Bbucko
Cherished Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2006
- Posts
- 7,232
- Media
- 8
- Likes
- 326
- Points
- 208
- Location
- Sunny SoFla
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
B_VinylBoy
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2007
- Posts
- 10,363
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 70
- Points
- 123
- Location
- Boston, MA / New York, NY
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
That drug users are usually more popular than anti-masturbating she devils! DUH!!
:biggrin:
- Joined
- Nov 8, 2009
- Posts
- 9,292
- Media
- 585
- Likes
- 121,054
- Points
- 543
- Location
- Phoenix (Arizona, United States)
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 50% Straight, 50% Gay
- Gender
- Male
THAT"S RIGHT!!! I'm ashamed of you too and I am from Pennsylvania right next door to Delaware..... Oh ... wait I'm from Pennsyl.... uhhhh.. wait a sec ...forget I said that :frown1::redface::biggrin1:
D_Tully Tunnelrat
Experimental Member
Great segment last nite on Real Time, which showed O'Donnell's comments, taped in a '96 episode of the show, "refuting" Darwinism on the basis that she never saw a monkey turn into a man. There is left field, and there is Pluto, but she inhabits Uranus.
^ Which makes her perfect for the modern day Republican Party that relies total nut jobs to win elections.
helgaleena
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Sep 8, 2006
- Posts
- 5,475
- Media
- 7
- Likes
- 43
- Points
- 193
- Location
- Wisconsin USA
- Sexuality
- 50% Straight, 50% Gay
- Gender
- Female
I have found a wonderful initiative at the Savage Love column which I simply must share here!
The time has come for you to use your influence to pick a day between now and the November election and declare it Masturbate to Christine O'Donnell Day in either the state of Delaware or the entire United States of America. This needs to happen, and you're the only guy who can do it.
Hiding At The Elusive Fuzz Under Christine's Knockers
For Savage Love readers who don't read anything else: Christine O'Donnell is the Tea Party wacko who won the Republican nomination for a U.S. Senate seat in Delaware. She is famous for three things: getting her loony ass endorsed by Sarah Palin, viciously gay-baiting her straight primary opponent, and opposing masturbation because it makes the baby Jesus cry.
I'm all for masturbating to Christine O'Donnell, HATEFUCK, but why limit it to one day? So I hereby declare every day between now and November 2—when O'Donnell's nomination costs the GOP a Senate seat—to be Masturbate to Christine O'Donnell Day. Rub one out for freedom, people!
Savage Love by Dan Savage - Columns - Savage Love - Dan Savage - The Stranger, Seattle's Only Newspaper
The time has come for you to use your influence to pick a day between now and the November election and declare it Masturbate to Christine O'Donnell Day in either the state of Delaware or the entire United States of America. This needs to happen, and you're the only guy who can do it.
Hiding At The Elusive Fuzz Under Christine's Knockers
For Savage Love readers who don't read anything else: Christine O'Donnell is the Tea Party wacko who won the Republican nomination for a U.S. Senate seat in Delaware. She is famous for three things: getting her loony ass endorsed by Sarah Palin, viciously gay-baiting her straight primary opponent, and opposing masturbation because it makes the baby Jesus cry.
I'm all for masturbating to Christine O'Donnell, HATEFUCK, but why limit it to one day? So I hereby declare every day between now and November 2—when O'Donnell's nomination costs the GOP a Senate seat—to be Masturbate to Christine O'Donnell Day. Rub one out for freedom, people!
Savage Love by Dan Savage - Columns - Savage Love - Dan Savage - The Stranger, Seattle's Only Newspaper
- b.c.,
On the contrary, might be the best thing for them (and for us as a nation).
Possible scenario: Tea Party right winged wacks gain control of Congress and the party they so vividly portray. Over the course of the next year or so they do a TOTAL fuck job, gridlocking legislation and/or undoing any and all progress on the economy, jobs, healthcare.
Americans wake up from their self induced COMA (a pretty tall order, I might add), realize them for the nut jobs they are, and come next presidential election, go to the polls to show their disapproval of them and of the party that belched this vermin from its bowels.
Today it looked as if the comics had moved into the main section of the Boston Globe; but no, it's the Opinion page, featuring "tea party" versions of comic strips:
Tea Party takes over comics page - Boston.com
Tea Party takes over comics page - Boston.com
Bbucko
Cherished Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2006
- Posts
- 7,232
- Media
- 8
- Likes
- 326
- Points
- 208
- Location
- Sunny SoFla
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
Proving just how utterly absurd it is for Teabaggers to clutch their pocket-sized editions of the U.S. Constitution while screaming that Obamanauts are leading us straight into totalitarian Communist Hell:
(Oct. 19) -- Where better to learn about the U.S. Constitution than at a law school?
Unfortunately for Delaware Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell, that education -- which came at Delaware's Widener Law on Thursday -- was courtesy of her opponent in the race, Democrat Chris Coons, in the midst of their second debate.
After scolding Coons for his lack of knowledge of constitutional law for stating that intelligent design should not be taught in public schools (a matter decided in a scathing decision in the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover School District), O'Donnell challenged her rival on his assertion that the U.S. Constitution creates a distinct separation between church and state.
"Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked. Upon hearing her words, the audience in the room burst into laughter. Video of the debate captures the moment at the 2:46 mark.
Later in that same debate after expressing her ignorance several times over . . . .Unfortunately for Delaware Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell, that education -- which came at Delaware's Widener Law on Thursday -- was courtesy of her opponent in the race, Democrat Chris Coons, in the midst of their second debate.
After scolding Coons for his lack of knowledge of constitutional law for stating that intelligent design should not be taught in public schools (a matter decided in a scathing decision in the case of Kitzmiller v. Dover School District), O'Donnell challenged her rival on his assertion that the U.S. Constitution creates a distinct separation between church and state.
"Where in the Constitution is separation of church and state?" O'Donnell asked. Upon hearing her words, the audience in the room burst into laughter. Video of the debate captures the moment at the 2:46 mark.
"Let me just clarify," O'Donnell pressed. "You're telling me that the separation of church and state is found in the First Amendment?"
"The government shall make no establishment of religion," Coons said, summarizing the gist of the specific words in the First Amendment's establishment clause.
"That's in the First Amendment?" O'Donnell asked again, eliciting further laughter from the room.
So . . . . I guess she's not a witch anymore?"The government shall make no establishment of religion," Coons said, summarizing the gist of the specific words in the First Amendment's establishment clause.
"That's in the First Amendment?" O'Donnell asked again, eliciting further laughter from the room.
Last edited:
haulthat
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Sep 30, 2010
- Posts
- 284
- Media
- 6
- Likes
- 36
- Points
- 53
- Location
- Austin, TX
- Sexuality
- 99% Gay, 1% Straight
- Gender
- Male
They may have serious flaws, make epic mistakes, and appear ignorant. They were a much more organized party than democrats have been in recent times, they typically settle their disputed amongst each other before campaign mode starts for an election, and they stick to their guns. The whole tea party movement I haven't seen before as far as a canonicalization of each other among republican members. The republican answer to any type of opposition is to dismiss it, direct attention away from it, and repeat the message that they want to be heard. For intelligent audiences this will piss people off, and you can see through it. For others, it will have a positive effect on how they are perceived.
I remember in one of the debates that bush had with John Kerry, a question he was asked was ASIDE from the war in Iraq, to name a mistake that he had made, and how he would have handled it differently. He answered, their really talking about the war in Iraq, and I stand by my decision that was not a mistake... bushisms out the ass. Yes, he didn't answer the question they were asking. Yes, he didn't address the fact that they specifically mentioned being concerned with something other than the war in Iraq. Either way, he effectively dodged the question, and got to say one more time why he stood by his decision on Iraq. If there are rules that can be bent or broken to gain the upper hand in the eyes of voters, the republican party is much more effective and finding and utilizing those.
I won't label every Teaparty supporter or candidate to be en extreme, crazy, fucking idiot BUT I do feel that way about some of them. Christine O'Donnell managed to earn that from me. Candidates like these being elected will say a lot about our country as far as our citizens, our election system, and our political environment go. It is healthy for people to be passionate about their beliefs, even when politics are involved. The issue I see is due to some extreme polarization which is fueled by the electorate and those who are trying to replace them, a lot of people take their passion to an aggressive place. There is too much heat. There are very few productive conversations between people who don't share similar views, there are many wasted arguments between people who don't see eye to eye. As a result that remains the case.
Just because you disagree with someone, even if that isn't going to change. It will help you, and even your ability to approach the issue with them or someone with similar opinions if you understand and respect their views (respect that they are their views, not necessarily respect the view in itself). This rarely happens. As a result its very hard for things to change. Its very hard for people to reconsider how they feel about anything, if they are so angry by the response they get that they won't even look at it from a different angle to see if they might notice something different.
OJ Simson is a perfect example. Today almost no one will deny that it was clear that he was guilty. That the circumstances, evidence, and actions right after all made it clear that he was the killer. Even before he wrote "If I did it". The defense stuck to their argument, they didn't back down, they didn't for a second retreat when they were being slammed with plenty of evidence. On top of that there was so much anger as far as public went you couldn't discuss it with anyone without some type of fight. I was a kid when that happened, I cheered when OJ was found not guilty because I didn't understand the trial, I didn't know exactly what was happening, I just knew that everyone was pissed a bad ass football player might go to jail and now hes free.
Who is right, and who is wrong is almost aside from the point in politics and debate. The same standpoint presented by two different people can be upheld or fall apart based on the argument they build around it. If there was a clear, simple, and definite answer there would be no room for debate. Gun rights, gay marriage, and a womans right to choose. There are so many different places someone can come from in relation to those. A final answer that will end those topics I almost feel will never be reached. Their too valuable to let go of. You can dance around them and throw them in any direction and the results they yield can be amazing. Its a game that can be played and won by the stronger player without it even mattering which side he stands on.
Bureaucracy is the other end of the spectrum but just as bad. Floods of redundant rules that can let something be upheld or thrown out on a small technicality. I see why it serves a purpose but it causes issues all its own. If you have to jump through 30 hoops to get something done, if its not that important to you, there is a good chance you will give up.
I don't believe. I hope. I hope that at the end of the day, the world will survive, and we will still have our home, freedom, and country. I honestly hope America looks back at us today, from a distant future... looks down upon us... but from a greater place. Thats all I can do. Because I can't believe, and I don't want to THINK about what will happen. Because some insane shit could and that would stress me out. Good luck to us all.
Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place. Of course, it is not a fallacy to state the truth again and again; what is fallacious is to expect the repitition alone to substitute for real arguments.
Nonetheless, this is a very popular fallacy in debate, and with good reason: the more times you say something, the more likely it is that the judge will remember it. The first thing they'll teach you in any public speaking course is that you should "Tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em, then tell 'em, and then tell 'em what you told 'em." Unfortunately, some debaters think that's all there is to it, with no substantiation necessary! The appropriate time to mention argumentum ad nauseam in a debate round is when the other team has made some assertion, failed to justify it, and then stated it again and again. The Latin wording is particularly nice here, since it is evocative of what the opposition's assertions make you want to do: retch. "Sir, our opponents tell us drugs are wrong, drugs are wrong, drugs are wrong, again and again and again. But this argumentum ad nauseam can't and won't win this debate for them, because they've given us no justification for their bald assertions!"
from Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate
I remember in one of the debates that bush had with John Kerry, a question he was asked was ASIDE from the war in Iraq, to name a mistake that he had made, and how he would have handled it differently. He answered, their really talking about the war in Iraq, and I stand by my decision that was not a mistake... bushisms out the ass. Yes, he didn't answer the question they were asking. Yes, he didn't address the fact that they specifically mentioned being concerned with something other than the war in Iraq. Either way, he effectively dodged the question, and got to say one more time why he stood by his decision on Iraq. If there are rules that can be bent or broken to gain the upper hand in the eyes of voters, the republican party is much more effective and finding and utilizing those.
I won't label every Teaparty supporter or candidate to be en extreme, crazy, fucking idiot BUT I do feel that way about some of them. Christine O'Donnell managed to earn that from me. Candidates like these being elected will say a lot about our country as far as our citizens, our election system, and our political environment go. It is healthy for people to be passionate about their beliefs, even when politics are involved. The issue I see is due to some extreme polarization which is fueled by the electorate and those who are trying to replace them, a lot of people take their passion to an aggressive place. There is too much heat. There are very few productive conversations between people who don't share similar views, there are many wasted arguments between people who don't see eye to eye. As a result that remains the case.
Just because you disagree with someone, even if that isn't going to change. It will help you, and even your ability to approach the issue with them or someone with similar opinions if you understand and respect their views (respect that they are their views, not necessarily respect the view in itself). This rarely happens. As a result its very hard for things to change. Its very hard for people to reconsider how they feel about anything, if they are so angry by the response they get that they won't even look at it from a different angle to see if they might notice something different.
OJ Simson is a perfect example. Today almost no one will deny that it was clear that he was guilty. That the circumstances, evidence, and actions right after all made it clear that he was the killer. Even before he wrote "If I did it". The defense stuck to their argument, they didn't back down, they didn't for a second retreat when they were being slammed with plenty of evidence. On top of that there was so much anger as far as public went you couldn't discuss it with anyone without some type of fight. I was a kid when that happened, I cheered when OJ was found not guilty because I didn't understand the trial, I didn't know exactly what was happening, I just knew that everyone was pissed a bad ass football player might go to jail and now hes free.
Who is right, and who is wrong is almost aside from the point in politics and debate. The same standpoint presented by two different people can be upheld or fall apart based on the argument they build around it. If there was a clear, simple, and definite answer there would be no room for debate. Gun rights, gay marriage, and a womans right to choose. There are so many different places someone can come from in relation to those. A final answer that will end those topics I almost feel will never be reached. Their too valuable to let go of. You can dance around them and throw them in any direction and the results they yield can be amazing. Its a game that can be played and won by the stronger player without it even mattering which side he stands on.
Bureaucracy is the other end of the spectrum but just as bad. Floods of redundant rules that can let something be upheld or thrown out on a small technicality. I see why it serves a purpose but it causes issues all its own. If you have to jump through 30 hoops to get something done, if its not that important to you, there is a good chance you will give up.
I don't believe. I hope. I hope that at the end of the day, the world will survive, and we will still have our home, freedom, and country. I honestly hope America looks back at us today, from a distant future... looks down upon us... but from a greater place. Thats all I can do. Because I can't believe, and I don't want to THINK about what will happen. Because some insane shit could and that would stress me out. Good luck to us all.
Argumentum ad nauseam (argument to the point of disgust; i.e., by repitition). This is the fallacy of trying to prove something by saying it again and again. But no matter how many times you repeat something, it will not become any more or less true than it was in the first place. Of course, it is not a fallacy to state the truth again and again; what is fallacious is to expect the repitition alone to substitute for real arguments.
Nonetheless, this is a very popular fallacy in debate, and with good reason: the more times you say something, the more likely it is that the judge will remember it. The first thing they'll teach you in any public speaking course is that you should "Tell 'em what you're gonna tell 'em, then tell 'em, and then tell 'em what you told 'em." Unfortunately, some debaters think that's all there is to it, with no substantiation necessary! The appropriate time to mention argumentum ad nauseam in a debate round is when the other team has made some assertion, failed to justify it, and then stated it again and again. The Latin wording is particularly nice here, since it is evocative of what the opposition's assertions make you want to do: retch. "Sir, our opponents tell us drugs are wrong, drugs are wrong, drugs are wrong, again and again and again. But this argumentum ad nauseam can't and won't win this debate for them, because they've given us no justification for their bald assertions!"
from Logical Fallacies and the Art of Debate
I am sorry to say that we have another one cut from the mold created by the "great" Sarah Palin. She definitely belongs to the "open mouth-insert foot" strategy and what is scary is that there are conservatives who watch morons like this take a lead at representing their party.
i must admit that the Democrats right now are really not taking advantage of this and representing all Republicans as Palin and O'Connell.
The woman's ideas on the separation of Church and State are also quite absurd and the Republican Party was very quick to try and have "spin doctors" go under the "what she meant to say" strategy to completely pull her fat out of the fire on that one.
If the Republican Party insists on running people like this, I think it is about time for the Democrats to start really taking advantage of this kind of thinking and make dead certain that it blows up in their face.
I think I can see a campaign add from the Democrats against Republican Candidates.
"Another one from the same brains that gave you:
Then the screen starts showing a series of pictures and highlighting their accomplishments.
First Picture: George W. Bush "He gave us economic ruin and committed this country into financial hardships that every taxpayer will be repaying for decades."
Second Picture: Sarah Palin "A candidate for Vice President of the United States who did not even finish a job as Governor of Alaska and never ceased to amaze us with lessons in her version of world history, geography, and good core family values.
Third Picture: Brought forward by our friends in the "Tea Party" Ms. Christine O'Connell has dabbled in Witchcraft by her own admission, has intimated that she is not in favor of separation of "Church and State" and demonstrated her lack of knowledge of that issue on National Television and in general is the new poster child for the extremist values and positions being taken by these candidates.
Isn't it about time that you good loyal Americans and Members of the Republican Party started taking a long hard look at the extremist values that are being represented as your values?
We think you deserve better.
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2006
- Posts
- 1,315
- Media
- 10
- Likes
- 2,470
- Points
- 443
- Location
- California (United States)
- Verification
- View
- Sexuality
- 69% Straight, 31% Gay
- Gender
- Male
If anyone "has" ever read the First Amendment…I doubt many of you have, you'll find that O'Donnell’s answer is correct! If you watch the clip...she says it like "are you serious"
Listen to her inflection when she responds, It's like are you really this stupid!…Sadly it took 8 hours for news readers and there crackpot investigators find out she was correct…so much for journalism. Who’s the Idiots now.
Listen to her inflection when she responds, It's like are you really this stupid!…Sadly it took 8 hours for news readers and there crackpot investigators find out she was correct…so much for journalism. Who’s the Idiots now.
Last edited:
B_VinylBoy
Sexy Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2007
- Posts
- 10,363
- Media
- 0
- Likes
- 70
- Points
- 123
- Location
- Boston, MA / New York, NY
- Sexuality
- 90% Gay, 10% Straight
- Gender
- Male
You are.
The problem with people like Christine O'Donnell and folks like you is that you're looking for the exact words "separation of church and state" in the Constitution. That doesn't appear verbatim, HOWEVER, the amendment is rather explicit and clear:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
With any kind of reasonable logic and the ability to use an intellectual mind, the underlined passage is more than straightforward. The separation of church and state is illustrated in that passage, even without you seeing it word for word. There's no further discussion or speculation on this.
So, now that we have established the obvious, we now turn to you and your actions. Knowing that the separation of church and state is an ideology embedded within the Constitution and knowing that you responded to this thread with such an ignorant post to further antagonize your adversaries, that means you are either uneducated which makes you unqualified to speak on matters regarding the Constitution, or you do know and don't care which makes you deliberately untrustworthy and unqualified to talk about the subject matter. Take your pick. Either way you look stupid so don't think too hard.
O'Donnell derides Coons for holding that it is against the Constitution for public schools to teach religious doctrines. You can see the whole video here. This exchange occurs at 0:24 :
By the way, it is obvious that in this discussion, "local school" means "public school": O'Donnell goes on to say that the "school board" should decide what to include in the curriculum, and she objects to the ruling of a federal court that intelligent design cannot be included in it.
To suggest that O'Donnell was only concerned with whether the PHRASE "separation of church and state" occurs in the first amendment is to disregard the fact that she takes it to be a violation of the constitution for federal courts to prevent public schools from teaching religious doctrines. She obviously has not the least clue to what is in the first amendment.