Jump to content

The Democrat Thread


Rex Kickass
 Share

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 20.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • StrangeSox

    3536

  • Balta1701

    3002

  • lostfan

    1460

  • BigSqwert

    1397

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 18, 2010 -> 01:31 PM)
About him? Probably. About this situation? It says nothing at all.

I wouldn't say "nothing". He clearly wants nothing to do with non-friendly media and in this case had his thugs arrest someone asking tough questions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Oct 18, 2010 -> 01:32 PM)
Tea party candidates have had a hostile relationship with the media from day one.

Sure, most of the ones who got these nominations away from the mainline party candidates are clearly unprepared for the stage they are on.

 

But that still has nothing to do with this case.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Oct 18, 2010 -> 01:31 PM)
<!--quoteo(post=2275483:date=Oct 18, 2010 -> 02:28 PM:name=NorthSideSox72)-->
QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 18, 2010 -> 02:28 PM)
<!--quotec-->No way to tell for sure. Seems like the kind of situation that could be a lot of things. Hopefully someone can come up with a video of it.

I meant a video of what happened to cause the detention.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More from looney Joe:

 

Alaska Republican Senate nominee Joe Miller was asked about illegal immigration at his town hall yesterday, and he said that the country's first priority should be to secure the border. "If East Germany could, we could," he said.

 

Could you imagine if a Dem said that?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, we've talked about the Tea Party candidates that are, in some cases, handing elections to Dems that might otherwise go to the GOP.

 

The Colorado Governor race is an interesting twist. After two different GOP candidates supported by the party turned out to be miserable failures (one of who won the nomination), good old Tom Tancredo is running under the Constitution Party. Tancredo is polling 35%, which is pretty amazing, the GOP guy is around 10%, and the Dem candidates (John Hickenlooper) is polling around 48% and is likely to win.

 

Here's an even funnier thing - if the GOP fails to get 10% of the vote in that election, they will become a "minor party" in Colorado's system, losing access to millions in campaign funds, among other things.

 

In this, case, I'm actually happy the Dem is benefiting, because Hickenlooper did a fantastic job as Denver's mayor, and I'd like to see him take over a higher level job.

 

Article.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (GoSox05 @ Oct 19, 2010 -> 09:37 AM)
Tom Tancredo is polling at 35%. Wow.

It's worth noting that there is essentially no other right leaning candidate of note in that race, as the official GOP has fully pulled its support from the Tea Party candidate in the race, Dan Maes. He's the equally crazy guy worried that bike sharing programs are an illegal U.N. imposed restriction on our freedom or something like that. Unless you're in the Tea Party, Tancredo is basically the "non-democrat" in the race.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link

 

At the link Christine O'Donnell asking where in the constitution is separation of church and state while looking smug. When the audience laughs she acts like she scored a major point.

 

It has to be performance art, right? It has to be.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Soxy @ Oct 19, 2010 -> 12:02 PM)
Link

 

At the link Christine O'Donnell asking where in the constitution is separation of church and state while looking smug. When the audience laughs she acts like she scored a major point.

 

It has to be performance art, right? It has to be.

 

OMG! I just watched the video. that... i dont know what to say. I was taught that in grade school. That couldnt possibly have been an act. She asked genuinely confused.

Edited by Athomeboy_2000
Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Soxy @ Oct 19, 2010 -> 12:02 PM)
Link

 

At the link Christine O'Donnell asking where in the constitution is separation of church and state while looking smug. When the audience laughs she acts like she scored a major point.

 

It has to be performance art, right? It has to be.

 

No. There are plenty of conservative Christians who see no "separation of church and state" in the Constitution and think the only way to violate the 1st amendment is to establish a state religion i.e. the Anglican church. They believe the country was founded by like-minded evangelicals who injected Christianity all throughout the government and that it's evil secular liberalism that has stripped it away. They would welcome theocracy (or at least quasi-theocracy) with open arms, as long as it was the right religion.

 

Hell, it wasn't that long ago that we had a President saying atheists shouldn't be considered citizens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Oct 19, 2010 -> 07:19 PM)
No. There are plenty of conservative Christians who see no "separation of church and state" in the Constitution and think the only way to violate the 1st amendment is to establish a state religion i.e. the Anglican church. They believe the country was founded by like-minded evangelicals who injected Christianity all throughout the government and that it's evil secular liberalism that has stripped it away. They would welcome theocracy (or at least quasi-theocracy) with open arms, as long as it was the right religion.

 

Hell, it wasn't that long ago that we had a President saying atheists shouldn't be considered citizens.

 

I would have expected her to cough up some argument about how the Establishment Clause is just a ban on a 'national religion' or some such nonsense, but she genuinely didn't seem to know the clause is even IN the 1st Amendment.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (CrimsonWeltall @ Oct 19, 2010 -> 01:22 PM)
I would have expected her to cough up some argument about how the Establishment Clause is just a ban on a 'national religion' or some such nonsense, but she genuinely didn't seem to know the clause is even IN the 1st Amendment.

 

There's that possibility, too. See her answer about which SCOTUS decisions she agrees with.

 

It's willful ignorance. There's no excuse for someone who is running for the Senate to be this deficient in basic knowledge. The original Tea Party people, like Ron Paul, at least they had ideas and arguments and an understanding of history, even if their proposals were a bit nutty or unworkable. This batch of candidates is an embarrassment for our country and for democracy in general.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (Athomeboy_2000 @ Oct 19, 2010 -> 01:08 PM)
<!--quoteo(post=2275757:date=Oct 19, 2010 -> 12:02 PM:name=Soxy)-->
QUOTE (Soxy @ Oct 19, 2010 -> 12:02 PM)
<!--quotec-->Link

 

At the link Christine O'Donnell asking where in the constitution is separation of church and state while looking smug. When the audience laughs she acts like she scored a major point.

 

It has to be performance art, right? It has to be.

 

OMG! I just watched the video. that... i dont know what to say. I was taught that in grade school. That couldnt possibly have been an act. She asked genuinely confused.

 

Watching that video makes me want to punch something. She doesn't understand the Constitution (establishment). She doesn't understand court decisions (ID is creationism). She doesn't understand evolution at all (JUST A THEORY!!!!). She's repeating creationist talking points from the 60's.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I was an active participant in Tea Party goings-on, I'd be f***ing pissed about the people who are chosen to represent my interests in the political arena. If what I wanted was smaller and more responsible government, I'd have to either laugh or cry at people like this O'Donnell character. Seriously, she makes Sarah Palin look like wonkish. How did this person get nominated? Did people want "change" so badly that they just blindly voted for someone they knew nothing about? Or did they knowingly choose an ignoramus?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUOTE (NorthSideSox72 @ Oct 19, 2010 -> 01:42 PM)
If I was an active participant in Tea Party goings-on, I'd be f***ing pissed about the people who are chosen to represent my interests in the political arena. If what I wanted was smaller and more responsible government, I'd have to either laugh or cry at people like this O'Donnell character. Seriously, she makes Sarah Palin look like wonkish. How did this person get nominated? Did people want "change" so badly that they just blindly voted for someone they knew nothing about? Or did they knowingly choose an ignoramus?

 

*obligatory smug Obama response*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...