Peace Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 Im not following where O'Donnell is doing or saying that makes her "a stupid whacko loon." Lets have a list please. And it better NOT include the "witch" stuff or her comments on religion from almosty fifteen years ago. Nor can it include a misinterpreted statment in a debate, especially from a debate where her opponent said something FAR worse (Coons couldnt name the five freedoms guaranteed in the BoR). Lets have some CURRENT statements/actions that make her "stupid." Opposes abortion even in cases of rape or incest She favors teaching creationism over evolution she uses campaign funds to pay for half her townhouse (because she uses it as an office)...this after defaulting on her mortgage and selling it to her campaign manager She is flat-broke and not working for a living except off campaign donations "It is not enough to be abstinent with other people, you also have to be be abstinent alone. The Bible says that lust in your heart is committing adultery, so you can't masturbate without lust." "You can't masturbate without lust." / "I'm a young woman in my thirties and I remain chaste." -1996...though she now backs off that lunacy. "American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains." 2007...sounds like a joke but she's so mental who knows "We took the Bible and prayer out of public schools. Now we're having weekly shootings. We had the 60s sexual revolution, and now people are dying of AIDS." "You know what, evolution is a myth." / "Why aren't monkeys still evolving into humans?" 1998 "During the primary, I heard the audible voice of God. He said, 'Credibility.'"
Magox Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 Good one buddy. Mouth breather, huh? That's right up there with penis head. Clearly I can't match wits with that. I was expecting more of your self-aggrandizing babble about how your free thinking vagueness makes you superior to anyone with any strong principles or positions, or who might have a slightly different take on things than you. Looks like you're slipping. You call it "principles" I call it blind faith. The fact is you can't stand that a conservative goes against what Beck, Rush or Hannity (your gods) tell you. You have taken every single stance they have, I say that the best way to control health care costs is by healthy living, you on the other hand take Beck's View of "get your hands off my Mcdonalds, I enjoy being fat" . I say that the VAT tax coupled with the eliminition of income taxes is a good way to go because it helps to reduce consumption which would help our trade deficit, you take Hannity's view of "Oh My GOd, VAT TAX VAT TAX, SOCIALISM!", then I say the expiration of the Bush Tax cuts are whats best for our country long-term, then you take the typical Rush view of "No, just cut spending, that's it, only spending", which of course I agree that spending has to be the main staple of having a responsible fiscal future, but the fact is that we can't afford the cuts, and if you want to be a true fiscal conservative then you will admit that the cuts add $4 Trillion to the debt. I say that ODONNEL was a poorly vetted candidate that believes ”American scientific companies are cross-breeding humans and animals and coming up with mice with fully functioning human brains,” (How's that RKFAST? as recently as 2007) and has made a series of gaffes who is terribly ill-qualified and has a history of desperate attention seeking and you take the RUSH, HANNITY idealogical talking point line of "Well We'd rather have a 'strong principled' true conservative then a moderate RINO". Well that's fine, the people spoke in electing her in the primaries and now they will get Coons. You sir lack the ability to think for yourself. Everything that I put is ALL ABOUT true fiscal reform, every proposal I have brought up would indeed lower the deficit, lower health care costs and lower the trade deficit you on the other hand parrot what your heroes tell you to say. Learn to think for yourself. How's that for "free thinking vagueness"?
RkFast Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 (edited) I bet for every half-assed statement O'Donnell made, I can come up with FIFTEEN that every other politican (and pundit giving her a hard time) has made over the course of their political/public career. Statements as every bit as ignorant and as facutally bankrupt as the "monkey" one. And peace...you pretty much proved my point with the "she's so mental who knows" comment. And one more thing, peace. Although I hate to use the same bullet twice in just one week... PATTY MURRAY. I win. Edited October 21, 2010 by RkFast
GG Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 Im not following where O'Donnell is doing or saying that makes her "a stupid whacko loon." Intelligent design.
Peace Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 I bet for every half-assed statement O'Donnell made, I can come up with FIFTEEN that every other politican (and pundit giving her a hard time) has made over the course of their political/public career. Statements as every bit as ignorant and as facutally bankrupt as the "monkey" one. And peace...you pretty much proved my point with the "she's so mental who knows" comment. And one more thing, peace. Although I hate to use the same bullet twice in just one week... PATTY MURRAY. I win. You don't get it. Patty Murray/Christine O'Donnell: We all lose. Christine O'Donnell made those statements. It's great that you're happy voting for her because you think every other pol has 15 or so similar nightmares. I doubt it though. Maybe a few think that "Evolution is a myth" like her and guess what: They are all nucking futs. As are the "why aren't we seeing monkeys evolve" crowd and as are the "masturbation is evil" nuts. She is a lunatic. That you're her supporter is pretty messed up. Intelligent design. If she was intelligent enough to hide behind ID, maybe I'd give her a little slack. She talks about teaching straight out Creationism. Cuckoo for Cuckoo Puffs.
DC Tom Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 If she was intelligent enough to hide behind ID, maybe I'd give her a little slack. She talks about teaching straight out Creationism. My view is completely the opposite: if espousing literal Creationism, then at least one is being honest. "Intelligent design" is, on the other hand, completely unsupportable.
Rob's House Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 Blah Blah Blah Glen Beck. Blah Blah Blah, Hannity. Blah Blah Blah, Rush Limbaugh. So there. How's that for "free thinking vagueness"? The fact that you think you've got all the answers and everyone who shares any opinion with any of the three people you mentioned is a midless follower makes you annoying. It is possible to disagree with the mediocre genius of Magpie without mindlessly walking in lockstep to the marching orders of your chosen conservative leader. I haven't listened to Rush or Beck in months, only because I don't have the opportunity, not because I'm one of the quasi-conservative castrati who feels the need to divorce himself of any name conservatives for fear of marginalizing myself in the minds of simpletons who only know that those on prime-time TV sneer when those names escapes their lips. -As far as your lame take on "healthy living", I knew since before Beck was on the air that I didnt' need a bunch of dickless busy-bodies imposing their half-witted den mother mentality on me. It's a matter of mind your own f---ing business. -To your $4 trillion figure that you call a fact, a projection is not a fact. The fact that you are not aware of this exposes you for being the intellectual lightweight you are while posing as an omniscient guru based on your half-baked education. -ODonnel - Don't know much about her, nor do I care. The pricipled line was in reference to your definition of "free thinking" as being some fluffy moderate feather in the wind with no concrete priciples. What's most offensive about you isn't your particular philosophy of what is or isn't effective or desirable in society but rather your belief in your entitlement to impose your will on others and your belief that everyone who doesn't swallow what you're serving up is a brainwashed zombie taking the word of their guru like it's coming down from Mt Sinai. Perhaps as free thinkers we should just accept whatever you say? Sorry, you're just not that persuasive.
Magox Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 Perhaps as free thinkers we should just accept whatever you say? "Free thinkers" ? Good one!
Peace Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 My view is completely the opposite: if espousing literal Creationism, then at least one is being honest. "Intelligent design" is, on the other hand, completely unsupportable. Fair point. I now give her credit for not being smart enough to cover up her crazy.
Adam Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 What's most offensive about you isn't your particular philosophy of what is or isn't effective or desirable in society but rather your belief in your entitlement to impose your will on others and your belief that everyone who doesn't swallow what you're serving up is a brainwashed zombie taking the word of their guru like it's coming down from Mt Sinai. Perhaps as free thinkers we should just accept whatever you say? Sorry, you're just not that persuasive. Almost all Americans feel they are entitled to impose their will. The fact is nobody- INCLUDING the majority should be entitled to do that.
1billsfan Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 Intelligent design. Either it's intelligent design, creationism or you're an atheist who only believes in the scientific theories and explanations. How many atheist's are in congress right now? 1? 2? If this the litmus test, then there's only a couple of people who are smart enough to remain in their offices. Coons never did answer O'Donnell's challenge of publicly admitting he doesn't believe in his own church's teachings. God forbid, maybe someone should ask Obama his theory? He is a church going man right? So it stands to reason he would believe in intelligent design, correct?
3rdnlng Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 I'd like to take this opportunity to invite you two to my house for a beer summit. My house is white.
LeviF Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 Either it's intelligent design, creationism or you're an atheist who only believes in the scientific theories and explanations. How many atheist's are in congress right now? 1? 2? If this the litmus test, then there's only a couple of people who are smart enough to remain in their offices. Coons never did answer O'Donnell's challenge of publicly admitting he doesn't believe in his own church's teachings. God forbid, maybe someone should ask Obama his theory? He is a church going man right? So it stands to reason he would believe in intelligent design, correct? I think what he meant (and correct me if I'm wrong, GG) is that she thinks ID should be taught in public schools - in science classrooms.
Bishop Hedd Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 The fact that you think you've got all the answers and everyone who shares any opinion with any of the three people you mentioned is a midless follower makes you annoying. It is possible to disagree with the mediocre genius of Magpie without mindlessly walking in lockstep to the marching orders of your chosen conservative leader. I haven't listened to Rush or Beck in months, only because I don't have the opportunity, not because I'm one of the quasi-conservative castrati who feels the need to divorce himself of any name conservatives for fear of marginalizing myself in the minds of simpletons who only know that those on prime-time TV sneer when those names escapes their lips. -As far as your lame take on "healthy living", I knew since before Beck was on the air that I didnt' need a bunch of dickless busy-bodies imposing their half-witted den mother mentality on me. It's a matter of mind your own f---ing business. -To your $4 trillion figure that you call a fact, a projection is not a fact. The fact that you are not aware of this exposes you for being the intellectual lightweight you are while posing as an omniscient guru based on your half-baked education. -ODonnel - Don't know much about her, nor do I care. The pricipled line was in reference to your definition of "free thinking" as being some fluffy moderate feather in the wind with no concrete priciples. What's most offensive about you isn't your particular philosophy of what is or isn't effective or desirable in society but rather your belief in your entitlement to impose your will on others and your belief that everyone who doesn't swallow what you're serving up is a brainwashed zombie taking the word of their guru like it's coming down from Mt Sinai. Perhaps as free thinkers we should just accept whatever you say? Sorry, you're just not that persuasive. Hey, somebody had to tell Maalox how it is eventually. Just surprised it took this long.
Peace Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 [E]volution is a theory and it’s exactly that. 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. … Now too many people are blindly accepting evolution as fact. But when you get down to the hard evidence, it’s merely a theory. ... Well, creationism, in essence, is believing that the world began as the Bible in Genesis says, that God created the Earth in six days, six 24-hour periods. And there is just as much, if not more, evidence supporting that. 1996 on CNN Thanks Christine.
1billsfan Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 (edited) I think what he meant (and correct me if I'm wrong, GG) is that she thinks ID should be taught in public schools - in science classrooms. She thinks it should be left up to local and state school boards, not a federal mandate prohibiting ID from being taught. Edited October 21, 2010 by 1billsfan
DC Tom Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 I think what he meant (and correct me if I'm wrong, GG) is that she thinks ID should be taught in public schools - in science classrooms. So she doesn't have the first clue what science actually is. That makes her eminently suitable for Congress, as representative of the majority of Americans. She thinks it should be left up to local and state school boards, not a federal mandate prohibiting ID from being taught. I actually agree with that. It's not the feds' job to police every single locality for appropriateness of curriculum. Gives me more to laugh at, too.
LeviF Posted October 21, 2010 Posted October 21, 2010 She thinks it should be left up to local and state school boards, not a federal mandate prohibiting ID from being taught. Federal and state(!) courts have already ruled that teaching ID in a public school science classroom is in violation of the Establishment Clause. So she doesn't have the first clue what science actually is. That makes her eminently suitable for Congress, as representative of the majority of Americans. Well, this is true.
Recommended Posts