irrational; that is undeniable. Whether you should be ashamed or not is entirely up to you.
I find my beliefs to be perfectly rational, and yours to be irrational. It is all a matter of point of view.
On October 25 2010 11:54 Pervect wrote: That's gotta be a troll account, people like that don't exist outside of FreeRepublic... right?
That is like the tenth time I have been called a troll. Where I come from, MOST people believe as I do. Amazing, isn't it? But even the ones that don't believe as me and most of my community does, we still love them and take them with open arms. So what if they don't believe as we do? That does not make them any less rational or any less of a human being as us. My faith is based upon love, reliance upon one another and God, mercy, compassion, and forgiveness. I don't see how this could harm society in any way, or how O'Donnell is a moron for believing in what she does.
On October 25 2010 11:32 Alexhandr wrote: -Proudly walks forward, head held high, American flag in one hand, and a Bible in the other.- Yeah, I like O'Donnell. Yes, I am an Evangelical Christian. Yeah, I'm a Young Earth Creationist. I do not believe in global warming or evolution. I am a fiscal and social conservative. I am for capital punishment. I think waterboarding should be legal. I find affirmative action pathetic. I believe abortion is murder and that women should not be allowed on the frontlines of war. Government is supposed to have one purpose and one purpose alone: to protect its citizens from enemies, both foreign and domestic, not to protect its citizens from themselves.
I do not care who you make love to or what you do in your bedroom. I do not care if we choose to legalize marijuana. I don't care if homosexuals choose to adopt.
I watch Fox News. I watch Glenn Beck. I believe Jesus Christ is the one and only way to Heaven.
I've confessed who I am and what I believe. I decided to do it here and now. I say this because I want to see how many people automatically cast me out as a sane person or as a person who can be befriended. -Tips my hat.-
On O'Donnell. The masturbation thing, eh. So what if she finds it immoral? What can she do about it? Nothing. So what if she's a YEC? How does that affect you? That's right, it doesn't. Those are her beliefs. People in the Obama administration find eugenics okay. That's disgusting and racist, but no one dares talk about that, eh?
Proudly proclaiming yourself as a young earth creationist (as if the regular variety were not ridiculous enough) pretty much destroys any claim you have to rationality. The rest of your views are merely ancillary.
So you are saying I should be ashamed of my faith and my beliefs, and because my views are not your own, I am irrational? I find that to be closed minded.
You are irrational; that is undeniable. Whether you should be ashamed or not is entirely up to you.
I find my beliefs to be perfectly rational, and yours to be irrational. It is all a matter of point of view.
The fact that you thinking "rationality" is "just a point of view" is down right delusional in this day and age.
On October 25 2010 11:32 Alexhandr wrote: -Proudly walks forward, head held high, American flag in one hand, and a Bible in the other.- Yeah, I like O'Donnell. Yes, I am an Evangelical Christian. Yeah, I'm a Young Earth Creationist. I do not believe in global warming or evolution. I am a fiscal and social conservative. I am for capital punishment. I think waterboarding should be legal. I find affirmative action pathetic. I believe abortion is murder and that women should not be allowed on the frontlines of war. Government is supposed to have one purpose and one purpose alone: to protect its citizens from enemies, both foreign and domestic, not to protect its citizens from themselves.
I do not care who you make love to or what you do in your bedroom. I do not care if we choose to legalize marijuana. I don't care if homosexuals choose to adopt.
I watch Fox News. I watch Glenn Beck. I believe Jesus Christ is the one and only way to Heaven.
I've confessed who I am and what I believe. I decided to do it here and now. I say this because I want to see how many people automatically cast me out as a sane person or as a person who can be befriended. -Tips my hat.-
On O'Donnell. The masturbation thing, eh. So what if she finds it immoral? What can she do about it? Nothing. So what if she's a YEC? How does that affect you? That's right, it doesn't. Those are her beliefs. People in the Obama administration find eugenics okay. That's disgusting and racist, but no one dares talk about that, eh?
Proudly proclaiming yourself as a young earth creationist (as if the regular variety were not ridiculous enough) pretty much destroys any claim you have to rationality. The rest of your views are merely ancillary.
So you are saying I should be ashamed of my faith and my beliefs, and because my views are not your own, I am irrational? I find that to be closed minded.
You are irrational; that is undeniable. Whether you should be ashamed or not is entirely up to you.
I find my beliefs to be perfectly rational, and yours to be irrational. It is all a matter of point of view.
It is not a matter of point of view. Young earth creationism attempts to displace accepted scientific theories in geology, and so it must also be evaluated as a scientific hypothesis. You are irrational because you cling to a theory that has little to no evidence for it and vast amounts of evidence against it. "Belief" does not come into this at all; it has no place in this discussion.
On October 25 2010 11:32 Alexhandr wrote: -Proudly walks forward, head held high, American flag in one hand, and a Bible in the other.- Yeah, I like O'Donnell. Yes, I am an Evangelical Christian. Yeah, I'm a Young Earth Creationist. I do not believe in global warming or evolution. I am a fiscal and social conservative. I am for capital punishment. I think waterboarding should be legal. I find affirmative action pathetic. I believe abortion is murder and that women should not be allowed on the frontlines of war. Government is supposed to have one purpose and one purpose alone: to protect its citizens from enemies, both foreign and domestic, not to protect its citizens from themselves.
I do not care who you make love to or what you do in your bedroom. I do not care if we choose to legalize marijuana. I don't care if homosexuals choose to adopt.
I watch Fox News. I watch Glenn Beck. I believe Jesus Christ is the one and only way to Heaven.
I've confessed who I am and what I believe. I decided to do it here and now. I say this because I want to see how many people automatically cast me out as a sane person or as a person who can be befriended. -Tips my hat.-
On O'Donnell. The masturbation thing, eh. So what if she finds it immoral? What can she do about it? Nothing. So what if she's a YEC? How does that affect you? That's right, it doesn't. Those are her beliefs. People in the Obama administration find eugenics okay. That's disgusting and racist, but no one dares talk about that, eh?
Proudly proclaiming yourself as a young earth creationist (as if the regular variety were not ridiculous enough) pretty much destroys any claim you have to rationality. The rest of your views are merely ancillary.
So you are saying I should be ashamed of my faith and my beliefs, and because my views are not your own, I am irrational? I find that to be closed minded.
You are irrational; that is undeniable. Whether you should be ashamed or not is entirely up to you.
I find my beliefs to be perfectly rational, and yours to be irrational. It is all a matter of point of view.
The fact that you thinking "rationality" is "just a point of view" is down right delusional in this day and age.
Its like...
1+1=2
well i think 1+1=3
after all math is just a "point of view"
Some people find eugenics "rational". That is irrational to me. But to those who believe eugenics is fine, they think it is rational. See where I'm getting this?
On October 25 2010 11:32 Alexhandr wrote: -Proudly walks forward, head held high, American flag in one hand, and a Bible in the other.- Yeah, I like O'Donnell. Yes, I am an Evangelical Christian. Yeah, I'm a Young Earth Creationist. I do not believe in global warming or evolution. I am a fiscal and social conservative. I am for capital punishment. I think waterboarding should be legal. I find affirmative action pathetic. I believe abortion is murder and that women should not be allowed on the frontlines of war. Government is supposed to have one purpose and one purpose alone: to protect its citizens from enemies, both foreign and domestic, not to protect its citizens from themselves.
I do not care who you make love to or what you do in your bedroom. I do not care if we choose to legalize marijuana. I don't care if homosexuals choose to adopt.
I watch Fox News. I watch Glenn Beck. I believe Jesus Christ is the one and only way to Heaven.
I've confessed who I am and what I believe. I decided to do it here and now. I say this because I want to see how many people automatically cast me out as a sane person or as a person who can be befriended. -Tips my hat.-
On O'Donnell. The masturbation thing, eh. So what if she finds it immoral? What can she do about it? Nothing. So what if she's a YEC? How does that affect you? That's right, it doesn't. Those are her beliefs. People in the Obama administration find eugenics okay. That's disgusting and racist, but no one dares talk about that, eh?
Proudly proclaiming yourself as a young earth creationist (as if the regular variety were not ridiculous enough) pretty much destroys any claim you have to rationality. The rest of your views are merely ancillary.
So you are saying I should be ashamed of my faith and my beliefs, and because my views are not your own, I am irrational? I find that to be closed minded.
You are irrational; that is undeniable. Whether you should be ashamed or not is entirely up to you.
I find my beliefs to be perfectly rational, and yours to be irrational. It is all a matter of point of view.
It is not a matter of point of view. Young earth creationism attempts to displace accepted scientific theories in geology, and so it must also be evaluated as a scientific hypothesis. You are irrational because you cling to a theory that has little to no evidence for it and vast amounts of evidence against it. "Belief" does not come into this at all; it has no place in this discussion.
Since when do beliefs not partake in this discussion? Last time I checked, there were many posts slamming O'Donnell for being a YEC and finding masturbation wrong. Those are her beliefs, yes?
On October 25 2010 11:54 Pervect wrote: That's gotta be a troll account, people like that don't exist outside of FreeRepublic... right?
That is like the tenth time I have been called a troll. Where I come from, MOST people believe as I do. Amazing, isn't it? But even the ones that don't believe as me and most of my community does, we still love them and take them with open arms. So what if they don't believe as we do? That does not make them any less rational or any less of a human being as us. My faith is based upon love, reliance upon one another and God, mercy, compassion, and forgiveness. I don't see how this could harm society in any way, or how O'Donnell is a moron for believing in what she does.
It can, because if elected she'll be making public policy decisions which impact others based upon incorrect information, beliefs, and a complete disregard for evidence and reason. A bias toward her beliefs, based upon a book which has been retconned more than the Marvel Universe, interpreted a million different ways (both simultaneously and during different eras), and which has a completely arbitrary 'ethical code' is something that anyone who's capable of critical thought should stand against.
On October 25 2010 11:54 Pervect wrote: That's gotta be a troll account, people like that don't exist outside of FreeRepublic... right?
That is like the tenth time I have been called a troll. Where I come from, MOST people believe as I do. Amazing, isn't it? But even the ones that don't believe as me and most of my community does, we still love them and take them with open arms. So what if they don't believe as we do? That does not make them any less rational or any less of a human being as us. My faith is based upon love, reliance upon one another and God, mercy, compassion, and forgiveness. I don't see how this could harm society in any way, or how O'Donnell is a moron for believing in what she does.
It can, because if elected she'll be making public policy decisions which impact others based upon incorrect information, beliefs, and a complete disregard for evidence and reason. A bias toward her beliefs, based upon a book which has been retconned more than the Marvel Universe, interpreted a million different ways (both simultaneously and during different eras), and which has a completely arbitrary ethical code is something that anyone who's capable of critical thought should stand against.
Yet I, many people around me, (and by many people I mean most of my town and many towns in America) are quite capable of critical thought. And she is going to be making decisions based upon what the majority of her voters want, not what she wants. At least if she is any decent politician she will do what the people want. So far it seems only insults are thrown at O'Donnell and people like her. I don't find that necessary. (Calling someone incapable of critical thought is indeed an insult.)
On October 25 2010 11:32 Alexhandr wrote: -Proudly walks forward, head held high, American flag in one hand, and a Bible in the other.- Yeah, I like O'Donnell. Yes, I am an Evangelical Christian. Yeah, I'm a Young Earth Creationist. I do not believe in global warming or evolution. I am a fiscal and social conservative. I am for capital punishment. I think waterboarding should be legal. I find affirmative action pathetic. I believe abortion is murder and that women should not be allowed on the frontlines of war. Government is supposed to have one purpose and one purpose alone: to protect its citizens from enemies, both foreign and domestic, not to protect its citizens from themselves.
I do not care who you make love to or what you do in your bedroom. I do not care if we choose to legalize marijuana. I don't care if homosexuals choose to adopt.
I watch Fox News. I watch Glenn Beck. I believe Jesus Christ is the one and only way to Heaven.
I've confessed who I am and what I believe. I decided to do it here and now. I say this because I want to see how many people automatically cast me out as a sane person or as a person who can be befriended. -Tips my hat.-
On O'Donnell. The masturbation thing, eh. So what if she finds it immoral? What can she do about it? Nothing. So what if she's a YEC? How does that affect you? That's right, it doesn't. Those are her beliefs. People in the Obama administration find eugenics okay. That's disgusting and racist, but no one dares talk about that, eh?
Proudly proclaiming yourself as a young earth creationist (as if the regular variety were not ridiculous enough) pretty much destroys any claim you have to rationality. The rest of your views are merely ancillary.
So you are saying I should be ashamed of my faith and my beliefs, and because my views are not your own, I am irrational? I find that to be closed minded.
You are irrational; that is undeniable. Whether you should be ashamed or not is entirely up to you.
I find my beliefs to be perfectly rational, and yours to be irrational. It is all a matter of point of view.
The fact that you thinking "rationality" is "just a point of view" is down right delusional in this day and age.
Its like...
1+1=2
well i think 1+1=3
after all math is just a "point of view"
Some people find eugenics "rational". That is irrational to me. But to those who believe eugenics is fine, they think it is rational. See where I'm getting this?
eugenics issues are morals issues and moral issues are almost always relative
Scientific issue are NOT relative at all in most cases
Young earth creationist Are irrational because they deny REAL FACTS
people who don't believe in evolution deny REAL FACTS
Its not a matter of "well its a point of view"
Its a matter of people refusing to accept scientific facts.
On October 25 2010 11:32 Alexhandr wrote: -Proudly walks forward, head held high, American flag in one hand, and a Bible in the other.- Yeah, I like O'Donnell. Yes, I am an Evangelical Christian. Yeah, I'm a Young Earth Creationist. I do not believe in global warming or evolution. I am a fiscal and social conservative. I am for capital punishment. I think waterboarding should be legal. I find affirmative action pathetic. I believe abortion is murder and that women should not be allowed on the frontlines of war. Government is supposed to have one purpose and one purpose alone: to protect its citizens from enemies, both foreign and domestic, not to protect its citizens from themselves.
I do not care who you make love to or what you do in your bedroom. I do not care if we choose to legalize marijuana. I don't care if homosexuals choose to adopt.
I watch Fox News. I watch Glenn Beck. I believe Jesus Christ is the one and only way to Heaven.
I've confessed who I am and what I believe. I decided to do it here and now. I say this because I want to see how many people automatically cast me out as a sane person or as a person who can be befriended. -Tips my hat.-
On O'Donnell. The masturbation thing, eh. So what if she finds it immoral? What can she do about it? Nothing. So what if she's a YEC? How does that affect you? That's right, it doesn't. Those are her beliefs. People in the Obama administration find eugenics okay. That's disgusting and racist, but no one dares talk about that, eh?
Proudly proclaiming yourself as a young earth creationist (as if the regular variety were not ridiculous enough) pretty much destroys any claim you have to rationality. The rest of your views are merely ancillary.
So you are saying I should be ashamed of my faith and my beliefs, and because my views are not your own, I am irrational? I find that to be closed minded.
You are irrational; that is undeniable. Whether you should be ashamed or not is entirely up to you.
I find my beliefs to be perfectly rational, and yours to be irrational. It is all a matter of point of view.
It is not a matter of point of view. Young earth creationism attempts to displace accepted scientific theories in geology, and so it must also be evaluated as a scientific hypothesis. You are irrational because you cling to a theory that has little to no evidence for it and vast amounts of evidence against it. "Belief" does not come into this at all; it has no place in this discussion.
Since when do beliefs not partake in this discussion? Last time I checked, there were many posts slamming O'Donnell for being a YEC and finding masturbation wrong. Those are her beliefs, yes?
As I have said, being a young earth creationist is not a matter of belief. You almost certainly buy into it because to your beliefs, but it is still (or at least it attempts to be) a scientific theory. As such, it is clearly evaluable and has been many times. Thus, those like O'Donnell and yourself who still cleave to it are rightly disparaged
On October 25 2010 12:09 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: The Earth is not six thousand years old, humans did not ride Dinosaurs, case closed. Stop trying to get this thread closed.
On October 25 2010 12:09 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: The Earth is not six thousand years old, humans did not ride Dinosaurs, case closed. Stop trying to get this thread closed.
Source?
lmfao I cant tell if he really wants a source or not.
On October 25 2010 12:09 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: The Earth is not six thousand years old, humans did not ride Dinosaurs, case closed. Stop trying to get this thread closed.
The irony is that the troll, who very poorly attempts to argue for relativism, is then contradicting the troll background of evangelical Christianity, which hugely opposes moral relativism (http://www.christianpost.com/article/20100105/evangelicals-abortion-moral-relativism-tops-moral-issues-list/). Not to mention the conveniently-ignoring-how-YEC-is-just-scientifically-wrong parts that have been stated.
This is exactly why people are so concerned with Christine O'Donnell. Real life trolls ftl.
On October 26 2010 05:45 TanGeng wrote: So why is the Teaparty now all about God and Christianity?
First time I checked, it was about taxation, accountability, and bailouts.
The Tea Party basically has always been a religious movement disguised as an economic one. You can get alot of attention you otherwise wouldn't have if you scream loud enough about taxes.
Well, it's the same old evangelical nonsense again. About 9 months ago, it was still about fiscal responsibility and accountability. Now, it's God, God, God, God. I'd have to think all the fiscal conservatives have jumped ship at the pure nonsense. The candidates are only playing lip service to addressing the fiscal crisis. It's just about as believable as Obama's promise to end the Iraq conflict.
On October 26 2010 09:41 TanGeng wrote: Well, it's the same old evangelical nonsense again. About 9 months ago, it was still about fiscal responsibility and accountability. Now, it's God, God, God, God. I'd have to think all the fiscal conservatives have jumped ship at the pure nonsense. The candidates are only playing lip service to addressing the fiscal crisis. It's just about as believable as Obama's promise to end the Iraq conflict.
Yeah, that reminds me of Glenn Beck. I remember when his show on Fox started it was like "Obama is irresponsible we need to save ourselves from another Great Depression blah blah blah." And I thought "I guess there's a bit of truth to what he says." And now it's all "WE CAN ONLY FIND SALVATION THROUGH GOD STOP THE PROGRESSIVES FROM TAKING OVER OUR LIVES AND TURNING US INTO SLAVES OF THE GOVERNMENT."
And about that video, making English the official language of the United States would be anti-American. : /
On October 26 2010 09:41 TanGeng wrote: Well, it's the same old evangelical nonsense again. About 9 months ago, it was still about fiscal responsibility and accountability. Now, it's God, God, God, God. I'd have to think all the fiscal conservatives have jumped ship at the pure nonsense. The candidates are only playing lip service to addressing the fiscal crisis. It's just about as believable as Obama's promise to end the Iraq conflict.
How didnt you see this coming from a mile a way I dont understand. Conservatives lean on the religious vote hard. While obviously there are conservatives who are atheist/agnotisc/not faith lunatics you have to admit the entire idea of conservatism and resisting change is a breeding ground for these type of people.
I didn't expect that much. National politics is one big steaming pile and allergic to accountability.
I was just hoping that a movement calling for accountability wouldn't get derailed so easily. Now it's basically warped into a Republican machine and looks nothing like what it started out as. My bet is that it was the common dislike for Obama that let the partisan hounds in the door.
I guess I can take consolation in that the Teaparty candidates can still wreck the prospects of corrupt Republican candidates and piss off Karl Rove and that the pure evangelical types can't get elected.
I like what a lot of republicans and the tea party stand for but I wont vote for any one who endorses discrimination. They need to get over how other people choose to live their lives, it's none of their business.
The other thing that stops me from voting republican or tea party is how many of them have no or little regard for the environment and are unwilling to except the idea that our actions have repercussions. I just don't understand how people don't understand that changing the earth's atmosphere is going to change the earth's atmosphere. Also all the nonsensical ramblings on how global warming is a scam devised by Al Gore just makes me scratch my head and say really then why is every other country in the world on board with addressing this issue diplomatically.
If it wasn't for these two closed-mined hard headed position I would be on board too.
Well i guess all the religious rhetoric concerns me too. I just fell they are just a bunch of haters; not very Christ like if you ask me.
On October 26 2010 12:31 NadaSound wrote: I like what a lot of republicans and the tea party stand for but I wont vote for any one who endorses discrimination. They need to get over how other people choose to live their lives, it's none of their business.
The other thing that stops me from voting republican or tea party is how many of them have no or little regard for the environment and are unwilling to except the idea that our actions have repercussions. I just don't understand how people don't understand that changing the earth's atmosphere is going to change the earth's atmosphere. Also all the nonsensical ramblings on how global warming is a scam devised by Al Gore just makes me scratch my head and say really then why is every other country in the world on board with addressing this issue diplomatically.
If it wasn't for these two closed-mined hard headed position I would be on board too.
Well i guess all the religious rhetoric concerns me too. I just fell they are just a bunch of haters; not very Christ like if you ask me.
yea every other country but china and india, the two who are developing and taking over everything. lol
On October 26 2010 12:34 Ferrose wrote: I don't know what I'm going to do. I turned eighteen over the summer, so this is my first time voting.
Trust me, if the guy who says he'll put prayer back in schools and ban abortions and deport everyone whose last name includes a Z, you can be pretty damn sure he'll actually keep those campaign promises.
These bona fide crazies can be distinguished from the normal political opportunists by the fact that they promise things instead of stating beliefs.
Example: Dubya "believed in the sanctity of life". He gets the rabid issue voters to vote for him without committing political suicide by actually trying to overturn Roe v Wade. Same with the marriage amendment crap. He'd support a toothless, for-show issue to pander to the core, without actually having to go down in history as the troglodyte who held back human progress.
While you may think not choosing between a Giant Douche and a Turd Sandwich is a legitimate choice, you're actually not gonna end up with either in the long run. You're gonna end up with a charismatic psychopath who convinced the less intellectually endowed to put him in power.
I'll keep voting for the political whores whose soul-selling might actually benefit society economically, as long as they stay the hell out of my personal life.
On October 26 2010 18:42 kojinshugi wrote: I'll keep voting for the political whores whose soul-selling might actually benefit society economically,
Have they ever?
Yes. Trickle-down economics may not trickle as much as advocates claim, but on the whole the standard of living rises for everyone. Every time an ideologue promises to spread the wealth and plow through the status quo towards utopia, the standard of living equalizes to an lovely and egalitarian slump of economic malaise.
I'd rather be a "slave wage" in 2010 than a collectivized farmhand in a 1950s USSR, even if it results in a super-rich elite taking caviar baths somewhere on their private islands. I have far more leisure time, financial means, better technology, healthier food, and personal safety than any generation before mine did, even though I'm an utter nobody. And my society is far more permissive and laissez-faire about what I do with my personal life.
When it's a choice between greedy people running the show and ideologues, I'm going for the greedy people.
On October 26 2010 18:42 kojinshugi wrote: I'll keep voting for the political whores whose soul-selling might actually benefit society economically,
Have they ever?
Yes. Trickle-down economics may not trickle as much as advocates claim, but on the whole the standard of living rises for everyone. Every time an ideologue promises to spread the wealth and plow through the status quo towards utopia, the standard of living equalizes to an lovely and egalitarian slump of economic malaise.
I'd rather be a "slave wage" in 2010 than a collectivized farmhand in a 1950s USSR, even if it results in a super-rich elite taking caviar baths somewhere on their private islands. I have far more leisure time, financial means, better technology, healthier food, and personal safety than any generation before mine did, even though I'm an utter nobody. And my society is far more permissive and laissez-faire about what I do with my personal life.
When it's a choice between greedy people running the show and ideologues, I'm going for the greedy people.
Oh so you mean, politicians make society better off economically by cutting taxes? Okay. But Nobody does that.
On October 26 2010 18:42 kojinshugi wrote: Trust me, if the guy who says he'll put prayer back in schools and ban abortions and deport everyone whose last name includes a Z, you can be pretty damn sure he'll actually keep those campaign promises.
No he won't. He might introduce bills for that to happen, but there is no position that anyone can hold in the US government that would allow that to happen.
Now if there was a party, and that was their platform, and you gave them the majority of the house and senate, and the presidency for about 20 years or so, then they could make it happen.
Of course in a party that successful there are going to be a lot of people jumping on the bandwagon for that. Who realy don't care about the spelling of last names.
On October 26 2010 12:31 NadaSound wrote: The other thing that stops me from voting republican or tea party is how many of them have no or little regard for the environment and are unwilling to except the idea that our actions have repercussions. I just don't understand how people don't understand that changing the earth's atmosphere is going to change the earth's atmosphere. Also all the nonsensical ramblings on how global warming is a scam devised by Al Gore just makes me scratch my head and say really then why is every other country in the world on board with addressing this issue diplomatically.
How silly of you to say this. I thought it was common knowledge that everyone outside the United States is engaging in a massive Rube Goldberg-esque conspiracy to profit from green legislation, including 95% of the scientific community, headed by Al Gore of course.
On October 26 2010 21:45 kojinshugi wrote: Yes. Trickle-down economics may not trickle as much as advocates claim, but on the whole the standard of living rises for everyone. Every time an ideologue promises to spread the wealth and plow through the status quo towards utopia, the standard of living equalizes to an lovely and egalitarian slump of economic malaise.
I'd rather be a "slave wage" in 2010 than a collectivized farmhand in a 1950s USSR, even if it results in a super-rich elite taking caviar baths somewhere on their private islands. I have far more leisure time, financial means, better technology, healthier food, and personal safety than any generation before mine did, even though I'm an utter nobody. And my society is far more permissive and laissez-faire about what I do with my personal life.
When it's a choice between greedy people running the show and ideologues, I'm going for the greedy people.
Hm. This certainly explains why those European and Asian countries that practice silly ideology like "quality education" and "free healthcare" and "not shitting on the environment" enjoy a higher standard of living than the United States. Here I thought it was precisely because they were progressing towards such standards as equality and fairness, but turns out, that's Stalinism! Thank you for this straw cast-er, enlightening explanation.
Also, the United States was founded by a group of ideologues. If you have a problem with a bunch of ideologues running the show, maybe you should move to another country, like friendly and benevolent North Korea or something.
On October 26 2010 12:31 NadaSound wrote: The other thing that stops me from voting republican or tea party is how many of them have no or little regard for the environment and are unwilling to except the idea that our actions have repercussions. I just don't understand how people don't understand that changing the earth's atmosphere is going to change the earth's atmosphere. Also all the nonsensical ramblings on how global warming is a scam devised by Al Gore just makes me scratch my head and say really then why is every other country in the world on board with addressing this issue diplomatically.
How silly of you to say this. I thought it was common knowledge that everyone outside the United States is engaging in a massive Rube Goldberg-esque conspiracy to profit from green legislation, including 95% of the scientific community, headed by Al Gore of course.
Also, the United States was founded by a group of ideologues. If you have a problem with a bunch of ideologues running the show, maybe you should move to another country, like friendly and benevolent North Korea or something.
India and China have ratified the Kyoto Protocol while the US is unwilling to even consider it.
How does 95% of the scientific community profit from this "conspiracy"?
As for the founding fathers, were they not fighting for and aspiring towards tolerance and personal freedoms for everyone. Their main purpose was to take religion out of government to ensure the safety and freedoms of the people. Washington himself declared that the US was not a Christian nation, so it seems you are speaking solely based on your own misconceptions.
On October 27 2010 01:15 NadaSound wrote: India and China have ratified the Kyoto Protocol while the US is unwilling to even consider it.
How does 95% of the scientific community profit from this "conspiracy"?
As for the founding fathers, were they not fighting for and aspiring towards tolerance and personal freedoms for everyone. Their main purpose was to take religion out of government to ensure the safety and freedoms of the people. Washington himself declared that the US was not a Christian nation, so it seems you are speaking solely based on your own imsconceptions.
I was being wholly sarcastic. Sorry man for confusing ya.
On October 27 2010 01:15 NadaSound wrote: India and China have ratified the Kyoto Protocol while the US is unwilling to even consider it.
How does 95% of the scientific community profit from this "conspiracy"?
As for the founding fathers, were they not fighting for and aspiring towards tolerance and personal freedoms for everyone. Their main purpose was to take religion out of government to ensure the safety and freedoms of the people. Washington himself declared that the US was not a Christian nation, so it seems you are speaking solely based on your own imsconceptions.
I was being wholly sarcastic. Sorry man for confusing ya.
DOVER, Del. – Republican Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell's campaign threatened a radio station with a lawsuit if it posted video of an interview with the tea party favorite on the Internet.
During the interview Tuesday on WDEL-AM, O'Donnell snapped her fingers and beckoned a spokesman to her side after the host of "The Rick Jensen Show" pressed her on how she would have handled the New Castle County budget differently from her Democratic opponent Chris Coons, who is the executive of the state's largest county.
Jensen told The Associated Press that O'Donnell said after the interview that she would sue if the video was released. O'Donnell campaign manager Matt Moran then called WDEL general manager Michael Reath, demanding the station turn over the video and threatened to "crush" the station with a lawsuit if it did not comply, Reath said.
DOVER, Del. – Republican Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell's campaign threatened a radio station with a lawsuit if it posted video of an interview with the tea party favorite on the Internet.
During the interview Tuesday on WDEL-AM, O'Donnell snapped her fingers and beckoned a spokesman to her side after the host of "The Rick Jensen Show" pressed her on how she would have handled the New Castle County budget differently from her Democratic opponent Chris Coons, who is the executive of the state's largest county.
Jensen told The Associated Press that O'Donnell said after the interview that she would sue if the video was released. O'Donnell campaign manager Matt Moran then called WDEL general manager Michael Reath, demanding the station turn over the video and threatened to "crush" the station with a lawsuit if it did not comply, Reath said.
I saw on the Colbert Report just now, that that Tim Profitt guy said he did that to that girl because "she got too close to Rand Paul" and he had to protect him. -_-
Is that guy in the suit someone the republicans hired to try and make the tea party people say less psychotic/irrational/ignorant/hateful/incorrect things?
On October 29 2010 12:54 On_Slaught wrote: Is that guy in the suit someone the republicans hired to try and make the tea party people say less psychotic/irrational/ignorant/hateful/incorrect things?
I think he was there more to make sure the radio host didn't ask her anything that might further expose her idiocy.
Apparently HBO is hammering Youtube to take down Real Time clips. Now, that was pretty good, but it's nothing compared to the montage Bill Maher showed a couple weeks ago. Now, if you haven't seen this clip yet, you will laugh your ass off. Featuring appearances by Ben Affleck, Penn Jilette, and Steven Wright; you know something is messed up when you can even rile up the likes of Alan Thicke and Edie McClurg:
I <3 Christine Best thing to happen to the dems since McCain picked Palin. Like Sarah, everytime Christine opens her mouth an attack ad ready sound bite pops out.
On October 31 2010 12:54 Meapak_Ziphh wrote: I <3 Christine Best thing to happen to the dems since McCain picked Palin. Like Sarah, everytime Christine opens her mouth an attack ad ready sound bite pops out.
Sad thing is Sharon Angle is even more batshit crazy and gaffe-prone than O'Donnell and Palin combined.
Sadly, Harry Reid is so disliked that he may probably end up losing.
On October 31 2010 12:54 Meapak_Ziphh wrote: I <3 Christine Best thing to happen to the dems since McCain picked Palin. Like Sarah, everytime Christine opens her mouth an attack ad ready sound bite pops out.
Sad thing is Sharon Angle is even more batshit crazy and gaffe-prone than O'Donnell and Palin combined.
Sadly, Harry Reid is so disliked that he may probably end up losing.
i was hanging out with my friends today, and all of them are republican... and they are all talking about voting Reid, as the lesser of 2 evils, as well as just to keep senate majority in the seat, anyone else in that seat that isn't senate majority is a major blow to the importance of Nevada in Washington.. and we need serious help here... serious help...
It's turning in to a ghost town here in Henderson, so many empty houses/entire shopping centers abandoned(my family lost their house as well). Rumors are major hotels are closing down entire floors of hotel space. and trying to keep it quiet. their are still people coming to Vegas, but the fact is, they have ALWAYS lost money on hotel rooms, they just got it back in the casino, but nobody is spending money in the casinos, not even going to talk about unemployment.. It's sad how dependent this place is on everyone else, I need to get out of here .
Also I already voted, I know Im being optimistic, but I have to be.
I think it's a safe bet to assume that Republicans in D.C. are praying that Reid wins and not Angle as all it will take is her to talk on the house floor using her regular rhetoric for it to be national headlines and have that (R) by her name.
Everyone afraid of radical Muslims should open their eyes and behold the true beast. I know we criticize Iran for being radically religious under Shariah Law and stuff, but I am absolutely certain that if we let radical christians have the same kind of power, then we would be in a similar situation if not worse.
I seriously oppose religion mixing with politics. And I seriously oppose anyone who hates Darwin and the Flying Spaghetti Monster...
WILMINGTON, Del. — Democrat Chris Coons easily won Delaware's Senate race Tuesday over Republican Christine O'Donnell, a tea party favorite who struggled to shake old cable-show footage in which she spoke out against masturbation and talked about dabbling in witchcraft as a teenager.
With 99 percent of the precincts reporting, Coons had 57 percent of the vote to 40 percent for O'Donnell, an evangelical outsider whose stunning upset in the September GOP primary likely cost Republicans the race. Her opponent in the primary, congressman and former governor Mike Castle, had been considered a shoo-in to win Vice President Joe Biden's old seat.
Just a bump not about the election but about O'Donnell herself, might be nothing:
BALTIMORE — Federal authorities have launched a criminal investigation to determine whether failed U.S. Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell broke the law by using campaign money to pay personal expenses, according to a person familiar with the investigation.
O'Donnell, the Delaware Republican and tea party favorite who scored a surprise primary victory this year only to lose badly in the November general election, denied the charges and suggested they were being driven by her political opponents on the right and left, including Vice President Joe Biden.
The person spoke to The Associated Press on condition of anonymity to protect the identity of a client who has been questioned as part of the probe. The case, which has been assigned to two federal prosecutors and two FBI agents in Delaware, has not been brought before a grand jury.
One former O'Donnell staffer, Kristin Murray, recorded an automated phone call for the Delaware Republican Party just before the primary, accusing O'Donnell of "living on campaign donations – using them for rent and personal expenses, while leaving her workers unpaid and piling up thousands in debt."
Another former aide, David Keegan, said he became concerned about O'Donnell's 2008 campaign finances as she fell behind on bills and had no apparent source of income besides political contributions. He submitted an affidavit to CREW alleging that she used campaign money to cover meals, gas, a bowling outing, and rent to a landlord, Brent Vasher.
WASHINGTON – Failed U.S. Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell said Thursday that accusations she misspent campaign funds are politically motivated and stoked by disgruntled former campaign workers.
The Delaware Republican appeared on several network morning shows to defend herself a day after The Associated Press reported federal authorities have launched a criminal probe to determine whether she broke the law by using campaign money to pay personal expenses.
"There's been no impermissible use of campaign funds whatsoever," O'Donnell told ABC's "Good Morning America."
O'Donnell, the tea party favorite who scored a surprise primary victory before losing in the general election, suggested the accusations are driven by political establishments on the right and left, including Joe Biden. He represented Delaware in the Senate for decades before he became vice president.
"You have to look at this whole thug-politic tactic for what it is," she said Thursday.
A person familiar with the investigation confirmed it to The AP, speaking on condition of anonymity to protect the identity of a client who has been questioned as part of the probe. The case, which has been assigned to two federal prosecutors and two FBI agents in Delaware, has not been brought before a grand jury.
O'Donnell, who set a state record by raising more than $7.3 million in a tea party-fueled campaign this year, has been dogged by questions about her personal and campaign finances.
At least two former campaign workers have alleged that she routinely used political contributions to pay personal expenses including her rent as she ran for the Senate. She has run three consecutive times, starting in 2006.
O'Donnell has acknowledged paying part of her rent with campaign money, arguing that her house doubled as a campaign headquarters.
On Thursday, she told NBC's "Today Show" that people making the spending allegations include a fired former staff member and a former volunteer, both of whom she described as disgruntled. She says many other workers who spent longer with her campaigns have defended her.
Her contention that the accusations were politically motivated echoed a written statement she released the day before, which singled out Biden.
"Given that the king of the Delaware political establishment just so happens to be the vice president of the most liberal presidential administration in U.S. history, it is no surprise that misuse and abuse of the FBI would not be off the table," she said.
The vice president's office declined to comment.
O'Donnell's campaign also has criticized the nonpartisan watchdog group, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, which filed a complaint about O'Donnell's campaign spending this fall and asked Delaware's federal prosecutor to investigate.
O'Donnell says the group is part of a liberal effort to kill her career, noting that the organization is run by Washington attorney Melanie Sloan, who worked under Biden as a lawyer for the Senate Judiciary Committee in the early 1990s.
Sloan dismissed the criticism Thursday, emphasizing that the allegations originated with conservatives who worked for O'Donnell.
"I don't see how anybody can say that those people are part of the liberal machine," Sloan said. "What CREW did was look at what they were saying and say, 'Wait a minute, that's against the law.'"
The U.S. Attorney's office in Delaware has confirmed it is reviewing CREW's complaint. But officials in the office and the FBI declined to say whether a criminal investigation was under way.
Federal law prohibits candidates from spending campaign money for personal benefit. FEC rules state that this prohibition applies to the use of campaign money for a candidate's mortgage or rent "even if part of the residence is being used by the campaign," although O'Donnell's campaign has maintained that it was told otherwise by someone at the agency.
O'Donnell drew national attention in September when she upset U.S. Rep. Mike Castle for the GOP Senate nomination. She was handily defeated in November by Democrat Chris Coons following a campaign that focused largely on past controversial statements, including that she'd "dabbled into witchcraft" when she was young.
One former O'Donnell staffer, Kristin Murray, recorded an automated phone call for the Delaware Republican Party just before the primary, accusing O'Donnell of "living on campaign donations — using them for rent and personal expenses, while leaving her workers unpaid and piling up thousands in debt."
O'Donnell told NBC that Murray was fired from her 2008 campaign after less than two weeks because of incompetence.
Another former aide, David Keegan, said he became concerned about O'Donnell's 2008 campaign finances as she fell behind on bills and had no apparent source of income besides political contributions. He submitted an affidavit to CREW alleging that she used campaign money to cover meals, gas, a bowling outing and rent.
In a message sent last week to AP, Keegan said he had not been questioned as part of a criminal investigation, and that he considers himself only a "catalyst" in a case in which several people must be questioned to scrutinize O'Donnell's accounting practices and alleged misuse of campaign funds.
O'Donnell has run through numerous treasurers over her three campaigns, many of whom left abruptly after brief stints. At one point O'Donnell was acting as her own treasurer, and her current treasurer is former campaign manager Matt Moran.
O'Donnell, who announced just after Election Day that she had signed a book deal, hasn't held a full-time job in years and has struggled to explain how she makes a living.
"Given that the king of the Delaware political establishment just so happens to be the vice president of the most liberal presidential administration in U.S. history, it is no surprise that misuse and abuse of the FBI would not be off the table," she said.
O'Donnell, who announced just after Election Day that she had signed a book deal, hasn't held a full-time job in years and has struggled to explain how she makes a living.
Boy that really makes me trust her credentials. Hasn't she been railing against out-of-work aid? I guess not everyone is lucky enough to have a rich husband.
Can't take anything from Fox News seriously. I wonder how many people there believe what gets said and how many people are pulling a Colbert and dying of laughter inside every day.
Cue "ignorance is not a defense" for her, as well.
On December 31 2010 01:41 Ferrose wrote: Edit: She got a book deal?!
Why are you surprised by this? The more outlandish and sensationalist you are, the more something will sell.
O'Donnell, who announced just after Election Day that she had signed a book deal, hasn't held a full-time job in years and has struggled to explain how she makes a living.
Boy that really makes me trust her credentials. Hasn't she been railing against out-of-work aid? I guess not everyone is lucky enough to have a rich husband.
I have to listen to old people on Medicare bitch about universal health care all day. >.> There's hypocrites all over.
On December 31 2010 02:11 Craton wrote: Can't take anything from Fox News seriously. I wonder how many people there believe what gets said and how many people are pulling a Colbert and dying of laughter inside every day.
If you prefer one of the 1,025 other articles (according to Google) reporting on the exact same story with pretty much the exact same text (because they're all reporting on the same interview you can find in 20 seconds on Google), here's some:
EPT![[image loading]](http://www.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/Politics/091510_odonnellupset_604x341.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://fitsnews.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/nfrw-main.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.nypost.com/rw/nypost/2010/08/08/pagesix/photos_stories/Cropped/carl_paladino--300x300.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i53.tinypic.com/zlawwh.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://sg.wsj.net/public/resources/images/NA-BH997_TEABIZ_NS_20100916192817.gif)
![[image loading]](http://www.themonkeycage.org/conflictedconservatives%20revised.png)
![[image loading]](http://i54.tinypic.com/ht8cxs.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.inbi.ras.ru/photo/sci/kritsky.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.scrapbookyourchristianfaith.com/site-pics/bibleread.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:-ve-_GmfnUWx0M:http://i789.photobucket.com/albums/yy177/smcdu2/wolf-blitzer-fail.jpg&t=1)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/05/Rep.K.Ellison.jpg/210px-Rep.K.Ellison.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/nLHOF.png)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f9/AllendeMeteorite.jpg/800px-AllendeMeteorite.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.gonzotimes.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/05/vote-for-nobody.jpg)
