O'Donell in the lead in Delaware

  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Sep 15, 2010 1:04 AM GMT
    Thank you Tea Party for pushing O'Donnell ahead of Castle. Come November, Delaware is safe.

    Update: O'Donnell wins!!!!!!! <333333333
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 15, 2010 2:38 AM GMT
    Great news...for us Dems!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 15, 2010 2:49 AM GMT
    This is not good news.

    Here is a woman that wants to purge all sexual desire from people outside of marriage.



    The fact that she is the nominee from a mainstream party for the second highest office in her state says only horrible things about us as a nation. Please, Democrats, don't feel smug over this. We should all feel ashamed that this is what our pathetic little Democracy has come to.
  • metta

    Posts: 39165

    Sep 15, 2010 3:07 AM GMT

    Tea Party favorite wins Delaware GOP Senate primary

    http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/09/14/primary.elections/index.html?hpt=T1&iref=BN1
  • creature

    Posts: 5197

    Sep 15, 2010 3:15 AM GMT
    To be honest, I do feel smug because of the likelihood the seat will go to a Democrat. But I'm sure there were candidates in previous generations like O'Donnell and Angle who did win their party's primary. Maybe they didn't have an anti-masturbation stance or suggest citizens use 2nd amendment remedies, but political quacks are nothing new in this country.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 15, 2010 4:34 AM GMT
    creature saidTo be honest, I do feel smug because of the likelihood the seat will go to a Democrat. But I'm sure there were candidates in previous generations like O'Donnell and Angle who did win their party's primary. Maybe they didn't have an anti-masturbation stance or suggest citizens use 2nd amendment remedies, but political quacks are nothing new in this country.


    I'm not sure if I feel smug. I'm actually stunned in a few cases. In the Republican gubernatorial election Palandion (who's clinically insane) beat Lazio (who is much more moderate). On the upside this pretty much guarantees Andrew Cuomo is our next governor, but I think Zombie is right in that the rise of such belligerent extremists does not bode well for our country. As it is, the Senate is nearly in complete gridlock, and (for all the "socialist" BS), I don't want to see the country forced further to the right. On the other hand, perhaps the conservatives have overplayed their hand and against such extreme right-wing lunacy, the progressive candidates might seem quite moderate.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 15, 2010 6:00 AM GMT
    MunchingZombie saidThis is not good news.

    Here is a woman that wants to purge all sexual desire from people outside of marriage.



    The fact that she is the nominee from a mainstream party for the second highest office in her state says only horrible things about us as a nation. Please, Democrats, don't feel smug over this. We should all feel ashamed that this is what our pathetic little Democracy has come to.



    I don't feel smug about it.
    She may have rightfully been deemed unable to get "elected dogcatcher" by a fellow REPUBLICAN, but that was before she won - and now that she's the official R nominee, the party will likely unite behind her and it's (improbabale, but) not impossible that she could win.
    Which is a damn scary prospect.

    And even if she doesn't win, as a former Repub, I'm sickened by what has become of the Republican party.
  • metta

    Posts: 39165

    Sep 15, 2010 6:29 AM GMT
    ^
    I would love to see Sagebrush Republicans take over the party....but don't know if they still exist...McCain is obviously not one of them....and that is a SW State...maybe that all died out. It is not like the Republican Party will disappear...they will not allow that....so I would like to see them go back to believing in minimizing government intervention in peoples personal lives.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 15, 2010 8:32 AM GMT
    rickrick91 said - and now that she's the official R nominee, the party will likely unite behind her and it's (improbabale, but) not impossible that she could win.
    Which is a damn scary prospect.

    And even if she doesn't win, as a former Repub, I'm sickened by what has become of the Republican party.


    Well, the NRSC said today that they wont giver her a dime and even Carl Rove called her a nut.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 15, 2010 11:09 AM GMT
    MunchingZombie said
    rickrick91 said - and now that she's the official R nominee, the party will likely unite behind her and it's (improbabale, but) not impossible that she could win.
    Which is a damn scary prospect.

    And even if she doesn't win, as a former Repub, I'm sickened by what has become of the Republican party.


    Well, the NRSC said today that they wont giver her a dime and even Carl Rove called her a nut.


    She just said, on Good Morning America, that what Rove said is "unfactual" and then said that people thought Ronald Reagan was unelectable...so she's comparing herself to Reagan?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 15, 2010 8:27 PM GMT
    metta8 said^
    I would love to see Sagebrush Republicans take over the party....but don't know if they still exist...McCain is obviously not one of them....and that is a SW State...maybe that all died out. It is not like the Republican Party will disappear...they will not allow that....so I would like to see them go back to believing in minimizing government intervention in peoples personal lives.



    They used to believe in "getting the government off the backs of the American people", back in the 70's - PRE Reagan/Bush.

    Now they only want to get the govt. off the backs of the American people when it comes to taxes.
    In everything else - especially when it comes to social issues - they want the federal govt. to dictate how people live their lives and what people should and can do in their personal lives.

    Fuck them.
    Keep your personal beliefs to yourselves.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 15, 2010 9:56 PM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    metta8 said^
    I would love to see Sagebrush Republicans take over the party....but don't know if they still exist...McCain is obviously not one of them....and that is a SW State...maybe that all died out. It is not like the Republican Party will disappear...they will not allow that....so I would like to see them go back to believing in minimizing government intervention in peoples personal lives.



    They used to believe in "getting the government off the backs of the American people", back in the 70's - PRE Reagan/Bush.

    Now they only want to get the govt. off the backs of the American people when it comes to taxes.
    In everything else - especially when it comes to social issues - they want the federal govt. to dictate how people live their lives and what people should and can do in their personal lives.

    Fuck them.
    Keep your personal beliefs to yourselves.


    And the tea party, for at least the most part (in concept), stands for precisely the ideals of shrinking (or at least not expanding) government and getting back to liberalism on social issues. That isn't to say that some religious fanatics won't try (and have been trying) to sabotage what the movement is about.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 15, 2010 10:43 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie saidAnd the tea party, for at least the most part (in concept), stands for precisely the ideals of shrinking (or at least not expanding) government and getting back to liberalism on social issues. That isn't to say that some religious fanatics won't try (and have been trying) to sabotage what the movement is about.


    The proof is in the pudding. I can't think of a Tea Party candidate that actually supports that. Angle, Rand, O'Connell, and Paladino are the highest profile tea party candidates and shrinking government seems to mean cutting social services and liberalism on social issues means the same social conservatism the GOP has been running on for decades.

    Here are two examples:

    Angle thinks women should stay home when they have families. She is for the federal government banning marriage equality. She is for keeping marijuana illegal and said she supports making alcohol illegal before a spokesman said she misspoke.

    Paladino supports turning prisons into dormitories for those on welfare for job training and... hygiene classes.

    They both support big government. Government that tell you what kind of family you can have. What you can smoke. What you can drink. How to... wash. Regardless what you think about any of these programs none of these positions even remotely resemble social liberalism or small government. Rather, they represent the very opposite.

    Which makes me ask, if the highest profile candidates of the Tea Party do not espouse the stated core values of the Tea Party, just what are their actual values?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 15, 2010 11:01 PM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    rickrick91 said
    metta8 said^
    I would love to see Sagebrush Republicans take over the party....but don't know if they still exist...McCain is obviously not one of them....and that is a SW State...maybe that all died out. It is not like the Republican Party will disappear...they will not allow that....so I would like to see them go back to believing in minimizing government intervention in peoples personal lives.



    They used to believe in "getting the government off the backs of the American people", back in the 70's - PRE Reagan/Bush.

    Now they only want to get the govt. off the backs of the American people when it comes to taxes.
    In everything else - especially when it comes to social issues - they want the federal govt. to dictate how people live their lives and what people should and can do in their personal lives.

    Fuck them.
    Keep your personal beliefs to yourselves.


    And the tea party, for at least the most part (in concept), stands for precisely the ideals of shrinking (or at least not expanding) government and getting back to liberalism on social issues. That isn't to say that some religious fanatics won't try (and have been trying) to sabotage what the movement is about.



    Please name the tea party candidates who are running for office who support liberal social values.
    I don't know of any.
    The teabaggers are in lockstep with the religious right as far as I can see.

    Your own personal imaginary tea party candidates don't count.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 16, 2010 10:44 PM GMT
    MunchingZombie said
    rickrick91 said - and now that she's the official R nominee, the party will likely unite behind her and it's (improbabale, but) not impossible that she could win.
    Which is a damn scary prospect.

    And even if she doesn't win, as a former Repub, I'm sickened by what has become of the Republican party.


    Well, the NRSC said today that they wont giver her a dime and even Carl Rove called her a nut.


    Well now. The NRSC will be giving her $42k after all. Good, that is $42k they wont be spending elsewhere.
  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14380

    Sep 16, 2010 10:49 PM GMT
    O'Donell is obviously a scary, right wing extremist. Democrats in Delaware cannot afford to get smug by ignoring her vicious, negative campaign.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 16, 2010 11:03 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    rickrick91 saidPlease name the tea party candidates who are running for office who support liberal social values.

    Who cares if they have "liberal social values" or not? The Federal government isn't supposed to enact legislation that promotes "liberal social values."

    It is not a power granted to the Federal government in the Constitution.




    There are a lot of things that are not in the Constitution but we take them for granted...at some point or another, including slavery:
    http://www.usconstitution.net/constnot.html
    * The Air Force
    * Congressional Districts
    * The Electoral College
    * Executive Order
    * Executive Privilege
    * Freedom of Expression
    * (Absolute) Freedom of Speech and Press
    * "From each according to his ability..."
    * God
    * Immigration
    * Impeachment means removal from office
    * Innocent until proven guilty
    * It's a free country
    * Judicial Review
    * Jury of Peers
    * "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness"
    * Marriage
    * Martial Law
    * No taxation without representation
    * Number of Justices in the Supreme Court
    * "Of the people, by the people, for the people"
    * Paper Money
    * Political Parties
    * Primary Elections
    * Qualifications for Judges
    * The right to privacy
    * The right to travel
    * The right to vote
    * The separation of church and state
    * The Separation of Powers Clause
    * Slavery
    * "We hold these truths to be self-evident"
    * Other topics



    Did you know that the US Constitution is the shortest constitution in the world?


    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution#Criticism_of_the_ConstitutionYale professor Robert A. Dahl sees a problem with an American tendency towards worship of the Constitution itself, and sees aspects of American governance which are "unusual and potentially undemocratic: the federal system, the bicameral legislature, judicial review, presidentialism, and the electoral college system."[28] Levinson and Labunski and others have called for a Second Constitutional Convention,[29] although professors like Dahl believe there is no real hope this might ever happen.[28]

  • roadbikeRob

    Posts: 14380

    Sep 16, 2010 11:04 PM GMT
    I hate to say this but the truth is New York needs someone like Carl Paladino for governor to shake up and clean up the tax wasting, corrupt, NYC dominated Albany bureaucracy. I like Carl Paladino a lot better than Andrew Cuomo. We also need an upstate native in the governors chair for a change. Paladino is a private sector businessman from Buffalo who fully understands the serious plight of New York's beleaguered and overburdened taxpayers. The democratic candidate Andrew Cuomo is going to be exactly like his father, tax and spend endlessly. No thank you, the State of New York is already in a deep bugget hole and the taxes are way too high. We cannot afford four more years of careless tax and spend policies. We need Carl Paladino to go in there and fight for the taxpayers and cut out excessive government waste like abolishing all these public authorities like the New York Thruway Authority. I am seriously considering supporting Carl Paladino for New York governor because I am also fed up with all the corruption and bullshit in Albany.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 17, 2010 3:06 AM GMT
    rickrick91 said
    mocktwinkie said
    rickrick91 said
    metta8 said^
    I would love to see Sagebrush Republicans take over the party....but don't know if they still exist...McCain is obviously not one of them....and that is a SW State...maybe that all died out. It is not like the Republican Party will disappear...they will not allow that....so I would like to see them go back to believing in minimizing government intervention in peoples personal lives.



    They used to believe in "getting the government off the backs of the American people", back in the 70's - PRE Reagan/Bush.

    Now they only want to get the govt. off the backs of the American people when it comes to taxes.
    In everything else - especially when it comes to social issues - they want the federal govt. to dictate how people live their lives and what people should and can do in their personal lives.

    Fuck them.
    Keep your personal beliefs to yourselves.


    And the tea party, for at least the most part (in concept), stands for precisely the ideals of shrinking (or at least not expanding) government and getting back to liberalism on social issues. That isn't to say that some religious fanatics won't try (and have been trying) to sabotage what the movement is about.



    Please name the tea party candidates who are running for office who support liberal social values.
    I don't know of any.
    The teabaggers are in lockstep with the religious right as far as I can see.

    Your own personal imaginary tea party candidates don't count.


    For starters, Ron Paul and Rand Paul.
  • metta

    Posts: 39165

    Sep 17, 2010 3:16 AM GMT
    Christine O’Donnell’s claims vs. the facts


    http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2010/09/16/evening-buzz-christine-o%E2%80%99donnell%E2%80%99s-claims-vs-the-facts/


    On CNN's Anderson Cooper show AC360 tonight.

    examples of her history:
    - for years she told people that she had earned a college degree even though she had not

    - told potential voters during the current campaign that she had won 2 out of 3 counties in her last campaign for senate against Joe Biden, when in fact he had beat her (when questioned about this she tried to deny having said it -- they had to play the audio tape back to prove she was lying -- then she claimed that she had "tied," when in fact he had beat her)

    - an accountant who had worked on the current campaign says he quit after 2 months because he was aghast at how the campaign were managing their finances -- doing some things he says are illegal

    - and campaign finance filing documents showing that she had apparently been using campaign funds for personal expenses even after the election, which is illegal
  • metta

    Posts: 39165

    Sep 17, 2010 10:49 PM GMT

    Here she is informing us that saving energy, recycling, improving your diet and allowing abortions are against liberty.



  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 17, 2010 11:12 PM GMT
    metta8 said
    Here she is informing us that saving energy, recycling, improving your diet and allowing abortions are against liberty.





    Abortion is a controversial subject. If you subscribe to the idea that life starts at conception then it is automatically a human life that needs to be protected under the law. Determining when it is no longer lawful for a woman to take a life of the child growing inside them is not an easy matter. Is it right after the child has been born? What about a few days before birth? Where do YOU draw the line?
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2010 12:25 AM GMT
    OK, Mocktwinkie, you asked for it.
    The concept that life starts at conception is not 100% correct.
    Current medical definition of life is presence of mental activity associated with thought and mind. (brain death is not just brain death, it's death with a D)
    The earliest stages of human development has no nervous activity, and only has a recognizable nervous system by the 5th month which is very rudimentary. Sustained, recognizable EEG bursts only happen around 20th week.

    The early fetus is a potential human being, not an actual human being.
    If you want to save ALL potential human life, then logically you have to save every sperm and egg that has ever been made, and Christine would be right at least for males--no masturbation should be allowed, at least not to the point of ejaculation, unless you have plans to save the sperm thus destroyed.

    So where to draw the line? Practically, viability is used in most legal codes as a guide. Currently, fetuses born before 20 weeks are unlikely to survive outside of the womb, which may change as medical science improves.

    God save us all when technology in the future advances to the point of viability outside the womb, because societal costs will be unbelievably onerous.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2010 1:00 AM GMT
    mocktwinkie said
    metta8 said
    Here she is informing us that saving energy, recycling, improving your diet and allowing abortions are against liberty.





    Abortion is a controversial subject. If you subscribe to the idea that life starts at conception then it is automatically a human life that needs to be protected under the law. Determining when it is no longer lawful for a woman to take a life of the child growing inside them is not an easy matter. Is it right after the child has been born? What about a few days before birth? Where do YOU draw the line?


    Hey Mock -

    I thought the Tea Partiers were a bunch of anti-tax people who didn't care about social issues. Then why is every single one of them that won on Tuesday avowedly anti-gay, anti-choice, a born-again Christian, etc?

    In fact, Jim Demint - the astroturfer largely responsible for your "organic citizens movement" basically laid down the law to all of them this week, saying you have to embrace the social issues we care about or you're out.

    I wonder if all those gay guys on here who think the Tea Party is great are going to have to rethink that now. icon_rolleyes.gif
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Sep 18, 2010 1:37 AM GMT
    q1w2e3 saidIf you want to save ALL potential human life, then logically you have to save every sperm and egg that has ever been made, and Christine would be right at least for males--no masturbation should be allowed, at least not to the point of ejaculation, unless you have plans to save the sperm thus destroyed.


    "Every Sperm Is Sacred" song from Monty Python's The Meaning of Life. The Catholic father is laid off when the mill closes, and he tells his horde of children that he must now sell them off for medical experiments. He blames their fate on the Catholic Church, for denying him the option of birth control, and then sings this song as his children march away from their home.



    Note the obvious, and no doubt deliberately ironic cinematic references to the movie musical number "Consider Yourself At Home" from Oliver!