A Tea Party Win in Delaware

midlifebear

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 21, 2007
Posts
5,789
Media
0
Likes
178
Points
133
Location
Nevada, Buenos Aires, and Barçelona
Sexuality
60% Gay, 40% Straight
Gender
Male
Just an aside, but Ewetaw had an O'Connel-type congress woman way back in the day of 104th Congress. Her name is Enid Greene Waldholtz. Check her Wiki page and you'll notice she even looks like O'Connel. Like O'Connel she kept losing runs for political office until she married a morbidly obese guy named Waldholtz who became her campaign manager. She won and was cheered into the 104th Congress as a purity/morality candidate.

Then it was discovered that the large ball of adipose tissue she desperately settled upon as a husband, Herr Waldholtz, had embezzled 4 million (a paltry some, even in the 1990s) from Enid's father and Enid was convicted of campaign fraud for misspending 1.8 million of her own war chest and donations from sympathetic Republican "givers." By then, even among Republicans, she was callously known as Eating Green Walnuts. She squeaked out of her term as a congresswoman, pressured by Ewetaw Republicans not to seek a second term.

The Ballad of Ewetaw's Enid is not unique. My money is on some -- any -- embarrassing scandal to mar and tar the reputation of Ms. O'Connel IF she does win that Senate seat. Such things tend to befall the political careers of young, unmarried, women more interested in turning their personal morals into law than actually govern about real issues.

Still, I won't discount her winning that Senate seat. After all, one can be a one/half term governor, wear red leather tit-enhancing jackets and fool a lot of people into thinking weird and dangerous things.
 

maxcok

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,153
Media
0
Likes
126
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Male
I assume that long pointless rambling was directed at me, since although you neglected to include my name, you did quote a snippet from my post. I promise you I read every word with intense interest, so I hope you don't mind that I condensed your latest post to its essence:

. . . I wondered aloud . . .
You can wonder ramble and deflect till the cows come home, revise history to suit your ideology, advance your lambybrained lamebrained analyses, and get in every partisan dig you want on the Democrats, but you're just amusing yourself, jackoff. I assure you, know one is paying you any attention. Sad, isn't it?

As for the "purity test", you're correct, the more detailed version that enumerated specific positions was defeated. However, the version that was adopted by the RNC - the full text of which I posted for you in this thread - calls for candidates to be "carefully screened" to determine that they "wholeheartedly support" the "core principles", "positions" and the "Platform" of the Republican party in order to receive any support, "financial or otherwise". So what's the big difference? It speaks for itself. Call it what you want, and play all the semantic games you want - it's still an ideological purity test, and it, along with the history lesson I gave you on Lieberman, still completely undermines your stupid, stupid arguments.

Eh, so the republicans openly ruminated about instituting a purity test. If they'd done it, it would have been done in the name of a type of vote-purity discipline that already exists inside the Democratic party. . . .

Why does everyone here bemoan the loss of supposed republican "moderates" while any democrat that doesn't go along with party orthodoxy is considered a pariah?

:sleeping:
 
Last edited:

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
LambHair McNeil said:
Why does everyone here bemoan the loss of supposed republican "moderates" while any democrat that doesn't go along with party orthodoxy is considered a pariah?

Because despite your delusions regarding the supposed blind libs on this board, many do have the ability of voting outside of their party affiliation and have stated that fact several times. Therefore, knowing that both sides of the political fence has their share of screwballs, they look to see if there's someone on the other side with half a brain worth considering.

Get it? Let me know if that answer was to deliberate for you. :rolleyes:
 

ravenx

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 17, 2006
Posts
171
Media
0
Likes
104
Points
513
Location
usa
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
I almost respect O'Donnell for having the courage of her conviction to say what she thinks.
I can't respect anyone that has such a distorted view on reality that it causes her to state things that are absolute baloney.

Her views on sexuality are so warped that just 4 years ago she was advocating for eliminating condom use.
O'Donnell: Condoms Are An "Anti-Human" "Insult" That Reduce People "To The Level Of A Dog" | Political Correction

And she's made such absurd statements as "condoms will not protect you from AIDS".

Also she's totally illiterate with respect to science, as is the case with most of these extreme bible beaters. She supports doing away with science and teaching creationism in schools. She supports "ex-gay" conversion therapy, lol.

She's so off the deep end that even prominent Republicans like Carl Rove have called her "nutty".

She's batshit crazy and not fit to lead anything.
 
Last edited:
D

deleted15807

Guest
She's batshit crazy and not fit to lead anything.

Stay tuned. I have a feeling the Republican Party will be fielding many more of her type as the party continues it's plunge off the cliff at the hands of Karl Rove and Fox News.
 

TomCat84

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 23, 2009
Posts
3,414
Media
4
Likes
173
Points
148
Location
London (Greater London, England)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
I can't respect anyone that has such a distorted view on reality that it causes her to state things that are absolute baloney.

Her views on sexuality are so warped that just 4 years ago she was advocating for eliminating condom use.
O'Donnell: Condoms Are An "Anti-Human" "Insult" That Reduce People "To The Level Of A Dog" | Political Correction

And she's made such absurd statements as "condoms will not protect you from AIDS".

Also she's totally illiterate with respect to science, as is the case with most of these extreme bible beaters. She supports doing away with science and teaching creationism in schools. She supports "ex-gay" conversion therapy, lol.

She's so off the deep end that even prominent Republicans like Carl Rove have called her "nutty".

She's batshit crazy and not fit to lead anything.

I guess my point is that I wish more Democrats were like Alan Grayson. :smile::smile:
 

LambHair McNeil

Experimental Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Posts
201
Media
0
Likes
2
Points
488
Age
34
Because despite your delusions regarding the supposed blind libs on this board, many do have the ability of voting outside of their party affiliation and have stated that fact several times. Therefore, knowing that both sides of the political fence has their share of screwballs, they look to see if there's someone on the other side with half a brain worth considering.

Get it? Let me know if that answer was to deliberate for you. :rolleyes:

:rolleyes:

No, and it's one that doesn't surprise me to read.

I assure you, know one is paying you any attention. Sad, isn't it?

Maybe "know one" isn't paying me any attention but I luckily have you. That does help with the sadness :smile:
 

maxcok

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,153
Media
0
Likes
126
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Male
..:sleeping:


(Tell ya what, Lambchop. Wake me up when you can name any Democrat of any note who was "rooted out of the party and forced to run as an Independent", or when you find that cocktail napkin where Howard Dean scribbled the secret Democratic "purity test".)
 
Last edited:

B_talltpaguy

Experimental Member
Joined
Nov 8, 2007
Posts
2,331
Media
0
Likes
17
Points
123
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
I can't respect anyone that has such a distorted view on reality that it causes her to state things that are absolute baloney.

Her views on sexuality are so warped that just 4 years ago she was advocating for eliminating condom use.
O'Donnell: Condoms Are An "Anti-Human" "Insult" That Reduce People "To The Level Of A Dog" | Political Correction

And she's made such absurd statements as "condoms will not protect you from AIDS".

Also she's totally illiterate with respect to science, as is the case with most of these extreme bible beaters. She supports doing away with science and teaching creationism in schools. She supports "ex-gay" conversion therapy, lol.

She's so off the deep end that even prominent Republicans like Carl Rove have called her "nutty".

She's batshit crazy and not fit to lead anything.
Now THAT is actually Talibanesque.
 
D

deleted15807

Guest
I almost respect O'Donnell for having the courage of her conviction to say what she thinks.


Apparently her handlers have gotten a clue, the more we know what she thinks the more trouble she'll get in:


O'Donnell Opts Out of Sunday Talk Shows

But DO look for her to show up on FoxFauxFixed News. Sean Hannity will 'interview' her with lightweight puff questions. Next stop over to Glenn Beck for another sham 'interview'. Right now she's probably taking accelerated classes in 'How To Hoodwink The Public and Not Say Something Stupid'.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
It's one thing to speak your mind and being as brutally honest as possible. But if what you have to say is factually wrong, socially archaic & unjust, or just plain stupid it's another. In an attempt to appear tolerant and open minded to our adversaries, we tend to embrace (or even reward) people who don't deserve any praise or admiration whatsoever. That's why we have people like O'Donnell & Paladino one step away from becoming a Senator in this country.

At what point does a person's anger becomes so great, when the distaste for certain people (for whatever reason) become so severe that it allows you to back obvious misfits with such backward ideologies just to see that one person you despise go down in flames? At what point does winning become so important that you're willing to ignore, discredit or even deny indisputable facts or even the simplest of basic, adult level knowledge? When I see this conservative sect called the "Tea Party" (they'll never be considered an actual "political party" in my eyes since all of their so-called candidates are running under the "R"), it amazes me up to this day how intellectuals are not just sick of the nonsense by now or are just content with allowing them to be on television everyday, screaming this nonsense without anyone with half a brain telling them to shut up. It's like watching the unreleased, inverted version of "Revenge Of The Nerds", with the Alpha-Betas beating out the Tri-Lambs in a battle of academics with nothing more than a smile, a letterman's jacket, a sack of money and the occasional scratching of their own testicles.

I don't know about you, but I'm sick of apologizing or condoning stupidity in the name of societal forbearance. I really hope for the sake of Delaware and New York (among other places in this country) that people remember how to use their minds as well as their hearts when they take action. I don't want to see Senator O'Donnell or Senator Paladino come this November... that would REALLY be an embarrassment to our nation.
 

maxcok

Expert Member
Joined
Nov 17, 2009
Posts
7,153
Media
0
Likes
126
Points
83
Location
Elsewhere
Gender
Male
^ Hear, hear.


Apparently her handlers have gotten a clue, the more we know what she thinks the more trouble she'll get in:

O'Donnell Opts Out of Sunday Talk Shows

But DO look for her to show up on FoxFauxFixed News. Sean Hannity will 'interview' her with lightweight puff questions. Next stop over to Glenn Beck for another sham 'interview'. Right now she's probably taking accelerated classes in 'How To Hoodwink The Public and Not Say Something Stupid'.
Well, to be perfectly fair, she did have scheduling conflicts:
"Campaign spokeswoman Diana Banister cited scheduling conflicts and said Ms. O'Donnell needed to return to Delaware for commitments to church events and afternoon picnic with Republicans in a key county where she has solid backing. Ms. Banister said the decision was solely a scheduling issue and not because O'Donnell wasn't prepared to go on the programs."
:rolleyes: I just can't wait till she has her big makeout session with Karl Rove.
 

gymfresh

Expert Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Jan 8, 2008
Posts
1,633
Media
20
Likes
155
Points
383
Location
Rodinia
Verification
View
Sexuality
99% Gay, 1% Straight
Gender
Male
I don't want to see Senator O'Donnell or Senator Paladino come this November... that would REALLY be an embarrassment to our nation.

I don't think O'Donnell is going to win in Delaware, unless the electorate is really bored and just wants to be amusing and watch fireworks. Honestly, I think that is exactly what goes through some voters' minds every dozen years or so.

Paladino is running for Governor of New York, not the Senate, thank God. Confinement. And the sensible voters of New York have probably gotten enough thrills just seeing him win the primary. No need to actually elect someone with poor taste and judgment, a daughter from an extramarital affair, who doesn't favor abortion rights even in case of rape or incest, has no sympathy for gay "rights" and called the Patient Protection and Care Act of 2010 "possibly more deadly" than 9/11. But he was once Buffalonian of the year. Woo!

Is the Tea Party a new "face" on widespread simmering, or the death rattle of a nonrepresentative group of ill-educated and resentful (more than fearful) group of baby boomers? I have to imagine that the generations coming up behind them are less anxious and more self-sufficient.
 

B_VinylBoy

Sexy Member
Joined
Nov 30, 2007
Posts
10,363
Media
0
Likes
68
Points
123
Location
Boston, MA / New York, NY
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
Paladino is running for Governor of New York, not the Senate, thank God.

My oops. Kinda got a little "Senator" friendly on my last post there. :redface:

Paladino is the same "genius" whose on record saying that they should convert prisons into "centers of learning" for welfare recipients and the poor. Supporters of this rogue applaud him for being brazen and in people's faces. However, none of them really pay attention to a thing he's really saying. He claims to not be "politically correct". Well, Alan Grayson isn't the most polite or PC of people either. Heck, he told Cheney to STFU in an televised news interview. But the differences between the two people are glaring.

But now I'm starting to get off topic. We should be talking about the other nut job in Delaware that thinks we've put a fully functional human brain into a rat and thinks condoms are an anti-human insult that makes us act like dogs who can't control their hormones. Please, Delaware... score one for those who actually behave like they at least earned a High School diploma.
 
Last edited:

thirteenbyseven

Legendary Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2004
Posts
2,431
Media
0
Likes
1,537
Points
333
Location
Orange County, SoCal
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
If O'Donnell and Palidino get elected, the satire will write itself.

Christine O'Donnell is running a campaign for student body president of her high school on the platform that masturbating with vibrators is evil. Conservative Republicans from Rush Limbaugh to Karl Rove are in the unenviable position of having to promote Little Peggy Sunshine as the next Maggie Thatcher.

Carl Paladino, a.k.a. "you send another goon to my daughter's house, I'll have you taken out," simply mistook a gubernatorial campaign speech for Carmine DePasto's dialogue from Animal House: "You mention extortion again and I'll have both your legs broken." Good going Carl for reinforcing long-held preconceived Italian/Sicilian Mafia stereotypes.

And you thought there was no high farce with the Tea Party movement. :biggrin1:
 

Bbucko

Cherished Member
Joined
Oct 28, 2006
Posts
7,232
Media
8
Likes
325
Points
208
Location
Sunny SoFla
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
Gender
Male
That is the point.

Have you forgotten that he was a Democrat and even the DEMOCRATIC nominee for vice-president before he was pushed out of the party for his stand on the Iraq war.

Democrats cannot stand independent thinkers.

[/I]

Only when Lieberman chose to run as an Independent against the Democratic nominee did he lose all support from the Democratic Party. And now he's back all cozy with the administration, allowed to keep his committee seniority etc. despite avid support of McCain and sometimes wildly insulting remarks about Obama during the 2008 campaign.

Lieberman didn't just "avid[ly] support" McCain in 2008, he was a regular at his rallies. His presence there, and his on-the-record remarks regarding the Democratic candidate weren't examples of "independent thinking", it was a complete repudiation of his former Democratic self.

Edited to add: JL is neither a Republican nor a Democrat, rather he's a member of the Likud party.

JL is a war-mongering extremist; his supposedly "cozy" subsequent relationship with the President shows the degree to which Obama wanted a filibuster-proof 60-seat majority, but also the degree to which Lieberman would hold on to power to a degree that "naked opportunism" doesn't even come close to describing.

As to O'Donnell: she'll self-destruct all by herself, with just the gentlest tugs and nudges from Bill Maher, who seems to have a bigger set of balls than 3/4 of the combined House/Senate Democrats put together. He's a national treasure in a world otherwise gone mad.
 
Last edited:

Empathizer

Experimental Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Oct 12, 2009
Posts
519
Media
3
Likes
20
Points
253
Location
NYC
Verification
View
Sexuality
50% Straight, 50% Gay
Gender
Female
Not a very fair characterization or link, Bbucko.

Wikipedia's coverage of Israel is quite biased, and depending upon which side the contributor is on,

Lieberman does support the State of Israel, yes.

And he does have quite conservative views, yes.

But to call him a "Member of the Likud Party" is to give creedence to those who believe that Israel has an unfair advantage in America because of some secret Zionist cabal that can warp the aims of anyone in Washington, DC. Which, as an intelligent human being who thinks for himself, I know you can't possibly be doing.

Lieberman is not some sort of one-issue mouthpiece for Likud and Israel. People who are against the existence of the State of Israel like to play upon existing gentile fears about Jews (including the idea that we all want for every male infant to be circumcised. The only reason Jewish researchers continue to restudy and then reemphasize the benefits of circumcision is that it is a basic practice of the spiritual pact between a Jewish man and his God. We couldn't care less about whether or not the rest of the world does it. But it is NOT child abuse in our particular counterculture, any more than a rape scene or a paddling in a BDSM couple's own home is a rape or an instance of spousal abuse under any just code of law. Or, for that matter, having your children not participate in religious holiday observance at a public school is a horrible thing for parents of an atheist bent to do, even though I know kids who still resent that their parents made them sit out the Holiday Party because the School Choir sang Silent Night and the Dreidel Song. It is a choice that should be left up to parents, just like removing small and non-life-threatening "defects" such as webbing between fingers and toes, "extra" teeth that neither hurt the child nor impair chewing, "preventative" appendix removals, extra toes, supernumerary nipples, nipple inversions, the facial differences that go along with Down's Syndrome, raised birthmarks, imperforate hymens (which actually can cause life-threatening infections at the time of menarche (the commencement of menstruation)and when the in part or wholly obscure the urethra, and which are routinely glossed over by pediatricians, or even preferred by parents who are delighted that their baby daughter has such a strong and unbroken (they usually require surgical removal before menstruation, or coagulant therapy around the time of first penetrative sexual activity) appearance of virginity). Etc.)

Anyway, this sort of linking of the word and idea, "Zionism," with the disloyalty of powerful Jews to the nation of which we are citizens, is older than the Protocols of the Elders of Zion, and just as false. I know you didn't mean it that way, but the idea behind calling him a Likudnik (which I'm pretty sure you didn't come up with because you're not a paranoid type) is the same idea, only with lots of spurious academic posturing and pseudoleftist Daycare/Shopping Mall University professorial imprimatur piled on top of it. Just remember that when Oswald Spengler said pretty much the same things about Austrian and German Jews, he followed it up with gushing praise for several contemporary male "philosophers" and the Weimar Era equivalent of "no homo."